Thread by @shayshinecastle

I'll prob tweet a bit of open comment tonight, since it looks like a lot of Gunbarrel folks are here to speak against the Celestial Seasonings project.

Planning Board approved that 6-0 (with conditions) on June 17.

Actually, let's just go ahead and look at that project now, shall we?

Here are staff's slides: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

As a reminder, a call-up is where council votes to review a Planning Board decision. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll overturn it (that's incredibly rare) but they might want to have their own input.

This project was called up by council in the concept plan phase. They're now in site and use review, the last (public) step before approval.

The site is 9.87 acres next to Celestial Seasonings in Gunbarrel (4775, 4725, and 4649 Spine Road)
So what's planned there?

20 buildings; 4 mixed-use (ground floor non-residential)
230 units (reduced from 268 originally)
20 studio apartments
117 1BR
66 2BR
27 3BR

Habitat for Humanity will also build 6 for-sale townhomes there

Amenities:
Cafe (1,538 sq ft)
Library (1,091 sq ft)
Community areas (4,459 sq ft)
Leasing office (1,728 sq ft)
Art space (678 sq ft)

The library will be a city library, like a little annex similar to the NoBo corner library. Gunbarrel has wanted a library branch for decades.

When I say "Gunbarrel" I obviously mean residents there. Not all, but enough that it has risen to the level of the city council in past years. I have more detailed history on this but not in front of me.

Surrounding neighborhoods (and their density)
Orchard Creek (1990s), 147 homes (RL-2) 6 units/acre
Willows Neighborhood (1990s), 6 units/acre
Hunter Creek Condominiums (1980s), 144 units, 2-3 stories, 21 units/acre
Powderhorn Condominiums (1990s), 498 units, 21 units/acre

There's also Medtronic, 500,000 sq ft of offices, labs, loading docks, etc. built over 40 years (1970s)

This particular land is Light Industrial (land use) with Industrial manufacturing zoning.

Housing is allowed here: “Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations," per code

2017 BVCP update added policy 2.21 to increase residential uses in IG zones

For this zoning, developers must provide 600 sq ft of open space per unit. Max density is 27.2 units/acre

Planning Board approved 6-0 with conditions on June 24
(Public hearing June 17 - 66 speakers)
Conditions:
Pay $200,000 for first year of shuttle service to nearby retail
Provide bus passes to all tenants, employees for 5 years
No fences (except around pool)

Last condition: No base rent charged to the library and cafe space in perpetuity.

Actually, that might not be a condition, but the developers have committed to that.

Oh, parking (which is always a big issue)
There will be 319 car spots, 5 more than required
And 266+ bike parking spots, also more than required

What's the transportation like out there?
According to staff:
205 Bus service suspended during COVID, will resume in 2022 (½-mile to east)
Also 119 BRT and regional bikeway planned; will include underpass near site, park-n-ride at 63rd

Other bike/multi-use trails: LoBo, 63rd/Andrus

Community will provide: E-bike share, e-scooters, vanpool, on-demand shuttle, car share and make some transportation improvements.

Such as:
Spine Road widened to include a southbound 7ft buffered bike lane;
A detached walkway with an 8 ft tree planting area on Spine Road;
On-street car parking along southbound Spine Road, next to the site;
Enhance existing transit stop on southbound Spine Road

We've got our first neighbor! Laurie Branch, saying neighbors aren't being heard, that all public outreach happened during the pandemic.

I wanted to copy the slide that shows all the meetings and process so far, but I can't. It's slide 2: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

Kate Pazoles: We look forward to the library, arts and cafe space, as there are no such amenities nearby. But we don't think they've done enough to prevent an increase in traffic.

She has some specific asks rather than the generalities we typically hear at these things. Nice.

Jared Stone has counted the remaining industrial land in Gunbarrel: 21.6 acres, of which Celestial Seasonings owns 10.2 acres, he says. (If this is developed which, "I hope it's not," Stone says)

Asks for all development to stop until a subcommunity plan is in place.

Such plans take 2-3 years, at best. Quite possibly longer.

Gunbarrel might be the next one, but we won't know until next year when East Boulder wraps.

I missed this speaker's name, with the Gunbarrel Community Alliance. "We are not against affordable housing, but we are against affordable housing at all costs."

"We are waving our hands in the air trying to draw attention to the fact that Gunbarrel does not have access to the same amenities that those in Boulder proper enjoy," she says.

That's been a big talking point for residents, who have said Gunbarrel is Boulder's "dumping ground" for housing but without parks, rec centers, swimming pools, etc.

Ok that last speaker was April Lyons.

Our first mention of prairie dogs! One of the earliest talking points, because Celestial Seasonings promised to save them back in the 90s.

Haven't heard much about this as the development progressed, prob bc ppl realized council doesn't care.

Plus it's Celestial Seasonings' land, and they can build *something* there even if it's not this, so the prairie dogs will go one way or another.

Judith Auer: Boulder wants to provide housing for workers, but do workers even want it? Not if it's not for sale, according to Judith.

"If Boulder is looking to Gunbarrel to solve its housing crisis, then let's do it right."

As a former renter (now condo owner), if I knew I could afford rent for the rest of my life, I would not have bought a place. I didn't care to own a home: I just wanted to know what my housing costs would be for the next 30 years.

Of course, that's just me. And we *do* totally need for-sale condos, townhomes, duplexes, etc. But this is a common talking point to oppose rental housing (which we also need).

Carmen Baran has put up a picture with a "Don't Tread on Gunbarrel" but instead of a rattlesnake, it's a prairie dog.

That is the most perfect Boulder thing to ever happen.

Our first "not enough parking" reference goes to Angie Mashaw, who says the area is extremely car-dependent.

For some reason, they're letting Andy Allison speak during open comment. I'm fairly sure he's the developer, so he should get to speak during the call-up.

But I could be wrong; I'm not familiar with all the many requirements of quasi-judicial matters.

Nora Swan-Foster: Boulder has an environmental legacy that it is undoing by allowing development.

She's also against the Celestial Seasonings project. Affordable housing may be a "Trojan horse," she warns, to line developer's pockets. People can't live long-term in multi-family housing, Swan-Foster says.

OK, we'll revisit this thread when council does its call-up vote later. Stay tuned. Much business in the meantime.

And we're already back to Celestial Seasonings/Spine Road. Planner Elaine McLaughlin is going over the process thus far, which started with an application in Jan. 6, 2020

Here's that presentation again, just in case: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

McLaughlin explaining the PUDs that are in place, but not explaining what a PUD *is*... I think a Planned Unit Development, which is basically like a plan for what can get built there.... ? Maybe.

There were multiple PUDs for this site, and each new one replaces the last one. So you can't look at an old PUD and hold people to it.

Young asking what parking reductions were made.
There were no parking reductions made as part of this proposal, McLaughlin says. Its a per-bedroom parking count for industrial zones. And that doesn't include proposed on-street parking spaces that will be added.

Brockett touching on earlier suggestions from a resident (the one I called out, bc it was so different to see): Will those be considered?

Yes, McLaughlin says, they're good suggestions. At the permitting stage, we can.

LOL the way Nagle just asked a question.

Basically, she asserts that a nearby, private neighborhood park will be taken over by new residents.

McLaughlin: They're providing a significant amount of open space on this project site. The park you're referencing is farther away and with residences around it...

It would be unusual for residents of *this* project to leave their site and access that one, McLaughlin finishes. And it's not part of the criteria we can use to approve or disapprove this project.

Nagle asking if we can force Celestial Seasonings to relocate prairie dogs instead of "murdering" them.
McLaughlin: Pdog management hasn't been decided yet. That happens at permitting. We do have a city plan/process for pdog management they have to follow.

It's not a criteria we can use tonight to approve or disapprove the project, McLaughlin says (again).

Nagle repeating the question to developers: "Can you, will you do something to passively relocate these animals?"

Andy Allison fielding that one: One of the steps of the city plan is to look for relocation options. We're actively working with consultants on that, including contacting the governor's office. (The First Gentleman is a big pdog advocate)

My sister asked me the other day if I had dealt with prairie dog issues for the last time this year. I naively said, "I think so."

There is no end.

Nagle: "They are begging us. I don't know how it's any more clear. Clearly they say like they have not been heard, their questions have not been addressed. Is there any other option for moving forward other than cancelling or pausing this that will allow for city planning...

... or tonight is it and then the residents are screwed?" Nagle finishes.

McLaughlin: The neighbor's concerns primarily seem to be issues of subcommunity planning and density. But we have specific criteria that we can use to approve this or not. Does this meet or not meet the review criteria?

"From our standpoint," McLaughlin says, "we've completed the public process as required."

McLaughlin: "When we have a project in front of us, we're required to evaluate it based on the codes and requirements that exists today.

It can't be deferred if it meets the criteria today."

McLaughlin addressing Nagle's assertions that residents are "overwhelmingly" opposed to this. The Planning Board hearing was evenly split, she says.

Nagle: "They can spout all they want that they support the project, but until you live across the street from it and have the habitat you walk on every day destroyed... it's different, you know."

Wallach encourages applicant to passively relocate p dogs if possible. It would be a goodwill gesture, he says.

Young questioning why the project's park and open space will only be available to residents of that community.

"We really have no plans to police who is using the open space or not," applicant says, and there won't be any fences.

Adam Swetlik and Nagle are the only 2 who want to call this up.

So council will not be calling this up / reviewing Planning Board's decision. So this will move forward.

Now we get to hear from Nagle, a Gunbarrel resident.

"I'm just very sorry," she says to her neighbors. "It's been the most difficult 4 years to be on this council, and quite honestly it's embarrassing."

Nagle: I thought we were here to serve residents, but that's clearly not the case. We're here to serve developers, which tonights makes clear.

This approval makes a "joke" of Boulder's climate goals, Nagle says. "Idk why we're even trying to do a climate action plan. ... We should not be messing any more with our ecosystems and putting in more housing" when there are empty units.

Wallach explaining why he isn't calling it up: This was not the most clear-cut decision for me. But we asked earlier for reduced density and they did that (original plan was for 268 dwellings, now it's at 230)

"On the whole, I'm wiling to accept the project," Wallach says. There were accommodations made, and it became much better.

Young: One thing I've learned on my time on council is the best we can do with these projects "is to shape them. ... Owners have legal right to develop properties. ... This is criteria-based."

Young: We're getting on-site affordable housing, and for-sale Habitat for Humanity homes. And we're getting a library and arts space, plus a shuttle the developers are paying for.

Friend: I appreciate that Planning Board did a lot of heavy lifting for us and got to a unanimous decision. That made our job easier tonight.

Friend: "Idk exactly how to say this, but ppl feel a lot like it's winning or losing on this decision, but it's not all or nothing. We try to make things as best as they can be within the confines we are working in."

Weaver: "Housing is a critical need in Boulder. 55% of our residents are renters, so creating rental property is in demand in Boulder, higher than in most places. It's also a lot easier to finance than ownership."

Habitat is one of the few ways we can do that, and it's happening here, Weaver says.

On subcommunity planning, only one Boulder area has that: NoBo. (East Boulder's getting done soon-ish).

"We hear you loud and clear," Weaver says to residents.

Weaver: One way to keep subcommunity planning palatable is not to have it stand in the way of legal development. If we didn't allow any building until those plans were done, they would be heavily opposed.

He encourages residents to help elect city council members that will prioritize a Gunbarrel community plan. And to consider annexation.

Brockett: This gets us desperately needed housing, including on-site affordable. And amenities, which we've heard a lot about from residents how there are no amenities in this area.

Swetlik, the other call-up vote: They expect the market-rate apartments here to go for $2,000. Someone would have to make $90K a year to live here to not be rent burdened. I'm not sure this is the type of housing we need.

With that, we're moving on.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.