Thread by @shayshinecastle

Another time check: Are we discussing BI?
Maybe, but they might send the police chief home.

Brockett, Yates not thrilled about doing this at 12:30-1 a.m.

Maybe no room for this in the rest of the council's schedule.

Yates: I'm gonna make a prediction. Regardless of when we discuss this, we're going to need some criteria for when we provide off duty police officers. We're not going to do that on this council. (No time)

Police chief is going home; council may discuss depending on community benefit.

Which we're moving to now. Staff presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/5C_CC_10.…

Q for council: Does council support new Site Review criteria that would require permanently affordable housing benefits in areas designated in Appendix J where a building exceeds the maximum height of the zoning district up to 55-feet?

Another q for council: Does council agree with staff’s recommendation to continue to limit the areas where height modifications may be sought to the “Areas Where Height Modifications May Be Considered,” at this time?

Some background on the city's height limit:
Pre-1971: No maximum height
1971: City charter amendment, 55 ft max
2015: Council passed temporary moratorium limiting where buildings could go to 55 feet

That is set to expire May 31, 2020

Here's the map of where height modifications can be requested:

We've got an economist on the phone standing by to answer qs. Never seen that happen before.

I'm skipping ahead in the presentation, so I'm not sure this is accurate, but this may be what staff is proposing.

Hey, we're talking about it now!

Essentially, any "bonus" height would have to provide more affordable housing. 41% rental units or 36% for-sale (with half on-site) rather than today's 25% affordable housing today

Linkage fees for non-residential developments would increase by 43% for offices or 116% for hotels, on top of what they pay today.

Young: What does the community get today if a building gets a height modification?
Extra cash-in-lieu

There's an example staff is sharing but I don't have that slide in my presentation.

Wait, yes I do:

This by-right example is half on-site units. That's not typical for Boulder (it's based on case studies in other cities) where no on-site affordable rentals have been built in the history of the program. For-sale have, tho.

Oh, that was a for-sale example. My bad. here's the rental one:

And commercial example:

We're talking FAR (floor area ratio) and even though I've been doing this for 1.5 yrs, I still don't know enough to translate what they're saying. Sorry.

This council has voted to extend the height limit moratorium twice to complete the community benefit project. Staff is recommending removing the expiration date to allow for Phase 2 of community benefit.

Or at least extending it further to May 31, 2021.

Council has previously given feedback that they don't want the moratorium to expire until the project is done or "if and when" positive benefits are seen "on the ground," planner Carl Guiller says.

Some other community benefits being included (not just affordable housing, as I thought) nursing homes/assisted living facilities or municipal functions (fire, police, library, etc.)

Council isn't voting tonight; this is a rare first-reading public hearing. We'll have a second reading (and prob another public hearing) on Oct. 15

Planning Board did NOT recommend approval of this right now.

They wanted to see these changes first: Consider separate regulations outside of Site Review to encourage more permanently affordable housing
Include other prescriptive density and intensity changes to
encourage affordability...

...Modify height calculations to allow access to roof decks / treat roof decks with more flexibility like pitched roofs
Sunset date for Appendix J (the map of where height mods are allowed)

Housing Advisory Board recommended approval.

But they didn't want to extend the height moratorium.

Some disagreement on both boards; nothing unanimous.

"More time would be beneficial" on the moratorium so staff can finish the work, Guiller says.

Weaver: Why do you need a Nexus study? We already have one for impact fees and affordable housing?

Yes, for affordable housing, but not for other benefits like art, affordable commercial space, etc. "It's kind of new territory."

Weaver: Could you do an informal study from a consultant?
City Attorney Tom Carr would prefer a Nexus study for legal protection of the city.

Here's why: Fees have to be tied to the actual impacts, legally. "Reasonably related" is the phrasing Carr uses.

Brockett: But we're not asking for $$ for arts, like we do for affordable housing.
Carr: It's still a cost to the developer.

"There's always risk somebody is going to sue you but you're on firmer ground" if you have a Nexus study.

Brockett: How do we quantify the benefit of art, etc.? Less than what?
Carr: Less than the benefit the developer gets.

Sorry if that's not clear. but the mechanism for comparing value is: The value the developer is getting/losing.

Our economist is live to answer questions. He's Skyped in. A first. (at least what I've seen)

We're having another discussion on floors vs. feet. Trying to follow but it's tricky.

Ditto with FAR and parking.

I (maybe) got this: Council would be better tying requirements to FAR than units per acre if they want to incentivize smaller units...?

This is some dense stuff. I'm sorry.

We're talking Opportunity Zone. Can we require more there than we do in the rest of the city, legally, or not?

Meschuk: We'd need some sort of economic analysis.

OMG this, budget AND use tables are scheduled for Oct. 15. This council is trying to kill me as their last act.

If I hadn't seen how often they don't follow through, I'd be worried.

Only one speaker for this! Lynn Segal. She's always here.

If the next meeting on this goes as long, we may have very little public input. Not good for a project like this.

Although, to be fair, there's been plenty of engagement not at council.

Hey, it's 11:30 already. Holy cow.

Council good with including affordable housing benefits in exchange for extra height. (Again, this going to another read)

Now talking about height limit moratorium. Brockett kind of "shocked" staff recommending either removing the expiration date or extending it.

He might want to add areas to places that extra height can go.

Reminder: This is not extra above and beyond 55 feet. That's in the city charter; voters voted on it.

Young: When we did the moratorium, it was based on completing the project. This is just phase 1.

No one is using the phrase moratorium, by the way. But that's what it is. DO NOT ACCEPT THE REBRAND!

Morzel agrees with staff recommendation to extend to May 31, 2021. One extra year.

It will be a six-year moratorium by that point.

"I want staff to have as much time as staff needs" to finish this, Weaver says.

For benefits other than affordable housing, developers would have to make a proposal to be evaluated by staff, and possibly planning board and city council

Jones says moratorium!

She wants to lift it since we need affordable housing more than anything else.

If we can't guarantee that we get SOME benefit, we shouldn't lift it.

Brockett: The worst case if we lift it is that a project comes through with *only* affordable housing as a benefit. That's the "worst case."

Some sarcasm there that doesn't translate.

Jones: "To me it's like you add icing on the cake" with other benefits. "The cake is affordable housing."

Carlisle: "The affordable housing is what we're after here."

Yates: The moratorium was put in place in 2015, supposed to be for two years. Then we extended it for another year, then another.

"May 31, 2021, is 20 months away. Is it really going to take us 20 months to do a nexus study?"

But he's OK with extending it a little bit.

Council direction for tonight (which council will do a straw poll on): Adding in RH and BR zones (high-density residential and business regional) and extending the height moratorium

Carlisle: "Staff said what they need. If we go with that, what's the harm?" (That was RE: extending the height moratorium)

Weaver requests adding Diagonal Plaza to the list of places that could request extra height.

Again, not above 55 ft. I feel like I have to keep saying that or ppl will forget.

But an area plan would be needed first for Diagonal Plaza, Weaver and Brockett suggest.

Council debating nursing homes and assisted living. They want "affordable" facilities, but dude, there's no such thing. Anything "affordable" is subsidized.

Have you ever seen how much these places cost? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Yates speaks to that: Maybe there's a Medicare trigger. They have to accept it, or have a certain number of Medicare beds, etc.

My tweet may have been confusing, but the point was it's not a good comparison of affordable housing and affordable nursing home/assisted living. Bc it's not like most ppl are paying for the latter out of pocket. Like rent.

OK, unanimous vote to advance community benefit project. Doing this again on Oct. 15.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!