Thread by @shayshinecastle

Most of tonight will be going over what members of the public suggested for the mid-term update, which are supposed to be quicker and less involved than full updates.

Refresher here: boulderbeat.news/2019/12/07/wit…

13 proposals were made. Staff recommending 3 to move forward. Planning Board agreed.

Here's a presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/5A_BVCP_2…

"This is not a time to consider major policy changes to the comprehensive plan," Jean Gatza says. I forget her title... she's in planning dept.

Some glossary terms.
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is the full name.
It's also referred to as the BVCP and the comp plan and the comprehensive plan. All the same thing.

What is it? Boulder's bible, essentially. It contains all policies that (theoretically) guide council decisions and staff work.

"This time may not be the most appropriate for projects that have the potential to be controversial in the community," Gatza say. Staff is also more strained due to COVID and furloughs, layoffs.

Here are the three things staff is saying should move forward as part of the update:
1590 Hillside Road (including several additional parcels)
Will change zoning between public and low-density residential; single-family home sandwiched between Boulder High and CU campuses...

...some of the lot is zoned public due to errors in drawing boundaries.
Applicant: James Trewitt
Owner: Kerstin Lieff

3015-3055 47th Street
Request for land use amendment from Medium Density Residential (MR) to a Business Land Use. Staff recommends further study to determine which land use would best reflect existing and desired future uses on this land.

The existing commercial uses, as uses are inconsistent with the site’s residential MR Land Use (and Industrial (IG) zoning). This work can be completed with existing staff resources.
Applicant: Abboud Properties

1345 S Broadway
Request for land use amendment from Low Density Residential (LR) to a higher density or business land use. This type of amendment is potentially supportable with more information and assurances of the ability to achieve additional community benefit ...

...in the form of permanently affordable housing. Further evaluation of this request can be done with existing staff resources.
Applicant: property owner

Brockett asking some qs: We're not approving anything tonight, but if we say no, we're denying things, right?
Yes, Gatza says.

And, Brockett clarifies, since BVCP requires 4-body review, if Planning Board said no to something, council can't
Correct, Gatza says. Council could request another look but can't overrule.

The other two bodies are BoCo commissioners and county planning commission.

Now going over some rejected ideas.

Request #1: Change East Ridge Neighborhood from low density to medium density residential; 40 homes, between main and East CU Campuses on 30th and Colorado; surrounded by high-density attached housing.

Has been requested “in several previous BVCP update processes” Tried in 2010; council “specifically stated we could apply for a land use change during a Mid-Term Update” (from applicant letter)
Applicant: Daniel Ong

Staff said no bc conditions haven't changed and Comp plan has never been used to upzone a single neighborhood.

It needs a planning and public process, Gatza says, that staff doesn't have time for.

This one I need to read more on, but it was a request to allow a Neighborhood Pilot Project (Requests #1 and #3) for infill. Basically, allowing attached dwellings in SF zones (I think)
Applicant: Goose Creek Community Land Trust

This is one of those staff isn't recommending for mid-term update, but recognized that council/plan board might want to put it on the workplan. The comp plan allows for these neighborhood infill pilots (I'm sorry; I didn't have time to read more about that)

Planning Board was on board with that, I believe.

Another reject but-maybe-we-want-to-consider-it:
Transit Village Area Phase 2 land use changes
Would aid housing goals with 1,000 extra units (25% affordable); $6.4-$12.6M in impact fees; would increase residents living in 15-min neighborhood (per applicant)

Phase 1: 92.5% built out 1,400 units (450 perm affordable) 691,000 sq ft of commercial space; multi-use path
Phase 2 is “the single largest opportunity for city to address” housing, climate and transportation goals, applicant wrote
Applicant: Flax Pond / Eli Feldman

Outright rejects:
Request #6: 2880 Diagonal Highway - zoning change to for hotel/motel use
Applicant: Tebo Properties (Stephanie Wirth)

Request #8: Land use change for Public, Parks, urban, other to clarify/correct errors - staff recommends this be done before next BVCP update
Applicant: Donna George

Request #9: 1380 Meadow Ave - zoning change since parcel is split between residential estate and low-density residential 2
Applicant: Robert Presson (property owner)

Requests #10, 11 and 12 are all related to Twin Lakes (6500 Twin Lakes Road, 0 Kalua Road, 6655 Twin Lakes Road)

You might remember this land from the time owner BVSD/ BoCo Housing tried to get land use changed so housing could be built for teachers

That didn't happen.

That was the 2015 BVCP update: BoCo Housing + BVSD recommended Mixed-Density Residential.
Staff recommended Medium-density residential.
Four bodies did not recommend any changes.

Twin Lakes Action Group, applicant at that time and now, wanted to change it to open space. They're asking the same thing now.

Their application was on pages 180-342 of the council packet.

THIS time, BVSD and BoCo Housing wrote letters with the same statement opposing the change, “which is not consistent with any foreseeable use of the property by the school district. Furthermore, (we) see no compelling reason to alter the designation to Open Space on a property...

... not identified for acquisition by either the Boulder County Parks and Open Space or City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks departments. In addition, the application is narrowly focused on open space resources ...

....and does not address why altering the overall balance of public interests as originally conceived in the BVCP, including public services and housing, is warranted.”

I wasn't around for this (I was still the biz reporter) but I well remember the coverage.

Other staff-recommended changes (not from the public):
How open space works with indigenous peoples
Add TMP Vision Zero, Low-Stress Network
Add language around new affordable housing goal
Amend policies to reflect homeless strategy...

...Update land use map to reflect Alpine-Balsam changes, Transit Village
Annexations + acquisitions
Potential land use change for BHP property under negotiation
Changes to the Blue Line

Gatza: "We're happy to say we have info available tonight" on the BHP property that was under negotiation when packet was released last week.

Gatza thanking community for submitting ideas. "It feels a little weird to not recommend so many moving forward .... It doesn't mean they're not important issues." It's that mid-term updates are for minor changes, and our limited resources.

We're gonna get more info on the public applications. I think 9 of them are here to speak.

Brockett clarifying again: Council not approving anything tonight. This is just giving direction of what moves forward.

BoCo Planning Commission doing the same June 17, followed by BoCo Commissioners in June; date TBD

Daniel Ong, with the East Ridge request, up now. I found this one pretty compelling.

"It is the only neighborhood currently low density that is virtually adjacent" to CU main campus and east campus. It's the "land bridge" between them, Ong says.

The uni has grown around it and the surroundings have densified, Ong says. "The natural and obvious use for this (neighborhood) is student housing ... the land use should change to reflect these obvious changes" in surroundings.

If land use changed, duplex conversions would be allowed.

Ong: This change wouldn't set a precedent bc this neighborhood is so unique given location, surroundings, etc.

Apparently he applied 10 years ago in the 2010 update(!)

Council then said there weren't adequate resources to study the change, Ong says.

Let's do this before the 2025 full update, Ong says, when this would get "lost" amid more important measures. (Like activating the planning reserve)

David Adamson, from Goose Creek Community Land Trust, is here to explain the 750 North Street / Neighborhood Infill Project

Pilot* sorry

"Very little of this kind of housing (attached) is being produced" Adamson says.

"Despite incredible efforts of staff and council," Adamson says, "we are going backwards" — losing more affordable units per year than we are adding.

Shows a photo of two city workers who commute into Boulder.

Showing how an old duplex could be converted into 8 for-sale units for families on the same lot.

Apparently this infill pilot thing was added to the comp plan at the last update in 2015. I'll read more and let you know about it.

Maybe.

Moving on to the applicant who wants to initiate Phase 2 of the Transit Village Area Plan. Danica Powell, from Trestle Strategy Group, repping owners there.

160 acres. Includes and/or has been renamed Boulder Junction... ? I'm not entirely sure. 30th/Valmont/Foothills area.

Sorry, I should have tweeted from that but it's hard to improve on what I already tweeted. And to care.

Maybe I'll just wait until public hearing / council comments. Except for the big ones, like Twin Lakes. I'm sure they'll have some primo content.

Aboud, who wants to change land use on this island of offices on 47th Street to match what is there: "We would like to continue to keep using the property but we envision mixed-use in that area similar to Valmont and 34th Street area."

Sweet flat brim on Timmy Duggan, a realtor who is representing the church at 1345 Broadway. They want to up- or rezone and subdivide to allow affordable housing development there "or some other beneficial use."

Staff recommending that one, as a reminder. Planning Board OK'd.

Donna George asking that mid-term update be postponed to 2022. She applied to change errors in land use maps; staff not recommending that now (too big a project) but before the next big update.

David Rechberger from Twin Lakes Action Group is up now. "These lands are dedicated lands set aside bc of development around them. (They are) for parks, not housing."

"We desperately need more recreation open space for our growing population," Rechberger says.

dailycamera.com/2020/05/20/cen…

818 units in various stages of planning for Gunbarrel, Rechberger says.

Gunbarrel is 10% of Boulder's "shrinking population" he says, but has only 0.2% of parks land.

"Communities need more than housing to be sustainable."

All the speakers tonight on point with their time.

Staff up to talk about the BHP deal referenced earlier.

Laura Sheinbaum with BHP, actually.

1,442 units in BHP portfolio; manages 1,200 housing vouchers.
36% of workforce in BHP qualifies for affordable housing, Sheinbaum says. 160 applications in 5 days for units that just opened up at Ciclo.

The property is in Gunbarrel on O'dell place, which Rechberger mentioned.

No BHP affordable housing currently in Gunbarrel, Sheinbaum says. Land use could allow for 32 units.

Found how many units were at Ciclo that 160 ppl applied for in 5 days: 38
boulderbeat.news/2019/12/13/aft…

The site BHP is buying is right in the Gunbarrel town center. Off Spine near Lookout.

I imagine this proposal will garner our first Nagle comments of the night.

Weaver: Did the application meet the deadlines?
Gatza: We're not treating it as a public application. It's staff-initiated, since we're working with BHP on it.

Planning Board OK'd, Gatza reminds in response to Weaver q.

Current land use and zoning doesn't allow for residential development, even though that is in the Gunbarrel Town Center plan.

Nagle speaks! She heard from "many of the residents" after Planning Board meeting. Applicants felt this BHP was "thrown in at the last minute ... they feel it's unfair when (residents) had to follow the rules and staff" did not.

"I don't think it's fair; I don't think it was well done. I would ask in the future, if they are required to follow the rules, that staff be as well. Talking so much about equity, this is an issue around equity."

16 speakers for public hearing

Marimikel Charrier (unsure of spelling on the last name) lives near 1345 S Broadway. She's not opposed to redevelopment there, she says, but there's 0 plan.

That's one staff has recommended to move forward, FYI.

No neighborhood outreach, she says. It's right next to schools. "If we are not very careful about development, we are risking lives of our children."

If I had a quarter for every time someone used the words "pause, hit the brakes" on development.

(That lady didn't; Twin Lakes' Rechberger did.)

Just got another one: Carrying capacity!

Mark your BINGO cards!!

Another neighbor of the church at 1345 S Broadway. Joel something; his last name isn't displayed.

Development could be great, he says, but it could also be a "nuisance."

"It looks worryingly like a 'shoot first, ask questions later' scenario."

That was Joel Lenorovitz, according to a speaker list I have not seen but will find.

Here it is: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Public_He…

Mike Smith: "Scales don't really seem fair" as to how projects are evaluated for comp plan update. Twin Lakes was denied; Odell Place (BHP) got special treatment.

Donna George talking about how little parks space Gunbarrel has despite residents agreeing to tax themselves to create some.

And city shouldn't "give preferential treatment to their pet projects" while turning down resident requests. (She's the one who asked that the plan update be delayed)

George: This is supposed to be "by the citizens, for the citizens" — not for staff.

Lots of ppl with ideas about what should happen in Gunbarrel, she says. When do residents get to say what happens?

I've moved outside on to my porch. It is lovely.
It is 79 degrees inside my house.

Affordable housing should be built in "more appropriate" places than Twin Lakes, George says.

Patrick Madden: You wonder why Gunbarrel has such problems with city. "The city is looking to us to solve all of Boulder's growth problems. We're Boulder's dumping grounds."

What we think we need, Madden says: A bigger grocery store, better roads, more open space near us. Not more apartments. You've already given us those and many of them are empty.

He wants Twin Lakes to become open space.

Kit Fuller, another Gunbarrel resident and chair of new nonprofit: Gunbarrel Community Alliance.

That group wants to preserve open space, rep Gunbarrel residents in city planning/decisions.

Fuller: "(We) are not against affordable housing. We are not against development. We are against preferential treatment for developers. We are against" bad planning ... "We support amenities for Gunbarrel."

"Beware of the affordable housing mantra," Fuller says.

Susan Bailhache, another Gunbarrel resident for the Twin Lakes' open space land use change.

Jane Theodore, another neighbor of church at 1345 S Broadway. "I'm not opposed to development on this site, however many in our neighborhood have referred to this intersection as the guillotine."

Claudia Thiem supporting multiple recommendations that support opportunities for "modest affordable housing" including 1345 S Broadway, BHP in Gunbarrel, Neighborhood Infill Pilot, TVAP Phase 2... Maybe others but I forgot.

It's hard to focus on land use changes amid the "pain and anger" in communities of color, Thiem says. But a lot of the issues stem from housing policy, which has segregated and excluded residents.

Ken Beitel: We have a Change.org petition with 3,000 signatures asking that Twin Lakes be saved. BoCo commissioners declined to change the use to allow development in 2015, he says.

"The decision has been made."

Beitel sharing some incorrect information.

(Not the above; what he was saying next about Planning Board and their respective authority)

David Vollmar from Goose Creek Community Land Trust is speaking. Sounds German; his voice reminds me of my college ethics professor, on whom I had a *HUGE* crush.

That's not really relevant but we're in like hour 2 of this topic and I'm BORED

Mike Zawitkowski is our last speaker. He's a neighbor of the Mt. Hope Lutheran Church at 1345 S Broadway.

There are "opportunities" and "risks" to development there, Zawitkowski says.

Gatza: This is very early in the process (for 1345 S Broadway) "While we don't have a full engagement plan, we will." It's a good opportunity to engage with neighbors and community.

Young asking qs about Gunbarrel BHP site.

I'm drifting... We're still talking about that site and zoning vs. land use

Brockett: "If we move it forward for further study," we could learn more.

Weaver: Is it unusual for staff to bring stuff forward? How do you square the accusation that this slipped in under the wire?

Gatza: Bc of the staff work involved and it being such a critical goal to affordable housing, we just wanted to pose it to council and planning board.

(Planning board agreed it should go ahead.)

Friend asks about 750 North Street / infill pilot
Gatza: "We need to be careful" about any changes in residential areas. Ppl will want to participate and we need a process. We don't have a sense of what the scope will be.

Wallach: I understand we are constrained with staff resources. but I'm uncomfortable picking winners and losers based on that.

What about putting it off, as Donna George suggested?

Gatza: "We've been evaluating a lot of the pieces of our workplan in recent weeks. We think that this level of analysis ... the proposals we've recommended ... can go ahead and move forward this year."

Council and Planning Board both gave direction that they wanted us to get the comp plan update this year, Gatza says.

(Can confirm)

Wallach: There are projects being put aside just bc of resources. That's uncomfortable. "There seem to be many more winners than losers at the moment."

Nagle: We gave direction on the mid-term update "prior to the pandemic."

"With the world having changed, I think we possibly looking at adjusting," Nagle says. "There are very good ideas here" that deserve "very serious" consideration.

Brockett: A fair amount of these don't need a mid-term update to be done, right?
Gatza: That's correct.

For instance, council could add Transit Village Area Plan Phase 2 to its workplan. And staff could (maybe) undertake a cleanup of land use mapping errors.

Young returning to idea of delaying mid-term update.

Q to staff: Did you anticipate this many public requests?

Chris Meschuk taking this one: "Plan really is a community plan. That's why we have a request process. We will have another opportunity for requests at the next update."

"Or council could pause it completely."

What staff has recommended is "what's manageable with staff resources and reductions this week."

That's right: I already forgot city did 56 layoffs.

Young asking a q she should already know the answer to, bc it is in the packet: What criteria did staff use to determine what public requests would go forward and which wouldn't?

Gatza: Criteria is set forth pretty clearly in the Comp Plan: minor policy additions or clarifications; staff resources.

"While we've tried to figure out how we can move some of these forward, we know some of the ones that are really going to be complex ... don't meet that criteria."

Nagle: Can staff give a quick explanation of the time involved in accepting Twin Lakes' proposal to change land use to open space.

Gatza: The complexity regarding those parcels is that just changing land use doesn't address ownership, policy direction, landowner rights, etc.

"It's a bigger q than just land use designation."

Weaver: Will any of the staff-recommended updates be affected by land use map errors?
Gatza: Hillside and 47th Street are about errors and inaccuracies. But they are pretty straightforward...

Weaver interrupts.

"Those two were not referenced by (Donna) George," he says.
No, Gatza confirms. That was mostly about open space in unincorporated areas. We have to do analysis to understand why those were made, and look at parcel lines vs. mapping lines.

"It needs to be done comprehensively. We need to take the time to do it," Gatza says.

How long have we been at this?

Brockett starting council comments.
"Staff has analyzed these pretty thoroughly and figured out what they can and can't do." Planning Board unanimously recommended that approach.

BUT... "There are a lot of opportunities here I'd hate to sit on the vine for another 5 years." How can we get to those sooner? (Diagonal Plaza, which I don't think I mentioned earlier, TVAP Phase 2 and Goose Creek suggestion)

Maybe we could look at those when things get back to normal, Brockett says.

Weaver concurs with Brockett.

Weaver: "There are some things here that are really planning projects," not land use changes to a map.

Odell came in late; "we need to be careful with that," Weaver says. "We should take a lesson from this and set a deadline for the next process."

But bc of funky overlapping regulations and need for affordable housing, it should move forward.

Adding comments on Gunbarrel: "For us, it's a very complicated issue." A big part has city services; Boulder could annex if they choose to. "We much prefer that any annexation be driven by" the residents.

"We don't represent residents of Gunbarrel" who receive city services but aren't in the limits. "I've long wondered" why ppl wouldn't want to annex, Weaver says — other than that taxes would go up 10-15%

But if you annexed, council would represent you. You'd have access to all nine members. "When we get comments" from ppl not in city limits, "it has a different feel" than comments from residents.

Young agrees.

With everyone.

Nagle won't be supporting 1345 S Broadway or the Odell/BHP projects.

First one: "We need to listen to residents first."
Second one: It's not fair to residents who had a deadline.

Wants comp plan update delayed.

"Having anything else built out here, which is massively over-capacity. Going to King Soopers is a nightmare; you can never find parking. Shelves are (often empty)." Nothing else should be built without a plan.

Nagle: "It's unbelievable to me" we're not listening to Twin Lakes Action Group on making that open space. Yes, they're not all city residents, but they're still part of our community and it's not their fault they are not city residents.

Wallach is with Young and Weaver in supporting staff/Planning Board recommendations.

"Mirabai is raising some really excellent points," Wallach says. "Idk what sot of planning processes are in place" for Gunbarrel. We've heard of so many problems; why aren't we addressing those?

Not planning for that area simply bc parts of it aren't part of the city of Boulder is not a good enough excuse, he says. "They are our neighbors... We owe that community a bit more attention than we're paying it."

Swetlik also supportive of staff/Planning Board recommendations ... "however... I'm a stickler for process."

So doesn't want the Odell/BHP process to be part of mid-term update.

And likes the Neighborhood Infill Pilot. Wants that to come forward in some way.

On Gunbarrel: Swetlik says largest green space near Gunbarrel is a private country club. "That's unfair."

"It often feels like Gunbarrel is an afterthought."

Joseph: I'm concerned with how we are going about the process.

LOLOL "complimentarity"
New word from Joseph.

These council members and their vocabulary... We need a whole section of the dictionary just for gov't language.

I do love her pronunciation of "facilitating" tho. Could listen to that on repeat.

Council moves to advance mid-term update items as recommended by staff and Planning Board.

Brockett made the motion; Young seconded

Young on Brockett's comments about needing to "keep an eye" on services for Gunbarrel: "If folks want libraries and parks, they have to be willing to pay for it."

Everybody votes for except for Nagle.

OMG is this finally over!

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!