Hi, everyone. Happy New Year. I would now like to call the January 19th, 2022 Longmont Sustainability Advisory Board meeting to order. Please start with a roll call. Awesome. And if everybody could just let me know that they're here by just saying yes here present that would be great. Lisa Noblak. Here. Francie Jaffe. Here. Erin Fosdake. Here. Thanks, Erin. Debbie Seidman. Here, thank you. Becky Doyle. Here. Kate Collardson. Here. Jim Metcalf. Here. Mary Lynn. Here. Charles Musgrave. Here. Adam Reed. Here. Kate Volmeier. Here. Robert Davidson. Present. Excellent. Chair, we have a quorum. Fantastic. I'm going to read our land acknowledgement statement. I want to acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Ute and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first peoples have with this land. It is our commitment to face the injustices that happened when the land was taken and to educate our communities ourselves and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. So on to the annual review of duties and responsibilities. Who is reviewing that with us? So Tammy, I don't know. I realized we may need to move this to the next meeting. That's something that's had that Heather usually does with us. And we move some other things and I apologize that I didn't touch that one. So. If it's okay with everyone to move that to the next meeting, you will mind if we do that. That works for me. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, then let's move on to approval of the minutes of the last meeting, which I'm very sorry that I missed. Anyone who was there. Please go ahead and make a motion. I motion to approve the minutes. I second that motion. All in favor. I seems anyone opposed. Mary, I didn't see your hand. I wasn't there. Oh, great. Um, okay. Thank you. It seems that the. The motion has passed. Okay. Do we have any members of the public who would like to be heard today? Is that still a no. Still a no. All right. Then let us move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the agenda, the revisions and submissions of documents. Okay. Anyone have any changes. For the agenda. Just really quickly, if we could swap. A and B, we have Aaron, and Hannah Mulroy from planning. So if we could let them go ahead and go first, then they can. Pop off and then we can. Sounds great to me. Thanks. Do we have to, do we have to officially say that we're moving item five to next week? I don't know. It seems like an agenda change. That has been officially said. I heard you. Great. So. With all of those changes, let us move on to item nine B. We will hear about steam and the sugar mail project update from Aaron. I'm Aaron Faustic and I'm a principal planner with the city of Longmont. And I'm joined by Hannah Mulroy. Who is our environmental and sustainability planner. I don't know if you've had a chance to meet Hannah, but we wanted to, I think you have. Correct me if I'm wrong, Hannah. I don't believe I've had the honor of being here before. So hello everyone. Okay. So Hannah recently joined our team last year and we're incredibly excited to have her. And I think this board will be excited as well, because obviously she's working on a lot of things that are probably near and dear to your heart. So I asked Hannah to join me today. She's working with planning staff and other folks in the city on our. Sugar mill and steam sub area plan. So Tammy. I assume you will pull up the presentation rather than me sharing my screen. Is that how we do it at this board as well? I'm totally trying to do that. But I'm not going to do that. So Erin, if you can share your screen, maybe we'll just go with you real quick here. Okay. Let me start the slide show so that you guys don't see me fumbling around. Okay. I've never gotten to share my screen officially at a board and commission meeting. So. Well, there's a first for everything, right? This will be, this will be exciting. There you go. Perfect. Okay. You guys can see this. Okay. So what I can't see super great now is everyone on camera. So if you have a question, what, as we're going through, maybe just shout to me and that'll be my cue since I'm navigating a couple of screens. So that's also why I'm looking to the side. So what we want to go over today is just really to give you an introduction to this exciting planning project. Council member Martin has heard some of this. So bear with us, but we wanted to just introduce the project, which we're, we've, we've been working on for a couple of months now, but are really trying to generate some interest in the community and start getting some preliminary feedback. So today we'll give you an overview, show you some maps, go through our goals and some preliminary market information. And then just really open it up if you have questions or overall comments. I do also want to note that this presentation was, has been modified from the original that was provided by our consultant team when we presented to council. And so we are working with a team led by Stan tech. To help us through this. So this is a presentation just to give them credit that they started putting together. So in terms of the study area, the scope and purpose, really what we're trying to do is create a detailed sub area plan. For what are essentially two sub areas, but we're looking at really as one overall sub area. And that will be the sugar mill site, which is kind of on the Eastern portion. And then the steam area, which some of you may be familiar with, um, through conversations with council. Our focus on this will be to look at opportunities and challenges associated with this 250 acre study area. We really want to think about urban design and place making opportunities. Also really want to look at multimodal connectivity. There's some real opportunities in this area. And there's some pretty significant challenges in that realm as well. And we'll talk about that a little bit more. As there is continued development interest in this area. We want to talk about infrastructure, utilities. And we want to talk about phasing and what the role of the public and private sectors should be. In realizing the vision for this area. We've developed some high level goals for this project. You can see those here. Um, we know housing remains incredibly important for Longmont. And we think this area is one where we can encourage some meaningful housing options. Um, and that would include a range of housing types, price points, ownership and rental opportunities. We know all of those things are important. And we think this area can, um, is really a great location to think about some of those things. As I've mentioned, transportation, and connectivity are important. So we really want to think about how this study area provides, um, both regional connectivity, but also local transportation options. Um, within the site into the, to the broader area. There's some development interest in this study area. And so we want to make sure that those development opportunities are connecting within the study area, that there's a cohesive vision. And that those also contribute to what's already developed in Longmont. As we think about the community benefit of this area, we want to think about how we incentivize and encourage cultural arts facilities, community hubs for creativity and innovation. There's a lot of momentum around this. And we want to figure out how we can build on the great things that are already going on downtown, that are already going on at the quail campus with the museum, um, and beyond. And then obviously near and dear to your hearts, um, a focus on sustainability. So thinking about what are those long-term, solutions from a sustainable building standpoint, um, and development practices, and how can we really weave that in to ensure that this site develops in a sustainable and resilient way. Just to kind of set the context. I mentioned that there's a lot of interest. Um, and you can see here, the study area is outlined in pink. Um, we've had a couple of pre-application meetings in and around the sugar mill area. We've had some in and around the city. Um, and we know that there's already a number of projects that are either under construction or working their way through the development review process. And so you can see some of those here. And those are things that we're trying to pay attention to. So again, that we ensure, um, kind of that cohesive vision, um, that we're going to lay out. We've got a question. Can I just, can I just jump in really quickly? Yeah. Would you mind with not, not spending too much time or going into too much time. Um, but I'm not sure that folks are, are super familiar with the development review process or the pre-app process. Can you just give folks like a. You know, high level one on one real quick. So they know what you're talking about in this context. Absolutely. I'll give you my elevator pitch. And then if you guys have more questions, you can ask them. Um, so we have a pretty robust development review process. And you know, people go through major and minor projects. Um, so we have a pretty robust development review process and, you know, people go through major and minor applications. It really starts with the highest level, which is properties that are within the planning area, but not yet annexed to the city. And so as you'll see in a second, when we look at zoning, some of the properties in and around the sugar mill aren't even in the city yet. They're still in Boulder County. And so they're part of our planning area. We anticipate they'll become part of Longmont someday, but they haven't yet been annexed. And so that would be a very early development review process that we're going through. So we're going to look at some of the properties that we're going to do. We're going to look at some of the properties that properties would have to go through. Once a property is annexed and has zoning, then they are able to develop within the city. They have to create lots. So they have to go through a subdivision process to create buildable lots. And so some of these properties are in that process where they're, you know, creating lots for buildings. Once there's lots developed and infrastructure in the, in the ground, essentially, um, that's where we're going to look at some of those properties. And so some of these, you'll see, um, that are mixed use developments or multifamily developments. They're really going through that site plan process. And that's really where we look at all the details to make sure that buildings are meeting our density and dimensional standards that they're meeting our parking requirements, our landscaping requirements, our design standards. And so we have a lot of things that, um, our development review committee, which is comprised not only of planning, but of building services, public works, public public housing, current housing and public building systems. We have also developed some of the property development, and we've created some of the projects that have been developed to create other groups. Um, are all taking a look to make sure that city standards codes and regulations are being met. And so these projects are all in some varying state. And you can see, um, you know, some of them like this project here is South Main station. That's obviously mostly constructed. They're still constructing the final building. process, preliminary plotting, and are working their way through earlier stages in the process. And so this represents really kind of a smattering of where things are in the process. We have an active development log, if you're curious about any specific project, and that provides more detailed information on what the application type is, who the applicant is and who the project manager is. And Hannah and I could certainly give you information on any individual project, but that's really a high level snapshot of kind of what you can expect if you're going through our development process, you're at one of those phases, either minor or major, and you're being reviewed against a bunch of standards. Some of these projects are going to our planning commission for decision. Some are going to city council and then some are staff level decisions. Does that help Lisa? Hey Erin, I have a follow-up question if you don't mind. Sure, yeah, of course. As part of this review process, do you consider that half the steamer it looks like is in a floodplain? And like what sort of mitigation is part of the review process? Absolutely. So our floodplain manager is part of that development review committee team that I mentioned. And so we obviously have floodplain regulations. Those are part of our municipal code just as our land development code is another section. And so you're absolutely right. There are some constraints with the floodplain in terms of development potential. Different uses have different allowances for what can be built. Generally we don't like to see building within the floodplain. And so there's obviously a large project with the resilient St. Brain project that I'm sure you've had presentations on and are aware of that will remove significant portions of this area from the floodplain. But we're actually looking at that, particularly on kind of the southern portion of the sugar mill. There's some mining and reclamation that's being planned for a small portion of that site. There's some, I'll say marginal wetlands in proximity to that site. And so we're really looking at that as an opportunity. Is there a way we could maybe work with our open space group to provide for some regional satisfaction of open space and parks? Is there a way we can look at green infrastructure on a broader scale and do some low impact development that really recognizes the floodplain, the wetlands and some kind of marginal development potential on there? So yes, we're specifically looking at it at a high level through this planning process. That being said, every development application that comes in would need to look at that on a much more detailed, from a much more detailed standpoint and they'll be required to do drainage studies and kind of show all of that information. There's also setback regulations in terms of riparian areas. So there's a lot of additional things that development applications are gonna look at that we're not necessarily looking at through the sub area planning process, but certainly as part of Hannah's job, she's taking a look at some of those things. Again, our floodplain manager is, some of our public works engineers are reviewing some of the drainage information. So that's all being considered, typically at a plat, but even more so at a site planning level. Does that help? Yeah, that's very helpful. And what I can add is my understanding is Fort Collins endured a pretty terrible flood in 1997 and they really recovered from it and put the proper mitigation in place. And when the 2013 flood came with, they had very minimal damage. But I remember correctly it was like they had no severe structural damage to buildings. And so I wonder if there's something that can be learned from what they did to apply to projects like this. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Thinking about how we become more resilient in the face of those types of disasters is absolutely one of, not necessarily a goal with this sub area planning process, although it's important, but I think a higher level goal. And I know I've talked with this group about our comprehensive plan. I know you're intimately familiar with the sustainability plan. And so I think there are some real opportunities to continue to think about broader implications for land use, for where we place buildings, what uses are where, and then what types of physical improvements we make in an adjacent to our river. And I know that we're doing some of that with the Resilient Same Brain Project, but I think there's definitely opportunities to look at what some of our neighbors have done, what other folks nationally and even internationally have done. So I think you're spot on with that. And that's something we're really interested in. Kind of as it makes sense at a high level for this project, but I'll definitely take that message back to folks as we think about updating our comp plan. Any other questions? I want to say really quick. I would say, Adam, I think that the floodplain itself actually on this one, dips down kind of right now, it's much more aware of that cost that Erwin Thomas is, because that's the kind of overflow plane that's there, that property that was like slated for mining. I'm not sure if that's still up for grabs as a mining or if Costco and Erwin Thomas means it's going to be a Costco or the mine. Is that what it means? So I am not the project planner. So I will give you what I understand it to be. The Western portion is slated for Costco. And so there's a portion of this property that's been zoned for regional commercial. And then the Southern portion, which is not on this map has been zoned for housing, but the Eastern portion is still slated for mining activities. And so we do have some more detailed plans on that project on our website, but you're absolutely correct that that, there's a portion of that property that would be mined and reclaimed. So the Costco would be on this Western side, you can kind of see where it dips down here, everything to the East is still planned to be mined and reclaimed. Okay, so in that reclamation, that will most likely become those water reservoirs and it'll kind of become part of that floodplain. So your water has that additional floodplain to move into, instead of going up into the steam area and instead of going up to the North, it's going to be draining, it's going to come down to the South kind of along where the river already flows naturally and through those mining areas into that old river bed that kind of heads down that way. So that's kind of where your floodplain is, I think on this map anyway, Adam. So I'm not sure how much within that actual steam area is will get hit with much, but go ahead, sorry. No, I appreciate that. I am not a floodplain expert and do not even attempt to play one on TV. So any other questions before I advance? We don't need to spend a lot of time on this, but I do like to show this. This study area has a pretty complicated pattern of land ownership. There's over 60 property owners. We have been trying to meet with individual property owners to see what their vision for the area is and how might we create a plan that really supports them moving forward to help achieve what the community envisions. And so you can see, especially over in downtown, a lot of smaller individual property owners and a lot of them don't have plans to do much different from what's there today and that's fine, we wanna support that as well, but this is really just to show kind of the complex ownership patterns in this general area. As I mentioned, a lot of this area is within the city. Most of the area in the eastern or western portion of the study area, kind of in the steam area, so to speak, is already zoned for mixed use development. And so as we'll see in just a second, there's been a number of planning initiatives that have kind of addressed this area already. As you move to the east of Martin street, the fair majority of the project area is not actually within the city yet. And so that'll need to go through an annexation process, but it's still possible to go ahead and look at a subarea plan, which we're doing now. The rest of the area is generally zoned for mixed use employment, which permits a variety of uses. There's a lot of open space. There's a great network of open space. Obviously along the river, I'm sure many of us know that and enjoy that today. And so we think that creates a real opportunity for this study area and creates a really nice opportunity for interfacing with trails, open spaces, natural areas that are kind of forming this east-west spine in Longmont. As we look at connectivity, you'll begin to see a theme as I show you the next few maps. The western portion of the study area has a lot more porosity. It's a lot more connected. You can see the downtown grid is present here. As you move further east, there is a lot fewer street connections. And so this is something we really need to look at. Also really need to look at how we interact with the railroad. There's some railroad crossings that are at odd angles. As many of you may know, it's challenging to do different things with the railroad crossings. I'm sure council member Martin is aware of that with the work we've been doing on quiet zones. And so that's something that we're taking a look at. But obviously as we think about connectivity, as we think about place making, our street network is incredibly important. And that's not only true for vehicles, but also for pedestrians. And so similar, you know, there's a lot of pedestrian scale infrastructure with sidewalks, side paths, off-street trails. And same with bike infrastructure. There's some on-street facilities. Again, primarily focused in the west, a little bit fewer in the east. And you can see a lot of those sort of end at Third Avenue. And so one of the things we're really looking at is what is the role of third? How could that possibly evolve? And how could we really create some of those connections to the north, the neighborhoods to the north, as well as Mill Village to the southeast, which I think, you know, there's residents there that would really like to see some additional connections back to the city. And this might provide a really good opportunity. So we'll be looking at all modes. Yes, I see council member Martin. My spacebar still doesn't unmute me. I just actually had someone ask today what the connectivity plan is for Mill Village to have an easier time accessing the greenway without walking on or riding on the shoulder of expressways. Do we have anything preliminary that I could use to dangle in front of his nose? You know, we've actually had a little bit of outreach from a few residents in Mill Village, with this project, but also as you know, beforehand. So I think there's, you know, there's not a significant distance to get there, but if you're on a bike or on your feet, it might feel like more than it is. So there have been some discussions about, you know, ultimately there would be a path, you know, on the south side of 119, when that gets built and who builds that, I think it's not a funded project, you know, but obviously there's also some opportunities with future improvements and signals on the north side to connect potentially north ways. So I think those are things we're gonna need to evaluate. We don't have any specific recommendations yet, but I imagine as we take a look at these network alternatives, there'll be some things that we can work with transportation planning, as well as public works engineering to kind of come up with what that preferred solution is. And I would hope I will urge them, you know, that that would include a kind of an off-street solution for Mill Village to access the greenway and the trailhead down here at 119th. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I guess briefly, Erin, as a follow-up to that, on that map, I just got thinking of, it looks like you could have a bikeway connecting the green area around Pace Street down to the bikeway on South Ken Pratt. I don't know what the feasibility of that is. Yeah, that's a really interesting observation. And one of the things that we're talking about on our current comp plan, we show Pace Street going all the way through and connecting as an arterial roadway. You know, Pace is 119th Street. And so our comp plan shows a connection here. If you've been out to the site, which I realize a lot of people haven't because there's not a lot you would go out there for, but it's a really impressive place. It's got great views. But what you'll see is there's some hugely significant grade changes and development that make that sort of a cost prohibitive from an arterial roadway standpoint. But that's one of the things that we've talked about is would it be possible to create a multimodal connection? So maybe a bikeped connection. Would it be possible?  So would it be possible to do something that kind of utilizes the infrastructure that's in place with maybe minimal improvements that doesn't need to be designed to an arterial roadway standard? And so that's one of the things we'll definitely be looking at. But yeah, the grade change is pretty significant, but it's also very attractive because there's a signal there, right? Which makes it a bit safer. And then lastly from a connectivity standpoint, again, similar theme, the western portion of the study area is pretty well served by local transit. The eastern portion, not so much. Although certainly there is rail that kind of serves this site. So that offers maybe a much longer term opportunity for transit, but certainly we will be looking at bus service and the role of transit in this study area. Can I just ask one question? Sure. So on the previous figure, the one that showed, yeah, this guy. So I was looking at it and you had said that, maybe re-envisioning some other role for third avenue and the third avenue from like main east, I guess, or it comes around. And then you were talking about pace, the potential of pace becoming more of an arterial road. And it seems like then we're starting to like cut this up into like arterial roads for cars as opposed to places that people will live. And it's something I do worry about sometimes that about how much of this design will be so that people can move through it quickly and how much of it will be focused on people who actually live there or who are gonna be there. And I was just kind of curious if there was any guidance on, not that I necessarily wanna slow people down, but so much of our nice areas of town are really just fast roads for people to move through quickly. And if we're thinking about something that's new, I just wanted to know if like guidance on like overall traffic impacts for places like third and pace, if there is guidance on that or if that's just still part therefore too early in the process. I think it's definitely something we're evaluating. I could manage to get myself in real trouble here because I don't have our transportation planner or engineer here. And so I can go off on what I think as a planner. But I will say, our approach is really considering place making. And I think you're spot on that it's not impossible but more challenging when you have large roadways that are moving in high volumes of traffic to create really great places. I will say pace and third are both arterial right of ways. Now that's how they're classified. I think what we're looking for is opportunities for connectivity. We haven't gotten to the point of defining what those look like. My impression would be that based on the type of place and character that we're considering that we've sort of already started to hear from people and that we've talked with developers about that we wouldn't be talking about more six lane arterial highways. And interestingly enough, our consultant team brought up the idea of third. And that's a big right of way, right? For those of us who drive it or walk on the north side of it, it is a big right of way that sort of the design of it does facilitate maybe faster traffic than what some of us would like. So that's one of the ideas they had is how comfortable would the city be kind of re-envisioning third? And I don't think that's something as staff we've really evaluated fully, partially because we haven't seen any concepts of what that might look like. But one of the things they talked about is what if we did create more porosity and more crossings and really slowed things down? What if we changed lane widths and usage of that right of way to something different that changed the character of that? What would that do in terms of helping us tie this area together and not having third kind of act as a boundary, so to speak? And so I think that's absolutely something we'll identify. And create some options around, right? And then we'll test those, right? We've got to actually have people who look at traffic design and signalization and look at the data. Obviously, I don't wanna speak for them. They'll evaluate that, we'll make some recommendations and then ultimately see kind of what the community thinks. I had a question, it's kind of related to that. I wonder about whether the existing infrastructure that surrounds this area can support additional development. And specifically, it seems like Ken Pratt between about sunset maybe in Main Street has reached its vehicular volume capacity at certain times of day. And that if a significant development in this area that would use that, Ken Pratt south of Maine or west of Maine as a feeder into this area, it seems like traffic and congestion is a nonlinear effect. So adding volume as something that's already near its threshold for reaching maximum capacity, it really pushes that back further. And so we have congestion even further back into the 119 corridor, for example. Is that something that's already being thought of? Because it seems like it's already a pretty significant problem at our current level of traffic volumes. Yeah, so that's definitely something that we evaluate. I mentioned our development review process. And so we have folks from our transportation team that are evaluating specific projects. And so that's really done at kind of an individual development proposal level through looking at traffic studies. But one thing we also do is kind of take a step even further back. And we do a lot of working, not only just as Longmont, but as a region, taking a look at the traffic model and tying that with our growth and employment projections to really see what our roadways can accommodate. And so our traffic folks, when I say traffic folks, I'm really talking about transportation planning and public works engineering are evaluating that. And there's a number of different strategies that they can look at to address that, all the way from lane additions, which I don't think most people wanna continue to see increasing pavement for a number of reasons. But I think we've been pretty successful in Longmont with making intersection and signal improvements. And so there's lots of different ways that they'll look at, how could we address increased traffic? From this subarea plan perspective, we're not going into that fine level of detail, but certainly we've always anticipated from a planning perspective that this area would develop, right? That it's going to be more than a vacant factory, right? We've always anticipated that there would be traffic generated. And so our roadway system and our future roadway system has been planned to handle that. Again, we'll test those things once we get individual development applications and we will require traffic impact studies. But you're certainly right, we need to think about what those implications are. That's one of the reasons too, we wanna look at additional connectivity because right now there's not a lot of options, right? For accessing the sugar mill, there's a few roads and then there could be choke points, right? So if we create additional capacity in the network by having more streets, there's more options for people to travel, right? And it may help with congestion of some of those other roadways. So those are all things that will be evaluated either with this process at kind of a higher level or through the development process when things are coming in for development. Right, that definitely makes sense. I understand that. And one other kind of maybe even a higher level question is we have the Envision Longmont plan that I think was approved by council in 2016. How much do we kind of map the goals of a development like this onto the Envision Longmont plan or vision for the city? And maybe a separate question is how long, because Envision Longmont was basically the thoughts of the people who provided input into that in the middle of the last decade. And so at some point those thoughts become maybe obsolete or a little bit out of date with the change in demographics, the change in the nature and culture of the city, even technology and things like that. So is there a pretty active comparison back and forth between Envision Longmont vision and how a very significant development like this would fit into that? Yeah, I'll give you a quick answer and then I do see Kay that you have your hand up as well. We definitely consider previous plans and I do have a slide that kind of shows on how this effort will build on a lot of previous work including the Envision Longmont plan. And so obviously as you know, that's a pretty high level plan. That's kind of our vision for the future and it's not as specific as this will be in terms of kind of parcel specific suggestions for land use, place making, urban design, but it's absolutely an input. With regard to your second question, yes, it's a living document and we do need to update it to make sure that we're keeping track of how the community's values and vision have changed. And so we actually have money budgeted this year to update that and the sustainability plan. We find that those plans are really good companion plans. And so we wanna not only update them as documents together, but also talk with the community about what adjustments do we need to make in terms of our values and visions and what isn't reflected or what could be better reflected? What else is important to us to your point? What new technology exists? And so we can definitely talk more about that. Super interested in this group's feedback. I will go to Kay and then I'll go to Council Member Martin. Perfect, thank you. Sorry, I've got a long list here. I wanna say, because you're just kind of on the steam and Envision Longmont, I'm gonna jump in with the quick steam project question. The steam project I know when it took off, it took off with a lot of steam. There's gonna be entertainment units. There's gonna be access for this here, recreation here, performing arts here, innovation centers here. Yes, we've got the innovation center down on Quail Road now. I'm looking on the website right now for an update because no, I don't track the stuff daily. I have a job. But I wanna say in the times I've gone down, yes, there's development of the, I wanna say kind of lofts and apartments that have been down there. And you've got what we brewing kind of that has expanded to have this great little concert kind of thing over there. But overall, aside from getting the, I wanna say Martin Street kind of park down and done, I've not seen a ton getting developed in steam and even looking at the website, I'm going, well, what are we actually gonna get in the steam area? Is that being, am I jumping the gun and just way too far on the surface right now? Or I guess what is the general progress of the steam area and how fast are we gonna be getting stuff into there? So you do, like I said, before you lose track of what the envision is or changes in the next 10 years while you're trying to incorporate this, or have we just said, all right, well, steam has been on hold because of COVID. So now we're really expanding the area instead. Is that the goal? I think we absolutely wanna build on the visioning work that was done back in 2019 for that steam area. And it sounds like you may have been a person that participated in that, which is great. And so as you know, there was a lot of topic areas and you mentioned several of those and I know council member Martin was heavily involved in that. And so you're right, a lot of things got a little bit sidetracked because of COVID. And so I think now is really a chance to sort of go back to that vision, check the assumptions and go into more detail. That was a pretty high level visioning exercise that looked at kind of what could be, right? And we didn't spend a lot of time testing assumptions. I think now is our chance to do that. And so really thinking about what type of network do we need to support this? What type of uses really make sense and what could that yield? What would a building like this be in terms of its square footage and number of units? How does that match with our code?  That is an area where we do have some properties that are still encumbered by the floodplain. And there's been work that's been going on to do that. But I think that is impacting the development schedule a little bit. But I will say there's a lot of interest and there are some projects, if you remember from that map moving forward or that map of current projects that have started the development process and are thinking about what might be there. And some of those are maybe more in alignment with Steam. Some of those are residential. I will say there's a lot of excitement from some of the businesses that are there. And so that's a really good sign, but I think it will be a bit before we see full transformation of that area, if that's what you're looking for. I was gonna say snapping back to this shot that you had with the ongoing projects out there, I did try and screenshot it and I completely failed. But if you can go back, I would say when I do look at it there in this format, I don't see anything being really planned in that Steam area aside from the mixed use of the small, the red patch. I wanna say that or the orange patch that's right above that 319 unit multiple, where the 319 unit multifamily development is. I was kind of looking saying there's nothing actually proposed within the pink line aside from the multifamily and mixed use development area over to the East. There's not much within, right there. That's where I'm going. That was part of the Steam area that I've been excited about for the last five years or so that I'm saying before we start moving elsewhere and no, I envision things myself for, there's things I would love to see out at the Sugar Mill area, but I'm going, are we gonna end up defaulting and bulking up on housing development in the Steam area instead of the performing arts complexes? Would it be better and more attractive to place those on the very East end of town and make a large entryway into a complex at that area instead of trying to do a bunch of crossroads and put multifamily homes on the corner of town where it is literally the first thing you see when you come into town. Anyway, so my thought was I'm not seeing much in this map that you have up right now that shows that there's much being pushed on the Steam area anymore. And so I don't know where the progress on that is and if we're bringing on to this. And I'm not, I'm trying not to look too much at the outside because I'm going, those are things, those are projects that are ongoing. And maybe we are just at the very beginning of saying we're gonna start annexing this. I know this planning, the planning bit, I know it went out last like September or so, so it's still probably very initial phase for STANTAG. I don't think it's been in their hands that long because I watched that RFP go out. Yeah, and I should probably have mentioned when we talked about our development process, the city isn't the one building most of these things. It's private developers that are coming to us to initiate things. And so if I would have updated this map since we presented, we do have a pre-application meeting for this property. This is city property here. There has been, we have had a few conversations with developers wanting to do stuff here. You're absolutely right. We do have a performing arts study and I'll show that on another slide where we talk about other things that are informing this. So that's absolutely something we're still thinking about. But again, I think there are some, primarily floodplain concerns in this area that need to be addressed before development can move forward. Okay, and I was gonna say, again, I'm going, I know it's developers that have to say, this is my idea and I wanna build it and the city has to decide if they're balancing that, which is gonna be difficult when you have things coming in over a 10-year plan. But again, I thought that was also where this was a public-private partnership and not just dependent on the developers alone, bringing in that the city would be saying, hey, this is our idea and we're hiring someone to sort of build it. Now, I'm gonna jump to another question to get off that because I have a list going here. So that was just, in general, the overarching was where was steam itself and where the plans are in that and where is that going and do we have an update on that eventually? The other question, I wanted to jump to the road's comments that were going on about making these quarters north to south through the Sugar Mill area. I want to say that in my view, Ken Pratt is a direct shot to downtown on the South at and Third Avenue is the only real shot you have from the highway into downtown. And it even provides access for people on the west side of town and the north side of town to come in off 119 without Third Avenue. If we are adding extra lights to Third Avenue, you can tell I live on the west side of town because I'm going to not add more lights to these areas. Other than that, we have Highway 66 which is a two lane highway accessing us on the north. It also is a high accident level. 119 is really the main corridor into Longmont off the highway. If you are looking to add cross areas into the Sugar Mill area, yes, it will slow it down. More intersections will lead to more accidents, everything about it. I would propose looking at, and I'm going to use those little weird Y entry exits that you have off of intersections where you can have a moving kind of moving accident entrance into the area and out of it and then have its own possibly sustainable neighborhood or network system where if there are homes being built in here or there's people traveling into this zone, it can be an exclusive kind of separate zone in its own kind of a micro activity center within the city. I would prefer to see it have maybe bigger access points. They can be four lane access points to get in but something to channel traffic in through an exit entrance maybe with merging versus putting four or five or six lights through. That would be what I would think but I also have always envisioned this more as the ballpark, the major soccer field where you could have a minor league team come play. This to me would be where I would have put that magic beautiful pool in an ice hockey rink. This would have been the area where I say, hey, you've got great access into Longmont off of 119 for those people in Frederick, Meade, everyone to come in and enjoy some excellent income and come into our city, see our city, bring that economy in from the outside in. It's in the middle of a bunch of railroad tracks and the proposal to put in more housing there. I look and say, I think you can go out with your housing. I think that you should try and consolidate your business and your attractions to the center of the city. And this being the easily accessible point, I would look and say you could bring in a lot of revenue. Now, what I'm talking about is nothing to do with sustainability, which is funny and it also brings me back to this is like I probably shouldn't even have this conversation in and say about bringing an economy versus it being a sustainable housing development. And I know this is sustainability board. I will tell you, I did take the quiz the other day to provide my input and it looked like it was maybe what, five questions or something like that. Four of the five focused on what order do you think is most important of the traffic? Is it foot traffic, buses, trains, this? The next question on there was what kind of housing do you think is the most? What would you propose for housing in here? And I'm going, there is nothing in that survey that says what kind of economy would you propose for this area? What kind of traffic, actual pattern and all this? I understand this as a sustainability board and yes, I should be more geared to say these are and they are great concerns. But I'm also going, I think we're at a point now where we know that bus and bike and pedestrian traffic is important. I think we know that it'd be really kind of cool to drop a little short train on that abandoned part and track and run it into downtown with a little trolley or something like that. It'd be pretty cool down there to access these areas. It would almost be an attraction on its own to put a little electric trolley if there's no need for the, if there's, I don't know what's out there on Sugar Mill and how much the train runs on that. But I guess I want to say, the survey that's online to me when I read it, I think it's, I'm in this, like I said, I'm in this sustainability board meeting right now and it is a very highly driven sustainability questionnaire that is out there kind of saying, hey everyone, pitch in your ideas for the steam area. And what I want to say is when I read it, I was like, great, it's a survey so I can feel like I gave you guys input, but really all this is said and done already. This is all pretty basic standard information. I would like to see that survey turn into more things about traffic patterns. Do you think this is a good place for development? Would you rather see economy? Would you rather see entertainment venues going up? Would you rather see a college football stadium in there or something? I don't know, should we put in a giant zoo? I don't know whatever it is. Children's museums, I'm not sure what you could do, you could do a full sustainability museum down there. I don't know, I guess that was my thought is, I took the survey and like I said, it asked me the importance of these sustainability issues, the importance of the equity issues down here, which I'm gonna say that I don't, I can't say STANTEC is really going to take that into consideration and no developer probably will either. So I'd like to see that survey directed maybe even or opened up to more of a, what would you like to see in this development or a direct link to say this is where, we would like to see you guys start dropping real ideas as opposed to a survey that's for public participation, but to me, I look and go, tell me where that number is gonna go, tell me what my input is actually gonna do for this area. And anyway, that was my take on it. And I think that was less than I had. And I know you all love me because I'm the group pessimist. And those are just thoughts, Erin, I don't necessarily need a response, but just thoughts to the area and I may be totally, I'm not in development by the way. That's not what I was talking about. So I hope you were able to put some of those in the other category on the survey, survey is a tool for engagement. So we'll be doing more. I put some things in there on the other, but it was not, I would say it was on my phone, there's not a paragraph right in there. Again, there was no question about what the traffic pattern should look like and stuff. And also when I type something in other, I don't anticipate that someone is actually going to read it when you get responses either. So I guess I'm not sure. I'd look forward to survey number two, three and four to come out afterwards, how's that sound? And we will be doing additional, getting additional feedback on alternatives and throughout the process.  We have standards, we have a process. There's not actually alternatives that have been developed yet. We're still in the sort of visioning high level phase. So I just wanna make sure that that's clear in case I misrepresented that. So, Marcia. Thank you, Erin. I just wanted to, first of all, I wanna respond to something that Kay said, because I have been continually if at a low level involved in the STEAM stuff, which is ongoing. And there is an operational survey, or not survey study going on, that will arm us with costs, addressable markets, stuff like that that the Johnson survey didn't really go very far into, and that will allow all our stakeholders to essentially make a capital-fledged commitments to construct the public-private partnership that is gonna have to happen if this is gonna come to fruition. There's probably a two-year period where you're gonna see nothing break ground because first there needs to be a FEMA flood map study released that validates what's going on with the Resilient St. Vrain Project and particularly with the Army Corps of Engineers Project that is way to the West, but is going to essentially impact where everything goes, what the flood risk in all of this area is. And then the actual work has to be completed and that's what that two years to groundbreaking really is. So you won't see buildings going on on the order of a convention center or a performing arts hall because you wouldn't build something like that and get its foundation flooded while it was on its way out of the ground. But what is going on is again, the economic case being built in real detail and stakeholders essentially doing horse trading in terms of how we would do the land aggregation, what the city might lease, what stakeholders might purchase as land contributions. So that's going on and I'm just saying that essentially to tell people it's not dead, the pandemic has kind of driven it underground, but the work is continuing. The original reason that I had my hand up was regarding Envision Longmont because over the past few years, I mean, Erin probably knows better than I do because it surfaced up to the point where we talk about it with the public and it's a political issue, right? That Longmont needs to go from essentially a suburban style land use code if we're gonna continue on an economic growth path, then we need to look at urban style land use and urban density and transit-oriented development and that is gonna change the parameters of the comprehensive plan for the, at least for the city core. And like I said, I'm probably way out ahead of where Erin is comfortable talking about it, but I thought that since this is sustainability and urban density is a big part of a sustainable urban economy that I would get that out there so that people would be thinking that way. So Erin, do you wanna make me take it back? I will. Absolutely not. I think you're spot on and really even with the Envision update, we recognized that Longmont is moving from a community focused on greenfield development, meaning we're developing vacant, maybe previously agricultural properties to really a community that's more focused on infill and redevelopment. And I think you're spot on that from a sustainability perspective, that's really the type of thinking that we need to continue doing. And so I think we made some strides with our last comp plan update and our last code update, going from one mixed use zone to five mixed use zones, looking at flipping parking minimums to parking maximums. We have, and as we do these sub area plans, we're able to target more specific zoning improvements. So for example, the main street corridor plan that we did in 2019 recommended, looking at some specific things along main street that could do exactly what council member Martin just mentioned in terms of, now we have incentives for building height, now we have the potential to look at parking reductions. And so I'm hopeful that over the next several years, as our comp plan is updated, as our community vision changes that people will be supportive of those types of updates to our code. And right now it might seem like baby steps, but I think we are moving in the right direction. So I definitely appreciate that perspective and you don't need to bring it back at all. So I'll just move us along and kind of close out. I do, and we've alluded to a lot of this. And so I appreciate this group being forward thinking. There's a lot of opportunities with a sub area plan. And I think as we've mentioned, we're not starting from scratch, right? As Kay mentioned and council member Martin mentioned, there's been a lot of work done in the steam area with the visioning that was really led by city council starting, I think in 2018, but really sort of gaining steam, so to speak in 2019. The performing arts study that council member Martin just mentioned, we had sort of a phase one done and we're continuing to build on that. And that's an ongoing effort with the city and several partners. The planning division sponsored an urban land institute technical advisory panel, which some of you may have participated in in 2020, that was virtual where really we had a number of real estate professionals provide some input on the sugar mill area. We, I just mentioned the main street corridor plan we talked about in vision. Obviously we had the first in main street revitalization plan way back in 2012 that sort of set our initial vision for the TOD at first in Maine. From a locational perspective, again, this has been mentioned, this is a great gateway site.  I know Kay mentioned she did. I do all the time. This is an incredible site from a gateway perspective. Also, coming from the South, it's an entry into downtown. And so I think there's a lot of locational opportunities. We've mentioned housing. We know that there's a great need for housing, affordable, attainable and diverse housing in Longmont. And so it's really an opportunity to look at those missing middle types, to also look at higher density housing and really think about how can we not only provide affordable housing, which continues to be a priority for city council, but also attainable housing, which I think there's a lot of folks in the community really talking about. When we looked at that open space slide, you can see the proximity to open space, the proximity to Dickens Farm Nature area, an opportunity to really connect the river, which not only gives us access to trails, but also provides some transportation access. We mentioned the mining and reclamation that will be happening South. And so additional opportunities for open space integration. And then looking at this, looking at this from a best practices standpoint, looking at how Third Avenue continues its transition to become a complete street, how we look at this site in terms of creating urban drainage solutions and thinking about, again, as we were just talking about, as Longmont moves from a more suburban style community where potentially stormwater is contained in large drainage basins, what type of green infrastructure can we look at? What type of regional solutions could we explore? And then obviously, Ben mentioned several times really thinking about this as a cultural hub and how we augment what's already been done and being done in downtown, kind of in the steam area at the museum and quail campus. So lots of opportunities. Also some challenges, and we've talked about some of this. Access continues to be something we think about. Limited signalization, we've talked about the pace extension and some of the grade challenges. We know there's some safety issues in terms of pedestrian crossings, particularly along Highway 119. And then there's obviously the challenge of how do we kind of connect these two study areas and how do we connect the sugar mill to downtown, which is obviously not very far, but if you're getting there now, it's a little bit more limited in terms of how you might do that. I mentioned the railroad crossings. There are some existing crossings. There's some interesting configurations in terms of angles. And so we're exploring, what opportunities we have around that. The river is right there, right to the south of these sites, but not necessarily easy access from all areas. So that may be a challenge we wanna address. And then as many of you can imagine, there's some ongoing challenges with environmental cleanup at the sugar mill. And so this is a slightly deceptive. The phase two is nearly complete. We have been working with Stantec to apply for a grant to help us figure out how cleanup might work. There's development interests in and around the sugar mill that are looking at some of this. And then we've talked about the floodplain issues quite a bit. So those are working their way through. And I appreciate council member Martin giving some more specifics on that. I'm gonna spend just a second talking about the market findings. I think this is important as we think about what the potential is for the study area, both in terms of housing, but also in terms of non-residential development. And this isn't necessarily all specific to the study area. Some of this is a larger trade area and Longmont as a whole. So we know our city is undergoing demographic shifts. We're aging, we're all aging. There's increasing number of children without households. So our household makeup is changing. And that is gonna be a driver for changes in the demand for different types of housing going forward and preferences. And so we're looking at what those opportunities are. We've mentioned missing middle. And so we know that people that are in these different demographic groups and just people in general have different preferences for housing. And that can also be what we term missing middle. So that's smaller single family attached, like duplex, triplex, fourplex, town, homes, tiny homes, different types of things all the way to larger multi-family. We know that our growth is slowing. It might not seem like that. For those of us who have been in Longmont, we do see a lot of projects, but forecasted growth is actually less. And that's true throughout the front range and nationally. So reduced number of births, more limited migration and mobility is changing. And obviously all of this is changing and a little bit unknown with the pandemic. So still the jury is out on what exactly the pandemic means for our economy. But we know that industrial and multi-family development has remained pretty strong throughout the pandemic and that outlook is good. Retail and office are going through what has been termed kind of a great reset. And we did have an economic development professional that's part of SanTech's team prepare this. So this isn't me making this up, but I think it's gonna be really interesting to see what the market is for retail and office going forward as the pandemic continues. And part of that is people are realizing they can work anywhere, live anywhere. And so I think for communities like Longmont, you may have heard of the rise of the small and mid-tier city of which Longmont is, people love these smaller vibrant communities with great downtowns, great amenities, but not necessarily some of the issues that you'd find in larger cities. And so what does that mean for our growth prospects? And really I'll close this portion with flexibility and convenience are driving everything. So people want this in terms of where they live, where they work, how they recreate, where they shop. So really thinking about the opportunities associated with that. And just to let you know, this sort of follows up on what Kay was mentioning. We do want to build on the community and stakeholder outreach that we've already started with some of the previous planning efforts that I just mentioned. We're not starting from scratch. We know people care a lot about downtown and the steam area. We know there's a lot of community interest in seeing the sugar mill redeveloped and reused. And so we're trying to really understand what the communities needs and interests are currently and how can we really build on the redevelopment efforts that are already underway and being planned for in the study area. We want to make sure that we're inclusive and that we're getting a variety of community voices. And so we are doing presentations to different groups. We do have surveys. Obviously it's a little more challenging in this time of COVID. I can't necessarily go out and talk to people as much as I usually would. So we're trying to replicate some of that online, but we do hope to do some youth engagement in a classroom. We do hope to hold some virtual open houses and do different things because we really wanna gather this input and really use the community feedback to help shape the final recommendations that will ultimately go to council. So we have a project page on the city's website. We have a page on Engaged Longmont. That's where the survey that Kay mentioned is currently contained and we'll have some different activities as the project moves forward, including information on the alternatives we develop. You can always call me. I'm happy to present to this group. I'm happy to meet with you or answer questions as they come up. My email should be in the communication, but I'm not really that hard to find. And with that, I know we've taken kind of questions as we've gone through, but I'm happy to answer any additional questions you have or take any additional feedback that you might have. I appreciate the candid feedback that we've gotten so far and I'll obviously share that with the project team. But if you have anything else, please let me know. Could I ask a quick question just in terms of timeline? Like what kind of timeframe are we talking about? When would applications for annexations occur? When would the final plan and vision for this area be completed just to get an idea of how things will progress? So our timeframe with the STAN Tech group, and I'll stop sharing my screen here. Our timeframe for the subarea plan is pretty fast actually. We anticipate wrapping everything up late spring, early summer, and our process would be going to city council to present a final draft plan for acceptance. So in terms of the actual development and annexation, that's really driven by the private sector. We're certainly working with the property owners and interested developers that have properties under contract and are working through things. But in terms of what their timeframes are, those are really driven by investment decisions and their due diligence. And so I don't know that in terms of annexation, those would need to go to city council for an annexation referral first off and we haven't seen anything submitted yet. So those aren't necessarily dependent on the subarea, although I do hope developers that we work with are participating, which most of them are and will kind of be following this process. But I would expect we'd have a subarea plan hopefully accepted. I can't make decisions for council, but I would hope they would accept the plan by summer of this year. And then that can really start to be used to help with the development. Have any developers submitted concept plans yet in preparation for a annexation application? A number of the properties are already annexed to the city. And so there is a property that has had a neighborhood meeting for a preliminary plat and that's just to the east of the sugar mill site and Fairfield residential would like to construct some multifamily housing and then they have a piece reserved for commercial use, I think maybe three or four acres. And so they've submitted, they've gone through a neighborhood meeting and I don't actually know if they've submitted yet but they've sort of started the development process. We don't have any applications for annexation but we have had a number of pre-application meetings and that's really the very first step in the development review process. So we've had some of those in the steam area. We've had a couple of those in the sugar mill area and we'll just kind of accommodate those as they come through. And those are again separate from the sub area planning process, not dependent on it but certainly we're hoping to integrate them as much as we can. Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at is kind of this, the sequencing is hard to control but there's certainly interdependences with what this plan would be and then what the developers will submit and plan. So it's good to know where kind of all these things put together. Thank you. It's always better to be able to point to someone point someone to a plan to say, you know this is our community's vision. This is really what we'd like to see you develop in accordance with rather than like, well, we can't tell you what it is but we'll tell you if you get it right, right? Which no one, that doesn't really benefit anyone. So we're hopeful we can get this wrapped up relatively quickly so it can be used as a guide. Adam, I think I saw that you had a question. Yeah, Erin, thanks for the overview. It was really helpful. One thing I noticed about the presentation is that it seems like there's two sub projects, this steam area and then the sugar mario area. And what I'd like to know is are they being split apart and sort of working in a siloed way or are they working closely together so this whole project is one unified hub? Yeah, that's a really good question and one that I think city council brought up when we presented to them back in December. And I have, I guess, somewhat of a straightforward answer. It is one study area, but I think the way, a good way to look at it would be you can have one study area that's made up of multiple character areas. And so if you participated in the main street corridor plan, that's probably the easiest example, relevant past example. The main street corridor is a five mile corridor that's pretty different from north of 21st to sixth avenue in Maine, right? Those are totally different character areas and our plan recognized that, right? So well, there are certain things that it's important to look at kind of from a cohesive standpoint, right? That there's commonalities with. There's also other things that we wanna look at on a more individual basis. And there may actually be more than one character area, right? So in this area, for example, with kind of the western portion of the study area, that area north of first, so from maybe first to third might look a little bit different than the area south of first to Boston, right? Those might be different characters. That might look a little bit different than the core sugar mill area, than it does the area right up, kind of the wishbone where third in 119 meet. So there might be some different design strategies. There might be some different place making concepts that we look at depending on what those character areas end up looking like. I don't know exactly how that's gonna map so to speak, but I think there are some things, when we've talked about those connectivity, open space, green infrastructure and drainage that will sort of apply to sub area wide and we wanna look at how we connect areas, but there's gonna be some other things that we look at on a more individualized basis. So it's sort of a little both, I guess. Other questions? Let's sing. Listen, I wanna say thank you for being here. It's always wonderful to hear your presentations and I really appreciate you coming to us and sharing what's happening. So thanks for being here. Great job. Yeah, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time and look forward to your feedback. Like I said, and Kay, I'd send this to you if you have email feedback, feel free to send it over to me. And if you guys desire in the future, Hannah and I are happy to come back and give you an update, maybe later this spring, if that's something you guys wanna see. I'll probably be following a little bit more closely online, just watching for things to be posted and like I said, as surveys come up or opportunities come up or I know there's also sometimes that you can click on as like an email for like email when there's an update to the website, whatever, something like that. I'm sure there might be something like that on there if there isn't, that'd be great to find. Okay. But I would say thank you for coming and thanks for the presentation. I know that my questions seem like pounding in many. I've been looking forward to hearing about it ever since I saw it going out because I wasn't aware that they were going to develop that area. I thought the guy was never gonna sell it. And so it was kind of exciting to see, I am in the area of environmental brownfields, all that stuff. So it's also very thrilling to watch all that that's gonna be happening as well. So it's an area I've watched since the day I moved to Longmont wondering what's going to happen with it. So I do have a lot of questions. I would love to track, to follow it closer. I will be following closer as it goes. You know, thank you for the presentation. I was like, kids don't go to the yard today while you're on the ice. I want to watch this. So anyway, thank you, Erin. I do appreciate it. I want to tell you don't let my many questions be a deterrent to anyone. We appreciate questions. It was fun for us planners like that. So thank you very much. And I will see you all soon, virtually probably, but. Sounds good. Thank you. Thanks, son, Tammy. Thanks, Erin. Lisa, what was yours? Excellent. Well, I think my section will go by pretty quickly. Hopefully that was great. I'm glad you all had a lot of questions and feedback for Erin. I'm going to try to share my screen real quick and hopefully this all works out okay. Everybody can see that? See it? I see a hand. Yeah, just real quick before Lisa get started. So I'm sorry. I have to excuse myself at five o'clock and I just wanted to excuse myself now in case it's been past five. I'm on the Boulder County Community Advisory Committee or whatever for the 119 traffic corridor. So that starts at five o'clock. So I'll be shifting over to that. So. Well, no problem. You're doing that. Yeah, yeah. Keep us updated on that one. I know that's been on the radar a bit. Well, I don't think this will take too long. I'm just going to jump in. Feel free to holler if you have any questions. Can everyone see my screen? Okay, should just be a spreadsheet. Yep. Great. So I just wanted to go through a quick overview of what I've laid out for the 2022 work plan for the Sustainability Advisory Board. When we last met in November, since we didn't have a December meeting, we just talked about briefly some upcoming priorities for 2022. And so you'll see those reflected in here. And then I've been chatting with staff from across the organization of other things that are on the agenda for this year that we want to make sure to bring forward to this group. And knowing that in the past, we've kind of done more of a brainstorming of what folks want to focus on. There's so much happening this year and coming up that I want to make sure to be able to prioritize bringing those items to you and making sure that we're getting your feedback and anything else that you want to provide to counsel with those things that are happening. So I did want to present this to you. It's a little bit more prescribed than I think we've done in the past. And you all can let me know if there's anything big that's missing that you want me to look to include. But especially with the Envision and Sustainability Plan updates this year, I want to make sure we have quite a bit of space for this group to engage in that process as it gets going. Yeah, Council Member Martin, do you have your hand up? Yeah, and maybe I should wait and see what everybody else says. But I've been getting a number of emails around fire preparedness for obvious reasons. And a track shouldn't be added for that because a lot of them are sustainability things. Yeah. I don't want to, I don't give direction, right? But I'd like to have, you know, maybe suggest to the group that it be discussed. Yeah, and I'll jump in real quick and then we can kind of circle back to that after our conversation and see if we touch base on that. That's part of the conversation that we're having specifically with the Climate Risk and Vulnerability Mapping Project. We weren't historically, or not historically, but in the process so far, we had been looking most at fire risk and my furnace just kicked on. So please let me know if it's too loud and I can put my heads up. Okay. Mostly we've been looking at the impacts from fire on Longmont more as an air quality issue and it's something that's already included in that. But with the recent fires, we are now, and we have some phase two work for the Climate Risk and Vulnerability Map already budgeted for 2022, but are likely to be looking at wildfire as an additional climate exposure that we want to include in that mapping process. And I've had some just initial conversations with our natural resources folks getting people looped into that to have that incorporated into that bigger picture of climate risk and vulnerability and climate exposures and what we're looking at in terms of climate projections as well. So that to some degree will be incorporated into that process, but if it also necessitates or warrants a standalone focus specifically on fire, that would be the angle I would probably take with regards to sustainability and climate action, but feel free to let me know folks think differently. So just pretty high level. Oh yeah, okay. I was stuck. I was gonna jump in if I don't see you because I can't see everybody. Yeah, I was like, I'm really tiny on the screen right now. I was gonna say as a emergency management junkie because that's the most drama and horror you'll ever think about in your life on things like the fire and the climate risk vulnerability map, I was gonna say consider maybe talking with the OEM and see what the emergency management plans, what they're incorporating and stuff like that.  And I wanna say you can tell that they worked because they got those hospitals evacuated and the senior centers evacuated and that's where they generally will start on an OEM emergency management plan going, putting it into action. Those are the primary areas that do go. So Louisville and Superior did a good, their OEMs did, their plans worked as far as they could get them to work on some of that. And sometimes it's just the beginning level thinking. But I was gonna say yes, on the climate risk involvement or vulnerability analysis and all that stuff there, I would make a point to involve having the OEM review it with you and see if there's anything else that they're thinking of or any input that you could provide because I don't know if they do look at things like the climate analysis and stuff. And that would be something that they would probably be very interested in to work with you on as well. So just another resource. Yep, so I've been keeping our OEM folks in the loop on this process. They haven't been actively involved in the first phase of things other than me letting them know kind of where we're at, but we have talked with them about as we move into the second phase part of which will be, now we have all this information, what do we do with it from a planning perspective? How do we move into that space of making sure then we're starting to more protect our residents against impacts of climate change. And they will be involved in that process. They are, as you can imagine, pretty overwhelmed with everything that's currently going on but they will be involved in that process. And like I said, I've been keeping them in the loop and I've been kind of looking at sort of a two tier response which is really the first of which is the emergency response. What happens in the wake of a natural or other sort of disaster like the fires we just saw and then the longer term resilience piece of what are the policies and programs and things we need to put in place to build greater resilience in the longer term. So that's the planning piece that we'll be looking at next. Yeah, Jim. I mean, it seems even prior to the horrific fires that the impacts of wildfire on our air quality would probably fit into that climate risk and vulnerability component anyways. And it seems like those could actually fit together really well with the discussion. Yeah. Any other questions or comments before I run through everything? So from the general business standpoint. Sorry, I had a question. Oh, yeah, sorry. This is related to the PRPA update. Are we gonna have folks from the PRPA come back and speak to the board or is this just a report summarizing the current status of what they're doing? We'll have somebody from PRPA and probably Dave Hornbacher from LPC that'll do those report or updates. So we'll make sure. Did they ever get back to us on those questions? I missed that. Yeah, we provided you all of that information. Yeah, a couple of months ago. I can resend that to you if you didn't see it. I might have lost it, but I know I missed like a chunk of meetings this fall. So, and it was right when that was going on when we were getting those responses. So. Well, let me know when I can follow up with you. I'll see if I can find it. Okay. So, yep, Charles. Maybe not super related. I have to go in just a minute, but I had a question about you're talking about PRPA. Who replaced Tim Ellis? Who's going to be attending the board's board meetings who replaces Tim Ellis? Yep, Debbie Seidman. So she's on, I don't know if you were at the last meeting when that was her first meeting. So she gave a brief introduction. So she's our new rep from LPC. She runs our commercial benchmarking program. Yeah. Okay, great. So my guess she'll be connected with the PRPA reports and get helping us with feedback. Great. Thank you. I forgot. No problem. So just some general business items. So obviously our work plan and staff and council priorities, the Sugar Mill and STEAM presentation that Erin just cave. And she said she could come back in the March timeframe to get some feedback on the plan as it evolves that she spoke about today. We'll also go through the 2021 year end progress report that we'll be taking to council at the end of March for an update. And then we have our major progress report in August that kicks us into the timeframe which we start looking at the next year's priorities for the sustainability tax grant and then the following month usually. So this might be August, September, September, October depending on when it comes out from the county. But then we'll have an approval letter and a letter of support. The PRP updates, PRPA updates. So we had initially talked about quarterly but Dave said that they have some big business stuff happening early in the early part of the year. So he suggested these months, so April, August and November. Again, we always take December off. I put it on here anyway but we usually don't meet in December because it's close to the holidays. The electrification plan that you all have been kept somewhat up to date on, I know Susan Bartlett from LPC was here in November. She'll be back in February to give you all progress update and then in May to have the draft plan to go through with you for review and feedback. The zero waste work that we have been doing so the zero waste resolution and looking at a universal recycling ordinance. So we'll bring you just a high level update on that in February. We should have a draft zero waste resolution in the March timeframe and then bring a zero waste resolution but the final resolution to you all in May and probably ask for a letter of support before we take that to council in the June, July timeframe. And then also an update on the producer responsibility legislation. If folks have been following some of the legislation that's happening at the state level around zero waste, particularly plastics and then this is really the big legislative item that's on the docket for waste related issues in 2022 is looking at producer responsibilities. So a handful of states have now been passing producer responsibility legislation and that is on the radar for Colorado, this legislative season which just kicked off. So if that does pass, that's something that I just wanted to add to the agenda to talk to this group to see just more as an update and what that might mean for a long month. The climate risk and vulnerability mapping, I just put a TBV right now because we're still working out the scope of work for 2022. The pesticides and pollinators I wanted to bring back, I know that was something you all were interested in in 2021 and we weren't able to get to that but I didn't want to lose sight of that. So I just put that for the June meeting as kind of a placeholder to make sure that that gets on the agenda for this year. Some water conservation items that Francie wanted to bring forward even though we are in the process right now if you all haven't seen it, we have our water conservation specialist job posting out right now. So we'll be hiring for that position pretty soon. Hopefully should have somebody on board pretty quickly but a letter of support for the water supply and drought management plan will be coming to you in April. We put on the June meeting just a progress report from 2021 water efficiency efforts and 2022 progress update and then an overview of the water efficiency master plan update and request for a letter of support. So that won't really be kicking off until later in the 2023 timeframe but we want to make sure to get that on your radar sooner rather than later and then bring that back for an update in October. So not an update to the plan because that won't start until later but just an update on where that process is. And I especially want to flag that because there was a recommendation from the climate action recommendations report specifically to look at increasing our water conservation goals and the recommendation from water board and from staff was to incorporate that into the next water efficiency master plan update and really do the in-depth analysis that's needed to really understand increasing our water conservation goals and what the implications are for that and what we would actually need to do to get there. Francie, did you want to jump in and add anything on the water conservation stuff? Are you there? No, I think you covered that pretty well. And then lastly, as I mentioned and we've mentioned to you several times the Envision and Sustainability Plan updates will be happening this year. We don't have the full scope of work laid out for that yet either but I do want to leave a pretty good amount of time. I'm hesitant to add anything additional to this schedule for the year unless there's something big that I miss that you all want to add or Council Member Martin if you all have any other priorities that are on your agenda from the Council standpoint that you want to make sure are on our radar but I do want to make sure to leave plenty of time as to dig into that specifically in the probably the second half of the year because that's going to be a big effort. So with that, I made a note for the fire preparedness piece but is there anything else that that we're missing that folks want to add? Any other comments or feedback on this schedule? This format is very helpful. So thank you for putting this together. Sure. Second that, it's great. Better than the... Go ahead. I say better than the whiteboard. It's great. I just want to say I appreciate you keeping the pesticides and pollinators topic top of mind and sliding it in. Thanks for that. You're welcome. I'm sorry, we didn't get to it last year. Any other comments? Council Member Martin, is there anything else from the Council priorities side that might be on the 2022 agenda that we want to flag so at least I can keep an eye out for? Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. At this point, I don't think so. I would be... Now I just said that immediately, on the line between the PRPA reports and the climate risk and vulnerability, there's going to be a nexus there about electrification and getting aerial electric wires buried and whether we can accelerate that schedule. And, you know, so there is a lot of red sustainability that I hope will not be directly managed by PRPA, but we should still be prepared to consider it. Yep. Okay. I was making a note for myself on that specifically. Great. Any anything else? Any other questions, comments? Thanks for putting this together. Great. Thanks, Lisa. Great. Thanks, everyone. And I'm sure none of this is, you know, 100% set in stone. I'm sure things will shift and change as we actually get into the year, but at least it's something foundation for us to start from. So, all right. Well, thanks, everyone. With that, I'm done with my items. I'm going to stop sharing here. Save so I don't lose anything. Perfect. All right. Well, thank you. Moving on through the agenda. Is there any other business that anyone has to add? Items from, yes, Adam. Is this the items from the board section? No. This is just general business. Okay. I'll wait for the 10. All right. Hold on. Items from the staff. Are there any items from the board that anyone would like to bring up? Adam. Okay. Yeah. Sorry for jumping the gun. Sure. I have an item. I am interested in presenting a climate policy simulator to the board. This climate policy simulator came out of the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative. And I think it would help ground some of our discussions like the ones about the PRPA and electrification and so on and some of the best available science. And so I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. I would love to see that. Yeah. That sounds very... Are you talking about adding it as an agenda item to a future meeting? That's right. I could tailor the presentation to be short, like less than a half hour, or I could go a full hour and really go into the details. I'm happy to be flexible given our schedule. I know that we have a lot in our plate and so I want to be mindful of that. Having just looked at our schedule for the next year, it looks like we're pretty packed. And I'm really interested and I would love to see it. So I think... I mean, what others think about that? Could we... Is a half hour reasonable? I would love to see it. More than one person has sent that to me as a link and I've looked at it and said... So it'd be great if Adam would boil it down. I'm happy to take requests now at whatever level if you want me to just make it as succinct as possible. And we could decide from there if we want to have another session, but I can make it the one-on-one level of this thing and just keep it as simple as possible and stay in the allotted time. Yeah, Adam, I think I can probably... If we do just a higher level, not brief, but enough substance to give people a good taste of it, I think we can probably manage to get that on in the February meeting if that's not too soon for you. And it might be a good overview, folks, for them to keep that in mind as we go through other things. When we talk about the electrification plan and talk about the sustainability plan and envision updates, it might be a helpful foundation. And then if there's time, we can go into it more in depth, especially if we see some really specific applications that we could use it for. I've seen it as well and have not had time to really dig into it, but think it's a really interesting tool and would love to spend some more time with it. So if that works for you and if that sounds like a good approach to other folks, I can add that to February. Yeah, I'd like that. I would like that. Okay, I'll aim for February then. Perfect, thank you, Adam. Great, and you and I can just touch base offline to get that figured out. That sounds good, thanks, Lisa. Thanks both. Okay, if there are no other items from the board, then are there any items from council? Not that I haven't already mentioned, thanks. Perfect, okay. May I ask, do you prefer to be referred to as council member Christensen or Marsha? I would prefer not to be referred to as council member Christensen, but... Oh my God, Martin. I'm so sorry. That's all right, that's all right. No, Marsha is just absolutely fine. I'm not... Okay, long day. I'm sorry for that. No need to apologize. Okay, thank you. Marsha, do you want to do a quick introduction since this is your first official board meeting? We're all here. We would all really like to know, is there, there's got to be some kind of ceremony for deciding who is the board that council liaison to this board? The competition. Arm wrestling. Actually, it was like, you know, it gets reassigned every two years and Polly wouldn't consider giving up the chair for the two years that she was there, so I had to wait. And then what happens is we all tell Don Quintana our priorities and she does her best and then she takes kind of like one or two plum assignments, the ones that wield the most power and gives them to the noobs. Okay, so I got kicked off the Longmont Economic Development Partnership and the Longmont Downtown Development Authority so that Shakita and Susie could be on those instead. So I'm very happy with my board assignments and just a little tiny bit about me. I am a software engineer by training and the last decade-ish of my career, I was in electric distribution for the renewably powered grid inventing the algorithms that you need to discover the grid topology, which is shockingly not very well understood by grids that have been out there for a long time because the as-built map keeps diverging from the as-designed map as things get fixed and, you know, empowered and stuff. So, you know, the importance of knowing where everything is and what the carrying capacity of everything is and what happens when there is a sag or a surge in power is much more significant and important with a renewably powered grid. And that's what I did for a living at the end of my career. So I've been well positioned to be the PRPA gadfly and, you know, otherwise annoying person. And, but we got the good meters, you know, we got the good AMI network out of my gadfly role. So I'm a little bit proud of that. Fantastic. Well, we are delighted that you are our new council leaders on welcome to our group. Thank you. I'm glad to be here.  So we are near the end of the agenda. Are there any, wait, in your board packet, there was some, likely some informational items and board correspondence, which is for your information, please read them. All right, with that, is there a motion to adjourn? I'll move to adjourn. I'll second the motion. All in favor? Aye. Stay safe. Thanks everybody. Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone. Take care. Great to see you all. You too. Happy New Year.