Loading...
5 - Meeting Agenda, 03/30/00City of Boulder Development Review Committee MEETING AGENDA 1739 Broadway, Room 401 8:30 a.m. March 30, 2000 PROJECT DISCUSSIONS PRE-APPLlCATION MEETINGS SCHEDULED for 4/5/00 1. George Watt Community Gardens (Iris) Bean 1:00 p.m. Site Review 2. Bill Sawyers Linden & 4th Durso 2:00 p.m. Annexation & Subdivision 3. Eric Hartrontt 1419 Pine Street Bean 3:00 p.m. Site Review 4. Vince Porecca Cherryvaie & Arapahoe Durso 4:00 p.m. Annexation KEY ISSUES for TRACK 12 5. White Wave, Inc. Annexation/Initial Zoning Durso 6123 Arapahoe [DDWWave.~JRC] White Wave, Inc. 6. Thistle Community Housing Site Review Durso 1845 Folsom [DD1845F.ORC] 1845 Folsom 7. Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Use Review Bean 777 Broadway [BBShelter.DRC] Boulder Shelter for the Homeless 8. Robert Gall Subdivision Bean 6450 Gunpark Drive Final [BBGunpk2.DRC) Gunpark Warehouse Subdivision S:\PLAN\DATA\CURIDRCW ORK112-3-30.AGN *Ccntral Records ` / CITY OF BOULDER / __~~i PLANNING BOARD RETREAT A G E 1~ ___ ~~~ • ~~ ~ DATE: April 8, 2000 ~ TIME: 8:30 a.m. PLACE: National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Damon Room, 1850 Table Mesa Drive 1. BOARD PROCEDURAL ISSUES 2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. BOARD COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 4. OTHER ITEMS ' S. ADJOURNMENT PERSONS SEEKING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY CALL THE PLANN[NG DEPARTMENT AT 44] -3270. A COPY OF THE BOARD PACKET WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MAIN LIBRARYS REFERENCE DESK AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEPTION AREA THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING DATE. This information is also available on Boulder FYI, the City of Boulder's 24 Hour InCormation Line. Items scheduled on the Pianning Board Meeting Agenda are subject to change. Please dial 441-4060, extension 367, to reach the Planning Board Meeting Agenda information line. PETER J. GOWEN 5494 Raritan Place Boulder, Colorado 80303 Voice: (303) 494-5420 , Fax:(303)494-6135 e-mail: pjgowen~ix.netcom.com ! To: Planning Board Members ~ Peter Pollock ~ ~ David Gehr F ~~ From: Peter Gowen ` f Re: Discussion Paper on "In Search Of More Effective Quasi-Judicial Hearing Procedures By The ' City Of Boulder Planning Board - One Member's Perspective" ; I Date: March 24, 2000 I have prepared the attached paper for purposes of initiating discussion at the Board's retreat in April. In it, I have raised issues I believe to be worth discussing as we consider how we can collectively do our job better. I have asked staff to include it with the Board's package for our retreat. While I have shared earlier drafts with ~ staff, it has not been endorsed by staff, and is offered as one Planning Board member's viewpoint. ` ~ If anyone has any questions or comments on this prior to the retreat, please feel free to call me at 303-494-5420. Thank you for your consideration. ~_ Page 1 ; IN SEARCH OF MORE EFFECTIVE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING PROCEDURES BY THE CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD - ' ONE MEMBER'S PERSPECTIVE By j Peter Gowen INTRODUCTION ' Planning boards by their nature are not intended to be models for governmental ' efficiency. Issues near and dear to the soul of a community are likely to come before them, Citizens have strong feelings as to how their commnnity changes and grows, and for the most part, citizens are quite willing to express themselves either through letters, e-mail, or presence at public hearings. When citizens take time to speak out on a public issue, they ought to believe that they are being heard by their elected and appointed public officials. Good public hearings promote such beliefs, poor public hearings discourage such beliefs. The puipose of this writing is to explore how to give the citizen a stronger voice in quasi judicial proceedings of the City of Boulder Planning Board, including site reviews, use reviews, and landowner petitioned annexations. It is offered as a starting point for discussion for an agenda item for the Board's April, 2000 retreat. It is beyond the scope of this narrative to describe the substance of these proceedings, but suffice it to say that the proceedings addressed here are those proposed by individual owners (or persons with a particular interest in a particular parcel of real property) who seek discretionary city approval for some use of their property which may be permitted by the city if certain criteria found in the city revised code are satisfied. The deliberative process , involves weighing specific facts of a particular case against specific standards established in the , Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.), for a determination by the city as to whether the discretionary use should be permitted as requested, permitted with conditions, or denied outright. Such ~ hearings by definition are quasi judicial procedures. DISCUSSION Current Planning Board Quasi-judicial Hearin~ Model Behind the scenes of a quasi judicial hearing are a number of steps, which the public and even Planning Board may not see on a regular basis. These include: pre-application meetings between applicant and staff; occasional community informational meetings; formal application submittal; development review committee review and comment; published notice of hearing; limited mailed notice of hearing to adjacent property owners; and distribution of a board package to Planning Board members (also available for public inspection). When an agenda item is called for hearing at a Planning Board meeting, the usual first step is a staff presentation of varying lengths, which attempts to summarize the application and highlight staff s identification to the board of the critical issues. Often the Board will ask questions of staff before proceeding with the applicant's presentation. The applicant makes the next presentation. Applicants take the time to highlight whatever the applicant feels what is important for the Board to hear. Time taken by the applicant varies considerably, and will Page 1 of 7 age 2 ~~~..._~.~a:~.,~~;._:__--. r.,._.__, ~ .., ,.._.__~~_...-~W~~ __ . _ ~~W. ____.___.___. ..________._...___ frequently consider architectural details in depth, if an architect is part of the applicant's presentation. The Board will frequently ask additional questions of the applicant. Once the second round of Board questions have been depleted, the public testimony phase of the proceeding begins. Any interested member of the public is invited to appear to state his/her views on the application. Citizens who sign in are heard first, followed by those who have not signed in. Occasionally, Board members will ask questions of citizens. After the last citizen to speak has concluded, the public comment portion of the hearing is closed, and the matter is returned back to the Board for deliberations. Routinely, this first thing the Board does is ask more questions. Sometimes, public commentators raise questions to which the staff is requested to respond. Once those questions are answered, the Board asks additional questions of its own. The questions continue until the source of questions is exhausted. The Board then begins to deliberate, often by referring to a list of issues or questions prepared by staff. Board members weigh in on each of the issues, one by one, as recognized by the chair on a first come, first served basis. This frequently generates debates on issues, which are carried by participating board members, generally until the debate expires by running its course. Once all of the staff identified issues have been addressed, additional issues may be brought forward by Board members, and if so, are discussed in the same manner. Eventually, the Board reaches a point where it starts to identify a basis of decision. Usually after a period of feeling out the positions of other Board members, one member will offer a motion for approval of the application as recommended by staff or with additional or different conditions. Once discussion is held on the motion, additional "friendly" or other amendments may be offered. If the motion is considered "friendly", it is incorporated into the initial motion, and if otherwise, is voted on separately. After processing all amendments and motions, the Board finally reaches a decision. Analvsis of Current Plannin~ Board Ouasi judicial Hearing Model The current model is not bad. It meets all statutory requirements, provides for public participation when the public shows up to participate, allows for robust Board discussion on each item, and eventually leads to final Board decisions. The Board has operated under this mode for a long time, and it works (often laboriously, but it works). The Board is a competent one, with each member demonstrating a high level of native intelligence, and normally conducts itself in a manner comparing very favorably to most similar municipal planning boazds within the Denver metropolitan area. Why bother to write this piece? Because I believe that the Board can do better, much better if it puts its collective mind towards improving things. Third party observers to the Board's actions and deliberations are frustrated with the length of the hearings, and occasionally the nature of some of the conditions of approval catch them off guard. Few citizens would consider observing a single board meeting beginning to end, let alone multiple meetings. The meetings are needlessly long, and specific agenda items could Page 2 of 7 Page 3 ' be managed more efficiently. Recent public hearings involving large numbers of public commentators have been well managed for the public comment portion of the hearing, but discipline breaks down once the Board enters it deliberative process. The result is an impatient citizenry, which grows tired of what it perceives as aimless Board rambling on the matter. Interested members of the public often choose not to wait for the Board's decision, which they would otherwise be very interested to observe. I believe citizen impatience with the Board's deliberative process is a major reason why routine public involvement in the Board's meetings is so lacking. I believe that if the Board improved its deliberative process and made it more relevant to the issues it decides, we would have considerably more public participation on a routine basis. If applicants were comfortable with the expectation that the Board would limit its deliberations to the criteria found in the B.R.C., I am confident that applicant presentations would be shorter and better focused. An applicant can never predict when an individual Board member is going to use its application as an opportunity to discuss policy rather than simply applying the criteria set forth in the Boulder Revised Code. There is little wonder why a careful applicant will try to touch al] bases when making a presentation to Planning Board, and take whatever time the appIicant thinks necessary to do so. What are the alternatives? What can we do differently to make things better? The first thing is to embrace the concept of change and accept willingness for experimentation to achieve improved results. Without such an embrace, there is no hope for improvement, and members can look forward to continued years of unnecessarily prolonged, Iate-night meetings. Again, I think we can do better. I would like the Board to consider a new model for conducting quasi judicial Planning Board hearings as described below. Provosed New Model for Conducting Planning Board Quasi-Judicial Proceedings Aclive Meeting Management , The biggest innovation I propose for conducting Planning Board quasi judicial I proceedings is active hearing management, focusing on the decision at hand. We need to realize ~ that we are participants in an administrative law proceeding, (a quasi judicial proceeding) where we have a]egal duty to objectively weigh the facts of a particular case, apply the facts of the case ~ to the controlling and applicable law (in this case the criteria in the B.R.C.), and reach a decision '~ that is in the best interests of the City of Boulder in full consideration of applicable facts and I~ controlling criteria. Our personal views of what image we have for the future of the city should be subordinated to our duty of making impartial and objective decisions in quasi judicial matters. We sit as lay judges in such proceedings, and we each should adopt a judicial demeanor. The standard for judicial review of a final decision of the city in quasi judicial proceedings is whether I the decision is "arbitrary or capricious" or whether there is factual support in the record for the final decision (provided that the decisional authority did not materially violate its own or ', otherwise mandated procedures). Admittedly, this is not a tough standard for the city to meet in ; defending a decision in an appeal to a court of law, but it is at least something of which the Board Page 3 of 7 Nage 4 should be aware. Time Checks In conducting the hearing, there are many tools available to the hearing chair to maintain focus for the hearing. One possibility is to check in with the staff presenter and applicant before the hearing begins, to determine their respective expectations and special needs for presentation lengths. If there a standard length of presentation is acceptable, announce the expected length of the presentations publicly before the hearing begins, so that the audience and remaining Board members know what to expect. If either presentation begins to significantly exceed the agreed upon limit, provide a reminder to the presenter that they agreed to a particular time limit, and that they have exceeded it. If an applicant wants more than the normal length of time for a presentation, present it to the full Board for a vote as a preliminary, procedural matter. If the full Board approves the time extension, everyone is aware of it and expectations are adjusted accordingly. If the Board does not approve the extension, work out an understanding as to what the expected time of presentation will be. (Obviously, the Board needs to exercise its judgement judiciously here. Not allowing an applicant adequate time, could result in a meritorious claim on appeal for failure of due process.) Informing the commenting citizens on the time expectations for public comment, has been quite effective as used by the present chair. Whenever this is done, the commenting citizens are well aware of the limitation and exercise considerable good faith to comply with it. This time check tool is already available to the hearing chair, as time guidelines are explained on the back side of agendas already, we just need to commit to using the tool more assertively. Self-restraint with Board Questions The Board should exercise self-restraint with regard to asking questions. Questions to the staff after the staff presentation are best left to short clarifying questions, which are important for a general understanding of the application, such that the answer would be of benefit to everyone, particularly to the audience. Other questions of staff should await the conclusion of public testimony. Extensive questioning by the Board at this point, even before the applicant and public comments, gives the impression to the public in attendance, that the Boazd considers its questions more important than even the applicant's case in chief, and also more important than the public comments. Similar self-restraint by the Board with questions to the applicant would also be appropriate. The hearing should be managed to get to the public testimony without undue delay. Board questions of public commentators also should be only sparingly asked. Many citizens are not comfortable with cross-examination. Sometimes Board questions to the public come across as hostile. We are not there to debate the public, we are there to listen to what it has to say. We are best advised to listen attentively and not engage them. Questions to commenting public, if used at all, should be limited to clarification of material facts. The public feels disrespected, annoyed and easily grows impatient if it observes the Board commandeer hearing time before they get a chance to speak. We can not expect the public to respect time limits if the Page 4 of 7 ~ age 5 ' ~~.,.~-.~_.~8~ ~~ ~..~~;. __ . ~. ~ ._~: r-~.~.~~..:,~... .,..._. _~.. . .. ~.~~:= ::_. ~ ._ ~ Board does not. For the same reason, the chair should keep the staff and applicant within expected time limits. Once the public testimony phase of the hearing is concluded, then it becomes appropriate i for the Board to make further factual inquiry to the staff of those facts that are material to the decision at hand. Often questions are asked that are easily resolved by even casual reference to the board package. Some questions are even asked several times. We need to discipline ourselves to study the materials before the meeting, identify the important questions that are crucial to how our votes will be cast, and limit ourselves to only asking such questions of staff at the hearing. If we do so, we will have more opportunity to debate among ourselves the important issues upon which we disagree, yet must resolve. Threshold Identification of Conflictine Board Viewooints Another meeting management tool that begs to be used is simply to determine at the threshold of deliberations, whether anyone takes issue with the substance of the staff recommendation, and if so, what are the issues at issue and who elsa is concerned with the issue. If no one has any issue with the staff recommendation, the discussion can be quite cursory, and a motion to approve the staff recommendation would be in order. Occasionally, we have spent considerable time discussing detailed concerns on a matter, only to find after much discussion that there is no support for the proposal as a threshold matter and request that it be brought back at a Iater time. If we had addressed the more general issue first, we would have reached the sanne result in far less time. On the flip side, I can not count the number of times in the past two years where the Board Iaunched into an hour or hour and a half discussion on a matter, only to discover that we had a 7-0 vote on approving a staff recommendation, to which the applicant agreed, and for which there was no public opposition. Significant Board discussion of such uncontested ~ matters is a major waste of the Board's and everybody else's time. I sense that many Board ' members use such discussions to determine how they witl vote, and would argue on that basis, + that such discussions not only are appropriate, but necessary. I disagree with that premise, and i the follawing explains why. Rebuttable Presumptions A standard concept of administrative law is that an administrative agency making a clecision gets a rebuttable presumption that its decision is valid by the reviewing entity. The Board's job is to review the staff recommendation in view of the case facts and applicable criteria. It is not our job to duplicate the staf~'s analysis from scratch. Under administrative law principles, the agency is presumed to have a high level of insight into its own rules and procedures, and reviewing courts have adopted a rule of decision that unless someone rebuts the administrative agency's position, that the decision of the administrative agency is upheld. It need not take much to initially rebut the agency's position, it can be simply a matter of declaring something at issue. By analogy, the Board could adopt a similaz practice. Unless someone (Board member, applicant or citizen) raises a specific area of departure from the staff recommendation, the Board should accept the staff recommendation, and make an appropriate motion to that effect and dispose of the matter without significant further discussion. We could Page 5 of 7 .,.~~_ - ,~ ~~ .e, ge 6 ~.~ ~ ~ ~.~~ __.~.-~_~~~~__. Pa then use Board time to resolve real positional differences between Board members on issues that matter. Under the practice of using rebuttable presumptions, it is incumbent upon a Board member to identify areas of departure from the staff recommendation at the time of review of the board package prior to the meeting. This is why we receive the packages at least a week before the hearings. If a member does not think an issue is worth raising at the threshold of deliberations, then the staff recommendation is presumed appropriate, and we should act accordingly. Some members certainly see themselves in a"watchdog" role over staf£ A single Board member can identify such issues summarily at the beginning of deliberations. Raising an issue removes the rebuttable presumption on that issue, so that it may be discussed. It is important to identify such issues at the threshold of deliberations. Chair as Active Moderato~- of Deliberations Another meeting management tool available to the chair is to actively manage the discussion, instead of inerely recognizing members in the order that hands are raised. An example would be the above suggestion of affirmatively taking the pulse of inembers at the threshold of deliberations as to what concerns members have with the staff recommendation. Once individual members have indicated their concerns, the chair could determine how many other members share the same thoughts, and thus get a feel for what is most important to the Board. The Chair could then focus the discussion on the most pressing area first. Generally, this will involve addressing the issue with the broadest and most general concerns first, then eventually getting to the most detailed (which will probably be word-smithing conditions of approval). The chair could actively moderate the discussion to make sure that everyone, who has something to say, gets his or her chance to address the matter. A particular issue could be debated more freely without necessarily following the typical "first hand up, speaks next" rule. A good moderator can ask provocative questions that will lead the discussion to the crux of the issue, and still have robust participation by all members. Once the first issue is resolved, then the chair asks questions that get into the next most significant issue. By the time the last issue is resolved, the final decision of the Board is apparent, because all of the important issues have been discussed (and presumably resolved to the extent that they can be resolved) in the order of their perceived importance. T'here will then be full understanding of the positions of all Board members on all contested issues by all other members. In this context, the final motion is easy, because it has already been worked out systernatically, piece by piece. Board Setf-evaluation of Meeting Effectiveness - Rotating Hearing Officers Another tool for more effective management of the Board's quasi judicial proceedings that would encourage all members to actively think of ways of improving the effectiveness of the hearings, would be to open up quasi judicial hearings to be chaired by members of the Board other than the chair or vice chair. This is routinely done under federal and state administrative procedure acts in the form of designating hearing officers for specific hearing proceedings. There is no legal impediment keeping the Planning Board from doing the same. My suggestion would be to have members volunteer to serve as a hearing officer by letting the agenda committee know Page 6 of 7 ..._ _- __ _ Page 7 . of their interest, and designating hearing officers at the time a particular matter is set for hearing by the agenda committee. If the staff case manager or applicant had procedural questions on the hearing, they could contact the designated hearing officer directly. A hearing officer would still have the same procedural resources as the chair would have on procedural questions and could freely confer with the chair, Planning Director, City Attomey or case manager. No two Board members will conduct a hearing the same. Individual Boazd members would have an opportunity to apply and develop their hearing management skills, and the others would have an opportunity to provide positive feedback as to what worked and what did not work. Several of our members have had significant experience in conducting meetings, and there is no good reason not to take advantage of this experience. In this manner, we could all learn hearing management skills from each other, and raise our collective consciousness on meeting management. The meetings might even be more interesting with a diversity of hearing management styles. We could take a modest amount of time (from the time we would save by having more effective hearings) to debrief the effectiveness of each hearing. Debriefing could be done either just before or after formal adjournment to make it voluntary and short. Using rotating hearing officers and evaluating their effectiveness would result will be better meetings for the citizens, applicants, staff and ourselves, as well permitting more informed decisions as to who to elect for chair and vice chair when that time comes around each year. CONCLUSION This paper has specifically addressed concerns I have with the Planning Board's quasi- judicial proceedings, and intentionally does not address the rulemaking (or legislative) side of administrative procedures. This is because the standard for Board conduct is significantly different for the two procedures, with the quasi judicial being far more restrictive in terms of discretionary latitude in decision-making. Points I want to leave you with include: 1) the Planning Board conducts its quasi-judicial proceedings in the context of the body of administrative 1aw: 2) the Plarming Board needs to be conceptually aware of the requirements and constraints of administrative law; 3) the Planning Board needs to conduct ourselves with greater recognition of these constraints and with a greater appreciation of the interests of applicants and citizens; and 4) active management of Planning Board meetings to focus on the decisions at hand and to minimize wasted time, will improve our deliberations, enhance our credibility, promote greater citizen participation in our meetings and better serve the residents of the City of $oulder. I would like to enlist your support to improve our quasi judicial hearing proceedings. Together, we can rnake a difference for the betterment of the community. Page 7 of 7 ~Y C~~il.dr~en's ~ ~o~~. C t~rs IiAin~tni~v'rs2li~if/S ~!'-4~An~irn~~vrit~~ ~v„~~vtf'~1il,.~v ~l`'[ 1 ln iI !7 ~/'~r~,..~0 ~ `~ . . t S ~ 61ue sky bridge easing the journey for a6used chiidren and a3ulis About Blue Sky Bridge ~T6e Child & Familv Advocac ~~Program Childhood abuse is a serious problem in Boulder County. Everyday, infants, children and adolescents are bruised, beaten, starved, suffocated, sexually abused or otherwise mistreated by their caretakers. There were 3,418 cases of abuse or neglect refened to the Department of Social Services in 1998, 54 for every 1,000 children in Boulder County. Blue Sky Bridge ~ The Child and Family Advocacy Program~ is a private, nonprofit organization that has been operating since June 1996. The mission of Blue Sky Bridge is to ensure victims, families and survivors have access to support and services in a safe, compassionate and culturally respectful environment and to bring an end to childhood abuse through social change. Blue Sky Bridge helps to minimize the emotional trauma during the investigation and prosecution process of child abuse, as well as empower children to feel better about themselves. The Center provides a safe, nurturing child-friendly atmosphere for children of abuse and their non-offending family member(s), who are inteiviewed by the Department of Social Services andJor Law Enforcement. Blue Sky Bridge, through its education component, hopes to prevent further abuse in families. A Case Manager will assist the family by providing information, guidance and emotional support through this difficult time. Also provided, are refenals to outside resources such as : local therapists and the victims compensation fund. If necessary, medical exams are conducted at the Center by a Pediatrician. Preparation for court is available for child and adult witnesses through Court School. Blue Sky Bridge provides education to the public and community about child abuse. Child and Family Advocacy Program dba Blue Sky Bridge . , i±... •{?~, s ~~ - . . . .,. ' I _,~i~ ~ t ; ~r~ ~,t, ~,~ rj-~-1.;. . . !t, ~.. -.) i_'S'`-.~ . `~ . . c j ~~ 61ue sky bridge easing the jou~~ey for abused chi4dren and adults PROGRAMS CommunitYResource Program The purpose of the community resource program is to provide the community with education and resources, as well as facilitate support groups for adult survivors of sexual assault. The presentation and trainings involve strategic planning with a prevention, information and education committee. The presentation and public education trainings provides information about: - Blue Sky BridgerChild and Family Advocacy Program - recognizing signs and symptoms of sexual and physical abuse - risk management in day care and school facilities - how to handle a child's disclosure - age appropriate sexual or physical behavior - the Boulder County demographics of child abuse - professional conferences and seminars Case Management The purpose of the Case Management program is to ensure that direct services aze provided to the victim and non offending family members. D'uect services provided by the program include: - a child-friendly facility - crisis intervention - facilitation of open communication and case coordination, - forensic medical examinations by a pediatrician - victim advocacy - counseling, and - linkages to other victim advocacy units Court School The purpose of court school is to provide children with a safe learning environment in order to educate them about the court system, its process, the people and procedures. Court school serves to teach children the importance of telling the truth, the power of their voice, and to feel confident in their testimony as they familiarize themselves with their surroundings. The three goals of the Court School aze: - to teach the importance of telling the truth - to learn about the court room and the role of court personnel - to decrease children's anxiety about testifying, by learning the ways of the court, ant to facilitate complete and accurate testimony. Child and Famity Advocacy Program dba Btue Sky 8ridge . . . E~;., ;rtc, q; * _t.~ ',~. ~ ~~:'._~ ~ , i~~A4"i-~ ~ _~.(,}'rr~~?_(i'-,r~~ ~ ~,;~ -~t_~ ~.t;G_) f'~_'C'tti ~ `~ • i ( ~ ~~ 61ue sky 6ridge easing the journey for a6used children and adults The Need for Corporate Partnerships An increase in the Boulder County communities awareness of child abuse relies on successful Corporate Partnerships. Corporate Partnerships provide visibility for both the Advocacy Program and the corporation. Maintaining a high profile in the community is a primary goal of the Advocacy Progam's corporate partnerships. The Advocacy Program promotes and acknowledges corporate sponsors in numerous ways. A community newsletter with a 1800 member mailing list is produced bi-annually. Ongoing Corporate partners receive top billing on any promotional fund raising activities. Your corporation's financial contributions are welcome and needed to protect children, families and survivors of abuse in our community. Your corporation may help through monetary donations, incidental donations, volunteer assistance or assistance with fund raising. Child and Family Advocacy Program dba 81ue Sky Bridge ; ~ f `(w~, m' t,' . !:,'.L•:~i~ k(l~"~ ~ ~" ;(~~ '~;~<'-~~-'4'1. !"+`_ .4~~ :~_~~'.r} i~: 61ue Sky Bridge i 998 Stntistics Total # of Primnry Cnses 247 Gender Age Rcce Sax # ~6 Aaie # ~ Ethnicity # % Boys 108 44% 1-5 85 34% White 203 82% Girls 139 56% b-10 83 34% Hispnnic 34 14% 11-15 71 29% Black 9 4% 16-20 8 3% Native Americnn 1 . 4% Outcry Allegotion Alleged Perpetrator AlleQntion # % Perp~etr~ator # % Sexual Abuse 204 83% Family Member 133 54% Physicnl Abuse 14 6% Third Party 76 31% Neglect 12 5% Person of Trust 23 9% Witness to Crime 11 4% Unknown 15 6% Emotional Abuse 3 1% Unknown 2 . 8% % which are jweni{es 44°!0 Adult Physical Abuse 1 . 4% Famity Income Lev~el Family Mcritol Status Inc~arne # ~ Status # % <15k 69 28% pivorced 114 46% 15k > 20k 24 10% Mcarried 59 24% 20k > 30k 59 24% Singfe 24 10% 30k > 40k 28 li% Unknown 50 20% 40k > 50k 9 4% 50k > 60k 20 8% > 60k 38 15% Region Locntion # % Boulder 108 44% Longmont 55 22% Lafayette 22 9% Boulder County 21 9% Louisville 10 4% Broomfield 8 3% Unknown 5 2% Superior 4 2% Larimer Courrty 4 2~0 Weld Cour~ty 3 1% Jefferson Courrty 3 1% Arnpnhoe Courrty 2 . 8% ~enver County 2 . 8% SECON~ARY VICTIMS 224 6ender # 96 Male 47 21% Female 177 79% Pe~urtages for rnce, region mnritnl stntus end income level closely ~wrallel the primnry stntistics with (ittle devintion. JV~issiov~ S~a~e~vtev~~ The Child and Family Advocacy Program is a diverse, county- wide group working together to provide a comprehensive approach for the intervention in and prevention and treatment of childhood abuse, with an emphasis on sexual assault. The purpose of the Advocacy Program is to ensure victims, families and survivors access to support and services in a safe, environment and to bring an end to childhood abuse through social change. ~u~~i-disc'~~ivta~~ ~'f'`~ oacl~ The Advocacy Program recognizes that childhood abuse is too vast and complex an issue for any one agency to adequately address. Through our primary prevention efforts, case management activities, and multi-disciplinary teams, we hope to serve as a catalyst to mobilize the community and existing agencies. The goals of this cooperative eFfort are to: • Reduce the incidence of psychological trauma and revictimization experienced by children forced into an adult-oriented criminal justice system • Decrease the incidence of an abused child's future involvement and participa- tion in child abuse, domestic violence, gangs and other criminal activities • Reduce the likelihood of recurring abuse in families • Increase the number of substantiated reports successfully prosecuted ~ev~be~s of tl~e ~ca~ The agencies listed below have signed agreements to work in cooperation with each other and in support of the Advocacy Program for the benefit of child victims, their Eamilies and survivors. • Boulder Police Department • Colorado University Eolice Department • Lafayette Police Department • Longmont Police Department • Louisville Police Department • Boulder County Sheriff's Department • District Attorney's Office • Department of Social Services • Mental Health oF Boulder County • Rape Crisis Team SeYVice~ Direct services provided by the program include: • A child friendly Eacility. • Facilitation of open communication and case coordination. • Forensic medical examinations. • Court School to prepare witnesses for court testimony. • Assistance For victims in applying for Victims Compensation. • Victim advocacy and linkages with other victim advocacy units. • Child abuse prevention education services. • Professional training. s"~.. a ~ .'~ ~ y Z ~I~IY~ ~DJOU~(-1Z01~lOVl. o ~ ° D K ? a fD O ~ ~ ~ o~ ~_. The Child and Family Advocacy Program is a ~ o`° ~ a s ~~ a private non-profit organization governed A - by a Board of Directors representing the ~ A $~ diversity of our community. Our service ~ area includes eleven (11) cities and towns, ~ as well as the unincorporated areas of rt Boulder County. p„ -{-{ow ~ ou Cau~t. ~-{e~ Your contributions are welcome, needed and may be in the form of: • monetary donations • incidental donations • volunteer assistance • assistance with fundraising To help our organization protect the children, families and survivors in our community, please call the Child and Family Advocacy Program at (303) 652-0744. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 805 Niwot, CO 80544-0805 Site Location: 137 2nd Avenue, #202 Niwot, CO 80502 Fax Number: (303) 652-0285 Th~nl~ you to the folloWiK~ for tlieir ~ ~ generous donatio~~s: W~ ~o ~ 3. ~ ~ Design Advantage for graphic design m Z D a o -° v y ~ ~ and ~~ o o ; ~ m Village Printer for printing 5/97 cl~l~ ~~d ~~<< ~~~o ~ ~~~ '~Y'0 Y'4~1~. ~ .. C~2~ Q Cc A m~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Provide a'~tlace for children and witnesses to'~Ctit prior to a court hearin In Huntsville, Alabama, a small Children's Advocacy Centers may ,~,,, . . g , Y f ~ nte~ ~U~~~~~,,,.,.,. g~~T Vrctorlan cotta e onl a ew be housed in '~"1"'ce ~ ~ Some Children s Ad'~~acy ~~~~~ Centers offer client su orf blochs from the courthouse, is offi~~1'ltes or houses such as Pp ~~ t .... ~~ group meetings, trainings and t~~t~.of the Children's ~~~-"'-this Child Advocacy Center in Court School ro rams. Some ~~M~Nf P g Advocacy ~~~~ include prevention programs. All rv,~~.'-~~°~:-- _ Children's Advocacy Centers are designed with the help of profes- sionals who will use the facility. And all are designed as a ,~ warm, non-threatening place for ~ children, where feelings of safet~ and security prevail - much lil~e the comfort of a familiar quilt. , Confidentiality is of the utmost impor- tance to the Children's Advocacy Centers. There{ore, the children shown in this brochure are models, not clients. Chattanooga, Tennessee. For more information on developing a Children's Advocacy Center or training for existing Centers: National Children's Alliance 1-800-239-9950 OR 202-639-0597 email info@nca-online.org www.nca-online.org Southern Regional Children's Advocacy Center (For the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia) 1-800-747-8122 OR 828-285-9588 email srcacQaol.com www. nca-online. org/srcac/index. htm Midwest Regional Children's Advocacy Center ~For the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin) 1-888-422-2955 OR 651-220-6750 e-mail julie.pape@childrenshc.org www. nca-online. org/mrcac/index. htm Northeast Regional Childre-~'s Advocacy Center (For the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pe~nsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont~ 1-800-662-4124 OR 215-387-9500 email nrcac @cacphila.org. www. nca-online.orglnrcaclindex. htm Western Regional Children's Advocacy Centers (For the states of Alaska, Arizona, Calffornia, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming~ 1-800-582-2203 OR 303-324-8953 e-mail wrcac~a rmi.net www. nca-onlin e. org/wrc ac/ind ex. htm National Children's Advocacy Center Huntsville, Alabama 1-256-533-0531 email ncacadm@hiwaay.net For additional information on training for multidisciplinary teams: National Children's Advocacy Center Professional Education and Training Services 1-256-534-1328 National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect , ' InforYnation 1-800-394-3366 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Regional Training Programs 1-800-648-4966 The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children 1-312-554-0166 This document is published by the Souihern Regional Children's Advocacy Center. Speciat ihanhs to: National Children's Allianee /or the use ojinformation from Best Practices Manual, 2nd Edi[ion The Midwest Regional Children's Advocacy Center The Northeast Regional Children's Advocacy Center The Western Regional Children's Advocacy Center Sandra Watson, for design and production of quilt and quilted heart TotalCom, Inc., for loaning ifs conference room The staf(and muliidisciplinary team of the Chattanooga Child Advocacy Center The sta{(and multidisciplinary team of ~he National Children's Advocacy Center Photograyhy courtesy of Doug Brewster, Intergraph Corporation Graphic design by Karen Rouse This project was supported by grant No. 95-CI-FX-K007 awarded by the Of(ice o(Juvenile Justice and De(inquency Prevention, Ojfice o(Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Juslice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the o(ficial position or policies of the U.S. Deparhnent o(Justiee. The Southern Regional Children's Advocacy Center is (unded through the Victims of Child Abuse Act /P.L. 102-586/ and is operated by the National Children's Advocacy Center, Inc. Coyyrigh[ 1996, Southern Regional Children's Advocacy Center. The Federal government reserves a royalty-/ree, non-exclusive, and inevocable Iicense to reproduce, publish or otherwise use and to authorize others to use this documenf (or Federal government purposes. Additional copies o/ this pu6lication are available at a nominal cost from the National Children's Alliance. Midyette ^ Seieroe ^ architects • p.c. 1936 Fourteenth Street Architecture ^ Planning • Interior Design Boulder, Colorado 80302 Boulder • Denver • Santc Fe 303-443-9960 Fax 303-443-9920 06 April 2094 Margaret Doherty Case Manager Departmerrt of Community Design, Planning, 8~ Development City of Boulder P.O. Box 791, Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Re: application for annexation and initial zoning 3601 Fourth Street (Fourth & Kalmia) Olbright residence Margaret Doherty, 4 page 1 of 2 Pursuant to our conversation of 27 March 2000 w~e herein submit additional information as you request: • conceptual site plan, • conceptual elevations of the pool / guest house, and • conceptual elevations of the main house. Our most recent square footage calculations are as follows: main house: • garage, w~orkshop, bike storage and repair shop 1,580 s.f. • greenhouse 124 s.f. • breezevway 258 s.f. • living space, first level 4,599 s.f. subtotal, first level 6,561 s.f. note: included in the above square footage is 1.845 s.f. of floor area that is below the existing grade • living spaoe, second level 2,887 s.f. total, maln house, including garages 9,448 s.f. pool / guest house: • first level 1,578 s.f. • basement level 975 s.f. 2,553 s.f. note: included in the above square footage is 1,476 s.f. of floor area that is below the ~xisting grade Midyette , Architecture Boulder ^ 06 /ipri! 2094 Seieroe ^ architects ^ p.c. Planning ^ Interior Design Denver ^ Santa Fe page 2 of 2 You will see by looking at the drawings and reviewing the above square footage that the mass of both buildings are greatiy reduced visually by the effect of the design whereby the structures are dug irrto the existing grade. It is anticipated that the area befi~v~een the structures will be leveled by removing earth without raising the grade in the foreground {to the east of the area between the structures). The visual effect will be to maintain the existing grade and cause much of the lower portions of the structures to disappear behind the foreground existing grade of the earth. Additionally, pursuant to our conversations, the Olbrights have responded to concems expressed about the mass of the pool / guest house. They have taken what was formerly planned as second level space and located into a basement level. We trust you will agree that these changes address many concems that you have expressed. Sincerely, Seieroe, A.I.A. file Greg Olbright 1936 Fourteenth Street eoulder, Colorado 80302 303-443-9960 Fcuc 303-443-9920 conceptual site plan conceptual elevations of the pool / guest house conceptual elevations of the main house. cx~en-iWCy c{~,°E. ~D ~ IV ~ ~D~D~~ ~°o 0 ~o,.h~ ~-~v~~rt a~1 '~~ ~ f'LANS AND ELEVAT10N8 ~ ~ k ,~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~atti4~t Rss Sdn'H e~.Eu DLAtt !k-~~~A° Jryi•N OL6PoO~iT F~F_9DBdCE TIC DE~I ~ .~+~ . ,~~ ~ ~~ia11~w~~ '~'d~° .~. ~,~,~ ~.. . ,~.~ ~ ~~~~Q~ - ~r~.y~~. I~r - 1 • ~ . ~`/f'_' ~A~17.11000 SCAIE ~1'•!LO' ., K ~~-iA ", JI I(~ I ~.~I~l - co'NG~p~'~"'~AL ,. ~~~