►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 5-17-22
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).
C
A
D
All
right
well
good
evening,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
may
17th
2020
may
12th,
may
17
2022
meeting
of
the
boulder
city
council.
So
we're
going
to
start
with
a
couple
of
announcements
before
we
call
roll
and
get
started
so
the
first
one
cover
19
testing
and
vaccinations
testing
for
information
and
provider
locations
for
free
code.
19
testing
go
to
www.boco.org
copic
testing
and
that
boulder
site
is
at
2445.
Stasio
drive
it's
open
seven
days
a
week:
8
a.m,
to
6
p.m,
and
for
vaccine
information
and
provider
locations
go
to
www.voco.org
covet
vaccine.
D
Of
course,
this
is
very
timely
information
because
our
numbers
are
up.
We
did
move
to
medium
level.
Transmission
of
the
community
in
the
last
few
days,
we'll
be
getting
an
update
later
on
in
the
meeting
about
exactly
what
that
means.
But
number
one
is
that
we're
all
virtual
again
for
our
council
meetings
so
in
order
to
prevent
further
spread
of
the
virus.
D
Okay,
next
announcement
celebrating
safely
during
graduation
with
graduation
parties
to
look
forward
to
the
city,
would
like
to
remind
you
all
all
new
grads
to
celebrate
safely
and
never
drink
and
drive
choose
a
safe
way
to
get
home
instead
of
getting
behind
the
wheel
and
intoxicated.
So
you
can
get
an
uber
or
a
lyft
and
call
a
friend
or
a
family
member
to
pick
you
up
or
take
the
bus.
You
can
download
the
transit
app
for
real-time
info.
D
We've
got
great
transit
here
in
boulder
and
by
celebrating
safely
you
can
help
our
community
reach
our
vision,
zero
goal
of
zero
deaths
and
zero
serious
injuries
on
our
streets
and
have
nothing
but
celebrations
for
your
graduation.
So
congratulations
to
the
class
of
2022
and
thank
you
for
celebrating
safely.
G
H
J
D
Thank
you
alicia.
So
if
we
can
start
I'm
hoping
for
a
motion
to
amend
the
agenda,
we
need
to
make
a
few
changes.
One
is
to
add
item
1b,
an
update
on
the
city
of
buffalo
and
words
of
support
and
item
6b.
The
medium
coveted
risk
impacts
and
steps.
The
city's
city
is
taking,
and
also
to
remove
item
6a.
The
update
of
the
boulder
museum,
contemporary
arts,
community
culture
and
safety
tax
matching
grant
agreement
and
rescheduling
that
to
next
week,
so
moved
second
motion
in
a
second,
we
do
a
show
of
hands.
D
K
For
us,
please,
my
pleasure
mayor,
this
declaration
was
scheduled
before
the
tragic
events
in
buffalo,
so
it
has
added
added
weight
for
those
of
us
that
are
certainly
reliving
our
tragedy
here
in
the
community.
So
it's
it's
an
honor,
but
it's
also
with
a
heavy
heart
to
read
this
declaration.
K
K
Colorado
has
an
average
of
850
gun
deaths
every
year
with
a
rate
of
14.5
deaths
per
100
000
people
colorado
has
the
22nd
highest
rate
of
gun
deaths
in
the
us
gun.
Homicides
predominantly
occur
in
cities,
with
more
than
half
of
all
firearm
related
deaths
in
the
nation
occurring
in
127
cities.
Cities
across
the
nation,
including
in
boulder,
are
working
to
end
the
senseless
violence
with
evidence-based
solutions.
K
K
The
pandemic
facing
america
is,
has
dramatically
impacted
communities
and
individuals
sheltering
in
place
which
may
result
in
situations
where
a
cross
to
fire,
where
access
to
firearms
results
in
the
increased
risk
in
intimate
partner,
gun,
violent
deaths,
suicide
by
gun
and
unintentional
shootings
in
january
2013,
hadiyah
pendleton,
a
teenager
who
marched
in
the
presidential
inaugural
parade,
was
tragically
shot
and
killed.
Just
weeks
later
should
be
now
just
sweet
sorry
should
be
killed.
Oh
she
was
shot
and
killed.
Just
weeks
later
should
be
now
celebrated.
K
She
would
be
now
celebrating
her
25th
birthday
to
help
honor
hadiya
and
the
more
than
110
americans,
whose
lives
are
cut
short
every
day
and
the
countless
survivors
who
are
injured
by
shootings
every
day.
A
national
coalition
of
organizations
has
designated
june
3rd
2022,
the
first
friday
in
june,
as
the
eighth
national
gun
violence
awareness
day.
The
idea
was
inspired
by
a
group
of
hadiya's
friends
who
asked
their
classmates
to
commemorate
her
life
by
wearing
orange.
K
They
chose
this
color
because
hunters
wear
orange
to
announce
themselves
to
other
hunters
when
out
in
the
woods
and
orange
is
the
color
that
symbolizes
the
value
of
human
life.
Anyone
can
join
the
campaign
by
pledging
to
wear
orange
on
june
3rd,
the
la
the
first
friday
of
june
in
2022
to
help
raise
awareness
about
gun
violence
by
wearing
orange.
We
can
raise
awareness
about
gun,
violence
and
honor
the
lives
of
gun,
violence,
victims
and
survivors.
K
Following
the
king
shooper's
table
mesa
mass
shooting
on
march
22
2021
in
the
city
of
boulder.
We
renew
our
commitment
to
reduce
gun
violence
now,
more
than
ever
and
pledge
to
do
all
we
can
to
keep
firearms
out
of
the
wrong
hands
and
encourage
responsible
gun
ownership
to
help
keep
our
community
safe.
D
L
Good
evening,
council,
this
is
taylor.
Yes,
I
believe,
nicole
from
mom's
demand.
Action
is
here
to
give
some
remarks.
Hi
nicole.
M
Hi,
thank
you
for
the
introduction
taylor.
Thank
you,
council
members
and
mayor
brockett
for
once
again
recognizing
national
gun
violence
awareness
day
here
in
the
city
of
boulder,
as
the
local
group
lead
of
monster
demand
action.
We
appreciate
you
honoring
the
victims,
their
families
and
the
communities
who
are
affected
by
gun
violence.
M
This
declaration
is
a
recognition
of
the
problems
and
risks
of
being
in
a
society
that
has
access
to
deadly
weapons
and
for
all
of
the
debate
around
our
right
to
bear
arms.
These
are
the
statistics
that
being
aware
really
highlights.
Forty
five
thousand
two
hundred
and
twenty
two
people
in
america
died
by
firearm
incident
in
2020.
M
M
M
L
Yeah,
thank
you
mayor
so
much
and
thank
you
nicole,
for
those
those
really
great
words
I
just
did
want
to
make
the
council
and
the
community
aware
that
we
have
scheduled
the
bandshell
to
be
lit
up
in
orange
on
june
3rd
in
support
of
this
day,.
D
You,
taylor
and
rachel.
N
Thanks
for
noting
that
taylor-
and
I
just
want
to
say
a
personal
thank
you
to
nicole-
I
think
she
is
stepping
down
as
chapter
lead
after
a
lot
of
years,
of
doing
really
great
work
and
sort
of
propelling
our
local
chapter
into
a
really
state
of
the
art
activism
spot
where
we
can
do
good
work
and
they
they
lift
us
all
up.
They
monster
man,
action
and
nicole
and
others
who
are
leadership
were
instrumental
in
bringing
the
community
together
after
our
mass,
shooting
and
and
organizing
a
vigil.
D
So
I,
along
with
other
members
of
council
and
nuria,
our
city
manager,
have
reached
out
to
city
leadership
in
buffalo,
including
mayor
byron,
brown,
to
express
our
condolences
and
support
and
solidarity
for
their
loss.
We
also
know
that
the
shooter
in
buffalo
specifically
targeted
the
black
community
there
and
we
unequivocally
condemn
the
horrific
hate
crime.
D
D
Whatever
kind
of
support
that
we
can-
and
we
did
get
the
a
request
from
the
buffalo
mayor
to
light
city
buildings
in
orange,
in
solidarity
with
their
city,
and
so
thank
you,
taylor
for
pointing
out
that
we
will
be
you
doing
that
to
like
the
band
shell
in
orange,
and
we're
also
aware
that
this
past
weekend's
event
may
serve
as
a
difficult
reminder
for
many
of
us
here
in
boulder
the
trauma
that
we
experienced
in
our
community
a
little
bit
over
a
year
ago.
D
So
through
our
cross-agency
boulder,
strong
efforts,
please
know
that
we've
reached
out
to
the
families
of
the
march
22nd
2021
victims
and
to
king
supers
directly,
and
we
also
want
to
remind
the
community
that
the
boulder
strong
resource
center
remains
available
to
offer
support.
However,
you
might
need
it,
and
this
support
is
provided
at
no
cost.
In
this
slide,
I
believe
we're
getting
a
slide
up
on
the
screen
there
we
go
this.
This
slide
includes
the
current
hours
of
operation
and
the
address
of
that
facility,
and
for
him
for
more
information.
D
So
our
hearts
are
with
buffalo
and
the
other
communities
that
have
suffered
from
this
continued
senseless
gun
violence,
that's
a
scourge
on
our
nation,
and
I
will
also
say
that
in
just
a
few
weeks
on
june
7th,
we
have
ordinances
that
we
are
bringing
forward
to
pass
additional
gun
control
regulations
to
stem
some
of
this
horrific
gun
violence
that
we
experience
in
our
in
our
country
and
our
community.
D
So
come
back
to
us
on
june
7th
for
that
public
hearing
and
action
that
we
will
be
taking
action
and
not
just
speaking
words
on
that
day.
D
D
And
we
will
now
move
on
to
open
comment,
I
believe
so
ryan
or
brenda.
Will
you
go
over
our
public
participation
guidelines.
A
E
Bringing
those
up
sorry,
I
missed
my
camera
there
welcome.
My
name
is
brenda
rittenhauer.
I
am
the
communication
and
engagement
representative
hosting
public
participation.
This
evening,
we
like
to
begin
open
comment
by
reminding
folks
about
our
guidelines
and
sharing
that
we
worked
with
community
members
to
co-create
this
vision
for
productive
and
meaningful
and
inclusive
civic
conversations.
E
We
we
use
this
vision
to
support
physical
and
emotional
safety
for
community
members
and
counsel,
as
well
as
promoting
democracy
for
people
of
all
ages.
Identities,
lived
experiences
and
political
perspectives
for
more
information
about
this
vision,
you
can
go
to
the
city
of
boulder
homepage,
oldercolorado.gov
and
search
productive
atmospheres
in
the
search
bar
next
slide.
Please
emily.
E
E
No
participant
shall
make
threats
or
use
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person,
obscenity,
racial
epithets
and
other
speech
and
behavior
that
disrupts
or
otherwise
impedes
the
ability
of
this
meeting
to
continue
are
prohibited
and
participants
are
required
to
sign
up
to
speak
using
the
name.
They're
commonly
known
by
and
individuals
must
display
their
whole
name
before
being
allowed
to
speak
online.
E
D
Thank
you
so
much
brenda
all
right,
so
nine
people
sign
up
for
open
comments.
Each
person
gets
two
minutes
to
speak
to
us
and
our
first
three
speakers
are
mary
gorman,
patrick
murphy,
and
michelle.
O
O
I
want
to
make
sure
the
entire
city
council
is
fully
aware
of
the
long-term
consequences
of
the
aquatics
department's
closures
and
limited
offerings
of
our
public
pools.
I
spoke
with
the
director
of
parks
and
rec
allison
rhodes.
She
said
even
pre-pandemic.
They
had
severely
reduced
swim
lessons
and
eliminated
the
kids
swim
team.
Now,
as
kovit
is
surging
again,
she
is
choosing
not
to
open,
spruce,
a
safer
outdoor
pool
and
instead
will
deploy
guards
to
north
and
east,
because
it's
too
expensive
to
open
another
facility.
O
Well,
there
was
one
lifeguard
training
on
may
5th
during
ceus
finals
week,
and
the
other
training
is
scheduled
for
mid-june,
with
15
people
on
a
wait
list.
Also
note
the
website
says:
applicants
must
pay
upfront
50
to
127
dollars
for
a
training
suggestions,
offer
free,
lifeguard,
trainings
more
frequently
like
every
week
in
may
before
the
summer
season,
and
then
keep
offering
them
year
round
pay
guards
more
than
fifteen
to
eighteen
dollars.
An
hour
target
offers
twenty
to
twenty
eight
dollars
for
stocking
shelves,
give
hiring
bonuses
and
bonuses
plus
benefits
for
all
returning
employees.
O
P
My
name
is
patrick
murphy.
I've
lived
in
boulder
52
years,
the
planet
burns
floods
and
dies
while
boulder
fiddles
with
climate
change.
I
attended
the
once
every
three-month
meeting
of
the
boulder
xl
advisory
panel.
What
they
voted
to
approve
was
flawed
and
once
again
the
product
of
old
ideas
from
the
muni.
Here's
an
example
of
one
deeply
flawed
item
that
rejected
the
use
of
rex,
based
on
the
buzzwords
authentically
additive
slide.
P
We
should
be
filling
the
gaps
of
our
carbon
footprint,
with
wrecks
of
any
flavor
now
and
into
the
future,
because
wrecks
stimulate
the
renewables
industry,
no
matter
where
they
come
from.
The
advisory
panel
voted
to
approve
this
flawed
goal
without
real
critical
review.
Also
note
that
the
voting
demonstrated
only
about
10
or
14
of
the
17
panel
members
were
attending
despite
carolyn
elam's
claims
that
they're
all
active
I'd
like
you
to
verify
this
and
have
some
real
accounting.
P
P
M
M
Obviously,
however,
data
gathered
by
the
cdc
show
that
more
gun
deaths
occur,
not
mass
shootings
but
in
suicide
and
domestic
violence.
Firearms
are
the
leading
cause
of
death
for
children
in
colorado.
According
to
a
daily
camera,
article
boulder
experienced
close
to
200
suicide
attempts.
Last
year
amongst
17
to
20
year
olds,
an
annual
average
of
26
gun
suicide.
Suicide
deaths
occurred
in
boulder
county
raising
the
age
to
purchase
to
21
and
requiring
a
waiting
period
as
proposed
can
stop
an
impulsive
and
irreversible
act.
I
strongly
encourage
those
ordinances
to
be
passed.
M
Ordinance
8259,
requiring
signage,
stating
the
dangers
of
owning
a
firearm
could
be
an
impactful
proposal.
However,
I
think
it
could
be
more
effective
with
more
useful
information
and
strategically
placed
in
more
locations.
The
public
needs
education
about
the
extreme
risk,
protective
order
and
safe
storage
requirement.
The
irpo
law
could
have
actually
prevented
the
king
super
killing.
Had
his
family
been
aware
and
acted
on,
this
law
his
weapon
could
have
been
removed
from
his
possession.
M
Also,
the
safe
storage
requirement
when
children
are
in
the
home
is
extremely
important
for
preventing
accidental
deaths
and
suicide
amongst
children.
These
laws
could
be
stated
on
their
proposed
signs.
The
signs
could
be
posted
not
only
at
gun
dealers,
but
also
at
firing
ranges.
Mental
health
facilities
and
delivered
to
parents
of
the
school
district.
M
Q
Q
It
took
losing
two
beautiful
friends
in
2016
for
me
to
get
involved
in
gun,
violence
prevention,
and
I
am
speaking
to
you,
hoping
that
someday
enough
will
be
done
so
that
others
don't
have
to
speak
to
you
like
this.
I
am
tired.
I
am
tired
of
talking
about
my
friends
that
I
lost
in
this
context,
and
I
want
to
see
the
madness
end.
I
encourage
you
to
pass
the
gun,
violence
prevention,
ordinances
that
you've
prepared.
Q
Regarding
ghost
guns.
They
are
do-it-yourself,
homemade
guns
that
are
purchased
without
a
background
check
or
any
other
traceable
documentation.
Technology
is
moving
faster
than
most
realize
or
want
to
accept.
Making
a
gun
at
home
is
not
something
we
want
to
become
a
norm
yet
ghost
gun
recoveries
are
on
the
rise
with
most
being
connected
to
criminal
enterprises
done
trafficking
rings
and
far
right.
Extremists,
no
more,
please,
regarding
open,
carry.
Q
No
one
should
have
to
worry
about
a
firearm
when
they
go
to
a
park
or
a
playground
allowing
guns
into
spaces
where
children
play
where
people
gather
to
vote
or
demonstrate
or
other
sensitive
government
buildings
puts
us
all
at
risk.
Wearing
a
gun
in
the
open
is
flat
out,
bullying
and
research
shows
that
the
presence
of
a
visible
gun
makes
people
aggressive.
Q
In
an
average
year,
more
than
10
000
hate
crimes
in
the
u.s
involve
a
firearm
more
than
28
each
day.
Oh,
I
don't
have
to
draw
the
connection
for
you
this
past
weekend,
another
sick
mass
shooting
occurred
an
act
of
racist
terrorism.
This
could
happen
anywhere.
I'm
sure
people
have
said.
Thank
you
for
your
courage,
I'd
like
to
refrain
and
say
thank
you
city,
council,
for
doing
your
job.
Q
R
Hello,
council,
my
name
is
gala
and
I'm
an
actuarial
scientist.
I
enjoy
the
math
behind
risk
assessment
and
I
like
to
make
decisions
based
off
of
analyzing
data.
I
bet
sources
of
data
to
make
sure
that
they
are
an
accurate
representation
of
the
population,
they're
not
skewed
for
propaganda
purposes,
and
I
I
do
that
analysis
before
I
use
them.
Moms
demand
action
has
accurate
data.
I
do
not
represent
them
tonight,
but
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
a
little
bit
about
my
process.
R
R
I
hope
to
see
a
decline
in
mass
shootings
through
the
years
instead
of
an
increase
in
frequency,
and
I
can't
help
but
wonder
if
banning
automatic
and
semi-automatic
weapons
is
the
way
to
do
that.
Perhaps
we
can
talk
more
in
the
future.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
tonight
and
thank
you
for
helping
our
community.
D
Thank
you.
Next,
we
have
lynn
segal
kathleen
charles
and
nicole
leah
broughton.
S
Interrupt
me
if
the
transmission
is
impaired
instantly,
please.
First,
I
wanted
to
bring
up
shireen
the
assassination
by
the
israelis
of
a
reporter
in
janine,
where
there
was
a
massacre
in
2002
and
reporters,
and
everybody
else
was
shut
out
from
seeing
the
massacre.
S
And
ironically,
there
was
a
great
film.
You
should
all
see
it
called
janine
janine
and
it's
interesting
because
there
are
two
genes,
but
there's
not
three.
The
first
janine
was
the
massacre
in
2002.
The
next
one
was
the
assassination
of
shireen.
That
should
never
have
happened.
S
S
I
just
realized
this
week.
That's
the
guy
that
did
the
shooting
at
boulder.
I
just
realized
he
and
his
family
moved
in
2003
when
he
was
four
years
old,
with
eight
siblings
and
two
fam,
two
family
members
from
arika,
which
is
east
of
aleppo,
syria,
and
that
was
the
same
year.
We
attacked
iraq
not
much
surprise
that
he
moved
to
come
here
and
experienced
islamophobia
and
reacted
to
it.
T
Hello,
I'm
kathleen
thank
you
for
listening
to
me.
I
actually
live
in
neighboring
jeffco,
but
I
work
in
boulder
and
have
on
and
off
for
several
years
and
just
have
unfortunately,
never
been
able
to
live
inside
city
limits
ever
since
I
finished
cu,
but
I
would
like
to
thank
you
all
for
considering
these
gun.
Violence
gun
safety
ordinances.
T
As
nicole
mentioned
earlier
gun
violence
is
now
the
leading
cause
of
death
in
children
in
this
country,
which
is
just
shameful,
and
it's
just
been
an
issue.
That's
been
ignored
for
far
too
long
and
people
seem
afraid
to
address
it
and
it's
crucial
to
address.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
you're
taking
the
time
to
do
so.
T
It's
I
think,
a
sad
sign
in
our
country
that
it
is
controversial
because
there
can
be
no
harm
when
you're
looking
at
violence
prevention,
open
carry
restrictions
are
of
interest
to
me.
My
children
were
raised
in
australia
for
the
last
eight
years
up
until
just
before
the
pandemic
started
so
their
first
time
seeing
a
gun
in
public
was
in
yellowstone
last
year,
and
it
was
terrifying.
T
We've
all
seen
far
too
often
the
effects
of
hate,
desperation,
anger
when
it's
armed
and
so
cooling
off
period,
I
think,
can
be
helpful
and
in
our
country
it
seems
that
a
bottom-up
approach
seems
to
be
the
best
way.
I
wish
this
would
just
get
taken
care
of
nationally,
but
I
think
at
the
local
level,
in
our
municipalities
we
need
to
show
the
state
and
then
just
keep
working
up
at
what
the
people
in
our
country
really
want.
So
again,
thank
you
for
the
time
to
address
you
this
evening.
M
Again,
it's
me
nicole,
and
I
am
speaking
tonight
to
support
the
gun-
sense,
local
ordinances,
I'm
the
mother
of
two
young
boys
who
go
to
school
here
in
boulder,
I'm
a
proud
military
brat
and
I
learned
at
a
very
early
age
how
to
check
the
safety
on
a
handgun
while
firing
aluminum
cans
in
my
grandparents
backyard.
M
M
M
Gun
violence
has
a
long
history
in
america
and
in
more
recent
years,
suburban
communities
saw
the
problem
of
gun
violence
as
the
problem
of
others.
An
urban
problem.
M
Politicians
were
tempted
by
the
funds
of
the
nra
and
their
connections
and
their
marketing,
and
now
we've
arrived
at
a
place
of
being
desensitized
to
a
culture
of
people,
killing
people
and
themselves
with
firearms,
and
some
people
have
decided
that
the
problem
is
too
big
or
that
it's
happening
somewhere
else,
but
it's
not
somewhere
else.
It's
in
every
community.
In
america,
we
know
that
mass
killings
are
more
deadly
when
a
firearm
can
be
modified
to
fire
bullets
faster.
M
We
know
that
waiting
periods
reduce
death
by
firearm
suicide
and
that
suicide
by
firearm
is
almost
always
deadly.
We
know
that
higher
homicides
by
firearm
are
45
percent
of
all
homicides,
and
we
know
that
victims
of
domestic
violence
are
five
times
more
likely
to
die
at
the
hands
of
their
abuser.
If
there
is
access
to
a
firearm,
I'm
here
to
support
the
local
ordinances
and
city
council
for
having
the
bravery
to
bring
these
forth
and
to
have
a
conversation
as
a
community.
A
D
Rachel
I
apologize
for
not
getting
anything
from
you,
but
perhaps
you
could
take
whatever
testimony
you're
going
to
speak
and
send
it
to
us
an
email.
So
we
can
get
it
from
you
that
way.
D
U
Just
a
quick
one
mayor,
I'd
say
that
first
of
all,
I
I
just
want
to
so
appreciate
folks,
who
have
shared
their
vulnerability
and
passion
and
heartfelt
stories
around
gun,
violence
prevention,
and
I
know
that
you
all
will
be
taking
that
up
soon,
but
mostly,
I
think
I
wanted
to
respond
to
the
speaker,
who
talked
a
little
bit
about
our
pools
and
just
want
to
say,
because
I
know
that
we
are
all
concerned
about
staff
shortages
in
general.
Lord
knows
I
have
been
a
big
champion
of
trying
to
do
all
we
can
that
recruit.
U
I
want
to
say
that
we
continue
to
do
that.
We
know
that
we
are
battling
just
like
every
other,
frankly,
municipality
and
our
private
industries,
who
we
hear
the
same
stories
to
recruit
good
folks
and
wanted
to
share
that
part
of
what
we've
been
doing
is
we've
hired
a
consultant.
We
are
looking
at
our
competitiveness
in
the
marketplace.
U
We
are
looking
at
how
to
be
a
leader
in
the
public
sector
here
in
our
region,
and
we
are
doing
all
that
we
can
to
think
about
what
are
those
potential
incentives
that
we
can
do
to
bring
more
people
on
board.
U
So
I
just
wanted
to
share
out
loud
that
we
too
share
communities,
concern
and
consternation
when
our
lack
of
staffing
doesn't
allow
us
to
move
forward
with
some
things
we
ourselves
would
like
to,
and
we
are
trying
to
move
on
it
as
fast
as
we
can
and
remain
that
sort
of
employer
of
choice
as
we
move
forward
so
just
wanted
to
share
those
words.
D
Thanks
for
that,
didn't
any
council
members
want
to
follow
up
on
anything.
V
Mark
yeah,
thank
you,
nuria
for
the
comments
with
respect
to
the
pool
situation.
The
first
thing
that
struck
me
when
the
speaker
put
up
the
slides
of
her
suggestions
is
that
it's
a
little
anomalous,
if
we're
short
of
lifeguards,
to
be
charging
them
to
be
trained
as
lifeguards.
Does
that
make
sense.
U
V
And-
and
maybe
at
some
point
at
ali's
leisure,
not
that
she
had
a
lot
of
leisure
but
at
some
point
convenient
for
ali.
She
she
might
respond
to
some
of
those
other
suggestions,
and
can
we
do
them?
Why
can't
we
do
them?
I'm
sure,
there's
a
rationale
for
everything
and
nice
to
know
about
it.
U
No,
I
appreciate
that
mark
and
part
of
what
we
certainly
are
looking
at,
what
compensation
we
offer
a
variety
of
positions,
we're
trying
we're.
U
Frankly,
and
I
it's
a
conversation,
I
have
with
staff
all
the
time
trying
to
be
consistent
across
an
organization,
because
some
jobs-
and
perhaps
lifeguard,
is
not
the
the
one
to
choose,
but
some
jobs
are
similar
depending
on
what,
but
but
could
be
paid
differently,
depending
on
what
department
you're
in
so
we're
trying
to
be
consistent,
which
is
why
we
hired
someone
from
the
outset
to
make
sure
that
we're
actually
trying
to
lift
everyone
up
and
frankly,
as
I
talked
to
city
managers
and
administrators
across
the
region,
we
are
all
in
similar
votes
as
we
move
forward.
U
So
everyone
is
offering
bonuses
and
incentives
and
raising
salary,
and
that
is
artificially
lifting
salaries
across
and
and
we
have
to
be
mindful
on
on-
what's
sustainable.
But
we
are
certainly
looking
at
that
across
the
board.
V
D
Okay,
thanks
for
that,
nicole.
W
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
mark
I'm
not
a
good
enough
swimmer
for
that,
unfortunately,
but
I
did
want
to
just
put
out
a
plug
to
the
community.
Anybody
listening.
If
you
know
teenagers,
you
know
if
you
are
somebody
who
has
a
little
bit
of
extra
time
and
might
not
mind
a
little
bit
of
extra
money
in
your
pocket,
we
could
really
use
some
help
with
recruiting
too,
and
so
you
know,
please
appeal
to
those
in
your
life
who
who
may
be
interested
and
try
to
help
us
out
with
recruiting.
If
you
can.
D
Thanks
for
that,
nicole,
all
right!
Well,
if
we
don't
have
any
other
comments
on
this
elisha
can
we
can
you
take
us
to
the
consent
agenda?
Please.
D
Very
good:
does
anyone
have
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
consent
agenda.
D
N
I
had
a
couple
questions
on
three
c,
where
we
are
looking
at
sewer
interceptor
project.
If
I'm
numbering
this
right
and
noted
in
the
memo
it
says
that
rab
has
been
supportive.
It
looks
like
there
was
no
vote
or
dissent
or
discussion,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
if
that's
like
it
seems
like.
I
think
it
was
around
60
million
dollars.
N
It's
a
it's
a
goodly
amount
of
money,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
we
had
all
rabs
feedback,
because
I've
been
to
a
number
of
rap
meetings
and
finding
them
to
generally
have
really
helpful
comments.
So
that
was
just
one
question
and
then
also.
I
believe
that
this
is
a
first
reading,
so
wondering
if
maybe
we
could
invite
the
chair
of
brad
to
be
here
for
second
reading.
If
that
might
help.
U
X
Am
here
good
evening
good
evening,
mayor
and
members
of
the
council,
joe
teddyci,
I'm
the
utilities
director
and
definitely
rab
has
been
supportive
of
the
interceptor
project
and
it
is
one
of
the
highest
priority
projects
in
utilities
as
a
whole,
and
so
we're
excited
to
be
moving
forward.
X
This
will
this
will
allow
us
to
to
move
forward
expeditiously
without
delay
and
still
negotiating
good
faith
with
property
owners
regarding
rab.
I
need
to
look
at
the
memo
here
and
trying
to
recall
whether
we've
discussed
this
with
them
specifically
or
if
that
was
just
a
general
statement
around
the
their
support
for
the
project.
N
X
N
Okay,
thanks
joe,
I
had
a
couple
more
questions.
I
think,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
go,
there's
there's
a
lot
on
the
consent
agenda.
So
if
anybody
else
is
okay,
all
right,
I
think
next,
on
d,
do
we
will
we
be
getting?
We
don't
have
a
presentation
on
this
correct
and
designating
landmark
for
first
reading.
N
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
process
for
this,
because
if,
if
I'm
reading
the
first
reading
correct,
it
is
where
there
is
a
split
between
staff
and
the
board
as
here.
I
assume
the
bulk
of
discussion
would
still
take
place
at
second
reading
or
do
we
need
to
be
asking
any
clarifying
questions
tonight.
Z
Hi
this
is
james
hewitt,
historic
preservation.
Planner
tonight
is
your
opportunity
to
ask
questions
that
we
can
answer
in
the
second
reading
memo
and
so
yeah.
We
we
aren't
necessarily
you
know
we.
We
do
think
that
the
the
boundary
expansion
should
happen,
we're
just
feeling
that
it
might.
It
might
make
sense
to
wait
till
next
year
so,
but
I
can
elaborate
a
bit
more
about
that
in
the
second
reading
memo.
If
that's
helpful,.
N
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
Yeah
they're
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
understanding
and-
and
I
think
that
maybe
fleshing
out
the
timing
a
bit
more
just
sort
of
how
how
we
got
here
I
mean,
I
think
it
was
a.
Z
N
Landmark
right
and
then
staff
is
thinking,
it'll
be
better
timed
for
a
year
from
now,
but
yeah,
just
I
think,
going
into
more
depth
on
that
would
help.
N
Thanks,
okay,
so
that's
that
one
and,
if
relevant,
maybe
to
invite
the
landmark
chair
for
that
hearing
as
well,
since
there
is
a
split,
if
that
wasn't
automatic,
I
think
that
those
are
all
I
have
on
consent
actually
for
my
questions
thanks.
V
Yeah,
I
have
a
question
for
james
as
well.
You
say
you
are
essentially
in
support
of
changing
the
boundary.
V
I'm
hearing
him
yeah,
I'm
not
on
you,
I
don't
believe
can.
Can
you
hear
me
james?
I
can
okay,
you
state
that
you
are
generally
in
support
of
changing
the
boundary.
What
is
the
functional
difference
between
doing
this
as
a
standalone,
as
opposed
to
folding
it
into
a
larger
project?
I
mean:
is
there
any
possible
designation
for
the
bandshell
going
forward
other
than
as
a
landmark
property?
I
mean
we're
not
going
to
put
a
costco
there.
What
other?
What
other
use?
Z
Well,
and-
and
you
probably
know
this
but
the
but
the
ban-
shell
is
landmarked
right
now,
as
is
the
seating,
and
this
is
the
proposal
to
expand
the
boundary
to
the
ditch,
and
so
it
is
a
recognition
of
that
larger
park
area
and
the
friends
of
the
band
shell
submitted.
This
application
in
the
landmarks
board,
you
know,
is
the
applicant,
so
I
I
guess
your
your.
Your
question
is.
V
The
question
is:
what
what
does
the
if
this
is
the
direction
we're
going
to
go
one
way
or
the
other?
Why
aren't
we
simply
doing
it
now?
Z
U
Z
Want
to
say
that,
thank
you,
yes,
so
that
that's
actually
nuria's
got
a
good
point,
but
I
I
can
explain
in
the
in
the
memo
that
once
again
it's
it's
really
just
about
the
timing
and
because
the
landmark
application
comes
quite
quickly
and
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
time
to
share
with
the
prabh
and
the
public
the
idea
of
the
expansion.
Z
That
is
to
to
look
at
the
a
larger
area,
which
is
a
best
practices
in
historic
preservation
to
look
at
a
larger
area
but
there.
But
to
answer
your
question:
there's
no
reason
other
than
that
that
it
couldn't
happen
now.
Okay,
so
thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
Okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
hands.
Perhaps
motion
might
be
in
order.
D
G
B
AA
J
D
Great
thanks,
alicia
thanks
everybody
all
right,
we've
got
four
call-up
check-ins
and
I
think
we
have
a
little
bit
of
a
presentation
for
the
first
one.
So
who
should
I
hand
that,
off
to
you
elaine
all
right.
D
B
I
have
it.
Thank
you.
That's
item
4a
on
tonight's
agenda.
The
citing
use
review
application
for
the
redevelopment
of
a
9.27
acre
property
located
at
3320,
28th
street
and
3265
and
3267
30th
street
as
a
mixed
use,
development
with
new
street
connections
and
ground
floor
retail,
along
28th
street
and
with
ground
floor
amenity
space
along
street.
A
the
project
includes
282
residential
units,
the
adjacent
boulder
housing
partners,
diagonal
court
town
homes,
property
is
included
in
the
proposal
and
a
new
park
is
proposed
to
be
shared
between
the
two
properties.
AB
Great
thanks
for
that
alicia
and
good
evening.
Everyone
I'll
share
the
screen
and
please
let
me
know
if
you
don't
see
the
presentation
and
I'll
try
and
go
ahead
and
fix
that
everybody
see
this
screen
at
this
point.
Yes,
excellent,
all
right,
so
just
as
a
brief
overview,
as
requested
by
council
of
the
process
in
the
project
and
planning
boards
decision
and
discussion,
so
the
planning
process
to
date
has
been
pretty
thorough
almost
exactly
a
year
ago.
AB
The
concept
plan
for
this
site
was
reviewed
by
the
planning
board
and
then,
after
a
call
up
by
council
city
council,
discussed
it
on
july
13th
last
year
and
at
that
time
indicated
support
for
the
direction
of
the
plan
that
was
presented
in
particular,
given
the
desire
to
revitalize
the
area
along
with
the
need
for
residential
and
at
that
time,
council
also
supported
the
applicant's
suggestion
of
an
ordinance
to
achieve
a
greater
number
of
residential
units,
as
was
presented
in
the
concept
plan.
AB
The
recommendation
for
an
ordinance
was
brought
forward
as
8512,
and
that
was
to
permit
a
reduction
in
open
space
and
then,
after
planning
board's
unanimous
recommendation
council
in
turn,
unanimously
approved
the
ordinance
in
october
last
year.
So
while
the
site
is
not
part
of
an
area
that
required
dab,
review
staff
referred
it
to
the
design
advisory,
with
some
specific
areas
of
discussion,
dab,
reviewed
and
provided
feedback
on
the
plans
in
a
lengthy
meeting
december
and
then,
at
the
end
of
last
month,
planning
board,
reviewed
and
unanimously
approved
the
site
news
review
application.
AB
The
study
concluded
that
an
incremental
approach
to
revitalization
and
redevelopment
would
be
the
most
achievable
and
workable
in
partnership
with
boulder
housing
partners
to
create
a
mix
of
uses
in
a
main
street
configuration
that
you
see
there
in
a
sketch
on
the
left
and
essentially
to
springboard
off
of
the
existing
affordable
housing.
That's
there.
AB
And
then
it's
important
to
note
as
a
neighborhood
center
diagonal
plaza,
is
intended
to
contribute
to
a
sense
of
place
and
an
achievement
of
a
walkable
15-minute
place.
And
it's
important
to
note
that
the
comp
plan
also
anticipates
neighborhood
centers
to
have
a
mix
of
usage
as
well
as
a
range
of
services,
so
just
to
bring
us
all
succinctly
to
an
aerial
view
of
this
area.
It's
and
it's
familiar
to
most
of
us,
but
there's
a
significant
amount
of
retail
and
services
in
the
area.
AB
In
the
broader
context
that
includes,
of
course,
the
safeway
shopping
center
across
28th
street,
along
with
willow
spring
shopping
center
nearby
and
everything
from
medical
facilities
to
fitness
and
salons
and
restaurants,
and
even
an
auto
dealership.
AB
Three
and
four-story
apartments
are
south
of
the
site
and
also
across
30th
street
to
the
east
and
then
there's
also
some
across
diagonal
highway.
Most
of
us
know
the
site
itself.
It's
about
seven
acres
in
the
l
shape
that
you
see
there
on
the
south
and
west
end
of
diagonal,
plaza,
marked
by
broad
surface
parking
lots
and
a
retail
building
that
has
walgreens
on
one
end
and
vacant
retail
space
on
the
south,
boulder
housing
partners,
diagonal
court
apartments
is
on
the
south
side
of
the
site
and
that
part
of
the
project
brings.
AB
The
total
of
the
site
is
being
about
9.7
acres.
AB
So
then,
it's
also
important
to
note
that
the
bulk
of
that
l-shaped
project
site
that
you
can
see
in
blue
outlines
under
separate
ownership
from
the
other
retail
buildings
at
the
shopping
center
and
because
of
the
multiple
ownerships.
It's
been
acknowledged,
as
primarily
one
of
the
reasons
that
the
site's
not
successfully
redeveloped
over
the
decades
and
until
now,
essentially
with
this
site
anticipated
to
be
a
catalyst.
AB
So
the
proposed
project's
a
mixed-use
development
there's
two
new
east-west
streets.
You
can
see
their
street
a
and
b
a
new
north-south
connection
along
with
a
new
multi-use
path
and
then
reconstruction
of
the
multi-use
path
on
28th
street.
There's
the
new
park
space
planned
at
the
apex
of
that
l-shape
282
residential
units
in
varying
sizes
and
configurations
are
planned,
along
with
around
23
000
square
feet
of
commercial
space,
there's
also
amenity
spaces,
and
the
planning
board
approved
the
applicant's
request
for
25
parking
reduction.
AB
However,
the
applicant's
request
for
long-term
bike
parking
reduction
was
not
included
in
the
approval
and
then,
as
you'll
note
from
the
renderings
presented,
the
architectures
varied
with
some
of
the
buildings
illustrated
with
pitched
roofs
and
variation
in
materials.
Pallet
that
include
brick.
Composite
wood
and
metal
panel
height
modifications
are
approved
by
the
planning
board,
with
some
of
the
buildings
required
to
provide
for
community
benefit
for
the
added
height
planning
board,
discussed
two
key
issues
regarding
consistency
with
both
the
site:
news,
free
criteria
for
the
site
review.
AB
The
board
concluded
that
the
proposed
project
addresses
a
number
of
bbcp
policies,
as
it's
intended
to
be
a
compact
infill
redevelopment
project
and
with
those
just
under
300
residential
units.
It
will
help
with
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance
that
exists
today,
and
that
will
also
help
to
establish
a
new
urban
design
pattern
to
help
revitalize
the
diagno
plaza
area.
AB
And
then
findings
were
made
that
the
project
meets
the
criteria
for
building
design,
in
that
it's
intended
to
present
ground
floor
activity
and
design.
Details
for
a
pedestrian
oriented
neighborhood,
particularly
along
the
streets
and
new
streetscapes,
of
course,
will
help
to
establish
trees
and
contribute
to
the
urban
forest
street
trees
in
an
urban
forest,
and
the
project
essentially
transforms
the
existing
parking
lot
into
an
area
with
a
sense
of
place,
as
is
anticipated
in
the
comp
plan
and
then.
AB
That
request
for
the
25
parking
reduction
was
supported
by
the
site
review
criteria,
given
the
transit,
rich
context
and
implementation
of
some
principles,
and
then
the
request
for
the
45,
or
rather
34
long
term
biking.
Bike
parking
reduction
was
not
supported
by
the
board.
So
then
the
key
issue
related
to
a
use
review
for
ground
floor
residential
is
given
that
areas
in
appendix
and
in
business
community
areas
do
necessitate
that
additional
review
and
the
ground
floor.
AB
That's
not
only
in
diagonal
plasma
but
in
the
expanded
area,
and
in
addition,
it's
essentially
creating
an
inline
configuration
with
that
new
street.
A
that
also
will
help
to
create
a
new
pedestrian
configuration.
AB
So
with
that
planning
board
unanimously
approved
the
site
in
use,
review
application
with
conditions,
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
V
Any
inaccuracy
and
what
I'm
about
to
say,
I
don't
have
the
document
in
front
of
me
planning
board
member
mcintyre
raised
an
issue
of
the
percentage
of
parking
spaces
that
would
have
charging
capabilities.
V
AB
So
that's
actually
a
consideration
that
occurs
at
building
permit
and
with
regard
to
meeting
the
city's,
pretty
rigorous
energy
efficiency
standards.
The
applicant
I
know,
is
available
on
the
call
to
give
you
a
status
report
on
where
they're
at
with
the
plans
for
that,
but
essentially
that's
something
that
would
occur
at
building.
Permit
application.
AB
So
we
can
see
if
we
can
bring
up
the
applicant
team
as
a
panelist
to
just
identify
where
they're
at
with
that.
Okay.
E
Can
you
remind
me
those
names
elaine,
it's
bill.
AB
Holicky
coburn
laura
scheinbaum
with
bhp
daniel
pittinger.
They
should
all
be
on
the
call.
E
AC
Hi
everyone
mark,
I
will
apologize,
I'm
frantically
scrolling
to
get
you
the
exact
numbers
here,
but
I
can
give
you
a
little
a
little
history.
So
until
recently,
the
voter
requirements
for
electric
car
charging
were
substantial,
but
you
know
I
think
we
would
all
consider
them
minimal.
This
project
would
have
required.
AC
I
think
he
was
thinking
a
number
lower
than
that,
but
when
staff
transportation
staff
chimed
in
with
the
new
requirements,
the
new
requirements
were
substantially
similar
to
what
he
was
proposing.
If
I,
if
I
have
this
right,
I
think
that
it's
either
a
third
or
forty
percent
that
are
required
to
be.
You
know
like
conduits,
the
wires
don't
have
to
be
in
place,
but
the
conduit
has
to
be
in
place
to
run
it
so
under
the
new
sustainability
code.
AC
It's
it's
pretty
substantial.
So
if
I
can
beg
off
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
scrolling
for
the
answer
and
try
to
get
you
the
real
number,
but
it's
not
like
it
was
two
years
ago.
It's
a
much
bigger
number.
Okay
and
that's.
Why
mark
didn't
attach
it
as
a
condition.
AA
I'm
certainly
not
interested
in
calling
on
project,
but
I
did
want
to
make
a
comment:
having
lived
near
this
property
for
more
than
20
years,
it
is
such
a
joy
that
this
is
being
turned
into
housing,
our
community
desperately
needs,
and
particularly
given
the
partnership
with
bhp
right
next
to
her
to
the
south.
You
know
from
the
you
know:
urban
land
institute
study
back
in
2011
through
literally
20
decades.
AA
I
think
folks
in
this
community
have
been
trying
to
consider
what
can
be
done
with
this,
quite
frankly
blighted
property,
and
I'm
so
happy
that
I
know
there's
dozens
and
dozens
of
people
who
worked
together
to
to
present
what
we're
seeing
tonight-
and
it
looks
like
council-
will
not
call
this
up,
but
I
wanted
to
call
out
one
particular
person
on
city
staff
who
has
worked
tirelessly
over
the
years
to
make
introductions
between
various
property
owners.
AA
This
is
a
very,
very
complex
property,
with
lots
of
property
owners
and
who
worked
very,
very
hard
quietly
behind
the
scenes
to
stitch
together.
The
deal
that
we're
looking
at
tonight
and
that's
yvette
bowden,
our
assistant
city
manager,
about
contacted
property
owners
worked
very
very
hard
over
the
last
several
years
to
to
put
a
deal
together.
It
was
eventually
picked
up
by
bill's
colleagues
and
I
think
we're
seeing
the
the
benefit
of
all
that
hard
work
by
the
vet
and
so
many
people.
AD
D
Thanks
for
that,
bob
and
I'll
echo,
the
thanks
to
that
and
and
everyone
else
who
worked
so
hard
on
this.
It's
been
a
long
road
to
get
to
this
point,
but
I
appreciate
the
collaboration
with
all
their
housing
partners
and
the
city
with
the
ordnance
change
we
did
last
year
so
excited
to
see
this
moving
forward.
I
think
it'll
be
a
really
fantastic
project
for
the
community
and,
as
you
may
be
able
to
tell
I'm
not
interested
in
calling
it
up
either
and
any
other
comments
or
thoughts.
D
AE
I
have
it
in
front
of
me
now:
my
apologies,
edward
stafford,
senior
manager,
planning
and
development
services
of
engineering
and
the
interim
chief
building
official
for
the
2020
energy
code
for
the
city
of
boulder
residential
parking
and
new
developments
such
as
this
with
125
spaces.
10
of
the
spaces
have
to
be
what
we
call
ev
ready,
so
they
have
to
be
able
to
be
plugged
plug
there
to
plug
a
car
into
charge.
AE
Forty
percent
have
to
be
ev
capable,
so
that's
on
top
of
that
ten
percent,
so
the
ev
capable
conduit,
run
two
capacity
in
the
panel
to
add
charging
in
the
future,
and
five
percent
of
the
spaces
have
to
have
the
more
advanced,
quick
charge
or
dual
port
or
single
port
charging
stations
installed
as
a
minimum.
Under
the
building
code,
energy
code
regulation
so
separate
from
anything
required
in
site
review.
Those
are
the
standards
that
are
applied
to
new
development,
residential
construction.
AC
And
so
edward,
if
I
can
just
make
sure
that
I
clarify
this
correctly,
all
together,
that's
more
than
50
of
the
spaces
have
to
be
some
form
of
ready
or
current.
K
Thanks
aaron,
you
know
what
was
mentioned
is
capable
or
ready,
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
how
does
once
once
the
development
is
built?
How
does
that
transition
move
like?
Is
it
over
time?
Is
it
on
demand?
Is
it
per
owner
that
once
the
originals
are
built,
the
anybody
who
wants
the
ones
that
go
beyond
the
ones
that
are
built,
pay
the
expense,
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering?
How
do
we
get
beyond
that
barrier
of
them
being
ready
to
then
being
them
actually
ready?
AE
And
that's
a
great
question
and
I
don't
have
a
complete
answer
for
you
other
than
it's
partially
going
to
be
market
driven,
of
course,
especially
on
a
rental
project,
in
terms
of
being
able
to
provide
what
the
market
is
demanding
there
and
at
times
of
course,
you've
also
got
third
parties
that
are
willing
to
come
in
and
install
pay
for
charging
stations,
although
that's
less
likely
to
happen
in
the
residential.
It's
not
necessarily
a
trigger
as
to
when
the
building
owner
has
to
start
to
convert
those
that
are
the
ev
capable.
AE
AF
And
bill
did
you
have
any
thoughts?
Just
in
your
experience
and
you
know
previous
projects.
AC
Yeah,
you
know
generally,
the
infrastructure
has
to
support
the
renters.
So
I
know
that
jarvie,
the
developer
is
on
the
call
and
he's
beating
us
into
our
head.
If
the
residents
are
going
to
show
up
with
an
electric
vehicle,
they
have
to
have
a
place
to
charge
it,
and
so
the
intent
of
of
edwards
evie
ready
is
that
there
there
doesn't
have
to
be
any.
You
know.
Panel
locations
figured
out,
there
doesn't
have
to
be
a
location
for
a
charger
figured
out.
AC
No
conduit
needs
to
be
run
and
no,
you
know
no
structure
needs
to
be
altered,
it's
simply
as
as
easy
as
pulling
wire.
So
you
know
what
does
need
to
change.
This
is
important,
for
the
council
to
understand
is
that
if
enough
load,
if
enough
of
those
places
get
converted
and
as
edward
said,
it's
really
inexpensive
at
some
point-
there'll
be
enough
load
that
the
transformer
will
need
to
change.
AC
So
that's
something
that
excel
needs
to
coordinate,
and
one
of
the
interesting
things
is
that
if
we
can't
show
the
load
for
that
transformer,
they
won't
put
that
transformer.
In
now
we
have
to
prove
that
the
transformer
demand
is
there,
because
they
don't
want
to
set
a
bunch
of
really
expensive
transformers
that
they
don't
use.
So
as
soon
as
we
pull
enough
stations
and
we
can
show
the
loads
there,
they
flip
out
the
transformer
and
the
building
works
for
it.
AC
So
that's
the
way
it
has
been
working,
and
you
know
for
years
we
were
putting
the
stations
we
weren't
seeing
a
lot
of
take
up,
but
over
the
last
three
years
I
would
say
the
the
city's
code
is
timely
because
we
would
have
been
exceeding
the
previous
code.
And
now
the
new
code
is
is
letting
us
capture
what
we
need
to.
AC
K
Maybe
it's
just
something
for
us
to
think
about
as
we
move
forward
for
other
code
issues
going
forward
is
just
how
you
know
if
we're
already
dealing
with
renters,
how
do
we
keep
the
barrier
of
entry
low
so
that
we're
not
either
creating
hurdles
or
creating
undue
expense
passed
on
to
renters
in
terms
of
moving
to
a
new
transformer,
just
simplifying
it,
because
I
think
you
bring
up
a
great
point
bill,
so
I
just
want
to
smooth
the
the
tracks
so
that
we
can
maximize
the
ev
charging
once
once
that
infrastructure
is
in
place
and
we
want
to
expand
it
so,
but
I
appreciate
those
details.
AC
B
G
Z
Hi,
yes,
james,
hewitt,
historic
preservation,
planner
again,
thanks
for
the
question
you
know
it
is
the
landmarks
board's
decision
was
really
based
upon
and
it
was
a
split
decision
it
was
based
upon.
Z
I
think
the
fact
that
9th
street
has
become
a
very
busy
thoroughfare
and
that
there
are
issues
with
sound
and
so
the
guidelines
are
guidelines
and
not
hard
and
fast
rules.
So
that's
really.
That
was
the
basis
of
the
landmark
sports
decision,
but
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
it.
N
Rachel,
since
someone
else
brought
it
up
that
did
jump
out
to
me
too,
and
and
one
thing
I
wondered
because
I
think
the
alternative
or
the
old
one
was
just
the
wood
fence
like.
I
think
I've
heard
that
those
are
not
the
best
for
fire
resiliency
wood
fences,
whereas
the
the
enclosure
that's
going
up,
seems
like
it
will
be
more
resilient.
N
So
my
question
is:
do
we
have
a
lot
of
situations
where
we
would
be
compelling
people
to
put
up
like
a
fire,
unwise
structure
due
to
landmarking
and
do
we
need
to
look
at
any
of
that?
N
Like
I
don't
know
if
this
is
specific,
just
like
maple,
mapleton
internal
or
if
there
are
city
ways
to
impact
that.
Z
Right,
well,
you
know
you're
right
in
identifying
a
lot
of
the
historic
districts
are
on
that
you
know
wildland
urban
interface
and
certainly,
as
you
know,
we
become
more
vulnerable.
These
issues
are
coming
up.
It
wasn't
a
point
of
discussion
in
terms
of
this
fence
and
I
haven't
actually
heard
it
in
terms
of
you
know:
masonry
versus
wood
or
something
else
as
a
as
a
you
know,
fire
retardant
or
or
a
way
to
to
help
protect.
Z
N
Don't
know
we
need
to
give
give
any
go
ahead,
but
you
know
if
we,
if
we
have
a
choice
between
an
accelerant-
and
you
know,
a
fire
retardant
seems
like
we
would
want
to
be
opting
for
the
other
and
and
the
the
images
looked
perfectly
wonderfully
historic
to
me,
even
if
not
perhaps
within
the
current
character.
Still
you
know,
I
don't
know
they
looked.
It
looked
great.
D
Thank
you,
nicole,.
W
James,
I
just
had
a
question
about
the
guidelines
and
sort
of
what
what
the
criteria
are
for
when
we're
moving
outside
of
guidelines.
So
are
there
objective
criteria
or
is
it
sort
of
subjective?
What
is
it
that
would
say,
lead
people
to
approve
something,
that's
against
the
guidelines
in
one
case,
but
maybe
not
in
another.
I'm
just
I'm
wondering
about
how
subjective
versus
objective
the
process
is.
Z
Yeah,
well
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
there's
always
a
there's,
a
certain
amount
of
subject
subjectivity,
but
I
think
the
guidelines
are
actually
written
in
a
way
that
they're
very
there's
there's
a
lot
of
logic
to
why
they're
being
the
recommendations
are
being
made
and
the
guidelines
have
been
written
in
the
way
that
they
are
when
it
comes
to
fences
there
was
and
there
there
is
still
sort
of
a
recognition
that
in
mapleton
hill
fences
were
very
rare
and
there
were
almost
never
masonry
walls,
and
so
for
that
reason
the
the
guidelines
were
written
to
say
you
know
you
rarely
saw
privacy,
fences
or
stockade
fences
and
that
masonry
fences
were
very
very
unusual
so,
but
that
doesn't
mean
they're
always
going
to
be
that
way,
and
there
may
be
instances
where
it's
appropriate
and-
and
I
think
you
know,
balancing
the
modern
use
and
the
modern
sort
of
conditions
that
we
experience,
whether
it's
fire
safety
or
noise.
Z
D
Okay,
good
questions:
everyone
can
we
get
a
decision
here.
Anybody
want
to
call
this
one
up.
D
B
I
do
believe
that
is
correct,
sir.
It
is
item
4d.
The
proposed
redevelopment
of
a
5.17
acre
property
located
at
3825
and
3675
walnut
street
into
a
two-story
life
sciences
facility.
The
proposed
development
is
a
112
423
square
foot
building
in
the
industrial
general
ig
zoning
district.
It
is
referenced
under
case
number
lur.
AF
Yeah
I'd
be
happy
to
thank
so
much
maria
good
evening,
mayor
members
of
council,
charles
farrell
planning
and
development
services.
I'm
pleased
to
introduce
shabnam
bista
this
evening,
she's
a
newer
planner
in
our
office
and
tonight
is
her
first
appearance
before
the
city
council,
so
she'll
be
presenting
staff.
AF
She'll
be
presenting
staff's
analysis
this
evening,
and
I
would
also
note
that
this
particular
item
has
a
key
issue
associated
with
a
transportation
connection.
So
edward
stafford
is
here
on
hand
to
respond
to
questions
about
that.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you.
Shadmill.
AG
Thanks,
charles,
I
will
go
ahead
and
share
my
screen.
Please
let
me
know
when
you
are
able
to
see
it.
Excuse
me.
AG
So
good
evening,
council
members
I'll
provide
a
quick
overview
for
the
call
up
consideration
of
3825
walnut
street
concept
plan
and
provide
a
summary
of
the
planning
board,
discussion
and
key
issue
regarding
the
transportation.
The
proposal
is
to
demo
the
existing
manufacturing
and
warehouse
building
and
redevelop
the
property
with
a
two-story
building
up
to
55
feet
in
height
and
the
building
is
for
life
sciences,
use
multiple
tenants
anticipated.
AG
The
purpose
of
the
concept
plan
is
to
determine
the
general
development
plan
for
a
particular
site
and
to
help
identify
any
key
issues
before
the
site
review
submitted.
City
council
may
call
the
concept
plan
application
for
hearing,
and
then
council
also
has
the
authority
to
refer
the
concept
plan,
review,
proposals
to
dab
and
tab
for
their
respective
opinions.
AG
The
planning
report
held
a
public
hearing
for
this
concept
plan
on
april
28th
and
at
the
hearing
the
board
discussed
two
main
topics.
The
first
is
the
compliance
with
the
transit
village
area
plan,
transportation
connections
plan
and
the
benefits
and
difficulties
that
the
applicant
faces
on
meeting
that
specific
connection
plan
and
I'll
go
into
more
detail
later
in
the
presentation
and
then
the
second
one
was
just
the
height
modification
requested
by
the
applicant.
AG
AG
AG
The
concept
plan
proposes
a
building
at
55
feet
in
height
and
two
stories
tall.
The
tenants
will
be
the
light
in
the
life
sciences
industry,
which
refers
to
all
of
the
organizations
and
companies
whose
work
is
focused
and
centered
around
research
and
development,
and
the
building
design
is
contemporary
with
high
quality
materials.
AG
The
properties
located
in
100-year
flood
zone,
so
the
building
is
required
to
be
elevated
above
the
base.
Flood
elevation
in
compliance
with
flood
regulations.
AG
AG
Stats
112
423
square
feet
of
floor
area
is
proposed.
AG
The
applicant
has
requested
a
20
parking
reduction
as
well,
so
there
will
be
226
parking
spaces,
provided
the
type
of
uses
fall
under
a
technical
office
like
industrial
manufacturing,
research
and
development,
and
some
examples
of
tenants
would
be
academic
research,
biomedical
biotech,
uses,
climate
change,
research
and
other
high-tech
industries
as
well.
AG
As
presented
at
planning
board,
a
major
key
issue
is
the
transit
village
area
plan
transportation
connections
plan.
The
parcel
itself
is
not
located
within
tbap,
however,
it
is
impacted
by
this
connections
plan
the
proposed
road
down
here,
we'll
connect
frontier
avenue
to
walnut
street
and
then
include
an
underpass
at
the
railroad
tracks.
AG
AG
Additionally,
the
construction
of
an
underpass
would
significantly
increase
the
cost
of
the
construction
of
this
street
connection
at
planning
board.
The
board
was
in
general
agreement
that
the
building
that
building
the
connection
for
the
tvap
transportation
connections
plan
poses
a
hardship
on
the
applicant
brought
on
by
external
factors.
AG
That's
the
end
of
my
brief
presentation,
but
we
have
staff
here
to
answer
any
questions
and,
as
charles
said,
we
have
edward
available
to
speak
on
the
transportation
key
issue.
D
V
Welcome
chad,
that
was,
that
was
a
terrific
first
performance.
Thank
you.
The
request
for
the
the
height
amendment.
If
the
building
is
two-story,
we're
looking
at
27-foot
ceiling
heights
for
the
two
floors,
did
the
applicant
give
any
explanation
as
to
the
purpose
of
those
kinds
of
ceiling
heights.
AG
Yeah,
we
also
have
the
applicant
that
you
know
can
expand
on
the
answer,
if
necessary,
per
the
the
applicants.
Oops
sorry
pull
it
up.
So
a
lot
of
the
tenants
for
this
type
of
use
would
require
kind
of
higher
ceilings
for
their
lab
functions
or
some
research
functions.
So
that
was
part
of
the
explanation
from
the
applicant.
Additionally,
this
height,
I
believe,
allows
the
mechanical
to
be
within
the
building
and
not
on
top
of
the
the
roof.
As
you
see
in
most
of
the
industrial
areas,.
W
Thank
you,
chapman
for
the
presentation.
The
question
I
have
is
about
the
transportation,
the
connection
in
that
area,
and
I'm
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
understand.
Are
we
thinking
about
other
ways
to
create
that
connection
like
an
overpass
or
something
like
that,
or
are
we
kind
of
thinking
about
not
having
it
at
all.
AF
AE
I
will
good
evening
again
edward
stafford
planning
development
services
so
generally
trying
to
do
a
connection
in
that
area
and
further
review
and
understanding
actually
what
it
would
take
for
approval
from
the
railroad,
the
public
utilities.
Commission,
the
rules
behind
it
and
some
of
the
actual
physical
limitations
becomes
what
I
would
call
technically
infeasible.
AE
What
we
have
recommended
they're
looking
at
is
that
there
is
future
proposed
connections
to
cross
the
railroad
on
the
existing
bridge
for
foothills
parkway
and
to
include
a
new
multi-use
trail
system
on
the
west
side
of
foothills,
which
this
could
then
tie
into
from
the
walnut
side
and
could
be
tied
into
on
the
north
side
from
frontier
or
from
pearl.
So
the
alternative
will
not
be
most
ideal
in
terms
of
out
of
direction,
travel
or
longer
path.
W
Okay
thanks,
I
I
absolutely
hear
the
infeasibility
and
as
somebody
who
is
kind
of
over
in
that
area
frequently
and
is
longing
for
that
connection-
I'm
I'm
heartbroken,
but
I
understand
what
you're
saying.
G
Thank
you
yeah.
This
is
going
to
be
kind
of
along
the
same
lines,
but
did
we
look
at
having
a
multi
just
the
multi-use
path,
potentially
cross,
the
railroad
tracks
there.
AE
G
AE
AE
Any
kind
of
crossing
grade,
separated
or
not
generally
requires
approval,
both
the
railroad
and
the
public
utility
commission.
In
my
previous
life
of
dealing
with
those
typically,
they
say
if
you
want
one
new
one,
you
need
to
close
two
existing
ones
which
we're
not
really
in
place
to
do
and
at
grade
crossing
again
getting
that
permitted
would
be
likely
totally
impossible
from
a
safety
standpoint.
It
would
be
a
concern
from
the
city
on
a
vision,
zero
standpoint,
and
I
also
have
concerns
on
whether
or
not
it
could
invalidate
the
quiet
zone.
AE
That's
been
established
through
there
by
putting
a
bike
and
pet
crossing
which
would
be
harder
to
manage
and
control,
and
I
suspect
both
the
railroad
and
the
federal
railroad
administration
may
look
at
and
say.
That
means
a
quiet
zone
could
no
longer
be
enabled
because
they'd
expect
their
train
to
use
its
or
the
locomotive
horn
to
be
used
through
there.
The
applicant
did
look
at
whether
or
not
there
was
an
option
to
go
over.
AE
There
are
some
pretty
significant
clearance
requirements
for
the
railroad,
but
looking
at
that,
it
becomes
very
steep
at
best,
not
ada,
compliant
in
order
to
touch
down
before
you
hit
walnut.
It
gives
us
some
concern
also
because
you're
really
at
that
point,
going
to
create
a
fairly
tall
wall
between
that
property
and
the
property
next
to
it
in
order
to
go
up
and
the
property
itself
likely
wouldn't
be
able
to
tie
in
to
that
particular
crossing,
then,
and
again,
as
I
said,
could
not
be
done.
AE
Meeting
ada
respond
requirements
and
touchdown
before
we
ended
up
impacting
the
roadway
on
either
side
walnut
or
frontier.
So,
yes,
unfortunately,
all
three
options
have
been
considered
and
are
we
don't
have
a
great
plan
that
comes
out
of
any
of
those.
D
I'll
call
myself
and
then
rachel
so
appreciate
all
the
answers
about
that
connection.
D
But
if
we
have
that
connection
there
at
least
it
could
tie
into
that
or
potentially
I
know
at
some
point
we'd
like
to
have
some
multi-use
path
along
the
train
tracks
as
well
in
our
long-term
connections
plan.
So
it
seems
like
it
might
be
pretty
easy
and
a
low-cost
thing
to
do
to
to
have
that
connection
along
the
west
side
in
anticipation
of
possible
future
connections
over
the
the
years
and
the
decades.
D
So
just
something
to
to
consider
as
we
move
towards
site
review
and
then
the
one
other
comment
that
I
want
to
make
is.
I
did
notice
that
planning
board
was
suggested,
potentially
a
larger
parking
reduction,
and
I
thought
that
was
a
reasonable
proposal.
That's
an
awfully
large
parking
lot
along
the
east
side
and
if
they
can
get
away
with
a
little
bit
less
than
that,
I
think
that
could
be
all
to
the
benefit
with
additional
green
space
or
additional
build
space
instead.
So
those
are
my
two
comments.
N
Rachel
thanks
mayor
brackett,
I
might
want
to
call
it
up.
I
I
want
to
understand
the
process
better,
just
if
I,
if
council
wanted
tab
to
look
at
it,
there's
so
much
of
this
as
transportation
related.
I
know
that
I
always
ask
for
things
to
go
to
tab
at
this
stage,
but
I
think
this
is
an
especially
prime
one
if
it
is
at
the
right
stage.
AF
Sure
yeah,
it's
it's
a
fine
time
in
the
process
to
ask
tab
to
take
a
look
at
it,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
it
scheduled,
get
it
on
their
agenda
as
soon
as
possible.
If
that
was
the
will
of
counsel.
AE
N
So
I'm
I
just
just
for
mayor
brockett's
understanding
where
I'm
coming
from.
Since
I
mentioned
the
possibility
of
calling
up
not
going
to
call
it
up
not
going
to
ask
or
vote
that
way,
but
would
like
to
request
that
we
get
this
over
to
tab,
not
opposed
to
it.
Also
going
to
dab
thanks.
AE
N
Well,
yeah,
I
don't
you
know,
we're
all
sort
of
coming
up
with
ideas
and
questions
about
you
know.
Can't
planning
is
not
working
in
terms
of
the
connection.
What
are
the
the
other
good
ideas
and
I
think
we
we
saw
that
there
was
a
email
from
community
cycles
that
they
wanted,
that
looked
at
harder
too,
so
it
would
be
that
specific
connection
and
and
sort
of
as
as
aaron
suggested.
You
know
the
things
we
can
do
to
sort
of
future
proof
it
and
make
it
potentially
better.
N
While
we're
at
this-
and
I
guess
they
would
not
want
to
exclude
other
feedback
that
they
think
is
important
for
us,
though,
but
it
is
that
connection
primarily
that
I'm
thinking
of
thanks
so
much.
AE
G
Thanks,
I
also
am
not
interested
in
calling
it
up,
but
wanted
to
second
some
of
the
comments
that
aaron
you
had
made.
I
would
also
like
to
see
a
larger
parking
reduction
and
especially
as
you
know,
we
look
at
this
55-foot
height.
I
think
it
might
be
nice
to
see
some
of
that
parking
reduction
become
green
space
as
sort
of
a
balancing
out
potentially
of
that
height,
for
maybe
some
more
trees
and
things.
D
N
Would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
refer
this
to
tab
and
and
probably
add
in
there
to
look
at
the
parking
reduction
as
well
that
lauren
and
aaron
have
brought
up
as
well
as
the
connections
and
and
other
attendant
issues
that
may
be
relevant
on
this
project.
Thanks.
N
D
W
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
for
just
a
little
bit
more
specificity
around
what
it
is
that
we're
asking
tab
to
kind
of
look
at,
because,
where
I
see
you
know
being
helpful
kind
of
outside
this
project
is
just
thinking
about
how
how
to
create
that
connection
right.
What
is
the
best
sort
of
way
to
do
that,
given
that
we
can't
kind
of
go
over,
we
can't
go
under.
We
can't
go
through
right.
W
Where
else
can
we
put
it
so
that
that
to
me
feels
like
the
bulk
of
what
what
I
feel
like
tab
could
provide
to
that,
and
it's
just
some
some
ideas
and
thinking
around
how
we
could
build
out
west
foothills
or
something
like
that
to
create
a
better
connection.
N
D
W
I
think
so
yeah
I
just
I
yeah
yeah,
I
just
I
like
giving
people
specific
asks
and
things
you
know
as
as
we're
going
to
groups
and
asking
for
their
time.
D
Good
point,
so
why
don't
we
go
for
a
vote
on
the
motion
except
tara's
got
our
hand
up.
J
I
just
want
to
quickly
say
that
I
agree
with
nicole
on
that
that
we
should
be
specific
with
tab,
so
they
know
exactly
where
to
work
on
exactly
what
to
work
on.
W
Yeah,
I
think,
I'm,
oh
sorry,
yeah
you
go
okay,
yeah!
No,
I'm
just
wondering
if
it
is
that
thinking
about
that
way
of
getting
you
know
across
the
tracks.
What
path
we're
going
to
take
to
do
that
that
that
kind
of
thing
I
heard
parking
reductions
mentioned
then
just
sort
of
thinking
about
this
area
in
general,
and
so
my
question
is:
is
it
the?
D
N
No,
I
think
those
are
the
primary
things
we'd
be
asking
them
to
do.
I
guess
I'm
I
probably
look
at
it
a
little
bit
differently
and
that
I
think
it's
great
to
have
specificity
also
if
they
have
like
a
great
idea
that
we
didn't
specifically
ask
them
for,
and
they
want
to
lift
it
up.
I
wouldn't
want
to
rule
that
out,
so
I
made
it
probably
more
intentionally
vague
than
nicole
and
tara
would
like
and
so
I'll
leave
the
motion
and
understand
that
somebody
can
can
make
a
another
motion.
If
it's
I'm
open
to.
N
D
How
about
just
an
old-fashioned
vote
on
the
motion
on
the
table?
Okay,
so
are
people
all
right
with
that
and
tear
your
hands
up?
Did
you
have
something
else?
Okay,
so
we
got
a
motion
and
a
second
that
rachel
made
and
seconded
by
mark
we're
all
in
favor.
Do
the
show
of
hands?
First.
D
D
B
All
right,
sir,
that
is
item
five
on
tonight's
agenda.
The
public
hearings
and
5a
is
a
second
reading
and
consideration
of
emotion
to
adopt
ordinance,
8516,
first
adjustment
to
base
for
the
2022
budget
and
setting
forth
related
details
and
in
connection
with
the
supplemental
appropriations
to
the
2022
budget.
B
There
is
a
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adjourn
as
a
city
as
the
boulder
city
council
and
convene
as
the
central
area
general
improvement,
district
board
of
directors,
and
then
there
will
be
a
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adopt
resolution
304
approving
a
supplemental
appropriation
to
the
2022
downtown
commercial
district
fund,
formerly
cages
budget,
and
after
that,
a
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adjourn
as
the
central
area,
general
improvement,
district
board
of
directors
and
reconvene
as
the
boater
city
council.
And
as
these
items
are
listed
together,
they
can
be
voted
on
together.
AH
There
we
go
good
evening,
council
happy
to
be
with
you
tonight,
we'll
have
a
little
brief
presentation
for
you
related
to
the
first
adjustment
to
base
our
first
regularly
scheduled
adjustment
to
base
which
is
ordinance,
8516
and
we'll
jump
into
it.
AH
So
I
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
back
in
our
special
adjustment,
but
I
did
want
to
point
out
that
we
have
regularly
scheduled
budget
adjustments,
typically
in
may
and
november
of
every
year,
and
then
there
are
other
circumstances
where
we
would
amend
our
budget
you're
familiar
with
special
adjustments
that
we've
done
for
arpa.
We
did
one
earlier
this
year.
AH
There
are
a
few
different
types
of
budget
adjustments.
We
have
clarified
these
from
previous
memos
for
those
that
have
been
around
a
while,
but
just
to
make
clear
the
most
common
form
of
a
budget
adjustment
is
the
supplemental
appropriation
from
fund
balance,
that
is,
the
the
undesignated
currently
undesignated
funds
in
this
adjustment.
It's
a
little
about
23.8
million
across
all
funds,
6.2
million
in
the
general
fund
from
fund
balance,
the
others
are
supplemental
appropriation
from
non-grant
revenue.
So
this
is
revenue
that
we
did
not
budget
for
that.
AH
We
expect
to
come
in
during
the
year,
and
that
is
the
source
of
funding
that
we're
using
to
appropriate
and
spend
for
for
the
year.
That's
about
3.4
million
across
all
funds
and
then
last
is
grant
revenue
so
grant
revenue
that
we
either
did
not
appropriate
the
expenditure
during
the
budget,
but
we're
anticipating
or
grant
funds
that
we
were
not
anticipating.
AH
So
some
highlights
I'll
go
through
these
fairly
quickly
I'll
talk
in
a
moment
about
capacity
building
across
the
organization,
a
theme
that
we've
talked
a
lot
with
you
about
over
the
last
several
months
since
the
pandemic.
AH
Internal
staffing,
adjustments,
investments
to
meet
demand,
prioritize
retention,
and
I've
talked
a
little
bit
about
that.
Already
this
evening,
increased
unanticipated
costs
we've
seen
some
inflationary,
especially
as
it
relates
to
construction.
We
have
also
seen
the
the
cost
of
our
premium.
AH
Our
insurance
and
property
and
general
liability
go
up
pretty
significantly,
so
those
are
within
the
adjustment,
and
then
we
have
some
new
investments
to
meet
community
council
priorities
that
I'll
touch
on
and
then
the
bulk
of
which
the
largest
amount
that
you'll
see
within
the
adjustment
are
standard
carryovers
for
the
continuation
of
programs
and
services.
Largely
these
are
grants
or
participation
in
projects
such
as
affordable
housing
that
we
typically
roll
over
on
an
annual
basis.
AH
Just
for
your
information,
we
are
looking
to
do
this
a
bit
differently
in
the
23
budget,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
do
such
a
large
adjustment
in
the
first
adjustment
of
the
year.
So
stay
tuned
on
that,
so
some
more
specifics
on
some
of
the
investments
that
you
see,
starting
with
housing
and
human
services,
the
adjustment
calls
for
the
creation
of
a
homeless
respite
center.
This
would
be
a
rehabilitation
of
an
existing
facility.
The
bulk
of
that
is
that
rehabilitation
of
375.
AH
and
then
there's
some
several
smaller
investments
that
relate
to
advancing
certain
community
or
council
goals,
including
beginning
the
process
for
middle-income
down
payment
assistance,
pilot
inclusionary
housing,
strategic
plan,
adu
survey
and
expanding
a
successful
hoa
assessment.
AH
On
the
minds
of
the
community
just
recently
for
very
good
reason,
is
our
preparedness
and
resilience
as
it
relates
to
wildfire
and
other
disasters
for
several
investments
reflected
in
this
adjustment,
including
purchasing
additional
wildland
fire
equipment
to
increase
redundancy
for
our
for
our
team
expansion
of
the
wildland
fire
home
assessments.
That
includes
a
a
a
new
position,
re-establishing
a
position
loss
during
the
pandemic
reinvesting
funds
in
open
space.
AH
This
is
a
fema
reimbursement
that
we
are
reallocating
this
year
and
then
accelerating
other
general
climate
resilience.
Efforts
through
through
our
cap
tax
funds.
AH
And
again,
just
a
moment
on
staffing
on
capacity
investments,
this
adjustment
calls
for
an
additional
22
and
a
half
full-time
positions.
We'll
note
here
that
we
typically
don't
like
to
do
ongoing
increases
during
our
adjustment
process.
AH
Those
are
typically
considered
with
the
annual
budget
cycle,
but
recognizing
that
we're
still
recovering
as
an
organization
and
trying
to
meet
the
man
we
have
proposed
that
will
implicate
ongoing
funding
into
23,
and
so
you'll
hear
us
talk
about
that
next
week
with
you
and
talk
about
that
throughout
the
budget
process
for
23.,
there
are
some
specific
investments.
Staffing
investments
include:
a
housing,
senior
project
manager,
homeless,
outreach
coordinator
and
support
for
the
the
cert
and
epress
programs,
human
resources,
staffing
increases.
AH
Some
staffing
increases
will
help
there
and
in
our
transition
to
some
new
technology
and
then
a
few
other
miscellaneous
ads,
including
some
additional
capacity
to
our
communication
engagement,
team
team
when
you're
ready
and
after
the
public
hearing,
I
have
the
complicated
motion
language
for
you.
We
are
available
for
questions
as
always.
D
Thanks
so
much
mark
questions
for
marker
city,
south
mark.
V
Not
really
just
two:
the
first
was
a
forty
thousand
dollar
line
item
for
down
payment
assistance.
Is
that
just
for
setup
of
the
program
I
mean
it's
probably
not
enough
to
assist
one
purchaser.
AH
AI
Good
evening
council
kirk
foreign
director
of
housing,
human
services-
yes
you're,
correct,
mark,
we
couldn't
help
one
individual
with
that
amount
that
will
be
going
towards
setting
up
the
program.
There's
unique
financing.
AI
V
Thank
you
that
that
that
answers
that
my
second
question,
the
final
question
is:
there's
an
adjustment
to
assist
the
eviction
protection
program.
Is
that
not
collecting
funds
yet
from
the
the
charge
we're
imposing
upon
landlords?
AH
AH
I
believe
that's
2025
is
when
he
press
will
pay
the
city
back.
We've
spread
that
out
over
a
few
years.
J
AI
Yeah,
thank
you
for
that.
So
this
is
a
initiative
that
we've
been
working
on
in,
particularly
in
the
closure
of
the
covid
recovery
center,
as
well
as
a
need.
That's
been
in
our
community
for
some
time
for
unhoused
individuals
who
are
released
from
the
hospital
or
and
have
various
medical
conditions
which
do
not
make
it
effective
for
them
to
either
live
on
the
street
or
in
a
shelter,
and
it's
a
specific
population
that
we
haven't
been
able
to
support.
AI
Well,
and
so
this
is
an
initiative
that
we're
in
the
midst
of
exploring
in
partnership
with
boulder
county.
But
it's
it's
it's
it's
not
far
enough
along.
Yet
we're
still
working
on
assessing
the
the
facility
to
see
if
that
will
work
and
we're
working
with
the
hospitals
to
see
what
support
we
can
get
from
them
as
well.
But
it's
the
reason
it's
in
this
budget
adjustment
is
we're
still
hopeful.
That's
a
an
initiative
that
we
could
get
started
in
this
year.
I
Just
to
have
a
follow-up
to
kurt
to
tara's
comment,
so
this
would
be
just
a
one-time
fund.
AI
D
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
questions,
so,
let's
go
to
the
public
hearing.
We
have
one
person
signed
up
so
lynn,
siegel
you'll
get
three
minutes.
We
can
get
lynn
on.
Please.
S
Anytime
you're
doing
any
budget
management
I
like
to
have
something
to
say
about
it,
my
goodness,
there's
a
shadow
over
the
time.
Interesting,
yes,
we're
having
an
eclipse,
yeah.
S
S
S
S
And
how
doing
height
subsidies
and
parking
reductions
and
all
of
those
things
are
affecting
the
bottom
line
of,
what's
going
on
in
boulder,
with
regards
to
developers
being
stimulated
with
things
like
the
opportunity
zone,
where
they're
able
to
hold
their
property
for
10
years
and
pay
no
capital
gains
and
then
you're
approving
budgets
that
are
supporting
all
of
those
things,
because
the
budget
is
the
bottom
line.
Thanks.
S
U
When
you
have
the
right
people
who
know
the
answers,
it's
super
helpful
and
I
think
it's
so
fitting
that
ali
wasn't
here
earlier,
because
she
was
coaching
little
league
for
our
parts
and
rec
director
be
doing
that.
But
we
have
something
and
we
will
correct
it
on
the
website.
But
it
turns
out.
We
do
not
require
payment
for
training.
The
city
does
that
and
we
will
pay
for
cert
and
their
time
in
the
training.
So
just
wanted
to
clear
that
up.
U
D
On
a
motion
by
bob
in
a
second
by
nicole,
did
you
don't
want
to
speak
to
that
at
all.
W
Yeah,
I
would
just
want
to
thank
staff,
and
I
I
just
I
really
appreciate
some
of
the
innovative
ideas
that
are
coming
through
on
some
of
this
as
well
and
kurt,
especially
thank
you
for
working
on
this
recovery
center.
I
think
this
will
be
such
a
needed
resource
for
our
community,
so
thank
you.
B
G
B
J
B
AA
D
Wonderful:
okay,
thanks
for
all
your
excellent
work
on
this
is
very
professionally
done,
really
appreciate
that
from
all
city
staff
who
worked
on
that
and
mark,
especially
for
presenting
it
to
us
and
leading
the
effort
there.
So
all
right
at
least
you're
going
to
take
us
to
our
next
public
hearing.
Please.
M
Good
evening,
council,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
wonderful,
hi,
members
of
city
council
and
thank
you
for
having
me
this
evening.
My
name
is
gene
sanson
and
I'm
a
principal
transportation
planner
with
the
city's
department
of
transportation
and
mobility,
and
I'm
joined
this
evening
by
my
colleague
garrett
slater,
our
principal
engineer
on
transportation
capital
projects.
Sorry,
I've
got
some
flying
in
front
of
me
this
evening,
I'll
be
sharing
information
on
the
proposed
project.
Submittals.
M
Sorry,
emily.
Would
you
mind
pulling
up
our
slides?
M
Oh
wonderful,
thank
you
so
to
reiterate
this
evening
I'll
be
sharing
information
on
the
proposed
project,
submittals
for
the
2022-2025
regional
council
of
governments
or
dr
cog,
sub-regional
transportation
improvement
program,
also
known
as
the
tip
I
will
start
with.
An
overview
of
the
tip
program
then
share
the
city's
approach
to
identifying
the
proposed
project.
Applications,
including
our
community
engagement
process
and
I'll,
also
provide
a
brief
description
of
each
project
and
will
conclude
with
a
request
to
council
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
submittal
of
project
applications.
E
B
U
B
M
Right,
wonderful,
okay,
so
picking
up
where
we
left
off
the
city
of
boulder
is
proposing
to
submit
transportation
project
funding
applications
to
dr
cogg
as
part
of
the
2022-2025
tip.
And
you
know
the
tip
is
really
the
primary
mechanism
by
which
federal
transportation
funds
flow
to
local
governments
for
the
types
of
transportation
system.
M
So,
starting
with
the
first
call,
the
call
1
regional
project
selection
process
is
nearing
completion.
As
you
see
here
in
the
orange
next,
in
fact,
the
dr
cog
board
of
directors
on
which
council
member
spear
is
our
city's
representative
will
be
asked
at
their
meeting
tomorrow
night
to
vote
on
funding
for
six
projects
and
two
of
those
projects
will
directly
benefit
the
city
of
boulder.
M
The
first
is
14.9
million
dollars
for
two
colorado,
119
or
diagonal
highway
projects
to
construct
bus,
rapid
transit
mobility
and
safety
improvements,
as
well
as
segments
of
the
commuter
bikeway
on
this
corridor
between
j
road
and
63rd
street
street.
The
other
regional
funding
recommendation
that
will
be
brought
to
the
board
tomorrow
evening
is
approximately
11.2
million
dollars
for
pre-construction
design
on
colorado,
7
to
advance
regional,
multimodal
improvements,
including
bus,
rapid
transit
and
a
commuter
bikeway,
and,
what's
really
exciting,
is
that
within
the
city
of
boulder.
M
This
funny
includes
approximately
three
million
dollars
for
final
design
of
east
arapaho
between
28th
street
and
foothills
parkway.
So
moving
to
the
call
two
phase
of
the
tip
shown
here
in
red,
the
2022-25
tip
call
for
sub-regional
projects.
Applications
was
issued
or
opened
on
may
2nd
of
this
year
and
applications
are
due
june.
24Th.
M
M
So
how
do
we
hear
the
city
of
boulder
select
sub-regional
projects
to
submit
for
funding?
Well,
we
started
with
a
long
list
of
projects
selected
from
the
city's
transportation
master
plan
and
with
a
great
deal
of
input
from
our
transportation
advisory
board.
Over
the
last
five
months,
we
narrowed
down
the
list
to
those
projects
that
won
further.
M
M
Multi-Use
path,
north
of
the
four
mile
creek
bridge,
which
was
where
it
terminates
today
to
the
implementation
of
transit
priority
intersections
along
broadway
to
the
construction
of
more
permanent
protected
bike
lanes
and
enhanced
transit
stops
along
baseline
line
next
slide.
Please
several
outreach
efforts
were
implemented
to
notify
adjacent
property
owners
and
the
community
about
the
tip
submittal
process
and
the
projects
being
considered
for
the
tip.
M
There's
a
project
web
page
and
a
mailing
was
sent
to
approximately
3
300
property
owners,
residents
and
businesses
adjacent
to
potential
tip
projects
and
other
interested
stakeholders
in
the
community
were
notified
about
the
grant
application
process.
Community
members
were
invited
to
review
project
fact.
M
So
as
I
walk
through
each
of
the
four
projects
in
this
next
set
of
slides
I'll
summarize
the
themes
that
we've
heard
related
to
each
project,
application
from
our
community
alicia
next
slide,
please
so
in
no
particular
order.
I'm
going
to
start
with
a
project
to
conduct
preliminary
design
for
protected
bicycle
facilities
and
transit,
stop
improvements
on
30th
street
between
arapaho
and
iris.
M
This
is
about
a
two
and
a
half
mile
stretch
of
roadway,
and
it
really
is
an
opportunity
to
create
a
continuous
walkable
bikeable
border,
rich
with
destinations
and
access
to
local
and
regional
transit.
The
quarter
is
lined
with
multi-family
housing,
thousands
of
jobs
and
a
considerable
share
of
the
city's
retailers.
M
It's
also
an
essential
quarter
for
active
transportation,
and
importantly,
it
would
extend
the
30th
street
protected
bike
facilities
that
are
going
to
be
constructed
south
of
arapaho
in
2023.
This
project
was
taken
to
what
they.
What
we
call
the
doctor
cog
sub
regional
forum
staff
group
for
review
and
the
reception
that
we
received
was
a
good
one
from
this
group.
They
particularly
like
the
strength
of
the
multimodal
components
and
committee
members
offered
that
they
think
this
will
be
a
competitive
project
for
funding.
So
keep
in
mind.
M
This
is
the
group
that
will
be
scoring
these
applications
when
they're
submitted
in
late
june.
We
also
receive
the
most
public
comments
about
this
project
with
community
members
expressing
concern
about
conflicts
between
vehicles
and
bicyclists
and
to
share
with
you
one
comment.
I
think
a
public
comment
that
reflects
much
of
what
we
heard.
I
quote,
living
along
this
corner,
I'm
very
excited
about
the
project
of
safer
bicycle
accommodations.
M
Currently,
the
vehicle's
speeds
and
volumes
make
for
a
pretty
uncomfortable
biking,
environment,
and
I
fully
support
this
project
and
I'm
excited
to
see
the
design
options
and
look
forward
to
being
involved.
So
that's
just
a
sample
of
the
type
of
comments
we
received
related
to
this
particular
project.
Next
slide,
please
alicia!
M
So
moving
on
to
the
next
project,
the
broadway
corridor
improvements,
these
product
court
improvements
were
identified
in
a
2014
northwest
area,
mobility
study
to
improve
travel
time
and
reliability
for
rtd's
flatiron
flyer
service,
along
with
other
regional
transit
routes,
future
arterial,
research,
bus,
rapid
transit
or
bus
or
brt
service
and
local
transit.
So,
just
to
give
you
an
idea
about
the
usage
of
this
quarter.
M
Pre-Pandemic
northbound
broadway
carried
about
37
buses
per
hour
in
the
am
peak
period,
but
this
corridor
also
experiences
significant
traffic
congestion
in
the
peak
periods,
which
would
impact
transit
travel
times
and
reliability,
and
this
project
is
intended
to
address
this
issue.
It
would
include
intersection
improvements
to
provide
transit
priority
at
broadway
and
table
mesa
and
broadway
and
region
intersections,
as
well
as
an
analysis
of
general
purpose.
Lane
conversions
to
business
access,
transit
lanes
between
table
mesa
and
18th
street
with
lane
re-striping
and
signage
is
feasible.
M
The
project
will
also
consider
operational
improvements
at
each
of
the
corridor
intersections
between
region
and
table.
Mesa
drive.
What's
neat
about
this
project
is
that
it's
putting
its
packaging
funding
from
different
sources.
So,
with
this
application,
we're
hoping
to
use
1.5
million
dollars
in
cdoc,
pre-construction
or
collar
department,
transportation,
pre-construction
funds
and
limited
local
funds,
and
with
the
dr
cog
tip
match,
as
you
see
here,
for
full
design
and
construction
of
the
project.
M
Community
feedback
for
this
project
ranged
from
skepticism
about
the
need
for
bus
lanes
to
enthusiasm
for
a
project
that
will
speed
up
buses
to
concern
over
lane
capacity
available
for
private
automobiles,
and
you
know
like
each
of
the
proposed
tip
projects
I'm
describing
this
evening.
The
city
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
robust
community
dialogue
as
design
options
are
developed
and
evaluated
next
slide.
Please.
M
This
next
project,
the
baseline,
enhanced
transit,
stops
and
protected
bike
lanes
project
will
construct
multimodal
enhancements
to
the
baseline
quarter
to
include,
as
I
mentioned,
protected
bike
lanes,
potentially
floating
bus
stops
and
safety
improvements
at
key
intersections
and
crossings.
This
project
was
also
well
received
by
the
boulder
county
sub
regional
forum
staff
committee.
They
particularly
like
the
multimodal
components
and
connections
to
communities
further
east
and
community
commons
have
really
emphasized
the
need
for
improved
crossing
and
separation
for
bicyclists.
M
So
next
slide,
please
alicia.
Thank
you.
So
this
fourth
project
would
construct
a
10
foot
wide
bi-directional,
concrete
multi-use
path
for
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
on
the
west
side
of
us
36
from
four
mile
canyon
creek
bridge,
which
you
see
in
the
in
the
photo
here
to
j
road.
This
project
was
presented
to
our
community
for
feedback
and
when
it
was
presented
for
feedback,
it
had
a
longer
extent
with
the
northern
end,
terminating
at
violet,
based
on,
what's
called
for
in
our
transportation
master
plan.
M
M
M
So,
as
mentioned
earlier
at
the
may
9th
tab
meeting,
the
board
held
a
public
hearing
to
consider
the
list
of
four
projects
we
just
reviewed,
as
mentioned
tap,
determined
that
three
of
the
four
proposed
projects
shown
on
this
list
best
address
safety
issues,
improvements
for
all
modes
of
travel
and
would
advance
improvements
to
the
core
arterial
network.
Tab
therefore
made
a
unanimous
recommendation
to
city
council
to
prove
to
approve
the
proposed
middle
of
these
projects
next
slide.
Please.
M
M
So,
based
on
council's
motion
between
now
and
june,
24th
staff
will
prepare
these
project
applications.
The
sub
regional
forum
will
then
score
project
applications
and
make
recommendations
to
the
dr
cog
board
for
approval
in
late
summer.
Early
fall
and
parallel
to
this
staff
will
also
begin
to
identify
a
second
set
of
city
projects
for
consideration
in
the
next
sub
regional
call
later
this
year.
M
Next
slide.
So
with
that,
we
thank
you
for
considering
this
request
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
gene
and
all
the
hard
work
by
you
and
your
department
on
this
process.
I
just
I'll
turn
real
quickly
to
nicole,
as
our
doctor
cog,
wrap.
Nicole,
did
you
want
to
say
anything
about
these
before
you
go
on
the
questions.
W
W
I
will
say
just
for
the
community
and
for
folks
who
may
be
like
me
and
not
having
known
too
much
about
transportation
before
getting
here.
One
of
the
things
that
constraints
that
I
hadn't
completely
been
aware
of
is
how,
when
we're
working
with
state
regional
highways,
we
don't
have
full
control,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
really
appreciated
watching
our
transportation
staff
work
through.
W
This
is
the
way
that
everybody
takes
into
account
all
these
different
constraints
at
the
city
level,
at
the
regional
level,
at
the
state
level
to
bring
together
projects
that
benefit
our
community
and
so
just
again
want
to
recognize
the
immense
work
that
has
gone
into
bringing
this
forward.
I
think
these
are
really
wonderful
proposals.
M
That's
a
great
question:
tara,
so
a
floating
bus
stop,
you
might
have
seen
them
like
in
downtown
denver,
but
essentially,
and
garrett
might
be
able
to
describe
it
a
little
bit
differently.
But
if
you
can
imagine
like
in
you
know,
but
in
front
of
the
curve
right
so
you've
got
the
curb
and
then
the
roadway
there
would
be
a
bike
lane
and
then
next
to
that
bike,
lane
would
be
an
area,
a
passenger
waiting
area
to
to
board
and
debark
the
the
bus.
M
So
essentially
the
bus
stays
in
the
lane,
as
opposed
to
pulling
off
to
the
curb
and
the
passengers
get
on
and
off,
and
that
really
reduces
the
conflict
between
the
bicyclists
and
the
pedestrians
and
garrett.
You
probably
have
a
better
way
of
describing
a
floating
bus
stop,
but
maybe
a
picture's
worth
a
thousand
words,
and
I
didn't
have
a
picture
for
you
this
evening.
AJ
Good
evening
garrett
slater
principal
transportation
projects
engineer,
and
I
would
say
that
you
might
think
of
an
example
that
would
be
analogous
to
a
floating
bus.
Stop
is
the
way
we
sometimes
place
pedestrian
medians
in
the
middle
of
a
street
to
to
make
it
safer
for
crossing
and
that's
to
to
to
separate
people
and
cars.
What
a
floating
bus
island
is
is
essentially
the
same
thing:
it
separates
buses
and
people
who
want
to
get
on
and
off
of
buses
from
both
bike
lanes
and
from
cars.
D
K
Matt
sort
of
like
a
jetsons
reference
there,
ironically
george
jetson,
based
on
the
show,
would
be
born
in
2022
just
for
reference,
so
put
that
put
that
in
your
head
for
a
minute
anyway.
So
my
question
centers
around:
what's
our
general
track
record
with
some
of
these
tips
and
dr
cog
proposals,
you
know,
are
we
we
batten
300
are
we
you
know
just
what?
What's
our?
What?
How
do
we
do?
How
are
we
competitive
and
how
do
we
do
on
these
typically.
AJ
So
I
can
say
that
over
the
last
three
cycles,
we've
averaged
about
a
50
to
60
percent
success
rate
and
the
the
process
for
award
was
changed
considerably
in
the
last
cycle
and
mayor
brockett
was
a
part
of
that
that
change
and
we
were
concerned
at
that
time,
that
it
might
reduce
funding
opportunities
for
our
community.
But
the
the
cycle
played
out
such
that
we
really
have
been
able
to
maintain
the
the
the
success
rate
and
we're
hopeful
that
the
same
will
hold
true
in
this
cycle.
D
Thank
you
I'll
just
add
we.
Actually,
we
do
better
than
your
average
community
in
the
denver
metro
area.
Our
our
staff
is
extremely
good
at
designing
projects
that
are
well
received
and
match
their
criteria
really
really.
Well,
so
because
of
the
quality
work
by
city
staff,
we
get
funded
at
higher
percentage
levels
than
most
communities,
so.
D
W
Go
ahead,
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
watching
you
all,
I
see
why
we're
so
successful,
because
there's
so
much
you
do
to
talk
to
all
the
different
groups
involved
and
really
build
support
and
energy
for
these
proposals
and
kind
of
work
out
all
the
kinks
before
they
go
in
and
really
pick
the
proposals
that
are
going
to
have
the
best
chance
of
success.
So
I
just
wanted
to
call
that
out.
M
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
piggyback
on
on
what
garrett
said
in
answer
to
to
councilman
benjamin's
question
relating
to
related
to
our
success
rate.
Just
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
context
about
this
particular
tip
cycle.
So
for
the
boulder
county
sub
region,
there
is
16
million
dollars
available
for
all
jurisdictions
within
boulder
county
in
this
particular
call
for
projects.
D
S
I'm
sure
it's
really
great
the
way.
Oh
I'm
just
looking
at
my
name
on
the
screen.
Yeah
thanks
yeah
back
to
this.
The
the
issue
here
is
folks,
are
doing
great
jobs
on
getting
different
transportation
changes
implemented.
S
So
how
does
that
help
housing
in
boulder?
It
doesn't
and
in
fact,
every
unit
there
that
has
a
place
for
one
bicycle:
talk
about
transportation,
one
bike,
so
the
family
has
to
stuff
all
their
bikes
into
the
apartment
which
is
reduced
in
size
already
for
a
high
rent
and
how
is
that
benefiting
boulder?
Each
one
of
those
high-end
departments
has
an
impact
of
all
the
services
that
those
people
demand
with
service
industry,
folks
that
are
not
paid
enough
to
also
live
in
boulder.
S
So
then
they
have
to
transport
out.
And
then
you
have
these
discussions
about
transportation,
amendments
and
additions,
which
are
great,
like
nicole,
says
everyone's
doing
such
a
good
job,
but
they're
doing
such
a
good
job
to
move
people
around
people
that
want
to
live
and
work
in
their
own
communities
and
that
need
to
live
and
work
in
their
own
communities
to
have
a
cohesive
community.
S
So
how
do
you
do
that?
You
do
that
in
a
much
bigger
master
plan
and
you
make
transportation
a
smaller
part
of
that
than
the
bigger
part
that
it
is
here
and
the
big
expensive
part
that
it
is
here
and
what
see
you
south,
if
god
forbid
that
thing
ever
happens,
will
really
destroy
the
jobs
housing
imbalance
in
this
community
and
really
drive
up
our
transportation
mitigation
issues
like
were
brought
up
tonight
in
this
transportation
plan
thanks
night
thanks.
D
Lynn,
all
right:
well,
that's
it
for
the
public
hearings,
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
to
council
for
discussion
and
potentially
emotion.
Who
would
like
to
kick
us
off.
K
Well,
I'd
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion:
if
you
don't
mind,
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
proposed
list
of
projects
for
submittal
to
the
denver
regional
council
of
governments
for
the
2022-2025
transportation,
improvement
program,
sub-regional
process.
Well,
second,
email.
D
Second,
all
right:
matt
has
a
motion.
Tara
gets
the
second
okay.
Would
you
all
like
to
speak
to
the
the
motion.
K
You
know
for
one
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
just
received
my
tip
mailer
today
with
a
wonderful
qr
code,
qr
code,
so
clearly
we're
putting
out
the
outreach.
So
thank
you
staff
for
getting
that
out
there.
It's
nice
to
see
this
in
the
mail,
but,
more
importantly,
I
think
it's
it's
wonderful
to
see
the
can
proposal
really
gain
substantive
momentum
by
the
application
to
dr
cog
for
these
projects.
K
I
think
it
for
part
of
the
analogy,
but
it
really
puts
you
know
you
know
the
rubber
to
the
road
in
in
terms
of
really
getting
us
where
we
need
to
go
so
I
I
just
think
this
is.
This
is
great
work
and
I
love
the
track
record.
K
I
love
the
work,
the
staff's
doing
and
I'm
excited
to
see
where
we
go
from
this
and
subsequent
cycles
going
forward,
as
we
really
try
to
focus
on
reducing
vision,
zero
and
getting
it
to
zero
and
so
great
work,
and-
and
this
is
just
fantastic-
that
we're
already
making
these
strides
and
getting
this
work
headed
in
the
right
direction.
D
Absolutely
well
I'll
just
add
in
totally
agree
with
what
what
you
all
said
and
appreciate
the
seeing
the
the
can
network
going
into
action
here
with
these
proposals,
all
of
which
are
really
excellent
proposals,
and
I
appreciate
the
tabs
vetting
of
them
and
the
community
feedback
and
look
forward
to
seeing
some
of
these
getting
approved
at
the
sub
regional
forum
level.
So
anybody
else.
N
B
A
J
H
D
AE
B
If
you
could
take
this,
yes,
sir,
thank
you
item.
5C
is
the
consideration
of
a
motion
to
approve
the
proposed
annexation
agreement,
amendment
for
the
property
at
1422
55th
street,
to
modify
the
affordable
housing
requirements
and
facilitate
the
development
of
the
site
with
four-cell
homes.
This
is
referenced
under
case
number,
lur
2021-0045.
AK
All
right
great,
so
I'm
sloane
wahlberg,
I
am
a
planner
in
the
planning
and
development
services
department
and
the
item.
The
purpose
of
this
item
is
for
city
council
to
consider
an
application
to
amend
an
annexation
agreement
from
1999,
which
applies
to
the
property
located
at
1422
55th
street.
AK
Annexation
must
also
be
consistent
with
the
policies
of
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
in
particular
policy
1.17,
which
is
annexation
specifically
1.17,
emphasizes
that
annexation
of
land
with
redevelopment
potential
must
provide
a
special
opportunity
or
benefit
to
the
city.
In
this
case,
that
would
be
done
through
provisions
such
as
the
creation
of
permanently
affordable
housing
and
then.
Lastly,
the
amendment
must
be
found
to
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
original
approval.
AK
AK
As
part
of
the
deliberation,
some
board
members
voiced
support
finding
that
it
would
be
an
acceptable
proposal
to
allow
the
site
to
be
developed
and
that
the
amendment
would
provide
for
an
equivalent
benefit.
As
the
original
amendment
some
board,
members
felt
that
the
proposal
was
premature
and
that
additional
information
or
additional
conditions
would
be
necessary
for
their
support.
So,
ultimately,
in
order
to
allow
the
proposal
to
move
forward,
the
planning
board
incorporated
these
concerns
in
the
motion
to
city
council
and
voted
to
recommend
a
portal.
AK
Just
wanted
to
note
that
noticing
of
application
was
done
consistent
with
land
use
code
staff
did
receive
a
few
inquiries
from
neighboring
property
owners.
However,
no
formal
public
comment
was
received.
AK
AK
The
property
is
bordered
to
the
north
and
south
by
single-family
residences,
and
the
municipal
golf
course
is
immediately
to
the
east.
The
site
is
zoned
residential
medium,
one
which
is
described
as
shown
on
the
screen.
The
allowable
intensity
of
residential
development
in
the
rm1
district
is
determined
by
the
provision
of
3
000
square
feet
of
usable,
open
space
for
a
dwelling
unit
unit.
AK
The
site
was
annexed
to
the
city
in
1999,
as
I
mentioned,
along
with
six
surrounding
properties
on
the
east
side
of
55th
street,
and
also
along
smithview
court,
which
is
immediately
to
the
north
and
at
the
time
of
annexation,
the
site
was
zoned
rm1
and
the
intent
of
the
medium
density.
Zoning
designation
was
to
provide
future
development
potential
on
the
subject
properties
and
in
turn,
opportunities
for
affordable
housing.
AK
AK
He
would
do
that
right
when
I'm
presenting
the
applicant
approached
the
city
last
year
with
a
proposal
to
develop
the
property
and
when
the
applicant
approached
the
city
to
discuss
the
affordable
housing
requirements,
it
became
apparent
to
both
the
applicant
and
to
staff
that
there
were
difficulties
in
implementing
the
requirements
on
such
a
relatively
small
site
and
since
the
requirements
are
prohibitive
to
the
development
of
housing
and
no
longer
desirable
from
a
community
benefit
perspective,
the
applicant
has
worked
with
the
housing
divisions
to
propose
an
appropriate
amendment
and
no
additional.
Under
the
current
agreement.
AK
AK
AK
However,
the
agreement
would
be
amended
to
require
25
000
contribution
to
the
city's
affordable
housing
fund
for
any
additional
units,
and
that
would
be
within
five
years
of
the
recording
of
the
amendment
and
then
after
five
years.
The
developer
would
just
be
required
to
pay
the
standard,
cash
and
luffy,
and
then,
lastly,
a
provision
has
been
added
to
require
that
all
dwelling
units
be
constructed
and
sold
as
for
sale
units.
V
V
I
thought
that
was
that
was
my
problem
when
you,
when
you
say
that
this
is
going
to
create
middle
income
housing,
how
do
you
define
the
price
categories
appropriate
for
middle-income
purchasers.
AI
We
assume
that
middle
income
households
can
afford
a
price
at
120
percent
of
the
area,
median
income
with
incomes
as
high
as
150
of
the
area
median
income.
So
I
can't
define
that
as
a
price,
because
that
you
know
that
changes
by
interest
rate
and
that
sort
of
thing
as
well.
But
if
you
can
imagine
a
family
of
three
making
up
to
160
000
a
year,
what
you
know,
what
what
could
they
afford
for
for
house
payments
being
a
third
of
their
income?
AI
So
this
this
particular
property,
as
the
annexation
agreement
in
front
of
you
doesn't
define
what
those
prices
would
be.
It's
more
defined
as
a
housing
type
as
a
market,
housing
type
which
is
smaller
and
certainly
home
ownership.
And
so
that's,
as
is.
I
responded
to
your
hotline
part
of
our
middle
income.
Housing
strategy
when
we
can't
or
or
for
market
rate
housing
that
is
not
deed,
restricted,
is
to
create
a
housing
type
that
is
both
ownership
and
smaller.
In.
V
Well
before
I
ask
my
next
question,
I
do
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
you
kurt
for
promptly
responding
to
my
hotline
questions.
They
were
not
the
easiest
questions
in
the
world
and
the
fact
that
you
did
so
so
quickly
and
so
thoroughly.
I
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
that.
V
AK
While
current
and
proposed
amendment,
they
are
required
to
develop
at
the
maximum
density,
there
are
a
variety
of
housing
types
that
are
allowed
in
this
zone,
so
I
think
if
they
were
proposing
single-family
homes,
for
instance,
they
would
have
to
show
that
they're
developing
at
the
maximum
density
for
that
housing
type
and,
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
based
on
open
space,
so
they'd
have
to
provide
the
maximum
amount
of
open
space
on
the
site
under
the
proposal.
The
current
proposal.
AK
It
would
be
based
on
their
site
plan
how
they're
they're
developing,
but
I
think
we
propose
that
they
could
probably
accommodate
something
like
14
dwelling
units.
AK
AK
That
was,
their
initial
proposal
was
for
14
townhouses.
I
believe
it
was
in
two.
Two
buildings
was
sort
of
a
central
access
lane,
but
my
understanding
is
that
may
not
be
the
final
proposal
based
on
the
outcome
of
this
amendment.
Okay,.
V
AI
AI
Add
that
the
the
applicant
is
on
the
line
tonight
as
well,
so
you
there,
there
may
be
questions
that
you
would
want
to
say
for
the
applicant,
such
as
that.
D
D
AA
Want
to
continue
the
line
that
mark
started
and
maybe
some
more
questions
for
kurt.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
doing
some
rough
math
here,
kurt
yeah,
four
four
and
a
half
percent
interest
rate.
It
looks
like
a
the
family
that
you
type
of
family
you
described
in
that
120
to
150
percent
of
ami
range
could
probably
afford
a
mortgage
of
about
six,
seven
or
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Does
that
sound
about
right
to
you?
Just
wanna
get
directly
correct.
AI
AA
Yeah:
okay,
thanks.
If
we
made
some
assumptions
about
down
payment
and
interest
rates,
but
yeah
and
so
to
to
get
a
house,
that's
kind
of
you
know
supporting
a
called
seven
or
eight
hundred
thousand
dollar
mortgage.
AA
AA
If
you
were
to
kind
of
suggest
to
us
a
size
or
maximum
size,
you
think
that
would
kind
of
keep
these
houses
in
that
price
range.
What
like?
What
zip
code?
Would
you
kind
of
recommend
to
us?
I
mean
what
what
size
of
house
if
we
were
to
talk
about
a
maximum
size
to
ensure
affordability
to
middle
income
families?
What
would
you
suggest.
AI
So
for
townhomes,
what
I
have
seen
is
that
townhomes,
that
are
two
or
three
bedrooms
on
the
smaller
size
are
typically
around
1200
square
feet
on
the
larger
size.
AI
Sort
of
in
that
target
population
that
we're
trying
to
trying
to
serve
are
probably
16
to
1700
square
feet
and
I
think
a
a
1400
square
foot
townhome
3
three-bedroom
is
a
very
comfortable
size.
Looking
at
the
types
of
units
we've
seen
developed
in
the
city
as
well
as
some
of
our
affordable
units,
many
of
our
affordable
units
are
sort
of
in
that
size
range
as
well.
AA
AI
Yes,
so
the
three
parcels
to
the
north
of
this
property
is
a
parcel
which
I
believe
is
either
the
same
size
or
very
equivalent
in
total
size
to
this
property
same
or
similar
annexation
agreements.
AI
AI
The
city
put
additional
funds
into
that
development
to
create
some
affordable
units.
There.
AA
Okay,
that's
that's
helpful
kind
of
slightly
different
questions.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
for
sloane
or
for
for
kurt
sloan
on
on.
I
think
with
slide
seven
of
what
you
put
up
there.
You
said
that
the
the
cash
and
luffy
would
be
capped
at
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
for
the
first
five
years,
and
then
it
would
go
to
whatever
whatever
cash
and
blue
level
happened,
to
be
current
at
the
time.
What
would
the
cash
and
loot
level
be
if
it
were?
AA
AI
It
is
so
the
the
the
cash
and
lieu
approach
changed
pretty
significantly
about
five
years
ago,
when
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
was
updated,
and
I'm
sure
you'll
remember
that
bob.
But
you
were
on
council
at
that
time
and
for
for
sale
products
like
this.
AI
If
you
don't
provide
any
affordable
housing
on
site,
you
actually
pay
1.5
times
the
cash
and
lieu
amount.
That
was
there
to
encourage
developers
to
create
some
on-site,
affordable,
homeownership
units,
so
the
it
depends
on
the
types
of
units,
whether
they're
townhome
single
families,
but
but
a
range
that
I
would
give-
which
I
believe
is
also
in
the
hotline
typically
in
the
65
to
75.
000
per
unit
range,
is
what
I
recall
for
different
housing
types
that
are
similar
to
what
the
the
applicants
had
put
forward.
AA
AI
It'd
be
about
seven
in
the
seventy
thousand
dollar
range
per
per
units.
Okay,.
AA
AI
So
the
the
25
000
came
from
negotiations
between
ourselves
and
the
developer.
They
didn't
come
from
a
particular
metric,
but
what
we
did,
however,
do
we
did
an
exercise
after
the
planning
board
meeting,
because
they
asked
similar
questions
within
that
meeting.
We
we
then
looked
back
at.
AI
We
had
to
do
a
bit
of
research
to
find
out
what
the
cash
flow
amounts
would
be
in
the
year
2000
the
year
after,
when
inclusionary
housing,
cash
and
blue
actually
came
into
place,
and
then
we
we
used
our
inflationary
amount
since
then,
as
it
relates
to
how
cash
and
lieu
has
increased,
and
we
came
to
an
amount
of
about
35
000
per
lot
using
using
that
metric.
AA
Okay,
so
just
play
it
back
to
you.
If,
if
this
was
a
new
project
now
it
would
be
seventy
thousand
if
we
applied
the
two
thousand
numbers
and
had
an
inflationary
factor
to
bring
up
2022
be
35
000,
but
kind
of
the
negotiated
deal
subject
to
what
council
thinks
tonight
is
25
000.
Is
that
right?
That's
correct,
okay,
like
mark,
I
probably
have
a
few
comments
later
on,
but
I'll.
That's
the
end
of
my
questions
for
now.
Thank
you.
Lauren.
G
Thank
you,
I'm
kind
of
going
to
follow
up
on
that
same
line
of
questioning,
so
it
would
be
70
about
70
000
in
cash
and
low
payments
to
develop
this
within
the
city
of
boulder
today.
AI
We
we
typically
charge
about
one
and
a
half
times
cash
and
lieu.
We
haven't
really
applied
it
in
this
way
I
mean
the
the
the
cash
and
loot
penalty
is
already
at
1.5
for
for
not
creating
affordable
units.
So
I'm
not
exactly
sure
I
can
answer
your
question
correctly,
but
theoretically,
yes,
it
could
probably
go
up
as
high
as
100
000
or
slightly
higher
than
that
in
equivalency.
Y
D
All
right
looks
like
that's
it
for
questions
for
staff,
so
I
wonder
if
we
might
bring
the
applicant
online
because
I
believe
mark
had
a
question
for
him.
AL
AL
We
don't
know
attached
or
single
family,
yet
haven't
gone
that
far,
but
we
would
want.
We
want
to
build
as
many
as
we
can
and
as
mentioned
before,
we
have
the
three
thousand
square
feet
of
open
space
per
per
unit
requirement.
V
AL
We
we
put
together
a
14
unit
project
that
didn't
work
under
the
old
or
the
existing
annexation
agreement,
and
that's
when
we
put
everything
on
hold
and
started
working
on
amending
the
annexation
agreement
to
to
make
a
viable
project
we
did
design.
We
did
spend
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
designing
the
14
units.
Then
we
got
estimates
to
build
them
and
it
it
didn't
work.
V
AL
G
G
And
you
just
mentioned
that
the
flood
a
flood
issue,
do
you
think
you
would
still
be
able
to
build
that
20
000
square
feet
or
does?
AL
The
floodplain,
which
is
all
over
boulder,
the
100
year,
floodplain
there's
thousands
of
homes
in
it.
All
that
that
means
to
us
as
developers
is
that
we,
we
cannot
build
basements,
which
does
which
is
a
little
bit
which
is
less
expensive
to
build
a
basement
than
than
above
grade.
So
that's
a
little
bit
unfortunate.
G
AL
G
AL
Well,
my
understanding
of
the
floodplain
is
just
an
elevation
that
you
know.
If
you
are
below
it,
you
cannot
build
a
basement
and
any
structures
that
you
do
build
have
to
be
above.
That
line.
W
Yeah,
I
just
have
a
question
don
and
hi
thanks
for
being
with
us
tonight.
This
may
also
be
a
question
for
kurt.
W
So
just
sorry
if,
if
I'm
opening
opening
up
bringing
kurt
back
in
but
john,
my
question
was
just
around,
as
I
understand
it,
we're
also
buying
the
property
on
30th
street
that
we're
going
to
be
using
the
or
for
the
fire
station
from
you,
and
I
was
just
I
think,
as
I'm
understanding
it,
the
55th
straight
spot
was
a
better
place
for
you
to
build
what
it
was
that
you
were
interested
in
building.
W
We,
the
city,
were
really
interested
in
having
that
30th
straight
spot
for
a
fire
station,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
I'm
understanding
that
correctly
that,
because,
as
I
sort
of
see
this
council
just
to
lay
this
out
for
for
you
all
my
colleagues,
I
see
the
fire
station
as
being
a
big
benefit
for
our
community
and
having
it
in
that
location
that
we
put
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
and
effort
into
planning
for
it
there.
W
So
I
know
it's
not
technically
the
way
that
we
think
about
a
community
benefit,
but
this
feels
like
a
good
thing
for
us.
For
me,.
AI
Could
I
maybe
jump
in
nicole
before
don
does
just
to
give
a
little
more
background,
and
then
don
can
answer
that
so
the
the
30th
street
property
that
you're
referring
to
is
adjacent
to
the
the
fire
station,
which
has
already
gone
through
its
entitlement
process.
AI
AI
AI
AI
We
currently
have
that
property
under
contract
and
are
hopeful
that
it
doesn't
get
moved
again
and
that
we
would
be
able
to
close
by
the
end
of
this
month,
but
I'll.
Let
don
talk
about
how
the
if
the
two
are
linked
or
how
they're
linked
as
far
as
a
development
approach.
AL
So
so
you
mentioned
that
one
site
was
better
than
the
other
for
us
to
develop
they're,
actually
both
great
sites
to
develop,
but
kurt
and
I've
been
talking
for
a
few
years
now,
and
I've
been
asked
to
accommodate
what
the
city
wants
to
do
there,
which
is
a
different
plan
than
we
originally
made.
W
Great.
Thank
you
both
so
much
for
helping
clarify.
K
Worries
thanks
aaron.
I
just
wanted
to
follow
a
little
bit
up
on
cole's
point
kind
of
regarding
the
fire
station.
I
know
these
are
separate
properties,
but
they
certainly
are
linked,
perhaps
a
little
bit
transactionally
and
and
also
in
terms
of
outcomes
of
housing,
and
I
I
wouldn't.
K
I
wanted
to
sort
of
ask
the
question
of
of
you
don
about
your,
maybe
openness
to
having
perhaps
an
amendment
on
this
annexation
that
gives
the
city
a
little
bit
more
of
certainty
with
regards
to
how
the
outcome
of
that
is
with
the
fire
station
at
26,
91
30th,
because
it
is
of
community
benefit,
it
is
of
public
safety,
and
so
I
was
curious
if
you'd
be
open
to
an
amendment
that
that
that
property
is
sort
of
conveyed
to
the
city
pursuant
the
terms
of
the
executed
sales
agreement
and
authorizing,
perhaps
our
city
manager
to
do
the
ex
to
do
the
annexation
agreement
and
really
making
sure
that
it
is.
K
You
know
the
conveyance
of
that
property
is
really
consistent
with
the
terms
of
all
these
agreements.
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
if
we're
doing
this
annexation
and
and
creating
this,
this
means
for
you
to
develop
this
in
a
much
more
free
way
that
we
also
make
sure
that
we
can
guarantee
that
this
fire
station
has
some
certainty
for
us
and
our
community
for
the
sake
of
public
safety.
As
kurtz
mentioned,
we've
already
put
a
lot
of
money
and
effort.
We've
got
a
master
planning
process.
K
V
I
guess
this
question
is
for
kurt,
but
if
it's,
if
it's
not
a
question,
that's
appropriate
to
answer
at
this
time,
that's
fine!
What
are
the
specific
issues
that
are
preventing
our
closing
since
we
have
a
an
executed
contract?
That's
obviously
been
around
for
a
bit
if
we're
not
closing
and
we're
prepared
to
close,
there
have
to
be
specific
issues
that
are
preventing
a
closing
and
we
know
what
they
are.
AI
So
I
believe,
on
on
two
previous
occasions,
don
has
had
to
either
delay
the
closing
or
pull
it
out.
I
believe
from
correct
the
end
of
last
year.
There
was
a
period
where
we
weren't
under
contract,
and
then
we
had
to
come
under
contract
again
so
there's
it's.
It's
been
an
on
and
off
two
or
three
times.
V
AL
The
the
contract
allows
me
to
choose
whether
I
would
like
to
close
or
not.
AL
AL
Okay-
and
I
don't
I
don't
think
the
spirit
of
the
last
two
years
of
kurt-
and
I
talking
would
be
you
know-
to
close
one
and
not.
J
Hey
don,
so
this
council
has
been
dedicated.
We.
It
is
in
our
mind
that
we
want
to
make
more
middle-class
housing,
and
I
know
that
if
the
square
footage
is
too
large,
then
we
won't
be
able
to
do
that.
That
is
really
our
focus
and
we
haven't
been
able
to
do
that.
We
have
rarely
done
that
yet.
So
we
would
like
to
know
if
you
can.
I
know
you
said
that
you
are
not
able
to,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
you
anyway.
If
you
can
hold
the
square
footage
to.
J
I
don't
know:
14
15.
AL
We've
already
spent
a
few
years
in
one
design
that
didn't
work,
so
we're
just
we're
kind
of
out
of
gas
on
that.
If,
if
you
all
knew
a
quick
way
to
reduce
the
open
space
requirement
so
that
we
could
get
more
units,
you
know
we
could
keep
pushing
the
square
footage
all
the
way
down
to
500
square
feet
per
unit.
If
I
mean
if
we
got
50
units,
but
I
don't-
I
don't
know,
there's
other
things
in
the
code
preventing
us
from
that.
I
believe.
AL
And
to
to
be
fair,
always
you
know
I'm
being
asked
to
give
up
another
property,
I'm
being
asked
to
shrink
the
homes
raise
the
cash
in
lieu
fees,
keep
the
prices
at
middle
income
like
it's
all
stuff
that
just
doesn't
work.
It
doesn't
work
for
any
affordable
project
in
boulder
unless
the
city
is
injecting
significant
funds,
and
I
haven't
asked
that-
and
I
don't
think
kurt's
interested
in
that
because
of
the
small
nature
of
this
project.
D
Thanks
tears
that
finish
your
question:
okay,
lauren
and
then
maybe
we'll
go
to
the
public
hearing
except
pop.
G
Sorry,
I'm
just
back
on
this
previous
submittal
it
at
20
000
a
little
over
20
000
square
feet
for
14
units.
It
seems
like
you
would
be
at
just
over
1400
square
feet
per
unit.
So
I
guess
I'm
not
understanding.
G
You
know
if
you
were
capped
at
15
or
100
square
feet.
It
doesn't
seem
like
you
would
even
be
capable
of
doing
that
with
the
current
zoning,
so
it
almost
seems
like
a
non
non-issue,
and
so
maybe
you
could
just
explain
a
little
bit
more
of
your
thinking
about
why
that
number
seems
problematic
to
you.
AL
It
may
be
a
non-issue,
I
don't
know,
we
don't
know
how
many
units
we're
ultimately
going
to
fit.
We
don't
know
once
you
know.
Engineering
gives
us
their
input
once
the
fire
department
decides
on
the
fire
truck
turn
around,
we
don't
we
don't
actually
know
we.
We
very
well
may
fall
into
a
square
footage
that
that
you
all
like,
but
it's
more,
I
guess
it's
more
of
the
fear
of
the
unknown,
and
so
I
don't
think
anybody
in
boulder
wants
to.
AL
Well,
I'm
sure
some
people
do,
but
most
people
don't
wouldn't
want
to
purposely
limit
the
square
footage
that
anything
on
their
property
could
be
built
and
so
we're
just
being
cautious
again.
We
want
to
build
as
many
units
as
we
can
and
that'll
by
nature,
make
it
make
them
smaller
and
less
expand
less
expensive.
W
Something
that
I
hope
will
clarify
our
discussion
don,
I'm
just
wondering
you
just
listed
five
or
six
different
things
right
that
we're
kind
of
asking
you
for
here,
I'm
wondering:
are
there
some
of
them?
You
know,
would
you
be
willing
to
take
like
a
subset
of
those
things
or
because
you
listed
that
we're
asking
for
limiting
the
square
footage
more
cash
in
lieu
the
30th
street
property?
I
think
there
were.
W
There
were
one
or
two
things
in
there
as
well,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
are
some
of
those
that
rather
than
thinking
about
all
of
them,
are
there
some
of
them
that
if
you
were
going
to
pick
one
or
two
things
does
that
make
sense.
AL
I'm
I'm
okay
handing
over
30th
street
and
I'm
okay,
paying
some
cash
in
lieu.
You
know,
that's
that's
two
things,
but
that's
probably
that's
probably
the
extent
and
again
I
want
to
do
more
units.
If
I
didn't
want
to
do
more
units,
I
would
just
build
one
big
house
there
and
I
I
don't.
AA
Two
questions:
one
is
probably
for
staff,
probably
for
use
loan.
If
we
didn't
approve
this
this
amendment
tonight,
because
it
sounds
like
don's
got,
some
more
work
to
do
doesn't
know
what
he
wants
to
build
there,
which
is
fine
if
we
didn't.
So
maybe
it's
premature
for
us
to
take
on
this
amendment.
If
we
didn't
approve
this
amendment,
what
would
happen
I
mean?
Does
it
just
kind
of
sit
out
there
under
the
old
1999
terms,
and
he
either
builds
or
doesn't?
Is
that
how
that
works?.
AK
Yeah,
that's
correct,
I
think,
there's
some
implications
from
a
housing
perspective
on
if
they
did
a
rental
project,
how
exactly
we
would
administer
that.
AK
AA
AA
I
think
I
read
in
the
memos,
like
4.7
million,
so
it's
not
like
given
to
us
we've
given
you
a
fair
amount
of
money
for
it,
and
I
wonder
if
we
just
put
that
behind
us
close
that
deal
and
if
you
need
more
time
to
think
about
what
you're
going
to
build
there.
I
like
lauren's
math,
it
sounds
like
1400,
is
kind
of
what
you
were
thinking.
If
you
know,
I
think
I
did
the
same
math
as
one
did.
AA
If
you
divide
14
units
into
14
to
20
000,
it
comes
out
to
be
about
the
1400
that
that
tara
mentioned.
So
it
sounds
like
we're
kind
of
pretty
similar
there.
But
if
you
need
some
more
time
to
think
about
it,
we
can't
we
unite
nicely
going
on
the
fire
station,
and
so
I
don't
know
what
you're
thinking
on
all.
That
is,
if
you
need
more
more
time,
if
you
need
relief
on,
we
need
relief
on
the
open
space.
AA
That's
something
we
can
certainly
talk
about
as
well,
because
I
think
you
know
tara
was
on
the
right
path
with
the
1400
feet
that
just
doing
the
math
and
that
that
starts
to
feel
like
a
middle
income,
affordable
housing,
I'm
sorry
to
say
that,
because
it
used
to
be
quite
a
bit
larger
here
in
boulder,
but
unfortunately
we're
down
to
1400
feet,
but
that's
where
we
are.
We
are
and-
and
we
did
do
when
we
just
talked
about
this
like
two
hours
ago-
we
did
provide
open
space
relief
on
the
diagonal
plaza.
AA
AK
AF
AA
AA
Okay,
great,
that's
that's
kind
of
what
I
thought
I
thought
too.
Okay,
that's
that's
it
for,
for
now,.
AA
Yeah,
I
wasn't
talking
about
25
I
was
I
was
using
tara's
number
and
lauren's
number
of
of
1400
divided
into
20
000,
which
is
what
your
plan
was
and
like
they
can't
got
it
to.
They
got
to
14
units.
I
don't
know
if
they're
looking
to
take
it
down
to
600,
that's
that
that
doesn't
feel
like
middle-income
family
housing
anymore.
That
feels
like
a
single
person's
studio
apartment.
D
Okay,
let's
let's
go
to
the
public
hearing
and
then
let's
have
discussion
and
we
can.
We
can
see
where
this
leads.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing.
We've
got
one
person
signed
up.
Lynn
siegel
is
up
with
three
minutes
of
testimony,
so.
S
AD
AE
D
S
S
Now
I
don't
know
what's
happening
with
the
fire
station.
I've
watched
the
planning
board
issue
on
the
fire
station.
I
don't
know
exactly
how
the
housing's
working
there,
I'm
sure
I'll
see
that
in
the
future
as
time
goes
by,
but
there
should
be
no
open
space
agreements
with
these
developers
that
want
to
make
the
maximum
buck.
Let
him
build
his
freaking
house,
a
big
house.
You
know
good
for
him
hope
he
gets
enough
out
of
it,
but
he
wants
what
he
wants.
Is
1400
1500
square
foot
places
units
in
this
place.
S
S
This
is
another
developer
giveaway
and
it's
so
ironic
that
it's
in
any
way
connected
with
fire
station
now,
there's
gonna
have
to
be
more
fire
provisions
up
at
311
on
his
previous
development,
because
that's
where
the
big
one's
coming
in
the
big
fire-
and
you
know
what,
with
that
marshall
fire
if
we
were
off
just
a
little
tiny
bit
on
the
this
atmospheric
condition
that
that
could
have
happened
that
day,
we
would
have
had
ola
boulder
taken
out
easily.
S
Now
it's
coming
in
the
future
and
it's
coming
in
through
a
senior
center
on
the
open
space
at
the
urban
wildlife
interface.
That
is
not
a
funny
thing.
You
know,
we've
got
to
deal
with
that
and
there's
one
way
out
for
all
of
those
people
on
oxygen
tanks,
full
full
spectrum,
nursing
on
that
site,
and
now
this
guy
is
trying
to
get
free
open
space.
Now,
what
do
we
do
when
we
have
people
in
in
these
little
units
and
with
given
up
open
space?
Guess
what
what
do
they
want
to
do?
S
They
want
to
get
the
heck
out
of
their
little
tiny
units
and
use
our
open
space
that
were
300
million
dollars
in
deficit
on
in
maintenance
and
operations
and
capital
improvements.
Funds
with
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
just
ask
them
how
much
open
space
are
we
buying
for
these
people
to
use
in
these
little
tiny
units?
Like
I
always
say
my
dad
moved
from
new
york
city,
not
to
you
new
york,
city,
okay,
absolutely,
no,
no
judah,
don
altman
and
michael
bosma
no
way.
D
V
Well,
first,
I
I've
got
to
say
that-
and
this
is
not
the
fault
of
staff
in
any
respect.
V
They've
been
talking
for
a
long
time
with
this
particular
developer
and
I'm
doing
their
absolute
best
to
create
a
good
product
for
the
city,
but
this
is
in
my
two
and
a
half
years
on
council,
the
most
problematic
transaction
I
have
ever
had
to
review.
This
is
an
individual
who
wants
to
pay
1999
cash
and
loot
prices
and
sell
homes
at
2022
prices.
V
He
does
not
want
to
cap
the
size
of
them,
so
we
have
no
idea
whether
they
will
be.
I
don't
think
they'll
be
truly
middle
income,
but
they'll
be
close
enough
to
make
a
real
contribution
to
our
housing
stock
and
his
tradeoff,
for
that
is
we'll
give
me
40
or
50
units,
and
you
know
I'll,
be
happy
to
to
comply.
I
I
find
that
to
be
terribly
problematic.
In
addition.
V
If
we
can
get
more
than
we're
getting
and
in
exchange
for
that,
getting
a
some
degree
of
cap
on
the
size
of
the
unit
so
that
we
can
make
them
within
reach
of
a
greater
percentage
of
our
population
and
at
the
same
time,
I
am
very
concerned
about
his
behavior
with
respect
to
the
fire
station
site
and
the
sort
of
implied
leveraging
of
that.
V
With
respect
to
this-
and
I
I
don't
like
that
at
all-
if
this
is
a
transaction,
that's
going
to
close,
I
want
to
see
it
close,
and
I
want
to
see
whatever
we
do
on
a
55th
street
in
effect
to
be
subject
to
that
closing
and
if
not,
let's
consider
our
other
alternatives.
V
This
to
me
is,
is
a
substantial
overreach
in
any
number
of
respects.
There's
not
another
developer
in
town,
who
would
have
the
expectation
of
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
a
unit
for
cash
and
lieu,
not
one,
and
we
have
a
pretty
large
development
community
here.
So
this
is.
This
is
not
a
transaction
in
its
present
form
that
I
could
support.
V
I
could
get
behind
a
certain
compromise
to
up
the
cash
remove
a
bit,
maybe
not
as
much
as
I'd
like
to
get
a
cap
on
the
unit
size
and
I'd,
appreciate
that,
and
I
want
to
see
a
closing
on
30th
street
and
I
want
them
in
effect
tied
together
or
or
build
according
to
the
build.
According
to
the
annexation
agreement
obligations
you
undertook
and
committed
to
in
1999.
G
Thanks,
I
appreciate
the
work
that
staff
has
done,
trying
to
get
get
us
somewhere
on
this
proposal.
I
think
for
me,
I'm
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
cash
and
low
being
fairly
low
and
that,
in
combination
with
the
fact
that
this,
whatever
is
agreed
to
well,
I
appreciate
the
five-year
sort
of
sun
setting
on
this,
but
the
fact
that
it
could
be
developed
at
relatively
low
density
of
single-family
housing
and
have
a
low
cash
and
low
value
together.
Those
things
make
me
feel
like
the
city
would
not
be
getting
the
benefits.
G
We're
looking
for
out
of
this
out
of
this
agreement,
and
I
think
one
of
the
ways
that
I'd
like
to
see
that
addressed
is
by
looking
at
the
development
potential
and
setting
the
cash
in
lieu
as
a
fixed
fee.
Based
on
what
we
think
the
possible
development
potential
is.
So
I
would
like
to
see
a
slightly
higher
cash
and
low
rate.
Maybe
the
adjusted
35
000
that
kurt
brought
up
that
would
be
sort
of
you
know,
accounting
for
inflation,
and
then
look
at
that.
G
You
know
multiplying
that
out
times
the
14
units
that
it
seems
like
it's
potentially
feasible
to
have
on
this
site
so
that,
even
if
only
12
units
were
developed
or
something
like
that,
that
we
would
get
the
cash
in
lieu
of
so
that
we're
incentivizing
smaller
units
through
charging
a
higher
cash
and
low
rate,
and
I
also
would
approve
of
tying
the
agreement
to
the
approval
of
the
fire
station.
AA
Yeah,
I'm
where,
where
lauren
and
mark
are
as
well
lauren,
I
really
like
your
idea
of
effectively
backing
into
a
fixed
fee.
You
know
if,
if
this
can
accommodate
14
units,
we
can
do
14
times
the
35
number
that
kurt
put
on
the
table
and
figure
out
what
that
is,
and
if,
if
the
15th
unit
can
be
squeezed
in
there,
then
that's
great,
no,
no
cash
in
blue
on
that
one.
So
I
like
that
approach
lauren.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
AA
I
do
like
the
1400
number
that
tara
and
lauren
calculated
if,
if
there's
some
relief
needed
on
on
open
space
and
staff
and
don,
can
tell
us
that
if
it's
instilled
3000
feet,
it
needs
to
be
2900
or
2800
to
make
14
units
fit
in
there.
That's
fine!
It
feels
like
3
000
into
forty
four
thousand
makes
fourteen,
but
if
we
need
to
nudge
that
number
a
little
bit,
we
did
it
on
diagonal
plaza.
We
can
certainly
do
it
here.
AA
It
sounds
like
it's
pretty
much
just
a
line,
a
sentence
of
the
amendment,
so
I'd
provide
relief.
If
that's
needed,
I
don't
know
if
it
will
be,
and
then,
like
lauren
and
mark
said
this
absolutely
has
to
be
tied
to
the
closing
of
the
fire
station
in
good
faith.
We
can
bundle
all
this
together
in
a
grand
bargain
and
and
be
done
with
it.
D
So
I'm
going
to
call
myself
and
then
I
see
matt
popped
up,
but
but
I
wonder
if
we
might,
if
we
might
be
able
to
put
together
a
package
that
that
looks
like
something
bob
was
just
describing
building
on
lauren's
thing
of
saying:
okay,
let's,
let's
have
an
an
increased
cash
in
lieu.
Maybe
it
may
be
a
total
amount,
rather
than
a
per
unit
amount
of
a
moderate
increase,
some
kind
of
cap
on
square
footage,
but
also
a
relief
on
the
open
space
requirements.
D
So
it
would
be
possible
to
build
some
additional
units
and
then
add
in
a
you
know,
a
contingency
on
the
the
closing
of
the
30th
street.
So
so
so
then
we're
getting
there's
some
additional
community
benefit
that
we're
asking
for,
but
we
would
also
be
granting
some
relief
on
the
open
space
requirement.
I
wonder
if
we
had
something
that
had
those
four
items
in
it.
I
wonder
if
there's
there's
a
possible
path
forward
on
that,
so
throw
that
out
there
matt
and
then
rachel.
K
I,
I
won't
repeat,
what's
been
said
I
I
kind
of
like
the
direction
that
we're
headed.
You
know
between
everybody's
comments,
with
lauren
mark
and
bob
and
and
stuff.
So
I'm
just
going
to
say
I
I
support
that
sort
of
package
that
aaron
was
sort
of
succinctly
trying
to
lay
out.
I
think
that's
a
good
direction
for
us
to
go
so
hopefully,
hopefully
don
is
amenable
to
that,
and
and
we
can
turn
that
around
and
get
and
move
the
ball
forward.
N
Rachel,
I
would
say
that
the
main
thing
would
for
me
would
be
to
tether
it
to
the
you
know:
tether
the
annexation
amendment
to
what
we
need
at
the
fire
station.
That's
a
health
and
safety
need
for
the
city,
and-
and
so
that's
the
only
one
that
I
think
is
is
really
kind
of
critical.
I
think
like.
If
I
step
back,
I
think
what
we're
talking
about
is:
is
the
the
fee
being
up
from
25
000
to
35
000
for
10,
and
maybe
some
change
units.
N
N
You
know
great
if
we
can
get
it,
but
I
I
would
be
cautious
about
overplaying
our
hand
when
I
I
think
the
alternative
is,
we
could
kind
of
lose
what
we
need
at
the
fireplace
and
a
massive
single-family
house
gets
put
there
instead
of
some
some
needed
multi-family
unit,
so
it
this
doesn't
quite
sound
fully
baked
to
me
for
for
us
to
be
looking
at
it
right
now.
To
be
honest,
I
appreciate
the
work
that
everyone's
done
going
into
it.
N
I
think
that
again
it
if,
if
what
we're
trying
to
get
out
of
it
as
a
city,
is
the
fire
station
needs,
then
then
that
needs
to
be
part
of
the
agreement
directly
and
concretely
and
conditionally
in
in
the
annexation.
But
outside
of
that,
I
would
trust
staff
to
negotiate
for,
for
something,
that's
fair,
keeping
in
mind
that
you
know
we
we
do
have,
wants
and
needs
out
of
this
agreement.
It's
not
entirely
one-sided.
D
Thanks
mark,
maybe
we
can
give
junior
a
chance
and
then
come
back
to
you
so
genie.
I
Thank
you
aaron.
I
agree
with
the
increase
in
cash
and
lieu,
but
I
think
what
I
heard
earlier.
There
was
an
issue,
a
possible
issue
with
timing,
and
I
think
right
now
may
not
be.
I
I
just
think
it
goes
back
to
something
that
rachel
said.
Maybe
we
should
let
staff
and
don
figure
that
out,
as
opposed
to
just
us,
trying
to
figure
it
out
on
the
fly,
making
up
an
amount
and
then,
if
it
doesn't
work,
it
seems
like
we're
creating
the
process
for
for
don
and
cd
staff,
and
I
just
don't
think
if
this
is
the
right
time
to
do
it
right,
then
so
maybe
sending
this
back
to
staff
and
don
to
work
it
out
and
then
bring
it
back.
I
D
Mr
mark
and
then
I'll
see
if
we
have
a
next
step.
V
Yeah,
of
course,
I
guess
I
I
I
would
take
a
little
have
a
little
bit
of
disagreement
with
with
juni
on
this.
We've
been
talking
to
this
developer
for
a
couple
of
years,
and
so
I
think
it
is
important
that
council
lays
out
without
necessarily
see
setting
it
in
stone,
but
lays
out
certain
parameters
that
they
require
in
order
to
move
forward
here,
and
you
know,
I
think,
there's
been
a
suggestion
of
a
1400
square
foot
cap
on
unit
size.
I
think
that's
really
really
important.
V
I
am
not
entirely
happy
with
with
the
35
000
per
unit
cash
in
lieu,
but
as
part
of
a
larger
transaction
and
bargain
that's
something
I
can
live
with.
You
know
if,
if
necessary
and
as
others
have
said,
it
really
must
be
tied
together
with
the
the
fire
station
parcel.
V
H
V
Gonna,
do
it
or
we're
not,
and
so
tying
it
into
this
larger
grand
bargain,
I
think
is,
is
a
very,
very
important
component
of
it,
because
I
want
to
know
whether
we're
going
to
get
there
and
if
we're
not
going
to
get
there,
I'm
a
little
less
happy
about
giving
up.
65,
000,
potentially
65
000
per
unit
of
cash
and
low
there's,
no
real
rationale
for
doing
that,
other
than
that
something
the
developer
likes,
because
less
is
better.
V
If
we're
getting
something
for
it
in
terms
of
a
closing
on
the
firehouse
parcel,
then
it's
easier
to
live
with.
Otherwise,
as
I
said,
I
I'm
really
not
very
interested
in
having
somebody
pay
1999
cash
and
loop
prices
to
sell
product
at
2022
market
prices.
That
doesn't
make
any
sense.
We
don't
we
don't
do
that
for
anyone
else.
D
I
understood
okay
thanks
mark
well,
so
maybe
what
I
want
to
do
is
turn
to
kurt.
We
we've
talked
about.
Maybe
four
potential
levers.
You
know
to
pull
here
on
this
and
then
maybe
we
can
go
to
mr
altman
kurt.
Do
you
feel
like
we
have
potentially
a
framework
that
we
could
work
with
to
to
move
this
to
completion.
AI
AI
I
would
want
to
understand
how
don
understands
that
as
well,
so
we're
not
back
to
where
we
started
from
also,
if
I
could
maybe
before
we
close
out
the
discussion
for
clarity
purposes,
call
on
teresa
and
maybe
someone
from
planning
to
give
their
interpretation.
I
think
teresa
probably
has
some
ideas
about
how
30th
street
would
be
connected,
and
I
believe
someone
in
planning
may
have
some
ideas
about
the
discussion
just
to
make
sure
we
close
it
out
and
have
the
clarity
that
we
need
very.
H
Well,
we
certainly
can
propose,
as
a
term,
to
the
annexation
amendment
that
it
be
conditioned
upon
the
closing
of
the
30th
street
property
and
that's
that
would
be
an
acceptable
condition
from
from
our
perspective.
Certainly
the
applicant
you
know
would
have
to
agree
to
that
as
well,
and
that's
the
same
with
any
change
in
the
amount
of
cash
in
lieu.
D
AL
So
the
the
levers,
I'm
okay
with
and
again
I
haven't
gone
on
and
on
about
what
we're
giving
up
by
selling
30th.
It's
not
1999
prices,
but
it's
no
profit
to
us
and
it
is
2017
prices
which
we
all
know
where
prices
were
in
2017..
AL
So
I
do
want
a
little
bit
of
credit
for
walking
away
from
all
the
efforts
that
we
put
into
that
partners.
We
brought
into
it
plans
we
made
to
do
that
a
lot
of
upside
over
the
years,
and
so
I
think,
that's
being
forgotten
and
mostly
because
I'm
not
mentioning
it
that
much,
but
so
I'm
totally
I'm
okay
with
linking
it
to
30th
and
selling
it
as
part
of
this
and
I'm
okay
to
the
35
000,
the
increase
from
25
to
35
thousand
dollars.
AL
And
that's
that's
the
extent
I
just
I
can't.
I
can't
limit
the
square
footage.
D
AL
I
just
I
think
I
could
say
yeah
right
now
and
everybody
would
be
happy,
but
I
think
when
we,
when
we
got
to
it,
it
would
end
up
being
more
units
and
then
the
open
space
reduction
would
become
a
larger
issue,
and
I
really
don't
want
to
really
don't
want
to
delay
the
process
anymore.
I
mean
I
would
love
to
just
be
done
with
this.
AL
D
D
I
D
Well
and
junipedo
might
not
build
on
that
because
I
mean
I
think
these
are
just
a
couple
of
variables
that
could
be
written
into
the
annexation
agreement.
So
I
mean
it
seems
like
if
people
were
able
to
come
to
an
agreement,
we
could
revise
it
and
have
it
back
in
front
of
council
and
prove
it
in
the
space
of
a
month
say
I'm
seeing
some
knotting
heads
from
kurt
and
teresa,
so
you
wouldn't
necessarily
have
to
involve
a
long
delay.
V
You
know
I
want
to
support
what
juni
said
and
really
what
you
have
said.
If
we
can
come
to
an
agreement
on
this,
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
have
this
project
expedited
so
that
there's
no
undue
delay
and
we're
not
going
back
into
a
two-year
development
cycle,
but
I'm
also
very
reluctant
to
give
up
the
elements
of
this
project,
and
I,
I
think,
they're
all
important,
and
so
that's
a
that's
a
probably
a
conversation
for
staff
and
the
developer.
V
D
G
I
think
so,
if
I
look
at
35
000
times
14
units,
for
you
know
basically
half
a
million
dollars
in
cash
in
lieu,
I
think
for
me.
I
could
be
okay
with
that,
coupled
with
the
time,
if
we
say
like
that's
the
amount
of
cash
in
lieu
for,
however
many
units
you
can
manage
to
under
the
current
zoning,
build
on
this
property,
so
that
creates
an
incentive
to
to
do
in
some
ways,
smaller
units
so
that
you
can
get
more
onto
the
onto
the
property.
G
For
me,
I
would
be
okay
going
forward
with
that,
coupled
with
the
guarantee
on
the
fire
station
and
having
a
five-year
sunset
on
the
reduced
cash
and
loot
payment,
because
I
think
that
you
know
having
housing
now
also,
has
it
a
certain
benefit
to
it
as
well?
So
that's
where
I'm
at.
D
That's
that
one
okay,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
suggestion.
People
can
disagree
with
me
if
you
want,
but
I
feel
like
we
have
some
different
ideas
out
there.
D
I
think
that
if
people
sharpen
their
pencils
with
some
of
these
variables,
there
might
be
an
outcome
that
that
might
be
mutually
excess
acceptable,
maybe
not,
but
but
maybe
there
would
be,
and
so
what
if
we
continued,
the
hearing
tonight
gave
staff
and
mr
altman
a
chance
to
to
talk
this
through
one
or
two
more
times,
and
then
we
could
come
back
with
the
continued
hearing
say
in
a
in
time
frame
of
roughly
a
month
and
see
what
we've
got
and
then
either
vote
it
up
or
down
at
that
time.
AI
Yes,
thank.
AI
On
the
way
out
as
well,
the
current.
AI
Ago
so
at
that
time
at
least.
AE
AI
Room
was
put
together,
it
was
based
on
an
actual
amount
relative
to
market,
and
then
I
also
believe,
according
to
the
comp
plan,
you
can
do
14
units
per
acre
there,
and
so
you
know,
14
seems
like
a
really
good
number
to
make
the
assumptions
that
lauren
is
putting
forward.
D
You
were
cutting
out
a
little
bit
kurt.
Were
you
saying
that
the
appraisal
on
the
30th
street
property
was
just
seven
months
old?
Is
that
what
she
said.
AI
D
Okay,
great
well,
so
if
you
feel
like
that's
a
reasonable
path
forward,
if
no
one
council
feels
like
that's
reasonable,
maybe
somebody
could
I
mean
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
do
it
I'll
make
a
motion
that
we
continue
this
this
hearing
to
a
date.
Hopefully
in
approximately
a
month
at
which
point
we
would
revisit
potential
amendments,
further
events,
the
annexation
agreement.
D
D
Okay,
any
any
last
comments
or
thoughts
before
I
called
for
a
vote
on
that
bob.
AA
Yeah,
I
I
I
think
I
heard
don
say
yes
to
two
things
in
hesitancy
on
a
third
one,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
kurt
heard,
I
think
at
least
the
majority
of
us.
If
not
all
of
us
say
that
we
would
very
much
like
a
cap.
We
talked
about
1400,
I
mean
you
can
come
back
with
a
slightly
different
number
kurt.
AA
But
what
I
would
hate
to
do
is
have
this
come
back
in
a
month
with
no
cap,
because
I'm
sensing
that
there's
a
majority
on
council
would
like
to
see
a
cap.
You
do
the
best
you
can,
but
I
think
if
it
was
no
cap,
I'm
not
sure
that
you'd
get
five
votes
to
support
that.
I'm
just
stating
what
I
heard.
D
W
Yeah,
I
was
actually
just
not
not
sure
if
it
was
a
majority
there
or
not.
So
I
was
I
was
wondering.
Could
we
do
a
straw
poll?
Is
that
going
to
affect
anything?
If
we
just
see,
you
know
how
much
of
us
are
wedded
to
the
the
square
foot
requirement
I've
just
I
heard
the
developer
say
multiple
times
that
that's
not
something
that
he
would
be
interested
in,
and
so
it
just
feels
like
a
lot
to
send
kurt
and
staff
and
everyone
back
from
another
month
of
conversations.
D
I
guess
I'll
just
say
that
that
for
me
personally
I
maybe
there
are
other
ideas
that
people
come
back
with
or
you
know
maybe
there's
a
a
different
package
that
doesn't
look
exactly
like
a
cat,
but
maybe
has
something
else
so
to
me
would
be
a
little
bit
dependent
on
what
we
get
so
I'd
say
like
I
probably
wouldn't
support
something
that
was
just
the
the
annexation,
the
30th
street
plus
plus
ten
thousand
more
in
cash
in
lube.
But
if
other
things
came
into
the
picture,
I'm
willing
to
consider
it.
D
So
I'm
a
little
va.
I'm
interested
in
seeing
how
the
discussions
go
I'll
just
say:
I'm
a
little
less
black
and
white,
but
tara.
J
I'm
gonna
agree
with
you
aaron.
I
think
we
should
wait
and
not
do
a
straw
poll
and
see
what
people
can
come
back
with.
I'm
confident
that
we
can
find
some
way
to
make
everybody
relatively
satisfied.
N
D
So,
nicole,
with
your
forgiveness,
I
I
I
think,
maybe
having
the
discussions
continue
somewhat
without
a
firm
position
might
work
out.
Okay,
thank
you
for
your
flexibility.
D
Can
I
go
ahead
and
call
for
a
vote
then,
on
the
motion
on
the
table,
I
believe
alicia.
This
would
be
a
show
of
hands.
Am
I
correct
about
that?.
D
Okay,
all
in
favor
of
continuing
the
hearing
for
the
motion
on
the
table,
I
got
looks
like
everybody,
that's
unanimous,
so
we'll
we'll
continue
this
I
I
know
curt
and
john.
I
know
you
all
are
exhausted
from
this
process.
I
know
it's
been
going
on
for
a
long
time,
but
appreciate
your
flexibility
and
hopefully
we
can
get
to
a
successful
outcome
here
in
a
month
or
so.
D
Okay,
someone
do
a
time
check.
I
think
we
could
all
use
a
five-minute
break,
but
are
we
good
to
to
tackle
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan
once
we
come
back
from
a
short
break,
unseen,
muted,
enthusiasm,
okay,
good
all
right,
yes,
teresa.
H
If
I
might
suggest
so
under
the
code,
if,
if
you
take
up
a
new
substantive
item
that
is
going
to
go
past
10
30,
that
requires
a
two-thirds
majority
vote.
Looking
at
the
time
that's
allocated
for
this,
it
looks
like
that
would
go
beyond
10
30.
So
I
would
recommend
that
you
call
for
a
vote.
N
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
D
Looks
like
nicole
needs
to
get
promoted
back
as
a
panelist.
She
she
got
kicked
out.
B
AM
D
All
right,
we
got
everybody
back
so
if
we
can
move
into
the
eastbourne
sub
community
and
I'll
just
before
we
get
started
I'll
just
say.
Obviously
this
is
a
very
important
plan.
We
want
to
give
it
the
attention
it
deserves,
but
also
it's
getting
late.
So
if
we
can
be
concise
with
our
thoughts
and
our
points,
that
would
be
much
appreciated.
So,
let's
see
if
we
can
be
thorough
but
but
but
concise
and
efficient.
B
All
right,
sir,
thank
you
item.
5D
on
tonight's
agenda.
Is
our
continued
public
hearing
and
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adopt
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan,
the
planning
board.
Just
for
the
note,
deliberated
and
considered
a
motion
for
adoption
on
may
5th
and
city
council
will
deliberate
and
consider
a
motion
for
adoption.
They
did
at
the
may
10th
council
meeting.
So
this
is
council
deliberation
only
and
no
further
public
testimony
will
be
received.
AM
AM
So
as
alicia
just
described
and
as
a
reminder,
tonight's
meeting
is
the
third
session
in
a
series
of
meetings
to
consider
the
plan
for
adoption.
There
was
a
joint
meeting
held
on
may
3rd,
with
planning
board
and
city
council
holding
the
public
hearing.
The
hearing
was
continued
on
thursday
may
5th.
A
planning
board
made
a
motion
to
adopt
the
plan,
and
tonight
council
is
also
considering
adoption
of
the
sub-community
plan.
AM
So
council
has
some
options
for
next
steps
on
the
adoption
process.
Council
may
move
to
adopt
the
plan
with
the
amendments
included
in
the
planning
board
motion,
and
this
would
finalize
adoption
of
the
plan
council.
Could,
alternatively,
move
to
adopt
the
plan
without
accepting
the
planning
board's
recommended
amendments,
and
we
would
then
take
the
plan
back
to
planning
board
to
reconsider.
AM
A
third
option
is
that
council
may
move
to
adopt
a
plan
with
different
amendments
than
planning
board,
and
in
that
case
we
would
also
take
that
motion
and
the
plan
back
to
planning
board
and
then
finally,
council
may
choose
to
deny
adoption
of
the
plan
next
slide.
Please.
F
AM
So
last
week,
staff
provided
some
background
information
and
feedback
on
planning
board's
recommended
amendments
for
council's
consideration.
We
thought
it'd
be
valuable
to
dive
deeper
into
two
of
the
proposed
amendments,
which
we
consider
to
be
substantive
and
look
for
council's
direction
on
these
items
in
particular.
Next
slide.
I'm
sorry.
AM
The
project
was
added
to
the
plan
in
recent
weeks
after
discussion
and
collaboration
with
airport
users
and
boulder
muniz
boulder
municipal
airport
staff,
airport
users
describe
a
concern
for
an
increase
in
complaints
about
airport
use
after
new
residential
and
mixed
use.
Development
in
east
boulder
takes
place
project
m16,
directs
city
staff
to
study
noise
impacts
as
part
of
a
part
150
study
and
consider
whether
to
expand
the
existing
airport
influence
zone
to
the
south.
AM
AM
So
when
we
met
with
planning
board,
there
was
a
concern
that
an
expansion
of
airport
influence
zones,
one
and
two
would
prohibit
the
development
of
new
structures
in
east
boulder
and
therefore
negatively
impact
the
plan's
housing
goals
and
vision
for
mixed-use
neighborhoods.
AM
The
proposed
amendment
that
planning
board
put
forward
is
intended
to
prevent
this
conflict.
Could
you
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please.
AM
AM
So
the
federal
aviation
administration
has
prescribed
standards
for
the
height
of
objects
near
airports.
In
the
code
of
federal
regulations,
title
14
part
77,
which
is
called
objects
affecting
navigable
airspace.
The
regulation
defines
a
system
of
imaginary
surfaces
around
an
airport
through
which
no
fixed
object
or
structure
should
penetrate.
AM
So
this
is
designed
to
protect
critical
air
space
and
allow
for
safe
operation
of
aircraft,
and
this
limits
development
of
any
structures
in
zones.
One
and
two
zones,
three
and
four
generally
cover
some
residentially
zoned
land
within
city
limits
and
land
designated
by
the
bvcp
land
use
map
as
either
open
space
or
very
low
residential
outside
of
city
limits.
AM
The
part
150
study
referenced
in
the
sub-community
plan
project
m16,
would
study
noise
impacts
from
the
airport
and
consider
whether
there
is
a
need
to
expand
zones
three
or
four
or
create
a
new
zone.
Five.
AM
So
staff
this
might
be
a
older
version
of
the
presentation,
but
the
language
is
similar.
AM
Staff
recommends
that
the
language
and
the
plan
not
identify
the
specific
zones,
as
we
will
depend
on
the
results
of
the
part
150
study
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
need
to
expand
the
airport
influence
zones,
whether
there
should
be
any
new
zones
created,
such
as
a
zone
5
and
where
those
zones
might
be
applied.
AM
So
we
believe
that
planning
board's
concerned
with
the
expansion
of
zones,
one
or
two
is
unlikely
as
potential
buildings
in
the
proposed
areas
of
change
in
the
east.
Boulder
sub
community
plan
would
not
impact
navigable
aerospace.
AM
And
the
next
slide
just
describes,
you
know
related
to
this
proposed
amendment.
We
have
two
key
issues
and
then
we
also
have
the
city's
airport
manager
john
kinney,
available
to
answer
questions
on
this
topic,
but
I'll
move
to
the
next
substance,
substantive
amendment.
If
you
could
go
to
the
next
slide,.
AM
AM
So
the
amendment
references
the
area
of
flatiron
business
park
if
folks
are
familiar,
it's
along
55th
street
and
then
east
to
south
boulder
creek,
which
you
can
see
the
blue
squiggly
line
over
to
the
east.
There.
The
plan
is
actually
just
or
the
proposed
amendment
is
just
referencing.
That
area.
That's
in
dark,
blue
next
slide.
AM
AM
So.
Similarly,
we're
asking
council
to
consider
whether
this
project
should
be
amended
and
what
their
preferred
language
might
be.
Should
you
find
a
need
to
amend
this
project
and
then,
if
you
go
to
the
the
next
slide,
it's
just
highlighting
the
rest
of
the
amendments
proposed
by
planning
board,
which
offer
additional
detail,
clarification
or
reprioritization
of
the
recommendations
in
the
plan
and
staff
is
available
to
answer
questions
about
any
of
the
other
proposed
amendments.
AM
So
if
you
go
to
the
next
one,
the
the
final
key
issue
that
we
have
is
just
whether
council
wants
to
make
changes
to
any
of
the
amendments
we've
classified
as
clarifying
which
have
been
proposed
by
planning
board.
AM
AA
Thanks
kathleen,
that
was
very
helpful.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
clear.
There
were
a
number
of
amendments
from
the
playing
board.
Should
I
assume,
or
should
we
understand
that
other
than
d9
and
and
I
think
it's
m16-
the
slide's
gone
already
other
than
those
two
which
I
think
will
probably
have
lengthier
conversations
about
the
staff
is
generally
fine
with
the
playing
board
amendments.
Is
that
right,
that's
correct
great!
Thank
you.
D
Do
you
mind
if
I
just
follow
up
on
that,
because
I
I
recall
from
the
the
analysis
that
the
very
last
one
was
about
a
homeownership
incentive
study
and
I
thought
I'd
seen
in
the
staff
analysis
that
we're
essentially
already
doing
things
like
that
right
now,
but
does
it
from
your
statement
doesn't
mean
like
that
staff
is
still
comfortable
with
it,
because
we're
essentially
already
doing
things
like
that.
So
adding
it
into
this
plan
is
fine,
because
it's
kind
of
covered
by
our
intentions
already.
AM
Yeah,
I
think
it's
reiterating
programs
that
we're
already
working
on
it's
not
necessarily,
I
would
say
additive.
G
I
had
a
question
about
the
airport
and
how
would
that
study
fit
it?
I
know
that
we're
discussing
evaluating
the
airport
as
part
of
the
work
plan
items
that
we're
looking
at
as
a
council,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
see
how
that
policy
item
would
fit
in
or
interact
with
what
council
is
already
planning
to
do.
AM
If
you're
talking
about
the
upcoming
airport
master
plan,
the
part
150
study
would
occur
before
the
airport
master
plan.
But
I
might
just
check
with
john
kinney
if
he
is
still
available.
U
I
was
going
to
chime
in
I
didn't
see
john,
but
I'll
say
this.
I
know
council
had
discussed
putting
placing
an
evaluation
of
the
airport
as
part
of
the
in
part
of
the
retreat
that
did
not
advance
and
move
forward.
I
will
say
that,
despite
that,
as
staff
has
I
shouldn't
say
despite,
but
in
addition
to
as
staff
has
moved
forward,
their
continued
work
with
the
airport
they
have
just
recently
owned,
there's
john.
U
They
have
recently
suggested
to
me
that
the
master
plan
for
the
airport
that
was
scheduled
for
2025
actually
begin
earlier,
unrelated
to
the
conversations
that
council
was
having
related
to
the
future
of
the
airport,
but
more
really
because
staff
needs
that
to
happen
and
they've
been
talking
to
the
faa
about
that.
So,
john,
maybe
you
can
elaborate
on
that,
but
I
would
separate
them
a
bit
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
honoring
the
fact
that
council
discussed
it.
U
T
AN
Thanks
nuria
mayor
brockett,
members
of
the
city
council,
my
name
is
john
kinney.
I've
been
the
airport
manager
now
for
a
whopping
six
months.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
nice
to
meet
you
all.
As
was
just
discussed,
the
master
plan
apartment
50
study
actually
would
be
going.
AN
Simultaneous
the
with
the
same
consultant
and
for
the
economies
of
scale
would
take
about
an
18-month
process
to
get
through
both
of
those
so
and
as
nuria
said,
we've
already
had
initial
conversations
with
the
faa
to
move
that
up
from
originally
2025
to
do
consultant
selection
this
year
and
start
the
master
planning
process
sometime
next
year,
based
on
a
few
other
loose
ends
yet
to
be
quantified.
D
N
AM
No,
we
did
not
address
that
in
the
hotline
post
and
it
is
that
amendment
is
not
in
that
list.
That
was
included
with
the
planning
board
motion.
N
Okay,
well
I'll
just
flag.
I
think
that's
probably
something
we
also.
I
was
interested
in
hearing
more
about
that
and
then
a
process
question
it.
You
know
you
gave
four
options
like
we
can
say:
yes,
we
can
amend,
we
can
straight
say
no.
What
happens
if
there's
like
a
a
game
of
chicken?
I
just
haven't
done
this
before.
So
what?
If
you
know,
we
don't
like
what
the
planning
board
did
and
the
planning
board
doesn't
like
what
we
do.
So
is
it
like
the
equal
rights
amendment?
N
AO
Thank
you,
david
gear,
interim
planning,
director
planning
and
development
services.
So
you
know
when
we
have,
there
have
been
times
when,
typically
we
resolve
it
and
we
bring
the
planning
board
and
the
council
into
alignment.
There
have
been
a
few
times
where
we
haven't
been
able
to
in
the
context
of
our
comprehensive
plan
and
in
those
cases
we
just
deemed
like
that,
little
section
is
not
approved
and
we
had
the
rest
of
the
document
approved.
N
D
W
Yeah,
I
just
had
a
question
around
the
engagement
for
some
of
the
airport,
this
m16
component,
that
seems
like
it
was
added
relatively
recently.
You
know.
One
of
the
things
that
I
really
appreciated
about
this
entire
process
is
how
much
engagement
there's
been,
how
diverse
the
sub
community
planning
group
was
and
how
much
feedback
they
provided,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
that,
because
it
seemed
like
the
engagement
process
for
this
m16
component
was
just
different
from
the
way
that
the
rest
of
this
has
unfolded.
AM
Yeah
you're
right
this
project
was
added
after
the
release
of
the
90
draft
and
we
have,
over
the
course
of
the
project,
met
with
and
had
meetings
out
at
the
airport
to
engage
airport
users
as
well
and
learned.
AM
AM
V
D
Do
you
mind,
because
I
because
I
had
I
was
going
to
ask
a
similar
question,
but
with
a
little
bit
more
directed
because
kathleen
I
was,
I
was
wondering,
if
possibly
to
address
the
the
potential
incompatibility
of
of
housing
along
the
north
side
of
western
avenue
across
the
street
or
across
the
railroad
tracks,
recording
pharma
if
we
could
add,
like
a
line
in
the
plan
to
say
that
that
that
section
should
not
be
re-zoned
to
allow
housing
until
or
unless
incompatible
incompatible,
heavy
industrial
uses
across
the
train
tracks
went
away.
D
AM
Yeah,
I
think,
if
council
wanted
to
propose
that
as
an
amendment
that
would
offer
a
solution
that
I
think
maintains
the
vision,
the
long-term
vision
for
that
area
and
the
plan
without
putting
some
of
the
conflicting
use,
concerns.
V
D
V
D
I
you
know
I
I
was
semi-pro
back
in
my
20s,
so
you
carry
a
big
burden
so
good.
That
was
my
question.
Any
other
questions
from
council
members
all
right.
Well,
we
do
not
have
a
public
hearing
on
this
again.
We've
already
taken
our
public
testimony.
So
here's
what
I'm
going
to
suggest
is
to
to
group
in
into
three
buckets
and
in
our
discussion,
and
one
is
the
non-substantive
planning
board
suggestions.
D
The
next
is
the
specific
two
substantive
ones
to
see
how
people
feel
about
those
and
then
invite
if
any
council
member
want
to
make
additional
amendments.
After
that
we
could
tackle
those.
If
so,
if
that's
a
minimal
default,
we
can.
We
can
tackle
things
in
that
order.
We've
seen
some
nod
in
heads
here,
so
is
it
possible
to
get
the
presentation
back
up
so
that
we
can
see
that
list
of
the
planning
board
amendments?
Please.
D
W
Yes,
I
have
one
and
I
apologize-
I'm
not
able.
I
can't
read
this
well
enough
to
find
it,
but
let
me
tell
you
what
I'm
talking
about
it's
the
part
that
was
related
to
the
considering
culture
and
I
think
doing
a
pilot
study
of
the
community
industry
use
is
that
one
in
here
it's.
W
Thank
you
so
yeah,
and
I
I
just
what
I
wanted
to
raise
is
that
I
think
maybe
there
wasn't
complete
understanding
of
what
it
was
that
emma
was
raising
with
this
point,
and
so
I
wanted
to
flag
it
because
in
my
mind,
it's
it
is
actually
a
really
interesting
and
powerful
idea.
I
think,
as
we're
thinking
about
development.
W
So
I
think
what
lml
was
getting
at
is
that
there's
a
space
in
the
west
belmont
park,
that's
going
to
lose
a
vibrant
community
and
a
creative
culture
and
losing
some
of
this
in
community
industrial
space.
This
culture
has
really
evolved
over
decades.
Lauren
and
I
went
and
visited
some
of
the
spaces
last
fall
and
were
able
to
talk
to
a
bunch
of
creators
there,
and
it
wasn't
just
really
a
space
for
people
to
build
electric
bikes
or
paint
or
make
jewelry.
W
It
was
a
space
where
people
found
community
and
I
think
what
what
this
culture
piece
is
asking
for
is
how
we
can
acknowledge
this
culture
as
we're,
changing
and
ensure
that
it
remains
by
giving
it
the
opportunity
to
evolve
as
this
area
changes.
And
I
think
this
is
the
pilot
that
ml
was
talking
about
that.
It's
not
a
pilot
of
community
industry
needs,
but
rather
a
pilot
that
looks
at
how
we
can
sustain
these
kind
of
microcosms
in
our
community,
these
sub-communities
that
are
really
creating
community
as
we're
moving
forward
with
development.
W
W
If
we
have
these
spaces
that
create
these
really
powerful,
sub-communities
and
microcosms,
where
people
are
able
to
come
together
in
a
way
that
they're
not
not
really
able
to
in
other
places
of
our
community,
how
can
we
not
just
erase
those
when
we're
developing
but
really
work
with
them
to
evolve
the
community
that
exists
there
when
lauren-
and
I
visited
this
group
of
creators,
one
of
the
things
they
said
was
you
know
we
really
don't
don't
mind
moving
as
long
as
there's
a
space
to
move
to,
and
so
it's
sort
of
thinking
about
how?
W
How
are
we
nurturing
these?
These
really
microcosms
of
the
spaces
as
we
move
forward,
because
that
small
community
that
exists
in
west
belmont
is
exactly
the
type
of
culture
that
we
can
really
experiment
with
and
and
think
about
how
we,
as
a
city,
can
support
the
the
evolution
of
that
community
through
a
big
massive
change.
W
I
know
that
wasn't
concise.
I
apologize,
but
I
think
it's
a
really
important
point
that
she
was
getting
at
and
that
idea
of
a
pilot
to
look
at
that
kind
of
thing.
How
we're
supporting
and
helping
microcosmic
communities
evolve
is
really
critical
to
me
to
me.
D
W
Yeah,
well,
I
think
in
the
in
the
staff
summary
and
response
there.
There
was
this
thinking
that
this
pilot
could
be
done.
It
didn't
need
to.
It
didn't
need
to
be
a
pilot
there.
W
It
could
just
be
a
study
of
community
industry,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
I
need
clear
need
changes
to
the
language,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
sharing
the
same
understanding
of
what
that
pilot
entails,
so
that
it's
not
just
a
say,
a
city-wide
study
of
community
industry
space
that
we
need,
because
we're
really
what
the
proposal
was
was
really
to
look
at
how
we
can
support
this
one
community
as
we're
developing
you
know
within
and
around
them,
and
then
kind
of
adapt
that
model
to
other
places
in
the
city
that
are
changing.
D
AM
Yeah,
I
do
think
that
that
clarification
was
very
helpful
to
better
understand
what
the
intention
of
the
pilot
was.
I
do
think
that
planning
board
has
covered
that
with
the
language
that
they
use,
but
I
I
definitely
understand
it
better.
Now.
D
G
So
I
I'm
glad
you
brought
more
clarity
to
that.
That's
an
issue
that
I
also
care
about
deeply
and
I
would
like
to
see-
maybe
the
language
clarified
a
little
bit
more
to
reflect
that,
because
when
I
read
those
two
items,
that's
not
the
takeaway
that
I
have
and
given
that
this
document
needs
to
sort
of
live
past,
you
know
into
future
councils
and
as
staff
changes.
I
think
I
would
like
to
see
a
little
bit
more
clarity
around
that
and
what
the
intention
is.
There.
D
D
So
go
back
one
more
step,
please
to
get
to
this
one.
Okay,
so
we've
got.
This
is
the
suggested
planing
board
language
here
and
then,
if
we
go
forward,
two
slides
we've
got
proposed
language
from
from
staff,
and
so
maybe
folks
could
weigh
in
briefly
on
which
approach
they
would
prefer
or
if
instead,
people
would
like
to
purchase.
AM
Yes,
I
think
we
had
updated
this
slide
later
this
afternoon
with
some
additional
language
to
try
to
get
get
a
little
bit
closer
to
planning
board's
intention.
AM
D
W
Yeah
I
just
I
wanted
to
ask
I
mean:
do
we
have
to
kind
of
include
the
m16
part?
I
just
I'm
I'm
concerned
that
it
really
didn't
go
through
the
engagement
process
that
everything
else
did,
and
so
I
think
it's
just
a
clarification
question
you
know
at
this
point.
Are
we
limited
to
just
making
changes
on
what's
been
proposed
or.
D
W
Yeah,
so
I
think
I
think
that
the
something
entirely
different
for
me
would
be
not
including
things
about
the
airport
in
here
and
really
just
including
that,
in
part
of
the
airport
master
plan
that
we're
going
to
be
working
on
anyway,
just
because
they're,
I
don't.
I
don't
feel
like.
There
was
the
degree
of
engagement
here
that
there
was
for
other
areas,
thanks
matt.
K
Thanks
aaron,
I
I
think
we're
I
I
mean
I
I
appreciate
where
staff's
trying
to
reconcile
the
comments,
and
so
it
was
posted
in
the
chat.
I
appreciate
that
being
a
little
stronger.
K
So
I
I'm
I'm
much
more
comfortable
with
actually
the
iteration
of
being
more
flexible,
not
saying
must,
but
maybe
that
we
will
consider
these
things,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
maximizing
the
housing
in
this
area
and
not
creating
limitations
to
that.
Based
on
how
we're
considering
the
airport's
influence
in
there.
D
Well,
I
think,
and
man
I'd
say
I
think
the
updated
language
tried
to
get
in,
I
think,
was
trying
to
move
in
that
direction
with
saying
minimize
adverse
impacts
to
the
goals
of
including
housing
and
mixed
use.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
like
that
one
better
or
if
you
prefer
no
language
like
nicole,
was
talking
about.
Do
you?
What's
your
preferred
purge.
K
N
I'm
sorry
I'm
moving
backwards.
We
went
so
fast
through
a
slide
that
was
so
small.
I
didn't
read
it
very
well,
but
I
think
that
a
couple
of
those
seven,
eight
and
nine
were
about
like
re-prioritizing
from
priority
two
to
priority.
One.
D
J
You
know
we
have
a
lot
of
complaints
about
airport
noise
and
so
I'm
concerned,
and-
and
I
assume
that
there's
reason
for
those
complaints-
I
don't
think
people
are
being
cry
babies,
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful,
and
so
I'm
not.
This
is
all
new
to
me.
This
is
new
language
and
it's
a
new
field.
So
how
can
we
be
sure
that
people
who
move
there
are
going
to
be
aware
that
there's
noise?
J
So
we
don't
continue
to
have
community
members
that
have
high
expectations
and
then
get
there
and
it's
too
noisy
for
them.
I
think
we
need
to
protect
community
members
from
noise,
so
does
this
have
anything
to
do?
Although
housing
is
important,
it's
also
not
great
for
people
to
not
be
happy
in
their
house.
D
Well,
I
think
that
this
this
language
here
the
first
part
of
it,
is
about
conducting
a
level
of
noise
study
that
would
try
to
look
at
that.
So
I
think
that,
as
I
understand
that
that's
the
intention
of
the
first
part
of
this
language.
AO
Yeah,
I
think
that
that's
correct
and
I
would
ask
john
kenny
to
fire
up
his
microphone
if
he
wants
to
follow
up.
AO
But
you
know
I
don't
know
that
this
is
a
really
big
deal,
and
I
say
that
because
really
pretty
much
what's
in
this
statement
is
kind
of
what's
on
the
work
plan,
so
we're
kind
of
restating
the
work
plan
and
we're
also
trying
to
also
say
and
in
continuing
our
work
through
our
work
plan,
we're
going
to
try
to
make
sure
and
prioritize
housing
as
an
important
feature
of
the
plan
so
that
there
is
step
one
and
then
step
two
when
you
get
into
like
the
regulatory
approach
to
the
airport
influence
zones,
once
you
get
away
from
the
runway
area
and
the
takeoff
and
landing
zones
which
are
already
regulated
pursuant
to
faa
standards.
AO
Those
those
subsequent
provisions
are
mostly
about
notice
to
property
owners.
So
I
think
it
kind
of
gets
to
that
issue.
How
effective
that
notice
is.
We
could
probably
debate
but,
but
I
think
that
that's
the
intent
behind
the
regulatory
requirements
once
you
get
into
three
and
four
and
some
communities
have
created
an
air
for
port
influence
zone.
Five,
which
is
you
know,
presumably
even
less
regulatory
on
uses
of
lands
than
even
three
and
four.
D
V
So
it
seemed
to
me
that
was
addressing
your
concern
and
its
language,
I
think
is,
is
a
useful
balance
to
you
know
for,
for
purposes
of
taking
a
look
at
the
noise
conditions
there
and
how
we
respond
to
them,
but
doing
so
with
an
eye
towards
carrying
out
the
goals
of
the
sub-community
plan.
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
this
is
this.
Language
is
going
to
create
any
barrier
of
substance
to
to
creating
housing.
K
Market
and
it
may
not
create
barriers
of
just
you
know,
changing
the
influence
zone
based
on
the
housing
we
hope
to
achieve
for
people
who
are
in
the
future
going
to
move
next
to
an
airport
full
well
knowing
so
I
just
don't
want
those
things
to
be
a
limiter
to
it.
So
if,
if
the
outcome
is
not,
then
I'm
okay
with
it,
I
think
it's
more
of
a
qualitative
prerequisite
that
we
aren't
limiting
housing.
K
D
Thanks,
oh
thanks
mark
I'll,
go
ahead
and
call
on
myself.
I
I
don't
feel
really
strongly
about
this.
I
think
david's
point
about
this,
isn't
a
huge
deal.
It
is
a
fairly.
I
think
it's
a
good
one
in
terms
of
like,
I
think,
the
the
airport
master
plan,
I
think,
is
where
the
real
work
around
this
issue
will
happen.
D
So
I
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
nicole's
approach
of
not
adding
in
anything
because
it
didn't
give
it
as
much
engagement,
but
I'm
also
fine
with
the
staff
recommendation,
which
seems
to
balance
out
the
different
issues
as
well
so
either.
One
of
those
is
acceptable
to
me
the
the
plain
board
one.
I
appreciate
their
intention.
That
is
a
little
too
specific
for
my
taste.
D
So
I
wonder
if
we
might
do
a
straw
poll
at
this
point,
if
that's
a
right
with
folks,
I'm
hearing,
maybe
three
three
things:
one
would
be
no
language
changes
and
then
another
one.
No
one's
spoken
up
for
both
without
the
planning
board
language
and
the
third
would
be
the
staff's
recommended
language
with
the
update
and
that
they
put
in
the
chat
and
read
it
out
loud.
V
The
question
is
the
staff
recommendation
in
lieu
of
the
underlying
language,
or
is
it
an
additive
to
the
underlying
language?
In
other
words,
a
paragraph
that
starts
one
conductive
noise
level
study
a
level
of
noise
study
or
does
the
staff
recommendations
simply
contain
the
language
changes
to
the
airport
influence
zone
must
be
considered,
I'm
not
sure.
V
N
I
had
a
question
to
aaron,
which
is
just
is
option
number
one,
rejecting
the
planning
board
and
staff's
language,
and
just
not
adding
anything.
Is
that
what
that
one
means
striking.
D
AM
AM
Let
me
give
me
a
second
to
pull
it
up.
I
lost
all
my
my
files
when
my
computer
shut
down,
but
I'll
have
it
in
just
a
moment.
W
That's
aaron,
may
I
clarify
what
I
was
asking
for,
though
please
so.
What
I
was
basically
saying
was
that
whole
m16
part
not
not,
including
that,
because
that
that
is
the
piece
to
me
that
feels
like
just
didn't:
go
through
the
engagement
process
that
everything
else
in
there
went
through
and
the
airport
is
a
huge
area,
and
it
just
this.
W
This
is,
I
think,
one
of
the
concerns
I
was
bringing
up
a
couple
weeks
ago
when
we
were
talking
about
this
is
how
can
we
make
sure
that
the
any
amendments
and
changes
go
through
a
really
thoughtful
and
thorough
engagement
process?
And
this
to
me
is
sort
of
an
example
of
exactly
what
I
was
hoping.
We
could
try
to
avoid
where
things
are
just
kind
of
getting
input
from
a
specific
set
of
the
community,
where
it's
not
as
as
involved,
and
so
for
me.
D
W
AM
Yes,
that's
right,
it
is
new,
and
so
I
think
you're
proposing
your
amendment
would
be
that
we
would
remove
m16
entirely
from
the
platform.
A
AM
AM
AM
Yeah,
so
planning
board
proposed
language
just
to
this
key.
AM
Oh
sorry,
zoom
quit
unexpected.
Y
E
D
I
No,
I
think
I
wanna.
I
want
to
wait
to
see
the
full
language.
I
had
a
question
about
the
comment
made
by
nicole,
because
when
I
was
looking
at
the
proposed
change
by
staff
and
the
language
proposed
by
the
planning
board,
they're
practically
the
same,
there's
no
real
differences,
except
for
the
should
seek
to
minimize
adverse
impact.
So
I
didn't
see
any
difference
between
that.
D
D
AM
Yes,
I
can,
I
hope
I
can't
see
okay,
okay,
so
I'm
not
sure
when
I
got
kicked
off,
but
what
I
was
trying
to
describe
earlier
is
planning
board
the
planning
board.
Amendment
was
just
to
this
key
steps
section,
but
there
are,
you
know,
other
descriptions
and
let
me
know
if
I'm
making
you
dizzy
for
this
project.
D
AM
After
the
90
draft
between
the
90
and
the
latest
draft
version
of
the
plan,
so
it
was
not.
This
project
was
not
included
when
the
90
draft
was
posted
for
community
feedback.
D
Okay,
so
nicole
is
proposing
to
strike
m16
entirely
good
to
understand
that
and
then
can.
Can
we
please
to
junior's
point,
get
up
the
two
language
versions
again
of
the
potential
amendments
to
the
key
steps,
and
then
we
can
move
forward
with
a.
AM
So
this
is
the
planning
board
proposal.
D
So
plain
word
was
proposing
amending
key
steps
to
this
updated
language,
so
that
you
can
see
in
in
bold.
You
need
to
your
point
that
it
talks
about
allowing
expansions
of
zone
three
and
four
but
not
zone,
one
or
two,
and
then
kathleen.
If
we
can
get
the
staff
recommendation.
D
AM
AM
Y
U
D
I
No,
I
I
think
it
did.
I
think
maria
summed
it
up
exactly
how
I
thought
I
saw
it,
but
I
think
maybe
my
question
to
nicole
I'm
trying
to
understand
why
I
think
I
did
hear
you,
but
I
just
want
to
understand
it
better.
Why
would
you
want
to
strike
the
entire
thing
and
from
my
understanding
is
that
you're
saying
that
it
doesn't
reflect
the
community
outreach
and
input
that
we
want?
I
So
I'm
wondering
is
there
a
way
instead
of
striking
it,
because
I
am
I
I'm
thinking
that
might
be
something
that
is
necessary.
This
type
of
level
of
noise
study,
especially
knowing
that
community
members
have
been
really
upset
a
lot
of
times
when
it
comes
to
you
know
the
noise
around
the
airport,
so
I'm
wondering
instead
of
striking
it
is
there
a
way
we
can
find
a
balance
where
we
can
actually
add
the
stuff
that
you
would
like,
as
opposed
to
striking
it.
W
Well-
and
I
think
junior
you're
kind
of
getting
to
the
heart
of
of
why
this
is
a
little
problematic
for
me,
you
know
the
people
who
show
up
in
our
council
in
boxes-
and
I
do
not
mean
to
dismiss
anybody's
opinion
who's
taking
time
to
write
us.
I
genuinely
appreciate
that
you
do
that.
This
is
just
for
the
folks
that
are
not
writing
to
us
right,
we're
not
hearing
from
anybody
else
and
that's
what
I've
so
appreciated
about
this
engagement
process
is
that
it
has
been
so
inclusive.
W
We
may
not
typically
hear
from
in
our
inboxes,
and
that's
for
me
what's
missing
with
this
component,
and
I
don't
know
if,
where
we
are,
is
still
a
place
where
any
more
engagement
can
be
done
at
this
moment,
and
that's
that's
where
I'm
coming
from,
it
seems
like
that
ship
has
sailed,
and
so,
given
that
we
haven't
heard
from
other
people,
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
the
san
lazaro
people
were
asked
about
airport
noise,
or
you
know
the
folks
who
were
living
over
by
the
airport
now
or
anything
like
that
right.
W
I
hear
that
there
was
a
group
of
airport
users
who
were
involved,
which
is
wonderful
and
there
are
more
people
that
I
think
are
are
potentially
involved
here
and
and
that's
that's
where
my
concern
is-
and
I
think
what
planning
board
was
was
raising,
was
a
direct
concern
that
if,
if
the
airport
sorry
airport
influence
zone
is
changing
right,
then
that
might
limit
future
residential
development.
W
That's
planned,
and
so
I
think,
a
way
to
kind
of
get
it
that
that's
in
line
with
planning
board
would
be
to
say
something
like
expansion
of
the
airport
influenza
and
will
not
curtail
future
residential
development,
or
something
like
that.
I
think
that
would
capture
the
spirit
of
what
what
they're
trying
to
get
to,
but
my
fundamental
issue
is
just
who
wasn't
there
for
that
conversation,
it
just
feels
categorically
different
from
the
way
that
many
of
these
other
projects
and
things
unfolded.
D
It's
nicole
mark
and
I'll
call
myself.
V
Yeah,
I
I
just
think
that
the
language
we've
got
with
the
staff
recommendation
does
not
prohibit
or
govern
anything.
It
simply
sets
out
that
if
we
conduct
an
analytical
study
of
noise-
and
it
compels
us
to
make
a
change
to
the
influence
zones,
we
have
to
do
it
by
being
mindful
of
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
sub
community
plan.
V
It
doesn't.
It
doesn't
predetermine
any
particular
outcome
if
we're
going
to
suggest
that
there
are
no
conditions
of
any
kind
that
would
lead
us
to
amend
a
an
influence
zone,
no
matter
what
the
level
of
noise
or
disruption
might
might
be
involved.
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
very
sound
approach
and
in
terms
of
engagement
I
mean
we,
we
kind
of
know
that
there
are
two
groups
of
people.
We
have
airport
users
who
have
one
view
we
have
neighbors
who
have
another
view.
V
I
I
doubt
that
there's
a
hidden
majority
of
people
living
near
the
airport
who
are
delighted
to
have
noise,
I'm
not
sure,
there's
another
group
out
there
that
are
advocates
for
more
noise,
so
I'm
pretty
sure
we've
we've
seen.
What's
there
there
are
concerned
neighbors
people
who
are
very
concerned
with
the
operation
of
the
airport
and
its
noise.
There
are
users
who
are
not,
and
you
know
I
I
think,
we've
gotten
a
full
sample
of
of
where
people
stand
on
this
and
nothing
we're
doing
tonight
is
going
to
fundamentally
change
anything.
D
What's
that
mark
I'm
calling
on
myself
when
I
got
other
people,
I'm
just
going
to
speak
again,
just
because
I
had
misunderstood
nicole's
proposal
before
and
nicole.
Your
point
about
engagement
is
is
a
good
one
in
in
general,
I
do
feel
like
there's
a
value
to
having
the
716
bullet
point,
and
so
I
think
airport
noise
is
a
universal
irritant.
How
much
it
irritates,
who
varies
person
to
person,
depending
on
your
life
circumstances,
but
feel
like
a
noise
study
could
be
helpful.
D
So
I
I
I'll
go
with
the
staff
recommendation,
but
I
also
we
got
a
lot
more
to
talk
about
here,
folks,
so
I'd
love
to
get
us
to
straw
polls,
so
we
could
can
figure
out
how
we're
moving
forward,
but
tara,
lauren
and
rachel.
J
I
was
just
gonna
agree
with
mark,
so
I
will
agree
with
mark
that
noise
is
really
annoying
annoying
and
I
can't
imagine
who
close
to
an
airport
would
not
feel
that
way,
especially
people
that
don't
mention
it
that
don't
write
to
council
they're,
probably
super
aggravated.
So
I'm
going
to
agree
with
mark
and
aaron
on
this.
G
I
was
thinking
that,
maybe,
while
I
think
a
zone,
a
noise
study,
you
know
it's
always
good
to
have
more
information.
The
thing
that
this
to
me
says
is
that
we'll
look
at
restrictions
on
buildings.
It
doesn't
say
that
we
might
also
look
at
restrictions
on
the
airport,
and
so
maybe
there's
a
way
to
make
it
more.
Even
by
saying
it
could
you
know
we
might
increase
the
airport
influence
zone
or
take
this
into
account
in
our
airport
master
plan.
D
You
can
always
direct
it
to
the
master
plan.
This
is
another
another
possible
option
there
that
might
boot
it
to
a
separate
process
that
might
be
where
this
fundamentally
belongs.
Rachel.
N
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
point.
I
appreciate
nicole's
point.
I
do
think
we're
going
to
get
engagement
on
this
through
the
master
plan.
So
I'm
not
as
worried
about
that
component.
I
did
really
like
nicole's
sort
of
last
minute
add-on
about
like
just
having
some
concrete
language
in
there.
What
we're
not
trying
to
do,
which
is
to
inhibit
housing
here,
so
I
might
propose
that
we
adopt
whenever
she
had
some
good
language
there.
That
was
a
sentence
of
you
know.
N
D
Okay,
because
a
planning
board
was
very
specific
in
terms
of
zone
numbers,
but
you
know
saying
instead
have
language
that
said,
that
zones
should
not
be
changed
to
eliminate
housing
potential.
Is
that
where.
N
Nicole
said
it
better
than
I'm
remembering
it,
and
I
I
mean
to
add
it
to
staffs
language,
I
thought
staff's
language
was
just
fine.
D
AO
AO
AO
It's
it's.
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
regulatory
in
in
any
significant
way,
and
if
john
kenny
disagrees
with
what
I
just
said,
I
I
I
ask
you
to
correct
any
anything
that
I
just.
AN
Dave,
I
don't.
I
don't
disagree
with
anything.
You
just
said
I
would
just
amplify
that
doing
a
part
150
study
or
having
an
airport
influenced
zone.
You
have
two
components:
one
is
restriction
of
heights
in
the
immediate
corridor
of
arrivals
and
departures,
so
off
the
ends
of
your
runway,
potentially
off
the
side.
If
it's
a
corridor
for
helicopters,
that's
one
aspect
and
the
other
is
disclosure.
AO
Yeah
yeah
and
we
and
we've
already
we're
done
regulating
the
runway
and
we're
done
regulating
the
takeoff
and
landing
zones.
That's
already
done.
Those
won't
be
expanded,
so
alls,
we're
really
talking
about.
Is
disclosure
zones,
so
you
know
it
when
I
kind
of
started.
It's
like
this.
Isn't
a
super
regulatory
thing
we're
talking
about
it's
more
about
using
the
process
appropriately,
that
the
federal
government
has
laid
out
about
how
you
look
at
these
topics
so.
D
D
So
let
me
just
john
we're
talking
about
tying
this
to
the
airport
master
plan.
If
we,
if
we
added
language
to
the
key
steps
to
say
something
like
as
part
of
the
adoption
of
an
updated
airport
master
plan,
conduct
the
noise
study.
Or
what
have
you
do
you
feel
like
that
would
be
a
reasonable
route
to
take
to
shunt
it
kind
of
identify
as
part
of
that
effort.
AN
W
AO
AO
So
so
it
was
from
that
feedback
that
led
to
this,
if
you
guys
took
it
out,
it's
part
of
our
work
plan.
All
of
this
is
part
of
our
work
plan
and
we'll
continue
to
do
it.
So
if
you
were
to
say,
take
it
out
or
use
the
language
that
staff
has
proposed,
I
think
that
both
transportation
and
mobility
and
planning
and
development
services
would
be
fine
with
either
outcome.
D
Very
good,
so
maybe
I
think
we're
going
to
be
okay
kind
of
whatever
path
we
take
here
so
and
I
think
sort
of
two
approaches:
either
one
can
work
fine.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
straw
poll
and
the
we
don't
have
the
exact
language
here,
but
I
think
item
I
think,
option
number
one
would
be
deleting
m16
from
the
plan
entirely
and
we'll
call
option
two
playing
boards,
exact
language
and
option.
D
So
are
people
okay
with
those
three
options
for
a
straw
poll:
okay,
I'm
seeing
some
scene
on
heads
so
we'll
start
with
removing
m16
entirely
from
the
plan.
We
get
show
fans
all
right.
I
got.
I
got
a
couple
three.
We
got
three
three
hands
here.
Second,
we
got
planning
board's
exact
language.
D
N
To
go
backwards,
but
I
just
want
to
understand
something
that
I
I
see
so
under.
I
think
it
was
seven
eight
and
nine
there
were
requests
to
change
things
from
priority
two
to
priority.
One
and
the
staff
feedback
was
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
plan
and
then
there's
language
similar
in
all
of
these
to
prioritize
prioritization
of
this
program
will
require
in
the
program's
community
benefit
like
revisiting.
I
think
expansion
of
community
benefit
will
require
staff
resourcing
in
the
next
five
years.
N
So
I
wanted
to
understand
that
better,
because
we're
always
hearing
about
how
we
don't
have
enough
really
specifically
planning
board
staff
and
resources.
So
if
we
say
yes
to
planning
boards
changes
here
on
789
reprioritizing
will
we
hear
say
in
a
future
retreat?
Well,
you
already
said
in
the
east
boulder
sub
community
plan
do
community
benefits,
and
then
maybe
we
want
to
look
at
you
know
middle
income,
housing
or
something
and
we've
really
locked
ourselves
in.
So
I
just
wanted
to
understand
what
that
language
exactly
means.
AM
Sure
so
the
way
that
the
projects
are
prioritized
in
the
plan,
a
priority
number
one
means
we
will
work
on
addressing
that
in
the
next
five
years,
and
so
by
adding
to
that
priority
number
one
list.
We
need
more
resources
to
be
able
to
take
on
all
of
the
the
the
longer
list
of
priority
projects.
AM
Works
with
how
you
might
consider
work
plan
when
it
comes
to
retreat.
I
might
look
to
nuria
to
talk
through
that.
U
I
mean
and
I'm
open
to.
I
appreciate
that
kathleen.
I
think
it
will
depend
right.
I
wish
I
had
a
better
answer,
but
if
we
are
staffed
up,
if
we
continue
to
get
more
by
the
time
that
sort
of
first
five
year
comes
up,
we
may
be
in
a
different
place
with
some
of
the
projects
and
I
think
it'll
be
conversations
that
we
have
continuously
with.
What
does
that
look
like
right
now?
It
is
on
the
work
plan.
U
If
at
the
next
council
retreat
council
says
you
know
what
we
have
completely
different
priorities,
and
we
want
to
prioritize
that,
then
we
will
bring
it
back
to
council
and
say,
but
you
had
prioritized
this,
and
this
is
what
we
have
we'll.
Have
that
candid
conversation
with
you
all.
However,
we
do
but
it's
hard
to
say
what
that's
going
to
do
unless
we
know
concretely
what
what
are
the
other
asks
that
may
infringe
on
this
particular
commitment
david.
Am
I
right
in
that
or.
AO
Yeah,
no,
I
I
agree
completely
with
that
area,
and
just
one
thing
that
you
know
the
staff
does
look
in
terms
of
work
planning.
It
looks
at
its
sub-community
plans
and
area
plans
quite
closely
and
we
do
use
them
to
both
guide
our
work,
planning
efforts,
budgetary
efforts,
regulatory
efforts,
all
of
those
things
so,
to
some
extent
it
is
important.
On
the
other
side,
plans
are
advisory
in
nature
and
the
council's
in
charge
of
the
budget.
AO
So
you,
ultimately,
you
know,
have
the
final
say
in
how
things
will
continue
to
be
prioritized
in
future
years.
N
Okay,
thanks
for
that,
I
guess
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
and
if,
if
I'm
file,
if
I'm
understanding,
even
what
we're
talking
about
here
like
community
benefit
being
the
same
thing,
we
tried
and
failed
on
for
the
last
two
years
is
what
we're
talking
about
re-lifting
up
and
prioritizing.
N
Not
I
probably
don't
want
to
do
these
three
recommendations
by
the
planning
board,
because
I'm
not,
I
don't
feel
like
we've,
had
a
robust
conversation
about
like
this
is
a
super
top
priority
within
this,
even
just
within
this,
this
sub
community
plan,
let
alone
the
context
of
our
whole
work
plan.
So
I
I
probably
reject
reject
seven
eight.
Nine
thanks.
D
N
Yeah,
I
don't,
I
don't
even
know
if
any
of
us
are
looking
at
the
same
documents
today
that
I
think
what
I'm
looking
at
is
change
program
h9
from
a
priority
two
to
priority,
one
that
was
number
seven
in
the.
I
guess,
email
that
kathleen
sent
out
sorry
number
eight
change
program,
b6
from
a
priority
tutor
priority.
One
number
nine
was
change
program,
r8
from
a
priority
two
to
a
priority
one
and
those
would
be
program,
those
programs-
all.
N
I
think-
and
I
hope
kathleen's
going
to
correct
me
if
I'm
just
getting
this
all
wrong,
but
our
describing
updates
to
community
benefit
program
and
planning
board
members
prefer
to
prioritize
these
programs
in
the
near
term.
D
D
D
Ready,
sorry,
not
accepting
those
three
to
keep
them
in
priority
two
for
work
plan,
compatibility
reasons.
So
lauren
did
you
want
to
speak
to
that.
G
Yeah,
I
guess
my
only
I
mean
I
agree
with
the
concerns
that
rachel
brought
up,
but
my
sort
of
counter
argument
is
also
the
community
benefit
for
the
I
think,
for
the
commercial
space
is
largely
about
trying
to
keep
existing
businesses
and,
to
a
certain
extent,
if
that's
not
done,
you
know
like
that,
has
to
be
done
with
a
certain
on
a
certain
timeline
before
redevelopment
or
else
there's
not
a
lot
of
point
in
doing
it,
because
once
you
lose
the
businesses
then,
but
so
I
don't
know,
that's
just
my
two
cents
on
that.
D
All
right
so
all
in
favor
of
rachel's
proposal
to
keep
those
as
priority
two
rather
movement
party,
one.
D
D
D
Fair
point:
well,
nicole,
while
we're
talking
to
you,
do
you
have
proposed
language
on
the
other,
one
of
those
other
non-substantive
thing,
the
one
that
you
and
lauren
were
addressing
yeah.
W
Let
me
find
it
okay,
sorry,
I
put
it
in
the
chat.
Let
me
find
it
use
the
west
belmont
park
area
as
a
pilot
study
for
how
the
city
can
work
with
communities
in
the
midst
of
change.
Helping
them
evolve
such
that
the
social
infrastructure
that
has
developed
around
unique
place
types
can
be
sustained
and
thrive
in
the
midst
of
change.
AM
So
I
think
you
know
really
the
intention
behind
the
projects
that's
described
as
the
industrial
land
study
was
really
about
inventorying,
our
industrial
lands,
understanding
how
they're
being
used
and
what
the
trends
are
and
how
that's
changing,
because
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
questions
about
that
throughout
this
east,
boulder,
sub-community
planning
process
and
even
beyond,
when
we
look
to
areas
that
are
zoned
or
have
land
use
designations
for
industrial.
AM
So
I
think
that
this
idea
of
a
pilot
project
might
be
a
a
separate
project.
So
you
may
propose
an
amendment
that
this
is
a
new
project
to
the
plan.
W
Okay,
that
makes
sense
so
yeah.
I
think
then
I
would
propose
this
as
an
amendment
just
to
reflect
what
I
think
planning
board
was
kind
of
getting
at
in
their
discussion.
AM
And
would
you
send
me
that
language
either
in
the
chat
or
via
email
just
so
I
can
make
sure
I
have
the
exact
stuff.
D
So
then,
I
I
think
what
what
you're
proposing
in
the
co-op
understand
is
currently
item
number
three
from
planning
board
was
project
d15
key
steps
should
be
edited
as
follows:
develop
scope
and
schedule
for
a
pilot
project
using
belmont
park
west,
and
I
think
instead
you'd
be
saying,
add
a
new
io
project.
D17
with
the
language
that
you
proposed
is.
Is
that
correct.
W
Yes,
well,
I
I
think
so
I
because
I
it
sounds
like
kathleen.
What
you're
saying
is
that
others
have
talked
about
doing
a
city-wide
study
of
this
industrial
space
use
and
then
what
I
think
planning
board
was
trying
to
elevate,
was
doing
a
pilot
study
on
how
to
maintain
culture
like
the
language
that
I
just
sent
you
so
yes,
I
think
it
would
have
to
be
a
separate
thing.
D
Okay.
Sorry,
if
I
call
for
a
straw
poll
on
that
one
nicole
proposal,
okay,
so
all
in
favor
of
shifting
planning
board's
recommendation
to
a
new
d17
project
with
language
that
nicole
proposed
all
in
favor,
raise
your.
D
Hand
like
we
got
six
on
that
one,
so
that's
clears
the
threshold
to
make
that
change.
Okay,
great
all
right,
I
think
we
got
one
more
planning
board
change
to
talk
over
here.
All
right.
Let's,
let's
move
on
to
that,
we
got
one
more
about
the
job
cap
concept.
They're
item
number
five,
so
kathleen!
Could
we
get
that
language
up
on
there?
Please?
The
plain
word
proposal
in
the
staff
proposal.
AM
D
F
AM
Yes,
so
what
planning
board
is
proposing
is
that
we
study
and
offer
a
tool,
a
regulatory
tool
that
would
potentially
not
potentially
that
would
limit
job
growth
in
flatiron
business
parks,
specifically
to
a
total
of
5
000
jobs,
and
they
came
to
that
number
because
our
overall
projection
for
jobs
in
east
boulder
is
a
little
over
20
000..
AM
Today
the
flatiron
business
park,
exact
number
of
jobs,
makes
up
24
of
the
total
number
of
jobs
in
east
boulder
and
so
5
000
is
approximately
24
of
the
projected
number
of
jobs.
AM
So
the
reason
that
staff
is
proposing
alternative
language
to
that
is,
you
know
the
jobs.
Projections
are
really
assumption
based
and
particularly
when
we're
looking
at
really
large
areas
like
this,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
necessarily
create
a
tool.
That's
that's,
based
on
this
metric
that
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
kind
of
mathematic
acrobatics
that
we
do
to
to
get
to
those
jobs,
numbers
and
also
our
policy
in
the
comp
plan
doesn't
about
the
jobs
to
housing.
AM
Balance
doesn't
include
strategies
for
capping,
job
growth
and
this
that
the
planning
board
proposal
is
really
indicating
a
cap
for
job
growth
for
just
the
business
park,
and
so
the
language
that
staff
proposed
is.
We
will.
You
know,
of
course,
propose
and
model
different
options
for
code
and
zoning
changes
in
that
area,
so
that
we
can
understand
how
any
regulatory
tools
that
we
may
use
in
the
future
would
impact
or
affect
the
jobs
to
housing
balance,
but
that
we
would
not
include
a
cap
in
that
proposal.
K
Aaron,
I
I
think
it's
really
inconsistent
and
and
borderline
and
appropriate
for
us
to
be
creating
tools
to
cap
jobs
in
our
community.
I'll,
just
be
pretty
clear
on
that
I
mean
it's.
We
we
live
on
having
people
have
jobs.
This
is
what
economies
are
all
about,
so
so
I
I
don't
see
a
need
to
have
anything
in
there
at
all
to
be
honest,
that
that
even
does
any
of
this
it
doesn't,
it
just
doesn't
seem
to
fit
with
any
of
what
we're
doing
it.
It
just
doesn't
seem
appropriate.
K
So
I
would
just
strike
this
out
altogether.
I
I
could
be
convinced
to
put
the
staff
recommendation
in,
but
my
preference
is
to
leave
this
out.
I
don't
think
we
need.
We
want
to
talk
about
far.
Let's
talk
about
far
in
its
own
application
in
zoning
in
its
own
areas,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
tie
it
to
anything
so
I'd
say
just
strip
it
out.
I
I
It's
not
in
line
with
any
values
that
you
know
is
about
economic
growth
or
economic
vibrancy
in
a
neighborhood
or
community.
But
actually
I
am
looking
at
the
document
and
I'm
looking
at
for
the
id
number.
When
I
saw
on
the
screen
earlier,
I
thought
I
saw
d9
and
I
don't
is
it
d9.
G
I
All
right,
it
just
yeah
and
maybe
that's
part
of
the
inconsistency,
because
I
was
looking
at
d9
and
I
was
thinking
okay.
Where
does
this
fit
in
this
idea
of
a
cap
and
it
doesn't
fit
anywhere
in
that
itself.
So
thank
you
for
that.
D
N
Yeah
I
I
would
not
favor
capping
jobs
like
at
a
job
center,
especially
you
know.
The
location
that
we're
talking
about
makes
makes
really
little
sense
to
me,
but
also
you
know
we're
at
the
we're
at
100.
So
for
this
to
get
lifted
up,
you
know
in
the
last
week
or
two
weeks.
It's
also
like
just,
I
think,
something
that
that
didn't
get
well
baked
in
and-
and
you
know,
I
think
it's
there's
a
theme
for
me
with
some
of
these
recommendations.
N
You
know
getting
at
nicole's
engagement
point
but
also
like
what
I
was
just
saying
with
regard
to
lifting
up
community
benefits
at
the
last
minute.
Again,
like.
I
think
that
these
are
not
100,
you
know,
plan
ideas,
so
I
I
hope
we
can
do
a
straw
poll
pretty
soon
on
this
thanks.
V
Go
ahead,
yeah.
I
I'm
gonna
support
the
staff
recommendation
on
this
I
mean,
if
we're
proceeding
with
a
document,
that's
going
to
permit
20,
000,
new
jobs
and
kathleen.
I
believe
you
suggested
to
us
in
a
chart
that
we
were
going
to
this,
could
produce
5
000
new
housing
units.
V
We
may
not
want
to
put
a
cap
on
anything
but
to
simply
not
recognize
that
situation
and
to
say
you
know:
20
000
jobs,
5,
000
houses,
that's
not
really
going
to
cut
it
in
terms
of
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance,
so
either
we
need
to
abandon
that
as
a
principle
or
at
least
to
give
it
a
little
bit
of
recognition
here
as
we
proceed
forward
and
again,
this
is
the
staff
proposal
is
not
a
cap,
but
it's
at
least
a
recognition
that
we
have
to
keep
one
eye
on
a
problem.
V
That's
been
plaguing
us
for
quite
a
long
time
doesn't
say
we're
going
to
kind
of
cap
jobs.
It
doesn't
say
we're
going
to.
You
know
restrict
jobs,
but
you
have
to
have
at
least
some
token
acknowledgement
that
we
have
a
problem
here
or
let's
get
rid
of
the
the
doctrine
entirely
and
then
simply
say
it's
leslie
fair.
Let's
build
every
housing
unit,
we
can
and
let's
get
every
job
that
we
can
and
we'll
worry
about
infrastructure,
traffic
and
water
at
a
later
date.
But
let's
at
least
be
honest
about
it.
D
N
D
D
D
Yeah:
okay:
let's
do
that
again:
okay,
so
option
one,
not
making
any
language
changes
to
d9
whatsoever
right
and
now
we're
up
to
seven
so
that
passes
I'll.
Just
we
won't
do
the
other
two
options.
If
you
don't
mind
so
okay,
so
we
will
not
make
any
changes
in
this
area.
Okay,
so
that
gets
us
through
the
planning
board
stuff
and
now
there's
a
question
about
whether
people
want
to
do
extra
things-
and
I
do
have
one
little
one
in
mind.
D
But
hopefully
we
don't
have
three
hours
of
additional
amendments,
but
who,
who
wants
to
anybody
else
want
to
chime
in
before?
I
go
back
to
my
concept.
D
All
right,
let
me
just
sorry:
I've
been
busy
doing
other
things,
so
this
was,
I
believe,
each
one.
D
Okay,
so
so
my
suggestion
is
this
is
about
that
this
isn't
policy
h1
about
the
development
of
new
housing
in
east
boulder,
and
this
the
last
sentence
of
that
is
opportunities
for
the
development
of
housing.
Strategic
locations
will
be
supported
through
land
use
and
zoning
updates
and
my
proposal
would
be
to
say.
D
D
Kathleen
did
that
that
was
a
little
quick
did
that
come
through
okay,
great
comments
on
that
we
got
matt
and
rachel.
K
Aaron
thanks
for
bringing
this
this
modification,
I
I
brought.
I
brought
this
up
at
any
subsequent
meetings
on
this
issue
and
I
think
that's
an
adequate
way
to
resolve
it
without,
while
maintaining
flexibility
which
to
me
is
so
core
to
an
area
plan,
is
that
it's
flexible,
we're
not
locking
ourselves
in,
but
we
do
have
an
incompatibility
now,
but
that
doesn't
then
force
us
into
a
particular
direction,
10
20
years
from
now,
if
there's
a
change
according
so
so
thank
you
for
that
amendment.
N
I
generally
like
it
okay,
you
know,
I
think
it's
kind
of
also
a
last
minute
lift
and
you
know
I
feel
like
we.
We
got
this
from
a
particular
kind
of
side
and-
and
I
I
would
I
guess
I
would
just
be
a
little
bit
concerned
about
like
preferential-
I
don't
know
treatment
or
dealings
or
just
you
know,
kind
of
like
nicole
said
earlier,
who
didn't
we
hear
from
on
this?
N
So
and,
and
so
it
makes
sense,
but
I
have
concerns
about
it
and-
and
I
don't
know
quite
how
to
reconcile
those-
and
it
seemed
like
when
we,
when
we
toured
and
looked
at
the
maps
like
conestoga
is,
you
know,
was
really
being
activated
in
sort
of
a
highlight
street
and
that's
the
dead
ends
into
this
area.
So
I
don't
know
how
much
in
staffs
or
the
plans
or
the
people
who
did
participate
mind's
eyes
like
housing
right.
There
was
a
big,
a
a
great
feature.
N
I
I
just
I
feel
like
it's
last
minute.
I
wish
I
had
more
information.
I
don't
want
people
living,
you
know
right
across.
You
know
right
next
to
railroad
tracks
and
across
from
you
know,
industrial
waste,
so
I
it
seems
like
we
shouldn't,
allow
that
even
without
this
amendment,
though
so
that's
maybe
just
a
bigger
question
like.
Why
would
we
have?
Why
would
we
ever
put
housing
in
some
of
the
places
that
we're
trying
to
protect
tonight?
N
You
know
airport
noise
or
next
to
railroad
tracks,
and
you
know
in
line
of
sight
of
24-hour
lighting
and
and
industry.
So
I
I
don't
know
how
I'm
gonna
vote
yet.
I
I
see
both
sides.
I
guess.
D
Fair
enough
junior
got
kicked
out
and
is
in
the
attendee
list.
Can
we
get
her
promoted
back
in
as
a
panelist?
Please.
D
All
right,
jimmy's
back
welcome
back
ginny,
okay,
we
got
nicole
tara
and
I'll
just
throw
in
one
quick
comment
after
that.
W
W
I
think,
there's
some
design
features
that
are
there
like
trees
and
setbacks,
and
things
like
that
that
should
still
make
it
a
pretty
nice
place
to
live
and-
and
I
do
expect
that
people
who
would
be
moving
into
whatever
housing
is
put,
there
know
what
they're
you
know
moving
into
and
that
it's
been
designed
well
enough
that
it's
yeah.
That
is
something
that
they
would
still
enjoy,
that
being
part
of
our
community
overrides
having
a
loading
dock.
W
I
don't,
I
don't
even
know
how
far
away
it
is,
but
I
know
there's
trees
and
stuff
in
the
meantime,
and
now
I
would
just
say
as
just
a
personal
story,
my
office
looks
out
over
a
parking
lot
and
the
roof
of
industrial
buildings
and
beyond.
That
is
the
most
spectacular
view
of
the
front
range
that
you
will
find
pretty
much
anywhere
in
town
and
when
people
come
into
my
office.
The
first
thing
they
say
is:
oh
my
gosh.
W
What
an
extraordinary
view
you
are
so
lucky
to
be
able
to
look
at
this
every
day,
and
I
say
oh
the
parking
lot.
They
say
no,
the
front
range,
so
I
think
it's
it's
without
hearing
from
those
people,
it's
really
hard
for
us
to
make
decisions
about
what
people
will
and
will
not
like
being
around
as
long
as
there
is
no
safety
issue
which
I
don't
expect,
there
is
given
all
the
time
that
went
into
this.
It
does
feel
like
something
for
me.
J
Well,
I
have
my
own
little
fun
anecdote.
I
stayed
at.
I
was
at
this
apartment.
I
won't
mention
it,
but
it
was
right
next
to
a
parking
lot
which
kept
its
lights
on
all
night.
So
then
I
couldn't
even
I
didn't
even
know
if
it
was
day
or
night,
and
I
didn't
sleep
for
like
six
months.
I
couldn't
figure
out
what
time
it
was
not
only
that,
but
at
4
30
in
the
morning
the
truck
started
coming.
J
J
Well,
shitaku
was
there
before
you,
but
that
doesn't
stop
the
people
from
complaining
and
so
in
a
sense,
I
feel
like
we're
protecting
people
by
having
these
thai
by
saying
no
we're
not
going
to
build
housing
over
there
from
yeah,
saying
they're
all
excited
about
it
and
then
once
they
do
it
they're
really
not
excited
about
it,
and
then
they
start
writing
letters
to
us.
J
So
I
would
say
that
until
you've
experienced
the
24-hour
lights
on
in
the
early
morning,
trucks,
it's
totally
a
big
bummer,
but
my
question
is
more
what
if
there
are
other
places
besides
just
this
particular
street,
where
that
is
happening,
did
are
you
saying
that
this
is
the
only
place
and
everybody
knows
that
or
could
there
be
another
company
that
has
like
early
morning,
trucks
and
lights
on
all
night
and
lots
of
noise?
Or
is
this
surely
the
only
one,
because
I
would
be
worried
about
that
for
community
members?
J
And
the
last
thing
I
want
to
say:
is
we
all
dream
about
having
a
soho,
but
it's
not
that
easy
to
live
on
top
of
a
factory
or
nightclub
or
whatever
it
is.
It
sounds.
You
know
really
exotic,
but
it
is,
it
isn't
really
fun
once
you
do
it.
So
that's
my
thoughts
plus
I'm
also
curious.
If
that
is
the
only
company
that
has
that
issue,
I
think
we
should.
It
would
be
good
to
know
that.
D
Thanks
that
tara,
so
I'm
gonna
call
myself
here
sorry
to
double
dip,
but
I
just
wanted
to
respond
real
quickly.
Also,
I
didn't
give
credit
here.
I
started
out
in
a
similar
place
to
both
where
rachel
and
nicole
were
articulating
and
actually
was
ginny's
hotline
post.
That
was
very
eloquently
written
last
week
that
took
me
over
the
line
to
proposing
this
and
about
a
concern
for
future
residents
rather
than
special
treatment
for
existing
uses.
So
that's
where
that's
that's.
D
Coming
from
the
the
uses
across
the
railroad
tracks
listed
24-hour
manufacturing,
24-hour
safety
lighting
tanker
and
delivery
trucks
throughout
the
night
overhead
paging
systems.
So
anyway,
that
genius
point
seemed
to
be
a
good
one
to
me.
That
might
not
be
the
best
place
to
live
next
to
while
those
uses
exist.
But,
however,
the
will
of
council
is
fine
mark
and
the
genie.
V
Well,
first,
I'm
supportive
of
aaron's
language.
No,
we
we
may
not
be
catching
every
situation
that
is
similar,
but
we
have
a
planning
department.
We
have
other
council
meetings
to
decide
how
to
deal
with
that.
This
one
exists.
I
thank
judy
for
picking
it
up
in
our
hotline
and
we
and
we
really
will
address
it.
My
second
comment
is:
did
it's
a
procedural
one?
Did
our
prior
decision
to
take
on
this
conversation
earlier
obviate
the
need
to
extend
the
meeting
after
eleven
o'clock.
D
I
hope
it
did
not
obviate
that
mark.
No,
we
we
did
a.
We
did
a
motion.
We
had
a
motion
to
extend
the
meeting
we
already
yeah.
We
take
care
of
it.
Okay,
very
good,
thanks
for
checking
in
genie
and
then
nicole.
I
I
was
gonna
ask
mark
if
you're
sleepwalking,
but
I
so
here's
the
thing.
I
think
I
agree
with
the
comments
made
by
tara
and
you
all
know,
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
housing,
but
nonetheless
I'm
a
proponent
of
housing,
affordable
housing
done
right
and
we
know
often
we
hear
affordable
housing.
Housing
for
working
class
people
tend
to
be
next
to
the
highway,
and
I
understand
this
idea
that
we
want
more
housing,
but
we
want
desirable
housing.
I
It
is
undesirable
to
build
a
house
to
build
housing
next
to
a
pharmaceutical
industry,
a
pharmaceutical
factory.
So
you
know-
and
I
don't
think
any
one
of
you-
no
matter
how
what's
the
word
goodwill
you
are,
you
want
to
live
next
to
a
pharma,
a
pharma
plant.
I
I
think
you
know
when
we
think
of
housing
for
people
or
people
who
are
working
class
people.
We
have
to
take
into
consideration
these
things.
You
know.
Is
it
truly
safe
to
live
next
to
a
24-hour
traffic
trucks?
Come
in
and
go
and
and
also
there
are
other
concerns,
and
these
concerns
did
not
come
from
me.
I
know
aaron
gave
me
credit.
It
came
from
other
community
members
as
well,
so
I
think
these
things
are
things
that
we
have
to
take
into
account
when
we're
creating
housing
for
people.
D
Thank
you
so
cool
thanks,
juni
and
now
nicole
and
region.
W
Yeah
juni,
I
absolutely
hear
hear
what
you're
saying
and-
and
I
think
what
I'm
thinking
of
in
in
this
decision
is
that
right
now
we
have
people
living
on
the
street.
We
have
people
living
out
of
their
cars.
W
We
have
people
living
in
some
pretty
unsafe
situations
right
now,
because
we
don't
have
enough
housing,
and
so
I
think
what
I
would
ask
us
to
consider
is
that
you
know
for
if
we're
really
opposed
to
putting
housing
in
this
location.
W
Where
can
we
put
it
back
into
the
plan?
Because
not
everybody
has
sort
of
the
ability
to
to
live
in
a
nice
neighborhood
and
I
think
until
our
society
changes
and
some
of
the
the
raging
income
inequality
that
we
have
goes
away,
people
need
need,
roofs,
they
need
places
to
live,
and
if,
if
you
are
asking
me
to
choose
between
living
with
my
kids
in
my
car
or
living
across
from
a
pharma
plant,
I
would
choose
the
pharma
plant
so
that
they
had
a
stable
place
to
live.
And
so
that's
that's
what
I'm.
W
N
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
share
after
after
junie
center
hotline
post,
I
did
ask
kathleen
for
some
rough
numbers
and
what
she
shared
with
me
was
you
know
if
we
adopted
this,
it
would
reduce
the
planned
residential
square
footage
by
approximately
two
hundred
thousand
square
feet
or
about
eight
one
hundred
eighty
housing
units
assumption
being
eleven
hundred
square
foot
feet
per
unit.
It
would
increase
the
overall
amount
of
space
available
for
industrial
or
office
use
by
the
same
amount,
increasing
projected
job
numbers
by
approximately
600
jobs.
N
Those
are
very
rough
calculations,
so
I
you
know,
I
think
the
goal
of
our
plan
again
is
is,
is
not
being
super
well
reflected
in
this
change,
which
feels
last
minute-
and
I
appreciate
nicole's
point
what
I
was
thinking
about
was
like
commuters,
and
so
you
know
for
thinking
about.
You
know
where
somebody
has
to
live.
If
they've
got
a
wall
of
trees
and
then
railroad
tracks-
and
you
know
the
the
pharmacy
or
the
or
the
industry
behind
that
you
know,
might
they
just
prefer
to
pull
down?
N
You
know
blackout
shades
at
night
and
and
and
walk
to
work
the
next
morning.
I
think
that
a
lot
of
people
probably
would
and
again
we
didn't
ask
them
like
for
me
that
this
feedback
came
from
the
the
industry
side,
not
the
people
who
might
benefit
from
the
housing.
So
I
I
don't
feel
like
we
did
great
outreach.
N
I
I
have
lived
in
a
a
lot
of
different
housing
varieties
and
and
including
some
that
have
been
loud
or
bright,
and
you
know
mixed
use
means
that
there's
going
to
be
some
of
that
and
some
people
are
going
to
opt
into
living
where
there's
a
more
of
a
pulse,
and
it's
not
suburban.
So
I
think
that's
you
know
I
remember
campaigning
and
talking
about
like
this.
You
know
this
could
be
like
a
cool
meat,
packing
district
kind
of
situation
in
east
boulder,
and
I
think
that's.
N
D
All
right,
lauren,
matt
and
mark.
G
Thanks
erin
I've
gone
back
and
forth
on
this
one
a
lot,
but
I
think
that
for
me,
while
I
do
think
that
we
want
to
protect
people
who
might
be
unaware
of
a
situation
that
they're
getting
into,
I
do
think
that
if
you
are
moving
into
east
boulder,
you
at
least
have
some
idea
of
where
you're
moving
to,
and
I
also
think
that
saying
that
we're
not
going
to
have
housing
in
a
particular
area
precludes
any
ability
for
creative
design
solutions
that
might
mitigate
our
concerns.
G
You
know,
and
you
could
have
the
work
portion
be
the
portion
that's
next
to
this
industrial
zone
and
therefore
that
is
protecting
the
residential
unit
from
the
adverse
effects.
But
if
it's
on
a
shared
property,
it's
going
to
have
you
know,
the
whole
lot
is
going
to
be
zoned
a
particular
way.
So
I
think
that
I
do
want
to
see
the
flexibility
that
this
plan
has
laid
out
and
encouraged,
and
I
think
that
it
is
a
unique
type
of
living
that
we're
not
seeing
in
other
parts
of
boulder.
But
it
seems
like
the
community.
K
I'm
I'm
hearing
that
there's
somehow
that,
based
on
aaron's
amendment
proposed
amendment
that
this
is
a
binary
that
there
shall
never
be
housing.
That's
not
what
it
is.
It's
a
that
it's
not
compatible
now,
and
if
the
use
of
that
area
of
court
and
pharma
changes,
then
that
becomes
a
much
more
applicable
environment
from
which
housing
can
be
made
and
the
other
real
issue
is
well.
Where
do
we
make
it
up
from
well,
we
have
issues
with
height
there
as
well.
K
We
have
areas
that
are
capped
at
a
reasonably
surprisingly
low
height,
given
its
location
in
boulder
and
its
related
usage.
I
believe
the
heights
capped
around
40
or
44
feet,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
in
some
of
those
areas,
and
and
so
we
can
gain
some
of
that
housing
by
allowing
up
to
sort
of
our
maximum
building
height
allowed
in
other
areas
where
we
have
housing
already
slated,
and
so
I
think
we
have
some
flexibility
there,
but
this
isn't
a
permanent
preclusion
to
housing.
K
It's
just
saying
it's
not
ready
for
housing
now,
and
I
think
that's
okay,
to
maintain
flexibility
down
the
road
and
and
keeping
in
mind
it's
not
going
to
be
developed
tomorrow.
It's
going
to
be
developed
a
long
time.
It's
a
matter
of.
We
have
to
decide
two
things
one:
what
is
the
maximum
flexibility?
We
want
to
allow
councils
20
30
years
from
now,
but
also
dealing
with
the
realities
of
today
and
the
reality.
Is
there
that's
just
not
compatible.
V
So
mark
I
agree
with
matt's
interpretation.
You
know
this.
This
is
not
forever.
This
is
for
now
it's
for
certainly
the
near
future,
maybe
a
longer
term
into
the
future,
but
it's
not
forever
creating
maximum
housing
is,
is
a
value,
but
it's
not.
The
only
value,
creating
safe,
clean,
useful
housing
is,
is
also
something
that
we're
responsible
for
and
simply
saying
that
that
you
know
it
may
be
lower
cost
housing,
so
people
will
want.
It
is
a
slippery
slope
that
ends
up
with
a
slum,
and
I
don't.
V
V
I
I
just
think
we
we
need
to
set
conditions
where
the
housing
we
create
is
is
good
housing
for
most
people,
and
I
don't
think
living
across
from
a
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
facility
and
and
having
to
you
know,
pull
down
shades
in
order
to
to
live
there
or
do
triple
pane
windows,
because
you
don't
want
to
hear
truck
noise.
You
know
I've
lived
through
a
lot
of
that
in
new
york
city
and
that's
not
good
housing,
and
you
know
my
first
apartment
there.
V
First
one
bedroom
apartment,
my
living
room
looked
eight
feet
into
an
air
shaft
the
life.
I
couldn't
tell
what
time
of
the
day
or
what
what
season
it
was,
and
I
did
that
because
I
could
afford
that.
That
doesn't
mean
we
should
promote
that
kind
of
housing.
We
can
do
it,
but
I
don't
think
that
reflects
our
values.
So
I
think
aaron's
proposed
language
doesn't
cut
us
off
from
future
possibilities
there,
but
simply
recognizes
that.
It's
inappropriate
now
to
use
that
space
for
residential
development.
D
I'm
enjoying
this
session
of
the
worst
housing
I've
ever
lived
in
from
from
the
city
council
tonight,
that's
entertaining
rachel,
then
maybe
we
can
wrap
up
yeah.
N
I
will
try
and
wrap
it
up.
I
just
want,
and
I
mean
the
part
of
the
point,
though,
is
is
all
this:
all
of
us
were
living
in
houses
in
the
cities
we
wanted
to
be
in
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
as
a
city
as
a
city
council
is
help
people
to
live
in
in
the
city
where
they
work
or
or
exist.
But
I
wanted
before
we
vote.
N
I
see
I'm
on
the
losing
side
of
this
already,
but
to
invite
kathleen,
who
spent
more
time
looking
at
all
these
streets
and
and
staff
planned
this
and
and
like
I
visited
twice
so
I
don't
feel
like
I'm
the
expert
here
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
kathleen,
doesn't
have
any
thoughts
to
share
that
might
influence
our
or
the
language
or
anything.
AM
Sure,
thank
you
yeah.
You
know
I.
I
do
think
that
we
really
tried
to
plan
for
and
look
at
this
area,
which
is
south
of
the
tracks
comprehensively
and
put
together
a
recommendation
for
future
land
use
that
would
be
flexible,
but
would
also
really
increase
the
amount
of
housing.
That's
in
this
area,
and
this
area
in
particular,
is
that
area
that
we
are
proposing
to
be
mixed-use,
transit-oriented
development
and
so
housing
is
a
key
component
of
that.
But
yes,
I've.
AM
I've
been
out
to
the
site
even
earlier
today
and
the
cordon
pharma
campus.
There
is
a
constant
hum
that
comes
from
that
facility.
AM
It
is
you
can
hear
it,
but
you
know
there
are
other
noises
and
things
that
go
on
in
industrial
neighborhoods
that
are
maybe
different
than
other
neighborhoods
in
boulder
that
include
residential,
but
this
yeah,
I
think
the
plan
proposes
this
new
type
of
land
use
and
this
new
type
of
living,
where
we're
integrating
these
uses
and
looking
for
folks
who
would
be
interested
in
in
living
in
in
these
kind
of
differently
activated
neighborhoods.
D
Okay,
well,
I
appreciate
the
discussion.
I
think
everybody's
made
great
points,
so
how
whatever
the
world
council
is,
is
fine
but
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
call
for
a
straw
poll
here
on
this,
so
I
had
an
amendment
that
I
put
out
on
the
table
before
all
those
in
favor
of
adding
that
amendment
into
the
plan.
Just
raise
your
hand,
we
got
five.
Let's
see
yeah
one
two,
three,
four
five,
five
okay
so
looks
like
that
was
bare
majority,
wait
matt!
What's
that
six?
Was
it
six
one?
D
Two
three
six
six
was
six
okay,
great
thanks,
I'm
a
little
tired,
I'm
losing
the
ability
to
count
all
right
appreciate
the
discussion.
Everybody
on
that
does
anyone
else
want
to
offer
any
other
amendments
to
the
plan.
D
W
Yeah,
I
think,
since
we
just
talked
about
taking
out
a
couple
hundred
housing
units,
I
am
just
wondering
if
there
is
any
place
that
we
could
propose
a
modification
to
put
in
some
more
housing
units.
W
Kathleen,
could
I
ask
you
if
there
are
any
other
spots
that
you
all
were
eyeing
as
places
that
could
potentially
take
some
housing.
AM
AM
So
adding
new
areas
to
that
was
considered
after
the
60
draft
and
we
brought
that
out
to
community
and
and
the
working
group
and
proposed
some
particular
locations
like
south
of
pearl
street
and
the
feedback
on
kind
of
expanding
the
areas
of
change
from
the
community
was
that
that
there
really
wasn't
support
for
that.
They
wanted
to
maintain
a
significant
amount
of
business
and
industrial
space.
AM
So
I
don't
know
that
I
would
propose
adding
an
area
of
change
or
identifying
a
new
space
for
housing,
but
we
may
consider
modifying
how
the
place
types
are
applied
and
look
at
some
of
the
denser
place
types
for
other
for
for
the
for
the
areas
of
change
that
have
already
kind
of
gone
through
that
process.
W
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
the
one
that
I'm
particularly
interested
in
is
sterling
circle,
that's
in
between
san
lazaro,
which
we
would
hopefully
x
and
the
dog
park.
It
feels
like
that
would
be
a
really
cool
place
for
housing
and
might
also
help
bring
the
san
lazaro
community
in
to
other
things
there.
But
it
doesn't
sound
like
that.
What
was
that
one
considered
at
all
or.
AM
Yeah
that
that's
been
considered
as
part
of
the
process
and
just
was
one
of
the
areas
that
did
not
move
forward
as
an
area
of
change.
Okay,.
W
I
know
that
boulder
likes
dogs,
so
maybe
just
as
a
place
to
propose.
I
would
like
to
propose
that
we
consider
putting
housing
in
that
sterling
circle
area
to
connect
san
lazaro
and
the
dog
park
and
the
rest
of
the
community.
D
AM
W
Yeah
without
the
use
category,
I
think
maybe
the
the
one
that
we
just
took
away.
Can
we
put
that
back
at
sterling
circle?
Does
that
work.
AM
W
K
Well,
the
the
your
segway
nicole.
I
am
not
a
land
use
expert,
so
I
I
have
to
pass
on
being
able
to
provide
expertise
on
which
the
right
prescriptive
one
for
that
is.
I
I'm
certainly
open
to
that
that
recommendation
nicole
about
sterling
circle.
I
will
also
come
back
to
a
point
I
made
earlier.
K
Is
we
already
have
very
well
vetted
areas
that
are
ripe
for
housing
that
have
gone
through
that
process,
and
I
would
say
just
giving
them
and
and
maybe
stating
in
their
way
to
achieve
the
housing
is
that
we
would
encourage
or
be
open
something
that
says
we
would
like.
We
would
like
to
or
or
be
open
to
getting
that
height
up
to
55
feet
in
some
of
those
areas
to
accommodate
some
of
that
lost
housing
that
was
that
was
sort
of
on
western,
and
that
way
it's
in
an
area
that's
already
well
vetted.
K
The
place
type
already
has
a
fair
amount
of
verticality,
but
it's
already
based
on
a
cap
of,
I
believe,
40
or
44
feet,
something
like
that.
I'd
refer
to
kathleen
on
what
those
heights
are,
but
I
do
remember
it
wasn't
up
to
our
our
cap
and
it's
out
east.
It's
not
really
blocking
anybody
or
anything
other
than
the
smoke
stacks
out
of
belmont.
K
V
Yeah,
first
of
all,
plans
can
be
amended,
and
I
I
think
this
is
where
we're
the
point
where
we're
trying
to
rewrite
this
plan,
which
has
been
fairly
well
vetted
at
midnight
when
we're
all
dying
to
get
to
sleep.
I
I
just
think
there's
something
inherently
defective
about
our
efforts
to
do
so.
At
the
moment,
I
I
voted
for
aaron's
language,
because
it's
it's
fairly
simple
and
it's
not.
V
It
doesn't
take
the
land
out
of
residential
use
forever,
but
trying
to
now
rewrite
the
plan
at
this
time
of
night
is
the
kind
of
thing
we
were
always
complaining
about:
the
the
inappropriateness
and
the
difficulty,
because
nicole's
ideas
may
be
great-
I
don't
know
but
but
trying
to
do
it
on
the
fly
at
this
time
of
night.
I
would
rather
come
back
to
this
entire
subject.
V
At
a
later
time.
We're
gonna
pass
the
plan
in
some
fashion.
We
can
amend
it
if
we,
if
we
do
enough
study-
and
we
find
that
there
are
height
amendments-
we
can-
we
can
do
in
one
area
or
find
another
area
to
to
develop
residentially.
We
can
do
that.
This
is
not
the
you
know.
Tablets
from
the
mount
it's
a
plan,
it's
a
large
airplane
view
of
what
we're
gonna
do
with
this.
V
This
area,
it's
not
every
last
detail
and
again
trying
to
fix
every
defect
at
midnight
to
me
is
just
highly
unproductive.
Rule
of
council,
of
course,
will
prevail,
but
I
I
think
we're
we're
starting
to
see
the
effects
of
the
late
night
on
all
of
us.
I'm
actually
quite
amazed,
I'm
getting
out
a
coherent
sentence
or
two-
and
I
may
be
wrong
about
that.
So
those
are
my.
Those
are
my
comments.
D
N
A
N
Awake,
don't
worry
about
me,
so
I
I
want
to
just
like
reiterate
this.
This
is
a
years
long
process.
It
was
methodical,
it
was
you
know,
chock
full
of
engagement
and
it's
a
lot
of
different
moving
parts
that
all
fit
together.
So
what
I
heard
from
kathleen
is
like
the
reason
housing
worked
there
is
is
because
it
was
you
know
in
that
spot,
which
is
in
a
transit
corridor
and
being
activated
and
all
sorts
of
good
things.
N
So
we
can't
just
throw
a
dart
and
be
like,
let's
put
some
more
housing
somewhere
and
we
we
haven't
done
engagement.
We
don't
know
I
mean
I
I
I
you
know
I
I
trust
to
respect
all
of
you,
but,
like
we
don't
know
what
we're
talking
about
on
on
we
weren't
on
that
work
group.
We
are
not
staff.
We've
been
in
the
weeds
on
this
for
years,
so
I
think
we
we
ought
not
to
have
tinkered
the
last
thing
that
we
just
did.
We
took
away
180
housing
units.
N
I
think
that
was
full
hearty,
but
we
did
that.
I
don't.
I
think
we
stopped
the
bleeding
and
say
we
did
that
that
that's
a
bummer,
but
this
plan
is
all
interrelated
and-
and
I
just
don't
think
we
can
fix
it,
so
perhaps
planning
board
will
reject
that.
I
don't
know,
but
for
now
I
think
for
us
like.
I
think
I
think
we
maybe
just
stopped
the
flow
and
and
say
that
that's
a
bummer.
D
Thanks
rachel,
I
I'll
just
say
I-
there
were
a
couple
of
other
areas
that
I
had
hoped
to
get
additional
housing
in
earlier
in
the
process
and
had
requested
that
that
there
be
engagement
and
changes
about
this
a
few
months
ago,
but
the
they
were
turned
down
in
terms
of
staff
recommendations.
So
anyway,.
W
I
I
hear
everybody's
comments
and
I
can
just
just
with
withdraw
that
and
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
what
planning
board
has
to
say
about
it
since
we'll
go
back
and
forth
a
little
bit.
So
apologies
for
the
extra
five
minutes
of
sleep
that
I
took
from
everybody
in
a
desperate
attempt
to
try
to
recover
some
lost
housing.
D
Okay,
do
we
have
any
other
items
people
want
to
throw
out
there,
we
got
lauren.
G
Thank
you.
So
I
had
two
fairly.
I
think
well
start
with
one
minor
one.
So
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
concerned
about
with
this
plan
is
maintaining
sort
of
affordable
industrial
space
for
people.
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
ways
and
policies
that
are
in
place
that
attempt
to
do
that,
and
I
just
wanted
to
strengthen
one
of
them
a
little
bit,
and
I
will
copy
this
into
the
chat.
As
I
read
it,
so
you
can
also
read
it
yourself.
G
So
policy
b1
commercial
redevelopment
in
east
is
the
commercial
redevelopment
in
east.
Boulder
should
strive
to
incorporate,
and
this
is
the
part
that
I
added
the
city
will
pursue
strategies
to
incentivize
the
incorporation
of
ground
floor
spaces
suited
to
small
businesses,
shared
business,
space,
mixing
of
business
uses
to
cater
to
customers
with
a
mix
of
income
and
the
retention
of
existing
industrial
space.
So,
basically,
just
as
we
look
for
zoning,
I'm
as
we
move
forward,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
just
saying
that
the
commercial
redevelopment
should
do
these
things.
D
Thanks
for
that,
lauren
kathleen,
do
you
feel
like
that
language
is
consistent
with
the
outreach
we've
done
in
the
plan
as
a
whole?.
AM
D
I'm
happy
to
just
call
for
a
straw
poll
on
that
proposed
language
unless
people
would
like
to
offer
additional
comments,
tara's
raising
a
physical
hand,
rather
than
a
virtual
hand,
though
she
just
likes
it.
Okay,
sorry,
if
I
just
see,
if
call
for
a
vote
on
whether
people
like
that
or
not
all
right,
all
in
favor
of
that
updated
language.
I
D
That's
totally
fine,
okay,
but
it
sounds
like
we
got
majority
support
for
that
change.
G
Did
have
one
other
one,
so
this
one
is
a
little
bit
more
controversial,
so
one
of
the
things
we've
talked
about
is
green
infrastructure
and
policy,
r7
and
again
I'll
copy.
This
in
policy
r7
talks
about
kind
of
green
infrastructure,
particularly
around
storm
water,
and
one
of
the
things
that
the
city
in
other
cities
I've
seen
a
lot
of
different
kinds
of
stormwater
management.
You
know
in
seattle
it's
really
common
to
use.
Right-Of-Way
area
louisville
allows
underground
stormwater
retention
in
a
way
that
the
city
doesn't
so.
G
There
are
different
ways
that
we
could
be
dealing
with
stormwater,
and
since
this
is
an
industrial
area
with
a
lot
of
paved
surfaces
in
a
floodplain,
I
think
I
would
like
to
propose
that
we
offer
a
wider
or
at
least
sort
of
hold
the
door
open
for
the
possibility
of
pilot
projects
that
might
do
more
than
what
we
typically
do,
and
I
know
that
the
design
and
construction
standards
typically
don't
allow
for
that.
But
I
was
hoping.
G
G
D
Y
G
The
city
will
support
designers
and
development
teams
in
implementing
effective,
and
here
I
was
going
to
take
out
sight
and
just
have
appropriate
storm
water
control
measures
for
east
boulder
through
the
development
of
local
guidelines
for
design,
construction
and
maintenance
and
collaboration
on
green
infrastructure
or
slash
low
impact
development
pilot
projects
and
then
the
last
from
there
to
the
end.
I've
added.
G
Can
you
just
read
that
please,
potentially
including
underground,
right-of-way
or
adjacent
properties,
if
it
provides
added
benefit.
G
G
I'm
looking
to
see
if
hella
is,
does
look
like
she's
here
I
know
hello.
You
took
a
look
at
this
concept
earlier
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
could
describe
any
concerns
that
you
highlighted
about
the
language.
G
Well,
I
I
I
could
maybe
try
a
little
bit
and
I
know
that
charles
farrow
is
on
as
well,
so
he
might
want
to
add
a
little
bit
to
this
and
I'm
moving
a
little
bit
out
towards
into
engineering,
but
but
I
can
think
of
a
lot
of
instances
where
we've
done
all
of
the
things
that
are
in
this
list,
so
to
stomach,
and
sometimes
we
do
it
through
modifications
to
the
design
and
construction
standards.
G
I
would
delete
that
if
it
provides
added
benefit,
because
we
have
done
off-site
improvements
for
stormwater
stuff,
where
it's
just
addressing
the
need
for
storm
water
management
in
a
responsible
way
saying
we
do
it
through
easements
or
whatever
we've
done
stuff
in
the
we've
done
storm
water
management
in
the
right
of
way.
We've
done
storm
scepter
systems
which
are
basically
underground,
detention
ponds.
So
this
is
it's
what
we
do
now
anyway,
but
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
language
I
would.
G
I
would
add
that
I
would
delete
the
provides
benefits
because
a
lot
of
these,
it's
really
about
dealing
with
stormwater
in
a
responsible
way,
and
then
I
guess
to
make
things
a
little
more
complicated.
We
have
state
stormwater
discharge
permits,
so
we
we're
also
pretty
heavy
heavily
regulated
by
the
state.
G
So
you
have
to
take
that
into
account
as
well-
and
I
don't
know
charles
if
you
wanted
to
add
anything.
No,
that's
very
well
said
david,
and
I
appreciate
that-
and
I
do
agree
that
I'm
removing
that
language
about
where
it
allows
for
benefit.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
G
G
Okay,
nicole,
you
can
comment
on
that
sort
of
it's
more
just
a
question.
My
brain
is
so
tired
right
now,
I'm
really
having
trouble
tracking
what
people
are
saying-
and
I
just
want
to
understand
that
what
lauren
is
proposing
is
backed
by
staff
and
staff
also
thinks
this
would
be
reasonable
and
a
good
thing
that
we
could
move
forward
with.
G
I
think
it's
consistent
with
the
plan
and
consistent
with
boulder's
environmental
values
and
consistent
with
how
we
are
implementing
a
lot
of
these
issues
around
green
infrastructure,
okay
and
it
seems
feasible-
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
we're,
adding
a
bunch
of
new
stuff
like
adding
new
housing
at
sterling
circle,
or
something
like
that.
No,
it
doesn't
okay,
great!
Thank
you.
I
have
enough
to
make
a
decision
thanks
for
clarifying
nicole
tara
david.
Did
you
I'm
very
tired?
Did
you
say
consistent
or
inconsistent?
G
G
G
Very
good,
okay,
so
maybe
can
I
call
for
a
struggle
on
on
this
updated
language?
That's
being
proposed
here,
hey
or
do
we
need
to
read
the
whole
thing
for
community
since
they
can't
see
the
revised
chat?
That's
a
good
idea!
Lauren!
Do
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
read
that
real,
quick,
yes,
policy,
r7,
the
city's
design
and
construction
standards
require
the
implementation
of
green
infrastructure
where
feasible,
based
on
the
potential
to
infiltrate
stormwater
runoff
locally.
G
Okay,
it's
good
to
get
that
on
on
the
record,
so
all
in
favor
of
using
that
updated
language
for
policy
r7,
that's
proposed.
G
So
I
got,
I
got
eight
and
a
half.
I
think.
Unless
junior
are
you
all
the
way
up?
Okay,
she's,
all
the
way
up,
so
that's
nine!
Yes,
that's
unanimous
lauren.
Do
you
have
17
more
of
these
or
no,
I
I
cut
my
four
other
ones,
we're
good
all
right.
Well,
hopefully
we
can
wrap
up.
I,
but
I
you
know,
if
somebody
really
had
some
burning
thing
in
their
pocket
that
they
had
to
bring
up,
you
speak
now
or
forever
hold
your
peace.
G
Okay,
seeing
none
then
I
think
we've
worked
all
the
way
through
planning
boards
items
and
council
proposed
items,
and
so
somebody
could
make
a
motion
if
they
would
like
to.
I.
I
do
have
a
list
of
what
I
understand
to
be
will
of
council
on
on
the
various
amendments.
Should
can
I
list
those?
Would
that
work
for
folks
to
see
if
their
understanding
is
the
same?
G
So
all
right,
I
gotta.
I
got
a
thumbs
up
and
kathleen.
Keep
me
honest
here.
I
may
have
gotten
something
wrong,
but
what
I
heard
in
kind
of
rough
chronological
order
that
there's
the
change
on
playing
words,
items
number
13
about
project
d15
key
steps
to
move
that
from
a
change
to
key
steps
to
a
new
project
d17
as
nicole
suggested
that
playing
board
items
number
one
about
the
airport
influence
zone,
that
the
decision
was
made
to
take
the
staff's
recommended
language
and
specifically
the
updated,
recommended
language.
G
They
presented
here
tonight
that
on
plane
board
item
number
five,
which
was
about
the
flatiron
office
park
and
the
number
of
jobs.
This
decision
was
made
to
not
alter
the
plain
text
at
all
in
that
area.
So
leave
it
as
the
original
text
of
the
plan
that
there
was
updated
language
on
h1
added
about
the
area
north
of
western
avenue,
west
55th
street,
that
policy
b1
was
updated
per
lauren's
suggestion
about
come
on.
I'm
sorry,
what's
the
short
summary
of
that
one
lauren,
the.
G
About
the
commercial
areas
and
reuse
and
yeah
putting
a
stronger
emphasis
on
creating
or
maintaining
affordable
commercial
industrial
space,
thanks
for
that
and
then
lauren's
updated
language
on
r7
around
stormwater
detection,
not
necessarily
being
on
site,
but
local
did
I
miss
anything.
G
Erin
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
not
sort
of
seeing
it.
I
think
my
brain
needs
that
extra
support
right
now,
so
if
you're
really
asking
for
us
to
kind
of
make
sure
that
everything
is
there,
I
feel
like
I
would
need
to
see
whatever
it
is
that
you're
reading
from,
but
I
and
I
I
apologize
for
that-
I'm
just
not
able
to
hold
all
that
information
right
now.
G
G
G
So
this
this
was
the
list
of
things
that
I
that
I
read
out
and
who,
for
those
that,
where
they
were
proposed
by
individual
council
members
has
a
name
on
it
and
for
those
that
were
about
playing
board's
items.
He
just
mentions.
G
Motion
by
lauren
a
second
by
matt,
do
anybody
want
to
offer
any
last
thoughts?
I
mean
it's
still
early
right.
We
could
talk
about
this
for
another
couple
hours.
G
G
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
I'll,
just
go
ahead
and
call
for
a
vote.
Is
this
alicia's?
That's
a
show
of
hands
or
roll
call.
If
we're
adopting
the
east
boulder
sub
community
plan,
sir,
it
needs
to
be
a
roll
call.
Please
just
call
that
all
right.
G
Weiner,
yes,
yates,
yes,
benjamin,
yes,
mayor
brockett,
yes,
councilmember
falcons,
yes,
mayor
pro
tem
friend,
yes
and
councilmember,
joseph
yes
mayor
as
amended,
the
vote
east
boulder's
sub-community
plan
is
adopted
all
right.
Well,
it
was
a
little
grueling
here
for
the
last
couple
hours,
but
this
is
a
landmark
moment.
This
is
years
of
work
by
the
staff
and
and
community
to
put
together.
I
think
what
is
a
fantastic
plan?
That's
going
to
serve
our
community
well
for
decades,
so
huge
thanks,
kathleen
to
the
whole
team.
G
All
right-
and
I
apologize
everybody
that
it's
so
late
and
that
we
didn't
time
manage
any
better
than
that
I'll
I'll.
Take
some
responsibility
there,
so
my
apologies
speaking
of
it
being
late
nuria.
Do
you
think,
is
it
possible
to
maybe
get
a
hotline
update
on
our
current
coveted
situation?
We
can
follow
up
with
questions
or
comments
next
week
as
as
needed.
We
certainly
can
and
I'll
just
note
that
pam
has
been
waiting
in
the
wings
and
prepared,
but
we
know
that
it's
been
late
and
we
will
do
that.
G
We
will
follow
up
with
a
hotline
post
and
let
you
all
know
what
what
we
were
thinking
about
on
coven.
G
Thank
you,
aaron
yeah.
I
do
have
a
comment.
I
don't
know
if
it's
the
right
time,
we
used
to
get
these
updates
from
boulder
county
public
health
and
it
just
stopped,
and
I
don't
remember
that
we
chose
to
stop
it
as
a
council,
but
I'm
wondering
is
there?
Will
we
get
such
an
update
again
now
that
we
are
back
online
and
it
seems
that
cases
are
rising
up?
I
understand
you
mentioned
you
all.
G
Do
a
hotline
post,
but
I'm
thinking
can
we
hear
from
the
experts
absolutely
we
did
reach
out
and
we'll
continue
to
reach
out.
It
was
a
little
last
minute
as
we
shifted
to
medium
just
last
week,
so
we
certainly
plan
to
do
that.
I
will
say,
though,
that
boulder
county
public
health
2
has
shifted
a
little
bit.
G
Their
work
as
they've
been
coming
as
covet,
has
subsided
and
so
we'll
just
make
sure
that
we
plan
with
them,
but
I
know-
and
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
pam
did
reach
out
to
them
and
we
will,
as
they
have
availability,
bring
them
forward
to
counsel
when
we
need.
You
know
when,
when
the
circumstances
allow-
and
it
seems
like
shifts
like
these
are
some
that
we
would
like
to
hear
from
them
so.
G
Well,
deep,
apologies
to
pam,
I
hadn't
realized
you've
been
waiting
this
whole
time
for
this,
but
I
think
it
might
be
the
most
merciful
thing
for
all
of
us
to
let
it
go
for
tonight.
Look
forward
to
your
analysis,
via
hotline.
G
Okay,
any
other
final
thoughts
here
before
we
finish
up
the
meeting.
G
All
right,
everybody's
looking
so
cheerful,
okay!
Well
thanks
everybody
for
a
very
thorough
vetting
of
a
lot
of
important
topics
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
gavel.
The
meeting
closed
at
12
22
a.m.
Take
care.