Steve Pomerance

After well over a year of sometimes questionable public input processes, including biased surveys, self-selecting questionnaires, a theatrical performance and significant closed-door meetings, the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan updated version is now out for public review. Comments are due by this coming Monday, 4/06. (future@bouldercolorado.gov and planner@bouldercounty.gov). The new document is very attractive in appearance, and very detailed — over 100 pages long. But the future it portrays is massively densified, including three-story and multi-unit and commercial buildings in currently single-family neighborhoods. And I saw no serious attempt to deal with our shrinking water supply, ever-increasing traffic congestion, overuse of Open Space or the many other impacts of growth. One BVCP project was “15-minute neighborhoods.” As many of you remember, this was conducted in a whole series of private meetings by a group of anonymous citizens selected randomly, rather than for t...

I was reading last Sunday’s Camera and came across the City of Boulder’s public meeting schedule. It announced two Saturday events, at 7:00 p.m. on Jan. 25 at the library and at 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 08 at the council chambers. They’re called “You’re Invited to Shape Boulder’s Future Through Storytelling,” and described as follows: “Join the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and Motus Playback Theater … for a dynamic event where your stories help shape the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update through interactive theatrical performance.” The link to the city’s website provided this info: “BOLDER. BOULDER. BETTER. With Motus Playback Theater. Join Motus Playback Theater, Boulder County and the City of Boulder for a fun and engaging event where your vision for Boulder comes to life on stage! Share your story or reflection about what matters most to you, and watch professional actors transform it into a theatrical performance with movement, music and spoken word.” But I found zero info on h...

In the June 20 Camera, Mayor Suzanne Jones is quoted instructing citizens who came to speak about the huge senior living complex proposed for 311 Mapleton, “The decisions are whether it meets the criteria, or not, not whether or not we like it.” I appreciate Mayor Jones’ thoughts, but Boulder’s site review process, which is used to evaluate such large projects, is fraught with subjectivity, fundamentally because the “criteria” lack objective standards and limits. The first step is that the council must agree that, “the proposed site plan is consistent with the land use map, and the service area map, and, on balance, the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.” But as was noted in the recent consultant’s review of the BVCP, policies can be found that support whatever anyone wants, making this policy requirement meaningless. And each “land use” allows multiple zoning categories, so existing zoning can be changed, as this proposal requests. (I have serious questions as to w...

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...

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...

I was struck recently by the marked contrast between the process around municipalization of our electric utility, and those for the “Comprehensive Housing Strategy” (CHS) and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) five-year update. The process for deciding whether to create a clean energy-based municipal utility has provided citizens multiple opportunities to vote on pursuing it, as well as ensuring citizens that there are real constraints on its implementation. The 2010 ballot substituted an occupation tax for the franchise fee, removing the commitment to Xcel. In 2011, one ballot issue provided funding to pursue municipalization studies, and the other allowed creation of the muni, but with strong charter constraints. The 2013 city ballot item set limits on the most significant portions of the utility’s debt; the 2013 Xcel-sponsored ballot item would have effectively killed the process. The 2011 constraints provided significant protections for citizens and businesses from a co...

Sept. 17 was a great day. At 5 a.m. my climbing partner and I left Boulder to climb Navajo Peak via Niwot Ridge. After some hours of hiking, we started on a mile long section of rock scrambling along the steep, exposed ridge. The route finding was complex, and the views toward the Boulder watershed, the plains, and the Continental Divide were great. Conditions were perfect — sunny, warm, and not too windy. Some hours later, we finished by descending Airplane Gully, passing wreckage from a post-World War II small plane crash. We then hiked out, also beautiful, but more hours on top of an already long day. We got to the car tired and thirsty, but satisfied and no blisters. This wonderful day followed a not-so-good Tuesday evening at the City Council meeting, which started with a study session on growth and development. Many of council members’ initial comments were seemingly directed at convincing those who came to ask for action on controlling growth that there was no problem. Accor...

On April 26, the Boulder Planning Board finished its three-day review of the proposed annexation and development of the Hogan-Pancost property, located adjacent to the East Boulder Community Center. The city staff did not identify significant downsides in their memo, thereby effectively endorsing the project, but the planning board still turned down the annexation request 7-0. This unanimous vote raises fundamental questions about the suitability of the site for development in general, as well as about the proposed development plans in particular. City staff and the planning board members are smart, capable people. So how did they come down 180 degrees apart? Or, to generalize, when should city staff be advocates and when is their role to just provide information? The planning board had concerns about flooding, ground water, wetlands, riparian areas and neighborhood impact. All these issues are covered by policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, with which annexations m...

In Wednesday`s Daily Camera, we were all put on notice that the time it takes Boulder`s fire and emergency vehicles to respond is falling further and further behind both our own and national standards. Only the day before, many of us received e-mails from the city`s planning department inviting us to a workshop to discuss “sustainable growth and development” as part of the five-year update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that past growth and resulting traffic increases have led to these slower emergency response times. And that given the amount of expected future growth (13,000 more residents and 60,000 more jobs to “reasonable buildout”) and the failure of the city to require that growth pay its own way, the notion of “sustainable growth and development” is an oxymoron. If this growth is pursued, our future is rather grim, with emergency response time being just one of many sacrifices. The response time problem is simple...