Opinion: Re-starting the growth discussion


The good news is that the Boulder City Council will begin discussing growth issues at the council meeting this Tuesday, Sept. 2, and there is talk about having a study session on development in October. Unfortunately, study sessions work only if city staff has sufficient direction beforehand to provide the needed information and analysis. But what direction should they go?
Vic Fruehauf, a well-known Boulderite who started Fruehauf’s Nursery and was on the Boulder Planning Board, used to say, “If you don’t know your destination, any path will do.” He would frequently repeat variations on this theme during attempts to revise the land use regulations during the 1990’s. His point is even more applicable today: How can the city sort out all the growth-related issues when the big-picture goal is neither well-defined nor agreed upon?
We don’t lack for advocates on all sides. For example, some are pushing for more and denser housing, arguing that it will be affordable even though the market effects of the huge increases in the number of jobs allowable under current zoning will force prices even higher. Others want yet more job growth, ostensibly to make Boulder’s economic position more secure, in spite of the rapidly increasing traffic congestion from 50-60,000 in-commuters. Many ordinary citizens are appalled at the rate and size and ugliness of recent development, and want it all to stop, as recent letters to the Camera show. Yet others see our path as leading to an unsustainable, brittle, big-city future, where all systems are stressed passed the breaking point.
The huge projects recently built and in the pipeline will significantly affect the future of Boulder. But they were decided on without knowing whether the end result will be consistent with the citizens’ desires, and without any way to deal with the impacts on everything from our roads to our water supply. Underlying this is our zoning, which if built out would more than double the number of jobs in Boulder. This is the major factor driving up housing prices and traffic congestion. So adding housing is trying to address the symptom, not the disease. It will never solve the price problem — the job growth numbers are just too big — and it also adds its own long list of impacts.
Ordinary citizens have had no real say in the big picture. Most of the significant input has come from various interest groups and players with financial agendas. Next year’s Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update won’t resolve anything, because its hodgepodge of policies justifies everything but limit nothing. And the zoning code is now so poorly designed that developers use the threat of building to the code as leverage to get the height and density exemptions they want.
I see four areas where Boulder’s 100,000 citizens need to provide direction to the nine citizens on the council:
Overall growth: Should we set maximums at, say, 115,000 residents and 110,000 jobs, or something closer to the current 100,000 of each? Should we limit the growth rate to, say, 0.5 percent per year, while we’re getting there? Should we link residential and commercial growth so that new employment space matches new residential space at the Metro jobs-to-population ratio of 2:3?

Provision of services: Should new development pay sufficient impact fees and taxes so that existing facilities and services do not become more overcrowded, congested, and overused? Should all new development be “net zero” regarding increasing energy use and transportation demands? Should we shift the financial responsibility for funding affordable housing toward commercial/industrial development, because that is what creates the ever-increasing demand?

Development rules: Should the 35-foot height limit be exceeded only under exceptional and carefully defined circumstances? Should all new development provide real useable open/green space? Should we ensure that continued growth does not create water shortages, given that climate change could seriously impact our water supply?

Expansions: Should any annexation into the Area III Planning Reserve require a citizen vote? Should CU provide student housing consistent with its growth plans? Should new commercial and residential development be allowed to displace existing needed services?

I believe that most Boulderites would welcome an inclusive, well-thought-out participatory process where they could consider the pros and cons of different build-out scenarios — with numbers and maps, not just pretty pictures. The question is whether on Tuesday a majority of the council will hit the pause button and invite the citizens into such a process.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more