<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"> <div class="WordSection1"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Having read the staff memo regarding restaurants in our parks, and the minutes of the recent Planning Board meeting on this subject, I am concerned with the conflict between the recommendations of staff and those of the Planning Board with respect to proposed Ordinance 8510. Planning  Board rejected Ordinance 8510 by a vote of 7-0. Staff is essentially  giving little deference to Planning Board’s decision and suggesting that we proceed to pass 8510 despite that unanimous recommendation. Given the variety of opinions on the Planning Board on most issues, I believe that a unanimous vote is something  which should cause us to sit up and take notice. It is a bit like a decision from the Supreme Court: A 5-4 decision looks partisan and is often viewed that way, while a 9-0 decision speaks with great authority. I believe that such unanimity requires a fuller explanation as to why staff has decided to proceed contrary to this advice. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">When I was an active developer I engaged many consultants, contractors and subcontractors. I soon learned that one needed to either trust those providing their expertise or replace them with others whose advice one did trust. In the absence of any reason to question the competence of the Planning Board, I would choose to give appropriate weight to their recommendation. If we cannot properly value even a unanimous vote by the Planning Board, why have a Planning Board? <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I understand the desire of staff to complete this project, presumably before a new Council is seated, but I suggest that riding roughshod over a unanimous Planning Board is not a policy we should be encouraging. And I am convinced that the new Council – no matter who is seated – will be no less competent to understand the issues and to act in the best interests of Boulder. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I have no strong view on the matter of restaurant uses in our larger parks, or whether the Use Review process is the best mechanism for determining the appropriateness of such uses, just as I am somewhat agnostic on the issue of whether maintaining restaurant uses as ancillary in our parks is preferable to establishing them as an as-of-right use. But the Planning Board does have such a view, and I believe we are not properly valuing their perspective if we so casually disregard it. I would prefer that staff bring this matter back before the Planning Board, amended in a manner that is satisfactory to both parties, rather asking Council to determine whether we value staff’s recommendation over that of the Planning Board. We value both staff and the Planning Board extremely, and we should not be in the position of having to choose one over the other, particularly when Planning Board speaks with one voice. Better governance would have these matters reconciled before they are brought before the City Council. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> </body> </html>