Position Statements
Following are just a few of the positions that PLAN Boulder County has taken. These positions are based on PLAN-Boulder County's guiding policies.
Previous PLAN Positions
PLAN-Boulder County continues to support policies that will increase our
stock of affordable housing, provide for a variety of housing types and
sizes, increase densities in targeted areas, particularly along transit
corridors and in commercial/industrial zones, encourage mixed-use
development, and make the creation of affordable housing the top priority
when Area II lands are annexed.
PLAN-Boulder believes that such policies will help maintain our
socio-economic diversity, allow more Boulder workers to live in Boulder and
thus become part of our community, reduce regional auto travel and increase
local transit use, and help create more friendly, vibrant, and successful
commercial areas.
While these policies may also create some additional
local traffic, we believe that, when implemented carefully, the long-term
and regional benefits will greatly outweigh the costs.
Therefore, PLAN-Boulder urges the City Council during its review of the
current update to the Comprehensive Plan to consider the changes to the land
use map proposed by staff with the following principles in mind:
PLAN-Boulder strongly supports the proposed changes to the land use map in
Area I that will allow and encourage residential uses in selected
commercial/industrial areas and add residential density in a small number of
existing residential areas. We believe that additional housing
opportunities in Area I should be emphasized because transit is more readily
available, as are employment and services.
PLAN-Boulder County cautions
council not to rely too heavily on additional residential development in
Area II. The proposed Area II changes should be given more study to
consider the appropriateness of residential density in each location given
the environmental impacts, the character of the existing neighborhoods, and
the area's proximity to transit and other services. The benefit of any
additional affordable housing that can be gained must be balanced against
the detriments associated with the specific needs of the location.
PLAN-Boulder also urges the City Council to review the action of staff and
the Planning Board, which removed from consideration mixed use redevelopment
of existing shopping centers such as the Table Mesa Shopping Center, and
removed map changes that would have allowed some increased density near
existing residential areas in Area I. These areas exemplify opportunities
to create additional housing and mixed-use development in areas that already
have relatively dense housing and have ready access to public transportation.
This Comp Plan update is an excellent chance to make a significant impact on
the provision of more housing, and particularly affordable housing, in
Boulder. While some proposed land use changes are controversial and some
sites would need additional review during the subsequent development
process, we note that modifying land use designation in the comp plan is but
the first step. The actual zoning would still need to be changed, and any
development proposal would have to undergo a significant public process.
Return to top
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: PLAN-Boulder County Board of Directors
Re: February 6 Council Meeting: Managing Commercial Growth
Dear Council Members:
We understand that, at tonight's meeting, Council may direct staff to
initiate a project that is alternatively described as "reducing jobs" or
"managing commercial growth." We would like to register our strong concerns
about the haste in which this project is being undertaken. We note that the
idea for this project apparently arose less than two weeks ago, and that the
only public conversation so far has been Council/staff discussion at a study
session. We believe it would be inappropriate for Council to direct staff to
undertake any project of this scale without providing opportunities for
public input.
PLAN-Boulder County supports the concept of managing commercial growth. We
believe that the jobs/housing balance is an essential element in the
community's ongoing discussions about redevelopment of commercial areas,
promoting affordable housing and ensuring economic stability. We believe it
is important to integrate discussions about reducing jobs/managing growth
with these ongoing conversations. We note that the long term city effort to
define a "baseline" for Boulder's economy is nearing fruition, and we
believe that a conversation about "managing commercial growth" would be
beneficially informed by these data/analysis.
Accordingly, we suggest that
you sequence the "commercial growth" conversation to follow completion of
the baseline economic study (presently scheduled for late April/early May).
The issues relating to commercial growth management are complex and
multi-faceted; we believe the community's interests will be served best by
full, frank and thoughtful discussion.
Through 1994, PBC has:
- Supported the Open Space Draft of Long Range Management Policies subject to certain modifications
- Supported the Slow Growth Initiative Petition
- Supported City Council action to reduce a fire hazard by eliminating the use of shake shingles
- Opposed changes in the physical facilities at the Boulder Municipal
Airport that would accelerate the increase in Airport operations
- Supported purchase of City of Boulder Open Space on the Sombrero
Marsh
portion of the Eason property (south of Arapahoe at 63rd Street) and
Ute
Industrial Park (east of Valmont Reservoir and west of 75th Street).
There was an active proposal to rezone Ute Industrial Park for a
Housing development.
- Sponsored a meeting on regionalism on 11 November, which was very successful
- Took positions on many of the issues and candidates on the 8 November
ballot. Since these positions were advertised in the Boulder Camera and the
Colorado Daily, there is not a need to repeat them here.
Boulder Municipal Airport (1994)
PLAN Boulder County has already indicated its opposition to the adoption of the
current Airport Master Plan Update by communication and appearance before your
body of 16 Sept. 1994 wherein it stated:
PLAN boulder opposes expansion of operations at the airport and urges the
City to (1) not request the proposed waivers from the FAA which would
encourage more use by large aircraft, (2) not install the proposed NDB
(Non-directional radio beacon) and not install further lighting (i,e, the
proposed REIL and VASI lighting).
It now believes that the best approach to this matter is to broaden it by
recommending that a more definitive policy on the future expansion of airport
activity be established in the current BVCP update. It has communicated this
recomendation to Mr. Joe Mantione of the City Planning Department who assures
us that it will now be on the BVCP Update agenda.
Accordingly PLAN Boulder County recomends to you that the Airport Master Plan
Update be put on hold until the entire matter of the Airport future is given
consideration by the entire Boulder Valley and a new and updated airport policy
is incorporated into the BVCP.
Our concern is set forth in the following:
PLAN Boulder County believes that the Boulder Airport is an important
recreational and commercial asset to the City and vicinity, but it fears that
continued expansion of operations at the Airport would eventually lead to
opposition that would threaten its continued existence. We therefore urge that
increase in operations be limited. We suggest that the following measures, as
well as other that that may be suggested by experts on the subject, be
considered in encouraging limited use and activity:
- Do not increase or allow to be increased the number of tiedowns and hanger
stalls.
- Do not install a NDB, VASI or REIL. Such non-installation was specifically
recommend by the 1984 Airport Master Plan.
- Do not cater to or encourage operations by ARC Group B-II or larger
aircraft. (primarily jet and jet prop aircraft).
- Do not sell or allow to be sold JET A fuel.
- Incorporate the City of Boulder AIZs into the BVCP Update ( i.e. bring
the county into the AIZ program).
- See that prospective purchasers of interests in real estate subject to the
AIZs will be given notice thereof and such real estate's proximity to the
Airport.
PLAN-Boulder County commends the Planning and Housing staff for their
good efforts in devising a revised plan to mitigate the floodplain
problems presented by the Foothills housing project site. Although we
regret the need to reduce the number of affordable housing units to
75, we recognize that the revised plan provides for as many units as
currently feasible while placing them in an appropriate location on
this difficult site. We also realize that there is a need to proceed
without delay in order to be eligible for federal
funding. PLAN-Boulder strongly supports affordable housing and this
project, but not at a sacrifice to the integrity of riparian
corridors. Thus our long term support for the project is contingent on
assurance that it will not result in unacceptable impacts to the
corridor or downstream.
On the eve of the Boulder City Council's decision whether to adopt the
Seconds Count citizens' initiative, which proposed that the Council take
action to remove all traffic circles and speed bumps, the PBC Board sent
the following e-mail to each Council member:
"PLAN-Boulder urges the City Council not to adopt the Seconds Count
initiative, instead placing it on the ballot as required. As written, Seconds
Count would significantly impact pedestrian and bicycle safety, impose
an overly broad restriction on a valuable transportation tool, and inappropriately
micro-manage the operations of the Transportation Department."
As part of discussion in the meeting, one Council member cited the PLAN-Boulder
e-mail in stating his opposition to adopting the initiative. The Council
voted against approving the initiative, and instructed staff to try to
work with the framers of the measure to improve some of the objectionable
provisions before it goes on the ballot next year.
The PLAN-Boulder Board delivered the following letter to the City Council
and the Planning Board on Sept. 16:
"PLAN-Boulder County has previously recommended that the RGMS be revised,
with its affordable housing component partially replaced by an inclusionary
zoning regulation. We are pleased that the currently proposed revisions
from the Planning Board include a number of good components, including
a 1% growth rate limit with exemptions for affordable housing; an inclusionary
zoning program that requires 20% of all new units to be affordable; and
a significantly increased fee in lieu of providing affordable housing that
more accurately reflects the cost of such housing and is thus more equitable.
"However, we are concerned that the new mechanism may not be able to
meet the goals set in the current RGMS and may also yield some serious
inequities and unintended consequences.
"We believe that significant additions to existing residential units
should also be charged a fee-in-lieu. This seems equitable since the fee
against new units is to 'pay back' the city for the loss of an affordable
housing opportunity; the same loss occurs when an existing unit is expanded.
Additionally, the new, higher fees for new units, coupled with no fees
for existing unit expansions, could provide an incentive for more such
expansions contrary to city goals.
"While obtaining 20 percent permanently affordable units without city
subsidy is a good start, this lets 80 percent of new units be market rate,
a much higher percentage than the goal of the current RGMS. While there
are legal issues involved, we believe that the city must work more creatively
to significantly increase the percentage of new units that are affordable.
"Given the new financial requirements placed on new residential construction,
we need to consider increasing the contributions to affordable housing
from other sectors, including commercial/industrial development and the
business community.
"Obviously not all of these issues can be, or need to be, fully resolved
before the initial RGMS revision can be made and an inclusionary zoning
program begun. However, the key issue of whether to charge for residential
expansions should not be put off, due to the likely unintended consequences
and to the increased difficulty of passing such a regulation once the RGMS
has been revised. And the issues of creating more than 20 percent of new
units as affordable, as well as insuring that all sectors of our economy
provide equitably for affordable housing, should remain top priorities
for the Council."
At the Boulder City Council meeting October 19, PLAN-Boulder County's
position regarding Sombrero Marsh, a portion of which the Council was considering
purchasing, was presented as follows:
"Sombrero Marsh is a unique and significant wetland system which supports
both wildlife and plant communities that are uncommon or rare. It is presently
endangered by the long-term use of its easterly segment as a Boulder Valley
School District dumping ground.
"The city's Open Space program has already preserved a substantial portion
of the marsh and now proposes to acquire the 42 acres owned by the BVSD,
clean up the dump and restore the marsh's eastern shoreline.
"A requirement of the BVSD is that an educational element be part of
the 42 acres, which would benefit the community as a whole. The Open
Space Department will comply with this concept, the details of which are
still under study.
"PBC strongly supports this effort on the part of Open Space to preserve
and protect a valuable and unique habitat and the rare wildlife species
and wetland vegetation which depend on its existence. It should be noted
that the first priority in acquiring Sombrero Marsh property is protection
of the resource; education should support this primary focus."
Council voted in favor of the purchase.
PLAN-Boulder County supports adoption of the Prairie Dog Protection
Strategy, with a request for further dialogue around some aspects of
implementation. Specifically:
- We strongly support the addition of policies to the BVCP aimed at
protecting "species of concern" and their habitat. Identifying these
species on an adopted list will add certainty to the process for landowners.
- To further reduce uncertainty and surprise in the regulator process, we
suggest that City staff also create maps showing known habitat areas for
identified species.
- We also strongly support any steps the City can legally take to prevent
poisoning of species of concern, including prairie dogs, within the Boulder
Valley. Prairie dog colonies have been poisoned at an accelerated pace
since the possibility of their "listing" as a threatened species was raised
in public dialogue. Prairie dogs are a keystone species; if left unchecked,
wholesale poisoning will dramatically change prairie ecosystems. Poisons
used on prairie dog colonies are also extremely inhumane, resulting in
needless long term suffering for individual animals.
- We believe that negotiating case-specific preservation plans with
individual landowners is a worthwhile strategy to pursue. However, many
people do not yet understand the role that species of concern play within
their ecosystems, and landowners may still hold views that these species
have no value. Thus, to be effective, negotiations around case-specific
preservation must be backed up by a strong commitment to protect species,
backed - if necessary - by appropriate regulation. The proposed changes to
the site review process appear to be an appropriate way to provide this
"back-up" regulation. We recommend a trial period of one-two years to
determine whether the voluntary agreements/site review strategy is leading
to attainment of our species preservation goals.
- Finally, there is considerable controversy among knowledgeable parties
about the City's proposed protocol for prairie dog relocation. We suggest
that further conversation is necessary around the following areas before the
protocol is adopted:
- How to best open up Habitat Conservation Areas - which have already been
screened for suitability - for relocation of specific colonies
- Whether a minimum number of dogs must be available for relocation to
occur, and - if so - what that minimum should be
- Use of augured holes to create new sites for prairie dog towns (instead
of relying solely on areas with existing burrows)
- Improved vegetation/revegetation management techniques (including weed
control and species interseeding) on existing, proposed and relocated colony
sites.
- The possibility of introducing selected predator species (such as
black-footed ferrets) into some prairie dog towns.
PLAN-Boulder County supports the main elements contained in the City
Manager's analysis of the proposal for restructuring the Division of
Mountain Parks and the Department of Open Space/Real Estate, as outlined in
his memo presented to the
City Council at the meeting of March 21, 2000.
We applaud the Manager and the Council for taking this decisive step in
moving forward to resolve this long-standing and divisive issue. We are
especially pleased that the new proposal firmly places the Open Space
acquisitions function within
the newly defined Department.
We also strongly support the recommendation
that the historical appropriation for Mountain Parks from the General Fund
be transferred along with the properties to be managed. We urge the
adoption of a measure,
by a vote of the people if necessary, ensuring this annual appropriation for
as long a period of time as would be required to guarantee that the present
bonding capacity for the Open Space accelerated acquisition program is not
placed in jeopardy.
Many other issues remain to be explored by the proposed Transition Team. We
wish to flag for their consideration a few of the issues raised in the City
Manager's memo.
- We support naming the restructured department the Department of Open
Space and Mountain Parks, provided this does not require a charter
amendment. We also support expanding the Open Space Board of Trustees, for
the transitional period
only, by the addition of two ex-officio, non-voting members. Neither of
these, however, should be a current member of the City Council.
- The Transition Team should include some representation from the public.
This could be accomplished by the appointment of one member from the Open
Space Board of Trustees and one from the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board. We believe the Team should be entrusted with the decision, after
seeking broad public input, on which of the Mountain Parks lands should be
included in the transfer.
- We do not believe that the reductions in staff recommended in the recent
management audit report can be accomplished without deleteriously affecting
the excellent work that both staffs have been performing in managing these
lands. The starting point should be the current staff plus the currently
vacant positions minus obviously overlapping administrative positions. In
the absence of a true workload analysis, we recommend no reductions in
current staffing levels unless it can be demonstrated that such cuts will
not harm the program. During the transition period, thought needs to be
given to projecting future staff needs as well (based on increased acreage,
increasing visitor usage and changing demographics).
- We find the proposal for two Co-Directors, one overseeing Visitor and
Maintenance Services and the other, Acquisition and Resource Planning, to be
intriguing and worth exploring. Such a Co-Directorship should not be
permanent, however,
but exist only during the transition period.
We have many specific criticisms of the audit report prepared for the city
by Conservation Impact. It presented a recommendation for restructuring
without examining the alternatives in any detail and without offering clear
and convincing
arguments to support the recommendation. It proposed an unrealistic time
frame for the proposed changes. Most important, it provided no adequate
examination of the present or future workload, and the analysis of cost
savings resulting from staff
reductions was shallow and not persuasive.
However, we recognize that this first effort at a management audit was
unique in many respects, and need not serve as a model for the audits
envisioned by the city for other departments. Future audits should more
carefully examine staffing needs.
What are the current tasks and how many people are needed to accomplish
them? What are projected future needs? What are anticipated revenues?
This is crucial, since the city may face revenue reductions and probable
service cuts in the future.
During these last few weeks, we have heard "horror stories" from some
individuals wishing to develop their mountain properties who have been
subject to the Boulder County Site Plan Review. We can certainly understand
their disappointment although we have not heard the other side of the story.
But is it too much to expect that applicants will respect a regulatory
process which has benefited our community at large, and in the long run will
benefit them as well?
The growth occurring in our county needs no elaboration. We see it all
around us, we read facts and figures almost daily in our newspaper. Many of
the newcomers arrive with stars in their eyes, excited about our magnificent
surroundings, the verdant plains, the mountains with their majestic views
and peaceful valleys, all promising a life in paradise, a life better than
the one left behind.
But unless we are careful, the onslaught of new neighbors, expecially those
with expectations of an abode on a remote mountain site or along a rushing
stream surrounded by lush greenery, may destroy the very paradise that
nature, the Native Americans and pioneer settlers have passed on to us.
We can be grateful that our duly elected County Commissioners, past and
present, are well aware of this problem and our concerns about it. Since its
inception twenty years ago, a major goal of the Boulder County Comprehensive
Plan has been to place new development when it occurs adjacent to our
existing communities. Urban sprawl and the impacts of growth are minimized
by locating additional development near schools, jobs, stores and where
utilities are available. For those looking for more remote quarters, special
precautionary measures such as the Site Plan Review are in place in order to
safeguard our most precious and nonrenewable resources.
Since 1993 Site Plan Review has been used to minimize damage to our
environment, to reduce surface runoff and erosion, to avoid wildfire and
slope stability hazards, to protect sensitive wildlife habitat, to prevent
contamination and depletion of groundwater aquifers, to preserve scenic
views, and to maintain agriculture. These concerns affect all of us. History
provides ample evidence that these are indeed legitimate concerns. Just
recall the Sugar Loaf fire in 1989 which destroyed fourty homes, or the
damage to Jamestown's water supply by erosion due to increased traffic on
primitive roads, or the flooding of low-lying plains every decade, often
exacerbated by development. Bearable restrictions ahead of time may prevent
unbearable misery afterwards.
It is clear that the Site Plan Review regulations by their very purpose may
impose some limits on what county settlers can do without having an adverse
impact upon the land and on their neighbors. Living together in and
ever-growing community implies the need of neighbors to respect each others'
rights. New neighbors have the right to build but the public at large has an
interest in placing limitations on new development to protect the assets of
Boulder County. The regulations, as currently written, are rational,
reasonable and no more restrictive than many other zoning ordinances in
existence elsewhere.
We of PLAN-Boulder County recognize that the contentiousness of this
situation is brought about by the impacts of growth and the need to deal
with those impacts. We fully support the County's Site Plan Review
regulations to insure development which respects our natural environment and
provides for a safe, livable community of which all residents can be proud
in the future.
The Board of PLAN-Boulder County
Charles Manlove and Joni Teter, Co-chairs
Since 1959 PLAN-Boulder County has been an organization of environmentally
concerned citizens working to preserve the harmonious character of the city
and county of Boulder.