Thread by @shayshinecastle

Howdy, #Boulder. For this Tuesday night, a question: Why is this study session different from all other study sessions?

Because council is actually going to be weighing in on some pretty important things. First up, the Hill hotel project, which has appeared before council six(!) times since 2015.

Here's where things were left the last time council had a chat on this, in April. With one update: The project today will have ZERO city funding for any bike/bus/pedestrian upgrades. boulderbeat.news/2019/04/23/in-…

There aren't details of the pending sale in tonight's packet; it's more or less a recap for new council members. But I'm told council has received or will soon receive that info privately (since negotiations are still ongoing).

It's coming back to council in March(?) for concept review, so we'll have more details by then.

After that, council will talk micro mobility. Staff wants to allow shared e-bikes but not e-scooters, citing safety data and other concerns. Some boards and commissions, plus the Chamber and Community Cycles, disagree.

boulderbeat.news/2020/01/25/tra…

Those groups want to see at least a pilot project in places like East Boulder, where there aren't many other options.

Wouldn't be surprised to see that, but I think staff and council will make a good case against them altogether.

Part 2 of that discussion will be on funding for B-Cycle, which is going bankrupt after kaiser Permanente pulled out as a sponsor last year.

There *was* a discussion on hemp cultivation and extraction planned but they bumped it to make these first two longer.

We're getting started — again on time — and Mary Young is leading, per the change made at the recent retreat where study session leadership will rotate among (willing) council members.

A quick(ish) recap of council action on Hill hotel since I've been around: Sept. 2018: Set to OK joint development of hotel and parking garage; delayed amid ownership disagreements

Delayed again; pushed off council November agenda due to scheduling conflicts

Jan 2019: Staff proposed no joint development, selling parking lot to hotel developers instead, bc the parking garage was SO expensive
boulderbeat.news/2019/01/10/ano…

City was to put in $3M for site upgrades, subsidy, etc.
Council asked for more study on supposed benefits
boulderbeat.news/2019/01/22/cou…

Study came out in August; best long-term option
boulderbeat.news/2019/08/24/rep…

April 23, divided council decided to begin negotiations to sell the Pleasant Street parking lot to developers
boulderbeat.news/2019/04/23/in-…

Some history on the Hill as a commercial area = three blocks (1/10 size of downtown)
1970: Hill property owners created University Hill General Improvement District
Today, $35,000 in UHGID property taxes
UHGID owns 2 parking lots: Pleasant Street/Broadway + 14th/College Avenue

110 spots; bring in $150,00 in annual revenue

City council is UHGID board of directors
With University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission (UHCAMC), which serves as advisors

We're watching a video on this history now. Actually pretty cute; wish I had a link for you.

Today, the Hill commercial area has 10% retail vacancy (vs. 8% downtown)
18% rent-to-sales ratio (vs. 15% downtown; rule of thumb for health is 10% or less)

Council 2014-2016 had Hill reinvestment as a priority

2015 consultant report made three recommendations:
1. Address perception or reality of insufficient parking
2. Clean up and beautify rundown parts of Hill
3. Leverage five under-developed parcels to create “anchor” for year-round customers to serve as catalysts

Millions of $$ in student housing 2011-2013 didn’t help bc Hill need more than students for customers

Also, staff / biz owners believe that tighter Hill liquor laws (passed in 2014) discourages restaurants from locating there: Must close by 11 p.m., be no bigger than 4,000 sq ft, get 50% of sales from food

Pretty full chambers for a study session.

I'm tucked in the back like always, but for an extra reason this time: I'm sick. So don't come say hi if you're here, unless you want what is possibly the coronavirus but more likely just a common cold.

Sarah Wiebenson, Hill community development coordinator, is going over the study I referenced earlier and provided a link to.

It analyzed a few different "options" for redevelopment, even though there's only one project on the table for real right now.

I forgot this, but also from that study: The hotel will almost certainly not have enough parking. It will relay on the planned CU hotel/conference center that might be constructed across the street. The hotel could share that garage.

Here's that link again: boulderbeat.news/2019/08/24/rep…

I felt staff last time downplayed exactly how few parking spaces would be left over at the hotel after employees, guests.

But it's hard to tell intent from a written report. We'll see what they say tonight.

The application for a concept plan was submitted this week by hotel developers to the Planning Board.

Council can link the sale of the Pleasant Street parking lot to the final approval of the hotel, so they can make sure it looks like what they want it to.

Not sure what the appetite will be for that. I feel the council is fairly split on this; Young and Nagle were against it last time. Swetlik was against it in his campaign interview. Wallach was ambivalent. Friend and Joseph were similarly 'meh' but more toward approval.

Yates was for it and I believe Weaver was, too. But it could go either way.

Wallach leads with qs: Are we getting one appraisal on the value of the Pleasant Street parking lot or more than one?

Wiebenson: That's part of the negotiation with the developers.

Yates: The hotel as contemplated cannot be built without the purchase of the city's parking lot?
Wiebenson: That's what the development team has indicated. It's about 1/3 of the site.

Brockett: Can we request this project go to the Design Advisory Board?

Yes, staff says.

Yates: How would that timing work with Planning Board
Brockett: I think between concept and site review?

David Gehr coming up to answer that, possibly.

Yates: I'm assuming council might call up concept review.

Gehr: I'm guessing it would have multiple trips to Design Advisory Board. Possibly three.

Young: What conditions can council place and not place on the sale?

Gehr: "It's a negotiation. There is some room there ... there's already a set of conditions in there. The ultimate condition for the council is, do you ultimately believe this is a good deal for the district?"

Young referencing affordable housing fees. Can we require more affordable housing funds as part of the parking lot sale?

Gehr: I think that goes to the value of the property. There's a pro forma; I have no idea how additional resources toward affordable housing would affect that. Our impact fee... they would be required to pay that as part of the project.

Young: Can council put requirements on the Transportation Demand Management plan they'll have to do?

For example, can we require that they pay for their employees' transportation costs, Young asks?
Gehr: We'd appreciate any input you'd have on that.

That's part of negotiating a purchase contract, Gehr said.

Tom Carr jumps in: You're selling it as UHGID. You have to be careful about putting conditions on the sale that don't benefit UHGID. That could be a conflict of interest.

Gehr: Transportation is within the wheelhouse of UHGID's documents. "Playing in that sandbox would be fine."

So affordable housing might not meet that criteria, Carr warned. But anything to do with parking/transportation would, Gehr says.

Gehr: "UHGID taxpayers bought the parking lots. So you'd just have to keep an eye on which hat you're wearing."

So many qs (all from male council members).

I mean, after those from Young, obvs. We've got Swetlik, Yates, Weaver and Wallach up next.

Swetlik asked about part of the building nearing the end of its useful life. That's true, Wiebenson says.

Wallach had a q about financing that I did not understand, but it's not an issue for the city, Gehr says.

Yates: "If we don't put on the brakes tonight ... concept plan will go forward ... I'm assuming council will call this up so it will come to us April/May. ... Is that the time you'd ask us to approve the sale?"

Wiebenson: That's our understanding. We've heard interest in having a public hearing on this.
Yates: So sale would be conditioned on the project getting final approval.
That's correct, staff says.

Yates: "You're not asking us to OK the sale tonight, but if we have a lot of heartburn with it, you'd like to know that now."

Yes, staff says. That's accurate.

Weaver: Bc this will be the first concept plan for this council... When we do concept plan review, tell us what the rules are.
Gehr: You can comment on anything in the concept review. Tax implications, etc.

Gehr: But not everything you say will necessarily get implemented, if it can't be considered in the regulatory purview of site review (which comes after concept review).

Phew, I'm already exhausted.

No more qs, but we have comments. Goody!

Weaver: There's two main concerns I have around the design of the hotel itself. There's nice older buildings with nice roofline and window treatments on the Hill. It would be "very useful" if the hotel was to "make reference" to that character.

Secondly, "I remain concerned about approaching this development project from the north to the south. The tallest part of this structure, the bulkiest look, that is going to be somewhat imposing."

"It doesn't affect that I think we should go forward," Weaver says.

Young agrees with him.

Swetlik has "similar concern."

Much talk of bulk, mass and scale. Hit your city council bingo cards!

Swetlik wanted to know if this project will be subject to new building and energy codes adopted at the last meeting. It will.

Young: I understand that the hotel will contribute the most to economic vitality of the Hill, but it also likely has the highest "externalities."

I assume she means impacts...?

Young: "A lot of those jobs will be evening jobs, shift jobs, so there likely won't be public transit. And with other minimum wage jobs, the ppl likely won't live in Boulder."

Hotel developers should help to address the "commuting" these workers are going to have to do, she says.

Yates referencing the possible parking agreement with CU at the conference center garage. And the recent $3 from 3 p.m. to 3 a.m. flat fee Boulder implemented in downtown garages. boulderbeat.news/2019/11/29/to-…

Maybe we can do that on the Hill, he suggests.

Yvette Bowden, head of community vitality: The construction timeline right now is our primary thought, to minimize disruption to neighborhoods. But we'll certainly bring this up in negotiations.

Young also wants to discuss the possibility of "providing emergency housing" if employees get stuck due to a big snowstorm or something.

"I would like it if possible to be a condition of the sale."

That's an interesting one.

Weaver: We may need to start negotiating the parking flat fee with CU, but then maybe we could use $$ from sale of the parking lot to implement that. That would be under UHGID's purview.

Brockett: "As somebody who's been on council for four years, we've been considering variations of this concept for years now. I feel the approach has gotten better at each step."

He also used the words "catalytic" and "synergies."
Gross.

Yates: "We've been promising the Hill for decades that we'd do something to revitalize the Hill. ... It's the only opportunity in front of us."

Reminding council that Boulder in 2015-2016 made a deal with CU to build the conference center across the street on the Hill rather than on Folsom. "I think it would be inconsistent of us for not to support a hotel that supports the conference center, which we v much wanted."

Weaver also "eager" for this conference center. "It's a really important amenity culturally and scientifically."

He also hints that council will call up this concept review, as Yates has already said.

Well more than a hint. It's important for council to call this up, he said.

Friend supports moving forward. "Council is probably instilling some hope tonight by moving forward."

Wallach, repeating things he said in his campaign interview with me: I'm skeptical that this will revitalize the Hill. But the project stands on its own; we're not contributing anything.

"I don't think it will be appropriate for us to say to the Hill community, 'See you next year. We're not going to move forward.' Wallach says, supporting moving forward.

Swetlik reminding everyone he spoke *against* this project last year. He's moving toward support, but it hinges on design. Wants it to be "accessible and friendly open to all of Boulder ... not just as a hotel ... but a focal point for everybody."

Young bringing up the developer's commitment of $200,000 to relocate the businesses who will be/have been displaced by this. "Is that still enough?"

Young shares Wallach's "skepticism."
"I'm not sure this will solve all problems on its own. It's wait and see. It def brings more traffic to the Hill."

The "view shed" will be important to protect, she says.

Just realized Nagle is not here.

Yates: Gondola.

I think that's all for this one. We'll get a look at the deal specifics and initial design of the hotel in the spring.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks.