Thread by @shayshinecastle

Taking some time for Community Benefit right now. Wallach sent a long email highlighting his issues with this work, which is associated with height limits. (What developers have to do to build to 55 feet, the charter limit).

It's undercooked, Wallach says. Both the Chamber and PLAN have significant issues with it as well.

One of Wallach's is: Will nonprofits and small biz actually be able to afford the discount rents? (affordable commercial space is a proposed Community Benefit)

Reminder: Affordable housing already is one. This is Phase 2 of the work.

Yates: "This is probably something that, quite frankly, is not ready to go forward right now."

Why this (also) matters: Right now, except in a few places, buildings can't go to 55 feet bc there is a "temporary" time out on the practice while this work is ongoing.

It was implemented 5-6 years ago and extended as many times.

Wallach proposed extending it (again) to 2022, using the time to further refine the Community Benefit proposals.

Yates wants to see it expire in August, the current sunset date.

That would mean buildings *could* go to 55 feet (through site review, depending on the zone) in exchange for affordable housing but nothing else.

Friend: How many people have actually done this?
Charles Ferro: I can think of one.

And I should say additional affordable housing above and beyond what Boulder requires, for the "additional" height above the zoned height but at/below 55 feet. Or extra cash-in-lieu

Friend also wants the height moratorium to expire in August.

OMG, did we just get a Young sigh?

Young: "Fundamentally, we're violating one of our city policies." By using one-time dollars (payment from a developer) for ongoing costs (keeping space affordable for businesses)

That's a bit of a stretch, I think, but plenty of other areas for criticism on this proposed expansion of Community Benefit.

Like this one: "It's fundamentally hard to make space affordable in a brand new building," Young says.

Old businesses serve organizations and businesses that don't have as much money, Young says.

Young: "Instead of trying to shoehorn affordable commercial in a brand-new building, let's see if we can create a fund that would help those organizations get those" cheaper rental spaces "from benevolent property owners."

"Whatever we do," Young says, we should move toward ending the height moratorium so we can get more affordable housing.

That's prob why we've only got 1 project taking advantage of this, Young says. (Although the Hill Hotel will as well, staff said, paying a higher rate of cash-in-lieu)

Weaver also suggesting that developers who want to build above the by-right height (allowed by zoning) and to 55 feet pay into a fund that helps nonprofits and small biz afford space in Boulder.

Weaver apparently tying extra density into this as well, which I don't remember being a thing. But it's been a while since Part 1 wrapped.

In order to lift the height moratorium, we need to make sure there's a level fee playing field, Weaver says. Wants to see it expire in August "BUT" wants to see "all projects above by-right height" pay community benefit BEFORE then.

Swetlik: I don't want to keep extending that moratorium. "That was supposed to be a lot more temporary then it ended up being."

Evergreen tweet.

Swetlik: "Simplicity is important."

It would be great if we didn't have to shove this to another council, Swetlik says. I want them to have time to do their own work.

But that's what happens, he says.

I *think* I'm allowed to say that Swetlik is not running for re-election. Sorry if that was supposed to be a secret, Adam! (He called me last week, and never said it was off the record, so...)

Still no word on Wallach. I keep hearing that he's running, but he keeps telling me he's not sure yet.

Brockett also wants the height limit moratorium to expire in August. We'll still get extra affordable housing or more $$ for affordable housing, he says, which is important.

So far, no one who is happy with Community Benefit 2.0

Nagle: I have not supported letting the height limit moratorium expire, "personally bc I don't think it's protected enough." but she acknowledged that's not the will of council. And she doesn't love this project.

Also thanks staff for their work, as does Friend. Friend also offers an apology. "We did not ask for a very easy" project. "I'm sorry for the frustration, I'm sorry for the change in direction."

Friend: "I can't explain exactly what has happened, but I can imagine some of you may want to throw things."

Wallach: "I think we put you in an untenable situation and did not provide enough guidance" to make this a reasonable and doable ask. "I'm sorry that we did so."

Planning Director Jacob Lindsey: To be clear, many of the residential zones won't be impacted by this. "There will not be 55-foot office buildings" in neighborhoods.

True. As I stated before, developers can apply for extra height above what the zoning allows, but they'd still need to be approved by Planning Board and possibly city council for that, so it's more likely for biz and commercial areas.

I think Wallach asked if the height moratorium can make clear where 55 feet will *never* be allowed. But I didn't quite understand his loquacious question.

Karl Guiller: We can craft an alternative option to address these concerns, and do a first reading on July 13.

Weaver: If we give you direction to create a fund that receives $$ for community benefit (to potentially help make commercial space more affordable), you can have something ready for us on July 13?

Yes, staff says.

Swetlik earlier suggested that a diverse group could be put together in the meantime to dole out grants, like the Arts Commission does, and the next council can work on a more formal program.

Young: "I think working on the use tables and site review criteria a would be a better use of time if we can wrap this one up."

That work has stopped due to staff shortages during the pandemic (budget cuts).

Joseph asks for a straw poll to see which council members support a Community Benefit fund so $$ can go toward affordable commercial space / help for small biz and nonprofits.

"It feels almost like buying height, and I'm not sure that's the right way to go," Joseph says.

Having a diversity of businesses and organizations in a building is very important, Joseph says.

What will the parameters be? We'll have to figure all that out, Joseph says.

Or, you know, just take the extra affordable housing in the meantime (since we need housing so bad) and let the next council take their time and figure out something good for affordable commercial space

Friend wants to do just that: My inclination would be to put a pin in this, let the height moratorium lapse. "Idk why we have to do anything next month."

Bc we would still get extra affordable housing/$$ for it for 55-ft buildings, as staff confirms.

Weaver posing that q to council now: do that, or make sure some $$ from this goes to a separate fund "and decide how to use that at a later time."

Always good when gov't is like, "Give us $$, we'll figure out what to do with it later. "

ESPECIALLY when that $$ would normally go to affordable housing.

Wallach likes option 2 (I think): I do think we should look to some language clarifying where those tall buildings can go and where they can't, he says.

Guiller: The ordinance before you tonight does set up an affordable commercial fund already, for anyone who chose in-lieu rather than on-site affordable commercial.

Guiler: We could make that in-lieu provision "simpler and more obvious" but we'd have to keep the requirement for affordable commercial in that case. (Can't require affordable housing and have the in-lieu $$ go to something else)

Only Joseph and Friend wanted to keep all $$ flowing to affordable housing. Or, to be more specific, they didn't want staff to bring back options related to that. The rest of council did.

Weaver to Wallach: What kind of protective language do you want above and beyond what's already in the zoning and code related to height limits?

Wallach: I simply want to articulate where developers can request more height and where they can't.

NRV: We're trying to get good outcomes. I appreciate your valuing staff's work and time on this. Thank you for recognizing it. Convos like this get us to good outcomes.

Wallach to planning staff: "You are all owed a great number of beers, purchased by council."

After that very long detour, we are done with Community Benefit. Stay tuned for more.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.