A History of Lafayette's Growth Management Amendment Part Five
Wow just wow
A HISTORY OF LAFAYETTE’S GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT
PART FIVE: WOW JUST WOW
2012
ANOTHER REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENT BY CITY COUNCIL
A QUICK JUMP TO 2017
In 2012 I was no longer city-watching. I began again in 2015. In 2017 it looked like the city was going to want yet another change to the managed growth amendment.
By this time I was active on Nextdoor and was reporting on what was happening at city hall just as I had in our newsletters in the past. People kept bringing up all the building that was happening, they thought we had managed growth.
I began to research what happened in 2012. It took quite a bit of digging to figure out. I watched old council meetings, looked for newspaper reporting, obtained a copy of the ballot language and a copy of the ballot itself, and contacted staff in the planning department.
I began writing updates and sharing my research on Nextdoor which I can now use to fill in the history of 2012.
2013 SHOULD BE THE NEXT RETURN TO THE VOTERS
In November 2007 the voters approved another 6-year extension of the growth amendment beginning in January 2008. The sunset clause required it to return to the voters in November 2013.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF CHANGES FOR 2012
First reading of the ordinance setting the ballot title.
The city attorney called this a special election and instructed the council on what was in the ballot title including that they should be sure “the ballot title fairly and accurately summarizes the substance of the proposed amendment”
One of the changes removed the 200 per year building permit limit allowing access to the entire 1200 over the six-year period as they were needed.
The council discussed how to make the changes clear to the voters without putting numbers in the ballot title. The city administrator said big numbers scare people. In the end, they left out all the numbers and went with “extend and retain the aggregate building permit cap for the six (6) year period”.
This discussion of big numbers scaring people didn’t make sense when the numbers related to the amendment have been the same since its creation, 1200 over 6 years with 200 per year available. However, I had a better understanding when I learned more about what the ballot question was actually written to achieve.
FINAL BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR NOVEMBER 2012:
BALLOT TITLE
Question No. 2B-Residential Growth Management
Shall the existing residential growth management restrictions of Chapter VI of the Lafayette Home Rule Charter be amended to extend and retain the aggregate building permit cap for the six (6) year period between January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2019; to allow the number of annual permits allocations to be set by City Council; and to exempt those developments that have previously received, or are eligible for, a priority status?
WHAT THE COUNCIL DID WHEN IT APPEARED NO ONE WAS WATCHING
1 - IGNORED THE CITY CHARTER AND CREATED A SHORTER CYCLE
From the 2012 ballot language:
Shall the existing residential growth management restrictions of Chapter VI of the Lafayette Home Rule Charter be amended to extend and retain the aggregate building permit cap for the six (6) year period between January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2019
Note the dates. The council brought the extension of the growth amendment to the voters a year early.
It should have been on the ballot in November 2013 going into effect on January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2020.
This shortened the existing 6-year cycle to 5 years and gave them access to 1200 permits, plus 300 permanently affordable permits, 12 months earlier.
Did the city attorney call this a special election because it was in violation of the language of the amendment?
2 - WHAT THEY KNEW WHEN THEY TOOK THIS TO THE VOTERS
Permit numbers supplied to me by City Administrator Gary Klaphake in 2017 showed the following:
From 2008 through 2012 883 non-exempt permits had been issued.
317 permits would still have been available for 2013. Plus a potential 300 permits for affordable dwelling units. I don’t know if any of the affordable permits had been used in this cycle.
3 -THIS ACTION FORCED THE SUPPORTERS OF THE AMENDMENT TO VOTE YES
Remember the sunset clause:
“Section 6.14. Sunset clause.
At the last regular election prior to the expiration of the limits herein, these provisions, in their entirety, shall be presented to the voters of Lafayette in a referendum for extension, and all dates referenced herein shall be adjusted for an additional six-year period”
The provisions must be brought to the voters in their entirety for the 6-year extension. The language cannot be changed at that point, which should have been in 2013. So the council brought it back a year early in 2012 with changes and the extension combined.
Not only did this violate the language of the sunset clause, it created a situation whereby if you wanted to vote no because of any of the changes you would be voting against the extension of the amendment.
4 - THEY CREATED A “PRIORITY STATUS”
From the ballot language:
“and to exempt those developments that have previously received, or are eligible for, a priority status?”
What did “a priority status” mean? This was not explained in the ballot language. More digging was needed.
5 - LOCAL REPORTING
My research online, looking for newspaper reports from that time, showed only a mention of the extension and the removal of the annual 200 restriction. I could not find any mention of a priority status.
Daily Camera
http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_21818337/lafayette-voters-decide-whether-amend-growth-cap
“The ballot question asks Lafayette voters to amend the city’s residential growth management code to extend and retain the aggregate 1,200-building permit cap for a six-year period, but allow the City Council to set the number of annual permit allocations”
Boulder Weekly Voters Guide
“City of Lafayette Ballot Question 2B: Yes to Growth Management Changes
October 4, 2012
City of Lafayette Ballot Question No. 2B
Residential Growth Management Restrictions
Ballot Issue 2B will allow the City Council of Lafayette greater flexibility in the annual allocations of building permits on residential projects. The law currently limits the number of permits to 1,200 in a six-year period, with 200 permits allowed each year.
If passed, 2B would retain the 1,200 permits limit, but would allow city council to reallocate the permits each year to fit the needs of the city and respond to market demands. For example, one year there may only be 50 building permits allocated, while the next year may hold 250 to allow completion of high-density projects.
Ongoing construction that appears to be taking an eternity to complete may be due to a lack of leftover housing permits for that year, according to Lafayette Public Information Officer Debbie Wilmot.”
6 - LANGUAGE ADDED TO THE CHARTER DUE TO THIS BALLOT QUESTION
Those developments within the City for which City Council, prior to November 6, 2012, had determined and assigned by resolution a priority classification and building permit allocation pursuant to the City's Residential Growth Management Program that was in place prior to November 6, 2012, shall be exempt from the above limitation and may receive such building permits without regard to the calendar year for which their permits were allocated, but only to the extent that such properties are developed substantially in compliance with the approved preliminary plan upon which their allocations are based.
7 - RED FLAGS APLENTY - I CONTACT CITY STAFF
I realized something was going on with the permits that I did not understand. I contacted Planning and Building Director Karen Westover.
ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION AND INFORMATION
June 13, 2017
Greetings,
I found the yearly resolution setting the permit numbers in the January council packet. The chart that tallies the permits in that document is confusing to me. It showed for 2013 to 2015 that there were 562 exempt permits issued and no non-exempt. Could someone explain why all permits were exempt during that time period?
Karen
————-
THE RESPONSE
Hi Karen
The number of dwelling permits available for this 6 year cycle 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2018 is 1,200. As of May 31, 2017 – 148 building permits that count towards the 1,200 cap have been issued.
As noted in the Growth Management provisions, developments that received a permit allocation from City Council prior to November 6, 2012 are “Exempt” from the 1,200 limitation.
Additionally, residential permits in mixed use developments in the Urban Renewal Area, the Boulder County’s Josephine Commons development and lots platted prior to May 23, 1995 are also exempt.
These exempt developments include the build out of
Coal Creek Village,
Coal Creek Village North,
Silver Creek,
Indian Peaks # 17,
Josephine Commons,
Willow Creek,
Spring Creek,
Barberry Park,
misc platted lots and the development of Simpson Old Town.
Developments that received a building permit allocation after November 6, 2012 are not exempt from the 1200 growth cap and are referred to as “Non-exempt”.
From 2013- 2015 no permits were issued from developments that qualify as Non-exempt. In 2016 and through May 31, 2017, 148 Non-exempt permits have been issued.
Please let me know if you want to talk about this.
Karen
Karen J Westover, AICP
Planning & Building Director
————-
MY NEXT QUESTION TO MS. WESTOVER:
Hi Karen,
Could you tell me the total number of permits that were considered exempt from the growth management amendment, within this list? Thanks.
These exempt developments include the build out of Coal Creek Village, Coal Creek Village North, Silver Creek, Indian Peaks # 17, Josephine Commons, Willow Creek, Spring Creek, Barberry Park, misc platted lots and the development of Simpson Old Town
Karen
MS. WESTOVER’S RESPONSE:
Karen
As of May 31, 2017 there have been a total of 644 exempt permits issued for this current growth management cycle (1/1/2013 – 12/31/2018) to complete the build out of Coal Creek Village, Coal Creek Village North, Silver Creek, Indian Peaks # 17, Josephine Commons, Willow Creek, Spring Creek, Barberry Park, misc platted lots and the development of Simpson Old Town
Karen
8 - THE PURPOSE OF PRIORITY STATUS - TO WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN, CLEARING THE PIPELINE OF ALL PENDING PERMITS
Due to the approval of the ballot question in 2012, the council wiped the slate clean of all the building permits in the pipeline by exempting them from the permit caps. With the vaguely written ballot language and the local press not even mentioning what was happening how could the voters know what was to come?
As stated by Director Westover, 644 building permits had been exempted from the managed growth requirements. 1200 permits were available to be used at any time from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018. Only 148 of those permits had been used by May 2017. Again I have no information regarding the 300 permits dedicated to affordable dwelling units.
9 - WHAT IF THEY DIDN’T WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN?
Once more the proclaimed need by the city to get more permits led to rushing to the voters a year early to gain more exemptions to the managed growth amendment that were not needed.
If they had honored the amendment and not wiped the slate clean a total of 792 permits would have been subtracted from the 1200, leaving 408 for the remaining 19 months before the amendment would be up for extension again in 2018.