►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 8-25-22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
B
B
City
council,
I'm
council,
member
mark
wallach.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
I
will
be
your
mc
for
this
evening.
We
have
on
tonight's
agenda
two
items.
Our
first
item
will
cover
site
review
criteria,
update
project.
After
that
we
will
hear
information
on
the
use,
table
and
standards
project
update
regarding
industrial
areas
and
neighborhoods.
B
B
This
collaborative
statewide
initiative
made
possible
by
colorado
senate
bill
22-180
in
partnership
with
the
colorado
energy
office,
is
designed
to
reduce
ground
level
ozone
by
increasing
use
of
public
transit.
Current
rtd,
customers
will
also
benefit,
as
they
will
not
have
to
use
or
purchase
fare
products.
From
august
1st
to
the
31st
during
colorado's
high
ozone
season,
by
taking
advantage
of
free
transit
in
august,
you
can
save
money
on
gas
and
parking
avoid.
B
B
C
C
D
I
am
new
to
the
city,
as
you
all
know,
but
I
am
not
new
to
code
overhauls
and
one
of
the
things
that
I've
gained
an
appreciation
for
when
trying
to
comprehensively
provide
simplification
of
a
code
is
that,
ironically,
simplification
of
a
code
is
actually
one
of
the
most
complex
undertakings
that
a
planning
and
development
department
can
take
very
impressed
and
appreciative
of
the
hard
work
that's
taking
place,
leading
up
to
this
time,
both
by
councils
and
planning
boards
and
dab,
and
certainly
the
staff
very
much
there's
a
lot
of
detail
in
what
we've
presented
to
you
this
evening
and
what
we
will
present.
D
Ultimately,
this
is
about
simplification
in
response
to
values
and
feedback
that
we've
heard
from
the
public,
from
the
development
community
and
from
you
and
previous
councils.
It's
an
admirable
goal.
It's
not
unusual!
That
codes
become
frankenstein
with
lots
of
bits
and
pieces,
and
this
is
a
really
valiant
effort
to
try
to
simplify
that.
D
It
is
an
art,
not
a
science,
to
find
the
balance
between
allowing
for
creativity
in
design,
but
also
ensuring
that
there's
predictability
and
what
we've
heard
from
the
community
leading
up
to
this
time
is
that,
while
appreciative
of
the
flexibility
and
allowance
for
creativity
over
time
over
the
years,
maybe
that's
become
too
much
and
it's
time
to
swing
the
pendulum.
The
other
way
to
more
predictability.
D
And
that's
what
we'll
present
to
you
this
evening,
I'm
turning
it
over
to
our
expert
carl
geiler
on
that
and
we've
got
a
presentation
and
thank
you
again.
E
Just
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
working
for
some
reason,
so
we'll
just
edge
it
back
here
good
evening.
We're
going
to
talk
about
the
site,
review
criteria,
update
project
which
some
council
members
will
remember
that
this
is
actually
a
component
of
the
broader
community
benefit
project.
It's
actually
the
final
component
of
the
community
benefit
project.
So
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
history
of
the
project.
What's
been
done
so
far
and
then
get
into
the
details
of
this
particular
project.
E
We
really
focused
on
the
updates
to
the
criteria
in
the
past,
which
related
to
adding
additional
permanently
affordable
housing
requirements
for
any
buildings
that
go
over
zoning
district
height
limits
such
as
adding
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
story.
So
many
of
you
will
remember
that
there
are
additional
requirements
that
kick
in
on
such
projects
that
add
the
additional
floor
area.
E
This
is
really
just
a
holistic
update
to
the
site
review
criteria
to
meet
some
new
goals
and
objectives.
E
So
this
there's
already
an
ordinance
that's
associated
with
this.
It's
ordinance
85
15.
we've
been
working
on
it
for
some
time
now.
We
did
bring
it
to
planning
board
as
part
of
a
work
session
in
october
of
last
year
and
got
feedback
and
then
returned
to
planning
board
in
may
for
feedback
or
actually
for
a
recommendation
to
city
council.
E
E
Some
of
the
new
members
had
concerns
of
their
own,
so
I'll
talk
about
that
as
we
get
through
the
presentation,
but
we
thought
it'd
be
a
good
idea
to
come
back
to
city
council,
particularly
since
the
composition
of
council
has
changed
since
this
project
has
been
underway.
We
wanted
to
get
feedback
from
this
council
before
making
any
changes
to
the
ordinance.
E
E
What
work
has
been
done,
leading
up
to
the
ordinance
and
then
we're
going
to
set
up
some
questions
for
city
council,
which
are
basically
the
key
issues
that
we
want
council
to
focus
on
tonight
and
again
we
thank
you
for
your
input
on
this
complex
project.
E
Part
three
is
really
where
we
jump
into
the
the
components
of
the
ordinance,
all
the
different
parts
of
the
criteria,
how
it's
changing
and
then
we'll
conclude
with
we'll
go
into
the
key
issues,
each
with
our
analysis
and
talk
about
the
planning
board
and
dab
feedback
as
part
of
the
key
issues
discussion.
So
I
did
want
to
point
out
that
john
gerstell
and
sarah
silver
of
the
planning
board
are
here
tonight
to
answer
any
questions
or
present
some
thoughts
on
the
ordinance.
E
E
In
2015,
there
were
quite
a
few
larger
taller
buildings
that
were
getting
built
in
the
city
of
boulder,
and
it
raised
a
lot
of
concerns
in
the
community
about
the
quality
of
the
buildings
and
was
leading
to
some
findings
that
perhaps
a
lot
of
these
buildings,
even
though
they're
getting
additional
floor
area
are
larger,
more
noticeable
that
they're
not
really
reflective
of
city
policies
and
goals
and
weren't
necessarily
high
quality,
and
it
raised
some
concerns.
E
We
did
some
tours
with
city
council
members
and
planning
board
members,
and
we
started
noticing
that
there's
these
themes
with
some
of
the
projects
that
we're
not
delivering
good
design
outcomes.
So
some
of
the
things
that
have
come
up
are
too
many
materials
on
buildings.
Material
changes
in
a
particular
plane,
like
you,
can
see
in
the
picture.
Flush
mounted
windows
make
some
of
the
buildings
look
kind
of
cheap
attack
on
balconies
as
well,
and
also
a
concern
about
the
low
quality
and
the
materials.
E
So
these
were
some
of
the
things
that
initiated
what
we
called
the
design
excellence
initiative
so
as
part
of
that
the
city
hired
a
expert,
a
national
expert,
planner
and
architect
victor
dover,
who
made
some
recommendations-
and
I
think
this
is
around
2017
at
this
point-
that
the
city-
you
know
some
of
the
recommendations
are
to
tighten
up
the
city
code,
make
some
of
the
requirements
more
prescriptive
to
make
it
more
reflective
of
the
city
values.
What
the
city
wants
to
see.
E
This
led
to
the
form
based
code
pilot
that
was
initiated
for
boulder
junction
and
also
led
to
recommendations
that
the
city
update
the
site,
review
criteria
to
reflect
that
as
well.
So
the
goals
and
objectives
that
you
see
on
the
slide
are
derived
from
the
community
benefit
project,
as
it
relates
to
the
site
review
criteria
so
identify
incentives
to
address
the
community.
Economic,
social
and
environmental
objectives
of
the
boulder
valley.
E
So,
having
worked
on
site
review
cases
for
many
years,
we
we've
been
looking
at
our
code
and
and
noticing
a
lot
of
things
that
were
always
either
redundant,
overly
complicated
out
of
order.
A
lot
of
improvements
we've
always
been
looking
at
the
site
review
criteria
to
make
so
these
are.
This
has
been
kind
of
an
ongoing
project
for
some
time
as
the
site
review
criteria
haven't
really
been
updated
for
many
years.
E
So
some
of
these
recommendations
were
then
presented
to
the
site
review
focus
group,
which
is
composed
of
some
design
professionals
in
the
community.
We
also
presented
some
of
these
ideas
to
neighborhood
representatives
as
well,
and
we've
been
getting
feedback
from
these
groups
to
figure
out
what
kind
of
changes
we
should
be
making
to
the
site
review
criteria
before
we
get
into
too
much
of
the
detail.
I
did
want
to
talk
about
just
a
refresher
on
the
site
review
process.
We
get
about
generally
12
to
15
site
review
applications
a
year.
E
These
are
only
one
application
type
that
goes
to
planning
board.
A
planning
board
also
looks
at
annexations
re-zonings
use,
reviews
other
applications,
so
with
a
site
review.
It's
really
meant
to
kind
of
capture
generally
larger
scale
projects
where
they're
asking
for
additional
intensity
in
a
lot
of
cases,
so
we
do
have
a
table
in
the
land
use
code
that
goes
by
zoning
districts.
E
Most
site
reviews
are
actually
staff
level
staff
can
make
decisions
on
site
reviews
and
they
we
send
those
decisions
to
the
planning
board
and
all
decisions
from
staff
are
subject
to
planning
board
call
up
or
citizen
appeal.
If
they
are
called
up.
We
then
schedule
a
public
hearing
before
the
board.
E
Any
site
review
project
that
comes
before
the
city
can
only
be
approved
if
it
meets
the
the
comprehensive
criteria
of
site
review.
So
that's
in
section
9214h
of
the
code
and
as
as
you've
seen,
is
very
lengthy
and
and
deals
with
a
lot
of
different
urban
design
elements.
E
That
would
be
something
that
wouldn't
necessarily
require
a
site
review,
but
if
they
go
over
the
height
anything
any
floor
area,
that's
in
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
story
or
any
floor
area
that
goes
above
that
the
floor
area
ratio
maximum
of
the
site
if
the
zone
allows
it
would
would
have
to
go,
would
have
to
provide
community
benefits
so
there'd
be
additional
permanently
affordable
housing
requirements
that
would
apply
for
that
additional
floor
area.
Just
as
a
refresher.
E
E
It
does
lead
to
unpredictable
results,
which
is
really
one
of
the
big
reasons
why
we've
tackled
this
project.
E
So
one
thing
that,
like
I
said,
victor
dover
had
recommended,
was
making
the
criteria
more
prescriptive
and
just
to
show
what
that
means.
I
like
to
show
this
graphic
because
it
on
the
left,
you
can
see
kind
of
what
site
reviews
like
you
almost
have
to
think
of
each
criterion
like
it's
one
of
those
knobs
like
from
zero
to
ten
and
everything
is
on
balance
right.
So
there
might
be
one
that's
an
eight.
There
might
be
one,
that's
a
seven!
E
There
might
be
one,
that's
a
four,
but
because
this
one's
a
ten,
that's
okay,
like
that's
kind
of
how
we
look
at
site
review
projects
today
and
that
kind
of
contributes
to
the
unpredictability
that
we've
been
seeing.
So
everyone
puts
the
knob
in
a
different
place
and
then
we
bring
it
to
boards
and
council
and
it's
difficult
or
challenging
to
kind
of
see
what
the
outcome
is
going
to
be
in
looking
at
a
form
based
code
which
is
influencing
this
particular
project
and
I'll
get
into
that
it's
more
of.
E
E
So
these
are
the
approaches
to
the
update
to
the
site,
review
criteria
that
we've
brought
to
council
several
times
to
kind
of
get
the
nod
on
on
the
direction
that
we're
working
on
so
in
going
through
the
goals
and
objectives
and
then
consulting
with
the
community.
These
are
the
approaches,
so
emphasize
criteria
that
result
in
projects
that
address
important
city
policies,
reorganize
the
criteria
into
a
more
top-down
approach,
so
really
starting
at
the
top
with
the
more
holistic,
big
picture
policy
level
issues
and
then
trickle
down
to
to
the
site
design
what
what's
happening.
E
What's
the
circulation,
the
open
space,
the
landscaping,
the
layout
of
parking
and
then
buildings
getting
into
the
actual
skins
of
buildings
like
what
kind
of
materials?
What
do
they
look
like?
Where
are
they
located
on
the
site
and
really
kind
of
getting
down
into
the
real
definitive
details?
So
that's
how
we've
reorganized
the
criteria,
simplify
the
criteria
by
reducing
some
of
the
length
through
eliminating
redundant
criteria
and
combining
some
sections.
So
we've
done
that
there's.
E
There
was
a
lot
of
redundancy
in
the
site
review
criteria
and
there
were
some
sections
that
touched
on
the
same
things
multiple
times:
we've
condensed
those
we've
we've
taken
the
parking
and
circulation
section
and
we've
condensed
that
into
a
broader
just
transportation,
access
and
mobility
section,
for
instance,
remove
unnecessary,
complicated
criteria
that
don't
accomplish
design
excellence,
have
overlap
or
are
rarely
implemented.
There's
some
parts
of
it
like
the
br1,
far
bonus,
which
is
rarely
ever
used.
E
We've
changed
that
and
I'll
talk
about
that
later
and
also
a
big
part
of
the
update
to
the
criteria
is
adding
more
descriptive
language
into
the
criteria
that
describes
what
the
intent
of
the
criteria
is
and
what
is
expected
to
get
that
better
design.
So
it's
really
not
a
necessarily
a
change
in
the
intent
of
the
criteria.
It's
just
better
describing
what
the
city
means
by
what
is
a
good
landscape
design
things
like
that
in
some
certain
areas.
E
So
the
questions
we
have
for
council
tonight
and
I'll
I'll
try
to
make
this
as
in
in
chewable
bytes
as
possible.
It's
just
the
first
question
is
overall.
Does
the
city
council
find
that
the
updated
criteria
within
the
ordinance
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
outlined
for
the
project,
and
then
we
jump
into
kind
of
the
more
specifics?
The
first
one
deals
with
the
specific
policy
on
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan
compliance
right
now.
The
the
plan
or
the
site
review
process
requires
compliance
with
all
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan
policies.
E
We're
asking
whether
that
should
continue.
Should
it
still
be
written
that
way,
or
should
it
be
more
specific
to
the
built
environment
section,
or
should
it
just
be
refined
down
to
key
topics
in
the
the
plan?
So
that's
something
we
will
talk
about
the
next
one
relates
to
the
greenhouse
gas
emission
reduction
criteria,
which
we've
proposed
would
apply
to
any
new
buildings
that
are
over
30
000
square
feet
in
size.
We
originally
were
proposing
three
different
options
that
projects
could
could
meet.
E
That
requirement
and
planning
board
asked
that
all
three
apply.
So
we
wanted
to
get
some
feedback
from
council
on
that,
whether
it
should
be
one
of
three
or
all
three
and
then
the
last
one
is
does
planning.
Does
city
council
believe
that
the
criteria
should
be
modified
to
be
less
prescriptive
or
are
there
any
other
changes
that
council
think
need
to
be
made
to
the
criteria
so
just
to
boil
it
down,
try
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
digestible?
E
These
are
the
key
issues
that
we
wanted
council
to
focus
on
tonight,
so
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan
criterion,
so
should
it
require
the
compliance
with
all
policies?
E
Just
the
building
environment
section
or
as
proposed
in
the
ordinance
greenhouse
gas
emission
criterion
require
one
of
three
or
all
three
and
the
last
one
is
really
the
area
related
to
public
realm
and
the
building
design
criteria.
Should
we
keep
them
as
it
is
in
the
ordinance
today
or
make
them
less
prescriptive
and
I'll
go
into
detail
on
this.
E
These
are
the
key
issues,
because
these
are
the
points
that
have
been
criticized
in
the
past
as
being
the
most
vague
parts
of
the
site,
review
criteria
that
make
it
somewhat
unpredictable,
and
these
are
also
the
areas
where
the
development
community
has
concerns
that
the
criteria
are
too
prescriptive.
So
we
felt
like
this
is
really
what
should
be
focused
on
as
part
of
this
study
session.
E
Really
quick.
This
is
some
housekeeping
stuff,
that's
included
in
the
the
ordinance.
Some
of
you
recall
the
appendix
j
map
restricted
where
height
modifications
could
be
in
the
city.
This
has
since
expired.
E
So
we
wanted
to
remove
all
the
references
to
appendix
j
in
the
code
since
it's
expired,
but
we
were
requested
by
previous
council
members
and
planning
board
to
still
list
some
zoning
districts
where
height
modifications
for
community
benefit.
Basically
any
buildings
that
are
four
stories
and
up
would
be
inappropriate.
So
we've
come
up
with
this
list,
that's
shown
in
the
map.
It's
generally
the
low
density
areas
where
typically
single
family
type
construction,
we've
listed
those
zones
as
areas
that,
where
you
shouldn't
have
a
community
benefit
project.
E
We've
also
made
some
tweaks
to
the
hype
modification
exemption
for
permanently
affordable
housing
projects.
Just
to
make
that
more
clear,
we
also
wanted
to
add
an
exception
for
the
community
benefits
stairs
to
allow
any
two
or
three
story
building
to
get
a
height
modification
if
they
have
to
raise
their
building
because
of
a
flood
elevation.
So
we've
given
some
flexibility
there
for
of
five
feet.
E
Some
council
members
might
remember
that
in
the
previous
iterations
of
this
project
we
had
some
density
modifications
in
the
land-use
intensity
modifications
in
the
criteria.
E
E
This
is
something
that's
really
been
folded
into:
a
new
2022
work
program
item
where
we're
looking
at
tweaks
to
particular
zones
like
br1
and
the
bc
zones
for
trying
to
encourage
more
affordable
or
less
expensive
housing.
So
that's
something
that
we
will
be
working
on
or
have
started
working
on,
instead
of
including
it
as
part
of
these
criteria.
So
again,
I
understand
a
lot
of
this
is
very
complex
and
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
questions
on
this.
E
So
I
was
just
going
to
jump
through
the
the
components
of
the
ordinance,
the
specific
sections
in
the
criteria,
so
we've
tried
to
simplify
the
the
comp
plan
criteria
with
respect
to
the
density
language,
it's
more
clear,
clearly
applied
to
the
land
use
map.
E
One
of
the
criticisms
we've
heard
from
members
of
the
community
and
previous
councils
is
just
the
on
balance
requirement
that
projects
meet
all
comprehensive
planning
policies
which
some
are
very
are
very
much
competing,
so
we
felt
that
maybe
this
particular
criterion
should
be
made
more
specific
to
key
comp
plan
policies
rather
than
requiring
all
policies
be
applied,
so
we
did
add
some
new
sections
to
this:
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
requirements
for
landmarking
historic
buildings,
different
criteria
for
getting
housing,
diversity
and
environmental
preservation
criteria.
E
This
is
something
that
planning
board
was
particularly
concerned
about.
So
I'll
talk
about
that
in
our
one
of
the
key
issues,
there's
also
an
economic
feasibility
criterion
that
we
found
to
be
unnecessary
since
a
project
wouldn't
move
forward.
If
applicant
found
that
it
was
not
economically
feasible,
we
didn't
think
that
that
was
helpful,
so
we're
proposing
its
removal.
E
As
I
stated
before,
the
parking
circulation
and
parking
design
section
and
the
circulation
section
were
all
consolidated
into
a
new
access
transportation,
mobility
section.
This
has
really
just
largely
been
condensed,
but
we've
also
tried
to
write
more
descriptive
language
here.
What
connectivity
between
projects
should
be
a
lot
of
it's
the
same
intent?
That's
in
the
code
now
same
as
open
space.
It's
it's
generally
the
same
intense,
but
we've
tried
to
be
more
prescriptive
about
what
a
well-designed
open
space
should
be.
E
There's
a
couple
additional
prescript,
more
prescriptive
standards
that
have
been
added
relative
to
courtyards
for
projects
that
are
over
an
acre
or
projects
that
are
over
50
dwelling
units.
There's
a
requirement
for
some
active
recreation.
The
current
criteria
talk
about
all
these
things,
but
it
doesn't
make
it
clear
when
they
apply
a
lot
of
times.
Someone
will
just
say
it's
not
a
big
enough
project
to
require
a
ball
field.
Things
like
that.
We've
tried
to
be
a
little
bit
more
specific
again
at
trying
to
add
to
the
predictability
in
the
code
on
landscaping.
E
It
requires
that
landscaping
be
in
excess
of
the
by
right
standards.
That's
how
it's
stated
today
in
the
code
we've
that's
always
been
a
little
bit
vague.
What
is
in
in
excess,
so
what
we've
proposed
is
that
the
minimum
plantings
be
at
least
15
percent,
more
than
a
buy
right
project
to
clarify
that
in
excess,
the
most
complicated
part
of
the
site
review
criteria
and
where
we've
heard
the
most
concerns
in
terms
of
building
quality
and
everything
is
the
building
design
section.
E
So
this
is
where
we've
tried
to
borrow
from
the
form
based
code,
some
elements
that
we
believe
would
result
in
better
design
projects.
The
first
is
requiring
that
at
least
75
of
building
materials
be
high
quality.
So
that's
like
brick,
stone,
wood,
there's
a
list
of
of
a
number
of
building
materials
there.
E
One
thing
we've
talked
about
is:
is
windows
would
need
to
be
recessed
at
least
two
inches
from
the
the
facade.
This
gives
the
building
more
of
a
permanent
look
to
it.
You'll
see
in
some
of
the
pictures
I'll
show,
there's
also
a
minimum
transparency
requirement,
so
a
minimum
amount
of
how
many
window
penetration
should
be
on
each
floor
in
order
to
get
that
glazing
and
avoid
blank
walls.
E
One
of
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project
was
to
have
additional
requirements,
design
requirements
for
taller,
larger
buildings.
So
again,
we've
looked
at
some
of
the
things
that
have
worked
with
the
form-based
code
project
so
again
trying
to
get
some
detailing
on
these
buildings.
It's
it's
really
as
simple
as
adding
an
expression
line
in
certain
areas
of
the
facade,
which
is
just
basically
an
offset
of
a
material
at
least
two
inches.
To
give
some
detail,
give
some
shadowing.
E
You
know
things
that
that
avoid
those
blank
walls
and
you'll
see
in
the
pictures
that
I'm
about
to
show
there's
a
maximum
building
length
of
150
feet.
There's
a
required
facade
variation
requirement
for
buildings
that
are
over
120
feet
again.
All
of
these
are
things
that
have
applied
in
the
form
based
code
to
those
taller
buildings
that
you
see
in
those
areas
also
roof
cap
types
there's
a
section
on
that.
That's
been
added,
so
this
is
just
a
to
illustrate
designs
on
the
left
are
ones
that
we've
found
to
be
unsuccessful.
E
The
use
of
stucco
things
like
lower
quality
materials
versus
where
you're
trying
to
get
higher
quality
materials
and
buildings.
So
this
is
just
to
show
you
like
on
the
left.
Some
designs
that
haven't
worked
so
well
and
on
the
right
are
some
projects
we
feel
have
looked
much
better
with
the
higher
quality
building
des
materials.
E
E
Again,
you
can
see
on
the
left
like
blank
walls,
windows
that
are
not
indented.
When
you
see
the
windows
indented
or,
and
then
the
minimum
amount
of
glazing
adds
to
better
design
outcomes.
E
E
Again,
the
detailing,
I
think,
there's
some
concern
about
expression
lines,
but
this
just
this
picture
on
the
right
shows
that
an
expression
line
is
just
it's
largely
just
the
same
material
just
with
a
offset
that
just
gives
a
little
bit
more
visual
interest
on
the
facade.
So
this
is
where
we're
trying
to
make
things
more
predictable,
like
where
the
current
criteria
say
it
adds
visual
interest.
The
new
criteria,
just
say
like
add
an
expression
line,
it's
just
it's
more
specific
and
more
easily
determined
whether
the
criterion
is
met.
E
So
this
is
like,
as
we've
talked
about,
the
the
the
project
has
gone
on
since
2018,
so
we've
done
a
variety
of
ways
of
getting
the
word
out
on
community
benefit
and
the
update
to
the
site
review
criteria,
we've
done
in
person
and
virtual
meetings.
We've
done
open
houses
as
part
of
what
we
used
to
call
the
coda
paloozas
we've
done,
b
herd
boulder
questionnaires,
a
segment
on
channel
8.
I
talked
about
the
neighborhood
review
group
and
the
site
review
focus
group
that
have
provided
input.
We've
also
presented
to
better
boulder
plan.
E
Boulder
uli
we've
been
sending
updates
out
on
the
planning
newsletter
and
we've
also
been
letting
our
boulder
architects
be
aware
of
the
progression
of
the
project.
So
it's
hard
to
encapsulate
all
that
we've
heard
on
one
slide.
We
have
heard
you
know
some
folks
that
support
the
project
in
adding
these
requirements.
E
Given
the
buildings
that
are
going
up
in
certain
parts
of
the
city
that
meet
these
requirements,
we've
heard
comments
that
the
new
criteria
would
help
would
help
clarify
whether
the
project
is
compliant
with
the
comp
plan
and
they've
found
that
it's
aligned
with
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project.
E
Another
thing
we've
heard
from
folks
is
that
there's
not
a
one-size-fits-all
nature
of
the
criteria,
particularly
with
respect
to
smaller
projects
and
larger
projects.
So
we
we
have
tried
to
work
through
the
criteria
to
exempt
out
some
of
the
smaller
projects,
to
not
have
to
meet
all
these
requirements
and
really
apply
it
to
the
the
taller
larger
buildings
as
the
goals
and
objectives
laid
out.
E
Some
folks
have
been
concerned
about
the
density,
bonus
provisions
being
taken
out
of
the
site
review
criteria,
and
we've
also
heard
from
some
groups
that
there
should
be
a
requirement
about
a
minimum
amount
of
home
ownership
in
projects.
We
have
not
included
that
in
the
ordinance
we'd
have
to
do
more
work
to
to
analyze
that
from
a
legal
perspective,
and
we
also
have
some
equity
concerns
about
adding
that
into
the
criteria,
since
we
do
want
to
try
to
get
as
many
affordable
housing
units
out
into
the
community.
E
So,
starting
with
the
with
the
first
question
for
council,
does
council
find
that
the
updated
criteria
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
for
the
project,
so
this
is
again
the
goals
and
objectives
slide.
I
won't
read
it
again:
we
can
go
back
to
this
slide
when
we're
having
the
the
discussion
to
help
answer
this
again.
We
we
feel
that
we
that
it,
the
goals
and
objectives,
are
met
in
this
particular
project.
E
A
E
This
graphic
shows
a
less
successful
design
on
the
left
with
the
blank
walls,
the
flush
mounted
windows,
the
lower
quality
materials
versus
some
of
the
the
form-based
code
type
requirements
that
would
apply
through
the
site
review
criteria.
E
Key
issue
number
two
is:
how
should
the
criterion
related
to
the
comp
plan
compliance
be
evaluated
for
development
projects?
So
again,
should
all
policies
be
applied
to
projects
on
balance
like
it
is
today,
or
should
it
only
apply
to
the
built
environment
section
or
should
it
be,
as
we
have
it
in
the
ordinance?
E
So
the
current
criterion
requires
that
projects
be
consistent
with
all
policies
in
the
plan
on
balance.
So
this
is
a
criterion.
That's
been
cited,
the
most
for
its
vagueness
and
unpredictability
since
there's
many
different
competing
policies
in
the
plan
and
can
be
used
in
any
manner
against
a
project
or
for
a
project,
so
it
really
doesn't
lay
out
a
predictable
outcome.
E
So
this
is
something
that
we
felt
should
be
made
more
specific,
so
we've
refined
that
policy
to
focus
on
key
parts
of
the
the
boulder
valley,
commemorative
plan
related
to
land-use
map,
compliance
consistency
with
sub-community
or
area
plans,
we've
added
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions
reduction.
E
Again,
we'll
talk
about
that
in
key
issue:
number
three:
community
design
and
edges:
that's
already
a
criterion.
That's
in
the
building
design
section.
We
felt
that
that
was
more
policy
related
and
moved
it
up
to
this
section:
a
criterion
requiring
landmarking
of
buildings,
housing,
diversity
and
bedroom
unit
types
and
environmental
preservations
again
hitting
on
a
lot
of
those
things
we
want
to
get
from
a
high
level
integrated
into
projects.
E
E
With
this
particular
case,
the
board
planning
board
was
concerned
that,
if
we
removed
the
criteria
that
all
policies
would
apply,
that
it
would
remove
a
lot
of
discretion
or
a
lot
of
there,
we
might
not
get.
You
know
some
better
projects
in
the
community.
So
we
pretty
much
heard
from
most
of
the
board
members
that
there
was
a
preference
to
go
back
to
a
policy
that
requires
all
bvcp
policies
on
balance
be
applied.
E
So
this
is
something
that
we
would
really
like
to
hear
from
city
council,
since
it
is
one
that
again
adds
to
the
unpredictability
in
projects
and
has
been
cited
as
one
of
the
most
vague
of
the
criteria.
E
And
moving
on
to
the
greenhouse
gas
emission
reduction
criteria
again
this
would
apply
to
buildings
that
are
over
30
000
square
feet
in
size.
City
staff
proposed
option
number
one
here
this
particular
slide.
You
can
see
what
the
existing
criteria
is.
If
you
just
read
that
it
relates
to
energy
use,
it's
it's
quite
vague.
It's
it's
been
looked
at
in
in
the
for
years
as
one
of
the
more
vague
criteria-
it's
it
doesn't
have
any
measurable
metrics
in
it.
E
So
it's
often
unevenly
applied
it's
difficult
and
challenging
to
determine
whether
a
project
meets
it
or
not.
So
this
is
one
we
felt
should
have
more
specific
requirements
that
go
above
and
beyond
the
city's
already
rigorous
energy
code.
So
what
we
had
presented
to
planning
board
was
three
options
and
that
an
applicant
would
have
the
ability
to
meet
one
of
those
three
options,
so
reducing
the
embodied
carbon
within
concrete
materials,
design,
an
electric
project
and
then
a
whole
building
life
cycle
assessment,
which
would
require
a
10
offset
from
a
normally
compliant
building.
E
So
this
is
something
that
we've
worked
with
our
energy
code.
Staff
on,
I
believe,
carolyn
elam,
is
here
tonight.
If
there
are
questions
on
this,
it
is
very
complex
planning
board,
looked
at
this
and
felt
that
this
is
maybe
something
where
all
three
of
the
requirements
should
apply
so
option.
E
Last
question:
I
know
I'm
throwing
a
lot
of
information
out
tonight.
Does
the
city
council
believe
that
the
criteria
should
be
modified
to
be
less
prescriptive?
So
again,
this
is
one
of
the
biggest
points
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
at
planning
board.
The
city
council
suggests
any
additional
modifications
so
based
on
concerns
that
we
heard,
particularly
from
the
site
review,
focus
group.
E
We
did
go
through
the
criteria
again
and
responding
to
that
concern
about
requiring
certain
things
against
small
projects
versus
large
projects,
so
we
did
update
the
criteria
to
really
apply
some
of
those
form-based
code
type
requirements
to
the
larger
buildings
and
exempt
out
smaller
projects
like
single-family,
duplex,
townhouse
or
mobile
homes.
E
We
also
loosened
up
some
of
the
prescriptive
standards
to
not
be
as
strict
we
have
table.
Five
in
the
memo
does
go
through
a
more
detailed
list
of
what
changes
were
made.
We
also
have
an
alternative
compliance
section,
which
is
similar
to
the
form
based
code,
want
to
make
it
clear
that
this
is
not
a
separate
process.
E
How
the
building
relates
to
the
public
realm,
how
it
meets
the
intent
of
of
site
review
and
also,
if
it,
if
it's
a
project
that
was
previously
approved
according
to
the
prior
criteria,
we
would
give
them
some
more
flexibility
where
strict
adherence
doesn't
make
sense.
So
this
was
obviously
the
biggest
focus
of
the
planning
board
discussion
and
again,
the
board
members
are
here
tonight
they
can
recount
their
their
thoughts
on
it.
E
E
We
also
brought
it
to
the
design
advisory
board,
the
feedback
that
we
got
from
them
and
again,
we've
attached
the
minutes
from
those
meetings,
so
attachment
e
is
the
planning
board
minutes
and
attachment
f
is
the
dab
minutes.
Dab
was
complementary
of
the
approaches
to
what
we
were
trying
to
get
for
better
design,
but
overall,
the
dab
felt
very
strongly
that
the
criteria
were
too
prescriptive.
E
So
again,
this
there's
a
there's
a
you
know,
a
balance
that
we're
trying
to
strike
here
in
making
the
criteria
more
predictable,
making
trying
to
make
them
more
simpler,
trying
to
remove
some
of
the
unpredictability
from
the
process,
but
also
understanding
that
there
is
a
rigidity
that
comes
in
those
prescriptive
standards
and
we
understand
the
concerns
from
some
of
those
planning
board
members
and
dab
members.
E
So
I'm
coming
back
to
the
the
overall
key
issues
of
the
discussion
tonight:
the
boulder
valley,
commerce
of
plan
criterion,
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions
criterion
and
the
public
realm
and
building
design
criterion.
So
I
can
come
back
to
these
slides.
If
there's
any
questions,
we
also
left
you
with
some
different
options
in
the
memo
that
we
that
are
possible
options
for
the
project,
so
I'll
go
over
these
really
quickly
and
we've
laid
out
some
pros
and
cons
in
the
memo
option.
E
Option
b
would
be
to
make
some
of
the
suggested
changes
in
in
a
memo
that
the
majority
of
the
planning
board
requested,
so
that
would
be
making
all
three
of
those
options
of
the
greenhouse
gas
reduction
apply
and
then
making
all
the
bvcb
policies
apply.
This
would
meet
the
majority
of
the
planning
board.
Members
requests,
but
one
thing
we
pointed
out
in
the
memo
is
that
this
is
obviously
could
cause
some
concern
in
the
development
community
because
it
would
layer
on
even
more
additional
requirements
on
top
of
prescriptive
standards.
E
E
The
intent
of
this
section
is
to
accomplish
this,
and
in
in
determining
whether
this
is
meant,
the
following
factors
could
be
considered
so,
rather
than
requiring
them
as
strict
requirements,
it
could
be
just
something
that
can
be
considered
and
they
might
have
an
alternative,
adding
some
flexibility
to
the
review
again.
That
would
reduce
the
level
of
of
predictability
in
the
in
the
code,
but
could
address
some
of
those
concerns
related
to
the
the
overly
prescriptive
nature.
E
Option
d
is
revise
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project
and
direct
staff
to
other
changes
in
the
criteria.
Our
caution
about
this
particular
one
is
that
this
has
been
an
ongoing
project
for
for
quite
a
while
now,
and
this
would
be
more
time
intensive,
it
could
impact
some
other
code
change
priorities
if
we
were
to
do
an
overhaul
of
that
scope
and
then,
lastly,
option
d
is
make
no
changes
to
the
site,
review
criteria
and
table
the
project.
E
So
I
think
that
brings
us
to
next
steps
so
again
tonight.
The
the
purpose
is
to
hear
city
council
input
on
the
project
update
the
ordinance
following
this
discussion
per
council
feedback,
solicit
more
public
feedback
on
the
changes
and
bring
the
ordinance
back
to
planning
board
and
council
for
adoption.
E
B
F
All
right,
thank
you
and
thank
you
staff
for
for
the
presentation
and
just
for
the
volume
of
work
that
has
gone
into
this.
It
is
quite
apparent,
even
as
somebody
relatively
new
that
this
has
been
a
very
extensive
process
and
one
that
has
taken
quite
a
bit
of
time,
free
from
you
all.
So
thank
you.
F
I
just
wanted
to
start
with
a
really
basic
question,
as
somebody
who
is
not
kind
of
all
that
familiar
with
planning
and
development,
which
is,
I
was
trying
to
understand,
reading
through
what
the
kind
of
overall
goal
is
of
the
site
review
process
like
what
are
we
trying
to
achieve,
because
when,
when
I
was
looking
at
the
the
sort
of
purpose
statement,
it
was
encouraging
innovation
and
then
kind
of
after
that
there
were
a
lot
of
other
sort
of
things
that
that
were
in
there
as
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
through
this
process,
and
so
just
like
for
somebody
who's
kind
of
a
newbie
to
all
of
this.
E
E
A
great
question:
you
know,
the
purpose
statement
of
site
review
has
not
really
been
revised
in
this
project.
We
were,
you
know,
trying
to
accomplish
criteria
that
still
are
consistent
with
that
purpose
statement.
So
the
purpose
is
really
number
one.
E
E
You
know
particularly
taller
buildings,
so
determining
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood,
and
then
you
know
overall,
it
just
means
it.
It's
trying
to
get
an
improved
design
over
what
you
would
typically
get
in
a
buy
right
project,
so
a
smaller
scale,
building
two
stories,
three
stories,
it's
kind
of
more
like
a
background
building
when
you
start
getting
into
a
bigger
project,
it's
more
noticeable,
so
it
is
held
to
a
higher
standard
in
terms
of
quality.
E
That's
the
way
site
review
is
today,
but
it
does
require
that
improved
design
above
buy
right,
but
also
allows
flexibility
so
through
site
review.
They
can
ask
for
modifications
to
like
setbacks.
E
You
know,
there's
specific
things
listed
in
the
site
review
section
of
what
they
can
ask
to
vary
and
then,
basically,
through
that
process,
you
know
we
make
a
determination
about
whether
it
is
an
improved
design
or
not.
So
that
isn't
really
changing
it's
just
being
tightened
up
through
this
particular
ordinance.
G
It's
still
hard
to
fully
understand
a
lot
of
the
processes
of
the
site
review
so,
but
my
question
has
to
do
with
page
eight
when
you
talk
for
the
section
about
the
proposed
criteria:
structures
by
the
way,
that's
really
well
laid
out.
Thank
you
so
much,
but
I
still
feel
like
I
needed
some
more
explanation
as
to
the
additional
criteria
for
parking
reduction.
G
E
The
additional
criteria
for
for
parking
reduction
is
not
changing,
so
those
are
existing
criteria
in
the
code.
The
only
reason
we
have
it
bolded
is
because
we
changed
the
numbering,
so
we
tried
to
lay
it
out
in
a
more
intuitive
way.
The
way
it
is
right
now,
it's
like
you
know
it
now,
it'll
be
h1.
H2
h3
h4,
like
it's
just
easier
to
see
what
the
main
sections
are,
rather
than
it
being
buried.
B
H
H
So
a
couple
of
just
detailed
questions
that
I
had
one
thing
that
I
don't
think
you
touched
on
your
presentation
was
about
preservation
of
view,
corridors
which
was
added
in
that
wasn't
previously
in
the
start
review
criteria,
and
let
me
I
just
have
that
in
front
of
me
and
it
says
that,
where
a
building
is
proposed
to
exceed
the
buy
right,
zoning
district
height
limit
and
is
located
adjacent
to
a
public
park,
plaza
or
open
space
buildings
are
cited
or
designed
in
a
manner
that
avoids
or
minimizes
blocking
the
public
views
of
the
mountains,
so
the
the
public
when
this
would
apply.
H
I
was
just
trying
to
figure
that
out
so
public
park
is
clear,
a
plaza
seems,
you
know
pretty
straightforward,
but
open
space
you
know
is,
it
could
include
like
a
parking
lot
or
a
dirt
lot
that
that
is
owned
by
somebody
else
next
door.
So
what
would
be
the
definition
of
open
space
that
would
trigger
this.
E
I
mean
I
think
we
were
looking
at.
You
know
any
kind
of
place.
That's
a
gathering
place,
that's
what
looks
like
a
park
or
a
plaza,
whether
it's
on
a
particular
project
site
or
or
an
actual
public
park
or
or
open
space.
E
So
we
felt
like
we
had
to
be
a
little
bit
more
specific
in
the
criteria
about
what
type
of
views
should
be
protected,
for
instance.
So
that's
one
thing
we
heard
in
the
outreach
was
that
there
should
be
you
know,
and
this
kind
of
comes
from,
like
the
the
the
old
daily
camera
site.
You
know
there
were
concerns
about
that
building
going
up
and
blocking
the
view
of
the
flood
iron.
E
So
some
of
the
feedback
we
heard
was
we
should
be
a
little
bit
more
specific
about
what's
an
important
view
and
then,
if
there
is
an
important
view,
where
should
that
view
be
protected
from
we
started
going
down,
the
road
of
you
know
looking
at
other
communities
like
denver
that
have
actual
easement
air
easement
kind
of
view,
corridor
protections
and
talked
to
denver
about
that,
we
did
come
back
to
council.
E
H
So
I
guess
maybe
I'll
come
back
to
that
in
comments
later
on,
but
that
things
that's
helpful
to
understand
the
intent
and
my
one
other
question
was:
it
is
about
zoning
districts
where
requesting
height
modifications
aren't
allowed,
and
so
that
this
was
the
replacement
of
the
nxj
map
and
it's
primarily
single
family
zones,
and
that
that
would
include
a
ones
that
had
the
40
or
more
affordable
housing
right
I
mean
it's
just
a
flat
out.
You
can't
ask
for
a
height
modification.
E
No,
the
the
zoning
district
piece
only
applies
to
projects
that
are
asking
for
community
benefit
per
the
community
benefit
requirements
that
were
added
that
other
section
for,
like
the
40,
could
still
ask
for
a
height
modification
in
any
of
those
zones.
If
it
meets
those
requirements.
E
And
then
also
to
be
clear,
like
it
doesn't
say
that
a
single
family
home
like
if
it
has
a
slope
issue
or
topography
issue,
those
are
those
would
still
be
eligible
in
lower
density
zones.
If,
if
the
you
know
it
doesn't
allow
them
to
build
a
third
story,
it's
it's
really
meant
to
just
avoid.
The
fourth
and
fifth
story
requests
in
areas
where
it
would
be
inappropriate.
I
Thanks
mark
carl
thanks
for
the
the
details,
it
certainly
helps
lay
the
some
of
the
context
from
which
we're
discussing.
I
have
a
couple
questions,
one
kind
of
centers
around
this
work
and
the
timing
of
us
revising
the
comp
plan.
I
think
we're
gonna
what
start
net
work
on
this
next
year,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
are:
are
we
going
to
be?
Is
the
the
tail
wagon
the
dog
here
a
little
where
we're
going
to
be
doing
this
revision,
revise
the
comp
plan
and
then
need
to
redo?
I
This
again
are
the:
are
we
going
to
be
going
down
enough
revisions
of
the
comp
plan?
That's
going
to
necessitate
another
modification
to
site
review,
so
I'm
just
sort
of
just
wondering
about
the
compressed
timing,
and
I
understand
we
started
this
and
covet
slowed
it
down
so
that
that
we
got
pinched
for
reasons
that
are
not
of
our
control.
But
here
we
are
a
little
closer
to
a
comp
plan.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
that
might
play
out
from
timing
yeah.
E
I
mean
it
was.
It
was
never
really
discussed
that
the
update
to
the
comp
plan
would
have
would
bear
into
this
particular
project.
We
there's
nothing
that
says
that
we
can't
update
it
in
the
future,
but
obviously
we
do.
You
know,
updates
to
our
comp
plan
every
you
know
is
it
three
to
five
years.
It
doesn't
always
necessitate
a
change
of
the
site
review
criteria,
it's
very
rare
that
that
happens
actually,
but
we
we're
not
anticipating
any
changes
from
this
now,
but
we
could
certainly
do
them
in
the
future
if
needed.
I
That
the
other
question
has
to
do
with
sort
of
thinking
about
the
other
side
of
site
review
is
have
we
thought
about
the
things
that
won't
trigger
psych
review,
I.e
you
what
we're
doing
what
maybe
allowing
more
things
to
be
done
by
right
if
they
reach
certain
community
benefits
so
that
we
don't
trigger
as
many
site
reviews,
because
I
sort
of
think
is
one
of
the
goals
of
all
of
this
is
to
reduce
the
the
manner
in
which
just
our
our
general
processes
can
be
quite
onerous
for
developers,
and
so
the
simplification
is
a
goal,
but
have
we
thought
about
coming
at
it
on
the
other
end
of
how
do
we
allow
more
right
for
things
that
are
maybe
100
affordable
or
you
know
you
know,
surpassing
environmental
goals,
things
that
you
can
just
say.
I
E
I
think
we've
thought
about
that,
but
we
we
didn't
include
any
exemptions
for
those
things
we
did.
I
think
the
concern
is
that
you
know
in
projects
where,
for
instance,
there
there
might
be
affordable
housing.
It
doesn't
always
result
in
good
design
outcomes
in
some
projects
and
we've
gotten.
We've
heard
a
lot
of
criticism
on
those
types
of
projects
so
that
that
kind
of
made
us
hesitate
to
go
down
that
path
as
of
yet
we
certainly
could,
but
again
like
all
it
takes,
is
one
project
that
really
doesn't
do
well
and
then
there's
concerns.
J
Thanks
mark,
so
I
have
a
sort
of
broad
questions.
First,
could
you
outline
like
the
most
common
reasons
projects
go
like
apply
for
site
review,
like
what
sort
of
are
the
typical
trigger,
like
the
most
common
triggers
that
we
see
in
our
community.
E
I
mean,
I
think,
a
lot
of
them
tend
to
be
just
the
number
of
dwelling
units
or
the
floor
area,
often
triggers
site
reviews,
so
these
are
smaller
scale
projects.
A
lot
of
them
are
staff
level.
Most
of
them
are
probably
staff
level
because
of
just
the
the
sheer
number
of
dwelling
units
or
the
floor
area.
J
Okay,
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you
and
so
you're
saying
that
most
of
those
are
end
up
just
being
staff
level
review.
Overall,
what
percentage
of
applications
are
just
staff
level
reviews.
E
I
mean,
I
think
it
changes
from
from
time
to
time.
I'd
just
be
putting
a
guess
here,
but
you
know
obviously,
a
lot
of
projects
go
to
planning
board
and
it
seems
like
they're
all
hype
modifications,
but
there
are
staff
level
ones,
but
I'd
say.
J
J
And
then
there's
also
kind
of
different
scales
right,
there's
a
sort
of
full-blown
site
review,
and
I
forget
what
it's
called,
but
there's
like
there's
a
more
limited
version
right
that,
like
for
pud
modifications
and
for
modifications
to
existing
site
reviews,
can
you
kind
of
explain
like
how
much
of
this
these
new
changes,
because
you
mentioned
simplifying
some
of
that,
and
I
just
didn't
that
that
much
so
maybe
you
could
explain
a
little
bit
how
the
more
limited
process
has
been
simplified
as
well.
E
Well,
we
we
didn't
really
change
the
process
with
this
particular
project.
It
was
really
focused
on
the
criteria,
all
those
requirements
that
we
have
in
now,
for,
like
minor
amendments
or
amendments,
minor
modifications,
that's
all
staying
the
same.
Okay,
we
have,
you
know
heard
from
some
folks
that
that
needs
to
be
simplified.
E
A
J
And
then
I
kind
of
have
a
question:
that's
really
similar
to
matt's,
but
you
know
you
mentioned
that
there
wasn't
any
that
for
things
like
having
a
hundred
percent
affordable
housing.
That
didn't
feel
like
that,
while
that's
providing
a
community
benefit
might
still
present
some
risks
that
made
it
seem
appropriate
to
continue
to
go
through
site
review.
I
was
wondering
if
there
was
any
discussion
of
allowing
form-based
code
for
those
kinds
of.
E
Well,
we
haven't
looked
at
applying
form-based
code
to
project
sites
that
might
be
outside
the
form
based
code
areas.
I
mean
the
form-based
code
started
as
a
limited
area,
so
boulder
junction
and
that's
been
expanded
to
alpine
balsam,
for
instance,
and
we're
starting
to
look
at
potential
areas
of
east
boulder
sub-community
that
might
be
form-based
code,
but
it
wouldn't
be
just
applied
in
random
areas
of
the
city.
E
You
know
the
other
thing
that
we
we
deal
with.
Obviously,
through
these
processes
is,
you
know
we
try
to
simplify
like
form
based
code.
We
we
did
remove
the
requirement
that
anything
over
the
height
limit
automatically
goes
to
planning
board
to
incentivize
it,
but
there
has
been
concern
on
boards
and
in
in
councils
in
the
past,
about
losing
discretion
on
certain
projects,
like
we
even
proposed
doing.
If
you
met
the
form
based
code
requirements,
you
wouldn't
have
to
go
to
any
kind
of
call-up
process,
but
there's
been
concerns
about
letting
go.
E
J
Okay
and
then
another
trigger
that
I've
always
been
curious
about.
So
we
have
a
couple
of
zoning
districts
like
rmx2
and
rh2,
where
the
number
of
dwelling
units
you
know
you
can
have
the
same
size
building
and
do
a
buy
right
project
or
if
you
you
can
get
up
to
addition.
I
think
double
density,
essentially
by
going
through
site
review,
and
it
just
feels
to
me-
that's
always
felt
out
of
line
with
our
community
goals
in
terms
of.
J
Providing
more
affordable
housing
to
our
community,
even
if
it's
not
you,
know,
permanently
affordable
or
deed
restricted,
it's
sort
of
going
to
intrinsically
be
a
more
affordable
product,
that's
being
created
any
thought,
put
into
sort
of
changing
some
of
those
criteria.
Well,.
E
I
think
that's
something
that
we
could
certainly
look
at
in
the
upcoming
work
program
item
related
to
trying
to
get
more
affordable
housing
or
less
expensive
housing.
You
know
like
we're.
Looking
at
the
bc
zones
in
the
the
br1
zone,
we
could
look
at
rh2.
I
know
what
you're
talking
about
where
you
can
get
a
certain
density
and
then,
if
you
want
more,
you
have
to
go
to
planning
board.
We
could
look
at
that.
It's
just
again.
B
K
Thank
you
mark
wallach,
okay.
I
am
starting
on
page
30..
I
I
just
wanted
to
give
bonus
points
before
I
asked
my
questions
for
working
in
the
words
prairie
dogs
like
where
I
at
least
expected
to
see
them
here
on
council,
so
eight
for
effort
there.
But
my
question
on
that
page
is
number
20
about
the
acoustic
study
and
consultant
and
it's
you
know
if
you're
located
near
a
freeway,
expressway
or
principal
arterial,
and
we
really
want
to
incentivize
developments
along
transit
quarters,
so
that
seems
potentially
in
conflict.
E
Yeah,
just
to
give
you
the
evolution
of
this
particular
requirement,
so
there's
a
current
criterion
that
says
that
noise
will
be
mitigated
between
units
or
from
noise
sources.
But
again
it
doesn't
give
you
a
metric.
E
So
we're
like
we
thought
that
that
was
an
area
of
the
criteria
that
was
too
vague,
so
we
felt
that
that
should
be
updated
to
be.
Where
would
this
record
be
required?
E
You
know
this
is
something
honestly.
This
is
the
the
version
of
the
ordinance
that
went
to
planning
board.
One
thing
that
came
up
at
planning
board
is
maybe,
instead
of
having
to
require
an
acoustic
consultant,
you
just
create
a
metric
that
they
have
to
meet
in
their
building
design,
and
we
thought
that
that
was
an
interesting
comment,
and
so
we
went
into
the
code
and
there
actually
is
a
requirement
like
that.
That
just
requires
a
certain
construction
without
having
to
hire
a
consultant,
and
it's
already
in
the
residential
and
industrial
standards.
E
So
I
think,
moving
forward.
We
may
actually
take
this
requirement
out
and
update
that
noise
criterion
to
be
just
like
the
one,
that's
in
the
residential
and
industrial
zone
standards,
so
it
wouldn't
require
that
extra
extra
expense,
but
it
would
require
a
certain
construction
that
would
lower
the
noise
impacts.
K
K
Okay,
thanks,
let's
see
next
on
page.
K
31
no
33.,
f,
no
e
historic
or
cultural
resources
if
president
project
protects
significant
historic
and
cultural
resources,
I
just
didn't
understand
what
that
means,
like
that
seems
kind
of
subjective
to
me.
Yeah.
E
We
felt
that
the
historic
preservation
element
which
we've
been
doing
for
many
many
years,
we're
not
really
changing
the
requirement,
but
basically
it
just
says
that
any
building
that
is
potentially
a
historic
cultural
resource
will
be
looked
at
by
the
city,
landmark
staff
and
they
evaluate
whether
or
not
it's
something
that
should
be
landmarked
and
during
the
site
review
process.
The
city
does
have
discretion
to
refer
this,
to
landmark
sport,
to
landmark
a
building,
so
we
wanted
to
more
specifically
state
in
the
criteria.
That's
something
that
we'd
be
looking
at.
It's
current
practice.
E
We
just
wanted
to
make
it
more
clear.
K
That
makes
sense,
although
I
mean
a
little
bit
veering
into
feedback
here,
but
that
also
injects,
I
think,
some
additional
layers
into
the
process,
potentially,
if
it's
codified
like
this,
so
I
would
have
a
question
mark
for
me
on
that:
one:
okay
and
then
also
page
33g,
environmental
preservation,
new
language
project.
K
Let's
see
provides
for
the
preservation
of
our
mitigation
of
adverse
impacts
to
natural
features,
including
ground
and
surface
water.
Wetlands
riparian
areas,
drainage
and
such
it
seems
that
state
and
federal
laws
already
cover
this
pretty
well.
So
I'm
wondering
what
are
we
adding
here
and
you
know
how?
How
are
we
who's
enforcing
that
like?
What
is
the
project?
What
would
that
process?
Look
like.
E
We
we
have
a
staff
member
in
our
competitive
planning
team
that
looks
at
impacts
to
potentially
like
wildlife
things
like
that.
This
is
actually
an
existing
criterion.
We
just
moved
it
up
into
the
policy
section,
but
it
is
the
criterion
that
we
typically
use
to
like
if
there
are
identified
areas
that
should
be
preserved
from
an
environmental
standpoint.
This
is
the
criterion-
that's
typically
used
by
the
city,
to
get
like
an
easement
over
an
area
or
get
the
issue
related
to
like
prairie
dogs
looked
at.
K
Okay,
I'd
probably
have
a
little
question
mark
there.
Just
for
future
consideration
just
would
not
want
that
to
turn
into
something
that
could
be
sort
of
a
a
cudgel.
I
guess
to
slow
things
down,
okay
and
then
the
last
ones
on
the
next
page.
K
L
So
I'm
a
newbie
on
council
and
also
a
complete
newbie
in
the
field
of
planning
and
development,
so
these
questions
might
or
might
not
have
nothing
or
something
to
do
with
our
discussion
tonight.
So
forgive
me
if
they
don't,
but
the
first
question
I
have
has
to
do
with
community
benefit,
which
is
a
topic
we've
been
talking
about
tonight.
A
lot
I
understand
community
benefit
when
it
is
comes
to
affordable
housing.
But
can
you
explain
to
me
a
community
benefit
when
it
comes
to
commercial
properties.
E
Well,
the
permanently
affordable
aspect.
We
called
phase
one
of
the
community
benefit
project,
so
that
was
adopted
by
council,
I
believe
in
2019,
so
that
just
sets
a
requirement
that
you
know.
If
you
build
over
three
stories,
the
additional
requirements,
a
higher
amount
of
affordable
units
would
be
required
either
on
site
or
a
higher
in
luffy.
E
We
worked
with
a
economist
during
that
process.
We
were
trying
to
basically
do
an
an
analysis
of
an
equivalency
between
the
whatever
below
market
rate
requirement
would
be
to
affordable
housing,
which
was
it
ended
up
being
quite
complicated.
E
We
ended
up
having
kind
of
write
a
pro
a
process
for
how
much
space
would
have
to
be
in
a
building
that
would
be
below
market
rate.
So
this
this
actually
went
to
the
prior
council.
I
believe
in
the
summer
of
2020
we
did
have
an
ordinance.
We
did
have
our
economist,
making
the
recommendations
of
what
we
were
proposing.
E
It
did
cause
some
concerns
in
the
development
community
as
to
its
complexity,
so
ultimately
it
was
something
that
the
city
council
did
not
adopt,
finding
that
it,
you
know,
was
too
complicated
and
maybe
not
necessarily
equivalent
in
their
eyes
to
the
permanently
affordable.
So
we've
just
been
moving
forward
with
the
permanently
affordable
requirement.
L
Okay,
so
when
it
came
to
you
talked
about
the
daily
camera
building
and
then
we
built
that
very
large
building
on
the
daily
camera
property.
Do
you
ever
find
that
community
benefit
clashes
with
design
outcomes?
Did
you
what
was
the
not
that
I'm
putting
that
building
down,
but
what
was
the
community
benefit
of
that
building
that
it
got
so
large
and
why
I'm
asking
is
because
I
wonder
you
know
in
business
you
always
look
back
at
mistakes
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
a
mistake.
L
It
might
or
might
not
be,
but
you
always
look
back
at
them
and
you
say
what
can
we
do
so
that
we
don't
that
doesn't
happen
again,
whether
it
be
an
ugly
building
like
let's
say
I
know,
ugly's
neat
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder,
but
let's
say
the
entire
community
agrees
that
x
building.
How
did
this
happen
so
do
we
have
do
we
have
a
way
of
looking
back
and
saying?
Let's
not
ever,
let's
not.
That
was
a
problem.
The
way
we
did.
E
Or
is
it
I
think,
we're
always
looking
at
projects
for
like
what
didn't
go
well
and
what
could
be
done
better,
that
particular
project,
the
the
old
daily
camera
site
that
predated
the
community
benefit
requirements,
so
there
was
no
community
benefit
requirements
pertaining
to
that
building.
E
That
building
was
what
I
remember
is
that
they
were
promising
some
sort
of
theater
complex
in
it
which
ultimately
wasn't
built,
but
again
there
wasn't
any
requirements
in
the
code
at
that
time.
So
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
buildings
where
it
did
trigger
concerns
in
the
community
that
maybe
there
should
be
community
benefit
requirements.
So
that's
where
we
updated
our
boulder
valley,
commerce
of
plan
added
a
new
policy
related
to
community
benefit
that,
in
turn,
informed
our
the
project
to
update
the
site,
review
criteria.
B
We
have
some
new
hands,
but
teresa
you
had
your
hand
up
for
a
moment.
Did
you
want
to
say
something.
A
K
I'm
sorry
I
would
like
to
if
that's
okay,
fearless
leader
of
the
evening,
my
computer
is
moving
really
slowly,
so
I
couldn't
scroll
down
to
see
if
I
had
more
questions,
so
I'm
going
to
turn
my
camera
off.
If
that's
okay,
in
hopes
that
my
scrolling
will
comply
with
my
requests
here
and
I
have
a
couple
more
questions,
so
one
is
on
page
36,
pedestrian
linkage
from
and
through
to
open
space,
maybe
provided.
If
consistent.
I
just
didn't
understand
what
what's
new
about
that.
K
E
Six,
oh
yeah,
there
there's
an
existing
criterion
that
just
says:
if
possible,
open
space
is
linked
to
an
area
or
city-wide
system.
It's
very
vague.
I've
always
had
trouble
figuring
out.
You
know
how
to
respond
to
that.
So
we
wanted
to
be
clear
about
any
project
that
is
adjacent
to
open
space,
oftentimes.
E
K
Okay,
thanks
page
37
right
above
the
old
d
number
little
three,
I'm
talking
about
landscaping,
design
and
water
conservation.
I
just
didn't
know,
did
we
is
it
appropriate
in
here
and
did
we
talk
about
like
avoiding
fire,
accelerant
plantings.
K
I
think
we're
looking
at
that
elsewhere,
but
if
we're
getting
into
like
water
conservation,
it
also
seems
you
know
that
we're
then
opening
some
doors
and-
and
I
think
that
it's
part
of
the
you
know
resiliency
and
preventing
wildfires
from
tearing
through
cities,
as
we
now
know
that
they
can
work.
So
it
might
be
helpful
to
put
something
in
here.
N
And
carl,
if
I
might
add,
I
know
that
there
is
a
joint
project
right
now
with
our
forestry
forestry
chain,
fire
department
and
climate
initiatives,
to
create
some
better
definition
around
what
would
be
preferred
landscaping.
So
I
do
think
that's
a
good
opportunity.
K
Awesome
thanks
carolyn,
okay,
next
question:
let's
see
it
talks
on
page
40
about
building
materials
and
it's
it
mentions
wood
and
fiber
cement
board
and
I
think,
let's
see
fiber
cement
board
was
considered.
Not
high
quality
materials
and
wood
was
considered
high
quality,
I
think,
and
again
just
with
the
fire
mitigation
discussions.
Are
we
also
looking
at
that
like
in
addition
to
what's
high
quality,
like
my
understanding?
Was
that
maybe
fiber
cement
more
board
was
was
better
for
not
not
spreading
fires,
not
as
much
of
a
fire
accelerant?
K
E
We
didn't
look
at
that
specifically
for
the
building
materials
requirement.
There
is
already
wildfire
areas
designated
in
the
city
where
the
building
code
already
requires
certain
types
of
construction,
but
we
can
coordinate
with
our
our
friends
and
fire
department
on
on
how
this
is
written,
make
sure
it's
consistent.
K
Okay-
and
I
mean
at
least
it
would
be
my
opinion-
that
sort
of
the
urban
wild
wildfire
interface
is,
is
the
whole
city
at
this
point,
and
so
I
would
not
want
us
to
be.
You
know,
designating
building
materials
that
are
fire
accelerants.
E
K
Makes
sense?
Okay,
let's
see,
I
just
had
a
question
on
a
on
the
same
page,
a
little
too
excluding
detached
dwelling
units,
duplexes
townhouses.
I
wasn't
sure
why
we
were
excluding
duplexes
there.
E
I
mean
this
is
one
of
the
examples
of
where
we
were
getting
concerns
that
the
form-based
code
type
requirements
might
not
be
appropriate
when
applied
to
smaller
scale
projects.
So
we
tried
to
look
at
the
form-based
code
requirements
that
we
thought
might
be
too
restrictive
for
smaller
scale
projects.
So
that's
why
we
included
that
exemption.
I
see.
K
Okay
and
then
I'm
on
page
42,
it's
vi
at
least
three
elements
of
the
proposed
building
design
shall
draw
from
or
improve
upon
the
character
of
the
surrounding
area.
I
just
put
a
aha
next
to
that.
Like
I
don't
I
don't
understand
how
how
we
would
define
improving
upon
the
character
of
our
surrounding
area.
E
This
is
one
of
the
ones
where
the
current
criteria
is
vague.
There
has
to
be
a
finding
that
the
project
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area,
so
we
thought:
how
could
we
write
that
to
be
a
little
bit
more
specific
and
asking
the
applicant
to
really
draw
out?
Why
why
this
project?
How?
How
is
it
going
to
be
compatible
so
that
we
tried
to
write
it
in
a
way
where
they
had
to
list
three
things?
K
Okay
and
let's
see.
K
This
I
I
this
is
just
my
lack
of,
I
guess
knowledge
about
architecture,
so
maybe
lauren
poker.
It
says
it
would
be
good
to
answer
this
question.
I
don't
know,
but
on
page
43,
where
we
talk
about
recessed
windows
and
it
says
you
know-
and
I
understand
we're
trying
to
to
make
sure
that
the
the
buildings
that
we
are
approving
are
not
going
to
have
sort
of
a
cheap
and
unfinished
look
sort
of,
and
it
says
they
must
be
recessed.
At
least
two
inches
from
the
facade.
K
Does
that
leave
room
for
sort
of
a
really
modern?
Looking
building
like
there
is
some?
I
don't
know
like
I'm
visualizing
mid-century,
modern
architecture,
and
I
don't
know
that
the
windows
would
be
recessed,
so
it'll
be
left
in
a
wiggle
room
there
for
different
styles
that
that
may
also
be
objectively
aesthetically
pleasing.
I.
E
Mean
I
I
certainly
I.
I
certainly
think
that
you
can
get
modern
buildings
with
this
requirement.
I
think
there's
some
examples
being
built.
You
know
in
in
east
boulder,
but
you
know
if
we
got
a
you
know
a
particularly
interesting,
modern
design
that
did
not
meet
that.
This
is
something
that,
where
an
applicant
might
request
an
alternative
compliance,
okay
and
then
make
the
case
for
why
this
building
is
unique
and
why
it's
better,
that
it
not
recess
it
and
give
those
reasons
of
how
it
meets
those
criteria.
So
that's
why
we
included.
K
All
right
that
sounds
good.
I
I
think
truly,
those
are
all
my
questions
now,
thanks
for
bearing
with
me
and
for
letting
me
have
my
camera
off.
B
All
right,
I
have
a
few
questions
myself.
One
of
the
questions
you've
asked
us
is
whether
we
should
have
compliance
with
all
bvc
policies
or
the
ones
you
have
specified
now.
I,
of
course
read
the
comp
plan
assiduously
every
night
before
I
go
to
sleep,
but
not
everyone
does
so.
I
would
ask
you:
can
you
specify
some
of
the
comp
plan
values
that
we
are
eliminating,
not
the
ones
that
you've
added
in
or
listed,
but
what
are
the
ones
that
we
would
be
forgoing
if
we
did
what
you
request.
E
I
mean
one
I'm
trying
to
think
of
of
which
particular
policies
have
been
applied
to
projects
that
have
been
problematic
from
a
predictability
standpoint.
So,
for
instance,
there's
the
policy
about
jobs,
housing
and
balance,
so
jobs,
housing
and
balance
is
definitely
an
issue,
but
it's
something
that
we
should
be.
You
know
trying
to
factor
into
our
actual
zoning
code,
with
particular
limits
things
of
that
nature,
rather
than
making
a
decision
on
whether
a
project
exacerbates
the
jobs,
housing
balance
or
not.
E
You
know
so
I
think
a
decision
could
be
made
that
one
particular
project
would
exacerbate
the
jobs
housing
balance.
Yet
another
decision
might
not
pick
up
on
that
yet
and
they
wouldn't
be
looked
at
fairly.
E
So
I
mean
that's
where
some
of
the
inherent
risk
comes
in
with
applying
all
the
policies,
really
what
those
policies
are
meant
to
do
are
to
inform
all
the
you
know,
programs
that
the
city
has
the
zoning
codes,
the
area
plans,
all
that
stuff
inform
what
the
specifics
should
be
through
those
rather
than
just
the
high-level
policy.
E
E
I
mean
nothing
specific
comes
to
mind.
I've
gone
through
the
comp
plan
quite
a
few
times.
I
feel,
like
you
know,
what's
most
appropriate,
is
you
can
have
a
policy,
a
criterion
that
touches
on
the
boulder
valley,
commerce
of
plan,
but
really
all
of
the
criteria
are
meant
to
implement
the
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan.
E
So
there's
already,
you
know
if
you
look
at
the
built
environment
standards,
there's
there's
if
you
read
the
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
policies
on
design,
it
touches
on
all
of
the
elements
that
you
already
see
in
the
site
review
criteria.
So
there's
nothing
to
me.
That's
that's
seems
like
it's
missing.
You
know.
Affordable
housing
is
dealt
with
through
the
inclusionary
housing
program.
E
B
I
will
ask
later,
if
our
planning
board
representatives
have
a
different
view
on
that.
I
want
to
go
back
to
a
comment
made
by
my
colleague,
lauren,
who
used
the
term
metrics,
and
I
am
interested
in
with
respect
to
the
site
review
process.
Do
we
have
any
sense
of
the
incremental
cost
of
going
through
the
site
review
process
or
the
additional
timing?
That's
required
to
do
so,
because
you
hear
that
complaint
a
lot
from
the
development
community
and
I'm
wondering,
if
is
there.
B
E
We
don't
have
any
specific
metrics
we.
We
have
kind
of
anecdotal
observations
about
form-based
code,
for
instance,
so
we
have
heard
from
some
architects
that,
because
there
are
additional
requirements,
it
can
add
to
the
initial
cost
of
preparing
a
detailed
package
of
plans
for
the
city
to
review.
E
But
at
the
same
time,
we've
also
heard
that
those
plans
when
they're
submitted
can
often
take
less
time
to
review
because
it's
more
clear
of
whether
a
standard
is
met
or
not,
and
that
there
could
be
some
cost
savings.
Just
in
the
fact
that
you
don't
have
to
keep
going
back
and
forth
revising
the
plans
to
meet
the
criteria,
we
don't
have
any
specific
data
on
that.
B
Deal
with
a
certain
perplexity
that
I'm
experiencing
for
the
last
two
and
a
half
years,
every
time
I
have
spoken
to
a
consultant
or
a
developer,
the
complaint
has
been
about
the
arbitrary
arbitrariness,
the
subjectivity
of
the
process
and
now
on
page
11,
you're
telling
us
that
the
development
community
now
resists
a
more
prescriptive
system.
B
E
I
don't
know
that
I
have
a
good
answer
to
that.
I
I
think
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
because
I
I
I
feel
like
I,
I've
heard
similar
complaints
in
the
past
and
I
feel
that
through
this
process
we've
tried
to
address
those.
E
So
I
think
there
was
a
little.
There
was
a
bit
of
an
element
of
surprise
on
my
part
that
there
was
resistance.
To
this
I
mean
obviously
there's
a
higher
volume
of
requirements
in
here
and
and
requirements
that
probably
add
to
expense
in
the
project.
You
know
with
respect
to
building
materials,
and
you
know
it
might
take
a
little
bit
more
time
to
design
a
project
to
meet
these
requirements.
So
I
understand
that
resistance,
but
I
I
I
I
understand
that
observation.
B
B
Are
we
making
it
more
unaffordable?
To
what
extent
are
we
doing
that?
What
what
is
the
cost
going
to
be
for
entering
into
those
requirements.
N
Sure,
perhaps
absolutely
thank
you
again.
I'm
carol
nealum,
I'm
a
sustainability,
senior
manager
in
the
climate
initiatives
department,
managing
our
energy
systems,
work
and
partnering,
with
our
planning
development
services
on
our
energy
code
work
just
as
background.
So
we
did
do
research.
Some
specific
things,
we've
heard
around
the
low
concrete
requirement,
specifically
for
the
first
criteria,
is
that
that
could
be
anywhere
from
cost
parity
to
ten
percent
recogni,
that's
from
concrete
providers
in
the
industry.
So
it's
it's
a
range.
N
We
are
acknowledging
that
there's
state
requirements
and
other
things
coming
down
around
low,
concrete
materials
that
are
making
it
the
preferred
material.
So,
generally
we're
not
expecting
that
to
have
a
material
impact
on
the
life
cycle
assessment.
We
did
some
sampling
and
see
that
for
the
added
cost
of
the
project
of
less
than
ten
thousand
dollars.
So
that's
less
than
is
a
fraction
of
a
percent
of
the
cost
and
then
on
the
three
optional
criteria.
N
An
all-electric
building,
depending
on
the
building
type,
can
be
cost
parity
due
to
the
savings
from
not
having
to
install
gas
infrastructure
and
handling
devices.
So
we've
seen,
for
example,
multi-family,
affordable
housing
coming
in
and
choosing
all
electric,
because
it's
the
more
cost-effective
option
for
them.
So
there's
a
range
within
that
we
would
expect
10
percent
higher
than
building
code
to
add
a
cost.
N
We
have
not
specifically
estimated
what
that
is,
because
we
leave
discretion
to
builders
on
how
they
want
to
achieve
that
and
there's
different
cost
parameters
that
go
into
that
and
then
for
the
the
third
criteria.
The
outcome
verified
code
path,
assuming
that
they
are
properly
modelling
their
billing.
We
would
expect
no
incremental
costs
associated
with
that.
That's
just
verifying
it
performs
the
way
it
was
designed
to
perform.
N
B
My
last
question-
and
it
makes
me
a
little
uncomfortable
to
even
raise
this,
but,
but
I
think
I
have
to
there
are
a
remarkable
number
of
points
of
disagreement
between
staff
and
the
planning
board
on
this,
and
I'm
I
am
asking
why
this
is
coming
to
council
without
having
worked
through
some
of
those
disagreements
and
trying
to
reach
a
more
consensual
basis
for
recommendation,
and
the
discomfort
for
me
is
a
I
like
to
empower
our
boards
and
b.
B
I
you
know
putting
us
in
the
position
of
being
the
referee
is
not
the
analytical
position.
I
think
we
ought
to
be
in
in
considering
something
of
this
gravity
and
this
weight.
So
my
question
is
wow.
Can
you
explain
the
timing
of
this?
That
leaves
us
having
to
choose
their
thoughts
versus
your
thoughts
without
trying
to
narrow
those
differences.
E
I
think
some
of
the
difficulties
we've
been
dealing
with
this
project
is
obviously
we
did
a
very
detailed
presentation
to
the
planning
board
in
october
of
last
year,
of
of
of
the
criteria
and
all
the
approaches
we
were
taking
and
the
composition
of
the
planning
board
changed
significantly
by
the
time
we
were
moving
into
developing
the
ordinance
and
bringing
it
before
them.
So
opinions
changed
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we've
done.
E
There
was
some
disagreement
on
so
that
that's
a
that's
an
issue
and-
and
we
also
felt
in
the
same
vein-
the
composition
of
the
city
council
changed
during
the
course
of
this
project.
So
we
felt
that
as
council
is
you
know
the
ones
leading
the
project
and
had
originally
set
out
the
goals
and
objectives
that
it
would
be
prudent
to
come
back
to
this
this
this
particular
council
and
make
sure
we're
on
the
right
track
before
we
start
making
changes
and
working
with
planning
board
again.
J
N
J
Was
reminded
of
one
around
the
energy
requirements,
I
noticed
that
it
outlined
there
was
an
outline
of
sort
of
what
our
anticipated
2023
energy
code
update
was
going
to
bring
forward,
and
I
was
wondering
why
not
use
those
as
the
basis
for
the
energy
requirements
in
this
site.
Plan
review,
update.
N
N
There
there's
some
characteristics
to
the
project
that
that
go
above
and
beyond
in
terms
of
impact
on
the
community
and
therefore,
we've
historically
tried
to
go
above
and
beyond
minimum
code
requirements
as
well
to
compensate
for
those
characteristics.
So
you
know
when
you
think
about
multi-building
properties,
you're
increasing,
for
example,
the
amount
of
concrete
connectivity
between
those
buildings
and
some
other
things
within
the
project.
So
the
goal
was
to
further
mitigate
that
combined
impact
where
a
code
only
addresses
the
single
building
structure
itself
and
not
the
totality
of
the
project.
J
And
maybe
I
was
just
reading
them
incorrectly,
but
it
seemed
like
the
2023
code,
or
at
least
what
was
written
in
there
was
more
stringent
than
what
was
being
suggested
in
terms
of
the
update
for
this
site
plan
review,
like
the
site
plan
review,
I
believe,
was
10
better
than
code
and
then
the
2020
iecc,
and
then
it
looked
like
the
energy
code
was
going
to
be
15
percent
better
than
2020
iecc
and.
N
N
Can
make
that
that
clear
though
yeah
it's
intended
to
reference
our
city
of
boulder
conservation
code.
H
I
ask
to
follow
up
on
that.
Do
you
mind
one
month,
please
so
carol
I
hear
what
you're
saying
about
kind
of
larger
projects.
You
know
having
a
larger
impact.
It
looks
like,
as
I
read
the
ordinance
that
the
threshold
for
that
is,
if
any
building
is
over
30
000
square
feet
that
those
additional
requirements
would
kick
in.
Do
I
have
that
right.
H
B
J
And
then,
with
the
reduction
in
co2
emissions
for
concrete,
you
know
that
was
type
site
review
and
then
it
looked
like
there
was
sort
of
looking
at
co2
reductions
for
the
entire
building
envelope
as
part
of
the
energy
code
and
to
me
again,
the
the
entire
envelope
seems
more
restrictive
than
just
looking
at
concrete.
N
Can
you
clarify
your
question
for
me?
I
think
I'm
understanding
I
the
as
currently
proposed
so
originally
it
was
one
of
the
three
and
and
I
think
his
plan
in
response
to
planning
board.
There
was
desire
to
both
to
require
both
the
low
embodied
carbon
concrete
and
the
life
cycle
assessment,
and
then
the
choices
are
are
the
ones
that
are
intended
to
address
more
of
the
envelope
and
total
building
performance
impact.
So
we're
trying
to
do
both
through
those
criteria.
J
If
you
want
my
opinion
on
how
tricky
or
how
time-consuming
it
is,
I
don't
do
them
a
lot,
but
I've
been,
you
know,
done
my
fair
share
of
site
reviews.
G
Thank
you
mark.
I
think
I'm
just
thinking
back
to
one
comment
that
you
made
mark
and
I
think
it's
very
hard
to
answer
some
of
the
questions
put
forward
by
staff
and
I'm
thinking
about.
For
example,
question
number
three
on
page
16
asking
to
what
extent
should
greenhouse
gas
emission
reduction
criterion
be
applied
to
larger
buildings?
G
Should
there
be
three
options
for
compliance,
or
should
projects
be
required
to
always
comply
with
all
three
and
I'm
thinking?
Well,
I'm
a
council
member
there's
still
a
lot
of
things
that
are
kind
of
not
connecting
for
me
and
part
of
the
questions,
and
I
know
you
mentioned
earlier
that
you
have
done.
There
has
been
community
outreach
and
community
engagement,
but
I
think
part
of
that
question
is
how
receptive
was
the
business
community
to
each
of
the
plans
that
you
proposed
and
what
was
the
feedback
that
you
got.
E
G
Yeah
yeah.
No,
I
completely
understand
that,
because
I
think
part
of
for
me
to
be
able
to
answer
that
question
is
to
think
about
what
are
the
benefits
and
what
are
the
drawbacks
right,
and
I
think
it
goes
back
to
something
that
council
member
you
know
wallet
brought
forward.
Was
that
okay?
Is
this
going
to
cost
more?
I
mean
I'm
all
for
energy
efficiency,
but
also
we
want
to
ensure
that's
a
process
that
you
know.
Businesses
can
go
through
as
well
in
how
we
incentivizing.
I
know
this
is
not.
G
This
is
probably
not
the
council
meeting
to
talk
about
incentives,
but
how
well
we
incentivize
a
lot
of
these
plans
to
ensure
that
they
are,
they
can
be
achieved
so
cost
efficiency.
I
think
that's
something
that
you
know
in
my
mind
that
I'm
thinking
about
how
to
answer
that
question
and
I
feel,
like
I'm
still
missing
so
much
on
how
to
best
answer
that
question.
B
Any
other
questions
from
council.
Okay,
at
this
point,
we
should
probably
move
into
discussion
of
the
questions
being
presented
to
us.
Can
you
put
those
questions
up.
B
Do
the
planning
board
members
wish
to
make
a
statement
of
any
kind?
Sarah
john.
P
Well,
I
don't
think
we
have
a
statement.
I
think
we're
here
to
answer
questions
I
will
say
that
of
the
issues
that
you
are.
First
of
all,
thank
you
all
for
the
work
you're
doing
carl.
Thank
you
for
walking
everyone
through
really
complex,
proposed
legislation
and
to
the
city
council
members
who
haven't
already
served
on
planning
board
welcome
to
our
world.
P
P
So
I
can't
remember:
in
the
three
and
a
half
years,
I've
been
on
planning
board
that
there's
ever
been
a
site
review.
That's
been
rejected
because
of
a
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
policy-
john,
maybe
you
can
remember
one-
I
I
don't,
but
we
do
use
it
extensively
to
let
staff
and
the
applicant
community
know
that
we
have
some
concerns
that
are
not
being
addressed
in
the
individual
projects
that
are
coming
our
way,
because
our
job
is
to
help
the
city
be
planful
as
much
as
our
job
is
to
evaluate
individual
projects.
P
P
We
keep
putting
it
out
there
and
putting
it
out
there
and
putting
out
there
same
as
true
with
missing
middle
housing,
so
I
believe
that
our
sort
of
nose
count
during
the
planning
board
discussion
of
this
issue
was
certainly
a
majority,
and
I
think
it
was
actually
a
7-0
sort
of
nose
count
wants
those
wants
the
opportunity
to
refer
to
all
of
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
policies
during
site
review.
P
I
think
the
nose
count
vote
on
that
was
four
planning
board
members
indicating
that
they
thought
that
the
proposed
design,
changes
or
reviews
were
not
were
fine.
They
were
not
too
prescriptive
and
three
members.
I
think
it
was
all
three
of
the
new
members
thought
they
were,
and
that
is
actually
why
we
sent
it
to
design
advisory
board
for
their
input,
and
you
know
I
would
love
to
hear
from.
P
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
you
all
to
hear
from
matthew
what
the
dab's
take
on
that
was,
and
then
there
were.
There
was
a
long
discussion
around
height
issues,
but
it
was
specifically
around
context
versus
feet
like
that.
The
context
in
which
a
building
might
be
going
in
versus
how
close
the
next
tall
building
was-
and
I
think,
where
we
landed,
was
context,
and
you
know,
having
just
gone
through
a
concept
review
on
tuesday
about
a
very
a
proposed,
very
tall
building.
P
P
P
We
talk
about
height
around
high
frequency
corridors,
but
we
in
the
city
don't
have
a
definition
for
high
frequency
corridors,
and
I
think
that
it
would
be
very
valuable
for
staff
to
figure
out
a
definition
so
that
another
one
of
those
subjective
opportunities
is
reduced
and
a
developer.
An
applicant
would
actually
know
whether
or
not
the
building
he
or
she
is
proposing
is
on
a
high
frequency
corridor
or
not.
So
those
are
my
my
the
things
I
thought
were
useful
to
highlight
in
terms
of
our
meeting
john.
What
did
you
want
to
add.
O
Well,
I
I
think
you've
done
a
beautiful
job.
I
would
just
add
that,
with
respect
to
the
to
the
use
of
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan,
there
was
also
some
concern
about
devaluing
the
comp
plan
itself
by
not
allowing
it
to
be
fully
considered
in
circumstances
where
it
can
play
a
significant
role.
O
If,
if
the
planning
board
is
limited
as
to
which
portions
of
the
comp
plan
it
can
consider
in
for
certain
applications,
then
then
the
value
of
the
comp
plan
itself
is
diminished
and
that
that
is
a
concern
that
that
is
quite
significant.
Considering
that's
the
fundamental
document
on
which
we
have
based
everything
else
that
we're
doing.
P
I
would
add
one
comment,
which
is
a
quote
from
our
former
planning
board
member
lupita
montoya,
who
was
always
reminding
us
that
we're
the
planning
committee,
not
the
welcoming
committee,
and
that
our
job
really
is,
but
to
both
review
specific
projects,
but
also
to
try
to
bear
in
mind
the
planning
for
the
entire
city
like
what
do
we?
What
do
we
all
collectively
want
the
city
to
grow
into
and
without
the
bvcp
on
balance
option
it's
very.
It
would
be
almost
impossible
to
fulfill
that
responsibility.
A
L
I'm
sorry,
I
have
a
quick
question
about
the
one
when
we
were
talking
about
the
green
buildings
and
sarah,
you
guys
chose
all
three
words
the
city
did
not
do
you
remember
what
I'm
referring
to
all
three?
Can
you
say,
can
you
tell
us
why
you
disagreed
with
them
exactly.
P
I
don't
think
it
was
so
much
a
disagreement.
It
was
more
of
a
we'd
like
to
have,
and-
and
this
was
a
a
conversation
that
was
led
mostly
by
ml-
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
john-
is
that
right.
P
We
recognize
that
climate
change
is
a
a
primary
concern
in
general
and
certainly
for
the
people
of
boulder
who
have
we've
talked
about
everything
from
reducing
single
occupancy
vehicle
and
improving
alternative
transportation
and
moving
from
gas
to
electric
in
all
of
our
buildings,
and
I
think
the
point
ml
was
trying
to
make
is
that
there
are
more
opportunities
for
reducing
climate
impacts
through
the
how
buildings
are
built,
and
I
you
know,
I
think
that
that
is
what
was
driving
her
her
lead.
P
O
Q
M
For
your
time
and
and
also
to
staff,
you
know
this
is
not
an
easy
thing,
which
is
why
I
think
it
has
always
is
a
ongoing
conversation,
and
so
you
know
with
that
in
mind,
I
have
a
couple
of
things
to
bring
up
and
I
apologize
if
it's
not
laser
focused,
but
I
think
the
overall.
M
Concept,
we're
talking
about
here
is
site
review
within
the
context
of
public
benefit
or
design
initiative
or
incentives,
and
I
think
you
know
looking
at
ways
that
these
things
help
developers
and
designers
understand
that
there's
a
road
map
towards
favorable
outcomes
is
really
what
site
review
functions.
As
you
know,
I'm
a
designer
myself
site
review
in
some
ways
is
when
you,
when
it
comes
down
to
delivering
a
project,
is
a
necessary
checklist
to
understand
how
you're
going
to
get
from
a
proposal
to
adult
project.
M
M
You
know
revision
to
the
site
review
process.
If
the
site
review
process
has
you
know,
requirements
added,
I
think
that's
fine.
As
long
as
they're
clearly
stipulated.
M
You
know
also
to
concur
with
some
of
the
general
comments
from
the
planning
board.
I
think
those
are
all
in
line
with
the
general
consensus
of
the
design
board
as
well.
There
are
a
couple
questions
I
have,
I
guess
and
they're
really
probably
for
carl
just
clarifications
for
myself.
That
may
be
beneficial.
M
E
No,
I
mean
we
looked
at
it
being
an
optional
path.
When
we
were
developing
the
form
based
code
in
2016,
we
opted
to
just
apply
the
form
based
code,
so
rather
than
being
an
option,
so
basically
the
whole
area
of
the
you
know
boulder
junction,
it's
it's
form-based
code,
so
they're
not
even
eligible
for
site
reviews
same
as
alpine
balsam.
M
Right,
and
is
that,
will
that
remain
going
forward
that
projects
in
the
you
know
could
elect
to
do
form-based
code
rather
than
a
full
site
review
process?
Yeah.
E
M
M
You
know
that
I've
worked
with
I'm
sure
you're,
familiar
with
a
really
good
outcome
for
site
review
is
to
provide
a
way
for,
for
people
to,
I
would
say,
not
go
through
it
right,
but
if
there
was
a
way
that
it
was
prescriptive
enough
that
it
simplified
the
process
in
the
you
know,
there
were
less
site
reviews
to
have
to
review
basically
widening
the
net
of
the
staff
level
review.
M
So
I'm
sorry,
that's
not
super
focused.
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
out
of
the
the
scope.
One
last
question
is:
you
know,
most
most
of
the
times
where
I've
seen
projects
come
into
a
site
reviewed
or
a
very
easy
trigger
for
site
review
is
the
fact
that
we
have
so
many
site
kind
of
legacy
puds
throughout
the
city,
so
that
effectively
there's
very
little
by
right
zoning
in
a
lot
of
the
commercial?
M
You
know
a
lot
of
the
commercial
zones,
especially,
but
even
in
many
of
the
residential
areas,
is
there
any
sort
of
revision
or
or
restructuring
the
pud
system?
That
would
dovetail
with
what
we're
talking
about
the
types
of
measures
we're
talking
about
today.
M
M
B
We
are,
we
are
now
done
with
questions.
I
suggest
that
we.
L
L
Yes,
what
then,
how?
What
was
your
feeling?
What
was
the
design
advisory
board's
feeling
about
the
question
about
prescriptive
versus
that
particular
question?
Did
you
feel
it
was
too
prescriptive,
then
all
of
you
or
how
did
that
come.
M
Yeah,
I
I
think
our
recommendation
is:
it
has
to
be
a
balance
very
prescriptive.
If
we
have
for
very
prescriptive
measures
such
as
a
visual
band
or
something
it
should
be
one
of
several
prescriptive
measures
that
are
options,
or
else
we're
really
we're
prescribing
every
new
project
to
have
a
set
of
the
remarkably
similar
details,
and
I
think
overall,
that
would
not
be
a
desirable
outcome
either.
You
know
so
hopefully
that
answers
a
question
and.
B
Now
I
declare
all
questions
closed.
Let's
move
to
the
questions
that
staff
require
some
direction
on.
We
can
comment
on
those
and
then
we
can
take
a
straw
poll
as
to
how
we
feel
about
it.
E
B
B
I
I
I
was
waiting
for
some
colleagues
to
jump
in,
but
for
the
sake
of
moving
that
along
I'll
I'll
pipe
in.
I
So
my
answer
would
be
yes,
but
to
be
honest,
yes,
as
the
way
it
was
defined
when
the
project
started,
but
I
think
that
there's
things
that
we
haven't
pushed
the
envelope
far
enough
on
that
that
I
think,
if
we
were
to
start
this
project
now
independent
of
the
work
that's
been
done
or
the
sacrifices
that
might
be
made
to
future
work.
I
B
J
Thanks
mark
so
of
the
approaches
I
completely
like,
you
broke
it
down
to
five
different
things.
This
emphasize
reorganize,
simplify,
remove
and
add
so
the
first
four
I
completely
support,
but
the
ad
category
was
a
little
problematic.
J
I
I
think
that
site
review
is
intended
to
be
a
subjective
process
meant
to
deal
with
situations
that
we
don't
think
code
can
adequately
address,
and
I
think
that
sort
of
some
of
the
pieces
in
here
kind
of
like
what
matthew
said,
sort
of
hit
this
in-between
form-based
code
and
a
site
review
process
that,
I
think,
removes
variety
that
I
think
is
important
to
our
community.
K
I
think
the
answer
is
yes.
I
agree
with
what
matt
was
saying
that
maybe
this
council
would
not
have
defined
the
goals
and
objectives
quite
the
same
as
the
previous
councils
did,
but
I
don't
believe
that
that
we
should
be
moving
goal
posts
at
the
tail
end
of
a
project.
So
I
think
the
answer
to
question
one
is
yes.
H
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
generally
so
you
know
I
was
on
on
those
councils
and-
and
I
was
sometimes
in
the
minority
in
the
opinions
at
the
time,
but
I
I
think
that
this
this
does
respond
to
the
the
goals
that
were
set.
I
think
y'all
did
some
fantastic
work.
I
I
would
tweak
some
of
the
outcomes
which
I'll
get
to
and
the
answers
to
the
other
questions,
but
I
think
you
all
have
been
responsive
to
the
to
feedback
which
has
changed
somewhat
over
the
years,
which
is
always
challenging.
L
It
is
so
challenging,
especially
when
you
have
a
new
council.
I
really
can
understand
the
stress
of
that,
so
I'm
just
going
to
agree
with
lauren
on
this.
I'm
not
sure
this
is
the
question
to
say
this,
but
I'm
super
concerned
that
things
don't
all
look
alike
and
that
there's
creativity
in
our
projects-
and
I
don't
want
this
to
take
away
from
that.
So
I
agree
with
what
matthew
said
tonight
as
well
as
lauren
and
I'm
going
to
second
their
statements.
A
B
We've
seen
no
other
comments.
Perhaps
we
can
take
a
straw
poll
on
this
all
who
are
supportive
of
or
vote.
I
in
terms
of
question
one
that
the
site
review
criteria
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
outlined
for
the
project,
raise
your
hand.
B
H
H
So
I
I
would
recommend
not
going
back
to
the
exact,
not
sticking
with
the
exact
language
that
we
have
right
now.
I
think
you
know,
I
think,
generally
I'm
supportive
of
the
direction
that
staff
was
going
in,
but
I
think
in
a
way
that
makes
it
clear
that
you
know
the
how
the
bbcp
is
being
complied
with
should
be
up
for
discussion
per
sarah
and
john's
points
right.
H
It's
not
that
you
shouldn't
talk
about
how
this
project
deals
with
one
or
the
other
of
the
bbcp
policies,
but
what
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
is
that
the
that
I
would
I
would
say,
is
to
update
the
language
such
that
a
denial
is
only
possible
based
on
you
know,
maybe
just
the
built
environment
policies
or
some
subset
like
you
were
in
the
direction
that
you
were
going
in.
H
So
if
you
can
kind
of
thread
that
a
little
bit
to
make
it
clear
can
still
be
part
of
the
discussion,
but
that
that
projects
should
not
be
denied
because
they
potentially
don't
comply
with
just
one
or
two
policies.
So
that
would
be
my
direction.
I
know
you've
gotten
varied
feedback,
but
that
that's
the
direction
I'm
going.
J
Thanks
mark
so
I'm
sort
of
generally
in
the
same
line
of
thinking
as
aaron
I
would
like
to.
I
would
actually
like
to
see
the
on
balance
language
included,
but
then
with
sort
of
a
caveat
sentence
added
about
you
know
where
feasible
or
appropriate,
based
on
the
size
and
scale
of
the
project,
and
you
know
not
where
not
already
handled
by
other
zoning
and
building
codes,
because
I
think
that
there
are
things
where
you
know
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
is
talking
about.
J
B
F
I'm
kind
of
along
the
same
lines
as
aaron
and
lauren
here
and
that
on
balance,
doesn't
it
doesn't
quite
I
I
would
lean
away
from
on
balance
and
have
some
more
more
specific
policies,
and,
and
part
of
that
I
mean,
I
guess,
if
the
you
know,
if
we
are
keeping
on
balance
and
really
tying
to
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
part
of
my
beef
is
really
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
being
not
quite
specific
enough
to
offer
this
sort
of
guidance.
F
It
seems
like
it's
a
little
bit
open
to
interpretation
and
people
can
kind
of
pull
out
different
sections
to
back
up.
You
know
whatever
position
they
want
to
have,
so
I
think
I
would
lean
toward
not
moving
away
from
on
balance
and
having
some
more
specific
policies,
and
if
we
don't
go
that
route
I'd
just
like
us
to
be
more
just
to
be
a
little
more
specific
as
we
approach
the
comprehensive
plan
in
the
future.
Q
I'm
gonna
agree
with
my
colleagues
who
just
spoke.
I
think
the
unbalanced
language
is
dangerous
or
it
has
been
used.
Let
me
all
say
it
this
way.
It
has
been
misused.
The
the
boulevard
comp
plan
is
kind
of
like
the
bible.
You
can
probably
find
anything
in
there
to
support
any
position
you
want
to
take
and
like
aaron,
I've
seen
many
instances
where
it
has
been
used
more
frequently
used
to
deny
projects
than
to
support
them.
Oftentimes
they
meet
many
many
criteria.
So
that's
not
a
problem,
but
but
often
times.
Q
If
a
planning
board
wants
to
to
turn
on
a
project.
They'll
they'll
they'll
find
enough
books
in
the
in
the
comp
plan
to
turn
it
down
and
and
then
we
have
the
unbalanced
language
and
and
then,
who
knows
what?
How
that
that
those
weights
balance
out,
and
so
I
I
I'm
not
gonna
wordsmith
that
tonight,
but
I
agree
with
lauren
that
that
that
some
sort
of
caveat
language
or
qualifying
language
needs
to
be
put
in
there
or
the
unbalanced
language
needs
to
be
completely
taken
out
and
rewritten
in
a
more
equitable
fashion.
B
I
will
ask
one
quick
question
from
for
carl
how
many
site
plans
have
failed
to
complete
the
process
and
how
many
have
failed
to
complete
the
process
based
on
this
language.
E
You
know
nothing
jumps
to
my
mind
as
far
as
a
project
being
denied,
specifically
based
on
the
bvcp,
I
think,
obviously
like
with
an
annexation.
That's
legislative,
there's
more
authority
to
apply
the
boulder
valley
concert,
comprehensive
plan
policies.
There
have
been
some
denials
of
annexations,
for
instance,
but
I
can't
think
of
any
site
reviews
and
there
certainly
are
site
reviews
that
have
been
denied,
but
maybe
not
based
on
this
language.
E
B
All
right,
then,
my
comment
will
be
I
I
think,
we're
attempting
to
dance
on
the
head
of
a
pin.
This
is
not
a
factual
language
for
denial
of
a
project.
I
don't
know
why
we
would
not
encourage
conversation
about
any
policy
in
the
comp
plan
that
might
be
relevant
to
the
project
if
it's
not
going
to
end
up
being
the
cause
of
it
being
denied.
B
So
I
will
take
a
different
view
on
that.
But
let's
take
a
straw
poll
and
see
where
we
are
for
those
who
think
that
the.
B
I'm
sorry
one
moment:
okay
for
those
who
think
we
should
just
be
referencing.
The
built
environment
as
part
of
the
site
plan
raise
your
hands.
B
A
B
H
So
what
I
say
you
were
saying:
do
we
want
to
move
to
just
the
built
environment
and
I
would
say
instead
have
a
question
of
do.
We
want
to
move
away
from
the
on
balance
approach,
subject
to
the
comments
that
have
been
made
so
far
tonight.
B
Okay,
brad
lauren.
D
Yeah,
I
I
I
would
characterize
the
discussion.
I've
heard
tonight
as
being
not
binary
anymore,
so
it's
not
the
two
choices
that
we've
kind
of
teed
up,
but
rather
of
the
mingling
of
the
two,
and,
if
that's
the
sense
of
verbum,
I
think
that
gives
us
the
direction
we
need
to
move
forward.
Okay,.
B
B
Who
wishes
to
comment
starting
the
call.
F
Yeah,
I
think
I'm
just
a
little
stuck
here
and
this
this
may
kind
of
be
going
back
to
just
my
my
lack
of
knowledge
around
planning,
so
I'll,
be
here
to
hear
other
people's
comments
too,
but
with
something
like
this,
I
mean
for
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
that's
so
linked
to
something
our
community
cares
so
much
about.
F
I
guess
I
just
I
just
don't
understand
why
it's
kind
of
showing
up
here
versus
just
in
in
our
code
like
what-
and
so
maybe
this
is
just
a
clarifying
question
for
staff
on
this
question-
why?
Why
wouldn't
we
want
all
buildings
to
have
greenhouse
gas
emission
reduction
criteria
applied.
E
H
E
J
I
I
like
the
second
option
that
staff
presented
where
it
was
sort
of
you
had
to
do
all
three,
but
then
there
was
a
choice
for
the
third,
but
again
I
I
would
like
to
see
some
a
little
bit
more
feedback
on
that
before
we
implement
it,
and
I
I
guess
in
general
I
you
know
these
projects
take
a
long
time
to
come
to
fruition,
so
they
end
up
being
sort
of
one
or
two
code
step,
but
often
they
aren't
meeting
our
current
energy
standards
when
they're
built
because
they
typically
get
to
use
the
energy
standards
that
they
are
that
were
in
place
when
they
were
started,
and
so
I
can
also
see
kind
of
trying
to
have
these
be
almost
like
one
step
ahead
of
what
the
energy
code
is
going
to
be,
so
that
there
is
future
alignment,
but
I
would
still
I
would
still
support
option
two.
B
I
I
It's
about
building
for
tomorrow,
so
I'd
love
to
really
think
about
how
we
can
really
create
an
environment
for
developers.
Anybody
building
stuff,
certainly
of
sufficient
size
to
go
way
beyond
our
requirements,
and
so
I
I
like,
where
lauren
was
going
with
her
comments
and
I'd
really
like
to
push
the
envelope
on
on
some
of
those
options.
Certainly
with
regards
to
our
climate
goals,.
L
I,
like
the
staff's
idea
best
that
it
was
two
and
then
pick
the
third,
whichever
you
like.
B
H
You
know
it's
you
know,
rather
than
have
it
be
a
something
that
only
applies
to
certain
buildings
under
certain
circumstances
when
you
go
into
in
the
site
review,
so
I
I
I'd
like
to
maybe
if
we
could
think
about
we're
updating
our
building
codes,
I
think
we're
gonna
start
talking
about
in
a
handful
months
and
to
implement
next
year.
So
if
we
can
be
thinking
about
hey,
these
are
some
great
ideas.
Let's
carry
two
or
three
of
these
forward
into
our
energy
code
update
next
year
and
and
make
them
happen
for
everybody.
H
I
think
that
that
would
be
great
and
then
so,
maybe
in
the
site
review.
Maybe
it's
more
things
like
the
the
total
building
evaluation
stuff,
where
that's
like
a
more
of
a
performance
thing
that
you
might
not
have
in
an
energy
code,
necessarily,
although
we
might
be
moving
in
that
direction,
but
that's
less
about
how
you
build
the
building
and
more
about
making
sure
it's
performing
correctly.
H
B
If
I
can
colloquy
for
a
minute
aaron,
I'm
not
sure
where
you're
coming
down
on
this
particular
question
and
I'm
eager
to
know.
B
N
Back,
I,
I
think
what
I
I
heard
you
say
mayor
is:
you
would
like
us
for
all
buildings
to
build
to
a
low
carbon
emissions,
concrete
standard
and
consider
that
as
base
coat,
as
well
as
the
life
cycle
assessment,
but
allow
the
third
option,
which
is
kind
of
the
outcome
based
to
be
within
site
review.
Is
that
an
accurate
summary
or
no?
It.
H
Is
it's,
but
I'm
I'm
also
I'm
giving
that
feedback
to
to
look
into
that
right
like
because,
if
you
were
to
come
back
and
say
like
actually,
you
know
what
the
the
low
carbon
concrete
things
really
only
applies
appropriately
to
larger
buildings.
For
this
reason,
I'll,
listen
to
you
but
see
if
they,
if
these
feel
like
things
that
are
on,
are
feasible
things
now,
I'm
just
saying,
rather
than
having
the
site
review
criteria,
it's
pushing
in
the
energy
code,
that'd
be
my
recommendation.
Great.
Thank
you.
Is
that
clear
enough
this
time
mark,
I
think
so.
K
I
think
my
feedback's,
pretty
similar
to
aaron's,
which
is
is
as
much
of
this
that
can
go
into
the
energy
code,
makes
most
sense
to
me
so
that
you
know
even
in
aaron's
last
example.
If
it,
if
you
know
something,
only
applies
in
a
large
building
that
still
to
me,
makes
sense
to
go
in
the
energy
code
as,
as
you
know,
energy
related
constant.
K
So
I
guess
just
for
simplicity
and
and
being
able
to
find
what
you're
looking
for
it
would
seem
that
that,
ideally,
anything
that's
going
to
be
energy
related
would
be
there
rather
than
here.
So
that's
my
general
feedback
on
that.
Okay,.
Q
Bob
I'm
going
to
agree
with
rachel
and
aaron.
I,
the
energy
code,
is
a
much
more
nimble
instrument
to
use.
We.
We
update
that
from
time
to
time
there's
national
international
standards
that
are
constantly
evolving
as
technology
changes,
and
I
think
the
correct
place
for
these
types
of
things
is
the
code
as
ra
lawrence
we're
about
to
launch
into
revisions
to
that
code
in
a
few
months
anyway,
and
so
I
would
be
content
to
wait
get
into
the
code.
Have
it
applied
to
to
everything
we
don't
touch
cr.
Sorry,
I
think
aaron.
F
Yes,
just
kind
of
coming
back
around,
I
just
wanted
to
spotlight
one
thing
that
I
think
lauren
was
referring
to,
and
I
think
mark
you
mentioned
this
earlier
as
well.
F
So
this
idea
of
incentivizing
because,
as
I
understand
the
site
review
process,
part
of
it
is
to
really
spur
innovation
and
kind
of
allow
for
a
creative
space
that
may
not
exist
within
kind
of
the
box
of
our
our
typical
code,
and
so,
if
we
can
kind
of
have
this
general
code,
that
applies
to
everybody
and
then
also
have
some
sort
of
incentive
that
is
driving
this
innovation,
that
the
site
review
process
is
kind
of
meant
to
do.
B
I'll
make
a
brief
comment
that
I
am
in
agreement
with
bob
rachel
and
aaron
in
terms
of
the
best
place
for
these
restrictions
to
be
it's
in
the
in
the
code
itself,
as
opposed
to
the
site
review
process
all
right.
What
do
we
have
to?
Can
we
get
the
question
back
up,
so
we
can
at
least
decide
on
what
we're
doing
here.
B
B
Like
this
is
this
is
question
four,
I'm
not
sure
we've
passed
question
three
yet
have
we
thank
you
there
we
go
to
what
extent
do
the
greenhouse
gas
emission
reduction
criterion
apply
to
larger
buildings.
B
B
Can
I
get
a
show
of
hands
on
the
question.
F
It
feels
like
this
is
another
place
where
our
discussion
has
sort
of
changed
the
nature
of
the
question,
and
so
I'm
wondering,
if
maybe
a
question
we
could
ask,
is
whether
staff
feels
like
they
have
enough
from
our
discussion
to
answer
this
question
because
I
feel
like
I
can't
answer
it
at
this
point
based
on
our
discussion.
E
D
B
H
Thanks
mark
well
just
I'll
just
jump
in
here
that
I
I
would,
I
would
go
in
the
less
prescriptive
direction.
On
this
I
mean
I
think,
you've
outlined
a
lot
of
great
design,
ideas
and
guidelines
and
such
here,
but
I
don't
know
that
they
need
to
apply
to
every
building.
I
think
somebody
was
mentioning
danger
of
every
building,
starting
to
look
the
same
if
we
get
a
little
bit
too
prescriptive
in
our
design
ideas.
I
was
looking
around
my
my
neighborhood
earlier
today.
H
I
don't
know
that
any
of
my
current
the
buildings
in
my
current
neighborhood
comply
with
with
every
single
criteria.
So
so
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
great
stuff
in
there,
but
what
my
recommendation
would
be
to
do
something
like
this,
and
this
is
just
an
idea.
So
you
have
the
alternative
compliance
method,
which
is.
It
was
a
good.
H
It's
a
good
escape
hatch
for
having
a
prescriptive
approach,
but
it
has
a
lot
of
really
good
language
in
and
of
itself
kind
of
in,
in
a
broad
statement
of
how
we
should
approach
designing
great
buildings,
and
so
I
just
wonder
if
that
could
become
like
the
heading
for
the
design
section
to
say
that,
like
broadly
speaking,
we
should
do
these
great
things
around
design
and
open
space
and
and
such
and
then
say
list
and
we
recommend
or
highly
recommend
or
some
language
around.
Like
these.
H
You
know,
14
specific
design,
moves
that
we
found
to
make
successful
buildings,
and
so
we
would
look
to
see
most
of
them
implemented
in
your
design.
Something
like
that.
But
then
so
that
gives
you
some
way
to
give
feedback
to
developer
if
they
can
come
back
with
nothing
but
blank
walls
and
unarticulated
facades,
and
you
know
17
materials,
you
can
say:
look
you
got
to
do
at
least
most
of
this
stuff
that
you're
not
you're
not
going
with
our
design
criteria.
H
But
but
if
somebody
doesn't
put
a
vertical
expression
line
in
one
place,
because
it's
not
their
vision
for
the
design
or
if
they
have
a
longer
building
because,
like
my
neighbors
are
senior
senior
housing,
they
have
a
longer
building
so
that
they
only
have
one
elevator
for
the
whole
building
right.
So
it
saves
costs
and
things
like
that,
so
that
there
would
be
room
for
something
like
that,
so
so
that
that
would
be
my
my
recommendation
there
and
that's
kind
of
on
the
bigger
topic,
maybe
I'll.
B
J
Yeah,
so
as
an
architect,
I
think
design
is
really
important
and
I
don't
think
that
making
a
checklist
encourages
design.
Thinking
on
design
advisory
board,
we
saw
out
of
town
developers
come
in
and
think
that,
like
the
easiest
path
forward
was
just
to
kind
of,
like
do
a
you
know,
go
through
the
list
and
try
and
like
check
all
the
boxes,
and
I
think
that
this
just
encourages
that
kind
of
design
even
more.
And
so
I
would
really
I
again.
J
Innovative
design,
I
can
go
through
a
checklist
of
things
that
I
think
are
problematic,
it's
fairly
extensive,
but
I
think
that
that
sort
of
generally
covers
it
that
you
know
thank.
L
I
Thanks
mark
well,
I
mean
I
think
this
is
tough,
but
I
think
just
sort
of
looking
back.
I
mean
we're
sort
of
caught
in
the
quasi-judicial
nature
of
sight
review.
Right
right,
I
mean
it's
a
criterion-based
decision
and
yet,
if
the
criteria
is
then
totally
subjective,
it's
it's
it's
entropy
not
order,
and-
and
so
I
get
the
predictability
side,
and
so
I
I
I
want
to
see.
I
I
like
you
know
what
what's
the
middle
ground
of
that
more
or
less
is
is
really,
I
think
the
question,
and
I
and
I
can't
point
to
specific
pieces
for
that,
but
I
think
that
you
know
by
and
large
I
I
like,
where
aaron's
going,
but
I,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
still
have
a
clear
understanding
of
that
quasi-judicial
nature
of
criteria
based
decision
making
and
we've.
That's
the
predictability
part
that
I
think
is
really
important,
but
I
don't
want
homogeny
as
a
byproduct
of
that.
I
So
so
it
doesn't
really
answer
the
question,
but
it
sort
of
settles
somewhere
in
the
middle
of
the
nature
of
site
review
lends
itself
and-
and
maybe
it's
the
fact
that
it's
quasi-judicial
and
that's
the
point
that
that's
the
sticking
point
of
this
whole
thing
is.
It
has
to
be
criterion-based.
So
I
really
to
answer
the
question.
K
I
just
sort
of
I
don't
know
a
question
or
comment
on
on
maybe
some
threads.
I
think
I
was
picking
up
tonight,
which
were
if
I
was
following
matthew
from
dab.
I
thought
he
was.
You
know
and
a
couple
other
colleagues
comments
that
that
maybe
there's
a
desire.
You
know
what
we
were
trying
to
get
to
with
the
form-based
code.
K
Type
of
decision
making
is,
is
you
know
it's
predictable
and
and
maybe
in
some
cases
you
know
you
can
have
fewer
steps.
Maybe
I
think
maybe
one
of
the
options
would
be.
You
don't
have
to
do
site
review.
I
don't
know
if
that's
like
just
too
scary
to
even
consider
but
is
are
we
will
this
process
look
at
that
at
all
going
forward,
or
is
that
just
sort
of
dead
because
it
wasn't
asked
up
front?
K
E
I
don't
know
that
that
was
included
in
the
original
scope
of
the
project,
so
we
haven't
really
spent
much
time
on
it.
It
doesn't
mean
we
don't
think
about
it.
It
might
be
something
that
we
try
to
fold
into
again.
The
2022
work
program
items
to
incentivize.
K
J
I
just
wanted
to
add
in
a
comment
about
sort
of
this
back
and
forth
between
predictability
and
subjectivity.
So
I
think
you
know
on
a
lot
of
developers
when
they're
coming
up
with
their
pro
forma
and
things
like
that
that
the
kinds
of
things
that
they
are
really
looking
for
predictability
around
are
you
know
the
number
of
units
that
they
can
have
and
the
floor
area
and
how
many
parking
spaces
they're
going
to
have.
J
J
So
I
think
that,
having
the
detail
on
the
public
realm
side
be
a
little
bit
more
subjective
again,
I
think,
can
lead
to
better
design
out
options
or
the
possibility
for
better
design
options,
and
is
something
that
I
would
encourage:
keeping
open.
I
You
know,
assuming
we
have
a
strong
general
building
code
and
and
use
tables
that
by
right
they
can
meet
those
really
huge
community
goals
and
sidestep
and
not
go
through
site
review
and
then
sort
of
just
stay
within
the
realm
of
good
code
and
they're
doing
something
exceptionally
needed
in
our
community
that
we
would
define.
I
just
I
I
don't
know
if
that's
here,
brad
and
carl,
but
but
somewhere
that
conversation
is,
is
very
close
or
adjacent
to
this
conversation,
a
site
review.
H
B
Okay
and
I'll
make
a
just
a
quick
comment.
You
know,
to
the
extent
that
we
are
being
responsive
to
development
community
desires
for
less
prescription,
since
that
is
the
really
contrary
to
what
I've
I've
heard
from
every
developer
consultant.
I've
spoken
to
over
the
last
two
and
a
half
years,
who
all
bemoan
the
subjective
nature
of
the
process,
I'm
really
agnostic
as
to
which
way
we
go.
B
But
if,
if
we
are
going
to
be
less
prescriptive,
I
never
want
to
hear
another
complaint
from
another
developer
in
this
city
that
the
process
is
too
subjective
and
they
don't
know
what
what
their
obligations
are
going
to
be.
This
is
something
we're
accommodating
I'm
I'm
cognizant
of
lauren's
concern
for
better
design
and
that's
kind
of
why
I'm
agnostic
either
way,
but
I
never
want
to
hear
another
complaint
thanks
and.
H
Yeah,
I
just
had
one
a
couple
detailed
follow-ups.
I
also
would
not
like
to
hear
complaints
again
about
anything
really.
So
that's
all
I
agree
with
here.
So
just
a
couple
detailed
comments,
one
is
coming
back
to
the
the
view
corridor
thing.
I
do
really
think
that
we
need
to
pin
down
the
definition
of
open
space
in
in
terms
of
where
you're
blocking
your
view.
Corridor
from
like,
I
think
about
the
parking
lot
of
home
depot
has
a
great
view
to
flat
irons.
H
It
is
technically
an
open
space,
but
that's
not
a
view
that
I
think
we
need
to
prioritize
preservation.
If
somebody
wanted
to
build
on
the
southern
corner
of
it
with
some
great
you
know,
affordable
housing
or
something
so
that
that
I
think
we
need
some
good
qualification
on
and
then
the
other
thing
was
just
about
the
the
height
when,
when
a
taller
building
might
be
permitted,
I
thought
the
thousand
foot
contiguity
kind
of
idea
was
maybe
not
the
right
way
to
go.
H
I
just
think
about,
like
there
are
industrial
parts
of
town
that
currently
are
all
two
to
three
story:
buildings
and
there's
not
a
four-story
building
within
a
good,
a
pretty
long
way,
but
are
a
perfect
perfectly
reasonable
place
to
have
a
four-story
building
as
they
redevelop
into
mixed
use
for
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan.
So
I
would
just
want
our
our
criteria
for
considering
a
height
modification
to
take
into
account
redeveloping
areas.
H
You
know
that
that
don't
have
much
of
an
established
character
yet,
but
that
may
be
perfectly
reasonable
for
a
height
exemption
and
and
so
just
make
sure
we
get
that
into
the
criteria
there
and
I
would
focus
less
on
the
exact
buildings
within
1000
feet.
So
that's
just
my
other
point
and
I'm
done
thanks.
So
much.
F
All
right-
and
I
just
I
just
want
to
name
something-
that's
kind
of
a
sticking
point
for
me
in
coming
up
with
an
answer
to
this
question.
F
It
seems
like
one
of
the
areas
of
tension
here
is
that
it's
not
necessarily
a
lack
of
objective
criteria,
but
rather
a
lack
of
subjective
or
or
too
much
subjective
decision
making
right
and
that
that
and-
and
I
know
that
the
criteria
we're
using
to
make
decisions
they're.
F
Obviously
those
two
are
very
related,
but
it
seems
like
the
issue
is
coming
in
terms
of
people
being
very
subjective
in
terms
of
saying
you
know
well,
this
project
isn't
going
to
meet
this
need
for
this
reason
that
could
kind
of
be
turned
around
and,
and
you
could
say,
make
the
opposite
decision
for
the
same
reason
right.
So
I
I
don't
really
know
how
to
address
this.
F
I
trust
you
know
that
you
all
staff
you
all
do
better
than
I
do,
but
I
I
really
you
know
I
hear
lauren's
concerns
and
the
other
concerns
from
some
of
the
architects
that
are
around
allowing
creativity
and
innovation
right.
I
think
that's
what
makes
that's
what
makes
buildings
interesting
is
when
we
allow
that
space
for
people
to
be
a
little
more
general.
So
how
can
we
afford
that
creativity
and
make
it
so
that
developers
aren't
saying
that
they're
being
the
the
decision?
Our
decision-making
process
is
subjective.
D
D
I
would
summarize
that
you've,
given
us
feedback
that,
on
some
specific
things
like
vertical
lines
and
such
there
needs
to
be
enough
space
for
creativity
in
some
of
those
specifics
coupled
with
some
maybe
intent
language.
D
That
is
another
form
of
that
safety
valve
to
make
sure
that
there
is
still
that
creativity
and
finding
that
balance
between
the
predictable
elements
and
the
creative
elements.
So,
if
I'm,
if
I've,
if
I've
stated
that
generally
correct,
I
think
the
the
the
other
details
that
have
been
talked
about
in
this
subject.
We've
captured
as
well
and-
and
we
can
move
forward
with
that.
Okay.
D
B
B
Okay,
I
think
that
wraps
up
this
subject,
I'm
going
to
propose
a
five-minute
recess
so
that
we
can
all
get
energized
and
excited
about
a
conversation
about
use
tables
in
industrial
areas,
and
I
know
we've
all
been
waiting
for
that
and
you
know
we
all
want
to
have
good
energy
to
to
have
that
conversation.
B
Others
in
industrial
areas,
I
will
turn
it
back
to
our
esteemed
city
manager,
maria.
C
Thank
you,
and
in
the
interest
of
time
I
think
I'll
just
give
it
to
brad
who
has
been
holding
down
the
show
today.
He
and
his
team
are
doing
a
great
job.
Well,.
D
Follow
that
I'm
gonna
hand
it
right
over
to
lisa
howe
who's
gonna.
Let
her
go
thanks.
R
So
we
have
module
two
focused
on
industrial
areas
that
we
are
hoping
to
wrap
up
by
the
end
of
this
year
and
then
we'll
go
into
module
three,
which
is
related
to
neighborhoods
and
neighborhood
centers
neighborhood
serving
uses
just
some
background
on
this
project.
It
actually
started
back
in
2018
and
we
completed
phase
one
of
the
project
in
2019
and
in
2020
is
when
we
started
phase
two.
R
So
the
initial
goals
of
the
project,
as
you
may
remember,
are
to
simplify
and
streamline
the
use
table,
which
is
a
very
important
part
of
the
land
use
code.
So
you've
been
talking
a
lot
about
the
design
review
of
projects,
but
this
is
the
review
of
which
uses
businesses
or
housing
types
would
be
allowed
so
trying
to
make
that
more
understandable
and
legible.
R
But
the
use
table
is
actually
acting
as
a
barrier
so
trying
to
fix
some
of
those
issues
as
well.
R
We
put
together
a
planning
board
subcommittee
back
before
this
project
was
paused
in
2020,
and
they
did
a
lot
of
really
great
work.
They
met
over
20
times
over
a
couple
of
years,
really
digging
into
the
use
table
doing
a
district
by
district
analysis
of
all
of
the
uses
that
are
allowed
in
each
zoning
district.
R
They
came
up
with
areas
of
consideration
things
to
focus
on
and
even
though
the
project
was
paused,
that
input
continues
to
guide
the
project
and
we've
kind
of
rethought
the
formation
of
the
subcommittee
and
I'll
explain
that
a
little
bit
more
on
on
a
slide
coming
up.
But
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
how
much
work
was
done
by
those
planning
board
members
and
how
it
will
continue
to
inform
the
rest
of
the
project.
R
Also,
the
project
has
been
to
city
council
several
times
for
both
action
and
guidance,
so
council
saw
it
back
in
may
2019
had
a
study
session
on
that
phase.
One
then
adopted
the
ordinance
for
phase
one
that
was
really
related
to
the
opportunity
zone.
That
was
in
october
of
2019..
R
There
was
a
study
session
on
phase
two
back
in
august,
2020
and
so
I'll
kind
of
be
sprinkling
in
some
of
the
guidance
that
we
heard
at
that
point,
because
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
unique
nature
of
this
project
that
it
was
paused
and
now
we're
bringing
it
back
so
I'll
sprinkle
that
into
the
presentation
as
well
and
then,
like
I
mentioned
module,
one
was
adopted
back
in
june
so
tonight
I
really
want
to
talk
about
the
next
steps
for
this
project
and,
if
you
all
are
okay
with
it,
it's
organized
a
little
bit
differently
than
carl's
presentation.
R
So
the
questions
are
a
bit
more
disparate
from
each
other.
So
if
you're,
okay
with
stopping
at
each
question
and
then
discussing
and
then
we'll
go
into
the
next
topic,
that's
kind
of
how
I
planned
it.
But
if
you'd
like
to
do
it
all
the
way
through.
Just
let
me
know,
but
just
a
little
bit
more
background
before
we
get
to
the
specific
questions.
So
the
plan
for
public
engagement
for
the
remainder
of
the
project
through
the
rest
of
this
year
and
early
next
year
is
I
mentioned.
R
We
are
kind
of
rethinking
that
planning
board
subcommittee,
so
we
now
have
two
planning
board
liaisons
that
we
will
be
working
with.
We've
started
working
with
already
to
get
their
guidance
and
feedback
throughout
this
project
and
so
we'd
be
meeting
with
them
every
other
month
or
so.
But
then
we've
also
pulled
together
a
use
table
in
standards,
public
working
group,
and
so
that's
a
group
of
about
15
to
20
interested
stakeholders,
residents,
community
members,
business
interests,
members
of
the
arts
community.
We're
really
trying
to
get
a
diverse
group
of
perspectives.
R
Who
can
give
some
initial
input
at
the
outset
of
each
of
these
modules
and
then
also
provide
feedback
as
we
develop
drafts,
and
so
the
reason
why
we
kind
of
changed
the
the
setup
of
the
subcommittee
was
just
to
be
able
to
have
the
public
more
more
meaningfully
engaged
in
both
the
proposals
and
also
the
from
the
outset
of
each
of
those
modules.
So
the
planning
board
subcommittee
had
been
a
fairly
formal
process.
R
So
this
is
just
a
way
to
get
kind
of
people
more
involved
throughout
we're
also
hoping
to
do
broader
engagement.
So
we're
actually
planning
a
be
heard,
boulder
questionnaire.
That
would
be
a
virtual
engagement
opportunity
that
would
go
out
specifically
for
this
module
two
next
week
and
go
through
september
and
then
we're
also
hoping
to
include
more
in-person
opportunities
for
engagement
as
the
covid
situation
improves.
R
So
the
first
two
questions
that
were
laid
out
in
your
memo
are
related
to
module
two,
the
industrial
areas-
so
you
all
are
familiar,
but
there
are
basically
three
different
areas
of
the
city
that
have
industrial
zoning,
so
you
have
the
gun,
barrel
area,
northeast
corner
of
the
city,
there's
a
big
swath
of
industrial
zoning.
There's
a
small
area
just
at
the
very
north
end
of
north
boulder,
where
there's
industrial
zoning
and
then
also
you
all,
have
talked
a
lot
about
this
recently.
The
industrial
zoning
in
east
folder.
R
So
those
are
really
the
three
areas
that
we're
focusing
on
in
module
two
and
thinking
through
what
businesses
are
allowed
in
those
zoning
districts.
What
housing
should
be
allowed
and
things
like
that
for
those
who
are
not
familiar
or
don't
read
the
zoning
code
every
day,
you
know
there's
four
different
zoning
districts.
So,
just
a
brief
overview
of
what
kind
of
the
intent
and
purpose
of
each
of
those
is.
R
Similarly,
im
is
industrial
manufacturing.
It
has
a
lot
of
similar
intents
research,
development
manufacturing
service,
industrial
kind
of
the
main
differences.
That's
envisioned
to
be
kind
of
on
larger
lots,
so
larger
scale
and
more
manufacturing,
but
also
allowed
in
the
code
or
mentioned
in
the
code
that
residential
and
complementary
uses
in
appropriate
locations
are
allowed.
R
Finally,
we
have
the
ims
district,
that's
the
industrial
mixed
service
district
and
that's
really
a
different
kind
of
district.
So
it's
really
more
pedestrian
oriented.
It's
supposed
to
be
kind
of
industrial
areas
that
are
on
the
edge
of
a
main
street
commercial
area,
and
so
it
envisions
more
of
first
floor
industrial
with
industrial,
residential
or
offices.
R
Above
so
I
mentioned
that
the
the
kind
of
the
main
goals
of
the
project
are
really
to
align
the
use
table
better
with
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
so
specific
to
this
module
two
and
industrial
areas.
This
is
really
pulling
a
lot
from
this
specific
policy
2.21,
which
relates
to
light
industrial
areas.
So
if
you
focus
on
the
kind
of
green
box,
this
is
directly
from
the
comp
plan.
R
There's
five
main
principles
related
to
light
industrial
areas
and
four
and
five
don't
really
apply
here,
because
they're
related
to
transportation,
but
one
two
and
three
is
what
we're
really
focusing
on
in
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
use
table
aligns
with
these.
So
the
first
one
is
preserving
established
businesses
and
the
opportunity
for
industrial
businesses.
R
R
I
mentioned
that
I
would
bring
in
some
feedback
that
we've
heard
in
previous
iterations
of
this
project.
So
back
in
august
of
2020,
we
did
a
similar
study
session
with
city
council
and
the
council
at
the
time,
gave
their
support
for
additional
uses,
such
as
residential
retail
and
restaurants,
in
light
industrial
areas
in
order
to
foster
more
mixed-use
and
walkable
neighborhoods.
However,
the
council
also
expressed
the
need
to
balance
the
protection
of
existing
industrial
uses
and
introducing
new
residential
uses.
R
So
this
gives
us
to
the
point
of
the
kind
of
two
main
topics
related
to
industrial
that
we're
hoping
to
get
your
feedback
and
policy
direction
on
so
the
first
one
is
related
to
residential
and
the
second
is
related
to
office.
So
I'll
give
some
background.
This
is
the
first
one
related
to
residential
development
in
industrial
zoning
districts.
R
So
right
now
we
have
residential
development
in
industrial
district
standards
and
kind
of
the
background
in
the
history
of
this
is
back
in
1997
there
was
a
comprehensive
rezoning
study
that
was
done
to
address
the
jobs
and
housing
balance
issue
in
boulder,
and
at
that
time
no
residential
uses
were
allowed
in
industrial
districts.
They
were
really
meant
to
be
preserved
for
industrial
use.
The
only
exception
was
that
live
work
units
were
allowed
at
that
point.
R
However,
just
seven
years
later,
that
policy
kind
of
shifted
and
residential
development
in
order
to
increase
those
housing
numbers
residential
development
was
made
possible
in
industrial
districts.
However,
through
used
review,
so
you've
been
talking.
R
Site
review
there's
also
a
discretionary
process
called
use
review,
which
reviews
the
compatibility
and
appropriateness
of
certain
uses
in
districts,
so
that
is
still
how
residential
development
is
reviewed
in
industrial
districts.
The
standards
have
not
been
updated
in
the
last
18
years,
so
they're,
the
same
ones
and
basically
a
short
summary
of
what
they
are.
Is
it
limits
the
sites
in
the
industrial
district,
specifically
the
ig
and
im.
R
It
limits
the
sites
to
only
a
few
that
are
eligible.
So,
if
you
look
at
the
map,
that's
on
this
on
the
screen,
the
parcels
that
are
pink
are
not
eligible
for
residential
development.
The
ones
that
are
in
light
blue
are
eligible
for
residential
development,
and
then
those
that
are
in
dark
blue
are
parcels
that
have
either
been
approved,
for
a
residential
use
are
already
built
with
residential
use.
So,
in
order
to
be
eligible,
a
parcel
has
to
be
contiguous.
R
So
it's
based
on
contiguity
to
residential
and
existing
residential
use
or
zoning
district,
or
to
parks
and
open
space.
It
also
has
to
have
a
minimum
lot
size
of
two
acres,
so
that
actually
reduces
the
number
of
sites
that
are
actually
eligible
for
residential
development.
So,
even
though
they're
allowed
in
industrial
districts
by
user
view,
only
a
certain
portion
can
actually
build
there
and
also
in
those
standards.
It
requires
site
review,
which
we've
been
talking
about
a
lot
tonight,
so
you
get
into
that
higher
threshold
of
review
if
it's
a
mixed-use
project.
R
So
if
it's
only
residential,
they
don't
have
to
do
site
review
and
if
it's
of
a
certain
size,
but
if
you,
if
they
were
to
put
in
non-residential
uses,
then
they
would
have
to
do
skype
review.
There's
also
some
other
standards
in
there
related
to
environmental
suitability,
noise
and
then
also
a
declaration
of
use
is
required
that
people,
the
owners
and
tenants
have
to
say
that
they
know
that
they
are
a
residential
use
in
an
industrial
area.
R
Interestingly,
over
the
last
18
years
since
these
standards
were
put
in
place,
only
four
projects
have
been
either
approved
or
built.
So
there's
one
project,
that's
been
built
in
gun
barrel.
One
project
that's
been
approved
in
gun
barrel.
One
project
that's
been
built
in
east
boulder
and
one
that's
been
approved,
so
that's
just
some
background
on
the
kind
of
the
the
state
right
now
of
residential
development
in
industrial
districts
and
how
that
would
be
approved
going
back
to
kind
of
those
guiding
principles
that
green
box
that
we
were
looking
at.
R
So
that's
why
it's
been
identified
as
one
of
the
the
main
issues
that
we
want
to
get
your
guidance
on
tonight.
So
that
brings
us
to
the
first
question
in
thinking
through
this
residential
issue.
R
Does
council
support
changes
to
the
standards
for
residential
development
in
industrial
districts
that
would
make
potentially
make
more
sites
eligible
for
residential
use,
and
we
thought
through
what
some
of
those
changes
could
be
like
I
mentioned,
removing
the
current
contiguity
requirement,
maybe
removing
that
minimum
lot
size
and
I
think
that
the
crux
with
industrial
and
residential
uses
is
really
trying
to
and
trying
to
determine
where
the
appropriate
place
is
for
residential.
R
That's
that's!
The
issue
is
trying,
what's
the
best
way
to
determine
which
sites
are
appropriate,
is
it
guidance
from
sub-community
plans
or
from
the
comp
plan?
Is
it
somewhere
where
we
would
limit
residential
development
only
to
either
the
ig
zoning
district
or
a
certain
zoning
district
and
then
exclude
it
from
others
or
maybe
are
there
other
potential
approaches?
Could
it
be
proximity
from
other
uses,
or
things
like
that
there
might
be
other
uses?
R
So
if
you're,
okay,
with
pausing
here
to
go
through
this
question
before
going
into
the
office
in
module
three,
we
can
do
it
that
way
or
I
can
continue
going.
That's
kind
of
up
to
you.
B
J
Thanks
so
I
would
support
updates
to
the
standards
for
residential
development
in
industrial
districts.
I
think
we
should
eliminate
the
contiguity
requirement.
The
exclusivity
of
use
for
industrial
and
residential
minimum
lot
size,
the
more
restrictive
setbacks
and
far
requirements
that
are
typically
required
of
of
housing
in
those
zones.
J
So
you
know
those
talk
about
housing
areas
along
transit
lines
and
surrounding
retail
and
amenity
hubs,
housing,
that's
integrated
into
mixed-use
buildings
and
neighborhoods,
with
diverse
housing,
commercial
and
retail
options
involving
the.
J
But
I
think
that
this
housing
needs
to
be
in
addition
to
industrial
uses
and
not
instead
of
it
in
some,
you
know
in
some
zones,
so
in
some
areas
it
might
be
that
the
first
floor
has
to
mainta
stay
industrial
and
housing
could
be
put
above
or
that
it's
like
a
percentage
on
the
site
or
maybe
there's
the
creation
of
new
conditional
uses
to
kind
of
help
shape
that
so
that
it
these
this
fits
closer
to
kind
of
what
we've
described
in
especially
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan.
I
Well,
thanks
lauren
for
just
mike
dropping
that
answer,
so
I
got
nothing
to
add
there.
That
was
awesome.
The
only
point
I'd
make
is
regarding
engagement,
which
lauren
took
the
answer
perfectly.
I
just
saw
an
engagement
well,
but
I
didn't
see-
and
maybe
it's
implied
in
there
or
was
done
earlier,
but
at
least
on
the
slide
and
new
sweats
on
the
memo.
I
I
think,
as
we
all
know,
zoning
and
land
use
has
almost
traditionally
always
disproportionately
impacted
those
communities
and
so,
as
we
think
about
how
we're
using
our
zoning
in
our
land
use
and
what
our
allowable
uses
that
I
really
want
to
make
sure
we've
checked
in
with
those
communities
so
that
as
we're
going
forward,
how
we
use
and
do
our
land
use
in
zoning
is
in
is
appropriate
for
everybody
in
in
our
community
and
not
leaving
anyone
out.
B
H
Yes,
I
thought
I
thought
lauren
said
that
extremely
well,
so
I'll
rest
on
her
comments
with
the
the
one
exception.
Let's
say
that
it
was
a
little
unclear
to
me
lauren
if
you
were
thinking
that
that
each
site
had
to
be
a
mix
of
residential
and
industrial
which,
which
I
wouldn't
say
would
be
necessary
personally,
so
that,
like
you,
we
don't
want
100
of
all
industrial
zoned
areas
to
become
100
residential,
but
I
think
in
on
any
given
parcel,
it
could
be
appropriate
for
for
an
all
residential
project.
H
Potentially,
so
I
think,
with
the
guardrails
on
a
whole
sector
basis
can
be
tough,
but
I
just
wouldn't
put
a
per
parcel
restriction
on
the
percentage
of
residential
percent,
but
other
than
that,
I
thought.
Lauren
was
right
on
and
matt's
comments
on,
engagement
were
great
too,
and
thanks
for
bringing
this
to
us,
I
think
there's
a
good
direction.
B
R
Attached
goings
are
actually
permitted,
there
are
some
stipulations
like
they
can't
be
on
the
first
floor.
So
an
example
of
that
is
the
bus
stop
apartments
were
built
in
is
on
north
broadway,
and
so
they
have
like
an
art
gallery
on
the
first
floor
and
some
live
work.
Units
so
is
actually
does
permit
attached
dwelling
units.
B
Well,
okay,
why
do
you
think
that
there
were
so
few
projects.
B
Completed
over
a
period
of
years,
so
few
developers
have
taken
advantage
of
the
ability
to
have
a
residential
use
in
an
industrial
zone.
R
R
Also,
I
think
the
fact
that
it's
a
user
view
maybe
adds
more
unpredictability
or
uncertainty
about
whether
it
would
apply,
but
other
than
that
it
could
just
be
economic
factors
or
you
know
any
number
of
things
unrelated
to
zoning,
but
it
certainly
is
a
low
number
of
projects
and
three
of
those
projects
were
in
the
last
two
years.
I
think
so.
It
was
almost
nothing
for
a
while.
B
B
What
what
kinds
of
industrial
uses
we
want
to
preserve,
because,
to
the
extent
that
you
permit
residential
development
in
an
industrial
zone,
it
is
likely
to
crowd
out
most
of
the
industrial
users.
You
know
residential
development
is
going
to
be
more
profitable
than
industrial
facilities.
B
It
doesn't
mean
we
can't
do
it,
but
it
should
be
an
intentional
choice
and
understand
what
we're
doing-
and
I
think
often
in
terms
of
the
service
industrial
facilities
that
are
located
off
pearl
parkway
and
if
residential
is
permitted
there
they're
gone,
I
mean
there's
just
no
economic
rationale
for
keeping
those
businesses
if
you
can
actually
convert
that
area
into
residential,
and
that
should
be
an
intentional
decision
policy
decision
on
the
part
of
the
city,
because
it's
going
to
happen.
B
If
you
do
that-
and
I
I'm
very
concerned
about
that-
I
think
small
industrial
service
businesses,
whether
it's
a
whether
it's
plumbing
or
or
whatever,
have
a
real
place
in
the
community
and
to
the
extent
that
you
don't
have
any
protection
for
those
you're
going
to
face
the
law
of
unintended
consequences.
B
B
There
are
other
industrial
areas
where
it
might
be
a
little
more
compatible,
but
I'm
particularly
concerned
with
the
service
in
the
service
industrial,
because
those
those
are
serving
our
community
in
a
very
direct
way
and
if
we
give
owners
of
land
the
choice
to
do
residential
or
keep
those
facilities
open
and
active
they're
gone
and
I'm
concerned
with
that
rachel.
I
think
you
were
next
and
then
aaron.
K
I
was
just
gonna
agree
with
you
on
that
last
point
mark.
I
know
that
we
talked
about
that
a
lot
during
the
east,
older
subcommittee,
community
planning
process
that
if
we
weren't
fairly
intentional
about
preserving
or
looking
at
the
industrial
and
light
industrial
that
was
there,
it
would
it
would
evaporate
and
that
it
is
a
community
value
to
have
that
here.
So
and
my
son
did
work.
K
I
think
I've
mentioned
before
at
the
marshmallow
factory
on
that
pearl
parkway,
and
you
know
it's
also
as
you're
saying
like
hard
to
you
know,
find
plumbers
and
and
car
repairs
and-
and
you
know
the
the
things
that
we
need
as
a
community
they're
they're,
also
small
business
owners,
and
we
would
not
want
to
inadvertently
knock
people
out
of
the
community
that
that
we
benefit
by
having
them
here,
and
they
deserve
a
place
to
be
here
as
well.
Thanks.
B
Well,
let's
put
it
this
way:
those
who
would
support
changes
to
make
more
sites
available
for
residential
indicate
show
of
hands.
B
R
All
right
all
right,
the
next
topic
is
related
to
offices.
So
this
is
one
that
we
also
would
love
some
policy
direction
on,
because
it's
a
a
main
issue
that
can
be
addressed
during
this
module
too
and
I'll
explain
why?
If,
with
this
policy
background,
so
this
one's
gonna
get
a
little
zoning
wonky.
R
So
I'm
going
to
try
to
make
it
as
interesting
as
possible,
but
essentially
right
now
we
have
two
separate
use
types
in
the
use
table
for
two
different
kinds
of
offices,
so
we
have
professional
office
and
technical
office
and
professional
office
is
like
a
lawyer's
office,
accounting
office,
real
estate
office.
Things
like
that.
R
A
business
service
that
you
would
see
an
office
for
a
technical
office
is
something
more
like
an
engineering,
firm
or
software
engineer,
or
like
software
development,
those
type
of
technical
offices,
we
attempted
to
clarify
the
direction
or
the
the
definitions
back
in
module
one,
and
so
when
we
did
that,
we
kind
of
explained
that
technical
offices
that
technical
office
is
what
is
involved
in
kind
of
the
making
of
something.
R
So,
whether
that's
a
physical
or
digital,
good
and
professional
office
is
more
of
a
client
service,
that's
provided
so
the
this
is
actually
really
rare
around
the
country
to
have
this
kind
of
bifurcation
of
types
of
office.
It's
something
that
is
almost
completely
unique
to
boulder.
There's
a
couple
cities
that
do
something
kind
of
similar,
but
it
actually
comes
from
that
same
comprehensive
rezoning,
study
back
in
1997,
and
so
the
intent
of
where
this
came
from
was
to
limit
speculative
office
buildings
at
the
time.
R
Support
startups,
preserve
industrial
areas
for
industrial
uses,
but
also
recognizing
that
there
is
a
need
for
offices
that
are
really
associated
with
industrial
uses
or
are
more
industrial
in
character.
So
those
are
those
technical
offices.
So
what
happened
in
1997
was
they
decided?
There
were
two
different
types
of
offices
and
professional
office
was
going
to
be
prohibited
from
the
industrial
districts,
so
lawyers
office
accountants
office,
those
are
not
allowed
in
the
industrial
districts,
but
those
technical
offices
like
graphic
design,
firm
engineering,
firm,
those
are
allowed
in
the
industrial
districts.
R
What
we
found
over
the
last
25
years
is
that
this
is
a
challenging
tool
to
use
to
implement
this
policy.
It's
a
pretty
fuzzy
line
between
the
two
types
of
offices,
so
a
good
example
of
that
is.
We
had
a
patent
lawyer
who
came
in,
and
so
that's
a
lawyer's
office,
but
they're
dealing
with
patents
related
to
industrial
product
products.
R
So
the
kind
of
visual
impact
of
these
types
of
offices,
the
parking
impacts,
things
those
might
be
almost
identical,
and
so
what
we've
been
hinging
on
kind
of
to
differentiate
between
these
two
is
client
contact.
So
there's
a
part
of
the
definition
that
says
that
professional
office
might
have
frequent
client
contact
clients
coming
and
going
where
technical
office
is
like
unlikely
to
have
that
frequent
client
contact.
R
I
mean
they're,
probably
that
there
are
for
some,
but
in
the
vast
majority,
and
then
also
just
certain
offices
over
the
last
25
years
have
evolved
in
their
practice
of
that
kind
of
client
contact.
So
it's
just
a
really
challenging
tool.
It's
unpredictable
for
business
owners
to
understand
whether
their
type
of
office
is
going
to
be
allowed
in
the
business
in
the
building
that
they're
trying
to
lease
it's
not
something.
That's
conceptually.
R
People
really
think
of
there
being
two
different
types
of
offices
we
have
in
our
sub-community
plans,
including
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan.
There's
really
no
specific
guidance
for
having
these
two
different
types
of
offices,
there's
not
a
lot
other
than
from
what
that
had
happened
in
1997
with
the
comprehensive
free
zoning
study.
R
There's
not
a
lot
of
policy
direction
about
where
these
certain
kinds
of
offices
are
appropriate
or
not
appropriate,
and
so
we
think
that
at
this
point
with
this
use
table
project
with
module
2
focusing
on
industrial
districts,
this
was
something
that
was
done
very
intentionally
for
the
industrial
districts
to
protect
them
from
the
professional
office
type.
R
So
that's
that
this
raises
the
question
now
of
whether
this
is
the
policy
direction
that
we
want
to
continue
going
in
or
whether
there's
some
other
tool
or
some
other
way
that
we
could
do
this.
So
thinking
through
that.
The
second
question
that
I
have
for
you
tonight
is:
do
we
want
to
be
more
like
the
rest
or
other
cities
around
the
country
and
consolidate
these
two
types
of
offices
into
a
generalized
office?
One
office
use
type.
R
However,
if
we
were
to
do
that,
there
is
an
important
policy
reason
for
why
we
do
it.
Is
that
something
that
we
want
to?
Like?
I
mentioned
professional
offices
prohibited
an
industrial
district
technical
office
is
allowed.
If
they
were
consolidated,
would
offices
be
allowed
or
would
they
be
prohibited
in
the
industrial
districts,
or
is
there
kind
of
a
middle
ground
where
they're
allowed
with
some
sorts
of
limitations?
J
So
I
do
strongly
support
combining
professional
office
and
technical
office.
I
mean
as
an
architect
under
the
definition
I
officially
fit
under
a
technical
office,
but
I
would
say
that
my
work
more
closely
resembles
professional
office,
so
it
just
when
we
have
those
definitions,
it's
just
as
confusing
for
everyone.
J
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
consider
restrictions
to
ensure
that
the
office
use
is
not
displacing
industrial
use
in
industrial
zones
like
requiring
the
first
floor
to
remain
industrial
or
as
a
mac
or
having
some
sort
of
maximum
percentage
of
floor
area
or
a
maximum
square
footage
per
lot
or
I'm
open
to
other
things
too.
Just
I
do
think
we
want
to
protect
that
industrial
usage.
K
Then
I
agree
with
what
lauren
just
said
and
have
we
done
engagement
on
this
yet.
R
We
haven't,
but
there
I
mean
we
have
done,
that.
We've
discussed
it
with
the
use
table
working
group
and
also
the
planning
board
liaisons,
but
the
general
public
engagement
that
push
is
going
to
go
out
next
week.
I
Right
once
again,
lauren
just
knocks
it
out
of
the
park,
so
ditto
lauren.
B
F
Yeah,
I
just
had
a
question
more
related
to
the
second
one
site.
I
also
agree
with
lauren's
perspective
here
I
mean
I
guess
I
guess
what
I'm.
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
what
are
the?
What
are
some
examples
of
other
limitations
that
might
be
necessary
for
office
uses
in
industrial
districts,
because
to
me
it
seems
like
kind
of
a
self-selection
process
on
the
part
of
the
person
who
is
using
the
office
space.
F
So,
for
example,
if
you
know
I
were
a
therapist
or
something
I
wouldn't
necessarily
want,
you
know
an
office
and
a
space.
That's
really
loud,
or
something
like
that.
So
I
might
just
choose
to
not
have
my
office
there,
so
I
I
guess
I
would
just
like
some
examples
of
what
options
will
be.
R
Sure
yeah
lauren
gave
a
lot
of
great
examples,
so
percentage
of
square
foot
per
building
or
per
lot,
maybe
the
location
we
do
that
for
a
lot
of
other
uses
like
it
can't
be
on
the
ground
floor,
but
it
could
be
on
the
second
floor,
the
actually
the
only
other
city
that
does
something
similar
is
portland
and
they
have
kind
of
an
far
related.
So
it's
related
to
the
lot
size
and
then
you
can
have
so
much
percentage
of
office.
R
So
those
are
some
other
possibilities.
We
also
have
some
other
similar
things
that
we
do
throughout
the
code
where,
like
the
building,
can
be
50,
residential
or
non-residential.
We
could
do
something
like
that
with
office.
So
there's
a
variety
of
different
approaches
we
could
take
and
we
could
analyze
some
of
those
options.
F
Yep,
that's
helpful,
so
just
just
to
make
sure
I
completely
understand
it's
not
really
dependent
on
kind
of
how
it's
going
to
be
used
at
all.
It's
just
if
it's
office
space
and
then
where
the
some
of
the
limitations
would
come
from
is
more
in
the
some
of
these
other
things
like
square
footage
and
things
like
that.
R
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
kind
of
the
approach
is
moving
away
from
trying
to
you
know
kind
of
micromanage,
exactly
how
that
office
looks,
or
you
know,
is
functioning
and
more
of
just
what
the
space
looks
like.
What
the
building
looks
like
as
that
as
being
used
as
office
space,
a
more
general
type.
H
B
Okay,
there's
no
one
else.
I
will
comment
again.
The
law
of
unintended
consequences
is,
in
my
mind,
industrial
land
tends
to
be
cheaper
and
if
we
simply
put
the
two
office
categories
together
without
guardrails
of
any
kind,
I
I
think
this
could
actually
accelerate
the
creation
of
speculative
office
building
because
it's
going
to
be
cost
advantageous
to
do
so,
because
the
cost
of
land
is
going
to
be
cheaper
so
and
you
can
get
better
rents
from
speculative
offices
than
you
can
from
industrial
properties.
B
A
L
A
R
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
transition
from
that
industrial
focus
to
now
module
three,
so
this
is
related.
Oh
sorry,
I
actually
forgot.
I
have
one
more
slide
on
industrial
too
soon,
so
these
two
are
not
related.
Are.
These
are
not
related
to
the
two
questions,
but
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
a
couple.
Other
potential
changes
that
came
up
through
the
planning
board
subcommittee
and
then
the
initial
public
engagement-
that's
been
done
so
far,
and
this
is
really
trying
to
get
at
the
offer
of
mix
of
uses
policy
guidance.
R
So
we've
heard
a
lot
about
live
work,
units
and
trying
to
support
those
in
more
places
in
the
city.
So
probably
a
change
that
you
could
see.
It
would
be
allowing
that
in
more
districts
and
then
also
expanding
the
allowance
of
what
that
work
use
would
be
right.
Now
it's
only
allowed
to
be
an
industrial
use,
but
maybe
expanding
that
to
commercial
use,
or
things
like
that.
R
So
that's
one
thing
we're
looking
at
as
part
of
module.
Two
also
our
manufacturing
definitions
are
very
vague
and
unclear
and
kind
of
out
of
step
with
the
best
practice
around
the
country.
It's
more
common
to
have
kind
of
levels
of
manufacturing
like
light
manufacturing,
medium
heavy,
so
we'd
be
taking
a
look
at
those
definitions
to
better
support
kind
of
small
scale
manufacturing,
allowing
that
in
more
places
and
also
better
defining
kind
of
where
that
heavier
manufacturing
use
is
defined.
R
Also,
something
we've
heard
through
public
input
so
far
is
related
to
schools.
Something
kind
of
unique
about
the
industrial
districts
is
that
private
colleges
are
permitted
in
some
industrial
districts,
but
private
schools,
so
elementary
middle
and
high
schools
are
not
permitted
in
any
of
the
industrial
districts.
So
that's
been
raised
through
the
planning
board
subcommittee
and
some
of
the
public
comments
so
far,
and
then
pub,
but
public
schools
are
allowed
in
all
districts.
So
just
some
inconsistency
there
to
look
at
also
related
to
the
offering
of
mix
of
uses.
R
We
do
allow
restaurants
in
industrial
districts,
but
the
standards
say
that
they
can't
be
on
major
streets.
So
that's
something
that
we
are
looking
at,
eliminating
as
a
way
to
allow
restaurants
in
more
locations
and
then
finally,
retail
and
personal
services,
so
retail
uses
any
type
of
store.
Personal
services
is
kind
of
like
hair
salons
bakeries,
those
kinds
of
types
of
things,
those
are
currently
all
prohibited
in
industrial
districts,
and
so
to
get
at
that
idea
of
a
15-minute
neighborhood
where
your
services
and
retail
might
be
within
a
walkable
distance
from
you.
R
That's
something
we'd
be
looking
at
looking
at,
allowing
in
industrial
districts
but
probably
having
a
limitation
on
the
size,
so
these
would
be
limited
scale
but
be
permitted
in
the
industrial
district.
So
I
did
just
want
to
raise
those
as
potential
changes
that
you
might
see
in
an
upcoming
draft
ordinance
and
see
if
there's
any
initial
red
flags
on
those
kind
of
brief
summaries.
R
Okay,
all
right,
we
will
move
on
to
module
three,
so
this
is
related
to
neighborhoods
neighborhood
areas.
Neighborhood
centers
really
focused
on
neighborhood
serving
uses
and
getting
back
again
to
that
idea
of
the
15
minute,
neighborhood
the
focus
for
module.
Three,
obviously
we're
in
module
two
right
now,
so
that's
a
little
bit
more
in
the
nitty-gritty
right
now,
and
this
is
more
for
the
future.
So
the
question
for
this
point
is
really
just
general
direction
for
that
one.
R
First
of
all,
this
is
going
to
be
our
most
robust
public
engagement
for
this
one
obviously,
impacts
to
neighborhoods
are
going
to
be
most
important
to
talk
with
the
neighborhoods,
make
sure
that
we're
understanding
what
the
desired
land
uses
are,
what
the
potential
impacts
would
be.
You
know
trying
to
avoid,
like
you
said,
any
unintended
consequences,
but
we
will
be
focusing
on
the
goals
that
have
been
previously
identified
by
the
planning
board
subcommittee.
R
That's
encouraging
15-minute
neighborhoods,
where
a
variety
of
services
and
amenities
are
reachable
within
a
walking
distance,
supporting
mixed-use
nodes
along
corridors
through
the
city
and
supporting
walkable
neighborhood
centers
in
various
scales
throughout
the
city,
and
to
do
that
we'll
assess
the
use
table
and
how
it
aligns
or
is
in
conflict
with
those
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
goals.
There's
been
a
ton
of
work
already
done
by
the
planning
board
subcommittee.
R
We're
also
looking
at
investigating
certain
areas
of
the
cities
that
might
of
the
city
that
might
be
appropriate
for
small
scale,
mixed
use
kind
of
sprinkling
through
some
of
those
services
throughout
areas
that
are
mainly
mostly
homogeneous
now
and
then
also
just
reviewing
the
use
mixes
in
our
neighborhood
centers.
R
Some
of
the
uses
that
we've
identified
through
that
public
engagement
as
main
areas
of
focus
are
restaurants.
We've
really
complicated
rules
about
restaurants
and
where
those
are
allowed
offices,
again,
retail
sales,
personal
services,
housing
types
back
to
live,
work
units
as
well
and
then
also
home
occupations.
So
those
will
be
those
have
been
identified
already
as
something
we
need
to
kind
of
narrow
in
on
for
module.
R
Three
I
mentioned:
we've
already
done
some
public
engagement
on
this,
so
back
when,
in
the
first
iteration
of
phase
two
in
2020,
when
we
had
to
do
virtual
engagement,
we
did
have
a
questionnaire
on
be
heard.
Boulder
got
about
80
responses
and
just
at
a
very
high
level,
because
this
was
the
the
subject
of
the
last
time.
City
council
had
a
study
session
on.
It
was
to
receive
all
of
this
public
feedback,
but
very
high
level
overview.
R
The
majority
of
respondents
were
open
to
a
greater
mix
of
uses
and
neighborhood
centers,
also
open
to
additional
uses
within
a
15-minute
walk.
That's
where
they
live,
really
focus
on
trying
to
allow
restaurants,
coffee
shops,
retail
personal
services
and
then
allow
more
of
a
mix
of
housing
in
the
neighborhood
centers.
R
And
what
we
heard
at
that
point
was
that
walking
and
biking
access
and
human
scale
design
was
most
important
to
people
in
allowing
those
types
of
uses
related
to
the
more
of
the
15-minute
walk
so
outside
of
those
neighborhood
centers,
very
similar
uses
were
supported
as
the
one
above,
but
maybe
seeing
housing
types
at
a
lower
intensity
there
and
then
same
thing.
We
have
gotten
a
ton
of
detailed
input
through
those
planning
board
subcommittees
that
we'll
also
be
using
to
to
build
the
initial
drafts.
For
this.
R
R
But
the
council
said
at
the
time
that
the
review
process
should
allow
opportunities
for
neighborhood
input
in
those
areas
and
potentially
planning
board
review,
also
providing
more
flexibility
for
creative
uses,
so
kind
of
arts
uses
theaters
small
theaters
things
like
that
more
support
there
and
then
just
really.
The
council
of
the
time
emphasized
the
need
to
outreach
the
neighborhoods
for
feedback
on
potential
changes.
R
So
that's
kind
of
a
summary
of
what
we've
heard
so
far
on
module
3,
what
we're
kind
of
thinking
of
as
the
main
direction.
But
we
did
want
to
get
in
front
of
you
now
to
just
understand
if
there's
anything
specific,
any
specific
direction.
That
you'd
like
to
add
understanding.
It's
a
different
council
and
this
module
hasn't
really
begun.
Yet,
if
there's
any
other
kind
of
main
priorities
or
things
that
you
could
see
related
to
neighborhoods
or
neighborhood
serving
uses
that
we
should
know
of
now,.
J
F
I
think
this
is
just
a
general
question
that
that
I
have
that.
I
I
at
least
would
be
interested
in
hearing
feedback
on
this
kind
of
comes
back
to
this
incentives
idea
that
we've
been
talking
about
a
little
bit
in
some
of
our
previous
discussions.
F
What
are
the
incentives
that
would
encourage
neighborhoods
to
try
out
some
of
these
new
land
uses
that
would
move
us
toward
50
minute
neighborhoods,
because
I
think
you
know
sometimes
it
sounds
good
in
theory,
but
when
you're
thinking
about
you
know
something
next
door
or
you
know
a
few
houses
down
from
you,
it
sort
of
feels
a
little
different
right
so
with
those
places
where
it
may
feel
a
little
scary
to
neighborhoods
to
think
about
making
some
of
these
changes.
R
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
a
that's
a
really
good
question
and
a
valid
question.
I
think
something
we
should
focus
on
before
we
start
thinking
about
those
changes
to
make.
I
think,
obviously,
the
comprehensive
plan
has
a
lot
of
policy
guidance
that
says
we're
working
towards
those
15-minute
neighborhoods,
so
the
ability
to
provide
those
services
without
people
needing
to
get
in
a
car.
So
I
think
that
that
incentive
would
be
something
that
we
would
highlight,
but
I
think
that's
a
question
we'll
need
to
think
more
on.
H
Yeah,
so
thanks,
this
is
a
great
presentation
of
where
we've
been
in
the
past
and
where
we're
going-
and
I
I
remember
that
that
meeting
from
back
in
2020-
and
I
thought
it
was
a
really
good
one-
I
thought
the
feedback
at
that
meeting
was
was
really
good
and
generally
agreed
with
that.
H
So
I'm
still
on
the
same
page
as
from
a
couple
years
ago,
and
just
but
we'll
just
say
that
I
think
you
know,
let's,
let's
see
how
we
can
be
innovative
in
terms
of
you
know
getting
more
of
those
15-minute
uses,
you
know
into
those
homogeneous
neighborhoods,
whether
they
be
you
know,
residential
or
industrial
or
commercial
like
when
we
have
a
rich
mix
of
uses.
You
know,
that's
that
allows
us
to.
H
H
If
you
get
a
cup
of
coffee
or
grab
a
you
know,
loaf
of
bread
near
your
house,
both
which
I'm
fortunate
to
be
able
to
do
you
know,
then
you
don't
hop
in
your
car
and
are
it
makes
for
a
more
sustainable
society,
as
we
all
know,
so
I
just
encourage
you
to
to
you
know,
be
innovative
and
bold
and
come
up
with.
You
know
a
great
list
of
changes
for
us
to
consider,
because
I
think
this
is
a
really
important
direction
that
we're
moving
in
thanks.
I
Thanks
thanks
mark
and
yeah
lisa,
I
thought
this
was.
This
was
really
good
because
it
just
sort
of
laid
out
a
little
bit
of
a
nice
historical
context
and
led
us
right
where
we
need
to
go.
I
have
a
clarifying
sort
of
question
this
conversation
about
sort
of
housing
stuff.
You
really
sort
of
lends
into
the
conversation
adus
yeah
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
adus
in
a
little
bit,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
cross.
I
You
know
working
that
that
adus
will
still
be
folded
into
this
narrative,
even
though
we're
gonna
have
a
deeper
dive
in
that
coming
up.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
not
that
it's
appropriate
that
they're
in
both
places
in
this
conversation
at
least
being
thought
of
here,
even
though
we
are
going
to
talk
about
it
later.
So
I
was
just
sort
of
curious
if
they're,
disjointed
or
not
here,.
R
Yeah,
that's
a
great
point,
I
think
I
mean
all
of
these.
Planning
issues
are
interrelated,
so
I
think
the
focus
more
on
for
this
project
is
more
on
the
different
housing
types
like
duplexes,
triplex's,
attached,
rolling
units
and
liver
units,
but
certainly
adus
play
into
the
conversation,
because
those
are
you
know
allowed
in
our
lowest
density
residential
districts.
R
So
I
think
they'll
all
play
on
each
other
and
obviously
we'll
be
talking
about
the
adus
and
kind
of
the
direction
of
that
ordinance
as
well,
so
we'll,
hopefully
be
able
to
integrate
them
as
well
as
we
can
and
talk
about
them,
I
mean
we
kind
of
have
to
talk
about
all
of
them
all
the
same
time
anyway.
So
they'll
definitely
be
closely
tied.
I
Thinking
of
the
schools
as
the
anchor
for
for
those,
whether
it's
15,
minute,
neighborhoods
or
larger
spots.
I
I
think,
if
thinking
of
it
through
that
filter
might
be
really
helpful
in
how
we
shape
what
we
want
to
do
in
those
areas
so
that
we
are
not
a
position
as
a
community
where
we
see
our
schools
being
shut
down,
because
we
haven't
been
intentional
with
the
types
of
housing
and
the
types
of
folks
in
the
community
that
we
want
to
be
populating
in
and
around
our
schools,
certainly
along
the
broadway
corridor.
B
J
J
It
represents
a
lot
of
area
with
our
community,
and
so
it
has
a
lot
of
potential
in
terms
of
addressing
some
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
some
of
our
biggest
concerns
around
costs
of
housing
and
climate
change,
and
so
I
think
that
I'm
so
excited
about
this
piece
moving
forward,
and
I
hope
that
you
will
provide
a
broad
range
of
options
for
us,
because
I
think
that
there
are
a
number
of
different
ways.
J
We
could
go
about
this
and
I
think
that
you
know
it
is
really
important
to
have
robust
feedback
on
sort
of
a
variety
of
options,
but
we
also
have
to
look
at
doing
a
number
of
things
together,
because
I
think
you
know
if
we
just
add
commercial
hubs
without
increasing
density
at
all
around
those
hubs.
You
know
it's.
It's
unlikely
that
you're
either
going
to
create
a
lot
of
car
traffic
or
not
have
enough
people
within
a
walkable
area
to
support
those
businesses.
J
B
B
Tell
me
about
it
any
other
comments
from
members
of
council.
B
Okay,
lisa,
you
have
everything
you
need.