There seems to be floating around a number of misconceptions about this property and the proposed development concerning infill, transportation, groundwater problems and flood mitigation.

Environmental Quality

As described here for the city's annexation of this property it must satisfy the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan where it states:

The city will require development and redevelopment as a whole to provide significant community benefits and to maintain or improve environmental quality as a precondition for further housing and community growth.

To satisfy this requirement there must be an unspoken myth that developing this property will somehow "maintain or improve environmental quality". Granted, we're no environment experts, but we think that bringing in 30000 yards of fill dirt and building 127 enormous homes right next to open space on what is currently a wetland meadow does not maintain or improve environmental quality.

Infill

The developer and city staff have tried to characerize this development as "infill". City staff, in the pre-application meeting summary from December 2005 even went so far as to describe this development as:

As an infill redevelopment site with several key environmental and technical issues...

We agree about the "several key environmental and technical issues" but we vehemently disagree about the characterization of this as an "infill redevelopment site".

During the December 2004 Planning Board meeting one of the other board members said:

After all infill is what we are about

in their explanation as to why they thought development was appropriate for this area. Infill development may be a good thing. It keeps the city compact and prevents sprawl. However, development on this parcel is not about "infill". This is not the Steelyards or Iris Hollow. It is not surrounded by urban development.

At first glance it looks as though this parcel is almost an enclave:

Area Map

However, the lines on the map are deceiving. The extension of the city limits to the northeast contains the East Boulder Recreation Center. The property to the east is Open Space and an Environmental Preservation area. To the south are two single home, heavily treed, estate-sized lots (both 6+ acres) in the county. To the north are the open areas of the soccer field and dog park. It is only to the west where there is truly urban development.

As can be seen in the following image that shows the parcel delineated and only shows the developed areas of the city limits this parcel no longer looks to be an enclave.

Area Map

The image below shows the lack of true urban development in the area: wetlands to the east and northeast, rural estate parcels to the south, the soccer fields to the north and Keewaydin Meadows to the west.

Aerial Photo

The developer tried to make the argument at the recent open house that

This parcel is surrounded by the city

As the panorama below demonstrates this assertion is quite easy to refute with the expanse of trees, grass, wetlands and a few houses in the far distance. The view to the east, of course, encompasses the ponds, wetlands, grasslands and riparian areas of South Boulder Creek.

180 Degree Panorama to the West

Transportation

To justify that this development is in line with the City's goal of a modal shift away from the single-occupant vehicle (SOV) the proximity to the Senior Center and the RTD lines in the area has been noted by the developer.

To think that having an RTD stop one quarter mile away from this development and that the seniors that live there will have their needs satisfied by the Senior Center is silly.

This is an isolated parcel of land that is a major distance to any retail, office, and other non-residential facilities:

• Almost 1/2 a mile to the PDQ
• 1.7 miles to the Meadows Shopping Center.
• 2.1 miles to the nearest elementary school (Eisenhower)
• 1 mile to the Table Mesa Park-and-Ride.

The only nearby non-residential facilities are the East Boulder Community Center and Manhattan Middle School. This is not some sort of "new urbanism" development. This is sprawling, isolated, suburban development.

Groundwater Problems

Many residents in the area have experienced basement flooding and other groundwater problems. The developer and now it seems city staff have tried to dismiss these issues by blaming the Dry Creek Ditch. They have claimed that these problems only started when the ditch company cleaned out the ditch a few years ago.

However, this is just nonsense. Yes, the ditch probably contributes to ground water problems. However, these problems date back at least 16 years. In the Site Review report from 1995 the city states that:

Residents to the west of the site have experienced ground water problems and basement flooding since 1990.

Furthermore, many residents that have active sump pumps are located far from the ditch corridor. For example, this author, whose house is 200 feet east of the ditch, had a very wet sump (as usual every spring) in the Spring/Summer of 2005. However, it would be difficult to blame the ditch since it only flowed a few days that summer.

It is ironic that a Greenbelt Meadows Neighborhood meeting with the developer, Mike Boyers, Boyers described living in Greenbelt Meadows on Huron Court many years ago. He described having his basement flood. Huron Court is almost a quarter mile from the ditch.

Flood Mitigation

It has been repeated by city staff that the Hogan/Pancost property could not be used for flood mitigation because it slopes up to the east from the Dry Creek Ditch corridor. However, as we point on on our mitigation page this is simply not true. It is downhill all the way to the northeast.