Steve Pomerance

Many claims have been made about what Boulder’s recent survey really means regarding attitudes toward growth. Just looking at the survey responses gives one impression, but carefully reviewing the survey document itself to see whether it provides accurate and complete background material gives quite another. Unfortunately, much of the material for the growth questions was simply inadequate, and, as a result, respondents would likely choose answers that were more pro-growth than if they were given better information. It’s not that what the survey said was wrong, but, in many instances, what was missing was far more important than what was included. Here are some examples; see what you think: The “Background” for the growth management questions states that by 2040 we may see an additional 18,000+ more residents and a similar number of more jobs. But these numbers are not even close to what Boulder could be if fully built out. How would survey respondents know this, since the “Backgro

Last week, I heard about a radical improvement to battery storage. These “flow batteries” are much cheaper than the current technology, with costs expected to drop by half or more. Commercial production is anticipated within a few years. Less expensive batteries will allow wind and solar energy to serve our demands much more cost-effectively, because they allow us to match this variable supply to our relatively inflexible demand by storing renewably generated energy when supply exceeds demand and then using it when demand exceeds supply. This would be in addition to our current ability to manage demand by, for example, cycling cooling loads at peak times, creating ice at night (using the excess wind energy that occurs then) to do cooling during the day, or running clothes dryers at off-peak hours. Not only do batteries allow a utility to flatten its demand curve, but they may allow the utility to avoid having to contract for committed backup power adequate for its peak load. When a

The issues that were brought up in the recent Boulder election still need to be addressed. In spite of a hugely expensive and well-orchestrated campaign against 300/301, almost 40 percent voted for these ballot issues. And no doubt many other voters supported the concepts but were concerned with the details, or with the commitments involved in charter amendments. Also, during the debates the opponents of 300/301 generally supported the principles that “growth should pay its own way” and “neighborhoods should have a voice;” I know, because I was a participant. Finally, the two current council members that diverted last year’s effort to address growth issues are now gone; one was not re-elected, and another declined to run. It’s now up to the council to take on the big, interrelated concerns of excess job growth, pressure on housing prices, increasingly congested traffic, and the side effects of huge buildings and additional demands on already stressed city facilities and services. T

The city council recently approved pay raises for Boulder’s city manager and attorney. They both received “equity” raises, apparently to bring them up to comparable levels with others in similar positions. They also received “very high” performance ratings and 4 percent permanent “performance” salary increases. The totals were a 9 percent increase for the manager, to $236,508, and a 5 percent increase for the attorney, to $203,839. Does the council really think that the city’s performance was that great? And why were these not just bonuses, so as to leave room for future flexibility? Besides, matching other cities’ salaries, and then raising them, will unnecessarily escalate all salaries when others cities follow suit. The 2014 Boulder Transportation Master Plan shows a very significant funding gap between expected revenues and what is needed to reduce vehicle-miles-traveled and prevent congestion increases. The TMP calculates that this would require almost doubling expected reven

From discussions I’ve had about the two citizen initiatives — “Neighborhoods’ Right To Vote” and “Development Shall Pay Its Own Way” — it appears that there are some misunderstandings that need to be cleared up. The “Neighborhoods’ Right To Vote” initiative does not affect projects allowed under the existing land use regulations; it only affects proposed changes to the regulations themselves, and then only inside neighborhoods. So if you want to build an addition on your house and your plan fits within the zoning, even if you need a variance, a conditional review, or other approval, you are unaffected by this initiative. Neighbors that are unhappy with a land use regulation change that affects their neighborhood can gather signatures for a referendum under the initiative. But the initiative specifically states that the results of that referendum only affect the regulation change for the neighborhood that votes. One neighborhood’s vote cannot affect changes in other neighborhoods.

Last week, after getting my workout biking up Lee Hill Road, I checked out the alternatives to Iris for biking between Broadway and Folsom. I rode east on Kalmia and Linden (north of Iris), and then west on Hawthorne and Grape (south of Iris). I saw only four moving vehicles, total, in the 2-plus miles of neighborhood streets. Thanks to council member Lisa Morzel for pointing out these routes and for bringing the “right-sizing” discussion back up. I’ve also ridden the multi-use path along 63rd Street multiple times. These alternate routes make “right-sizing” irrelevant for both Iris and 63rd as far as bike safety goes, so why were these alternates ignored? I believe that an important reason is because the focus was on an abstract concept — this grand scheme called “right-sizing” — rather than on the needs and issues of the specific situations. Other similarly overly-broad grand schemes include Housing Boulder, Design Excellence, the Civic Center redesign, Envision East Arapahoe

I just received a copy of a draft “Safety Analysis” report that the Boulder city government prepared in May. It analyzes the accidents that occurred during 2012-2014 on Folsom, Iris, 55th, and 63rd Streets — the streets that were up for “right sizing”— and the potential for avoiding crashes by altering the street layout, which the report calls “correctible” crashes. An observation (that also applies to the Housing Boulder debacle earlier this year) is that when there is insufficient information and analysis, the discussion quickly degenerates into an “I’m right and you’re wrong” food fight of little benefit to anyone. So, given the focus on auto safety, as well as that of bike-riders and pedestrians, this “Safety Analysis” absolutely should have been completed and disseminated prior to the council’s single decision meeting. On Folsom, which had the most crashes by far, the total number of potentially “correctible” crashes during 2012-2014 was 16 out of 242 total crashes (6.6 perc

The policy that “growth should pay its own way” was in the original Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, approved in 1970. I’ve been a proponent since my first campaign for Boulder City Council in 1985. But the city’s implementation has been sporadic and incomplete. Our city utility tap fees are quite accurate, but the charges for general fund departments like libraries, and parks and recreation, are less adequate. The charges for transportation and affordable housing come nowhere near what’s needed to prevent increased traffic congestion and to provide housing for many of those who come here to fill the new jobs. In my observation, the real profit in the development business comes from “privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.” An analysis I did of an annexation in a neighboring city showed that essentially all the profit came from avoiding paying just the costs associated with meeting the demand for transportation and schools; paying for affordable housing would have made

The name “Housing Boulder” should give you pause. It’s hard to imagine a city project name that could be more of an overreach. And the project reflects just that — lots of hype, but not much solid analysis. One of Housing Boulder’s original goals was, “Create diverse housing choices in every neighborhood: Facilitate the creation of a variety of housing options in every part of the city, including existing single-family neighborhoods.” But it’s not possible to build even an affordable four-plex on a lot that costs $800,000 to $1 million, as many do in the neighborhoods west of Broadway and in other parts of town; that’s $200,000-$250,000 per unit for the land alone. The only place this form of densification has a chance of working, even in the short term, is where housing prices haven’t yet skyrocketed. This means in the neighborhoods that are still relatively affordable. So the Housing Boulder goal is tantamount to identifying these areas as sacrifice zones. OAUs (“owner access

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has now been in existence since the 1970s. It originally was a relatively simple agreement between the county commissioners and the city council that prevented sprawl and kept urban development within the city’s borders. Over the years, it has expanded to become a massive document containing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) policies, land use maps, department master plans, and the like. But it lacks three critical elements — a clearly defined vision for Boulder’s future, a citizen approval process for this vision, and a way for the citizens to ensure that their government sticks with this vision once approved. These shortcomings have shown up multiple times in recent years. For example, the proposed Hogan-Pancost annexation, near the East Boulder Community Center, was supported by city staff and rejected by the planning board, both based on the BVCP’s policies. The Envision East Arapahoe project, with its 55-foot buildings, emerged out of t

The last few months have certainly changed the city council’s discussions about growth and development. It was only last fall that council member Sam Weaver was roundly abused by some of his colleagues for even suggesting the notion of a moratorium on buildings requiring site review. (Site review includes projects requesting height exceptions over the by-right height limit of 35 feet, or 38 feet downtown.) Weaver’s objective was to put on hold the large development projects while the city deals with the long-term implications of Boulder’s significant growth potential, which was becoming a concern as more huge buildings were under construction. Weaver then moderated his proposal, which he called the “Comprehensive Development Strategy,” and eliminated the partial moratorium. His thoughtful, far-reaching proposal was supported by Lisa Morzel, Mary Young and Suzanne Jones. But it lost 5-4 to a substitute motion brought forward by Macon Cowles and Tim Plass, which was clearly inadequat

There has been a lot of misinformation lately about Boulder’s attempt to municipalize its electric service. Here’s my bare-bones analysis: The wind deal: In 2011, Xcel made a last-minute offer to sell Boulder energy from a yet-to-be-built wind farm. Boulder would bear all the risks, but Xcel would set the numbers, so Boulder turned it down. Then Xcel had the farm built, and got a lower per Kwh price. So the CO2 savings occurred anyway. Buying the local grid: We are already paying Xcel for the local poles and wires, but when we’ve finally paid them off, Xcel will still own them. If we municipalize but bypass this equipment, we will still have to pay Xcel for their abandoned assets. So why not get something for our money? And even for homeowners and businesses that want to self-generate, the grid allows access to backup power, large-scale solar and energy storage, and cheap wind power from eastern Colorado. The courts: Unfortunately, our state legal system does not define a clear

I read in Wednesday’s Camera that the Boulder planning staff is proposing a moratorium on new buildings over 35 feet, except in downtown and Boulder Junction. They are also proposing to implement jobs-housing linkage fees, through which business development would pay for affordable housing for lower-income employees. And they are pushing for form-based zoning, which, if done properly, should produce much better design and, more importantly, eliminate most of the “let’s cut a deal” bargaining where a developer gets more height in exchange for providing some alleged “community benefit.” Pardon my cynicism, but I am highly suspicious that this will amount to anything. There are any number of 55-foot buildings already approved or in the review process in Downtown, the Boulder Junction area, on 28th Street, and elsewhere. Will all these be put on hold? Linkage fees only count if they are high enough, and Boulder’s existing fee is a tiny fraction of what is required. Form-based zoning on