►
From YouTube: City Council Special Meeting - 23 Jan 2023
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/154045?handle=726765C2846E465FB1A2F6788B3058CD
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/154044?handle=1877B3A3593640608A7CAE0DF861D619
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
IV. Break - 10 minutes 8:20pm to 8:30pm
VIII. Council Member’s Choice
IX. City Manager’s Choice
X. Adjournment
V. Off-Leash Dog Update 7:05pm to 7:50pm
Director of Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf Christina Underhill, Code Enforcement Manager Dave Lewis, Open Space Manager Adrian Torres, and Open Space Activities Supervisor Lindsay Peterson w ill ...
VI. Large Utility Designation 7:50pm to 8:20pm
Utilities and South Platte Renew Director Pieter Van Ry, and Utilities Deputy Director – Business Solutions Sarah Stone will be present to discuss the large utility designation. Information and Direct...
VII. Resolution appointing members to various boards, commissions, and committees
Resolution appointing members to various boards, commissions, and committees.
VIII. Approval of an Ordinance on First Reading
CB 05 - Bill for an Ordinance authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement for the City of Englewood to provide sustainability services to the City of Sheridan
VI. Land Use Discussion and Typology Follow-Up 8:30pm to 9:45pm
Planning Manager Bryan Isham, and Matt Ashby, Ayers Associates Chris Brewster, Multistudio will be present to discuss Land Use Discussion and Typology Follow-Up. Information and Direction Presentation...
IV. Short Term Rental Discussion 9:45pm to 10:15pm
Review and discuss proposed changes to short-term rental ordinance. Information and Direction: Presentation: 15 minutes Discussion: 15 minutes
V. City Charter Review Project 6:05pm to 7:05pm
Kathryn Sellers, outside legal consultant from Hoffmann, Parker, will be present to review a section of City Charter to determine if Council wishes to propose revisions for voter consideration. Inform...
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/154045?handle=726765C2846E465FB1A2F6788B3058CD
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/154044?handle=1877B3A3593640608A7CAE0DF861D619
A
A
B
A
All
members
present
thank
you
and
before
we
get
to
the
agenda
item,
four
just
wanted
to
State
a
quick
note.
Obviously
the
the
closing
of
the
library
with
them
meant
that
Vietnamese
and
methamphetamine
contamination
that
was
discovered
last
week.
I
want
to
just
State
a
note,
and
you
know
obviously,
apologies
for
the
inconvenience
of
this.
All
the
city
of
Inglewood
conducted
additional
proactive
testing
for
methamphetamine
contamination
inside
the
Civic
Center.
A
The
results
are
which
indicate
the
lobby
at
the
South
entrance
in
the
garage
is
above
the
state's
threshold
for
contamination
out
of
an
abundance
and
caution.
The
entrance
will
be
closed
at
this
time,
as
we
are
way
further
direction
from
Arapahoe
County
Public
Health
to
access
the
Civic
Center
from
the
south
police
park
on
the
upper
level
of
the
garage
and
enter
from
the
second
floor.
A
If
you
park
on
the
ground
level
of
the
garage,
the
upper
deck
can
be
assessed
accessed
via
stairs
located
to
the
right
when
facing
the
lobby
to
access
the
bathroom
facilities
during
Council
meetings.
Please,
exit
the
building
on
the
second
floor
to
the
upper
parking
deck
then
take
the
stairs
in
the
garage,
on
your
left
hand,
side
to
the
lower
level,
a
restroom
trailer
with
men
and
women's
facility,
as
well
as
288
facilities,
are
available
on
the
ground
level.
A
A
Aye,
the
record
show
seven
eyes.
Thank
you.
Everyone
moving
on
to
agenda
item
5A
Off
Lease
date,
Off
Lease,
dog,
update
from
director,
Parks,
Rec
library
and
golf
Christina;
Underhill
code
enforcement
manager,
Dave
Lewis,
open
space
manager,
Adrian
Torres,
an
open
space
activity;
supervisor
Lindsey
Peterson
here
to
provide
that
update
good
evening
director
good.
E
Evening,
mayor
and
Council
again,
I'm
Christine,
Underhill,
director
of
parks,
recreation
library
and
golf
and
with
me,
I
have
Adrian
Torres
or
open
space
manager
and
code
enforcement
manager,
Dave
Lewis,
to
give
an
update
on
how
the
off
leash
program
went
for
2022
and
then
we're
going
to
also
talk
about
the
pet
registration
program
and
code
enforcement
manager.
Lewis
will
go
into
that
further
towards
the
end
of
the
presentation.
F
As
you'll
see,
you'll
see
spikes
in
different
numbers
in
different
areas.
We
utilize
data
to
drive
and
citizen
complaints
to
drive
our
response
to
different
parks,
specifically
our
calls
for
service
or
any
type
of
action
code
enforcement
would
take
or
the
park
ranger
related
to
a
significant
number
of
park
rules
or
code
violations.
We're
not
just
looking
at
animal
related
instances.
These
do
capture
a
variety
of
different
rules
within
our
Park
systems,
and
it's
been
a
very
successful
program
regarding
the
the
Off
Lease
privileged
areas.
F
We're
noticing
more
voluntary
compliance.
I
believe
that
the
education
has
worked
very
well
within
our
Park
systems,
as
well
as
our
ambassadors,
those
ambassadors
that
work
with
Inglewood
Unleashed
who
take
it
upon
themselves
to
educate
new
people
or
faces
or
dogs
I.
Think
most
people
recognize
the
dogs
than
they
do
over
the
faces
of
the
individuals
owning
the
dogs,
and
they
do.
They
do
take
great
pride
in
educating
everyone,
because
they
do
recognize
that
this
is
a
privilege,
we're
also
running
into
far
less
Conflict
at
our
during
our
interactions
or
education
or
enforcement
components.
F
E
G
G
The
data
is
anonymous,
we
don't
know
personal
information
like
exact
addresses
names
or
phone
numbers.
This
data
is
from
canine
Corral
from
the
last
four
years.
As
you
can
see,
the
majority
of
our
visitors
are
non-residents,
coming
primarily
from
Littleton
or
Denver.
Visitors
typically
stay
30
to
45
minutes
when
they
visit
K9
Corel.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
So
one
of
the
aspects
that
the
Park
and
Recreation
Commission,
as
well
as
the
community
asks,
is
that
we
and
this
body
that
we
move
forward
in
having
conversations
regarding
pet
registration
and
pet
registration
is
valuable
to
Inglewood,
mostly
as
you've
heard
in
in
recent
months.
That,
and
many
of
you
are
pet
owners,
there's
nothing
more
traumatic
than
when
you
are
separated
from
your
pet.
When
your
pet
goes.
I
F
For
long
periods
of
time-
or
you
don't
know
where
they
are,
and
so
one
of
the
primary
reasons
that
we
want
pet
registration
or
the
community
wants
pet
registration
is
in
order
to
more
quickly
reunify
our
lost
pets
with
their
owners.
One
thing
that
code
enforcement
can
do
is
when
we
do
know
who
a
pet
belongs
to
whether
it's
with
their
microchip
or
that
they're
wearing
a
collar.
We
do
make
every
attempt
possible
to
try
and
reunite
that
pet
and
their
owner
before
we
do
go
to
the
shelter,
and
so
this
is
one
way.
F
Having
registered
pets
is
one
way
to
facilitate
a
kind
of
a
Pet
Taxi
back
to
their
home
or
letting
the
owners
know
that
their
animal
is
available
without
an
extra
fee
at
the
shelter
if
they
come
within
the
next
couple
hours,
it
verifiably
double
checks,
the
health
and
safety
of
our
community.
One
thing
that
the
community
has
asked
and
in
reviewing
different
summonses
is,
is
making
sure
that
our
our
pet
population
is
spay
and
neutered.
F
It
is
not
a
requirement,
but
it
does
lead
to
a
longer
lasting
Pet,
Life,
less
aggressive
animals
and
that
they
have
proper
vaccinations.
We
do
frequently
hear
from
people
or
encounter
people
that
do
not
have
up-to-date
vaccinations,
and
this
is
one
way
that
we
can
prevent
Community
disease,
especially
within
our
off-lease
Park,
privileged
areas.
F
It's
one
way
to
verify
that
with
pet
registration
it
allows
for
increased
pet
owner
engagement,
so
it
allows
the
city
to
to-
and
this
is
an
opt-out
program
that
allows
the
city
and
a
third
party
pet
registration
company
to
Target
our
pet
owner
communities
with
valuable
information.
It
also
allows
them
to
send
out
alerts
if
your
animal
is
missing
to
neighboring
homes
in
the
hopes
of
reunifying
those
families,
as
well
as
giving
us
the
heads
up
in
code
enforcement
and
the
shelter
if
one
of
the
their
loved
ones
goes
missing.
F
It
is
a
self-funded
program,
so
it
would
not
require
any
additional
staff,
hours
or
staff
time,
and
it's
very
desirable
for
the
community,
and
some
statistics
will
will
show
that
later
that
the
community
has
been
asking
for
this
park.
Users
have
been
asking
for
this.
As
well
as
recommendations
from
the
off
leash
subcommittee
and
the
Park
and
Recreation
committee,
a
component
of
pet
registration
and
a
third
party
company
is
social
responsibility.
F
It
really
does
provide
additional
non-profit
support
to
whoever
we
choose
here
as
a
body
or
you
choose
as
a
body
or
code
enforcement
or
the
Park
and
Recreation
committee,
and
those
extra
dollars
from
the
sale
of
different
tags
or
different.
Animal
swags,
such
as
vests
or
collars,
would
go
right
back
into
this
community,
with
low-cost
vaccination
and
low-cost
and
or
free
spay
and
neuter
clinics.
E
So
this
is
from
the
Poco
survey
that
we
did
in
2020,
showing
the
dog
licensing.
It
was
asked
for
the
respondents.
It
filled
out
the
survey,
what
they
wanted
to
see
if
they'd
be
in
support
or
not,
and
ultimately
the
majority
did
support
a
dog
licensing
program.
What
we're
offering
tonight
is
a
pet
registration
program.
It's
not
quite
as
intense
as
a
licensing
program.
It
does
pretty
much
the
same
thing,
so
that
was
one
of
the
questions
that
they
were
asked.
F
F
The
the
program
is
very
easy
to
to
register
it
can
be
utilized
when
you
adopt
a
new
friend,
it
can
be
utilized
by
code
enforcement
out
in
the
field.
We
can
work
directly
with
community
members.
There
are
postcards,
there
are
also
ways
for
owners
to
register
with
paper
documents
and
mail
them
in
and
that's
all
facilitated
and
entered
by
docuped
it
it's
not
done
by
any
staff
member,
and
it
really
does-
and
this
is
something
that's
lacking
here-
I
think
in
in
our
community
is
really
having
that
pet
owner
engagement.
F
These
are
a
few
of
the
the
highlighted
areas
as
to
why
pet
owners
really
do
like
working
with
docupet
and
then
what
the
other
partners
are
saying
and
one
of
the
biggest
components
with
docupet
versus
the
other
organizations.
Is
that
unique
customer
service
experience
there
are.
There
is
support.
You
can
call
them
you're
not
going
to
get
into
a
long
queue
like
you
might,
with
the
airlines
or
with
with
other
varieties
of
different
customer
service
experiences
that
are
really
frustrating
people.
F
Currently,
these
are
the
cities
that
are
are
being
utilized
with
this
new
cloud-based
data
Colorado,
currently
Boulder,
Teller,
County
and
Castle
Rock
are
utilizing
these.
This
is
a
newer,
not
a
newer
company,
but
newer
to
Colorado
and
I'm
hearing
very
positive
things
from
my
colleagues
and
all
three
of
those
those
markets.
F
They
could
they've
used
other
third-party
companies
in
the
past
and
they
speak
very
highly
especially
of
the
customer
service
component
and
that
pet
engagement
component
that
docupint
offers
and
again
this
is
just
highlighting
the
the
multiple
different
ways
as
well
that
pet
owners
can
register
their
animals,
but
it
highlights
the
the
amount
that
it
would
cost.
It
is
a
one-time
startup
fee
that
would
that
we
could
utilize
within
this
current
fiscal
year.
It
would
be
within
our
budgeted
system
to
allow
for
this.
E
So
with
that
tonight
we're
this
is
for
information
and
then
Direction
regarding
the
overall
off
leash
program
and
pet
registration
and
the
feedback.
We're
looking
from
mayor
and
council
is
specifically
towards
the
pet
registration.
If
this
is
something
you'd
like
to
move
forward
with
also
the
per
tag
fee,
the
registration
fee
is
something
as
a
city.
We
can
decide
if
we
want
to
make
it
ten
dollars.
Twenty
dollars,
what
you'd
like
to
charge-
and
you
saw
on
there
that
it
does
come
back
to
our
community.
E
K
F
If
you
would
look
at
the
traditional
licensing
aspect
within
the
city,
most
of
them
are
very
staff
and
time-consuming,
labor
and
and
intensive
as
far
as
registration
is
it.
It
really
allows
more
for
an
engagement
with
the
community
over
just
a
general
license.
A
license
is
just
a
tag
that
you're
going
to
put
on
your
dog
and
that's
the
end
of
the
communication.
K
F
We
would
be
asking
that
this
Council
give
direction
regarding
the
requirement
of
having
all
pets
registered
in
the
city
of
Inglewood,
and
just
just
to
remind
this
Council
that
currently
rabies
vaccination
is
a
requirement
of
the
city
of
Inglewood,
as
well
as
the
state
of
Colorado.
However,
there's
no
way
to
verify
that
currently
here
in
the
city
of
Englewood,
very.
C
E
I
see
it
as
a
single
issue
with
the
registration
utilizing
our
Parks
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
positive,
like
enforcement
manager
was
saying
about
the
community
if
your
your
pet
is
lost,
it
goes
out
to
your
neighbors
that
maybe
are
also
registered,
so
I
see
a
lot
of
benefits
for
our
community
overall
and
for
our
Park
system
to
the
enforcement
our
park
ranger.
Our
code
enforcement
can
walk
into
a
park
and
see
that
tag
on
an
animal
and
be
able
to
identify
their
part
of
our
program.
C
Are
you?
Are
you
alluding
to
the
fact
that,
like
if
someone
were
to
you
know,
break
our
rule
our
park
rules
and
we
would
be
able
to
know
you
know,
because
if
the
animal
is
registered
and
the
owner
we
would
you
know,
then
maybe
you
can
you
know
10
strikes
you're
out
or
something
it's
like
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
this?
How
does
this
help
with
enforcement
of
our
current
roles.
F
So
this
was
originally
if
you
go
back
a
few
years
and
in
your
packet
that
this
was
actually
brought
up
by
the
off-leash
commission
and
the
parks
and
rec
that
they
really
wanted.
Also
to
to
offset
some
of
the
cost
recovery
expenses
related
to
park
usage
and,
as
you
saw
with
canine
Corral,
a
majority
of
the
users
are
not
city
of
Inglewood
residents,
and
so
the
burden
is
really
falling
to
us.
F
C
F
F
That
is
an
option
that
you
would
have
as
part
of
the
registration
process
so
that
we
would
be
able
to
pull
up
or
utilize
a
picture
to
match
that
pet
with
with
the
owner.
It's
also
a
safety
feature.
We
do
have
animals
that
go
missing
or
do
get
stolen
or
get
claimed
by
people
that
don't
own
that
animal,
and
so
that
would
also
be
an
additional
benefit.
Is
we're
able
to
match
up
the
pet
with
the
owner.
M
F
That's
a
great
question
with
docupet
this
particular
program
is
it's
personal,
it's
personal,
so
you
can
customize
it.
However,
you
would
like
you
can
have
metal
tags,
there's
a
standard,
Inglewood
logo,
one
that
can
be
issued,
but
it
also
gives
you
the
opportunity
to
upgrade
the
tag
or
work
on
a
tag.
Let's
say
you
have
a
sports
fan
of
a
particular
organization.
You
can
have
it
customized
to
be
that
logo
it
could
be
customized
to
have
a
family
picture.
It
could
be
customized
to
whatever
it's
going
to
look
like
metal.
F
M
Oh
okay,
great
yeah,
that
question
came
because
evidently
her
dog
tends
to
chew
on
the
tag
and
make
it
disappear.
So
if
you
could
have
it
on
your
phone,
a
picture
of
it.
That's
great
and
another
thing
that
we
had
talked
about
at
parks
and
rec
Commission
was
in
some
cases
the
animal
gets
back
to
the
owner,
much
much
quicker
and
obviously
much
much
cheaper
than
if
it
had
to
go
to
South,
Platte
or
somewhere
else.
F
And
that's
a
great
Point
we
so
if
the
city
of
Inglewood
gets
involved
with
the
recovery
of
a
pet,
if
we
know
who
that
pet
belongs
to
rather
than
charging
the
Define
the
250
dollar
fee
that
would
be
associated
with
the
impoundment
of
the
animal
rather
than
impounding
that
animal
to
the
shelter
and
charging
that
fee
it
would
be
waived
because
we're
able
to
reunify
that
pet
with
the
owner
in
the
field.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you.
So
it
seems
to
me
like
there's
a
couple
of
situations
here,
we're
going
to
be
requiring
all
pet
owners
to
register
and
I
mean
it
was
shared
that
the
people
that
don't
even
live
in
Inglewood
wanted
this,
so
that
they
could
pay
more.
So
they
could
participate
in
our
parks.
What
about
pet
owners
who
keep
their
pets
at
home
in
their
own
yard
and
don't
use
the
park
system
for
their
pets?.
F
Even
those
pets,
I
would
look
at
this.
A
majority
of
the
pets
that
we
encounter
are
those
that
do
not
go
into
the
park
system.
They
may
not
leave
the
yard
and
unfortunately,
they
do
get
out.
It
could
be
a
cat.
It
could
be
a
dog
and
I
would
hate
to
think
that
that
opportunity
for
a
low-cost
insurance
I
would
look
at
it
as
an
insurance
benefit
to
make
sure
that
we're
able
to
reunify
that
pet.
F
N
F
They're
also
cost
cross
Associated
with
a
microchip
if
they
are
microchipped,
and
so
that
way
we're
able
to
more
easily
update
that
information.
A
lot
of
people
have
a
hard
time
updating
their
microchip
alone.
It
is
a
very
complex
system
if
you've
ever
tried
to
register
your
microchip.
If
it's
registered
here
within
the
this
system,
it's
much
easier
to
update
there
and
then
they
also
take
that
upon
and
update
the
microchip
systems.
N
F
J
O
Instigated
the
research
into
this
registration
program,
so
I'm
wholly
in
support
of
it
as
presented
this
evening,
I
believe
that
the
research
he
conducted
and
the
decisions
behind
your
presentation
are
spot
on
and
follow
best
practice
and
and
will
be
well
implemented
in
our
community.
And
thank
you
also
for
the
data
points
in
the
middle
to
support.
O
O
I
wonder
about
this,
and
probably
many
other
perks
or
amenities
in
our
our
community.
If
not
done
already,
if
we
could
consider
some
sort
of
new
Resident
package
like
like
the
little
old
towns
used
to
do
and
and
it
it
can
take
different
shape
and
form
and
maybe
be
online,
but
if
it's
I
just
want
a
new
Resident
to
understand
that
immediately,
this
is
you
know:
do
we
have
anything
like
that?
Do
magic?
O
P
You
for
the
question,
remember
wink
we
actually
do,
and
so,
if
you
go
to
the
neighborhood
resources,
page
You
can
reserve
one
of
those
in
there.
You
can
pick
them
up.
Residents
can
in
the
HUB
on
the
third
floor
and
I've,
actually
given
two
new
neighbors
in
my
neighborhood
those
packets,
but
this
is
certainly
something
if
Council
moves
in
this
direction
that
we
want
to
include
in
that
packet
as
a
way
of
doing
that.
What
we
don't
have
is
a
organized.
You
know
a
process
for
searching
MLS
to
know
what
house.
P
O
A
Thank
you.
I
got
a
few
questions,
so
I
guess
I'll
start
here
so
on
that
second
line
down
at
the
bottom,
where
it
says
estimate
estimate
10
compliance
in
first
year.
It
says
a
dollar
fifty
per
license.
Is
that
just
like
a
base
rate
that
they
charge
or
is?
Are
we
stating
here
because
it
says
monthly
fee?
Are
we
saying
150
times
12,
so
we
estimated
that
this
monthly
fee
is
based
off
a
30
dollar
registration
fee?
That's.
A
F
Right
they
would
that
would
look
at
it
like
a
commission
they
take
that
out,
but
that
that
covers
the
cost.
So
the
five
thousand
dollars
initial
startup
fee
is
the
whole
marketing
packet,
the
specific
branded
information
to
Inglewood,
assisting
the
Communications
Department
with
pushing
that
information
out,
and
then
that
is
the
portion
that
would
be
funding.
So
when
somebody
was
to
receive
a
new
license,
it's
the
management
component,
the
software,
everything
on
the
back
end
that
the
city
is
not
managing.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
that
makes
sense
so
you're
asking
us
to
whether
or
not
we
want
to
make
this
a
mandatory
registration
or
or
leave
it
to
the
pet
owner
to
decide
whether
or
not
they
want
to
register
with
the
city
are
we
are
we
targeting
non-
Inglewood
residents
as
well
as
part
of
this
I'm,
trying
to
understand
what
the
for
all
the
people
that
are
non-anglewood
residents
that
use
our
parks?
Are
we
looking
to
also
ask
them
to
register?
Yes,.
F
So
what
we
would
be
doing
is
asking
that
this
be
a
registration
similar
to
most
of
the
Front
Range
municipalities
that
currently
have
pet
registration
or,
as
one
council
member
pointed
out,
the
licensing
without
a
lot
all
the
extra
components
we
are
seeking
direction
as
to
whether
or
not
the
city
city
council
wants
to
move
forward
with
requiring
the
the
pet
registration,
and
we
would
require
an
order
for
people
to
utilize
our
Park
facilities
that
they
also
receive
and
out
of
City
License
to
utilize
our
facilities.
Okay,.
F
F
H
F
F
H
H
F
H
And
then
my
second
question
is:
when
I,
when
I,
look
at
the
summons
to
contacts
ratio,
I,
think
it's
fair
to
assume
that
not
every
contact
would
be
something
that
would
normally
result
in
a
summons,
but
we
have
fewer
than
10
of
our
contacts
that
are
resulting
in
a
in
a
summons.
Is
there
some
reasonable
basis
for
that?
Where
we
were
I
mean
it
risks
giving
the
appearance
that
we're
just
allowing
people
to
behave.
However,
they
want
and
telling
them
not
to
do
it
anymore.
F
So
our
park,
ranger,
is
really
good
at
recognizing
animals
and
animal
owners,
and
so
we
really
do
want
to
give
everyone
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
I
think
this
Council
has
provided
Direction
regarding
more
education.
Those
people
who
are
repeat
offenders
are
receiving
summons.
That's
how
we
prioritize
that
or
those
who
show
obvious
disregard,
for
example,
we're
going
to
contact
them
and
they
decide
to
run
away
with
their
pet.
We
are
going
to
contact
them
and
issue
them
as
summons.
H
C
Just
so,
we
can
suss
out
what
this
would
look
like
if
we
were
to
make
it
a
mandatory
program.
Do
you
have
ideas
or
examples
from
other
municipalities
about
what
a
penalty
would
look
like,
I'm
thinking
about
you
know
someone
either
in
the
city
as
a
resident
or
someone
who's
visiting
coming
to
a
park.
All
of
a
sudden
being
told
that
you
don't
have
this
registration
and
what
does
that
look
like.
F
Again,
we
have
found
that
it
is
far
easier
to
work
with
the
community
when
we're
not
being
heavy-handed
with
our
enforcement
I.
Don't
think
that
serves
the
long-term
or
best
interests
of
our
community,
and
in
fact
our
community
has
has
asked
and
has
come
here
specifically
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
do
that.
So
we
definitely
would
take
the
approach
of
Education.
D
K
I
I
like
this,
this
program,
as
especially
the
the
ability
to
manage
the
parks
a
little
better
I,
think
it
makes
sense.
If
there
are
citizens
utilizing
a
service,
the
city
is
providing
that
they
they
pay
a
fee,
pay
some
kind
of
fee.
For
that
we
know
that
the
off
leash
program
is
expensive,
so
I
would
not
like
to
see
this.
Excuse
me,
mandatory
I
think
people
should
be
able
to
own
pets
without
without
doing
I,
do
think
it
makes
sense.
K
Even
you
know,
I
would
certainly
consider
it
if
it
was
an
optional
program
for
man
registering
my
dog,
but
I
would
prefer
to
just
leave
that
up
to
the
citizen
unless
they
want
to
utilize
the
parks
and
then
I
think
it
makes
sense
that
they
would
pay
a
fee
and
out
outside
residents.
I
think
also
should
pay
a
substantially
higher
fee
if
they
want
to
register
their
pet
and
use
the
parks.
M
N
N
Code
enforcement
never
saw
him.
He
was
tagged.
The
person
that
found
him
he
had
wandered
over
to
the
Joshua
school
and
one
of
the
teachers
over
there
took
him
home
looked
at
the
tag
called
our
vet.
The
vet
called
me
in
less
than
a
half
an
hour.
We
had
our
dog
back
and
if
pet
owners
aren't
responsible
and
don't
I
mean
the
law
requires
rabies,
shots,
we
got
our
Raby
shots
for
our
dog
consistently
and
he
was
chipped.
Also
so
I
don't
think
it
was
that
big,
a
deal
to
have
him
chipped,
I.
N
Think
if,
if
people
want
to
do
that
for
their
pets,
that's
fine
but
I.
Think,
at
a
time
when
we
have
rampant
inflation
and
the
economy
still
could
be
falling
apart,
I
do
not
want
to
put
any
more
expenses
on
citizens
in
this
city,
and
so
I
would
not
support
mandatory
at
all
city-wide
for
people
that
want
to
use
the
parks.
I
think
that's
fine.
Thank.
A
A
F
Go
ahead,
so
those
are
the
two
primary
and
and
again
it
goes
back
as
well
to
the
health
and
safety
and
I
did
not
mention
this.
We
do
have
a
rather
large
rabies
outbreak
in
the
state
of
Colorado,
and
so
this
is
another
way
to
verify
that
people
are
being
responsible
and
getting
their
vaccinations.
We
have
had
two
cases
of
confirmed
rabies
here
in
Inglewood
and
for
a
pet
owner
to
not
have
their
animal
proactively
vaccinated,
unfortunately,
that
animal
there's
some
consequences
for
not
being
vaccinated.
A
C
Thank
you,
mayor,
I
can
weigh
in
I
agree
that
I
think
that
this
offers
benefits
to
pet
owners
in
the
community,
especially
you
know
getting
their
pets
back
safe
if
they're
they
wander
and
I
think
that
if
citizens
are
asking
for
this,
this
is
a
service
that
you
know
we
can
provide.
It
seems
like
at
a
reasonable
amount,
I'm
not
in
favor
of
making
it
mandatory.
I
actually
would
not
make
it
mandatory
for
any
any
Resident,
even
including
Park
users.
I.
C
Just
think
that
parks
are
a
fundamental
public
good,
we're
already
paying
for
Parks
through
tax
dollars.
I
had
a
hard
time
asking
a
certain
portion
of
residence
who
happen
to
own
pets
that
they
have
to
pay
an
extra
fee
to
use
the
park.
With
that
pet
I
think
we've
struck
the
balance
with
the
policy.
We
have
right
now,
balancing
the
off-leash
areas
with
the
other
areas
in
our
Park
system,
and
so
I'd
like
to
make
it
fully
optional.
C
If
it
were
up
to
me
and
I
did
just
want
to
know
that
unincorporated
Arapahoe
County
actually
removed
their
requirement
to
have
your
pet
licensed
in
2020,
but
they
do
still
require
proof
of
rabies,
vaccination
and
I.
Think
that's
a
great
thing
to
call
out,
and
dog
dog
owners
and
Pounders
should
be
able
to
show
proof
of
that
vaccination
to
a
park
ranger
and
ensure
that
we're
keeping
people
safe
in
our
Parks
as
far
as
what
the
rate
would
be.
Denver
has
an
interesting
system.
I
think
like
the
first
year
is
15.
C
A
Thank
you,
mayor,
Pro,
Tem,
anyone
else,
I,
I,
guess
I'm,
not
sure.
If
you
have
Clarity
I,
it
does
sound
at
the
very
least
that
we
do
want
to
move
forward
with
this
not
make
it
mandatory.
Do
you
need
other
direction
in
terms
of
annual
fee
or
as
mayor
Pro
tem
just
stated,
making
it
mandatory,
at
least
for
Off
Lease
users
I
guess
we
probably
should
just
provide
Clarity
there.
Anybody
want
to
weigh
on
a
mayor,
Pro
tems
comments.
Go
ahead.
K
I!
Don't
really
you
know
you
guys,
can
bring
back
a
recommendation
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
As
you
know,
as
long
as
it's
a
reasonable
thing
and
then
in
turn
terms
of
the
the
outside
of
Inglewood
residents,
who
want
to
utilize
our
off-leash
parks,
I'm
thinking
more
in
the
like
tenfold
of
whatever
that
number
is
kind
of
range,
you
know
150
or
250,
or
something
something
along
those
lines,
something
very
significant
to
provide
a
little
deterrent
for
people
who
don't
you
know
to
keep
our
numbers
reasonable.
H
Think
I'd
set
the
differential
somewhere
closer
to
double
or
in
alignment
with
what
we
charge
for
a
recreational
facility
access
for
non-residents
that
seems
more
reasonable,
I
get
the
spirit
of
what
councilmember
Anderson
is
getting
at,
but
I
think.
That's,
basically
us
hanging
out
a
sign
that
says
Inglewood
resonance,
only
off
leash
and
or
ultra
wealthy
residents
from
other
municipalities
also
welcome
and
I
I
can't
support
that,
but
yeah
I
think
a
differential
is
is
good
and
I
think
it
fits
well
with
with
the
concept
of
good
governance.
M
A
You
thank
you,
member
Wilbur,
I'll,
chime
in
I'm
in
favor
of
what
member
mayor
Boutte
member
Anderson
member
Woodward,
stated
so
and
also
probably
like
2x.
What
a
current
resident
pays
so
does
that
give
you
enough
Direction
in
terms
of
where
Council
stands,
remember
new
account
I'll,
let
you
chime
in
and
then
let's
tap.
I
A
M
I
F
Yes,
so
I
will
go
back
to
docupet
and
we'll
look
at
the
the
financials
I
do
have
one
concern
that
this
may
be
a
program
that
may
not
be
self-sustainable
because
we're
not
able
to
have
enough
people
participate
in
the
program,
so
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
that
that
may
be
a
concern
coming
forward
that
this
may
not
be
able
to
move
forward.
Okay,.
A
Is
there
a
timeline?
Well,
I!
Guess
we'll
come
to
that
when
it
when
we
get
to
that
point,
but
I
do
understand
your
concern,
Mr
Lewis!
So
and
with
that
or
actually
remember
finishing
your
lights
still
on
anything
else,
all
right
and
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
the
next
Edition.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
the
discussion
tonight
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
R
R
Okay,
so
we
have
two
items
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
today,
that
are
it's
really
more
of
a
larger
regulatory
update,
as
it
relates
to
the
the
water
system
and
and
some
of
the
regulatory
changes
that
are
causing
increasing
pressure
and
needs
to
regular
regulations
to
address.
One
is
around
a
large
utility
designation
and
the
other
is
around
pfos,
which
we'll
talk
about
both
of
those
separately,
but
then
we'll
have
time
to
discuss
either
of
them
any
questions
associated
with
either
of
them,
so
large,
the
largest
system
utility.
R
The
background
on
this
is
the
the
state
of
Colorado
has
different
requirements
on
utilities
based
on
whether
they're
classified
as
a
large
utility
or
a
small
utility,
and
you
can
see
in
1991
the
last
time
this
was
looked
at
the
it's
a
it's
a
total
population
of
resident
of
permanent
residents
and
then
the
people
who
come
in
for
work
or
business
or
things
like
that
on
a
regular
basis.
And
so,
when
you
add
those
two
together
in
2000
or
1991,
it
was
forty
six
thousand
five
hundred.
R
We
did
this
again
at
the
state's
Direction
and
our
our
while
our
residential
population
stayed
fairly
stable
the
people
coming
into
work.
So
this
is
the
people
who
are
working
at
the
hospitals,
people
working
in
industrial
areas.
A
lot
of
you
know,
construction
related
things
like
that.
We
are
now
at
57
000.,
so
the
break
even
on
this
is
50
000..
So
once
you
exceed
fifty
thousand,
you
move
from
a
small
utility
designation
to
a
large
utility
designation.
So
that's
the
that's
the
how
we
got
there.
What
does
it
actually
mean?
R
Really
where
this
has?
The
most
effect
is
on
the
lead
and
copper
rule.
That's
what
LCR
stands
for
up
there,
and
so
essentially
what
it
means
is
now
we
have
to
now.
We
are
required
to
be
more
actively,
assessing
and
responding
to
any
lead
and
copper
related
issues
in
our
system.
Now
we've
been
doing
this
proactively
because
we
we
had
an
idea
that
this
was
coming.
This
now
just
moves
it
into.
R
R
So
it
doesn't
leech
out
lead
into
the
drinking
water,
and
this
is
where
Denver
Water
had
went
through
a
process
to
obtain
a
variance
from
the
EPA
to
actually
address
this,
because,
typically,
what
what
is
utilized
in
this
type
of
type
of
circumstance
is
a
is
an
orthophosphate.
So
it
introduces
phosphorus
into
the
water
and
then
we
turn
around,
and
then
we
have,
if,
as
you
recall,
at
South
flat
renew,
we
just
spent
almost
20
million
dollars,
putting
in
systems
to
remove
phosphorus
out
of
the
water.
R
The
other
thing
that
comes
along
with
that
is
an
accelerated
removal
of
those
lead
lines,
at
which
point
we
would
be
looking
at
doing
that
same
kind
of
thing.
We
want
to
do
an
accelerated
removal
process,
as
opposed
to
taking
20
years
to
do
this
right
now,
our
our
initial
right
now,
our
estimate
is
that,
if
we're
on
the
high
end
of
lead
service
lines,
which
we
think
might
be,
the
high
end,
is
8
000
of
the
11
000
connections
that
that
we
optimistically
you
could
get
through
that
in
about
seven
years.
R
That's
going
to
take
multiple,
multiple
contractors,
working
multiple
areas
of
the
city,
coordination,
there's
a
lot
of
coordination,
because
you'll
you'll
do
an
entire
Street
and
things
like
that.
So
we're
working
out
those
details
right
now,
but
that's
essentially
the
probably
the
most
significant,
more
immediate,
more
immediate
steps
that
need
to
be
put
in
place
and
then
you
can
see
some
of
the
other
things
toward
the
end,
which
is
total
coliform.
R
That's
just
our
testing,
a
testing
site
of
the
distribution
system
and
that
moves
from
50
to
60
and
then
the
last
one
is
DBP
is
disinfection
byproducts,
and
so
that's
a
total
trihalomethanes
and
Helio
acetic
acids.
Those
are
two
things
that,
if,
if
the
chemicals
that
are
that
are
disinfecting,
the
water
aren't
exactly
exactly
in
the
right
proportions.
That
can
be
a
byproduct
and
those
are
byproducts
that
we
don't
want
in
the
system,
and
so
we
already
test
for
four
right
now.
That
would
move
to
eight
the
funding
of
all.
R
R
That's
a
lot
on
the
large
service,
large
large
utility,
that's
what
comes
with
with
becoming
a
large
utility.
So
the
other
issue
that
we've
been
working
with
the
the
state
on
more
recently
is
pfos.
So
these
are
forever
chemicals
you've
probably
heard
about
them.
There's
been
a
lot
of
focus
on
them
in
in
the
past
couple
years,
so
these
are
perfluoro
alkyl
substances.
R
These
are
chemical
compounds
that
were
developed
in
the
1940s
they're
used
in
all
kinds
of
stuff,
they're
used
in
carpet,
they're
used
in
firefighting,
foam
they're
used
in
non-stick
cookware
they're
used
in
Gore-Tex
anything
that's
like
a
water,
repellent
they're
used
in
pizza
boxes.
If
you,
if
you're
repelling,
grease,
there's
probably
a
pfos
in
there.
A
lot
of
plastics
have
pfos
in
them
and
so
there's
over
9
000
of
these
compounds.
But
we
have
to
test
for
a
certain
number
of
of
them
and
they
are
p
foa
and
pfos.
R
The
I,
don't
exactly
remember
one's
a
perfluoroxic
acid,
the
acid's
last
word
and
then
the
other
ones
p5s,
but
they're.
All
part
of
these
floral
alkyl
substances,
low
concentrations
over
time
have
health
effects.
So
there
was
a
health
advisory
in
place
that
Health
advisory
changed
middle
of
2022
and
it
lowered
the
levels.
R
that
moved
from
70
in
20
in
2020
to
four
parts
per
quadrillion
in
2022.
And
so
when
you
move
to
four
parts
per
quadrillion,
you
can
see
we're
still
at
two
we've
gone
down
a
little
bit,
but
we're
at
2.6
parts
per
trillion,
and
so
we
exceed
that
Health
advisory
level.
So
the
health
advisory
level
is
not
a
a
regulated
standard.
It
is
an
advisory
level
for
the
community
and
especially
susceptible
members
of
the
community,
to
be
aware
that
this
is
that
this
is
something
that
is
in
the
drinking
water.
R
So
what
we
have
to
do
is
we
have
to.
We
have
to
provide
we're
required
right
now
to
provide
some
public
notification
as
a
result
of
this,
and
so
we
we're
getting
a
page
up
on
our
website
that
lists
this
information,
we'll
provide
regular
updates,
but
more
immediately.
We
have
to
provide
notice
to
the
public,
and
so
we
have
a
direct
mailer
that
we've
worked
with
the
state.
We
were
working
the
language
on
this
up
until
late
last
week
with
the
state
of
Colorado.
R
It's
a
three-page
fact
sheet:
that's
going
to
go
on
everyone's
bill
in
February
and
it
essentially
runs
through
the
aspects
of
of
pfos,
and
the
last
thing
we
have
to
do
is
a
press
release
and
that
will
capture
anybody
else
who
potentially
doesn't
have
a
that
doesn't
get
a
bill,
and
so
the
the
main
areas
of
this
is
going
to
run
through
quickly.
What
the
main
areas
of
this.
O
R
Notice
are
so
the
first
section
is:
why
am
I
receiving
this
notification
and
basically
is
talking
about
what
pfos
is
where
it
can
be
found?
How
we
got
to
this
point,
where
it's
essentially
in
so
much
of
the
source
water
throughout
the
nation
and
and
Englewood,
is
not
immune
to
that.
What
are
pfos
compounds
that
talks
about
the
9000
chemicals
things
that
are
used
to
as
stain
repellents
water
and
grease
other
in
cosmetics
too?
There's
a
lot
of
Cosmetics
that
have
them.
R
What
is
the
EPA
Health
advisory
level,
and
what
does
it
mean
that
essentially,
talks
about
the
health
advisory
levels
are
not
enforceable?
Like
established
drinking
water
regulations,
however,
they're
for
public
awareness
they're,
so
some
of
the
some
of
the
things
that
human
Studies
have
shown
is
there's
strong
evidence
that
exposures
to
people
and
pfos
impacts
the
immune
system,
increased
cholesterol,
decreases
of
infant
birth
weight
and
can
cause
change
in
liver
function.
R
So
so
you
can
see
that
people
have
who
are
who
are
susceptible
in
those
areas,
so
pregnant
women,
young
children,
people
have
some
immuno
issues
could
potentially
be
at
risk
here,
and
so
it's
it's
just
providing
the
information
that
that
even
in
quantities
of
four
parts
per
quadrillion
which
for
a
frame
a
reference,
that's
four
drops
in
4,
000
olympic
size
swimming
pools.
To
give
you
a
sense
for
how
small
we're
talking
about
here?
R
What
are
the
actions
that
you
can
consider
and
we
provide
resources
on
the
for
for
cdphe,
as
well
as
some
EPA
resources
on
what
you
can
do.
One
of
the
most
important
things
that
we
as
a
community
can
do
is
stop
using
these
items,
because
every
time
we
use
these
items,
they
shed
these
chemicals
and
they
make
their
way
to
the
receiving
Waters.
R
R
So
one
of
the
things
one
of
the
questions
is,
should
I
drink
bottled
water,
and
the
statement
on
that
is
cdphe
cannot
verify
that
all
bottled
water
is
below
the
interim,
pfos
Health
advisory
levels.
So
there's
there's
a
so.
They
put
this
level
really
really
really
low
and
there's
only
a
couple
labs
in
the
entire
country.
They
can
test
close
to
that
level,
but
there's
there's
not
a
firm
assurance
that
people
connect
that
Labs
can
actually
detect
to
this
level.
R
So
if
you
can't
detect
a
level,
you
can't
say
that
it's
free
of
it.
So
there's
there's
some
issues
around
that,
so
around
bottled
water,
it
basically
what
the
what
the
recommendation
is,
choosing
a
brand
that
has
been
treated
with
reverse
osmosis.
If
you
are
going
to
levels
in
Englewood,
we
talked
about
they're
really
low,
however
they're
not
below
that
extremely
low
level
at
the
health
advisory,
and
then
what
we're
doing
is
we're
continuing
to
monitor
there.
There
are
I
think
this
is
the
next
step
slides.
So
we
are.
R
We
are
looking
at
what
the
regulation
is
they're
in
the
process
of
developing
regulations
around
this.
So
there'll
be
a
rule
that
will
be
effective
in
2026.
We
are
monitoring,
we
will
continue
to
monitor
and
then
we'll
also
look
at
methods
to
continue
to
add
treatment,
processes
or
or
methods
to
try
and
get
that
number
even
lower
down
to
that
four
parts
per
quadrillion.
R
Ultimately,
this
was
not
accounted
for
in
the
in
our
financial
plans,
so
we're
not
quite
sure
what
the
technology
is.
That's
going
to
be
a
lot.
That's
going
to
allow
us
to
get
to
that
level
where
we're
working
on
figuring
that
out,
we
are
there's.
Also
some
grant
money
out
there
that
we're
going
after
to
to
help
us
with
some
pilot
studies
and
then,
like
I,
said
we'll
provide
multiple
updates.
R
So
it's
a
it's
an
emerging
contaminant
issue.
There's
definitely
a
lot
of
focus
on
it.
We
don't.
We
do
not
have
high
levels
in
our
water,
but
because
that
Health
advisory
level
changed
from
70
to
70
parts
per
trillion
to
four
parts
per
quadrillion.
We
are
now
in
this
circumstance
we
are
actually
one
of
the
first
water
providers
in
the
State
to
actually
go
through
this
entire
process.
R
If
you
go
to
the
website,
you'll
see
a
lot
of
water
providers
who
haven't
gone
through
the
testing,
so
we're
someone
on
the
Leading
Edge
of
this
from
a
from
a
water
provider
perspective
and
with
that
that
is
a
lot
of
information
on
two
regulatory
things
that
we've
been
tracking
over
the
last
year
or
so.
Thank.
A
R
This
is
informational
for
all
of
you
and
and
more
importantly,
the
the
letter
is
going
to
go
out
in
the
February
Bill,
we're
required
by
the
state
to
get
this
out,
and
so
this
is
I
want
you
all
to
be
aware
of
it
and
I.
We
could
probably
send
an
advanced
copy
to
the
to
the
council
directly,
so
you
have
it
because
it'll
end
up
being
in
everybody's
bill,
yeah.
A
H
R
Not
I
wouldn't
say
we're
being
punished,
we're
just
one
of
the
first
out
of
the
gate,
I
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
and
that's
because
we
were
proactively
testing
for
this,
because
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
be
able
to
understand
what
our
levels
were.
We
we
had
to
test
in
2020.
We
got
that
information
back
and
then
we
were
just
one
of
the
first
ones
that
has
been
required.
Everybody's
gonna
have
to
go
through
this,
so
it's
more
of
just
like
what
order
the
line
were.
H
R
H
R
In
reality,
very
few,
the
majority
of
the
other
water
water
providers
that
discharge
the
SBR
are
actually
served
by
Denver
Water,
and
so
when
this
was
an
issue
with
Denver
Water,
we
at
South
Platt
got
aligned
with
Metro
Wastewater
and
other
and
Denver
Water.
For
that
fact,
in
in
saying,
hey
wait
a
minute:
don't
don't
throw
all
this
phosphorus
loading
in
so
that
we
have
to
spend
all
this
money
at
the
wastewater
treatment
and
to
pull
it
all
back
out
when
there's
a
methodology
through
this
variance
that
works.
R
The
EPA
just
recently
said
that
the
the
Denver
Water
variants
for
this
was
actually
so
successful
that
other
communities
Across
the
Nation
should
use
it
as
a
model
and
so
we're
just
we're
going
to
skip
right
to
the
model
Works
we're
surrounded
by
Denver
Water.
We
think
you
know
the
community
is
familiar
with.
This
is
not
such
a
shock.
R
I
mean
I,
think
it'll
be
an
initial
shock,
but
I
think
if,
if
you've
heard
about
you,
know
Denver
water's
response
to
this,
you
know
the
the
the
the
process
of
of
the
the
filter
pitchers
and
things
like.
That
is
something
that's
not
new,
and
so
you
know
they've
they've
gone
through
it
and
so
we're
just
gonna
align
with
that,
because
it
makes
the
most
sense.
H
Okay
and
then
I
do
have
a
couple
more
questions,
but
this
will
be
my
last
one
for
now
you
you
mentioned
the
detection
standard
and
the
inability
to
test
at
the
standard
that
the
EPA
has
set
and
and
I'm
curious.
What
other
water
districts
might
be
saying
about
that?
If
there's
an
opportunity
here
to
connect
with
The
Regulators
as
a
large
group
and
say
why
are
you
setting
a
standard?
That's
impossible,
literally
impossible
to
me.
R
So
I
will
say
on
a
number
of
areas:
that's
occurring:
I
participate
in
a
large
utility
general
managers
group
that
works
that
coordinates
with
cdphe,
the
head
of
the
water
quality
control,
Division
and
the
and
the
leaders
over
there.
So
it's
it's
myself,
the
general
manager
of
Denver,
Water,
Aurora,
Water,
Metro,
Wastewater
and
then
Colorado
Springs
Utilities,
so
the
five
of
us,
since
we
have
large
utilities.
This
is
a
South
Platte
is
a
large
utility.
R
We
meet
on
a
quarterly
basis,
and
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
has
has
come
up
repeatedly-
is
you're
we're
pushing
out
this
health
advisory
level
and
you're
expecting
us
to
test,
but
there's
only
two
labs
in
the
in
the
country
that
can
actually
test
this
level
and
we're
not
sure
that
they
can
test.
All
the
way
to
this
level
and
I.
Think
where
cdphe
is,
is
somewhat
got
their
hands
tied.
Is
this
coming
from
the
EPA,
and
so
at
the
national
level?
R
There
are
a
couple
of
organizations:
one's
American,
Association
of
Municipal
Water
providers
and
then
the
National
Association
of
Clean
Water
agencies,
and
so
those
are
much
more
regulatory
based
advocacy
lobbying
groups
that
are
in
Washington
DC
we're
actually
a
member
of
naqua
at
spr,
but
those
that's
that
in
combination
with
AWA
they're
they're.
Taking
more
of
this,
this
national
approach
to
EPA
to
try
and
find
something
that
that's
reasonable.
Because
exactly
your
point
is
the
point
that
we're
expressing
is
like
how?
How
can
we
comply
with
something?
C
T
T
K
K
R
K
The
challenges
that
occurred
to
me
is,
if
we're
doing
this
on
an
accelerated
timeline,
are
we
doing
it
faster
than
we're
able
to
repave
our
streets
and
what
is
the
impact
on
on
our
residential
streets
from
all
these?
These
Street
Cuts
over
that
seven
year
time
frame?
Have
you
been
in
discussions
with
public
works
on
that,
and
and
do
we
anticipate,
you
know
an
increasing
problem
with
our
streets
created
by
this
accelerated
timeline.
R
So
so
you're
exactly
right.
This
is
that's
one
of
the
issues
with
an
accelerated
program
is
that
coordination
with
streets
I
think
what
the
what
we're
working
through
we're
working
through
a
lot
of
those
details
right
now,
I
think
the
the
if
we
do
a
number
of
Street
Cuts,
typically
the
the
response
on
that-
would
be
a
Mill
and
overlay
or
some
some
kind
of
a
not
a
full
repave
of
the
street.
K
R
I
R
We
think
that
90
million
total
is
enough
to
cover
removal
of
lead
service
lines
to
the
degree
to
which
we
completely
redo
the
street
as
part
of
it.
It
really
comes
down
to
how
those
costs
start
to
come
back.
If
it's
less
lines,
there's
probably
going
to
be
more
available
for
that.
If
it's
more
lines
then
then
it
might,
it
might
be
become
more
of
a
challenge,
I
think.
R
As
a
as
a
rule,
we
can
definitely
incorporate
a
large
portion,
if
not
all,
of
that,
into
repairing
that
street,
because
the
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
have
a
line
of
hatches
where
your
wheel
hits
it
every.
You
know
every
right,
50
feet,
so
I
think
it's
a
detail,
we're
working
out
and
it
really
comes
down
to
the
you
know.
The
funding
aspect
of.
K
R
Really
our
next
step,
our
next
step
is
to
do
a
full,
detailed
inventory
and
find
out
exactly
how
many
we
have
and
exactly
where
they
are
I.
Think
the
the
issue
is,
the
majority
of
the
city
was
built
in
you,
know:
post
World,
War,
II,
so
late,
40s
and
all
the
way
through
the
50s
and
the
the
technology
of
of
the
day
was
lead
service
lines,
and
so
because
of
when
a
lot
of
our
houses
or
that's
how
we
ended
up
with
the
the
8
000
number
was
looking
at
age
of
of
home
construction.
R
Now,
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
could
go
into
that.
If
you
know
someone's
replaced
it
or
you
know,
or
if
they
were
using
it
or
they
were
using
copper
or
something
else.
That's
what
that's
that
next
step
is
to
dial
in
on
that.
Thank
you,
director
on
the
street
Cut
Thing.
The
thing
we're
not
going
to
do
is
leave
a
a
street.
That's
got
a
line
of
patches
all
the
way
through
it.
R
S
N
R
R
We
we
reduce
at
that
point
in
time
or
just
because
of
our
large
utility
designation
and
the
copper
aspect,
we're
we're
just
at
this
level
of
testing.
It's
it's
not
an
it's,
not
an
it's,
not
an
unreasonable
amount
of
testing.
It
doesn't
create
a
huge
burden
on
us.
It's
more,
but
it's
not.
You
know
a
huge
burden.
R
So
one
of
the
Technologies
out
there
that
will
do
this
is
reverse
osmosis.
But
if
we,
if
we're
looking
at
a
reverse
osmosis
system,
one,
that's
really
really
expensive.
Two
you've
got
the
the
byproduct,
the
the
brine
product.
That
comes
out
of
that
that
you
have
to
dispose
of
we're,
concentrating
the
the
pfos
in
that.
So
that's
where
we,
that
might
be
a
technology.
What
we're
looking
into
is
what
are:
are
there
more
affordable
technologies
that
will
will
get
us
to
that
point?
R
That's
where
we're
in
this
we're
in
this
place,
where
there's
a
health
advisory
which
isn't
necessary,
which
isn't
a
regulatory
rule,
but
it's
to
get
the
public
aware
that
there
is
this
issue
out
there
issue
out
there.
Thankfully,
we
as
a
water
provider,
are
really
really
low,
and
so
then
it
becomes
an
individual
assessment
of
you
know,
risk
but
long
term
I
think
we're
looking
at
what
is
the
most
cost
effective
way
that
we
can
actually
get
to
the
point
where
we're
in
compliance
with
whatever
the
rule
becomes.
P
You
mayor
I,
I,
just
want
to
ensure
Council
that
we
have
heard
you
all
loud
and
clear
in
terms
of
the
paving
and
making
sure
that
we
are
doing
this
in
conjunction
with
Public
Works.
One
thing
that
I
have
seen
in
another
city
is
a
a
tendency
to
try
to
subsidize
the
pavement
your
pavement
costs,
which
is
really
putting
something
on
the
backs
of
the
water
rate
payers
in
terms
instead
of
the
taxpayers.
P
Granted
it's
a
lot
of
the
same
people,
but
we
do
want
to
be
careful
that,
if
the,
if
the
grant
funds
pay
for
that,
we
just
have
to
keep
in
mind
that
52
percent
of
that
is
actually
a
loan
that
would
be
paid
by
the
water
fund.
I
mean
the
water
users,
so
we'll
we'll
double
check
that
in
terms
of
if
they
pay
for
a
patch
or
if
they
pay
for
an
entire
kind
of
Lane
replacement.
So
yeah.
H
Tem
I
I
have
a
couple
of
other
things
when
I
was
briefing.
This.
My
concern
overall
is
is
just
with
the
message
that
we're
sending
to
the
people
who
consume
our
water.
We
had
a
couple
of
incidents
in
2021
that
had
to
be
reported
and
we
have
been
telling
them
over
and
over
and
over
again
we're
making
improvements.
That's
why
you're
you're
seeing
a
higher
Bill,
and
now
we
have
a
new
message
saying:
oh,
we
just
discovered
another
another
issue
that
we
have
to
report
to
you
now
so
I
I
guess
you
know.
H
I
I
heard
you
talk
about
the
message
that
we're
we're
putting
out
and
I
appreciate
the
work
that's
gone
into
that,
but
what
what
am
I
telling
people
when,
when
I'm
talking
to
them
in
the
community,
you
know
how
can
I
I
guess
the
the
problem
I'm?
Having
is
how?
How
can
I
look
somebody
in
the
eye
and
say
things
are
getting
better
when
the
messaging
that's
coming
at
them?
It
seems
to
indicate
that
things
are
getting
worse.
R
So
I
think
that
you
know
fundamentally
the
messages
of
the
water.
The
water
system
is
safe,
they're,
the
health
advisory.
Again,
it's
not
regulatory,
but
there
are.
There
are
individuals
in
our
community
that,
based
on
any
based
on
the
exposure
to
pfos,
could
present
more
of
a
problem
than
to
other
people.
So
I
think
this
is
for
for
people
in
that,
in
that
more
susceptible
category,
the
the
message
to
things
aren't
getting
worse.
R
This
is
just
how
they
are
right,
so
so
it's
not
like
we,
you
know,
we've
remarked,
become
remarkably
more
exposed
to
pfos
in
in
the
last
year.
It's
just
more
of
the
the
regulatory
landscape
is
putting
more
of
a
pressure
on
this,
and
this
isn't
just
affecting
us.
It's
affecting
every
water,
most
water
utilities
across
the
U.S,
and
so
this
is
one
of
the
things
that,
in
that,
in
that
General
manager's
meeting
is
how
do
we?
R
How
do
we
ensure
that
to
the
community
that
we're
addressing
that
we're
addressing
this
and
the
water
is?
Is
it
the
water's
safe?
It's
just
their
their
health
advisories
associated
with
this,
this
chemical,
these
chemicals,
which
these
chemicals
we
are
all
putting
into
into
the
the
water
the
by
the
by
the
products
we
buy
the
products
we
use,
and
so
this
is
a
societal,
ish
use
of
chemicals
that
makes
its
way
to
the
to
the
water.
R
The
actual
the
water
is
easy
to
to
put
a
focus
on,
because
it's
the
central
point
that
we
can
actually
and
incorporate
some
kind
of
a
treatment,
change
or
things
like
that.
The
the
method
or
the
the
mechanism
by
which
people
are
more
exposed
to
pfos
is
actually
through
food.
It's
through
the
it's
through
the
food
chain,
so
it
is,
people's
exposure
is,
is
much
greater
through
food
chain.
But
it's
a
much
that's
a
much
more
complex
area
to
try
to
install
new
regulations
to
address
this.
R
But
the
rest
of
society
is
is
has
been
dealing
with
these
chemicals
for
80
years
and
and
so
it's
it's
that
balancing
of
trying
to
do
the
right
thing,
but
also
not
trying
to
say
you
know
the
the
just,
because
we're
we're
not
at
four
parts
per
quadrillion
that
somehow
there's
a
there's
a
huge
issue
with
our
water
system.
Okay,.
M
M
R
I
was
actually
just
reading
an
article
this
weekend
of
a
of
an
orange
juice,
one
of
the
orange
juice
companies
and
I
want
to
say
the
wrong
one.
So
I'm
not
going
to
say
what
it
is,
but
it's
an
article
that
talks
about
the
the
orange
juice
being
all
natural
and
they're
facing
a
lawsuit
because
they've
tested
and
there's
levels
of
pfos
in
their
in
their
orange
juice.
So
they
people
are
arguing.
You
can't
say
it's
all
natural,
because
it's
got
pfos
in
it,
and
so
it
it
is.
R
It
is
everywhere
and,
and
our
job
is
to
do
all
the
best
that
we
can
for
the
water
system,
but
realizing
that
this
is
all
of
us.
I
mean
this
is
this.
Is
this
is
not
using
non-stick
cookware
that
sheds
its
way
into
the
water
system?
This
you
know,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
changes
in
from
a
from
a
chemical
manufacturing
perspective
and
a
product
usage.
R
A
A
A
Members
of
council
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
started,
we're
moving
on
to
agenda
item
eight.
It's
the
last
land
use
discussion
and
typography
follow
up
with
planning
manager,
Brian
Isom,
Matt
s,
Ashby
from
I
Ayers,
Associates
and
Chris
Brewster
from
actually
that
does
I.
Think.
Are
you
both
from
from
that
organization
I'm
noticing
that
there's
a
typo
there
here
to
discuss
the
land
use
discussion
so
I'll?
Kick
it
up
to
Mr
Eisen.
U
Good
evening,
mayor
and
Council
Brian
Isom
planning
manager,
Community
Development.
This
is
our
fifth
study
session
surrounding
the
unified
development
code
update
this
one
will
focus
on
chapter
four,
which
is
our
land
use
or
chapter
four.
Is
the
Zone
districts
and
uses
chapter
as
well
as
some
follow-up
items
from
I?
Believe
this,
the
November
28th
meeting
some
questions
surrounding
some
housing
typologies.
So
without
further
Ado
I'll,
let
Chris
go
through
the
presentation
and
then
we
also
have
some
interactive
maps
to
help
answer
some
questions.
V
Thanks
Brian
good
evening,
mayor
and
Council
Chris
Brewster,
with
multi-studio
to
clear
up
any
typos
that
may
be
in
there
we
partner
with
Ayers
quite
frequently
and
we're
happy
to
work
with
them
and
happy
to
work
with
Matt
and
his
group.
As
as
Brian
said,
this
is
chapter
four,
so
the
presentation
I'm
not
getting
the
slides
on
my
screen.
Oh
there
we
go
so
this
is
a.
This
is
a
overview
of
all
of
the
entire
code.
V
V
But
there
are
some
things
in
there
that
are
intimately
related
to
those
topics,
but
this
chapter
four
was
more
of
a
general
update
for
throughout
the
entire
code,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
we
we
kind
of
saved
it
for
last
till
all
those
other
pieces
shook
into
place,
but
there
also
are
some
things
that
are
distinctly
related
to
residential
development
and
housing,
and
some
of
the
ongoing
discussions
you're
having
with
chapter
five
and
so
as
Brian
mentioned,
we'll
cover
that
as
well.
So
next
slide
so
key
changes.
V
When
we
reorganize
the
code,
we
wanted
chapter
four
to
be
just
about
districts
and
uses,
so
the
actual
development
standards
things
about
the
physical
three-dimensional
development
of
what
you
can
do
on
a
site
or
housed
in
other
chapters.
So
this
is
really
just
about
the
map
that
kind
of
two-dimensional,
what
where
our
districts
laid
out
and
what
uses
are
enabled
there
so
like
in
in
all
of
the
provisions
of
the
code
we
started
with
where,
where
you
are
we're
at
and
just
did
a
bit
of
reorganization,
so
the
key
changes
were.
V
We
did
update
the
intent
statements
for
the
districts
to
correspond
to
your
comp
plan
better.
One
of
the
reasons
we
wanted
to
do
that
not
only
to
link
it
more
to
the
comp
plan,
but
also
to
test
ourselves
about.
Are
these
districts
relating
to
each
other,
because
they
we
do
want
them
to
correspond
to
related
districts,
because
the
when
people
experience
places
in
your
community,
they
don't
recognize
these
boundaries
right,
they're,
they're,
part
of
creating
integrated
places.
V
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
the
districts
corresponded
to
each
other
as
well,
and
we
we're
making
appropriate
distinctions
and
transitions
between
them,
and
so
the
intent
statements
really
help
us
do
that
we
revise
the
use
table.
You
currently
have
a
use
table,
that's
fairly
well
organized
in
your
code,
but
what
we
went
through
was
we
wanted
to
try
and
simplify
it
and
that
mainly
involved
removing
things
that
were
redundant
when
we
found
several
very
specific
uses
that
might
be
enabled
in
the
exact
same
way
or
when
there
was
overlap
of
use
categories.
V
We
were
looking
for
ways
to
combine
those
just
to
simplify
the
table
down.
There
was
also
a
reason
to
generalize
so
that
we
could
be
more
flexible
with
uses
both
uses
that
are
emerging
over
time,
but
also
just
the
general
idea
of
being
flexible
and
I'll.
Talk
to
that
in
a
moment
and
then
the
most
significant
changes
we
made
I
think
were
beginning
to
distinguish
some
of
the
uses
by
scale
and
by
that
I
mean
how
large
a
building,
how
large
a
land
area.
V
What's
the
typical
format
of
the
use,
because
that
can
have
a
more
dramatic
difference
on
on
the
on
an
area
or
surrounding
sites
and
whether
a
use
fits
and
then
then
the
use
itself
often,
and
when
we
did
that
we
usually
we
did
it
in
one
of
two
ways.
We
either
built
off
of
things
that
were
already
in
your
code,
beginning
to
distinguish
by
scale.
You
had
some
things
that
were
limited
by
square
footage
or
other
indicators
of
scale
or
a
rough
assessment
of
the
buildings
through
Google,
Maps
and
windshield
surveys.
V
A
rough
assessment
of
what
was
existing
in
those
districts
as
well
and
then
overall,
relying
on
improved
design
standards
to
bring
the
larger
compatibility
that
everyone's
interested
in
the
other
thing
I
will
talk
about.
Is
there
were
some
specific
housing
issues,
one
making
sure
the
table
corresponds
to
any
of
the
changes
we
were
making
in
chapter
five
with
regard
to
housing
types
anyway,
and
then
there
were
some
specific
use
standards,
mainly
with
adus
and
manufactured
housing,
that
that
will
be
updated.
That
I'll
mention
specifically
in
a
couple
of
upcoming
slides
the
next
slide.
V
V
The
first
thing
we
did
is
we
wanted
to
make
sure
none
of
the
zoning
districts
were
going
to
be
changing
dramatically
because,
quite
frankly,
we
didn't
hear
any
real
problems
with
how
what
was
enabled
and
why.
So.
It
really
was
more
of
a
kind
of
a
cleanup
or
a
tune-up
exercise
more
than
anything
else.
So
we
wanted
all
of
the
existing
zoning
districts
to
really
retain
all
of
the
existing
uses
they
they
had
previously
and
maybe
in
some
cases,
I
had
a
few
others.
V
In
case
we
knew
of
a
either
a
conflict
or
an
interpretation
issue.
We
did
simplify
and
eliminate
some
of
the
distinctions.
We
found
a
number
of
things
where
there
weren't
really
a
regulatory
impact
on
why
there
were
just
different
distinctions,
and
so
we
removed
some
of
those
and
then
refining
by
scale
as
I
mentioned,
and
then
when
we
did
that
we
did
comb
through
with
staff
and
look
at
things
where
you'll
see
in
our
use
table
that
there's
really
this
sort
of
tiered
effect.
That
is
the
distance
you
move
more
towards
the
left.
V
To
enable
a
greater
mix
that
occurred
mainly
in
some
of
the
MU
R
districts,
or
really
most
more
often
in
the
M
Districts
The
Districts
that
were
already
mixed
use
that
might
have
been
prohibiting
a
use
for
some
reason,
mainly
because
it's
anticipated
in
a
very
large
scale,
but
in
in
projects
where
you
wanted
more
mixed
use,
a
smaller
scale.
Application
of
that
use
might
be
appropriate
next
slide.
V
These
are
a
couple
of
examples
to
show
you
what
I
mean
by
by
some
of
those
tune-ups
and
and
this
these
examples
occurred,
maybe
in
in
you
know,
10
or
12
instances
throughout
the
use
table,
but
the
the
lighter
font
is
what
how
your
code
previously
category
is,
what
we
would
call
assembly
uses.
So
it
really
went
to
the
specific
use
itself,
so
religious
assembly
or
a
church
assembly
hall
or
a
membership
organization
we're
all
treated
as
different
uses,
even
though
they
had
the
same
Essence
to
them.
V
They're
things
where
people
Gather
in
larger
numbers
at
some
type
of
facility,
but
the
previous
code
was
distinguishing
them
on
on
the
actual
activity
that
was
occurring,
not
the
the
general
activity,
and
so
you
would
get
things
that
a
religious
assembly
was
allowed
in
all
of
your
residential
districts,
kind
of
stemming
from
the
historic
idea
that
we
we
want
churches
and
places
of
worship
in
our
neighborhoods,
because
they're
good
Community
anchors.
However,
nowadays
they
also
come
in
very
large
scale
events
and
they
aren't
appropriate.
V
Another
example,
with
a
specific
commercial
use,
Animal
Care
and
sales
covering
a
broad
range
of
things
that
could
be
Veterinary,
Care,
anything
that
that
takes
care
of
animals
or
or
even
sells,
retail
or
pet
store.
So
things
like
that.
So
again,
on
the
left,
you
see
your
uses
and
the
current
code
listed
more
specifically
towards
the
type
of
use,
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
say
anything
about
how
large
or
small
it
is.
So
we,
when
we
re-characterize
those
we
did
it.
V
You
can
just
see
those
uses
tiering
through
through
your
mixed
use,
districts
and
then
all
the
way
up
to
the
industrial
for
the
more
intense
ones.
Next
slide
a
couple
of
specific
uses
so
now
we're
moving
into
outside
of
the
table.
There
is
a
range
of
things
in
your
current
code
that
have
very
specific
standards
and
conditions
and
manufactured
housing
is
one
of
those
it's
currently
only
allowed
in
your
eye,
districts,
industrial,
and
so
we
we
were
taking
a
look
at
that,
based
on
the
the
issue
of
housing.
V
Being
such
an
important
topic
for
the
the
city
and
following
some
of
the
trends
of
what
people
are
doing
with
small
format,
housing.
So,
essentially
what
we
did
was
we
tried
to
broaden
this
type
of
use
to
make
it
more
applicable
for
a
wider
range
of
small
format,
housing
which
can
be
quite
affordable.
V
So
not
just
your
typical
trailer
park
that
most
people
Envision
from
the
you
know
that
your
code
kind
of
was
one
of
those
70s
eras
codes
where
it's
talking
about
those
in
terms
of
manufactured
or
mobile
homes
and
every
home
site
is
a
narrow
trailer
and
it's
it's
in
something
that
we
want
to
sell,
separate
and
put
away
from
other
uses.
But
what
we're
finding
is
a
wide
range
of
small
format.
V
Are
the
things
of
of
what's
changing
and
what's
not
I
think
the
keys
I
would
point
to?
Is
we're
still
doing
this
in
a
limited
fashion
where
it's
only
allowed
in
the
eye
districts?
So
it's
going
to
likely
only
apply
to
your
current
sites
that
you
already
have
and
so
on.
What's
changing
staff
helped
us
identify
that
the
current
standards
were
really
meant
to
be
prohibitive
toward
this
type,
rather
than
encourage
it,
and
not
that
we're
encouraging
it
everywhere,
but
I
think
it's
a.
V
It
could
be
a
valuable
tool,
particularly
to
redevelop
some
of
the
existing
ones
as
they
become
aging
or
people
want
to
reinvest
in
them.
It
wouldn't
be
so
easy
under
your
current
standards,
so
we're
looking
at
making
some
of
those
barriers
a
little
less
than
they
were
intended
to
be
when
the
code
was
first
written.
V
V
So
we're
looking
at
that-
and
the
steering
committee
heard
this
same
presentation
a
little
over
a
week
ago
and
had
a
couple
other
suggestions
for
us
to
look
at,
and
one
was
on
that
density
yield
to
look
at
some
of
the
existing
areas
where
there
are
manufactured
housing
and
seeing
the
number
of
units
and
seeing
if
we're,
we
would
be
comparable
under
those
standards
as
well.
So
we're
we'll
be
looking
at
that
under
the
final
draft.
V
But
overall
the
approach
was
to
elevate
the
community
design
lower
some
of
the
barriers
and
allow
some
reinvestment
in
this
for
a
wider
variety
of
small
format,
homes,
with
the
exchange
of
if
it
has
better
Community
design.
We
would
want
to
see
these
reinvested
in
rather
than
something
that's
pushed
aside
or
or
not
encouraged,
so
to
speak
next
slide
accessory
dwelling
unit.
V
So
a
big
discussion
with
the
with
the
overall
housing
policy
and
throughout
our
all
of
our
community
engagement
in
the
spring
months
of
of
last
year,
and
so
where
we
ended
up,
was
to
enable
them
in
all
of
the
R1
districts.
So
that
was
part
of
what
we
discussed
in
chapter
five
with
the
development
standards.
V
There's
also
a
list
of
conditions
that
are
currently
in
your
code
that
are
housed
in
what
would
be
chapter
four,
the
chapter
on
uses,
and
so
this
is
our
chance
to
take
a
look
at
those
and
and
make
sure
we're
pushing
on
the
appropriate
levels
levers
as
we
encourage
accessory
dwelling
units
in
more
places.
So
again,
what's
changing.
What's
not
a
couple
that
I
will
point
out,
one
is
the
in
association
with
our
discussion
on
housing
types,
the
idea
of
allowing
potentially
two
accessory
units
on
the
same
lot.
V
If
it's
a
larger
lot
that
came
from
one
of
our
steering
committee
members,
when
we
brought
up
the
discussion
of
allowing
it
in
r1a
and
r1b,
which
which
can
be
the
larger
Lots
there
was
this
idea
of
well,
those
are
actually
the
lots
that
are
more
accommodating
of
these,
and
therefore
can
we
allow
an
additional
one
related
to
that
where
we
would
typically
see
that
happen
would
be
allowing
an
accessory
unit
as
an
attached
unit,
so
either
a
basement
apartment
or
a
attic
apartment.
Something
like
that.
V
So
we
are
allowing
that,
particularly
if
we
want
to
explore
the
idea
of
having
two
on
the
same
lot,
because
all
of
them
will
be
subject
to
the
lot
coverage
and
building
standards
which
might
be
be
limiting
to
enabling
that
unless
one
of
them
was
attached
or
internal
to
the
primary
unit,
and
then
another
thing
that
came
up
at
our
steering
committee
meeting
was
one
we
were
sensitive.
We,
as
the
consultant
were
sensitive
to
your
current
standards.
V
That
said,
has
something
to
the
effect
of
the
size:
she'll
be
no
more
than
600
square
feet
or
up
to
100
of
the
primary
unit.
One
of
the
benefits
of
accessory
dwelling
units
is
that
that
first
word
their
accessory,
in
other
words,
they're,
usually
smaller
and
subordinate
to
the
main
unit,
and
so
we
didn't
want
to
automatically
convert
this
into
a
two
unit
property.
So
we
brought
down
that
percentage
requirement
down
to
it
needs
to
be
no
more
than
75
percent
of
the
main
unit.
V
It's
keeping
the
single
family
nature
of
the
the
the
the
site
and
the
the
buildings
on
the
complex
and
then,
but
we
did
see
an
opportunity
to
actually
raise
the
minimum
square
footage
because
600
is
is
small,
but
on
a
larger
home
and
lot
that
might
be,
perhaps
maybe
even
be
too
small,
and
so
we
suggested
raising
that
to
800
so
kind
of
a
trading
scale.
There.
V
However,
with
our
steering
committee
input,
they
someone
who's
experience
in
the
field
said:
that's
actually
kind
of
cumbersome
and
complicated
to
deal
with
and
and
and
he
actually
preferred.
Why
don't
we
just
set
a
square
footage
limit
and
be
done
with
it
and
not
worry
about
these
percentages,
because
on
development
projects,
you're
you're,
often
playing
with
a
lot
of
moving
parts?
V
Some
of
the
things
that
aren't
changing
or
are
on
the
right
a
lot
of
the
the
filing
the
parking
requirement,
although
we
did,
that
was
a
big
one
where
I
think
the
community
was
accepting
of
this.
But
we
did
hear
a
lot
of
concern
about
as
long
as
it
doesn't
exasperate
or
create
a
parking
problem
for
our
neighborhood.
So
we
do
think
it's
important
to
keep
that,
but
we
also
know
that
there's
going
to
be
plenty
of
opportunities
where
a
parking
requirement
may
not
be
driving
the
site.
V
In
other
words,
if
you
maybe
you
can
find
on
street-
or
maybe
it
truly
is
one
in
one
of
your
most
Transit
served
areas.
So
the
ability
to
have
an
administrative
waiver
of
that
parking
requirement
and
having
some
criteria
on
how
and
when
you
would
would
make
that
decision
we
did
think
was
important.
Also
brought
up
with
the
steering
committee
is
that
that
parking
requirement
is
not
necessarily
in
interior
space,
so
it
doesn't
mean
you
have
to
have
a
garage
so
on
most
sites,
particularly
alley
loaded
longer
lots.
V
So
this
is
kind
of
I
guess
this
is
a
segue
into
the
second
part
of
our
conversation,
where
we
will
Circle
back
and
revisit
some
of
the
questions
you
had
related
to
housing
on
in
the
in
chapter
five,
mainly
the
idea
of
the
R1
districts,
and
should
they
allow
more
multi-unit
buildings
rather
than
just
the
smaller
Lots
in
adus,
so
I
think
I'll
pause
here
and
see
if
there's
any
discussion
or
questions
before
we
move
on
or
if
you'd
prefer.
I
can
just
keep
going
through
the
presentation.
No.
A
K
Thank
you
mayor
and
thank
you
Mr
Brewster
for
walking
us
through
this
again.
I
did
I,
went
back
and
watched
our
our
meeting
from
November
28th,
where
we
had
talked
about
a
lot
of
this
I,
also
watched
the
steering
committee
meeting
from
December,
12th
or
January.
Sorry,
January,
12th
and
I
just
wanted
to
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
process
for
his
work
kind
of
giving
you
feedback
how
that's
making
it
you
know
making
it
back
into
back
into
the
system
we
had
on
on
the
28th.
K
We
had
come
to
consensus
on
I
think
several
things
Council
wanted
to
to
see
in
the
draft
that
ultimately
comes
back
to
us,
or
we
can
of
course
make
I
know
we'll
have
an
opportunity
to
amend,
amend
the
final
version
as
well,
but
here's
a
few
of
the
things
we
had
said
at
that
meeting
for
adus,
allowing
the
2A
to
use
on
on
6000
square
foot
Lots.
Another
one
was
allowing
1500
us
up
to
1500
square
foot
or
15
of
the
lot
size
was
something
else
that
we
had.
K
We
had
agreement
on
and
then
at
a
previous
meeting
we
had
talked
about
eliminated
parking
requirement
for
a
to
use.
You
know
these
are.
These
are
big
things
that
in
in
Cole
Peterson's
book,
The
Adu
expert
where
he
says
these
are
poison
pills
and
there's
a
number
of
other
ones.
That
I
think
we
still
have
in
there
I
think
I
think
adu's
really
presented
opportunity
to.
We
found
it.
K
We
passed
pass
an
ordinance,
it
didn't
work,
the
80s
are
not
getting
built,
and
these
this
is
a
really
great
opportunity
for
a
lot
of
variety
of
different
types
of
affordable
housing.
A
lot
of
different
places.
So
I'd
really
like
to
see
these
things
get
worked
back
in
there
and
I
noticed
they
didn't
they
didn't
come
up
in
your
draft.
The
steering
committee
didn't
didn't
get
a
chance
to
see
council's
recommendations
on
those
particular
issues.
Are
those
going
to
come
back?
I
mean
it'll
come
back
before
pnz?
What?
K
What
is
the
process
for
making
sure
that
I
think
the
the
path
of
least
resistance
here
would
be,
if
you
know,
if
p
and
Z
got
a
chance
to
really
discuss
what
we
already
know,
Council
has
has
support
for.
Obviously
there
we
have
multiple
chances
to.
You
know
opportunities
to
weigh
in
on
this,
so
we'll
get
to
see
it
again,
but
I
wanted
to
see
what
you
know,
what
you're
doing
with
the
feedback
that
we're
we're
getting
you,
especially
on
the
adus
here.
V
Yes,
so
that's
kind
of
part
of
the
reason
why
a
lot
of
five
and
four
is
lumped
back
into
our
Circle
back
with
you
all
this
evening,
because
we're
tracking
those
and
then
the
things
that
we're
showing
here
in
chapter
four
that
list
is.
It
really
went
to
the
steering
committee
for
the
first
time
on
that
meeting
on
the
12th
you've
seen
and
before
you
all
tonight,
so
we're
monitoring
some
of
that
discussion
on
the
the
parking,
the
the
square
footage
and
all
that.
V
K
A
N
K
N
K
With
regard
to
the
square
footage
size,
because
we
did
say
would
that
in
expanding
the
square,
footage
to
1500
impact
adus
only
or
would
it
apply
to
garages
and
other
type
of
accessory
structures
as
well
and
I
was
in
favor
of
allowing
all
of
it,
but
fine
with
with
applying
it
to
just
adus.
But
the
idea
that
I
mean
I,
don't
think
this
would
impact
the
people
would
be
allowed
to
build
up,
certainly
be
allowed
to
build
other
types
of
of
accessory
structures.
H
Just
have
a
question
about
the
definition
of
an
Adu
accessory
dwelling
unit,
so
assuming
that
I
decide
to
build
a
new
garage
on
my
property
and
I
want
to
put
an
apartment
on
top
of
the
garage
and
the
garage
is
two
cars.
So
it's
I,
don't
know
a
thousand
square
feet
or
something
the
apartment
on
top
is
a
thousand
square
feet.
Is
that
a
2
000
square
foot
Adu
or
is
it
does
only
the
top
count.
V
H
V
To
count
as
an
Adu,
it
would
have
to
be
livable
space,
but
you're
touching
on
a
a
little
bit
of
an
administrative
and
interpretation
challenge
that
will
be.
When
does
it
become
a
unit?
There's
things
in
the
building
code.
That
would
say,
but
it
certainly
doesn't
mean
you
know
it's
going
to
mean
kitchen
and
and
sanitary
facilities.
Basically,
so
if
you
had
some
a
building
that
didn't
have
that,
then
that
technically
wouldn't
qualify
as
an
Adu.
H
Okay
and
I
was
also
thinking
about
this
in
the
difference
between
a
duplex
and
a
house
that
has
a
basement
apartment,
but
that
deals
with
how
the
properties
are
deeded
correct.
The
duplex
is
needed
separately
for
either
side,
whereas
a
basement
apartment
would
be
owned
by
one
individual
is
that
is
that
a
correct
interpretation
generally.
U
At
least
you
know
where
I've
come
from
a
duplex
would
mean
two
units
on
one
lot.
We
use
the
term
a
little
bit
differently
here
and
that
we
have
a
tendency
to
call
it
duplex.
What
I
would
consider
a
two
unit
townhome,
where
they're
totally
separated
they're
planted
differently.
So
that's
something
that
I
do
want
to
clear
up
with
this
code
update
is
to
make
sure
that
we
call
you
know
a
duplex
duplex,
a
town
home,
a
town
home
or
whether
it's
a
two
unit
townhome.
U
H
Yeah
I
see
a
few
scenarios
emerging.
That
would
be
helpful
for
me.
You
know
the
attached
garage
with
an
apartment
on
top,
or
you
know
a
house
with
a
basement
that
someone
can
also
live
in.
You
know
these
things
might
be
defined
as
adus,
but
they
also
might
constitute
duplex
in
in
some
way
or
another.
So
I
think
that
Clarity
would
be
helpful
for
me.
C
V
We
aren't
recommending
any
change
to
the
current
process.
It's
listed
as
an
allowed
use
in
your
current
code
in
the
eye
districts,
but
the
procedures
actually
do
require
you
to
do
a
development
plan
following
the
Pud
process.
So
if
someone
were
to
redevelop
any
of
those
properties
or
to
propose
a
new
project
like
this
in
the
eye
District,
they
would
have
to
submit
a
development
plan.
It
would
have
to
go
through
the
Pud
process
and
that's
what's
that's
how
your
code
is
currently
set
up.
C
V
We
did
not
look
beyond
the
eye
District,
but
I
think
we
at
least
with
the
consultant
team.
We
discussed
the
possibility
of
since
it's
a
PUD.
Is
it
necessary
to
leave
it
only
in
the
eye,
districts
and
I
think
because
we
mainly
see
this
tool
being
used
to
refurbish
or
reinvest
in
your
existing
examples
of
these
types
of
projects.
V
That
might
be
a
a
possible
route
if
we
saw
a
broader
application
of
these
types
of
projects,
the
one
thing
I
would
say
with
that
is
where
we
really
see
this
setting
up
a
Continuum
is,
if
you
recall
in
in
chapter
five
or
we
have
the
ability
to
do
Courtyard
housing
plans
and
those
are
meant
to
be
internal
lot
projects
with
the
within
the
block
so
and
there's
limits
on
the
number
of
building
types
that
can
go
into
those.
So
that's
like
a
smaller
version
of
these
types
of
projects.
C
It's
helpful
clarification.
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
I'm
curious
what
my
colleagues
on
Council
think
but
I
would
support,
especially
if
it
has
to
go
through
the
review
process
and
the
master
development
plan
expanding
that
to
all
zones.
Multi-Family
zones
within
or
density
zones
within
the
city,
I
think
I've
studied
the
example.
C
You've
included
on
your
slide
in
Buena
Vista,
and
what
we
can
do
right
now
with
manufactured
housing
to
address
affordability
within
the
state
is
really
interesting
and
I
think
that
Inglewood
has
the
opportunity
to
be
a
leader
in
that
by
creating
this
opportunity
for
people
who
want
to
use
that
tool.
So
thank
you
so
much.
A
C
I
believe
to
all
multi-family
to
all
multi-family
and
I
would
also
support.
I
mean
the
what
he
brought
up
earlier
about,
maybe
potentially
lowering
the
acreage
to.
Maybe
you
know
two
where
we
could
look
and
see.
What's
the
right
acreage
for
a
lot
for
a
project
like
this,
but
if
it
has
to
go
through
a
master
development
plan
process,
regardless
I'd
like
to
see
what
other
opportunities
we
have
within
the
community
to
offer
this
kind
of
community-based,
affordable
housing
project.
H
Also,
on
the
subject
of
small
format:
housing
we've
heard
recent
reports
of
people
have
long
established
in
mobile
home
parks
and
they
live
in
a
trailer
and
because
of
the
pressure
on
land
costs.
Right
now,
the
park
gets
sold
to
whoever
who
wants
to
apply
a
different
use,
and
now
these
people
find
themselves
without
a
place
to
put
their
home,
which
they
own
and
without
the
means
of
moving
it.
H
So
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
put
in
our
code,
something
that
protects
those
people,
the
goal
here,
being
home
ownership
and
entry-level
home
ownership,
and
you
don't
truly
own
your
home
if
you
could
be
booted
off
the
land
where
your
home
exists
at
any
given
time
so
I,
don't
know,
I'll
write
a
first
refusal
or
a
requirement
of
you
know.
Ownership
of
slips
or
something
I
know
that
we
mess
around
with
costs.
A
V
V
V
The
second
thing
that
is
a
code
issue
that
we've
seen
is
allowing
these
sites
to
be
plotted
as
home
sites.
If
there
are
Utilities
in
them
so
that
the
people
occupying
them
do
start
to
have
some
ownership
stake
in
it,
and
then
it
can't
as
easily
be
bought
out
from
them.
We
are
aware
of
that
being
a
strategy
as
well.
V
It
does
involve
some
complication
because
you're
then
allowing
plotting
of
lots
that
don't
meet
your
standards
as
Frontage,
and
you
have
to
make
sure
that
all
of
them
have
utilities,
because
now
they
could
be
individually
sold
separately
and
and
that
creates
some
different
dynamics
that
the
planning
staff
and
public
works
and
utilities
need
to
be
aware
of,
but
that's
another
concept,
but
I
would
say
that
I,
don't
think
anything.
We've
done
has
elevated
the
threat
of
of
the
displacement,
that's
there.
But
you
are
correct
that
that's
an
issue.
K
Agreement
with
member
noonicamp
on
expanding
this-
and
it
occurred
to
me
as
I-
was
reading
through
this
as
well
expanding
this
into
multi
multi-family
zones
as
well.
I
would
also
be
interested,
and
maybe
I
don't
know
if
we
have.
If
we
could
pull
up
this
information
really
quickly
is,
is
doing
a
little
analysis
on
what
an
appropriate
minimum
size
is
based
on
what
infill
opportunities
we
already
have.
K
I
mean
I,
don't
anticipate
a
developer
coming
in
and,
and
you
know,
demolishing
multiple
single-family
homes
or
duplexes
in
order
to
put
in
you
know
to
put
in
some
some
manufactured
homes,
so
I
think
what's
really
important
is
that
this
actually
works
for
for
some
locations
in
Inglewood.
So
what
is
that
right?
Minimum
size
is
two
acres
at
one
acre.
What
opportunities
do
we
have
within
those
multi-family
zones
or
are
there?
K
Are
there
other
zones
that
we're
not
thinking
of
where
it
would
be
appropriate
to
to
where
we
have
up
where
we
have
infill
opportunities
that
that
we
would
want
to
make
this
allowed
for
and
then
also
on
on
mayor
Pro
Tim's
point
I
totally
agree
with
that.
If
there's
anything
we
can
do
to
protect
these
and
I
know,
we
I
think
we're
appointing
someone
to
pnz
who's
kind
of
specializes
in
this
tonight.
K
On
there
are
just
a
a
couple
of
two
I
think
two
things
that
fall
into
kind
of
the
poison
pill:
category
on
the
adus
that
we
still
have
in
there.
One
is
that
owner
occupancy
requirement.
I
want
to
see
if
we
have
interest
from
Council
and
eliminating
that
in
the
in
Cole
Peterson's
book.
I
think
this
is
the
top
of
his
list
in
terms
of
poison
pills.
He
says
owner
occupancy,
Adu
bylaws
state
that
an
owner
must
live
on
the
property.
If
there's
an
Adu
on
it.
K
K
Maybe
they
want
to
buy,
you
know,
buy
a
second
buy,
buy
another
home
and
move
and
then
rent
out
both
units
or
they
think
about
what
they're
going
to
get
out
of
the
property
when
they
go
to
sell.
And
if
there's
that
level
of
restriction
on
the
property,
then
it
cuts
off
their
opportunities
to
sell
it
to
another
person
or
another
potential
landlord
who
might
that
property?
K
So
you
you
don't
actually,
if
you,
if
you
have
an
owner
occupancy
requirement,
you
can
never
get
the
value
back
out
of
that
Adu
because
you
can't
sell
it
for
market
rate
because
it
can't
function
as
you
cut
off
a
whole
bunch
of
the
market.
Basically,
so
that's
one
of
the
big
poison
pills.
He
also
makes
the
point
that
we
don't
treat
any
other
type
of
housing.
This
way
you
know
you
can
you
can
buy.
K
You
know
with
with
multi-family
buildings,
you
can
buy
a
condo
or
you
can
rent
an
apartment
with
duplexes
and
Townhomes.
Buy
a
rent
single
family
homes
buy
a
rent,
half
of
Inglewood
homeowners
are
already
renters,
I,
think
it's
close
to
close
to
half
or
somewhere
around
that
that
Mark,
you
know,
that's
just
a
little
this.
This
really
I
think
cuts
off
a
huge
opportunity
for
developing
that
affordable
housing.
K
So
I
would
like
to
see
if
we
have
interest
in
removing
that
requirement,
and
then
the
other
one
is
the
the
the
one
you
mentioned:
Mr
Brewster
about
its
relation
to
the
size
of
the
main
property,
and
somebody
on
the
steering
committee
actually
made
a
really
good
point
that
something
he
said.
I
think
was
a
builder
he
that
he'd
seen
in
Denver
is
where
somebody
will
will
lives
in
a
small
home.
K
They
bought
a
lot
with
a
you
know,
five
or
six
hundred
square
foot
home
and
what
they
then
want
to
do
is
build
an
Adu
and
and
move
into
that
and
then
rebuild
the
main
home
and
then
rent
out
the
Adu
to
help
pay
for
the
whole
project,
and
so
this
this
cuts
off
that
kind
of
opportunity.
It's
also
sort
of
discriminatory
against
people
who
have
smaller
homes
to
begin
with,
they
have
the
same
lot.
K
Size
same
use,
standards
generally
on
the
lot,
but
just
because
their
main
home
happens
to
be
smaller,
they
can't
build
that
additional
unit.
I
think
the
the
best
way
to
see
the
difference
between
a
primary
residence
and
an
Adu
is
the
Adu
is,
is
tucked
away
on
the
property
in
sort
of
a
hidden
fashion.
It's
further
back
on
the
lot
it's
in
the
basement.
K
The
entrance
I
mean,
if
we
wanted
to
put
in
in
some
regulations
to
make
sure
that
these
are
not
duplexes,
because
that's
not
the
point
of
adus
is
to
turn
every
property
into
a
duplex.
The
point
is
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
primary
unit
and
a
secondary
unit,
and
the
you
know
if
we
put
a
regulation
in
that
says,
the
secondary
unit
cannot
have
a
you
know,
a
main
entrance
on
the
front
side
of
the
property
or
something
I
think
that's
a
better
way
of
getting
at
it.
K
I
think,
generally,
adus
are
going
to
be
smaller.
In
fact,
a
vast
majority
of
the
cases
but
there's
are
there
are
other
situations
where
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
where
a
homeowner
happens.
To
have
a
really
tiny
home
wants
to
build.
The
Adu
doesn't
make
sense
to
to
lock
them
into
a
percentage
requirement
in
regard
to
the
primary
unit,
so
those
are
the
two
things
I
wanted
to
see.
If
we
have
feedback
on
thank.
C
K
N
Thank
you.
I
have
some
problems
with
all
of
these
massive
sweeping
changes,
probably
about
three
or
four
years
ago,
we
spent
a
couple
years
on
adus
having
a
lot
of
public
hearings,
a
lot
of
public
input
and
all
of
a
sudden
this
Council
comes
in
and
which
is
two
or
three
people
we're
going
to
change
those
sweepingly,
I
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
that
I
agree
with
you,
councilmember
Anderson,
on
the
reason
that
the
adus
weren't
built
is
because
we
made
a
mistake
and
we
didn't
follow
that
person.
N
I
think
it
had
to
do
with
all
the
public
hearings
and
what
the
public
wanted.
I
would
be:
okay,
with
allowing
an
Adu
in
R1
districts,
but
not
two,
that
is,
these
are
single
family
residential
areas
and
the
way
I
see
what
you're
suggesting
we're
changing
it
from
a
single
family
home
to
a
multi-family
property
and
the
reason
there
were
reasons
that
people
came
up
with
these
suggestions
that
they
wanted
owner
occupied,
because
there
was
more
control
on
what
would
happen
with
that
property.
N
N
Think
it's
not
quite
as
simple
as
you
think
it
is,
and
I
just
I
think
that
once
this
comes
to
a
public
hearing,
there
is
going
to
be
great
pushback
and
so
I
really
didn't
have
problems
with
some
of
the
things
that
were
been
have
been
suggested.
But
these
sweeping
changes
are
the
public
is
not
going
to
be
happy
with
that.
I
can
guarantee
you
that
I've
already
had
several
calls.
Thank
you
thank.
H
I
have
a
couple
things
not
related
to
adus
and
probably
not
related
to
the
changes
that
were
discussed
in
the
code,
but
since
the
entire
code
was
attached,
I
went
through
and
read
it.
I
just
noticed
that
we
make
reference
in
in
this
code
to
medical
marijuana,
there's
no
reference
to
recreational
marijuana,
and
since
our
city
has
both
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
look
at
at
those
areas
as
we're
making
changes
to
this
code,
the
first
is
on
page
104
of
the
packet,
and
the
second
is
on
page
110
of
the
packet.
A
M
Thank
you,
I
just
want
to
respond
to
member
Anderson's
question
I
have
as
an
example
behind
my
home
I
have
what
we
used
to
call
an
alley
house,
so
smaller
house
probably
eight
to
nine
hundred
square
feet.
If
that,
if
that
homeowner
wanted
to
put
something
on
the
front
of
that
lot
and
let's
say
1500
feet,
something
like
that
as
and
I
guess,
I
would
almost
at
that
point
call
it
a
primary
residence
in
the
Adu
then
could
become
the.
What
would
I
refer
to
as
the
alley
house.
K
M
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right,
members
of
council.
If
we
could
just
weigh
in
on
each
of
these
items
unless
there's
other
questions
before
we
get
to
the
chapter
five
so
for
chapter
four,
we'll
start
with
the
owner
occupancy
requirement.
Member
Anderson,
you
brought
this
one
up
to
remove
that
owner
occupancy
requirement.
Any
anyone
want
to
chime
in
whether
we
should
look
into
removing
that
or
to
keep
the
current
owner
occupancy
memory
encounter.
C
I
support
removing
this
I
know
we
discussed
this
previously,
but
when
we
think
about
the
longevity
of
the
value
of
the
property,
I
think
that
we
can
safely
kind
of
think
about.
You
know
for
a
homeowner
who's,
investing
this
kind
of
a
money
into
their
own
property.
They're.
Thinking
about
the
longevity
I
think
it
makes
sense
for
us
to
think
about
that
as
well,
and
knowing
all
of
the
restrictions
that
we
still
have
around
edu's
I'm
not
concerned
about
the
negative
effects
that
that
others
are.
A
H
What
if
we
required
owner
occupancy
for
a
fixed
period
of
time
after
the
Ada,
was
built
the
goal
being
stability
in
the
neighborhood?
So
we
don't
want
you
to
come
in
and
build
an
Adu.
So
you
can
sell
your
house
to
an
investor
and
then
the
opportunity
for
home
ownership
is
is
lost
there.
If
you,
if
you
have
stability,
you
you
stay
there
for
five
or
ten
years
after
you
construct
the
Adu.
A
A
V
Yeah
I'll,
we
are
aware
of
that
concern.
I,
don't
have
any
direct
experience
on
whether
it
promotes
it
or
doesn't
I
think
most
times
when
we
see
that
happening,
it
could
be
happening
anyway.
Already
with
the
the
single
family
homes,
I
will
say,
we
go
back
to
the
the
owner
occupancy
requirement.
It
comes
from
one
of
two
things:
one,
a
property
maintenance
concern
that
the
idea
of,
if
there
is
an
ownership
presence,
it's
this
additional
unit's,
more
likely
to
be
maintained.
V
Most
of
them
did
so
on
the
idea
of
they
had
areas
that
were
already
single
family
homes,
that
were
rental
and
they
looked
at
it,
as
in
those
rental
properties,
are
being
denied
an
opportunity
that
an
owner
would
have,
and
sometimes
those
rental
opportunities
are
people
who
are
already
in
the
business
of
providing
these
types
of
Housing,
and
they
will
do
it
more
readily.
Those
are
going
to
be
highly
unique
to
each
local
context.
V
That
is
yet
to
get
to
I
think
that
type
of
investment
is
yet
to
get
to
the
idea
of
well,
then
there's
this
third
class,
which
is
more
of
the
flipper
or
outside
investor
or
people
that
are
kind
of
changing
the
community
from
outside
and
I.
Just
I
think
that's
I
I
hesitate
to
comment
on
that,
because
I
think
it's
so
subject
to
your
local
Dynamics,
that
I,
don't
I,
think
staff
maybe
has
a
better
feel
for
that
than
I.
C
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
that.
We
learned
in
our
housing
assessment
that
only
48
of
inglewood's
units
are
owner
occupied,
so
the
majority
of
Inglewood
residents
are
actually
renters,
which
is
something
for
us
to
remember
when
we
think
about
representing
our
citizens
and
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
that
the
idea
that
renters
do
not
care
for
property
is
frankly
a
very
Antiquated
perception.
We
have
like
I
said
the
majority
of
our
residents
are
renters.
C
I
have
renters
in
my
neighborhood,
who
have
the
most
beautiful
Lawns
on
the
street
and
as
home,
ownership
is
becoming
increasingly
prohibitive.
For
so
many
people,
more
people
who
want
to
live
in
a
beautiful
neighborhood
who
want
to
have
a
beautiful
home
end
up
renting
and
so
I
just
want
to
be
cautious.
How
we
think
about
maybe
some
Antiquated
stereotypes
of
owners
versus
renters.
K
I
would
just
say
thinking
broadly
about
this.
My
approach
to
adus
is,
and
is
that
this
is
a
this-
is
a
place
where
we
can
create
opportunity
for
affordable
housing
to
come
into
our
city
in
a
natural
kind
of
fashion,
and
it
gives
opportunities
for
homeowners
and
for
for
property
owners
in
general
to
utilize
their
property
in
a
way
that
both
benefits
the
community
by
providing
more
housing,
whether
that's
rentals
or
or
ownership
opportunities,
and
it
gives
you
the
you
know,
everybody
who
owns
a
home
the
opportunity
to
do
something
more
with
their
property.
K
O
K
Not
that's
not
how
it
works,
how
it
works
in
the
real
world
you
what
you
do
is
you
maximize?
We
want
to
maximize
the
opportunity
across
the
city
and
some
people
are
going
to
take
advantage
of
those
opportunities,
but
the
more
opportunities
there
are,
the
more
we're
going
to
see
that
affordable
housing
come
in.
K
You
know,
that's
that's
where
I
think
the
expansive
approach
here
is
and
again
in
Portland,
where
they've
done
this
I've
seen
a
map
of
the
the
city
and
where
all
the
adus
are
they've
had
this
they've
had
legalized
adus,
multiple
adus,
on
lots
for
many
many
years,
and
you
see
a
map
where
they
have
all
these
adus.
It's
you
know
one
here,
one
there,
maybe
one
or
two
on
a
block.
It's
not
this
is
this
is
not
going
to
be.
K
Not
every
developer
is
going
to
roll
in
and
say
what
an
opportunity
in
Inglewood
to
build
an
Adu
they're,
not
that
profitable.
You
know
it
creates
an
opportunity,
but
you
got
to
be
the
right
kind
of
person
to
take
advantage
of
the
opportunity.
I.
Think
there's
going
to
be.
You
know
I'm
suggest
we're
suggesting
two-way
to
use
on
on
these.
These
Lots
I
think
there's
going
to
be
very
very
few
of
those
people
who
say
on
a
on
a
lot
that
they
want
to
put
2A
to
use
in
and
manage
them.
K
That's
going
to
be
a
very
expensive
upfront,
investment
and
then
they're
going
to
manage
both
of
those
as
well.
So
I
don't
see
that
happening
all
the
time,
but
we
are
creating
a
new
opportunity.
There
that's
going
to
produce
some
new
housing
and
that's
what
that's
the
goal
here
is
to
actually
provide
that
housing
to
the
community.
Thank.
A
J
M
M
I'm,
a
little
more
flexible
on
that
than
I
was
at
our
last
meeting.
R1C
I
am
not
r1c.
Are
those
the
smaller
Lots
which
make
up
I,
think
probably
a
majority
of
Inglewood
and
that's
what
makes
Inglewood
Inglewood
the
small
family,
the
interior
and
I
would
encourage
District
console
people
go
talk
to
your
District
about
chain,
making
those
changes
and
I
think
I
know
what
the
answer
is
going
to
be
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
going
to
be
what
you
may
think.
A
L
A
A
A
K
I
K
K
A
J
A
You,
member
wink
and
I'll
just
go
through
them
because
I
think
I'm
in
favor
of
those
as
well.
So
at
the
very
least
we
we
have
a
consensus
for
that
one
as
well
moving
on
to
extend
to
all
multi-family
districts,
the
Manufacturing
Housing
item
member
wink
same
here
and
then
also
small
format,
housing
just
how
to
protect
the
people
that
live
in
Mobile
Homes.
We
kind
of
talked
about
protective
language,
but
we
may
have
to
have
another
discussion
about
this,
but
remember:
Anderson
was
in
favor
mayor
brutem.
C
In
favor
of
learning
more
about
what
our
options
are,
I
don't
want
to
bake.
You
know
a
certain
policy
I'd
like
to
have
a
conversation
about
it.
I
believe
we
have
four
of
these
types
of
communities
within
Inglewood
and
I'm
definitely
interested
in
what
the
opportunities
opportunities
are
for,
ensuring
that
people
can
stay
in
their
homes,
correct.
A
I,
don't
think
that
we
have
any
definitive
language
or
anything
like
that,
but
hearing
additional
examples
of
how
we
can
do
that
so
perfect
with
that
anything
else.
I
know
that
we
had
the
medical
Recreation
marijuana.
Does
that
require
additional
research,
or
is
that
something
that
we
could
change
just
to
add
recreational
marijuana
as
part
of
that
section,
it
makes
sense
to
do
that,
but.
U
A
A
V
So
this
is
just
a
recap
of
what
are
major
changes
in
five
were
with
regard
to
development
standards
in
general
for
the
neighborhoods
and
then
the
last
bullet
point
there
is
that
we
knew
you
wanted
to
Circle
back
and
have
a
continued
discussion
on
the
the
R1
issues.
So
we've
prepared
some
of
that
information
next
slide.
V
So
this
is
a
series
of
things
that
we
heard
you
discuss
and
and
weigh
options
for
so
it
kind
of
walks
through
a
progression
of
questions.
First,
should
the
R1
districts
accommodate
two
to
four
unit
buildings,
so
these
are
separate
from
the
Adu
discussion
we
just
had.
So
you
know
if
the
answer
is
no
you're
thinking
that
adu's
and
allowing
smaller
Lots,
which
are
the
changes
that
are
proposed
in
the
draft,
is
enough
if
you're
answering
yes,
we
should
explore
this.
V
It's
saying
those
smaller
scale,
residential
buildings,
the
two
to
four
unit
building
types
would
be
appropriate
in
those
districts
as
well.
Then
the
second
question
becomes
okay,
which
districts
do
we?
Is
it
all
our
ones
or
do
we
filter
it
out?
The
council
member
previously
discussed
there's
a
difference
between
some
of
those
districts
and
we
have
some
information
for
you
on
that
and
then
the
third
question
we've
heard
there
was
the
idea
of
well.
V
Maybe
this
is
only
certain
locations
within
those
Districts
The,
Corner,
Lots
or
the
end
grains
being
more
appropriate
or
is
it
allow
them
throughout
on?
You
know
even
mid-block
locations
and
then
the
last
question
is
the
overall
one
of
when
this
is
done.
Is
it
being
done
with
an
affordability
requirement
to
it?
And
if
so,
what
is
that
requirement?
V
Or
if
the
answer
is
no,
it's
just
the
idea
that
simply
diversifying
will
create
different
housing
options
and
and
that
affordability
could
maybe
come
in
a
different
format
or
at
least
different
price
points
by
having
different
housing
types.
So
those
were
the
four
main
questions
we've
heard
and
we've
tried
to
filter
those
and
then
allow
a
series
of
slides
for
you
to
progress
through
that
Matt's
going
to
share
some
of
his
data
for
you
in
a
moment.
The
other
thing
that
was
asked
was
well.
We
need
to
know
what
this
might
look
like.
V
So
we
prepared
a
series
of
ranges
of
potential
outcomes.
The
first
one
in
the
top
left
is
that's
reflecting
just
the
the
building
envelope
and
and
it's
not
the
it's-
not
that
a
building
would
come
out
that
shape,
but
that's
the
eligible
building
area,
with
your
bulk
plane
standards,
with
your
setbacks.
What's
not
reflected
in
this
is
your
lock
coverage
your
open
space
requirement,
so
we
do
know
that
a
building
would
come
in
under
that
due
to
other
requirements,
but
that's
the
eligible
buildable
area
as
a
starting
point.
V
The
next
one
going
clockwise
then
shows
your
typical
building
that
some
similar
to
some
of
the
building
types
that
you're
getting
right
now,
and
so
that
might
be
a
potential
outcome.
Going
clockwise
down
is
a
smaller
scale
building,
but
it
has
more
of
an
appearance
of
an
apartment
building,
it's
clearly
a
multi-unit
building
type
that
might
be
a
potential
outcome
and
then
the
last
one
in
this
series
is
well.
It
looks
more,
it's
just
a
larger
house
and
that
that
building
is
reflecting
things
that
are
very
representative
of
other
houses
in
the
area.
V
However,
we
don't
yet
have
because
of
what
we
did
have
done
with
the
bulk
plan
and
some
of
those
standards
that
we
weighed.
We
don't
yet
have
assurances
that
it
would
come
out
exactly
looking
like
that,
because
some
of
the
other
things
would
be
allowed
as
well
in
those
Graphics.
So
on
the
left
is
our
our
potential
outcomes
and
things
we
think
we
need
to
be
aware
of
so
I
think
this
change
would
encourage
people
to
maximize
more
of
the
the
bill
eligible
building
footprint,
I.
V
So
we
want
to
make
sure
we
have
the
appropriate
standards
in
place
to
get
the
outcomes
you
all
want,
along
with
that,
I
think
it
would
encourage
people
to
maximize
the
bulk
plane
as
well,
which
again
I,
don't
think
they
they
have
yet,
in
most
cases
the
opportunity
for
more
multi-family
building
appearances.
If
the
idea
of
this
strategy
is,
if,
if
it
looks
like
a
house
who
cares
how
many
units
we
have
in
it
from
two
to
four
units,
we
understand
that
direction.
V
We
just
would
need
to
upgrade
some
of
the
standards
to
ensure
that
some
of
the
ones
that
have
a
more
multi-family
building
appearance
don't
occur,
and
the
standards
for
ensuring
that
it
looks
just
like
a
larger
scaled
house
would
be
done
and
then
I
think
some
of
the
things
Matt
is
going
to
walk
through
is
and
then
what
the
council
member
referred
to
is.
There
are
some
distinct
characteristics
between
some
of
these
districts
that
we
want
to
be
aware
of,
and
so
I
think
his
slides
will
walk
us
through
that.
K
V
If
someone
took
one
of
those
larger
lots
and
instead
made
three
lots:
three
smaller
Lots
facing
the
side
street
that
corner
lot
would
would
probably
best
be
placed
if
it
had
a
side
relationship
to
the
lot
too.
It's
well
in
your
context,
let's
just
say
the
west
and
it's
lot
to
the
north,
so
two
side
setbacks,
no
rear,
set
back
and
two
front
setbacks.
That's
I
think
that's
the
section
you're.
Referring
to
that.
V
K
N
N
V
I
believe
it
would
cover
at
least
six
in
the
format
that's
shown
it
may
cover
I'll,
have
to
look
and
see
whether
we
did
a
80
foot
lot
or
a
60
foot
I
believe
we
did
a
60
foot,
in
which
case
it
would
cover
six
of
those,
and
we
didn't
plan
it
out
to
that
scale
of
exactly
what
the
parking
configuration
was
looked
like.
We
did.
It
mainly
conceptually
just
a
remind
ourselves
that
there
is
an
impact
there
as
well.
N
K
W
W
W
Additionally,
we
wanted
to
identify
the
differentiation
between
r1a,
B
and
C
for
those
lots
over
7
200
square
feet
now
for
the
r1a
areas,
those
tended
to
be
most
of
the
Lots
just
because
those
lots
are
naturally
the
the
minimums
are
larger,
and
so
the
majority
of
the
Lots
within
r1a
would
exceed
7
200
square
feet.
So
if
the
question
is,
should
we
allow
those
two
to
four
unit
buildings
on
lots
that
are
larger
than
7
200
square
feet
within
the
r1a
district?
W
That
would
be
over
1800
lots
that
would
allow
that
opportunity
to
take
place.
Those
are
largely
Consolidated
within
those
circled
areas
with
the
blue
dashes.
So
that's
a
lot
of
area.
That's
a
lot
of
lots
that
would
provide
that
opportunity
within
the
r1b
there's
439
lots
that
that
opportunity
would
present
itself
in
the
r1c
has
1100
Lots
just
over
1100
the
opportunities
for
accommodating
that
two
to
four
unit
with
an
r1b
and
r1c
are
a
little
bit
more
dispersed
throughout
the
community
again,
where
the
r1a
are
fairly
concentrated
in
those
three
areas.
W
W
So
again,
this
would
provide
you
with
that
opportunity
mix
of
in
r1a
379
Lots
qualifying
in
r1b
439
and
an
r1c
a
little
bit
over
1100.
So
the
purpose
of
this
illustration
is
really
to
help
provide
you
with
some
opportunities
of
how
you
could
look
at
just
Corner
Lots,
just
Corner
Lots
in
one
of
the
three
districts
or
any
combination
thereof.
W
A
K
You
know
so
in
r1a.
If
you
said
we're
going
to
allow
allow
these
on
every
every
lot
over,
maybe
it's
over
10
000
square
feet
or
something
like
does
that?
What
what
gets
us
to
the
the
point
on
the
bell
curve
to
where
it's
you
know,
I,
don't
know
20
30
or
something
like
that,
so
there's
they're
still
dispersed
throughout
the
districts,
so
you
aren't
over
clogging
a
neighborhood
or
you
know,
or
having
drastic
change
on
one
block,
but
is
still
allowing
them
to
increase
that
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
A
W
That
question
I
don't
know
that
trying
to
identify
a
specific
lot
size
would
necessarily
get
you
a
disbursement
of
the
Lots.
Just
from
the
standpoint
that
many
lots
that
are
on
the
same
block
are
fairly
similar
in
size,
and
so
you
still
may
end
up
with
some
concentration
of
lots.
Even
if
you
do
go
to
that
type
of
an
approach,
but
certainly
would
need
to
do
some
digging
to
to
see.
If
that's
the
case,.
D
N
N
N
Okay,
so
in
artificially
inflating
the
corner,
Lots
we're
deflating
the
property
next
door.
That
is
a
takings,
be
interesting
to
know
how
many
Council
Members
Own
Corner,
Lots
and
or
live
on
Corner
Lots
in
the
city.
Fortunately,
I,
don't
because
I'm
going
to
tell
you
if
we
start
doing
this,
because
people
have
bought
into
the
zoning
areas
of
this
city
and
if
we
start
taking
that
away
from
them,
we
are
opening
ourselves
up
to
lawsuits.
D
H
H
This
is
a
massive
massive
change
to
neighborhoods
that
have
traditionally
been
very
stable
and
I
understand
the
desire
for
additional
housing
and
the
corner.
Lot
idea
has
some
appeal,
but
not
at
this
scale
is
too
much
way
way
too
much
and
change,
as
as
we
saw
when
the
previous
Council
or
a
previous
Council
adjusted
the
bulk
plane
and
we
started
to
see
change
occur
based
on
those
those
new
regulations.
H
A
lot
of
people
were
surprised
and
a
lot
of
people
were
upset
about
the
changes
that
were
occurring
in
their
neighborhood
I
understand
the
need,
or
at
least
I'd
like
to
think
I-
understand
the
need
for
additional
housing
stock.
I
think
there
might
be
a
way
to
make
this
work
on
on
some
small
scale,
as
a
pilot
by
you
know
instituting
some
sort
of
setback
similar
to
not
to
go
back
to
the
well.
H
What
we
have
for
marijuana-
if
you
put
this
here,
you
can't
put
another
one
within
X
number
of
feet
of
it
or
something
like
that.
That
would
at
least
slow
the
progression,
but
I
have
a
feeling
that
my
constituents,
in
particular
in
District
4,
which
is
the
majority
of
this
proposed
change,
would
be
very,
very
concerned
about
change
on
this
scale,
as
am
I.
Thank.
C
C
You
know
a
change
to
R1,
but
how
do
we
I'm
looking
at
the
r1c
numbers,
so
much
higher
I'm,
looking
at
the
last
slide
than
the
others,
and
so
that's
one
thing
that
I
would
be
interested
in
seeing
how
we
kind
of
even
that
out
a
little
bit.
One
thing,
though,
that
we
haven't
been
talking
about
so
far
in
tonight's
conversation
is
the
affordability
piece,
and
so,
if
we
go
back
to
all
the
questions
on
that
slide,
the
very
last
one
was.
Should
there
be
an
affordability
element?
C
If
we
do
this
and
I
think
in
the
comments
from
Member,
Ward
and
member
Russell
are
very
well
taken
and
I,
don't
think
moving
to
a
you
know,
a
full
change
in
our
single
families.
Only
zoning
and
kind
of
opening
it
up
for
everything
is
is
where
we're
at
right
now
as
a
community,
but
I
do
think
that
including
some
of
these
affordability
pieces
that
if
and
when
a
change
like
this,
would
come
to
a
street
or
to
a
block.
C
Knowing
that
you
know
one
or
two
of
those
units
are
going
to
be
affordable
for
someone
in
our
community
who's.
Maybe
a
nurse
at
Swedish
or
someone
who's
working
in
a
restaurant
that
we
love
here
downtown
has
the
ability
to
have
access
to
a
home
in
our
community.
They
wouldn't
otherwise
have
the
ability
to
have
that's
something
that
I
think
our
committee
actually
does
believe
and
I
think
it's
something
that
Inglewood
has
long.
You
know
had
this
belief
that
you
can
succeed
here
you
can
afford
to
live
here.
You
can
go.
L
M
W
M
Well,
I,
don't
even
know
if
I'd
want
to
put
it
that
way.
I
I
can
go
along
with
the
corners
except
I,
don't
know
if
it's
two
to
four
I'm
struggling
with
two
to
three
I'm,
quite
familiar
with
two
on
my
own
blog
on
a
corner
and
and
there
yeah
and
I,
don't
I
think
that's
at
6200
square
foot
lot
and
you
know
I
the
only
way
I
see
adding
more
to
that
is
going
up
and
truly
turning
it
into
what
feels
like
a
multi-family
house
is
multiple
multi-family
apartment
unit,
or
something
like
that.
A
L
K
Well,
let
me
say
it
this
way:
if
we're,
if
we're
doing
all
all
all
large
Lots,
not
just
Corner
Lots,
then
I
I
definitely
want
to
see
an
affordability
component
on
those
non-non
Corner
lots
I'm,
you
guys
know
I'm
generally,
just
let
the
market
decide
but
I
think
here's
a
special
case
where
this
is
not
something
we
would
normally
allow
unless
we're
going
to
get
some
affordable
housing
out
of
it.
So
that's.
K
This
is
kind
of
an
exception
for
me,
but
if
we're
going
to
expand
to
larger
Lots
throughout
these
districts,
not
just
Corner
Lots,
then
I
think
there
should
be
an
affordability
requirement.
I
would
say
one
unit
at
80
percent
Ami
to
make
it
doable,
for
you
know,
make
sure
it's
doable
for
a
developer,
but
that
provides
one
new
each
time.
One
of
these
goes
up.
K
There's
one
one
unit,
that's
affordable
for
for
somebody
in
Inglewood
and
I
would
say:
I
am
okay
on
the
7200
and
R1
C
and
B
I'm,
not
okay,
with
the
7200
in
r1a
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
is
for
RNA
r1a.
If,
if
it
happens
that
you
know
all
of
the
10
000
square
foot,
lots
are
lined
up
in
a
row.
Then
I'd
have
questions
about
about
that
and
maybe
be
interested
in
going
back
to
just
the
corner.
K
K
Yeah,
that's
correct!
Yes,
sir
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
my
entire
district
is
r1c
District
three,
so
I
don't
live
on
a
corner
lot!
I!
Don't
live
on
a
large
lot!
This
would
not.
You
know
this
would
not
impact
the
home
that
I
live
in
and
and
other
than
it
would.
It
would
allow
more
housing
on
my
block,
but
I'm
not
going
to
get
any
advantage
or
any
any
increased
allowance
on
my
property
out
of
this.
So
there's
nothing.
No
personal
advantage
to
me,
but
I
do
want
to
see.
K
K
R1As
I'm,
not
okay,
with
going
down
to
seven,
because
that's
every
lot
that
that's
not!
That
was
not
the
purpose
of
this
I.
Don't
think
anybody
intended
to
convert
R1
r1a
to
all
multiplexes
as
an
as
an
opportunity
there,
but
r1b
and
r1c
I'm,
okay,
with
just
looking
at
the
map
that
I'm
okay
with
the
7200
and
you
know,
and
the
corner
lots
that
are
7
200
square
feet:
the
larger
Lots
across
the
board
in
R1
V
and
r1c
r1a.
K
H
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
council
member
Woodward's
comments
about
protecting
r1c
from
this
change
and
I'm,
not
sure
I,
understand
the
logic.
I
I
personally
live
in
the
r1c
zoning
District
on
a
10
000
square
foot
lot
so,
and
and
judging
from
the
from
the
look
of
this
map,
my
entire
block
down
South
Delaware
Street
across
the
street
from
Clayton
Elementary
School
is
is
similarly
situated.
They
live
in
7,
200
square
foot
or
larger
Lots
in
the
r1c
zoning
District.
H
H
M
H
K
U
So
for
r1c,
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
for
a
single
family
dwelling
is
six
thousand
square
feet
for
r1b.
It's
7
200
square
feet,
and
this
is
for
the
standard
one
unit
dwelling
and
for
r1a.
It's
9
000
square
feet,
but
we
do
have
some
carve
outs
in
the
districts
for
one
unit,
dwellings
on
small
lots
and
one
unit
dwellings
on
Urban,
lots
that
allow
those
to
shrink
in
all
those
districts
and.
M
U
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
Chris
has
mentioned
is
that
some
of
the
changes
that
we're
proposing
already
that
are
allowing
new,
smaller
lots
to
be
created.
What
we
have
in
our
code
now
is
all
the
small
small
lots
have
to
be
existing,
but
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
some
of
the
updates
is:
allow
smaller
lots
to
be
formed
to
help
add
additional
units,
smaller
units
that
might
be
more
affordable
to
the
community
to
these
different
districts.
H
C
I
C
Was
trying
to
State
earlier
is
what
I
would
like
to
see
and
and
I.
Don't
know
what
the
right
analysis
or
the
metric
is,
but
that
the
proportion
of
lots
that
are
affected
in
each
of
these
Zone
districts
is
the
same
across
the
district
based
on
the
total
number
of
lots
of
the
district.
So
that
might
be
you
know
if
it's
10
or
you
know,
20
of
all
Lots
in
the
district,
that
that
would
be
consistent
across
one
two
or
a
B
and
C.
C
That's
what
I
would
like
to
see
just
so
that
all
the
districts
are
experiencing
the
same
opportunity
and
also
the
same
potential
for
change
that
there's
some
Equity
across
different,
not
only
lot
sizes
in
in
communities
but
also,
frankly,
income
areas,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
an
equitable
distribution
of
the
housing
stock
in
the
city.
Also,
if
you
look
at
those
questions,
I
am
in
support.
I
would
also
like
to
see
one
of
the
units
be
at
80
Ami
towards
the
last
question,
and
just
a
note
about
out.
C
That
will
inherently
mean
that
the
units
have
to
be
smaller,
which
means
that
they
will
ultimately
be
more
affordable
than
a
large
kind
of.
Very
you
know
huge
duplex,
and
so,
if
our
goal
here
is
how
do
we
unlock
affordable
housing
that
fits
within
the
character
of
the
community?
That's
something
for
us
really
to
think
about.
If
we
go
up
to
the
four
number
and
something
else
is
when
we
had
this
discussion
on,
November
28th
I
think
is
when
we
had
it.
C
There
was
a
great
kind
of
illustration
on
that
slide:
deck,
that
of
a
quad
Plex
that
was
very
in
character
with
the
community
I
think
it
was
only
a
single
story
and
the
way
it
was
laid
out
and
I'd
be
open
to
thinking
about.
How
do
we
ensure
that
these
do
fit
within
the
nature
and
character
of
the
community?
I?
Don't
want
that
to
be
prohibitive
to
the
opportunity,
but
I
am
really
open
to
making
sure
that
this
feels
really
seamless
within
the
neighborhood.
A
So
I
want
to
understand
that
aspect
of
it,
because
we
have
a
history
of
cities
always
pointing
to
another
city,
to
pick
up
the
slack
I'm
not
going
to
do
this.
Do
this
here,
while
I'm
still
on
Council
I,
wanted
to
see
us
actually
do
something
about
affordable
housing
within
the
city,
so
I'm
going
to
be
a
yes
to
this.
One
question
that
I
do
have
is:
how
do
we
make
this
affordable
affordability
requirement
also
extend
to
our
twos.
A
We're
not
talk.
We're
only
talking
about
r1s
tonight,
but
obviously
r2s
are
multi-family
housing
right
now,
right
now,
there's
no
affordable
housing
component
to
multi-family
in
there.
How
can
we
extend
that
affordability
to
that
District
as
well?
Is
it
a
simple
change,
or
do
we
have
to
have
well?
I
would
like
to
see
something
very
similar
to
our
twos
happening
that
we're
talking
for
r1s,
and
obviously
this
is
still
something
that
we
have
to
bring
up
to
the
public.
Have
discussions
about
go
through
public
hearing?
W
V
Yeah
I
think
it
I
think
it's
a
logical
step
in
thinking
of
the
structure
of
the
code.
I
would
like
to
you
know,
get
with
root
analytics
and
see
what
they
think
of
that.
The
one
thing
the
one
thing
I
would
bring
up
is
those
districts
this
is
already
allowed.
So
it's
a
little
bit
different
from
allowing
a
new
opportunity
and
in
exchange
for
that,
allowing
requiring
an
affordability
component.
So
that
doesn't
mean
it's
not
a
a
good
valid
idea
to
propose.
V
But
what
we
would
know
we'd
probably
be
dealing
with,
is
there's
a
number
of
existing
ones
already
built
that
don't
have
that
requirement
and
I.
Don't
think
we
could
do
anything
about
that.
So
it
would
really
be
talking
about
conversions
of
single-family
homes
in
those
districts
to
this,
these
building
types
which
are
technically
already
allowed,
but
that's
certainly
something
we
can
look
into.
A
K
Would
just
say
one
thing:
I
would
I
kind
of
want
to
look
at
in
conjunction
with
this,
especially
after
seeing
those
four
examples
of
different
building
types
you
can
see
is
is
revisiting
and
I.
Think
the
you
know
the
Mr
Brewster
you're
one
of
your
original
suggestions
to
the
steering
committee
about
the
square.
You
know
square
footage
allotment
for
for
the
face,
the
the
setback,
the
the
side
of
the
wall
facing
the
setback
that
was
kind
of
complicated,
but
I
think
allows
for
a
lot
more
different
building
modalities.
K
That
is
something
I
would
want
to
see
here.
I'm,
not
a
you
know
the
the
picture
of
the
top
left
with
the
the
barn
shape
thing.
I
think
that's,
that's
that's
something.
I
would
like
to
get
away
from
on
these
on
these
Corner
Lots.
If
we
could
get
to
some
a
higher
an
increased
variety
of
housing
types
using
in
some
other
code
tools,
I
would
want
to
to
consider
that
because
I
really
like
bottom
left,
that's
what
I'm
hoping
gets
built.
K
A
Thank
you,
member
Anderson
and
actually
I'll
add
to
it.
The
80
Ami
households
that
are
making
80
Ami
are
just
under
ninety
thousand.
Eighty
nine
thousand
four
hundred
so
ask
yourself
how
someone
can
afford
to
live
in
the
city
today
on
89
400
as
a
household.
So
any
other
comments.
Any
other
questions
for
members
of
council
I
think
we
do
have
an
upper
Direction
tonight,
but
remember
we
would
go
ahead.
M
V
No,
we
we
Illustrated
that
to
have
the
to
show
the
distinctions
of
to
try
and
get
some
Nuance
into
what
people
are
trying
to
enable
what
we
Illustrated
there
was
something
that
has
more
of
the
appearance
of
a
single
family
house,
but
could
just
as
easily
be
two
three
or
four
units.
So
it's
it's
a
four
unit
building
by
our
our
conceptual
drawing
okay,.
U
U
Also
have
folks
right
now
trying
to
condoize
existing
homes,
which
requires
a
lot
of
upgrades
into
the
actual
structure
itself
and
they're
extremely
complicated,
but
they
are
trying
to
do
so.
I,
don't
know,
I
think
we
may
have
had
one
go
through
successfully
recently,
but
not
very
many,
so
people
are
trying,
but
we
just
don't
have
the
right
Tools
in
some
instances.
That's.
A
A
U
Hands
up
I
do
have
one
question:
maybe
it
would
be
better
if
we
come
back
one
more
time
with
all
the
housing
items
together:
oh
yeah,
instead
of
kind
of
broken
up
into
two
or
three
different
meetings
that
we
can
address
everything
at
one
time
and
have
it
a
larger
discussion
around
it
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
missing
anything
or
we're
not
missing
the
force
for
the
trees,
kind
of
a
thing.
No.
A
C
Not
too
delay
us,
but
when
you
come
back
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful.
What
I
found
helpful
in
tonight's
presentation
is
the
clarity
around
what's
changing
and
what's
staying
the
same.
So
if
we
had
even
you
know
a
very
clear
something
in
our
console
packet
about
all
of
the
housing
pieces,
what
what
is
a
potential
change
what's
doing
the
same
I
think
that
would
also
just
help
the
conversation
and
provide
some
clarity,
sometimes
with
the
way
that
the
draft
code
is
laid
out.
It's
a
little
harder
to
track.
A
That
sounds
good
all
right,
well,
Mr,
Isom,
Mr,
Ashby,
Mr
Brewster.
Thank
you
very
much,
we'll
be
speaking
to
you
again
here
in
the
near
future.
So
thank
you
have
a
good
evening.
Thank
you
all
right.
Everyone
do.
We
need
a
short
break.
Five
minutes,
five
minutes
good
enough.
All
right.
Let's
take
a
five
minute
break.
Let's
come
back
a
little
bit
before
9
35.
I
X
A
H
I
saw
that
185
day
requirement
and
I
I
would
say
that's
a
good
start.
I
I
was
wondering
how
staff
arrived
on
185
days.
Is
it
to
account
for
snowbirds,
or
you
know,
half
the
year
yep
so
I'm
sensitive
to
that
I
I
would
actually
increase
it
though
I
would
you
know
225
or
250,
or
you
know,
make
it
like
seven
or
eight
months
as
opposed
to
six
okay.
C
I,
like
this
change,
I
support,
it
I
think
you
know
at
least
half
you
could
say
you
know
half
plus
a
day
or
something,
but
I
think
that
185
does
that
well
to
ensure
that
this
is
actually
where
someone
lives.
I
do
want
to
be
cognizant
to
snowbirds
people
who
maybe
want
to
maintain
their
home
and
age
in
place,
but
don't
want
a
winter
in
Colorado
people
who
have
jobs
with
unique
circumstances.
J
K
I
I
like
this
change,
if
we're
not
going
to
make
any
more
drastic
change,
my
more
drastic
change,
which
I
think
you
mentioned
in
the
memo,
was
to
eliminate,
eliminate
a
whole
house
rentals
altogether
and
allow
them
only
in
adus
and
then
eliminate
the
occupancy
requirement.
That's
my
number
one!
You
know
if
I
have
three
other
council
members
that
want
to
do
that
then
I'm
for
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
we're
there.
So
if
we
do
then
I'd
love
to
hear
it
otherwise.
M
M
L
A
X
Okay,
so
the
second
item
would
be
an
amendment
to
the
definition
of
primary
residency
right
now
we
as
currently
drafted
the
proposed
definitions,
allows
for
entity
ownership
except
for
proper
release
properties
held
by
corporations
or
real
estate
investment
trusts,
which
means
we
do
allow
them
for
llc's.
If
someone
from
the
LLC
can
prove
proof
that
that
is
the
primary
place
of
roots
that
they're
living,
and
so
this
one,
we
wanted
your
guidance
on
whether
ownership
should
be
limited
to
Natural
persons
and
exclude
llc's
altogether.
M
M
A
N
Russell,
thank
you.
I
would
like
to
not
necessarily
limited
to
Natural
persons
other
than
I
do
agree
with
family
trusts.
I
mean
families
enter
into
trust,
to
protect
the
property
for
aging
parents,
perhaps
or
whatever,
and
and
llc's
my
brother
used
to
do
that.
When
his
kids
were
in
college,
he
would
buy
a
house
and
he
would
put
it
under
an
LLC,
but
one
of
his
children
always
lived
in
the
house
and
so
I
I
think
those
types
of
things
are
okay
corporations,
not
necessarily
or
real
estate
trusts.
I,
don't
necessarily
agree
with
that.
A
H
H
I
think
my
my
goal
for
for
the
Str
program
is
to
to
have
owner
occupancy
and
allow
owners
to
benefit
from
the
property
they
own,
but
as
long
as
they
live
there
and
they're
embedded
in
the
community
and
and
the
further
we
get
from
a
natural
person
the
further
we
get
from
that
particular
definition.
In
my
opinion,
or
the
ability
to
enforce
it,
so
I
get
a
little
heartburn
when
we
start
talking
about
Partnerships
or
llc's,
or
you
know,
invest
investment
type
organizations
as
opposed
to
just
you
know.
K
X
K
A
Thank
you,
member
Anderson,
I'll
weigh
in
I
would
say
yes
to
a
variety
of
ownership.
I
think
this
is
just
a
difficult
one.
I
I
understand
where
mayor
Pro
tem
is
coming
from
and
I
I
want
to
lean
in
that
direction.
But
it
just
sounds
like
there's
too
many
ownership
structures
there
that
we
may
be
excluding
people
that
are
actually
primary
residents,
so
I
just
find
it
difficult,
but
the
thing
to
add
go
ahead:
Mr
Sampson,
it
looks
like
you
have
consensus
on
that.
One:
okay,.
X
X
If
such
owner
is
also
the
primary
residence
of
the
main
residence
May
obtain
an
Str
permit
for
the
main
residence
or
Adu,
provided
that
neither
is
rented
during
a
simultaneous
time
period
and
then
the
other
option
for
adus
is
for
Parcels
containing
adus
the
owner.
If
such
owner
is
also
the
primary
residence
of
the
main
residence
May,
obtain
an
Str
permit
for
the
Adu
provided
the
owner
maintains.
A
N
H
Yeah
I
understand
council
member
Russell's
comment
perfectly,
although
I
think
that,
for
a
lot
of
potential
owners
of
adus,
the
Adu
presents
the
possibility
for
an
income
stream
which
can
support
more
affordable
housing
in
Inglewood
for
them,
because
it
helps
them
pay
their
mortgage
and
I
I.
Think
I
I
could
actually
support
this
particular
change.
We
have
homeowners
who
live
in
an
Adu
and
they
Str
the
house
and
I'm
having
trouble
seeing
a
substantive
difference
between
that
and
living
in
the
house
and
string
the
Adu.
H
C
I
also
support
this
change.
The
first
version
of
it
so
that
you
could
do
the
main
residence
or
the
Adu
I
think
that's
what
it
is
that
they
can't
be
rented
at
the
same
time,
but
obviously
want
to
make
sure
that
our
enforcement
is
is
on
top
of
that
to
make
sure
that
folks
are
living
up
to
that
regulation.
But
I
think
you
know
to
remember:
Russell's,
Point,
100
adus
have
so
much
potential
for
providing
affordable
housing
in
our
community,
but
sometimes
I,
think
offering
it
as
a
short-term
rental.
C
Initially
for
built
for
homeowners
is
a
sweetener.
It
kind
of
maybe
thinks
like.
Okay,
maybe
I
could
I
could
try
and
see
do
I
want
someone
living
in
my
backyard.
I
could
try
it
for
a
few
months
as
an
Str
and
then
transition
to
a
long-term
rental
unit
when
they
get
tired
of
you
know,
flipping
the
the
Str
and
so
I
think
I've
I've
had
personally
citizens
come
to
me
asking
for
this
change
and
so
I'm
responding
to
that
and
I
support.
It.
N
A
K
A
X
A
X
Okay
and
then
the
next
one
is
enforcement,
penalties
and
I
know
right
now.
In
the
draft
code,
we
do
have
those
penalties
in
place
for
booking
service
providers
who
process
the
illegal
transactions.
The
other
question
is:
if,
if
the
homeowner
or
operator
of
the
Str
is
to
be
fined
as
well,
and
if
so,
what
would
that
look
like
in
terms
of
fines,
if
there's
any
sort
of
grace
period
with,
let's
say
a
notice
of
violation?
And
if
you
don't
stop
your
rental,
then
you,
then
you
get
subject
to
the
spine
as
well.
H
I'm,
a
strong
advocate
of
fines
for
the
property
owner.
If
you
list
your
property,
someone
else
didn't
list
it
it's
there.
You
knew
what
you
were
doing
when
you
did
it,
we
should
penalize
that
going
after
the
short
term
rental
site
is
is
a
is
great
because
they
have
Deep,
Pockets
and
they'll
probably
cut
the
check,
but
that
doesn't
stop
potentially
stop
people
from
from
committing
this
offense.
H
H
Q
Yes,
I'd
be
happy
to
weigh
in
on
the
penalty
Provisions
the
general
General
penalty,
provision
of
Municipal
Code
provides
a
maximum
amount
of
the
fine,
and
so
the
court
has
discretion
to
impose
from
0
to
2
650.
So
by
providing
specific
penalty
Provisions,
for
example,
the
proposed
language
provides
a
set
number.
This
shall
be
the
fine
on
a
first
offense.
It
eliminates
that
discretion
and
instead
ensures
that
the
Violator
is
imposed.
The
X
number
of
fine
provided.
H
Q
A
Thank
you,
mayor,
Pro,
tem,
I,
guess
I'm
in
favor
of
a
penalty
provision
as
well
for
the
property
owner,
but
I'm
also
wondering
like
since
we're
going
after
the
company
I.
Guess
it's
decided
to
go.
I,
don't
know
what
the
with
the
property
or
with
the
listing
site
bar
that
property
owner
from
listing
their
site
on
after
a
certain
amount
of
times
that
they
got
playing.
But
I
don't
have
the
answer
so
I
I'm
fine
with
the
penalty
provision
for
the
property
owner.
L
U
A
U
A
U
What
we,
what
we
have
used
in
the
past,
but
we've
gotten
away
from,
is
they've
used
utility
bills
to
show
that
that's
somewhere
that
they
live.
But
again,
that's
a
question
that
we're
asking
you
all,
because
I
think
one
of
the
other
updates
to
the
ordinance
was
to
require
an
additional
document
to
do
tax
return
plus
two.
So
this
would
be
you
know
if
the
tax
return
doesn't
reflect.
That
address.
Is
there
a
third
document,
even
if
they've
already
provided
a
utility
bill,
but
we
allow
the
utility
bill?
C
N
A
N
K
M
Yeah
I
I
think
there
they
could
produce
another
piece
of
paper
which,
if
it
was
a
property
that
they
were
financing,
their
financing
would
say
that
they
were
going
to
live
there
because
they
would
get
a
different
type
of
financing.
So
if
you
got
the
closing
papers
from
a
copy
of
the
closing
papers
showing
that
that
would
show
that
they
lived
there
or
will
be
living
there,.
J
H
I,
like
Mr
Woodward's
idea,
a
lot
I
think
he's
hit
on
something
here.
You
know
when
I
got
my
mortgage
I
had
to
stipulate
that
it
was
going
to
be
on
Iraq.
That
was
one
of
the
conditions.
So
if
we
did
have
another
rock
mortgage,
we
would
also
have
someone
else
to
report
offenders
to
you
know:
hey
Str
company,
this
person
doesn't
live
here
and
by
the
way
mortgage
company.
This
person
doesn't
live
here.
I
thought
you
might
like
to
know.
H
The
the
important
thing
about
this
process
for
me
has
has
been
more
keyed
on
renewals
than
on
on
First
Years
I
understand
the
first
year
Jitters.
Maybe
we
don't
have
a
federal
tax
form
right
away
tax
season
Falls
at
the
same
time
every
year,
so
I
would
want
to
see
a
federal
tax
form
at
the
earliest
possible
time.
H
So
if
you
know,
even
if
you
get
permitted
in
September,
with
an
exception
document
in
April
no
later
than
April,
15th
you're
filing
an
extension
form
or
a
you
know,
a
page
one
of
your
federal
tax
form
showing
that
address
and
when
you
do
complete
the
tax
filing
we're
getting
a
copy
of
the
federal
Forum
showing
that
as
your
primary
residence
address,
I
have
to
say,
there
are
two
pieces
of
language
in
this
section
that
make
me
a
little
nervous.
The
first
is
any
other
legal
documentation
at
director.
H
H
H
It
wasn't
clear
to
me,
based
on
the
language
if
someone
could
provide
more
than
one
utility
bill,
I
think
about
an
investor
who
runs
an
Str
and
they
don't
actually
live
there.
They
never
intended
to
live
there.
They
advertise
it
with
cable
and
they
pay
the
water
bill
because
they
own
the
property,
that's
two
utility
bills
with
their
name
and
address
on
them.
So
that
concerns
me
I
just
want
to
make
sure
this
section
in
particular,
is
as
Ironclad
as
we
can
possibly
make
it.
H
K
I'd
like
to
change
my
opinion
to
agree
with
member
Woodward
I
think
the
the
financing
documentation
that
would
provide
proof
of
owner
occupancy
would
be
sufficient
for
the
first
year,
but
then
a
tax
form
annually
for
renewals,
as
a
member
would
member
word
mayor,
Pro
Tim.
That
guy
said
Federal.
Yes,.
J
A
D
A
U
O
U
It's
very
redundant
to
go
out
and
inspect
the
property
then
have
to
fill
out
a
form.
Then
come
back
to
the
office
fill
out
the
form
by
hand
upload
that
form
and
then
everything
that
he
uploads
gets
put
into
IMS
anyways,
and
then
it
reproduces
the
exact
same
form.
Originally.
When
we
drafted
this
this
language,
we
didn't
have
the
electronic
inspection
process.
So
all
this
would
do
is
allow
us
to
take
advantage
of
that
inspection
process
and
let
our
building
staff
or
our
premises
inspectors
do
their
job
electronically.
H
U
H
A
M
U
Sir,
the
last
one
is
kind
of
based
on
one
of
the
items
that
we've
included
in
the
update,
allowing
staff
to
place
a
lien
on
property
if
they
have
not
remitted
their
sales
and
lodging
taxes
and
talking
to
our
code
enforcement
manager,
Dave
Lewis.
He
brought
up
the
fact
that
in
some
of
their
language
in
the
nuisance
chapters,
they
have
a
cost
plus
25
percent,
to
add
to
any
one
of
those
liens
to
incur
or
for
cost
Recovery
Services
on
the
city
side.
U
H
C
I
just
had
a
couple
last
points
here
and
if
this
was
already
covered,
forgive
me,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
really
clear
on
the
renewal
process.
Some
of
the
concern
that
I've
heard
from
residents
is
that
we
have
a
robust
initial
permitting
process
and
then
maybe
someone
you
know
can
no
longer
they
no
longer
live
there.
Maybe
they've
moved
away,
but
they're
still
doing
the
renewal
process.
Maybe
they
come
back
for
the
inspection.
Are
we
requiring
the
same
rigor
in
the
documentation
in
a
renewal
that
we
are
in
the
initial
license?
Department.
C
Okay
and
then,
when
we
have
someone
who
applies
for
an
Str
and
maybe
their
application
times
out
right,
we
close
it
or
maybe
they're
denied
for
some
reason
or
another.
Do
we
keep
track
of
those
addresses
and
ensure
that
they
are
no
not
operated?
Could
you
know
without
a
permit,
we're
kind
of
have
them
on
a
list
to
watch
and
ensure
that
they're
actually
not
moving
forward
yeah.
X
We
do
have
a
list
of
the
properties
that
have
been
denied
because
they've
either
failed
to
provide
us
with
adequate
documentation
or
have
they've
taken
too
long
and
their
license
or
their
application
has
expired
and
any
of
those
we
do
keep
a
record
of
those
addresses.
So
we
can
kind
of
monitor
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
showing
back
up
on
our
Str
advertisement
list
fantastic.
H
H
It
says
the
property
operating
has
an
Str
without
an
Str
business
license
rental
registration,
an
operating
permit
shall
not
be
eligible
to
receive
any
such
license
or
permit
until
30
days,
following
compliance
with
these
regulations
and
all
applicable
zoning
regulations,
I
I
think
that
I
would
handle
this
similar
to
to
the
way
we
handle
people
who
build
without
a
permit.
We
charge
them
double
when
they
pull
the
permit
and
in
in
the
case
of
a
short-term
rental.
I
would
extend
that
penalty
period
from
30
days.
H
H
M
Woodward
I
I,
don't
know
if
I'd
go
that
far
I
think
things
happen
in
people's
lives.
I
think
I
would
say
that
they
can't
do
any
rentals
if,
if
they
didn't
pay
that
and
if
they
did
do
rentals,
that
they
will
pay
the
city
with
those
rental
monies
and
renew
their
license,
but
I
think
there's
just
too
many
things
that
happen
in
people's
lives.
Where
boy
they
missed,
they
miss
a
date
in
paying
something
or
you
know
the
mail
didn't
come
or
whatever,
but
I.
A
X
X
A
X
H
M
I
mean
it
puts
it,
puts
the
owner
and
whoever
is
occupying
it
on
notice
and
sometimes
on
notice,
they're
going
to
mention
it
to
the
owner
to
whoever
is
renting
it,
but
I
I
think
that
ought
to
be
automatic.
I've
seen
that
in
motels
or
hotels,
that
type
of
I
mean
a
type
of
license.
That's
posted
right
there,
usually
in
the
restroom
I,
think
we're
by
the
restroom.
K
I'm
I'm
I,
like
my
mayor,
Pro
Sim's
idea
here,
I'm
a
bit
hesitant
because
if,
for
example,
they
did
apply
in
the
right
time
frame
and
had
a
a
were
scheduled
to
be
seen
by
the
board
of
adjustment
appeals
and
then
that
if
that
meeting
got
canceled
because
they
didn't
have
Quorum
or
something
like
that,
that's
a
scenario
I
see
where
I
could
see
staff
saying
we're
going
to
extend
this
until
the
next
Board
of
adjustment
of
appeals
meeting.
If
they
don't
apply
for
the
the
adjustment
again
in
time,
then
I.
S
C
L
H
A
A
A
All
right,
everyone
we're
moving
on
to
the
resolution
appointing
members
to
various
boards,
commissions
and
committees.
There's
a
resolution
in
front
of
you,
I
guess
what
one
thing
that
we
do
need
to
do
is
that
there
were
two
well
actually.
Let
me
see
if
I
could
get
this
right
in
Jackie.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
let's
see
here
so
we
had.
Originally,
we
had
Mr
Vincent
I
believe
as
part
of
the
boa
as
an
alternate.
A
He
requested
to
actually
be
a
primary,
or
at
least
a
City
member
of
the
ceac
I
believe
we
originally
had
Andy
savadra
as
part
of
ceac,
but
would
prefer
to
be
on
P
and
Z.
So
I
think
we
do
have
an
alternate
opening,
Within,
Planning
and
Zoning
if
we
wanted
to
make
those
changes.
So
any
comments
in
terms
of
adding
Mr
Benson
to
ceac
or
Andy
to
planning
and
zoning.
A
A
A
Any
other
comments,
if
not,
can
I
get
a
motion
to
actually
how
would
I
do?
This
would
I
make
a
motion
to
amend
the
resolution
to
include
Mr
Vincent
as
part
of
ceac
to
have
Mr
Vincent
as
part
of
ceac.
Is
that
all
I
need
to
do
all
right?
I
make
a
motion
to
add
Mr
Mr
Vincent
to
this
code
enforcement
advisory
committee,
gotta.
W
A
C
A
Aye,
the
record
show
seven
eyes.
Thank
you.
Moving
on
to
approval
of
ordinance
on
first
reading,
the
council
Bill
05
Bill
Bill
of
authorizing
and
intergovernmental
agreement
from
the
city
of
England
to
provide
sustainability
service
to
the
city
of
Sheridan.
We
have
assistant
city
manager,
Tim,
Dodd,
actually
Deputy,
City
attorney,
sorry
Deputy,
whatever,
whatever
works.
Y
Yeah
there
we
go.
Thank
you
mayor
and
Council,
so
this
is
a
oh,
not
there.
Well,
there's
a
presentation
in
your
packet,
so
I
think
I
know
well
enough.
I
can
go
over
it.
This
is
something
that
we
actually
mentioned
during
the
budget
process
that
we
wished
and
we
included
in
the
budget
to
establish
the
Inglewood
sustainability
coordinator
at
a
full-time
position.
They
were
hired
at
a
part-time
position
four
days
a
week,
and
so
what
this
would
do
is
Sheridan
would
pay.
Y
For
the
fourth
day
about
almost
a
year
ago,
I
did
a
presentation
at
the
Colorado
city
and
county
management
association
on
our
work
on
sustainability,
and
it
was
attended
by
the
city
manager
in
Sheridan.
He
came
up
to
me
after
and
said
he
was
interested
in
partnering.
We
do
believe
that
we'll
be
able
to
achieve
economies
of
scale.
By
doing
this,
a
lot
of
the
work
that
our
coordinator
is
doing
could
be
replicated
in
Sheridan.
Y
Y
Yes,
she
would
become
a
full-time
employee
of
so
my
understanding
is
the
main
she
so
she
actually
isn't
over
a
30
hour
a
week,
employee
already
so
she's
already
entitled
she's
been
entitled
to
health
insurance
since
she
started
here.
So
the
only
difference
is
that
we'd
be
paying
into
her
retirement,
but
it
wouldn't
impact
her
health
insurance
at
all.
H
N
Y
N
Y
No,
so
what
what
that
section
really
means
is
that
just
the
support
that
we're
already
providing
her
so,
for
example,
the
it
example
would
be.
She
has
a
city
of
Inglewood
laptop
in
a
city
of
Inglewood,
a
cell
phone,
so
it
would
just
basically
be
that
she
would
be
allowed.
You
know
she
took
a
call
related
to
the
city
of
Sheridan
on
her
cell
phone.
That
would
be
permissible
if
she
was.
Y
You
know,
we
already
do,
for
example,
a
joint
hazardous
waste
day
that
I
believe
Sheridan's
involved
in
there's
light
processing,
that's
already
being
done
by
the
finance
department
related
to
that.
So
it's
really
just
the
support
that
she's
already
getting.
If
she's
working
on
projects
like
that
that
she's
doing
for
Englewood
and
Sheridan,
she
would
have
the
same
level
of
support.
N
Okay,
so
then
thank
you.
Question
number
third
item
number
four
sustainability
program
management.
All
services
provided
by
the
city
of
Inglewood
will
provide
the
city
of
Sheridan
with
support
for
the
development
of
a
sustainability
program
for
the
city
of
Sheridan
and
as
requested
by
the
city
of
Sheridan,
which
includes
but
is
not
limited
to
engagement
of
the
city
of
Sheridan
staff.
N
Members
related
to
sustainability,
group,
engagement
of
the
city
of
Sheridan,
Community,
related
to
sustainability,
programs,
development
of
a
city
of
Sheridan
sustainability,
plan,
establishment
of
a
city
of
Sheridan
sustainability,
committee
board
or
commission,
and
measuring
and
monitoring
of
sustainability
projects
and
measures
and
I
guess
what
I'm
concerned
about
is
I
see
all
of
the
things
that
are
required
by
the
city
of
Inglewood,
but
there's
really
nothing
required
by
the
city
of
Sheridan.
Are
they
just
going
to
sit
there
and
listen
to
us
and
we're
going
to
just
do
all
of
this?
For
them.
Y
No,
so
what
we're?
What
we
will
be
required
to
do
as
part
of
this
is
help
them
develop
a
plan
they're
at
a
very
decent
stage
in
terms
of
developing
the
scope
of
that
plan.
So
what
we
did
in
the
article
you
just
read
was
basically
provide
a
list
of
options
that
they
could
choose
to
act
on
in
terms
of
developing
a
program
we've
already
been
told
by
the
city
manager
they're
unlikely
to
create
a
sustainability
commission
there.
N
I
think
getting
a
copy
of
your
speech
will
probably
help
us
with
that.
Then.
The
last
thing
that
I
have,
which
is
very
Troublesome
to
me,
is
the
third
under
article
3
termination,
either
party
May
terminate
at
or
May
at
any
time
terminate
this
agreement
by
giving
the
other
party
30
days
of
written
notice.
Should
the
city
of
share
burden
upon
notice
terminate
the
agreement,
it
shall
compensate
the
city
of
Inglewood
for
all
work,
sustainable,
sustainably,
completed
on
the
day
of
termination.
N
However,
the
city
councils
of
the
cities
of
Inglewood
and
Sheridan
shall
have
the
authority
to
sooner
or
immediately
terminate
this
agreement
upon
finding
that
the
public
interest
requires
such
a
termination.
Have
we
established
already
the
fact
that
there
is
a
public
interest
that
currently
exists.
Y
I
Y
Think
I
would
defer
to
the
City
attorney
just
for
the
specifics
of
the
ways
we're
in
Legally
but
I
think
I
think
by
a
stab
I
would
say
within
the
city
of
Inglewood,
by
establishing
a
sustainability
program
which
was
funded
by
this
Council
I.
Think
there's
an
inherent
identification
that
there's
interest
in
doing
in
doing
this
work,
so
I
think
that's
really
where
that
came
from,
but.
N
N
It
is
about
coming
to
get
a
10
gift
certificate
to
Nixon's
for
filling
out
a
Survey
Monkey,
the
first
30
people
or
whoever
about
how
they
would
like
the
city
to
deal
with
electric
vehicles.
So
why
is
the
city
promoting
this?
For
Excel
Energy
I
mean
if
there
is
so
much
public
interest
already
I
I
have
a
concern
about
how
this
is
being
generated.
So
I,
don't
know
that
you
can
answer
that
question,
but
it
is
a
little
bit
Troublesome
to
me.
Y
N
C
Y
This
yeah
fantastic
question
so
originally,
when
we
were
talking
to
Sheridan,
we
had
that
discussion
and
we
decided
that
it
was
better
to
be
about
the
position
and
that's
why
it's
a
The
Proposal
is
an
agreement
between
the
two
cities,
and
so,
if
this
incumbent
were
to
leave-
and
we
still
had
funding
for
this
position
in
Inglewood,
we
would
still
I
guess
we
probably
advertise
it
as
a
joint
position.
Okay,.
Y
Seen
to
get
married
just
whatever
one
thing
to
remember,
Nanny
Cam's
comment
is:
we
have
also
had
very
preliminary
talks
with
Littleton,
just
because
they've
expressed
an
interest
as
well
but
they're
at
the
very
beginning
of
this
discussion,
but
I
do
I
do
think
it
did
come
up.
I
could
be
wrong
on
this,
but
I
do
believe
that
Littleton
did
bring
it
up
at
one
of
your
last
Tri-Cities
Council
meetings
about
the
concept
of
the
shared
sustainability
program.
Y
C
A
N
You
I
will
not
be
supporting
this,
because
I
have
some
pretty
grave
concerns.
I
mean
one
of
the
things
in
the
council.
Communication
said
that,
additionally,
this
agreement
will
continue
to
Foster
collaboration
between
the
two
cities,
which
have
successfully
partnered,
along
with
the
city
of
Littleton,
on
homelessness
and
other
topics.
N
A
H
There's
a
couple
things
briefly:
the
first
is
that
I
have
been
selected
as
a
work
group
lead
for
the
region,
opioid
task
force,
I'll,
be
leading
the
co-responder
work
group,
so
I
think
that'll
be
some
some
interesting
work
coming
out
of
that
I'm
excited
about
it.
I
missed
the
most
recent
meeting,
so
I
I
sort
of
got
volunteled
that
I'd
be
working
as
a
work
group
lead,
but
I
was
willing.
She
she
did
ask
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
that.
H
The
second
thing
is
in
regards
to
Council
discretionary
funds.
Obviously
January
1st
Council
discretionary
fund
has
reset
I
had
a
meeting
this
morning
with
the
interim
executive
director
for
the
chamber,
I
would
like
to
purchase
an
individual
chamber
membership
using
my
Council
discretionary
fund.
This
comports
with
Council
policy
provided
I,
can
assert
a
public
benefit
which
I
think
is
quite
obvious.
H
M
K
S
P
L
H
A
O
P
The
community
room
and
tomorrow
staff
will
be
reaching
out
to
three
council
members
who
have
not
yet
yet
RSVP
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
everybody
signed
up
for
that
who
is
available.
So
are
you
thinking
about
that?
Looking
at
your
calendars,
February
11th,
nine
through
four
and
that's
all
I
have
thank
you
mayor.
If.