PLAN-Boulder County Position Statements

"PLAN-Boulder County, Boulder, PLAN, Plan, planning, environment, growth, citizens, political action, public, land use, quality of life, positions"> PLAN-Boulder County Position Statements

Jobs/Population Balance

Statement submitted to Boulder City Council study session, May 2002

The jobs/population task force and city staff have been working on what is perhaps the most significant issue now facing Boulder. The results of this effort will determine what our city looks like and how it feels to live here for the foreseeable future. PLAN-Boulder believes city council must give it the highest priority.

Although concern with the ratio of jobs to the population in the Boulder Valley was what triggered this process, the outcome should not be driven by an effort to identify and achieve some idealized ratio. The ratio of jobs to population by itself does not tell us whether we have a livable community. This project should be guided instead by an effort to identify what the character of the Boulder Valley should be in the future or at buildout.

We know that current zoning regulations allow far more jobs than there will be housing for workers in Boulder or in Boulder County. This will inevitably strain the transportation network, increase housing prices, and reduce the quality of life for those who will have to endure long commutes as well as for those of us in Boulder who endure the daily influx of cars and people and the general congestion created thereby.

Concern over the effect of reducing the potential for job growth on the economic vitality of Boulder is not justified if the results of the cityÕs previous reduction in non-residential development potential is any indicator. Boulder is an established commercial and industrial center as a result of many factors and will continue to be so even if future development potential is reduced.

An attempt to achieve some ideal balance by making housing growth match job growth will cause unacceptable impacts on the quality of life in the Boulder Valley. The additional population would create traffic gridlock; increase the overall size of the community beyond a livable dimension, putting unacceptable demand on city services and amenities such as parks, trails, libraries and recreation centers; create water, noise and air pollution; overtax the resources of the school district, and destroy the basic fabric of the community. It should therefore be a given that any scenario that you direct staff and the task force to continue studying must substantially reduce the potential for new jobs.

PLAN-Boulder County believes the following principles must be considered in shaping scenarios and evaluating their impacts for BoulderÕs future:

The desired level of both future jobs and additional housing should not be based on numerical ratios. It should be determined by the impacts on city services and amenities, including the transportation system, schools, parks, open space, libraries and public spaces. The capacity of the city to contain the daytime and evening population without destroying the very qualities that make Boulder a desirable place to live and work must be the starting point of the analysis.
Surrounding cities are not planning to add sufficient housing to accommodate the jobs projected in Boulder County. Therefore, Boulder will have to increase the number of dwelling units above what is currently contemplated by the BVCP, if it wants to maintain the high (77) percentage of resident-workers in the Boulder Valley.
Additional dwelling units should be affordable to the people likely to be employed by future jobs. Affordability should be achieved through a variety of mechanisms including the creation of new residential zone districts specifically designed to produce smaller homes on smaller lots with access to transit and retail uses. Such zones should have mandatory size restrictions on the square footage of units and lots. Incentives, fees and set-asides cannot be relied upon to produce the type of housing necessary.
The zoning regulations cannot rely on incentives such as increased floor area ratios to create a livable community in the future. Once the city determines how many additional jobs and residents it can sustain, those numbers should be implemented by changing allowable development densities and rezoning some non-residential land for these new residential zones.
New non-residential development regulations must reflect the values of this community, such as access to sunlight, public gathering spaces, walkability, and human scale, and should not be driven just by square footage and job numbers.
Zoning changes should be made to preserve retail and service industrial uses and to limit the amount of area available for purely office uses. This is important so that Boulder retains a strong sales tax base, to eliminate the need to drive to neighboring towns to purchase low cost items, and to reduce the potential number of jobs per square foot of development.

The next step in your process appears to be the evaluation of various scenarios to determine what the likely impact of each will be on the future of the Boulder community. We hope you will direct staff to consider a sufficient number of scenarios so that both you and the community can assess a wide range of outcomes. At such time as a public outreach component of this process is proposed, PLAN-Boulder County would like to be an active participant in the public process.

Return to top

Jobs/Population Balance

Statement submitted to Boulder City Council at its meeting July 9, 2002

As you are considering the summary of the May study session on the jobs/population project at your July 9 meeting, we thought we would take this opportunity to emphasize the following points as the project proceeds:

The city should examine all means to further reduce projected growth in the commercial and industrial sectors. We feel that the addition of 29,000 jobs as in scenario E, the lowest of the three scenarios under consideration, is still way too many. Such growth implies a population growth of 40,000 or more, more than 4 times the size of Superior/Rock Creek, or roughly the populations of Louisville and Lafayette combined. We do not feel that Boulder should be the cause of such growth, whether it occurs within or without the Boulder Valley. And given the current focus of most neighboring communities on employment growth, many of BoulderÕs additional employees would be required to commute ever longer distances, with all the undesirable associated impacts.
The city should explore ways to reduce the potential for increased job density within existing development. As the economy recovers demand will further escalate, and there will be pressure to increase the intensity of use of existing space. Because of the large amount of commercial and industrial space already existing in Boulder, such job density increases could seriously hamper other efforts to reduce future employment growth. Although this issue is difficult to address, it must be addressed if the jobs/population project is to succeed.
The city needs to set standards for the facilities and services that must be in place concurrent with any additional development, and, most importantly, ensure adequate funding for such facilities and services. Such standards must at least maintain existing levels of service. This "concurrency" requirement should address not only the housing for workers in future commercial and industrial development but all the infrastructure and operations of the city Ð utilities, police, fire, libraries, parks, transportation, etc. The city has the power to deny development permits if infrastructure is inadequate, the power to impose impact fees to pay for infrastructure where needed, and the power to link employment growth to the provision of housing. The city should use these powers.
As one crucial aspect of this "concurrency" requirement, the city should take a serious look at its water supplies and treatment facilities. It is our understanding that the estimates of the cityÕs firm raw water supplies have been reduced significantly in recent years. It is now quite apparent that the supplies are inadequate to meet the needs of Boulder citizens in a serious drought such as we are experiencing, and thus we expect such estimates to be reduced further. To illuminate this situation, the city should provide the public with a clear picture of what the water situation would look like this summer if we had already allowed the growth envisioned in scenarios C, D, or E to occur. This will help all of us to make informed decisions about our future.

Return to top

Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District

Statement submitted to the Boulder County Commissioners May 7, 2002

PLAN-Boulder County has long supported Boulder CountyÕs site plan review process. We view it as a necessary and appropriate tool for assuring that new development and redevelopment is consistent with existing neighborhood character, does not create adverse visual impacts, and is compatible with environmental constraints on the property. Controversy over the site plan review process seems to arise from the absence of clear standards concerning neighborhood character and compatibility. Anything the county can do to improve site plan review is welcome.

The proposed neighborhood conservation overlay district appears to offer a solution to the issue of clear standards. It would provide property owners with advance notice of the constraints on development in a particular neighborhood and would relieve you, as commissioners, from the task of reviewing virtually every significant remodel and new dwelling that is constructed in Boulder County.

Despite PLAN-BoulderÕs support of the neighborhood conservation overlay concept, we have several concerns with the provisions of the regulation as they now stand. We would not want to see this new concept instigate yet additional objections to land use regulation in Boulder County. Our concerns and suggestions are as follows:

An approved neighborhood conservation district should not render existing uses non-conforming. Since the overlay zoning does not replace the underlying zoning, the draft regulation should be amended so that existing structures that comply with existing zoning are not considered non-conforming. It seems unfair to owners of property that already have structures on them to change the legal status of their property if they are not changing their property. We are concerned that a sufficient number of property owners will not support creation of a neighborhood conservation plan if their property could become non-conforming or neighborhoods will craft regulations that are too minimal to be effective so that no existing property becomes non-conforming.
The general provisions state that all new "development, additions, changes, and expansions to existing structures must comply with the regulations associated with the neighborhood conservation overlay district." It would be more appropriate to require compliance with the new regulations if the development would otherwise require site plan review. Applying the overlay district regulations to any and all additions, changes, and expansions will eliminate much of the support for the regulations.
The regulation needs some clarification or additional definition on the issue of parcels that are included in the determination of the level of participation and the number of adjacent parcels. Do the terms "parcel" and "property" used in the proposed regulation refer to buildable parcels or all parcels? Would the owner of several unbuildable parcels or parcels that have been aggregated to create a legal building site have more than one vote?
The proposed regulations eliminate the requirement for site plan review only if the neighborhood conservation plan covers all of the relevant site plan review criteria. The conservation overlay district may be more effective if new development could bypass site plan review as to any criteria that are addressed by the conservation plan. As written, the conservation plan could address many of the site plan review criteria, yet a proposed development or addition would still be subject to SPR as to those criteria.
To reduce the potential for contention over adoption of conservation overlay district regulations, we recommend that you increase the percentage of property owners that must participate to 67% from the existing 50%. This change would be particularly helpful if the regulations will render some existing uses non-conforming.
The standards and conditions for approval op a neighborhood conservation overlay district should specify that the conservation plan must contain standards that are clear and capable of being objectively applied, and are consistent with the predominant existing character of the neighborhood.
The proposed regulations are unclear as to whether the requirement of written consent by greater than 50% of the property owners of record applies to the regulations as proposed for adoption or just to regulations as submitted to the county commissioners for review. It would be preferable to have agreement from at least 50% (preferably 67%) of the property owners for the final regulations as adopted.

We have two additional concerns that are related more to the content of future neighborhood conservation plans than the regulatory framework. The first concern is that Boulder County not attempt to include architectural style or design in the regulations. Although many neighborhoods may gain their existing character from a uniform style, we believe the county should not be a party to regulating style. Character and compatibility should be addressed through overall size, mass and scale. The second concern is that the regulations should not be crafted in a way that would prevent use of energy-efficient construction such as straw bales or recycled materials.

Return to top

Eldorado Mountain Rezoning

Letter to the Jefferson County Commissioners March 14, 2002

Jefferson County Commissioners
100 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, Colorado 80401

Dear Commissioners:

PLAN Boulder County is a citizen organization founded in 1959. We are an organization of environmentally concerned citizens who have worked for more than 40 years to preserve the harmonious character of the city and the county of Boulder. We write today to express our profound opposition to the proposed rezoning by Pinnacle Towers, Inc. on Eldorado Mountain.

Much effort in Jefferson County has gone into preserving the mountain backdrop. The City of Boulder and Boulder County have put similar effort into preserving the mountain backdrop. Appreciation of the backdrop does not begin or end at county lines. All those who live, work, play and visit our area appreciate the beauty that this visual anchor provides. We were gratified that Elliot Brown, on behalf of Plan Jeffco, has spoken out in favor of preserving the mountain backdrop and against the Pinnacle Towers, Inc. rezoning proposal. PLAN Boulder County joins Plan Jeffco in opposing the proposal to allow a lighted tower on the peak of Eldorado Mountain.

During the daytime, the only evidence of human activity along the length of the backdrop is the railroad embankment on the front of the mountain. At night, with the exception of a light on the existing equipment building, no lights mar the viewshed from Coal Creek Canyon all the way north past Flagstaff Mountain in Boulder. All one sees is the dark silhouette of the mountains against the sky. Large amounts of public funds to preserve the special beauty in this location have been spent by the State of Colorado, Jefferson County, the City of Boulder, and Boulder County. The proposed tower is incompatible with and would forever change the existing quality of this area.

Jefferson County has wisely adopted a Telecommunications Land Use Plan to guide its consideration of rezoning proposals for large telecommunications towers. The citizens of Jefferson County have spoken through that plan as well as through the North Mountain Community Plan. These plans have served the county well in producing development that respects the unique character of the countyÕs diverse communities. The care and effort that went into these plans should be respected by requiring rezoning proposals to comply with the letter and the spirit of these plans. Jefferson County was a leader in the Front Range Mountain Backdrop Project, which is a priority in the Jefferson County Open Space Master Plan. The proposed rezoning violates these plans and would undermine the efforts of counties up and down the Front Range to preserve the mountain backdrop. The specific policies the application violates will be detailed below..

Telecommunications Land Use Plan

Visual and Noise Policies

The Visual and Noise Policies require that telecommunications facilities should result in a minimal visual impact for residents in the immediate area and in the larger community who view the facilities from a distance.
The TLUP recommends that new facilities should be located in close proximity to other comparable structures.
The visual impact of telecommunication facilities should be compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding area. FAA coloring and lighting requirements must be considered in assessing compatibility.
To minimize the visual impact of new telecommunication towers, the TLUP states that heights and locations that necessitate FAA coloring and lighting should be avoided; towers and antennas should be consolidated; they should be located away from key public viewpoints; monopoles or guyed towers should be used; and towers should be located near similar uses.
These policies acknowledge the difficulty of screening tall towers by requiring them to be located near existing similar uses, or down-slope from the ridge with 80% of the height screened by landforms or vegetation. And, they defer to the existing aesthetic character of the area.
The proposal violates these policies.

Visual impact is not minimized. Indeed, the location will produce the maximum possible impact by introducing a tower that will be close to three times as tall as the existing unlighted tower and many times larger in overall mass, into an area that currently bears only faint signs of human development.
Eldorado Mountain is visually prominent from a large viewing area.
The tower will be located on the ridgeline.
There are no comparable structures in the area to screen the towers or with which the towers could "blend" in. Staff has erroneously likened the existing unlighted 160-foot tower with the proposed 450-foot lighted tower.
The aesthetic character of the area is undeveloped and pristine, and a majority of the surrounding land has been protected from development.
The lack of any nearby tall structures and proximity of the Jefferson County Airport ensures that the FAA will require coloring and lighting.
The tower will be free-standing lattice structures instead of guyed, creating maximum bulk.

Tower Siting and Review Policies

These policies require PTI to show that their proposed equipment cannot be accommodated on any existing facility. The Official Development Plan must specify a timeframe for removal of consolidated towers.

New towers are allowed only when an equal face area of existing tower(s) will be removed. If a new tower is necessary, the TLUP requires mitigation measures including building in close proximity to other towers or locating where the tower can be at least 80% screened by existing vegetation, landforms, or structures.
The Tower Siting and Review Policies reflect an effort to prevent proliferation of towers into undeveloped areas. They reflect an effort to prevent any net gain in tower face area within the county by requiring removal at a 1:1 ratio. And, they state that if a new tower in an undeveloped area is necessary, it must be at least 80% screened Ð indicative of a policy to prevent the intrusion of major telecommunications facilities outside of the Lookout Mountain and Mount Morrison areas.
While these policies are directed at proliferation and associated impacts to property, they should also be implemented in a way that protects other environmental interests. Tall towers represent a threat to resident and migratory birds and should be sited in a way that complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The PTI rezoning proposal fails to meet these policies.

The letter of inquiry about available space was designed to produce a negative response, having inquired about space for the maximum possible number of antennas rather than the equipment that is actually planned for and committed to the site.
The ODP requires only one smaller tower on Lookout Mountain to be removed, and lacks any mechanism for enforcing this requirement if the ownership of either site should change.
This proposal would result in an increase of 450 additional vertical feet of towers and an incalculable amount of additional face area.
PTI has identified only one potential tenant. The lack of support from the major television broadcasters and FM radio stations indicates that towers will remain on Lookout Mountain and Mount Morrison, and proliferate to Eldorado Mountain as well.
The entire height of the tower will be visible above the ridgeline, creating yet another highly visible antenna farm with no mitigation of any existing visual impacts.
There are no towers of a similar scale or visual impact in the vicinity to shield or buffer the proposed towers.
The proposal places a tall tower in an area that does not currently pose a threat to migrating birds, and in an area with extremely high natural resource values that serve as an attraction to birds.

North Mountains Community Plan

The overall goal of the North Mountains Community Plan is stated in its Introduction. The Plan aims to retain and protect the natural beauty of the North Mountains area, its rural character and the existing quality of the mountain area environment. The intent of the Plan "is to achieve a proper balance between man-made environments and natural ones by ensuring that development is sensitive to natural resources and constraints." The Plan as a whole reflects the largely undeveloped, rugged nature of this area.

The rezoning proposal violates virtually all of the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Visual Resources element and the Mountain Site Design Criteria in the North Mountains Community Plan.

Visual Resources

This element of the plan states, "Protection of visual open space should be a priority because it is a critical element of the unique character of the rural mountain environment in the North Mountains area."
The goal of the Visual Resources policies is to "[e]nsure the integrity of landscapes which have special visual qualities and are seen frequently by many people."
The policies that implement this goal include:

Development proposals must consider viewer sensitivity, including the number of people viewing the site and the value of such views held by the public.
Man made features should visually complement the natural environment.
The intensity and design of development should be compatible with significant visual resources.
Ridgeline silhouettes should be avoided.
Existing vegetation and natural landforms should be used to integrate structures into the surrounding environment.
Lighting should be kept to a minimum.
Creating a major telecommunications transmission site on Eldorado Mountain would violate these policies. Eldorado Mountain is an area of extremely high viewer sensitivity. It is visited by thousands of people each year because of the beauty of the canyon and its value as a recreation site. The area in front of the mountain on the plains has largely been protected through open space purchases. Most of the homes in South Boulder are oriented so that Eldorado Mountain is in their direct line of site. It is visually prominent from Highways 93, 128 and US36. The communities on the plains have sweeping views of the area.
Views of Eldorado Mountain are valued precisely because the mountain is currently unblemished, and because the surrounding area is untouched. Eldorado Canyon State Park, BLM lands, and purchases by the Jefferson County, City of Boulder and Boulder County open space programs have created a pristine environment Ð an undeveloped mountain backdrop as one looks west from the northern plains of Jefferson County and the eastern parts of Boulder County.
Adding a 450-foot-tall painted and lighted structure to the existing tower would violate the integrity of the existing landscape. Manmade features would become dominant. No amount of screening of buildings and accessory structures could integrate the towers and support buildings into the natural environment.
The visual resource analysis submitted with the application focuses only on the few additional areas from which the new towers would be visible compared with the existing tower. This analysis overlooks the major source of adverse visual impact. The existing tower is visible from a large area, but because it is short, slender, unlighted it does not dominate the view. The new tower would create a vastly greater visual impact, being three times taller, of far greater mass, painted and lighted, and accompanied by a massive transmission building.

Mountain Site Design Criteria

Protecting ridgelines from development is a key element in the Site Design Criteria. The Criteria state that the ridgeline silhouette should be composed predominantly of tress and landforms.
Man-made features should not be the dominant feature in the landscape. Buildings should be in proportion to the surrounding landform rather than appearing monumental in scale.
Wildlife movement corridors are to be maintained.
The rezoning proposal violates these criteria. The ridgeline would be dominated by man-made structures. The structures would be vastly out of proportion to the surrounding landforms and vegetation. The scenic quality of this area, which depends upon its undeveloped nature, would be spoiled.
The proposal would erect a lethal barrier to the Front Range migratory bird corridor, which is used intensively in spring and fall by both common and rare species. The Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas from the Colorado Division of Wildlife identifies this area as proximate to the stateÕs first and second-highest concentrations of breeding birds. Local land use decisions must comply with federal regulations. The applicant has not addressed whether the proposal would violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act resulting from collisions of migrating birds with the towers. The proposal to implement mitigation measures should collisions be a problem is an empty offer.

Jefferson County Zoning Resolution

Section 15.F. of the Zoning Resolution requires the county commissioners and the planning commission to consider the compatibility of the proposal with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area, the applicable community plans and the Telecommunications Land Use Plan. The proposal is clearly incompatible with the existing and allowed land uses. Unlike other mountaintops west of Denver, this area and its surrounding ridges have no human development, much less tall towers. As is demonstrated above, the proposal does not comply with the community plan or the TLUP.

Section 15.F. also contains minimum standards that an application must meet to qualify for rezoning for a high-powered telecommunication use. The applicant must demonstrate that no existing telecommunications site is available to accommodate the equipment or purpose for which the tower is proposed. There is one identified, uncommitted user for the towers. The applicant has not demonstrated that no existing telecommunications site can accommodate this antenna. But even if there were no alternative site, this rezoning application should be denied based on its violation of the community plan and master plan and its incompatibility with the surrounding area.

Summary

Eldorado Mountain is a major environmental and visual asset for an entire region. It is currently unspoiled and is surrounded by unspoiled land. PTI proposes a rezoning that is completely out of character with the area. It would harm the park and open space lands in the immediate vicinity. The rezoning would allow telecommunications uses to spread to a new part of the county without any mitigation of the impact.

PLAN Boulder County urges Jefferson County to deny this rezoning.

Sincerely,
PLAN Boulder County

Crystal Gray, Co-Chair

Return to top

Comments about this site

Home