September 21, 2023 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] I'm 41 I should know how to swallow a liquid okay interested is there a chat going on do you need this oh yay

[1:00] totally good with that does this this will work attention it's not six

[2:00] Bob is here but I have not yet seen Mark or Juni try to whisper because I know I'm loud okay well it is six o'clock do we have channel eight you do have Judy foreign we're just waiting for the TV station to come online Juni is here welcome Janine thank you Channel 8 says they need just a minute Matt this might be a good time for a dad

[3:00] joke all right let's see um what do you call a fake noodle impasta um you know I have a fear of speed bumps and I'm uh slowly getting over it okay thank you thanks for keeping us entertained while we wait for the broadcast to start actually I was at a Northwest mayor and commissioner Coalition meeting the other day and we had like a two-minute gap between things and I said anybody have any jokes and people brought the jokes like

[4:01] trying to keep some humor in our public meetings thank you so much foreign

[5:00] still looking for the on-air light though here we go and we started the recording wonderful okay good evening everyone and welcome to the September 21st 2023 meeting of the Boulder City Council I'm going to start with an announcement which is about the better public meetings project the city of Boulder is partnering with the national civic league on a nationwide effort to make Council meetings more engaging and satisfying for everyone who participates as part of this effort we want to hear about your experiences with our meetings so we invite community members who are either in person or online for Council meetings starting tonight and running through our December 7th meeting to rate your experience we have an online scorecard that takes about two minutes to fill out the link to it is on the screen now and for the online audience we're putting a link and QR code in the chat you may complete the scorecard once for each time you participate in a council meeting over the next three months it'll be very

[6:00] interesting to see what you have to say and with that Emily can we well first I will officially call the meeting to order and Emily if we can do roll call please yeah absolutely thank you mayor and good evening everyone we'll start tonight's roll call with council member Benjamin present mayor Brockett present council member folkerts present friend here Joseph present spear present mayor Pro tem Wallach council member weiner present and Yates president Richard Lee mayor we have our Quorum thanks and I'll just note that in the absence of Merit Pro tem walek the immediate past mayor Rachel friend will stand if I need to step out of the room thanks Rachel um

[7:01] I appreciate having the opportunity um to speak about this um we want to take a moment to mourn the loss of a council colleague on Lafayette city council Tony Briggs um council member Briggs passed away unexpectedly this past weekend and uh we send our heartfelt condolences to the community of Lafayette but most importantly we send our deepest love to the friends and family of council member Briggs um as they start this most impossible journey through grief and starting life without their friend partner Men Mother um you will be missed by a community that is grateful for your love and service to others thank you for that Matt um and I've been in Communications with some of the city council members and the mayor of Lafayette and expressing our condolences and support as well it's really sad to to lose her to beautiful person um that being said we will now move to

[8:03] our declarations we are starting with the Hispanic Heritage Month declaration presented by council member Benjamin in English and myself in Spanish if I could invite our recipients to come up please don't mind those signs thank you thank you guys Sabrina Hispanic Heritage Month October 15 2023 National Hispanic Heritage Month is recognized from September 15th through October 15th and it is time to honor the invaluable ways the Hispanic and Latino Americans have shaped our community celebrate the diverse cultures and work towards a stronger more inclusive and more prosperous Society for all the Hispanic heritage observance began

[9:01] in 1968 as Hispanic heritage week under President Lyndon Johnson recognizing that five Central American countries Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua and in North America Mexico celebrate their independence day on September 15th in 1988 the week was expanded by President Ronald Reagan to cover a 30-day period to celebrate the continuous the contributions of Hispanic and Latino people to the United States and those American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain Mexico the Caribbean Central America and South America the act of recognizing and celebrating the contributions of Hispanic and Latina individuals is important however it can be difficult to accurately do so when we examine the complicated history of their many diasporas between Spanish colonization and the transatlantic slave trade and the forcible seizure of indigenous lands including in the recent past Hispanic

[10:00] and Latino Americans have known many homes and have traveled many paths people with ancestry in Spain and in the countries that are today part of North Central and South America and the Caribbean include indigenous peoples and also the descendants of African people enslaved by European colonizers and forcibly brought to these lands we acknowledge that capturing these complex history complex histories and identities is only as only Hispanic and Latina oversimplifies history and neglects the richness of these peoples as individuals and as a community Hispanic Latina Latin America are all foreign names placed on peoples and land of this continent we recognize and support the movement of self for self-determination decolonization efforts of indigenous people that call this continent as we continue to honor the observance

[11:01] of theme of unidos inclusivity for a stronger Nation it encourages us to ensure that all voices are represented and welcome to help build a stronger communities and stronger Nation Hispanic and Latino people have enhanced and influenced our City's character through contributions of their talents cultures values ideas labor as well as new and old traditions that reflect the multi-ethnic and Multicultural customs of their communities while adding their own distinct and dynamic perspectives to the story of Boulder we recognize Hispanic and Latina community members in leadership positions throughout a myriad of organizations including in Science Education non-profit business and government we the city of Council of the city of Boulder Colorado declare September 15th through October 15th as Hispanic Heritage Month and invite the entire Community to share and participate in the celebration of this month and consider the great impacts that Hispanic Latino people have had on our lives and the community at large

[12:01] thank thanks Matt Espanol foreign Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras in Nicaragua in North America Mexico celebrate

[13:24] America Del Sur suerte as personas hispanas is

[14:19] mentales

[15:06] in Western todos if any of you all would like to share a few words it would be very welcome um ballet

[16:00] millionaires in English my fellow interpreters if I miss out on anything just let me know um in on behalf of Michael my colleagues Elena clever rosabel rice Tanya balado Leticia Perez and me I'm Leticia and all of the other interpreters and translators and Advocates that have been working in Boulder for equity and just a language Justice we want to say thank you for this step towards uh Mauritius world it's many many of us have been advocating for more just World here in Boulder so those who primarily speak Spanish can understand what they are told they can live a full life and they can express themselves as well so this is very meaningful to us and it's worth millions thank you so much

[17:03] [Applause] sounds good thank you again and it's reminding us thank you again thanks for that Elena okay we have um that was wonderful thank you thanks to you all for being here uh our next declaration our second and final declaration is Energy Efficiency day presented by council member folkerts Energy Efficiency is the art of getting the same or better performance using less energy all while saving money reliable affordable energy is vital to

[18:01] our economic prosperity and energy efficient efficiency is a productive and cost effective way to meet our energy needs smarter energy use reduces the amount of electricity we need in our power we need to power Our Lives which helps avoid power plant emissions that can harm our health pollute our air and warm our climate energy efficient Transportation reduces air pollution and improves the health of all coloradans implementing clean energy policies and programs helps boost economic opportunities and job creation while moving toward a just transition and sustainable future for all the national network of Energy Efficiency organizations estimates that cutting energy waste saves U.S consumers billions of dollars on their utility bills annually up to five hundred dollars per household from Appliance efficiency standards

[19:01] alone consumers can save three dollars on their utility bills for every one dollar invested in Energy Efficiency more than 2.3 million Americans work in the Energy Efficiency sector in local good paying jobs increasing efficiency will be create more of these jobs including more than thirty two thousand in Colorado the city of Boulder has declared a climate emergency and is committed to acting quickly in a way that is broad-reaching replicable and inclusive and that is framed around equity and resilience the city is a leader in climate action adopting clean energy and Energy Efficiency programs and has pledged to reduce greenhouse gases Boulder residents and businesses can continue to contribute to Energy Efficiency efforts by participating in

[20:00] the community's climate action efforts learning more about Energy Efficiency and participating and practicing smarter energy use in their daily lives a nationwide network of Energy Efficiency efficiency groups has partnered and designated October 5th 2023 as the national Energy Efficiency day we the city council of Boulder Colorado declare October 2023 as Energy Efficiency day and urge citizens to join us in supporting and implementing our clean energy goals now and in the future thank you thanks for that Lauren okay that brings us to open comment we have eight in-person speakers and one virtual speaker uh Brenda could you go over the public participation guidelines please I'm happy to thank you so much um hopefully the slide will come up as

[21:01] that's being pulled up I'll just say um good evening my name is Brenda Ridenour I'm with our communication and engagement department and it's my pleasure during these meetings to welcome you both in person and virtually and to share our public participation guidelines so so as you can see on the slides the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations this Vision was designed to support physical and emotional safety for community members for staff and for Council and supports democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about this vision and the engagement process that we use to reach it please visit our website bouldercolorado.gov and in the search bar put in productive atmospheres next next slide please

[22:00] the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Vision these views will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimonials shall be limited to matters related to City business no no participants shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithesis and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently only audio testimony is permitted for those who are participating online with the exception of your support for the Declarations traditionally support is shown silently through American Sign

[23:01] Language Applause or jazz hands thank you thank you so much and I think that that we're ready to move forward thank you Brenda all right each speaker will have two minutes and if you can queue up as your turn is coming up that'd be fantastic our first three speakers are Pat our first three three two two minutes um eight people uh Emily can you confirm that our rules for open common is that there's two minutes for each to speak they can confirm okay so our first three speakers are Patrick O'Rourke Emily Zinn and Michelle Rodriguez Patrick uh thank you um there's I have two slides tonight um the first one I want to talk about what happened last week in this room uh at the work study session there was a conversation about the possibility of giving away uh all the library system basically so I

[24:00] spent a little bit of time today doing a little research the four buildings that was proposed through by staff and this is nothing to do with the vote that you guys had that's perfectly appropriate my concern is the staff recommendation that these buildings be given away with a lot of without a lot of thought given to it especially when it comes to the consideration of a staff wants to produce the overload of having facilities with them they've decided that they just don't want the buildings and so the message that's given to this city council is in my opinion skewed and it doesn't weigh the benefits and the negatives associated with that recommendation um the four buildings have a minimum value of 30 million dollars and how did I come up with that well 96 000 uh this building the building next door to you is uh 93 000 square feet let's assume it's

[25:00] 300 a square foot uh that comes to just over 30 million dollars just for that one building if you want to look at what the assessments are you you'll go one building to the north here is 60 000 square feet the building right there on the corner across the street from us it has an assessed value of 25 million dollars uh real estate tax bill which I find astounding of 599 000 this year next year it's going to be seven hundred thousand dollars um a lot of money so what I was trying to get at is I I believe that this fiduciary relationship or responsibility that the city of Boulder has the citizens of this community and not necessarily through this uh the district I'm afraid your time is up but if you could email the rest of your comments to us please either there's nine buildings about to be sold so so okay no actually I mean we're I apologize we're we give everybody the same amount of time so Lynn Lynn please no disruptions if you

[26:01] can stay quiet please and not disrupt the meeting 45 minutes it used to used when this is not the place to argue about this I've got we have people who need to come on up and speak so um Emily's in your next then Michelle Rodriguez and Andrew Hyman hi thank you for having me my name is Emily Zinn I'm the director of education at the Museum of Boulder at Tebow Center up the road and I'm also the project manager on proclaiming Colorado's black history our upcoming exhibit that opens next Friday evening and I wanted to invite you all to come see it when we talk about creating a community where people of color feel welcome and feel a sense of belonging we think that celebrating the accomplishments of our black neighbors is an important piece of that complicated puzzle another is acknowledging the barriers

[27:02] that have always been present in the state and educating about the realities and truths of our past and present with the help of the institute for Museum and Library Services we've been collaborating with the NAACP Boulder County the Carnegie branch of the Boulder Public Library and many many other partners from throughout the state for two years and to bring this exhibit to life which will also run for two years we've assembled a predominantly black team and funded and supported their vision for how this story should be told we hope that you'll join us in celebrating black contributions in the face of adversity throughout the life of this state you're welcome to contact me or any of our staff at the Museum and we would love to schedule private tours with our project team so that you can come see it we open next Friday evening you're all

[28:02] invited um and I appreciate the time thank you assembly I look forward to the reception now we have Michelle Rodriguez Andrew Hyman and Phoenix Zulu a better light today first Amy needs a race no I promised I had said that before you know because she she does a lot um I just wanted to say um I had some some pretty exciting uh conversation and actually about four hours this week with Community involvement and direct involvement engagement with the new police monitor I learned some exciting things I can tell you the the biggest thing I learned and I'm so excited about is about Sterling Eco being the police officer that's the liaison that was put as the liaison between the

[29:03] police department and the Monitor and you guys all know he's he's my favorite his favorite my favorite person and um the most perfect choice and pick for that that position and I I was I was ecstatic they almost had to strap me to the table but um in addition um I wanted to speak real quick um the thing that went on in the park across the street uh it's unacceptable I I don't know where um the community engagement is or what the plans are where we stand as far as possibly getting people off of the lawn and into a camp some tents in an open space some somewhere something anything I have actively been engaging and um literally physically dragging one individual who's homeless out there from location to location on that lawn most recently she's not mobile and had she been laying in that exact spot where

[30:02] that truck went up it would have been and so the chief is so right about that um I I support that camping ban staying in place I support safe zones for the kids I support safe zones for the public and and we're asking for safe zones for us too thanks Michelle uh Andrew Hyman Phoenix salute and Evan ravitz well good evening my name is Andrew Hyman I get the mic up a little bit yes I'm part of an organization known as architectural uprising I run the western United States chapter we have branches across Europe different parts of Asia and now in the United States which is exciting essentially what we are trying to do is return to traditional architecture as well as proper building and good urban

[31:01] planning you know I'm sure you've all heard of the walkable City that's kind of in the same thing we're thinking I just really wanted to introduce myself I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot from me in the future and if you have any questions from me you can message me on Instagram you can just look up architectural Uprising Colorado chapter thank you very much thanks Andrew Phoenix salute Evan rabbits and James Duncan so I I did go and I very much enjoyed it and I was pleasantly surprised to see child friendly initiatives being taken and so that's what I synchronistically wanted to come speak about because I actually started potty training my daughter at seven weeks and by 17 months she was

[32:00] going by herself and so for me one thing that I found could be helpful would be stools in the bathrooms for children to be able to get to the sinks um as well as stools in the toilets maybe placing like seat reducers in public restrooms as a way for them to have more access as well as an Initiative for parents to maybe step deeper into um if they're in a potty training phase the availability for that um and I know that there are rooms for mothers to go for breastfeeding things like that so I think that those types of spaces could be plumped up more and just given you know more moms a better chance to be participants in the world that is around them because as a mom I know I felt really removed from everything for a long time and even having a toddler it's

[33:00] still hard so but thank you very much thanks Phoenix no Evan ravitz James Duncan and Lynn Siegel last time I read Mike homner's emails about the city's junket to Oregon in 2016 to look at homeless camps and tiny homes Bob Yates later said he didn't actually go as Mike had thought Mike told me was because someone in his photos looks like ah mistake fixed regular folks have incentive to fix our mistakes I've given you two examples of us fixing mistakes in citizen ballot initiatives but politicians have incentives to cover up their mistakes to protect their donors and careers Bob has still not fixed his mistake in his January 2022 Boulder bulletin easy

[34:02] to find online when he claimed that Excel voluntarily started using renewable energy in the 2010s when it was actually forced to by Colorado initiative 37 that voters passed in 2004. I asked Bob to make a correction privately then here and finally in a letter to the camera Bob continues to sucker his readers hoping they vote in 2025 to continue the Excel franchise that lovely company whose greedy negligence ignited the Marshall fire and will be billing us to pay for hundreds of millions in lawsuits Bob also supposedly negotiated the franchise on our behalf but he neglected to ensure that the city can install future Broadband fiber in excel's underground conduits so now we Face the huge expense

[35:00] and disruption of digging our own trenches that's why the city is looking for a private partner Bob are you invested in Excel or Broadband companies like you used to work for so you'll profit from these betrayals X7 um right please please no audible Expressions out there with James Duncan and then Lynn Siegel and then we'll go virtual refine it just have hang on a second please wow here it is James Duncan I live in Boulder thank you for your service Council a recount of an incident from a Community member

[36:00] hello on Friday September 15th my wife and I opened the door into the Brewing Market coffee shop at McGuckin's I heard a loud fighting sound right behind me two big guys pretty much jumping on and throwing an older guy to the concrete ground between a couple of big flower pots this was so severe it moved the heavy flower pots out of the way it looked like a very rough fight I was afraid he was going to get his head slammed into the flower pots and the concrete the older man resisted and yelled back he then got dragged about 10 feet over the concrete between two cars while he was cussing and yelling the two guys tackled him again and one of them sat on his back while he was facing down into the concrete the big guy had held the guy on the ground with his arm around his neck in a strangled position there were quite a few step bystanders but my personal reaction was of great anger and started yelling and demanding to let the guy go I immediately had the

[37:01] support of other bystanders because of the brutal scene and the fight at the same time I quickly came to realize that the guy had stolen merchandise from the McGuckin store these two guys were from security from the hardware store after a few minutes my repeated yelling and loud loud it seemed the two guys took my demand seriously and let the guy loose and he run off that was from Jonas I too James I have written similar brutality and can't help but feel it exists because of a pervasive cultural hatred and meanness towards the poor look at the vitriol on next door dominated by fear and loathing we are kin they are our kin someone's brothers sisters as Modis theater would say do you know who they are thanks James Lynn

[38:06] so what about the ldrc the landmarks design Review Committee that is not recorded this is the house that they're demolishing in lvrc I request that the ldrc be disbanded you can't record their meetings I can't go back and see why would they demolish this 8 000 square foot 6.1 million dollar house in Boulder that's fireproof on the wildlands urban interface 770 Circle that's 1941. go ahead Lisa to the yeah so a garage was added on big effing deal this house is going to be demolished and there's nothing I can do I can't beg you to call it up

[39:00] can't get rid of the ldrc and start showing our faces so I don't have to come down here and risk my life because I'm susceptible I'm not covered vaccine vaccinated I don't want to come down here why should I have to why can't I have my three lousy minutes like we had for 50 years at city council 45 minutes 16 minutes that you had to see these people today three people that were at the police oversight panel yesterday three people you don't have a public you know I hope they revolt against you because you are not leaders you know that I'm not telling you the obvious there's no such thing as a leader we're all just part of this Cosmic situation right and we all need to be working together and this is not working together

[40:01] this is destructive there will be a fire prone house built into space EAB needs to be part of landmark sport environmental Advisory Board time is Upland but thank you for your testing I got it Erin I got my time is up lousy minutes okay we have one virtual speaker which is making calls so we can get making up please Council I want to talk to you about 28th and J the project for 84 units 34th which are for sale middle income housing you took the time to do a concept review of this project February 16th at that time you unanimously supported the density of the project and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods you supported mxr land use designation and the rmx zoning that's required to support the density

[41:00] but in June planning staff's written direction to the developer was the exact opposite of what you supported in February staff said they could not support the quote mxr designation or the proposed Mass scale and density of the development close quote in the most recent September 13 comments staff still is resisting the density of the site and still pushing back on council's unanimous finding that these for sale homes are compatible with the site in its surrounding staff is only conceding that the mxr quote may be supportable close quote but they're requiring more information we'll quote to clearly demonstrate compatibility with surrounding area reviewer Council and Maria and Brad you have to get your heads together on this why is Staff still not in alignment with council's goals seven months after

[42:02] concept review in this instance staff is acting like an anchor on this project and the result of this is that staff is adding many thousands of dollars to the cost of each and every one of those 84 middle income and market rate for sale units the city has asked to be built on this site this should not be acceptable and I hope you will fix it thank you so much thank you Macon it brings us to the end of our open common speakers thanks to everyone who came out and spoke with us tonight I'll turn to staff to see if there are any staff responses thank you so much mayor uh a couple things um wanted to thank um James for sharing that horrific story and for uh sharing a little bit of that Humanity with us and I just appreciate your your voice um Michelle brought up and thank you Michelle brought up the incident that

[43:00] happened at um near the Band Shell at Central Park and I just wanted to thank the many staff who went down to support those in our unsheltered community who were impacted and scared by such a horrific event and there were a variety of other folks as well from uh organizations who and individuals in community who also went down to support so I just wanted to appreciate that and then I wanted to say thank Phoenix for a showing up for uh what's up Boulder loved seeing so many people there and actually just wanted to call out the child-friendly cities initiative I know we will come to council at some point and talk a little bit more about it but it is uh initiative to get a designation of child-friendly cities from uh and in partnership with UNICEF and what I'm really proud we just had a kickoff and a launch with all our external organizational Partners across the city of Boulder and the county me and so really appreciative of that but the thing I think I'm I most want to tout we

[44:01] are the only jurisdiction thus far I believe and I hope others will follow that are really um leading with youth voice and so we have had a lot of Engagement sessions with our youth we have gotten our own youth opportunities Advisory Board involved and I'm really excited about the possibility of being able to implement something that is not perhaps done by us grown-ups in a child-friendly initiative but is really informed and led with uh youth voice so excited to see that and I know we'll bring that to you soon thanks Nuria any uh Council comments or questions Rachel thanks just too um for Michelle Rodriguez just uh FYI we're having a virtual study session next week that will cover safe outdoor spaces as part of it so hope you'll tune in there may be there's help on the way I don't know yet um but fingers crossed there and then follow up with staff on making cows's a

[45:03] question about concept review that was unanimous direction to staff and it sounds like we're hitting roadblocks so could we get an update on oh I was so happy to see Brad here because I would have had to say I have to get back to you Brian I'm here so good evening Council uh Brad Mueller planning and development services director boy if I can't get that outside it's gonna be a long night um um who am I uh thank you for that question as you can appreciate the development review process is complicated and there's a lot of nuance to this um annexations as you're aware do allow the city and do allow you Council to make determinations of um uh rather than a set of specific criteria what's in the best interest of the city we know from the concept plan that housing is important certainly

[46:01] staff supports that and it's a core tenet of our comprehensive plan as well but we do want to make sure that we're bringing forward to council and to planning to be forward before you something that uh reflects that commitment in a way that's predictable and assured um also just to maybe give the a little bit of insight into that and happy to talk to any of you separately as well uh just asking for basic uh information on how connection to sewer would be made for example so we're still at that stage of Discovery we want to make sure it's right before it gets to planning board and and yourselves and that's where we are it's a little disturbing to hear that we may be adding thousands of dollars per unit of cost to especially middle-income housing so I don't know if there are things that we can do to expedite or yeah make sure that we're in

[47:00] keeping with council's very clear direction of moving that forward sure and I would have to understand better what that is alluding to so we'll we are in contact with the applicants and will continue to be thank you Matt oh okay um well yes Nicole um yeah I just I just had a quick comment and this kind of goes to uh what James was saying about sort of working together um there was a comment made that um the staff had not given much thought to giving away the library buildings and I just wanted to push back on that a little bit because it was something that I know that staff deliberated quite a bit on that they did a lot of research and I think it's just important for us to remember that we can disagree on our conclusions and that does not mean that we haven't put a lot of thought into it I think especially our staff are exceptional truly exceptional I think some of the best in the country and it's just I think it's important that that we

[48:01] recognize that our staff are working with the best information they have and giving us the best advice that they think and we may disagree with that but it doesn't mean that they haven't been thoughtful thank you appreciate you saying that Nicole our staff does do excellent work and I'll just make one quick comment um Michelle thanks for coming and speaking to us again always appreciate hearing from you and just of course the incident with the uh man driving the truck and trying to kill people was uh horrific and completely unacceptable so I think we all share that feeling I appreciate all the First Responders and the helpers who came down to to keep people out of Harm's Way and to help them afterwards to recover and then to the police for apprehending the suspect soon afterwards so appreciate everybody who pitched in to deal with that very difficult situation and seeing no other hands raised then we can go to our consent agenda please Emily absolutely so next we have our consent

[49:00] agenda and that is item three on tonight's agenda and consists of items 3A through 3F any questions or comments or emotion motion to pass the consent agenda second got a motion in a second this will be a roll call Vote Yes thank you mayor we'll start the roll call on tonight's consent agenda items a through f with council member spear yes council member weiner yes Yates yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes council member folkerts yes friend yep and Joseph yes the consent agenda items a through f are hereby approved unanimously thanks very much if we can go to our one call check-in please

[50:01] yes next on our agenda is item 4A and that is our call-up check-in it is for a site review for a 1012 sorry 1012 600 square foot two story Life Sciences facility at 36.75 and 3825 Walnut Street and it is reviewed under case number lur2022-00041 questions or comments or interest in calling us up yes Matt I know I'm an interest in calling up just just commented um I mean this sort of is exemplary from a sustainability perspective um and I think these are exactly the kind of projects that we'd love to see that set the bar so this is awesome very good anybody else seeing no one looks like no interest in calling this one up so if we can move to our first public hearing please absolutely moving right along here

[51:00] our public hearings are item five on tonight's agenda and we have item 5A to start and that is a consideration of the following items related to the Boulder Junction Phase 2 project one consideration of a motion to approve amendments to the transit Village area planned as outlined in attachment a and number two consideration of a motion to approve amendments to chapter five of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan revising the summary of the transit Village area plan as outlined in attachment B one take this way sure I'm actually gonna pass it and give Brad another a chance to introduce himself I am still Brad Mueller director of planning and development services um I just wanted to frame these two items for you a little bit before we get started over 18 months or more ago actually before I started you all went through a rigorous process of identifying your key priorities for the

[52:02] next couple of years in a retreat we were fortunate to have five of your ten and we've been happy to be working on those with you you're welcome thank you um and uh really happy and pleased to be able to bring two of those to you this evening we had a conversation you'll recall back in November with you about um how we could in fact get these sequenced uh these five priorities sequenced um balancing the uh need for public Outreach and input not stepping on each other though with the various kind of interrelated projects and finding a way to sequence that within the scope that we had presented to you both discussed in the retreat as I understand it but also as we discussed in more detail on November in November of last year so we're excited to bring these to you this evening and and hope that we are able to bring those to closure for you and

[53:00] of course answering any questions you have thanks Brad and now I will turn it over to Rebecca hi my name is Beck if you can get a little closer into the mic please now we're on everybody all right there you go all right my name is Becca heave I'm a planning and zoning specialist in the comprehensive planning department this agenda item tonight is for a public hearing consideration of the phase two Amendment to the transit Village area plan our key objectives tonight are the approval of the phase 2 Amendment and we are also asking Council to consider an amendment to chapter 5 of the bvcp which has a section on TV app that simply provides a brief summary should the amendment tonight be approved this evening we will need to update that summary at which point that is more of a house cleaning item I will also note that the official updates to the bvcp land use will be a

[54:01] future implementation step that we plan to complete by the end of the year moving on to the project overview our two key questions tonight before Council this evening are the proposed amendments to TV app consistent with the goals of the city's sustainability equity and resilience framework and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and are the proposed amendments responsive to community boards and Council feedback we'll start with a reminder that we do already have an adopted area plan that sets the vision for Boulder Junction area adopted in 2007 TV app established a desire for Boulder Junction to become Lively and engaging with a range of uses attracting a broad diversity of people it describes the future of the area as having a Charming chaos and should incorporate Citywide and neighborhood scale public spaces and there is an emphasis on sustainability walking biking and possibly car free areas

[55:01] that Vision continues to guide the future of Boulder Junction today however there was a broad belief from city council and the community the community collectively that elements of phase two needed to be updated after 15 years the proposed amendment is an additional piece to the ensuring the land uses Transportation connections and Urban Design Elements of phase two align with our current Community needs we engaged a broad contingent of stakeholders in the community as you can see in a variety of formats including focus group meetings open houses online questionnaires and so on we also convened a pilot of a multi-board working group that included representatives from nine different city boards from all those conversations several key themes for phase to emerge there is a desire to allow greater flexibility for residential and mixed-use outcomes then TV app originally would have allowed for a desire to see enhanced support for existing and new and local small businesses the community wants to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle

[56:01] connectivity over vehicles as well as incorporate more tree canopy and landscaped areas to balance higher intensity development and overall there is a desire to embody the creative entrepreneurial and funky spirit that is Boulder um I will point out that there is a variety of opinions from stakeholders on whether mixed-use Transit oriented development or mixed-use industrial is a more appropriate land use examination along Old Pearl we're going to touch on this later and elaborate more on the staff recommendation but I just want to point that out here I will pass it on to Rachel from EPS who has provided consultant support on the project to share some highlights on the market analysis great thank you um so I'm going to go over some of the key themes could you introduce yourself sorry I'm Rachel Sherman I'm a vice president with economic and planning systems and we are brought on to do the market analysis component which is one of the pieces in order to move forward with phase two um so we've been working over the last couple months on understanding market

[57:01] trends what's been happening where is their strongest Market support where their challenge is absent anything else what can be expected in this area over the next 10 to 20 years and how that aligns or doesn't align with the 2007 plan and what we might be looking to update and part of the reason we do this and why we do Market analyzes as part of planning efforts is to make sure that what we adopt and what's in the plan is implementable and can happen and we understand where the market is aligning with Community desires and values and where we might need additional tools and policies and strategies to get there where the mark Market won't do it itself so that was sort of the the basis of our effort and so um the future development context we looked at really these four key what we call asset classes types of development um so retail office multi-family residential and Industrial and in general um there's some demand for retail in

[58:00] this area right now um with more residential coming online that's when we tend to see you know the phrases retail follows rooftops with more people in the area there will be more demand for retail um but one of the key takeaways and we'll see this there will be a little bit of repetition throughout this is to really focus it and not try to do you know first floor retail everywhere we've seen the struggles with that but really be intentional about where that goes and where other first floor uses might be better suited um office we're still seeing the the impacts of covid over time one strength of this area is the types of office users that are here so there's a lot of high-tech space lab space Health Sciences biosciences that are much more place focused than sort of traditional office users where remote work is more of a possibility so that's a really big strength of the area and that's something that we see continuing to be a strength moving forward um as we'll see we did some development feasibility work right now it might be a little challenging to build that space unless we're building really high-end

[59:01] spaces and so that's potentially more of a longer term opportunity residential as we've seen at over time in the city there's a lot of demand for that and so that's part of the greater emphasis in this area on residential is to really be able to meet some of that demand and then also create a more vibrant area that can support some of these other uses and then industrial is a challenge um and there is older industrial space in this area but in terms of future demand it's really difficult to build new industrial and Boulder right now land values are really high um and it's really tough to support Industrial Development given the cost of land and so we'll see um sort of rethinking how we look at existing industrial space and what can be done to incorporate um what we call more like Flex uses but less like warehousing and Manufacturing

[60:00] that there just aren't the sites and the development costs just don't support that so what the market analysis really showed us is that we have three pretty distinct sub areas within phase two and so we're going to move from south to North which is how the Redevelopment timeline is likely to play out in the South um we have Consolidated ownership which helps with Redevelopment um and it's sort of larger single spaces and there's already some planning efforts ongoing and so that's where we're likely to see the earliest Redevelopment um and a key theme throughout this whole process was that read of flexibility is really key um in the central area that's going to be a challenge because that's where some of the existing sort of service commercial and Service Industrial users are who are going to face some of the most challenges as Redevelopment happens and as rents go up um and when buildings redevelop it's going to be really challenging for a lot of those businesses to stay in those spaces and then in the north there's

[61:01] some really strong employment uses and so we'll see there's a desire for more residential in this area but an opportunity to really create a mixed area with maintaining and enhancing some of those office uses and so the key findings as we sort of talked about right now residential is just more feasible than other uses um given sort of land cost construction costs and the rents available and so allowing residential to be included in a lot of different types of developments can help achieve some of the other uses that we're looking for um we did some development feasibility analysis um to understand you know thinking forward towards implementation what some key considerations will be and parking is going to be a key consideration it's very expensive and it really impacts the types of development that can be feasibly built um and then again just thinking over the timeline so three and four kind of combined phase one redeveloped relatively quickly um partially because a lot of the land

[62:00] was vacant and there were a number of city-owned parcels phase two given that there's development on almost every site will happen over a much slower timeline and so just keeping that in mind and accounting for Market changes over time so right now the strength of residential is really driving a lot of new development in 10 years there might be more demand for office uses and so maintaining that flexibility can help adapt to changes in the market over time this is really a repetition of the previous slide but just some of these key considerations is just keeping the expectation the slower Redevelopment timeline the importance of residential in new development um and then understanding that allowing for residential on upper floors can help drive more desired uses on Lower floors that bring in less revenue and just keeping parking in mind as an implementation Factor and so in terms of next steps from the market perspective

[63:00] um just understanding barriers to development so considerations like height and site coverage and parking in those components understand the need for a parking strategy the balance of employment with housing uses and we'll talk about this a little bit later on in terms of where entirely Office Buildings might fit in and allowing for that balance within areas sub areas and the entire area particularly in the central area just considering business stabilization and anti-displacement strategies for those businesses that are currently there and then like I noted at the beginning just identifying those key locations for first floor retail and not necessarily blanket everywhere and will be available for questions later on thank you Rachel is that working yeah great um good evening Council Christopher Johnson on the comprehensive planning manager uh I will dive into the proposed amendments themselves and give you an overview of what is before you this evening so we focused very strategically

[64:01] on updating the land use transportation and Urban Design sections of the of the transit Village area plan it was really in response to the themes that emerged through our process and also you know understanding the timeline and the framework that we had to work with through this year and and hoping to be able to bring this to council we wanted to make sure that we had a fairly narrow Focus we have just logistically we've updated the original 2007 TV app document there's a number of big notations within there that you can see that really direct community staff future boards and Council and other interested parties to the phase two Amendment itself the amendment is then attached as an addendum to the original 2007 plan and really a large bulk of the existing vision for the entirety of the Boulder Junction area Still Still applies and is still relevant and so it's um it's not overwritten or overlooked by this amendment

[65:00] so moving into you know sort of the land use updates the the plan Amendment proposes two different land use categories that really allows for a wide variety of residential commercial and light industrial outcomes and that's really in response to the community feedback that we had heard throughout this process for greater flexibility uh the mixed-use transit oriented development land use focuses primarily on residential and other Transit supportive uses mixed-use industrial also allows for residential but places an important focus on light industrial manufacturing and service uses on the ground floor and then we also have identified the Goose Creek Greenway really as a as an enhanced Community amenity and that's being formalized through the application of the pkuo or Park Urban other land use designation this map shows how those three different categories are applied geographically to the phase two area the amendment focuses the mutod land uses in the north

[66:00] primarily near that future rail station site which is where that would be located you can see that in the red star in the northern portion and the mui is or sorry the muted is also applied then to the South where changes anticipated to occur earlier in this overall Redevelopment cycle mui was specifically targeted and applied to the old Pearl Street area in response to a lot of those existing light industrial and service uses but also understanding that in the future and over time there really is a is a vision and an expectation that that evolve into really a more eclectic interaction of uses and structures and and a mixture of of maker spaces and other types of manufacturing type of uses in addition to residential uh the pkuo as I mentioned is applied to city-owned Parcels along that Goose Creek Greenway and the the other thing that's actually it's a little bit hard to see on the graphic but there is a small sliver of um osdr which stands for

[67:02] open space development rights or restrictions and that's really kind of a cleanup item that we worked closely with our colleagues in open space and Mountain Parks there's an existing Scenic easement right there along Pearl Parkway that they control and so we're updating that uh to that osdr land use these descriptions here these Snippets of descriptions are pulled directly from the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan they they further outline sort of the broad Vision that's expected Within These primary land use categories as I mentioned mutod pairs existing or planned Transit facilities with residential and Commercial development opportunities mui integrates diverse housing commercial and Retail options into industrial areas and then pkuo applies to public lands used for a variety of active and passive Recreation uses and flood control purposes so that seemed to dovetail very well with the way the Goose Creek Greenway exists today and and really some vision for uh

[68:00] as an enhanced community space into the future um I wanted to point out uh really in this this question and as Becca mentioned there's been a lot of discussion around you know what is more appropriate here m-u-t-o-d or mui I think it's really important to note how just how similar these two land use categories are in terms of the flexibility for a very wide range of uses they essentially allow for the the same types of outcomes including residential and office and Retail and service commercial and light industrial it's just that there's a subtle Nuance between the two where m-u-m-u-t-o-d kind of leans into that attached residential outcome and mui leans a bit more and emphasizes those light industrial and Manufacturing uses on the ground floor and as descriptive as some of our land use categories are within the comprehensive plan they do lack a level of detail and that's really helpful to clarify through particularly through

[69:00] these area planning processes so through the East Boulder subcommunity plan process that completed last year the concept of place types was was developed and created and that adds a layer of clarity and refinement to our land use designations So within Boulder Junction we're proposing three different place types Regional Tod neighborhood Tod and funky functional uh the regional Tod really pairs directly with that mutod land use designation and places the focus on residential uses and flexible opportunities for other Transit supportive and neighborhood commercial types of outcomes neighborhood Tod really is intended to reimagine some of our traditional auto-oriented commercial areas into more mixed use and walkable neighborhoods and then funky functional we we spent a lot of time really developing that and coordinating it with the mixed-use industrial land use to establish those expectations as a creative environment in the future that's a eclectic artsy

[70:02] and encourages adaptive reuse of existing structures it also I will note happens to allow for really the greatest flexibility and variety of uses particularly on the ground floor uh the place tribe descriptions in the phase two Amendment identify broad categories of the types of uses that we would expect to see and are supported both on ground floor and upper floors as I noted above mutod and Regional Tod really kind of pair together and enable things such that would be appropriate for a major Transit Hub things like residential personal services dining and entertainment office uses and lodging in particular and then mui and funky functional work together to really focus on those light industrial and service uses in in addition to retail dining office and residential use on the ground floor moving on to the Urban Design section

[71:00] the staff you know really throughout the process kind of heard comments particularly about the importance of Goose Creek as an amenity going forward encouraging additional outdoor small gathering spaces improving the viability of retail and smaller businesses really learning from what we've what we've started to see in the phase one area and making some tweaks to try to make that more viable in phase two and then you know a notion of improving and really recognizing the value of place making and keeping Boulder fun and funky and how can this how can this space in phase two really really have an identity uh the amendment emphasizes a number of pedestrian connections along Goose Creek calls out several locations for different outdoor spaces we've also learned from phase one and are proposing to concentrate future retail and services in locations that are anticipated to have high levels of activity rather than requiring retail throughout in the future and then we're already looking ahead to some future planning efforts and steps that will

[72:00] really help to refine some of the architectural outcomes in the public space design so this diagram shows those six identified General locations and descriptions for different types of outdoor spaces and how the Goose Creek Greenway really serves as a central connector for both phase two and phase one and really across this entire area those activity nodes that I mentioned are are highlighted here with with the Red Dot areas really you know we anticipate very high levels of activity around the future rail station around that Goose Creek Greenway and enhancements and I'll touch on a pedestrian bridge opportunity there as part of the transportation connections plan and then further in the South as well and then there's a number of smaller identified locations for possible opportunities for Gathering spaces and then there's a series in a kind of a system of pedestrian corridors and paseos that are really intended to complement uh the transportation

[73:00] connections plan and and help to build out the internal pedestrian Network these are envisioned to be much more sort of enhanced and multifunctional urban spaces and not not simply sidewalks or connections and finally the transportation connection section has been updated to address the feedback we heard to place more emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle connections rather than Vehicles using the the transportation connections themselves to help break down larger blocks into a more fine-grained urban character and to be honestly a bit more realistic about what some of our proposed connections are to ensure that they can be implemented in the future up in the north area you can see there's a number of local roads that have been proposed to really create a more functional grid system up there and kind of move away from the uh the more Suburban cul-de-sac model that exists today there's a number of multi-use paths that are new to the transportation connections plan particularly connecting

[74:01] over to that future rail station on the Northern side and then one of the more significant changes was to modify the proposed connection between Wilderness place and Frontier Avenue across Goose Creek that was originally proposed to be a vehicular connection which as you can imagine um if any of you have been over there to look at Goose Creek anytime recently it's an enormous span and would have resulted in a very very expensive very difficult engineering and a very very impactful visually bridge if that was actually to be constructed as a vehicular connection so we've changed that to be a pedestrian connection and really I think offers an opportunity for a signature sculptural pedestrian element there that that could be integrated into a kind of reimagined and re-envisioned Goose Creek Greenway uh We've also removed a number of underpasses that were in the original Transit Village area plan that was upon

[75:00] the guidance of staff from transportation and mobility and also the representative uh from the Transportation Advisory board that was on our multi-board working group is really just there's kind of an evolution I think of thought in terms of bringing The Pedestrian and bicycle network uh more visibly and integrated with the vehicular Network as opposed to splitting those apart in addition to the fact that underpasses tend to be terribly expensive and and also can be very complex finally I'll note there was we I did identify a new area for some improved intersection enhancements really right at the on and off ramps to Foothills Parkway and pearl Parkway there on kind of the south and east side of phase two obviously with the off ramp and with the on-ramp situation you have high speed vehicles and that's really up primary North South multi-use path connection and so we wanted to make sure we flagged that for

[76:00] some additional intersection improvements uh finally in the packet you have uh the draft of the revised summary of the transit Village area plan that would go into chapter five of the comprehensive plan uh really this is just to make sure that we update that description so that it reflects the phase two amendments and the changes that are before you uh finally one of our key questions to you this evening was the consistency with our Ser framework and the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan um you know really fundamentally our area plans need to be consistent with with these documents and really we we took this very seriously as we went into the process at the beginning and several of the Ser objectives are are highlighted there on the right hand side particularly those that are in the livable goal that deal with housing types and affordability and the prevalence of 15-minute neighborhoods the changes that are that are being proposed here you know really lean into some of those goals and support both the

[77:00] transportation and transit system and also the Vitality of our local economy and the diversity of businesses that that could be envisioned using both the mui and mutod land use categories and then the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan similarly the Amendments that are proposed are consistent with the comprehensive plan policies the the phase two updates will lead to an incorporation of more housing opportunities into what has traditionally been an employment center they will concentrate higher intensity uses at this very strategic Transit focused location and also continue to support those local local businesses especially light industrial and services and then finally elevating Goose Creek as an amenity and a design feature for the neighborhood and for the community as opposed to Simply it's flood control and transportation purpose so a couple notes just on next steps before we review the planning board meeting and public hearing that was last

[78:01] month we recognize this is really just the first step and the Amendments will set in motion a number of additional things going forward we expect to return to city council before the end of the year with the official comprehensive plan land use map updates and and build off the work that's actually already begun to update the form-based code and other regulatory elements that's part of East Boulder sub-community plan implementation and then there's a number of really critical steps to work with our internal departments to plan out the infrastructure improvements and also evaluate how the existing General Improvement districts are operating in this location and how they can continue to support our Mobility arts and culture and businesses in the area um I want to just note quickly about those future steps planning board made two different recommendations they actually passed uh past motions to staff to recommend further articulation of

[79:01] those um kind of interstitial spaces the activity nodes outdoor spaces Etc and then also to explore uh the ability to increase the percentage of on-site affordable housing and also explore opportunities for renewable energy infrastructure within this District so those are recommendations that we will take forward into those future steps as we start to scope those projects and and move into that so finally I'm going to just provide some information on the planning board public hearing that was on August 22nd so they did vote to approve the proposed Transit Village area plan amendments with one revision to which was to eliminate office as an allowed use above the ground floor in the neighborhood Tod Place type they also passed a motion and which staff very much appreciate in the effort to try to balance and reduce the number of back and forth um that maybe have to happen because

[80:01] both planning board and Council have to adopt the same language they also passed a motion that if city council does not agree and um does not accept that that revision then they will accept the transit Village area plan amendments as written without that revision also they approved the chapter five amendments so that moves forward to you and just a little bit more description on this revision uh most of that planning board discussion really kind of revolved around just the the feeling that office uses or a 100 office building within this neighborhood Tod was in congruent with kind of the idea of a neighborhood From staff's perspective we recognize that the the place type really enables an evolution of these traditionally office and industrial areas over time as was mentioned in the market analysis discussion office use is still a desired outcome and maybe an important outcome to maintain here to really provide for

[81:01] that mix of uses both vertically within buildings but also horizontally across this entire phase two area so our preference is to not accept that revision and to maintain the flexibility for both housing and employment uses going forward within that place type so the two recommended motions uh that staff is proposing uh to you this evening is to a motion to approve the amendments to the transit Village area plan as outlined in attachment a and just a note that does not include the planning board revision and then finally a motion to approve the amendments to chapter five of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan revising the summary of tvap as outlined in attachment B and we're happy to take questions thanks so much for that Christopher did we end up having a planning board representative join us for the meeting tonight I believe that Kurt nordback was invited he may be online he may be virtual yes great um well I wonder I'd appreciate maybe we

[82:01] can Elevate promote Kurt um credit I just thanks for being here tonight I just uh would say if you if you had a couple of words to explain the plain words um deliberations that would be welcome Kurt you should be able to unmute and use your camera now Kurt we can see you and it looks like you're unmuted okay great sorry I missed the question uh as I was rejoining as a panelists was there a question for me yeah I was just gonna invite you to to say a couple words about planning words deliberations um since we've we've got you here as a representative okay thank you yeah uh Kurt Norbeck representative from planning board our chair and our vice chair were both unavailable tonight so you're stuck with me so I think Christopher did a good job

[83:02] of capturing our discussion the uh one thing that I would add is that um we saw estimates of the build out potential for this area that still indicated a significantly larger number of of jobs than dwelling units and so it was partly based on that that we felt that it was important to preserve as much opportunity for housing as possible in the neighborhood DOD area so that was another justification for our recommended change but as he noted we did want to preserve the the ability to for us to agree with Council as expeditiously as possible which is why we passed both motions we did have a fair amount of discussion about the whether the the Central Area should be Nui or mutod I think some people felt that the greater flexibility of mutod was appropriate others felt that it was

[84:02] more important to preserve the existing industrial to the extent possible youth through mui and in the end we did not pass in an amendment to the staff proposed change there that's very helpful thanks any any questions for Kurt while we got him seeing none really appreciate you joining us tonight we've got another item for you a little later so um don't go too far away sounds good all right so let's ask uh questions of staff and then we can go to our public hearing who who if anyone has questions well I will I'll get to gushing in comments um so that you just know that that's coming um but my question really centers around I noticed in the presentation that the boulder slew was not mentioned and so that has historically been kind of a pinch point with regards to some of the aspirational goals for housing on that

[85:01] southern property and so I just want to ask is like having it not mentioned I know Joe and BNSF I know our team's been working on that along with the the owners there but I want to ask is not having it in there showing staff confidence that that that will be reconciled with regards to redesign reconstruction and then improving the conveyance of water and thus removing some of that section out of the 100 Year floodplain to accommodate the housing that we're looking to achieve so I just wanted to clarify that since it has traditionally been a pinch point on that site yes you're you're right that that definitely is um is a pinch point and uh I would say the original Transit Village area plan from 2007 actually could have made that even more challenging there were two underpass connections located at that same exact location where the slough um basically comes across the the rail line so first of all the elimination of those two connections we think um makes the makes the future of of reconciling that situation much uh much more straightforward than also having to try to squeeze in you know a

[86:01] 12-foot multi-use path through there so we think that that's um that's going to assist with making that more possible as you mentioned we are our utility staff is already in conversations with the railroad and the property owner at that particular location to understand what the future of that can be and how um you know how that can be improved to remove much of that southern area that's south of pearl Parkway out of the flood plain so we do feel confident that that um will happen in the future so so we didn't feel it was necessary to make a specific recommendation associated with that Tara then Lauren KJ in regards to that meeting we had the that is your initials right okay you like that making sure I do like it I always wanted initial names but it wasn't meant to be when Matt and I came to that meeting um that was in the central wasn't it yes

[87:01] okay at that time this was at the Motorcycle company we were discussing if we were going to have m-u-t-o-d or mui so I assume since then you've thought that we should have mui is that the conclusion actually we at that moment uh during that meeting which if I remember correctly was the day before the planning board hearing on August 21st um we had already the staff had already landed on the recommendation of using mui um there certainly were some property owners and business owners in the area that would have preferred mutod we continued to have conversations with them and I think that discussion we had um at the house of motorad with a lot of um the other property owners as well from the auto body shop and and others there I think that the takeaway that that staff came away from that discussion was is that there there was not an overwhelming um you know shift or desire to shift to that mutod and there really was a

[88:00] balance of opinions as to what was going to be important and you know we heard a number of those property and business owners uh reflecting on the importance for them and the the desire for them to be able to pass these businesses and these properties on into their kids and their other generations and for them to have the opportunity to establish those types of businesses um from a market perspective that might prove to be difficult and so that's something we're going to want to look at in terms of what incentives we might be able to provide or other support systems we can we can offer there but from a land use perspective we wanted to make sure that that was still feasible and possible going forward that's great news I really agreed with that by the way okay second question and third question I think is your name Rachel two questions for you how will residential which you were very excited about not drive up rents for light industrial and number two what are your anti-displacement

[89:01] strategies I mean in like just a minute or less you don't have to give me a long thing because I'm worried about the light industrial yeah so great questions I would say I'm not necessarily personally excited about residential but that's where the market excitement is right now um and so the the mark the market driving those rents are are a little bit different and at the end of the day um if someone builds something and charges more than anyone there can pay it's gonna sit vacant um and so what we're likely to see in terms of what we call light industrial space is a difference in user and so it might not be what we see right now but that could be more of you know like a brewery a Tap House a bakery with manufacturing space in the back things like that um that are not like an office or retail space they might have you know retail

[90:00] facing the street but there's more um of or you know like a maker space something like that and so one consideration and we had this a little bit in the market report with retail is we look at the ability to create smaller spaces um even when runs per square foot might be higher it just enables additional affordability for users because you might be able to afford it for you know 8 000 square feet but not 16 000 square feet um and so that gets to the flexibility consideration um in terms of what can go into these buildings what's allowed and there's the secondary consideration of what's actually feasible um I don't know if that really answers the question but they're they're related but not tied together um and one of the benefits of the residential is that um it's not necessarily a benefit but as we know housing is very expensive here um and that can help Drive the feasibility of the development so that lower rents can be feasible on the first floor depending on the space

[91:02] but let's say we want to keep let's say those current businesses or businesses like that so one of the interesting things that one the automotive person said was why would somebody want to live over an automotive shop will that drive me out so my concern is exactly that yeah so from a market and development perspective typically speaking they won't um and so that's one of the challenges that we sort of brought up and you know the community is brought up as well in the market analysis is that when Redevelopment happens we're not likely to see those same businesses stay absent anything else because building a single story Auto Body Shop given the cost of construction and the cost of land unless someone already owns the land right so that's different if someone owns their land and their business there's a lot more flexibility but if there's external ownership it does not it's not it's not even not profitable you lose money doing it and so that that's a huge Challenge and I guess your second question about what some of these strategies might be

[92:00] um that wasn't a core part of this analysis so identifying that moving forward it will say in a general sense it's becoming more and more Central to conversations around a lot of these older commercial areas you know within Colorado but also nationally is we focused a lot on anti-displacement for residential and the conversation is now broadening to commercial because we're recognizing that there are a lot of displacement forces being felt for those as well and so that that's why it was identified as a Next Step that it really does need to be considered there's different ways to do it there's ways to think about it you know if we're thinking about districts from a different District perspective how that could be a benefit provided by District but again to the earlier point it it's tied to the type of Redevelopment that happens and so if there isn't space for those businesses then no amount of financial support will help and so um we've tried to elevate it as a key concern of the area um but that you know gets into the implementation steps

[93:00] hopefully the answer is enough yeah and I I'll just I'll try to dovetail bit Rachel um I agree that it you know we recognize it absolutely as a concern right we wanted to at least initiate and establish the land use categories that would enable those types of things to go forward that then gives us an opportunity to explore what those anti-displacement opportunities can be in the future Rachel mentioned you know we could re-envision the way that the Improvement districts are operating out there in the future it's possible that there could be you know ways for those Improvement districts to help fund or help support those other you know those types of industrial uses that that we may want in that location so I think there's a there's a financial component to it Rachel also mentioned the physical space right so making sure that um regulatory codes and and if this area comes under the form form-based code we

[94:00] have kind of rules in there about designing ground floor spaces that are flexible in terms of expanding to 25 000 square feet for a restaurant but could be divvied up into five different five thousand square foot smaller locations for retail or other types of uses so I think there's and and obviously Boulder is not alone in this you know then I I came to the city from city of Denver and we were having these same kinds of conversations down there as well and and really kind of wrestling with what are the opportunities that the city has in order to support these businesses um you know Community Vitality is standing up this affordable commercial program and so are there opportunities there that that ultimately expands to support these kinds of uses I think the you know the opportunities are there it's just going to take us some time and more thought to figure out how we actually execute on that okay we're going to start calling you TW from now on or tdubs

[95:01] thank you Tara for those questions I had similar ones um but now I get to ask more detailed follow-up that's because a year and a half ago you asked these very same questions and I've been thinking about them since um Christopher do you think we will are we planning on coming up with a better a robust business stabilization and displacement strategy before this is fully implemented I think yes I mean I think that the the Redevelopment timeline here is quite honestly probably in the 20 to 25 year range as opposed to the 10 to 15 year range that we witnessed in Phase One um there's a lot of existing businesses that are out there that are very viable whether they be um you know tenants of of uh commercially owned real estate or people that own their land and own their own their buildings so I don't I don't see

[96:02] the same kind of Redevelopment pressures occurring right away in this particular location just because there are um you know these existing and established businesses that are operating very well um we you know we recognize we have um uh you know our our work plan kind of cut out for us next year and and thinking about the implementation strategies here I think it's going to take time we've got a comprehensive plan coming update uh or update coming in 2025 so that's going to divert some staff resources but I do really think that we can get um the really the kind of fundamental Regulatory and other aspects completed next year and begin those conversations about the districts and about the programming and about all those other things that could help um you know to to work into this into this area and I think those are city-wide conversations as well so you know we can partner with Chris and Community Vitality to

[97:00] understand how that Community or the affordable commercial program is going to be piloted for a five-year time frame we can understand and learn from that how is that working we can have conversations about the Improvement districts which are focused on parking and TDM strategies Transportation demand management strategies but maybe there's something broader about supporting public gathering spaces supporting businesses supporting uh you know small retailers that kind of thing so those are all questions that we're excited to explore but it will take a little bit of time but I I think that there's um a relatively mild pressure you know in terms of this is not going to flip overnight thank you I appreciate that detailed answer um in terms of retail space and sizes to me it doesn't seem like we Cur do we currently have restrictions that make retail spaces larger

[98:01] I I know that we talk about the affordability being in line with sort of having smaller spaces and in my mind I can't think of off the top of my head anything that requires them to be larger and yet we still see I think a preference in the market from developers to build and Lease larger spaces and so um are we putting timer thought into how we sort of change that dynamic yeah I would say yes um I think you're you're correct that I there's not uh there's not any regulations um that I'm aware of that would require those larger spaces as we tend to see right now I think uh quite honestly I think it's a it's an outcome of the cost of construction and the ease of leasing those spaces um you know having to manage five tenants versus one tenant obviously for the building owner it's it's going to be

[99:00] easier to manage that one tenant what we know from experience is that those you know those larger commercial spaces are typically only affordable to National retailers and other kind of larger chains so they're you know there certainly is um there's a market Dynamic to that but I think there's also a design aspect as well that we can really look to to make sure that um you know the HVAC systems and and entries and other kinds of storefront you know windows and doors and other things like that are designed in such a way that those those ground floor space can modulate between smaller and larger is that currently part of a staff work plan so yes so actually just within the last month or so we brought on a consultant um to as part of the East Boulder sub-community plan implementation so Kathleen King and our in our team is is leading that and we brought on a

[100:00] consultant to essentially do an audit and an evaluation of the form-based code as it exists today you know it's only been used a couple of times in Boulder Junction but there's still things we can learn from it and so that consultant was in town um last week and they had a number of meetings with focus groups but Property Owners but then also we have a technical advisory committee so that's made up of local Architects and design professionals to really help us learn about how the form-based code is currently working and and where those gaps are I think and in terms of you know we have some built outcomes in in phase one that we can look to and see what's happening what's not and identify those opportunities for for changes so we're hoping that comes before Council by about the middle of next year or so for those revisions thank you um will that include any changes in the design and construction standards because I know that was one thing I heard a lot from phase one was sort of

[101:00] about um the additional streets and how that impacted development there are we looking into that as this phase two moves forward I would say yes as well so we you know we haven't taken the step to evaluate whether form-based code would be expanded to this phase two side or not or portions of it so that'll be maybe a future step of ours but um as part of that process is the is the um development of the regulating plan as you probably are aware so that essentially is a more detailed site plan of the area that identifies what streets go where where the paseos are where view corridors might be that kind of thing as part of that process that's where we would be identifying kind of the expectations for those different street types and the materiality the you know the design and construction standards themselves as really kind of the underlying um you know engineering code for the

[102:01] city much of that is based on is based on you know safety and and um you know traffic movement and other kinds of things like that and so I think you know really significant changes to the DCS standards is is not necessarily on the work plan but but certainly as we um you know look at what we would expect to see in this area we're going to be mindful of the types of um uh you know pressures we're putting on the development community in terms of the materiality we expect and and those other design aspects as well thank you I would just I think it's not just related to this project but we'll come back to it in a in our future topic as well um as we were talking about our layers of different kinds of um planning overlays um I really appreciated the inclusion of

[103:00] the place types I love that sort of lens um I kind of wanted to ask a snarky question about as we add these layers are we ever considering simplifying or removing any older layers how because I we're getting a pretty tall cake at this point in terms of the types of planning layers we have to adjust as we make updates in any given area yeah that's that's a fair that is a fair comment um as I mentioned we have a comprehensive Plan update coming in 2025 so there will be an opportunity to evaluate our land use categories and and really understand you know the definition the definition of each of those and and it's possible we could uh potentially add some better Clarity within the comp plan itself to make the place types um less necessary perhaps but I actually think that the what I like about the use of place types is that

[104:01] the comprehensive plan establishes this overarching city-wide vision for what we anticipate in terms of land use the place types we get to have a much more detailed conversation with the community about a specific area and there's nuances to that we we actually started out with trying to just take the place types from the East Boulder sub-community plan and apply them here that didn't work out very well we ended up modifying I think all of them in one way or another so we you know we attempted to try to create some consistency but there were just some unique elements that are here in Boulder Junction that are not the same as East Boulder and so we we did spend some additional time too refine those and create these new place types I think the intention is that really the place types are intended to just provide some additional Clarity to our underlying land use as opposed to creating another layer of Regulation or um you know that type of thing so it's really just intended to take that 30 000

[105:00] foot level bring it down to kind of you're on the Mountaintop level and then the zoning and regulations is when you really get down to the to the ground level thank you and just to be clear I like the place types I think I would maybe go after area plans and land use before I would go after Place types but just because I think that they almost create uh they all they have the possibility to capture some of the great things about both of those two other kinds of plan thank you so Rachel and I got one just a quick call away from um I think Lauren and Tara on the displacement it seems to me that this is not our first rodeo on displacement and I remember us looking at that on the hill hotel as an example and offering relocation money to businesses so just wondering is there is there sort of a Playbook or cut and paste or cribbing that we can do from other uh efforts to

[106:01] to help people who are being possibly displaced yeah we we will certainly not reinvent the wheel borrowing that from my boss over there um that that is a that is a common refrain within um within our department so Our intention is is to think big and think broadly but also not reinvent the wheel and we can learn a tremendous amount from existing programs that are already in place or things we've already kind of talked about or things we've tried that didn't work so we can learn from those um but absolutely we'll be we'll be starting with them really kind of an inventory uh an understanding of what we've attempted to date and what things are currently working and maybe not um and and start from start from there and and really look for opportunities to perhaps expand existing programs as opposed to creating a number of new ones thanks for that and do we go back like using Hill Hotel uh displacements as an example do we go back a year or two or three after and

[107:00] ask like what could we have done better or how are y'all doing I hope we do yes and I would imagine that we do but if we don't we will take that on and that would be a good thing I know we're not on comments now but we're under questions I would just say that seems like that would be a good practice and something we could learn from before we do this thanks calling myself for uh one question which was I heard from a Community member about a question of why indoor Recreation isn't included in the mixed use Transit oriented development or specifically in the in that place type and just want to get your thoughts on that um KJ yeah and uh I will admit um Laura and I even though you may you may enjoy the place types they also do introduce a little bit of additional Nuance in and um can cause some confusion so the the descriptions and and sort of the the use categories that are in those Place type descriptions are not not intended to relate specifically back to our zoning code and and the

[108:02] actual you know large kind of business stories that we that we have in our regulations they're they're intended to just be a little bit more descriptive and qualitative and kind of performance expectations um indoor Recreation uh as a zoning category is actually more focused on things if I remember correctly things like theaters and bowling alleys and things like that the indoor Recreation that you might be thinking about in terms of Boulder indoor soccer or the pickleball courts things like that those actually tend to fall into are um personal service category I believe because they're um they're considered an indoor Athletic Facility not an indoor recreation use so it is a nuance and I admittedly there's probably some cleanup that we can do you know over time to make sure that there's better alignment along those things but so to your point the kind of I think the the general

[109:01] understanding of indoor Recreation is probably in that indoor Athletic Facility which would technically qualify and fall under that personal service category which is allowed within mutod okay got it so in other words it's not 100 prescriptive like if there's not a little icon for it that doesn't mean it's disallowed that is correct and all and although I think that the there's some clear flexibility through future site review processes and other things to you know if there's a case to be made about a use that is consistent with the intent even though it may not have that little icon or be you know specifically listed I think we can we can get there okay that's very helpful thanks uh not seeing any other questions so we can go to the the public hearing we have uh one person signed up to speak on this which is Lynn Siegel uh Lynn are you in the room maybe you're virtual because you're signed up as is Lynn Siegel online

[110:00] not seeing Lynn online either not zoom in online okay um all right uh no no Lynn present so um that actually closes our public hearing I think so here we go uh back to council for discussion does anybody want to get us started on comments Rachel um this is very exciting step forward I'm super supportive and I just want to disclose that I had a flu shot in my left arm and a covid in my right arm today and I'm going to go over there periodically and start windmilling because my parents are killing and I just didn't want people to think I'm weird so I'm gonna do that right now this is her reaction to the plans man and it makes anything Ice Age is like totally anticlimactic at this point um so thanks for the upstage there Rachel

[111:00] um I'll start off with what I deferred on my previous question which is um this is awesome um I think just credit to to staff for thorough engagement and I think that's probably the Hallmark of this is just how much engagement has been done at all levels to really hear what's been going on and I'm just really happy to see this because changes like this can can cause a lot of either consternation concern fear um and I have to say that staff has belayed a lot of that because of the amount of Engagement the quality of the engagement um and and I'll call out individually KJ the personal attention to detail you've done I've heard from numerous uh business owners and property owners in that area who have called you out specifically to say like KJ was awesome throughout this so I just want to give you specific Kudos um and I know that's also translates to having a brad as your boss of course so that that works well too so you get translated Kudos there Brad um but but no less no just exceptional work um and for staff as a whole right this

[112:01] is not but but I've heard some special great things for you so nice work um I love where this is generally headed the mut is awesome I think it's cool we have funky flexible um and I think that you know we're embarking on creating a system where we are um Meeting those Dynamic changes in our community and we're trying to create ways to not be so prescriptive that we can't rise to those Dynamic and changing conditions so I I know planning can be resistant to that but I love what you guys have done in order to to maintain that flexibility not knowing what the future holds and and still allowing some creative flexibility so just all around great job and and uh thank you guys for your great work maybe I'll call in myself and just Echo the the thanks and the the praise it really is remarkably well done this this was an item that I brought to the retreat as a kind of a last minute Edition and was really glad that Council supported it and really it's really extraordinary the way that you all are

[113:01] getting all five of these things done in this two-year time period so I mean we'll do 10 next year right so we're just coming coming in with just a you know a couple months left but it's really extraordinary work but not just for the the quantity but of course for the quality it's really high quality this is an extremely well done plan and it positions this area well for the 21st century because the the zoning out there right now is more of a 20th century oriented to the needs of our community from 20 or 30 years ago I think this positions us extremely well for the next 20 or 30 years so I'm very excited to be supporting it tonight and we yeah and Lauren and we can always get a motion at some point too yeah I'd like to Echo the comments before me um I do really appreciate this plan I think it's excellent [Music] um do one of the things that I like about this area and that I think that it's important that we keep is the flexibility and so I will be

[114:03] supporting it and I would also like to support staff's recommendation while I understand the concerns that planning board has and the interest in seeing more housing here I think that the um market dynamics currently are most likely going to push for more housing but over time I really do think it's important to maintain that flexibility so I I appreciate um the direction staff was encouraging on that um I would like to flag sort of the rent stabilization the design and construction standards and the retail space you know encouraging smaller retail spaces is really important items that we continue moving forward with to ensure that this project is really successful as it develops thank you no I was going to make a motion but it's

[115:01] not on the screen and I'd like to read it oh thank you my first motion you know I'm not prepared or is it second page let me read it from years the in fact somebody I'll just second [Music] or is it at two years later okay I moved to approve Amendment to the transit Village area plan as outlined in attachment a and um I make a motion we need two separate motions yeah all right so I'll stop there you got a motion second Motion in a second um should we do a roll call in the assembly yes I would appreciate that okay let's do a roll call then all right we'll start the roll call vote tonight on public hearing item 5A motion

[116:03] number one with council member weiner yes Yates yes councilmember Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes folkerts yes friend yes Joseph yes and council member spear yes the motion is here by approved with a vote of eight to zero keep going yeah I moved to approve amendments to chapter five of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan revising the summary of the transit Village area plan is outlined in attachment B second all right got a motion in a second if we could add a roll call please absolutely we'll start the roll call vote on public hearing item 5A motion number two with council member Yates yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes

[117:01] folkerts yes friend yes Joseph yes council members fear yes and council member weiner yes the motion is hereby approved with a vote of 820. all right well thanks so much for all your incredible work congratulations and looking forward to next steps on the project and with that if we can go to our second public hearing please absolutely next on our agenda we have item 5B and that is the second reading and consideration of a motion to amend ordinance 85.99 amending Title IX land use code BRC 1981 related to the site review process and intensity form in bulk use parking and subdivision standards concerning affordable and modest size housing and setting fourth related details thank you so much and as we let Carl

[118:00] sort of get himself settled and ready to go I'll just note that super excited to be landing some of these Council priorities and as you uh were thinking and hopefully hearing all the other things that uh staff is looking for for next year think about that as we're thinking as we go into our new Retreat uh as they have some continuing efforts to simplify and move forward some exciting things so I'm sure we'll be talking about that next time we talk about work plan with that Carl ready thank you bye enough time good evening Council I'm Carl geiler senior policy advisor with planning and development services before the council tonight is ordinance 85-99 which is related to the project Zoning for affordable housing so last time we talked about this was uh June 15th and the project actually commenced at The Retreat of Council on 20 2022 at The

[119:00] Retreat that problem statement is up on the screen as well as the purpose statement it's in response to the housing crisis or the housing shortage that we're experiencing in Boulder as well as across the country and a lot of communities have been looking at their zoning codes in recent years understanding that there are some restrictions in zoning codes that restrict the housing Supply so the purpose statement really gets at evaluating the land use code with the intent of removing zoning barriers to more affordable units and smaller modest size units so that was what was set up at the beginning of the retreat and I've listed the goals and objectives that we've talked to council about before about on the screen and we've been spending a lot of time working on this ordinance so the purpose of tonight and you can see the title of the ordinance is to hold the public hearing on the ordinance tonight uh deliberate on the ordinance and then make a decision on the ordinance and given the changes that

[120:00] we've proposed in the second reading memo it would require at a minimum a third reading which can be on consent if the changes are more substantial we'd be looking at potentially a fourth reading so I just wanted to put that out there so the questions we've posed for council tonight is does the city council find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and does the city council recommend any modifications to the ordinance so just reminding Council like what do we mean when we talk about affordable housing we've kind of looked at it in a number of different categories obviously there's permanently affordable housing which is deed restricted affordability in units and perpetuity that we Implement through our inclusionary housing program in the Department of Housing and Human Services we also consider attainable housing so that's really trying to get more housing types that are affordable to households within 28 to 30 percent of their income and

[121:01] also looking at market rate modest sized housing so getting at getting more market rate units that are comparatively more affordable by their smaller size than we've been getting in recent years in the city of Boulder so one of the things that we are talking about in working with inclusionary housing in unison is allowing more housing by relaxing some density restrictions to get more modest sized housing and more modestly priced housing because it's it's more small and by allowing more units within projects by loosening up the zoning regulations you also would get more deed restricted inclusionary housing units with projects since there's still a percentage that's required with those projects here are some stats on housing in the city of Boulder we've included this in Prior memos I think what we're really trying to note here is that like many communities in the United States what we see often is single family detached or

[122:01] apartments or condos in you know buildings that are three and four stories um that we've been seeing in the city we don't have as much middle housing you can see and middle housing means duplexes triplexes Town Homes you can see it's only nine percent of our housing stock so that's another part of this project is really trying to get more middle housing in the community this is a graphic that you've probably seen before but you can see it on we're kind of bookended with what we normally get in the city of Boulder we're trying to get more of that in the middle which is again the duplexes fourplexes townhouses things that are that are maybe more scaled closer to a single family house but allow more housing within those those types of of units if you follow planning across the country this is something that's that's very uh that's basically trending across the country re-looking at our our zoning restrictions that have been uh created over the years and loosening that up to

[123:00] get more housing because the way we build cities in the United States isn't always conducive to supplying housing for for everyone's needs so this is something that we're looking at in a number of different uh cities throughout the country that are looking at reducing lot sizes trying to get more middle on income housing looking at parking requirements to try to loosen things up to get more housing this is something that um cities are electing to do one example is Minneapolis I know there's a lot of interest in look looking at areas that don't typically allow a lot of different housing types so Minneapolis has embarked on this before the city of Boulder and did go through a process of updating their comprehensive plan to be more open to different housing types throughout the city and then implementing that through zoning and I think the council is aware of of the Senate bill that we were looking at earlier this year we followed it with great interest and we reported to Council on that obviously it didn't pass but it showed that it's something that's

[124:00] even being recognized at the state level which we don't often see particularly here in Colorado and and it was a bill that was trying to get more middle housing in cities adus relaxing occupancy regulations it didn't pass but it's something that could come back in different iterations so we're going to be watching out for that when we talked to Council in June we did Supply a number of different National studies and commentaries and articles that showed a broad range of opinions on the issue of housing some ranging from you know adding more housing is not going to address the housing crisis and others saying that it it's integral to loosen up zoning to get more housing when we looked at those studies most of them did suggest that zoning restrictions do great greatly limit housing availability and do among other factors drive up housing costs because it does greatly constrain the supply so a lot of those studies talk about loosening up those

[125:00] regulations to get more affordability obviously Boulder like other communities that are unique and desirable particularly you know in like California Bay Area experience an even higher threshold of Challenge on this issue because so there's such a high desirability to live here and with the limited land it does drive up the prices so we do have to look at this through a multi-pronged approach so that's why we're working with housing on updating the inclusionary housing standards also looking at other ordinances that we've passed recently like adus and occupancy to address this issue so no one option can solve the problem in this particular ordinance is just one component of addressing that so when we talked to council at a study session in March we really kind of framed it in these three categories looking at density adjustments and we had really focused at that time at just some zoning districts that are in our areas that are anticipated for growth more of the commercial areas and

[126:00] industrial areas we talked about low density zones but didn't at that time recommend any changes for those areas and then we also talked about parking modifications that could be done to to loosen up parking and and make it easier for housing so all these things were touched on one thing about loosening up the zoning code if you know our zoning code there's a number of zones that have where the density or dwelling units per acre is really determined by a calculation of lot area per dwelling unit or open space per dwelling unit and those particular restrictions are the ones that constrain the number of housing units the most and oftentimes in many zones will actually basically Drive larger units so we talked about this before but just thinking about like amount of floor area that's allowed on a site and getting that floor area and then looking at the lot area and dividing it to determine

[127:00] how many housing units you can get oftentimes that gave us units that average around 3 500 square feet and and one of the examples that we've talked about is the diagonal plasma project when you looked at the prior the zoning there that's what basically it would drive and a special ordinance was approved there to loosen that restriction and basically just go with an open space limitation on the site so they were able to get more housing units and in turn because of those additional housing units you could get more inclusionary housing units it was and ended up basically based on our estimations more than double the number of ieh units that would be permitted in that by making that change so this was an example of how we could apply what we've learned from the diagonal Plaza site to other zoning districts to get more housing units and when you do that you end up getting more of an average of like around 1500 square feet which is more in that modest sized range so the direction that we got from

[128:00] Council at that study session was to expand the scope of the project to include more high density residential zones which we've done look at how we can get more missing middle housing in the community and also take more time to look at where we could possibly get more duplexes and triplexes in low density areas in a way that's still consistent with the Boulder Valley Commerce Comforts of plan land use designation density caps that we had and we talked about that last time that you know basically allowing more density in those areas more than there is today would require a more expanded process but there are some areas where there's opportunities to to get more housing so what we've looked at is based on housing lot sizes in these zones there are a number of lots that could be eligible today to subdivide to add some additional single-family units why they're not subdivided uh I think is based on you know a property owner's preference or it actually might be some

[129:02] constraints like topography or a ditch or a creek that run through the property that don't allow them to subdivide so what we've looked at is if if they have the land area to enable additional units these changes in in the ordinance would allow duplexes and triplexes if they have the land area and it might allow for conversion so that's something that we've been looking at and Council asks that we go out to the community to talk more about this so we've gotten a diverse range of opinions we've we've included I think it's an attachment c um the the summary of of the broad engagement that we've done what we've heard from some single family area is that there are concerns that those neighborhoods would be disproportionately impacted by these changes there's concerns about adding duplexes and triplexes in single-family zones there's concerns that families will be driven out or that they'll be more parking impacts but we're not hearing kind of the same intensity that

[130:00] we were hearing years ago with the large homes and lots project it seems like maybe with the understanding that the density is generally similar to what we have today that maybe there's a broader acceptance of that we heard from plan Boulder again concerns about neighborhoods that adding units without actual guaranteed affordability is concerned that there should be deed restriction in return for allowing the units we also heard some interesting sentiments from the community connectors and residents um they did acknowledge that zoning regulations are limiting and targeted to specific people there was a concern that younger Generations can experience or attain the American dream there was support for more housing types but there was also concern about concentrating housing too much um in in the concern that it could create future ghettos and that concentrating people isn't always what people want and that people kind of want

[131:00] you know more land or more space so there was a little bit of concern about how crowding people could affect mental health so that was something that came out of those those comments uh when we've talked to the development community and housing proponents that are largely supportive of the changes obviously through correspondence that you've been receiving there's you know requests for tweaks um in the ordinance uh in certain zones we talked about the be heard Boulder questionnaire uh which again what we say it you know every hearing is that it's not a statistically valid survey we don't look at it as such it's not supposed to be uh sacrosanct uh cut into what people feel in the community but it is a very um a useful tool to get a gauge of where people are on certain issues we see consistencies in certain um uh the way people put their their answers and we've received a significant

[132:00] number of comments on this over 2 000 responses on this particular issue looking at the results of the be heard Boulder questionnaire I was nearly 60 percent were supportive of allowing additional housing in commercial areas in neighborhood centers about 55 supported allowing duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods and then when you get to like reducing parking uh there was it was a little bit more mixed on that more 50 50 on that issue again attachment C contains the more detailed responses so we reported this and a lot of the feedback we've gotten from housing Advisory Board and planning board to City Council on June 15th to get direction at that meeting Council directed staff to move forward with developing an ordinance that would change density parking and subdivision standards to make it easier for Middle housing and to get more modest sized housing so we did expand the scope to

[133:02] include high density residential zones we did include changes to the lower density zones within the limits prescribed in the Boulder Valley Conference of plan and we've also taken a look at site review thresholds as as well as part of this so I'm going to talk about what we again what we've heard from housing Advisory Board and planning board before I go into the components of the ordinance I know there's a lot of detail when we get to the ordinance so feel free to jump in with questions if when we get to that point when we talked to housing Advisory Board in March they were largely supportive of all the options um a couple members expressed disappointment that we couldn't increase density or get more housing types within the single family area without a more involved process they did show that their support for updating the comp plan in the future to allow those changes some felt that there should be more aggressive parking reduction changes

[134:01] when we brought the ordinance to housing Advisory board on August 23rd they recommended approval of it five to zero at that time they commended the expanded scope of of the ordinance changes they did commend the making the process easier for additional housing types there was one member that expressed some skepticism about whether we would get more affordability if it's not deed restricted but still supported the the ordinance we talked to planning board on April 18th they were largely supportive of the changes uh three were were supportive of duplexes and triplexes and low density areas of the city but there were two board members that were more cautious of those changes and again talked about the the Deep restriction issues in those areas and the concern about impacts to lower density areas when we brought the ordinance to the planning board on August 29th they recommended approval of the ordinance

[135:01] 5-0 they did include three particular amendments which I'll talk about a little bit later because we have Incorporated those into the ordinance so now I'm going to jump into the content of the ordinance so just as far as a review process intensity form and bulk standards we're proposing that projects that build 100 of their units as middle housing which is duplexes triplexes or fourplexes or townhouses could be exempt from the site review process if they meet all the other zoning restrictions if they ask for any modifications that would put them in site review there's a number of zones that have a required automatic planning Board review for requests for additional density or housing units in the code we are proposing that that be eliminated and that's in the rh1 rh2 rh3 and rh7 zones so basically would make that density buy

[136:02] a right in the code we've heard from a number of folks that there's a lot of barriers to townhouses in the community so and part of that is that zones often have side yard setbacks and if you want to do a townhouse on your individual lot just by going to a common wall you're in a site review so we've changed the code to propose a zero setback between townhouses so they wouldn't have to go through site review to do that with respect to the youth standards we've we're proposing a change that would allow duplexes and triplexes in the RL RR and re zones again they would still have to follow the density limitations in those areas to be consistent with the plan we're proposing to eliminate the use review requirement for efficiency living units which is in the code now if you have more than 40 percent of your units as elus it requires use review we already have a mechanism in the site review criteria

[137:00] that requires a diversity of housing type so we don't find that the use review is is necessary um the intensity standards is where a bulk of the changes are made this really gets at that issue that we've talked about with trying to change a number of different zones the law area per dwelling unit or the open space for dwelling unit getting rid of that and going and trying to to find a similar intensity in a simpler way so using a floor area ratio or far and using site-wide open space regulations to regulate the intensity and zones rather than that per unit basis which obviously lowers the number of housing units and discourages housing units so I've listed on the slide all the zones all the specific changes I'm happy to go into any detail I'm not going to read off the slides we can come back to this if if need be and we've expanded it to the RH zones with similar changes and then getting to the parking standards we're proposing that the 1.25

[138:01] parking spaces per bet one bedroom unit be eliminated and replace with just one per unit the code currently requires any projects that have more than 60 percent of their units as one bedroom the parking requirement goes up or just making that one per unit um right now a residential parking reduction automatically requires site review we're proposing that that change to administrative reviews so you can actually ask for up to a 25 reduction through an administrative process rather than having to go through site review we've also taken another look at the parking reduction criteria and try to bolster them with more Transportation demand management requirements um but also simplify and reorganize the parking reduction criteria so it's more understandable and then getting back to townhouses there's a 30-foot lot width requirement that also stands in the way of Townhouses we're proposing that that be narrowed down to 15 feet for townhouse slots only so now you wouldn't have to

[139:01] go through a subdivision waiver if you want to do a townhouse development so overall this is a summary of of why we believe that the project meets the goals and objectives of the project and is consistent with the Boulder Valley Commerce plan all these changes combine to encourage more buy-rate development of of middle housing it keeps a relatively similar form and massing restriction but it does it in a simpler way that can allow more housing and more smaller units the goal is obviously to get more attainable housing and with that getting more deed restricted permanently affordable housing so it the changes would focus housing in areas where we're anticipating to see more density more mixed use and it removes some of the onerous reviews for residential projects so we found this consistent with the policies that are listed up on the slide and in conclusion we have our staff recommendation with the motion again

[140:00] this is a motion to amend the ordinance so obviously there's been some changes that would have to go to third reading there may be more changes that go to third reading as I noted it could go to Fourth if they're more substantive um and just really quick I just wanted to talk about we've Incorporated the planning board recommendations in our staff recommendations so that's getting rid of the the 600 square feet of required open space per unit and we're replacing that with a 30 site-wide open space in the industrial zones and also we've added a a bonus for residential floor area in the res in the industrial zones that don't have enough AR right now but this would encourage more residential and would encourage preservation of of light industrial on these sites because one of the concern is losing light industrial uses so we've proposed that as well as some flexibility in the bt2 zone we've taken on some of the the planning board recommendations about getting rid of

[141:00] dwelling unit as a restriction or a threshold for site review and just changing that to floor area which is consistent with a number of other zones and then getting rid of some of the minimum lot areas for the those zones so next steps would be third reading on consent if planning or I'm sorry city council were to make a decision on the ordinance tonight and that concludes the presentation I'm going to turn it over to Brad yeah just to add some uh concluding remarks Again Brad Mueller director of planning and development services as I indicated at the beginning we're really happy to be able to bring this to you this evening we think that it's within the scope that we represented to you and maybe actually a little bit more than that and really uh reflects the various subjects that we brought forward as part of the public engagement as well as the board hearings as as Carl reflected there from the beginning uh you and and we had understood this to be

[142:01] a fairly nuanced and surgical uh effort at what will no doubt be a continued effort for many years to attack uh the challenge of affordable housing but that it has the effect that really is Meaningful in the scope that we've talked about while not really representing any kind of seismic shift we know there's more work to be done that will come with additional projects next year work items and and of course ultimately the comprehensive plan uh we have heard some interest uh for more and discovered things as we've gone along and uh I'm here to tell you that we could uh commit to another work program item as we move into the next year if that becomes of interest to to council as well and that I think covers everything yeah I'll add one thing we did get a a letter uh late this afternoon from sofa Architects that added a recommendation relative to the rl2 Zone we don't have

[143:03] any problem with that change that they suggest rl2 is a zone that allows different housing types anyway so the change that they propose could be incorporated into the the motion as well we we support that change well Carl thanks for that extremely detailed and very informative presentation and Brad for the extra remarks before we go to council questions if maybe we can bring planning board representative Kurt nordbeck back up and Kurt if you could give us a few words on um planning words thought on this ordinance sure yeah thank you again planning board and I think I expressed the interests of planning board and saying we appreciate staff incorporating our recommendations in their proposal mostly and I'll get to one point regarding that so in our recommendations in our our amendments to

[144:02] the to the motion we were trying to further the interests of what council and the community were trying to achieve with this project so the first one again gets rid of a per unit based open space and would change it to a a site-wide open space uh which is along the lines of what was intended for this project uh the second one would change the open the um site review thresholds So currently the site review thresholds in some cases are based on number of units so since the Cyber view is a costly and expensive and and risky uh proposition uh there can be a disincentive I guess to uh to going to the number of units that would require site review and so we were

[145:01] trying to eliminate that disincentive I will note that there are two different levels of thresholds in table 2-2 and what I see proposed in in staff's proposal is to change the higher threshold which is for both site review and concept review there's a lower threshold just to to do site review and that doesn't seem to be approved so uh that doesn't seem to be changed and so I think what staff is proposing is not completely it's not exactly it's a it's a slightly smaller or or narrower version of what we were suggesting in our Second Amendment uh the third one really is just clean up and getting rid of some entries in the intensity standards in table eight one that didn't seem to be necessary requiring minimum lot sizes on some

[146:01] industrial zones where it the the minimum lot sizes are not really um they're they're not regulating the intensity and you know we've felt that there it would be appropriate to have smaller Lots if someone wants to build a small industrial building on a small lot that you shouldn't be prohibiting that we also had some discussion of the fars I think there was some concern for example thinking about diagonal Plaza diagonal Plaza is currently approved at about a 1.77 far if I recall correctly and what um staff was proposing for bc1 was a 1.5 so even under what is proposed by staff the the the currently approved plan for diagonal Plaza would not be allowed and

[147:00] so we were concerned about that some people were concerned about that um but we didn't uh we didn't end up agreeing on a change uh to that there was also some concern with the recommendation to eliminate youth review for elus efficiency living units um but there wasn't agreement to change that um so I think that is the main content of our discussion and I'm happy to take any questions after ours thanks Kurt uh Rachel's got a question for you just one hi Kurt thanks for being here um when you say that we didn't agree to it do you mean you didn't unanimously agree or what what does that mean sorry yeah we did not we did not have the four votes necessary to approve in a minute and I will note that we only had five

[148:00] members of blending board at this meeting and it requires for our rules require four to approve an event got it that helps thanks sure Kirk can you explain your thinking on the efficiency units even though you did not come to an agreement on it yeah there was there was some concern that the efficiency living units the the the the the the current requirement for use review is important um just because yeah there's a there's a concern that efficiency living units may become a predominant type I guess if there aren't limits on it and um so the I think the there was there was some discussion on the board that the youth review was it was a

[149:00] valuable restraint I guess on the number of efficiency living units that would be um created but again there wasn't support for on the board um for actually adding an amendment to that effect did that answer your question you did yeah Lauren you mentioned that um staff's implementation of one of the recommendations that planning board had made didn't fully in address what you believed the intention was uh what modification would we need to make in order to address that yeah thanks for asking so there are two columns in this table 2-2 site review threshold table one the last column is concept plan and set review required and

[150:02] in that staff is recommending changing uh the What What In many cases in most cases is 20 dwelling units to thirty thousand square feet of floor which is basically the equivalent of 20 dwelling units at an expected average of fifteen hundred square feet per dwelling unit there's also a column for minimum size for site review and that has thresholds like five or more units are permitted uh and I believe that the intent of the Amendments that planning board passed was to change both of these columns to get rid of this the unit count based thresholds and replace them entirely by floor area thresholds and what I'm

[151:00] seeing at least in staff's proposal does not change those thresholds in this minimum size for site review uh column and so it would require changing where it says five or more units are permitted on the property changing it to 7 500 square feet of floor area 7 500 square feet of floor being an equivalent of five units at 1500 square feet per bottle hopefully that was reasonably clear I understood that thank you Kurt all right well Kurt thanks so much for being with here with us here tonight and for your and the planning boards very hard and detailed work on this it's been it's being immensely helpful in our consideration of this initiative so really appreciate it thank you so uh now Council questions and council members I would encourage you to focus questions on uh and where answers would

[152:02] affect your decision tonight um as opposed to maybe curiosity questions but you have the floor Rachel I don't know if it'll affect my vote or not maybe it depends on what it said but if we go to third and fourth readings what does the timing look like for that we I mean probably October um we would try to do it as quickly as we can within October and there are there required days between readings hearings I don't know 10 days isn't it it's ten okay between second third and fourth thank you um and this would not go back to planning board for and you know if we picked up something say from Lauren's hotline tonight that was more novel can I assume that planning board would not have looked at it would have to go back there it wouldn't have to go back to planning board okay um let's see this survey that was on there that was the same as the survey we got for occupancy right some of those answers yeah yeah okay um and then what middle we're looking at

[153:04] the duplex Triplex um townhome scenario my understanding from my really brilliant colleague Lauren is that a lot of middle housing is already Exempted from site review so what what are the um Contours of what's already Exempted from site review and what would we be adding as an exemption I I think the thought behind that exemption is that a lot of developers might just go right to doing a large apartment building um and rather than doing that we might encourage them by not having to go through site review to just do a number of smaller buildings that are quad plexes you know um as opposed to a large building I think I'm following that but don't we already exempt some of those from any site review like if it's under a certain square footage

[154:01] Citywide is it already are some of those it's because a lot of it's based on dwelling units like 20 dwelling units you know uh you could potentially do a 21 unit development and if it's just townhouses and quad plexes you wouldn't have to go through site review under the proposal under today's code you would but I guess I'm trying to figure out what what would take you to site review under today's code if you are doing a duplex it was more than 20 units or if your site is over a certain acreage or if you're asking for land use modifications okay and if you ask for modifications you're still going to go to site review under the new one though so I guess I'm just trying to figure out I'm sorry to to beat a dead horse here but if I'm trying to do a duplex I already don't have to go to site review in a lot of situations is that currently accurate in most cases unless it you know is like at 18 dwelling units and your

[155:00] duplex brings it to 20 that would technically put you in site review but okay all right thanks not to get totally distracted by this efficiency situation but can you explain to me what your thinking was with not retaining use review for efficiency living units I think our thinking is is it's a zoning barrier to doing smaller units and part of the intent of this project is getting more small units giving more people opportunities encouraging those type of units we also feel that use review is unnecessary because we already updated the site review criteria to require um housing diversity so in a project that has elus you have to have another housing type in it anyway per the site review so it just seemed redundant

[156:02] what about um Kurtz mentioned that planning board was talking about that they were some were concerned about the predominancy of efficiency units and with this push it to being more predominant or let's say you wanted to put um guardrails again it removes a deterrent from doing elus so we may get more elus but you know we have a path now it's just you have to go through the site or the user view process I think a lot of the issues and concerns about it can be addressed through a site review anyway so it just seems to us unnecessary to have that process can I colloquy could you talk a little bit more about maybe the discretionary aspects of use review versus site review and which one sort of allows you to look at the certain kinds of nuance in a

[157:02] project well I mean site review is more focused on you know the design and the the layout the you know Landscaping building design the massing uh the location of buildings location of parking the use review is going to focus more just on the use so the criteria are different it talks about character of the area compatibility but we look at it we look at compatibility through a site review anyway but the user view is going to be more focused on the use itself and again I guess our through our lens like just based on the the ask of the project was removing zoning barriers to more modest sized housing that seemed like a pretty straightforward change yeah yeah done any other questions Lauren you got one um

[158:00] start so with the one of the early slides you showed that the city only has nine percent middle housing I often think of middle housing as including small and mid-sized apartment buildings does that nine percent reflect that or what is your cutoff on the larger end for what you are including in Middle housing I don't think it did include that I don't know it was that it was easy to parse those out you know what I mean because like they go they just go into the attached dwelling unit category so I think it's difficult to pull out those smaller apartment buildings and I totally appreciate that you didn't spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out what exactly those percentages are in our community but I just wanted to flag I guess that I feel like there might there sort of might be more middle income housing or not middle income middle housing than that showed

[159:01] can I make a comment on that Lauren yeah because I noticed that too because I live in an eight Plex and I'm like hey my aplex is a middle housing you know I think it counts I mean in one of the eight units I don't know the whole thing um I would be interested in hearing um your response to um Kurt's suggestion or question around you know why didn't staff change the minimum lot size for site review to a square footage number and instead left it at a dwelling unit number are you asking about the second column that yeah so the second column is is really getting at what makes you eligible to go through site review so it's more about do you want to go through site review like one column is like you have to go through site review the second column is

[160:01] can you go through site review if you want to go through site review I guess we felt like we didn't need to change that because I think the point of that with the five or more units just means that we're gonna not be hopefully not getting a site review from somebody to do a single family house or a duplex I think if if you're on a site that has the potential for five units or a bigger project that's one that we would want to look at in site review so we feel like that column is still appropriate just because we want to be looking at probably larger projects rather than smaller ones but if someone were to propose a project that we're say five efficiency living units that could be a potentially very small project so in some ways it seems as if there's not really a minimum like effectively there's not a minimum

[161:01] to what would be allowed to go through site review because a very small house could potentially have five dwelling units and if the requirement is that the lot has to allow five dwelling units so it seems like maybe that column could just be eliminated if it's not a effective anymore I think for the zones that already allow a lot of units some of those could just go to a zero which means that they're you can just come in for site review I think it's more the zones that still have to use the law area per dwelling unit you want to make sure that that that has a certain size to get those number of units that that would be appropriate in site review so I could see looking at that and maybe making it zero for some some of these zones thank you

[162:01] um you mentioned that some changes might require not just third readings but fourth readings um I sent out a hotline with several recommended changes and I was hoping you could maybe suggest which ones of those staff thinks would require a fourth reading or which ones would just require a third reading I think we'd have to maybe go through each of them but some of them if it's like a pretty straightforward language change like you proposed you know a permanently affordable project if that can just be added I don't think I think that would be relatively simple some of these more substantive changes related to like fars and more than what we've you know talked with the community about that might be something

[163:00] that would go to Fourth reading I think we'd have to really kind of parse them out can I clarify though like because it only needs to go to Fourth reading if we amended on third reading right so it's less about the complexity of the item and and more about whether we would want to make additional changes I think the point is like if if the guidance that Council gives us tonight is super clear I think it just stays in third reading but if it were we have to like look at it and make make some changes and we don't we're not certain what you know what it looks like we might have to do a little bit more analysis that might have to put it into fourth reading I you're right I think probably what it would instead if we were less clear then we would be more likely need to to need to amend it on third reading because that's what would trigger the fourth ring Teresa to tell me if I'm getting this wrong happy to advise on the law here um so so I think what we're all getting at is if you amend the language tonight

[164:02] such that the Amendments can be reflected in Emotion then that's the amendment that passes tonight and we could just go to third reading if however the changes are something that staff needs to take back and work on the language and then we bring back new language then we would have to have a reading um they're reading with the changed language and one reading after that is looking for thank you Teresa yes appreciate that so the I guess it's the question is whether we can get the exact language and emotion tonight or whether need to be worked on further and and I would also maybe suggest there might there might be an additional category of something that's a little more complicated that you all take to a future phase of the project okay um and then I was wondering I um

[165:08] I am I'm gonna be good for now thank you thanks Lauren Tara another bite just really quick question in terms of third and fourth reading if I don't think I've devotion for this but I'm gonna try anyway if we pull the the efficiency usage out of there would that make it a fourth reading or is that simple no he would just um unstrike the language okay that would be a pretty simple change okay seeing no other questions we can go to our public hearing we've got uh four people signed up to speak they were all signed up as virtual but I see one person here in person um so and I'm only actually seeing one of our other three speakers present online so but uh Lynn Siegel you are our first

[166:00] and only in-person speaker you have three minutes okay uh we'll defer on you then and online our first speaker is Lisa Spalding and then I also have Mick and Coles and Emily Reynolds but I do not see them in the meeting but Lisa you're up thank you Lisa Spalding for Una last night the executive committee of the University Hill neighborhood association held our monthly meeting and discussed ordinance 8599 we all came to the same conclusion the only thing missing from the Zoning for affordable housing project is affordability we all want more affordable housing to maintain an economic diversity and to encourage neighborly social interactions among people of different races and ethnicities who live in our city now and who will live here in the future we are particularly interested in keeping

[167:01] families with children here and welcoming more into the city we would love to see more children benefit from our excellent schools and outstanding natural environment however we are not convinced that we will increase affordability by simply decreasing the size and increasing the number of homes without regulations that directly address the price of homes recently we were told that loosening regulations on zoning and on can see is not meant to result in immediate affordability rather these measures are meant to increase affordability in 20 years how will that work does it presume the additional new housing built as a result of ordinance 85.99 will be so run down that it will be affordable in 20 years that would infer that owners will not keep up their properties and that none of these homes would be torn down and replaced 20 years from now we're also concerned about who will buy these additional homes we're seeing an increasing number of rental housing

[168:00] investors buying up homes in neighborhoods around the university but we have no mechanism to disincentivize corporate investors from buying our neighborhoods and replacing long-term residents and families with a transient population why not specify that conversions can only be made if the owner or owners live in the house the homes if we want more affordable housing especially for middle-income people who make between 80 and 120 percent of Boulder's average median income we will have to regulate for it 120 for a family of three is a hundred and twenty six thousand three hundred sixty dollars and thirty percent of household income is supposed to be the maximum maximum spent on housing to live somewhat comfortably according to the study done by Kaiser Marston Associates the average list price for attached units currently averages 994 dollars per square foot the estimated prices of average size stacked condos are 950 000 for a 1250 square

[169:04] foot unit and one million 50 000 for 1400 square foot unit pound houses are even more expensive the pieces of this puzzle simply do not fit together thank you Thank you Lisa and just confirming again that making Kohl's and Emily Reynolds are not in the meeting absolutely then you're signed up here come places comments yeah the the missing middle is missing more and more as we try to accommodate it and the the deal is we have an Ami that's way out of range in Boulder right you know it's for the 2206 Pearl it's 17 let's see it's 1700 at 80 percent to

[170:02] um twenty six hundred at 120 percent so these are Big figures and it's like what Lisa mentioned the income is 125 some thousand for a person so it has to somehow be indexed to the Ami and in Boulder the Ami is changing it's going you know up all the time so it's bringing the the middle higher and higher income and spreading the whole you know the high that spreading the wealth inequity effectively and it's just creating constantly like an elastic band a bigger and bigger spread between the low and the high income folks so it's it's kind of the illusion of accommodating this demographic of the middle that that doesn't that's that's constantly changing

[171:02] so I don't know how you accommodate or index to the Ami that's always going up you know for this middle that's working at Google and stuff and they're just making more and more and and yet it's being stretched further and further so like I've always said I think the best thing you're going to do in this community is to pump up the low end and pump down the high end and at Alpine Balsam for example do 4 500 square foot places that have one washer dryer for nine people and two or three refrigerators and communal housing and give subsidies to The Architects like Lauren to get them to design things and then and then make it so that people

[172:00] have to live in there in that kind of format multi-generational and then you don't have senior housing at 311 that's driving the whole thing way up at the high end I mean 4 500 square foot for one person and 40 000 probably dollars a month and five million dollars down and fifteen percent back you know these are the kind of factors in this community that are driving this spread in in inequity and it's wealth inequity that's causing all of our problems the inflation and that you know along with covid it's just a recipe for disaster unless you like really get creative with the architects subsidize them to do some interesting things yes okay and we have been joined Now by making Coles who's also signed up so if we can go to Macon please

[173:09] uh I am not getting the ability to hmm give me one second Megan here we go I lost my buttons for a moment there but here you are all geiler you have been doing fine work for many years thank you so much for this I'm very much in support of the ordinance that is before Council to increase the affordability of housing in Boulder please hear my support as a yes and there is more that can be done Lauren folkert's email about this ordinance recommended changes that will further Advance the goal of attainable housing my points follow the numbered points that she made today in her email point one site review is expensive the California affordable housing study in 2014 that I just sent to all of you

[174:00] tonight assess the cost of discretionary review where four public hearings are required think concept review and site reviews of planning board and Council adds nineteen thousand dollars to the cost of each unit so yes if a project is offering a hundred percent permanently affordable housing it should not have to go through site review please make the change suggested by Lauren number two bike parking is so important in supporting the convenience of using a bike for everyday errands right now if a developer commits 500 square feet of bike parking on a project that 500 feet is deducted from the total amount of floor area that she can build in the project that's a penalty for creating bike parking and it ought to be removed as Lauren suggests her third Point are existing regulations favor low density development we should amend this ordinance to enable more housing and rh2 and bt1 zones importantly these zones

[175:00] are on or adjacent to major transportation corridors like the Best Western conversion along 28 that you recently approved in bt1 in order to enable additional density elsewhere in rh2 and bt1 please change the ordinance as Lauren suggests to permit up to 0.3 additional far through site review her fourth Point has to do with the residential and mixed use in rmx the zoning District that surrounds downtown like Whittier there's a lot of older housing with three and four units but when an owner wants to update this older housing the current lot size requirement mandates the triplexes and quads even six plexes can only be redeveloped as single family we're we're losing units in a time when we most assuredly need them please fix this as Lauren is laid out there are only a few non-professional people who understand that the zoning code as she does enough

[176:00] to understand the benefits that she calls for but I hope you will adopt her suggestions for bc1 and like the diagonal Plaza bc2 and rm1 in the final two points of her email today thank you so much for your service and for listening to me this evening thank you Macon all right that's all of our public speakers for tonight thanks for joining us so I'm going to come back to um city council to talk about the ordinance and so what I might suggest is that we structure this with proposed changes because there's a number of proposed changes out there and so if people maybe can speak to them and we can see if each proposed change has majority support so I think council is generally interested in the ordinance but we'll get to that eventually with a formal vote but Tara actually want feedback from Council when I ask this because you all have been a lot of you know more than I do on this subject that is if we're trying to make

[177:01] Juni got dropped out of the meeting can we promote her back in please when we saw that chart of a lot of single family and then a lot of apartments and then there was that dip in the middle why would we want to have more efficiencies which to me Lauren unless I'm not visualizing this correctly because I need you for this why would we want more efficiencies if it's all the way up here and we already have a lot of apartments um apartments are composed of a lot of different units so I don't know that efficient like efficiency is just a unit type right it's a smaller unit um like I was mentioning before I actually think that we have more middle housing than that nine percent suggested because it's very difficult to actually like parse out what's middle versus high like

[178:01] right Boulder we don't have very many high rises so sort of everything is in that mid to low rise category um I don't know if I'm helping answer your questions yes I guess I would say that um you're generally talking when when you have more than 40 elus you're talking about a building that's already an apartment building I think that's fundamentally the answer is that this wouldn't be preventing you know a townhouse or a duplex or something like that we're already talking about an apartment type building and the question is whether we should force them to go to site review to have a larger percentage of smaller units and then Carl made the good point that our site review criteria already require a diversity of housing types it's like you couldn't do 100 elus anyway because you would wouldn't meet that site review criteria do I have that right so I think this is it wasn't use review that we were talking about it it was use review but to meet the site review criteria you would have to

[179:01] have a mix of housing types so the idea being that we could remove the use review requirement for a large percentage of elus because it's not possible under the code anyway well I think why it affected me and I'll just leave it as this is because the community connectors comment was that it wasn't it actually is sometimes when you cram a lot of people in they just they talked about ghettos it is very stressful for people so I'm just going to say that I don't think that's the kind of thing that I want to do even though I might not have the boats and that's actually one of the reasons is what the Community Connector said thanks chair and if I could just speak to the word ghetto I know that was used by our community connectors that is a a word with a lot of negative cultural connotations I just want to call that out not your fault no I use it because they used it yeah obviously I understand understand can I just call away on that point which is one of the reasons I had asked about the if it was it the same feedback survey that we got for occupancy as well

[180:01] like for sure was that Community connectors comment in regard to these units versus possibly occupancy it was relative to this project it wasn't on occupancy thanks so Tara did you want to make a proposal I propose that we remove the elu portion of this um in The Proposal so to retain this the use review for more than 40 percent I propose to retain the use from review for more than 40 percent sorry if I do a straw poll folks on this one uh can I see a show of hands of people who would support Tara's suggestion yeah you don't want to raise your own hand oh there we go okay well it did not get majority support but thanks thanks for the suggestion um other potential proposed changes

[181:04] Rachel I just I just have another staff question so with the Lauren's proposal for removing a hundred percent affordable from site review I am interested in hearing you know I'm an attorney and so we just think like this what is the worst case scenario if we don't do site reviews for 100 affordable I'm assuming that site reviews have a purpose and my I thought they were to encourage uh flexibility and outstanding Urban Design and things like that and I'm not exactly clear why I wouldn't want that for people who are living in those um and and that they can be large I don't know how big but however big of of an apartment building rate that would be Exempted and so what's the worst case scenario I mean I I think the proposal and concept uh is something that snap supports obviously to encourage permanently affordable housing our only

[182:00] concern is there are some examples of where there's a design outcome associated with a permanently affordable project that is not commensurate with the quality that you see with a site review and it can change people's perception about affordable housing that's our only concern we're not you know suggesting against it it's just that that is an outcome and would it be possible to um do other things that might improve the efficiency and affordability of 100 affordable going through all these different phases that that Macon was talking about that are that are not exempting from State review such as allowing those projects to be fast-tracked you know like not have the delays that are built in maybe with paying to own that land for a longer time or allowing for different uh a higher percentage far or something like that to do more units I mean usually if

[183:01] you're asking for additional far it's it's like you're already in site review at that point um we are looking at expedited reviews it's something you know the governor brought up and I think that's gonna be something that we're going to be working on um but yeah I mean I think sometimes we just don't always see like good quality results in in some of these projects and and we hear the complaints about them so well and I I read recently that Blackstone invested 5.1 billion I think it was in affordable housing units and so I I guess it's would it be fair to say it's not just BHP who would necessarily benefit from this it would be any provider in the space correct okay thanks for that stuff if I could just head on in crawl to your point about concern about the quality of a project and how it's perceived I just want to say I think it's important for us to keep in mind the the quality of living for people in a pro who live in the development as well because I know like from many site reviews from my time

[184:00] on planning board I feel like we often made noticeable improvements like in adding pedestrian connections or better materials and things like that so um I feel like sometimes livability for the residents gets better through the process this is one of the things I want to keep in mind here and I'll add that we even heard that from the community connectors in Residence that they felt like they some you know their folks were living in projects that they perceived themselves as being lower quality or what they call cheap and they didn't like to be in cheap housing that was a quote from the from the meeting we had with them okay so I just want to sort of colloquy on the point of site review I think you know part of maybe why we're picking on the site review is emblematic of the rest of the process taking so long that we're picking on site review as a way to streamline it so if the rest of the process were faster and more efficient we could still have site

[185:00] review and maintain the qualities of the outcomes of site review and not in an overall process be onerous in a way that then delays adds costs and creates uncertainty and so I think we're picking on it because it's one thing that we can just pull right out and the rest of the stuff sort of collapses back in and works but we might have to approach this from the other end of do can we streamline the rest of the process so we don't have to jettison site review in order to preserve the quality outcomes that come from it so I think like so how do we come at it it's easy to pick on site review and so I and as a result I think it's maybe unfairly been weaponized as a result of that but I just and so I I hear what Rachel's saying but I think that there's just a fundamental question of how do we do that so we're not losing the quality outcomes that site review can provide Lauren you know one of the things that I was interested in was also just trying to give affordable housing a Competitive Edge in the market when because they're

[186:00] you know when they're buying land and things like that they're up against market rate developers um so I think one of the things Rachel brought up was you know what about an far bonus and Carl you said that there are they would already be going through site review process if we were to sort of switch tracks and say like okay they're still going through site review maybe they're we're not getting out of that um would a density bonus in that case be something that we could look at maybe as part of a future project but as a way to help ensure that our affordable developments are sort of more competitive in the marketplace I certainly think it's something we could look at as a you know a future project so I wonder if I could chime in here what what would you think so because this is one of your proposals right what would you think as I talked earlier about that I think a phase two to this

[187:00] project would be really beneficial about saying let's look at the broader barriers um to affordable housing and ways that we could make it easier and more affordable to to build including this potential of a exemption from site review but also other things like more expedited reviews or lower fees which I think would have a lot of potential how do you feel about that as a alternative to this yeah I would support that um so then I'll look to the rest of the council how do we feel about giving that direction to staff so can I ask a clarifying I think there might be a number of things that we might want to add to a phase two and so I'm wondering is this an opportunity to sort of create that beginner list for staff to consider or is this general direction like hey let's consider a phase two that comes in like q1 Q2 of next year I'm just trying to wonder like what we're setting ourselves up for because I agree that we don't want to push so many of these that we get to a fourth reading and some of these require a little bit more tutelage so I'm just sort of like what's that overall outcome

[188:01] and how do we want to build that list and is this the right place for it or just pick a few and go for it so what I'm I'm thinking if this works for folks is that as we go through the proposed changes that we create maybe three categories one of them is a phase two category that we'll get to in some number of months one of them is just amendments we can make on the Dias and then if see if there are any that would require staff to do some additional work and bring back proposed language at the next reading how's that sound there work Rachel um Carl mentioned that this was a light Edition but I I fear the community might consider it a non-light Edition so in these in this list that we're putting together might this have some community outreach as part of that okay thanks okay great so uh Lauren is all right if I just go through do you want to speak for them or should I go through them I'm happy to have you do it okay I can do it

[189:00] I just didn't want to take up the whole meeting with all of my things but I guess that's what's happening anyway um all right so the next one I had on this on my list was to include bike parking in floor area editions so specifically table eight two in section 982 has floor area ratio Editions where you can wear certain types of floor area are not included um in your floor area calculations and right now off street parking and vehicular circulation are not included and I would like to add bike parking to that great can I just drop all this to see how many people are interested in all in in favor of doing this I got I got unanimous unanimous interest on that one so we'll add that one to this yes this will probably apply to multiple

[190:00] things we're doing tonight but um again I would say because we didn't have Outreach on this I wonder could our third reading be a public hearing as to the things that we're adding tonight so that we are inviting the public to weigh in so let's keep that in mind I would say this bike parking one is small enough I don't see the need for a public hearing but if there are other the others that we're doing with it that haven't had public Outreach that are more substantive maybe well or maybe we could draw a poll on which ones at the end people want to include in that sounds good go ahead okay my next item was about density bonuses for rh2 bt1 and bt2 so these are zones that don't currently have floor area Caps or that have very high caps um and I heard a lot of community feedback about you know whether or not the floor area numbers that we were looking at were

[191:03] um matched with the projects that are currently being submitted and reviewed um in these various zones and so my suggestion was to increase the numbers from the packet by 0.4 for those various zones um with site review So currently rh2 you get a certain number of dwelling units per acre and then in our code it says so it says seven up and then in parentheses it says up to 14 by site review and so I was sort of proposing that we do that similar thing for these zones to say in rh2 0.67 and then in parentheses up to 1.07 by site review so it cleared everybody what's being proposed then I will strapple who's in favor of

[192:01] this change let's we got a unanimous one on this one as well um my next one was um in so this is going to be a more controversial one rmx one zone um is a zoning District that has previously allowed significantly more density than it currently allows and part of this Zone was not included in um the scoping of this project but I wanted to bring it up particularly because through my work I see a lot I have done the removal of um housing from this Zone because this is a Zone that's changing it's changing ownership and the people who are buying into this want to make modifications and additions and because

[193:00] it has been so significantly down zoned it is very difficult to do that because currently um so like for instance I had one person ask me what they could do with their property where they currently have a six unit apartment building um and you know there are efficiency units so it's a very it's a relatively small building but the only thing that our zoning would currently allow them to do there is a single family home and so I'm proposing there's currently a floor floor area ratio requirements already in place for this Zone and so I was proposing that we keep those um and like we're doing in other areas not restrict the number of dwelling units by per acre but just rely on that floor area requirement that it's already in the current code yeah go ahead I was wondering first of all that's the

[194:01] one that I got a few emails about so I'm wondering if first of all Carl can you tell us the pros and cons about that proposal and that certainly I think we should have Community feedback on a public area yeah um first off um we think it's a good idea because it keeps it at the same floor area and it's it's in the spirit of of the other changes um and again you know thanks for all the in-depth you know looking at the code and giving us that don't really jumping in so we really appreciate that um so we we think it does have Merit I think our biggest concern is that it's never been on the list in the scope of the project and this late in the game without getting specific feedback on that um that's our our only concern I think just from a massing standpoint it would it would generally keep things as

[195:00] they are but there could be additional dwelling units and if people didn't know about that that's our our biggest concern I think so I think our sense is that this this one would in particular require a more Outreach I do want to add in as well uh I I too want to express uh just the intensity of consideration around all this and as we start to go through the list on the hotline uh it feels like we're going to get into an accounting issue here so I just want to make sure we are we're we're tracking what's being provided um when there's discussion about the need for additional Outreach and such I'm interpreting that to mean kind of the phase two concept that was talked about with the number one item not commenting on the merits of this number four but if you know if that were if that if that's what you're leaning towards too I'm interpreting that to mean that that would be a phase two item as opposed to two and three which are things that you're trending towards amending now I

[196:01] was going to speak to that right now okay yeah thanks thank you because um yeah Lauren I appreciate this idea and this suggestion I guess I don't have a great sense of how this would end up working out in rmx one so I would I would actually be interested in some staff analysis on kind of the repercussions of this so I think it sounds very promising but I don't have a great sense of how it would play out and I do feel like since it wasn't included in the scope that we did public Outreach for that maybe we could include this as part of the phase two so um I don't know how you feel about that but I mean of course I would love to just make the change but I completely respect that um that there hasn't been a lot of public engagement on this and that it does deserve it so yeah I would support um doing it as a phase two so maybe a construction point if I could add um one thing we did think of too is is the reason rmx1 is complicated is because of the down zoning So that obviously is rendered a lot of the properties non-conforming So based on

[197:02] the occupancy ordinance that was done several weeks ago it froze occupancy from increasing in non-conforming areas if if the zoning were to change where they're not non-conforming anymore it would impact you know the you know how that occupancy ordinance in those particular areas some being around the university as well so that that was another concern we had aren't we freezing the occupancy and what a prior to this coming into effect in this ordinance like in the rh2 zone you they could have a similar we could do a similar yeah yeah a great additional thing to consider as part of a phase two investigation of it I it sounds to me like we're probably trending towards putting this in the pot that's going to get further uh steady and Analysis but we'll just add that it keep coming back to that you know do things in a way that sticks and I think

[198:01] that this has a much better chance of sticking it it sounds like something favorable but I don't I don't think we want to rush it and not get the feedback and Analysis and allow the community to weigh in so great so maybe I'll straw poll um putting this in a phase two section of the project how many people are in favor and we got unanimous very good go at it Lauren okay so the fifth thing that I had brought up was the bc1 and BC two zones um so these are sort of our neighborhood center zones um and again this is another area where um some additional where the floor area ratio proposed by staff makes sense um for part of the Zone but maybe other parts of the Zone it might make sense to have a higher floor area ratio so a Community member had suggested using

[199:01] appendix n which really specifically calls out our business centers um as a filter to where we might allow a higher far than what's currently proposed and I think that that makes sense because one of the things that that would allow is these business centers that are currently retail surrounded by parking um you know it potentially allows them to add residential to these areas that are really highly served by transit and where that extra residential would just help bolster those businesses even more and help reduce um site uh parking great so the proposal clear to folks we already have the appendix n in there which clearly identifies those so I think in terms of like where and how it's it's already self-identified in previous works I think that there's an Elegance to what Lauren's proposed here

[200:01] that's just really straightforward so I really like how you brought that up and allows diagonal Plaza to be compliant but Terry you said you weren't sure okay so can I use the Table Mesa shopping center as so there's a large amount of I can't remember if it's bc1 or bc2 off the top of my head but it's not just the shopping center it's also some of the surrounding area that starts to transition into residential the shopping center itself is where I think we would like to see potentially higher levels of density the area across the street where you start to be more in the neighborhood I think is fine with the intensity standard with the 1.5 far that staff has proposed but I'm proposing that in that um area that appendix and highlights

[201:01] which is really just the more commercial areas um that we would move to a higher far of two and and I'll just note that this would allow us to do future projects similar to the diagonal Plaza Redevelopment right which which would not be feasible under the original proposal um so if there are no further questions I'll straw poll uh who's interested in going for this one phase one yeah for tonight and I got unanimous again so Lauren you got one more actually I have two oh um so the sixth one is rmx one and this was brought forward to me by a planning board member sorry rm1 thank you um planning board was recently looking

[202:01] at um a BHP project in this area and the it is a zone that is medium density residential that's RM residential medium um but it currently requires three thousand square feet of open space per dwelling unit which is you know the kind of thing that we're trying to move away from so I was proposing in this Zone that it should also be governed by far and um because it's of a more it tends to be in more neighborhood areas I wanted to use an far standard that we often use in our residential neighborhood so I was suggesting that we use the same far standard as we

[203:00] currently use for rmx1 because that's a sort of our higher density sort of Stills kind of single family residential size I think I just turned to Carl does Steph have comments or thoughts on this one I ever thoughts on this are similar to our thoughts on rmx1 you know that maybe more phase two-ish with community outreach respond to the I'm not opposed to that I I'll probably agree with staff on this one how do people feel about moving us forward but it's part of the phase two with some additional public Outreach that got unanimous but you you have another one and this was this is a minor change that I just forgot that I wanted to bring up so I really appreciated

[204:02] the bonus in the IG and IM districts um that's in our current proposal that would allow an a increase of up to 1.25 residential use um if at least 0.3 is um industrial or research and development use and I guess my concern here is that my goal was to really preserve industrial use and I worry that by including research and development as well that we are giving a leg up to sort of the life sciences in a way that they don't need in a zone that I really would like to see preserve industrial like it potentially pits those industrial uses against the research and development and I was hoping to just sort of preserve that industrial is what I would love to see us Focus that bonus on

[205:01] so it would just be striking the words or research and development so this is a little bit of a surprise but it's although a minor change but crawler staff do you want to we're not opposed to that I I think I think it's a good suggestion because really the focus is is on Industrial I just am looking at the use table just making sure we can do that in a way where it's really clear um I think we could even just reference industrial uses and and take out r d I think that could work what's our code section there okay we've got a couple comments I saw Rachel and Tara well this sounds like one in that it's on the Fly that might be good to have more staff analysis and some feedback from people who would be utilizing yeah affected impacted so I

[206:02] might put it in that second bucket even though it sounds great and modest um and I imagine uh appeals sort of to all council members potentially so probably uh you know we'll we'll be successful in the end but I would like to get the feedback Tara do you agree and I mean it sounds like I'll just call it myself it sounds like a great idea but I just heard it so I'm like I I feel like that maybe a little more evaluation there was a lot going on in my head it was hard to remember them all no no worries no worries but um so how would go out Rachel I was gonna say I had about kind of straw poll whether to put that in a phase two idea all right okay all in favor all right I gotta I got a unanimous there and yeah maybe not I did not vote for it in the phase two

[207:00] but that's okay I'm happy to support it being in phase two going forward it's fine okay I wondered if Lauren actually had one more thing because your proposal for 100 affordable to be removed from site review also mentioned some concerns about removing middle from site review I'm happy to talk about it but you mentioned it so I wanted to invite that thank you um yes I did not prepare that one for the language for that one but I would also be interested staff had proposed as we discussed exempting middle housing from site review my concern is that that's the middle housing that the at a small scale the middle housing is essentially already exempt from site review so what we're talking about is large-scale projects

[208:00] where essentially you would be trading an apartment building for let's say 20 town homes and my concern there is um one that town homes tend to be a more expensive housing type in our community but there's also an accessibility concern Townhomes are not typically an accessible housing type they usually rely on stairs and so an apartment building in this case would any building that's elevator served access to every unit is required to be accessible and so we'd also be trading a certain amount of accessibility along with affordability and so I didn't want to prioritize missing middle in this particular way through this so I guess I would be proposing to strike that um

[209:00] exemption did you want to speak to that Rachel no I just say I think she has to do what Tara did trying to strike something right like give us a something to vote on well before we do that can we hear Carl's uh input on that um I don't think we're opposed to that idea again I think in concept we um agree with encouraging affordable housing and that's one way of doing it um so it'd be striking metal housing and replacing it with 100 percent permanently affordable housing right well that was what I was initially proposing but I think we're splitting them out as separate things so in this case like we already said we wanted entirely to do affordable housing as phase two but this would just be saying you had proposed an exemption for Middle housing to site review and I'm suggesting that we strike that exemption

[210:02] can so thoughts on that Chrome I mean we don't have any you know concerns with striking it it was just you know an idea for how do we get more middle housing uh it's again up to the council so okay other come I I will say that in light of that we didn't get middle housing was it one or two weeks ago I am hesitant to say yes to that right now at I'm we're desperate for Middle housing so can we do that look into that can staff doing more of analysis or can something or should we just not even do it Nicole I think this is one where I would be really interested in getting some additional feedback particularly from the center for people with disabilities and some of those other communities that are really concerned about accessibility uh types of issues and so this especially you know if if that is the concern I think it would be good to have

[211:02] some feedback from a group like that who could let us know a little bit more so I I might suggest considering this for phase two as well although I guess in phase two what that would mean is striking something that we're moving forward tonight so it's a little I I don't I don't know then what impact that has on Developers for example um if somebody might start moving forward with that only to have a strike something later I might suggest that since we don't currently have that exemption it might make more sense from a process standpoint to put implementing that exemption into phase two because then that gives us more time to think about if we want to create that new exemption and yeah that's a great Point Nicole but I think Lauren's process point is probably a good one because you're right

[212:01] if we implement the change and then people start working towards it and we're like actually maybe not so so maybe maybe it maybe it's in both phase one and in phase two that we amend it tonight to remove the exemption but look at re-creating it for phase two Rachel I don't know if this is the right spot to slide this internet but I won't be here when you all are on phase two I've got this is the same one the same item yeah okay go ahead I mean like the mid 100 for Middle income correct okay well the the just middle income in general housing middle housing not middle income middle housing just that I we have gotten a lot of concerns from the community about investor-owned properties and these not being affordable and um just overall uncertainty about what like duplexes and triplexes might look like so as you move forward either with phase two of this

[213:00] um or when you get to the comp plan review I just wanted to pitch an idea that I I do like the idea of um owner occupied or you know having a tether to ownership for that because I think that if if say I'm doing a duplex as everybody on this dice knows I'm interested in doing someday um I'm not going to get a lot of investor money or or a big loan from the bank to make tube duplexes that are blinging I would have a modest ability to do that I think they would be necessarily probably more affordable which is what we're after it it eliminates some of the concerns about Investors scooping up property and making property values higher and I think it gets a lot of what we're trying to do while also allowing people to have flexibility to create a second unit which is what we want in the end instead of I think we're going to get to a point where a lot of sort of the 1960s homes are going to be

[214:00] scraped and it's a question of what do we want them to be rebuilt with and I would say duplexes and triplexes are going to be beneficial to the community and I think that one way to get more Community buy-in will be to look hard at owner owner occupied for one of the units thanks did you have a comment on that no I had a follow-up piggyback on that with another idea so Arena's drop point okay so and I I was unclear Rachel I was trying to finish out the previous thing about exempting middle housing from uh site review and as I said this could be to to include in that phase two so I was sliding it in right there got it so let me come back to that here in a second because I wanted to straw poll on uh so what the the proposal I think that we ended up with was uh to in the ordinance that you gave us to remove the exemption from site review for Middle housing but to then investigate in phase two whether we should add that back in so all in favor of that

[215:01] and that's that's everybody okay so we put that one to bed and now to Rachel's point so you did you want to get that on the record or do you want to have it as a just tossing it right out there mayor great I'll I'll put it on how do I want to put it on the record I don't think I have any influence on what you all do after eight meetings plus 20 minutes from now you're optimistic on the 20 minutes you're still part of this family your ideas matter just as much as anyone else is at this diocese whether you'll be here to ultimately vote on it is largely irrelevant so uh so yeah maybe then I would say as part of phase two can staff bring information on what a um ownership uh requirement look like for middle housing would that be beneficial to address some of the concerns and and what might be ideas for implementing that such as you know you have to live there for X years before or is there a penalty if you sell right away I don't I don't really think it could be abused by

[216:02] investors because if you have a a requirement that you own it for some period of time you're not gonna be able to do that more than once really like it you know you'll be kind of busted the second time you try to do that as as I think a developer so just be curious what what you all might might make of that and and if that can be part of phase two um everyone in favor of that being investigated as a potential getting seven so I got okay it's a legacy thank you I have one dad and then we can maybe move on yeah um so so this we've been we've been kind of dancing around and maybe waiting for the comp plan to sort of unlock what this issue which is you know 70 of roughly 70 of our residential land area is single family zoning uh and so you

[217:00] know how how do we unlock diversity of housing within such a large land mass within our city and so we're touching we're dancing around it almost almost literally and figuratively um in these conversations but what we're not doing is trying to get into the meat of that and so I know that at the comp plan level is when we'll really get a chance to tackle that and what I'm curious about is can we look at a phase approach in that sort of phase two a phase and a phase where we we investigate like can can we really do duplexes in single-family zoning before we get full comp plan because again we're in an urgent state of diversity of housing with School enrollment and other things declining can we think about a a built-in almost intrinsic saturation limit of duplexes on Corner Lots along Transit corridors because that's fundamentally limited it's not every everywhere in single family zoning and something we can look at to see can we start to make progress while we do the comp plan while we eventually then make those changes which are still years out before actualizing

[218:02] any of those changes and and start to you know build momentum in that direction and maybe stymie some of the uh potential of having schools close on our watch and our jurisdiction because that would be catastrophic if anyone else is on the diocese and we're seeing schools close in our community so that that's something I'd love to see us try to investigate figure can we crack that nut ahead of a comp plan revision so I'll turn to Carl do you mind if go ahead Nicole so um Carl few might is that something that might be possible before the comp plan is it something we could investigate I think we we've thought of this and and if it fits within the the density limits of the comp plan it could be done um I think you're talking about like piloting certain areas with with increased density I mean that could get complicated because if it does go over the maximum then we'd have to like work with comp planning to add that

[219:00] as part of the project to increase density in a certain area yeah or did Brad did you want to add to that as well well I'll just agree with Carl and say that I I think of all the phase two things that have been kind of proposed tonight that one is maybe the most uncertain in my mind but we could certainly commit to doing it but that might be one where we have to come back and better to find the scale as Carl say and I had Nicole first if you don't mind and then Laura I guess Carl you brought up the comp plan and related to density and my thinking there is there has to be some level of sort of restriction around how we would do this that wouldn't create enough units because the comp Clan is very specific that it's looking at these areas um together and not as on a partial by parcel basis

[220:00] and so it seems like there is potentially a way to do it that it doesn't create a change so large that it would throw that entire zone out of um alignment with the comp plan yeah I I think that analysis could be done uh it's just it's not something that can be turned around really quickly I mean the Nuance of looking at all the different areas of the city and what the pockets of density is and what the potential for increase can be is pretty complex um I'm wondering why it's seeming so complex if it's literally Corner Lots on Transit corridors I mean that's sort of self-defining I don't know where we get into Pockets because it's like if you have Transit that self-defined it's not like we're talking about a quarter mile away from a bus line I'm talking about like along the corridor in single family zoning so that's why I'm I'm wondering if maybe I

[221:00] I'm wondering how it gets so complicated what is that you know if we're talking about like Corner lots and allowing duplexes on on the corner lots a lot of these single-family zones already are more than the two to six dwelling units per acre just by virtue of the fact that you know the minimum lot size is seven thousand square feet but there's a there's a pretty large percentage in in certain zones where those lot sizes are a lot smaller so the density is higher so we we can already look at certain areas and know that that the density is already higher than what the comp plan allows and what I might suggest I think we're talking about asking planning to look into this right so I don't think we need to try to figure this out whether it is or is not doable tonight yes and I appreciate that mayor what I was going to say is a little bit to ground us uh in reality in terms of this is really kind of future work plan items and I want to be thoughtful about that we actually I think I'm hearing a lot of

[222:00] great things and what direction you'd like us to move forward and so know that for that phase two this will likely be considered a work plan item that we will be moving forward in um in uh 2024 we hear it loud and clear and understand that that will bring us to work prior to the comp plan uh as that moves forward and we may be having conversations in the future when we do get to retreat about whether or not what how does that look like when we're looking at other work that the council would like us to work for the next midterm for the next two-year term so just grounding Us in all of the great work to be had ahead great work Nuria just stole my Fender so I was just going to remind us that we have eight meeting eight meetings and ten minutes left with this Council so this one and the the last the last point to me as well seemed a little bit in that um target of future work in committing future councils and I think they're great things to bring back but I think

[223:00] those smaller changes seem like they're more reasonable things for us to move forward with yep okay um so getting that this is aspirational in the 2024 time period who would like to have staff further look into this idea God I'm still confused on the time scale well it's it's unknown as it would be sometimes it would be teed up for consideration 2024 probably in consideration with balancing other work plan items at that time oh yeah yeah but can I ask Walmart one more clarifying question does does this then impact the work that you all have planned and because I mean there's still a little bit left right there's the Baseline Urban Services study there's some other things we're working on so if we kind of commit you to doing this other stuff in anticipation of the next council's retreat does that interfere with the other things that you are intending to do it just feels like it's getting a bit bigger

[224:01] um so so we've been contemplating uh that this is more on the policy side than the than the comprehensive planning um so as I said in my preface we've been anticipating that a version of of this could be now scope and scale will matter and we'll have to bring that back of course um we know that parking has been identified as a priority and we also know that simplification of the code through process is um I will just make a pitch that you're going to be seeing a budget coming forward to you soon and there is an additional policy planner in there so love to see that stay well played but we will finalize work program in in conversation with Charles and you know certainly appreciate and want to be respectful of Carl and and Lisa's time but also um and and you know it's a partnership so we'll work through that

[225:01] okay great so with that consideration this lots of public Outreach it's a potential thing for uh for to be investigated who would like to get this on the list of things to consider and I got a majority on on that one okay great I've got one I've got one specific one because I wanted to pick up the the um the specific suggestion from architects in the community um because the they were seeing a potential in one of the changes to make it harder to do town homes or possibly Impossible on on rl2 zones and Carl you said you supported um their proposed change so what that that would end up being would be um in this section about the rl2 zones there's language that says shall be used for detached single-family land use and the current ordinance strikes that language and The Architects are saying we should keep that language and you think that keeping the language would be a positive change yeah so

[226:04] um how do people feel about making making the change to keep the language and not strike it can I get it all right we got we've got everybody there okay so um any other suggested changes um seeing none I'm I'm up for making a motion here I I think we do want to get clarification on one of the other there's a couple things um so the the minimum threshold thing that um Kurt nordback had mentioned is there consensus to make changes I guess our our recommendation was to not change the lower density zones because it's based on lot area but any of the other zones we could change it to zero just opening up those zones very cleanly to site review is their consensus on that change could you list which are the lower

[227:01] density zones I think I would the ones that have five or more units I would keep for let's see let me go through here MH r e rl1 rl2 and maybe rm1 and rm2 and I I would include rmx1 just because it is at the 600 6 000 per dwelling unit but everything else I could see going to or no an rr1 and rr2 so Carl I'm just gonna say I'm getting a little uncomfortable with uh off the cuff nature of of this potential proposed change uh and also like hearing MH was manufactured at housing through a

[228:00] red flag to me as well because we want to be careful to to preserve those for so so I would I would I would not propose to make this right now but maybe we can look at that it's a later later phase how do people feel about that yeah and I think it is more of a code cleanup item because essentially if you look at five efficiency units it's such a small square footage that it means that everything could go through the way it is right now isn't currently a problem it's just that it would be cleaner to do it a different way I had one more point of clarification so with some of these proposals to increase the far through the site review process in the rh2 bt1 bt2 and the BC zones is the intent that that far Edition would be subject to community benefit requirements like the increased affordability requirements or is it just

[229:00] something that you can ask for through site review my intent was to do it just as you can ask for sorry my intent was to do it like rh2 currently is which is just an Ask through site review not tied to community benefit except it would be subject to the already existing Community benefit um well but you're saying it like that's when we ask for additional intensity right bonus okay area so yeah I but it would this would not be subject to that um it would be if that I guess if they were going to 55 yeah if it goes on at four or fourth and fifth Story it would but it's just most of these zones and numbers are low enough that it would be really unreasonable to stack your far in such a way that you would get to a fourth or a fifth Story so and Community benefit as it is currently written always also includes the height

[230:01] limit so it would be a kind of messy way to make this change right now and I think the simplest way from a wording standpoint is to keep it um again as rl2 occur or sorry as rh2 is currently written in the code okay thanks for that clarification Carl so are folks all right if I make a motion okay so I move to a men ordinance 85.99 amending Title IX land use code BRC 1981 related to the site review process and intensity form and bulk use parking as subdivision standards concerning affordable and modest sized housing and setting forth related details with the additional amendments from the ordinance that was provided in our packet which are in section 982 table 8 2 floor area ratio Editions

[231:00] um to change the language to say floor area used as off street parking oh I got this doesn't have the right language and it needs to say bike parking oh include bike parking okay got it so that the new language would be floor area used as off Street um parking bike parking and vehicular circulation that is above grade and provided entirely within the structure a second one to amend the following sections of 981 table eight one intensity standards rh2 maximum floor ratio to 0.67 and up to 1.07 by site review bt1 maximum floor area ratio to one up to 1.4 by site review bt2 maximum floor area ratio to 0.5 up to 0.9 by site review and bc1 and bc2 maximum fluoride ratio to 1.5 and up to 2 in areas covered by appendix n and then in section 9214b3 that currently has exempts middle

[232:02] housing from site review to strike that exemption and in [Music] 982d1b3 and 4 which currently has striked the language used for detached single-family land use that are and to not strike that language and those two sections that's what I got second um is that motion well formed it's exceptionally formed um I just wanted to make sure you had mentioned an architect uh reference and I'm not sure that maybe that was the last one it was okay thanks for checking um and any further discussion um just a credit to Lauren like Bravo like thank you really really well done more in all the specific well and thank you to staff and that was an amazing job

[233:02] Aaron keeping track of all of those things and reciting them perfectly so thank you thanks for that two years as planning board chair was good good training yep it's one real uh note I Carl do you remember when we were on the large Lots work group I mean that's five years ago or something so like this is a lot many of these things are a long time coming so I just wanted to particularly thank you for uh a lengthy run up to tonight nice job and and I'll just say a couple words or Nicole good okay just a couple words too I haven't saved much tonight and I don't I don't have too much here but I just really wanted to recognize um staff and Brad particularly your leadership um here we started really behind we loaded an apartment that was short staffed with most of our work plan priorities um I think you know some of us were nervous when it took a while to get

[234:00] started with all of this and she gave us a plan and you stuck to it and we've been following that timeline and it's it's just really impressive and um so I just just wanted to notice that um and also just um for Council I think this this was a um a great set of kind of work plan items that we all agreed on and supported and move forward I think the community engagement on this was really good both with the folks who will be living in some of these spaces as well as with the people who will be building them so um thank you to everybody who engaged in that and uh Lauren thank you for your leadership and coming up with some tweaks and I think I also really just appreciated our discussion and our ability to rein in some of these things and not try to add on a bunch of stuff tonight but really to try to do it in a thoughtful way that is mindful of the the work that we still have have to do on this Council the work that the next Council will do and the work that staff is doing so to me this

[235:02] is just a great example of all of us working together well and uh thanks to staff for keeping us on track thanks for that Nicole and yeah just Echo all the enormous thanks and Carl we've been working together on these issues for like 13 years now and I remember in some of the early days you know proving projects and being frustrated because I'm like well why are we getting this and not something else and as you work on it for a number of years we're like well it's because it's baked into the codes I mean we're getting what we require and this has been identified for a very long time that we're getting we've been getting larger and more expensive units instead of more attainable units and so finally cracking that nut um as part of this council's work plan is really exciting this is a very detailed ordinance lots of changes I think it's exceptional work and it's in the weeds right all the details of the code but I think it's going to have a really positive impact on development in the community for the decades to come so huge thanks and this is this this is a great step forward

[236:00] and with that if we could do a roll call vote please Emily of course we'll start the roll call vote on public hearing item 5B with council member Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes folk arts and emphatic yes council member friend yes Joseph yes spear yes councilmember weiner yes and Yates yes ordinance 84.99 is hereby past and an amended unanimously with a vote of eight to zero right on and I got something else but Rachel just um did we establish what we're going to have public hearings for um a public hearing for in third reading yes so that we can come back to that so the question is based on those changes that we made do people feel like this is a consent item or is this a public hearing item and that's yeah I think we're feeling comfortable

[237:01] with consent of course we always defer to Council in that regard yeah I'm I'm fine with that I'd prefer public hearing but I see I'm in the minority so thanks and then I wanted to um Carl would it be helpful for me to list off the things that we put in the phase two or do you feel like you're comfortable with what we've been talking about I think I'm pretty comfortable I've taken pretty good notes okay good I did too but I'm glad you're ahead of me um great well uh very exciting and get that done and that is now it with our public hearings but um I understand we might have an item under Matters from the mayor member of council from council member Benjamin but we should do a time check um it is uh three before ten uh Matt was interested in checking in on the letter to the County Commissioners our folks up for that right now okay yep I'm seeing it on heads I mean this is time sensitive so um thanks mayor um yeah so as was

[238:02] hotlined uh let's see at this point last week I think um hotline a letter to our colleagues at the county commissioner's office to really synthesize um some of our most acute needs in sort of a housing sector from which the County Commissioners are uniquely positioned with their assets resources and departments to help us solve and partner with us to crack um and they are proposing a ballot measure that would raise money through an affordable attainable housing tax and so um I appreciate you putting the letter up so I we've had an in-person meeting and we've had sort of ongoing conversations and this was an attempt to decide to try to really synthesize down what are our communities and specific needs and how do we Leverage What the county is looking for in terms of our council's support for this measure and how do we get them to commit to some of these acute needs in particular really supporting um a permanently Supportive

[239:01] Housing and we know that we've talked about this as being a critical need in our community um for for a lot of aspects in in going forward but how do we get there is also where bullet 2 is important which is that scaffolding and so transitional housing is also fundamental to that again we've talked at nauseam about these two things and we ourselves can only do so much to achieve that and needing the county to really step up their game is kind of essential uh maybe some of you heard this update but on Monday the County Commissioners approved um actually the 700 000 dollars to make the shelter whole with its funding so we thank them for making that investment so it kind of makes bullet point three moot we like to think that maybe hotlining that uh letter did that but I think that would be over there um but uh when one could only hope so so really it really leaves three bullet points the the top two third one gets removed because they took care of that and then the fourth one there um is going forth and really trying to to make a concerted effort to go beyond

[240:00] just having a loose plan with our task force on high system utilizers but to really say look no we need to go forward with that this community takes the disproportionate brunt of those impacts and we are spending resources from many other departments to tackle that and so with this consort of effort we may actually receive many or lots of financial savings to then move that money into other things that we know we need to do and so it really comes down to those three bullets that would be fundamentally needed for that partnership and for the resources generated by this tax to meet some of our most acute needs and that's what this letter is meant to address hopefully creates accountability but a way for us to come back to the table should this pass and say yep these are the things that we need to March forward on we want to work with you to do so that's the spirit of this letter that's what's written it's gotten input from Kurt fernhover it's got an input from Carl Castillo and it's gotten some input just to sort of try to make sure that we're covering our bases so I appreciate that I was able to get that out there and would love to see if this is something we can just say yep we like it

[241:01] and want to move forward and eventually take either right right here and not a five to say we want to move it forward or take a vote to move it on so that's the gist of it and I'll look to you mayor in terms of how we want to take process going forward yeah thanks so much for bringing this forward Matt so from a process perspective uh what we're discussing tonight is whether we would have a nod of five to proceed with with this letter and whether there'd be any suggested changes and then it would come back to us on consent probably on the October 5th meeting if there is that interest in with the not of five so I guess I would just say um do people have any particular comments or people in favor of this approach Rachel and then Nicole sorry I'm a little chatty tonight um one thing is I would like to hear uh councilmember wallach's feedback on it because he's out sick tonight so that it would bum me out if we did this in a way that we didn't get his voice because I think if we're sending this it should be unanimous and then the second is in terms of expand permanently Supportive

[242:02] Housing across the county I I wish that had us a definition that I could um believe in like it's not to me for in a lot of cases it's not enough to have you know an hour a week of psh so I don't know if there's a definition that tethers to that or not but um you know if we're asking them to spend on psh I think I would want it spent in the way that I'm thinking of it which is like meaningfully supporting with uh a substantial number of hours for people who need it okay all right Nicole yeah um you know I think with this with this ballot measure and thinking about how to spend this money the Commissioners have been working on it for a long time and I think that some of this you know for five or six years ago was done in partnership with the city and and to help us meet some of our affordable housing need um I would rather not tie the

[243:01] endorsement or our council's endorsement of this measure to um the sort of list of uh demands I mean I think the Commissioners are already doing and working towards some of these things I would I'm not at all opposed to the idea of giving them some feedback and information on what it is we're seeing what we would like to see more of but for me that is a separate issue from support of this ballot measure which is going to give us some really needed affordable housing opportunities including permanent Supportive Housing and I don't like the idea of trying to constrain the work that they're doing in partnership with so many others in in the county to to get here so I'm happy to talk about a letter but I I don't really want to tie that to support for this ballot measure can I just inquire about this because as I read the language it's it has we offer an endorsement but we request and so I

[244:00] don't necessarily see this as like Hey we're holding this back until you've already implemented these things so I I read it as we endorse it but what we're also asking for for you to do these things um Bob do you have a thought there yeah I agree with you Aaron I think that that Matt's done a good job of of separating the endorsement from our list of requests I don't think it's a conditional endorsement I think it's an endorsement um and then it's a series of suggestions that we would make the Commissioners if the ballot measure passes so I I think you're right Aaron so that's how I feel it's not a um so Matt it's not like uh if we we will only endorse it if you agree to these things no it it could be if that's the will of counsel and we then strengthen the language to be that poignant um but it is not it's just about as it's as strong of a of of imploring them uh without making it conditional so the

[245:02] the goal is to get up to that line without Crossing it because that change is obviously impact of things but it's to be as strong as possible in imploring their action on these fronts it's not a mother may I it's we're begging you to do this stuff um okay other other thoughts specific thoughts on the letter so um I love the letter so or I'll just I'll just drop Paula said are people in favor of sending sending this letter with potentially an addition and also a subtraction because bullet three would be removed because they just funded it so yeah yeah so we got we got support for it and yeah I think I heard that it was 900 000 they committed with a potential 100 000 from other communities in the in the county um and so we're in favor of sending the letter and then just Rachel did you have a specific language you wanted to suggest about the psh or like with significant wraparound services or or I

[246:02] don't know if there's just a definition that applies maybe but there must not be because in some cases we're not doing what I would call substantial or as needed uh yeah substantial or significant would work for me happy to work the language I I just just from my I was trying I just you know I was trying not to get hyper prescriptive because we don't even have a good definition for transitional housing and so I was trying if we got caught in the definitions and they someone else at a different definition we get caught up in sort of chasing our tail so I like your idea but if it can be something of substantial or something like that I just want to make sure if that's worthwhile versus having to then formally Define the whole term because then we kind of have to do that for transitional for consistent so I just want to make sure we meet kind of what you're trying to get at um impactfully yeah so I all I can say is I think we could expand psh without meeting what I think needs to happen and I think we want some language in there that clarifies uh that that it's you know a meaningful number of hours

[247:01] um you know as needed by the the individual substantial is fine too yeah how about how about this Rich word says invest in the programs and infrastructure to expand permanently Supportive Housing psh after that we had with um substantial wraparound Services provided if needed yeah I mean not everybody's going to need it but yes if and as needed by an individual okay so how about across the county with substantial wraparound Services as needed by each individual works for me thanks so are people all right with that okay I got it yeah since Kurt's here I was wondering if he might want to weigh in on any of this language or has thoughts about how we make sure we're getting what we want communicated adequately

[248:03] and while you're coming Kurt I'll just mention I spoke with commissioner Levy today who wanted to make sure this was not additional support and she was like there I think she generally was interested in moving these directions but but said I can't promise today but hopefully I think this letter would be in the spirit of of working on that so uh Kurt fernhawber housing Human Services um first um Teresa do you are there any concerns about how I weigh in on this potential ballot initiative well good point good point yeah uh Kurt thanks for thanks for the question um it would not be appropriate for City stuff to take a position on a ballot measure um particularly one that ends up benefiting us so even though it is not our ballot measure it does benefit the city um I think the follow-up question is you know could

[249:00] so I you could provide factual information um about the items and so I answering factual questions is fine um if if you'll permit me mayor I I also want to note that Council hasn't yet voted uh I don't believe Council has directed staff about resolutions of support um for items on the ballot it would not be um it would not be advisable to determine um at this point whether you will be endorsing a particular matter so certainly you can discuss whether that is an idea that you'd like to continue exploring um but but but this would not be an official uh commitment to endorse so thanks very much for catching that Kurt and Teresa that's really great

[250:01] point do you have a factual question for Kurt about any of these well I guess my my main um question was around this wording to the letter and how do we communicate that we want to have sort of this more substantial wraparound Services provided in a way that is clear and and I guess since you work in that I just feel like you could provide that language for the letter not related to the ballot item S I guess like a question of if one were to want to add language specifying a significant amount of wraparound services do you have language that would factually be appropriate um sure we're well um HUD does have a definition of permanent Supportive Housing we could look at that and I could you know send that to you and you could look at maybe integrating that um I'll also just

[251:01] um talk about some of the challenges that we have that I think you brought up uh Rachel as well um and that's simply um for some organizations simply having enough staff to provide the services that they're sort of committed to um and that we would maybe expect um so that's just a real life challenge that we're having um right now um you'll hear next week about how we're addressing some of that um and then um the um last week the the state also came out with a definition that I I believe um uh talks about requiring a ratio of 1 to 15 or for case management um so I think that would that would um impact um Grant applications to the state and the types of funding that we would try

[252:00] to obtain to to meet those types of ratios of support so maybe create you could follow up with an email with some of those some of those details be glad to do that thank you Nicole yeah I have a question um Kurt um you may be able to answer this I'm not totally sure it may be more of a question for the commissioner so my understanding is you know this ballot measure is already written approved the first point is talking about committing no less than 25 percent of the res revenues generated to a specific type of housing I mean is that is that anything that they could do given that the ballot measure is already there and I don't think it's in the ballot measure can they Curt sorry yeah oh oh I'm sorry sorry sorry sorry so maybe that's uh I don't know if there's a way to get question about that to the Commissioners but I think that would be a foreign I don't want to give them things that

[253:00] are just like well and I wouldn't want to commit our staff to speculate on what the county coder could not do on their ballot measure so I appreciate the question I think that is one best posed to the County Commissioners and in their discussions to see what they have discussed so I can add some context um that number was not just pulled out of thin air and it was done so not to pick a dollar number because that obviously is very project dependent it was basically saying what is what is what is a minimum amount of annual investment to make meaningful impacts in this space and that's where the 25 percent came from in terms of what that would translate to in dollars so um that was how that number was it was arrived at in that context and so um I felt I could answer that because Kurt can't yeah and I think it's just my my question is Maura is this even within the realm of possibility given the ballot measure is set can they can they can they even

[254:00] approach a commitment like that sure they can I mean they they can choose how to spend their money how they choose to so this is a choice for them obviously it won't be on the front end of a ballot measure passing because the language is baked in it's if it passes then we have a discussion about how that money is spent and then these are maybe some expectations or goals that we want to Aspire towards so that's where it is and of course at that point they have absolute discretion through their partners and the affordable housing collaborative and Consortium group like that so totally within their purview it's just a matter of when does that discussion occur not on the front end because of course the language is the language sure Kurt what is the current ratio you said 15 to 1 uh caseworker I don't really answer to that right now okay okay so thanks for the discussion so um I guess I would ask for uh the well we already got the notify to send the letter and people were interested in

[255:00] Rachel's change I think I saw a majority of sports so I think we've got our direction of how to proceed and then what I might ask in addition is so this is a letter but in uh the we probably we may also want to do a resolution of support which would be the formal endorsement of the ballot measure so would what's up and so would people I saw looked her is there not a five for us to place that on a future agenda a formal endorsement support am I okay here Teresa uh yes mayor you are um I I see Jess that the council might want to consider if there are any other ballot measures that they would like to um introduce for support and if so I would recommend a hotline or a request to CAC rather okay so that which is a larger scope then I think we should be tackling tonight so how about we instead say uh people can send CAC hotline requests for any ballot measures they would like the

[256:00] council to consider endorsing including this one okay thanks for that keeping me in line there um so okay I think that that resolves it um that we'll move forward with that and see it probably on consent on October 5th so Matt thank you for your work on this mistake as in as an action I'm happy to make those modifications that I've heard and then maybe consult with with Kurt on some HUD definitions and then I can submit that back to hotline or um a hotline upon that and then that'll get circulated and it'll be ready for the fifth is that appropriate I think that sounds good are you good with that Teresa yes that procedure works thanks great um well that brings us to the end of even our impromptuagenda items any final thoughts I'll just say damn folks we got a lot done and it's only 10 16. well done everybody I'll gavel is closed

[257:01] 10 14 pm we made it