Opinion: Boulder city planning inconsistent


I was struck recently by the marked contrast between the process around municipalization of our electric utility, and those for the “Comprehensive Housing Strategy” (CHS) and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) five-year update.
The process for deciding whether to create a clean energy-based municipal utility has provided citizens multiple opportunities to vote on pursuing it, as well as ensuring citizens that there are real constraints on its implementation. The 2010 ballot substituted an occupation tax for the franchise fee, removing the commitment to Xcel. In 2011, one ballot issue provided funding to pursue municipalization studies, and the other allowed creation of the muni, but with strong charter constraints. The 2013 city ballot item set limits on the most significant portions of the utility’s debt; the 2013 Xcel-sponsored ballot item would have effectively killed the process.
The 2011 constraints provided significant protections for citizens and businesses from a council making decisions that are not in our interest. In particular, reliability cannot be compromised, rates must meet or beat Xcel’s at startup, and the debt coverage ratio cannot go below 1.25.(Charter Section 178 has the exact wording.)
The city staff has provided a huge amount of information on the city’s web site, and has met with nearly everyone who asked. Expert citizen working groups have analyzed and critiqued almost every step. Goals were clearly laid out; in brief: maximum CO2 reduction with competitive rates; avoidance of impacts of fossil fuel price increases; increased opportunity for local generation and business innovation; and providing a model for other communities.
I contrast this with the CHS process. The CHS has goals of meeting the city’s arbitrary 10 percent permanently affordable housing target, keeping middle income people in Boulder, creating “diverse housing choices” in every neighborhood, creating “15-minute neighborhoods,” strengthening “partnerships”with CU, developers, etc., and “enabling aging in place.” But there are no constraints on how these goals might be reached, so the results could dramatically grow Boulder in ways that many citizens would not like. And all this could occur without the community having a vote on any of it!
Also, these goals have not been critically examined as to what they might mean on the ground. For example, the “15-minute neighborhood” fantasy lacks any evaluation of existing neighborhoods’ access to local shopping and services, much less which of these can reasonably be expected to be so disbursed. With respect to seniors, I could find no market analysis of what Boulder seniors might want, or what buildings might be converted to senior housing if that is, in fact, what they want.
The “diverse housing choices” goal may include, according to city staff, up-zoning single-family neighborhoods to allow townhomes, multi-unit buildings,and high occupancy co-ops (that’s a cooperative, not a home for chickens.) This may not go over well with many people who have invested all their savings into their homes.
None of this should have gone out to the public without careful vetting by the council. The whole project comes across as “throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks.” So it has been left up to the citizens to try to keep a damper on the staff. This is simply irresponsible. And given the makeup of some of the “working groups” for this project, their role and value is uncertain at best, and hardly representative. I guarantee you that if the outcomes were required to go on the ballot, the whole process would look a LOT different.
Unsurprisingly, this project does not address the excessive commercial/office development that drives housing price inflation as well as peak hour traffic congestion. So I would hardly call this strategy “comprehensive.”
The BVCP update is already becoming irrelevant. The staff, with the council’s support, is pursuing massive growth as part of their “Envision East Arapahoe” project. Such a project should only occur as an outcome of the BVCP process since it involves significant land-use changes, but apparently that is now unimportant. Also, there is no demonstrated need for anything more than some possible zoning changes to allow medical offices and supporting services near the hospital.
The consultant that evaluated the BVCP pointed out that while it contained laudable values, it provided no clear direction for Boulder’s future. Some council members seemed to like this; one even noted that he could pick and choose particular parts to support whatever he wanted. So if you’re waiting for either process to resolve your concerns about growth in Boulder, don’t hold your breath!


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