[music] [music] >> I call this council for Monday April 6th, 2026 is um is called to sit in order. Yes. Order here. Call to order. Call to order. >> mayor's report. Are are there any issue reports? >> Oh, wait. >> [laughter] >> Katie, call the roll. Mayor Coffee? I'll roll with it. Wow, I'm Council member Andrews? It's going to be a long night. It's going to be a long night. Council member Bergin? Council member Bergin? Council member Bergin, are you here? I'm here. We were talking about the future. Yes. Mayor pro tem Coons? Council member Gardner? He's on. He's on. Council member Gardner? Council member Hancock? Yes, I'm here. Council member Horton? Council member Jackson? Here. Council member Lawson? >> Here. Council member Medina? >> Here. Council member Wiles? There's no mayor's update. Are there any issue updates? Yes, Mayor. Council member Bergin. Uh thank you, Mayor. Um it has come to my attention from our city manager. Um I guess he um was able to talk to each council member about adding um additional admins to our council offices. We have always I've been on council for more than 10 years, and we have always had two admins and then a manager over the admins. And the proposal um is to have five admins. And um I I have an issue with it for a couple reasons. One, we are in a deficit this year and we had to take money out of reserves. We also have employees having to do four furlough days this year. I know we will be in a deficit next year. So, um I am concerned that we're adding ongoing costs, which is salary plus benefits, um for ongoing costs that probably is going to be north of 300,000 to add um additional admins with the benefit costs that we have. And beyond that, um and I know we've talked about it's not adding, it's a it's you know, vacancy savings, but in my my opinion and my perspective is when when taxpayers pay us the money that funds the cities and all of our programs and all of our employees and so forth, um that that is a taxpayer savings. So, if we're going to be in a deficit and we can save money for our taxpayers, then I think that's what we should be doing. Um also, I have to tell tell my constituents, and I'm sure many of you here have to tell your constituents, "Sorry, on the traffic calming uh program, you're not going to get Yeah, you have your application approved, but it's going to cost us too much money and we only have X dollars um in that fund for traffic calming, and you're not going to get that approved." So, and that's that's not counting other things that constituents um continue to ask us for, whether it be the the radar vans, whether it be uh traffic signals that might take 2 years to get one, you know. Um Carly's here, so she understands, she gets those requests. And I would rather spend that money on my constituents rather than on myself. I am I don't know um who requested this, but it didn't even go through any kind of process um other than a request to the city manager, and I think it needs to be fleshed out. I would like to have a work plan analysis done um where we look at the workload per council member, have that input, and an analysis done on whether what we really need, because I don't think it's good throwing away money just because somebody thinks they can't do their job or they don't have the time to do their job. Um I don't know, you know, if that's the case, but um we have town halls that are supplemented with our community engagement coordinators, they help us on those, and I have never had an issue uh with my particular admin who both of them got fired um unbeknownst to me until after the fact. Um I was never asked my opinion. Again, 10 years um plus being on council, and I've had almost the same admin for I don't remember how many years. I've gone through a couple of them at the beginning. Um I didn't have any complaints. That particular admin did everything I requested and did it very well. So, I don't know what happened. Um I've talked to other council members that didn't have any complaints about, you know, that particular admin maybe an an or the other admin. Um so, I don't know why they were fired, but my proposal is for us to wait until the budget workshop when we actually hear what the budget's going to be. I don't want to have to hire five admins and then tell my constituents, "You can't get, you know, traffic calming projects um funded." And I don't want employees of the city to have to have more furlough days, and I sure as heck don't want us to raid the uh reserves again, because that is supposed to be for a a recession, a real recession. So, my proposal is to please put that on hold, replace the two, and let's look at it during budget workshop after we do a an analysis. Procedurally, how does that work? Well, I mean, because it's in in Jason's purview, uh you guys can discuss and give direct Jason direction. Um I I will I will tell you um I want to be careful in the public space about talking about the previous admins. Just Just >> Okay. I can I just did. I I know, and I It again, whether it it again, they they chose to to separate employment. I don't I I just want to be Okay. Just It's okay. No, I I just just for the record, um but you guys can have a discussion and tell Jason. I will tell you that uh there are two vacancies right now that you guys don't All you have is Alia and Alia's got all 10 of you or plus with in the mayor. >> those filled. I I know, but that that's the same issue. So, the question is is whether or not you add two more. Three more. >> it three more? So, Jason, I'll I'll let you direct the the discussion there. >> member Lawson wanted to say something. Uh Mayor Coffee, can I just Can I just So, um Jason, when we talked about this, you know, you kind of caught me I have to internalize things, and um for me, I think you should have went through, and I know you talked to each council member, but at that time the question should have been asked like, "Council member Lawson, what is your utilization?" Um for me, the admins that were helpful for me, they only did my town halls, which they only did the postcards and things like that. They did my travel, which I very rarely rarely travel. And um they That's pretty much it. I don't need an council request, which I know I have quite a few, but I keep track of them as well. I don't need an admin to come to my town halls and talk to my constituents. I don't need for them to write my emails. Um I my write my emails to my own constituents. If I have something for city staff, I directly send it to you, as I should hope that that would continue. And then thirdly, I definitely don't need for them to do any research for me. I can do my own research. So, for And I don't need for them to read my packets and provide me talking points. I don't need any of that. And I've been doing it for 10 years with another job as well. So, I think the question should have been, "Council member Lawson, or for me, the question should have been, what would be the utilization?" And I know you you used the example if Council member Bergin was we two were sharing one, then she could use all of the people all of the of the time if whatever time I didn't have. But what if Council member Bergin's not that? You got people with benefits, and then they're not going to do much for me. So, that's how I feel about it. I don't think that the correct question after I thought about what you stated was the proper question. So, Mayor. Uh Council member Hancock. I also, you know, having chewed on this over the weekend, Jason, I just think about we're part-time positions, and we're going to hire five full-time people for part-time positions. And I think the optics of it aren't really appropriate. Um and I as like Council member Lawson, I don't use the admins for anything other than council requests and travel and like she said, because I do my own work. I write my own emails. I visit with my own constituents. I do all that stuff. And you know, running for office and being in the office are are two different things, and you realize it is a lot of work. But we managed to do it and within our time, and I work a full-time job, too. So, to be able to do these things, it's it's We knew the job was dangerous when we took it, and so here we are, we're in it. But my main point is that I don't know that it's fiscally responsible for us to have five full-time admins for nine part-time jobs. It I just think the optics are not good, and I don't know that especially in the fiscal uh place that we're in right now, if it's really a good use of our resources. Mayor. Uh Council member Horton. Yes. So, um contrary to my colleagues' opinion, I do think this is a very valuable use of taxpayer dollars, of city funds and budget, uh to support the work that uh I'll speak for my Ward 1 residents that I have talked to um that really want a council member that is consistently hands-on, engaged, um and that can put in the hours and the work that's necessary to be a council person that um can meet at any time of day, right? So, I've been very blessed that in my full-time capacity, they have offered a flex schedule, right? And I appreciate that, and I have to be very cognizant of the rest of my hours during the week. And for me personally, having someone who would uh be able to offer the admin operations support on the back end can allow me to focus on aspects that residents have asked of me as a council member >> [laughter] >> and that there's not delays, that there's responsiveness, and that there's an ability to do this job effectively and not based on an assumption that this is part-time because we all know it's not. And so what I do think is a potential is to reevaluate if it's full-time five staff or is it three full-time, you know, I maybe ways to get creative to meet the current needs of council, but to strictly have three admin staff that serve all of council is antiquated in my opinion in a growing city where we need to have an effective city council that can show up anytime, any day and be effective. Councilmember Jackson. Councilmember Jackson. You're muted. Yeah, thank you for sorry, thank you for recognizing Mayor. I appreciate that this conversation is taking place. I think I agree with a lot of points that my colleague Councilmember Horton just raised. Um I work multiple jobs. I'm a millennial. I own my house, you know, and I think I was elected to represent a certain type of person. And I don't just work more than one job. I work multiple jobs. And I cannot I cannot do this job. And I have a young one. Um so I just think this is a question of equity and just to to a lot of the points that Councilmember Horton just made like we have to have an effective city council for growing city. Denver has a lot of support in their office and we're catching up to them in population and it's a good thing. So we should give the voters who voted us in office that power as well by giving us space to breathe and and do the job that we were elected to do. And as a new city council member I don't feel the onboarding was sufficient. And I've heard at national conferences that other offices have things like new council advisers. So I don't think and it sound because this job is so overwhelming. So I don't think especially when you don't have help. And we have a special circumstance where we have vacancies. So I think you know, rather than continuing to view Aurora, my hometown that I love as a place of deficit and poverty, I think some of our money could be you know, moved around to best benefit the taxpayer. And I think getting city council help and support will in turn help the taxpayer because we can show up in the way that we want to. Mayor, thank you. Councilmember Bergan and then Councilmember Hancock. Um First of all, I don't know what was meant by serving you're an at-large council member and you're serving a certain type of person. I have I hope you serve constituents in Ward 6 in Southeast Aurora as well because they have different needs than the rest of the city. We are again missing the point. This is during a deficit year and we're going to be in a deficit next year. So when we talk about taxpayer money, it's their revenues. Let me just say one thing. Government does not make money. Government takes money. And so it is upon us to use that money wisely. And when you have to tell constituents, no, you can't have that traffic improvement that might save your child's life at the elementary school, there's a problem. And we're consistently told there's not enough money in that bucket. And I have advocated when we were flush with money to add to that particular bucket of money. But we're not. And so I think it is irresponsible of us to consider adding additional admins at this particular time in our economy. And all I'm asking for is an analysis to be done. What are the job duties? And I'm sorry, when if you did not know what this job was when you ran for office, then I'm sorry, maybe you should just step down because some of you should have served on the citizen advisory budget committee and you would have known what this job was about. I find it interesting that people campaign on all kinds of promises without knowing what the responsibilities. And I'll say I probably with a few other council members are on the majority of the outside boards. So on top of everything else that we do with our constituents and our responsibilities with policy committees, I serve on a a number of very important outside boards that take considerable, significant amount of hours of my time per month. And I willingly do that and willingly volunteer when it comes up in January because I do recognize that some of my colleagues don't have that time to to be able to do those outside boards. But I take up that slack. And I just I just would ask my colleagues to please be considerate of our taxpayer money and to put this off. Let's fill the two vacancies that we have and let's put this off until September when we actually have a real budget. Mayor. Councilmember Hancock and then Councilmember Jackson and then Councilmember Horton. And you know, there I would question what exactly these additional admins are supposed to do that council members can't seem to be able to do on their own. I frankly we're we're the ones we're the citizen servants. We're the ones who are elected to this job. And as such, it is our responsibility to communicate with our residents, serve our residents, put their best interests at heart. You know, while I appreciate someone having a job an additional job and young ones and all of that, that's you know, we've all been there. Who've who've worked two jobs and and done those things. But this is a unique situation. We ran for office to serve the public, to be in this position to help and to serve our community, not to be served. Now if I would be interested in knowing what these admins are going to do that we as the elected officials are not doing. I don't want an admin going to my town halls. I don't want an admin meeting with my constituents. I don't want an admin writing my letters. I don't want an admin doing things that I can do myself like my own research and my own work. That's what we are hired to do. That's what we are elected to do, to do our work. And if you're finding that it's something that you're having a hard time managing, then perhaps you need to look at doing something else like letting some of the other things that are impeding your ability to serve in this vital role maybe take another look at it. >> Bergan, what you're saying is to delay the decision until the budget workshop in May. Yes, Mayor. Okay. So this is this is doesn't say no. So we can have that debate, but we'll have the numbers in May. Am I correct? We have September. Well, we have the numbers now. Again, there's there's there's no no budget add to this. This is a utilization of existing resources. So Which could be a savings to our taxpayers >> on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Um Okay, so um Uh Councilmember Jackson, did you have something else? Yeah, I just wanted to add to this conversation cuz there's been a lot of like accusations thrown around that I heard a great quote that the average adult today makes 40% less than the older generation of them and that came from Senator Hickenlooper. And so I just think that's really important for us to think about and I disagree with postponing this any further. I think we should have a vote. Uh into postponing this because we have been waiting. I have been told multiple times through the conversations I've had with my colleagues and Jason that this was going to be solved and look quite differently than what we're talking about right now. So the fact that we're even arguing over what has been promised, I'm I'm a little mistrusting on. Okay, okay, well Councilmember Horton, then I'll go to you. Yeah, so Okay, okay, so Councilmember Horton Yes. Mayor Pro Tem and then Councilmember Bergan. >> Uh two two things. First question is for Jason. Uh this is a utilization of existing funds. Is this tapping into any of the city reserves? No. Okay, Jason has answered the question. Is this tapping into any city reserves? No. Okay. Great. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Great. Appreciate that. Secondly is Um I I this is a window of opportunity to strategically best serve the residents of Aurora. That is where I stand. Now does it need to be full five full-time positions? I think that's a question that we can have. I do think waiting until September it it delays the work that needs to be done as council members to best service our areas or folds rest of the city. Um and secondly the Ooh, wow, we know how to get heated in this room. Um is that this is this really for me boils down to a conversation of equity. And how do we make sure that again, not only are we securing that we have the necessary support within uh four city council members in the office. Um is to to again service the folks of Aurora. Sorry, I'm going around in circles because I'm trying to like take a deep breath inside. Uh so I do appreciate the effort on the city manager's part as well as um everyone who is strategically thinking about what does it look like to best serve. Now we may have our different philosophies of that approach, but I do think we have to think about equity and not only for us as the current city council, but moving forward as the city continues to grow. These positions are going to need support right now and in the future. And if we don't prepare for that in real time when there's an opportunity of existing utilization of funds, then it is a disservice. >> Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. Thanks, Mayor. So, yeah, first of all, these are existing resources and we've had this conversation about vacancy savings a lot of when we could create a vacancy and every time there seems to be a lack of consideration for the fact that vacancies just mean other staff other people have to work more and that we're burning out our staff. It doesn't mean that we're creating sustainability or doing something better for our taxpayers. Um and so I think trying to rely on vacancy savings when our city runs in an incredibly lean way or suggest that the very small amount of money that would be created by these vacancy savings is going to find more stop signs or all kinds of other things is disingenuous. It's not fair to say because every time that we've funded something on vacancy savings, it's been at the cost of staff turnover of difficulty being able to provide the services that we need to provide to our constituents. And we've heard about it for example from developers. When we had a bunch of vacancy savings in the development department, we heard from developers, we're not getting what we need. The same things hap- thing happens when we try to rely on vacancy savings elsewhere. If we don't do this, all we're doing is taking staff out of the housing community services department because that's where some of those funds are coming from. Um and that's a cost to our residents because it's to promote community engagement and better service of our residents, the positions that currently exist. Um but I think it's also worth noting that our legislative budget this includes mayor council, staff travel office supplies, everything to serve legislative in our city is less than 1% of our budget. And I don't know if it would still be less than 1% Jason um on making this change, but it seems likely. Um So, when we look at other cities, right? Folks have their full-time, they have multiple staff members, they have offices um and this isn't just Denver. It's not uncommon. When I go to conferences I'll meet staffers of city council people from other cities that are there either in addition to the city council person or in lieu of the city council person to gather that information. So, I really think it's a little surprising that we're looking at going from a little bit under 1% of the city's entire budget to a little bit less under 1% of the city's budget in order to support folks who are working full-time outside of this council to do a better job on policy research um administrative tasks, simple things um that are typically covered by staffers in lots of other cities and that we're again treating this like a huge disservice to our residents and a massive budget impact. Um those are talking points that really don't fit the scope of the conversation and the magnitude. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for job descriptions and duties um or sample job descriptions and duties, but to act like this is going to ruin our ability to do other things when that's not the conversation we had when we punched a $6 million hole in our budget is a little surprising. Okay, uh Councilmember Bergan for a wrap-up and then I'm going to get a sense of the the council cuz we do have to move on. Okay, well I think it's actually disingenuous to to discount uh vacancies as not being a savings to taxpayers. And by the way, I would rather that Carly in traffic get additional staff. Um she's she needs people. Public Works um the other parts of Public Works needs additional people. We probably need some more engineers. We probably need more people in development. So, I would rather see those savings if we really really you know, want to raid the vacancy savings, at least fill the positions that are absolutely needed to get the people's work done. And this whole conversation about people can't get their work done when they knew what they were running for when they ran for election is unbelievable. As again, my point being we are in a deficit year. I don't care how you want to define vacancy savings, it is called a vacancy savings for a reason. It's a savings bottom line savings of dollars to the taxpayers. And again, I would rather fill other positions that are much more needed than additional administrative aid for God knows what. We don't even have that defined and I'm asking for a work uh a workload analysis. Okay, all right. Job descriptions, what is it exactly that you can't do that you need someone else to do? And have an analysis done on that. And that and then that would be decided then on the May workshop, correct? I guess on the May workshop. And by the way, has anybody considered temporary using temporaries for projects rather than ongoing Remember, this is ongoing costs. They don't go away unless you fire people. Okay. So the question is to uh delay the decision um on hiring the five assistant the three additional uh FTEs until the March uh until the May workshop. Uh all those in favor, uh please let me know. Okay. 1 2 3 Um And we're just saying May. 4 like a month away. That's correct. Okay, and opposed? 5 and Jackson is is opposed. Okay, that's six. So, it um will not move forward. >> on all my constituents. Okay. Um Is there any objection to moving the consent calendar forward item number 2A through 2F? Just find out why we're Seeing none, the consent calendar The consent calendar will move forward 2A through 2F. Um Um Item number 3A East Colfax Bus Rapid Transit project. I I yeah, I joined. I just want to make sure it doesn't die. I'm sorry. Please proceed. Um yes, that is me. Um give me a second while I share my screen. Okay. Um good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. Thank you for your time tonight. Uh my name is Carly Campazano. I'm a Deputy Director of Transportation and Mobility in the Public Works Department. And um this evening I'm going to be presenting an update on the East Colfax uh Bus Rapid Transit project or BRT. Uh this is informational only. I really want to mostly touch on the construction schedule, overall scope, and then some of the business support that we're working on. Let's see. Okay. Um so here's an agenda. I will touch on the project background. I'll go over some uh Bus Rapid Transit or BRT information um and then I'll give some updates on the overall project and then recent Aurora project updates uh and then we'll have information about the communications plan and small business support plan after that. Uh so just some project background. This is a map of the project. Um you all have maybe seen me present this uh over the years. Um the project uh starts in downtown Denver Union Station, goes um in downtown along Colfax through Denver um and then into Aurora and ends at I-225. So, there are three distinct segments. There's the downtown segment in yellow where the bus will run in existing bus only lanes in the downtown loop area. Um the blue area has been under construction for about a year and a half. So, if you've been in the area, you might have seen some of the construction um in the Denver section. Uh in this area, the BRT will be center running with dedicated lanes. Um so that area has been under heavy construction lately. And then in the Aurora section from Yosemite to I-225, the BRT will be uh side running mixed flow with traffic more similar to how it is today. Um but there are various improvements and construction that will be happening in the Aurora section with this project, which I'll go over. Um one other thing to note is that this is a regional project and involves RTD uh CDOT um us at Aurora as well as Denver. Um this is a little bit on history. So, I'll just focus on the more recent history. Uh the this uh our recommendations for what to include in the Aurora segment went to council uh, for a presentation like this in 2022. Uh, and then final design uh, went from 2023 to 2024 and construction, bus acquisition, and testing has been going on from October 2024 to now. And construction has been mostly in Denver, but it's going to be in Aurora very soon in the next month or so. Uh, BRT features, this just explains some of the common features that you'll see with uh, bus rapid transit. So, uh, how we like to explain this a little more simply is that we consider BRT to be kind of like light rail on wheels. So, it has a lot of similar features um, that an experience that a light rail line would have, but it's serviced by a bus. So, things like specialized vehicles um, part of the route is generally um, has dedicated lanes and then enhanced station features as well. Uh, there are some BRT requirements that are required at an absolute minimum to meet the definition of BRT and to uh, qualify us for federal funding. And so, those are uh, weather protection and shelters, uh, schedule displays, and branding. Uh, in the Aurora segment, we are including all of the elements that meet the minimum definitions of BRT and we're including some additional enhancements as well. Um, so this is a summary of the additional enhancements that are included, but we will have signature stations more similar in aesthetic to Denver stations at two two locations at Havana. So, on each side of the road, we will have ticket vending machines for off-board fare collection, uh, variable message signs with real-time passenger information, and then security features like cameras, emergency phones, and lighting at all locations as well. And we're also including level boarding at five key locations to support uh, people with mobility issues and also to make sure that the bus isn't delayed. Uh, these are just a couple images. On the left, you'll see images of what the BRT will look like in Denver. So, you have the dedicated lanes and the stations in the middle of the road. In Denver, the lane capacity will be reduced to one traveling in each direction. Um, and in Aurora, there'll still be some construction and some improvements, but there'll still be two lanes of travel in each direction through most through the segment. Um, and the BRT will be side running mixed flow on both sides of the street, so more similar to today. So, this is a rendering of what the Havana station will look like. Uh, overall construction timeline, like I said, the overall groundbreaking for the project was in October 2024. We're planning to have an Aurora groundbreaking pretty soon, um, probably in the beginning of May, but you all receive more information on that as we get a date firmed up. Um, and then construction in Aurora will last about um, into next year through 2027. Um, and that won't mean that there's high impacts the whole time, but there will be construction activities centered around uh, stations through for about a year over a year in Aurora starting in the next month or so. Um, so here's some of the more Aurora specific updates. Uh, we've been preparing for construction, so we've been um, finishing our easement acquisition, um, reaching out to businesses, working on communications. We uh, developed a communications plan that we've been implementing that I'll go over. We also have developed a small business support program that we've developed and is being initiated. Um, and art has been selected for the station canopies at the two Havana stations. Um, so as far as the communications plan, um, the detailed communications plan includes everything on this slide. Um, I want to highlight the We Back the Facts campaign, which will be on the next slide in a little more detail. We also have monthly chats on Colfax uh, with business owners so they can ask the contractor questions. We actually have a construction team that will go knock on doors so that people are aware of the construction before it gets there. Um, as well as a lot of different information online. Um, people can subscribe to updates. There are um, flyers. We're doing um, various in-person door knocks and in-person events too. We had a recent Aurora focused public meeting at the MLK library in February and also attended uh, Councilmember Horton's town hall a couple weeks ago. So, thank you for your time at that. Um, and so yeah, lots of construction related activity going on and trying to communicate that as broadly as we can to different audiences. Um, the We Backs the We Back the Facts campaign has been ongoing in Denver and has been really great for a lot of businesses and residents in the area. Um, this is a social media campaign. Uh, people can visit Aurora businesses, they get a passport, they can snap a photo or video and get their pass validated, um, post it on social media, and that allows them to get uh, different prizes, be entered in for gift card drawings, and really help spotlight some of those businesses along the corridor that need our help during construction. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> And then for small business support as well, um, we along with our communications department and uh, small business developments uh, folks, SBDC, have worked on a small business support package to help further support small business owners along the corridor. Um, so we've identified 25 small businesses that that will be the most impacted by construction. Um, and those businesses will soon be receiving a letter to introduce them to the program and provide more information with resources and how they can apply. And these resources could include things like financial assistance, a green assessment walk-through, walk-throughs related to water efficiency and security. Um, it could also include things like helping build their website and help with marketing and social media support. So, businesses will be during construction. Um, and so next steps, like I said, those letters will be sent out very soon. Um, we're finishing easement acquisition with with just one or two additional property owners. Um, and then uh, construction will start in the spring. I think it'll start um, in definitely by May. Um, so we're looking at a few weeks from now. Um, communications efforts will be outgoing, so definitely lots of targeted outreach coming up um, especially as it relates to work zones, but also just outreach for those uh, business owners and residents. Um, construction will be through 2027 with uh, services estimated to start with the BRT in full operation in early 2028. So, that is all I had and I'm happy to answer questions if you all have any. Carley. Yeah. So, in Denver, Mhm. uh, the BRT has been incredibly disruptive. The construction Yeah. has been to to the small businesses along Colfax. I was going to I was thinking that this not going to be very disruptive along in the Aurora side because it's side running. Yeah. Is that is that What what kind of Give me an example of disruptions for the businesses along Colfax in in the Aurora side? Yeah, that's a good question. So, an example of the business impact, so in Denver since the stations are built up in the center of the road and these large arch stations need to be built in the center, there really isn't a good way to phase those improvements without closing the road. And there's enough station work that the closures are lasting probably a few weeks at each location, which is making traffic re-route and is a bit more impactful for those folks. Um, in Aurora, we're probably looking at more lane closures near the areas of work. So, it's it's more like a standard construction project that we would do for like a a signal rebuild or sidewalk project or something. Um, we might have some full closures, but not for the same duration and probably mostly focused or near the Havana station when we need to lift up the arches at the two Havana stations, but definitely not the same duration of closures and I think a lot less impacts because we're not going to be detouring traffic away from the corridor for long-term like what what's needing to happen in Denver for their construction. Further questions? Mayor. Councilmember Horton. Um, I know in the Taps committee, we talked about um, infrastructure for visually impaired individuals. >> Yes. Has that been incorporated or what where is the standing on that? Yes, I did ask uh, check in with RTD on that after you asked that at Taps. Um, so the buses do have audible indications as they drive up, so they have those for folks um, who are waiting at the station, but then they also have the same audible indications inside the bus for folks that are on the buses. Um, and then the vending machines also have audible indications as well as braille for folks. So, hopefully those those features hopefully will help. Thank you. Yeah. Councilmember Lawson. So, I just had a question, Carley, cuz when I was on Taps, I mean, couple I've been on Taps for a while, not this year, but um, I wanted to ask what is going to be Has it been a formalized kind of safety plan? You know, as we hear about the buses not only on in Colfax, but just everywhere the buses and the um, the light rail stations, there's always been some form of, you know, the security piece of it. And this is great that this is happening, but again, what is Has that been formalized? Is that going to be talked about, discussed, or has any Has it started the conversations? Yeah, that's a good question about security. Um, conversations have definitely been ongoing throughout the project about security and what to incorporate. Um, so there are different security features that we're working with APD to incorporate and RTD police. Um, and for those who weren't on Taps last year, RTD also um, had officers that came to Taps and gave like a pretty in-depth presentation on what they do and how they're staffing up to meet those security needs. Um, so we're still we're still um, communicating with all those folks and having safety and security focused meetings. Um, but we've decided to include items like PA systems that were desired for security as an addition to the project, um, as well as like the cameras and the lighting at the stations. And then we've also worked with Xcel to upgrade the overall lighting throughout the corridor. So, that will be happening in the next few months as well just to make sure it's all better lit. Um, but the different police agencies have definitely been communicating about safety cuz that's been one of the top concerns we've heard. Yeah, just a So, I'm glad to hear that because, you know, like at the 9 Mile station when you go underneath the tunnel, dark. You know, that's that's always been a security issue. Yeah. Um and so, you know, just being up in general. So, I'm glad that that's being um you know, proactive instead of reactive. So, Councilmember Horton. Uh I just want to say thank you all for coming out to the Ward 1 town hall um last week, week week ago. What is time? >> [laughter] >> I really appreciate all the work on this and and and being able to field the questions from residents who some are very excited about it, some are very hesitant. A lot of it is around the small businesses um and really uh being able to present around the We Back the Facts and the passport booklet they have really encourage folks to get out there, support the small businesses along Colfax um cuz it takes all of our money to support our community in that way. So, thank you guys. Thank you. Further questions? Okay. Carly, thank you so much. Thank you. Uh item number 3B, uh housing uniform unified development ordinance analysis update, uh Councilmember Bergan. Thank you, Mayor. Um this is um staff working very hard over a long period of time over probably what, 2 years? Um on the changes to the UDO that we needed to make. So, um just uh very very um thankful to all of the staff that was involved in doing this. So, I'll turn it over to Brandon. Uh thank you, Councilmember. Good after Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. Uh my name is Brandon Camarata. I'm the manager of the current planning division and also the manager of the small lots project. Uh today we have our consultant, Chris Brewster, with Multi Studio to hopefully take around 30 minutes to provide an update on the project and most more importantly, present some key policy questions to the council in hopes of getting uh direction and discussion uh from the council to help with our next steps. Uh so, Mayor, if I can turn it over to Chris and and Chris, if you want to queue up the uh the uh slide deck, that'd be great. Thank you, Brandon. Uh good afternoon, Mayor and council members. Thanks for having me. Um and thanks for offering the virtual option. Um as Brandon mentioned, I'm going to walk through a quick presentation of it's the same presentation we gave to PED a week ago. So, in the interest of time, I'll probably move pretty quickly through that and then get to the the policy questions that we've added since the PED. Um essentially, and this is the agenda we have for you. So, hopefully under a half hour to leave it to questions for you. Um as Councilmember Bergan mentioned, this project's been going on for a while it it while before we even got involved. Um this is our timeline. We started about a year ago officially um with the consultant team um and picked up where staff had been. Um we're on track as far as deliverables and tasks. What you'll notice at the top is the calendar's lagging a little bit behind um and that's there's reasons for that that you'll see in this presentation. Um our overall direction from the last time we met with you was to um make some strategic code amendments to increase the opportunities for small lots and housing mixes in all planning areas. Um but in doing so, that we wanted to be sure we were reinforcing these five core neighborhood design principles that staff has been using through master plans um and through variances to make sure that if if we are deviating from the ordinance, that we're achieving these five core principles and some of the topics underneath them. And so, those are embedded in everything we're doing and we're evaluating all the code amendments against whether we're achieving that and making it easier to achieve some of these things. Well, when we last met with you and PED in October, we were circling around these four main topics. Uh greenfield development where we are increasing or reconsidering the mix of how we do small lots in in subarea C where we're building new. Um infill, being strategic about how we would allow small lots in subareas A and B, the older and more established parts of Aurora. Um and then two design topics. Um how do we improve building design? Um strengthening the intent of the current standards, but also getting more flexibility, particularly for um the masonry requirements that you currently have. And then another design issue on how do we get parking flexibility where we're dealing with the location um and design of parking. And then particularly maximizing on-street parking in neighborhoods so that we have um sufficient parking. Uh since we met in October, these are the main things we've been doing. We we're working with the developer round table. Um as you may recall, we did have a third meeting with them after our our PED and council update where we talked about preliminary approaches and strategies. That was in December. Uh we then began with staff and consulting team making what we called working drafts to our potential amendments. Um we at that point, we identified it's probably good to get back with the round table, introduce those uh working drafts to them. So, we had a virtual meeting in January where we introduced those drafts and turned them over to the developer round table to give us review and comments. Um we were collected comments from them. In fact, we're still collecting some of those comments back from them. Um and then we also staff began doing internal testing of what some of the amendments would do um to pending projects or current projects. And so, we're evaluating the effectiveness of our initial strategy. And then lastly, we're refining those strategies and we hope to get them shortly into an initial draft that we will we will introduce to you all. Um I wanted to quickly go through this list kind of groups some specific things under those four broad topics that you had given us direction on. Um so, there's 11 kind of bigger changes that we're proposing with this code update. Um I'm going to have a few slides. This is where I'll probably move a little faster than I did at the PED committee to get to those policy questions. Incidentally, when when you receive we will get the um proposed drafts to you and we will outline all of these strategies of where changes are being made and give you information so you can um dig in as as deep as you want or have a a good understanding of what these main changes mean. We'll provide it in an executive format summary. But so, this is more by way to introduce them to you and get any preliminary thoughts from you. Um all of these changes come from us looking at either um precedents in Aurora or around the the metro at large or Front Range generally and measuring and and looking at dynamics of how small lots and different types of housing are fitting in to to neighborhoods. Um the goal, obviously going back to those five principles, is to get um walkable neighborhoods, good public realm design, mix of housing, um increase density where it's warranted and where it's really strategic, whether that be near activity centers or near transit stops and things like that. So, these are all um examples of projects we have been studying to to lead and point us to where changes may need to be made to your UDO. Um so, the first big one was in greenfield, increasing small lots in in greenfield development. So, your newer growing areas. Um this table on the right is a strategy that we're proposing to do that. Currently, the code requires that um the small lots only be used to a certain percentage and the developers kind of call that um planning by formulas. So, when they hit a certain number of small lots, they're done. Um so, one of our strategies to to get around and eliminate that that sort of formulaic planning and and regulating is to better pinpoint the smaller lots to zoning districts. So, the red areas are things where we're exerting change. So, where your current code on those first two, the detached house small lot and compact lot, your current code would treat anything under 45 feet as a small lot and therefore, you can only do a certain percentage of them whether you're in R1 or R2. Our strategy would be to eliminate that formula and just say that in R1, you can do certain amount if you're in the right locations and in R2, you can do a greater amount. And that second box shows a similar strategy with the smaller scale multi-unit homes. What we are essentially doing is trying to graduate the the use of small lots more dense housing better between R1, R2, and R3 so that those become more of the determinants of how you implement small lots and less of how many each individual project is doing. With that, we're also adjusting location criteria. The current UDO does have location criteria that limits how and where you do small lots. And so, I have another slide on that that I'll follow up with as well. But what we're basically doing is those open boxes are ones where you may be able to do that type of housing in the zoning district, but you need to meet some pre-qualifications before you do it. But once you do, we aren't necessarily how many lots you did. And so, we we think that's an important part of what we heard from the developers round table. This is a um some of the concepts we're working on with the location criteria. Again, the current UDO when in when you are limiting the locations of small lots, it's either a quarter mile from usable open space or a quarter mile from a mixed-use activity center. The reason for those are um you know, obviously, less lot space so the open space is important, more density so access to services are important. But it's currently an either or. Um and and within there, you're still limited to the percentage of small lots. Since we are eliminating that percentage requirement, we think it needs to be both of those. But we do think the activity center could be expanded. So, um it could go beyond a quarter mile and you're still doing a really good job of planning your density proximate to activity centers. Um and but we do think access to those activity centers is important as well as the access to open space. So an example of what this might do, the left is what you're currently doing and that would be any any place within either a quarter mile of either the open space or the activity center would be eligible for small lots, but you would only be eligible for between 25% if you're R1 or 35 to 50% of your product if you're R2. The right is what we're suggesting and you do see that it's a little bit of a smaller area, but again that entire area would be eligible for small lots and we wouldn't necessarily be counting them. The other thing that is evident from this is that the activity center distance is becoming the more important and controlling one because if a developer wanted to open up more area to small lots, they would simply build some more open space and some of these shaded the lighter yellow areas would become eligible as well and so that would be the factor of that that having both. And and then this is also an example of we do think that activity center area could be expanded as well. Another strategy for increasing small lots in in subarea C is being more flexible with the green courts. This is something that's currently in your UDO but it is a little bit regimented in terms of number of units and how the courts are arranged. So we are looking at ways to allow some of the green courts to be either more informal flexible so that they can be integrated in different ways and again most of these changes are coming from documenting and measuring example projects that we think work well and would work well in Aurora's context. For infill strategies, we began looking at trying to normalize all the lot and zoning district standards across areas A, B, and C so that we don't have a difference of if you're in R1 in subarea A, you would have a different standard in subarea C. So the building type standards we are are implementing we do think would be the same and consistent across all areas A, B, and C. So we began to do an analysis of how small lots could integrate into areas A and B where they're currently not allowed at all. In these older areas where you have investment and you have a good block structure, they're actually the areas that are that are more appropriate for this kind of fine-grained more strategic infill development and we studied some of the projects you have had in those areas and the challenges that they've had to overcome to be built. So we do think this is a significant area of opportunity to to reinvest in the older parts of the community. So we began to compare if you acquired one or two lots and could convert them into two or three lots based on our new small lot strategies or how a green court would fit into a a corner situation on a gridded block or even as much as taking one or two lots and then orienting small lots toward the end grain of a block and turning that into two or three housing units and so they all seem to be working well with the lot standards that we have. And again these would be ensured that they're they're more small scale neighborhood infill that thickens up some of those neighborhoods that have an opportunity to redevelop. So this table on the left is if you might remember from one of our earlier meetings where it was pointed out that your your actually more dense development or your smaller lots are far easier to build in area C than they are in A and B so it's a bit counterintuitive. So if you go to the right all of those same boxes are are now being integrated into R1 and R2 as we discussed earlier with area C. So again more opportunities in areas A and B. To the design strategies, the first one is just improving the building design standards. You currently have a point system that's different between one and two unit buildings than it is for townhomes than it is for multi-family buildings and there's several different sections in the code that are addressing building design in different ways. So we're essentially reorganizing that and putting it all in one place and then we're refocusing your point systems on these four main categories. The benefit of point systems is they're they're user-friendly. The developers do like them. It kind of sets them expectations. One of the drawbacks is sometimes the points aren't equivalent. So we did think that by breaking the points into these four essential categories, we would make sure that all are equally important but if you do well in one category, it doesn't mean you could completely skip the other category. So we didn't want some of the false equivalencies from point systems to creep in. So we're just looking at overhauling your point system a little bit, making some of the standards a little more objective and easier to follow and more importantly tying the standards back to these four main topics so that when someone does come up with a design that is equally or better meeting this intent of the design that they could be they could be more easily routed through either an exception or approval through alternative compliance and things like that. So we're we're keeping our eye on the big picture of why the building design is important and and not just the points. So this is an example of what that table is beginning to look like on the right and then on the left are things that we want to put in a neighborhood design handbook that are starting to alert both staff and developers what we're looking for in terms of some of these design strategies. And the idea is that they will have more options to achieve the minimum points and and still do a good quality design. As we did that, a second issue came up and this was alerted to us from the developer round table that they would they don't feel that masonry requirement automatically ensures good design and when we would agree with them in in that regard although in a qualified way. The one thing masonry does do is it has a kind of an appearance of durability and it does add a lot of depth and texture to the facades. However, we are aware of great designs that don't do that. So in a in a summary what we're trying to do with the point system is to give masonry an an elevated point requirement so it'll be easier to meet your material points if you do masonry but it's not the exclusive way to do it. So if you didn't do masonry, we would be looking for some other things that add that appearance of quality and depth and texture and and changes of massing elements. So we do think there's a way to to hit both to maintain the goals we have in building design but also relax the masonry requirement. That is a cost item as well. So you know we've we've heard and we've verified stories about how you know masonry will add some cost to the end product and we're looking to be efficient as we can on that. The another design strategy is we are focusing on frontage types. The reason for this is the smaller the lots you get and the narrower you get the greater the impact of housing and particularly front-loaded access garages and driveways on the streetscape. And not only is the impact greater, the more and more you build it it begins to compound. So by focusing on two different frontage types, suburban and neighborhood, we were able to take several different what in the UDO it's called garage mitigation strategies that are in on several different places of the code and essentially tailor them to two different contexts. Suburban where it may be more car oriented and then neighborhood where we think it's going to need to be more walkable and pedestrian oriented and and just set two basic standards for those frontages. R1 would be allowed the suburban. R2, 3, and 4 where the mix and the narrower lots are more prevalent would need to be neighborhood frontage. And what we're really protecting are these things down below that are the cumulative impacts. It has a very significant impact on on-street parking and we already mentioned that the denser we get, the more we need to be preserving that on-street parking. It has a an impact on where and how much and how extensive you can have street trees. One of the benefits of living in these walkable neighborhoods is really good street design and we think that's important. Obviously impact on sidewalks, traffic speeds, and and overall neighborhood character. So those are the main points that we're focused on for those frontage types. We also did some studies where we started say what if we access the lots differently. We know that each lot needs access to parking in some capacity whether it's on the lot whether it's through alleys or what we think is a good opportunity are some of these shared lanes, laneways, or shared drives that can be much more efficient yet still provide the same amount of parking on each lot. This added flexibility for more options to access the lots of the block will will pay dividends in having a lot more parking efficiency at the block scale. So we've literally gone through and counted what a block with certain driveway types, how much parking does it yield to the on-street parking blood plus the internal parking access and we're trying to strike a balance there to make sure the blocks can can really hold and have the capacity for parking for these smaller more dense options. And essentially what we're doing is scaling that to the lot width. So the narrower your lot gets, the more constrained your options will be for for driveways and front-loaded parking. This is just another example. We've kind of done the math on where it impacts versus your current standards. So those areas that are bracketed in that lower table with the purple, those are all new access strategies that we think are important to emphasize. While they may be allowed under your current code, they're not they're not necessarily standards for it but we want to emphasize standards so that the more and more someone is constrained on front-loaded, we're presenting them with these options. And so those ones highlighted in purple we think are are truly truly important. So, it's not just alley loaded or front loaded. There's a range of strategies in between that we've seen in in in neighborhoods that are representative of what of what we're trying to achieve. And this is the area where we are getting a little more strict than your current code. Slightly more strict than the R1 than the current code is on on front loaded access. And then in R2, 3, and 4, a little bit more strict because again, that's where we're really increasing the opportunities for more and and more continuous small lots. So, we think it's important to raise the standard there. The final part about the parking and access strategy is is considering two basic things that we've seen in representative projects. The first is allowing remote parking a little more easily. Your code is fairly strict, particularly on single family and two family. It does not allow offsite or internal block parking. So, that image on the lower right is an example where all of the homes on the perimeter of that block have parking and they have it on on their site. It's just in a shared common core internal to the block and it may not be on their own individual lot, but they're essentially providing the same minimum code parking requirement that you would in any neighborhood and it's just creating some efficiencies of where it's laid out. So, we think that strategy as well as unbundling it and perhaps providing it in two or three different locations on a lot can work and that helps preserve the street scapes. The second one is related to that is to your current code says that all one and two family homes have to have at least one enclosed parking space. We do think it's worth considering that at least on particularly on some of the smaller compact lots that that they may not need an enclosed space, especially if the parking is remote from the street and streetscape and located internal to the block. And so that idea of maybe it starts as a surface parking space, maybe it's a carport, or maybe you ultimately build a garage can stage that investment a little bit more and help provide perhaps another cost savings point. That's the big picture changes. I'm then going to walk through just kind of a refresher on on the the five major policy questions. And again, you'll see these again in our executive summary. So, you don't necessarily need to answer them now. If you'd like to discuss any, we'd be happy to dive into it, but they're on the left there. On the right though, I'm reiterating our five neighborhood design principles because again, all of these we think is important to to weigh them against the the tradeoffs and balances of how well we're supporting those neighborhood design principles. So, the first policy question is the frontage types. Are the two frontage types appropriate and is the strategy to be slightly stricter on narrow lots acceptable? And then we've gone through and and put all of the the key points of what we think we're we're balancing in that regard. The second policy has to do with the location requirements and and again, the reminder is these only apply to the limited lot types. So, for example, in R1, it's only that detached small lot that that's going lower than the typical minimum standard that would be location limited. And the other part is that's in exchange for completely eliminating the percentage requirements. So, if you are within the location limits, you could do as many small lots as you want. And then you see in R2, we we gradually increase the number of building types and and densities that are subject to that requirement. The third is district distinctions. One of the big parts of the strategy is to create greater distinctions between R1, R2, and R3. Your current code, if you're if you're not aware, R1 and R2 are are very similar, particularly in subarea C, which is the only area that allows small lots. We think the benefit of having greater distinctions is one, it helps us eliminate those those that percentage requirement. But two, what we hope to see would be development plans and zoning that's coming in with more fine-grained application of the zoning districts. So, we would be using the the zoning districts to create the differences and and less a percentage of your project. And and what we would probably expect to see is that master plans would then start using R1, R2, and R3 more strategically and perhaps creating transitions at a smaller scale like portions of the plan might be zoned different pieces of each. The biggest impact we see on that are the prior approved master plans that have large areas zoned R2. So, we're working on a strategy that those will be the projects that are most impacted by the potential change here because R2 might have more location criteria than it does now. But again, that's in exchange for for not counting the percentage of any one project that's using small lots. Parking flexibility is the the strategy would allow more block scale parking and not requiring some single family and two family homes to have a a garage. Is that appropriate? The the the benefits we see are are bulleted below there. I won't belabor them, but you'll have a copy of this presentation, but kind of walking through what we think is the pros and cons of that. And then the last one on the materials is the the strategy to not require masonry, but instead allow it was as an option that gains you greater points. But yet still having a point a path to building facades that maybe have no masonry if they did all of the other design elements well. Is that appropriate? We know that's a fairly big shift from Aurora in the past. The masonry requirement that's in the current zoning ordinance has has been there for a while since the 90s since our our assessment. But we do think there's um there's good designs that don't use masonry as well, but it's certainly a policy question for you all to consider. >> [gasps] >> So, that's the the very quick version. Again, um I I guess I'll pause there to see if there's any questions or discussion on any of those. Questions? Uh Mayor Pro Tem. So, I guess I have a couple of background data questions that would be helpful for both the location, district, and parking flexibility um policy questions. One is just if we have any studies or estimates on the infrastructure cost of the kind of growth further out within the city and the impact on housing costs of that kind of outward growth. Um and then the other question related to parking is just how we arrived at our current parking requirement calculations um that we're kind of asking to change. I don't necessarily object in principle, but it would just be helpful to have some of that background data. Yeah, I can I can take the first the second one right now. The first one might be a little more might have to do a little more research. But the parking one, we aren't recommending to change in your parking count. We do think that the two per unit is appropriate. Particularly in areas that aren't necessarily transit served. You do have credits elsewhere in the code that have some flexibility for reducing the parking in transit areas, but they need to qualify to get that reduction. So, all of the homes that are in more of the the growth areas that aren't as easily transit served would still have the same parking requirement. The flexibility we're asking for is to allow them to locate that parking elsewhere, but it would certainly be cumulative. The reason we think it's important to be able to locate it elsewhere is is primarily what it does to save um the the curb space and streetscape for on-street parking. So, our analysis has shown that if you do these shared drives or even alley loaded to internal parking courts, the block has far more parking capacity overall. So, it's those on-street spaces that would be used for either homes that have addition more than the typical car that your code currently requires or for guest parking things like that. We think it will be far more efficient and not have as many parking problems. Okay, so I'll follow up, Mayor. >> Please. Nonetheless, I think we could probably be having some additional parking conversations if we have a better understanding of that. So, not necessary for you to answer right now, but Brandon, maybe for future conversations, just a clearer understanding particularly in areas that are infill or already more dense. Um Sure, understood. We'll be prepared to to have that information and and communicate it. Um and then on the other question though, which I understand is perhaps not a today answer, but again would be helpful for determining lot types and district distinctions. Just yeah, what studies and estimates do we have about the infrastructure cost of our outward growth, right? So, A and B isn't outward growth, but subarea C is. And so, it would be helpful to understand what our actual infrastructure costs are in building out those areas and how they might be impacted by changes to the lot types. So, Councilmember, could you give us a little definition when you say infrastructure? Obviously, typically what we're seeing in area C are metro districts are carrying the cost of the infrastructure and then dedicating it so the city doesn't have any direct costs in that. So, I guess just as you as you pose that question, help us understand the scope and scale of what you're looking for there. >> Right. And so then those infrastructure costs being borne by the metro districts end up impacting the housing costs of the residents. So I still think it's valuable to understand how much is actually being spent on those lane miles, even if it's not by us. But then we also are responsible for maintaining Okay. >> those lane miles. So there is an ongoing cost, even though the one-time capital cost is on the metro districts, so ultimately the homeowners. So really both, the construction initial capital construction costs as well as the for the city ongoing maintenance costs of uh Yeah, of that growth and you know, as we expand further out. Sorry. I guess I have a Um Okay, sorry. What How do those costs increase? A follow-up to that is that um it just if in these metro districts sometimes we require them to maintain it. Uh the interior roads and sometimes we the city does it. Where is it? What's that? If they're getting is that that the >> Yeah, typically yeah, we're we're if it's public improvement, they deed it over and then we maintain it. And obviously if um it's a private street, then they maintain it. Okay. Uh Council member Reagan. Uh just and I made this point during the PED meeting. Um it the only concern on the parking for me with having uh the small lot with the with a single-family home um and not having a garage, I brought this up in terms of storage because you people move in thinking um you know, I don't need a garage and then um I don't have that much stuff and then all of a sudden you start accumulating a lot of things. Um I'm guilty of that. Um anyway, and so a lot of times the garage offers them storage even if they're not going to put their car in there. So I just you know, it it looks like it might be a a good solution. Um I know the cost of the house might come down. I just I just wonder how much that that you know, that cost will actually um come down for the homeowner because it sometimes it's not really significant on a mortgage and just looking at down the road any code enforcement issues that we end up having when people are piling stuff up in their backyards and wherever. Anyway, but just made that point. Uh Mayor Pro Tem. Um yeah, so then just another question around the small lot requirements, which is the new proposal that's being put forward um given the presence of or the requirement for proximity to activity centers and open spaces, does it actually reduce the total kind of land area required for development when we allow those small lots or do we end up because of those ancillary things we're requiring developing the same amount of land just on smaller lots? Yeah, let me go back to this slide for a minute cuz that's a very nuanced and and good question. Um we've tried to look at it and and I don't know we have a if we have a definitive answer. Um but our strategy is twofold. It it's one to to switch it from an either/or, in other words, access to open space or access to an activity center. So that would immediately reduce the area, right? Because now we're saying on the left is no longer valid. You need to be close to both things. And so that's what the picture on the right is showing. Um however, two things in doing that. One, we do think expanding the area from the activity center is um a viable strategy. Right now it's a quarter mile. Um and that's really close to an activity center and good walkable distance. But we are familiar with walkable neighborhoods that have access to those services um even as far as a half mile. Right now in the draft code, we have it being 1,800 ft from an activity center. So in that regard, the area area is somewhat expanding, but you would still need to have access to the open space. Um the the example I made the the reason we can't quite say whether it's exact or not is if a developer just provided open space in any of those lighter yellows, all of a sudden that area is eligible now for small lots as well. And so we think that would be a likely um a likely consequence because the developers are are more easily or more readily providing that access to open space than they are the access to the activity centers. And that's the one important policy that we think we're trying to protect here, especially in subarea C where we're having trouble getting um commercial services integrated in these neighborhoods and making sure some of this density has access to those needed services. So what we're really doing is putting the the the emphasis on the activity center location a little bit more, but expanding the area of that. Um and then the last thing to remember is on on the left, those areas would all be limited to either, you know, anywhere from 25% to 35% to 50% On the right, we're saying if if it's the right location, you could do all small lot. So that's one of the tradeoffs of um with the developer round table is they they really wanted to get rid of that percentage requirement. And we think that's a viable strategy as long as we know the area really is ripe and appropriate for some of this compact and more dense development. Mayor, one more Mayor Pro Tem. So that makes a lot of sense. Um I guess then my question is like looking at this example here, are we also making it easier to integrate services into neighborhoods so that for example, in the middle of there, could there also be an activity center that would open everything up? Um you know, how are we looking at encouraging mixed-use development within these subarea C developments and creating that walkability in that way? Yeah, a really good question, really important one. I think our assessment would be the the code is very open to that and more open than most codes even currently. Um the problem we've assessed is there's a tendency for um developers to want to put the activity centers along the arterials because those have the most visibility and and capture the most traffic. Um so we do think this idea of getting um activity centers more ingrained in neighborhoods as you're suggesting, A, we are 100% for that and I think your plans and codes are 100% supporting that. Um I think one of the more instrumental parts of that is making sure the street network is really highly connected and particularly that those that those tend to pop up along collector streets rather than arterial streets and they can be more pedestrian oriented and smaller neighborhood scale. So that continuity of collector streets that's listed under the the neighborhood design principles is really important to that. And so it's a it's more of a planning policy than it is a regulation, but I would say your your the UDO is very open to what you're suggesting. Thank you. Further questions? I see none. Uh thank you so much for the presentation. Um we will reconvene in uh well, right away. And we will reconvene right away in executive session. Please go ahead and uh grab your food and Yeah, let's take 2-minute break.