Opinion: The Boulder initiatives – what’s so and what’s not so


From discussions I’ve had about the two citizen initiatives — “Neighborhoods’ Right To Vote” and “Development Shall Pay Its Own Way” — it appears that there are some misunderstandings that need to be cleared up.
The “Neighborhoods’ Right To Vote” initiative does not affect projects allowed under the existing land use regulations; it only affects proposed changes to the regulations themselves, and then only inside neighborhoods. So if you want to build an addition on your house and your plan fits within the zoning, even if you need a variance, a conditional review, or other approval, you are unaffected by this initiative.
Neighbors that are unhappy with a land use regulation change that affects their neighborhood can gather signatures for a referendum under the initiative. But the initiative specifically states that the results of that referendum only affect the regulation change for the neighborhood that votes. One neighborhood’s vote cannot affect changes in other neighborhoods.
Neighborhood boundaries are to be “reasonably demarcated” by the city. This flexibility allows areas like the hospital site at Broadway and Balsam to be placed outside the adjacent neighborhoods and rezoned by the city, if otherwise legal. The neighborhoods include those on a city map mis-entitled “Neighborhood Associations” (many don’t have associations), and can be combined subject to referendum.
Boulder’s neighborhoods are a mix of 18 residential zones, four mixed-use zones, some 1,500 Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), which are like micro zones, and areas with private covenants between neighboring property owners. So Boulder neighborhoods are very diverse, and thus are allowed to vote as separate units.
Some city council members have objected to this initiative in concept — “gated communities” and all that. But do any council members really think it’s appropriate to change the land use regulations for a specific neighborhood in a way that a majority of residents would find unacceptable? I think their issue is really about who has control.
The Colorado Constitution actually provides for such a referendum process, contrary to assertions in a recent Camera guest opinion. Article V, Sec. 1(9) states: “…cities, towns, and municipalities may provide for the manner of exercising the initiative and referendum powers as to their municipal legislation.” This “manner” is exactly what Neighborhoods’ Right To Vote “provides” for changes to municipal land use regulations.
The “Development Shall Pay Its Own Way” initiative requires that the city implement it in a way designed to reasonably ensure that new development fully offsets its impacts on city facilities and services. This must be consistent with federal and state law and with professional standards and practices, which do not require perfect exactitude, but are generally formula-based, just like our utility fees.
This initiative allows multiple developments to be evaluated in aggregate. The bottom line test is whether revenues at least match costs. So if some development isn’t allowed because of the initiative, it’s because it is a net loser, costing Boulder citizens more to serve than its revenues cover.
The initiative allows the council to exempt affordable housing and public buildings. And affordable housing will receive significantly more money than currently because the jobs-housing linkage fees will increase. The initiative also exempts house additions and rebuilds that do not add additional dwelling units, and other developments and changes of use that do not add significant additional impacts.
The city has a long history of avoiding what the Comprehensive Plan has required for 45 years — that growth should pay its own way. This initiative will end this evasion, and the city will have to do what is legally allowed to ensure this result.
To do this, the city will have to analyze the costs of maintaining levels of service and the revenue required to cover these costs. This analysis should be integrated with the five-year Comprehensive Plan updates (that should show how much, what kind and where new development can occur) as well as the updates to the city’s capital investment and master plans. That would be real comprehensive planning!
These reality-based plans and revenue projections would then be the basis for setting accurate fees and other requirements for new development (like mitigation programs that development could pay into) to ensure that our quality of life is not degraded, and that the growth that occurs actually enhances our city.
No one seems to be seriously disputing that development should pay its own way. This initiative will ensure that this actually happens in a fair and consistent manner. Boulder’s planning will finally have a firm fiscal foundation. And traffic shouldn’t get much worse.


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