Opinion: The BVCP update and the Sundance process both had similar lacks

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s stated core value is Sustainability. Other values include “identity and sense of place” and “great neighborhoods.” The question is whether the proposed densification of our single-family neighborhoods, allowing apartment buildings, business and retail development, etc. is consistent with these values.

This densification involves making BVCP Land Use Map changes. Under the City-County agreement (see, for example, Appendix B, Exhibit B, pages 159 et seq, in the 2020 BVCP update), such Map changes must meet the following criteria:

a) On balance, is consistent with the policies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan;

b) would not have significant cross-jurisdictional impacts that may affect residents, properties or facilities outside the city;

c) would not materially affect the land use and growth projections that were the basis of the comprehensive plan;

d) does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area or to the overall service area of the City of Boulder;

e) would not materially affect the adopted Capital Improvements Program of the City of Boulder; and would not affect the Area II/Area III boundaries in the comprehensive plan.

But, and it’s a big “but,” per the amendment rules agreed to in 2017, any changes inside the City (and in Area II adjacent to the City) are solely City decisions. The County can only get involved in those affecting rural areas and can’t vote on the others.

It’s clear to me that the currently proposed densification changes do not meet criteria b) through e). There are obvious impacts on neighboring non-city areas. They will radically increase growth projections and negatively impact the adequacy of urban facilities and services. They will force significant capital improvements to be built, like a fourth rec center, when we don’t have enough money to repair the current three, and, unless the massive (and apparently unnecessary) staff hiring over the last 10 years is reversed, there won’t be enough money without a tax increase. And of course, parking becomes very scarce and streets much more crowded.

As I said above, the BVCP rules essentially exclude the commissioners from voting on changes internal to the city. And no power is granted to the citizens. The council can do what it wants, and we have no real say.

The densification proposals that are on their way to approval are the inevitable result of a totally failed BVCP update process: a dance performance instead of real discussions, biased surveys that people simply stopped responding to, closed-door meetings of inexperienced citizens designing the “15-minute neighborhoods,” and public input scheduled after the staff told the council that they don’t want to make any changes.

These flaws are, in some ways, consistent with the way the Sundance Film Festival was pursued. After many politicos worked to convince Sundance to come here, we then find out that we lack many thousands of necessary hotel rooms. So, a lot of the economic benefit will go outside the city, but of course, the impacts will be here.

And then there are the issues that come with allowing homeowners, and now renters, to short-term rent to Sundancers. Exactly where all the then-displaced locals will go is another matter, so far not publicly discussed. I suspect Arizona, New Mexico and southwest Colorado will see alot.

The City has gotten into the rental game directly. Aside from changing the law to allow homeowners and now even renters to do short-term “festival” rentals, it sent out promotional flyers called “Rent Your Home” with the water bills, pushing home renting as if it were our civic duty! Of course, almost no public consideration has been given to traffic congestion from the tens of thousands who will still have to commute in (including those who work here but rented out their in-Boulder residences), and how to manage the impacts of a significant snowstorm.

And this giant influx will make a dent in our increasingly fragile water supply. But it’s good for business, so who cares?

On that subject, the Glen Canyon reservoir is getting to perilously low levels. And the lower-level drains are not structured to withstand constant use. So, we may eventually see the whole lake drained and the area returned to its pre-1960’s conditions. It would be great for those of us who like wandering around in the southwest canyons (maybe during Sundance). But it just points out that our capacity for people is limited, and we should try to preserve what we can before we lose it all.