Thread by @shayshinecastle

Moving on to the Comp Plan update. Here's the staff presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5A_B…

Council last discussed this in Dec. 2019: boulderbeat.news/2019/12/07/wit…

Here's the thread from that meeting, which really centered on the planning reserve. Don't think we're touching on that tonight.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1202066…

Here's what we WILL be talking about: Changes requiring city OK (Planning board, City council)
Change land use in Boulder Junction TVAP to Mixed Use Business
Change Alpine Balsam land use to Mixed Use Business, High Density Residential

6500 Odell Place - change land use to High Density Residential
3015-3055 47th Street - change land use to Transitional Business
Hillside Road - change land use to Low Density Residential from Public (owner request; all the previous ones were initiated by the city)

Blue Line changes: Voters OK’d adjustments, clarifications in 2016; will be adopted into BVCP (The Blue Line is the "line" above which Boulder doesn't provide city water/sewer)

Policy and text changes - Tribal consultation; description of subcommunity and area plans; Alpine-Balsam Area Plan

Some changes will have to be OK'd by the city (council and Planning Board) AND the county (commissioners and Planning Commission)

Those are:
Change of service area resulting from Blue Line adjustment
Land use changes from OSMP acquisitions
Policy and text changes - Add low-stress network and transportation equity to TMP; 15% affordable housing goal; homelessness strategy added to human services policy

Curious what open space we acquired in the last few years? Me, too. Thankfully, there's a list.
Boulder Valley Farm - 2018, 191.5 acres, OS-Ag (that's what it will be zoned)
Centennial Trail - 2019, 0.19 acres, OS-A
Fort Chambers / Poor Farm - 2018, 113.26 acres, OS-Ag

Hogan Pancost - 2019, 2.73 acres, OS-Ag
Liu CE - 2019, 1.15 acres, OS-Development Rights
Pearl Parkway ROW - 2015, 25.79 acres, OS-Ag
Rosenblatt-Ryan - 2018, 49.21 acres, OS-Ag
Shanahan, North - 2020, 60.08 acres, OS-Ag

Shanahan, South - Circle Enclosure - 2020, 3.99 acres, OS-A
Shanahan, South - 2020, 114.31 acres, OS-A
Snyder - 2017, 5.26 acres, OS-A
Stengel II Pond - 2018, 1 acre, OS-A
St. Walburga Abbey Expansion - 2019, 0.57 acres, OS-A

And Suitts Trust - 2017, 24.75 acres, OS-A

Just occurred to me I'd like to know how much we spent on all that land. I'll put in a request for that and let you know!

We also disposed (got rid of) some open space land in that time (though not much):
Coleman - 2020, 2.55 acres, Low-density residential
St. Walburga Abbey - 2019, 0.58 acres, low-density residential
Suitts Trust - 2020, 2.45 acres, low-density residential

Disposed doesn't mean we don't own it anymore, necessarily, just that it's no longer open space land.

Back to the comp plan: There was one request from a property owner that staff is not recommending adding to the comp plan at this time (actually, there were several requests, but this was one the city was taking seriously)

1345 Broadway / Mt. Hope Church - was being explored for change from low-density residential to some mixed use

Community feedback was “cautious support” which is why staff is not recommending a change at this time.

"We feel it needs further exploration," Planner Jean Gatza says. Will continue looking at neighborhood-serving retail.

The church requested this change; neighbors were OK with maybe some retail, not as supportive of housing or mixed-use (traffic concerns). Feedback was split on housing or mixed-use.

Back to the list: My bet is we discuss the Odell Place change, which is in Gunbarrel. There's been discussion recently over how much housing the area can/should accommodate, sparked by the Celestial Seasoning project.

The area is light industrial now, but is surrounded by housing. Planning Board called out industrial uses specifically in its feedback, though they OK'd this change.

One Planning Board member was opposed to the Odell change; John Gerstle. Otherwise, Planning Board OK'd all of this 7-0 (Gerstle had to recuse himself from one of the Blue Line votes bc he owns property there)

Gatza talking Blue Line. It was 2016 when voters approved amending the location of the Blue Line, to allow some existing homes to access city services.

"Really the only change here changes the ability to access city services," Gatza says — it doesn't open up additional development, as some feared. "They do not create incentive for development beyond allowing city water and sewer."

Back to Planning Board feedback. They made an additional suggestion that wasn't on the table, to amend BVCP Policy 2.21.

What IS BVCP Policy 2.21? Thought you'd never ask:
"The city supports its light industrial areas, which contain a variety of uses, including technical offices, research and light manufacturing ..." yada yada

Planning Board wants to remove the word "light" from that and have staff undertake a citywide review of industrial areas "for the sake of the city’s diversity, sustainability, and resilience as a community.”

Saving industrial space — and the mid- and low-wage jobs that go with them — has been a topic of interest for council the last couple of years. (Probably longer, but I've only been here for a few.)

Interestingly, the expert I talked to for this story said that was a noble goal, but a pretty worthless one when it comes to ensuring diversity and protecting low-income workers.boulderbeat.news/2020/12/12/cou…

Those jobs are going and gone, he said: Better to focus on housing, higher wages and safety nets for the jobs that are taking their place — predominantly low-wage service jobs.

Of course, that was mainly an equity take. There are other reasons to keep industrial space, like having a city where you can get all your needs met (= driving less)

Gatza RE: industrial zone review: "It's trying to understand the state of industrial space" BEFORE we make changes.(Imagine that) Some of this work has already been done in the planning process for East Boulder (where a lot of industrial space is)

Brockett: The Planning Board already voted. Since this needs two-board approval, anything we don't agree with them on doesn't pass, right?
Correct, Gatza says.

It would have to go back to Planning Board if council made changes.

Staff is recommending council NOT change the BVCP policy regarding industrial — not until that citywide analysis is done. So that would be adopted in a future comp plan update.

In case you don't know, Comp Plan, BVCP both = the same thing: The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan

That will be in my glossary for Planning 101. Now accepting suggestions for others.

Wallach asks about the Blue Line properties. Are we incentivizing a "gold rush" for building "mini mansions?" he asks.

Gatza: This only allows them to apply for annexation, to access city water and sewer. If they *do* apply for annexation, that comes with development restrictions.

Young asking about Hillside Drive. That surrounds a school, and bc of a likely map error — converting hand-drawn maps to digitized ones — resulted in some parcels with two different land uses: public and low-density residential.

This would make those parcels either/or: Public for school land and low-density residential for the homes there.

Swetlik asks about 650 Odell in Gunbarrel. Reminder: BHP is requesting this so they can do an affordable housing project there. They can't build enough homes under the Industrial zoning, so they're asking for a change.

To high-density residential. Gatza says that aligns with the current Gunbarrel Center planning.

ugh, why does it feel like I'm sprinting? Does it feel like I'm sprinting?

10 speakers for the public hearing

I think Nagle is not here tonight. I have not seen here but I was busy during roll call, so maybe I missed her..?

A couple speakers have accidentally signed up for the wrong thing tonight. Good times.

Like Greg Kass, who is talking about River & Woods owner, who he says "terrorized" neighbors. This matters now bc that owner is part of the ownership team for the Rez restaurant/bar.

Kass: Parks and Rec are "basically seeking to expand their fiefdom in the end of night" without the input of neighbors who "built their dream home" by the Rez.

Boulder, you dramatic AF.

Donna George is against changes at Odell Place.

Clarification to Kass' quote above. It was that parks & rec are expanding their fiefdom in the DEAD of night, not the end of night.

George: BHP "wants to build as many units as they can build."

Ah, yes, those greedy nonprofit developers, seeking to maximize their non-profit.

I mean, there are some valid and interesting points about Gunbarrel development. But BHP trying to maximize the amount of affordable housing it builds isn't really one of them.

There's a glass house that somehow manages to obscure the view of the scenic mountain backdrop, according to Alexia Parks.

Ohh, Parks coining a new word: Mansionized. I'm here for it.

Mansionized: The process by which modest, single-family homes are redeveloped into large, expensive and fancy single-family homes.

Laura Sheinbaum from BHP is here to speak in favor of the Odell Place change. It's a vacant parcel surrounded by development, so it's a good infill opportunity, she says.

"There is no affordable housing owned by the city in the Gunbarrel Center," Sheinbaum says. (There is affordable housing from the county nearby)

Sheinbaum: "The rules in the industrial zone are a little challenging. For us to get a reasonable number of units on the site" — to be "financially viable" — we need residential zoning.

The need is great, she says. Over 200 applicants in 3 days for the 40-unit 30Pearl properties. The waitlist opened recently (and closed soon after, I imagine)

Kit Fuller, a Gunbarrel resident, follows her: "I do agree this is a very good site for high-density residential" and affordable housing. "There's a lot of good behind the intent here," but the process has been "unfortunate" and full of "irregularities."

"The fact that Gunbarrel has no affordable housing in its center is not the fault of Gunbarrel," Fuller says. "It's the fault of whoever" OK'd the 550 units of housing there and let developers "buy off" the requirement "at the last minute."

The cash-in-lieu option — developers give $$ for affordable housing rather than building it on-site — is much maligned by residents. But affordable housing staff and developers love it, bc they get more housing from it.

Also, the city has to offer a cash-in-lieu option bc of the state ban on rent control. So it's not like a gift to developers; it's literally the law.

Why don't developers build more on-site? It's complicated to get financing unless you're doing ALL affordable housing. You can read more about that here: boulderbeat.news/2019/12/13/aft…

Julie Dye, another Gunbarrel resident, is bringing up the lack of parks/open space in the area, which was an issue brought up around the Celestial Seasonings project.

I really should get on a Gunbarrel story. I'll add it to my list.

Dye: "Gunbarrel is YIMBY — with a plan."

Gatza going over public engagement; some residents claiming the outreach was inadequate. The "irregularities" they cited were that the project was accepted after the deadline, at BHP's request, so they could qualify for certain funding.

Residents think that's unfair.

Wallach speaking up. He was on the BHP board at the time this came up: The sale of the land has not closed, and won't go through if the land use change doesn't go through.

This was an opportunity they wanted to take, Wallach says, since they don't have any housing in Gunbarrel. And they need the land use change to make the project work.

"They come when they come and they can't be held in stasis forever."

Gatza: "This is a land use change, not a development approval." When we looked at this, we asked: "Is this an appropriate place for housing?" That's true whether or not BHP develops it.

Swetlik: So if we don't OK this change, the land will still be for sale, and the owner could build something by-right under the existing zoning?

Yes, Gatza says. They could still do housing there, which is allowed in industrial zoning.

Or maybe not... since it's under 2 acres...? Not entirely sure. I know *some* housing is allowed in industrial.

Staff initiated this Gunbarrel change. The issue (for residents) was that it was *after* the cutoff for the public's requests.

Weaver summing it up nicely: I think the question is how much of an exception was made for BHP?

Weaver pointing out that most of the changes in the comp plan update were staff initiated. This one was just added later.

Jay Sugnet, a city employee: Staff specifically asked planning board and city council if we should pursue this change, and the consensus was it felt important. That's why we're here tonight.

Weaver: Was the public outreach for this site any different than for any of the other sites?

Gatza: No. When we solicited public feedback — over 6-8 weeks — it was for ALL the changes at once.

OK, so some housing COULD go there under current land use. Exactly how much isn't clear; they're talking floor area ratio, which I've never understood well enough to translate it for you.

Even at the new land use and the highest density zoning, the most housing that can go there is 20-35 units, staff says.

We've got a motion on the table, people. Try not to get too excited.

And a second. Oh, boy.

A lil holiday spirit for you.

Brockett: "I really do think we need to provide more services to Gunbarrel," including parks and "hopefully a small library branch."

Nevertheless, he's in favor of the land use change there. It's a vacant parcel surrounded by housing, he says, it just makes sense. Plus it will be affordable.

Swetlik: "It's always important" that "everybody play by the same rules." Affordable housing is important, but "how you get there is also important for the public trust."

Friend: We considered the unusual process for this change in June; we said it was OK then, so it's not right to re-litigate it. But it's something to try and avoid in the future.

Young echoing that: "We gave them the OK knowing full well this came after the deadline. It is on council."

Wallach: "I for one would not be prepared to lose those affordable housing units ... due to the deviation from process that we had countenanced previously."

This man loves his big words.

Like a less insufferable George Will.

Weaver pointing out that the developers who paid cash-in-lieu will essentially turn into on-site affordable housing there, since BHP uses that $$ to develop. And if developers had done it on-site, it would be in separate buildings anyway. (Cuz financing)

Council will NOT adopt that policy change RE: industrial areas. They want to do a citywide industrial analysis first.

The county commissioners and Planning Board will look at this in January. And presumably approve it so... then it will be done.

Unanimous vote. 8-0, bc Nagle *is* absent, as I thought.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!