Opinion: Do vested interests have undue influence in Boulder?


In the last week or so, a number of Boulder council members have started asking about a group of advisors to the city planning and development services center (P&DS). I’m not talking about the planning board, which has been in the news lately for asking some tough questions about the costs and benefits of the huge Google building at 30th and Pearl. I’m not talking about the landmarks board, which raised some issues about the activities of some property owners on Mapleton Hill. No, I’m talking about the “P&DS advisors.” Never heard of this group? Well, neither had I until last week.
According to an email from city staff, “P&DS Advisors are a customer/stakeholder group that is convened by staff on a quarterly basis. This group provides feedback to the P&DS management team about the development review, technical document, building permit and inspection processes. Discussions provide opportunities for customers to offer suggestions about business-process improvements and provide feedback on changes proposed by staff.”
The email continues, “The meetings are not considered public meetings and are neither noticed nor recorded. Staff maintain notes of meetings and structure agendas to focus on topics of potential interest and we provide general updates, such as the status of filling vacant staff. The positions … Information Resources Manager, Administrative Services Manager, Chief Building Official, Development Review Manager for Public Works (PW), Development Review Manager for Community Planning & Sustainability (CP&S), the Deputy Director of CP&S, the Executive Director of PW and the Executive Director of CP&S typically attend these meetings.”
In case you are wondering who the “customer/stakeholder group” is, here is a list of the 30 professional members (provided by city staff). Both advisory board members, per a Google search, are in the architecture business. There are only two neighborhood representatives. That’s it!
Architects: Nick Rehnberg, Garth Braun, Jeff Dawson, Bill Holicky, Dale Hubbard, Chris Shears.
Attorneys: Bruce Dierking, David Packard.
Building contractors: Phil Shull (Deneuve Construction), John Wyatt (Wyatt Construction).
Civil engineers: Mark Hageman, Charlie Hager.
Commercial broker: Lynda Gibbons.
Commercial developers: Lou DellaCava, Stephen Tebo, Jeff Eckert, Mike Boyers.

Green builders: Doug Parker, David Neiger

Home builders: George Russell, Ryan Hibbard, Kim Calomino, Kevin Knapp (Boulder Housing Partners).
Landscape architect: Carol Adams.
Land use consultant: Vince Porreca.
Major employers: David Ziegert, Sr., director, operations, Celestial Seasonings; Clarence Crosby, director, facilities and support services, Ball Aerospace.
Advisory board members: Jack Rudd (BOZA), Kirsten Snobeck (LB).
Think of all the legitimate concerns raised about the council holding executive sessions on legal strategy around the muni and about making sure that the recordings are kept until well after this part of the project is over. Yet here we have people with the most vested interests imaginable meeting in private with their regulators, with no notice, no public access, and no recordings. It’s the perfect setup for undue influence.
So it’s clear, I have no gripes with architects (my father was one) or the other occupations represented. And a number of these people are friends of mine. But I do have a gripe with the notion that these are the stakeholders.
As council member Lisa Morzel put it, “I remember over 20 years ago arguing the term ‘stakeholders’ when north Boulder planning attempts were underway in the early 1990s. At first, only property owners of large parcels, developers, architects, and others associated with development/redevelopment were considered to be stakeholders. The residents argued successfully, and rightly so, that residents indeed were the primary stakeholders given the fact that the number of residents potentially affected is several orders of magnitude greater than the seated stakeholders and had several orders of magnitude greater investment collectively invested in their properties, etc. So I am amazed that still after all these years of arguing who should be included in that term. Staff still does not consider residents to be stakeholders. This has to change….[Also,] should not the tax-paying residents of Boulder be considered the city’s primary customers? Residents pay hard-earned taxes for city services, right?”
I recently met with a senior planning staff member to discuss what changes would be necessary to satisfy the strong and growing concern among many Boulder citizens that growth in Boulder is out of control. The staff member, looking at my list, said that most of my suggestions involved “downzoning,” even though in fact they didn’t. Unfortunately, this confirmed my impression as to who the staff sees as their real stakeholders and customers, and whose interests are being protected.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more