Thread by @shayshinecastle

Is it Tuesday again already? You know what that means... city council night, #Boulder.

Tonight is a study session so no public participation. We've got an update on policing, including reforms and oversight. boulderbeat.news/2020/08/01/bou…

Then two very confusing and difficult topics related to Boulder's built environment that are SUPER important: Community benefit/height limits and use tables.

Basically: What do developers have to do to be allowed to build up to the charter height limit of 55 feet? And what can go where in the city? (Offices, restaurants, homes, shops, etc.)

I'll go over Community Benefit/height limits a bit more in a minute. I'm waiting to receive my link to the Zoom meeting. I always wonder if this will be the day they "forget" to include me.

OK: Community Benefit / height limits. Presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Community…

And primer: The city wide height limit (in the charter, passed by voters) is 55 feet. But each zoning district has its own height limit, ranging from 35 to 38 feet. Modifications can be requested through the site review process so that buildings can go up to 55 feet.

A few years ago, people started getting upset at all the modifications that were being granted.

So city council in 2015 put a moratorium on height modifications EXCEPT in the places in the Appendix J map, which you'll hear referenced a lot tonight.

Appendix J = Uni Hill, Armory site in NoBo, Gunbarrel, Boulder Junction, downtown, Boulder Valley Regional Center (the 28th Street biz areas near the Twenty Ninth Street Mall) Frasier Meadows and the area near the hospital on Arapahoe.

So those are the only areas where buildings can go up to 55 feet right now. (There are also possibilities to build up to 55 feet for housing that is 40% affordable, or if the topography of the land is weird, or if it's necessary for industrial equipment, or for antennas)

But in general: No building beyond the zoned height limit in most of the city, per the moratorium.

The height limit moratorium has been extended two times, with the thought to complete community benefit.

Again, Community Benefit is: What do developers have to provide in order to be able to request height above the zoned limit but below the 55-foot charter height limit?

NO buildings over 55 feet are being approved or built. Those that exist were pre-height limit (passed by voters in 1971)

Phase 1 of Community Benefit was Affordable Housing. If you want to build up to 55 feet, you have to provide 35% inclusionary housing on-site (instead of the standard 25%) or 50% on-site units if they are for-sale instead of rent. And there's a higher cash-in-lieu fee.

Phase 2 is where we are now: What else should be considered Community Benefit?

Three options on the table: Affordable commercial space, arts/culture space, and human/social services space.

It gets more complicated, as you'll see tonight, but hopefully that helps explain why we're here.

It's 6 p.m. and I still don't have my meeting link, so it looks like I'm watching the live stream online like the rest of you. And I've lost my timing advantage of actually being in the meeting, since there's a delay on the stream.

Brockett is leading this, as council is trying something new. Council members are taking turns leading study sessions.

Also part of this is updating criteria for Site Review (what things will kick developments into this process, which require Planning Board and possibly city council approval)

It takes extra time and $$. I used to know on average how much cost it adds. I'll see if I can find that in my notes.

A question for council tonight (there are many) from planner Karl Guiler: Should Community Benefit uses be required for a set period of time? (10 years, 20 years) or forever like permanently affordable housing?

And should there be a penalty fee for developers if the Benefit uses fall through? (Like, say you rent to a nonprofit but then they move out and you can't find another one... should you have to pay?)

Lots of unanswered questions around this, and not a ton of community support, according to the BeHeardBoulder survey. However, I will say, based on the comments, it doesn't look like everyone understood what they were being asked.

That doesn't mean they'll support it if they understood it. Council has also questioned the wisdom of this project, given COVID and the changing real estate landscape.

For example, these comments: “I get that new priorities may give rise to new heights but really feel 55 feet should stick in MOST cases.”

Reality: We're not talking about going over 55 feet. Ever. Anywhere.

This person summed it up nicely: “I have some background knowledge in this topic, so I was okay, but this project is likely very difficult to read for a layperson. You should run all the information you are about to publish on this website through Readwise.”

And this one just made me LOL: “Have the courage to tell individual nimby homeowners to shove it”

Also a lot of consideration being given to view shed: When should Boulder protect views of the mountains and not allow height modifications up to 55 feet? Always? Never? From neighborhoods? From public spaces like parks?

"Obviously we're not in a great year" for economic evaluation of this project, Guiler says.

The city has to figure out some pretty complicated costs and impacts to set the level of community benefit.

Basically, quantifying what public art is worth, or reduced rent for various human services? Difficult to figure out what those are "worth"

A lot of this project is trying to answer the question: How do we make taller buildings (again, only up to 55 feet) palatable to Boulderites?

Should we require certain materials? Protect views? Require that upper floors be set back? Limit size in other ways, such as length?

Guiler is moving on to public engagement. There was a focus group that worked on this w/the city, made up of community members and development professionals.

The members of that group were not named, which I don't super love. Not very transparent.

From the packet: "Staff has also formed a Site Review Focus Group and Neighborhood Representative Focus Group to review and discuss the project. The first group is largely composed of design professionals who are familiar with the criteria and Site Review process ...

... and that have worked on Site Review projects (see Attachment G). The second group is comprised of neighborhood representatives from throughout the city that was assembled with the help of the city’s Communications and Engagement Department”

Staff also reached out to the Chamber, and political groups PLAN Boulder and Better Boulder. Not sure why just those 2 (they are the most established, I guess) but there are others who were, presumably, not asked to participate.

There were ~175 online survey responses. In the beginning, it was roughly 50/50 of "I like these things" or "I don't" but now it's shifted more to ~60% Don't do any community benefit; don't allow buildings up to 55 feet.

OK, diving into the three possible community benefits.
For below-market rate commercial space, a few questions for council: Do we want to limit the size of spaces? (which would be better for smaller businesses) or limit franchises/national chains?

Guiler says that latter is not being considered right now bc it may not be legal. New York and San Fran do this in some form, as well as Telluride. Staff has to keep looking into the legal issues, Guiler says.

For arts and culture spaces, possible things that could be considered community benefit:
Visual art studios, maker spaces, or education spaces

Performing arts studios, practice spaces, education spaces...

...or community dance halls

Visual art galleries or co-ops

Performing arts venues, concert halls, or black box theaters

Amphitheaters, sculpture parks, or other outdoor arts venues

Video, film, and digital arts studios, education spaces, interactive experiences...

...art cinems, and immersive arts venues

Art or cultural uses that contribute to the growth and vitality of any locally designated arts districts

For human/social services, staff not recommending those be limited to nonprofits only, as there are for-profit things like nursing homes or child care that are greatly needed.

A list of possible beneficial uses:

Custodial care facilities
Daycare centers
Day shelters
Emergencyshelters
Essential service facilities
Group home facilities
Nonprofit healthcare facilities
Nursing care facilities that accept Medicaid for at least a set % of beds
Overnight shelters
Residential care facilities...

....Transitional housing
Family resource centers
Services for underserved populations (e.g., developmental disabilities, food pantries)

Or anything that serves a special population and a review body says is community benefit

I'm not gonna tweet all of it, but the planning board feedback (Slide 18) show just how complicated this is and how many questions are outstanding.

Kicking it to council questions/discussions. Weaver starts: For affordable housing, it's pretty easy to know how the in-lieu fees will be used. How would in-lieu fees for some of these options be used?

Guiler: We would work with attorneys and Community Vitality. Maybe we could put $$ in an arts and culture fund, or something that goes to human services to help them find spaces for tenants.

Guiler: We're working with an economist on the in-lieu fees, to set them and see how they might change.

Young: To what extent is staff considering changing the site review process?
Guiler: We plan to convene the site review focus group. In the case of height modifications, those decisions would still come to planning board. (and be subject to council approval)

Young: How would the city's fees be applied to tenants with reduced rents?
Guiler: Our economist is looking at that.

Forgot to mention this, but there's a suggestion that proposed beneficial uses go to various boards/groups that would weigh in and determine: Is this a benefit?

So arts uses to the Arts Commission, human services stuff to that city dept; below-market-rate commercial space to community vitality.

Young making a point that national businesses could be "Gucci or Walmart" whereas a local biz could still be super high end. How are those decisions shaping up?
Guiler: It's still in process. We're looking at 30Pearl (which will have the city's first affordable commercial space)

"There's some challenges with being too specific," Guiler says.

Wallach: At 30Pearl we did a 25% discount on market rate. "Is there any particular magic in that number? ... How are we going to wrestle that to the ground?"
Guiler: We're going to be relying heavily on our economic consultant to provide. We'll bring options back to council.

Wallach: "To some extent, we're picking winners and losers. How are we going to manage this so it's not so arbitrary and capricious and everybody knows what to expect?"

Guilder: That's "driving the need to define the uses very clearly. ... The goal is it will hopefully be very straightforward."

Wallach: What's going to be the exclusion of any business? Ice cream shops aren't OK but shoe repair is? What's the basis for exclusion?
Guiler: That's the difficulty being revealed by the below-market-rate commercial. We have to dig in more.

Wallach: We are conferring a benefit onto the developer. If that equals $100 extra a year to them, how much are we trying to recapture as the city?
Guiler: The economist is going to present on that.

Wallach: In the criteria for review, you indicated an objective as increased high quality design outcomes. How would you do that?
Guiler: We're drawing from form-based code (wish I could explain this to ya'll but I really can't right now. I will eventually.)

It's basically very detailed design standards that eliminate the need for a subjective process, as I understand it, but I'm not super familiar.

I don't know if it results in prettier buildings, for example. What = pretty buildings is, of course, entirely subjective.

Friend: Have we gotten any projects under Phase 1? Any applicants?
Guiler: No applicants pursuant to Phase 1. Those requirements started Jan. 1 and then we were in "full pandemic mode" by March.

Friend: Were there any nibbles? Inquiries at all? If no one takes us up on these, then we have a de facto 35-38 foot height requirement.
Guiler: "We've not gotten any inquiries." ... We've gotten anecdotal comments from some that it doesn't provide any incentive.

Guiler: This is one of those things, we're going to have to continually revise it for feasibility and see if it makes sense.

Brockett: What's the flexibility within these requirements? Can they be switched between beneficial uses?
Guiler: That's what we're hoping. We don't want the economist to come back and say, 'We want this amount for this use, but a larger amount for THIS use.'

Weaver asks Guiler to go over the 2015 discussion that led to the height moratorium. Which has been extended twice. (I thought 3X but staff said 2X)

This is specific to Appendix J, which is where height modifications can still be allowed.

It was supposed to sunset in 2017, then extended to 2020, then again through May 2021.

"This was an interim map that would allow us to do the analysis and homework to put together a community benefit program ... and then the map would go away. .. We have heard some comments from folks that it should be modified, opened up or kept restricted."

"The original intent what that it was going to be temporary," Guiler says.

First q for council: Do we agree with these uses (affordable commercial, arts/culture, human services) as additional Community Benefits?

Wallach: "A focused program is better than a more diffuse program. ... Every poll, every indication we have is that lack of affordable housing is the No. 1 problem we have in Boulder."

"A more broadly based program will serve to decrease the amount of affordable housing that we are going to be producing through a program of this type," he says. "The highest priority we have is housing."

It's most appropriate to give away a little extra floor area or height for affordable housing, Wallach says. "I don't understand why we'd be wanting to take away from the production of affordable housing ... and make this much more complex and arbitrary system."

Wallach: "The benefit we should be extracting .... should be residential space."

Wants to ditch Phase 2 of Community Benefit and leave it with Phase 1 (which was affordable housing, which is done)

Weaver: We already require affordable housing as the "entry price" of building anything in Boulder. Commercial linkage fee has brought in $5M; you have to include or pay for affordable housing if you build housing.

"There are other needs in the city as well," Weaver says.

Weaver: Let's start with nonprofits for the affordable commercial space. It will be easiest. "I would like to see this continue" bc these are all "high needs in Boulder" and every development already supports affordable housing. "That's the expectation."

Yates is with Weaver. "If all we do is focus on affordable housing, we're going to wake up 10 years from now and all we'll have is affordable housing and high-end commercial."

Yates: "We'll probably get it wrong the first time" and have to tweak it over the years, but we shouldn't abandon these other uses.

Young: "The reason we started going down this path is we were losing a lot of local businesses."

Young addressing how many of Boulder's service workers have to commute in bc they can't afford to live here. We want walkable neighborhoods, she says, but "Walkable for whom? Somebody is driving so somebody can walk."

"People who have low-wage jobs are generally the ones driving into town," Young says.

Generally on board with the additional community benefit.

Swetlik: I'm OK moving forward, but my issue is that it's usually bigger companies who have the ability to navigate the system.

"The soul of the program is supposed to be very small business, the people who have a hard time navigating something like this," he says.

Friend agreeing with that. It needs to be done in a way so that "red tape is minimized and we're not doing this in name only." If developers don't use it, we're not getting the community benefit.

RE: National chains, "I can see where that would be valuable."

Low-cost grocery stores are affordable. I don't have the data on that, so I don't want to nix it without knowing more."

Huzzah for not forming an opinion without all the information!

Friend: Maybe there is value to having big-box stores. We heard last week that we lost sales tax revenue more than the L towns bc we didn't have those, and people are going there. I support small biz, but maybe there is benefit to the other as well.

Also urges some caution to tying living and working for disadvantaged populations too closely. She worked with a nonprofit serving people with disabilities. People don't always want their employers right on top of them, she says.

Joseph and Brockett both want to keep moving forward with these particular benefits.

How we write the criteria for who can use these spaces is going to be critical, Brockett says. It's going to need flexibility.

Wallach, obviously outnumbered, decides to echo Weaver on focusing on nonprofits, at least at first.

Now on to how long the benefits should last: Staff recommends forever (like affordable housing) and council agrees.

What about a penalty fee if the use is no longer on the beneficial list?
Weaver: There should be a fee "if the community benefit goes away" but we need flexibility for it to "evolve over time."

Wallach concurs but do we need a penalty if we simply bar the leasing of the space outside the program? "A dark space is a penalty in and of itself."

Joseph: We need flexibility, times being what they are. If they can't rent the space affordably... "when does this penalty take effect?"

Swetlik: "There are already those dark holes of commercial space that have been sitting idly for years bc the mortgages are paid off and it's better to just let them sit then lower rents. I think a penalty is pretty necessary."

Young: "We need to consider the fact that retail itself is changing."

Brockett: The penalty needs to be "more than a slap on the wrist," otherwise ppl will just pay it to opt out of the community benefit program.

Last q for council on this: Does council support streamlining the site review process?

Young: I think it's important for more involvement early on. Look at the Liquor Mart property; they incorporated feedback and then it sailed through site review.

She also goes back to whether or not the Arts Commission should weigh in on arts/culture community benefit uses. That should be a subcommittee, not the full commission, she says, for ease of access.

I will note that having Arts Commission now weigh in on development projects will likely make those board appointments even more political than they already were.

Council broadly supports streamlining the site review process.

And with that, we're on to use tables. @threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!