The city’s Housing Advisory Board wants to consider the conversion of the city’s airport to a “mixed-income neighborhood,” according to a letter sent to councilmembers last week.
The suggestion is part of a broader set of priorities for the board that seek to ultimately increase the city’s supply of housing so more people can afford to live in Boulder.
The seven-member board, appointed by councilmembers to advise them on housing issues, sent the letter to help shape the council’s housing agenda over the next two years. The current city council, elected in November last year, is scheduled to determine its list of policy priorities during an upcoming retreat on April 3 and 4.
In addition to repurposing the Boulder Municipal Airport, the Housing Advisory Board pitched ideas to make it easier to build duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods, repurpose parking lots and offices to build homes and develop city-owned land to create for-sale units for middle-income families.
The members of the Housing Advisory Board were appointed by councilmembers in part for their perspective and knowledge of housing issues. In recent years, the board has been influential in shaping housing-related city ordinances, including the 2023 update to city code relaxing regulations to build accessory dwelling units.
The Boulder City Council is already expected to take on new housing initiatives aimed at increasing the supply of housing in response to the affordability crisis. Even so, some of the board’s proposals are controversial. And it’s unlikely councilmembers will accept all their recommendations.
“We’re trying to give them a little nudge,” Michael Leccese, chair of the Housing Advisory Board and former executive director of the Urban Land Institute Colorado, a research organization, told Boulder Reporting Lab. “I think it’s a pretty pro-housing council — more so than we have seen in the past.”
Here is a summary of some of the board’s suggestions.
Single-family neighborhoods and ‘McMansions’
One of the board’s proposals builds on reforms passed last year by the previous Boulder City Council allowing duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods. This effectively eliminated single-family zoning in Boulder. But the city’s density standards that limit the number of housing units allowed on a given lot remained in place. Meaning, many property owners still would not be allowed to build multifamily homes on their properties.
The board is suggesting the city go further and “explore ways to enhance flexibility” around those density limits, as they “effectively prohibit replacing a single-family home with duplex or multiplex,” the letter said.
Separately, the board sought to address a trend highlighted by city officials last year, in which property owners tear down post-World War II suburban-style, smaller and more affordable homes in order to build larger, less affordable homes. The Housing Advisory Board referred to such homes as “McMansions,” a term typically referring to large and aesthetically generic homes.
When a single-family home is replaced with a mansion, the property owner usually doesn’t have to contribute to the city’s Affordable Housing Fund, used to support affordable housing. However, if a property owner demolishes a single-family home to build multifamily housing, they must pay a fee, known as “cash-in-lieu,” for each additional unit they build.
The board suggested the city council consider creating a “affordable housing impact fee for the demolition and replacement of homes and/or additions exceeding a certain square footage.”
Empty offices and parking lots
Board members asked council to consider policies encouraging the transformation of privately owned surface parking lots, especially abundant in East Boulder, into mixed-use housing. This would entail zoning changes and tax incentives, for instance.
The board joined the Transportation Advisory Board in pushing for the elimination of requirements mandating that developers build a certain number of parking spaces for every housing unit they build. Such parking minimums drive up the cost of building homes, among other consequences.
To help address rising homelessness, the board suggested making it easier to rezone vacant buildings to create “dorm/hostel-like transitional housing” for people. The board also recommended streamlining city code approvals for such conversions.
To build more affordable housing, the board also proposed using “surplus land owned by public agencies, schools, faith organizations.”
More housing on city-owned land
Next year, the Boulder City Council will consider updating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, a land-use document guiding zoning and development across the region. One part of this plan is the Area III Planning Reserve, a property northeast of the City of Boulder that can be considered for future development.
The board said there is “huge potential” to build housing in the planning reserve. And because the city owns much of this land, it can zone it however it wants to have developers build the sort of homes the city needs. The board views this area as an opportunity to build for-sale homes that middle-income families can afford. Such homes are particularly challenging for developers to build given the narrow profit margins and lack of tax incentives or subsidies.
Similarly, the board wants the city to close the airport and create a mixed-income neighborhood, similar to the Holiday Neighborhood in North Boulder.
Talk of closing the airport has occurred for years. But in the last year, the issue has regained attention in the lead up to a decision expected later this summer by the Boulder City Council on whether to create a new long-term plan for the airport, which was last updated in 2007.
Proponents of closing the airport have seized the opportunity to call on city council to not pursue the long-term plan and instead begin the process of closing the airport. They have circulated a petition to make their case. Pilots, business owners and other airport users want to keep it operating. They, too, are now circulating a petition, stating that the “future of aviation is clean, quiet, and electric and Boulder is leading the way,” among other arguments in support of the airport.
In deciding whether to close the airport, politics may matter less than the city’s appetite for a legal dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has funded maintenance of the airport in exchange for assurances that the city keeps it operating.
On this question, Leccese, chair of the Housing Advisory Board, suggested that the city council be bold.
“There are other places where we can build affordable subsidized apartments. And we are doing that,” he said. “But the opportunity to actually do town homes you can own and send your kids to a local school is increasingly a missing component in Boulder.”
Clarification: This story was updated on March 4 to more specifically describe the position of the Housing Advisory Board on the closure on the Boulder Municipal Airport. The board wants, as a policy priority, to “pursue conversion of the airport (BDU) into a mixed-income neighborhood with affordable homeownership opportunities, like Holiday but at a larger scale.”
I am a member of the organizing committee for https://www.boulderairportpetition.net/. I wholeheartedly support the Housing Advisory Board’s recommendation to “Pursue conversion of the airport (BDU) into a mixed-income neighborhood with affordable homeownership opportunities, like Holiday but at a larger scale.” The Boulder municipal airport is the opposite of quiet and clean.
The airport is the #1 source of noise complaints in Boulder, and the FAA insists that the city may not create sensible noise regulations as we do for any other use or user group. The FAA only allows voluntary, non-binding noise abatement agreements that are flagrantly violated daily, including flights over designated quiet zones and nature areas. People who live under the flight paths, which are not just near the airport but cover a large portion of the city, report not being able to enjoy their homes or nearby trails and open space because the noise is loud, intrusive, and ceaseless on any day with reasonably good weather. Pilots are well aware of the impacts they are causing – the airport manager regularly meets with airport tenants to inform them about the noise complaint data. The pilot community as a whole has not changed their behavior, as they are immune from regulation and enforcement.
The airport is not clean. In addition to being a highly carbon-intensive activity, the small piston-engine aircraft that use BDU still burn leaded aviation fuel which the EPA has recently declared is a danger to human health. Pilot & aircraft owner groups are fighting vigorously at the local, state, and national levels to retain the ability to use leaded avgas. They support having the _option_ to use unleaded aviation fuel but individual pilots are unlikely to buy it when it costs $1.50 more per gallon unless we, the taxpayers, subsidize it. It is astonishing that we, the city of Boulder, are actually purveyors of toxic lead pollution and the federal government insists that we keep doing so unless and until they give us permission to stop. It is equally astonishing that many in the aviation/pilot communities continue to deny that the lead that is burned and emitted from planes is a health hazard.
Read more about these issues and more in our FAQ at BoulderAirportPetition.net. You can also read comments from your neighbors who support closing the airport and building a new neighborhood to meet Boulder’s pressing needs for well-designed, beautiful, affordable housing.
And finally, the electric aircraft that are being touted as the future of aviation resemble large drones and take off vertically, such as these https://www.jobyaviation.com/. They do not need runways or airports. They can operate, for example, from parking garages or large flat roofs. If this is the future of aviation as some claim, the future does not require that Boulder maintain our airport, which ties up 179 acres of public land, serves very few Boulderites (only people who own or fly in private planes), and causes negative impacts to people, wildlife, and the environment.
I just wonder how all those additional cars are going to affect traffic on Airport Rd. if a large neighborhood is built, and how it will impact the streets leading east and west. All cars would need to navigate onto Valmont Rd from Airport Rd, then go west toward Foothills Pkwy or east to Pearl Parkway – all two lane roads. The line of traffic coming and going at Valmont and Airport Road could be awful. I lived in Vista Village mobile home park for about a year (about five years ago), though, and the traffic on Airport Rd was not bad at all, even though it’s a large community. Has anyone done traffic studies on the impact of a new neighborhood at that location? Even if there were multiple outlets onto Valmont enabling residents to bypass Airport Rd, what would be the impact on that stretch of Valmont going either towards Foothills or the Post Office on Valmont and 55th? There’s also San Lazaro mobile home park at Valmont and 55th right by the Post Office. Maybe build a new road straight through on the edge of Valmont Park from Airport Rd all the way to Pearl Parkway, right through that big area used for the city’s park division, fleet, and street maintenance buildings.
Roxanne, these are important considerations. Any significant development in Boulder is required to do a traffic impact study and look at ways to mitigate impacts. Detailed comments from folks like yourself with on-the-ground knowledge and suggested solutions are so helpful.
Where do you find the ‘facts’ stating the Boulder airport is the number one originator of noise complaints? I find this very hard to believe as residents nearby complain more of the noise from the train along the Diagonal Highway more so than aircraft noise. That same train bisects a good portion of Boulder including right through several main roads such as Valmont and Pearl feet away from dense housing (apartment buildings). Don’t twist reality to fit your vision of how the world should be.
Don’t overbuild boulder! Don’t ruin our “small city feel.” Don’t add more traffic to an already over taxed infrastructure. Let urban sprawl go outside the city. Keep Boulder small!
Agreed! They want to turn us into a big city like Denver and look what that has turned into! 🙄
The last thing we need is more people and their cars with all the congestion, noise and pollution that would bring. I doubt many of us moved here thinking it wasn’t crowded enough and that we would rather be sitting in traffic.
Please add your name to this petition and let your elected representatives know how you feel about this misguided move.
https://saveboulderairport.com
Just another effort by guilt-ridden Boulderites to project their fanciful ideas of equity. Give it up! The airport was there long before the city started to grow. You knew it and yet you still moved here.
The most environmentally friendly way to live a modern life is to have housing close to where you work, shop, and recreate, thereby reducing pressure on infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, electric utilities, etc.), and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
By building environmentally friendly and affordable neighborhoods in town – and the airport is just 3 miles from the downtown core – we can help Boulder residents live lightly on the planet and reduce our collective environmental impact. Better economic integration – with people of all income levels living in the same neighborhoods – also increases social mobility and has a demonstrated impact on career opportunity and lifetime earnings for children of lower-wage families.
The airport site is a prime opportunity to build housing that is attractive and affordable for Boulder’s essential workers and service workers. We can make it into a truly economically integrated neighborhood, since the city owns the airport land and can ensure that the neighborhood that gets built is the neighborhood that we need.
Boulder needs residents from across all income levels. When we fail to build housing that is affordable to Boulder’s essential workers and service workers, these workers simply drive somewhere else to sleep at night. We need our teachers, nurses, day care workers, elder care workers, police officers, fire-fighters, EMTs, retail workers, and other essential personnel to be able to live in the community where they work. We need our young people to be able to find their first homes, and for our seniors to be able to downsize and stay in the community.
I don’t quite follow the logic behind be able to afford to live where you work, is this some sort of natural law? Sure, less driving is less pollution and traffic but most people have agency to decide where to work and to choose whether or not it is worth the commute. If I decide I’d like to be a lifeguard does that mean Maui should make itself affordable for me?
To “Guilty Commuter” – cities all over the country are wrestling with housing affordability and how to ensure the people who work in our communities can afford to live in them, without requiring unsustainable sprawl and throngs of commuter cars. Absolutely, people have freedom of choice where to live, but you can’t choose an option that doesn’t exist. If Boulder cares about having a community that is not just for the uber-wealthy – and I think we do! – then providing affordable housing options in our beloved city is an issue worth tackling.
The affordability initiative does not address the middle income folks at all. This is a push for luxury housing and it is not affordable.
Replying to Gail Miller, your statement is incorrect. BoulderAirportPetition.net specifically calls for affordability and middle income permanantly affordable housing.
Here is the direct quote from one of the bullet points of what a new neighborhood should incorporate: “mixed-income housing, including market rate homes of various sizes and prices as well as a majority of permanently affordable, deed-restricted housing for low, moderate, and middle-income residents, with a focus on middle income.”
A small suggestion I have in articles such as this one and in discussions about the article that people assign rough numbers of any sort to the ideas being purported. So for instance the build at the airport group touts 2,000 new homes. I don’t know how many homes could be put in the planning reserve. I heard 300 being mentioned. I don’t know how many homes would be generated by building in empty parking lots or getting more money out “McMansions”. Lets make the total of everything 5,000 new homes. Since there are 60,000 in commutes to Boulder it means we still have a long way to go to ever come close to the goals advocated, especially for affordability. I am not advocating against continuing to carefully build but I think we would be much better served by acknowledging that Boulder is no longer a special island but is part of a Front Range region that has all the problems that we do. What is required is regional zoning planning and especially robust public transportation. Boulder at some point has to address its outsize jobs to housing ratio and the complications that brings including that retail workers will not be able to compete with tech jobs to pay for housing.
I think Michael’s point of quantifying the sum total of homes that can be built across all of these places is the most salient one; we can remove pieces of infrastructure, use planning reserves and finally remove open space but ultimately there is a finite number of homes that can be built which will always be below the number of people commuting into Boulder.
Arguing that the airport is the last piece needed to solve the housing puzzle is massively disingenuous; when the teachers, EMT personnel and first responders supposedly living there retire, will the housing board also concoct some plan to kick them out so as to free up the housing stock? The same arguments are trotted out; more housing is great, but there will never be enough supply to sate the demand for a massively desirable place to live.
Laura, you are wrong and Gail is correct. Gail understands the way the system really works. Michael also is spot on. EVERY level of income of housing increases the wealth gap and unaffordability, absent a policy of jobs/housing balance because they ALL drive up low income jobs to service this expansion and carbon footprint. And she’s right, in overall Boulder, airport housing increases upper income housing. The AMI in Boulder has no limits or indexing to growth. Case in point, middle income @80-120% @ 2206 Pearl is $1700-$2600/mo. for 300 sf. space without parking and that was over a yr. ago and not time/inflation adjusted. The inclusionary housing of 25% is unsustainable and needs to be 140% until it can level to 50% when stabilized. The market is saturated and inelastic, more so with increased supply. The waiting lines for low income housing are insatiable. Homeless are overcoming the system in their outdoor living with the expense of human waste, trash and expropriation of public park space. Supply can NEVER meet demand in a closed system, whether the airport or planning reserve is developed and CU South, if allowed to continue will have overwhelming impact. Laura’s position on Planning Board advocating the airport is a conflict of interest and her rationale is at the very core of misapplied and profoundly flawed logic on our quality of life.
Lynn, thanks for your comments.
I’ll repeat here what I’ve stated elsewhere – I am a member of the Planning Board but I am not representing the Planning Board in this matter. I am acting in my individual capacity on this campaign. I do not represent the Board outside of chambers unless specifically tasked to do so. I have spoken with city legal staff to ensure that I understand my obligations and responsibilities as a Planning Board member. Appointees to city boards and commissions do not give up our right to individual political speech or political affiliation. Members of the Planning Board come from varied political schools of thought, and have always been active politically in the community. According to city code, conflict of interest would be a financial conflict of interest. Since neither I nor any close relative nor business partner has a financial interest in either the continuation of the airport or in development, I have no conflict of interest. I continue to abide by the City’s code of conduct for board members.
And Lynn, you understand as well as any of us how Boulder’s inclusionary housing ordinance works. For development on private property, we cannot require on-site affordable housing but we can require the developer to pay fees that are used to build affordable housing throughout the city, which we do. When we are dealing with city-owned property, such as the airport site, we can build as high a percentage of on-site affordable housing as we want.
Laura, has the Boulder Planning Board made any recommendations to the City Council or the Housing Advisory Board to use the Boulder airport land for housing?
I think the City of Boulder should really be bold and permit residential house be built above any one story commercial structure. All surface parking lots should become underground parking and the parking lots themselves should be used for housing and commercial spaces.
Developing the airport is a no-win proposition. The House Advisory Board is being short sited in their proposal. The airport provides many financial benefits that the Housing Board has not considered. At some future point, the residents of Boulder will ask why don’t we have an airport – we can look at today and say we had a great airport but because we failed to see the value that such a facility provides we squandered our good fortune.
Boulder has created the current shortage of affordable housing by not updating their zoning properly and by maintaining a planning and permitting department that is operating on an ethos from the 1980’s.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants and lawyers, the City of Boulder needs to improve their infrastructure first. We can’t have more housing without first improving our roads and traffic signals, and pedestrian/multi use paths. What does it mean to have an affordable house when the water, sewer and storm water fees are the highest in the state? What does living in an affordable house mean when you pay $0.30 more for every gallon of gasoline than Longmont or Superior? What does affordable housing mean when your sales tax is the one of the highest in the state? When fees assessed by the city are the highest in the state? ” Affordable housing” is really a catch-all for affordable living. If that is the case, then Boulder is not affordable living for the middle class. This is the real problem.
Boulder prides itself on being a cutting edge place to live; however, we are failing to maintain and improve the existing infrastructure.
This is Michael Leccese, chair of the Boulder Housing Advisory Board (HAB). I love these comments including the ones I don’t personally agree with.
John’s article certainly summarizes well the discussion at last week’s HAB meeting.
With a couple of important exceptions that need correcting:
1) HAB did NOT recommend closing the airport to City Council. Our letter to council (submitted at City Council’s request) is intended to state our priorities for 2024 to council as they head into their retreat.
Quote from the letter:
“In 2024, HAB will focus on three areas of housing problems with an eye toward making recommendations for possible solutions.
1) Missing middle housing (e.g, for-sale plexes, townhomes, and single-family homes affordable for middle-income families). Where can we find land and other resources to make more housing for middle-income people?
Areas for additional HAB research and discussion:
• Airport: Pursue conversion of the airport (BDU) into a mixed-income neighborhood with affordable homeownership opportunities, like Holiday but at a larger scale….”
2) The article states that city council “…effectively eliminated single-family zoning in Boulder.” As I understand it, the measures passed by council last year could allow a relatively small number of single-family properties to be subdivided.
Thank you for listening!
Please help me understand how:
“Airport: Pursue conversion of the airport (BDU) into a mixed-income neighborhood with affordable homeownership opportunities, like Holiday but at a larger scale….”
…Is not advocating for closing the airport?
Of all the places to put “Affordable” housing, you’ve picked the one that costs taxpayers many tens of millions just in legal battles with the Federal Gov’t?
Hi Michael,
We updated the story to more precisely characterize HAB’s letter to city council. Regarding single-family zoning, city code no longer has residential zoning districts only allowing single-family homes. However, the story we linked to seeks to explain the important caveat you mentioned.
John
Not only is the idea of closing the airport incredibly short-minded, the vast majority of Boulder citizens are even vaguely aware of noise issues, and this has been polled regularly in Boulder since the 80’s. Yes there are some very outspoken individuals in the direct vicinity of the airport landing pattern who acquired expensive, modern real estate (there really isn’t any other kind within and near Boulder) close to an airport that has existed since 1928, but hey, they don’t want you to believe there’s self-interest there. The point is, the light aircraft traffic in Boulder is more or less perceived as a non-issue for the vast majority of Boulderites.
Avgas- Yes, Avgas or 100 Octane Low Lead, contains exactly what’s in its name, but the aviation industry is literally on the precipice of resolving the function lead has served as a fuel additive after decades of research and science. As a matter of fact, there is both a federal bill, and a current Colorado Senate movement on the table to phase out 100 LL by January 1, 2026. (Airplane piston driven engines have very high compression rates required for combustion. The addition of tetraethyl lead prevents damaging engine knock, or detonation, that could result in engine damage, and most of us would rather not have aircraft fall out of the sky as a result.) There were also FOUR environmental impact studies conducted by our neighbors at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Broomfield in 2023 that “failed to detect measurable aviation pollution” due to general aviation. This study was not sponsored by Metro Airport, but by residents of Superior seeking similar measures to close that airport as well. A cursory Google Search will easily show you the Pinyon Environmental Inc. studies and, not surprising, the complicated relationship between new residential development and a long existing airfield. Additionally, many aircraft burn Jet Fuel or Kerosene which does not contain lead. Leaded gasoline for general aviation aircraft has existed in Boulder for over 95 years, and yet only now the airport must be eliminated immediately without giving the merits of unleaded fuel an opportunity? — for pilots this means no spark-plug fouling, no lead corrosion in the oil system, less frequent maintenance and lower toxicity. The aviation community is excited for this development.
Affordable Housing Argument – I am a strong proponent of affordable housing.
My spouse has a dual master’s degree from MIT in Real Estate Development and Urban Planning. She has successfully completed the construction of multiple hundred-plus-unit affordable and mixed income housing projects. One of the most important aspects in the development of affordable housing is not to segregate it from the rest of the community. The land the airport currently occupies is not central to the rest of Boulder. To me, this also reeks of profit motive for self-interested real estate developers, some of whom laughably are both writing on this community board to end the airport, but are also on the Boulder Planning Board. How is that not a complete conflict of interest? The airport is surrounded by many crucial municiple facilities like the Boulder County Jail, and the Boulder County emissions testing site for automobiles. It is also a heavy commercially-zoned neighborhood with many office buildings and businesses centered on life sciences and biotech. Finally, at no point can anyone who is suggesting the swap of affordable housing in lieu of an airport show any beneficial conclusion that it would actually yield the intended result of increasing access to affordable housing, or that it would even put a dent in the problem of equal distribution into our community. Affordable housing must but be shuffled i.e. the allowing of accessory dwelling units on pre-established property with greater than 5,000 sq feet is a great example.
Finally I haven’t even touched the economic contributions the airport brings to Boulder, including jobs, tourism, and support for local businesses. I haven’t seen anyone argue the historical value of the airport since its establishment in 1928, highlighting its role in the community during the 2013 flood and firefighting during drought, all of the above factors greatly outweigh the proposed benefits of the land redevelopment.
Nick, I respect your right to have a different opinion about the airport but I have to respond to some of the inaccurate statements in your post.
1. Many of the neighbors with noise complaints have been in their homes for decades and had no issue with the airport until recently when noise and flight traffic remarkably increased, and there is no remedy. The FAA does not permit local governments like ours to regulate airport noise. They only allow voluntary guidelines which are violated daily, and the projections for our airport are for more growth, more flight traffic, and increased noise and other pollution.
Here are just a few sample quotes from petition signer comments on our website, coming from many different parts of town:
“I bought my home at the east end of the BDU runway in 1997. I bought this house specifically because it was quiet and semi-rural here. For 20 years, I loved it here and BDU was a fine neighbor. Those days are GONE. Now, I hear every lap of every touch and go loop over BDU. I have seen up to five planes lapping like this at once. The east end of the runway is used for takeoff, so I hear every loud acceleration and climb, over and over. The constant churning and cranking of combustion engines permeates my home. Imagine these as very loud flying gas powered lawn mowers. This now happens all day, every day. There is no relief other than bad weather.”
“Kings Ridge is buzzing with aircraft noise all day. I work from home and it is so loud sometimes I have to pause my conversations on the phone. Please decommission this relic from the past that no longer serves the needs of Boulder. Or, I will have to move to preserve my business and welfare.”
“I never understood all the Letters to the Editor complaining about the noise from small planes until I attended a memorial service held on a Saturday in east Boulder. The speakers could not be heard over the incessant loud noise from the planes. Then I got what people are upset about.”
“We have lived in a “Quiet Zone” since 1995. Since the pandemic started we have LOUD low planes flying over our house. These planes are flown by students and they regularly crash. They are spewing lead exhaust. Our back yard and veg garden have become unusable due to the lead contamination and constant loud noise. It was not a problem until the flight schools started up during the pandemic. The pilots clearly do not respect our neighborhood. We are NOT next to the airport! We are supposed to be a Quiet Zone. Absolutely hellish.”
“I live one block South from Arapahoe Ave and the airport is one mile North. I have severe hearing loss and wear hearing aids. But despite this I can hear the obnoxious tow planes endlessly grinding East on Arapahoe.”
“I teach outside at a nature preschool, and I am an avid hiker and birder. Many times each day, I am disturbed by planes flying overhead. They drown out the lessons I am teaching my preschoolers, mute the bird song, and intrude on serene moments in nature. Unlike road noise, you really can’t escape the planes. Sawhill and Walden Ponds are both extremely impacted by these flights.”
2. If you are aware of a plan to ban leaded fuel, please share it. The bills that I am aware of, and the FAA’s efforts, are to provide unleaded fuel as an *option* for voluntary use by pilots while requiring that airports continue to sell the considerably less expensive leaded fuel unless and until given permission to stop. Unless and until there is a ban on leaded fuel, it will still be used, and the aviation industry is fighting every step of the way against a ban on leaded fuel. Multiple influential pilot and aviation industry groups are, in fact, fighting against every effort that would even lightly penalize or tax the use of leaded fuel, and only support incentives (funding) for unleaded fuel. The promise to “phase out” leaded fuel has been an empty promise for decades, leading to justified skepticism about vague statements that the federal government will reexamine leaded fuel regulations at some point in the future.
3. Yes, larger planes burn kerosene that does not have lead, but the small piston-engine aircraft that use BDU do use leaded fuel. Our airport only sells leaded fuel. That lead study you mention was unreleased, not peer reviewed, and used methods that are not sensitive enough to detect lead at levels that are still harmful to human health. It certainly does not refute the decades of study that went into the EPA’s endangerment finding on leaded aviation fuel (avgas). We know that the lead in avgas is burned, it is emitted, and the particles are too small to be effectively filtered, so all that lead is 100% certainly going into our environment. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-air-pollution
4. https://www.boulderairportpetition.net/ is not suggesting affordable housing that is segregated from the community. The petition calls for 50% permanently affordable to low, moderate, and middle income families in a mixed-use, mixed income neighborhood.
5. No one on the organizing committee for the petition has any ties to development, including myself. I have no conflict of interest and am abiding by the city’s code of conduct.
6. The city owns the airport land which makes it a fantastic opportunity for creating on-site affordable housing in whatever percentage is deemed appropriate. As mentioned above, the city cannot require the development of affordable housing on private property, but we absolutely can choose what to do with our own city-owned public land. Creation of permanently affordable housing is a city priority, and this is a prime site to build an integrated, mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood just 3 miles from downtown. And I agree, it is one of many steps we need to take to increase the amount of affordable housing in the city.
7. Regarding economic contribution, we absolutely support the city doing a comparison of the economic contribution of the airport vs. the economic contribution of a 179-acre mixed-use neighborhood. In our FAQ at https://www.boulderairportpetition.net/faq.html we give our analysis of why the economic contribution of a neighborhood would far outweigh the airport.
8. Our FAQ also talks about the use of the airport for helicopter emergency rescue during the 2013 floods, which is a legitimate emergency use that we value and which should continue. The Bouldder Airport Petition calls for retaining an emergency heliopter use site after decommissioning. In contrast, the Boulder airport is not used by fire-fighting planes which preferentially use the Broomfield airport that has longer runways and which has a fire retardant dispensing station in place, as explained in our FAQ.
I am opposed to the huge development of many storied apartment buildings in Boulder and wonder who the heck is going to rent them? Certainly they have nothing to do with housing the homeless and I’m sure none of them are renting for less than $2000/month–so they are out of my income range. What is the purpose??? I love the little airport and have heard that it was important during the Marshall fires and other disasters where we have had to use air lift operations. I also love the Holiday Neighborhood. Why aren’t some of these numerous sites where apartments are going up being sited for Holiday-like developments? I know that a small housing development with some affordable housing is going up just north of Orchard Grove–my MHP. This sounds like a good idea but it remains to be seen. I want to see a halt to all these ugly apartments and I think the idea of building on all vacant lots, thus having a shortage of parking space, is ridiculous. Where are you going to “hang” these cars?
Laura, there will be more planes in the Boulder airspace in the case of the dissolution of the airport because the surrounding airspace will expand to fill it. As to take off issues, sound mitigation methods can be utilized and maybe the neighbors wouldn’t be so affected, were it not for the increasing population attributing to that of airport users, since J/H balance has not been adhered to but will be in the future.
If as your plan goes, this becomes a megacity, then we will NEED an airport. Telluride/Aspen was nothing until there was an airport.
And anyway, did you account for the carbon footprint of the commute to this housing, congestion and J/H imbalance of the extra humans from housing at the airport?
And again Laura, where, following the development of CU South, the planning reserve, the airport and after the “infill” in every nook and cranny with plexification (du, tri, quad plexes) ADUs and state-imposed density mandates eclipsing home rule. Where, Laura? I didn’t hear an answer, but I have one if you are not willing to address this fundamental core issue of raw growth. I anxiously await your response.
Also the fuel issue will be solved and the future of non-invasive air travel does not include cargo planes, for example for food drops in BOULDER when we’ve used up all the ag land and there is inhibited national food transport. Also bringing in supplies after the next big flood from upcoming CU South. Well?
Nick,
This is the most unbiased and completely accurate response on this issue to date. Thanks for taking the time to articulate this into a clear, concise answer.
For anyone interested about the FAA’s direct response last year to the potential of the airport closing, see https://boulderaviationassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FAA-LetterBoulder5D3A5E07-7414-44A8-A440-A7FFB031503F.pdf
I had not previously seen this letter; a notable quote:
“Boulder Municipal Airport is a Local general aviation airport with 59 based aircraft and over 50,000 annual operations. This is a healthy activity level by any standard for a general aviation airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Boulder Municipal Airport provides a very important role within the NPIAS, therefore it is very unlikely the FAA would find any justification to release the City of its obligation to maintain and operate Boulder Municipal Airport.”
This is a very different tone than those in favor of removing the airport who have implied it’s dilapidated and blighted. Notably there have been some very direct comments indicating that the status quo of no improvements to the airport “is not possible” which in light of this letter seems patently false.
There seems to be a layering of opinions about the airport by those who want to remove it that are have been twisted into “facts” (“The 4 scenarios: 1 was keep it the same. That has been eliminated because it’s not justifiable or economic.”); in short there is no reason the airport can’t continue to serve a critical purpose just as it has for nearly a century.
Boulder airport is one of the ONLY airports in the state that offer Sport Pilot Certification. Closing this airport will be detrimental to GA in the entire state. Instead of closing the airport for another failed “handout” program, it should be protected. There should be a lawsuit against people trying to shut down these airports.
I understand cities must constantly reinvent themselves but I challenge the notion that they must also constantly expand and grow. Closing the airport will change the character of Boulder with yet another influx of homes, cars and people.
The ‘Academy at Mapleton Hill’ was built recently up against Mount Sanitas in my neighborhood despite the objections of most of us who live here. It is an eyesore and has increased traffic on my street.
The Boulder greenbelt was a brilliant idea years ago and I’m grateful for it and the sprawl it has prevented. This idea to replace our long-standing little airport with a sprawl of not-so-affordable housing is nonsense for those of us who already live here.
In the recent past, the Boulder Airport was used to support the effort to control a number of forest fires. I am not in favor of losing this kind of help. Please leave the Boulder Airport operating.
Uh, not one comment about the new helicopter training going on over our heads? Is that a sport training? I did ask the airport manager about the electric charger they installed, presumably for cars. Where are all these electric planes we keep hearing about? Not in this decade, I am sure.
I’d love to live in Marin County in California – but guess what, I can’t afford it! No one has a particular ‘right’ to live in certain geographies. Why should Boulder residents who have worked hard to afford a place to live and enjoy this smaller town away from the metropolis of Denver have to be subject to:
1) subsidizing housing for others when they can live outside of the city limits (think Erie, Superior, Lafayette, etc.
2) more traffic and congestion for the sake of helping others
3) more crime which comes with greater population density anywhere in the world – even Boulder
4) buying into the fallacy of somehow believing that building affordable housing will be an answer – it won’t. It will simply attract more people to town (and those people have babies). At best it will kick the can down the road for a few months or a year. Then we will be back into the same problem with everyone hemming and hawing about how unaffordable this place is. For the same reason everyone does not have a Rolls-Royce, everyone is not automatically entitled to live here. That is what makes Boulder special – it has never been a ‘cheap place’. If you are lucky enough to be born here and can keep up, great. Otherwise, places like Boulder are respites for those who have worked hard, been enterprising, contributed greatly, saved their dollars and chose to live here without handouts. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to walk the streets of San Francisco and see what far left agendas have done to a once safe, beautiful and yes expensive town. Next step is communism, folks. I hope you read the news and see that it never ends well for people under communist rule.