Opinion: Putting more balance into city processes


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 must be consistent. For example, BVCP Policy 8.03 says in part, “The city and county will consider the impacts of … planning efforts … and ensure impacts and costs of sustainable decision making do not unfairly burden any one geographic … group in the city.” But the flood and groundwater issues on this site would disproportionately impact the neighbors.
Policy 3.22 says, “Undeveloped high hazard flood areas will be retained in their natural state whenever possible.” Policy 3.06 further states, “The city will strive for no net loss of wetlands and riparian areas by discouraging their destruction.” Policy 3.23 attempts to protect critical facilities (such as the congregate care proposed for the site) from flood hazard. These policies were violated, at least in many board members’ views.
Boulder has been focusing on energy policy, and the planning board pointed out that the street layout and building orientation was inconsistent with the use of passive solar, and contradicts Policy 4.03, which says in part, “…The city will support private decisions to use renewable energy, develop local renewable energy resources and preserve options for developing renewable energy in the future.”

City staff proposed to zone the property RL-2, which meets the requirement to be consistent with the property’s Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan low-density land use designation. But the staff memo states on page 15, “While congregate care uses are not allowed in RL-2 zoning districts, this use could be authorized on the site through the annexation ordinance and annexation agreement” Aside from the obvious conflict with the Comprehensive Plan designation, “spot zoning” , i.e. changing the zoning for a particular parcel to allow development that would not otherwise be allowed, is forbidden because it denies equal treatment, creates an opportunity for graft and corruption, and voids the very protection that zoning is supposed to create.
I think the fundamental problem is that sometimes city staff feels the need to recommend a position, rather than presenting “the good, the bad and the ugly” and letting the chips fall where they may. Or staff tries to intuit the council or board’s likely position, and then give them what they think supports that position. The council and citizen boards sometimes encourage this by asking for the staff recommendation. For smaller projects, this might be OK, but where there is significant controversy, it’s critical to separate decision-making from implementation. While decision-making is still in process, staff presentations should fully reflect the uncertainties and conflicts in the data and analyses, as has been done very well in the municipalization discussions.
Similar problems could emerge with the 2014 Pro Cycling Challenge. In 2012, some staff analyses were done defensively, months after the de facto decision was made to finish the race on the Flagstaff summit. This time the staff is wisely starting the discussion well ahead of the decision regarding hosting the race.

The council now needs to ensure a balanced presentation of the legal, logistical, financial and life-safety issues. For example, there are strong arguments that Summit Drive on Flagstaff is part of Open Space, that such races are not allowed on Open Space, and that there are significant risks with putting 10,000 people up there in the fire and thunderstorm season. By opening the discussion up now, an intelligent and civil debate can happen while there is still plenty of time to resolve any issues. Taking this approach on all contentious issues would serve our community much better than starting with a fait accompli.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

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...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

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...
Read more