Thread by @shayshinecastle

This one will prob be more exciting. It's a rule change — which Planning Board was unanimously opposed to — to automatically allow restaurants in 3 city parks: Valmont, Boulder Rez and Flatirons Golf Course.

Staff presentation: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

You'll recall (or maybe not — hopefully you have a life, unlike me) that this all started bc of the Boulder Rez Drama.

The city remodeled facilities there, and leased space to a restaurant. Council OK'd the lease in Feb. 2020 to absolutely zero fanfare. Later in the year, neighbors started raising concerns over the hours, alcohol service, etc.

It culminated in a series of nonprofit fundraising dinners being cancelled after threats from a neighbor. City council issued a rare rebuke on that.

And staff decided to bring this rule change forward, bc one of the neighbors' complaints (there were many) was that restaurants aren't really even allowed in parks.

They are, but it's complicated.

Restaurants are allowed as accessory uses — "a use located on the same lot as the principal building, structure, or use to which it is related and that:
(1) Is subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of the land; and

(2) Is operated and maintained for the benefit or convenience of the occupants, employees, and customers of or visitors to the premises with the principal use.”

This would allow them by-right - requiring no special review IF in “a ​​regional park that is owned by a government and is 100 acres or more in size provided the restaurant is located no closer than 500 feet from any residential zone”

Restaurants closer than 500 feet would have to go through a process called use review that “requires public notice, compliance with specific criteria on compatibility and character etc., and ... subject to citizen appeal or Planning Board call up”

Even then, PRAB would still have to approve any lease longer than a year

Council still has to approve any lease longer than 3 years

As stated above, this rule change only applies to 3 parks
Flatirons Golf Course - has had restaurant/event center there 1991-2013
Boulder Rez - Concession area always; approved lease with Driftwinds in Feb 2019
Valmont - Not fully developed yet on southern portion

and it would not impact operations at the Rez: “The public conversations this spring and summer about reservoir restaurant operations have not resolved neighbor concerns, but have (with very few exceptions) elicited continued support for the plans from the broader community. ...

...The restaurant’s operations plan aligns with all currently applicable zoning requirements and the operating hours outlined for 2021 are planned through 2022. Thus, any zoning changes are not anticipated to have any impact on operations at this site.”

Still, Planning Board voted against it 7-0, which is rare. Councilman Wallach has already noted this in an email. Planning Board are the experts here, he wrote: Council should listen to them.

Planning Board kinda felt that there shouldn't be a blanket rule for all three areas, and that a use review process should still be required for any restaurants.

RE: The Rez. "We know we have not reached an agreement with neighbors," says Ali Rhodes, head of parks and rec, "and that is disappointing bc of all the time and $$ invested."

But the larger community supports a restaurant at the Rez, and restaurants in regional parks generally, Rhodes says, as does the Comp Plan.

It does set up an interesting (and, in Boulder, age-old) dynamic when there is conflict between what's in the interest/desire of the larger community vs. direct neighbors.

Something I would have liked to get into but.... election year.

I still might, tho, bc it's such a consistent theme in Boulder politics.

Friend q: If we pass this, could 12 fast food restaurants just set up tomorrow at the golf course?
Rhodes: No. The parks board still has to approve any lease, as does council if they are long enough. And restaurants always want longer leases bc of the $$ involved.

Young follows up: Is there any way this rule allows more than one restaurant per park?
Not really, staff says. These areas are heavily planned; the number of facilities is already established.

Rhodes: Before we build anything anywhere, we have input from the community on the concept plan, the site plan. If there's a biz component, we have to do a competitive bidding process.

As Yates notes, the city is already looking at where restaurants can go throughout the city. So this could fold into that work.

Yates: Could we change the rules so that council has to approve any lease over 1 year?
Sandra Llanes: Yes, we could. But not right now. That's another process, bc it's written in city code.

As a reminder, council approves any lease over 3 years. Parks and Rec board approves any lease over 1 year.

It's in the charter, so that would require 2/3 vote of council or a general election to change. (I think)

Wallach: "What is the impetus for this ordinance? What is the ill we are trying to cure?"

Karl Guiller: All the drama. It sparked the idea that other cities have full-service restaurants in their parks. We thought it would better reflect the will of the comprehensive plan.

Rhodes: For months we heard from Rez neighbors they didn't think a restaurant was needed, bc we had so many per capita. This would make it clear that the comp plan says restaurants in regional parks are a good and necessary use.

Guiller: It's not going to apply retroactively to the Rez, but it would cover any restaurant at the golf course (for which they're going through a competitive bidding process now, I believe.)

Wallach: How did we decide on 500 ft from homes as the limit?
Giuller: Other restaurant ordinances use this for purposes of nuisance.

Wallach: This is only 3 locations. What is the specific burden of making them go through use review?
Rhodes: "Idk that burden is the correct word. But it feels like duplicative review" when there's already public process around restaurants.

Wallach: Is use review so burdensome as to require an ordinance to make sure we don't have to do that?
Rhodes: That's for council to decide.

Rhodes: We're thinking of it as, when there's a situation and people disagree, are there better ways to handle the process so that people can accept the situation and move on.

Wallach: I don't think all disagreements are unnecessary. It just means people disagree.

Young: I just want to step back a bit, bc some resident emails have said we're putting a bar in place. What's the dif between a restaurant and a bar?

Guiller: We do define restaurants, brewpubs and taverns differently in city code. We deliberately kept it as a restaurant: where service is focused on food.

Young: Under the charter, essentially land that belongs to parks is the purview of PRAB, right?
Rhodes: Yes
Young: So why is Planning Board weighing in?

Hella Pannewig, city attorney: It's bc it involves land use. They OK'd the site review for the facility at the Rez.

Young: Why are these considered regional parks, and not just parks?
Guiler: They are considered regional in the parks master plan, but not in the land use code.

John Gerstle, from Planning Board: A proposal from Young (to add language that restaurants can be allowed with review from council) would assuage some of our concerns. "Not all of them."

After much back and forth with Gerstle, Friend asks: PRAB gave a unanimous recommendation in the opposite direction. Are we inviting anyone from that board to speak on this?

No. No one from PRAB is here.

Rhodes: They didn't do a formal vote, but I think they'd be OK with this workaround from Young.

I cannot express how much I don't want to tweet this public hearing.

Our first participant is comparing the restaurant to a nighttime club, quoting "What a Wonderful World" and speaking for the wildlife.

So, yeah, I may be out. I just can't.

29 speakers. Safe to presume a good many are opposed.

Sharon Anderson: The neighbors have never said we do not want a restaurant. We just don't want one after dark.

LOLOL Eric Tussey, who is attempting to pool time, says he can't contact one of the other ppl bc they are "playing underwater under water polo."

Hey, we have a supporter! Mara Soutiere: I'm glad the city has improved the offerings at the Rez. It's a community space, and the public has needs after dark, too.

Lisa Spalding is speaking on behalf of PLAN Boulder, which is opposed to this rule change. Says the restaurant — which is really "a late-night bar and events center" — would "radically change the character" of the Rez.

The water polo guy is back and he has a correction: It's water rugby.

Which honestly sounds so much better.

First Joni Mitchell reference!

Also a good line about "bird calls" vs. "last call from a bartender" as what users should expect to hear at the Rez.

You'll notice a lot of testimony is about the restaurant at the Rez, the operations of which, as staff said, will not be impacted by this rule.

Karen de Bartolomé and the last speaker saying the Rez is in the middle of open space, not an urban area. Nighttime hours and events will impact wildlife, they both say.

Another supporter. I'm keeping track of these bc there are probably far fewer.

"Allowing a handful of cranky people to add more steps to the process is not what the community needs," Jessica Benjamin says.

Ouch.

David Slade: Third supporter and second to reference "cranky neighbors." He has receipts. "It's really difficult to take these people and these ridiculous complaints seriously."

Oh, my...

Slade: "Your family has owned land at the Rez for 400 years? Good for you. My family hasn't, and we would also like to enjoy the land."

Snark level: 100

Neil Anderson: "It's not just a restaurant — people need to realize that. It's meant to attract people from around the region."

"At night, this is a place of nature."

Eric Tussey: This rule change is only being brought up bc of possible legal action by the neighbors. The restaurant at the Rez is a zoning violation as an accessory use.

Did not realize they were suing, but of course they are.

Lord, this is really heating up.

Tussey also correctly but probably inadvertently refers to the council meeting as a "show." Which, it is.

What type of show, I shan't say.

First reference to carrying capacity!

Brian Frey, supporter No. 7: "Parks in public spaces are not private backyards. Parks provide a public benefit."

No idea what # speaker we're up to, tho, so I can't say what the ratio is. Feels like more opponents than supporters at this point, but I won't know until we're through all 29 speakers.

Rachel Gentili: The Boulder Rez is in a rural area. There's no public transit. Everyone who drives in must drive out.

Kim Bixel: "We would not be here if this was just an issue of a few cranky neighbors. We're not privileged patricians of Valhalla. We wouldn't be here if we were just unhappy."

Bixel: We're so unhappy bc today's plans are so different from the years-long public process and what was described. This zoning change is a shortcut.

Roman Sammartino, who rows at the Rez, doesn't support the ordinance change but still manages to thank staff, council and everyone.

Are all rowers this polite? Judging solely on this guy and councilman Swetlik.

As I don't know any other rowers.

Actually, nvm. Remembering that Tom Carr also rowed so, no, all rowers are NOT this polite.

Daniel Howley, owner of The Spot: We used the Rez in the past for events, and we couldn't stay late bc it was explained to us that it would impact wildlife and neighbors; the park needed to rest.

"I don't think commercialization of the Rez is in the best interest" of the community or the neighborhood, Howley says.

And that's the end. So we have about 7 supporters of about 29 speakers. Ratio skewed heavily toward opposition.

Back to council.
Yates: Just to clarify, this rule change will not change the planned operations of the restaurant at the Rez?
Correct, Rhodes says.

Wallach: What are the planned operating hours?
Rhodes: Week nights until 9 p.m., weekends until 10 p.m.
Wallach: Where is that?
Rhodes: In the operating agreement, which the lease says must be respected.

Wallach: What about events? Are there limits on those?
Rhodes: Yes. They require permission from the city for amplified sound. Outside speakers have to be turned off by 9 p.m. M-Th and 10 F-Sun and otherwise meet all city noise standards.

Nagle: "This has been oddly a huge topic. I would love to support restaurants over at the golf course. I would even like to support this restaurant at the Rez, at least until it gets dark."

But can't overlook the impacts to wildlife. Also chastises those criticizing neighbors who are opposed. It's degrading and it's inappropriate, Nagle says.

Nagle: "If this was happening in their backyard, they would do exactly the same thing. ... Once again I will mostly likely be the only council member supporting neighbors and wildlife. ... So be it. Enjoy your lack of wildlife."

Quite the speech from Nagle, who is one of the quieter council members. She once again says Boulder's climate action plan is clearly a joke when the continue to approve development and human activities in nature.

But she does always speak for wildlife and the neighbors, as she said.

We're talking over Young's proposal to make this rule change more palatable. It's hard to describe bc it's kinda meaningless to me... like, it just restates that council/PRAB will carefully consider restaurant leases.

Weaver with a classic one-word change in the ordinance change: "of" to "by"

Local gov't is exciting stuff, ya'll.

Young's proposal just says that restaurants are OK if council/PRAB determines they don't have material impacts to wildlife. Which is... already part of the process.

Council loves to do this kind of stuff. Take something we're already doing as a matter of course and write a law that's like, "OK but we're *really* gonna do it now"

Brockett: We have two boards with unanimous but opposing recommendations. They are both important and we respect their opinions. Young's fix is a good attempt at striking a balance.

This change would allow restaurants in these 3 parks to have slightly different operating hours than the rest of the facilities, Brockett says. Supports it, but nods to the controversy at the Rez.

We should keep working on the operating agreement, Brockett says. We could consider a 9 p.m. closing time, and scale that back during the shoulder season. Saying that something should close at dark is hard to do operationally.

Rhodes: We have a sound system that pings two members of staff if noise goes over acceptable levels. So we should know ASAP, even before neighbors complain.

Weaver apologizes for not inviting PRAB. He invited Planning Board.

Friend reading the missions of open space vs. parks and rec.
Parks - Promote wellbeing of community with parks, programs, services
Open space - Preserve and protect natural resources

Friend: "I do understand that the Rez is special (RE: wildlife) but the parks mission is dif. We wouldn't be looking at a restaurant if this was open space, it it was brought into the city as open space. We should stay in our lanes."

Wallach: Are the terms of the operating agreement and the lease the same?
Rhodes: The lease doesn't call out specific operating procedures. This is brand new; we want flexibility. We had several folks at the table who didn't sign a lease.

We included language in the lease that said there would be an operating agreement that the restaurant would have to abide by, Rhodes says.

Wallach: The lease has later operating hours than the operating agreement?
Rhodes: Yes, as does the liquor license. Bc it has to go to the legal maximum of any event that may ever happen there. But the operating agreement is for 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. closures.

Wallach is actually on board, given Young's compromise.

Weaver also supporting. "This is a man-made reservoir. We allow boating on it. Many more things are happening here which are recreational than we would allow on open space."

"We are not managing this resource as open space. We are managing it as a park."

Looking at Young's additional language, it says that restaurants are allowed by right IF the lease approval by council/PRAB finds that there will be minimal impacts to surrounding uses, natural areas and wildlife.

Very vague and non-specific wording.

Young to opposed neighbors: "If we could just be patient and let this existing lease operate, I think we'll be pleasantly surprised."

Nagle votes no, as she said she would. Everyone else is yes, making it 7-1 (reminder: Joseph is absent).

Swetlik didn't say a word through this whole thing, other than his vote.

This is not the final approval. Since it was amended, it will be voted on for the final time Nov. 9.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.