September 25, 2019 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] [Music] to order the September 25th meeting of boulders housing advisory board and we'll start with a roll call let's start all the way down with our ex officio Brian Bowen Planning Board Mason Moyer Terry Puhl Mose Juliette Boone Adams public shock trio Judi nod Dan Teodoro okay let's go to a gender review any changes for visions anyone has the agenda all right got it in one awesome approval of minutes so we have two sets of minutes to approve let's

[1:02] just quick talk about the July 24th ones again so you might remember we had some things come up with our representations to staff Alpine balsam that Judy suggested that we put some revisions to the it was recommend or those suggestions within the minutes for July 24th so currently the board sort of decided that that was okay going into it but we need an official approval of those minutes so I guess I'm just gonna make a motion to approve the minutes as amended with Judy's suggestions and make one additional suggestion yes just to be clear that it's a summary prepared by Judy it's not by the entire board and correct right yeah no I mean no one would still be approved by the full board right and everyone had an

[2:00] opportunity to weigh in on it yep can I get a second to that motion discussion okay all those in favor of approving the July 24th minutes as amended and we're gonna try to not make a regular habit out of this but that is a unanimous approval I don't I don't okay 28th minutes anyone want to anyone else want to make a motion to approve those we approve the minutes of August 28th second any discussion all those in favor unanimous okay let's go to the fun part

[3:04] public participation we only have one person signed up right now Lea Travis and you have three minutes good afternoon my name is Lea Travis I live at four seven zero five koala Drive here in Boulder and I'm currently a law student at CU I work as a student attorney in the sustainable Community Development clinic at the school whose mission is to engage in economic development projects both on behalf of clients and on behalf of the public public interest with the goal of increasing social justice in social enterprise in a range of substantive areas including land use housing local food and healthy communities for the past several years the clinic has worked with Boulder area mobile home residents

[4:00] in a number of different ways over the last school year the clinic was involved in the passage of the mobile home park act here in Colorado while I was not a student attorney in the clinic at that time I am now and we are currently watching the rulemaking process for the dispute resolution portion of the Act the Act recognized the harms occurring in mobile home parks Tamim primarily from the lack of enforcement of existing laws and exploitation from mobile home park owners initially I have several concerns with the act that I believe needs to be clarified during the rulemaking process while cities like Boulder cannot step in and create their own ordinances regarding the dispute resolution process the city of Boulder can make its voice heard and contribute to rulemaking primarily Boulder can indicate that many of its ordinances currently in place such as those regulating mobile home park streets and walkways mobile home park environmental standards utilities and other public improvements can be more effective if residents of mobile home parks are able to file complaints

[5:00] when mobile home park owners fail to meet such standards as the mobile home park Act currently reads only mobile home owners or landlords can file complaints other residents who happen to rent their mobile homes Kenai in fact the draft rules that Dola issued last week include absolutely no details on the process of filing a complaint our what standard of pleading is necessary to file a complaint furthermore retaliation is not defined under the Act and mobile home park owners may be able to pass off the cost of violations to residents by raising their rents for example if a mobile home park owner agrees to pay for structural changes in the park during the dispute resolution process nothing keeps the owner from deciding to raise rent by hundred dollars in order to pay for the new structural changes that must be made there are a number of other vital areas where members of the public can voice their opinions and ensure the act fulfills its intended purpose public comment on the proposed rules opens on October 10th I urge the board to spread

[6:02] the word about the public comment period and to use its voice to advocate for boulders mobile home park residents in the event that changes are not made to dolis draft rules I ask that the Boulder housing advisory board be prepared to step in and pass what ordinances it can to remedy the faults of the rules issued by nola thank you helium yeah we might have some questions here no you're saying people can contact somebody before October 10th they're starting October 10th you can contact Dolan now to help them as they draft the rules but on October 10th those are the official rules that Dola is proposing to be made into like official rules that will be applied and so the official public comment period opens on the 10th and it's open til November 1st I believe but if you contact Dola at this point they are taking recommendations on their draft rules right now and you happen to have with

[7:01] you that you can say out loud a link to do that or something or I can send you the contact information of who were in contact with a doula if that would be helpful I know his first names mo but I can but for the public that's listening they can just googled Ola yes it should be if you type in like mobile home park act dispute resolution rule making process it should bring you to the link there are a number of stakeholder meetings the clinic has been involved with those where Dola is going to different mobile home parks and areas across Colorado to get feedback we've listened into almost every single stakeholder meeting they're getting feedback at those meetings - the one on Tuesday so yesterday was the first one where they had the draft rules they didn't really discuss any of the changes that were concerned about at that meeting so we're planning to make our voice heard through the law school before the draft rules are proposed for public comment and during the public comment period as well thank you do they

[8:01] have any initial draft rules that are available already for review are they holding off till the time yes they just came out with a set of draft rules last week it's only about four pages so it could be a quick read for everyone to look at it should be up on their website if not I can also send that to y'all because it is publicly available so I can - not in an email as well or we could ask him all yes mo has it yeah he has him so do you know when the open comment period ends as well I'm pretty sure it ends on November first and there's a meeting on November 11th I believe where the rules are getting like voted on to be passed and then made into law so I think you can also participate in that meeting as well but public comment period starts in the 10th and should last until November 1st and J do you think council is aware of this I do not know specifically I was gonna give you a card for one of my associates

[9:00] crystal launder are you familiar with her we might be working with her law school we're working with some Boulder people but I wanted to come in a more public place and kind of spread the word about it I know we're working with summer laws crystal was involved in helping to draft and pass and I'm sure we're also working with her as well I'll give you your contact info just in case this is just something I think we want to make sure your council is aware perfect any other public participation that was it okay thank you we're gonna close public participation and move on to matters from council community benefit good evening board members my name is Carl Guyler I'm with the planning department I'm gonna present to you tonight the

[10:00] features of the attached ordinance to the packet related to the community benefit project so this is phase one of the community benefit project the goals of the project are basically to incentivize or require additional community benefit in exchange for additional height floor area or density and certain projects in the city of Boulder I want to read the purpose statement for the board so consistent with newly adopted Boulder Valley Conference of planned policies newly adopted means in 2017 basically staff will update the land-use code to create regulations and incentives for obtaining certain community benefits when considering height modification requests and/or additional floor area density requests and rezoning applications so I'll talk about the portions of that ordinance tonight related to affordable housing requirements for for sale and rental projects there's also proposed

[11:00] regulations for commercial projects and we also want to have a discussion about appendix J which is the in the land use code that specifies where hype modification requests can be requested and then will convey the housing advisory board recommendation to City Council so the questions to guide the discussion are does have support new site review criteria that would require permantly affordable housing benefits in areas designated in appendix J where a building exceeds of the maximum height of a zoning district up to 55 feet and then the second key issue as does have agree with the staff recommendation to continue to limit areas or height modifications may be sought to the areas shown in appendix J again entitled areas where height modifications may be considered at this time so just going back in time height has been a pretty important issue in the city of Boulder

[12:01] for years when you look at some of the taller buildings throughout the city you can see that a lot of buildings in the 50s and 60s and you had the Williams Village project a number of projects were going you know up to around a hundred feet or so and it caused the community to have some concern about those types of projects and that led to a referendum in 1971 that was passed that basically set the maximum height limit for buildings in the city of Boulder at 55 feet so just want to be really clear that we're not proposing to change that any change to that 55 foot height limit would require a you know citizen vote so so since that time the city has been considering requests for height above zoning district maximum so all the different zoning districts have usually around 35 feet as a maximum there are

[13:00] some zones that are 38 feet and some that are 40 feet but generally if any request comes in to go above that it's considered a height modification up to the 55 feet maximum in the city charter and also wanted to just point out that that height measurement is actually from a low point 25 feet away from any structure so if the slope descends away from a structure that's gonna bring that that height down further so the city's been reviewing these for for quite some time now there aren't any specific community benefit requirements associated with height modifications there's basically the site review criteria that talk about is the building proportional to other buildings in the area in terms of its height is its massing you know and height compatible with the surrounding context but nothing really beyond that other than other design type criteria and the site review process so after there were there was a proliferation of height modifications that were approved leading up to the Great Recession and

[14:00] then built where there was quite a few coming online around the same time and that caused some concern in the community leading to the council at that time passing an interim development regulation that established the appendix J basically where height modifications can be requested it also became a topic of the boulder valley commerce of plan update that was going on in 2015 that was around that same time so when the the comp plan was actually adopted in 2017 it included new policies related to Community Benefit and height and I'll talk about those I also want to point out that council last year in 2018 extended the sunset date for that interim development regulation to May of 2020 and then just to come up to more recent history Council in April of this year requested that we take the community benefit project and basically break it into two and have phase one and Phase two and

[15:02] that phase one would focus primarily on firmly affordable housing and additional height so that's basically we're talking about tonight so just to clarify on appendix J again the sunset date is May 31st 2020 the areas in red are those areas where you can ask for a height modification doesn't mean it's an automatic approval it just means you can ask for it through a site review project it still would require consistency with the site review criteria it would require a Planning Board hearing and action by the Planning Board it could be called up to Council again no community benefit requirements are applied to those particular applications there are some exemptions to the red areas which are listed up on the slide so you can see those four additional citywide eligibility criteria so if you have an in in an industrial zone if you have a

[16:01] building that's no more than two storeys you can ask for a height modification if you need that additional height for manufacturing you can ask for a hype modification if you have topography on a site that descends away from the building that makes it overly restrictive to even add the generally buy right number of storeys you can ask for a high modification and if more than forty percent or 40 percent or more of the floor area of a project is devoted to permanently affordable housing you can ask for a height modification anywhere in the city and then emergency operations antenna so I talked about the policy guidance that that one into play in 2017 with basically three new policies that relate to this so there's enhanced community benefit that basically says that or if there's any land users owning changes that result in increased density or intensity of development beyond that what's normally

[17:01] allowed through the zoning that community benefit is expected in a project and the policy even goes as far as identifying some of the community benefits that we've been exploring so obviously durable housing affordable commercial space space for the Arts public art a number of other things have been identified and we're still looking at those there's also a policy 2.35 that relates specifically to building height saying that there's an expectation for some benefits back to the community for additional height and then 7.11 is specific to affordable housing saying that that's expected as a benefit for any kind of in digital intensity so we've done some updates with the board in the past leading up to the study session that we had with City Council in September of last year so basically these are the identified community benefits and we had done a number of case studies of other jurisdictions and

[18:00] laid out some ideas of how these could all become part of the code ultimately and we got good feedback from from the board and Planning Board and Council at that time before we moved into the phase 1 portion so our goal through this process is to try to come up with regulations that are gonna be you know feasible through through the market economy so we have had we've consulted with a Kaiser Marston as a consultant on the economic piece the goals basically are you know not trying to get something that's reasonable so getting community benefit requirements that are not too arduous as to deter development so you don't get community benefits but also not making it so marginal that we get a bunch of projects and get marginal community benefit so that we've been trying to balance this throughout the course of this to get that right mix so the results of the economic analysis

[19:01] that's found in attachment C by Kaiser Marston they looked at basically base projects which is basically by right basically three stories within FA R and then looked at bonus projects where there's FA are or there's basically floor area above the F AR or height and they looked at residential and non-residential projects so as the board knows you know right today our current requirement is that there's the 25% inclusionary housing requirement that applies for projects that have residential they found that the market could support a higher amount of affordable housing in bonused area so in their findings 36% of the inclusionary housing requirement could apply to for sale projects with 50% of the IH units being on-site and they found that a higher percentage could be supported for a rental project at 41% just for the sake of the audience

[20:02] can you remind everyone what those numbers are based off of the 1 million at 15% margin profit margin oh yeah so when they were looking at projects they were looking at performers and the goal was to try to have some basic amount of return for a developer enough that they would be attracted to doing a project so the the study basically said that there would have to be at least 50% of potentially 1 million as an amount of money to make a project feasible so they looked at the costs of doing the development and they subtracted it out so that everything would equal to that 15 percent or 1 million and that's what informed these numbers they basically found that you know when a project goes above the height lemon adds floor area that adds basically 25% to the value of the project so there is that this is basically supported was the findings of the report so for non-residential

[21:01] project the 36% 50% 41 percent that's of the total project not just the additional theoretical two stories right the the 36% I'll get to this when we talk of coordinate the 36% basically applies to just the bonus floor area okay that's my question hmm so today if a project comes in it's in a commercial project there's what we have commercial linkage fees or what's in the code as the capital facility impact tax so it's based on whatever uses are within the building times the floor area so that would still apply for the the base level floor area they found in the study that there could be an additional amount of that linkage fee for the bonus floor area they found that for for office there could be an additional forty three percent supported for that bonus floor area and even more so for a hotel they found that a hundred and sixteen percent

[22:00] I could apply in that instance so before I go deep into the ordinance I just want to talk a little bit about the background of the project and the outreach so since even before the study sessions we've done a number of different techniques of getting the word out on the community benefit project we had a number of open houses early part of this year and going even further back we had set up I believe it was like eight or more focus groups with different neighbors in the community the development community we've met with small group sessions we had the be heard Boulder questionnaire that we put out we had the what's what's a boulder event we've presented to you li better Boulder or the Chamber of Commerce we did a survey with the housing the Human Services Alliance there's been a lot of methods of getting input on this project as we've moved along so looking back at the the comp plan update there was a statistically valid survey that was done

[23:00] at that time related to community benefit and height and in 2016 it basically found that you could see most of the respondents of that survey were opposed to additional height but when the question asked if there was community benefits associated with that additional height you could see that the community was more receptive to the additional height you can see the green you know it's not it's not over half but you can see it if you include the kind of the neutral it's about fifty percent of folks were receptive to that so we did a be heard Boulder questionnaire know so again not a statistically valid survey we didn't have nearly as many respondents but the interesting thing is that this this year we did get a similar response that where it was asking about community benefit affordable housing and height and you can see that the the amount of support in opposition is is relatively close to that the other survey that was done a quick question

[24:00] can you tell me just for both of them how many people responded I don't have off the top of my head the statistically valid survey from the comp plan but with the with the latest be hurt bolder it was I think it was over 300 respondents so as far as the maybes there were we had a bunch of comments comment boxes were they they were they would if to show what they would need for it to work would be like designing compatibility there's a number of things that would have to work out with it they have to be enforceable and permanent it depends on the location in context something tangible it have to stay with the project so there were some caveats to people supporting this program overall like the things that we've heard through the outreach is that affordable housing is the right priority it's the number one priority neighborhood context and compatibility is crucial in balancing

[25:01] the requirements and incentives mailee lead to less affordable housing that gets at what I was talking about before that we need to calibrate it the right way to encourage projects and in order to get those community benefits on-site units were preferable and then long-term benefits something that was locked in with the project was important so now I'll move on to the proposed ordinance what I'm going to cover is the the new code language related to affordable housing and then talk a little bit about the appendix J map and also there's two additional community benefits that we'll discuss real briefly the nursing homes and assisted living and an alternative community benefit so first off the ordinance is found within attachment a so when we were looking at this project we realized that there the code already has what we call land use intensity

[26:00] modifications so there are limited options in the code for going over floor area going over density in certain zones that's already set up and there's specific criteria that has to be met to do that so we felt that the community benefit project was similar that if you're asking for additional height that there be very clear criteria as to what the city would get in exchange so we felt that height for fourth and fifth storeys in certain areas could be considered a land use intensity modification so the ordinance is proposed to include that language in the site review criteria as a land use intensity modification so again everything is informed by the the Kaiser Marsten study and the the reason we're going with a lot of their recommendations is that by tying it to the bonus area it makes makes it that it's it's basically proportional to how

[27:01] much they're adding so if they're adding the more they add above the height limit or above a floor area limit the more community benefit the city would be getting so the requirement basically as we talked about the base areas 20 I just have a question I was can you go back one slide yeah the bottom one I have to say I was still listening I was still thinking about the top three could you repeat that alternative community benefit again we wanted to include an option for an alternative community benefit if it was a something that wasn't clearly identified but could would be a clear benefit to the community related to like fire services police services government services that are essential that there would be an option and in the ordinance to enable someone to request that someone could actually work with with the city on what the city needs and that would enable that thank you so we talked about the base requirement for

[28:00] residential projects what staff is recommending is that the ordinance would require that any bonus floor area above the height limit would be subject to the higher inclusionary housing centered so it'd be 36% we've also added language in in the proposed ordinance that would require for for sale projects fifty percent of all the affordable units would be on the site so again commercial linkage fees applied to the base area and then going along with the recommendation from Kaiser Marston for the bonus area above the height you would take that commercial linkage fee requirement for the use and you would add forty three percent to it for that bonus floor area so just to get it I have another question and when that says the IH requirement would increase to thirty six percent for sale projects would provide fifty percent of all housing units on site what is it for

[29:02] rentals the rental would just be cash in lieu and it would be based on that 36 percent in the bonus floor area it would be cash in lieu and it doesn't require any on-site on those two floors yeah so if you remember Judy's so the state prohibition on rent control means that the city cannot require rental projects to provide the units on site but they can offer it right as long as they offer those three or four they could enter into a voluntary agreement but if we required it we would be running afoul of the state well the the ordinance will make available all the options yes okay it's just not a requirement okay so if this were implemented we wanted to give the board some idea of what the city would be getting in return so for a for sale project you can see on the left a by a project ten on-site units cash in lieu fee around seven hundred thousand

[30:01] if you go to a bonus project with 50 percent of the IH units on the site you get four additional affordable units in a project you get an additional four hundred thousand in cash in lieu for those that are not on-site so the total would then go up to 1.1 million dollars and fourteen on-site units we can come back to these if the board wants so the rental example there'd be three million cash in lieu and then with the additional story be 1.4 million additional in cash in lieu for a total of 4.5 million when we get into the commercial example again this is based on the fees that would kick in in 2021 the linkage fee under that would be 2.7 million for that floor area and then adding on that additional story would get an additional 900,000 in the linkage fee for a total of nearly

[31:00] four million dollars so just to be really clear about bonus Floria again driving the point home these are not allowing buildings that are going to be taller than 55 feet that's not the case at all we're also showing five stories here which is also relatively rare most developers want to have taller Headroom in their units so you end up getting you know four stories or you have the the low point that's away from the building kind of pulls that down so you can see that the cross hatch to the right is the height bonus so any floor area that's in a fourth or fifth story that's either partially or wholly above the height limit is height bonus area but there's also some floor area that might be above the FA are so there's a number of limited scenarios that we added in the ordinance based on the Kaiser marcin's study about certain zones that some additional floor area up to around 1.0

[32:01] FA are for some zones that have a lower FA are at 0.6 or in the BR zone which has a limitation on dwelling units per acre anything that goes above those limits would also be considered bonus floor area and this ordinance and what they would have to meet those requirements for that we've also included based on some recommendations from the community about some leeway for encouraging pitched roofs without having a community benefit requirement to encourage gable roofs so we've added an exemption exemption that if you're just doing three stories and you're doing a pitched roof no taller than 10 feet above the height limit that you could ask for high modification without having to meet these requirements real quick that's part of the suggested changes yes okay is that the only design variation where you're making that accommodation so in other words if I just had a design it's still three storeys but higher ceilings like you

[33:01] mentioned there's something else that wouldn't be that wouldn't qualify for that exemption you had no other design variations at this time we might look at some additional ones as we move into phase two okay so it talked a little bit about the appendix J map what we're proposing at this point is when we brought appendix J to the City Council in at the study session we asked the question about whether or not this should be repealed as part of this particular project the council at the time basically said to us that they didn't agree that it should be repealed at the end of this project until such time that they see that the impact or that how it plays out seeing some examples on the ground before pulling out appendix J if that's what they opted to do we also have found that appendix J is useful and basically making it really clear about where height modifications

[34:00] can occur they're generally in areas that are governed by area plans and air in zoning districts that anticipate additional height so so based on the feedback we got from council on that we're recommending that it stay in place at this time with no changes we might ask this question again at the end of phase two depending on where things land and maybe after some examples are built about whether it should be repealed or kept in the code we we are recommending that the sunset day be removed a new sunset date could be added as an alternative but we're curious to hear what the board has to say about that so lastly while we were going through this we were looking at the commercial linkage fees that are in the code and we noticed that there's a specific commercial linkage fee that's applied to nursing homes and assisted living and we felt that that particular use shouldn't be penalized by additional the additional 43%

[35:00] so what we're proposing is basically listing this as a community benefit use in not making that particular use have to pay the additional commercial linkage fee above the height so that's included in the ordinance and as we talked about before the alternative community benefit would create an option for a unforeseen or unexpected community benefit that might be an obvious benefit to the community so how come you would consider nursing homes and assisted-living but not like transitional facilities or anything along that line again we went off of what were specific uses that were listed in the capital facilities tax because those weren't specifically listed we didn't include it it's totally possible that we might go down that road as we look at human services as part of phase two and add more but this just seemed like an obvious one to add to the list so a lot of other communities have alternative Community Benefit requirement options so we felt it

[36:00] appropriate to add it to this particular ordinance so we we presented this to Planning Board last week the Planning Board did not recommend that the ordinance move forward we should point out there were four members of Planning Board at that meeting and again Brian's here tonight if there's any questions they did support the concept behind the ordinance but they do they wanted to suggest some additional changes for council that related to other mechanisms in the code to encourage permanent affordable housing beyond just the site review process looking at some other prescriptive changes to the code that would make it really clear about density and density changes in exchange for more affordability modifying the height calculations to be more flexible for like roof access for roof decks recommendations to do a sunset date if appendix J needed to stay in the code I

[37:00] will point out that this also did not pass it was a three to one vote but we were conveying this to City Council along with the hab recommendation so at this point the schedules changed a little bit we have community benefits set for City Council on first reading on October 1st that's still the same except council has requested that the public hearing occur on that date so that's the latest information we have is that that will be actually the public hearing and then if they're to make any changes to the ordinance that could be considered on second reading on October 15th and that could potentially be on consent depending on how that goes with Council and then moving past that will will be moving into phase 2 where we explore the other community benefits and figure out how to add those to the list that we've already set up in the attached ordinance so I'll conclude with the questions for

[38:03] hab and happy to answer any questions so let's do just questions from each person first and then we'll talk about how we want to approach this also if everybody is in agreement with it I'd love to hear what signing board a little bit more from Brian before we launch into questions sure if everybody is okay with them absolutely I've prepared a 45 minute presentation yeah Karl 39 I think I want to sort of stick to the crux issues for planning board you know with a board of four it really requires a unanimous vote to act so knowing from the beginning that we had strong disagreement over appendix J meant that

[39:00] it was pretty clear that unless people were willing to compromise on that that we weren't gonna have a motion to support what staff recommended kind of regardless of what kind of discussion we had and you know a lot of us felt like can you say a lot if there's only four of you a portion of the felt like you know the deal with appendix J was you I was there when we were doing this the first time around during the moratorium appendix J is not benefited from any public input in its generation nor is it a result of a planning process it was a the sort of writing down of projects that people who think of that they knew were in the pipeline like oh the armory is coming or Frasier Meadows is coming and in some places that had area plans and downtown and then they hoped downtown being added to the appendix J as a result of the completion of the rewriting of the downtown or designed guidelines which those are part of doing as well and so the so finished Shea was

[40:05] a sort of main sticking point and some of us were under the sort of expectation the newer folks were the expectation that maybe one of them that the discussion should be only limited to areas inside appendix J several of us felt like appendix J should be taken away immediately or at least sunset and knocked in a march of twenty is that what it is it's May 22 May 2020 and not be prolonged any further it was initially put in as a temporary stopgap measure sold as the idea would last two years and it's been extended once and extended again feels like you know to me personally speaking for myself and maybe show the people in the board that night disingenuous in terms of process so the penance J was a big sticking point there has been support since I've been on Planning Board for sure of looking at the site review criteria

[41:00] and taking a look at how can we make them clearer to predict for applicants for the community and for Planning Board so you know how to make a decision and it's not really it's quite so subjective and some of those questions that have been raised over the years where things like the language are admitted my minimize and mitigate and how you deal with hi-8 and stuff like that so we've been trying to work on that for quite some time so I think the idea that this project would apply broadly to the site review criteria is pretty well supported around the town playing boards certainly agreed that height was the highest priority sorry fertile housing was a highest priority in terms of community benefit and we should focus on that so everyone's very comfortable with that and then what we tried to do was pull together emotion that we thought rekka represented everyone's input well enough to in light of the fact that we weren't going to act at night send something to council the so they could actually use it in the motion language that we put together was pretty close to what Carl

[42:01] had up there at screen and I think there were some pretty interesting things I mean one one of the kind of Lynch pins for the conversation also was the when we wrote the section on enhanced community benefit for the comp plan last time around which is section 1.1 one enhanced community benefit that Carl referred to in his presentation when we were contemplating this project we wrote in that for land use or zoning district changes that result in increases in the density or intensity of development beyond what's permitted by the underlying zoning or or added or for added height that increases intensity we would be looking at community benefit and so there was a pretty strong sentiment on the board that without looking at intensity and density increases which are actually the meat of the comp plan criteria that we all wrote and approved it wasn't actually on the mark in terms of being a policy we could support so as the other big piece for us is it doesn't actually do enough to

[43:01] really incentivize actually getting affordable housing there are places in which it does allow some additions to intensity and density which Carl can explain I don't remember too much to memorize all these things I begin to they're like erase these memory tapes as soon as the meeting is over rewriting so but I do think that the the shift has been more towards how do we make it harder to get height modifications as opposed to how do we really in incentivize affordable housing so that lends I think is a problematic one for Planning Board and yeah so these are the things that we talked about and they had pretty broad support I think the tricky one was the trickiest one of these was actually the modify height calculations to allowed roof decks in the way we were

[44:01] looking at that was you know over the seven and a half years have been on Planning Board and then as an applicant number times before that you know trying to figure out how you get occupiable spaces on the roof places for green roofs places for gold to be together and everyone loves the downtown you know rooftop Bars and stuff like that or community places where you've got rooftop access so one of the big yeah yes I mean one of the big barriers to that is once you have a building listen ear it's 35 foot height limit you can't get a stair Headroom above that you can't put an enclosure above that to walk out on that roof or an elevator stop that's enclosed to walk out on that roof so this was an intent just to allow just those just enough floor area above the height limit to allow rooftop access not like additional stories so I was kind of our thought on that I mean we were kind of piggybacking that on the pitched roof idea because it's been percolating for a long time there was I

[45:00] think complete support for the first two ideas which were how do you the idea of basically saying along with by right intensity and density increases for affordable housing projects you could then apply the similar criteria for height modifications through site review for that so there are a couple zones in the city that have by ride density increases for affordable housing holiday neighborhood is the best example that where if you go when you go from back then 20% of affordable housing IH to 40% of affordable housing you've got a double density bonus so it went from 10 D per acre to 20 D per acre net so after you take out the roads and stuff and that results in you getting affordable housing built so we've learned a lot over the years of what actually works and what doesn't really work and I think in terms of incentivizing affordable housing I think Planning Board felt like and I certainly feel like that as a practicing professional here a little

[46:00] bit more Heights not gonna make people build affordable housing that's that was a big part of why we didn't support it so but if you make the the transaction of this is a kind of a key thing to cancer what Jay was pointing out in terms of getting and I'm working on coming to like 49 minutes and out of it if you if you're applying discretionary review and trying to ask an applicant to provide affordable housing on-site we don't really have the ability to do that well we do have the ability to do is to do is say if you provide affordable housing on-site you get more units you get more fer you get more intensity somehow or height and then it's a transaction that's legal so we're sort of like always looking away from the one that works and under these other things but I think the idea that we had here was like let's apply the one that works broadly and still consider the way staffs put together can be benefit tied to hi I think that makes a lot of sense so I

[47:02] think that's probably all I need to say about that unless you guys have other questions for me I had one question yeah so the base is being that you don't think 15% return or a million dollar return is enough to incentivize people to build a million stories rate for me but I think the the numbers that go into that I didn't honestly I didn't dive in the report well enough but typically if the height doesn't go along with an increase in floor area there is no economic benefit right so if you if you can build 15 units and they're all thousand square feet you got 15,000 square foot building the only economic benefit to going taller as you save a little bit of money on Foundations but in our area you know when you switch from three floors to four floors you're buying yourself an elevator so with that in tight increase by building code you're also gonna be spending 30 grand

[48:01] per floor on an elevator so that might counter out if you've got a big enough project but you got to keep in mind those the math that they were doing was on sort of a particular project size so if we're doing a project that's a four unit neighborhood or a unit pocket neighborhood those kinds of numbers are not going to happen in that kind of environment yep so specifically like if you wanted to do a you know 12 unit let's say you've got a piece of property that's zoned for 8 units all of the boards and bodies that have to approve this thing have said you can get a density bonus of 50% if you make them all affordable then you know habitat or somebody could come in and say well we're gonna do 12 littler units and take advantage of that by right density bonus and it would create affordable housing because it then it would pencil better mm-hmm gotcha okay questions from the board

[49:03] do we want to do yeah so my other question just trying to understand the sentiment of the plan board regarding the exhibit J so was the feeling that it's too restrictive and if we're gonna have this we should look at it from a broader perspective because it wasn't such an empirical process to establish it in the first place and so maybe step that away and if we look at things on a case-by-case basis whether or not it merits it makes more sense that's kind what I got from you I'm not sure yeah I think that's pretty fair I want to be really careful in how I represent the full board there were people who felt like really kind of one person who felt like our job at this moment was to stay inside the confines of the areas allocated on appendix J which I don't think is really the scoping that staff has been giving I don't think that's accurate I think everyone agreed that appendix J is just factually not a document that

[50:00] went through any kind of public process right it wasn't put out through any of the things that these guys have done ever it's been carried along behind them on things and it's been adopted into the land-use code but it hasn't ever it wasn't generated through a planning process or through a public engagement process so as a result it doesn't really representation stew be able to have increased height or intensity for affordable housing along in the city of Boulder I think pretty early in that conversation would come up places like their transit rich right that's not a map of transit routes locations stuff like that okay I had a question so when you say there's no bed no public input did anybody come to Planning Board to speak about area J over the past six years or five years

[51:04] since the moratorium I can't say whether or not people have been talking specifically at the last meeting that you had about community benefits since it was part of your discussion yeah do you recall somebody spoke directly about appendix J I don't recall know I mean mostly people were talking about the broader policy right it's possible yeah your mics no no sorry so I believe what I what I heard from one of the board members and and from I think one member of the public public was that there's an expectation among the community that it was only going to apply to panik's J the community benefit and that that was sort of the expectation from the onset so I think there was some that was part of the reaction to opening it up broader than

[52:01] that yeah and it desire to you know well let's use this as a test area how do we let's see how it works in the appendix J here is and then in the next phase we can reevaluate whether or not we want to broaden it so I think that's the fair representation I think any other representation is probably worth making is that there's a lot of folks who I mean the whole process so far has been have a presumption that there was a sunset date first two years ago and now in the spring and then you know so I think the there may have been expectations that the appendix J would last forever but the fact is we actually said it wasn't going to that's why there's a written down sign say that sunset date for it sure okay questions questions or comments we knew

[53:00] both okay I think just in concept the whole the whole structure and concept I think is a great idea you know this is my third meeting we've already had a lot of discussion including our listening session last month about what kind of mechanisms could we put in place to really incentivize and to you know increase the opportunities you know secure more affordable housing and I think this is certainly one of them and this is something that can be very effective within that general auspice I think there is certainly concern regarding a how how it applies you know on the ground and B how its limited in terms of how those limits affect the impact and so I guess my question would be you know I do I would share some concerns regarding the notion of appendix J just because those are certain areas where there's been this you know height allowance or hide allowance process for some time

[54:01] apparently and you know we're just adding this additional requirement to something that's already been there and I think looking at this from a broader policy perspective I think there's a good idea to say what additional criteria do we need that we could implement rather than just having pendeks J that would say where it's appropriate and where it's not appropriate I know we already have a set of criteria maybe there's additional criteria whatever was applied to come up with appendix J in the first place maybe can be something that's then articulated in the ordinance itself and in the criteria that can you know take the place of a type of appendix J but I think the whole notion of height as a vehicle to incentivize additional affordable housing is a great concept and you know the first TDR programs ever in this country focused on height rather than just density and sprawl and so I think it's the its it certainly has

[55:04] a lot of Merit and it's certainly a good approach to take but I think just the whole notion of how we go about doing it is something that you know probably needs a little more fine-tuning it seems like to me and I would just say I think the other part just from from the experience of a developer and I think Brian what you were saying too is that you know that whole notion of you know what can be done on the front end because every developer when they're looking at pencil something out write additional discretionary processes are something that they're going to shy away from if they can make that determination where their pencil and everything out right from the beginning it might make it more effective in terms of saying I'm gonna buy this land I'm going to develop it here's a plan for five stories if there's less process and more certitude that's reflected in the ordinance and something that certainly secures the things that we want to accomplish there I think that could be very effective as well so that's my initial thoughts first of all Carl thank you I thought

[56:01] that was really comprehensible and these things are sometimes so hard I listen to planning board meetings and City Council meetings and I hardly know what they're talking about sometimes and I could really understand what you were saying so thank you I do have a question when you talk about affordable housing I don't hear the word permanently affordable housing so I'm wondering how staff sees that would be permanently affordable housing it would be yeah okay cool then I will now make my comments I'm not comfortable with the piece about exempting senior facilities right now because we're we're well aware that there have been some luxury senior facilities and assisted living and I'm not interested in giving them a break so if some wording could be added to that exemption that would say something like

[57:00] I don't know nursing homes and assisted living facilities are exempt only if they already meet some criteria to provide affordable housing for low-income older adults or something that that's one thing and the other is I think the idea of looking at other uses outside of J are useful at some point in the future but I think right now this was presented as such and it's the community's expectation that it's just about J so that's my position on that otherwise I thought you did a really good job and I think there's some great things in there that are really helpful a couple of questions I have and the

[58:01] first one I want to start with is something that Brian said that wasn't quite on my radar the increase in height if I understood correctly is not necessarily tied to an increase in FA are the confusion that everybody was feeling last night when we were talking about what was the meeting last night Alpine balsam and everybody was talking about far and height as well and then confusion for the audience so if you could nail that down y'all shed some light on that so there are some zoning districts that don't have an F air limit there are some zoning districts that don't have a density limit there's all these other factors and zoning regs that determine you know the project and everything but then there's some zoning districts that do have an FA or lemma and do have a dwelling units per acre limit or a certain amount of lot area for per dwelling unit that can create some restrictions of doing projects so

[59:02] when the acun economic study was done they found that in general across the city these projects would be feasible when granted a height modification but there were certain zones where it might be a little bit more on the marginal side about they're a developer would even do it so again trying to create that appropriately a balance piece we looked at what the zones that create those barriers and they had suggested that if they were zoning districts that were below a 1.0 F AR and there's quite a few zones that only allow point four point five point six that those be allowed an additional amount of FA are up to around 1.0 to make them more feasible another thing that was highlighted was the B r1 zoning district so this is the area around were like twenty ninth Street is so the comp plan right now talks about and has policies about increasing

[60:02] housing capacity in that area and the thing that we've heard over and over again from developers and property owners and again from the economists is that the sixteen hundred square feet of land area per dwelling unit caps out the dwelling units to a point where it's it's not that attractive to to do residential so in that case we've added a an exemption in there where a forty percent of a fifty percent increase in the density there in terms of dwelling units per acre could be requested as part of this project to make those projects more feasible so what this graphic basically shows is that in most cases the height bonus is gonna be on a fourth or fifth story but there might be some cases where it might be on like a third story because it's area in excess of that dwelling units per acre or FA are and that would be included in the bonus area and they're not double

[61:00] counted yes just want to make one except if it's okay if I make one quick comment I think there's a when we look at these diagram there's sort of like an assumption I think everyone makes that like everywhere in town is gonna be filled up to 35 feet sort of uniformly on the full block which is sort of part of the how pine balsam conversation we had last night and that these might poke above that but there's actually a lot of zones where you're only limited you know basically one or two stories like dt1 a town downtown zone is FA are of 1.00 and so and it's a it's a zero lot line area right downtown so you have to build to the walls on the side and the street on the front and so you have one point ofa our results in a one-story building in our downtown and the zoning does allow for a density bonus there to

[62:02] encourage housing just housing in general doesn't it's not tied to affordable housing or anything of 50 percent so if you have a you know 3,000 square foot small a lot downtown well the density bonus you get is to be like a 1,500 square foot home on top of that full lot size commercial area so it's there's like some stuff that's building the code now that's like that emulates this I think so the logics already there but really I mean even in the downtown's oh and that's a one-story it's a one and a half story building that's the big give no that's okay it was all good I just there's plenty more along that I think the gist of what I'm getting at and what I felt when I was reading through this also and I think Danny was alluding to and Brian is the discretionary aspect

[63:02] also makes it difficult on the front end you know it's like well there are these things that may allow a developer to do this and I think this is one of our big speed bumps in a sense or hurdles is the discretionary aspect and so I also have concerns about that being kind of a condition that's in place here to a certain degree discretionary aspect coming from well so in other words like for instance you could ask for 50 percent increase in floor area or something so in and that as Danny was saying then a developer is like well okay so I've got to get into this process I don't know what the outcome is gonna be and I think it makes it difficult you know I deal with this on a small scale with in single-family houses but you know we we have some of that also and it always makes it a little bit difficult cuz you don't quite know what you're gonna get when you come out it's hard I imagine what these big

[64:02] projects which I'm not familiar with I'm gonna avoid chiming it every time somebody talks but that's a really I think it's a really important piece that I didn't say when I was talking abouts before that you both have picked up on which is that before anything comes in front of Planning Board or anybody else there's a piece of property that comes up on the market and the affordable housing developer whether it's you know thistle or habitat or Boulder Housing Coalition or Boulder housing partners anything what was main mission is to get city money housing money and/or light ekam funds and execute a affordable housing project with lines up with a comp plan which is what we say we want if we can give them essentially an advantage at the point of sale that they can count on then it's gonna happen if it has to go in it there's rolling the dice and they may get it they may not hit so it depends on if there's like you know for planning board members of the meeting or seven goes like all kinds of stuff that goes on it's really unreliable and they need to be able to

[65:01] be create those transactions quickly because they're competing in a real estate market that's super hot here so if you've got a developer he's just doing able to hold land for a long time or able to you know sort of develop at a luxury level then if you give the affordable housing guy the ability to say I know I can get 14 units when they say it's ten I can take this money and move it forward so you want this as an automatic not as the site review process right yeah just I mean that's my suggestion would be to make it emulate the other zones in which we do this like dt1 has the 50% bonus and you you don't have go through a good discretionary review just if you're doing housing at administrative level you can ask for that and they would say yes if you're complying with the criteria holiday zones like if you provide forty percent affordable housing on-site then you get the density bonus if the parcel is big enough or if you're

[66:00] asking for high eight or a parking reduction over a certain amount or all the other site review thresholds it could still go through site review for sure and we would do whatever we usually do but it would be something that they could Bank on and in the financing mindset gotcha they're missing it but it seems to me that this proposal is is creating certainty isn't it it's working in that direction now I'm just going to point out that another charge of the community benefit project has been to look at the site review criteria and try to write them in a way that's a little more prescriptive exactly like the form based code so that that's already underway that's gonna be part of Phase two but that was intended to make the process or move towards a little bit more predictability because currently you go you want to hide exception you go to site review and then it's a dance right and it's well we're not sure how much in this it seems to me that this proposal notice thing I agree with it but this proposal at least gives the property a

[67:00] certainty of okay well if you want four storeys you can have it but you got to go to whatever forty four percent of this or that right so this it seems to me that this is giving the process certainty this proposal versus before when you go into site review and you want a bonus or whatever you want then it's there's no there's no seeing in that direction it's you know the project is still gonna be subject to other site review course of course of course but at least this gives you this gives a developer some tangible number that they know okay if I want to go for stories or five stories then I know that this is the deal versus the way it is now where that's not the case right so what I'd shift with that though I guess my concern would be especially when we talk about other community benefits we start talking about those things when you start graying up the marks that you need to try to achieve you know so site site plans ministerial right and so if you check off all these boxes you know you can have a reasonable expectation of approval with the site plan because it's less discretionary but within that you know I guess the whole notion is if we have something that's concrete and I'm

[68:01] you know that I'm I think that's just kind of the direction we need to go not saying that we're not trying to go there but I'm saying the more concrete it is the more you can have somebody that can plan for that ahead of time and the more you're putting the incentive to secure affordable housing in front of more process or more discretion and that's just my thing is that's you know as we're going through these phases I'd like to see that be the goal right there we're trying to secure housing because you know the the options as prices go up the options get less and less this is a good one and so to do so what can we do to really make sure that this can be a good mechanism to do that right so that I review is a discretionary process it's not a you know ministerial-level kind of review but we are again trying to you know work towards you know a greater level of predictability and the projects and try to set out the city expectations a little bit more clearly in the code right and I think that's that's my piece

[69:03] of this which is the more incentives that we can clearly align and this seems like a point do it I mean we're creeping towards something that will work which I'm afraid just like a partial solution for a bike lane ends up just being a disaster and so my goal is here would be to say same thing I think it's a great start giving a community benefit incentivizing but I think that we need to probably make it I would like to see it get made more robust I actually think I was reading to the Planning Board you know kind of key points that they landed on at their meeting and I agree with most of those the one that I don't and I want to align with Judy on this one is the the it wasn't senior housing assisted living assisted living or those

[70:01] you know that piece for me again I think that's a pretty lucrative market from a business perspective and so I think that if you're gonna give some kind of a break it needs as Judy said to be attached to a reasonable benefit to the community you know extremely expensive affordable housing for for seniors excuse me extremely expensive housing for seniors doesn't provide a community benefit and I think we need to we need to align that differently as Judy was saying so that we make sure we're getting an affordable just to push back a little to be clear I mean we got a hundred units along with that I think I see I could say you get those anyway because that's a good market but no if we're talking about 311 what you're using as an example correct for

[71:01] expensive you know we've got one hundred and four hundred and seven yeah off-site so it wasn't it wasn't just but I'm just saying just to curb it it's not like they just threw up 311 and there wasn't anything attached to it no I agree I just would disagree with the the actual in other words I think those units would have appeared regardless but anyway okay my questions slash statements like kind of in let me pull it up real quick here I had a question about the alternative alternative Community Benefit and part of this so how is that gonna be determined if someone does come who's gonna decide that dollar amount that's gonna be replacing the inclusionary housing number I mean it's they'd have to it beyond the applicant to demonstrate that whatever

[72:01] community benefit they're suggesting or proposing is equivalent to what is in the code and then at the staff level we would look at at that analysis and see if we agree and ultimately it would be determined you know by Planning Board okay unless it's then called up to City Council and they would have to determine okay I just want to make sure that everyone knows what the process is behind that because I think that is one area that it could get squirrely when you're talking about being deliberative or deliberate about things so I want to also agree with Jacque and Judy I'm worried about again luxury senior assisted living so I just want to throw that up there for our conversation and we've been talking a lot about the floor area ratio and appendix GA those are two things in my mind that should be set up

[73:03] for phase two but right now I do really want to make a solid recommendation because we've gotten a long time without making one so if we can figure out exactly what we do agree on and at least meet there that would be really really nice so this board can really give something to council that they can chew on for once so yeah I totally understand that problems with flurry or area ratio and that not being included in actual height but maybe that's for Phase two just so we can look closer at that and again I like focusing on just a pendeks J area right now because as Brian said there is a sunset date and that sunset date is going to be decided by the next council whether or not they're gonna again push it forward or not but the fact that we

[74:02] haven't had a whole bunch of public come out and say hey we really want this to be beyond area J and the fact that we haven't had a bunch of public come out and say hey we only want this to be appendix J then that to me says status quo what we have going on right now should be exactly what we do that's it for me Carl thank you so much for explaining that because when I was reading the paperwork my mind was going kind of numb you put it into layman's terms very well so thank you one of my questions and I know there was discussion about residual land value in in the consultant's report how does land value factor in to all of this when you're talking about cash in lieu and what you're really able to get from an inclusionary housing perspective number of units and you know are you

[75:01] really it's seven hundred and twelve thousand dollars or a million four really gonna get you a lot in front when you think about the land values because that's what what drives a lot of the expense in this town is land value that was one of my questions I don't know that I have the best answer for that I think our economists would have a better answer I think the raziel residual land value is basically what it would cost to pay for the property and that they have them the money to do the project based on that so it was the metric that they used in their assumptions to determine you know whether somebody would choose to do a project or not but I don't know that I can speak to it much more than that but it sounds like you had a more of a separate question about the cash in you and how much is actually generated and how much affordable housing gets produced part of it is the land value

[76:00] because I know that that's what drives a lot of the expense and development in this town and there's also economic factors you know what if we have an economic downturn and land values drop or development costs go up like they have so much in the last five years because of tightening labor markets and tightening supply chains and things like that so how does all that factored in and then how are you really with the cash and LU dollars able to get extract the amount of affordable housing out of a project that's would be valuable to the city like what's the downside of you know this bonus does it really get us to a more affordable a larger number of affordable units no no I think that's a great question I mean you go to the slide showing example projects so I mean there's a pretty significant difference in that cash in knew that the city would receive or the linkage fee amount so if you think about that additional four

[77:00] hundred and twelve thousand you know that's probably an additional eight affordable units that the city could either require you know existing units and make them permanently affordable or new construction and then that wouldn't jumped out at me even more so you were going from well and it's yeah an additional nine hundred thousand so that's you know an additional ten units so it is pretty significant and it gives us money and we've had this conversation before right with Curt about how every dollar that the city brings inning and cash in lieu that we're able to leverage that with state and federal funds you know sometimes two to three times the amount that we put into it so you know this is a great tool because it allows us to get deeper levels of form of affordability you know serving different communities special permit supportive housing different types so

[78:00] you know I think from housing perspective any additional revenue that we can get is gonna help us does that answer okay I just had sorry I just find a clarification you said 900,000 no those numbers don't why not looks like one point two eight oh you're right what side 900,000 Plus 2.7 million is not 3.9 3.9 87 yeah I thought it looked odd to you when I said that we'll go back and double check that it actually might be the additional linkage fee beyond the standard linkage fee that we applied to that square footage in your math say that again so if you had the standard HIV point-seven right right but if you apply that to the third floor and then there's add additional percentage linkage fee so you've got a double calculation there and I think you probably are only

[79:00] representing part of it I see you were saying yeah yeah I mean this has been confusing for us to you so don't feel bad one of the things I like about viewing community benefit through the lens of affordable housing is I think it gives us something that's permanent in our town versus other forms of community benefit and I'm a little wary of those because I don't feel like we have a good way to hold developers accountable to the community other kinds of community benefits that they promise one example is the movie theater that was promised and the boulder daily camera building and that that never happened and who knows if that was even the right thing to put there me in the first place I mean it was a great idea but if you know economic feasibility I don't know that community members are the best people to be able to give you the numbers on economic feasibility of a particular thing but how do you hold developers accountable if you've got an inclusionary housing project that gives

[80:01] you affordable housing it's it's permanent we right so I like that as a priority over these other community benefits and then I'm a believer in testing you know proof of concept so I like the idea of sticking with appendix J testing it out and seeing seeing how we do in those areas and see if we can attract developers and make make a better case for the community to show examples of how it was successful before just making it a blanket available if I haven't understood correctly that that's the alternative is just to do away with the appendix J or that's the preferred or alternative opinion then I misunderstood but I liked prove the idea of proof of concept because you build a case for support that way can I just make a clarifying comment and I think so before

[81:00] the height moratorium you could request a height modification pretty much anywhere in town but when we were reviewing those we didn't have a mechanism for saying what the benefit was and actually a good example is the micro movie theaters in the daily camera building pro West we didn't have a criteria that allowed us to consider that as part of our consideration of the height so we basically didn't I mean I think some people were emotionally pulled on I thought it was super cool but it wasn't that there was a community benefit because there wasn't no community benefit clause at the time so we didn't use that as an equation in the equation because it just didn't exist yet there's a bit of a meme going around about that I think of like it is yeah yeah it's you know I was it said about it too so I you know and I was sad but it didn't happen but I wasn't thinking about it in terms of like making the make sense for it to be tall the so height modifications were available

[82:00] anywhere around town and you know my office has received height modifications for like a house when you build a deck on the downhill side it moves the low point calculation and the house then gets taller based on the math right and so you would asked for a height modification so that the deck can stick out on the downhill side away from the street and in the city's eyes because the way we calculate things that would you know that house has gotten 10 feet taller but the house didn't get remodel it's just there's a deck on the back so there's a lot of things I think people don't really remember in terms of what height modifications are used for around town the city staff is gonna good job of trying to bring those things under the umbrella I think so then the height moratorium happened and then you were only allowed to do it in these certain areas and so I think what makes sense to me is sort of framing in terms of like it once was available everywhere there was a moratorium the appendix J was tied to the moratorium so we could only have

[83:01] height modifications in places where we were totally sure it was okay because it was already area plan or already a project approved then as we figured out how to tie height to community benefit the idea was that the more her name would finish it would go away and we would apply it back to the entire city it's still stiffening of the height modification rules from what it was four or five years ago so it's actually still a real kind of reduction I guess in like you know what you can use to justify height modification requests so really the lifespan of the moratorium of the penis' J was supposed to be the lifespan of when we figured out committee benefit that was a promise that was made to the community Terry Mason since we're talking about appendix J I think I've

[84:00] probably said it several times but I'm always for a good healthy public process and I believe in good governance so when we put in place moratoriums or sunset clause it to me supposed to be a pause in that moment to allow our City Council to reflect or planning board and just like Brian was saying that the agreement for the community was that it was a pause and to me good governance is that pause has occurred we set a date on it it was the - you said May right 2020 it should be allowed to go away just like you know we've already long gained elongated at one other time so this is now the second time and I think we're all very aware of the issues facing our City Council right now about governance and it's time to move forward with the

[85:00] process as far as incentivizing more affordability I agree with you about catching that with the I keep asking you to put it up because I can't remember the language on it but the for the senior living I find it interesting because we know we're in a housing crisis across the country and we are running out of land and the prices is going up on everything but I find it interesting that we're willing and it's safe to say seniors when we know that seniors at risk youth and transitional living are the three primary areas that we really need to take a look at so it's I'm just gonna say that I think it's interesting that we think seniors are safe but we're not willing to say the same thing for transitional living or at-risk youth so with that on record this is way above my pay grade honestly

[86:01] I'm gonna raise my hand and just say that I'm always for a process that funnels up so if we say and I believe everybody at this table has were for affordable homes then to me the people whose pay grade it is need to help us figure out how do we do this in a way that's incentivizing it and when we get into those weeds and the nuances and how it gets applied that's it's begins to get above my pay grade and I look towards and I ask people you tell me what is the and if I was sitting on council I'd be saying the same thing I am just a regular person reviewing this I'd go to the architects I'd go to this staff better planners and I'd say you tell me how can we make something that incentivizes affordability and makes it easier for the developers to come in and create the things we keep saying we want but we're not doing and

[87:02] that's my goal so whatever that is while we're crafting I want to incentivize affordability and I want to streamline this process for our developers and I know we've put a bad connotation on the word developer but I'm pretty sure I'm the only one besides Jack maybe that's built their own house maybe you I don't so I think you know developer comes in a lot of different forms and without them nothing would make it through our city's process so I you know again that's where I sit on all of this yeah Judy I just have a question for both of you Jay and Karl speaking just for myself the only community benefit that's really important to me is affordable housing and is there a way I don't know how other people feel but I wanted to have way more priority for the other community benefits and is there any way

[88:00] that if there's agreement on that amongst tab we can so you're getting into Phase two right now as far as my understanding goes yeah and I think making this is it phase two though because when we talk about the height and the far on this to me we're talking about site review versus a process where it becomes streamlined that is part of this first process now am I wrong the yeah the FA are and the density changes is included in this ordinance phased who's gonna focus on other community benefits beyond permanent affordable housing there might be some things related to permanently affordable housing that are included in that and then again looking at the site review criteria as part of Phase two I guess what I'm asking is will we get a chance once we make these decisions where we get a chance to chime in again when they're talking about alternate other community benefits will we get a chance to chime in and go wait we want most of

[89:02] it to be permanently affordable that'll be phased - right okay we pull up planning boards once again and because I think they've chunked it out I know I keep saying that but I don't have a mic himm I'm erasing tapes after they're not up there but I think what's interesting about this is that they've kind of pulled apart what you were talking about in your questions correct and it's you know something that we can look at as well I find it fascinating I just learned something new about the height thing I didn't realize that that was affected by a deck and I also didn't realize that you know the snap omocha it's the art the new yeah Museum of Boulder like did they have to get a height modification for their deck up on top because that or is that on their third story because that's a huge community benefit I've known like all my clients now somebody's gone to a different event on that deck almost every other week and I think that's so I

[90:00] think when we talk about the modified height calculations and allowing access to roof decks and stuff we keep talking about don't block our views and I don't know about y'all but the REO deck has a very fond heart and you know I'm spot in my heart and so did the other dekha and West End until it got blocked in yeah that's what I'm saying it's like to me those things matter okay so as far as process goes here my plan is to just essentially make there two questions if you could pull those up please into our recommendation and then make friendly amendments to it there so does have support the new site review criteria it would just be like hab recommends the new site criteria that would require permantly affordable so it's the exact same thing you're reading there except have recommends instead of does have support is that about right J would that

[91:02] do it well we have an actual motion language for you even better from that's because those were really the question is T uptick oh yes use make the conversation for the critical issues I'm just seeing that we might need to break out the J part from yes the main part see if we're generally agreeing with staff or I'm not to generalize but agreeing with planning board because Planning Board didn't agree with staff right that's the easiest way to define it very minimize planning board one person and that meant the whole threat totally that's what I mean it's not a full representation so Adam can I go over what you were suggesting just to make

[92:00] sure that you're suggesting somebody moved to that and I'm happy to so move and then right away people can make friendly amendments if they want to add with the exception of blah blah blah blah blah and then we vote on each of those friendly amendments and then we'd then vote on the main piece the primary motion happens and there's a second and then friendly motions happen and they're either accepted or denied by the patient makers right and then but they're not voted on and then the if they're denied by the primary motion maker in the secondary then they can be offered again as a motion to the board and then they're voted on so these goes from being a friendly member to sort of unfriendly amendment yeah I guess my concern with yes this recommendation is from a procedural standpoint if we go that this is an amalgam of those two questions and all the other issues that are rapping yes right and I like answering the two questions because I think those are two

[93:00] different things because if I'm looking at this again we're looking at enhanced community benefit that specific to affordable housing or not that would be one of my questions and again is it predicated on having to be appendix J yes or no and then the other question of the Appendix J because I think you guys both brought it up and I think it's probably a decent compromises if we're going to extend the sunset and we should extend it just for a trial basis if we do yeah I mean that's the thing right you know so just saying okay you know we're just you know freaking off the sunset there's there's a lot of new ones there before we get to here I think those two questions are the fundamental thing that we need to really wrestle with and that's gonna make the recommendations based on those two questions rather than yeah so it seems to me like it could be this motion but then at the end of it it could be like accepting that and then have a list of what different like so

[94:07] does it seem like it's everyone agrees that we want to do question one and then do question 2 yeah and so and then we can amend this based on that okay discussion so let's go back to the questions perfect and let's just do straw polls real quick as stated do people like this so would they accept this as stated as long as we can do friendly amendments right I'll make the motion that we would accept the language in number one great and I'll be happy to second it but I have a friendly amendment yeah so this is a straw poll or you just I doing that and you're going right into emotion because I'm not so yeah let me stop pulling or we not you're right we should stop hole first

[95:00] and then work on amendments off of that so let's trouble okay who would accept the language as is just yeah if we're gonna talk about appendix J and number two it shouldn't be referenced in number one that's the start with secondly I want the emphasis on permanently affordable housing benefits which is significantly different from enhanced community benefit which is stated in the motion so write emphasize that and then you know I would like to just have something in there that says we require for you know like everything that's in there and say and create a process that streamlines are somehow you know you know provides upfront mechanisms and

[96:00] centas to throw the affordable housing right at the front like we said so that you know people that are better oriented to do so are gonna be the people that are buying the land and designed the project right from the get-go I don't know how we say that I think we could stop after that we could stop hold the J yes their separate is our job tonight to to come up with all the thoughts and ideas or just to agree or not agree with this because the thoughts and ideas could go on for days do we support this so if we say no then we say no and what would make us support this what are you guys looking for yeah there's no I think what would be the most helpful is if there is general support on the board for the ordinance then it would be a recommendation of

[97:00] approval but listing what the recommended changes should be to the council but if there was general agreement among the board that this is not something that should move forward then it would be you know recommending that it not be approved like you know 30 things I'm supportive of what's there if we take out the reference to appendix J so we can answer in question two so my feeling is that if we take out appendix J number one I still want to add one amendment but I would like to do number two first because if say everyone votes that we support it and amendment J is taken out and then the vote goes that everybody wants to have it go all broad across the city that would change my

[98:00] vote on the first one and I wouldn't vote for it so I'd like to get the da yeah okay apology I'm in favor of just J so we clear maintain so you're saying continuous past 2020 not past 2020 okay in the moment not with the new ordinance it's not you're not asking I'm not asking to extend it right now yes so just to clarify and council can decide if they want to continue another allow it to sunset and they can date us that means is the only place you can ask for height variances is an appendix J until until the sunsets May of 2012 perspective what projects are coming through any of these appendix your areas that are gonna be it's just not actually I was gonna ask

[99:00] for just like a moment here to review appendix J with you guys to here it's really clear what's in there not in there so do you guys have a graphic for that in the slideshow so the top one up in North Boulder is the armory site so that'll be taken out of appendix J yeah that's being built yeah the highest one on the left side a North Broadway so that one goes away so that doesn't exist anymore Boulder Junction there's sort of a moot point because it's already been handled through it's mostly built tff phase one or bowler junction phase one is permitted on its way into the into the ground right now phase two is already land-use plans so it's already kind of taken out of this map as well River Bend campus we had included that one to allow the hospital to build the building that's already built there now so that

[100:01] one mostly doesn't make a difference anymore Fraser Meadows is built so that one's taken out and so the only parts that are left in appendix J are downtown which is pretty much built out the mall plan Street Mall in the hill so we're saying that if you maintain appendix J's they're exactly places in town and I get that where you can I'm just making sure that everyone gets and my problem is area my problem is why open it all up right now without that robust public process that never happened because the robust public process inform the original rules review criteria this had no process right so the you're voting to maintain this thing that has no process until 2020 you're saying that whoever put this in place has the right to put something in place with that process do you see what your

[101:03] well I guess I'm just saying it's inconsistent to say that you would maintain this map in in this face of having public process because sure yeah I'm not arguing with you about what you want to do I'm just simply saying that just factually this map only includes downtown the mall and the hill I get it and it was drawn without any public process at all call for the question I'm going back to the straw poll please yep so we're struggling whether we maintain an XJ through 2020 only not asking for an extension and that would be me saying [Music] right now cuz I mean it's sunsetting

[102:03] around the corner right and so another option could be like keep it as it is until a different date so there's kind of three options but I don't want to complicate the discussion we could also talk about other areas but we have no expertise on what those areas should be so if we're talking about just letting it sunset as its intended to right now then we're probably gonna get consensus from everybody sure that's it's five six months or so cool for that right we don't need to change it right now we don't even have an ordinance yet but if we're talking about extending it or keeping that limit that's just going what's on the board right now yeah I just want to just so you understand that council may do otherwise completely so I think the one thing for me about just removing appendix J entirely at this point is

[103:00] because as we've noted it's essentially mood it wasn't put together with decent process and I think the statement that we're saying if we say okay attach it to appendix J until May of 2020 or until it sunsets then if there is an extension on appendix J then we're saying oh well that's okay and what we're essentially saying is there's nowhere to do this basically in town so it's it's absolutely in my mind irrational to include appendix J as a piece of this it's only a way to shut it down I think if the question is let it sunset or don't let it sunset that we deliver a much clearer message both to the council and in terms of where we stand right my point would be if we say we agree with this but we don't think it should be limited to appendix J right then we're saying we agree with this thing and we

[104:00] want to see some affordable housing it's based on your trust and council I guess well I think it's beyond it's a little beyond that it's a little beyond that it's saying that wherever council goes with this down the road they're gonna go with it yeah but and and that's what they're gonna do but we're sending for us sending a message about trying to accomplish a community benefit tied to this particular relief yep then tying it to this I think is not irrational so I'd like to add that although people have differing opinions of if there was a public process how this was set up whatever since Community Benefit plan has been formed it was restricted just to appendix J for the time being and so the public's expectation is that City Council can choose to have more public hearings on that and do whatever right now it is the way it is and I think it should stay

[105:03] that way until Adid Intel consult decides what to do about it so I hate to keep jumping in on you guys but just factually having been in the room when we started this community benefit project appendix J was only meant to last during to give us enough time to figure out what we're deciding on tonight and was meant to sunset at that time it wasn't meant to be the laboratory for figuring this out it was meant to be a way of keeping height modifications from happening throughout the city except in places where were comfortable them while we figure this out it's in the plan that's been published for the public yeah as something that's supposed to sunset and mark820 so let's just that's what I'm advocating for is leaving it letting in sunset I'm not really trying to play a role in that I'm sort of like making sure that I'm kind of offering whatever kind of historical knowledge I have available to me based on you know having

[106:01] been there okay so the strata would have shoe options which are which two options the option is to keep it just till the sunset not asking for any additional or to remove it right now within our recommendation yeah and I'm a senator for so okay so four and three which doesn't make for a very solid recommendation but strapless my question is if we ask the question does it need to expand after the sunset or not then we're delivering a more clear message in this as a board with the recommendation not to extend beyond sunset right because I

[107:04] might be more on board with that to be honest with you what to say and don't extend this beyond the sons head right I'm not I mean again my message is we're in a housing crisis we need to start applying these things now and we just heard from the original person who said that this was put in place so that we can figure this stuff out and we're making we're figuring it out right now and we're putting it in place with our recommendations so there's no need for it to continue to be implemented with respect to saying that I I needed to put an awning up for a second while I built my garden I'd like to move that we that we accept the current status of exhibit J with the sunset period marked me but

[108:02] not any farther I'd like to see the I'd like to see the discussion discussion needs that clear before you okay I'd like to move that we support the current status of exhibit J with the understanding that it doesn't extend past May 2020 which is a current sunset date right okay okay now discussion and please okay I would only be in favor of that if it was added if you'd be willing to add to that with a robust public process I don't know what that means but that means three public hearings what is

[109:06] he's duty can i what we talked about I'm planning where this might help inform where you I think trying to get at is that we felt like if there was gonna be a further discussion of where increases in height could be around happen around the city that that should be tied to a robust community process is that what you're trying to head towards yes well thanks that might help a little bit and wave so you have any problems with that still second wonderful with that edition liked it do you want to read read it back yeah what's here yes it is Cory do you still have the process of putting that up on the screen so people can see it in written form still I don't know where your where we're at with that okay

[110:03] got it all right I've been working on it and the full-motion language so maybe you could just vote on it all together assuming you can come to agreement on these points so what I have here is Palmas motion to support the current status of appendix J with the understanding that it doesn't extend past May 20 29 to amend Thomas's motion and add a robust public process Teodoro seconded okay so technically that amendment is what we're talking about right now the public process I'm a public process them in their check can I ask a clarifying question just as somebody who's gonna be well actually I won't be here anymore right this night yes but I think Judy what you're saying is if is different from what's in the second language there which is that if

[111:01] there is a further discussion about height modifications in the city that that should be the part of the result of a robust community engagement process is that that's correct so we read probably try to get that because really we're not saying that the sunset has to process because we don't have time for that and then further discussion would be the result of would include a robust community engagement process I think your amendment might be better served when we discussed number one meaning the robust public process coming into play with what community benefit is how it's tied to affordable housing how it's tied to hide exemptions versus just Sun setting exhibit J in five months except then I won't then if we want to get consensus I won't vote for for it without that with this one without that in it right there my question is is the public process dealing with sun setting

[112:00] exhibit J or is the public process dealing with the bigger picture so that's it's gonna be both that part needs to fit with both one and two okay because I see two public processes one public process dealing with the bigger picture and one public process is do we want exhibit J to keep going well you would want that language in both as to whether or not we want to exhibit J to keep going or what a process regarding where we want to apply restriction if any changes to the hypeeee modifications is the result of a robust public process and I do want it in both or I can't support okay the next question yes if there were to be changes to the height the areas were or I mean the default is J sunsets and then we go to the existing

[113:03] height allowances under the existing zoning correct so any changes from that would require a robust public process to change the owning it's our current code yeah well I just think it confuses as we are seeing right now what we're talking about exactly well we just know she's not gonna support the language were that is okay so are we okay with that friendly amendment and we're gonna vote on that if we're done with discussion I would want to hear if I were you how it was reef sure before that yeah we want to hear the full sorry we want to hear Judy's friendly amendment to amend to include a robust public process that was all I wrote so tell about what that

[114:01] meant yes that I said a robust public process unless you want to clarify out additional language I was making was simply that what because that ties together the sunset of a ted Penix Jay with the robust process which is not Judy's intent what it needs to say is that future discussions around hide modifications in the city of Boulder need to include a robust community engagement process is that okay words in your mouth I'm just trying to and what what we're saying is redundant because we already have that in our process right it's already there whenever we go about changing anything in height or zoning or planning it goes into a robot so it's just redundant but she's not gonna go without it so we're worried about how we look it's just something to

[115:00] be aware of you complain me do you want me to just add to amend to include a robust public process on future discussion around high modifications yeah correct thank you thank you Cory my only cautionary when we get wordy like this is that we got chastised for this by counsel that we get too too wordy into that we need to learn how to contents and edit ourselves down so I'm just suggesting that this might be one of those moments instead of redundancy clarity clarity okay so now we're at a vote for the friendly amendment I'm honest anyone has any other discussion on it okay those in favor of adopting the friendly amendment you don't actually vote on adopting a friendly amendment you just yes I know

[116:19] Terry thank you okay it's on the table so let's go for the vote unless there's any other discussion around the language well now I can say that I the last part of the sentence is what I can't support if that's eliminated I can't support the current status of Pinochet with the understanding it does not extend beyond May 20th and then leave it there and let City Council decide what to do about it I can support that it's short and who's

[117:00] the person who may have to agree to that was it you it's perfect okay well let's just give us straight to the vote then on this one all those in favor of this language cool unanimous number two what you have on the screen there support the current status of appendix J with the understanding it does not extend beyond me 2020 where did one come in why is that written there so I was just trying to drop some notes so you'd have something to react and I

[118:06] don't want to go down the rabbit hole of trying to put in every single little thing into this obviously but so let's try to discuss me the big ones that we heard I think we strike the reference to exhibit J and question one okay we can switch some of that power points back up again I like the cat so my thought is this simplicity could we just say the housing advisory board recommends the new site review could criteria for community benefits and then we can then add in from the amendments with the exception of and if anyone had some and if they don't that's it yep and just go down the list one by one with quick votes so I will I was so moved that first part that the housing advisory board

[119:00] recommends staffs new site review criteria for community benefit housing that's right thank you yeah and did you want to strike the Jay or not straight the Jay strike straight okay did you get that kind of this one's much word here from the memo so the housing advisory board recommends that city council adopt the community benefit ordinance attachment a referencing the memo amending language code to establish a new community benefits program specific to permanently affordable housing so I added that part that would amend title 9 land use code building height regulations for certain areas of the city we could remove that part you can remove everything after housing yeah I think that would I'm fine

[120:05] with that too does that sound good to folks yes a few more head after regulations right after building height regulations on the city so Leicester City sorry it also meant something else so I think we should either I mean we've left something out aren't we basically agreeing with what the staff set out and then we'll put with the exceptions of so I don't know if we have to say any of that after affordable housing okay so that is your next sentence the housing advisory board further recommends the following changes to the staff recommendation second first that motion yeah we need to we need to put the motion on the table okay so so move in all second I'd like

[121:04] to add a friendly amendment that says nursing home and assisted living facilities will be exempt only you're gonna have to help with this J probably in Karl only if they meet some permanently affordable housing criteria and I don't know how you want to say that I think the easier way to do it is just not to exempt them I would strongly support that okay all right all right I move that we not exempt nursing homes and assisted-living unions how's my language up there fine by me yeah does I capture it Judy okay I would second that friendly amendment any discussion I mean I I don't know if I

[122:06] have anything it just goes down to I think we just what we're doing by saying to include nursing homes and assisted living is we're funneling down to what we don't want and we're not opening up to what we do want this doesn't get more inclusive this gets more exclusive so I'm hesitant because it's just excluding I understand what we're trying to do is just exclusionary language instead of what we've put up there how about we figure out some inclusion language which would just gonna start thinking here but they would say we also recommend that City Council develop criteria then what are we trying to hit here to kind of hit

[123:01] these these pieces that would cover the nursing homes coverage cover those those bits is there something that we can house for really nice senior housing they're really expensive senior unless well that's not what I'm areas oh okay it would be valuable for us to add to in other words to roll into this Community Benefit piece we were we were saying just nursing homes and assisted living I say nursing homes and assisted living are fine but can we base it instead of on that specific you know designation can we base it on other other housing

[124:00] that we value some place on there on what your presentation you included a few areas like public service fire departments blah blah blah blah blah can you add specific wording that will cover what Mason and Josh we're talking about like transitional housing and and that they could be totally exempted because they obviously by nature of what they do you don't forget a high end transitional home those words be added to that part and can we say that here you mean like change the alternative Community Benefit to include some other uses beyond just police fire yeah that wasn't those were an alternative community benefit I thought those were just in a different part I mean that's not like the arts and cinemas and whatever it was a separate section you had about fire departments and yeah that was just a catch-all for something that wasn't permanently affordable housing that might be a large community benefit

[125:01] that could be done at this time right so could you add the things that Mason and Jacque really like transition social you called them something is there a finishing the code for group home or is it so so part of the challenges nursing homes in assisted living or technically commercial uses that's why they're treated differently than say permanently supportive housing plus if it's permanently supportive housing it's already gonna be permanently affordable typically so permanently I've seen your facility is not I'm sorry I've seen your facility is not I consider residential now but can I think a process suggestion yes it's going to be really difficult for you to try to amend the ordinance and all the details that go along with that I would suggest you talk about the things you don't want to see move forward in the ordinance and then what I put up here is furthermore the housing

[126:00] advisory boards recommends that in phase 2 of the community benefit project these issues be considered like that structure so the alternative community but the benefit languages talks about city facilities and it does list Human Services Human Services that's what you call it great so we leave this as it is do not include nursing homes and assisted living as an exemption that's what's on the table right now I would say unless the monstre bully affordable right but there's no rule that out from the other group homes Authority permanently affordable then they're gonna get the benefit yeah so there are permanent affordable Celia projects in Boulder yeah there are it can be rentals or for sale if you're doing assisted living that is what triggers you into the different code categories so it's not really senior housing it's more that the provision of services on-site that moves

[127:01] you into that category so if you were to do a senior focused affordable housing project it would fit under the cover of essentially any of for a loitering project that make sense it's just that I see nursing homes and assisted living as healthcare facilities and not housing and we probably need healthcare facilities for aging populations and others in this community so we all agree with that I know that I wouldn't exempt it our complaint is that we don't want a luxury assisted living home or nursing home to get this benefit have you been in an assisted living home I don't think of that as assisted living I think of that a senior housing luxury senior housing and I guess when I think assisted living I think of a health care facility that has skilled nursing some

[128:00] component of skilled nursing Fraser Meadows is a good example yeah yeah yes so just knock it into a point where we're funneling down and exempting things for the one who might abuse it let's not exempt for the one that it abused it when we're okay well we can vote on this and I'd like to read an article I read that was put out in july 2019 from a place called equity multiple that says why that talked about in the past several years these are about people who invest for people who investments as Senior Living facilities have emerged as a high-performing commercial real estate asset with over two hundred fifty billion dollars in assets and and I think the if these if they're not if we leave it as it is these places can still apply if they want to provide services for permanently that for people who can't afford otherwise they are going to be just

[129:02] luxury facilities and you know so I I'm keeping it in well I think they raise everyone's rights i think am i mistaken that if if we do not include specifically this piece about nursing homes and assisted living if those facilities that are proposed provide a certain amount of affordable units it's not residential though that's what you're saying so that's yeah if it wasn't included as a community benefit the the change would basically be that if a four or five-story nursing home or assisted living facility came in they would have to pay

[130:00] that 43 percent higher commercial linkage fee for that fourth and fifth floor that would be the difference so what it means though is that without exempting them that means that a nursing home or assisted living facility could start and not have to pay anything and say we're not taking Medicaid we just don't take Medicaid at our facility they can save that place to say that all the time and and if you really want to ensure that the people who can least afford to get nursing home and assisted living care then you don't want to give them an exemption because if they do they'll they'll make it if they do attend to that population they'll they'll be able to make it so just one little thing I met in the beginning you said don't pay anything since they're commercial buildings they would actually be paying the commercial linkage fee you know maybe paying the bonus lincoln Chafee above the things they actually just do pay something the question of that bonus linkage fee four four four

[131:00] and five that we're talking about yeah and what we're trying to say is if they if they get that benefit is this confirming that they're getting that benefit in return for somehow affordable units within there I mean some of some benefit to the community in other words yes answer that question the Housing Group comes to town asks for a fourth and fifth floor they get it they pay more linkage fee that's more money that goes into the affordable housing fund that the end is used to go build more affordable housing properties I mean these nursing homes and assisted living people don't don't live there I mean

[132:01] they may live there as their home but these are beds that they're having it's not it's not their house well actually I just just the ones like Frasier Meadows there are different permutations of that they're not typically single room occupancy like a like a hospital they're typically apartment-style living is what most of them actually are and so you know Fraser Meadows for example which is part of what was carved out in appendix J has a variety of housing types of none of them are single room occupancy there's a separate issue which is you brought up with like taking or not taking Medicare that's a really interesting one sort of a separate topic and sorry another piece of this just add a bit of color from the planning board conversation that hasn't shown up here yet we've heard a lot from people over the years and this is I think why this came in originally to the to the staffs recommendation I'm saying you know older folks in town saying you know I'm I'm an empty nester I'm living in my house I raise my kids and it's way

[133:01] too big I don't need it anymore but I have nowhere to go and so I that's what we've heard a bunch that's made us think like oh there's a there's a built in housing needed in the community which is where people who have lived here for a long time need a place to stay here and when they get to stay here in a in a home and either its assisted living or it's you know Presbyterian tower or its you know Frasier Meadows or whatever it is that you know you have a variety of housing options right then that frees up the house that was occupied to become a family home so we've kind of found a nexus between providing senior housing and freeing up single-family homes yeah but I'm interested you know I'm interested in helping places like Golden West I'm not interested in helping places like the Academy they don't need our help and so I think if you just don't include that exemption it covers it so the real question on the table here is do we want the money from the fourth and fifth story in nursing homes or do we not additional money because we

[134:05] get commercial linkage fee money absolutely correct so what do you guys think I want the additional money because it's a business yes you're just additional money or not as you go down the line I'm sure that it okay Judy he's like like you liked additional money John I'm just worried that we would discourage those kinds of facilities from getting developed and being available for people who need them the fourth of the story we would because everything else is the same to me this whole discussion whether it's senior housing or whatever building it is is all a trade-off between additional

[135:00] height and and maybe more affordable housing and for me I think there's other ways to get more affordable housing other than additional height blanket because personally I go around the exhibit J sites in the last 10 years where all these fourth and fifth stories were built and I don't think any of them were needed at all to have a fourth or fifth story I think you could have done the same thing unless and it would be better for everything I think you can still get more affordable housing and more money for affordable housing and more linkage fees and all that stuff without going up again I'm always for housing um so to me if it means going up and we get more units and we keep our people here and we keep them off the road and we don't displace our seniors I am for doing whatever I can to

[136:02] incentivize that so I am for them allowing to stay in this as exempt I don't need to build more money out of it I get that we're afraid of the 311 but I will always build positively towards it then down they were the exemption to just hearing all this I mean I think we're still getting money from and it's just that you know additional Delta and but you know it's it's it's a business but it's a functional business and I think that's point with it so I'm for the exemption I'll stick with it so all those for the exemption yep all those for the exemption did you sell those not for that do not yes you do you'd bring it

[137:02] back to the original yeah so okay let's just call it call it like this say all those for number two as it's written as it's written all those against number two okay motion is defeated two to five to two to say that the discussion was a long discussion we just had about how nursing homes can apply to all buildings with this height exemption versus more money is that safe to say that we saying is that how we feel or is it just two nursing homes because it seems to me like we just had a discussion saying we like willing to give height for more money in nursing homes right I think although there's lots of confusion into my thoughts sometimes but my feeling is

[138:03] that because the nursing homes are not residential and there's no easy linkage to requiring permanent affordability either on-site it's a different it's a it's a bit of a different category oh yeah so that essentially though yeah absolutely more height more money more affordable I mean yeah you know so do we have any other things that we need to add to this before we vote on the main one we're talking about voting on everything but the bottom line further than where the housing board recommends we're talking about voting on the main line the top paragraph do we need to include any other exemptions is my question yes right and I do not have any I can't think of any Mason honey no okay

[139:00] so what what slow down the motion the original motion if your goal is to be succinct I don't think you need okay so I understand we're voting more or less to support staffs position not planning board's position yes we didn't take a position on this knowing the senior no not senior we're passing your housing now right okay yeah I guess you'd have to clarify what the whole thing is that we're talking about that one sentence right yeah which is summarized again in that first sentence well let me clarify we've already approved one of them and not approved one of them so number two unless we want to I mean we can leave it

[140:00] in the minutes I suppose but that's gone yeah so what we're really approving is the whole thing is we're not going to then revote on approving right correct correct yep we got it any other discussion a job any other exemptions last chance okay here's the vote Corey I'm watching your face and I just want to make sure that you feel like you're anywhere near it because I get this was really confusing over here on the side but do you feel like you've captured this in the notes because what's going to end up happening is this is all going to come back to us next meeting with confusing notes and amendments and there's no notes there's nothing else beyond that worries I'm gonna go back and watch this portion of the video I will make sure it's captured properly in the minutes and then you'll have a chance to review I want to make sure Jays done typing

[141:01] before you actually do this yeah it's changing what mm-hmm I'm still sorry I'm snow just give him a second yeah how's that just need an A in front of proved well yeah but I didn't think that's what we

[142:01] voted for I thought we did you voted to allow it to sunset not to remove it now so my suggestion just to make it clear before council so when they're reading the packet and they see what staffs recommendation is I mean it would be nice I mean you could also vote on nothing like the original men sorry all right we're gonna have another discussion on this I'd prefer not to don't fill about ten o'clock

[143:01] we could remove an hour and a half from this meeting if we will tape erases at the end great there it is okay yeah we are voting on what is up there and we're getting rid of too because it doesn't exist anymore one has already approved we don't need to talk about that anymore yeah okay all those in favor sorry canal so we're also deleting this right more correct all those in favor yeah language the advisory board recommends that City Council adopt the community benefit ordinance attachment a amending the land use code to establish a new community benefits program specific to permanently affordable housing do we feel like this

[144:10] is clear enough with what your question was that you put out to us I mean mr. attorney down there I think so I mean because we're specifying affordable housing not the generic community benefits we're being very specific on what our feelings are in exhibit J you know we've kind of gone through some of the other things and I think this really highlights the parts that we're talking about and attachment a is specifically cited right so we did this it's just making sure it's five to two right which - you were the - no I just paused okay all those in favor six to one does anyone need a bathroom break yeah

[145:01] let's take a five okay the five minute break are we done with this whole thing this part community benefits yes until phase two I'm gonna do my phase two presentation now really really awesome job on this too and with the slides as well as a presentation cuz you know taking a 42 page staff report and I turn it to little slides yeah that's nice

[151:30] and how does something much less contentious Alpine balsam I wasn't there for anything no I think some of you were there I'm gonna leave this to Jacque

[152:00] well I do have a question because I went to look for minutes and of course they aren't posted until too late for our meeting and I wasn't there so what can you give us a look I mean where do you guys where did it lay in last night with what's going on he give you the one-minute version 49 minute version the all that happened last night is we had a presentation from staff we heard public comment Council and Planning Board got to ask questions of staff council left Planning Board deliberated for like 50 minutes something like that and approved the staffs recommendation basically there were a few pieces of nuanced discussion in there mostly relating to some questions of you know how use was spelled out correlations between a

[153:00] couple pieces of plan and text in the document yeah there was a discussion between I think there are some people who who are I guess maybe just knew or the conversation who were confused about talking about both floors and feet in terms of height but that's common in all sections of this code right now so if you familiar with a zoning code that says now you can have two stories or 35 feet or three stories or 42 feet or whatever it's just kind of like how we it's in there everywhere so it's actually not nothing new what else I'm missing you guys are both there so yeah that was about it yeah and I guess we did we did as per the headline on the front page today criticized city council for not following through on the scope that they allocated in the staff work plan and for the project and changing the scope that's one of my questions was that

[154:01] remains this reduced scope that we're just looking at yeah and the decision is really like it's a two by two decision so planning boards and approval body and City Council's approval body so we have to really approve the same thing and so it's really easy for us to get in a situation where we'd say I mean that one possibly we talked about was like well let's just approve the area plan that was the whole area that we saw last time and you know while I sympathize with that approach and the kind of message it sends it's pretty aggressive and I know that it we just bounce back to us so you know I always kind of you know arguing for like let's just have a I mean we can make a statement about that and then talk about the thing on the table so that's what we actually did the end so the thing on the table is just the air just the site plan [Music] city-owned properties the city-owned properties exactly mature but a much in alignment with the area plan that City

[155:02] Council and Planning Board reviewed before that yep and a bunch of the comments that we made on that area plan get it did get adopted in the city parcels so I think staff didn't I think a really good job of simulating first synthesizing feedback from City Council and Planning Board in the public and all these different directions but then just reduce the scope to the city parcels sorry okay I just wonder yeah I want to make sure that there wasn't any significant shift in that before I said something about just the city parcels and that didn't apply anymore yeah is this discussion a little late to the party because it seems like the discussion between the people who've decided have already happened that was an interesting part of the process we didn't actually planning board and City Council don't have a dialogue directly between the two of us they just asked council or staff questions and then left so City Council hasn't voted on it yet the Planning Board has so one way this could go is if you guys have some insights if has have have I

[156:02] have some insights that influence the City Council's thinking on it then City Council modifies what's or if they do you know they can modify what's in front of them on that city-owned parcel and that and then it comes back to plenty was thing yeah then it would have to come back to planning board and if we didn't approve it then it would go back to City Council if I didn't approve it then we come back to sit so there's kind of a potential for that so what I kind of did with our borders I just said look you know we're all smart folks we're insightful we could come up with a thousand things we want to say about this but let's make this more about like on bounds can we live with it does it well enough for us to reflect community input staffs intelligence council direction our thinking your thinking anybody's like yeah pretty much it's good so they actually went pretty fast for us it was a unanimous in 52 minutes yep yeah right so I like staffs position in shorter than 52 minutes plenty boards position which is also staffs position sorry yeah I would I

[157:00] would make a motion that we as housing advisory boards support staffs latest plan for the city owned parcels without board which was approved by plan second second that motion discussion I I think you know we've worked through this quite a bit and and the way that it's kind of developed over time I think it's something you know again looking at from the pragmatic standpoint that's supported first of all I hope we confine our discussion of it if we possibly can just to the housing aspect I don't feel that it's in my understanding of the office and the city and the county and all that we're the housing board and if we talk about anything it just should be the housing component and the only concern I have about the plan is we're the housing

[158:02] board we really care about permanently affordable housing and I just don't see enough in there that actually gives me a good feeling that there's any assurance of as much permanently affordable housing as possible and so that's that's just something I'd like the next if I were to make any recommendation that I could just be that the next City Council look at that site and look at as many different options as possible for getting the most affordable permanently affordable housing for as diverse a group of people as possible for that site Chuck yeah at this point I also for the most part agree and I do just want to state that I want the current plan the number of units that is specified in the current plan to try to maximize the number of permanently affordable units within that number of

[159:00] units that's all I'll say I don't even know where to start except it was I watched some of the comments last night that were quite contentious and I really came away thinking we're not that far apart the groupthink Boulder and the the people that came out and spoke sort of against the findings of think boulder are actually pretty close it's just one slightly leading to one side and one slightly leaning to the other I think everybody wants permanently affordable housing at that site it's just a matter of height and density differences that people care about and I sort of what I'm gonna abstain for I want to hear what other people have to say about it because I I like the fact that it's I think the city was very or lip staff was very thoughtful in how they approached

[160:01] and they tried to get feedback from as many citizens as possible but I think that that's a better site for housing and other services I'm a devotion so I how much to say anything yeah I think the only comment I would make is that I was disappointed in the dropping of the area plan as well I'm frustrated by the fact that we continued to listen to a small majority versus the majority in our community and I you know I stand by what ultimately the conclusion was with Planning Board last night and can move forward on that motion as well just overall I kind of echo Mason's sentiment about dropping the area plan and at the same time I

[161:01] also just want to say that Judy's point of you know I don't know how to get it in there in a way other than trusting the process that's going to take place but that we do want to see as much affordable housing in those units as we possibly can achieve and a diversity of affordable housing as well any other discussion I'll just want to chime in free in the actual plan it does say that the primary goal is to address critical affordable housing needs that's a new but the plan itself I mean I you know I have looked into this some and and watched you know you guys last night and of them either attending or watching on the meetings and there's very little talk in the plan itself of identifying affordable housing and people from the community did come up with plans that have more affordable housing than any of the options provided and there's there's really no discussion about specifying how much affordable

[162:01] housing there will be obviously there will be either you know the inclusionary housing or or the cash in lieu or whatever it is but I think that's a site where we should get way more out of that and and I agree with what you said Julia I think all sides of this issue want permanently affordable housing of mixed mixed uses on that site from mixed populations and I just don't think the plan addresses that enough right now any other discussion all right those in favor it was against five to two I would also like to add when you write that recommendation

[163:00] could you please mention that the people who were against it felt that it was because there wasn't enough consideration of permanently affordable housing was that true for Juliet as well I was I just that's what she'd said so that's another vote will have to take probably that's again one nice one practice we do is when people have have a dissenting vote we try to give him a chance to record what their rationale was and it's just a document that goes into them yeah it's like just like you did sure successful way of doing it gotcha okay matters from the board hopefully we can make this one pretty quick the engagement committee so we provided a draft report of the August listening session and we were hoping to have a vote to adopt it so I'm gonna put

[164:01] the motion forward I move that we adopt the draft of the August listening session report second discussion we didn't get any comments from it so I'm assuming that everyone was pretty okay with it perfect and thank you all for taking part in that again that was a good one so we [Laughter] okay all those in favor unanimous unfinished business annual letter to council so just for everyone's awareness a lot of our it's our October meeting correct I just want to verify is gonna be based on this and what we want to say in it and what we want to do with it so just be aware that that's a big topic coming next time is there any discussion around

[165:02] what we want to do with it right now I think - just wait - next time without doing some preparatory stuff would put us in a bad place timeline wise for getting it done on time realizing how long it took last time and I'd like to bring up just a couple things last time we sent the copy of our it wasn't called a listening session then but the session we had where we got comments from the public to council and that proved to be a disaster because there was stream extremely long it included all the data from be heard Boulder and all that stuff with the two reports from the listening sessions I think that's really good information for the brand-new council we can either attach that to our letter because they're much shorter or we could send them in right after the new City Council is picked and so I'd like to

[166:01] just discuss that for a minute I'd also like to see if we can get to people right now to agree to work together on a draft of the letter and have each of us send our ideas of what we want included to them so those are the two things that we're coming before the next meeting is that you're before the next meeting send a draft to us so we can start yeah send a draft to us before the next meeting otherwise otherwise I'm really worried that we won't be done in time so let's yeah Mason again I would just really caution the fact that we got 30 it's about our lengthy nests and desire to want to do anything other than a brief two paragraph statement on our issues so I get the desire to want to influence council but I think brevity is our friend how do you feel about the idea of sending it to the new council I

[167:03] don't know I just I feel like we can make something succinct into the point and it doesn't need to be five pages yeah anyone else wanna weigh in on that the attaching the listening session reports either to the letter or sending them separately to the news what we could do is at the bottom of our letter ask them if they want it you know if they want to see the stuff we could send a hyperlink or something you know I like that the opportunity to dinner drive I mean just hyperlink it if they're interested that way it's not just all there okay as far as the length it's easy for any of us to look up all the letters that were sent last year and to look up planning boards letters over the past few years and I think part of what hurt our report was how long that that section was about that session we had

[168:01] but and also we talked about something they didn't want to hear about but first of all it's a going to be six of the nine people are gonna be I mean it's going to be a new council and this is the time when it's really important that where they set their work plan for the next two years so this year's going to be very different than it was last year because last year they already had our work plan and they didn't want us to vary from it very much but this year they don't have their work plan done and I think it's one of the most important things we can do is to talk about what we want and when I look at other like the planning board all the other letters true we don't have to be five pages long with an attachment of like twenty pages but we can be two or three good pages and that's that's not unusual for what the other boards do and I think we need to put some thought into what we would like them to about to work on as far as housing goes so and I think we should start now so I'd like to see if there's two people

[169:00] who's who are willing to work on a draft and solicit input from people anyone interested in that I'd rather it not be me but I will if no one else wants to but I'd rather other people do it I mean I liked working with you okay okay yeah I'm thinking rated this current juncture it's just probably not even possible for anyone to take that on so we're gonna have to come ready and prepared with what you want next time to get on the letter so we can make that decision what I think might be a good idea is if we set a date for all of us you know knowing everybody's schedule sure maybe say October 15 through October 10th or something like that where we give a list of you know like our five top issues or something like that sure it would how about we have it ready

[170:01] for the package or why don't we have it ready for your guys's meeting and you guys can condense you know put it together like we did last year is everybody's submitted before your meeting sure put him into a list that way everybody can review him one of the things that we did last year was if you had an idea you would send that out just to the board as these are the ideas that I have and this is the position behind it and then that way everybody could just sit with it before we got to the meeting that's great and that date would be October 14th so then what we're saying is by October 14th if anybody does have ideas on topics they would like to do to make sure that it goes to Cory goes to Cory by then and will condense them down and again it's the topic you want to discuss and your reasoning or positioning behind why our board should focus on it for the next year great that good perfect any new

[171:01] business anybody else before we go on to matters from staff okay matters from staff the only thing I have is I sent out the email about the application questions for new have members so this is your kind of your last chance if there are changes that you would like to make the letter that goes accompanies the application for the new members of have so I know that in previous years you've spent a lot of time wordsmithing that so if there are some additional changes that you would like to make that was the time I just had one comment which is that there are some members that say that it takes ten hours per week of time as an investment to be on this board and I would say that might scare some people off from applying because the what's written on

[172:00] the website is you meet once a month and the meeting length is three hours and to say that there's an additional ten hours of work per week is like having a part-time job and if you're talking about it the volunteer citizenry that have jobs and families and whatever else they have to take care of that just seems like a huge ask and it would be a deterrent for a lot of people I would take the ten hours out I don't spend ten hours I spend plenty of hours preparing for a meeting but ten hours a week I think is excessive I'll just respond I know this has been discussed quite quite a bit so the folks that have been around for a while might have a lot of lot to say about this but also it was a very different environment last year have was meeting twice a month at least right yeah so that's a fair question Mason okay well I was going to say maybe we could change the language to not at

[173:02] least but I don't know I put it in a lot of time into this so I am the chair but I put in a lot of time in this before I was the chair - I think what Adam and I were getting to when we were thinking about this and when we asked to talk about it at one of the board meetings last year was the fact that it's kind of you know similar to planning board and stuff is that to really give informed opinions and I think we're seeing it with community benefit as well is that if you're not already actively working in housing on board I mean we went through being waterboarded last year it's pretty much what I would call it and I was actually probably closer to 30 hours a week trying to go through literally everything so that you really fully understood what it was that you were trying to envelope for some of these in in depth pieces that we were making recommendations on that I think we see

[174:01] just a glimpse of it today but we we were dealing with a lot more and I think onboarding from all the list that we got that took most of us a couple months to get through all of that stuff so I get it where it feels like it might feel intense or like a part-time job but what we're doing here is making recommendations for an entire community and I personally take that incredibly serious and I personally want somebody that is a comrade at arms that's willing to put the time and energy in and has the time and energy to be able and I expect the same out of my council expect the same out of planning board if you're gonna do these boards that it's not just a phone in and I get you're prepared I mean I think to know the history of why we're making some of these decisions and it's a commitment we make to our community so I'm comfortable with the 10 hours a week I think it's legitimate Mason I'm

[175:05] going to tease you inside this is one of those times once again I completely agree anyone else I think just from my perspective I don't know if 10 hours a week is the right number or not you barely make it here on time Chuck so [Laughter] but it is a significant effort yeah to try to understand a little bit of what's going on with planning yeah trying to understand some of the economics of it turn in all these parts and it's a complex thing and I think so for me maybe it's not ten hours but something that suggests that this is important and I think you three guys in particular have a leg up because of the industries that you're in so you already come with a certain amount of understanding of

[176:00] this and maybe that's where the hours flex to is given a person's background like you know my friend Claudia does a lot of studying and writing around housing so if it's something that it's already in your purview you probably wouldn't be spending a lot but for me it was I didn't know Robert's Rules I didn't know any of it so it was a lot it was a lot to on board all the way around process how did we do this and so yeah I agree onboarding is different than long term so I would say I would agree I spent tons of time in the onboarding phase but then long term if you're have a five-year commitment like I do sort of prepare people for onboarding versus what your long-term commitment that's a great point so maybe that's a shift in the language is to say something like when your new board members you can expect in the first six months something like this while you're onboarding and that it would taper off a little bit I ending on the recommendations just say up to I certainly empathize with your

[177:04] feelings Juliet and I'm sort of caught in the middle because on one hand we don't want to miss good people who are really busy on the other hand we what Mason said we really are making decisions that might impact a lot of people and we really do have to put time not just show up at the meeting so so you know I I don't want to catch people off-guard and have somebody get on the board and go I had no idea it would take this much commitment and and so that's why I like it being in there I just don't want to catch people off-guard when I time in just a tiny bit not so much on that but more we planning board has had a similar conversation just recently I was kicking it off and what we're trying to add and we don't have probably the same I've never read this I don't know what it says exactly the same parallel but one thing that we're gonna try to add into our application is a expectation of attendance because this

[178:00] year we've had some folks who like came in with a you know missing a lot of meetings so we were like oh we really gonna talk about that yeah we already have three successive three successful and then we can vote to remove you from the board if you're not participating yeah what if we change that sentence to say appointment to the board is a significant commitment and new board members may expect to spend as much as 10 hours per week on board activity for an onboarding process yeah well I'm bored like that right that's good for the first six months to a year and then tapers from there or something you're even say because they might not know we're on board and it's to just say for the first six months to a year mm-hmm I think that's so do we want to

[179:05] leave it up to or do we want to leave it at least around about did you mention something specifically about the onboarding or just the initial initially initially no how about if we said it instead spending approximately ten hours per week on board activity at least initial at least for the initial six months to hear something like that would that work for people up

[180:08] to ten hours up to ten hours perfect do you want me to read what I have guys okay sorry I know I've been tired trying I think we're both typing but what I wrote is board suggested language to reflect appointment to board is significant commitment and new members may expect to spend up to ten hours per week in the first six to ten months in the first what did you say year six to ten month six to ten months six and twelve much I don't think I'd say there's ten hours per week on board activity for the first six to twelve months so just keep that on board

[181:05] activity and then just say for the first six to twelve months to spend and honestly I mean and I know where you're coming from on this but I I would rather people come in and be slightly surprised and back off from it and thinking that they're gonna be able like I don't think this is like other board appointments where sometimes you can just show up and you have your agenda and you don't really have to do a lot of background or you know we've all been on the fluffer stuff and this is a little deeper than that so I'd rather have somebody be slightly surprised than really worried or complaining that it's too many hours Green does that okay I don't think we need to do an official vote here since we're all together with this it looks like great Jay do you have everything you need no unless you have any other questions for me I have nothing else

[182:02] okay are we gonna deeper yeah we're gonna debrief I didn't see it on here didn't even know he had a page - you have something you'd like to say yeah I was really curious if there's a way we can bless you tighten up our discussion times like I'm curious if if every board goes through this and if there are points that we could take from other boards or something I don't know what it is but it just seems like what happens where I think things get messed - or some kind of rubs happen for people is when we start doing that moment where you said you'd would look back at the tape everybody starts going huh yep yeah that's good yep and we're all on different pages and I'm like no he just said this and you just said that and that's not anywhere near it so I think there has to be a way of just kind of pausing or slowing it down a little bit

[183:00] making sure that we're repeating back the sentences but not like over beating the horse or something I think we get we rabbit hole and everybody feels like they have to reiterate their point over and over and over again and I think we just one round say your point maybe vote I don't know no no something it's just the thing that we mean we're definitely much better than that first recommendation with ad use and that was a brutal process but we had nothing in for a framework in in place I feel like I'm still giving too much leeway to be honest with you I think sometimes maybe what might help on that note I totally agree with you is maybe I don't know if it's staff or whoever can give us some bullet points to focus on yes-no yes-no yes-no versus us just trying to come up with it and where we got trapped a little bit is that we when we did the the nursing home piece of it is that we decided to redo our whole own thing and

[184:02] then we came back to what it was anyway so you know issue thing works really well back when putting what was struggling with us we started having staff do key issues for us and they're not really posed as questions so much but like each one is a subject for conversation that you can talk about discreetly so like the problem that you guys face tonight we faced as well with the two questions is that one referred to appendix J and the other one was about appendix J so you holy screwed up conversation so that's not a problem with your discussion that's just a problem with the crafting of key shoots RJ stuff can feed you essentially key issues and then you can help helps a lot in terms of structuring your thinking before you get your meeting thinking we're gonna talk about for us it's like parking and then we're going to talk about open space and then we're gonna talk about it so it's really easy to for us to understand it yeah and then yeah it's cool for you to like I mean you have a strong hand and

[185:01] making sure people don't over talk yep just my observation there's a tons of over talking there sometimes inner interruptions there's definitely repetition there's like a totally bozo planning board guy who just talked all the time a lot of time today talking about height right that was the gist of the meeting in a lot of ways that fourth and fifth floor and I just sounds crazy coming from me right if we're coming from a real estate guy that I would just caution everybody's perceived benefit in these fourth and fifth floors of these buildings and there's only five or six of them that have been built but but they've changed the landscape of the town they've changed the feel of the town I walk around all the time and it's very very different and I know that there's this perception of oh if we have a fourth or fifth floor we add another unit or we get another this or we you know the building can be built but just be cautious of this perception that there's this huge benefit to it and

[186:01] we're going to get more money to build this or we're going to do more of that because it just really in my opinion impacts the town and I don't know if in a good way I also wanted to add in the debriefing that's a point really well taken and also I feel that the discussion on Community Benefit was a million times better than our discussion on edu and this this is the first time we've had to discuss a tough subject since then to make specific recommendations on and I actually feel you know and I didn't even get my way all the time and I feel it went really well so I'm gonna make a comment just about the document that was sent out the forty two-page document I would love to see an executive summary I felt like the presentation that Carl did was more along the lines of an executive summary and as a lay person trying to digest 42 pages of a very technical language and

[187:00] make an informed decision was difficult and to be more like to provide a summary and to say here's exactly what we need your feedback on maybe it's key issues Brian or maybe it's something else but I'd like to see a little bit more succinct crystallization because it feels like a lot of wonky technical language that I know is you know that's what you you do when in planning and then and that's the kind of language that see use I have my own technical language that I use in my work but that would be helpful maybe you see Bobby Moore's extinct right like a link to the PowerPoint right so you could look through the PowerPoint ahead of time so you you know I think you can kind of look at it all right they're not done in time for that you know whenever it's done I know how it is believe it so but it could help all right well thank you all we we did it [Music]

[188:07] [Music] - Parris Alf oh my god [Music]