Thread by @shayshinecastle

Now, Celestial Seasonings development. Here's the staff presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_4A_4…

Yates is recusing himself bc he owns some (minimal) Celestial Seasonings stock.

Plans are for 4775 and 4649 Spine Road
9.8 acres, 268 units
12 buildings, 3 stories
68 affordable units

Reminder: Concept plan review is NOT a vote or action of any kind. It's supposed to provide feedback to the developer before future steps (which DO need approval from Planning Board / council)

The Planning Board already had a concept plan review. They said: Housing units should be reduced; mixed-use considered (coffee shop, convenience store, etc.) too much parking, affordable units should be dispersed, central park is “essential”

As indicated by the 127(!) speakers for tonight's hearing, there is significant opposition from neighbors.

That's pretty typical in Boulder for a development of this size, but there are a couple things worth noting.

One is the relative lack of public parks in Gunbarrel. There is not a park within a half-mile of this site.

Residents use the current empty land to recreate on.

The second is prairie dogs.

Celestial Seasonings, way back in 1999, tried to get a permit to kill prairie dogs. The backlash was immediate and fierce; there was a boycott of the company's tea (as there is now).

It ended up with the company establishing a "preservation" area for prairie dogs and not killing any. They also promised (via a Daily Camera full-page ad) to protect prairie dogs.

HOWEVER....

A Camera article at the time quotes then-CEO Steve Hughes saying “the company was not able to promise that the company would not develop property on which prairie dogs are found since the “company needs to have options for the future use of the land.”

But Celestial Seasonings DID commit to relocating p dogs in the case of development, not killing them.

Anyway, Parks and Prairie Dogs are the more interesting objections, worth some consideration (obviously IMO).

The rest are pretty typical arguments we hear every time there is a big development, including concerns about property values.

Which, I gotta just say: Property values NEVER go down in Boulder. They barely went down during the Great Recession, when much of the country was literally unemployed.

So that argument... I'm just not buying it.

There were also some pretty explicit comments in emails to planning board, which I tweeted the other day. One of them literally said the quiet part out loud: “You are opening it up for less desirables.”

I'm sure we'll hear more polished arguments tonight. One of the organizers of the neighborhood group, Gunbarrel Community Alliance, called me to talk about her concerns.

They want to sound less-NIMBY, she said.

To which I replied, NIMBY isn't something people generally intend to be. It's kinda like racism: It happens without you realizing you're doing it. You have to work really hard to NOT be racist, bc it's just so pervasive in our culture.

Anyway, the real action won't happen until later, since again this is not a vote or action.

There definitely are some considerations about parks space. The prairie dog thing... idk. It *is* interesting what Celestial Seasonings "promised" and how it can or can't be held to that

Either way, it's going to be a loooong night

Nagle q: It's zoned Industrial Manufacturing. My understanding is it's not appropriate for housing infill.

How is housing development being allowed?

(Her argument is the Comp Plan states that zone is not appropriate for housing)

Planner Sloane Walbert handling that one: The 2015 comp plan update was changed to say that housing and other uses were *encouraged* through a use review

"It's allowed; it's just subject to additional review," Walbert says.

Nagle q: Do they need 40% open space?
Walbert: 40% of what's required has to be common and contiguous ... to provide for some sort of park-like amenity for the residents.

Nagle: What are they at right now? And do balconies and rooftop space count?
Walbert: They are counted; they meet the required amount, but they haven't demonstrated that they meet that 40% common and contiguous requirement.

She's working on it with the applicants, Walbert says.

Another Nagle q (she's not usually so involved): Our walkability scores are out of 100 and this one scored 12-14. So how does it promote walkability?

First q answer: 42% of site will be usable open space
Second answer: There are policies in the city to encourage walkability. The Gunbarrel area is intended to provide more amenities and encourage a more walkable community. The addition of housing here is consistent with that.

"But you have identified the major issues," Walbert says to Nagle.

Young asking about a possible connection to Diagonal. That may or may not happen, according to Walbert (and Young, paraphrasing her answer) it's just being explored.

Wallach: Are parking areas factored into open space?
Walbert: No, surface parking is not open space

There are 369 parking spaces planned for this development. Which is A LOT.

As Nagle noted earlier, bus service to the area is likely being cut even further as COVID cripples RTD.

Developer Andy Allison is presenting. He has done a number of affordable developments, including the Diagonal Crossing and Lumine on 28th.

Council (well, some of them) toured Diagonal Crossing as part of an affordable housing tour in December. (Doesn't that feel like a lifetime ago?) boulderbeat.news/2019/12/13/aft…

One group we're not going to hear from tonight, Allison says, is the people who will live there.

Matthew Schildt (sp?) who is also with the development team, says they're putting housing near jobs, and therefore can reduce vehicle miles travelled by 1 million.

Not sure where they're getting that; would like to see. There are quite a few offices and such in Gubarrel. Not sure how many jobs. Source, anyone?

Architect Pete Weber is talking about the open space that will be provided: front yards, movement through the site, green space clustered to one end.

Some may be "park-like," he says and some may be "activated."

Like seating areas or community gardens

Parking is in the center of the development. Tuck-under, carports and surface spaces.

"We know we need to have a significantly larger park-like chunk of open space," Weber says. We're working on it.

Also thinking about adding live-work space, a coffee shop and arts space.

Might also widen Spine, move the curb and add a buffered bike lane (just a painted one there now)

Looking into dockless bikes, EcoPasses, car share, shuttles to reduce vehicle trips for residents.

Swetlik: Any projected rental rates for the market-rate units?

The mix is more of a 2BR and 3BR than typical. Roughly $1,800 a month on average

(said someone, who I missed)

Wallach: How is the affordable housing going to be created, in relation with the owner?

Allison: "I always do my projects a little bit differently. ... I always control the land up front and get the on-site (units) into the site plan and then get the market project."

Looking for no city $$, but low-income tax credits and his own equity. So... I think he's going to buy land...?

Operating somewhat independently of the other partners in the project. Working together but "not tied together financially."

Financing affordable housing on-site is really tricky. In fact, there is only one development that has on-site affordable rentals in Boulder, and that was accomplished through some real financial wizardry. (So much so that the city doesn't even consider it on-site)

You can read about that here, which I posted above: boulderbeat.news/2019/12/13/aft…

Anyway, Young asks about another project that fell through. What is keeping this from falling through? she asks Allison.

Allison: My group is knowledgeable about gettin units on-site.

The affordable units will be clustered together in one building, separate from the others. Council and the community is not super hot on this; Allison has previously said (see above story) that it's near impossible to mix them in with market-rate (due to financing)

I guess Diagonal Crossing also has on-site affordable units. It wasn't done by the time I wrote the above story. But that makes 2, in like 19 years of affordable housing. Just to show how hard it is.

This bugs a lot of people in Boulder, bc developers most often pay cash instead of building on-site affordable units.

Staff and housing ppl live it, tho, since they get more units for the $$. Like 3X.

OK, now onto the public hearing, where we will be for the next FOUR-PLUS HOURS!

I think this might be the most public speakers I've ever seen. The most I remember in the past is like 80-some people. But I could be wrong.

I really should keep track of these things.

Here's the list: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/July_28_P…

PRAIRIE DOGS! First speaker hits that right away.

Second speaker actually supports the development. Not sure how many more of those we'll hear; emails to Planning Board were about 100 opposed, 4 in support.

Speaker 3 talks about empty apartments in Gunbarrel. This gets brought up a lot, so I want to address it. Several emails referenced 75 empty apartments in Gunbarrel.

While that sounds like a lot, the 2010 population of Gunbarrel was 9,263. So 75 empty units (assuming that's correct) that is less than 1% vacancy.

Having been a business reporter, I know that 6-7% is considered a "healthy" vacancy. Any lower, and rents go up.

Boulder's vacancy is consistently 5% or lower (though I haven't checked recently).

"I was so annoyed I went out and spent $450,000" on a house in Lafayette. (Plus $50K fixing it up.)

LOLOL that has *got* to be something you only hear in Boulder.

That was from Ralph Frind, another supporter.
So is Annmarie Jensen. That makes 3 so far.

Speaker No. 6 (Steven Zawaski) is the first to reference Celestial Seasonings' promise to protect the prairie dogs.

Kit Fuller asks for a moratorium (legal time-out) on development in Gunbarrel until a sub community plan can be developed.

Adam Lee has a new figure for vacant Gunbarrel apartments: 200

It also occurs to me vacancy should be based on *housing units* not population, as I calculated above. So...

Based on the 2010 census (which is obviously outdated bc it's 10 years ago) 200 vacant apartments out of 4,237 housing units is 4% vacancy, according to the percentage calculator I used.

In all likelihood, it's lower, because as residents are saying, hundreds of units have been added in recent years.

We have our first cry-er.

Crier? Is that a word?

And yes I'm still here, CLAUDIA. I just don't feel the need to tweet every speaker. It's not even a meeting where actual votes are happening!

Hey, I think my sister's sister is speaking.

*Not an actual representation of me, my sister, or my sister's sister.

Christine M Hurley is a quiet but powerful speaker. I can't help but hanging on every word.

(She's against the proposal and wants a moratorium on development.)

You know what I would like to hear? People saying what kind of development they *would* get behind. Bc this is privately owned land; they can build on it if they want. Council stated that at a previous meeting.

I also would like to know what Celestial Seasonings could build by-right there. Something smaller and industrial, likely, since projects of a certain size automatically trigger an approval process. And it's industrial zoning (but that includes housing, sometimes)

I will get those answers before there is an actual vote on this project, which could take months.

Omg, a Brit! I'm a sucker for an accent.

You could be a royal twat, but if you're twatty with an accent, I wouldn't even mind.

I've now heard: There are no buses and the buses will be at capacity if this gets built.

I don't live there, so I don't know. Anyone without a dog in the fight want to answer?

Something else to investigate eventually.

I wish I owned Celestial Seasonings stock so I could have recused myself.

I ain't got stock in shit.

Julie Dye is the organizer I spoke to who I referenced earlier. She has trimmed her list of arguments against the development, which at first included attacks against the developer and concerns over crime in affordable housing.

"We are YIMBY — with a plan," she says tonight.

In talking with me, she said she would be "out there with shovels" if this was a Habitat for Humanity site. (Although she noted that wasn't a popular position among other Gunbarrel residents.)

Eric Olson: "Gunbarrel has historically been treated poorly by Boulder."

Also asks for development moratorium.

You know what they say: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

We're at speaker 50 (of 127) but I have to walk the dogs so I'mma dip for a bit. Can't hold 2 leashes and my laptop at the same time.

Ya'll are in charge if anything blows up.

Rule wisely. Rule fabulously.

I got back in time to hear Suzanne Smith say "Planning delayed is planning denied."

Asks for a moratorium on development like "you did in Niwot." FACT CHECK: Boulder did not do that, as Niwot is not in Boulder.

But she reminds me of what I think is a good point. Boulder has created this expectation that neighbors can show up and stop things. Because they HAVE done it before.

Instead of expecting people to show up with solution-oriented thinking (How can we get this to a place that you would be OK?) people show up thinking they can stop development of privately owned land.

One other speaker said 99% of developments get approved. You know why? Because Boulder legally has to. They set out codes and criteria (many, many) and if someone meets them, the city can't deny someone use of their private property.

Of course, some of the time they do grant variances from those same criteria, so fair point that they don't always *have* to do that.

But this is Boulder's chickens coming home to roost. They'll (probably) not do a development moratorium, then everyone in Gunbarrel will feel like they're not being represented.

Cannot understand a WORD Jan Rasmussen is saying. It's seriously like the adults on Peanuts.

Wait, just caught "so important" and "now."

Back to my rant (which is more fun than listening to speakers) I feel for people railing against private landownership and profiting off housing. Those systems have many shitty elements and perpetuate a lot of harm.

It's just that people tend to use their philosophical objection to those things to only oppose projects that affect them. Very few would be willing to or actually work on changing those systems, thereby giving up their own private property rights or the money they make off it.

(I say this as a homeowner who is both elated and horrified at the money I'm making off my condo.)

Anyway, those are just some of my observations from living in / reporting on Boulder for 8 years and otherwise researching housing policy, etc. And my general belief that most people are trying their best to be good. It's just so damn hard.

Residents talking about how unresponsive Celestial Seasonings has been and how they're betraying Boulder's values.

Bet ya'll still order from Amazon tho, don't you?

I don't. I mean, I have, but I've stopped. So I get to be condescending about this one.

Omg poor Rhona. To have that name at this time...

Rhona Unsell

Lolol Eriko Yatabe Waldock compares building new development on unused land an outdated idea "like shoulder pads."

Clearly you've not seen my fall line. What's old is new again, baby!

We have our fourth supporter among 88 speakers.
Vadim Graboys who says, "you can see prairie dogs anywhere."

He's not from Gunbarrel, tho. I think the other 3 were.

Susan Lambert bringing up some of what Dye did in our chat: Crime in affordable housing that Allison co-developed, along with charges of not maintaining the properties and selling a portion of it off to out-of-state investors.

At Nest(?) I'm not sure if it's the one by me (on 30th / Glenwood) or in South Boulder.

Connie Bobka: Can you hear me?
Can you hear me?
Can you hear me?

Yes.

"Colorado has become a kill state," Bobka says. "Wildlife is no longer valued."

Seems like a good time to post this: boulderbeat.news/2020/07/25/stu…

WE'RE ON SPEAKER 101! Huzzah. Only 25 to go.

"Very few of us" get to live where we work, Laura Olson says. "It's a nice sales pitch by builders."

Two more supporters, including Andrew Harris, who "regularly" uses the bus from Gunbarrel, including the stop by Celestial Seasonings.

This land makes sense for housing, Harris says. "It's surrounded on every side by development, a four-lane road, and existing industrial facility" and — apparently — on a bus line.

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding of the city process and how it works. Residents are always surprised by plans getting submitted, insinuating that it was secret or shady or there wasn't public input.

That's... the process. The plans get submitted and then it starts.

Hopefully my Government 101 will clear things up for ya'll. I've got interviews with three candidates for hire tomorrow!

Apparently the Gunbarrel Community Alliance has hired an attorney.

I'm really fading. We are on speaker 113. Then council discussion. THEN an hour on the muni.

Rob O'Dea claiming that Kurt Firnhaber called Gunbarrel speakers "bitter and angry." Calls for him to be fired.

Carmen Baran (who may be our last speaker!) says more people shouldn't be able to live there bc there's a railroad track.

Hey, I live by a RR track! And two highways and an airport. And you know what? It's still in Boulder, so I love it.

Keep the riffraff out.
And by riffraff, I mean people for whom traffic or train noise is the absolute WORST thing that's ever happened to them.

PRAISE THE LARD THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER!

First council q from Young: Is Spine Road now 20 mph?
Swetlik says "anecdotally" he drives it once a week and no.

Official answer: No. It's a collector road.

Young: Someone said 99% of projects are approved. Why is that?
Charles Ferro: By the time projects get to council and planning board, there's been a lot of work to meet the criteria. You can't deny something unless it doesn't meet criteria.

"We like to try to move things forward with recommendations of approval, but there are times we feel the criteria aren't met that we have to recommend approval," Ferro says.

This particular project has been in process since January of this year.

Wallach: This is "grotesquely" out of character with the neighborhood; "there's nothing walkable about this project" and the plan for open space is "ludicrous." There is a "monotony" of architecture.

The man can turn a phrase, what can I say?

It's time developments stand on their own merits, not merely as a "necessary evil" to get affordable housing, Wallach says.

It looks like all the council members are still awake. I mean, except for maybe Yates, who recused himself.

The city attorney said he didn't have to, but he did anyway. Again: Celestial Seasonings stock.

Ferro, in response to a Joseph q: If you want us to do a Gunbarrel community plan, council would have to prioritize that on our work plan.

Hard to hear, bc Joseph has a lot of background noise. I suspect a fan; I have a noisy one myself.

She says there are legit concerns residents are bringing up, and housing has to be considered in context with services.

"There are a lot of issues that need to be worked out, before we just have housing," Joseph says. Housing is really important now, with COVID, bc ppl will be losing housing. But it has to be considered along with services.

Brockett asked a q about rents. Developer making a point that gets lost all the time: Boulder's middle-income earners can afford the rentals here. (Just not for-sale units)

Brockett: "We can't fix all the issues with this development," but to residents, "we've heard you loud and clear."

All the issues = infrastructure, parks, services, etc.

The city is limited in what it can consider on an individual project.

"I've never been so proud, so awed and so moved by a group of speakers," Nagle says. "I'm proud to be living over in this area."

"I don't know that my other council members have heard you, but I have," she says. (Oh, snap). She supports a development moratorium and will NOT support this project.

This is about human rights, she says.

There are "mass amount of vacancies" in Boulder, Nagle says. She lives behind Apex and many of the windows that used to be lit up are now dark.

Swetlik: We need better transportation infrastructure in the area. And the rents are not what I'd consider moderate.

Thanks the residents for engagement. BUT where are we going to get those 68 units of affordable housing we desperately need, he asks. I hope you come out as strongly for those. That's part of a 2-way conversation.

"If not here, where?"

Young: The owner, the architect and developer are all local. This property has not changed hands.

We're all part of this community, and we all want the same thing: Affordable housing.

Young: To ppl afraid of crime that brings to the neighborhood, I will say this. A family of 4 needs $92,000 to be self-sufficient. Thousands of residents fall under that. I'm not thinking those people would be causing a whole lot of crime.

We should brainstorm some more and make this 100% affordable, maybe with townhomes or duplexes or small homes. Suggests using $$ from the Pollard site (30Pearl) but I'm pretty sure that's already spoken for...

"We could probably get twice as many affordable units if we took an approach that was collaborative," she says.

Friend: "A lot of what we're talking about is more philosophical than what I understand I can weigh in on for concept review." I don't know that I have a lot to add.

Weaver: I would emphasize to the developers, think about if you can create more affordability and more cohesion with the neighborhood that's nearby.

Seconds Brockett's thoughts: "What can we make better about this project?" No. 1: Open space

"We all understand why affordable housing has to be in a separate building, but that doesn't mean it can't be integrated with the whole project," Weaver says.

Weaver: "It's great to have the affordable housing on-site. That does create economic diversity."

Transportation is a big concern. It's unfortunate to put this many people in an area that is served in a "mediocre" way by RTD.

Maybe more neighbors would get on board if developers provided space for a corner library, Weaver suggests.

He reminds me of something I've forgotten: Though some are underway, only one sub community plan has actually been done in Boulder: North Boulder.

I think it took, like, YEARS.

"I don't think a moratorium in this area is going to be productive," Weaver says. "I don't think a moratorium is forthcoming," so residents should help work on making the project "the best it can be."

Omgosh we're done! @threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!