►
From YouTube: City Council Study Session - 28 Nov 2022
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/150854?handle=4F0F037F017A43D8B79D1A468F0E3D29
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/150853?handle=E103E3FEE06B4EE8BD60EE9F93C31EEE
I. City Charter Review Project - 6:00pm - 6:50pm
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...
III. Reports from Board and Commission Council Liaisons
IV. Council Member’s Choice
V. City Manager’s Choice
II. Housing Assessment Study Update - 7:05pm - 8:05pm
Senior Planner John Voboril, Planning Manager Bryan Isham, and Heidi Aggeler of Root Policy will be present to provide an update on the final housing assessment study. Information and Direction Presen...
III. October 2022 Monthly Financial Report - 6:50pm - 7:05pm
Finance Director Jackie Loh will be present to review with City Council the October 2022 Financial Report. Information Presentation: 10 minutes Discussion: 5 minutes
III. CodeNext: Housing and Neighborhoods - 8:15pm - 10:15pm
Planning Manager Bryan Isham and Director of Community Development Brad Power will be present to give an update on CodeNext. Information and Direction Presentation: 20 minutes Discussion: 100 minutes
V. Break - 10 minutes - 8:05pm - 8:15pm
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/150854?handle=4F0F037F017A43D8B79D1A468F0E3D29
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/150853?handle=E103E3FEE06B4EE8BD60EE9F93C31EEE
A
Good
evening,
everyone
welcome
to
tonight's
city
council
study
session
for
Monday
November
28th.
We
have
four
items
on
the
agenda
for
tonight.
Starting
us
off
is
Catherine
sellers,
an
outside
legal
consultant
from
Hoffman
Parker,
Hoffman
and
Parker
here
to
present
a
review
of
the
section
of
the
city
Charter.
A
B
Right
so
the
first
slide
you
have
in
front
of
you
is
a
reference
back
to
our
last
meeting.
When
we
talked
about
the
residency
requirements
of
circulators,
I
did
do
a
little
digging
and
there
are
several
cases,
but
one
in
particular
are
the
10th
circuit
which
regulates
Colorado,
dealing
with
a
home
rule
municipality,
specifically
Arvada,
and
an
ordinance
that
was
passed
by
the
voters
in
Arvada,
actually
limiting
circulators
to
resonant
sarparvada
and
overturning
that
is
unconstitutional,
so
revisiting
that
issue.
B
On
your
second
slide,
there
you'll
see
a
crossout
in
some
italicized
language
as
a
suggestion
for
putting
forth
a
question
on
this
issue,
I
will
say
that
if,
for
some
reason
you
decide
not
to
put
forth
this
question
or
it
fails
for
some
reason,
it
would
still
be
unconstitutional
and
you
could
force
it.
You
can
always
pass
an
ordinance
clarifying
that
and
referencing
the
case
law
to
say
this
is
why
we
don't
have
this
requirement,
and
this
is
why
we
do
this.
B
B
And
so
that
was
my.
That
was
my
point
that
if
you
chose
not
to
put
it
Forward,
sometimes
questions
like
that,
depending
on
how
they're,
structured
or
confusing
to
voters
it's
hard
to
explain
all
of
that
in
a
question,
and
so
you
could
choose
not
to
put
it
forward
and
if
you
wanted
to
pass
an
ordinance
clarifying
that
that
issue
and
referencing
the
case
law,
you
could-
or
you
could
just
know
that
you
didn't
follow
that
section
of
your
Charter
and
that
you
followed
the
correct,
cancel
on
it.
E
C
B
E
B
Sure
so
the
next
topic
is
initiative,
and
you
have
the
full
text
in
front
of
you.
I
wanted
to
provide
that
to
you,
but
the
basic
just
is
on
the
next
slide:
I've
broken
it
down.
The
city
has
two
Avenues,
depending
on
the
number
of
people
who
sign
the
petition
for
an
initiative
or
initiated
ordinance
to
get
it
on
the
ballot
basically
or
get
it
in
front
of
council.
That's
unusual,
but
there's
nothing
legally
wrong
with
that
process.
B
So
it's
just
a
matter
of
of
whether
you
like
having
two
processes
and
base
the
basic
gist
is
I
tried
to
break
it
down
more
simply
in
that
slide.
Is
that
you
know.
If
you
have
ten
percent
you,
you
could
basically
get
a
special
election
called
and
if
you
have
less
than
that,
but
more
than
five
percent,
you
have
to
wait
until
the
next
election.
So
that's
basically
the
difference
there.
B
So
I
think.
The
first
question
is:
do
you
want
to
retain
both
pass
to
initiative
like
I
mentioned
earlier?
It's
completely
I
think
a
policy
issue,
and
then
on
that
unusual
terminology
of
the
gubernatorial
election.
That
is
not
actually
how
that
election
is
referred
to
every
four
years.
It's
a
general
state
election,
that's
how
it's
referred
to.
It
actually
happens
every
two
years,
so
I
you
know
we
could.
We
could
put
that
on
the
ballot
to
change
that
terminology.
B
G
B
E
H
B
A
B
B
If
you
recall
when
we
talked
about
section
14,
it's
got
this
very
unusual
limit
on
special
elections
and
how
often
they
can
be
called,
and
when
we
talked
about
that
you
hadn't
made,
you
didn't
make
a
decision
or
anything,
but
the
general
consensus
was
is
that
you
didn't
want
to
limit
special
elections,
they're
kind
of
limited
in,
because
they're
only
allowed
to
be
called
a.
You
know,
within
certain
time
periods
of
a
general
election
or
a
regular
election.
So
you
know
you
can't
you
can't
run
special
elections.
B
Definitely
subsections
two
and
three
of
fourteen,
which
limit
the
number
of
special
elections
and
section
three
that
this
doesn't
relate
to
required
that
certain
elections
I
think
it
was
disconnection
from
the
city
merger
with
another
city
and
a
general
Bond
General
obligation.
Bond
question
could
only
be
run
as
separately.
They
couldn't
be
run
with
any
other
question
or
measure
on
the
ballot,
so
that
was
subsection,
three
or
fourteen.
B
H
And
so
so,
then,
could
we
just
if
we
were
doing
this
on
the
ballot?
Maybe
I'm
jumping
ahead
a
little
bit
here,
but
if
we
wanted
to
put
on
there
to
remove
section
14
or
the
subsection
relative
to
this
submissions
portion,
could
we
also
just
say
in
that
question
that
remove
all
references
to
it
that
section
as
well
or
does.
B
H
E
E
So
two
and
three
I
would
strike
I.
Think
if
I,
if
I'm
correct-
and
maybe
you
can
clarify
this-
for
me-
a
recall-
is
a
type
of
special
election
generally
unless
it,
unless
the
petition
is
circulated
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
of
a
regularly
occurring
election,
a
referendum
would
potentially
also
be
a
special
election
and
then
an
initiative
if
they
meet
the
signature
burden,
would
potentially
be
a
special
election.
E
So
essentially
this
limiting
section
of
our
Charter
says:
if
you
call
one
of
those,
you
can't
have
another
one
for
a
year,
which
would
deny
petitioners
their
right
to
call
for
a
special
election.
If
you
know
we
kick
the
Beehive
and
they
get
really
mad,
we
could
have
you
know
two
or
three
special
elections
of
the
year.
It's
obviously
not
ideal,
but
I
I.
Don't
support
limiting
the
right
of
Voters
too,
to
engage
in
direct
democracy
in
that
manner.
B
Yeah
and
I
mean
I
think
you
know
as
a
policy
issue
for
you
all
to
consider.
It
might
put
you
kind
of
in
a
sticky
spot
where
you
have
people
people
initiating
an
ordinance
and
wanting
to
have
a
special
election
and
you're
like.
Oh,
no
sorry,
we
already
had
one
this
year.
We
can't
have
another
I
mean
you
can
rely
on
your
Charter
to
make
that
case.
But
you
know,
as
elected
officials,
that
might
put
you
in
an
uncomfortable
position.
A
F
So
just
Playing
devil's
advocate
here.
If
there
was
an
election-
and
you
know
regular
general
election,
regular
election
or
a
special
election
and
there
had
to
be
a
runoff
if
there
was
a
tie
or
something
like
that,
would
we
be
limiting
ourselves
with
the
limit
of
two
I
mean
we
would
be?
Wouldn't
we.
J
B
So
if
you
were,
if
you
had
so,
if
you
had
your
general
municipal
election
and
then
you
had
to
have
a
runoff
election
for
some
reason
that
I,
don't
think
would
fall
under
this,
because
this
is
related
to
no
more
than
one
special
election
shall
be
held
under
the
provisions
of
section
46
section.
46
is
your
initiative
section
yeah.
E
More
question
regarding
timing:
I
remember
we
talked
about
this
previously,
but
can
you
refresh
my
memory?
The
purpose
of
the
90-45
day
timeline
in
our
Charter
do.
Does
that
comport
with
state
code
or
could
we
presumably
shorten
that
because
right
now
we're
looking
at
four
and
a
half
month
window,
basically
during
which
voters
cannot
call
for
a
special
election,
because
it
would
have
bought
the
regular
regularly
scheduled
General
municipal
election?
That
would
be
in
favor
of
changing
that
to
a
45-45
standard.
E
B
E
B
The
only
I
think
the
only
reasoning
I
can't
speak
to
with
the
state
law
of
reasoning
is,
or
even
your
Charter
reasoning
is
just-
is
that
the
running
of
Elections
just
takes
some
time.
Yes,
and
so,
if
you
call
for
an
election,
and
Stephanie
can
probably
speak
to
the
time
frame,
better
than
I
can
but
you're
talking
at
least
60
to
90
days
out,
and
so
then
you're
running
smack
into
the
one.
You
already
have
right.
E
E
B
J
K
Thank
you,
mayor
I
was
reviewing
my
notes
for
when
we
discussed
section
14
and
from
my
notes,
I,
don't
think
we
actually
consensus
as
a
body
that
we
wanted
to
remove
that
section.
I
know
that
the
mayor,
Pro
tem,
supported
deleting
the
limit
on
the
number
of
Elections
I'm
agnostic.
I
do
think
that
two
elections
every
year,
the
opportunity
for
two
elections
every
year
does
seem
sufficient
and
I'm
hesitant
to
increase
that
number
and
just
the
strain
that
would
put
on
the
city
and
our
resources
and
our
staff.
A
D
Thank
you,
mayor
I,
do
agree
with
the
mayor,
Pro,
tem
and
councilmember
Anderson
in
the
fact
that
we
we
may
never
use
this,
but
I
actually
do
believe
if
there
was
a
group
that
wanted
to
do
a
special
election
for
a
special
reason
that
we
should
not
limit
them.
For
wanting
to
do
that,
it
may
never
happen
so
I'm
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
the
suggestion
of
the
mayor,
Pro,
tem
and
councilmember
Anderson.
H
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
revise
now
that
I've
read
over
a
little
bit.
Definitely
in
favor
of
removing
section
two
of
the
three,
but
not
particularly
one
would
want
to
think
through
that
a
little
bit
more
and
also
I.
Think
to
you
know
this
one
could
be
one
of
the
ones
that
that,
for
me,
you
know,
doesn't
rise
to
the
level
of
a
ballet
question.
H
I,
don't
know,
and
that's
kind
of
why
I
feel
like
I'm
kind
of
feeling
now
like
we
need
a
store,
store
some
of
these
in
reserve
and
get
to
the
end
and
go.
Oh.
We
have
37
ballot
questions,
you
know.
Maybe
we
should
Nick
some
of
them,
but
I'm
not
prepared
to
say
that
this
isn't
one
of
those
at
this
point.
B
E
A
H
I
was
just
thinking
there.
There
may
actually
be
a
math.
You
know
a
mathematical
limit
here
with.
If
you
know
we
can't
have
one
90
days
before
the
general
election.
That
leaves
you
know
275
days
left
in
the
year.
If
we
had
two
there
I
guess
that's
another
hundred,
and
that
would
only
be
one
more
between
that
time.
137.
If
we
had
two
that
would
divide
that.
G
H
H
A
A
B
So
the
next
section
is
the
referendum
process.
Unlike
the
initiative,
it
only
has
one
Avenue
for
a
referendum
again,
there's
some
unusual
terminology
with
the
gubernatorial
vote,
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So,
if
you
choose
to
change
that
in
the
other,
one
I
would
definitely
change
that
here,
but
other
than
that,
you
know,
depending
on
what
you
decide
with
14.
Maybe
some
changes
to
that,
but
we
don't
really
have
any
changes
to
this.
B
So
this
next
section
addresses
how
a
initiated
ordinance
or
a
you
know.
A
referred
ordinance
could
eventually
be
revised,
repealed,
amended
and
so
in
your
Charter.
It
goes
back
to
a
vote
basically
and
I.
Guess
our
question,
for
you
is:
do
you
want
a
strict
limit
on
changes
that
the
voters
have
to
approve
any
amendments
or
revisions
to
an
initiated,
ordinance,
a
reference
referred
measure
and
then
maybe
another
option
would
be
to
have
a
super
majority
is
able
to
change
it.
B
I
will
say
this
is
always
an
issue
that
comes
up
some
in
some
cyclical
ways
for
home
rule
or
not
for
homable,
but
for
municipalities
as
to
you
know
they
hadn't
initiated
ordinance
from
10
years
ago,
and
when
can
they
change
it,
and
so
there's
no
answer
really
under
state
law,
so
I
would
not
recommend
deleting
this
I
would
recommend
some
standard
at
the
very
least
but
I
guess
it's
up
to
you.
What
you
feel
from
a
policy
perspective
is
appropriate
for
the
city.
B
I
have
a
go
back
to
a
vote.
The
best
standard
I
think
to
set
would
be
a
super
majority
of
council
to
vote.
To
amend.
Most
of
them
are
just
silent.
That's
the
reality
is,
is
that
there
there
are
hardly
any
Charters
that
say:
oh,
this
is
what
happens
once
the
initiated
ordinance
is
approved
or
there's
a
referred
measure.
That's
approved.
This
is
how
it
could
be
modified.
A
lot
of
Charters
are
silent.
Yours
is
actually
pretty
unusual
because
it
actually
talks
about
how
they
can
be
amended.
B
D
B
E
Yeah
my
question
is
similar
and
perhaps
even
the
same
as
councilman
Anderson's
question
this.
This
language
is
pretty
specific.
It
says
adopted
or
rejected
by
electoral
vote.
So
if
we're
working
on
a
controversial
issue
as
a
council-
and
we
pass
an
ordinance,
the
voters
circulate
a
referendum
petition
and
they
say
we
don't
like
that
ordinance
and
it
goes
down
in
flames
at
The,
Ballot
Box.
Does
that
in
your
opinion,
mean
that
we
are
restricted
from
addressing
that
topic
again
or
can
we
just
not
write
the
same
ordinance
again.
G
B
The
the
problem
with
the
interpretation
question
that
you're
raising
I
think
is
that
the
language
revised
repealed
and
amended
is
a
bit
unusual.
It's
missing
something
right.
It's
missing
just
adopted
straight
out
like
so
you
don't
have
an
ordinance
on
the
books.
You
pass
an
ordinance
that
voters
refer
it,
the
the
voters
say
no
council,
we
don't
want
that
ordinance
and
the
one
verb
that's
missing
there
is
adopted,
I.
Think
a
Court's
really
going
to
struggle
with
the
intent
of
that
provision.
Okay,.
B
E
So
it's
something
that
would
potentially
result
in
litigation
I'd
like
to
do
a
further
examination
of
this
particular
section
before
I
make
any
conclusion
on
what
we
should
do.
I
I,
like
the
spirit
of
what
it's
trying
to
do,
but
I
I,
think
it
there's
something
in
here
that
doesn't
quite
sit
right
with
me.
Okay,.
A
K
If
there's
been
issues,
maybe
throughout
time
throughout
history,
where
we've
had
to
go
back
to
the
voters
on
something
that
maybe
feel
is
a
little
bit
granular,
if
there
is
a
way
to
clean
that
up,
I'm,
not
sure
if
you're
familiar
with
any
examples,
I'm
hesitant
to
include
the
super
majority
vote
in
a
way
that
would
be
able
to
repeal
something
that
the
voters
have
passed.
But
I
am
curious
about.
If
there
are
any
potential
challenges
we
would
face
in
the
implementation
of
something.
B
Yeah
I
mean
the
real
I've
seen
it
happen
with
certain
well
I.
Think
marijuana
is
probably
the
biggest
one
just
because
the
law
and
the
regulations
related
to
marijuana
change
out
of
no
control
of
immunicipality
the
terminology
changes.
The
licenses
are
available
to
change,
and
this
would
prevent
you
from
adding
a
license.
B
That's
new,
potentially
that
wasn't
part
you'd
have
to
go
back
well,
can
we
have
delivery
permits
or
whatever
I
think
that's
a
really
good
example
of
something
that
kind
of
changes
without
your
control
and
can
get
really
out
of
whack,
with
an
original
ordinance
on
like
marijuana
I've
had
some
other
I've
had
one
client
who
had
issues
with
how
something
was
supposed
to
be
funded
and
the
funding
whether
it
was
supposed
to
fund
no
longer
existed,
and
so
they
were
like.
What
do
we
do
now?
B
B
Could
we
could
talk
about
this
next
time
with
maybe
some
ideas
about
how
to
find
Nuance
on
the
kind
of
amendment
revising
repealing
language
where
you
know,
maybe
if
the
spirit
of
the
referred
measure
or
the
initiated
ordinance
is
maintained
or
not
violated,
I
guess
in
the
in
the
in
the,
in
the
circumstances
of
a
rejection
that
you're
not
going
against
the
spirit
of
the
vote,
I
guess
is
kind
of
what
I'm
saying.
I
know
that
sounds
very
fuzzy,
but
something
like
that
where
it's
like.
K
I
personally,
I'm
sorry
go
ahead.
I
would
say.
I
would
personally
find
that
very
helpful
to
read
this
revisit
this
with
some
more
clear
kind
of
examples
of
what
our
options
are
here
very
much
to
what
you're
saying
you
know.
Maybe
we
we
maintain
that
we
can't
repeal
it,
but
we
but
leave
the
options
to
make
the
necessary
adjustments
to
implement.
You
know
the
will
of
the
voters
or
to
comply
with
state
laws
and
changes.
Foreign.
E
Just
one
suggestion
of
that,
being
you
know
in
the
event
that
something
does
go
completely
sideways.
Maybe
the
authority
to
pass
an
emergency
ordinance,
that's
effective
until
the
people
can
vote
might
might
also
be
a
way
to
go,
and
that
way
Council
would
be
able
to
act
quickly
enough
to
make
whatever
changes
necessary.
But
then
there
would
be
that
again
check
on
the
authority
that
they're
exercising
subsequent
to
that
action.
B
So
the
only
question
we
really
wanted
to
raise
with
you
is:
do
you
want
to
have
the
residue
versus
residency
restriction
for
the
city
manager
in
the
charter?
You
know
again,
this
is
a
policy
question,
not
really
a
legal
one.
Sometimes
maybe
it
makes
it
hard
to
recruit
candidates.
Things
like
that,
I,
don't
know
what
your
experience
has
been
so
again.
This
policy,
you
can
always
require
it
in
the
contract
that
you
have
with
the
city
manager
or
that
they
can.
B
E
L
F
A
B
A
Yeah
yeah,
my
preference
is
not
to
change
it,
but
I
can
I
can
understand,
especially
when
the
housing
market
was
really
tight.
I
I
had
concerns
about
whether
or
not
we
can
get
that
residency
in
place
in
time.
So
that
was
my
only
concern
there,
but
I
do
feel
that
the
city
managers
should
be
living
within
the
city
limits,
but
remember:
Russell
did
you
have
something
to
add?
I
saw
a
light
over
there,
but
I
guess.
C
B
B
So
could
you
negotiate
for
a
higher
Severance
or
you
know,
could
you
drop
below
it
and
so
the
kind
of
question
again
it's
a
policy
issue
is:
do
you
want
to
keep
that
specific,
Severance
calculation
in
the
charter
as
opposed
to
leaving
it
as
a
matter
of
contract?
Again,
I,
don't
know
what
effect
this
might
have
on
recruitment
if
it's
considered
a
ceiling
and
they
can't
negotiate
for
a
larger
Severance
I,
don't
know
what
that
will
do
with
candidates.
H
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
before
my
time,
but
I
think
this
has
been
for
some
time
now
been
at
least
considered
a
floor,
but
to
me
I
I
would
this
is
when
I
would
consider
removing
that
provision?
That's
something
that
I
think
can
be
dealt
with
times
changed.
You
know,
expectations,
change,
Market
changes,
so
that's
something
that
could
be
dealt
with.
I
think
contract
contract.
K
Unsealing
is
the
is
the
ambiguity
necessarily
a
bad
thing?
Is
it
something
that
I
mean
it's
been
this
way
for
a
long
time?
Is
it
something
that
leaves
us
flexibility
or
is
because
again
I'm
just
thinking
about
how
many,
how
many
changes
do
we
really
want
to
make,
and
some
of
the
things
that
are
existing
may
be
fine
and
we
have
some
flexibility.
K
B
K
M
E
E
A
A
A
M
N
Thank
you.
The
total
operating
year-to-date
revenue
is
tracking
12.2
percent
higher
than
the
same
time
last
year,
but
the
major
Revenue
line
items
through
October
2022.
The
city
has
to
received
8.7
million
in
property
taxes.
A
vat
total
5.2
million
went
to
the
general
fund,
385
000
to
Edda
and
the
rest
to
The,
Debt
Service
for
the
parks
and
rec
and
the
police
building
General
obligation
bonds.
N
The
next
line
item
is
Celsius
tax,
remittance,
total
33.1
million
or
a
94.1
percent
of
budgeted
Revenue,
which
is
4.1
million
higher
than
the
same
time.
Last
year,
Additionally
the
sales
to
use
tax
Audits
and
a
voluntary
disclosure
collections
amount
to
365
000..
Please
note
the
Edda
Tiff
tax
increment
financing
is
estimated
at
293
000,
which
is
the
higher
than
the
Edda
budget
revenue
of
220
000..
This
figure
is
subject
to
audit
the
marijuana
sales
tax
audit
amounts
tax
accounts
for
1.3
million,
which
is
278
000
lower
than
2021..
N
N
N
You
can
see
the
Celsius
tax
collections
by
area.
You
can
see
the
total
new
business
opened
and
the
closed
I
want
to
reference.
A
question
mayor,
Pro
tem
acts
related
to
area
5
based
on
a
September
Financial.
The
area
of
fund
has
given
more
businesses
but
expense
revenue
losses.
We
did
some
research.
The
primary
revenue
loss
is
attributed
to
the
marijuana
retail
sales.
You
can
see
based
on
October
financials.
The
marijuana
Revenue
was
down
by
278
000
compared
to
the
same
time.
Last
year,
the
business
scan
in
area
five.
Those
are
very
small.
N
Businesses
like
office
supplies,
mini
Mars,
liquor
stores
fast
food,
so
you
can
see
the
additions
and
subtractions
from
the
business
from
that
area
and
here's
the
reason
why
the
revenues
decrease
comparison
time
last
year
due
to
the
marijuana
sales
next
slide,
please
well.
This
is
another
way
to
present
the
sales
use
collected
by
area
from
2018
to
2022..
N
N
N
N
Next
yeah,
this
is
another
way
to
present
our
expenditures
by
categories
Personnel,
Commodities
contractor
Services
capital
and
the
debt
services
across
all
departments.
Part
of
the
variances
in
Personnel
is
due
to
the
3.5
salary
increase
across
employee
groups.
Also,
the
year-to-date
factors
include
the
seller
adjustments,
mid-year
promotions
for
various
positions.
Then
please
note
that
Inglewood,
employee
Association
eea,
at
Inglewood,
Police
bargaining,
Association,
epba,
started
receiving
3.5
salary
on
October
August,
1st.
N
N
N
N
N
To
ending
general
fund
balance
of
22.9
million
of
that
1.8
million
is
restricted
for
Tabor
by
law
and
95.
000
is
committed
by
Council,
because
the
long-term
assets
reserve
and
404
000
is
restricted
for
specific
projects
for
Opera
funding,
and
a
1.1
million
is
restricted
by
funder
for
youth
activities.
As
a
result
of
the
sales
of
Denver
Bronco
team
of
the
1.1
million
Council
has
approved
the
use,
approximately
616
000
for
2023
expenditures
and
another
16.7
percent
is
a
restricted
Reserve,
which
leads
unassigned
fund
balance
at
the
end
of
October
around
9.5
million
next
yeah.
G
A
A
Time,
thank
you,
director,
Lowe,
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
ask
members
of
council
did
we
want
to
take
a
break
now
before
we
jump
into
the
housing
assessment
and
code
next
I
just
felt
it
would
be
best
to
have
those
two
together,
so
any
preference
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
our
10
minute
break
now
and
we'll
come
back
at
705..
Thank
you.
Everyone.
G
P
A
O
Sorry
good
evening,
mayor
and
Council
I
just
want
to
give
a
brief
intro
on
this
topic.
We
we
started
this
process
back
in
April
of
2022..
Here
we
are
pretty
short
seven
little
over
seven
months
later
and
Heidi
Aguilar
is
here
to
present
the
findings
and
recommendations
from
root
policies.
Housing
needs
assessment
that
they
did
for
the
city
as
well
as
have
some
discussions
on
incentive-based
policy
and
inclusionary
based
policy.
So
without
that
I'll
invite
Heidi
up
to
go
through
their
presentations
and
will
be
available
for
any
questions
from
Council.
I
Great,
thank
you
very
much,
Brian
nice
to
see
you
all
this
evening.
I
do
have
a
slide
presentation
which
you
can
go
ahead
and
jump
into,
and
just
that
I
don't
know
how
to
work
there.
We
go.
That's
easy.
It's
really
nice
to
be
with
you,
I'm
Heidi
agler,
from
root
policy.
We
are
women-owned
business.
Just
up
the
street
in
Denver
and
I'm,
going
to
present
on
the
housing
needs
assessment
that
we've
conducted
for
the
city,
so
I
want
to
do.
I
I'll
cover
three
main
items
today,
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
recap:
you've
seen
some
of
the
housing
needs
already
I'm,
going
to
give
a
recap
so
that
the
folks
who
watching
can
get
up
to
speed
on
where
we
are
in
the
assessment,
I'll
discuss
our
recommendations
and
then
I'm
going
to
Pivot
a
little
bit
and
talk
policy,
specifically
the
feasibility
analysis
associated
with
two
policies,
incentives
and
inclusionary
Zoning
I
wanted
to
start
with.
First
addressing
or
answering
the
question
about.
Why
is
it
important
to
address
housing
needs?
I.
I
Think
we're
all
aware
that
we're
in
a
very
difficult
Market
in
Colorado
right
now
is
in
many
parts
of
the
country,
but
I
wanted
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
items
of
research
that
are
really
I,
think
imperative
and
thinking
about.
Why
is
it
appropriate
for
a
local
government
to
address
housing
needs?
And
the
first
is
this
awareness
that
housing
is
a
fundamental
functioning
element
of
an
economy
when
we
think
about
housing
and
how
people
cycle
through
how
housing?
There
are
a
number
of
different
reasons
why
they
may
need
to
change
their
housing
situation.
I
They
may
move
out
of
their
parents
house
they
may
graduate
from
a
trade
school
from
college
and
start
a
household
on
their
own.
They
may
get
divorced.
They
may
need
to
move
in
with
a
family
member
to
care
for
them
and
when
you
think
about
housing
needs,
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
this
life
cycle
that
everybody
goes
through
and
how
housing
needs
changes
over
time.
I
The
fourth
bullet
here
on
Englewood
Englewood,
historically,
is
offered
offered
a
lot
of
affordability
for
the
metro
area,
but
that's
changed
pretty
dramatically
because
of
interest
rates
going
up
because
of
housing
market
prices
going
up
production
overall
in
the
metro
area
has
not
kept
up
with
demand
so
jumping
in
and
talking
about.
Housing
needs,
in
particular,
a
summary
of
of
top
needs.
I'll
begin
with
a
diversity
of
housing,
stock
and
I'm
going
to
talk
about
that
in
more
depth.
I
In
just
a
moment,
we're
seeing
in
the
metro
area
and
in
Englewood
a
need
for
housing
stock
to
diversify,
to
accommodate
the
range
of
needs
that
I've
discussed
additional
affordable.
Rentals
is
another
top
needs.
Your
rental
prices
have
increased
really
dramatically
much
faster
than
the
income
of
renters
starter
homes.
Priced
at
or
below,
300
000
is
another
top
need,
people
who
are
trying
to
get
into
Home
Ownership
or
having
a
lot
of
trouble
finding
affordably
priced
homes
as
a
consequence.
I
So,
starting
with
housing
structure
type,
we
took
a
look
at
housing
units
by
type
single
family
detached
small
attached.
That
would
include
a
duplex,
a
four
Plex
row:
homes,
larger
attached
units,
that's
what
we
typically
think
of
as
apartments
and
then
mobile
homes
or
other,
and
this
shows
Englewood
compared
to
peer
communities
in
the
metro
area.
You'll
see
that
Englewood
Falls
a
little
bit
short
in
the
small
attached
housing
type.
You
don't
have
a
whole
lot
of
that
and
you
see
compared
to
other
areas,
including
the
Denver
metro,
that
your
proportions
are
a
little
smaller.
I
Shifting
and
talking
about
rental
rentals
if
I
was
a
renter
and
I
was
shopping
around
in
2010.
If
you
look
at
the
graphic
here,
you
can
see
that
the
highest
proportion
of
rental
units
would
fall
into
that
500
to
650
range
pretty
affordable.
Today,
the
highest
proportion
of
rental
units
in
Englewood
falls
in
the
1500
to
2000
Range.
So
you
think
about
those
that
that
median
rent
that
I'd
be
shopping
for
has
shifted
dramatically
over
the
last
10
years.
I
This
graphic
here
shows
what
we
call
housing
gaps
and
we
determine
housing
gaps
by
comparing
supply
and
demand
of
housing.
We
start
with
the
rental
market
gaps.
What
we
do
is
we
look
at
the
the
proportion
and
the
number
of
renters
under
a
certain
income
level
relative
to
supply,
so
the
units,
if
they
were
out
shopping
today,
units
that
they
could
find
that
they
could
afford
when
the
number
of
units
is
smaller
than
the
number
of
renters.
I
That
is
a
gap
and
where
you
see
the
Gap
is
most
acute
for
renters,
and
this
is
true
of
all
of
the
jurisdictions
in
which
we're
working
in
the
metro
area.
Is
it
that
zero
to
thirty
percent
Ami
to
put
that
into
dollar
amount
terms
in
the
metropolitan
area?
The
Ami
is
a
little
over
a
hundred
thousand.
So
this
is
about
thirty
thousand
dollars
per
year
that
a
family
would
earn
to
fall
under
that
30
Ami
level.
I
There
is
a
shortage
of
about
1500
units,
so
there
are
1500
more
renters
earning
zero
to
thirty
percent
of
Ami
than
units
to
meet
their
affordability
needs,
there's
also
a
gap
at
the
less
than
50
Ami
level.
So
roughly
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year,
but
that's
a
little
bit
smaller.
The
units
start
to
catch
up
with
the
renters.
At
that
point
in
time
for
for
sale,
we
look
at
proportion.
I
So
we
look
at
the
proportion
of
renters
who,
under
at
a
certain
income
bucket,
who
would
be
out
shopping
relative
to
what
they
can
find
and
where
there
is
a
gap.
It's
a
percentage,
Point
Gap,
and
so
you
see
the
most
acute
Gap
at
that
30
percent
to
eighty
percent
Ami
level,
but
it
also
exists
up
to
120
Ami.
I
To
shift
and
talk
about
recommendations,
so
when
we
think
and
there's
a
lot
more
information
in
the
full
housing
needs
assessment
about
needs,
I
just
talked
about
the
most
prevalent
needs
when
you
think
about
how
would
you
approach
this
as
a
locality
about
the
size
of
Englewood?
What
can
you
do
to
make
a
difference
in
people's
housing
situation
right
now?
The
key
strategies
include
funding,
so
you
can
divert
or
direct
money
into
assisting
a
Housing
Development
into
assisting
people
achieve
housing
stability.
I
You
can
facilitate
the
building
or
the
development
of
units,
which
is
what
a
lot
of
jurisdictions
are
trying
to
do
right
now,
since
we're
so
behind
as
a
metropolitan
area
in
the
state
in
production
that
can
include
dedicated,
affordable
housing.
So,
where
there's
a
contract
that
designates
what
the
income
is
for
a
person
to
be
able
to
live
in
that
housing,
it
can
also
include
what
we
call
naturally
occurring:
affordable
housing,
so
market
rate
housing.
I
That
is,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
affordable
a
generally
more
affordable
than
other
types
of
Housing
and
then
also
facilitating
diverse
housing
types.
So
making
sure
that
you've
got
that
Suite
of
housing
units
of
housing
Supply
that
people
need
as
they
go
through
their
life
cycle.
Preserving
housing
and
englewood's
done
this
for
a
number
of
years.
I
Our
recommended
action
items
when
we
step
back
and
we
look
at
the
needs
and
think
about
what
can
a
community
like
and
what
should
a
community
like
angle,
would
do
to
address
needs.
These
are
our
recommendations.
The
first
is
adopting
a
goal,
so
we're
big
Believers
in
our
clients
adopting
goals.
So
you
have
something
to
work
toward
there's
a
number
of
different
ways.
You
can
think
about
those
goals.
I
You
could
adopt
an
output
oriented
goal
so,
where
you
you
focus
on
how
many
types
of
units
would
you
like
to
see
developed
over
a
period
of
Time?
How
could
you
facilitate
development
of
units
that
are
more
likely
to
be
affordable
or
that
are
intentionally
affordable?
You
can
also
look
at
an
input
goal.
So
how
could
you
direct
funding?
How
could
you
direct
policy
to
be
able
to
facilitate
more
housing
and
then,
finally,
some
of
our
clients
will
set
what
we
call
Value
oriented
goals.
I
We'd
like
to
see
this
kind
of
housing
be
developed
for
these
types
of
residents
who
we
know
have
needs
creating
a
dedicated
Revenue
source
to
address
housing
challenges.
The
emphasis
here
is
on
that
dedicated
Revenue
source.
So
we
see
a
lot
of
our
clients,
create
housing,
trust
funds,
but
they
don't
have
a
recurring
source
of
Revenue
associated
with
them,
so
they
may
build
up
over
time
or
they
may
not
build
up
over
time
to
a
level.
That's
adequate
to
be
able
to
really
move
the
needle
in
terms
of
housing.
I
Updating
your
code,
which
we'll
talk
about
more
tonight,
to
reduce
barriers
to
allow
development
of
more
diverse
housing
types,
codifying
development
incentives
for
affordable
housing.
I'm
going
to
talk
about
that
next,
considering
inclusionary
zoning
to
create
more
affordable
units,
allocating
publicly
owned
land
or
strategically
acquiring
underutilized,
Properties
or
vacant
land
to
then
repurpose
that
land
for
affordable
or
mixed
income,
housing,
supporting
acquisition
and
Rehabilitation
that
preserves
housing,
improving
access
to
an
awareness
of
Regional,
Housing
Programs
and,
if
possible,
bolster
with
local
resources.
There's
a
lot
of
energy
right
now,
particularly
in
the
South
Metro
Area.
I
Your
a
lot
of
your
peer
communities,
including
Littleton,
are
looking
at
shifting
their
housing
policies.
A
Littleton
just
passed
an
inclusionary
zoning,
ordinance,
Centennial,
studying
housing
as
well,
and
so
thinking
about.
How
do
you
all
coordinate
and
work
together
so
that
you've
got
comparable
policies
that
the
development
Community
can
understand
and,
last
but
not
least,
thinking
more
broadly
advocating
for
regional
collaboration
and
partnership
development?
It's
my
understanding
that
thinking
about
Regional
coordination,
you'll
see
some
State
activity,
or
at
least
State
discussions
in
this
legislative
session
around
that
as
well.
I
So,
just
being
aware
of
that,
this
doesn't
acknowledge.
We
put
this
together
before
we
knew
that
the
proposition
123
had
passed,
and
so
obviously
you
know
looking
toward
how
you
may
be
able
to
benefit
from
that
increased
Revenue
source,
so
I'm
going
to
shift
and
talk
about
feasibility
analysis
and
then
I'll.
Take
questions
by
feasibility
analysis.
I
The
reason
that
you
need
to
do
feasibility
analysis
and
there's
many
examples
out
there
of
communities
that
have
not
done
feasibility,
analyzes
and
then
three
years
down
the
road
looked
back
and
realized.
Our
policy
is
not
working.
Why
is
it
not
is
to
understand
how
well
these
systems
are
going
to
work?
We
model
typical
real
estate
pro
forma,
so
that's
the
the
sort
of
development,
the
the
revenue
against
costs
and
look
at
the
return
where
the
return
would
be
without
an
incentive
or
an
inclusionary
policy
and
how
that
would
change
over
time.
I
One
note
is
that
these
are
market-driven
programs,
so
the
feasibility
analysis
looks
at
the
private
sector
and
the
private
sector
as
a
partner
in
developing
housing.
Under
these
scenarios,
it's
important
to
note
that
when
these
policies
typically
don't
work,
it's
because
production
is
low
or
is
non-existent.
So
these
two
programs
only
work
when
new
housing
is
being
built.
I
So
we
tested
a
number
of
incentives
and
requirements.
We
looked
at
two
different
districts,
your
R1
district
and
then
your
multi-unit
districts,
and
we
tested
a
number
of
different
guidelines
that
we
see
employed
in
peer
communities.
So
I'll
give
you
an
example
here,
tier
one,
detached
house.
We
asked
the
question
of
what,
if
the
city
allowed
multi-unit
unit
housing
standards
in
a
detached,
a
medium
lot
zone
with
a
lot
size
reduction
to
1800
square
feet
per
unit.
I
We
also-
and
this
is
a
really
important
piece-
we
modeled
a
parking
reduction
and
that's
a
very
important
part
of
that
modeling
and
the
success
of
that
modeling.
For,
like
a
tier
two
there
for
the
first
line,
we
said
what,
if
10
percent
of
the
units
below
or
what,
if
the
requirement
was
10
percent
of
units
are
affordable
below
60
Ami
for
rental
or
15
percent
of
units
below
80
Ami
for
sale.
I
If
you
allowed
an
additional
story
in
terms
of
a
development
bonus
and
then
also
allowed
a
parking
reduction,
so
this
is
the
math
behind
all
of
that
feasibility.
Analyzes
again
we
looked
at
single-family
detached
homes,
a
row
house
on
a
larger
lot,
a
three-story
small
apartment,
a
three-story,
large
apartment
and
then
a
six-story
large
apartment.
And
what
I
would
you
know?
Point
you
to
what's
really
important
is
the
far
right
column,
which
is
the
return
on
cost.
So
we
did
a
base
case.
I
What
could
I
develop
today
if
I
walked
in
the
door
and
wanted
to
build
and
what
would
happen,
for
example,
on
this
base
case,
the
single
family
detached
if
I
was
allowed
to
do
a
four
Plex
on
a
single
family
lot.
If
one
of
those
units
was
affordable,
would
my
return
go
up
or
down,
and
you
can
see
in
all
of
these
scenarios
so
where
you
see
the
little
green
Plus
on
the
far
right
side,
the
return
goes
up,
so
these
are
all
economically
feasible
alternatives
to
the
base
case.
I
I'll
go
back
to
that
too.
If
you
have
questions
about
the
math,
but
the
last
Point
here
is
that,
as
I
mentioned,
the
proposed
incentive
package
does
generate
material
benefit
to
developers
under
a
typical
development
scenario.
Now
all
development
scenarios
are
a
little
bit
different,
we're
modeling
what
we
believe
to
be
an
average
development
scenario
for
average
development
development
costs
right
now,
a
couple
things
to
keep
in
mind
when
you're
thinking
about
an
incentive.
I
What
was
really
key
is
the
parking
reduction,
so
that
gave
developers
that
big
that
big
boost,
if
you
were
to
allow
parking
reduction
as
an
incentive-
let's
say
just
to
produce
more
units,
then
it's
very
unlikely
that
a
developer
is
going
to
opt
into
an
affordable
housing
incentive
if
they
can
already
get
the
parking
reduction
through
for
a
different
reason.
So
a
different
policy
reason.
So
just
keep
that
in
mind.
I
If
you
were
to
give
that
parking
waiver
up
for
different
reasons,
it's
unlikely
you're,
going
to
generate
a
lot
of
affordable
housing
through
an
incentive
program.
Mandatory
inclusionary
program
with
a
similar
incentive
now
state
law
that
allowed
inclusionary
zoning
to
happen
did
require
some
kind
of
incentive.
So
we
modeled
that
that's
a
linked
program
where
you
have
inclusionary
and
the
incentive
it's
also
feasible.
C
I
Not
necessarily,
you
know,
an
RSM
assessment
was
that
your,
although
that
can
be
true,
but
it
really
depends
on
who's
occupying
that
housing.
Our
assessment
was
that
your
parking
requirements
are
or
quite
large,
and
so
that
there
is
some
wiggle
room
there
to
be
able
to
offer
that
incentive,
and
it's
a
big
incentive,
because
parking
development
of
parking
is
expensive,
particularly
structured
parking.
I
D
Okay,
that
is
that's
interesting,
I
mean
I,
know
over
at
the
Mali
Center,
not
the
Mali
Center,
the
Simon
Center.
The
parking
lot
is
full
and
that
is
mostly
HUD
assistance
so
and
and
I
guess.
Here's
my
concern
is
the
fact
that,
especially
in
areas
where
there's
a
lot
of
apartment,
houses
and
one
area
is
over
between
Lafayette
and
probably
about
race
and
just
south
of
Floyd
there's
a
lot
of
apartment
houses
in
there.
D
D
H
Thank
you
mayor.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
My
question
is
on
on
a
part
on
thinking
through
a
parking
reduction
incentive.
You
know
right
now
our
parking
requirements
way
up
here
and
if
we
say
we're
going
to
keep
that
the
same,
but
we'll
give
an
incentive
for
low
in
a
low-income
housing
that
gets
it
reduced,
we're
picking
up
some
new,
low-income
housing.
That's
basically,
instead
of
paying
for
parking
spaces
they're
paying
now
for
some
low-income
housing,
I
can
see
that
being
a
good
incentive.
H
What
would
happen
in
your
modeling
if
we
just
dropped
the
parking
requirement
down
altogether?
Now
we
lose
that
leverage,
but
we
also
open
up
a
whole
bunch
more
land
for
increased
housing,
Supply
in
general
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
about
the
the
policy
decision
here.
If
we
intentionally,
you
know,
say
we
have
the
the
desire
on
Council
to
drop
it
down
altogether,
but
we
intentionally
say
no
we're
going
to
leave
it
up,
so
we
can
use
some
leverage.
H
I
N
I
To
build
a
base
case
development
with
standard
parking,
so
you
may
not
get
extra
units
B.
It's
hard
to
know
at
what
point
where
that
Tipping
Point
exists,
where
you
would
get
so
much
production
that
it
would
shift
the
affordability
or
the
cost
curve
a
little
bit.
If
you
were
to
tie
that
reduction
to
affordability,
then
you
would
know
that
you'd
get
some
kind
of
affordability,
contracted
affordability
unit
in
exchange
that.
H
Makes
sense
but
you're
yeah,
I'm
I'm
following
that
you're
dead,
like
that's
I,
think
that's
the
appeal
of
it
is
you.
You
know
that
if,
if
somebody
takes
advantage
of
that
incentive,
then
you're
getting
affordable
housing
because
you're
requiring
that
of
them
to
give
give
you
the
affordable
housing.
It's
that
that
kind
of
counter
factual
that
you
don't
know
is
if
you
eliminated
that
that
high
parking
standard
altogether
and
brought
it
down
low
all
over
the
place.
Are
you
exchanging
a
few
new
people
who
are
taking
advantage
of
those?
H
You
know
getting
10
new,
low-income
units
where,
if
you
just
eliminated
that
that
high
parking
requirement
altogether
and
everybody
got
the
benefit
of
a
low
parking
requirement,
if
you
would
get
you
know,
200
units
that
would
have
never
existed
in
the
first
place
and
that's
that's
kind
of
my
real
concern
about
it.
I'm
wondering
if
there's
some
way
to
bounce,
you
know
to
kind
of
balance
those
and
say:
let's
reduce
it
quite
a
bit.
H
You
know
and
but
still
leave
some
room
to
to
lower
that
that
parking
requirement
to
to
get
some
affordable
housing
or
something
like
that,
but
I'm
I'm,
hesitant
to
want
want
to
leave
it.
You
know
leave
it
where
it's
at,
because
I
feel
like
it's
too
high
and
if
nobody
takes
advantage
of
that,
then
we're
just
going
to
end
up
with
a
whole
bunch
more
parking
lots
that
we
don't
really
need.
So
no.
I
The
one
note
I
would
make
is
part
of
the
Magic
in
why
the
incentive
works
with
a
parking
reduction.
Is
the
allowance
for
a
reconfiguration
of
that
development?
So
it's
not
just
the
reduction
in
the
parking
costs.
It
is
that
you
can
maximize
the
site
a
little
bit
differently
than
you
were
able
to
before.
Q
L
H
I
K
K
I
found
the
report
incredibly
helpful
and
compelling
and
frankly
striking
to
see
how
many
members
of
our
community
are
actually
on
the
cusp
of
homelessness
and
the
the
burden
that
many
in
our
community
are
actually
experiencing
and
how
it
informs
this
conversation.
So
thank
you.
So
much
I
have
many
questions.
I'm
going
to
try
to
Pace
myself
here,
but
I'll
start
with
around
the
preservation
of
existing,
affordable
housing.
I
appreciate
the
I
think,
there's
you
know
seven
to
nine
recommendations
of
what
we
could
do.
K
One
of
the
things
that
we're
experiencing
here
is
the
scraping
of
existing
starter
homes
to
build
higher
luxury
homes.
I,
don't
I
didn't
see
anything
in
the
report
about
that
specifically.
But
is
there
anything,
obviously
it's
private
property,
but
is
there
anything
we
can
do
that
addresses
the
reduction
of
starter
homes
that
we
have
currently
I.
I
You
know
if
the
most
intentional
thing
you
can
do
is
to
allow
a
partner
or
help
facilitate
partnership
with
your
housing
authority
to
acquire
those
units
in
the
Great
Recession.
There
was
a
lot
of
money
through
the
neighborhood
stabilization
program
for
housing
authorities
to
acquire
units
and,
and
they
did
and
that
that
was
a
big
inventory
boost
in
many
communities.
I
K
That's
helpful
and
I
know
our
Housing
Authority
has
faced
those
challenges
of
like
many
in
our
community
being
outbid
when
trying
to
you
know
attain
those
properties
as
a
follow-up
I'm
curious.
You
know
one
of
the
points
in
the
report.
The
biggest
Gap
we
have,
especially
for
purchasable
units,
which
I
think
is
really
important
for
us
to
be
talking
about,
is
that
missing
middle
the
attached,
duplex
Triplex,
quad
and
I'm
curious.
K
If
we
were
to
change
our
zoning
and
made
that
more
accessible
for
development
again,
where
we
are
seeing
those
kinds
of
structures
being
built
in
our
community,
those
units
are
being
sold
for
750
000
aside
they're,
not
considered,
you
know
affordable
even
at
120,
Ami
and
so
I'm
curious.
If
there's
anything
else,
you
think
we
could
do
that.
If
we
made
that
available,
it
would
actually
be
affordable
attached
units
and
not
unaffordable.
I
Yeah,
so
Austin
Texas
has
done
that
I
think
better
than
anyone
anywhere
else.
They
have
a
program
called
affordability,
unlocked
and
so
and
I
think
it
goes
up
to
either
a
six
plus
a
six-plex
or
a
duplex.
But
I
can
only
take
down
a
single-family
detached
home
and
build
up
to
a
six
Plex
or
a
four
Plex.
If
a
certain
proportion
of
those
and
theirs
is
high,
it's
75
percent
are
affordable.
So
it's
very
much
a
affordability
program,
a
non-profit
affordability
program.
I
My
understanding
is
that
they've
had
far
more
units
permitted
under
that
program
than
like
a
Minneapolis.
That's
just
letting
the
market
respond
and
doesn't
have
an
affordability
constraint
to
it.
They've
got
a
lot
of
other
things
built
into
to
that
that
program.
It's
very
much
a
very
strong
affordability
program,
but
you
could
attach
a
requirement
some
level
of
affordability
requirement
like
we
did
like
we
modeled
for
the
four
Plex
or
attach
a
fee,
some
kind
of
a
fee
and
Lou
to
that
that
new
build.
I
So,
even
though,
if
you
had
a
fee
in
lieu,
even
if
you
were
getting
duplexes
that
were
more
expensive
than
the
100
120
Ami
at
least
you'd
be
generating
some
Revenue
to
then
turn
that
around
and
provide
and
produce
affordable
housing
in
a
different
way.
It's
not
ideal,
but
this
is
a
real
conundrum
and
I
think
our
data
show
that
in
your
community
in
particular,
single
family
detached
still
carry
a
relative
affordability
compared
to
it
to
certain
kinds
of
attached
homes.
A
Memory
Anderson
you
mind:
if
I
go
first,
no
I
had
a
question
so
miss
Adler.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
I
think
this
is
very
timely,
especially
since
we
just
had
the
parking
discussion
a
couple
weeks
back
and
one
of
the
things
I
know
that
memory
Anderson
kind
of
alluded
to
there
were
a
few
of
us
here
that
were
looking
at
potentially
dropping
the
parking
requirements,
but
based
on
what
you're
stating
here,
we
need
to
have
that
carrot
in
order
to
give
an
incentive
to
developers
to
provide
affordable
housing.
A
So
my
concern
has
always
been:
how
do
we
get
the
30
or
60
Ami
those
homes
built
into
the
city?
It
does
sound
like
we
need
that
parking
requirement.
The
parking
requirement
seems
to
be
the
main,
the
the
the
primary
cost
that
developers
are
seeing
here
to
develop
that
or
to
help
provide
the
ROI
on
any
type
of
development.
Are
there
any
other
drivers
that
we
should
be
considering
outside
of
just
parking
or
is
the
parking
the
biggest
one
you.
I
Know
so
right
now
the
parking
is
pretty
important,
a
pretty
important
factor,
but
that'll
change
over
time.
So
the
one
thing
to
keep
in
mind
with
an
incentive
or
inclusionary
program
is
it's
not
fixed
in
time
and
it's
a
policy
that
you
need
to
revisit
of
five
years
and
I
and
I
think
that
that's
something
that
many
jurisdictions
don't
think
about.
It's
all.
It's
not
a
light.
Switch.
I
It's
not
just
going
to
produce
a
whole
bunch
of
units,
but
it
is,
it
should
be
a
market
informed
attempt
to
address
needs
at
a
point
in
time
that
needs
to
be
looked
at,
so
I
would
put
that
parking
in
that.
Certainly
parking
seems
to
be
a
very
important
incentive
right
now,
but
it's
something
that
you
would
want
to
revisit
in.
A
H
H
H
I
I
Sort
of-
and
there
are
some
pretty
pretty-
you
couldn't
build
on
any
single
family
detached
lot.
So
these
are
it's
really
oriented
toward
like
Corner
lots,
lots
that
abut
busier
streets,
so
there's
some
site
constraints
that
site
specifications
that
dictate
where
the
program
or
where
those
units
will
be
built.
Okay,.
D
I
I
I
think
that
so
this
is
a
it's
a
tough
policy
to
ensure
that
you're
going
to
get
exactly.
You
know
correct
that
you're
going
to
return
the
type
of
units
that
you
want
in
the
place
that
you
want
with
the
affordability
that
you
want.
So
a
lot
of
it
is
just
being
very
conscious
about
the
the
where
units
would
be
allowed
under
what
parameters.
So
what
can
site
constraints?
You
would
allow
more
density
with
the
model
that
we
did
here.
I
Some
level
of
requirement
of
affordability,
so
that,
in
exchange
for
more
density,
the
community
is
getting
something
back,
but
I
think
that
you
can
build
that
those
you
know
the
site,
configuration
and-
and
you
can
build
some
constraints
into
the
policy
so
that
you're
not
inviting
too
much
disruption
and
not
getting
back
the
intent
of
the
policy
to
allow
more
afford
or
to
to
facilitate
more
affordability.
Okay,.
F
Thank
you.
First
I
just
want
to
comment
on
parking
I
think
the
parking
on
Floyd
is
different
from
some
of
the
the
newer
apartment
complexes
or
high
density
buildings
that
we're
seeing
1.7
parking
spaces
per
unit
in
a
TOD
area.
In
my
opinion,
and
in
the
opinion
that
Denver
metro
area
and
RTD
is
excessive,
that's
a
big
number
and
that's
what
our
code
is
parking
along.
Floyd
I
can't
imagine
why
there's
a
lot
of
parking
along
Floyd
unless
it's
the
Kimberly
Woods
area
in
it,
and
then
that
I
can
understand.
F
F
I
G
I
One
of
the
things
that
we've
been
impressed
with
in
and
I'll
speak
to
Regional
planning.
First,
the
the
metropolitan
areas
in
Colorado.
Don't
really
have
a
record
of
coming
together
and
planning
regionally
around
housing
because
we
don't
require
it.
So
you
see
that,
certainly
in
California
it's
a
mandate.
You
see
it
a
lot
in
the
Northwest.
You
see
it
in
the
east
coast,
the
the
Boulder
Valley
partnership,
they
came
together
to
set
a
goal
and
determine
set
an
overall
goal.
I
So
they
said
in
the
valley
of
these
are
what
our
housing
needs
are
and
in
the
valley.
Overall.
This
is
what
we'd
like
production
to
be
in
the
proportion
of
our
overall
units
that
should
be
affordable
at
different
levels
and
then
the
jurisdictions
within
that
partnership
decided
what
their
individual
goal
should
be,
so
they
were
able
to
tailor
Longmont
its
needs,
look
different
than
the
city
of
Boulders
needs,
and
so
they
collectively
agreed
upon
a
goal
for
the
region
and
then
decided
how
to
set
individual
goals
that
met
the
needs
of
those
communities.
I
We
like
that
approach,
because
it's
not
only
tailored
to
the
local
government,
but
it
also
enables
or
I
should
say,
facilitates
the
communities
working
together
toward
a
comparable
goal.
So
they
may
have
slightly
different
inclusionary
policies,
but
they're,
not
they're,
working
in
tandem
they're,
not
counter
to
each
other.
I
You
know
I
I,
think
that
if
I
were
in
your
shoes,
that's
something
that
I
would
want
to
see
happen.
I
mean
if,
if
it
I
think
you
may
see
some
policy
Focus
around
that
at
the
state
level
in
the
in
this
near
term.
So
there
is
recognition
that
housing
markets
don't
observe
City
boundaries
that
they
operate
regionally
and
we,
you
know
kind
of
collectively
in
the
Denver
metro
area,
need
to
do
a
better
job
of
planning
regionally.
But
again,
there's
not
a
mandate.
I
F
I
You
know
the
when
you
think
about
how
the
housing
market
works,
I
mean
I,
I
would
I,
would
Define
there's
not
really
sort
of
a
clean
and
fast
rule
about.
You
know
what
should
what's
def
how
the
housing
market
is
defined,
but
if
you
were
to
look
at
Market
activity,
particularly
for
for
sale,
housing
I
would
I
would
definitely
argue,
I
mean
it
feels
to
me
like
if
you
wanted
a
broader
Market,
that
Highlands,
Ranch
or
part
of
Highlands
Ranch
may
be
part
of
that.
I
What's,
what's
really
important
is
what
the
players,
the
participants,
agree
on
in
terms
of
what
the
outcomes
are,
what
you
want
to
achieve
through
some
kind
of
a
partnership,
and
it's
almost
more
important
to
make
sure
that
all
players
are
willing
players
and
that
they're
coming
together
to
set
goals
then
defining
the
market
from
a
purely
sort
of
Market
activity
level.
Okay,.
C
L
Thank
you,
mayor
value
data
over
here
saying
and
just
straight
forward
assumptions.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
this,
this
presentation,
and
and
specifically
for
conducting
the
feasibility
study,
which
is
very,
very
helpful.
This
this
particular
page
of
the
feasibility
results
I
mean
it's
real
help
for
us.
I
appreciate
how
you
broke
this
out
and
provided
the
parking
reduction
metrics
in
terms
of
what
that
would
mean
based
on.
Of
course,
you
know
mid-range
average.
L
A
J
A
Fun
46
currently
for
keeping
people
or
helping
people,
make
repairs
and
to
to
keep
their
homes
or
to
allow
them
to
keep
their
homes
that
they're
currently
living
in,
but
it
sounded
like
from
the
report.
There
were
other
options
that
we
may
be
using
that
fund,
for
you
know
helping
people
get
into
homes
by
providing
a
down
payment,
and
things
like
that
I'm,
not
sure
if
staff
has
kind
of
thought
about,
if
that
was
something
that
they
were
looking
to
tackle,
but
just
from
your
work
with
other
cities,
what
have
they
been
using?
A
I
I
Well,
we
just
finished
a
housing
study
in
the
state
of
New
Mexico
and
did
a
lot
of
developer
interviews
as
part
of
that
it
was
a
big
strategic
plan
and
one
developer
told
me:
I
will
always
build
in
California
over
New
Mexico,
because
even
though
it
costs
a
lot
more
to
develop
there,
they
have
so
many
resources,
it's
easier
for
me
to
get
it
done,
and
so
the
resources
do
matter
whether
that
be
parking,
waivers,
fast
tracking,
buy
right
development
for
affordable
or
money.
All
those
things
matter
parking
right
now.
Q
I
I
But
if
you
were
out,
if
you're
doing
that
on
your
own
relative
to
what
the
state
may
be
able
to
bring
to
the
table
through
123
I'd
wait
and
see
and
position
yourself
to
be
in
a
place
to
take
advantage
of
that
and
I
think
you
can,
because
you've
got
a
one
of
the
requirements
of
123.
Is
that
you
have
you
keep
up?
You
know
with
a
proportion
of
affordable
stock
and
that's
naturally
occurring
as
well.
I
You're
well,
positioned,
because
you
haven't
you've
traditionally
been
relatively
affordable
to
be
able
to
just
kind
of
keep
that
activity
up.
So
I
I
think
it's
important
to
have
some
kind
of
a
dedicated,
Revenue
stream,
but
I
would
want
to
pair
that
be
strategic
in
what
you
have
available
and
what
you
need
to
be
able
to
maximize
your
opportunity
to
get
123
funding
sounds.
A
A
Where
does
that?
Where
does
the
next
step
fall
under?
Does
it
fall
under
our
Housing
Authority
does?
Is
it
our
staff
that
has
to
dictate
or
have
to
identify,
Who
falls
under
the
30
or
60
Ami
or
whatever
that
the
affordability
is
for
the
homes?
What
what
happens
next,
if
we
were
to
move
forward
with
this
in
terms
of
a
process.
I
So
this
is
actually
a
question
that
my
business
partner,
who
couldn't
be
here
tonight,
she's
in
Lafayette,
Molly
Fitzpatrick,
could
answer
better
than
I.
Can
she's
been
helping
Littleton
go
through
that
process
and
had
been
the
point
person
for
them,
but
the
the
general
answer?
The
typical
answer
is
you
all
would
say:
we'd
like
to
see
inclusionary
mandatory
inclusionary
explored
a
little
more
intentionally.
We
then
refine
our
estimates.
I
I
think
we
would
start
with
what
Littleton
has
done
and
what
Centennial
is
potentially
considering,
so
that
you
all
you,
don't
have
different
policies
and
you're,
not
discouraging
or
encouraging
development
developers
to
go
one
place
over
another.
So,
starting
with
that
and
then
typically
the
way,
you
would
write
an
ordinance
for
your
city,
I
think
that
goes
without
saying
and
then
figures
out
who
would
be
the
par
who
who's
the
body
that
oversees
that
in
the
in
inclusionary,
is
obviously
very
new
to
Colorado
jurisdictions,
Denver's
doing
theirs
on
their
own.
I
In
the
mountains,
where
we've
seen
inclusionary,
it
is
typically
a
like
a
multi-jurisdictional
Housing
Authority
that
manages
those
units.
It's
oftentimes,
a
developer
will
just
handle
that
on
their
own,
so
they
are
they.
They
they
lease
up
those
units.
They
commit
that
the
the
contractual
obligation
lives
in
the
the
deed
on
the
unit
if
it's
a
for
sale
unit,
so
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
you
can
structure
it,
but
I
would
work
closely
with
your
peer
community
so
that
your
policies
are
in
sync
and
that
your
implementation
is
in
sync.
K
Thank
you
mayor,
following
up
on
the
proposition
123
I
believe
that
the
housing
stock
has
to
be
increasing
by
three
percent
every
year
by
2027
for
cities
to
be
eligible
for
the
program,
and
that
was
my
follow-up
question,
for
you
is
if
we
were
to
do
nothing,
would
we
meet
that
threshold
and
if
we
were
to
implement
the
recommendations
that
we
have
even
tonight
from
code
next?
Does
that
get
us
there?
Can
you
give
us
a
sense
of
that
Target
and
what
we
would
need
to
do
to
be
on
track
five
years
from
now.
I
You
know
I
wouldn't
know
without
actually
doing
a
little
bit
of
math.
My
guess
was
that
you
would
probably
be
in
pretty
good
shape
to
be
able
to
I
think
it'd
be
hard
for
you
to
meet
that
threshold
without
knowing,
and
you
can
kind
of
do
like
some.
You
know
estimates
and
sort
of
guess
what
that
would
look
like
the
with
the
basic
coordinates,
but
it
will
be
refined.
I
K
When
we
talk
about
affordable
housing,
our
if
we
were
just
to
Simply
deregulate,
almost
everything
or
you
know,
would
it
would
the
market
take
care
of
it
and
looking
at
the
significant
need
that
you've
outlined
in
this
report?
Can
you
just
summarize
if,
if
that
is
a
correct
assessment
and
what
left
to
its
own
devices
Will
the
Market
ever
create
kind
of
deeply
affordable,
housing
or
even
relatively
affordable
housing?
And
looking
at
the
recommendations
you
gave
us
tonight
on
the
incentives,
are
they
aggressive
enough
to
meet
our
current
needs?
K
I
So
I'll
answer
your
last
question.
First,
the
when
you
look
at
when
you
think
about
your
rental
Gap,
which
is
about
1500
units
at
that
zero
to
thirty
percent
Ami.
That's
a
pretty!
That's
the
developer's
not
going
to
build
0
to
30
Ami
housing.
So
that's
a
very
intentional.
That
would
be
a
very
intentional
development.
I
Permanent
Supportive
Housing,
where
I'm
getting
housing
and
services
together
in
a
development
or
contractually
provided
to
me,
is
the
best
option
for
those
folks.
So
you
it
would
be
great
if
you
could
get
that
kind
of
a
development
at
Inglewood
and
really
anywhere
in
the
metro
area
would
be
ideal.
Then,
looking
at
that,
next
here
and
and
saying
we'd
like
some
intentional,
affordable
housing
for
people
who
aren't
experiencing
homelessness
or
aren't
immediate
risk,
but
are
not
housing
stable
and
probably
won't
be
in
market
rate
housing
like
a
low
income,
housing
tax,
credit
development.
I
That
would
be
my
second
yeah
I'm,
not
prioritizing,
but
that
would
be
something
else
that
I'd
like
to
see
and
then,
above
and
beyond
that
it's
a
combination
of
intentional
contractual,
affordable
housing
and
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing.
It's
not
that
one
is
better
than
the
other.
You
really
need
both.
So
your
your
question
about.
Can
we
build
our
way
out
of
this?
If
we
do
nothing,
research
shows
that,
and
we
usually
get
this
question
in
terms
of
is
Mark.
I
If
I
build
about
enough
a
bunch
of
market
rate
housing
is
that
enough,
and
the
answer
is
typically
you're
not
going
to
address
that
very
low
need
that
that
30
to
50
percent
Ami,
unless
your
vacancy
rates
get
so
high,
that
your
Market's
not
functioning.
So
you
need-
and
we
saw
this
in
Denver
in
the
early
2000s-
the
vacancy
rates
hit
I,
think
12
to
14
percent
and
rents
dropped
to
the
point
that
they
were
Market.
I
Rents
were
equal
to
what
non-profits
were
providing,
and
it
was
really
hard
for
those
nonprofits
to
stay
in
business,
because
their
Pro
Forums
had
been
modeled
at
a
three
to
five
percent
vacancy
and
suddenly
they
had
a
10
vacancy.
So
that's
not
a
scenario
that
anybody
wants
to
happen,
but
building
market
rate
housing
is
never
bad,
so
research
has
shown
that
it
really
isn't
as
disruptive.
It
doesn't
solve
the
entire
problem,
but
it's
not
as
disruptive
as
as
some
people
may
think.
I
Your
Gap
is
not
huge,
so
1500
units
is
is
not
huge,
but
when
you
think
about
the
cost,
so
the
price
of,
if
it
costs
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
a
good
day
to
build
a
rental
unit,
either
affordable
or
market
rate.
You
multiply
that
by
1500.
That's
a
big
number,
so
it's
really
setting
the
goals
trying
to
to
understand
what
would
our
ideal
scenario
be
like
I
just
outlined
in
10
years,
and
then
how
do
we
get
there?
How
and
then?
How
do
we
monitor
that
over
time?
I
You
probably
don't
have
enough
resources
to
reduce
cost
burden
for
everybody
to
address
that
Gap,
but
you
can
make
a
difference
because
your
gap's
not
huge,
and
it's
better
to
do
it
now
before
your
Gap
gets
really
big
in
terms
of
ownership
housing.
The
reason
that
we
model
proportions
for
The
Gap
is
that
we're
assuming
that
renters
are
housed.
I
They
would
like
to
be
owners,
so
it's
a
better
choice
for
them,
but
if
they're
housed
they're
housed
and
it's
not
as
dire
of
a
situation
than
somebody
who's,
housing,
unstable,
I
think
particularly
right
now,
facilitating
ownership
is
there's
there's
you
know
many
positive
returns
from
that
one
being
is
that
you're
getting
renters
out
of
rentership
we
need-
and
that's
part
of
our
problem
right
now-
is
we're
not
allowing
people
who
want
to
be
owners
to
be
able
to
achieve
ownership.
So
I
don't
want
to
diminish
that
aspect
of
setting
a
goal.
E
One
of
the
challenges
I
have
when
I
when
I
look
at
a
study
like
this
I'm,
pretty
sure
I
understand
how
individuals,
like
myself,
benefit
from
additional
housing
stock.
I
mean
I'm
in
a
position
at
the
point
of
my
life
now
I
bought
my
house
10
years
ago,
got
a
great
value
for
the
price
I.
You
know
the
market
is
totally
different
today
than
it
was
in
2011
when
I
bought.
My
house,
but
I
live
in
a
district
and
I
represent
a
district
full
of
people
who
have
owned
their
houses
for
decades.
E
You
know
60s
70s
80s
in
particular
when
I
look
at
this
Row
House
proposal,
I
think
about
those
neighbors
who
live
in
an
r1a
Zone
next
to
neighbors,
who
have
large
Lots.
They
have
large
Lots
themselves
and
I
have
to
find
a
way
to
justify
telling
them
now
they're
going
to
live
next
to
six
families
instead
of
just
one
and
I.
Don't
know
that
I
can
make
that
case.
E
So
that's
where
the
challenge
is
for
me
in
the.
Why
I
know
that
affordability
is
generally
good
for
the
community,
but
I
live
in
a
community
full
of
people
who
have
benefited
from
the
lack
of
affordability
in
the
current
market?
So
where?
Where
is
that
sort
of
balance?
If
there
is
one
to
be
had
yeah.
I
I
Think
there's
some
some.
Definitely
some
positives
there.
When
there's
a
negative.
It's
because
it's
bad
design
the
units
are
in
the
wrong
place.
You
know
parking
hasn't
been
thought
through
adequately.
So
you
know
there
are
it's
not
to
say
that
there
aren't
any
negatives
and
it's
hard
to
predict
the
negatives
versus
the
positives.
I
When
we
think
about
housing
needs
we're
thinking
more
and
what
you're
what
your
city
needs,
it's
more
in
terms
of
what,
when
you
look
at
your
employment
base,
you
know,
and
50
of
your
jobs
are
really
low
to
moderate
wage
jobs.
If
you
don't
provide
housing
for
those
people
and
allow
more
Workforce
to
live
in
your
community,
your
your
commuting
is
going
to
increase
traffic's
going
to
increase,
you'll
need
to
pay
some
way,
and
so
I
think
one
of
the.
I
It
may
not
hurt
people
at
the
same
level,
but
over
time,
I,
don't
think
a
city
would
benefit
from
doing
nothing
and
and
from
resisting
any
type
of
growth,
because
you
will
change
you're
going
to
change
in
ways
that
none
of
us
can
anticipate
and
to
pretend
that
that's
not
going
to
happen
and
that
things
will
stay.
The
same
is
is
is
just
naive
concept,
I
think
it's
it's
beneficial
over
time.
E
But
you
know
the
ward
household
off
of
Delaware
and
Tufts
across
the
street
from
an
elementary
school,
which
was
just
rebuilt,
probably
doesn't
want
to
see
that
level
of
change.
So
that's
the
that's
part
of
the
balance
that
I'm
having
trouble
this
this
idea.
This
concept
overall
in
the
study
seems
to
indicate
change
across
the
board
all
over
Inglewood
in
various
areas
and
in
various
ways
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
residents,
particularly
the
residents
who
live
in
District
Four,
would
be
resistant
to
that
idea.
I
Could
that
work
financially
or
is
that
a
non-starter
so
I
wanted
to
the
feasibility
analysis?
The
the
objective
of
that
was
to
help
you
all
understand?
Is
this
a
policy
that
might
work
and
if
it
doesn't
work,
then
don't
don't
try.
It
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
try
as
opposed
to
what.
If
we
said,
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
single
family
detached
home
and
everybody
can
do
a
duplex,
but
my
return
showed
that
that
was
going
to
be
negative
or
that
I
wasn't
going
to
contribute
any
affordability.
I
I
And
then
you
know
what
what
makes
sense
in
terms
of
site,
design
or
configuration,
and
those
are
all
sort
of
open
questions
partially.
The
code
next
folks
are
are
working
on,
but
the
point
of
the
visibility
of
physical
excuse
me,
feasibility
analysis
is
not
to
say
you
should
just
eliminate
single-family
detached
zoning.
You
should
just
let
the
market
do
what
it
wants
to
do.
It's
to
answer
that
question.
If
you
do
that,
does
that
help.
H
Anderson
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
Mayor
Pro
Tim's
concerns
as
well,
because
I
I
feel
that
too
and
I
understand
that
that
concern
for
my
neighbors
but
I
think
there's
also
a
there's
a
what
a
a
different
way
of
approaching.
The
question
that
that
I
think
is
helpful
to
me
is
is:
is
what
kind
of
Community
are
we?
What
are
our
Community
Values?
H
Are
we
just
concerned
about
you
know
about
our
own
net
worth
or
are
we
the
kind
of
community
that
says
no,
we
want
to
be
a
place
where
even
the
the
people
who
have
struggled
to
make
it
or
didn't
buy
in
at
the
right
time
where
they
can
find
a
place
in
our
community
too,
and
hey
for
me.
If
that
means,
you
know
adding
some
some
additional
units
to
the
market
in
such
a
way
that,
maybe
you
know
ultimately
brings
brings
the
market
down
a
little
bit
and
I
lose
a
little
bit
of
value.
H
H
Think
the
citizens
of
England
would
share
those
values
as
I
talk
to
people,
not
not
everybody,
you
know
it's
a
difficult
conversation,
but
to
say,
are
we
going
to
be
the
kind
of
community
that
values
and
wants
to
make
a
place
for
for
our
poorest,
neighbors
and
and
a
place
where
they
can
own
and
live
and
I?
Think
that's
the
kind
of
community
I
want
to
see
us
grow
into,
even
if
we're,
maybe
not
all
the
way
there.
Yet.
D
D
Actually
my
mom
worked
for
prior
Construction
Company.
He
sold
the
houses
to
people
that
could
finish
the
houses
for
the
down
payment,
so
we
moved
into
a
shell
that
had
a
basement
that
wasn't
finished.
My
dad
finished
it
so
that
was
done
by
individuals
in
the
city
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
and
think
outside
of
the
box
too,
because
I
think
sometimes
when
the
government
gets
involved.
We
prohibit
things
like
that
from
happening
and
I.
D
I
You
have
an
interesting
mix
of
with
your
health
care
sector
of
you
know,
having
a
a
stable
employment
base
and
also
providing
A
diversity
of
housing
for
surrounding
communities.
That
may
not
have
that
so
so
you're,
not
just
a
bedroom
community,
because
you
do
have
a
fairly
large
and
stable
employment
base.
I
mean
that's,
not
just
retail,
that
that's
not
as
cyclical
as
what
you
might
see.
If
you
were
only
retailing,
Construction.
I
I
could
just
make
one
clarification
in
response
to
Mr
Anderson's
comment.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
I'm
not
suggesting
that
you
or
we're
not
managing
to
an
increase
in
in
or
drop
in
prices
and
we're
thinking
about
and-
and
it's
sometimes
studies
show
you
know,
what's
the
differential
or
how
much
lower
do
prices
need
to
get
before
we
return
to
XYZ
Market.
That's
not
what
we're
suggesting
we're,
not
wanting
anybody
to
lose
value.
I
What
what
studies
like
these
are
trying
to
achieve
is
stability
is
more
we're
trying
to
temper
rapid
housing
price
increases,
so
Colorado
doesn't
look
like
California
in
in
a
decade
so
that
there
are
more
choices
than
and
you
don't
get
to
the
point
where
I'm
doing
some
work
in
California
right
now.
You.
Q
I
A
Thank
you,
Miss,
cycling,
I
think.
The
reason
why
we're
having
this
discussion
is
because
we
are
training
in
that
direction
and
obviously
no
this
has
been
very
beneficial.
I
know
that
we
have
the
second
part
of
this
conversation
coming
up
next
with
code
next,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
sticking
around
you
obviously
don't
have
to
for
the
next
conversation,
but
definitely
looking
forward
to
that
aspect
of
it
but
remember
noon.
Camp
I
see
your
light
on.
K
K
I
Little
bit
more
sure,
yeah.
The
studies
that
we've
looked
at
have
shown
that
and
actually
some
developers
that
we've
interviewed
have
said
you
know.
Yes,
I
may
add
a
little
bit
on
the
market
price,
it's
a
zero
to
three
percent.
You
know
General
addition
and
that's
what
academic
research
has
shown
as
well
as
what
we've
heard
you
know.
I
Typically,
when
you,
when
you
structure
those
programs
correctly
and
you're,
allowing
that
incentive
some
kind
of
density
bonus
parking
reduction,
then
the
developer
is
made
whole,
and
that
was
the
the
a
pretty
important
element
of
the
state
law
was
that
you
couldn't
impose
inclusionary
with
some
type
of
offset
and
so
structuring
the
program.
You
know
our
modeling
showed
that
you
could
structure
a
program
that
would
work
and
wouldn't
have
a
net
loss
to
a
developer.
K
I
K
I
G
H
Member
Anderson,
oh
yeah,
I,
just
I,
know
I've
spoken
to
that.
I
want
to
respond
to
that
a
little
bit
because
I've
spoken
to
my
my
opinions
on
inclusionary
zoning,
a
number
of
times
on
Council
and
I,
wanted
to
just
reiterate
some
of
those
concerns
here
and
I
say
this
from
a
a
strong
advocate
of
wanting
affordability
in
in
our
community,
and
so
this
is.
This
is
not
a
print
like
a
like
I'm
opposed
to
affordable
housing
or
anything
like
that,
but
I.
H
Everything
from
you
know
from
I
think
over
restrictive
building
codes
in
a
lot
of
cases
to
over
restrictive
zoning
that
have
seriously
constrained
Supply
and
have
caused
housing
to
go
up
over
the
years
and
so
adding
another
layer
of
regulation.
On
top
of
that,
to
me,
says
we're
not
going
to
you
know
we're
not
likely
to
get
the
outcome
out
of
that
that
we
expect,
maybe
maybe
we'll
get
a
few
affordable,
affordable
units
out
of
it.
But
at
what
cost?
H
We
don't
know
what
what
developer
says
now:
I'm
not
going
to
develop
an
Inglewood
after
all
or
or
or
just
constrains
the
supply
in
in
various
different
ways,
and
how
is
that
going
to
hurt
our
community
I
and,
and
then
the
final
point
on
this
is
with
inclusionary
zoning.
It's
functionally
when
it
comes
down
to
its
attacks
on
the
developer
and
I
have
real
ethical
questions
about
whether
we
should
be
putting
the
burden
of
our
under
Supply
on
the
people,
who
are
at
least
doing
something
to
bring
more
Supply
into
our
community.
H
I
think
this
is
a
community
if
we
approach
this
from
a
community
value
question
and
there's
some.
If
we
need
to
subsidize
something
or
invest
in
something,
this
is
something
the
community
as
a
whole
should
feel
the
burden
of,
and
so
I
would
much
prefer
some
in
some
direct
subsidy
towards
affordable
housing,
rather
than
approaching
it
from
an
occlusionary
zoning
perspective
because
of
the
market
distortions
and
because
I
think
it
burdens
the
wrong
people,
it's
a
tax
burden
on
the
wrong
people.
A
Thank
you,
member
Anderson
and
actually
I
guess
for
staff.
You
are
looking
for
direction
tonight
on
whether
or
not
we
want
this
part
of
or
continue
this
conversation
moving
forward.
Is
that
correct,
so
members
of
council
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
weigh
in
if
we
want
to
continue
this
conversation
regarding
inclusion,
inclusionary
health
or
zoning
and
I
will
speak
first.
I
remember
going
to
see
where
to
wait
in,
but
I'll
speak
to
it.
I
do
want
us
to
continue
to
have
this
conversation.
A
I
understand
where
member
Anderson
is
coming
from.
I
agree
that
you
know,
cities
have
been
part
of
the
issue
in
terms
of
just
having
over
regulation
and
their
zoning
code
has
made
it
very
detrimental
for
Supply
to
come
on
to
come
online,
but
I'm
also
wondering
how
is
how
it
is
that
we're
going
to
be
coming
to
the
30
Ami
60.
In
my
you
know
our
teachers,
anybody
that
is
working
in
our
restaurants
here
in
town.
How
are
they
going
to
be
able
to
afford
rent
or
housing
within
the
city?
A
L
A
K
K
One
of
the
things
that
we
can
continue
to
do
after
looking
at
just
briefly
that
would
be
really
strong,
bold
incentives
that
would
be
strongly
attractive
to
the
market
and
I'd
like
to
start
there
regarding
inclusionary
zoning
I.
Think
many
of
member
Anderson
Anderson's
points
are
compelling
and
and
I
agree
with
with
some
of
them.
That
said
where
we
are,
in
this
moment,
I'm
not
ready
to
take
that
tool
out
of
the
toolbox.
Just
yet
I'd
like
to
consider
our
other
options.
K
Consider
the
regional
approach,
especially
I,
do
think
that
there's
something
powerful
about
a
regional
landscape,
or
maybe
even
a
regional
overlay
that
would
produce
more
development,
I'd
like
to
see
what
the
outcomes
of
that
would
be
so
I
might
end
up.
Remember
Anderson
is
I'm
not
saying
that
I
won't,
but
I'm
not
ready
to
say
no
yet.
H
I
would
like
to
I
mean
it
sounds
like
we
have
enough
to
move
the
inclusionary
conversation
forward.
I
would
like
to
add
to
the.
If
you
know
if
we
can
have
some
like
think
through
some
more
creative
creative
Alternatives
I
get
the
appeal
of
inclusionary
zoning
because
we
could
go
in.
You
know
next
week
we're
just
going
to
we're
going
to
do
exactly
what
Littleton
did
and
pass
an
ordinance
and
have
this
on
the
books.
You
know
right
away,
we
don't
have
to
go
to
the
voters
to
ask
them
for
anything.
H
We
we
don't
have
to
raise
a
special
fund
to
fund
anything.
We
just
say
developers
going
to
be
developing
here
anyway,
let's
put
it
off
on
them,
it's
it
seems
it's
it's
an
appealing
solution,
because
it's
kind
of
because
it's
so
easy
and
yet
I
have
concerns
about
whether
it's
going
to
be
effective
or
have
detrimental
effects.
H
I
would
love
to
think
about
some
more
complex,
more
difficult
solutions
that
I
think
may
work
better
for
our
community
too,
and
not
just
say,
Okay
inclusionary
zoning
we
got
you
know
we
got
this
tool
on
the
table.
So,
let's
use
it,
let's
think,
let's
think
creatively
and
see
if
there
are
other
possible
options
of
how
we
could
create
a
funding
stream
from
the
community.
I
mean.
H
Do
we
want
to
go
to
the
citizens
and
say:
do
you
value
this
enough
to
to
approve
a
tax
increase
to
create
a
direct
funding
to
stream
for
affordable
housing
in
our
community?
And
if
we
did
that,
what's
a
creative
way
that
we
could
put
that
money
to
use?
Do
we
want
to
build
our
own
house
or
do
we
want
to
direct
direct
subsidy
to
other
people
who
are
develop
developing
or
do
we
want
to
say
we
will
we
will
fund?
You
know
renovating
a
new
Adu
in
your
basement.
H
If
it
will
be,
you
know
dedicated
to
30
Ami
for
two
years
or
something
like
that
like
what
can
we
do
to
really
increase
the
number
of
units
and
not
just
a
wing
and
a
prayer
hoping
that
maybe
enough
developers
will
come
along
and
take
take
us
up
on
on
the
inclusionary
zoning
thing
to
make
it
happen?
Let's
actually,
you
know
think
through
the
alternatives.
K
But
I
would
recommend
that
we
move
forward
with
all
nine
of
these
I
think
it
makes
good
sense
and
on
the
first
one
adopting
the
local,
affordable
housing
goals.
I
think
some.
You
know
to
the
ideas
that
remember
Anderson's.
Talking
about
those
are
the
conversations
that
I
really
think
we
need
to
be
having,
but
we
need
to
be
having
them
with
some
key
Partners.
We
need
to
be
having
them
with
our
Housing
Authority,
maybe
having
them
with
our
chamber
and
talking
about
Workforce
housing,
and
so
maybe
this
is
affordable.
Housing
task
force.
K
It's
a
working
group,
it's
something
within
our
community
that
we
help
create
these
goals
together
and
pursue
the
things
that
inglewood's
going
to
need
and
some
of
the
unique
ways
that
we
can
meet
those
challenges
and
if
we
can
take
enough
bold
action
and
meet
the
needs
in
other
ways,
it
doesn't
require
inclusionary.
Zoning
I
think
let's
pursue
that,
but
I
would
support
all
nine
of
these.
E
I
have
to
say
the
concept
of
inclusionary
zoning
raises
my
small
L
libertarian
hackles.
Quite
a
bit.
That
being
said,
we
have
considered
a
number
of
ideas
in
since
I
came
out
to
council.
That
might
not
have
made
that
part
of
me
very
happy
if
they
had
come
to
fruition.
So
I
I'm,
supportive
of
having
further
discussion
on
inclusionary
zoning,
with
the
caveat
that
it's
probably
a
pretty
big
hurdle
for
me
personally
to
to
cross
this
sort
of
government
mandate
concept
when
we're
building
housing
sort
of
just
generally
Rose
me
the
wrong
way.
A
Thank
you,
mayor,
Pro,
tem
and
to
member
noon
camps.
Point
I
do
agree
with
all
nine
I
think
we
already
have
some
of
the
relationships
in
place
or
maybe
are
already
working
towards
some
of
these,
but
I
definitely
want
us
to
to
at
least
evaluate
these
nine
and
see
which
ones
we
can
knock
off
so
I
guess
what
no
one
else
Miss
agler.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
tonight
really
appreciate
it.
O
All
right
good
evening,
again,
mayor
and
Council.
This
is
part
two
of
our
discussion
tonight
regarding
housing
in
our
neighborhoods.
This
is
our
fourth
of
four
code.
Next
updates
again,
this
one
focuses
primarily
on
housing
in
neighborhoods,
and
we
have
Matt
Ashby
with
Ayers
and
Associates
here
in
person,
as
well
as
Chris
Brewster,
virtually
to
go
through
the
presentation
and
then
we'll
all
be
available
for
questions
afterwards.
P
It's
fantastic,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
insightful
conversation
with
respect
to
the
housing
assessment.
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
you
asked.
We
have
the
opportunity
to
now
start
looking
at
the
connection
to
the
implementation
and
the
strategies
by
which
we
can
start
to
take
action
on
many
of
those
items
related
to
housing.
It
isn't
everything,
as
was
noted,
on
the
nine
recommendations.
Several
of
them
are
wrapped
into
code
next,
and
we
have
been
in
conversations
with
the
root
policy,
folks
and
obviously
City
staff
going
back
and
forth
to
identify.
P
How
do
we
wrap
in
these
options
into
the
code,
and
so
Chris's
presentation
will
provide
a
number
of
those
key
highlights
and
also
present
a
number
of
questions
for
you
to
be
able
to
start
to
give
direction
on.
Where
do
we
start
snapping,
taking
some
of
those
lines
of
where
different
housing
types
may
be
appropriate
and
some
of
those
tough
questions
that
you
raised
earlier
so
I
think
this
is
a
great
continuation
of
the
previous
discussion
with
an
opportunity
for
you
to
start
making
some
clear
directives
as
far
as
how
this
starts
to
get
implemented.
P
G
Q
Thank
you
Matt
good
evening,
mayor
and
Council.
Thank
you
Brian.
So,
as
Brian
mentioned,
this
is
our
fourth
installment,
so
the
and
on
housing
in
neighborhoods.
As
with
all
of
the
elements
we've
talked
about,
these
are
coming
from
our
steering
committee
and
Technical
committee
meetings
and
so
I'm
not
getting
the
screen
presentation.
Q
Q
And
then
we
also
do
have
a
sustainable
site
and
building
design
guidelines,
which
those
correspond
with
the
same
types
of
things
we
discussed
last
week
with
regard
to
the
non-residential
development,
so
I
think
some
of
the
same
comments
you
all
had,
and
suggestions
and
directions
for
refining.
That
idea
would
apply
to
that
section
as
well,
so
next
slide
map.
Q
So
this
is
our
starting
point
with
every
development
code
with
regard
to
the
residential
development
and
neighborhoods,
we
organize
your
current
standards
into
a
range
of
building
types,
and
then
we
look
at
where
the
mix
is
leading
US.
Based
on
your
plans,
a
few
important
parts
about
this
table
are
we
first
assume
that
there
will
not
be
any
map
changes,
or
at
least
initially
not
any
map
changes.
Q
Q
Q
The
second
would
be
to
diversify
housing
options
simply
for
reasons:
Beyond,
affordability.
That's
adding
different
opportunities,
regardless
of
the
price
point.
That's
adding
greater
density
because
of
your
Transit
Investments,
regardless
of
the
price
point.
It's
adding
greater
walkability
to
your
community
and
greater
return
on
the
investment
from
land
and
infrastructure,
regardless
of
the
price
point,
so
that
diversity,
I,
think,
is
important.
Q
An
important
part
of
the
discussion.
The
third
thing
we're
trying
to
do
is
we're
trying
to
see
if
we
can
do
things
that
are
compatible
with
with
what's
on
the
ground.
Now
that
may
maybe,
where
you're
getting
things
that
aren't
quite
as
incompatible
as
they
should
be
so
I'll
talk
to
that
in
in
a
moment
as
well,
so
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide
map,
so
I'll
go
through
some
of
our
key
changes
here.
Q
First,
big
change
was
greater
allowance
of
small
lot
detached
houses
and
that's
in
the
three
thousand
to
four
thousand
square
foot
range.
Your
current
code
allows
them
now
in
all
of
the
districts
that
are
shown.
However,
when
we
look
at
it
a
little
bit
deeper,
most
of
them
are
simply
grandfathering
your
existing
Lots
into
existence,
so
it
doesn't
really
give
you
anything
new
or
additional.
So
we
explored
the
idea
of
well
what,
if
someone
were
to
develop
these
Anew,
these
are
pretty
valuable,
small
scale
homes.
Q
If
someone
were
to
develop
these
Anew,
would
that
be
a
better
solution
to
more
housing
options
than
some
of
the
larger
buildings
you're
seeing
and
so
through
the
public
engagement?
In
fact,
we
looked
at
a
number
of
different
scenarios
of
where
those
should
be
enabled.
We
typically
see
them
on
the
end
of
blocks
or
we
see
them
alley
adjacent
where
someone
might
have
carved
off
a
small
back
of
a
couple
of
lots
and
put
a
small
lot
in
or
we
see
them
in
other
communities
in
Courtyard
patterns.
Q
You
have
a
few
of
those
is
similar
types
of
projects,
but
we
think
there's
a
large
opportunity
to
enable
those
and
new.
So
all
of
the
things
that
are
in
that
table
showing
L
would
be
things
where
right
now,
they're
in
your
current
code,
only
if
they're
existing
and
they're
and
you're
simply
acknowledging
that
they're
non-conforming
lots
that
can
continue
to
exist.
Q
What
we're
suggesting
is
that
in
limited
applications
in
grains
of
blocks,
Corner,
Lots
or
Courtyard
patterns
that
they
could
be
built
new
as
a
new
project
as
well
next
slide
map
second
option
of
adding
more
housing
types
and
diversity
is
increasing
availability
of
adus.
Currently,
your
r1c
is
the
only
District
that
allows
that,
and
so
we
are
suggesting
that
all
of
the
R1
zoning
districts
should
allow
Adu
so
in
adding
that
to
r1a
and
r1b
as
an
option.
Q
And
then
one
of
the
thoughts
that
came
from
our
steering
committee
was
that
your
current
situation
actually
seemed
a
little
bit
backwards,
that
why
would
we
allow
them
on
the
districts
that
allows
the
smaller
Lots
when
it's
the
larger
lots
that
have
more
capacity
for
these,
and
so
the
opportunity
to
do
more
than
one
Adu
on
the
larger
Lots
is
something
that
we're
proposing,
and
that
could
be
one
of
the
things
that's
important
to
note
about
that
is.
They
would
still
need
to
meet
all
of
the
development
standards.
Q
So
the
the
capacity
of
the
lot
in
terms
of
building
scale
isn't
necessarily
changing.
We're
just
suggesting
that
maybe
you
could
do
more
with
that,
that
same
capacity
and
we'll
get
to
that.
What
what
that
capacity
of
building
scale
is
when
we
get
to
the
design
issue,
use
the
other
thing,
is
they
it
could
be
attached
or
detached
units
as
well,
and
so
that
that
is
something
that
we
are
accounting
for
in
the
development
standards.
Q
Q
So
you'll
see
the
the
percentage
of
open
space
getting
smaller
and
smaller
as
we
get
to
the
more
dense
and
compact
building
types,
and
it
also
lets
us
count
some
of
the
on-building
spaces
towards
that
as
well,
whether
it's
a
so
it
could
be
a
structured
space
and
not
just
merely
open
uncovered
lot.
That's
contributing
to
your
open
space
requirements,
so
things
like
balconies
or
constructed
Courtyards
decks
porches.
Those
types
of
things
all
contribute
to
that
requirement
for
outdoor
space.
That's
active,
social
and
and
open
next
slide
map.
Q
This
is
not
quite
a
major
change,
but
something
that's
minor
that
we
think
is
important
with
mixing
different
building
types,
and
we
think
it's
also
important
with
some
of
the
end
grain
patterns
that
we
were
looking
at
is
allowing
a
more
context-based
exception
to
the
front
setbacks
in
association
with
the
frontage
design.
So,
essentially,
what
we're
saying
is
the
setback
of
the
building?
Isn't
quite
the
most
important
thing,
it's
more
that
the
buildings
are
aligning
within
a
consistent
pattern
in
the
neighborhood
or
on
that
block
face
that's
important.
Q
So
a
lot
of
your
current
in-grain
blocks
lots
that
I
mentioned
earlier.
They
may
have
a
a
pretty
tight
setback.
We've
measured
some
as
tight
as
10.
Even,
however,
we
think
the
15
to
40
is
the
appropriate
range
and
then
that
can
allow
a
range
of
different
building
types
have
a
more
consistent
Frontage.
Q
This
is
the
biggest
one,
and
this
gets
to
some
of
the
things
that
the
root
and
that
the
root
policy
analysis
pointed
to
that
those
small,
smaller
scale,
building
projects
that
we
want
to
see
more
of
for
a
variety
of
reasons:
they're
they're,
the
kind
of
the
lifeblood
of
urban
neighborhoods.
In
our
mind,
the
term
missing
middle
housing
is
what
we're
talking
about
here.
So
new,
small-scale
multi-unit,
building
types
you
it's
it's
not
that
your
code
currently
doesn't
allow
them.
Q
Some
of
the
row
houses
you're,
seeing
that
are
that
are
really
large
buildings
might
be
that
large,
because
your
lot
requirement
is
that
large
and
what,
if
we
actually
reduced
the
lot
requirement,
even
though
it
seems
counter-intuitive,
would
we
actually
be
getting
more
units
and
smaller
scale
buildings
at
the
same
time,
so
sort
of
a
win-win
for
what
the
community
wanted
to
see
in
our
minds.
So
a
multi-unit
house.
By
that
we
mean
a
building,
that's
very
much
house
scaled,
but
that
might
have
as
many
as
four
units
in
it.
Q
So
that's
reflecting
the
same
development
standards
as
one
of
your
detached
houses,
but
it
has
three
to
four
units
in
it
instead
of
just
the
typical
duplex.
So
that's
one
of
the
new
ones,
a
small
lot
row
house,
which
is
bringing
your
current
Row
House
size
down
from
three
thousand
square
feet
per
unit
down
to
1,
500
square
feet
per
unit
and
then
a
small
apartment
building.
Q
That's
not
based
on
a
density
requirement
at
all,
but
that's
based
on
a
the
lot
size
of
the
lot
itself.
So
a
a
one
to
two
or
three
to
twelve
unit
building,
that's
on
a
a
smaller
lot
and
has
a
maximum
lot
size
rather
than
a
minimum
is
one
of
the
the
key
pieces
and
you
can
see
those
types
graduating
As.
You
move
up
the
zoning
districts
next
slide.
Q
I
mentioned
the
courtyard
pattern.
This
is
one
of
the
things
we
did
look
at
through.
We
had
a
lot
of
modeling
of
these
through
the
public
engagement.
Essentially,
what
this
would
be
is
arranging
several
Lots
or
buildings
around
a
common
core
and
what
it
would
take
consolidating
anywhere
from
two
to
three
lots
and
and
we've
found
ways
that
we
can
get
two
to
three
times
as
many
units
on
it,
and
so
it
would
be
all
of
the
small
scale,
detached
houses
and
multi-unit
buildings.
Q
So
you
could
even
see
row
houses
or
small
apartments
arranged
around
this
Courtyard,
but
there's
an
a
a
way
to
increase
your
density
while
still
doing
very
small
scale.
Projects
is
particularly
with
a
lot
of
alley.
Loaded
Lots,
one
of
the
bigger
challenges
with
this
pattern
is:
how
do
you
deal
with
access
and
parking
and
so
with
alley
loaded
blocks?
That's
a
really
big
advantage
to
this
pattern,
and
so
we
think
it's
one
that
should
be
in
your
toolbox
for
sure
and
next
slide
map.
Q
The
last
change
is
actually
associated
with
it's
a
it's.
The
steering
committee
didn't
even
see
this
one.
This
one
evolved
out
of
our
discussions
with
the
the
affordable
housing
bonuses,
but
it's
the
idea
of
bringing
the
r
murb
mu-r-3b
height
limit
down
from
60
to
40.
from
our
assessment.
No
one
had
built
to
that
60-foot
limit.
Q
Yet
anyway,
all
of
your
other
zoning
districts
had
a
40-foot
height
limit,
which
is
essentially
a
three-story
or
a
generous
three-story
building,
and
so
our
thought
is
to
to
bring
that
down
more
consistent
with
the
Mur
3C
district,
and
then
it
would
be
only
in
exchange
for
some
of
the
affordability
bonuses
that
you
would
get
up
that
additional
height.
And
so
we
can
talk
about
that
change
more
when
we
get
to
the
slide
on
attainability
next
slide
map
so
shifting
to
Neighborhood
character
and
the
design
standards.
Q
The
first
thing
we
tried
to
do-
and
we
did
this
with
the
steering
committee
and
with
the
public-
is
a
lot
of
what
people
value
and
reflecting
Community
character.
Neighborhood
character
is
in
the
public
realm,
it's
the
streetscapes,
how
buildings
address
those
streetscapes
and
and
other
Civic
spaces-
that's
the
large
part
of
it,
and
we-
and
so
we've
done
a
lot
of
that
in
some
of
the
previous
chapters
we've
discussed.
Q
So
as
you
see
new
development,
we
want
to
certainly
be
paying
attention
to
those
things
that
either
are
in
the
public
right
away
themselves
or
the
developers
build
along
the
public
right
away.
They
can
go
a
long
way
to
making
a
variety
of
projects
fit
into
your
community
next
slide
map.
So
then,
when
we
get
to
the
private
side,
what
we're
really
regulating
are
trying
to
keep
things
really
simple
and
focus
on
the
things
that
matter
most.
Q
So
when
we're
mixing
housing
types
which
types
mix
best
and
which
types
have
a
similar
scale
in
massing,
so
we
have
effective
transitions
when
we
are
changing
to
a
different
scale,
dealing
with
the
frontages
of
how
they
relate
to
that
space.
That
public
space
that
I
mentioned
on
the
previous
slide
is
is
hugely
important
as
well
next
slide.
Q
So
for
the
frontage
design,
one
of
one
of
the
biggest
changes
we're
recommending
is
your
current
driveway
and
garage
standards,
in
our
opinion,
are
a
bit
more
relaxed
than
they
should
be,
particularly
with
alley
loaded
blocks
and
so
our
recommendation.
That
is,
if
you
are
alley,
loaded,
that
you
should
get
all
of
your
access
off
the
alley
so
and-
and
this
is
really
becomes
important-
the
more
narrow
Lots
we
are
enabling.
Q
So
when
I
mentioned
earlier
that
we're
recommending
small
lot
row,
homes
as
low
as
1
500
square
feet
or
15
feet
wide
or
the
smaller
lots
that
we're
enabling
the
3
000
square
foot
detached
house
lots
that
are
30
to
35
feet
wide.
It's
really
important
that
they
don't
have
repetitive
driveways
and
curb
Cuts
up
and
down
the
block.
You
lose
efficiencies
in
on-street
parking.
You
lose
curb
appeal.
You
interrupt
the
sidewalk
with
curb
Cuts,
all
of
those
things
that
we
we
don't
want
to
see
happening
in
a
community
that
already
has
alleys.
Q
It
makes
sense
to
to
up
those
standards.
We're
also
recommending
upping
them
on
the
blocks
that
don't
have
alleys,
because
we
do
believe
there's
ways
to
share
or
have
common
access.
Apps
and
alleys.
We've
seen
a
lot
of
infill
projects
that
simply
take
four
three
or
four
lots
and
run
a
lane
back
behind
them
and
use
a
shared
easement
to
do
that
and
those
are
good
strategies
as
well
again
in
exchange
for
building
the
narrower
and
denser
Lots.
We
think
those
strategies
are
are
important.
Q
Next
slide
map
I'll
spend
a
little
bit
more
on
this
one,
because
it
is
a
very
significant
issue
in
the
in
the
community.
In
fact,
we've
changed
slightly
since
the
steering
committee
discussions
and
that's
dealing
with
the
massing
and
bulk
plane.
So
our
recommendation
is
that
for
the
one
to
four
unit
buildings,
the
ones
that
are
currently
subject
to
your
current
bulk
plane-
that
we
don't
change
a
whole
lot
from
staff's
standpoint,
it's
working
well
and-
and
the
community
is
used
to
it-
has
some
expectations
for
it.
Q
We
were
suggesting
looking
at
the
bulk
plane,
a
little
bit
differently,
so
that
we
could
get
more
options
and
alternatives
for
massing
in
exchange.
For
that,
so
one
of
the
tweaks
we're
suggesting
is
you
currently
have
an
exception
that
allows
you
to
go
into
the
penetrate
the
bulk
plane
for
things
like
Dormers
and
Eaves.
So
what
we're
recommending-
and
that
exception
is
just
granted
so
there's
nothing
in
exchange
for
that.
Q
What
we're
recommending
is
that
base?
We
enhance
that
exception
and
let
you
do
certain
things
that
might
penetrate
the
bull
claim,
but
in
exchange
for
that
we're
trying
to
gain
more
space
towards
the
back
of
the
lot.
So
you
would
have
an
additional
setback
or
open
space
requirement
based
on
how
much
is
extending
into
the
bulk
plane
on
those
one
to
four
units
and
what
we
would
expect
to
see
from
that
is
a
little
more
variation
in
the
massing.
So
you
wouldn't
always
have
to
see
a
side
Gable
or
that
tent
effect.
Q
Yes,
yeah
there's
a
current
exception
in
the
bulk
plane
that
allows
it's
essentially
for
things
like
Eaves
or
things
that
might
penetrate
from
a
roof
structure
or
a
dormer.
Actually,
so
you
have
a
statement
in
your
current
bulk
plane
that
says
as
long
as
it's
less
than
15
feet
wide,
it
can
go
to
the
height
of
the
roof,
so
it
the
graphic.
That's
on
the
screen.
Q
What
we're
saying
is
maybe
some
and
that,
essentially
by
our
math,
equates
to
anywhere
from
about
85
to
as
much
as
200
square
feet
of
wall
plane,
so
that
gold,
darker
gold
area
on
those
Graphics
could
be
anywhere
from
that
scale
of
size
when
they're
15
feet
wide.
So
what?
And
so
it
could
be
things
like
a
side,
Dormer,
a
side
Gable
or
something
like
that
that
would,
but
but
it's
starting
to
become
more
limited
because
it
can
only
be
15
feet
wide.
Q
The
second
thing
we're
suggesting
is
that
there's
some
configurations
we're
actually
going
larger
than
that
might
be
acceptable
and
then
essentially
the
larger
you
go
the
more
concession
you
should
have
on
on
the
back
of
the
lot.
So
it's
it's
a
way
of
getting
to
some
of
the
flexibility
that
we
were
first
exploring,
but
keeping
your
current
system
in
place.
Q
Q
If
you're
going
up
to
the
the
100
foot
limit
that
your
M
districts
allow
right
now,
so
bringing
that
down
to
a
neighborhood
scale
where
it's
triggering
at
24
feet
and
anything
over
that
needs
to
be
stepped
back
from
the
side
is
something
we
think
should
be
explored
and
expanding.
That
idea
of
having
some
massing
standards
with
the
larger
buildings,
as
well
as
the
smaller
scale
buildings.
Q
So
now
to
the
attainable
housing
guidelines,
I
think
you
saw
a
lot
of
this
from
the
previous
presentation,
but
in
working
with
root
we
we're
recommending
these
four
tiers
and
it's
really
the
the
first
three
are
the
ones
that
they're
instructing
us,
the
ones
that
the
average
developer
might
be
enticed
with
the
tier
four
is
really
someone.
That's
as
as
root
has
explained
to
us
is
more
Mission
driven
a
mission-driven
developer.
Q
That's
going
to
be
doing
some
of
those
things
anyway,
and
so
they
would
be
coming
to
you
for
different
types
of
incentives
already.
So
if
we
focus
on
the
first
three
tiers,
those
are
essentially
where
our
questions
lie.
For
you
all
the
first
one
being
in
your
R1
districts.
Is
there
something
in
addition
to
enabling
smaller
lots
and
enabling
adus
more
universally
that
you
want
to
be
doing
so?
Could
we
can
convert
all
any
house?
Q
It's
simply
an
additional
story
and
a
parking
reduction
based
on
which
tiers
of
affordability,
you're,
meeting
percentages
based
on
that
Ami
rank.
These
are
things
that
we
would
hope
to
tailor
more
directly
and
more
specifically,
to
the
their
first
recommendations
set
goals,
so
these
can
be
tailored
to
wherever
you
end
up
on
at
on
goals
for
certain
price
points.
Based
on
that
analysis
as
well,
but
as
as
root
mentioned,
the
the
feasibility
of
these
are
at
least
working
specifically
to
the
parking
requirements.
I
know
there
were
some
some
questions
on
well.
Q
We
did
kind
of
go
back
and
forth
with
them
on
some
of
these,
with
a
couple
of
different
scenarios
where
we
have
ended
up
is
we're
talking
about
the
parking
rate
mainly
for
multi-unit
buildings,
and
so
the
the
typical
rate,
the
city-wide
rate,
we've
done,
we've
done
a
subtle
change.
You
currently
have
1.5
parking
spaces
per
unit,
if
you're
anything
at
two
units
or
less
and
then,
if
you're,
a
three
or
three
bedrooms
or
less
two
bedrooms
or
less
if
you're,
three
bedrooms
or
more,
you
have
two.
Q
So
the
first
thing
we
did
on
the
parking
table
that
we
talked
about
two
weeks
ago.
Was
we
added
some
more
Nuance
to
that
by
saying:
let's
do
it
more,
a
more
filtered
rate
by
bedrooms,
so
the
one
bedroom
and
the
efficiency
went
down
to
one
space
per
unit,
so
there's
a
slight
adjustment
that
we
just
did
city-wide.
Q
The
second
thing
we
did
in
that
chapter
six
discussion
from
two
weeks
ago
is
we
have
a
a
Transit
area
rate
that
brings
you
down
to
about
75
of
that
that
requirement,
and
so
the
two
new
ones
that
you're
seeing
on
this
slide
would
be
for
tier
two.
It's
bringing
you
down
to
about
60
percent
of
that
base
requirement
and
tier
3
would
bring
you
down
to
about
50
percent
of
that
base
requirement,
and
there
is
that
was
part
of
the
reason
from
our
previous
discussion.
We
didn't
have
the
whole
picture
in
place.
Q
The
logic
behind
it
was
some
of
that
feedback.
We
were
getting
from
them
on
on
this
type
of
incentive
and
again
I
agree
100
with
the
idea
that
this
is
something
that
you
would
hope
to
revisit
periodically
as
parking
needs
are
changing
over
time.
So
we
have
a
couple
of
just
fundamental
topics
that
we
want
direction
from
from
you
all
on
on
R1,
and
you
can
see
some
of
the
the
options
on
the
screen.
Q
A
H
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
Mr
Brewster
really
appreciate
this
I
really
like
the
the
most
of
the
framework
here,
that's
in
place,
I
did
watch
the
steering
committee
meeting
where
you
presented
the
idea
of
the
alternative
to
the
bullet
plane
with
different.
You
know
square
foot
allowances
of
different
setback
distances.
It
took
me
actually
a
couple
times
watching
that
to
get
my
mind
around
it,
but
I
kind
of
liked
it
and
was
a
little
disappointed
to
see
that
it
was
taken
out
here
and
I.
H
Q
Q
If
you
will
of
what
your
wall
plane
could
be
along
your
side
setback
and
you
could
either
use
it
for
a
short
distance
up
to
your
max
Building
height
or
a
longer
distance
along
the
the
side,
setback,
so
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
unpredictability
with
that.
That,
maybe
is
you
know
of
concern
and
I
think
there
was
definitely
a
sense
of
people
are
familiar
with
the
bulk
plane
and
it
seems
to
be
working.
Q
I
think
our
bigger
our
bigger
discussion
came
on
that
the
first
strategy
that
you
mentioned
from
watching
the
steering
committee
meeting
I
think
if
anything,
we
might
want
to
revisit
that
for
the
larger
scale
buildings
and
adding
to
that,
rather
than
the
step
back,
but
again
with
the
step
back,
we're
just
trying
to
keep
it.
Keep
things
really
simple
at
this
point
and
not
get
too
complex
in
the
regulations.
H
Okay,
I
have
more
questions
if
that's
okay,
yeah
well
for
just
for
council's
sake,
if
you're
interested
in
that
alternative
I
would
be
interested
in
re,
you
know
reconsidering
it
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
we'd
hear
some
pushback
from
the
building.
You
know
from
the
community
development
but
I
like
the
idea.
H
For
now,
the
other
question
I
had
was
on
adus
you
mentioned,
allowing
that
that
you're
building
design
standards
would
allow
them
to
be
attached
or
detached
is.
Was
that
in
here
somewhere,
I
didn't
see
that,
or
is
that
in
a
different
section?
And
can
you
elaborate
on
what
will
be
allowed
in
that
framework.
Q
Yes,
it's
in
it,
it
is
in
a
different
section.
It's
in
chapter
four,
which
is
the
use
specific
standards,
which
is
where
your
current
Adu
standards
are.
So
there
will
be
a
set
of
criteria
that
will
go
with
that.
It's
it's
essentially
an
accessory
use.
So
it's
because
it's
it
doesn't
really
make
the
use
table
as
a
use.
So
it's
listed
with
things
that
accessory
uses
have
to
do
so.
Everyone
that
has
a
dwelling
unit
can
do
one
of
these
and
there's
a
list
of
eight
to
ten
criteria.
Q
Q
I
think
the
only
one
that
you
have
that
we
might
question
in
chapter
four
would
be
the
requirement
for
registering
it.
I
believe,
but
we've
got
a
draft
of
chapter
four
in
staff's
hands,
and
so
it
should
be
following
shortly,
but
it's
not
substantial
substantive
changes
to
what
you're
currently
doing.
H
H
Okay,
very
good,
then.
My
last
question
was
on
the
front
setbacks
and
and
on
the
end,
grain
Lots.
You
had
something
you
didn't
talk
about
this,
but
in
the
the
draft
of
the
code
there
was
a
section
where
you
have
oh
yeah
here
it
is
three
under
C3.
What
is
it?
16,
yeah
five
C
Three
Corner
Lot
configurations.
H
You
know
the
you
have
three
different
possible
ways
of
configuring:
a
corner
lot
with
in
terms
of
the
orientation
of
the
setbacks,
and
this
seemed
to
me
to
be
potentially
a
little
too
restrictive
because
in
all
three
like,
if
we're
allowing
you
know
duplexes
on
some
of
these
Corner
lots,
for
example,
in
the
limited
use
section
on
your
your
first
chart
there,
if,
like
the
corner
orientation
where
both
the
building
orients
to
both
streets.
So
maybe
that
would
be
a
duplex
kind
of
scenario.
H
Q
To
me
yeah,
yes,
so
what
we
had
hoped
to
do
with
the
three
options
was
to
really
enable
one
particular
situation,
and
that
is
where
the
end
grain
blocks
shift
to
as
you
round
the
corner,
and
so
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
give
the
corner
lot.
The
option
of
having,
in
our
opinion,
The
best
scenario,
is
to
have
them,
have
a
double
Frontage,
even
when
it's
not
a
two
unit
building.
Q
So
if
there's
an
end
grain
block,
that's
behind
you
that
you're
adjacent
to
their
side
yard
instead
of
having
that
be
your
backyard
as
it
would
be
in
a
standard
Corner,
that's
your
side
yard
and
you
only
have
to
be
five
feet
from
there
as
you
round
the
corner,
you
would
only
have
to
be
five
feet
from
the
other
house
on
your
your
other
side
and
then
your
two
fronts
could
be
there,
and
and
so
with
the
flexibility
with
the
front
yard
setback.
We
felt
that
was
a
good
scenario.
Q
H
A
multi-unit
house,
but
if
you're
going
to
have
two,
you
know
two
facing
two
sides
facing
the
end:
grain
and
the
of
the
block
and
the
the
face
of
the
block,
then
you're
really
restricting
the
lot
size
which
doesn't
make
sense.
If
your
unit
allowance
is
going
up,
you
know
so
I'm
afraid.
That's
you
know
if
you
have
a
6
000
foot
lot
on
a
corner
that
has
this
allowance
for
this
use.
But
then
you
have
a
25
foot.
H
K
That,
if
the
lot
size
is
just
over
7
000
square
feet-
and
you
could
have
the
two
to
four
units
provided
all
other
dimension,
design
standards
are
met
and
I
see
that
in
the
bonuses
here
we
have
height
and
we
have
parking
but
not
setbacks
and
lot
coverage,
and
so
have
we
looked
at
that
and
I'm
curious
with
this
restriction.
The
way
it's
worded
now
how
many
Lots
would
actually
fit
this
criteria
within
the
R1
districts
that
could
be
developed
up
to
four
units
without
exceeding
the
setbacks.
Q
So
what
we
are
trying
to
do
with
that
standard
is
to
say:
if,
if
it's
a
four
unit
building
type,
we
don't
want
it
to
all
of
a
sudden,
be
something
that
is
not
compatible
with
the
neighborhood.
So
we
think
it's
important
to
ensure
that
it's
a
house-scale
building
when
it
does,
if
it
were
to
convert
to
that
and
if
you
were
to
enable
it
in
all
of
the
R1
districts.
The
reason
when
you
move
up
to
the
other
tiers
there
isn't
a
necessarily
a
setback.
Bonus
is
one
I
I.
Q
Think
Roots
analysis
was
saying
that
the
the
height
and
parking
are
going
to
be
the
bigger
attractive
pieces
to
it
to
from
a
feasibility
standpoint,
two
we
think
the
setbacks
are
appropriate
for
a
whole
range
of
building
types,
and
we
do
have
other
mechanisms
for
flexibility
in
the
standards
as
well.
So
we
didn't
want
to
you
know,
weaken
things
that
we
thought
were
pretty
strong
community-wide
standards
to
begin
with.
K
Being
more
housing
without
fundamentally
changing
the
character
of
the
community,
I'm
just
curious
if
similar
I
think
to
how
we
form
formulated
an
Adu
policy,
something
that
we
thought
would
create
more
units
that
ultimately
didn't
because
of
how
the
policy
was
written.
So
I
would
like
to
see
us
push
a
little
harder
in
that
next
conversation,
but
here
as
well,
I
just
would
like
to
get
a
better
sense.
If
we
can
about
how
many
units
do,
we
think
this
really
could
open
up
within
the
community.
K
If
we
were
to
go
this
direction
and
is
there,
would
it
even
be
feasible
or
would
it
be
attractive
to
add
a
tier
what
if
it
was
50,
the
units
were
below
100
Ami
and
you
could
use
up
a
little
bit
more
of
the
lot.
Is
that
attractive,
I'm
just
curious?
It
was
this
planet
on
the
edges,
or
is
it
something
that
could
actually
create
significant
unit
increase?
And
then
my
other
question
is
on
the
driveway
design
piece.
You
mentioned
that
change
moving
more
to
the
Ali
access.
K
Q
Yeah,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
prevent
them
from
doing
that.
So
if,
if
this
were
adopted
and
we're
in
place
right
now,
the
first
question
would
be
when
what
type
of
activity
triggers
the
new
standard.
So
we
would
look
to
that
first.
If
it
was
someone
converting
a
an
existing
garage
space
to
livable
space,
there's
nothing
in
what
we're
proposing.
That
would
prevent
that
and
in
fact
that
would
probably
be
going
more
towards
compliance
with
the
code.
Q
If
it
were
a
front
loaded
garage
because
we're
trying
to
be
more
restrictive
on
car
space
along
the
frontages,
they
would
still
need
to
have
their
parking
requirements
somewhere
on
the
lot,
but
that
could
be
made
up
in
other
ways,
particularly
if
it's
an
alley
loaded
block.
If
it's
not
an
alley
loaded,
they
we've
we've
run
through
a
number
of
scenarios
that
we
still
think
particularly
The
Wider
Lots.
If
you're
an
existing
narrow
lot
that
doesn't
have
an
alley
access.
Q
Those
are
the
ones
that
would
be
most
impacted
and
constrained
because
they
can't
necessarily
go
into
a
sharing
agreement
with
a
neighbor,
or
they
can't
do
a
common
Lane
among
three
or
four
Lots,
because
they're
the
only
one
there.
So
those
would
be
the
ones
that
would
be
most
constrained
by
this
situation,
but
it
would
again
be
it
would.
It
would
only
apply
to
things
that
are
putting
in
new
parking
or
new
garages
of
where
the
new
standard
would
kick
in.
H
Q
Yes,
so
one
of
the
it
stems
from
our
observation
that
one
of
the
main
kind
of
drivers
of
community
character,
especially
when
you're
mixing
types
or
getting
more
narrower
Lots,
is
how
the
building
relates
to
the
frontage
and
so
the
more
smaller
Lots
you
have,
the
more
driveways
and
curb
Cuts
you
have
along
a
street
the
less
attractive
the
streetscape
will
be.
We
also
recognize
diminishing
returns
at
every
driveway
takes
away
a
potential
on-street
parking
space.
It
takes
away
a
potential
space
for
Street
trees.
Q
A
Q
Yeah
I,
don't
think
you're
an
outlier
at
all,
I
think
it's
a
trend
of
a
lot
of
communities
are
going
more
towards
building
type
related
standards,
mainly
trying
to
hit
that
the
spot
of
the
smaller
scale,
multi-unit
building
types.
So
you
know,
we've
looked
at
Denver's
code
a
lot,
but
all
of
these
types
and
and
even
plenty
more,
are
accounted
for
in
their
development
code.
So
I
I,
don't
think.
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
No
I
think
in
our
mind
we
drew
a
pretty
hard
line
between
the
R1
and
R2
zoning
District.
Those
are
single-family
neighborhoods
and
if,
if
the
only
addition
of
units
would
be
either
through
smaller
single-family
Lots
or
through
an
accessory
unit
which
is
truly
accessory
to
that
lot,
there's
requirements
that
make
sure
it's
it's
not
overly
visible
that
it's
truly
subordinate
to
the
main
unit.
It's
an
option
that
that
you
could
add
to
add
sort
of
gentle
density
to
the
lot
and
it
it
wouldn't
be
well
I.
Q
Think
in
your
experience
in
the
r1c
district,
it
hasn't
been
widely
used
and
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
for
that
that
are
non-regulatory,
I,
think
so.
I,
don't
I
wouldn't
expect
widespread
change
because
of
it.
But
I
think
it
is
a
good
option
to
have
that
keeps
this
that
keeps
the
single
family
character
of
the
neighborhoods.
D
H
Thank
you.
Yeah
I
wanted
to
speak
to
you
to
use
a
little
bit
because
I
think
there's
a
tremendous
opportunity
here.
New
York
Times
had
an
article
just
maybe
last
month
about
how
one
of
the
big
drivers
to
housing
is
that
well,
two
two
sides
of
it:
one
is
that
lands
price
land
costs
has
gone
up
and
and
so
it
costs.
H
So
you
have
a
lot
of
housing
that
was
built
for
kind
of
a
different
time
when
families
were
larger
and
that
kind
of
thing
and
adu's
I
think
addresses
some
of
those
concerns
because
it
allows
a
lot
of
people
have
portions
of
their
house,
basements
or
or
parts
of
their
house,
that
aren't
currently
being
used
that
they
could
potentially
convert
into
useful
housing.
That's
already
existing
housing
that
could
could
become
kind
of
Natural,
Market,
Market
based,
affordable
housing,
so
I
think
Adu
has
addressed
that
and
I'd.
H
Like
to
I'd
like
to
see
if,
if
there's
interest
on
Council
in
in
kind
of
broadening
up
the
allowances
here
and
I
like
the
so
the
first
one
was
on
the
adus,
allowing
two
units
on
large
lots
and
medium
lots
and
think
that's
something
we
could
should
consider
expanding
to
six
thousand
square
foot
loss
as
well
standard
lots
of
well.
That
opens
up
a
lot.
You
know
a
lot
more
opportunity.
H
The
house
is
on
many
of
those
six
thousand
square
foot
lots
are
already
large
and
I
think
could
easily
support
multiple
Adu
kind
of
setup.
Again,
I,
don't
think
this
is
this
is
going
to
happen
everywhere.
It
takes
a
special
person
that
wants
to
put
2A
to
use,
but
to
add
you
know,
add
that
add
that
addition
allow
additional
allowance
would
give
us
just
that
many
more
options
for
opening
up
property
for
potential,
affordable
housing.
A
A
There
was
a
lot
of
feedback
for
the
community
that
by
us
passing
adus
that
we
would
get
a
lot
of
development
of
adus
in
the
in
the
city
which
never
materialized.
How
many
did
we
build
over
that
time?
Did
we
build
one
yet
two,
two
yeah
so
I
it
to
me.
I
agree
with.
You
is
like
we're
providing
another
option,
but
I
don't
see
you
know
she
being
taken
advantage
of
a
in
worst
case
scenario
for
people
that
think
that
way.
So
that's
my
thoughts
so
remember
noon.
Camp.
K
A
F
H
I
would
think
that,
since
we're
allowing
for
internal
80,
you
know
how
in
ads
that
are
internal
to
us.
So
you
could
you
know
somebody
in
somebody
who's,
elderly
who
you
know
had
a
whole
raisal
family
wants
to
stay
in
their
house
now
they
could
rent
out
the
basement
and
then
also
build
a
detached
Adu
and
have
two
two
units
on
their
property
and
run
it
out
to
some.
You
know
a
young
couple,
that's
just
married
or
something
you
see
this
stuff.
This
stuff
happens
all
the
time
already
in
Inglewood.
H
You
know
people
are
already
doing
this.
This
is
just
we
are
saying
this
is
now
now
legal
and
you
can
have
a
separate
address
for
these
adus.
So
I,
don't
I,
think
that's
the
way
it
would
be
configured
most
of
the
time
is
not
two
detached
units.
I
think
it
would
be
really
difficult
to
build
to
detached
adus
on
one
lot,
but
one
in
turn.
One
internal
to
the
house
are
attached
and
a
separate
detached
unit,
I
think
would
is
where
you'd
see
those
okay.
D
Q
Yes,
so
I
pulled
up
the
draft
of
the
section
in
chapter
four
that
we
sent
to
staff
last
week
and
there's
just
some
subtle
changes
that
we're
recommending
to
your
current
standards.
But
that
is
one
of
those
things
that's
in
there.
That
we
think
should
remain
that
all
the
buildings,
including
the
detached
accessory
structures,
will
meet
the
both
the
development
and
design
standards
and
be
brought
up
to
code.
Q
Yeah
I
think
I
would
probably
defer
that
question
to
your
code,
official
I,
think
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
It
certainly
would
be
we're
familiar
with
a
lot
of
scenarios
that
have
done
this
and
I'm,
not
aware
of
unless
there's
something
really
unique
or
unusual
about
some
of
the
building
stock
in
your
community.
There
there's
issues
with
egress
I
know
if
it's
basement
habitable
space,
but
those
usually
aren't
insurmountable,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
reasons.
We
believe
that
the
entire
property
should
be
brought
up
to
code.
A
H
H
I
I
would
like
to
see
that
increase
at
least
the
square
foot
Max
for
for
larger
lots
to
to
like
1500
square
foot,
so
we're
making
more.
You
know,
potentially
making
more
use
of
that
space
or
again
allowing
allowing
additional
for
additional
ability
for
people
to
have
that
that
additional
option
for
a
larger
accessory
dwelling
units
and
so
I
think
that's
that
that's.
My
second
suggestion
is
the
1500
square
foot
Max
and
maybe
a
20
20
of
the
lot.
K
K
H
Actually,
yes,
that
that
would
be
yeah,
that's
that's
what
I'm
aiming
for
and
so
I
would
make
the
table
more
complex,
but
again
I,
don't
know
like
I,
don't
know
if
I
have
a
problem
with.
If
you
have
a
you
know,
I
know
some
20
000
square
foot
Lots.
If
they're
limited
to
a
thousand
square
foot,
it
just
seems
if
they
want
to
build
a
garage,
it's
1500
square
foot.
I,
don't
know
if
I
have
a
problem
with
that.
H
K
A
A
F
A
H
Here
we
have,
if
you
look
well
actually,
if
you
look
at
multi-unit
house
on
a
medium
lot,
there's
an
L
for
in
r2a,
so
that
would
be
allowing
like
triplexes
three
to
four
units
in
r2a.
So
there's
a
place
where
we're
taking
our
two
Zone
and
saying
on
Corner
Lots
we're
allowing
it
to
go
up
to
three
or
four
units,
because
if
you
look
at
the
L
that
that
brings
it
down
to
the
a
different
section
where
basically
the
L
applies
to
Corner
lots
and
some
other
limited
exceptions.
C
H
If
that's
too
bold,
at
least
r1c
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
looking
at
here's,
here's
an
opportunity
where
you
have
Frontage
on
two
sides
and
often
large
lot
sizes
on
Corner
Lots,
here's
an
opportunity
for
additional
housing
throughout
the
throughout
the
city,
and
you
know
that
doesn't
compress
all
of
the
multi-unit
housing
into
you
know
onto
one
block,
and
this
is
where
I
think
we
really
get.
The
objections
from
people
is
that
when,
when
you
take
all
this
housing
and
put
it
put
them
next
to
each
other,
then
suddenly
a
block
totally
transforms.
A
H
A
H
Would
say
this
one
would
be
would
not
would
not
be
an
attainable
housing
requirement.
That's
where
you
would
get
the
three
to
four
unit
option.
I
think
this.
This
is
basically
saying
this
opens
up
market
for
Supply.
That
opens
up
opportunities
for
developers
to
get
that
bonus
for
the
less
than
100
Ami.
K
If
that
doesn't
leave
a
sufficient
number
of
lots,
that
would
be
available
to
the
affordable
option,
and
so
we
I'm
open
to
what
you're
saying,
but
I
might
need
to
see
some
math
first
and
we
might
even
raise
it
because
of
this
was
staff
because
I
I
would
hate
to
undercut.
Especially
you
know
if
there
is
resistance
to
inclusionaries
I
mean
I'd
hate
to
undercut
the
incentive
ability
that
we
have
by
not
by
by
removing
down
Corner
Lots.
So
that's
where
I'm
at.
E
H
A
I'm
willing
to
say
yes
just
to
move
along
the
conversation,
but
not
a
hard.
Yes
in
terms
of
where
I'm
going
to
stand
once
we
vote
on
this,
but
I
I
just
want
to
yeah
see
additional
math
on
on
what
the
impacts
would
be
to
the
attainable
housing
guidelines.
Once
we
get
to
that
conversation
here
in
a
second,
but
any
other
comments,
remember:
Woodward
I,.
F
E
Tem
I'd
like
to
revisit
councilwoman
Russell's
question:
does
this
proposal
effectively
eliminate
single-family
housing
zones
in
Inglewood
because
the
way
I
read
it
I
think
it
does?
We
have
areas
right
now
that
have
certain
duplexes
or
fourplexes
that
are
grandfathered
like
the
r1c
area
where
I
live,
but
this
proposal
would
allow
based
upon
the
way
I
read
it:
expansion
of
those
multi-family
housing
options
in
those
areas
as
a
use
by
right
am
I.
Reading
this
incorrectly.
E
So
that's
a
question
that
you're
asking
asking
us
for
a
policy
stance
on
to
adopt
this
policy.
What
what
would
effectively
happen
would
be.
There
would
be
no
place
where
you
could
buy
a
house
in
Inglewood,
where
you
would
be
guaranteed
that
the
house
next
door
to
you
would
remain
a
single
family
of
residents.
Q
A
E
Temp
I
just
have
one
more
comment:
if
now,
this
is
appropriate
time,
I
I'm
in
a
strong
opposition
to
forcing
people
into
the
alleys,
so
I'll
just
say
that
I
I
cannot
support
the
option
for
prohibiting
Street
Side
Access
I
understand
the
central
planning
aspect
of
it
and
the
uniformity
aspect
of
it.
But
Inglewood
is
a
town
that
Prides
itself
on
its
Quirk.
Some
of
that
uniqueness
is
maybe
you
have
a
driveway
here.
A
H
Table
1653
and
I
I
thought
a
lot
about
this
one
because
I
share
mayor
Pro
tem's
concerns.
I
know
there
were
some
on
the
steering
committee
who
had
the
same
concerns,
though
I
am
I.
I,
do
find
the
arguments
for
that.
Your
olymp,
potentially
eliminating
street
parking
compelling
I'm
wondering
if
there's
some
way
to
to
Middle
off
on
this
and
allow
you
know,
allow
larger
lots
to
have
have
the
have
some
driveway
access.
I
mean
there.
The
alleys
are,
you
know
we
have
alleys,
but
they're
not
paved
and
I.
H
Think
that
is
a
downside
for
many
people
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
don't
don't
want
to
access
their
house
through
the
alley
just
because
it
gets
their
car
muddy
or
they.
If
they
don't
have
four
wheel
drive,
we
don't
always
plow
the
alley.
We
never
plow
the
alleys.
Do
we
we
don't
plow
the
alleys,
so
they
can't
get
out
of
their
driveway,
so
that
does
bring
up
some
concerns
there
as
well.
H
H
Q
Q
If,
if
we're
it's
all
geared
towards,
if
we're
going
to
be
encouraging
30
foot
Lots,
do
we
want
those
to
have
a
private
single
Drive
access?
Or
do
we
want
to
encourage
those
to
have
a
shared
access
so
that
you're
doing
two
of
those
lots
or
you
have
some
kind
of
common
Lane?
So
that
was
the
kind
of
math
exchange
we
were
doing,
but
the
the
short
short
answer
is
yes,
we
you
can
dial
it
up
to
any
comfort
level
based
on
the
the
extent
of
the
frontage.
H
K
K
But
I
do
think
what
strikes
me
as
positive
about
this
is
as
we're
continuing
to
work
towards
mobility
and
being
a
more
walkable
City
It
just
strikes
me
as
quite
dangerous
when
people
are
backing
out
of
their
driveways
and
people
are
constantly
walking,
I
always
looked
so
many
times,
because
there's
so
many
walkers
on
my
street,
so
I
think
as
we
move
that
direction.
This
seems
forward.
Thinking
and
I
do
like
that,
but
maybe
something
that's
slightly
more
nuanced.
That
does
consider
some
of
those
infrastructure
challenges
that
we
have
thank.
F
Yeah
I
just
want
to
State
my
position
on
with
what
the
mayor
Pro
tem
was
talking
about
on
the
whole
city.
I
will
not
support
most
of
this
without
it
being
less
than
the
whole
city.
As
far
as
our
our
one
and
our
two
are
zonings,
so
I
don't
I
want
to
see.
Preservation
of
you
know
the
interior
parts
of
our
residential
zoning
as
it
is
I.
F
F
E
A
E
Yeah
I
think
remember:
Woodward
and
I
are
on
the
same
page.
There
I
hope
that
was
clear
regarding
Ellie's,
unless
the
city
intends
to
pave
its
alleys,
it
is
wrong
to
force
our
residents
into
the
alleys.
They
are
not
drivable,
it's
it's
just
not
it's.
It
is.
We
do
a
great
disservice,
forcing
people
into
alleys
that
we
don't
intend
to
pave.
A
Thank
you,
mayor
Pro,
Tem,
I'm,
fine,
looking
at
kind
of
compromises,
member
Anderson
stated
but
I
when
I
first
read
this
I
thought
of
it
in
terms
of
how
member
noon
camp
stated
in
terms
of
just
the
walkability
mobility
and
having
people
back
out
of
driveways,
so
I
would
be
in
favor
of
keeping
it
the
way
that
we
see
it
within
1653
within
our
code
next,
but
I'm
open
to
some
possible
modifications
all
right.
Let's
move
on
to
the
attainment
aspect.
A
On
sixteen
five,
eight,
so
we'll
just
start
at
the
top.
In
terms
of
do
you
want
to
promote
affordability
in
R1
districts
with
two
to
four
unit
house
conversion
options?
So
this
is
the
aspect
of
it
that
mayor
Pro,
tem
and
I-
guess
member
Woodward
just
stated
as
well
in
terms
of
just
seeing
a
change
to
our
ones.
A
K
I'm
happy
to
lead
off
here,
I'll
start
by
saying
I
understand
where
member
Ward
is
coming
from.
Maybe
pretend
Warren
and
the
number
one
word
and
I
think
that
if
we
were
just
getting
rid
of
all
zoning
In
the
City
by
and
large
that
that
would
initially
you
know,
be
quite
a
shock
to
the
community,
and
so
no
we're
not
advocating
for
that.
I'm
not
advocating
for
that
at
this
point,
but
I
do
think.
K
I
would
support
it
in
all
our
ones
because
it
would
only
be
if
they
meet
these
attainable
guidelines.
It
wouldn't
be
just
anyone
can
do
anything
that
they
want.
It
would
be
if
you
meet
these
guidelines
that
would
promote
affordable
housing
in
the
community.
The
guidelines
that
would
ensure
that
it
fits
within
the
scale
and
the
design
of
the
existing
community,
so
that
the
experience
of
the
neighborhood
would
remain
relatively
the
same,
but
it
would
just
provide
more
units
and
they
would
be
affordable.
K
That's
a
net
positive
for
me
across
the
board
and
I
think
when
we
hear
from
our
constituents
who
are
used
to
living
in
these
R1
districts
who
are
saying
this
is
not
what
we're
used
to
it's
much
more
easy
to
explain
we're
doing
this
because
we're
creating
affordable
housing
within
the
community
versus
well
we're
just
letting
it
be
a
free-for-all.
I
think
this
is
really
targeted.
A
Thank
you,
member
nooncamp,
I'll
weigh
in
as
well
I
will
say
yes
to
our
ones.
The
difference
with
my
statement
with
Newton
Campus
member
noon.
Camp
is
just
I
like
to
start
a
start
us
off
with
Corner
Lots
and
and
go
from
there
just
the
attainable
housing
aspect
of
it
is
definitely
one
of
the
reasons
for
this,
but
I
do
want
to
just
see
how
this
works
and
and
see
the
impact.
A
Obviously,
I
also
want
to
just
understand
the
numbers
as
well,
so
that
would
be
one
of
the
questions
that
I
have
for
staff
is
how
what
would
be
the
potential
impact
or
the
numbers
I'm
trying
to
think
of
how
I
worded
it,
but
just
the
numbers
that
may
be
impacted
by
by
this
change
the
number
of
houses
that
would
potentially
go
in
in
corner
Lots
within
our
ones.
So
that's
one
of
the
questions
I
do
have
for
staff
member
Anderson.
H
I
am
I'm
in
support
of
of
this
as
well,
and
I
would
also
I
would
like
to
see
two
units
by
by
right
on
all
Corner
Lots
allowed
without
without
outside
of
this,
as
I
mentioned
before.
But
that
being
said,
I
am
happy
to
see
this
as
well.
On
the
the
bonus
being,
you
can
have
three
or
four
units
on
Lots
over
seven
point:
two
thousand
feet
on
Corner
Lots
I'll
go
with
the
corner
Lots
as
well
on
this
one.
D
If
we
do
that,
so
I
am
opposed
to
to
our
and
I'm
opposed
to
all
our
one
districts.
I
think.
If
we
want
to
start
out,
we
could
start
out
smaller,
but
just
putting
them
everywhere
and
I
mean
we've
already
been
told
by
root
housing
policy
that
we
can't
fix
the
problem.
So
why
start
out
trying
to
put
it
in
all
the
city
all
over
the
place
so
anyway,
thank.
D
C
E
So
my
lot
is
10
000
square
feet
give
or
take,
and
both
of
my
neighbors
have
lots
that
are
similarly
sized
so
to
make
this
change
in
r1c
would
have
a
a
pretty
sizable
effect
on
my
neighborhood,
the
neighborhood
where
I
live
and
my
neighbors
live.
I
I.
Don't
think
it's
correct
to
assume
that
if
we're
only
doing
it
on
small
lot
or
r1c
small
out
zoned
areas,
it
won't,
it
will
have
less
of
an
effect,
I
think,
based
on
the
way
England
was
planted
and
zoned
and
the
timing.
H
G
Q
D
D
E
E
Regarding
adus
I'm,
less
bullish
on
adus,
I
I
think
there
is
room
for
flexibility
there.
If
somebody
wants
to
build
an
Adu
on
their
property-
and
you
know-
have
a
rental
unit
out
back,
provided
that
they
are
not
doing
this
as
a
as
an
investor
similar
to
the
regulations
that
we
have
for
short-term
rentals
I'd
be
willing
to
have
that
Adu
discussion.
C
F
Member
Woodward
yeah
in
in
the
r1c
districts
or
zoned
areas
I
think
we're
not
only
doing
attainable
housing
guidelines,
we're
increasing
density
quite
a
bit
in
those
areas,
I
mean
there's
more
people
on
those
blocks
than
the
larger
Zone
districts,
so
I'm
still
very
much
a
strong.
No
on
that
on
tier
one.
A
L
A
L
A
L
K
Would
like
to
revisit
this
with
some
math
from
staff
on
what
is
the
key
difference
we're
talking
about
here,
because,
while
I
I
understand
what
we're
asking
for
I
understand
the
challenge,
I
understand
how
significant
it
is.
I,
don't
want
it
to
it
to
perceive
that
I
do
not
I.
Also,
when
I
hear
well,
let's
wait
and
see:
I
don't
know
if
we
have
that
much
time
to
wait.
A
Right,
thank
you.
Member
Noonan,
Camp
I
think
what
I
want
to
see.
Next
is
not
only
what
this
potentially
would
look
like
for
our
wines,
but
also
the
aspect
that
member
Anderson
brought
up
in
terms
of
the
duplexes,
so
I
I
need
to
understand
how
they
may,
as
they
may,
complement
each
other,
but
also
how
they
may,
how
potentially
it
may
impact
one
or
the
other.
So
I
need
to
under
understand
that
aspect
of
it,
something
to
add
member
Anderson
yeah.
H
H
To
you
know,
building
below
below
a
lot
of
the
I
mean
you
think
they're
going
to
build
them
at
such
a
cost
that
they're
able
to
rent
them
out
100
percent
Ami
or
sell
them
at
100,
Ami
and
housing
costs
are
so
high
right.
Now
that
there's
I
don't
know,
I'm
just
concerned
that
we're
not
going
to
see
a
lot
of
them
if
we
don't
allow
them,
additionally,
just
to
increase
Supply
by
allowing
them
anywhere
as
well
just
duplexes
yep.
A
Thank
you,
member
Anderson,
Moving
On,
To,
The,
Next
One
tier
two,
and
this
is
just
do
we
concur
with
the
development
bonus
of
additional
stories
and
parking
reductions
in
other
districts,
so
this
is
in
regards
to
R2,
mur3,
M
and
mub
districts.
So
we'll
start
with
tier
two
any
approval,
or
whatever
the
just
a
negative
on
on
that.
So
anyone
want
to
weigh
in
there
remember
Anderson.
A
H
Here's
the
challenge
I
have
with
this,
because
I
I,
like
I,
like
these
ideas
overall
I'm,
not
convinced
that
the
the
that,
what
if,
if
what
we're
doing
is,
is
saying
we're
going
to
keep
our
standards
High
throughout
the
city
so
that
we
have
some
leverage
I,
don't
like
that
idea,
especially
if
the
parking
is
the
parking
at
this
higher
level
is
not
actually
needed,
because
the
outcome
of
that
is
going
to
be
anybody
who
doesn't
take
us
up
on
these.
These
bonuses
is
going
to
build.
H
You
know,
potentially
more
parking
than
we
need
in
the
city.
We're
going
to
have
it
in.
You
know,
increase
of
the
current
current
problem
that
we
have,
and
so
I
would
rather
get
our
parking
levels
write.
You
know,
make
sure
that
they're
they're
at
a
place
where
it's
sufficient
everywhere,
but
not
too
much
you
know
and
then
go
down
from
there,
give
them
a
deeper
cut.
So
I
I
am
in
favor
of
this.
J
H
K
A
Thank
you,
member
noonkamp,
I
read
it
the
same
way
as
you
did
that
yeah
that
exactly
that,
it's
that
it
won't
deter
any
additional
Construction
in
our
city,
that
this
is
the
carrot
that
developers
need
in
order
to
build
the
attainable
housing.
So
that's
the
way
that
I
read
it,
but
obviously,
if
staff
or
root
or
anyone
else
wants
to
weigh
in
at
our
next
meeting
when
we
discuss
this
at
a
finer
point
about
how
this
what
the
impacts
would
be.
But
did
you
say
you
remember
all
three
or.
A
H
If
we
leave
our
parking
standards
at
1.5,
you
know
on
average,
1.5
parking
spaces
per
unit
I'm,
not
sure
that
that's
not
too
much
already,
and
so,
if
we
could
lower
that
to
one
parking
space
per
unit
on
you
know
on
a
two
bedroom
or
whatever,
and
then
make
these
Cuts
deeper
on
that
to
get
that
same
incentive
but
but
ensure
that
we
aren't
over
parked
elsewhere.
Yep
got
a.
C
E
My
concern
again
is
with
the
law
of
unattended
consequences
here,
particularly
on
parking.
I
I
represent
a
constituency
that,
by
and
large,
is
opposed
to
increased
density.
These
areas
are
areas
where
the
current
zoning
allows
increasing
density.
So
it's
very
difficult
for
me
to
make
the
case
that
increasing
density
is
bad
at
these
areas
since
it's
already
allowed.
D
I
also
think
that
we
need
to
be
careful
with
parking
issues
it's
and
not
allowing
enough,
because
I
actually
believe
the
mayor.
Pro
tem
is
absolutely
correct:
the
the
project
up
on
Broadway
and
Kenyon,
and
some
of
it
isn't
because
these
places
do
not
allow
enough
spaces
for
their
units
they
charge
for
their
spaces,
and
so
people
Park
in
the
neighborhoods,
and
so
we
have
people
parked
three
blocks
away
on
Lincoln,
Sherman
and
Grant
between
Kenyan
and
and
south
of
there.
D
F
A
Q
D
I
just
have
a
question
that
came
from
a
constituent
and
she
may
have
called
Mr
Brewster
or
Mr
iers
about
parking
for
commercial
properties
for
a
restaurant
and
she
sent
her
understanding
was
in
The
Proposal
that
there
would
be
one
parking
space
required
for
every
150
square
feet
under
2
000
square
feet.
And
if
the
restaurant
covered
over
2000's
square
feet,
there
would
be
one
space
for
every
hundred
feet.
Is
that
correct.
O
We
can
answer
that
because
I've
spoken
to
her
as
well,
that's
actually
a
question
that
one
of
our
eyes
spoke
to
that
constituent.
It
wasn't
specifically
clear
the
way
it's
drafted
in
the
code,
so
we
have
plans
to
discuss
that
as
staff
and
our
Consultants
to
go
through,
what's
the
most
appropriate
direction
to
go
with
that,
okay,.
D
D
H
And
this
is
one
of
the
big
problems.
I
see
with
some
of
our
parking
minimums
is
that
they
prohibit.
You
know,
prohibit
good
developments
from
happening
when
the
building's
already
built
and
there's
just
not
enough
room
for
parking.
Then
you
just
can't
do
that
particular
use
with
that
building.
So
I
would
like
to
have
a
further
conversation
on
on
decreasing
those
parking
requirements
in
commercial
areas
for
various
commercial
uses
as
well.
H
C
D
Russell
I
just
want
to
say
we
need
to
be
careful
that
we
allow
enough
parking
spaces
if
you
have
a
restaurant
and
then
I
guess
one
other
question
that
I
was
speaking
with
this
lady
about.
Is
it's
based
on
square
feet?
So,
if
the
square
feet
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
but
if
they're,
if
all
the
square
feet,
let's
say
like
their
storage,
they're,
not
seating
areas.
So
is
it
based
on
seating
area
or
is
it
based?
O
So
if
it's
a
single
use,
it's
generally
based
on
the
leasable
area,
which
would
be
the
whole
area
of
the
use,
but
if
it's
in
a
mixed-use
building,
you
can
use
some
common
spaces
like
bathrooms
to
decrease,
but
no
she
she
actually
kind
of
brought
up
a
lot
of
questions
with
her
discussion,
at
least
with
me.
Okay,.
J
C
H
In
the
parking
got
me
got
me
excited
again,
I
would
just
say
like
I,
I
I,
think
businesses
have
a
sense
of
how
much
parking
they
need
to
run
a
successful
business
and
the
market
can
kind
of
decide
a
lot
of
these
things.
So
I'm
not
worried
about
being
over
over
allowing
to
you
know
being
too
too
liberal
with
the
policy
here.
If
we,
if,
if
we
have
a
policy
that
that
allows
much
less
parking
and
the
business
owner
goes,
you
know
what
that's
not
going
to
work
for
us.
H
We
want
to
have
room
for
all
of
our
customers,
or
else
they're
not
going
to
shop
at
our
store
they're
going
to
come
up
with
the
right.
You
know
the
right
mix
of
parking
for
what
they
need.
I
think
parking
is
something
we
don't
give
a
lot
of
credit
to
the
market
for
being
able
to
solve
here,
but
I
think
it
really
does,
especially
in
these
commercial
areas.
A
Thank
you,
member
Anderson,
and
with
that
Mr
Ashby
Mr
Brewster.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
tonight.
Thank
you
very
much
to
staff
as
well
for
all
the
work
that
you
put
into
this
we'll
be
talking
again
probably
next
month
here
in
a
couple
weeks
or
is
in
January
I'm,
not
sure
when
it
is
on
the
calendar.
I
think
it
may
be
January.
A
I
guess
the
the
aspect
that
I
was
speaking
to
was
just
the
Adu
aspect
of
it,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
going
to
be
happening
prior
to
the
completion
of
code,
next
I
guess
maybe
not
but
I
guess
that's
the
one
thing
that
I'll
probably
just
talk
as
part
of
the
mayor
managers
meeting
on
Wednesday.
So
but
again,
thank
you
very
much
for
all
your
time
today.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
all
your
time,
all
right,
everyone
that
moves
us
on
to
reports
from
boards
or
commissions.
Anybody
have
anything
tonight.
A
F
G
F
A
Yeah
I
guess
the
way
that
I
see
this
and
I.
Let
other
members
of
council
weigh
in
as
well,
but
if
there's
feedback
that
the
parks
and
rec
commission
want
to
provide
as
part
of
our
meeting
for
January,
then
I
would
be
for
that.
I.
Don't
think
that
there
needs
to
be
a
representative
in
January
with
staff
or
that
aspect,
so
if
they're
looking
at,
if
they
want
Direction
there
I
don't
think
it's
necessary,
but
I
think
it's
just
a
report
with
suffice
from
the
commission.
A
A
So
two
weeks
after
I
think
from
the
schedule
it
looks
like
both
of
them
are
basically
all
day
meetings
from
nine
to
four,
but
obviously
we're
still
working
on
the
scheduling,
but
I
just
want
to
make
Council
aware
that
we
do
have
those
two
meetings
coming
up
after
the
new
year.
Secondly,
I
wanted
to
make
everyone
aware
of
the
Christmas
lighting
or
the
tree
lighting
here.
This
coming
Saturday
is
from
two
to
six
city
manager.
A
Lewis
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
the
tree
lighting
is
going
to
happen
right
around
5
30..
So,
if
I'm
incorrect
on
that,
then
I'll
just
make
people
aware
somehow
that
we
are
doing
at
5
30
I'm
sure
that
we
could
get
staff
to
kind
of
it
is
5
30
right.
So
the
tree
lighting
is
happening.
This
coming
Saturday,
so
I'll
be
there
as
well
and
lastly,
I
just
want
to
congratulate
our
very
own
Stephanie
Carlisle.
A
M
Thank
you
mayor
for
announcing
the
tree
lighting.
We
also
have
the
annual
grease
and
oil
Take
Back
event.
It's
going
to
be
9,
9,
A.M
to
12
p.m,
and
that
is
going
to
be
at
South.
Platte
renew
the
facility
there
at
Southpaw
renew
so
excited
about
that
City
staff
is
in
the
throes
of
our
annual
performance
evaluation,
so
apologies
for
any
delays.
All
supervisors
are
all
hands
on
deck.
Trying
to
get
those
completed.
It's
always
a
good
process.
M
We
require
real
conversations
between
employees
and
supervisors
on
how
can
the
the
supervisor
also
assist
in
in
providing
better
service
to
the
employees?
So
we
really
try
to
make
those
two-way
conversations,
but
it's
a
very
time
consuming
process
and
just
thank
you
to
everyone
for
their
patience
during
that
I
think.
That's
all
I've
got.