Steve Pomerance

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...

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 an...

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...

Behind the scenes in the Boulder city government, arguments are being made that open space land, and by implication parks land, can be transferred to another city department without going through the city charter-required processes. Right now, only a few non-controversial bike paths are being considered. But if the council allows the charter to be ignored, much of our public land would be threatened. Open space lands are protected by Charter Section 177, passed by Boulder voters in 1986. It requires both the city council and the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) approval for any “disposal” of open space; it also requires a 60-day waiting period so that citizens who don’t agree have ample time to refer these decisions to the ballot. The charter states, “This section is to be construed liberally in favor of providing opportunities for the citizens of the city to refer measures proposing the disposal of any open space land.” The parks board also has veto power over the disposal of p...

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...

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...