March 13, 2024 — Design Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Alright. I guess we don't have our dab chair here today. Huh? Great! No, I need to jump in great. And do we have the agenda. Does anyone need help finding it? So we just have the one set of meeting minutes to go over. and then the discussion on the letter to council. and no other. I don't think that we we have. There's no members of the public just to let you know just to get started with the meeting. I don't see anybody else on the attendees list, so we're good there. and I'll pose I'm gonna put the the council prompt in the chat. So we have it.

[1:00] Who's the woman that comes to every meeting? She's not coming to our meeting? Can't remember her name. Not least, that it comes to every single meeting that's available. Liaison. Ml. no, no, no, no! The pub, the woman from the public who comes at every single meeting. I forget her name. Yeah, she's not. She's not here right now. So that's good. That's all right. so I'm looking at coloring the email you sent yesterday has the the the letter prompt. Yeah. And I can put that in the chat. Actually. So it's out. But before that you'll need to open the meeting Rory, and then And the minutes there. There's some changes proposed. So that would be the next item, and then we can

[2:05] check for public participation. Once. We don't think there is any app attendees here tonight, and then you can move into the minute or the council letter. Well, I have the packet. Oh, can you enable share? Oh, yes. yes, I can. Let's see. Sorry I forgot to make you a co-host. So this is that's there tonight, and it has a prompt in it, too. Okay, great. So perfect review proposed. Edits to the Minutes. Anybody have any additional edits of minutes, or did we want to have a motion to approve the minutes. So I had included some minutes, and they're just tacked onto the bottom of this, and they're in red.

[3:06] That's that had some suggestions. Here we go. I think. So, colony. Sorry, mister. Do we need to open the meeting? Yeah. So call the Rory. If you could call the meeting to order and do a roll, call all the meeting to order like with a gavel. Alright! Welcome, folks! This is March thirteenth Dab meeting, calling to order, let's do a roll call here. I'm Rory filling in as the vice chair for Dab. and I'm Brendan and I second the call, the meeting to order.

[4:00] else do we have here Matthew Shaks, 9 or dab Steven liaison to dab. Yeah. And ally city of Boulder. I'm training to be dev secretary. Yeah. Apologies. Everyone. Yeah. Amanda Cussworth. Board support manager. But just real quick. A quick introduction to Ally. She you will see her familiar, her face moving forward. She is going to be your new dab, secretary. So welcome, Ali. Thank you for being here on the line here. It looks like, but maybe and

[5:23] thanks, Brad, alright. So then, so we've called to order correct at 409 pm. Public participation. There's none correct. No, that would come after reviewing the minutes minutes. Okay, got it. So we got the minutes here. Now, you know, I'm gonna just scroll through. Are you guys seeing my screen still? Yeah. if you could. Zoom in on? Yeah, perfect. Yeah. So I just asked for maybe just more clarifying language.

[6:05] as to you know, using like board recommended or board recommends. yeah, I just thought that was problematic was confusing. So I just added more structure to that. I think that sounds good, too. And then again, the same. I think it was. It was confusing what we were. what the outdoor use and which entry way we were talking about. And I think so I just want to clarify is that you know, there's the half circle element that's currently enclosed. And we talked about making it open. And maybe a patio.

[7:04] yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I think it's more specific. I think it's good. Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to make sure, like there was a lot of discussion from neighbors about you know, views. And I just didn't. I just wanted to make sure that we're talking about like not St. Julian's transparency with its neighbors, or whatever, but just more specifically like just talking about the building. Right. I agree. And then I don't know. I just was not really happy about. There was disagreement among the board. I mean, I think, that this the discussion had more, all more meat neat to it, and and I wouldn't say that I mean we didn't vote. but I think it was more like Todd didn't agree with the other members of the Board, which I don't think.

[8:05] saying that there's disagreement amongst the board makes it sound like there was more disagreement than there really was. Right, and he wrote the he wrote this response, so I don't know. I mean, if there was anything else that somebody else remembers or would recommend, adding to that? I actually summarize there. So it's not. You guys can make any changes to that summary because it was after the fact, trying to get that portion where it wasn't part of the other Consolidated recommendations. So yes, please add or change language here that you fill with best summarize, summarize that we can get that in. There is we could still do a portion of

[9:04] yeah in 2. 2 B, one. Yeah, they were not one. But they weren't part of the staff identified criteria. So those were the editions that he wanted to talk about right at the very end. Steven nailed it like the 4 of us like it was a non. It wasn't even a talking point for us, because it's fine, right? So I just felt odd to even opine on it, especially after all, the Prep. Work with the affidavits people sign when they bought the units. And it was just. It was an odd addition to the end of our conversation. Yeah. especially relative to our purview, too. I think he was trying to make the leap to. Is there architectural design

[10:03] components that are kind of of Devs purview that could be revised or incorporated, that would magically make the building smaller and open lots of views up from people who have a building adjacent which I don't think any of us really wanted to entertain right right, and I the the only you know, the sort of consensus that I thought we had and what had teeth, or, you know, it was the building met the zoning setback. It was compliant to the zoning setback requirements. While still making some concessions to the neighbors. So I just didn't. I don't know. They were already making concessions that they didn't have to me exactly right. What would we change in this language, I guess, is just to kind of sniff to it. I mean, maybe it's as simple as adding,

[11:05] Where, Todd, where does he stay here? Somewhere, I think earlier, he said, that there was disagreement. Yeah, right here. It just says there was disagreement amongst. I think we need to be frank that Todd disagree. Todd disagreed with the other board members. If you guys all agree with me. And the whole board declined to make additional recommendations. Yeah, I mean, I think you could just say, T. Brian? you know tea? Brian felt the project was deficient in meeting this criteria, and then you could just say that the Board not disagreed and declined to make any additional recommendations. Yeah. I like that. So I think, colony. We just wanna be specific, that instead of vaguely saying there was disagreement among the board members. We want to isolate that. T. Brian

[12:08] brought these issues to the remaining board members and the we did not agree. Okay, we can get that, we can get that included in their revision. And you guys can, if that's the language in here, and you want to approve them. With that we will get that approved or edited set to you for the stamp, Maria signature. and it'll be approved with that change and the other changes that are suggested. If I could just add, II think if we're gonna say that the Board declined or disagreed, I think it is important to include the basis of that disagreement. So to make sure that the revision clearly states that we disagree because we feel like in in my mind, there's 2 reasons. A. It's not within our purview. And 2. The the proposal in this specific situation is within

[13:01] by rights or zoning requirements. So I just wanna make sure that the revision includes not just that we declined to address it, but the the reasoning, the reasoning for that. Were there any additions to that? Those 2 reasons, because we can also get those 2 reasons listed out. I think that was it. It was by right. And it's slightly out of our purview. Yeah. And I mean, we could keep going out. But it I mean, I felt like it did fit into the character neighborhood. I mean, that's what it is right. I mean the majority of the Board members disagreeing with Todd.

[14:11] Sure I can. And if anyone disagrees, just please interject. But the rationale, as I understand it, is one. We feel that the proposal these 2 items, 2, one b, and 2 2 v. One the proposal complies with the with the zoning requirement just like the red lines that Brendan provided here state. I think it's important to capture that and 2. It really isn't within our purview to determine from a design standpoint whether or not that building now sing is appropriate. I mean it. It goes even further to say that it. If if that, if the zoning requirements are appropriate like, that's not

[15:06] something that we can. we can't rezone it. Yeah, it is planning board right? There's okay. Can we make a motion to approve these minutes, Kawani? Well, I think she's gonna revise them and then send them again. Well, we could. You could make a motion to approve the red lines and the 2 on what you've talked about for this edition here on top of the ones you provide Brendan tonight, and we can. They can be approved or if you'd like us, to bring it back to you with these additions for next meeting, we can approve them at that time. It's up to you. I'm fine with approving them. Now. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve with the pending edits. I second the motion

[16:00] all in favor. Whew! Alright! Great! Or do II have to recuse myself because I wrote the edit. No, but you you guys. Refusals are throwing a phone in our ability to do this project. Let's see. So now we're going to do. I'm sorry to interrupt. Do you want to do just a quick roll call. I know you. You motioned and and Steven made a second. But do you want to do a roll call of everybody in favor. All in favor. Yeah, it? Yeah, thank you. Bye. I think that's right. All of us. okay, so now, public participation, there's no public participants present. correct. So then, board matter. So this is the one that we're trying to

[17:00] wrap our head around here, guys is we've got to somehow produce this letter to city council in all of 1 h and 39 min. So I figured I would just crack open a word document and start typing but I'll also bring up the prompt, the prompts in here, and that you know what I could put it in the chat if it's helpful, and you can copy it out of there for that cause. I don't think you can copy. I don't think you have copyrights in the Pdf. If I recall, so give me a second down the word doc to us. I can't. Why don't I just send you the prompt in an email yeah, that works. I'm gonna forward the email from yesterday to Rory, the one that went out with the copies of the full letters. Also.

[18:00] I'll just send it quickly again and just put the prompt in there. So it's easy to reference. Then you can copy it onto your word. But you know. Pbsd canceled scroll, what give me. Did you hear that? Vbsd public announcement canceled scroll from yeah, II grew up in the Midwest and they didn't cancel school, even if it did snow 26 inches. Now, we're definitely gonna have a dusting. I mean my town 4,000, and Syracuse outside of Syracuse, New York had more snow plows and boulder does actually right above that in purple. Let's highlight it as a whole board commissions or panel. City Council invites you to share the top. 2 right

[19:01] at 4 22. That whole that's their prompt for you on their annual retreat. Perfect enough. There's some other things that they had asked like directions, you know minor directions, but that's not. Those aren't part of the prompt. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those. The city. The letter council yeah, got it. So that's that's the whole prompt right here. That that is it. That's the whole prompt. really. So, as a whole Board Commission or Panel City Council invites you to share the top 2 or 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind and or the top. 2 or 3 items on your groups existing work plan for council awareness ahead of their annual retreat. So we don't have a work plan.

[20:10] So we between the 4 of us, get to pick 2 or 3 things that we want to headline, Bullet point. share with city council, that are issues or opportunities on our minds very specific. So I figured what would be helpful is having some of our old letters up now. It sounds like we didn't write one last year. Correct, Kalani. Actually, you did. No one wrote a letter to counsel. They did not prompt the boards because they were, from what I understand, kind of it, mid Midway through some of their work planning at that time. So they were going to wait till this year. So you don't have one last year at all. So just to give a recap, for I don't know when everybody joined. I know, Steven, this is probably your first letter to the Board to City Council.

[21:07] We have over the years, regardless of the prompt. A lot of times just ended up writing about things that we wanted to kind of get off our chess in in front of city council from kind of our professional experience, working in the city more than anything I think you know, for better or worse, I, personally, you know respectfully, have not observed any sort of acknowledgement of anything that we've ever written to city council, and any sort of work, plan or you know direct acknowledgement, not to say that they're not talking about it behind the scenes or whatever, and I certainly don't watch every city council meeting but we haven't really been made aware too much. Now I will say I will maybe caution that to the like. 6, 7 years ago we were asking to be involved more, and to have more of a relationship with planning board and like. How could more projects come in front of Dab? And I would say, Kailani, that over the last 7 or 8 years we have seen more projects come, and we have like, if anything, planning board has kind of heard the call and is bringing more stuff to us, or is recommending more stuff to come

[22:15] through Dab. So I do think, you know, there is some impact that this does have city councils, maybe less so planning board, maybe more so. But I just wanted to revisit the top. So this is from 2,021. And basically, we were talking about reengaging the exploration for the design excellence initiative. That was some old 2,015 draft I don't know, Brendan, were you here for this letter in 2,021? You are okay. And obviously, Matthew, you were so. Stephen, we were just trying to revive the design. Excellence, initiative. It's like a long lost how to like essentially reward good design with, you know, multiple metrics of reward

[23:01] and then, of those rewards, I think part of the design excellent specifically, was talking about like, if your project provides community benefit. and I believe at the time, you know, we were talking about community benefit could be this broad thing right like, how do you like allow it to be abroad as opposed to just affordable housing. That's kind of the only sort of kicker that felt like it was going to reward you is, if you just made affordable housing. So that was last or 2 years ago, and then. 3 years ago, we looked like we went on a little bit of a Martin Luther campaign here. oh, wow! We got lengthy. This was a little more of a specific prompt. Where they asked us what made our board happy? What made our board sad? This really triggered an emotional response. It's been a little more sterile.

[24:03] So if we have to pick 2 or 3 topics, I guess you know, there's this design. Excellence is something we've left off. I haven't heard any mention of it. And this was kind of specific to the design excellence. How can community benefits start to kind of broaden and again inspire and reward good design. The other ones we've talked about in the last 8 years that I'm aware of all. Still the beams. And then, you guys, let's just debate. Open the discussion here. We used to go back about the energy code a lot and say that we thought that the energy code, you know, while we appreciate wanting to be one of the leaders, as far as kind of restrictiveness in energy codes in the country that you know we felt like. There's a lot in the energy code that's banking on solar, which you know our grid is maybe not equipped to handle. There's a lot in the energy code that's banking on plastics that are like loading up our houses with what we were at. One letter saying was like. We're front loading now the carbon footprint, hoping that these buildings last long enough to pay them off, and that energy

[25:06] advances in energy production or efficiency if they come 20 years down the road. Maybe it's okay to burn a lot of energy, and we just plugged a bunch of plastic in our buildings to insulate them. So we've talked about energy code. We've talked about trying to get more projects under our review and like, what is the pipeline for that. And then this design, excellence and kind of community benefit piece. So I don't know what you guys want to talk about beyond that revisiting any of those. Or if there's new topics, I figure that'd be a good introduction. Thanks, Rory. II wanna maybe just make a make a push that we could throw out some ideas, maybe just generate, spend 5 or 10 min just throwing out some potential topics I have one which we may or may not want to tackle, you know any or all of these but

[26:00] and I. And I'm just bringing this up because it's I think it's important. We have an opportunity to draw from our own practice to see what are some issues that are touching people on the ground as it as it pertains to design throughout Boulder. I think, one one large aspect of projects we don't see as a board, obviously by mandate or residential projects. And it just happens that a lot of my practice personal practice deals with the residential projects in Boulder, and because of the nature of our board, we don't ever get to say much about it or opine much. specifically what I've seen over. you know, a decade of work here. But recurring a lot more recently in the last, I'd say covid Times. Constraints and impacts of Pu Ds on the ability of residents to add accessory dwelling units.

[27:04] I do think that's an issue that runs at odds with. I would say, a a trend that's gaining acceptance, which is a to user becoming more of a popular option and solution to some of the housing issues. I think it used touch on owners. Rights property rights to, you know, fully develop their their lots. It could be a sticky topic we don't really want to get into, but I'll just say anecdotally. For instance, I've had 2 clients already this year who, you know, have called me. I've gone to look at their house, and they're just so so severely impacted by Pu ds that were developed in a way that currently has the properties as not permanently nonconforming properties, basically. And they have 0 option to

[28:02] add an adu over the garage, for example, or increase their do an addition, more than 10% of the allowable area. So that's kind of my issue in a nutshell. And I know those are some very specific zoning things that we don't really have purview to talk about. But I would I would. maybe, if we had. Maybe if this was something we were to pass along to planning or to council. Is is there a mechanism? Is there some discussion about you know, remedying puds when they create non-conforming conditions to allow some additional options for residential property owners broaden that and just say ad use in general right? Like how to continue to encourage and provide

[29:00] broader means of adu development. Yeah, that was a bit of a mouthful. I haven't really articulated if I have a position about it, but it's something we haven't addressed, and rarely do we address ad use as part of our purview. so that was one idea. But I do think that we there is precedent for us discussing it. If that's something we want to talk about in the link that colony sent us there or in the email that client sent us, there was a link to the 2022, 2023 City Council Priorities dashboard. and the first item on there is Edu's consider an ordinance to remove statutory limits for ads within a certain radius to allow for attached or detached ad use wherever existing requirements are met. So I think it's one of Council's. I mean here. It's their top priority. I don't know if it's alphabetical. Brian. One correlation to that. I guess I don't know if I express it very well, it's not just the adu density that needs to be looked at. It's the underlying zoning which often will require a minor MoD

[30:15] and if if the lot is deemed to be nonconforming. They can only add a 10% floor area increase. So even if you but allow them to build an adu, they might only be able to add 90 square feet of floor area to the lot. So it's A, it's a link between the PUD, you know, area limit limitations, the underlying zoning, the Nonconformity, and then the adu approval. Any of those could limit the the the options, you know. and it provides additional housing, and it is something that city council. II think you know, needs to address or can address. I mean, we could touch on it.

[31:01] and we could sort of give our support. You know the idea of removing that limitations. I was gonna say, you know, just thinking about just stepping back a little bit kind of like general structure. Maybe, for this might be, I mean, I like the example showed Rory where there's like the 2 2 bullets, but maybe get really specific in those areas. But maybe before that, we have kind of like, well, here's the state of the Union. The climate we're working within right now, and I know I'm not alone in feeling like our climate is one in which the design community is extremely frustrated with how long things are taking. How complicated the processes are. you know it's funny. It's not the cost unless it relates to time, but it's more the time, right? And the plan.

[32:03] you know. And then you also have businesses that don't you know, local mom and pop shops that don't want to open up because the process of, you know, putting a story on Roll Street is so lengthy and cumbersome that you know only Patagonia and North Phase can get in there. So that's what we're getting. But there's this climate, you know. And then you, the bigger political climate of people feeling like creative and everything, you know, which is driving towards wanting people with orange hair that solutions right? That'll just solve everything with a being dictator. But this is the political climate we're in, and there's a lot of frustration, right? And I think that you know, what can we as a board do to help move that along? You know, especially I see it. I do see it in my residential clients, you know people are like, why would I even try to get a permit for this? Why would I? you know, which is not good.

[33:04] you know, I think there's residential. The residential pieces is an interesting one, because it's it is an area. I mean, like, okay, if we're looking at the building, we we reviewed next to Saint Julie. Right? That's a big, complicated building. I think we had some great commentary on it. But in the end, you know, there's a great architecture team. They're gonna do a good job right? And it's gonna and we're adding something to it. In a way, these smaller, some of these smaller residential projects or infill projects. we would have a bigger impact, because, you know, they might not be having the same level of design or amount of money means spend design. Blah blah, you know that we could. We could do. I was. I was telling colony. I wrote an email to her, and it was talking about the project. That was the Old People's clinic up on Broadway. You guys probably all driven by it 100 times now, since it's been a construction, and every day I drive by a cringing, I'm like, oh, you know, how do we get in a situation where, because of the complexity of our rules, we have a

[34:07] drive aisle along Broadway with front loaded garages, and I know why they did it because it was too complicated. Get complicated to go through site plan, review to make it hold on. My cat just got hit. I'm sorry shit sure. Oh, no. Poor guy. Are we allowed to continue colony? You still have a quorum that Steven's video he's still on. But okay. shoot. I hope everything's me, too. So even if we go a little bit more broad. All right. So II think where he was going with this kind of general state of the Union, the kind of the process of

[35:04] that we engage in as dab right, and then us having some opinions about the complexity and the the time, the lengthiness, and essentially the cost of that. And then I think, Matthew, you're kind of at the other end of the spectrum. as far as like specifically wanting to talk about accessory, glowing units, which I think is a hot item right now. It sounds like Bremen said. It's on their agenda to discuss, and maybe what we do is quickly reaffirm or provide validation to like. You know the things they're talking about, the the decreasing, the density, proximity and all that. But maybe, like you said you could, we could also suggest some components they may have not thought about because you. You're seeing them in your practice. So I think that's worth noting. Do we want to cover like 3 or 4 more like high level ones, and then decide what we actually want to focus on Brendan just potential items. Again, they're not necessarily we need to focus on. But was just kind of going through the projects that that we've done in this past year, and what you know, looking at some highlights and

[36:13] a. And then also my experience on the joint board for the Boulder Junction. So okay, couple of things. The joint board for the Boulder Junction base to and then this the the revised submittal dab. Subm Middle Packet have brought some similar issues to my attention in that I am starting to to recognize or or feel that that designers, and as designers and architects, I think that we and you know, I think we should have a a seat at the table for a lot of these planning discussions.

[37:03] I think that, like, you know, for Boulder Junction, there's so much emphasis that's being put on and pedestrian and bike traffic, and on affordable housing when there's it just needs to be a little more like comprehensive and like public spaces and architectural scale and design, and how how that's all being zoned within that area. There's just not a lot of discussion from you know, I mean. from a high level, like architectural design standpoint. And then it. I'm I'm having the same feeling when when it comes, like, okay? So it was really helpful to have more, or what tablet, or I think one of the dab members on the planning board meetings. Sorry I'm being able to scatter both this, but

[38:05] I think more planning board participation. from Dab. I think that that's really just helps the projects. And it also helps. you know, translate or emphasize the conversations that we are having in dab, because otherwise they sometimes get lost. so I guess the overarching is that I think there needs to be more architecture and planning. That's the overarching. And then the second issue. that I wanted to bring up and was piggybacking on our energy code and conversation. And just, I just have a and it kind of goes to the state of the Union also. But I have.

[39:04] just, I'm getting really nervous that the energy code is becoming cost prohibitive for a lot of developers. And it that it's like. you know, only big corporations can afford to develop in boulder, and it's getting somewhat elitist and you know, development is coming at too high of a of an entry fee or a financial cost. I think you know we need to. If we're like eliminating gas, for example, we have to go to all electric and then putting in the infrastructure for ev parking, for example, or or if we have to, you know, have, like

[40:00] electric water heaters. that that's they're just so much more expensive. Because the technology hasn't caught up quite yet. I think, to what would be required, and by the energy code. and then to piggyback on steven's excessive time for reviews. He was saying that it doesn't have the financial cost. But to some of our commercial clients it's it's thousands of dollars every every month of review. And then really above. did you say I was saying for the excessive time reviews on one a State of the Union that Stephen was saying that there's not a like a huge financial cost. But I was saying for our commercial clients that every month of review can lead up to, you know thousands of dollars of

[41:04] of a cost. Yep. you know what's funny is like. If you were to go through that, say the Indian topic and be like, Hey guys like you like the process is now, you know, more time consuming than it's ever been. Some of that's due to the complexity of the process and requirements, but also just due to kind of the staffing shortage and whatever and all that's creating, you know, more cost financial burden to applicants and developers or homeowners, or develop you whatever. And basically, what's the the the point of that is that it's limiting the opportunity for folks to develop in town, and what's funny is they would probably welcome that. Yes, it's working oh. and

[42:01] well to I mean, Steven said something in passing when he was bringing that that kind of resonated with me. I mean, this is philosophizing here, but like the frustration of dealing with complex systems of not knowing when your projects gonna be reviewed. not knowing if it's going to be a year or 2 years for your project to get approved. And then on the residential level, you know, not knowing if you're gonna be able to move in before your kids start school in August. Those kind of things lend to an air of frustration and grievance which we're kind of absorbed in nationally. And this is an area where you live in your local town. You you sh feel like you should have some more. I wouldn't say control, but a little more stake in the matters of your own life.

[43:00] Yeah, the ability philosophical in that. Yeah, it's just another thing that contributes to people not being able to. you know, cope with the complexity of the world around them. That's not totally. Gonna that's not totally the City Council's fault, by any means. But it's part of what animates a lot of people's feeling toward the development process in boulder. and I'm I might be miss stating what it is. But I believe that they've come. They have a working group right now of kind of Well, like my like. Dash. My husband's on it where they're they're asking people who are frequent. you know, submitters, submittals to to help Streamline or to reevaluate and to ease this review process and and shorten timelines. And ha! You know how I think the city is reaching out to

[44:06] local professionals to try and figure out how to make this happen. So it does seem to be top of mind, and you know, emphasis from that would be just another kind of like vote for or streamlining. Yeah, I'm trying to capture complex thoughts here in one line. I like where you're going with that idea, Rory. cause it is. It is like it's probably a whole basket of solutions. But the it's not just 1 one thing due to

[45:00] but it's got to be like actionable shit right? It's not just like man. We really need to work on speeding up the timeframe, you know. It's like like somebody's just like, Hey, look like the 2 week check like, why can't we have an online where it's we can digitally check the box, and it's able to acknowledge that our submittals complete and we just wipe that first 2 week completeness. Check off right like that's an actionable item. I'm not sure. Where like do we want to get into that level of granularity with with these? Or do we want to just kind of again in our in my experience. Now, having written many of these letters, I think I think you guys are actually hitting the nail on the head like, let's just kind of express some deep seated frustrations and a handful of bullet points, but with generally with like open ended open, ended in a way that we think that they could encourage solution right? That we think that there's still the ability to encourage solution. I don't think you just wanna bitch for the sake of bitching right?

[46:00] No, and I think I think not to. You know, solutions. Not that there's someone else's job, but everything we bring up is complex and there isn't. There isn't a solution that sounds good to us that's actually gonna be thoughtful and broad and researched enough to be an actual solution. So I think that's that path is pretty fraught but bringing up areas of concern. Which you know, that's, I think, that resonates, you know that that's what we're being asked to do, I think? Oh, sounds like this state of the Union one, which is basically just city process. Let's start there because that's the highest level of all this and then and then let's see how much time we have left to kick in some more specific ones. You know, the AV one, I think is hot right now. I mean, I'm doing a project for a client in Denver, and just in the last 12 calendar months went from his. His lot was not zoned for ad use, that his lot was zone for 80 us, but it was a limited size. Adu, and then now he's got the biggest adu available, and they're actually incentivizing him to build the adu like Denver is on this right now.

[47:12] like they're like one step away from just paying him to build the adu. It feels like alright. So I'm gonna start with some me just get the formatting into play. I don't have the letter head Helen. But I'm gonna just get the 3 Design and I 3 board annual letter to City Council like 24, Rory. We can, if you could. If you guys can approve the text, what we can do is take it, put it on the letterhead. and then we'll send it to you to sign. You'll have a digital signature at that point. But you don't need the letterhead for what you're doing tonight. This will be fine as far as hey, Brad.

[48:08] we have prepared the following in response to your prompt for this year's letter. alright. So we're gonna say, one. are we gonna call it State of the Union. What do we? What's a good title for this? You know the topics relative to pro city process design review process. You're muted, Brendan. Thank you. I looked at that. I'm looking at the 2021 meeting letter. That we wrote and I think it's

[49:01] it's like I mean, I don't. I don't know if we can kind of bring over the same issue, since it was not necessarily addressed. But I think that my frustrations with design not being incorporated, I think enough in the planning process. This is sounds a lot lot less well like me like, and somebody bitching about it, but more actionable with talking about the design excellence initiative. So I mean, it's, you know, I mean, we've been doing that for years. We've basically been copying and pasting all items that we thought were worthy to keep reminding them of. So I think that's absolutely fair to keep that entire section. On reviving re engage exploration for the design. Excellence, initiative. Do we want to start with the State of the Union? One, though. Roy, to answer your question, I mean, what if something about something in in the line of like regulatory environment or

[50:06] development environment where relief for is that what we're seeking with this? Or are we just saying to evaluate so regulatory environments? Good, is it regulatory process, is it? Yeah, it? It's it's a bit environment. It's a bit process. It's a bit just the general feeling in the public an environment. To me, in the the both the cultural and social and the economic aspects was that for the the, the, the. the title designer view process and the regulatory environment. Is that good? Sounds like a thesis statement? Yeah, it doesn't sound like barring some bears are gonna be coming out to deal with.

[51:04] Okay, so designer, reprocessing the regulatory environment. Good, we're making process progress here. So you could even say efficiencies, too. or cause I like the the way we say, broaden broaden paths to defining so efficient, so like I mean Brendan, that might be a bullet. The the efficiency and broadening path is one of exactly agreed alright. So up the review processing registry environment. What we've talked about was time which we'll get into efficiency right? And then we talked about time complexity, which you know some of these are. They all been diagram. But I'm just trying to figure how many sub points that we want. I'm just gonna kinda write time

[52:02] and then action items for relief or something to that fact. So just to kind of document where we were. are these generally like, we wanna expand upon these 4 here, is there more? Is there less? Do we want to combine any of these? Well, I think I think you have to explain what you mean by time, and I think, like your your scratch items. Sub-bullet A, we're talking about excessive time and somewhat unpredictable review periods unpredictable. What do you call those? It's not a review period, but sort of the the length of the process. I thought I had it. Milestones or something has entitlement process entitlements not necessarily entitlements, but it may come to me in a minute. But so time

[53:08] alright. So so we're gonna say, time required is, I mean, do we want to say excessive or burdensome or burdensome is a good word I'm required is burden. Some design review process in the regulatory environment. Time required for design, submittal and review. Thank you. Oh, the simple word I was thinking of is is tracked right? So like, normally, you get in on a track, for I'm just gonna spit on this you get in a track for a pre application, and then that puts you on site. Review. Track

[54:00] those the length and the the length of all those processes stacked end to end. He's part of the frustrating, you know, aspect of the regulatory environment. And II mean, it's hard to separate time from cost like time. Time is money, but I also think that it's it's burdensome to the point where it's it discourages. It's a it's a hindrance and a you know, for a a diverse subset of applicants. So it's resulting in resulting in it's like a limiting of diverse applicate applicants. Or let me just get something in there. And again, the diversity of applicants. Nothing limiting the diversity of account for resulting in a lack of diversity.

[55:06] lack diversity of applicants. residential and residential and commercial, I mean, ie. It's becoming impossible to do something. How's that? I mean, we can be direct with these people. Our chance. we can always come back to it. But that that hits okay. So that's the timeline. And then I guess, complexity like, when you were talking about the review tracks. And then, you know, II snuck in submittal intake because that's like a whole new thing. Now, right like the intake comprehension review to me what it's also doing right is it's

[56:09] the onus on us which you know in a lot of ways protects our job security. So it's kind of funny to opine on this, but it's such a burden on the des like, the the submital requirements are are so complex, time consuming and burdensome, and they're really expensive to get it all together, and they take a ton of time just to get it together before you even then try to submit it so that it can take forever to be reviewed. Right? Yeah. so is that like complexity of submittal and application requirements? let's say, submittal and navigation requirements of content. Once you submit application content

[57:05] pretty much further. Like they. They're like the preamble to the burden process, right? And it's and it's every step of the way. It's, you know, they inhibit. like the dab application, the planning board application that tech docs, if they're required, that, you know, permit. Like every step of the way, there's a complex level of documentation and submittal requirements, and I don't want to interrupt your trends of thought on this particular bullet, but I do. Maybe it's part of a subpart of D, or included in the I do think we should acknowledge. I mean staff has actively been looking at process and making efficiencies. So I think, for all of our sort of pointing out

[58:05] room for improvement. we should take a moment to acknowledge. I know, staff, you know, behind the scenes and in front of the scenes are always looking for ways for, to improve improve efficiency, we should acknowledge that as a board. I don't want this to be read, as a, you know, like a blanket dismissal of all of those efforts. Yeah, I mean, I maybe we, we can include that knowing that, knowing that, you know there, there is an effort to be made to to create more more efficiencies. By staff. You know, we we just want to be. yeah, I just wanted to acknowledge, acknowledge the work we should use somewhere in there. Yes. Stats review officially up opportunity. I'm just gonna kind of make a note so we can expand on it. But kinda keep with our linear pro thoughts here. So we talked about the time required for some middle intakes and review tracks. We're kind of trying to flesh out the complexity of the actual content. I went so far as to say, drawing association details, etc., further inhibit the efficiencies of the review process

[59:20] during the I mean, essentially it just takes so much time to prepare this stuff right length of the application review, or during the entirety of the application. I mean, it takes a long time to prepare, and then it also takes a long time to review that amount of information. So it's so. It's the complexity of the middle and application content details, etc., require extensive time to pre-pare. And further, the in inefficiencies

[60:01] further well and and length requires extensive time to repair. and then extensive time to review and comment and revise. Yeah. And this further. yeah, I don't know if you need to delete that license. But you could just say that which, sorry? Yeah, it's fine where we're so we're complex. Middle application, content joins, etc. require extensive time. Repair, and then extensive time, review, comment and revise. you know, I guess we're eventually gonna say, this could be streamlined by just requiring less and letting us all do whatever we want. Is that

[61:00] I mean, you know, with II don't know. I just using the dab packet for as an example. you know the the code, the compliance is available to the designer, and I do think it's, you know. our our professional responsibility to make sure that we're complying with the design downtown design requirements, for example. But then to have to like I'm just using our application is because I I'm not as familiar with the others. But it just seems like it's a lot of time for an architect or an applicant to go through each and identify each element. Whether or not they're complying with it. I think we're generally capturing the complexity of that submitted prep

[62:00] completely smell application. Content requires extensive time to prepare. Yeah, and then extensive time to review, comment and revise again inhibiting a diverse class of applicants. Right? I mean, that's essentially what we're driving home here, right is that each of these is essentially limiting the people that are are willing and able to engage in this process. Right? And what sort of detriment is that to our city that the it's not a broader class of of project that is is potentially being evaluated. Right? I mean, we all got that letter from the the business owner, that near the dark horse. Yeah. I mean, I think that that's a really good example that that you know. As a board, we we have reviewed several student privately owned student housing developments that are taking over longtime local businesses. And you know. And they're they're all being developed by these

[63:04] huge national development groups. And it's outside money, and it's that's that's the class of a developer that's coming in, not the dark horse owner and the the bed and breakfast owner, the you know, hotel. whatever these smaller business owners. So I mean, are we almost basically saying, bullet point one is design review process and the re regulate regulatory environment inhibits a diversity of applicants. I mean, is that kind of essentially what's happening here or it doesn't. That's not our full bullet point. Is that really what we're getting to. I'm just, you know, as we're thinking out loud. I mean, it's kind of barb overarching. So I think maybe I think I think the the bullet point itself can stay that generic. And we're making a point about the diversity. So maybe we just say time and complexity very, you know, equal

[64:09] costs. increase costs for engaging in the city's process again, inhibit a diverse class of applicants just trying to capture what anything you guys can keep editing. You know, the regulatory environment. If we're talking specifically about the energy code standards, I think that that's adding prohibitive cost. And again. I think that's limiting the type of applicant more than the document. Prep got it. So maybe I think that's a very specific one, though, the energy code

[65:00] energy code requirements. So are we saying that just the actual requirements of the energy code now, like the standards are just. I would almost want to keep this as a separate bullet. In a way, I mean, if we want to just keep it more generic, the regulatory environment being encompassing like the energy code and like the building material requirements. And is just becoming cost prohibitive. So regulatory. Environment, including energy code. Yeah. Cause I just, you know. totally open to that to me isn't a code doesn't encompass really code requirements in so much as it encompasses the the overall sort of procedural environment.

[66:05] At least, II gathered from, and Steven not here to speak for himself. But I think when he's bringing bringing up this state of the Union, it's more of a a general environment of complexity, whereas I feel like whether it's building code. international fire, code, energy code, those are. or more. because they're they mandate a different level of compliance. It's not so much in the hands of our public. They just feel like they're in a different category. Yeah. So, Roy, I would say that the regulatory environment is making not off. Andre. Okay, yeah. So

[67:02] yes. And requirements are are making. Yes. like, drive home. This idea that, like the diverse qua, like like losing a diverse class of applicants, is. And maybe it's obvious. But like those are the cool, funky little like, someone wants to open a restaurant somewhere, but, like fuck, I don't have the time, money, or access to professional resources to do all this crazy shit, just so I can put a really cute sandwich shop in on the corner here, you know, you gotta you gotta put the sandwich shop in. But you gotta do a change of use. You gotta update all the windows just because you wanna put a new hood in.

[68:04] Well, I mean the Boulder Junction phase, too, they're like, you know, their main goal was, keep. Keep that area funky. But you really have to have you really have to encourage these, like the small car mechanic shop and the vacuum repair shop and the smaller businesses from not being swallowed by these developers that have the financial means to take over those spaces affordable housing. But then we're moving the businesses to Longmont that they'd be working in so like, what's why would they want to? Why would they need to live here?

[69:01] And so I think, yeah. 45 min. So we gotta finish bullet point one. So I think we're we're close. We've kind of hit all the like. The complexity of the cost submittal Review. Maybe we get into match items. Then we're gonna have one or 2 more. And it sounds like energy. Code is maybe a hot one unless we wrap it into regulatory, which I doubt we will, so I think kind of leaving them independent kind of drives home. The fact that a lot of this is the city's process, not like a mandated code. And then, if we wanted to grab anything out of the other ones, the adu component and then the design excellence one, we can also just copy clip if we wanted to just have that same language. In. yeah, we have 45 min. I think Brendan's topics of the phase 2. The general notion that a lot of these planning processes, high level planning processes aren't

[70:02] are doing the infrastructure and utility and and circulation. But they're not necessarily doing the architectural design that to me, dovetails really well with bringing up the design initiative. Again. it's it's kind of like a catch, all umbrella of like design within our city planning or lack of design. Kind of being showcased in the city planning processes. Yeah. So I think if we even copied and pasted from the 2021 letter, and then did like. you know, additional comment for this year would be the that you know. Examples of. Of The processes that we've been involved in that are that don't have. We're not seeing an emphasis on design.

[71:02] So should we call this a reprint from 2021 letter through counsel. Just so they know that, like guys. the 20 fifteenth graph design prepaid rides over traction. update the approaches to better reflect current city priority. relevant matters of the past 7 years. I guess that's gonna be 8, 9, 10 years now

[72:03] I've got to step away from it. I'll be back in 1 min. Yep. So parentheses that past 10 years. Okay. to finish the the the bullet point one here, though, or yeah. Topic one. So time required for so we were in time, and complexity. Equals cost increased cost for engaging with these processes. Inhibit a diverse class of applicants. and it's

[73:02] yeah, I think that's fine. Regulatory environment and requirements are cost prohibitive. I mean, that's just a statement I like, how bold that statement is. Action items for relief. Do we? Wanna just say, like, dab encourages like. yeah. dev encourages city council to continue, you know, to work off of staffs, cause we know, staff. We want to acknowledge staff working on this, and we want to encourage City council to, you know. Support them.

[74:01] Who really process that fair enough? Can we be done with one? Hey? Yeah. awesome. Alright. 2 is literally a cut pace reprint from 2021 letter to Council. And I love the last line there empowered Dab to initiate an awards program. This is back when we were actually like trying to be very specific about, like, instead of this broader stuff up here, we thought, okay, let's try being very specific, like, we will take it on. We're not trying to put it on your Plate City Council. We on debt like give it to us like, put us in a position. We'll do all the work and build this. You know, new design excellence program. because we felt like, maybe we weren't hearing much from them, because we're kind of throwing winging things into the ether like, who's gonna do this? Umhm? So it's it's a little funny to hear the voice up here and then switch to kind of our old voice which was, is now like up here. We're kind of just

[75:04] airing the laundry, and here we were being very specific, that we will do the laundry. Just give us the machine or whatever but I think that's okay. Yeah. I think that I think we could do a you know a d 2024 update and that we, you know, we encourage, like further architectural design. Excellence. e. Even sooner in the design process as as early as you know, planning something.

[76:04] What do they call that app planning? That's site review, is that now, just like what like at planning like, that's a broad. It's a broad statement, like building, planning floor planning site planning. What's the we're basically saying like planning board right like city planning. And then, I mean, maybe we could even just you know. Say, we, we encourage additional opportunities. Like the Joint Board working group for Bullet Junction. We also, just I just wanna throw this out there. and maybe I'm misreading and and wary for no reason. But I would just. I would be careful of us wanting to, to highlight projects, or even go so far as reward them in some tangible public way prior to approval.

[77:06] because things can change. and it would be somewhat embarrassing if we were to. He wants to praise on a project that later in the planning process got Drew put in, and go in a different direction, and may or not my understanding, Matt is actually not praising the Boulder Junction case study that she's saying like they're talking about all these like hyper focused pedestrian bike connections. And they're like missing the forest through the trees on, just like good architectural planning. right to make it more of a positive thing would be, you know the board encourages The the board appreciated and encourages the the Joint board working

[78:01] groups or encourages dad participation in the joint forward working groups when possible. Part of the part of the reprint we're doing is talking about actually initiating an awards program. And it's easy when I'm reading this to conflate that if, unless we're very specific on early in the city process, we're not suggesting we're going to award a project something before it's gone through its planning process. Maybe if we put that that what you had there is d as like a a one. So somewhere below 2, a 2025. Yeah, I don't house so. my understanding with the design. Excellence initiative.

[79:02] It's very specific, and it results in dab being part of a process where we're like. Here is an exemplary project that we reviewed this year that that got approved by the planning board. It's gonna be a great gem in our city. That's a different in my mind. That's a different subject than saying, Let's let's let's take a broader look at all of our planning initiatives and make an emphasis on the architectural aspect of that planning initiative and not just let it relegate to the transportation initiative the open space initiative. The. you know. utilities and water stakeholders tend to dominate those planning discussions in those in those groups, whereas architecture specifically, architecture, not planning, but architecture, is is rarely represented at a at a departmental level, because there isn't a city of Boulder architecture department.

[80:11] But there is a city of boulder, you know. planning transportation who has someone at the table staff in the planning boulder. Planning, you know. fulfill that role of architectural. But I think what we're saying is, there's even a there's even a sub level of pure architecture, not just zoning and zoning and planning. So sorry. I hate to derail that I feel like there are different focuses on that item, too, is a nice little gift wrap box that is based on the design excellence initiative. That is a very specific document that was paid for, and a huge report that outlines how to do it.

[81:00] Yeah. alright. So what you guys were getting into, though, and I was trying to ascertain exactly that like how to categorically structure. It seems like it's what what is it? What was it called Brendan? The Boulder Junction phase 2. That's a joint board working group going forward groups and then this is everywhere. You can say, you know, the you know, the earlier Deb supports kind of these early looks or or early collaborations. early collabor collaborations between multiple stakeholders in the planning process. Then we were saying, Brendan, that you but like we need to incorporate more design in earlier in these processes. Right like, for, you know, architectural design excellence, if we're kind of borrowing from that language. But early on. And

[82:15] so one we're saying, we support. you know, supports these early collaborations team multiple stakeholders in the planning process. Then we're saying, you know. it's multi-disciplinary approach. The multi. What we're saying is we we recognize there's a multidisciplinary approach, but that we feel the architectural design consideration specifically are lacking representation. Right. The multidisciplinary Dave Deb recognizes the importance of the of the multi disc primary approach early in these

[83:01] processes, but the architectural design considerations specifically are rarely represented. And hmm. I mean, just period. You guys feel about that be set point, be under joint board working groups. I think you could do C now and do our kind of recommendation. Or take away from that. Yeah, what is the takeaway? Brendan? Basically that? Yeah, can you articulate like the takeaway from observing that the you know, the lack of architectural focus hasn't a negative impact. yeah, or just too narrowly focused a negative impact because because of the narrow

[84:03] to. So it has observed a negative impact. So no problem sets. Everyone knows the importance of the multi-engineer approach early in these processes. but the architecture presented earlier integration of architectural design considerations in the planning process. complete and compreh comprehensive community planning. And I just I was just looking at it's apparently they were client. I'm multi board working group. multi board working groups.

[85:11] Yeah, recognizing parts of the approach early in the process. you know, in these processes. And then. but emphasis can vary, you know. But but scope. What I think I'm hearing and I agree with is that, like the emphasis is sometimes on the wrong Salabul, right? So like. we're talking about a bunch of bike paths. And that's great. But what about Al's automotive shop? That's not gonna meet point. Use point 2 7. You value right? Or yeah, or he's not gonna meet the TV parking lot requirements and

[86:00] whatever the misleading times. especially. No. the lack of architecture organizations specifically fuck. I'm starting to get verbose shit. II mean, I think maybe we could like list a couple of very specific architectural like overarching elements that would be beneficial. Like. I said, like circulation scale. I don't know you're you're muted, Matthew.

[87:00] I was going to say building, massing as well. I mean, like. I don't know if that's the level of detail you get in discussions, but it it matters if you're talking about the public. If the built environment well, when you're talking about, you know, like zoning certain areas, if we're if we have. I don't know. This is good, right? Earlier integration of architectural design considerations in the planning process. And then IE. Site, circulation, neighborhood programming, building scale and massing architectural details, etc., will result in a more complete, comprehensive community vision. That's a good summation. I like it. Okay. alright. So we've got designer view process and regulatory environment, reengage

[88:02] explanation for the design, excellent initiative. We got commentary on multi board working groups. Do we want to go into the specifics of energy code or ad use. I do think the adu is worth trying to jump on here just because we've got some coattails, or what do you guys think? So II am reluctant to go into the energy code stuff just because I I'm not an expert in it. So we pinned Luther's whatever 70 commandments to the wall several years ago. I don't know, Matthew, if you were on that one, but that was, I think I think that's the one we pulled up earlier. That verbose. I just I wonder if II kind of want to change one d. It says regulatory require. And then environment and requirements are cost prohibitive. It's like, not all of them are.

[89:06] So II think we could be specific there and say. Such as energy code requirements or something. If we want to add that in there say some regulatory, some environment and re some regulatory environment. And no, that doesn't really make sense in English, and it's kind of sneaking it in we like, I mean. And again, guys take all this with a grain of salt. It's not like they're going to be like guys, we need to get on. Everything's really onto something here. Some of the regulatory environment

[90:01] environment and requirements are cost prohibitive, ie. Energy code prescriptions. Okay, let's let's tap into this adu thing, cause I think it's we're gonna be behind the times as a as a city. If we don't fit like, you know, Oregon, it passed that statewide where, like every single family lot, it can have up to 4 units on it. like they basically are eroding single family zoning and city has adopted it already. Wow! That may be further than people are willing to go in this environment. But no, I'm just saying like, generally, it's a it's a national trend of like. Alright. If everyone's saying housing is unaffordable and out of reach, then let's let's upset the supply and demand balance here.

[91:00] I just I don't know the history of it well enough, like I know for a while you weren't allowed to have any a to use at all. Right and then now you can have some, but they're like slowly loosening the reins. But I don't really know the history. What were you reading Brendan from the work plan? I think we should start with a positive note just saying that Deb supports city councils, their priorities, dashboard key actions, priorities and key actions. key actions, dashboard, dev support, City Council's priorities and key actions, dashboard from last year. I don't know. It got done. Supports accessory dwelling. you know, it's on City Council's priorities and key actions dashboard. How's that

[92:06] that makes sense in English or dad supports? I mean, they're they're specifically saying. Remove the saturated online somewhere. Brendan. Yeah. So the the E colony sent us an email. December. Oh, wait. Sorry. March twelfth, 2 39, and in there last bullet there's the a link. the priorities.

[93:02] So I have a very specific comment. I'll just blur it out now and come back to it if we feel like going there. The the impact on the ground that I'm seeing with homeowners because I do a lot of and small projects. The saturation limit for the adu is one thing. What is limiting adus in reality is any home in a pud cannot increase floor. any floor area on their lot, especially if they're nonconforming. and many homes in a to use are nonconforming to the underlying zoning. So when you look at a nonconforming use review the only mechanism they have to add floor areas, 10% of existing floor area without going into a variance. So

[94:01] I don't expect us to write any of that level of detail. But I think just to focus on the saturation limit for adu's is only part of the problem. It doesn't address the whole problem. So Dad supports the relief to the the relief to the saturation. The neighborhood saturation limits or hood saturation limits for 80 years. But it. That may just be that statement like we support it. but saturation limit may be only one factor in a homeowner's ability to permit Anadu. Yeah, I think you could just take support the relief to the end of that sentence, and just drag it up into a

[95:02] cause. That is the council priority, and then B would be so got it. So dev supports city councils. priorities and pickers. Relief to the Neighbor Association Limitation of ads. There we go? Yeah, as as noted in the priority dashboard, or whatever. as noted in the priorities and key actions perfect. And then B, and we would say, Dad encourages like for further deregulation, or further have encourages additional avenues to

[96:02] a what are we saying? I mean, yeah. Great. So the saturation limit was one hurdle. We want to remove more hurts. Right? We want, yeah, we want to remove more, more restrictions that encourages removal of additional restrictions for 80 Us. And make. And you know, somehow incorporating what you were saying about Denver, like. encouraging ad use. Yeah. Dav encourages removal of additional restrictions for 80 years. and would like and and supports incentivizing. Adu. Right? I mean, that's essentially what we're saying. Right?

[97:02] Yeah, like you, you can get an extra 250 square feet of dude. It's exactly what he got. It was like if he, if he was 15 feet away from the back of his house in Denver. They gave him an up 50 relief on lock coverage up to 50%, the size of the adu would be relieved from lock coverage up to 500 square feet. Kind of mechanism is gonna be what's required to get a to use in boulder because you have a lot of homes that are are maxed out at lot coverage open space requirements depending on the zoning ro. One or ro 2. They can't add they can't. Even if they got re. You know the density relief for the AV. They couldn't add floor area. We're gonna say. additional incentivizing metrics.

[98:03] I relief on lot coverage. relief. lot, coverage, open space required if they are open space. etc., to allow. Yeah, whatever should be explored. Yeah. Period. That's good. This is especially true for properties within existing. Pd, p uds. because not only do they have re, you know, they usually a PUD is like every you know, sometimes in a pud. Homeowners can't add anything you could say in the dab encourages removal of additional restrictions, particularly

[99:07] in Pu. Ds early, and this through Pu d's for ad use and support. Yeah, that's it. And then we're gonna say, additional incentives and additional incentivizing metrics, ie. Relief of not coverage far open zeros should be explored, and then you can strike. D, yeah. we are 17 min early. Do we want to chop that up as a win, or are we gonna burn this clock to the last minute? Here. I'd say, let's just I mean, I think we have to have Todd and Steven, review it. You don't have time for that. Unfortunately, that's what Kalani and I were talking about. Unfortunately, it's due in 9 days. Do we need.

[100:07] What was that? We have 3. You have a form right now. You can approve this as the as the Board's letter, the council. odd when I spoke to him earlier. You know he's turning now. Possibly this let's go around. So he was thinking about sending an a letter in for you guys to consider as part of the we did not send anything. So this is the letter to counsel, and you have the required amount of people to send it over and it cannot be done in a digital manner through email, because that still counts as a a meeting that needs to be noticed in in the same format that we're doing some kind of record. So so it has to be postmarked soon. Well, we can email it to them. I can email it or Rory can email it. There's council was very clear this year, also that you don't have to send it in any particular format, so it doesn't have to be on the city letterhead, Rory. You could send it as vice, fair

[101:15] name, and then copy all of the other board members names on here. Oh. I just do. We want to give them like 24 h to review. They can't provide comment, though. That would get involved, get included, because that would constitute another meeting. Gotcha. Not like a meeting, minute revision kind of a thing. No part of an action that you guys are taking so they can review it absolutely, but they couldn't add to it. Since we're not in a meeting format. Can I not list the other Board members. Or is this still on behalf of the Board? Well, it's on behalf of the Board since you are.

[102:02] and a quorum and board meeting kind of I know Stephen was a part of it for a portion of it. And just yeah. he gave us the state of the Union. I feel so bad about his cat. This is absurd. Like to like that. That's terrifying that we did we and then the fact that we like are witness that hope it was just a I hope everything's okay. Yeah. me, too. so yes, we do. There's not enough time to cycle through another meeting to get you guys together to actually finalize this. So is what goes on. But you can approve what's on here. And we can send this as it is. Email that over if you'd like Advisory Board.

[103:19] Yeah, if if everybody's okay with what you have here, it would probably be good to make a motion that this is the the when you want to counsel. get a real call that everybody. Do. You guys wanna maybe take one last read through this. So kind of proofread as we went. But I mean alright, I'm good. Are you making a motion to approve? Yeah, I move to approve this letter to the board. Alright. we should put an Easter egg in there

[104:01] like if you read. If you read this email under the link for an Amazon gift card in there. You've been writing specs lately, Brendan. That sounds a little Easter egg. Alright. I will print this. I kind of wanted to fit on one sheet. Yeah. Spacing, maybe. What about just 9 bullet point? I would keep it 10. But then in I would make the yeah. not the best at this stuff. Where's the spacing? I think word is is the most and user friendly. Yeah, check it out. 0 point space. All right, we're close. maybe bail on all this stuff.

[105:04] Well, they're gonna put it on letterhead. So are they. No, they're not. I think they're gonna do. You don't need to put it on letterhead. It can go exactly like this. So you could take out a space. Sorry? What if I said, Yeah, what do we do? Kind of space between each of these right oops. We're there. Why don't we do this? I'm having the board. And yeah, you need room for your signature. Right? I'll sneak it in there mean you could put vice chair. Nick, like Next to your name. Oh, got it?

[106:01] Got him coach? Alright! We're good control. P. Look at us. Go, Kyle, aren't you proud? Little Dab is flying free? That's one thing that we will need is a date. And you you could probably put your dear city council members? Maybe you can find some space right? Press. How's that? That? That good? Yeah. awesome. This is great guys really proud of us. So if you're gonna Rory, at the end, after the meeting, put your signature on there, and you can email it to me, and I will forward that along to the on assistance to City Council. Okay, so I'll just mail it just to you. Correct, just to me. So we don't. I can. When I copy it to the Assistance City Council, I will email it to the whole board again.

[107:07] So everybody has a record of it. But it I don't want to. We need to comply with the quora open meetings. Other things. Yeah, I'll just slap this on here and color there. Alright, I think we've done it, folks. So now what else is on the agenda? That that is it. So I just wanted to bring up the April meeting just as sort of clarification and also just stating the confusion around the the recusal process. And I just want to be sure that, you know, as a board, we're all on the same page about the pro the process, and how that's done. My understanding is that we formally recuse ourselves only in the meeting.

[108:04] and that it's really just advisory. That, you know. we would say, is upon the advice of or we have been advised to recuse ourselves, or whatever or you know it seems to me like there is an additional option of saying, and perhaps this project is too contentious, and that we're too too far down the road on on this project. But I just wanna make sure in future projects that there's so sort of an option. Be where we can say you know II have been advised to recuse myself, but I feel that in full disclosure my relationship with this project, or the developer, or the architect, or whatever is Xyz and on getting that on the record and full disclosure of what

[109:01] the reasoning, but behind the recommendation for recusal is seems like it needs to be another option that that as board members, we can't really be like strong armed into into re, that being our only option of recusing ourselves. So just want to make sure that we're good guidelines, Kellani, for when a board member should refuse. Yeah, there's a code of conduct that stipulates to kind of different considerations for recusal. But to have this conversation, I really think it's best to have one of the attorneys here during a dab meeting for that. So you can recuse. Prior to a meeting, too. We've had other members recuse in an email. so that it was on I think this particular situation, because there was a the number of members, and then, with the other attendance issues. It's good to know ahead of time rather than at the meeting, and not be able to hold a meeting. So we do try to get an early sense of attendance, too.

[110:07] But for the April meeting it'd be good to know. I think that that can be a discussion added to the matters section on kind of what that is. We need to onboard a new member, anyways. And as part of that process I think it'd be a good idea, as a whole board for the whole Board during the chair, election. and other board business that everybody we do a re kind of a a re onboarding of everybody for process code of conduct. How the Board works are the agenda meetings versus the regular meetings, that type of thing minutes. so that there's that aspect that there's some onboarding that also needs to happen. So, Brandon, it could be part of that, too. Yeah, maybe we could have portion of that or something. Yeah. if I can ask Alan just clarifying question,

[111:04] on this subject. and I know the episode, I, not. Everyone on the call is, gonna know the background, what we're exactly talking about. But for the future, if we have a situation where multiple board members have to recuse themselves because of any of the code of conduct situations that are clearly spelled out. If we recuse ahead of the meeting so that we don't inconvenience the applicant. Yeah, that recorded anywhere is, that is our correspondence with Hella, part of a public record, but only ask because we had a situation here, where, because of 2 recusals and we didn't have a quorum. we're delaying on applicants kind of right to a speedy. I don't know this isn't law, but like their right to the process to be timely. If this happened again next month, where, for whatever reason, we have a unforeseen

[112:04] delay of the review again because of recusal and non availability. What is the recourse for an applicant who may be in a situation where they can't get their pro progress. A pro application reviewed. Yeah, I'm not sure what their that situation is for them. But we're working to make sure that cause, you know. This is, we've never had a situation where we had 2 recusals, one this first time, and then also having another board member that is, unable to attend kind of a perfect storm of that portion. What's usually happened like planning board has a avenue to add a substitute person. Previous member can come and sit as a temporary member. Dad doesn't actually have that in their by laws or so. But we're looking right now. I say.

[113:03] right planning for April that there should not be an issue to be able to hold the with even with 2 recusals. I just I just think it would be nice to have the option B of full disclosure of potential conflicts and then it but I'll still allow to have the quorum in light of us just writing a letter about efficiencies and the timeline and the cost of to the city to the Council. I mean it just kind of falls right in line of the letter that we're sending out. But we're sort of indirect violation and conflict with that for this particular project. I think that Helen needs to be here to talk about the code of conduct, and what what that means, as far as interpretation and recommendations for that. And it's going to be really helpful for everybody to have a a good refresh on that, too.

[114:05] Okay. that can ask for her attendance in next the the next meeting. So that means that you know. we'll talk more as the meeting gets sets up. Set up to You'll see the agenda, but I'll probably be checking in with all of you guys again. Okay. yeah. thanks. My goodness, 5 58. Welcome to the actually got the homework done before the bell rang. Thank you all. and hopefully they read it, cause you know it's possible, Kalani, that should be in your inbox. I think we we've done it here. I'll talk it up to our new secretary. Training ally is bringing the new energy to the board that actually gets shit done on time. Awesome. Well, we'll keep eyes out. I know, Carloni. We chatted about the April meeting and it sounds like we're

[115:01] tracking towards the quorum, which is great. I'll keep you posted. Anything changes. The only thing that would prevent me from being there would be illness or something at this point. Knock on wood. But I think with that, I guess. Can we motion to adjourn? I second that motion alright, all in favor. Hi, thank you. Guys, thank you. Have a nice evening. Okay.