|
PLAN-Boulder CountyPosition Statements |
These positions are based on PLAN-Boulder County's guiding policies.
PLAN-Boulder believes that such policies will help maintain our socio-economic diversity, allow more Boulder workers to live in Boulder and thus become part of our community, reduce regional auto travel and increase local transit use, and help create more friendly, vibrant, and successful commercial areas.
While these policies may also create some additional local traffic, we believe that, when implemented carefully, the long-term and regional benefits will greatly outweigh the costs.
Therefore, PLAN-Boulder urges the City Council during its review of the current update to the Comprehensive Plan to consider the changes to the land use map proposed by staff with the following principles in mind:
PLAN-Boulder strongly supports the proposed changes to the land use map in Area I that will allow and encourage residential uses in selected commercial/industrial areas and add residential density in a small number of existing residential areas. We believe that additional housing opportunities in Area I should be emphasized because transit is more readily available, as are employment and services.
PLAN-Boulder County cautions council not to rely too heavily on additional residential development in Area II. The proposed Area II changes should be given more study to consider the appropriateness of residential density in each location given the environmental impacts, the character of the existing neighborhoods, and the area's proximity to transit and other services. The benefit of any additional affordable housing that can be gained must be balanced against the detriments associated with the specific needs of the location.
PLAN-Boulder also urges the City Council to review the action of staff and the Planning Board, which removed from consideration mixed use redevelopment of existing shopping centers such as the Table Mesa Shopping Center, and removed map changes that would have allowed some increased density near existing residential areas in Area I. These areas exemplify opportunities to create additional housing and mixed-use development in areas that already have relatively dense housing and have ready access to public transportation.
This Comp Plan update is an excellent chance to make a significant impact on the provision of more housing, and particularly affordable housing, in Boulder. While some proposed land use changes are controversial and some sites would need additional review during the subsequent development process, we note that modifying land use designation in the comp plan is but the first step. The actual zoning would still need to be changed, and any development proposal would have to undergo a significant public process.
Dear Council Members:
We understand that, at tonight's meeting, Council may direct staff to initiate a project that is alternatively described as "reducing jobs" or "managing commercial growth." We would like to register our strong concerns about the haste in which this project is being undertaken. We note that the idea for this project apparently arose less than two weeks ago, and that the only public conversation so far has been Council/staff discussion at a study session. We believe it would be inappropriate for Council to direct staff to undertake any project of this scale without providing opportunities for public input.
PLAN-Boulder County supports the concept of managing commercial growth. We believe that the jobs/housing balance is an essential element in the community's ongoing discussions about redevelopment of commercial areas, promoting affordable housing and ensuring economic stability. We believe it is important to integrate discussions about reducing jobs/managing growth with these ongoing conversations. We note that the long term city effort to define a "baseline" for Boulder's economy is nearing fruition, and we believe that a conversation about "managing commercial growth" would be beneficially informed by these data/analysis.
Accordingly, we suggest that you sequence the "commercial growth" conversation to follow completion of the baseline economic study (presently scheduled for late April/early May). The issues relating to commercial growth management are complex and multi-faceted; we believe the community's interests will be served best by full, frank and thoughtful discussion.
PLAN boulder opposes expansion of operations at the airport and urges the City to (1) not request the proposed waivers from the FAA which would encourage more use by large aircraft, (2) not install the proposed NDB (Non-directional radio beacon) and not install further lighting (i,e, the proposed REIL and VASI lighting).
It now believes that the best approach to this matter is to broaden it by recommending that a more definitive policy on the future expansion of airport activity be established in the current BVCP update. It has communicated this recomendation to Mr. Joe Mantione of the City Planning Department who assures us that it will now be on the BVCP Update agenda.
Accordingly PLAN Boulder County recomends to you that the Airport Master Plan Update be put on hold until the entire matter of the Airport future is given consideration by the entire Boulder Valley and a new and updated airport policy is incorporated into the BVCP.
Our concern is set forth in the following:
PLAN Boulder County believes that the Boulder Airport is an important recreational and commercial asset to the City and vicinity, but it fears that continued expansion of operations at the Airport would eventually lead to opposition that would threaten its continued existence. We therefore urge that increase in operations be limited. We suggest that the following measures, as well as other that that may be suggested by experts on the subject, be considered in encouraging limited use and activity:
"PLAN-Boulder urges the City Council not to adopt the Seconds Count initiative, instead placing it on the ballot as required. As written, Seconds Count would significantly impact pedestrian and bicycle safety, impose an overly broad restriction on a valuable transportation tool, and inappropriately micro-manage the operations of the Transportation Department."
As part of discussion in the meeting, one Council member cited the PLAN-Boulder e-mail in stating his opposition to adopting the initiative. The Council voted against approving the initiative, and instructed staff to try to work with the framers of the measure to improve some of the objectionable provisions before it goes on the ballot next year.
The PLAN-Boulder Board delivered the following letter to the City Council and the Planning Board on Sept. 16:
"PLAN-Boulder County has previously recommended that the RGMS be revised, with its affordable housing component partially replaced by an inclusionary zoning regulation. We are pleased that the currently proposed revisions from the Planning Board include a number of good components, including a 1% growth rate limit with exemptions for affordable housing; an inclusionary zoning program that requires 20% of all new units to be affordable; and a significantly increased fee in lieu of providing affordable housing that more accurately reflects the cost of such housing and is thus more equitable.
"However, we are concerned that the new mechanism may not be able to meet the goals set in the current RGMS and may also yield some serious inequities and unintended consequences.
"We believe that significant additions to existing residential units should also be charged a fee-in-lieu. This seems equitable since the fee against new units is to 'pay back' the city for the loss of an affordable housing opportunity; the same loss occurs when an existing unit is expanded. Additionally, the new, higher fees for new units, coupled with no fees for existing unit expansions, could provide an incentive for more such expansions contrary to city goals.
"While obtaining 20 percent permanently affordable units without city subsidy is a good start, this lets 80 percent of new units be market rate, a much higher percentage than the goal of the current RGMS. While there are legal issues involved, we believe that the city must work more creatively to significantly increase the percentage of new units that are affordable.
"Given the new financial requirements placed on new residential construction, we need to consider increasing the contributions to affordable housing from other sectors, including commercial/industrial development and the business community.
"Obviously not all of these issues can be, or need to be, fully resolved before the initial RGMS revision can be made and an inclusionary zoning program begun. However, the key issue of whether to charge for residential expansions should not be put off, due to the likely unintended consequences and to the increased difficulty of passing such a regulation once the RGMS has been revised. And the issues of creating more than 20 percent of new units as affordable, as well as insuring that all sectors of our economy provide equitably for affordable housing, should remain top priorities for the Council."
"Sombrero Marsh is a unique and significant wetland system which supports both wildlife and plant communities that are uncommon or rare. It is presently endangered by the long-term use of its easterly segment as a Boulder Valley School District dumping ground.
"The city's Open Space program has already preserved a substantial portion of the marsh and now proposes to acquire the 42 acres owned by the BVSD, clean up the dump and restore the marsh's eastern shoreline.
"A requirement of the BVSD is that an educational element be part of the 42 acres, which would benefit the community as a whole. The Open Space Department will comply with this concept, the details of which are still under study.
"PBC strongly supports this effort on the part of Open Space to preserve
and protect a valuable and unique habitat and the rare wildlife species
and wetland vegetation which depend on its existence. It should be noted
that the first priority in acquiring Sombrero Marsh property is protection
of the resource; education should support this primary focus."
Council voted in favor of the purchase.
PLAN-Boulder County supports the main elements contained in the City Manager's analysis of the proposal for restructuring the Division of Mountain Parks and the Department of Open Space/Real Estate, as outlined in his memo presented to the City Council at the meeting of March 21, 2000.
We applaud the Manager and the Council for taking this decisive step in moving forward to resolve this long-standing and divisive issue. We are especially pleased that the new proposal firmly places the Open Space acquisitions function within the newly defined Department.
We also strongly support the recommendation that the historical appropriation for Mountain Parks from the General Fund be transferred along with the properties to be managed. We urge the adoption of a measure, by a vote of the people if necessary, ensuring this annual appropriation for as long a period of time as would be required to guarantee that the present bonding capacity for the Open Space accelerated acquisition program is not placed in jeopardy.
Many other issues remain to be explored by the proposed Transition Team. We wish to flag for their consideration a few of the issues raised in the City Manager's memo.
We have many specific criticisms of the audit report prepared for the city by Conservation Impact. It presented a recommendation for restructuring without examining the alternatives in any detail and without offering clear and convincing arguments to support the recommendation. It proposed an unrealistic time frame for the proposed changes. Most important, it provided no adequate examination of the present or future workload, and the analysis of cost savings resulting from staff reductions was shallow and not persuasive.
However, we recognize that this first effort at a management audit was unique in many respects, and need not serve as a model for the audits envisioned by the city for other departments. Future audits should more carefully examine staffing needs.
What are the current tasks and how many people are needed to accomplish them? What are projected future needs? What are anticipated revenues? This is crucial, since the city may face revenue reductions and probable service cuts in the future.
The growth occurring in our county needs no elaboration. We see it all around us, we read facts and figures almost daily in our newspaper. Many of the newcomers arrive with stars in their eyes, excited about our magnificent surroundings, the verdant plains, the mountains with their majestic views and peaceful valleys, all promising a life in paradise, a life better than the one left behind.
But unless we are careful, the onslaught of new neighbors, expecially those with expectations of an abode on a remote mountain site or along a rushing stream surrounded by lush greenery, may destroy the very paradise that nature, the Native Americans and pioneer settlers have passed on to us.
We can be grateful that our duly elected County Commissioners, past and present, are well aware of this problem and our concerns about it. Since its inception twenty years ago, a major goal of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan has been to place new development when it occurs adjacent to our existing communities. Urban sprawl and the impacts of growth are minimized by locating additional development near schools, jobs, stores and where utilities are available. For those looking for more remote quarters, special precautionary measures such as the Site Plan Review are in place in order to safeguard our most precious and nonrenewable resources.
Since 1993 Site Plan Review has been used to minimize damage to our environment, to reduce surface runoff and erosion, to avoid wildfire and slope stability hazards, to protect sensitive wildlife habitat, to prevent contamination and depletion of groundwater aquifers, to preserve scenic views, and to maintain agriculture. These concerns affect all of us. History provides ample evidence that these are indeed legitimate concerns. Just recall the Sugar Loaf fire in 1989 which destroyed fourty homes, or the damage to Jamestown's water supply by erosion due to increased traffic on primitive roads, or the flooding of low-lying plains every decade, often exacerbated by development. Bearable restrictions ahead of time may prevent unbearable misery afterwards.
It is clear that the Site Plan Review regulations by their very purpose may impose some limits on what county settlers can do without having an adverse impact upon the land and on their neighbors. Living together in and ever-growing community implies the need of neighbors to respect each others' rights. New neighbors have the right to build but the public at large has an interest in placing limitations on new development to protect the assets of Boulder County. The regulations, as currently written, are rational, reasonable and no more restrictive than many other zoning ordinances in existence elsewhere.
We of PLAN-Boulder County recognize that the contentiousness of this situation is brought about by the impacts of growth and the need to deal with those impacts. We fully support the County's Site Plan Review regulations to insure development which respects our natural environment and provides for a safe, livable community of which all residents can be proud in the future.
The Board of PLAN-Boulder County Charles Manlove and Joni Teter, Co-chairs
Since 1959 PLAN-Boulder County has been an organization of environmentally concerned citizens working to preserve the harmonious character of the city and county of Boulder.