Opinion: 311 Mapleton and fixing Boulder’s site review process


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 whether the proposed zones, RL-1 and Public, allow such private, for-profit multi-unit developments.)
Next, the council may “modify” (meaning ignore) any or all of a list of 29 “development standards.” These include form and bulk, height, intensity, density, number of buildings on a lot, windows, improvements, site access, parking, landscaping, open space, streetscape, etc. About the only thing that cannot be significantly modified is solar access. This excessive flexibility with regard to the standard zoning regulations means that councilmembers’ biases, not the zoning, determine the approval outcome.
The regulations do require that the site design “preserve and enhance” the community’s “unique sense of place …, relation to the natural environment,” etc. But they only require the council to “consider” certain factors related to these important qualities. The council does not have to make objective determinations because there are no actual standards. So, at best, these “considerations” are just judgment calls. And this means that who is proposing the project and the function it serves carries a lot of weight, even though the site plan review criteria never mention these as considerations.
Suppose, instead of senior housing, the proposal for 311 Mapleton was for some high-end vacation units for the top executives of banks, law offices, and high-tech companies from other cities. I believe many council members would have opposed it from the beginning, even though it would not look or operate any differently.

Also, consider the very controversial site review at 1440 Pine from last year. Suppose that the proposal was not Attention Homes asking to create housing and a restaurant work place to serve disadvantaged youth, plus their offices. Instead, as an outrageous hypothetical, it was an escort service asking for housing for its employees and a restaurant/bar where they could meet clients, plus offices. Same basic functions, but I bet it would not have gone anywhere.
Fixing the site review process is a big project. To hit a few critical points: Flexibility must be reduced with regard to how much more development can be obtained beyond the amount allowed by the underlying zoning. That would remove the real incentive to use site review, which is to get more than otherwise allowed. Council and Planning Board must be able to condition approvals to ensure developers deliver on their promises and to obtain more benefits for the community. Clearly we need objective standards that maintain views, preserve setbacks, and limit tall facades, so as to keep our streets livable. (The new building at Valmont at the Sutherland Lumber site clearly shows the need for such limits.)
But site reviews also must be based on a real plan for Boulder’s future. In the 25 years since the 1993 Integrated Planning Process, which was abandoned by the council majority shortly thereafter, there has been no substantial attempt to resolve Boulder’s basic direction. Are we a jobs center, or a balanced community? Do we want more rapid growth or real limits? Do we want ever-increasing traffic or can we live with some constraints? Do we want more tall buildings that block our views or not? Will we preserve or densify our neighborhoods?
Site review standards must be based on answers to such questions. Just reacting to what developers propose doesn’t work for the community. Unfortunately, the comprehensive plan has turned into just a feel-good document, and so is pretty much useless. So it’s time to hit the pause button on all big projects, really find out where the citizens would like Boulder to go, and then do planning on that basis.


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