►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 9-21-23
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
C
C
D
F
Okay,
thank
you.
Thanks
for
keeping
us
entertained,
while
we
wait
for
the
broadcast
to
start
actually,
I
was
at
a
Northwest
mayor
and
commissioner
Coalition
meeting
the
other
day,
and
we
had
like
a
two-minute
gap
between
things
and
I
said
anybody
have
any
jokes
and
people
brought
the
jokes
like
trying
to
keep
some
humor
in
our
public
meetings.
I
I
F
F
The
city
of
Boulder
is
partnering
with
the
national
civic
league
on
a
nationwide
effort
to
make
Council
meetings
more
engaging
and
satisfying
for
everyone
who
participates
as
part
of
this
effort.
We
want
to
hear
about
your
experiences
with
our
meetings,
so
we
invite
community
members
who
are
either
in
person
or
online
for
Council
meetings
starting
tonight
and
running
through
our
December
7th
meeting
to
rate
your
experience,
we
have
an
online
scorecard
that
takes
about
two
minutes
to
fill
out.
F
The
link
to
it
is
on
the
screen
now
and
for
the
online
audience
we're
putting
a
link
and
QR
code
in
the
chat
you
may
complete
the
scorecard
once
for
each
time
you
participate
in
a
council
meeting
over
the
next
three
months.
It'll
be
very
interesting
to
see
what
you
have
to
say
and
with
that
Emily
can
we
well.
First
I
will
officially
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
Emily.
If
we
can
do
roll
call,
please
yeah.
C
F
J
B
I
appreciate
having
the
opportunity
to
speak
about
this.
B
We
want
to
take
a
moment
to
mourn
the
loss
of
a
council
colleague
on
Lafayette
city
council,
Tony,
Briggs
council
member
Briggs
passed
away
unexpectedly
this
past
weekend
and
we
send
our
heartfelt
condolences
to
the
community
of
Lafayette.
But,
most
importantly,
we
send
our
deepest
love
to
the
friends
and
family
of
council
member
Briggs,
as
they
start
this
most
impossible
journey
through
grief
and
starting
life.
Without
their
friend
partner,
Men
Mother,
you
will
be
missed
by
a
community.
That
is
grateful
for
your
love
and
service
to
others.
F
Thank
you
for
that.
Matt
and
I've,
been
in
Communications
with
some
of
the
city
council,
members
and
the
mayor
of
Lafayette
and
expressing
our
condolences
and
support
as
well.
It's
really
sad
to
to
lose
her
to
beautiful
person.
F
That
being
said,
we
will
now
move
to
our
declarations.
We
are
starting
with
the
Hispanic
Heritage
Month
declaration
presented
by
council
member
Benjamin
in
English
and
myself
in
Spanish.
If
I
could
invite
our
recipients
to
come
up,
please.
M
L
B
Thank
you
guys.
Sabrina
Hispanic,
Heritage,
Month,
October,
15,
2023,
National,
Hispanic,
Heritage
Month
is
recognized
from
September
15th
through
October
15th,
and
it
is
time
to
honor
the
invaluable
ways.
The
Hispanic
and
Latino
Americans
have
shaped
our
community,
celebrate
the
diverse
cultures
and
work
towards
a
stronger,
more
inclusive
and
more
prosperous
Society
for
all
the
Hispanic
heritage.
Observance
began
in
1968
as
Hispanic
heritage
week
under
President
Lyndon
Johnson,
recognizing
that
five
Central
American
countries,
Costa
Rica
El
Salvador,
Guatemala,
Honduras
Nicaragua,
and
in
North
America
Mexico
celebrate
their
independence
day
on
September
15th
in
1988.
B
The
week
was
expanded
by
President
Ronald
Reagan
to
cover
a
30-day
period
to
celebrate
the
continuous,
the
contributions
of
Hispanic
and
Latino
people
to
the
United
States
and
those
American
citizens
whose
ancestors
came
from
Spain
Mexico,
the
Caribbean,
Central,
America
and
South
America.
The
act
of
recognizing
and
celebrating
the
contributions
of
Hispanic
and
Latina
individuals
is
important.
However,
it
can
be
difficult
to
accurately
do
so
when
we
examine
the
complicated
history
of
their
many
diasporas
between
Spanish
colonization
and
the
transatlantic
slave
trade
and
the
forcible
seizure
of
indigenous
lands,
including
in
the
recent
past.
B
We
acknowledge
that
capturing
these
complex
history,
complex
histories
and
identities
is
only
as
only
Hispanic
and
Latina
oversimplifies
history
and
neglects
the
richness
of
these
peoples
as
individuals
and
as
a
community
Hispanic
Latina
Latin
America
are
all
foreign
names
placed
on
peoples
and
land
of
this
continent.
We
recognize
and
support
the
movement
of
self
for
self-determination.
B
Decolonization
efforts
of
indigenous
people
that
call
this
continent
as
we
continue
to
honor
the
observance
of
theme
of
unidos
inclusivity
for
a
stronger
Nation.
It
encourages
us
to
ensure
that
all
voices
are
represented
and
welcome
to
help
build
a
stronger
communities
and
stronger
Nation.
Hispanic
and
Latino
people
have
enhanced
and
influenced
our
City's
character
through
contributions
of
their
talents,
cultures,
values,
ideas,
labor,
as
well
as
new
and
old
traditions
that
reflect
the
multi-ethnic
and
Multicultural
customs
of
their
communities,
while
adding
their
own
distinct
and
dynamic
perspectives
to
the
story
of
Boulder.
B
We
recognize
Hispanic
and
Latina
community
members
in
leadership
positions
throughout
a
myriad
of
organizations,
including
in
Science,
Education,
non-profit
business
and
government.
We,
the
city
of
Council,
of
the
city
of
Boulder,
Colorado,
declare
September
15th
through
October
15th
as
Hispanic
Heritage
Month,
and
invite
the
entire
Community
to
share
and
participate
in
the
celebration
of
this
month
and
consider
the
great
impacts
that
Hispanic
Latino
people
have
had
on.
I
E
E
Millionaires
in
English,
my
fellow
interpreters,
if
I
miss
out
on
anything
just
let
me
know
in
on
behalf
of
Michael,
my
colleagues,
Elena,
clever,
rosabel,
rice,
Tanya,
balado,
Leticia,
Perez
and
me
I'm,
Leticia,
and
all
of
the
other
interpreters
and
translators
and
Advocates
that
have
been
working
in
Boulder
for
equity
and
just
a
language
Justice.
We
want
to
say
thank
you
for
this
step
towards
Mauritius
world.
It's
many.
Many
of
us
have
been
advocating
for
more
just
World
here
in
Boulder,
so
those
who
primarily
speak
Spanish
can
understand
what
they
are
told.
E
I
J
N
O
F
Thanks
for
that,
Elena,
okay,
we
have.
That
was
wonderful.
Thank
you.
Thanks
to
you
all
for
being
here
our
next
declaration.
Our
second
and
final
declaration
is
Energy
Efficiency
day
presented
by
council
member
folkerts.
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
nationwide
network
of
Energy
Efficiency
efficiency
groups
has
partnered
and
designated
October
5th
2023
as
the
national
Energy
Efficiency
day.
We,
the
city
council
of
Boulder
Colorado,
declare
October
2023
as
Energy
Efficiency
day
and
urge
citizens
to
join
us
in
supporting
and
implementing
our
clean
energy
goals
now
and
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
F
D
D
D
I
D
R
I
D
D
Q
S
I
F
You
Brenda
all
right.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes
and
if
you
can
queue
up,
as
your
turn
is
coming
up,
that'd
be
fantastic.
Our
first
three
speakers
are
Pat
our
first
three
three
two
two
minutes:
eight
people
Emily.
Can
you
confirm
that
our
rules
for
open
common
is
that
there's
two
minutes
for
each
to
speak.
T
Patrick,
thank
you.
There's
I
have
two
slides
tonight.
The
first
one
I
want
to
talk
about
what
happened
last
week
in
this
room.
At
the
work
study
session,
there
was
a
conversation.
I
T
The
possibility
of
giving
away
all
the
library
system,
basically
so
I
spent
a
little
bit
of
time
today
doing
a
little
research,
the
four
buildings
that
was
proposed
through
by
staff-
and
this
is
nothing
to
do
with
the
vote
that
you
guys
had
that's
perfectly
appropriate.
My
concern
is
the
staff
recommendation
that
these
buildings
be
given
away
with
a
lot
of
without
a
lot
of
thought,
given.
Q
T
T
The
benefits
and
the
negatives
associated
with
that
recommendation,
the
four
buildings
have
a
minimum
value
of
30
million
dollars
and.
Q
T
Did
I
come
up
with
that?
Well,
96
000,
this
building
the
building
next
door
to
you
is
93
000
square
feet.
Let's.
U
T
It's
300
a
square
foot
that
comes
to
just
over
30
million
dollars
just
for
that
one
building.
If
you
want
to
look
at
what
the
assessments
are
you
you'll
go
one
building
to
the
north.
Here
is
60
000
square
feet,
the
building
right
there
on
the
corner
across
the
street
from
us.
Q
T
T
F
F
We
have
people
who
need
to
come
on
up
and
speak
so
Emily's
in
your
next
then
Michelle
Rodriguez
and
Andrew
Hyman
hi.
V
Thank
you
for
having
me
my
name
is
Emily
Zinn
I'm,
the
director
of
education
at
the
Museum
of
Boulder,
at
Tebow,
Center
up
the
road
and
I'm,
also
the
project
manager
on
proclaiming
Colorado's
black
history.
Our
upcoming
exhibit
that
opens
next
Friday
evening
and
I
wanted
to
invite
you
all
to
come,
see
it
when
we
talk
about
creating
a
community
where
people
of
color
feel
welcome
and
feel
a
sense
of
belonging.
V
We
hope
that
you'll
join
us
in
celebrating
black
contributions
in
the
face
of
adversity
throughout
the
life
of
this
state.
You're
welcome
to
contact
me
or
any
of
our
staff
at
the
Museum,
and
we
would
love
to
schedule
private
tours
with
our
project
team
so
that
you
can
come
see
it.
We
open
next
Friday
evening,
you're
all
invited
and
I
appreciate
the
time.
Thank
you.
F
H
A
better
light
today,
first
Amy
needs
a
race.
No
I
promised
I
had
said
that
before
you
know,
because
she
she
does
a
lot
I
just
wanted
to
say:
I
had
some
some
pretty
exciting
conversation
and
actually
about
four
hours.
This
week
with
Community
involvement
and
direct
involvement.
Engagement
with
the
new
police
monitor
I
learned
some
exciting
things.
H
I
can
tell
you
the
the
biggest
thing
I
learned
and
I'm
so
excited
about
is
about
Sterling,
Eco,
being
the
police
officer,
that's
the
liaison
that
was
put
as
the
liaison
between
the
police
department
and
the
Monitor,
and
you
guys
all
know
he's
he's
my
favorite
his
favorite,
my
favorite
person
and
the
most
perfect
choice
and
pick
for
that.
That
position
and
I
I
was
I
was
ecstatic.
They
almost
had
to
strap
me
to
the
table,
but
in
addition,
I
wanted
to
speak
real,
quick.
H
H
Some
tents
in
an
open
space,
some
somewhere,
something
anything
I,
have
actively
been
engaging
and
literally
physically
dragging
one
individual
who's
homeless
out
there
from
location
to
location
on
that
lawn,
most
recently,
she's,
not
mobile,
and
had
she
been
laying
in
that
exact
spot
where
that
truck
went
up,
it
would
have
been,
and
so
the
chief
is
so
right
about
that.
H
I
F
Michelle
Andrew
Hyman
Phoenix
salute
and
Evan
ravitz.
U
I'm
part
of
an
organization
known
as
architectural
uprising
I
run
the
western
United
States
chapter.
We
have
branches
across
Europe,
different
parts
of
Asia
and
now
in
the
United
States,
which
is
exciting.
Essentially,
what
we
are
trying
to
do
is
return
to
traditional
architecture
as
well
as
proper
building
and
good
urban
planning.
You
know,
I'm
sure,
you've
all
heard
of
the
walkable
City,
that's
kind
of
in
the
same
thing.
We're
thinking
I
just
really
wanted
to
introduce
myself.
U
W
One
thing
that
I
found
could
be
helpful
would
be
stools
in
the
bathrooms
for
children
to
be
able
to
get
to
the
sinks
as
well
as
stools
in
the
toilets,
maybe
placing
like
seat
reducers
in
public
restrooms
as
a
way
for
them
to
have
more
access,
as
well
as
an
Initiative
for
parents
to
maybe
step
deeper
into
if
they're,
in
a
potty
training
phase.
The
availability
for
that
and
I
know
that
there
are
rooms
for
mothers
to
go
for
breastfeeding.
Things
like
that.
W
So
I
think
that
those
types
of
spaces
could
be
plumped
up
more
and
just
given.
You
know
more
moms
a
better
chance
to
be
participants
in
the
world
that
is
around
them
because,
as
a
mom
I
know,
I
felt
really
removed
from
everything
for
a
long
time
and
even
having
a
toddler.
It's
still
hard
so,
but
thank
you
very
much.
F
X
Last
time,
I
read:
Mike
homner's
emails
about
the
city's
junket
to
Oregon
in
2016
to
look
at
homeless
camps
and
tiny
homes.
Bob
Yates
later
said.
He
didn't
actually
go
as
Mike
had
thought.
Mike
told
me
was
because
someone
in
his
photos
looks
like
mistake:
fixed
regular
folks
have
incentive
to
fix
our
mistakes
I've.
Given
you
two
examples
of
us
fixing
mistakes
in
citizen
ballot
initiatives,
but
politicians
have
incentives
to
cover
up
their
mistakes
to
protect
their
donors
and
careers.
X
Bob
also
supposedly
negotiated
the
franchise
on
our
behalf,
but
he
neglected
to
ensure
that
the
city
can
install
future
Broadband
fiber
in
excel's
underground
conduits.
So
now
we
Face
the
huge
expense
and
disruption
of
digging
our
own
trenches.
That's
why
the
city
is
looking
for
a
private
partner.
Bob
are
you
invested
in
Excel
or
Broadband
companies
like
you
used
to
work
for
so
you'll
profit
from
these
betrayals.
F
X7
right,
please,
please:
no
audible,
Expressions
out
there
with
James
Duncan
and
then
Lynn
Siegel
and
then
we'll
go
virtual.
Q
Just
have
hang
on
a
second,
please
wow.
Here
it
is
James
Duncan
I
live
in
Boulder.
Thank
you
for
your
service
Council,
a
recount
of
an
incident
from
a
Community
member
hello,
on
Friday
September
15th,
my
wife
and
I
opened
the
door
into
the
Brewing
Market
coffee
shop
at
McGuckin's.
I
heard
a
loud
fighting,
sound
right
behind
me,
two
big
guys
pretty
much
jumping
on
and
throwing
an
older
guy
to
the
concrete
ground
between
a
couple
of
big
flower
pots.
This
was
so
severe.
Q
It
moved
the
heavy
flower
pots
out
of
the
way
it
looked
like
a
very
rough
fight.
I
was
afraid
he
was
going
to
get
his
head
slammed
into
the
flower
pots
and
the
concrete
the
older
man
resisted
and
yelled
back.
He
then
got
dragged
about
10
feet
over
the
concrete
between
two
cars.
While
he
was
cussing
and
yelling,
the
two
guys
tackled
him
again
and
one
of
them
sat
on
his
back.
While
he
was
facing
down
into
the
concrete.
The
big
guy
had
held
the
guy
on
the
ground
with
his
arm
around
his
neck.
Q
In
a
strangled
position,
there
were
quite
a
few
step
bystanders,
but
my
personal
reaction
was
of
great
anger
and
started
yelling
and
demanding
to
let
the
guy
go.
I
immediately
had
the
support
of
other
bystanders
because
of
the
brutal
scene
and
the
fight
at
the
same
time,
I
quickly
came
to
realize
that
the
guy
had
stolen
merchandise
from
the
McGuckin
store.
These
two
guys
were
from
security
from
the
hardware
store.
Q
After
a
few
minutes,
my
repeated
yelling
and
loud
loud,
it
seemed
the
two
guys
took
my
demand
seriously
and
let
the
guy
loose
and
he
run
off
that
was
from
Jonas
I
too
James
I
have
written
similar
brutality
and
can't
help
but
feel
it
exists
because
of
a
pervasive
cultural
hatred
and
meanness
towards
the
poor.
Look
at
the
vitriol
on
next
door,
dominated
by
fear
and
loathing.
Q
O
O
What
about
the
ldrc,
the
landmarks
design,
Review
Committee,
that
is
not
recorded!
This
is
the
house
that
they're
demolishing
in
lvrc
I
request
that
the
ldrc
be
disbanded.
You
can't
record
their
meetings.
I
can't
go
back
and
see.
Why
would
they
demolish
this
8
000
square
foot,
6.1
million
dollar
house
in
Boulder?
That's
fireproof
on
the
wildlands
urban
interface
770
Circle!
O
O
Why
should
I
have
to
why
can't
I
have
my
three
lousy
minutes,
like
we
had
for
50
years
at
city
council,
45
minutes,
16
minutes
that
you
had
to
see
these
people
today,
three
people
that
were
at
the
police
oversight
panel.
Yesterday,
three
people-
you
don't
have
a
public.
You
know
I
hope
they
revolt
against
you,
because
you
are
not
leaders.
O
R
R
Q
R
M
I
I
Q
I
I
F
R
F
N
Thank
you
so
much
mayor
a
couple.
Things
wanted
to
thank
James
for
sharing
that
horrific
story
and
for
sharing
a
little
bit
of
that
Humanity
with
us
and
I.
Just
appreciate
your
your
voice.
Michelle
brought
up
and
thank
you.
Michelle
brought
up
the
incident
that
happened
at
near
the
Band
Shell
at
Central,
Park
and
I.
N
Just
wanted
to
thank
the
many
staff
who
went
down
to
support
those
in
our
unsheltered
community
who
were
impacted
and
scared
by
such
a
horrific
event,
and
there
were
a
variety
of
other
folks
as
well
from
organizations
who
and
individuals
in
community
who
also
went
down
to
support.
So
I
just
wanted
to
appreciate
that
and
then
I
wanted
to
say
thank
Phoenix
for
a
showing
up
for
what's
up,
Boulder
loved,
seeing
so
many
people
there
and
actually
just
wanted
to
call
out
the
child-friendly
cities,
initiative.
N
I
know
we
will
come
to
council
at
some
point
and
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
it.
But
it
is
initiative
to
get
a
designation
of
child-friendly
cities
from
and
in
partnership
with
UNICEF
and
what
I'm
really
proud.
We
just
had
a
kickoff
and
a
launch
with
all
our
external
organizational
Partners
across
the
city
of
Boulder
and
the
county
me,
and
so
really
appreciative
of
that.
But
the
thing
I
think
I'm
I
most
want
to
tout.
N
We
are
the
only
jurisdiction,
thus
far
I,
believe
and
I
hope
others
will
follow
that
are
really
leading
with
youth
voice,
and
so
we
have
had
a
lot
of
Engagement
sessions
with
our
youth.
We
have
gotten
our
own
youth
opportunities,
Advisory
Board
involved
and
I'm
really
excited
about
the
possibility
of
being
able
to
implement
something
that
is
not
perhaps
done
by
us
grown-ups
in
a
child-friendly
initiative,
but
is
really
informed
and
led
with
youth
voice,
so
excited
to
see
that
and
I
know
we'll
bring
that
to
you
soon.
F
Thanks
Nuria
any
Council
comments
or
questions
Rachel.
A
Thanks
just
too
for
Michelle
Rodriguez,
just
FYI
we're
having
a
virtual
study
session
next
week
that
will
cover
safe
outdoor
spaces
as
part
of
it
so
hope
you'll
tune
in
there
may
be
there's
help
on
the
way.
I
don't
know
yet,
but
fingers
crossed
there
and
then
follow
up
with
staff
on
making
cows's
a
question
about
concept
review
that
was
unanimous
direction
to
staff
and
it
sounds
like
we're
hitting
roadblocks.
So
could
we
get
an
update
on?
A
Y
I'm
here
so
good
evening,
Council
Brad,
Mueller
planning
and
development
services,
director
boy,
if
I
can't
get
that
outside
it's
gonna
be
a
long
night
who
am
I.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
As
you
can
appreciate,
the
development
review
process
is
complicated
and
there's
a
lot
of
nuance
to
this
annexations
as
you're
aware,
do,
allow
the
city
and
do
allow
you
Council
to
make
determinations
of
rather
than
a
set
of
specific
criteria.
Y
What's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city,
we
know
from
the
concept
plan
that
housing
is
important.
Certainly
staff
supports
that
and
it's
a
core
tenet
of
our
comprehensive
plan
as
well,
but
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
bringing
forward
to
council
and
to
planning
to
be
forward
before
you
something
that
reflects
that
commitment
in
a
way
that's
predictable
and
assured,
also
just
to
maybe
give
the
a
little
bit
of
insight
into
that
and
happy
to
talk
to
any
of
you
separately
as
well.
Y
Just
asking
for
basic
information
on
how
connection
to
sewer
would
be
made,
for
example,
so
we're
still
at
that
stage
of
Discovery.
We
want
to
make
sure
it's
right
before
it
gets
to
planning
board
and
and
yourselves
and
that's
where
we
are.
A
Y
F
Matt,
oh
okay!
Well,
yes,
Nicole.
Z
Yeah
I,
just
I,
just
had
a
quick
comment
and
this
kind
of
goes
to
what
James
was
saying
about
sort
of
working
together.
There
was
a
comment
made
that
the
staff
had
not
given
much
thought
to
giving
away
the
library
buildings
and
I
just
wanted
to
push
back
on
that
a
little
bit,
because
it
was
something
that
I
know
that
staff
deliberated
quite
a
bit
on
that
they
did
a
lot
of
research
and
I.
Z
Think
it's
just
important
for
us
to
remember
that
we
can
disagree
on
our
conclusions,
and
that
does
not
mean
that
we
haven't
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
it.
I
think,
especially,
our
staff
are
exceptional,
truly
exceptional,
I
think
some
of
the
best
in
the
country-
and
it's
just
I-
think
it's
important
that
that
we
recognize
that
our
staff
are
working
with
the
best
information
they
have
and
giving
us
the
best
advice
that
they
think,
and
we
may
disagree
with
that,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
they
haven't
been
thoughtful.
Thank
you.
F
Appreciate
you
saying
that
Nicole
our
staff
does
do
excellent
work
and
I'll
just
make
one
quick
comment:
Michelle
thanks
for
coming
and
speaking
to
us
again
always
appreciate
hearing
from
you
and
just
of
course,
the
incident
with
the
man
driving
the
truck
and
trying
to
kill
people
was
horrific
and
completely
unacceptable.
So
I
think
we
all
share
that
feeling.
F
I
appreciate
all
the
First
Responders
and
the
helpers
who
came
down
to
to
keep
people
out
of
Harm's
Way
and
to
help
them
afterwards
to
recover
and
then
to
the
police
for
apprehending
the
suspect
soon
afterwards.
So
appreciate
everybody
who
pitched
in
to
deal
with
that
very
difficult
situation
and
seeing
no
other
hands
raised,
then
we
can
go
to
our
consent
agenda.
Please
Emily.
B
C
Z
L
C
B
Know
I'm
an
interest
in
calling
up
just
just
commented:
I
mean
this
sort
of
is
exemplary
from
a
sustainability
perspective
and
I
think
these
are
exactly
the
kind
of
projects
that
we'd
love
to
see
that
set
the
bar.
So
this
is
awesome.
F
T
F
C
Absolutely
moving
right
along
here.
Our
public
hearings
are
item
five
on
tonight's
agenda
and
we
have
item
5A
to
start,
and
that
is
a
consideration
of
the
following
items
related
to
the
Boulder
Junction
Phase
2
project.
One
consideration
of
a
motion
to
approve
amendments
to
the
transit
Village
area
planned
as
outlined
in
attachment
a
and
number
two
consideration
of
a
motion
to
approve
amendments
to
chapter
five
of
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan.
Revising
the
summary
of
the
transit
Village
area
plan,
as
outlined
in
attachment
B.
Y
I
just
wanted
to
frame
these
two
items
for
you
a
little
bit
before
we
get
started
over
18
months
or
more
ago.
Actually,
before
I
started,
you
all
went
through
a
rigorous
process
of
identifying
your
key
priorities
for
the
next
couple
of
years.
In
a
retreat,
we
were
fortunate
to
have
five
of
your
ten
and
we've
been
happy
to
be
working
on
those
with
you.
You're
welcome,
thank
you
and
really
happy
and
pleased
to
be
able
to
bring
two
of
those
to
you.
Y
This
evening
we
had
a
conversation,
you'll
recall
back
in
November
with
you
about
how
we
could
in
fact
get
these
sequenced.
These
five
priorities,
sequenced,
balancing
the
need
for
public
Outreach
and
input
not
stepping
on
each
other,
though
with
the
various
kind
of
interrelated
projects
and
finding
a
way
to
sequence
that,
within
the
scope
that
we
had
presented
to
you,
both
discussed
in
the
retreat
as
I
understand
it,
but
also,
as
we
discussed
in
more
detail
on
November
in
November
of
last
year.
Y
I
AA
AA
Our
key
objectives
tonight
are
the
approval
of
the
phase
2
Amendment,
and
we
are
also
asking
Council
to
consider
an
amendment
to
chapter
5
of
the
bvcp,
which
has
a
section
on
TV
app.
That
simply
provides
a
brief
summary.
Should
the
amendment
tonight
be
approved
this
evening.
We
will
need
to
update
that
summary,
at
which
point
that
is
more
of
a
house
cleaning
item.
AA
We'll
start
with
a
reminder
that
we
do
already
have
an
adopted
area
plan
that
sets
the
vision
for
Boulder
Junction
area,
adopted
in
2007
TV
app
established
a
desire
for
Boulder
Junction
to
become
Lively
and
engaging
with
a
range
of
uses
attracting
a
broad
diversity
of
people.
It
describes
the
future
of
the
area
as
having
a
Charming
chaos
and
should
incorporate
Citywide
and
neighborhood
scale
public
spaces,
and
there
is
an
emphasis
on
sustainability,
walking,
biking
and
possibly
car
free
areas
that
Vision
continues
to
guide
the
future
of
Boulder
Junction.
AA
Today,
however,
there
was
a
broad
belief
from
city
council
and
the
community,
the
community,
collectively
that
elements
of
phase
two
needed
to
be
updated
after
15
years.
The
proposed
amendment
is
an
additional
piece
to
the
ensuring
the
land
uses,
Transportation
connections
and
Urban
Design
Elements
of
phase
two
align
with
our
current
Community
needs.
AA
We
engaged
a
broad
contingent
of
stakeholders
in
the
community,
as
you
can
see
in
a
variety
of
formats,
including
focus
group
meetings,
open
houses,
online
questionnaires
and
so
on.
We
also
convened
a
pilot
of
a
multi-board
working
group
that
included
representatives
from
nine
different
city
boards
from
all
those
conversations,
several
key
themes
for
phase
to
emerge.
There
is
a
desire
to
allow
greater
flexibility
for
residential
and
mixed-use
outcomes,
then
TV
app
originally
would
have
allowed
for
a
desire
to
see
enhanced
support
for
existing
and
new
and
local
small
businesses.
AA
I
will
point
out
that
there
is
a
variety
of
opinions
from
stakeholders
on
whether
mixed-use
Transit,
oriented
development
or
mixed-use
industrial
is
a
more
appropriate
land
use
examination
along
Old
Pearl
we're
going
to
touch
on
this
later
and
elaborate
more
on
the
staff
recommendation.
But
I
just
want
to
point
that
out
here.
AB
Great,
thank
you
so
I'm
going
to
go
over.
Some
of
the
key
themes
could.
AB
I'm
Rachel
Sherman
I'm
a
vice
president
with
economic
and
planning
systems,
and
we
are
brought
on
to
do
the
market
analysis
component,
which
is
one
of
the
pieces
in
order
to
move
forward
with
phase
two.
So
we've
been
working
over
the
last
couple
months
on
understanding
market
trends
what's
been
happening.
Where
is
their
strongest
Market
support
where
their
challenge
is
absent?
AB
We
looked
at
really
these
four
key.
What
we
call
asset
classes,
types
of
development,
so
retail
office,
multi-family,
residential
and
Industrial
and
in
general,
there's
some
demand
for
retail
in
this
area
right
now
with
more
residential
coming
online.
That's
when
we
tend
to
see
you
know
the
phrases
retail
follows
rooftops
with
more
people
in
the
area.
There
will
be
more
demand
for
retail,
but
one
of
the
key
takeaways
and
we'll
see
this.
There
will
be
a
little
bit
of
repetition
throughout.
This
is
to
really
focus
it
and
not
try
to
do.
AB
You
know
first
floor
retail
everywhere.
We've
seen
the
struggles
with
that,
but
really
be
intentional
about
where
that
goes,
and
where
other
first
floor
uses
might
be
better
suited
office,
we're
still
seeing
the
the
impacts
of
covid
over
time.
One
strength
of
this
area
is
the
types
of
office
users
that
are
here
so
there's
a
lot
of
high-tech
space
lab
space,
Health
Sciences
biosciences
that
are
much
more
place,
focused
than
sort
of
traditional
office
users
where
remote
work
is
more
of
a
possibility.
AB
So
that's
a
really
big
strength
of
the
area
and
that's
something
that
we
see
continuing
to
be
a
strength
moving
forward.
As
we'll
see,
we
did
some
development
feasibility
work
right
now.
It
might
be
a
little
challenging
to
build
that
space
unless
we're
building
really
high-end
spaces,
and
so
that's
potentially
more
of
a
longer
term
opportunity,
residential
as
we've
seen
at
over
time
in
the
city.
AB
There's
a
lot
of
demand
for
that,
and
so
that's
part
of
the
greater
emphasis
in
this
area
on
residential
is
to
really
be
able
to
meet
some
of
that
demand
and
then
also
create
a
more
vibrant
area
that
can
support
some
of
these
other
uses.
And
then
industrial
is
a
challenge
and
there
is
older
industrial
space
in
this
area,
but
in
terms
of
future
demand,
it's
really
difficult
to
build
new
industrial
and
Boulder
right
now.
AB
Land
values
are
really
high
and
it's
really
tough
to
support
Industrial
Development,
given
the
cost
of
land
and
so
we'll
see
sort
of
rethinking
how
we
look
at
existing
industrial
space
and
what
can
be
done
to
incorporate
what
we
call
more
like
Flex
uses,
but
less
like
warehousing
and
Manufacturing
that
there
just
aren't
the
sites
and
the
development
costs.
Just
don't
support
that.
AB
We
have
Consolidated
ownership,
which
helps
with
Redevelopment
and
it's
sort
of
larger
single
spaces
and
there's
already
some
planning
efforts
ongoing,
and
so
that's,
where
we're
likely
to
see
the
earliest
Redevelopment
and
a
key
theme
throughout
this
whole
process
was
that
read
of
flexibility
is
really
key
in
the
central
area.
AB
That's
going
to
be
a
challenge
because
that's
where
some
of
the
existing
sort
of
service,
commercial
and
Service
Industrial
users
are
who
are
going
to
face
some
of
the
most
challenges,
as
Redevelopment
happens
and
as
rents
go
up
and
when
buildings
redevelop
it's
going
to
be
really
challenging
for
a
lot
of
those
businesses
to
stay
in
those
spaces
and
then
in
the
north.
AB
There's
some
really
strong
employment
uses
and
so
we'll
see,
there's
a
desire
for
more
residential
in
this
area,
but
an
opportunity
to
really
create
a
mixed
area
with
maintaining
and
enhancing
some
of
those
office
uses,
and
so
the
key
findings,
as
we
sort
of
talked
about
right
now,
residential
is
just
more
feasible
than
other
uses
given
sort
of
land
cost
construction
costs
and
the
rents
available,
and
so
allowing
residential
to
be
included
in
a
lot
of
different
types
of
developments
can
help
achieve
some
of
the
other
uses
that
we're
looking
for.
AB
We
did
some
development
feasibility
analysis
to
understand.
You
know
thinking
forward
towards
implementation.
What
some
key
considerations
will
be
and
parking
is
going
to
be
a
key
consideration,
it's
very
expensive
and
it
really
impacts
the
types
of
development
that
can
be
feasibly
built
and
then
again
just
thinking
over
the
timeline.
AB
So
three
and
four
kind
of
combined
phase
one
redeveloped
relatively
quickly,
partially,
because
a
lot
of
the
land
was
vacant
and
there
were
a
number
of
city-owned
parcels
phase
two,
given
that
there's
development
on
almost
every
site
will
happen
over
a
much
slower
timeline,
and
so
just
keeping
that
in
mind
and
accounting
for
Market
changes
over
time.
So
right
now
the
strength
of
residential
is
really
driving
a
lot
of
new
development.
AB
This
is
really
a
repetition
of
the
previous
slide,
but
just
some
of
these
key
considerations
is
just
keeping
the
expectation.
The
slower
Redevelopment
timeline,
the
importance
of
residential
in
new
development
and
then
understanding
that
allowing
for
residential
on
upper
floors
can
help
drive
more
desired
uses
on
Lower
floors
that
bring
in
less
revenue
and
just
keeping
parking
in
mind
as
an
implementation,
Factor
and
so
in
terms
of
next
steps
from
the
market
perspective.
AB
Just
understanding
barriers
to
development,
so
considerations
like
height
and
site
coverage
and
parking
in
those
components
understand
the
need
for
a
parking
strategy.
The
balance
of
employment
with
housing
uses
and
we'll
talk
about
this
a
little
bit
later
on
in
terms
of
where
entirely
Office
Buildings
might
fit
in
and
allowing
for
that
balance
within
areas,
sub
areas
and
the
entire
area,
particularly
in
the
central
area.
AC
Thank
you
Rachel
is
that
working
yeah
great
good
evening,
Council
Christopher
Johnson
on
the
comprehensive
planning
manager
I,
will
dive
into
the
proposed
amendments
themselves
and
give
you
an
overview
of
what
is
before
you
this
evening.
So
we
focused
very
strategically
on
updating
the
land,
use,
transportation
and
Urban
Design
sections
of
the
of
the
transit
Village
area
plan.
AC
It
was
really
in
response
to
the
themes
that
emerged
through
our
process
and
also
you
know,
understanding
the
timeline
and
the
framework
that
we
had
to
work
with
through
this
year
and
and
hoping
to
be
able
to
bring
this
to
council.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
a
fairly
narrow
Focus.
We
have
just
logistically:
we've
updated
the
original
2007
TV
app
document,
there's
a
number
of
big
notations
within
there
that
you
can
see
that
really
direct
community
staff,
future
boards
and
Council
and
other
interested
parties
to
the
phase
two
Amendment
itself.
AC
The
amendment
is
then
attached
as
an
addendum
to
the
original
2007
plan
and
really
a
large
bulk
of
the
existing
vision
for
the
entirety
of
the
Boulder
Junction
area.
Still
Still
applies
and
is
still
relevant,
and
so
it's
it's
not
overwritten
or
overlooked
by
this
amendment.
AC
So
moving
into
you
know,
sort
of
the
land
use
updates
the
the
plan
Amendment
proposes
two
different
land
use
categories
that
really
allows
for
a
wide
variety
of
residential,
commercial
and
light
industrial
outcomes,
and
that's
really
in
response
to
the
community
feedback
that
we
had
heard
throughout
this
process
for
greater
flexibility,
the
mixed-use
transit
oriented
development
land
use
focuses
primarily
on
residential
and
other
Transit
supportive
uses.
Mixed-Use
industrial
also
allows
for
residential
but
places
an
important
focus
on
light.
AC
AC
In
addition
to
residential,
the
pkuo,
as
I
mentioned,
is
applied
to
city-owned
Parcels
along
that
Goose
Creek
Greenway
and
the
the
other
thing.
That's
actually
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
see
on
the
graphic,
but
there
is
a
small
sliver
of
osdr
which
stands
for
open
space,
development
rights
or
restrictions,
and
that's
really
kind
of
a
cleanup
item
that
we
worked
closely
with
our
colleagues
in
open
space
and
Mountain
Parks.
AC
There's
an
existing
Scenic
easement
right
there
along
Pearl
Parkway
that
they
control
and
so
we're
updating
that
to
that
osdr
land
use
these
descriptions
here,
these
Snippets
of
descriptions
are
pulled
directly
from
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan.
They
they
further
outline
sort
of
the
broad
Vision.
AC
That's
expected:
Within
These
primary
land
use
categories
as
I
mentioned,
mutod
pairs
existing
or
planned
Transit
facilities
with
residential
and
Commercial
development
opportunities,
mui
integrates
diverse
housing,
commercial
and
Retail
options
into
industrial
areas,
and
then
pkuo
applies
to
public
lands
used
for
a
variety
of
active
and
passive
Recreation
uses
and
flood
control
purposes.
So
that
seemed
to
dovetail
very
well
with
the
way
the
Goose
Creek
Greenway
exists
today
and
and
really
some
vision
for
as
an
enhanced
community
space
into
the
future.
AC
I
wanted
to
point
out
really
in
this
this
question
and
as
Becca
mentioned,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
around.
You
know
what
is
more
appropriate
here,
m-u-t-o-d
or
mui
I.
Think
it's
really
important
to
note
how
just
how
similar
these
two
land
use
categories
are
in
terms
of
the
flexibility
for
a
very
wide
range
of
uses.
They
essentially
allow
for
the
the
same
types
of
outcomes,
including
residential
and
office,
and
Retail
and
service
commercial
and
light
industrial.
It's
just
that.
AC
There's
a
subtle
Nuance
between
the
two,
where
m-u-m-u-t-o-d
kind
of
leans
into
that
attached.
Residential
outcome
and
mui
leans
a
bit
more
and
emphasizes
those
light.
Industrial
and
Manufacturing
uses
on
the
ground
floor
and
as
descriptive
as
some
of
our
land
use
categories
are
within
the
comprehensive
plan.
They
do
lack
a
level
of
detail
and
that's
really
helpful
to
clarify
through
particularly
through
these
area
planning
processes.
AC
So
through
the
East
Boulder
subcommunity
plan
process
that
completed
last
year,
the
concept
of
place
types
was
was
developed
and
created,
and
that
adds
a
layer
of
clarity
and
refinement
to
our
land
use
designations.
So
within
Boulder
Junction
we're
proposing
three
different
place:
types:
Regional,
Tod,
neighborhood,
Tod
and
funky
functional
the
regional
Tod,
really
pairs
directly
with
that
mutod
land
use,
designation
and
places
the
focus
on
residential
uses
and
flexible
opportunities
for
other
Transit,
supportive
and
neighborhood
commercial
types
of
outcomes.
AC
Neighborhood
Tod
really
is
intended
to
reimagine
some
of
our
traditional
auto-oriented
commercial
areas
into
more
mixed
use
and
walkable
neighborhoods
and
then
funky
functional.
We,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
really
developing
that
and
coordinating
it
with
the
mixed-use
industrial
land
use
to
establish
those
expectations
as
a
creative
environment
in
the
future.
That's
a
eclectic,
artsy
and
encourages
adaptive
reuse
of
existing
structures.
It
also
I
will
note
happens
to
allow
for
really
the
greatest
flexibility
and
variety
of
uses,
particularly
on
the
ground
floor.
AC
The
place
tribe
descriptions
in
the
phase
two
Amendment
identify
broad
categories
of
the
types
of
uses
that
we
would
expect
to
see
and
are
supported
both
on
ground
floor
and
upper
floors,
as
I
noted
above
mutod
and
Regional
Tod
really
kind
of
pair
together
and
enable
things
such
that
would
be
appropriate
for
a
major
Transit
Hub
things
like
residential
personal
services,
dining
and
entertainment
office
uses
and
lodging
in
particular,
and
then
mui
and
funky
functional
work
together
to
really
focus
on
those
light
industrial
and
service
uses
in,
in
addition
to
retail
dining
office
and
residential
use.
AC
Moving
on
to
the
Urban
Design
section,
the
staff,
you
know
really
throughout
the
process
kind
of
heard
comments,
particularly
about
the
importance
of
Goose
Creek
as
an
amenity
going
forward,
encouraging
additional
outdoor
small
gathering
spaces,
improving
the
viability
of
retail
and
smaller
businesses
really
learning
from
what
we've.
What
we've
started
to
see
in
the
phase
one
area
and
making
some
tweaks
to
try
to
make
that
more
viable
in
phase
two
and
then
you
know
a
notion
of
improving
and
really
recognizing
the
value
of
place,
making
and
keeping
Boulder
fun
and
funky.
And
how
can
this?
AC
How
can
this
space
in
phase
two
really
really
have
an
identity?
The
amendment
emphasizes
a
number
of
pedestrian
connections
along
Goose
Creek
calls
out
several
locations
for
different
outdoor
spaces.
We've
also
learned
from
phase
one
and
are
proposing
to
concentrate
future
retail
and
services
in
locations
that
are
anticipated
to
have
high
levels
of
activity
rather
than
requiring
retail
throughout
in
the
future,
and
then
we're
already
looking
ahead
to
some
future
planning
efforts
and
steps
that
will
really
help
to
refine
some
of
the
architectural
outcomes
in
the
public
space
design.
AC
Really,
you
know
we
anticipate
very
high
levels
of
activity
around
the
future
rail
station
around
that
Goose,
Creek,
Greenway
and
enhancements
and
I'll
touch
on
a
pedestrian
bridge
opportunity
there
as
part
of
the
transportation
connections
plan
and
then
further
in
the
South
as
well,
and
then
there's
a
number
of
smaller
identified
locations
for
possible
opportunities
for
Gathering
spaces
and
then
there's
a
series
in
a
kind
of
a
system
of
pedestrian
corridors
and
paseos
that
are
really
intended
to
complement
the
transportation
connections
plan
and
and
help
to
build
out
the
internal
pedestrian
Network.
AC
And
finally,
the
transportation
connection
section
has
been
updated
to
address
the
feedback.
We
heard
to
place
more
emphasis
on
pedestrian
and
bicycle
connections
rather
than
Vehicles,
using
the
the
transportation
connections
themselves,
to
help
break
down
larger
blocks
into
a
more
fine-grained
urban
character
and
to
be
honestly
a
bit
more
realistic
about
what
some
of
our
proposed
connections
are
to
ensure
that
they
can
be
implemented
in
the
future.
AC
Up
in
the
north
area,
you
can
see
there's
a
number
of
local
roads
that
have
been
proposed
to
really
create
a
more
functional
grid
system,
up
there
and
kind
of
move
away
from
the
the
more
Suburban
cul-de-sac
model
that
exists
today.
There's
a
number
of
multi-use
paths
that
are
new
to
the
transportation
connections
plan,
particularly
connecting
over
to
that
future
rail
station
on
the
Northern
side,
and
then
one
of
the
more
significant
changes
was
to
modify
the
proposed
connection
between
Wilderness
place
and
Frontier
Avenue
across
Goose
Creek.
AC
That
was
originally
proposed
to
be
a
vehicular
connection
which,
as
you
can
imagine,
if
any
of
you
have
been
over
there
to
look
at
Goose,
Creek
anytime.
Recently,
it's
an
enormous
span
and
would
have
resulted
in
a
very,
very
expensive,
very
difficult
engineering
and
a
very,
very
impactful
visually
bridge
if
that
was
actually
to
be
constructed
as
a
vehicular
connection.
AC
So
we've
changed
that
to
be
a
pedestrian
connection
and
really
I
think
offers
an
opportunity
for
a
signature,
sculptural
pedestrian
element
there
that
that
could
be
integrated
into
a
kind
of
reimagined
and
re-envisioned
Goose
Creek
Greenway
We've
also
removed
a
number
of
underpasses
that
were
in
the
original
Transit
Village
area
plan
that
was
upon
the
guidance
of
staff
from
transportation
and
mobility
and
also
the
representative
from
the
Transportation
Advisory
board
that
was
on
our
multi-board
working
group
is
really
just
there's
kind
of
an
evolution,
I
think
of
thought
in
terms
of
bringing
The,
Pedestrian
and
bicycle
network
more
visibly
and
integrated
with
the
vehicular
Network,
as
opposed
to
splitting
those
apart,
in
addition
to
the
fact
that
underpasses
tend
to
be
terribly
expensive
and
and
also
can
be
very
complex.
AC
Finally,
in
the
packet,
you
have
the
draft
of
the
revised
summary
of
the
transit
Village
area
plan
that
would
go
into
chapter
five
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Really.
This
is
just
to
make
sure
that
we
update
that
description
so
that
it
reflects
the
phase
two
amendments
and
the
changes
that
are
before
you.
AC
Finally,
one
of
our
key
questions
to
you
this
evening
was
the
consistency
with
our
Ser
framework
and
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan.
You
know
really,
fundamentally,
our
area
plans
need
to
be
consistent
with
with
these
documents
and
really
we.
We
took
this
very
seriously
as
we
went
into
the
process
at
the
beginning,
and
several
of
the
Ser
objectives
are
are
highlighted
there
on
the
right
hand,
side,
particularly
those
that
are
in
the
livable
goal
that
deal
with
housing,
types
and
affordability
and
the
prevalence
of
15-minute
neighborhoods.
AC
The
changes
that
are
that
are
being
proposed
here,
you
know
really
lean
into
some
of
those
goals
and
support
both
the
transportation
and
transit
system,
and
also
the
Vitality
of
our
local
economy
and
the
diversity
of
businesses
that
that
could
be
envisioned
using
both
the
mui
and
mutod
land
use
categories
and
then
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan.
Similarly,
the
Amendments
that
are
proposed
are
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
policies.
The
the
phase
two
updates
will
lead
to
an
incorporation
of
more
housing
opportunities
into
what
has
traditionally
been
an
employment
center.
AC
They
will
concentrate
higher
intensity
uses
at
this
very
strategic
Transit,
focused
location
and
also
continue
to
support
those
local
local
businesses,
especially
light
industrial
and
services
and
then
finally,
elevating
Goose
Creek
as
an
amenity
and
a
design
feature
for
the
neighborhood
and
for
the
community
as
opposed
to
Simply.
It's
flood
control
and
transportation
purpose.
AC
So
a
couple
notes
just
on
next
steps
before
we
review
the
planning
board
meeting
and
public
hearing
that
was
last
month.
We
recognize
this
is
really
just
the
first
step
and
the
Amendments
will
set
in
motion
a
number
of
additional
things
going
forward.
We
expect
to
return
to
city
council
before
the
end
of
the
year,
with
the
official,
comprehensive
plan,
land
use,
map
updates
and
and
build
off
the
work.
That's
actually
already
begun
to
update
the
form-based
code
and
other
regulatory
elements.
AC
I
want
to
just
note
quickly
about
those
future
steps.
Planning
board
made
two
different
recommendations:
they
actually
passed
past
motions
to
staff
to
recommend
further
articulation
of
those
kind
of
interstitial
spaces,
the
activity,
nodes,
outdoor
spaces
Etc
and
then
also
to
explore
the
ability
to
increase
the
percentage
of
on-site,
affordable
housing
and
also
explore
opportunities
for
renewable
energy
infrastructure
within
this
District.
So
those
are
recommendations
that
we
will
take
forward
into
those
future
steps,
as
we
start
to
scope
those
projects
and
and
move
into
that.
AC
So
finally,
I'm
going
to
just
provide
some
information
on
the
planning
board
public
hearing
that
was
on
August
22nd.
So
they
did
vote
to
approve
the
proposed
Transit
Village
area
plan
amendments
with
one
revision
to
which
was
to
eliminate
office
as
an
allowed
use
above
the
ground
floor
in
the
neighborhood
Tod
Place
type.
AC
They
also
passed
a
motion
and
which
staff
very
much
appreciate
in
the
effort
to
try
to
balance
and
reduce
the
number
of
back
and
forth
that
maybe
have
to
happen
because
both
planning
board
and
Council
have
to
adopt
the
same
language.
AC
They
also
passed
a
motion
that
if
city
council
does
not
agree
and
does
not
accept
that
that
revision,
then
they
will
accept
the
transit
Village
area
plan
amendments
as
written
without
that
revision
also,
they
approved
the
chapter
five
amendments,
so
that
moves
forward
to
you
and
just
a
little
bit
more
description
on
this
revision.
Most
of
that
planning
board
discussion
really
kind
of
revolved
around
just
the
the
feeling
that
office
uses
or
a
100
office
building
within
this
neighborhood
Tod
was
in
congruent
with
kind
of
the
idea
of
a
neighborhood
From
staff's
perspective.
AC
We
recognize
that
the
the
place
type
really
enables
an
evolution
of
these
traditionally
office
and
industrial
areas
over
time,
as
was
mentioned
in
the
market
analysis
discussion,
office
use
is
still
a
desired
outcome
and
maybe
an
important
outcome
to
maintain
here
to
really
provide
for
that
mix
of
uses
both
vertically
within
buildings,
but
also
horizontally
across
this
entire
phase
two
area.
So
our
preference
is
to
not
accept
that
revision
and
to
maintain
the
flexibility
for
both
housing
and
employment
uses
going
forward
within
that
place
type.
AC
So
the
two
recommended
motions
that
staff
is
proposing
to
you.
This
evening
is
to
a
motion
to
approve
the
amendments
to
the
transit
Village
area
plan,
as
outlined
in
attachment
a
and
just
a
note
that
does
not
include
the
planning
board
revision
and
then.
Finally,
a
motion
to
approve
the
amendments
to
chapter
five
of
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan
revising
the
summary
of
tvap,
as
outlined
in
attachment
B,
and
we're
happy
to
take
questions.
F
Great
well
I
wonder
I'd
appreciate.
Maybe
we
can
Elevate
promote
Kurt
credit
I,
just
thanks
for
being
here
tonight.
I
just
would
say
if
you,
if
you
had
a
couple
of
words,
to
explain
the
plain
words
deliberations
that
would
be
welcome.
M
Okay,
great
sorry,
I
missed
the
question
as
I
was
rejoining
as
a
panelists.
F
F
Yeah
I
was
just
gonna,
invite
you
to
to
say
a
couple
words
about
planning
words
deliberations
since
we've
we've
got
you
here
as
a
representative.
M
Okay,
thank
you.
Yeah
Kurt,
Norbeck
representative
from
planning
board
our
chair
and
our
vice
chair
were
both
unavailable
tonight.
So
you're
stuck
with
me,
so
I
think
Christopher
did
a
good
job
of
capturing
our
discussion.
M
The
one
thing
that
I
would
add
is
that
we
saw
estimates
of
the
build
out
potential
for
this
area
that
still
indicated
a
significantly
larger
number
of
of
jobs
than
dwelling
units,
and
so
it
was
partly
based
on
that
that
we
felt
that
it
was
important
to
preserve
as
much
opportunity
for
housing
as
possible
in
the
neighborhood
DOD
area.
M
So
that
was
another
justification
for
our
recommended
change,
but
as
he
noted,
we
did
want
to
preserve
the
the
ability
to
for
us
to
agree
with
Council
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
which
is
why
we
passed
both
motions.
We
did
have
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
about
the
whether
the
the
Central
Area
should
be
Nui
or
mutod
I.
Think
some
people
felt
that
the
greater
flexibility
of
mutod
was
appropriate.
M
F
F
All
right,
so,
let's
ask
questions
of
staff
and
then
we
can
go
to
our
public
hearing
who
who,
if
anyone
has
questions.
B
Well,
I
will
I'll
get
to
gushing
in
comments
so
that
you
just
know
that
that's
coming,
but
my
question
really
centers
around
I
noticed
in
the
presentation
that
the
boulder
slew
was
not
mentioned,
and
so
that
has
historically
been
kind
of
a
pinch
point
with
regards
to
some
of
the
aspirational
goals
for
housing
on
that
southern
property,
and
so
I
just
want
to
ask
is
like
having
it
not
mentioned.
B
I
know
Joe
and
BNSF
I
know
our
team's
been
working
on
that,
along
with
the
the
owners
there,
but
I
want
to
ask,
is
not
having
it
in
there
showing
staff
confidence
that
that
that
will
be
reconciled
with
regards
to
redesign
reconstruction
and
then
improving
the
conveyance
of
water
and
thus
removing
some
of
that
section
out
of
the
100
Year
floodplain
to
accommodate
the
housing
that
we're
looking
to
achieve.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that,
since
it
has
traditionally
been
a
pinch
point
on
that
site,.
AC
Yes,
you're
you're
right
that
that
definitely
is
is
a
pinch
point
and
I
would
say
the
original
Transit
Village
area
plan
from
2007
actually
could
have
made
that
even
more
challenging
there
were
two
underpass
connections
located
at
that
same
exact
location,
where
the
slough
basically
comes
across
the
the
rail
line.
So,
first
of
all,
the
elimination
of
those
two
connections
we
think
makes
the
makes
the
future
of
of
reconciling
that
situation
much
much
more
straightforward
than
also
having
to
try
to
squeeze
in
you
know
a
12-foot
multi-use
path
through
there.
AC
So
we
think
that
that's
that's
going
to
assist
with
making
that
more
possible.
As
you
mentioned,
we
are.
Our
utility
staff
is
already
in
conversations
with
the
railroad
and
the
property
owner
at
that
particular
location.
To
understand
what
the
future
of
that
can
be
and
how
you
know
how
that
can
be
improved
to
remove
much
of
that
southern
area.
That's
south
of
pearl
Parkway
out
of
the
flood
plain,
so
we
do
feel
confident
that
that
will
happen
in
the
future.
J
J
AC
Actually
we
at
that
moment
during
that
meeting,
which,
if
I
remember
correctly,
was
the
day
before
the
planning
board
hearing
on
August
21st.
We
had
already
the
staff
had
already
landed
on
the
recommendation
of
using
mui.
AC
There
certainly
were
some
property
owners
and
business
owners
in
the
area
that
would
have
preferred
mutod.
We
continued
to
have
conversations
with
them
and
I
think
that
discussion
we
had
at
the
house
of
motorad
with
a
lot
of
the
other
property
owners
as
well
from
the
auto
body
shop
and
and
others.
AC
There
I
think
that
the
takeaway
that
that
staff
came
away
from
that
discussion
was
is
that
there
there
was
not
an
overwhelming
you
know,
shift
or
desire
to
shift
to
that
mutod,
and
there
really
was
a
balance
of
opinions
as
to
what
was
going
to
be
important-
and
you
know
we
heard
a
number
of
those
property
and
business
owners
reflecting
on
the
importance
for
them
and
the
the
desire
for
them
to
be
able
to
pass
these
businesses
and
these
properties
on
into
their
kids
and
their
other
generations,
and
for
them
to
have
the
opportunity
to
establish
those
types
of
businesses
from
a
market
perspective
that
might
prove
to
be
difficult.
AC
J
That's
great
news:
I
really
agreed
with
that
by
the
way.
Okay,
second
question
and
third
question:
I
think
is
your
name
Rachel
two
questions
for
you:
how
will
residential
which
you
were
very
excited
about,
not
drive
up
rents
for
light
industrial
and
number
two?
What
are
your
anti-displacement
strategies?
I
mean
in
like
just
a
minute
or
less.
You
don't
have
to
give
me
a
long
thing.
AB
So
great
questions,
I,
would
say:
I'm
not
necessarily
personally
excited
about
residential,
but
that's
where
the
market
excitement
is
right
now
and
so
the
the
mark,
the
market
driving
those
rents
are,
are
a
little
bit
different
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
someone
builds
something
and
charges
more
than
anyone,
there
can
pay,
it's
gonna
sit
vacant,
and
so
what
we're
likely
to
see
in
terms
of
what
we
call
light
industrial
space
is
a
difference
in
user,
and
so
it
might
not
be
what
we
see
right
now,
but
that
could
be
more
of
you
know
like
a
brewery,
a
Tap
House,
a
bakery
with
manufacturing
space
in
the
back
things
like
that
that
are
not
like
an
office
or
retail
space.
AB
AB
Even
when
runs
per
square
foot
might
be
higher?
It
just
enables
additional
affordability
for
users,
because
you
might
be
able
to
afford
it,
for
you
know:
8
000
square
feet,
but
not
16,
000
square
feet,
and
so
that
gets
to
the
flexibility
consideration
in
terms
of
what
can
go
into
these
buildings.
AB
What's
allowed
and
there's
the
secondary
consideration
of
what's
actually
feasible
I,
don't
know
if
that
really
answers
the
question,
but
they're
they're
related,
but
not
tied
together
and
one
of
the
benefits
of
the
residential
is
that
it's
not
necessarily
a
benefit.
But,
as
we
know,
housing
is
very
expensive
here
and
that
can
help
Drive
the
feasibility
of
the
development
so
that
lower
rents
can
be
feasible.
On
the
first
floor,
depending
on
the
space.
J
AB
So
from
a
market
and
development
perspective,
typically
speaking,
they
won't,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
sort
of
brought
up-
and
you
know
the
community
is
brought
up
as
well
in
the
market.
Analysis-
is
that
when
Redevelopment
happens,
we're
not
likely
to
see
those
same
businesses
stay
absent
anything
else
because
building
a
single
story:
Auto
Body
Shop,
given
the
cost
of
construction
and
the
cost
of
land.
Unless
someone
already
owns
the
land
right,
so
that's
different.
AB
If
someone
owns
their
land
and
their
business,
there's
a
lot
more
flexibility,
but
if
there's
external
ownership
it
does
not
it's
not
it's
not
even
not
profitable,
you
lose
money
doing
it,
and
so
that
that's
a
huge
Challenge
and
I
guess
your
second
question
about
what
some
of
these
strategies
might
be.
That
wasn't
a
core
part
of
this
analysis
so
identifying
that
moving
forward,
it
will
say
in
a
general
sense,
it's
becoming
more
and
more
Central
to
conversations
around
a
lot
of
these
older
commercial
areas.
AB
You
know
within
Colorado,
but
also
nationally
is
we
focused
a
lot
on
anti-displacement
for
residential
and
the
conversation
is
now
broadening
to
commercial,
because
we're
recognizing
that
there
are
a
lot
of
displacement
forces
being
felt
for
those
as
well,
and
so
that
that's
why
it
was
identified
as
a
Next
Step
that
it
really
does
need
to
be
considered.
There's
different
ways
to
do
it.
There's
ways
to
think
about
it.
AB
You
know,
if
we're
thinking
about
districts
from
a
different
District
perspective,
how
that
could
be
a
benefit
provided
by
District
but
again
to
the
earlier
point
it
it's
tied
to
the
type
of
Redevelopment
that
happens,
and
so,
if
there
isn't
space
for
those
businesses,
then
no
amount
of
financial
support
will
help,
and
so
we've
tried
to
elevate
it
as
a
key
concern
of
the
area,
but
that
you
know
gets
into
the
implementation
steps.
AC
Yeah
and
I
I'll,
just
I'll,
try
to
dovetail
bit.
Rachel
I
agree
that
it.
You
know
we
recognize
it
absolutely
as
a
concern
right.
We
wanted
to
at
least
initiate
and
establish
the
land
use
categories
that
would
enable
those
types
of
things
to
go
forward.
That
then,
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
explore
what
those
anti-displacement
opportunities
can
be
in
the
future
Rachel
mentioned.
You
know
we
could
re-envision
the
way
that
the
Improvement
districts
are
operating
out
there
in
the
future.
It's
possible
that
there
could
be.
AC
AC
Rachel
also
mentioned
the
physical
space
right
so
making
sure
that
regulatory
codes
and
and
if
this
area
comes
under
the
form
form-based
code,
we
have
kind
of
rules
in
there
about
designing
ground
floor
spaces
that
are
flexible
in
terms
of
expanding
to
25
000
square
feet
for
a
restaurant,
but
could
be
divvied
up
into
five
different
five
thousand
square
foot,
smaller
locations
for
retail
or
other
types
of
uses,
so
I
think,
there's
and,
and
obviously
Boulder
is
not
alone.
AC
You
know:
Community
Vitality
is
standing
up
this
affordable
commercial
program,
and
so
are
there
opportunities
there
that
that
ultimately
expands
to
support
these
kinds
of
uses.
I
think
the
you
know
the
opportunities.
Are
there?
It's
just
going
to
take
us
some
time
and
more
thought
to
figure
out
how
we
actually
execute
on
that.
B
F
P
I
had
similar
ones,
but
now
I
get
to
ask
more
detailed
follow-up.
P
AC
I
think
yes,
I
mean
I,
think
that
the
the
Redevelopment
timeline
here
is,
quite
honestly,
probably
in
the
20
to
25
year
range,
as
opposed
to
the
10
to
15
year
range
that
we
witnessed
in
Phase
One,
there's
a
lot
of
existing
businesses
that
are
out
there
that
are
very
viable,
whether
they
be
you
know,
tenants
of
of
commercially
owned
real
estate
or
people
that
own
their
land
and
own
their
own
their
buildings.
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
the
same
kind
of
Redevelopment
pressures
occurring
right
away
in
this
particular
location.
AC
Just
because
there
are
you
know
these
existing
and
established
businesses
that
are
operating
very
well.
We,
you
know,
we
recognize.
We
have.
You
know
our
our
work
plan
kind
of
cut
out
for
us
next
year
and
and
thinking
about
the
implementation
strategies
here,
I
think
it's
going
to
take
time.
We've
got
a
comprehensive
plan
coming
update
or
update
coming
in
2025.
AC
So
that's
going
to
divert
some
staff
resources,
but
I
do
really
think
that
we
can
get
the
really
the
kind
of
fundamental
Regulatory
and
other
aspects
completed
next
year
and
begin
those
conversations
about
the
districts
and
about
the
programming
and
about
all
those
other
things
that
could
help
you
know
to
to
work
into
this
into
this
area
and
I
think
those
are
city-wide
conversations
as
well.
AC
So
you
know
we
can
partner
with
Chris
and
Community
Vitality
to
understand
how
that
Community
or
the
affordable
commercial
program
is
going
to
be
piloted
for
a
five-year
time
frame.
We
can
understand
and
learn
from
that.
How
is
that
working?
We
can
have
conversations
about
the
Improvement
districts
which
are
focused
on
parking
and
TDM
strategies.
Transportation
demand
management
strategies,
but
maybe
there's
something
broader
about
supporting
public
gathering
spaces
supporting
businesses
supporting
you
know,
small
retailers,
that
kind
of
thing.
AC
So
those
are
all
questions
that
we're
excited
to
explore,
but
it
will
take
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
I
I
think
that
there's
a
relatively
mild
pressure
you
know
in
terms
of
this
is
not
going
to
flip
overnight.
P
Thank
you
I
appreciate
that
detailed
answer
in
terms
of
retail
space
and
sizes.
P
P
I
I
know
that
we
talk
about
the
affordability
being
in
line
with
sort
of
having
smaller
spaces
and,
in
my
mind,
I,
can't
think
of
off
the
top
of
my
head.
Anything
that
requires
them
to
be
larger,
and
yet
we
still
see
I
think
a
preference
in
the
market
from
developers
to
build
and
Lease
larger
spaces.
And
so
are
we
putting
timer
thought
into
how
we
sort
of
change
that
dynamic.
AC
Yeah
I
would
say
yes,
I,
think
you're
you're
correct
that
I
there's
not
there's
not
any
regulations
that
I'm
aware
of
that
would
require
those
larger
spaces,
as
we
tend
to
see
right
now,
I
think,
quite
honestly,
I
think
it's
a
it's
an
outcome
of
the
cost
of
construction
and
the
ease
of
leasing,
those
spaces.
AC
You
know
having
to
manage
five
tenants
versus
one
tenant,
obviously,
for
the
building
owner.
It's
it's
going
to
be
easier
to
manage
that
one
tenant.
AC
What
we
know
from
experience
is
that
those
you
know,
those
larger
commercial
spaces
are
typically
only
affordable
to
National
retailers
and
other
kind
of
larger
chains.
So
they're,
you
know
there
certainly
is
there's
a
market
Dynamic
to
that,
but
I
think
there's
also
a
design
aspect
as
well
that
we
can
really
look
to
to
make
sure
that
you
know
the
HVAC
systems
and
and
entries
and
other
kinds
of
storefront.
AC
So
yes,
so
actually
just
within
the
last
month
or
so,
we
brought
on
a
consultant
to
as
part
of
the
East
Boulder
sub-community
plan
implementation,
so
Kathleen
King
and
our
in
our
team
is,
is
leading
that
and
we
brought
on
a
consultant
to
essentially
do
an
audit
and
an
evaluation
of
the
form-based
code
as
it
exists
today.
AC
You
know
it's
only
been
used
a
couple
of
times
in
Boulder
Junction,
but
there's
still
things
we
can
learn
from
it,
and
so
that
consultant
was
in
town
last
week
and
they
had
a
number
of
meetings
with
focus
groups
but
Property
Owners.
But
then
also
we
have
a
technical
advisory
committee.
So
that's
made
up
of
local
Architects
and
design
professionals
to
really
help
us
learn
about
how
the
form-based
code
is
currently
working
and
and
where
those
gaps
are
I.
P
Thank
you
will
that
include
any
changes
in
the
design
and
construction
standards,
because
I
know
that
was
one
thing.
I
heard
a
lot
from
phase
one
was
sort
of
about
the
additional
streets
and
how
that
impacted
development.
There
are
we
looking
into
that
as
this
phase
two
moves
forward,
I.
AC
But
as
part
of
that
process
is
the
is
the
development
of
the
regulating
plan,
as
you
probably
are
aware,
so
that
essentially
is
a
more
detailed
site
plan
of
the
area
that
identifies
what
streets
go
where,
where
the
paseos
are,
where
view
corridors
might
be,
that
kind
of
thing
as
part
of
that
process,
that's
where
we
would
be
identifying
kind
of
the
expectations
for
those
different
street
types
and
the
materiality
the
you
know
the
design
and
construction
standards
themselves
as
really
kind
of
the
underlying
you
know,
engineering
code
for
the
city,
much
of
that
is
based
on
is
based
on
you,
know,
safety
and-
and
you
know,
traffic
movement
and
other
kinds
of
things
like
that,
and
so
I
think
you
know
really
significant
changes
to
the
DCS
standards
is
is
not
necessarily
on
the
work
plan,
but
but
certainly
as
we,
you
know,
look
at
what
we
would
expect
to
see
in
this
area.
AC
We're
going
to
be
mindful
of
the
types
of
you
know:
pressures
we're
putting
on
the
development
community
in
terms
of
the
materiality
we
expect
and
and
those
other
design
aspects
as
well.
P
As
we
were
talking
about
our
layers
of
different
kinds
of
planning,
overlays
I
really
appreciated
the
inclusion
of
the
place
types.
I
love
that
sort
of
lens
I
kind
of
wanted
to
ask
a
snarky
question
about.
As
we
add
these
layers,
are
we
ever
considering
simplifying
or
removing
any
older
layers?
How,
because
I
we're
getting
a
pretty
tall
cake
at
this
point
in
terms
of
the
types
of
planning
layers
we
have
to
adjust
as
we
make
updates
in
any
given
area.
Yeah.
AC
That's
that's
a
fair.
That
is
a
fair
comment.
As
I
mentioned,
we
have
a
comprehensive
Plan
update
coming
in
2025,
so
there
will
be
an
opportunity
to
evaluate
our
land
use
categories
and
and
really
understand
you
know
the
definition,
the
definition
of
each
of
those
and
and
it's
possible.
We
could
potentially
add
some
better
Clarity
within
the
comp
plan
itself
to
make
the
place
types
less
necessary.
AC
Perhaps
but
I
actually
think
that
the
what
I
like
about
the
use
of
place
types,
is
that
the
comprehensive
plan
establishes
this
overarching
city-wide
vision
for
what
we
anticipate
in
terms
of
land
use
the
place
types
we
get
to
have
a
much
more
detailed
conversation
with
the
community
about
a
specific
area
and
there's
nuances
to
that.
We
we
actually
started
out
with
trying
to
just
take
the
place
types
from
the
East
Boulder
sub-community
plan
and
apply
them
here
that
didn't
work
out
very
well.
P
Thank
you
and
just
to
be
clear.
I
like
the
place
types
I
think
I
would
maybe
go
after
area
plans
and
land
use
before
I
would
go
after
Place
types,
but
just
because
I
think
that
they
almost
create
they
all.
They
have
the
possibility
to
capture
some
of
the
great
things
about
both
of
those
two
other
kinds
of
plan.
P
A
Just
a
quick
call
away
from
I
think
Lauren
and
Tara
on
the
displacement.
It
seems
to
me
that
this
is
not
our
first
rodeo
on
displacement
and
I.
Remember
us
looking
at
that
on
the
hill
hotel
as
an
example
and
offering
relocation
money
to
businesses.
So
just
wondering
is
there?
Is
there
sort
of
a
Playbook
or
cut
and
paste
or
cribbing
that
we
can
do
from
other
efforts
to
to
help
people
who
are
being
possibly
displaced.
AC
Yeah
we,
we
will
certainly
not
reinvent
the
wheel,
borrowing
that
from
my
boss,
over
there,
that
that
is
a
that
is
a
common
refrain
within
within
our
department.
So
Our
intention
is
is
to
think
big
and
think
broadly,
but
also
not
reinvent
the
wheel,
and
we
can
learn
a
tremendous
amount
from
existing
programs
that
are
already
in
place
or
things
we've
already
kind
of
talked
about,
or
things
we've
tried
that
didn't
work.
AC
So
we
can
learn
from
those,
but
absolutely
we'll
be
we'll
be
starting
with
them
really
kind
of
an
inventory,
an
understanding
of
what
we've
attempted
to
date
and
what
things
are
currently
working
and
maybe
not
and
and
start
from
start
from
there
and
and
really
look
for
opportunities
to
perhaps
expand
existing
programs
as
opposed
to
creating
a
number
of
new
ones.
A
R
A
A
F
Calling
myself
for
one
question,
which
was
I
heard
from
a
Community
member,
about
a
question
of
why
indoor
Recreation
isn't
included
in
the
mixed
use,
Transit,
oriented
development
or
specifically
in
the
in
that
place
type
and
just
want
to
get
your
thoughts
on
that
KJ
yeah.
AC
And
I
will
admit
Laura
and
I,
even
though
you
may,
you
may
enjoy
the
place
types.
They
also
do
introduce
a
little
bit
of
additional
Nuance
in
and
can
cause
some
confusion.
So
the
the
descriptions
and
and
sort
of
the
the
use
categories
that
are
in
those
Place
type
descriptions
are
not
not
intended
to
relate
specifically
back
to
our
zoning
code
and
and
the
actual,
you
know
large
kind
of
business
stories
that
we
that
we
have
in
our
regulations.
AC
Indoor
Recreation
as
a
zoning
category
is
actually
more
focused
on
things
if
I
remember
correctly,
things
like
theaters
and
bowling
alleys
and
things
like
that,
the
indoor
Recreation
that
you
might
be
thinking
about
in
terms
of
Boulder
indoor
soccer
or
the
pickleball
courts.
Things
like
that
those
actually
tend
to
fall
into
are
personal
service
category
I
believe
because
they're
they're
considered
an
indoor
Athletic
Facility,
not
an
indoor
recreation
use.
So
it
is
a
nuance
and
I.
AC
Admittedly,
there's
probably
some
cleanup
that
we
can
do
you
know
over
time
to
make
sure
that
there's
better
alignment
along
those
things,
but
so
to
your
point,
the
kind
of
I
think
the
the
general
understanding
of
indoor
Recreation
is
probably
in
that
indoor
Athletic
Facility,
which
would
technically
qualify
and
fall
under
that
personal
service
category,
which
is
allowed
within
mutod.
Okay,.
F
AC
That
is
correct
and
all,
and
although
I
think
that
the
there's
some
clear
flexibility
through
future
site
review
processes
and
other
things
to
you
know
if
there's
a
case
to
be
made
about
a
use
that
is
consistent
with
the
intent,
even
though
it
may
not
have
that
little
icon
or
be
you
know,
specifically
listed
I,
think
we
can.
We
can
get
there.
Okay,.
F
That's
very
helpful
thanks
not
seeing
any
other
questions,
so
we
can
go
to
the
the
public
hearing.
We
have.
One
person
signed
up
to
speak
on
this,
which
is
Lynn
Siegel
Lynn.
Are
you
in
the
room,
maybe
you're
virtual,
because
you're
signed
up,
as
is
Lynn
Siegel
online,
not
seeing
Lynn
online
either,
not.
F
Okay,
all
right,
no,
no
Lynn
present,
so
that
actually
closes
our
public
hearing
I
think
so
here
we
go
back
to
council
for
discussion.
Does
anybody
want
to
get
us
started
on
comments?
F
A
This
is
very
exciting
step
forward.
I'm
super
supportive
and
I
just
want
to
disclose
that
I
had
a
flu
shot
in
my
left
arm
and
a
covid
in
my
right
arm
today
and
I'm
going
to
go
over
there
periodically
and
start
windmilling,
because
my
parents
are
killing
and
I
just
didn't,
want
people
to
think
I'm,
weird
so
I'm
gonna
do
that
right
now,.
B
And
it
makes
anything
Ice
Age
is
like
totally
anticlimactic
at
this
point.
So
thanks
for
the
upstage
there,
Rachel
I'll
start
off
with
what
I
deferred
on
my
previous
question,
which
is
this
is
awesome,
I
think
just
credit
to
to
staff
for
thorough
engagement
and
I.
Think
that's
probably.
The
Hallmark
of
this
is
just
how
much
engagement
has
been
done
at
all
levels
to
really
hear
what's
been
going
on
and
I'm
just
really
happy
to
see
this,
because
changes
like
this
can
can
cause
a
lot
of
either
consternation.
B
Concern,
fear
and
I
have
to
say
that
staff
has
belayed
a
lot
of
that
because
of
the
amount
of
Engagement
the
quality
of
the
engagement
and
and
I'll
call
out
individually
KJ.
The
personal
attention
to
detail
you've
done
I've
heard
from
numerous
business
owners
and
property
owners
in
that
area,
who
have
called
you
out
specifically
to
say,
like
KJ,
was
awesome
throughout
this,
so
I
just
want
to
give
you
specific,
Kudos
and
I
know.
That's
also
translates
to
having
a
brad
as
your
boss,
of
course,
so
that
that
works
well
too.
B
So
you
get
translated
Kudos
there
Brad,
but
but
no
less,
no,
just
exceptional
work
and
for
staff
as
a
whole
right.
This
is
not,
but
but
I've
heard
some
special
great
things
for
you.
So
nice
work,
I
love
where
this
is
generally
headed.
The
mut
is
awesome,
I
think
it's
cool.
B
We
have
funky,
flexible
and
I
think
that
you
know
we're
embarking
on
creating
a
system
where
we
are
Meeting,
those
Dynamic
changes
in
our
community
and
we're
trying
to
create
ways
to
not
be
so
prescriptive
that
we
can't
rise
to
those
Dynamic
and
changing
conditions.
So
I
I
know
planning
can
be
resistant
to
that,
but
I
love
what
you
guys
have
done
in
order
to
to
maintain
that
flexibility,
not
knowing
what
the
future
holds
and
and
still
allowing
some
creative
flexibility.
B
So
just
all
around
great
job,
and-
and
thank
you
guys
for
your
great
work.
F
F
The
way
that
you
all
are
getting
all
five
of
these
things
done
in
this
two-year
time
period,
so
I
mean
we'll
do
10
next
year
right,
so
we're
just
coming
coming
in
with
just
a
you
know
a
couple
months
left,
but
it's
really
extraordinary
work,
but
not
just
for
the
the
quantity
but,
of
course,
for
the
quality.
It's
really
high
quality.
F
This
is
an
extremely
well
done
plan
and
it
positions
this
area
well
for
the
21st
century,
because
the
the
zoning
out
there
right
now
is
more
of
a
20th
century
oriented
to
the
needs
of
our
community
from
20
or
30
years
ago.
I
think
this
positions
us
extremely
well
for
the
next
20
or
30
years,
so
I'm
very
excited
to
be
supporting
it
tonight
and
we
yeah
and
Lauren,
and
we
can
always
get
a
motion
at
some
point
too.
P
Yeah
I'd
like
to
Echo
the
comments
before
me.
I
do
really
appreciate
this
plan.
I
think
it's
excellent.
P
Do
one
of
the
things
that
I
like
about
this
area
and
that
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
keep
is
the
flexibility
and
so
I
will
be
supporting
it
and
I
would
also
like
to
support
staff's
recommendation
while
I
understand
the
concerns
that
planning
board
has
and
the
interest
in
seeing
more
housing
here.
I
think
that
the
market
dynamics
currently
are
most
likely
going
to
push
for
more
housing,
but
over
time,
I
really
do
think
it's
important
to
maintain
that
flexibility,
so
I
I
appreciate
the
direction
staff
was
encouraging
on
that.
P
I
would
like
to
flag
sort
of
the
rent
stabilization,
the
design
and
construction
standards
and
the
retail
space
you
know,
encouraging
smaller
retail
spaces
is
really
important
items
that
we
continue
moving
forward
with
to
ensure
that
this
project
is
really
successful
as
it
develops.
Thank
you.
J
O
I
I
J
F
Separate
motions
yeah
all
right,
so
I'll
stop
there.
You
got
a
motion
second
Motion
in
a
second
should
we
do
a
roll
call
in
the
assembly.
D
C
J
C
J
A
K
P
C
Absolutely
next
on
our
agenda.
We
have
item
5B,
and
that
is
the
second
reading
and
consideration
of
a
motion
to
amend
ordinance,
85.99
amending
Title,
IX
land
use
code,
BRC,
1981
related
to
the
site,
review,
process
and
intensity
form
in
bulk
use,
parking
and
subdivision
standards
concerning
affordable
and
modest
size,
housing
and
setting
fourth
related
details.
N
Thank
you
so
much
and
as
we
let
Carl
sort
of
get
himself
settled
and
ready
to
go.
I'll
just
note
that
super
excited
to
be
landing
some
of
these
Council
priorities
and
as
you
were
thinking
and
hopefully
hearing
all
the
other
things
that
staff
is
looking
for
for
next
year.
Think
about
that
as
we're
thinking
as
we
go
into
our
new
Retreat
as
they
have
some
continuing
efforts
to
simplify
and
move
forward
some
exciting
things
so
I'm
sure
we'll
be
talking
about
that.
AD
So
last
time
we
talked
about
this
was
June
15th
and
the
project
actually
commenced
at
The
Retreat
of
Council
on
20
2022
at
The
Retreat.
That
problem
statement
is
up
on
the
screen,
as
well
as
the
purpose
statement.
It's
in
response
to
the
housing
crisis
or
the
housing
shortage
that
we're
experiencing
in
Boulder,
as
well
as
across
the
country
and
a
lot
of
communities
have
been
looking
at
their
zoning
codes
in
recent
years.
Understanding
that
there
are
some
restrictions
in
zoning
codes
that
restrict
the
housing
Supply.
AD
So
the
purpose
statement
really
gets
at
evaluating
the
land
use
code
with
the
intent
of
removing
zoning
barriers
to
more
affordable
units
and
smaller
modest
size
units.
So
that
was
what
was
set
up
at
the
beginning
of
the
retreat
and
I've
listed
the
goals
and
objectives
that
we've
talked
to
council
about
before
about
on
the
screen,
and
we've
been
spending
a
lot
of
time
working
on
this
ordinance.
AD
So
the
purpose
of
tonight-
and
you
can
see
the
title
of
the
ordinance-
is
to
hold
the
public
hearing
on
the
ordinance
tonight
deliberate
on
the
ordinance
and
then
make
a
decision
on
the
ordinance
and
given
the
changes
that
we've
proposed
in
the
second
reading
memo,
it
would
require
at
a
minimum,
a
third
reading
which
can
be
on
consent
if
the
changes
are
more
substantial,
we'd
be
looking
at
potentially
a
fourth
reading,
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there.
AD
So
the
questions
we've
posed
for
council
tonight
is:
does
the
city
council
find
that
the
proposed
ordinance
implements
the
adopted
policies
of
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan,
and
does
the
city
council
recommend
any
modifications
to
the
ordinance
so
just
reminding
Council
like
what
do
we
mean
when
we
talk
about
affordable
housing,
we've
kind
of
looked
at
it
in
a
number
of
different
categories?
Obviously,
there's
permanently
affordable
housing,
which
is
deed,
restricted,
affordability
in
units
and
perpetuity
that
we
Implement
through
our
inclusionary
housing
program
in
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Human
Services.
AD
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
talking
about
in
working
with
inclusionary
housing
in
unison
is
allowing
more
housing
by
relaxing
some
density
restrictions
to
get
more
modest,
sized
housing
and
more
modestly
priced
housing,
because
it's
it's
more
small,
and
by
allowing
more
units
within
projects
by
loosening
up
the
zoning
regulations,
you
also
would
get
more
deed,
restricted,
inclusionary
housing
units
with
projects,
since
there's
still
a
percentage.
That's
required
with
those
projects
here
are
some
stats
on
housing
in
the
city
of
Boulder.
We've
included
this
in
Prior
memos
I.
AD
Think
what
we're
really
trying
to
note
here
is
that,
like
many
communities
in
the
United
States,
what
we
see
often
is
single
family
detached
or
apartments
or
condos.
In
you
know,
buildings
that
are
three
and
four
stories
that
we've
been
seeing
in
the
city.
We
don't
have
as
much
middle
housing.
You
can
see,
and
middle
housing
means
duplexes
triplexes,
Town
Homes.
You
can
see
it's
only
nine
percent
of
our
housing
stock.
So
that's
another
part
of
this
project
is
really
trying
to
get
more
middle
housing
in
the
community.
AD
This
is
a
graphic
that
you've
probably
seen
before,
but
you
can
see
it
on
we're
kind
of
bookended
with
what
we
normally
get
in
the
city
of
Boulder,
we're
trying
to
get
more
of
that
in
the
middle,
which
is
again
the
duplexes
fourplexes
townhouses
things
that
are
that
are
maybe
more
scaled,
closer
to
a
single
family
house,
but
allow
more
housing
within
those
those
types
of
of
units
if
you
follow
planning
across
the
country.
This
is
something
that's.
That's
very.
AD
That's
basically
trending
across
the
country
re-looking
at
our
our
zoning
restrictions
that
have
been
created
over
the
years
and
loosening
that
up
to
get
more
housing,
because
the
way
we
build
cities
in
the
United
States
isn't
always
conducive
to
supplying
housing
for
for
everyone's
needs.
So
this
is
something
that
we're
looking
at
in
a
number
of
different
cities
throughout
the
country
that
are
looking
at
reducing
lot
sizes,
trying
to
get
more
middle
on
income
housing
looking
at
parking
requirements
to
try
to
loosen
things
up
to
get
more
housing.
AD
This
is
something
that
cities
are
electing
to
do.
One
example
is
Minneapolis,
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
interest
in
look
looking
at
areas
that
don't
typically
allow
a
lot
of
different
housing
types.
So
Minneapolis
has
embarked
on
this
before
the
city
of
Boulder
and
did
go
through
a
process
of
updating
their
comprehensive
plan
to
be
more
open
to
different
housing
types
throughout
the
city
and
then
implementing
that
through
zoning
and
I.
Think
the
council
is
aware
of
of
the
Senate
bill
that
we
were
looking
at
earlier
this
year.
AD
We
followed
it
with
great
interest
and
we
reported
to
Council
on
that.
Obviously
it
didn't
pass,
but
it
showed
that
it's
something
that's
even
being
recognized
at
the
state
level
which
we
don't
often
see,
particularly
here
in
Colorado
and
and
it
was
a
bill
that
was
trying
to
get
more
middle
housing
in
cities,
adus
relaxing
occupancy
regulations,
it
didn't
pass,
but
it's
something
that
could
come
back
in
different
iterations.
So
we're
going
to
be
watching
out
for
that.
AD
When
we
talked
to
Council
in
June,
we
did
Supply
a
number
of
different
National
studies
and
commentaries
and
articles
that
showed
a
broad
range
of
opinions
on
the
issue
of
housing.
Some
ranging
from
you
know,
adding
more
housing
is
not
going
to
address
the
housing
crisis
and
others
saying
that
it
it's
integral
to
loosen
up
zoning
to
get
more
housing.
When
we
looked
at
those
studies,
most
of
them
did
suggest
that
zoning
restrictions
do
great
greatly
limit
housing
availability
and
do
among
other
factors,
drive
up
housing
costs
because
it
does
greatly
constrain
the
supply.
AD
So
a
lot
of
those
studies
talk
about
loosening
up
those
regulations
to
get
more
affordability,
obviously
Boulder,
like
other
communities
that
are
unique
and
desirable,
particularly
you
know
in
like
California
Bay
Area
experience
an
even
higher
threshold
of
Challenge
on
this
issue,
because
so
there's
such
a
high
desirability
to
live
here
and
with
the
limited
land
it
does
drive
up
the
prices.
So
we
do
have
to
look
at
this
through
a
multi-pronged
approach.
So
that's
why
we're
working
with
housing
on
updating
the
inclusionary
housing
standards?
AD
Also
looking
at
other
ordinances
that
we've
passed
recently
like
adus
and
occupancy
to
address
this
issue.
So
no
one
option
can
solve
the
problem
in
this
particular
ordinance
is
just
one
component
of
addressing
that.
So
when
we
talked
to
council
at
a
study
session
in
March,
we
really
kind
of
framed
it
in
these
three
categories.
Looking
at
density
adjustments-
and
we
had
really
focused
at
that
time
at
just
some
zoning
districts
that
are
in
our
areas
that
are
anticipated
for
growth,
more
of
the
commercial
areas
and
industrial
areas.
AD
We
talked
about
low
density
zones,
but
didn't
at
that
time
recommend
any
changes
for
those
areas,
and
then
we
also
talked
about
parking
modifications
that
could
be
done
to
to
loosen
up
parking
and
and
make
it
easier
for
housing.
So
all
these
things
were
touched
on
one
thing
about
loosening
up
the
zoning
code.
AD
If
you
know
our
zoning
code
there's
a
number
of
zones
that
have
where
the
density
or
dwelling
units
per
acre
is
really
determined
by
a
calculation
of
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit
or
open
space
per
dwelling
unit
and
those
particular
restrictions
are
the
ones
that
constrain
the
number
of
housing
units.
The
most
and
oftentimes
in
many
zones
will
actually
basically
Drive
larger
units.
AD
When
you
looked
at
the
prior,
the
zoning
there,
that's
what
basically
it
would
drive
and
a
special
ordinance
was
approved
there
to
loosen
that
restriction
and
basically
just
go
with
an
open
space
limitation
on
the
site.
So
they
were
able
to
get
more
housing
units
and
in
turn,
because
of
those
additional
housing
units,
you
could
get
more
inclusionary
housing
units.
It
was
and
ended
up
basically
based
on
our
estimations
more
than
double
the
number
of
ieh
units.
That
would
be
permitted
in
that
by
making
that
change.
AD
In
a
way,
that's
still
consistent
with
the
Boulder
Valley
Commerce
Comforts
of
plan,
land
use,
designation
density
caps
that
we
had-
and
we
talked
about
that
last
time-
that
you
know
basically
allowing
more
density
in
those
areas
more
than
there
is
today
would
require
a
more
expanded
process.
But
there
are
some
areas
where
there's
opportunities
to
to
get
more
housing.
AD
So
what
we've
looked
at
is
based
on
housing
lot
sizes
in
these
zones.
There
are
a
number
of
lots
that
could
be
eligible
today
to
subdivide
to
add
some
additional
single-family
units.
Why
they're,
not
subdivided
I
think
is
based
on
you,
know
a
property
owner's
preference
or
it
actually
might
be
some
constraints
like
topography
or
a
ditch
or
a
creek
that
run
through
the
property
that
don't
allow
them
to
subdivide.
AD
So
what
we've
looked
at
is
if,
if
they
have
the
land
area
to
enable
additional
units,
these
changes
in
in
the
ordinance
would
allow
duplexes
and
triplexes
if
they
have
the
land
area
and
it
might
allow
for
conversion.
So
that's
something
that
we've
been
looking
at
and
Council
asks
that
we
go
out
to
the
community
to
talk
more
about
this.
So
we've
gotten
a
diverse
range
of
opinions.
We've
we've
included
I
think
it's
an
attachment
c,
the
the
summary
of
of
the
broad
engagement
that
we've
done.
AD
What
we've
heard
from
some
single
family
area
is
that
there
are
concerns
that
those
neighborhoods
would
be
disproportionately
impacted
by
these
changes.
There's
concerns
about
adding
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
single-family
zones.
There's
concerns
that
families
will
be
driven
out
or
that
they'll
be
more
parking
impacts,
but
we're
not
hearing
kind
of
the
same
intensity
that
we
were
hearing
years
ago
with
the
large
homes
and
lots
project.
It
seems
like,
maybe
with
the
understanding
that
the
density
is
generally
similar
to
what
we
have
today
that
maybe
there's
a
broader
acceptance
of
that.
AD
AD
They
did
acknowledge
that
zoning
regulations
are
limiting
and
targeted
to
specific
people.
There
was
a
concern
that
younger
Generations
can
experience
or
attain
the
American
dream.
There
was
support
for
more
housing
types,
but
there
was
also
concern
about
concentrating
housing
too
much
in
in
the
concern
that
it
could
create
future
ghettos
and
that
concentrating
people
isn't
always
what
people
want
and
that
people
kind
of
want.
You
know
more
land
or
more
space,
so
there
was
a
little
bit
of
concern
about
how
crowding
people
could
affect
mental
health.
AD
So
that
was
something
that
came
out
of
those
those
comments
when
we've
talked
to
the
development
community
and
housing
proponents
that
are
largely
supportive
of
the
changes,
obviously,
through
correspondence
that
you've
been
receiving.
There's,
you
know,
requests
for
tweaks
in
the
ordinance
in
certain
zones.
AD
We
talked
about
the
be
heard,
Boulder
questionnaire,
which
again
what
we
say
it
you
know
every
hearing
is
that
it's
not
a
statistically
valid
survey.
We
don't
look
at
it
as
such.
It's
not
supposed
to
be
sacrosanct
cut
into
what
people
feel
in
the
community,
but
it
is
a
very
a
useful
tool
to
get
a
gauge
of
where
people
are
on
certain
issues.
AD
We
see
consistencies
in
certain
the
way
people
put
their
their
answers,
and
we've
received
a
significant
number
of
comments
on
this
over
2
000
responses
on
this
particular
issue.
Looking
at
the
results
of
the
be
heard,
Boulder
questionnaire,
I
was
nearly
60
percent
were
supportive
of
allowing
additional
housing
in
commercial
areas
in
neighborhood
centers
about
55
supported,
allowing
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
single-family
neighborhoods,
and
then,
when
you
get
to
like
reducing
parking
there
was.
AD
So
we
reported
this
and
a
lot
of
the
feedback.
We've
gotten
from
housing,
Advisory
Board
and
planning
board
to
City
Council
on
June
15th
to
get
direction
at
that
meeting,
Council
directed
staff
to
move
forward
with
developing
an
ordinance
that
would
change,
density,
parking
and
subdivision
standards
to
make
it
easier
for
Middle
housing
and
to
get
more
modest
sized
housing.
So
we
did
expand
the
scope
to
include
high
density
residential
zones.
AD
We
did
include
changes
to
the
lower
density
zones
within
the
limits
prescribed
in
the
Boulder
Valley
Conference
of
plan,
and
we've
also
taken
a
look
at
site
review
thresholds
as
as
well
as
part
of
this
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
what
we
again.
What
we've
heard
from
housing,
Advisory,
Board
and
planning
board
before
I,
go
into
the
components
of
the
ordinance
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
detail
when
we
get
to
the
ordinance
so
feel
free
to
jump
in
with
questions.
AD
A
couple
members
expressed
disappointment
that
we
couldn't
increase,
density
or
get
more
housing
types
within
the
single
family
area.
Without
a
more
involved
process.
They
did
show
that
their
support
for
updating
the
comp
plan
in
the
future
to
allow
those
changes.
Some
felt
that
there
should
be
more
aggressive
parking
reduction
changes
when
we
brought
the
ordinance
to
housing,
Advisory
board
on
August
23rd,
they
recommended
approval
of
it
five
to
zero.
At
that
time,
they
commended
the
expanded
scope
of
of
the
ordinance
changes.
They
did
commend
the
making
the
process
easier
for
additional
housing
types.
AD
We
talked
to
planning
board
on
April
18th.
They
were
largely
supportive
of
the
changes.
Three
were
were
supportive
of
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
low
density
areas
of
the
city,
but
there
were
two
board
members
that
were
more
cautious
of
those
changes
and
again
talked
about
the
the
Deep
restriction
issues
in
those
areas
and
the
concern
about
impacts
to
lower
density
areas.
AD
When
we
brought
the
ordinance
to
the
planning
board
on
August
29th,
they
recommended
approval
of
the
ordinance
5-0.
They
did
include
three
particular
amendments
which
I'll
talk
about
a
little
bit
later,
because
we
have
Incorporated
those
into
the
ordinance
so
now
I'm
going
to
jump
into
the
content
of
the
ordinance,
so
just
as
far
as
a
review
process,
intensity,
form
and
bulk
standards.
AD
We're
proposing
that
projects
that
build
100
of
their
units
as
middle
housing,
which
is
duplexes,
triplexes
or
fourplexes
or
townhouses,
could
be
exempt
from
the
site
review
process
if
they
meet
all
the
other
zoning
restrictions.
If
they
ask
for
any
modifications
that
would
put
them
in
site
review,
there's
a
number
of
zones
that
have
a
required
automatic
planning,
Board
review
for
requests
for
additional
density
or
housing
units
in
the
code.
AD
AD
With
respect
to
the
youth
standards,
we've
we're
proposing
a
change
that
would
allow
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
the
RL
RR
and
re
zones
again
they
would
still
have
to
follow
the
density
limitations
in
those
areas
to
be
consistent
with
the
plan
we're
proposing
to
eliminate
the
use
review
requirement
for
efficiency
living
units,
which
is
in
the
code.
Now,
if
you
have
more
than
40
percent
of
your
units
as
elus,
it
requires
use
review.
We
already
have
a
mechanism
in
the
site
review
criteria
that
requires
a
diversity
of
housing
type.
AD
The
intensity
standards
is
where
a
bulk
of
the
changes
are
made.
This
really
gets
at
that
issue
that
we've
talked
about
with
trying
to
change
a
number
of
different
zones:
the
law
area
per
dwelling
unit
or
the
open
space
for
dwelling
unit,
getting
rid
of
that
and
going
and
trying
to
to
find
a
similar
intensity
in
a
simpler
way.
AD
We
can
come
back
to
this
if,
if
need
be,
and
we've
expanded
it
to
the
RH
zones
with
similar
changes
and
then
getting
to
the
parking
standards,
we're
proposing
that
the
1.25
parking
spaces
per
bet,
one
bedroom
unit
be
eliminated
and
replace
with
just
one
per
unit.
The
code
currently
requires
any
projects
that
have
more
than
60
percent
of
their
units
as
one
bedroom.
AD
The
parking
requirement
goes
up
or
just
making
that
one
per
unit
right
now,
a
residential
parking
reduction
automatically
requires
site
review,
we're
proposing
that
that
change
to
administrative
reviews,
so
you
can
actually
ask
for
up
to
a
25
reduction
through
an
administrative
process
rather
than
having
to
go
through
site
review.
We've
also
taken
another
look
at
the
parking
reduction
criteria
and
try
to
bolster
them
with
more
Transportation
demand
management
requirements,
but
also
simplify
and
reorganize
the
parking
reduction
criteria.
So
it's
more
understandable
and
then
getting
back
to
townhouses.
AD
AD
So,
overall,
this
is
a
summary
of
of
why
we
believe
that
the
project
meets
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project
and
is
consistent
with
the
Boulder
Valley
Commerce
plan.
All
these
changes
combine
to
encourage
more
buy-rate
development
of
of
middle
housing.
It
keeps
a
relatively
similar
form
and
massing
restriction,
but
it
does
it
in
a
simpler
way
that
can
allow
more
housing
and
more
smaller
units.
AD
So
we
found
this
consistent
with
the
policies
that
are
listed
up
on
the
slide
and
in
conclusion,
we
have
our
staff
recommendation
with
the
motion.
Again.
This
is
a
motion
to
amend
the
ordinance.
So
obviously,
there's
been
some
changes
that
would
have
to
go
to
third
reading.
There
may
be
more
changes
that
go
to
third
reading,
as
I
noted,
it
could
go
to
Fourth
if
they're,
more
substantive
and
just
really
quick
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
we've
Incorporated
the
planning
board
recommendations
in
our
staff
recommendations.
AD
So
that's
getting
rid
of
the
the
600
square
feet
of
required
open
space
per
unit
and
we're
replacing
that
with
a
30
site-wide
open
space
in
the
industrial
zones
and
also
we've
added
a
a
bonus
for
residential
floor
area
in
the
res
in
the
industrial
zones
that
don't
have
enough
AR
right
now.
But
this
would
encourage
more
residential
and
would
encourage
preservation
of
of
light
industrial
on
these
sites,
because
one
of
the
concern
is
losing
light
industrial
uses.
AD
So
we've
proposed
that
as
well
as
some
flexibility
in
the
bt2
zone,
we've
taken
on
some
of
the
the
planning
board
recommendations
about
getting
rid
of
dwelling
unit
as
a
restriction
or
a
threshold
for
site
review,
and
just
changing
that
to
floor
area,
which
is
consistent
with
a
number
of
other
zones
and
then
getting
rid
of
some
of
the
minimum
lot
areas
for
the
those
zones.
So
next
steps
would
be
third
reading
on
consent.
Y
Just
to
add
some
concluding
remarks:
Again
Brad
Mueller,
director
of
planning
and
development
services,
as
I
indicated
at
the
beginning,
we're
really
happy
to
be
able
to
bring
this
to
you
this
evening.
Y
We
think
that
it's
within
the
scope
that
we
represented
to
you
and
maybe
actually
a
little
bit
more
than
that
and
really
reflects
the
various
subjects
that
we
brought
forward
as
part
of
the
public
engagement,
as
well
as
the
board
hearings,
as
as
Carl
reflected
there
from
the
beginning,
you
and-
and
we
had
understood
this-
to
be
a
fairly
nuanced
and
surgical
effort
at
what
will
no
doubt
be
a
continued
effort
for
many
years
to
attack
the
challenge
of
affordable
housing,
but
that
it
has
the
effect
that
really
is
Meaningful
in
the
scope
that
we've
talked
about,
while
not
really
representing
any
kind
of
seismic
shift.
Y
We
know
there's
more
work
to
be
done.
That
will
come
with
additional
projects
next
year,
work,
items
and
and
of
course,
ultimately
the
comprehensive
plan.
We
have
heard
some
interest
for
more
and
discovered
things
as
we've
gone
along
and
I'm
here,
to
tell
you
that
we
could
commit
to
another
work
program.
Item
as
we
move
into
the
next
year,
if
that
becomes
of
interest
to
to
council
as
well,
and
that
I
think
covers
everything,
yeah.
AD
I'll
add
one
thing:
we
did
get
a
a
letter
late
this
afternoon
from
sofa
Architects
that
added
a
recommendation
relative
to
the
rl2
Zone.
We
don't
have
any
problem
with
that
change
that
they
suggest.
Rl2
is
a
zone
that
allows
different
housing
types
anyway,
so
the
change
that
they
propose
could
be
incorporated
into
the
the
motion
as
well.
We
we
support
that
change.
F
Well,
Carl
thanks
for
that
extremely
detailed
and
very
informative
presentation
and
Brad
for
the
extra
remarks
before
we
go
to
council
questions.
If
maybe
we
can
bring
planning
board
representative
Kurt
nordbeck
back
up
and
Kurt.
If
you
could
give
us
a
few
words
on
planning
words
thought
on
this
ordinance.
M
Sure
yeah,
thank
you
again.
Planning
board
and
I.
Think
I
expressed
the
interests
of
planning
board
and
saying
we
appreciate
staff
incorporating
our
recommendations
in
their
proposal,
mostly
and
I'll,
get
to
one
point
regarding
that.
So
in
our
recommendations
in
our
our
amendments
to
the
to
the
motion,
we
were
trying
to
further
the
interests
of
what
council
and
the
community
were
trying
to
achieve
with
this
project.
M
So
the
first
one
again
gets
rid
of
a
per
unit
based
open
space
and
would
change
it
to
a
a
site-wide
open
space
which
is
along
the
lines
of
what
was
intended
for
this
project.
The
second
one
would
change
the
open,
the
site
review
thresholds
So.
Currently,
the
site
review
thresholds
in
some
cases
are
based
on
number
of
units.
M
So
since
the
Cyber
view
is
a
costly
and
expensive
and
and
risky
proposition,
there
can
be
a
disincentive,
I
guess
to
to
going
to
the
number
of
units
that
would
require
site
review,
and
so
we
were
trying
to
eliminate
that
disincentive.
M
I
will
note
that
there
are
two
different
levels
of
thresholds
in
table
2-2
and
what
I
see
proposed
in
in
staff's
proposal
is
to
change
the
higher
threshold,
which
is
for
both
site
review
and
concept,
review,
there's
a
lower
threshold
just
to
to
do
site
review
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
approved,
so
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
changed
and
so
I
think
what
staff
is
proposing
is
not
completely
it's
not
exactly
it's
a
it's
a
slightly
smaller
or
or
narrower
version
of
what
we
were
suggesting
in
our
Second
Amendment.
M
The
third
one
really
is
just
clean
up
and
getting
rid
of
some
entries
in
the
intensity
standards
in
table
eight
one
that
didn't
seem
to
be
necessary
requiring
minimum
lot
sizes
on
some
industrial
zones
where
it,
the
the
minimum
lot
sizes,
are
not
really
they're
they're,
not
regulating
the
intensity,
and
you
know:
we've
felt
that
there
it
would
be
appropriate
to
have
smaller
Lots.
M
If
someone
wants
to
build
a
small
industrial
building
on
a
small
lot
that
you
shouldn't
be
prohibiting
that
we
also
had
some
discussion
of
the
fars
I
think
there
was
some
concern.
For
example,
thinking
about
diagonal
Plaza
diagonal
Plaza
is
currently
approved
at
about
a
1.77
far
if
I
recall
correctly,
and
what
staff
was
proposing
for
bc1
was
a
1.5,
so
even
under
what
is
proposed
by
staff.
The
the
the
currently
approved
plan
for
diagonal
Plaza
would
not
be
allowed,
and
so
we
were
concerned
about
that.
M
Some
people
were
concerned
about
that,
but
we
didn't.
We
didn't
end
up
agreeing
on
a
change
to
that.
There
was
also
some
concern
with
the
recommendation
to
eliminate
youth
review
for
elus
efficiency
living
units,
but
there
wasn't
agreement
to
change
that.
M
F
Thanks
Kurt
Rachel's
got
a
question
for
you.
Just.
A
One
hi
Kurt
thanks
for
being
here
when
you
say
that
we
didn't
agree
to
it.
Do
you
mean
you
didn't
unanimously
agree
or
what?
What
does
that
mean?
Sorry.
M
A
A
T
M
Yeah
there
was,
there
was
some
concern
that
the
efficiency
living
units,
the
the
the
the
the
the
current
requirement
for
use
review,
is
important,
just
because
yeah
there's
a
there's,
a
concern
that
efficiency
living
units
may
become
a
predominant
type,
I
guess
if
there
aren't
limits
on
it,
and
so
the
I
think
the
there
was.
There
was
some
discussion
on
the
board
that
the
youth
review
was.
It
was
a
valuable
restraint,
I
guess
on
the
number
of
efficiency
living
units
that
would
be
created.
M
But
again
there
wasn't
support
for
on
the
board
for
actually
adding
an
amendment
to
that
effect.
P
You
mentioned
that
staff's
implementation
of
one
of
the
recommendations
that
planning
board
had
made
didn't
fully
in
address
what
you
believed.
The
intention
was:
what
modification
would
we
need
to
make
in
order
to
address
that.
M
Yeah
thanks
for
asking,
so
there
are
two
columns
in
this
table:
2-2
site
review
threshold
table
one.
The
last
column
is
concept
plan
and
set
review
required
and
in
that
staff
is
recommending
changing
the
What
What
In.
Many
cases
in
most
cases
is
20
dwelling
units
to
thirty
thousand
square
feet
of
floor,
which
is
basically
the
equivalent
of
20
dwelling
units
at
an
expected
average
of
fifteen
hundred
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit.
M
There's
also
a
column
for
minimum
size
for
site
review,
and
that
has
thresholds
like
five
or
more
units
are
permitted
and
I
believe
that
the
intent
of
the
Amendments
that
planning
board
passed
was
to
change
both
of
these
columns.
To
get
rid
of
this.
The
unit
count
based
thresholds
and
replace
them
entirely
by
floor
area
thresholds.
And
what
I'm,
seeing
at
least
in
staff's
proposal,
does
not
change
those
thresholds
in
this
minimum
size
for
site
review
column,
and
so
it
would
require
changing
where
it
says.
F
F
So
now
Council
questions
and
council
members
I
would
encourage
you
to
focus
questions
on
and
where
answers
would
affect
your
decision
tonight,
as
opposed
to
maybe
curiosity
questions,
but
you.
F
A
AD
We
I
mean
probably
October.
We
would
try
to
do
it
as
quickly
as
we
can
within
October
and.
A
Ten,
okay
between
second
third
and
fourth,
thank
you,
and
this
would
not
go
back
to
planning
board
for,
and
you
know
if
we
picked
up
something
say
from
Lauren's
hotline
tonight,
that
was
more
novel,
can
I
assume
that
planning
board
would
not
have
looked
at.
It
would
have
to
go
back
there.
It.
A
Okay,
let's
see
this
survey
that
was
on
there
that
was
the
same
as
the
survey
we
got
for
occupancy
right.
Some
of
those
answers.
A
And
then
what
middle
we're?
Looking
at
the
duplex
Triplex
townhome
scenario,
my
understanding
from
my
really
brilliant
colleague
Lauren-
is
that
a
lot
of
middle
housing
is
already
Exempted
from
site
review.
So
what
what
are
the
Contours
of
what's
already
Exempted
from
site
review
and
what
would
we
be
adding
as
an
exemption
I.
AD
I
think
the
thought
behind
that
exemption
is
that
a
lot
of
developers
might
just
go
right
to
doing
a
large
apartment
building
and
rather
than
doing
that,
we
might
encourage
them
by
not
having
to
go
through
site
review
to
just
do
a
number
of
smaller
buildings
that
are
quad
plexes.
You
know,
as
opposed
to
a
large
building.
AD
Some
of
those
it's
because
a
lot
of
it's
based
on
dwelling
units
like
20
dwelling
units,
you
know
you
could
potentially
do
a
21
unit
development
and
if
it's
just
townhouses
and
quad
plexes,
you
wouldn't
have
to
go
through
site
review
under
the
proposal.
Under
today's
code
you
would
but.
A
A
Okay
and
if
you
ask
for
modifications,
you're
still
going
to
go
to
site
review
under
the
new
one,
though
so,
I
guess
I'm,
just
trying
to
figure
out
I'm
sorry
to
to
beat
a
dead
horse
here.
But
if
I'm
trying
to
do
a
duplex
I
already
don't
have
to
go
to
site
review
in
a
lot
of
situations.
Is
that
currently
accurate
in.
AD
AD
I
think
our
thinking
is,
is
it's
a
zoning
barrier
to
doing
smaller
units
and
part
of
the
intent
of
this
project
is
getting
more
small
units,
giving
more
people
opportunities
encouraging
those
type
of
units.
We
also
feel
that
use
review
is
unnecessary
because
we
already
updated
the
site
review
criteria
to
require
housing
diversity.
So
in
a
project
that
has
elus,
you
have
to
have
another
housing
type
in
it
anyway
per
the
site
review,
so
it
just
seemed
redundant.
J
What
about
Kurtz
mentioned
that
planning
board
was
talking
about
that
they
were
some
were
concerned
about
the
predominancy
of
efficiency
units
and
with
this
push
it
to
being
more
predominant-
or
let's
say
you
wanted
to
put
guardrails
again.
AD
It
removes
a
deterrent
from
doing
elus,
so
we
may
get
more
elus,
but
you
know
we
have
a
path.
Now,
it's
just
you
have
to
go
through
the
site
or
the
user
view
process.
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
issues
and
concerns
about
it
can
be
addressed
through
a
site
review
anyway.
So
it
just
seems
to
us
unnecessary
to
have
that
process.
AD
Well,
I
mean
site
review
is
more
focused
on
you
know
the
design
and
the
the
layout,
the
you
know,
Landscaping,
building
design
the
massing,
the
location
of
buildings,
location
of
parking.
The
use
review
is
going
to
focus
more
just
on
the
use,
so
the
criteria
are
different.
It
talks
about
character
of
the
area
compatibility,
but
we
look
at
it.
We
look
at
compatibility
through
a
site
review
anyway,
but
the
user
view
is
going
to
be
more
focused
on
the
use
itself
and
again.
AD
C
AD
P
And
I
totally
appreciate
that
you
didn't
spend
a
ridiculous
amount
of
time
trying
to
figure
out
what
exactly
those
percentages
are
in
our
community,
but
I
just
wanted
to
flag
I.
Guess
that
I
feel
like
there
might
there
sort
of
might
be
more
middle
income,
housing
or
not
middle
income
middle
housing
than
that
showed.
P
F
P
I
would
be
interested
in
hearing
your
response
to
Kurt's
suggestion
or
question
around.
You
know
why
didn't
staff
change
the
minimum
lot
size
for
site
review
to
a
square
footage
number
and
instead
left
it
at
a
dwelling
unit
number.
AD
P
But
if
someone
were
to
propose
a
project
that
we're
say
five
efficiency
living
units
that
could
be
a
potentially
very
small
project.
So
in
some
ways
it
seems
as
if
there's
not
really
a
minimum
like
effectively
there's
not
a
minimum
to
what
would
be
allowed
to
go
through
site
review,
because
a
very
small
house
could
potentially
have
five
dwelling
units
and
if
the
requirement
is
that
the
lot
has
to
allow
five
dwelling
units,
so
it
seems
like
maybe
that
column
could
just
be
eliminated.
If
it's
not
a
effective
anymore.
I.
AD
Think
for
the
zones
that
already
allow
a
lot
of
units,
some
of
those
could
just
go
to
a
zero,
which
means
that
they're,
you
can
just
come
in
for
site,
review,
I!
Think
it's
more!
The
zones
that
still
have
to
use
the
law
area
per
dwelling
unit.
You
want
to
make
sure
that
that
that
has
a
certain
size
to
get
those
number
of
units
that
that
would
be
appropriate
in
site
review.
So
I
could
see
looking
at
that
and
maybe
making
it
zero
for
some.
Some
of
these
zones.
P
You
mentioned
that
some
changes
might
require
not
just
third
readings,
but
fourth
readings
I
sent
out
a
hotline
with
several
recommended
changes
and
I
was
hoping
you
could
maybe
suggest
which
ones
of
those
staff
thinks
would
require
a
fourth
reading
or
which
ones
would
just
require
a
third
reading.
AD
AD
F
AD
F
S
Happy
to
advise
on
the
law
here
so
so
I
think
what
we're
all
getting
at
is.
If
you
amend
the
language
tonight
such
that
the
Amendments
can
be
reflected
in
Emotion,
then
that's
the
amendment
that
passes
tonight
and
we
could
just
go
to
third
reading.
If,
however,
the
changes
are
something
that
staff
needs
to
take
back
and
work
on
the
language,
and
then
we
bring
back
new
language,
then
we
would
have
to
have
a
reading
they're
reading
with
the
changed
language
and
one
reading
after
that
is.
F
Looking
for,
thank
you
Teresa,
yes
appreciate
that,
so
the
I
guess
it's.
The
question
is
whether
we
can
get
the
exact
language
and
emotion
tonight
or
whether
need
to
be
worked
on
further
and
and
I
would
also
maybe
suggest
there
might.
There
might
be
an
additional
category
of
something
that's
a
little
more
complicated
that
you
all
take
to
a
future
phase
of
the
project.
P
Okay
and
then
I
was
wondering.
P
J
AD
No,
he
would
just
unstrike
the
language.
Okay.
I
F
No
other
questions
we
can
go
to
our
public
hearing.
We've
got
four
people
signed
up
to
speak.
They
were
all
signed
up
as
virtual,
but
I
see
one
person
here
in
person
so
and
I'm
only
actually
seeing
one
of
our
other
three
speakers
present
online.
So
but
Lynn
Siegel.
You
are
our
first
and
only
in-person
speaker.
You
have
three
minutes.
F
G
Thank
you,
Lisa
Spalding.
For
Una
last
night,
the
executive
committee
of
the
University
Hill
neighborhood
association,
held
our
monthly
meeting
and
discussed
ordinance
8599.
We
all
came
to
the
same
conclusion.
The
only
thing
missing
from
the
Zoning
for
affordable
housing
project
is
affordability.
We
all
want
more
affordable
housing
to
maintain
an
economic
diversity
and
to
encourage
neighborly
social
interactions
among
people
of
different
races
and
ethnicities
who
live
in
our
city
now
and
who
will
live
here
in
the
future.
We
are
particularly
interested
in
keeping
families
with
children
here
and
welcoming
more
into
the
city.
G
We
would
love
to
see
more
children
benefit
from
our
excellent
schools
and
outstanding
natural
environment.
However,
we
are
not
convinced
that
we
will
increase
affordability
by
simply
decreasing
the
size
and
increasing
the
number
of
homes
without
regulations
that
directly
address
the
price
of
homes.
Recently,
we
were
told
that
loosening
regulations
on
zoning
and
on
can
see
is
not
meant
to
result
in
immediate
affordability.
Rather,
these
measures
are
meant
to
increase
affordability
in
20
years.
How
will
that
work?
Does
it
presume
the
additional
new
housing
built
as
a
result
of
ordinance?
G
85.99
will
be
so
run
down
that
it
will
be
affordable
in
20
years
that
would
infer
that
owners
will
not
keep
up
their
properties
and
that
none
of
these
homes
would
be
torn
down
and
replaced
20
years
from
now.
We're
also
concerned
about
who
will
buy
these
additional
homes,
we're
seeing
an
increasing
number
of
rental
housing
investors
buying
up
homes
in
neighborhoods
around
the
university,
but
we
have
no
mechanism
to
disincentivize
corporate
investors
from
buying
our
neighborhoods
and
replacing
long-term
residents
and
families
with
a
transient
population.
G
Why
not
specify
that
conversions
can
only
be
made
if
the
owner
or
owners
live
in
the
house,
the
homes?
If
we
want
more
affordable
housing,
especially
for
middle-income
people
who
make
between
80
and
120
percent
of
Boulder's
average
median
income,
we
will
have
to
regulate
for
it.
120
for
a
family
of
three
is
a
hundred
and
twenty
six
thousand
three
hundred
sixty
dollars
and
thirty
percent
of
household
income
is
supposed
to
be
the
maximum
maximum
spent
on
housing
to
live
somewhat
comfortably.
G
According
to
the
study
done
by
Kaiser
Marston
Associates,
the
average
list
price
for
attached
units
currently
averages
994
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
estimated
prices
of
average
size,
stacked
condos
are
950
000
for
a
1250
square
foot
unit
and
one
million
50
000
for
1400
square
foot
unit
pound
houses
are
even
more
expensive.
The
pieces
of
this
puzzle
simply
do
not
fit
together.
Thank
you.
O
O
So
these
are
Big
figures
and
it's
like
what
Lisa
mentioned.
The
income
is
125,
some
thousand
for
a
person,
so
it
has
to
somehow
be
indexed
to
the
Ami
and
in
Boulder
the
Ami
is
changing.
It's
going.
You
know
up
all
the
time,
so
it's
bringing
the
the
middle
higher
and
higher
income
and
spreading
the
whole.
O
You
know
the
high
that
spreading
the
wealth
inequity
effectively
and
it's
just
creating
constantly
like
an
elastic
band,
a
bigger
and
bigger
spread
between
the
low
and
the
high
income
folks.
So
it's
it's
kind
of
the
illusion
of
accommodating
this
demographic
of
the
middle
that
that
doesn't
that's.
That's
constantly
changing
so
I,
don't
know
how
you
accommodate
or
index
to
the
Ami.
That's
always
going
up.
You
know
for
this
middle,
that's
working
at
Google
and
stuff
and
they're.
O
That's
driving
the
whole
thing
way
up
at
the
high
end,
I
mean
4,
500
square
foot
for
one
person
and
40
000,
probably
dollars
a
month
and
five
million
dollars
down
and
fifteen
percent
back.
You
know
these
are
the
kind
of
factors
in
this
community
that
are
driving
this
spread
in
in
inequity
and
it's
wealth
inequity,
that's
causing
all
of
our
problems,
the
inflation
and
that
you
know,
along
with
covid,
it's
just
a
recipe
for
disaster.
Unless
you
like,
really
get
creative
with
the
architects,
subsidize
them
to
do
some
interesting
things.
F
O
F
D
I
am
not
getting
the
ability
to
give
me
one.
Second
Megan
here
we
go.
R
R
Lauren
folkert's
email
about
this
ordinance
recommended
changes
that
will
further
Advance
the
goal
of
attainable
housing.
My
points
follow
the
numbered
points
that
she
made
today
in
her
email
point.
One
site
review
is
expensive.
The
California,
affordable
housing
study
in
2014
that
I
just
sent
to
all
of
you
tonight
assess
the
cost
of
discretionary
review
where
four
public
hearings
are
required.
Think
concept,
review
and
site
reviews
of
planning
board
and
Council
adds
nineteen
thousand
dollars
to
the
cost
of
each
unit.
R
So
yes,
if
a
project
is
offering
a
hundred
percent
permanently
affordable
housing,
it
should
not
have
to
go
through
site
review.
Please
make
the
change
suggested
by
Lauren
number.
Two
bike
parking
is
so
important
in
supporting
the
convenience
of
using
a
bike
for
everyday
errands
right
now.
If
a
developer
commits
500
square
feet
of
bike
parking
on
a
project
that
500
feet
is
deducted
from
the
total
amount
of
floor
area
that
she
can
build
in
the
project,
that's
a
penalty
for
creating
bike
parking
and
it
ought
to
be
removed,
as
Lauren
suggests.
R
Her
third
Point
are
existing
regulations,
favor
low
density
development.
We
should
amend
this
ordinance
to
enable
more
housing
and
rh2
and
bt1
zones.
Importantly,
these
zones
are
on
or
adjacent
to
major
transportation
corridors
like
the
Best
Western
conversion
along
28
that
you
recently
approved
in
bt1
in
order
to
enable
additional
density
elsewhere
in
rh2
and
bt1.
Please
change
the
ordinance
as
Lauren
suggests,
to
permit
up
to
0.3
additional
far
through
site
review.
Her
fourth
Point
has
to
do
with
the
residential
and
mixed
use
in
rmx.
R
The
zoning
District
that
surrounds
downtown,
like
Whittier,
there's
a
lot
of
older
housing
with
three
and
four
units.
But
when
an
owner
wants
to
update
this
older
housing,
the
current
lot
size
requirement
mandates
the
triplexes
and
quads.
Even
six
plexes
can
only
be
redeveloped
as
single
family.
We're
we're
losing
units
in
a
time
when
we
most
assuredly
need
them.
Please
fix
this
as
Lauren
is
laid
out.
R
There
are
only
a
few
non-professional
people
who
understand
that
the
zoning
code,
as
she
does
enough
to
understand
the
benefits
that
she
calls
for,
but
I
hope
you
will
adopt
her
suggestions
for
bc1
and
like
the
diagonal,
Plaza,
bc2
and
rm1
in
the
final
two
points
of
her
email
today.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
service
and
for
listening
to
me
this
evening.
F
Thank
you,
Macon
all
right,
that's
all
of
our
public
speakers
for
tonight,
thanks
for
joining
us,
so
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
city
council
to
talk
about
the
ordinance,
and
so
what
I
might
suggest
is
that
we
structure
this
with
proposed
changes
because
there's
a
number
of
proposed
changes
out
there,
and
so,
if
people
maybe
can
speak
to
them
and
we
can
see
if
each
proposed
change
has
majority
support.
So
I
think
council
is
generally
interested
in
the
ordinance,
but
we'll
get
to
that
eventually
with
a
formal
vote,
but
Tara.
J
J
When
we
saw
that
chart
of
a
lot
of
single
family
and
then
a
lot
of
apartments,
and
then
there
was
that
dip
in
the
middle,
why
would
we
want
to
have
more
efficiencies
which
to
me
Lauren,
unless
I'm
not
visualizing?
This
correctly,
because
I
need
you
for
this?
Why
would
we
want
more
efficiencies?
If
it's
all
the
way
up
here,
and
we
already
have
a
lot
of
apartments.
P
Apartments
are
composed
of
a
lot
of
different
units,
so
I
don't
know
that
efficient,
like
efficiency,
is
just
a
unit
type
right.
It's
a
smaller
unit
like
I,
was
mentioning
before
I
actually
think
that
we
have
more
middle
housing
than
that
nine
percent
suggested
because
it's
very
difficult
to
actually
like
parse
out,
what's
middle
versus
high,
like
right
Boulder,
we
don't
have
very
many
high
rises.
P
So
sort
of
everything
is
in
that
mid
to
low
rise
category
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
helping
answer
your
questions.
Yes,.
F
I
guess
I
would
say
that
you're
generally
talking
when,
when
you
have
more
than
40
elus
you're
talking
about
a
building,
that's
already
an
apartment,
building
I
think
that's
fundamentally.
The
answer
is
that
this
wouldn't
be
preventing.
You
know
a
townhouse
or
a
duplex,
or
something
like
that.
We're
already
talking
about
an
apartment
type
building,
and
the
question
is
whether
we
should
force
them
to
go
to
site
review,
to
have
a
larger
percentage
of
smaller
units,
and
then
Carl
made
the
good
point
that
our
site
review
criteria
already
require
a
diversity
of
housing
types.
F
F
J
Well,
I
think
why
it
affected
me
and
I'll
just
leave
it
as
this
is
because
the
community
connectors
comment
was
that
it
wasn't.
It
actually
is
sometimes
when
you
cram
a
lot
of
people
in
they
just
they
talked
about
ghettos.
It
is
very
stressful
for
people,
so
I'm
just
going
to
say
that
I,
don't
think
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
I
want
to
do,
even
though
I
might
not
have
the
boats
and
that's
actually
one
of
the
reasons
is
what
the
Community
Connector
said.
F
A
J
I
propose
that
we
remove
the
elu
portion
of
this
in
The
Proposal,
so.
F
If
I
do
a
straw
poll
folks
on
this,
one
can
I
see
a
show
of
hands
of
people
who
would
support
Tara's
suggestion.
F
Yeah,
you
don't
want
to
raise
your
own
hand.
Oh
there
we
go
okay.
Well,
it
did
not
get
majority
support,
but
thanks
thanks
for
the
suggestion,
other
potential
proposed
changes,
Rachel
I.
A
A
If
we
don't
do
site
reviews
for
100,
affordable
I'm,
assuming
that
site
reviews
have
a
purpose
and
my
I
thought
they
were
to
encourage
flexibility
and
outstanding
Urban
Design,
and
things
like
that
and
I'm,
not
exactly
clear
why
I
wouldn't
want
that
for
people
who
are
living
in
those
and
and
that
they
can
be
large
I,
don't
know
how
big
but,
however,
big
of
of
an
apartment,
building
rate
that
would
be
Exempted,
and
so
what's
the
worst
case
scenario,
I.
AD
Mean
I,
I
think
the
proposal
and
concept
is
something
that
snap
supports,
obviously
to
encourage
permanently
affordable
housing.
Our
only
concern
is,
there
are
some
examples
of
where
there's
a
design
outcome
associated
with
a
permanently
affordable
project
that
is
not
commensurate
with
the
quality
that
you
see
with
a
site
review
and
it
can
change
people's
perception
about
affordable
housing.
That's
our
only
concern
we're
not
you
know
suggesting
against
it.
It's
just
that
that
is
an
outcome
and.
A
Would
it
be
possible
to
do
other
things
that
might
improve
the
efficiency
and
affordability
of
100
affordable,
going
through
all
these
different
phases
that
that
Macon
was
talking
about
that?
Are
that
are
not
exempting
from
State
review,
such
as
allowing
those
projects
to
be
fast-tracked?
You
know
like
not
have
the
delays
that
are
built
in
maybe
with
paying
to
own
that
land
for
a
longer
time
or
allowing
for
different
a
higher
percentage
far
or
something
like
that
to
do
more.
AD
Units
I
mean
usually,
if
you're
asking
for
additional
far
it's
it's
like
you're
already
in
site
review.
At
that
point,
we
are
looking
at
expedited
reviews.
It's
something
you
know
the
governor
brought
up
and
I
think
that's
gonna
be
something
that
we're
going
to
be
working
on,
but
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
sometimes
we
just
don't
always
see
like
good
quality
results
in
in
some
of
these
projects
and
and
we
hear
the
complaints
about
them
so
well,.
A
F
For
that
stuff,
if
I
could
just
head
on
in
crawl
to
your
point
about
concern
about
the
quality
of
a
project
and
how
it's
perceived,
I,
just
want
to
say,
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
keep
in
mind
the
the
quality
of
living
for
people
in
a
pro
who
live
in
the
development
as
well,
because
I
know
like
from
many
site
reviews
from
my
time
on
planning
board
I
feel
like
we
often
made
noticeable
improvements
like
in
adding
pedestrian
connections
or
better
materials,
and
things
like
that,
so
I
feel
like
sometimes
livability
for
the
residents
gets
better
through
the
process.
AD
I'll
add
that
we
even
heard
that
from
the
community
connectors
in
Residence
that
they
felt
like
they
some
you
know
their
folks
were
living
in
projects
that
they
perceived
themselves
as
being
lower
quality
or
what
they
call
cheap
and
they
didn't
like
to
be
in
cheap
housing.
That
was
a
quote
from
the
from
the
meeting
we
had
with
them.
B
So
if
the
rest
of
the
process
were
faster
and
more
efficient,
we
could
still
have
site
review
and
maintain
the
qualities
of
the
outcomes
of
site
review
and
not
in
an
overall
process,
be
onerous
in
a
way
that
then
delays
adds
costs
and
creates
uncertainty,
and
so
I
think
we're
picking
on
it,
because
it's
one
thing
that
we
can
just
pull
right
out
and
the
rest
of
the
stuff
sort
of
collapses
back
in
and
works.
But
we
might
have
to
approach
this
from
the
other
end
of
do.
B
T
P
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
interested
in
was
also
just
trying
to
give
affordable
housing
a
Competitive
Edge
in
the
market
when,
because
they're,
you
know
when
they're
buying
land
and
things
like
that,
they're
up
against
market
rate
developers,
so
I
think
one
of
the
things
Rachel
brought
up.
Was
you
know
what
about
an
far
bonus
and
Carl?
You
said
that
there
are.
P
They
would
already
be
going
through
site
review
process
if
we
were
to
sort
of
switch
tracks
and
say,
like
okay,
they're
still
going
through
site
review,
maybe
they're
we're
not
getting
out
of
that.
Would
a
density
bonus
in
that
case
be
something
that
we
could
look
at,
maybe
as
part
of
a
future
project.
Z
F
So
I
wonder
if
I
could
chime
in
here
what
what
would
you
think
so
because
this
is
one
of
your
proposals
right?
What
would
you
think,
as
I
talked
earlier
about
that
I
think
a
phase
two
to
this
project
would
be
really
beneficial
about
saying:
let's
look
at
the
broader
barriers
to
affordable
housing
and
ways
that
we
could
make
it
easier
and
more
affordable
to
to
build,
including
this
potential
of
a
exemption
from
site
review,
but
also
other
things
like
more
expedited
reviews
or
lower
fees,
which
I
think
would
have
a
lot
of
potential.
F
So
then
I'll
look
to
the
rest
of
the
council.
How
do
we
feel
about
giving
that
direction
to
staff
so.
B
Can
I
ask
a
clarifying
I
think
there
might
be
a
number
of
things
that
we
might
want
to
add
to
a
phase
two
and
so
I'm
wondering?
Is
this
an
opportunity
to
sort
of
create
that
beginner
list
for
staff
to
consider,
or
is
this
general
direction
like
hey?
Let's
consider
a
phase
two
that
comes
in
like
q1
Q2
of
next
year,
I'm
just
trying
to
wonder
like
what
we're
setting
ourselves
up
for,
because
I
agree
that
we
don't
want
to
push.
B
I
F
It
so
what
I'm,
I'm
thinking
if
this
works
for
folks
is
that
as
we
go
through
the
proposed
changes
that
we
create,
maybe
three
categories.
One
of
them
is
a
phase
two
category
that
we'll
get
to
in
some
number
of
months.
One
of
them
is
just
amendments
we
can
make
on
the
Dias
and
then,
if
see,
if
there
are
any,
that
would
require
staff
to
do
some
additional
work
and
bring
back
proposed
language
at
the
next
reading.
How's
that
sound
there
work
Rachel.
A
Carl
mentioned
that
this
was
a
light
Edition,
but
I
I
fear
the
community
might
consider
it
a
non-light
Edition.
So
in
these
in
this
list
that
we're
putting
together
might
this
have
some
community
outreach
as
part
of
that?
F
Great,
so
Lauren
is
all
right
if
I
just
go
through,
do
you
want
to
speak
for
them
or
should
I
go
through
them,
I'm
happy
to
have
you
do
it.
P
Okay,
I
can
do
it.
I
just
didn't
want
to
take
up
the
whole
meeting
with
all
of
my
things,
but
I
guess
that's
what's
happening
anyway,
all
right,
so
the
next
one
I
had
on
this
on
my
list
was
to
include
bike
parking
in
floor
area
editions
so
specifically
table
eight.
P
Two
in
section
982
has
floor
area
ratio
Editions
where
you
can
wear
certain
types
of
floor
area
are
not
included
in
your
floor
area
calculations
and
right
now,
off
street
parking
and
vehicular
circulation
are
not
included,
and
I
would
like
to
add
bike
parking
to
that.
F
A
This
will
probably
apply
to
multiple
things
we're
doing
tonight,
but
again
I
would
say,
because
we
didn't
have
Outreach
on
this
I
wonder.
Could
our
third
reading
be
a
public
hearing
as
to
the
things
that
we're
adding
tonight
so
that
we
are
inviting
the
public
to
weigh
in.
F
F
P
P
Matched
with
the
projects
that
are
currently
being
submitted
and
reviewed
in
these
various
zones,
and
so
my
suggestion
was
to
increase
the
numbers
from
the
packet
by
0.4
for
those
various
zones
with
site
review,
So.
Currently
rh2,
you
get
a
certain
number
of
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
then
in
our
code
it
says
so
it
says
seven
up
and
then
in
parentheses,
it
says
up
to
14
by
site
review,
and
so
I
was
sort
of
proposing
that
we
do
that.
F
P
My
next
one
was
in
so
this
is
going
to
be
a
more
controversial
one.
Rmx
one
zone
is
a
zoning
District
that
has
previously
allowed
significantly
more
density
than
it
currently
allows,
and
part
of
this
Zone
was
not
included
in
the
scoping
of
this
project,
but
I
wanted
to
bring
it
up,
particularly
because,
through
my
work,
I
see
a
lot.
I
have
done
the
removal
of
housing
from
this
Zone,
because
this
is
a
Zone,
that's
changing.
P
It's
changing
ownership
and
the
people
who
are
buying
into
this
want
to
make
modifications
and
additions,
and
because
it
has
been
so
significantly
down
zoned.
It
is
very
difficult
to
do
that
because
currently
so
like,
for
instance,
I
had
one
person
ask
me
what
they
could
do
with
their
property,
where
they
currently
have
a
six
unit
apartment
building.
P
And
you
know
there
are
efficiency
units.
So
it's
a
very
it's
a
relatively
small
building,
but
the
only
thing
that
our
zoning
would
currently
allow
them
to
do.
There
is
a
single
family,
home
and
so
I'm
proposing,
there's
currently
a
floor
floor
area
ratio
requirements
already
in
place
for
this
Zone
and
so
I
was
proposing
that
we
keep
those
and
like
we're
doing
in
other
areas,
not
restrict
the
number
of
dwelling
units
by
per
acre,
but
just
rely
on
that
floor
area
requirement
that
it's
already
in
the
current
code.
AD
Yeah,
first
off,
we
think
it's
a
good
idea
because
it
keeps
it
at
the
same
floor
area
and
it's
it's
in
the
spirit
of
of
the
other
changes
and
again
you
know,
thanks
for
all
the
in-depth
you
know
looking
at
the
code
and
giving
us
that
don't
really
jumping
in
so
we
really
appreciate
that,
so
we
we
think
it
does
have
Merit
I.
AD
Think
our
biggest
concern
is
that
it's
never
been
on
the
list
in
the
scope
of
the
project
and
this
late
in
the
game,
without
getting
specific
feedback
on
that,
that's
our
our
only
concern
I
think
just
from
a
massing
standpoint.
It
would.
It
would
generally
keep
things
as
they
are,
but
there
could
be
additional
dwelling
units
and
if
people
didn't
know
about
that,
that's
our
our
biggest
concern
I
think
so.
I
think
our
sense
is
that
this
this
one
would
in
particular
require
a
more
Outreach.
Y
I
I,
too,
want
to
express
just
the
intensity
of
consideration
around
all
this
and,
as
we
start
to
go
through
the
list
on
the
hotline,
it
feels
like
we're
going
to
get
into
an
accounting
issue
here.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
are
we're,
we're
tracking,
what's
being
provided
when
there's
discussion
about
the
need
for
additional
Outreach
and
such
I'm
interpreting
that
to
mean
kind
of
the
phase,
two
concept
that
was
talked
about
with
the
number
one
item
not
commenting
on
the
merits
of
this
number
four.
F
Thanks,
thank
you
because
yeah
Lauren
I
appreciate
this
idea
and
this
suggestion
I
guess
I,
don't
have
a
great
sense
of
how
this
would
end
up
working
out
in
rmx
one
so
I
would
I
would
actually
be
interested
in
some
staff
analysis
on
kind
of
the
repercussions
of
this.
So
I
think
it
sounds
very
promising,
but
I
don't
have
a
great
sense
of
how
it
would
play
out
and
I
do
feel
like,
since
it
wasn't
included
in
the
scope
that
we
did
public
Outreach.
For
that.
F
Maybe
we
could
include
this
as
part
of
the
phase
two,
so
I
don't
know
how
you
feel
about
that,
but.
P
I
mean,
of
course,
I
would
love
to
just
make
the
change,
but
I
completely
respect
that
that
there
hasn't
been
a
lot
of
public
engagement
on
this
and
that
it
does
deserve
it.
So
yeah
I
would
support
doing
it
as
a
phase
two.
So.
AD
Maybe
a
construction
point
if
I
could
add.
One
thing
we
did
think
of
too
is
is
the
reason
rmx1
is
complicated
is
because
of
the
down
zoning
So.
That,
obviously,
is
rendered
a
lot
of
the
properties
non-conforming
So,
based
on
the
occupancy
ordinance
that
was
done
several
weeks
ago.
It
froze
occupancy
from
increasing
in
non-conforming
areas.
AD
AD
A
I,
it
sounds
to
me
like
we're,
probably
trending,
towards
putting
this
in
the
pot.
That's
going
to
get
further,
steady
and
Analysis,
but
we'll
just
add
that
it
keep
coming
back
to
that.
You
know.
Do
things
in
a
way
that
sticks
and
I
think
that
this
has
a
much
better
chance
of
sticking
it.
It
sounds
like
something
favorable,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
we
want
to
rush
it
and
not
get
the
feedback
and
Analysis
and
allow
the
community
to
weigh
in
so
great.
F
So
maybe
I'll
straw
poll
putting
this
in
a
phase
two
section
of
the
project,
how
many
people
are
in
favor
and
we
got.
F
P
Okay,
so
the
fifth
thing
that
I
had
brought
up
was
the
bc1
and
BC
two
zones,
so
these
are
sort
of
our
neighborhood
center
zones.
P
And
again
this
is
another
area
where
some
additional,
where
the
floor
area
ratio
proposed
by
staff,
makes
sense
for
part
of
the
Zone,
but
maybe
other
parts
of
the
Zone.
It
might
make
sense
to
have
a
higher
floor
area
ratio.
P
So
a
Community
member
had
suggested
using
appendix
n,
which
really
specifically
calls
out
our
business
centers
as
a
filter
to
where
we
might
allow
a
higher
far
than
what's
currently
proposed
and
I
think
that
that
makes
sense,
because
one
of
the
things
that
that
would
allow
is
these
business
centers
that
are
currently
retail,
surrounded
by
parking.
P
B
We
already
have
the
appendix
n
in
there,
which
clearly
identifies
those
so
I
think
in
terms
of
like
where
and
how
it's
it's
already
self-identified
in
previous
works.
I
think
that
there's
an
Elegance
to
what
Lauren's
proposed
here.
That's
just
really
straightforward!
So
I
really
like
how
you
brought
that
up
and
allows
diagonal
Plaza
to
be
compliant.
P
Okay,
so
can
I
use
the
Table
Mesa
shopping
center,
as
so
there's
a
large
amount
of
I
can't
remember
if
it's
bc1
or
bc2
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
it's
not
just
the
shopping
center.
It's
also
some
of
the
surrounding
area
that
starts
to
transition
into
residential
the
shopping
center
itself
is
where
I
think
we
would
like
to
see
potentially
higher
levels
of
density.
P
The
area
across
the
street,
where
you
start
to
be
more
in
the
neighborhood
I
think,
is
fine
with
the
intensity
standard,
with
the
1.5
far
that
staff
has
proposed,
but
I'm
proposing
that
in
that
area
that
appendix
and
highlights
which
is
really
just
the
more
commercial
areas
that
we
would
move
to
a
higher.
Far
of
two.
F
B
P
So
the
sixth
one
is
rmx
one,
and
this
was
brought
forward
to
me
by
a
planning
board
member
sorry
rm1.
Thank
you.
P
Planning
board
was
recently
looking
at
a
BHP
project
in
this
area
and
the
it
is
a
zone
that
is
medium
density,
residential,
that's
RM,
residential
medium,
but
it
currently
requires
three
thousand
square
feet
of
open
space
per
dwelling
unit,
which
is
you
know
the
kind
of
thing
that
we're
trying
to
move
away
from
so
I
was
proposing
in
this
Zone
that
it
should
also
be
governed
by
far
and
because
it's
of
a
more
it
tends
to
be
in
more
neighborhood
areas.
P
AD
F
P
That's
in
our
current
proposal
that
would
allow
an
a
increase
of
up
to
1.25
residential
use
if
at
least
0.3
is
industrial
or
research
and
development
use
and
I
guess.
My
concern
here
is
that
my
goal
was
to
really
preserve
industrial
use
and
I
worry
that
by
including
research
and
development
as
well,
that
we
are
giving
a
leg
up
to
sort
of
the
life
sciences
in
a
way
that
they
don't
need
in
a
zone.
That
I
really
would
like
to
see.
P
AD
We're
not
opposed
to
that
I
I.
Think
I.
Think
it's
a
good
suggestion,
because
really
the
focus
is
is
on
Industrial
I
just
am
looking
at
the
use
table
just
making
sure
we
can
do
that
in
a
way
where
it's
really
clear,
I
think
we
could
even
just
reference
industrial
uses
and
and
take
out
r
d
I
think
that
could
work.
A
This
sounds
like
one
in
that
it's
on
the
Fly
that
might
be
good
to
have
more
staff
analysis
and
some
feedback
from
people
who
would
be
utilizing.
Yeah
affected
impacted,
so
I
might
put
it
in
that
second
bucket,
even
though
it
sounds
great
and
modest
and
I
imagine
appeals
sort
of
to
all
council
members.
Potentially.
So
probably
you
know
we'll
we'll
be
successful
in
the
end,
but
I
would
like
to
get
the
feedback.
F
P
A
P
Thank
you,
yes,
I
did
not
prepare
that
one
for
the
language
for
that
one,
but
I
would
also
be
interested.
Staff
had
proposed,
as
we
discussed,
exempting
middle
housing
from
site
review.
P
My
concern
is
that
that's
the
middle
housing
that
the
at
a
small
scale,
the
middle
housing,
is
essentially
already
exempt
from
site
review.
So
what
we're
talking
about
is
large-scale
projects
where,
essentially,
you
would
be
trading
an
apartment
building
for
let's
say
20
town
homes
and
my
concern.
There
is
one
that
town
homes
tend
to
be
a
more
expensive
housing
type
in
our
community,
but
there's
also
an
accessibility
concern.
P
Townhomes
are
not
typically
an
accessible
housing
type,
they
usually
rely
on
stairs
and
so
an
apartment.
Building
in
this
case
would
any
building
that's
elevator
served
access
to
every
unit
is
required
to
be
accessible
and
so
we'd
also
be
trading.
A
certain
amount
of
accessibility,
along
with
affordability
and
so
I
didn't
want
to
prioritize
missing
middle
in
this
particular
way.
A
J
Before
we
do,
that,
can
we
hear
Carl's
input
on
that.
AD
I,
don't
think
we're
opposed
to
that
idea
again,
I
think
in
concept.
We
agree
with
encouraging
affordable
housing
and
that's
one
way
of
doing
it
so
it'd
be
striking
metal
housing
and
replacing
it
with
100
percent
permanently
affordable
housing
right
well,.
P
That
was
what
I
was
initially
proposing,
but
I
think
we're
splitting
them
out
as
separate
things.
So,
in
this
case,
like
we
already
said,
we
wanted
entirely
to
do
affordable
housing
as
phase
two,
but
this
would
just
be
saying
you
had
proposed
an
exemption
for
Middle
housing
to
site,
review
and
I'm,
suggesting
that
we
strike
that
exemption.
F
AD
Thoughts
on
that
Chrome
I
mean
we
don't
have
any.
You
know
concerns
with
striking
it.
It
was
just
you
know,
an
idea
for
how
do
we
get
more
middle
housing,
it's
again
up
to
the
council,
so,
okay
other.
F
J
F
Z
I
think
this
is
one
where
I
would
be
really
interested
in
getting
some
additional
feedback,
particularly
from
the
center
for
people
with
disabilities
and
some
of
those
other
communities
that
are
really
concerned
about
accessibility
types
of
issues,
and
so
this
especially
you
know,
if,
if
that
is
the
concern,
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
some
feedback
from
a
group
like
that.
Z
Who
could
let
us
know
a
little
bit
more,
so
I
I
might
suggest
considering
this
for
phase
two
as
well,
although
I
guess
in
phase
two,
what
that
would
mean
is
striking
something
that
we're
moving
forward
tonight.
So
it's
a
little
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
know,
then
what
impact
that
has
on
Developers,
for
example,
if
somebody
might
start
moving
forward
with
that
only
to
have
a
strike
something
later.
P
A
A
F
A
Middle
housing,
not
middle
income,
middle
housing,
just
that
I.
We
have
gotten
a
lot
of
concerns
from
the
community
about
investor-owned
properties
and
these
not
being
affordable
and
just
overall
uncertainty
about
what
like,
duplexes
and
triplexes
might
look
like.
A
So
as
you
move
forward
either
with
phase
two
of
this
or
when
you
get
to
the
comp
plan,
review
I
just
wanted
to
pitch
an
idea
that
I
I
do
like
the
idea
of
owner
occupied,
or
you
know,
having
a
tether
to
ownership
for
that,
because
I
think
that,
if,
if
say,
I'm
doing
a
duplex
as
everybody
on
this
dice
knows,
I'm
interested
in
doing
someday,
I'm
not
going
to
get
a
lot
of
investor
money
or
or
a
big
loan
from
the
bank
to
make
tube
duplexes
that
are
blinging.
A
I
would
have
a
modest
ability
to
do
that.
I
think
they
would
be
necessarily
probably
more
affordable,
which
is
what
we're
after
it.
It
eliminates
some
of
the
concerns
about
Investors,
scooping
up
property
and
making
property
values
higher
and
I
think
it
gets
a
lot
of
what
we're
trying
to
do,
while
also
allowing
people
to
have
flexibility
to
create
a
second
unit,
which
is
what
we
want
in
the
end.
A
Instead
of
I
think
we're
going
to
get
to
a
point
where
a
lot
of
sort
of
the
1960s
homes
are
going
to
be
scraped
and
it's
a
question
of
what
do
we
want
them
to
be
rebuilt
with
and
I
would
say.
Duplexes
and
triplexes
are
going
to
be
beneficial
to
the
community
and
I
think
that
one
way
to
get
more
Community
buy-in
will
be
to
look
hard
at
owner
owner
occupied
for
one
of
the
units.
F
A
F
It
so
let
me
come
back
to
that
here
in
a
second
because
I
wanted
to
straw
poll
on
so
what
the
the
proposal
I
think
that
we
ended
up
with
was
to
in
the
ordinance
that
you
gave
us
to
remove
the
exemption
from
site
review
for
Middle
housing,
but
to
then
investigate
in
phase
two,
whether
we
should
add
that
back
in
so
all
in
favor
of
that-
and
that's
that's
everybody,
okay,
so
we
put
that
one
to
bed
and
now
to
Rachel's
point.
So
you
did
you
want
to
get
that
on
the
record.
A
B
A
So
yeah,
maybe
then
I
would
say
as
part
of
phase
two
can
staff
bring
information
on
what
a
ownership
requirement
look
like
for
middle
housing
would
that
be
beneficial
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
and
and
what
might
be
ideas
for
implementing
that
such
as
you
know,
you
have
to
live
there
for
X
years
before
or
is
there
a
penalty?
A
If
you
sell
right
away,
I,
don't
I,
don't
really
think
it
could
be
abused
by
investors,
because
if
you
have
a
a
requirement
that
you
own
it
for
some
period
of
time,
you're
not
gonna
be
able
to
do
that
more
than
once,
really
like
it.
You
know
you'll
be
kind
of
busted.
The
second
time
you
try
to
do
that
as
as
I
think
a
developer
so
just
be
curious.
What
what
you
all
might
might
make
of
that
and
and
if
that
can
be
part
of
phase
two.
F
Everyone
in
favor
of
that
being
investigated
as
a
potential
getting
seven,
so
I
got
okay.
It's.
B
So
so
this
we've
been,
we've
been
kind
of
dancing
around
and
maybe
waiting
for
the
comp
plan
to
sort
of
unlock.
What
this
issue,
which
is
you
know,
70
of
roughly
70
of
our
residential
land
area,
is
single
family
zoning,
and
so
you
know
how
how
do
we
unlock
diversity
of
housing
within
such
a
large
land
mass
within
our
city,
and
so
we're
touching
we're
dancing
around
it
almost
almost
literally
and
figuratively,
in
these
conversations?
B
But
what
we're
not
doing
is
trying
to
get
into
the
meat
of
that,
and
so
I
know
that
at
the
comp
plan
level
is
when
we'll
really
get
a
chance
to
tackle
that
and
what
I'm
curious
about
is.
Can
we
look
at
a
phase
approach
in
that
sort
of
phase
two,
a
phase
and
a
phase
where
we
we
investigate?
Like
can?
Can
we
really
do
duplexes
in
single-family
zoning
before
we
get
full
comp
plan
because
again
we're
in
an
urgent
state
of
diversity
of
housing
with
School,
enrollment
and
other
things
declining?
B
Can
we
start
to
make
progress
while
we
do
the
comp
plan,
while
we
eventually
then
make
those
changes
which
are
still
years
out
before
actualizing
any
of
those
changes
and
and
start
to
you
know,
build
momentum
in
that
direction
and
maybe
stymie
some
of
the
potential
of
having
schools
close
on
our
watch
and
our
jurisdiction,
because
that
would
be
catastrophic
if
anyone
else
is
on
the
diocese
and
we're
seeing
schools
close
in
our
community
so
that
that's
something
I'd
love
to
see
us
try
to
investigate
figure.
F
AD
Think
we
we've
thought
of
this,
and
and
if
it
fits
within
the
the
density
limits
of
the
comp
plan,
it
could
be
done.
I
think
you're,
talking
about
like
piloting
certain
areas
with
with
increased
density,
I
mean
that
could
get
complicated
because
if
it
does
go
over
the
maximum,
then
we'd
have
to
like
work
with
comp
planning
to
add
that,
as
part
of
the
project
to
increase
density
in
a
certain
area.
I
Y
Well,
I'll
just
agree
with
Carl
and
say
that
I
I
think
of
all
the
phase,
two
things
that
have
been
kind
of
proposed
tonight
that
one
is
maybe
the
most
uncertain
in
my
mind,
but
we
could
certainly
commit
to
doing
it.
But
that
might
be
one
where
we
have
to
come
back
and
better
to
find
the
scale
as
Carl
say.
F
I
P
I
guess
Carl
you
brought
up
the
comp
plan
and
related
to
density,
and
my
thinking
there
is
there
has
to
be
some
level
of
sort
of
restriction
around
how
we
would
do
this
that
wouldn't
create
enough
units,
because
the
comp
Clan
is
very
specific
that
it's
looking
at
these
areas
together
and
not
as
on
a
partial
by
parcel
basis.
P
AD
Yeah
I
I
think
that
analysis
could
be
done.
It's
just
it's
not
something
that
can
be
turned
around
really
quickly.
I
mean
the
Nuance
of
looking
at
all
the
different
areas
of
the
city
and
what
the
pockets
of
density
is
and
what
the
potential
for
increase
can
be
is
pretty
complex.
B
I'm
wondering
why
it's
seeming
so
complex
if
it's
literally
Corner
Lots
on
Transit
corridors
I
mean
that's
sort
of
self-defining
I,
don't
know
where
we
get
into
Pockets
because
it's
like,
if
you
have
Transit
that
self-defined,
it's
not
like
we're
talking
about
a
quarter
mile
away
from
a
bus
line
I'm
talking
about
like
along
the
corridor
in
single
family
zoning.
So
that's
why
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
I
I'm
wondering
how
it
gets
so.
AD
Complicated
what
is
that
you
know
if
we're
talking
about
like
Corner
lots
and
allowing
duplexes
on
on
the
corner
lots
a
lot
of
these
single-family
zones
already
are
more
than
the
two
to
six
dwelling
units
per
acre.
Just
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
you
know
the
minimum
lot.
Size
is
seven
thousand
square
feet,
but
there's
a
there's
a
pretty
large
percentage
in
in
certain
zones
where
those
lot
sizes
are
a
lot
smaller.
So
the
density
is
higher.
N
I
appreciate
that
mayor,
what
I
was
going
to
say
is
a
little
bit
to
ground
us
in
reality.
In
terms
of
this
is
really
kind
of
future
work.
Plan.
Items
and
I
want
to
be
thoughtful
about
that.
We
actually
I,
think
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
great
things
and
what
direction
you'd
like
us
to
move
forward
and
so
know
that
for
that
phase
two,
this
will
likely
be
considered
a
work
plan
item
that
we
will
be
moving
forward
in
in
2024.
N
We
hear
it
loud
and
clear
and
understand
that
that
will
bring
us
to
work
prior
to
the
comp
plan
as
that
moves
forward,
and
we
may
be
having
conversations
in
the
future
when
we
do
get
to
retreat
about
whether
or
not
what.
How
does
that
look
like
when
we're
looking
at
other
work
that
the
council
would
like
us
to
work
for
the
next
midterm
for
the
next
two-year
term.
So
just
grounding
Us
in
all
of
the
great
work
to
be
had
ahead.
Z
Nuria
just
stole
my
Fender,
so
I
was
just
going
to
remind
us
that
we
have
eight
meeting
eight
meetings
and
ten
minutes
left
with
this
Council.
So
this
one
and
the
the
last,
the
last
point
to
me
as
well
seemed
a
little
bit
in
that
target
of
future
work
in
committing
future
councils
and
I
think
they're
great
things
to
bring
back
but
I
think
those
smaller
changes
seem
like
they're,
more
reasonable
things
for
us
to
move
forward
with
yep.
F
Okay,
so
getting
that
this
is
aspirational
in
the
2024
time
period,
who
would
like
to
have
staff
further
look
into
this
idea?
F
F
Z
But
can
I
ask
Walmart
one
more
clarifying
question
does.
Does
this
then
impact
the
work
that
you
all
have
planned
and
because
I
mean
there's
still
a
little
bit
left
right?
There's
the
Baseline
Urban
Services
study,
there's
some
other
things
we're
working
on.
So
if
we
kind
of
commit
you
to
doing
this
other
stuff
in
anticipation
of
the
next
council's
retreat,
does
that
interfere
with
the
other
things
that
you
are
intending
to
do?
It
just
feels
like
it's
getting
a
bit
bigger.
Y
Y
So,
as
I
said
in
my
preface,
we've
been
anticipating
that
a
version
of
of
this
could
be
now
scope
and
scale
will
matter
and
we'll
have
to
bring
that
back.
Of
course,
we
know
that
parking
has
been
identified
as
a
priority,
and
we
also
know
that
simplification
of
the
code
through
process
is
I
will
just
make
a
pitch
that
you're
going
to
be
seeing
a
budget
coming
forward
to
you
soon,
and
there
is
an
additional
policy
planner
in
there.
So
love
to
see
that
stay.
Y
But
we
will
finalize
work
program
in
in
conversation
with
Charles
and
you
know
certainly
appreciate
and
want
to
be
respectful
of
Carl
and
and
Lisa's
time.
But
also-
and
and
you
know,
it's
a
partnership
so
we'll
work
through
that.
Okay.
F
Great,
so
with
that
consideration,
this
lots
of
public
Outreach,
it's
a
potential
thing
for
for
to
be
investigated.
Who
would
like
to
get
this
on
the
list
of
things
to
consider
and
I
got
a
majority
on
on
that
one?
Okay,
great
I've
got
one
I've
got
one
specific
one,
because
I
wanted
to
pick
up
the
the
the
specific
suggestion
from
architects
in
the
community
because
the
they
were
seeing
a
potential
in
one
of
the
changes
to
make
it
harder
to
do
town
homes
or
possibly
Impossible
on
on
rl2
zones
and
Carl.
F
You
said
you
supported
their
proposed
change.
So
what
that
that
would
end
up
being
would
be
in
this
section
about
the
rl2
zones.
There's
language
that
says
shall
be
used
for
detached
single-family
land
use
and
the
current
ordinance
strikes
that
language
and
The
Architects
are
saying.
We
should
keep
that
language
and
you
think
that
keeping
the
language
would
be
a
positive
change.
Yeah.
AD
F
How
do
people
feel
about
making
making
the
change
to
keep
the
language
and
not
strike
it?
Can
I
get
it
all
right?
We
got,
we've
got
everybody
there,
okay,
so
any
other
suggested
changes.
AD
The
other
there's
a
couple
things
so
the
the
minimum
threshold
thing
that
Kurt
nordback
had
mentioned
is
there
consensus
to
make
changes.
I
guess
our
our
recommendation
was
to
not
change
the
lower
density
zones,
because
it's
based
on
lot
area
but
any
of
the
other
zones
we
could
change
it
to
zero.
AD
AD
AD
AD
Q
F
F
So
Carl
I'm,
just
gonna,
say
I'm
getting
a
little
uncomfortable
with
off
the
cuff
nature.
Of
of
this
potential
proposed
change
and
also
like
hearing
MH
was
manufactured
at
housing
through
a
red
flag
to
me
as
well,
because
we
want
to
be
careful
to
to
preserve
those
for
so
so
I
would
I
would
I
would
not
propose
to
make
this
right
now,
but
maybe
we
can
look
at
that.
It's
a
later
later
phase.
How
do
people
feel
about
that.
P
Yeah
and
I
think
it
is
more
of
a
code
cleanup
item
because
essentially,
if
you
look
at
five
efficiency
units,
it's
such
a
small
square
footage
that
it
means
that
everything
could
go
through
the
way.
It
is
right
now
isn't
currently
a
problem.
It's
just
that
it
would
be
cleaner
to
do
it
a
different
way.
AD
I
had
one
more
point
of
clarification
so
with
some
of
these
proposals
to
increase
the
far
through
the
site,
review
process
in
the
rh2
bt1
bt2
and
the
BC
zones
is
the
intent
that
that
far
Edition
would
be
subject
to
community
benefit
requirements
like
the
increased
affordability
requirements.
Or
is
it
just
something
that
you
can
ask
for
through
site
review.
P
F
Except
it
would
be
subject
to
the
already
existing
Community
benefit
well,
but
you're
saying
it
like
that's
when
we
ask
for
additional
intensity
right.
I
AD
F
It
would
this
would
not
be
subject
to
that.
It
would
be
if
that
I
guess
if
they
were
going
to
55
yeah.
P
Most
of
these
zones
and
numbers
are
low
enough
that
it
would
be
really
unreasonable
to
stack
your
far
in
such
a
way
that
you
would
get
to
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
Story
so
and
Community
benefit
as
it
is
currently
written
always
also
includes
the
height
limit.
So
it
would
be
a
kind
of
messy
way
to
make
this
change
right
now
and
I.
Think.
The
simplest
way
from
a
wording
standpoint
is
to
keep
it
again
as
rl2
occur
or
sorry,
as
rh2
is
currently
written
in
the
code.
L
F
Folks,
all
right,
if
I
make
a
motion;
okay,
so
I,
move
to
a
men,
ordinance,
85.99,
amending
Title,
IX
land
use
code,
BRC,
1981
related
to
the
site,
review
process
and
intensity
form
and
bulk
use
parking
as
subdivision
standards
concerning
affordable
and
modest
sized
housing
and
setting
forth
related
details
with
the
additional
amendments
from
the
ordinance
that
was
provided
in
our
packet,
which
are
in
section
982
table.
8
2,
floor
area
ratio,
Editions
to
change
the
language
to
say,
floor
area
used
as
off
street
parking.
F
Oh
I
got
this
doesn't
have
the
right
language
and
it
needs
to
say
bike
parking.
Oh
include
bike
parking,
okay
got
it
so
that
the
new
language
would
be
floor.
Area
used
as
off
Street
parking
bike,
parking
and
vehicular
circulation
that
is
above
grade
and
provided
entirely
within
the
structure.
P
F
Is
that
motion
well
formed?
It's.
Y
Exceptionally,
formed
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
you
had
mentioned
an
architect
reference
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
maybe
that
was
the
last
one.
It
was
okay.
F
Thanks
for
checking
and
any
further
discussion
just.
P
F
A
It's
one
real
note:
I
Carl,
do
you
remember
when
we
were
on
the
large
Lots
work
group
I
mean
that's
five
years
ago
or
something
so
like
this
is
a
lot.
Many
of
these
things
are
a
long
time
coming,
so
I
just
wanted
to
particularly
thank
you
for
a
lengthy
run
up
to
tonight.
Nice
job.
Z
Just
a
couple
words
too
I
haven't
saved
much
tonight
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
have
too
much
here,
but
I
just
really
wanted
to
recognize
staff
and
Brad,
particularly
your
leadership.
Here
we
started
really
behind
we
loaded
an
apartment
that
was
short
staffed
with
most
of
our
work
plan
priorities.
Z
I
think
you
know,
some
of
us
were
nervous
when
it
took
a
while
to
get
started
with
all
of
this,
and
she
gave
us
a
plan
and
you
stuck
to
it
and
we've
been
following
that
timeline,
and
it's
it's
just
really
impressive
and
so
I
just
just
wanted
to
notice
that,
and
also
just
for
Council
I
think
this.
This
was
a
a
great
set
of
kind
of
work
plan
items
that
we
all
agreed
on
and
supported
and
move
forward.
Z
I
think
the
community
engagement
on
this
was
really
good,
both
with
the
folks
who
will
be
living
in
some
of
these
spaces,
as
well
as
with
the
people
who
will
be
building
them.
So
thank
you
to
everybody
who
engaged
in
that
and
Lauren.
Thank
you
for
your
leadership
and
coming
up
with
some
tweaks
and
I.
Think
I
also
really
just
appreciated
our
discussion
and
our
ability
to
rein
in
some
of
these
things
and
not
try
to
add
on
a
bunch
of
stuff
tonight,
but
really
to
try
to
do
it
in
a
thoughtful
way.
Z
F
F
Why
are
we
getting
this
and
not
something
else
and,
as
you
work
on
it
for
a
number
of
years,
we're
like
well
it's
because
it's
baked
into
the
codes
I
mean
we're
getting
what
we
require,
and
this
has
been
identified
for
a
very
long
time
that
we're
getting
we've
been
getting
larger
and
more
expensive
units
instead
of
more
attainable
units
and
so
finally
cracking
that
nut
as
part
of
this
council's
work
plan
is
really
exciting.
This
is
a
very
detailed
ordinance.
F
Lots
of
changes,
I
think
it's
exceptional
work
and
it's
in
the
weeds
right
all
the
details
of
the
code,
but
I
think
it's
going
to
have
a
really
positive
impact
on
development
in
the
community
for
the
decades
to
come.
So
huge
thanks-
and
this
is
this-
this
is
a
great
step
forward
and
with
that,
if
we
could
do
a
roll
call
vote,
please
Emily.
C
L
P
O
S
A
Did
we
establish
what
we're
going
to
have
public
hearings
for
a
public
hearing
for
in
third
reading?
Yes,.
Y
F
F
Okay,
good
I
did
too
but
I'm
glad
you're
ahead
of
me
great
well,
very
exciting
and
get
that
done,
and
that
is
now
it
with
our
public
hearings
but
I
understand
we
might
have
an
item
under
Matters
from
the
mayor
member
of
council
from
council
member
Benjamin,
but
we
should
do
a
time
check.
F
It
is
three
before
ten
Matt
was
interested
in
checking
in
on
the
letter
to
the
County
Commissioners,
our
folks
up
for
that
right
now,
okay,
yep
I'm,
seeing
it
on
heads
I
mean
this.
Is
time
sensitive
so.
B
Thanks
mayor
yeah,
so,
as
was
hotlined,
let's
see
at
this
point
last
week,
I
think
hotline
a
letter
to
our
colleagues
at
the
county
commissioner's
office
to
really
synthesize
some
of
our
most
acute
needs
in
sort
of
a
housing
sector
from
which
the
County
Commissioners
are
uniquely
positioned
with
their
assets,
resources
and
departments
to
help
us
solve
and
partner
with
us
to
crack,
and
they
are
proposing
a
ballot
measure
that
would
raise
money
through
an
affordable,
attainable,
housing
tax
and
so
I.
B
The
county
is
looking
for
in
terms
of
our
council's
support
for
this
measure,
and
how
do
we
get
them
to
commit
to
some
of
these
acute
needs
in
particular,
really
supporting
a
permanently
Supportive
Housing,
and
we
know
that
we've
talked
about
this
as
being
a
critical
need
in
our
community
for
for
a
lot
of
aspects
in
in
going
forward.
But
how
do
we
get?
There
is
also
where
bullet
2
is
important,
which
is
that
scaffolding,
and
so
transitional
housing
is
also
fundamental
to
that
again.
B
We've
talked
at
nauseam
about
these
two
things
and
we
ourselves
can
only
do
so
much
to
achieve
that
and
needing
the
county
to
really
step
up
their
game
is
kind
of
essential.
Maybe
some
of
you
heard
this
update,
but
on
Monday
the
County
Commissioners
approved
actually
the
700
000
dollars
to
make
the
shelter
whole
with
its
funding.
B
So
we
thank
them
for
making
that
investment,
so
it
kind
of
makes
bullet
point
three
moot
we
like
to
think
that
maybe
hotlining
that
letter
did
that,
but
I
think
that
would
be
over
there,
but
when
one
could
only
hope.
So
so
really
it
really
leaves
three
bullet
points.
B
The
the
top
two
third
one
gets
removed
because
they
took
care
of
that
and
then
the
fourth
one
there
is
going
forth
and
really
trying
to
to
make
a
concerted
effort
to
go
beyond
just
having
a
loose
plan
with
our
task
force
on
high
system
utilizers.
But
to
really
say
look
no.
We
need
to
go
forward
with
that.
B
Should
this
pass
and
say
yep,
these
are
the
things
that
we
need
to
March
forward
on.
We
want
to
work
with
you
to
do
so.
That's
the
spirit
of
this
letter.
That's,
what's
written,
it's
gotten
input
from
Kurt
fernhover.
It's
got
an
input
from
Carl
Castillo
and
it's
gotten
some
input
just
to
sort
of
try
to
make
sure
that
we're
covering
our
bases
so
I
appreciate
that
I
was
able
to
get
that
out
there
and
would
love
to
see.
B
If
this
is
something
we
can
just
say,
yep
we
like
it
and
want
to
move
forward
and
eventually
take
either
right
right
here
and
not
a
five
to
say.
We
want
to
move
it
forward
or
take
a
vote
to
move
it
on.
So
that's
the
gist
of
it
and
I'll.
Look
to
you
mayor
in
terms
of
how
we
want
to
take
process
going
forward.
Yeah.
L
F
So
much
for
bringing
this
forward
Matt.
So
from
a
process
perspective.
What
we're
discussing
tonight
is
whether
we
would
have
a
nod
of
five
to
proceed
with
with
this
letter
and
whether
there'd
be
any
suggested
changes,
and
then
it
would
come
back
to
us
on
consent,
probably
on
the
October
5th
meeting.
If
there
is
that
interest
in
with
the
not
of
five,
so
I
guess
I
would
just
say:
do
people
have
any
particular
comments
or
people
in
favor
of
this
approach,
Rachel
and
then
Nicole.
A
Sorry
I'm
a
little
chatty
tonight.
One
thing
is
I
would
like
to
hear
councilmember
wallach's
feedback
on
it
because
he's
out
sick
tonight,
so
that
it
would
bum
me
out
if
we
did
this
in
a
way
that
we
didn't
get
his
voice
because
I
think,
if
we're
sending
this,
it
should
be
unanimous
and
then
the
second
is
in
terms
of
expand
permanently
Supportive
Housing
across
the
county.
A
I
I
wish
that
had
us
a
definition
that
I
could
believe
in
like
it's
not
to
me
for
in
a
lot
of
cases,
it's
not
enough
to
have.
You
know
an
hour
a
week
of
psh,
so
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
definition
that
tethers
to
that
or
not.
But
you
know,
if
we're
asking
them
to
spend
on
psh
I,
think
I
would
want
it
spent
in
the
way
that
I'm
thinking
of
it,
which
is
like
meaningfully
supporting
with
a
substantial
number
of
hours
for
people
who
need
it.
Z
Yeah,
you
know
I
think
with
this,
with
this
ballot
measure
and
thinking
about
how
to
spend
this
money.
The
Commissioners
have
been
working
on
it
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
that
some
of
this
you
know
for
five
or
six
years
ago,
was
done
in
partnership
with
the
city
and
and
to
help
us
meet
some
of
our
affordable
housing
need
I
would
rather
not
tie
the
endorsement
or
our
council's
endorsement
of
this
measure
to
the
sort
of
list
of
demands.
Z
I
mean
I,
think
the
Commissioners
are
already
doing
and
working
towards
some
of
these
things
I
would
I'm
not
at
all
opposed
to
the
idea
of
giving
them
some
feedback
and
information
on
what
it
is,
we're
seeing
what
we
would
like
to
see
more
of.
But
for
me
that
is
a
separate
issue
from
support
of
this
ballot
measure,
which
is
going
to
give
us
some
really
needed,
affordable
housing
opportunities,
including
permanent
Supportive,
Housing
and
I.
Z
T
F
It
as
we
endorse
it,
but
what
we're
also
asking
for
for
you
to
do
these
things
Bob,
do
you
have
a
thought
there.
K
Yeah
I
agree
with
you:
Aaron
I
think
that
that
Matt's
done
a
good
job
of
of
separating
the
endorsement
from
our
list
of
requests.
I,
don't
think
it's
a
conditional
endorsement,
I
think
it's
an
endorsement
and
then
it's
a
series
of
suggestions
that
we
would
make
the
Commissioners
if
the
ballot
measure
passes
so
I
I
think
you're
right,
Aaron.
Z
So
Matt
it's
not
like
if
we,
we
will
only
endorse
it.
If
you
agree
to
these
things,.
B
But
it
is
not
it's
just
about
as
it's
as
strong
of
a
of
of
imploring
them
without
making
it
conditional.
So
the
the
goal
is
to
get
up
to
that
line
without
Crossing
it,
because
that
change
is
obviously
impact
of
things,
but
it's
to
be
as
strong
as
possible
in
imploring
their
action
on
these
fronts.
F
F
Stuff:
okay,
other
other
thoughts,
specific
thoughts
on
the
letter,
so
I.
B
F
F
County
and
so
we're
in
favor
of
sending
the
letter
and
then
just
Rachel,
did
you
have
a
specific
language
you
wanted
to
suggest
about
the
psh
or
like
with
significant
wraparound
services
or.
A
Or
I
don't
know
if
there's
just
a
definition
that
applies
maybe,
but
there
must
not
be
because
in
some
cases
we're
not
doing
what
I
would
call
substantial
or
as
needed,
yeah,
substantial
or
significant
would
work
for
me.
B
Happy
to
work
the
language
I
I,
just
just
from
my
I-
was
trying
I.
Just
you
know.
I
was
trying
not
to
get
hyper
prescriptive
because
we
don't
even
have
a
good
definition
for
transitional
housing
and
so
I
was
trying
if
we
got
caught
in
the
definitions
and
they
someone
else
at
a
different
definition.
We
get
caught
up
in
sort
of
chasing
our
tail.
A
Yeah,
so
I
all
I
can
say
is
I
think
we
could
expand
psh
without
meeting
what
I
think
needs
to
happen
and
I
think
we
want
some
language
in
there
that
clarifies
that
that
it's,
you
know
a
meaningful
number
of
hours.
You
know
as
needed
by
the
the
individual.
F
How
about
how
about
this
Rich
word
says:
invest
in
the
programs
and
infrastructure
to
expand
permanently
Supportive
Housing
psh.
After
that
we
had
with
substantial
wraparound
Services,
provided.
C
F
AE
Kurt
fernhawber
housing,
Human
Services,
first
Teresa
do
you?
Are
there
any
concerns
about
how
I
weigh
in
on
this
potential
ballot
initiative.
I
F
S
Point
good
point:
yeah
Kurt,
thanks
for
thanks
for
the
question.
It
would
not
be
appropriate
for
City
stuff
to
take
a
position
on
a
ballot
measure,
particularly
one
that
ends
up
benefiting
us.
So,
even
though
it
is
not
our
ballot
measure,
it
does
benefit
the
city.
S
I.
Think
the
follow-up
question
is,
you
know,
could
so
I
you
could
provide
factual
information
about
the
items
and
so
I
answering
factual
questions
is
fine.
S
If,
if
you'll
permit
me
mayor,
I
I
also
want
to
note
that
Council
hasn't
yet
voted.
I,
don't
believe.
Council
has
directed
staff
about
resolutions
of
support
for
items
on
the
ballot
it
would
not
be.
It
would
not
be
advisable
to
determine
at
this
point
whether
you
will
be
endorsing
a
particular
matter.
So
certainly
you
can
discuss
whether
that
is
an
idea
that
you'd
like
to
continue
exploring,
but
but
but
this
would
not
be
an
official
commitment
to
endorse.
F
P
Well,
I
guess
my
my
main
question
was
around
this
wording
to
the
letter
and
how
do
we
communicate.
F
AE
Sure
we're
well
HUD
does
have
a
definition
of
permanent
Supportive
Housing.
We
could
look
at
that
and
I.
Could
you
know,
send
that
to
you
and
you
could
look
at
maybe
integrating
that
I'll.
Also
just
talk
about
some
of
the
challenges
that
we
have,
that
I
think
you
brought
up
Rachel
as
well,
and
that's
simply
for
some
organizations
simply
having
enough
staff
to
provide
the
services
that
they're
sort
of
committed
to
and
that
we
would
maybe
expect.
AE
So.
That's
just
a
real
life
challenge
that
we're
having
right
now,
you'll
hear
next
week
about
how
we're
addressing
some
of
that
and
then
the
last
week
the
the
state
also
came
out
with
a
definition
that
I
I
believe
talks
about
requiring
a
ratio
of
1
to
15
or
for
case
management.
AE
F
F
Z
I
have
a
question
Kurt.
You
may
be
able
to
answer
this
I'm,
not
totally
sure
it
may
be
more
of
a
question
for
the
commissioner.
So
my
understanding
is,
you
know
this
ballot
measure
is
already
written
approved.
Z
The
first
point
is
talking
about
committing
no
less
than
25
percent
of
the
res
revenues
generated
to
a
specific
type
of
housing.
I
mean
is
that
is
that
anything
that
they
could
do,
given
that
the
ballot
measure
is
already
there
and
I,
don't
think
it's
in
the
ballot
measure?
Can
they
Curt?
Sorry
yeah?
Oh,
oh
I'm.
Sorry,
sorry,
sorry,
sorry!
So
maybe
that's
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
get
question
about
that
to
the
Commissioners,
but
I
think
that
would
be
a
foreign.
I
N
B
I
can
add
some
context.
That
number
was
not
just
pulled
out
of
thin
air
and
it
was
done
so
not
to
pick
a
dollar
number,
because
that
obviously
is
very
project
dependent.
It
was
basically
saying
what
is
what
is:
what
is
a
minimum
amount
of
annual
investment
to
make
meaningful
impacts
in
this
space,
and
that's
where
the
25
percent
came
from
in
terms
of
what
that
would
translate
to
in
dollars.
So
that
was
how
that
number
was.
B
It
was
arrived
at
in
that
context,
and
so
I
felt
I
could
answer
that,
because
Kurt
can't.
Z
B
Sure
they
can
I
mean
they,
they
can
choose
how
to
spend
their
money,
how
they
choose
to
so
this
is
a
choice
for
them.
Obviously
it
won't
be
on
the
front
end
of
a
ballot
measure
passing
because
the
language
is
baked
in
it's.
If
it
passes,
then
we
have
a
discussion
about
how
that
money
is
spent,
and
then
these
are
maybe
some
expectations
or
goals
that.
G
B
Want
to
Aspire
towards
so
that's
where
it
is
and,
of
course,
at
that
point
they
have
absolute
discretion
through
their
partners
and
the
affordable
housing
collaborative
and
Consortium
group
like
that,
so
totally
within
their
purview.
It's
just
a
matter
of
when
does
that
discussion
occur
not
on
the
front
end,
because,
of
course,
the
language
is
the
language.
T
J
Kurt,
what
is
the
current
ratio?
You
said
15
to
1
caseworker
I.
F
Okay,
so
thanks
for
the
discussion,
so
I
guess
I
would
ask
for
the
well.
We
already
got
the
notify
to
send
the
letter
and
people
were
interested
in
Rachel's
change.
I
think
I
saw
a
majority
of
sports,
so
I
think
we've
got
our
direction
of
how
to
proceed
and
then
what
I
might
ask
in
addition
is
so
this
is
a
letter,
but
in
the
we
probably,
we
may
also
want
to
do
a
resolution
of
support,
which
would
be
the
formal
endorsement
of
the
ballot
measure.
F
S
Yes,
mayor,
you
are
I,
I,
see
Jess
that
the
council
might
want
to
consider
if
there
are
any
other
ballot
measures
that
they
would
like
to
introduce
for
support
and
if
so,
I
would
recommend
a
hotline
or
a
request
to
CAC.
Rather,
okay,.
F
So
that
which
is
a
larger
scope,
then
I
think
we
should
be
tackling
tonight.
So
how
about
we
instead
say
people
can
send
CAC
hotline
requests
for
any
ballot
measures.
They
would
like
the
council
to
consider
endorsing,
including
this
one.
F
Okay,
thanks
for
that
keeping
me
in
line
there,
so
okay
I
think
that
that
resolves
it
that
we'll
move
forward
with
that
and
see
it
probably
on
consent
on
October
5th,
so
Matt.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
mistake.
B
Definitions
and
then
I
can
submit
that
back
to
hotline
or
a
hotline
upon
that
and
then
that'll
get
circulated
and
it'll
be
ready
for.
The
fifth
is
that
appropriate,
I.
F
Great
well,
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
even
our
impromptuagenda
items.
Any
final
thoughts,
I'll
just
say:
damn
folks,
we
got
a
lot
done
and
it's
only
10
16.
well
done.
Everybody.