[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Some thoughts on organizing our discussions of Item 8C tonight

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Weaver, Sam

Colleagues and Hotline followers,
 
Attached and below are some organizing thoughts in a memo format that I would like to have us consider using to guide our discussions regarding growth and planning issues under Item 8C tonight.  I developed most of this over the weekend,
 and wanted to share this with you so you could see it in advance of our meeting.  Please do not respond to this message to avoid an email meeting.
 
If we do decide to use this memo as an organizing tool during our discussions, I also have a PowerPoint presentation that essentially repeats the memo points so that our audience can follow.
 
All the best,
 
Sam Weaver
Member of Boulder City Council
weavers at bouldercolorado.gov
Phone: 303-416-6130

 

 
 
Land Use and Development Issues in Boulder 2014
The Need for a Comprehensive Development Strategy
There is a building surge currently in progress in Boulder, people are starting to notice, and many to object.  The number and scale of the projects under development currently are unprecedented in recent memory.  The boom going on today
 recalls the building boom along Canyon in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a development surge that resulted in a built environment in that area that was not very successful at human-scale accessibility, and which has questionable sizing and mass relationships
 with their surroundings.  It is very similar concerns that seem to be sparking community unease with the current pace of large-scale building going on in Boulder right now.  Listed below are the projects currently under development planning or construction
 that have or will require approval by the Planning Board, and most of which request height, setback, or building intensity entitlements:

1)     
Daily Camera Building redevelopment, 10th and Pearl (300+ workers, height exemption given, FAR bonus given, proceeding)

2)     
13th and Walnut redevelopment (150+ workers, height exemption given, possibly a FAR bonus given, proceeding)

3)     
18th and Pearl, SW corner, expansion (additional office spaces, height exemption given, proceeding)

4)     
28th and Canyon, NW corner, Golden Buff redevelopment (100+ workers, 2 hotels, height exemption given, proceeding)

5)     
28th St Frontage Rd, First Christian Church redevelopment (height exemption given, student housing, proceeding)

6)     
28th St Frontage Rd, Outlook Hotel redevelopment (height exemption given, student housing, proceeding)

7)     
Junior Academy subdivision – Mapleton Hill area (proceeding)

8)     
Lee Hill near Broadway, fire training center redevelopment, subdivision (proceeding)

9)     
28th and Kalmia, Spark project residential development (proceeding)

10)  
Gunbarrel near Diagonal Hwy, residential development (proceeding)

11)  
Gunbarrel, Avery Brewing facility (proceeding)

12)  
Jewish Commons community center, East Arapahoe (proceeding)

13)  
Trinity Lutheran housing development, downtown (proceeding)

14)  
Transit Village (multiple projects – hotel, residential, mixed use, many given height exemptions, many proceeding, some in review)

15)  
26th and Canyon (hotel, height exemption requested, site plan review completed)

16)  
30th and Pearl, SW corner, Pearl Place project (350+ workers, 2 buildings, height exemption requested, site plan review scheduled)

17)  
Pearl and 30th, SE corner (hotel and housing, height exemption requested, FAR exemption requested, area plan exemption requested, second concept review scheduled)

18)  
Baseline and 26th (300+ workers, 2 office buildings, height exemption requested, all office in mixed-use residential-serving commercial zone, concept plan review completed)

19)  
Canyon and 15th, James Travel site redevelopment (mixed-use, height exemption requested, site plan review scheduled)

20)  
Armory project,  North Boulder re-development (height exemption likely to be requested, density exceptions likely to be requested, mixed use, concept plan review completed)

21)  
30th and Valmont, Sutherlands Lumber redevelopment Spark West (height exemptions likely to be requested, mixed use, concept plan review scheduled)

22)  
Western Disposal expansion (site plan and use review scheduled)

23)  
St. Julien expansion and civic use space (height exemption likely to be requested)

24)  
Mapleton Hospital redevelopment (likely to be subdivision)

25)  
Palo Parkway new development (affordable housing subdivision development)

26)  
Wallace property between Folsom and 28th on Valmont (affordable housing subdivision development)

27)  
Ongoing development projects to annex and develop Hogan Pancost property as new subdivision

28)  
NE corner of Pearl and 30th, Pollard redevelopment – City site

29)  
Discussions of Naropa expansion, including possible Area II annexation

30)  
Expanded development targets for BHP under new strategic vision (up to 2800 units)
The current building boom is proceeding while there are some significant issues with the underlying development planning process.  These shortcomings in the planning process, in combination with the current heated development environment,
 could easily combine to produce very undesirable built-environment outcomes.  Some notable planning issues:
OVERALL PLANNING PROCESS ISSUES

1)     
The City has no coherent quantifiable plan for population and workforce growth.  All planning around growth is regulated by zoning, with the exception of the very weak Residential Growth Management System.  Currently, planning
 activities to incentivize the number of housing units to be developed vs the number of commercial workplace spaces to be developed is indirect.  No explicit goals are stated, so any balancing of housing spaces vs employment spaces is ad hoc and based on zoning
 and developer profit perceptions.  This is the antithesis of planning, since any numerical goals are being indirectly derived from underlying zoning, and not the other way around.  Planning should include both desired qualitative outcomes and also quantifiable
 metrics such as growth rates, both of which then drive zoning and code development, and not the other way around.

2)     
There is no explicit City plan which sets targets or growth rates for commercial workforce growth.  The City needs to create a Commercial Growth Management System in parallel with the Residential Growth Management System to moderate
 the rate of growth in the commercial sector should a boom cycle begin.

3)     
The explicit City plan which regulates the amount of residential growth, the Residential Growth Management System, is so full of exceptions as to be very ineffective at regulating the residential growth rate.  Exemptions for mixed-use
 projects, residential construction in business zones, and affordable housing have weakened the effectiveness of the growth management measures.  These exemptions need to be re-considered, and the affordable housing exemptions need to be preserved but incorporated
 with a cohesive plan relative to the new BHP goals.

4)     
Site Plan review approvals are not firmly binding.  Many features of development projects that are presented as a part of the project are sometimes eliminated after site plan review.  More clarity is needed on what aspects of
 development proposals are required to exist in the final projects, including features that were not necessarily conditions of approval, but which are implicitly promised in the final project.  Generally, elimination of any significant feature of a project
 should require a review and approval by the Planning Board.  A recent example is the community benefit ascribed to art theaters that were proposed for the Daily Camera building redevelopment.  Those theaters may well never be included there, and the parking
 system proposed initially during site plan review seems to have changed significantly after the project changed hands.  Other examples for the DC building include the uncertain management plan for the public access space on the roof of the south wing.  The
 theaters and public open space were conceived as considerable public benefit during site plan review.  Often, developers present an array of potential project features ‘to be considered’ many of which never materialize.

5)     
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for new commercial projects, particularly ones with intensity entitlements, typically last for only three years.  These could be required for longer or indefinitely, as well as including
 mitigation of additional impacts.

6)     
Height and intensity bonuses could be given for explicitly enumerated community benefits, rather than implicit ones that are assumed to accrue simply by virtue of increased intensity.

7)     
Individual project impacts on the City as whole do not necessarily pay enough for public impacts, including carbon emissions, housing, and vehicle miles traveled.  Adequate public facilities fee methods need to be re-considered,
 including additional contribution to affordable housing as part of increases in workforce population.

8)     
Staff recommends height and intensity bonuses in virtually every development which makes the request.  It is very clear why a developer would want these bonuses, but much less clear why the community would want to award them without
 significant and explicit public benefit.  A discussion should be part of any code review which includes guidance to staff on what kind of public benefits in addition to density should be sought in exchange for recommendations of discretionary entitlement to
 height and intensity bonuses.

9)     
Site review criteria have a ton of loopholes and meaningless conditions.  A process needs to review and revise the Site Review criteria to be more meaningful, and to incorporate community goals around receiving tangible community
 benefits in exchange for entitlements such as increased intensity and height limit exceptions.

10)  
Projects which receive intensity and height bonuses, particularly commercial developments, will result in more absolute carbon emissions than buildings which could be built by right.  Policies could be put in place which cause
 additional emissions mitigation for projects which receive additional entitlements.  For example, a policy could quickly get put into place in which all buildings which receive intensity and/or height increase entitlements emit no more carbon dioxide as part
 of building operations (not to include plug loads) than a by-right building in the same location. (Net-zero above by-right)

11)  
Staff and Planning Board are increasingly over-taxed with the number of project applications. 
The pace of the entitlement process needs to be governed by the limits of the Planning Board and the Planning staff, and not the schedule of developers or the quantity of projects in the pipeline.
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING STRATEGY ISSUES

12)  
Current land use intensity code incentivizes larger residential units over smaller ones.
 The methods used to determine open space required by Boulder building codes is based on open space per dwelling unit or dwelling units per acre.  For a given project, a developer maximizes built area, thus profit, by building fewer larger units in a project. 
 This is a fundamental issue that must be resolved as part of any code update.  


13)  
Inclusionary zoning affordable housing is often located off-site, reducing the economic diversity of developed communities.
 Boulder needs to consider requiring affordable housing on-site in all cases to improve economic diversity in all new residential developments.  We should not allow ‘poor-doors’ or ghettoization as part of creating affordable housing.

14)  
The Comprehensive Housing Strategy process is pushing for rapid code changes that have not been vetted through any stakeholder review of any consequence.  Early wins that require ordinance changes without sufficient stakeholder
 input inappropriate.

15)  
There appears to be only minor outreach to the neighborhood groups who might be most impacted through changes that result from the Comprehensive Housing Strategy process.

16)  
 The Council could create and appoint a Housing Advisory Board to help develop, coordinate, and monitor City actions on housing issues at all levels.  This proposal could be enacted and the Board seated quickly before the Comprehensive
 Housing Strategy really gets underway.
OTHER ISSUES NEEDING NEAR-TERM ATTENTION

17)  
Boulder has had a dedicated employee in the past to communicate upcoming City issues and projects with local neighborhood groups, and this position could be re-created and filled.  Keeping neighborhoods informed of coming potential
 changes and gathering their feedback has multiple benefits for residents, developers, and the City staff and Council.

18)  
The City should develop neighborhood vision plans to guide development in or adjacent to these neighborhoods.  The North Boulder Sub-community Plan and other area plans have been very successful at guiding development, and other
 neighborhoods will benefit from an on-going program of neighborhood engagement and plan development.

19)  
The application of intensity bonuses that were intended to incentivize affordable housing to all-commercial projects is deeply flawed and needs to be re-considered in a holistic review process.

20)  
Boulder’s codes governing by-right development are resulting in some fairly bad buildings, including poor quality materials and mediocre architecture and a lack of attention to opportunities for shared parking and other measures that
 are often considered in discretionary review.  As part of any code review process, we should determine which current City regulations are getting us projects with mediocre architecture.  What could we change to incentivize better outcomes?

21)  
Should the City have 4-person Council majorities for call-ups, just as the US Supreme Court has?

22)  
With Boulder Housing Partners adopting an aggressive plan to build or acquire additional affordable and workforce housing, the City needs to work with BHP to incentivize building preservation.

23)  
A dashboard tracking system that assesses City progress towards its Climate Commitment goals could be instituted.  As part of dashboard tracking, the impacts of new development can be assessed based on the expected emissions impacts,
 both positive and negative.
What Boulder needs to produce to guide development in the coming years is a
Comprehensive Development Strategy.  This is more specific and focused than just a review and update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which covers issues that are much broader.  Any work right now on a Comprehensive Housing Strategy seems premature,
 and needs to be integrated with goals and processes that emerge from developing a Comprehensive Development Strategy in concert with our community.  This development strategy needs to be integrated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and it needs to
 be informed by Boulder’s transportation, climate commitment, environmental, social justice, economic vitality, and sustainability goals.  These goals need to be considered in balance with one another, without letting gains in a narrow subset of these values,
 which accrue benefits to a limited number of actors, dominate the community conversation.
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Boulder planning issues 20140901.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 21980 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20140902/85986b7f/attachment.obj