[0:01] All right. All right. Well, hi, everybody. Hello. The doctor had one thing. I listen to that. I am

[0:13] saying I have to enter. It's evident that you're dead. I'm going to keep it up. Actually,

[0:19] I wouldn't say anything. I keep in the colleague number of years every host that's likely

[0:28] I think that's a perfect job, I'm like candy this time.

[0:36] That's right.

[0:38] Still be on your fast.

[0:40] It's a kind of day.

[0:42] There's letters.

[0:45] Well, that will as I could finish.

[0:50] I think the first update is on the consultant, consultant update.

[0:57] So the, the, the vendor we got and we accepted and we could go shade and say contract with this with KLJ.

[1:07] KLJ, um, they had a, the first proposal was a little bit loose and looking back.

[1:14] So a lot of that was good.

[1:15] The way that we put the RFP, a little of several methods and guesses this and things.

[1:21] We made some refinement. I would say my high-level KLJ actually has a lot of, they have a lot of the people that will be involved in the project, but we're involved in creating a lot of the code that we'll be looking at.

[1:36] And so we did have like the sacred cow concern I would for take care of this credit they all that out early in the process and they're basically just creating out there right in there that basically at any time.

[1:50] If we think that there's bias they will swap those people out with other people in different position.

[1:56] So we thought one that they were up front with that and the other thing is that they actually

[2:05] do have a benefit of people that actually know the code.

[2:10] So when we're talking about issues, and we're saying what the issue is next, we know

[2:14] we're going to find it.

[2:15] So we think that we thought it was like also what isn't it great that there's actually

[2:24] somebody local that could do this because any every other instance is somebody from out of town.

[2:29] And that that also hasn't served our community that well, so

[2:33] anyways, I hope we feel comfortable. And what I do, certainly, move forward,

[2:41] sitting out of your, you know, back seat ultimately, there are lots of forests,

[2:45] you manage your nice, good, very direct about what we're what we're going to do. These are the

[2:52] recommendations that are coming forward that we're not going to be playing the all the

[2:59] alternate standard like opinion coming from the different solvents type of thing.

[3:04] Those conversations are likely with their bit.

[3:08] So I think that's really good.

[3:10] There's an alignment. We want to simplify the code. We want to create something that

[3:15] encourages what we want and not not opens up on everything that we don't want.

[3:20] So we do have Ron and Kim online.

[3:34] Um, I'm always going to give us a recommendation for a dentist after all of this.

[3:39] I know, right?

[3:40] A little overboard. It's because I had an interest in word meeting.

[3:44] Like strategic crayon. You see really a lot of people see strategic.

[3:48] They were in a sandwich.

[3:51] You guys with beneficiaries.

[3:53] So, okay, the good news is you guys aren't going to hear me talk as clearly as much.

[3:59] Kevin and Keith get most of the marker time this agenda.

[4:03] But Kevin and Keith, Mike and I met a couple of times in the last couple weeks

[4:06] and we were trying to get our head around the next part of this process,

[4:11] which is a lot to switch to the recommendation, the harder to come up with.

[4:14] It's easy to make a good point about the problem.

[4:16] It's hard to come up with the recommendations and put order to them.

[4:19] And so I think keeping and I'm going to do a great job of trying to figure out how to do that.

[4:25] But we thought it would be helpful to have some context of what we kind of see as an outline of a final fact.

[4:33] So because we want to spend more time with what she think.

[4:35] Kevin, I'm going to talk about today. This is a quick overview.

[4:39] And then comments you could share another time.

[4:44] And yeah.

[4:45] Yeah. So, um, so just the outline, we start with like the purpose and contents, okay, I see. Right. This is a kind of big picture.

[4:54] And I just working on a bunch of stuff that I heard that we need to make sure we say right connections to other documents that the city has.

[5:00] The sale of the problem to Ron's point importance of talking about cost and we're discussing housing affordability.

[5:06] And I forgot to add a point out cost includes these other things, sizes, direct costs, time,

[5:12] yields, and certain day and risk.

[5:16] So I'm on that one bit.

[5:17] We'll talk about how many made sure the problem, death by 1010, because the importance of scale

[5:23] and producing housing in order to move market and then importance of profitability to get

[5:30] scale, the disproportionate impact of housing costs on certain members of the community,

[5:34] and focus on local action. That's a lot but this is not multiple. And what I

[5:40] have been going to suggest for this section is that you guys will trust me to

[5:44] just take that up for a strap Saturday, then we can react to it when you

[5:49] have something like a channel on the right. And then we move into a problem statement

[5:55] and keep the incentive from a really nice work of like just filling all the

[5:59] sticky notes and coming up like high worries instead of high worries and be sort of

[6:02] to talk about that more, but what we had in mind

[6:05] was that we kind of had those big categories

[6:07] and then like the sub-cat word news

[6:08] and then one of the sets is about what do you mean by this,

[6:12] and why it's a problem.

[6:14] And then we're thinking we have these matrix

[6:16] of all these individual problems that we identify.

[6:21] We want to be able to show that field between trade

[6:23] and that we're trying to get out of,

[6:25] in other words, we want to show why it's set by 1010.

[6:28] It's here's all of them, that's it.

[6:30] And then we go into a solutions section and what we came up with that Kevin said talked

[6:36] us about today is before us, we're really kind of showing you how to get to this section

[6:43] and format it.

[6:44] And we settled on this idea that there's kind of this, kind of, we don't have any for it

[6:48] but like the review, the text, the lens that we should run, not just policy decisions through

[6:54] but like any all decisions through.

[6:57] And my mind is not just for housing for me, it is the questions asked for any change.

[7:02] So we would kind of leave with that as like a major recommendation.

[7:06] And then we'd have a list of all the individual recommendations in some sort of matrix format

[7:12] that highlights the priorities and gives some level of scale of like, you know, what problem

[7:18] it solves and I think that what scale.

[7:21] it could address a problem.

[7:23] And then we give you a really good idea.

[7:25] Well, I'm going to say thank you, Seticians, well.

[7:29] So I welcome, you know, all of us

[7:32] get any input on this at any time.

[7:37] But like any immediate thoughts,

[7:39] probably most likely even the immediate thoughts are like,

[7:41] I hate this, this terrible idea.

[7:43] We're just building a context,

[7:45] so then Russ, it's really nice.

[7:52] You guys think of any of the things

[7:54] that like need to be said in there,

[7:55] you know the group or meet out I'll keep you running talisman. I'm going to move this so that

[8:01] you keep that so right for it. You can't. You leave it out then. Yeah, take this down whenever you want

[8:07] to whiteboard. And so I don't think I really talk again unless you guys want me to be the time

[8:12] color at 4.45. What more you can distribute your colored pages?

[8:19] Sure, I got it here. So I'm going

[8:21] I have got two items here and the first one is really just trying to

[8:28] show how we organized

[8:33] and broke this down here to getting my notes and my meetings on a little bit too, but

[8:37] they're relevant finally to be able to update it.

[8:41] That's an exciting time for that.

[8:43] Yes.

[8:44] Kevin, you're on our visit.

[8:46] Kevin, it would be nice.

[8:48] Yes.

[8:48] The little number one where that time was succinct.

[8:51] Right.

[8:51] I mean, if you don't, please hit it, it's 6.5, it calls this a scene.

[8:57] I did it the other way, very sure.

[8:59] So you want a 3-page paper font size 14.

[9:04] So look, all this is, you really want to want you to focus on the most,

[9:08] is the numbered items in bold.

[9:11] Okay, so each color is kind of its own category, right?

[9:15] It's own bucket, so to speak.

[9:17] So page one is that bucket A.

[9:18] It's the process, application reviewed and approved.

[9:23] And then on page two, you have buckets B and C,

[9:26] and then actually we're contemplating

[9:27] adding a fourth bucket bucket to B.

[9:30] So all of the fine print, all that it looks guys,

[9:33] it's the city notes.

[9:34] We're just kind of like bringing that together

[9:36] and show that we've listed these things out.

[9:38] And I think in the next thing I hand out,

[9:41] it'll start to get Roman.

[9:42] So what we found is we got four buckets,

[9:47] like the ADC and then underneath those four buckets are these subsections.

[9:52] Now the first one is on front page, but today that one has the most sort of subsections

[9:58] and then it's just the number one is process sequencing.

[10:01] So, if you look at some of the things that it's in there, it's kind of about speaking

[10:06] out what's about what do we do and when and how does this process, is it can't be congruent

[10:11] It doesn't have to be sequential, that kind of thing.

[10:16] And the second one is the process requirements.

[10:18] You can capture all of those processes.

[10:21] You'll be looked at and said, and this is how can we change this?

[10:24] Obviously, pretty absent something every time.

[10:27] We will also put it in there to be unnecessary processes.

[10:31] The third one being peripheral issues.

[10:33] You scratch the label, peripheral, whatever they are.

[10:36] Those are those ones that it's like they're the boundary line

[10:40] adjustments, or when survey actually affixed the whole problem now, right, it's something

[10:45] outside of the application, but it seems to be, you know, brought in the major responsibility

[10:50] of the application. The city internal factors kind of self-explanatory there, you know, trying

[10:55] to find out what are shafts, frustrations, what's the capacity limitations, and then quite

[11:00] frankly, what did that recent consultant that did the process, I should say? Then it's legal,

[11:06] and survey, and it's uncategorized.

[11:10] So those are the subsets.

[11:12] Flip one over to page 2.

[11:14] And I'm potentially freezing during this,

[11:16] because I only get to how I'm going to maybe present this next.

[11:19] This is really trying to just show that we've captured it.

[11:22] We've distilled it down to something that can be synced

[11:25] within a few pages.

[11:27] And graphical subset.

[11:29] I mean, trying to say out of the angle,

[11:31] a lot of the plans and policies would have been a bike and ped plan

[11:33] or the manual table or a conflant kind of thing we want to fill it down that way.

[11:39] So bucket B is the regulation and code making process.

[11:43] So we talk about the items of utilizing local expertise.

[11:47] We talk about the trade-off and cost considerations.

[11:51] We contemplated adding a fourth or a third subset in there.

[11:55] Scratching the one you kind of see circled in red and crossed out,

[11:58] which was the impacts of code reactions or regulations.

[12:01] That was a list, these were sticking out on there and if anybody put those sticky notes

[12:05] on there and they're going, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, before you cross this off, let me explain

[12:09] it.

[12:10] That would be great because it was kind of a list of things that said, okay, yeah, like a

[12:16] trees in 24-rowed-overlay, yeah, they have, basically, how do we apply that here?

[12:23] That's the only reason that they, how we got carved out, that we don't want to overstep

[12:27] on these chime in if there's something there need to do.

[12:31] So then we would probably replace that one

[12:33] with the number three got written

[12:34] in my blue man writing there is the effectiveness

[12:36] of the mechanics.

[12:38] There's a better term for that.

[12:39] What we're trying to say is isolate the trade-offs

[12:42] and cost element of this.

[12:45] And then there was a conversation about,

[12:47] you know, that does it work.

[12:49] I think you're gonna get trees where are my heavy there,

[12:52] right?

[12:52] Because it was one where we can look at and go,

[12:54] hey, this didn't work.

[12:56] regardless of its good intention, it didn't work, and so it's kind of that you question up.

[13:00] So we go through some of these other things, are there that the second question applies, so.

[13:04] I think that's you going to be here.

[13:06] This is Brad.

[13:07] Thank you.

[13:10] It's round one.

[13:12] It's round one.

[13:14] That's it.

[13:15] It's just passing by.

[13:16] It's just passing by.

[13:16] It's round one.

[13:17] It's round one.

[13:20] It's round one.

[13:22] And then the third bucket there.

[13:24] culture of the code and overreach. And it's got three subsets. Right? If experienced

[13:30] applicants within 7 to 5 quickly are consistently struggling, why? And then the seeking those

[13:36] sort of applied over that. The inequitable private responsibility for community benefit.

[13:42] We can hit on some of those. And then the was it written to address concern instead of

[13:50] promoting the positive outcomes, are we writing for what we're sharing them or are we writing

[13:55] for what we want? The language can be changed but that's the subset. And then the last bucket

[14:00] would be this, and what we struggled with this label, this extra jurisdictional housing challenges

[14:06] or extra jurisdictional barriers, I'd say Fed. That's a third party review agencies that do me coordinate

[14:14] with county or city, but not, and we can speak to that a little bit.

[14:20] So this one was just the sort of the still it down and make sure that we captured the

[14:26] sticking-nose, capture everybody's thoughts and then try to organize it into those buckets.

[14:34] This next one, this is a not a final prop, in fact a reluctant to even show this to some

[14:40] because it doesn't rapidly present as well as say a land-new state-of-the-world door.

[14:48] It goes over a constant chart so we'll see.

[14:50] Even the appendix is in the biker-pedd class of the expenditure.

[14:56] But what I try to do now is down the left side of this.

[15:01] We listed all of the sticky notes. So then across the top, we have the same buckets, right, from the previous package. The process application of you and approval,

[15:32] about this, we were just briefly listening to bucket 1, 1, 2, 7, bucket 2, 1, 2, 3, memory

[15:40] there would be reference. And the idea of this chart is that it lists all of the issues

[15:45] that we kind of came up with, but now we go across. And there's going to be these issues

[15:50] that hit in several buckets. Because I was one of the things we showed earlier, because all of a sudden

[15:54] we had some things that really hit cross multiple buckets. So how do we, how do we depict that?

[16:00] And this allowed us to not only depict it well by checking each box that it actually

[16:05] invites in, but also then we could sort it really easy to help create kind of a, I don't

[16:13] know, either call it diorization or it's weighted, you know, we would sort of sort of, so the list

[16:18] of item could be the most exit across it would be up at the top in this list.

[16:23] And I think then we really start to show visually that there are areas that cancel and

[16:29] and staff can target if it's resources meaningful.

[16:33] And the next thing it kind of started to do

[16:35] is allow us to add little things in there,

[16:37] is this critical of the health and safety,

[16:40] and maybe there's more cost thing,

[16:42] but we paused and said, if we've got this caption,

[16:48] and maybe this is an appendix of bot,

[16:50] because it's a long list.

[16:52] It allows us to add or subtract or monitor everything

[16:57] and if you come across new things, but then more importantly, we can take this and it's

[17:01] a reference to what I think I'm ready to turn over to Kevin on sort of a catch-all.

[17:09] You could run each of these, this would help us organize and prioritize where to start

[17:14] first, and then maybe we can move into the next set for a recommendation, or at least the

[17:20] umbrella recommendations is kind of calling it right now.

[17:23] And then, you know, that last part of what Emily had brought up here is on the solutions

[17:29] and recommendations.

[17:30] We might find that we have this central umbrella recommendation that can't be given

[17:35] into.

[17:36] But then you have this matrix of recommendations, reference as well, so as we move through,

[17:42] we can say that these are the items and this is why they're important.

[17:47] And this group can decide if that final recommendation is to call out any of them in particular

[17:52] that might have a more valid importance even though it does have a bunch of checkmarks on it or not.

[18:00] So there. So just before we jump, I just absolutely love that this was all and

[18:07] like organized, like that you went to this level to organize it, put it in his bucket.

[18:14] And like I might as well see you, like dramatically I maybe would go through with red line,

[18:19] but for me it helps. This really captured sort of the essence, despite it without having to get to

[18:25] specific about it. I think that's a good point like if you guys are having a chance to

[18:32] look through that. Are you agreeing with that because it kind of does go into the next

[18:38] to the next step?

[18:41] That would only add that like how do you do if you don't get to more final

[18:45] and more personal things, and things like that.

[18:48] That we would want to be consistent

[18:49] about kind of like stating each thing as a problem,

[18:52] like not necessarily a solution.

[18:53] For example, our staff empowered to use discretion

[18:57] for something that's kind of more of a solution,

[18:58] but I mean, empower staff to use discretion.

[19:02] So some of these things can be re-worded

[19:04] and also explained, so they were like,

[19:05] oh, we don't have that.

[19:07] Yeah.

[19:08] But this was like, keep it already down

[19:09] and you don't want to work to distill this.

[19:11] And we should think really much

[19:12] of taking up all of these issues.

[19:14] because she took 10 graduates and I'll just take a

[19:17] bachelor's office and I was in the master's.

[19:20] I think we did just a whole list of kids who had graduated eight.

[19:24] I don't think that would be a good case.

[19:27] But as Kevin moves over to this umbrella recommendation,

[19:31] the initial reactions to the lawyer that this is organized

[19:36] and this suggestion for that organization.

[19:40] I can feel the truth. I like the, it makes a lot of sense on the way, it's all broken out.

[19:49] The section would be great if you have an ex out.

[19:56] I do think there's something there maybe that we could hold on to other.

[20:01] That is also something that there's some that,

[20:11] So I'm sure there's probably another place that we can roll back in, if you want to.

[20:15] Well, and actually, right, I don't know if we would include that one in our in our document, right?

[20:22] It might translate to this and now each of those things is going to be there.

[20:26] And however many buckets, it kind of checks on, it kind of raises that on them.

[20:32] The total forward overlay I put in process requirements, maybe you wouldn't take that out to fit there.

[20:38] Maybe that doesn't say it.

[20:40] I guess the reason I would think about putting in process requirements is because it's in the other layer of architectural standards and complexity that might.

[20:51] So it needs requirements.

[20:54] Yeah, so as soon as you list that on here, now it doesn't matter.

[20:59] We're not nobody's debate in which category that's to be in because we just do the box.

[21:04] I think it can be bold. It can be bold.

[21:06] Yeah, that's kind of what got us to this was regret.

[21:09] Was this one right?

[21:10] Is that one right?

[21:10] It's like, oh, why are we even choose?

[21:13] Why are we leaving it?

[21:15] What a way to pray that because we just have 24 or really I'm seeking it, I really

[21:19] necessarily know that it would be like the existence of an overlay as application, as

[21:25] additional requirements.

[23:26] And you have to get in the

[23:34] remote session and go to meeting.

[23:40] I got a text

[23:48] a few people and see if someone can fix it, can't.

[23:51] Oh, good.

[23:54] I'll just hang out.

[23:59] Take it.

[24:00] with a meeting feed.

[24:06] I can only got kicked out, although the session is still going. It's just me and Kim talking to each other. We can't see her here. You guys, not exactly what we had in mind.

[24:21] Okay, here it comes back up.

[24:24] I can't hear anything.

[24:33] Can I hear you, Ron?

[24:36] Yeah, I can't hear you.

[24:37] There we go.

[24:39] There we go.

[24:40] Probably those trade-offs are not going to be like this is very important.

[24:44] Critical is a keyword play on safety.

[24:47] So that would be like a sidewalk.

[24:50] That's going to move side a little more.

[24:53] So now let's do six foot sidewalks.

[24:55] Is it's critical for health and safety?

[24:58] Well, well, it's not critical for health and safety.

[25:00] It's a comfort issue.

[25:02] So that goes down into this category and you know everything in the code is based on critical, it's based on health safety and general welfare.

[25:10] General welfare is the loose goosey one that it tends to make our decision making unclear.

[25:18] So the general welfare really have to ask why, what problem are we trying to solve and is it necessary?

[25:25] So this becomes an important question that you have to answer early in the process.

[25:30] If it's critical for health and safety that the answer is because, say, people, it's unsafe practically.

[25:39] So in this case, and I'm put pluses in these categories, these become very important.

[25:45] These become conversations that you need to search for, and you need to really make answers to.

[25:51] localized for keys. We're evolving our localized for keys. We're talking about trade-offs.

[25:57] Are we acknowledging the trade-offs in host time? That's the flexibility here.

[26:04] And in my other notes I add that it's been known to remember because it's not just

[26:08] the private side. It's the public side too because a lot of times we pass, we'll pass something that has

[26:15] as a enforcement tradeoff, like recreating staff work, staff time,

[26:22] vacating, you know, order to do research, workload, thank you.

[26:27] Well, it worked, like this is really important.

[26:29] And this was very, very aproposive, the conversation I've got about,

[26:35] the truth is, well, it worked.

[26:37] It's a practical, it's a legal, it's an enforceable.

[26:40] Like those are really important, the question says,

[26:42] maybe something maybe something that you want to do and the CID was good like

[26:48] these trees need to be expanded in about 10 years we need to expand the water

[26:54] around the root zone with this tree. So let's make let's require people to

[26:58] plan that into their system but there's no enforcement for the HLA 10 years

[27:04] from now and so you have to look at how enforceable is this we're gonna make

[27:09] somebody do something that's not going to occur in a way maybe it's going to occur, it's

[27:15] like the next path you're talking about, it's going to work on a lot, right?

[27:21] So like on sidewalks, you want a six-foot sidewalk, why maybe there's some rationals around

[27:29] multiple or there's something and what would be effective in serving that purpose?

[27:33] If you acknowledge the trade-offs, and you've had all those

[27:38] like purchase missions, and then is it equitable?

[27:41] Like that means it's a fair, and when you talk about this a lot,

[27:44] development fades all the way.

[27:46] But should development pay everybody's way?

[27:49] I think there's a point where the long-term really belongs

[27:51] to the municipality, and the short-term is on the developer side,

[27:56] and that there's always a bug in between those two.

[27:58] but you have to have an conversation, which is a fair,

[28:03] did that go well.

[28:06] And then, what kind of was an on-off?

[28:10] And I'm going to say, I think, as a general rule,

[28:13] what you've certified, and this is a general,

[28:15] because there's no exception.

[28:17] So we don't want to call it a hard line.

[28:20] But when you're talking, I don't know if it's backwards.

[28:25] You're talking critical for open safety.

[28:28] That's a regulatory stick. That's a regulatory stick every time.

[28:32] We expect that. We want that. We expect that performance quality.

[28:37] If it's for the general welfare and prefer to do that,

[28:40] these questions about why and the payouts become important.

[28:44] This is generally going to lead us to where the carrots.

[28:48] Where things are carrots, and that's one that this is one conversation about.

[28:52] Should this be an incentive? Should it be a carrot?

[28:55] So this was all sort of came about from us

[29:00] is trying to come up with one recommendation

[29:02] or Paul St. Govay.

[29:06] So then we were kind of like testing it out.

[29:09] And we were talking, we're going,

[29:11] well, does this work for processes?

[29:20] So the pre-application process.

[29:23] like that was a, right? Is it critical for Elidic? You well, no, it's not. It's not critical. So we started to talk about the Y. So we understand the Y, why we're doing this.

[29:39] Well, probably only on the same determinant now that we're moving down this road.

[29:43] So we're trying to reduce staff time, we're trying to reduce the applicant time, we're

[29:49] trying to create quality that doesn't exist like we've got to find this and then as we

[29:54] start going down this, now we're evolving what looks decent, we're talking about Jared

[29:59] Lastly.

[30:00] The time, we're talking about sequencing, like all these issues that are, the key is to identify this time, but it's enough. And so we, well, we were started to kind of believe, we haven't tested it all the way through, but taking any of our problems. And if you start to run it through this, through this lens. There's a generally come out, but they come out in the other end with at least it's got, it's got a conversation that's built out around it.

[30:28] and what we're making a good decision.

[30:30] And I can tell you what I've seen,

[30:32] and last night was a great example

[30:34] of what we currently have from a decision-making.

[30:39] And I'm not saying this necessarily has to be qualified.

[30:42] Like this is how we do business step of the thing.

[30:46] And this is what we'd be setting to counsel with it.

[30:49] The fact that what we see is the criteria,

[30:52] does it mean the criteria of the comprehensive plan?

[30:54] I mean, that was the most recent example.

[30:56] And it meets your criteria for the comprehensive plan.

[31:02] That has, that is an alignment issue.

[31:04] That is literally like the, you have to check these boxes.

[31:07] That it does meet this criteria.

[31:09] That there's something in the compound that this is addressed.

[31:11] Because that is, that is, that is, that is mixed probably.

[31:17] Honestly, there probably is a check box here.

[31:20] There's probably a check box here for like on the code making site.

[31:25] Okay. We also need to be in the conflict. That's a line.

[31:31] And so maybe if it doesn't align,

[31:34] like, obviously the council has the authority to do the things that they don't paint the lines,

[31:39] but they have to rely on bigger conversations.

[31:45] So, but you could have the way it is currently and we get into these arguments and it's just

[31:51] it's frustrating for both sides of the equation because the criteria has nothing to do with

[31:57] whether something works, whether it's fair, whether it's a whether it's a trade-offs like it

[32:04] is 100% does this align and it doesn't really set up a very great conversation because you're

[32:13] sitting there going to the line, does it not and in a lot of cases something is going to check several

[32:20] boxes and it's going to be up to somebody's opinion whether or not it aligns enough or not like that's

[32:28] what they're trying to do is make a judgment call on once you check more boxes for your recommendation

[32:34] or to be checked more against it because there's checkboxicle.

[32:39] So I think that was, this was kind of the outlaw for us is that

[32:43] this is kind of an umbrella-ish recommendation.

[32:48] And you can also take existing code.

[32:52] You can run existing code for this.

[32:55] And, you know, thinking about first recent examples of that.

[33:01] Well, it becomes does it work?

[33:04] Is it fair?

[33:06] What are the trade offs?

[33:07] These are things that we built in that we recommend to counsel.

[33:13] These should be a part of that conversation.

[33:15] This is what you should be answering these questions.

[33:19] And also the emphasis being critical for health and safety.

[33:25] That's going to be more likely to be the stick.

[33:28] and care. I don't know. Like we did, we only tested it with like four things on our list.

[33:36] I kind of think the accessibility one was also a good one. I think accessibility was

[33:43] the thing we're just like, we have to do this.

[33:48] Do we look at your lies, look at us for

[33:50] a piece? No. No, we just, we interpreted it one way from the state and we said that's how

[33:57] have to do it, the way that that got changed was phone calls to I think to a couple of neighbors

[34:03] and they said this is how we're doing it and then we realized we don't have to do it that way

[34:08] and we know it was causing problems so at first we were treating it like this because it was

[34:14] retrieving it like a mandate and which it is it is a mandate so maybe there's this other box for

[34:23] by state mandates, but we're retreating it the right way.

[34:28] And I bet we could find something like the electrical code is

[34:32] like driver degrees would play.

[34:34] Why I think we need to be a gas station for like the first

[34:38] right maybe if we explored that to the slums we would find.

[34:43] Okay, we have some leeway as a community like maybe we don't

[34:49] need to do.

[34:50] We don't need to go to that level.

[34:55] I think there's a thing that sort of gave caught into it in between and often times it's called best practice.

[35:08] And it's not critical for health and safety. It's not for general welfare, but we hear this like best practice all the time.

[35:16] And that's kind of our aspirational goals for our community, but it doesn't really fit in. So, where would you see something like those?

[35:26] Quarky.

[35:29] Maybe an example.

[35:31] I'm going to talk about parking lots.

[35:38] I'm going to talk about parking in London, in a parking lot, and how you don't get any parking spaces by the time you're done, but all the parking lot is in.

[35:47] They're not really necessary for help, but safety.

[35:50] Is there a safety route to help with parking lots?

[35:53] Highlands

[35:57] help to get snow. You can't see where you're supposed to be parking. And the

[36:02] islands provide an author's immunity to put germs in and to help shield some of the

[36:08] fastball canopy or the hospital.

[36:13] And it's aesthetics. And it's with only instance.

[36:17] So do you need parking in a proper property where you have less than 10 parking spaces?

[36:22] So I can see them in a shop and said, oh, we've got 50 barkies, too.

[36:27] But it seems like they get a little ridiculous in that your toll area allocated to the parking

[36:33] island is like 30% of the parking.

[36:38] So that's a good example where we may be drifting.

[36:41] Well, I can see where we're going to throw out of the hill.

[36:44] It comes in the middle of the family.

[36:45] I might add to answer your question on how would that play in?

[36:49] You know, we do it elsewhere and they see their community.

[36:52] Well, isn't that part of the problem?

[36:54] We keep doing this and it's been really, it's been part of the pushback often with the

[37:05] same staff on them.

[37:07] Well, let us find out what others do.

[37:09] We'll look at other things.

[37:10] But then we go to these places and we look and find out how much they're housing affordability

[37:15] situation.

[37:16] What's their demographics?

[37:18] Look at it.

[37:20] And so, what this checklist or this process does, it says,

[37:25] oh, okay, cool ideas.

[37:27] Now, when we run it through here for us, right?

[37:31] Now, the right kinds of conversations are being had

[37:33] about what the trade-offs are.

[37:34] And it gives another option, or at least it gives the filter.

[37:38] If there are any of those ideas that are pulled from other communities,

[37:40] now come at best management or best practices and say,

[37:43] how does it flow through what we're trying to achieve?

[37:47] And the beauty of this, sorry,

[37:52] It's not designed to send you to a result.

[37:56] It's not designed to generate the answer.

[37:59] It's designed to force the conversation in a formal manner.

[38:05] This could be a first half report on application.

[38:09] You're not going to see this.

[38:10] But first half reports on code and regulation processes.

[38:14] Then that should include who kind of went through this sort of process and this is what we

[38:20] hit in each one of these.

[38:21] Just triggering those conversations in a little honest way, we kind of discussed this half

[38:28] of that.

[38:29] And then for the other ones that are kind of in between, this doesn't do at all, right?

[38:33] Like when we, when we distill down the items we've listed, then we have that appendix and we've

[38:40] created those buckets and then we start to show how many, you know, how the offices

[38:44] of those things. We now have scenarios where, you know, if you'll have a leak or a survey.

[38:52] There's no answers. And you can't run some of the stuff that we deal with on legal or survey

[38:56] for this and really generally. But now we have two things in the city that are involved

[39:02] that we shut the staff or it's a council. And one is we're looking at creating

[39:08] in analyzing existing code, making changes

[39:11] or creating new code or regulation.

[39:14] Here's a process.

[39:16] Some of the existing conditions is, wow, look,

[39:19] these things funneled down.

[39:21] There's something going on in legal

[39:23] that is a heavy emphasis to being challenged

[39:25] and we need city to participate in finding out

[39:28] what that is and why, right?

[39:31] So maybe that's somewhere that catch all starts to come in

[39:35] And I'm going to be out vibes right here.

[39:39] What I was going to add to that thought was, I think what it could do is say, just coming

[39:44] in and saying, this is the best practice is not enough of a description, because you'd

[39:48] say, well, like, run that best practice through kind of this test and post a conversation.

[39:53] And so that kind of maybe standard thing of like, well, he has best practice, so like, we're

[39:57] just not going to put it in, if the decision makers at whatever level have the discipline

[40:02] and to say, well, I want to run it through this test,

[40:05] might kind of take away that knee jerk,

[40:08] sort of justification for things.

[40:11] I'm kind of anticipating for about that

[40:13] going into the tense, you know,

[40:16] invest in the picture because, like,

[40:18] sign box for example, right?

[40:20] Is it Elven safety or is it best practice?

[40:23] Or are they going to say that it's best practice

[40:26] because it's a health and safety issue?

[40:28] Or is it just a comfort level?

[40:30] Like, there's so many, you know, okay.

[40:32] For example, you know, I think the home and CT thing was a new idea of the kind of to just kind of say it's I think it's getting a little back to what my friend has to talk about which is.

[40:43] Um, you know, we can regulate or we can incentivize.

[40:46] And so this is such as like a third time as it says like this is really critical for a home and safety.

[40:51] You write, yeah, you're going to regularly do.

[40:53] But if it's not, well, the next step would be like considering changing an incentive approach

[40:59] instead, or how do you consider an incentive approach instead of this regulatory mandate approach.

[41:06] Because yeah, you could say, and these are all quantitative questions, all quantitative questions

[41:13] is the six-foot sidewalk that's used for health and safety.

[41:17] Yes, someone will might say it is because I don't want to push in, push in someone in the

[41:21] street, but you're forcing them to answer that question. The other thing I would add is that

[41:28] is I would probably start the analysis with what problem are we trying to solve.

[41:34] They really focus on that problem because it's what you've brought up a lot, Kevin, which is like

[41:38] these neighborhoods are super popular, we're really attractive. What is the problem? Why are we saying

[41:44] this one that good enough? We have to now leave the sidewalks twice. So like really many people

[41:49] will define that problem.

[41:50] Good thing I like about recommending this at every stage

[41:54] is one, it can be used at every stage of decision making.

[41:59] Number two is that it holds us at level two.

[42:02] You could run something through this test

[42:04] and get that trade-off.

[42:06] And the trade-off is where you would say,

[42:07] who pays, who benefits, are those aligned?

[42:12] Well, what if you had some policy that was like,

[42:14] the person, it's just benefits

[42:16] it's just like one property owner and it's one place and who pays all the taxpayers,

[42:20] or they would catch that, too.

[42:24] So, I think we could phrase it as like, this is a general tool for good public policy in

[42:28] this case.

[42:28] It's not.

[42:29] This is not designed to feed the answer we want.

[42:33] And you could also say, we think this is a tool that you use in every share, not just thousands

[42:40] of them.

[42:40] Do you get different answers like you said answering those questions though you do yes, I think like Emily's fire department, if I really like I'm passionate, like I'm fast, fast, that housing, that stuff, right?

[43:03] So it's another kind of thing, like what I value is more important than something else might have been.

[43:10] I think that it would be the one that I would use.

[43:12] Like, don't be a movie like this is critical for all the safety in meetings, six-foot sidewalks, get people around.

[43:19] But somebody can also argue that a three-foot is perfectly safe, that the ADA or whatever that is, no.

[43:28] So, you started to find out if there's a counter-arrogate into it, it starts to get into this area.

[43:37] So, no, you're never going to be like perfect, but you're still in either scenario forcing that conversation to get built out.

[43:46] But I think what helps here is that health safety and general welfare have always been

[43:53] sort of treated as the same thing, so everything goes into that bucket.

[43:58] And the detention ponds is a great example, but we're like arguing that whether grass

[44:04] and the detention ponds and the native type grass that's bumpy is going to provide as much

[44:10] benefit and rocking the pond or slightly more how many find out I mean and I think that that one's

[44:17] coming back in the air there's engineering is going back and saying it's not enough of the benefit

[44:23] that we're going to push it we're going to allow you guys to make that decision but we're not going

[44:28] to get the way if you want to dress it so that's kind of where that like that conversation

[44:33] and it ended up here because people started to realize,

[44:37] like that is, this is general welfare

[44:39] and this is pretty well.

[44:41] So can we get to have a conversation around this?

[44:44] And moreover, it's a really great question

[44:46] that actually slows us one of the beauties of this design,

[44:51] is that you go through this process,

[44:53] there's no point where it takes you out, right?

[44:56] It's not a, it's not a PN idea,

[44:59] some manufacturer.

[45:00] We process or a system out there that eventually sets up fail. You keep going either way. And so if it's whether it's critical or general welfare, all that is giving is the decision makers a chance to look at, is this something that we might say clearly fits into a regulate versus incentivize. And if that's blurry, it's OK. Because it still moves across. And then when you let it when you move through each of these,

[45:28] who member of the stakeholders are, wouldn't it be great if there was a more standardized framework from which to receive responses?

[45:40] And it forces everybody into an element of, okay, like make your takes and here's the things you have to be able to work through.

[45:49] So it doesn't matter if it's the forestry board or a store preservation or I mean, you name it.

[45:57] They have a framework from which to provide information or moreover, decision makers have a framework

[46:04] from which to say, I'm looking for these answers and I don't have it. It's the criteria element

[46:11] that we use in our code, but this is more appropriate for regulation and code making process.

[46:19] And make sure to stay about the 820 rule applies if this is probably going to capture the 80% of it and there's going to be that 20% that it's still political practice.

[46:33] I find it interesting.

[46:35] Yeah, go ahead.

[46:35] I'll get changed by the use.

[46:37] Like, if you have a, you know, a parking.

[46:41] Uh, islands in a retail use environment versions.

[46:46] Investions.

[46:47] By retail.

[46:47] These serves public.

[46:49] Public.

[46:49] I'll be there.

[46:50] Investment.

[46:51] I'm just fine.

[46:52] Pretty much private use.

[46:54] So you don't necessarily need this much of the.

[46:56] Parking items.

[46:57] And she said.

[46:59] So kind of.

[47:00] There's a clear, the mighty critical one that's, you know,

[47:03] going down and going, you're not necessarily good enough.

[47:07] Yeah, and I think that's why I had flexible.

[47:11] That was one, like, it's got to be flexible in here

[47:13] at a pair of scalable based on it.

[47:15] And that's kind of what I think is, like,

[47:16] under these questions, we're going to define a little bit.

[47:20] So, like, scalable, like, I thought it was a great one

[47:23] that just came out with the Road to Housing Act.

[47:26] They're making it, they're forcing much to allow

[47:29] the single stairwell on a property bill. It's up to six stores. The goals haven't come out yet,

[47:35] but how it is for forcing that down to one. So that's that's that's the scalable issue.

[47:41] What's up to that Jason went on today. He's been talking about that for a while.

[47:46] That's what we have a single stairwell. But anyway, it's a scale. So we're not going to do that in your

[47:52] 10 parking spaces versus 200. Okay, so maybe we don't need a parking island. We've only got 10 spaces

[47:58] work with like we're trying to figure out how to work uses property but if we're getting 200 okay

[48:04] we've got parking lot and a little bit of a place for snow etc uh it's tabs and uh the city

[48:13] scored really high in the survey last night we're at the very score really high last year on snow removal

[48:29] I think it's like, if we test things through this but I do believe like, if we're not like,

[48:37] it has to be rigid and has to be exactly this way and everything that means this is definitely

[48:43] a stick like we have to acknowledge it.

[48:45] Like, you're trying to stay going to care.

[48:47] Like, this is going to be a little bit blurry in the middle.

[48:50] But there's also some things that I have to share in things like,

[48:55] what, one little thing would be, like, they changed,

[49:01] but they're like a minor deletion.

[49:03] There's some stuff that's really small.

[49:05] It's not going to be critical, but it's

[49:08] going to be like house cleaning and type stuff.

[49:10] They should.

[49:11] It's like, do we really need to build out?

[49:13] We need to have a stakeholder group to talk about changing the word from single family

[49:20] to a single unit housing instead of single family like we can't use the word family we're

[49:27] doing.

[49:28] We need to have a stakeholder group like so, you know, like we have to acknowledge it.

[49:34] This isn't perfect but service is a meeting we were like okay this would be really helpful.

[49:40] and I also was probably just watching the most recent

[49:46] like public hearing and I was like,

[49:48] and they're so, they're so, so they'll equipped

[49:50] for a decision making.

[49:52] Is it like what ends up happening?

[49:54] We're only, we don't have any

[49:56] thing we really make a decision with part of us.

[49:59] So we're just,

[50:01] it's sort of,

[50:02] it sort of encourages just a political posture.

[50:06] And like that's something that we're setting up

[50:09] are elected for in this rulemaking process,

[50:12] we're not giving them some kind of a path to make decisions.

[50:16] And like I've seen that play out,

[50:18] like if you don't really have anything to go with,

[50:20] you're just going with whoever contributes.

[50:23] Yeah, but also whoever's trying to enforce.

[50:27] I'm guilty of that as anybody.

[50:29] Like I'll be like, okay, how do I get to four?

[50:34] I know they're only gonna have this criteria.

[50:36] What can I emotionally like all these, like we're not going to remove the politics of it?

[50:43] What happens is, and you'll see this, I think, if you go and you watch,

[50:48] and watch a hearing that you don't have a dog in.

[50:52] And you'll see this limited amount of decision,

[50:57] the type of stuff that we would make decisions with, if we're just having our own meeting,

[51:01] like that's not really happening in the public sector.

[51:04] and it puts them in a really weird spot where they're just like responding to

[51:08] this is all I got so these guys are asking me for more and it feels

[51:14] funky to them like staff is like we're still on off the criteria people are

[51:21] like mad at the staff because they disagree with them or because they because

[51:26] they agree with the other side I don't know I was just thinking about how this

[51:31] but actually it's not going to change the political process force, but I think it is very

[51:38] helpful. This could be really helpful for like electants that are in that decision-making process.

[51:44] So let's zoom out and go back to the feedback we're looking for is this, this document,

[51:50] there's the wiggle rule that we've been on. It's got some page or two kind of thing.

[51:56] So this is what we're trying to kind of address out here.

[51:59] We would then start to show the broad categories

[52:02] and buckets that we built it into

[52:04] and probably have an appendix that lists

[52:06] all of those other items.

[52:08] And then there'd be a segment here of these solutions.

[52:11] One would be running this through

[52:13] and then we may pull a few things out of the items

[52:17] that are really high on that matrix.

[52:20] So you know, those of you who have had dogs

[52:24] or hump dogs, like there's some dogs, if they only react well, it's like, oh, good boy, good boy.

[52:28] And others where you got to kind of look up when they do some wrong feedback.

[52:40] So, like, what have you seen on this so that we're not just doing a presentation?

[52:45] Like, what have you seen here that's either good or missing or,

[52:50] or Jane, you're particularly skilled at providing some objective comments on how others might

[52:57] see it.

[52:58] If it feels skewed, I know I certainly feel like this doesn't force an outcome and it should

[53:03] be thinner, but we've seen it that way.

[53:06] Does anybody have comments that they can?

[53:11] It's just going to be a process of finding, you know, over time, because we're, I mean,

[53:16] it's almost like we're still in a stiff ball stage, you know, right now.

[53:20] So I've got to truly learn to make, I think that it's just a natural part of the process.

[53:25] Like you're not going to just throw something up there that's going to work.

[53:29] I think it's a really good framework to start.

[53:32] I think where you're going, you guys have done a lot of work, you know, it's clear.

[53:36] But even just this makes a lot of sense, but it's just, it needs to, it just needs to be

[53:43] refined.

[53:43] I think a little bit better.

[53:45] I think that's our next step, right?

[53:46] we want it if you like it and we'll give actually like a draft to live room so it almost needs to be

[53:54] where I can I can go through this process or understand the process but I'm sitting at home.

[54:01] No you don't need Kevin to guide me through you know I mean if you really wanted to be part of

[54:06] all it needs to be something that a self explanatory that a person a council member or

[54:12] or whatever can go, if they are some clients,

[54:15] do that kind of homework or work or deep dive into it

[54:19] that they can kind of walk through the decision-making process.

[54:23] And you see these things and you've seen them in different contexts.

[54:27] You know, I've had people tell me, like,

[54:30] oh, it'd be nice if I had a diagram sheet.

[54:33] That if this, then that's, you know,

[54:34] you go this way, if not, you go this way.

[54:36] And that's kind of what I feel like this is starting to do.

[54:40] And I think the more you can refine it, not to come to a pre-determined outcome, but to

[54:46] give you the off-ramps based on your assessment as you're taking that, whether it's parking

[54:51] islands, or whether it's sidewalks, or whatever, gives you the opportunity to try to kind of

[54:56] make those intellectual refinements in terms of what direction you want to go.

[55:01] But I think it needs to just be a little bit more refined and cleaner so that we don't have

[55:05] to have a tutorial so that the average person can go, yeah, this is clear. And I see how

[55:13] this would work. And what I would see is like, yeah, I agree, the Steve's warrant kind

[55:17] of refinement. And each of the way, like, to a race point, it's not like a go-no-go to

[55:22] city, right? It's basically saying, there are certain things you're going to have to

[55:27] draw up a red flag. If it's not a critical for health and safety, but it's a stick, that's

[55:34] a red flag, and you just say, OK, well, should we regulate something that's not common

[55:38] safety?

[55:39] It's just saying this warrant's a deeper conversation from the decision makers.

[55:42] And then, for example, if it's, if you call anybody, you know, we are talking about, oh, I don't

[55:49] know, the impact fee waiver and will it work for incentivize the board of what housing?

[55:53] The jacolier will afford what others can ask.

[55:56] No?

[55:57] Oh, that warrant's a lot more conversation.

[55:59] So all of these things are just kind of like, this is maybe the right side where you should

[56:04] have more debate. And a big one, a big one, is that actually us. And that gets filled out a lot more,

[56:09] because then if we say, if the costs are of this group and the benefit of this group, that is

[56:15] the big advice that I can you need to talk about it. And that decision should be made intentionally

[56:20] to say, I'm clear the cost on this person and benefit on that. I think the process here

[56:26] isn't one for staff, right? Because this is something that is laid out on the front side

[56:33] and it simplifies that, right?

[56:35] Hopefully this process doesn't add more of a maybe it helps

[56:39] shortcut some of those longer-term problems

[56:41] so we're identifying a earlier process.

[56:44] I think that it's, you know,

[56:47] as we're making these considerations,

[56:50] we need to be mindful of the interaction with staff

[56:54] with these documents and what are these proposals again.

[56:57] And with results of retranagative achieved,

[56:59] which is lowering the impact of these costs on housing.

[57:04] So empowering staff to be looking for that and saying

[57:07] at some point, well, maybe this doesn't make sense.

[57:09] Before it even gets too far down the track.

[57:12] And I think that's, that's, I would be written,

[57:14] and I'm not trying to lean over into operational decisions

[57:20] as the charter group is doing that.

[57:22] But I can just see how that would maybe be helpful for staff.

[57:26] I also think for other things, since we have staff here, one of the things too is we need

[57:34] to be more collaborative with staff, especially there to really a critical time right now because

[57:41] they are way down in terms of manpower, bringing new people in that may or may not have different

[57:46] levels of experience and sometimes we take for granted that things are just obvious to us.

[57:51] They're not obvious to even make an experienced planner because they're not dealing in our

[57:58] world.

[57:59] I mean, I think one of the things lacking, and depending on your planner, you may have

[58:03] more collaborative meetings, discussions and whatnot, or you may have head banging meetings

[58:08] or whatever, but really if we're looking at it from the bigger picture and trying to make

[58:14] this a better system, a better process, then we should be collaborating on things that

[58:20] and how it's like, you know, as an example, there's little things that we are really aware of

[58:24] that cause delays and problems that are suddenly blocks. But I may have that with one planner

[58:30] or one cheaper project and the next planner fully gets it. Well, why does that planner, you

[58:35] know, see it this way and this planner see it a different way? And, you know, even surveys

[58:40] a very example. I mean, candidly, I think the all thought one Renee was gone. I don't

[58:50] And now Alex comes in and he's got a different way of doing things and he's got questions,

[58:55] he's coming out of it from a different way and instead of being this us against them,

[59:00] we talk about getting that culture of yes but part of that is we've got to be better

[59:05] about helping staff, educating them in kind of a positive and a, I don't want to necessarily

[59:12] say mentoring sort of way, but kind of helping them understand, you know, some of the little

[59:17] things that we think are, you know, ridiculous, help them understand, have an opportunity to understand

[59:25] better why those types of things create barriers so that they can see why, okay, I said that I'm

[59:32] supposed to make you do this. But if they understood like how ridiculous that was, give you an example,

[59:42] We had a plaque that we're trying to get recorded, and we had inadvertently, when the

[59:49] plaque was signed, the date was left off, and so it was kind of like, well, the date

[59:55] was left off, you know?

[59:56] How are you going to handle that?

[59:58] It was like, we'll just put the date on.

[1:00:00] Right? Well, I can't do that. So I had to go down and physically write the date, which, you know, that's what you need to do. You know, I'll do it. Our bad. We're not having to date down. But just those kinds of little things that it's like you get very rigid. Another situation, we had a document that.

[1:00:27] That was probably about the 13th version, including the 5th and the last couple of weeks.

[1:00:35] This was some little changes.

[1:00:36] It was fully executed, and then at the 11th hour, I forget where to be able to change

[1:00:42] when the provisions to make it aligned, and it was one of those where legally, you know,

[1:00:47] my learners saying, probably you don't want to necessarily do this, but if that's what it

[1:00:51] takes, let's just do it.

[1:00:52] But we're going to make the change that now that technically the document that was signed

[1:00:58] and notarized, you know, now what provision was different, right?

[1:01:02] So in the hardcore world, it's like, well, the document that was technically signed and

[1:01:07] notarized is no longer the same document.

[1:01:10] Sorry, are you going to make me go back and get the document re-executed, which is a program

[1:01:16] signature in color springs and effects, again, at the cost of 45 bucks, whatever it is to

[1:01:21] overnight, and to the credit comments,

[1:01:24] she's like, well, you know, put the page in.

[1:01:26] I mean, the signer wasn't aware,

[1:01:28] the noirings aware of making them,

[1:01:30] those are the kind of comments.

[1:01:31] I didn't see why they need to be clear.

[1:01:33] Well, but those are the common sense,

[1:01:37] those are the common sense decisions

[1:01:39] that when we all get on the same page and understand

[1:01:43] that, you know, little things like that,

[1:01:46] that are just those, the Delta 5000 cuts,

[1:01:49] whatever you want to say. But, you know, you probably, you're looking at, well, I'm supposed

[1:01:54] to do this and you're not thinking about from the, from the developer side. Like, oh, crap,

[1:02:01] I've got it now, or you're not empowered to, or he's not an effort to make that kind of,

[1:02:06] kind of, kind of decision. And so, but I think sometimes it's those little things that if,

[1:02:12] like a boundary dispute, you know, you've got a surveyor that is looking at things one way,

[1:02:17] Like if you actually physically go out there to have a better understanding of the problem or not problem

[1:02:24] It's really hard when people as we're moving into this people are gonna have a lot of experience

[1:02:30] And I think we just have to be sensitive. We can come up with these like framework things and all that

[1:02:35] But it's gonna be a difficult road

[1:02:38] with all of this thing if you know the soul can change in the code, but it's always not gonna be

[1:02:44] be here enforcing or reviewing ultimately down the road forever, right? And so I think

[1:02:52] we just need to be really, really sensitive in the fact that we need to work together.

[1:03:00] Because I kind of felt, you know, in some ways there's like, we're perceived, this committee

[1:03:05] is perceived just like that.

[1:03:08] And it really like you could kind of look at it from the standpoint of

[1:03:14] planners like it's an opportunity

[1:03:16] Right to work with people that really have a vested interest in doing the right thing and creating a process that's going to be

[1:03:23] Easier for them as staff but deliver a bit of overall fun for us

[1:03:27] So it's not as complicated, but I think we also have to we have to do our part

[1:03:32] to be part of the team and not just say well they need to you know kind of do

[1:03:38] things the way we wanted to do. I mean I just what I heard that last time it

[1:03:43] was I kind of just was the Sudan whatever it says you know there's like

[1:03:46] normally eight people in planning we have three right now I mean that that is

[1:03:51] mean to that point though Jane too I think that collaboration because we we still

[1:03:55] get people that want to come in and do something they want they want us to

[1:04:00] change something with the code because they just don't want to do it. And so, we're forced

[1:04:05] to say them, but the code says, just because you don't want to do it, then it means they'll

[1:04:11] not do it. And I think that could also, like, one of the recommendations that you're saying

[1:04:16] is like, and they're just, you get convergence in it, but like, you know, build, build in

[1:04:21] processing that allow more discretion for those exceptions, but like with, correct you. Yeah.

[1:04:28] You just don't want to do it like it's possible to be open to you.

[1:04:32] Yeah, I think that's a recognition I have to go in.

[1:04:35] But we have a lot of decision makers in the room.

[1:04:37] Really good shares that are asked to take note on things where we have staff who

[1:04:42] might be approving something that only has to give staff.

[1:04:45] Oh, it's customer.

[1:04:47] So from your perspective,

[1:04:48] would something running what an idea that gets run through this kind of lens?

[1:04:52] be useful. So I think this is a great start, a great way to bifurcate issues, and I know all the issues

[1:05:01] you're talking about Jane, but I feel like sitting here for all these months we haven't talked about

[1:05:06] housing affordability. I feel like there still is so much in the code that if you run them through this

[1:05:12] process and let me start falling into those buckets and it may come in later, someone at a later date

[1:05:19] can we would say like fire will come into the run is a health and safety.

[1:05:23] And so then we could, you know, that might have been back up to health and safety

[1:05:27] and not just be in the, was it general welfare, general welfare?

[1:05:31] But I feel like we should start running some things through this.

[1:05:35] The things that do run down to general welfare, we can say,

[1:05:39] how is that impacting how the affordability?

[1:05:42] And I feel like that should be our only question here.

[1:05:46] for this committee, that's my personal opinion,

[1:05:49] because I don't think we've done enough that I did,

[1:05:51] and how does it affect you and how the affordability

[1:05:53] and what things go down the line?

[1:05:56] What are the straight-offs?

[1:05:57] What's the community getting out of it

[1:05:58] and just paying for it?

[1:05:59] How much is it costing out to the increasing

[1:06:02] how the affordability?

[1:06:03] And start really running those things through.

[1:06:05] And then I think there will be a lot of things

[1:06:07] that are on the boarder that we don't,

[1:06:12] we maybe don't know if we can put them into someone,

[1:06:14] one because all disagree on which buckets are put them into, but I think there's so many

[1:06:19] that we could really start chipping away at some of the really costly things in code and

[1:06:26] that's on the prescriptive things.

[1:06:29] You talked about the comp plan.

[1:06:31] I think you were bringing up the comp plan.

[1:06:33] I feel like the comp plan is a big problem.

[1:06:36] And I think that as a task force, we can point out those problems and say this alignment with

[1:06:42] the comp plan, while we understand it and we get it, here's what it's going to have

[1:06:47] an important.

[1:06:48] And here, you still run it through those same processes that you have up here and what

[1:06:55] are the trade-offs and who is benefiting?

[1:06:57] And it's this worth it.

[1:06:58] It's worth the next year $1,000 and a half, $1,000 and a half.

[1:07:02] Because there are a lot of things that are big numbers.

[1:07:04] But shouldn't there be a comp plan box on there?

[1:07:10] I don't think the code should be as based as much on the comp plan as it is now.

[1:07:17] I think that was a mistake in building a new code.

[1:07:21] And I've seen that we should point things out.

[1:07:24] Here's where it's not in the, or here's where it's maybe a line with the comp plan, but here's why it's increasing the housing cost.

[1:07:32] Well, you're going to say that, you're going to show that, you're going to put it in

[1:07:38] spring.

[1:07:38] Yeah, because I think that's a big problem, but every time we come up with something

[1:07:45] that's like, oh, it's in the content plan, that's why it's in color.

[1:07:48] But I think most of the current code was, is base.

[1:07:51] I think it all aligns to the content plan pretty much, but it doesn't provide affordable

[1:07:56] analysis.

[1:07:56] And so I could say here's the problem of choosing these pieces out of the conflan that you

[1:08:04] want to have in housing and why it's creating this sort of unaffordable atmosphere.

[1:08:11] We have our, and Kevin, I have already talked with the consultant about exactly that.

[1:08:17] Identifying things that are in the code and in tests that wait back to the conflan because

[1:08:22] Because we are having this comp plan and rewrite kind of next year that we can provide recommendations

[1:08:26] like, let's address this when we look at the comp plan because that's proving to be a barrier

[1:08:33] in our code.

[1:08:36] And the catch one spot where I think you and I would disagree, I guess you would want to

[1:08:41] keep on the comp plan.

[1:08:44] I don't think the comp plan is a problem because the comp plan is a making us do anything

[1:08:51] against the code. It's a code that's created on the top.

[1:08:55] That's what I said. The code was real to me.

[1:08:59] A lot of that.

[1:09:00] What I would say is that the comp line has been misused.

[1:09:05] And it's been misinterpreted.

[1:09:07] Because what I've seen over and over again as a staff is what this says.

[1:09:11] This aligns with the comp line and their poor thou shalt adopt this.

[1:09:16] If we're running it through the test like this.

[1:09:19] this gives a little bit more clarity.

[1:09:21] And I gave the example of this last night,

[1:09:23] I said, if you flip this thing that you say

[1:09:25] it needs to come to plan, we're upset about it,

[1:09:28] because you think it's an unfair cost.

[1:09:31] Like, I want this, you have it.

[1:09:33] I'm gonna take it from you.

[1:09:34] That was basically the premise.

[1:09:36] We don't make that fair.

[1:09:37] So let's flip that on a set and say,

[1:09:40] let's say instead you're giving us a million dollars

[1:09:43] to preserve it with one of these.

[1:09:46] that would exactly meet the same environments of that being in the cook.

[1:09:51] It would have taken a minute or we'd know argument that that didn't meet the

[1:09:54] component. And that's what we're trying to avoid. So that to me is like I'm the

[1:10:00] component is how we got here but I don't make the component or is it I think it's

[1:10:05] the way that we use the component and I think it's been misused. I think it's been

[1:10:08] misused as like saying the same thing. Yeah. So I just I feel like

[1:10:13] didn't hold the conflant out. It's something we need to deliver anything against. We need to say,

[1:10:19] this is a problem we've had. And it probably does align with the conflant because I think code was

[1:10:25] written to align with the conflant. And the way you'll make it is the same kind of way we were talking

[1:10:32] about those practices, which is like this is kind of telling any decision maker. It's not enough to just

[1:10:39] to say it's best practice.

[1:10:41] And it's also not to say it aligns with the compliment

[1:10:43] because to Kevin's point, lots of alternatives

[1:10:45] to apply could align with the compliment.

[1:10:49] And have you considered those alternatives?

[1:10:50] Some would consider the trade-offs

[1:10:51] is there another way to do it.

[1:10:53] And so that might be a concept that we can work in.

[1:10:56] We said number four I'm about to move up there,

[1:10:58] but like the compliment is this very one instrument

[1:11:00] where you can justify a lot of things,

[1:11:03] by pointing back to the compliment.

[1:11:04] And I think what we're saying is that is not

[1:11:07] an justification.

[1:11:08] You should continue your thought process a little further.

[1:11:12] Now come with it, we find that when we put this mission graph together,

[1:11:17] we'll be able to, hey, kind of did we word-smith it right?

[1:11:20] We give it some pictorial assistance sort of thing.

[1:11:25] But also, what are those pieces we're missing, right?

[1:11:29] Hey, we've got to talk about the lack of the prioritization of the conflang

[1:11:33] makes it challenging to interpret the criteria in the code.

[1:11:36] So we start adding those in.

[1:11:38] So that's really a comment.

[1:11:40] And when you're saying that to, oh my gosh, how useful

[1:11:43] was something like this be to go through that spreadsheet

[1:11:47] that Timmer was updating as we went?

[1:11:50] And just taking one of those, we can analyze that now,

[1:11:54] especially with stack capacity being more limited,

[1:11:56] or even consultant contracts, yes, scope.

[1:12:01] We might be able to identify some of my flyers

[1:12:04] right out of the gate that like boy this is this is general welfare it didn't

[1:12:10] you as a lexpert the trade-offs are out of whack and you know it might kind of

[1:12:15] parse that down so that's so that was a cool well and I think that I'm sorry

[1:12:19] because let me just I don't want to talk to you then you go ahead I was just

[1:12:22] gonna think I think you're honest on there I think the comp plan should be

[1:12:26] aspirational it's become regulatory you know like it's a vision it's become

[1:12:33] I feel like that's what we can contribute through this committee is to deal with these

[1:12:42] code problems.

[1:12:45] So I think that one is, I think if this framework, if we can get this bounding a little bit

[1:12:54] more and we can show some examples and we can give it back to you guys in a way that you

[1:13:00] can read it and understand it without me explaining it, that's kind of a goal and I would

[1:13:05] say there's a sense of urgency to that portion because I think that could be really great

[1:13:12] framework for us to give the consultant for the work that they're going to do and the

[1:13:17] other thing that I think would be really useful for the consultant is again, now it's the

[1:13:22] time, whatever all those issues are that we identify and we have a list because the consultant

[1:13:29] we do one thing that won't benefit about a really good benefit about the

[1:13:33] consultant working it, but they actually have experience in our code, which means

[1:13:37] you don't have to give me a code, breadth, print, it's exact. Hey, like that's a

[1:13:44] benefit. We can leverage that. This issue I have with the code, they're gonna know

[1:13:48] where to look. We're gonna have a list that's gonna shorten the amount of work in

[1:13:51] time print, and we can accomplish getting all of those things done, and the consultant

[1:13:57] does have in their scope. If this somehow they feel like it doesn't

[1:14:02] align with a policy, they're going to be calling that recommendation out.

[1:14:07] Like this, there's a policy issue that's making us keep this thing

[1:14:12] with the code that we did. Otherwise, it doesn't

[1:14:16] eat this standard. So it would flush, flush those out I think.

[1:14:22] So I was like, that's my or a portion of the next steps is the digestible, this move

[1:14:28] that we're refined.

[1:14:29] So the team needs to know if there is 452 on all stay late, but we want to be able to

[1:14:33] come up with that.

[1:14:34] So what I'm hearing for next steps seems like people are good with this idea of us breaking

[1:14:40] solutions section into like this kind of name solution.

[1:14:44] Like this is the umbrella solution.

[1:14:46] I don't think we are envisioning that we would then take this matrix and run it through

[1:14:52] like every single one of the things blended through this.

[1:14:54] This is the more forward looking thing.

[1:14:56] We think this is a practice that you should adopt this city.

[1:15:01] And then we have this basic definition. What? And here, for the next episode, we like to say the other. Build it out a little bit there. So, I'm trying to feel, but a big one is, the priority is build out this kind of test more fully. Maybe run Bruce, for example, is help like look in a staff report or an internal memo or if we were pitching it as a task force, what we would pitch to council or a bank.

[1:15:31] And this sounds like the biggest priority because maybe this is also something that's helpful with the console.

[1:15:37] Okay, so this is priority number one.

[1:15:39] And then a lot of this other stuff is kind of in, we're hearing general agreement in this approach.

[1:15:45] And so it's really just kind of these kinds of part of the drafting process.

[1:15:49] And that's the big one.

[1:15:50] And so we might have, we might have ourselves to be having a little break.

[1:15:53] Well, a few mistakes.

[1:15:58] We'll figure out where to do things concurrently, and I'll write this down here too, but like some mentioned at the call.

[1:16:05] Like sort of what is what we think this role should be in this process.

[1:16:11] Once you're sad as well.

[1:16:15] So when was like insulting for when we start?

[1:16:20] We just got to kick off when we come to that chamber.

[1:16:25] Which would be, I think we could use this generally as a,

[1:16:33] because that is the kickoff meeting where we get alignment on,

[1:16:36] wherever we're ahead and what we're going to do.

[1:16:37] I'd love to use this framework as part of that meeting.

[1:16:44] This is for certain of those expectations.

[1:16:45] Just a little question, and I know it's a standard term, but we want to say health and safety, because I just like help can

[1:16:52] be used to

[1:16:54] justify so many things

[1:16:57] other than safety. I know that's kind of a standardized

[1:17:00] our own birth.

[1:17:04] No, I don't think so. I mean, I think safety is really what

[1:17:07] safety is the

[1:17:09] Because health, I mean, talking about landscape. Oh,

[1:17:14] I mean, I think help just opens the door.

[1:17:18] Yeah, I think I think that makes sense.

[1:17:20] And I'm also thinking like it's funny.

[1:17:23] They came up with the model code for starter homes.

[1:17:26] And they said, OK, let's trip everything back.

[1:17:28] Let's just talk about safety so that we get people to afford homes.

[1:17:31] And I was like, that's brilliant.

[1:17:33] It's a good one.

[1:17:33] We just keep that for all.

[1:17:39] I think also next steps is.

[1:17:41] I think we need to be, we need to be the devil's advocate to this, to some degree need

[1:17:48] a devil's advocate to say, hey, let's, let's, well, that's what I've been struggling

[1:17:53] with a little bit is, again, you have a common voice in this room running through this process,

[1:18:00] does it look differently with another group, running the same thing through the process

[1:18:05] and then how do you get, let's see, it doesn't, it feels like we could still be in a situation

[1:18:09] where we're one side against it.

[1:18:12] Yeah.

[1:18:13] Please finish this out to get to that next draft.

[1:18:17] Maybe sell us a volunteer to go in and aligns that.

[1:18:19] I don't know where your committees and kind of say,

[1:18:22] let's, let's pick a couple.

[1:18:24] This is the shape and really be able to articulate it.

[1:18:28] This is fully intended to trigger conversation to facilitate

[1:18:33] decision makers so that in hearings,

[1:18:35] we don't go like this.

[1:18:37] All sides take the way the adherence goes.

[1:18:40] They drift.

[1:18:41] Well, if you just asked the public meeting,

[1:18:43] everything will show up here.

[1:18:46] Well, but...

[1:18:47] Sorry.

[1:18:48] I'm so low.

[1:18:49] I can't think that's our committee.

[1:18:53] I think that's been our direction is to address having affordability.

[1:18:58] And if, then when we put our product out,

[1:19:01] if fire again will come in and say,

[1:19:03] well, these things actually are awesome.

[1:19:04] So, I think those things will rearrange themselves as they need to be with the other groups

[1:19:11] as they need to be.

[1:19:12] Are you in SAP?

[1:19:13] It's something like one input or someone else.

[1:19:15] But I think our charge has been to put their side of the responsibility, right?

[1:19:21] Well, and so, okay, thank you very much.

[1:19:25] I'm having an adolescent beauty correctionist.

[1:19:28] One of the reasons we need to be, we should do medical.

[1:19:31] Right.

[1:19:31] So, one of the things we can add up here is probably under, like, the number of fits,

[1:19:35] like, what else are at this, I think, consider.

[1:19:38] Go back to shake groups.

[1:19:40] Yeah.

[1:19:40] That's perfect.

[1:19:42] Like, that's what we need to code out.

[1:19:44] Like, is there an alternative?

[1:19:45] Because even something that's like, you must do this, but sometimes it's, you must do this

[1:19:50] or this.

[1:19:51] Right.

[1:19:53] Either or.

[1:19:53] Yeah.

[1:19:56] So, for the next meeting, which I'm doing now, right, 10, plus, I'm assuming it's September

[1:20:02] 17?

[1:20:06] Would we bring back kind of building out the test a little bit more fully? And then

[1:20:13] like maybe we've run some examples through it as if we're staffed or I staffed. And

[1:20:19] we can be doubled after a little bit in there. And I can be, you know, one of us could take

[1:20:23] a turn at being the person who's going to write it from the perspective or play. I don't

[1:20:28] want that thing to pass, you know, like, what would that look like?

[1:20:33] Because, yeah, I don't think any of this, I like, we don't tell the idea of, like,

[1:20:37] look for ways that we facilitate collaboration,

[1:20:41] to spell policy making process, the major goal of policy making by the

[1:20:46] neighborhood, to ask the policy making is balancing,

[1:20:48] exciting, inherently in conflict with each other.

[1:20:51] We're not going to be able to remove conflicts from that process,

[1:20:55] but I do also feel that for public decision makers,

[1:21:03] And then it's also gets back to this thing we keep hammering on, which is like, are we even talking about having for ability and policy?

[1:21:11] Making sense. So we're saying, this is how we think we force you to talk about.

[1:21:16] Yeah, and it's so clearly ours needs to have a, that would be a photo village aspect to like we're just assuming that because all of our issues are that.

[1:21:27] Okay, and I won't get the next meeting which means I have to do a really good job with that deliverable because I won't be here to explain it.

[1:21:34] Yeah, but if you're got like Kelly and I will move this framework on with it.

[1:21:44] consults just so you guys are aware of it. That's the, that's the time it's going to have

[1:21:48] for people to get there. Well, on that note, the things you're taking to a consult is going to be

[1:21:53] kind of the collection that the 10 subcommittee has gathered. Probably that, to some extent, that

[1:22:00] spreadsheet that Tamran had been updating to show all these good issues. And the list we've had

[1:22:05] to then marry it together with maybe some of the lenses to run it. Yeah, mostly you're now,

[1:22:12] which one they want to start on? I would say mostly on the 11th we're going to have the meeting

[1:22:16] this morning this. The the other stuff is going to come like there's going to be a they'll be a

[1:22:23] kickoff meeting where that they will come meet with the task force that we want to first think so if they

[1:22:28] do that is that that's going to be I think my mind that's going to be the deadline for let's get all

[1:22:36] stuff in there. Give them the list, you know, so that they're aware and then they've got a list to

[1:22:43] work from, like, make their job as easy as possible. We have issues that a lot, like, let's just give

[1:22:49] it to them. It's because the rest of their job is to search for specific sections of the code

[1:22:56] in a general sense of simplification, like, removing that necessary things that are friction.

[1:23:04] So that is what that's more necklace. So they're going to be pointing some stuff out, but it's going to be a huge help.

[1:23:11] What we do because we're the ones that are good at experiencing that. And then they're going to take a few this lens and you know that their care is early.

[1:23:21] There's like a backstop that it's not everything you want because we're going to put ourselves to the same standard.

[1:23:29] We have the housing providers to the same standard as we think basically the process.

[1:23:36] Try those along the answer.

[1:23:38] This is great work.

[1:23:40] Thank you.

[1:23:40] Thanks for having us.

[1:23:41] Thanks for Tyce and Ella.

[1:23:43] A little while.

[1:23:44] So speaking of the work.

[1:23:48] Who wants to be part of this building out this test more fully?

[1:23:52] I'm giving gaps to how any kids and Emily do.

[1:23:54] Maybe might want to come back over.

[1:23:59] But there's anybody else want to be part of that homework assignment and it should be on the e-mail chain or the core game.

[1:24:07] Like, anybody else built up?

[1:24:08] I don't know about older people.

[1:24:11] No, I'll finish it up.

[1:24:13] I was going to get it to draft.

[1:24:15] And then Sandra and Jane can like totally shoot it down.

[1:24:22] That would be a better point to do that if you think we're making them tweaks to something that's on the pool.

[1:24:30] I think it's cheeky.

[1:24:31] You have an Emily light that I've heard.

[1:24:34] Thank you.

[1:24:36] Oh, there's a fair winner, by the way.

[1:24:39] Milk does.

[1:24:39] It's all around. Everybody loves Mothas, right?

[1:24:41] I think a lot of milk that looks fancy, very awesome.

[1:24:43] No one's-

Housing Affordability Code Task Force

Transcript