►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Study Session 08-22-17
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
B
That's
gonna
take
us
through
the
bout
the
first
hour
and
a
half
to
two
hours
of
the
meeting
we
anticipate.
We
would,
however,
like
to
reserve
time
a
substantial
chunk
of
time
where
we
will
then
zoom
back
out
if
you
will
to
look
at
the
action
plan
as
a
whole,
because
we
want
to
get
your
feedback
in
addition
to
getting
your
feedback
on
these
individual
items.
Are
we
you
know
for
those
individual
items
we'll
be
asking
you?
Is
this
the
scope
of
work
that
you
anticipate?
Are
these
the
issues
you
anticipate?
B
We
ought
to
be
dealing
with?
Is
our
approach
for
doing
them
seems
sound,
but
then
we
want
to
zoom
out
to
the
larger
scale
and
we
want
to
get
your
feedback
on
the
action
plan
as
a
whole,
which
contains
about
16
broad
items
and
then
we'll
wrap
up
for
the
evening.
So
with
that
a
little
bit
of
the
purpose
as
part
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
the
comprehensive
plan
specifically
calls
for
the
development
and,
ultimately
council
acceptance
of
an
implementation
action
plan.
B
This
is
a
plan.
That's
been
developed
over
the
course
of
the
two-plus
years
that
the
update
has
been
underway
and
the
action
plan
will
be
in
front
of
you
for
for
your
acceptance
on
September
5th
and
then
the
action
plan,
the
the
the
comp
plan
also
specifies
that
it
should
be
revisited
each
year
in
conjunction
with
the
City
Council's
work
planning.
So
the
next
one
in
the
next
episode
of
that,
of
course,
will
be
in
January
2018.
B
So
tonight
we
want
to
get
your
feedback
on
that
both
the
deep-dive
way
on
three
things
and
then
on
the
balance
of
it.
Overall,
as
I
said,
there
are
three
particular
items
that
are
already
underway.
Those
are
three
of
actually
five
items
that
are
underway,
the
other
two
that
we
won't
be
getting
into
tonight,
because
they
sort
of
have
an
existence
on
their
own
and
you're.
B
Well
aware
of
them
and
have
actually
seen
some
of
those
are
see
you
south
property,
there
will
be
implementation
associated
with
that
and
the
inclusion
amendments
to
the
inclusionary
housing
regulations
and
that's
well
along
and
you'll,
be
seeing
that
in
front
of
you
within
the
next
few
weeks.
A
little
bit
of
context,
of
course,
as
important
as
implementation
of
the
comprehensive
plan
is.
B
Some
of
those
are
high,
very
high
profiles,
I
mean
you've
seen
or
will
see
like
ogen,
pan
cost
and
others
we're
active
on
a
number
of
housing
fronts,
including,
of
course,
the
recent
purchase
of
the
Ponderosa
site
and
and
work
associated
with
that,
but
also
implementation
of
the
middle
income
and
housing
strategy.
Those
inclusionary
housing
amendments
that
I
just
mentioned.
B
Other
redevelopment
projects,
of
course
include
the
Civic
area,
with
a
specific
focus
in
the
near
term,
on
planning
for
the
East
bookend
and
then,
of
course,
we
also
participate
in
the
planning
processes
that
other
departments
engage
in,
including
those
conducted
by
community
vitality,
such
as
the
economic
sustainability
strategy,
OS
OS,
MP
master
planning,
transfer,
update
to
the
transportation
master
plan
and
the
library
master
plan.
So
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
quick
summary
of
the
portfolio
of
work
that
we
have
on
our
plate.
B
In
addition
to
the
implementation
work
that
we're
gonna
be
discussing
tonight,
that's
my
introduction
and
unless
you
have
any
questions
right,
there
I'll
dive
straight
into
the
first
of
the
three
sort
of
deeper
dive
topics
where
we're
we're
talking
about
building
height
and
Community,
Benefit
I'll
pause
and
if
I
don't
see,
questions
and
I
will
keep
moving.
Okay.
B
So
what
I'm
gonna
do
is
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
sort
of
what
were
the
rules,
pre
2015,
and
then
what
of
the
rules
that
have
been
in
place
since
2015
on
this
issue
of
hiding
community
benefit
and
then
I
want
to
preview
the
work
that
we
are
intending
to
undertake
in
the
coming
10
months
and,
of
course,
we'll
be
bringing
that
back
to
you.
Pre
2015,
of
course,
going
all
about
1971
you've
got
the
55
foot
height
limit,
which
is
in
the
city
charter
and
I
want
to
emphasize
and
I.
B
B
Our
comprehensive
plan
and
I've
quoted
a
section
of
it
right
here,
envisions
a
compact
development
pattern
with
density
and
appropriate
location.
So
there
were
concerns
being
raised
about
whether
these
sort
of
across-the-board
availability
of
this
Avenue
for
achieving
additional
height
was
appropriate
and
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
in
2015,
the
council
adopted
ordinance
eight
zero
to
eight,
which
modified
the
land
use
code.
It
did
a
few
things
that
it
created
appendix
J,
which
is
a
map.
This
is
not
a
literal
translation
of
appendix
J,
but
it's
a
it's
just.
B
In
anticipation
of
that
expiration,
the
City
Council
adopted
ordinance
81
72,
which
extended
the
effect
of
of
80
28
until
July,
19th
2018
and
of
course,
then
we
we
city
staff,
are
then
tasked
with
bringing
back
to
Planning
Board
and
to
you
and
to
the
community
in
advance
of
that.
A
proposal
for
what
ought
to
be
the
the
set
of
rules
that
goes
into
a
place
honor
by
July
19th
2018.
B
Of
course,
that's
not
the
only
community
benefit.
There's
been
community
benefits
discussions
going
on
in
the
community
for
quite
some
time,
but
from
a
from
a
sort
of
efficacy
point
of
view
in
terms
of
getting
a
set
of
code
amendments
in
front
of
the
Planning
Board
in
you
between
now
and
20
July
2018,
we
thought
it
might
be
appropriate
to
afford
to
focus
that
on
affordable
housing
as
the
community
benefit.
That's
not
a
random
selection.
B
B
So
we
created
for
ourselves
in
order
to
undertake
this
body
of
work.
A
problem
statement-
and
this
is
this-
is
an
articulation
of
that
problem
statement
and
I'm
gonna
almost
read
it
verbatim,
because
I
want
to
go
through
it,
so
we're,
in
other
words,
what's
the
geography
of
this
and
under
what
circumstances
should
properties
be
allowed
to
seek
additional
height,
above
and
beyond
the
35
foot,
by
right,
but
less
than
the
55,
but
up
to
the
55
charter
limit
and
what
community
benefits
should
be
in
return.
B
B
The
BBC
P
has
a
couple
areas
that
I
wanted
to
bring
to
your
attention
and
I'm,
pretty
sure,
you're
already
aware
of
them
policy
1.1
one
specifically
addresses
this
for
land
users,
owning
district
changes
for
added
height
that
increases
intensity.
You
know
develop
regulations
so
that
new
development
provides
benefits
to
the
community.
That's
in
a
sense.
That's
almost
a
restatement
of
the
problem
statement.
B
I
had
I
posited
for
you
two
point:
three
five
also
from
the
BBC
update,
speak
specifically
about
guidance
on
height
and
intensity
of
land
uses
and
specifically
their
relationship
to
building
height
and
aesthetics
and
view
protection
and
as
an
incentive
in
exchange
for
community
benefits,
once
again
sort
of
a
statement.
If
you
will,
or
an
alternative
version
of
sort
of
the
fundamental
problem
statement
that
that's
in
front
of
us.
B
This
is
the
question
for
Council
I'm
previewing.
It
right
now
before
I
get
into
a
little
more
detail
on
our
work
plan.
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
sense
of
what
we're
going
to
be
posing
for
you
here
in
a
few
minutes.
Do
you
agree
with
the
approach
that
we
are
proposing
for
you?
So
that's
just
a
preview
for
your
benefit,
so
our
work
plan
and
this
returns
somewhat
to
that
problem
statement.
B
One
helpful
one
potentially
helpful
way
of
thinking
about
this
is
a
set
of
questions
where
what
and
how
the
we're
being
where
should
additional
height
be
allowed.
I
don't
arrive
to
you
tonight
with
a
particular
outcomes
here,
but
that's
one
of
the
basic
questions
we
will
be
asking.
In
other
words,
what
are
the
criteria
we
should
use?
Should
it
just
should
it
takes
the
appendix
j
approach?
You
can
just
identify
areas
on
a
map
and
say
that's
where
it
should
be
allowed.
B
B
I
guess
by
use
would
be
one
of
the
main
things
you
could
look
at
commercial
and
industrial
uses
should
they
be,
should
they
be
eligible
and
under
what
circumstances,
and
then
the
how
and
how
has
two
components
if
a
project
is
going
to
seek
additional
height
through
the
site
review
standards?
Are
there
additional
design
standards
that
should
kick
in
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
community
interest
is
met
notwithstanding
the
increased
height?
This
goes
to
that
aesthetics
and
view
protection
item.
B
That
was
in
the
the
BBC
P
policy
that
I
had
on
the
screen
a
moment
ago
and
then
the
second
piece
of
the,
how
is
sort
of
what
type
of
community
benefit
and
how
much
of
that
community
benefit
is
appropriate.
If
you
will,
if
you
want
to
think
of
it,
this
way
in
exchange
for
additional
height,
so
those
are
the
that's
kind
of
another
Restatement
of
them
of
the
the
mission
in
front
of
us,
we
have
a
work
plan.
I
won't
go
into
this
in
detail.
B
The
project
basically
were
in
sort
of
what
we
call
project
initiation
right
now,
where
we
set
the
scope.
The
timeline
we'll
be
developing
a
community
engagement
plan
and,
of
course,
we're
in
front
of
you
tonight
we'll
be
in
front
of
the
Planning
Board
on
Thursday
night
phase.
One
is
where
we
really
get
into
the
meat
of
the
issue
will
be
developing
options
and
alternatives
will
be
doing
analysis,
including
potentially
even
economic
analysis
of
sort
of.
B
How
does
this
play
out
from
an
economics
point
of
view
in
terms
of
what's
a
reasonable
exchange,
if
you
will,
between
height
and
community
benefits,
we'll
be
doing
a
lot
of
community
engagement
and,
of
course,
our
community
engagement
will
be
determined
by
our
community
engagement
plan,
which
will
be
vetting
with
Planning
Board,
and
this
is
what
I
call
the
plain
English
at
the
end
of
this,
we
would
have
a
plain
English
version
of
what
we
would
propose
to
then
convert
into
code.
Language
Phase
two
would
then
be
the
code
out.
B
You
know
where
we
draft
the
the
engagement
during
this
point,
because,
hopefully
the
engagement
will
be
sufficiently
robust
during
the
sort
of
plain
English
phase
one.
If
you
will
that
we
will
have
arrived
at
a
tentative
proposal
for
you.
So
this
will
be
focused
on
code
drafting,
with
some
targeted
in
gauge
mminton
tissa
paid
in
order
to
meet
that
July
2018
deadline,
we're
going
to
need
to
begin
to
sort
of
review
an
adoption
process
in
about
April
of
next
year.
B
What
would
be
the
outcomes?
Well,
one
would
be
sort
of
transparency,
consistency
and
predictability
both
for
the
community
and
for
applicants,
so
the
rules
are
clear
to
all
parties
involved.
We
would
want
to
provide
criteria
for
the
decision-makers
so
that
they
have
guidance
in
terms
of
evaluating
requests
for
additional
height
and
then,
of
course,
the
the
hard
the
hard
copy
deliver
belief
for
the
outcome.
If
you
will
is
a
set
of
code,
a
set
of
code
amendments
that
would
be
offered
up
for
consideration
and
potential
adoption
prior
to
that
expiration
deadline.
B
Next
steps
obviously
will
adjust
this
work
plan
based
on
what
we
hear
from
you
and
the
Planning
Board
will
be
developing
a
community
engagement
plan
which
we
will
then
take
back
to
the
Planning
Board
to
get
their
additional
feedback
on
that,
and
we
will
undertake
the
meet
of
the
work
so
with
that.
Here
is
the
question
for
your
consideration
and
discussion.
C
B
There
may
be
occasions
where,
for
a
particular
project,
the
35
height,
the
35
foot
height
limit
is
not
the
the
constraining
force
if
you
will,
but
it
could
be
Florida
area
ratio.
In
other
words,
a
project
may
be
perfectly
happy
to
stay
within
the
35
feet,
but
it
wants
to
get
more
intense
if
you
will
denser
via
some
modification
to
the
floor
area
ratio
so
with
specifically
with
regard
to
FA,
are
I.
B
Think
that's
something
we
could
fairly
easily
accommodate
in
our
work
over
the
coming
year,
because
I
realize
in
one
some
cases
the
currency
is
hide.
In
other
cases,
the
currency
as
FA
are
having
said
that,
if
we
were
to
and
I
don't
know
what
other
things
you
have
in
mind,
there
are
other
variations
that
sometimes
get
asked
for
setback,
variations
and
so
forth.
Like
that,
the
broader
we
get
a
little
harder,
it
gets
to
move
along
rapidly,
but
I'm
certainly
open
to,
and
we're
certainly
open,
of
course,
to
suggestions.
B
C
And
then
the
other
question
I
have
is
about
the
other
community
benefits.
So
it
seems
to
me
there's
one
argument
which
is
just
do
this,
because
we
have
this
looming
deadline
and
there's
another
argument
that
says:
if
we're
going
to
bite
this
off-
let's,
let's
you
know,
do
it
all
at
once,
so
that
community
benefits
are
all
and
considered
together
and
if
there's
more
waiting
on
some
than
others,
then
we
go
ahead
and
bring
that
forward.
C
I
understand
the
Planning
Board
produce
the
community
benefits
matrix,
as
you
take
notes,
mentioned
and
I
have
a
copy
of
it
right
here.
Ok
great,
do
you
think
it
would
be
that
much
more
work
to
incorporate
the
community
benefit
matrix?
However,
it
turns
out
and
however,
we
choose
to
look
at
that-
is
it
that
much
more
work
to
actually
do
it
all,
rather
than
just
doing
part
of
it.
B
A
B
B
So
sorry
for
the
low
tech
here,
but
this
is
the
planning
boards.
This
is
the
one
I'm
familiar
with,
which
may
look
familiar
to
some
of
you
and
I
actually
had
a
discussion
with
some
of
the
team
this
afternoon
on
this.
To
make
sure
I
understood
this,
it
essentially
has
an
x-axis,
which
is
all
these
all
the
columns,
and
these
are
broad
array.
I,
don't
know
what
that
is.
B
Ten
twelve
fourteen
different
community
benefits
really
starting
with
affordable
housing,
a
couple
different
categories
of
affordable
housing,
but
then
moving
into
parks
and
open
space,
cultural
facilities,
environmental
protection,
school
community
space,
urban
design,
enhanced
mixed-use,
extort
preservation
so
forth.
An
array
of
community
benefits
across
the
top,
and
then
the
Rose,
if
you
will,
the
y-axis
here
contains
a
number
of.
B
B
First
of
all,
you
got
to
define
the
community
benefit
and
then
you
have
to
which
can
be
a
challenge
in
itself
like
what's
a
cultural
space,
does
a
private
art
gallery
count
as
a
cultural
space,
or
does
it
have
to
be
a
public
facility?
So
you
get
into
crude
definitions
like
that,
all
of
which
requires
some
engagement
so
forth.
You
also,
then,
have
to
do
what
I
call
calibrate,
which
is
to
say
how
much
of
that
community
benefit.
Should
how
much
credit
should
we
give
a
project
for
providing
enhanced
mixed-use?
Is
that
worth
a
full-height?
B
You
know,
should
that
be?
Is
that
so
valuable
to
our
community
that
that
by
itself
should
be
something
that
a
project
should
provide
in
order
to
get
additional
height,
or
is
it
some
of
that
combined
with
some
of
some
other
things,
so
you
get
into
what
I
call
the
calibration,
which
is
really
getting
an
appropriate
exchange
of
value?
If
you
will,
in
other
words,
we
the
community,
don't
want
to
leave
to
use
of
metaphor
or
to
use
a
phrase,
leave
money
on
the
table.
B
We
don't
want
to
give
a
halfway
height
for
things
that
are
valuable,
but
by
the
same
token,
we
have
to
be
careful
to
make
you
know.
If
we,
if
we
put
too
many
community
benefits
into
the
program
we
never
met,
it
may
get
any
of
them,
because
we've
asked
too
much
if
you
will
so
all
of
the
analysis
that
goes
into
every
time.
You
add
a
vehicle
or
add
a
community
benefit.
I
think
does
add
substantially
to
the
work.
Sorry,
that's
the
answer,
but
that
that's
that's
kind
of
my
sense
having
one
other
things.
C
To
that
yeah,
so
I
wasn't
imagining
the
entire
matrix.
You
make
a
very
good
point.
The
have
you
thought
about.
The
possibility
of
expanding
community
benefit
beyond
affordable
housing,
maybe
not
everything
on
that
matrix,
but
only
having
one
vehicle,
because
we're
really
only
talking
about
height
and
floor
area
ratio
exemptions.
So,
rather
than
all
of
the
things
on
that
y-axis
we're
just
looking
at
far
and
height
exemption
as
the
two
you
know,
the
it's
gonna
be
traded
and
then
it
doesn't
even
have
to
be
a
full
subset.
C
B
You
could
do
that
unless
I
think
adding
the
additional
the
word
I
used
was
vehicles,
in
other
words,
FA
our
height
and
so
forth.
That,
to
my
mind,
does
not
so
dramatically
expand
the
scope
of
work
as
adding
additional
community
benefits,
depending
on
which
ones
you
added
I
would
want
to
get
back
to
you,
I
think
as
to
how
much
with
and
with
a
more
recent
evaluation
of
how
much
that
expands
the
work
and
therefore
do
we
need
to
talk
about
changing
the
deadlines
so.
D
Just
Jim
tier
excuse
me
to
your
last
answer.
There
I
understand
that
the
calibration
that
you're
talking
about
which
you
girls
think
about
as
a
quantification
of
the
community
benefits
I
understand
how
that
would
be
an
option,
but
would
it
be
a
requirement?
I
mean
the
site
review
criteria.
We
don't
quantify
most
of
the
other
things.
There
are
ears
that
you
just
simply
must
do.
Some
things
are
discretionary.
It
seems
like
we
could
take
a
menu
of
approaches
to
that
question.
So
you
raise
some
excellent
points
but
seems
like
there
are
some
options
there.
B
Could
do
a
menu,
but
if
you
did
a
menu
and
don't
calibrate
or
quantify,
as
you
said,
I'll
tell
I
mean
my
sense:
is
the
market
is
going
to
go
to
the
cheapest
means
of
getting
that
additional
height?
And
so,
if
you
just
have
a
menu
and
say
okay,
one
of
the
options
available
is
additional
open
space.
If
the
market,
if
you
will
this,
you
know
market
that
operates
in
a
smart
way
out.
B
There
decides
that
that's
the
cheapest
way,
then
that's
what
they'll
be
coming
to
the
city
with,
and
we
may
run
the
risk
that
we
may
not
get
any
affordable
housing
because
we've
provided
a
cheaper
mean
for
projects
to
get
additional
height.
That's
I
think
the
essence
of
why
you
need
to
do
this
quantification
or
calibration.
Okay,.
B
In
this
case,
I
think
well
I
think
that
that
is
certainly
something
that
could
be
considered
within
the
body
of
this
work.
I
think
absolutely
we
be
talking
about
deed
restriction,
deed,
restricted,
permanently,
affordable
housing,
the
levels
of
affordability,
I
think
could
be
worked
out.
In
other
words,
are
we
talking
about
sixty
percent
or
below,
or
some
even
more
aggressive
goal
of
below
sixty
percent?
Would
we
want
there?
Would
we
want
sort
of
the
some
of
the
sort
of
mortal
workforce
in
this
sort
of
60
to
120
percent?
B
Account
I,
think
that's
something
we
could
look
at
during
the
course
of
this
you'd
want
to
once
again
returning
to
that
calibration
or
quantification
thing.
Obviously,
the
deeper
affordability
you
asked
for,
via
this
program,
the
more
expensive
it
becomes
to
a
project.
In
other
words,
the
gap
between
market
and
affordable
gets
bigger.
The
deeper
you
go,
and
so
you
would
probably
want
to
make
sure
that
if
you
were
doing
workforce
housing,
which
is
less
expensive
for
a
project
to
produce
that
you
got
more
of
it.
Okay,.
E
Second,
I
think,
first
of
all,
kudos
for
putting
together
a
plan
and
that
timeline,
because
I
had
not
been
done
before
and
that's
what
we
had
to
kind
of
pun.
It
so
I
really
appreciate
the
work
that
you
put
in,
but
being
somewhat
impatient.
I'm
just
really
wondering.
Why
does
it
take
so
long
to
get
to
the
point
where
you
can
make
a
proposal?
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
that?
The
the
timeline
between
now
and
I
think
it
was
April
when
you
would
come
with
the
first
with
the
first
council.
B
B
A
F
Think
most
of
my
questions
have
been
asked,
but
I'm
gonna
ask
when,
in
kind
of
a
different
way,
so
some
of
the
the
requirement,
the
site
review
requirements
are
FA
are
requirements
that
we
have
in
place.
Right
now
end
up
giving
us
larger
units,
then
we
would
like
to
see
it.
They
provide
incentives
for
larger
units
rather
than
smaller
units.
So
that
is
something
that
you're
going
to
look
at
in
this
process.
Yes,.
B
B
Yes,
I
mean
I
think
the
short
answer
is
yes,
one
thing
that
you
could
choose
to
leave
in
place
would
be
well
I
mean
the
current
ordinance.
The
current
ordinance
has
a
you
know,
a
sort
of
if
a
project
comes
forward
and
they
want
to
provide
50
percent,
affordable
housing,
regardless
of
their
location.
They
can
be
considered
for
that
I.
B
You
know
sitting
right
now.
That
would
not
be
my
recommendation.
I
think
you
want
to
set
a
clear,
transparent
path.
You
know,
if
I
think,
for
the
community
and
for
the
decision-makers
in
terms
of
a
really
predictable
path.
In
other
words,
if
this,
then
that
and
I
think
you
know
whether
the
criteria
was
Devon
designed
by
a
map
based
approach
or
a
zoning
district
based
approach
or
some
combination
thereof,
I
think
you
have
that
clarity.
Of
course
those
can
be
amended
over
time.
You
could
change
that
map.
B
Let's
say
we
conducted
an
area
plan
and
we'll
talk
about
area
planning
a
little
bit
later.
But
let's
say
a
couple
years,
two
years:
three
years
down
the
road,
we
did
an
area
plan
out
of
55th
and
Arapaho
via
that
area
planning.
You
might
decide
okay,
now
that
we've
done
that
this
might
be
an
area
where
we
ought
to
yeah,
and
then
you
would
just
amend
the
map
and
it
would
now
become
an
LG
area
that
was
eligible.
F
A
D
B
B
One
option
might
be
just
say
to
say:
regardless
of
what
type
of
project
you
are,
whether
you're
a
purely
commercial
project
or
a
mixed-use
building
or
a
purely
residential
building,
you
have
to
provide
on-site
unit.
That
would
be
one
option.
Another
option
would
be
to
and
I'm
not
saying
any
of
these
should
win
out
I'm
just
listing
options
right
now.
Another
option
would
be
to
say
if
you're
a
project
that
you
know
no
part
of
your
pro
forma,
it
contemplates
providing
housing
units
we'd,
say:
okay.
B
B
We
would
want
to
bring
to
you
for
your
consideration
and
so
I
think
what
we
will
be
doing
in
the
coming
months
is
examining
what
are
the
implications
of
those
different
choices
like
that,
including
sort
of
how
might
those
work
from
an
economics
point
of
view
and
and
then
vetting
that
with
the
community
and
bringing
you
back
with
either
a
proposal
or
a
couple
options
for
your
consideration
specifically
on
questions
like
that.
One.
Thank.
D
A
Okay,
I
have
one
question
and
then
I
want
to
wait
forth.
I
guess
one
of
the
other
things
that
is
on
the
menu
of
things
we
could
look
at
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
at
the
end
is
hey
community
benefit.
Insight
reveal
right,
so
this
pulls
out
what
you're
talking
about
just
pulls
out
height
modifications
to
look
at
community
benefit.
What,
if
we
said
hey,
we
want
our
other
project
to
look
at
community
benefit
writ
large
and
we
want
him
to
do
concurrently.
A
B
We
could
look
at
that,
but
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
that
in
combination
with
the
portfolio
of
things,
you
asked
us
to
do
to
implement
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
if
you,
if,
if
it's
okay
with
you,
maybe
we
ought
to
return
to
that
issue
when
we're
looking
at
across
the
entire
portfolio
of
the
16
potential
areas
and
then
revisit
that
is
like.
Is
that
one
that
can
be
done
in
conjunction
or
simultaneous
with
the
heightened
community
benefit
one?
Does
that
kind
of
at
least
give
you
an
as
Earl
is
I'm
kind
of
I.
G
I
would
generally
agree
with
that
and
I
think
I
mean
it's
gonna,
be
natural,
that
the
conversation
as
it
unfolds
around
the
height
ordinance
input
will
lead
to
probably
discussion
around
other
community
benefits.
So
we
could
certainly
be
doing
some
of
that
work
concurrently
and
then
potentially
provide
those
code
amendments
after
the
July
timeframe
and
maybe
at
the
end
of
next
year,
or
something
like
that.
So
it
could
be
that
there's
work,
that's
done
concurrently
and
that
just
doesn't
bring,
isn't
brought
forward
on
the
same
timeline.
A
Okay,
so
in
terms
of
my
opinion,
I
think
at
a
minimum
we
should
add
if
they
are
to
this
I,
also
think
it
would
be
useful
to,
as
you
say,
look
a
little
bit
further
along
the
x
axis
x
axis,
just
because
it's
weird
to
bite
off
a
piece
of
it
and
then
everybody's
gonna
want
to
go
and
talk
about
the
more
of
it
and
I.
It
seems
to
me
that
there's
some
efficiency
there
we
created
that
deadline
and
doesn't
mean
we
shouldn't
make
it
I
mean
I.
A
Think
a
lot
of
people
are
counting
on
us,
making
it
and
I
also
think
affordable.
Housing
is
the
top
thing
so
yeah,
but
I
think
it.
In
my
mind
this
is
a
top
priority.
The
community
benefit
conversation
so
that
we
could
have
a
robust
conversation
over
the
next
year
and
get
er
done
so
I
guess
that's
my
even
we
could
put
some
sideboards
on
it
to
me.
That's
a
top
priority
for
me.
So,
okay,
we'll
start
with
Bob
Andrew
Jim.
H
I'm
gonna
largely
agree
with
an
I
I
would
like
us
to
meet
her
deadline,
but
but
as
Sam
and
maybe
Aaron
indicated,
I
think
we
should
look
at
some
of
the
other
community
benefits.
We're
gonna
be
looking
at
them
anyway,
and
and
I
get
the
fact
that
it
creates
a
lot
more
time
and
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
later
in
the
evening
about
your
portfolio
and
maybe
if
we
give
you
relief,
there
you'll
be
more
comfortable
at
this
Jim.
But
you
know,
as
Aaron
pointed
out
I'm,
you
know.
H
If
a
building
is
doesn't
have
any
residential
units,
then
we're
gonna
have
to
creditors,
create
some
artificial
devices
to
to
allow
them
to
provide
affordable
housing.
If
that's
the
only
community
benefit
and
I'm.
Also
thinking
you
know,
we
have
a
bias
towards
trying
to
get
on
people
in
affordable
housing
into
owned
units,
so
I'm
in
trying
to
envision
a
five-story
building
where
there's
owned
units.
H
Well,
the
I
guess
that
means
condos
and
we've
got
other
issues
with
condos
and
so
I
think
we're
looking
at
attached
and
detached
houses,
not
five-story
apartment
buildings
for
some
of
our
affordable
housing.
So
I
think
we
run
into
a
little
bit
of
a
conflict
on
our
preference
there
and
so
I'd
like
us
to
look
at
other
community
benefits.
Maybe
it's
not
all
12
or
15
things
on
the
x-axis
on
what
the
Planning
Board
provided
you
but
Sam's
plane.
H
H
Do
we
really
want
five-story,
affordable
housing
units
and
does
that
achieve
our
goal
of
ownership
in
certain
circumstances,
and
so
I
think
you
will
have
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
which
we
litter
the
four
or
five
or
three
or
seven
community
benefits
we
should
tackle,
but
I
wouldn't
limit
it
to
housing
affordability,
even
though
it's
number
one
on
our
list.
It's
not
the
only
thing
on
our
list.
I
I'm
gonna
do
most
of
what's
been
said:
I
I'm,
not
too
concerned
in
fact
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
this.
You
know
overemphasis
on
calibration.
This
isn't
an
exact
science
and
we're
not
going
to
know
until
we
do
it
what
options
people
are
gonna,
choose
and
I
feel
like
we're.
This
is
the
perfect
being
the
enemy
of
the
good
kind
of
situation
you
can
always
adjust
and-
and
we
have
in
the
past,
you
know
whether
it's
vacation,
rentals
or
whatever
else.
I
If
we
see
we
see
something
happening
that
we
don't
like,
we
can
go
back
and
dial
it
back
and
take
I
mean
these
kinds
of
projects
by
the
way
take
a
long
time
to
get
done
anyway.
So
it's
it's
not
like
everything's
gonna
happen
tomorrow.
If
we
start
to
see
applications
coming
in
and
site
reviews
and
whatnot
we
can,
we
can
fix
them.
The
other
issue
I
want
to
well
affordable
housing
is
very
important
that
I
just
want
to
bring
us
back
to
the
fact
that
you
know
we
spent
a
long
time.
I
You're
talking
about
attacks
and
all
kinds
of
community
benefits
that
that
we
want
the
citizens
of
Boulder
to
pay
for,
interestingly,
that
they're
willing
to
pay
for,
and
we
haven't,
put
an
affordable
housing
tax
on
the
ballot,
because
maybe
we're
not
sure
people
will
pay
for
that.
But
there's
all
these
other
kinds
of
things
we
think
people
will
pay
for.
I
The
community
benefit
projects
on
the
x-axis
to
what
the
Planning
Board
provided,
because
they're
looking
at
it
through
one
lens
and
and
but
the
Planning
Board,
doesn't
deal
with
a
number
of
issues
in
the
city
that
provide
community
benefits,
and
so
I
would
talk
to
city
staff
about
all
the
kinds
of
issues.
We
have
Molly
winters
a
great
example
and
other
people
about
well.
E
What
the
community
has
told
us
time
and
time
again
is
the
highest
priority,
which
is
housing
so
I,
actually
like
the
idea
that
you
have
said
we're
gonna
pick
the
highest
priority
and
we're
gonna
develop
this
and,
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
forever.
Maybe
this
is
where
we
start,
but
also
it
enables
you
in
your
new
role,
to
maybe
change
some
of
the
processes
of
gathering
input
from
the
community
and
being
more
successful
in
generating
more
consensus
around
one
item
rather
than
a
15
by
6
matrix.
So
I
really
support
your
idea
of
a.
E
D
Well
so
I'm
gonna
agree
with
most
of
what's
been
said
and
it
kind
of
a
combined
way.
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
important
sometime
soon
to
include
multiple
community
benefits.
I
mean
we
spent
a
long
time
on
this
and
the
comp
plan
process
and,
for
example,
I
worked
with
the
folks
who
worked
hard
on
getting
heart
as
a
community
benefit
into
the
Comprehensive,
Plan
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
menu
of
options.
We
might
consider
a
staged
approach.
You
know
Leslie
you
mentioned
that
intrigued
me
something
about.
D
I
would
not
add
on
F,
AR
or
other
things,
I
think
we
have
potential
there
I.
Think.
For
example,
we've
talked
about
I'm,
only
granting
more
intense
owning
unless
we
got
community
benefit
and
so
I
think
we
could
FA
are,
and
things
like
that
can
play
into
that
conversation,
but
I
wouldn't
put
FA
our
in
this
conversation,
but
anyway
so
put
that
idea
out
of
stages,
because
I
think
I
think
we
do
want
to
hit
that
deadline
and
we
do
want
to
include
multiple
community
benefits.
But
maybe
we
take
a
list
in
French.
J
Well,
I
think
I,
mostly
Aviva
Jan,
for
what
it's
worth,
but
maybe
for
slightly
different
reasons.
I
when
I
looked
at
the
matrix
from
the
planning
for
the
first
thing
that
jumped
out
at
me-
and
maybe
this
is
a
kind
of
a
Jim
was
saying
about
quantifying
things-
is
that
so
many
of
the
items
I
had
no
idea,
he'd
quantify
them
and
a
lot
of
them
didn't
seem
very
permanent
to
me
and
that
really
troubles
me.
J
We
already
have
a
kind
of
an
example
of
that
where
we
force
certain
developments
to
provide
you
know,
transit
passes
for
three
years.
Well,
that's
just
totally
worthless
and
frankly,
I've,
never
understood
that
I
mean
either
say
something's
permanent
or
it's
irrelevant.
A
lot
of
the
other
things
struck.
Me
is
not
being
very
permanent
and
being
awfully
hard
to
figure
out
how
an
earth
you
would
quantify
them.
I
think
from
the
community's
perspective,
it
is
always
hard
to
talk
for
the
community
that
polling
or
not,
surveys
or
not.
I
got
very
many.
J
People
in
the
community
would
trade
off
extra
height
for
a
piece
of
art.
Sorry
ain't
there
or
even
some
arts
facility
and
Jim,
of
course
raises
a
good
question
about
how
on
earth
would
you
define
that
what
his
permanence
mean
we
just
kind
of
went
through
that,
didn't
we
and-
and
we
know
exactly
how
hard
that
is
so
I
think
I'd,
stick
to
keeping
it
simple
and.
K
J
Something
that
is
exceptionally
easy
to
quantify.
We
know
exactly
how
to
do
it,
and
we
also
know
that
if
you
get
money
in
lieu
of
something
which
could
be
the
case
for
any
of
these
benefits,
because
a
lot
of
them
wouldn't
work
on-site
anyway
in
the
housing
world,
we
already
have
ways
to
deal
with
that
and
they're
really
good
ways,
whereas
in
the
other
worlds
yeah
it's
not
very
clear.
We
have
lots
of
kind
of
unsettled
ways
of
spending
money.
J
That
is
certainly
not
clear
to
me,
not
that
we
waste
it,
but
it's
it's
nowhere
near
as
clear
I
mean
the
other
benefit
that
I
think
would
be
at
the
top
of
people's
list,
and
the
community
would
be
transportation,
but,
to
be
honest
with
you,
I
have
no
idea
how
you
quantify
that
and
how
you
make
that
happen.
I
mean
other
than
cash.
J
What
is
somebody
gonna?
Do
you
know
put
in
a
rail
line,
so
it's
kind
of
really
hard
for
one
project
to
do
much
in
the
realm
of
transportation,
and
the
last
thing
I'd
say
is
some
of
these
community
benefits
and
the
one
that
pops
into
my
mind
that
I
think
is
important
to
the
community,
which
is
better
design.
J
Certain
benefits
that
are
built-in
thou
shalt
not
get
an
extra
point
five,
unless
thou
does
Visser
VAT,
so
they're
kind
of
already
a
bunch
of
requirements.
Now
they
may
not
be
enough.
That's
fine,
but
it's
not
as
if
you
get
the
extra.
If
they
are
right
now
without
doing
something,
you've
got
it,
and
it's
only
in
certain
zoning
districts,
and
you
know
on
and
on
and
on
it's
all
very
complicated,
as
as
we
always
make
things
so
I
yeah
I
mean
for
me
I
guess
the
first
step
would
be
I.
J
The
development
community
is
really
smart
and,
if
there's
a
cheaper
way
to
do
it,
they'll
do
it
fair
enough,
but
just
because
something
might
be
cheaper
doesn't
mean
it
isn't
more
valuable
to
the
community
and
we
seem
to
get
just
all
caught
up
in
the
oh,
my
god,
there's
all
these
greedy
developers
and
they're
getting
away
with
something
well
yeah.
That
may
be
true,
but
on
the
other
hand,
if
what
the
community
is
getting
is
incredibly
valuable
to
the
community.
J
What's
so
wrong
about
that
again,
that's
a
place
for
a
housing
is
kind
of
the
easiest.
I
think
the
other
ones
get
a
little
more
tricky
or
something
that
might
be
frankly
fairly
inexpensive
to
a
developer
might
be
of
great.
You
did
the
community
I
won't
weigh
in
on
whether
it's
good
or
bad,
but
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
don't
tie
yourself
in
knots
over
that
Sam.
C
So
I'm,
mostly
in
the
place
that
I'd
like
to
see
if
they
are
added
just
those
two
right
now,
because
that
will
keep
it
simple.
I
Matt
points
out
some
of
the
complexity
with
bringing
if
they
are
in,
but
that's
definitely
what
you
know.
It
creates
more
impact
when
you
have
more
floor
area
ratio
just
by
its
very
nature,
with
transportation
and
traffic
and
so
on
so
I
think
it
it's
similar
to
height
in
that
way,
because
I
will
do
the
same
thing
generally.
C
So
I
would
like
to
see
that
type
in
and
I'm.
Okay,
if
we
do
either
a
very
small
subset
of
community
benefit
or
if
we
phase
it
I
mean
I.
Think
that
that's
okay,
because
the
principles
you'll
have
to
come
up
with
when
you
do
it.
If
you
do
it
for
one
or
two
or
three,
are
the
principles
you'll
use
to
bring
other
things
in
right,
so
I
could
see
there
being
a
weighting
where
we
wait.
C
You
know
different
types
of
community
benefit
based
on
what
we
think
the
value
is
to
the
community
and
then
the
the
quantity
qualification
Matt
brings
up
a
good
point
about
value
and
cost,
but
they
can
be
related,
and
so
you
could
at
the
very
least
say
you
know.
The
total
amount
spent
on
community
benefit
for
relating
it
to
height
and
floor
area
ratio
will
ultimately
be
determined
by
the
planning
board
right,
but
here's
some
guidelines,
anything
you
could
do
to
kind
of
give
people
direction.
I
mean
I.
C
I,
find
three
easy
types
of
community
benefit
to
think
about.
One
is
affordable,
housing
one
is
surpassing
the
required
energy
codes.
I
think
in
this
community
there's
a
lot
of
emphasis
on
on
renewable
energy
and
energy
efficiency.
So
I
think
that's
one
that
you
could
look
at.
It
might
actually
be
relatively
easy
to
quantify
and
then
the
third
one
is
publicly
accessible
spaces.
C
You
know,
because,
in
order
to
create
those
spaces,
the
developer
will
have
forgo
a
certain
amount
of
building
that
they
would
otherwise
probably
do,
and
so
anyway,
those
would
be
the
three
at
the
top
of
my
list
to
be
thinking
about
and
I,
don't
know
if
that's
too
much
and
it
will
put
you
past
the
deadline,
but
for
me
those
would
be
ones
to
think
about.
First
I
generally
would
like
to
meet
this
deadline
and
I
think
you
know,
by
keeping
it
narrowly
focused,
there's
a
shot
at
doing
that.
C
I
want
to
put
out
the
good
word,
though,
that
community
engagement
is
going
to
be
a
big
deal
for
this
and
I.
Think
you've
accurately
pointed
out
that
there
will
be
a
lot
of
public
interest
in
this,
so
doing
anything
to
shortcut.
That
process
will
just
lead
to
community
anger
in
the
end
and
I
think
you
know
now
you
feel,
like
the
department's
been
doing
good
outreach.
F
So
I
would
just
like
to
add
that
I
do
feel
that
the
calibration
piece
is
important.
I
think
it's
very,
very
important,
because
otherwise
we're
gonna
end
up
with,
as
you
said,
developers
just
paying
the
lowest
amount
that
they
can
pay.
I
would
also
say
that
to
be
careful
as
we
move
forward
with
in
lieu
piece,
because
that's
something
that
we're
now
trying
to
undo
with
the
inclusionary
housing.
F
So
we
want
to
do
it
so
that
we
get
it
as
close
to
right
in
terms
of
amounts
so
that
we
get
what
we
want
and
it
goes
back
to
that
value
versus
cost.
It
may
not
cost
very
much,
but
the
value
is
higher.
Vice
versa,
and
so
we
need
to
calibrate
on
those
two
pieces.
I
would
also
like
to
add.
The
FA
are
I,
think
that's
a
pretty
important
vehicle,
or
maybe
I
should
put
it
this
way.
F
Add
whatever
vehicle
you
need
to
add
in
order
to
get
us
to
one
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
in
the
community
is
that
we
get
bigger
units
in
in
the
taller
buildings,
and
that's
not
really
what
we
would
like
to
see.
If
we're
looking
for
workforce
housing
housing,
so
you
know
whatever
vehicle
it's
likely,
FA
are
but
whatever
vehicle
it
takes
to
accomplish.
F
That
I
would
pick
that
one
and
then
finally,
also
to
Matt's
point
about
ones
that
are
permanent
and
easy
to
calibrate
in
order
to
make
it
to
keep
it
simple
and
I
like
the
idea
of
meeting
the
deadline
and
then
just
having
some
things
in
the
wings
that
we
can
then
approve
later
on.
So
that's
all
I
have
to
add.
A
D
Thanks
Mary
for
that
point,
I
just
want
to
agree
with
that
that
idea,
if
we
could
get
something
that
some
vehicle
that
can
be
incentivize
the
larger
units
and
incentivize,
the
smaller
ones,
I
think
that
would
be
great
I,
don't
know
if
it
fits
into
this
I.
Don't
know
if
FA
R
is
the
vehicle
that
does
that,
but
I
also
love
the
idea.
D
A
If
I
may
be
so
bold
to
try
to
sum
up,
I
think
I
think
everybody
still
agrees.
Portable
housing,
that
is
the
top
some
people
and
I-
think
it
might
be.
A
plurality,
is
ok
to
add
an
addition
to
height,
FA
are
or
other
vehicles
that
get
at
the
issue
just
named,
but
understanding
they
need
to
keep
it
simple
and
it
sounds
like
I
think
we
are
talking
ourselves
into
coming
up
with
principles
such
that
you
can.
A
We
meet
our
deadlines
on
the
height
issue,
but
we
can
also
have
a
fuller
conversation
about
community
benefit
and
stage
some
others
coming
along
and
I'll
just
underscore
what
Matt
and
Mary
said
about
permanent.
They
need
to
be
real
and
they
need
to
be
well
calibrated.
So
does
anybody
disagree
with
that
summary?
Ok.
Is
that
helpful?
Yes,.
B
L
Good
evening,
so
the
we've
been
wanting
for
I
think
at
least
a
year
to
talk
up
to
be
in
front
of
you
to
talk
about
ad
use.
So
we're
really
excited
to
be
here
tonight
and
I
I
believe
it.
It
was
discussed
prior
to
that
as
well
on
several
occasions,
and
we've
also
heard
from
the
community
that
they
want
us
to
talk
about
80
use
both
in
the
comp
plan,
as
well
as
emails
and
phone
calls
that
we
receive
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
at
the
council
retreat.
L
Ad
use
are
not
a
silver
bullet
to
affordable
housing,
but
they're.
One
of
many
tools
when
combined
with
other,
affordable
housing,
approaches
or
regulations
that
are
gonna
together
in
combination,
have
an
impact
on
the
percentage
of
affordable
housing
and
diversity
of
housing
that
we
want
in
the
city.
So
ad
use
do
represent
a
type
of
diverse
housing
that
many
in
the
community
have
said
that
they
would
like
to
see
more
of
so
I'm
gonna
hand.
L
M
Good
evening
hope,
Kurt
didn't
oversell
me
on
that
one.
So
I'm,
just
gonna
provide
a
little
bit
of
background
on
sort
of
what
ad
yous
are.
So
the
definition
in
the
code
is
a
separate
and
complete
housekeeping
unit.
It's
it
can
be
attached
or
detached
from
the
primary
residential
unit,
but
the
key
is
that
it's
on
a
single-family
lot.
M
The
code
defines
three
different
types
of
accessory
units:
I'm
not
going
to
talk
about
limited
accessory
units
because
there's
only
one
in
the
city,
but
this
is
gets
really
confusing
for
most
people,
I've
had
a
hard
time
with
this,
so
I
found
this
very
graphic.
So
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
typically
within
that
home
is
it
can
either
be
in
the
Attic
I'm
in
Boulder,
most
typically,
it's
in
the
basement,
an
owner
accessory
unit
can
be
either
attached
or
detached.
M
So
a
little
bit
of
history,
the
first
ordinance
was
adopted
back
in
1983.
It
was
amended
in
the
late
1980s
and
again
in
the
late
1990s.
It's
been
identified
in
the
toolkit
of
housing
options
for
the
comprehensive
housing
strategy,
both
1999
and
2014.
There
was
a
great
study
that
was
done
in
2012.
There
was
a
link
in
the
memo
has
lots
of
great
information
about
the
number
of
accessory
units
in
the
city
when
they
were
built.
M
It
has
a
survey
results
and
our
list
of
potential
amendments
are
partially
come
from
owners
experiences
has
national
best
practices.
What
are
other
cities
doing
and
identifies
this
areas
of
a
number
of
barriers
to
creating
more
of
them
in
2016
or
with
the
community
survey,
found
that
there
was
strong
support
for
allowing
accessory
unit
in
some
single
film,
single-family
neighborhoods
and
just
to
put
all
this
in
context
as
of
January
this
year
there
are
only
205
legal
accessory
units,
which
is
one-half
of
one
percent
of
the
housing
stock.
Do.
M
M
M
I
A
L
A
A
M
However,
it
creates
a
sometimes
tense
dynamic
between
neighbors
and
the
owner
and
staff,
when
staff
has
to
explain
that
accessory
dwelling
units
can
be
built
by
right
and
the
neighbor
has
real
no
implement
no
real
influence
over
the
process,
so
staff
would
propose
potentially
removing
that
requirement
as
well
concentration,
probably
a
larger
barrier.
The
saturation
rule,
no
more
than
ten
percent
of
the
homes
within
300
feet
may
have
an
accessory
unit.
It's
a
little
different
for
the
different
types
of
accessory
units.
The
intent
was
to
prevent
overabundance
of
these
types
of
housing.
M
What
staff
would
propose
is
increasing
that
potentially
to
20
percent
again
in
the
goal
of
promoting
additional
accessory
units
in
the
city.
Non-Conforming
structures
are
also
considered
as
part
of
that
saturation
rule,
as
well
as
mostly
duplexes,
but
also
some
apartments.
So
again,
the
idea
was
to
prevent
overabundance
of
non
single-family
homes,
so
we
would
want
to
recognize
that
duplexes
and
these
other
types
are
very
different
and
contributed
to
that
diversity
of
housing
in
our
city,
size,
size
is
probably
a
bigger
barrier
than
I
need
the
previous
ones.
M
It
limits
the
home
size
limits,
building
coverage,
how
much
you
can
build
on
a
lot
and
it
limits
the
expansion
of
certain
types
of
accessory
units
and
additionally,
we
have
very
detailed
design
requirements
in
the
ordinance
and
all
that
was
to
ensure
the
new
units
are
subordinate
to
the
single-family
home.
So
what
staff
wants
to
look
at
is
raising
or
removing
or
loosening
some
of
these
rules
and
it
recognizing
that
the
compatible
development
standards
that
were
adopted
after
the
accessory
unit
ordinance
addresses
a
lot
of
these
issues.
M
Does
that
make
sense?
Okay
parking
so
probably
the
biggest
obstacle
that
we've
heard
from
owners
and
and
people
trying
to
build
these?
It's
also
probably
the
most
controversial,
so
who
requires
one
additional
off-street
parking
space?
The
original
intent,
of
course
reduce
the
impact
of
additional
cars
parked
in
the
street
the
option
we
would
propose
removing
that
requirement.
M
Three
primary
reasons:
we're
not
proposing
to
increase
the
occupancy
limits
as
part
of
this
effort,
so
theoretically,
a
single-family
home
and
a
home
with
an
ad
you
would
have
could
have
the
same
number
of
automobiles.
Boulder
is
one
of
the
few
remaining
cities
with
the
requirement.
A
lot
of
cities
across
the
country
started
out
with
the
parking
requirement,
but
that's
one
of
the
barriers
that
they
have
removed
over
time
and
based
on
recent
council
action.
M
It
was
not
required
for
cooperative
housing,
and
then
this
came
from
the
council
agenda
committee
was
to
explore
location
specific
rather
than
citywide
implementation.
An
example
is
the
parking
may
be.
There
may
be
parts
of
the
city
where
we
wouldn't
want
to
waive
the
parking
requirement,
and
this
could
also
be
addressed
as
part
of
the
area
planning
effort
that
will
get
discussed
a
little
bit
later
tonight.
So
those
are
the
options.
Are
the
clear.
A
M
Just
reiterating
this
is
a
very
short
effort,
so
we
said
we
would
do
this
very
quickly.
October/November,
a
draft
report
in
open
house
I
think
Susan
Richard
owned,
promised
an
open
house
at
the
retreat
as
early
as
January
December,
January
drafting
an
ordinance
and
going
to
Planning
Board
and
then
being
back
at
Council
in
February
March,
and
then
here
are
your
specific
questions
in
one
way
that
a
previous
council
agenda
committee
also
suggested
we
frame.
This
is:
are
there
any
on
this
list?
F
M
F
The
flip
side
of
that
is
that
you
have
homes
that
are
5000
square
feet
right
so
and
that's
why
I'm
asking
the
question.
So
you
know
if
you
would
consider
the
flip
side
of
that
coin.
I
think
that
would
be
that
would
address.
Consideration
of
the
flip
side
would
address
them.
Well,
I!
Guess
we're
not
commenting
yet
so
that
was
one
question
and
then
was
there
any
consideration
given
to
as
we
move
forward
in
the
process.
Is
you
know,
corner
Lots
and
how
that
extra
area
could
maybe
contribute
to
maybe
another
ad
you
right.
M
M
F
M
F
H
Talk
a
little
bit
or
understand
a
little
bit
more
about
your
item.
A
I
see
the
general
Rogers
in
the
room.
I
know
that
he
J
thanks
for
meeting
with
him
and
talking,
but
from
a
customer
perspective
about
how
challenging
our
process
is
and
I'm
really
happy
to
see
that
number
on
your
list
is
simplifying
our
process.
You
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
some
of
the
things.
M
M
We're
not
talking
about
adding
code
or
having
more
complexity
in
Mike.
I
haven't
had
that
many
conversations
about
how
the
process
works
and
I'm
not
involved
in
it
day
to
day
so
I'm,
probably
not
the
best
person
to
talk
about
it,
but
I
definitely
have
heard
that's
a
concern
that
the
general
public
has
a
very
difficult
time,
navigating
our
regulations
and
being
willing
to
go
to
the
make
the
time
in
the
effort
to
actually
go
through
the
permitting
process.
H
So
I
just
suggest
that
that,
in
addition
to
the
substantive
changes
which
I
think
we're
heading
down
a
good
path,
we
also
look
at
process
changes,
because
this
is
not.
These
are
not
developers
right.
This
is
I
mean
our
development
process
can
be
as
complicated.
You
want
to
make
it
because
we
have
very
sophisticated
people
with
lawyers
and
architects
involved,
but
these
are
just
asking.
E
E
M
Original
list-
and
we
discussed
it
internally
and
it
was
deemed
that
was
fairly
complicated.
Would
that
be
you
involve
a
complete
rewrite
of
the
code?
Okay,
I
cannot
tell
you
the
history
of
where
that
came
from.
Why
I
mean
a
lot
of
it
and
keep
in
mind.
This
is
sort
of
common
with
all
jurisdictions
throughout
the
country
you
know,
ad
use
back
in
the
1970s.
M
It
was
kind
of
a
new
thing
was
a
little
scary,
so
they
wanted
it
to
write
code
for
events
of
the
worst
case
scenario,
so
they
made
it
overly
complex
and
tried
to
define
it
and
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
is
simplify
that,
but
I
think
that
would
be
sort
of
a
next
go
around
as
you're
writing.
It.
E
L
E
Can
you
address
if
you've
looked
at
the
roadblocks
that
were
addressed
in
that
survey,
which
was
quite
good
in
22
of,
and
you
know
that
report
card
from
sideline
org
that
kind
of
said
these
are
the
biggest
roadblocks
that
we
found
across
the
country
or
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
tried
to
address
those
things?
Do
you
feel
like
you're,
addressing
most
of
the
the
key
issues
to
being
successful?
I
do.
M
I
think
this
is
a
good
package,
but
I
want
to
emphasize
what
Kurt
said
in
the
beginning.
This
is
not
a
silver
bullet
I
mean
cities
have
removed
barriers
and
actually
gone
to
the
point
of
incentivizing
them
by
waiving
fees
and
they're.
Now
seeing
a
huge
groundswell
of
ad
use,
I
mean
you
have
to
be
motivated
to
actually
build
one
of
these.
That's.
E
We
just
saw
a
Portland
as
one
a
day
now
a
new
license
a
day,
so
it
seems
to
be
turning
the
corner
there
in
Portland.
Just
a
couple
more,
have
you
looked
at
simplifying
the
rules
for
existing
ad
use
because
we've
heard
from
existing
owners
who
need
to
upgrade
them
and
it's
classified
as
new
construction?
Can
you
do
something
to
enable
them
to
get
to
the
process
quicker,
I.
M
E
N
M
E
E
A
I
I,
did
this
stairs,
let's
say
so:
I
guess
I
I
was
I
was
understanding
the
ATU?
Oh,
do
you
know
all
these
acronym
distinctions?
So
you
said
there
were
no
occupancy
changes.
Okay,
explain
that
I.
If
there
is
a
let's
just
take
a
home
where
the
occupancy
limit
is
4,
all
right-
and
you
add
an
A
to
you-
is
the
occupancy
limit
of
that
home.
Still
4th.
I
I
O
Is
a
home
I
think
that
the
idea
of
an
Adu
is
that
you
just
add
an
kitchen
essentially
and
you
occupy
it
in
the
same
way
and
frankly,
it
allows
you
to
more
easily
get
to
the
maximum
occupancy
allowed
by
the
zone,
and
you
know
it
is
so.
This
is
just
that
for
a
to
use
the
typical
way
that
they're
occupied
is
part
of
it
is
you
know
our
occupancy
regulations
are
a
family
plus
two
people?
O
A
I
I
O
Difference
is:
is
that
you're,
essentially
creating
two
dwelling
units
within
a
house
and
you're
still
living
with
the
same
limitations
that
everybody
else
within
the
zoning
district
have
to
live
with
in
terms
of
occupancy,
and
then
I
think
that
it's
Jay
pointed
out
in
his
presentation.
There
are
a
number
of
additional
regulations
that
that
he's
proposing
that
we
remove
that
were
originally
adopted
to
address
a
lot
of
those
impacts,
so
I
guess
in
essence.
A
lot
of
the
proposed
changes
that
are
being
discussed
this
evening
are
making
it
closer
even
closer
to
a
single-family
home.
F
Just
a
just
a
clarifying
question
on
that
on
that
response.
So
really
what
this
does
the
then
the
difference
between
not
having
an
aide
to
you
and
having
a
couple
of
orders
and
having
an
aide
to
you
and
a
couple
of
orders
is
that
you
don't
have
to
share
the
stove.
That's
the
only
difference.
That's.
O
I
O
I
I
mean
I
can
say
you
know:
I
can
have
a
door
that
locks
between
two
sides
of
the
house
right,
that's
correct,
okay
and
so
and
I
can
you
just
told
me:
I
could
put
a
stove
in
my
basement
or
in
my
attic
if
I
follow
the
rules
and
I
could
put
a
sink
in
this
tub
in
the
basement.
The
attic
of
a
follow
the
rules.
You
can't
build.
J
A
I
think
if
I'm
correct,
this
is
basically
a
mechanism.
If
you
don't
want
to
have
borders
live
with
you,
but
you
want
to
have
borders,
it's
you
know,
so
you
can
have
to
create
a
separate
and
that's
about
what
it
does.
Okay,
we
have
Matt
and
we're
just
doing
questions
and
then
we're
getting
on
to
input
so.
J
Matt
and
then
Aaron
questions
they're
kind
of
dancing
around
the
same
issues
because
they're
a
little
confusing,
but
so
Jan
is
right,
the
naming
it
so
it's
taken
me
ten
years
to
remember
what
the
difference
between
a
tu
and
au
au
is
and
I'm
sure
I'll
forget
here
shortly.
Can
we
like
maybe
call
them
internal
accessory
units
and
extra
accessory
units,
so
you
might
have
some
chance
of
understanding
what
they
are.
Does
everybody
concur
with
that.
J
I
get
this
isn't
so
much,
but
it
is
actually
a
question.
It
was
kind
of
asked,
I
mean
I'm.
Looking
at
the
code,
I
guess
I
get
what
you
can't
just
call
them
all
the
same,
because
the
external
ones,
even
if
we
simplify
I'm,
assuming
you
would
still
say
well-
have
to
be
differences
in
sizes
and
placement
and
blah
blah
blah
and
internal
and
the
code
be
real
confusing
if
she
then
had
a
separated
out
anyway.
J
J
So
occupancy
one
other
piece
of
occupancy
that
nobody's
raised
that
the
code
seems
to
have
I
didn't
know
this
until
I
just
looked
at
it
is,
is
you
can
only
have
the
way
it's
written
here?
It
can
only
be
two
unrelated
or
it
could
only
be
two
people
in
the
ADA
you
it's
written
in
the
memo.
It
says,
they're
gonna
be
a
max
of
two
people
in
the
ad.
You
is
that
correct,
I
think
that's
correct.
J
So
that
kind
of
further
limits
it,
whether
it's
a
internal
or
external
aid
to
you,
but
then
the
owner
could
live
in
the
the
accessory.
If
the
owner
lives
in
the
accessory
and
rents
out,
the
main
is
the
still
a
limit
of
where
the
limits
then
I
am
completely
lost
as
to
what
happens
in
those
circumstances,
they
typically.
O
Typically,
what
happens
in
that
circumstance
is
that
they're
renting
to
a
family.
So
if
you
were
a
single
or
a
couple
and
you
want
to
live,
you
want
to
downsize
and
move
into
the
ad
you.
They
would
typically
market
that
to
a
faith.
They
would
typically
market
that
to
somebody
who
would
need
that
amount
of
space,
and
that
would
be
a.
J
Fan
of
it,
so
the
rule
would
still
be
the
accessory
unit
is
still
the
accessory
unit.
There's
only
be
two
of
you,
even
if
you're
the
owner,
yep,
that's
correct
and
then
the
the
bigger
the
main
house,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
yeah,
it's
just
a
rental.
Well
I
kind
of
asked
that,
because
of
the
question
that
Mary
asked,
which
I
also
have,
which
is
sizes
I
mean
on
large
lots
with
big
houses,
I
was
kind
of
thinking.
Well,
you
know
who's
gonna
build
a
2000
to
2500
square
foot
accessory
unit.
J
If
you
gotta
rent
to
two
people,
but
you
can
move
into
it
and
now
you
can
rent
your
five
thousand
foot
house
out.
How
is
that
useful
to
the
community?
I
mean
this
is
where
I
also
get
lost.
How
is
that?
What
problem
is?
What
problem
are
we
solving
there
that
we
want
to
allow
people
to
build
such
large
things
on
their
Lots?
Clearly,
none
of
these
are
going
to
be
even
remotely
affordable
to
anybody.
J
So
what
problem
are
we
solving
and
then
that's
kind
of
the
follow-up
to
Mary's
question
so
I
just
leave
that
as
a
question.
If
you
don't
have
a
size,
love
it
I,
don't
know
what
problem
we're.
Solving
the
other
question.
I've
got.
I
got
a
few
others.
One
is
also
on
sizes,
there's
a
minimum
lot
size
for
kind
of
both
of
them,
but
I
guess.
My
question
is
the
a
is
that
not
solved
by
kind
of
which
zoning
districts
these
things
are
allowed
and
and
B?
J
Is
it
not
additionally
solved
by
all
the
compatible
development
rules?
We
now
have
I
mean
if
you
really
have
a
small
a
lot,
let's
say
a
non-conforming
lot.
You
can
have
a
real
tough
time.
I
mean
you
could
have
one
in
your
house.
You
could
have
the
inter
and
a
lady
you,
but
you're
gonna
have
a
really
tough
time
having
an
external
one,
because
you
know
you've
used
up
your
your
coverage.
You
used
up
something
so
I.
Think
that's
I
mean
it's
a
question
of.
If
you
thought
about
that,
or
is
that
not?
J
M
That
part
I'm
not
Tyla
Clara
and
have
to
look
into
more
that's
all,
but
in
terms
of
the
size
of
the
accessory
unit,
I
want
to
be
clear.
We
weren't
proposing
to
eliminate
the
1,000
square
foot
limit.
We
were
proposing
to
increase
it
from
one
third,
so
it's
1,000
feet
or
one
third
increasing
that
to
one
half.
So
whichever
is
smaller,
so
you
can't
have
a
5,000
square
foot
house
and
build
take.
J
A
look
at
what
you
did
again.
It
seemed
to
me
that
had
opened
that
up,
but
all
right,
that's
fine!
That's
not
our
intent!
Now!
Okay,
do
we
have
any
sense?
Have
we
done
any
research
into
who
actually
occupies
the
current
legal
80s
and
overuse
it's
a
little
harder
to
get
the
illegal
ones,
even
though
there's
almost
certainly
more
other
than
the
legal
ones?
J
M
J
Who
said
you
know
my
neighbor
built
one
of
these
things,
legal
or
illegal
and
it
increased?
Is
there
a
property
value
and
then,
of
course,
the
Assessor
comes
along?
It
increases
everybody's
property
value
because
that's
the
crazy
way
the
Assessor
works
and
that's
that's
a
negative.
That's
not
a
positive
for
Boulder.
So
another
question
is:
do
we
have
any
information
on
how
that
might
affect
things?
J
I
mean
if
you
build
a
thousand
square
foot
unit,
our
property
probably
increases
your
property
value
pretty
substantially,
which
then
has
to
tends
to
have
spin-off
effects
in
the
surrounding
properties.
So
some
information
on
that,
if
you
can
get
any
relatively
easily,
would
be
helpful
again.
That
question
was
triggered
by
some
emails.
We've
gone
people
who
are
unhappy
about
that.
So,
okay.
M
So
what
can
I
yeah
just
my
experience
in
Portland
with
the
accessory
dwelling
units?
It's
not
necessarily
the
neighbors
problem
property
taxes,
but
once
you
build
that,
then
the
Assessor
does
come
along
and
you
end
up
paying
significantly
more
I
mean
property.
Taxes
are
higher
in
Portland,
but
it
almost
wipes
away
the
value
of
adding
that
accessory
unit,
but
the
additional
taxes
you
have
to
pay
for
it.
Well,.
J
That's
part
of
the
answer:
Chris
our
preppy
taxes
are
a
lot
lower
than
well
last
question.
I've
got
is
used
to
something
about
parking
and
how
we
don't
need
any
parking
requirements
because
doesn't
change
anything
and
I
didn't
get
that
I
mean
it
theoretically,
doesn't
in
the
sense
that
this
kind
of
goes
back
to
Andrews
question
of
well
yes
right
now,
somebody
could
have
to
as
we
put
them
so
wonderfully
borders
in
their
house
legally,
but
the
difference
for
the
accessory
unit
is
the
chances
of
it
being
rented,
of
course,
go
up.
Stupendously.
J
I
Following
up
on
the
tax
issue
that
we
are,
the
you
know
increased
assessment
and
whatnot,
which
sounds
like
it's
undesirable
from
from
the
incentivization
standpoint.
That's
not
a
it's,
not
a
great
thing,
and
is
it
goes
back
to
the
issue
of
what
what
why
do
we
have
a
distinction
between
and
how
a
home,
with
an
Adu
and
a
home
with
extra?
I
Why
don't
we
just
allow-
or
as
consideration,
be
given
to
the
idea
of
allowing
renting
out
too
orders
and
adding
a
kitchen
or
closing
off
part
of
your
house
and
adding
a
separate
entrance,
but
why
does
it
have
to
go
to
do
that?
Why
does
it
have
to
go
through
all
the
rigmarole
of
calling
it
an
ad?
That's
why
I'm
asking?
Why
do
we
have
separate
regimes
basically
which
allow
this
taxation
difference
and
various
other
things
and
creates
all
this
confusion
and
so
forth?
I
I
A
P
Charles
Ferro,
Community,
Planning
and
sustainability,
so
I
think
the
allotment
to
have
an
additional
kitchen
in
your
basement,
or
your
attic
I
think
is
to
Matt's
point
and
that
if
you
do
have
a
game
room
or
you
have
a
pool
house,
you
know
we
see
a
number
of
these
applications
all
the
time.
Some
people
want
a
kosher
kitchen
to
be
separate
from
the
regular
day-to-day
kitchen.
So
I.
Think,
though,
that's
why
that's
provision
is
in
place.
It
was
never
set
up
to
encourage
those
sorts
of
things
being
rented
out.
P
Although
it
happens,
part
of
the
process
involves
the
requirement
to
record
a
declaration
of
use
so
that
it's
transferred
through
the
title
so
that
it
lives
throughout
the
with
the
life
of
the
property,
so
that
anybody
who
assumes
that
property
and
the
future
would
know
that
you're
not
allowed
to
rent
that
out
that
that's
not
what
that
approval
was
for.
Okay,.
I
O
The
first
thing
that
you
have
to
be
thinking
about
is:
they
are
single-family
zoning
districts
and
when
you
put
another
dwelling
unit,
some
people
might
think
of
that
home
as
a
duplex
and
a
duplex
is
not
a
use.
That's
a
lot
in
the
zoning
district.
So
in
terms
of
how
you
go
about
regulating
it,
there's
probably
a
lot
of
different
ways
of
doing
that
and
I.
Don't
know
that
any
given
way
is
right.
It's
really
just
a
matter
of
policy
in
terms
of
how
you
how
you
want
to
regulate
in
this
community,
so.
D
I've
just
a
thought
on
that
that
injured
it's
an
interesting
idea.
If
you
took
that
approach,
I
think
you'd
get
far
more
people
renting
out
their
homes
like
renting
out
to
people
in
their
homes.
So
we
could
take
that
I.
Don't
think
it'd
be
incremental
approach.
It's
a
perfectly
legitimate
approach.
You
just
be
incentive
allowing
people
to
create
a
lot
more
rentals,
so
a
rent,
a
lot
more
people
in
their
houses.
So,
as
a
City
Council,
you
could
make
that
policy
decision.
It.
A
O
Actually,
probably
do
but
I
just
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
just
in
response
to
that.
Just
the
difference
between
ad
use
and
Oh
a
use,
and
basically
their
zoning
districts
specific,
so
ad
use
predominantly
are
permitted
in
the
low-density
residential
zoning
districts
and
they're
also
allowed
in
all
of
the
estate
residential
districts
as
well.
When
you
get
to
Oh
a
use,
those
were
created
in
the
late
1990s.
It
came
out
of
the
down
zoning
basically
of
Whittier
whittier
was
a
neighborhood
that
throughout
the
70s
we
spent
a
lot
of
time,
densifying
and
I.
O
Think
at
some
point
the
neighborhood
said
you
guys
have
succeeded
now,
it's
time
to
knock
it
off.
So
we
we
essentially
at
the
request
of
the
neighborhood
down
zone
the
neighborhood
since
then
areas
of
most
recently
gas
Grove
asked
for
this
zoning
as
well.
So
one
of
the
things
that
that
you
know
Whittier
was
a
lot
of
the
medium
density,
residential
and
high
residential
zoning.
We
tried
to
preserve
the
density
that
we
had
there,
but
also
I
think
that
they
wanted
to
have
an
additional
outlet
for
development.
O
One
of
the
things
that
you
notice
about
the
Whittier
neighborhood
and
some
of
the
other
neighborhoods
that
are
close
to
downtown
that
also
have
this
zoning
is
that
there
was
a
lot
of
house
behind
a
house
development.
So
it
was
when
a
full
sized
house
was
built
in
the
backyard
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
that
the
OAU
standards
that
we
developed
in
the
late
90s
were
intended
to
do
was
to
provide
people
in
those
zoning
districts
with
another
development
option
that
wasn't
a
full
house.
O
D
B
D
Our
so,
but
not
in
okay,
so
I,
guess
the
and
then
my
next
question
is
here
is
I
didn't
as
far
as
I
can
tell
harem
x2
doesn't
allow
either
types
I'm
just
wondering
I
live
at
our
mx2
seems
like
a
reasonable
place
for
an
Adu.
Why
was
that
decision
made
or
dude?
Do
we
know?
Is
that
something
we
might
be
open
to?
Changing
is
I.
M
D
A
A
A
Well,
let
me
ask
you
another
question:
do
we
think
we
should
go
to
a
public
process
with
these
on
the
menu
and
see
what
comes
out
the
end?
I
guess
there's
also
different
than
what
we
all
vote
for
these
right,
so
I
think
I'm
just
guessing.
We
all
know
that
this
will
be
controversial
and
the
question
really
should
be.
Is
there
anything
we
want?
Assuming
everybody
wants
to
proceed
with
this?
Is
that
a
good
assumption?
Is
there
anybody
that
doesn't
wait?
What's
an
oddly
well.
I
A
C
I
mean
it
really
is
driven
by
this.
This
is
where
the
public
process
would
help,
and
this
is
where
some
community
planning
might
come
in,
because
I
really
think
the
topologies
are
important
and
the
way
people
think
about
their
neighborhoods
are
important
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
my
you
know
in
thinking
about
location,
specific
designations
right.
That's
when
you
would
do
something
like
that.
C
So
one
thing
we
could
do
is
focus
on
the
the
few
that
aren't
going
to
be
that
controversial,
hear
from
the
public
and
move
forward
with
it.
But
changing
the
concentration
amount
is
going
to
be
something
that
people
are
going
to
want
to
talk
about,
and
that's
what
might
be
controversial-
and
you
know
I've
got
a
bunch
of
questions
about
like
the
rest
of
you
do,
but
I'm
not
gonna
bore
us
with
them,
because
I
don't
think
the
answers
really
determine
anything.
C
A
F
F
However,
you
get
around
the
the
laws
and
then
the
the
other
thing
that
you
mentioned
was
that
in
the
in
the
survey
that
was
done
for
the
comp
plan,
there
was
acceptability
in
some
neighborhoods
more
than
others,
and
perhaps
you
know
to
Sam's
point
explore
those
neighborhoods
first
and
you
know
start
there.
Okay,.
D
I'm
looking
forward
to
our
meeting
with
about
the
with
the
public
process
working
group
and
exploring
all
those
concepts
in
depth,
but
preliminary
lis,
if
that's
word,
one
of
the
ideas
I
came
away
with
from
that
reading.
That
report
was
that
people
were
looking
for
authentic
engagement
from
City,
Council
and
really
listening
to
residents
and
taking
their
concerns
and
making
them
a
meaningful
part
of
the
process,
and
so
I
think
the
fundamental
point
that
we're
getting
at
here,
which
is
that
hey?
D
Big
a
deal,
I
think
the
same
disagreed
with
that,
but
I
don't
think
we
really
know
so
that
that
would
be.
My
proposal
has,
let's
put
together
a
relative.
You
know
put
these
things
together
as
some
itemized
things
and
go
out
to
the
public
and
say
we're
really
interested.
We
want
to
do
something
relatively
quick,
relatively
easy,
but
only
on
the
things
that
have
broad
agreement
and
see
what
people
say:
Matt.
J
Good
luck,
Karen,
but
okay,
so
my
two
comments:
all
right:
I,
don't
totally
disagree
with
Andrew
I
mean
I,
think.
Actually
it's
the
10%
concentration
with
another
300-foot
radius.
That's
the
key
to
what
you're
saying
danger
to
a
large
extent,
I
mean
if
you
got
rid
of
the
concentration
and
the
radius
requirement.
Just
said
you
know
what,
if
you
want
to
do
it,
you
can
do
it
that's
kind
of
where
you're
at
so.
The
question
is:
what
is
the
scope
of
B
I
mean
it's
the
scope
of
be
a
small
change?
J
Oh
we'll
make
it
12%
we'll
make
it
within
a
500-foot
radius
or
is
the
scope
of
B
anything
goes
you
get
rid
of
it
and
you
know
what
if
you
meet
all
the
other
criteria
of
which
there
are
many,
you
can
do
it
and
it's
not
about
concentration
and
it's
not
whoever
gets.
There
first
gets
to
two
on
the
block
and
everybody
else
has
to
wait
30
years
before
they
get
a
chance
which
is
awfully
arbitrary.
So
what
do
you
think
the
scope
of
be
is?
Have
you
thought
about
that?
So.
J
J
If
you
go
out-
and
you
say
these
can
all
be
tweaked
with
in
some
pretty
narrow
ranges,
you
might
get
some
very
different
public
process
and
and
outcomes
and
I
don't
have
a
great
suggestion
on
Adam
just
saying
those
are
very
different
feeling
to
me
as
to
how
you
structure,
how
you,
what
you,
what
you
say,
you're
going
to
do
and
then,
of
course,
if
you
say
you're,
gonna,
keep
it
within
some
limits.
Don't
come
back
later
and
you
know
renege
on
that.
You're
gonna
have
to
live
up
to
the
limitations.
J
The
only
other
thing
in
Sandoz
I'll
say
this
is
no.
This
is
not
a
sub
community
issue
that
is
like
the
wrong
scale
by
a
factor
of.
Maybe
a
thousand
I
have
a
problem
even
with
location
specific,
but
you
guys
can
work
on
that.
You
know
if
this
is
really
beneficial
to
the
community.
You
shouldn't
let
certain
neighborhoods
opt
out.
It
would
be
like
allowing
a
neighborhood
to
opt
out
of
affordable
housing.
Gee
we
don't
like
affordable
housing.
Our
neighborhood
just
took
a
vote.
We
don't
really
want
any
affordable
housing
in
our
neighborhood.
J
We
don't
really
want
any
affordable
housing
in
our
sub
community.
Hey
you
should
listen
to
us,
you
know,
I,
don't
think
you
would
I,
don't
think
you
should,
and
if
this
is
beneficial,
the
same
applies.
If
you
really
believe
it's
beneficial
people
shouldn't
be
able,
opt
out
because
they
don't
wanna,
add
a
density
in
the
neighborhood
or
they
don't
want
those
people
living
in
their
neighborhood
anyway.
E
Applications
for
80
years
so
I
mean
we've
got
the
most
obtuse
regulations
right
now.
So
to
me,
these
are
a
great
way
to
bite
off
and
make
some
progress
towards
something
that
can
work
and
can
provide
housing,
which
again
is
our
number
one
objective.
So
I
think
they've
picked
five
things
that
they
can
execute
I
I
personally,
don't
think
we
should
look
at
Yun
with
Matt
on
that
one,
because
I
have
not
seen
another
city
that
has
said
you
can
have
it
in
one
region,
not
another.
E
E
That
so,
let's
take
the
next
tranche
trying
to
make
it
more
successful
and
one
more
comment,
and
that
is
that
the
survey
that
we
did,
the
2012
survey,
which
I
thought
was
quite
good
I,
remember
one
of
the
questions
asked:
what
do
your
neighbors
think
and
I
think
the
most
prevalent
answer
was
they
don't
even
know
I
have
one,
and
that
is
also
consistent
across
the
country.
So
what
cities
always
worry
about
are
things
that
were
worried
about
and
they
never
come
out
as
being
legitimate
concerns.
E
C
Server,
it
comes
as
no
surprise
that
I
would
disagree
with
Matt
on
this.
One
I
was
not
talking
about
a
neighborhood
level,
skirmish
on
what
we
would
do
in
each
sub
community.
It
would
be
something
where
you're
looking
more
broadly,
to
hear
how
people
in
that
sub
community
would
feel
about.
Is
it
ten
percent?
Is
it
fifteen
percent
is
a
twenty
percent?
Do
they
like
you
know
the
way
it's
being
done?
Would
they
like
more
then
another
part
of
the
city?
C
Would
it's
not,
and
this
I
am
gonna,
go
back
to
Mary
and
say
we're
gonna?
Do
this
right?
We're
gonna
talk
about
affordability.
At
the
same
time,
you
know
we're
gonna
use
and
that
gets
back
to
Matt's
point
about
too
much
value.
You
know
you
add
the
second
dwelling
unit.
You
get
more
value.
Well,
if
that
second
dwelling
unit
is
permanently
affordable,
it
will
have
both
different
taxing
implications
and
it
will
have
you
know
permanent
affordability
for
the
residents,
so
I
think
that
is
really
a
key
part
to
make
these
work
well
and
I.
C
I'm,
just
gonna,
keep
saying
sub
Community
Planning
would
help
with
this
location.
Specific
I
thought
they
said
something
about
paying
attention
in
the
the
survey
report
in
2012,
I
thought
they
also
said
something
about
neighborhood
character,
you
know
and
having
different
regulations
for
different
types
of
areas.
So
anyway,
what
would
I
be
interested
in
here
so
simplifying
current
regulations,
sure
modifying
the
10%
concentration
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
public
modifying
the
size
limit.
C
I
I
That's
gonna,
as
I
said
before,
we're
gonna
get
a
lot
of
pushback
from
the
community
for
not
much
benefit
and
then
and
the
reason
we're
gonna
get
a
lot
of
pushback
is
because
it's
one
size
fits
all
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
misunderstanding
out
there
about
what
a
to
use
are
and
I,
don't
think
you're
going
to
be
able.
We
saw
this
with
coops,
you
know
it's
just
people,
people
misunderstand
and
they
will
continue
to
misunderstand
and-
and
there
are
real
concerns
and
parts
of
the
community
I
take.
I
You
know,
let's
just
use
the
obvious
example
it's
what
I
use
often,
but
is
that
is:
are
we
out
to
create
more
student
housing
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
community?
Think
less
the
university's
job
and
every
time
we
create
student
housing,
even
if
we
created
an
apportion
of
a
home,
do
we
actually
take
that
away
from
a
single-family
home
use.
I
You
know
just
we've
got
an
email
today,
or
at
least
some
of
us
did
about
how
a
tenth
Street,
where
I
used
to
live
between
college
and
nuclear,
has
now
lost
three
more
single
family
homes
to
investment
properties.
In
the
past
a
couple
of
months
here
and
to
address
Jan's
point
I
mean
Portland
the
sort
of
shining
star
in
terms
of
a
to
use.
I
I
They're
gonna
see
it
that
way.
Other
neighborhoods
lisa
has
used
her
example
of
her
neighborhood,
for
example,
would
like
to
see
this,
and
so
why
do
we
do
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
when
and
we
prevent
the
folks
that
want
it
from
getting
it
because
there's
other
parts
of
the
community
that
don't
think
it's
right
for
their
neighborhood
and
there's
good
reason,
because
there
are
different
types
of
people
that
live
in
various
neighborhoods
I'm
getting
there,
and
so
anyway,
again
I
think
the
sub
community
approaches
the
way
to
do
this.
I
A
F
So
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
Erin's
comment
about
the
public
participation
working
group
and
the
top
recommendation,
or
at
least
the
first
recommendation
in
that
report
was
define
the
problem
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
real
important
to
do
in
this
case
and
what's
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve
start
there
and
and
I
think
that
that
would
tell
us
a
lot
when
we
do
our
outreach
and
trying
to
just
defining
the
problem.
So,
okay.
A
A
F
List
how
could
humblest
I
think
simplifying
the
regulations
is?
Is
fine,
the
concentration,
the
size
limit
and
the
parking
requirement
are
I'm
with
Sam
asked.
You
know,
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
public
and
then
exploring
the
location.
Specific
implementation,
I
think
is
important
and
sub
Community
Planning
is
the
way
to
do
it.
A
D
Just
to
add
to
my
previous
comments:
I
am
in
favor
of
moving
for
that
wasn't
totally
clear,
but
just
on
on
II
I
think
the
location
specific
implementation
I
mean
maybe
some
of
that.
But
if
we
wait
to
do
a
full
sub
community
plan
to
allow
a
to
use
in
different
parts
of
the
city
will
be
waiting
for
years
or
even
decades,
so
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
waiting
to
implement
Adu
changes
until
we
do
full
sub
community
plans.
But
if
there
is
some
geographical
aspect
to
the
project,
we
could
consider
that
you.
F
A
D
Yeah
and
but
I
would
rather
than
say
well
we'll
allow
it
in
you
know
one
twentieth
of
the
city
or
fiftieth
of
the
city.
I'd
say
well.
If
there
are
certain
areas
of
the
city
that
maybe
are
under
pressure,
that
maybe
we
don't
do
it
or
we
do
a
little
differently,
fine,
but
I
would
go
for
bigger,
and
so
that
there's
that
I
just
wanted
to
raise
one
very
specific
issue.
We
got
an
email
a
number
of
months
ago
from
a
woman
who's,
a
part
of
a
deed
restriction
program.
D
That
was
a
temporary
program,
but
it
didn't
allow
the
creation
of
a
to
use
and
in
her
single-family
home
I,
just
want
to
put
out
there
that
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing.
If
maybe
as
part
of
this
process,
we
could
help
people
in
that
narrow
situation
out.
So
just
put
that
out,
there
may
be
something
to
look
into.
H
Oh,
yes
and
I
think
Darrin's
point
I
think
on
he.
What
I
would
do
is
we
rather
than
trying
to
build
it
from
the
ground
up
and
trying
to
survey
each
neighborhood
or
60
or
80
neighborhoods
and
saying:
do
you
want
it?
You
want
it
because
even
with
the
neighborhoods,
we're
gonna
get
differences
of
opinion,
I
think
to
Andrews
point.
If
there's
a
specific
reason
for
us
to
exclude
a
neighborhood,
maybe
the
hills,
one
of
it
maybe
there's
a
small
handful,
others
I
would
take
it
from
the
top
down.
H
In
other
words,
I
would
start
off
on
the
assumption
that
it
would
be
citywide
and
if
there
are
specific
policy
reasons
to
exclude
certain
neighborhoods,
perhaps
we
exclude
them,
but
the
assumption
is
this
would
cover
80
90,
maybe
upwards
of
100
percent
of
the
community,
but
otherwise
I'm
happy
with
where
you
get
hidden.
I.
C
Just
want
to
clarify
my
comment
about
sub
Community
Planning
is
not
to
delay.
Common-Sense
regulation
changes,
so
we
have
some
community
plans
in
place.
That's
not
at
all
what
I'm
saying
I'm
just
saying
this
conversation
and
the
differences
that
we'll
hear
from
different
parts
of
the
community
reflect
why
having
those
in
place
would
ultimately
be
a
good
thing.
So,
like
like
I,
said,
I
listed
specific
examples
of
stuff
I
think
we
should
change
like
the
Adu.
C
A
Okay,
I'm
not
sure
that
I
have
a
sense
of
this,
a
seems
to
represent
a
very
small
number
of
things
other
than
a
couple
people
who
don't
think
it's
worthwhile
it
it.
It
sounds
like
we
could
proceed
with
those
I
think,
but
that's
pretty
minor
stuff
right,
I
think
I
think
actually
it
the
way
it's
summarized
makes
it
sound
bigger
than
it
actually
is
it's
just
week,
a
few
things
and
then
what
I
get
from
people
and
I
agree.
A
B,
C
and
D
are
gonna,
be
big,
more
controversy
or
more
robust
discussion.
A
Sure
people
said
they
want
to
hear
from
the
public
and
I.
Don't
know
what
that
means,
because
no
matter
what
we're
gonna
hear
from
the
public,
so
I'm
not
sure
from
a
process
standpoint
what
that
means
other
than
is
the
only
one
you
can
do
without
a
heck
of
a
lot
of
controversy.
This
I
think
we're
pretty
clear
on
and
the
rest
will
be
more
robust
and
some
people
think
it
should
happen.
A
Citywide
in
people
and
neighborhoods
will
tell
us,
but
not
here,
for
these
policy
reasons
or
the
inverse,
which
is
do
it
here
to
start
out.
That's
not
very
good
direction,
so
I
guess
I'm
get
a
sense
from
us
in
the
scheme
of
things.
Do
we
think
it's
this
body
of
work
is
important
to
pursue
it's
just
going
to
be
a
harder
work,
then.
C
And
if
it's
okay,
if
I,
can
ELISA
I
called
her
before
the
meeting,
and
she
said
she
wants
to
have
the
discussion
and
that
she
wants
to
hear
from
the
public
I
didn't
go
through
each
one
of
these,
but
I
think
she
would
probably
agree
with
your
summary,
which
is
she
wants
to
talk
about
it,
but
I'm
sure
she'll
want
to
involve
the
public
and
anything.
That's
really
truly
simple.
We
should
just
go
ahead
and
do
like
a
or
changing
the
ATU
licensing,
or
something
like
that.
I
J
Okay,
had
one
thing
in
Mary
actually
goes
back
to
your
question,
which
is
what
problem
we're
trying
to
solve.
I
mean
I
am
assuming
that
people
are
assuming
that
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve
is
a
more
affordable
housing
and
that
kind
of
goes
back
to
to
me.
You
know
sizes
of
units
and
are
they
permanent,
affordable?
Oh,
no,
no,
no!
No!
No,
which
actually
aren't
some
of
that
isn't
quite
on
this
list.
J
J
Is
this
the
one
where
you
want
our
staff
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
in
the
theory
that
the
problem
we're
solving
is
some
more
affordable,
housing
and
I?
Don't
know
the
answer,
it
kind
of
depends
on
well
how
much
affordable
housing
do
you
think
you're
gonna
get
out
of
this
anyway
and
how
affordable
is
it
gonna?
Be
you
know
if
you
knew
you
would
get
a
lot
and
you
knew
it
would
really
be
affordable.
That
may
be
worth
it.
J
If
you
think
you're
gonna
get
a
hundred
units
and
half
of
them
aren't
going
to
be
particularly
affordable.
That's
a
lot
of
work.
That's
been
getting
50
nominally
affordable
units
in
the
city.
Surely
we
could
spend
a
year's
worth
of
staff
time
doing
something
a
little
more
productive,
I!
Think
that's
really
the
key
question
and
I
think
it's
a
really
tough
one
to
answer
right
now.
Frankly,
okay.
A
E
Think
Kurt
and
his
team
have
done
have
come
up
with
some
ideas
that
they
think
they
can
do
relatively
simple,
based
on
the
knowledge
that
they
have
in
the
study
that
they've
done,
and
you
know
we
do
have
generally
good
support
for
this.
This
is
development.
That's
done
by
people
as
opposed
to
developers
and
I.
E
Think
Boulder
people
are
going
to
be
more
supportive
of
that
supply
and
demand
does
exist
in
the
housing
world
and
if
you
put
rental
units
out
in
the
market,
it's
going
to
help
with
prices,
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
go
into
the
discussion
of
permanently
affordable
because
these
are
rentals
and
the
homeowner
owns
it.
So
I
don't
really
know
you
do
that,
but
I
really
do
believe.
This
is
something
that
the
team
feels
like
they
can
do
to
take
a
bite
out
of
this
and
that
it
will
provide
which
we
need.
E
J
E
D
To
continue
what
we
were
afraid
was
going
to
happen
now.
This
is
a
good
summary,
Matt
and
and
I
support
that
I
just
want
to
say
in
terms
of
the
complexity
side,
I
think
what
staff
has
said
is
that
these
are
low
complexity,
changes
from
a
land
use
code
perspective,
so
that
well,
we
may
get
a
lot
of
input
from
the
public
I.
D
Don't
think
that
this
is
a
complex
scope
in
terms
of
staff
time,
which
is
why
I'll
go
back
to
my
reaching
out
to
the
community
and
find
and
respond
to
them,
see
what
they
think
and
then
respond
accordingly,
and
we
want
to
scale
way
back.
We
scale
way
back
into
it
feels
like
this
is
pretty
doable
at
this
scope.
Then
then
great
I
really
liked
what
Mary
said
about
stating
the
problem
and
thanks
for
bringing
that
up,
and
just
as
we
is
we
do
that
part
of
the
issue
here
is
about
providing
housing
types.
D
A
So
if
it
sounds
like,
we
would
like
to
proceed
in
some
fashion
on
ad
use,
we
think
I
believe
that
only
a
is
going
to
be
simple.
I
think
there
is
some
appetite
if
I'm
picking
up
to
do
a
more
robust
citizen
process,
starting
with
defining
the
problem.
I
also
heard,
if
we're
gonna
go,
that
we're
gonna
spend
some
political
capital
that
we
all
acknowledge.
This
I'm
not
sure
the
question
whether
this
would
be
the
next
biggest
thing
we
would
do.
A
Is
the
question
we're
supposed
to
get
at
at
the
end
of
the
night,
so
but
tentatively
that
there's
some
appetite
to
do
this.
A
lot
of
public
engagement
to
find
out.
This
I
also
think
adding
this
idea
about
permanent
affordability
as
something
as
to
exploit,
because
as
long
as
we're
going
to
spend
some
capital,
we
might
as
well
see
about
that.
A
You
do
that
you're
into
a
full
public
process,
a
view
once
you
start
great.
How
do
we?
We
don't
have
an
easy
way
to
find
out
what
everybody
thinks,
the
first
we
have
to
explain
ad
and
where
they're
at
and
blah
blah
blah
and
then
we're
into
the
process
right.
So,
oh,
yes,
okay,
so
you
say:
do
it
all
together,
then,
okay,
is
that
just
go
ahead
and
say
we're
gonna
bite
this
off
and
it's
gonna
be
bigger
than
you
think?
Okay
sounds
it
simply
I
think
that's
where
we're
at
okay
I
don't
know.
L
A
A
G
A
G
So
I
think
we
can
hopefully
make
up
some
time
here
and
our
goal
is
to
reserve
a
little
time
at
the
end,
to
just
check
back
with
you
on
the
big
picture.
As
you
mentioned,
I'm
going
to
do
a
quick
introduction
to
the
area
plans,
sub
community
peace
and
then
hand
it
over
to
Caitlin
who
will
explain
the
Alpine
balsam
process
that
we're
proposing.
G
We
did,
of
course,
a
fair
amount
of
planning
at
the
sub
community
level
to
hear
people
about
surveys
and
so
on.
So
the
action
plan
also
includes
several
items
around
sub
community
and
area
planning,
including
some
ideas
around
neighborhood
planning
and
residential
infill
pilot,
which
we
can
touch
on
when
we
get
to
that
part
of
the
segment.
G
But
the
big
area
focused
and
the
work
that
we're
really
doing
this
year
and
and
next
will
be
focused
around
the
Alpine
balsam
community
site,
the
site
that
we
currently
own
now
and
potentially
some
of
the
sites
nearby,
including
the
county,
owns
site
and
you'll,
hear
a
bit
about
that.
You
approved
the
vision
plan
for
the
Alpine
balsam
site
just
a
couple
months
ago,
in
June
and
that's
a
foundation.
We
see
that
as
a
foundation
and
ultimately,
a
component
of
the
area
plan.
G
That's
going
to
be
developed,
so
there's
a
lot
of
good
direction
in
there,
and
so
certainly,
if
you
have
broader
direction
around
area
planning
and
priorities,
we
might
hear
from
you
about
that
in
the
latter
part
of
the
the
session
I'm
gonna.
At
this
point
hand
it
over
to
Katelyn,
who
will
give
you
this
description
of
the
Alpine
balsam
Area
Plan
process
that
we're
proposing
for
the
year
and
a
half
or
so
coming
up.
Q
Q
So,
with
the
vision
plan
under
our
belt,
we're
now
in
the
area
planning
process
which
will
then
lead
to
the
next
step
of
architectural
design
constructions
with
things
happening
on
this
site
and
the
scope
for
this
process,
three
cornerstones
of
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
or
the
area
plan,
coordination
with
related
projects
and
efforts
and
innovative
and
transparent
community
engagement
and
the
basic
components.
A
very
plan
process
which,
familiar
with
things
like
land
use,
urban
design,
guidelines
connections
plans.
Q
This
area
plan
will
also
include
financing
strategies
for
the
site
and
there
are
numerous
projects
going
on
in
the
city
that
all
are
related,
and
this
includes
what
will
become
the
site
design
for
this
parcel.
The
planning
efforts
in
the
Civic
area,
East
bookend,
and
we
have
facilities
planning
happening
on
both
the
city
and
county
levels
and
the
cornerstone
of
innovative
and
transparent
community
engagement.
So
the
vision
plan
spoke
to
community
engagement
as
some
of
our
key
performance
guidelines
for
the
plan.
Q
Q
So
when
we
come
back
to
you
for
that,
that'll
be
at
our
generous
study
session
with
these
other
things
that
we'll
be
coming
back
with
defining
the
boundaries,
our
detailed
scope,
convening
agent
plan
and
confirming
reuse
options
for
the
medical
pavilion
building,
which
is
following
up
from
our
conversations
with
you
earlier
this
year
else.
We
put
the
question.
A
So
when
we
did,
we
just
went
over
this.
So
probably
not
a
lot
of
questions.
Are
there
people
in
agreement?
Anybody
want
to
add
some
at
one
point:
I
just
went
to
mayor's
innovation.
Project
conference
was
really
good
and
there's
a
lot
of
really
interesting
community
financing
options
out
there,
where
citizens
can
buy
bonds,
whether
withing
social
impact
financing,
like
all
really
cool
stuff
and
I,
glad
that
you've
included
that
and
would
love
for
us
to
all
sort
of
increase
our
community.
J
No,
this
is
all
right.
I
just
have
one
quick
comment
that
will
be
ignored,
but
that's
alright
I'll
provide
out
there
anyway,
which
is
I,
mean
I,
absolutely
agree
that
this
there
needs
to
be
some
area
planning
here,
because
there's
gonna
be
some
significant
change,
but
I
also
think
it's
incredibly
important
for
the
entire
community
to
be
involved
in
this.
J
When
we
do
big
projects
like
this,
this
really
is
owned
by
the
entire
community.
I
mean
if
you
look
at
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here,
we're
trying
to
accomplish
things
like
you
know,
a
place
for
city
employees
to
work.
That's
a
lot
more
effective
and
a
lot
more
efficient.
We're
trying
to
accomplish
I
assume
a
bunch
of
affordable
housing,
we're
trying
to
accomplish
some
sort
of
public
public-private
partnership
that
makes
this
affordable.
J
Those
are
community
level,
City,
level
goals
and
yes,
the
impacts
such
as
they
are,
will
be
somewhat
more
heavily
felt
on
the
immediately
surrounding
area
and
folks
in
the
immediate
area
will
certainly
come
out
and
no
doubt
will
populate
will
be.
Ninety
percent
of
the
people
who
come
to
the
forums
and
that's
fine
I,
have
no
trouble
with
that,
but
I
really
hope
we
reach
out
to
everybody
and
not
see
this
as
well.
It's
not
Alpine
emboss,
some
Broadway,
and
so
those
people
who
live
there
and
who
work
there
own
property
there.
J
Well,
they
just
get
to
decide.
You
know
hey
in
three
months:
I
am,
thank
goodness,
gonna,
be
just
a
regular
old,
random
citizen
and
I
live
in
southeast
Boulder
and
all
those
goals.
I
just
stated
it
really
important
to
me
and
I
care
about
them.
A
lot
and
I
think
my
voice
should
be
just
as
important
to
somebody
who
lives
two
blocks
away
when
it
comes
to
accomplishing
those
goals.
J
So,
to
me,
that's
true
for
any
of
these
kind
of
mega
projects
that
have
what
I
would
consider
to
be
citywide
goals,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
a
single
building
somewhere
that
isn't
really
a
citywide
type
of
project.
But
if
this
isn't
a
citywide
type
of
project,
that's
are
really
hard
for
me
to
know
what
might
be
given
what
types
of
problems
and
concerns
it
is
supposed
to
help
solve
or
mitigate
or
deal
with
in
the
community.
C
We
did
just
see
this
so
I,
don't
have
a
lot
to
add
I
I
think
once
this
is
done,
and
once
the
Broadway
corridor
study
is
done,
including
the
Irish
and
balsam.
You
know,
because
I
know
that
there
could
be
some
movement
here
with
Irish
and
balsam,
depending
on
what
we
do
with
the
county
at
the
Alpine
and
awesome
site,
so
I've
been
Irish
and
Broadway.
I
really
think
it
forms
the
basis
of
a
sub
community
plan.
I
mean
I,
really
do
think.
C
You've
done
some
of
the
hardest
work
and
what's
left,
is
like
the
shopping
centers
and
what
could
happen
in
the
neighborhoods
so
at
the
end
of
this
process,
I
want
to
think
about
how
this
could
relate
to
doing
a
sub
community
plan
for
alcohol
in
north
central
Boulder.
It's
the
central
Boulder
got
divided
during
the
comp
plan
process
and
I.
Think
all
this
good
work
that's
going
to
go
in
and
stuff.
That
is
foundational,
and
it
can
then
work
to
form
the
basis
of
something
bigger.
N
F
A
H
G
You're
enthusiastic
for
that
too,
right,
okay!
Well,
what
that
will
carry
you
on
to
the
last
item,
which
is
just
a
summary
of
the
action
plan
itself
and
the
posters
that
you
see
on
the
wall
and
you
also
have
a
bit
of
a
handout
that
we
thought
would
maybe
be
easier
than
flipping
through
the
the
memo
we
did
reach
out
to
you
in
advance
of
this
meeting
and
we
got
a
44
percent
response
rate
well
50%
of
those
of
you
in
the
room.
G
So
so
we
think
that
was
a
pretty
good
sample
of
where
you
might
lie
in
terms
of
moving
some
of
these
things
around
in
priorities
and
maybe
a
good
starting
point
for
discussion.
But
I
thought
I'd
just
use
the
posters
on
the
wall
to
kind
of
explain
what
the
action
plan
says
and
then,
where
we
might
be
able
to
move
some
things
around
to
reflect
your
priorities
and,
as
Jim
said,
the
action
plan
is
a
part
of
the
major
update
that
we
do
you
adopt.
G
G
From
you
all
so
far,
council
members
who
have
given
us
some
advance
feedback.
There
may
be
others
in
the
room
who
have
different
thoughts
and
we
wouldn't
preclude
those
of
course,
but
there
seems
to
be
some
general
general
input
around
the
idea
that
this
is
basically
the
right
things
that
we
should
look
at
and
then
some
different
ideas
about
how
to
prioritize
these
things.
So
really
what
we
like
from
you
tonight,
if
we
can,
is
this
question
about?
Do
you
agree
with
with
the
identified
near
and
midterm
priorities,
especially
the
near
term
priorities?
G
We
have
five
things
on
the
list,
three
of
which
you
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time
talking
about
tonight
and
and
and
whether
or
not
there
are
any
additional
items
that
should
move
from
the
mid
term
list
to
the
near
term
list.
We
heard
from
at
least
one
of
you
that
nope,
that's
those
are
the
right
things.
We
heard
from
a
couple
of
you
that
you'd
like
to
see
neighborhood
planning
and
infill
pilot
project
on
the
near
term
list.
I
G
So
the
comprehensive
plan
identifies
basically
some
new
criteria
for
self
selecting
neighborhood
that
would
like
to
come
in
and
work
with
the
city
to
do
some
work
and
there's
their
criteria
that
are
set
in
the
plan
about
what
the
outcomes
of
that
might
include.
And
so
the
question
that
we
would
have
to
you
is:
is
that
something
that
you'd
like
us
to
start
advancing
and
working
with
the
community
at
large?
To
then
open
it
up
for
some
applications
for
neighborhoods
Thanks.
I
J
Question
yeah
enhanced
community
benefit.
That
can
mean
a
lot
of
things
to
a
lot
of
people.
Does
that
include
and
I,
don't
remember
we're
on
earth.
We
left
this.
Does
that
include
things
like
requiring
additional
benefit
for
up
zoning
as
an
example,
because
we
talked
about
that
quite
a
bit
right
now.
Our
code
is
anything
kind
of
woefully
lacking
and
I've
also
mentioned
things
like
minimum
density
zoning,
but
but
there's
lots
of
ways
to
yeah.
G
D
G
That
probably
has
yet
to
be
defined,
but
yes,
it
could
include
that
you
know
if
it
moves
into
the
near
term
list.
We
have
to
talk
some
more
probably
about
what
that
might
entail
and
how
complicated
it
is.
If
it's
in
the
mid
term
list,
we
probably
have
a
little
time
to
still
define
exactly
what
the
scope
might
look
like.
J
D
A
A
Like,
let's
change
that
soon,
because
we're
not
getting
what
we
want
so
depending
on
whether
we
covered
that
under
community
benefit
or
not
cuz,
we
talked
about
that
I'm
just
gonna
offer
that
but
I
guess
I
have
another
question,
and
that
is-
and
maybe
this
is
a
I-
didn't
go
to
the
planning
board.
So
maybe
this
I
should
know
this.
A
C
I
was
so
site
plan
review
criteria,
that's
the
most
unsexy
things
that
are
about
to
come
out
of
my
mouth
and
review
criteria
and
you
staple
review.
So
both
of
those
you
know
come
up
periodically
at
the
retreat
and
then
they
always
get
prioritized
really
low
and
those
too,
and
then
the
the
land
use
for
eggs.
How
things
are
dwelling
units
per
acre
right
or
those
three
different
things
are
super
unsexy.
They
don't
get
headlines
and
they're
things
that
really
impact
how
things
go
in
the
community.
C
G
G
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
could
do
with
you
over
the
next
few
months
is
revisit
that
list
and
give
you
a
chance
to
go
through
the
list
again
and
reprioritize
and
see
if
there
are
other
things
on
it
that
then
you
know,
then
we
could
figure
out
where
they
might
fit
within
this
overall,
the
plan,
but
yeah
a
lot
of
those
things
have
been
identified.
Time
and
time
again,
they've
been
they've
been
put
on
that
list.
G
G
Also
that
we
probably
will
be
having
some
of
those
conversations
during
that
process,
but
we
may
just
not
be
able
to
commit
to
completing
the
effort
by
July,
but
if
we
can
capture
as
much
feedback
and
input
during
you
know
the
months
that
we're
working
on
the
height
code
issue
and
then
feed
that
into
something
that
maybe
takes
a
little
bit
longer
to
complete.
That
may
help
us
get
there.
G
Very
good
question,
so
two
two
reasons
one
is:
it
didn't
show
up
really
highly
in
the
last
survey
that
we
did
I
think
it
actually
did
in
the
earlier
survey.
We
also
did
some
planning
work
around
it
about
what
eight
six
eight
years
ago
and
we
weren't
able
to
progress
forward
with
it
because
of
the
land
land
ownership
constraints
in
that
area.
Jane's
nodding
she
was
here.
I
was
not
so
or
David
may
remember
that.
But
so
that's
part
of
the
reason.
A
E
Don't
know
the
details,
what
makes
things
difficult
and
what
not
I
had
on
my
list
the
use
table
things
I've
talked
about
this
before
it
strikes
me
that
we
talked
about
$650,000,
bathrooms
and
library.
Part
of
that
cost
is
our
process
and
how
much
it
costs
someone
through
the
process
of
building
something,
whether
that
be
us
or
someone
else
and
I,
always
wonder
if
we
could
simplify
our
code
or
use
tables
or
whatever
else,
with
Six
Sigma
processes
or
whatever.
E
E
E
D
So,
just
as
a
comment
following
up
from
my
earlier
question,
that
I,
like
the
idea
of
getting
to
the
enhanced
community,
benefit
as
a
future
stage
to
the
height
discussion
they
were
having
tonight.
You
know
we're
talking
about
attacking,
heightened,
affordable
housing
and
then
community
benefit
around
height,
and
then
that
can
roll
into
the
discussion
around
the
site,
review
criteria
and
I
would
love
as
part
of
that,
to
to
take
a
crack
at
some
some
modifications
to
the
site
review
criteria.
D
We
don't
have
to
revise
them
from
scratch,
which
would
be
a
huge
project,
but
staff
could
bring
forward
at
the
same
time,
some
little
problem
areas
with
suggestions
for
changes,
because
I'd
love
to
see
that
get
done
something
small
and
bite
off
a
ball
sooner
rather
than
later.
So
we've
been
talking
about
it
for
years
and
the
other
one
that
I'll
just
say
on
this
is
I
really
like
the
idea
of
enabling
the
neighborhood
pilot
project
sooner
rather
than
later,
because
in
and
of
itself
it
won't
actually
do
anything.
A
F
Started
as
I
recall
when
we
were
working
in
the
the
process
subcommittee
in
housing,
I
think
we
had
a
presentation
from
a
consultant
that
had
come
on.
That
was
going
to
start
looking
at
that
and
and
then
it
kind
of
went
away,
but
I
agree
with
Aaron
I'd,
like
for
all
the
reasons
that
he
stated
and
I
think
it
would
might
also
be
a
good
place
to
evaluate
the
Adu
changes.
Can.
J
I
ask
a
question
about
that
and
I
think
it's
an
interesting
concept,
but
it
sure
seems
to
me
that
somebody
has
to
come
up
with
some
at
least
fundamental
criteria
of
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
I
mean
neighborhood
comes
in
and
I
guess
I'm
just
making
this
crazy
assumption
that
whatever
they're
offering
has
to
further
some
again
citywide
goals.
So
my
neighborhood
could
come
in
and
say
well,
let's
close
off
all
the
streets
because
we
don't
like
the
traffic
on
it.
J
Well,
that's
great
for
the
neighborhood,
but
doesn't
exactly
further
neighborhood
goals
or,
let's
down
zone
the
whole
neighborhood
cuz
guide,
we
don't
want
any
higher
density
on
a
neighborhood.
All
that
doesn't
exactly
further
any
name,
any
broader
community
goals,
although
the
neighborhood
might
be
a
hundred
percent
in
favor
of
it.
So
what
are
the
criteria
here?
I
mean
they
have
to
further
some
fundamental
citywide
goals
that
we're
struggling
with
and
with
saying
hey.
J
Let's
see
if
somebody
can
do
something
in
a
way
that
will
actually
get
us
from
here
to
there
and
at
a
minimum
I
think
you
need
to
save
that,
not
just
okay,
you
can
come
in
with
any
idea.
You
like
cuz
I,
have
a
feeling
I
know
exactly
what
we're
gonna
hear
from
from
certain
neighborhoods.
That
might
not
be
very
helpful
and.
G
J
J
A
G
A
G
I
Okay,
so
are
you?
Are
you
asking
then,
for
example,
on
the
1
to
2
additional
action
items
on
ongoing
a
near-term?
Are
we
supposed
to
move
something
from
one
of
the
later
lists?
Okay,
so
for
me
the
neighborhood
plan,
residential
infill
pilot
project
is
something
that
I
would
I
would
like
to
see
sooner
rather
than
later
and
we've
we've
we've
heard
from
various
neighborhoods
about
issues,
and
it's
look.
I
I
mean
we're
all
struggling
with
with
sort
of
the
the
various
neighborhood
issues
and
how
about
something
where
the
neighborhood
is
asking
us
to
do
something,
as
opposed
to
us
telling
the
neighborhood's.
What's
going
to
happen
and
to
me
that
that's
where
we're
gonna
see
the
most
the
quickest
change
and
have
the
best
pilot
project
and
I
can
and
I
can
think
of
several
different
I
won't
go
into
them,
but
I
could
think
of
several
different.
I
You
know
there
are
not
all
the
same
kinds
of
things,
just
opportunities
where
the
neighborhood
says:
we've
got
a
problem,
we'd
like
to
see
it
Lanning
process
fix
it.
It's
almost
like
sub-community
planning
light
that
a
community
is
asked
for
are
like
a
neighborhoods
asked
for,
and
let's
do
it
so
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
that
and.
G
A
C
G
Because
it
is,
and
then
it
might
be
a
little
bit
broader
than
that,
because
I
think
what
you
brought
into
that
what's
already
on
the
list
which
I
addresses
the
policy,
that's
in
the
plan
and
the
work
that
Planning
Board
did
but
I
think
some
of
the
items
that
are
in
this
list
as
well.
My
use
tables
and
that
kind
of
thing
would
probably
be
an
expansion
of
that
particular
item.
So
they
they
play
out
in
a
couple
different
places.
G
D
D
A
H
The
person
that
suggested
no
additional
action
items
and
I
think
the
earlier
discussion
tonight
makes
me
feel
even
more
strongly
about
that.
We
I
think
expanded
the
scope
of
the
building,
height
and
land
use
changes
and
the
accessor,
and
we
acknowledged
I,
think
reality
that
the
ad
you
work
is
gonna,
take
a
lot
more
of
our
time
and
staff
time
so
I'd
like
to
suggest
well.
My
first
suggestion
would
be
that
we
we
had
nothing
new
to
the
to
the
immediate
plan
and
talked
about
these
things
at
a
retreat,
as
Leslie
suggested.
H
If
we
are
going
to
add
anything,
I'd
suggest
that
we
can
pull
Lester
on
one
thing,
I
think
we're
putting
off
a
lot
of
work
here
when
I
said
we
we're
biting
off
a
lot
of
work
for
staff
here
and
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
we
really
try
to
prioritize
and
move
only
one
thing
in
and
I
could
weigh
in
a
my
one
thing.
I
guess,
for
the
reasons
previously
stated,
I
would
probably
vote
for
infill
I
would
vote
for
nothing,
but
I
would
accept
in
Phillips.
We
had
to
pick
one
thing.
F
So
I
had
voted
for
the
neighborhood
infill
project
as
well
and
I'm.
Pretty
satisfied
where
we
landed
in
our
earlier
conversation
regarding
the
height
and
enhance
community
benefit
to
say
that
we've
kind
of
sort
of
addressed
that
in
that
piece
of
it
so
I'd
be
ok
with
just
keeping
it
to
the
neighborhood.
And
then
you
know
if
we
can
add
those
Siberia
criteria.
J
I,
you
know
maybe
I'm
gonna
agree
with
Sam
I
would
actually
take
some
combination
of
whatever
is
meant
by
enhanced
community
benefit
and
that
ongoing
list
of
potential
land
use
code
amendments
and
do
them.
I
have
no
problem
with
the
neighborhood
plan
residential
infill,
and
these
may
be
different
people
anyway,
because
kind
of
different
staff
works
on
those
things.
But
you
know,
year
after
year
after
year
after
year,
I
look
at
development
projects
and
I.
Look
at
rezoning
and
I.
J
Look
at
all
sorts
of
things
and
you
just
shake
your
head
and
you
think
we
can
get
what
we
wanted
out
of
this
and
it's
because
we
just
haven't
fixed
up
some
of
the
things
we
need
to
fix
up,
and
you
know
we
get
told
we
don't
have
the
authority
to
do
it.
I
think
I
think
there's
much
more
of
that
going
on
than
there
is
of
the
other
things
going
on
and
I
think
it
adds
up
a
lot
over
the
years
where
it's.
J
J
A
C
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
what
Paul
Benjamin
have
said
as
far
as
trying
to
make
it
only
one
thing:
I'm
with
Matt
that
I
think
the
most
important
of
the
things
up.
There
are
the
way
they
put
it
and
you,
since
I,
really
criteria
related
to
affordable
housing.
Right
and
I.
Think
that
that
is
important,
because
that's
probably
why
it's
there's
got
that
narrow
focus
as
opposed
to
what's
over
here,
which
is
a
much
longer
list.
C
I
would
propose
that
we
do
both
the
pilot
and
the
more
focused
I
plan
regard
to
you,
because
I
don't
get
the
sense
that
that
pilot
is
going
to
move
super
fast
or
take
time
and
that
the
community
has
to
get
really
involved
with
that
right.
We
have
to
develop
criteria,
but
the
community
has
to
develop
or
the
neighborhood
or
the
pilot
has
to
develop
the
plans.
C
B
What
I
heard
earlier
this
evening
in
the
context
of
every
time
my
height
is
I,
think
we
I
think
you
arrived
at
a
point
where
you
felt
fairly
comfortable
with
us
moving
forward
with
this
scope
of
work.
We
identified
focusing
on
height
and
you
know
in
FA
our
but
and
that
sort
of
thing
as
it
relates
to
affordable
housing,
while
at
the
same
time
you
know
we're
conducting
engagement
on
that
listening
and
perhaps
developing
some.
Some
other
community
benefit
options
that
could
be
handled
post,
July
2018.
B
So
in
some
ways,
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
some
of
the
land
use
code,
changes
for
Community,
Benefit
and
affordable
housing.
That
item,
which
is
currently
over
on
the
you
know
the
after
2018
items,
will
be
doing
some
of
that
and
will
be
queuing
up.
The
conversation
that
can
occur
that
can
occur
post
July
2018
on
those
I'm
comfortable
with
that
sort
of
phased
approach,
and
so
but
Leslie.
You
weigh
in
here
too,
which
I
think
then
would
allow.
You
know,
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
consensus
around
the
neighborhood
planning,
infill
pilot
project.
B
So
we
could
come
back
to
you
perhaps
January,
even
for
at
the
work
planning
and
identify
those,
and
so
we
would
have
functionally
we
would
be
doing
neighborhood,
infill
and
yet
to
be
determined,
set
of
site
review
criteria
that
will
be
impactful
and
achievable,
while
at
the
same
time
dealing
with
the
broader
community
benefits
piece
in
a
phased
approach.
In
conjunction
with
the
height.
A
A
You
know
if
an
infill
project
thing
can
emerge
from
all
that
great,
but
meanwhile,
let's
get
our
code
working
away
where
we
want
it
that
that
be
my
vote.
So
since
I
wasn't
on
that
list
and
if
we
can
do
both
great
otherwise
I
would
prioritize
the
community
benefit
site
review
criteria,
stuff
fixing
that
stuff
first.
A
D
So
Jim,
thank
you
for
that
answer.
I
think!
That's!
That's
absolutely
sounds
like
a
good
track
to
be
on
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
don't
know
that
some
of
these
things
come
out
of
the
site.
Review
criteria,
specifically
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
our
direction
isn't
just
revised
the
site
review
criteria
about
affordable
housing.
It's
that
there
are
these
outcomes
that
are
undesired,
that
we
get
out
of
our
land,
use
code
and
I.
D
Think
specifically
of
incentivizing
larger
units,
so
I
think
the
the
mission
from
us
is
to
go
look
for
those
things
and
it
may
be
the
site
review
criteria.
Maybe
other
places
would
be
my
thought
on
that
and
I
agree
that
that
is
a
very
high
priority.
Just
another
thought
on
the
the
neighborhood
envelope.
D
Islet
idea
is
that
that
can
that
could
create
a
discretionary
review
process
like
through
the
Planning
Board,
so
just
to
think
about,
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
pin
down
every
little
detail
of
what
we're
looking
for
and
how
it
would
have
to
work.
We
could
lay
out
a
framework-
that's
fairly
broad
and
with
some
criteria,
but
then
allow
it
through
a
proposal
through
a
discretionary
review
process,
us
with
Planning
Board
approval
and
City
Council
call
up
just
offering
options,
but
just
in
terms
of
scoping
that
it
might
that
might
control
the
scope
a
little
bit.
G
G
Of
course,
there
will
be
some
new
council
members,
and
you
know
that
there
may
be
some
new
conversations
around
some
of
these
items
too,
but
that
gives
us
I
think
enough
to
go
on
at
least
to
put
this
in
shape
for
you
for
September
5th
and
then
for
us
to
continue
at
the
staff
level
or
work
and
with
the
community
and
then
to
come
back
to
Council
again
and
revisit
it
in
a
few
months.
If.
A
C
I
was
gonna,
say
an
IP
might
be
appropriate.
Maybe
it's
something
you
take
to
Planning
Board
for
validation,
because
I
know,
my
understanding
is
Charles.
Farrow
and
others
have
kept
a
running
list
of
broken
things,
and
you
know
we
may
want
to
add
to
the
list.
Planning
board
may
want
to
add
to
the
list,
but
if
you
just
wanted
to
Tod
up
the
list
of
broken
things
in
an
IP,
especially.