Posts

Showing posts with the label Area III

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...

Opinion: Re-starting the growth discussion

The good news is that the Boulder City Council will begin discussing growth issues at the council meeting this Tuesday, Sept. 2, and there is talk about having a study session on development in October. Unfortunately, study sessions work only if city staff has sufficient direction beforehand to provide the needed information and analysis. But what direction should they go? Vic Fruehauf, a well-known Boulderite who started Fruehauf’s Nursery and was on the Boulder Planning Board, used to say, “If you don’t know your destination, any path will do.” He would frequently repeat variations on this theme during attempts to revise the land use regulations during the 1990’s. His point is even more applicable today: How can the city sort out all the growth-related issues when the big-picture goal is neither well-defined nor agreed upon? We don’t lack for advocates on all sides. For example, some are pushing for more and denser housing, arguing that it will be affordable even though the mar...

Opinion: Should Hogan-Pancost be annexed?

I was at REI last weekend and ran into an old friend, Jeff McWhirter, who is the president of the South East Boulder Neighborhood Association. We got into a long discussion about the possible annexation and development of the Hogan-Pancost property. It’s about 22 acres, off 55th south of Baseline just south of the East Boulder Community Center, and perhaps the last significant piece of undeveloped land Boulder can annex without going into Area III of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The land is so fraught with problems that this process has been going on (and off) for about 17 years. The current proposal is for 120-plus units, part senior housing, some “affordable” units, and over 60 market rate houses. The issues specific to the site include lack of easy access to shopping and services, poor transit, and, more significantly, serious flooding potential, high ground water and threatened species. Unfortunately the data on these big issues is not the best. Current flood studie...

Opinion: Boulder’s flexible future — not much certainty for citizens

The majority of the current Boulder City Council is pursuing a set of policies that will provide them with increased flexibility, but will cost the citizens of Boulder most of our certainty about our future. For example, the council is debating whether or not to permanently reduce the amount of water committed to Thunderbird Lake to keep it from becoming a marsh. This raises the larger issue about Boulder’s having enough water for a future of a hotter climate, earlier runoff, less forests to hold water, and large amounts of new development. A recent Camera article documented the near term development boom; this is only a small fraction of what will occur with build-out. Numerous forecasts predict our mountains becoming semi-deserts after beetle kill and/or massive fires. This year’s drought almost triggered the second watering restriction in just over a decade; this would have violated Boulder’s supply standard of no more than one such restriction in 20 years. So unless some long-t...