[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Re: First Reading Questions: 3G University Hill Moratorium

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Cowles, Macon

Thanks, Mary, for referring us to the piece that exposes the decline in social equity that is accompanying cities that host the creative class. Here is a quote from the article, describing the challenges that Austin, TX is having:


"People who have the means to enjoy living here often define success in economic or environmental terms. In the past year, environmentalists and business boosters forged a delicate alliance based on a report that said businesses consider quality of life when deciding where to move. . . . Economic development and the environment were linked. Yet we’ve overlooked one E in the three Es of quality of life : social equity. . . . There is much to be preserved in this region. Including people, not just vistas (Richardson, 1999)."

Macon Cowles
Sent from an iPad


On Feb 18, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Young, Mary <YoungM at bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:




Below are my first reading comments/questions:

1. Whatever comes next on the hill seems to hinge critically on getting the parking element right. I understand that this is being worked on as as part of the Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS). But, to make a decision on this ordinance, I would like to know:
a. What is the current number of public parking spaces (University Hill General Improvement District (UGID) lots + on-street and Universtiy lot).
b. What is estimated number to meet the current (or perceived) need given the current use pattern?
c. How many underground spaces would be needed in addition to the current (or perceived) need if any of the housing and/or commercial strategies were to go forward?
d. Are estimates of projected parking needs taking into consideration how the companies that might move to the hill would use their office space (i.e. the 250 sqft/person standard is falling rapidly)?
e. Is it physically, economically and socially feasible to provide all of the necessary parking spaces?

2. I would like to better understand the facade improvement program.
a. Could it go forward before a National Historic District designation?
b. If yes, how quickly could we move forward?
c. Would it apply only to contributing buildings?
d. If it would apply to non-contributing buildings, what set of criteria would apply?
e. The memo mentioned low-interest loans and rebates, who would facilitate/provide these?

3. The memo reads as thought the senior housing would not fall under the affordable housing category. Is this correct?

4. What is the thinking on moving forward with the Harbeck House?

5. Is there any work being done on the Arts District ideas as part of the Community Cultural Plan? If yes, what? Could we expedite ideas?

6. The memo states: "The potential demand from area residents that are non-students is not sizeable enough to drive retail demand on the Hill." This statement raises the following question: Could we tap in to faculty and staff more aggressively with uses targeted
 at them?

7. On page 67 of the memo, Richard Florida's claims are driving policy. His claims have been credited with increasing inequality in the cities that have heeded to them. See
http://interventionseconomiques.revues.org/489
Would it be possible to cite more rigorous work to support his claims?

8. The memo makes reference to it recommendations being contrary to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Policy 1.19. Has staff considered a holistic view of commercial space in the city to balance this out?

Thank you.






Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council Member
303-501-2439

"All ethics . . . rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts . . ." - Aldo Leopold