►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Study Session 9-25-18
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).
B
So
to
tonight's
focus
is
actually
follow
up
on
two
important
items
that
the
council
had
identified
at
the
retreat
earlier
this
year,
and
we
indicated
we
would
come
back
in
a
scoping
conversation.
So
the
two
items
tonight
are
really
a
scoping
conversation
for
us
to
get
feedback
from
council
and
discuss
next
steps.
So
the
first
item
is
addressing
the
construction
of
large
homes
on
large
lots,
and
we
have
two
presenters
tonight:
Carl
Guiler
and
also
one
of
our
new
planners
Andrew
Collins,
correct,
okay,
will
be
leading
us
in
that
discussion.
C
So
before
we
turn
it
over
to
staff
and
thanks
very
much
Tanya
and
before
I
turn
it
over
to
Carl
Carl
I'm
happy
to
introduce
Andrew
Collins
he's
our
new
code
amendments
specialists,
who
comes
to
us
via
the
city
of
Nashville
Tennessee,
so
he's
filling
one
of
the
positions
that
was
authorized
by
counsel
at
the
retreat
to
address
some
of
this
work.
So
we're
happy
to
have
him
on
board
this
evening.
I'd
also
point
out
that
Kristen
would
Co
our
energy
code
coordinators
with
us
tonight
too.
C
D
Thanks
Charles
good
evening,
council
members
tonight
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
large
lots
and
large
homes
discussion
we're
at
the
beginning
stages
of
this
project.
So
we
wanted
to
get
council
feedback
on
the
scope
and
get
a
better
understanding
of
some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
about
compatibility
before
we
move
forward
on
the
project,
so
we're
looking
forward
to
that
feedback.
D
Before
we
jump
into
that
large
lot.
Large
home
discussion,
I
wanted
to
start
with
the
broader
land
use
code
change
list.
If
you
look
at
attachment,
A
in
the
memo
and
I've
also
laid
out
the
list
in
front
of
you
on
your
tables
there.
It's
our
current
code
change
priorities,
so
this
list
was
shared
with
council
in
January
of
this
year
at
the
treat,
and
it
reflects
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
counsel
at
that
time,
but
we're
also
open
to
additional
feedback
so
just
to
talk
about
some
of
the
priorities.
D
What
there's
the
community
benefit
project
that
we
discussed
about
a
month
ago
at
the
study
session
tonight,
we're
gonna
be
discussing
the
large
lot
large
homes
project
we're
also
working
on
the
youth
standards
project.
It's
basically
looking
at
updates
to
the
youth
table
to
address
any
outdated
uses.
Look
at
a
closer
look
at
some
uses
that
have
been
a
little
bit
problematic,
home
occupations,
look
at
maybe
other
opportunities
for
live
work
locations
and
also
trying
to
implement
comprehensive
planning
policies
such
as
trying
to
foster
more
fifteen-minute
neighborhoods.
D
So
this
is
a
process
that
is
started
up
recently
as
well
and
we'll
be
coming
back
to
Council
to
get
some
feedback
on
that
as
well.
We're
also
working
on
the
parking
and
TDM
code
changes.
This
is
something
that's
been
ongoing
since
about
2014.
We
actually
met
with
our
parking
consultant
today
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
timeline,
so
we
will
eventually
be
coming
back
to
council
to
get
some
feedback
on
options
on
parking
code
changes
as
well.
D
We're
also
looking
at
doing
some
design
changes
to
the
land
use
code,
so
that
next
two
priorities
are
something
that's
that
that's
been
ongoing,
but
we
hope
to
complete
within
the
work
plan
for
2018
2019.
Some
of
these
might
go
into
2020
like
the
commerce
of
design
standards,
but
these
are
two
particular
ones
that
we're
focusing
on
now.
E
Great
thanks,
Carl
good
evening
Council.
So
tonight
the
presentation
is
going
to
cover
at
the
background
of
the
large
lots
and
large
homes.
Project,
including
an
overview
of
their
current
regulations,
are
in
place
also
go
over
the
draft.
Why
in
purpose
statements
and
then
we'll
have
the
questions
for
our
City
Council
and
follow
up
with
next
steps
and
feel
free
to
stop
me
at
any
time.
E
If
you
have
any
questions
as
well,
so
we're
in
the
initial
scoping
stage
and
again,
the
purpose
for
tonight
is
to
receive
feedback
on
the
goals
and
directions
that
council
has
for
the
project.
We
hope
to
be
in
the
engagement
phase,
starting
in
winter
of
next
year
through
spring,
with
adoption
of
any
proposed
changes
occurring,
ideally
by
August
of
2019.
E
These
areas
can
be
generally
characterized
by
their
larger
Lots
and
older
parcels
have
a
more
rural
character
with
smaller
homes,
and
this
is
in
particularly
the
North
Boulder
area
and
just
as
a
reference
points,
the
RV
do
you
require
the
largest
minimum
line.
There
is
of
all
the
residential
zones,
that's
15,000
square
feet
and
30,000
square
foot,
minimum
lot
sizes-
and
we
have
heard
narrow
way
that
there
might
be
some
interest
in
other
zoning
districts
as
well
and
I.
Think
more
an
opportunity
could
be
to
look
at
large
Lots
in
those
other
districts.
E
In
terms
of
the
existing
regulations
that
we
have
in
place
for
these
residential
zones,
we
had
the
max
building
height,
which
is
35
feet,
there's
also
the
side
yard
bulk
plain
that
was
put
in
place
in
2009.
This
is
a
line
starting
at
a
point
well
feet
above
the
side,
property
lines
and
then
angling
inward
at
45
degrees,
so
development
has
to
occur,
has
to
occur
within
this
zone.
There
are
some
exceptions
for
dormers
and
gabled
roofs,
but
the
most
part
the
bulk
of
the
building
has
to
be
in
that
zone.
E
There's
also
the
minimum
lot
area
requirement,
which
is
simply
the
minimum
size
for
new
Lots
and
their
zoning
district
setbacks,
which
we're
all
familiar
with
there's
also
in
some
districts,
a
combined
side
setback.
So
you
might
have
a
10
foot
side
setback
requirement,
but
combined
it
might
have
to
be
25
feet.
E
There's
also
a
max
building
coverage
requirement
that
was
put
in
place
in
2009,
and
this
is
a
sliding
scale
based
based
on
the
size
of
the
lot,
which
limits
how
much
of
the
building
how
much
of
a
lot
can
be
covered
by
buildings.
So
this
deals
with
the
footprint
of
the
building
itself
on
the
ground
plane,
and
then
we
have
FA
are
the
floor
area
ratio
requirement,
which
limits
the
amount
odel
from
added
floor
area.
E
We
also
have
energy
efficiency
standards
and
the
energy
code
that
we'll
touch
on
a
little
bit
more
coming
up,
so
this
table
shows
some
of
the
key
existing
development
regulations
for
the
re
in
our
our
zoning
districts.
One
of
the
main
things
to
know
here
is
in
the
left
is
the
right
two
columns
floor
area
ratio
max
and
building
coverage
are
both
sliding
scales.
E
E
The
city's
energy
code
was
adopted
in
2017.
This
replaced
the
Greenpoint
system,
and
that
requires
more
stringent
standards
for
larger
homes
that,
by
their
nature,
consume
more
energy.
The
dark-blue
2017
line
represents
the
current
regulations,
so
on
the
vertical
y-axis
you
have
energy
rating
index
requirements,
which
is
a
score
from
zero
to
sixty,
currently
in
our
regs
zero
being
net
energy,
so
the
north,
the
lower
score,
the
more
energy
efficient.
E
The
requirements
are
so
for
homes
that
are
five
thousand
square
feet
or
greater
they're
required
to
be
Net
Zero
today,
coming
up
in
2019
that
will
be
ratcheted
down
so
that
homes,
4,000
square
feet
and
larger
had
to
be
non
zero,
and
so
the
idea
is
over
time,
we'll
have
all
homes
by
2020,
a
or
2030
be
required
to
be
Net
Zero
over
time.
The
Commission.
H
Sure
I'm
Kristin
Witco
I'm,
the
energy
code
coordinator
at
the
city
and
I
joined
the
city
about
the
same
time
that
these
regulations
came
in
place
and
they
mostly
applied
to
new
construction.
But
also,
if
you
have
a
significant
renovation
where
you
exceed
50%
of
the
assessed
value
of
the
property,
then
these
these
requirements
are
triggered.
Also
and.
H
H
J
A
D
You
might
be
thinking
of
the
floor
area
ratio
restrictions
in
the
residential
zone,
so
it
talks
about
how
much
of
a
basement
actually
counts
in
the
Farr
calculation.
So
if
most
of
the
basement
is
actually
below
grade,
doesn't
count
as
Floria,
but
if
most
of
it
is
above
that
portion,
that's
above
counts.
Okay,.
E
A
E
E
There
the
draft
purpose
statement
again
it's
on
page
nine
of
your
packets,
and
so
this
will
take
us
to
the
questions
for
council,
and
so
we
have
six
questions
for
you
tonight.
The
first
five
do
deal
with
the
large
lots:
large
homes
projects,
the
six
one
deals
with
the
list
that
Carl
discussed
earlier
and
we'll
go
through
these
one
at
a
time
and
then
pause
for
discussion.
E
A
A
I
Why
and
purpose
is
the
radically
changing
demographics,
so
you
know
there's
a
much
larger
percentage
of
people
who
can
afford
a
650
or
600
thousand
dollar
home
then
can
afford
a
three
point:
four
five
million
dollar
home
and
that's
the
change
that
we're
seeing
so
that,
from
my
perspective,
is
one
of
the
key
purposes.
Why
we're
doing
this
is
the
changing
demographics
and
who
we
are
going
to
be
in
the
future.
So.
A
L
I
F
The
plaintiff
like,
although
you
might
not
put
the
exact
square
footage
in
the
Y
statement,
but
I
I,
would
agree
with
the
things
that
have
been
said.
I
think
Suzanne's
list
was
was
really
good:
the
affordable
affordability,
income,
diversity,
I,
think
energy
use
and,
and
is
an
important
one
as
well
energy,
and
you
know
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
how
you
put
it.
But
so
we
deal
with
climate
change
really
large
houses
for
small
family
is
but.
A
F
J
I
And
and
with
that
doing,
the
best
with
what's
left-
and
that
means
not
just
development
but
parks,
libraries,
things
like
that,
our
Civic
uses.
We
do
not
want
to
expand
our
city
footprint,
so
we
don't
want
to
have
sprawl
and
I
think
we
absolutely
have
to
do
something
about
the
jobs.
Housing.
I
don't
want
to
get
the
into
that
at
this
point,
but
we
need
to
be
providing
some
housing
for
people
who
are
commuting
in
so
that
their
environmental
footprint
is
smaller,
very.
E
Was
mostly
for
context
to
kind
of
explain
where
the
compatible
infill
development
regulations
are
why
they
are
today
and
kind
of
where
we're
going
and
what
has
been
successful,
not
successful,
mostly
for
context
in
history.
That
can
definitely
be
shortened
out
if
it's
not
no
bright
spot
for
it.
Well,.
G
You
know
we
keep
kicking
around
here
tonight
is
compatible
and
I
know
that
we
refer
to
the
2009
ordinance,
but
then
down
when
we
get
to
the
rule
or
the
wise
statement.
We
talking
about
we're,
making
some
judgments
about
too
large
and
out
of
character
and
I.
Think
I'd
like
to
use
the
word
compatible
there,
because
there
are
probably
some
neighborhoods
where
a
large
house
is
compatible
in
other
neighborhoods,
where
it's
certainly
not,
and
so
I
don't
want
us
to
I,
don't
want
the
perception
to
be
anything,
that's
large
is
bad.
G
It's
got
to
be
compatible
all
the
reasons,
as
Ann
said.
As
far
as
energy
efficiency,
land-use
efficiency
are
all
all
right,
but
I
think
we
also
need
to
have
it
in
context
to
the
neighborhood
and
compatibility
I.
Think
is
a
good
word
to
use,
rather
than
an
assumption
that
something
is
out
of
character.
M
Anybody
that's
interesting,
but
then
you
also
have
this
problem
with
mission
creep
or
change
over
time,
where
you
know
a
neighborhood
might
have
had
small
houses
originally
and
then
that
neighborhood
has
been
the
target
for
development
and
now
all
of
a
sudden
there's
larger
homes
and
that's
not
necessarily
compatible
because
they've
changed.
The
development
has
changed
the
character
of
the
small
houses
that
had
been
there
previously,
so
I
think
part
of
the
conversation
is,
you
know
if
it
hasn't
been
replaced
already,
preserving
it
I
think
that's
exactly
right.
M
Preserving
what's
there
because
of
the
embodied
energy.
Because
of
the
you
know,
you
can
do
renovation
on
a
place
to
make
it
more
energy-efficient.
I
just
want
to
not
lose
track
of
the
fact
that
there
has
been
a
lot
of
this
large
home
building
going
on,
and
so
we
have
to
look
at.
Maybe
what
was
there
before
the
you
know?
What
the
large
house
I
mean
I,
see.
A
Your
hand,
I
guess
I
also
without
getting
us
in
trouble,
I
think
at
least
this
is
one
person's
opinion
that
we
want
to
change
what
we
are
doing
and
we
want
to
do
it
in
a
way
that
feels
in
character
with
who
we
are
as
a
community
and
what
we
feel
like
you
know
in
neighborhoods,
but
I
at
least
I
would
like
us
to
start
incentivizing.
Smaller
houses
is
I.
G
Let
me
just
respond:
I
I,
think,
that's
exactly
right
and
so
I
think
I
think
we'd
just
like
to
turn
the
statement
a
little
on
his
head
rather
than
saying,
houses
are
too
large.
I
think
we
want
to
say
we
want
more
smaller
houses
which
which
ends
up
at
the
same
place,
but
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
more
of
a
positive
statement.
A
I
I
Change
of
these
neighborhoods
methodically
developers
are
going
down,
buying
a
lot
scraping,
putting
something
totally
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood,
so
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
get
too
much
incompatible
because
many
of
us
feel
like
they're
not
compatible,
but
that
we
have
this
mission
here,
which
is
that
we
need
smaller
houses.
We
need
things
that
are
going
to
have
less
impact
on
the
planet
and
we
need
a
closer
community.
So.
A
Let's
do
that,
okay,
so
Mary,
and
then
maybe
we
will
move
to
the
next
question
so
back
to
that
first
statement
that
I
asked
about
I
actually
don't
entirely
agree.
Even
with
that
statement,
especially
the
second
half
that
brought
many
infill
single
developments
more
in
line
with
the
residential
neighborhoods
character
for
one
I,
don't
think
we
ever
went
back
and
and
just
looked
at
what
happened
as
a
result
of
that
ordinance.
We
never
went
back
and
analyzed
whether
or
not
it
yielded
what
we
expected.
A
So
that's
one
thing,
and
then
the
other
thing
is
just
hearing
the
sentiments
out
in
the
community.
Is
it
hasn't
brought
things
more
in
line,
so
so
by
all
indications,
we
really
can't
say
that
it
has
brought
things
back
in
line
so
I
think
just
removing
that
statement
and
just
providing
some
context
somewhere
else.
I
think
would
be
helpful
and.
A
Yeah,
that's
that's
pretty
much.
What
I
have
right
now
the
facts
that
makes
two
questions.
One
is:
maybe
we
should
see
what
worked?
What
didn't
with
that
ordinance?
I!
Don't
know
how
big
of
an
undertaking
that
is,
but
I
think
the
fact
that
okay-
so
maybe
we
don't
want
to,
but
that
the
fact
that
we
don't
know
how
well
it
worked
other
than
anecdotally
there's
plenty
of
people
that
don't
feel
it
did.
I
guess
to
me
to
me
what's
useful
about
that
sentence
is
that
that
was
the
intense
and
it
didn't
work.
A
G
A
shout-out
to
the
daily
camera-
you
guys
might
remember
about
two
years
ago,
maybe
was
two
and
a
half
years
ago.
Erika
Meltzer
actually
did
a
really
deep
dive
on
this
and
she
actually
went
through
all
the
building
permits
going
back
to
in
the
compatible
development.
Rulest.
Remember
that
article
and
she
looked
at
all
the
number
of
new
houses
and
scrapes
in
by
square
footage,
and
she
did
a
pretty
in-depth
thing
and
so
I
think
some
of
the
work
Mia's
may
have
been
done
for
us.
F
A
E
E
Second
question
is-
and
this
is
has
some
more
sub
questions-
that,
where
City
Council's
goal
for
this
project,
a
this
council
wants
to
encourage
these
are
not
either
Awards
just
kind
of
sub
questions.
This
council
wants
to
encourage
and
fillory'
development
of
large
lots
into
two
or
more
houses
or
homes
through
allowed
subdivisions,
rather
than
full
of
a
single
large
home
on
a
large
lot.
This
has
added
benefit
of
increasing
housing.
Supply.
E
Duplexes
could
also
be
an
option
as
well.
That's
the
a
can
go
onto
B,
also,
which
is
asked
this
council
wish
to
take
specific
measures
to
prevent
or
discourage
the
construction
of
the
houses
above
a
certain
size,
regardless
of
the
lot
size
or
compatibility
with
a
neighborhood.
So
it's
a
hard
cap,
something
that
the
council
isn't
interested
in
okay,
so
those
are
two
different
ones.
Any
other
goals
you
may
have
as
well.
Of
course,.
A
These
are
rich
questions.
Okay,
I
think
be
easy.
The
easier
one
isn't
I
know,
but
she's
always
well
I
know,
but.
A
E
A
So,
let's
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
I
think
we
want
to
otherwise
we're
just
gonna
hear
what
you
and
I
have
to
think
is
to
go
around
and
and
have
people
weigh
in.
So
let's,
let's
bite
off
a
like
ice,
we
can
do
boats
at
the
same
time,
but
one
is
a:
are
we
interested
in
getting
more
units
ever
a
lot
and
the
other?
Is
we
interested
on
deliberately
discouraging
size
of
houses,
regardless
of
that?
A
I
Yes
to
both
of
those,
but
I
would
like
to
encourage
as
much
creativity
as
possible,
so
that
I
would
like
a
range
of
options
to
occur
and
I
would
like,
and
so
I
can
go
through
all
those
range
of
options,
but
just
for
right.
Now.
Yes
and
yes,
you
know
one
of
maybe
range
of
options.
One
of
the
things
we
could
look
at
is
right
now
under
compatible
development.
I
I
Think
in
terms
of
a
lot
size,
I'm
going
to
look
to
staff,
but
I'd
certainly
I'll
just
throw
out
a
number
but
I'd
like
to
have
some
base
for
why
this
number
is,
and
this
doesn't
have
a
base.
So
I
would
just
like
you
know.
Once
it
gets
over
2400
square
feet,
then
we
start
doing
some
things
in
terms
of
energy
regulations
and
I
know
we're
coming
forward
with
Net
Zero,
but
I'd.
G
G
There
are
a
lot
of
people
in
our
community
who
bought
houses
many
many
years
ago,
and
this
is
their
primary
asset
and
those
people
may
be
dependent
upon
the
ability
to
monetize
that
asset
at
some
point
in
time,
and
we
certainly
want
to
encourage
them
to
do
or
their
heirs
and
to
divide
those
and
provide
incentives
so
that
we
end
up
with
multiple
house
houses
on
that
lot.
So
I
think,
instead
of
us,
are
great
I.
G
And
if
we,
if
the
incentives,
didn't
work,
what
the
resulting
house
that
could
be
built
and
do
we
know
that's
too
big
and
it
may
be
too
big
in
some
neighborhoods
not
to
be
another
neighborhood.
Sorry
I,
think
it's
gonna
be
I.
Think
it's
worthy
worthy
of
discussion.
I
want
you
guys
to
do
the
work,
but
but
I
can't
answer
the
question
yes
or
no
tonight,
without
a
ton
of
data
and
all
a
ton
of
discussion.
L
You
know,
and
that's
that
sweet
spot
that
I'm
talking
about
so
if
we
can
look
at
that
and
and
figure
out
a
way
to
not
just
make
it
so
that
its
ends
up
being
two
fourteen
thousand
square
foot
lot
cut
in
half
could
still
like
be
too
big,
expensive
homes.
You
know
so
I
want
to
avoid
that.
So
that's
a
and
then
B
I
do
want
to
discourage,
but
not
necessarily
for
owner
occupants
but
for
second
home
owners.
L
So
you
know
all
of
these
scrapes
and
builds
lot
of
them
that
we're
getting
complaints
that
are
being
built
by
developed
by
developers
and
they
own
a
lot
of
property
speculators
right
and
they
get
the
property
from
people
who
want
to
live
in
it
because
they
have
cash
and
they
don't
have
do
inspections
and
they
close
in
ten
days
and
there's
just
no
way.
You
can
compete
against
these
guys.
So
you
know
they
have
this
tremendous
advantage
over.
L
You
know
normal
people
looking
for
homes
and
it
would
be
I-
would
be
fine
with
then
creating
some
kind
of
disadvantage
for
them
like
a
higher
tax.
If
we
could
do
that,
I
don't
know
Tom
if
that's
legal
or
some
sort
of
housing
impact
fee.
If
it's
your
second
property,
so
this
is
only
for
a
second
property,
so
primary
residence,
you
know
homeowner
I'm
kind
of
with
Bob.
L
N
So
I
agree
with
Jill.
I
would
worry
a
yesterday
and
I
would
say
yes
to
B
as
well.
I
worry
about
dividing
a
lot
and
then
having
two
big
houses.
So
there
are
two
big
houses
on
two
Big,
Lots
and
and
also
I,
don't
know
what
the
implication
is
of
this
for
zoning.
If
what
Lisa
referred
to
of
having
a
bunch
of
houses
on
one
of
these
Lots,
what
happens
then?
N
Does
it
does
the
zoning
change
at
the
time
of
the
increased
development
on
the
lot
so
but
I
agree
basically
with
what's
been
happening
down
the
line.
I
think
these
are
all
really
good
points
that
have
been
brought
up
and
again
my
concern
is
with
creating
more
of
the
same
rather
than
constricting
what
has
happened
as
Sam
said
about
the
the
model.
O
O
I
think
that
we
have
some
really
special
areas
of
Boulder
that
are
few
and
far
between
at
this
point
with
having
our
rural
and
our
low
residential
areas,
where
it's
some
breathing
space
for
individuals
who,
like
that,
and
so
by
dividing
these
Lots
and
starting
this
quote-unquote
gentle
infill
I,
just
see
us
becoming
a
homogenous
group
of
density.
That
I
just
know
that
many
people
that
I've
spoken
to
are
not
interested
in
having.
O
M
M
Think
the
answer
for
me
is
yes.
We
definitely
want
to
do
that.
There's
a
lot
of
ways.
We
could
do
it
right.
We
could
do
more
strict,
compatible
development
in
some
parts
of
the
city,
so
we
take
the
regs.
We
have
and
tighten
them
up.
That's
one
indirect
way.
Another
method
that
we
had
talked
about
was
creating
stricter
energy
codes
even
than
we
had
now.
A
So
yes,
and
yes
and
I-
agree
with
what's
been
said
so
far
with
respect
to
the
affordability
piece
that
Jill
and
Sam
spoke
about
the
cap
in
size
and
also
the
creativity
piece
that
Lisa
talked
about
to
not
make
it
so
prescriptive
that
it
eliminates
any
kind
of
creativity.
And
then
you
end
up
with
homogeneity,
as
Mirabai
mentioned.
A
I
also
am
wondering:
do
we
have
a
size
beyond
which
you
can't
go
any
smaller,
like
a
minimum
that
they
are
just
so
I
know
that,
like
tiny
homes
out
aren't
allowed,
so
is
it
just
because
they're
on
wheels
or
because
their
size,
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
is?
If
there
is
something
that
prevents
something
from
going
too
small
that
we
consider
allowing
that
smallness
as
well?
So
in
other
words,
have
a
cap
but
remove
any
minimum
that
might
exist
only.
A
K
F
Those
I
think
you
do
effectively
end
up
with
the
minimum
house
size
because
of
those
minimums
on
various
things
that
happen
within
the
house.
I
think
it's
a
mitering
yep
great!
Well,
there
been
some
great
ideas.
I'm
appreciate
the
conversation
at
least
I
got
us
started
off
really
nicely
I,
I
guess
I
would
say
yes
on
both
of
them,
but
tie
them
together
and
I
think
well.
F
What
I'm
looking
for
out
of
this
project
is
to
disincentivize
what
we
would
like
to
see,
less
of,
which
is
really
large,
extremely
expensive
homes
on
these
large
Lots
and
to
incentivize,
smaller,
more
affordable,
more
energy,
efficient,
more
efficient
homes
in
the
use
of
land
and
materials
and
energy,
etc.
So
I
think
you
tie
them
together.
So
I
think
like
what
Sam
was
saying
about,
we
could
ratchet
up
the
energy
efficiency
requirement
for
larger
homes.
F
You
know,
which
was
cottage
homes,
grouped
together
around
a
common
green,
which
is
a
housing
typology
that
allows
for
a
level
of
community
and
neighborliness.
That
I
think
is
really
appealing,
but
you
know,
like
Mary,
said
that
it
could
be
very
small
homes.
Could
be
an
option
or
Cod
home
or
80
user
I?
F
My
colleagues
on
the
edition
of
affordability-
and
maybe
that's
the
you
know
if
you
maybe
that's
tied
to
how
much
you're
able
to
do
like
you
could
do
a
simple
subdivision
by
right.
But
you
could
do
a
double
subdivision
on
a
really
large
lot.
If
you
provided
affordability
on
half
the
units
record
of
the
units
or
something
like
that,
so
that
could
be
one
of
them.
F
One
of
the
ways
that
we
capture
some
community
benefit
out
of
allowing
some
more
infill
in
our
city
and
I
think
also
a
way
that
potentially
it's
a
project
that
gets
broad
support
from
our
community,
because
I
think
there's
very
strong
support
for
affordable
housing
in
our
town.
And
so,
if
we
structure
this
in
such
a
way
that
we
get
more
affordability
both
from
inherently
from
size
but
also
from
regulatory
means.
That
I
think
that
would
help
bring
people
along.
A
Aaron
I
thought
that
was
very
well
said
so
I
will
just
say
yes
to
that,
I
would
say:
I'm
open
to
duplexes
and
triplexes
as
well,
and
maybe
I
have
a
chip
on
my
shoulder.
But
if
it
was
up
to
me
we
would
cap
housing
size
at
some
number
and
say
you
know
what,
in
this
day
and
age,
you
just
don't
need
to
build
new
houses
larger
than
pick
your
number
five
thousand
six
thousand
feet.
A
Just
we
don't
so,
but
I
don't
know
a
not
sure
that
that
would
the
way
that
Aaron
was
talking
about
it
and
you
know,
and
others
about
disincentivizing,
the
bad
stuff
and
incentivizing
good
stuff
is
probably
the
smarter
way
to
go
about
it.
But
I
do
feel
like
Lisa
started
out
talking
about
urgency
and
I.
Do
think.
A
There's
some
urgency
here
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
change
and
it's
once
it's
change.
You
know
once
you've
got
a
big
mansion
and
you're
kind
of
done
with
that.
A
lot
for
I
don't
know
50
years.
So
do
you
feel
like
we?
Maybe
we
do
need
to
set
someone?
That's
because
you
know
you
try
to
set
the
incentives
right
and
you
find
out
I
guess
nine
years
later,
that
he
didn't
send
them
hard
enough,
and
so
we
and
I
do
think
we're
kind
of
running
out
of
time.
A
So
I
I
think
we
should
have
a
very
robust
this
public
discussion
about
this
and
be
creative
with
the
options
and
stuff.
But
my
appetite
for
setting
some
limits
is
I'll.
Just
say
that
I
have
the
appetite
you
know,
especially
if
the
community
has
the
appetite.
I
am
I'll,
help
lead
that
parade.
So
okay,
a
bunch
of
hands
went
back
up
was.
N
A
The
Cindy
then
Lisa,
okay,
yeah
I'll,
agree
with
the
appetite
part
of
what
Suzanne
said
and
also
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
the.
Why
statement,
sorry,
but
I
did
want
to
include
something
about
the.
Why
a
statement
to
include
in
their
historic
preservation,
because
one
of
the
things
that
we've
always
talked
about
is
how
can
we
create
an
incentive
for
people
to,
in
some
cases
where
it
makes
sense,
subdivide
the
lot?
So
we
do
have
a
precedent
for
that
now.
N
If
this
kind
of
change
is
going
to
happen,
that
someone
would
come
along
and
take
advantage
of
the
speculation
that
could
happen
by
putting
in
a
number
of
houses
so
that
they
actually
would
be
really
homogeneous
rather
than
creative,
so
just
giving
that
as
a
warnings
so
that
we
do
have
these
broken
spaces
in
within
the
city.
Boundaries
where
there
are
larger
Lots
that
aren't
filled
in
and
I
really
agree
with.
Suzanna
I'd
like
to
see
a
definite
small
size
put
on
so
so.
I
From
my
perspective,
we
have
a
choice
here.
We
can
either
have
one
giant
house
that
fills
up
the
whole
big
lovely
large
lot
or
we
can
have
multiple
houses
that
give
permeability
to
that
large
house
and
what
we're
getting
at
least
where
I
live,
is
we're
getting
large
houses.
So
what
was
once
very
rural
and
very
lovely
and
open?
I
It's
gone
it's
gone,
and
so
it's
a
choice.
Who
do
you
want
to
live
here
and
where
do
we
want
to
be
20
years
from
now
and
from
my
perspective,
we
cannot
continue
to
allow
these
large
Lots
I.
Don't
care
what
size
of
these
large
houses
on
the
large
Lots,
because
they
are
maxing
out
so
I'll
just
say
that
and
I
would
argue
that
anybody
who
hasn't
seen
the
popular
project
that
right
there
I
think
it's
ten
units
per
acre.
I
It's
a
very
permeable
design
and
it's
very
lovely
and
beautiful
and
the
community
I
know
that
some
of
the
people
who
live
there
and
have
for
20
years
it's
a
very
stable
community.
So
what
you
get
is
a
very,
very
strong,
well-connected,
neighbourhood
and
I.
Think
that
comes.
That
brings
intangibles
that
we
can't
buy.
We
can't
we
can
develop
them,
but
we
can't
buy
them
so
I
just
want
it
to
respond.
There
Lisa.
F
I
Mean
multiple
50-plus,
beautiful,
blue
spruces
just
bulldozed
and
that
those
blue
spruces
our
homes
for
birds
for
squirrels
for
all
different
kinds
of
animals.
So
it's
not
just
the
people
that
are
being
displaced,
the
the
animals
are
being
displaced
and
with
these
giant
fences
now
you
can't
have
the
foxes.
You
can't
have
the
deer,
you
can't
have
the
mountain
lions
you
can't
have.
Maybe
you
don't
want
all
those
guys,
but
I
do
and
and
you
you
are
really
creating
an
impermeable
type
thing,
but
the
that's
just
I.
I
No,
no
no
I
know
but
I'm.
Just
saying
that
what's
happening
is
that
we
have
lovely
small
houses
that
do
need
fixing
up
and
maybe
not
all
of
them.
But
you
know
there
are
eleven
to
twelve
hundred
square
feet
and
is
that
sirree
and
and
and
that's
being
taken
away.
So
so,
if
so,
I
was
just
responding,
but
I
just
had
a
couple
idea.
So
I
totally
agree
with
the
permanent
affordability,
some
kind
of
a
cap
and
I'm
really
looking
to
staff
to
come
back
and
give
us
some
options.
I
One
of
the
things
we
can
do
without
rezoning
is
we
could
have
overlay
zones.
So
I
would
like
you
to
look
into
overlay
zones
where
they
do
that
in
the
in
the
county.
I
think
they're
called
I,
don't
know,
but
there's
some
kind
I
can
look
it
up.
I
can
give
you
the
actual
thing,
the
actual
name
of
it.
Then
I
would
like
to
also
with
Suzanne
I
want
to
support
her
in
duplexes
triplexes
for
places.
So
we
have
these
big
houses
and
I
grew
up
in
Kansas
City's.
I
So
we
can't
say
you
know
you.
If
you
build
2,000
your
contribution,
it's
going
to
be
significantly
less
than
if
it's
much
better,
so
I
would
like
to
have
council
staff
look
at
inclusionary
housing
because
I,
don't.
If
we're
trying
to
incent
developers
to
build
these
smaller,
more
affordable
houses
with
an
affordability
cap,
we
can't
double
dip
into
the
affordability.
So
you
guys
need
to
figure
that
out
and
I
would
like
to
look
into
tiny
houses.
I
How
that
would
be
done,
I
don't
know,
but
I
don't
want
it
to
be
a
project
in
its
own
I.
Just
want
you
to
come
back
and
tell
us
some
things
are
gonna.
We're
gonna,
have
a
list
and
then
we're
gonna
have
to
prioritize
how
we
move
forward
and-
and
it
is
true
that
large
what
Jill
said
large
houses
do
cost
less
to
build
per
square
foot
than
smaller
houses.
So
we
need
to
kind
of
talk
with
developers
and
not
speculators,
but
the
developers
that
really
would
like
to
do
this.
I
A
L
Maybe
you
put
a
max
land
price
on
that,
like
you,
can't
sell
it
for
more
than
250
or
300
and
combined
that's
like
what
they
could
sell
it
for
anyway,
and
then
someone
could
really
afford
to
buy
that
and
have
a
tiny
home
on
it
and
and
and
then
I
just
I.
Don't
know
how
the
rest
of
council
feels
about
this,
but
I.
B
O
Wanted
to
throw
in
with
the
historic
preservation
that
Mary
brought
up
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
and
then
to
Lisa's
point.
I.
Think
the
last
thing
in
the
world
Cindy
or
myself
was
trying
to
advocate
with
it
for
was
harm
to
our
wildlife
part
of
why
I'd
like
it
to
remain
open.
It
is
for
the
wildlife,
so
I,
don't
know
if
there's
something
in
there
that
I
don't
know
was
and
whatnot,
but
I
think
it's
criminal
to
be
bulldozing
all
the
trees.
O
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
something
that
we
can
do
to
just
allow
this
to
happen
again.
I'm
looking
for
small
homes
on
large
lots
for
the
openness
not
not
to
maximize
square
footage
here,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
can
throw
anything
like
that
in
to
protect
some
of
these
old,
beautiful
trees
that
we
have
in
our
our
towns,
as
well
as
maybe
even
the
issues
with
the
fence,
because
I
know
it
does
cause
there's
corridors
for
wildlife.
I
K
I
A
I
A
E
The
next
question
kind
of
builds
off
some
discussion
about
the
preservation
topic
of
existing
housing
stock.
So
is
this
a
priority
in
these
districts?
It's
also
a
follow-up.
The
question
5
talks
about
incentives
as
well,
but
this
is
the
question
we
have
here.
So
is:
preservation
of
the
existing
housing
stock,
a
priority
for
these
districts,
I'm.
F
I
think
everybody
agrees
with
that.
I
just
want
to
echo
the
about
preservation
of
a
landmark
tour
of
historic
homes
and
that
one
of
the
ideas
that
the
landmarks
board
has
been
putting
forward
four
years.
Is
this
idea
of
being
able
to
subdivide
your
lot
if
you
linmark
a
home
that
might
not
otherwise
be
landmarked,
so
this
seems
like
a
great
place
to
slot
that
idea
in
that,
if
we
have
certain
thresholds
for
subdivisions
or
multiple
units
or
something
like
that,
perhaps
we
could
lower
those
thresholds
if
there's
landmarking
involved.
F
So
we
could
include
a
hook
for
that
and
maybe
there's
or
for
preservation
in
general
I
mean
maybe
there's
a
home.
That's
not
land
markable,
but
it's
a
modest
home
and
we'd
love
to
see
it
preserved.
So
you
know
maybe
there's
one
standard
for
a
landmark
able
home
and
another
one.
That's
a
little
different
for
preservation
of
a
non
landmark,
Oklahoma.
Okay,.
A
E
A
E
I
think
we'll
come
back
with
some
options,
basically
for
today
and
present
that
back
to
the
council
for
priorities,
what's
most
highest
priority,
so
question
if
I
gets
back
to
the
question
of
incentives
for
the
preservation
of
existing
houses
or
disincentives
for
demolition
of
existing
housing
and
these
districts
sound
like
as
well.
This
is
something
that
the
council
was
interested
in
doing
looking
at
doing.
F
A
Up
an
example
here,
the
the
house
that
landmarks
board
was
trying
to
landmark
earlier
this
year
when
the
family
was
kind
of
in
a
financial
situation
where
they
need
it
to
hurry
up
and
sell
it.
So
they
had
initially
gone
to
the
planning
department
and
asked
if
they
could
subdivide
it
subdivide
the
lots
of
how
and
of
course
planning
said
no,
because
we
didn't
have
anything
in
place
earlier
this
week
or
last
week
we
got
an
email
from
the
new
owners
that
did
exactly
the
same
thing
and
we're
also
told
no.
A
I
Because
LR
starts
at
seven
thousand,
but
there's
a
lot
of
if
you
go
down
balsam
but
across
the
street,
just
north
of
the
hospital.
Those
RL
are
lots
and
they
are
completely
maxing
out
their
square
and
nobody
can
very
few
people
can
afford
those
houses,
and
so
we're
gonna
get
more
and
more
and
more
of
that
unless
we
take
it
down
to
like
5,000
square
feet.
So
it's
something
like
that.
But
again
I
want
to
defer
to
staff
to
come
back,
decides.
A
M
What
changes
could
be
made
to
the
compatible
development
regs
to
keep
houses
more
modest
on
those
Lots,
so
I
think
they
played
together
in
certain
ways
and
I
just
want
to
bring
up
something.
You
know,
as
we
were
talking
about
duplexes
we're
talking
about.
You
know
some
stuff
pretty
far
afield
from
I.
Think
where
we
started.
We
need
to
think
about
what
we're
doing
right.
So
I
live
in
Whittier,
it's
rmx
and
you
get
certain.
You
know
allowances
in
the
IMX
zones
for
being
able
to
do
higher
density
density
development
and
pay.
M
I
want
to
keep
in
mind
if
we're
gonna
do
and
have
conversations
about
duplexes
and
or
multiple
ad
use
that
we
really
keep
in
mind.
Affordability,
because
we
just
did
this
with
a
to
use
and
it
had
a
nice.
You
know
way
for
us
to
be
able
to
do
it.
I
think
we
have
the
same
hooks
here,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
do
something
like
duplexes
in
RL
ones
or
whatever
we're
thinking,
I
think
we
can
justify
it
most
effectively.
If
affordability
comes
along
with
it,
and.
A
I
A
I
Can
I
just
add
one
more
idea,
and
so
in
order
to
kind
of
give
an
incentive
for
people
not
to
go
over
X
square
footage
and
I
would
make
it
as
small
as
possible,
but
whatever
along
the
lines
that
Suzanne
was
talking
about
I
would,
if
you
go
back
to
your
slide,
where
you
show
the
energy
regulations
and
when
they're
gonna
be
coming
into
effect.
So
we
know
that
all
of
these
houses,
all
new
houses,
are
going
to
become
net
zero
net
zero
energy
houses
by
2028,
regardless
of
their
size.
I
Let's
speed
that
up
and
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
four
houses
and
again
I'm
deferring
to
you
about
a
square
footage,
maybe
2400,
but
you
want
to
go
over
2400
square
feet.
Then,
let's
look
at
even
higher
energy
standards
and
I
think
it's
called
negative
net.
Zero
energy
and
I
think
that
will
be
an
incentive
enough
to
to
result
in
smaller
houses,
because
it's
very
expensive
and
then
I
also
want
to
look
at.
If
you
go
around
my
neighborhood
and
again
it's
one
thing.
Most
of
these
are
speculators.
I
Some
are
home
builders
or
families,
but
a
lot
of
them
are
now
we're
having
their
own
swimming
pools
and
swimming
pools
are
a
huge
energy
drain,
and
so
I
would
also
like
anybody
who
wants
to
have
a
swimming
pool.
They
have
to
comply
with
net
negative
negative
net
zero
energy
requirements,
you're
putting
heat,
you're
filtering
the
water
and
you're
using
a
boatload
of
community
water.
Can.
H
L
A
D
A
E
The
previous
CAC
kind
of
from
council
want
to
have
more
information
about
how
this
would
dovetail
or
interact
with
the
future
and
its
regulations,
and
so
it's
more
of
just
showing
how
we
are
playing
as
the
city
to
get
down
to
Net
Zero
by
2028,
and
so
with.
The
idea
of
having
smaller
homes
is
in
line
with
the
overall
energy
goals
of
the
city.
So
this
wouldn't
be
in
conflict.
It's
just
kind
of
showing
illustrating
kind.
What
the
circulations
are
so.
O
H
We're
in
the
process
of
working
with
a
consultant
to
look
at
these
numbers
and
the
feasibility
of
meeting
them
from
an
from
an
economic
standpoint
for
a
homeowner
to
achieve
these
levels.
You
know
certainly,
for
the
most
part,
anything
below
a
50
on
the
the
y-axis,
the
energy
rating
index.
Anything
above
a
50
requires
solar,
and
so
there's
also
a
solar
access
problem
and
for
homes
that
don't
have
don't
have
the
solar
access.
There's
not
a
great
option
for
community
solar
either.
H
O
A
M
M
Okay,
so
that
that's
the
other
thing
here
is
these
are
somewhat
similar
to
each
other,
the
commercial
and
the
residential
and
moving
that
kind
of
the
same
pace,
and
you
know
I
think
the
solar
Gardens
thing
is
a
real
challenge.
I
mean
it
because
of
where
we
are
with
our
electricity
provider
and
their
current
rules
we're
putting
requirements
on
people
that
they
may
not
be
able
to
meet
at
all.
So
we
need
to
be
a
little
careful
right.
I
I
I
D
D
F
D
A
I
M
F
Yeah
I'll
agree
with
that,
but
just
one
and
just
one
additional
note
is
that
I
mean
when
we
were
talking
about
community
benefit
that
project.
We
also
mention
gosh.
If
we
can
start
working
on
incentivizing,
more
smaller
units,
instead
of
larger,
more
small
chance
of
fewer
larger
ones,
is
part
of
our
multifamily
regulations.
We
mentioned
that
as
a
possibility
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
whether
the
scope
of
the
open
space
standards
includes
looking
at
that.
But
just
hopefully
that's
on
your
mind
as
you're
looking
community
benefit
in
the
open
space.
Dinners
is.
D
Correct
and
I
remember
that
those
comments
being
made
at
that
the
last
study
session,
so
that
I
think
is
going
to
be
part
of
the
community
benefit
project.
I,
think
the
the
open
space
standards
project
that's
up
on
the
on
the
list,
there's
more
in
terms
of
design
site
design
rather
than
density.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Let's
say
I'm
impressed
it
will
actually
starting
to
get
somewhere,
so
that
feels
really
good
I
think
we
should
just
all
keep
this
and
and
one
of
our
upcoming
meetings,
we're
gonna
talk
about
how
we
actually
do
want
to
have
a
January
retreat.
Even
if
it's
a
short
one
and
one
of
the
things
we'll
probably
want
to
do,
is
pull
this
out
and
take
a
look
at
it.
So
save
this
one,
but
I
think
for
now
we're
feeling
pretty
good
about
where
we're
at
is
that
hopeful?
Yes,.
Q
A
I
I
would
really
like
to
look
at
that,
because
that's
really
important
and
people
how
they
live
is
different
and
I
just
want
to
say
I
can't
say
enough.
Thank
you
for
all
your
work
and
everything
on
this
and
to
have
this
and
to
be
halfway
done.
It
gives
me
goose
bumps.
So
just
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
and
you've
out,
then
just
a
great
job
and
I'm
just
really
excited
okay,
Suzanne.
Q
F
If
I
understood
what
Lisa
meant
was
that
I
mean
if
you're
subdividing
Lots
I,
don't
think
it's
relevant,
but
if
you
were
to,
for
example,
allow
a
second
Adu
on
a
property,
you
would
probably
add
an
exception
to
the
occupancy
in
that
case.
Similarly,
to
the
way
that
we
were
doing
as
part
of
the
Adu
project
is
that.
I
Fair,
that's
exactly
right!
So
in
the
Adu
discussion
we
had
an
example
of
a
family
of
four
or
five
people
that
three
children
and
a
married
or
whatever
a
couple,
and
then
a
single
mom
and
her
two
children
wouldn't
live
in
the
ATU.
The
way
we
count
unrelated
is
that
we
count
that
family
in
the
main
houses
one
and
then
we
add
each
individual
on
to
it.
So
if
you're,
a
single
mom
with
two
children,
then
all
of
a
sudden
you,
your
choices,
your
options
of
where
you
can
live
are
that
much
more
diminished.
So.
A
G
R
Jim
robertson,
director
planning
and
sustainability,
as
Tanya
mentioned,
we're
here,
to
discuss
sub
Community
Planning
and
in
a
moment
I'll
have
my
colleague
Kathleen
take
over.
But
let
me
brag
on
her
for
just
a
minute.
Kathleen.
Just
like
you
met
Andrew
Collins
as
a
little
while
ago.
Kathleen
is
relatively
no.
She
joined
us
in
June.
She
is
a
senior
planner
and
she
occupies
as
well
like
Andrew
one
of
the
positions
that
counsel
was
kind
enough
to
create
early
this
year
in
response
to
sort
of
the
council's
work
plan.
Initiatives
Kathleen
is
a
registered
Landscape.
R
J
P
P
So
as
we
sort
of
relaunch
sub
Community
Planning
in
Boulder,
it's
going
to
be
important
that
we
have
a
really
durable
structure
for
the
program.
That's
what
the
focus
is
for
the
conversation
tonight,
I'm
going
to
start
off
with
some
context
to
answer
the
questions.
Where
are
we
going
and
really?
How
did
we
get
here?
P
Then
I'll
talk
a
little
about
some
best
practices
from
national
case
studies
and
give
you
a
brief
assessment
of
some
of
the
sub
community
planning
resources
that
we
have
available
today
and
after
that,
we're
gonna
dive
into
really
the
knee
of
our
discussion
tonight.
I'll
be
asking
for
your
input
on
three
major
topics
and
then
we
will
follow
up
with
some
next
steps.
P
P
Recent
community
survey
responses
describe
an
interest
in
localized
planning
to
address
some
citywide
issues
such
as
housing,
neighborhood,
preservation
and
transportation.
The
BBC
talks
about
sub
community
and
area
planning,
specifically
to
also
implement
citywide
goals,
prioritizing
areas
where
change
is
anticipated
and
where
residents
have
been
experiencing
recurring.
Problems
also
comes
through
in
the
BBC
P
and
then
at
the
2018
city
council
retreat
sub
community
planning
was
identified
as
a
priority
project.
P
Council
indicated
that
community
members
are
going
to
play
a
really
important
role
in
the
development
of
these
plans,
so
we'll
be
working
towards
creating
an
interactive
and
collaborative
process,
and
those
are
those
are
pretty
big
goals
for
for
a
program
like
this.
Just
to
kind
of
do
a
gut
check
to
answer
the
question
whether
localized
planning
sub
Community
Planning
can
achieve
all
of
these
goals
and
address
these
interests.
We
looked
at
some
case
studies
across
the
country
and
we
looked
at
11
programs
in
cities
across
the
country
and
we
learned
how
these
programs
were
structured.
P
What
the
successes
and
failures
they've
experienced
have
been
and
how
their
staff
managed
the
production
and
process
of
their
programs.
You
should
have
a
copy
of
the
full
report
in
your
packet,
so
I'm
gonna
focus
on
specific
elements
that
we
thought
demonstrated
a
best
practice
from
the
six
cities
highlighted
here.
P
So
the
first
one
is
Tulsa
and
their
small
area
planning
program
was
more
recently
formalized
in
this
small
area,
small
area
planning
guide.
We
thought
what
they
did
really
well
was
clearly
define
all
of
the
elements
of
their
program
as
we
relaunch
sub
Community,
Planning
and
folder
clarity
around
these
definitions
of
different
elements
of
the
plans
will
be
important
to
help
set
realistic
expectations
for
all
stakeholders.
P
What
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
has
done
really
well
has
been
establishing
and
maintaining
consistent
boundaries.
Geographic
boundaries
play
a
really
important
role
in
how
sub
communities
will
be
evaluated,
prioritized
and
plan.
For
so
we
have
some
important
decisions
about
that
to
make
in
order
to
move
forward.
P
Next
is
our
neighbor
Denver,
who
just
now
is
working
through
the
process
on
their
first
two
neighborhood
plans,
we
thought
that
the
way
Denver
prioritized
neighborhood
areas
was
really
rigorous
and
transparent.
The
city
identified
a
series
of
measurable
indicators
of
planning
need
to
help
prioritize
areas
for
planning
and
made
their
method
and
the
results
available
online.
So
residents
could
understand
when
their
neighborhood
would
receive
planning
services
and
why
they
might
land
at
a
certain
time.
P
P
Dc's
small
area
planning
program
has
successfully
completed
many
plans
across
the
city.
I
think
that
can
partly
be
attributed
to
the
fact
that
they
identified
a
process
upfront
that
most
plans
were
able
to
stick
to
identifying
this
process
early
on
helped
set
schedules
ahead
of
time
and
provides
a
level
of
predictability
for
the
community.
P
Detroit
also
has
a
newer
program
for
localized
planning
and
what
has
been
really
impressive
about
the
ongoing
efforts
has
been
the
intensity
of
community
engagement
and
the
intention
behind
engaging
residents.
Planning
staff,
Department
of
neighborhoods
and
local
community
groups
have
used
a
lot
of
different
methods
to
capture
input
from
residents
and
make
a
real
effort
to
demonstrate
how
about
input
is
used
in
the
plans,
and
we
found
this
really
valuable
and
pretty
successful
so
far,
so
that
was
some
of
the
local
and
national
context.
P
P
We
have
access
to
some
really
useful
resident
insight.
The
BBC
P
in
community
surveys
have
a
version
of
the
results
that
are
categorized
by
sub
communities,
so
we
have
a
pretty
good
idea
about
how
different
sub
communities
rate
quality
of
life
and
city
services
so
that
that's
really
helpful
as
we
sort
of
evaluate
these
different
areas,
another
nice
resource
are
these
sub
community
fact
sheets.
These
are
all
available
online
I
think
you
saw
these
back
in
2015.
P
They
have
a
really
good
capture
of
some
of
the
existing
conditions
for
each
sub
community,
and
you
know,
I
think,
do
a
good
job
of
communicating
what
the
existing
conditions
are
and
then
we
have
some
precedents.
So
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
plan,
which
I
know
some
of
you
were
involved
in
that-
was
also
included
in
in
your
packet.
P
So
those
are
some
of
the
resources
we
have
today,
I'd
like
to
dive
into
a
discussion
now
about
these
program
essentials.
What
we're
calling
the
six
foundational
elements.
We
believe
that
to
set
this
program
up
for
success,
it's
important
to
establish
greater
clarity
surrounding
the
topics
of
definitions,
boundaries,
prioritization
criteria,
scope
and
deliverables
schedule
and
phasing,
as
well
as
community
engagement.
P
So
tonight
we're
going
to
focus
on
the
first
three
definitions,
boundaries
and
prioritization
I.
Anticipate
that
the
input
we
received
tonight
will
help
us
formulate
recommendations
surrounding
the
other
three
elements
and
we
hope
to
come
back
in
a
couple
of
months
to
discuss
those
the
way
that
I'm
sort
of
hoping
this
session
will
work
is
I'm
gonna
walk
through
some
of
our
recommendations,
first
surrounding
definitions
and
then
open
up
the
conversation.
P
So,
first
we
want
to
get
clarity
around
some
definitions.
What
is
a
sub
community,
so
the
existing
definition-
and
this
is
from
the
comprehensive
planning
web
page-
says
that
sub
communities
are
distinct
areas
within
the
service
area
of
the
city,
as
defined
by
physical
boundaries
such
as
roads
and
parks.
So
we're
proposing
a
revision
to
this
that
says
a
sub
community
is
an
area
within
the
service
area
of
the
city
that
is
defined
by
physical
boundaries
such
as
roads
and
topography
and
census
tracts.
P
So
what
is
a
sub
community
plan?
The
existing
definition
says
that
sub
community
and
area
planning
bridges
the
gap
between
the
broad
policies
of
the
Comprehensive,
Plan
and
site-specific
project
review.
So
this
says
what
both
sub
community
and
area
plans
do,
but
not
precisely
what
they
are
or
how
they
can
be
distinguished.
P
We're
proposing
the
revision,
a
sub
community
plan
as
a
tool
for
residents,
landowners,
business
owners,
city
officials
and
city
staff
that
communicates
expectations
about
the
future
of
a
sub
community
and
guides
decision-making
about
preservation
and
change
over
a
15
year
horizon.
So
this
revision
is
really
trying
to
capture
both
what
it
is
and
how
it
may
be
used
in
the
future.
P
We
also
want
to
propose
distinguishing
between
sub
community
and
area
plans.
We
think
these
are
actually
distinct
tools
and
they
may
have
different
outcomes.
So
we
wanted
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clear
about
that.
So
some
of
the
proposed
distinctions
are
surrounding
scale.
A
sub
community
plan
really
is
intended
to
address
one
of
ten
sub
community
regions
and
those
range
in
size
from
500
to
10,000
acres.
P
Whereas
an
area
plan
addresses
a
group
of
adjacent
parcels
or
corridor
ranging
in
size
from
around
10
to
200
acres,
the
scope
of
the
sub
community
plan
is
that
it
defines
a
long-term
vision
for
change
and
preservation
within
a
sub
community,
whereas
an
area
plan
really
envisioned
envisions
short
and
long
term.
Physical
changes
to
the
built,
and/or,
natural
environment
for
specific
site
or
small
area.
P
So
the
next
thing
we
really
want
to
focus
on
is
what
can
a
sub
community
planning
process
do
so,
let's
be
really
clear
about
what
this
type
of
plan
and
process
can
accomplish?
It
can
supplement
the
comprehensive
plan
to
implement
citywide
goals.
It
can
establish
a
forum
for
residents
to
share
ideas
and
play
a
role
in
the
planning
and
implementation
of
future
preservation
and
change.
It
can
define
desired
characteristics
of
a
sub
community.
It
can
identify
gaps
and
opportunities
in
city
services
and
resources,
as
well
as
in
the
private
market.
P
It
can
also
prioritize
projects,
identify
implementation
tools,
help
shape
critical
capital
budget
decisions
and
certainly
communicate
expectations
about
the
future,
I
suppose
as
a
tool.
It
really
has
a
lot
of
capabilities
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
we
foresee
being
able
to
work
with
the
community
to
use
these
types
of
plans,
but
we
also
want
to
establish
some
clarity
around
what
a
sub
community
planning
process
cannot
do.
So
it
cannot
replace
the
site
review
process.
It
cannot
provide
site
design
for
very
specific
parcels.
P
What
we're
trying
to
say
is
that
you
know
this
is
not
going
to
be
a
silver
bullet
for
every
citywide
initiative,
but
it's
one
of
the
tools
that
we
can
use
to
implement
some
of
these
citywide
goals
and
so
here's.
The
first
question
does
council
agree
that
these
definitions
capture,
the
intent
and
purpose
of
sub
community
planning
in
Boulder,
so
again,
22:25
minutes
and
I.
You
know
all
the
input
I
can
get
is
really
helpful.
A
J
A
R
I'll,
take
a
shot
at
that.
Kathleen
may
want
to
kick
me
under
the
table
or
or
add
to
my
answer.
I
think
what
we
are
proposing
now
is
that
these
would
be
operational
definitions
as
we
move
forward
with
sub-community
planning
and
and
also
inform,
of
course,
our
area
planning
efforts,
we're
not
proposing
that
we
would
try
to
do
an
out
of
sequence
or
out
of
term
modification
of
the
be
vcp.
If
counsel
were
to
agree
that
that
these
definitions
are
are
prudent,
then
I
think
we
would.
R
A
M
So
I
really
appreciate
these
definitions.
I
think
we
draw
a
lot
of
clarity
between
sub
Community,
Planning
and
area
planning,
which
has
been
an
interest
of
mine
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
they
do
a
very
nice
job
of
talking
about
the
time
horizon
for
the
two
so
be
a
much
in
favor
of
these
adjustments.
I
Nope,
you've
done
a
great
job.
My
only
question
is
why
sub
Community
Planning
is
just
15
years
and
when
Victor
Dover
and
Joe
Cole
were
here
20
years
ago,
they
and
just
recently,
Victor
Dover-
has
done
a
bench
on
sub
Community
Planning
for
the
city,
but
back
20
years
ago,
Victor
always
talked
about
it
being
like
a
50
year
horizon
or
something
like
that,
and
so
that
it's
not
changing,
and
it
just
a
question
I
have
is
why
we
would
want
to
limit
it
to
15
years
and
and
not
more.
I
On
the
you
know,
30
50
year,
timeline,
I,
know
things
change,
sometimes
unexpectedly,
but
the
other.
The
other
question
is:
if
it's
just
15
years
and
we're
going
to
get
to
this
question
later,
do
we
want
to
keep
it
at
10
sub
communities,
but
right
now
we're
at
10
sub
communities.
We
can't
ever
get
through
its
it'll
be
a
difficult
task
in
front
of
us
to
get
through
them
in
that
kind
of
a
timeline.
So
that's
just
a
question:
it's
not
a
criticism,
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
could
extend
that
timeline.
Yeah.
P
And
you
know
what
Jim
and
I
actually
just
had
that
conversation
yesterday
about
you
know:
is
that
really
the
right
time
frame,
that's
what's
outlined
in
the
comp
plan
today
and
in
chapter
5,
about
sub
community
planning,
but
I
think
we're
certainly
interested
in
looking
further
into
the
future
and
also
identifying
sort
of
a
cycle
of
updates
for
each
of
the
sub
community
plans.
Thank
you.
If.
R
I
could
just
elaborate
I,
totally
agree
with
what
Kathleen
just
said
and
I
appreciate
your
your
comment.
Lisa
I
think
it
perhaps
goes
without
saying,
but
I'll
say
it
anyway,
that
in
the
court,
in
the
context
of
a
sub
community
plan,
I
think
everybody
would
would
both
want
to
be
a
need
to
be
cognizant
that
we
are
talking
about
issues
that
may
have
a
durability
if
you
will
much
longer
than
than
30
years.
R
For
example,
if
you're
talking
about
a
connections
plan
in
an
area
that
where
our
street
grid
has
been,
you
know,
deeply
interrupted
and
and
suffers
from
a
lack
of
connectivity,
recommendations
about
connectors
and
and
and
so
forth.
Those
are
decisions
that
last
way
beyond
15
years
and
I
think
we
would
want
to
be
cognizant
about
those
types
of
decisions,
even
though
us
you
know
nominally,
if
you
will,
they
have
a
sort
of
a
renewal
span
of
15
years.
A
My
colleagues
see
if
they're
open
to
this
on
page
25
of
the
packet,
where
we're,
starting
with
the
definition,
the
proposed
provision
for
the
sub
community
plan
to
where
it
says,
preservation
and
change
right
there
near
the
end
to
consider
adding
the
word
evolution
so
that
it
would
be
preservation,
evolution
and
change
or
maybe
replace
change
with
evolution.
I
just
think
that
evolution
is
more
of
that's
that's
what
happens?
Things
evolve,
hopefully,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
just
change
for
change
sake.
What
line
are
you?
Are
you
looking
at
the
definition
of
sub
community.
A
A
A
A
sub
community
plan
as
a
tool
for
Resident
Center
and
that
communicates
expectations
and
maybe
add
somewhere
that
and
and
builds
community
resilience
or
something
like
that,
just
to
make
sure
that
we
incorporate
because
we're
trying
to
incorporate
resilience
into
everything
that
we
do
so
I
thought
maybe
in
the
definition,
would
be
a
good
place.
So
those
are
a
couple
of
suggestions
and.
A
Had
a
question
about
area
plans
and
I'm
I'm
I'm,
remembering
the
the
single
area
plan
that
happened
at
the
Junior
Academy,
that
probably
should
have
incorporated
a
larger
area
and
so
I'm
I'm
I'm
kind
of
averse
to
single
parcel
area
plans.
So
I
was
just
wondering
if,
if
we
want
to
say
that
you
know
single
parcel
area
plans
either
we
don't
do
them
or
they
have
certain
conditions.
I
I,
don't
know
so
I'm.
Just
throwing
that
out.
There
can
I
pick.
F
You
back
on
that
yeah,
please,
because
I
had
a
very
similar
thought
and
I
noticed
that
in
your
area
plan
scale,
you
said
a
group
of
adjacent
parcels
or
a
corridor,
but
then
in
the
scope
it
talks
about
a
specific
site
or
small
area
in
site.
To
me
maybe
sounds
like
one
parcel
and
I
grew
with
Mary.
Don't
think
that's
a
good
thing
for
an
airplane,
but
then
the
the
next
one
down
reference
is
an
area
plan
for
a
site
work
order.
A
A
Under
boundaries,
I
just
had
more
of
a
question
where
you
say
where
your
listing
is
it
important
with
that
areas
within
a
sub
community
share
any
of
the
following
characteristics:
I
guess,
you're
you're,
asking
about
boundaries
and
I'm
trying
to
really
think
so.
Those
are
the
two
things
are
the
things
that
I
had
with
respect
to
the
definitions.
E
F
Kay
earlier
thought
that
one
of
the
ones
I
wanted
to
echo
what
Lisa
was
saying
about
time
frame
and
because
what
you're
saying
about
that
this
isn't
operating
set
of
documents,
and
so
it
can
go
out
of
sync
with
the
BBC
P
a
little
bit
so
I.
Don't
think
we
should
necessarily
be
bound
by
the
15
years
and
I
think
aligning
it
with
the
schedule
for
the
sub
community
plans
makes
sense.
F
I
mean
I
think
when
we
really
get
this
going,
I
sort
of
think
about
like
painting
the
Golden
Gate
Bridge
like
as
soon
as
you
finish
it.
You
start
back
over
again,
and
so
we
might
think
about
that.
If
the
if
a
sub
communion
plan
takes
two
years,
maybe
it's
a
20
year
time
horizon
and
you
get
through
a
mall.
You
know
in
in
20
years
and
that's
the
time
resin
I.
A
Think
this
is
the
I'd
agree.
If,
what's
being
said,
I
think
this
looks
good.
The
one
question
I
had
about
it
as
sub-community.
If
you
could
go
to
that
one
commonly
shared
physical,
natural
and
social
characteristics,
there's
something
about
commonly
shared
social
characteristics.
That
gave
me
pause
mm-hmm,
like
I
hope
we
have
diversity
in
most
of
our
neighborhoods,
so
that
was
the
one
thing
I'm
like
I'm,
not
sure
what
we're
getting
at
it
has
a
you
know.
You
know
where
you
live.
A
A
M
I'll,
just
jump
in
I
agree
with
Mary's
suggested
edits.
Evolution
is
a
good
concept
and
clean
up
on
the
area
plan
and
yeah
I
think
you
should
work
on
social
characteristics
so
that
it
is
maybe
unique
character
of
the
area
or
something
of
that
nature
that
speaking
more
about
you
know
the
of
the
sub
community,
rather
than
something
that's
specifically,
social.
I
J
P
So
the
current
boundaries
have
evolved
over
time,
there's
a
more
detailed
report
included
in
the
packet,
but
the
original
boundaries,
four
four
five
sub
communities
and
were
based
on
typography
and
some
ideas
about
neighborhood
access
to
services
and
resources.
In
the
late
80s
and
early
90s,
they
were
revised
to
include
nine
sub
communities
and
align
more
with
roads
and
census
tracts.
P
So
the
first
one
is
that
with
downtown
boulders,
unique
set
of
land
uses
and
adjacencies
established
districts
and
design
guidelines,
the
area
may
merit
its
own
sub
community
and
the
other
thing
that
I've
heard
from
folks
is
that
there's
little
linemen
between
the
boundaries
and
a
variety
of
methods
for
mapping,
Boulder
neighborhoods
and
we've
gone
through
and
kind
of
done.
That
exercise
and
that's
accurate.
P
A
P
A
Well,
I,
just
so
you
know
right
well,
we
could
start
with
that
question,
but
whether
or
not
somebody
thinks
it's
critical
will
have
to
do
with
a
particular
place
vacation.
So
you
might
as
well
stick
up
the
map
there.
So
we
can
look
at
that
because
I
thinking,
okay,
so
we
have
a
lot
of
what
we
have
Lisa.
We
have.
I
I
Sam
should
can
I
bring
this
up
er,
so
we
Sam
and
I
were
talking
today
and
we
were
talking
about.
Maybe
we
want
to
do
one
new
sub
community
and
that
I
don't
know
what
you
would
call
it,
but
East
Boulder
I
know
we
already
have
East
Boulder,
but
it's
I
would
think
that
the
boundaries
of
that
could
be
a
little
bit
west
of
55th
Street
55th
Street
is
another
Street
where
you
have
basically
industrial
commercial
and
office
kind
of
looking
at
each
other
on
either
sides
of
the
street.
I
Those
should
be
working
together
in
that
of
being
in
a
separate
sub
community
and
I.
Think
there's
some
potential
there
for
a
sub
to
me
so
but
I
think.
If
you
go
to
North
Boulder,
we
cut
it
off
pretty
much
at
iris
and
that
worked
in
most
places,
but
if
we
had
cut
it
off
at
Broadway,
that
would
have
handicapped
us
in
terms
of
embracing
the
street
and
looking
at
both
sides
of
the
street.
So.
A
L
L
This
could
be
part
of
what
you're
saying
actually
so
I
think
we're
kind
of
together
on
this,
and
so
the
bottom
line
is
for
me.
L
I,
just
I
just
think
that
the
East
Boulder
in
the
southeast
Boulder
sub
communities
are
way
too
big
and
broad,
and
those
are
areas
that
are
ripe
for
quite
a
lot
of
change
in
the
future
and
that
we
should
be
a
little
bit
more
careful
and
I
like
what
you
said
like
what
Lisa
said,
but
I
think
we
should
be
more
careful
on
how
we
define
those,
especially
by
you
know,
areas.
I
know
big
office
parks
me
what
might
be
looking
at
rezoning
for
housing.
J
F
People
have
raised
important
points,
I
feel
like
the
one
place
where
our
current
boundaries
really
falls
down
is
Arapaho.
You
know
that
I
think
all
the
other
major
corridors
are
like
together
within
one
sub
community
or
or
they're.
Not
a
quarter
like
highway.
36
is
a
clear
dividing
line.
That's
not
a
quarter
that
you
you'd
need
to
unite
both
sides
of
and
Arapaho
really
is,
and
so
I
feel
like.
M
So
I'm
in
a
hundred
percent
agreement
with
what
you
all
have
said
before
and
I
have
thought
about
this
for
a
while
and
I
think
Lisa's
idea
of
having
an
East
Boulder.
That
literally,
is
the
East
Boulder
started
just
to
the
west
of
55th
Street,
so
that
you're
really
tying
Flatiron
Park
together
with
the
commercial
activity.
That's
there
and
going
south
I
think
we
made
a
mistake
during
the
envision
east
arapahoe
process
when
we
didn't
bring
the
neighbors
who
use
the
the
retail
and
commercial
spaces
in
on
the
conversation.
M
So
I
I
think
that
if
we
were
to
break
that
eastern
section
into
three
that
maybe
you'd
want
to
look
at
going
north
of
Arapaho
with
the
southern
piece,
you
know
just
because
you're
now
taking
a
neighborhood
and
the
neighborhood
centers
and
tying
them
together,
I,
don't
know
exactly
where
I
mean
I.
Think
staff
can
probably
do
some
looking
and
figure
it
out,
but
I
think.
M
The
key
point
is
we
want
fifty-fifth
as
a
corridor,
and
you
want
both
sides
of
it
so
that
you
get
some
unification
around
the
corridor
and
we
want
Arapaho,
also
tied.
You
know
both
sides
of
a
rap
one
way
or
the
other
so
that
it
is
an
embraced
corridor
and
I
could
see
arguments
for
either
going
north
or
south
of
Arapaho.
But
if
you
take
that
big
Eastern
Block
and
break
it
into
three
sub
communities,
I
think
that
might
solve
the
corridor
problem
on
the
eastern
side.
G
I'm
gonna
agree
and
not
the
were
drawn
lines.
The
mouse,
but
just
looking
at
the
map,
I
mean
Foothill
Parkway
strikes
me
is
this
is
a
logical
breakpoint
I
mean
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
similarity
on
the
other
side
of
the
park.
It's
it
is
a
big
barrier
and
then
you
know,
as
far
as
north-south
lines,
I
mean
one
would
be
Parkway
on
the
north
and
you
wanted
to
move
the
line
north
of
Arapaho.
If
you
wanted
to
move
it
south,
you
might
need
to
go
as
far
south
as
base
time.
M
If
I
could
just
add,
I
meant
to
say
this
before
Paulo
Park
seems
to
be
an
awfully
strange
sub
community
I
mean
it's,
it's
not
tied
in
with
either
of
its
retail
centers
that
it
could
possibly
be
involved
with
part
of
me
would
would
think
of
that
being
part
of
North
Boulder,
and
that
way
we
still
have
10
sub
communities,
but
that
Paulo
Park
is
always
stood
out
like
a
little
bit
of
a
sore
thumb
to
me,
because
it's
just
a
residential
neighborhood
and
it's
not
nearly
as
large.
We.
F
A
N
M
So
the
eastern
part
would
extend
just
west
of
55th,
so
it
would
be
both
yellow
and
the
purple
go
little
west
of
55th
and
then
what
a
current
way
south
east,
Boulder
and
East
Boulder
the
parks
to
the
west.
You
would
just
extend
the
boundaries
out
across
the
rapaho
or
to
the
north
across
the
rapaho,
the
point
being
to
include
the
Arapaho
corridor
within
a
sub
community.
Okay,.
R
We
may
I
offer
up
a
next
step
on
this,
which
would
be
Kathleen
mentioned.
We've
got
these.
We've
identified
these
six
foundational
elements
that
we
feel
like
it's
really
key
to
get
to
to
have
the
durability
and
successful
program
over
the
duration
of
a
sub
Community
Planning
program.
There's
six
sort
of
foundational
elements,
we're
focusing
on
the
first
three
of
those,
and
our
hope
was
that
we
could
come
back
to
you
literally
in
a
couple
months,
it'd
probably
be
early,
hopefully
early
in
2019,
to
discuss
the
other
three.
R
We
could
take
on
this
one
issue
which
you've
honed
in
on
having
to
do
with
Arapaho
and
55th.
We
could
take
a
little
bit
of
time
without
getting
deep
into
the
planning
itself,
but
taking
into
account
what
you've
talked
about
tonight
and
applying
just
sort
of
sort
of
planning
expertise
to
come
back
to
you
with
at
least
a
if
you
will
a
strawman
in
terms
of
identifying
what
that,
what
that
might
look
like.
A
Okay,
it
was
that
the
only
boundary
issues
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
suggestion
on
where
you're
asking
is
it
what
I
was
going
to
bring
up
earlier?
Is
it
important
that
areas
within
a
sub
community
share
any
of
the
following
characteristics,
and
you
have
a
whole
list
of
things
and
in
these
lists,
whether
it's
under
a
or
b
or
c,
nothing
mentions
community
relationships
and
and
I
know
that
that
can
there
can
be
community
relationships
across
a
boundary
and
yet
you're
divided
in
in
different
sub
communities.
A
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
were
were
addressing
things
like,
for
example,
when
when
Washington
village
was
getting
built,
and
there
was
talk
about
well,
there's
no
part
close
by
and
and
people
would
say.
Yes,
there
is
there's
North
Boulder
Park,
but
to
get
to
North
Boulder
Park
from
that
neighborhood
you
have
to
cross
Broadway.
A
So
you
know
that
even
though
they're
in
the
same
sub
community
to
say
that
North
Boulder
parka
is
accessible
by
folks
that
live
on
the
east
side
of
Broadway
doesn't
make
sense
and
to
me
that's
kind
of
a
community
relationship
sort
of
thing.
But
you
know
to
just
just
be
cognizant,
as
things
are
looked
at,
to
look
at
how
these
relationships
are
or
not
built
across
boundaries,
and
should
they
be
or
just
to
be.
Cognizant
of
that
so
I
have
two
thoughts.
A
P
P
G
I
Surviving
I
think
it
was
1997
when
we
we
had
the
downtown
design
guidelines
in
that
whole
community
process,
and
that
was
a
very
rich
process
and
that
that
included
all
the
I
don't
know
all.
But
a
significant
number
of
the
business
owners
downtown,
but
also
as
as
well
the
contributing,
neighborhoods
and
I
think
those
contributing
one
of
the
things
I
think
is
so
valuable
about
sub
community
planning
is
it
gets
the
businesses
and
the
residents
and
these
different
groups
all
talking
with
each
other
and
they're.
I
All
part
of
this
one
sub
community
and
everybody
owns
that
right
and
and
so
I
think
I'm
not
too
excited
about
cutting
downtown
out
of
the
neighborhoods,
because
I
think
those
neighborhoods
and
downtown
businesses
have
a
very
real
special
relationship
that
goes
back
and
forth
and
I
think
it's
really
important
that
they
keep
that
conversation
going
for
both
parties.
I.
M
F
N
Would
agree
as
well
and
I
was
on
that
design.
Group
and
I've
always
wondered
what
the
hell
happened
to
the
designs,
because
we
had
a
pyramidal
design
where
it
was
supposed
to
be
at
Broadway
and
Pearl
was
supposed
to
be
the
high
point.
Then
it
feathered
out
into
the
neighborhoods
getting
lower
and
it
one
looks
at
that
skyline.
It's
not
like
that
at
all.
So,
whatever
we
end
up,
doing
it'd
be
nice.
N
A
You
had
something
that
talked
about.
Ok,
maybe
wasn't
the
memo.
It's
the
same
question
I
raised
over
there
a
little
bit
but
a
different
flavor,
which
it
said,
similar
economic
status
as
one
of
the
defining
characteristics.
I
hope
we
don't
do
it
that
way.
Hey
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
have
diversity
within
each
our
and
I
think
our
goal
is
to
have
diversity
economically
and
otherwise
within
each
of
these
I
hope
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
where
the
reference
was.
But
you
know
what
I'm
talking
about
yeah.
P
It
was
I,
think
Mary
referenced
it
earlier.
It
was
kind
of
the
list
of
considerations
yeah
important
that
as
I,
wouldn't
he
shares
that
okay.
F
F
G
I
G
J
P
A
Is
that
people
generally
agree
if
it's
developable
or
it
has
been
developed?
It
should
be
in
one
of
these
ten
or
eleven
or
twelve
or
whatever
up
so,
everybody
agree,
but
if
it's
just
open
space,
no,
because
that
neighborhoods
probably
doing
just
fine,
okay,
all
right
what
else
you
got
for
us?
Okay,.
P
Okay,
so
this
is
kind
of
the
third
big
topic.
I
know:
we've
gotten
some
emails
about
this
today,
but
wanted
to
talk.
Lastly,
about
prioritization
criteria.
So
how
do
we
decide
which
sub
communities
should
be
planned
for
a
first,
second,
third
and
so
on,
and
why
there
is
criteria
for
prioritization
identified
in
the
BBC
P,
and
the
challenge
that
we
found
with
these
six
items
is
that
they
are
hard
to
measure.
P
They
don't
allow
us
to
compare
sub
communities
side-by-side
and
evaluate
which
ones
provide
the
opportunity
to
solve
the
most
issues
or
provide
the
greatest
benefits
for
residents.
So
we
know
what
gets
measured
gets
done.
This
is
kind
of
an
ethic
and
management
technique
you
use
across
industries
and
around
the
country,
but
the
BBC
P
also
mentions
pursuing
a
method
to
measure
community
wellness.
P
P
How
many
people
can
access
public
art
within
a
15
minute,
walk
from
their
home,
so
using
GIS
we
mapped
and
calculated
access
the
public
art
across
the
city
and
found
that
citywide
75%
of
residents
are
within
a
15
minute,
walk
of
public
art,
and
that's
that's
really
a
pretty
good
statistic.
But
there
are
a
couple
of
sub
communities
that
are
below
average
Gunbarrel,
south
east
and
south
boulder
do
not
meet
the
citywide
average
for
access
to
public
art,
so
you
know
Justin
as
an
example.
P
If
we
were
to
use
this
measure
as
one
of
the
criteria
Gunbarrel
south
and
southeast
sub
communities
would
move
up
the
list
for
planning
services,
so
I
want
to
kind
of
reiterate.
This
is
just
an
example,
but
I'm
really
trying
to
demonstrate
kind
of
the
process
that
we
would
go
through
to
evaluate
the
sub
communities
and
help
us
rank
them.
P
So
we
would
like
to
take
some
of
the
other
citywide
goals
and
identify
metrics
and
measurable
criteria
to
help
us
prioritize
sub
communities
for
planning
and
build
out
a
full
schedule
for
the
Pope
for
the
program.
So
the
next
question
is:
does
council
agree
with
the
approach
to
use
measurable
criteria
for
sub
community
prioritization
for
planning
I.
A
P
P
A
G
I
think
measurements
well,
I,
think
measurements
are
admirable.
I
think
there's
a
risk
of
false
precision
here
right
because
I
think
we're
gonna
be
tempted.
That's
sorta
late
to
back
into
the
answer.
I
mean
I.
Think
if
you
pulled
us
right
now,
we
would
probably
have
a
pretty
unanimous
view
on
what
would
be
for
a
second
and
third
and
fourth,
and
then
we
could
take
your
criterion.
We
could
say,
and
we
could
wait
the
things
that
would
get
that
to
the
top
list
and
D
wait.
The
ones
in
and
so
yeah
I
think.
E
L
M
M
You
know
some
kind
of
characterizations
of
every
sub
community
and
having
this
data
would
be
very
useful,
but
a
hundred
percent
agree
with
Bob
I
have
strong
opinions
about
what
needs
to
come
next,
mostly
because
of
where
we
will
probably
see
redevelopment
the
soonest
and
that
being
probably
the
single
biggest
driver
of.
If
we
don't
get
a
sub
community
plan
and
play,
we
go
forward
with
massive
redevelopment.
I
The
second
thing
imminence
of
change
anticipated
in
the
area.
I
think
we
do
not
want
to
be
reacting
to
development,
but
we
want
to
have
a
vision
for
what
it
is.
We
want
the
types
the
scale
setbacks,
all
of
that
and
then
implement
it
through
the
sub
community
plan
and
that's
where
all
the
people
in
the
sub
community,
as
well
as
outside
of
the
sub
community,
come
in
so
I
agree
with
Bob,
but
I.
I
A
A
F
Yeah
I'll
agree
with,
what's
been
said,
and
then
you
know
we
as
we
move
through
this
process
over
the
years.
It
might
be
that
you
know
when
you're
halfway
through
a
sub
community
plan.
That's
the
point
at
which
the
council
at
that
time
makes
the
decision
for
what
the
next
one
should
be
like
with
a
year
lead
time
and
that
there
would
be.
F
Maybe
you
know,
staff
brings
forward
some
we're
seeing
evidence
of
change
here
there
in
the
other
place
and
then
there's
a
you
know,
discussion
of
study,
session
or
hearing
or
something,
and
then
the
council
picks
the
next
one,
but
I
think
we're
it.
It's
probably
something
that
councils
will
always
want
the
prerogative
to
make
that
next
decision,
Cindy.
A
N
Just
want
to
say
that
I
agree
with
Lisa
as
well.
I
also
want
to
say
that
when
I
was
on
that
design
committee,
it
was
as
a
neighborhood
representative
from
the
West
pearl
so
but
I'm
concerned
I'm
trying
to
remember
whether
or
not
the
central
area
because
of
the
hospital
redevelopment
wasn't
somewhere
to
the
top
of
the
council's
list,
whereas
from
my
thinking
I
would
I
see
other
areas
where
it's
more
urgent
in
terms
of
change
and
what's
happening
in
transitioning
and
I'm.
Thinking
East.
N
L
Wanna
quickly,
say
I
really
like
what
you
said
about
what
gets
measured
gets
done,
though,
and
your
example
of
measurements.
It
would
be
great
to
use
this
once
we
start
some
community
planning
so
at
that
first
neighborhood
meeting
I
think
Gunbarrel,
not
that
that'll
be
the
first
one,
but
they
would
find
it
fascinating
to
know
that
they
have
zero
public
art
and
that's
not
something
that
might
be
on
their
list.
Do
it
still
just
like
in
the
context
of
that
sub
community,
when
we
get
started
just.
R
Yes,
it
is,
and-
and
if
I
could
add
on
to
my
answer,
just
a
little
bit-
it's
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
hybrid
beast
in
a
way
due
to
the
fact
that
the
city
owns
8.8
acres
there,
which
it
bought
approaching
three
years
ago
and
of
course
the
hospital
is
going
to
be
vacating
less
than
a
year
from
now.
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
hybrid
in
the
sense
that
we
own
a
key
parcel
that
we
know
is
going
to
change
and
our
objectives
for
our
parcel
I'm.
R
Speaking
of
us
as
an
entity,
the
corporate
entity,
the
city,
our
objectives
are
to
really
sort
of
in
part
figure
out.
What
are
we
going
to
do
with
it?
What's
the
program
of
uses?
How
will
we
accomplish
those
and
so
forth?
So
our
interests
with
regard
to
that
8.8
acres
are
particularly
heightened
and
focused.
It
is,
though,
going
back
to
your
fundamental
question.
It
is
an
area
plan
and
the
area
plan
boundaries,
I,
think
which
reach
out
into
some
of
the
adjacent
areas
and
what
you
might
call
areas
of
influence.
R
G
With
respect
to
Cindy's
question,
do
we
have
the
bandwidth
the
staff
capacity
to
complete
that
area
plan,
but
in
parallel
launch
our
first
self
community
plan,
because
I
agree
with
comments
made
by
Sam,
&
Lisa
and
some
others
that
there's
a
pretty
high
degree
of
urgency
to
get
going
on
this
for
sub
community
plan?
I
think
we
all
know
the
area
we're
talking
about,
so
that
we
stay
out
in
front
of
what
might
be
presented
to
us
so,
as
Lisa
said,
were
proactive
as
opposed
to
reactive,
yeah.
R
R
R
R
We
actually
have
a
couple
of
positions,
we're
in
the
process
of
filling
right
now
either
because
of
vacancies,
and
that
sort
of
thing,
and
so
we
will,
we
will
bolster
the
resources
available
to
Kathleen
and
and
anybody
working
on
sub
community
plans,
but
that
won't
come.
My
intention
is
that
won't
come
to
the
detriment
of
our
continuing
work,
Alpine,
balsam
area
plan
and
I
think
you
know
going
back
to
councilmember
Carlisle's
comment.
R
You
know
we're
gonna
be
engaged
in
this
area
planning
for
alpine
balsam
for
another
nine
ten
months
or
so,
and
we
have
a
set
of
proposed
boundaries
that
we
share
with
you.
I
think
those
boundaries
do
conform
largely
to
the
two.
What
would
be
the
area
of
influence
of
the
change
in
that
area?
Now?
If
there
are
other
areas
that
the
council
feels
or
the
community
feels
that
are
outside
of
our
area
plan,
we
need
to
think
about
that
as
we
move
forward.
Okay,.
A
Let
me
just
clarify
so
we're
doing
alpine
balsam
area
plan.
Meanwhile
Kathleen's
getting
on
with
the
first
sub-community
plan
as
soon
as
we
figure
out
the
framework
from
which
we
will
launch
sub
community
planners
correct
and
everybody
keeps
talking
about
it,
but
not
saying
east
arapahoe,
but
is
that
you
are
thinking
about
the
first
I
mean.
Have
we
talking
about
it
without
talking
about
it?
We.
F
A
R
P
I
would
say:
I
do
have
kind
of
a
question
about
the
idea
of
area
of
change
and
how
you
know
is:
is
everyone
here
on
the
same
page
about
what
an
area
of
change
is
so
I?
Just
you
know,
sort
of
put
together
a
couple
of
questions?
Is
it
an
area
that
the
community
would
like
to
see
change?
Is
it
an
area
that
has
the
potential
to
accommodate
population
growth,
job
growth
or
is
it
an
area
that's
currently
underperforming
and
we
would
like
to
see
it
either
be
serve
as
a
better.
A
We
also
have
that
corner
plan
that
we
looked
at
it
a
few
weeks
ago.
So
that's
a
big
piece
of
what's
happening
there.
So
I
know
that
when
we
were
doing
the
other
plan,
I
forget
what
it
was
called
envision.
East
arapahoe,
right
and
people
were
very
upset
that
some
folks
were
very
upset
that
we
didn't
include
the
Planning
with
it
that
it
was
just
a
transportation
plan,
so
it
makes
sense.
A
But
earlier
this
evening
we
were
also
talking
about
changing
boundaries
there,
so
that
makes
it
a
huge
project.
So,
in
terms
of
that,
in
terms
of
where
you're
headed
it
sounds
like
first,
you
guys
want
to
finish
assembling,
that
is
establishing
the
foundation
force
of
Community,
Planning
and
you're.
Coming
back
in
a
couple
months
with
the
other
criteria
and
all
the
changes
we've
talked
about
so
far
like
that's
the
next
step
right.
R
And
I
was
going
to
offer
up
that.
Perhaps
we
don't
need
feedback
from
you,
final
feedback
from
you
tonight
on
on
prioritization,
which
one's
first,
but
maybe
that
when
we
come
back
as
I
mentioned,
we
can
come
back
to
talk
about
these
three
other
foundational
elements
as
well
as,
as
I
said,
we
could
come
back
and
combine
what
we've
heard
from
you
tonight
with
sort
of
just
sound
planning
principles
and
bring
back
to
you
what
this
east
arapahoe
area
might
consist
of.
Then
you
might
be
teed
up
at
that
point.
A
A
Maybe
disagree
a
little
bit
Erin
you
talked
about.
We
should
just
pick
on
the
year
before
they
start,
but
I
actually
think
that
communities
might
want
to
maybe
that
we
want
to
have
a
first
second
at-bat
on
deck,
etc.
Just
so
that
there's
a
little
bit
like
people
can
gear
up
for
it.
So
I
might
go
a
little
deeper
than
just
having
one
mm-hmm.
J
M
Jill,
so
yeah
I
think
the
process
Jim
has
suggested
is
exactly
right.
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
pick
which
one
yet,
who
knows
what's
gonna
evolve
over
the
next
little
while
I
will
just
remind
us
that
there
was
also
some
conversation
not
just
about
the
Broadway
corridor
plan
and
the
hospital
site
itself,
but
also
what's
at
the
corner
of
iris
and
Broadway
right,
and
so
there
could
be
a
significant
amount
of
redevelopment
in
the
pattern
or
central
Boulder.
M
Yes,
but
you
know
again,
we
got
ourselves
in
trouble,
in
my
opinion,
just
doing
the
corridor
plan
in
east
arapahoe,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
learn
from
that,
if
you
know
that's
the
one
thing
I
think
we're
gonna
have
a
tough
decision
to
make
about
which
one's
going
to
be
first,
in
which
one
second,
because
of
the
imminence
of
change
in
both
of
those
places
and
the
discussions
about
the
corridor
in
both
of
those
places.
So
I
just
wanted
to
flag
that
I'm
prefer
to
make
that
decision
a
little
further
down
the
road.
Okay.
L
L
So
and
then
Xin
and
others
said
well
areas
that
are
changing,
and
if
that
is
hard
to
even
quantify
I
mean
there's
just
there
are
certain
places
that
are
just
screaming
for
redevelopment
where
big
parcels
are
turning
hands
really
quickly
where
development
applications
are
coming
in.
Those
are
the
types
of
things
we
don't
want
to
miss.
You
know
that's
part
of
why
this
word.
J
F
I'll,
just
echo
we're
seeing
about
the
process.
I
didn't
mean
to
cut
things
out
before,
but
just
that
I
think
that
I'll
be
very
interested
to
see
how
the
boundaries,
change
and
I
think
how
we
decide
to
move
forward
with
that
will
really
help
inform
us
decide
the
prioritization
of
some
of
these
couple.
Big
bigger
areas
have
changed
in
our
community,
certainly
in
the
central
Boulder
areas,
where
there's
lots
going
on
there,
but
east
arapahoe
is
a
very
vital
area
right
now.
That
could
use
some
attention
too.
I
And
I
would
pretty
much
do
what
Erin
said.
I
think
the
corridor
is
important
and
I
take
what
Sam
said
to
try
to
include
those
surrounding
neighborhoods
but,
as
Jill
said,
there's
big
development
or
there's
things
that
are
happening
right
now
on
east
arapahoe
and
they're
already
happening
and
we're
reacting
to
those,
and
these
are
significant
developments
that
some
could
be
by
right.
P
And
so
those
are
the
big
three
topics.
Just
the
last
thing
is
to
let
you
know
that
next
steps
are
going
to
be
talking
about
scope
and
deliverables
schedule
and
phasing
and
Community
Engagement.
Those
are
all
really
intertwined,
and
so
we'll
come
back
with
some
ideas
about
that,
as
well
as
some
of
the
resolution
of
some
of
the
topics
that
you
mentioned.