Even though Boulder citizens have consistently opposed sprawl, the proposed Palmos Development in the Area III Planning Reserve may come before City Council this Tuesday. "Let's keep our options open," has become the mantra of those who want the proposal to proceed to the next step. This would happen if the Council votes on September 20 to authorize staff to proceed with a work plan defining the scope of a service expansion study.

So let's examine how this would really "keep our options open." The rationale is that some big box other than Wal-Mart might come along in the next few years and the only place we could put it is the Palmos property.

But how does focusing on a developer-driven proposal to change the comprehensive plan and proceed toward annexation of a site outside the northeast boundary of our city "keep our options open" On the contrary, this course actually narrows our options, putting the Palmos property in the spotlight when we should be examining infill and redevelopment sites throughout the city, as was forcefully affirmed by a 6-1 vote of the Planning Board at its August 25 meeting. Why shift focus away from hundreds of thousands of square feet currently developing at 29th Street, the planned transit village, and the now-emerging retail along Broadway in north Boulder

We do not believe it is sound policy to send the city's planners off on a lengthy and expensive service expansion study. We don't believe City Council should vote to develop a work plan for service expansion unless it intends to proceed with the service expansion study requiring 4-body approval by County Commissioners, County Planning Commission, City Council, and City Planning Board.

Annexation in Area III based on a developer-driven proposal is contrary to the vision and history of careful land-use planning that has made Boulder the livable city citizens cherish. Moreover, it violates several carefully thought-out and long-implemented policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:

• Policy 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern - "The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area"

• Policy 2.06 Design of Community Edges - "Well defined edges for the city's boundaries are important because they support an understanding and appreciation of the city's image and create a clear sense of arrival and departure..."

• Policy 2.07 Design of Major Entryways - "Major entryways into the BoulderValley shall be identified, protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting and appearance of the community. Future strip commercial development shall be discouraged."

• Policy 2.09 Delineation of Rural Lands - The Area III Planning Reserve is defined as the area where the city and county intend to maintain the option of expanded urban development beyond the time frame of a15-year planning period.

• Policy 2.25 Role of the Central Area - "The central area shall continue as the regional service center of the Boulder Valley for office, retail, financial, governmental, medical, cultural and university activities. As such, it shall remain the primary activity center and focal point of the Boulder Valley."

Finally, two arguments advanced by pro-Palmos project advocates need to be corrected.

Developers want a huge retail center on the fringe of our community for environmental reasons saying it will save vehicle miles traveled to shop elsewhere. This is incorrect. If you want to save vehicle miles traveled, and the attendant energy usage and pollution, then you locate your retail center in the central area of the city where travel distance is minimized and alternatives such as bike, bus, walk, and eventually train are available.

Developers say big box chain retailers provide a much-needed benefit to the city in enormous sales tax revenues.The retail strategy study estimates that establishing both Wal-Mart and Sam's Club would generate about $2.3 million in tax revenue. But even proponents of Palmos have said that Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are not viable because of the extreme community reaction and, with these off the table, predicted tax revenues dwindle to $500-750 thousand, hardly worth the costs the city will have to bear.