Section 9-2-5 of the Boulder Revised Code describes annexation requirements:

(a) All annexations to the city shall meet the requirements of 31-12-101, et seq. C.R.S., and shall be consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances of the city.

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) defines policies that govern potential annexation and development of adjacent lands.

One of the fundamental ideas of the BVCP is:

Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill land redevelopment as opposed to sprawl

Now, on the surface if one looks at the City limits it looks as though the annexation of the Hogan/Pancost property would serve to promote these goals. However, observation on the ground belies this view. The property to the east is Open Space and an Environmental Preservation area. To the south is a single home estate (6+ acres) in the county that is heavily treed. To the north are the open areas (soccer field, dog park) of the East Boulder Recreation Center park. It is only to the west where there is truly urban development.

Annexation under the BVCP

The section "Framework for Annexation and Urban Provision" of the BVCP states:

Area II is the area now under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with Policies 1.16, 1.18, & 1.25. New urban development may only occur coincident with the availability of adequate facilities and services and not otherwise.

Lets take a look at each of these relevant sections.

1.16 Adapting to Limits on Physical Expansion.
As the community expands to its planned physical boundaries, the city and county will increasingly emphasize preservation and enhancement of the physical, social and economic assets of the community. Cooperative efforts and resources shall be focused on maintaining and improving the quality of life within defined physical boundaries, with only limited expansion of the city.

One could view that this development enhances the economic and social assets of the city. 115 new homes will have an economic impact. However, what is the net economic and social benefit when considering long-term impacts on roads, services and utilities (especially water resources).

Does this proposal serve the clause: "maintaining and improving the quality of life within defined physical boundaries" Does it maintain or improve our quality of life?

1.18 Growth Requirements.
The overall effect of urban growth must add significant value to the community, improving quality of life. The city will require development and redevelopment as a whole to provide significant community benefits and to maintain or improve environmental quality as a precondition for further housing and community growth.

So we ask: how does this proposal maintain or improve environmental quality? It would take a far stretch of the imagination to come up with a rationalization for this. While the developer has stated that it is near transit lines (a small RTD sign on South Boulder Road 1/2 km away) and some would consider that to be an adequate reason why this would improve environmental quality (e.g., reduces car trips) the reality based community (i.e., the other 99% of us) realizes that what this development will bring is more car trips and more congestion. What this development inarguably does is to obliterate a 24 acre pasture that is right next to one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the entire county.

The BVCP continues:

vii. All new urban development in the Boulder Service Area, which shall be annexed, shall be required to meet the intent of the adopted city of Boulder flood plain regulations.

From the Legislative Intent section of the City Flood Plain Regulations:

(6) Protecting and preserving the water-carrying and water-retention characteristics and capacities of watercourses used for conveying and retaining floodwaters;

How does the annexation of this parcel, which will bring with it 30000 cubic yards of fill dirt and 127 enormous homes, meet the above intent. Will this development preserve the water-retention characteristics that the parcel currently exhibits? We think not.

The Boulder Revised Code section on annexation goes on to state:

(b) No annexation of land to the city shall create an unreasonable burden on the physical, social, economic, or environmental resources of the city.

Can one seriously describe annexing this large of a development, which is in the middle of a floodplain, on environmentally sensitive land, adjacent to the ecological crown jewel of the Open Space lands, and bringing with it all of its traffic and groundwater impacts as not "an unreasonable burden on the physical, social, economic, or environmental resources of the city"? Only by a far stretch of the imagination could one even begin to consider that the annexation of this land satisifes this section of the Code.