Opinion: Let us vote on Boulder comp plan


The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has now been in existence since the 1970s. It originally was a relatively simple agreement between the county commissioners and the city council that prevented sprawl and kept urban development within the city’s borders. Over the years, it has expanded to become a massive document containing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) policies, land use maps, department master plans, and the like. But it lacks three critical elements — a clearly defined vision for Boulder’s future, a citizen approval process for this vision, and a way for the citizens to ensure that their government sticks with this vision once approved.
These shortcomings have shown up multiple times in recent years. For example, the proposed Hogan-Pancost annexation, near the East Boulder Community Center, was supported by city staff and rejected by the planning board, both based on the BVCP’s policies. The Envision East Arapahoe project, with its 55-foot buildings, emerged out of the blue, and terrified many neighbors — it was not in the BVCP at all. And Baseline Zero’s proposed hotel and office space did not fit with the BVCP’s neighborhood shopping designation for that land.
The current BVCP five-year update schedule lends itself well to a citizen-approved plan with a real vision. First, the council would come up with a list of the essential elements that this enforceable BVCP must have (I’m calling it the E-BVCP). These elements must be sufficient to define the vision, but not so numerous and detailed as to prevent any flexibility. The elements and their content would be developed through an intensive public process. Boulderites would engage a lot more seriously in developing such an enforceable plan, because once passed, there would be no major surprises for five years.
The E-BVCP’s essential elements would define, for example, maximum allowed growth rates for residential and non-residential development; height limits for all areas, including where exceeding the various by-right heights of 35, 38 and 40′ feet would be allowed; annexations that may be considered; up-zonings that might occur that would allow increased density or intensity of development; city facilities and services for which current levels of service would be maintained (as well as those that would not!) and the regulations, financing, and funding sources necessary to accomplish this; and of course Boulder’s build-out potential under the proposed zonings — the projected amounts and locations of future development, with estimates of build-out population, employment, in-commuting, and traffic levels.
These E-BVCP essential elements would be put to a popular vote. If Boulder voters like what they see, the first approved plan would be binding for what’s left of the cycle from the plan’s approval to 2020. The next approved plan would last five years to 2025, and so on. If it fails at the ballot box, the council would have to redo whatever parts the citizenry found offensive and put it to another vote.
If some emergency comes up after an E-BVCP is passed and implemented, the council could put an amendment to the plan on the ballot. Or they could make the change themselves if, say,all council members agree.Part of the deal would be that any citizen would have standing to enforce the plan through the courts. Currently, only the county commissioners have any enforcement power, and it only applies to a few portions of the BVCP.
This E-BVCP approach would inspire the council and staff to do a really good outreach job, because there would be a “final exam” at the end — did Boulder citizens vote for or reject the proposed plan?Elections do cost money, but this approach would save citizens from having to fight ongoing battles, and allow city staff to really focus on the long-term issues.
There would have to be a default provision to provide an incentive for the council to put a good plan on the ballot. For example, restrictive growth rate and height limits might automatically go into place if an E-BVCP plan was not passed in time for the next cycle.
Obviously, the E-BVCP approach would completely change the dynamics of the update process. It would also bring some much-needed focus by both the council and staff on some poorly organized efforts that feed into the BVCP, such as the Comprehensive Housing Strategy. And city council races would certainly be more interesting. Instead of vague statements and inoffensive generalities, council members might actually have to reveal their positions on the critical elements of the E-BVCP.


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