►
From YouTube: City of Boulder Planning Board - 7-22-21
Description
City of Boulder Planning Board - 7-22-21
A
Are
we
recording
okay,
welcome
everyone
to
the
july
22nd
meeting
of
the
city
of
boulder
planning
board?
We
have
a
forum,
and
so
I
will
call
the
meeting
to
order.
We
have
a
number
of
folks
from
city
staff
and
from
our
applicants,
welcome
tonight
and
I'll
be
recognizing
people
as
we
go
along
I'll,
remind
people
to
put
a
pb
comma
in
front
of
your
name
on
zoom.
A
D
A
C
C
B
Yeah
go
to
mine
or
you
can
do
it
in
the.
If
you
have
the
participants
open,
you
can
hover,
you
can
get
to
my
name
and
okay
that
blew
more
there.
We
go
okay,
cool
all
right
and
I
will
cindy.
I
will
co-host
you
again.
Thank
you.
So
sorry
about
that.
That's,
okay!
This
is
all
of
us
handing
the
batons
around
thanks,
sir.
Thanks
for
your
patience,
everyone
all
right.
Let
me
get
to
share
screen.
F
B
Wonderful:
okay,
with
our
virtual
environment,
we
have
some
protocol
that
we've
adapted
to
to
help
facilitate
and
make
it
make
sure
that
our
virtual
meetings
are
orderly
and
efficient.
The
city's
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
this
vision
for
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
civic
conversations.
B
The
vision
supports
emotional
safety
for
community
members
staff
council,
as
well
as
democracy
for
people
of
all
ages,
identities,
lived
experiences
and
political
perspectives.
More
about
all
of
this
vision
and
the
full
rules
of
decorum
decorum
can
be
found
on
the
participate
in
city
council
meetings
page
on
the
city's.
B
To
website
next
one
great
so
the
following
are
examples
of
rules,
decorum
rules
of
decorum
found
in
the
boulder
revised
code
and
other
guidelines
that
support
this
vision.
So
these
will
be
upheld
during
this
meeting.
All
remarks
and
testimony
shall
be
limited
to
the
matters
of
the
related
to
the
city,
business.
No
participants
shall
make
threats
or
use
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person,
obscenity,
dehumanizing
language,
race,
racial
epithets
or
other
speech
and
behavior
that
disrupts
or
otherwise
impedes
the
ability
to
conduct
the
meeting
are
prohibited.
B
Participants
are
required
to
sign,
not
necessarily
sign
up
to
speak.
We
have
some
some
folks
signed
up
and
other
folks
will
be
able
to
raise
hand,
but
we'd
like
folks
to
use
a
full
name
that
they
are
commonly
known
by,
and
so.
In
addition
to
this,
I
just
want
to
say
that
kindly
note
that
all
that
the
chat
function
is
disabled
and
all
questions
related
to
the
procedures
or
online
technical
meetings
should
be
directed
to
me,
the
host
in
the
q,
a
I
will
do
my
best
to
help
you
clarify
our
procedures.
B
B
B
Let's
see
and
then
also
to
say
that
if
there
are
repeated
comments
and
questions
that
are
really
at
aimed
at
the
topic
at
hand-
and
they
are
just
disrupting
my
or
cindy
or
anyone
else's
ability
to
do
our
job
in
in
in
this
meeting,
we'll
notify
the
board
chair
and
issue
a
warning
and
if
that
continues
suggest
that
the
offending
person
be
removed
from
the
meeting.
So
thank
you
for
understanding
on
this
they're,
really
about
keeping
these
meetings
orderly
and
fair.
B
B
A
B
Very
good
thanks
david
I'll
pro
I'll
display
the
timer
in
my
little
box
when
that
come
when
that
comes
up
and
folks
can
be
able
to
see
that
so
that
they'll
know
when
their
time's
up.
We
respectfully
ask
folks
to
please
wrap
up
at
the
time
limited
because
it's
going
to
probably
be
a
long
evening
tonight
and
we
want
to
make
sure
we
hear
from
everyone.
So
I
think
that's
it
david
back
to
you.
Oh.
A
Thanks
so
much
both
to
eugene
and
to
cindy
for
that-
and
I
also
will
just
add
for
the
purpose
of
the
board
that
because
staff
has
figured
out
how
to
use
the
q
a
function
for
communicating
with
the
public
on
logistical
stuff,
we
can
now
use
chat.
If
we
want
to
notify
our
fellow
panelists
about
something.
So
it
is
chat.
The
chat
is
no
longer
off
limits.
If
you
want.
A
So
with
that,
I
we
will
go
to
item
1a,
which
is
swearing
in
of
planning
board,
alternate
members,
brian
bowen,
and
crystal
grey
welcome
it
again.
We
have
two
refusals
for
tonight's
public
hearing
item
on
cu,
south
lupita,
montoya
and
lisa
smith,
so
the
boards
asked
sam
weaver
and
city
council
to
appoint
alternates
in
a
fashion.
That's
laid
out
in
city
council's
procedural
rules,
so
I've
will.
A
E
A
A
I
think
you
know
kind
of
inconvenience
for
people
to
have
to
come
back
next
week.
So
we
came
up
with
a
kind
of
a
nice
plan
and
that
plan
is
to
go
ahead
and
get
all
the
way
through
public
comment.
But
to
limit
our
clarifying
questions
to
make
sure
that
we
can
have
a
time
that
kind
of
works
out
for
us
to
end.
So
did
you
just
am
I
able
to
display
oh
gosh
here
we
go
share
screen.
A
F
A
Okay,
so
we
thought
that
the
most
democratic
way
to
do
this
would
be
to
go
ahead
and
vote
on
this
as
a
board
and
a
nice
thing
for
the
public
is
that
we're
going
to
have
kind
of
an
estimated
time
for
the
public
hearing
to
start
as
well
as
a
result
of
this
so
I'll
give
you
kind
of
a
heads
up
when
we
finish
this
on
when
we
might?
If,
assuming
that
the
board
agrees,
we
should
go
in
this
direction.
A
I
shared
this
motion
with
the
board
yesterday,
so
you
should
have
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it
so
right
now,
what
I
did
was
the
back
of
the
envelope
calculation
and
it
looks
like
without
our
questions
for
staff
and
applicant,
we'll
probably
would
end
up
going
to
about
nine,
almost
9
30
p.m.
I
came
up
with
9
28
p.m.
As
an
ending
time
with
all
the
stuff
we
have
to
do
without
q
a
so.
A
That
means
that
we
can
set
target
times
for
what
we
would
prefer
to
keep
our
q
and
a
to
in
order
to
try
to
end
by
say
10
or
10
30..
So
I
wonder
if
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
just
open
it
up
for
anyone
who
might
want
to
ray
I'm
and
go
ahead
and
use
the
raise
hand
function.
If
you
can,
because
I
can
only
see
a
few
of
you
while
displaying
so
please
use
the
raise
hand
function.
G
A
A
Okay
and
then
I'd
like
to
ask
staff
and
the
applicant
if
there
are
any
concerns
about
being
able
to
come
and
cover
this
for
the
purposes
of
q
a
and
any
other
discussion
that
might
come
up.
I
know
that
joe
taduchi
may
not
be
here,
but
I
hear
that
there
will
be
staff
representation
that
can
cover
on
his
behalf.
H
A
Great,
so
I
would
recommend
yeah,
definitely
prioritize
questions.
You
really
would
like
joe
joe's
answers
to
and
also
prioritize
questions
that
you
feel
that
the
public
would
really
benefit
from
before
testifying
tonight.
So
with
that,
do
people
have
any
ideas
about
what
xx
and
yyyy
should
be
in
terms
of
should
do
we
want
to
ask
equal
amounts
of
time?
I'm
thinking
you
know
is
anywhere
from
20
to
30
minutes
each
and
we'll
be
able
to
get
out
of
here
by
10
30..
A
I
A
Excellent
thanks
so
much
so
with
that.
I
just
want
to
point
out.
I
made
a
slight
wording
change.
I
used
the
word
agenda
item
at
the
end,
instead
of
something
else
that
I
had
that
wasn't
good.
So
I'm
going
to
read
this
motion.
I'm
going
to
make
motion
to
due
to
the
expected
length
of
the
public
hearing
on
cu
south
approved
a
contingent
continuance
of
july
22
july
2021
agenda
item
5a
lur
2019-10
to
a
virtual
public
meeting
of
the
board
to
be
held
on
29
july
2021
at
6
p.m.
A
F
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
The
public
is
welcome
to
address
the
board
for
three
minutes
maximum
on
any
item
that
is
not
related
to
a
public
hearing
item.
In
today's
meeting.
The
only
public
uranium
item
we
have
today
is
smu
south,
so
please
feel
free
to
address
the
board
on
any
subject
other
than
this
new
south
and,
like
I
said,
csus
is
likely
to
come
up
well
after
8
pm
for
common.
Although
you'll
have
a
lot
of
fascinating
things
to
watch
until
then,
so
you
won't
want
to
turn
it
off.
A
A
Do
things
a
little
differently,
we're
gonna
kind
of
go
back
to
the
way
we
did
things
in
person
and
I'm
gonna
call
on
people
and
gene's
gonna
do
the
timer,
because
we
just
thought
it
would
be
kind
of
more
a
little
bit
more
natural
like
we
used
to
to
have
the
the
board
chair,
call
on
people,
and
I
think,
I'm
kind
of
looking
forward
to
that.
So
I'm
looking
for
hands,
please
use
the
raise
hand
function
in
zoom.
A
If
you
are
planning
to
speak
to
the
board
tonight
in
the
public
hearing
item
I'll,
give
you
just
a
minute
to
try
to
find
that
raised
hand,
function,
they're,
coming
up.
Okay
and
remember,
this
is
not
on
cu
south,
so
I
will
ask
gene
to
go
ahead
and
start
unmuting
people
who
wish
to
speak
on
things
other
than
sea
south
and
the
first
one
we
have
is
paul
coleman,
calling.
J
K
A
K
K
K
K
A
L
We
need
to
be
concerned
with
climate
change
and
sustainability
all
the
time
and
I'm
sort
of
upset
from
having
read
an
article
about
the
opportunity
zones.
There
was
some
article
a
year
or
two
back
that
claimed
that
several
different
transactions
that
occurred
buying
in
our
opportunity
zones
within
boulder,
each
of
the
transactions
being
several
hundred
million
dollars
by
big
banks
like
morgan,
get
I've
forgotten
the
names
of
all
of
them,
but
they're
like
one
of
them,
was
j.p
morgan
chase.
L
So
I
just
don't
like,
as
a
small
business
person
who's
been
here
for
40
years.
I
don't
like
the
idea,
people
from
outside
the
state
coming
and
spending
hundreds
of
billion
millions
of
dollars
buying
up
property,
and
I
also
just
I
don't
like
the
emphasis
on
profit.
You
know,
like
the
old
question
is:
who
benefits?
Where
does
the
money
go?
Who
suffers?
I
think
that's
should
be
foremost
in
our
thoughts,
because
we
should
be
thinking
of
wildlife
and
of
people
and
we
should
not
be
thinking
of
profits.
A
A
A
Anyone
last
call:
okay,
thanks
so
much
to
the
public.
For
that
I'm
going
to
close
the
initial
public
participation
section
and
move
on
now
to
discussions
of
dispositions,
planning,
board,
polyps
and
continuations.
We
have
three
call-up
items.
The
first
one
is
a
non-conforming
news
review
for
a
combined
physical
therapy,
indoor
recreational
or
athletic
facility
use.
A
A
And,
of
course,
brian
and
crystal
can
always
call
up
as
a
member
of
the
public
separately.
Okay
on
to
the
next
one,
then
a
call-up
item
final
plot
for
the
subdivision
of
an
existing
18
381
square
foot
property
into
two.
Conforming
lots,
1831
norwood
avenue
the
existing
home
on
the
site
has
already
been
demolished.
The
remaining
two
lots
would
be
accessed
from
norwood
avenue
through
a
shared
access
easement.
The
decision
may
be
called
up
before
the
28th
by
planning
board.
A
A
The
former
liquor
mart
got
a
couple
case
numbers
here,
which
I
won't
bother.
You
with
subject
call
up
before
27
july,
27
2021.
So
any
questions
or
desire
to
call
this
one
all
right.
Thank
you
so
much
well
with
that,
then
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
the
item.
The
big
item
of
the
night,
which
is
agenda,
item
5a.
A
So
this
one
is
a
legislative
item
so
for
the
edification
of
everyone,
we
aren't
actually
taking
any
official
action
on
this.
What
we
will
be
doing
is
making
one
or
more
recommendations
to
city
council
via
motions
and
voting.
Those
motions
in
voting
will
happen
next
week,
so
everything
we
do
tonight
will
be
getting
ready
for
our
deliberation
and
further
question
and
answer.
A
A
M
Well,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
just
just
very
briefly
by
way
of
introduction.
The
first
one
jacob
lindsey,
the
director
of
planning
and
development
services
for
the
city
of
boulder,
I'd
like
to
say
thanks
to
our
members
of
planning
board
and
to
our
former
members
of
planning
board,
who
have
been
conscripted
into
service.
Thank
you
for
being
here
this
evening
and
and
second
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
the
contribution
of
our
many
community
members
who
have
given
substantive
and
meaningful
input
into
this
process
over
the
course
of
many
years.
M
This
is
a
complex,
challenging
and
important
dialogue,
and
our
discussion
tonight
marks
a
key
hearing
in
one
of
boulder's,
most
significant
land-use
discussions
in
modern
history.
So
thank
you
all
for
being
here
this
evening
and
contributing
to
the
dialogue
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
phil
kleisler.
H
H
9Th
council
will
hold
the
second
reading
and
a
public
hearing
and
on
september
14th
they
will
regroup
and
have
their
deliberation
on
the
application
and
regarding
public
notification
consistent
with
section
943
public
notice
requirements.
Brc
1981
staff
provide
a
notification
to
all
property
owners
within
a
thousand
feet
of
the
subject.
Location
of
the
application
when
600
feet
is
required
and
signs
have
been
posted
to
the
property.
H
There
was
then,
a
roughly
a
year
and
a
half
to
two
years
of
alternatives.
Analysis
around
the
flood
mitigation
project
council
chose
a
concept
in
early
2019..
It's
right
around
that
time.
The
university
submitted
an
annexation
application
that
was
framed
on
the
framed
around
those
cu
south
guiding
principles.
H
Then
we've
been
in
negotiations
since
and
if
annexed
in
2021,
the
city
would
continue
on
with
our
permitting
and
design
of
the
flood
project.
In
that
three,
in
a
three
to
five
year
period
referred
to
an
agreement.
As
the
three
year
anniversary,
the
university
may
commence
construction
on
recreational
facilities,
but
nothing
else,
and
then,
if
the
city
gains
permits
for
the
flood
mitigation
project,
the
university
then
have
the
entitlements
to
to
develop
the
property
consistent
with
the
terms
of
the
agreement
and
by
2026.
H
A
lot
of
conversations,
emails
phone
calls
and
those
were
really
constant,
permeations
into
the
staff
discussions
on
a
regular
basis
and
ultimately,
our
negotiations
with
the
university
through
the
through
the
last
year
or
so,
and
a
lot
of
the
terms,
I
think,
reflect
that
this
is
just
a
vicinity
map
showing
where
the
property
is
in
relation
to
main
campus
east
campus
in
williams
village.
Just
to
note
here
that
the
site
is
300
acres
in
size
and
which
does
make
it
the
largest
single
undeveloped
property
in
the
boulder
valley,
that's
eligible
for
annexation,.
H
The
property
shown
here
is
a
portion
of
the
city's
southeast
urban
edge.
It's
bookended
by
the
city
of
boulder
area,
one
shown
here
in
city
open
space
generally
to
the
east.
It's
fully
owned
by
the
university
annexations
in
general
can
be
considered
if
it
meets
state
and
local
laws
and
it's
consistent
with
our
comprehensive
plan.
H
The
areas
one
two
three
map
for
those
unfamiliar
is
a
map
in
our
comprehensive
plan
that
is
basically
a
growth
boundary
for
the
city
area,
one
being
in
the
city
of
boulder
area,
two
generally
adjacent
to
the
city
and
eligible
for
annexation,
and
then
area
three
is
in
the
county
and
long
term.
We
expect
to
re,
remain
a
rural
land
use
in
character
if
annex
the
property
would
be
located
in
the
city
and
be
provided
urban
services
such
as
water,
water,
sewer
fire
service
and
so
on.
H
There
are
three
land
use
designations
on
the
property
shown
here
in
2016
and
2017.
When
we
mentioned
the
the
comprehensive
plan,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
with
the
planning
board.
There
was
some
hesitation
in
our
engagement
around
changing
the
land
use
designations
without
a
more
certainty
around.
What
may
happen
in
the
future,
and
so
the
planning
board
was,
I
would
say,
pretty
instrumental
in
drafting
and
ultimately
approving
the
guiding
principles
and
that
really
set
the
framework
for
the
annexation
agreement.
H
That's
before
you
this
evening,
and
a
key
aspect
of
the
work
over
the
last
couple
of
years
has
been
translating
those
terms
into
those
guiding
principles
into
annexation
terms.
So
there
is
a
table
in
the
memo
that
attempts
to
at
least
show
at
a
high
level
how
that
happened
and
how
the
guiding
principles
were
addressed
in
the
agreement,
and
that's
going
to
be
what
I
would
assume
to
be
a
big
part
of
next
week's
discussion.
H
The
proposed
zoning
initial
zoning
is
public,
as
in
the
definition
from
the
city's
land
use
code
is
shown
here.
Properties
as
you'll,
see,
properties
to
the
west
of
the
site
are
primarily
designated
as
residential
with
tantra
park
generally
bisecting.
The
the
low
and
medium
density
residential
uses
properties
to
the
east
and
south
are
designated
as
open
space
with
some
existing
low
density,
residential
and
manufactured
housing
to
the
south.
H
This
is
a
slide
that
will
go
through
the
flood
plains
on
and
around
the
property.
So
a
flood
plain
in
general
is
an
area.
That's
expected
to
be
flooded
for
a
given
flood
event
and,
what's
shown
here
in
the
dark.
Blue
is
the
100
year
flood
floodplain,
and
so
that
means
that
in
a
given
year,
there's
a
one
percent
chance
of
a
flood
occurrence,
and
this
is
the
base
or
regulatory
floodplain
for
fema
and
I'll
go
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
here.
H
Color
is
the
high
hazard
zone,
which
is
regulatory
to
the
city
of
boulder
and
indicates
the
greatest
risk
to
life
safety
and
it's
defined
as
four
feet
or
deeper
or
a
combination
of
depth
or
rate
that
could
speed
a
person
off
of
their
feet.
So
the
reason
I'm
showing
this
is
one
existing
conditions,
but
two
also
to
just
point
out
that
the
development
zone
as
it
was
as
it's
defined
in
the
agreement
and
and
as
public
in
the
comprehensive
plan
is
outside
the
existing
floodplains.
H
This
is
just
a
few
snapshots
of
some
of
the
other
constraints
on
the
site.
The
city
commissioned
a
study,
a
conservation
suitability
analysis
several
years
ago
that
looked
at
various
constraints
and
developed
this.
This
map
that
showed
darker
colors
being
more
sensitive
to
development
and
disturbance,
and
this
really
informed
the
land
use
designations
and
where
the
open
space
zone
was
ultimately
chosen.
H
The
university
is
not
subject
to
the
city's
zoning
regulations,
like
other
property
owners
for
university-related
development,
and
so,
if
it
wasn't,
if
it's
not
in
the
agreement,
then
there's
no
legal
responsibility
for
the
the
university
to
comply
with
any
of
those
regulations,
and
so
it
was
with
that
in
mind
that
we
created
the
guiding
principles
and
then
this
agreement
is
in
some
ways,
kind
of
a
standalone.
Almost
a
land
use
code
where
you
have
your
use,
definitions,
your
definitions,
your
zones,
what's
allowed
in
each
zone
and
so
on,
and
so
we'll
go
through
the
sections.
H
Briefly,
through
this
presentation,
there's
a
number
of
exhibits
that
we'll
go
over
as
well.
A
couple
of
them
just
to
point
out
that
aren't
directly
included
in
the
presentation
is
exhibit
d,
and
these
are
design
goals.
This
is
a
direct
result
of
the
input
we
got
from
planning
board
and
council
around
more
specificity
around
some
of
those
concepts
and
the
guiding
principles
of
village
style,
development
and
so
on,
and
so
this
is
the
precursor
really
to
design
guidelines
that
the
university
will
develop
for
the
property.
H
H
H
But
public
access
to
just
go
over
a
few
of
the
high
points.
Public
access
will
remain
on
the
site,
consistent
with
university
access
and
use
policies,
no
habitable
structures,
residential
academic
facilities
and
so
on
will
be
located
in
the
500-year
floodplain
in
response
to
neighborhood
requests.
During
some
community
meetings,
we
developed
an
enhanced
or
lengthened
building
and
structure
setback
for
the
northwestern
boundary
of
30
feet
for
attached
dwelling
units
and
duplexes
and
50
feet
for
non-residential
uses
certain
city
regulations.
H
As
I
mentioned,
wetland
lighting
and
noise
will
apply
and
then,
as
with
other
property
owners,
the
university
is
responsible
for
paying
all
applicable
plant
investment
fees.
This
is
one
of
the
things.
That's
been
a
little
challenging
to
explain
so,
hopefully
this
this
map
will
help
the
university
has
offered
to
dedicate
80
acres
to
the
city
of
boulder,
for
either
flood
mitigation
and
open
space.
H
So
what's
not
needed
for
flood
mitigation
will
be
used
as
open
space,
and
so
last,
at
our
previous
estimates,
estimated
that
we
would
need
36
acres
for
the
flood
mitigation
project
here
and
that
land
would
be
dedicated
to
the
city
with
at
as
part
of
the
annexation,
this
hatched
area
here,
then
it
would
be
the
balance
of
that
80
acres.
So
if
that's
44
acres
that
would
also
be
dedicated
to
this
city.
H
What's
left
in
the
open
space
zone,
because
it's
the
city's
intent
for
the
entire
119
acres
of
the
open
space
zone
to
come
to
the
city
as
open
space,
that
remaining
portion
of
the
land
would
be
purchased.
And
so
the
agreement
does
provide
a
path
for
that
land.
To
come
to
the
city,
which
combined
would
be
155
acres
of
the
property
not
including
the
two
acres
or
a
long-term
lease
for
a
public
safety
facility.
H
The
agreement
also
details
zones
of
consideration,
so
we
have
another
intergovernmental
agreement
with
nist
for
its
development
and
it
we
used
a
similar
approach
there.
The
zones
of
consideration
is
really
the
land
use
designations
in
the
comprehensive
plan
and
it
details
we're
going
to
go
through
the
different
zones
quickly.
The
development
zone
does
include
allowed
uses
and
those
are
listed
here.
H
And
the
guiding
principles
discuss
that
housing
will
be
the
predominant
use
and
a
significant
amount
of
housing
will
be
built
before
any
non-residential
units.
So
the
significant
amount
of
housing
first
is
defined
in
the
agreement
as
150
units
and
housing
will
be,
the
predominant
use
is
defined
by
a
ratio
and
that's
two
square
feet
of
residential
for
every
one
square
foot
of
non-residential,
and
so
at
any
given
time.
We
would
expect
that
the
agreement
would
provide
a
path
for
residential
always
outweighing
non-residential.
H
H
H
It
was
pointed
out
earlier
that
the
the
permitted
the
prohibited
use
listing
in
the
agreement
said
academic
building
when
it
should
said
not
say,
non-residential
building,
and
so
thanks
for
pointing
that
out
and
that'll
be
corrected,
but
this
building,
ultimately
the
key
metric
here
is
no
building
would
be
larger.
No
single
building
would
be
larger
than
175
000
square
feet
and
so
for
context.
The
building
shown
here
the
biotech
building
is
at
700
or
I'm
sorry,
417
000
square
feet.
H
The
guiding
principles
also
talk
about
no
large
scale
sports
venue
like
a
football
stadium,
and
so
we
defined
it
here
with
this
definition
of
a
key
metric
being
fixed
seating
in
excess
of
3000
people
and
for
context.
This
was
discussed
at
the
last
and
requested
by
the
planning
board
members.
That's
roughly
somewhere
in
the
middle
between
fairview,
high
school
and
boulder
high
school.
H
Relating
to
building
height,
the
guiding
principles
discuss
that
building
height
will
maintain
a
general
consistency
with
the
city's
height
limits
and
trans
transition
gently
to
the
west,
and
so
the
the
agreement
does
detail
that
no
building
will
be
taller
than
55
feet,
as
prescribed
in
the
city's
charter
and
it'll
be
further
limited,
as
the
elevation
increases
to
the
west
through
this
building
height
ceiling
concept,
not
a
concept
anymore.
It's
it's
in
the
agreement.
H
So
this
the
elevation
to
that
is
through
a
surveyed
report
of
and
generally
is,
is
at
the
roof
line
of
a
two-story
building
along
chambers
drive,
and
so
in
practice.
It
would
allow
for
taller
buildings
four
to
five
stories
in
the
lower
parts
of
the
site,
but
those
would
decrease,
as
the
elevation
goes
increases
to
the
west,
and
so
it's
basically
a
horizontal
plane
that
will
go
across
the
property
to
ensure
those
building
heights
transit
transition
gently.
H
Another
guiding
principle
was
that
development
will
be
contextually
appropriate
to
neighboring
properties.
We
address
that
specifically
here
through
this
use
transition
zone
and
in
this
case,
development
will
be
scaled
down
to
residential
uses
only
and
recreational
uses
like
neighborhood
parks
and
clubhouses,
and
this
is
also
the
area
where
the
height
ceiling
will
will
come
into
full
force.
Really,
the
boundary
of
this
is
the
steep
slope
line
that
you
saw
in
an
earlier
map.
H
So
that's
the
primary
use
in
the
flood
control
zone.
Additionally,
in
areas
that
are
suitable
shown
in
the
exhibit,
the
university
will
be
permitted
to
construct
parks
and
recreational
uses,
and
while
it
doesn't
know
the
exact
types
of
uses
it
will
construct,
there
are
the
limits
that
were
described
earlier
in
terms
of
a
large
sporting
venue.
Additionally,
there's
a
provision
that
requires
the
city
to
review
and
approve
any
of
those
recreational
facilities
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
interfere
with
the
flood
mitigation
project.
H
H
H
Again,
light
and
noise
is
addressed
through
city
standards
and
the
any
trail
connections
will
happen
at
the
city's
discretion
and
follow
our
normal
process.
We
were
very
fortunate
to
have
a
recommendation
from
our
open
space
board
of
trustees
to
guide
the
negotiations,
and
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these.
There
was
a
table
in
the
memo.
H
H
H
So
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
establishing
access,
the
there'll
be
two.
The
agreement
proposes
two
primary
access
points,
one
from
the
existing
south
loop
drive
and
one
from
state
highway,
93
south
loop
drive
when
reconstructed
by
the
university
will
be,
must
be
a
complete
street
with
a
multi-use
path
and
buffered
bike.
Lane
secondary
access
would
be
taken
from
tantra
drive.
H
The
university
is
responsible
for
gaining
access
right
of
way,
cdot
permit
permitting
and
so
on,
and
I
will
say
that
the
there
has
been
some
concerns
from
community
members
around
some
of
the
safety
issues
around
colorado
93,
as
well
as
in
referral
comments
from
boulder
county.
The
university
per
the
agreement
is
ultimately
responsible
for
all
of
the
permits
and
all
of
the
right-of-way
acquisition
and
so
on,
and
there
is
something
that
we'll
just
refer
to
in
this
slide.
As
a
trip
cap
forfeiture
that
we'll
discuss
in
just
a
minute.
H
The
trip
cap
will
limit
daily
automobile
trips
to
and
from
the
property
at
the
amounts
shown
here.
Those
amounts
were
derived
from
a
transportation
study
submitted
by
the
university,
and
the
university
will
be
responsible
for
annually
monitoring
and
submitting
specific
data
to
the
city
showing
that
they're.
In
compliance
with
this
agreement,
there
will
there
are
12
special
event
days,
detailed
where
there
might
be
spikes
due
to
a
special
event
on
the
property,
and
so
the
agreement
details
how
that
works.
H
And
then
what
happens
if
they
are
over
the
cap?
So
the
university
will
have
a
period
of
time
to
identify
and
communicate
strategies
to
the
city
for
lowering
the
trips
and
then
there'll
be
a
cure
period
of
180
days
and
that's
to
implement
the
strategy.
So
it's
hiring
bus
drivers
getting
another
bus
or
doing
whatever
it
needs
to
do
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
agreement.
H
And
so
when
I
mentioned
the
trip
cap
forfeiture
earlier,
it's
kind
of
an
odd
term
that
doesn't
exist
anywhere,
but
if
the
university
does
not
gain
access.
So
if,
if
there
were
issues
with
gaining
access
to
93,
for
example,
those
750
trips
would
be
forfeited,
they
aren't
fungible
or
transferable
to
south
loop
drive,
for
example,
and
so
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
in
terms
of
a
component
of
the
agreement.
H
H
The
finals,
a
few
points
on
the
final
sections
is
that
an
annexation
is
contingent
on
the
flood
mitigation
project,
and
this
is
really
the
city's
way
to
mitigate
risk,
since
that's
the
primary
driver
of
the
annexation.
So
there's
a
three
year
anniversary
with
two
with
an
optional
two
optional,
one-year
extensions
where
the
city
has
to
gain
permits
for
the
flood
mitigation
project.
H
H
Translating
the
cu
south
guiding
principles
was
a
central
part
of
the
negotiation
and
again
there
is
a
table
kind
of
explaining
that
in
the
in
the
memo,
this
property
does
represent
significant
development
potential
and,
as
such,
our
policies,
our
annexation
policy,
does
say
that
significant
community
benefits
need
to
be
provided
and,
through
our
analysis,
staff
finds
that
the
proposed
annexation
is
consistent
with
state
statutes
and
and
city
policies.
Around
growth,
some
of
those
community
community
benefits
proposed
include
the
items
listed
here
and
you'll
hear
more
about
that
in
the
applicant
presentation
as
well.
H
The
key
issue
of
zoning.
We
did
also
find
that
the
initial
zoning
of
public
is
appropriate
for
the
land
to
be
annexed.
Zoning
of
annex
land
needs
to
be
consistent
with
our
comprehensive
plan
and
for
cu
south.
The
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
that
are
most
clearly
articulated
are
the
cu,
self-guiding
principles
and
so
to
go
through
the
land
use
designations
quickly.
The
public
designation
is
is,
is
consistent
easily
with
the
public
zoning
district,
as
with
other
campus
locations.
H
The
park
urban
other
area,
known
as
a
flood
control
zone,
is
also
consistent.
We
found
because
the
agreement
does
allow
for
flood
control
and
recreational
purposes,
and
those
are
both
mentioned
as
primary
uses
in
the
land
use
definition
then.
Lastly,
the
open
space
other.
There
is
no
complementary
zoning
district
for
the
open
space,
other
land
use
category,
but
we
did
find
that
public
zoning
is
appropriate
in
this
case,
because
the
terms
of
the
annexation
agreement
control
the
future
uses
in
a
way
that's
consistent
with
the
open
space.
Other
definition.
H
A
A
For
today's
public
hearing
and
prioritize
the
questions
that
the
public
would
want
to
hear
so
crystal
took
some
time
to
send
a
email
out
with
some
questions
in
it
and
she
was
kind
enough
to.
Let
me
use
one
of
those
questions,
an
example
of
one
that
we
might
want
to
move
to
next
week.
If
we
wanted
to
talk
further
about-
and
that
is
the
terminology
of
workforce
housing,
which
is
getting
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
attention
lately.
A
It
would
be
a
really
interesting
discussion
to
have,
but
if
we
tried
to
do
it
tonight,
I'm
afraid
it
would
take
up
a
lot
of
time
and
you'll
note
that
phil
did
reply
in
email
that
workforce
housing
does
not
appear
in
our
our
code
so,
but
but
I
think
that
there
might
be
an
interesting
further
discussion
if
we
want
to
take
time
on
that
next
week.
But
that's
just
I
just
wanted
to
use
that
as
an
example,
since
crystal
was
kind
enough
to.
A
This
has
been
worked
on
ever
since
I've
been
on
planning
board
and
it's
an
honor
to
have
brian
and
crystal
with
us,
because
they
were
really
here
from
the
very
beginning
of
the
update,
the
2015,
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
and
we're
very
key
to
authoring
the
guiding
principles.
So
we
have
some
real
experts
here
among
us
that
can
help
us
with
this
liberation
and,
as
a
result,
I'm
gonna.
A
You
know
I'll,
probably
take
a
an
approach
of
kind
of
kind
of
deferring
to
my
colleagues
here
to
ask
a
lot
of
the
questions
and
I
may
have
a
couple
tonight,
but
but
I
really
want
to
hear
what
what
all
your
questions
are.
So
with
that
we
are
at
three
after
the
hour
and
so
we'll
go
for
30
minutes.
So
I
see
that
the
raise
hand
function.
A
O
E
Still
wordsmithing
the
language
on
so
I'll
talk
about
what's
what's
currently
in
the
draft,
but
please
realize
that
these
are
still
subject
to
negotiation
and
we
expect
there
to
be
changes
as
we
receive
feedback,
but
where
we
have
landed.
As
of
now,
I
guess
is
that
the
city
has
a
right
of
first
refusal
for
the
land
that
cu
will
have
as
its
remaining
land
interest.
E
E
And
we're
still
working
out,
you
know
what
timeline
that
would
look
like,
but
but
that's
the
general
idea
so
that
we
could
we
could
match
an
offer
or
we
could
match
a
listing
price
if
the
city
didn't
take
advantage
of
those.
You
know
there
are
limitations
as
to
what
c
you
would
do
next
and
there's
a
95
percent
that
they
would
be
you're
not
able
to
sell
below,
without
the
city
being
able
to
come
back
and
match
that
lower
price,
but
we're
we
are
still
working
on
a
lot
of
that
language.
N
H
N
H
Yes,
the
the
zoning
will
remain
as
public,
but
if
certain
things
like
the
allowed
and
prohibited
uses
the
the
phasing
of
residential
to
non-residential
that
are
in
the
agreement
that
still
runs
with
the
land.
So
even
if
they
parcel
off
some
of
the
land,
it'll
have
public
zoning,
but
there'll
still
be
further
restrictions
through
the
annexation
agreement.
N
I
I
guess
just
just
for
clarity
of
public
zoning
and
then
I'll.
Let
someone
else
speak
around
public
zoning.
So
if
it
was
sold,
is
it
my
understanding
of
public
zoning?
Is
that
it's
related
to
government
use
and
like
state
use
and
education
and
those
things
so
could
a
private
developer
then
purchase
the
land
with
public
zoning.
H
It
allows
for
more
than
than
that.
Yes,
traditionally,
that
is
what
it's
primarily
probably
set
up
for,
but
things
like
311
mapleton,
congregate
care,
living
facilities
are
allowed
in
the
public
zoning
district.
But
in
this
case
we
don't
allow
that
as
an
allowed
use
on
the
property
and
so
that
land.
That
is
where
another
part
where
the
agreement
would
override.
N
H
N
G
G
So
but
the
but
the
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
so
the
the
individual
parcels
could
conceivably
be
sold,
but
what
would
convey
with
that
with
the
selling
off
of
a
particular
parcel
would
be
the
broad
allowances
in
the
agreement,
but
not
the
kind
of
specificity
of
what
would
go
on
that
parcel.
So
is
there
some?
G
I
guess,
and
I'm
not
really
sure
how
to
say
this,
ensure
that
again,
this
is
a
hypothetical
if
each
of
these
parcels
was
so
sold
off
separately,
that
each
new
owner
didn't
just
say.
Well,
I'm
going
to
build
the
resident
I'm
going
to
build
the
allowed
office,
I'm
going
to
build
office
space
because
or
or
it's
not
called
academic
buildings.
You
called
it.
G
H
Right
now
so
the
the
writer
first
refusal
and
the
sale
of
land
provision
where
our
zoning
powers
come
into
play.
If
sold
those
were
we.
There
was
no
indication
from
the
university
that
it
planned
to
sell
the
land,
but
there
were
defensive
measures
that
the
the
city
put
into
the
agreement
for
that
for
defensive
purposes
and
contingencies.
H
Right
now,
if
it's
sold,
if
it's
allowed
in
the
agreement
and
the
public
zoning
district,
then
it
would
be
permitted,
and
so
that
is
something
that
the
planning
board,
though,
could
could
give
input
on
of.
If
it's
sold
are
those
things
and
it's
a
private
property
owner
are
those
the
things
that
are
still
desirable
in
terms
of
the
community
benefits
of
the
application.
H
So
things
like
affordable
housing
and
other
things
that
may
come
to
mind
and
about
the
lot
lines
the
property
will
look
different
in
the
next
three
to
five
years.
If
the
land
conveyances
take
place
as
part
through
that
three-year
anniversary
and
so
there'll
be
land
conveyed
to
the
city
on
the
northern
part
for
the
flood
mitigation
project,
as
well
as
that
open
space
zone,
and
so
it's
at
that
point.
Where
the
lot
lines
would
probably
be
be
amended
to
re,
it
would
be
amended
because
the
transfers
would
take
place.
G
G
A
I
If
I
understand
correctly
the
intention,
if
this
moves
ahead
would
be
for
the
city
to
purchase
the
land
ultimately
designated
for
open
space
from
cu,
but
it's
unclear
to
me
what
sort
of
compensation
cu
would
expect
for
that?
Can
you
related
to
that
is
the
assessment
of
the
dry
ditch
number
two
water
rights.
I
can't
resist
poking
at
that
being
a
water
engineer
myself,
can
you
describe
how
that
was
valued
and
how
the
the
price
for
the
land,
which
will
eventually
be
purchased
by
the
city,
is
being
addressed.
H
Sure
and
I'll
defer
to
joe
on
the
call
for
the
second
part,
around
water
rights,
but
around
the
valuation
of
the
open
space
land.
The
agreement
sets
a
price
of
37
500
per
acre.
That
was
arrived
through
appraisal
at
the
city,
an
appraisal
at
the
university,
and
we
negotiated
a
price
in
the
middle
because
they
were
divergent.
P
Joe
hey
there,
thanks
for
the
question
john
and
just
to
introduce
myself,
I'm
joe
teddy
ichi,
I'm
the
director
of
utilities
for
the
city
and
and
the
as
everyone
knows,
probably
the
annexation
and
the
flood
mitigation
project
are
connected
and
our
utilities
department
is
responsible
for
the
flood
mitigation
design.
So
the
question
about
the
30.2
shares
of
the
dry
creek
ditch
the
way
we
value
those
and-
and
if
you
put
yourself
in
the
in
the
shoes
of
the
university,
they
have
that
asset.
They
have
the
the
water
that
they
can.
P
P
If
it
was
another
developer
that
was
coming
in
to
get
that
same
amount
of
water,
they
would
have
to
pay
a
plant
investment
fee
for
the
for
the
irrigation
water,
and
then
they
would
have
an
amount
of
water
that
they
would
pay
or
pay.
The
water
rates
on
so
we
looked
at
the
engineering
reports
and
and
the
amounts
and
that's
how
we
came
up
with
the
quantity
of
water
and
the
concept
of
crediting
them.
P
P
It
could
be
a
few
million
dollars
when,
when
we
get
to
that
point
and
and
the
university
will
also
have
to
pay
a
planned
investment
fee
for
municipal
water,
for
the
water
utility
and
for
wastewater
utility
and
stormwater
and
flood
assessment,
and
so
what
we
were
looking
at
to
to
make
this
arrangement
was,
did
we
have
enough
value
in
our
plant
investment
fees
and
and
specifically
the
irrigation
water
plant
investment
fee
to
trade
that
to
get
the
water
for
the
open
space?
Because
without
without
that
water,
the
open
space
acreage?
P
I
O
Yeah
since
paul
cullen
and
jim
morris
started
out
at
public
open
comment
challenging
us
to
include
climate
change
and
global
warming
in
all
our
discussions,
I
want
to
start
there
with
my
question.
So
exhibit
d
is,
is
to
the
agreement,
is
conceptual
design
and
development
goals,
and
then
it
goes
into
sustainability
and
has
a
lot
of
goals,
for
you
know
doing
some
really
good
things
with
minimizing
energy
use
supporting
on-site
renewable
energy.
O
But
my
question
is:
was
there
discussion
about
having
this
be
a
net
zero
community
to
contribute
to
the
city's
climate
goals
of
greenhouse
gas
reduction,
and
were
there
any
discussions
about
a
micro
grid
or
some
kind
of
a
neighborhood
grid?
That
goes
beyond
these
conceptual
goals
and
any
agreement?
Did
you
ever
discuss
any
metrics
for
how
to
actually
have
the
project
be
accountable
and
to
be
measurable?
And
you
know,
cu
does
wonderful
things
in
with
their
center
for
sustainable
and
livable
communities
and
with
their
chemical
engineering
department
and
development
of
batteries.
H
H
Required
and
then
the
compliance
with
the
agreement
is
that
we
do.
We
are
going
to
be
seeing
their
development
plans.
They
will
be
submitted
to
the
city
for
review,
for
a
compliance
check
and
there's
also
baked
into
that
discretionary
comments.
And
so,
if
there's
other
things
that
we
are
interested
in
in
the
future
to
further
our
goal
policy
goals,
then
we
can
put
that
into
our
review.
Comments
and
they'll
have
to
respond
in
writing
at
least
describing
why
they
would
not
be
able
to
do
something
if
they
can't
accommodate
it.
O
And
then
are
our
building
codes
more
stringent
than
the
codes
that
are
listed
here?
You
don't
have
to
answer
it
right
now,
and
I
know
brian
is
an
expert
probably
on
this,
but
it's
something
I'd
like
to
hear
about
more
later
and
then
just
one
question
on
affordable
housing
on
permanently
affordable
housing.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
crystal
any
any
other
board.
Members
want
to
ask
the
question
before
we
start
doing.
Second,
second
rounds
I'll
I'll,
just
very
quickly
ask
the
underpass
to
thunderbird
is
very
interesting
and
it's
something
new
that
we're
seeing
the
to
get
to
the
other
side
of
36.
Where
they're
you
know,
you
can
put
your
bike
on
a
bus
to
go
to
denver
or
something
I
think
you
still
kind
of
have
to
go
around
almost
more
head
and
back
on
I'm
out
of
36.
A
I
wonder
if
there's
anything
in
it,
I
was
trying
to
look
at
the
transportation
master
plan
and
see
if
there's
anything
there,
but
it'd
be
kind
of
cool
to
extend
underpass
coverage,
eventually
someday
in
a
master
plan
all
the
way
to
that
side
of
36..
I
wonder
if
that
had
been
looked
at,
because
otherwise
you
kind
of
have
to
hit
your
bike
over
that
bridge
or
go
around.
A
H
Q
So
the
transportation
master
plan
does
call
for
some
multimodal
enhancements
across
the
bridge
over
36
on
table
mesa
south
boulder
road,
and
we
had
been
in
the
early
stages
of
advancing
a
multi-use
path
that
would
provide
enhanced
mobility
between
the
park
and
ride
and
the
36
on-ramp
transit
stop.
But
the
a
reprioritization
happened
and
we're
now
appropriating
those
funds
towards
the
30th
street
separated
bike
lanes
project,
but
that
is
still
a
project
that
resides
in
the
transportation
master
plan
for
future
implementation.
Q
I
Okay,
so
I
was
wondering
if,
if
you
could
clarify
the
the
situation
with
the
transport,
the
traffic
limits
and
so
on
from
the
from
the
study
which,
if
I
understand
correctly,
was
based
on
on
the
non-resident
office
space
of
500
000
square
feet,
but
now,
as
a
result
of
recent
discussions,
that
number
has
changed.
But
I
don't
understand
that
the
traffic
study
has
changed
correspondingly.
Can
you
address
that.
H
Absolutely
so
those
two
numbers
were
used.
I
guess
kind
of
for
different
things.
The
the
lower
number
500
000
was
used
in
a
traffic
analysis
and
that
analysis
was
provided
in
a
study
by
the
university.
It
looked
at
a
land
use
scenario
of
1100
residential
units
and
500
000
square
feet
of
non-residential
to
generate
an
estimated
number
of
trips,
and
now
those
trips
were
what
made
it
into
the
trip
cap
numbers.
H
We
brought
that
to
planning
board
to
council
several.
You
know
in
the
spring
and
one
of
the
things
we
heard
at
that
time
was
we
should
consider
capping
development
overall,
and
so
we
brought
up
following
that.
The
meetings
with
planning
boarding
council
that
we
needed
to
discuss
a
cumulative
cap
of
non-residential
development,
and
so
it
was
through
that
process
that
we
identified
and
negotiated
the
cap
of
750
000
square
feet,
and
so
what
that
does
is
the
the
transportation
limits
the
site
to
a
land
use
scenario
that
includes
that
lower
number?
H
But
the
cumulative
cap
is
at
slightly
higher
at
750
750
000..
So
if
we
increase
the
number
in
the
transportation
study
that
it
would
increase
the
number
of
trips
and
probably
give
a
good
reason
for
the
university
to
cr
to
request
a
higher
trip
cap
number
and
so
right
now
we're
we're
limiting
the
site
from
a
transportation
perspective
relative
to
what's
allowed
does
that
kind
of
make
sense,
nope.
I
H
So,
if,
if
in
the
future,
through
the
residential
to
non-residential
ratio
and
all
of
those
things
if
the
university
was
at
a
max
of
a
amount
of
non-residential
space
of
500
000
square
feet,
but
they
had
a
great
transportation
demand
management
program
and
their
trips
were
really
low,
that
would
allow
them
the
opportunity
to
still
construct
more
non-residential
space.
If
that
makes
sense,
it's
still.
It's
still
capped
at
a
lower
number
from
a
transportation
standpoint.
So
that's
what
we
were
most
concerned
with.
R
R
N
Sorry
I
was
gonna
ask
a
similar
question
john's,
but
since
you
already
asked
that
one
I
want
to
understand,
I,
the
trip
cap
is
something
that's
really
hard
for
me
to
get
my
head
around
around
how
the
enforcement
mechanisms
and
what
it
means.
So,
maybe
broadly
you
can
talk
about
that.
Just
to
inform
us
a
little
bit
better.
H
Sure-
and
it's
it's
not
something
that
we've
really
done
here.
It's
done
a
lot.
We
interviewed
places
that
have
enacted
a
trip
cap
program
in
places
like
california
and
there's
different
varying
approaches
to
how
to
actually
do
it.
But
you
know
if
this
was
a
traditional
development
proposal,
it
would
have
a
set
number
of
units
with
a
traffic
study,
and
we
know
what
the
impacts
would
be.
H
Instead,
if
there
were
funds
that
were
required
from
a
violation
to
be
reinvested
into
the
transportation
program
to
address
the
root
cause
of
the
tr
of
the
transportation
issues,
and
so
in
this
case
we
do
have
a
specific
amount
of
funding
that
has
to
be
reinvested
once
they
are
allowed
the
opportunity
to
go
through
the
motions
of
identifying
strategies
and
trying
and
implementing
them.
And
so
we
give
the
university
an
opportunity
to
try
something
new.
H
Yeah,
it
stops
further
phases
of
development,
okay,
and
even
if
so,
there's
like
two
things
we're
still
discussing
around
transportation
that
you
you
saw
highlighted
in
the
agreement.
One
of
those
things
is
when
to
start
the
trip
cap
program
and
we're
in
general
agreement
that
it
doesn't
need
to
start
at
unit
one.
It
needs
to
start
as
you're
approaching
like
forty
percent
or
something,
and
so
we're
adding
that
to
the
to
the
agreement
too,
because
we
don't
also
don't
want
to.
We
want
to
be
efficient
with
our
time.
G
G
I
mean
I
understand
that
if
we
can't
get
the
permits
for
the
flood
mitigation,
then
the
annexation,
the
the
way
it's
written
in
the
agreement
is,
we
would
request
the
city
to
se
to
separate
we
would
separate,
but
I'm
I'm
curious
like
is
that
a
hard
verb?
Is
that
a
soft
verb?
What
would
it
actually
look
like
and
and
just
a
little
bit
more
information.
H
Sure
and
aaron
could
also
chime
in
if
needed
to,
but
the
may
request
was
something
that
was
language
that
was
specifically
used
because
a
future
council.
So
what
would
happen?
Is
we
have?
I
guess,
to
take
a
step
back.
We
have
specific
permits
that
are
included
in
the
annexation
agreement
that
the
city
is
responsible
for
obtaining
to
move
the
project
ahead.
H
The
may
request
was
put
in
there
specifically
because
a
future
city
council,
even
without
the
flood
project
may
from
a
policy
standpoint,
determine
that
it
doesn't
want
to
do
that.
But
the
may
was
not
intended
to
be
an
optional
response
from
the
university.
It
was
intended
to
allow
the
city
the
the
latitude
to
decide
whether
or
not
that
was
the
right
thing
to
do
at
that
time.
G
Okay,
that's
very
helpful.
You
know
I!
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
72
people
hoping
to
speak,
but
I
would
think
that
the
the
opportunity
for
a
future
city
council
to
go.
You
know
what
we
couldn't
get
the
flood
mitigation
stuff,
but
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
let
all
that
development
happen
probably
not
be
a
popular
decision.
A
Great
and
there's
an
example
of
between
now
and
next
week.
If,
if
we
have
some
additional
recommendations
that
we'd
like
to
tell
council,
I
I
think
it
would
be
reasonable
to
you
know
think
about
something
that
might
be
more
interesting
wording
for
that.
So
the
great
well,
we
really
are
at
exactly
30
minutes
after
we
started
that
question
answer.
I
think
that
was
a
really
good
set
of
questions
and
we'll
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
the
way
as
we
go
through
our
deliberation
next
week.
A
N
A
A
N
A
C
G
A
There
you
go
yeah,
I,
when
I
called
in
from
wisconsin
it
turned
out
that
the
problem
was
that
I
was
using
sidebars
so
that
I
could
display
things
on
both
my
my
ipad
and
my
laptop,
and
I
found
out
later.
That
was
the
cause
of
all
the
trouble.
I
just
had
known
that
it
wasn't
the
wi-fi,
but
anyway,
but
the
ones
with
the
audio
only
wasn't
really
ridiculously.
A
A
A
S
T
U
A
A
On
the
public
record,
all
right,
well
thanks!
So
much
for
like
that,
went
really
well
keeping
us
to
30
minutes
and
of
course
we
all
have
the
security
of
knowing
we'll
be
able
to
ask
q
a
again
next
week.
So
with
that,
we
are
going
to
hear
now
from
our
applicants
from
cu.
I
know
I
think
we
have
derek
silver
here
or
silva,
I'm
sorry
who's.
I
I
apologize.
A
V
F
X
X
Thank
you.
So
I'm
very
excited
to
be
here
today
as
derek
mentioned,
to
talk
about
this
important
application
and
initiative.
We
are
really
excited
about
the
agreement
that
was
released
by
cu,
boulder
and
the
city
last
week.
We
want
to
thank
the
planning
board
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here
today
and
talk
about
the
agreement
and
also
the
former
members
of
planning
board
who
are
here
tonight
for
consideration
of
sea
boulder
south
and
also
want
to
say
big
thanks
to
phil
kaiser
for
walking
us
through
the
key
terms
of
the
agreement.
X
This
agreement
is
a
result
of
years
of
collaboration
between
the
city
county,
university
and
community
to
achieve
vital
flood
protection
for
the
2300
downstream
residents
and
1100
homes
that
remain
at
risk
of
flooding.
Eight
years
after
the
catastrophic
2013
floods,
we
also
have
a
rare
opportunity
with
the
site
to
make
a
sizable
impact
on
the
housing
pressures
in
boulder,
something
we
hear,
often
about
from
our
cu,
boulder
community
and
the
broader
boulder
community.
X
The
values
driving
this
agreement,
life
safety
and
housing,
preservation
of
open
space
and
a
number
of
others
that
I'll
touch
on
later
are
values
that
the
university
shares
with
the
community
and
the
city.
That's
why
we
are
so
pleased
that
this
draft
solidifies
those
values
with
a
series
of
binding
commitments.
X
This
has
been
a
long
process,
not
without
challenges,
but
we
are
grateful
for
the
public,
engagement
and
hard
work
of
our
cu,
boulder
team
and
city
staff
and
council
members
that
have
helped
get
us
to
where
we
are
today.
Now,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
derek
for
a
high
level
summary
of
key
annexation
points.
V
X
Yeah,
so
I
spoke
at
the
beginning
about
shared
values
that
we
believe
are
embedded
in
this
agreement.
I
will
start
out
by
saying
that
cu's
history
with
the
city
of
boulder
is
105
145
years
long
and
counting
we
are
invested
in
this
community
and
we
want
to
make
it
a
better
place
to
live,
study
and
work.
X
X
V
Yeah
first,
I
want
to
hit
on
the
board
of
regents
approval
process
because
much
like
the
city,
we
have
our
own
governing
board,
which
will
make
the
ultimate
decision
on
the
annexation
agreement,
specifically
the
disposition
of
real
property.
So
the
board
of
regents
is
the
governing
body
for
the
university
of
colorado
and
any.
Y
V
Note
here
that
there
are
several
limitations
on
development
covered
by
this
agreement
and
among
them
are
that
development
is
limited
to
only
129
acres
of
the
entire
308
acre
site.
No
development
is
allowed
in
the
500-year
floodplain
and
the
university
is
not
allowed
to
build
in
the
flood
plain
anywhere
on
the
side
and
there.
V
And,
finally,
I
wanted
to
address
something
brought
up
earlier.
That's
we
have
no
intention
to
sell,
but
we
can't
commit
to
not
sell
the
property
in
the
future.
However,
we
do
understand
community
concerns
about
what
would
apply
to
future
private
owners
and
we're
in
ongoing
conversations
with
the
city
about
what
conditions
would
apply
apply
to
a
private
developer.
If
we
were
to
sell
and
happy
this
is
yours.
X
As
our
chancellor
phil
destefano
noted
in
a
statement
last
week,
the
city
and
the
university
have
both
engaged
in
years
of
negotiation,
with
the
idea
in
mind
that
we
don't
have
to
pick
and
choose
one
benefit
over
another.
We
are
thankful
for
the
opportunity
to
present
on
this
agreement
today,
thankful
for
our
partnership
with
the
city
and
for
planning
board
consideration.
We
very
much
look
forward
to
hearing
your
feedback.
A
Great
okay,
well,
thank
you!
So
much
and
thanks
for
keeping
within
time
constraints
so
well
all
right
gives
us
some
extra
time
to
maybe
do
if
you
maybe
do
a
few
more
minutes
of
q
a
so.
Let's
go
well
we'll
try
to
keep
to
our
30
minutes
actually
because
that'll
get
us
to
8
27..
So
with
that
I'll
open
it
up
to
the
board
for
questions
for
our
friends
from
see
you,
anyone
want
to
take
the
first
pass.
F
V
We
are
committed
to
find
a
model
that
can
work
for
us
to
deliver
what
would
be
more
attainable,
housing
and
diff,
a
variety
of
different
types
of
housing
to
address
all
the
all
strata
of
our
community,
all
strata
of
income,
because
we
do
recognize
that
some
of
those
that
are
not
as
advantaged
of
others,
as
others
would
otherwise
really
not
ever
have
a
chance
to
to
live
in
boulder.
And
so
we
want
to
provide
that
opportunity.
V
We
don't
know
what
that
looks
like
today
in
the
university
itself
that
can't
avail
itself
of
those
tax
income
credits
that
facilitate
the
traditional,
affordable,
housing
approaches
of
being
a
public
entity.
But
what
we
can
do
is
enter
into
partnership
around
that
for
the
five
acres
and
the
rest
of
it.
We
are
committed
to
look
at
ways
to
just
lower
the
cost
of
the
the
embedded
cost
of
delivering
housing.
Z
X
Add
on
oh
go
ahead
crystal
sorry,
oh
no!
You
go!
No.
I
just
wanted
to
add
on.
I
appreciate
your
comments
about
the
normal,
affordable
housing
limit.
I
would
say,
as
derek
mentioned,
we
can't
take
advantage
of
the
traditional,
affordable,
housing
credits,
but
we
do
think
that
this
commitment
helps
meet
some
of
the
goals,
but
we
also
offer
a
lot
of
community
benefit
that
traditional
developers
likely
don't
so.
X
O
O
V
Yeah,
so
I
would
say
to
answer
your
first
question:
it
seems
to
make
sense
that
we
would
work
with
someone
locally,
but
we
have
not
identified
a
partner
yet
as
far
as
timing
goes,
if
from
the
agreement
as
phil
walked
through
there's
the
three
year
anniversary
period,
which
is
really
an
option
period
for
the
city
to
be
able
to
go,
get
the
permitting
and
then
that
would
once
that
lapses.
And
if
the
city,
the
permitting
is
successful
and
the
fannexation
is
successful,
the
city
would
then
build
a
flood
mitigation
structure.
V
So
we
probably
wouldn't
be
delivering
any
housing
until
after
the
flood
project
it
will
we
just
wouldn't.
We
wouldn't
deliver
any
housing
to
the
flood
projects
done,
but
we
don't
really
have
a
timeline
today,
as
far
as
when
we
would
start
that
we
will
contemplate
it
once
we
get
closer
to
that
and
we
start
to
develop
a
master
plan
for
the
site,
which
is
kind
of
the
first
first
view
of
what
development
will
look
like,
and
we
again
we
don't
even
have.
O
So
just
the
question
on
on
development
standards.
Did
you,
as
you
were,
going
through
these
different
scenarios
about
the
different
uses
on
the
site?
Did
you
ever
do
like
a
fit
on
the
site
to
see
how
all
of
these
different
uses
might
fit
and
then
how
that
might
work
with
some
of
the
guiding
principles,
especially
around
development
sustainability?
V
Yeah,
so
we
we
have
not,
and
those
are
all
things
that
would
appear
in
our
initial
master
planning
for
the
site
and
so
that
master
plan
would
be
the
overall
first
view
and
approach
to
our
development
here.
So
we
haven't
done
that
yet,
because
we
haven't
had
land,
that's
been
developable
for
us
to
do
that.
So
as
we
move
forward
we'll
contemplate
when
we
begin
that
process
and
that
process
according
to
the
agreement
is
one
that
will
involve
the
city
and
by
nature
involving
the
city
also
involves
the
community.
O
G
Thanks,
thank
you
all
for
being
here.
I'm
I
have
sort
of
three,
I
think
pretty
straightforward
questions.
So
the
first
is:
how
did
you
come
up
with
that
150
residential
unit
number
as
this
as
the
precursor
to
then
building
on
residential,
and
would
you
be
open
to
more
than
150
residential
units
as
the
starting
point,
it
seems
like
kind
of
a
low
number
yeah.
G
Okay,
which,
then
I
think
my
next
question
follows
up
on
that
which
is
you
know.
A
significant
potential
community
benefit
is
the
housing
of
more
students
who
are
currently
sort
of
dumped
out
onto
the
boulder
market,
creating
a
lot
of
increasing
costs
for
everybody.
What
is
this?
What
is
the
university's?
What
are
the
universities
plans
for
student
enrollment
expansion
over
the
next
few
years,
like?
Is
this
actually
going
to
remove
students
from
the
from
the
commercial
housing
market
or
is
this?
X
Yeah,
I
would
say
this:
the
the
primary
goals
for
our
use
of
the
cu
boulder
south
are
not
increasing
undergraduate
student
housing,
so
we
have
committed
that
it
will
be
for
faculty
staff
graduate
students
and
non-first-year
students.
So
I
think
to
your
question:
sarah:
it's
not
really
about
growth
of
the
student
body.
It's
really
about
trying
to
meet
a
current
need
for
housing
that
we
hear
a
lot
from
our
community
across
our
staff,
faculty
and
and
upper
level.
Students.
G
X
We
don't
have
long-term
expansion
plans,
we
we
do
make
projections
every
year.
We
have
to
get
approval
from
the
board
of
regents
for
what
our
student
body
looks
like
and
how
it
relates
to
our
tuition.
So
again,
this
we
don't
have
a
long-term
enrollment
plan
that
is
being
factored
into
this,
especially
because
we
don't
have
a
plan
for
this
site.
X
V
F
N
I
I
just
have
one
quick
question.
First,
thank
you
for
your
your
partnership
with
the
city
and
for
all
you
do
for
the
city.
I
understood
through
through
your
some
of
your
answers
that
it
is
not
your
intention
to
sell
the
land
to
a
private
developer,
you're,
just
putting
some
flexibility
in
there
for
your
protection.
N
Yes,
I'd
like
to
clarify
my
concerns.
Are
the
the
nebulousness
of
a
right
of
first
refusal
without
a
defined
dollar
amount,
that's
beneficial
for
the
city
and
it's
it
sounds
like
cu
has
and
and
continues
to
and
will
partner
with
the
city
to
make
sure
we
get
the
best
outcome
for
the
site,
which
I
think
you
know,
the
interests
of
cu
in
the
city
are
probably
aligned.
V
If,
in
a
future
scenario
where
we
would
sell
the
property
or
portions
of
the
property,
and
that's
that's
key
portions
of
the
property,
there
may
be
portions
that
we
would
sell.
But
we
can't
determine
a
price
for
those
today
and
as
well.
We
can't
determine
at
what
state
they
will
be
because
this
the
right
first
offer
the
right
of
first
refusal
run
with
the
land
and
are
in
perpetuity
along
with
the
agreement,
but
we
couldn't
so.
The
city
would
always
have
that
option.
AA
AB
AC
V
V
To
make
sure
we
get
fair
and
adequate
consideration
for
that
property,
and
so
that's
that's
one
of
the
limitations
we
have
as
a
state
entity.
I
think
the
city
probably
has
similar
similar
guidance
as
well,
where
they,
if
they
have
assets
and
they're
disposing
of
them,
they
have
to
get
fair
market
value
so
we're
bound
by
those
same
sorts
of
statutes
and.
I
If
I
understand
correctly,
the
the
university
could
make
considerable
investments
in
the
first
three
years
in
athletic
facilities
in
that
specific
area,
that's
designated
for
that.
So
if
then,
there
was
to
be
a
de-annexation.
Would
the
university
expect
to
be
compensated
for
its
investments
that
it's
made
in
that
period?
I
V
Don't
I'm
not
sure
what
investments
we
would
be
compensated
for,
because
if
we
had,
if,
in
the
event
you
speak
of,
if
we
were
to
develop
recreational
amenities
out
there
from
my
understanding,
those
could
persist.
So
just
because
the
annexation
occurs
that
wouldn't
require
us
to
tear
down
those
facilities,
and
so
we
wouldn't
be.
We
wouldn't
be
building
any
habitable
structures,
so
no
residential
structures,
nothing
else
until
the
until
the
flood
project
is
complete,
but
it
the
agreement
does
allow
for
us
to
build
recreational
amenities.
We
don't.
I
So
I
mean
my
question:
is
those
facilities
might,
for
example,
require
water
and
sewer
connections
to
the
city,
and
so
there
it
would
be.
The
university
would
have
made
some
investment
in
those
facilities
that
it's
unclear
to
me,
how
that
would
be
dealt
with
in
the
event
of
of
a
de-annexation,
which
would
then
eliminate
the
the
connections
to
water
and
sewer,
for
example,.
H
All
right,
I
think
I
can
address
this
too
section
37
does
point
to
this.
So
many
decades
ago
we
provided
a
very
often
utility
service
to
properties
outside
of
our
service
area,
so
areas,
one
and
two
in
this
case,
and
we
do
those
through
out-of-city
water
and
sewer
utility
permits,
and
in
this
case,
if
the
de-annexation
were
to
occur,
those
utilities
would
still
be
able
to
be
used
by
the
university
through
an
out-of-city
service
agreement.
U
Oh
thanks
david
and
I
may
have
missed
this
in
the
in
the
packet
or
in
the
preparation
materials.
So
sorry,
if
it's
a
dumb
question,
is
the
intention
of
the
five
acres
for
affordable
housing
for
that
to
be
delivered
as
transferred
to
the
city
of
boulder's
housing
authority,
or
is
that
meant
to
be
developed
separately
by
a
different
housing
provider
or
by
cu.
V
Thank
you
for
your
question
brian.
So
what
we
envision
is
that
we
have
non-profit
affiliates
who
we
can
operate
through,
who
can
actually
enter
into
partnerships
for
different
joint
ventures
such
as
affordable
housing,
development,
and
so
we
probably
we
right
now.
Currently
we
envision
using
one
of
those
those
affiliates
to
do
this.
We
don't
know
which
one
but
that's
we
would
do
that
through
one
of
those
affiliates
and
enter
into
a
partnership
with
a
with
an
affordable
housing
developer
to
develop
that
housing,
and
the
question
was
asked
earlier
whether
we
were
focusing
on
local.
V
A
A
I
might
call
it
and
the
fact
that
it
is
kind
of
visible
from
a
lot
of
places
in
near
open
space,
and
I
wondered
if
you
had
subsequently
thought
about
some
of
the
ideas
around,
maybe
making
the
lighting
around
theirs
somewhat
more
strict
or
even
some
people
have
even
thought
about,
maybe
not
having
nighttime
events.
So,
if
you've
thought
about
that
at
all-
or
maybe
that's
something
you
would
be
thinking
about.
V
We
have
thought
about
it.
We,
what
we've
agreed
to
do
is
abide
by
the
city's
outdoor
fighting
standards,
and
certainly
we
try
to
use
best
practices
on
our
own
campuses
to
have
downward
facing
lights
for
athletic
facilities,
so
they
don't
bleed
out
into
the
surrounding
areas
as
much
as
possible.
But
currently
we,
the
that
athletics
facility,
is
not
a
given
it's
not
something
that
we
plan
on
developing
out
there
again
it's
kind
of
a
retained
right
that
we've
negotiated,
so
that
we
can
have
maximum
flexibility
for
future
development.
V
R
Thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
your
time,
a
quick
one
here,
bridging
off
of
crystal's
comments
to
an
extent
given
the
work
that
the
university
is
doing
and
will
be
doing
around
sustainability
and
energy
innovations.
I
know
that
you're
not
at
the
stage
to
specify
anything
around
the
project,
but
could
you
give
20
seconds
on?
R
You
know
something
that
the
university
is
doing
now,
that
it
would
be
applicable
that
perhaps
at
this
scale
could
be
achieved
that
wouldn't
be
otherwise
possible
without
this
parcel.
I
know
it's
not
geographically
contiguous
for
certain
things,
but
I
am
curious
what
what's
been
considered
or
thought
of
yeah
thank.
X
Sure
yeah,
it's
a
great
question
peter
and
you
know,
as
has
been
noted
previously,
which
I
appreciate.
The
university
does
put
a
premium
on
sustainability
and
resiliency,
and
that
ranges
all
the
way
from
our
research
to
our
facilities.
So
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
potential
for
what
could
happen
on
the
site.
We
are
exploring
a
micro
grid
on
our
east
campus
right
now.
I
think
that's
something
that
would
be
a
great
interest
to
explore.
X
We've
heard
calls
from
the
community
to
make
sure
that
there's
research
related
to
energy
and
sustainability
on
the
site,
and
I
think,
there's
great
potential
for
that
as
well.
There's
potential
for
solar.
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
options
and
we
will
have
our
great
team
who
works
on
this
for
the
campus
and
we
actually
are
building
a
sustainability.
A
O
Just
real
quickly,
so
abby.
Thank
you
for
your
answer
and
how
do
you
put
metrics
into
the
agreement,
or
would
you
be
willing
to
put
some
metrics
into
the
agreement
to
mention
the
things
that
you
just
said
about
sustainability
and
maybe
a
microgrid
in
that
area
to
help
the
city
meet
their
goals
because,
as
one
of
your
slides
showed
we're
all
in
this
together.
X
Yeah
absolutely
and
it's
a
great
point,
and
I
think
it's
something
that
we
would
be
willing
to
consider
and
we
can
take
it
back
for
further
discussion.
I
think
it's
difficult
right
now
because,
as
mentioned
previously,
we
don't
have
defined
plans
for
the
site,
but
we
are
really
true
in
our
commitment
to
you
know
continue
the
work
that
we
do
on
the
other
part
of
our
campuses.
But
I
I
appreciate
that
point
crystal
and
we
can
certainly
take
it
back
for
further
discussion.
G
G
There
was
discussion
about
this
university
being
allowed
to
use
some
of
the
open
space
for
solar
panels
or
for
community
gardens,
and
I
I
really
want
to
understand
which
part
of
the
open
space
you're
referring
to,
because
I
think
it's
essential
that
we
actually
protect
the
open
space,
open
space
for
wildlife
purposes
and
all
the
other
natural
resource
and
sustainability
components.
So
that's
the
first
question
and
then
I'll
ask
a
second
question
in
a
minute.
V
H
V
H
Clarification
I'd
like
to
provide
is
that
when
we
were
last
with
the
planning
board,
we
had
noted
that
there
was
a
contingency
of
10
acres
in
the
open
space
area
that
was
reserved
for
recreation
fields
if
those
couldn't
be
sited
in
the
flood
control
zone,
and
so
that
has
been
resolved.
There
is
one
point
in
the
annexation
agreement,
12c
that
does
discuss
some
of
the
guiding
principles.
G
V
That
that
is
true,
and
so
I
sarah
has
answered
your
question
as
if
annexation
was
had
already
happened
and
and
that
the
option
period
had
been
satisfied
and
the
city's
moving
forward
and
we
conveyed
the
land.
So
if
we
retained,
if
annexation
didn't
happen
or
if
the
property
was
de-annexed
and
yeah,
I
think
we'd
look
at
things
like
to
crystal's
points
of
what
we
could
do
to
bring
our
other
campus
net
zero
and
that
could
involve
solar
field.
Solar
gardens,
microgrid
other
things
on
that
land.
So
at
that.
V
G
Okay,
so
then
my
second
question
has
still
has
to
do
with
the
open
space.
We
got
a
lot
of
letters
which
I
agree
with
about
wanting
to
make
sure
we
protect
that
open
space
and
how
essential
it
is
for
reaching
our
climate
change
goals,
protecting
wildlife,
protecting
the
wet,
weta
wet
meadow
that
is
central,
which
is
part
of
what
makes
cu
south.
So
wonderful.
G
V
Yes,
from
from
our
perspective,
so
the
the
annexation
agreement
is
going
to
create
basically
the
city's
option
that
can
be
exercised
once
they
satisfy
their
permitting
requirements,
and
then
they
give
us
notice
that
they're
they're
moving
forward
and
at
that
point
in
time
all
the
land
would
convey
and
so
that
open
space
the
oso
area
would
convey
to
to
osbt
and
they
would
become
owners
of
that
land
and
we
would
have
no
further
claim
or
right
or
use
of
the
surface.
At
that
point,.
V
I
think
it's
far
enough
away
from
the
open
space
land
and
certainly
on
the
north
end,
where
development
would
most
likely
start
it's
buffered
by
the
area.
That's
the
excavation
area,
what's
known
as
pkuo
today
as
you
get
south,
there
certainly
is
a
boundary
there,
but
we're
going
to
have
setbacks
for
building
we're
going
to
create
buffers
along
that.
We
certainly
the
reason
that
we
agreed
to
dedicate
that
oso
land
to
open
space
is
that
we
recognize
the
values
of
the
community
and
preserving
and
restoring
that
area
as
well.
V
That's
also
why
we've
agreed
to
allow
the
levy
to
come
down,
because
that
can
create
connectivity
for
wildlife
and
and
in
florida
to
be
able
to
be
restored
and
connect
and
become
part
of
the
json
open
space.
So
in
no
way
do
I
envision
us
touching
that
land
or
having
a
right
to
touch
it
or
harm
it
in
the
future,
and
certainly,
I
think
we
would
look
to
mitigate
impacts
from
our
construction.
A
Okay,
well
with
that,
I
think
that
we
have
reached
the
exact
moment
of
the
end
of
our
30
minutes.
Thank
you
all
so
much
for
conforming
to
this
time
constraint
this
week
and
again
we'll
be
able
to
take
another
pass.
Thank
you
so
much
to
abby
and
derek
for
your
presentation
and
please
hang
around
because
you'll
be
able
to
talk
after
the
public
hearing
as
well
about
anything
you
heard,
for
it's
usually
like
a
three
minute
opportunity.
A
A
So
please
be
patient
with
us.
If
we
have
to
remind
you
of
that
and
kind
of
uh-hum
and
then
let
you
finish,
the
sentence
and
whatever
we
need
to
do
to
kind
of
gently,
let
you
know
if
you
go
over
the
two
minutes,
because
we
need
to
stay
on
track.
Please
introduce
yourselves
again
by
giving
your
name
and
address,
and
it
also
would
help
if
you
would
let
us
know
if
you're.
A
Some
sort
of
a
group,
a
homeowner's
association
or
interest
group-
it's
always
nice
for
us
to
know
that
it's
always
good.
If
you
don't
repeat
items
that
you've
heard
other
speakers
say
and
if
you've
submitted
documents
to
cindy,
please
let
us
know
so
that
we
can
get
those
displayed,
and
with
that
I,
our
first
speaker
is
going
to
be
kathy
joyner,
followed
by
rosie,
phivian
and
deborah
biasca,
so
gene.
If
you
could
maybe
display
your
timer
and
then
unmute
kathy
joyner.
That
would
be
awesome.
J
Thanks
david,
my
name
is
kathy
joyner.
I
live
at
97
63
car
circle
in
westminster.
I
am
a
member
of
the
south
boulder
creek
action
group.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
tonight
and
you
may
wonder
why
someone
from
westminster
is
speaking
to
this
topic.
Boulder
was
my
home
for
almost
30
years.
For
20
of
those
years,
I
lived
in
the
fraser
meadows
area
that
experienced
significant
flooding
in
2013.
J
after
advocating
for
flood
protection
for
six
years
after
the
flood,
my
husband
and
I
decided
to
move
to
a
safer
place.
Still.
I
have
many
many
friends
in
boulder,
which
I
still
consider
my
home.
Many
of
these
friends
in
the
fraser
meadow
area
are
still
living
in
harm's
way.
These
boulder
residents
and
their
welfare
matter
a
great
deal
to
me,
and
this
is
the
reason
I
choose
to
speak
tonight
after
reviewing
the
drafts
uc
south
annexation
agreement.
I
encourage
you
to
recommend
to
council
that
the
agreement
be
approved.
J
The
draft
agreement
contains
a
number
of
significant
community
benefits
related
to
health
and
safety,
housing,
open
space
and
transportation,
all
of
which
are
addressed
in
the
guiding
principles.
I
believe
two
of
these
benefits
are
by
far
the
most
important
and
noteworthy,
and
they
include
number
one
flood
protection
to
ensure
the
safety
of
thousands
of
downstream
residents,
a
fundamental
responsibility
of
the
city
and
2,
the
provision
of
1100
housing
units
for
cu's,
workforce
and
upper
level
students,
as
well
as
the
dedication
of
five
acres
slated
for
affordable
housing
units
for
residents
unaffiliated
with
cu
for
years.
J
J
A
B
A
A
A
F
A
B
AD
A
A
AE
Great
good
evening,
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
the
proposed
annexation
agreement
at
cu
south,
oh,
I
forgot
my
address.
I
live
in
table
mesa.
I've
lived
in
college
towns,
most
of
my
life,
berkeley,
california,
ann
arbor,
michigan
and
boulder
colorado
for
the
past
22
years,
20
years
in
south
boulder.
It's
easy
to
forget.
Sometimes
how
important
a
relationship
between
the
city
and
the
university
is.
It's
why
many
of
us
live
here?
Having
university
here
elevates
this
place.
I
see
this
annexation
agreement
as
an
opportunity
for
positive
change
and
I'm
not
afraid
of
change.
AE
AE
Most
of
the
change
I've
seen
in
south
boulder
has
been
for
the
positive
I've
seen
table
mesa
grow
as
a
10-minute
neighborhood,
where
cu
south
neighbors
will
also
be
able
to
walk
or
bike
or
go
shopping
visit.
Restaurants,
bike
shops,
outdoor
gear
hardware,
plant
stands
cafes,
bakeries,
salons,
credit
unions,
banks,
delis
pharmacies,
go
to
wine,
tastings,
art,
studios,
cooking
classes,
see
live
music,
karaoke,
vinyl
night,
get
pet
care,
auto
repair,
ice
cream
and
yoga
just
to
name
a
few,
and
many
of
the
businesses
are
locally
owned.
AE
We
love
it
here
and
it
just
keeps
getting
better
cu
south
could
be
a
fabulous
location
for
a
south
boulder
farmers
market
for
both
new
and
established
neighborhoods
could
easily
walk
or
bike
on
the
weekends.
I
regularly
hike
the
levee
loop
with
my
dog
and
welcome
new
open
space
that
will
likely
improve
with
better
management.
AE
I
trust
our
transportation
experts
to
craft
creative
solutions
here.
Maybe
we
can
enhance
the
broadway
crossings.
Maybe
we
can
finally
get
e-bikes
or
a
bike
share
at
the
new
transportation
hub.
Maybe
morehead
could
have
a
protected
bike
lane
the
entire
way,
which
could
also
stimulate
positive
change
at
basemar.
AE
A
AF
Okay,
I'm
deborah
biasca,
and
I
urge
you
not
to
support
the
draft
agreement.
I
live
at
230
south
38th
boulder
in
martin
acres.
I
urge
you
not
to
support
it
because
the
annexation
will
not
protect
fraser
meadows
from
flooding.
Unquestionably,
mitigation
of
flood
risk
to
the
one
thousand
residents
of
fraser
meadows
is
the
main
reason
for
annexation.
AF
Let's
look
at
the
flood
analysis
of
boulder's
utility
division
completed
a
year
after
the
flood
and
found
in
your
meeting
packet,
combining
the
data
from
the
flood
gathered
by
the
city
with
dollar
costs
of
damages
calculated
by
fema,
the
national
research
center
analyzed
all
sources
of
the
extensive
flood
damage.
City-Wide
slide.
Two
please
table
six.
That
was.
F
AF
Compares
the
water
damage
sources
against
dollar
costs
of
repair
aligned
to
the
major
water
rays
that
were
involved
and
all
other
water
sources
based
on
the
last
line
of
the
chart
which
covers
the
south,
boulder
creek
drainage,
the
waterway
source
for
fraser
meadows
slide.
Three
simple
percentage
calculations
show
that
for
the
100-year
floodplain,
only
30
percent
of
the
total
damage
was
actually
from
the
south
boulder
creek
drainage,
while
70
percent
was
from
local
flooding,
not
south
boulder
creek
and
the
figures
are
even
worse
for
the
500-year
flood.
AF
So
why
would
the
city
annex
to
avoid
only
30
percent
of
the
damage
slide?
Four,
please.
My
neighborhood
too
incurred
tremendous
flood
damage
in
2013,
but
no
dam
can
protect
us
for
the
same
reason
slide.
Five
to
conclude:
aggressive
reduction
of
carbon
emissions
and
local
flood
mitigation
projects
are
needed
to
protect
fraser
meadows,
not
a
dam
at
cu
south
without
flood
protection.
The
proposal
totally
lacks
sufficient
public
benefit
to
justify
the
costs.
A
F
B
AH
Can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
my
name
is
brookie
gallagher.
I
live
in
table
mesa.
We've
learned
that
the
proposed
non-residential
development
at
cu
south
will
be
750.000
feet
rather
than
the
five
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
We've
been
told
for
years.
This
fifty
percent
increase
in
development
equals
a
fifty
percent
increase
in
traffic.
It
also
translates
into
additional
workers,
faculty
staff
and
students,
without
any
increase
in
residential
housing
to
accommodate
them.
Cu's
traffic
study
projected
7
000
additional
trips
per
day
on
boulder
roadways.
AH
Instead,
a
fifty
percent
increase
will
mean
ten
thousand
five
hundred
trips
per
day.
That's
the
number
we
should
use
the
city
should
demand
a
new
traffic
study
based
on
this
new
number.
It
should
be
carried
out
when
we're
not
experiencing
reduced
traffic
due
to
the
pandemic,
and
it
should
be
done
by
a
traffic
company
not
on
cu's
payroll.
AH
Also
note
that
cu's
proposed
on-site
housing
did
not
increase
by
50
percent.
It
didn't
increase
at
all.
It's
still
housing
for
2200
people
using
commercial,
real
estate,
guidelines
of
150
square
feet
of
office
or
commercial
space
per
person.
Seven
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
square
feet
of
non-residential
space
equals
five
thousand
occupants.
AH
Twenty
eight
hundred
more
than
the
planned
residential
housing
of
twenty
two
hundred,
so
rather
than
helping
boulder's
housing
situation,
cu
south's
development
will
worsen
it
by
adding
more
people
to
boulders
housing
equation
without
housing
for
them,
and
60
percent
of
people
affiliated
with
cu
in
commute,
so
most
of
them
will
likely
drive.
This
means
that
the
transportation
demand
management
promises
will
fall
far
short
of
their
promised
objectives.
T
Good
evening-
and
thank
you
for
your
time
tonight-
my
name
is
dr
nicole
speer.
I
live
a
stone's
throw
from
cu
south
in
tantra
park
and
I
support
this
thoughtful
and
well
negotiated
annexation
agreement.
I
hope
you
will
too.
The
primary
benefit
of
this
agreement,
of
course,
is
flood
mitigation
that
will
protect
thousands
of
older
residents
lives,
but
our
community
will
also
get
continued
access,
trails
and
recreation
opportunities,
additional
open
space
and
land
for
affordable
housing.
T
The
synthesization
agreement
has
been
in
the
works
for
six
years
and
it
incorporates
all
the
benefits
boulder
residents
identified
as
top
priorities
during
this
time,
but
you've
read
the
agreement
and
you've
seen
the
engagement
data.
So
you
know
this
agreement
checks
all
the
boxes
tonight.
I
want
to
share
a
personal
story
that
gives
you
a
concrete
example
for
why
this
annexation
agreement
reflects
the
best
engagement
work.
I've
seen
our
city
do.
In
years,
last
winter
city
staff
presented
the
emerging
annexation
agreement
to
my
neighborhood
hoa.
T
One
thing
that
stood
out
to
us
was
that
there
was
a
buffer
zone
between
the
single
family
high
view
neighborhood
and
proposed
higher
density
housing.
On
the
south
side
of
chanter
park,
our
little
pocket
of
single-family
homes
is
zoned
rm1
and
we
didn't
have
a
buffer
zone
pointed
out
that
we
would
like
to
be
treated
like
the
other
single
family
homes
and
have
some
space
between
us
and
higher
density
housing.
In
response
to
our
comments,
the
annexation
plans
changed
to
incorporate
a
buffer
zone
along
the
entire
northwestern
side
of
the
property.
T
That's
an
incredible
level
of
responsiveness
to
the
concerns
of
20
of
cs
house
nearest
neighbors.
The
long
process
of
getting
to
this
agreement
was
thoughtful,
inclusive,
collaborative
and
thorough.
It's
exactly
how
major
decisions
in
our
city
should
be
made.
I
commend
mayor
weaver
and
councilwoman
friend
and
city
and
university
staff
for
their
excellent
work
on
this
engagement
process
and
I'm
grateful
to
the
more
than
1
000
boulder
residents
who
provided
feedback
over
the
past
two
years.
This
is
a
good
agreement.
It
will
save
lives.
It
has
all
the
community
benefits
our
residents
ask
for.
T
A
AI
AI
You
know,
and
I've
been
following
this
process
for
years
now,
as
it's
been
in
development
for
the
past
six
years,
and
I've
seen
all
of
the
engagement
and
everyone
working
on
it
and
you
know
to
city
staff,
phil
and
everyone
else.
You've
done
an
amazing
job.
Working
on
this
project
may
mayor,
weaver
and
councilwoman
friend
have
done
an
awesome
job
working
with
the
university
and
the
university
has
been
an
amazing
partner
in
negotiating
this
agreement.
AI
In
addition,
you
know
to
providing
flood
mitigation
and,
potentially
you
know
getting
3
500
residents
out
of
floods
harm's
way,
it'll
provide.
You
know,
continued
access
to
the
university
and
facilities
the
universities
can
conveying
water
rights,
there's
very
thoughtful
trip
caps
in
place
to
limit
traffic
impacts
on
the
surrounding
communities.
AI
There's
awesome
opportunities
to
restore
habitat
through
open
space,
as
well
as
the
tons
of
other
details
that
are
in
the
agreement,
if
you
read
through
it,
so
ultimately,
I'm
here
today
to
ask
you
all
to
support
the
annexation
agreement
and
help
protect
the
lives,
health
and
safety
of
boulder
residents.
Thank
you.
A
AJ
AJ
I
speak
in
favor
of
the
self
annexation
agreement
draft
and
to
praise
the
process
as
well
as
the
product.
The
negotiations
between
the
boulder
and
cu
have
been
a
fine
example
of
cooperation
through
difficult
conversations,
compromise
and
productive
ideas.
The
representatives
cu
and
boulder
have
arrived
at
a
workable
agreement
which
meets
the
needs
of
both
entities.
AJ
The
thoughtful
process
has
yielded
a
more
detailed
and
nuanced
agreement
than
a
slogan-driven
ballot
bottle
could
ever
the
document
satisfies
my
primary
concern
of
flood
mitigation.
Cu
is
yielding
80
acres
to
the
city
for
the
purpose.
Furthermore,
the
plans
for
100
year
flood
containment
are
in
line
fiscally
with
the
remedies
applied
to
other
city
drainages.
AJ
I'm
also
pleased
to
note,
in
agreement
a
plan
for
an
underpass
beneath
south
boulder
road,
so
that
bikes
and
pedestrians
can
safely
access
the
area
which
cu
is
generously
pledging
to
keep
open
for
public
use.
I'm
further
pleased
by
the
joint
promise
to
restore
the
wetlands
associated
with
old
gravel
pit,
so
that
wildlife
and
natural
plants
can
again
thrive
in
the
sadly
degraded
landscape
there,
while
some
may
seek
to
halt
the
growth
of
cu
and
of
our
city.
AJ
A
A
Z
Z
Z
You've
heard
all
of
these,
but
the
flood
protection,
of
course,
is
the
most
important
saving
the
lives
of
those
people
that
are
downstream
critical,
habitat
expansion
and
restoration,
housing
options
for
cu's
workforce
and
for
city
residents,
affordable
housing,
comprehensive,
auto
and
pet
transportation
planning,
which
hopefully,
will
impact
positively
the
62
000
in
commutes.
We
have
into
boulder
every
day
and
the
climate
impacts
that
that
brings
with
it
continued
and
enhanced
recreational
access
for
city
residents,
which
I
know
everybody
takes
great
advantage
of
out
there.
Z
A
AK
AK
And
so,
when
the
city
of
boulder
touts
the
transition
from
homelessness
program,
these
are
the
literal
units
where
we
put
these
people,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
are
doing
enough
and
something
that's
beautiful
about
the
proposed
annexation-
is
that,
in
addition
to
protecting
this
existing
affordable
housing,
it
also
unlocks
the
potential
for
more
affordable
housing,
habitat
restoration
and
all
kinds
of
wonderful
things.
So
I
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
B
A
AL
Hi
thanks
for
being
there
tonight,
I
am
I'm
rosemary
hegarty.
I
live
in
martin
acres
and
I
am
against
the
annexation
and
I
had
a
chart
that,
for
you
guys
to
look
at
about
the
osbt
recommendations
versus
the
current
language
of
the
annexation,
and
I
just
find
it
really
striking
that
most
of
the
osbt
recommendations
were
not
were
not
followed,
which
was
really
disappointing
since
osbt
will
be
having
a
lot
of
you
know,
responsibility
in
that
in
that
annexation.
AL
If
that
does
occur,
I
don't
have
time
in
the
two
minutes
to
talk
about
the
whole
chart,
so
I'm
going
to
just
zero
in
on
a
couple
of
the
highlights
that
I
was
really
concerned
about
and
number
one
is
the
water
rights,
as
the
board
already
brought
up
really.
Concerning
that
the
university
is
conveying
water
rates,
you
know
to
the
city,
but
then
the
city
is
then
going
to
be
paying
for
the
university
to
irrigate
out
there
annually
forever.
AL
AL
AL
AL
AM
Okay,
can
you
hear
me
we
can?
I
would
strongly
urge
the
planning
board
to
recommend
to
city
council
that
it
slowed
down.
This
draft
agreement
is
clearly
not
ready
for
prime
time.
It
is
full
of
contradictions
and
fails
to
address
critical
issues
like
the
requirements
set
out
by
the
open
space
board
of
trustees,
the
approval
of
which
is
a
precondition
for
the
currently
proposed
flood
mitigation
project
to
move
forward.
AM
AM
Moreover,
cu
is
demanding
an
access
from
highway
93,
creating
a
deadly
intersection
on
an
already
dangerous
stretch
of
road,
most
critically
for
the
planning
board.
This
annexation
proposal
flies
in
the
face
of
the
entire
thrust
of
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan.
It
provides
a
mechanism
for
building
in
the
south
polder
creek
flood
plain.
AM
A
AN
Good
evening
my
name
is
ben
binder
and
I
live
in
south
boulder
in
1996.
I
noticed
several
obvious
flaws
in
the
fema
floodplain
map
of
the
cu
south
gravel
pit.
I
reported
the
error
to
the
state
budget
committee,
which
requires
cu
to
perform
a
floodplain
study
that
1996
study
determined
that
a
large
portion
of
cu
south
was
in
the
flood
plain,
as
were
hundreds
of
residences.
AN
Instead
of
cooperating
with
the
city
to
address
the
known
flooding
problems,
cu
made
things
worse,
cu
revised
the
gravel
pit
reclamation
plan
to
eliminate
ponds
in
riparian
areas,
which
would
have
attenuated
flooding
and
added
a
six
thousand
foot
levee
to
divert
flood
waters
onto
neighboring
properties.
Consequently,
during
the
2013
flood,
the
vacant
gravel
pit
was
dry.
Why
fraser,
meadows
retirement
community
and
hundreds
of
homes
were
flooded,
so
we
can
thank
cu
for
those
photos
of
the
flooded
homes.
AN
Cu
is
holding
the
lives
of
downstream
residents
hostage
by
refusing
its
land
to
be
used
for
flood
control
until
the
city
annexes
to
you
south.
I
urge
you
not
to
give
in
to
this
strong
armed
extortion.
In
2018,
the
city
council
approved
a
500-year
flood
mitigation
plan,
but
cu
demanded.
The
city
immediately
cease
work
on
the
plan.
The
city
caved
in
and
reduced
flood
protection
to
100
years.
I
asked
the
city
many
times
for
evidence
that
cdot
would
not
approve
the
500-year
plan
and
no
such
evidence
was
ever
provided.
The
500-year
plan
should
be
reinstated.
AN
Cu
is
demanding
a
new
intersection
on
a
curve
on
the
hill
in
colorado,
93,
one
of
the
most
treacherous
highways
in
the
state,
cu's
transportation
engineer
said
that
a
traffic
city
will
only
be
installed
if
there
are
five
accidents
at
the
site.
An
intersection
at
colorado
93
will
be
of
little
value
to
faculty
and
students
commuting
to
this
main
campus,
but
it
will
increase
the
commercial
value
of
the
site,
which
is
of
great
interest
to
derek
silva
who
oversees
the
development
of
new
revenue
generating
opportunities
for
cu.
You
should
deny
an
intersection
with
93.
AN
A
AO
My
name
is
david
slack.
I
work
at
fraser
retirement
community,
which
is
at
350
ponca
place.
Thank
you
all
for
your
many
years
of
work
on
in
trying
to
get
it
to
this
point
on
behalf
of
frasier,
we
are
in
support
of
the
cu
annexation
and
appreciate
the
efforts
of
the
city
and
see
you
to
protect
the
safety
of
thousands
of
people
in
property.
It's
the
right
thing
to
do.
Please,
vote
to
annex
the
property
and
endorse
the
annex
annexation
agreement
as
drafted.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
AG
Thank
you.
I
live
in
martin
acres
and
I'm
in
favor
of
the
cities
and
the
university's
plans
for
cu
south,
as
outlined
in
the
annexation
agreement.
It's
the
promises
about
affordable
homes
that
earn
my
support.
I
believe
that
city
and
universities
should
be
directing
more
resources
toward
our
housing
disorder.
AG
Among
all
the
reasons
for
that
belief,
I'll
mention
just
one.
It's
undeniable
and
unjust
that
wealth
in
the
united
states
accrues
disproportionately
to
white
people.
The
university
has
terrible
difficulty
attracting
and
retaining
faculty
and
students
of
color.
It's
a
sad
and
dangerous
situation
for
the
people
being
educated
there
and
since
most
new
young
faculty
and
staff
cannot
live
in
boulder,
they
must
drive
into
work
into
town
to
work
here,
adding
to
our
environment,
environmental
trouble,
affordable
housing
is
central
to
solving
both
these
problems.
AG
AG
I
agree
with
some
of
them,
but
on
balance,
they
do
not
shift
my
priorities
about
what
our
community
needs
most
in
reviewing
the
published,
redlined
annexation
agreement,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
city
and
university
modified
it
in
response
to
the
objections,
I'm
grateful
for
all
the
work
done
by
the
dissenters
and
recognize
that
they
have
influenced
this
agreement
in
directions
that
benefit
my
neighborhood.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
work
and
time.
AG
A
F
AP
Okay,
I
live
in
frazier
meadows
and
thanks
for
letting
me
speak
today,
I
co-chair
save
south
boulder,
which
has
sent
you
some
55
good
reasons
why
you
should
recommend
a
city
council
that
it
slow
the
runaway
train,
rushing
to
annex
to
see
you
south
property.
All
those
reasons
are
deal
breakers,
even
if
you
support
annexation.
AP
In
fact,
this
proposal
actually
is
a
real
estate
deal
to
increase
the
value
of
cu's
property,
not
to
provide
benefits
to
the
boulder
citizens.
Cu
has
no
life
safety,
environmental,
fiduciary
or
even
moral
responsibility
to
the
citizens
of
boulder,
but
the
city
council
does.
It
would
be
irresponsible
for
our
elected
council
to
approve
an
agreement
that
is
not
needed
for
flood
mitigation.
AP
To
go
forward
contradicts
the
city's
climate
change
and
sustainability
goals
is
inconsistent
with
the
open
space
charter
and
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
and
denies
decades
of
climate
science
and
expert
studies
of
cu
south
that
have
warned
against
bill
building
out
the
south
boulder
creek
flood
plain.
This
proposal
would
dangerously
eliminate
open
space.
It
would
require
dangerous
traffic
intersections
dramatically,
increase
traffic
loads,
endanger
wildlife
and
destroy
habitat
for
threatened
species
and
increase
noise,
light
water
and
air
pollution
in
the
south
boulder
creek
flood
plain.
The
university
is
already
big
enough.
AP
A
AQ
Yeah,
first
of
all,
I
was
reading
yesterday
just
yesterday
about
the
brutalist
denver
7
project,
which
is
a
large
multi-story
building.
That's
been
demoed
to
put
in
housing
exclusively
for
for
renting
by
the
room.
Now.
This
is
something
that
cu
has
done
lately
with
marpa
house,
as
it
changed
from
a
communal
kitchen
and
living
area
to
16
individual
apartments
of
three
bedrooms,
each
that
are
rented
individually
as
rooms.
No
family
will
ever
live
there
when
paying
rent
for
each
bedroom
for
their
kids.
AQ
Just
recently,
now
that
space
is
being
taken
over
by
core
spaces,
a
national
student
housing
development
project
that
will
derive
huge
extortion
from
students
in
the
form
of
these
individual
either
elus,
which
they
would
see
you
as
proposing
for
this
development
or
or
rental
by
the
room.
So
university
housing
is
very
stressful
to
a
city
like
boulder
in
inflating
housing
values
and
causing
our
homelessness.
AQ
AQ
Yeah
and
they
want
that
that
exit
to
go
around
superior
so
that
they
aren't
jamming
up.
This
is
jamming
up
the
housing.
I
mean
jamming
up
the
transportation
corridor
at
93
and
table.
I
mean
at
that
table
mesa,
so
they
don't
have
these
huge
nexuses
of
transportation
nightmares
in
boulder.
This
is
growth
raw
growth
for
this
project.
A
AR
I've
seen
a
lot
of
changes,
but
one
of
the
things
that
really
disturbs
me
is
is
the
amount
of
misinformation
that's
out
there.
Unfortunately,
you
know
hearing
the
people
from
fraser
meadows.
They
buy
this
this.
This
idea
that
the
only
way
you
get
flood
mitigation
is
through
annexation,
and
that
is
totally
wrong.
AR
AR
I
find
that
hard
to
believe
I
I
my
personally
got
over
200
signatures
for
the
petition.
None
of
those
people
were
agreeing
that
they
favored
this.
Now,
how
can
I
interview
200
people
and
read
that
in
the
paper
70
of
the
people
want
this?
There
is
so
much
misinformation
out
there.
The
fraser
metal
people
are
are
part
of
that
misinformation
deal,
they
buy
it,
they
drink
your
kool-aid,
so
listen
just
put
slow
down
and
and
listen
to
the
voice
of
reason.
A
AB
Hi
my
name's
ed
smutney.
I
live
in
the
highview
neighborhood
adjacent
to
the
cu
south
property
above
it
first
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
am
a
strong
proponent
of
public
safety
like
I
think
feel
that
that
should
be
number
one
by
far
like
the
highest
priority,
and
it
is-
and
I
do
see
this
as
a
hostage
situation
with
the
cu
southland
and
I
do
not
feel
like
you
know.
The
the
situation
has
that
public
safety
and
the
public
needs
as
number
one
like
what's
good
for
the
community.
AB
Everyone
talked
about
traffic.
There
are
things
about
the
annexation
draft
annexation
plan
that
don't
limit
things
enough
and
see
you
being
a
sovereign
entity.
If
it's
not
really
detailed
and
careful
they'll
run
away
with
it,
at
least
that's
my
fear,
and
it
is
a
fear,
the
the
land-
I
don't
see
a
time,
but
the
land
there's
no
limit
to
the
size
of
residences.
AB
AB
I
was
able
to
access
the
draft
annexation
plan
eight
days
ago,
when,
thankfully,
a
community
member
emailed
me
the
correct
link
the
email,
the
the
mailing
I
got
in
the
mail
on
monday
last
monday
had
an
incorrect
website
listed
and
at
least
it
wasn't
fixed
until
last
thursday,
the
latest
that
the
earliest,
because
I
checked
wednesday
night
and
it
still
said
page,
not
found
the
meeting
that
was
held
last
wednesday
evening.
There
was
barely
any
opportunity
for
public
questions.
They
were
through
a
chat
and
no
no
chance
at
all
for
a
foul
question.
AB
If
the
answer
wasn't
sufficient
to
the
asker,
so
is
that
public
engagement?
I
don't
think
so
this
having
just
two
minutes,
I
looked
online.
There
are
a
lot
of
emails
sent
in
by
the
deadline
two
days
ago,
which
was
amazing
because
there
was
a
limited
amount
of
time
to
respond.
Imagine
how
many
you
would
get
if
there
was
another
week
or
two
and
how
much
how
much
precious
feedback
you
would
get
that
you
could
consider
in
this
annexation
plan.
AB
A
B
AB
A
AB
AB
AB
A
B
AS
AS
As
a
former
professor
of
statistics,
I
know
that
supposedly
rare
major
events
can
reoccur
in
a
relatively
short,
therefore
period
strongly
support.
The
proposed
agreement
worked
out
between
boulder
and
cu
as
it
lays
out
a
plan
for
more
timely
flood
mitigation
with
limited
development,
including
affordable
housing
that
benefits
both
parties.
AS
AT
AT
I
urge
your
support
by
achieving
this
goal
as
well,
and
I
would
note
housing
is
another
major
concern
in
boulder
and
also
for
the
university
of
colorado
itself.
I
support
the
plans
presented
and
urge
acceptance
to
potentially
facilitate
faculty
recruitment
in
a
city
where
many
professors
can
no
longer
afford
to
live
where
they
work.
Thank
you.
A
B
AQ
AD
Yeah,
good,
okay,
I'm
kate,
dawson
resident
of
boulder
county
for
43
years
and
then
for
the
past
six
years
at
frasier
matters,
retirement
community.
I
read
the
materials
and
visited
the
site,
I'm
a
member
of
the
resident
council.
It's
a
group
of
24
people
who
were
elected
by
their
others
by
their
peers
to
represent
us
and
recommend
how
to
administer
this
place,
and
I
brought
up
to
them
that
we
should
do
something
about
this
issue.
AD
We
were
lucky
not
to
have
any
deaths,
we're
not
so
lucky
this
week
in
larimer
county
with
one
person
dead
and
three
missing
in
a
flood,
and
we
haven't
been
so
lucky
in
germany
last
week
with
170
dead,
we
may
get
a
hundred
year
flood
sooner
than
we
expect.
So
I
urge
you
to
support
this
annexation
proposal.
AD
A
L
We
can
hi
I'm
jim
morris.
I
live
in
south
boulder.
I
oppose
this
annexation.
I
like
this
place.
I
like
noticing
patterns
patterns
of
cracks
in
the
ice,
the
colors
of
sunset
clouds,
the
calls
of
meadowlarks
and
frogs
here
are
some
quotes
about
nature
and
valuing
it
thoreau
in
wildness
is
the
preservation
of
the
world
muir
the
sunshine
flows
not
on
us,
but
in
us
the
river
flows
not
past
us,
but
through
us
near
as
long
as
I
live
I'll,
hear,
waterfalls
and
birds
and
winds.
L
If
there
is
magic
in
the
world,
it
is
contained
in
water,
lauren,
eisley,
david
brower.
You
want
a
place
where
you
can
be
serene
that,
if
you
can,
if
you
need
bee,
can
stir
you
up,
as
you
were
made
to
be
stirred
up
until
you
blend
with
the
wind
and
water
and
earth.
You
almost
forgot,
you
came
from
extinction
is
not
something
to
contemplate.
L
It
is
something
to
rebel
against
jonathan
shell,
develop
a
boundless
ethic
which
contains
all
living
things,
schweitzer
sit
by
a
river,
find
peace
and
meaning
in
the
rhythm
of
the
lifeblood
of
the
earth
visit
wetlands
watch,
colors
change
at
dawn
and
dusk,
hear
bird
songs
and
the
war
of
wings
in
leaning
into
the
wind.
We
make
ourselves
receptive
to
the
world's
profuse
beauty
and
we
become
exuberant
more
fully
alive.
L
Sandra
lebarsky,
immerse
yourself
in
nature,
quietly,
listen
smell,
watch,
taste
and
touch
nurture
your
conscience,
protect
nature,
defend
the
garden
of
your
spirit
when
the
last
individual
of
a
race
of
living
things
breathes
no
more
another.
Heaven
and
another
earth
must
pass
before
such
a
one
can
be
again
william
bibi
and
we
traveled
together.
Passengers
on
a
little
spaceship
depended
on
its
vulnerable
supplies
of
air
and
soil,
all
committed
for
our
safety
to
its
security
and
peace,
preserved
from
annihilation
analysis
annihilation.
L
AC
AC
Is
that
because
there's
no
law,
no
regulations
or
any
requirements
that
see
you
do
anything
to
comply
with
city
policy
or
state
law
or
anything
else
that
anything
that
the
city
wants
see
you
to
do
must
be
incorporated
into
this
agreement,
and
if
it's
not
see
you
can
go
its
merry
way
and
do
whatever
they
want.
So
I
think
it's
extremely
important
that
those
things
be
pinned
down.
We
can't
have
this
draft
agreement
with
so
many
things
that
are
left
out
undefined,
not
even
considered.
AC
Let
me
give
you
one
example:
I
live
quite
close
to
tantra
drive
and
mixed
in
with
all
the
discussion
about
the
transportation
caps.
Is
the
sort
of
somewhat
subtle
note
that
says:
tantra
will
be
used
for
bus
traffic
as
a
secondary
route.
Now,
whatever
bus
traffic,
there
is
isn't
going
to
be
included
in
the
transportation
caps
apparently
so
they
could
run
a
bus,
every
five
minutes
up
tantra
right
through
our
neighborhood,
and
it
has
no
effect
on
anything.
AC
That's
simply
one
example
of
there's
so
many
loose
ends
that
I
think
it's
it's
very
much
premature
for
the
board
or
the
council
to
adopt
this
annexation
agreement
at
that
point.
Essentially,
what
we're
looking
at
is
a
big
cul-de-sac
of
natural
property,
and
I
think
that
it's
difficult
to
figure
out
where
the
roads
are
going
to
be
where
the
hub
is
going
to
be
or
anything
else,
and
that
needs
to
be
pinned
down
very
clearly
before
this
board
can
make
a
fair
assessment
and
approve
or
deny
it.
A
Thank
you
bruce,
okay,
so
we
are
over
well
over
halfway
through
the
people
who
have
signed
up
in
advance,
and
so
when
we
get
back
from
a
five-minute
break,
we'll
hear
from
ken
ken
by
tell
mike
marsh
and
matt
benjamin.
In
that
order,
I
do
see
people
are
starting
to
raise
their
hands,
who
might
want
to
speak,
who
didn't
sign
up
in
advance
and
that's
great.
The
one
person
who
does
have
their
hand
up
doesn't
have
a
full
name.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
We
found
that
with
zoom
and
with
sitting
in
our
in
our
places
in
our
homes
and
trying
to
concentrate
that
actually,
we
kind
of
need
a
little
bit
more
frequent
breaks
and
it's
been
discussed
on
planning
boards.
So
I
appreciate
the
community
bearing
with
us.
I
know
it
means
that
that
you
don't
have
something.
R
A
A
C
A
A
F
A
C
C
A
F
A
AU
A
AU
Thank
you,
david
thanks,
cindy
ken
baitel,
the
chair
of
wilderness
conservation
and
table
mesa
resident
thanks
also
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I
represent
more
than
800
citizens
in
favor
of
the
creation
of
the
meadowlark
open
space
at
cu
south.
With
your
permission,
let's
consider
what
are
the
legal
risks
of
this
proposal
next
slide.
Please
next
slide.
AU
AU
The
annexation
proposal
is
incompatible
with
the
endangered
species
act
more
details
on
page
26
of
the
attached
document.
Next
slide,
please.
Likewise,
it
is
incompatible
with
the
federal
clean
water
act.
Why
do
these
legal
risks
matter?
Defense
of
endangered
species
at
cu,
south
in
south,
boulder,
creek
state
natural
area
may
trigger
years
of
project
delay
or
outright
project
rejection.
AU
Taking
everything
back
to
square
one.
Public
safety
city
council
originally
wanted
500
year
flood
protection,
as
did
residents,
but
after
a
stern
letter
from
cu
city
council,
reduced
protection
to
a
mere
100
year
level
to
allow
cu
enough
buildable
land
for
a
massive
campus
as
planning
board
members,
your
key
role
might
be
safeguarding
public
safety.
Is
there
a
higher
priority?
AU
500
year
flood
protection
can
be
built
within
three
years
and
at
one
third,
the
cost
to
taxpayers.
By
rejecting
the
annexation
proposal
tonight
and
recommending
a
cu
north
land
swap
or
tonight
you
could
vote
yes
to
just
100
year,
flood
protection
and
potential
years
of
legal
delay.
Thank
you
for
voting
for
public
safety
and
500
year.
Flood
control.
A
A
AV
Great
cindy,
I'm
going
to
forego
my
slides
tonight
if
that's
okay,
I'm
mike
marsh
and
martin
acres-
and
you
know,
as
I've
been
listening
to
the
conversation
tonight,
it
occurs
to
me
to
reflect
on
whether
we
as
a
city
and
the
society
are
still
capable
of
critical
analysis
and
critical
thinking
in
science.
You
may
enter
into
something
with
a
hypothesis,
but
in
the
face
of
new
data,
you
have
to
be
able
to
admit
your
initial
hypothesis
was
inaccurate
and
then
modify
your
theory.
AV
AV
AV
AV
They
further
waited
and
waited
until
after
cu
and
boulder
valley,
school
district
had
gone
totally
remote
before
counting
traffic,
and
so
we
proceed
with
these
things
and
accept
as
carte
blanche
items
that
are
either
false
or
gerrymandered
or
simply
not
true.
Please
reject
this
annexation
agreement.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
mike
and
the
next
speaker
will
be
matt
benjamin
and,
while
he's
getting
queued
up
crystal,
if
you
could
unmute
and
just
say
the
word
hello,
it
would
move
your
screen
onto
the
top
and
we'd
all
be
able
to
see
you
at
least
wow.
There
you
go.
Thank
you
and
now
we'll
turn
it
over
to
matt
benjamin.
You
can
go
ahead
and
use.
W
W
I
want
to
express
my
support
for
the
draft
annexation
agreement
between
the
city
and
cu
boulder,
even
though
this
is
one
of
the
most
complex
negotiations
the
city
has
ever
embarked
on
and
through
the
thousands
of
hours
of
work
and
nearly
a
decade
of
public
input.
This
still
comes
down
to
a
very
simple
question
of
values:
do
we
value
life
and
do
we
have
an
obligation
to
protect
the
lives
of
nearly
2
500
people?
I
value
life.
I
know
and
expect
each
of
you
on
planning
board
to
value
those
lives
as
well.
W
These
residents,
our
neighbors
friends,
grandparents
and
co-workers,
are
no
safer
today
than
they
were
eight
years
ago.
Just
look
at
europe
and
china.
They
are
experiencing
catastrophic
flooding
like
we
did.
These
extremes
will
certainly
come
back
to
boulder
sooner
rather
than
later,
since
the
2013
flood,
we
have
had
three
presidents
and
nasa
designed
built,
launched
and
landed.
The
perseverance
rover
on
mars,
of
which
many
cu
researchers
and
students
worked
on.
It's
also
a
helpful
reminder
that,
at
the
same
time
frame
we
have
not
dug
an
ounce
of
dirt
toward
building
flood
protection.
W
By
the
time
the
flood
protection
gets
built.
Kids
born
the
year
of
the
flood
in
2013
will
be
close
to
starting
high
school.
With
this
draft
agreement,
we
can
change
the
narrative
and
put
boulder
on
a
path
to
providing
the
essential
flood
protections
our
neighbors
need.
Perhaps
we
can
beat
nasa
this
time
around
by
having
flood
protections
in
place
before
their
next
rover
and
sample
return
mission.
AQ
W
At
mars,
in
2028.,
this
agreement
contains
an
immensely
long
list
of
community
benefits
and
has
met
or
exceeded
all
the
criteria
that
were
defined
by
the
guiding
principles
stated
in
the
boulder
valley
complex.
This
agreement
isn't
perfect,
but
it
is
undoubtedly
the
best
deal
the
city
can
get.
It
is
time
we
move
forward
and
allow
the
thousands
in
harm's
way
the
confidence
to
sleep
a
little
easier
than
they
have
in
the
last
eight
years.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
AW
Okay,
I
should
be
there.
You
are
all
right.
This
is
rhonda
pugh.
I've
lived
in
martin
acres
for
38
years.
I'm
not
representing
any
group
two
items
in
the
draft
annexation
agreement
are
vague
and
need
to
be
tightened
up.
First,
each
way
in
and
out
of
cu
south
constitutes
a
trip
when
both
ways
are
counted.
The
english
language
has
a
phrase
for
that.
We
call
it
a
round
trip,
but
nowhere
in
the
annexation
agreement
is
the
phrase
round
trip
a
pair
appear.
AW
So
it
therefore
follows
that,
for
example,
the
5500
daily
trip
cap
for
south
loop
drive
means
2
750
trips
in
and
2750
trips
out,
but
this
needs
to
be
defined
in
the
definition
section
at
the
beginning
of
the
agreement.
Otherwise
cu
might
say
that
they
actually
meant
5
500
round
trips,
which
would
actually
mean
11
000
daily
trips
on
the
south
loop
road.
AW
Second,
it's
good
that
the
annexation
agreement
says
that
as
cu
south
has
built
in
stages
and
begins
to
open
in
stages,
each
stage
must
meet
the
trip
cap.
Compliance
before
the
next
stage
can
be
built,
but
the
only
trip
cap
number
mentioned
in
the
annexation
agreement
for
south
loop
road,
for
example,
is
5500
daily
trips,
but
that's
for
when
the
entire
site
is
totally
built
out.
AW
The
point
is
when
the
site
is
25
built
and
25
percent
of
the
site
opens,
it
should
have
to
be
in
compliance
with
a
trip
cap
of
25
percent
of
5
500,
which
is
1375
trips
for
south
luke
drive.
But
nowhere
is
this
clarified
in
the
annexation
agreement,
unless
it
is
cu
may
say,
when
the
site
is
25
built
out,
hey
we're
only
at
4
000,
daily
trips,
and
since
that's
not
5500
trips.
AW
AW
A
B
AS
AG
AX
Can
can
you
hear
me
now
we
can
okay
good.
There
are
profound
moral
choices
to
be
made
concerning
our
decisions
on
the
south
florida
creek
flood
plain
the
story
on
the
annual
christmas
bird
count
and
what,
if
our
attends
concerning
environmental
degradation,
should
give
us
all
pause
despite
the
wealth
of
protected
lands
in
the
county
and
a
citizenry
attuned
to
their
conservation
values,
we
are
failing
in
our
efforts
to
preserve
wild
nature.
AX
Two
of
these
studies
make
the
case
that
to
address
the
central
issue
of
our
times
to
halt
and
reverse
the
current
ecocidal
courts
fully
half
the
planet
needs
to
be
set
aside
for
wild
nature,
audacious
as
proposals
to
secure
half
the
planet
as
biodiversity
preserves
may
once
have
sounded.
The
best
conservation
science
tells
us.
This
is
what
is
necessary
if
the
specter
of
the
sixth
extinction
and
climate
chaos
is
to
be
averted.
AX
AX
These
ecosystems
serve
as
critically
important
sinks
for
greenhouse
gases.
The
advent
of
the
car
of
the
coded
19
virus
has
only
highlighted
the
impacts
of
humanity
across
the
planet.
It
has
opened
our
eyes
and
hopefully,
our
hearts
to
the
plight
of
mother
earth,
recalling
the
old
rule
of
wild
medicines
where
the
danger
grows
grows
also
that
which
heals
thank
you.
AN
A
AY
AY
The
reason
why
is
that
the
intersections
surrounding
this
property
are
already
at
or
very
near
capacity,
so
there's
no
capacity
for
increasing
traffic
at
peak
periods,
and
there
needs
to
be
a
special
standard
for
the
peak
periods
of
traffic,
not
just
the
average
traffic
throughout
the
day.
Thank
you
very
much.
Y
Hi
this
is
peter
mayer.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
great
peter
mayor
1339
hawthorne.
I
am
the
co-chair
of
plan
boulder
county
first,
I
want
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
all
the
thousands
of
citizens
and
volunteers
who
work
to
preserve
open
space,
protect
threatened
species
and
prevent
encroachment
and
development
into
our
last
undisturbed
floodplain.
Over
the
last
50
years,
we
have
documented
citizens,
boards
councils
and
commissioners.
Efforts
to
protect
this
land
dating
back
to
1972.
Y
Please,
for
the
love
of
boulder
do
not
make
a
hasty
recommendation
based
on
what
is
obviously
an
unfinished
agreement.
The
rush
draft
cu
south
annexation
agreement
was
not
provided
to
the
public
until
about
5
pm
monday
on
july
12.
A
mere
10
days
ago,
you've
heard
many
many
of
the
serious
reasons
why
this
agreement
is
flawed.
Tonight
you
have
received
written
comment,
extraordinary,
written
comment
that
was
prepared
in
a
remarkably
short
period
of
time
by
a
dedicated
group
of
volunteers.
Y
These
are
not
people
who
are
being
paid
cu
staff,
they're
being
paid
to
tell
you.
You
know
why
you
should
accept
this
annexation
agreement.
The
citizens
who
have
worked
on
this
for
50
years
have
done
this
because
they
love
boulder
and
they
care
about
not
encroaching
in
the
flood
plain.
Please
heed
the
thousands
of
people
who
have
signed
a
petition
who
would
like
to
have
a
vote
upon
an
annexation
agreement
and
who
would
also
like
to
have
an
annexation
agreement
that
actually
includes
a
site
plan.
AZ
Yeah,
you
can
hear
me
now.
Yes,
you
can
yeah.
Thank
you.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
evening.
My
name
is
scott
sternberg,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
boulder
economic
council
2440
pearl
street.
I
think
it
was
mentioned
earlier
this
evening
that
the
word
of
the
night
is
stamina.
AZ
So
thank
you
for
your
stamina,
but
I
would
also
say
thank
you
to
all
of
those
that
came
before
us
in
the
stamina
that
they've
exhibited
in
carrying
this
issue
over
the
decades
and
just
the
recognition
that
all
of
us
need
to
exhibit
stamina
going
forward
as
this
program
and
and
as
this
proposal
goes
forward
and
into
the
next
decade.
So
as
we
were
so
vividly
reminded
in
2013,
these
conditions
upstream
can
have
dramatic
impacts
on
resources
downstream.
AZ
The
agreement
will
provide
the
80
acres
of
land
to
the
city,
allowing
them
to
begin
building
the
45
flood
protections
for
the
residents
downstream.
You
know,
with
the
increased
intensity
of
severe
weather
events
that
have
been
demonstrated
recently
from
climate
change.
Flood
mitigation
needs
to
be
a
priority
that
must
be
addressed
sooner
rather
than
later.
AZ
One
of
the
greatest
economic
challenges
facing
boulder
is
the
availability
of
workforce
housing.
The
proposal
the
proposed
development
will
fill
a
much
needed
gap
by
easing
housing
pressure
throughout
boulder
by
introducing
a
greater
range
of
housing
options
enabling
employees
to
live
where
they
work.
These
residents
will
have
both
a
direct
and
indirect
impact
on
our
economy
through
their
increased
participation
in
local
community
events.
AZ
Lastly,
the
agreement
further
upholds
and
codifies
the
shared
values
outlined
in
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan.
The
creation
of
open
space,
recreational
facilities
and
pathways
will
be
appropriately
woven
into
the
landscape,
thus
creating
a
smooth
transition
between
our
residential
and
natural
environments.
AZ
A
S
S
S
In
addition,
in
this
plan,
up
to
five
acres
of
this
land
will
be
allocated
to
affordable
housing,
which
is
another
key
priority
of
the
city
if
it
hopes
to
meet
its
housing
goals,
and
for
me
that
is
hugely
important
and
and
a
big
reason
why
I
support
this.
As
well,
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
this
is
a
binding
agreement.
It
spells
out
the
ways
in
which
cu
will
be
adopting
city
regulations,
for
instance,
adhering
to
the
55-foot
height
limit.
S
A
BA
A
BA
BA
It's
been
a
multi-year
effort
and
I
really
appreciate
that.
You
know
the
most
critical
thing
here
is
flood
protection
for
people
in
south
boulder
who
are
at
risk
and
I'm
glad
that
there's
there's
an
agreement
on
the
table.
That's
going
to
provide
that
as
well
as
just
a
lot
of
other
amenities,
which
are
you
know,
providing
that
really
needed
housing
in
this
community
for
for
not
just
the
university
but
people
associated
with
university,
putting
putting
open
space
into
our
system.
I
think
these
are
all
huge
benefits
that
the
city
is
getting.
BA
I
want
to
really
focus
on
the
transportation
aspects
which
you
know
I
I
live
on
moorhead
or
I
live
very
close
to
moorhead,
and
I
really
appreciate
the
thoughtfulness
and
the
commitment
of
the
trip
cap
from
cu.
You
know,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
concern
is
that
moorhead
will
be
used
as
a
as
a
thoroughfare
for
for
travel
between
between
the
cu
south
site
and
the
university.
BA
BA
AA
AA
The
current
version
of
this
agreement
contains
many
vague
and
confidential
contradictory
clauses
regarding
the
city's
protections
and
binding
obligations
that
need
to
be
clarified
and
that
were
glossed
over
in
the
city
and
cu
summary
overviews
tonight.
However,
this
agreement
also
contains
a
glaring
omission.
AA
And
if
the
citizens
initiative
passes.
It
is
subject
to
the
results
of
a
city-wide
election
on
the
agreement
itself.
Adding
a
clause
to
this
effect
will
allow
city
council
to
approve
and
take
credit
for
the
agreement,
while
still
acknowledging
and
enabling
the
citizen
initiative
to
proceed
to
a
vote
in
november.
AA
If
the
council
approves
an
agreement
without
a
clause
to
this
effect,
the
issue
will
not
be
that
the
agreement
was
approved
before
the
november
election.
The
issue
will
be
that
the
council
acted
in
bad
faith
by
negotiating
and
approving
the
agreement
after
they
knew.
This
initiative
met
the
criteria
to
be
on
the
november
ballot.
BB
BB
There
was
an
article
published
in
reuters
today
about
flooding
and
climate
vulnerability,
and
it
stated
that
such
storms
could
be
14
times
more
frequent
by
the
end
of
the
century,
and
this
is
a
big,
long-lasting
investment
and
we
need
to
future-proof
it,
and
we
also
need
to
protect
frasier
measures
from
future
events,
so
that
14
times
more
frequent.
That
means
that
a
thousand
year
level
protection
in
the
past
will
be
worth
70
years
at
the
end
of
the
century.
What
does
that
mean
now?
BB
A
Thank
you
ellen,
okay.
So
before
we
go
to
paula
mosley,
I'm
just
taking
a
look
over
here
at
our
attendees
list
and
I
see
three
hands
up
so
far.
So
we'll
call
on
those
three
people
after
paula
and
the
first
person
is
still
gman.
So
if
there
is
any
way
you
can
put
your
real
name
either
on
there
or
q
a
it
to
gene.
BC
BC
It
is
far
too
vague.
One
area
in
the
draft
that
needs
tightening
is
regarding
what
happens
if
the
city
can't
build
the
dam.
The
the
language
is
so
vague.
It's
almost
like
we're.
If
we
can't
build
the
dam,
we're
going
to
ask
cu
to
maybe
let
us
out
of
the
agreement.
Well,
we
need
really
strong
language,
like
the
city
shall
not
be
obligated
to
provide
services
to
see
you
if
we
can't
get
the
permits.
BC
The
city
shall
be
relieved
of
all
obligations
in
this
annexation
agreement.
We
really
need
to
tighten
up
these
things
because
you
know
I
love
cu.
I
graduated
from
cu,
but
I
don't
believe
they
have
the
best
interests
of
the
citizens
of
boulder
for
the
city
of
boulder,
and
you
know
in
mind
if
cu
it,
it
appears
that
cu
is
holding
the
flood
mitigation
area
hostage
in
order
to
be
allowed
to
develop
its
property.
BC
It
feels
like
we're
being
bullied
into
accepting
an
unnecessary
development
in
south
boulder.
Why
aren't
we
asking
cu
to
infill
on
their
other
existing
properties?
Why
is
the
idea
of
densifying?
Why
isn't
the
idea
of
densifying
being
promoted?
Sadly,
cu
is
actually
proposing
to
sprawl
further
across
town.
BC
BC
A
A
A
Okay,
well
we'll:
let's
go
on
and
now
move
on
to
dorothy
cohen,
followed
by
mike
troplus
and
cleela,
and
then
I
have
a
paul
cool
and
coolman
who
was
promoted
to
be
able
to
speak
earlier.
But
somehow
I
don't
have
him
on
the
list
so
we'll
check
on
that
after
sila.
I
guess
so.
First,
let's
go
then
to
gosh
dorothy.
F
D
D
BD
Three
reasons.
I
think
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
number
one:
public
safety,
100
versus
500
year
plan.
We
keep
hearing
how
many
people
in
homes
will
be
protected.
500
will
protect
1800,
more
people,
800,
more
homes,
450,
more
structures
if
cu
doesn't
develop
at
the
site.
The
cost
difference
between
100
and
500
year
is
6
million
dollars,
41
million
versus
47
million
16
percent.
When
the
2013
flood
damage
was,
I
believe,
64
25
million
in
the
500
year
zone
versus
9
million
30,
some
percent
in
the
two
in
the
100
year.
BD
That
looks
like
a
great
investment
number
two,
I'm
going
to
make
john
gerstle
smile,
aldo,
leopold's,
first
rule
of
intelligent
tinkerine
keep
all
the
parts
if
cu
develops
atlanta
would
be
needed
for
500
year.
Today,
it's
not
available.
If
it
turns
out,
we
need
it.
Three
jobs,
housing.
It
looks
to
me
with
750
square
feet
of
non-residential
and
840
new
students.
Next
year,
the
1100
housing
units
will
make
the
jobs
housing
imbalance
worse
on
the
whole
and
there's
more
flexibility
at
the
reserve
for
more
housing.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
K
K
K
It's
it's
just
crazy
that
we're
in
the
city
apparently
is
in
a
very
poor
negotiating
position
where
we
cannot
just
say,
let's
deal
with
the
flooding
rather
than
let's
have
urban
sprawl,
so
we
can
deal
with
the
flooding
see
you
should
infiltrate.
We
had
another
speaker
just
a
few
minutes
ago
said
this
see
you
should
infill.
They
should
not
be
spreading
out
across
the
county.
K
K
That's
not
what
they're
going
to
build
there
so
get
people
out
of
their
cars.
We
need
to
stop
burning
fossil
fuels
and
this
development
is
car-centric.
It's
just
classic.
Let's
burn
more
gas,
so
I'm,
I
think,
there's
better
solutions
and
you
need
to
look
for
them
and
cu
needs
to
look
for
them.
Thank
you.
A
A
R
A
X
Great
thanks
so
much
we
would
love
to
provide
a
response.
First
of
all,
we
want
to
thank
everyone
for
your
comments
tonight,
we're
a
long-standing
partner
in
the
community,
and
we
value
the
opportunity
to
be
part
of
this
monumental
negotiation
without
precedent
by
annexing
boulder
south.
The
city
of
boulder
and
ceo
boulder
can
protect
lives
through
urgently
needed
flood
mitigation
and
help
alleviate
boulder's
severe
housing
shortage.
X
We
urge
the
planning
board
of
residents
to
reject
the
set
of
false
choices
that
some
of
the
opponents
have
introduced
and
repeated
continuously.
Over
the
last
few
years
we
can
have
flood
protection
and
continued
public
access.
We
can
protect
the
landscape
and
build
a
new
community,
that's
designed
for
a
fossil
fuel-free
world.
X
I
also
want
to
reiterate
that
this
agreement
is
the
result
of
thousands
of
hours
of
working
together,
see
you
in
the
city
have
agreed
to
more
than
80
pages
worth
of
binding
commitments.
This
is
not
a
rush
process;
it
has
entailed
thousands
of
hours
of
discussions,
public
outreach,
research,
staff,
evaluation
and
public
scrutiny
scrutiny.
X
I
do
want
to
complement
city
staff,
the
planning
board
and
the
public
for
digging
into
what
is
definitely
a
difficult
and
complex
agreement
and
remind
the
board
in
the
community
that
many
of
the
concerns
that
we've
heard
tonight
are
directly
and
explicitly
addressed
in
the
annexation
agreement.
I
would
also
welcome
the
community
to
visit
our
cu
south
boulder
website,
which
is
located
at
www.colorado.edu
cu,
boulder
south.
This
has
a
comprehensive
set
of
faqs
on
the
agreement.
X
We
heard
tonight
that
traffic
housing,
open
space,
habitat
protection,
climate
change
and
restoration
are
key
values
for
the
community
and
the
planning
board.
We
share
those
values
and
your
feedback
is
really
appreciated.
We
will
continue
to
work
to
finalize
the
details
of
the
agreement.
Based
on
your
input
on
the
question
of
climate
change,
I
want
to
reiterate
that
this
agreement
will
allow
a
significant
number
of
our
faculty
staff
and
students
who
currently
drive
for
miles
to
get
to
campus
to
now
drive
minutes.
This
will
reduce
vehicle
miles
traveled
and
significant
carbon
dioxide
emissions
every
year.
X
I
also
want
to
state
that
increasing
our
supply
of
attainable
housing
for
our
affiliates
in
boulder
alliance,
not
only
with
our
sustainability
goals,
but
also
with
our
communities,
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
goals.
We
want
to
be
able
to
attract
faculty
students
and
staff
to
our
campus
and
our
community.
X
This
annexation
provides
an
incredible
opportunity
for
open
space.
119
acres
will
be
preserved
in
alignment
with
the
goals
of
the
boulder
valley.
Comp
plan.
36
acres
at
the
site
will
be
dedicated
for
flood
mitigation,
and
development
of
the
site
will
be
limited
to
roughly
one-third
of
the
entire
site.
X
X
A
A
A
I
should
have
said
this
in
order
by
by
phil
kleisler,
putting
up
a
slide
to
kind
of
summarize
the
key
issue
and
maybe
kind
of
put
context
around
it,
and
that
would
open
this
up
for
additional
questions
so
that
that
slide
would
go
up
say
on
the
general
guiding
principles
would
be
the
first
one
we'd
all
look
at
that
ask
our
remaining
questions
and
then
go
into
that
deliberation.
We
could
do
that
in
order.
Does
that
seem
reasonable?
A
L
G
A
Yeah,
okay!
Well,
we
could.
We
can
think
about
that
now,
I'm
just
wondering,
though
they
aren't
particularly
detailed.
Those
nine,
nine
or
ten
areas
aren't
completely
very
detailed
there.
For
example,
in
the
guiding
principles.
We
would
talk
about
general
principles.
I
mean
you
know
the
open
space,
the
pk,
the
pub
the
buildable.
You
know
it's
laid
out
in
transportation.
You
know
they.
They
fall
into
general
categories.
G
Suggesting
that
at
the
beginning,
as
we've
done
before,
that
got
a
bunch
of
smart
people
at
the
table
who
bring
a
lot
of
different
concerns
and
have
heard
heard
the
public
and
read
the
material
through
their
own
area
of
interest
and
expertise.
And
it
would
be
really
helpful
to
hear
what
each
of
each
of
us
okay
is
highlighting.
And
then
we
can
try
to
sort
it
into
the
into
the.
The
three
main
questions.
U
Sounds
like
you're
asking
for
two
things.
One
is
like
really
just
like.
Do
we
want
to
do
around
at
the
beginning
to
make
sure
we
hear
what
people
have
to
say
and
then
two,
and
maybe
this
is
a
different
way
of
phrasing.
Your
question,
like
maybe
everybody,
can
just
be
responsible
for
seeing
if
any
concerns
that
they
have
or
things
they
want
to
discuss,
somehow
don't
fit
into
three
key
issues,
and
then
you
can
raise.
Those
is
an
additional
key
issue.
A
I
I
I
generally
agree
with
sarah.
I
I
think
it's
fine
to
deal
with
the
issues
as
framed
by
staff,
but
there
will
certainly
be
others
that
are
not
completely
in
those
three
issues
that
staff
have
raised
that
are
relevant
for
us
to
talk
about
and
and
so
whether
that
happens
at
the
beginning
of
the
discussion
or
the
end,
I
think,
is
less
important,
but
we
need
to
have
that
opportunity.
A
That's
interesting:
well
I
mean
yeah
and
you
just
said
something
that
maybe
people
would
want
to
consider
which
is.
Would
it
be
good
to
see
if
everything
you
know
what
fits
into
the
key
issues
and
then
have
of
a
sweep
at
the
end
for
anything
we
didn't
get,
I
I
have
no
opinion
on
which
is
better
and
sarah
you,
you
wanted
to
do
it
up
front
so.
G
I
just
I
I
think
brian
said
it
very
clearly
from
on
on
my
behalf,
so
thank
you,
brian
just
that
it
helps.
I
think
it
does
help
us
to
see
where
there
might
be
issues
that
someone
brings
up,
that
there's
just
zero
other
board
member
interest
in
discussing,
and
then
we
can
let
that
go.
But
there
might
be
issues
where
we
have
a
lot
of
common
ground
and
and
okay.
A
A
Yeah
I
mean
we
may
even
and
you're
right
I
mean
we've
actually
hit
on
things
like
oh
kind
of
a
structure
of
let's,
let's
make
a
list
of
of
say,
recommendations
that
we
want
to
consider
as
we
go
through.
So
during
that
initial
round,
we
might
kind
of
figure
out
how
we
want
to
do
that
kind
of
housekeeping
as
we
go
through.
Okay,
so
we'll
do
that.
Any
other
suggestions.
A
Okay,
it's
nice
to
know
that
we
can
advance
how
we're
going
to
deliberate
so
yeah.
This
is.
I
agree,
sir.
I
think
that
this
was
interesting
and
one
thing
that
I
also
think
about.
Well,
this
is
kind
of
getting
into
debrief,
so
let's
wait
for
the
debrief
and
actually
do
one.
So
the
other
thing
on
deliberation
is.
Last
week
we
experimented
with
spinning
a
wheel
to
see
who
talks
first.
Do
you
like
that?
Or
would
you
rather
just
wait,
raise
your
hand?
Have
people
raise
hands?
G
C
I
got
one
thing:
yes,
I
was
in
the
process
of
texting
this
to
crystal,
but
I'm
just
gonna
say
it
out
loud
that
way
it
was
getting
along
and
just
so
folks
at
home
know
this
too.
If
they're
still
listening,
this
will
be
available.
Tonight's
meeting
will
be
available
hopefully
friday
tomorrow,
but
it
might
not
be
until
monday,
because
I'm
at
the
mercy
of
the
communications
department
to
get
it
to
me
and
so
and
then
I
send
it
over
to
tva
to
load
it
onto
the
website
and
everything.
So
it.
AC
C
F
E
E
So
when
the
board
reconvenes
next
week,
if
there's
new
information
that
you'd
like
to
rely
on
or
you
think
should
be
known
to
other
board
members,
you
can
introduce
it
into
the
record
next
week
and
I
will
also
be
joining
you
next
week,
because
helipanna
wig
will
be
on
vacation
still.
So
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
all
again.
A
A
I
enjoyed
driving
the
public
comment
too.
I
think
that
was
a
a
nice
way
to
kind
of
have
the
board
interact
that
it
didn't
really
occur
to
me
until
this
week.
For
some
reason
we've
been
doing
it.
I've
been
doing
it
that
way.
So
then-
and
another
thing
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
just
to
think
about-
is,
I
think,
for
the
public
having
us
limit
the
time
for
questions
really
gave
them
a
very
concrete
time.
A
The
public
comment
starts
and
it
kind
of
kept
us
really
disciplined
in
raising
our
most
important
questions
quickly
and
clearly.
So,
let's
think
about
that,
because
I
I
think
what
happens
sometimes
is
in
q,
a
there's,
this
sort
of
desire
to
jump
in
and
start
to
make
points
and
this,
and
that
and
it's
human
nature,
it's
totally
natural
to
want
to
do
that.
A
G
I
just
wonder
from
I
want
to
hear
from
aaron:
is
it
kosher
to
I
mean
I
thought
we
were
the
structure
of
our
meetings
were
kind
of
set
in
stone
and
that
once
we
got
to
deliberations,
we
weren't
supposed
to
ask
questions.
We
were
discouraged
from
asking
questions
of
staff,
but
if,
if
we
have
the
option
to
remain
in
dialogue
with
staff
during
deliberations,
you
know
week,
I
think
it
would
be
easier
to
think
about
david's
suggestion
that
we
really
limit
the
that
questions
to
staff
period
before
public
comment.
G
A
So
we're
thinking
about
maybe
in
general
trying
to
do
what
we
did
tonight
and
limit
the
time
frame
for
our
clarifying
questions
after
the
staff
and
applicant
presentations,
because
sometimes
those
can
get
quite
attenuated,
and
I
know
that
we,
during
deliberation
later
on
at
the
chair's
discretion
we
can
bring
in
the
staff
and
applicants
for
comments
and
questions.
If
we,
if
we
need
to,
does
that,
does
that
mean
that
we
yeah?
We
can
do
it
out?
E
A
C
E
So
my
comments
address
since
the
board
members
are
going
to
be
out
and
about
you
know
doing
their
daily
lives.
Reading
the
newspaper
they
may
come
across
opinions
and
if
it
was
a
quasi-judicial
matter,
we
wouldn't
want
them
to
have
any
sort
of
other
information
outside
of
the
public
hearing.
But
since
this
is
legislative,
if
they
run
into
that
it's
okay
and
if
it's
anything
new
and
they
want
it
to
be
considered,
they
can
put
it
into
evidence
or
mention
it
next
week.
But
the
public
hearing
is
closed.
A
So,
just
one
point
on
that,
then
we
probably
will
see
emails
and
that's
just
like
any
other
place.
Those
emails
won't
go
in
public
records
as
part
of
what
we
saw
today.
However,
if
we
see
them
and
it
triggers
in
us
something
we
can
bring
it
next
week
correct
with
so
emails
are
included,
not
just
newspaper
articles
or
conversations
people,
okay,
great.
N
E
A
I
think
that
we
should
plan
on
it,
because
it
could
really
make
our
deliberation
much
more
efficient.
If
we
know
that
there's
been
something
that
we
don't
have
to
or
the
okay,
we
know
that
something's
happened.
I
think
it
would
be
useful
for
us
to
to
know
that
coming
in,
if
that
could
be
presented
in
an
effective
way.
John.
I
E
AG
I
No,
but
I
mean
our
recommendation,
if
I
understand
correctly,
is
something
that
we
need
to
know
what
what
the
final
version
of
what
we're
being
asked
to
make
a
recommendation
on.
So
if
it,
if
there
are
still
changes
going
on
after
we
have
made
a
recommendation,
then
what
is
the
validity
of
that
recommendation?.
E
G
I
think
aaron
that
there
are
members
of
the
board,
who
would
disagree
with
you
that
there
are
minor
issues
to
be
resolved
and
which
is
not
to
say
that
we
can't
make
wreck.
We
can't
find
our
way
to
recommendations
that
will
be
helpful
to
council,
but
this
is
not
I
dotting
and
t
crossing,
so
I,
I
think,
john's.
What
john
is.
G
A
G
A
If
there
are
adjustments
made
to
the
annexation
agreement
between
now
and
next
week,
regardless
we
can
now,
then
we
don't
have
to
talk
about
them
now.
If
somebody
sees
a
red
flag
that
oh
my
gosh,
this
is
so
major.
We
can
talk
about
it,
then,
of
course,
but
I
think
we
need
to
know
what
the
what
the
changes
are,
but.
I
U
U
U
E
Well,
you
know,
I,
I
guess
I
don't.
I
understand
your
perspective,
there's
nothing
that
requires
staff
to
have
it
fully
negotiated.
Before
going
to
the
planning
board.
You
know
they
feel
that
they
are
in
a
solid
enough
shape
where
they
want
to
put
it
out.
They
want
to
get
your
feedback
community
feedback
and
don't
expect
major
deal
points
to
change
that
there's
going
to
be
language
refinement,
as
we
hear
things
and
people,
you
know
point
out
terms
that
they
think
are
vague
or
inconsistent.
I
A
G
So
I'm
I'm
not
john,
I
wouldn't
use
the
term
final
version.
I
sort
of
think
of
this
as
like
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan,
but
not
the
60
level,
but
the
like
80
level.
I
think
the
problem
I'm
trying
I'm
concerned
about
is
we
are
we're
not.
This
is
not
about
like
making
sure
we're
not
wordsmith.
At
least
I
will
say
that
the
concerns
I
have
are
not
about
wordsmithing
so,
and
you
know
the
the
70
people
from
this
neighborhood
from
the
neighborhoods
who
came
to
speak
to
us
tonight.
G
That,
I
think
we
think,
is
our
job
here
and,
and
I
don't
know
how
we
fix
that
problem,
but
we've
been
working
from
the
document
that
the
80
page
document
and
all
of
the
associated
documents
and
what
you're
proposing
what
I
think
I'm
hearing
is
that
next
week,
there'll
be
a
second
80
page
document
that
we
should
try
to
get
through
and
respond
to.
And
I
I
have
a
that's
problematic
for
me.
A
G
G
E
A
And
next
week,
we'll
we'll
be
able
to
enumerate
anything
that
the
board
feels
the
city
council
should
consider.
In
addition
to
the
recommended
motion
we
could
we
could.
We
could
point
out
any
number
of
things
that
we
think
the
city
council
should
consider
and
that's
our
chance
to
do
it.
But
if
the
council
does
not
accept
any
number
of
those,
it
doesn't
mean
we
didn't
get
the
chance
to
recommend.
I
Yeah
I
I
am
fully
aware
that
the
council
has
the
final
decision-making
authority,
but
I
also
understand
that
planning
board
is
by
charter
required
to
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council
before
city
council
makes
its
decision
and
for
us
to
make
a
legitimate
recommendation
on
a
document
we
need
to
have.
We
need
two
things.
We
need
to
have
the
final
document
with
both
the
language
and
the
substance
finalized,
and
we
need
to
know
that
that
is
what
is
being
considered
by
city
council.
A
Okay,
so
what
what?
If?
Okay,
we
have
a
number
of
boards
to
make
recommendations
on
this
annexation
agreement.
So
what
if
a
different
board
had
a
recommendation?
The
city
council
accepted
that
wasn't
in
planning
board's
recommendation.
Does
that
invalidate
our
recommendation?
I
just
don't
know
where
your
threshold
is
of
having
control
over
over
every
last
change
that
goes
into
an
annexation
agreement
after
we
make
our
recommendation.
I
don't
quite
understand
that
crystal.
O
Then
what
we're
getting?
I
do
not
understand
the
rush.
You
know
if,
quite
frankly,
between
getting
an
incomplete
document
to
planning
board
and
then
having
it
go
to
council
and
yes,
there
are
a
lot
of
loose
ends.
I
mean
we
heard
a
lot
of
discussion
tonight
from
the
applicant
from
our
staff
and
from
the
public.
O
U
It
sounds
like
we've
got
an
opportunity
here
to
look
at
the
annexation
agreement,
which
we
probably
all
have
done
before
this
meeting
and
then
look
at
it.
Any
changes
that
happen
between
now
and
next
week
and
then
make
a
determination
at
the
next
meeting
where
all
these
changes,
like
things
that
you
think
are
minor
or
not
minor.
You
know
and
he's
really
can't.
U
We
can't
review
a
finalized
sign
thing
and
also
have
input
on
it.
Is
that
not
doesn't
logically
work
out
so
there's
always
flexibility
in
what
we
review
before
it
gets
finalized.
It's
got
to
be
revised
to
incorporate
our
feedback
right.
I
think
that's
sort
of
the
point
that
phil
and
aaron
we're
trying
to
make.
U
I
don't
know
what
changes
might
be
a
foot
between
now
and
next
week
and
I
don't
really
feel
like
at
11
o'clock
at
night.
We
should
theorize
on
what
they
might
be
and
whether
they
might
be
important.
I
think
we
should
just
look
at
them
when
we
get
them
and
then
use
our
noodles
and
make
a
decision
then,
as
opposed
to
bringing
their
hands
down.
A
H
G
A
G
P
A
A
I
A
I
Yeah,
I
I
think
that
we
really
need
legal
guidance,
because
I
do
not
think
that
we
are
doing
following
the
charter
if
there
is
a
if
we're
not
dealing
with
the
final
version
of
the
agreement
in
developing
our
recommendation,
that's
one
thing.
The
second
thing
is,
I
don't
know
if
we're
following
proper
public
public
process
either
by
ask
by
changing
the
document
after
the
public
has
had
the
chance
doesn't
have
any
chance
any
longer
to
comment
on
it.
Well,.
A
That's
what
I'm
about
to
ask
john
aaron?
Could
we
ask
for
a
statement
on
this
to
be
prepared
for
next
week's
meetings
so
that
we
don't
stay
here
until
midnight?
We've
been
here
for
literally
45
minutes
on
this
little
conjecture,
exercise
aaron!
Is
that
something
that
the
legal
department
could
brief
us
on
in
detail
as
to
the
inner
workings
of
how
we
can
deal
with
the
fact
that
sometimes
things
that
we
recommend
aren't
final?
Absolutely
thank
you.