►
From YouTube: City of Boulder City Council Study Session 8-28-18
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
Okay,
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
get
started
tonight
with
a
boulder
city
council
study
session
of
August
28
2018,
and
we
have
two
issues
tonight,
the
first
of
which
is
our
fire.
Our
master
plan
and
we're
great
we're
very
pleased
to
have
the
whole
crew
here
or
at
least
part
of
it,
and
looking
forward
to
hearing
your
presentation
and
having
a
good
conversation,
did
you
want
to
say.
B
Okay,
good
evening,
mayor
members
of
council
for
the
record,
my
Colorado
fire
chief
pleased
to
be
here
this
evening
and
thanks
for
your
attention
to
our
update
on
the
master
plan,
I
brought
with
me
today
to
my
right,
deputy
chief
of
Support
Services
hull
girder,
and
to
his
right,
our
medical
director,
dr.
Shannon,
Sylvan
Dahl,
and
to
his
right
deputy
chief
of
operations,
jeff
long.
So
we're
all
here
to
hopefully
answer
questions.
B
If
you
have
any
and
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
get
right
into
the
plan,
so
one
of
the
start
by
just
kind
of
giving
a
brief
overview
of
the
department
and
just
sort
of
ground
our
discussion
this
evening.
So
if
you
look
at
the
slide,
the
services
that
we
provide
really
run
the
gamut
of
prevention
and
response,
and
starting
on
the
left
side
of
the
table
that
you
see
there.
Those
are
all
of
our
response.
B
Related
services
and
I
won't
go
through
every
single
one
of
them,
but
starting
at
the
home
safety
assessments,
which
is
second
up
from
the
bottom.
On
the
left
and
going
over
to
the
right.
We
have
a
whole
plethora
of
prevention,
related
services
and
we
try
you'll,
see
in
our
presentation.
We've
been
doing
more
and
more
of
that
since
that's
where
the
best
money
really
is
spent
to
try
to
prevent
emergencies
from
happening.
But
we
do
all
of
those
services
with
a
staff
of
124
authorized
FTEs
and
we
broke
it
down
somewhat.
B
We
have
97
firefighters
that
work
across
three
shifts
and
we
have
eight
full-time
wildland
responders
and
then
the
community
risk
team
is
the
team
that
does
most
of
the
right-hand
side
of
that
services
provided
and
then
the
balance
of
the
102
for
our
support
staff
that
aren't
actually
listed
up
there
by
number
quick
facts
about
what
we
protect.
Of
course,
the
twenty
five
point
eight
square
miles
of
the
built
up
portions
of
the
city,
but
we
also,
while
we're
not
the
primary
responders
for
the
open
space,
270,
almost
71
square
miles.
B
We
provide
the
overhead
and
the
coordination
and
assistance
to
the
responders
in
the
county
that
take
care
of
any
fires,
should
they
start
in
open
space
land
which
is
county
land
or
under
county
control.
Actually
so
we
also
put
up
here
the
number
of
training
hours
that
team
delivers,
because
that's
a
big
part
of
what
they
do
not
just
respond
to
fires,
but
actually
train
the
local
responders.
So
we
have
all
the
help
that
we
can
need
regionally
and
one
other
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
before
I
moved
off.
B
The
slide
is
the
fact
that,
even
though
Fire
Rescue
is
our
namesake,
eighty-one
percent
of
our
calls
are
EMS
and
so
emergency
medical
is
a
huge
piece
of
our
response
and
prevention
pie,
really
some
annual
statistics
from
our
last
master-planned,
and
now
you
can
see
that
our
number
of
calls
have
gone
up,
but
what
has
stayed
fairly
consistent
is
the
percentage
of
emergency
medical
incidents,
but
we're
also
really
really
working
hard
on
tracking
now
outcomes.
So
what
you
see
here
are
just
life
safety,
education
participants.
B
So
we
try
to
reach
as
many
people
as
possible
with
our
safety
messages,
but
we're
also
with
working
on
plans
to
get
some
outcomes.
Won't.
We
want
to
know
that
behaviors
are
changing.
Actually
it's.
What
is
what's
important
to
us.
So
here
are
some
of
the
things
we
achieved
since
our
2012
master
plan.
There
was
a
whole
bunch
of
items
in
the
master
plan.
I'll
just
highlight
really
just
the
one
on
the
left.
The
upper
left.
There
talks
about
our
call
triage
system.
B
It
depends
we're
still
working
through
trying
to
drill
down
to
get
to
what
the
most
important
pieces
of
information,
our
location
and
the
nature
of
the
call.
It
really
doesn't
take
a
whole
lot
longer
than
that
to
figure
out
what
type
of
resource
needs
to
go
so
I,
it's
it's
not
intended
to
add
seconds,
but
I
think
it
probably
does
add
a
little
bit
of
time
to
the
call
above
those
two
questions,
because
there
are
some
additional
questions
that
help
to
decide.
B
Whether
do
you
need
an
advanced
life
support
unit,
we'll
talk
about
that
later
in
the
in
the
presentation,
or
do
you
need
just
a
basic
life
support,
or
is
this
just
something
as
simple
as
we
need
somebody
to
come,
help
lift
someone
up
into
their
into
their
bed?
It's
a
it's
a
husband
and
wife
and
they're
older
and
the
wife
can't
help
the
husband.
So
we
will
send
someone
at
times
to
do
that.
B
A
good
question:
we
don't
even
ask
those-
that's
not
part
of
the
question
trees,
so
the
question
tree
is
actually
just
trying
to
get
to
what
is
your.
We
call
it
chief
complaint,
but
what
is
the
main
reason
for
the
call
and
so
there's
and
then
there's
some
sub
questions
that
are
asked
just
to
see?
Is
it
trouble
breathing?
So
it's
just
those
kinds
of
symptomatic
questions
and
then
based
on
that
the
system
automatically
dispatches.
So
that's
that's
the
neat
thing
about
that
system.
B
B
So
some
things
that
we
are
going
to
continue
to
look
at
as
part
of
the
2012
master
plan,
and
now
our
update,
we
learned
as
part
of
one
of
the
goals,
was
secrete
to
look
at
our
fire
stations,
assess
them
and
figure
out
whether
they
were
the
right
size
and
so
on.
Location.
Wasn't
part
of
that.
We
had
a
consultant
actually
study
the
size
of
the
stations
for
all
the
services
we
provide
and,
and
that
recommendation
came
out.
B
I
forget
now
I
think
was
2015
and
basically
show
that
we
have
some
under
sized
infrastructure
and
and
they're
inefficient,
because
they
were
designed
for
basically
a
different
set
of
services.
50
60
years
ago.
We
still
have
a
diversity
in
the
work
force
issue.
That
is
a
nationwide
issue,
but
we
have
it
as
well.
We
were
actually
better
in
the
80s
as
far
as
gender
diversity,
but
we're
just
not
seeing
the
people
in
the
females
on
the
pool
the
candidate
pools.
So
this
is
something
we
want
to
work
on
and
keep
working
on.
B
I
mean
our
master
plan
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
five,
but
one
of
the
other
big
ones
is
that
middle
one
there
yeah
this
is
a
very
stressful
job.
It's
hard
on
the
mind
hard
on
the
body
and
the
heart,
and
you
know
we
want
healthy
firefighters
inside
and
out,
and
we
want
to
do
everything
we
can
to
make
sure
they
have
a
long
and
fruitful
career
and
are
able
to
serve
for
as
many
years
as
possible
here
in
the
city.
So
so
that's
something
we
want
to
look
carefully
at.
B
So
those
are
some
some
of
the
items
that
we
want
to
keep
looking
at
I'm
gonna
shift
now
to
some
of
the
inputs
that
we're
using
for
the
master
plan
update
and
one
of
the
big
things
in
the
2012
master
plan
was
to
create
what
we
call
a
community
risk
assessment
and
an
associated
standard
of
cover
and
I'll.
Explain
what
those
mean
the
risk
assessment
is
essentially
what
you
would
think
it
is.
We
look
at
what's
what
what
threatens
Boulder
and
it
runs
the
gamut.
B
We
all
know
that,
but
this
actually
puts
numbers
and
it
puts
boundaries
and
so
on
and
so
far
it's
pretty
in-depth.
The
two
highlights
that
came
out
of
the
community
risk
assessment,
almost
a
no-brainer
right,
while
fire
and
EMS
those
are
the
big
ones
now.
Ems
is
not
a
localized
disaster,
but
more
of
that
chronic
stressor,
that's
basically
going
to
as
the
community
ages
stress
the
system
more
and
more
as
we
use
the
911
system
as
we
use.
You
know
the
medical
system
in
general.
So
that's
what
we
expect
is
going
to
happen.
B
B
You
can
blame
me,
so
flood
is
a
risk.
It
actually
is
and
there's
a
way
more
risks
actually
included
in
the
standard
of
cover.
We
highlighted
what
we
thought
were
the
two
big
ones,
most
likely
to
effect
in
the
next
three
to
five
years.
The
flood
is
still
something
that
could
happen
any
point
in
the
next
three
to
five
years,
so
it's
still
a
risk
we
have
to
address
in
the
in
the
master
plan.
B
So
just
for
the
sake
of
the
slide,
we
highlighted
the
two
big
ones,
but
flood
is
still
something
we
look
at
for
sure.
So
what
basically
the
standard
of
cover
does?
Is
it
takes
that
risk
and
it
looks
at
the
way
we're
deployed.
It,
looks
at
our
resources
and
says:
hey.
Here's,
your
gaps
and
increasingly
what
the
standard
of
cover
used
to
be
in
the
fire
service
was
a
document
that
just
analyzed
your
reactionary
stuff.
So
just
your
response
related
stuff.
So
are
you?
B
What
are
you
doing
on
the
back
end
of
a
911
call
nowadays
we're
also
looking
at
what
are
you
doing
on
the
front
end
of
a
call
to
actually
change
the
risk
profile
in
the
community
and
that's
a
big
part
of
the
standard
of
cover,
so
prevention
related
activities.
What
are
you
doing?
What
can
you
do
where
the
gaps?
What
are
you
measuring?
What
are
you
not
measuring
response
to
the
EMS
demand?
What
we're
doing
today,
we
we
have
a
certain
system,
that's
in
place
today.
B
Is
it
the
right
one
and
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
and
then,
of
course,
a
discussion
around
building
community
resilience.
That's
a
big
deal,
but
in
this
case
we're
talking
about
the
acute
stressors
like
disaster,
localized
disasters,
kind
of
like
the
floods
or
a
wildfire,
and
then
public
health
concerns
the
longer-term
ones.
The
chronic
stress
is
what
what
role
does
the
fire
play
in
that
with
all
the
other
players
in
the
community?
B
So
this
is
another
piece
of
the
technical
puzzle
that
goes
as
far
as
the
inputs
into
the
master
plan
go
on.
The
left
is
a
depiction
of
the
four
minute
travel
times
from
the
stations.
This
is
you'll
see
a
different
picture
later
on.
This
is
if
they
could
travel
from
the
station
at
the
speed
of
the
posted
speed
limit
with
no
impediments
whatsoever
and
the
moment
they
got
to
the
station,
they
travel
to
speed.
So
it's
a
it's
perfect
world
scenario.
The
real
deal
is
probably
closer
to
the
lighter.
B
Second
color
is
probably
what
they're
more
likely
able
to
cover
in
a
four
minute
travel
time,
but
it's
good.
It's
a
good
input,
it's
good
for
us
to
see
what
that
actually
looks
like,
and
you
can
actually
tell
over
the
way
Boulder
built
out
is
more
based
on
the
old
insurance,
Services
office
standards
and
that's
kind
of
playing
out
here
in
this
picture,
where
they
space
stations
every
mile
and
a
half
just
based
on
rules
of
thumb,
rather
than
actually
looking
at
travel
times
things
and
then
on
the
right.
B
Another
example
from
the
standard
of
cover
is
where
your
incidents
today,
so
the
heat
map
shows,
as
probably
everybody
intuitively
already
knows,
here's
where
all
the
calls
the
9-1-1
center
are
generating
from
and
where
we're
heading
to.
So
you
can
see
in
the
city
core
we're
pretty
stressed
from
those
three
stations
that
are
surrounding
those
are
those
dots,
the
yellow
dots
and
so
those
units
are
get
a
high
volume
of
work,
especially
during
the
school
year.
B
Part
of
the
inputs
to
the
master
plan,
we're
looking
at
the
ems
system
and
how
we're
deployed-
and
this
this
slide
takes
a
little
explaining,
but
fundamentally
what
we
did
was
all
right.
We
deliver
basic
life
support
and
we
contract
out
advanced
life,
support
to
the
ambulance,
company,
AMR
and
right
now,
at
any
one
time,
there's
probably
two
or
three
ambulances
in
the
city.
B
B
So
basic
life
support
is
a
an
emergency
medical
technician
level
that
covers
fundamental
things
like
CPR,
the
application
of
oxygen
being
able
to
splint
injuries
on
the
scene,
so
broken
arms,
and
things
like
that
that
can
applies
to
plants,
so
basic
basic
first-aid
type
care
a
little
little
more
supercharge
than
that
advanced
life
support.
The
fundamental
difference
and
the
medical
director
can
correct
me
when
I'm
wrong
here,
but
the
fundamental
difference
is
really
the
ability
to
use
more
advanced,
cardiac
care
devices
and
to
and
to
push
medications.
So
they
can.
B
They
start
the
IV's
and
they
can
start
on
the
scene,
applying
appropriate
medications
under
medical
control
and
and
that's
the
fundamental
difference
between
the
two
versions,
and
so
what
fire
provides
is
the
basic
piece
and
then,
when
the
ambulance
gets
there,
we
got
the
advanced
level
responder
and
actually
push
the
drugs.
So
you
know
when
it
comes
to
serious
medical
issues
and
so
on,
you're
going
to
want
the
advanced
life
support
there
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
so,
when
the
whitepaper
was
prepared,
we
were
taking
this
idea
of
the
three
station.
B
So
the
red
dots
are
where
the
fire
stations
are
today
and
the
three
in
the
center,
the
core
Center
actually
over,
worked
pretty
hard,
and
the
idea
was
at
some
point
in
the
next
three
to
five
years
or
so.
We're
really
gonna
need
another
unit,
probably
a
small
one,
to
respond
to
the
types
of
medical
emergencies
in
their
full
time.
We
need.
B
Now
we're
changing
it
from
3
2
to
3.
Uhn
is
in
the
city.
What
you
see
there,
ten,
basically
and
the
three
crosses
that
you
see
on
that
map,
would
be
accomplished
by
posting
those
units
during
peak
times,
and
so
what
that
map
is
trying
to
depict
is
by
strategically
locating
them
at
key
times.
You
can
cover
the
city
with
a
four
minute
travel
time
with
advanced
life,
support
within
four
minute
travel
times
for
just
about
every
single
resident.
What.
B
So
a
posting
means
they
won't
be
at
a
fire
station,
they'll
be
at
a
location
where
our
system
anticipates
the
next
call,
so
those
they
would
be
that's
what
they
do
today.
They
don't
actually
have
stations,
the
ambulances
don't
go
back
to
a
station,
they
will
post
at
certain
locations
and
and
where
they
think
the
next
call
is
going
to
come
from
the
part
to
try
to
minimize
the
response
time.
B
B
Do
a
pretty
good
job,
I
would
say
the
AMR
does
a
decent
job
we
are,
but
our
standards
are.
You
need
to
be
there
by
9
minutes.
So
what
we're
saying
here
has
changed
the
nine
minutes,
and
that
includes
that
includes
notification
time
so
change
the
nine
minutes
closer
to
six
minutes.
Total
is
what
we're
what
the
white
paper
was
recommending
bring
it
down,
get
the
advanced
level
responder.
They
are
faster.
The
only
way
to
do
that
is
to
really
up
the
game
of
the
firefighters
and
then
add
some
units
to
the
system.
So.
B
But
this
is
what
folks
are
telling
us
are
important
to
them
stands
to
reason.
Emergency
medical
services
is,
on
everyone's
mind,
wildfire
and
structure.
Fire
are
the
three
big
ones
that
we
noticed.
People
are
really
drilling
down
to,
and
then
we
asked
why.
Why
are
you
know?
What?
What
is
it
that,
in
terms
of
EMS,
what
would
you
be
willing
to
support
I'm?
B
Sorry,
not
that
why
that's
next,
but
the
response
that
we're
getting
is
there
are
many
that
that
really
would
support
this
idea
of
us
playing
a
more
expanded
role
in
delivery
of
EMS
in
terms
of
the
level
of
care
that
we
provide
and
most
would
even
consider
supporting
additional
funding.
Of
course,
that's
the
magic
question.
Well,
how
much
and
and
that's
what
we
have
a
consultant
working
on
right
now
to
verify
some
numbers
and
update
the
ones
that
we
put
in
the
white
paper.
But
here's
what
this
is
the
Y
piece.
We
asked
why.
B
Why
would
you
support
ALS
and
the
number
one
reason
is
lower
average
response
times.
I
think
people
are
agreeing
that
yeah.
It
would
be
great
to
have
the
ER
come
to
me
in
six
minutes
or
less
and
okay
and
then
a
second.
The
numbers
to
reason
is
actually
did
see
that
it's
based
on
that
I
think
that
one
slide
shows
a
greater
number
of
advanced
life
support.
B
Units
in
the
city
can
only
be
good
if,
if
they're
closer
to
me,
it
stands
to
reason,
they'd
be
able
to
get
to
me
faster
and
the
last
piece
is
I
know:
I,
didn't
think
people
understood
this,
but
basically
they
would
they
want
the
same
paramedic
who
meets
them
on
the
scene
originally
to
go
with
them
all
the
way
to
the
hospital,
the
handoff
to
the
ER,
doc
and
nurses.
So
so
that
was
an
important
factor
for
people
to
don't
hand
me
off
two
and
three
times
to
get
before
I
get
to
the
hospital.
B
So
here's
our
focus
areas
that
we
believe
are
the
areas
we
should
be
looking
at
for
the
2018
update,
education
and
Prevention
and
anything
and
everything
we
can
do
to
leverage
community
partnerships.
So
the
stuff
that's
already
happening
in
our
region,
the
the
the
organizations
that
are
doing
good
things.
How
does
fire
play
a
role
with
them
and
work
with
them?
B
Obviously
optimizing
our
deployment
based
on
our
standards
of
cover
and
the
risk
is
an
important
piece
and
that's
really
a
discussion
about
people
assets
and
even
some
community
assets
like
the
water
supply
or
utilities.
How
does
that
play
a
role?
And
how
do
we
look
at
that
and
in
a
disaster
environment?
And
that
kind
of
thing
and
the
last
piece
is
then
this
this
concept
of
a
fire
based
advanced
life,
support?
It's
provided
now
in
the
city,
but
is
the
level
of
advanced
life
support
appropriate
for
for
this
community?
B
And
so
this
takes
us
to
where
we
are
now.
We
are
gonna.
Continue
our
community
engagement.
The
pilot
continues
through
towards
the
end
of
the
year,
pretty
much
we're
gonna
shift
our
focus
to
an
internal
stakeholder
engagement
around
October,
so
that's
kind
of
the
timeframe
there
and
then
our
EMS
consultant
is
like
I,
said,
updating
numbers
looking
at
options
and
going
to
make
a
recommendation.
B
The
next
30
to
60
days
on
some
some
possible
routes
that
we
could
take
and
hopefully
not
break
the
bank
in
doing
that,
and
then
winter
after,
like
December
and
Beyond,
we're
looking
at
a
draft
plan
for
our
master
plan
and
then
presentation
through
the
process,
the
planning
board
and
then
back
in
front
of
you
all,
hopefully
in
spring
of
2019,
for
implementation
later
in
the
year
and
into
2020.
So
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
in
the
process
and
then
I'll
take
me
to
our
final
slide
and
that
I'll.
B
Just
summarize
these
because
I
know
you've,
read
them
and
see
them
for
yourself,
but
we're
really
asking
your
feedback
on
our
progress
from
the
old
of
the
2012
master
plan
as
we've
described
it,
and
if
you
have
any
feedback
for
us
on
the
community
risk
assessment
or
standards
to
cover
those
are
big
documents.
I
know
it's
a
big
read:
we
posted
them
even
on
the
website,
but
but
it's
a
lot
of
technical
stuff
in
there
and
then
do
you,
support
continued
exploration
of
this
idea
of
improving
the
level
event
of
advanced
life.
Support.
B
F
Thank
You
chieftain,
okay,
appreciate
that,
could
you
go
back
to
the
slide,
please
that
had
the
red,
dots
and
blue
crosses
believe
that
is
that
one
right
there?
Okay!
So
if
we're
talking
about
moving
to
fire
based
advanced
life
support,
can
you
walk
us
through
like
what
kind
of
personnel
and
vehicles
are
at
each
of
those
spots
and.
B
Let
me
start
with
the
the
the
trucks,
so
I
would
say
that
the
three
crosses
for
sure
would
be
smaller
vehicles,
so
those
would
be
is
what
we're
hoping
the
consultant
will
confirm
for
us,
where
they
could
be
an
SUV.
They
could
be,
but
capable
of
transport
and
in
a
dire
emergency.
We'd
still
have
an
ambulance.
I
suspect
they
could
be
a
Melissa's
too
I.
B
We
don't.
We
don't
actually
have
a
smaller
vehicle
that
the
station's
couldn't
even
accommodate
one
if
we
had
if
we
bought
one.
So
that's
I
hope
that
helps
so.
The
red
dots
would
probably
the
bigger
units,
with
the
exception
of
maybe
one
of
the
red
dots
we
could
put
a
smaller
unit
in
one
of
those
and
then
the
the
blue
crosses
would
be
the
small
smaller
trucks,
either
an
ambulance
or
an
SUV.
What
we
call
a
chase
car,
something
like
that.
So
that's
what
we
envision
and
the.
F
B
Would
we
have
room
the
station?
One
can
barely
read
it
there,
but
it's
the
second.
If
you
had
North
on
the
left,
there
that's
station
one,
it's
the
farthest
west
station
and
then
hopefully
we
can
build
our
new
station
three
and
have
enough
room
to
accommodate
that
there
as
well
and
with
some
maneuvering.
We
could
accommodate
it
at
Station
two,
but
I.
B
F
B
Vision,
so
in
the
vision,
what
we
would,
what
the
white
paper
basically
suggested
is-
and
you
can
weigh
in
on
this
doc
you
like,
but
you
don't
stand
up
an
ALS
system
overnight
with
green
paramedics
and
so
the
the
smarter
way
to
do
it
is
to
start
training
in
the
core
areas
of
the
city.
So
you'd
have
responders
in
the
first
three
stations
and
then
build
out
from
there
to
a
point
where
then
every
station
has
the
paramedic
level
responders
with
the
appropriate
equipment.
B
There's
a
few
ways
to
work
that
as
well.
If
we
move
to
an
ALS
model
and
I'm
speaking
before
I
even
have
the
the
consultants
final
words
here
so,
but
my
knowledge
of
the
system
is
basically
we'd,
be
able
to
use
them
in
a
basic
life.
So
we'd
turn
it
upside
down.
So
the
advanced
life
support
responders
would
be
all
over
the
city
and
the
ambulance
providers
would
be
the
ones
that
hold
BLS
license
the
basic
life
support
and
and
the
only
time
we
would
really
need
the
the
boss.
B
So
the
transport
capability
is
when
the
paramedic
on
the
scene
says:
we've
got
to
have
that
here
or
the
nature
of
the
call
says,
go
ahead
and
run
the
ambulance,
because
we're
pretty
sure
when
the
paramedic
stabilizes
the
patient
or
gets
going
there
they're
going
to
need
to
get
in
the
ambulance
and
go.
But
we
can
still
work
with
a
private
company
to
do
that
part
of
the
system.
We
don't
actually
have
to
take
over
the
ambulances
to
up
our
advanced
life
support
coverage.
H
I
feel
it's
open
to
all
them
that
medical
director,
so
thanks
for
having
me
excited
to
be
at
the
City
Council
meeting.
The
way
that
you
that
I
think
we
should
look
at
this
is
we're
looking
at
the
overall
level
of
service,
so
currently
Boulder
City
Fire
offers
BLS,
which
is
basic
life
support.
Those
are
those
basic
interactions.
That's
what
happens
when
a
fire
truck
shows
up
you
get
basic
life
support
the
next
level
up
from
that
is
ALS,
advanced
life
support,
and
that
is
advanced
care.
H
Advanced
interventions,
advanced
medications,
so
think
about
this
as
a
basic
system,
an
advanced
life
support
system
and
then
is
a
transport
system.
So
there's
three
different
tiers
to
this:
there's
hands-on
initial
care,
advanced
life
support
and
then
transferring
a
patient
from
scene
to
the
hospital,
and
so
that
the
way
that
we
look
at
that
and
where
we
move
with
this,
has
different
options
and
that's
why,
when
you
say
one
of
those
crosses
or
what
are
these
represent,
what
I
say
when
I
look
at
this?
H
Is
that
what
we're
suggesting
in
that
white
paper
is
moving
from
a
BLS
service,
basic
life
support
service
to
an
ALS
service
so
that
there
are
more
positions
across
the
city?
An
advanced
life
support
provider
puts
their
hands
on
you
at
a
rapid
time
interval.
So
we're
cutting
down
that
response
to
give
you
advanced
life
support.
H
The
next
question,
then,
is:
how
do
we
get
you
from
where
we
are
to
the
hospital
and
whether
that
is
a
contracted
private
entity
such
as
an
EMR
or,
if
that's
in-house,
meaning
that
you
own
Amy
Lewis's
as
a
city?
That
is
the
kind
of
the
next
step
on
the
conversation
so
I
think
when
we're
discussing
this
it
is,
you
know,
a
little
bit
clearer
to
say
what
are
we
talking
with
the
level
of
care
and
transport
as
three
different
things:
BLS
ALS
transport,
and
so
we're
we're
mixing
those
together
here
and.
H
So
the
white
paper
makes
that
you
know
recommendation
from
us
reviewing
it.
We
have
the
consultant,
that's
going
to
give
input
as
well.
What
my
push
is
my
opinion
is,
is
that
you
know
I
want
to
have
that
ALS
care
provided
to
the
community,
meaning
I
live
in
Boulder.
What
is
the
level
what's
the
standard
of
the
communities
around
us?
H
F
G
B
E
So
I
was
just
gonna
it's
right
along
your
lines
of
Costin.
If
we
look
on
page
166
of
the
packet
and
that's
attachment
C,
that
is
the
white
paper
that
evaluated
this
I
wanted
to
make.
Or
does
this
get
it
Cindy's
question?
And
so
my
question
is
you
show
in
here
your
four
differences
between
status
quo,
which
I
assume
is
today
and
gradual
implementation,
which
I
assume
means
we're
moving
towards
advanced
life,
support
and
transport
system?
E
That,
and
so
the
question
is,
it
shows
a
net
annual
difference
of
about
a
hundred
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
a
year.
Is
that
a
number
that
you
feel
I
mean?
Does
that
include
amortize
in
the
trucks
I
mean?
How
do
you
does
it?
Have
the
trucks
bothersome
lump
sum
I
mean?
Can
you
tell
us
how
you
got
to
those
numbers
because
they're
very
interesting
and
important
numbers,
one.
B
Of
the
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
make
sure
we
all
understand
built
into
that
that
spreadsheet
is
the
white
paper
proceeded
from
the
assumption
that,
because
the
centralized
companies
are
overworked,
you're
going
to
need
one
anyway
in
the
next
three
to
five
years,
so
we're
gonna
need
an
additional
unit.
We
were
I
am
certain
that
the
master
plan
would
say,
add
a
unit
to
relieve
the
burden
in
the
central
core
area
of
the
city,
and
that
would
be
the
three
firefighters
per
shift.
B
I
would
prefer
that
it
not
be
an
engine
but
an
extra
engine,
meaning
the
big
huge,
big
red
truck
but
a
smaller
vehicle,
but
it
makes
almost
no
sense
to
just
put
them
as
a
basic
life
support.
If
we're
already
going
to
go
there,
the
white
paper
basically
said
we
should
probably
look
at
an
advanced
life
support
model
instead
of
the
reason-
and
this
part
I
did
not
mention-
is
the
advantage
to
doing
this
as
opposed
are.
What
we
do
today
is.
B
This
is
an
all-hazards
response,
so
this
is
not
just
oh,
you
get
an
advanced
level,
responder
98%
coverage
of
the
city
and
four
minutes
travel
time
or
less.
This
is
for
all
hazards.
The
system
that
we
have
today
basically
says
for
EMS,
my
AMR,
all
I
can
use
them
for
is
EMS
related
calls
granted
that's
eighty
percent
of
our
calls,
but
the
other
20%
you
got
four
minute
travel
time
covers
ninety-eight
percent
of
the
city,
that's
a
big
difference
than
what
we
have
to.
E
B
Leads
me
to
the
cost
piece,
so
the
reason
that
the
the
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
cent-
so
it
includes
all
of
the
expected
replacement
pieces
of
the
puzzle
and
I,
and
you
guys
ought
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
but
I,
believe
we
made
them
basically
a
man.
This
is
what
we
we
had
decided.
They
would
be
so
we
we,
we
funded
the
replacement
as
an
ambulance.
B
It's
obviously
going
to
be
cheaper
if
it
were
if
they
were
a
different
type
of
unit,
but
that
was
the
assumption
made
and
the
cost,
so
the
one
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
dollar
difference
also
does
not
assume
that
AMR
is
going
to
come
back
and
keep
upping
the
rates
that
the
subsidy
that
we
pay
them
for
the
living
wage
piece.
I,
don't
expect
that
to
stay
where
it's
at
today,
and
so
we
did
not
factor
that
into
that
mix.
B
We
simply
just
said:
okay,
here's,
here's
what
it
looks
like
and-
and
we
believe
this-
what
we're
asking
the
consultant
to
do
as
well
update
our
numbers,
because
these
are
two
years
old
now
at
least,
and
so
we
want
them
to
update
the
numbers.
Make
sure
that
they
verify
invalidate
what
was
put
together
here
and
evaluate
options
for
going
to
this,
or
some
hybrid
of
this,
that
does
not
break
the
bank,
but
there
are
capital
costs,
because
the
way
our
we're
still
gonna
have
to,
regardless
of
whether
we
change
anything
about
our
system.
B
All
of
our
stations
based
on
our
needs
assessment
need
to
be
upgraded,
updated.
Some
of
them
need
to
be
relocated.
That's
that's.
That's
been
an
issue
for
us
for
a
long
time,
but
if
we're
gonna
start
doing
these
having
these
discussions
about
our
stations,
then
we
really
should
look
about
look
at
the
types
of
services
that
are
being
provided
and
whether
or
not
we
have
an
opportunity
to
change
that
level,
and
that's
really
the
the
idea
here.
So
the.
A
H
Let
me
maybe
just
to
to
clarify
that
question,
because
that
sounds
you
know
to
make.
These
numbers
figure
is,
is
what
you're,
taking
into
account?
Is
that
we're
paying
a
subsidy
paying
a
subsidy
for
an
ALS
service
right?
So
we
pay
some
money
to
have
someone
transport
our
patients
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
we
made
the
assumption
that
we're
going
to
need
more
units
to
respond
to
all
hazards
which
is
an
additional
engine.
H
So
that's
the
second
piece
and
then
the
third
piece
of
this
is
that
whenever
you
transport
a
patient
in
an
ambulance
to
the
hospital,
that
is,
there's
a
reimbursement
for
that,
and
so
a
mark
Lex
that
private
company
collects
that
if
you
were
making
that
a
public
service,
the
public
can
decide
whether
they're
gonna
continue
that
fee
structure
or
provide
it.
So
when
you
are
looking
at
these
numbers,
that's
what
we're
trying
to
compare
we're
trying
to
keep
all
those
things
equal,
which
means
you
know,
reimbursement,
cost
of
additional
unit
and
subsidy.
B
Yeah
I
was
going
to
go
there
I'm,
so
basically,
I
was
gonna,
say
that
costs
are
offset
by
patient
revenue.
So
that's
what's
embedded
in
the
in
the
spreadsheet,
so
it
we
use
the
mr-s
number
at
the
Tamar's
numbers
at
the
time.
They're
now
collecting,
probably
around
I,
think
for
the
community,
total
I
know
it's
between
8
and
9
million
dollars
a
year.
That's
their
gross
receipts
for
911
Sports
is
a
little
hazy.
They
don't
break
it
out
for
us
like
that,
I'm
guessing
between
6
and
7
million
a
year
they're
making
off
patient
revenue.
B
Then
they
collect
our
five
hundred
thirty
five
thousand,
that
we
paid
them
and
now
they're
gonna
collect
another
350
plus
thousand
from
the
county
to
do
the
same
thing
for
the
county,
so
so
they're
they're
collecting
all
the
revenue
right
now
and
we're
helping
them.
Stop
the
clock
so
we're
kind
of
already
helping
what
we
are.
Definitely
subsidizing
them
in
a
real
way,
but
we've
always
subsidized
a
private
ambulances
response
system
by
providing
this
first
unit
stop
the
time
kind
of
thing.
E
E
A
G
E
G
B
Don't
we
assume
that
we
did
so
we
assume
that
either,
as
as
the
doctor
was
saying,
we'd
charge,
it's
just
a
flat
fee,
structor,
multiple
ways
to
fund
the
system
through
patient
revenue,
some
set
up
a
separate
fee.
That's
actually
one
of
the
questions
in
our
survey
to
the
community.
How
would
how
do
you
think
it
should
be
funded?
B
Others
do
what
AMR
is
doing
today.
It's
it's
basically
patient
care
revenue.
Usually
it's
an
insurance
company
or
Medicare
Medicaid
part
of
the
challenges.
Medicare
and
Medicaid
only
only
reimbursed
about
30
percent
of
the
true
cost
of
all
the
transports,
and
so
we're
where
most
ambulance
services
make
their
money
is
not
actually
a
911
service.
It's
an
inter-facility
transfers,
so
they
you
know
taking
them
from
here
and
moving
them
down
to
Denver.
B
B
G
My
I
guess
my
longer
range
question
is
when,
if
eighty
two
percent
or
eighty
one
percent
of
that
your
response
responses,
our
EMS,
when
did
this
shifts
so
dramatically
to
fire
becoming
the
first
responder
for
this
kind
of?
Did
it
begin
with
a
911
calls
or
I
mean
this
is
so
just
kind
of
different
right?
Is.
B
Probably
in
the
service
in
general,
in
the
country,
the
shift
actually
started
happening
in
the
60s
and
70s,
and
you
saw
the
real
stark
contrast
in
the
80s.
But
if
you
remember,
the
old
was
the
name
of
the
show
emergency
the
squad
51.
That
was
well
ahead
of
its
time.
Those
guys
were
paramedics,
but
that
was
those
were
firefighters,
doing
that
that's
back
in
the
70s,
but
the
real
shift
was
around
the
60s
when
they
started
taking
over
EMS.
B
G
H
Yes,
ma'am
rec,
so
we
were
talking
about
those
levels
service
that
BLS
service,
the
LS
service.
Those
are
reimbursed
either
one
of
the
service
in
itself
offered
from
a
fire
department.
It's
the
transport,
and
that
is
a
fixed
rate
by
Medicaid
Medicare.
So
that's
not
something
that
a
city
essentially
says
we're
gonna
set
our
own
rate
for
that.
That's
just
essentially
set
so
whether
you're,
you
know
an
AMR
or
Company
B
you're,
getting
reimbursed
for
a
certain
amount
at
a
fixed
rate
that
Medicare
deems
is
the
rate.
H
So
that's
why,
when
we
look
at
the
calls
we
can
say
we
know
what
percentage
of
a
reimbursement
happens
for
a
call,
because
that's
said
by
the
government,
essentially
so
again,
when
a
fire
department
takes
over
that
transport.
It
is
customary
that
that
fire
department-
and
there
are
exceptions,
but
more
often
than
not,
that
fire
department
will
recoup
the
Medicare
Medicaid
rate
for
transport,
that's
different
than
when
the
fire
department
responds
to
fire
right
and
there's
no
bill.
G
H
G
B
It's
it's
not
it's
as
black
and
white,
as
you
might
think,
particularly
when
you
go
to
a
fire
based
EMS
because
of
the
All
Hazards
piece
of
it.
Since
we
convert
firefighter
slash
rescue
technicians
to
emergency
medical
technician,
paramedics,
they
now
do
it
all
there,
so
they're
their
full
range
of
services,
and
it's
not
just
EMS,
so
to
split
the
cost
off
and
say
this
is
just
the
EMS
piece.
Is
a
lot
harder
to
do
and
ask
a
community
hey?
Were
you
able
to
recoup
the
cost?
B
My
best
guess
is
most
places
if
you
were
able
to
do
that
mental
exercise,
I
would
guess
you're
looking
at
between
50
to
60%
of
the
expenses
to
up
the
level
of
service
to
that
you're
recovering
from
patient
revenue.
That's
a
guess
and
we're
hoping
the
consulta
can
help
a
little
bit
with
that
information
for
us,
but
I
would
never
ever
say
we're
gonna
get
one
for
$1
back
based
on
patient
care
revenue.
I
J
We've
been
talking
about
cost
and
whether
or
not
this
would
end
up
in
the
black
or
possibly
in
the
red.
I
really
want
to
caution
us
not
to
get
tied
to
the
numbers
that
are
in
the
white
paper.
The
white
paper
was
not
done
with
the
kind
of
rigor
that
I
think
we
are
seeing
from
our
consultant
and,
as
Michael
already
pointed
out,
it's
2
years
old.
So
we
are
waiting
to
get
that
consultants
report
before
we
bring
more
accurate
numbers
forward.
J
H
I
was
going
to
comment
that
providing
EMS
at
providing
a
subsidized
EMS
service,
whether
you're
paying
a
private
company
or
the
fire
department.
When
you
choose
the
level
of
service,
you
want
that's
a
level
of
service
that
we're
choosing
it's
not
a
model
of
income
or
revenue.
So
we
we
make
a
model.
We
say
there
is
revenue
to
be
obtained
from
transporting
patients,
but
that
doesn't
offset
the
costs.
H
So
I
wouldn't
leave
this
meeting
and
ever
think
that,
essentially,
this
is
a
good
business
decision
to
make
money,
you're
choosing
a
service
level,
and
so,
if
you
want
to
say,
I
want
to
pay
for
ALS
service
I
want
to
pay
for
someone,
that's
a
paramedic
to
show
up,
and
in
this
amount
of
time
that's
gonna
cost
you
a
certain
amount
of
money
and
that's
what
we're
talking
about
in
this
discussion.
So
it's
a
community
decision.
H
It's
a
community
choice
to
say
what
level
of
service
do
we
want
and
how
much
are
we
willing
to
pay
for
that
service?
So
again,
I
want
to
be
clear
that
we're
not
sitting
here
saying
that
this
is
I,
think
we
gotta
evening
or
making
money.
That
is
not
what
this
service
does.
It
is
a
level
of
service
the
same
as
the
fire
department
of
responding
to
a
fire
you're
having
an
insurance
policy
for
a
bad
event.
Okay,.
A
E
Questions
actually
gonna
go
back
to
Jane,
because
my
I'm
looking
on
page
176
of
the
packet-
and
it
seems
like
many
many
peer
departments-
do
fire
based
EMS
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
checklist
and
then
you've
got
Denver,
which
has
it's
interesting
mix
where
you've
got
Denver
health
that
runs
the
paramedic
service
and
you've
got
the
fire
service
run
by
Denver
so
Jane.
Why
did
you
say
that
many
other
cities
don't
have
as
positive
and
experienced
because
my
my
perspective
is
a
little
different,
I'm
curious?
What
you
thank
you
well.
J
It
depends
what
how
you
define
positive
experience
so
from
from
my
point
of
view,
it's
a
great
service
and
those
cities
that
have
selected
that
service.
It
is
a
good
service
for
the
community.
The
cost
of
it
is
high
and
it
is
subsidized,
in
my
opinion,
based
on
other
cities,
that
I've
been
in
by
tax
dollars
and
that's
a
fine
choice
for
the
community
and
account
to
make.
But
this
is
not
a
free
service
and
it
isn't
you
don't
recoup
its
cost
from
charging
patients.
J
So,
oh,
the
only
point
that
I
was
trying
to
make
is
that
I
felt,
like
the
white
paper
presented
a
rosy
picture
that
all
we
need
to
do
is
come
up
with
a
hundred
and
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
and
bingo
we're
gonna
be
able
to
afford
this
I.
Don't
think!
That's
true
and
that's
why
I
am
anxious
to
receive
the
report
of
the
consultant
that
we've
hired
to
actually
look
at
it
in
more
detail.
C
B
C
B
So
I
believe
it
will
be
an
additional
expenditure
after
we
negotiate
what
it
would
do
to
up
their
level
of
training.
It
is
not
a
provision
in
the
current
contract,
even
though,
when
we
just
the
firefighters
just
approved,
we
would
have
to
negotiate
what
that
would
mean
for
them
and
that
I
think
that
also
is
covered.
There's
a
discussion
piece
and
the
white
paper.
You
can't
really
get
to
that
without
some
sort
of
contractual
negotiation
that
says:
okay.
B
A
D
B
They'll
be
treated
regardless.
That's
that's!
Never
the
issue
on
the
treatment
side
of
the
house
on
the
bills
side
of
the
house.
A
lot
of
cities
will
set
up
intogen
if
they're
running
a
if
they're
running
the
ambulance
service
is
part
of
the
fire,
the
city
services,
then
they'll
they'll
set
up
some
sort
of
indigent
claim
kind
of
process.
The
other
thing
that
a
lot
of
private
a
melissa's
do
is
they'll.
They
they
just
like
any
other
company,
they'll
age,
the
receivables
and
then
they'll
eventually
write
it
off
completely.
H
Care
doesn't
the
care
you
know
from
the
ambulance
to
the
ER.
Obviously
we
don't.
We
don't
ask
insurance
before
someone's
treated
they're
just
treated
for
the
level
of
care
inherent
in
the
numbers
that
the
companies
utilize
for
reimbursement.
We
know
what
that
percentage
is
based
on
populations,
so
meaning
that
person
you
can
have
a
program
to
give
them
a
bill
or
not.
That's
that's
one
program,
but
inherent
in
what
you
know
you
collect,
as
he's
quoted
thirty
five
percent
of
a
bill.
H
K
K
10%
10%,
and
does
the
city
receive
any
reimbursement
from
the
University
for
that
not
for
that?
Okay,
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
you
Jane
do
we
do
we
have
any
status
on
one
university
towns
that
have
big
populations
of
students
where
the
fire
department
responds
to
calls
on
campus
about
how
cities
or
whether
cities
get
reimbursed
there.
J
Are
a
number
of
cities
that
have
large
campuses
that
do
get
reimbursed
I
believe
that
we've
had
a
conversation
about
this
chief
called
Erazo
in
the
past
and
an
example
might
be
Palo
Alto,
which
is
reimbursed
by
Stanford
University
in
a
payment
in
lieu
of
taxes.
But
there
are
a
number
of
others
and
the
fire
department
has
that
information.
L
So
I
can
give
you
some
specifics
about
that.
Keep
in
mind.
First
of
all,
stanford
is
a
private
university,
of
course,
but
they're
currently
at
23%
of
the
fire
department's
funding
comes
from
stanford
university
under
contract.
So
that's
the
model
in
Fort
Collins,
which
is
our
closest
university
town.
There
is
no
subsidy
from
the
campus
for
the
fire
protection
services
or
for
EMS,
and
the
EMS
system
is
driven
by
patient
transport
fees.
The
way
the
rest
of
the
community
is
but
I
do
know.
Other
communities
do
have
systems
like
that
set
up.
L
There's
word
to
the
wise
on
that.
Obviously,
when
you're
entering
into
that
type
of
financial
relationship
with
another
institution,
it's
not
always
as
stable
as
a
funding
source
as
it
might
seem
on
the
on
the
front
end
matter
of
fact,
Palo
Alto
found
that
out
recently
were
because
of
the
demand
in
Palo
Alto
proper
versus
the
campus
changed
over
time.
L
The
university
approached
the
city
to
renegotiate
that
contract
and
that
resulted
in
a
net
reduction
of
almost
two
million
dollars
into
the
city
revenue
in
Palo
Alto
and
that
caused
a
redeployment
of
that
entire
ILS
system.
So
it's
a
complicated
issue,
but
I
would
definitely
think
that
it's
something
that
we
should
explore
to
really
holistically.
Look
at
the
issue
and.
J
H
Of
that
students,
so
if
we
have
a
call
or
All
Hazards
response
that
doesn't
transport,
then
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here.
If
they're
transported,
every
Cu
student
is
required
to
have
either
so
uses
insurance
or
private
insurance.
So
the
transport
component
for
the
EMS
is
a
separate
entity
of
it.
How.
A
Are
we
good?
Can
you
solve
back
up
the
questions
that
we
were
sure
answer
in
this
five
minutes?
We
have
do
we
have
questions.
We've
we've
asked
a
lot
of
questions.
I.
Think
the
question
number
three
I
guess
it
seems
like
yes,
but
does
anybody
disagree
with
the
further
exploration
of
fire-based
advanced
life
support?
It
seems
like
kind
of
I,
don't
want
to
say
a
no-brainer,
but
like
an
obvious
thing
to
explore
everybody
disagreement,
yeah,
okay!
Yes,
the
preliminary
master
plan
focus
areas
are.
A
M
Just
have
one
question
with
regards
to
I
mean
this
isn't
quite
within
this
slide,
but
within
the
eight
wildland
firefighters
that
we
have
are
all
of
the
city,
firefighters
red-carded,
so
they
can
all
jump
on
if
needed,
for
almost
all
of
them,
but
the
majority
of
most
working.
So
if
there
was
kind
of
some
kind
of
big
blow
up
on
the
Front,
Range
we'd
have
the
ability
to
right
transferred.
Yes,.
B
E
Now,
wait
till
we
get
the
numbers,
but
another
thought
I
had
when
I
was
talking
with
shin
and
about
a
holistic
approach,
and
this
is
what
I
think
they
mean
when
they're
talking
about
all
hazards.
In
other
words,
what
happens
if
there
is
a
terrorist
attack
in
Boulder?
What
happens
if
there's
a
chemical,
an
accident
in
Boulder?
E
E
Having
a
few
sessions
where
you
think
about
risk-
and
you
say
okay
well-
where
would
be
meeting
points
that
we
want
to
sign
and
talk
about
where
people
in
these
events
who
are
capable
of
lending
aid
go?
How
do
we
know
who
the
doctors
and
the
nurses
are
in
the
area?
Is
there
a
way
to
be
in
touch
with
them
or
to
give
them
a
place
to
go
so
that
they
can
lend
the
hand
in
these
situations?
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
stress
that
I
think
there's
a
big
opportunity
if
we
are
going
forward
with
some
community
planning
to
tie
in
some
kind
of
basic
level
resilience.
Conversation
with
that
and
I
thought
that
this
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
It
actually
ties
back
into.
You
know
how
broadly
your
advanced
life
support
is
deployed.
So
if
we
did
have
people
in
different
parts
of
the
city
and
there
were
losses
of
connectivity
in
the
city,
so
it
was
harder
to
transport.
J
The
development
of
a
training
program
for
residents
called
better
together.
That
came
out
of
some
conversations
that
we
actually
had
with
Wellington
New
Zealand,
which
is
one
of
the
hundred
resilient
cities,
and
we
talked
with
them.
We
brought
them
in
and
then
we
developed
our
program
that
has
been
delivered
to
a
number
of
groups
of
residents
in
the
city.
We
had
asked
United
Way
to
work
on
it
this
year
and
there
they're
doing
that.
J
We're
bringing
a
back
in
house
in
2019
and
the
fire
department
is
very
resilient
and
I'm
hopeful
that
that
are
together
can
be
a
real
standard
of
operation
that
what
neighborhoods
wouldn't
be
able
to
receive
training
around
that.
So
we're
very
proud
of
this
program,
and
we
hope
that
we
can
expand
it
as
you're
talking
about
Sam.
C
F
You
know
so
that
building
of
the
people
who
know
that
they
can
talk
to
each
other,
they
can
talk
to
the
fire
department
and
encourage
those
community
partnerships
that
make
our
community
more
resilient
on
all
those
different
levels,
so
I
think
you're
doing
great
work
there
and
I
think
that
could
continue
could
continue
to
be
a
focus
area.
Yeah
Cindy.
A
G
Everybody
loves
the
fire
department
right,
everybody
loves
the
fire.
Foot
I
was
saying,
see,
yeah,
what's
popular
guys,
yeah
I
was
someone
pointed
out
to
me
that
in
this
bowl
city
of
Boulder
report
august/september,
you
have
you're
in
this.
At
the
very
end,
you
talk
about
housing,
distant
density
and
the
changes
of
that
in
the
city
and
how
those
kinds
of
impacts
may
affect
the
fire
department.
Would
you
just
say
a
few
things
about
that
as
well,
since
we're
sure.
B
B
The
the
other
issue
is
access,
if
they're
behind
or
if
there's
the
Nally
and
how
we
get
to
get
the
larger
trucks
in
some
spots
if
they're
needed,
if
the
truck
is
needed.
So
so
those
are
the
access
issues
that
we're
referring
to
that
we
have
to
be
mindful
of
is
the
ability
to
get
at
the
patient
or
get
at
the
nature
of
the
emergency
and
the
more
that
we
build
up?
That's
a
challenge,
the
more
that
we
make
it
difficult
to
get
in
certain
areas
with
vehicles,
even
small
ones.
B
That's
a
challenge
too
for
us,
but
it's
the
stuff
that
we
look
at
constantly
through
our
fire
prevention
office
anyway,
as
planning
goes
through.
You
know
all
the
things
that
come
through
planning
so
we're
part
of
that
process,
but
we
just
throw
it
out
there,
because
it
is
something
that
we
look
at
all
the
time
and.
F
A
D
I
A
N
O
P
Thanks
Charles
good
evening,
City
Council
members
tonight
we'll
be
talking
about
the
community
benefit
project,
giving
council
an
update
on
the
project
as
well
as
getting
some
feedback.
I
should
also
point
out
that
we
had
a
discussion
at
Planning
Board
on
community
benefit
in
August
16th,
so
our
Planning
Board
Chair
Liz
Payton,
is
here
tonight.
Should
there
be
any
questions
about
the
Planning
Board
discussion?
P
So
what
we're
gonna
talk
about
tonight
is
briefly
the
project
background,
moving
into
the
process,
that's
underway,
and
then
talking
about
the
next
steps
talking
about
some
legal
issues
related
to
this
project
before
posing
what
will
be
four
questions
to
the
City
Council,
so
we
realize
that
there's
a
lot
of
information
in
the
packet.
We
just
want
to
point
out,
obviously
that
we're
gonna
be
checking
in
with
Council
on
the
future
on
this,
as
well
as
we
move
forward.
So
though
we
more
touch
points
so
first
I'm
gonna
start
with
the
the
questions.
P
So
the
first
talks
about
the
types
of
projects
that
would
be
eligible
to
provide
community
benefits.
We
want
to
get
your
input
on
that.
The
second
question
relates
to
the
preliminary
list
of
community
benefits
that
have
been
identified.
There
was
a
request
at
CAC
to
combine
the
first
two
questions
into
into
the
first
discussion,
so
we've
done
that
tonight.
P
The
third
question
relates
to
appendix
J,
so
we
talked
about
this
in
June,
so
appendix
J
is
the
map
that
shows
where
height
modifications
can
occur
in
the
city
of
Boulder,
if
they're
not
meeting,
obviously
the
affordable,
housing
or
other
exemptions.
We
want
to
raise
the
question
about
whether
this
appendix
J
should
be
modified
as
part
of
this
process.
P
P
The
latest
list
that
we
have,
which
will
be
sharing
with
Council,
is
based
on
the
discussion
that
City
Council
had
at
the
retreat
in
January
of
this
year.
I
should
point
out
that
we
do
have
a
new
code,
amendment
specialist,
that's
assisting
with
these
changes
so
currently
we're
working
on
the
community
benefit
project.
You
know
updating
the
site
review
criteria
which
we'll
talk
about
tonight.
P
The
large
lot
large
home
discussion
related
to
compatibility
in
the
re
and
RR
zones,
we're
looking
to
update
the
use
standards
table
related
to
outdated
uses
looking
at
home
occupation,
live
work,
uses
and
changes
to
the
used
table
that
might
be
able
to
create
15-minute
neighborhoods
we've
been
looking
at
the
parking
standards
and
how
and
how
it
would
mesh
with
the
transportation
demand
management
standards.
That's
underway.
We're
also
looking
at
updates
to
our
open
space
standards
within
development
projects,
as
well
as
looking
at
some
new
commerce
of
design
standards.
So.
F
F
D
P
P
P
So
one
thing
that
came
out
of
the
B
vcp
update
from
last
year
was
an
intent
to
try
to
identify
needed
community
benefits
in
different
parts
of
the
city
and
actually
doing
this
through
a
sub
area
planning
process
where
the
benefits
will
be
tailored
to
individual
neighborhoods.
So
this
is
something
that
were
aware
of,
and
we
understand
will
probably
be
talked
about
at
the
September
25th
study
session.
P
It's
not
without
precedent
that
this
has
already
been
done
before
in
the
2014
action
plan
for
the
the
north
polar
community
planet
does
include
several
policies
that
identify
the
intent
of
getting
community
benefits.
For
that
area,
so
that's
something
that
we're
looking
into
so
I'm
gonna
provide
a
brief
background
on
the
project.
This
is
something
that
we
we
already
discussed
in
June
of
this
year
when
the
height
provision
was
brought
forward
relative
to
appendix
J.
P
So
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
a
lot
of
detail
about
this,
but
originally
when
Phil
and
I
started
the
project,
we
were
focusing
on
height
modifications
and
attaining
permanent,
affordable
housing
through
that
process
and
at
the
the
City
Council
retreat.
It
was
requested
that
we
kind
of
shift
gears
and
look
at
the
broader
array
of
community
benefits
and
look
at
other
types
of
triggers,
and
it
was
requested
that
we
stand
or
make
the
hi
provisions
permanent.
P
So
in
June
of
this
year,
City
Council
did
pass
the
hi
provisions,
which
will
be
in
effect
until
May,
31st
2020.
So
what
you
see
up
on
the
slide,
is
it
basically
what
is
appendix
J?
These
are
the
areas
that,
where
you
can
ask
for
a
height
modification,
downtown,
the
29th
Street
Yuni,
Hill,
Boulder,
Junction,
the
hospital
Fraser
Meadows
and
gun
barrel
and
there's
a
portion
of
North
Boulder.
P
So
this
is
something
that's
in
effect
right
now,
but
we've
shifted
gears
to
do
the
community
benefit
project,
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
just
the
general
process
moving
forward.
So
what
we've
been
doing
is
identifying
the
community
benefits
identifying
what
the
program
triggers
might
be
and
then
doing
a
deeper
dive
into
what
what
each
of
the
community
benefits
are
like,
really
getting
the
parameters
about
them,
which
we're
still
we're
still
doing
and
then
in
quantifying
them.
You
know
how
do
you
equate
that
to
whatever
kind
of
bonus
project
might
get?
P
That's
something
that
we're
gonna
have
to
continue
looking
at
so
at
the
beginning
of
this
process
that
you
know,
obviously
the
comp
plan
was
was
adopted
in
2017,
though
the
latest
version
there
is
a
new
or
a
number
of
policies
that
relate
to
community
benefit.
This
is
one
more
highlighting
tonight.
1.11
enhanced
community
benefit.
You
can
see
the
underlined
portion
identifies
a
number
of
community
benefits
and
these
still
remain
valid
in
our
discussions
that
we've
had
with
the
community.
P
This
is
something
that
would
have
to
be
consistent
with
state
law.
State
law
requires
that
you
know
these
have
to
be
based
on
specific
standards,
and
there
has
to
be
decisions
that
are
made
that
are
consistent,
fairly
applied
and
are
our
city
attorney
will
be
discussing
this
in
more
detail
tonight.
The
second
piece
is
in
the
negotiated
agreement,
so
this
is
something
that
typically
would
not
be
compliant
with
state
law,
but
we
wanted
to
highlight
it
tonight,
just
as
some
other
cities
and
other
states
and
provinces
do
this.
So.
C
P
K
Songs
we
interrupted
you-
and
maybe
you
get
to
this
later-
on-
on
the
distinction
between
menu
of
options
versus
community
benefits
agreement,
presumably
on
a
CBA.
That's
a
binding
agreement
between
the
property
owner
in
the
city
and
it's
enforceable
by
the
city
under
the
menu
of
options.
Are
you
going
to
talk
about
how,
once
once
the
menu
has
developed?
How
that
is
enforced,
because
obviously,
we've
had
a
lot
of
enforcement
issues
in
the
past
about
how
about
how
we
ensure
that
whatever
boxes
are
ticked,
that
we
have
a
legal
right
to
then
enforce
that
yeah.
P
We
don't
have
that
as
part
of
our
presentation,
but
certainly
on
our
mind,
there
are
examples
of
when
a
use
might
change,
and
then
it
got
granted
up
a
bonus
and
then
other
jurisdictions
have
had
to
do
penalties
like
sometimes
they
have
penalty
fees,
so
it
depends
on
the
community,
but
there
are
some
communities
that
require
you
know
a
prorated
of
penalty
fee
that
goes
into
a
fund.
This
is
something
that
I
think
is
a
little
further
down
that
we're
gonna
have
to
look
at
as
we
start
digging
deeper
into
the
community
benefits.
Okay,.
Q
Interested
this
part
of
this
discussion
is
to
get
it
exactly
what
you're
you're
getting
at
Bob.
Well,
we,
we
will
tell
you,
when
you
say:
can
we
ask
them
to
do
X?
You
can
ask
them,
but
you
can't
condition
approval
on
it,
because
you
have.
You
can
only
condition
approvals
on
things
that
are
in
the
site.
Review
criteria,
so
part
of
the
purpose
for
this
discussion
is
to
expand
the
site
criteria
to
make
the
kind
of
conditions
that
people
make
as
promises
actual
conditions
on
the
development
agreement
and
make
them
enforceable.
Q
P
So
when
the
community
benefit
regulations,
if
and
when
they
go
into
effect,
it's
likely
going
to
change
the
site
review
criteria.
So
one
area
of
the
survey
criteria
that
we
already
have
is
called
land
use
intensity
modifications.
So
this
is
an
area
of
the
site
review
criteria
that
I
expect
will
see
a
lot
of
change.
So
I
want
to
point
that
out
and
also
just
pointing
out
that
the
site
review
criteria
right
now
are
generally
aspirational.
They
do
require
higher
quality
development,
but
the
criticism
has
been
that
they
can
be
somewhat
unpredictable.
P
So
the
goal
through
this
process
is
to
make
the
site
review
criteria
more
like
performance
standards.
More
predictable,
maybe
more
like
the
form
based
code
is
structured
and
we're
gonna
be
focusing
mostly
on
enhanced
design,
energy
efficiency
and
resiliency,
as
we
move
forward
with
making
those
changes.
P
So
before
I
turn
it
over
to
Phil
I'm
gonna
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
case.
Studies
that
we
looked
at
so
attachment
D
contains
a
list
of
15
different
cities
that
we
looked
at
as
part
of
this
project.
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
go
over
the
takeaways
from
those
cities
you
can
see.
Most
of
them
are
in
the
state
of
California.
P
Hight
floor
area
density
are
the
most
common
triggers:
affordable,
housing,
sustainable
design,
publicly
accessible,
open
space
space
for
the
arts
are
the
most
common
benefits
that
we've
seen
in
other
communities.
One
thing
to
point
out
is
some
of
the
community
looked
at
are
much
larger
cities
and
Boulder,
so
the
bonuses
that
we're
seeing
are
much
higher
than
what
we
would
get
here.
I
mean
we're
talking.
You
know
two
stories,
potentially
you
know
in
other
communities
were
talking
to
20
stories,
100
feet
bonuses.
P
Let's
just
want
to
point
that
out,
as
we
were
talking
about
quite
a
few,
the
communities
rely
on
negotiated
agreements
that
would
likely
not
be
consistent
with
Colorado
state
law.
So
what
we
see
in
other
communities
like
California
or
in
in
communities
in
Canada,
there
is
provincial
or
state
enabling
legislation
that
allows
for
these
types
of
negotiated
agreements,
but
they're
very
loose,
there's
not
a
lot
of
specific
standards
and
we're
not
recommending
going
in
that
direction.
P
P
Obviously
our
goal
is
to
be
more
predictable,
as
we've
heard
in
the
past,
so
some
of
the
standouts
communities
that
we
think
might
be
most
helpful
for
us
here
or
Austin
Texas,
just
not
in
terms
of
scale,
but
just
in
the
types
of
community
benefits
that
they
have
identified
in
their
community.
They
have
specific,
measurable
metrics
that
are
tied
to
a
use.
So
a
certain
amount
of
use
gives
you
a
certain
amount
of
a
bonus,
so
it
seems
like
that
would
be
kind
of
the
best
approach.
P
Santa
Monica
also
has
requirements
that
are
like
that.
I
think
would
be
helpful
and
the
other
reason
we
we
bring
up
Santa
Monica
is
just
that
some
of
their
regulations
have
a
similar
scale
to
Boulder.
They
have
FA
are
limits
in
height
limits
that
are
similar
to
what
we
have
here.
So
with
that
I'm
gonna
turn
it
over
to
Phil
Phil
place.
R
Our
comprehensive
planning
division
thanks
for
your
time.
Just
before
this
discussion,
we
handed
out
the
Planning
Board
summary
that
went
to
council
a
few
days
ago,
as
well
as
a
summary
of
the
case
study
cities,
along
with
some
information
population
and
cost
housing,
cost,
etc
that
the
Planning
Board
suggested
that
we
provide
the
council
during
this
discussion,
and
so,
as
Carl
mentioned,
the
comprehensive
plan,
you
know
as
part
of
policy
1.11
did
identify
a
suite
of
community
benefits.
R
Do
you
reside
in
is
in
the
correct
zone
and
then
some
general
requirements
like
some
basic
street
standards
and
nerve
and
design
standards,
the
next
level
over
the
column
over
the
primary
use.
Since
these
types
of
projects
are
generally
based
on
economic
studies,
what
they
were
finding
was
that
the
residential
the
non-residential
uses
were
quite
different,
and
so
they
actually
separated
those
out
and
with
that,
depending
on
the
project
type
of
the
primary
use,
residential
or
non-residential
use.
R
You
would
then
go
into
looking
at
what
are
the
available
community
benefits
or
public
benefits
that
are
in
that
middle
column
there,
and
so
in
Austin.
One
of
the
things
that
they
went
through
was
prioritizing
what's
most
important
to
the
community
and
in
the
case
of
Austin,
that
was
affordable,
housing,
and
so
they
had.
They
addressed
that
community
ambition
through
this
program
by
requiring
that
the
additional
requirement
for
community
benefit,
at
least
half
of
that
had
to
have
to
be
a
full,
affordable,
housing
and
then
the
remainder
of
it.
R
The
applicant
can
kind
of
choose
among
those
community
benefits,
and
so
they
have
things
that
are
pretty
pretty
general,
like
you
know,
char,
pretty
consistent
with
other
communities
like
different
types
of
housing,
childcare,
historic
preservation.
They
have
live
music,
which
I
think
is
kind
of
cool,
but
does.
R
You
know
this
is
a
very
similar,
broad
flowchart,
which
we
may
start
using
in
our
public
and
community
dialogue
in
this
project,
and
so
the
gatekeeper
requirements
for
Boulder
may
be
something
along
the
lines
of
what
type
of
applications
are
we
looking
at?
What
are
the
zones
that
are
eligible?
The
primary
use,
you
know,
would
probably
be
pretty
similar.
R
You
know
the
community
benefit
column
would
be
our
list
of
community
benefits
that
we
identify
as
a
city
and
community
and
then,
lastly,
the
specific
quantified
bonus
amounts
and
so
that
last
piece,
the
quantified
bonus
amounts,
is
that
kind
of
last
step
in
the
process.
Once
we
identify
the
community
benefits,
we
define
them.
R
We
as
we
decide
where
they're
appropriate
and
not
the
the
common
method
that
we
have
seen
in
terms
of
coming
up
with
a
calculation
is
through
an
economic
analysis,
and
so
what
we've
done
is
a
very
initial
and
preliminary
economic
analysis
that
was
found
in
your
packet.
That
analysis
had
basically
developed
five
development
scenario,
performers
in
the
BR
one
district,
and
it
made
a
common
set
of
assumptions
like
two
acre
lots
and
and
each
of
the
projects
the
bonus
projects
were
requesting
a
height
modification
and
a
density
bonus.
R
The
intent
of
this
was
to
at
least
start
the
conversation
and
start
understanding
a
little
bit
more
around
what
we
might
expect
in
the
future
that
would
come
out
of
projects
using
this
type
of
program
and
I
want
to
say
that
we
will
be
doing
a
much
larger
study
and
we'll
be
looking
at
all
of
the
assumptions
included
in
this
report.
You
know
prior
to
running
these
numbers
again,
so
this
is
again
very
preliminary.
R
The
five
scenarios
that
are
included
in
this
analysis
was
a
base
scenario
to
see
what
can
we
do
under
our
current
conditions?
One
scenario
where
an
applicant
would
request
a
height
modification
up
to
55
feet
and
a
density
bonus
with
no
community
benefits,
and
so
this
would
be
looking
at
sort
the
return.
What
this
is
calling
the
residual
land
value
if
no
community
benefits
were
allowed,
but
we
provided
that
bonus.
Two
of
the
scenarios
looked
at
housing
and
so
both
of
those
with
the
height
and
the
density
bonus.
R
What
could
we
expect
in
terms
of
affordable
commercial
space
and
so
the
subsidized
commercial
space,
and
so
the
takeaways
that
we've
seen
from
this
very
initial
analysis
is
that
the
economics
may
support
this
program,
but
at
least
with
these
assumptions
in
hand
it,
the
margins
are
a
bit
slim
it's,
and
this
is
when
we're
only
requiring
one
Community
Benefit
when
in
reality
would
likely
be
looking
at
more
than
one
and
so
I
think,
there's
gonna
be
more
work
to
do
here.
I
think
there's
also
needs
to
be,
as
we
move
forward
in
the
engagement
process.
R
Some
conversations
around
what's
acceptable
and
what's
not
acceptable.
So
in
this
case
we
asked
the
consultant,
you
know
tell
us
what
would
be
needed
in
order
to
make
it
financially
feasible
in
these
scenarios.
The
consultant
in
this
case
came
back
with
you
know:
a
height
modification
of
55
feet
and
a
density
bonus
of
up
to
70
to
80
acres
per
units
per
acre.
That's
a
pretty
significant
increase,
and
it's
something
that
I
think
we
would
need
to
talk
through
and
run
the
numbers
quite
a
few
times
in
the
future.
A
R
Sure
it
to
me
it's
an
indicator
of
what
makes
the
purchase
of
land
feasible
and
what
would
make
a
project
potentially
feasible.
We've
heard
since
doing
this
analysis
that
there's
also
some
other
indicators
out
there
that
we
need
to
be
looking
at
in
the
future
to
also
give
a
more
complete
picture.
We
do
have
some
folks
from
housing
that
look
at
these
types
of
issues
and
a
little
bit
more
depth
and
depth,
so
they.
A
D
Can
I
just
ask
the
question,
though,
about
that
in
the
residual
land
value
in
Boulder
were
experiencing
a
vast
increase
and
what
our
residual
land
value
is
from
what
people,
what
it
may
have
been
five
years
ago
or
30
years
ago,
and
so
I
guess
when
we
talk
about
this
and
we
talk
about
the
changing
landscape,
I
guess
I
I
want
some
kind
of
discussion
or
explanation
about.
Where
are
you
basing
that
you
know
five
years
ago
or
today?
D
So,
for
example,
in
in
the
large
lots
where
we
have
people
coming
in
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
them,
but
just
as
an
example,
buying
Lots
houses
for
$600,000
and
then
scraping
them
and
then
selling
the
next
house
for
three
point?
Four
or
five
I
would
hope
not
basing
residual
land
value.
On
the
three
point,
four
five
million
dollars
and
I
get
it
take
out
the
house
value,
but
that
Bhat
is
becoming
ridiculously
expensive,
and
so
we
need
will
need
to.
F
Until
you,
you
mentioned
that
you
know,
there's
some,
it
works
out
marginally
with
one
community
and
if
it
required,
but
we're
likely
to
require
multiple
I,
haven't
seen
that
in
the
analysis
they've
you
done
so
far.
I
see
a
menu
of
community,
but
I
didn't
see
and
stayed
in
here
that
we
will
likely
require
more
than
one
at
for
one
project
can
did
I
miss
something
maybe.
R
S
R
R
Okay,
well,
we'll
continue
moving
on.
Perhaps
you
know
a
little
bit
about
next
steps
and
we
can
circle
back
to
any
of
this
in
more
detail.
Obviously,
the
engagement
plan-
that's
included
in
your
packet-
is
really
more
of
a
framework.
At
this
point,
we
kind
of
wanted
to
get
some
direction
tonight
around
some
of
the
project,
parameters
and
scope,
and
then
we
be
flushing
that
out
a
little
bit
more,
the
engagement
techniques
we'll
discuss
later
in
the
conversation,
that's
question
number
four.
R
Q
Thanks
as
you
embark
on
this
discussion,
I
wanted
to
sort
of
draw
some
parameters
around
it.
Karl's
already
already
mentioned
Colorado
law,
which
says
that
if
you're,
you
have
to
judge
a
project
based
on
criteria
that
are
in
place
at
the
time
the
application
is
filed,
and
we
repeat
that
to
you
a
lot,
but
it's
important
to
remember
in
this
context,
you
can't
change
the
rules
of
the
game
once
they've
started
the
process,
so
whatever
you
define
has
to
be
written
out
fairly.
Q
Clearly,
you
can't
just
make
it
adjustable
based
on
the
project
based
on
some
decision
that
it's
gonna
happen
later,
which
ones
you
can
apply
if
they're
in
the
criteria,
that's
fine,
but
the
criteria
have
to
be
Express
and
to
be
to
be
defensible.
They
have
to
be
written
before
the
application
is
submitted.
So
that's
Colorado
law
and
there's
also
a
bigger
picture
in
the
law
of
the
United
States,
that's
kind
of
traveling
down
a
kind
of
troubling
direction
that
I
wanted
you
to
be
aware
of
this
Koontz
case
that
I've
cited
up.
Q
There
was
decided
in
2013
and
it's
it's
the
third
of
three
cases.
The
other
two
were
Nolan
and
Dolan,
that
where
the
Supreme
Court
has
articulated
a
standard
for
restrictive
development
restrictions
and
the
basic
standard
is
that
the
development
restrictions
have
to
be,
there
has
to
be
a
nexus
between
the
restrictions
and
the
problem.
You're
trying
to
solve
and
the
the
restrictions
must
be
proportional
to
the
development.
So
the
Coons
case
is
an
interesting
case,
because
it's
a
sort
of
thing
which
every
city
has
in
fact
I
think
we
do.
The
the
Koontz
involves
a.
Q
It
was
a
piece
of
land,
14,
acre
piece
of
land
in
Florida,
the
guy
bought
it
in
1972
in
1994.
He
applied
for
a
development
permit
to
develop
three
out
of
a
four
three
acres
out
of
a
14
acre
site
and
he
agreed
as
a
additional
development
to
grant
a
conservation
easement
over
the
other
11
acres
to
the
district.
It
was
a
water
district.
The
water
district
turned
down
that
deal
and
said
you
have
two
choices.
You
can
develop
one
acre
and
give
us
thirteen
or
thirteen
point
nine.
Q
It
was,
or
you
can
spend
a
bunch
of
money
doing
what
lands
mitigation
on
our
land,
and
so
he
sued
and
the
the
defense
was
that
it
they
that
the
the
the
district
hadn't
actually
required
him
to
do
anything
they
had
denied
his
permit.
So
since
there
was
no
requirement
there
was
no
taking
and
the
the
the
Florida
Court
went
along
with
that,
and
also
that
it
was
money
they
could
pay
money
to
get
out.
Q
So
the
minute
the
money
alternative
prevented
a
taking
and
the
Supreme
Court
said
no,
that
the
Noland
Dolan
proportionality
requirements
applied
in
both
of
those
circumstances,
and
they
went
back
to
the
district
court
in
the
district
court
then
found
that
it
was
unconstitutional.
Since
Koontz
was
decided,
there
have
been
two
challenges
to
inclusionary
housing
ordinances,
that
I'm
aware
of
one
San
Jose
and
the
other
one
Seattle
Seattle's
was
dismissed
by
the
district
court
because
there
were
nobody
had
actually
paid
the
fee
yet
or
done
the
inclusionary
housing.
It
was
a
new
ordinance.
Q
So
there's
nobody
outstanding
that'll
come
back
at
some
point.
The
the
San
Jose
one
went
to
the
California
Supreme
Court
and
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
it
wasn't
a
taking
because
it
was
a
citywide
zoning
ordinance,
not
an
administrative
virgule
regulation
and
so
that
it
was
applied
to
everybody
and
that's
a
distinction
that
the
courts
have
made
when
it
was
appealed
to
the
to
the
United
States
Supreme
Court.
Q
The
court
denied
the
petition,
what
we
call
certiorari,
but
Justice
Thomas
concurred
and
in
his
concurring
decision
what
he
said
was
that
they're
denying
it
because
the
petition
wasn't
timely,
filed
but
I,
don't
like
this
distinction
between
zoning
and
administrative
application.
I,
don't
think
it
makes
any
sense
and
I'm
looking
for
a
case
where
the
Supreme
Court
could
decide
whether
or
not
that
applies.
Q
We,
you
all
know
the
Supreme
Court
is
getting
more
conservative
by
the
day
and
the
Coons
case
was
a
five
to
five
to
four
decision
in
2013.
Probably
would
be
6-3
today
and
after
judge
Kavanaugh
gets
confirm,
maybe
seven
to
two:
that's
the
direction
the
courts
going
so
I
wanted
to
just
provide
some
caution
that,
as
you
have
these
conversations
about
community
benefit
application.
Q
It
would
be
really
helpful
if
we
identified
the
problem
that
we're
trying
to
address,
and
that
is
the
impact
of
development
on
a
community
and
how
the
particular
community
benefit,
helps
that
or
helps
address
that
and
all
of
the
things
in
the
list.
I
think
I
could
rationally
justify,
but
it
would
be
really
helpful
if
we
had
somebody
who
was
a
consultant
who
was
saying
that
so
much
as
you
come
down
the
line,
you
know
for
it,
for
example,
even
the
the
perhaps
the
further
stretch
is
arts
or
music
space.
Q
Right
now,
our
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
is
absolutely
defensible
based
on
prior
precedent
throughout
the
country
that
it
is
a
it
is
a
citywide
zoning
regulation,
but,
as
I
said,
Justice
Thomas
doesn't
think
that's
a
good
distinction
and
just
as
Thomas
is
in
the
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
a
lot
of
cases.
Lately,
that's
all
I
wanted
to
head.
F
So
what
I'm
hearing
from
you,
then,
is
that
we
can't
impose
arbitrary
Community
Benefit
requirements
so
there,
for
example,
if
we
thought
gosh,
wouldn't
it
be
nice
if
they
gave
out
candy
because
candy
is
fun
and
people
enjoy
it,
and
so
they
impose
that
right.
And
so
we
imposed
a
requirement
that
you
have
to
give
out
candy
as
a
community
benefit.
But
there
would
be
no
way
to
make
an
access
to
it
or
the
lack
of
candy
from
development
and.
Q
So
what
my
caution
is,
we
should
go
carefully
and
identify
the
Nexus
I'm.
Not
candy
is
purposely
I,
know
you're,
making
an
absurd
example,
but
the
argument
you
could
develop
an
argument
that,
in
in
a
city
that's
rapidly
densifying
having
candy
available
for
who
have
no
other
place
to
go
might
be
I
mean
that's
the
kind
of
argument
that
you
could
develop.
I
wouldn't
like
to
have
to
make
that
argument
in
court
and
our
job
is
to
make
what
you
do
defensible.
So,
yes,
there
are
some
boundaries.
Q
F
F
P
Okay,
so
we're
at
the
discussion
portion
of
the
meeting
so
like
we
said
we
combined
questions
one
in
two.
We
wanted
to
tee
up
each
question
before
council
speaks
to
it,
so
obviously
we're
back
to
what
type
of
projects
would
have
to
include
community
benefit.
We
talked
about
the
triggers,
so
over
the
height
limit
was
1
over
F
AR
or
at
a
lower
threshold
was
another
over
the
density
limit
was
the
third
and
then
rezoning
that
had
indents
additional
intensity
was
the
fourth,
so
its
staffs
recommendation
was
to
basically
focus
on
real.
F
A
Because
this
is
our
discussion,
so
I
guess
we
have.
We
have
a
few
questions,
but
also
Liz
Peyton's
here
and
I
guess
I
for
one
I
mean
why
don't
you
come
down
and
join
us
and
maybe,
as
part
of
our
deliberations
hearing
what
the
Planning
Board
other
otherwise
will
have
to
read
all
these
notes
again
had
to
say
on
each
one
but
Jim
you
don't
have
to
leave.
We
have
room
I'll,
just
squeeze
somebody
else
in
okay.
A
T
I'm
sorry,
I'm
losin
I'm
the
chair
of
the
board,
and
we
did
agree
with
this
list
that
the
staff
offered
height
FA,
our
density
and
rezoning,
and
one
of
the
issues
that
we
talked
about
a
fair
amount
that
I
don't
see
it
up
here
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you
guys
have
spent
any
time
thinking
about
it,
but
we
see
projects
in
which
the
density
of
a
site
can
be
sort
of
modified.
T
Depending
on
whether
the
developer
is
going
to
dedicate
the
streets
and
right
away
to
the
city
or
not.
If
they
are
going
to
dedicate
it
to
the
city,
then
they
have
less
developable
area,
and
so
they
can.
Their
density
is
reduced.
If
they
are
going
to
assume
responsibility
for
the
right
away
in
the
streets
and
the
sidewalks,
then
they
count
that
additional
area
in
their
density
calculations,
and
so
it
can
vary
from
project
to
project
and
for
us
having
a
baseline
above,
which
additional
height
FA.
Our
density
rezoning
would
then
result
in
some
community
benefit.
T
A
D
C
D
F
I
mean
I
can
offer
a
little
bit
of
background.
I
think
you
all
remember:
I
mean
it
came
before
Planning
Board
when
I
was
on
and
maybe
three
years
ago,
as
a
potential
code
amendment
to
change
the
standards
of
whether
the
streets
are
still
included
and
developable
potential.
If
they're
deeded
to
the
city,
the
Planning
Board
voted.
Yes,
it
should
change
and
then
it
came
back
and
it
was
voted
in
contrary
no,
it
shouldn't
and
then
I,
don't
believe.
City
Council
took
an
action
on
it.
F
A
P
So
there's
some
flexibility,
whether
you
have
dedicated
right-of-way.
That
includes
the
tree
lawns,
the
sidewalks
and
the
street
width
and
the
on
street
parking
within
it.
That's
typically
in
city
right-of-way
and
doesn't
count
towards
the
density
of
a
project.
But
there
are
some
scenarios
where
a
developer
could
reduce
that
down
and
put
the
sidewalks
tree
lawns
in
public
access
easement.
So
it's
actually,
if
it's
in
an
easement,
it's
actually
part
of
the
property.
So
it
really
only
comes
up
with
zones
that
determine
their
density
by
lot
area.
P
E
Mean
the
essential
difference
between
open
space
per
dwelling
unit
and
dwelling
unit
per
acre
is
something
that
I
was
hoping
that
we
would
come
back
to
and
the
site
plan
review
criteria
portion
that
was
at
the
beginning
and
try
and
get
that
uniform
so
that
we
don't
have
these
two
different
flavors
of
the
way
that
we
assess
intensity
on
Lots.
So
one
comment
from
a
Planning
Board
kind
of
nerd.
E
Is
that
that's
something
that
we
would
hope
to
get
kind
of
worked
through
as
part
of
the
overall
package
of
what
we've
asked
staff
to
help
with
in
this
council?
The
other
piece
as
far
as
the
dedication
goes,
I
have
agree
with
Aaron
and
I
think
we
kind
of
determined
that
we
weren't
going
to
try
and
change
where
we
are
on
that
right,
because
we
didn't
get
planning
board
advance
at
the
council.
Is
that
correct,
yeah.
A
Well,
at
the
very
least,
simplifying
something
that
is
barely
understandable,
I
think
it's
a
good
thing:
okay,
so
I'm
just
gonna,
throw
that!
Yes,
let's
fix
that,
so
that
we
have
a
clearer
baseline.
Does
anybody
disagree
with
that?
Okay,
but
in
terms
of
those
being
the
proposed
project
features
since
nobody
seems
to
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
on,
they
must
be
the
right
ones.
Do
you
or
do
you
help
I.
F
F
Right
I
think
we
get
more
affordability
when
we
have
smaller
units,
and
so
I
would
very
much
like
to
see
our
regulations
move
in
the
direction
of
encouraging
smaller
units
rather
than
larger
ones,
and
so
to
that
same
point,
one
of
your
things
eligible
for
Community,
Benefit
triggers
is
an
increase
in
density
and
density.
Strictly
defined
here
is
an
increase
in
the
number
of
units.
Correct,
so
I
would
very
much
like
for
us
to
leave
the
triggers
at
height
and
floor
area
ratio.
F
So
because,
if
you
want
a
bigger
project,
you
should
provide
additional
community
benefit.
If
you
want
a
taller
project,
you
should
provide
more
community
benefit.
If
you
want
more
units
within
the
same
footprint
to
me,
that
should
not
be
a
requirement
for
community
benefit,
because
that's
a
better
project
for
the
city.
It
means
more
smaller
units,
so
I
would
very
much
like
to
stick
to
the
total
square
footage
and
the
height
for
this.
Yes,.
D
F
Well,
I
think
you,
you
would
you'd
have
to
deal
with
that
absolutely,
but
that
would
be
a
separate
question
for
whether
it's
a
trigger
for
community
benefit
requirement.
You
would
have
to
provide
more
parking
if
you
had
fewer
units.
That's
okay!
Maybe
you
get
more.
If
you
had
more
units
good
morning,
I'm
sorry,
yeah,
I,.
I
D
F
D
S
Maybe
Charles
are
one
of
you:
could
collaborate
that's,
but
to
Aaron's
point
of
same
size,
same
volume
and
just
the
difference
of
units.
My
understandings
of
building
more
units
is
more
expensive,
also
that
the
project
costs
usually
goes
up
with
that
density
within
the
same
volume,
and
so
you
know
it's
one
more
reason:
I
think
that
your
proposal
makes
a
lot
of
sense
if
we're
further
adding
cost
here.
I
D
O
A
C
So
what
I'm
hearing
in
the
in
the
previous
exchange
among
aaron
and
mayor,
buy
and
Lisa
was
that
the
that
density
would
require
a
different
community
benefit,
so
that
would
be
the
enhanced
TDM,
and
that
was
something,
and
that
was
in
the
matrix
that
was
provided
by
Planning,
Board
I,
don't
know
eons
ago,
but
that
was
one
of
the
community
benefits,
so
I
just
I
think
it
should
be
part
of
the
triggers.
But
what
how
you
provide
a
benefit
because
of
that
is
different
from
the
others.
Perhaps.
E
C
K
I
think
the
salmon
marries
to
have
started
I
asked
my
quick
answer.
My
question,
which
is,
is
there
going
to
be
a
correlation?
In
other
words,
we've
got
a
list
above
which
is
either
three
things
or
four
things,
but
how
this
discussion
turns
out
and
then
we've
got
a
list
of
benefits
and
that
list
may
may
grow,
but
there
may
be
a
correlation
between
some
of
the
benefits
and
some
of
the.
K
K
F
Members,
those
are
good
points
that
I
know
I.
Think
of
those
more
as
mitigations
rather
than
community
benefits.
I
mean
I,
absolutely
agree
with
an
enhanced
mitigation,
particularly
TDM
for
higher
density,
and
so,
if
we
want
to
frame
it
that
way,
that's
fine
I
just
but
I
would
see
it
as
very
different
from
you
know,
requiring
them
to
provide
the
affordable
commercial
space
because
they
had
more
units
in
the
same
footprint.
I
A
J
A
Guess
where
we're
headed,
let's
explore
and
see,
if
what's
the
best
way
to
get
there
and
I'm
thinking
of
the
flowchart
from
Austin
and
I'm,
not
quite
sure
how
that
works.
But
anyhow
we
might
have
one
more
than
one
flow
chart,
but
I
do
think
it's
time
to
make
sure
we're
not
incentivizing
larger
units.
E
A
P
We've
we
have
a
long
list
of
community
benefits
as
in
the
memo,
so
we
weren't
able
to
go
through
each
of
those
in
the
presentation.
So
we
have
some
slides
of
each
with
the
different
options
if
there's
a
focus
on
any
of
those,
but
for
the
sake
of
time
we've
we've
not
gone
into
that.
But
that's
that's!
That's
basic.
R
This
is
something
that
housing
divisions
working
on
currently
that
they
are
kind
of
putting
forward
through
a
process
right
now,
that's
looking
at
subsidized
commercial
spaces
that
would
be
subsidized
at
75
percent
of
market
value,
and
that
would
also
have
to
take
into
account
some
of
the
the
sales
and
some
of
the
other
items
and
again
housing
is
here.
If
you
wanted
to
get
into
any
of
the
weeds
on
that
particular
item,
wait.
A
I
E
D
T
T
We
talked
about
those
four
and
then
there
was
less
enthusiasm
for
the
other
ones
on
the
right
side
there.
But
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
possibility
of
providing
childcare
or
daycare,
and
that
would
be
under
Social
Services,
because
you
know
if
affordable
housing
is
the
primary
benefit.
That
folks
are
looking
at
a
really
nice
sort
of
synergy
could
happen
with
daycares,
affordable
daycare
or
some
quality
family
sort
of
oriented
benefits.
T
D
A
T
K
A
question
from
Liz
on
your
own
you're
coming
a
big
here,
one
of
things,
I
guess
I
struggle
with
a
little
bit
as
a
lot
of
these
things
are
infrastructure,
improvements
or
changes.
In
other
words,
it
happens
when
it
gets
built
and
has
done
the
check
the
box
either.
Did
it
they
didn't.
When
we
get
into
things
like
daycare
or
movie
theaters,
there
becomes
an
operational
component
right.
In
other
words,
if
the
requirement
is,
you
shall
build
a
movie
theater,
but
maybe
something
will
operate
it
or
not.
K
This
entirely
hypothetical
question
by
the
way
we're
a
daycare
center.
Then
then
it
becomes
more
difficult
right
from
an
enforcement
standpoint
because
they
needed
to
all
sorts
of
messes
about.
How
do
you
operate
it
and
was
it
cost
and
what,
if
you
can't
find
an
operator
and
what,
if
it
goes
out
of
business
and
so
forth,
so
I
guess
this
is
a
bit
of
a
question
for
anybody
wants
to
answer
it.
Don't
don't?
We
need
to
primarily
focus
on
infrastructure
benefits
that
happen
at
a
point
in
time
and
exist
forever,
as
opposed
to
operational
benefits.
K
K
T
K
T
O
Yeah
I
think
putting
standards
to
what
would
be
most
important,
because
when
I
read
the
child
care
standards
and
a
lot
of
the
case
studies,
you
know,
for
how
long
are
you
supposed
to
operate
it
in
Austin,
for
example,
if
the
benefit
that
you're
providing
is
a
live
music
venue,
you
have
to
operate
it
continuously
for
ten
years.
It
can't
be
vacant
for
more
than
180
days.
Otherwise,
there's
penalties
that
are
assigned
that
go
back
into
the
city's
affordable
housing
fund.
Did
it
get
that
right,
yeah.
U
Yeah
and
I
just
know
this
is
an
example
of
every
community
benefit.
You
identify
that
you
want
to
be
part
of
this
program.
You
have
to
give
a
lot
of
scrutiny
to
what
are
the
rules
that
are
going
to
apply
to
that,
because
a
very
valuable
commodity
that
being
the
additional
height
intensity,
whatever
is
being
granted
to
a
project,
so
you
want
to
and
of
course,
the
markets
kind
of
gravitate
towards
the
path
of
least
resistance.
U
Doesn't
it
need
to
be
a
singer-songwriter
so
literally,
but
in
addition
to
setting
all
those
rules,
you
know
what
qualifies
as
this
kind
of
a
space.
We
also
had
a
thing
like
what
happens
if,
after
ten
years,
eight
years,
whatever
the
project
can
no
longer
find
viable,
tentative
tenants
that
meet
that
criteria,
obviously
you
can't
saw
a
story
off
a
building.
At
that
point,
say
you
got
that
story,
because
you
provided
a
space,
that's
no
longer
providing
this
benefit.
U
The
way
we
handled
that
was
there
was
a
cash
in
lieu
option
that
was
almost
always
available,
cash
in
lieu
of
which
would
go
to
affordable
housing,
and
we
basically
said
if
this
benefit
ceases
to
exist
at
a
period
in
time.
At
that
point,
the
owner
of
the
project
would
have
to
a
the
value
the
cash
in
lieu
value
that
they
avoided
paying
upfront
by
providing
this
community
benefit
that
no
longer
exists,
so
you
would
pay
the
cash
in
lieu
value
in
today's
value.
You
know,
in
other
words,
it
would
be
updated
over
time.
U
U
U
F
Questions
over
here,
yeah
Jim.
Well,
first,
was
there
statistics
on
how
many
of
them
were
cover
bands,
because
that
was
so
I
wonder?
Could
we
could
we
combine
something
like
this
with
an
affordable
commercial
requirement?
Could
you
have
something
like
well?
If,
if
you
rent
to
a
list
of
social
services
like
a
childcare
or
homeless
services
provider,
then
you
can
charge
the
rent
that
you
can.
You
know
work
out
with
that
provider.
If
it's
not
to
one
of
those,
then
you
have
to
rent
at
75%
of
market
rate.
F
A
Also
might
matter
how
many
different
options
I
mean
if
all
we
have
to
do
is
implement
on
a
portable
commercial
program,
then
we
can
get
really
good
at
that,
as
opposed
to
worrying
about
cover
bands
which
is
a
whole
nother,
art,
I'm
sure
but
I
guess
in
terms
of
setting
cash
and
Lewis
sort
of
the
other
option.
That
was
always
a
path.
Do
we
need
to
do?
A
U
A
U
Back
at
what
we
did
we-
and
there
was
a
lot
of
debate
around
this
issue
as
to
whether
we
there
should
even
be
a
cash
in
lieu
component
or
whether
we
should
just
require
residential
projects
to
provide
on-site
units.
There
was
a
whole
debate
around
that,
and
that
fundamentally,
is
in
some
ways
a
public
policy
question.
U
The
way
it
landed
at
the
end
of
the
day
on
that
was
projects
they
had,
they
had
to
provide
an
affordable
housing
benefit,
at
least
50%
of
the
additional
value
they
derived,
whether
it
was
FA
are
or
stories
or
whatever
had
to
be
earned.
If
you
will
with
an
affordable
housing
benefit,
they
could
they
could
fulfill
that
benefit
either
providing
on-site
or
a
cash
in
lieu.
Now,
as
it
turned
out,
what
we
learned
was
the
way
we
calibrated
it.
U
You
know
we
had
a
certain
dollar
for
a
cash
in
lieu
or
a
certain
number
of
units
of
affordable
housing.
We
learned
from
experience
that
the
way
we
had
set
it
up,
cash
in
lieu
was
more
attractive.
That
was
the
sort
of
path
of
least
resistance
that
the
market
took.
So
the
first
projects
that
came
through,
we
were
getting
consistently
cash
in
lieu
instead
of
on-site,
affordable
unit.
That
is
a
that's
a
policy
question
as
to
whether
you
want
to
do
that,
you
can.
U
K
That's
all
a
question
for
Tom:
if
we
have
a
cash
in
lieu
out
alternative,
whether
it's
affordable
housing
or
some
of
these
other
benefits
does
that
start
to
get
into
Colorado
law
problems?
In
other
words,
even
if
somebody
wants
something
and
they
can
just
write
us
a
check
to
get
that
thing,
is
there
what's
the
nexus
that
we
can
point
to.
U
K
Building
cause,
you
know,
unaffordability
I,
guess
I'm
trying
to
grapple
you.
If
somebody
wants
to
build
a
five
storey
building
instead
of
a
three-story
building,
they
write
as
a
million
dollar
check.
How
will
we
solving
an
affordability
I
mean?
How
is
that
that
extra
two
storeys
causing
an
affordability
problem
that
we're
then
fixing
with
the
money?
K
A
F
E
E
We
already
have
kind
of
a
standard
within
zoning
that
there
will
be
20%
of
that
will
go
to
housing.
So
you
can
make
the
argument
that,
if
they're
going
taller-
and
they
don't
want
to
provide
some
other
benefit
or
I,
think
what
Tim
says
is
they
use
it
as
a
penalty?
If
they
promise
something
and
something
doesn't
come
to
reduce
impact
on
the
community
of
the
taller
building,
then
you
can
put
it
towards
affordable
housing
and
still
have
it
be
useful.
Is
that.
K
A
K
Q
F
C
C
U
Way,
Texas
law
is
written
and
I'm
operating
I'm,
no
longer
a
practicing
lawyer
so
and
I'm
operating
from
memory
here,
but
is
that
if
it
is
part
of,
in
essence,
an
incentive
or
bonus
program,
you
can
place
restrictions
on
rental
residential,
but
it
cannot
be
a
feature
of
your
sort
of
basis
owning
requirements.
But
if
it's
part
of
a
an
incentive
program
which
this
was
you
can
do
that,
which
is
what
it
allowed
us
to
do.
This
and.
R
I'd
like
to
also
make
one
comment:
if
I
may,
the
analysis
and
the
packet
was
really
looking
at,
what's
what's
likely
to
be
feasible
for
a
developer
to
look
at,
which
is
a
little
bit
different
than
the
nexus
study,
and
so
I
think
the
two
may
complement
each
other,
but
you
know
the
first
might
say:
what
to
what
extent
might
this
program
be
successful?
The
other
would
say,
they'll
give
the
legal
ground
by
which
to
set
that
standard.
Is
that
yeah,
ok,.
A
So
I'm
gonna
answer
the
question
there.
You
we're
moving
on
to
this
question
I'm
going
to
answer
this
question
so
in
terms
of
arts
and
cultural
uses
like
it's
one
thing,
I
don't
see,
is
if
you're
gonna
like
build
I
rise,
then
you
got
to
have
a
pocket
park
next
to
it.
So
all
the
people
that
live
there
have
some
open
space
is
that
encompassed
in
arts
and
culture
or
social
services
or,
but
that
seems
to
me
public.
A
P
In
the
memo
we
were,
we
were
making
a
recommendation
that
we
should
be
focusing
and
maybe
on
a
more
limited
number
of
benefits,
to
kind
of
focus
on
the
ones
that
are
the
most
important
and
and
see
how
the
program
goes.
And
then,
if
there's
a
if
it's
successful,
then
looking
at
other
benefits.
So
we
were
suggesting
in
the
memo
an
emphasis
on
affordable
housing,
affordable
commercial
rental,
space
in
arts
and
cultural
uses
and
I.
P
A
I
guess
I
for
one,
but
to
me
it's
a
social,
this
idea
of
contributing
to,
and
maybe
it's
covered
enough
in
the
open
space
I
wish.
We
didn't
use
open
space
in
so
many
different
ways
in
this
town.
I
think
it
does
not
do
us
okay,
but
to
me
to
me,
for
instance,
density
is
a
good
thing,
but
probably
needs
to
be
offset
offset
by
increased
amenities
like
you
need
to
have
access
to
open
space
if
you're
gonna
build
a
dense
development,
and
so
maybe
that's
already
accommodated
in
our
site
review.
A
P
D
A
F
A
C
So
with
arts
and
culture,
that
seems
to
me
that
it
would
have
to
be
something
that
would
be
fleshed
out
in
terms
of
you
know,
I
mean
think
yes
and
and
how
there
was
a
whole
bunch
of
backlash
on
that.
That
particular
piece
of
art-
and
you
know
what
constitutes
art
and
I
mean
one
person's
art-
is
another
and
is.
A
R
C
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
then
okay,
so
I
will
say
that
this
is
the
right
list,
although
I
would
put
the
social
services
and
critical
needs
of
Arts
and
Culture.
Sorry
Matt,
but
and
I
would
add,
on
to
the
the
that
list
to
telecare
I
would
add
things
like
the
resiliency
centers
that
we
were
talking
about
earlier,
where
there's
a
place
that
people
can
go
in
case
of
whatever
kind
of
disaster.
That
might
happen.
C
A
K
I'm,
to
the
extent
that
I
thought
I
heard,
you
say
that
you're
gonna
focus
on
the
left-hand
column
first
and
the
phase
two
was
me:
the
right-hand
column,
I,
guess:
I!
That's
if
I
Ain't
understood
that
right.
I
disagree
with
that
for
the
reasons
that
have
started
to
be
said,
which
is
I,
think
you
know,
Mary
made
a
good
point
about
design
standards
and
made
a
good
point
about
common
space.
K
I
would
actually
include
mobility
in
that
so
I
I
think
this
is
a
good
list
of
eight
I
actually
agree
with
Lisa
that
to
add
a
ninth
into
historical
reservation,
but
I
wouldn't
agree
to
the
phasing.
Let's
do
these
first
and
see
how
it
works,
then
doing
the
rest
of
these
I
think
the
ones
on
the
right.
Many
of
them
are
just
as
important
as
the
one
who
left
sets
might
be
back
soon.
A
G
E
So
a
few
things
I
feel
like
environmentally
enhanced
design
means
something
else
to
me.
It
means
Net
Zero
buildings
or
higher
efficiency
buildings,
where
new
design
standards
could
mean
couplers
and
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
whatever
I
don't
care.
What
buckets
that
captured
in
I
have
a
thought
that
Net
Zero
buildings
you
know
anything
above
and
beyond
what
code
requires,
would
also
be
one
that
I'd
like
to
have
available
on
the
list.
E
Whatever
we
do
a
couple
is
you
know,
the
challenge
with
architectural
flourishes
is
a
lot
of
times.
They
depend
on
the
quality
of
the
architect
and
it's
awfully
hard
to
put
criteria
into
place
that
really
define
that
and
I
know,
depending
on
where
the
building
is
it
may
get
more
or
less
review
of
that.
So
I
would
also
say
that
I
really
like
the
way
that
Austin
has
looked
at
affordable
housing,
in
other
words,
there's
a
gateway
requirement
that
you're
going
to
do
it
and
we
already
have
two
of
those
in
place.
E
So
we've
got
our
inclusionary
zoning
and
we
have
our
linkage
fee
and
so
I
feel,
like
we've
done
a
good
job
starting
there.
So
that's
kind
of
like
the
baseline
or
the
floor
and
when
I
look
at
affordable
housing
on
this
list,
I
would
think
of
it
as
going
above
and
beyond
that.
So,
in
other
words,
if
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
as
one
or
more
choices
that
can
be
made
it's
if
the
project
is
going
to
go
above
and
beyond
it,
affordable,
commercial,
absolutely
I
think
we're
doing
good.
E
There
I
view
arts
and
cultural
uses,
like
you
guys
answered,
Mary
I
think
it
should
be
space
for
art
to
be
practiced
and
not
judgement
about
what
kind
of
public
art
gets
put
there.
That's
kind
of
a
building
owners
choice,
is
they
design
the
project
and
and
then
I
also
agree
about
everything.
That's
been
said
about
social
services
and
publicly
accessible
open
common
spaces.
We
have
design
guidelines
right
that
for
projects
require
a
certain
amount
of
public
space.
There's.
Also,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
that
contribution
that
gets
made
to
parks
is
there.
O
E
E
E
Site
plan
review,
often
times
they're,
extremely
nebulous
and
our
ability
to
condition
on
them
is
really
found
either
deeper
in
the
site
plan,
review
criteria
or
not
at
all.
So
one
of
the
whole
points
of
this
I
just
want
to
put
a
bow
on
this
is
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
condition
using
this
as
part
of
it,
and
if
we
can
do
that
that
that
will
really
improve
I
think
the
quality
we
get
from
projects.
S
Overall,
I
really
I
really
like
this
list
and
I
agree
with
you
know,
Bob
and
Cindy
that
all
eight
are
good
I,
the
biggest
things
I
think.
Maybe
this
isn't
the
right
time
to
get
into
it,
but
how
we're
gonna
find
ways
to
make
these
all
equal
is
of
concern
to
me,
for
example,
publicly-accessible,
open
space
and
you
know
better
design,
which
I
totally
agree
with
Mary
on
the
cupola
and
stuff.
Those
are
two
things
that
would
enhance
the
project
for
the
developer
tremendously
Wow.
S
So
so,
then,
like
like
to
your
point
that
it's
gonna
flow
to
the
path
of
least
resistance,
just
I
just
want
to
be
careful
as
we
set
this
up,
that
we're
really
making
these
you
know
comparable
to
one
another
and
and
and
that
we
do
our
room
for
flexibility,
that
if,
if
everyone
does
just
choose
one
way
that
we
you
know,
we
were
you're
evaluating,
so
I.
Think
and
I
have
like
lots
of
questions
if
we
go
through
all
eight
on
how
we'd
set
up
the
details,
but
but
that's
for
a
later
conversation.
F
So
yeah
I
was
I
was
gonna.
Make
that
same
point
there.
There's
the
because
you
have
to
I
think
we're
we're
talking
about
quantifying
like
Austin.
Does
a
good
job
of
that
right.
I
mean
it's
not
nebulous,
they
quantify
how
what
you
have
to
provide
in
order
to
get
what
and
that
makes
sense
to
me
as
an
approach.
So
you
have
to
think
with
a
longer
list,
there's
a
lot
to
quantify
and
then
how
you
make
them
equal
to
each
other's
little
challenging
so
I
think
we
want
it.
F
I
agree
with
keeping
more
of
these
things
on
the
list,
but
I
think
we
want
to
focus
in
on
them
as
we
get
to
next
stages,
because,
like
mobility
and
parking
is
a
is
a
big
possible
bucket
and
what
are
the
actual
things
we
would
want
to
put
in
there?
That
requires
some
discussion
like,
for
example,
in
the
packet
you
mentioned.
More
connections
could
be
a
possible
one.
Well,
actually,
I
think
site
review
process
does
a
great
job
already
giving
us.
The
connections
that
we
need
were
able.
F
There
are
site
review
criteria
about
it,
we're
able
to
create
permeability
and
paths.
I
never
saw
a
problem
with
that
that
one
in
particular,
so
we'll
have
to
think
about
that
going
forward.
One
mobility
thing
I
will
call
out
is
that
I
had
promised,
was
a
satellite
parking
that
that's
something
that
we've
talked
about,
maybe
encouraging.
So
that
would
be
one
that
I
think
could
make
a
good
addition
that
list
the
the
flowchart
you're
starting
to
work
on
made
sense
to
me
in
terms
of
wolf.
F
You
know,
10%
of
the
community
benefits,
or
you
know,
I
think
we
might
not
require
multiple
community
benefits
from
project
I've
been
there
some
menu
of
options,
and
maybe
we
place
we
place
maximums
I
in
terms
of
the
open
and
common
spaces.
There
have
been
some
good
comments
on
that.
One
of
the
items
on
that
list
could
be
conservation.
Easements
of
environmentally
sensitive
land
could
be
a
good
one
on
that
one
I
do
I'm
very
glad
to
see
social
service
is
in
here
and
I'll.
F
Just
reiterate
my
thought
from
before
about
the
idea
of
maybe
there's
a
combination
of
affordable,
commercial
and
social
services.
Maybe
that's
there
there's
one
program
that
gets
rolled
into
where
you
say:
well,
you
enter
into
this
program,
it
could
be
social
services
or
it
could
be
lower
lower
than
market
rate
for
local
businesses,
or
something
like
that.
So
those
are
things
to
consider
something
else.
F
The
arts
and
cultures
in
here
I
want
to
do
a
shout
out
to
members
of
the
arts.
Community
have
been
advocating
for
arts
and
culture
as
a
community
benefit
for
years,
and
it's
coming
to
fruition
in
this
list,
which
I'm
really
happy
to
see.
I'll
echo,
my
colleagues
about
focusing
on
studio,
live
work
and
especially
performance
space.
Make
sure
that
we
get
that
in
there
as
it
focus
for
arts
and
culture,
but
I
mean
conceivably.
F
We
could
have
a
small
allowed
piece
of
it
for
a
public
art
on
the
like
in
the
right,
according
to
the
right
away
or
something
something
is
very
public
under
strict
criteria
could
maybe
let
you
meet
just
a
little
bit,
because
we
don't
get
a
lot
of
public
art
in
this
town.
I
think
we
could
use
some
more
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
That.
A
Was
very
comprehensive,
so
I
won't
repeat:
I'm
liking
what
laksa
I'm
liking?
What
all
of
you
said,
but
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that
I
think
some
things
are
more
important
than
others.
So
I
like
this
idea
of
we
got
the
gate,
nothing
is
it
the
gatekeeper
and
then
we've
got
some
big
ones,
and
then
we
got
some
bonus
ones.
I
think
that
makes
sense,
and
so
I
think
this
is
the
right
list,
but
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think
they're
all
equal.
A
So
I
think
this
notion
that
you
can
get
10%
here,
trying
to
figure
out
how
you
a
little
bit
of
something
of
some
of
these.
But
you
want
a
lot
of
affordability
and
I
guess
for
the
abilities.
I
think
his
is
kind
of
the
biggest
that
said,
I
was
just
in
Grand
Rapids,
which
is
a
public
art
city
and,
oh,
my
god,
what
a
difference
that
makes
and
so
yes
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
accommodate
that
it
shouldn't
replace
affordability.
A
But
again
there
are
some
amenities
that
would
really
help
build
community,
even
as
we
get
bigger
because
I
do
think
there's
those
are
some
of
the
nexuses
we're
talking
about
is
people
but
getting
more
people.
We
don't
know
each
other
as
much
okay.
Well,
how
do
we
create
that
sense
of
uniqueness
and
I?
Don't
know
branding
about
who
we
are
and
stuff
anyhow,
public
art
fits
into
that
Lisa.
D
O
D
Like
in
Philadelphia,
especially
in
South
Philadelphia
and
then
in
Center,
City
Philadelphia,
there's
like
the
mural
mile
and
it
is
phenomenal
and
their
Arts
Commission
I,
think
they
give
grants
to
allow
these
murals
and
they
go.
The
artist
goes
before
the
Commission,
but
it
makes
such
beautiful
art
space
and
when
you
go
down
to
South
Philadelphia,
it's
like
the
people
have
kind
of
taken
over,
which
is
very
cool
and
they
do
mirror
mirror
murals
and
it's
just
art
you're
just
washed
in
our
timber.
O
We
run
a
foul
here
as
one,
for
example,
if
a
business
owner
wants
to
paint
a
mural
on
the
side
of
their
tavern,
for
example,
and
it's
beer,
mugs
or
somehow
advertising
what
it
is
that
they
sell
or
what
happens
in
the
building.
That's
a
commercial
signage
issues,
that's
where
we
want
to
follow,
usually
with
murals.
Okay,.
A
C
I,
don't
know
where
you
work
this
stuff
in,
but
I
wanted
to
put
it
out
there,
so
they
you,
hopefully,
will
think
about
it,
as
you
run
through
this,
but
the
labor
requirements
that
requiring
the
housing
to
be
rented
to
people
that
live
in
town
so
that
it
doesn't
go
to
like
people
that
rent
an
apartment
and
come
two
weeks
a
year
or
something
and
the
rest
of
time.
It's
a
it's
a.
C
P
A
T
We
were
really
mixed
on
this
I
mean
some
folks
wanted
to
get
rid
of
the
map
altogether
and
just
do
a
citywide
project.
Some
folks
wanted
to
keep
the
map,
maybe
modify
it
if
there
are
sub
community
plans
or
area
plans
done,
and
some
folks
thought
you
know,
minor
tweaks
to
the
map
might
be
okay,
so
it
was
really
just
the
whole
gamut
really
so
I'm.
Sorry,
we
weren't
break
helpful
on
that.
One.
Okay,.
F
R
One
note
on
the
Planning
Board
input
reflects
what
we've
heard
in
our
like
focus
group
sessions
and
in
discussions
where
there's
and
we
haven't
really
seen
a
clear
path
forward,
and
so
before
spending
any
time
asking
that
question
of
the
community.
We
wanted
to
check
in
with
Council
to
make
sure
that
we
were
going
in
a
direction
that
was
at
the
will
of
the
council.
R
A
lot
of
these
projects
that
would
be
requesting
to
participate
in
this
program
would
likely
be
contingent
on
being
included
on
appendix
J,
and
so
the
question
has
come
up
over
the
process
of.
Should
we
look
at
other
sites
outside
of
that
map
and
perhaps
add
or
remove
sites
based
on
a
public
process,
and
so
if
the
answer
was
yes
do
that,
then
we
would
amend
our
public
process
to
do
that
and
have
that
discussion.
If
not,
then
we
wouldn't
I,
don't.
F
Know,
if
that's
answering
your
actually
didn't
answer
it
at
all,
my
question
was
to
say
it
again.
Are
you
talking
about
changing
the
map
in
the
next
few
months
during
the
community
benefit
process,
or
are
you
talking
about
changing
it
after
we're
finished
with
the
community
benefit
process
and
we've
like
finalized
the
code
changes
I,
don't.
P
D
C
Hand
up
I'm
a
little
confused
by
this
question,
because
we
I
thought
we
looked
at
this
when
we
passed
the
made
2020
and
some
of
us
wanted
to
release
areas
by
when
they
got
sub
community
plans
and
to
keep
it
in
place
indefinitely
and
then
release
areas
as
community
plans.
It
became
available
so
I'm
kind.
C
K
Guess,
I'm
confused.
We
have
a
lot
of
fur
over
ours
over
here,
I
mean
realistically
I
mean
you
guys
want
to
get
this
community
there's
this
benefit
stuff
done
by
the
third
quarter
next
year
right
and
then
we
have
got
2020,
which
is
a
few
months
later
realistically
or
we
can
have
any
area
plans
done
in
that
time
frame.
K
So
isn't
this
a
move?
I
mean
I
go
back
to
Aaron's
question.
If
you're
asking
do
we
want
to
mess
with
this,
but
now
and
win
this
projects,
hunter
2020,
I
think
the
answer
is
no.
We
just
fought
that
battle,
so
why
don't
we
just
leave
things
alone,
because
what
you're
doing
here
is
gonna
answer
these
questions.
Right
I
mean
yes.
Theoretically,
if
there's
an
area
plan
that
pops
up
and
gets
approved,
could
we
add
it
to
appendix
J
at
that?
Might
I'm
sure?
K
A
P
P
Appendix
J
now
it
obviously
has
geographic
areas
where
you
can
ask
for
a
height
mod,
but
you
also
can
have
projects
like
permanently
affordable
housing
that
has
more
than
40%
of
its
foyer
is
exempt
from
those
areas
you
can
be
anywhere
in
the
city,
so
we
might
find
through
further
discussion
that
these
community
benefits
can
be
also
be
exempted.
You
know
so
I
think
we're
just
trying
to
get
a
I
think
a
general
sense.
Well,.
A
I'm
giving
you
my
opinion,
I
know
you're
next.
If
we
do
a
good
job
here
and
people
feel
like.
Oh,
yes,
I
would
take
more
height.
For
that.
That's
what
frees
up
the
conversation
so
I
wouldn't
say
exempt
it
it.
It
allows
us
to
reshape
where
we
want
this
stuff
to
happen,
that
we
just
decided
would
give
us
community
benefit.
So
to
me,
you
do
this,
and
then
you
have
that
conversation
yeah.
E
I,
don't
think
this
is
the
right
venue
for
this.
To
be
honest
with
you,
I
mean
I
felt.
That
was
also
the
case
when
we
were
voting
on
it
at
11:30
at
night,
and
it
was
not
something
we
had
had
a
broad
community
discussion
about.
If
we
were
going
to
do
something
like
this
I
think
it
would
need
if
we
were
gonna,
consider
these
kinds
of
changes
and/or
requiring
some
community
plans
in
order
to
release
areas
or
whatever
it
was
I
think
that's
got
to
be
too
subjective.
E
Its
own
set
of
discussion
and
hearing
I
had
thought
if
we
would
do
that
and
I'm
really
ambivalent
about
whether
I
want
to
it
would
be
in
the
sub
community
planning
process,
because
that's
where
you
could
make
some
kind
of
statement
like
I
want,
you
know
only
a
sub
community
plan
to
be
able
to
allow
that
kind
of
regulation.
So
I
guess
I
am
not
comfortable.
Saying
anything
about
this,
except
certainly
not
here
would
be
I.
Don't
think
this
is
appropriate.
E
F
R
The
next
question:
it
really
just
talks
a
little
bit
about
our
engagement
moving
forward,
so
we
are
planning.
You
know
a
lot
of
these
projects
start
off
with
a
lot
kind
of
an
open
house
and
larger
events.
In
this
case,
we
sort
of
flip
that
on
its
head-
and
we
decided
to
have
some
focus
groups
and
some
community
visit
with
community
organizations
and
have
had
a
lot
of
more
one-on-one
or
small
group
conversations
about
this
to
at
least
start
assessing.
R
What
are
the
options,
because
we
didn't
have
a
whole
lot
to
go
out
to
the
community
about
now.
We
feel
like
we're
at
a
point
where
we
can
talk
intelligently,
about
a
program
that
we
would
create
at
the
city,
and
so
now
in
the
next
month
about
the
next
month
month
and
a
half
we'd
be
looking
to
have
an
outward
facing
larger
event.
R
We'd
be
looking
at
reassembling
those
participants
that
gave
their
time
in
focus
groups
doing
some
drop-in
events
pulling
together
some
experts
in
the
community
and
staff
or
in
technical
groups
to
help
provide
feedback
on
some
of
these
topics.
We
visited
with
a
number
of
boards
and
commissions
that
we
described
in
the
report
and
we'd
continue
to
be
working
with
them.
Hab
has
designated
two
members
to
kind
of
be
our
central
point
of
contact,
for
example,
and
so
we
have
a
framework,
at
least
in
play
that
identifies
those
things
moving
forward.
R
One
of
the
big
questions
that
remains
was
brought
up
initially
by
a
planning
board
member
and
then
I
believe
it
was
brought
up
at
CAC
again
about
a
process
committee
concept
similar
to
that
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan,
and
so,
given
that
it
was
brought
up
at
CAC,
we
I
believe
told
CAC
afterwards
that
we'd
bring
it
up
during
this
meeting.
The
question
was:
would
it
be
useful
to
have
some
sort
of
a
couple
of
council
delegates
planning,
board,
etc,
to
meet
on
sort
of
reoccurring
basis,
to
advise
on
unprocess
and
other
things
for
this
project?
R
We,
as
staff
talked
a
little
bit
more
about
it,
and
we
thought
it
was
a
great
idea.
We
also
thought
we'd
like
to
perhaps
offer
that
the
scope
you
could
consider
broadening
to
include
all
of
the
code
amendments
and
not
just
this
one
specific
project
since
there's
a
number
of
them
in
the
works,
and
so
that's
probably
one
of
the
more
important
things
relating
to
this
question
that
we
wanted
to
highlight
for
you.
But
if
you
had
any
other
kinds
of
questions
around
process
that
we've
outlined
in
the
report
would
love
that
feedback.
A.
A
Clarifying
question
the
process
committee
is
what
you
would
expand
to
all
of
them,
but
the
process
we're
weighing
in
on
is
just
the
one
we've
been
talking
about
tonight:
we're
not
weighing
in
on
how
to
do
your
use
tables
we're
just
talking
about
right.
I
just
wanted
okay.
So
let's
just
break
this
up.
What
do
people
think
about
the
process
committee
idea.
D
It's
a
good
idea,
I
think
it's
been
helpful.
It
was
helpful
in
the
housing
group.
It
was
helpful
in
I.
Think
it's
helpful
in
the
open
space
master
plan.
I
think
having
two
council
members
and
I
would
extend
it
to
Planning,
Board
and
I.
Guess
hab
is
having
in
there
now
or
not
I,
don't
know,
but
I
definitely
include
planning
board
and
council
members
in
there
and
I
think
it
just
helps
bring
the
process
along
others.
D
F
I
think
it
can
be
value.
It
is
a
bit
of
a
heavy
lift.
I
mean
it's,
it's
definitely
some
extra
time.
So
to
that
point,
I,
like
your
idea
of
role,
we're
working
on
a
lot
of
planning
related
things
I,
like
that
idea
of
including
all
of
them
in
the
process,
kinase
purview,
so
that
it
gives
you're
getting
more
bang
for
your
buck
and
agree
with
having
playing
board
participating
as
well.
Yeah.
C
T
A
F
D
F
I
will
not
be
volunteering
for
this
committee
because
I'm
already
on
the
open
space
process
committee,
so
but
just
one
thought
just
to
make
sure
that
we
reach
out
extensively
to
people
who
don't
show
up
at
meetings
all
the
time
and
particular
kind
of
underrepresented
communities
in
town.
We're
making
a
big
effort
on
that
in
the
open
space
master
plan
outreach
so
like
I
said
like
drop
in
events
like
at
coffee
shops
and
things,
and
that's
great
just
make
sure
you
don't
only
hit
things
that
are
patronized
by
people
over
90
percent
ami.
D
K
Assume
this
is
in
your
technical
on
focus
groups,
but
but
I
I'm,
presumably
the
that
would
include
people
that
actually
build
buildings
right.
Okay,
so
we're
not
just
gonna
making
stuff
up
and
then
find
out.
The
development
community
says:
that's
the
stupidest
thing
I
ever
heard
right.
So
we
want.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
actually
living
in
the
world
of
reality
and.
A
And
I
will
just
say
that
to
me:
duh
I
keep
coming
back
to
the
Austin
flow
chart
because
to
me
that
was
like,
oh
now,
this
is
interesting.
This
is
provocative.
How
would
you
rate
these
things?
How
would
you
and
to
me
that's
a
good
tool
to
use
either
filled
in
or
not,
but
with
a
few
examples,
but
then
that's
a
really
provocative
tool
that
I
think,
at
least
for
me
I
think,
would
be
very
useful,
a
bunch
of
audiences,
so
people
can
think
about
what's
important
to
them.
E
So
I
agree
was
the
anima
at
the
floor.
Chart
I
also
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
packets,
which
are
small,
but
which
are
the
case
study
summaries,
because
I
think
it
gives
people
a
certain
amount
of
reassurance
to
know.
Hey
look.
Other
communities
have
done
this,
here's
how
it
worked
for
them.
We
can
craft
it
for
our
community,
but
the
knowledge
that
it's
not
just
you
know
this
crazy.
One-Off
idea
is
useful.
E
Bob
to
your
point,
I
mean
we
definitely
have
to
work
with
developers
to
understand
how,
because
this
this
is
a
bunch
of
nitty-gritty
stuff
right
about
parking
use,
development
standards
and
so
unintended
consequences
are
a
lot
of
what
we're
trying
to
be
cleaned
up
now.
So
if
we
are
trying
to
clean
up
unintended
consequences,
we
definitely
have
to
run
it
past.
The
people
who
will
be
implementing
the
rules
that
are
gonna
get
made
here
so
I
think
that's
important
as
well.
E
C
A
And
I
encourage
people
that
haven't
had
a
chance
to
do
that.
Yet
to
consider
volunteering,
one
of
the
thought
I
just
saw
out
there
is
we've
done
this
on
a
few.
Other
issues
is
to
me.
This
is
a
really
interesting,
interesting
policy
question,
and
so
maybe
we
say:
hey
you,
oh
I
sponsored
some
salons,
hey
I
mean,
let's
do
some
of
those
things.
I
mean
if
need
be.
Let's
have
somebody
from
Santa
Monica
come
and
when
we
already
have
somebody
from
Austin
here,
but
I
don't
know.
But
to
me
this
is.
A
D
Okay,
well,
I
mean
it
would
be
good
while
we're
going
through,
that
is
to
do
Channel
eight
and
do
social
media,
but
definitely
I,
think
Channel,
eight
and
I
think
Patrick
and
the
communications
people
could
actually
put
some
stuff
really
well
together,
interviews
some
discussions
with
different
people's
just
so
that
the
people
know
what's
going
on
and
I
think
we
do
get
a
lot
of
hits
on
Channel
eight,
and
so
it's
a
good
way
to
communicate.
What
we're
doing
can.
A
The
whole
we
did
really
well
on
some
of
these
other
things
growing
up,
older
and
but
also
having
the
see
you
design
folks
think
anyhow,
we're
getting
good
at
well
I
think
we're
getting
better
at
engaging
in
a
creative
way.
So
we've
learned
a
few
things
in
the
last
couple
processes.
So
let's
use
some
of
those
successes:
okay,
hey
how
about
almost
on
time.
D
Tomorrow,
so
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
a
a
couple
things
one
and
I
guess
it's
on
page
two,
forty
five
and
we're
talking
about
industrial
general,
industrial
service
and
industrial
manufacturing
and
I'm
wondering
and
of
course
it
depends
where
it
would
be
and
stuff,
but
right
now,
in
industrial
general,
my
understanding
is
that
if
somebody
owned
two
Lots,
that's
zoned
industrial
general,
then
they
and
they
want
to
do
some
housing
on
it.
They
cannot
do
housing
on
it
unless
there's
one
sixth
continuity
right
of
housing,
next
adjacent
to
them.
There's.
D
I,
just
you
know,
since
we're
trying
to
really
push
for
or
get
affordable
housing.
I
guess.
I
would
like
to
throw
into
this
mix
incentives
for
for
developers
to
come
forward
that
have
industrial
general
that
are
interested
in
doing
housing
but
main
affordable
housing,
but
may
not
be
contiguous
to
some
land
that
is
already
housing
and
I
can
think
of
several
sites
and
I
know.
D
We
want
to
be
very
careful
in
terms
of
our
industrial,
but
I
think
there
could
be
some
benefit
and
I
think
we
should
at
least
consider
it
instead
of
just
saying
no,
it
doesn't
meet
the
standards
and
and
I
think
that
goes
to
I
know.
Aaron's
talked
a
lot
about
it.
You
know
where
you
could
still
have
some
industrial
or
retail
on
that
first
first
floor,
but
then
you
could
get
affordable
housing
on
a
per
floors
and
I.
Think
at
some
point
we
will
want
to
look
at
industrial
general.
O
D
Now,
in
this
in
this
pile
and
see,
if
we
could
do
it,
because
I
think
people
will
go
forward,
you
knows
people
wouldn't
develop
their
properties,
okay,
and
so
for
me,
what
part
of
this
whole
discussion
is?
Is
giving
people
a
menu
of
options
and
say:
hey,
you
know
what,
instead
of
doing
another
industrial
general
development,
what
we
really
need
is
affordable
housing
and
if
we
can
incent
you
to
do
that,
even
though
you
don't
meet
the
performance
standards,
we'll
we'll
have
a
conversation
with
you
and
let's
see
where
that
goes.
U
Just
if
I
get
provided
with
just
a
brief
response
to
that
I
think
one
of
the
upcoming
projects,
where
maybe
we
have
the
opportunity
to
do
that
and
and
Carl
in
in
early
on
where
he
gave
a
real
quick
summary
of
the
other
code
amendments
we're
working
on.
You
may
recall
at
your
January
2018
you
retreat.
You
identified
the
EU's
table
as
an
area
where
we
ought
to
think
about
modifications
and
and
I.
U
Believe
you
you,
you
asked
the
Planning
Board
to
take
a
significant
role
in
doing
that,
and
so
the
Planning
Board
now
has
actually
created
a
subcommittee
and
is,
and
is
up
and
sort
of
beginning
to
be
up
and
running
on
that
I.
Think
the
EU's
table
offers
an
opportunity
as
well.
Carl
alluded
to
that,
because
one
of
the
things
when
he
talked
about
the
EU's
table
was
perhaps
modifications
to
the
EU's
table
that
will
allow
the
creation
of
15-minute
communities.
U
So
when
we
start
looking
at
the
EU's
table
and
there's
this
different
zoning
districts,
including
what
you're
talking
about
that's
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
what
are
what
are?
We
have
the
opportunities
to
create
through
modifications
through
the
EU's
table,
within
any
difference
own
district
right.
D
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
properties
might
get
developed.
That
would,
if
we
wait
too
long,
they're
gonna
go
forward
and
do
industrial
instead
of
housing
and
I
would
really
like
to
encourage
some
kind
of
housing
and
that's
why
I'm
bringing
it
up
here.
So
it's
just.
What
do
we
want
and
I
think
we
want
and
we
need
housing
so
and
then
I
had,
and
then
this
has
to
do
as
a
kite.
D
F
D
You
and
then
just
one
last
question
and
has
to
do
with
height,
and
it's
not
like
I
want
to
go.
You
know
really
high,
but
I
just
was
reviewing
my
notes
here
and
you
know
I
think
the
areas
that
you
guys
were
considering
include
the
BV
RC
Table
Mesa,
be
smart,
I,
agonal,
Plaza
and
I
think
especially
I.
D
But
it's
again
this
whole
thing
of
we're
going
to
get
something
developed,
but
it's
it
really
what
we
want
versus
encouraging
and
incentivizing
people
to
develop
something
that
really
serves
our
needs,
so
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that,
but
I
think
it's
really
important
and
I
would
hate
for
any
of
those
properties
to
come
forward
and
not
get
to
our
goals.
So
it's
just
to
comment
and
so
I
don't
know
anyway,
parking
lots.
Really
don't
do
a
lot
for
us
yeah,
okay,.