Opinion: Ground rules for growth


This column was stimulated by a recent city of Boulder newspaper ad. It said, “Now Showing on Boulder’s Channel 8 — Is Building in Boulder Over?” The ad goes on to discuss Longs Gardens, a 25-acre parcel of agricultural land near Broadway and Iris Avenue, and asks whether this site is appropriate for “the ‘right kind of development’ that is not car dependent.” The show itself was basically a discussion about some of the more recent iterations of “new urbanism” (dense, mixed use areas that in theory promote alternatives to driving) versus the value of green space and urban agriculture (including its value to children as a learning experience).
I found the presentations, which involved a sitting council member and a member of the Transportation Advisory Board, rather troubling. First, neither participant provided any context. Discussions about growth in Boulder need to start with the numbers: Under its current zoning, Boulder has the potential to add something like 60,000 more jobs to “reasonable” build-out, and over 100,000 if Boulder were built out to the full zoning potential, and, in addition, some tens of thousands more residents. So building in Boulder is not even close to being over.
Second, although arguments were made supporting various versions of more “sustainable” development, no actual criteria were laid out as to how sustainability should be measured, or whether such schemes will actually produce it. For example, being able to walk to a neighborhood coffee shop is nice, but how does that benefit the planet if your job is miles away in another part of Boulder or the Metro area, forcing you to commute just as if you lived in a more conventional residential neighborhood? Or how does the ill-conceived Transit Village (now Boulder Junction) help address Boulder’s huge in-commuting traffic jam when it is nothing more than some housing developments located so more people can move to Boulder, but then take the bus to Denver? Worse, this project increases driving by pushing locally used service industries out of Boulder.
Third, there was no acknowledgement that Boulder currently operates with conflicting planning goals. Our Comprehensive Plan policies can be used to support darn near anything. For example, Boulder city staff determined that the Hogan-Pancost parcels met the Comp Plan’s requirements for annexation by providing “community benefit.” But the Planning Board turned the proposal down 7-0 because they found that it conflicted with other critical Comp Plan policies.
The city has staff people working on keeping businesses in town and promoting economic development, with others hard at work playing catch-up by helping provide more affordable housing so additional workers can live here. Still others are working to try to mitigate the transportation mess created by the first two. We want diverse housing, but our housing fee-in-lieu allows central area developers to push their affordable units off to outlying areas. Our zoning allows massive amounts of future development, yet our development fee structure is completely inadequate to prevent grid-locked traffic congestion, or to provide adequate parks, rec centers or libraries.
What Boulder needs are ground rules for growth. These should identify the minimum measurable standards for development to be considered sustainable, or at least to not make things worse. Because not every project will be able to meet every standard on its own, the rules should require the city to meet and maintain these “no negative impact” standards on, say, a three-year running average. And these rules and standards should be in the Charter; that way they can be enforced by the citizens, and not become just more irrelevant, unenforced Comp Plan policies.
Here’s a start at what minimum standards for sustainable development might look like:
Transportation: No increase in vehicle miles traveled, travel times or wait times at signalized intersections.
Water supply: No increase in frequency of watering restrictions.
Police and fire: No degradation of response time.
Energy: No increase in fossil fuel consumption.
Housing: Maintain geographic and economic diversity.
Parks, rec centers and libraries — maintain geographic accessibility and per capita service levels.
I can already hear the screaming, “These rules will stop all growth!” That’s nonsense. Each of these requirements can be met with proper planning, design and fee structures. Besides, if people really care about sustainability, then we need to actually do it, not just give lip service. If the council won’t implement such strong, enforceable ground rules, perhaps the citizens should put them on the ballot.

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: 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