January 15, 2019 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] [Music] all right good evening welcome everyone to the boulder city council meeting of january 15 2019. uh lynette will you call the roll council member brockett present carlisle

[1:02] here jones here marzelle here nagel here weaver yates here young present mayor we have a quorum excellent uh just a couple of announcements um one is that we have information packets our ip um from january 10th is on the planning board use table subcommittee an update and you can find that on the boulder city council website look for information packet the other issue is we want to clarify that for open comment coming up um you can speak to us about any issue except for two items that were that are under public hearing um that is the concept review for shining mountain you can sign up up there to speak for that separately but then on the bc one and two zones we already had public comment on that um

[2:02] it was listed as a public hearing but it was supposed to say but we already had a public hearing so we weren't planning on having another one tonight there's a lot of people sitting here though um anyhow so i wouldn't have to pose that to council um we didn't mean for it to be a public hearing but we did not clarify we did not make that clear so maybe we want to given who's out there in the crowd we want to yeah maybe um if people might want to come and speak to it now during open comment if they had come here to speak during the public hearing i don't know are we filled we are filled okay i'm going to break from protocol can people raise their hand if they came here with the intent to speak to um bc1bc2 is anybody out there okay in that case we will go with we're not going to have any more public hearings since we already had it okay

[3:00] and with that we're going to go straight to open comment if you can start with your name and address that would be great and each person gets two minutes and we'll start with stephen rowland steven here okay how about kenneth peterson after kenneth if kathy joyner could be ready hi i'm kenneth peterson and i'd like to talk about the location for the north boulder library which the majority of residents in north polar are strongly opposed to the plan for accessing the library on the east side of broadway would put thousands of extra cars per week on rosewood 13th and 14th which are all narrow residential roads with on-street parking and a maximum safe speed limit of 15 miles per hour

[4:01] these small roads are too tight and how and heavily used to safely support the predicted 100 000 vehicles that will access the library annually and this traffic will put pedestrian cyclists and drivers alike in danger there is sufficient room on the west side of broadway so why is the east side being pursued simply because the city owns the land and because an architect believes that it has a less obstructed view of the flatirons this site is one of just a few accessible green spaces in our area which already has a high enough concentration of asphalt apartment buildings retail shops condos houses and restaurants we don't need more crammed into this dense area and while the library is being touted as a space for the community this quiet unofficial park is already used by hundreds of people walking dogs pushing strollers building snowmen and gathering in the field to talk with neighbors at dusk boulder seems to be forgetting what makes it stand apart from most cities boulder's pro growth obsession comes at the cost of green spaces tranquility and

[5:01] the valley of life for people living here not every square inch should be filled with in the roads buildings and parking spaces please don't pave over a green space to put in a 30 car parking lot in a 13 000 square foot three-story building in case the library board forgot we already have a pocket library in north boulder which is the perfect unobtrusive size already if a library absolutely absolutely has to be built it should be built either on the west side of broadway or in gun barrel where the residents actually want it thank you thank you kathy and then lynn siegel good evening kathy joyner and happy new year it's been a few months since i've been before you and i wanted to take this opportunity to thank you again for moving the south boulder creek flood mitigation project along to preliminary design still the fraser meadows neighborhood in particular remains at risk of serious flooding events and we all look forward to the project design

[6:01] continuing alongside the cu south annexation efforts we feel fortunate that the partnering between the city and cu on this mitigation project has the potential to provide notable and significant community benefit the most important being the protection of thousands of downstreamers from future catastrophic flood waters in addition significant benefits related to open space ecological restoration transport transportation and university housing on the cu south property are possible only because of the unique city and cu partnership this critical mitigation project was originally scheduled for completion in 2018. now here we are in 2019 and we are not at all clear on the way forward what that looks like as you can imagine the lack of information on schedule only exacerbates the anxiety and stress of so many living in harm's way we'd like to request that when you hear again from staff on the flood mitigation project on february 5th that part of that discussion be related

[7:00] to nailing down a clear timeline for annexation agreement and flood mitigation project completion including a well-defined public process schedule for annexation that adequately reflects and takes into consideration the level of hum of risk to human health and safety that currently exists from south boulder creek thanks again for your efforts and we are hopeful that things will continue to move quickly toward a win-win annexation agreement between the city and cu and that this life-saving project will finally be completed thank you thank you kathy lynn and after lynn joshua joyce lynn siegel mountain heights boulder um i responded to someone about alpine balsam density and the effect on the school system and i'm just going to read my comment on the blog i'll send it to you the pressure on schools from the increase in quantity of kids coming out

[8:02] this is regarding alpine balsam development coming out of these smaller living spaces when the state permits open enrollment increases not only the cost per capita of educating the kid but forces kids to commute to school increasing the costs of that transportation infrastructure and congestion on existing corridors and expands the walkability city goal of 15 minute neighborhoods it burdens the taxpayers which increases the cost of all goods and services which compounds the demand for affordable housing increased property taxes from the speculative market due to new build subsidies for dense affordable quote unquote micro apartments all over town and especially around google opulent high and dense senior housing on the urban wildlife wildlands interface with the added expense of high fire risk and the transportation costs of removing a mountainside to construct 250

[9:00] subterranean parking spaces as with 311 mapleton the multi-decadal cost loss of control of speculative absentee landlords on the hill due to concessions to cu whose athletic industry pays their football coach 14.5 million dollars over a five-year contract before bonuses of which the first year bonus alone is two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and said subsequently extorting funds from residents who use airbnb 7.5 city percentage out of a 12.5 percent total including the county state and rtd in a quote-unquote accommodations tax as with hotels when they're planning a hotel on the hill with 250 parking with 250 000 parking spaces the city is planning this thank you lynn thanks joshua joshua here

[10:00] uh jamie morgan and then afterwards carolyn beninski hello my name is jamie morgan currently in lafayette because apparently boulder is too fancy for bipolar disorder researchers to live in i'm here to urge you to vote yes on opening the severe weather shelter all winter the severe weather shelter is a necessary and vital service for boulder residents and should be accessible throughout the cold winter months regardless of whether or not the temperature is set above the current arbitrary threshold of 32 degrees dry and 40 degrees wet temperature can shift rapidly over the course of a night which can be deadly in a city where it is illegal to use a blanket to stave off the cold while it is a great step in the right direction to further protect our neighbors experiencing homelessness we must also make changes to how the boulder shelter for the homeless is run

[11:00] the shelter currently turns away far too many people seeking a bed one of one of those such people was benjamin harvey who froze to death last christmas after being turned away yesterday a colleague and i went to the shelter to meet with executive director greg harms on behalf of the boulder county democratic socialists of america to discuss three ways the shelter can operate more equitably and humanely our demands are as follows one binding third-party arbitration be implemented for all resident grievances so that there is a judicial process for residents who have been wronged by the shelter two all current suspensions be re-evaluated by a third party and anyone sent to the shelter through coordinated entry be readmitted three more people who have experienced or are currently experiencing homelessness be put on the board of directors mr harms didn't show up to the meeting despite having agreed to so we spoke to shelter management we asked them for a copy of their employee handbook and they're employing training employee

[12:00] training manual modules shelter main management said no because and i'm not joking that they feared it would make them look bad the homeless shelter is a necessary public service and it is our right to know how it is run as we all may have to use its services in the near or distant future thank you thank you carolyn and then maria crens hello my name's carolyn beninski and uh um today is martin luther king jr's birthday january 15th if he hadn't been killed he would have been 90 years old today he was one of the most courageous and moral men in the history of the united states someone that i've drawn inspiration from since i first heard his words in the 1960s

[13:01] he spoke truth to power in spite of the consequences and he paid the price on april 4 1967 in his beyond vietnam speech martin made his first public statement against the vietnam war here are some of his words even when pressed by the demands of inner truth men do not easily assume the task of opposing the government's policy especially in times of war nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom over the past two years as i've been moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart many people have questioned me about the wisdom of my path i'm inspired by these words to speak about the heinous crime of climate

[14:00] engineering that is occurring in our skies i've known about it for 14 months i've done the research and the evidence is overwhelming there was a bill in the rhode island legislature last year in 2017 that's being rewritten right now i will send you the language and i urge you to ask our state legislators to consider assembler bill in the colorado legislature thank you thank you carolyn maria and after that if david david could be ready real friends 1919 grove street border i want to thank mayor jones and councilman brockett for attending the remembrance day for the homeless who died in 2018. and want to ask the council to please

[15:03] approve keeping the severe weather shelter open every evening until april as mr fernheiber however i don't know pointed out our temperatures to open the severe weather shelter are higher than denver's and long ones but that is something that confirms the humanity and compassion of border and there is no reason to believe that this change would bring people from denver to border denver claims to have a bed for anyone who wants one i would like to add that i'm aware that the location of the path to home severe weather shelter is filling up and they may have to turn some unhoused people away

[16:02] i am sure that we can find congregations who would open their doors those nights and i would be happy to contact them so i'm asking you also to approve the cost of two volunteer bridge house staff on a night when they have to turn people away and they are in the church thank you very much thank you and then patrick murphy perfect good evening council i'm david adani with the boulder museum of contemporary art i want to start by saying happy new year and i would like to thank the city of boulder for their continued support i'm here to share some highlights of the museum in 2018. through the out throughout the year we exhibited 16 artists through our exhibition program and the museum was

[17:01] visited by over eight thousand people our education program reached over seven thousand four hundred students and additionally for the summer and fall exhibits of 2018 we partner with boulder bali school district to have boulder high students visit our exhibitions and on tours led by the artists thank you for your continued support and thank you for your time thank you patrick and then don cody my name is patrick murphy i live in boulder muni naughty list take two chapter one the muni continues its history of lost money lost time and lost opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint

[18:00] we have now officially spent and lost over eight years and thirty million dollars those opportunities time and money are now forever lost worse we must now wait for another two years to get a chance to vote to end this waste if santa had a naughty list of the muni monopoly failure it would be long and include the following separation costs that were originally estimated to be 10 million are now over 110 million taking 4.3 million dollars from the general fund with no certainty of repayment from uni profits rate increase of 30 percent just 18 months after day one as revealed by a cash flow analysis that had to be acquired by legal action and boulder had to pay the legal expenses outdated and inaccurate engineering and cost analysis as a basis to form a muni

[19:00] and a current court case because of that ignoring the fact that excel's new renewables like the rush creek wind farm have already increased stranded cost and a failure to even include stranded cost in recent cost analysis in a december presentation by boulder energy future the stranded cost was given a value of zero in the financial analysis thus making all the rosy financial projections based on that corrupt stranded costs will never be zero the muni schedule is supposed to be completed in 2017 but may extend to 2029 just to pay stranded cost while excel will be at 80 renewables by 2030 to be continued thank you patrick don and then brittany gooder moves good evening nice to see you all happy new year it's good to see you i hope you're happy

[20:02] to see me uh yes well done is deliver a petition from fraser and his friends uh about a hundred people have signed on to request the council acknowledge the urgency of implementing south boulder creek flood mitigation commensurative with the protection of lives and safety of the people in the floods paths i've just heard another plea for climate change action and this is one of the results if you don't move we'll be overtaken by it please also assign beginning and ending dates to each of the application reviews process currently there are no dates there are about five different actions that you have laid out those could take from six months to six years i think we need to bound the process somehow streamline it a little bit

[21:00] and once you do that to please closely monitor the progress that we stay on track so another plea looking forward to working with you over the next eight months thank you thank you don brittany and then adelaide hi brittany gutermuth i am also here to encourage boulder city council to vote to open the severe weather shelter throughout the entire winter season and into the start of spring in november and december the shelter was only closed for a few nights each month the savings and cost are minimal compared to the expense and suffering the magnet theory which assumes that offering the shelter will attract more people has been debunked by boulder's former human services manager and by others across the country

[22:00] there is no ease of homelessness and this low barrier shelter provides temporary relief people are not leaving the city when the shelter is closed or they are turned away they trudge to surrounding neighborhoods and they suffer temps above 32 degrees can still be harsh and deadly we should not be turning people away from shelter based on this criteria the individuals being turned away not only suffer from homelessness but many also suffer from mental and physical disabilities we need to utilize our resources to support our homeless community in addition to voting to keep the shelter open all winter until april the city needs to develop an overflow plan for when the shelter reaches capacity turning people away on the coldest of nights means high risk of frostbite hypothermia and increased risk of death last week i was driving home late at night at a stoplight was a homeless man

[23:01] shivering with a sign reading anything helps i stopped to offer him food which he thankfully accepted it was 23 degrees i drove away in my mazda cx-5 turning down my blaring heat because i was too warm and i thought i wonder if this man will make it through the night i may never know the answer to this question and i will live with the guilt of not doing more the city has resources to do more for our homeless community this is a matter of life or death for some please vote to keep the severe weather shelter open every night thank you adelaide and then megan hi i'm adelaide per i live in 45 24 14th street in north boulder i'm in opposition to the proposed north boulder library location the residential streets can't handle the additional traffic it'll be unsafe for pedestrians many of us who have dogs

[24:00] and for the cyclists as traffic increases it's going to destroy our community the increase of traffic um impedes the formation of social capital which we already have in our community uh at the last library commission meeting they presented plans for a 12 800 square foot building they talked about a maker space a kitchen quiet rooms and never made any mention of books so basically it's going to be a community center proposed site will also add noise and light pollution to our neighborhood it's going to invade our privacy people of access to see into my kitchen living room bedroom bathroom and closet because of the way our windows are and same with my neighbors all of our windows face that direction so it's not possible for us to just close our blinds unless we want to live in a cave this is just having surveyors out at our

[25:01] house i had two surveyors taking pictures basically into my living room the other day so we're going to have to deal with um not just the public but also if it gets built the construction beforehand the entire north boulder area is smaller homes town homes mobile homes and condos a monstrous 13 000 square foot building is not in keeping with the community and it's also not in keeping with previous master plans or library plans for the community several neighbors and myself are questioning our decision to live in boulder if the city is determined to take away a valuable open space at the expense of our community in favor of yet another building and parking spaces thank you thank you megan good evening i'm megan oringo i live in boulder and i'm also here to speak on the topic of severe weather shelter

[26:00] i was so heartened to read the mayor and aaron brockett's proposal to open severe weather shelter every night my god what a simple and elegant solution to prevent human misery and save lives thank you both it's also a gift to a group of people who have so little i have also been dismayed to learn that there are council members opposed to such a small step in the right direction and let me be clear it is small as the daily camera reported severe weather shelter is already open most nights in the winter so operating costs would hardly increase what's more severe weather shelter is small enough that on extremely cold nights like the ones we experienced around new year's severe weather shelters hasn't actually had enough beds to house the people who needed shelter thanks to pressure from committed citizens and devoted local faith groups the boulder shelter relented and opened its doors to our most vulnerable neighbors so severe weather shelter is small low cost and it saves lives so what exactly is left to debate here

[27:00] because we have learned what happens when we don't meet the 32 degree threshold wednesday of last week when the weather was forecast at a low of 33 severe weather shelter was closed in spite of the fact that our temps in boulder did dip below freezing maybe nobody died that night but can you really tell the difference between 33 and 32 degrees perhaps opponents will say that opening severe weather shelter every night makes being homeless in boulder too easy that it gives people a loophole so they can avoid going through coordinated entry so what coordinated entry is still a fledgling program that simply isn't serving all boulders homeless yet we need reliable emergency shelter to fill those gaps so please let's not punish our homeless neighbors by risking their lives i'm a teacher and i've heard this line of thinking before that you have to use carrots and sticks to get the behavior you want out of people but i also know that punishment like this which is arbitrary pain inflicting and easily avoidable only teaches one thing that powers that be would rather see a person suffer and die then admit a

[28:01] failure let's give them the gift of nightly shelter instead thank you thank you next up is brady brady here there's brady and after brady beverly lynn hi uh i'm brady atkin i live on 965 30th street um i just wanted to speak out in favor for opening the homeless shelter during the winter time not based on temperature um i can't tell you like i lived on university hill uh for a while and i can't tell you the number of homeless people that i saw on nights where it was like 38 39 degrees and it had been 60 degrees the night before and there was not a single person that i wasn't uh worried was going to be suffering from hypothermia or frostbite when i saw them walking around um the um i just read through the email that uh councilman weaver sent out uh

[29:02] concerning how how hypothermia and frostbite occurs um and it confirmed a lot of what i had heard on if you're drinking you're you're just because it's 32 degrees outside doesn't mean if it's above 32 degrees outside doesn't mean you're not at risk for hypothermia i mean your body temperature lowers this is something that they teach us at cu for bystander training it's cold out yeah you drink you're gonna get you're gonna get more cold it's just a it's just a fact um if you get wet outside and it's 40 degrees out it's going to feel a lot colder than it is um and it's just i i think it says a lot about a community um in how we treat those who can't help themselves as well as others um and i strongly urge you to demonstrate that boulder is a compassionate community i would really like to believe it is i'd love to believe that it's compassionate progressive city that is able to respond

[30:01] to this kind of crisis we've already seen one person in our city limits die because of exposure i hopefully this can be one small step to prevent that and i hope that the other suggestions that have been made tonight to make our homeless shelter system a little bit more compassionate will also be considered as well thank you thank you um beverly and then lisa white good evening i'm beverly line and i'm a resident at 3370 34th street i'm a retired director of a nursing program at a community college here in colorado and i come to speak to you tonight about the rocky flats flap grant in particular i am regarding my credentials to speak about rocky

[31:00] flats my master's is in community health nursing and i was i served on the rocky flats citizens advisory board from its inception for about five years i was the health committee it was easy to call meetings specifically tonight though i want to talk a little bit about the flap grant the federal lands access program grant boulder is part of the partner group that requested soil samplings at two locations [Music] my questions how much has boulders spent toward the flap grant and how much more will be spent what is boulder doing to assure accountability for the flap grant what is the city doing to assure that the timeline is being met on the original timeline we were told by engineering analytics that sampling

[32:01] should have happened in november now they're saying the first part of march who's following that who's tracking it where's the accountability and then just let me close with a brief reminder because i am an academic after all and i can't leave without teaching no cleaning no remediation no cleanup ever occurred in the rocky flats buffer zone which is now called the rocky flats national wildlife refuge none at all ever is that it yeah i have one thank you um ma'am you can email us the rest of your comments that we'd welcome that lisa and then kristen lawrence hi city council my name is lisa white and i live at 21st and walnut i'm happy to see that the transportation master

[33:00] plan remains a key priority for the city the need for sustainable transportation options is clear there were a lot of great ideas for making sustainable transportation more feasible for people in the 2014 tmp and i have no doubt there will be lots of great ideas in the next one something i find troubling though is that while we have been making incremental progress we are still far from our vision city staff has identified many transportation projects that would improve the quality of life of people in boulder but unfortunately we are lacking sufficient funding in addition to the need for funding the other key hindrance i see is that we prioritize car travel at the expense of making progress on the safety comfort and convenience of more sustainable modes as a community we need to be willing to sacrifice some convenience of car travel for the long-term benefit of prioritizing sustainable modes if we continue to subsidize car usage with things like free parking and prioritize car travel times as a key objective studies show that studies show that the demand of that

[34:00] mode is not going to decrease even as we improve other modes other cities have made bold changes in a shift of mode prioritization for example libliana slovenia eliminated cars from their city center there was pushback in the beginning but after eight years the mayor says that 90 percent of residents would want to keep it close to traffic obviously there are different solutions for different cities and um but i would venture to guess that using some of the street space currently dedicated only to cars if we were to dedicate it to like buses only protected bike lanes or pedestrianization pedestrianization we might see similar success if allowed to exist over a period of time so i ask that you push for bold changes that move us closer to our vision thank you thank you uh christian then tom there hi my name is kristen lawrence and i'm ceo of the hopper which can be best described as a science discovery

[35:01] playground meets community beer and wine garden and i know that many of you on council are very familiar with our project we've had conversations either in person via email and i wanted to thank you all for being so receptive and working so hard at trying to project protect our project during this moratorium on a particular part of boulder um and throughout all of our conversations i've really felt that you've heard our concerns and you've responded to them and i've seen that in the amendments that you're going to discuss tonight in um consent agreement j and i'd just like to tell you a little bit more about our project and that we've been working on it for three years and that we would like you to consider accepting 3e within your amendments um for j because we are just at the tip of the iceberg of finding out how we're going to adapt and reuse our building we know bits and pieces that we're going to be able to use we're a

[36:00] museum use case that's a complex product project and what we'd like to do is we'd like to make it functional safe and incredibly family-friendly and with your help which i know that you guys want to support the hopper i've heard it over and over again i just wanted to stand up here and thank you for your help and remind you that 3e is really going to be help what puts us forward and protects our project moving forward thank you and i'll be here for comments tonight thank you tom i'm tom mayer i am a retired professor of sociology from the university i've taught there for 40 years i also work with the rocky mountain peace and justice center and with the democratic socialists of america i'm here to talk on behalf of keeping the severe weather shelter open all winter i'm kind of used to talking about controversial issues so it's kind of interesting to talk for something which

[37:01] seems so straightforward and uncontroversial as keeping the shelter open the entire winter now one of my areas of research was social inequality and i can tell you that the reputation of a community is very strongly connected with how well it treats its least favored members i would i've lived in boulder 50 years i really love this community it's a home for my family and my grandchildren and and the like i would like this community to be to be known for how well it treats its least favorite citizens i would like it to be known not simply for being an exceptionally beautiful place not simply for being an exceptionally conscious about environmental concerns not simply for being exceptionally educated but also for being exceptionally ethical and i think what's at stake here is how ethical is this

[38:01] community going to be in terms of treating those people who are least favored and most in need i think you understand the issue i will hope you will support keeping the boulder the severe weather center uh shelter open all winter thanks thank you and last but not least paula schuler is paula here oh there you are hi hi there it's me again paula schuler 4560 niwat road i wanted to continue our conversation about prairie dogs on irrigated agricultural property um you know there's a you're very aware there's a huge conflict throughout boulder county on your irrigated ag properties they were not purchased for the purpose of housing prairie dogs yet and you've spent millions and millions of dollars on irrigated parcels and let the prairie dogs take over as a result prairie dogs are damaging private

[39:00] properties that surround your irrigated parcels i want to just show you some images so you get a gist of how bad the damage is so the green and the blue dots are irrigated ag open space properties and i'm mostly concerned and okay the purple which looks white here is prairie dog occupation per open space these are all documents from open space and when you put them together this is a very small sampling of the northern tsa but you can see on many of your irrigated ag properties it's densely populated with prairie dogs this is stratton you spent 3.2 million dollars on it it was a glorious green property it was fertile it grew beautiful grass it provided great forage now it's barren moonscape it wasn't purchased for prairie dogs it literally blows away when there's a wind storm the organics are gone this is brubaker next to stratton 138 acres you

[40:02] paid 700 096. it is decimated by prairie dogs it's barren ground also it's a removal area incompatible with open space management objectives so our property is right across the street from brubacher and there's a constant oops i'm going too fast sorry oops um there's a constant migration across that is brubaker during oh shoot well i sent you all this on a pdf and i hope you have time to look at it because it's it's a huge issue for us i mean thousands of prairie dogs on our property so i would like you to manage your own properties but in the process be a good neighbor and help us thank you um just to remind the audience we don't clap or boo just so everyone feels comfortable to express themselves so you can do this if

[41:01] you agree all right thank you to everyone that has come to give us open comment we're going to close open comment i'm going to turn to staff to see if you have any responses just a quick reminder that at the study session in december when you heard from staff in the prairie dog working group report as a result of that study session staff promised to be investigating some of the issues of prairie dogs on irrigated open space land and report back to council this spring and so we are still working on that project and you'll hear from us in the april may time frame i have nothing okay um mary yeah i wanted to comment um to a couple of folks that spoke with us about the north boulder library and in particular ms purr who said

[42:00] mention that there was no master plan that mentioned the library and i would just like to call her attention to the north boulder sub-community plan on page one of the sub-community plan which was adopted in 1995 it says a branch library in the village center right where it's planned to be built so there is a master plan and this is one of the values of a sub-community plan is that it's been there and it should be referred to by neighborhood residents if i could just add to that also there was i just reviewed a 1992 survey that was done of north boulder residents and also some of the results from the north boulder sub community plan and the number one priority for north boulder residents was the library at its current site

[43:00] so it's unfortunate some are concerned about it but i would also note we have a very large community park actually it's our only community park that is over 50 acres that is within three blocks of view and that is attached to extensive open space and mountain parks land and there is a dog park three blocks from you so while that property has been open for some time because it has taken us a bit of time to structure the financing for this the library is very much a pivotal part it's the cultural community kind of center and the library it's it does have books it will have a lot of books um for people and i think in terms of

[44:02] social equity there's a lot of people up in north boulder that have been waiting for that library to come so that they could access access it and take full advantage of it sam i just wanted to take a minute or two here to highlight um for our community a really wonderful event that happened this weekend and bob yates and i were able to attend it was the dedication ceremony for the 16 units of elder affordable housing that has been built on the trinity lutheran site it was a great service and it was a great way to highlight the collaboration between the city who has helped put a parking garage in that will serve both the church as well as the units there and um so i just wanted to say thank you to everybody who made that come together the church and the people who will live there and the city so it was a great

[45:00] event did you want to okay great go ahead so to miss lynn who came to speak about rocky flats and the flap grant the funds from the flap grants have already been spent and we are keeping up to date in terms of the results the sampling is still on schedule to occur this winter i sit on the rocky flat stewardship council our next meeting which is open to the public is february 4th from 8 30 to 12 30 on monday people are more than welcome to come it is held at the jefferson county airport it's not a municipal airport at the airport if people want to know where to go you

[46:00] can contact me i also want to note that that at our april meeting which will be the first monday in april we will be discussing the results of the soil sampling and that the flap refers to just those parcels that are adjacent to federal the federal land so it's a small piece of land and there's several parcels that are adjacent that are being analyzed furthermore the fish and wildlife service plans to do soil sampling at the same time this spring in concert with the flap sampling so we will be able to get sampling done on what is called the

[47:00] wildlife refuge which surrounds the area that most intense operations occurred on and so we will have results from that sampling i would expect in april and i will report those back to the council and those will be publicly available okay any other comments i just wanted to thank everyone who came out uh to speak about the severe weather sheltering as you're probably aware this is the very last thing of a very long agenda but we will be discussing it oh i don't know maybe around midnight tonight wanna hang around yeah so stay tuned okay i think we'll move on then thank you all for your comments your consent agenda tonight is items a through j so at least one of these we want to talk about further which is opportunity zones but before we

[48:00] get to that is there anything else we need to discuss in the list okay um the staff want to present this uh sure so in front of you on a buffed piece of paper you have a memo from david gear which uh well it says it's from david wrote it which was posted today on hotline sorry i'm not close enough which was posted today on hotline um the the the memo was intended to address some of the things that were not addressed in the agenda memo so the agenda memo addressed things that we were trying to clean up after the last hearing this memo addresses some things we've learned about you've heard you heard the owner of the hopper speak briefly about the exceptions that are necessary to allow them to go forward those exceptions include um allowing the conversion of building a floor space for for museum use um allowing for

[49:01] an addition that does not exceed 650 square feet so the idea there is they wanted to put a little staircase on the outside that doesn't really affect the building very much and as we thought about this there will be uh minor changes where someone wants to add say a double door entry that will be relatively small and insignificant and we we thought council wouldn't want to hold up those sort of small innocuous projects so we included it but this also assists the hopper the third one is the demolition of any non-residential floor does not result in the removal of any exterior walls so that would allow internal demolition to do changes and in in their case they want to create an atrium feeling so that they can have the science and the center and the children in the bottom and the adults can socialize on balconies above so the concept is you can allow interior remodels and so the thought was that

[50:00] that would this would apply to anybody but that you the council's intent wasn't to prevent businesses from doing remodels uh and so the other the in addition to to that we've suggested an addition of h which is a public safety exception um this sort of came up recently with a building that has become a public safety issue that really needs to be demolished in the opportunity zone uh it's not ready to be redeveloped but it's causing some some issues and as we thought about it there are circumstances where buildings are just falling down and create public safety issues and need to be demolished and we didn't think council intended for the demolition to be held up in those circumstances you would still get to review any project that was built there but um this would allow for a public safety exception uh there were two minor things uh you in addition to that there was some clarification on the affordable housing which you see on the first page and then uh at cac on monday

[51:02] we were requested to draft another recital so that it's clear to anyone who looks at this that council will consider exceptions the council's not intending to end all economic activity and that as you've demonstrated once when someone presents an issue that makes sense you will create an exception and staff is is has promised to bring those forward promptly uh on council direction for council to consider so that uh new subparagraph queue uh just makes it clear that there will be the the anticipation of council is that there will be additional exemptions coming forward in the future on a case-by-case or appropriate basis such as when we think about whether or not an accessory outside is something that that that contravenes councils intent so that's if you want to include those you'll just say that you in your motion you would include the amendments in the buff memo that was on your desk and posted on hotline earlier today great thank you tom um questions lisa i don't have a question

[52:02] anybody have questions about this for the reasoning behind any others aaron thank you tom and uh appreciate staff putting together some uh changes in response to my requests and others um one question that's not addressed here was um g the the idea is that you could demolish non-residential area that doesn't result in the removal of exterior walls i think that's a positive step what about a change of use if you didn't if you weren't changing the building somebody brought this to my attention that um but you were changing from one um approved use or by right use to another would there be anything in this moratorium that would prevent that i'd have to think back i don't think so is anybody from planning here no they're shaking their heads violently yeah no violently no all right so that's that sounds like a very it's about as violent as planning okay okay great so i colloquy on this real quick when it comes to the hopper as an example if

[53:00] they want to apply for the conditional use review which would be required for them to have a museum use um would they be prevented currently from doing that don't think so you no okay so thank you sir great well so do we need the museum exactly that's why i was asking that because it seems to me that if they're not prevented from coming forward with the use of your application that that's a non-issue here to shed some light chris sure so chris maschuk planning right now the way the moratorium is drafted is that it it prohibits us from accepting building permits site review applications and use review applications so there is a chance that their use review is is could be held up um so the exceptions that were drafted are ways to based on their current concept that would allow that to go forward so we'd be able to take their use review um if it isn't going to trigger any of those things in the moratorium so so let's i'm still trying

[54:00] to parse out because um i thought aaron's question was can people apply for a change whether it's conditional use review or whether it's a buy right use change and you said that it would be accepted correct so use changes that occur inside of buildings where you're changing say from maybe a technical office to warehousing that would just be able to occur without being held up by the moratorium even if there were tenant finish changes interior to the building correct as long as they didn't trigger any of the the floor area restrictions that are in the board so then let me ask again if we make the change for floor area and i have an alternative proposal but if we were to make a change that would allow for instance the hopper to increase the floor area as much as they needed to within the limits of the moratorium then would their use review application be held up uh i'm not sure i totally track but i yeah i'll say it again just to make sure i'm clear we are considering one of the

[55:00] changes that david proposed this afternoon was one which allows additional floor area ratio to be added he said 650 square feet okay so if we were to pass that exception and the hopper application created less than 650 square feet of additional floor area would they be able to submit a use review just yes they would okay thank you that's clear so but if we if we didn't add an uh museum use exemption they're probably okay although i think they'd be more comfortable that they're okay if they actually had a specific exemption but it would prevent the creation of a different museum if there is say an empty vacant parcel and somebody wanted to build a museum on it would be included in the moratorium wouldn't it if that museum use was gonna add floor area remove floor area you know met some other trigger of of the moratorium yeah that required a use review and those sorts of things the reason i'm asking i don't mind if we

[56:00] have a belt and suspender thing with a museum exemption here but what we're learning from the hopper and other projects coming forward we need to correct the structural things so that they don't apply to other projects so i'm just trying to follow the structural issues here and so for instance the the potential change i'm thinking of is instead of saying 650 square feet which is arbitrary we could say something like a de minimis addition of floor areas such as 10 or 2 500 square feet whichever is less i'm trying to think a little broader than just this project no and i would support that something like that i don't think the intention of this moratorium it kind of came out from nowhere and i don't think we intended to shut everything down and so i think what we want is to make sure that people who had already been in the process and

[57:02] well underway would be able to move forward as they had intended without any gap and so um it would be important for us to know how many requests or denial requests we are receiving or denials we are putting out there because i really want people to understand that they can appeal to directly to the council and that we will listen to their specific issue and i think there are unintentionally different projects that have been caught up and so i would like to get those projects that are within these guidelines out of being caught up and being allowed to move forward i think our biggest concern was

[58:00] some unknown entity coming in and doing something that we had planned on doing correcting so and providing us something that we want and so getting a science museum we spent years thinking on the civic use pad trying to get a science museum that a private entity comes up and has this science museum with beer garden that is just so awesome so um i i hope people understand what the intent of this moratorium is and not to keep more properties under the moratorium than is absolutely necessary and we want to be able to constructively have a vision for some really large parcels in that two and a half square miles that may not be able to arrive there

[59:01] right now given our use tables so okay so um are people generally liking what sam proposed as a an alternative to the 650 square feet and that was to replace f just to be technical about it that's an alternative to that sam would you read it again my pen was slow so something like that creates a de minimis a renovation which creates the minimus additional floor area uh 10 or 2500 square feet whichever is less 10 of the flooring 10 percent of existing floor area so adding 10 of existing floor area or 2 500 square feet whichever is less the intention here is to to do exactly what the proposed f was to do but to make it broader and extensible to other buildings and so on

[60:02] so my only editorial comment was i would get rid of the de minimis it's never good to characterize you've got a clear standard just put the standard in okay that's fine to characterize you bet so are we going with a one-time allowance or why don't you read the full sentence well i wasn't thinking one-time allowance per se i was thinking just the standard so what what is within the moratorium is anything that exceeds that and so i don't care if that gets phrased as an exception because i think that's what f is right f is an exception yes so it could be either an exception to the moratorium or the moratorium could be construed to include things bigger than that or area ratio increase is bigger than that so and do you want to put the phrase in addition which is something outside is do you want to keep that yes so it should read construction of addition that does not exceed 10 percent of the existing floor air or 250 to 2 500 square feet whichever is less yes

[61:00] okay got it i'm sorry i should have put that on hotline i just came up with it a little later in the afternoon any other thoughts on this so i just want to be absolutely clear on um on e the construction of any building or conversion of floor area for museum use it does not stating that particular case does not preclude a change in use [Applause] of any other kind we're just calling it out for the purposes of peace of mind for this particular case okay that's just want to be absolutely clear well i i think i think if you did a conversion to a museum you should still have to go through a use review process which you're not allowed by the moratorium so i think this does actually this is a difference i mean i'm happy with this and plus construction new construction yeah it doesn't for sure do new

[62:01] construction but with the exemption that we just put in or that they had previously put in i thought we were told that they could do this i think this case is covered but there could be another one okay so okay so now i'm confused the first sentence temporary suspension of accepting building permits site review and use review applications so i don't know so if you're converting from use one use to another that's a use review or is that only for new construction i recall it depends on the use review table whether whether that is use review is required for some changes and not for others so if it was a change that didn't require use review it wouldn't be it wouldn't trigger the ordinance but if it is a change that requires use review then it would trigger then this exception would have effect so this does require um the museum case in all zone districts requires a conditional use review i don't have the table memorized but maybe charles does sure

[63:00] yep can you uh are you coming up he's looking ah i can look as well i'm certain in this understanding let's see who gets there first a new market set my money's on charles [Laughter] okay charles gave me this sheet of paper so museums are in allowed use in mu4 bms bc1 bc2 kind of your brs your dts and then it's a use review in your industrial areas uh and your bt zones so this is the use review correct so this is a use review so without that language it would trigger a use review and therefore trigger the ordinance so it isn't really belts and suspenders right so just belts so so i mean the question is do we and charles you may need to help answer this because do we really want to prevent use review i mean i think we want to break building permit and site plan review because that's creating new buildings or doing significant

[64:01] changes but use review i'm not sure how much do you have to know about a building and its changes to be able to do a conditional use review well can i add a question on top does this are we talking about converting oh i don't know shopping malls to office space i know that one's already in but for example the conversions would that have otherwise triggered a use review i think if we step back and look at what the intent of the ordinance was first it was stop building permits and essentially discretionary review applications of people working towards a building permit process so i think that was the intention of why we put use reviews in in addition to site reviews and building permits was let's not have somebody enter into a process where they're gonna get stopped by a building permit at the end so i think that was the intent of why to include it in the first place i agree so so then

[65:00] mary we we want it in there we're making an exception for museums okay and we will if there are other exceptions on a case-by-case basis we're happy to bring them and hopefully we'll move relatively quickly in releasing areas so okay yes so with that would somebody like to propose the motion for the consent i'm as amended that's amended yeah i'll just comment i'm going to vote against jay not because i love the hopper i think you guys are great and but as i said back in december when we passed this ordinance we're going to spend a lot of time over the next several months picking winners and losers congratulations you're the first winner ding ding ding i suspect there'll be other winners that will be coming uh in front of us and we spent a lot of time doing this and so i don't the way this is set up is this is a reaffirmation of an ordinance which i voted against and so for consistency i need to vote against it but i'm i'm happy that the majority will grant exceptions to the hopper

[66:03] and i'm i'm a little a little stuck here but but i agree with bob sim uh principles but since this uh this amendment is moving only in a positive direction towards allowing uh worthy projects to move forward i think i'll go ahead and support this even though i continued to not support the original moratorium because of its ability to stop projects just like this except we picked this one out and our letting go forward which is great but others as well and i'll just call out the we got an email about um potential project at 3100 sterling drive um which i think sounds really promising it's on a vacant parcel uh would be a small business incubator space focused on climate change technology so uh sounds like a a really promising thing it's the kind of thing the exemption process could allow us to allow to move forward um but i just wish we didn't have to take the time we could let good things like that just so it'll be another winner could i could i comment on 3 100 sterling drive which is the parcel you

[67:02] just referred to aaron um i spoke with the property owner this afternoon and um in her email as well as in our conversation she mentioned that the idea would be to lease out office space to startups at below market rate so that could possibly fall within the community benefit ordinance and so could possibly be one of one of the things that could happen so it's not totally precluded but i think what i'll say about the opportunity zone moratorium is that if it would have happened a couple years from now things would have been peachy because we would have a lot of things in place um but it's the timing were you proposing we do something about that or just i don't think we have an exemption process in place yet i'd say can i ask aaron a question um you had proposed an exemption for e-gage as well

[68:00] is that it's the same one it's the same it's the same one okay it's 3100 got it thanks and i would be supportive of it and i would just encourage them to come forward yeah and i yeah there is an appeal process so i just reiterate people who are stuck in it who feel that they're not changing things or that we might give them an exemption you should come forward okay okay so roll call vote mayor jones aye councilmember marzell nagel hi weaver hi yates i all accept all uh on all except for jay and a young yes rocket aye carlisle aye the motion passes unanimously with council member yates neon 3j great

[69:01] your first public hearing is a continued concept plan review for shining mountain waldorf school there's only four of us on the if i leave oh thank you oh yes it changes where is the queer so we'll turn it over to charles farrow and shannon muller great thanks very much good evening members of council shannon mohler will present staff's analysis tonight good evening council we have a short staff presentation for you um so this hearing is a continuance of the public hearing from july 24th i'm going to ask you to speak up yes

[70:02] on the shining mountain waldorf school concept plan review and comment so as with all concept plan reviews no formal action is being taken tonight on the project this step is meant to provide guidance and comments to the applicant so a quick summary of the process so far in february 2018 the application was submitted the site was posted and property owners notified staff comments were issued and the applicant hosted a neighborhood open house in may the planning board hearing was held in june city council called up the concept plan in july the related zoning rezoning request along broadway was withdrawn by the applicant and also in july the city council hearing took place this included staff presentations and applicant presentation the hearing was continued at council's request to allow for a high level update and review of the concept plan related to

[71:00] permanently affordable housing possibilities on the site so to briefly go over the context the property is 11 acres it's in north boulder near broadway and violet and contains the existing shiny mountain water school the bbcp land use designation for the site is primarily low density residential the north portion of the site the north portion of the site is zoned arsenal with vigor and the south portion is zoned r01 um it is within the north boulder sub-community plan and there are guidelines for the union utica neighborhood and development guidelines for all neighborhoods the majority of the proposal is within the 100 and 500 year floodplains and the site was impacted by the 2013 flood event at the july hearing council discussed several key issues including making the development as safe as possible regarding flooding and

[72:00] suggestions were provided regarding the street layout parking and traffic the overall site plan and development along broadway was discussed and permanently affording permanently affordable housing on the site was discussed so following the hearing the applicant provided a high-level update to the proposal two possible concept plans were provided as part of council's packet generally the changes included a reconfigured street layout retention of additional land by the school and relocation of the proposed high school building an open space along broadway south of locust and options for town homes or multi-unit flats at the corner of violet and broadway and the proposal would no longer require a rezoning so that concludes staff's quick presentation and i'm happy to answer answer any other questions before turning it over to the applicant questions

[73:00] everybody pretty clear just one real quick question um your parting sentence was would no longer require a rezoning um just refresh my memory what that rezoning was to be from what to what yeah originally the proposal included a rezoning along broadway for the portion just south of locust it was proposed to be rezoned from ro1 to rl2 so you can kind of see it in that green area on the smaller map the applicant withdrew that rezoning request um so this new proposal wouldn't include a rezoning but but didn't it discuss an option where it could be rezoned or i think i think yeah i think adrian can talk more about um the different options they've considered over the last yeah um okay lisa has a few questions so the applicant is going to give a presentation okay and

[74:00] i just have it's a technical question um and i can't remember which ordinance it is but it has to do with our floodplains and in that there's just two areas really that were affected on that property by the 2013 flood and there's some ordinance we have that requires the longitudinal axis of the building to be oriented so that it is parallel to the flow and in this particular case in 2013 and i assume in most cases the flow would be from northwest to southeast yet the lots in this parcel are subdivided or platted such that they are north-south and orient and so if if you oriented the building so that it was parallel to the flow you would lose

[75:00] square footage on the buildings so i guess my question is how has that been addressed i think um the applicant can address that okay that's that's fine okay so maybe we should hear from the applicant hello and and can i just put out there that two things i know that we're interested in in addition to the flood piece it is the affordable housing yes okay we're prepared to address that excellent awesome hello my name is jane zender i'm the school director at shining mountain waldorf school located at 999 violet avenue in north boulder last spring we shared with you our concept plan which is the image you see right there on your screen last july we actually shared with you the possibility that we maybe may have been able to hold on to a parcel of our land

[76:00] at that call up in july let me stop the clock so this is what we shared with you last july and we were asked by council to come back and explore affordable housing options on a 45 000 square foot parcel located on the northeast corner of our land holdings at violet and broadway and that's parcel e that you see on the screen we listen to you council our community and our neighbors let me briefly summarize the steps we have taken in response to your request as the result of a generous gift from an anonymous community member we are now able to retain the parcel of land along 10th street and violet avenue we call

[77:01] this parcel shining meadows our new high school plans have been moved to this parcel this change not only allows us to retain a larger playground on our lower school campus but removes the high school parking from cherry street minimizing traffic impacts along cherry it also allows us to have a separate high school campus for our older students and provides additional open space for the density calculations on this corner parcel for the past six months we've had multiple meetings with three affordable housing developers plus a proposed partnership between two of them all three organizations invested a considerable amount of time and energy to consider and for an affordable housing project on our parcel we received four proposals three for purchase and one for a land lease agreement in addition shining mountain spent over thirty thousand dollars of our own money and a tremendous amount of staff board and faculty time to respond to your

[78:02] request to find a path forward for affordable housing on our site the money we spent on this could have been used to raise the pay for our teachers and for a school like ourselves it was a considerable investment of time as well as money for the three purchase proposals we did receive all three proposals required 50 units on the parcel plus the school selling our land far below what we believe the land's market value is to make it work for the affordable housing developers the rl2 zoning and open space calculations that we currently are zoned for would only yield about 40 units on that parcel in addition our board was unwilling to consider a land lease deal as it is outside of our mission as a non-profit educational institution i have an email that jeremy durham the executive director of boulder housing partners said i could share tonight and you each have a copy he wrote it on friday january 11th

[79:01] dear jane i wanted to reach out in writing to thank you for your continued efforts to make affordable housing a possibility as part of the development of the shining mountain property in north boulder after trying several different approaches neither bhp nor a partnership with bhp and a private developer were able to find a structure that would result in a wise use of limited public resources the best solutions we could identify would still require far more subsidy per unit than has ever been awarded in boulder thank you for your patience and diligence over the past year and a half as we've explored this to make affordable housing work the school would need to undergo not only a land map use and zoning change but seller land far below its value which we are really unable to do as a 501c non-profit organization with a fiduciary responsibility by selling our land below market value

[80:00] we would also not be able to raise the necessary funds to rebuild our school the entire intention of letting go of some of our land holdings is to be able to build a new school you're well aware of the school's need to replace our temporary 35 year old classrooms and make the school code compliant and safe for our children based on the investment of time money and feedback from our these affordable housing developers we believe we've done all we can on our end to pursue an affordable housing project on this site and we're asking for your support to move forward with market rate housing on that portion of our site thank you so much for your support of shining mountain and i'd like to turn it over to adrian sofer who will walk you through those options so i hope i can just go back to what we showed you at concept review adrian sofer's 1731 15th street so i'm not sure there we go so

[81:01] at concept review planning board saw this diagram which actually showed a lot more housing on the well it showed housing on the northeast parcel uh of the site and all of the school land that currently um retains is intended to be retained as the six acres to the northwest of the site because of the generous gift of major donors to the school we now as jane had just stated are able to retain the parcel where we're showing the high school and then sell off the the northeast corner of the remainder for some form of housing we've had the opportunity also to look at what housing options might be and one option would be to do a townhouse project this is showing i believe 18 units of town homes all fronting onto public streets and another option we investigated was if we did

[82:00] affordable housing on the corner showing in this scenario 40 plus units at about 600 square feet apiece plus some common areas we've also looked at a version where we did larger senior housing in the same basic footprint say thousand square foot units 30 of them all of them with the same basic lot area that we're showing but the key to having any kind of housing on the site whether it's affordable or market rate is that the the open space which is all on the shining mountain parcel and north of locust which is all in the rl2 zone that open space contributes to a density of housing the reason i included the first light the first slide was to show you how much more open space very roughly over twice as much open space as we previously had shown planning board had questioned whether the housing density that we were showing could be supported by the open space calculations we're going to have to come

[83:01] back a site review and and go through this in detail but the basic point is that the school contributes a tremendous amount of open space and that open space will be reviewed as a part of the site review but that open space even though it's closed during school hours would be available to the public during non-school hours and those non-school hours are equal to 80 percent of the time that public city parks are open so we believe a case can be made to support that amount of open space providing utility not just to the residents but to the community as a whole under those kinds of uh agreements between the city that we also made at the spark project where that various portions of the site would be open for certain hours for for use of others so that was the other part we wanted you to be aware of is that we are still trying to say that that the school provides open space that

[84:01] can support a density of housing and frankly denser than than what we're anticipating as a market rate project while as a affordable project to get 50 units is what what our affordable partners were saying as they needed it would be a tighter stretch but it was not out of the question in terms of rezoning you asked the question and um we had pulled the request for a rezoning prior to the call up which came back six months ago you had asked us to look at what opportunities we might have for affordable housing which jane has reviewed we did not feel necessary to take the strip along the southern portion of the site along broadway to rezone that even if we did do affordable housing here because it was not yielding enough units to put us significantly higher than what we were showing before if if rezoning were required it could always be done by the city if the city wanted to purchase the land that land is for sale there are still options

[85:00] available and i'm sure that there are board members here who can speak to any questions you might have about that and we still have another minute and a half here if you want us to address specifically water issues charlie hager our civil engineers here and we can take a look at that with you now or wait until you have questions so i'm putting up a map like oh this is just looking at the amount of open space that we can dedicate but that we can come back to with site review and then in terms of the the the maps charlie can go over those for flood issues charlie hager civil engineer principal at jva here in boulder so 43 seconds so essentially we look at the flood the flood codes both from fema and the city of boulder and we take them all and we have to put them into context so there was one that's brought us specifically about the alignment of the axis of the buildings it says that

[86:02] the big picture we're in the 500 year plant flood plain we're in the hundred year flood plain we're not in a conveyance which fema calls a floodway we're not in a high hazard zone so the context of the alignment is to try to align them when you have a lot of flows and also says you can align them parallel to the neighboring building axis so you create kind of a flood shadow so here as you know having been to the site we're looking at really you know zero to six inch flows and we can address that and hold the main the main goal in addition to allowing the flows is to not cause a rise on any insurable structure and we also will follow all the critical facilities codes as well as the school i can elaborate more of this question it's helpful is that what you need one more thing is that when we did this when we were first asked to do this staff had asked that we keep our redesign simple so there's not a lot of additional review on the part of staff time we have not gone back and looked at the building since the call up discussion with that in mind

[87:00] we still have to take all of the concept comments and your comments into consideration so there will be modifications as we proceed okay any questions and then we can do open comment oh we have yep okay lisa thank you for that um i have a question i believe it would be for jane um so help me square several statements that you all made um i can't quite square them together in my mind so the first statement that was made by jane was that money that was spent that could have been used to raise the teacher pay okay another statement that was made was the generous donation that allowed for the building of a separate school building um and then the third one was made early early on in this process when you all were very concerned about creating um

[88:01] housing for your teachers so given you know so one of the questions that these three statements raise in my mind is okay if one of the goals was to [Music] create housing for your teachers then couldn't the generous donation have been used to do that that's one question um the money that could have been used to raise teacher pack i believe that was made in reference to the money that was spent to look into more affordable housing that was a one-time expense which would not have been sustainable in um raising teacher pay so help me square those statements please i might need you to help me clarify okay because you threw through three questions at me so we had a community member who really wanted to

[89:01] have the high school a separate place and retain playground space for the lower school and when a very generous member of the community comes and says that they will purchase the piece of land so us we could hold on to the school our primary objective through this whole process is to have a new school right it was not to have housing for teachers so nothing will happen for us without a new school so that's really the first piece i think to answer your question i think my reference to the money we spent being able to be directed towards faculty increases is really trying to share with you our that we really took what you asked us seriously we really stopped our process for six months we didn't put any more resources into the design of the campus preparing for site review we really put a pause because you came to us and said can we make affordable

[90:01] housing work and from the beginning that was you know we've never been opposed to that based on you know talking about our teachers um but the the gap between the amount of money offered to us and what we believe the land is worth as well as the process and time and energy to do a complete rezoning and land map use change right we're in this place like we don't we don't see how we can make that happen with our primary objective being letting go of land to build a new school right it's it's a multi-multi-million dollar project and and we don't have the fundraising capacity to raise 10 to 15 million dollars so any a gap of a million half a million dollars is it's actually a no-go for us in many ways does that help yeah answer your questions was there another question i have one one more follow-up question i think you answered my your three questions and um i have a follow-up question

[91:01] can you share with us what you believe that parcel is worth we believe it's worth at least four million it's a 45 000 square foot parcel so that's about one acre okay thank you yeah um aaron all right i think this question for adrian um and let me say to all of you thanks for working so hard on the affordable housing concept um it's a shame it's not working out but does seem like you really did everything you could to figure out whether it could so i appreciate that effort that you spent i just wanted to ask a little bit about the open space not so much about the calculation but just thinking about future residents there and usable open space for those future residents so do you mind popping back a few slides um and say how you're envisioning let's say those are apartments or maybe their town houses how you're envisioning that they would because they i don't think they'd have a lot of green space on that one parcel how would they be able to use the

[92:01] there'd be a bigger green space right next to them well some green space right next to them and a whole bunch over by the school but it's a little further away tell me what you're thinking about there so i can tell you this is just a study we aren't trying to say that this is a final plan in any way uh we did an analysis of how much land or how much square footage a building would take up roughly speaking and and we established a footprint we also said that we could probably retain on the southern portion south of locust a certain amount of open space that could be used as a community garden would act as a floodway and would also act as a a place for detention and water quality for the single family sites so that would be potentially shared with the with the users on the northern north of locust also that during off school hours the the high school play area would be available to everyone

[93:01] and there are multiple ways to handle parking whether we need that much parking we're showing parking in that middle zone there as being sufficient for one space per resident of the multi-family building plus the amount of parking we would need for the high school which during off hours could be used as guest parking for the multi-family structure so there were a lot of things we were juggling we did not try to design the open space also we know that the open space on the school would provide a certain amount of amenity for everybody in this community on off school hours it's not our intention to fence it so can i just stop you right there because i remember earlier one of the intentions was to make the school a little more defensible yes and i i think this is something we go back and forth on a little bit we know that we have to fence in a certain amount of kindergarten space to protect the kids from everything before state requirements for that now i'm going to let jane speak to this

[94:00] because we're still working through this one thing we do know though is that during non-school hours the whole campus is open and would likely continue to be so and we would agree to that through this process and site review yeah can i speak to that that'd be great yeah so um we've been very intentional that we've been very we've had an open campus for 35 years and we have no intention of fencing off and closing off our campus we really feel part of the north boulder neighborhood we feel connected to our neighbors and as you see in these designs our real intention was to have very secure buildings buildings that i could hit a button and the entire campus could lock down versus right now we have 15 different stand-alone buildings so the design of this campus was really to protect the interior of the campus during the school day these um out exterior classrooms there wouldn't be doors you wouldn't be able to come in so to keep that feel of it and really just wanting to have no access onto that land during the school

[95:01] day but to continue to be part of the you know seamless part of the neighborhood on non-school hours great so there'd be a policy that people wouldn't be allowed on the grounds during school hours but not offense and your defensibility would be on the buildings rather than the campuses yeah yeah thank you for clarifying that thank you lisa and then sam um so i have some questions on the affordable housing and calculations so i might ask her or you guys and my first question is to you to the applicant about on this northeast parcel that's about 45 000 square feet and your open space calculations and your calculations for number of units that you could get on there it's all dependent on this parcel being treated as one parcel is that correct

[96:01] i just want to make this clear this is really a question that is for the city attorney but we believe that's the case we've discussed this with david gear two years ago if you look at how other projects have been done in the city particularly spark which we're very familiar with we've gone the opposite route we've accumulated multiple parcels we put in new streets and we had open space on either side of those streets on various parcels here we're doing the opposite all the parcels are under the same ownership there's an existing street between them but the same logic applies which is that open space as long as you're all in the same zone contributes towards the density of housing within this same general ownership parcel we are not intending to subdivide per se but even then in spark we did subdivide and we were still able to do that so if we have a a buyer for that land we're certainly going to look to incorporate all of that as a part of a site review but if we don't have a buyer

[97:01] the intention remains the same which is that that land will go to housing at some point when the buyer has a plan for that we've got a recognition that that open space can contribute to that intensity of housing and then they can come back and do a site review amendment to the specifics of that application you have no intention of selling that parcel off as a separate parcel well at some point we expect that will happen but yes once you get through your site review maybe well actually no we if we have a buyer ahead of that time we'll look to possibly incorporating that into the site review application if we don't we still need to do it right but you're not going to be looking for a subdivision i guess that's the question subdividing that off i mean i think that's not known the number of units and my next question has to do with the affordability of this and you guys are saying

[98:00] or your studies have have indicated that at least to you that the um cost of the affordable housing and from mr durham at boulder housing partners that it does not seem feasible for a affordable housing provider to come forward without great subsidy and do affordable housing on that site i can only say that that's the conclusion that the affordable housing developers have come to right and i think maybe mr fernhoff right and so that's who i'm gonna ask next so mr fernhoubert could you please come forward so i could ask my questions so um generally when the city helps subsidize an affordable pri housing project what do we contribute on a per-unit basis about so our approach is to provide the the

[99:02] gap on what what they can get financed and what it costs to build the the development since i've been here the last almost three years it's it's ranged from about 55 000 to 100 000. we've been averaging probably around 85. [Music] when we looked at this project [Music] a couple of times with bhp the the funding was probably in the 130 000 per unit range and that was that was with certain assumptions that we were um not totally confident in either it's still not totally clear that we can get 40 units on that parcel they would be small units and usually as designs occur you'd often lose units there's also

[100:01] a process that you go through in the city and i think bhp and others were on not totally confident that the neighborhood may support 40 or how that would all come out so investing 4 million in a property with a lot of questions and uncertainty around the density and the number of units was concerning and i i think that's why jeremy also mentioned opportunity cost with other affordable housing projects that they're working on sort of weighing um you know which which which project do you put your effort and your resources into right right and they would somebody would probably want to go and get some assistance some help from the state or from the federal government if they were going to build that as that would that's correct yes and that would take a little bit of time but then

[101:00] my understanding in those processes that they usually come in with a certain minimum number or of units so that because some of these are very competitive that's correct um and 40 units is um so so from one perspective they weren't sure that they would get 40. from the other perspective 40 is sort of the minimum 50 is an ideal size project for from a tax credit perspective 40 becomes more expensive and not as competitive thank you yep so i'll call myself here um so a couple quick questions um kurt these aren't for you so it's okay applicant thank you um so jane if you want to come back up i just want to talk about a couple quick thoughts um the the reason that is given for not wanting to be able to you can't work with the proposed affordable housing projects is

[102:00] largely because you think you'll be able to get more money for the land if you sell it for market correct it's a yes and it's also the need to do the rezoning change and the land map use change to get the density needed by the affordable housing developers so yes maybe and because it might be that we could make 40 work if the land price were somewhat cheaper like it seemed like at two and a half million maybe 40 would work and at 4 million for the land it wouldn't work and i i don't want to try and be an appraiser but what i would ask is if you're not going to be able to get as much for the land as you think you are in other words if you go out to the market to sell and the market tells you nope not even entitled for 18 town houses will will it work for us to do this um would you be able then to come back and work with boulder housing partners because if if it's of an indifference to you who pays you the two and a half or three million dollars it would certainly

[103:01] not of indifference to us which one it turns out to be and so i would just ask what will you do if you don't get 4 million for that land right so i i think i can't speak for the board the board of trustees makes decisions like that but that being said part of our process through this was to put it out on the open market and see what we would get so yes i mean we put it out there we see what what comes back to us and um you know we've had a great working relationship with jeremy and boulder house of housing partners so i think we would be very open to that okay so um when in this timeline do you intend to put this on the market it's on the market now essentially okay right i mean that's do you have offers indicative pricing offers that are near what you the 4 million you think you're going to get we're in early conversations to in in with someone for that yeah that i can't really i'm not asking you to reveal anything yeah yeah

[104:01] if it's a if it's a matter of financial indifference to you which way it goes it's not to us and so we would just ask it would be great if you're going to end up short of your goal that may be what is making the subsidy need to be so high i think the other thing you're right is the number of units but i don't think we've ever had much of a problem talking about having medium density at that location if it went for affordable housing so the other thing is i understand that you don't want to put yourself through that delay but if it were going to be affordable housing anyway then perhaps there would be a way to sever that off and have it go through its own site plan review so that the affordable housing component wouldn't delay your school project which is what you're interested in getting to so i'll just put out there that there's very high interest in this for affordable housing if possible it was something that was brought up by you at first in fact and it got us very excited seeing those

[105:00] site plans with against housing on transit and so if it turns out that it's going to be close that we might be able to make it work i think there's ways we could work with you to get that out of your site plan so that it went through its own site plan review if you could make a sale yeah i'd love you to help me with this adrian but yes thank you um well uh it's not actually indifferent to us we'd be happy to see affordable housing here that's what we've always said the challenge is twofold one is if we don't get the money that's needed we don't get to build all the school and that's the bottom line it's not it's not like well if we don't get it well we can just do it for two and a half million instead of four we just build a million and a half less worth of the school that's what the issue really is for the school right number two the process to go through an affordable housing project on this site means that it potentially slows down the ability of the school to build what it's trying to do and that's something that scares us it's already slowed us down six months

[106:01] so that's the other component that we're very concerned about so i i heard both so that's it i was trying to come up with a way that it could not slow you down if you're only going to get two and a half or two point seven five for it could you it would slow us down if we didn't get four million because we couldn't build it okay that's the issue yeah good luck with that but you know there could come a scenario where you don't and you fundraise for the gap and if if that's where you end up at it would be great to have your brand and we appreciate that yeah and we have talked about this and if we don't get that money then we know we're building less school that's our concern great yeah i have a question adrian before you sit down just a follow-up question um jane said that it was a land-use map change and zoning change um so it's it's lr um and i was under the impression that it would go to rl2 which would not is rl2 lr is the land use rl is the zoning

[107:00] but but it would be yes i recognize it yeah how that works um the our rl2 is the the zoning change that would be no it's already rl2 it's already rl2 okay got it yeah thank you any other questions just one more clarification so i just want to state this one more time so if this parcel this northeast parcel was cleaved off and put under a separate site review then that northeast parcel would lose the advantage of the open space and so that parcel would have to go if it was going to stay at rl2 it would have to go through a different process and it would require a different amount of open space

[108:02] and you would lose the number of units is that correct the answer is i don't know that's a question for the city attorney's office because our understanding is we could always come back and revise the site review application in future if a buyer wants to do that but i'd rather say the attorney's no adrian's correct um you know the site review boundary gets drawn based on what's included in the application so you get the benefit of aggravating all the aggravating aggregating aggregating all of the open space within the boundary of the site review right if they did want to come back and carve the parcel off they would need to demonstrate that they still have enough open space to serve the new piece that's being carved off and redeveloping and that they're not making the existing site review non-conforming so they would need to demonstrate that they're compliant um in both parts okay charles i think your frustration is showing

[109:01] okay uh we're gonna go to the public hearing um yeah we have one person karen george okay would you want to come up let's see my name is karen george i live at 1120 union avenue so i'm directly across from the development on the south side and um you know i've lived in boulder since 1979 and moved to union avenue after renting for many years because i couldn't afford to buy anything until then and i completely remodeled in 2003 after looking at the boulder

[110:00] sub-community plan and paid particular attention to the traffic because it's pretty close to broadway and i want to address traffic and vehicles this evening and i'd like to start with thanking the folks at waldorf for withdrawing the plan for an 11th street which would have directed traffic right into my front yard so i'm very happy about that and i also wanted to note that i and some of my neighbors some of whom were at the wonderland like discussion tonight have some concerns about traffic and vehicles you know more people in the neighborhood is not a problem more vehicles tends to be because of traffic and parking and i would like to address both parking that's during parking during the construction phase for one

[111:01] because that's going to be awful and also need for greater safety on union avenue when we put in a bike path between locusts and have more residents more fences because we have a lot of cyclists dog walkers pets while deer wildlife skateboarders coming down the hill from union avenue to broadway and speeding and it's going to be a real problem and i would hope that you folks would as part of this development consider putting in speed bumps like they have on utica on union and making sure that there is adequate parking also particularly during the construction phase and i'm just experiencing a small remodel right

[112:00] next door to me and i've had my driveway blocked off because they wanted to put the gutters together in front of my driveway for some reason and people taking my trash and recycling off the curb so they could park so the workers could go there and i think it's really important to take care of the neighborhood and make sure that there's adequate parking for people when there's construction going on so that's that thank you so much you bet you have one more person brian buckley okay and then after that we'll go ahead and close good evening city council thank you for the whole process since february and thanks for being so open to work with us i just want to say i was a public school teacher for 20 years some of the schools i taught in had redevelopment projects went to school boards

[113:00] our waldorf school our beloved shiny mountain is a small community it's 35 years old we rely on our community to give each year in the annual fund we're going to rely on our community for fundraising we will never have the option to go to the largest of the state for a bond or anything to help us with the money we need to do this to keep our little nursery alive in north boulder and um the land is kind of our bond that we have our chance to do all the wonderful things we want to do to stay in the city confines with bus and bike options for all the kids as well so thank you very much i'm sorry you have one more michael strife thank you it's my first time speaking in front of you all so i didn't understand the system so i appreciate you taking my time um let's see i just moved to 712 locust

[114:01] and i love the neighborhood i think the shining mountain project is a great idea and i'm looking forward to seeing the changes my concern comes with extending locust to broadway um can we put that back up thank you for putting that map back on but you can anyway um when locust gets extended to broadway it creates a direct route to community foothills park the actual parking lot for community foothills park is on cherry street so in order to get to that you have to jog around to get to the community foothills park parking lot and this would create a direct route to community to the south side of community foothills park and i didn't realize this when i moved there but like every day after school soccer practice occurs and there's just a ton of traffic on locust but not a lot of parking to support it so creating this direct access route to

[115:01] the park would i don't know make more cars go in that direction so i just wanted you to consider that as a question to ask developers in concept review thank you great thanks did you want us to respond to that happy too just want to note that we're proposing a write-in right out on locust so the only people who would use locust instead of violet to get there would be those people coming from the south and they wouldn't be able to do that if we use a write-in right out only on locust if they're coming from the north they'd use violet as they do today [Applause] okay so that would largely address that i have a dumb question of staff we have a dumb question okay are we i'm sorry close the ball yeah okay so we're closing the public hearing thank you all uh we have a question for staff yeah just quickly it looks like um i'm just looking at the site here and it looks like the area where the high school will go and the housing in whatever configuration is four lots

[116:01] currently so will that just be merged and subdivided we'd likely have them do a lot line elimination as part of the site review process okay so that's how that happens thank you okay this is the part where we give our input who would like to go first bob um i think this is a great project it's a great organization it's provided wonderful um services to our community for 35 years and we're the beneficiary of that with mirabai um and um it looks like you've got flood addressed and um it's regrettable that we were not able to find an affordable housing solution there we really really appreciate all the time and money you spent on on trying to do that i know you talked to everybody in town you could find i actually happened to be the council liaison to boulder housing partners and i nudged it from both directions adrian knows that and i know

[117:00] that boulder housing partners really worked hard to try to make this work the numbers just don't work here unfortunately and the good news is we're doing great things in affordable housing in other parts of the community and this will keep our powder dry for other great things but this this parcel unfortunately just not going to work just economically so thank you for humoring us and you did more than humorous you worked really really hard to try to make that work because i know from a mission standpoint affordable housing was something you really very much wanted to do on the location so thanks for trying thanks for being patient with us i think it's a great project i don't have any concept or design comments to add but thank you for working very hard and i look forward to seeing this on site review if we if we end up calling it up bye-bye so yeah i'll just chime in with bob and want to thank you guys so much for the effort you put in it's incredible yes i was the wonderful beneficiary of attending school there for 10 years and it was one of the best experiences i could have and so it's very near and

[118:00] dear to my heart and so i'm very excited to see this plan move forward and hopefully be able to touch many other children's lives so and i will say just from one side you know i know you worked really hard for the affordable side but from the neighborhood side i think there's going to be a lot of neighbors that are happier with the new proposal coming forward because i received quite a few emails and phone calls with many neighbors worried about the density coming in so kind of a silver lining for some people and again as bob says i think we have a lot of other projects going on in our town that will support affordable housing so thank you guys so so much and really excited to see how it turns out so i'll echo the complimentary words of my colleagues i won't re repeat them all they are well said just as an old planning board member i can't let it go by without a couple of detailed comments just to throw in i'm really glad that you're able to have the additional space for the high school and just i know you will but really think carefully about how

[119:00] that combined open space will work because it seems like like the space for the high schoolers in space for residences of townhouses or apartments could be very complementary so just it's an opportunity to design something that works for everybody as well as that detention pond and what can as functional open space um too and then the the parking as well if you can share that parking there's such complimentary uses between people folks who are coming home at night and people who are parking during the day for the high school so that seems like a real opportunity um and then just that with the locust extension the right and right out sounds great because i don't think you want that to be the main connection to the park we are losing a great multi-use path there so i've said this on a previous time but just to make sure to keep that as a strong bike ped connection with maybe it's a little bit of a wider sidewalk than usual so that people can get through there very easily but really excited about the project really appreciate your role in the community and looking forward to this i'd live not too far away and look

[120:01] forward to the eventual transformation of the site lisa speak to this because i walk by it probably four times a week and um it's a it's a beautiful school it has a beautiful campus and i really do appreciate what you guys have done in terms of trying to identify affordable housing i i feel like given the numbers in the situation i understand where you guys are coming from in terms of what your priorities are it would be nice to see affordable housing on this site but i also am pretty convinced that our putting a hundred and thirty thousand dollars per unit is we can do better with that money and we can get more units elsewhere um i still would like to see an urban and it looks

[121:00] like you're doing an urban form there and i i still would like you to see what you can do but i i don't know how it's going to become cheaper i do wonder this gap of a hundred of 1.5 million between the 2.5 and the 4. but i this is a concept plan and i just i think it's very good i am a little sorry to see locust go all the way through because it is a lovely bike path but or a pedestrian path but i can see the reason why and so that's absolutely necessary but because it has been used so long as a pedestrian connection and bike i would echo what aaron said in terms of doing some kind of

[122:03] notification painting on the street i don't know but making sure that people know that bikes and their students and a lot of your students come on um bikes one one thing i was a little disappointed to see and i don't know what you're going to do but you have these really whimsical gates in that surround this incredible student garden and i'll see the students out there sometimes right now they're not but it's a beautiful amenity for the neighborhood and i would hope that that is retained and not cut off by parking and i am encouraged to see you reducing your parking so that you're complimenting but i also want to recognize the woman who spoke

[123:00] earlier and i think her her concerns are real and i would ask that some kind of signage or something be put up that is maintained up for the construction workers i mean usually people are just coming to work they're not thinking they're just getting to their jobs so they're not it's not malfeasance but i think they need to be reminded and i don't know in this plan where you would plan for additional street parking or something like that generally those streets are not over full with parking and so anyway i i wish you well and see what you come back with um so good luck and and also thank you for allowing um the public to come on to

[124:02] your open space sam yeah so this is a beautiful project notwithstanding the things that we've been hoping to get that we might not get it is i actually really appreciate the reconfiguration of where the high school is going to go i think that's going to work a lot better and it's going to keep everything concentrated and kind of narrowly focused and so i agree with aaron's comments i mean i really do think that one key component for making the lives of the people who are going to live on that front lot as good as they can be is going to be how the open space works for them so that'll be great i mean i appreciate the open space that's there now when i go up on the weekends to visit so a similar thing down here will be very good and agree with the locust street comments i want to express a preference for the town homes versus the other one now one of the reasons for that is is aesthetic it looks to me like the layout of the parking and the

[125:00] building itself for the higher unit count which i generally before is going to be clunkier and so depending on how you get through site plan review and you know continue studying both of the options it may well turn out that the town homes are you know a better fit you know they're a medium density kind of transition from the single family dwellings over to broadway which we do want more density on just because the transit's there so anyway that's just a random comment i think generally this will be good for you and good for the community and if it does come to pass that you don't get as much for that land as you thought you were going to get it would be fantastic if you just do one more pass with the housing folks so thanks very much so i'll echo what my colleagues have said thank you and i'll thank you again for your willingness to continue to look at

[126:00] the possibility of affordable housing and as i'm with sam if things don't work out please please please please come back and see what we might be able to um to work out and um i also have a preference for the townhomes and and thank you once again for willing to work with us and i look forward to taking strolls to through the new campus as well cindy i just wanted to thank you and say it's a great project thank you for your patience and i hope you get that price put it into the school thank you well just since sam brought up the types of units i please do continue exploring the apartments because you figure with the the larger number and the smaller units the smaller size that they would be at a more affordable price point which is i think a type of housing our community could use so please do keep both in the mix you know and eric aaron do you mean townhouses or the stack flat it's tech flats okay yeah

[127:00] yeah the both the town houses and the stack flats are worth exploring because they both offer different pros and cons right and i'll just anybody say i can't improve on what's been said so yeah thank you for working through this and i think we're all going to be really happy with where we end up okay thank you all okay your second public hearing is the third reading of ordinance 8296 regarding business community zoning districts [Music] okay

[128:07] cursor back it's up there that's weird you get it there you go oh reading the new york times over there it's back up on the screen it's counterintuitive where you have to get off there [Music] oh yay here we go okay um charles farrell and carl guyler represent this matter great and carl geiler will present staff's analysis tonight good evening council members tonight we're talking about ordinance 8296 this will be consideration of ordinance the third reading of the ordinance

[129:00] it's a continuation from the council discussion that commenced following a public hearing on december 18th so before the council tonight is potential action on the ordinance which has been updated to respond to council comments on the prior ordinance as well as getting additional directions if necessary on any of more substantial changes to the bc zones that we could talk about at the january 18th retreat so being that we went through the background at the previous december 18th me now i'm going to jump through this obviously the concern has been the development predominantly of residential which is a buy right use currently in the bc zones and trying to incentivize more neighborhood serving type uses in these zones so that's why we're bringing this ordinance forward so there's been a number of iterations before the council and there's been two recommendations from planning board on this particular topic so i'm just going to jump through this

[130:01] so i'm bringing us back to this slide that we looked at on december 18th the potential options so we had talked about potentially passing the prior ordinance which did not occur what council had shown interest in is basically focusing on the and the area that's shown in green looking at specific directed changes to the ordinance potentially looking at other conditional uses in the ordinance that could be done rather quickly and brought back to this particular meeting the ones in blue are those more substantive items that we would need to discuss further and plug into our work program plan so getting into the council direction from december 18th the first was to exempt any projects that had a complete technical document applications submitted to the city by the time of the first reading of the ordinance so that would be october 16th

[131:01] so that has been incorporated into the ordinance another request was to apply any of the new bc provisions to specific neighborhood centers so that would be the basemart baseline zero area the table mesa shopping center 55th and arapahoe area the ideal market and community plaza area north of downtown the meadows shopping center and diagonal plaza can i interrupt you briefly i'm sorry just a question when you say including alpine balsam i'm a little confused by that i also got it in the memo you don't mean requiring first floor retail in the alpine balsam project do you uh it could it would apply to that area unless a user view were approved okay because i'm i mean i'm pretty sure we were talking about a deal marketing community plaza but i really didn't recall council having a sense so we can return

[132:00] to that during discussion but just wanted to ask so the third request was to prohibit lodging uses in the bc zones as well as considering some other uses for the more restrictive use category for conditional uses so there are certain uses that were talked about that were considered allowed that we've converted to conditional uses another request was to cap some of the non-retail non-residential uses by percentage and only allow expansion above a specified percentage with a user view approval and then lastly it would be addressing parking as a principal use which i'll talk about further so first off what we've done is we've added a new appendix n that's attached to the ordinance that would specify the specific areas that we talked about and this this can still be you know modified um in another iteration but includes the the places that i had spoke of before

[133:02] it would add non-neighborhood serving uses as conditional uses they'd be subject to the criteria that we just discussed by doing that it creates a new section in our youth standards that we're calling specific use standards for business community areas designated in appendix n so areas outside of these mapped areas would not be subject to these restrictions they'd be continue to be by right uses so the criteria that that's proposed in the ordinance is to allow the use above the ground floor um only allowing the ground level access that we've discussed before it includes a 10 cap on the specified uses so this includes all of the uses that are in this category would be combined uh for a total of ten percent um we've also added park and rides as a as a principal use as an allowed use and if it were not to be used as a park and

[134:00] write it would be a use review use if they were not to meet these particular criteria then an applicant could request a use review to get approval and it would be subject to that criterion that we discussed in previous iterations of the ordinance related to the specific context of those areas and the retail nature of the bc zones so again these are the uses that would be subject to this the ones in yellow are the ones that we've added that were previously allowed uses so government facilities municipal facilities museums business support services and adult education were uses that were added as conditional uses that were previously allowed just allowed uses lodging uses including hotels motels and hostels are now prohibited in the current iteration of the ordinance if they exist in these zones they would

[135:00] be considered non-conforming uses if this is passed so again all other uses would continue to be allowed per the current bc standards that we're not proposing to change and that again retail restaurants and personal service type uses which are neighborhood serving uses would be incentivized as allowed uses so another comment that came up at council at the previous uh meeting was to have more fine-grained detailed maps of these areas so we do have extra slides of these if we needed to discuss these so um we could i can certainly go to those during the conversation so that concludes uh the presentation um we're recommending approval of the ordinance that you have before you in attachment a and happy to answer any questions i have one you mentioned lot lodging becoming a non-conforming use um do you have a sense or do we know how many places that would be true today uh we have not done the analysis of of

[136:01] the number of motels and hotels in the zones but just to follow up on that the the ones that might be in a 28th or 30th street corridor bc those aren't captured by they're not captured by the 28th and 30th corridor remain with the use table that they have now correct okay okay so off the top of our heads we don't actually there really isn't lodging in any of these the meadows right there's there's the and it may not be actually in i think the meadows has a residence inn yeah residents and that might be the only one okay um other questions bob tom i'm sure it's um i'm sure it's in here can you just kind of walk us through how um this appendix and ties into the ordinance can you can you walk us because i didn't quite track how this got pulled in or is that too complicated of a description and you say basically you just you look up the

[137:00] use yeah and if it's subject if it's a conditional use you go to the the specific u standards that refers you to a appendix n and you would just have to check if if your particular parcel is in these mapped areas you'd be subject to the conditional use standards otherwise it's an allowed use okay but i think it's the same way we did the height limit that one that one was easier to me to understand this is really complicated it's an entirely satisfactory answer to say trust me it's there trust me it's there i just tried to follow it i couldn't could i could i just rephrase it to make sure that i understand the way it works um so it's an allowed use anywhere but in but those places in appendix in that's right okay and um and then sam said something about if um for all of the parcels

[138:00] it's the existing use table that kind of threw me off i thought we were changing the use table and then adding appendix n to the new use table and then when you said it's the old use table that just derailed me so i it's all in the same category it's just like for instance if you're a hotel in the crossroad commons area you'd refer to the use table would be a c you go to the the section 9 610 it refers you to appendix n you look up the properties not in the mapped area of appendix n it's an allowed use and the preamble of 9610 lists all the uses and says they're allowed unless you're in appendix and then you're subject to these criteria so it's not the old use table it's the new modified news table that considers all this yes that's what you can think of it though okay okay thank you i was just

[139:01] referring to the parts on 28th street and those small non-conforming yeah that would have been made non-conforming if we didn't take this approach yeah i realized that but when you said the old use table it just threw me off okay yeah all right because there's the the specific use standard column right where he says well you have to go look at this or that or the other section of the code and that then refers you to the language that says how they work right correct but well i don't have questions right um can you i apologize for not being able to find this the point is to the specific language about the 10 percent maximum in the ordinance can where exactly is that language so yeah it's in 9 6 10. do you have a packet page do you have the packet

[140:03] 297. yeah so it's not it's a new section in the code so it's not underlined but in the ordinance it starts with section 9610 and then it would be subsection a two and that refers to the ten percent up to ninety eight two ninety eight actually okay yeah thanks it was the lack of underlining that was making it hard to find that thank you i'm just going to read that through here okay and so to put that into layman's terms if i can try and summarize it this section basically says you can have any use that's not retail but it's also not residential but the floor area of all those uses that are not either retail or residential is limited to 10 of the entire floor area that's right okay

[141:03] okay so we want retail and neighborhood serving on the first floor right so all first floor is that and then of of the total area you can have 10 percent that's like small offices masseuse offices or acupuncturists or whatever but that can only be 10 percent of the entire floor area of the project the rest would need to be residential so the idea is not to have class a office space be a hundred percent of everything that's not reached retail on the first floor right where i was not tracking it was the first floor and that that first floor would be mostly retail or those types of uses i know we did talk about allowing some affordable housing on the first floor but

[142:00] i guess it's the 10 percent of non-residential that kind of tripped me up so um so we're allowing mostly non-residential on the first floor that's right and then on the second and third floor we're encouraging residential but in this mix we're also encouraging um some office and a small percent allowing so i have that right and you think so if i can rephrase it a little a little differently than on the ground floor it has to be the neighborhood serving retail uses um unless and without a use review right but and then on the second and above floors in the neighborhood serving retail uses are still allowed residential is still allowed without exemption exception but the other uses like offices and medical and things like that that's limited to a 10 percent total that's correct and i might uh

[143:01] suggest a small change to the language under subsection 4 where it talks about the use review requirement because it talks about the use on the ground floor will not adversely affect the intended function and character since percentage is one of those things that could be different we probably should specify that as well so how would it read it would be like shall demonstrate that they use on the ground floor or at a different percentage would still serve the character so i just wanted to put that out there yeah no that's a good idea and was it along the same lines are different it's kind of on that but why don't you let them down okay so my question has to do with um lisa brought up the um the idea that i had brought up which was to allow affordable if there were

[144:00] affordable housing on the ground floor to allow it um because it was on site and some percentage of of it could be affordable housing so um [Music] you didn't include it here and i guess what i took it to mean that it was a difficult thing to include by way of a use table and that perhaps and my so my question is were you thinking that it might be part of another project like say for example the community benefit project we were thinking that it could be incorporated in another iteration of the bc zones we were anticipating certain changes that would be a little more substantive and we could analyze what would make the most sense related to the permanently affordable housing required to incorporate that in a ladder change so so um if i could jump in as a colloquy i think what staff has done here is

[145:00] super clever um because it it you know does that rezoning in a way that we were talking about because the actual rezoning process a criteria-based creation of new zone districts would take a lot more time and be a lot more difficult and so we had talked about that project coming later the fact that we're getting very close here means i think when we do that whenever that is it's part of the work plan for the comp plan right it is the the rezoning potentially of the bc zones we could incorporate it then if we're doing a rezoning then that would be another project that that might fit into well i guess i guess um i'll wait till after the public hearing there is no public hearing oh there is no public hearing but oh that's right okay well then i guess i'll just make my comment now well wait hold your comments okay are we done with we have lisa and did you have your hand up no lisa so just refresh my memory and we had talked about this at our last

[146:01] discussion and it could be it's the goose creek little shopping center that most of that is medical use and it's a very tiny two acres or something like that did we just take them out or what did we do with that particular area of bc is not in appendix and so that just continues to be governed as it is today i thought but i just we didn't address corridors yeah i just wanted to make sure that we didn't get caught up all those all those things that we were warned we would make non-conforming if we did it a couple of versions ago where the staff has like completely solved all no i know and and so i really appreciate it and so i just want to make sure that okay any other questions mary start off with okay comment now yeah okay so um yeah i was just going to comment that um

[147:01] to include the affordable housing allowance in the best project that comes the soonest so that's my comment but in general i just want to say that this was really really good work and really impressive and creative and i really appreciated the thought that you all put into it and it's i think the iterative process was well worth it i think this is a good outcome thank you would you like to make a motion i would so um and we'll all speak to it i will so um i move um that we adopt ordinance 8296 amending title ix land use code brc 1981 to preserve

[148:00] commercial retail uses in the b business community 1 bc1 and business community 2 bc2 zoning districts by restricting residential and other ground floor uses and setting forth related details second do you want to add the um amendment that carl offered with as amended by the suggestion of carl geiler second right okay so may i make a suggestion if you do that then you have to bring it back do you want to bring it back or we could just do that in the next supplements since you've already agreed to it and you could pass this ordinance final tonight since it's such a minor change i can just put on the list for the supplement which you adopt quarterly it's totally fine yeah let's get it done tonight yeah great you want to speak to me oh sure i mean i agree completely with mary um this was really really really good creative staff work um it essentially achieved what we were looking to do which is to take the different typologies and separate them and get the uses you know aligned with the typologies we will have

[149:01] to come back later probably for both the affordable housing piece however we want to incentivize that and we will have to come back for any real rezoning that we do um subject to the comp plan work plan but i think it gets us really where we want to go and i hope you know it means that we can bring this zone district out of the moratorium and this will be the first piece and the reason we have the opportunity zone to start with is diagonal plaza and so getting it out of the moratorium and getting the rules right for it might help a lot so i also wanted to say i'm i'm really happy to see how this has evolved and thinks that it really will suit the purpose for which it was brought forward in the first place to try and preserve those uses that actually help neighborhoods be neighborhoods and keep people out of their cars to such a degree so thank you for the uh for the good work

[150:00] erin you know i'll agree with what's been said and just comment i really appreciate how we've narrowed the focus to the neighborhood retail centers because i was concerned in the previous version about losing opportunities for housing in the central part of the city in the 28th 30th street pearl street corridors so really appreciate this new approach that we've taken where we're singling out these areas that we want to function as neighborhood retail centers and just speak a little bit to the legislative intent because i think it can maybe help if use reviews are submitted i think the idea here is that these neighborhood shopping centers function as just that places where you can get your retail needs met within a short distance from your home but in terms of if a use review comes up we do also want to encourage housing in the right places in our city so we want to predominantly have these be retail areas and people disagree with me if you if you would like but for say a larger parcel like if meadows redeveloped all at once or if a diagonal plaza comes forward we don't need retail necessarily in every internal street of a major development

[151:00] you want retail in a large enough amount to serve the needs of the the community and make for walkable street streetscape and things like that but you could build an integrated larger project potentially that didn't have retail on every street front so if people see a use review for a larger project i'd kind of communicate that intention and feel three feel free to throw in other thoughts i'd like to colloquy on that because i totally agree um and one of my thoughts looking ahead to maybe a future rezoning would be that we look based on size of the parcel because if it's going to have internal streets in a rezone we may want to look at it differently than if it's not so yeah i agree uh mirabai then lisa so again i just want to thank staff for being so fluid on this and really helping us um i think get the intention of what was brought forward originally um i think it's really important to remember what our retail provides this community and

[152:01] how much of it i think we've really lost in the last couple years and some of these services that you can't buy online anymore you can't run and get your shoes repaired and you can't run and get a back rub or massage whatever and online and so this these type of services that we're hopefully protecting here is a great value to our community and in my opinion at least and i think that the golden idea of these 15 minute neighborhoods i'm hoping that this helps preserve that idea so that we can decrease our use of cars and i agree with what aaron and sam have said if we can look at the size of new developments and see how it integrates with the community so thank you so much for all your hard work lisa so i will agree with what everybody has said i'm just so thankful for your creativity and brilliance on

[153:00] as staff and i think you do just a fantastic job i'm excited because actually we're we've been talking about 15-minute neighborhoods for a long time yet we've kind of not gotten them and i really see a direct path to achieving those i think it will be very important the typologies that we establish for the different sizes of these these shopping centers now and i totally agree with aaron and sam there's some that i think require internal streets and i would hope and we didn't i didn't ask when those typologies are scheduled but i'm sure they will be but i would hope that we would really emphasize that urban form so that we encourage um as much on street parking

[154:02] as possible and encourage parking in the back of buildings instead of in the front of buildings to occur except on the street and i i think we were able well it wasn't included in this but we were able to um achieve that in the holiday in north north boulder village and that's that place is so vibrant as aaron lives up there people walk all over the place i have an opportunity i have a 15 minute shopping center in my neighborhood it has it's 15 minutes away from me and it is it hosts 18 different local retail and shops and businesses um it had asked previously to being developed as a pud to include housing but it's a very successful

[155:01] shopping center today and it's a place that really brings the community together and you you have a lot of people so i think this this is a really a very good step forward to enriching our community with neighborhood shops and with opportunities for people to come across each other and just strengthen those relationships i'll be supporting this too and i think this um i think this process really shows that if we take the time and we were thoughtful and we kick things around and we let staff do all the hard work for us um we'll we'll eventually get it right and i and i think this is a good indi a good example of that it took us six minutes six months to get here but but i think through this process and with a fair amount of community engagement as well um and the fact that we don't have people here tonight the fact that we're not receiving emails in opposition to this particular ordinance tells me that um i i think we've landed at a good place it took us a little

[156:00] we we traveled a whining path to get here but i think um we did a good job staff did a good job i should say and uh and we're gonna support them it sounds like tonight um so um let's let's think about using this as a model next time we have a similar circumstance um to to work it through and take the time we need i do have a question i guess first for tom and maybe for council tom so if we pass this ordinance the two parcels that are bc1bc2 that are in the opportunity zone which is the northwest corner of 55th and arapahoe and then of course diagonal crossing would be eligible to be be removed from the moratorium is that correct yes would we have to pass a new ordinance or an amendment to 8312 to to take those out of the moratorium yeah so i guess the question for councils would you all entertain such emotion maybe at our next meeting i thought we built it into the ordinance that that would be the understanding that we actually have to pass a separate ordinance every time i think you do i'll

[157:01] look at that and bring in the ac on monday morning and tell you what i think my inclination would be whatever it takes we should schedule it for the next meeting because this is exactly what we said that we were going to do and you know i'd like to keep faith with the community about that and show that we're moving quickly well let us build it in then to the next time we do something where it's part of the ordinance that this removes it so we don't have to be doing separate things i just i'm a little concerned because that would leave it up to staff to decide whether or not you i i i feel no no i meant we write an ordinance we can do it at the same time oh i think she's saying put it in this ordinance and thereby path by passage yeah yeah so the only help if council identified that for us when which ordinance you're thinking we'll take something out right we wrote that that was our intent i guess we just didn't make the mechanism i haven't spoken yet did you want to just on this topic yep go ahead but bob in addition to the ones you mentioned there's the bc zones along um

[158:02] 28th and 30th streets i think sure yeah i think any bc bc one bc2s yes whether they're these or anything that's in the yeah thank you for that clarification yeah and i guess the only thing i would just add in addition to what folks have already said about this is that one of the great frustrations of being on council is when projects come to you and their by right well they don't come to you if they're by right but things happen and we're like oops that's not what we wanted but that's what the code said and i guess i'm very pleased that we are trying to get ahead of that with this and preserve the things that we we wanted in terms of 15 minute neighborhoods and retail nodes and i think there's a bunch of our work plan in the coming year that is an attempt to get ahead of things in order to make sure that they then deliver what the community has said they want so this is i hope the start of many subsequent things um so i'm very pleased that we're here and

[159:02] we couldn't have done it without you guys so thanks okay okay roll call vote council member morsell hi nagel hi weaver hi yates hi young yes brockett hi carlyle hi jones aye the motion passes unanimously [Laughter] okay we're ahead of it your next item is regarding your sub community planning program thanks guys great job and we weren't too far behind well and the reason why is this there's just so much

[160:10] so our interim planning director and assistant city manager chris messchuck will kick this one off chris thanks jane and good evening council members uh chris maschuk uh interim director of planning and with me is kathleen king a senior planner in our comprehensive planning division so i'm just gonna kick things off as kathleen pulls up the presentation um and uh we're really here tonight to continue to talk about the sub community planning program i think your mouse is hiding on the other screen i think it's oh you probably need a mouse that i'm holding on to yeah there you go um okay so we were here last on september 25th where we really talked about the foundations of sub-community planning the history of sub-community planning in boulder best practices across the country related to this type of planning and

[161:01] then we covered the first three of six foundational elements so we're going to cover tonight the last three of those foundational elements and then kathleen is going to walk through the information that we have before you so with that i'll hand it over to kathleen hello thank you for having me back tonight i'm excited to be with you to speak about sub community planning and move this project forward we're going to break tonight's discussion into two parts i know everyone is anxious to discuss which sub-community should be taken on this year but i'd like to start with finishing up our conversation on the remaining foundational elements and get your feedback and direction on those pieces first so first we'll talk about what we're planning for the scope community engagement and schedule of these kinds of plans and then move into a discussion about boundaries and prioritization when we last met in september we identified six foundational elements of the sub-community planning program and

[162:00] discussed some definitions thoughts on boundaries and prioritization criteria tonight we'll focus on the scope and deliverables of a sub-community plan how community engagement will be integrated with that process and what the timeline for a sub-community plan will look like so the questions for the first half of our discussion are does council find the six phases of the scope of work appropriate and does council agree with the proposed approach for community engagement so we'll start with scope our team had a lot of great resources to piece together a scope of work for the sub-community planning program the north boulder sub community plan and the post plan process evaluation some of the plans from the national case studies we looked at in september other plans and ongoing planning efforts in the city and then we also met with staff from many other city departments to find out how sub-community plans could support their work what we found was that it's going to be

[163:01] important for the future for for the future of the scope of work for sub-community plans to achieve three major goals the scope of work should help implement the goals of the bbcp as well as the department master plans the scope needs to include multiple opportunities for collaboration with neighborhoods across city departments and with boards and city council and the scope should deliver high quality products and be responsible to a predetermined schedule we've put together a six-phased process to achieve those goals and i'll walk you through each of these phases and their major deliverables the first phase is the project kickoff this phase will set up our internal team identify our stakeholder groups and the methods that are most appropriate for engaging those groups and will give us some basic understanding of the site the deliverables will be a project charter that is used to define the goals of the project roles and

[164:00] responsibilities of team members decision makers and stakeholders and set some clear expectations about communication a community engagement plan and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a bit some base maps to get us started and a sub-community tour to get our team out on the ground to really be able to see touch here and experience the neighborhoods that make up a sub-community the next phase is inventory and analysis this phase is all about gathering information from our internal data outside sources but most importantly from the residents landowners business owners and other stakeholders whose quality of life can be impacted by these plans this phase will deliver a previous plan's memo which will help us understand what opportunities and constraints we'll be working with based on prior planning work as well as an inventory and analysis report the third phase of work is where we'll dive into some of the really fun stuff we'll work with community members to

[165:00] identify areas or neighborhoods that are really quite stable but may need some minor improvements areas that should be preserved or protected and then areas where there might be room for evolution i like to think of this as the big idea phase we have a lot of room for creativity here and we'll be sourcing ideas from the folks who live and work in the sub community to identify the key goals and measurable objectives for the future next we'll take some of those concepts and play them out to test what the impacts might be so an example of this and i think somebody mentioned earlier but what if we changed the land use of a block from industrial to residential we'll look at the impacts to traffic parking schools and any other key issues that may be defined by the sub-community goals and objectives we'll work with stakeholders to fully develop a couple of options and then collect feedback from the community about what they're interested in seeing move forward we can use that direction to develop a preferred alternative

[166:01] incorporating any key place making elements that will help achieve the sub-community vision once we have that as our framework for the future we will develop recommendations for implementing that vision deliverables will include draft recommendations maps of key improvements and catalytic projects and an implementation matrix that assigns costs timelines and responsible party for each of the recommendations the final phase of work will be planned documentation and hopefully adoption i like to include this in the scope because while a lot of the work will be documented throughout the process packaging it all together and going through a series of review cycles is time consuming and i think it helps to sort of identify this up front and be clear about the time commitments that this effort takes so we'll go through a couple of draft and review cycles for the planned document and we're also talking about how to create some more interactive web pages that would complement the plan and

[167:00] provide quick captures for interested community members so we've built the scope of work to include engagement throughout the process but i want to go through some of our thoughts on the engagement program percept community planning and get your feedback on what we've been developing so far i think you're all familiar with the engagement spectrum from the stakeholder engagement framework we've been working with a couple of different departments in particular the engagement staff from the city manager's office and we believe that sub-community planning offers a really excellent opportunity to operate in this collaborative space of the spectrum this means that stakeholders will really direct a lot of the ideas and recommendations for the future of the community plan and will collaborate with staff boards and council to identify how their sub-community will meet city-wide goals this process is also pretty time consuming for both staff and the entire community who will have a say in how these areas evolve with the city

[168:00] it's a lot of work to develop material and establish multiple lines of communication and it's also asking a lot of stakeholders to participate but this can also be a really fun process and provide great benefits to the plan so while there are six phases of work we really see three major stages for community engagement that ask and answer the questions who are you so as an example who is central bolder who do you want to be and how do we get there these are the big questions that will depend on stakeholders to help us answer the who are you stage aligns with phases one and two of the scope and will help us complete the picture about each sub-community we anticipate phases 1 and 2 will take about 14 weeks the who do you want to be stage will help develop concepts and inform scenario testing this will take some time and we anticipate phases 3 and 4 to be complete within 22 weeks the how do we get their stage will be

[169:00] the hard work of identifying paths towards implementation it should take 12 weeks we're also building in 14 weeks for planned documentation web page development and a four week public review and comment period on the draft plan the work plan we've built for a sub-community plan anticipates a 16th month production schedule with an additional eight weeks built into the plan to provide time for review and iteration cycles and alignment with board and council schedules we believe we can complete a sub-community plan in 18 months so i would love to hear your feedback on the scope and community engagement approach and i'm happy to answer any questions you have i think we have about 30 minutes to discuss this topic before we move to the next week we have less than that but okay i have a question i have a question too on your like your second slide way at the front and the collaborate second one uh

[170:01] that one here it says neighborhood city department sports and council it doesn't say the public in your subsequent sites you talked about the public yes i think i um when i say neighborhoods i think i mean the public everybody i'll just pull that out there because i think we're going to expressions and comments that i think neighborhoods and community members or something a lot of people just to clarify that it's the folks in the planning area and the folks outside the planning right that's right yeah and i think that's important because you know if we're going to do a plan for downtown it doesn't just belong to the people downtown and i think with community members is exactly the right way to say it because that captures internal external that so that would just be one that was your intent yes yes okay can i have a just comment on that i think um having gone through the north boulder

[171:01] sub community plan um when i saw just with neighborhoods i think i understood what you meant but my my only concern was that it was just residential and in the neighborhoods in that subcommittee sub-community you have really important businesses and um and so there was real concerted effort in the north boulder plan to include people from all over the north boulder sub community and that included neighbors as well as business people and i guess i wouldn't put the inside and outside as sub as equal but i would i would say that since these are sub-community plans that if you want people to really engage there needs to be

[172:00] outside people can come and they certainly did participate in the north boulder plan but i would say that for the most part it was dominated by north boulder people and i think the point of these sub-community plans is to get people engaged and to get them to understand options and things and to move forward but i think to make the outside and eat and inside the sub can completely equal i think we'll lose some let's not even discuss how equal let's just make sure they're both engaged and right is that i yes and i just wanted to say i saw the word stakeholder in this document a few times and that seems to cover a lot of that as well so thank you for that mary so i just wanted to to add to the same discussion that that especially in the east boulder sub

[173:00] community where we discussed um the south side of arapahoe and north side you know that area that's separated by arapaho and how important it is to include the people on the south side for that um sub-community on the north side so it's important to um you know that that area that the influence the people influenced by that sub community or that area be included and so i think stakeholders is a good way to say it and um yeah so how about i think community members and stakeholders i mean lisa and i just thought neighborhoods stakeholders community members why not all three no too many no no no no we're saying that's fine the mouthful but i think it gets at the geographical issue the business issue the scope of influence i mean it jumped out at me when i first saw the slide that businesses weren't included here and you know i i knew that

[174:02] you intended them and you mentioned them later but i think calling them out here uh just for whoever may see this if it gets stuck up on our website or something it just helps you know it's a political issue right and i'll just make a comment about stakeholders i know what you mean by them but when the north boulder plan started um the stakeholders were only people the business people and the neighbors were kicked out and i made the point at council one night from that site that the stakeholders were everybody and that actually the neighbors had far more of a stake and investment in the community so i think um when you think about their numbers and their total investments and all of that so i think um trying to include people all these different is good so i think you got the

[175:02] take home which is it needs to be defined inclusively just about everywhere we say it okay um okay other comments yeah can you go back to your questions then sam yeah um i just wanted to go to the the web page where you put that up because it first shows up on phase six right it's like kind of the last phase of sub community plan web page and you know luckily we have um web pages now for every sub-community and so when we're doing a plan i think that needs to become alive with like the schedule and the process and the steps because many many people will only pay attention when it's their sub community and so to have their update page be the page that describes it gives the background and also gives the schedule and this phasing you know people will come awake when this is happening in their sub community and they won't know what you put together so i actually

[176:00] think you could use the sub community plan web page very effectively to keep those who are digitally engaged apprised of what's going on other thoughts aaron he had her hand up first okay so real quick quickly i just wanted to um say that the the move moving of the boundaries for the different sub communities was really the the way that you laid it out with the numbered lines and then on one map and then the revised boundaries on the next map was really really helpful and clear and um and i think that the way that you drew those redrew those boundaries made complete sense so we'll be talking about that next year oh sorry we'll move on to that but got ahead of myself i was so impressed by it you could be impressed when she

[177:02] six phases of the scope of work do you find that appropriate and do you agree with the proposed approach for community engagement that's what i was going to speak to erin um yeah i think you've done a very thorough job and i think it lays out all the necessary steps so thank you this was a very solid plan the the one thing that i just wanted to offer was um you know sometimes uh things are more controversial than others so i saw you built in time for iterating the plan right hear feedback change a little bit hear more feedback if we end up with some significant disagreements in the community that process may take a little longer so i just wanted to make sure that we allow ourselves some flexibility that if we do have bigger issues that we let one go a little longer maybe we need to add another couple months for a couple more iterations so just that we keep that in mind and maybe build in some flex time to make sure because we don't want to

[178:01] when people start feeling rushed then then things go worse right so yeah that's a good point is that all you that was it well i just colloquy on that whenever people are not getting their their outcome that they're after the the temptation is to put on the brakes and they would there's there's two kinds of delay there's tactical delay and then there's really going around the iteration loop again and i think you know just as aaron said to be prepared for it they're they're in some some communities might be a very controversial issue and it's going to cause some people to dig in their heels and rather than just trying to press past that because of schedule you can make a lot more progress if you go around one more time so i think aaron's right about that well and can i just add some of this stuff is very easy to anticipate you know there's going to be a couple big issues in this area that and i guess recognizing them early and

[179:01] planning for the controversy and get do it embracing it strategically i think is really important so i do think tailoring within that framework um the process to acknowledge that will be helpful yeah i think once we select a sub-community we'll be able to identify those um quicker and plan for them lisa and i'll just say um well planning is absolutely critical it's also important in the sub-community plan to include the arterials the main corridors and you know the streets and stuff because it will it will help determine what happens on the street so whether you have a two two or three lane street versus a four or five lane street really dictates the scale of the

[180:00] development that can be on there so i think as you go into your sub-community plan to make sure that the transportation planners are also part of that because people will want to address that i just wanted to comment on your in the community engagement the idea of delivering memorable experiences sure i think that's really important participants in the sub community planning process should find the process engaging and memorable that you included that because that way i think you really uh opt more towards a good outcome well either way it'll be memorable yeah right i would suggest adding pictures of kittens and puppies might help great great it must be memorable lisa tells us about it all the time yeah i mean i can terrible in a good way great things and

[181:01] then things that were really pretty shocking but it was fun and it was memorable memorable good so i wanted to thank you for the lines on the maps no just kidding just wait just wait let me click um no that for recognizing that this is going to operate in the collaborative space of the community engagement and recognizing that it's the most time-consuming exhibit and um and so that's really great that approaching it collaboratively from the very start is a good thing okay i just want to answer yes and yes to these two i think that is really well laid out very clear yeah i think we have a great framework anything else on this part keep moving

[182:00] okay so let's talk about boundaries um i'm going to present some information and recommendations on potential revisions to the existing boundaries and some thoughts about where we might want to start and i look forward to hearing your thoughts so i um to start i just want to make clear how we use boundaries in planning boundaries help us identify the area of study and they provide a defined area from which we can extract data for analysis beyond that sub-community boundaries in boulder do not have a regulatory function and we are not limited to only places or spaces within those lines when we conduct a sub-community plan so here are existing boundaries for the 10 sub communities i think you each received a packet of maps as attachment c and i'm going to click through some of these great um i think that might be easier to reference than the screen when we last met council gave direction

[183:01] to explore potential revisions to the existing boundaries with particular attention to the eastern sub-communities so some best practices for drawing boundaries in areas are that you want any areas created to be relatively compact you don't want too many sort of like extremities you want the areas created to be contiguous so you don't want to cross back and forth between two sub-communities it's helpful to have the areas that are created to have pretty similar population numbers and you don't want to divide neighborhoods or parcels into more than one sub-community our team took a look at the land use designations across the city as related to the boundaries as well as the current zoning then we zoomed into the eastern side of the city and studied a few factors that could influence the boundaries land cover and parcel patterns census tracts natural assets such as parks and open space but also the hydrology of the area

[184:02] and any related wetlands we took a look at neighborhood boundaries from a couple of perspectives and also dove into some of the data indicating change like property sales new certificates of occupancy planned capital improvements as well as completed and ongoing planning work um we also just got out there we took a couple of drives through this region of the city walked around some of the neighborhoods shopping areas and neighborhood centers to get a better sense of this side of town our team iterated around 12 different options we narrowed that down to the three alternatives that are included in your packet and then developed these proposed revisions for the current boundaries and i'll talk through each of these you didn't give us one of those uh the that map this guy yeah okay well i like so much i was just gonna say that it doesn't have the proposal it doesn't have the proposed that's here it's in your package

[185:03] i'll go through each i'll go through them one by one so the first is to reflect the eastern zone of influence of the university we recommend expanding the colorado university southeastern boundary from colorado avenue to bear canyon creek then we propose realigning the boundary between crossroads and east boulder from the bnsf rail tracks out to foothills parkway this aligns with the transit village area boundaries we also propose connecting the palo park residential neighborhoods with their local neighborhood center realigning the southern boundary from colorado 119 to valmont road this also applies to the neighborhoods west of the airport we push the boundary of the palo park region out to airport road finally to incorporate all area two land that is not open space we added the nollwood neighborhood to the central boulder sub-community

[186:02] one of the issues council specifically asked us to look at on the east side is whether or not arapaho road serves as the best boundary line between east and southeast boulder we took a look at some of the current land use and parcel ownership patterns of this area and discussed where the opportunities for change might be we also examined the zoning a bit more closely to see where the opportunities might exist there outcomes of the 2018 east arapaho transportation plan and the 2016 uli technical advisory panel report for the 55th and arapahoe area also provided some context about the future of neighborhoods north and south of arapahoe as council noted the last time we met there is a great opportunity at the 55th and arapahoe intersection recently gold boulder in coordination with the planning staff has submitted an application for a dr cog grant to develop a 55th and arapahoe station area

[187:01] master plan as a next step to the east arapaho transportation plan this master plan would provide guidance for this area into the future and coordinate potential interests for changes with plans for a regional transportation hub and streetscape improvements our group found that this type of work might be the best method for addressing specific change at the 55th and arapahoe area other factors we looked at indicate that arapaho could continue to provide a stable boundary between east and southeast boulder sub-communities and then i heard a couple hours ago that we should find out about uh whether or not we received that grant funding this week so stay tuned recommendations results can i just ask you in the context of something like that how do you address corridors in the context of neighborhoods right because corridors have two sides and can you just speak to that because almost all of these are defined by

[188:01] roads that are corridors how do you address corridors related to kind of integrating the land use transportation well i meant if we do an area plan with one half of a corridor how does that work right you wouldn't ever do a plan with one side of broadway and not the other right it's the areas of influence concept right yeah i think that's um what we were trying to communicate when we talked about areas of influence in the memo is that the boundary line does not exclude the other side of the street from both participating and being included in recommendations okay so let's say we go with a hard arapahoe boundary and some kind of plan is created for both sides of arapaho and then it's adopted so would that be like the um what is

[189:04] that southeast boulder area plan i mean or um sub-community plan what's adopted i mean like in the northern one we know exactly what the boundaries are and like we didn't go south of iris which maybe we should have but we didn't i just it's suzanne's question how to make sure both sides of the street complement each other have complementary uses and function well together and we came into a little bit of some hiccups that required a bit of work when we looked at iris and 28th and a little bit west and you have a smaller shopping center on the north side and a much larger shopping center on the south side and they they weren't connecting yet people and

[190:01] so that wasn't done in the north boulder plan we had to come back and address that a little bit later and so i guess my only concern is that while we're going through this we make sure we get the other side of that street into the plan and so that it's integrated i would say and chris can correct me if i'm wrong but let's say you were to start with the east boulder sub-community plan arapaho is a major component and a major corridor of that sub-community if we were to study that corridor and find that the south side of arapahoe might require some land use change or zoning change that would be included in the east boulder sub-community plan when you then did the southeast boulder sub community plan arapahoe corridor is you know a major

[191:01] component of southeast boulder as well and so whenever that process were to come up it's a great opportunity to check in on that and make sure that the recommendations that were included in the first one um are delivering what what the community was hoping for um yeah yeah okay that's helpful okay well i've got just a couple more so the recommendations result in this proposed diagram and i want to get your feedback on these but just two two more slides i think the last piece of the puzzle is related to prioritization and selecting a sub-community to be the first area for planning when we met at the study session in september council indicated that identifying areas undergoing change would be a primary factor in prioritizing sub-communities so we looked at a couple of different indicators and classified them based on data sources so the hard numbers for things like residential demo demolitions property sales and

[192:00] certificates of occupancy are described as areas with evidence of change areas planning for change include parts of the city that have recently completed or are currently undergoing planning exercises and then the areas of describe change highlight areas like 55th and arapahoe as we just discussed which have been described by council as an area experiencing change so we studied all of these issues city-wide based on the proposed sub-community boundaries and recommend the following three sub-communities as priority areas for planning so those are east boulder payload park and central boulder so we can move to the questions the first one is does council agree with initiating sub-community planning utilizing the revised boundaries and does council agree with the recommended prioritization of the first three sub-communities for planning um let's just start with a couple questions

[193:00] we had talked about you you've put three priorities and we talked about nailing down the next one for sure and then the others are on deck but is that how we were would you agree but yeah i think we had you know um identify the the plan on the course the plan and the gate the plan on deck um so that's how i said do people have questions otherwise let's answer question three i'm going to answer your question is everybody fine with the new boundaries uh and this is where we can gush about the yeah that was awesome [Laughter] um and so i would answer the questions yes and yes okay erin i agree with on on yes i've always found with um communication that's setting good boundaries is important so

[194:00] i thank you for doing that um just one thought i had the i actually i particularly liked the way that you took the pale park area and expanded it the crossroads got smaller and so that linked those residential neighborhoods into their neighborhood commercial centers i thought that made a huge amount of sense okay and then i just no offense to palo park which is a fantastic neighborhood one of our best neighborhoods in the city is that still the right name for that whole area that's a good question and yeah i'd be interested in hearing your feedback i think there were a couple sub-communities where we were questioning is this the right name for this area still so um i do have one in mind well there's the the super exciting like north central boulder start the public process and let them say right exactly yeah very good cindy

[195:00] wins there we go okay so in terms of boundaries people are good with boundaries anybody not good and and i was just gonna i kind of had the floor say yes and yes thank you mary for that leading that and i think the new boundaries are really great they make a lot of sense i don't know if they were finished darren yeah thank you i just had one other thought on just the number four i agree with the prioritization of the soap news but i just want to make sure that we retain the flexibility it's going to be a while till we get to number three that we have the flexibility to shift those in the future never happens never happens everything goes to plan um i yes and yes to both of these um the one thing i'll say is that when it comes to the east boulder southeast boulder in particular but also potentially where you have arapahoe dividing like the central boulder from the hill we just have to really honor those influence zones at that point because

[196:00] in the north boulder sub-community in the central boulder sub-community our major corridors are captured within the sub-community boundaries so in some cases it's super easy but i think in the ones i mean that's what happened with the sarapah planning process the last one was that people on the south side felt that they were being left out of big proposed changes on the north side and at 55th and arapah and it resulted in a backlash which kind of put the kibosh on some of the work we were doing there so i think in this case lesson from the past is and i don't think 36 is the same way you know 36 is a boundary but that's a hard one to cross right but arapaho it's like everybody who lives out there uses those commercial areas as their neighborhood nodes so yeah so so i want to ask a question about payload parkway a payload park being second so those of you who think that that's a good idea i want to hear your reasonings i mean there's a bunch of change

[197:00] happening in central boulder uni hills changing i mean there's a bunch of other big things happening so why would that be second what are we excited about there diego yeah exactly okay so that's did that just get moved into there so that's okay so that's okay so that's and that's why it's in there it's four diagonals and okay maybe could i just add that um the what you just mentioned uni hill and alpine balsam in that central boulder um also has the corridor plan so um and then there's going to be the area plan associated with alpine balsam so a lot of the bulk of that will be addressed so i i guess then sorry um let me just tie a bow on that i think when we talk about prioritization of sub-community plans we might as well go go ahead and note that these other particular area plans are happening somewhat cult whatever

[198:01] that word is unparalleled coincidentally or whatever at the same time period and i almost yeah yeah concurrently um sorry it's i'm still jet lagged um so um i i just think that will help people understand otherwise i think people will get confused about what's the difference between any if we go ahead and call them out then people go okay area plans smaller they're about these specific things but meanwhile back at the ranch we're doing these larger ones i think that's helpful in in presenting this to the public um who had their hand up you did lisa i was i would be remiss not to just say it's not in here it's not ready to come in here but the municipal airport might need a sub-community plan at some point in the future and that's out on j road maybe 20 years from now but the other thing to keep in mind here as

[199:01] long as we're being prospective about things is there's the whole planning reserve and so how i assume that's going to be in the north boulder uh sub-community but it's something that probably just needs to be anticipated and you know decide how to deal with it because at some point it's probably coming in might be 10 years might be 20 years but you know it's a big area and it's a big um area that's going to have a lot of new development well and can i just colonically and on that i think you know um while it's into the future um there's you know us-36 um it has been developed nicely on the south side and so i don't know if it would be part of north boulder but to make sure that the uses are complementary and we already have in different uses like the gateway park and

[200:02] different things that are on the north side that people try to get across to on that street okay are we good see when you guys do really good work it goes really fast so thank you again awesome awesome awesome yeah that's all we can say and so thank you and thank you jane for hiring kathleen yes i agree well i'll take the credit but i don't think i deserve it yeah very well organized very clear thinking and the redraw of the boundaries is super helpful yeah great thanks thank you okay no no we have another 90 minute topic that we're going to do yes 60 minutes 45 30. that went well that's right

[201:02] hey next is your severe weather sheltering update okay um are you gonna announce this you just did okay see i'm telling you i didn't hear it starting to do it i didn't would you next is your update on the severe weather sheltering and this will be handled by kurt fernharber and wendy schwartz kurt since um we provoked this maybe aaron and i could just say a few words about where this came from and we did put out a hotline what it feels like a while ago um almost a month ago it was a month ago that's why it feels fuzzy um

[202:01] um and i'm gonna have erin talk about it first good all right i guess i'm i'm up um so you know understanding that uh we switched um about a year and a half ago to severe weather sheltering that's triggered by temperature rather than by time of year and with thresholds of 32 degrees fahrenheit dry and 40 degrees wet and um you know suzanne and i attended the the memorial service about a month ago for the individuals who died in the last year in boulder while experiencing homelessness and there are 17 of them and we read the names and reflected on their experiences and a number of the people there talked about how difficult it is to live on the streets and about the impact that um living outside in the cold has on people and on their bodies and um about the

[203:00] health uh problems that result in sometimes uh in the deaths that result from exposure and hypothermia and things like that is either a main factor or contributing factor and um you know suzanne and i have both done the attention homes sleep out before and it slept you know in a sleeping bag on a cold night and you know of course camping things like that you have some sense of how cold a 33 degree night can get and just from that just really coming from that and feeling like it's particularly for those most vulnerable members of our community the members of the homeless homeless folks often are people suffering from mental health issues substance abuse issues um and various other difficulties that require them to sleep out on the streets when it's 33 degrees out is not enough in a community as well resourced and

[204:01] compassionate as ours is so therefore proposing that we change our severe weather sheltering to be for the winter season rather than triggered on temperature thresholds so yes that's very good and i'll just add that it has provoked i think a very good um dialogue and we're going to hear a lot more about it i do think that um i would add to that that i think we are on the right path we don't want to undermine any part of what we're doing and we want to continue to incentivize people to seek services and exit homelessness and we've been emphasizing that and that's a good thing but nonetheless wanted to bring this forward as an element that we need to look at so with that and we have some other maybe ideas but with that we yeah and just that i'll make other points when we discuss it i just want to

[205:00] provide some background and then turn to staff for um presentation and then we can have a discussion about the topic there you go so good evening kurt fernhower director of housing and human services and wendy schwartz will be doing the presentation this evening i'm just going to make a few comments to start us off so everything we're going to be presenting to you is um information that supports the strategy that that you approved just over a year ago which is really to focus on getting people out of being homeless and getting them into housing and services and i think regardless of our differences of opinions tonight i think we share that in common um on monday morning sam weaver asked me to personalize this a little bit and give a give a story or so

[206:00] so we reached out to one of the police officers who works on the hot team the homeless outreach team i'm going to do two very succinct stories of two homeless individuals that have been impacted by this strategy over the past year so the first one is danny who's 55 years old and has been homeless in boulder since approximately 2010. he has multiple chronic impairments and street life led to an extensive criminal history including assaults which led to hundreds of days in jail between his addiction and his aggression he was not allowed at the shelter for a period which suited him fine with recent health scares and an overall decline in his well-being he reached out for help we worked with a number of service providers over several months to get him stable the shelter agreed to his return and he was identified to receive rental

[207:00] assistance through the city's new permanent supportive housing program administered by boulder housing partners and the shelter he signed a lease and moved into an apartment in january of 2019. danny tells us you guys probably saved my life but there were two key factors that led to this outcome first the boulder shelter worked with him to welcome him back for overnight sheltering despite his own reluctance to return to the shelter staff made it possible for him to have a safe and warm place to spend the night second shelter case managers worked incredibly hard to find a landlord who was willing to rent to him despite his criminal history and then similarly scott 56 years old has been periodically homeless in boulder for nearly 20 years scott is strongly independent suffers from multiple chronic impairments including several mental health issues but is also strongly service resistant

[208:00] preferring to keep to himself scott has been using a variety of homeless services but none of them consistently for years he was referred to us by the boulder municipal court homeless navigator after working with him on a variety of tasks we believed he would be a good candidate for permanent supportive housing again he was matched with the city's new permanent supportive housing program and the shelter staff found an appropriate apartment for him where he has been living for almost a year now so those are a couple of the success success stories of of this strategy but it's not just a strategy it's about partners in our community working together getting all the homeless providers um to really be working hand in hand with each other with each one of these individuals so i'm going to hand it over to wendy who will give us the background information that we hope will be helpful for you

[209:00] in your deliberations tonight good evening council members wendy schwartz human services policy manager tonight we'll go over background on severe weather shelter and how it fits into the bigger picture of our county-wide system homeless solutions for boulder county different considerations for i'm used to using a touch screen and then couldn't yeah sure hold on a second we've got a little snafu here i think you're gonna have to oh wait i just found the mouse there we go okay it's hard when you touch the screen and then nothing moves the second item different considerations for the proposal to expand severe weather shelter beyond current weather triggers it's also my understanding that there's some interest in a program called boulder county cares which was previously run by boulder shelter for

[210:00] the homeless and how people are helped when they're reluctant to use services we'll finish with the next steps and some staff recommendations for people that might be watching who are unfamiliar with our homeless services system 365 nights per year regardless of weather conditions we have 210 beds available every single night for homeless adults in the city of boulder that's 160 at boulder shelter for the homeless and another 50 at bridge house's path to home navigation program severe weather shelter has 72 beds that are supplemental to these nightly beds these beds are opened up under certain weather conditions that are reflected on this slide ridge house has a contract with the city to provide severe weather shelter and it's co-located at the path to home navigation center at 2691 30th street

[211:00] as part of the larger homeless services system in the county 50 navigation beds are also provided in longmont during the winter months by hope for longmont severe weather shelter is provided in the context of a larger county-wide system implemented in october 2017. this new system is called homeless solutions for boulder county in this system individuals have daily access to reserved beds as well as walk-up shelter however the new system changes the focus from emergency sheltering to getting people to housing as quickly as possible and supporting them with services to stay housed this is because what we know from national evidence is that housing is the most effective way of addressing homelessness other changes in the new system are that we collect integrated systemic data and we're outcomes oriented we're focused on measuring our success

[212:02] and so far we know that over 400 people county-wide have been able to successfully exit our homeless services [Music] one of the most exciting things about the new focus on housing exits is the momentum that's been created around bringing new housing resources and the support of services to stay in housing to our county thanks to the work of a broad range of partners including other local government housing authorities local non-profits and faith organizations this slide shows some recent successes in this area including partners involved but our housing success and the way we've housed over 400 people doesn't just depend on new resources like these the focus on working with clients toward housing solutions versus just giving them short-term services has opened up the doors to existing and creative opportunities such as roommate

[213:01] situations in market rate housings or reunification with support systems in other places where people might have better options than they have in boulder these graphs show the types of housing people have exited to on the left and reunification exits on the right so if you look at the graph in the left you see that a little over two-thirds of the folks who have exited to housing locally have exited to market rate solutions a little over a quarter have exited to subsidized housing so generally people with a voucher or housing unit that comes with a voucher support and for six percent the subsidy information is not available at this time on the right hand side are reunification exits by destination so you'll see that over 70 percent of the people that have been reunified have been reunified with support systems

[214:01] outside of our state a little over a quarter have been reunified somewhere in colorado but outside of boulder county and then the remaining three percent have been reunified with support systems inside the county a quick question for you um could you go back to the previous slide do we know what the raw numbers are for these as well the percentages are interesting but also the numbers yes we do sam and um so what what i can do um is get back to you because i um i'd have to take our 68 by our housing number so we have the data i'm really only interested in the totals for each of those pie charts that need to be broken down i can do that math so yeah so i'm checking my notes here um in the

[215:00] housing section the local housing section so that's the graph on the left the total number there is going to be 175 and on the reunification chart the one on the right the number is going to be 155. thank you thank you there's been 400 exits that's about 300 what are the other 100 so um the breakdown we have is for the exits within or from city of boulder services and that is 390. and so um in addition to the 175 in local housing and 155 in reunification um sorry 160 reunification it was 155 outside of boulder so 175 housing 160 reunification

[216:02] 43 into long-term programming so an example of long-term programming would be the ready-to-work house so that's when you you leave emergency shelter and you're in a transitional housing program you know that might be one or two years and 12 into residential treatment so things like fort lyon thank you so in looking at the proposal for opening severe weather shelter every night we looked at four main areas shelter utilization patterns the likelihood of intended safety improvements potential unintended consequences and different time frames and cost options for additional shelter nights and we'll go through each of these categories one by one first starting with shelter utilization

[217:00] patterns so we know that last season the median nights used per person in severe weather shelter was two so most people using the surface service we're not depending on it as an overall winter solution although we have and then in the lower box here we have had some peak nights this season where we've neared or hit capacity at some programs but on an average night since october 1st 2018 we've had 11 empty beds at path to home five empty beds at the housing focus shelter program which is at boulder shelter for the homeless and 19 empty beds at severe weather shelter so i want to dig into something that i think you said you said we came near capacity or at capacity have we turned people away the sheltering season we have capacity issues we have not turned anyone away from

[218:02] severe weather shelter so um boulder shelter for the homeless has hit capacity on some nights this season and on those nights the individuals turned away were referred to severe weather shelter and could access shelter there okay thank you um but to clarify i should say there have been some nights where and this interestingly was particularly true in october where we did not hit severe weather shelter triggers and boulder shelter for the homeless did hit capacity some of those nights and and turned people away and and then they did not have that option a quick follow-up question on the nights where the boulder shelter hits capacity and then severe weather shelter is open and people are referred to severe weather shelter

[219:00] is transportation made available they are provided with us tickets to get there thank you so so can you just so in october okay so we didn't hit the trigger but they still we they didn't have places to go is that the only one that we know that was that when we started there in addition there was one night in november and one night in december when the shelter hit capacity and severe weather shelter was not open so when you say the shelter hit capacity does that mean that the navigation services beds were there still those available for them to go to the the nights when the the shelter hit capacity um navigation may have had empty beds um

[220:00] and the system at this point has not been set up to i mean on on severe weather shelter nights then the capacity is shared so for instance there was a night when severe weather shelter was very full and they referred people to empty beds at boulder shelter for the homeless and they stayed there but on non-severe weather shelter nights then thus far when navigation beds are open it it has not overflowed from the shelter into those navigation beds okay and then because coordinated entry assigns you to either path to home or the shelter right so that's correct interchangeable that's signed to the shelter you show up the shelter there's no bed so you don't go to path to home that's correct but unless it's a severe weather shelter night so according to isabel another wrinkle on this to understand is sometimes people who are assigned to the shelter so they have a bed waiting for them at the shelter will end up staying in severe weather sheltering at the

[221:01] um the site on 30th um and that's a little you know it just puts more people into the beds at severe weather sheltering um that could otherwise be opened up it's capacity that doesn't get used so can i sum up by saying in general we don't turn people away but there are some exceptions that are complicated that's i think that's a good way of putting it zan okay everybody ready to move to the next slide okay so that was the the first part of shelter utilization patterns um the the next part that we looked at was just um what's the relationship between temperature and um attendance at severe weather shelter and i know that these graphs probably look hard to interpret

[222:01] they on the left it's last season and on the right it's this season and the vertical axis is the number of people attending severe weather shelter and the horizontal axis is the temperature so as it goes to the right the temperature goes up and each of those dots represents a night of severe weather shelter so you can see what the temperature was and how many people attended and so i guess the quickest way to explain this is what we didn't find was a strong relationship between temperature and attendance there's a very weak correlation between when the temperature rises or drops and how many people show up at severe weather shelter so if there was a strong correlation we would really expect the the dots to to really have a pretty strong line that go from the upper left corner to the lower right corner instead you'll see you know that we have an assortment of

[223:01] high and low attendance at high and low temperature points so for example the attendance on most nights this season um below 25 degrees is less than the attendance on most nights between 25 and 35 degrees [Music] wait a minute when what so for last year i see your point that it's pretty scatter shot and the the correlation line is not very deeply slanted this year i see a correlation it seems really distinctive there's more of a correlation this year than there was last year but it's still weak and um actually what i'm noticing is that when we squeezed in the two graphs the the line there got a little a little bit distorted but um but the the correlation last year there was zero correlation this year there's a weak correlation and so but i apologize because you're right

[224:00] it it might not look that way on the graph well i'm not sure how weak that is on the right side yeah well i would say there's a way to answer that you do the the correlation ratio and it tells you so you can get the strength of the correlation from a metric and and we have that um [Music] and i will send that to you that's fine and i agree with aaron i mean it's pretty clear that this year we've seen a lot more and it's to me impression has been it's been a pretty chilly year so far so it it has been i mean we saw more early season cold days um next we looked at life safety goals and what evidence might tell us about how moving to severe weather shelter every night could impact goals for saving lives to do this we used data from the boulder county coroner

[225:02] and what we found and i'll get into more details on this is that the coroner's data does not necessarily suggest a life safety advantage to this change and that the causes of death for people experiencing homelessness suggest issues potentially solvable by housing but probably not by shelter the slide this slide shows us multiple years of data on the number of deaths of individuals experiencing homelessness by as reported by the boulder county coroner's office the dotted line and these are this is county-wide numbers the dotted line between 2013 and 2014 represents roughly when boho changed its criteria from purely weather triggered as we have now to being open every night november 15 to march 15th the dotted line between 2017 and 2018

[226:02] represents the start of the first full year of coordinated entry homeless solutions for boulder county and a return to severe weather sheltering on a weather-triggered basis all year one thing i want to note the coroner's annual report for 2018 is not yet complete so i contacted the coroner's office directly and they provided me with the 2018 data so it is preliminary although they said they did not think it was likely to change significantly between now and when their final report comes out this slide shows a correlation between severe weather shelter every night and higher deaths among those experiencing homelessness while correlation is not causation the data does not suggest a life safety advantage to offering severe weather shelter every night in addition to our regular shelter programs

[227:00] wait we have a question um wendy what's the definition of a transient um so in the coroner's report they give a description of how they figured this out and i should say that um the way it's worded on this graph is because that's the way that the language is in the coroner's report so what they record is reports that they get from law enforcement hospitals hospice settings where the individual is reported as being homeless at the time of their death [Music] is it's not necessarily people um dying outside this is maybe somebody doesn't have a permanent address or do you know how they well it would it would absolutely include people dying outside and usually those reports come through law enforcement does each one of these deaths represent somebody who did die outside or does it include people died outside and people who who have no permanent address who may have been couch surfing or sleeping in a non-permanent situation

[228:01] but what were inside at the time of their death it would include it would include people who were homeless but who were brought into you know a healthcare setting for example so people who died outside were found outside plus people who died at the hospital and were reported as being brought in from the street and i think i mean i think to get into you know to more details bob i think you know we'd probably have to talk more to the you know the corner because obviously they review thousands of medical records and so you know they've they've constructed a definition that they describe in their report that they think is reasonable but that they acknowledge is not perfect lisa so wendy on this graph um it indicates 14 [Music] people is that correct in in 2018

[229:03] um 13 was the number we received do those individuals also include people who were formerly homeless and had gotten [Music] transitional housing because i know people who have have gotten into housing and then because they had such a rough life or whatever they die prematurely and but they are housed yeah so lisa these numbers would not include those situations okay and would these include people who may have overdosed or whatever outside and died outside yes okay that's that's what i wouldn't know do we know is there any um in terms of overall

[230:00] the homeless population is if we if that were on the graph would it have any relation to that you know like is it did the homeless population go up with those deaths over that time or and maybe you don't know but i'm just curious because so there's there's two ways that we can look at that and examine that um and one is our point in time count um and so i can tell you that um our our numbers were not up during that time um they were relatively flat i mean they might have gone a little bit up a little bit down year to year but relatively flat the second is um the second way we can look at that and measure that is a graph that i'll show later in this presentation which is how many people were accessing our shelter services in the city on a nightly basis

[231:01] and what we do know is that from 2013 to 2017 it's true that we had an upward trajectory of people seeking shelter in the city of boulder as boho came into being built its capacity up you would see an upward trajectory of people seeking sheltering services in the city but not that seems to contradict what you just said about point in time so well but okay we we have we have issues with the point in time count because that's really who you find that's not necessarily who you have but yes correct okay this is how the coroner ruled on causes of death for people in their definition of transient

[232:00] between the years of 2011 and 2017 in boulder county the most common causes of death were ruled as natural causes and i think i mean for those of us who aren't in the coroner's business then it's not always clear what natural causes the biggest example is usually some sort of heart disease or heart related as you know as a person who's not a physician who's looked at past reports the next two most common causes that you see down on the chart here are related to behavioral health so substance abuse and suicide about three percent of the deaths during this period were due to hypothermia and another four percent were due to hypothermia with another complicating factor such as alcohol drowning or blood trauma

[233:00] so when we look at this data we really see the need to continue to pursue housing as a primary system goal you know most people really have complex physical and behavioral health problems leading to premature death you know to the point you made earlier lisa and so really making sure that they get housing and housing with supportive services probably if they've been chronically homeless is a way that we can hopefully reduce the premature death extend their lives but those problems are unlikely to be solved in shelter we looked at some potential unintended consequences of extending severe weather shelter to every night first more shelter that's associated with that's not associated with housing goals or outcomes may result in more people just cycling

[234:00] through the shelter system without getting into housing that could improve or extend their lives second an increased focus on managing extensive shelter programs could limit the ability of community service providers to work with clients on positive outcomes we are concerned that some long-term vulnerable residents could miss housing opportunities if resources and time are once again focused on emergency shelter lastly our previous analysis looking at other weather triggered sheltering programs in the region showed that our community institutes this service at higher temperatures than other communities it's possible this could result in more people coming to boulder and increasing our challenges in providing appropriate housing for those who are here so this is the graph that i was referencing a little bit earlier and this shows kind of some of our

[235:00] experience with shelter attendance and turnaways over recent years and really particularly looking at the period when boho was expanding so we start down here in the lower left corner with 2011 and the blue line shows the increasing attendance at boho over those years the yellow line that's on the top shell shows the number of turnaways at boulder shelter for the homeless and so these were people on an annual basis that they would turn away due to capacity constraints during those years so during the years 2013 through 2016 their turnaway numbers as boho was expanding were very high in the range of about 1200 to 2500 depending on the year

[236:00] last year the first year of homeless solutions for boulder county they had 18 capacity turnaways and our capacity in severe weather shelter was 100 and operating on a weather triggered basis so i have a question on this so i understand the numbers for the shelter the numbers for boho attendance is that total serve that year like in 2006 it's uh to that that's average oh that could be that's another that's like a nightly average it's a nightly average so these two are different yeah yeah exactly they're different okay that's correct to make sure i was understanding what was being committed and i don't understand the orange box oh sorry that's showing the capacity of um severe weather shelter in 2018 which was 100. that's nightly capacity correct it should probably be on the right hand scale not the left-hand scale

[237:03] i mean correct yeah so it's but but okay but there's other severe weather capacity during those other years so um so if you're looking at 2011 and you know the historical years then what's shown in with the blue line um in terms of the the nightly average attendance is just boho because during that time boulder shelter for the homeless their capacity was flat it was 160 so you know so our community sheltering attendance wasn't increasing on that front where it was increasing was the the upward trend with boho and so so yes those numbers in the on the blue line don't represent the complete community sheltering capacity during those years they represent the increase in people seeking shelter in the city during those years

[238:01] did you happen to know if the turn away numbers for um the boulder shelter were those um 365 day numbers or those just during the severe sheltering period in other words if we wanted to do an average per night should we divide that by 180 or divide by 365. you would i'm going to look at greg to double check and make sure i'm right but um because the emergency winter sheltering program was only open october through april yeah he's nodding his head it's it's october through april the turn aways are during that period time too correct correct it looks like the turnaways averaged about 10 a night during that i'm dividing those numbers all by 180 it comes out to about 10 or 12 or 15 on average i would i would ask greg harm's ceo of boulder shelter for the homeless to to weigh in on that he he provided us with the annual turnaway numbers

[239:07] yes that's true probably about 10 a night although the variability was dramatic we could have zero turnaways one night and we could have 25 people as high as 25 or 30 people on some particular nights so thanks greg great greg as long as we've got you here i just wanted to ask a question because we're concerned about capacity numbers and i was wondering about is there capacity to do severe weather sheltering overflow at the shelter if we had our severe weather shelter capacity fill up would there be a way to do your common areas and to bring people in well we can't legally go over 160 people but if we have space so if if we do our check in and by 7 pm we know how many people are going to be in the shelter and say we have 10 open beds

[240:00] we work with bridge house to say if severe weather shelter is going to go over capacity send those folks back to the shelter thank you let me just add sorry let me ask a follow-up question when you say the legal capacity is 160 is that legal imposed by the city of boulder or what's the legal constraint there our land use approval okay is limited to one six this is the agreement between the shelter and the city and the neighbors and the neighbors i was going to say you have the good neighbor right got it thanks yeah okay okay this is a slide similar to one you've seen before in our other reports and this shows the weather criteria for other regional weather triggered shelters so boulder severe weather shelter we're the top line there the one right below it was hope in longmont prior to the new system they've

[241:01] converted to a navigation shelter model in the winter but that was the standard prior to that and the rest are a few other regional shelters that are weather activated that we were able to find and so boulder is and has been for some time a community that generally triggered a weather activated shelter at higher temperatures and so generally we've offered more nights of weather activated shelter than other regional shelters interrupt you with a question there i know that we don't require people that who come to the severe weather shelter to go through coordinated entry so we may not know the answer this but do we collect data on where people are coming from when they present themselves at the severe weather shelter we we do not have a way of knowing that if they don't go through coordinated entry

[242:00] um if they went through coordinated entry then then we would know [Music] after after the fact when we have tried to look at that data the data from the first year is pretty messy on that and the reason it's messy is because well it's because bridgehouse wasn't yet in the boulder county connect system for most of the season which means it's a very complex manual matching process between the county coordinated entry data and the bridge house data and also in the first year some of the severe weather shelter information and the path to home information wasn't always as clearly delineated so that makes the matching more complicated so a long way of saying mostly no now but in the future now that we're all in one data system it should be better

[243:00] is that because we would require people to go through coordinated entry even for severe weather or we would just ask that as a coordinated entry light as they walk in the door say where'd you come from well we would definitely be able to sort the data for people who used severe weather shelter and went through coordinated entry and our estimate you know even this past year with the data complications our estimate was i believe 60 to 70 percent of the people who use severe weather shelter at some point went through coordinated entry at one point so for that other 30 to 40 percent if that trend holds where we have 30 to 40 percent who don't go through coordinated entry um then our ability would be more limited to collect data on them well so with respect to the 60 percent that do coordinated entry what is the data telling us about where those folks are coming from that's where the messiness comes in so but in the future we hope to have less messiness exactly got it okay so i just

[244:00] put it uh coda onto that when i spoke with isabel about this that's one of the advantages of severe weather sheltering co-located with navigation services because when people in severe weather shelter and get up and get their breakfast and prepared to there's an opportunity to touch and say would you like some help with you know what's going on today and and yeah yeah as of december when that service moved into the 30th street site then people are already at the coordinated entry site in the morning okay um we took a look at some numbers for a few different scenarios for expanding severe weather shelter for every night and one scenario we looked at at the top was only expanding it to every night for the months of december january and february and the reason that we chose this time period to look at is because history

[245:01] shows us that those months are the months with the most consistently cold weather when the shelter service would be open most days even under the current weather criteria this is also a situation pretty similar to the past boho situation when they were open every night between november 15th and march 15th and so as you can see since we're about halfway through this season this season that would estimate it that would result in an estimated additional three nights at a cost of about two thousand dollars next season um an estimated six additional nights at a cost of approximately four thousand dollars together not per night wait wait wait correct the total total so this season and next season i'm sorry i lost track this season we're halfway through so next season being 2019 2020

[246:00] exactly so in other words when we looked at calculating the numbers we looked at what would it be if we changed it now and we did it the rest of this season and of course those numbers are smaller because we're already halfway through this winter okay so it's just half yeah so then what you're saying here is that on average december through february there would be two nights at the current temperature thresholds where severe weather sheltering isn't open give or take yeah because those nights i mean because of the weather conditions here in colorado you know we hit those triggers almost every night during those three months out of 30 or so um and again you know these are estimates i mean in any given year we can have a surprisingly warm snap or cold snap but these are the best estimates we've come up with um and then if we go a different direction we looked at what the scenario would be if we opened up every night between october

[247:01] 1st and april 30th and if we did that that we estimate for this season there would be approximately an additional 31 nights that would be open at a cost of about 21 000 next season we estimate it would be an additional 59 nights at a cost of about 40 000 an additional cost so above what we're already paying when do you have a question about those um october through april 30th and those numbers 21 came 40k where would that money come from would it come out of the housing budget would it be money that's that's being that could have been used for housing that is now being used for shelter do you want do you want to answer that kurt isn't that up to us yeah well no this is in the budget because it is somewhat up to you um but

[248:02] currently there's no sort of affordable housing funds that goes into nightly shelter expenses there was some affordable housing funds that went into the a little bit of the renovations of the navigation um but that was a relatively small amount most of it came from the the human services fund so yeah so i um as i understood it through conversations there was um [Music] there is some a voucher program and that's not part of that is or isn't part of the affordable housing fund where yes so the voucher program is funded through the affordable housing fund and that's that's uh 200 000 per year okay thank you so is this clarifying this otherwise yeah this is a question we used to let you

[249:01] finish and then we can get on with discussing so i i just have a question yeah and um in the last two years how much have we spent and i think kurt was kind of going there how much have we spent in providing severe weather service and navigation had the navigation home or in the path i mean the path to home um how much has that been and where have those funds come from so um our contract with bridge house for severe weather shelter right now allows us to go up to a maximum amount of 140 000 for one year we estimated before the season began

[250:01] that we would probably spend closer to 105 thousand dollars this year now that being said we were glad that we kind of put the worst case scenario number of 140 000 in because the start of the season was colder than usual um and so you know so what's in our budget right now for severe weather shelter um you know we plan on about a hundred and forty thousand dollars a year that is on top of what we pay bridge house through their path to home navigation contract so for the path to home navigation program we spend about seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year and that is operating money for bridge house to run the program and embedded within that operating money

[251:02] is you know staff reunification money so when we buy people bus tickets expenses that people might need to make the transition to housing that type of thing yes i should also say we spend roughly 200 000 a year on the rent at 30th street so basically close to a million yeah i mean basically what we paid to bridge house on an annual basis right now is in the neighborhood of 1.1 1.2 million we are operating grant to the shelter is 230 000. what is that how much boulder shelter for the homeless 230 000 annually and then in addition there were one-time renovation costs

[252:02] at the path to home navigation center the first round was about 360 thousand dollars to get the initial site ready for the path to home program and then when we had to renovate the other side to allow severe weather shelter that number i believe was around 60 000. thank you and um where is that coming from is that coming from human services or is that from housing or affordable housing or are they kind of mixed well most of it is from what was traditionally looked at as human there were a couple different places in human services so mostly human services is your real answer some was carved out of the human services fund and also council appropriated some additional money

[253:01] for us 750 000 when we embarked on our new strategy more of the the capital costs have come from housing um and in addition there was 1.9 in startup funding the four one-time expenses okay let us let you finish there was a request for information on boulder county cares which is a program that was previously operated by boulder shelter for the homeless i'll provide some basic information about this program and i'm glad that greg is here for more detailed questions this is a program that began in the late 1990s and shelter volunteers would drive around town and their primary function was handing out cold weather gear the program originally operated seven nights a week last season in the new system

[254:02] the traditional program went down to three nights a week and the additional capacity freed up by that was used for a coordinated entry outreach pilot last year boulder shelter for the homeless discontinued this program for several reasons first it was not the most effective way to distribute cold weather gear so they consolidated that service with deakin's closet which is operated by the first presbyterian church this is a service that's been in the community for about 30 years it's well known on thursday mornings people who are seeking clothing can go to deacon's closet on the corner of 16th and walnut in addition to providing a standardized time and location deacon's closet can provide a more robust supply of cold weather clothing than what was previously offered by boulder county cares

[255:00] second the landscape and options for people experiencing homelessness who might not stay at the shelter had changed very significantly from the 1990s until recently when the shelter made this decision first there's there's additional sheltering options so in the 1990s when they started it was the shelter beds and that's it and now we have additional path to home we have our severe weather shelter in addition when boulder county cares started there was not a drop-off detox location and so if you were too intoxicated to be in a shelter environment there was no option at that time and now they will usually call law enforcement i believe it is right greg if someone's in that condition and they can be transported to to detox so that they can be in a safe location also some other programs non-traditional

[256:00] outreach programs like our homeless outreach team our municipal court navigator have given additional options to people that might not seek services in the traditional way so very different landscape than when that program started and third the shelter had some safety concerns about the volunteers seeking individuals out in unsheltered locations on winter nights and since we talked about the coordinated entry outreach pilot last year i'll say that that did not get a lot of uptake and so it was decided that was not the right method to try to provide or expand that service and so when boulder county cares was discontinued that program was also discontinued wendy real quick question the coordinated entry outreach was kind of the same as um

[257:00] boulder county cares except instead of offering gear they were offering coordinated entry is that correct basically but you know but greg do you want to is there anything you want to add to that or does that pretty much sum it up yeah the the um the goal was to try to find people who hadn't gone through coordinated entry and for some reason couldn't make it to the locations so we went to the jail we went around with the hot team we went to known locations where people would hang out and try to encourage people to go through the coordinated entry process on the site so that we could get them into the system [Music] beyond the specific program of boulder county cares it would seem that certainly the larger concern is how we help people that are reluctant to come into shelter or to use services this has been a big challenge historically for the city of boulder as

[258:00] well as every other community nationally there are a lot of people that have difficulty operating in a shelter environment and that's why about two-thirds of those experiencing chronically homeless chronic homelessness nationally are unsheltered that's double the rate of the general homeless population so this is something that existed in the old system it's a challenge that exists in the new system here in boulder we do have some great programs such as our police department homeless outreach team and our municipal court navigator that present non-traditional avenues for people to get connected to services and housing that they might not otherwise seek out and the new homeless solutions for boulder county system also helps these people by providing more pathways to housing because there is more housing and often people that can't be successful in shelter can be successful in housing

[259:01] however how to get people housed that are reluctant to use services is an ongoing challenge and the county-wide one-year system review seeks more information about those not engaging in services question i just kind of have a question on that then so if they don't do well in the shelter then why do they do well in the severe weather shelter i mean um oh you mean people who choose who might be assigned to boulder shelter for the homeless but they choose to use the severe weather shelter service instead yeah like if they want don't yeah i mean i'm just confused i mean if you're saying two-thirds aren't comfortable and a shelter environment environment isn't severe weather really similar actually what i was saying nearby about the two-thirds was that um of people meeting the definition of chronic homelessness nationally about two-thirds of them on average are unsheltered so they're living most of

[260:01] their time outside and that's because they have a hard time often operating in a shelter environment so they're not even using the severe weather either yeah yeah there's some people i mean both in our community and in every community in this country that really have a hard time using any type of shelter okay thanks for clarifying um so i think we're down to our last slide um next steps so homeless solutions for boulder county is in the process of a systems review of the first year of the new system and results of this review are scheduled to come to council march 19th staff would recommend waiting on decisions on severe weather shelter until the review is complete and so this service can be looked at in the context of a more comprehensive look at the system we would recommend not expanding nights

[261:01] of severe weather shelter as it seems maybe unlikely to achieve the intended goals and may have negative unintended consequences if funding for shelter is increased now or any time of the future we would recommend to be matched with greater increases in housing funding probably at least five dollars in housing funding for every dollar of shelter spending and that would help to offset any setbacks for long-term residents seeking housing and you know to go back to the budget discussion we had earlier since october 2017 we started the new system um we've increased our spending on kind of shelter-related programs by about a million dollars yeah we've increased by about a million dollars annually on shelter-related programs we've increased by about two hundred thousand dollars annually on housing-related programs

[262:02] but with a caveat right that a portion of that's going to pathway to home which is getting people to solutions right well what i would say is um as opposed to the extreme weather stuff i mean what we're investing i mean the shelter the shelter related programs we're investing in now are much better are you know much better than what we've invested in the past and that's because to your point then they are housing focused it's really not just come in and let shelter you for the night it's really come in and let's work with you on a plan to get out of this situation great um we've sort of been asking our questions as we've gone along as there so can i just get a clarification [Music] so wendy did you say um on the million dollars for an addition that was spent on sheltering

[263:01] there's been only about 200 000 additional for housing that's correct okay but but this is what i want to understand is part of the sheltering is the program to get people to housing so i guess lisa i don't that's not exactly the five to one that we're trying to measure up right because don't we count some of the pathway to home as the mechanism to get people to housing well i mean here's what i'll say we at both boulder shelter for the homeless and path to home um those those organizations have changed the way they work and really maximized what we already have in the community in housing and been really creative in ways to pull down more resources and get people into non-traditional resources and so you know the money that we're spending on those you know those housing focused

[264:01] navigation services i mean those are important services but no matter how hard the people at those organizations work no matter how creative they are how scrappy they are at the end of the day you still have to have someone or you still have to have something to navigate someone to you have to have something to case manage someone too so oh that's great i'll go next well i wanted to put out there as part of this discussion as i was talking to isabel about um if we wanted to do more um what would be the next step and of course she didn't offer this freely um so just you know she's not advocating for anything i s i said yeah but i want to know so anyhow

[265:00] just to clarify um but it was to do um i'll just you use the word abbreviated voucher system she talked about it as short term rental subsidies but that's kind of confusing because it's not a short-term rental but so kind of temporary basically people that have like disability payments but can't get the down payment for the apartment to you know in the first month's rent to get it going but have the resources to help you know continue on aren't con so not the totally destitute but the people that are challenged that putting some money into a fund to do that would be another way of sort of um expanding upon our voucher system but hitting another part of the population which is like i said sort of maybe um i don't i don't know the right words but basically not totally at the end of the spectrum but more in the middle like has some capacity to get back on their feet but need some help so anyhow i also

[266:01] thought the thought that that was an interesting um notion that could leverage um what we're doing and free up more capacity frankly because occasionally we're getting close to capacity to actually get some of those folks that have the capacity to keep it going into apartments so i wanted to throw that out there as something that we consider or ask staff to consider um but i would love us to consider putting some money towards that so i'll just throw that out there so i have a question that's somewhat related um i look at the slide through five that we have here which is new housing resources one question is when are those new from like what what in the last two years last three years let's get back to the slide first sorry it's lagging

[267:01] there you are yep can you ask your question again sure so new housing resources since when uh since pro since a year ago a year ago okay so i i add this up as something like 150 new resources um if do these add up i mean is that the way it works because so the so the first one the vouchers that's that's an impact to the the city budget um some of the other resources so when we were talking to 200 000 we're talking in respect to the city boulder's budget towards homelessness services um so some of the other vouchers that have come to the boulder county housing authority that are supporting you know vouchers both in our city as well as um throughout the county um that's obviously from state and federal funds

[268:01] um the the units proposed for supportive housing over the next three years those 70. those are affordable housing projects that were in the making and we didn't put additional funds in but through the funding agreements that we had with with each one of those developers we made it and we're making it with all of our funding agreements a component that every virtually every affordable housing project that comes on board will have some ps psh units um allocated in it so it's it's not an impact to our our budget but it's a it's a change in our strategy yeah i'm not asking it from a budget perspective i guess what i'm curious to to make sure that i understand is that looks like over the next three years we get 70 units of permanently supportive housing you've already procured 11. some of these as you say will be county-wide but

[269:01] it sure looks to me like you know depending on how much of the support from the county that we get this is something on the neighborhood of 100 new housing units intended for places for people to exit yep and the the one at the bottom is worth sort of highlighting as well that's one that bob yates sent out to city council i think a couple weeks ago so the the bhp board allocated three different properties so that five to seven is is annually so as vacancies become available in one bedroom apartments they're going to allocate them towards psh units so they're they're they're basically shifting some of their existing units to focus on psh so that number will um that will grow up to i think about 60 or 70 units in total okay between those three properties it won't necessarily be limited those three properties a bit of a pilot um hp has gosh we're 30

[270:02] properties is that sound right you know so this is only a small fraction of bhp's properties these these three happen to be senior housing and you know one cohort that we want to address is homeless seniors and so this was a good place to start but it won't necessarily end here so i mean the only reason i bring this up and it's kind of related to what zan was saying in a way is we're doing a lot of leveraging of um existing resources and so if we do choose to increase this support it's only going to lever up it seems to me so to the extent that the suggestion was more money towards housing permanently supportive types of housing or the kind of program that you described at five to one i mean it seems like it it's a bargain in the sense that it's being spent very effectively and using co-programs to to try and grow it so so the other thing that i'll add is um so

[271:01] we've also done this in some of our preservation units [Music] but this is this is one component which is the is which is the units but then you'll also see some of these are our vouchers so you need to get the units then you need to figure out how you're going to pay for them um so the the vouchers that we put in place with that 200 000 was actually focused on homeless individuals of the highest need because they have the highest financial impact on our community so that was the focus of that pilot program what zan is suggesting is another segment of our homeless population those that aren't the highest need but maybe um it's an easier path to get them into houses there's only cheaper and cheaper it's a bridge rather than uh ongoing support that's correct yeah and we need a combination of all those um to make it work well i mean i'll just

[272:00] say this is wonderful work um it's it's i think the the prospect for exits for people who are homeless in our community is higher than it has been in a while and the focus of the entire system is now trying to get people um into that so i just thought i would dig into that a little bit one thing that's not even up here is diversion um you might remember that for the last couple of years we've funded effa in a rental systems program so when families who are in danger of losing their housing whether it's apartments or foreclosure um need a little bit of funding for a short time i think it's a maximum three months can receive funding from the city through effa to avoid in the success rates like phenomenal i mean really really really really successful so that doesn't even that's not even up here so aaron what aaron's in the queue i mean i'm going to go on to make larger points if you want to get something quick and i just wanted to say jane you

[273:02] would have to help me or maybe you can but i think we've been putting several hundred thousand dollars a year into the f uh increase in into the fs budget and we've been doing that for i don't know three years i think it has been three years and we the first year we did it as a pilot but then we made it ongoing right yeah which has been great yeah thank you for saying that lisa because you all are doing amazing work on the housing front i mean this list thank you for drilling into that sam of all the units that are you're bringing online is amazing and it is more i think uh housing options than we've ever had i think for folks to exit from homelessness and we are i mean i think there's money going into those programs in a lot of ways through our affordable housing program through this for rental assistance program which i think counts as housing support so um and and the the new system is uh experiencing some incredible successes so i think

[274:01] when zan and i bring this forward it's in no way to say that we should stop doing housing focus shelter and shift to you know putting band-aids on on emergency shelter um i mean the the the december through february nights that you mentioned i mean it's one day out of 15. i mean that that's that's a really if it were just that time period it's a really minor increase in the number of shelter nights um offered so i would i think the the point that that i would like to make is that you know we just it's about still having making sure that people have incentives to move to housing to have incentives to move to program-based shelter but that those that part of that set of incentives is not kind of the stick of forcing people to sleep outside on on a very cold night so i think we can still balance these goals we can still be focused on housing we can still work on incentives to move people into these programs and move people into housing while still providing a kind of a bare bones uh warm place to sleep at night

[275:02] during the winter so and i think you can coord you could do that in a variety of kind of creative ways for example right now severe weather shelter does not include a coordinated entry requirement right i mean that's just when it's open you walk in you sleep and you're done we could add a coordinated entry requirement maybe it's after three nights say so that we make sure that people are at least know what's in the system that the system knows about them um you know we could you know we could um kind of tune the the the distinction between severe weather shelter and path to home such that you know there's there are those additional incentives so um i i think this is the the change to a nightly severe weather sheltering for for a focused period in the winter is something that we can do without losing our larger program goals and successes of the coordinated entry program so i just want to make those points and well can i ask you a question about that aaron because in discussions with various folks who are doing shelter provision

[276:02] how would you enforce the coordinated entry requirement because there's already been some complaints that people are coming in and you know night after night staying in the sphere where they're sheltering which we want to give them that option to do but they're not engaging in the services and that they're seeing an increase of that behavior so i i just you put out the idea that we could do a requirement how would you enforce the requirement well i so when i say coordinator i mean the process of coordinated entry going in and doing the however long it takes to register and that that at a certain point that i mean that that becomes a requirement of doing severe weather you oh hey you know you get one more night of staying here before then the next morning you have to go to coordinate entry otherwise you know it's not for severe weather well you don't have to coordinate do coordinated entry for severe weather right would it be would it be helpful for me to clarify yeah okay um so at all of our programs so boulder

[277:02] shelter for the homeless path to home you know you come in you can stay one night and then you're told okay but before you come back tomorrow night you have to go to coordinated entry um and that is also um the goal at severe weather shelter right now um but as a a practical on the ground matter um if you come back the second night to severe weather shelter and you have not gone to coordinated entry you will be let in and let me ask you another question i mean how do you id people so if people have come in for severe weather sheltering i mean i'm sure people staff get good at recognizing the faces of people who have been there a couple three nights in a row but you've got no formal identification for folks and so other than recognizing the face of somebody who's coming in how would you know that even in aaron's case right so three nights and then you have to go through somehow um how would you know that that

[278:02] person is a person who's been there three nights in a row or ten nights in a season or whatever if they haven't ever gone to coordinated entry um you're correct sam i mean people people aren't showing id at the door um and so i am not sure of the exact nuts and bolts of um of how how you insure the same person i mean you know i know they're recording it but i don't i mean bill are you available to answer that question okay i'm bill sweeney i work with the bridge house i formerly ran boho um so the answer to your question wendy is that we record over 90 of the people who come into severe weather shelter in the bcc system

[279:02] so that's regardless of their status if someone has not been through bcc we has not been through coordinated entry we will still enter them in the boulder county connect system so over 90 percent are recorded there and we can track readmissions through that at least for that portion of the population do they give you their names yeah we use whatever name they provide if you want to be roy rogers we just ask that you be roy rogers every night i see so so you're asking a name and you're putting a name down and most people are happy to give you a name they give us a name and we also we since we are using boulder county connect we are also dipping into their very deep register of names okay thank you and do you ask where they came from uh no we don't okay yeah that's uh that's a part of the coordinated entry uh process

[280:02] okay well so the i think the issue around um the severe weather shelter isn't really about money as was just demonstrated it's um it's i think the the weighing of compassion and being strategic and not undermining incentives i think i guess we wanted to put it out there that we would like to try to have our cake and eat it too on that front um and i guess in the interest of time maybe to get a sense of how people are feeling about that yeah i would like to have our cake and eat it too i i hear what staff is saying and that it would be preferable to wait another couple of months but um the potential unintended or

[281:00] potential unintended consequences we won't know one way or the other until we actually experience whatever happens if we do open up the severe weather sheltering for the rest of the year so i would not support the nod i would not be a nodding head um because this we're on the road to systems change and this is what we should be doing um i volunteered for five years at the boulder shelter cooking breakfast every friday morning and for five years the same faces every day for five years you would see the same people over and over again and and the problem just felt intractable and to hear the changes that are happening and the stories that kurt

[282:00] shared um it starts to feel like something that can happen but it can't happen if we go back to the old system there's a there's a book that i read years ago that's called begging for change and um and that person robert egger who wrote the book had kind of the same feeling he would go out and feed people and he just felt this isn't working you know where are the people where are the counselors where are the people that do job training where's the support team and he's set his mind to change things and he has in several cities where um he started the dc central kitchen in the la central kitchen so its systems change and this is what needs to happen to actually move people away from poverty it happens in human services a lot where

[283:01] it's the pity approach let's pity people and in pitying people you hold people down and this is not about holding people down this is about giving them that hand up and moving them out of that situation so i'm not going to support the notified okay all right did you i just had a question of mary mary my understanding is that this wouldn't negate the system that's in place but it would be auxiliary to it at least for this coming short period so and and that's i mean i understand that we the other one would would continue a pace and hopefully we could see what would happen in terms of getting some outcomes as well people return again and again and again but it's my understanding that in doing this it would undermine the system that

[284:00] it that the the the strategy that is currently working um and the data is proving that out and i would like to see us keep going and seeing when staff has the full picture of all the data and showing us what an entire year's worth of data looks like i you know i want to keep moving forward with that lisa then bob so i will not be a notified either i think this is a complete step backwards um since i've been on council and before this has been what people would call a wicked problem and i think there's been a lot of compassion a lot of community dialogue a lot of desire to

[285:00] improve people's lives and i feel i totally agree with mary that the pity approach just keeps people down and does never bring them forward and it keeps them in their same place and there are times where you really have to strongly incent people that there is a much better outcome on the other side than hanging out on the street and i would also say that this is not auxiliary this is going back to 2014 when we had the very lax and more liberal and compassionate approaches which resulted in many more deaths on the street and

[286:00] the mental issues the drug abuse issues the domestic abuse issues these are not issues that get resolved on the street they require intervention and um i think [Music] giving a nod a five is saying you're okay with people staying in their current state and also um that they don't need to change well they do need to change and i know because i was one of those and if that intervention hadn't happened then i would not be sitting here today and i've seen it from both sides and i am totally in support of where staff is and i think

[287:03] we have done so much constructive efforts that it has really helped i think there's also the problem of mixed messages so as i said a moment ago we've been trying for a long time to improve the homeless situation and nothing has worked as much as the coordinated system the work between the boulder house homeless shelter with bridge house with pat the home with our navigational services with our navigational coordinator in in our court system people need help and to allow them to continue to flounder is not

[288:01] compassionate so i won't be nodding in favor of this and i also think staff's argument about about you know if you look at surrounding towns if you just look at the data if you have the data and look at the evidence which i do as a scientist then going backwards is not the direction to go and i also think you need to weigh in with the public who also deserve and expect um to have um a semblance of a of a normal space and boulder has for decades gone beyond what others have or have even wanted to we've gone way beyond

[289:00] and i don't think going backwards is a good idea i'm not going to be as eloquent as maria and lisa have been but i agree with them okay sam well this is a very difficult issue because it is not about the money so if you look the number of nights and the number of dollars this is just not about that and so it really becomes more do we undermine our system by doing this and we've had some people tell us that we will i mean there have been we got a letter from the county today and we got another one from isabel and i understand their fear so i do because we had a time when there was a parallel system and we've seen the numbers tonight for what that parallel system did and it

[290:00] did not move people towards exits that's the problem so whatever we do we have to preserve this new integrated system that we have because it's working greg thank you for doing the transition to the the shelter beds and the way they are because i think it's showing itself to work i think that is a huge step in the right direction at the same time we do not want people who do not want to be in these programs they're service resistant population to pay for it with you know serious consequences or death right and so that's what is the most compassionate thing to do is what i'm looking for and there's an argument for what lisa and mary are saying which is that the most compassionate thing is you get people to services and get them to exits and i agree with that we want a gradient that pushes people who are accessing shelter

[291:00] towards the services that will help them resolve the issues that keep them from being in shelter so you know it's hard for me to make a decision but the the part about the compassion that i do like about the cold weather sheltering is to look at is there a way that we can make it even more humane than it is today without undermining the rest of our system so i'm going to come up with a proposal to raise the the limits on the temperature so rather than eliminate them because i think that does send the wrong message i think that creates a parallel system and gives the message that we don't focus on that so i sent you all this document that kind of looked at 70 or so different cold weather sheltering systems across the u.s and the by far the most popular number is 32 degrees to trigger cold weather sheltering and you can see why

[292:01] but 32 degrees pretty cold it's pretty cold when you spend 8 or 10 hours out in it if that's what's going to happen so i i would see an alternate way here might be to raise the temperature because the recommendation and i'm going to try and tie this to a criteria or a recommendation the recommendation of the doctor who's quoted in that document that i sent out is to raise the temperature to 40 degrees if you intend to have a temperature triggered limit so i will put that out there as a potential way to increase the likelihood that people won't you know decrease the likelihood that somebody will have hypothermia on our streets but i don't want to send the message that undermines the system and if that's you know i understand that that compromise is just that it's a compromise but i'm willing to put it out there but i'm not willing to take away at the

[293:00] i'm not willing to nod to say i want the shelter open every night oh nearby hasn't spoken did you want to speak just can i ask staff based on what sam's proposed is that i understand this is very you know quick for you to answer but in your eyes does that compromise undermined undermine the process before they answer i think one i mean one clarification on sam's proposal is sam right now we have triggers that are essentially 32 dry and 38 wet so are you proposing 40 degrees regardless of precipitation yep that was my thought i mean it's a little better for wet it's significantly better for dry

[294:02] i'm open to and it's very simple and simple i'm open to brainstorming but i also think that the fact that we're raising it above the current level for both conditions is a step in the right direction um well i mean this is is tough because we're housing and human services people we're not meteorologists and so i mean off the top of my head i can't you know look at the impact of that in the community and see how many days how many nights that means because it when you look at how many nights were open now with the current triggers i would tend to think that that would greatly expand our sheltering scenario and so so yeah i think you know for that specific question

[295:01] um we'd have to see if we can figure out how many days that would hit um but my initial reaction is is a lot of concern about the proposal and about it undermining the system so what about okay wait a minute oh i'm sorry i was still can i add something i think it probably has to do with the dates that you're talking about as well um which months or is it the entire um season um from october through the end of march i was thinking the whole season i mean if it's going to be a standard that's based around the impact on human health right or chance that somebody's going to become ill or have hypothermia then i don't i don't know why it would matter i mean it would be the whole sheltering season and i see the financial impact as being fairly minor but i'm much more concerned about your opinion and others i mean to be frank isabelle's reaction

[296:01] was well i'd rather see that than having it taken completely away when i talked with her about it erin maybe you can add color because you were there for that conversation as well but at the same but she said i would rather see that than have the the shelter open all season so who knows i mean compromises are just that they're compromises and i see the motivation that zan and aaron bring to this and that cindy supports i mean i understand it but i at the same time wouldn't want to do anything that seriously compromises the ability to push people towards services as part of our sheltering so if i could just add one more thing so i i think it's difficult for us to to respond to that we've presented our ideas around this i think as

[297:01] the way we would measure this going forward is the number of people that may be turned away from severe weather shelter and what the impact would be on on those numbers so we would really want to track that if that increases the number of homeless people in our community that are are trying to get services above and beyond what services we currently have that would be an impact that we would want to monitor i mean that's one of the reasons i asked greg the question i did which is that i think ultimately we would like to increase the amount that we can take so that even you you pointed out in your letter that even with today's conditions that we could end up with people being turned away right changing nothing leaving the system just the way it is and we heard a few instances in which it may have occurred and so i think that's definitely whatever criteria we choose we would like to have enough capacity

[298:02] to shelter the people who need shelter and so that would be a point of further discussion maybe before next sheltering season is what are our options to be able to increase that capacity for severe weather sheltering in a way that still you know would only affect a half a dozen nights a year or something like that at the shelter so so i'm giving it back to nearby cindy wants to make it extend the meeting yep [Music] yeah so mayor by then cindy wants a comment and then i see you mary so then just kind of as a follow-up when we initially raised the severe weather shelter temperature to 32 do you believe in you know your best knowledge did that have an impact on the coordinated entry the efforts that we were doing there um you mean you mean when it changed in the middle of last season it changed late january when we look at when we look at the numbers

[299:00] of [Music] of people seeking sheltering services for the remainder of the season it is it's difficult to track a a specific impact for the second part of the 2017-2018 winter season now we have had some people when they look at the real difference we've had much higher numbers this season starting in october and there's there's lots of theories around that different theories we don't know the reason why but one of the theories is that you know some people plan on like more of a a seasonal basis if you will where they're going to go through where they're they're going to go and that you know when our criteria changed to be more similar to the previous boho criteria then that changed some people's plans in terms of coming to boulder this season

[300:02] now again that's one of the theories that's you know talked about when we look at the difference between last season and this season so we don't know that okay well i mean i guess i would i mean this is just such a rough topic to discuss um i think it's going to be hard whether it's dichotomous we're kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't in terms of the community half is either going to love us or hate us but i think that the the evidence that staff has support or shown us the data for me is undeniable and i think that the way that mary and lisa really put it is extremely clear that this is the way that we help people in our community i almost feel that if we don't continue along this line i mean we're or the evidence or the data i mean we're harming people otherwise i mean that's kind of really what it breaks down to

[301:00] if you want to be kind dried about it so for me at least um so i i don't think that i would give my not a five as for sam's proposal i mean if you're already concerned i i don't know i'm a little torn i guess i'm willing to try to compromise because again a very difficult subject but the biggest thing is that we find a way to get these people off the street and into shelter and second chance so i just wanted to say that i think it's a misnomer to call it a pity factor i think using that kind of terminology is as bad as saying nimby or something like that to characterize people who care about their neighborhoods and how they live the other thing that i would say is that we're talking about people here when we're talking about people in conditions of homelessness and we can't control everything we can try our best to do what we can to help

[302:02] and there are carrots and there are sticks but it doesn't mean that we're going to be able to control everyone and i don't think anyone up here would say that that you have absolute control and this is how we're going to make people act and bolder by having these systems and i'm i totally applaud the systems i think you've done amazing things in this past year but i mean i just would try to dispel the belief that we have control over human beings to the degree that we can actually make them follow the very systems that we want to mary so i won't support your proposal sam um because it's essentially another way of opening the shelter every the severe weather shelter every night and i'll use the different terminology other than pity i will use the difference between taking a deficit-paced approach and an

[303:01] asset-based approach what we're doing by opening up the severe weather shelter every night is using believing that people cannot move out of that situation an asset based approach is what i would rather see where you believe in people and you believe that people can change and you can believe that the system will get them out of that situation so i i believe very strongly in that and i will read something that um kurt actually wrote to us and and i believe it's and um if people remain on the streets and shelters are expanded more deaths will occur this was shown true when boulder tried this a few years ago in my view it is not humane for individuals in our community to spend years of their life languishing in shelter when through services and housing they can be stabilized our shelters need to get smaller and programs of substance need to get bigger

[304:02] and that's what i witnessed in my five years of serving breakfast it was people languishing i saw people two brothers die and it wasn't helping so okay um we're gonna speed this up in the interest of time we have aaron we have lisa let's problem solve and then we're gonna tie a bow on this okay well i'll just respond a little everybody's coming from a place of trying to help folks that are in need but i think the data is inconclusive the numbers are too this data sets are too small the numbers are too small we don't know all the factors so i think we can make interpretations but i don't think the data is anywhere uh remotely uh

[305:01] isn't remotely cut and dried and um and and and i think the the what we're talking about here is if if there's somebody if we offer somebody a warm place to sleep when it's 33 degrees outside that is in no way saying that we don't believe in their ability to get off the streets it's about saying on that day on that cold day there's a warm place for a night and in the meantime you got to keep working on the housing focus shelter as hard as you can and i support additional resources towards our housing efforts but um it's certainly not it's not not believing in people to offer them a place to sleep okay i know you're in the queue i guess all i want at this point is is action since people have kind of given their their spiel so no more spiels and just talk about i i am completely where mary is i am not going to give a not a five i'm going to defer to

[306:01] staff and their recommendation and i think it is a compassionate recommendation and um i think there's been a lot of investment and we need to invest more in housing okay so i and i'm also on the sam's thing i don't think it moves it anywhere i think it doesn't help and so i'm not interested in that i so and and for those of you that are weighing in on sam's i'm just curious is any increase no the same as 40 degrees is there a number less than that that is a compromise we could agree to nope nope nope nope nope well just looking on i'll say probably no i mean i can throw out another compromise not to counter um i do agree that the 32

[307:01] and 38 are confusing with precipitation so i mean maybe there's a number like 35 which happens to be halfway between 32 and 38 we just say 35 degrees across the board i actually haven't agree with mary i don't think we should be moving this but if in the interest of trying to get five people to agree i would be willing to look at a number i think it needs to be lower than 40 though well i mean in the interest of making things simple we could make it just 38 and just call it that um but i mean to me it it's going to change things by a handful of days right so so it will be three or four or five days and so there will be fewer days in the winter where um people who are otherwise service resistant will have to find a place to sleep outside and so you know bob if you're interested you can name a number um that would suit you i don't mean to force this it's just a it's just an attempt to right you know

[308:02] this is all false precision i mean we when we picked 32 that was that was a made-up number i mean that there's a elegance to 32. i think we were at 20 before right or i don't know i think it was a low number yeah i mean so these are all just picking numbers out i mean it's it's miserable 32 35 38 40 it's miserable right well i tried to the reason i sent the resource out was just so that we keep what others what other communities do and what the you know recommendation of advocates is so if if we wanted to raise it it would make me feel like we have tried to do both things at once i mean you talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too this is a way to try and do that to not undermine the system with messaging but also to have a few less days when people are stuck out in the street but bob it looks like you can say yes or no on this one kind of well can we put can you put it back up the slide that shows what our neighbors are doing because the stuff you sent out was great sound but it was nationwide and i think what our numbers our neighbors do is pretty instructive because

[309:01] if we're a lot higher than our neighbors it's it's a pretty short bus ride to boulder i mean we're already higher than everybody else right yes that's correct i i i you know mary has persuaded me i think i think we just need to to stay the course for the remainder this year get the data and and keep with what we have okay um i didn't really speak to this because i sent out the hotline so i'm going to let that speak for myself um so that is what it is we don't have another five i want to throw back out there though my other idea which is um and maybe we can have staff look at this and bring this back in march but i do like the idea of um

[310:02] i do think we're on the right track and i'm very excited about it i wish we could tighten our safety net a little bit but we just had that discussion and that's not going to happen but oh the idea of the abbreviated vouchers to try to leverage even more and hit more of the population that we could move out to housing quick more quickly because they require less assistance i think that has a lot of promise that'll cost us a little bit more money um but i think it also helps us get to our goal faster and we're a community that has the means to do that and we're coming up with a good model so i guess what would you guys think about directing staff to investigate that and bring back a proposal along those regards so staff is coming back um shortly um with when when things when the whole all the data is in so um we can kind of suggest that and then

[311:00] they can bring it back then yeah and i was gonna suggest that i think they're coming back like in the middle of march that's that's less than two months does that and then we'll have one year of data and then we can they can bring that to us their recommendation and and could we ask as part of that for um what ideas on what resources we might be able to devote to making um to having more exits from homelessness more exits from homelessness and this might be one of them yeah including this if there's better ideas on that one then of course could i just know about him speak to one um when i spoke with isabelle she talked about and it's it was up on the list it was the master lease that they have two houses they have master leases with um hashem homes and there are six people um three in each house not exceeding the occupancy and um

[312:01] they are paying market rate and for uh with a very small subsidy so and this is exactly along those lines okay so this is that was essentially maybe a pilot for what i'm talking about and they're very excited about that they see a lot of possibility i think it's also worth repeating as we wrap up here something that staff told us the very beginning of the presentation we have 210 beds that are open 365 days a year 210 beds that are open all year long regardless of the temperature and so um i think maybe some of the people that spoke to us or some of the people that wrote to us were under the misimpression that um we only do this during the winter time and only do it at thresholds we provide 210 beds um all year round and i want to make sure that that the community understands that that we're not cold-hearted and hard-hearted and and this these are just the incremental um of severe weather sheltering beds it's really important to

[313:00] understand that i do want to say that i am very interested in and this doesn't need to be a nod or anything i don't want to be turning people away when we have if we have a criteria that criteria needs to be our kind of bible at that time and if we come to a point because kurt has warned us that we are turning people away i think we need to take very rapid action to change whatever we need to change because if this is our criteria of compassion for people and we're trying to protect them then i would like staff to make sure and notify council if staff becomes aware that people have on both both of our resources for severe weather sheltering have been turned away because i think that will be a time we need to address that and even if it's going to take the rest of the season to address for some reason

[314:00] or if there's something we can do an emergency to fix it i just don't think it's humane for us to set okay here's where you can get off the streets under any circumstances and then oh i'm sorry we're turning you away because we're fooling absolutely agree i totally agree with that absolutely thank you sam okay um thank you all for that discussion for the information staff that was very helpful um any process debrief i thought it went pretty well given all the stuff we had in our tape plate done early the other thing um i'm very impressed with our staff and tonight we had really just outstanding presentations and i said something to bob about it and he said well maybe part of that is that we've had study sessions in advance of the heavy things so

[315:00] when we are clear then it makes it easier for staff to do their work and to present a good well-presented document that really is ready to go and so we don't have people coming here and yelling or speaking to us everybody's okay and so i just you can pass that on i just think that is great for everybody okay and on that note mayor can i back up for a minute on the motion to extend who made that and who second and was it unanimous yeah thank you we're adjourned [Applause] so i think one thing that we missed tonight was we started [Music]

[316:05] you