Some of you Boulderites are following the Muni hearing tonight, but I - and a not insignificant number of city staff - am hanging with the Planning Board.
Some jokes amongst staff about double-screening it tonight. Let's try not to inflict too much brain damage on them, ok?
Anyway, tonight's meeting is starting an hour early because it's a big agenda: There's a site review for the NoBo branch library, and a discussion of Use Tables and Community Benefit - two zoning projects that deserve far more public attention than they've gotten.
The meeting starts with a reminder to the public to respond to the Census. DO IT, PEOPLE. I will hammer on this point later.
Here's something new. Instead of looking at a countdown timer, we get to keep looking at the board members during testimony. The meeting host will show cute homemade time signs instead.
First presentation and public hearing is actually about the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program. Let's see what's in here...
Whenever we get to the list, it's going to focus on things with equity implications, potential loss of funding sources, necessary maintenance, etc. in light of pandemic budget cuts.
That list went by fast...I saw sewers, pavement, broadband backbone, Barker gravity pipeline (water supply)...
The revenue situation is poor, surprise. City is using revenue forecasts that show sales/use tax rebounding to 2019 levels in 2022 (calling this a conservative, but not the most pessimistic model).
Redevelopment at Alpine-Balsam is in the forecast for 2023, in case you were wondering.
Lupita Montoya had a question about delayed street lighting projects (on the Hill?), and now Sarah Silver is worried about utility fees going up when (haha) CU South flood mitigation happens. I'm a little distracted by a kitchen incident, sorry.
City water utility is not disconnecting people for nonpayment at this time. But usually requests for assistance are referred to EFAA and other service agencies. Silver is more worried about *future* fee burdens.
John Gerstle 'couldn't resist asking' about funding for the NoBo branch library (which is next on the agenda). I wish he could resist, because this is already a loooong meeting.
The gist here is that funding for the branch library was already in place and approved before the economic crisis.
We got mired in clarifications of departmental responsibilities for awhile. There's a public hearing on capital improvements now, but nobody wants to speak.
Harmon Zuckerman: Boulder spends about $1K/year per person on capital improvements (including maintenance), which is high. We're lucky to be in a city like this. But that means we also have a lot of discretionary spending..
...In that context, Zuckerman is concerned there haven't previously been provisions for diversity in procurement and contracts in the CIP. There's something in there this year, but not enough to change the culture.
I'm bored and eating dinner before speaking, which is really against my rules.
John Gerstle thinks that encouraging diversity in contracting fits with the values of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. That means we can continue, right?
Lupita Montoya has more comments on equity in these times. Open space and golf courses (which I think was at the end of the list I missed) aren't priorities for people on the front lines.
Planning Board took a break to type up a motion. I used the time to catch up on @shayshinecastle's coverage of the Muni at City Council. My head hurts.
Motion being shared on the screen now is already typed up as being seconded and passed 7-0.
Site review for the NoBo branch library starts now. Full disclosure I'm a serious partisan on this one.
TIL you need a special review to operate a government facility in a business or mixed-use residential area. It's always fun to see the City get ensnared in its own rules.
Conflict of interest disclosures are happening. Peter Vitale shares that his family has a library card.
Twitter isn't letting me upload a picture, but the site is on a vacant lot between the Uptown Broadway apartments/condos and Four Mile Creek. Just east of Broadway.
The proposed library is 13k square feet, with spaces for collections, community programming, and library offices. And of course there will be some parking.
Here are some renderings of the building: 
This has long been designated as the site of a village center and green in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan.
Sarah Silver notes some changes have been made since last review to keep the plan within a reduced budget. She's most concerned about an access road between 13th and 14th St that neighbors have complained about.
Library facilities staff are making their presentation now. They are highlighting community engagement, which has been extensive.
'Value engineering' happened this spring. Mostly cutting outdoor materials (pavement and paths), and a small reduction in building footprint. A planned maker space will be constructed but left empty temporarily.
The topography of the site leads to some pretty cool design features. Building is single-story as it faces existing housing, but two stories looking south to the Flatirons. There's at-grade access to a green roof from Broadway.
This is new and I love it: there is a pedestrian path planned to the Boulder Meadows manufactured housing community. That neighborhood has notoriously limited access. Without this, residents would have had a long, circuitous walk to the library.
They've also added BOLLARDS.
I skipped over net zero building features (there are many), but Peter Vitale is circling back to that now.
They might use some reclaimed steel from the deconstruction of the old Boulder Community Hospital. I didn't expect Alpine-Balsam to come up at all tonight, but here it is for a second time.
John Gerstle is confirming there will be safety railings for the green roof (they exist). Now wouldn't that have been an amazing oversight.
Back to net-zero...the building will be net-zero ready, but not there yet. At issue are PV panels, which were cut for cost savings. Lots of passive heating, cooling, and lighting though.
Lupita Montoya is curious about mixing green engineering with the library's mission. Can all of the features of this building be used to fuel community education?
Every time my kids come in to say goodnight when I'm on these meetings, they want to know who everyone on the screen is. I promise I try to say inspiring things about everyone. They're learning about their options in the world.
Now we're talking about parking needs. Extrapolating use and turnover from the other branches. Car parking seems adequate, but bike use at these existing sites sounds anemic. C'mon, Boulder.
Public speakers now...First up is a neighbor who is unhappy about the location. The access roads are inadequate. She has worked in active transportation and doesn't believe that many people walk or bike. We're ignoring other potential building locations.
She is a dedicated library user though.
Juana Gomez is on the Library Commission. She's talking about the long history of organizing to get to this proposal. It's been in the Library Master Plan since 2007.
She mentions a Spanish-language community engagement session where there was 'wild enthusiasm'.
Tamar Stone is an immediate neighbor and opponent. She has a short request: Consider postponing the project because of the pandemic.
This speaker is talking about the homeless population. The library needs to have a good plan to be a friend to them. She's wanted to be involved in planning for inclusion from the start. Really beautiful and not at all where I was expecting this to go.
Steven Frost is also on the Library Commission and lives in NoBo. A super-advocate. Talks about the new library as a needed non-commercial space.
Our neighborhood will be the *envy* of many others.
Adelaide Perr has sent extensive comments to Planning staff and board. Feels she's been ignored and lied to. This is not a good location. She's picking apart setback and street design requirements and worried about privacy for neighbors.
Laura Duncan has questions about traffic and policy. Delivery vehicles will get stuck at pinch points. And she's worried about homeless people hanging out/sleeping after hours on the site.
Another immediate neighbor and opponent. But I'm not gonna tweet them because I'm speaking next.
That speaker talked about traffic. By chance, I talked about how many people in the neighborhood already walk and bike to the NoBo corner library. It's part of our routine up here.
This speaker thinks we should turn the site into a park. We lose nothing by doing that, and preserve the aspects of Boulder we love.
A professional cyclist already doesn't feel safe on these side streets, nobody will bike there. I'm starting to think I should have kept my kids up for this.
David Parrish is the president of the HOA directly north of the proposed site: "It's like a shoe salesman selling me a size 8 shoe for my size 11 foot."
Amy Roberts is talking about homelessness. If the site doesn't become a library is should be day center. I'm not sure if this is sarcastic? If it's going to be a defacto homeless day shelter, it should be staffed by professionals for that purpose.
Another immediate neighbor who understands the library is part of the community plan but thinks it hasn't been done right. And floods are going to come right through the front door.
Mara Mintzer is here from Growing Up Boulder! They're the ones that did engagement with kids in the neighborhood.
Mintzer: The concept of a 10- or 15-minute neighborhood is huge for kids, because it gives them independence. For people concerned about traffic, there are many users who *can't* drive.
Kids in Ponderosa and Boulder Meadows were proud of Spanish-language programming and opportunities planned for the new library.
Mintzer adds that this is awfully late for kids to be up participating in public process, so she wants to make sure their voices are heard.
And that wraps the public hearing. We're on to deliberations.
It sounds like we'll be trying some armchair traffic engineering, at the very least.
Harmon Zuckerman warns Sarah Silver against making this into a proxy Q&A session with staff for the neighbors who are opposed. Yikes.
OMG it's raining in NoBo! My blood pressure just dropped like 20 points.
We've gone through the key issues for site review with no real objections. So now we are onto Sarah Silver's questions about traffic.
I walk, run, and ride on the streets near the site so often and at so many different times of day that I've thought about doing my own informal parking analysis there. But then I'd be part of the problem.
I was just going to ask for an update on Shay (not the Muni), and saw this:
We're still talking about traffic and parking. Sarah Silver is having technical difficulties and isn't hearing answers. Library staff are asking to bring their traffic consultant back on. It's getting a little tense.
Lisa Smith wants to know if any of the concerns are new, and if not, has the project made good faith efforts to address them.
There are some times when it's really good to hear from a traffic engineer.
Lupita Montoya asks if foot traffic (from all of the kids living nearby) is part of the traffic study.
Answer: Not specifically. We don't have trip generation data on children vs. adults. 👀
John Gerstle coming in a little scoldy: "This proposal should not come as a surprise to people living there...I have no hesitation approving it."
Here comes the motion to approve. David Ensign and Lupita Montoya get the honors. This passes 7-0.
We have two big topics left tonight, and I am going to take a moment to reassess my life.
Going to stick with it for awhile. But I've grabbed a shredder from our HOA office and I'm going to purge financial documents while listening to the discussion of the use tables. Multitasking ftw.
A subcommittee of Planning Board has been working on updates to the use tables - which spell out in great detail what can be built in our various zoning districts - for the last 14(?) months. I kept meaning to join the meetings, but the time commitment, whoa.
This whole project is supposed to bring the regulations more in line with the values and goals of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, which is as vague as the zoning code is specific.
One more time with a little less snark...The primary goals here are to promote diverse land uses in neighborhoods, create 15-minute walkable neighborhoods, streamline the regulations, encourage creative uses (e.g. studios), and add mixed uses to light industrial areas.
There will be more public outreach about this, but there's a survey up now at Be Heard Boulder: beheardboulder.org/use-tables-and…
Results there so far show 75% of respondents are open to more land uses in neighborhood centers (retail centers).
On 15-minute neighborhoods, 70% or respondents are open to more commercial uses (e.g. cafes) in residential areas if limited in number.
Who are the 30% of Boulderites who don't want to be able to walk to a cafe?
First discussion question: Should Boulder allow a greater diversity of uses in neighborhood centers? Peter Vitale wants examples of what could actually be controversial uses in those locations.
Sarah Silver wants to reframe. We're talking about how to reimagine these 1970s shopping centers, to bring in more housing, vibrance, etc. Ensign concurs: There's a lot of consensus on accommodating different outcomes.
Vitale presses: I can't imagine an answer that isn't yes.
Sarah Silver: But then we get into does it look like TVAP (Boulder Junction) or does it look like Holiday?
Second question: Should Boulder allow limited instances of walkable and compatible uses to support more 15-minute neighborhoods. Zuckerman calls it the 'Alpine Modern question'.
He's into this. Supported a pilot project to let willing neighborhoods have Alpine Moderns wherever collector streets meet.
Sarah Silver has a but...based on visiting Chicago, the challenge is there's not enough business to keep the businesses open. She caught herself starting to say density, but says instead that businesses don't have enough traffic.
Zuckerman says not *every* owner of a corner lot would do it. The market can guide some decisions like this.
Silver supports this idea, but wants to be specific that it wouldn't be a zoning change. I'm a little confused.
Gerstle: I'm open to this, but if we move too far in this direction we as a Planning Board are out of work. "I like keeping some more control...There's still a role for Planning Board discretionary decisions."
Third question: Should we streamline/simplify office and restaurant use categories? Context: There are six separate types of office use, and five categories of restaurant use. I would like to understand how this came to be.
Staff explaining that they have to micromanage almost every change of office occupation, making sure new occupants are actually allowed to be in a space.
Re-tenanting commercial spaces becomes a giant land use entitlement process.
Planning Board agrees this is silly. Three thumbs up from Silver, in fact.
Question 4: Should Boulder allow more flexibility for creative uses (studios, live-work units, small performance spaces) throughout the city?
This one is generating some discussion about noise regulation. Sarah Silver wants to clarify this was not intended for single family zones. "It's not about density, but still having areas that are really single family zones."
Question five: Should we allow residential, retail, and restaurant uses in light industrial areas to promote mixed use zones?
Zuckerman clarifying we shouldn't displace industrial uses. Only add other things. We need places to get tires changes, and we can't have all housing from sea to shining sea.
We're talking about tools to create housing and mixed uses in industrial areas but to also limit them.
David Ensign: We have a very static zoning code that makes it difficult to adapt to change. Part of what we're doing is creating flexibility to respond to change in the world.
Oh god, we've still got another agenda item, and apparently they can't start that after 10PM without a vote. But we're going to do it. @shayshinecastle I'm still with you!
Item 6B: Community Benefit (Phase II). This deals with how developers get permission to build to the charter height limit (55ft) in certain limited zones of the city. They can already get there with affordable housing (the outcome of Phase I of this project).
There was once a larger menu of community benefit options, but it's been narrowed down to below-market-rate commercial spaces, arts/cultural spaces, and dedicated space for human services organizations. Planning Board will give feedback on whether/how to require these things.
Summary of community engagement to this point includes 'Codeapalooza' open houses in 2018-2019. I can't believe I missed this.
I'm not sure if this was a misstatement, but staff says they've heard concern about allowing *any* buildings over the height limit. *Please* everyone: You can't do that anyway. 55ft is in the charter.
Ugh, that same language again. I think they are talking about the 'temporary' moratorium on buildings over 35ft, but you can't blame the public for misunderstanding when there are slips like this.
How do we decide who are eligible commercial/arts/human services tenants? It's all very complicated.
Sarah Silver: Is affordable senior housing included in the existing affordable housing option, is it part of the human services option here?
It wouldn't be a discussion of affordable anything without cash-in-lieu. Apparently city staff want feedback on whether that should be an option for any of these community benefits.
Gerstle is hesitant about picking winners for affordable commercial spaces, especially when we may be headed into a situation of oversupply anyway.
City Attorney says there are prohibitions on preferential treatment of in-state businesses (if I understood that correctly) - a potential complication for designating affordable commercial spaces.
Sarah Silver wonders if we could have an entity (like BHP) focused on creating affordable commercial spaces - essentially to use potential cash-in-lieu contributions. It's after 11PM, and I'm well into a bottle of wine, but this sounds...unlikely?
She seems to be worried that if there's a cash-in-lieu option that just goes to housing, that we will never get these non-housing community benefits.
Harmon Zuckerman: What if community benefit is *always and only* cash-in-lieu paid to a city agency that distributes it to desired uses? He's excited again...
...It would be an amazing combination of big regulation and high impact fees w/private market - like vouchers. And it makes irrelevant the questions about minimum duration of beneficial uses and penalties for those uses ending...because the $$ is already paid in full to the city.
Community benefit and current need aside, do we really want to lock building space into commercial uses in perpetuity? Planning Board is getting (rightly, I think) hesitant about that.
Now discussing potential penalties if dedicated commercial/arts/social services spaces become vacant, or are occupied by 'fraudulent' organizations. Sarah Silver: with affordable housing, we have a list of who's eligible.
Does anyone - even in this horrible economy - want to design and administer this program?
Yes, yes, I understand that the real point is to de facto lower the height limit to 35ft permanently.
This last set of questions is about site review criteria - looks like a proposal to increase what gets reviewed when large projects come before the board. Options A-K, sigh.
View protections, fenestration minimums, building length maximums, building material minimums, street-level detailing...almost makes you long for board discretion.
I hear Sam Weaver made a good speech on the Muni over at City Council. That may have been a better use of the last half hour of my time. Planning Board members are really fading here.
We are done here, and everything from these last three hours (post-library) comes to City Council next Tuesday, 8/25.
