►
From YouTube: Boulder Housing Advisory Board Meeting 9-25-19
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
F
G
A
All
right
got
it
in
one
awesome
approval
of
minutes,
so
we
have
two
sets
of
minutes
to
approve.
Let's
just
quick
talk
about
the
July
24th
ones
again,
so
you
might
remember,
we
had
some
things
come
up
with
our
representations
to
staff
Alpine
balsam.
That
Judy
suggested
that
we
put
some
revisions
to
the
it
was
recommend
or
those
suggestions
within
the
minutes
for
July
24th.
So
currently
the
board
sort
of
decided
that
that
was
okay
going
into
it,
but
we
need
an
official
approval
of
those
minutes.
F
A
A
J
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Lea.
Travis
I
live
at
four
seven:
zero,
five
koala
Drive
here
in
Boulder
and
I'm.
Currently,
a
law
student
at
CU
I
work
as
a
student
attorney
in
the
sustainable
Community
Development
clinic
at
the
school,
whose
mission
is
to
engage
in
economic
development
projects
both
on
behalf
of
clients
and
on
behalf
of
the
public
public
interest,
with
the
goal
of
increasing
social
justice
in
social
enterprise
in
a
range
of
substantive
areas,
including
land
use,
housing,
local
food
and
healthy
communities.
J
J
Other
residents
who
happen
to
rent
their
mobile
homes
Kenai.
In
fact,
the
draft
rules
that
Dola
issued
last
week
include
absolutely
no
details
on
the
process
of
filing
a
complaint.
Our
what
standard
of
pleading
is
necessary
to
file
a
complaint.
Furthermore,
retaliation
is
not
defined
under
the
Act
and
mobile
home
park.
Owners
may
be
able
to
pass
off
the
cost
of
violations
to
residents
by
raising
their
rents.
J
For
example,
if
a
mobile
home
park
owner
agrees
to
pay
for
structural
changes
in
the
park
during
the
dispute
resolution
process,
nothing
keeps
the
owner
from
deciding
to
raise
rent
by
hundred
dollars
in
order
to
pay
for
the
new
structural
changes
that
must
be
made.
There
are
a
number
of
other
vital
areas
where
members
of
the
public
can
voice
their
opinions
and
ensure
the
act
fulfills.
Its
intended
purpose.
J
Public
comment
on
the
proposed
rules
opens
on
October
10th
I
urge
the
board
to
spread
the
word
about
the
public
comment
period
and
to
use
its
voice
to
advocate
for
boulders
mobile
home
park
residents.
In
the
event
that
changes
are
not
made
to
dolis
draft
rules,
I
ask
that
the
Boulder
housing
advisory
board
be
prepared
to
step
in
and
pass
what
ordinances
it
can
to
remedy
the
faults
of
the
rules
issued
by
nola.
Thank
you.
Helium.
F
J
Can
contact
Dolan
now
to
help
them
as
they
draft
the
rules,
but
on
October
10th?
Those
are
the
official
rules
that
Dola
is
proposing
to
be
made
into
like
official
rules
that
will
be
applied,
and
so
the
official
public
comment
period
opens
on
the
10th
and
it's
open,
til
November,
1st
I
believe.
But
if
you
contact
Dola
at
this
point,
they
are
taking
recommendations
on
their
draft
rules.
Right
now
and
you.
J
J
It
should
be,
if
you
type
in,
like
mobile
home
park,
act
dispute
resolution
rule
making
process.
It
should
bring
you
to
the
link.
There
are
a
number
of
stakeholder
meetings.
The
clinic
has
been
involved
with
those
where
Dola
is
going
to
different
mobile
home
parks
and
areas
across
Colorado
to
get
feedback.
We've
listened
into
almost
every
single
stakeholder
meeting,
they're
getting
feedback
at
those
meetings,
the
one
on
Tuesday.
So
yesterday
was
the
first
one
where
they
had
the
draft
rules.
J
G
J
J
Pretty
sure
it
ends
on
November
first
and
there's
a
meeting
on
November
11th
I
believe
where
the
rules
are
getting
like
voted
on
to
be
passed
and
then
made
into
law.
So
I
think
you
can
also
participate
in
that
meeting
as
well.
But
public
comment
period
starts
in
the
10th
and
should
last
until
November,
1st
and.
H
J
H
A
A
K
K
The
goals
of
the
project
are
basically
to
incentivize
or
require
additional
community
benefit
in
exchange
for
additional
height
floor
area
or
density,
and
certain
projects
in
the
city
of
Boulder
I
want
to
read
the
purpose
statement
for
the
board
so
consistent
with
newly
adopted
Boulder
Valley
Conference
of
planned
policies,
newly
adopted
means
in
2017.
Basically,
staff
will
update
the
land-use
code
to
create
regulations
and
incentives
for
obtaining
certain
community
benefits
when
considering
height
modification
requests,
and/or
additional
floor
area
density
requests
and
rezoning
applications.
K
So
I'll
talk
about
the
portions
of
that
ordinance
tonight,
related
to
affordable
housing
requirements
for
for
sale
and
rental
projects.
There's
also
proposed
regulations
for
commercial
projects,
and
we
also
want
to
have
a
discussion
about
appendix
J,
which
is
the
in
the
land
use
code
that
specifies
where
hype
modification
requests
can
be
requested
and
then
will
convey
the
housing
advisory
board
recommendation
to
City
Council.
K
So
just
going
back
in
time,
height
has
been
a
pretty
important
issue
in
the
city
of
Boulder.
For
years,
when
you
look
at
some
of
the
taller
buildings
throughout
the
city,
you
can
see
that
a
lot
of
buildings
in
the
50s
and
60s
and
you
had
the
Williams
Village
project.
A
number
of
projects
were
going.
K
You
know
up
to
around
a
hundred
feet
or
so,
and
it
caused
the
community
to
have
some
concern
about
those
types
of
projects
and
that
led
to
a
referendum
in
1971
that
was
passed
that
basically
set
the
maximum
height
limit
for
buildings
in
the
city
of
Boulder
at
55
feet.
So
just
want
to
be
really
clear
that
we're
not
proposing
to
change
that
any
change
to
that
55
foot
height
limit
would
require
a
you
know.
Citizen
vote
so.
K
So
since
that
time,
the
city
has
been
considering
requests
for
height
above
zoning
district
maximum,
so
all
the
different
zoning
districts
have
usually
around
35
feet
as
a
maximum.
There
are
some
zones
that
are
38
feet
and
some
that
are
40
feet,
but
generally,
if
any
request
comes
in,
to
go
above
that
it's
considered
a
height
modification
up
to
the
55
feet
maximum
in
the
city
charter
and
also
wanted
to
just
point
out
that
that
height
measurement
is
actually
from
a
low
point,
25
feet
away
from
any
structure.
K
So
if
the
slope
descends
away
from
a
structure,
that's
gonna
bring
that
that
height
down
further.
So
the
city's
been
reviewing
these
for
for
quite
some
time
now
there
aren't
any
specific
community
benefit
requirements
associated
with
height
modifications,
there's.
Basically,
the
site
review
criteria
that
talk
about
is
the
building
proportional
to
other
buildings
in
the
area
in
terms
of
its
height
is
its
massing,
you
know
and
height
compatible
with
the
surrounding
context,
but
nothing
really
beyond
that
other
than
other
design
type
criteria
and
the
site
review
process.
K
So
after
there
were,
there
was
a
proliferation
of
height
modifications
that
were
approved,
leading
up
to
the
Great
Recession
and
then
built
where
there
was
quite
a
few
coming
online
around
the
same
time
and
that
caused
some
concern
in
the
community
leading
to
the
council
at
that
time,
passing
an
interim
development
regulation
that
established
the
appendix
J,
basically,
where
height
modifications
can
be
requested.
It
also
became
a
topic
of
the
boulder
valley,
commerce
of
plan
update
that
was
going
on
in
2015.
That
was
around
that
same
time.
K
So
when
the
the
comp
plan
was
actually
adopted
in
2017,
it
included
new
policies
related
to
Community,
Benefit
and
height
and
I'll.
Talk
about
those
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
council
last
year
in
2018
extended
the
sunset
date
for
that
interim
development
regulation
to
May
of
2020
and
then
just
to
come
up
to
more
recent
history.
K
K
So,
just
to
clarify
on
appendix
J
again,
the
sunset
date
is
May.
31St
2020,
the
areas
in
red
are
those
areas
where
you
can
ask
for
a
height
modification
doesn't
mean
it's
an
automatic
approval.
It
just
means
you
can
ask
for
it
through
a
site
review
project.
It
still
would
require
consistency
with
the
site
review
criteria.
It
would
require
a
Planning
Board
hearing
and
action
by
the
Planning
Board.
It
could
be
called
up
to
Council
again,
no
community
benefit
requirements
are
applied
to
those
particular
applications.
K
There
are
some
exemptions
to
the
red
areas
which
are
listed
up
on
the
slide,
so
you
can
see
those
four
additional
citywide
eligibility
criteria.
So
if
you
have
an
in
in
an
industrial
zone,
if
you
have
a
building,
that's
no
more
than
two
storeys.
You
can
ask
for
a
height
modification.
If
you
need
that
additional
height
for
manufacturing,
you
can
ask
for
a
hype
modification
if
you
have
topography
on
a
site
that
descends
away
from
the
building.
That
makes
it
overly
restrictive
to
even
add
the
generally
buy
right
number
of
storeys.
K
K
So
we've
done
some
updates
with
the
board
in
the
past,
leading
up
to
the
study
session
that
we
had
with
City
Council
in
September
of
last
year.
So
basically,
these
are
the
identified
community
benefits
and
we
had
done
a
number
of
case
studies
of
other
jurisdictions
and
laid
out
some
ideas
of
how
these
could
all
become
part
of
the
code
ultimately,
and
we
got
good
feedback
from
from
the
board
and
Planning
Board
and
Council
at
that
time
before
we
moved
into
the
phase
1
portion.
K
K
So
the
results
of
the
economic
analysis
that's
found
in
attachment
C
by
Kaiser
Marston.
They
looked
at
basically
base
projects
which
is
basically
by
right,
basically,
three
stories
within
FA
R
and
then
looked
at
bonus
projects
where
there's
FA
are
or
there's
basically
floor
area
above
the
F
AR
or
height,
and
they
looked
at
residential
and
non-residential
projects.
So,
as
the
board
knows,
you
know
right
today,
our
current
requirement
is
that
there's
the
25%
inclusionary
housing
requirement
that
applies
for
projects
that
have
residential.
K
They
found
that
the
market
could
support
a
higher
amount
of
affordable
housing
in
bonused
area.
So,
in
their
findings,
36%
of
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement
could
apply
to
for
sale
projects
with
50%
of
the
IH
units
being
on-site,
and
they
found
that
a
higher
percentage
could
be
supported
for
a
rental
project
at
41%.
Just.
K
Margin,
oh
yeah,
so
when
they
were
looking
at
projects,
they
were
looking
at
performers
and
the
goal
was
to
try
to
have
some
basic
amount
of
return
for
a
developer
enough,
that
they
would
be
attracted
to
doing
a
project.
So
the
the
study
basically
said
that
there
would
have
to
be
at
least
50%
of
potentially
1
million
as
an
amount
of
money
to
make
a
project
feasible.
So
they
looked
at
the
costs
of
doing
the
development
and
they
subtracted
it
out
so
that
everything
would
equal
to
that
15
percent
or
1
million.
K
D
K
D
K
Today,
if
a
project
comes
in
it's
in
a
commercial
project,
there's
what
we
have
commercial
linkage
fees
or
what's
in
the
code
as
the
capital
facility
impact
tax,
so
it's
based
on
whatever
uses
are
within
the
building
times
the
floor
area,
so
that
would
still
apply
for
the
the
base
level
floor
area.
They
found
in
the
study
that
there
could
be
an
additional
amount
of
that
linkage
fee
for
the
bonus
floor
area.
K
They
found
that
for
for
office,
there
could
be
an
additional
forty,
three
percent
supported
for
that
bonus,
floor
area
and
even
more
so
for
a
hotel.
They
found
that
a
hundred
and
sixteen
percent
I
could
apply
in
that
instance,
so,
before
I
go
deep
into
the
ordinance,
I
just
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
background
of
the
project
and
the
outreach.
So
since,
even
before
the
study
sessions,
we've
done
a
number
of
different
techniques
of
getting
the
word
out
on
the
community
benefit
project.
K
We
had
a
number
of
open
houses
early
part
of
this
year
and
going
even
further
back.
We
had
set
up
I
believe
it
was
like
eight
or
more
focus
groups
with
different
neighbors
in
the
community.
The
development
community
we've
met
with
small
group
sessions.
We
had
the
be
heard
Boulder
questionnaire
that
we
put
out.
We
had
the
what's:
what's
a
boulder
event,
we've
presented
to
you
li,
better
Boulder
or
the
Chamber
of
Commerce.
We
did
a
survey
with
the
housing.
K
The
Human
Services
Alliance
there's
been
a
lot
of
methods
of
getting
input
on
this
project
as
we've
moved
along.
So
looking
back
at
the
the
comp
plan
update,
there
was
a
statistically
valid
survey
that
was
done
at
that
time,
related
to
community
benefit
and
height
and
in
2016
it
basically
found
that
you
could
see.
Most
of
the
respondents
of
that
survey
were
opposed
to
additional
height.
But
when
the
question
asked,
if
there
was
community
benefits
associated
with
that
additional
height,
you
could
see
that
the
community
was
more
receptive
to
the
additional
height.
K
K
We
didn't
have
nearly
as
many
respondents,
but
the
interesting
thing
is
that
this
this
year
we
did
get
a
similar
response
that,
where
it
was
asking
about
community
benefit,
affordable,
housing
and
height,
and
you
can
see
that
the
the
amount
of
support
in
opposition
is
is
relatively
close
to
that.
The
other
survey
that
was
done,
a
quick.
K
K
So,
as
far
as
the
maybes
there
were,
we
had
a
bunch
of
comments.
Comment
boxes
were
they
they
were,
they
would
if
to
show
what
they
would
need
for
it
to
work
would
be
like
designing
compatibility,
there's
a
number
of
things
that
would
have
to
work
out
with
it.
They
have
to
be
enforceable
and
permanent.
It
depends
on
the
location
in
context,
something
tangible.
It
have
to
stay
with
the
project.
K
So
there
were
some
caveats
to
people
supporting
this
program
overall,
like
the
things
that
we've
heard
through
the
outreach
is
that
affordable
housing
is
the
right
priority.
It's
the
number
one
priority,
neighborhood
context
and
compatibility
is
crucial
in
balancing
the
requirements
and
incentives,
mailee
lead
to
less
affordable
housing
that
gets
at
what
I
was
talking
about
before
that
we
need
to
calibrate
it
the
right
way
to
encourage
projects
and
in
order
to
get
those
community
benefits,
on-site
units
were
preferable
and
then
long-term
benefits,
something
that
was
locked
in
with
the
project
was
important.
K
So
now,
I'll
move
on
to
the
proposed
ordinance.
What
I'm
going
to
cover
is
the
the
new
code,
language
related
to
affordable
housing
and
then
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
appendix
J
map
and
also
there's
two
additional
community
benefits
that
we'll
discuss
real
briefly.
The
nursing
homes
and
assisted
living
and
an
alternative
community
benefit.
K
So,
first
off
the
ordinance
is
found
within
attachment
a
so
when
we
were
looking
at
this
project.
We
realized
that
there,
the
code
already
has
what
we
call
land
use
intensity
modifications.
So
there
are
limited
options
in
the
code
for
going
over
floor
area
going
over
density
in
certain
zones.
That's
already
set
up
and
there's
specific
criteria
that
has
to
be
met.
K
To
do
that,
so
we
felt
that
the
community
benefit
project
was
similar,
that,
if
you're
asking
for
additional
height
that
there
be
very
clear
criteria
as
to
what
the
city
would
get
in
exchange,
so
we
felt
that
height
for
fourth
and
fifth
storeys
in
certain
areas
could
be
considered
a
land
use
intensity
modification.
So
the
ordinance
is
proposed
to
include
that
language
in
the
site
review
criteria
as
a
land
use
intensity
modification.
K
So
again,
everything
is
informed
by
the
the
Kaiser
Marsten
study
and
the
the
reason
we're
going
with
a
lot
of
their
recommendations
is
that
by
tying
it
to
the
bonus
area,
it
makes
makes
it
that
it's
it's
basically
proportional
to
how
much
they're
adding
so,
if
they're,
adding
the
more
they
add
above
the
height
limit
or
above
a
floor
area
limit,
the
more
community
benefit
the
city
would
be
getting
so
the
requirement.
Basically,
as
we
talked
about
the
base
areas,
20
I
just.
F
K
Wanted
to
include
an
option
for
an
alternative
community
benefit
if
it
was
a
something
that
wasn't
clearly
identified,
but
could
would
be
a
clear
benefit
to
the
community
related
to
like
fire
services,
police
services,
government
services
that
are
essential,
that
there
would
be
an
option
and
in
the
ordinance
to
enable
someone
to
request
that
someone
could
actually
work
with
with
the
city
on
what
the
city
needs,
and
that
would
enable
that.
Thank
you.
K
So
we
talked
about
the
base
requirement
for
residential
projects.
What
staff
is
recommending
is
that
the
ordinance
would
require
that
any
bonus
floor
area
above
the
height
limit
would
be
subject
to
the
higher
inclusionary
housing
centered,
so
it'd
be
36%.
We've
also
added
language
in
in
the
proposed
ordinance
that
would
require
for
for
sale
projects.
K
Fifty
percent
of
all
the
affordable
units
would
be
on
the
site,
so
again
commercial
linkage
fees
applied
to
the
base
area
and
then
going
along
with
the
recommendation
from
Kaiser
Marston
for
the
bonus
area
above
the
height.
You
would
take
that
commercial
linkage
fee
requirement
for
the
use,
and
you
would
add
forty
three
percent
to
it
for
that
bonus
floor
area.
F
K
H
H
K
K
When
we
get
into
the
commercial
example
again,
this
is
based
on
the
fees
that
would
kick
in
in
2021.
The
linkage
fee
under
that
would
be
2.7
million
for
that
floor
area
and
then
adding
on
that
additional
story
would
get
an
additional
900,000
in
the
linkage
fee.
For
a
total
of
nearly
four
million
dollars,
so
just
to
be
really
clear
about
bonus,
Floria
again
driving
the
point
home,
these
are
not
allowing
buildings
that
are
going
to
be
taller
than
55
feet.
That's
not
the
case
at
all.
K
K
Anything
that
goes
above
those
limits
would
also
be
considered,
bonus
floor
area
and
this
ordinance
and
what
they
would
have
to
meet
those
requirements
for
that.
We've
also
included,
based
on
some
recommendations
from
the
community
about
some
leeway
for
encouraging
pitched
roofs
without
having
a
community
benefit
requirement
to
encourage
gable
roofs.
So
we've
added
an
exemption
exemption
that,
if
you're
just
doing
three
stories
and
you're
doing
a
pitched
roof,
no
taller
than
10
feet
above
the
height
limit
that
you
could
ask
for
high
modification
without
having
to
meet
these
requirements.
G
K
What
we're
proposing
at
this
point
is
when
we
brought
appendix
J
to
the
City
Council
in
at
the
study
session,
we
asked
the
question
about
whether
or
not
this
should
be
repealed
as
part
of
this
particular
project.
The
council
at
the
time
basically
said
to
us
that
they
didn't
agree
that
it
should
be
repealed
at
the
end
of
this
project
until
such
time
that
they
see
that
the
impact
or
that
how
it
plays
out
seeing
some
examples
on
the
ground
before
pulling
out
appendix
J.
K
We
might
ask
this
question
again
at
the
end
of
phase
two,
depending
on
where
things
land
and
maybe
after
some
examples
are
built
about
whether
it
should
be
repealed
or
kept
in
the
code.
We
we
are
recommending
that
the
sunset
day
be
removed.
A
new
sunset
date
could
be
added
as
an
alternative,
but
we're
curious
to
hear
what
the
board
has
to
say
about
that.
K
So
what
we're
proposing
is
basically
listing
this
as
a
community
benefit
use
in
not
making
that
particular
use
have
to
pay
the
additional
commercial
linkage
fee
above
the
height.
So
that's
included
in
the
ordinance
and,
as
we
talked
about
before,
the
alternative
community
benefit
would
create
an
option
for
a
unforeseen
or
unexpected
community
benefit.
That
might
be
an
obvious
benefit
to
the
community.
K
We
went
off
of
what
were
specific
uses
that
were
listed
in
the
capital
facilities
tax
because
those
weren't
specifically
listed-
we
didn't
include
it.
It's
totally
possible
that
we
might
go
down
that
road
as
we
look
at
human
services
as
part
of
phase
two
and
add
more,
but
this
just
seemed
like
an
obvious
one
to
add
to
the
list.
K
K
So
we
we
presented
this
to
Planning
Board
last
week.
The
Planning
Board
did
not
recommend
that
the
ordinance
move
forward.
We
should
point
out
there
were
four
members
of
Planning
Board
at
that
meeting
and
again
Brian's
here
tonight.
If
there's
any
questions,
they
did
support
the
concept
behind
the
ordinance,
but
they
do.
They
wanted
to
suggest
some
additional
changes
for
council
that
related
to
other
mechanisms
in
the
code
to
encourage
permanent,
affordable
housing
beyond
just
the
site
review
process.
K
Looking
at
some
other
prescriptive
changes
to
the
code,
that
would
make
it
really
clear
about
density
and
density
changes
in
exchange
for
more
affordability,
modifying
the
height
calculations.
To
be
more
flexible
for
like
roof
access
for
roof
decks
recommendations
to
do
a
sunset
date.
If
appendix
J
needed
to
stay
in
the
code,
I
will
point
out
that
this
also
did
not
pass.
It
was
a
three
to
one
vote,
but
we
were
conveying
this
to
City
Council,
along
with
the
hab
recommendation.
K
So
at
this
point
the
schedules
changed
a
little
bit.
We
have
community
benefits
set
for
City
Council
on
first
reading
on
October
1st.
That's
still
the
same,
except
council
has
requested
that
the
public
hearing
occur
on
that
date.
So
that's
the
latest
information
we
have
is
that
that
will
be
actually
the
public
hearing
and
then,
if
they're,
to
make
any
changes
to
the
ordinance
that
could
be
considered
on
second
reading
on
October
15th
and
that
could
potentially
be
on
consent
depending
on
how
that
goes
with
Council
and
then
moving
past.
K
L
B
Yeah
Karl,
39
I
think
I
want
to
sort
of
stick
to
the
crux
issues
for
planning
board.
You
know
with
a
board
of
four.
It
really
requires
a
unanimous
vote
to
act
so,
knowing
from
the
beginning
that
we
had
strong
disagreement
over
appendix
J
meant
that
it
was
pretty
clear
that
unless
people
were
willing
to
compromise
on
that
that
we
weren't
gonna
have
a
motion
to
support
what
staff
recommended
kind
of
regardless
of
what
kind
of
discussion
we
had,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
us
felt
like.
Can
you
say
a
lot?
B
If
there's
only
four
of
you,
a
portion
of
the
felt
like
you
know,
the
deal
with
appendix
J?
Was
you
I?
Was
there
when
we
were
doing
this?
The
first
time
around
during
the
moratorium,
appendix
J
is
not
benefited
from
any
public
input
in
its
generation.
Nor
is
it
a
result
of
a
planning
process.
It
was
a
the
sort
of
writing
down
of
projects
that
people
who
think
of
that
they
knew
were
in
the
pipeline
like
oh,
the
armory
is
coming
or
Frasier.
B
Meadows
is
coming
and
in
some
places
that
had
area
plans
and
downtown,
and
then
they
hoped
downtown
being
added
to
the
appendix
J
as
a
result
of
the
completion
of
the
rewriting
of
the
downtown
or
designed
guidelines
which
those
are
part
of
doing
as
well,
and
so
the
so
finished
Shea
was
a
sort
of
main
sticking
point
and
some
of
us
were
under
the
sort
of
expectation.
The
newer
folks
were
the
expectation
that
maybe
one
of
them
that
the
discussion
should
be
only
limited
to
areas
inside
appendix
J.
B
Several
of
us
felt
like
appendix
J
should
be
taken
away
immediately
or
at
least
sunset
and
knocked
in
a
march
of
twenty.
Is
that
what
it
is?
It's
May,
22,
May,
2020
and
not
be
prolonged
any
further.
It
was
initially
put
in
as
a
temporary
stopgap
measure
sold
as
the
idea
would
last
two
years,
and
it's
been
extended
once
and
extended
again
feels
like
you
know
to
me
personally
speaking
for
myself
and
maybe
show
the
people
in
the
board
that
night
disingenuous
in
terms
of
process,
so
the
penance
J
was
a
big
sticking
point.
B
There
has
been
support
since
I've
been
on
Planning
Board
for
sure
of
looking
at
the
site
review
criteria
and
taking
a
look
at.
How
can
we
make
them
clearer
to
predict
for
applicants
for
the
community
and
for
Planning
Board?
So
you
know
how
to
make
a
decision,
and
it's
not
really
it's
quite
so
subjective
and
some
of
those
questions
that
have
been
raised
over
the
years
where
things
like
the
language
are
admitted
my
minimize
and
mitigate
and
how
you
deal
with
hi-8
and
stuff,
like
that.
B
B
Sorry,
fertile
housing
was
a
highest
priority
in
terms
of
community
benefit,
and
we
should
focus
on
that.
So
everyone's
very
comfortable
with
that,
and
then
what
we
tried
to
do
was
pull
together.
Emotion
that
we
thought
rekka
represented
everyone's
input
well
enough
to,
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we
weren't
going
to
act
at
night,
send
something
to
council
the.
So
they
could
actually
use
it
in
the
motion.
Language
that
we
put
together
was
pretty
close
to
what
Carl
had
up
there
at
screen
and
I.
Think
there
were
some
pretty
interesting
things.
B
B
Beyond,
what's
permitted
by
the
underlying
zoning
or
or
added
or
for
added
height,
that
increases
intensity,
we
would
be
looking
at
community
benefit,
and
so
there
was
a
pretty
strong
sentiment
on
the
board
that,
without
looking
at
intensity
and
density
increases,
which
are
actually
the
meat
of
the
comp
plan
criteria
that
we
all
wrote
and
approved,
it
wasn't
actually
on
the
mark
in
terms
of
being
a
policy
we
could
support.
So,
as
the
other
big
piece
for
us
is,
it
doesn't
actually
do
enough
to
really
incentivize
actually
getting
affordable
housing.
B
There
are
places
in
which
it
does
allow
some
additions
to
intensity
and
density,
which
Carl
can
explain.
I,
don't
remember
too
much
to
memorize.
All
these
things,
I
begin
to
they're
like
erase
these
memory
tapes
as
soon
as
the
meeting
is
over
rewriting
so
but
I
do
think
that
the
the
shift
has
been
more
towards
how
do
we
make
it
harder
to
get
height
modifications,
as
opposed
to
how
do
we
really
in
incentivize,
affordable
housing,
so
that
lends
I
think
is
a
problematic
one
for
Planning,
Board
and
yeah.
B
So
these
are
the
things
that
we
talked
about
and
they
had
pretty
broad
support.
I
think
the
tricky
one
was
the
trickiest.
One
of
these
was
actually
the
modify
height
calculations
to
allowed
roof
decks
in
the
way
we
were
looking
at.
That
was,
you
know
over
the
seven
and
a
half
years
have
been
on
Planning
Board
and
then,
as
an
applicant
number
times
before,
that
you
know
trying
to
figure
out
how
you
get
occupiable
spaces
on
the
roof
places
for
green
roofs
places
for
gold
to
be
together
and
everyone
loves
the
downtown.
B
H
B
I
mean
one
of
the
big
barriers
to
that
is.
Once
you
have
a
building,
listen
ear,
it's
35
foot
height
limit.
You
can't
get
a
stair
Headroom
above
that
you
can't
put
an
enclosure
above
that
to
walk
out
on
that
roof
or
an
elevator.
Stop
that's
enclosed
to
walk
out
on
that
roof.
So
this
was
an
intent
just
to
allow
just
those
just
enough
floor
area
above
the
height
limit,
to
allow
rooftop
access,
not
like
additional
stories.
So
I
was
kind
of
our
thought.
B
On
that
I
mean
we
were
kind
of
piggybacking
that
on
the
pitched
roof
idea,
because
it's
been
percolating
for
a
long
time,
there
was
I
think
complete
support
for
the
first
two
ideas,
which
were:
how
do
you,
the
idea
of
basically
saying,
along
with
by
right,
intensity
and
density,
increases
for
affordable
housing
projects?
You
could
then
apply
the
similar
criteria
for
height
modifications
through
site
review.
For
that.
B
So
there
are
a
couple
zones
in
the
city
that
have
by
ride
density
increases
for
affordable
housing,
holiday
neighborhood
is
the
best
example
that,
where,
if
you
go,
when
you
go
from
back
then
20%
of
affordable
housing,
IH
to
40%
of
affordable
housing,
you've
got
a
double
density
bonus,
so
it
went
from
10
D
per
acre
to
20
D
per
acre
net.
So
after
you
take
out
the
roads
and
stuff
and
that
results
in
you
getting
affordable
housing
built.
B
So
we've
learned
a
lot
over
the
years
of
what
actually
works
and
what
doesn't
really
work
and
I
think
in
terms
of
incentivizing,
affordable
housing.
I
think
Planning,
Board
felt
like
and
I
certainly
feel
like
that
as
a
practicing
professional
here,
a
little
bit
more
Heights,
not
gonna,
make
people
build
affordable
housing.
That's
that
was
a
big
part
of
why
we
didn't
support
it.
So,
but
if
you
make
the
the
transaction
of
this
is
a
kind
of
a
key
thing
to
cancer.
B
If
you,
if
you're,
applying
discretionary
review
and
trying
to
ask
an
applicant
to
provide
affordable
housing
on-site,
we
don't
really
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
Well,
we
do
have
the
ability
to
do
is
to
do
is
say:
if
you
provide
affordable
housing
on-site,
you
get
more
units,
you
get
more
fer,
you
get
more
intensity
somehow
or
height,
and
then
it's
a
transaction,
that's
legal,
so
we're
sort
of
like
always
looking
away
from
the
one
that
works
and
under
these
other
things,
but
I
think.
B
B
B
So
if
you,
if
you
can
build
15
units
and
they're
all
thousand
square
feet,
you
got
15,000
square
foot,
building
the
only
economic
benefit
to
going
taller,
as
you
save
a
little
bit
of
money
on
Foundations,
but
in
our
area
you
know,
when
you
switch
from
three
floors
to
four
floors:
you're
buying
yourself,
an
elevator.
So
with
that
in
tight
increase
by
building
code,
you're
also
gonna
be
spending
30
grand
per
floor
on
an
elevator,
so
that
might
counter
out
if
you've
got
a
big
enough
project.
B
B
If
you
wanted
to
do
a
you
know,
12
unit,
let's
say:
you've
got
a
piece
of
property:
that's
zoned
for
8
units,
all
of
the
boards
and
bodies
that
have
to
approve
this
thing
have
said
you
can
get
a
density
bonus
of
50%.
If
you
make
them
all
affordable,
then
you
know
habitat
or
somebody
could
come
in
and
say
well
we're
gonna
do
12
littler
units
and
take
advantage
of
that
by
right
density
bonus
and
it
would
create
affordable
housing
because
it
then
it
would
pencil
better
mm-hmm.
G
My
other
question
just
trying
to
understand
the
sentiment
of
the
plan
board
regarding
the
exhibit
J.
So
was
the
feeling
that
it's
too
restrictive
and
if
we're
gonna
have
this,
we
should
look
at
it
from
a
broader
perspective
because
it
wasn't
such
an
empirical
process
to
establish
it
in
the
first
place,
and
so
maybe
step
that
away.
And
if
we
look
at
things
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
whether
or
not
it
merits
it
makes
more
sense.
That's
kind.
What
I
got
from
you
I'm,
not
sure
yeah.
B
I
think
that's
pretty
fair.
I
want
to
be
really
careful
in
how
I
represent
the
full
board.
There
were
people
who
felt
like
really
kind
of
one
person
who
felt
like
our
job
at
this
moment
was
to
stay
inside
the
confines
of
the
areas
allocated
on
appendix
J,
which
I
don't
think,
is
really
the
scoping
that
staff
has
been
giving
I,
don't
think.
That's
accurate
I
think
everyone
agreed
that
appendix
J
is
just
factually
not
a
document
that
went
through
any
kind
of
public
process
right.
B
It
wasn't
put
out
through
any
of
the
things
that
these
guys
have
done
ever
it's
been
carried
along
behind
them
on
things
and
it's
been
adopted
into
the
land-use
code,
but
it
hasn't
ever.
It
wasn't
generated
through
a
planning
process
or
through
a
public
engagement
process.
So,
as
a
result,
it
doesn't
really.
B
G
A
H
So
I
believe
what
I,
what
I
heard
from
one
of
the
board
members
and
and
from
I
think
one
member
of
the
public
public
was
that
there's
an
expectation
among
the
community
that
it
was
only
going
to
apply
to
panik's
J
the
community
benefit
and
that
that
was
sort
of
the
expectation
from
the
onset.
So
I
think
there
was
some
that
was
part
of
the
reaction
to
opening
it
up
broader
than
that
yeah.
A
H
B
That's
the
fair
representation
I
think
any
other
representation
is
probably
worth
making.
Is
that
there's
a
lot
of
folks
who
I
mean
the
whole
process
so
far
has
been
have
a
presumption
that
there
was
a
sunset
date
first,
two
years
ago
and
now
in
the
spring,
and
then
you
know
so
I
think
the
there
may
have
been
expectations
that
the
appendix
J
would
last
forever.
But
the
fact
is,
we
actually
said
it
wasn't
going
to
that's.
Why
there's
a
written
down
sign
say
that
sunset
date,
for
it
sure,
okay.
G
G
You
know
on
the
ground
and
B
how
its
limited
in
terms
of
how
those
limits
affect
the
impact
and
so
I
guess.
My
question
would
be
you
know.
I
do
I
would
share
some
concerns
regarding
the
notion
of
appendix
J,
just
because
those
are
certain
areas
where
there's
been
this,
you
know
height
allowance
or
hide
allowance
process
for
some
time.
Apparently-
and
you
know
we're
just
adding
this
additional
requirement
to
something-
that's
already
been
there
and
I.
G
It
certainly
has
a
lot
of
Merit
and
it's
certainly
a
good
approach
to
take,
but
I
think
just
the
whole
notion
of
how
we
go
about
doing.
It
is
something
that
you
know
probably
needs
a
little
more
fine-tuning.
It
seems
like
to
me,
and
I
would
just
say,
I
think
the
other
part,
just
from
from
the
experience
of
a
developer
and
I
think
Brian.
G
What
you
were
saying
too,
is
that
you
know
that
whole
notion
of
you
know
what
can
be
done
on
the
front
end,
because
every
developer,
when
they're
looking
at
pencil,
something
out
write,
additional
discretionary
processes
are
something
that
they're
going
to
shy
away
from.
If
they
can
make
that
determination
where
their
pencil
and
everything
out
right
from
the
beginning,
it
might
make
it
more
effective
in
terms
of
saying
I'm
gonna
buy
this
land
I'm
going
to
develop
it.
Here's
a
plan
for
five
stories.
G
F
First
of
all,
Carl
thank
you,
I
thought
that
was
really
comprehensible
and
these
things
are
sometimes
so
hard
I,
listen
to
planning
board
meetings
and
City
Council
meetings
and
I
hardly
know
what
they're
talking
about
sometimes
and
I
could
really
understand
what
you
were
saying.
So
thank
you.
I
do
have
a
question
when
you
talk
about
affordable
housing,
I,
don't
hear
the
word
permanently,
affordable
housing,
so
I'm
wondering
how
staff
sees
that
would.
F
It
would
be
yeah,
okay,
cool,
then
I
will
now
make
my
comments,
I'm
not
comfortable
with
the
piece
about
exempting
senior
facilities
right
now,
because
we're
we're
well
aware
that
there
have
been
some
luxury
senior
facilities
and
assisted
living
and
I'm
not
interested
in
giving
them
a
break.
So
if
some
wording
could
be
added
to
that
exemption,
that
would
say
something
like
I
don't
know.
F
Think
the
idea
of
looking
at
other
uses
outside
of
J
are
useful
at
some
point
in
the
future,
but
I
think
right
now
this
was
presented
as
such
and
it's
the
community's
expectation
that
it's
just
about
J.
So
that's
my
position
on
that.
Otherwise,
I
thought
you
did
a
really
good
job
and
I
think
there's
some
great
things
in
there
that
are
really
helpful.
I
C
K
That
down
y'all
shed
some
light
on
that.
So
there
are
some
zoning
districts
that
don't
have
an
F
air
limit.
There
are
some
zoning
districts
that
don't
have
a
density
limit.
There's
all
these
other
factors
and
zoning
regs
that
determine
you,
know
the
project
and
everything,
but
then
there's
some
zoning
districts
that
do
have
an
FA
or
lemma
and
do
have
a
dwelling
units
per
acre
limit
or
a
certain
amount
of
lot
area
for
per
dwelling
unit.
That
can
create
some
restrictions
of
doing
projects.
K
So
when
the
acun
economic
study
was
done,
they
found
that
in
general
across
the
city,
these
projects
would
be
feasible
when
granted
a
height
modification.
But
there
were
certain
zones
where
it
might
be
a
little
bit
more
on
the
marginal
side
about
they're
a
developer
would
even
do
it
so
again
trying
to
create
that
appropriately
a
balance
piece.
We
looked
at
what
the
zones
that
create
those
barriers
and
they
had
suggested
that
if
they
were
zoning
districts
that
were
below
a
1.0,
F
AR
and
there's
quite
a
few
zones.
K
K
So
in
that
case,
we've
added
a
an
exemption
in
there,
where
a
forty
percent
of
a
fifty
percent
increase
in
the
density
there
in
terms
of
dwelling
units
per
acre,
could
be
requested
as
part
of
this
project
to
make
those
projects
more
feasible.
So
what
this
graphic
basically
shows
is
that
in
most
cases
the
height
bonus
is
gonna
be
on
a
fourth
or
fifth
story.
H
B
Just
want
to
make
one,
except
if
it's
okay,
if
I
make
one
quick
comment,
I
think
there's
a
when
we
look
at
these
diagram,
there's
sort
of
like
an
assumption.
I
think
everyone
makes
that,
like
everywhere
in
town,
is
gonna,
be
filled
up
to
35
feet,
sort
of
uniformly
on
the
full
block
which
is
sort
of
part
of
the
how
pine
balsam
conversation
we
had
last
night
and
that
these
might
poke
above
that,
but
there's
actually
a
lot
of
zones
where
you're
only
limited.
B
You
know,
basically
one
or
two
stories
like
dt1,
a
town
downtown
zone
is
FA,
are
of
1.00
and
so
and
it's
a
it's
a
zero
lot
line
area
right
downtown.
So
you
have
to
build
to
the
walls
on
the
side
and
the
street
on
the
front,
and
so
you
have
one
point:
ofa
our
results
in
a
one-story
building
in
our
downtown
and
the
zoning
does
allow
for
a
density
bonus
there
to
encourage
housing
just
housing
in
general.
Doesn't
it's
not
tied
to
affordable
housing
or
anything
of
50
percent?
B
So
if
you
have
a
you
know,
3,000
square
foot,
small,
a
lot
downtown.
Well,
the
density
bonus.
You
get
is
to
be
like
a
1,500
square
foot
home
on
top
of
that
full
lot
size
commercial
area.
So
it's
there's
like
some
stuff.
That's
building
the
code.
Now,
that's
like
that
emulates.
This
I
think
so
the
logics
already
there
but
really
I
mean
even
in
the
downtown's.
Oh
and
that's
a
one-story,
it's
a
one
and
a
half
story
building.
That's
the
big
give.
I
No,
that's,
okay,
it
was
all
good
I,
just
there's
plenty
more
along
that
I
think
the
gist
of
what
I'm
getting
at
and
what
I
felt
when
I
was
reading
through
this
also
and
I.
Think
Danny
was
alluding
to
and
Brian
is.
The
discretionary
aspect
also
makes
it
difficult
on
the
front
end.
You
know
it's
like
well,
there
are
these
things
that
may
allow
a
developer
to
do
this
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
our
big
speed
bumps
in
a
sense
or
hurdles
is
the
discretionary
aspect,
and
so
I
also
have
concerns
about.
L
I
So,
in
other
words
like,
for
instance,
you
could
ask
for
50
percent
increase
in
floor
area
or
something
so
in,
and
that
as
Danny
was
saying,
then
a
developer
is
like
well.
Okay,
so
I've
got
to
get
into
this
process.
I,
don't
know
what
the
outcome
is.
Gonna
be
and
I
think
it
makes
it
difficult.
You
know
I
deal
with
this
on
a
small
scale
with
in
single-family
houses,
but
you
know
we
we
have
some
of
that
also,
and
it
always
makes
it
a
little
bit
difficult.
I
B
Gonna
avoid
chiming
it
every
time
somebody
talks,
but
that's
a
really
I
think
it's
a
really
important
piece
that
I
didn't
say
when
I
was
talking
abouts
before
that
you
both
have
picked
up
on,
which
is
that,
before
anything
comes
in
front
of
Planning,
Board
or
anybody
else,
there's
a
piece
of
property
that
comes
up
on
the
market
and
the
affordable
housing
developer,
whether
it's
you
know
thistle
or
habitat,
or
Boulder,
Housing,
Coalition
or
Boulder
housing
partners.
Anything.
B
What
was
main
mission
is
to
get
city
money,
housing,
money,
and/or,
light,
ekam
funds
and
execute
a
affordable
housing
project
with
lines
up
with
a
comp
plan,
which
is
what
we
say
we
want.
If
we
can
give
them
essentially
an
advantage
at
the
point
of
sale
that
they
can
count
on,
then
it's
gonna
happen.
If
it
has
to
go
in
it,
there's
rolling
the
dice
and
they
may
get
it
they
may
not
hit.
B
So
it
depends
on
if
there's
like
you
know,
for
planning
board
members
of
the
meeting
or
seven
goes
like
all
kinds
of
stuff
that
goes
on,
it's
really
unreliable
and
they
need
to
be
able
to
be
create
those
transactions
quickly
because
they're
competing
in
a
real
estate
market.
That's
super
hot
here!
So
if
you've
got
a
developer,
he's
just
doing
able
to
hold
land
for
a
long
time
or
able
to
you
know
sort
of
develop
at
a
luxury
level.
B
B
Yeah
just
I
mean
that's,
my
suggestion
would
be
to
make
it
emulate
the
other
zones
in
which
we
do
this,
like
dt1
has
the
50%
bonus
and
you
you
don't
have
go
through
a
good
discretionary
review
just
if
you're
doing
housing
at
administrative
level.
You
can
ask
for
that
and
they
would
say
yes,
if
you're
complying
with
the
criteria
holiday
zones
like
if
you
provide
forty
percent,
affordable
housing
on-site,
then
you
get
the
density
bonus.
B
If
the
parcel
is
big
enough
or
if
you're
asking
for
high
eight
or
a
parking
reduction
over
a
certain
amount
or
all
the
other
site
review
thresholds,
it
could
still
go
through
site
review
for
sure
and
we
would
do
whatever
we
usually
do,
but
it
would
be
something
that
they
could
Bank
on
and
in
the
financing
mindset.
Gotcha
they're
missing.
C
K
Another
charge
of
the
community
benefit
project
has
been
to
look
at
the
site
review
criteria
and
try
to
write
them
in
a
way.
That's
a
little
more
prescriptive,
exactly
like
the
form
based
code,
so
that
that's
already
underway,
that's
gonna,
be
part
of
Phase
two,
but
that
was
intended
to
make
the
process
or
move
towards
a
little
bit
more
predictability,
because.
D
Currently
you
go,
you
want
to
hide
exception,
you
go
to
site
review
and
then
it's
a
dance
right
and
it's
well
we're
not
sure
how
much
in
this
it
seems
to
me
that
this
proposal
notice
thing
I,
agree
with
it,
but
this
proposal
at
least
gives
the
property
a
certainty
of
okay.
Well,
if
you
want
four
storeys,
you
can
have
it,
but
you
got
to
go
to
whatever
forty
four
percent
of
this
or
that
right.
So
this
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
giving
the
process
certainty.
D
D
G
So
what
I'd
shift
with
that,
though
I
guess
my
concern
would
be
especially
when
we
talk
about
other
community
benefits.
We
start
talking
about
those
things
when
you
start
graying
up
the
marks
that
you
need
to
try
to
achieve.
You
know
so
site
site
plans
ministerial
right,
and
so,
if
you
check
off
all
these
boxes,
you
know
you
can
have
a
reasonable
expectation
of
approval
with
the
site
plan,
because
it's
less
discretionary.
But
within
that
you
know
I
guess
the
whole
notion
is
if
we
have
something
that's
concrete
and
I'm.
G
You
know
that
I'm
I
think
that's
just
kind
of
the
direction.
We
need
to
go,
not
saying
that
we're
not
trying
to
go
there
but
I'm
saying
the
more
concrete
it
is
the
more
you
can
have
somebody
that
can
plan
for
that
ahead
of
time
and
the
more
you're
putting
the
incentive
to
secure,
affordable,
housing
in
front
of
more
process
or
more
discretion.
And
that's
just
my
thing
is:
that's.
You
know
as
we're
going
through
these
phases.
G
K
L
I
I
You
know
kind
of
key
points
that
they
landed
on
at
their
meeting
and
I
agree
with
most
of
those,
the
one
that
I
don't
and
I
want
to
align
with
Judy
on
this
one
is
the
the
it
wasn't:
senior
housing,
assisted
living,
assisted
living
or
those.
You
know
that
piece
for
me
again,
I
think
that's
a
pretty
lucrative.
I
Market
from
a
business
perspective,
and
so
I
think
that
if
you're
gonna
give
some
kind
of
a
break,
it
needs,
as
Judy
said,
to
be
attached
to
a
reasonable
benefit
to
the
community.
You
know
extremely
expensive,
affordable
housing
for
for
seniors.
Excuse
me
extremely
expensive.
Housing
for
seniors
doesn't
provide
a
community
benefit
and
I
think
we
need
to.
We
need
to
align
that
differently,
as
Judy
was
saying
so
that
we
make
sure
we're
getting
an
affordable
just.
C
If
we're
talking
about
311
what
you're,
using
as
an
example
correct
for
expensive,
you
know,
we've
got
one
hundred
and
four
hundred
and
seven
yeah
off-site.
So
it
wasn't,
it
wasn't
just
but
I'm
just
saying
just
to
curb
it:
it's
not
like
they
just
threw
up
311
and
there
wasn't
anything
attached
to
it.
No.
A
A
K
It's
they'd
have
to
it
beyond
the
applicant
to
demonstrate
that
whatever
community
benefit,
they're,
suggesting
or
proposing
is
equivalent
to
what
is
in
the
code
and
then
at
the
staff
level.
We
would
look
at
at
that
analysis
and
see
if
we
agree
and
ultimately
it
would
be
determined.
You
know
by
Planning,
Board,
okay,
unless
it's
then
called
up
to
City
Council
and
they
would
have
to
determine
okay.
A
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
knows
what
the
process
is
behind
that,
because
I
think
that
is
one
area
that
it
could
get
squirrely
when
you're
talking
about
being
deliberative
or
deliberate
about
things.
So
I
want
to
also
agree
with
Jacque
and
Judy
I'm
worried
about
again
luxury
senior
assisted
living,
so
I
just
want
to
throw
that
up
there
for
our
conversation
and
we've
been
talking
a
lot
about
the
floor
area
ratio
and
appendix
GA.
Those
are
two
things
in
my
mind
that
should
be
set
up
for
phase
two,
but
right
now.
A
I
do
really
want
to
make
a
solid
recommendation,
because
we've
gotten
a
long
time
without
making
one.
So
if
we
can
figure
out
exactly
what
we
do
agree
on
and
at
least
meet
there,
that
would
be
really
really
nice.
So
this
board
can
really
give
something
to
council
that
they
can
chew
on
for
once
so
yeah
I
totally
understand
that
problems
with
flurry
or
area
ratio
and
that
not
being
included
in
actual
height,
but
maybe
that's
for
Phase
two
just
so.
We
can
look
closer
at
that
and.
A
Again,
I
like
focusing
on
just
a
pendeks
J
area
right
now,
because,
as
Brian
said,
there
is
a
sunset
date
and
that
sunset
date
is
going
to
be
decided
by
the
next
council,
whether
or
not
they're
gonna
again
push
it
forward
or
not.
But
the
fact
that
we
haven't
had
a
whole
bunch
of
public
come
out
and
say
hey.
We
really
want
this
to
be
beyond
area
J
and
the
fact
that
we
haven't
had
a
bunch
of
public
come
out
and
say
hey.
A
E
E
How
does
land
value
factor
in
to
all
of
this
when
you're
talking
about
cash
in
lieu
and
what
you're
really
able
to
get
from
an
inclusionary
housing
perspective
number
of
units-
and
you
know,
are
you
really
it's
seven
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
dollars,
or
a
million
four
really
gonna?
Get
you
a
lot
in
front
when
you
think
about
the
land
values,
because
that's
what
what
drives
a
lot
of
the
expense
in
this
town
is
land
value.
That
was
one
of
my
questions.
K
I,
don't
know
that
I
have
the
best
answer
for
that
I
think
our
economists
would
have
a
better
answer.
I
think
the
raziel
residual
land
value
is
basically
what
it
would
cost
to
pay
for
the
property
and
that
they
have
them
the
money
to
do
the
project.
Based
on
that,
so
it
was
the
metric
that
they
used
in
their
assumptions
to
determine
you
know
whether
somebody
would
choose
to
do
a
project
or
not,
but
I
don't
know
that
I
can
speak
to
it
much
more
than
that,
but.
H
E
Of
it
is
the
land
value,
because
I
know
that
that's
what
drives
a
lot
of
the
expense
and
development
in
this
town
and
there's
also
economic
factors.
You
know
what,
if
we
have
an
economic
downturn
and
land
values,
drop
or
development
costs
go
up
like
they
have
so
much
in
the
last
five
years
because
of
tightening
labor
markets
and
tightening
supply
chains,
and
things
like
that.
So
how
does
all
that
factored
in?
E
E
H
H
That
wouldn't
jumped
out
at
me
even
more
so
you
were
going
from
well
and
it's
yeah
an
additional
nine
hundred
thousand.
So
that's
you
know
an
additional
ten
units,
so
it
is
pretty
significant
and
it
gives
us
money
and
we've
had
this
conversation
before
right
with
Curt
about
how
every
dollar
that
the
city
brings
inning
and
cash
in
lieu
that
we're
able
to
leverage
that
with
state
and
federal
funds.
H
You
know
sometimes
two
to
three
times
the
amount
that
we
put
into
it.
So
you
know
this
is
a
great
tool
because
it
allows
us
to
get
deeper
levels
of
form
of
affordability.
You
know
serving
different
communities
special
permit,
supportive
housing,
different
types,
so
you
know
I
think
from
housing
perspective.
Any
additional
revenue
that
we
can
get
is
gonna
help
us.
Does
that
answer?
Okay,
I.
G
B
Actually
might
be
the
additional
linkage
fee
beyond
the
standard
linkage
fee
that
we
applied
to
that
square.
Footage
in
your
math
say
that
again,
so
if
you
had
the
standard,
HIV
point-seven
right
right,
but
if
you
apply
that
to
the
third
floor
and
then
there's
add
additional
percentage
linkage
fee,
so
you've
got
a
double
calculation
there
and
I
think
you
probably
are
only
representing
part
of
it.
I
see
you
were
saying:
yeah
yeah,.
E
Of
the
things
I
like
about
viewing
community
benefit
through
the
lens
of
affordable
housing
is
I,
think
it
gives
us
something:
that's
permanent
in
our
town
versus
other
forms
of
community
benefit
and
I'm
a
little
wary
of
those,
because
I
don't
feel
like.
We
have
a
good
way
to
hold
developers
accountable
to
the
community.
Other
kinds
of
community
benefits
that
they
promise.
E
One
example
is
the
movie
theater
that
was
promised
and
the
boulder
daily
camera
building
and
that
that
never
happened
and
who
knows
if
that
was
even
the
right
thing
to
put
there
me
in
the
first
place,
I
mean
it
was
a
great
idea,
but
if
you
know
economic
feasibility,
I
don't
know
that
community
members
are
the
best
people
to
be
able
to
give
you
the
numbers
on
economic
feasibility
of
a
particular
thing.
But
how
do
you
hold
developers
accountable
if
you've
got
an
inclusionary
housing
project
that
gives
you
affordable,
housing?
It's
it's
permanent.
E
We
right
so
I
like
that
as
a
priority
over
these
other
community
benefits
and
then
I'm
a
believer
in
testing.
You
know
proof
of
concept,
so
I
like
the
idea
of
sticking
with
appendix
J
testing
it
out
and
seeing
seeing
how
we
do
in
those
areas
and
see
if
we
can
attract
developers
and
make
make
a
better
case
for
the
community
to
show
examples
of
how
it
was
successful
before
just
making
it
a
blanket
available.
E
B
I
just
make
a
clarifying
comment
and
I
think
so.
Before
the
height
moratorium,
you
could
request
a
height
modification,
pretty
much
anywhere
in
town,
but
when
we
were
reviewing
those,
we
didn't
have
a
mechanism
for
saying
what
the
benefit
was
and
actually
a
good
example.
Is
the
micro
movie
theaters
in
the
daily
camera
building
pro
West.
We
didn't
have
a
criteria
that
allowed
us
to
consider
that
as
part
of
our
consideration
of
the
height,
so
we
basically
didn't
I
mean
I.
Think
some
people
were
emotionally
pulled
on.
B
I
thought
it
was
super
cool,
but
it
wasn't
that
there
was
a
community
benefit
because
there
wasn't
no
community
benefit
clause
at
the
time.
So
we
didn't
use
that
as
an
equation
in
the
equation,
because
it
just
didn't
exist
yet
there's
a
bit
of
a
meme
going
around
about
that
I.
Think
of
like
it
is
yeah
yeah.
It's
you
know,
I
was
it
said
about
it
too.
B
It
moves
the
low
point,
calculation
and
the
house
then
gets
taller
based
on
the
math
right,
and
so
you
would
asked
for
a
height
modification
so
that
the
deck
can
stick
out
on
the
downhill
side
away
from
the
street
and
in
the
city's
eyes,
because
the
way
we
calculate
things
that
would
you
know
that
house
has
gotten
10
feet
taller,
but
the
house
didn't
get
remodel,
it's
just
there's
a
deck
on
the
back.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things,
I.
Think
people
don't
really
remember
in
terms
of
what
height
modifications
are
used
for
around
town.
B
The
appendix
J
was
tied
to
the
moratorium,
so
we
could
only
have
height
modifications
in
places
where
we
were
totally
sure
it
was
okay
because
it
was
already
area
plan
or
already
a
project
approved.
Then,
as
we
figured
out
how
to
tie
height
to
community
benefit.
The
idea
was
that
the
more
her
name
would
finish.
It
would
go
away
and
we
would
apply
it
back
to
the
entire
city.
It's
still
stiffening
of
the
height
modification
rules
from
what
it
was
four
or
five
years
ago.
So
it's
actually
still
a
real
kind
of
reduction.
B
B
A
C
Since
we're
talking
about
appendix
J,
I
think
I've
probably
said
it
several
times,
but
I'm
always
for
a
good,
healthy
public
process
and
I
believe
in
good
governance.
So
when
we
put
in
place
moratoriums
or
sunset
clause,
it
to
me
supposed
to
be
a
pause
in
that
moment
to
allow
our
City
Council
to
reflect
or
planning
board,
and
just
like
Brian
was
saying
that
the
agreement
for
the
community
was
that
it
was
a
pause
and
to
me
good
governance
is
that
pause
has
occurred.
We
set
a
date
on
it.
C
C
But
I
find
it
interesting
that
we're
willing
and
it's
safe
to
say
seniors
when
we
know
that
seniors
at
risk,
youth
and
transitional
living
are
the
three
primary
areas
that
we
really
need
to
take
a
look
at
so
it's
I'm,
just
gonna,
say
that
I
think
it's
interesting
that
we
think
seniors
are
safe,
but
we're
not
willing
to
say
the
same
thing
for
transitional
living
or
at-risk
youth.
So
with
that
on
record,
this
is
way
above
my
pay
grade.
Honestly.
C
I'm
gonna
raise
my
hand
and
just
say
that
I'm
always
for
a
process
that
funnels
up.
So
if
we
say
and
I
believe
everybody
at
this
table
has
were
for
affordable
homes,
then
to
me
the
people
whose
pay
grade
it
is
need
to
help
us
figure
out.
How
do
we
do
this
in
a
way?
That's
incentivizing
it
and
when
we
get
into
those
weeds
and
the
nuances
and
how
it
gets
applied,
that's
it's
begins
to
get
above
my
pay
grade
and
I.
C
C
F
Just
have
a
question
for
both
of
you,
Jay
and
Karl
speaking
just
for
myself.
The
only
community
benefit.
That's
really
important
to
me
is
affordable
housing
and
is
there
a
way
I,
don't
know
how
other
people
feel,
but
I
wanted
to
have
way
more
priority
for
the
other
community
benefits,
and
is
there
any
way
that,
if
there's
agreement
on
that
amongst
tab,
we
can
so.
F
F
C
K
Yeah
the
FA
are,
and
the
density
changes
is
included
in
this
ordinance.
Phased
who's,
gonna
focus
on
other
community
benefits
beyond
permanent,
affordable
housing.
There
might
be
some
things
related
to
permanently
affordable
housing
that
are
included
in
that
and
then
again,
looking
at
the
site
review
criteria
as
part
of
Phase,
two
I.
F
C
We
pull
up
planning
boards
once
again
and
because
I
think
they've
chunked
it
out
I,
know
I,
keep
saying
that,
but
I
don't
have
a
mic.
Himm
I'm,
erasing
tapes
after
they're
not
up
there,
but
I.
Think
what's
interesting
about
this.
Is
that
they've
kind
of
pulled
apart?
What
you
were
talking
about
in
your
questions?
Correct
and
it's
you
know
something
that
we
can
look
at
as
well.
I
find
it
fascinating.
I
just
learned
something
new
about
the
height
thing.
C
B
A
A
Okay,
so
as
far
as
process
goes
here,
my
plan
is
to
just
essentially
make
there
two
questions.
If
you
could
pull
those
up,
please
into
our
recommendation
and
then
make
friendly
amendments
to
it,
there
so
does
have
support
the
new
site.
Review
criteria
it
would
just
be
like
hab,
recommends
the
new
site
criteria
that
would
require
permantly
affordable.
So
it's
the
exact
same
thing,
you're
reading
there,
except
have
recommends
instead
of
does
have
support.
Is
that
about
right,
J?
Would
that
do
it
well.
H
A
B
The
primary
motion
happens
and
there's
a
second
and
then
friendly
motions,
happen
and
they're
either
accepted
or
denied
by
the
patient
makers
right
and
then
but
they're
not
voted
on
and
then
the
if
they're
denied
by
the
primary
motion
maker
in
the
secondary,
then
they
can
be
offered
again
as
a
motion
to
the
board
and
then
they're
voted
on.
So
these
goes
from
being
a
friendly
member
to
sort
of
unfriendly
amendment.
Yeah
I.
G
G
And
I
like
answering
the
two
questions,
because
I
think
those
are
two
different
things,
because,
if
I'm
looking
at
this
again,
we're
looking
at
enhanced
community
benefit
that
specific
to
affordable
housing
or
not.
That
would
be
one
of
my
questions
and
again
is
it
predicated
on
having
to
be
appendix
J,
yes
or
no,
and
then
the
other
question
of
the
Appendix
J,
because
I
think
you
guys
both
brought
it
up
and
I
think
it's
probably
a
decent
compromises.
C
G
C
F
A
C
L
G
If
we're
gonna
talk
about
appendix
J
and
number
two,
it
shouldn't
be
referenced
in
number
one,
that's
the
start
with.
Secondly,
I
want
the
emphasis
on
permanently
affordable
housing
benefits,
which
is
significantly
different
from
enhanced
community
benefit,
which
is
stated
in
the
motion,
so
write
emphasize
that
and
then.
G
You
know
I
would
like
to
just
have
something
in
there
that
says
we
require,
for
you
know
like
everything,
that's
in
there
and
say
and
create
a
process
that
streamlines
are
somehow
you
know,
you
know,
provides
upfront
mechanisms
and
centas
to
throw
the
affordable
housing
right
at
the
front,
like
we
said
so
that
you
know,
people
that
are
better
oriented
to
do
so
are
gonna,
be
the
people
that
are
buying
the
land
and
designed
the
project
right
from
the
get-go
I.
Don't
know
how
we
say.
D
K
I
think
what
would
be
the
most
helpful
is
if
there
is
general
support
on
the
board
for
the
ordinance,
then
it
would
be
a
recommendation
of
approval
but
listing
what
the
recommended
changes
should
be
to
the
council.
But
if
there
was
general
agreement
among
the
board
that
this
is
not
something
that
should
move
forward,
then
it
would
be.
You
know
recommending
that
it
not
be
approved.
A
G
F
My
feeling
is
that
if
we
take
out
appendix
J
number,
one
I
still
want
to
add
one
amendment,
but
I
would
like
to
do
number
two
first,
because
if
say
everyone
votes
that
we
support
it
and
amendment
J
is
taken
out,
and
then
the
vote
goes
that
everybody
wants
to
have
it
go
all
broad
across
the
city
that
would
change
my
vote
on
the
first
one
and
I
wouldn't
vote
for
it.
So
I'd
like
to
get
the
da
yeah.
D
D
B
B
Boulder,
Junction,
there's
sort
of
a
moot
point
because
it's
already
been
handled
through
it's
mostly
built
tff
phase,
one
or
bowler
junction
phase.
One
is
permitted
on
its
way
into
the
into
the
ground.
Right
now,
phase
two
is
already
land-use
plans.
So
it's
already
kind
of
taken
out
of
this
map
as
well
River
Bend
campus.
We
had
included
that
one
to
allow
the
hospital
to
build
the
building-
that's
already
built
there
now,
so
that
one
mostly
doesn't
make
a
difference.
Anymore.
B
Fraser
Meadows
is
built
so
that
one's
taken
out,
and
so
the
only
parts
that
are
left
in
appendix
J
are
downtown,
which
is
pretty
much
built
out.
The
mall
plan
Street
Mall
in
the
hill.
So
we're
saying
that
if
you
maintain
appendix
J's
they're,
exactly
places
in
town
and
I
get
that
where
you
can
I'm
just
making
sure
that
everyone
gets
and
my
problem
is.
B
C
D
A
B
F
C
K
G
If
we're
talking
about
just
letting
it
sunset
as
its
intended
to
right
now,
then
we're
probably
gonna
get
consensus
from
everybody
sure
that's
it's
five,
six
months
or
so
cool
for
that
right.
We
don't
need
to
change
it
right
now.
We
don't
even
have
an
ordinance
yet,
but
if
we're
talking
about
extending
it
or
keeping
that
limit,
that's
just
going
what's
on
the
board
right
now,.
A
G
I
Think
the
statement
that
we're
saying,
if
we
say
okay,
attach
it
to
appendix
J,
until
May
of
2020
or
until
it
sunsets.
Then,
if
there
is
an
extension
on
appendix
J,
then
we're
saying
oh
well,
that's,
okay,
and
what
we're
essentially
saying
is
there's
nowhere
to
do
this,
basically
in
town.
So
it's
it's
absolutely
in
my
mind,
irrational
to
include
appendix
J
as
a
piece
of
this.
It's
only
a
way
to
shut.
I
Well,
I
think
it's
beyond
it's
a
little
beyond
that.
It's
a
little
beyond
that.
It's
saying
that
wherever
council
goes
with
this
down,
the
road
they're
gonna
go
with
it
yeah,
but
and
and
that's
what
they're
gonna
do,
but
we're
sending
for
us
sending
a
message
about
trying
to
accomplish
a
community
benefit
tied
to
this
particular
relief.
Yep
then
tying
it
to
this
I
think
is
not
irrational.
So.
F
I'd
like
to
add
that
although
people
have
differing
opinions
of
if
there
was
a
public
process,
how
this
was
set
up
whatever
since
Community
Benefit
plan
has
been
formed,
it
was
restricted
just
to
appendix
J
for
the
time
being,
and
so
the
public's
expectation
is
that
City
Council
can
choose
to
have
more
public
hearings
on
that
and
do
whatever
right
now.
It
is
the
way
it
is
and
I
think
it
should
stay
that
way
until
Adid
Intel
consult
decides
what
to
do
about
it.
So
I
hate.
B
To
keep
jumping
in
on
you
guys,
but
just
factually
having
been
in
the
room
when
we
started
this
community
benefit
project.
Appendix
J
was
only
meant
to
last
during
to
give
us
enough
time
to
figure
out
what
we're
deciding
on
tonight
and
was
meant
to
sunset.
At
that
time,
it
wasn't
meant
to
be
the
laboratory
for
figuring
this
out.
It
was
meant
to
be
a
way
of
keeping
height
modifications
from
happening
throughout
the
city,
except
in
places
where
were
comfortable
them.
While
we
figure
this
out.
B
D
C
C
A
C
Not
I
mean
again,
my
message
is
we're
in
a
housing
crisis.
We
need
to
start
applying
these
things
now
and
we
just
heard
from
the
original
person
who
said
that
this
was
put
in
place
so
that
we
can
figure
this
stuff
out
and
we're
making
we're
figuring
it
out
right
now
and
we're
putting
it
in
place
with
our
recommendations.
So
there's
no
need
for
it
to
continue
to
be
implemented.
D
F
B
Duty
can
I
what
we
talked
about
I'm
planning,
where
this
might
help
inform,
where
you
I,
think
trying
to
get
at
is
that
we
felt
like
if
there
was
gonna,
be
a
further
discussion
of
where
increases
in
height
could
be
around
happen
around
the
city
that
that
should
be
tied
to
a
robust
community
process.
Is
that
what
you're
trying
to
head
towards?
Yes?
Well,
thanks
that.
C
A
C
D
N
B
Check
can
I
ask
a
clarifying
question
just
as
somebody
who's
gonna
be
well.
Actually,
I
won't
be
here
anymore
right
this
night,
yes,
but
I
think
Judy.
What
you're
saying
is,
if
is
different
from
what's
in
the
second
language
there,
which
is
that
if
there
is
a
further
discussion
about
height
modifications
in
the
city
that
that
should
be
the
part
of
the
result
of
a
robust
community
engagement
process.
Is
that
that's
correct?
D
B
D
L
F
I
F
I
A
N
B
Was
making
was
simply
that?
What
because
that
ties
together
the
sunset
of
a
ted
Penix
Jay
with
the
robust
process,
which
is
not
Judy's
intent?
What
it
needs
to
say
is
that
future
discussions
around
hide
modifications
in
the
city
of
Boulder
need
to
include
a
robust
community
engagement
process.
Is
that
okay.
C
G
C
A
F
Well
now
I
can
say
that
I,
the
last
part
of
the
sentence
is
what
I
can't
support
if
that's
eliminated,
I
can't
support
the
current
status
of
Pinochet
with
the
understanding
it
does
not
extend
beyond
May
20th
and
then
leave
it
there
and
let
City
Council
decide
what
to
do
about
it.
I
can
support
that.
A
A
F
G
H
Kind
of
this
one's
much
word
here
from
the
memo,
so
the
housing
advisory
board
recommends
that
city
council
adopt
the
community
benefit
ordinance,
attachment
a
referencing.
The
memo
amending
language
code
to
establish
a
new
community
benefits
program
specific
to
permanently
affordable
housing.
So
I
added
that
part
that
would
amend
title
9,
land
use
code,
building,
height
regulations
for
certain
areas
of
the
city.
We
could
remove
that
part.
G
F
H
F
L
H
C
C
I
I
I
Areas,
oh
okay,
it
would
be
valuable
for
us
to
add
to,
in
other
words,
to
roll
into
this
Community
Benefit
piece
we
were,
we
were
saying
just
nursing
homes
and
assisted
living,
I,
say,
nursing
homes
and
assisted
living
are
fine,
but
can
we
base
it
instead
of
on
that
specific,
you
know,
designation.
Can
we
base
it
on
other
other
housing
that
we
value.
F
Some
place
on
there
on
what
your
presentation
you
included
a
few
areas
like
public
service,
fire
departments,
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah.
Can
you
add
specific
wording
that
will
cover
what
Mason
and
Josh
we're
talking
about
like
transitional
housing
and
and
that
they
could
be
totally
exempted
because
they
obviously
by
nature
of
what
they
do?
You.
F
K
H
H
Residential
now,
but
can
I
think
a
process
suggestion.
Yes,
it's
going
to
be
really
difficult
for
you
to
try
to
amend
the
ordinance
and
all
the
details
that
go
along
with
that.
I
would
suggest
you
talk
about
the
things
you
don't
want
to
see,
move
forward
in
the
ordinance
and
then
what
I
put
up
here
is.
Furthermore,
the
housing
advisory
boards
recommends
that
in
phase
2
of
the
community
benefit
project,
these
issues
be
considered.
K
L
A
A
B
So
there
are
permanent,
affordable
Celia
projects
in
Boulder
yeah
there
are,
it
can
be
rentals
or
for
sale
if
you're
doing
assisted
living.
That
is
what
triggers
you
into
the
different
code
categories.
So
it's
not
really
senior
housing.
It's
more
that
the
provision
of
services
on-site
that
moves
you
into
that
category.
So
if
you
were
to
do
a
senior
focused,
affordable
housing
project,
it
would
fit
under
the
cover
of
essentially
any
of
for
a
loitering
project
that
make.
A
A
E
E
C
F
I'd
like
to
read
an
article
I
read
that
was
put
out
in
july,
2019
from
a
place
called
equity,
multiple
that
says
why
that
talked
about
in
the
past
several
years.
These
are
about
people
who
invest
for
people
who
investments
as
Senior.
Living
facilities
have
emerged
as
a
high-performing
commercial,
real
estate
asset
with
over
two
hundred
fifty
billion
dollars
in
assets
and
and
I.
Think
the.
If
these,
if
they're,
not
if
we
leave
it
as
it
is,
these
places
can
still
apply
if
they
want
to
provide
services
for
permanently
that
for
people
who
can't
afford.
A
K
F
So
what
it
means,
though,
is
that
without
exempting
them,
that
means
that
a
nursing
home
or
assisted
living
facility
could
start
and
not
have
to
pay
anything
and
say
we're
not
taking
Medicaid.
We
just
don't
take
Medicaid
at
our
facility.
They
can
save
that
place
to
say
that
all
the
time
and
and
if
you
really
want
to
ensure
that
the
people
who
can
least
afford
to
get
nursing
home
and
assisted
living
care,
then
you
don't
want
to
give
them
an
exemption,
because
if
they
do
they'll
they'll
make
it
if
they
do
attend
to
that
population.
B
G
I
D
F
B
Actually
I,
just
just
the
ones
like
Frasier
Meadows,
there
are
different
permutations
of
that
they're,
not
typically
single
room
occupancy
like
a
like
a
hospital
they're,
typically
apartment-style
living
is
what
most
of
them
actually
are,
and
so
you
know,
Fraser
Meadows,
for
example,
which
is
part
of
what
was
carved
out
in
appendix
J,
has
a
variety
of
housing.
Types
of
none
of
them
are
single
room
occupancy.
There's
a
separate
issue
which
is
you
brought
up
with
like
taking
or
not
taking
Medicare.
B
That's
a
really
interesting
one
sort
of
a
separate
topic
and
sorry
another
piece
of
this
just
add
a
bit
of
color
from
the
planning
board
conversation
that
hasn't
shown
up
here.
Yet
we've
heard
a
lot
from
people
over
the
years,
and
this
is
I
think
why
this
came
in
originally
to
the
to
the
staffs
recommendation.
B
B
F
F
A
F
F
E
D
C
Again,
I'm
always
for
housing,
so
to
me,
if
it
means
going
up
and
we
get
more
units-
and
we
keep
our
people
here
and
we
keep
them
off
the
road
and
we
don't
displace
our
seniors.
I
am
for
doing
whatever
I
can
to
incentivize
that
so
I
am
for
them
allowing
to
stay
in
this
as
exempt
I.
Don't
need
to
build
more
money
out
of
it.
I
get
that
we're
afraid
of
the
311,
but
I
will
always
build
positively
towards
it.
Then
down.
G
L
D
To
say
that
the
discussion
was
a
long
discussion
we
just
had
about
how
nursing
homes
can
apply
to
all
buildings,
with
this
height
exemption
versus
more
money.
Is
that
safe
to
say
that
we
saying?
Is
that
how
we
feel
or
is
it
just
two
nursing
homes,
because
it
seems
to
me,
like
we
just
had
a
discussion
saying
we
like
willing
to
give
height
for
more
money
in
nursing
homes,
right
I,.
I
F
A
A
L
C
D
L
F
I
A
C
I'm
watching
your
face
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
feel
like
you're
anywhere
near
it,
because
I
get.
This
was
really
confusing
over
here
on
the
side.
But
do
you
feel
like
you've
captured
this
in
the
notes?
Because,
what's
going
to
end
up
happening,
is
this
is
all
going
to
come
back
to
us
next
meeting
with
confusing
notes
and
amendments
and.
H
I
B
C
C
A
L
C
G
C
G
A
D
G
C
I
G
B
What's
going
on,
he
give
you
the
one-minute
version,
49
minute
version,
the
all
that
happened
last
night
is
we
had
a
presentation
from
staff.
We
heard
public
comment,
Council
and
Planning
Board
got
to
ask
questions
of
staff.
Council
left
Planning
Board
deliberated
for
like
50
minutes,
something
like
that
and
approved
the
staffs
recommendation.
Basically,
there
were
a
few
pieces
of
nuanced
discussion
in
there,
mostly
relating
to
some
questions
of
you
know
how
use
was
spelled
out
correlations
between
a
couple
pieces
of
plan
and
text
in
the
document.
C
B
There
was
a
discussion
between
I
think
there
are
some
people
who
who
are
I,
guess
maybe
just
knew
or
the
conversation
who
were
confused
about
talking
about
both
floors
and
feet
in
terms
of
height,
but
that's
common
in
all
sections
of
this
code
right
now.
So
if
you
familiar
with
a
zoning
code
that
says
now,
you
can
have
two
stories
or
35
feet
or
three
stories
or
42
feet
or
whatever
it's
just
kind
of
like
how
we
it's
in
there
everywhere.
So
it's
actually
not
nothing
new.
B
C
B
And
the
decision
is
really
like:
it's
a
two
by
two
decision,
so
planning
boards
and
approval
body
and
City
Council's
approval
body.
So
we
have
to
really
approve
the
same
thing,
and
so
it's
really
easy
for
us
to
get
in
a
situation
where
we'd
say
I
mean
that
one
possibly
we
talked
about
was
like
well,
let's
just
approve
the
area
plan.
That
was
the
whole
area
that
we
saw
last
time
and
you
know,
while
I
sympathize
with
that
approach
and
the
kind
of
message
it
sends.
B
I
B
That
was
an
interesting
part
of
the
process.
We
didn't
actually
planning
board
and
City
Council.
Don't
have
a
dialogue
directly
between
the
two
of
us.
They
just
asked
council
or
staff
questions
and
then
left
so
City
Council
hasn't
voted
on
it,
yet
the
Planning
Board
has
so
one
way
this
could
go
is
if
you
guys
have
some
insights.
If
has
have
have
I,
have
some
insights
that
influence
the
City
Council's
thinking
on
it
then
City
Council
modifies
what's
or
if
they
do.
B
Was
thing
yeah,
then
it
would
have
to
come
back
to
planning
board
and
if
we
didn't
approve
it,
then
it
would
go
back
to
City
Council.
If
I
didn't
approve
it,
then
we
come
back
to
sit
so
there's
kind
of
a
potential
for
that.
So
what
I
kind
of
did
with
our
borders?
I
just
said.
Look
you
know
we're
all
smart
folks
we're
insightful.
We
could
come
up
with
a
thousand
things.
We
want
to
say
about
this,
but
let's
make
this
more
about
like
on
bounds.
Can
we
live
with
it?
B
G
F
First
of
all,
I
hope
we
confine
our
discussion
of
it
if
we
possibly
can
just
to
the
housing
aspect,
I,
don't
feel
that
it's
in
my
understanding
of
the
office
and
the
city
and
the
county,
and
all
that
we're
the
housing
board.
And
if
we
talk
about
anything
it
just
should
be
the
housing
component
and
the
only
concern
I
have
about
the
plan
is
we're
the
housing
board.
We
really
care
about
permanently
affordable
housing
and
I.
Just
don't
see
enough
in
there.
F
That
actually
gives
me
a
good
feeling
that
there's
any
assurance
of
as
much
permanently
affordable
housing
as
possible,
and
so
that's
that's
just
something
I'd
like
the
next.
If
I
were
to
make
any
recommendation,
that
I
could
just
be
that
the
next
City
Council
look
at
that
site
and
look
at
as
many
different
options
as
possible
for
getting
the
most
affordable,
permanently
affordable
housing
for
as
diverse
a
group
of
people
as
possible
for
that
site.
L
A
E
Don't
even
know
where
to
start
except
it
was
I
watched.
Some
of
the
comments
last
night
that
were
quite
contentious
and
I
really
came
away.
Thinking
we're
not
that
far
apart,
the
groupthink
Boulder
and
the
the
people
that
came
out
and
spoke
sort
of
against
the
findings
of
think
boulder
are
actually
pretty
close.
It's
just
one
slightly
leading
to
one
side
and
one
slightly
leaning
to
the
other
I
think
everybody
wants
permanently
affordable
housing
at
that
site.
C
F
The
plan
itself
I
mean
I.
You
know,
I
have
looked
into
this
some
and
and
watched.
You
know
you
guys
last
night
and
of
them
either
attending
or
watching
on
the
meetings
and
there's
very
little
talk
in
the
plan
itself
of
identifying,
affordable
housing
and
people
from
the
community
did
come
up
with
plans
that
have
more
affordable
housing
than
any
of
the
options
provided
and
there's
there's
really
no
discussion
about
specifying
how
much
affordable
housing
there
will
be.
F
Obviously
there
will
be
either
you
know
the
inclusionary,
housing
or
or
the
cash
in
lieu
or
whatever
it
is,
but
I
think
that's
a
site
where
we
should
get
way
more
out
of
that
and
and
I
agree
with
what
you
said,
Julia
I
think
all
sides
of
this
issue
want
permanently
affordable
housing
of
mixed
mixed
uses
on
that
site
from
mixed
populations
and
I.
Just
don't
think
the
plan
addresses
that
enough
right
now.
F
B
A
Okay
matters
from
the
board.
Hopefully
we
can
make
this
one
pretty
quick,
the
engagement
committee,
so
we
provided
a
draft
report
of
the
August
listening
session
and
we
were
hoping
to
have
a
vote
to
adopt
it.
So
I'm
gonna
put
the
motion
forward.
I
move
that
we
adopt
the
draft
of
the
August
listening
session
report.
F
A
A
Unfinished
business
annual
letter
to
council
so
just
for
everyone's
awareness,
a
lot
of
our
it's
our
October
meeting,
correct
I,
just
want
to
verify,
is
gonna,
be
based
on
this
and
what
we
want
to
say
in
it
and
what
we
want
to
do
with
it.
So
just
be
aware
that
that's
a
big
topic
coming
next
time
is
there
any
discussion
around
what
we
want
to
do
with
it
right
now,.
A
F
Think
just
wait
next
time
without
doing
some
preparatory
stuff
would
put
us
in
a
bad
place,
timeline
wise
for
getting
it
done
on
time,
realizing
how
long
it
took
last
time
and
I'd
like
to
bring
up
just
a
couple
things.
Last
time
we
sent
the
copy
of
our.
It
wasn't
called
a
listening
session
then,
but
the
session
we
had
where
we
got
comments
from
the
public
to
council,
and
that
proved
to
be
a
disaster,
because
there
was
stream
extremely
long.
It
included
all
the
data
from
be
heard,
Boulder
and
all
that
stuff.
F
With
the
two
reports
from
the
listening
sessions,
I
think
that's
really
good
information
for
the
brand-new
council.
We
can
either
attach
that
to
our
letter,
because
they're
much
shorter
or
we
could
send
them
in
right
after
the
new
City
Council
is
picked,
and
so
I'd
like
to
just
discuss
that
for
a
minute.
I'd
also
like
to
see
if
we
can
get
to
people
right
now
to
agree
to
work
together
on
a
draft
of
the
letter
and
have
each
of
us
send
our
ideas
of
what
we
want
included
to
them.
F
C
C
A
C
F
Far
as
the
length
it's
easy
for
any
of
us
to
look
up
all
the
letters
that
were
sent
last
year
and
to
look
up
planning
boards
letters
over
the
past
few
years
and
I
think
part
of
what
hurt
our
report
was,
how
long
that
that
section
was
about
that
session.
We
had
but-
and
also
we
talked
about
something
they
didn't
want
to
hear
about.
But
first
of
all
it's
a
going
to
be.
F
F
Long
with
an
attachment
of
like
twenty
pages,
but
we
can
be
two
or
three
good
pages,
and
that's
that's
not
unusual
for
what
the
other
boards
do
and
I
think
we
need
to
put
some
thought
into
what
we
would
like
them
to
about
to
work
on
as
far
as
housing
goes
so
and
I
think
we
should
start
now.
So
I'd
like
to
see
if
there's
two
people
who's
who
are
willing
to
work
on
a
draft
and
solicit
input
from
people.
F
I
F
I
A
G
C
Why
don't
we
have
it
ready
for
your
guys's
meeting
and
you
guys
can
condense
you
know.
Put
it
together,
like
we
did
last
year,
is
everybody's
submitted
before
your
meeting
sure
put
him
into
a
list
that
way
everybody
can
review
him.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
last
year
was,
if
you
had
an
idea,
you
would
send
that
out
just
to
the
board,
as
these
are
the
ideas
that
I
have,
and
this
is
the
position
behind
it,
and
then
that
way,
everybody
could
just
sit
with
it.
Before
we
got
to
the
meeting.
That's.
C
So
then,
what
we're
saying
is
by
October
14th.
If
anybody
does
have
ideas
on
topics
they
would
like
to
do
to
make
sure
that
it
goes
to
Cory
goes
to
Cory
by
then,
and
will
condense
them
down
and
again
it's
the
topic
you
want
to
discuss
and
your
reasoning
or
positioning
behind
why
our
board
should
focus
on
it
for
the
next
year.
A
H
F
L
E
H
A
C
What
Adam
and
I
were
getting
to
when
we
were
thinking
about
this,
and
when
we
asked
to
talk
about
it
at
one
of
the
board
meetings
last
year
was
the
fact
that
it's
kind
of
you
know
similar
to
planning,
board
and
stuff.
Is
that
to
really
give
informed
opinions
and
I
think
we're
seeing
it
with
community
benefit
as
well?
Is
that
if
you're
not
already
actively
working
in
housing
on
board
I
mean
we
went
through
being
waterboarded
last
year,
it's
pretty
much.
C
What
I
would
call
it
and
I
was
actually
probably
closer
to
30
hours
a
week,
trying
to
go
through
literally
everything
so
that
you
really
fully
understood
what
it
was
that
you
were
trying
to
envelope
for
some
of
these
in
in
depth
pieces
that
we
were
making
recommendations
on
that
I
think
we
see
just
a
glimpse
of
it
today,
but
we
we
were
dealing
with
a
lot
more
and
I.
Think
onboarding
from
all
the
list
that
we
got
that
took
most
of
us
a
couple
months
to
get
through
all
of
that
stuff.
C
C
That's
willing
to
put
the
time
and
energy
in
and
has
the
time
and
energy
to
be
able
and
I
expect
the
same
out
of
my
council
expect
the
same
out
of
planning
board
if
you're
gonna
do
these
boards
that
it's
not
just
a
phone
in
and
I,
get
you're
prepared,
I
mean
I,
think
to
know
the
history
of
why
we're
making
some
of
these
decisions
and
it's
a
commitment
we
make
to
our
community
so
I'm
comfortable
with
the
10
hours
a
week.
I
think
it's
legitimate.
F
A
I
C
Three
guys
in
particular
have
a
leg
up
because
of
the
industries
that
you're
in
so
you
already
come
with
a
certain
amount
of
understanding
of
this,
and
maybe
that's
where
the
hours
flex
to
is
given
a
person's
background.
Like
you
know,
my
friend
Claudia
does
a
lot
of
studying
and
writing
around
housing.
So
if
it's
something
that
it's
already
in
your
purview,
you
probably
wouldn't
be
spending
a
lot.
But
for
me
it
was
I,
didn't
know,
Robert's,
Rules,
I
didn't
know
any
of
it.
So
it
was
a
lot.
C
J
C
F
Certainly
empathize
with
your
feelings,
Juliet
and
I'm
sort
of
caught
in
the
middle,
because
on
one
hand
we
don't
want
to
miss
good
people
who
are
really
busy.
On
the
other
hand,
we
what
Mason
said
we
really
are
making
decisions
that
might
impact
a
lot
of
people
and
we
really
do
have
to
put
time
not
just
show
up
at
the
meeting.
So
so
you
know,
I
I,
don't
want
to
catch
people
off-guard
and
have
somebody
get
on
the
board
and
go
I
had
no
idea.
B
I
time
in
just
a
tiny
bit,
not
so
much
on
that,
but
more
we
planning
board
has
had
a
similar
conversation.
Just
recently,
I
was
kicking
it
off
and
what
we're
trying
to
add-
and
we
don't
have
probably
the
same
I've,
never
read
this
I,
don't
know
what
it
says
exactly
the
same
parallel,
but
one
thing
that
we're
gonna
try
to
add
into
our
application
is
a
expectation
of
attendance,
because
this
year
we've
had
some
folks
who,
like
came
in
with
a
you,
know,
missing
a
lot
of
meetings,
so
we
were
like.
C
I
I
F
M
F
I
C
H
N
Do
you
want
me
to
read
what
I
have
guys?
Okay,
sorry
I
know:
I've
been
tired,
trying
I
think
we're
both
typing,
but
what
I
wrote
is
board
suggested
language
to
reflect
appointment
to
board
is
significant
commitment
and
new
members
may
expect
to
spend
up
to
ten
hours
per
week
in
the
first
six
to
ten
months.
G
A
C
I
was
really
curious.
If
there's
a
way
we
can
bless.
You
tighten
up
our
discussion
times
like
I'm
curious.
If,
if
every
board
goes
through
this,
and
if
there
are
points
that
we
could
take
from
other
boards
or
something
I,
don't
know
what
it
is,
but
it
just
seems
like
what
happens
where
I
think
things
get
messed
or
some
kind
of
rubs
happen
for
people
is
when
we
start
doing
that
moment
where
you
said,
you'd
would
look
back
at
the
tape.
C
Everybody
starts
going,
yep
yeah,
that's
good
yep
and
we're
all
on
different
pages
and
I'm
like
no.
He
just
said
this
and
you
just
said
that,
and
that's
not
anywhere
near
it.
So
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
way
of
just
kind
of
pausing
or
slowing
it
down
a
little
bit,
making
sure
that
we're
repeating
back
the
sentences
but
not
like
over
beating
the
horse
or
something
I
think
we
get.
We
rabbit
hole
and
everybody
feels
like
they
have
to
reiterate
their
point
over
and
over
and
over
again
and
I.
C
C
D
D
C
D
B
Thing
works
really
well
back
when
putting
what
was
struggling
with
us.
We
started
having
staff,
do
key
issues
for
us
and
they're
not
really
posed
as
questions
so
much
but
like
each
one
is
a
subject
for
conversation
that
you
can
talk
about
discreetly.
So,
like
the
problem
that
you
guys
face
tonight,
we
faced
as
well
with
the
two
questions.
Is
that
one
referred
to
appendix
J
and
the
other
one
was
about
appendix
J,
so
you
holy
screwed
up
conversation.
So
that's
not
a
problem
with
your
discussion.
B
Stuff
can
feed
you
essentially
key
issues,
and
then
you
can
help
helps
a
lot
in
terms
of
structuring
your
thinking
before
you
get
your
meeting.
Thinking
we're
gonna
talk
about
for
us,
it's
like
parking
and
then
we're
going
to
talk
about
open
space
and
then
we're
gonna
talk
about
it.
So
it's
really
easy
to
for
us
to
understand
it.
Yeah
and
then
yeah,
it's
cool
for
you
to
like
I
mean
you
have
a
strong
hand
and
making
sure
people
don't
over
talk
yep.
Just
my
observation.
There's
a
tons
of
over
talking
there.
B
D
A
lot
of
time
today,
talking
about
height
right,
that
was
the
gist
of
the
meeting
in
a
lot
of
ways
that
fourth
and
fifth
floor
and
I
just
sounds
crazy.
Coming
from
me
right,
if
we're
coming
from
a
real
estate
guy,
that
I
would
just
caution
everybody's
perceived
benefit
in
these
fourth
and
fifth
floors
of
these
buildings
and
there's
only
five
or
six
of
them
that
have
been
built,
but
but
they've
changed.
The
landscape
of
the
town,
they've
changed
the
feel
of
the
town.
D
I
walk
around
all
the
time,
and
it's
very
very
different
and
I
know
that
there's
this
perception
of
oh!
If
we
have
a
fourth
or
fifth
floor,
we
add
another
unit
or
we
get
another
this
or
we.
You
know
the
building
can
be
built,
but
just
be
cautious
of
this
perception
that
there's
this
huge
benefit
to
it
and
we're
going
to
get
more
money
to
build
this
or
we're
going
to
do
more
of
that,
because
it
just
really,
in
my
opinion,
impacts
the
town
and
I.
Don't
know
if,
in
a
good
way,
I.
F
Also
wanted
to
add
in
the
debriefing
that's
a
point
really
well
taken
and
also
I
feel
that
the
discussion
on
Community
Benefit
was
a
million
times
better
than
our
discussion
on
edu
and
this.
This
is
the
first
time
we've
had
to
discuss
a
tough
subject
since
then
to
make
specific
recommendations
on
and
I
actually
feel
you
know
and
I
didn't
even
get
my
way
all
the
time
and
I
feel
it
went
really
well
so
I'm.
E
Gonna
make
a
comment
just
about
the
document
that
was
sent
out.
The
forty
two-page
document
I
would
love
to
see
an
executive
summary
I
felt
like
the
presentation
that
Carl
did
was
more
along
the
lines
of
an
executive
summary
and
as
a
lay
person
trying
to
digest
42
pages
of
a
very
technical
language
and
make
an
informed
decision
was
difficult
and
to
be
more
like
to
provide
a
summary
and
to
say
here's
exactly
what
we
need
your
feedback
on.
E
Maybe
it's
key
issues
Brian
or
maybe
it's
something
else,
but
I'd
like
to
see
a
little
bit
more
succinct
crystallization,
because
it
feels
like
a
lot
of
wonky
technical
language.
That
I
know
is
you
know,
that's
what
you
you
do
when
in
planning
and
then
and
that's
the
kind
of
language
that
see
use
I
have
my
own
technical
language
that
I
use
in
my
work,
but
that
would
be
helpful.
Maybe.