Opinion: Is this the best Boulder can do?


My motivation for this piece came from attending the Planning Board hearing on the proposed annexation of the Hogan-Pancost property — 22 vacant acres near the East Boulder Community Center. Frankly, I was appalled at what the city staff were recommending — that the property be annexed and zoned without a detailed, binding site plan, and without full analysis of the off-site impacts. This is not the first time the staff has been off base. In 2013, the staff-supported annexation proposal was voted down 7-0 by the Planning Board.
Under the staff-recommended approach, if the city and the developer cannot come to agreement on the site plan and appropriate mitigation, in particular for the apparently unsolvable groundwater issues, then the city would be in a serious bind: The city has no process for de-annexing the property, and so would have given all the leverage to the developer. This would put Boulder citizens at financial and hydrologic risk.
Then, during the hearing, a consultant for the developer pointed out that the local sewer system is already overloaded because of leaks in the groundwater drainage pipes. So this new development would almost certainly intensify the sewer backups in surrounding neighborhoods. And that’s on top of the groundwater issues that were already made worse just by building the new soccer fields out there. Why anyone would recommend more development in the area is beyond me.
But Hogan-Pancost is a housing development, and we have a “housing crisis.” Or so apparently is the current city mindset. Unfortunately, the portion of market-priced housing in this and other new developments will almost certainly be un-affordable to moderate-income folks; the city’s own studies say so. And Boulder’s excessive high-tech job growth has pushed housing prices out of sight: plus, we have 60,000 people already in-commuting. Bizarrely, the Colorado Economic Development Commission just offered a tiny company up to $2.8 million in tax credits to move to — guess where — Boulder. Do we really want to subsidize job growth here?
Another example of this push for more housing at whatever cost is a project at the downtown Trinity Lutheran Church for 16 senior housing units plus 56 structured parking spaces. To very briefly summarize, CAGID (the downtown parking district) is paying more than double the average cost per space for this structured parking. This excess means that CAGID is, in effect, subsidizing these housing units by roughly $140,000 each. Adding in the city’s housing fund contribution of $1.12 million, the total subsidy comes to roughly $210,000 per unit. That’s way out of line, to say nothing of this questionable use of CAGID funds. The council should put this on hold and not proceed without a proper staff analysis of the economics and alternative investments.
But the really dangerous move is the”one-person-per-bedroom” initiative being proposed by a group whose chairperson lives in Louisville. It would allow one person per 70-square-foot bedroom anywhere in Boulder. Large single-family homes would become prime targets for conversion to rentals or co-ops. Major remodeling would be next; even a relatively modest 3,500-square-foot house could conceivably house 20 or more renters. Outsized investment returns would then push housing prices up even higher. Whole parts of single-family neighborhoods might be scraped off for conversion to high-occupancy units. The city would have difficulty preventing this, since rent control is illegal in Colorado, and the initiative language prevents the city from re-defining bedrooms. (Check out Austin’s “stealth dorm” controversy.)
On another topic, there’s the city’s proposed bike trail on the west side of U.S. 36 north of town. It cuts through critical habitat, so these riders will drive wildlife away, just as has happened in other open space locations. This trail plan was passed by the open space board in spite of a lack of complete cost estimates, missing wetland permits, failure to obtain an easement important to routing around endangered resources, ignoring of previously agreed-to principles for locating trails that would have protected this area, and an incomplete evaluation of less damaging alternatives on the east side.
In my opinion, the city’s decision-making process isn’t working, and it’s time to start fixing it. For example, the council should spend the time necessary to clarify its objectives, and it should insist on complete, unbiased staff work. Council members should invite knowledgeable citizens to actively participate,and engage with them in generating alternative solutions, rather than assuming that conflicts are irreconcilable. Good decisions, done right, are worth the time they take, and are more constructive for the whole community!


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