[0:00] 4th, 2022. I'm Jeff Co. Commissioner Andy Kerr here with Commissioners Craftharp and Commissioner

[0:07] Stahlkempir. Our clerk this morning is Ms. Glen and our host is Ms. Winkworth, who will

[0:13] handle requests for public comment and public testimony sign up in the chat for those of

[0:18] you joining us virtually. There are several ways to join our hybrid meeting, all of which

[0:22] are listed on our website at Jeffco.us. Hybrid meetings are held in person and virtually.

[0:29] You're always welcome to reach out to the board on the county's website at Jeffco.us or

[0:35] by email at comish at Jeffco.us. We will start with the pledge of allegiance.

[0:45] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the nice summer and to the Republic for which it stands

[0:53] one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice.

[1:06] Next on our agenda is public comment as a reminder the board will take up to 15 minutes

[1:11] at the beginning of the meeting and if needed additional comment will be taken at the end

[1:15] of the meeting on items not listed on the agenda.

[1:19] If you are here in person and have not signed up to give public comment please use the sign

[1:24] of sheets out in the hall.

[1:26] If you are here in person and wish to speak during public comment please come down near

[1:31] the front and have a seat and you will be called up one at a time.

[1:33] If you are joining us virtually, please log into our meeting using a computer and send

[1:39] a note to Miss Winkworth in the chat with your full name, address, and the topic.

[1:44] The chat function is only seen by the host and no comments are retained in the record.

[1:52] And let me see.

[1:55] Is there anyone in the room that is planning on to speak during public comment?

[2:00] and

[2:05] we,

[2:08] for public comment,

[2:11] okay, that will be public testimony a little bit later so we will get you at that point and we have no public comment online at this time.

[2:24] So during our hearing portion we will have opportunities to speak to particular agenda items and we will also have another opportunity for

[2:37] public comment at the end of the meeting for those who were unable to speak during this segment.

[2:43] Next, we have a proclamation for domestic violence awareness.

[2:47] Commissioners, please join me at the podium.

[4:57] that violence in my home suggests impact in the state's entire community is a precursor to so many others.

[5:08] When children witness or experience violence in my home,

[5:13] that's how children feel in this public.

[5:17] Without intervention, children are a hyper-risk for school-failing

[5:22] Substances abuse, repeat victimization, and perhaps most tragically perpetrated violence

[5:28] later.

[5:30] None of us can solve this crisis together by using every tool that I'm supposed to do.

[5:38] Using to never back down or give up, we can make a real difference in our votes and the

[5:46] information.

[5:54] Yes, microphones might be useful.

[5:58] As I mentioned, we have guests with us this morning.

[6:01] We have DA King, we have Todd Reaves, Division Chief of Investigations, and Family Tree Chief

[6:09] Impact Officer Tina Higman.

[6:12] DA King, would you like to say a few words?

[6:24] Thank you so much for those who have taken the time to recognize domestic violence awareness

[6:27] month.

[6:28] All of us who have worked on behalf of domestic violence survivors do that because we want

[6:34] and give voice to the voiceless.

[6:36] We want to offer a helping hand

[6:38] and give someone the feeling of safety

[6:41] that is sometimes so hard to find.

[6:44] But in preparation for today,

[6:46] I looked back at our comments from last year

[6:49] because we do this every year.

[6:52] And my question was, well, what are we doing, right?

[6:55] So last year we ushered in porch light into our community,

[6:59] our family justice center.

[7:01] And porch light really gives the opportunity

[7:03] for people to find those things, their voice, a little bit of safety, tools to keep going,

[7:13] whether they want to be part of law enforcement or not.

[7:17] And that is really starting to embed itself in our community in an incredibly meaningful way,

[7:22] because it brings so many services together for our survivors.

[7:28] But what we also need to start thinking about now that we have this avenue

[7:33] for people to seek support and services, is how we get to the cyclical nature of abuse.

[7:40] There is of course the cyclical nature within the relationship, but there is also the

[7:44] cyclical nature within the family. And as a board member of Portlite and as your district attorney,

[7:50] I'm committed to finding new ways to break down that barrier, that cycle. Because that's really how

[7:56] we have a meaningful impact, as the commissioners mentioned, to this greater community problem that domestic

[8:01] domestic violence poses.

[8:04] Recently, our law enforcement partners committed to taking additional investigative steps

[8:10] in order to help find ways to corroborate the adult victim, ways for children to be heard

[8:18] and for families to really start a healing process, and that's something we will continue

[8:23] to do as leaders within this community, and knowing full well how much domestic violence

[8:29] not only hurts the individual, but it has a tumbling effect down through families and down through communities as a whole.

[8:39] We have to start addressing that larger issue together.

[8:44] So let's keep doing things, and I look forward to reporting back to you on next year about what else we've done to help address domestic violence in the community.

[8:52] Thank you so much.

[8:58] Thank you, DA King.

[9:00] Let's see Chief Reeves.

[9:13] Thank you, Commissioner Kerr.

[9:15] I'm Todd Reeves and the Division Chief with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.

[9:19] And I'm here today on behalf of the Sheriff's Office to represent the importance and

[9:24] the value of the awareness and domestic violence.

[9:27] This morning when I came into work, there was many members of our Family Crimes Investigations

[9:31] Unit, figuring they were coming here to show the support.

[9:35] Unfortunately, they were there because of a serious domestic violence that occurred last

[9:39] night that left a wrath of destruction all the way down to 85.

[9:44] That same family crimes unit has investigated and reviewed over 1,350 cases in just the

[9:50] last 12 months.

[9:52] Our victim services unit has responded out on 440 calls to offer services and provide

[9:59] services for victims of domestic violence in just the last 12 months.

[10:04] We don't have to look very far to have an example of some of the wrath and issues that the DA had spoken about.

[10:11] Less than a month ago on September 10th, deputies of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department investigators responded to a call for service in which a man during a custody child exchange had shot and killed the mother of a two year old and a six year old.

[10:28] He had locked the two-year-old and the six-year-old in the house and then proceeded to kill himself.

[10:34] The two-year-old and the six-year-old, the only family members were not even living in this country.

[10:41] Fortunately for our victim services unit, they were able to bring resources in to be able to support these children.

[10:46] But the impact that's going to have to this family forever is unimaginable and not something that any of us want to work with.

[10:55] I do want to also offer the thanks and appreciation to family tree and porch light.

[11:00] The resources that you provide for our victim services and for the victims and the community

[11:04] are outstanding.

[11:06] For district attorney king and all of the work that your office does and the fortitude

[11:12] to continue to press forward is amazing.

[11:14] For the commissioners and everyone here today, thank you for bringing awareness to this incredibly

[11:19] horrible ill in society and hopefully we can get better and we can as soon eradicate all

[11:26] these problems.

[11:27] Thank you.

[11:31] Tina Hagueman.

[11:41] Good morning and thank you.

[11:42] I'm Tina Hagueman, Chief Impact Officer at Family Tree.

[11:45] My pronouns are she, her hers and I'm pleased to be here to represent Family Tree and tell

[11:51] you a bit about our programs and services.

[11:54] Family Tree partners with all people to prevent and overcome the interconnected issues of

[11:59] child abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness to promote safety, healing, and stability across

[12:06] generations. We started as a partnership in Jefferson County with Jefferson County and now

[12:12] expanded to the entire Metro Denver area. We provide services including residential and housing

[12:19] programs to serve people who have experienced homelessness. We have child abuse programs like

[12:24] safe here, Colorado, domestic violence, outreach and legal advocacy programs that are co-located

[12:30] at porch light, and roots of courage, which is our confidential emergency shelter for persons

[12:35] fleeing domestic violence in their children. Not today, not just today, not just this month,

[12:43] but always. We ask you to acknowledge the strength, courage, and resilience of domestic violence

[12:50] survivors who must repeatedly prioritize their safety and the safety of their children

[12:56] and loved ones.

[12:58] And specifically, I want to recognize the two 27 adult survivors and 20 children who

[13:06] are family to clients that are currently housed in our home at last program.

[13:11] They, most of them and many of them went through our roots of courage, a shelter, they may

[13:17] We have gone through our legal advocacy program and our domestic violence advocacy program,

[13:22] and Family Tree was able to house them.

[13:24] They now are in apartments, they are receiving comprehensive case management, and they are

[13:29] able to stay in that apartment for up to two years as they stabilize their lives.

[13:35] I also want to thank the advocates and helping professionals who are here today who are unable

[13:41] able to be here today because they are working with survivors and especially thank our family

[13:48] tree team who is amazing. For your commitment to your work, for always centering the safety

[13:56] of survivors and providing essential guidance and support to every person who seeks our help.

[14:02] Thank you. To everyone who is here today, whether in person or virtually, I ask you to address

[14:08] domestic violence within your own life to support healthy relationships and family safety,

[14:15] to share information about family tree, about porch light, about all domestic violence and healthy

[14:21] services, to learn about domestic violence, and how to help to teach your children about consent

[14:29] and respect, and above all to always believe and support survivors. Thank you.

[14:43] And thank you all for joining us this morning and what you do for the citizens of Jefferson County is important.

[14:50] So thank you for your leadership regarding this pressing issue.

[14:56] I will now read our proclamation.

[15:00] Whereas, launched nationwide in October 1987, Domestic Violence Awareness Month is a way to connect

[15:08] in unite individuals and organizations working on domestic violence issues while raising awareness

[15:15] for those issues. And, whereas, domestic violence affects millions of people in the United States,

[15:23] causes significant harm to the physical and mental health of survivors and their families,

[15:29] undermines their economic stability and overall well-being and is a stain on the conscience of our country.

[15:37] Whereas we honor the tremendous dedication of advocates and service providers,

[15:43] honor the courage and resilience of survivors, and recommit ourselves to standing with them for safety, dignity, and justice.

[15:51] where as we call upon everyone to speak out against domestic violence and support efforts to educate young people about healthy relationships centered on respect, support victims and survivors in your own families and networks

[16:08] and to support the efforts of victim advocates, service providers, health care providers and the legal system as well as the leadership of survivors and

[16:19] working to end domestic violence.

[16:22] Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners of the

[16:27] State of Colorado that the month of October 2022 be declared as domestic violence awareness

[16:34] month in this county.

[16:45] Can I ask for our speakers to come back up, please?

[16:49] I'll be presenting this proclamation to DA King,

[16:55] and actually we're going to invite everyone

[16:57] up for for a picture. So you

[17:08] have to stay down here and make sure there's enough room for everyone.

[17:44] You guys can either come down on the front row.

[18:08] Ready?

[18:15] Did you put one thing in?

[18:24] You know if they say it's one of the reasons it's full current.

[18:51] I don't know.

[19:32] Oops.

[19:40] Russ.

[19:40] Can you grab that door?

[19:42] Thanks.

[19:42] Yes.

[19:43] Or Chris.

[19:44] Yes.

[19:46] Russ was furthest back.

[19:48] It was furthest back.

[19:56] Great.

[19:57] Thank you, everyone.

[19:58] Next we have the approval of the minutes from September 27th, 2022.

[20:04] May I have a motion to approve, please?

[20:07] You may.

[20:07] I move for the approval of the minutes dated September 27th, 2022.

[20:12] Second.

[20:13] This is proper motion and a second.

[20:15] Ms. Glenn, will you please call the vote?

[20:17] Commissioner Kraftbart?

[20:18] Yes.

[20:19] Commissioner Dalkenberg?

[20:20] Yes.

[20:20] Commissioner Kurt?

[20:22] Aye.

[20:22] And that passes unanimously.

[20:23] Next, we have four items on the consent agenda.

[20:26] Commissioners, would either of you like to take an item off the consent agenda?

[20:31] No.

[20:31] No, thanks.

[20:32] May I have a motion to approve item 7.1 through 7.4?

[20:36] You may, I move for the approval of consent agenda item 7.1 through 7.4.

[20:42] Second.

[20:43] Proper motion and a second, Ms. Glenn, will you please call the vote.

[20:47] Commissioner Cropthorpe?

[20:48] Yes.

[20:48] Commissioner Dalkamper?

[20:50] Yes.

[20:50] Commissioner Curve?

[20:51] Aye.

[20:52] And that passes unanimously.

[20:53] We have no agenda items on our regular agenda.

[20:58] We do have a financial update from Mario Neal.

[21:02] Welcome, Ms. O'Neal and team.

[21:25] Good morning, commissioners.

[21:26] Good morning.

[21:27] We're here today to do our quarterly economic and financial update.

[21:31] and presenting today we have Tiana Rivera, she'll be doing the economic analysis update for you and Andrea and

[21:38] Angela will be doing the financial update. Just to note before we get started we have changed the format of this

[21:45] presentation and we've changed some of the date ranges and we would welcome feedback from you. So I will go ahead and

[21:52] turn it over to Tiana.

[21:56] Good morning. Thank God and move to the next slide please. Thank you.

[22:02] When reviewing stats for economy, we want to see steady growth, price stability, and

[22:07] a healthy workforce mix.

[22:09] Real gross domestic product GDP decreased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the second

[22:15] quarter of 2022.

[22:17] In quarter one, 2022, US GDP shrink on an annualized basis of 1.4 percent.

[22:23] This is down from 6.9 percent in Q4 of 2021.

[22:27] one. The boxes on the left show the five variables that impact real GDP. Private sector supply chain

[22:33] refers to private inventory investment decreases and wholesale trade such as motor vehicles.

[22:39] Housing investments refers to residential fix investments such as home building and remodeling

[22:44] that were reduced due to higher interest rates. Federal government spending describes the

[22:49] decrease in non-defense spending such as the sale of crude oil from the strategic petroleum reserve.

[22:54] state and local government spending as a result of a decrease investment in structures.

[23:00] Experts increased, led by industrial supplies and materials as well as travel services.

[23:06] Consumer spending increased in housing, utilities and gasoline.

[23:11] Does this indicate a recession?

[23:13] Looking at quarter two, 2022 data, here are the key recessionary indicators to determine if this might be a concern or not.

[23:20] The Klein and Rail GDP. Yes, there has been a minor decline in the past two quarters.

[23:26] The Klein and Rail income. Yes, year-of-a-year, average hourly earnings declined by 3.1%,

[23:32] and weekly earnings declined by 3.9%. This set the national level and the local numbers

[23:37] are not available at this update.

[23:40] The Klein and Employment. No. Employment and Jeff Co. grew by 4,284 jobs since Q1 in 2022.

[23:47] 2. Decline an industrial production? Yes. Private sector supply chain has reduced from

[23:53] ongoing pandemic related impacts. Decline and wholesale retail sales? No. Retail sales

[23:59] in Jeff Co has increased year-to-year 8.9%. At a recent presentation at the 10 county meeting,

[24:07] the state chief economist Greg Sybetsky said maybe to the concerns of a recession.

[24:13] Next slide please.

[24:18] The retail sales data from the Colorado Department of Revenue is current

[24:22] through June 2022. Year-over-year retail sales have increased by 8.9%. The chart on the right

[24:29] shows retail sales by industry where the top five industries show the adjustments and consumer spending

[24:34] since the pandemic, such as the significant increase of 175.4% at hobby stores. The bottom five shows

[24:43] the impact of supply chain constraints and inflation on industries such as

[24:47] manufacturing reducing by 1.8%.

[24:52] Next slide.

[24:56] The rise in inflation makes the

[24:58] cost of goods and services less predictable, and the value of our dollar doesn't

[25:02] go as far. The US Federal Reserve and most other central banks target a 2%

[25:07] inflation rate per year. While this shows a decrease from 9.1 to 8.2% from our last

[25:14] update, there still is uncertainty in the economic climate. The Denver Aurora Lakewood consumer

[25:20] price index, CPI, shows the change of prices paid by consumers since 2019, with the most recent

[25:26] reporting from July 2022. The two most notable impacts depicted on the graph are all types of gasoline,

[25:34] which increased year-over-year by 33.9 percent, and food at home groceries increased by 13.6 percent.

[25:41] This measures the impact of inflation on essential goods and affordability for our community members.

[25:49] Next slide.

[25:54] Since the last update on June 7th, Jeff Co. unemployment decreased by approximately 2000 individuals,

[26:01] which is a decrease of 17.5%.

[26:04] The 3% unemployment rate in Jeff Co. is slightly lower than the state of Colorado's 3.4%.

[26:12] Next slide.

[26:18] In quarter two, 2022, there were 17,403 open positions for 9,818 individuals

[26:26] on unemployment. The open position mean wage is lower than the mean employed wage, which

[26:32] makes it more difficult for job seekers to afford living and working in Jessica. As

[26:37] you can see, housing increased significantly, and as a result, it's less affordable for

[26:41] the average earner. To make these stats more relatable, here's a recent MIT study that

[26:47] describes the living wage ranges in Jeffco. A living wage is 42,241 for a single employed

[26:55] adult, 116,345 for two employed adults with two children, 104,324 for a single employed

[27:06] adult with two children. Looking at the study compared to the mean open position wage,

[27:12] a single-employed adult and two-employed adults with two children would earn a living wage,

[27:17] but the single-employed adult with two children would not. This is the same outcome for the mean-employed

[27:22] wage. Looking at the mean open position wage, all three groups could not afford the median

[27:28] single-family home. The two-employed adults with two children could afford the median

[27:34] in town, home, or condo, but the other groups could not.

[27:37] This is the same outcome with the mean employed wage.

[27:42] Next slide.

[27:47] Looking at the economic signals,

[27:49] that indicate signs of an upcoming recession,

[27:51] such as two consecutive periods of real GDP decline,

[27:55] inflation rate, the decline of real income,

[27:58] and decrease in investments such as supply chain,

[28:01] it is inconclusive of this will result in a recession.

[28:04] The two indicators that are not in support of a recession

[28:07] are an increase in employment and increase in retail sales.

[28:12] We will continue to watch the indicators to determine if the concerns of a recession are valid.

[28:17] Workforce has grown to the point where there are more jobs and job seekers.

[28:21] But through inflation, rising housing costs, and lower open position mean wage,

[28:26] it has been less affordable to live and work in Jeffco.

[28:31] Next slide, please.

[28:35] I will now turn over the financial update over to Andrea.

[28:37] Thanks,

[28:42] Tiana.

[28:43] Next page, please.

[28:48] As a summary of the status of ARPA fund allocations,

[28:52] presented here are the various task forces.

[28:56] We have 55 million approved by the BCC,

[28:59] with 3 million spent so far.

[29:02] The spending is primarily made up of ARPA oversight,

[29:05] county legal services, and the peak program.

[29:09] There are 32 million in projects moving forward to briefing,

[29:13] with approximately 25 million set aside as placeholders.

[29:17] In the appendix is a list of the projects if you want more details.

[29:22] We have a BCC work session on 1025 where we will continue our discussion on the overall ARPA allocations.

[29:30] Next slide, please.

[29:36] Here are grants serving as alternative funding sources for the county.

[29:40] Those with the asterisks have been awarded and the others have been submitted by the ARPA team.

[29:46] The State ARPA IHOP grant is for the 15-year strategic housing study plan.

[29:53] The State OBH ARPA grant is to support JCMH in suicide prevention.

[30:10] We welcome any questions or feedback. Thank you.

[30:18] Great, thank you, commissioners.

[30:22] I have one or two quick follow questions for you. Thanks so much for a great presentation.

[30:26] really appreciate hearing these quarterly reports on how our local economy is doing what unemployment looks like, retail sales and more.

[30:34] And I'm wondering, you know, Mary, you've been a part of this process over the last number of years as we've weathered COVID, as we've allocated CARES Act money,

[30:43] ARPA dollars especially with attention to our local small businesses and many of them weathered

[30:51] COVID others struggled. Can you step back and just give us your observation about the 35.6 million

[30:59] that helped with economic recovery from ARPA dollars and some of those CARES Act dollars and what

[31:04] you think those have meant for local businesses, what we've observed locally because of that funding

[31:10] and our work with our chamber presidents as well to be very targeted and strategic.

[31:15] And I would say that of course we did do a lot of programs during the CARES Act to help

[31:21] local business and the chambers and overall I would say that we have seen an improvement

[31:26] in small businesses and I don't know if we'd want to, Tiana do we have that one slide does

[31:31] it talk about the different sectors in Jefferson County

[31:36] but I would say you know especially when

[31:39] Can you take a look at how employment has improved in the last quarter and how retail sales have improved in the last quarter?

[31:46] I think those are two strong indicators for how businesses overall are doing.

[31:50] I wouldn't make a broad statement to say that every business is doing well.

[31:54] I think just in terms of people feeling comfortable and getting out, we're seeing a lot more of that.

[32:01] And I do think that that's helping the overall business market.

[32:05] But just in general, I think that the programs we have put in place have done a lot to support local business.

[32:12] I know, thank you for that.

[32:13] I know one of the things we worked really hard on in terms of allocating those dollars in a thoughtful way was to help keep as many businesses open as possible.

[32:22] As you look over the last two years or so of the pandemic, do you have an idea of what our data look like for

[32:30] local businesses, including businesses that closed their doors, businesses that were able

[32:34] to continue or percentage is roughly.

[32:37] I do not have that information with me now, but I can get that for you.

[32:41] That would be great. Thank you.

[32:42] And I'd be curious to know how it compares to other counties our size in the central area.

[32:48] As we check on that and provide that to you.

[32:50] Thank you very much.

[32:51] And thanks to the whole team for all the work that you've done on this presentation and also

[32:56] throughout the pandemic and as we work on recovery too.

[33:03] I just wanted to point out, if we go back to the second slide, the second graph,

[33:11] ARPA funding update,

[33:17] then yes, that one, the 175% growth in sporting goods.

[33:24] At least half of that is because of a certain lacrosse player I know.

[33:29] So, I just wanted to point out the Kerr family doing their part to help out with the sporting goods industry.

[33:35] in Jefferson County.

[33:37] Of course, also a significant growth in hobby sales.

[33:43] Musical instruments under if there are any glass flutes that I digress.

[33:54] I don't think I have any other question.

[33:59] We, of course, under the fund status by our, our task force, we, of course, want to get the goal is to get all of those into the actual column as soon as possible.

[34:16] What do you see as some of the funds that will be spent next and soonest and the most?

[34:26] I need to think about what we have queued up in procurement right now.

[34:31] I know that Roden Bridge has a number of projects going forward.

[34:36] So we should see some spending in that area.

[34:39] We did have the housing master plan approved, so we should see, I'm not sure if that's showing

[34:45] as actual yet, I don't believe that's been paid.

[34:48] So that project should be underway shortly.

[34:51] Help me remember team.

[34:52] What other things do we have queued up?

[34:54] But the

[34:58] wildfire work, we do have some of that underway now too.

[35:02] But as we get more and more projects, it just takes a little while to work it through

[35:06] the system to get things rolling.

[35:08] But there's a lot of activity, countywide going on, on getting these ARPA projects in place.

[35:16] Great.

[35:18] And so at this point, have we allocated the full, the 113 does look like that?

[35:26] Not yet, we have made recommendations for the entire 113.

[35:32] We do have some savings that we can look at some of those other urgent projects that were brought forward by leadership in April of this year.

[35:40] But we do have the work session scheduled for October 25th.

[35:45] And we'll be bringing several briefing papers forward to you so some of those projects can get kicked off if they're approved.

[35:52] And a couple of other projects that we have placeholders that we're just really looking

[35:57] for some direction on, like do you want us to move forward with this or would you prefer

[36:01] us to do something else?

[36:03] Great.

[36:05] Thank you.

[36:06] Any other questions?

[36:07] Just one quick follow-up on your question in Mary's comment so that October 25th session

[36:12] should then wrap up in addition to the guidance you'd like from the board on those placeholders,

[36:17] the ARPA funding that we currently have,

[36:20] or is there yet another chunk?

[36:22] Most of it, it would.

[36:24] We are, you know, we experience savings in projects,

[36:27] so we roll that into the contingency that we have set aside,

[36:30] so that will allow us to make additional decisions.

[36:33] Great. Thank you.

[36:37] Great. Thank you, and Mary, please let your whole team know

[36:42] that we really appreciate coming in,

[36:45] giving us this information and all the hard work you're doing.

[36:48] Thank you so much. I'll let them know.

[36:50] Thank you.

[36:54] Next is the hearing consent portion of our meeting.

[36:57] We have one item on the consent agenda.

[36:59] Ms. Glenn, will you please read hearing consent agenda item 11.1 into the record.

[37:07] Resolution CC22-264, case number 21120021RZ.

[37:18] Golden Automotive Holdings, Owner Applicant, Golden Automotive Group Holdings, LLC, Location-155-911-156-0115701, West Colfax Avenue,

[37:37] A proximate area, 9.79 acres, purpose to rezone from commercial one and commercial two to plan to development to allow for hail protection structures to be added to the existing automotive sales uses case manager, Heather got their list.

[37:58] Great. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience would like to remove this item from

[38:03] the consent agenda? The sweep-worth is there anyone joining us virtually would like

[38:08] to remove this item from the consent agenda? There is not.

[38:14] Commissioners would either of you like to pull this item off the consent agenda. No, thanks.

[38:20] May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda item 11.1?

[38:24] You may move for the approval of hearing consent agenda item 11.1.

[38:29] In.

[38:30] Proper motion.

[38:31] In a second, Ms. Glenn, will you please call the roll.

[38:34] Commissioner Crafthark.

[38:35] Yes.

[38:36] Commissioner Dalkenberg.

[38:37] Yes.

[38:38] Commissioner Kerr.

[38:39] I, in that passes unanimously.

[38:41] Next, we will move to the hearing regular portion of our meeting.

[38:45] We have two items.

[38:46] Ms. Glenn, will you please read hearing regular agenda 12.1 into the record?

[38:54] Resolution CC22-265, case number 22-104-558 AM, applicant, Jefferson County, location,

[39:09] unincorporated Jefferson County, purpose to amend Section 15 and 39 of the zoning

[39:16] resolution to update wildfire mitigation regulations to amend chapter three of the transportation

[39:24] design and construction manual to update driveway and private road standards.

[39:31] Amendments to chapter three are no longer proposed at this time and to update other sections

[39:37] of the zoning resolution and land development regulations as appropriate to change references

[39:44] to the title of Section 39, Case Manager, Cassidy Clements, and Heather Gutherrless.

[39:54] Great. Thank you. Next we'll go to our Planning and Zoning Division, Heather Gutherrless,

[40:00] and Cassidy Clements for a brief presentation on 12.1.

[40:04] We're having a little bit of technical difficulty if we get like one second.

[40:07] No problem.

[40:07] Thank you so much.

[42:08] Okay, thank you. Sorry for the delay. I think we have figured it out and we are ready

[42:12] to be made the presenter.

[42:28] Okay,

[42:33] so let me just share my screen and we will get the start of this morning.

[42:55] Right? Good morning. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your time this morning. My name is Cassidy Climates. I will be presenting the proposed changes to the zoning resolution when the wildfire regulation update phase 2.

[43:08] So

[43:11] this morning I will be talking you through the previous changes that planning and zoning

[43:14] staff has presented to you and the Board of County Commissioners has approved.

[43:19] We'll talk about the referral process, the background for the request for a proposal

[43:24] and the changes that we have proposed, and then we'll go into the proposed changes in the

[43:30] zoning resolution, staff findings, and future phases.

[43:36] So the previous changes that you all have seen before to the zoning resolution was to require

[43:40] all building permits in the wildfire overlay district to require a

[43:45] defensible space permit or any size of addition or type of structure. We also

[43:51] required the request for proof of fire protection to all building permits and

[43:56] we corrected some locations of board of adjustment language within that section.

[44:03] And I would like to note, originally staff was proposing to modify the language in

[44:07] the transportation, design, and construction manual regarding driveways and public streets

[44:13] and roads to address some concerns that the International Wildfire Urban Interface

[44:19] Code contained.

[44:21] We received some concerns from some professional engineers and from the community, so we have

[44:27] removed that proposal language at this time.

[44:30] We will be bringing back those changes to the transportation, design, and construction manual

[44:34] at a later date.

[44:36] So, today we will only be focusing on the zoning resolution changes.

[44:43] The referral process, staffs and out two referral periods to agencies and organizations to receive feedback.

[44:51] We had a community meeting in late June to meet with the community to receive feedback from the first referral of the proposed changes.

[45:00] We sent out notification using notify me to registered HOAs and people signed up for notification of regulation amendments. And we also had meetings with the Fire Marshalls Group, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners briefings.

[45:15] Some comments we received between the first and the second referral of the proposed regulation changes. We received some requests to allow fire districts to approve defensible space standards. We received concerns about the continued use of the 6.302 document as the

[45:32] guiding document within the zoning resolution at this time.

[45:36] We received concern about the application of defensible space to new construction only

[45:40] and concern about the language regarding off-site road improvements.

[45:47] Some background on the request for proposal that is currently out.

[45:52] So planning staff has been working with emergency management and transportation and engineering

[45:57] to complete a request for a proposal to receive a comprehensive overhaul of quite a few documents.

[46:05] These documents include a community wildfire protection plan and research for future updates of our wildfire regulations.

[46:15] The information that we gain from this RFP will immediately correlate with phase three of our wildfire regulation updates.

[46:25] And it also contains a public outreach plan with a comprehensive attempt to receive public

[46:32] input and insight in the Community Wile Fair Protection Plan and Phase 3 of the Regulation

[46:37] Updates.

[46:41] So, let's talk about proposed revisions that staff is recommending approval of today.

[46:48] First, we're going to look at Section 15, which is the landscaping section of the zoning

[46:53] resolution.

[46:54] All of the proposed language within section 15 are regulations from the International

[46:59] Wildman Urban Interface Code, or as I will refer to it as the I-WUE.

[47:05] This code has been and will continue to be a guiding document for planning and zoning

[47:10] as it is the international standard for wildfire protection.

[47:15] We cannot necessarily put in a full comprehensive update and follow every code within the I-WUE,

[47:21] So we have been looking for things that will really help Jefferson County move forward in fire protection.

[47:27] We find that those things would be within the landscaping section.

[47:31] That fire restrictive landscaping shall be considered within the wildfire urban interface,

[47:37] or are we overly district? We would like to restrict landscaping within 10 feet of power poles.

[47:45] To add language requiring that all mulch shall be comprised of nonflammable materials,

[47:50] I.e. rock and require a vegetation management plan as a form of mitigation with specific site development plan applications.

[47:59] So as you can see, the top photo that is shown before you is an example of using all fire-resistive landscaping and

[48:10] multi-materials that are non-flammable like rock.

[48:13] And then the second image before you is the restriction of landscaping within 10 feet of power pulse

[48:19] just to give you a visual perspective of both.

[48:24] The proposed revisions to Section 39

[48:27] are a title change to the Wildland Urban Interface

[48:31] or WUE Overlay District.

[48:34] This is to be consistent with state and federal regulations

[48:38] and to be consistent with that I, WUE,

[48:40] or that international Wildland Urban Interface Code.

[48:44] We've also proposed a term change from licensed Forester,

[48:48] which is existing in the code now,

[48:50] to a wildfire, interface fire specialist.

[48:53] Because through this process, we found out

[48:55] that there is no such thing as a licensed forrister.

[48:57] And so we wanted to just make sure

[48:59] that we were using incorrect terminology.

[49:03] We have also added a time limit

[49:05] on defensible space permits.

[49:07] So a defensible space permit will be active

[49:09] and applicable for a three-year time frame.

[49:13] And we've added that zone one defensible space standard

[49:16] should be completed around driveways,

[49:18] which is ten feet on either side of a driveway and

[49:24] then some housekeeping updates.

[49:25] We are proposing changes to the table of contents in section 911 and 42 to reflect that title change

[49:33] of section 39, so changing it from the wildland, excuse me, changing it to the wildland urban

[49:40] interface overly district.

[49:46] The Planning Commission heard the case on September 14 and recommended

[49:50] approval of this case with a five to two vote. The two no votes cited concerns about

[49:56] having a professional engineer to determine whether the alternative standards requested

[50:00] are sufficient, and cited concerns about having the engineer stamp those sets of relief

[50:08] instead of a fire protection district. This is one of the reasons why we have removed

[50:13] those changes to the transportation design and construction manual. At this time, we would

[50:18] like more time to confer with engineers

[50:20] and fire protection districts

[50:22] to see what the right set of languages to move forward.

[50:25] So we anticipate that this will be presented to you all

[50:29] as a piece of an update to the transportation design

[50:34] and construction manual at a later date

[50:36] from our engineering department.

[50:41] And staff finds that the amendments

[50:42] to the zoning resolution proposed today

[50:44] will establish clear concise and comprehensive documents

[50:47] that meet the needs of our community and the county.

[50:50] So the amendments are consistent with county, state, and federal standards, and that they're in the best interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of Jefferson County and its community.

[51:00] We and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of this case, but ultimately, it is you the Board of County commissioners that approve the proposed regulation amendments.

[51:10] Thank you so much.

[51:13] Great. Thank you. Commissioners, questions?

[51:16] I just have one quick clarifying question and I'm going to try and read my handwriting here.

[51:21] I think it was G or C302, the defensible space standard, and you were talking about

[51:26] community feedback that you had received.

[51:29] And there was concern that the defensible space was only for new construction.

[51:34] And I just wanted to come back to that because it's, if I understand correctly, that a standard

[51:39] would apply to people, for example, correct me if I'm wrong, who pull a building permit

[51:45] And for example, might want to change their deck, or perhaps they need a new roof, correct?

[51:52] So when people talked about new construction only, were they referring to those kinds of examples or new builds?

[51:59] Or was it more about, and what do we do with existing property?

[52:02] Because in some ways this helps us get at existing properties as well, should they need to make some home improvements?

[52:09] Absolutely, I think you just nailed it right there with your last comment.

[52:12] So the concern was that the application of defensible space permits is only for construction and not for existing homes.

[52:21] So at this time with the changes that were made within the last regulation update and phase one, any construction, so an addition to a deck, a detached garage, anything requires a defensible space permit.

[52:34] The concerns that we received were about the inequitable application of

[52:39] defensible space within the county if it's new versus old.

[52:44] But like you said, it is our way of capturing defensible space standards on properties

[52:49] that may not have been up kept throughout the years.

[52:51] And so anytime a building permit is pulled, that is our time to be able to capture

[52:56] defensible space inspections and standards on a property.

[52:59] Do you want to move?

[53:00] I was just going to note that there are some building permits that would not require

[53:04] defensible space such as internal remodels of like a kitchen or a basement and also re-roafing

[53:10] and reciting permits do not require defensible space permits.

[53:13] So there are some exceptions to that but generally if there are any exterior changes, a defensible

[53:18] space permit would be required.

[53:21] And let me just do one more quick clarification so I'm making sure I'm understanding this

[53:25] correctly.

[53:26] Also if I'm a developer and there's a property that I'm going to develop, let's say I'm

[53:30] could have built five new homes in the wildland urban interface, somewhere in Evergreen.

[53:35] I'm still required, under this, to ensure that there's defensible space and should we

[53:40] pass these other recommendations, flame ignition resistant vegetation and those other recommendations

[53:48] that we may correct.

[53:49] The defensible space and the ignition resistant materials still apply to those new builds as

[53:54] well.

[53:54] Yes, so we're really tackling it on, we're doing our best to tackle it on both fronts.

[54:00] Yes, that is correct.

[54:01] Okay.

[54:04] Thank you.

[54:05] So thank you very much for the information.

[54:07] I don't know if some of what you're talking about relates to this.

[54:10] But let me ask this, I've received numerous emails.

[54:13] The same email, so I think it's a coordinated effort about feedback.

[54:20] back, so if you could talk about who you got, which fire districts you got feedback from,

[54:24] what kind of feedback you got from them, and specifically the emails that I received concerns

[54:30] about are about Golden Gate, Fire Protection District Board, and the community.

[54:35] Did we receive feedback from them?

[54:37] Have they had a chance to review and comment?

[54:39] All of these emails are requesting a six-month delay.

[54:43] Why would we, if we have not heard from Golden Gate, if we have not asked them, why would

[54:49] we not do a six, I don't know, why six months? I mean, that's unclear to me why it's not two hours

[54:56] to review, but why would we not delay this until we're able to get their feedback?

[55:02] Absolutely. Thank you so much for that question. So, staff sends out notice to the fire marshals

[55:09] of the local fire protection districts and we met with the fire marshal groups within the county.

[55:15] So that fire marshal group that we meet with once a month contains the fire marshal's from every fire protection district than the county.

[55:23] It appears that and

[55:28] some of the referrals also include the chiefs of the fire protection districts.

[55:33] Yeah, so it appears that there might have been a breakdown between the fire marshal, the chief, and the boards within the fire protection districts.

[55:44] in the circumstance, but we feel as if the, we went through the proper procedure of notification of the representatives of the Fair Protection Districts.

[55:58] Yeah, if I could just add as kind of an example as far as how we make sure that we get people notified, I guess I would see this concern similar to homeowners association where the county solicits information about who is the correct,

[56:14] person from each of the fire districts, the water and sanitation districts, from homeowners

[56:18] associations, and we really rely then on that contact person to disseminate the information.

[56:26] It sounds like perhaps in this situation, our contact may not have done the appropriate

[56:31] dissemination of information, and that is very difficult for us to police, however, people

[56:36] are also welcome to come and register for the notify me, for regulation and plan updates,

[56:43] so that they receive them information directly to them, and so that is another option for people that want to be involved in regulation and plan updates.

[56:54] So what I'm hearing, let me just make sure I'm hearing that we solicited it. We asked them for feedback, but we did not receive feedback from them. Is that what you're saying?

[57:04] No. Golden Gate Canyon was at the meetings that we attended. The Golden Gate Canyon Fire

[57:11] District Fire Martial was there, and we did receive comments that we don't have anything in writing,

[57:17] I have to say, but we did at the meetings. I remember them commenting that they agreed with the

[57:22] proposed changes. So we received comments from the fire chief, but we are there other people in

[57:29] Golden Gate? Why are we getting all these emails? Are there other people in Golden Gate

[57:33] that did not have the opportunity to submit their feedback? I'm trying to understand.

[57:40] I mean, it's not just one person, and it's obviously a coordinated effort, so somebody

[57:44] is displeased, and I'm trying to get my fingers around why somebody is displeased.

[57:50] And we haven't received that letter ourselves from planning staff, but from what you're

[57:55] saying it sounds like there may be a disconnect between the fire chief and maybe the fire board

[58:02] and the information that was conveyed from the chief to the board and perhaps the board did not

[58:08] get the information that they were interested in. Okay is there anybody else that we have not

[58:15] gotten feedback from or we've not heard back from? I mean have we heard back from all of the other

[58:21] fire districts or wherever it is that's supposed to be the point person to be able to give feedback?

[58:27] Yeah, so we have not, like the Golden Gate Fire District, we haven't necessarily received

[58:33] the written feedback, because I think a lot of the fire districts were indicating at the

[58:39] Fire Martials meetings that they were fine with the proposed language, but we did reach out to all

[58:45] the fire districts, the fire districts are very good at attending those fire

[58:48] marshals meetings. So we feel confident that they were

[58:54] are aware of the changes.

[58:57] And we've heard back from everybody else, whether it's at that meeting

[59:03] in conversations, I mean is there anyone else that's outstanding that we just haven't heard from?

[59:11] I can't think of anyone that we haven't heard from. We've met with foresters, we've met with

[59:18] engineers at this point. We've had comprehensive conversations about these regulation updates.

[59:24] Okay, thank you.

[59:28] Any other questions at this point?

[59:34] Okay. We will move into public testimony.

[59:37] If you would like to provide public testimony on this issue, please come down to the front,

[59:44] have a seat and we'll be called up to the podium one at a time. If you're joining us virtually,

[59:54] If you're joining us virtually, please use the chat function to let the host know you would like to testify.

[1:00:00] On this issue, we're only taking public testimony on this issue. Each person will have three minutes

[1:00:06] and persons who are registered by their associations to testify on this item, and that our within

[1:00:12] notification areas will have 10 minutes.

[1:00:18] My script says we'll take speakers in the hearing

[1:00:22] room first. I'm going to amend that a little. We will take people who are in the hearing

[1:00:27] room first that signed up on our new advanced sign-up system. And I believe that covers everyone

[1:00:36] we have in the room at this point. So, Mr. Green, does that include you? Great. Yes, please

[1:00:44] come on up. And thank you for signing up ahead of time through our system. I hope you found it easy

[1:00:54] and congratulations on being the very first person

[1:00:59] to have signed up through that system

[1:01:03] and that is why you get to go first.

[1:01:06] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:01:08] And it's very nice to be here and meet you.

[1:01:10] I haven't been up here.

[1:01:11] I was at the planning commission

[1:01:13] but haven't been in front of the commission

[1:01:14] for a long time.

[1:01:16] However, there I am.

[1:01:18] So I am a board member

[1:01:20] on the Golden Gate Fire Protection District.

[1:01:22] Excuse me, sir.

[1:01:23] Can we get you for an answer?

[1:01:26] Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[1:01:33] So help you, God.

[1:01:34] I do.

[1:01:35] May I have you state your name, spell it, and your address for the record as well.

[1:01:40] Steve Green, S-T-E-V-E-G-R-E-E-N.

[1:01:44] And my address is 619-12th Street, number 188, Golden Colorado, 80402.

[1:01:51] No.

[1:01:54] Am I good?

[1:01:55] Okay.

[1:01:58] So I'm sorry.

[1:01:59] Are you representing yourself or are you representing the district today or you did send

[1:02:05] you a letter?

[1:02:06] Great.

[1:02:06] And I do want to.

[1:02:07] I assume you received a letter because I heard you speak about it.

[1:02:11] So you will have ten minutes since you're representing it.

[1:02:13] Thanks.

[1:02:14] I probably don't need ten.

[1:02:15] But you may have questions for me.

[1:02:16] You're welcome.

[1:02:16] Or stat.

[1:02:18] So.

[1:02:18] So, I've been elected three times on the Golden Gate Protection District Board,

[1:02:24] most recently on May 3rd, and it's taken a while to get up the speed.

[1:02:28] I was elected probably because, and three new board members because of a lot of dissatisfaction.

[1:02:34] So, I've been in Colorado 50 years and our fire district is 50 square miles pretty much just west of here.

[1:02:41] I believe it extends from the center of US Highway 6 up to Geneva Glade,

[1:02:46] which is that back Crawford Golds Road and all the way up to the Guilpin County line and approximately down the Mount Galbraith.

[1:02:52] So it's right here.

[1:02:53] It's our backyard.

[1:02:56] So I'm asking you, as the letter said, to please delay because we have not had a chance to review this.

[1:03:05] I know that the county has done staff has done an effort the best they can because it's not difficult.

[1:03:11] It's not easy to reach everybody.

[1:03:12] It's difficult.

[1:03:14] But we were not informed.

[1:03:17] The board never discussed it in a meeting.

[1:03:20] The community was unaware.

[1:03:21] I only became aware in June, but we had just been elected.

[1:03:26] So there was a lot to take care of.

[1:03:29] Let me go on a little further here and see.

[1:03:36] These wildfire codes and regulations.

[1:03:39] They have a real impact on property owners and stakeholders in our district.

[1:03:44] sometimes they can be really difficult to comply with.

[1:03:48] Some of the water requirements in the IW UIC say things like

[1:03:54] 1500 gallons per minute.

[1:03:56] I know we're not talking about that here. I'm just using that as an example.

[1:03:59] But they can be absolutely impossible in the mountains.

[1:04:01] They'll stop people from developing

[1:04:03] period or using the property.

[1:04:07] So I ask also, I strongly believe that our districts

[1:04:11] should be able to continue with what we have always called the minimum alternative standards.

[1:04:17] That means the district knows what's best in its district.

[1:04:20] They can assess its district and come up with reasonable solutions for people who may not be able to,

[1:04:26] for example, get by with a 12% grade, unless you want to really carve up the mountains.

[1:04:33] We have other ways to do that, which in the past had been the minimum alternative standards.

[1:04:38] I would really like, though, that we have a chance to review this more, and we asked for six months because we haven't seen it at all until recently.

[1:04:50] And then it gets changed quite a bit.

[1:04:53] At the planning commission meeting,

[1:04:57] it seems to have been changed since the planning commission meeting.

[1:05:00] Again, some things were pulled out of the plan, and that was only about two weeks ago.

[1:05:04] So again, there were changes that we would like to review with the community and the stakeholders.

[1:05:11] I would like to point out, though, it is the Fire Marshal's, they don't share with the community what goes on.

[1:05:21] I have been, I used to attend the Fire Marshal meetings when Randy was conducting a Miranda Rudolph.

[1:05:26] And he welcomed me, but recently I have not been welcome there.

[1:05:31] They have told me we don't want you to know what's going on.

[1:05:34] I have that in writing. Stay out of the way, we don't want you to get in the way.

[1:05:38] That's what our chief wrote our board and that's just unacceptable because the community wants to be able to be aware and participate in this process and I don't believe they have been able to so at the planning commission vote, it was a five to two vote.

[1:05:57] That's true, but it seemed to me that practical applications of this new wildfire code was some of the concerns of the planning commissioners.

[1:06:07] not just an engineering point of view, but they express that in the mountains, it's very difficult to

[1:06:14] practically apply some of these points without completely shutting down all development.

[1:06:20] And I do think some of the planning commissioners were very clear about that.

[1:06:24] I would also like to go on to say that the ICC, which stands for the International Code Council,

[1:06:29] is not an international body.

[1:06:32] It's got that name, but it's mostly applied here in the United States.

[1:06:37] And the IWUIC, which I, about 10 years ago, I reviewed the IWUIC with 12 other members

[1:06:43] of our district, and we wrote a report on the IWUIC of that time, which it changes.

[1:06:51] But we found there were many, many restrictions in there that were absolutely impossible to

[1:06:57] comply with, and I have that review, although it's somewhat outdated, so may not be that functional,

[1:07:05] but I do find that the IWIC is very hard to apply in our mountain district. We have a lot of specifics

[1:07:13] that need to be addressed individually. The principal space too is the best thing there is for stopping

[1:07:23] a structure fire in the wildfire,

[1:07:28] but to make it mandatory only for new constructions

[1:07:33] creates a situation which I've written you about.

[1:07:36] I don't see how that will be, without more discussion, to make this fair.

[1:07:42] I don't think it will be fair.

[1:07:44] I think it will lead to a lot of problems.

[1:07:47] So those are the reasons we asked you for delay, so we could review this with our community.

[1:07:53] I welcome any questions and pardon me if I'm a little bit nervous.

[1:07:56] I always get a little nervous up here.

[1:07:58] But I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you, and I do appreciate what Cassidy

[1:08:03] and Heather are in the name of safety in the community are trying to do, but I do think it

[1:08:08] needs to be refined a little bit more.

[1:08:10] And some of the wrinkles need to be ironed out, because I see some of them in there.

[1:08:14] Thank you.

[1:08:15] I have a couple of all too.

[1:08:17] Okay.

[1:08:17] Let me go to the first.

[1:08:18] First. Thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate it. So, am I understanding you correctly

[1:08:25] that your fire chief participated in the community process, but your fire chief chose to not

[1:08:31] share that information with the fire board and the community? He actually chose to

[1:08:38] intentionally deny that information. He's no longer our fire chief. He was dismissed recently.

[1:08:49] Okay. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry, congratulations on your election three times.

[1:08:55] I'm sorry for, it sounds like it's been an interesting process.

[1:08:59] It has been very, it's always interesting. So help me understand six of the six-month period.

[1:09:06] Why would it not be okay for us to delay for a week? Your fire board get together

[1:09:13] Thursday night, review it, and then get back to us and then we can bring this back up again next week.

[1:09:20] I'm not understanding the six months feels like a long time.

[1:09:26] I can't speak for everybody on the board and their schedules, but we're all volunteers.

[1:09:32] The community has not had a chance to review this.

[1:09:36] We've had meetings on the 6th of August, the 18th of August,

[1:09:40] The first of September, the 15th, I think, or the 14th of September, we have another meeting in two days where we're just swamped.

[1:09:48] That's one reason.

[1:09:52] Actually, those are a couple of reasons right there.

[1:09:54] It takes time to review this. I have not even read it all. It changes a little bit.

[1:09:59] I have read some alarming portions of it. I'm not against any particular thing. I don't know yet. I have to really sit down.

[1:10:07] These rules and regs are pretty easy just to say, yeah, adopt them, but sometimes the effects can be a little obscure and long and far reaching.

[1:10:21] So that's why it's a dramatic development regulation that could really have an effect on many people's properties and on the environment.

[1:10:33] and some of the road standards sometimes can create,

[1:10:35] instead of a road that goes like this,

[1:10:38] it creates a road that does this,

[1:10:39] and then we have a new problem

[1:10:41] that the community doesn't like,

[1:10:42] that the mountains are getting all scarred up.

[1:10:47] Good question.

[1:10:48] Well, I'm not good, but okay, go ahead.

[1:10:52] Okay, thanks so much, Mr. Green, for coming.

[1:10:54] You're welcome, thank you for the question.

[1:10:56] Yeah, your comments and some of the concerns

[1:10:57] that you're raising with us.

[1:10:58] I think all three of us received the emails

[1:11:00] that you heard, Commissioner Kraftarp,

[1:11:02] mentioned a little bit earlier,

[1:11:03] calling for the delay,

[1:11:04] But what was less clear, and I appreciate you're coming here today to fill in the gap, is why there was resistance and why there was an ask for a six month delay.

[1:11:15] I want to ask if, Cass, go ahead.

[1:11:17] I didn't understand what you didn't understand. Why there was resistance?

[1:11:22] What I'm saying is that we got a lot of emails probably, and by a lot, I mean, six, seven, somewhere in that range.

[1:11:27] And the emails were all the same email and each email said something to the extent of

[1:11:32] can you delay it or we have concerns.

[1:11:35] And so with one of the emails I responded and said can you say more about the why behind

[1:11:42] your concerns.

[1:11:42] So I just want to share that comment with you and some of the feedback one person shared

[1:11:47] nothing specific just at first glance it appears there are some proposed changes that effectively

[1:11:53] Effectively, stop new construction because of onerous creating two classes, newbies and

[1:11:57] old-grandfathered residents.

[1:11:59] I would like to just take a moment to pull up those two slides that you have that talk

[1:12:03] about the changes that we're making, and I'd love to go through that just with you for a moment

[1:12:08] because I do hear what you're saying about the ivory codes, and in fact, I was at a conference,

[1:12:13] a two-day conference that's going on today in Colorado Springs with folks from ICC, fire

[1:12:19] our chiefs, community fire ambassadors and more, and while we're pulling up the slide with that information, I think that you're right, there are aspects of the will we code that require more work and in fact in Colorado, what we typically see our counties like Jefferson County, Boulder and others continuing to work with our fire chiefs and our communities to tailor aspects of the will we code that really work best for our communities.

[1:12:45] We adopted a Pentex Z working with fire chiefs, developers are building director and others to really kind of think those those points through at the same time.

[1:12:55] A lot of what's being proposed, we have this slide we could pull up for that.

[1:12:59] A lot of I'm just sort of stretching here while we're waiting for it, although it's relevant.

[1:13:04] A lot of these issues that are proposed are really pretty standard components and for me and this is what I want to balance here.

[1:13:13] I mean, I would be open to considering holding off for a week, but six months seems awfully long, and here's why we're, as you know, we're the number one county in the state at risk for property loss due to wildfire risk.

[1:13:30] We have some of the most extreme areas in the state right here in Jefferson County.

[1:13:35] So I think there's a sense of urgency and we've also really dealt a deep dive with our task force which came back with several recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

[1:13:48] What you see proposed came out of two years worth of work with that task force to really look at ways that were responsible and

[1:13:57] reflected best practice to help address greater defensible space, ignition resistant materials

[1:14:02] and more. And we've got to start somewhere. So that's part of the balance that I'm thinking

[1:14:07] of here. Is everything going to be perfect? No. But for me, this isn't opening a can of

[1:14:14] worms or bigger questions. I feel like these are really pretty reasonable efforts that some

[1:14:20] counties have already adopted. So as we look through some of these, I'm just wondering if

[1:14:25] If there are any, even on this first slide, you know, the landscaping and 10 feet within

[1:14:33] power poles, malt, is there anything that raises a red flag for you on this particular

[1:14:38] screen, just that you want us to be aware of?

[1:14:42] My main concern initially with what I wrote you initially, and when I wrote you that, I was

[1:14:48] writing you as from myself, which was creating a two-tiered system of punishments or fines where

[1:14:56] where the principal space became mandatory for new consumers.

[1:15:01] I see, but I haven't discussed this with the whole board. This is a pretty deep discussion. I see this as becoming a situation where one neighbor can pick on another neighbor. One neighbor that rules don't apply and the other neighbor does, but yet the neighbor who may be calling up about the property that he wants to report may have a worse situation, but those rules don't apply to him.

[1:15:27] I don't understand how that can be enforced fairly.

[1:15:33] I've had a problem with that.

[1:15:34] Now, maybe that's been removed, but I don't believe it has.

[1:15:38] No, I think it's a critical component of some of the best practices

[1:15:42] we've seen in terms of helping to reduce wildfire risk in our rowy communities.

[1:15:47] Let me ask you this.

[1:15:48] Does Golden Gate have a fire ambassadors program?

[1:15:51] Are you a fire adapted community?

[1:15:54] Do you have fire wise?

[1:15:56] Okay, we participate that in that we also have a community well for protection plan. We've been quite progressive on this. We've had a study by anchor point. We paid for we've had another study by Jefferson County, which was basically a copy of the anchor point study with a slight modifications.

[1:16:15] We are also very active community, if you haven't heard from other communities, our community has a central building where we meet, we discuss, it's always been a fairly informed community, and we don't have 6000 people in our community, we have, I believe it's under 1000, which may be slightly more affluent, slightly more aware, slightly more involved, although we still have an issue of people being involved.

[1:16:42] like you know throughout government, it's hard to get people involved.

[1:16:47] They are after the fact, but they had a time, here I am, on the vault, and some other members.

[1:16:53] And part of the reason I asked too is, and I really appreciate the work that you all are doing to reduce wildfire risk in your community.

[1:17:00] And there's similar strategies that we see in Conifer and Evergreen and Pine and other parts of the high wildfire risk area in Jefferson County.

[1:17:09] And to my mind, it's not an either or for me it's all of the above in terms of best practices

[1:17:16] that we know help ensure to the best of our ability that a home owner has a home to

[1:17:21] come back to, that the local economy isn't disrupted or simply obliterated as we saw in

[1:17:27] campfire, that people can still get insurance which of course is a continued issue.

[1:17:32] So as we've worked with the task force over the last two years, we've really thought hard

[1:17:37] about what mitigation looks like in the county,

[1:17:40] inviting people to share their thoughts on that.

[1:17:43] What does that look like?

[1:17:44] What are we learning from fire ambassadors

[1:17:46] in different fire adaptive communities like yours as well?

[1:17:49] So, for me, this represents some of that really good,

[1:17:54] thoughtful approach with not trying to be overly burdensome

[1:17:59] or onerous and far from it in that approach.

[1:18:02] So, I really appreciate the comments

[1:18:05] that you shared with us this morning.

[1:18:07] And I just wanted to dig in a little bit deeper

[1:18:09] to see if there was anything in what you were seeing.

[1:18:12] And if we could go to the next slide as well.

[1:18:14] You know, I have a hard time reading that.

[1:18:16] I'm writing the age work.

[1:18:17] You have to be closer like classes.

[1:18:20] No, I'm further and bigger letters.

[1:18:22] I do. No, I understand.

[1:18:24] I understand completely.

[1:18:25] That helps.

[1:18:28] So I just, some of this feels fairly straightforward.

[1:18:31] But I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything

[1:18:33] in terms of the concern you're raising before we take a vote on this.

[1:18:37] Yes, please, please, any thoughts?

[1:18:39] As less than a year ago, we saw 1,000 homes in superior burn down, of which I know two people

[1:18:47] who lost their homes.

[1:18:49] And we were all shocked and surprised because that's an urban area or sub-urban, where the

[1:18:57] houses are very close and the fire departments are close and the infrastructure is good.

[1:19:01] But up in the wooly, as we call it, the Wellland Urban Interface, it's very different.

[1:19:07] The houses are very separated from each other.

[1:19:11] In our district, majority of people have 35 or more acres.

[1:19:15] It's a very different situation.

[1:19:17] I feel, although I can't say what your feelings are, that the superior fire has caused this

[1:19:24] to come to the forefront.

[1:19:25] But I would like to remind you, they're very, very different situations, the WUI, and

[1:19:30] what happened that day in that very windy day, and that very tightly constructed community.

[1:19:35] I say tightly with the buildings are very close together.

[1:19:40] I would not argue with the vegetable space.

[1:19:42] I have it around all of my structures in my property.

[1:19:46] I don't see though how you can mandate it on new and not on the old.

[1:19:53] And I'm not positive you should mandate on the old either.

[1:19:56] I think education is really important.

[1:20:01] Okay, I appreciate that perspective.

[1:20:03] I'll also add that Chief DeFeo was on our task force and also represented Golden Gate

[1:20:10] community as a member of that task force as well.

[1:20:13] But I will say that what we need to do is we need to look at the big picture.

[1:20:18] And first and foremost, one of our top priorities is how do we keep our community safe, not only

[1:20:23] in Jefferson County, but across Colorado.

[1:20:25] because this issue isn't going away, we're going to continue to see growth and development in the wooey and population.

[1:20:33] You know, the secrets out people love living in these forested areas, but we need to protect homes, lives, local businesses and more.

[1:20:41] So I just share that with you because for me there's a real sense of urgency about this work.

[1:20:46] And if this was something we had only thought about for a week or two as opposed to working with our task force on for two years or more,

[1:20:53] I might have, I might feel differently, I suppose I would be open if there's a motion to bring this back next Tuesday to give you some more time to look at it, but I'm certainly open to that conversation.

[1:21:08] But for me there is a sense of urgency in terms of moving forward with what is just basic best practice in terms of this effort, just to see where I'm coming from.

[1:21:17] I would just like to add that rules themselves aren't making things safer.

[1:21:23] It's the actions of people and if we just sometimes rules can really have

[1:21:29] a owners effect on values and the communities and we can get top heavy on the rules.

[1:21:39] We have not had and I hope pretty God that we don't a measure wildfire come through our community.

[1:21:45] We have seen them in other communities, but they have other distinguishing differences in ours.

[1:21:53] I do still think you should let it up to the fire districts to make these choices for

[1:21:58] the people who live in their districts and the stakeholders.

[1:22:01] I don't believe, although you speak about the task force, we were not included.

[1:22:09] That's, people don't know what's going on in our community.

[1:22:12] Not until they're getting informed, I've informed them, they're concerned that rules could be passed that are really prohibitive to any development whatsoever.

[1:22:23] And the task force, at least our chief did not inform the board, the board never discussed it, on new on the board again, back on the board.

[1:22:31] And it wasn't discussed, so it may have been two years of task force discussion, but they omitted a key element stakeholders.

[1:22:40] Great.

[1:22:44] Thank you very much. I appreciate all your time.

[1:22:48] We do have one person to testify online, Julie Ramsteader. Julie, are you there?

[1:22:58] Yes, I'm here.

[1:23:00] Great. Let's get you sworn in and then you can move forward.

[1:23:06] Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole

[1:23:12] truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

[1:23:15] I do.

[1:23:16] May I please have you state your name and spell it as well as your address for the record.

[1:23:22] Julie, J-U-L-I-E, Ramsteader, R-A-M-S-T-E-T-T-E-R.

[1:23:29] and the address is 261 Golden Gate Canyon Road, and that's AO 403.

[1:23:41] Great. Thank you. You have three minutes. Please go ahead.

[1:23:45] I am representing myself as a homeowner, and although I do volunteer to help out the board,

[1:23:55] I do not represent the board at this meeting.

[1:24:01] One of my concerns with this proposal on the 10-foot restriction of power on power poles,

[1:24:13] can you explain to me because I have multiple acres,

[1:24:19] and I can't pay a thousand dollars per tree and have bushes removed from these

[1:24:29] power poles that are across multiple acres and just kind of an FYI and this is

[1:24:37] me being a little emotional but this isn't the wooie this is my home and it's been

[1:24:46] in my family since 1860 so don't

[1:24:55] this is a problem I am all about

[1:25:00] defensible space but if you're gonna begin I need to have a garage build so

[1:25:07] and are you gonna tell me in order to have my garage built I have to cut ten

[1:25:12] feet of trees and bushes and all this away from the power lines? I can't do that.

[1:25:24] So my question is

[1:25:25] am I misunderstanding this or how would you propose people like me and know I agree with Steve

[1:25:36] There are a lot of affluent people up here, but there are also a plural hillbillies that have

[1:25:46] been up here forever that don't have money coming out at our ears.

[1:25:56] So that's all I have to say.

[1:25:59] Great. Thank you, Miss Rams, that we will ask our staff when we get to that point

[1:26:06] to answer your questions as best as possible.

[1:26:12] Just double check.

[1:26:14] It was there any other information you wanted to pass along?

[1:26:19] I just wanted to let you know that we hadn't been informed.

[1:26:25] And I get it that that Jeff Co. does its best.

[1:26:30] And they put out these notices on the websites and stuff.

[1:26:34] We don't have, there's a requirement in our district that the board and the chief send out a newsletter.

[1:26:46] Well, there's been a big shake up as you know the fire chief is gone.

[1:26:51] But in the past, we have not had that newsletter so nobody knows what's going on.

[1:26:56] And this just came to our attention. So yes, we get that you guys have done your due diligence.

[1:27:04] We're just asking for a little more time.

[1:27:08] I get that six months is a lot.

[1:27:11] But I also understand that one week is a lot too for for the current board members and the current fire in term fire chief.

[1:27:22] As they have other jobs as well and with the big shakeup that's going on with the fire department, there's everybody has so much more on their plate trying to get things smoothed out.

[1:27:42] So that's all I'm saying if we could get a little more time.

[1:27:47] but I do understand what you're saying about six months is long time. I just, in my opinion,

[1:27:54] one week is not enough. I think we should at least get to, but that's my opinion.

[1:28:02] Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to

[1:28:09] provide public testimony on this case. And there's no one in the room, just double check online,

[1:28:18] doesn't look like we have anyone online. So public testimony on this issue is now closed.

[1:28:25] I will ask Heather and Cassidy if there's some information we can share to answer some of the

[1:28:35] questions you've heard?

[1:28:37] Absolutely. Thank you so much, Chairman.

[1:28:40] I would first like to start this by saying,

[1:28:43] any input of how we can better achieve communication

[1:28:47] with the community is always welcome.

[1:28:51] I know in planning and zoning it is critical to what we do

[1:28:54] to receive public input.

[1:28:56] So, if there's any mention of how we can do it better,

[1:28:59] is it do we publish the notify me things and push that more?

[1:29:04] or any input would be incredible to the community.

[1:29:07] I just wanted to put that out there.

[1:29:09] So, I want to address a few things.

[1:29:12] Mr. Green is correct that these standards

[1:29:14] in the I-WUE could be imposing

[1:29:18] on the mountain community in Jefferson County.

[1:29:20] There's a reason why we have not put in a blanket regulation update

[1:29:25] just adopting all of the codes within the I-WUE.

[1:29:28] That is why we have picked certain standards

[1:29:30] within the IWUE that we think can elevate the wildfire protection within Jefferson County.

[1:29:37] We are continuing to look at that document that is something that we would like to look at

[1:29:41] quite a bit with the RFP and see how it can be applied through research through the county

[1:29:46] and other ways that we don't see as staff without staff's time. So the ones the things that are

[1:29:51] proposed right now from the IWUE we think are the most applicable and most seamless transition type

[1:29:58] Thanks.

[1:30:00] So, there was a comment about the changes from the planning commission. Nothing was added to the regulation. There were no red marks from the planning commission taken here. It was just a removal of that transportation design and construction manual language because of the concerns that we heard. We do note that there does need to be more work with that language before it gets adopted by you all board county commissioners.

[1:30:27] So I want to make a comment about the defensible space standards.

[1:30:32] The standards requiring defensible space for building permits was originally put into

[1:30:35] place and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1995.

[1:30:40] So that has been in place for quite some time.

[1:30:42] It wasn't until last year that we put it into place for detached structures and additions

[1:30:49] of any size.

[1:30:50] before it was for additions over 400 square feet or new single family dwellings.

[1:30:57] So we have we upped it last year to include detached structures, detached non-habitable living space,

[1:31:02] and any kind of addition like a deck.

[1:31:07] Concerning with Ramsteaders comments about the concerns about the 10-foot restrictions

[1:31:11] around power poles that would be onerous to homeowners, absolutely.

[1:31:15] So this language was added to the landscaping section of the zoning resolution,

[1:31:19] So it will be applicable at the time of site development plan, or applicable at the time of subdivision plat, so that that language will be applied to commercial developments or new single family dwelling or multi-family dwelling subdivisions that come in, it will not be something that is applied at the time of building permit for a single home owner.

[1:31:44] Right, so to clarify, if Miss Ramsteader had power poles going through her property and there was vegetation less than 10 feet from those power poles, she would not be required under what we're voting on today to mitigate that and to pay for it.

[1:32:00] This deals only with new development moving forward to ensure that we're being smart about where we place vegetation and it's not close up to those power poles.

[1:32:09] Okay, that's really helpful, thank you, of course.

[1:32:13] That is what I have, and just to reiterate again, the road standards that we're discussed

[1:32:17] with in the testimony have been removed from consideration today.

[1:32:22] Which helps with Mr. Green's concern about, you know, would there be switchbacks and what

[1:32:26] would that look like on, you know, given that more steep topography?

[1:32:30] That's good.

[1:32:30] Okay, great.

[1:32:31] Thank you.

[1:32:36] I did have two questions.

[1:32:43] Cassidy, you mentioned in your original presentation that there are things we can't here in Jefferson County.

[1:32:50] We can't consider in the IWUE.

[1:32:53] Can you be a little more specific about what those things are that are in the IWUE that we don't consider here in Jeffco?

[1:33:04] I think Mr. Green might have mentioned at least one.

[1:33:08] Yeah, it's the water standards.

[1:33:11] So there's quite a bit in the eye, will we, that we need to think about more and maybe

[1:33:17] use as a structure for our regulation, but change certain details that might make it better

[1:33:24] and more applicable to Jefferson County.

[1:33:26] What Mr. Green mentioned about the water standards, it essentially is a requirement for how

[1:33:33] much a well produces and a well must produce X amount and I'm so sorry I don't want to

[1:33:37] state the number because I do not want to state it incorrectly but it is an astronomically

[1:33:42] high number compared to the wells that produce in the county. When we started looking at

[1:33:48] the regulations I pulled some well permits that I had recently looked at for a building

[1:33:52] permit and there was no well that even came close to producing what the I will be requested

[1:33:57] it produce for fire protection measures. So that is something that we know will be restrictive

[1:34:06] in building in the mountain community, and we know that wells and our aquifers cannot produce

[1:34:10] to that amount. So that is something that we will not be taking forward because it is almost impossible.

[1:34:18] But we can take that kind of structure in that section of the eye and look at components of that

[1:34:23] fire mitigation to ask our fire protection districts, what regulations can we potentially

[1:34:27] put into place that assist you in this kind of fire protection mechanism.

[1:34:32] So, I will use a great guiding document for us, but it is not something that we intend

[1:34:37] on recommending that you all put into place entirely.

[1:34:43] All right. Thank you. And I think it's the previous slide. It's the fourth bullet that

[1:34:55] talks about this. Yeah, that one at the Zone 1 Defensible Space that should be completed

[1:35:02] around driveways since the section three materials around roads. You're saying we're not going

[1:35:09] to be that have been pulled out but this around driveways is still in that is correct okay I'm

[1:35:16] just trying to get the fine point between what's on with the driveways and in roadways so roadways

[1:35:25] is out driveways is in yes and this will be essentially 10 feet of fire mitigation on either side of

[1:35:34] a driveway that will be completed by the wildfire

[1:35:38] interface fire specialist at the time of their inspections,

[1:35:41] their initial and final inspections.

[1:35:44] Great.

[1:35:48] And I just, I'll just say that as far as the,

[1:35:57] this is an issue between having new regulations

[1:36:01] that to a certain degree apply to new construction and Mr. Green, what you brought up about neighbors who have been there and new neighbors coming in and how all that works.

[1:36:17] And it seems to me I'm dividing this. There are three possibilities.

[1:36:22] Either we keep everyone under the current standards, which I don't think protects our communities.

[1:36:35] We make everyone, we make new regulations applicable to everyone and I'm guessing that our

[1:36:44] county attorney might have some things to say to me if we try to tell people who have

[1:36:52] owned their land as long as Julie's family has owned land that to force a bunch of new

[1:37:02] regulations on long-term property owners, there would be some serious issues with that.

[1:37:09] Although personally, I think that would probably make our communities as safe the safest we possibly

[1:37:17] could. The third alternative is somewhere in between and it sounds like we've been working

[1:37:24] in that space already around new construction being subject to slightly different regulations.

[1:37:36] And we've already been operating in that space. I think we need to continue operating in that

[1:37:42] that space might not be exactly where, if I were in charge, I would have a speed, but

[1:37:51] so with that, commissioners, other questions or comments?

[1:37:55] Yes, thank you.

[1:37:56] Commissioner Cretler.

[1:37:57] Thank you very much for all the work that you all have done.

[1:38:00] This is a real dilemma for me on one half.

[1:38:03] On one hand, I really support all the work that you've done.

[1:38:06] I understand that you've had community meetings.

[1:38:07] people gave input at meetings that you felt like you really had the community support.

[1:38:14] You've done a lot of work on this. Fire is absolutely a high priority.

[1:38:20] Fire prevention is a high priority in our community.

[1:38:24] Waiting six months pushes us into a new fire season.

[1:38:30] I mean, I understand all those pieces.

[1:38:32] I just can't move forward with a community saying we didn't have the opportunity to have

[1:38:39] input.

[1:38:41] Six months is just not reasonable if we were to look at a month.

[1:38:47] I think that that gives time for people who even are volunteers, even are working, doing

[1:38:52] this as a second job, to be able to pull a meeting together,

[1:39:01] to be able to pull a town

[1:39:02] I would, I just think that that would be pretty reasonable.

[1:39:06] So as much as it pains me, I just want to let my colleagues know as the motion maker,

[1:39:11] I'm not going to be able to make a motion on this item.

[1:39:14] And if you all make a motion, I would anticipate I may not be able to support it.

[1:39:29] Any other questions or comments?

[1:39:52] I'm getting some feedback about what we already have scheduled for next week.

[1:39:59] week. And I understand that that would still be a little bit quick. In certain cases,

[1:40:12] I do feel like we do need to move ahead. So I would offer up that doing the one week

[1:40:25] delay, allowing people to send us more feedback, possibly get questions answered from planning

[1:40:36] and zoning if needed. For example, the questions that Ms. Ramsteader brought up, I believe

[1:40:45] were addressed here. Since our testimony is closed, I can't confirm that, but it sounds

[1:40:53] It sounds like that question at least was answered and it seems like we do have some space on our agenda for next week, next Tuesday that we might be able to fit this in.

[1:41:10] So, I would put out there if someone would like to make a motion to move this out one week

[1:41:17] and also pointing out that we are,

[1:41:25] that some of the regulations, especially around Section

[1:41:32] 3 have already been, I don't know if remanded is exactly the right word but some of the regulations

[1:41:40] that were brought up before the Planning Commission have been taken off the item that we have been asked to vote on today.

[1:41:51] So with that, I will ask if there is a motion for hearing regular agenda item 12.1.

[1:42:01] Chair, let me just ask a quick follow, clarifying question.

[1:42:05] I'm open to moving this to next week and making that motion.

[1:42:09] I just want to understand we've closed public comment or public testimony on this issue.

[1:42:16] Will we be reopening it next Tuesday?

[1:42:19] And I certainly think if people want to speak to the board, we should have that option available.

[1:42:24] It would be my intention to reopen public testimony on this item next week.

[1:42:30] Perfect, and I support that as well.

[1:42:33] So I'd like to, do you want to make a comment before I do make a motion?

[1:42:37] Okay.

[1:42:38] So I appreciate that we're looking at, not moving this forward today, but we've heard from

[1:42:48] the Golden Gate Fire Board that one week is not reasonable.

[1:42:52] So to move forward, to do one week is not helpful, which is why I had suggested to look at something that might be a little more reasonable.

[1:43:02] I mean, if we were to say we had to do a community meeting and come up, you know, within a week, it would be hard for us.

[1:43:10] So, I want to suggest, like, whereas six months is too long, I think a week we've already

[1:43:19] heard from them doesn't work.

[1:43:22] So, a couple of reactions to that.

[1:43:24] I'm happy to make a motion to move this out to next Tuesday and then also ensuring that

[1:43:28] we're opening it up to any public testimony.

[1:43:30] I think the couple of concerns that we heard here today have already been addressed by planning

[1:43:35] and zoning, which is exactly why we take this opportunity to hear from our public about concerns

[1:43:40] that you have so we can address them.

[1:43:42] The concern about the power poles came up.

[1:43:45] We address that, that's new development only as part of planning and other development

[1:43:51] plans that come before us regarding the power poles.

[1:43:54] We also address the roads, that's been taken out, and further work is going to be done on

[1:43:58] that issue.

[1:43:59] And so I would like to move that item 12.1 is move to our agenda next Tuesday to allow

[1:44:09] anyone in our community, including the Golden Gate community, to look at some of the

[1:44:15] proposed revisions to policy that have been stated here this morning and to please come

[1:44:21] back with any thoughts that you might have next Tuesday or certainly to email or contact

[1:44:27] with any questions you may have, and I would also extend that invitation, of course, to everyone in our community.

[1:44:33] Again, to me, it would be different if this was an issue we just started working on.

[1:44:38] It's been in the works for some time, it's based on best practice.

[1:44:42] Regarding communities in the Rui and we very much want to make sure that we're engaging our community every step of the way.

[1:44:48] There's no question about that, and that's why I think it is really important to reopen public testimony.

[1:44:53] If you can't be here either in person or virtually you can always reach us by phone directly or certainly by email.

[1:45:00] And the more information you can share if you're for against or you have questions, the better. So with that, that is my motion.

[1:45:10] And I'm going to second that motion. And the reason why is that I'm going back through my going back through my email and trying to say it's, it's been several weeks since we've been getting emails from whether

[1:45:31] their board members or other folks who live in the Golden Gate Fire Protection about

[1:45:37] this for several weeks.

[1:45:39] And most of the emails are very, very similar, if not exactly the same.

[1:45:44] So there is an organization, a small organization out there around that are having this discussion.

[1:45:55] So I don't see this as we're just waiting a week.

[1:45:57] There's already been several weeks of people in the Golden Gate Fire Protection District having these conversations,

[1:46:05] sharing information with each other, gathering feedback, at least to the extent of sending information to us.

[1:46:13] So I see that we've already been getting, we're not just waiting a week for more information, we've been getting feedback,

[1:46:23] back, we've been getting information, so we're extending that one more week.

[1:46:29] And I, well, I'll stop there at that point.

[1:46:36] And Chair, can I just clarify for the record, the motion will be to continue item 12.1

[1:46:41] until next Tuesday, and at that time, the board will reopen testimony on this matter.

[1:46:48] That is correct. And encouraging folks to send questions to both the commissioners and planning

[1:46:57] and zoning as early as possible so that those can be addressed when we reopen this next

[1:47:04] week.

[1:47:08] Any other questions or comments? Okay, Ms. Glenn, will you please call the vote?

[1:47:15] Commissioner Kratlar? No. Commissioner Dalkimper? Yes, Commissioner Kerr?

[1:47:20] I, and that motion passes.

[1:47:23] Next, we move on to, and first of all, thank you to everyone who has given us feedback.

[1:47:29] Thank you to our staff who have presented this to us at this point.

[1:47:35] And we look forward to continue information and feedback by next Tuesday.

[1:47:44] Thank you.

[1:47:47] Next, we move on to item 12.2.

[1:47:50] Ms. Glenn, will you please read hearing agenda item 12.2 into the record.

[1:47:56] Resolution CC22-266, case number 22-108-535RZ rezoning, case name 14405, West 52nd Avenue,

[1:48:14] Official Development Plan, owner, Luciano Basnardo and Jennifer M. Skills, location 14405 West 52nd Avenue,

[1:48:27] approximate area 1.36 acres, purpose to rezone from suburban residential 1 to a planned

[1:48:35] development based on restricted residential quarter acre to allow the future subdivision

[1:48:42] of the property into three lots for single family detached units, case manager Fritz Clawson.

[1:48:50] Great, thank you, and we will go to our planning and zoning division, Mr. Clawson, for a brief presentation on item 12.2.

[1:48:59] Thank you. Oh, I just got my permission to share. Hang on.

[1:49:13] Okay, yes, thank you. As stated, we are here to look at 1-4405, West 52nd Avenue Official Development Plan.

[1:49:21] case number 22-108-535RZ located on West 52nd Avenue between Gladiola and

[1:49:33] Eldridge. It's more zoomed out there West 52nd again Eldridge on the West and

[1:49:42] Indiana over here. Oh wait, I'm sorry, I keep getting less backwards. Indiana on the

[1:49:49] The West and Elterds on the East there, and there's the site on West 52nd.

[1:49:56] The zoning surrounding the site, the property in question is currently zoned SR-1, suburban

[1:50:03] residential one.

[1:50:04] It's surrounded by properties with a variety of zoning.

[1:50:08] North and East is the solar-green planned development, single-family homes, I believe it's

[1:50:19] in the process of development, currently, to the West Agricultural, to zone the property

[1:50:26] to the South, suburban residential one, and more blend development areas.

[1:50:33] The request is to rezone to a blend development that will conform to the restricted residential

[1:50:39] quarter acre, also known as RR-1 quarter, zone district of the zoning resolution.

[1:50:44] It would cap the number of dwelling units on the property at three and require a minimum

[1:50:49] modest size of 12,500 square feet, which is actually an increase from the restricted residential

[1:50:57] one-quarter at 10,890. The rest of the standards would stay the same with an exception that

[1:51:07] I'll get to in just a second. The current zoning versus the proposed zoning

[1:51:12] see on the chart up here. Current zoning is allows for single-family detached residential

[1:51:17] and limited agricultural uses.

[1:51:20] This proposal would allow a single family detached residential,

[1:51:25] no limited agricultural reduce the minimum lot size

[1:51:28] from one acre to 12,500 with a maximum of three in the property,

[1:51:33] three dwelling, three lots for dwelling units in the property,

[1:51:36] would reduce the setbacks to 20 foot front setback,

[1:51:41] 10 foot side setback, 20 foot side to street, 20 foot rear,

[1:51:44] here with setbacks for accessory structures being the same as the primary structure setbacks.

[1:51:51] There are a few provisions in the ODP that you may see in there, let me pull that up so

[1:52:00] I can read those out to you.

[1:52:03] I think there was a little bit of confusion at planning commission about what those meds,

[1:52:07] so I'd like to explain it.

[1:52:09] So, where it says required setbacks for the existing single family dwelling shell B side setback two feet from west property line, we are setback five feet from north property line and required setbacks for the existing detached garage shall be five feet from the north property line.

[1:52:26] This refers to the house that is currently on the property there, you see it's pretty close to the ditch there and fairly close to the west.

[1:52:38] property line. So those, the, because the lot lines will be established in the

[1:52:44] plat, that's sort of to give a little bit of room so that we don't create

[1:52:51] a non-conforming condition when the property is divided in the plat, because

[1:52:57] currently the existing house meets setbacks to the rear, but if the lot line were to

[1:53:02] be drawn at the ditch, it would be pretty close. So that's why there are specific

[1:53:08] setbacks for the existing house, they would not apply to a new house after the property is subdivided, and if a new house were to be built on the lot closest to West 52nd.

[1:53:21] So again, those are just two sort of legalized the existing condition under the new ODP.

[1:53:30] Okay, looking at the rezoning criteria, of course, section 60 of the zoning resolution states

[1:53:36] in reviewing proposed rezoning applications, planning commission and the Board of County

[1:53:40] commissioners should consider the following criteria, excuse me, may consider the following

[1:53:44] criteria, compatibility with the existing allowable land uses in the surrounding area, degree of conformance

[1:53:50] with applicable land use plans, ability to mitigate negative impacts on the surrounding area,

[1:53:54] availability of infrastructure and services and effective on health safety and welfare of

[1:53:58] residents and landowners in the surrounding area, A, to look at compatibility.

[1:54:04] The predominant land use in the area is residential with some agricultural uses.

[1:54:08] There is a significant amount of residential one zoning nearby with a minimum lot size of

[1:54:15] 12,500, which matches the proposed rezoning.

[1:54:18] And most of the agricultural two properties in the area are significantly less than the required

[1:54:23] 10 acre minimum lot size. General lot sizes range from a minimum lot size of just over

[1:54:28] 7,500 square feet in knee cottages and fair amount lay in ODP, which is quarter mile

[1:54:34] from the southwest to about five acres. Maximum building height proposed of 35 feet matches

[1:54:40] allowed building height and surrounding area. Therefore, we find the applicants proposed

[1:54:45] residential uses compatible with the existing and allowable land uses in the surrounding

[1:54:49] area, as it is residential land use, with comparable lot sizes and other standards to many

[1:54:54] lots in the area.

[1:54:55] Okay, B, conformance to comprehensive master plan, of course, this is broken up into four

[1:55:00] categories, land use, physical constraints, community resources, and infrastructure, water

[1:55:05] and services.

[1:55:06] For land use, subject property is an area 10 of the North Plains area plan of the Comprehensive

[1:55:12] Master Plan, which is recommended for maximum density of 2.5 million units per acre.

[1:55:18] The applicants proposed three lot maximum on the existing 1.37 acres would get come out

[1:55:28] to 2.22 dwelling units per acre, so it's meeting that land use recommendation, North Plains

[1:55:35] area plan as other policies, including houses do not be placed on slope squared and 30%,

[1:55:41] subject property is relatively flat, do not contain any such slopes, comprehensive master plan

[1:55:47] recommends a mix of housing with which the proposed rezoning contributes to in the surrounding area.

[1:55:53] Physical constraints, there are no mapped flood plans or geologic hazards associated with

[1:55:58] the subject property. We don't have any concerns related to physical constraints and find that

[1:56:04] proposals in conformance with the physical constraint section of the comprehensive master plan.

[1:56:09] Community resources, proposal was sent out on referral to Jefferson County Historical Commission,

[1:56:15] which resulted in no concerns.

[1:56:17] The properties are not near any historic sites.

[1:56:19] We find the policies and goals of the community resources section

[1:56:23] of the plan have generally been met.

[1:56:25] And finally, infrastructure, water, and services.

[1:56:27] There are no concerns with the existing infrastructure,

[1:56:30] water availability and services for the proposed land use.

[1:56:35] We'll look at it more when we come back to it

[1:56:37] in infrastructure and services in part D.

[1:56:40] Okay. See mitigation of impacts. The proposed rezoning seeks to allow a maximum of three

[1:56:48] single-family detached dwellings in a residential area. Staff finds impacts to the surrounding

[1:56:53] area will be minimal. Primary impact will be to the transportation network, which according

[1:56:58] to our transportation engineering division, is adequate to accommodate the small amount of additional traffic.

[1:57:04] Okay, D, availability of water, excuse me, infrastructure and services, not just water.

[1:57:10] The applicant has provided evidence showing that North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation

[1:57:14] will provide water and sewer services to the subject property, fair amount fire protection

[1:57:18] district, provides emergency rescue and fire protection services to the property, Jefferson

[1:57:22] County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services, and Jefferson County Schools has stated

[1:57:27] that the impacted schools would be adequate to house the anticipated students from the development.

[1:57:32] Therefore, we have no concerns with the adequacy of the infrastructure and public services available for this proposal.

[1:57:40] Finally, E effect upon the health safety and welfare of the residents and landowners in the surrounding area.

[1:57:45] The staff finds that the proposed zoning will not negatively impact the health safety and welfare of residents and landowners in the surrounding area.

[1:57:55] There are no known unmitigated impacts with a development that would impair that health safety and welfare of the surrounding area.

[1:58:01] community notification, applicant posted signs on the property, Jefferson County mailed

[1:58:06] postcards to neighboring property owners, notified HOAs within one mile in conformance

[1:58:12] with our regulation. Regulations, plural. During the processing of the application, we did

[1:58:18] not receive any comments about this case. Our findings, then in general. First, the proposed

[1:58:25] single-family detached residential land use is compatible with the existing and allowed single

[1:58:30] will family detached residential land uses

[1:58:32] in the surrounding area.

[1:58:34] Proposal is in general conformance

[1:58:36] with a comprehensive master plan

[1:58:37] as it meets the land use and density recommendations

[1:58:40] in the north plains area plan

[1:58:41] and is in conformance with other applicable sections

[1:58:44] of the plan goals and policies.

[1:58:47] Three, the ability to mitigate the negative impacts

[1:58:50] of the proposed land use

[1:58:52] upon the surrounding area have been considered

[1:58:53] and no negative impacts were identified.

[1:58:56] Four, the subject property is currently served

[1:58:58] by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Fair Mount Fire Protection, and North

[1:59:02] Table Mountain Water and Sanitation.

[1:59:04] The existing infrastructure and services are adequate and available to serve the proposed

[1:59:08] land uses.

[1:59:09] Finally, the proposed land use will not result in significant impacts to the health safety

[1:59:14] and welfare of the residents and landowners in the surrounding area.

[1:59:18] Looking at the process broadly, we are here at the rezoning phase review of proposed zoning

[1:59:23] and sporting documents, reviewing the case against the rezoning criteria, planning commission

[1:59:28] and of course Board of County Commission hearings, following this, should the application be approved,

[1:59:33] it will move to the preliminary and final plan process, public process to subdivide the property,

[1:59:39] subject to approval, then finally, calling that any administrative permits,

[1:59:44] grading permits, building permits that are needed to actually build houses.

[1:59:49] Just to look at the planning commission hearing, very briefly, on September 14th,

[1:59:53] The case was scheduled on the consent agenda, it was moved to regular to allow for public testimony.

[2:00:00] One member of the public, a neighbor, or not the immediate neighbor, but down the street. Provided testimony regarding this neighbor had concerns about compatibility, traffic concerns, and especially concerns about the impact to the water table. As he is on a well, isn't our agricultural well user in the area.

[2:00:22] Following that public testimony, the planning commission voted to approve the rezoning. And so here we are today, Board of County Commission.

[2:00:30] is charged with reviewing the request, staff report,

[2:00:32] and planning commission recommendation,

[2:00:35] receiving testimony and evidence on the application,

[2:00:37] and approving or denying the request.

[2:00:39] That concludes my presentation.

[2:00:41] Happy to answer any questions you might have.

[2:00:45] Great, thank you, Mr. Clausen.

[2:00:46] Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Clausen?

[2:00:52] All right, next we'll hear from the applicant for 12.2.

[2:00:57] Ms. Glenn, would you please swear in each of the presenters

[2:01:01] if there's more than one for the applicant.

[2:01:08] Luciano, Busnardo, are you with us?

[2:01:13] You may be on there as Lou.

[2:01:19] So you can go on there.

[2:01:21] Hi, Lou.

[2:01:21] How are you?

[2:01:22] We're going to get you sworn in, and then you'll have your time to present.

[2:01:29] Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole

[2:01:34] truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.

[2:01:37] I do.

[2:01:39] May please have you state your name and spell it as well as your address for the record.

[2:01:47] First name, Luciano, LUC, I-A-N-O, last name, Buznardo, B-U-S-N-A-R-D-O.

[2:01:56] So, property address is 1-4-0-5, west 52nd Avenue, our Vata 8,000-2.

[2:02:11] You may proceed.

[2:02:22] Basically, what Mr. Clausen stated is that we are in the process of re-zoning to a public

[2:02:33] development and we are looking to build two properties on the backside which is about 40,000 square feet

[2:02:45] total land space which falls under the guidelines and the developer that's building to the north

[2:02:55] and east of us is in the process of getting the approval of building road to the east side of

[2:03:05] my property, which would be FIG court and so we would have access on to FIG court and then add

[2:03:16] on to 52nd. We don't have any issues with, you know, water and sewer. So, and that's basically,

[2:03:30] you know, I've been on this property since 2012. And the current home that we live in,

[2:03:37] that Mr. Klassen, have referred to, was built in 1912. And we're currently living in that.

[2:03:46] That's a little bit small for us, so that was our reasoning for building another home and then adding a second home on the back property backside of the property for our children.

[2:04:06] And that's it. That's all I have to say on it.

[2:04:09] Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Commissioner, do you have any questions for our presenter questions?

[2:04:22] All right.

[2:04:24] Next we will move into public testimony if you would like to provide public testimony on this issue.

[2:04:30] Let me just double check here in the room if we have anyone for public testimony.

[2:04:37] Mr. Anslow, you're not here for this, okay?

[2:04:41] and let me check no

[2:04:50] public testimony for 12.2. So we'll go through everything then.

[2:04:56] All right, so public testimony is now closed. Mr. Closson, do you have any

[2:05:04] response to public testimony? No, I don't. Thank you. And do you have any

[2:05:12] a response to the presentation by the applicant.

[2:05:16] I don't, but if you have any questions for me, I may have an answer to them.

[2:05:20] Great.

[2:05:21] So does anyone have any questions or comments for anyone else at this point?

[2:05:26] I have a motion.

[2:05:28] Great.

[2:05:29] May I have a motion for hearing regular agenda item 12.2?

[2:05:33] You may.

[2:05:34] I move for the approval of hearing regular agenda item 12.2.

[2:05:38] Second.

[2:05:39] That is a proper motion and a second, Ms. Glenn.

[2:05:42] Will you please call the vote?

[2:05:43] Commissioner Kraftbar?

[2:05:45] Yes.

[2:05:45] Commissioner Dahlkimper?

[2:05:46] Yes.

[2:05:47] Commissioner Kerr?

[2:05:48] Aye.

[2:05:48] And that passes unanimously.

[2:05:50] Thank you, Mr. Busnardo, for sticking with us this morning

[2:05:54] and for your presentation.

[2:05:56] And thank you, Mr. Clawson.

[2:06:00] Next on our agenda is a second round of public comment.

[2:06:04] Does anyone who has not provided public comment today wish

[2:06:07] to speak to a topic that was not on today's agenda.

[2:06:13] Not here for that, either, Mr. Ansela.

[2:06:15] Okay.

[2:06:16] And doesn't look like we have anyone to comment on line.

[2:06:21] Next, we have reports, commissioners.

[2:06:23] Do you have any reports?

[2:06:25] Let me start with Commissioner Crafler.

[2:06:28] Yes, thank you.

[2:06:29] So I want to thank the staff at the Cabrini Shrine

[2:06:33] for the tour on Thursday.

[2:06:37] on one of the days. Yes, yes, it was very informative, very interesting, so that was helpful.

[2:06:47] Congratulations to the Westminster Chamber for a successful awards event on Friday, and then thank you to LEAF,

[2:06:56] the Latino Education Achievement Foundation, was able to participate in their golf tournament event.

[2:07:07] That's it.

[2:07:08] Thank you.

[2:07:09] Commissioner Delkumper.

[2:07:11] Great.

[2:07:11] Thank you so much.

[2:07:12] Was pleased to represent Jefferson County in the Colorado Fire Commission at a conference

[2:07:19] yesterday in Colorado Springs with leaders from California, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado.

[2:07:24] Talking about how we address some of the various issues we were talking about just a few minutes

[2:07:29] ago in terms of ensuring our communities stay safe, that they're resilient to wildfire,

[2:07:36] and covered a lot of ground in that panel discussion

[2:07:39] and also during the conference as well.

[2:07:42] Also huge congrats to Jeff Goh Public Libraries

[2:07:46] celebrating their 70th anniversary

[2:07:49] and that theme continued through their conference yesterday

[2:07:52] was pleased behalf of the Board of County Commissioners

[2:07:55] to express our deep gratitude to librarians

[2:07:58] and the entire team for their innovation

[2:08:01] and the important work that they do every day

[2:08:06] in our community. It was really great. The theme continued throughout the conference

[2:08:11] in terms of calling it that 70s conference. So when you walked in you felt like you went

[2:08:15] back in time since many people really embraced that and took it to heart and were dressed

[2:08:19] as a phages walked out of the 70s. So it was really great to see everyone and express

[2:08:24] our gratitude. And then finally a big thanks to everyone who turned out for our telephone

[2:08:28] town hall last week on the county budget. Great input, lots of good questions and again

[2:08:34] and really appreciate everyone who took the time out

[2:08:36] to participate.

[2:08:39] Great, thank you.

[2:08:42] Let's see, telephone, town hall, check,

[2:08:45] Mother Cabrini Shrine, tour, check.

[2:08:49] Also on Mother Cabrini yesterday was Mother Cabrini Day

[2:08:54] here in Colorado.

[2:08:56] And so just wanted to extend my thanks

[2:09:01] to the legislature after I had left.

[2:09:05] And if you didn't know, I had been there before, they decided this, but they did make Mother Cabrini day a state holiday in a compromise between different opinions on the whole thing.

[2:09:20] Also last week, I did attend with staff our I-70 collaborative effort.

[2:09:30] It was great to get updates on the pending construction around Floyd's Hill.

[2:09:38] There will be some pieces of that part of the construction that will happen in Jefferson County.

[2:09:45] the vast majority of it will be happening in Clear Creek County but there are some portions

[2:09:52] of a wildlife overpass and some other pieces that will happen in Jefferson County and those will

[2:10:00] happen first to before they get to the major construction down in Clear Creek but I've got

[2:10:06] an update on that. Also had some updates around the public transportation options

[2:10:15] For folks wishing to get from the front range along the I-70 corridor, you might bus staying has been around for a while, but also the newer, smaller, quicker, more convenient paguses has also been running in really encouraging folks to check that out if you need to get the stop right here in Jefferson County at the federal center.

[2:10:45] stop, and they have various stops going up the I-70 corridor year-round, seven days a week,

[2:10:55] and a quick, easy, and convenient, and I recommend people to check that out. We also was part of my

[2:11:05] I subcommittee on the Colorado Opioid Abitment Council, not to spill any beans, Commissioner

[2:11:17] Dalkempir, but we did approve requests from the various regions.

[2:11:23] So I won't, you know, if you haven't heard anything official, I don't want to say anything

[2:11:28] more than that, but we did approve requests from various regions.

[2:11:34] And then also on Friday with other commissioners from around CCI we did get some information on various ballot, statewide ballot initiatives that you will see on your ballot.

[2:11:51] And there are some interesting ones, statewide ballot initiatives coming with that.

[2:11:59] And just want to ask everyone, make sure you hug your kids tight with that Madam County attorney.

[2:12:13] I have nothing to report today, thank you, Madam Interim County Manager.

[2:12:22] Just one thing I wanted to extend our thanks for Julie Stoy's work, she's been here for 14, 15 years now, and this is her last public hearing with us, so sad to see her go but wishing her well in her future.

[2:12:40] We

[2:12:45] wish it was a full room of a standing applause, but since we didn't have the controversial

[2:12:55] land use cases to bring everyone in today, but Julie, thank you for your service to the

[2:13:02] county.

[2:13:04] You will definitely be missed.

[2:13:08] Thank you.

[2:13:10] With that, once again, after a very efficiently run meeting, we are running ahead, so we're

[2:13:21] going to look to start our briefings at 10.30, which is a little bit earlier than scheduled.

[2:13:30] So if you know anyone that needs to know that we are moving up half an hour, please let

[2:13:35] them now. And with that, these hearings are adjourned.

Board of County Commissioners' Hearing

Agenda

Transcript