HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Citizen Participation~//~~;~
~ ~
~
July 24, 2001
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email plandevelop@ci.boulder.co.us
www.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/
Dear Mary, Michael, John, and Sam,
This letter is in response to your guest editorial that appeared in the Daily Camera on July 10, 2001. I would like
to provide answers to questions you raised as well as provide some information and clarification. As I indicated
when I met with a few of you last month, the Planning Department would like to develop an ongoing dialogue
with the neighborhood about the development plan for these properties.
Regardless of the outcome of the proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the city expects
the landowners of the properties at 47°i and Jay, and north of Kalmia, to move forward with annexation at some
time in the future. The landowners have recently contacted the city and indicated a desire to move forward and
submit revisions to the annexation petitions submitted two years ago. The landowners have been advised that
they will be expected to meet with and work with the neighborhood prior to public hearings on the annexation
and zoning.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the service area concept have been in place since 1977 as a means
to control urban sprawl. The parcels proposed for land use map changes have been in Area II, the city's service
area and the area designated for annexation, since it was first delineated in 1977. Very few vacant parcels
remain in Area II, and in fact as part of the current update, some properties have been removed from Area II for
environmental reasons. Parcels 12 and 13 have been designated since 1970 for low-density residential
development. The current update proposes changing that designation to medium density residential, which
would allow development at a density of 6 to 14 units per acre, provide for a greater diversity of housing types in
the area and additional affordable housing opportunities for moderate and middle-income families.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map designations guide zoning decisions. Zoning is a
separate decision, and there will be additional information and analysis that will be used in determining the
zoning and development plan for the property. As part of the annexation and zoning process, the property will
be posted, neighbors will be notified, and you will have the opportunity to provide input on the proposal.
City staff completed a city-wide assessment of the potential impacts of the sites proposed for land use map
changes (Revised Impact Analysis, January 2000) that described the potential environmental, social, and fiscal
effects of the citywide options proposed as part of the update. For the parcel reports for each site, currently
available information was used. However, site-by-site impact assessments are not conducted as part of a
comprehensive plan update. The landowners will be required to submit additional information related to the
primary issues at the time of an annexation request.
The traffic model used recent population and employment forecasts and existing and planned road network
improvements (prepared in 2000). The model was buiit and calibrated in 1993, meaning that the model was
developed to reflect actual traffic counts on the city's roadways. This is standard transportation planning practice for
all types of models, where one wants the model to accurately reflect what has happened before you try to use it to
predict what might happen in the future.
Traffic mitigation is not based on rerouting traffic through local streets. The concept of a well connected local
street system keeps short trips that occur within neighborhoods off of the regional street network, both reducing
congestion and shortening trip lengths. One study conducted for the city (Southeast Foothills Neighborhood
Origin-Destination Study, 1993) following citizen complaints regarding "cut-through" traffic, found that "cut-
through" traffic was a small percentage of the total traffic.
The housing funds paid by the developers of Four Mile Corner helped to secure the permanent affordability of
approximately 50 existing units throughout the city. In late 1995, the City's Residential Growth Management System
(RGMS) was revised to encourage all new residential development to provide housing permanently affordable to low
and moderate income households as well as size-restricted housing affordable to middle income households. At the
time of this revision to the RGMS, the development at Four Mile Creek had approximately 105 homes left to be
built. The developers elected to pay approximately $11,000 per remaining home in lieu of providing 21 smaller,
more affordable homes. Thus, 105 homes contributed to the city's affordable housing fund, equaling approximately
$1.2 million. These funds were used to secure the permanent affordability of existing housing in the city. Given that
the average subsidy for a permanently affordable unit is $23,000, the helped to secure approximately 50 existing
units throughout the city as permanently affordable.
The majority of the area is served by three parks, and at this time, the Parks and Recreation Department does not
plan to provide additional parks in the area. In the event of annexation and additional residential development in the
area, options for additional park acreage will be reviewed. If a school is planned for parcel 12, the Parks and
Recreation Department would discuss the possibility of partnering with the Boulder Valley School District to
provide a park in conjunction with an elementary school.
At one of the hearings, a staff member indicated that she did not actually walk onto Parcel 12. Her intent was to
indicate that she did not trespass on private property and that she did not conduct an on-site evaluation of
potential wetlands. However, staff has been to all of the sites proposed for land use map changes -and to most
of them numerous times.
We may continue to have differing views on the appropriate land use and development of these properties, but I hope
that this letter responds to some of the issues you have raised. We will be in contact with you as the landowners of
these properties move towards annexation. Mike Randall (441- 4919, randallm@ci.boulder.co.us) will be the case
manager for these annexation and zoning requests. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional
questions or comments (441-3271, richstones@ci.boulder.co.us).
Sincerely,
C ~ ~
`Susan Richstone
Senior Planner
Cc: City Council
Planning Board
Boulder County Planning Commission
Board of County Commissioners
Sunday Camera, July 10, 2001
City, county must incorporate residents' views on proposed
changes
By Mary Golden, Michael O'Keeffe, John Sandhu and Sam Vance
We commend the Daily Camera for including in its June 4 editorial, "Thoughts on a Monday," real estate developer Lou
De1laCava's call upon our elected officials to make essential investments in transportation.
However, as Boulder residents, we take issue with this developer's simplistic and self-serving characterization of citizen
protest against medium-density housing as "whining." Furthemrore, his attack upon elected officials who listen to their
constituency is arrogant, without merit and undemocratic.
In April, residents of over a thousand homes in northeast Boulder, comprising the communities of Four-Mile Creek, Kahnia
Court, Orange Orchazd, Palo Parkway, S. Palo Pazk and Sale Lake, Formed a coalition. Our purpose is to oppose the city's
headlong rush to make what is now undeveloped land more attractive to developers by rezoning low-density land to
medium-density land through the update of tho Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP).
The reasons for apposing the proposed changes are numerous. Consider the following:
At an April city council meeting, officials admitted that the public had been misled by the city's decision to utilize the land-
use process as a means of rezoning. The city council and city staff have stated that the public process to notify, include and
seek meaningful public input into these issues has been badly implemented and broken. The city council has blatantly
ignored the position of dozens of people who appeazed before it in April and more than 260 who signed a petition opposing
the rezoning. That number now has grown to over 1,000. Not a single citizen spoke in favor of the changes planned for
northeast Boulder. When one council member said to the rest, "We've never asked people what they want;' there was a
deafening silence from his peers.
Traffic-growth projections were calculated using 1993 statistics. Worse, traf5c mitigation for 47th Street and Jay Road is
based on the rerouting of vehicles through narrow residential street grids where large numbers of young children live and
play. Environmental impact assessments were poorly done, as is evident from the residents' own research. This was
documented in a comprehensive, 32-page, resident-prepared report that strongly refutes the inaccurate and insufficient
analysis conducted by city planners.
City planners confirmed that they had not been to the parcels of land in question. The BVCP projects a substantial increase
in population in northeast Boulder over the next 20 years, but does not make adequate provision for pazks. Indeed, planners
admit that current residents of northeast Boulder are underserved in terms of parks and recreation facilities. A change to
medium-density will increase the price of the property and make it more costly to taxpayers to acquire any of the land for
public use. The areas in question also are a habitat for numerous threatened wildlife and plant species, including owls,
songbirds, raptors, red fox, coyote and prairie dogs.
The subject parcels include a horse pasture and a small cattle ranch; such agricultural use has been designated for
preservation from urban sprawl in Colorado. Despite the preceding facts, it seems easy for those who stand to profit most by
an increase in Boulder's housing density in specific areas to denigrate those opposed to it as "whiners" or as opposed to
affordable housing. Nobody in the northeast-Boulder coalition has taken such a stand.
Few Boulder neighborhoods can provide tangible evidence of their support for affordable housing. The Four-Mile Creek
community has demonstrated a willingness to support and fund affordable housing as a result of an $11,000 city tax levied
on over 240 homes. The purpose of the $2.5 million dollars raised was to help create permanently affordable homes in
Boulder. When pressed to account for the use and whereabouts of these funds, the city has so far been wholly unresponsive.
There is a very strong sense in northeast Boulder that the city council does not represent the interests of all residents equally
We ask both city and Boulder County elected officials and planners to pause, listen and incorporate residents' views
regarding zoning, density, traffic mitigation and pazk space. We aze prepared and want to participate in a proper public
process.
We invite readers of the Daily Camera to join us in educating ourselves as voters on how to ensure that elected officials hear
our voices as they decide what will happen in our lives. The next step is to attend the Boulder County Commissioners'
hearing on the BVCP at 2 p.m. Tuesday in the Commissioners' Hearing Room on the third floor of the County Courthouse,
13th and Spruce streets.
At a minimum, we hope that the commissioners will delay consideration on the change, pending a decision by the Boulder
Pazks and Recreation Department and its advisory board as to whether to acquire any of the county land for a park. The
Trust for Public Land has indicated an interest in working with the city. Hasty approval at this time will increase the price of
the land precipitously.
Next, perhaps a town meeting is in order to consider which city council candidates to support for re-election this fall and to
take a look at the pros and cons of district elections.
Mary Golden, Michael O'Keeffe, John Sandhu and Sam Vance are member of the Four-Mile Creek Homeowners'
Association Planning and Development Committee. They live in northeast Boulder.
July 8, 2007