Thread by @shayshinecastle

Next: Community Benefit 2.0
Presentation: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Electr…

Some background: This project is tied to height limits. The citywide height limit (approved by voters) is 55 ft. But most areas of the city have a lower height limit by-right: That is, you can build to THAT without a special process.

In the past, the only way to go above the zoned height limit (but still under 55 feet!) was kinda on a case-by-case basis, through site review.

Around 2015, there were a lot of 55 ft buildings going up, and council was like *clutches pearls*

So they passed a moratorium: A timeout on requests to build up to 55 feet, except in very limited areas. This map of exemptions is referred to as Appendix J.

This "temporary" timeout has been extended SIX times and now expires next month, Aug. 31.

The extensions were so that Community Benefit could be completed.

What is CB? What developers have to provide if they want to build up to 55 feet.

Phase 1 was extra affordable housing (36% vs. 25%)
Phase 2 was supposed to be affordable space for small biz, nonprofits, arts & culture

But it was hella complicated, so Planning Board was all, "Nah, fam." City council agreed. But they still want affordable commercial space! So tonight we're considering ways to do that.

Here are the options:
1.) Simplify ordinance - Developers won’t have to be “eligible” for an in-lieu fee for affordable commercial, it would just be an immediate option, like affordable housing, instead of providing on-site affordable space, leased at 50% market-rate

2.) Create capital facility impact fee - To be paid on bonus floor area. Impact fee study would be needed, and state law might prevent this $$ from being used on rent subsidies. Fees have to pay for things that are directly impacted by new development.

3.) Impose excise tax on bonus floor area - Same as impact fee, but subject to voter approval and no nexus study would be needed. Can also be used for whatever the city wants.

4.) Stick with Phase 1 - Would not give $$ to affordable commercial but only affordable housing

No. 1 would be the simplest, staff says. They don't recommend No. 2, bc it might be hard to rationalize an impact fee for extra height.

“There are uncertainties whether an impact fee imposed solely on bonus floor area above the by- right height would meet the criterion of applicability to a broad class of property if challenged in a court," staff wrote.

No. 3 is a good option, staff said, but it will take time and depends on voter approval.

Council should just be giving direction tonight; there will still have to be an ordinance of some type, no matter what they do, which would require a public hearing.

They'll also be providing more direction on what to do with the height moratorim: Let it expire (meaning height modifications could be requested citywide) OR pass some form of it into ordinance, preventing more than 50% of the city's land area from buildings up to 55 ft.

Just because people COULD request to build that high doesn't mean they will, Karl Guiller says. "We weren't seeing many prior to 2015" in neighborhoods, for example, mostly in commercial areas.

And, as he notes, any request for extra height (but still under 55 feet!) is still subject to Planning Board and possibly city council approval.

The moratorium means ppl couldn't even ASK for height in 96% of the city.

Phew, that was a lot. But pretty well done, I think. If ya'll don't understand height limits by now, there's no helping you. Jesus take the wheel.

Yates: What would the $$ be used for that gets paid into the affordable commercial fund? Rent subsidies? Moving expenses?

Guiler: It would be primarily focused on creating new affordable spaces in the city. Community Vitality would administer that program.

Yvette Bowden of Community Vitality: There have been dif ideas from dif council members over the years. We look forward to taking direction from council.

Pannewig: There's not a lot of case law in Colorado. The best thing, legally, would be to use it for the same purpose as on-site affordable commercial. The further you go away from the original intent, the more vulnerable that in-lieu fee will become.

Wallach: Could we take a portion of the affordable housing fee and using it for affordable commercial space?

Pannewig: We can't take $$ out of the housing fund and spend it on something else.

$$ from fees HAS to be used to defray the impacts of whatever the fee is on. Legally.

Wallach continuing to not understand why a linkage fee explicitly for affordable housing has to be used for affordable housing. He's not usually this dense.

But maybe it's me, bc I definitely don't understand all that's being said.

I'm good and lost now.

Judging by staff's long pauses and the silence of other council members, I'm guessing I'm not the only one. But we're moving on.

Weaver: "I have personally been in favor of getting more affordable commercial, but as we dig into it, there's a lot of complexity." We have to develop and run the program ourselves.

They key decision we need to make, Weaver says, is do we want to pursue affordable commercial space right now?

Weaver: One argument I've heard against it is that our affordable housing $$ is able to be leveraged with state and federal $$. There aren't those same options for commercial.

Yates: "We're basically charging people for height. You write a check for a fourth or fifth floor. .. I have some issues with that, but that's another discussion."

The question, Yates says, is if we charge people for height, what do we use that $$ for? Right now, affordable housing. I'd rather it go there.

For commercial, we'd have to do research, stand up our own program, etc.

No doubt there are tenants who could use rent subsidies, Yates says, but we have to do the work to find out who and how to spend the $$.

Wallach: Give BHP $1M and they can leverage that and triple it. "$1M for affordable commercial is going to be $1M."

"Our primary need" is affordable housing, Wallach says. "I don't see how we're getting at that problem by having less $$ for affordable housing."

Young: "A revenue stream for affordable commercial would be small and lumpy. And likely lumpier than the stream for affordable housing."

Young: Biz need workers, who need housing. "Ultimately, it comes down to people need housing. To give up the leverage we gain through affordable housing would be a fool's errand when our greatest need is housing."

(Yeah, and that was true 1 yr+ ago when you finished Phase 1 - affordable housing - and spent all this staff and council time chasing affordable commercial space)

But I don't want to hate on council too much. They tried and failed. At least they tried.

Friend also cool with just sticking to Phase 1: extra height = extra $$ for affordable housing. But she's bummed we can't get benefits for small biz, nonprofits and arts orgs.

As is Brockett, who "would still continue to work on this."

But he acknowledges that the majority of council isn't in agreement.

Can we at least get into our stated city goals that arts spaces are a community benefit and something we want to see? Brockett asks. "Make sure that idea is carried forward."

Weaver: I very much was hopeful this project would do that. I'm concerned for nonprofits and arts organizations.

Planning director Jacob Lindsey: The work is here, it's done. We've left the trail of breadcrumbs. If it's going to be picked up by a future council, it's ready when that time comes.

Wallach: I share those concerns about nonprofits and arts orgs, but "I don't think this program was the way to go."

Brockett moving on to height limits. He's OK not allowing height modifications (building up to 55 feet) in most of the city, except for higher-density areas and places where we might want more housing (like the mixed-use residential zones).

Wallach and Yates agree. Yates also wants to not include Business Transition zones — areas transitioning from commercial to residential. (So you could still request building up to 55 ft in those)

This would kinda be a big change, but kinda not. So, pre-moratorium, you could request a height modification (building up to the citywide height limit of 55 ft) in the whole city.... citywide, as the height limit is.

Council's direction is to carve out areas where you can't even request extra height. Big deal, bc the citywide height limit was voter approved. This is essentially lowering that in half the city.

On the other hand, not a big deal because, as planning staff said, there are no or very few requests for 55-ft buildings in those areas anyway.

But again on the other side, even the requests are subject to Planning Board and council approval, so not even allowing request for something that *already* has a mechanism to say no is kinda overkill.

To be fair, Boulder loves overkill.

And it's not even not allowing requests up to 55 ft. It's not allowing requests for ANY additional height above what the height limit for that zone is... typically 35 feet, but ranging from 28-45 feet, I believe, depending on where.

So if you're in a neighborhood and the limit is 35 feet, you couldn't built to 36 feet, even.

But again, maybe not that big a deal.

Anyway, that's all for this one.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!