►
From YouTube: Boulder Planning Board Meeting 5-30-17
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
I
took
call
to
order
this
continuation
of
the
may
18th
planning
board
public
hearing
regarding
the
1440
pine
site
and
related
parcels.
This
is
May
30th
2017
and
on
May
18th.
We
completed
the
public
hearing
for
this
matter
and
then
deferred
continued
consideration
by
the
board.
So
tonight
we
will
be
considering
this
application
and
just
for
the
benefit
of
both
the
audience
and
the
board
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
we
start
with
making
disclosures
again
just
to
confirm
that
folks
have
complied
with
the
requirements
of
quasi
judicial
hearings.
B
We'll
go
back
over
that,
but
we'll
look
to
the
board
to
indicate
whether
they've
had
any
additional
ex
parte
contacts
or
communications.
Since
the
original
hearing
on
the
18th,
then
we'll
move
on
to
board
questions
of
staff.
Only
given
that
we've
closed
public
hearing
and
we've
had
a
chance
to
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
I
would
strongly
encourage
us
not
to
reach
out
to
the
applicant
until
maybe
a
time
when
we're
crafting
conditions,
if
it's
the
pleasure
of
the
board
to
move
in
that
direction.
B
Just
as
a
reminder.
This
is
a
quad
reeju
dish,
ulm
adder.
So
we
can
only
consider
the
items
that
we
heard
in
the
public
hearing
the
packet
that
we
received
and
then
the
materials
we
had
received
from
the
public.
As
of
the
night
of
the
hearing.
As
a
result,
we
have
not
considered
emails.
Communications
newspaper
articles
other
sort
of
things
that
have
happened
in
the
last
week
and
a
half
so
I'll
start
with
disclosures
that,
while
I
have
received
many
emails
on
this
subject,
I
did
not
read
those
emails.
D
Gonna
make
bigger
disclosures
just
because
I
need
to
get
through
this
stuff
that
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
say.
Last
last,
half
of
the
hearing,
so
I'm
familiar
with
the
site
is
a
boulder
resident
and
all
also
made
specific
site
visits.
In
the
context
of
this
process,
I
did
participate
in
the
concept
review
at
Planning
Board
and
in
subsequent
dabbe
reviews,
as
ex
officio
member
and
just
every
knows,
when
I
am
any
of
us
sits
on
a
board
as
an
ex
officio
member.
Those
reviews
are
really
limited
to
the
scope
of
that
board.
D
D
E
The
treadmill
idea
is
great.
It
would
probably
limit
board
a
lot
if
we
were
running
out
of
breath
that
were
breathless.
I
have
just
to
be
clear
that
when
we
said
we've
not
read
any
of
the
emails,
we
met
the
emails
since
the
18th
I
think
everybody
said
we
had
read
all
of
the
emails
that
came
in
up
to
the
original
hearing
so
like,
like
the
others.
I
I
have
received
emails
that
I
have
not
opened
or
read
since
the
18th.
Since
the
public
comment
was
closed.
F
So
I
have
not
received
a
lot
of
the
emails
and
you
can
get
some
of
the
content
from
the
subject
line
and
and
then
realize.
Okay,
he
can't
open
that,
but
I
didn't
open
it
or
read
any
of
the
emails
and
I
didn't
even
open
or
read
the
emails
from
the
applicant.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
were
supposed
to
or
not
but
I
just
didn't
so
and
then
same
with
you
know,
any
newspaper
articles
or
any
other
I
haven't
had
any
kind
of
contact
or
ex
parte
context
at
all
great.
G
G
The
two
from
the
applicant
Shanon
Cox
Baker
sent
us
a
couple
and
sometimes
they
open
as
I'm
just
scrolling
through
so
I
just
went
on
to
the
next
one
and
didn't
read
the
newspaper
articles
that
I
only
thought
that
would
be
pertinent
and
didn't
read
any
of
the
other
emails
I
did
on
a
walk
with
my
dog
notice
that
there
were
that
there
were
not
any
parking
permit
signs
on
the
south
side
of
Pine
Street
between
15th
and
14th
Street.
So
that
is
something
that
I
did
notice.
That's
new
great.
H
Well,
I
have
also
not
read
any
of
the
emails
that
have
come
in
I.
Did
we
review
the
packet
that
we
had
before
us
last
week?
I
did
also
walk
by
the
site
during
the
festivities
of
the
weekend,
but
I
didn't
learn
anything
new
in
passing
the
site.
I've
just
walked
by
it
and
you
kissed,
that's
about
it
great.
B
And
as
we
move
forward
tonight
just
to
let
all
of
you
know,
we've
had
no
communications
with
each
other
either
because
that
would
be
inappropriate.
All
of
our
discussion
will
happen
here
in
the
open
tonight
and
similarly,
we
won't
be
reading
emails
texts.
Anything
else
like
that
that
will
come
in
tonight.
Everything
has
to
be
on
the
record
and
out
in
the
open.
So
with
that
any
additional
thoughts
from
staff
before
we
move
into
questions
from
the
board
great.
B
H
H
There
is
that
little
bit
of
a
difference
between
the
proposal
of
you
know
from
the
attention
homes
proposal
and
the
conditions
with
regards
to
how
parking
spaces
will
be
signed
in
the
shared
parking
proposal.
In
the
in
the
parking
plan,
the
it
indicated
that
only
a
subset
of
the
of
the
spaces
would
be
signed
and
then
the
rest
would
be
kind
of
on
a
first-come,
first-served
basis,
but
then,
in
the
conditions,
I
think
its
condition,
number
13.
It
actually
says
pretty
much.
H
I
Applicants
consultant
basically
was
arguing
that
there
could
be
managed
parking
out
there
and
only
have
signed
parking
for
like
the
church
spaces
city
staff
was
was
in
disagreement
with
that.
We
felt
that,
in
order
to
ensure
that
there
was
proper
allocation
of
spaces
out
there,
that
there
should
be
specific
signs
for
specific
uses
and
they'll
be
up.
You
know
their
management
company
would
manage
those
spaces,
but
we
felt
that
there
should
be
a
minimum
number
for
each
of
the
uses.
I
C
Great
Peter
the
question
that
might
fit
in
now,
cuz
I'm,
not
sure
it's
part
of
our
deliberation
later.
A
lot
of
comments
were
about
the
timing.
The
applicants,
timing
of
seeking
the
the
allocation
of
tax
credits
before
any
other
process
had
been
started
and
I'm
curious.
We're
able
to
get
any
information
on
is
that
standard
and
something
that
were.
It
doesn't
feel
right
to
me
at
all
and
it
doesn't
I'm
not
sure
what
part
of
this
deliberation
it
goes
to.
J
Good
evening
Curt
for
an
hour
deputy
director
of
housing,
it's
all
shed
a
little
bit
of
light
on
that.
So
the
what
are
the
challenges
with
this
project
is
the
is
the
success
they've
had
in
their
nine
nine
percent
tax
credit
award
and
typically
those
types
of
projects
have
to
apply
multiple
times
before
they
get
it.
It's
unusual
for
them
to
get
it
the
first
time.
J
J
J
Yes,
that
that
it
can
happen
that
way,
I
think
typically,
they
would
do
it
along
the
way
as
they
have
done,
because
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
expense
in
putting
a
project
like
this
together
and
there's
a
lot
of
that
money
is
at
risk
when
they
do
that,
and
so
trying
to
get
some
of
the
funding
in
place
as
the
project
goes
along
is
not
atypical
either.
One.
C
Last
question,
when
they
did
apply
for
these
funds
based
on
these
criteria,
were
those
was
that
criteria
devised
in
relationship
with
what
they
expected
us
to
approve
as
a
community?
Was
there
any
communication,
as
in
we're
going
to
apply
for
this
at
this
site?
Here's
the
research
we're
going
to
do
and
talk
to
the
community
and
find
out
if
this
is
okay,
because
they
would
have
known
full
well,
it's
their
business
to
know
that
if
once
that
are
approved,
there's
not
a
lot
of
wiggle
room.
That's.
J
C
G
J
B
G
G
I
got
out
the
minutes,
they
had
civic.
You
know,
link
in
our
packet
to
July
14th
minutes
on
the
concept,
review
and,
and
the
applicant
did
change
a
number
of
things.
They
change
based
on
some
D
Deb
input,
I
think
some
neighborhood
input
and
the
Planning
Board
by
taking
that
third
story,
pushing
it
more
interior
into
the
building
and
a
you
know,
changing
some
materials
things
like
that.
But
one
thing
that
that
I
just
wanted
to
read
here
and
said
from
our
minutes-
and
this
was
the
board
summary
with
respect
to
the
proposed
uses.
G
The
board
had
mixed
opinions,
but
overall
felt
that
sacrifice
of
some
of
the
proposed
administrative
and
office
faced
on
the
first
floor
may
need
to
be
done
to
keep
them
to
keep
the
living
space
that
is
being
requested
and
that
had
to
do
with
the
mass
and
scale
of
the
Joline.
It
was
suggested
to
relocate
the
proposed
retail
space
to
a
point
along
the
alley
on
the
west
side
in
regard
to
the
height,
if
sufficient
set
back
from
the
street
exists,
perhaps
removing
the
third
floor
from
15th,
Street,
etc,
etc.
G
I
Don't
know
that
they
made
significant
changes
to
the
square
footage
of
the
office
space
I
think
they
did
reduce
it
in
order
to
enable
the
restaurant
space
to
be
enlarged
and
to
allow
for
the
kitchen
on
the
corner.
Originally,
the
corner
space
was
about
800
square
feet
and
then
to
make
it
a
an
operating
kitchen.
They
took
some
of
that
space
away
from
the
office
use,
but
I
think
we
had
suggested
a
number
of
things.
G
Then
I
just
had
a
couple
of
other
questions,
so
is
is
the
project
if
people
had
testified
that
it
was
so
great
that
the
church
gave
the
attention
homes
the
land?
But
is
it
your
understanding
that
the
lease
from
which
with
the
church
is
with
Gardener
development,
and
then
they
have
a
sublease
with
the
tent
homes
or
is
the
master
lease
with
the
tension?
Homes,
I
think.
G
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that,
but
if
it's
not
a
site
review
criteria,
that's
fine,
just
one
other
thing
is
at
eleven.
Seventy
five
Lee
Hill
I
know
that
they
have
a
good
neighbor
policy,
but
this,
but
but
looking
through
the
packet,
there's
a
good
neighbor
policy
or
a
management
plan
for
the
restaurant,
but
are
they
required
in
our
site
review
criteria
for
transitional
housing
to
have
any
type
of
good
neighbor
policy?
I
know
that
they
mentioned
an
Operations
working
group,
but
where
would
that
come
in
to
our
approval?
G
I
G
Let's
see
just
one
other
question
on
the
density,
so
I
read
the
email
I
reread
it
that
you
sent
in
response
to
a
question.
I
had
I
believe
it
was
May,
17
and
I
think
it
was
posted
to
the
to
the
internet,
but
I
tried
to
chase
down
all
your
citations
and
it
revolves
around
the
density
calculations,
and
you
know
going
back
to
how
can
you
calculate
that
there's
density
when
on
the
full
site,
when
there
is
a
totally
built
out,
structure
and
I'm
talking
about
the
church?
G
And
so
it's
totally
built
out
its
landmark
you?
It
has
no
density
to
be
transferred
from
that.
So
I
read
your
and
if
you
I
think
it
would
have
been
more
helpful
if
you
had
looked
at
the
vacant,
lots
or
the
fake
areas
and
then
calculated
what
density
on
those
open
parts
could
be
transferred.
Now,
I
would
assume
that
the
existing
attention,
homes,
house
or
office
building,
you
know
you
could
actually
foresee
four
little
units
on
that
site
that
you
could
transfer
or
when
I
was
looking
at
some
of
the
citations.
I.
G
Think
nine
eight
3b
allows
the
Planning
Board
to
even
double
that
the
the
density
or
by
reducing
the
size
of
the
lot
that's
required
for
density.
But
I'm
just
saying
there's
been,
you
know
before
our
meeting
on
the
18th
we
had
received
a
number
of
emails
on
density
transfer
and
people
couldn't
find
it
in
the
code,
and
there
were
a
lot
of
questions.
I
think
that
they
could
probably
get
to
a
density.
I
was
kind
of
fooling
around
of
like
thirty
four
units
you
could
prompt.
G
You
might
even
be
able
to
get
up
to
forty,
but
it
would
be
much
more
defensible
and
clearer
if
that
was
was
described
by
a
diagram
or
on
the
site
plan.
Somehow,
rather
than
just
say,
because
last
time
we
have
this
discussion
at
the
18th
meeting,
there's
nothing
in
the
citation
that
says
you
can
try
the
in
the
code.
That
says
you
can
transfer
density
and
there's
nothing
said
that
prevents
you
from
doing
that.
Yeah
and.
K
I,
wouldn't
I,
wouldn't
even
necessarily
call
it.
A
density,
transfer
I
think
that's
how
the
public
has
been
referring
to
it,
I
think
it's
more
a
matter
of
code
interpretation
and
how
the
code
sections
are
applied
and
what,
in
this
particular
zoning
district,
the
density
is
calculated
based
on
the
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit
right
and
inside
review.
K
It's
it's
looked
at
based
on
the
entire
site
that
it
is
in
site
reviewing
and
the
site
review
criteria
actually
call
and
I
were
looking
at
it
today
in
the
first
criteria,
and
it
does
refer
a
little
bit
to
density
and
it
only
talks
about
the
density
of
the
site.
So
it
looks
at
it
as
as
the
entire
site,
that's
within
the
SCI
review,
so
the
historic
interpretation
and
application
of
of
the
density
in
that
context
is
consistent
with
how
the
site
review
standards
are
written.
K
I'm
losing
my
train
of
thought
here,
but
yeah,
so
it's
based
on
the
entire
side
and
on
the
church
property,
for
example.
There's
a
big
building,
but
but
that
area
doesn't
have
any
dwelling
units,
and
this
particular
zoning
district
doesn't
have
any
FA
are
limitations
that
looks
at
how
much
square
footage
is
located
in
how
much
lot
area
so
in
others,
own
districts.
That
might
be
an
additional
limitation
that
comes
in,
but
here
that
that
doesn't
exist,
but
even
where
floor
area
is
an
additional
limitation.
K
The
density
may
be
calculated
like
this
and
I
looked
again
today
at
another
project.
That
I
think
is
comparable,
that
some
of
you
acted
on
and
that's
the
the
Trinity
Church
project
right
and
if
you
remember,
the
Trinity
Church
had
a
church
on
a
on
a
lot
that
was
south
of
an
alley
and
on
the
north
side,
often
Ali
was
a
large
parking
lot
and
that
consisted
of
several
additional
Lots
and
the
church
developed.
That
lot
with
housing,
parking
and
part
of
that
was,
is
going
to
be
public
parking
work.
K
Agent
owns
an
interest
in
the
in
the
property
and
Church
office,
space
and
nonprofit
use
space
and
for
the
residential
units
on
the
side.
The
density
was
also
calculated
based
on
the
entire
area.
That
was
part
of
the
site
view,
and
that
were
all
the
lots
that
were
north
of
the
alley
is
relative,
as
well
as
the
church
side
on
the
south
of
the
alley.
So
this
has
been
a
consistent
practice
and
and
I
find
it
to
be
consistent
with
how
the
code
is
written.
Well,.
G
K
And
it's
and
that
zone
district
also
has
a
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit
unit
standards
and
for
that
approval.
That
was
actually
a
special
ordinance
that
increased
the
allowed
density
beyond
what
was
allowed
based
on
this
method
of
calculation,
as
well
as
allowing
I
think
maybe
almost
twice
as
the
floor
area
that
would
have
been
allowed
under
the
code.
Otherwise
yeah.
G
And
the
interesting
thing
with
that,
just
one
more
one
more
item
is
they
had
an
approval
for
actually
a
larger
project.
So
what
you
saw
built
was
scaled
down
quite
a
bit
and
even
me,
even
though
the
adjacent
neighborhoods
didn't
oppose
the
project
in
the
transitional
business,
the
scaled-down
project
people
were
were
I
know
pretty
pleased
to
see
that,
but
anyway,
I'm
just
saying
that
I
just
think
it
would
have
been
a
little
bit
more
transparent
and
helpful.
G
B
Let's
save
the
kind
of
analysis,
piece
and
I
guess
just
as
a
follow-up
question
for
hella
in
order
for
the
board
as
a
whole
or
individual
board
members
to
approve
this,
we
would
need
to
one
be
comfortable
with
this
interpretation
of
the
code,
and
so
we
need
to
make
a
judgment
on
that,
as
well
as
to
apply
the
site
review
criteria
related
to
density
and
find
that
that
also
is
is
appropriate.
Is
that
right.
K
B
E
When
we
look
at
residential
projects
that
have
40
units,
it's
going
to
go
to
planning
it's
going
to
go
to
site
review
period
because
it
meets
the
number
of
unit
threshold,
whether
they're
al
use
or
not.
It's
just
units,
but
the
first.
So
thank
you
for
that.
But
the
first
bullet
in
in
our
decision
matrix,
is
looking
at
section,
9,
8,
3
density
in
these
districts,
including
the
RH.
E
Do
we
approve
the
proposed
density?
Do
we
really
need
to
do
that?
Because
by
the
Calix
it
looks
like
you
could
have
28
units
without
Planning
Board
review
and
if
you
apply
the
elu
1/2
unit
per
unit
equivalent,
you
end
up
with
27
and
a
half
which
is
less
than
the
threshold
for
site
review,
so
I'm
wondering
why
we
even
have
to
weigh
in
on
density
by
the
code.
Anything.
I
Over
20
dwelling
units
automatically
requires
site
review
so
because
the
project
for
a
number
of
reasons,
requires
planning
board
review
that
discretion
lies
with
the
Planning
Board,
either
way
we
conservatively
looked
at
it,
not
counting
each
unit
through
the
elu
provision
and
just
kind
of
saying
it's
20
47
units
total
so
either
way
it
requires
planning
board.
You
know
through
that
lens.
I
B
E
All
right,
you
know,
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
again.
You
know
if
you,
if
you
look
at
the
the
language
in
nine
point,
eight
point
three:
it
allows
Planning
Board
to
reduce
the
minimum
lot
area
from
3,000
to
1,600
square
feet
of
lot
area
per
unit.
I,
don't
think
that's
really
what
we're
here
to
decide,
because
if
we
apply
our
code,
it's
27
and
a
half
units
and
doesn't
require
us
to
reduce
the
minimum
lot
area
below
3,000
square
feet.
So
are
we
really
just
looking
at
it
in
terms
of
a
site
review?
K
Would
look
at
it
as
that
particular
the
doubling
or
I?
Guess
it's
not
really
doubling,
but
then
the
reducing
of
the
amount
of
required
open
space
can
be
approved
in
site
review
and
that
would
be
based
on
whether
or
not
the
site
review
criteria
are
met
and
I
think
it
can
only
be
approved
by
the
Planning
Board,
because
when
we're
correct
that
that
section
reference
is
the
planning
board.
Yeah.
I
And
it's
the
same
criteria
either
way,
so
we
just
felt
okay,
you
know
you
just
apply
the
criteria.
If
you
you
have
to
decide
on
if
the
density,
how
they
have
it
proposed,
is
appropriate
or
not.
We
just
felt
that
it's
the
same
criteria,
there's
no
specific
criteria
that
are
in
983.
That
say
you
have
to
meet
this
in
order
to
do
this.
Okay,
thanks
I
appreciate
it.
E
B
Any
last
questions:
otherwise
why
don't?
We
start
with
really
getting
down
to
brass
tacks
and
giving
a
sense
for
where
people
are
overall
with
this
project.
Obviously,
our
conversation
will
be
different
if
there
seems
to
be
more
in
favor
or
more
opposed
so
I'm,
just
gonna
start
down
on
your
end
David.
Unless
you
want
to
take
a
pass
as
a
new
member
which
is
fine
and
we'll
come
back
to
you
and
then
we'll
just
come
down
the
board
and
get
everybody
a
chance
to
provide
some
initial
comments.
B
G
H
Right
well,
my
feeling
is
going
through
this
proposal
that
it's
given
me
the
opportunity
to
really
reference
the
land
use
code
with
regards
to
the
things
that
staff
is
recommending
and
really
take
a
look
and
from
what
I've
seen
it
looks,
it
looks
like
it.
A
lot
of
the
legwork
has
been
done.
It
seems
to
conform
pretty
well.
The
concern
about
the
the
density
transfer
thing
that's
been
coming
up
is
something
that
you
know.
I
felt
was
answered
pretty
clearly
by
hello
last
week
and
also
by
just
looking
at
the
the
code.
H
We
just
don't
have
anything
other
than
to
go
by
other
than
how
site
boundaries
can
be
set.
There
is
no
such
thing
as
density
transfer
in
the
codes,
so
really
the
way
the
code
works
is
you
can
set
your
site
boundaries
this
way,
so
I
think
we
just
have
to
go
for
that.
If
we,
you
know,
as
a
Planning,
Board
I
think
we
have
the
opportunity
over
time
to
he'll
influence
the
codes.
H
If
we
feel
that
they're
inadequate
to
handle
certain
things,
if
we
see
that
you
know-
maybe
maybe
we
need
to
address
this-
we
can
do
that
in
the
future.
But
I
think
it
would
be
unfair
to
create
a
criteria
so
that
that's
where
I'm
kind
of
add
on
that.
At
this
point,
and
then
I
am
also
wrestling
with
the
discrepancy
between
what
is
being
asked
for
and
what's
being
recommended
in
the
conditions.
With
regards
to
how
many
leased
parking
places
there
can
be
I'd
really
love
to
actually
say
the
33
could
be
given.
H
But
to
do
that,
I
would
feel
like
we
would
have
to
do
away
with
signage
and
have
everybody
share
all
the
spaces,
and
once
you
start
assigning
spaces,
you
kind
of
give
preferential
treatment
to
some
of
the
tenants
or
some
of
the
uses,
and
that
and
then
you've
started
down
that
path.
And
so,
once
you
start
to
reserve
those
spaces,
I
feel
like
well,
then
the
number
actually
does
come
up
being
22
that
you
can
give
to
the
least
use.
H
So
so
I
guess
I
would
be
interested
in
finding
out
what
other
board
members
think
about.
Possibly
doing
even
more
of
a
sump
proposal
where
we
actually
don't
do
the
size,
it
is
problematic
because
there
are
some
spaces
that
are
right
there
next
to
the
properties.
So
my
realize
that's
difficult
you.
It
would
be
hard
to
say,
oh
well,
that
space
right
next
to
that
house
could
be
parking
for
a
staff
person
over
there.
H
So
maybe
the
answer
is
the
22,
but
I've
been
wrestling
with
it
because
it
just
philosophically
I
think
we
would
end
up
with
less
spillover
into
the
neighborhood
if
we
could
share
all
those
spaces
because
that
they
fill
up
before
you
died
up
with
spillover
right
now.
If
six
spaces
for
business
X
fill
up,
then
the
seventh
person
is
going
to
have
to
look
out
on
the
street
and.
B
G
You
know
neighborhood
compatibility
and
and
fitting
in
with
the
neighborhood,
and
then
that
goes
to
our
site
review
criteria,
which
is
the
mass
and
scale
and
and
the
density
I
think
they
did
a
good
job
of
changing
the
design
of
the
building
to
make
it
more
compatible,
rather
than
less
compatible.
I
thought
that
that
was
great.
It
brought
down
the
mass
a
bit
and
the
scale
and
the
non
non
conformed.
G
G
We
talked
about
that
before
on
the
conditions
I'm
supportive
of
the
staffs
conditions
for
parking,
and
we
can
go
into
that
because
it
sounds
like
we're
going
to
have
a
discussion
and
then
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
that
there's
no
working
agreements
worked
out
with
the
community
I,
just
think
that
it
and
I
don't
think
we
can
require
it
as
far
as
our
it's
not
in
our
site
review.
It's
something
that
we
might
flag
that
we
could
talk
about
later.
You
know,
so
we
don't
run
into
this
situation
again.
G
I
do
want
to
say
that
after
making
calls
spoke
at
the
last
council
meeting,
he
did
talk
about
transitional
housing
it
and
it
is
allowed
you
just
look
at
our
trusty
land,
youth
code
and
I
carried
over
here
today.
It's
allowed
by
right,
as
long
as
it
conforms
to
the
underlying
zoning
in
every
single
zoning
district
in
the
city,
except
for
mobile
homes
and
agriculture,
and
so
there
were
a
number
of
things
that
triggered
the
site
review
for
this.
But
I
I
think
that
that
is
important,
that
we
have
that
for
the
community.
B
F
E
I
just
gave
John
a
piece
of
blank
scrap
paper
because
he's
been
writing
down
all
of
all
of
our
comments
and
I'm
gonna,
mercifully
not
make
him
fill
it
up.
Like
Liz
I
can
just
say
that
you
know
I'll
save
most
of
my
comments
for
when
we
really
deliberate
generally,
the
the
application
seems
approvable
to
me
and
I'll
just
focus
on
some
of
the
changes
that
were
made
between
concept
plan
and
now
our
site
review.
E
That
said,
I'm
not
too
crazy
about
the
gable
on
the
the
Pine
Street
I
think
it
is
side
because
I
just
like
that
kind
of
flat-roofed
look
but
to
have
like
the
gable
and
there
the
design
professionals.
So
really
the
the
project
doesn't
require
a
lot
of
big
lifts
in
terms
of
meeting
the
site
review
criteria
except
the
parking
which
numerically
is
very
big,
lift
and
again
I
think
with
conditions.
It
can
be
approved
great.
D
Thank
you
Harmon
Brian,
so
you
actually
think
this
is
a
really
positive
project.
I
mean
beyond
just
the
story
of
attention
homes
and
the
sort
of
hard
mission
of
all
of
that
I
think
it's
a
pretty
decent
urban
design
element
as
well
and
I,
really
like
the
fact
that
we're
able
to
able
to
and
required
to
look
at
the
entire
block
at
once.
That's
something
we
actually
don't
usually
get
to
do
at
this
level,
so
I
think
as
a
result
we're
getting
to
do
a
level
net
strong
urban
design,
we've.
D
You
know
nice
building,
four
designs:
two-story
buildings
massing
the
height
of
the
building
towards
the
back
in
the
alley
where
it's
less
of
an
impact
or
higher
up
the
hill
actually,
and
so
don't
think
the
density
is
unreasonable.
I
think
that
you
know
you're
trying
to
get
a
building
over
a
parking
garage
and
with
the
elevated
corridors
in
the
second
floor,
can
be
really
tricky
to
get
all
that
stuff
to
work
relative
to
height.
I,
do
think
the
mixed
uses
is
great,
I
think
having
a
sprinkling
of
variety
and
there's
really
positive.
D
So
I'm
not
concerned
about
that
myself,
but
I
do
share
David's
concern
about
parking.
I,
really
wanna,
see
it
as
close
to
the
sort
of
some
principles
as
possible,
and
you
know
I
would
really
prefer
either
a
parking
lease
that
only
gives
them
the
right
to
park
or
the
right
to
partner
in
certain
hours,
but
not
necessarily
exclusive
stalls,
and
then,
if
we
have
to
have
signage
signage,
that
indicates
the
same
thing
of
you
know.
Time
of
use,
as
opposed
to
a
dedicated
stall,
is
going
to
sit
empty
forever.
D
C
Agree
that
it
seems
approvable
with
questions
conditions
as
a
new
plan
board
member,
it's
hard
not
to
go
back
to
some
of
the
comments,
but
they
weren't
all
relevant.
Someone
even
said
that
sorry
that
we're
bringing
this
to
you,
we
just
had
nowhere
else
to
go
and
that's
the
thing
that's
sticking
for
me
is
that
such
a
portion
of
the
population
nearby
felt
unheard
at
the
same
time,
a
lot
of
folks
who
live
there
and
our
natives
are
in
favor.
C
B
All
add,
I,
think
I
agree
with
the
general
thrust
of
the
board's
opinion.
I
also
agree
that
it's
approvable
also
want
to
talk
about
parking
and
flag
a
couple
of
issues
really
picking
up
with
where
you
were
Peter
I.
Think
one
is.
We
do
recognize
some
of
the
questions
about
the
point
in
time
in
which
funding
is
approved
and
people
make
those
applications.
Unfortunately,
that's
not
a
criterion.
B
We
have
right
now
and
actually
we
recommended
it
was
last
week
last
Thursday
as
part
of
the
comp
plan
revision
that
new
process
be
added
to
consider
some
of
these
things
throughout
the
lifecycle
of
a
process.
So
we
we
heard
you
and
recognize
you,
but
we
are
bound
by
our
our
code
and
so
that's
a
factor.
B
I
know
there
were
suggestions
that
we
go
ahead
and
bypass
that
and
just
do
what
we're
going
to
do,
but
that's
really
only
a
way
to
create
more
litigation,
because
it
would
likely
create
Fair,
Housing
Act
as
well
as
code
compliance
related
issues
and
I
think
that
doesn't
serve
anybody.
That's
a
legislative
decision
that
belongs
in
front
of
Council
and
not
ourselves.
So
with
that
I
do
think.
B
B
Why
don't
we
start
burrowing
into
details,
starting
with
the
site
review,
and
a
number
of
the
issues
that
are
identified
up
here
relate
to
that
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan
compliance
relates
to
the
site
plan
and
it
is
one
of
our
site
review
criteria.
So
why
don't
we
start
with
I
think
folks
have
already
weighed
in
on
that
the
staff
has
made
the
recommendation
that
does
comply
for
all
the
reasons
that
are
documented
in
the
staff
report.
So
does
anybody
disagree
with
staffs
assessment
and
would
like
to
discuss
that.
G
Crystal
there's,
just
a
few
things
I
mean
I
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
the
building
brought
down
to
35
feet.
You
know
they
said
it.
The
site,
slopes
down
four
feet.
You
know
downtown
it's
usually
between
two
and
four
or
a
half,
a
block,
I
guess
I'm
willing
to
live
with
the
height,
because
you
did
push
it
in
the
back,
but
I
have
to
say
the
alley.
The
alley
on
the
south
side
got
better
the
alley
on
the
north
side.
Just
if
you
look
at
your
plans
and.
B
Reason
why
people
would
not
approve
this
on
the
basis
of
BBC
P
compliance?
No
okay!
So
why
don't?
We
move
on
and
I'd
like
to
combine
the
design
guidelines
and
site
review
because
they
both
address
some
of
the
same
design,
height
massing
in
other
sort
of
areas
and
the
height
does
fit
into
this
one.
So
maybe
start
with
you
crystal
just
to
focus
on
that
really
yeah
originally
starting
of
whether
or
not
this
is
approvable
as
is
or
would
require
sessions.
G
G
Now,
maybe
the
church
should
have
come
in
for
the
comp
plan
and
got
the
ones
right
adjacent
or
on
the
south
side
of
the
alley
changed
to
a
different
zone,
because
there's
nothing
really
on
that
block
that
even
resembles
residential,
but
it
is
but
the
block,
and
especially
facing
pine.
It's
not
a
transition
to
the
neighborhood.
It
is
part
of
the
neighborhood
I
mean
some
people
who
grew
up
here.
Remember
that
that
there
actually
were
houses
along
Pine,
Street
and
the
church
removed
them
to
put
in
the
parking
lot.
G
G
B
F
One
really
an
I
echo
what
everybody
said
about
how
improved
the
project
is:
architecture
design
so
much
better,
and
you
have
buildings
with
the
bottom
in
the
middle
and
the
top,
and
almost
really
important,
classical
principles
are
employed.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
and
I
think
it's
fits
into
the
neighborhood
much
better
than
the
one
we
saw
at
concept
plan.
The
only
issue
I
have
is
really
with
that
front:
porch
and
I
sort
of
agree
with
Harmon
about
the
gable
interrupts.
B
I
F
That's
helpful
right
so
and
the
lower
right,
you
see
the
porch
in
the
gable
and
I
think
if
you
keep
the
gable,
that's
fine,
but
the
porch
the
way
it
spans,
both
the
woods,
sided
portion
and
then
extends
into
the
next
module
or
whatever
it
has.
This
kind
of
almost
colonial
sort
of
plantation
look
to
it
and
I.
F
So
you
look
like
you
have
different
buildings
there
to
expand
these
two,
really
very
different
components
with
one
porch.
Just
to
me,
it
doesn't
sort
of
violates
my
expectation
of
a
logical
kind
of
porch
on
an
individual
building,
so
that
would
be
my
suggestion
would
be
to
just
cut
that
porch
back
so
that
it
just
spans
the
gabled
portion.
So.
B
E
E
So
you
know
I
like
the
idea
of
just
having
a
more
prominent
squared
off
Bay
to
to
demonstrate
that
that's
the
entrance
area,
you
know,
make
it
the
parapet
wall
a
few
feet
higher
than
the
the
surrounding
modules
and
the
porch
was
less
important
for
me,
I
kind
of
liked
that
it
was
big
and
generous
actually
and
wide.
It
was
really
just
the
mixing
of
the
architectural
styles
in
the
context
inappropriate,
Cape,
Cod
pediment
that
I
didn't
like
so.
F
D
D
D
That
actually
I
mean
kind
of
above
that
in
scale
the
applicant
was
I,
think
really
flexible
in
working
with
staff
and
dab
on
that
we
saw
a
lot
of
different
options
and
I
think
this
is
the
one
that
everyone
sort
of
in
the
end
felt
like
was
the
best
option.
I
personally
feel,
like
the
whole
building,
moved
in
a
sort
of
an
unnecessarily
historical
direction.
In
terms
of
you
know,
the
conglomeration
of
lots
of
little
buildings
put
together,
which
I
know,
is
a
historical
style.
D
It's
not
one,
that's
really
in
Boulder,
but
it
is
a
thing
for
sure
and
I
think
you
know.
Historically,
if
anybody
had
accumulated
a
quarter,
half
a
block
in
Boulder,
they
would
have
done
what
everybody
else
did,
which
is
to
make
a
nice
brick
building
out
of
it,
which
had
an
entry
in
like
really
nice
fenestration,
and
they
would
have
called
it
a
day
at
that,
but
we're
making
them
do
as
little
ins
and
outs
and
change
the
materials
and
stuff
which
I
think
is
a
little
crazy.
D
D
The
proportioning
and
gable
are
not
Gabe.
Laying
or
width
of
the
porch
of
that
element,
I
think
is
something
that
would
be
maybe
best
left
as
a
condition
doesn't
be
sent
back
to
dab
with
some
instructions
or
some
questions
as
a
way
of
handling
it.
I
think
it
could
use
more
work.
We
did
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
it.
Lots
of
little
elemental
changes
to
things
like
making
sure
that
gable
goes
back
far
enough.
D
F
That's
fine.
The
only
issue
I
have
with
that
is
that
two
of
the
dabbe
members
are
the
applicants.
And
so,
if
you
look
at
the
minutes,
it's
funny
because
they
recuse
themselves
but
they're
the
presenters.
So
you
know
it's
only
five
people
altogether,
so
it's
a
little
I
mean
I'm
sure
they
can
work
out
a
solution
to
what
we're
talking
about.
But
it's
awkward,
the
way
it
works,
and
we
would
never
do
that
on
planning
board,
for
example,
so
make.
D
F
E
L
C
C
Can
they
use
them?
If
so,
how
and
it
looks
kind
of
like
a
frat
house
deck-
that's
just
waiting
to
fall
into
disrepair,
that's
my
thought
on
the
deck
and
then
I
thought
about
is
it
usable
and
by
who
by
the
community
as
it's
just
these
two
are,
though,
operable
windows.
Are
there
doors?
How
will
it
be
used?
It's
actually
not
accessible,
it's
not
so
it's
purely
decorative
yeah!
H
G
Mean
I
agree
with
Dave's
opinion
and
lives.
Those
are
good
points
and
I'd
support
may
be
taking
off
part
of
that
that
long
span
cuz.
It
does
seem
a
little
bit
more
honest,
architectural
II
and
it's
okay
that
there's
a
lot
of
decks
in
between
mapleton
and
Cosgrove
in
Whittier
or
porches
that
might
have
a
railing,
but
don't
have
access.
L
B
C
Got
one
on
the
commercial
space?
Okay,
what
I
can
tell
there's
no
bathrooms
in
the
commercial
space
and
I,
don't
understand
how
that
would
operate
functionally
as
a
commercial
space
and
we're
the
people
who
operated.
What
I
assume
to
be
the
cafe.
Would
you
go
to
the
bathroom
seems
like
it's
asking
for
a
problem
and
I.
I
D
D
C
B
M
L
G
The
alley
we
tagged
the
alley
in
concept
review
and,
like
I,
said
the
alley
got
better.
On
the
south
side.
We
talked
about
the
alley
as
connecting
all
these
various
uses
on
the
block
or
the
First
Methodist
campus,
and
that
that
was
an
opportunity.
But
it
just
seems
like
if
you
look
on
the
alley
looking
north
east
in
the
upper
left-hand
corner,
which
is
on
the
slides
up
here.
G
If
there
was
something
they
can
do,
and
some
kind
of
planting
with
an
architectural
feature
like
a
trellis
or
something
to
inject
some
green
in
that
area
and
I
understand
that
the
parking
garage
is
underneath
that
whole
area
so
there's
some
limitations
on
giving
up
a
couple
of
alley:
parking
spaces
and
planting
trees.
But
I'd
like
to
see
something
that
softens
that
facade.
Because
people
do
use
that
alley
and
it
is
a
you
know,
it's
going
to
be
a
pretty
prominent
facade
from
Spruce
Street,
even
people
on
Spruce
Street,
as
they're
walking
by
hey.
D
G
Oh
yeah,
the
southeast
corner
of
okay
up
in
the
left
hand,
image
photo
there.
Is
you
go
down
to
the
parking
garage
and
then
the
whole
space
from
the
parking
garage
over
to
the
east
is
basically
a
blank
wall,
except
when
you
get
to
the
bike
parking
which
I
don't
believe,
has
any
landscaping
and
I,
don't
think
you
can
see
into
the
courtyard
from
there
either.
G
It
to
the
deed,
a
blissed-out.
Somehow,
if
it's
gonna
go
to
deed
AB,
you
know
I'm
not
asking
for
a
big
redo
of
a
facade
or
the
building,
but
just
I
think
it
would
enhance
the
structured.
So
if
you
think
about
walking
by
browser,
eat
em
tan
over
it
back
to
the
mall,
you
know:
they've
got
pots
there.
They've
got
the
bonnets,
so
to
speak.
That's
what
they
recall
that
brought
green
into
that
space.
So.
F
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
and
I
think
even
window
boxes,
I,
don't
know
if
you
get
a
week.
Why
Irwin,
but
if
you're
walking
down
in
our
alley
and
the
residents
have
obviously
put
some
thought
into
the
alley,
pedestrians
and
what
the
people
in
the
alley
might
see.
That
would
be
a
really
nice
thing.
So
I
don't
know
if
window
boxes
is
something
that
people
do.
I
was.
L
A
E
Of
the
things
that
window
boxes
do
is,
you
know
they
get
dry
and
they
need
to
be
watered,
and
if
a
staff
member
has
to
go
out
sure
it's
an
additional
maintenance
responsibility,
but
it
also
means
somebody's
walking
back
there
and
seeing
trash
you're,
seeing
you
know
other
things
that
are
not
being
taken
care
of,
or
doors
that
have
graffiti
on
them
or
you
know
whatever
happens
in
alleys,
and
so
it's
it's
just
sort
of
a
built-in
maintenance
and
an
attentiveness
requirement.
So
I
something
like
window
boxes.
G
H
D
I
Tight,
you
know
who
we're
dealing
with
you
know
we
wanted
additional
parking
spaces
added
to
accommodate
the
use
they
tucked
them
in
there.
They
had
to
put
the
short-term
parking
in
there
that
filled
up
some
space
and
then
they
have
to
meet.
You
know
site
triangle,
so
it
is
a
bit
difficult
in
that
space.
Thanks
did.
D
B
Anybody
have
an
objection
if
a
condition
were
made
to
expand
the
scope
going
back
to
dab
just
to
look
for
ways
of
softening
that
kind
of
south
wall
along
the
alley,
including
considering
window
boxes,
but
not
saying
what
the
ultimate
result
would
be,
but
just
to
address.
Crystals
original
concern
to
look
for
ways
to
soften
that.
As.
B
C
C
I
H
D
For
my
perspective,
I
think
they're
they're,
fine,
they're,
quiet
enough
and
they're
efficient
enough
they're,
not
my
favorite
thing,
but
they
are
also
entirely
run
on
electricity,
which
is
great
for
sort
of
feature,
PV
installations
or
if
the
city
goes
to
a
you,
know
school
system,
it's
all
green
and
that's
really
fantastic.
Some
that,
in
its
of
itself,
is
something
the
city's
pushing
for
on
multifamily
projects.
Right
now,.
B
G
D
E
L
H
C
A
small
in
it
forty
years
this
will
see,
could
cease
being
transitional
housing
and
we'll
go
to
permanently
affordable
at
that
time.
I
assume
the
first
floor
will
be
reconfigured
to
fit
I'm
curious.
What
changes
would
need
to
be
made
to
can
convert
transitional
to
affordable?
It
seems
like
it's
been
considered
already,
given
the
layout,
but
I'm
curious.
If
that
came
up
at
all
and
what
consideration
was
made
because.
I
Of
the
nature
of
the
occupancy
would
be
changing,
it
were
to
cease
being
transitional
housing
and
going
to
a
different
type
of
housing.
It
would
reopen
the
site
review.
We'd
have
to
reevaluate
the
parking
if
they
shift
over
to
a
different
type
of
unit.
It's
going
to
change
the
whole
parking
dynamic,
so
it
would
impact
you
know
what
kind
of
conditions
of
approval
might
be
applied
or
it
might
change
the
unit
count.
The
parking
would
have
to
meet
the
original
intent.
I
L
B
Similar
question
that
will,
if
that
will
come
up
in
in
use
review
if
the
use
were
to
change
or
if
the
attention
homes
are
somebody
transition
to
somebody
else.
If
we
just
approve
professional
office,
could
that
transition
to
any
other
type
of
professional
office
without
additional
approval,
or
would
we
need
to
add
a
condition
I.
I
Believe
that,
if
you,
if
you
read
the
conditions
of
approval
related
to
the
professional
office,
we
routinely
allow
for
staff
level
conversions
from
a
like
use
to
another
like
use.
They
have
to
have
a
similar
operating
characteristic.
So
we
assess
every
time
there's
a
change
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
an
increased
parking
impact
or
something
that
could
create
an
impact
on
the
neighborhood.
But
if
it's
commensurate
with
the
original
use,
it
can
be
approved.
Administrative
Lea.
B
I
G
Carl
I
thought
the
just
for
clarification,
I
thought
so
nine
employees
that
are
attention
home
employees,
but
not
necessarily
supportive
to
the
specific
transitional
housing.
When
we
talk
about
supportive
services
for
some
of
the
programs
for
the
residents,
do
you
know
that
or
if
we
could
ask
that
I.
I
K
B
G
B
B
O
Managers
there
are
folks
who
provide
employment,
counseling
other
you
know,
behavioral
health
services
that
would
come
in
and
provide
those
services.
Most
of
them
are
well
below
a
full-time
equivalent
employee,
so
those
three
folks
would
be
on
staff
and
in
the
building
again
serving
the
residents
of
the
building
and
that's
I,
think
what's
unique
about
the
transitional
housing
use
is
the
supportive
services
that
are
provided
and
co-located
with
the
housing,
so
I
think
maybe
to
the
question.
O
G
O
O
So
tree
we
have
a
front
desk.
That
will
be
that
will
be
a
rotating
staff
person
that
will
be
there
during
the
day,
so
it
could
be
a
case
manager
who's
there.
It
could
be.
You
know,
another
staff
person
who
sits
there
to
monitor
the
front
door
and
then,
certainly
in
the
evening
hours
that
will
be.
You
know,
staff
isn't
in
the
extension
homes,
employee.
Well,
these
will
be
employees
of
attention,
homes,
apartments.
B
C
L
D
I
We
recognize
that
this
might
might
be
a
condition
that
changes
based
on
the
civil
discussions
between
Lucille's
and
the
property
owners.
But
again
it's
it's
a
shed.
It's
something
that
we
could
handle
through
a
minor
modifications
if
it's
interior
to
the
site,
I
can't
it's
going
to
be
limited
as
far
as
how
much
larger
it
could
be
has
to
be
generally
pretty
consistent,
but
there's
some
flexibility
there.
Okay,.
I
G
D
G
B
This
issue
is,
in
part
related
to
the
use
review
on
the
leasing
of
parking,
so
I'd
suggest
that
we
kind
of
tie
those
conversations
together
just
because
I
think
it's
hard
to
separate
them
so
who
staff
is
obviously
recommended
that
we
approve
the
roughly
60%
62%
parking
reduction
but
limit
the
number
of
spaces
that
could
be
leased.
The
applicant
obviously
was
interested
in
more
David
I
know.
You
mentioned
this
issue
first,
you
want
to
get
us
started
here.
Well,.
H
Yeah
I
did
really
resonate
with
what
saying
said
when
he
was
here
and
I'm
testifying
to
us
about
wood.
You
know
and
I
do
think
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could
give
the
33
lease
spaces,
but
the
only
way
I
could
make
the
numbers
make
sense
is
if
we
get
rid
of
the
signs
and
and
make
the
parking
spaces
more
first-come,
first-serve,
and
once
you
start
down
that
path,
it
just
seems
very
hairy
to
make
a
you
know
to
design
it
out
and
I.
H
Don't
think
that's
our
job,
you
know
and
I
haven't
seen
it
alternatives
come
to
us
that
that
convinced
me
that
there's
that
they've
figured
out
how
to
do
it
without
making
the
ones
that
are
kind
of
up
for
grabs.
So
there's
such
a
small
number
that
it's
really
making
one
part
of
the
served
population
majorly
inconvenience,
while
other
people
have
reserved
spots
ready
for
them
at
all
times.
So
I
just
don't
know
it
might
be
overly
complicated
for
us
to
try
to
solve
this,
but
I
am
I.
H
D
Before
so,
I
actually
am
part
of
an
HOA
in
North
Boulder
in
holiday,
where
they
have
time-of-use
signage
and
actually
works
really
really
well.
It
does
require
occasional
reminders
and
sometimes
things
get
a
little
goofy.
But
the
way
it's
set
up
is
that
it's
a
combined
office
and
residential
use
and
the
residents
have
essentially
assigned
parking
at
night
only
and
end
of
it,
and
then
anybody
can
use
it
during
the
day,
and
so
we
basically
come
up
with
the
way
of
signing
it.
D
This
just
you
know
you
have
you
know
this
is
when
you
have
exclusive
use,
and
this
is
when
you
don't
and
I
think
you
know,
I,
don't
know
what
the
signage
program
would
have
to
be,
but
I
think
we
could
basically
sort
of
build
that
into
a
condition
that
staff
would
then
figure
out
through
the
tech
Doc's
process,
so
I'm
actually
pretty
comfortable
with
it.
I
think
it
works
pretty
well
and
with
that
going
to
the
renumber.
So.
B
H
Let's
see
one
more
thing:
I'm
not
uncomfortable
the
parking
reduction
I
think
that
that
it's
it's
a
reasonable
number
of
spaces
for
the
site.
I
do
think
that
I
do
wonder
if
we
could
ask
for
a
policy
to
ask
her
to
require
or
ask
tenants
to
pledge
that
they
won't
own
cars
and
park
them
in
adjacent
neighborhoods,
that,
if
they're
going
to
assign
this
lease
that
they
need
to
wait
until
they
have
a
space.
So
they
have
the
seniority
or
whatever.
H
It
is
that
you
do
to
earn
one
of
those
seven
spaces,
but
that
you
actually
agree
to
not
own
a
car
and
park
it
in
the
neighborhoods,
because
that
puts
pressure
on
the
neighborhood
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
we,
if
it's
in
within
our
purview,
to
be
able
to
do
something
like
that.
But
I
would
love
to
do
a
condition
like
that.
That.
K
G
O
Okay,
so
there's
a
difference
between
the
codes
occupancy
limits
and
then
because
this
project
has
been
awarded
40
project-based
vouchers
from
the
division
of
housing.
It
has
different
occupancy
limits,
and
so
what
you
can
see
here
on
the
table
is
that
studios
are
both
have
a
minimum
and
a
maximum
household
side.
Sighs
excuse
me
of
one
occupant,
one
bedrooms
minimum
of
one
maximum
of
two,
and
then
we
only
have
one
two-bedroom
minimum
of
two
maximum
of
four,
so
the
minimum
number
of
occupants
would
be
forty
one.
O
The
maximum
would
be
fifty-six
based
on
those
vouchers
and
of
course,
what
we
know
from
this
demographic
is
that
they
are
almost
without
exception.
Unaccompanied
youth
or
unaccompanied
young
adults
and
are
not
married,
are
not
parents
and
typically
are
not
guardians
of
any
siblings.
But
in
those
rare
instances,
that's
why
we
have
included
a
two-bedroom
unit
to
be
able
to
accommodate
that
great.
B
L
F
I
I
F
F
D
Please
don't
attack
that
I.
All
I'm
trying
to
say
is
there's
a
program
that
can
handle
the
signage
I'm,
not
saying
that
that's
anything
to
do
with
this
project
in
terms
of
use
profiles,
it's
not
transitional.
Housing
looks
like
a
couple
of
them
are,
but
it
also
isn't.
You
know
they're
not
arguing
for
against,
using
as
an
example
to
argue
for
or
against
a
parking
reduction.
It's
really
just
about
the
signage.
Okay.
L
F
I
want
to,
like
you
said,
I
mean
we
kind
of
have
to
consider
the
parking
reduction
and
the
entire
TDM
plan.
I,
think
right
and
this
lease
situation
sort
of
all
together
and
make
sure
that
it
it's
adding
up
like,
for
example,
you
know
the
Eco
passes.
If
we,
if
we
cut
the
number
of
lease
spaces,
are
increasing
number
of
leaf
spaces,
so
there
are
fewer
sort
of
free
spaces,
but
at
the
same
time
the
applicant
is
asking
to
cut
the
number
of
eco
passes
that
they
give
out.
No
Eco
passes
to
staff,
for
example.
F
Things
like
that
I
mean
we
end
up
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
situation
where
there's
a
lot
of
potentially
a
lot
of
conflict
there
and
so,
and
with
the
neighbors
and
so
I'm.
Trying
to
you
know
it's
it's
the
whole
package
that
we
need
to
look
at
and
not
just
one
piece
of
it,
so
I'm
comfortable
with
the
parking
reduction.
If
we
keep
other
aspects
of
it
in
in
place,
other
aspects
of
the
TDM
plan
and
the
staffs
leasing
condition
in
place.
F
I
B
E
Guess
I
do
yeah,
I
think
taking
the
the
anecdotal
tack.
One
thing
we
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
I.
Think
in
public
comment
was
though
it
was
said,
but
I
don't
think
it
was
said.
A
lot
was
that
there
was
a
huge
parking
problem
in
the
neighborhood
and
we
did
hear
from
the
applicant
that
there
was
adequate
parking
as
it
is
to
accommodate
even
more
leased
spaces.
That's
thinner
than
are
being
proposed.
E
So
you
know
I,
think
from
from
that
perspective,
it's
less
scary
to
authorize
the
parking
reduction
than
it
is
from
the
simply
numerical
perspective,
because
you
know
62
percent
sounds
like
a
pretty
darn
big
number,
so
I
think
you
it's
important
as
we
review
this
to
look
at.
What's
the
situation
on
the
ground,
as
far
as
you
know,
requiring
a
covenant
for
the
people
who
lease
the
units
to
not
have
cars
over
and
above
the
seven
spaces
that
are
allowed?
E
You
know
again
that
that
creates
a
conundrum,
because
you
know
we're
trying
to
help
these
kids
get
jobs
and
a
lot
of
jobs
aren't
accessible
without
a
car,
and
so
you
know
we're
handicapping
kids
who
might
need
to
drive
somewhere
to
get
their
work.
The
same
I'm.
One
of
the
reasons
for
this
projects
location,
is
that
it's
accessible
to
transit
and
has
a
lot
of
bike
parking
and
is
offering
eco
passes.
E
G
I
have
to
say,
reading
the
Tuttle
Fox
report
and
they've
been
doing
analysis
of
parking
in
all
that
most
of
the
neighborhoods
in
the
city
and
parking
a
parking
downtown,
we're
lucky.
We
have
a
totally
successful
downtown
area.
We've
just
added
at
or
I
should
stop
and
say
everything
in
cage.
It
is
meant
on
in
the
kit,
by
the
kaija
district
and
by
their
eco
pass
program,
but
still
you
have
parking
throughout
all
the
neighborhood
so
much
so
that
they
even
had
to
extend
when
they
were
extending
the
Whittier
parking
district.
G
They
had
to
extend
it
up
to
sunset
and
high
to
keep
the
overflow
from
going
up
there,
because
it's
sort
of
like
a
you
know,
sort
of
like
water.
Water
will
go
to
the
lowest
point
and
parking
a
go
to
the
least
expensive
I.
Do
worry,
I
mean
I'm
willing
to
go
with
the
big
parking
reduction
for
the
transitional
housing,
but
I'm
not
willing
to
go
with
reducing
the
leasable
spaces
down
lower
because
when.
G
G
Yeah
I'm
sorry
I
got
that
backwards.
Yeah
and
I
just
think
there,
with
the
office
space
with
the
grab-and-go
restaurant
and
with
our
not
being
sure
of
our
people
going
to
have
cars
as
they
become
more
successful,
which
you
want
them
to
be.
Hopefully
there
will
be
some
job
training
on
how
to
get
around
town
using
you
know,
using
the
existing
eco
passes
and
transportation,
and
I
too
was
a
little
bit
disappointed.
I
was
disappointed
in
the
TDM.
The
transportation
demand
management
plan
because
it
wasn't
more
vibrant
and
didn't
provide
eco
passes.
G
For
you
know
the
other
uses
on
the
site,
because
that's
part
of
the
whole
puzzle,
you
can't
just
look
at
the
whole
block
and
then
cherry-pick
off
different
things,
but
I
was
also
disappointed
in
us.
The
Planning
Board
in
the
city
of
Boulder,
because
we
still
haven't,
got
the
TDM.
Our
transportation
demand
management
program.
Revised
we've
talked
about
this
since
I've
been
on
Planning
Board
for
four
years,
so
I'm
not
just
picking
on
on
garner
capital
and
the
TDM
I'm.
G
Just
saying
we
really
need
to
get
realistic
here
or
we're
going
to
have
the
same
discussion
on
every
single
site
review
and
they
all
come
in
for
parking
reductions,
a
Google
attention,
homes,
everybody
comes
in
to
them
and
we
give
it
to
them
in
the
hopes
that
we
will
transition
from
cars
to
self-driving
cars,
to
more
Uber's
and
lifts
to
bikes
or
to
a
better
eco
paths
and
better
transportation
system.
So,
thanks
for
letting
me
go
off
on
a
tangent,
but
we're
we've
got
our
head
in
the
sand.
G
If
we
don't
think
that
this
parking
is
going
to
spill
out
into
the
neighborhood,
now
I'm
not
worried
about
the
church
on
Sunday
because
or
the
church
activities
on
Saturday,
because
they
don't
charge
for
the
parking
garages,
downtown
and
so
I
know.
The
churches
are
good
about
directing
their
people
to
the
parking
garages.
Liz.
N
H
So
the
whole
the
real
sump
would
be
to
allow
that
ebb
and
flow
of
when
one
group
is
using
it
more.
The
other
group
doesn't
I
guess
the
catch
is
that
you
can't
really
do
that
easily,
with
least
because
you've
guaranteed
these
people
that
they
have
a
spot.
If
you
lease
it
or
you
just
have
to
say,
we
guarantee
that
you're
allowed
to
park
here,
but
when
it
fills
up
you're,
just
like
anybody
else,
any
other
citizen
and
that
may
affect
how
much
you
can
charge
for
those
leases
but
yeah.
But
it's
not
as
simple.
H
A
H
Maybe
you
wouldn't-
maybe
you
would
actually
because
right
now,
honestly
I'm
Lots
that
use
this
principle
of
putting
a
sign
like
that
they
do
end
up
underutilizing
and
that's
why
the
parking
management
plan
does
show
it
underutilized,
because
those
signs,
if
a
person
from
attention
homes
shows
up
and
wants
to
park
and
all
the
attention
home
spaces
are
filled.
They
have
to
go
park
in
the
street.
That's
just
the
way
it
is
otherwise
they
the
sign,
says
right
there.
You
will
be
towed.
Of
course,.
B
I'm
hearing
a
couple
of
threads
here
I
think
one
would
be
to
stick
with
the
staffs
proposed
conditions
and
then
come
back.
They
ever
want
to
and
revisit
that
the
other
I
think
maybe
looking
at
a
higher
number,
but
with
more
of
an
unbundled
shared
parking
sort
of
arrangement,
so
just
to
kind
of
help.
B
The
discussion-
and
we
can
fight
this
one
out
for
sure
when
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table,
but
just
as
a
strawpoll
who's
kind
of
leaning
in
the
staff
recommendation
proposal
bucket
right
now,
so
three
folks
and
then
who's
leaning
in
the
other
direction,
with
the
more
some
probably
with
somewhat
higher
number.
So
it's
it's
pretty.
D
G
So
that's
parking
that
I
think
is
under
park.
They
think
the
professional
offices
that's
under
park
and
then
Lucille's.
They
have
three
spaces.
They
have
more
than
three
employees
and
I
can
bet
you
that
the
three
lowest
paid
or
the
the
higher
paid
employees
are
probably
getting
most
three
spaces.
Maybe
one
for
delivery.
I
don't
know,
but
I
can
bet
you
that
the
lower
paid
ones
are
probably
parking
in
the
neighborhood
and
moving
it
into
a
different
district
after
they
hit
their
three
hours
and
hoping
they
don't
get
a
ticket.
B
Here's
my
recommendation
of
how
we
proceed
with
this.
If
you're,
all
comfortable
I'd
suggest
that
we
ask
Carl
or
somebody
else
for
staff
to
just
give
us
15
to
30
seconds
of
why
they
propose
that
the
22
spaces
give
the
applicant
15
30
seconds
just
to
address
the
issue
that
they
had
and
then
my
guess
is
we'll
need
to
figure
this
out
upon
the
actual
motion,
because
it
sounds
like
I
think:
we've
got
a
difference
of
opinion.
David
could.
H
I
So
we
felt
that
if
they
could
demonstrate
to
us
that
they
could
fill
that
remaining
gap,
that
30%
we
were
talking
about
with
the
new
uses,
make
it
work
that
really
to
get
over.
That
was
to
have
the
transitional
housing
information
provided
to
us.
That
would
show
that
seven
spaces
would
work
at
first.
It
was
zero
spaces.
We
thought
that
they
should
add
spaces
for
that
use.
I
We
felt
that
seven
was
appropriate
based
on
the
three
employees
and
the
likelihood
of
some
residents
having
cars,
and
there
were
some
information
in
the
parking
management
plan
that
showed
10%
as
an
appropriate
number
I.
Think
then
we,
when
we
recognized
that
it
was
just
a
matter
of
how
are
the
other
use,
is
going
to
be
accommodated.
So
that's
why
we
felt
that
the
condition
allocating
the
specific
spaces
was
appropriate,
I
mean
as
city
staff.
Our
job
is
looking
at
this,
and
how
do
we
minimize
impact
on
the
neighborhood?
I
We
felt
that
allocating
the
specific
spaces
for
the
uses
would
be
one
way
of
doing
that
and
when
you
add
up
all
the
need,
the
the
remaining
space
is
based
on
the
existing
condition
conditions
was,
there
would
be
23
flex
spaces,
so
that
would
be
appropriate
for
leasing.
That's
that's,
basically
how
we
got
through
our
analysis.
We
felt
that
anything
more
than
that
would
require
unbundling,
which
it
might
be.
You
know
one
of
the
solutions
here,
but
that
it
gets
into
a
territory
where
it's
more
difficult
to
monitor
and
I.
I
Think
that's
where
we
felt
we
had
to
take
a
conservative
approach,
because
we
can't
really
tell
that
if
they
unbundle
some
of
the
existing
residential
spaces
or
if
they
unbundle
some
of
the
professional
office.
How
do
we
know
as
the
city
that
that's
the
person
might
get
paid
to
not
park
there?
But
how
do
we
know
that
they're
not
parking
in
the
neighborhood?
How
do
we
know
that
they're
taking
transit
there?
So
that's
we
couldn't
get
to
that
point.
So
that's
why
we
felt
that
this
was
the
appropriate
place
to
land
great.
O
All
of
our
transportation
consultants
here
so
Scott
Martin
with
Desmond
parking
management,
can
address
how
we
arrived
at
the
33
lease
spaces,
but
just
a
couple
of
things
that
I
wanted
to
try
and
tick
through,
because
these
are
all
connected
is
the
proposed
parking
condition.
So,
while
the
62
percent
reduction
sounds
like
a
big
scary
number,
it's
what
we're
anchoring
to
and
it's
the
code
requirement
of
133
spaces
for
the
church,
which
really
skews
what
the
reduction
actually
looks
like.
O
But
if
you
were
to
look
at
the
proposed
parking
condition
to
the
existing
condition,
the
actual
reduction
we're
requesting
is
about
12%
in
parking,
which
is
I,
think
a
staff
level
approval
in
a
different
sort
of
condition.
Also
I
would
add
that
the
only
parking
use
where
we
are
requesting
and
I
don't
know
why
my
slides
aren't
showing
up
on
the
screen.
O
The
only
use
where
we're
requesting
a
reduction
is
a
transitional
housing
you,
so
all
of
the
other
uses
on
the
on
the
block
are
being
either
parked
to
code
or
park
to
a
prior
approval,
and
so
I
think.
There's
there's
some
confidence
in
knowing
that
these
tenants
have
been
in
place
for
many
decades
in
case
of
the
church
in
150
years,
that
the
existing
parking
condition
is
is
working
quite
well
a
couple
other
things
too.
The
tendency
here
is
very
unique.
Obviously,
we've
got
a
you
know
tenants
who
have
no
income
who
are
homeless.
O
Okay,
apologies
so
the
so
again
in
investigating
the
existing
conditions,
what
we
know
and
what
I
think
the
church
could
certainly
verifies
that
the
church
has
been
leasing,
parking
spaces
for
at
least
two
decades,
and
we
provided
evidence
in
your
packet
of
the
last
eight
years,
showing
on
average
34
spaces
have
been
leased
to
the
public
during
business
week
day
hours
in
the
last
two
years.
It's
been
40
spaces
and
53
spaces.
So
this
being
able
to
mix
parking,
that's
least
as
well
as
balancing
that
with
it
existing
and
proposed
new
uses.
B
O
Talks
about
the
way
for
share
parking
to
work
well,
is
to
unbundle
it
and
to
not
sign
it
to
allow
for
all
that
flexibility
and
so
I
think
when
we
start
to
talk
about
conditions
on
signage,
you
know
signing
the
garage
to
say
that
it's
for
tenants
on
the
block,
it's
not
publicly
accessible
or
it's
for
permit
holders
only
I
think
that
can
start
to
maybe
restrict
it
like
a
high
level
who's
using
that
garage
and
parking
there.
But
I
do
tend
to
agree
with
you
that
I
think.
O
H
O
And
and
again,
I
think
in
talking
through
the
conditions
which
I
know
will
probably
be
more
of
a
formal
conversation.
I
would
like
to
request
that
we
would
look
at
conditioning
233
spaces
with
the
potential
for
measuring
and
monitoring
that
and
then,
if
it's
not
successful
than
coming
back
and
amending
it
down
to
a
lower
number.
Given
that
we've
got
eight
years
of
precedent
showing
that
that
exact
number
has
worked.
Okay,.
G
To
tell
you
I'm,
I'm
willing
to
go
with
the
transitional
housing
reduction.
I
mean
it
makes
sense
with
the
population
homeless,
18
to
24,
but
I
think
you're
going
to
be
pushing
a
huge
amount
of
this
building
and
the
other
uses
in
to
the
neighborhood,
which
will
then
trigger
you
know
going
to
City
Council
to
try
to
get
their
parking
district
tightened
up.
I've
just
just
got
a
call
from
Mapleton
Hill.
G
So
far
we
got
off
on
the
wrong
foot
as
what
Peter
didn't
say
getting
off
on
the
wrong
foot
but
I'm
so
happy.
You
brought
that
up
about
the
process
and
getting
the
funding
in
place
before
anything
was
reviewed
or
could
even
be
changed
and
I
just
think.
We
should
do
as
much
as
we
can
to
make
sure
that
you
know
you're
going
to
be
good
neighbors,
even
if
it
means
a
little
bit
more
conservative
and
we
actually.
G
G
B
G
You
know
the
thing
that
is
bothering
me
is:
it
could
be
professional
offices
for
any
any
group.
Anybody
for
attorneys.
Let's
say
you
know
we
hope
attention
homes.
This
can
be
wildly
successful.
They
get
a
new
opportunity,
it's
in
a
another
zone.
They
decide
to
move
some
of
their
professional
offices
and
then
then
this
could
be
any
use.
I
mean
I
wish.
G
We
could
condition
it
to
a
non-profit
professional
office
or
one
that's
associated
specifically
with
the
tention
homes
and
I
still
don't
understand
when
the
church
or
when
people
have
said
that
they've,
given
the
lam
to
attention
homes.
Does
that
mean
attention
homes
can
lease
out
these
professional
offices
that
they
find?
They
don't
need
that
the
staff
at
that
site
I'm
just
a
little
bit
clearer,
but
I
would
really
feel
much
more
comfortable
if
we
could
condition
it
on
this
use
that
everybody
had
a
lot
of
people
have
testified.
Even
people
like
well.
C
C
G
K
A
K
The
but
the
area
and
minimum
negative
impacts
and
and
so
forth-
that's
not
necessary,
but
I,
don't
see
how,
for
example,
limiting
it
to
nonprofit
professional
office
space
I,
don't
see
how
we
can
link
that
into
the
use
review
criteria.
But
if,
if
you
could
describe
the
concern,
you
have
relative
to
the
use
review
criteria
and
what
what
criteria
you're
trying
to
meet-
and
maybe
we
can-
we
can
find
something
that
fits.
But
right
now,
I'm
and
welded.
G
K
E
E
K
I
think
they
would
come
in
anyways
for
a
change
of
views
either
they
come
in
for
a
change
of
use
to
make
sure
that
they
meet
the
approval
criteria
and
and
operating
characteristics
for
which
the
use
review
was
approved.
And
if
they
don't
meet
that,
then
they
would
have
to
go
through
use,
review
and.
E
B
F
G
K
F
Don't
think
so
because
I
think
that
if
it
could
be
other
offices-
and
maybe
there
would
be
opportunities
for
internships
or
something
like
that,
you
know
so
it
could
support
the
residents
if
it
were
engineers,
for
example-
maybe
not
lawyers
but
anyway,
but
I
do
really
I
mean
if
there
were
a
way
to
condition
it
to
have
it
be
attention
homes,
employees
I,
think
that
would
probably
help
reduce
adverse
impacts
to
the
neighborhood,
which
is
that
criteria
number
one.
Oh
hey.
L
E
Go
ahead,
you
know,
we've
already
heard
multiple
times
from
City,
Attorney
and
others.
The
transitional
housing
is
a
use
that,
if
it
meets
its
own
set
of
criteria
that
are
not
subject
to
our
review
and
it's
allowed
in
any
zoning
district
except
a
couple
of
residential
zoning
districts
like
manufactured.
So
it's
really
hard
for
me
to
think
about
trying
to
draw
nexus
between
a
use.
E
B
I
just
check
with
staff
on
one
of
the
things
that
you
said,
which
is
that
tenancy
change
would
require
that
I
thought
I
heard
staff
to
say
it
was
nature.
The
use
OFM,
even
more
attention,
Holmes
a
similar
nonprofit
with
same
number
of
employees,
read
traffic
came
in
that
may
not
require
a
hearing,
but
if
it
turned
into
the
engineers,
or
god
forbid,
lawyers
that
might
require
a
hearing
before
planning.
Well,
that's
correct
and.
F
E
E
The
reason
why
the
city
manager
has
an
approved
transitional
housing
is
in
the
staff
report.
They
have
an
approved
transitional
housing
because
there'd
be
no
point
to
approving
transitional
housing.
If
the
use
and
site
reviews
haven't
been
approved
by
planning
for
you,
you'd
be
approving
transitional
housing
for
a
project
that
can't
exist
so
crystal.
B
G
G
But
anyway,
that's
just
that's
my
position
on
the
professional
offices.
You
know
transitional
housing
with
the
with
the
support
facilities
and
even
there,
whatever
they
call
them.
Their
community
rooms
are
fine,
but
the
the
professional
offices
I
find
there
are
don't
meet
the
use
review
criteria
so.
B
D
Have
a
quick
comment,
which
is
it
numb?
Maybe
if
we
certainly
wouldn't
be
in
this
pickle
used
wise
if
the
transitional
housing
definition
included
space
for
the
supportive
services
that
go
along
with
it
requires
a
supportive
services,
allows
you
to
have
the
units
and
also,
as
you
have
you
know,
common
central
cooking
facilities
and
things
like
that.
It
really
great.
If
that
definition
included,
you
know
office
and
support
space
for
those
services.
G
G
E
Bit
more
clarification,
so
professional
offices
what's
being
asked
for
in
this
use,
review
and
yet
and
and
and
we
were
confused
or
I-
was
confused
about
whether
change
in
tennis
tendency
or
a
changing
use
would
trigger
additional
use
review.
And
then
it
was
said
that
if
we
changed
over
to
a
law
office
that
would
trigger
a
use
review.
But
to
me
a
law
office
would
fall
under
the
category
professional
office
and
is
really
just
a
change
in
tendency.
So
can
we
get
this
clear,
so
I.
N
Think
what
Carl
was
talking
about
is
that
initially,
a
non-residential
use
in
a
residential
zone
requires
a
use
review
and
an
approval
from
the
Planning
Board
once
that
use
and
that
approval
is
in
place.
There's
an
administrative
passage
in
the
code
that
allows
us
to
review
whether
or
not
a
change
of
tenancy
or
a
change
of
use
has
an
equivalency
in
which
case,
if
it's
a
lawyer's
office
that
serves
clients
on-site
to
an
engineer's
office
that
serves
clients
on-site,
not
a
huge
difference
in
the
operational
characteristics.
That's
a
change
that
we
can
improve
administrative
Lea.
N
I
If
I
could
add
I
think
when
I
was
answering
your
question,
I
I
I
thought
we
were
looking
at
the
possibility
of
adding
a
condition
that
would
be
specific
to
a
tension
home.
So
if
that's
the
case-
and
there
was
a
tenant
change,
that
would
require
a
new
you
serve
you
that
has
been
done
on
other
types
of
uses
like
restaurants,
if
it
was
found
that
was
necessary
to
meet
the
criteria
like
like
hello,
was
talking
about.
Okay,.
B
E
L
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
Order
to
resume
the
deliberations
of
the
Planning,
Board
and
I
think.
The
next
item
that
we
need
to
address
is
the
use
review
for
the
restaurant
use
and
the
rh2
zone
staff
has
made
a
recommendation
that
we
approve
that,
based
on
the
analysis
of
the
use
review
criteria
in
staffs
memorandum
and
the
supporting
materials,
does
anybody
disagree
with
staffs
proposal
on
that?
We
are
recommending
that
we
approve
that
use
nope,
Liz
yeah.
F
F
This
is
another
one
where
I
think.
Maybe
after
a
few
years
and
everything's
kind
of
settled
down
and
the
neighborhood
is
more
comfortable
with
what's
on
there,
then
they
could
come
back
and
apply
for
a
use
review
for
a
restaurant
there
and
get
it
up
getting
approval
then,
but
I
think
this
is
one
where
we
heard
so
much
feedback
in
testimony
from
the
neighborhood
that
we
have
to
consider
that,
and
most
most
of
that
testimony
was
about
the
incompatibility
of
it.
So
that's
where
I
stand
other.
G
Turn
Omaima
yeah
I
mean
I,
agree
totally
with
Liz
I'm,
not
gonna,
repeat
everything
that
she
said.
But
one
thing
we
learned
that
the
last
hearing
was
the
contract
is
basically
for
the
restaurant
is
basically
between
gardener
capital
and
the
restaurateur,
and
if
they're
going
to
have
a
relationship
with
attention,
Holmes
and
I
read
the
information
that
said
attention.
G
H
David,
you
know
I
I
am
you
know
sympathetic
to
the
the
need,
for
you
know,
nonprofits,
to
look
at
ways
to
do
a
social
and
social
enterprise,
because
it
does
really
help
you
get
your
books
to
balance
out
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
when
you
have
an
opportunity,
it
is
attractive
to
you
know
to
pursue
it.
So
so
I
understand
you
know
the
desire
to
do
it.
I,
don't
you
know,
I,
don't
really
see
that
it's
going
to
be
that
incompatible
to
have
a
little
takeaway
shop
on
that
corner.
H
But
you
know
I
can
see
how.
Maybe
some
would
be
of
the
opinion
that
it
that
it's
just
too
much
with
everything
else
in
the
package.
I
guess
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
other
opinions,
but
but
it
is,
it
is
a
nice
kind
of
package
to
have
it
on
your
site
when
you're,
when
you're
looking
to
to
be
able
to
bring
in
a
little
extra
revenue-
and
it
has
the
advantage
of
being
able
to
train
your
your
folks
as
well
and.
B
I'll
column,
myself
really
briefly
to
say,
I,
think
with
Lucille's
already
on
the
block,
a
great
deal
of
activity
within
the
neighborhood
and
an
overarching
interest
of
the
city
to
encourage
more
walkable
and
mixed
uses
and
given
the
very
small
size
of
the
restaurant,
I,
really
don't
see
the
incompatibility
and
see
it
as
mostly
the
benefit
both
in
this
particular
area
and
long
term.
For
the
neighborhood
and
Wow
like
there
were
certainly
I.
Think
some
folks
in
the
neighborhood
who
are
very
concerned
about
it.
B
I
was
not
convinced
by
the
suggestion
that
it
would
become
a
major
hangout,
for
you
know,
people
who
would
cause
major
problems
for
the
neighborhood
I
think
they're
more
likely
to
be
people
in
the
neighborhood
and
professional
workers
downtown
using
it.
Given
the
cost
and
value
the
real
estate,
I,
don't
I,
just
don't
see
the
likelihood
of
those
spillover
effects,
so
Brian
yeah.
D
I
I'm
glad
you
went
first
cuz,
you
said
I
was
going
to
say
but
much
more
eloquently
and
I
do
think.
You
know
only
add
that
we
spend
a
lot
of
our
time
on
this
board,
trying
to
work
in
mixes
of
uses
into
this
sort
of
history
of
Euclidean
zoning
we've
got
these
big
monolithic
uses,
and
you
know
I
think
you
know.
I
would
really
make
the
argument
that
they
have
to
have
the
space
to
make
the
neighborhood
walkable,
because
you
can
walk
other
places,
but
I
think
it
is
compatible
and
I.
D
L
I
E
E
B
G
I
mean
that's,
that's
one
concern.
The
other
concern
is
with
our
use
to
reviews
with
the
professional
offices,
the
restaurant
it
starts
eroding
into
the
residential
area.
We
are
I
mean
that
all
these
neighborhoods,
whether
it's
the
hill
or
Gus,
Grove
or
Whittier
I
mean
you,
take
a
five
minute
walk
and
you
tell
me
how
many
restaurants
you
can
bump
into
I
mean
a
lot
and
coffee
shops,
and
this
is
going
to
be
a
grab-and-go.
It's
not
going
to
be
a
go-to
boxcar
and
open
up
your
computer
or
meet
some
friends
and
stuff
like
that.
B
C
G
In
this
you
know
in
the
perfect
world,
I'd
be
happy
with
transitional
housing
and
the
support
that
they
need,
and
maybe
transitional
family
houses
that
family
housing,
where
the
professional
offices
and
the
corner
restaurant
takes
out.
But
that's
not
our
call
I'm
just
saying
when
you
look
at
erosion
into
a
residential
district.
Those
are
some
of
the
things
that
are
possibilities
in
the
future
that
you've
given
up
an.
C
Idea
crystal:
oh
sorry,
oh
go
ahead.
What
Harmon
said
of
the
way
it
normalizes
it
I
mean
it
does,
make
it
more
accessible
to
everyone.
Otherwise,
it
becomes
something
of
a
almost
like
an
inpatient
hospital
environment
where
people
walk
around
it,
and
this
is
a
place
to
walk
into
it
and
to
be
a
part
of
it
and
it
that
that
permeable
membrane,
I
think
is
really
important.
C
If
this
is
a
bar
that
was
going
to
be
open
late,
yes,
I
would
agree
with
you
something's
going
to
close
it
sex
well
before
sunset
on
most
nights
of
the
summer,
and
we
as
a
community
and
everyone
here
who
enjoys
coming
before
us,
won't
I,
think
we'll
police,
ourselves,
I
think
we'll
again
the
process
the
market
will
dictate.
What's
there,
like
you
said
it's
high
dollar
rent
it'll
become
an
amenity
or
it
won't
work,
and
if
it
doesn't
work,
it
won't
pay
its
rent
and
formal
pay
its
rent
and
won't
be
there.
C
Knowing
we
don't
pay
to
rent
is
if
people
buy
stuff
from
it,
the
people
who
buy
stuff
from
with
the
people
who
live
there
and
around
it.
If
we
don't
shop
there,
it
won't
exist.
So
therefore,
in
this
case,
the
only
thing
then
will
survive
is
something
that's
of
use
to
the
neighborhood.
No
one's
gonna
charitably
support
something
so.
B
G
Crystal
you
get
the
first
Crescent
additional
thought
is
at
the
concept
review.
I
actually
said
the
old
attention
Holmes,
which
was
right
down
the
street,
had
a
big,
wonderful,
porch
I
live
in
the
neighborhood
I
walked
by
I,
got
to
know
some
of
the
residents
because
they're
on
their
porch,
just
like
everybody
else,
is
in
their
neighborhood.
G
You
are
on
your
porch,
you
get
to
know
people
and
I'm
think
that
these
residents,
rather
than
being
in
this
you
know,
whatever
whatever
you
said,
are
kind
of
a
cloistered
environment,
they're,
going
to
read
the
the
neck
they're
going
to
join
the
next
door.
When
someone
says
hey,
I
need
some
yard
work
or
this
or
that
they're
going
to
be
just
like
at
you
know.
G
Hopefully
the
rest
of
the
younger
people
in
the
neighborhood
and
I
think
that
that's
your
goal
is
to
get
people
into
a
on
a
great
path
in
life,
and
so
I
might
push
back
a
little
bit
about
it's
going
to
be
coy,
stirred
and
separate,
and
we
don't
in
reading
the
packet,
you
don't
even
know.
If
there
going
to
be
any
residents
working
there.
There
was
an
alternative
to
do
a
contribution.
G
C
G
H
Just
dump
the
III
I
think
that,
with
the
conditions
I
just
wanted,
I
understand
that,
yes,
we
are
saying
that
a
commercial.
This
is
for
commercial
use,
but
it
is
still
limited
to
the
conditions.
So
I
just
want
to
keep
that
in
mind.
So
if
it
did
not
stay
a
social
enterprise,
what
we
would
be
able
to
see
is
something
else
with
nine
interior
seats
from
7:00
a.m.
to
6:00
p.m.
H
with
no
outdoor
speakers-
and
that's
probably
not
going
to
be
something
really
terrible
and
also
I
assume
that
it
would
there
would
be
a
financial
arrangement
with
the
property
and
everything
so
I.
Don't
know
that
it
would
be
like
a
dramatic
thing
if
that
happened.
We
all
hope
that
the
social
enterprise
thing
would
go
through,
but
obviously
we
don't
have
any
direct
control
over
them
and
I.
B
Think
we
have
to
assume
it
won't
be
for
purposes
of
making
our
decision
on
that,
because
we
can't
guarantee
it
for
the
long
run.
So
so
with
that,
why
don't
we
move
to
the
last
use
review
topic,
which
is
a
very
technical
one,
but
it's
still
important
one,
which
is
we
have
to
approve
a
use
if
it's
more
than
20%
efficiency,
living
units
or
e-l
use
staff
has
recommended,
based
on
the
overall
proposal
that
we
grant
this
use
review.
Does
anybody
disagree
with
that
one,
not
seeing
any,
then
why
don't
we
move
on
from
that?
B
I
think
the
last
item
that
we
need
to
address
before
I
think
entertaining
emotion
or
motions.
Is
the
solar
access
exception
again,
based
on
the
way
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
redraw
some
of
the
law
lot
lines?
There
are
some
shadows
that
could
be
cast
on
some
of
those
buildings
that
would
trigger
this
area.
Staff
has
recommended
that
we
find
an
exception
to
that
rule
based
on
the
reasons
in
the
packet.
Does
anyone
disagree
with
staff's
reasoning
on
that
issue?
I'm,
fine
with
it.
B
Okay,
so
hearing
none
I
think
we're
at
a
stage
right
now
where
we
can
move
to
actual
resolution
and
nail
down
a
decision
and
conditions.
I
spoke
briefly
with
hella
about
whether
it
would
make
sense
to
have
one
omnibus
motion
or
separate
motions
and
I.
Think
part
of
that
may
depend
on
whether
whoever's
moving
is
proposing
to
approve
it
all
or
approve
some,
but
disapprove
others.
B
So
you
could
approve
the
site
review,
for
example,
but
disagree
with
one
or
more
of
the
uses,
and
that
might
be
better
with
a
separate
motion,
hella
or
Carl
any
additional
thoughts
on
that
guidance
for
the
board
on
how
to
move
forward
and
I've
tried
to
keep
track
of
a
number
of
the
conditions
that,
like
there's
some
agreement
about
an
a
couple
that
I
think
we're
just
gonna
have
to
vote
on
because
they're
they
remain
contentious.
Yeah.
O
L
K
L
E
B
That
is
good,
I'm
actually
happy
to
make
a
motion
here
and
then
people
can
I'll
try
to
stick
with
the
things
that
I
think
we
have
at
least
agreement
on
on
conditions,
maybe
not
on
use
review
issues
and
then
folks
can
propose
amendments.
Could
we
go
back
to
that
language
slide
so
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
site
review
application
number
L.
You
are
2017
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
seven
and
use
review
application
number
L.
A
K
L
B
K
L
L
B
L
K
F
B
D
D
F
F
B
L
K
B
B
K
D
L
B
E
B
B
N
B
B
H
B
H
B
Just
to
understand
how
that
might
work
is
that
something
and
I'm
looking
to
hello
and
staff,
to
just
to
think
about
how
that
would
be
structured,
that
the
city
manager
would
have
to
make
some
sort
of
finding
that
it
was
adequate.
Or
is
it
just
a
trigger
that
when
they
present
some
sort
of
plan
on
that
front,
that
means
the
66
or
whatever
percent
criteria
or
66
lots
and.
H
H
Some
of
the
other
like
the
existing
Lucille's
spots,
and
maybe
some
of
the
other
existing
businesses
as
long
as
it
added
up
to
less
than
say,
2021
spaces
you'd
still
have
40
spaces
to
work
with
it
with
the
shared
and
that
could
include
the
leased
and
if
that
worked
out-
and
you
got
agreement
with
your
your
users
and
it
made
sense
from
a
business
case
for
leasing-
maybe
that's
they
would
just
decide.
That's
the
way
to
go
and
I
think
both
options
could
be
on
the
table.
Could.
I
Mean
it
could
be
structured
to
be
part
of
tech
doc,
it
could
be
structured
to
be
a
miner
mod.
It
just
sounds
to
me
that
they've
already
submitted
a
lot
of
documentation
that
supports
their
perspective,
that
the
parking
on
the
site
could
be
unsigned
and
not
as
allocated
as
staff
is
proposing
and
get
to
the
33.
So
we've
already
kind
of
evaluated
that
and
came
to
this
conclusion,
so
I
I'm
not
sure
what
what
additional
information
they
might
provide
to
convince
staff.
That
33
is
the
number
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand.
H
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
assign
the
lease
spaces
in
that
in
this
proposal.
I
don't
think
they'd
have
to
allow
the
leases
would
have
the
lead.
People
who
are
releasing
spaces
would
have
to
come
and
get
him
on
a
first-come,
first-served
basis.
There
wouldn't
be
a
number
33
assigned
to
one
of
the
leases,
for
example.
Well,.
I
Obviously,
I
I
think
it's
up
to
the
board
about.
You
know
how
much
flexibility
they
want
to
give
I
think.
In
this
case
we
have
the
staff
proposed
condition
with
specific
allocated
parking
and
23
lease
spaces,
or,
alternatively,
no
allocation
of
specific
spaces
and
shared
parking
for
the
entire
site
and
33
lease
spaces.
I
just
I,
don't
know
if
a
condition
can
show
two
options.
I
think
we'd
have
to
know
exactly
what
the
board
would
like
us
to
review
to
get
to
the
33
lease
spaces.
Well,.
D
Maybe
the
way
to
say
it
is
actually
that
we,
we
don't
want
to
have
the
parking
signed
kind
of
in
any
case
and
if
they
come
back,
if
they
do
that
and
then
on
reconsidering
that
part
staff
is
willing
to
go
to
33,
then
B,
maybe
that's
up
to
staff,
so
I
think
the
thing
I
mean
that
the
windmill
I'd
prefer
to
tilt
at
here
for
sure
is
really
like
wire.
Is
the
city
asking
us
to
violate
the
shared
unbundled,
managed
and
paid
principles
that
we
are
advocating
people
do
so
I
I?
D
E
E
B
I
ask
staff
about
maybe
a
variant
on
Harmons
piece,
which
is
if
the
staff
did
buy
the
board
bit
the
bullet
and
wanted
to
go
for
the
higher
number.
Is
it
possible
to
make
the
ten
extra
spaces
conditional
on
not
having
spillover
into
the
community
in
the
future,
such
that,
if
that
were
ever
demonstrated,
that
condition
would
be
breaching
you
go
back,
I
mean.
I
The
board
could
propose
that,
and
it
could
be
added
as
a
condition.
It
just
would
be
difficult
for
us
to
assess
and
monitor
I
mean
that
that's
effectively,
why
we,
we
didn't,
recommend
the
33
spaces
because
it
gets
into
some
territory
where
it's
very
difficult
for
us
to
say
this
is
where
this
person
parked.
B
So
other
thoughts,
I'm
at
all
I'll,
say
I,
think
I
agree
with
Harmon
that
there's
a
conflicting
City
principles
here
between
the
sub
principles
and
want
to
encourage
that
principle
and
then
being
conservative
about
spillover
traffic
and
neighborhood
protection,
and
it
may
be.
We
just
have
to
choose
between
them
and
go
one
direction.
The
other
so.
G
E
Well,
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
review
criteria
for
parking,
the
design
of
the
area
parking
areas,
makes
efficient
use
of
land
and
uses
the
minimum
amount
of
land.
That's
Sur
to
meet
the
parking
needs.
You
know,
that's
that's
an
underlying
principle
and
some
PI
think
we
can
get
close
enough
to
shared
unbundled,
managed
aid
with
the
conditions
that
we
have,
but.
G
Can
you
guarantee
it's
going
to
have
another
criteria
for
youths
review?
Is
that
it
be
a
that
it
be
a
compatible
transition
between
higher
intensity
and
lower
intensity
and
we're
already
raising
the
intensity
and
giving
a
huge
parking
reduction
and
then
trying
something
that
we're
not
even
sure
how
it's
going
to
work
on
this
property
because
I
imagine
the
church
would
like
to
have
some
sign
property
over,
but
I
mean
some
sign
spaces
over
by
their
office.
B
G
B
E
Not
asking
to
change
it
I'm
just
saying
that
when,
when
they
come
forward,
there's
going
to
be
evidence
in
the
record,
not
not
evidence
that
you
have
to
search
through
minutes
to
find
but
evidence
in
their
actual
use,
review
and
site
review
approval.
That
says
that
staff
recognizes
that
there
may
be
additional
parking
demand.
That's
not
being
met
by
this
program
and
the
applicant
can
come
forward
with
a
different
program,
but
they
need
to
provide
I,
don't
know
if
it's
six
months
is
the
right
number.
E
B
Is
maybe
the
condition
that
they
collect
the
data
to
support
that,
because
otherwise
I
think
that's
more
of
an
invitation
in
a
condition
and
I'm,
not
sure
I'm,
not
sure
we
can
or
should
do
that,
but
collecting
data?
We
certainly
can't
have
them.
Do
okay,
Chris
it's
in
their
self-interest,
to
do
it
anyway,.
E
B
At
this
point,
I,
don't
think
I
take
it
as
a
friendly
just
because
I
think
they
have
the
mechanism
to
seek
this
in
the
future.
They
can
cite
this
record
for
that
and
I
guess:
I
wouldn't
create
new
burdens
or
requirements
on
that
and
I
can
prove
it
up
and
there's
a
generalized
interest
in
doing
that
through
a
sophisticated
sump
that
will
demonstrably
not
affect
the
community,
then
they
they
can
make
that
showing.
You
know,
based
on
some
of
the
evidence
that
they're
able
to
collect
once
they're,
actually
implementing
this
project.
David
can.
H
H
However,
it's
the
only
solution,
we've
seen
that
has
been
fully
fleshed
out,
so
we
would
encourage
the
applicant
to
in
the
future,
come
back
once
with
once
they
have
more
data
to
have
a
more
creative
way
to
maybe
get
more
leased
space
once
they
know
how
these
spaces
are
going
to
be
is
something
like
that.
Yeah.
B
K
Put
in,
but
it
sounds
to
me
like
Gary,
what
you're
proposing
is
inviting
the
applicant
to
come
in
once
they
have
collected
data
that
shows
ya.
33
parking
spaces
would
be
possible
with,
with
the
plan
they're
proposing,
I
think.
In
that
case
the
applicant
has
the
option
of
filing
an
application
to
amend
the
use
review.
Application
I,
wouldn't
condition
that,
on
on
this
approval,.
L
F
B
H
G
G
B
G
B
L
B
I
H
They're
they're
related
to
the
number
of
years
that
Mika
passes
will
be
provided,
and
things
like
that
I
think
the
current
language
is
in
kind
of
in
perpetuity
right
and
they
want
wanted
to
put
a
time
limit
on
it.
I
think
and
also
it
reduces
the
number
of
people
who
would
get
eco
passes.
I
think
right.
L
I
B
B
B
G
To
what
I
just
want
to
say
is
and
I'm
so
glad
Peter
kicked
off
by
asking
about
the
process
of
you
know
getting
the
grants
approved
and
how
that
and
not
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
in
my
mouth
is
how
that
feeds
into
an
open
and
transparent
public
process
and,
unfortunately,
exactly
what
we're
voting
on
besides
a
little
bit.
What
the
building
looks
like
is
what
would
put
it?
G
What
was
put
in
that
grant
package
before
concept
review
and
before
this
board
even
got
to
hear
the
public
and
before
the
applicants
even
got
to
hear
our
concerns
and
to
me
that
is
really
troubling,
and
it
happened
on
Paulo
Park,
the
exact
same
way.
So
when
the
community
asked,
why
can't
we
embrace
supportive
housing
for
18
to
24
year
old,
homeless,
youth?
Why
can't
we
support
permanently
affordable
housing
at
Paulo
Park
for
families
and
but
when
you
don't
involve
people
in
a
transparent
and
honest
process?
G
We
I'm
sorry
I
got
distracted
by
you
guys,
but
we
really
have
to
change
that
in
the
community
if
we're
going
to
meet,
move
forward
and
meet
our
goals
in
our
count
plan
and
serving
different
members
of
the
community
and
I'd
like
it
to
be
a
process
where
people
embrace
the
project
and
they
feel
part
about
of
it.
But
this
this
process
doesn't
allow
that
and-
and
it
is
it's
troubling
it's
troubling-
for
a
lot
of
people
and
to
be
characterized
that
it's
either
empathy
or
apathy.
G
We
heard
that
at
the
first
hearing-
and
that
really
was
troubling
so
I
hope
that
all
of
you,
whether
you
were
on
the
approving
or
wanted
to
have
things
changed
a
bit.
I
hope
that
you'll
give
your
input
the
City
Council
as
they
look
at
a
new
public
process
and
public
participation,
method
and
I
think
they're
on
the
right
track.
And
after
this
hearing,
I
am
going
to
write
my
comments
about
how
we
can
change
this
I.
G
Don't
want
to
say
rut,
but
this
bad
path
were
on
so
I'm
kind
of
making
a
plea
for
all
of
you
to
join
me.
I
mean
I
would
vote
for
this
project
if
it
didn't
have
so
much
much
office
and
it
didn't
that
can
be
used
for
any
type
of
an
office
use
and
if
it
didn't
have,
the
restaurant
use.
I
would
definitely
I'd
even
I'd
vote
for
the
40
units
and
the
supportive
service,
but
I'm
not
willing
to
vote
for
something
that
makes
it
so
in
uncompetitive.
G
D
D
We're
gonna
enough
to
you
until
that
goes
to
midnight,
so
I
think
I'd
like
to
add
language
that
the
signage
required
for
the
parking
provided
for
each
user
under
item
13
allow
for
time
of
use
based
sharing
what
you'd
say
you
know.
So
you
have
office.
You
know
your
office
space
is
yours
exclusively
from
during
office
hours.
You
know
your
restaurant
spaces.
You
know
loud
for
you
to
use
it
during
restaurant
hours,
so
it's
not
gonna
sit
there
empty
forever
and.
B
F
G
F
And
that-
and
that
is
that,
after
we
vote,
if
we
could
spend
a
couple
of
minutes
that
maybe
we
could
come
up
with
a
resolution
about
this
density,
what
people
were
calling
density
transfer,
but
just
some
kind
of
resolution
to
ask
council
to
clarify
it
and
so
that
everybody
sort
of
has
a
sense
of
what's
possible
and
what's
not
possible,
and
it
doesn't
feel
so
much
like
a
loophole.
So.
B
I
think
if
we
had
had
more
process
at
paylo
Park,
we
have
had
more
process
here.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
same
concerns
would
have
been
there
and
I
think
there
would
have
been
an
interest
in
some
part
of
the
community
and
having
as
much
of
this
transitional
housing
as
possible,
and
some
that
would
say,
keep
it
to
a
very
small
amount
and
have
it
somewhere
else,
and
we
have
to
recognize
at
some
point,
there's
a
limit
to
process.
B
These
grants
are
competitive
and
we
will
lose
out
to
other
communities
on
that
front,
and
so
those
are
important
policy
issues
that
I
think
we
need
to
work
out
ultimately
doesn't
affect
how
I'll
vote
on
this
matter,
but
I
do
I
think
want
a
flag
that
this
was
not.
You
know
a
place
where
they
were
violating
any
requirements
of
the
city
or
anything
else
like
that.
It's
the
city's
process.
They
followed
that
process.
I
think
they
did
so
in
a
fair
way,
but.
G
May
I
just
say
one
thing:
I
think
when
this
comes
up
and
it's
come
up
twice
since
I've
been
on
Planning
Board.
If
the
applicant
said,
we've
submitted
a
grant,
we're
not
going
to
change
anything,
then
people
would
know
where
they
stand.
That's
my
point
and
I'm
honestly
the
attention
Holmes
they're,
not
developers,
the
church
is
not
a
developer,
but
Gardner
development
is
a
developer
and
so
I
would
have
liked
to
have
been
sitting
here
with
people
from
all
surrounding
the
neighborhood
saying
boy.
This
is
really
great.
They
listened
to
us.
G
B
I
think
I
heard
that
at
the
correct
plan
level
that
a
lot
of
this
was
driven
by
their
application
and
by
that
the
economics
of
the
project
and
they
take
the
risk
that
we
don't
like
it
and
we'll
say
no
and
their
project
goes
down
in
flames.
So
I
think
it
behooves
them
to
go
to
the
public
and
engage
as
much
as
possible
and
seek
as
much
consensus
as
is
possible.
B
B
G
F
I'm
just
gonna
say:
I,
don't
I
mean
I,
don't
I'm
still
not
clear
what
they
were.
What
they
were
initially
committed
to
I
mean
I
know
the
number
of
units
was
they
were
locked
into
40,
but
were
they
locked
into
the
professional
offices?
Were
they
locked
into
the
restaurant?
I
still
don't
know
if
that
was
part
of
the
part
of
their
grant
application
or
whatever
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
point.
I
cuz,
we
don't-
and
maybe
there
was
flexibility
on
that
and
I.
F
L
G
B
E
The
resolution
would
read
the
Planning
Board
recognizing
that
staff
that
the
staff
recommendation
regarding
parking
does
not
allow
the
applicant
to
Bro
add
as
many
least
spaces
as
are
currently
available,
that
the
applicant
has
provided
data
showing
that
there
currently
is
additional
parking
available
for
leasing
and
that
the
completed
project
will
also
potentially
result
in
additional
parking
being
available
for
leasing.
Over
and
above
the
number
of
spaces
allowed
by.
B
L
F
B
G
E
E
G
E
E
They
can
come
in
and
do
a
mod
if
they
want.
This
is
this
is
to
provide
a
something
to
hold
up
when
they
arrive
for
that
modification
which
is
gonna,
require
a
public
hearing
saying
you
asked
us
to
do
this.
You
recognized
that
you
were
being
conservative
and
and
that
you
erred
on
the
side
of
protecting
the
neighborhood
and
and
we're
here
to
show
you
that
that
protection
is
not
necessarily
warranted
and
we
have
another
plan,
but.
E
Like
you
said,
it's
not
binding,
so
you
know
I'm
I'm
prescribing
you
know
some
principles
and
six
months,
and
you
know
if
they
want
to
come
in
in
five
months
and
not
provide
the
some
principles,
but
just
ask
for
twenty
eight
spots.
Instead
of
the
twenty
three
they
were
allowed,
they
can
do
that
yeah.
L
H
Me
and
I
just
really
be
interested
in
whether
we
find
that
there's
always
six
or
seven
completely
unused
spaces
because
of
the
way
they're
signed
and
that
you
have
a
really
creative
way
to
do
it
a
lot
better
and
get
a
little
more
revenue.
So
why
not
make
it
a
win-win?
If
you
see
that
but
I,
just
don't
think.
We've
seen
the
details
enough
to
know
that
at
this
point
to
go
against
the
staff
recommendation,
but.
G
G
F
D
F
D
F
Okay,
so
I'm
not
making
a
suggestion
for
a
code
change
I'm,
just
asking
counsel
dick
to
look
into
how
he
got
here
and
how
it
feels
like
a
loophole
that
people
couldn't
I
mean
there
have
been
a
plenty
of
emails
from
folks,
including
their
lawyers
and
everything
about
how
the
density
allowable
density
was
calculated.
So
there's
a
solution.
It.
B
Is
so
I'll
all
agree
in
part
that
I
do
think
at
some
point?
A
code
change
might
be
helpful
to
provide
clarity
on
this
I
think
hella
started
off
at
the
beginning
of
the
near
the
beginning
of
the
18th
saying
it
was
not
clearly
prohibited
and
in
a
number
of
places,
I
think,
implied
and
I.
Think
some
greater
specificity
might
be
helpful
in
the
future.
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
put
that
in
a
resolution.
B
Language
right
now,
but
I
agree
with
the
sentiment
and
I
think
agree
with
Brian
that
this
might
be
a
good
topic
that
we
bring
up
kind
of
in
its
own
way
about
how
to
get
our
arms
around
that,
maybe
as
a
debrief,
maybe
as
a
separate
study
item
or
something
else
like
that,
because
I
think
it
does
have
wide-ranging
application.
And
it's
worth
a
conversation.
I
agreed
with
their
application
here.
But
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
code
is
a
model
of
clarity
right.
E
That
justifies
the
notion
that
a
density
transfer
was
being
requested
in
the
first
place
or
that
a
density
transfer
is
some
sort
of
transfer
of
development
rights
that
can
be
requested
within
a
site
review
when
we're
looking
at
a
whole
site,
and
in
fact
there
was
no
such
request
made.
There's
not
an
action
in
my
judgment
and
my
view
of
the
code
being
asked
for
what's
happening
here
is
that
density
is
simply
calculated
over
a
block.
E
It
is
owned
in
single
ownership
and
contiguous
parcels
period,
and
residential
density
does
not
take
into
account
existing
commercial
buildings
where
mixed-use
is
being
requested.
There
was
this
notion
that
there
is
some
sort
of
TDR
program
that
exists
in
our
code,
that
you
can
request
is
fallacious
on
its
face,
and
we
had,
you
know,
respected
members
of
the
community.
Writing
in
creating
this
new
rubric
of
density
transfer
that
exists
in
the
code
is
phantom
that
savvy
developers
can
take
advantage
of,
and
there
was
no
such
thing.
E
There
is
no
such
thing,
it's
simply
the
method
of
calculation.
You
have
1.93
acres
in
this
project
and
you
are
therefore
allowed
to
request
because
they
are
all
owned
in
a
unity
of
ownership
and
title
contiguous
parcels.
You
are
allowed
to
request
development
density
that
is
pertinent
to
1.93
acres,
subtracting,
the
existing
residential
development
and
so
I'm
not
interested
in
studying
this.
If,
if
people
think
that
that's
a
bad
law,
that's
you
know
a
bad
way
of
calculating
density.
You
know,
then,
let's
talk
about
changing
it,
but
the
notion
of
density
transfer
made
up.
G
When
I,
so
it's,
where
does
it
say
that
you
can
do
that
and
I
I
felt,
like
I,
was
in
a
little
bit
of
a
rabbit
hole
chasing
down
the
different
code,
citations
that
carnal
fan-
and
it
was
a
very
good
memo
and
I
totally
appreciated.
It
went
to
the
whole
Planning
Board
on
May
17th
under
Carl's
email,
but
it
kept
looping
around
and
it
kept
referring
me
back
to
how
to
calculate
them
today
and
a
few
other
things.
G
But
it
didn't
talk
about-
and
this
is
my
issue-
it
might
be
a
little
bit
different
than
than
your
clarification,
but
when
a
portion
of
a
site
is
totally
built
out,
how
can
you
transfer
anything?
How
can
you
use
that
as
a
calculation,
especially
if
it's
landmarked
or
above
the
height
limit,
you
have
nothing
to
at
that
part
of
the
site
then
is
totally
built
out
and
and
that
that's
kind
of
my
issue,
I
think.
G
D
Brian
and
then
David
I
agree
with
everything
you
said:
Armen
I
think
that
was
really
beautifully,
but
I
do
think
that
we're
conflating
two
things
in
this
conversation.
One
is
just
simply
how
has
density
calculated
in
zones
where
you're
not
adding
up
floor
area
or
units
or
things
and
coming
up
with
some
number,
so
how
do?
How
to
office
and
churches,
and
things
like
that
relate
to
residential
units
in
these
certain
zones.
D
I
think
that's
like
it's
a
sort
of
totally
separate
question
and
the
other
separate
question
is
you
know:
should
we
be
aggregating
adjacent
parcels
under
common
ownership
for
review
or
not
and
I
think
you
know
the
downside
of
doing
it
of
not
doing
it
is
that
you
don't
get
the
benefits
that
we
do
on
projects
like
this,
where
you
are
getting
a
bunch
of
public
improvements
around
the
entire
site?
Nothing
is
really
really
positive.
D
D
Cuz
I've
asked
if
I
could
figure
out
a
way
to
avoid
site
review
about
a
dozen
times,
and
these
guys
keep
telling
me
no
because
of
that,
so
I've
been
trying
that
it
doesn't
work,
and
the
reason
is
work
is
clear
that
rule
in
place,
so
I
think
I
think
we
get
much
much
more
benefit
out
of
it
than
than
less
benefit,
and
I
really
really
feel
like
on
this
project.
The
ability
to
look
at
the
entire
block
as
one
urban
design
problem
is
extremely
positive.
B
B
A
H
I
just
very
quickly
in
my
mind,
we
make
these
kinds
of
trade-offs
all
the
time
where
we,
you
know,
maybe
in
a
less
controversial
site,
we
might
put
the
building
a
three-story
building
on
one
side
so
that
we
have
lots
of
open
space
and
everybody
loves
that.
So
you
know
it's
really
about
site
boundaries
and
I
agree
complete
with
Harmon,
though,
isn't
there's
really
nothing
with
this
density
transfer
is
just
something
that
was
kind
of
came
out
of
thin
air,
but
it's
really
about
site
boundaries.
F
I
think
the
way
that's
written
is
fine,
but
I
do
want.
To
just
say:
I
mean
the
public
has
an
expectation
that
their
zoning
is
going
to
drive
a
certain
level
of
intensity
and
they
see
a
church,
a
giant
church
and
a
bunch
of
other
buildings,
and
they
have
an
assumption,
which
is
complete
common
sense
that
the
remaining
undeveloped
area
will
fall
under
this
particular
zoning
standard,
and
so
what
we've
done
with
this
is
have
pretended
like
those
buildings.
Weren't
there
and
I
mean
let's
it's
it's
common
sense.
F
Maybe
it's
my
common
sense
and
my
common
sense
is
not
common
sense
or
something.
But
anyway,
it
seems
to
me
that
we
we
need
to
operate
in
a
way
that
doesn't
look
like
people
are
taking
advantage
of
loopholes
and
the
lack
of
prohibitions
and
things
like
that.
I
just
think
it
should
be
clarified
and
made.
Everybody
knows
this
is
what's
possible
at
this
site,
or
this
is
what's
possible
in
your
neighborhood
cuz,
this
kind
of
blindsided
a
lot
of
people.
F
E
If
we
were
to
calculate
density
per
project
instead
of
for
common
ownership
on
the
block,
the
perverse
result
of
this
proposal,
if
it
was
in
a
different
situation
where
the
church
was
developed
in
a
building
with
same
size
and
already
had
50
units,
is
that
you
would
then
look
at
a
block.
That
today
only
has
the
ability
to
put
in
28
units
right
without
without
Planning
Board
review
at
3,000
square
feet
per
unit,
and
it
would
already
be
at
50
22
units
over
the
maximum
without
site
review.
E
And
then
the
new
project,
which
would
be
the
other
3/4
of
the
block,
could
come
in
and
add
the
amount
of
density.
It's
allowed,
not
respecting
the
fact
that
there
50
units
already
there
and
we
could
end
up
with
80
units
on
the
block
instead
of
what
we're
getting
now,
which
is
47
or
27.5,
depending
on
how
you
calculate
them.
So
there's
a
reason
why
you
look
at
unity
of
ownership
and
there's
a
reason
why
you
look
at
density
across
the
block.
The
people
who
wrote
the
code
actually
thought
of
that
and
I.
E
Don't
think
that
you
know
folks
who
are
saying
that
there's
a
density
transfer
or
recognizing
that
if
you
want
to
stop
doing
that,
you're
also
going
to
have
to
accept
blocks
with
unbelievably
supercharged
development,
where
there's
already,
for
instance,
a
pre-existing
building,
that's
grandfathered
and
has
more
density
that
would
be
allowed
under
today's
code.
Peter.
C
If
Harmons
recitation
is
correct,
that
there's
it's
definitely
correct.
This
is
karate
said
it.
Then,
then
the
fact
that
the
fact
that
common
sense
would
tell
you
that
you
couldn't
put
more
there,
even
though,
let's
say
law
says
otherwise.
Ignorance
of
the
law
is
no
excuse
and
to
refute
science
with
anything
else
is
what
creationism
I
don't
know.
Not
evolution
I
mean
if
the
it's
the
rules,
it's
the
law
I
mean
it's
there.
C
B
Gonna
give
I'm
gonna
give
crystal
the
last
lick
on
this,
because
we're
not
gonna
solve
this
issue
tonight.
At
most,
we
will
have
a
resolution
that
is
outside
of
Council's
current
work
plan
anyways
and
we'll
probably
end
up
having
to
discuss
again
for
our
council
letter
later
this
year,
encouraging
them
to
look
at
at
code
changes.
So
you
know
at
most
we're
sending
up
soft
signal
to
council,
so
I
think
crystal
and
then
we'll
call
the
question.
I
would.
G
G
B
D
D
L
B
F
A
historic
district
has
I
mean
the
most
stable
neighborhoods
in
Boulder
are
historic
districts
and
you
get
another
level
of
review.
You
get
much
more
you're,
much
more
likely
to
get
compatible
projects
and
there
are
all
kinds
of
benefits
to
the
homeowners.
If
you
want
to
do
renovations,
you
get
tax
credits,
all
kinds
of
stuff.
So
and
now
you
have
what
seven
more
landmarks
to
contribute
to
your
historic
district.
So
I
hope
that
the
neighborhood
will
consider
that
I
think
it
will
help
them
stabilize
their
neighborhood.
Okay,.