Attachment B_Draft Plan Comments_Revised 06.03.26

Special Meeting, June 25, 2026 · item 3A: City Council public hearing and consideration of a motion to approve the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (continued) S… · 147 pages

This is the text extracted from the file, without its layout, tables, or images. Use the original for anything that matters.

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: Draft Plan Comment Tracker: General Suggested Revisions (comments submitted Mar 3 - Apr 6, 2026)

Comment Date

Question/Responses Do you want to expand on your answer or provide other feedback on the draft plan?

3/3/2026 3/3/2026 3/4/2026 3/5/2026 3/5/2026

Include Revision?

Rationale

Yes or No Drop Down

Why revision isn't being made

None No None No None No None No This draft plan supports *a vision* for Boulder Valley but it does so without input from constituents in individual areas. No Notably: - "Gunbarrel" is not mentioned once as a unique community (nor is "East Boulder"); their existence has been completely gaslit by this plan. The previous plan addressed their uniqueness relative to Boulder - There was no public input on completely transforming the IBM campus to an "innovation hub" a radical change in zoning for a far more intensive use that will strain water resources - There is no consideration for solely single family residences within the neighborhood 1/2 classification; this is critical for places like Gunbarrel that DO NOT wish to have their character modified by annexation

-No specific subcommunity was mentioned in the plan, the uniqueness of each subcommunity will be focused on through subcommunity planning efforts, area plans, and other mechanisims.I:IThis is a plan for the whole Boulder Valley were all policies are at the city wide or valley-wide scale. This is a future land use map which does not automatically change underlying zonning anywhere in the city. The change to an innovation and production hub gives flexibility for the future of the land. but any change to the zoning of this land will likely require an area plan which will have a community engagement process. - Many areas of neighborhood 1 will continue to be single-unit because of other policies and restrictions. For example the county area in Gunbarrel will not be subject to any rezoning unless someone annexes into the city.

3/5/2026

I completely disagree with the changes to the land use into only two designations of "Neighborhoods." This demolishes years of precedent and owner's expetations of their properties, and leaves development to basically lawless to "build whatever, wherever". This is NOT my vision of Boulder Valley. And to base the rejection of OTHER land use proposals on this PROPOSED land use change is preposterous. Why do you even bother wasting so much time and resources? Your "outreach" and understanding of the Community is a joke.

We have received support from council and boards on this change. Our stastically valid survey of community members also supports increasing housing supply and diversity. The land use does not change the underlying zoning of any property. Property owners will likely have to apply for a different zoning, Change will happen slowly over time. There is not an allowence to build "what ever where ever" new buildings in neighborhood 1 must fit the form, scale and context of their surrounding buildings.

3/7/2026

Building on the land North of 28th near Yarmouth is being pushed for right now despite what this plan outlines. Many No people in the community aren’t in favor either. Please reconsider this and the impact it would have on the community. Traffic is already horrible on this end of town because of commuters and the roads being one lane. Please consider the impact it would have on the health of those who live on this end of town. Air quality would change with more pollution from building and added traffic. Please consider the psychological impact of turning peoples’ views from their windows from natural areas with trees to more buildings. Please use existing pockets of land and unused businesses instead. I drive past many abandoned buildings daily. Also, as new housing is added, please consider single family homes instead of high density housing. They are not being built in proportion to each other.

We hear the concern about how changes to local housing may affect the look and feel of Boulder neighborhoods. The plan encourages adding homes in a way that supports affordability and climate goals while enhancing the local context of new structures.

3/8/2026

I think the plan needs more about keeping boulder authentic. The new apartment buildings have no character and are just Yes about putting money in developer's pockets. City council and planning board also just want housing at any cost. The cost will be loss of authentic character and community places. Nothing in here about that. Add it please

3/8/2026

Vision Statement: Our community works together to ensure everyone belongs, to create opportunities for all and to sustain the health of the Boulder Valley for future generations. Ha ha! The citizens who aren't density zealots are IGNORED, are never are part of the conversation and are seldom provided meaningful opportunities to participate in the future of Boulder. Staff--most of whom probably do not live in Boulder--seem hell-bent on destroying every last aspect of what used to be magical about Boulder, and all will be lost for future generations where there will be tight water restrictions , gross over densification, and complete disregard for the environment that earlier citizens wanted to protect. Your fantasyland vision statement needs a total reworking as it's completely bogus. Really, how dare you pretend like that?

Our statistacly valid community survey and all our other engagment efforts have shown overwelhming support for this vision of the boulder valley.

3/9/2026

The new plan believes in and actually endorses the autonomy of Boulder citizens, allowing for much needed flexibility No revision necessary towards the types of homes and communities we want to build. This is very refreshing compared to the historical frameworks that prioritized "growth by hassle". Thankfully, the new plan does away with most arbitrary metrics applied to private property rights while still holding true to Boulder's strong mission to support Open Space and the natural environment. As a 30-year resident of the city, I have seen a lot of change and too much growth. While I appreciate the efforts that have No revision necessary gone into this comprehensive plan, I feel that all the fancy words will just amount to this: Squeeze more densely-packed boxes into the city from curb to curb to pack in as many people as we can (mostly for university students), while ignoring noise,

Thank you for the support!

3/9/2026

No mention of reducing noise in the city or valuing quite enjoyment.

passive enjoyment of public space is supported in the plan.

3/10/2026 3/10/2026 3/11/2026

None No None No The community of unincorporated Boulder County does not want our community to be used to fix the City's housing No revision necessary problem. We live out her for the extra space. Many of the neighborhoods have open plots that get high levels of daily public use that under the draft plan would basically strip them from the current community and reduce its social value.

3/11/2026 3/11/2026 3/11/2026

None No None No Why do the planners continue to build on every vacant piece of land with little consideration of the feel of the No revision necessary neighborhoods we want to preserve? I ask that you stop building more and more, up and up so we cannot see the mountains! It is why we moved here. This plan will negatively affect our Neighborhoods and lessen residents' input into development. In addition, this plan fails No revision necessary to clearly identify the differences between current and future definitions and processes; the impact seems intentionally vague. I do not support this plan.

3/9/2026

3/11/2026

3/12/2026

No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

The plan supports rural uses in Boulder county

The city charter prevents buildings above 55' to maintain views. We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

I don't think it emphasizes how important the tourist economy is. Everyone goes on about housing, which is a problem, but Yes protecting our economy is key to housing. Better economy, better jobs, better opportunities for everyone. And boulder economy is based on tourists wanted to come here. And they won't if boulder is just a city of apartment buildings with some trails. Protect our uniqueness too. The draft plan completely disregards the residents of Gunbarrel and feels like it is using Gunbarrel as a space to fix the No revision necessary poor planning choices of the City. Not a single resident in unincorporated neighborhoods wants to be put a risk of being incorporated into the City and losing our publicly used spaces. The two all encompassing neighborhood groups feels like a way for developers to bypass prior land use designations and for the City/County to steamroll the will of Gunbarrel residents. Many of the parcels that now exist in Neighborhood 1 are heavily used publicly and this plan complete misses how Gunbarrel has been using its land.

Annexation to city is driven by property owners, as described in plan policy

I want to ensure that the value of my home and the neighborhood dynamics I choose to invest in stay stable. The idea that No revision necessary dense multi-family housing could be built in the middle of an established single-family neighborhood isn't a well-accepted idea among me and my neighbors in Neighborhood 1.

The plan supports redevelopment that is aligned with form and scale of surronding neighborhood.

3/13/2026

3/14/2026

Excited to see a simplification of the zoning regions with clearer goals of what each region is set to provide. Brining No revision necessary duplexes/triplexes and ADUs as well as neighborhood commercial like local grocery and coffee shots to residential one is exciting to see. I hope to see more infill in some of the commercial and neighborhood 2 regions to bring housing and a sense of place to what are otherwise large parking lots It needs to emphasize the connection between diverse cultural expression and economics. Diverse cultures have always Yes been in boulder, but we have been forced out by city policy. Until you grapple with this, and show our historic connection to this place, won't be encouraged to come back. Where is the art, the building, the signs that show our presence here. Where is this in the plan? The “Old Town” spirit needs to include our stories. I love the focus on 15 minute neighborhoods, allowing commercial and residential together, and making it easier for Yes people to walk, bike, roll, and take the bus throughout the city. Allowing for more density and housing types throughout the city is also much appreciated. I very much agree that safety for all community members is very important. However I have heard it almost exclusively used as a way to demonize and displace our homeless neighbors. So I want to see more of a focus on housing and providing services for the homeless and not allow community members to scapegoat them. Regarding our water supply, I would like to see us being more forceful on limiting non-native grass to be grown and watered. I see so much wasted water in our community, so making laws to stop this waste should be a first priority.

Thanks for your comment!

3/14/2026

I see lots of bikes and people wearing bike helmets in this PDF, suggesting that Boulder will magically remain/become a No revision necessary great place to bike commute. I'm curious about the logic behind this, given that higher density in an already jam-packed area will 1) lead to more car traffic and 2) increase road rage and impatient driving because of congestion. Simply creating density and painting green lines on the road does not solve the problem. Take north Broadway, for example. And for the sake of this argument, we’ll ignore the massive failure that city planners concocted in that atrocious raised bike path that’s essentially just an uneven parking lot.

The policies and land use strategy in the plan aim to reduce regional congestion, lower emissions and make daily travel safer and more convenient for everyone.

This Broadway corridor of North Boulder is dense and growing denser with more apartments going up constantly. I lived here for nearly a decade and the traffic got noticeably worse (and more dangerous for those of us on bikes). In-commuters arriving on HWY 36 are a huge part of this problem, but North Boulder residents did not magically start riding bikes simply because the area got more dense. Living in an apartment does not automatically mean one will walk or bike commute. This same will be true of the rest of the city. 60,000+ in commuters will still drive into Boulder regardless of increasing the city’s population by squeezing apartment complexes into every square inch of land. Real estate will remain expensive, and will probably just get even worse. Low-wage workers will still have to drive into town to work until there’s a light rail system (I suspect society will crumble long before this happens). Is doing nothing a solution? No. But cramming more people into Boulder is even worse than doing nothing. In short, as someone who rides a bike for most of my errands, I'm not happy about the new zoning laws Boulder is trying to implement. Boulder is super expensive. And it will remain super expensive whether you increase density or not. To me, this comprehensive plan appears to be created by developers, for developers, at the expense of everyone else. It’s not a green plan, it’s not pro-bike or pro-pedestrian, it’s pro developer. I will take note of how each city council member has played a part in this comprehensive developer’s plan, and I will vote accordingly.

3/14/2026

No revision necessary Honestly, the amount of people this plan would add to Boulder will completely overwhelm our already stressed public utilities like water. I bought a home in a neighborhood that contains primarily single family detached homes because I like the quiet. If my neighborhood is converted into medium to higher traffic, people, and the height limits are expanded, you are going to make the expensive neighborhoods more expensive at the expense of the middle class and elderly that live in the neighborhoods you want to make high density. This is the opposite of what the value of Boulder. It's enough for me to consider moving out of Boulder because the open space ideals will be crushed by a developer-centric 'future of Boulder.' Disgusting

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

3/16/2026

It almost seems pointless to submit feedback as it's clear that community feedback is about checking a box not actually No accepting feedback that isn't the result of contrived and predetermined limited context (eg the mandate given to 15min neighborhood group). It is so completely unacceptable to effectively condense almost all neighborhood zoning to the same "Neighborhood one." There are vast differences across neighborhoods and there are reasons people chose to live in those areas based on that. The entire document reads like it could have been done entirely out of the context of any feedback or desires of community members and is rather a lovely generic academic document of people with specific city planning goals applied to any similar sized/resourced city. It's completely out of touch with the desires of the majority of Boulder residents regarding community character and hopes for development. It's also completely out of touch with realities about water resources, challenges to fire resistance that come with higher density/less defendable space, exit routes in emergency, etc. It's really disappointing to see that this is ultimately a vision of staff and will completely transform Boulder into any generic developers dream and undermine the charm and beauty of the city.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. The city zoning code continues to regulate density/intensity.

As a side note, the 15% number for affordable/attainable housing was decided by a housing advisory board and rubber stamped by council without any actual reasoning so whether it's too high or too low and how it relates to available development funding, effect on tax revenue, how it compares to similar sized cities, or so many other issues. It seems typical of how targets have been established without solid actual reasoning and analysis to justify the recommendations.

3/17/2026

*I’m very pleased with it. It seems very “balanced”.

No revision necessary

3/17/2026

*Vision should say: Our community works together to ensure everyone belongs, to create ***equitable*** opportunities No revision necessary for all and to sustain the health of the Boulder Valley for future generations

3/17/2026

I think there is a glaring omission or lack of purpose in the plan: the plan does not actively set out policies to attract more Yes families to Boulder, make Boulder more parent and child friendly, or seek to reverser declining enrollment in BVSD. Rather, it accepts an aging population and declining enrollment as fact, and goes from there. Compare this to the creation and goals of the Downtown Development Authority as described in the March 12 City Council meeting, "We are now facing a critical moment marked by acute commercial vacancies and flattening revenues. The opportunity and need to proactively cultivate, attract, and incentivize investment in our broader downtown is here." What if we changed this quote to reflect on children and families, it could read, "We are now facing a critical moment marked by acute exodus of families raising children in Boulder, and a decline in school enrollment. The opportunity and need to proactively cultivate, attract, and incentivize families in Boulder is here." And clearly- the is a link between development and housing and cost and family friendly policies together. I think the plan could do a better job making that connection. The word "business" shows up 100 times in the plan. The word parent shows up "0" time, and the word "children" only 6 times. I think this plan should make a policy wide effort to verbally invest in families as much as development.

3/18/2026

I love the wording, structure, and priorities of the current plan. I know we as a community still have a long way to go for lasting equity, justice, and community security, but I'm very thankful to see the thorough land acknowledgement, the inclusion of food systems and accessible/joyous transportation, the prioritization of truly affordable housing, and the emphasis on social & environmental well-being throughout the plan's draft.

No revision necessary

Thanks for your comment! opportunities for all is well supported by boards and counil

Thanks for your comment!

While the plan is highly aligned with youth goals, there are opportunities for even more specific language: Nature Play: Yes Explicitly adding "play elements of water" to natural infrastructure descriptions. In addition, including “nature play areas” alongside playgrounds. Clarifying Terms: Ensuring "Community Values" and "Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER)" frameworks are defined consistently to avoid confusion. 3/14/2026

In addition to the specific policy clarifications suggested above, the BVCP would benefit from a short section describing Boulder’s transportation future. The current draft contains important policies, but it does not clearly articulate how Boulder’s transportation system is expected to evolve over the coming decades. A brief section describing the long-term vision for safer streets, reliable transit, and connected walking and bicycling networks would help connect the plan’s transportation, climate, and land use goals.

Yes

Future spread will be added to final draft

3/21/2026

Overall, I find that the plan clearly articulates the community’s shared values and long-term vision. In particular, the emphasis on 15-minute neighborhoods, community hubs, reducing reliance on cars, and strengthening resilience to climate and emergency conditions is both timely and well-aligned with Boulder’s needs.

No revision necessary

Thanks for your comment!

ADD TARA WINER's NAME TO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN INDESIGN!!!!! TARA WINER, MAYOR PRO TEM GUB Report - See notes for link

Yes More consideration

She is a member of City Council

3/22/2026

3/20/2026

As a 21-year Boulder resident and CU Buff who has served this community as a medical provider, scientist and startup No founder, I represent who Boulder claims to want. Yet policies continue to exacerbate issues that are killing the productive innovation and creative economies that made Boulder special. Boulder built its reputation on accessible innovation from university research, federal lab R&D, startup formation, and the outdoor industry. Those unique strengths required housing and an employee base where early-stage companies could launch, build equity, and grow the economy. This plan abandons that ethos for transient tourism and second-home amenities. While the plan identifies dramatic demographic changes, it does not identify the cause of this trend, which is that families can no longer afford to live here. The plan ignores the "missing middle" professionals earning $150-250K who can't access subsidized housing but can't afford $1.28M homes. These are exactly the engineers, researchers, teachers, and entrepreneurs Boulder is losing. It is sad to see the entrepreneurs and small businesses I work with continuing to leave for Denver or elsewhere. Meanwhile, the shift to rental housing production stimulates even more transience that prevents community formation. The plan includes no limits on second-home ownership, investor speculation, or underutilization of existing real estate. Overpriced commercial space sits vacant throughout the city with no pathway to use by the small homegrown businesses that once defined Boulder. There are no consequences for holding underutilized assets during a real estate crisis, and the plan continues to prioritize the highly cyclical tourism economy over community residents. Policies should establish primary residence preferences through differential property taxes, deed restrictions, and clear limits on investor and second-home ownership. It must allow missing middle housing (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes) in established residential areas, and vacancy should have consequences. Taxes on both underoccupied residential properties and vacant commercial space would ensure that holding empty assets costs more than putting them to use. And critically, the plan needs measurable economic targets to incentivize company formation, family retention, and school enrollment stabilization beyond process.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

3/21/2026

Dear Planning Team, Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the Draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the document and its strong emphasis on community health, resilience, equity, and sustainability. Overall, I find that the plan clearly articulates the community’s shared values and long-term vision. In particular, the emphasis on 15-minute neighborhoods, community hubs, reducing reliance on cars, and strengthening resilience to climate and emergency conditions is both timely and well-aligned with Boulder’s needs. I am writing to suggest one area where additional clarity could strengthen the plan’s implementation: the role of community-scale facilities—such as recreation centers—in delivering on these goals at the neighborhood level.

Yes

Across multiple sections of the plan, there is a consistent theme that: - Community members should have access to essential services within a 15-minute walk or roll; - Community hubs should provide opportunities for social connection, access to services, and emergency support; - The city should reduce reliance on cars for daily needs; and - Facilities should contribute to resilience during extreme events, including power outages, heat, smoke, and other disruptions. Recreation centers appear to be uniquely positioned to support all of these objectives simultaneously. As existing, distributed public assets, they already provide: - Spaces for physical and mental health and wellness; - Opportunities for social connection and community cohesion; - Accessible programming for youth, older adults, and individuals facing barriers to services; and - Physical infrastructure that could be enhanced to support resilience functions such as cooling, clean air refuge, and emergency support.

3/22/2026

Given this, I suggest that the plan consider adding or refining language to more explicitly recognize the role of recreation centers and similar community-scale facilities as: - Neighborhood-based community hubs supporting 15-minute access to services; - Contributors to emissions reduction, by reducing the need for residents to travel longer distances for recreation and Simply put, the policies and maps are so vague that all sorts of things would be allowed.

No revision necessary

And, worse, for things that might be questionable, the citizens have no power to enforce even these vague policies and maps. I will email the additions I think are needed to future@bouldercolorado.gov 3/23/2026

Yes As an older, very physically fit, 65-year old community member, who will move down to Boulder from unincorporated Boulder County in five years, I don't see enough 'specificity about services for aging community members'. We all know there are more of us than children in the pipeline and your graph reflects this. Yet, how are you going to accommodate more older folks is what I'm interested to see. More affordable housing, smaller buses running more often, maintenance of bike paths = money. Very specific items for aging tax-paying people. Maintenance issues need to be funded vs. being thought of as an 'after-thought'. Thank you.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

3/24/2026

3/25/2026

3/25/2026 3/26/2026

No revision necessary The plan definitely supports your vision for Boulder. Unfortunately for me, it is not my vision for Boulder. I have lived here since 1980, and I would like to find a way to leave before your plan reaches fruition. I foresee increased traffic congestion, crowded and overused hiking trails, even more bicycles and e-bikes nearly running me off the road every day, and even more unhoused people requiring services and camping in our parks. Your goals depend on a functional public transportation system, but that will never happen because we depend on the highly dysfunctional RTD. More bike paths and dedicated bike lanes are not going to get people out of their cars. You are living in a fantasy world. Finally, all of those box-like housing projects that are being built are not going to be affordable for people who clean houses and do landscaping. There will never be housing equity in Boulder. That is a pipe dream. I am leaving as soon as my 93-yea-old mother dies. She has not learned to ride a bike, but I keep telling her that is a requirement of living here. A final note, I wish you would stop relying on outside consultants to do your jobs. They are expensive and, we obviously can't afford them given all the financial challenges Boulder faces. I believe there are still stronger commitments needed in the following areas: -Prioritize deeply affordable housing. Focus Yes new housing policies on households below 50% of Area Median Income and accelerate the production of permanently affordable housing. Expand supportive housing and stabilization services. Pair housing with behavioral health, case management, and family support to ensure long-term housing stability. Preserve naturally affordable housing. Protect manufactured housing communities and other affordable options for working families. Build complete, service-rich neighborhoods. Ensure new neighborhoods include grocery stores, childcare, healthcare, transit, and other essential services. Strengthen food access and the local food system. Support urban agriculture, local food production, and equitable food distribution. Support nonprofit and community service infrastructure. Ensure nonprofits are included in planning and have access to affordable commercial space. Reduce transportation barriers. Invest in transit, walkability, and neighborhood services that connect low-income families to jobs and resources. Center community voice in implementation. Maintain ongoing engagement with renters, low-income families, immigrants, and historically excluded communities. The plan seems very balanced. No Yes It seems like "Neighborhood Class" is missing a category for unincorporated neighborhoods too? - ie "rural neighborhoods" or "neighborhood 3"? Alternatively, the "Neighborhood Class" could be called Urban 1 & Urban 2. Classifying rural communities/enclaves as "SYSTEMS" takes away from our community identity, this minimizes our communities and the people who live there. Rural neighborhoods - just because they're in the County - doesn't mean they are not neighborhoods and classifying them as a "system" with parks and open space only seems to make their existence for the use of others. Please recognize our rural communities by creating a neighborhood category for "rural neighborhoods" or redefining the "Neighborhood Class" as the "Urban Class".

Thanks for your comment. Consultants were not used to develop this plan, the draft plan was created in-house with city and county staff. Local consulting to support community engagement was used as part of this process.

Many but not all suggestions were incorporated into revisions

Thank you for your comment!

4/1/2026

No revision necessary Planning History section - lost proportion of affordable housing the city was achieving previously because decision makers in the 80s rejected KMA study on Inclusionary Housing and jobs/housing linkage – major shortcomings should be pointed out in this section. She would also like to know where the last paragraph on p. 14 came from. The City hired KMA (Kaiser Marsted Associates or something like that) a firm out of California, in the 80s to do an analysis showing what it would take to provide more affordable housing in Boulder as more and more jobs/companies moved to town.

4/1/2026 March

4/6/2026

4/1/2026

Thanks for your comment on this. The level of detail was determined to be unneccessary for the planning history section but this is helpful context!

One way to frame this work and the lost opportunity: Had the "fee in lieu" or the inclusion of affordable housing required for all housing developments that KMA recommended to the City been implemented, about 50% of our housing would be affordable -- but Council and staff chose to approve a level much lower than those experts recommended. In addition, if the jobs-housing linkage fee had been set at $129/sq ft, as KMA recommended, then Boulder would have had the resources to build sufficient affordable housing for the new employees these new businesses brought to town. On the right track with housing and AH and affordable housing issues, but should define ‘affordable’ in glossary – both Yes lower-case and capital AH. Maybe include a bit more clarity about goals and needs. Yes Insert: The Future of Food Systems: Agriculture in the Boulder Valley The city’s Open Space and Mountain Parks department manages about 16,000 acres of working lands, leasing much of that to dozens of farmers and ranchers. Farmers produce diversified vegetables, such as lettuce, peppers and tomatoes, from 30 acres of land. An additional 250 acres have the soil conditions and water rights conditions necessary to support diversified vegetable farming. Approximately 6000 acres of irrigated pasture for animal production and 300 acres of small grain cropland also supply beef, lamb, pork, chicken, milk, honey, wheat, and millet, as well as feed and forage for animals. Most of the city’s remaining agricultural land is dryland pasture and does not have rainfall is not sufficient water to grow water-intensive crops such as vegetables there. Regenerative agricultural practices and traditional livestock grazing regimes are critical in developing and maintaining healthy soils and diverse native grasslands on agricultural properties. SEE CELL BELOW FOR OSMP REVISED LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE Both the city’s Open Space and Mountain Parks Department and Boulder County Parks and Open Space provide extensive Yes agricultural leasing programs that support dozens of local farm and ranch families and their employees. Agricultural leases often include valuable water rights that are required to support viable agricultural production in Boulder Valley’s semi-arid environment. Preserving these working landscapes has been critical in supporting agricultural production and providing opportunities for the broader community to purchase locally grown foods from individual farmers, farmers markets and many local restaurants. Agricultural operations are diverse and include hay and forage production, grain production and livestock production on native prairies and irrigated pastures. Smaller market farms also produce a wide variety of vegetables including salad greens, peppers and tomatoes. Other products include milk, eggs, chicken and pork. Some farms in the Boulder Valley Hogan-Pancost: The proposed Botanic Gardens and Handtalk sculptures represent a use that is deeply aligned with No revision necessary Boulder’s Comprehensive Plan goals. A botanic garden would preserve and celebrate native ecosystems, support biodiversity, and offer opportunities for environmental education. It would serve as a space for reflection, learning, and intergenerational connection—values that are central to a resilient and inclusive community. This could be used as a case study for community members implementing the Comp Plan ideals.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/2/2026

The Future of Natural Infrastructure should include natural infrastructure of the entire Boulder Valley and emphasize Yes native species (NOT just the area within the city limits and NOT “adapted” and invasive species) p.46-7/pdf24 City and County Open Space Lands – Native grasslands and forests sequester carbon and provide habitat for the native species that lived here long before humans arrived. City Open Space lands alone provide habitat for 741 native species of plants, 61 species of native mammals, 303 species of native birds, 131 species of native butterflies, 21 species of native amphibians and reptiles, and 18 species of native fish (many of these species are imperiled, threatened, endangered or otherwise species of concern – and especially worthy of our attention). In addition, OSMP’s native grasslands sequester about 500 metric tons/year; OSMP’s native forests sequester about 7,000 metric tons in a non-wildfire year; and OSMP’s wetlands and riparian areas sequester about 3,700 metric tons/year. Preservation and restoration of native species support the functioning ecosystems and reduces opportunities for invasive species. In addition, the watersheds and ponds protected in our Open Space system enable floodwaters to safely flow without damaging our built environment and enable high quality water resources to surround our town.

Minor revisions included to clarify intent of this section.

The Open Space Lands surrounding Boulder Valley’s Areas1 and 2 capture the water that flows into the developed areas shown in the page 46-7 diagrams – and should be shown to highlight the natural structure for the whole Boulder Valley. The most unique natural feature in the Boulder Valley is the Flatiron’s –so their iconic geological image must certainly be included!

4/2/2026

For questions re the Natural Infrastructure outside of the city’s boundaries, contact: Brian Anacker and Heather Swanson, in OSMP, who can give you quantitative and qualitative details about the natural resources and functioning ecosystems in OSMP lands and waters. For similar County Open Space Natural Infrastructure, contact Susan Spalding. p.7/pdf4 – end of paragraph, ADD: … how we collectively care for the environment, sustain the native No ecosystems that evolved in this area before the arrival of people, and support a sustainable, equitable and resilient community; and how decisions are made. p.13/pdf8 – near bottom of 2nd column: …Concerns about sprawl led to limits on water service on the western Yes edge (the Blue Line) and appreciation for the surrounding natural landscape, led to the voters’ approval of acreation of dedicated open space tax for permanent acquisition of Open Space, the first of its kind in the country, in 1967. p. 14/pdf8 – what is the evidence to support this claim? DELETE: “however, these tools often benefited wealthier community members while excluding lower income households and communities of color. “ (It sounds like an urban myth based on no evidence.) p.29/pdf15 under Environmentally Sustainable -- revise: mproving preserving and restoring the ecosystems that support and sustain us.

The city is working with natural lands to adapt to a changing climate Edited revisions made.

Yes

Edit made.

4/2/2026

4/5/2026 4/3/2026

Yes Current trails map needs edits. 1. The "Western Connection" arrows from ElDorado State Park to the West needs to be deleted! Both on p. 61 and p. 125. If you need to see the letter from the head of the CO Parks and Wildlife (State Agency), I could find and send it to you. That letter clearly says that the State Park is AT CAPACITY and that a trail through the park to the West will NOT be allowed. There are some wacko trails shown on the map on p. 125. I have no idea where they come from? or go to ?: * the trail around Marshall Lake (that's a municipal water source! - I think it's for Erie?) * the trail that zags from ?Baseline? up to Arapahoe then north of Arapahoe angling up to cross Boulder Creek near 30th? ... and then out to the diagonal?? There is a large bike trail being build E--W on the north side of Arapahoe -- so what is this squiggley line supposed to do/represent? If a bike trail is wanted in this part of the Boulder Valley, it should go N--S up to the Arapahoe bike trail to connect with it. PLEASE delete the red dotted lines that snake through and fragment the OSMP lands! and delete the trail from the east/Baseline that angles up to Arapahoe and slices across multiple properties as i goes towards 30th and Iris! * why isn't the big new bikeway that goes up the center of the Diagonal Hwy shown??? Update legend on current Trails map Yes Water Supply: Given the ongoing drought straining the Colorado River and the persistent challenges of climate change, I No revision necessary am worried about the long-term impact on our water resources and the potential for rationing. Concerns about current pace of housing and commerial development.

4/3/2026

Traffic Congestion: Boulder is already experiencing significant traffic issues, with heavy congestion occurring throughout the day. Concerns about current pace of housing and commerial development.

4/3/2026

University Expansion: The continuous growth of the University of Colorado is further exacerbating these infrastructure and No revision necessary resource pressures. Concerns about current pace of housing and commerial development.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/3/2026

No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/4/2026

No revision necessary

Policies in the plan speak to these concerns. Some issues will be considered as we move through implementation over time

The proposed BVCP is too heavily focused on density. Three-story and multiunit and commercial buildings should not be allowed in currently single-family neighborhoods. The proposed BVCP also fails to adequately address traffic congestion, water supply, and overuse of Open Space resulting from the proposed densification and growth. BVCP should look to increase: No revision necessary food sovereignty renewable energy and public energy restrict lead poisoning from airports and use landing fees to pay for operations use abandoned rail tracks with buses fitted with rail adapters to cut across County move city cemeteries to the East (like San Francisco did in the 1920s) Boulder City/County could use OS land for vegetable production. Include building cold storage and regular transportation routes. These are paid for by County so that money for sales goes to wages. Build Grapes of Wrath style camps with sanitation, cooking and secure housing (like the federal camp that welcomed the Joads). This would include mental health.

The policies and land use strategy in the plan aim to reduce regional congestion, lower emissions and make daily travel safer and more convenient for everyone.

Some of your thoughts are included in the plan. Others are more focused on implementation and will be considered as implementation processes move forward.

No revision necessary

4/3/2026

4/5/2026

To prevent perpetually increasing growth and densification, the focus of the new BVCP must be: To maintain the quality of life for those who live in the City and County, and To preserve and enhance our natural environment We are facing a biodiversity and climate crisis. The Open Space System should be the main focus of the BVC. Yet, it is Yes largely missing. The native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and riparian areas play a crucial role in the water cycle. They keep the soil shaded, cool it, retain moisture, and thus protect us from drought and help prevent wildfires. They absorb water to prevent erosion and protect the residents from flooding. By releasing the stored water through transpiration, trees cool the environment, helping shield us from heatwaves. During this process, trees also emit bacteria that form clouds and trigger precipitation locally or elsewhere. In extreme weather conditions, trees slow down the wind. Finally, native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and riparian areas provide habitat for wildlife and well-being for all of us. They help cool the planet and support biodiversity. The Open Space System needs to be a priority for the future of our children.

4/5/2026

Of primary importance to me is recognition of the roles that Open Space plays in addressing climate change, providing Yes ecological services such as cleansing water, and addressing the extinction crisis. I also believe that Open Space is and should be recognized for the central role that it plays in the social and economic fabric of the community. [...] To meet our climate goals, the Plan needs to recognize that Open Space's grasslands and forests play an important role in sequestering carbon and drawing greenhouse gases out of the air.

4/5/2026

Open Space: The City and County Open Space systems are foundational to the Boulder Valley — providing native habitat, Yes sequestering over 11,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, reducing wildfire risk, and enabling the outdoor experiences that define life here. Despite this, the draft plan largely overlooks open space, and I urge staff to place the Open Space System at the core of the BVCP.

4/6/2026

Apparently the revised BVCP hopes to create more housing. My heart bleeds for the unhoused. Unfortunately, additional No revision necessary housing supply (including current construction) will negatively impact upon our limited water supply. Restaurants, offices, stores etc., require ample water. This year we are rationing water. With more new housing, will there be any water to ration? Who will get water and how much water? What about our precious ranches and farms? Will there be water for them?

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

Boulder has planned carefully over the years to ensure a reliable community water supply guided by comprehensive plan policies and planning projections.

4/6/2026

The draft Plan fails to acknowledge our Open Space System as well as the impact the Plan. Our Open Space system is Yes what made and still makes Boulder special. It cannot be taken for granted and the impacts the Plan will have on the System must be addressed, as well as ways to mitigate these impacts. Any ever increasing population will have detrimental impacts on our Open Space by increasing usage by humans and dogs, deteriorating air quality, and threatening our ever decreasing wildlife populations. Our Open Space System provides native habitat to support the thousands of native species that have lived here since long before humans arrived -- the habitat that enables all these native species to continue to thrive and thus sustain the area's biodiversity. Already, Open Space staff is unable to manage the Voice & Sight program for dogs, and wildlife that was once a joy to view has been chased away. With the population increase facilitated by the draft plan, wildlife will be under even greater pressure from humans and dogs. The Plan must clearly spell out the ecosystem services/benefits provided by our Open Space System, and include ways to mitigate the impacts of our seeming endless desire for growth. For instance, increasing user numbers should result in increased restrictions on dogs in Open Space such as a universal leash requirement and more money allocated for maintenance and expansion. Please don’t take Open Space for granted.

4/6/2026

Since this is a 20 year plan, it is critical that the plan lay out what assumptions are being made as to what climate we will No revision necessary have here in 20 years. My understanding is the city now has a new analysis on the most likely future climate in Boulder over the planning period. This needs to be summarized in introductory sections of the plan. The expected future climate in Boulder should be used to provide a context for helping the community understand what we need to do. It is hard for people to know what we want for the future without first knowing what kind of climate challenges we will face. In particular changes to our climate has direct implications to landscaping, design standards, water conservation, flooding, and biodiversity conservation, and the management of parks and open space. It should also be emphasized that the existence of our open space system plays a key role in Boulder’s resiliency to stresses from climate change. For example native grasslands, forests, wetlands and riparian areas in our Open Space draw down out of the atmosphere over thousands of metric tons of greenhouse gases each year and millions of metric tons of carbon are sequestered in their soils. Without this natural sequestration, and the filter and buffer they provide for erosion, dust and pollutants, our climate impacts to the city would be a lot worse. Management practices in open space lands such as thinning forests, grazing to control exotic species, and mowing back grasses in the wildland urban interface, reduce risks to the city from wildfires and associated environmental problems related to climate change. These are key strategies to help implement the goals in this plan.

Suggest taking a look at the city's climate action plan and the Open Space and Mountain Parks master plans for the level of information you're looking for

4/6/2026

I found that the updated bvcp is long on ideals bordering on magical thinking. There seemed to be very few practical plans No revision necessary on how any of these ideals would be accomplished. For instance there is no effective public transportation either on a city or county level. There are 60,000 in commuting autos daily. which can’t be resolved with 15 minute neighborhoods. Its crazy not to accept Federal funding for the airport. the Community Values section is mediocre and assumes business as usual. We have an opportunity to be more No revision necessary aspirational and respond the new challenges we have: • Economic competitiveness in the context of downwards tax base and population growth • Evolve our Innovation and Knowledge Economy • Cultural Vitaliy and Arts Leadership • Design Excellence and Urban Form • Boulder as Regional Leader

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/6/2026

These are great issues to highlight. The values decided by a large communty engagment effort but we hope you see your interests addressed by policies and land use strategy in the plan

4/6/2026

This plan is really awesome. I understand it’s a 20 year plan, but I am worried there are many conflicts with our existing No revision necessary codes and zoning, and we don’t have a clear path to implementation (staff resources, funding, commitments). Please run a conflict check on the draft plan, land uses, and policies with our code and come up with a plan for moving forward with implementation. 2. Align Regulations (Title 9 & 14) with BVCP to ensure implementation over time (not just vision). Without alignment and a No revision necessary work plan/strategy to create that alignment we will be living in conflict. This should be committed to in the plan so we don’t end up with properties/developers who want to create the types of land uses and housing options we identify but do not have a path forward. Many zone districts don’t account for the combination of uses we are envisioning. Create targets and implementation commitments. - 15 minute neighborhoods (small retail in single family) - farming and agriculture as a mixed use - the combination of uses we are envisioning 3. Build in Public Transparency + Feedback Loops to build trust with the community members and development partners No revision necessary Accountability improves when the public can see progress (or lack of it). Tools: Public dashboards “State of the BVCP” Community reporting on: What’s working, What’s not 4. Tie Performance to Outcomes No revision necessary Department goals tied to BVCP metrics. Periodic “Reality Check” Updates - not just full updates every 5-10 years. Mid-cycle review: What goals are off track? What assumptions were wrong? 3. What Counts as a Community Need No revision necessary The current framing of “community needs” appears to center primarily on housing and infrastructure. I believe this framing is incomplete. Living systems, with biodiversity, functioning ecosystems, and access to intact natural space, are not secondary amenities. They are part of the foundation of a healthy community. I encourage the City to explicitly recognize ecological integrity and access to living landscapes as core community needs within the plan. More housing has simply produced more expensive housing. Increasing development has done nothing to increase or No revision necessary diversify access to housing. […] I simply ask that alternatives to further development and densification are seriously considered

Centering the preservation and expansion of Open Space has been a successful strategy in the past and has contributed Yes to making Boulder the unique and desirable place it is today. The Open Space system should continue as the core of any future planning. [... I ask] that the OpenSpace system continues in the anchoring role it has historically played.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further. Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/6/2026

No revision necessary

An update to the city's 15-minute neighborhoods approach was determined through a Community Assembly process.

No revision necessary

Boulder has planned carefully over the years to ensure a reliable community water supply guided by comprehensive plan policies and planning projections.

Yes

Fifteen minute neighborhoods. As mentioned in the Plan, Boulder has neighborhoods that have elements of the vision of fifteen minute neighborhoods. Most have developed organically. I am aware of one that was planned, and the few articles I have read is that the planned neighborhood has not been as successful as hoped. Bottom line: I believe developing planned fifteen minute neighborhoods are very high risk endeavors. Success depends on so many factors – state of the economy, e.g., Will businesses such as smaller food stores be able to survive? Are people willing to pay more to shop in the neighborhood vs. driving to Costco, for example? 4/6/2026

Population density and growth. The projections and proposals to increase housing units and population do not give enough consideration to water supply and traffic. Considering climate change, and the current drought conditions, we cannot easily predict what to expect in the future. Bottom line: We are facing drought conditions this year. Perhaps Boulder has enough water sources to manage without too much pain, but if these conditions continue, we should be cautious about unlimited development. The current traffic congestion in Boulder suggests that people are not willing to give up the convenience of driving vs using public transportation.

4/6/2026 The unique aspects of Boulder must be maintained. The wonderful views of the mountains should not be blocked by development of multi-story, multi-unit buildings. This is already happening in Boulder. Boulder’s Open Space is unique and must be preserved and maintained.

4/6/2026

[...] generally, this type of plan needs to be clear and direct about existing problems. It is No revision necessary understandable the plan focuses on housing issues, but the fact that it does not provide similar attention to other pressing issues, such as the impacts of continuously increasing car transportation - i.e., the crowding of roadways, long lines of traffic, seriously degraded air pollution, and all the associated impacts - is a real flaw. [there is a] lack of acknowledgement of the threats to quality of life from an ever-increasing population. There are actual No physical limits to growth, and while people can disagree on how close we are to that, the fact that the document doesn't even MENTION this issue is deeply disturbing. It is as though the planners naively believe that all we need to do is have more housing and more bike paths, and the requirements for a vital, thriving community will be met. This is hogwash! We cannot merely build our way out of our current crisis, but have to make hard and open-eyed decisions about how much growth and where, and how to handle the inevitable tradeoffs. And we have to be honest about how much growth (and what type) should be allowed, and at what point we would destroy the very unique quality of this area that we all love.

The lack of water and stress to our current water supply and infrastructure with any development is not addressed No revision necessary sufficiently. The draft Plan will only impose restrictions and punitive measures in cases of an emergency. This is extremely short sighted and naive.

The policies and land use strategy in the plan aim to reduce regional congestion, lower emissions and make daily travel safer and more convenient for everyone. We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

Boulder has planned carefully over the years to ensure a reliable community water supply guided by comprehensive plan policies and planning projections.

4/6/2026

The draft Plan does not address traffic impacts and creative solutions to those impacts. No one wants to charge for driving/parking etc. BUT perhaps it is time for Boulder to get ahead of this issue and impose restrictions or require carpooling. Traffic and parking is particularly stressful NOW in our OSMP and County natural areas.

4/6/2026

The Open Space system, the natural infrastructure it provides, and the incredible value it brings to our lives is largely Yes missing from the draft Plan. COME ON, why do you think folks regularly drive from Denver, Aurora, Highlands Ranch, and Arvada, Longmont, park, hike, bike in Bouler and Boulder County, and then go home. The Open Space System should be at the core of this BVCP. It seems like the draft Plan takes our Open Space System for granted. The Open Space System provides, habitat for native plants, animals that rely on those native plants, watershed flow, grasslands, and the natural ecological services they provide. Replicating those services would cost millions yet nature does it for us now but it needs our focused diligence to continue.

Future of Open Space spread added.

4/6/2026

I am writing to express my unhappiness with the hugely densified version of the comprehensive plan. All that we know about Boulder is being totally destroyed. Single family neighborhoods should be preserved. No one wants to live or raise their families in the highly densified neighborhoods that are being proposed. Boulder is made up of a varied type of citizens, the elderly, students, families, single people, and empty nesters. To completely disregard the large segment of the population who want to live in not so dense single family neighborhood is to ignore a large portion of the population who do not want what is being proposed.

No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/6/2026

This email is to urge you to reject the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in its current form. The only reason to move No revision necessary forward with this plan is if the goal is to lower housing costs by making Boulder an undesirable place to live. Furthermore, without specific limits to housing density, the situation is ripe for corruption, especially as developers are often on boards. I can already imagine the overcrowding and traffic snarls that will ensue. I thank you for your consideration of this email.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/6/2026

No revision necessary the goals of the BVCP were identified and fleshed out through an engaged community process. in general, goals need metrics, for example: - is there a % of # of units for different income levels (beyond affordable) that is an annual or 5 year goal? - are there other metrics that can be implemented for transportation shifts (car vs transit/bike/walk)? How can these be equitable (needs of households with small children are different than needs of adults living independently or alone)? - can there be a BVCP progress report or scorecard published annually? there is a gap between land use and zoning--what is the process to change zoning to match the revised land use? Can this No revision necessary process be simplified and LESS COSTLY for property owners city code needs to be modified in order to match the plan, and at the very minimum, to not block the goals of the Comp Plan--is there a plan and timeline to AUDIT the code and find where it is out of alignment with the BVCP goals, and then a timeline to implemement changes?

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/6/2026

No revision necessary

The policies and land use strategy in the plan aim to reduce regional congestion, lower emissions and make daily travel safer and more convenient for everyone.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/6/2026

I am writing to provide formal feedback regarding the 2025 Boulder ValleyComprehensive Plan (BVCP) Update. My primary No revision necessary concerns center on maintaining the procedural integrity of the plan, ensuring land use clarity, and protecting the representation of all affected residents. [Commenter urges adherence to established BVCP procedures, opposes unvetted draft LU maps, and supports maintaining current, specific land use designations rather than broader categories that may create ambiguity. Opposed to lack fo density limites. They also raise concerns about fair representation in decision-making for unincorporated areas (suggests the Intergovernmental Agreement gets corrected to ensure that land use in Areas 2 and 3 are voted on by County governing bodies) and advocate designating the Twin Lakes properties as Open Space due to their community and environmental benefits.]

The Open Space land use designation is defined as properties that are maintained for open space purposes by the city, county, or other public entities and non-profits. This can include direct ownership, conservation easements held on private land or other contractual obligations like management or annexation agreements. It is not intended to apply to properties that are not currently protected. Open lands, parks and natural areas are allowed and encouraged under other land use designations.

4/6/2026

As a 60+ year residence, I am beyond upset about the that promotes massive densification. If my neighbor sells their No revision necessary property, a developer/investor could build a large apartment building next to me. Then my property would be most likely not to sell. We cannot fit everyone into this small valley; yet, there are plans for building for thousands of residents north of Boulder. We don't have the water right now, and it's only going to get worse. As for 15 minute neighborhoods, some, like me, can only drive due to mobility problems. And I drive very little. I cannot get to a bus, cannot ride a bicycle, cannot walk without a rollator. The traffic congestion is terrible. The amount of traffic, the speeders, the red light runners all contribute. I recently met a person my age who has been here many years; he said he was ready to leave. Many feel this way. We need workable policies, not pipe dreams. This is my home, but I sure don't like it anymore. The policies in the BVCP will just make it worse, I plead with the planners to rethink these plans. I live in south Boulder and in the event of an evacuation, we will just be burned toast. We now will have all the people at CU South to be behind. With the hundreds of apartments going up across 30th from the William Village dorms, we won't be able to use Baseline. Thank you for considering my opinions.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/6/2026

No revision necessary It should be clear to everyone that after the past decade of new high density construction (think Boulder Junction, the Longmont Diagonal projects, Canyon Blvd recent developments), affordability doesn’t necessarily follow density. Making the affordability situation worse is the City Council giveaways of required minimum parking and maximum occupancy restrictions. Both should have been leveraged to require affordability. > It’s really only the Holiday neighborhood, designed as a mixed use and affordable neighborhood and developed by Boulder Housing Partners, that comes close to meeting city goals of equity and affordability. Can this be replicated?

The new plan aims to allow a mix of housing types and units, similar to the Holiday neighborhood, across more areas of the city.

4/6/2026

No revision necessary

1. The Downtown: The downtown central business district, including the Pearl Street Mall, is and will be very impacted by a number of predictable factors. Moving municipal government functions north to the “Western City Campus” will remove even more lunchtime and after work traffic permanently away from downtown. I have not read anywhere that the current trend toward hybrid work for most office jobs will change. At least my AI helper suggests the 60/40 hybrid home/work is a change here to stay for the foreseeable future. This trend is affecting, and will continue to negatively affect, both the viability of restaurants and retail uses downtown. > > While I understand the good logic for the move north for most local government functions, our municipal government has been a part of the downtown since the incorporation of Boulder in the nineteenth century. The downtown’s image and function as a center for government-related business will change. Let’s just hope the County Courthouse stays put! > > The trend toward online shopping is another factor that will affect retail use in our downtown and every other commercial area. Online banking, restaurant take out and delivery service, and other online services will continue to impact foot traffic. > > The response in the draft BVCP to a diminishment of these traditional downtown uses is to increase the area where commercial uses will be allowed by changing the land use of relatively stable residential neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown to a land use where commercial uses would now be allowed. Bad move. 4/6/2026

No revision necessary 2. The University: The University is in the process of building 1600 student apartments for non-freshman students > between Boulder Creek and Arapahoe Ave. The stated intent is to free up housing in Martin Acres and the Hill. This is a major land use change for the city and an opportunity that goes unmentioned in the plan. > > In the 1980s, the University and the City had an understanding that enrollment at CU would remain at 20,000 students. This made land use planning for student housing relatively easy and stable. Enrollment is now at almost 39,000 students. I saw no mention in the draft plan of planning coordination with the university or the impact of the North Boulder Creek project. There is also no mention of the University’s South Campus project along South Boulder Creek and its effect on future land use in the new neighborhood.

4/6/2026

No revision necessary

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

The city is currently working on defining an approach to AI.

3. The Hill neighborhood: I have wondered about the city government’s apparent abandonment of rental housing regulation on the Hill. What was once in my lifetime a charming and diverse, affordable neighborhood is now (particularly downhill from Euclid) a mess. The City used to have rental housing inspectors, but ceded that work to private inspectors hired by the property owners. Something is wrong with current system or our regulations. As LImelight and Moxy begin to change the business uses on the Hill, what is the plan for the residential uses adjacent to the commercial area? Current thinking should be a part of the plan. 4/6/2026 3. AI and Employment: I am certain that AI will have an effect on jobs in the BVCP planning area. I was struck reading a NYT article about a 1.8 billion dollar sales business with two on the payroll and very effective use of AI. How is AI likely to affect employment? What will it mean to work and to the range of jobs available?

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members. The plan supports ongoing collaboration with the University and includes a University land use designation to more clearly communicate to the community areas where University activites should be expected.

4/6/2026

Yes 4. Fire mitigation strategies: The City and the County are only at the very beginning of developing strategies to reduce the risk of a wildfire disaster in the Planning Area. It is obvious to me that reducing risk in my neighborhood below Flagstaff Mountain, requires a different approach than reducing risk in South Boulder near the Mesa Trail. It requires a different approach than in far North Boulder above Wonderland Lake where subdivisions above the Blue Line have their own water supply, limited though it is. A land use planning approach is called for here, and might well be developed as a part of this comprehensive plan update.

4/6/2026

More information will be included in the plan about wildfire and disaster planning.

Yes 5. The “15 minute neighborhood”: This concept feels utterly irrelevant to me, a throwback to 1990s New Urbanist ideas. In a world where delivery options abound and most residential neighborhoods in Area I are fully built out, imagining the need for a grocery store and other services within 15 minutes walking distance seems both frivolous and impractical. I guess I’m with those futurists who believe that private cars will soon be extinct, and we’ll get around on self-driving electric cars that come to us with the flick of an iPhone button… We’ve had an aspirational goal for having all Boulderites within a specified distance to a city park (1/3 mile? Can’t remember…) for decades. Perhaps allowing small restaurants or food trucks in neighborhood parks would be an option…

4/6/2026

No revision necessary Commenter urges for more responsible, incremental growth that better reflects public input, rather than rapid, dense development they believe strains infrastructure and diminishes community character. They express concern about overdensification, loss of open space and views, and perceived inequities in planning decisions, while advocating for balanced transportation options and preservation of existing community qualities. I urge you to restore the BVCP to that original purpose by: No 1) Reinstating clear, measurable density limits; 2) Explicitly tying land use to water availability and ecological capacity; 3) Respecting established urban growth boundaries; 4) Incorporating fiscal carrying capacity into all land-use decisions; and 5) Protecting existing low-density zoned neighborhoods from damaging and unwanted over-densification.

4/6/2026

Before I comment upon specific sections, I’d bring to your attention the lack of reference sources. Is it responsible to publish a City plan without them? Should there not be sources cited for all the information on the Land Acknowledgment page (3), or for the paragraph like the closing one (with incorrect punctuation) on page 14: “Early planning established Boulder’s enduring open space and growth management ethos, however, these tools often benefited wealthier community members while excluding lower-income households and communities of color. Discriminatory local and national policies contributed to inequities in housing, opportunity and access that we are still addressing today.”

4/6/2026

My main concern with the plan as written is the short shrift given to Open Space and Mountain Park lands. These are Yes presented as an embarrassment, a limiting force, and a Very Big Problem for the City of Boulder. Do the plan’s writers have little to no knowledge about OSMP, or have they diminished its status on purpose? It is alarming to me that what should be regarded as an ecological triumph is both denigrated and ignored. This insult signals a profound misunderstanding of the role of the City and County of Boulder to guard, protect, and champion these spaces, which should never, ever be taken for granted.

No revision necessary

Many of the BVCP's original purposes are being maintained in the plan. We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

Thanks for this suggestion. The plan does include some in-text citations but not all text includes a cited source. Anyone can get in touch with Planning staff to request original sources.

4/6/2026

“Access” in this plan is assumed to be human access because the readers of this plan are human. However, at times, it would be sensitive of the writers to specify human access.

Yes

4/6/2026

“Connectivity” happens to be a term that refers to large, intact tracts of land that enable free movement of wildlife. I recommend the plan distinguish habitat connectivity from other kinds, and include it in the Glossary of Terms.

No revision necessary

3/27/2026

No revision necessary

The draft plan presents a strong and compelling vision for the Boulder Valley, particularly in its emphasis on sustainability, equity, and community well-being. The values reflected in the vision statement are clear and broadly supported. However, the plan would benefit from clearer policy direction to ensure that this vision can be meaningfully implemented and evaluated over time. In several areas, particularly transportation, the policies are quite general, making it difficult to determine how progress toward the vision will be measured or whether the plan is being successfully followed. A comprehensive plan should not only articulate shared values, but also provide sufficient clarity to guide future decisions and investments. Policies should more clearly indicate how they contribute to measurable outcomes, such as improved safety, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and increased access to daily needs by walking, bicycling, and transit. Strengthening the connection between the plan’s vision and its policy framework would help ensure that the community’s goals are translated into real-world outcomes over time. Without this clarity, it may be difficult ten years from now to determine whether the plan has been successfully implemented.

Thanks for this suggestion. We will highlight when access is in reference to wildlife

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

3/28/2026

I have reviewed the plan, and it has numerous deficiencies. The Land Acknowledgement is not accurate. To begin with, No revision necessary the term Indigenous is an adjective and should only be used with reference to where the People's homelands were or to which Nation they belonged. The term Tribe has been used to diminish the status of the Nations and should be removed. Theft in Boulder County Rick's Report March 14th, 2026 I've been very busy over the last six weeks and have realized that the work I do to educate the public about the truth of American Indian history in Colorado is daunting. I was in Boulder listening to People talk about Buffalo. This is a good thing if they understand the Truth about Boulder and all the land in Boulder County.

The Land Acknowledgement was developed in partnership with Tribal Nations. Thank you for sharing this information. The city is currently developing a Tribal Nation Ethnographic-Education Report with Tribal Representatives

The history of the city and county of Boulder is an enigma for anyone planning the future use of the land or waterways. The first question that I would propose in any kind of development of the Front Range is, the question, have you done a title search? Can you legally determine how the land was taken from Native Nations that held legal congressional title to it? (SEE attached map of Boulder 1859). I hope that all People, especially our Allies and those in Academia, are challenging the status quo and not overlooking the Truth about the land and how it was dishonorably taken. It is a tragic story of dispossession, and there should have been historical consequences of land theft; however, the forced removal and relocation of the People of the Native Nations prevented that. The invaders' unscrupulous actions have gone unreported for 160 years. Time does not resolve guilt or provide any excuse for not making amends. That is our responsibility today. That is the responsibility of the cities, counties, state government, and the federal government to recognize the illegal actions and take meaningful corrective actions. Failure to deal with the Truth and consequences of the aftermath of the removal of Native People from their homelands should be a part of every conversation about re-development or re-structure that happens in the homelands of Native People. And until such time as there have been appropriate consultations and constructive restoration and compensation for losses, the moral consciousness of guilt will remain. We can do better. Here is the Truth about Boulder. For over 4 years, I have been researching the Cheyenne and Arapaho, who once owned the eastern half of Colorado. I have irrefutable evidence based on the research that the land where the city of Boulder and all the land in Boulder County is 3/28/2026

3/29/2026

No revision necessary You have ruined my home area.....it is going to be disgusting and it's your fault. You never polled the exact area residents. Just like bringing the Sundance Film Festival to Boulder. You have ruined Boulder for residents. Plus....it's about bringing revenue to the Boulder rich, again!!! And, raising my property taxes to fund this abomination. Get your heads out of your asses and finally do something productive for residents!! NOT THE HOMELESS, not the industrial idiots pocket!!! Oh....as for the health of Boulder.....your experts are getting paid to follow your stupidity and they'll put in writing whatever allows them to keep their jobs. You should focus on the hideous air quality in residential areas, noise pollution and crime; not increasing it. I'll never set foot on the Pearl Street Mall again. Human health and safety should be the Boulder priority. Put that in your ridiculous PLAN! Looks good but it will depend on what the city focuses on... No revision necessary Do not spend our money "right"/wrong sizing IRIS ave. DO spend our money on tennis courts, pickleball courts, and maintain what we have, South Boulder Rec Center, WE EXPECT THAT.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

3/30/2026

No revision necessary I'm excited about this plan and the subtle shifts in direction. I can't honestly choose 5/5 for two reasons: (1) it is light on details or any sort of stack-ranking/comparative-priorities for most of the numbered priorities, with the exception of the detail provided for the new land-use map, and (2) with the land-use map not tied to a corresponding change or generalization of existing zoning/zones, I'm concerned that it won't *do* anything in practice if it requires the same amount of bureaucracy, wheeling-and-dealing, and dodging vetos to upzone/downzone a property as it does today (e.g. a proposed rezone that is "more in line" with the new land-use than the old one, which still faces the same veto power from e.g. historical preservation and landmarking boards, is only barely different from the status quo).

3/31/2026

No Is there a plan for grocery store in University Hill neighborhood to meet qualification for 15 minute neighborhood?

3/31/2026

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further. The plan supports the use of a grocery storein University Hill. The plan does not recommend a land use designation for a specific population.

Should there be a separate category for low density residential with significant student renter population surrounding CU (Uni Hill, Goss Grove, Aurora, Martin Acres) as these present unique concerns and challenges? Response:

No While there are some very good things in the plan, I feel it comes up short in several key areas and am dismayed disappointed. 1. Nothing in the values area about "protection". Important to use that word. "protecting our natural habitat, town character and views. 2. Height restrictions should be a key component off the BVCP - to protect the character of Boulder that makes it so special and has saved us from being an overdeveloped community with strained resources....up to now.....While I understand that the plan must be broad enough to be adaptive to coming years and needs, I feel the height restriction mentions in the BVCP are far too permissive. 3. Overall it seems that the plan caters to more height, more people, not enough parking or infrastructure for water, electricity, etc. 4. While I support and encourage bike usage (I am a responsible biker), it doesn’t work for all in various stages of life. Took my kid everywhere on a bike as he grew but now I too am aging. I bike regularly and used to park a city bike downtown on mall for work and never felt it was at risk. Now I would never park my bike even with locks anywhere that I can’t see it. So it’s pretty empty if you tell people to bike but don’t provide truly adequate bike parking, especially for these 15 minute neighborhoods, that have no chance unless local businesses can actually make a living in a city with 30%ish commercial vacancy rates. We need bike kiosks, like coat check, manned by a human. And, on the parking, again, while I support more transit (hey how about a bus line/shuttle that goes crosstown from Jay/diagnonal to Table mesa bus station?) the fact that many of these same young and old sports enthused bikers, hikers, skiiers, will need a car and have a car to get to other statewide ski, hike and bike locations and renting won’t be very feasible. The rest of my comments are bullets walking through the plan. •Height restrictions should be a key component of the BVCP – to protect the character of Boulder that makes it so special. By prioritizing and “older European scale”, not only are views protected for all but it saves Boulder from rampant development, retains the natural character of our town with open space and livable environment. We do not have sacrifice our responsible height restrictions to achieve gains in Affordable housing, accessible transit friendly community space……BVCP ….”housing….without sacrificing character” is the only mention/nod to keeping height restrictions in the housing section. Also mentions making use of previous commercial space in town for housing -this is good in theory. Important to covert what we have to housing or usable business/community purpose.

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

3/31/2026

No revision necessary

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

No revision necessary

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

No revision necessary

Thank you for this comment. These tools will continue to support the community

It appears the city has built too much affordable housing. All the affordable stack-a-shacks that I see on Canyon, 28th St, 30th St & elsewhere seem to be unoccupied. Why is this? 3/31/2026

Not Data-driven: example of not following this is the reversal to move ahead with Area III exploration. There are many empty affordable and market-rate units in the city. Fill those first. Government transparency: despite surveys saying otherwise (yes there have been some!) the government continues on with their plan. 15-minute neighborhoods and a tripling of those of us in our 80’s don’t mix. Your aging population will be driving more than walking. These 15 minute neighborhoods won’t work for kids who have soccer practice, gymnastics, baseball, etc, unless you plan on building these in every 15 minute area. The assumption is also that everyone will be walking to the same grocery store, drug store, pet store, etc that supplies all they need. so we will have a Whole Foods and King Soopers and Natural Grocers and Safeway in every 15-minute area? And a dentist and a doctor, and a hair dresser, a pet groomer, etc? Not seeing the logic of how that is going to work. Just having to see medical professionals that are in network will have people driving (some to Denver!). There will still be people driving. The goal of 20% driving by 2035 is interesting to say the least. Has anyone surveyed the commuters again? Infill usually means condos and apartments. A family does not want to live in an apartment in Boulder. I have friends who live outside of Boulder because they have a house with a garage and a yard with room for kids and a dog. Neither the market rate or affordable apartments in Boulder are filling up. Area III should be delayed (especially since there is no infrastructure at all!) yet a flipped vote by a planning board member to move it forward is NOT reflecting the data. Open Space, greenways, etc: the 3-4 story apartment buildings are blocking the once-amazing views of the flatirons from 28th, 30th, etc. Very sad that we can no longer see the mountains from inside of the city limits as we walk, ride, or drive. Boulder needs to work on its infrastructure (like repairing, re-paving) before it catapults itself into new projects. 19th street is a perfect example of badly needed re-paving for bike lanes that are on a quiet street running north/south from Walnut past Iris. Why are we right-sizing 30th and goofing up 28th? Aren’t there designated arteries for cars to move traffic and keep them away from bikes? What is being “planned” is an ideology that needs to be weighed against practicality and logic. 3/31/2026

The plan will lead to too much residential growth. 4/1/2026 Zoning, height limit, and blue line keep Boulder special. New housing deserves quality neighborhoods as well as old.

4/1/2026

No revision necessary

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The planning process included over 60 opportunities for community members to participate. Major components of the plan have demonstrated community support through a statiscally valid survey.

Thanks for your interest in the future of the airport. Potential for airport redevelopment is outside the timeline horizon for this plan. The city will continue to consider how the

No revision necessary

The city prioritizes

You just can’t leave well enough alone. City manager and CC need to come out and put their names on this. It’s time for accountability, you don’t get to do whatever you want and ignore our input. Who will responsible when this fails and people are pissed? You have built aggressively for 15 years in the name of “affordable housing “, and now you’re raising taxes again. This is the most misguided policy that WE DONT WANT. You are ignoring everything and moving ahead with policy we were never allowed to vote on! It’s criminal and I expect there will be lots of lawsuits coming. Stop screwing with our lives, just plow the roads, fund police, sheriff’s and jail, take care of our infrastructure, clean our parks and city. Stop screwing up everything and refusing to be accountable for it. This is not a plan that comes from the citizens of boulder, it’s a bunch of your personal pet projects that you want to keep cramming down our throats! It’s time for new leadership before you completely destroy this place with zero accountability for doing so. Stop it!!!! 4/1/2026

I'd like to see the airport closed - the noise levels (especially of the air tractors) interfere with our ability to do business. 4/1/2026

A problem I don't see addressed but maybe I missed it is any policies limiting the use of toxic pesticides, insecticides, etc. Whether individuals, landscapers or businesses this city and county continue to use products such as roundup (sold at Home Depot). Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, is widely considered detrimental to the environment and human health, classified by the IARC as a "probable human carcinogen". It causes significant damage to ecosystems by destroying beneficial insects, soil microorganisms, and plant diversity, while persisting in soil and water for over a year. You can't continue to use these products AND hold human and environmental health as a top priority. The second problem I see is that as Boulder has grown the city staff infrastructure has fallen behind in the areas of building code inspectors and zoning. Two examples: my dentist can't move into her new building because every time an inspector comes they state something different than the last and it is a continuous cycle of redoing. My second example is on my street with mostly 2000-3000 sq foot houses a 3 acre property sold when the the owner died (who lived there since the road was dirt) (Sumac Ave). Two 10,000 square foot houses were built - one for a friend of the builder and one to sell. It took over two years with much damage to the road. The number of dirt trucks it took to raise the yard the amount they raised it was astronomical. In current times this was allowed yet is in direct conflict with the goal of providing affordable housing for families. How did this happen on my street and why was it legally allowed? I don't see any policies that prevent this kind of over build from happening as the large acre lot next to it sells. You have to get up to speed with boots on the ground- and have staff's right hand knowing what the left hand is doing. In our growth we have lost this and it undermines our ability to implement our vision. There are details being overlooked which are the most important to me! 3 acres could have housed 12 families yes? Business moving and upgrading should have a clear and well defined path yes?

4/1/2026

No revision necessary I'm happy to see public safety included in a vision for transportation in Boulder (public transit, bikes, walking, other wheels). If we want folks to re-think driving their single-occupancy vehicles everywhere (and trying to park), we have to make alternatives safe. E-bikes/scooters on sidewalks are not safe. Disruptive bus passengers do not feel safe to others. Bike paths are not safe when there is not a good system of integrating e-bikes and bikes, or when there are sprawling camps of people hanging out in underpasses. Let's inspire Boulder residents to give alternative transportation means a try. Let's create accountability around safety. Let's visit Denmark and see how they do it. I never saw a car pulled over in Copenhagen, but bicyclists not following rules of the road - these where folks getting ticketed. You get a ticket even for not having a light on your bike in the day! Let's hold our community accountable to safety so that we can finally leave our cars and travel this in more healthy ways. you forcitizen, so much worklike going into these visions.about the airport Honestly, plansustainable, is a bit difficult to follow forThank an average buthard I would to make a comment plan. I live in the 4-Mile Creek subdivision. A few Saturdays ago, I was walking on the Cottonwood train and counted 45 planes taking off and landing between 10-11am. The noise was so loud that sometimes I could not hear the person I was walking with, not to mention the exhaust pollution from the planes. This is constant -- 7 days a week, and especially obnoxious on weekends. It's absurd to describe the airport as a resource for aerial firefighting. The Boulder airport has not been used for firefighting since 2010, its runways are not long enough to handle modern firefighting planes, and aerial spotting can now be done by drone. Our region has dedicated wildfire-fighting resources based at Rocky Mountain Metro, Centennial, and Northern Colorado Regional airports, not Boulder. Everyone living in north Boulder from Gunbarrel to 28th st. lives with the noise and pollution of wealthy individuals flying private planes for pleasure -- sometimes the engine noise is like a Harley Davidson motorcycle. There are no limits on noise pollution and we are stuck living with it.

No revision necessary

Thanks for your interest in the future of the airport. Potential for airport redevelopment is outside the timeline horizon for this plan. The city will continue to consider how the airport can contribute to the community.

4/1/2026

No revision necessary

The plan includes a lot of excellent ideas and I agree with the majority of it. There is one area in particular I think needs to be addressed. Policy #76 regarding the Boulder Municipal Airport. The plan currently states: "The city continues to maintain the Boulder Municipal Airport as a safe environment for aviation business and business-related travel, scientific and research flights, recreation and tourism, flight training and vocational education, aerial fire-fighting, emergency medical flights, and disaster-related support for the city and county. The city will help manage and mitigate noise and other impacts of airport operations via land use controls and partnership with the State and fuel providers to offer unleaded fuel. The city is also forward-looking as aircraft electrification becomes reality. The city will continue to build relationships that allow the airport to be a valuable resource for a wider range of people in the Boulder community. The city will coordinate with the county to provide consistent regulations, where possible.” Below are my observations and thoughts: This airport does not serve the local community. There are no essential services provided to the community. The airport does not contribute to the local economy in any meaningful way. It does cost the city money to maintain. It does contibute significant and unwanted noise and air polition to the community. It is unconsionable that planes are still fying over our communiy all day long running on leaded fuel approximately 50 years after we banned it’s use in autombiles. I can hear the glider tow plane from inside my house all day long as it constantly circles overhead and I live two miles south of the airport. It is not used for fire fighting. It is not used for emergency services. The city and county must continue to say NO to all FAA funding for the Boulder Municpal Airport. The airport should be closed down as soon as is leagally viable. Please update the policy to reflect current reality and the collective health of our community. 4/1/2026 Saying we plan to maintain the airport contradicts virtually every other point in the document (our commitments to sustainability, equity, affordable housing, etc). Land use is a zero-sum game and we're saying, "Yes, Boulder owns these ~180 acres. Yes, only 200 private pilots use the land for their expensive, exclusive hobby. Yes, they spew led dust over the nearby neighborhoods and schools, despite claiming unleaded av. fuel 'is on the way' for decades and decades." It's incredibly frustrating to be in a "progressive" area and to see these sorts of decisions made over and over. We pretend we're about diversity and equity and yada yada but then we nod to one of our most spoiled, geriatric, almost uniformly white cohorts (airport pilots) and say, "we got you." For what reason? Genuinely, I struggle to understand how this issue is at all controversial. You could build thousands upon thousands of units of affordable housing using the publicly-owned airport land as subsidy. These homes, in a mixed-use neighborhood, would have a far bigger economic impact as well, and would further reduce emissions by finally allowing some of the ~60k daily in-commuters to live near the places they work. How the airport helps achieve any of Boulder's goals, I don't know.

4/1/2026

No revision necessary

Thank you for your concern on this topic. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

No revision necessary

The vision says that "everyone belongs." The demographics at the front of the plan make clear that, under current conditions, the only people who can afford to belong in Boulder are retirees, whether they bought their house in Boulder in the 1970s or are moving here from more expensive locations. As page 19 says, we expect the population of Boulder valley to /shrink/ by 3,000 by 2045. By the plan's own analysis, that is primarily due to insufficient and too-expensive housing. Does the plan do enough to address the single biggest challenge with achieving its vision? No, it does not. 4/1/2026

I do not support "gentle infill' in neighborhoods comprised of single family homes. Development/infill primarily benefits builders and the real estate industry.

4/2/2026

The comprehensive plan should focus on decreasing government spending, lowering utility rates and the tax burden to increase affordability. Another owning primary focus should be the safety of left citizens. I am aware that most property citizens of Boulder have been out of the Community Assembly planning. As a

No resident of Orchard Grove MHP I was aware that many invitations were sent there--and other MHP--and that you didn't have to be a US Citizen to participate. Due to no need for citizenship and the $1000 stipend Boulder and they were put under pressure to provide the answers expected by the 15 min City experts running the seven meetings. Being present in our communities illegally, they are always under fear of being deported. I attended two meetings where we were told we could give feedback on the 15 min plan. But we were managed by a professional team and city employees to not allow a discussion among participants about their concerns around 15 min cities. It is common knowledge that these cities across the world and in US cities are restrictive areas where residents are surveilled by Smart Meters and other surveillance technologies and that little by little, the freedom of residents is taken away through the use of social credit scores enforced by use of Real IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies--such as FedNow. FedNow is becoming associated with most of the local Credit Unions and Banks and would make it possible for government control of our finances if we fail to meet their idea of "acceptable behavior." It is obvious from the "Plan" languaging that YOU plan to implement these 15 Min Neighborhoods (know as 15 Min Cities across the world). Though you have not provided full disclosure of what you Plan includes and YOU have not provided adequate feedback options for the Citizens of Boulder and Boulder County to give their thoughts about having their neighborhoods carved into sections. During the Pandemic Shutdowns, Many of the healthy, vital, creative businesses that made Boulder a vital community were run out of business. What we've been left with are big box stores and Amazon owned stores. There is no doubt in my mind that we will be served the highest bidder options. YOU claim to be serving the underserved in your BVCP--to provide equity for all the illegal immigrants who have settled in our "Sanctuary State"--but my feeling is that they are only an excuse to force all of us into the over-abundance of high rise apartments. We've never been given any good reason for why all these apartments were financially practical to build? They all sit mainly empty now, though more and more continue to go up. Why has the city and the state made it lucrative for these ugly monstrosities to proliferate? What is the "Plan?" You have given us Seven Community Values that came out of the 48 members of the Community Assembly: 1) Vision - The emphasis is on "equity" which has left the Citizens of Boulder out of the plan. 2) Environmentally Sustainable - Committed to an electric energy based economy, which is unreasonable and counter to the Federal reliance on oil. Renewable electricity is not practicle as it relies on renewables that work only when the weather cooperates. It also relies on lithium batteries in cars and Smart Meters which are fire dangers in an already dry

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/2/2026

To the Boulder City Council, Planning Board, and Comprehensive Plan Team:

No revision necessary

Thank you for the inclusive process behind this draft and for the genuine commitments it makes on housing, climate, and transportation. The thought and care put into this process is evident. As a Boulder resident, I'm writing to offer feedback on priorities where I believe the plan can be strengthened before adoption. On affordability: The 15% permanently affordable housing goal by 2035 is a meaningful commitment, and I support the land use tools proposed to get there: gentle infill, ADUs, and mixed-use hubs near transit. However, I'm concerned about the pace and the lack of accountability. At the current rate of ~127 affordable units per year, the city will fall well short of this goal. I urge the plan to include setting an annual milestone framework and a clear corrective action process if progress lags. I'm also concerned that since 2015, affordable homeownership has shrunk to just 5% of new permanently affordable units. Middle-income residents need a path to ownership, not just rental stability. The plan should dictate setting a specific target for affordable homeownership and fund programs that support it. As a Martin Acres resident, I encourage you to ensure that neighborhood 1 zoning can adapt to support more density and can support group living to protect the affordability of Boulder. On wildfire preparedness and sustainability: I appreciate the Fire Adapted Community policy and the net-zero by 2035 commitment. But the wildfire language is too high-level for a city that watched the Marshall Fire burn in 2021. I urge the plan to include specific references to mandatory defensible space standards and building code updates for fire-resistant construction in WUI zones. The plan also acknowledges tension between wildfire risk reduction and urban tree canopy; this needs a clearer resolution, not just a note that both matter. A spatial risk mapping approach should be referenced so that high-risk zones get wildfire-first treatment. On water conservation and landscaping: The plan's water resource policies acknowledge climate uncertainty and the need for demand management, but stop short of addressing one of the most visible and changeable drivers of residential water use: thirsty grass lawns. In a semi-arid city drawing from snowpack-dependent sources, with the Colorado River under increasing stress, this is a meaningful gap. I urge the plan to include explicit policy support for transitioning residential and commercial landscaping toward drought-tolerant and native plantings, and to discourage the installation

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/7/2026

The Comprehensive Plan should advocate putting the brakes on further commercial development of Boulder. The daily No revision necessary influx of commuters is a product of excessive commercial development – not lack of housing (affordable or otherwise). The commercial and residential growth Boulder has experienced the past 40 years has not paid its own way. If affordable housing is to be made available, commercial property should be repurposed. Increased density through zoning changes will destroy existing neighborhoods. People buy their houses with the expectation that the rules governing their choice of residence will not be changed under their feet – that their neighborhoods are stable. To change this is to betray the social contract we all depend upon. If a desired goal is preservation of existing, affordable, single family housing – the size and footprint of new construction needs to be revisited and drastically downsized. City planners dropped the ball on this badly. Short term housing rental codes need to be enforced or, even better, air-b&b rentals should be prohibited. Right now there seems to be no enforcement of the rules whatsoever. Short term rentals were sold to the public as a way to enable financially strapped seniors to stay in their homes. This is a fantasy. The Comp Plan correctly recognizes that average Boulder residents are aging. I do not find this fact reflected in the Comp Plan. Regarding transportation, seniors are not going to bicycle to haul their groceries – especially during the winter. It is unrealistic to imagine that bus use by seniors will soar either. Obligatory use of the internet and smart phone apps for civic engagement which is difficult or exclusionary for seniors (bill paying, document notification and processing, communication with civic officials, medical appointments and results etc.) is unrealistic and discriminatory. This bias is reflected as the general ageist quality that is present in this Comp Plan. In my immediate neighborhood (north Boulder) there are four corporate owned rental houses – none of which are affordable and serving the community. Prohibiting this type of absentee-landlord ownership should be a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Water is in short supply and will only get worse. The changes proposed by the Comp. Plan will exacerbate the problem. Open space was purchased by all the people of Boulder who wanted to preserve the natural environment – not to be turned into a bike path gymnasium for the benefit of a minority. To walk on these trails is to be subjected to repeated, unnerving, close calls at best. People are being excluded from their enjoyment of Open Space. The Comprehensive Plan should outline steps to restrict bicycle use on many of the Open Space trails.

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/7/2026

Re the plan update, I would like to see more actionable, measurable goals.As a scientist, this is what I had to design into No revision necessary my experiments to obtain outcomes that made sense and allowed me to continue to understand phenomena and develop strategies to change or modify said events. E.g. I live in a ’15-minute’ neighborhood (Table Mesa) I often bike to the library, shopping etc. I estimate about 1% of users currently do so. Simply extolling the virtues of a 15-min neighborhood ain’t gonna do it. How about an actionable goal: offer small, guided walking/biking groups in a very small subset of the neighborhood. Or ask individuals currently engaging in said activity to sign up to lead such a group (these people tend to be very bearish on their activity ) E.g. future development that matters most to me and everyone I’m polling: less traffic, (congestion pricing?)transparent , sustainable water policy; limited densification (not everyone can live in Boulder - this is not NIMBYism it’s a quantifiable observation); limits on growth decided by quantitative measures (land , resource, and maintenance availability) E.g no city expansion

Thank you for this comment. As the plan is implemented over time, this topic will be considered further.

4/6/2026

yes

Some revisions were included

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

No revision necessary

Boulder has planned carefully over the years to ensure a reliable community water supply guided by comprehensive plan policies and planning projections.

No revision necessary

Boulder has planned carefully over the years to ensure a reliable community water supply guided by comprehensive plan policies and planning projections.

Redlined document from community member - see attachment in the PDF linked to the right - Daniel Aizenman 4/3/2026 Personally, although I’m not the only one, I think the BVCP should be mailed to and discussed with all Boulder Citizen: Home, Farm, Commercial RE owners. It’s my understanding that there was a committee of Boulder Residents who were selected to help design convenience neighborhoods, AKA 15-minute neighborhoods. Everyone on that committee should have been a US citizen and RE owner in Boulder CO. Real Property Owners are paying high taxes used to fund the BVCP. Because non-citizens have extremely limited experience with Boulder issues, the city couldn’t receive from non-citizens any realistic: ideas, plans or insight into what our city needs in order to be supportive of business owners, farmers, homeowners and residents. After seeing what the city dept. of transportation has done to streets like Arapahoe, by transforming normal traffic lanes into a “Bus Only” lanes, and thereby leaving a dangerously small slot for passenger vehicles and trucks to enter business driveways and make right turns, I have no faith that the city planners will improve any of Boulder’s: transportation, parks, housing, retail etc. I am concerned that our wonderful BCC, CC and CPC will turn our beautiful city into a dump. You blindly try so hard to make our city more friendly that you actually fuck it up more. The public BVCP 64 page PDF is formatted so it’s difficult to read and is full of fluff. If Y’all would focus on preserving our farms, ranches and open space; and, insisting that telecom companies use buried fiber optic cables, and not support or allow 5G, 6G etc. towers to contaminate our air, bodies and food I might be supportive.. Shuffling people into 15minute convenience, fast food neighborhoods will not support our citizenry. Instead, Boulder will be supporting the telecom, fast food, drone, Amazon businesses. NO: on the BVCP, and esp. 15minute neighborhoods, and Bus Only lanes. 4/3/2026

The proposed Land Use Changes are outrageous. 4/3/2026

Boulder planners and council members once again think they can build their way to affordable housing and still deal with lack of water as climates change and traffic and noise increases. 4/3/2026 I'm concerned the plan does not take into account the drought, wildfire risk, and increased stress on our natural systems. I attended a recent event with information and feedback opportunities and I saw no mention of water supply. This drought year really feels like a wake up call to redesign and think smarter and better about EVERYTHING especially population capacity and re-thinking the way we build to be more effective (not just more dense!) but actually connected well and sustainably to the infrastructure and natural resources that exist here. This seems like it would much better address the second half of that vision statement: sustain the health of the Boulder Valley for future generations.

4/3/2026

No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

No revision necessary

The land use in the plan supports continuing the uses you describe for this area. The comprehensive plan does not change your zoning.

No revision necessary

The question is, whose "vision for the Boulder Valley?" Since the early 1980s I’ve worked on comp plans in four western states and in a few Colorado cities. A question commonly arises in this work: does a plan place greater emphasis on the priorities of existing residents or does it aspire more to serve future residents? Comp plans are intended to do both, but it's usually a balancing act trending one way or the other over time. Looking back at the last four plans (and even earlier), the 2021 and 2026 plans appear to me to be weighted more than ever to serving future residents. Even by itself, the vision statement for the 2026 update demonstrates a bias favoring future residents. Higher residential density, 15-minute neighborhoods, annexing Area III, and other city initiatives may be favored by today's Council and staff to accommodate future residents who can add greater diversity to our community, but the city's survey of existing residents suggests they're not particularly well-aligned with the city's priorities and, debatably, not much of the new comp plan. Maybe this will become clearer in the next city council election. 4/3/2026 I am an artist who has studio space, along with other artists and makers, in unit DD at 2510 47th St., also known as the Phoenix Asylum Cooperative. The proposed comprehensive plan changes the zoning for our area away from industrial zoning. We are small, local, independent businesses, which the city says it wants to support. My concern is that the new zoning would not allow these small businesses to continue and would encourage our landlord to put in housing at this location. The Phoenix Asylum is a not for profit group, whose mission is to provide affordable work space for artists and entrepreneurs and we need to have industrial zoning to allow for some of the work our members do. We recently expanded and, in 2 months, have filled the spaces with 6 artists who were having trouble finding workspaces in Boulder. That provides proof that there isn’t enough affordable artist workspaces in Boulder. Moving to different location would be costly, which would then be difficult to keep our spaces affordable. If the Boulder City Council believes that art is an important contributor to our community, that opportunities for artists to create in Boulder, then zoning in this area needs to remain as is. Thank you. 4/3/2026

Please leave open space ALONE, We need this for wildlife to thrive and minimize human impact on the land. I live i Gunbarel ad want to less encroachment out in this area. I love listening to coyotes at night and all the wildlife we have out here. Plaese minimize or don't expand development out here. This is a true gift to have this area as is. There ias no need for more development in this area.

4/4/2026

I feel that the draft comprehensive plan focuses too much on promoting housing development and employment growth and not enough on 1) maintaining our current infrastructure, 2) protecting our built assets such as existing neighborhoods No revision necessary and 3) protecting our natural assets including designated open space and and de facto open space such as Area III. Over the past 10 years, approximately 6 million square feet of housing has been added in Boulder. We can see new apartment and condo buildings all over the city. The draft plan would continue to add to the housing supply by increasing density and height all over the city. The thought by many is that an increase of supply will bring housing prices down. However in a market like Boulder with near unlimited demand, prices have continued to rise even with significant additions to housing supply. We simply can’t build our way to affordability. The key question the plan ignores is: When is enough growth enough? We are part of and depend on the natural environment but this plan assumes there are no limits to growth. Animal populations crash if they exceed the natural limits to growth and I believe we have exceeded those limits in the Boulder Valley, specifically air quality and water supply. Air pollution and water availability are the canaries in the coal mine telling us we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the ecosystem of which we’re a part. So, what do we do? We change the plan to envision a stable end-point population, stop growth promoting policies like densification of existing neighborhoods and instead focus resources on rehabilitating existing housing, targeted housing development in commercial areas and providing excellent intercity transportation options. This recognizes that no matter how much housing we build in Boulder, it will always be more expensive than other cities because of the “Flatirons effect”. Many of us decided to move here on seeing our first view of the Flatirons coming over Davidson Mesa. Boulder will always be more desirable because of our many amenities but especially our Open Space, views, access to trails and nature. It’s a free society, so many people will choose to live where it’s cheaper but still want to work or recreate here. If the transit options are limited and inconvenient, they will drive. This fact was brought home to me by a conversation with an individual who is a consultant in Boulder for alternate modes of transportation (other than the car). The irony is that this person lives in a suburb of Denver because it’s cheaper and

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/4/2026

Yes

This Plan needs far more nuance in the "Neighborhood" zones regarding density - it makes very little sense to give up 50+ years of planning nuance which made this very place which everyone now finds so attractive for development profiteering. The Open Space lands role in plant, wildlife, and ecosystem services is not highlighted at all. This plan makes it seem recreation is the only value of these lands, which is also a very unfortunate change of tone from the values that made this place unique, special and frankly visionary for municipalities across America ... and even abroad. The basic pro-development thrust which is being kowtowed to by this BVCP draft, and the people pushing it - we will at least know who to blame when water restrictions start to make life miserable and desertification reaches a tipping point in our community.

4/4/2026

My grandfather once told me "It is important to leave things on the table for the next person." It is not right for the current Council and the Mayor to try to bring all the prerogatives/choices of future generations all forward in a single halfgeneration. It is simply greedy - and sadly jettisons all the values that built Boulder - which has become not much more than a brand these days - and has lost its underlying values at an incredible pace since 2021. I have lived in Boulder for 44 years. The reason we are a successful, beautiful, wanted place to live, is because we have Yes promoted values of growth management and open space preservation. Due to Boulder's increase in population, popularity, cost of living, which will increase in magnitude with the impacts of Sundance Film Festival, it is vital to consider quality of life needs that include space, quiet, Beauty, realistic transportation needs, and especially promotion of values that nourish humanity/soul. The proposed BVCP feels focused on growth/development at all costs. The reason we are a special and attractive community is because we have limited growth and valued/maintained open space as priceless in a world which promotes economic growth/ real estate development w/o measuring the high cost to quality of life, and importance of access to the natural world. Not to mention the bio-advantages of such a vision in climate change. Adjust the Plan to include the above values!

4/4/2026

Yes The open spaces surrounding the area are what make it so special. It's where the mountains meet the plains, and combined with unique topography it makes for amazing biodiversity. I would like to see more in the plan about both protecting and managing these natural areas. Keep resources going to protect habitats and water. Keep the extensive carbon storage going. Continue to manage forests for fire minimization. And as far as building goes, pay close attention to view-sheds. everyone deserves to see the mountains. Thank you. Lisa DIerauf

4/4/2026

4/5/2026

The communities and neighborhoods around Gunbarrel and Twin Lakes are already short on water for residential needs and space for expanding infrastructure. From the Boulder Reporting Lab: "By 2030, Boulder could see 28 days over 95 degrees and nearly 200 high fire-risk days annually. By 2050, those numbers rise even higher...." -- https://boulderreportinglab.org/2025/03/23/boulder-built-its-own-climate-models-heres-what-they-say-about-thenext-25-years/ Halt in dry, dry Gunbarrel. I am future writingdevelopment, as a long timeespecially Boulder resident who has witnessed the evolution of this community over many decades and No

Boulder has planned carefully over the years to ensure a reliable community water supply guided by comprehensive plan policies and planning projections.

who continues to value the original intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: To live within environmental limits, protect the land and water that sustain us, and preserve a livable, human-scale community. The 2026 draft BVCP represents a significant departure from these foundational principles. First, the removal of numerical residential density limits marks a fundamental philosophical shift. Replacing clear, enforceable caps with subjective concepts such as “character” and “form” eliminates the very mechanism that has allowed Boulder to manage growth responsibly. Without measurable limits, density becomes negotiable, and in practice, this invites continuous upward pressure. Boulder’s success has long rested on recognizing that land, water, and infrastructure are finite. This draft moves away from that reality. Second, the plan does not adequately account for water constraints. Boulder exists within a semi-arid system facing increasing snowpack variability, drought risk, and wildfire pressures tied to hydrological stress. Yet the draft does not clearly demonstrate that projected growth and land-use intensity are tied to long-term water availability or watershed regeneration capacity. Water is not a flexible variable—it is a hard constraint. Planning that does not explicitly integrate this reality creates systemic risk. Third, increased density is promoted without sufficient ecological grounding. While concepts such as transit-oriented development and 15-minute neighborhoods are presented as environmentally beneficial, in Boulder’s context they can lead to reduced permeable surfaces, loss of biodiverse green space, increased urban heat island effects, and greater stormwater runoff. Beyond certain thresholds, density degrades the very environmental systems it is intended to support. Fourth, ongoing consideration of expansion into the Area III Planning Reserve signals mission drift. The BVCP historically established a clear boundary between urban and rural land and focused growth within existing service areas. Revisiting expansion suggests a shift from asking “Where should growth stop?” to “Where can more growth be accommodated?” This is inconsistent with a planning framework grounded in limits. No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

4/5/2026

Hello,

The land use in the plan supports continuing the uses you describe for this area. The comprehensive plan does not change your zoning.

I have been reading and reviewing the BVCP, and am overall happy with the policies and goals put forward in the plan. I did, however, have one large concern, in regards to proposed zoning changes on the Future Land Use map. The area encompassed by the Goose Creek Bike Trail to the south, 47th Street to the West, Sterling Drive to the North, and Valmont Disc Golf Course/Open Space to the East has been proposed to be changed from an Industrial Use Area, to an "Innovation and Production Hub." Similar changes are also proposed for the area in far north boulder, North of Lee Hill Drive/West of Broadway. I am personally motivated for these areas to stay industrial zone, as I am a member of the Phoenix Asylum - A non profit workshop cooperative and makerspace which rents space in this area. We are a diverse group of artists and makers including metal workers, bike builders, glass artists, painters, machinists, gem sculptors, concrete sculptors, ceramicists, musicians, garment makers and more. Many of these mediums are not possible anywhere but industrial space due to their noise, mess, power requirements, ventilation needs, etc. I see the Phoenix Asylum, as well as industrial zones as a whole, as a catalyst for the creation of small businesses, startups, working artists, and others who add to the local economy and culture of Boulder - something the BVCP says the city and county wishes to support. While the category "innovation and production" sounds like it would align with the current use of the area, losing the industrial nature of the area could greatly limit the currently established businesses in the area and limit the innovation and production currently taking place here. While reading through the list of policies, I found many, many examples of the BVCP supporting a space like this, and I believe this Zone change directly goes against these goals. All of these are represented by the current use of the space: #54, Local Business and Affordable Space

No revision necessary

4/5/2026 University Hill is sorely missing a community hub

yes

4/5/2026

This plan is all about development with only cursory mention of ecosystem and habitat health, which is what draws people to live in Boulder. The outsized focus on development ignores increasing water scarcity and increasing traffic congestion, resulting in worsening air quality. Height limits, which again make Boulder a desirable place to live, seem to be on the chopping block. Despite many thousands of new units that have been built, Boulder is no closer to being affordable and it's clear that continuing to build market-rate housing will not get us there. Our local businesses that make Boulder unique are being torn down for more modern, trendy development projects. There is no money in RTD or the city budget for transit options to keep up with the expansion of business and housing forecast in this plan, and most people continue to drive, no matter how convenient public transit is. This will only lead to more gridlock, frustration, pollution, and declining quality of life. Yes

Thank you for your feedback. The regional hub designation on the hill will help support your interest.

4/5/2026 Changing the industrial zones to residential zones would negatively effect a very large amount of people, and businesses, as well as entire community's of people. There are tons of people who rely on those industrial areas to work and provide for them selves. and they are already in short supply as it is. Please do not get rid of these places of creation, and, community. No revision necessary

Industrial areas are supported by the land use map and plan policy. Updates to the comprehensive plan do not impact current zoning

I am one of the many artists renting a space in these block. It is currently packed so jam full of innovators, small businesses, and artisans, I'm concerned our dynamic neighborhood would all too quickly turn into another mixed use development where welding, glass blowing, other fumeplanners creating or noisy and arts citizens would nonightmare longer be welcome. I agree with this! Pomerance: The Comp Planand draft update: dream,

Industrial areas are supported by the land use map and plan policy. Updates to the comprehensive plan do not impact current zoning

4/5/2026

No revision necessary

After well over a year of sometimes questionable public input processes, including biased surveys, self-selecting questionnaires, a theatrical performance and significant closed-door meetings, the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan updated version is now out for public review. Comments are due by this coming Monday, 4/06. (future@bouldercolorado.gov and planner@bouldercounty.gov). The new document is very attractive in appearance, and very detailed — over 100 pages long. But the future it portrays is massively densified, including three-story and multi-unit and commercial buildings in currently single-family neighborhoods. And I saw no serious attempt to deal with our shrinking water supply, ever-increasing traffic congestion, overuse of Open Space or the many other impacts of growth. One BVCP project was “15-minute neighborhoods.” As many of you remember, this was conducted in a whole series of private meetings by a group of anonymous citizens selected randomly, rather than for their expertise. And the result, which was finally published along with the names of the participants, shows it. For an obvious example of the flaws, there was no on-the-ground evaluation of existing neighborhood centers, like Table Mesa Shopping Center, to see how frequently people who live within a 15-minute walk/bike really do this (very little). Given that the work done did not address even this fundamental, it ended up as mostly wasted effort. But the draft BVCP still pushes this thinking, apparently because it supports densification. The draft BVCP also delves into the history of Boulder planning. But it fails to seriously discuss some major failures. For example, Boulder’s continuing pursuit of business growth resulted in some 65,000 in-commuters (and attendant traffic congestion) and a hugely elevated demand for housing (leading to excessive price inflation). This relates to the (also not-discussed) resistance, by both city staff and councils, to increasing the jobs-housing linkage fee to the amount needed so that new job development would pay for housing for the new workers who otherwise couldn’t afford it, and the reluctance to raise the inclusionary housing requirements to the level necessary to maintain our population’s income mix. My conclusion: We have passed the point where the BVCP can be just aspirational statements. We need a Comprehensive Plan with policies that set limits to growth so that we don’t lose more of what we cherish. And these should be enforceable in court by the citizens who live in the BVCP area. Here’s what I propose: No revision necessary

4/5/2026 Hi, We are facing a biodiversity and climate crisis. The Open Space System should be the main focus of the BVC. Yet, it is largely missing. The native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and riparian areas play a crucial role in the water cycle. They keep the soil shaded, cool it, retain moisture, and thus protect us from drought and help prevent wildfires. They absorb water to prevent erosion and protect the residents from flooding. By releasing the stored water through transpiration, trees cool the environment, helping shield us from heatwaves. During this process, trees also emit bacteria that form clouds and trigger precipitation locally or elsewhere. In extreme weather conditions, trees slow down the wind. Finally, native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and riparian areas provide habitat for wildlife and well-being for all of us. They help cool the planet and support biodiversity. The Open Space System needs to be a priority for the future of our children. Thanks, Christel Markevich

Yes

4/5/2026

This update violates nearly everything that Boulder has stood for in the past, and promises to greatly damage the quality of life in our community. Why is there no prioritization of our precious Open Space program--which preserves and protects our "green belt," wetlands, wildlife, scenic wonders, and recreational habitat? Why is development at all costs prioritized-with no consideration for the stability and life quality in existing neighborhoods? With not a single word about the impact of population growth on our shrinking water supply? Why are all the land use designations being lumped into "neighborhood 1" and "neighborhood 2"--both of which are simply designed to cram more density into every single square inch of the City? Why is "workforce housing" prioritized over families, starving the public schools of students when families refuse to live in the family unfriendly housing being prioritized? Where will people recreate when there's no green space left in which to do it? Why the fixation on impossible aspirations like "15 minute neighborhoods" and enhanced "public transportation" instead of cars when neither are very possible, given RTD's collapsing service record and Boulder's housing and commercial patterns? Why can Council and the BVSD staffers not recognize that the single biggest obstacle to a workable city of the future is Boulder's complete lack of decent, reliable, safe, comprehensive public transportation? As in busses! Not bicycles, walking or scooters! It is unreasonable to force elders like myself to walk nearly a mile to the nearest bus stop, which provides service so infrequently (if a stop even exists) that acts of daily living like shopping, medical appointments, going to work, haircuts, pet care and vet visits, taking kids to school, attending concerts or visiting restaurants or friends across town (especially at night) are all-day impossible efforts. And that is especially true in winter or very high winds or at night. No, I can't do without my car--though I'd like to--and I can't survive in Boulder--and neither can most businesses--without parking for my car. Pie in the sky aspirations are NOT sound city planning or management. Remaking the BVCP on the basis of fantasies about what ought to be rather than facing realities on the ground is a fool's errand and will destroy Boulder. I already know many people who are leaving Boulder, not because they can't afford to live here, but because they believe that Boulder is being destroyed by aspirational thinkers, not wise city managers and planners. We're sorely lacking in the latter. It's time to completely discard this ridiculous and destructive update and get back to the original vision of Boulder, which created the town that, until about 15 years ago, was a highly desirable place to live. Now, from some of the most despicably ugly housing and hotel developments on the planet to the war on cars and the "right sizing" (very poorly named) street projects, and the failure to support local business, Boulder is becoming an eyesore and a disaster. Consider the water supply! Protect Open Space. Build family friendly housing and housing suitable for a wide range of ages and income levels--NOT the kinds of sterile behemoths now infesting the Iris and 36 area or that Waterview building on Arapaho, which has neither water nor views--except when it floods, as it will, because it is Yes

4/5/2026 This plan will completely trash our existing home values in Coal Creek Ranch due to excessive traffic and crowding. 5K new apartments so close to Coal Creek Ranch (Avista Hospital Redev plus RTR) will make 88th St impossible to navigate for those of us who live next door. In the event of another Marshall Fire emergency evacuation, there will be no possible exit strategy for all these high density apartment dwellers and existing CCR subdivision residents. And let's not forget that Louisville is currently facing city wide water shortages and there is no new source of water to allow 30 K new residents access to a clean supply of fresh water given existing shortages all across the Front Range communities. This is a disaster and totally owned by our current City Council. These councilmembers frequently asked for community input and then ignored it all to come to this decision. We will all pay while developers get rich. I have yet to speak to a single neighbor in Coal Creek Ranch who supports this vision for surrounding our neighborhood with high density apartments south and east of us in Red Tail Ridge and Avista Hospital sites. No revision necessary

Thank you for your comment. This concern would be better directed toward the Louisville municipal government, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan does not represent your area.

4/6/2026

g ,y g , g y g , p y drying climate!!!! Also, you talk about the aging population, but there's nothing that addresses is (shouldn't there be new housing types, different transportation? Detailed feedback on BVCP, based on the Word version: Page 4. Outcome based budgeting is not in place in the City. It’s a pipedream, at this point. SER framework is really pedantic, especially when tied to the budget. Can’t you guys talk like real people? Page 5. The city does not use a outcome-based budgeting. It’s a joke. Page 12. Is your population chart accurate? I think it says there will be 80,000 seniors by 2050? Page 13. Typo on chart “sinle” Page 15. Transit numbers haven’t changed from 1998; over 25 years. Why would we assume they would change moving forward, especially with an aging population? Maybe you should REALLY put some analysis and creativity into this one! #63 Resource Management: The city does not manage its expenses appropriately, it has no zero-based budgeting or programs audits to terminate programs and develop efficiencies. #69 Joyful transportation? Really? I agree, that e-biking is joyful. Transit? No. Cars, no. If you would create a shuttle system, utilizing smaller vehicles, painted outrageously, yes, that might be joyful, and more people might use them! #72. Absolutely not!! Those RTD buses are empty, out-moded; even the outrageously expensive electric versions. What is innovative about our continued running of these buses? #76. Excellent description of the airport. #85 How much are we talking to NIST and NCAR about wildfire? #86. Great policy. I hope the legislation and city actions actually deliver on this. #97. No, you don’t really care for good community engagement. You’re loaded with resources (34 in the city??), but do you really listen? #100 Transparent governance. No. For example, look at what is happening with open sharing of the budget with the OSBT. On all your neighborhood and hubs, it would be helpful if you would name them. No revision necessary

Thanks for your critical feedback. We've reviewed for suggested revisions and incorporated what we could!

4/6/2026

I strongly urge you to include in the current first updated draft of the revised Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan the following vital issues: City and County Open Space Areas Make the protection of our terrestrial and aquatic native species a central topic in the Plan because the citizens demand their acknowledgement and protection. Define the ecosystem services that native ecosystems provide for humans such as the sequestration of carbon in plants and in soils to alleviate some aspects of climate change that are accentuated by high levels of human-caused atmospheric carbon dioxide. De-emphasize the recreational aspects that open space lands provide for humans which disrupt their functioning, such as widening and creating new trails in otherwise intact ecosystems. Continue to emphasize open spaces as areas for contemplation and understanding of the diminishing natural world that were set aside for this purpose decades ago. Consider more carefully the increased demand on more remote non-renewable energy sources and environmental impacts by promoting the use of electrical bikes and motorized wheelchairs on these lands. Water Supply Emphasize water conservation by citizens, farmers and businesses due to a dwindling supply of mountain water sources as a result of snow pack losses in a warming climate. Transportation The graph on p 19 shows a balance of 65+ and 18 and under populations this decade. The needs of the larger population of seniors for public transportation should be noted in the Plan, such as having inexpensive buses to take them to specific sites within and outside of the city limits as well as to evening venues. Promote the benefits of using carpools for transportation needs. In general, I would like to see more specific details in the Plan rather than overall generalizations.

Yes

4/6/2026

No revision necessary

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

The Phoenix Art Asylum and the various buildings around it are very important to the community. It encourages creativity, community, and collaboration among all its members and the public. Taking this away would alter the feel of Boulder and take away a unique aspect of the city. No revision necessary

Thanks for your comment. The land use strategy supports this use in the location.

Too much growth 4/6/2026

4/6/2026

To the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Planning Committee: I am writing to provide formal feedback regarding the 2025 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Update. My primary concerns center on maintaining the procedural integrity of the plan, ensuring land use clarity, and protecting the representation of all affected residents. 1. Procedural Integrity and Adherence to Agreements Follow Established Procedures: Planning staff and governing bodies must strictly adhere to the amendment procedures defined in the existing Intergovernmental Agreement for all BVCP changes. Strict Use of Screening Criteria: All change requests must be screened using the specific criteria already established in Exhibit B of the BVCP. Reject Unvetted Maps: It is inappropriate to use "new" or "draft" land use maps that have been written by staff without public vetting to review current change requests. 2. Preservation of Specific Land Use Designations Maintain Current Clarity: The 26 existing land use designations should remain and not be rewritten. These provide reliable, specific descriptions of what can be built on a property—such as designating Agriculture for agricultural use or Parks for park use. Concerns Over "Blurred" Designations: The proposed shift from specific categories (like the current 8 residential tiers) to broad "Neighborhood" or "Hub" designations creates significant ambiguity.

Thanks for taking the time to provide this feedback. The IGA will not be amended as part of the comprehensive plan update. We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

The draft plan is one that promotes increased density and urbanization of the Boulder Valley. There is not nearly enough emphasis on protecting the natural environment and providing parks for the community. Also, the plan is a green light for urbanization and densification of single family neighborhoods without sufficient community engagement and input from residents in the single family neighborhoods. Unutilized industrial areas should be looked at first for increased housing density over single family neighborhoods. What happened to Neighborhood 3 designation that was for Single Family Homes and ADUs? No

We hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members.

Lack of Density Limits: The draft designations for "Neighborhood 1" and "Neighborhood 2" lack clear density limits and allow for nearly any secondary use (retail, multi-unit, etc.), which removes the granularity and assurance property owners currently rely on. 4/6/2026

4/6/2026

With respect to the latest future draft of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan there is a definite emphasis on additional housing units. Where possible much of this seems to be infilling within existing residential areas or on the edge of these areas. Whilst I have no problem with this concept overall , one issue concerns me. It seems that the city is in the process of moving from neighborhoods being defined by a similar personality physically to ones defined by a concept or lifestyle. As a result what gets planning permission to be built could be much more defined by the developer or the vision of the planning department rather than by having a more concrete written definition of what should be built in that neighborhood. There needs to be safeguards to insure that the concept for all neighborhoods is applied uniformly throughout the city. Would a request from a developer for a small six unit apartment building on an empty infill lot in North boulder along Fourth street be viewed as favorably as the same request in Martin Acres or Gunbarrel .What about if we added a hair salon or a coffee shop. After 40 years living in Boulder it has become obvious that the more affluent areas west of Broadway are those most protected from higher density development. I am concerned that with the new BVCP this imbalance will be further accentuated. I would hate to see the citizens that have lived here for decades and help define and create the city that we have come to love and enjoy driven out because it is no longer the city and or lifestyle we originally moved here for. Thank you for considering my comments. No revision necessary

No revision necessary

4/6/2026

The airport should be closed as soon as possible. Continued operation benefits a very few people and negatively impacts many. Noise pollution often exceeds 85 decibels over my home (Baseline Sub) when glider tow planes fly over my house almost daily. I cannot comfortably read outdoors, nor have conversations in my back yard when they are operating. As a homeowner and tax-payer, this is unacceptable. Furthermore, if leaded fuel is polluting the skies over our city and out-of-area people are benefiting from use of our airport, this is also unacceptable and unfair. Since the airport appears to be used primarily for recreation and to benefit only a few businesses, this is unbalanced and unacceptable. I have been told by former City Council members that the FAA controls use of the airport and that Boulder cannot enforce noise and air pollution regulations because of FAA control. This is grossly inappropriate and unfair to residents and taxpayers. Boulder city and county stand to gain a lot of increased revenue from Sundance. Please use that to offset the small amount of money the FAA provides. Accepting FAA money to the detriment of residents is completely wrong.