Opinion: The Comp Plan draft update: planners’ dream, and citizens’ nightmare

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:

Fundamental Policy: The BVCP’s primary objective shall be to maintain and sustain the quality of life for those who live and work here, while preserving and enhancing the natural environment. The City shall limit growth and development to the amount, rate, type, affordability, and locations that allow preservation and maintenance of these qualities, both for those already here and for those coming here.

The qualities of life we value include accessible outdoors, uncongested streets, uncrowded neighborhoods, clean air, good views, adequate affordable housing, and having abundant trees and landscape, with sufficient water to maintain them.

Survey data shows that far more people want to live here than can be accommodated while preserving those qualities. Therefore, the BVCP must focus on quality, not quantity. Boulder cannot be everything for everyone. Thus, at a minimum, specific policies are necessary. Here are some:

Densification: Zoning changes shall not allow increased housing density nor additional non-residential development in existing residential areas without approval by a majority of the voters in each affected sub-community.

Water: New development shall not infringe on the adequacy and ability of existing development’s water supply to maintain current levels of service for normal domestic and business uses and maintenance of existing landscape into the future, as determined by independent professional evaluation. The City shall only impose restrictions or punitive pricing in cases of emergency.

Traffic: The City shall restrict development as necessary to prevent an overall increase in vehicle-miles-traveled within the City, and shall strongly encourage transit and car and van pooling adequate to significantly reduce rush hour traffic, including by charging commuters to pay for carpools and van pools.

Affordability: The City shall require new housing developments to provide sufficient affordable units to at least preserve our population’s current economic distribution, shall impose jobs-housing linkage fees on new job development adequate to provide housing for new employees who otherwise could not afford to live here, and shall press CU to provide adequate, affordable housing for its student body.

Expansion: The City shall not expand its borders, unless such expansion has no negative impacts on existing residences or businesses with regard to city tax and fee rates, housing affordability, water supply, open space or traffic.

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 t...
Read more

Opinion: Why is Boulder sending out another biased survey?

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.”  Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future. In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing cost...
Read more

Comments from readers on my column on the ‘Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods’ survey

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor. Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style: “Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!” “The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.” “Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.” “Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.” “Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance...
Read more