A History of Lafayette's Growth Management Amendment Part Three
Two ballot measures = A Vote for Both campaign
This is a sign from the campaign described in this post, it’s still hanging in my garage.
A HISTORY OF LAFAYETTE’S GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT
PART THREE: TWO BALLOT MEASURES
CITIZENS FOR LAFAYETTE
The group was now monitoring council’s actions. Jeff Monica was emailing members to keep them up to date on what was happening regarding the managed growth amendment. In March of 2001, he asked me and my husband to take over the email duties.
We launched the Citizens For Lafayette newsletter. We expanded coverage to all city-related business including how council voted, entire documents of interest, housing prices, comments from readers, and opinion pieces. Candidates for council would send their platforms for inclusion.
We published every weekend for 6 1/2 years, with some editions as much as 20 pages long. I printed copies which I still have stored in 3” binders by year. This gives me documents and reports from the time in order to write this history.
2B REQUIRES VOTER APPROVAL FOR ANOTHER SIX YEARS IN 2001
The sunset clause in 2B states “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.”
Since the sunset clause requires a vote on the existing language of the growth amendment the only way council could change it in an extension year would be with a separate ballot question.
April 2001
THE HOUSING STUDY
The housing study, authorized by the City Council in December, is completed. I have a copy. A quick scan will show many of the same issues with housing we face today.
DATA COLLECTED - HOUSING CONSULTANTS SAY THIS IS NOT A VIABLE COURSE
Lafayette had 9269 housing units and 4825 jobs.
Potentially over 12 million square feet of commercial space was waiting to be developed.
The land use designated for residential, commercial, and industrial in the comprehensive plan showed at final build-out Lafayette would have:
35,140 additional jobs and, depending on density, 5218-7626 additional housing units.
CONSULTANT’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the data, and input they received from the council at the beginning of this process, they made some recommendations.
Develop additional rental housing.
Consider the needs of seniors.
Explore unique solutions for our minority population.
Preserve existing affordable housing.
Increase density at which residential land is developed.
Build a variety of housing units.
Reduce the extent to which persons work in other communities and live in Lafayette.
Develop housing on commercial/industrial land. ie: mixed use.
Encourage retail.
Modify the 200 growth cap, exclude senior housing and affordable housing for employees.
Pursue regional communication and cooperation on housing and jobs.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
Councilor Avery seemed to be visibly shaken by the data. He referred to it as “massive growth” and wondered if Lafayette was going to develop every square inch of the city. He suggested the community define sustainability and decide how the city should look at build out.
Councilor Anderson suggested taking some commercial areas off the table, possibly designating them as future open space. Taking substantial land out of development would bring the numbers down, providing open space within the city rather than just around the edges.
Councilor Wei pointed out that the data was looking at the current land designations and therefore it was clear that they were not looking at developing the whole city, as areas that were currently open space would remain so. She said she didn’t want to find Lafayette in a situation where the council must choose between viability or livability.
City Administrator Klaphake said they can’t solve this problem internally, this is a regional problem. They can limit rooftops but there is a need to grow Lafayette’s commercial/retail base.
Councilor Hoskins said he thought build-out was at 30,000-32,000. He thought they were looking to infill with senior and affordable housing. He said that Lafayette had limited housing stock and 2B slammed the door on everything else.
Councilor Hogue said this information was very abstract, it doesn’t mean anything. If they can’t come up with a good program it will be a hard sell. Basically, people don’t care about affordability for others, so long as they’re o.k. He said the council must be able to illustrate why the citizens need this.
Councilor Grant felt that there was public support for senior/low-income housing outside the growth cap, as the last election illustrated. He felt the retail sector was having trouble finding employees here due to lack of housing and therefore it was discouraging other retail projects from going forward. He disagreed with Councilor Hogue that the number crunching wasn’t useful and was interested in hearing, at the next session, how they could make a sector of housing available for people who work in town. He referred to the language in the study that states, workforce housing could be encouraged on-site as part of future commercial construction, he said he would require mixed-use.
Councilor Hoskins responded that if the city did require mixed use all the developers would go to Fort Lupton or Firestone.
Councilor Anderson echoed Councilor Grant by saying if developers are bringing jobs then they should bring some housing too. He suggested perhaps a new direction for the comprehensive plan was needed, currently, there is too much land designated office/commercial and not enough retail, and too much land in the office/commercial category overall.
Mayor Klempan said they must get this information down to an understandable level. What does it mean to the citizens? The council will have to breathe life into it.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO COME
The housing study’s analysis of Lafayette’s land use plan shocked the council and led to the update of our Comprehensive Plan in 2002/2003
MAY 2001
Mayor Pro-Tem Hoskins announces his resignation effective immediately.
Councilor Anderson announces a pending move to California will require his resignation before the end of his term
JUNE 5th 2001
Andy Proctor is appointed to fill the council seat vacated by Mark Hoskins. Proctor had been supportive of 2B and watching council’s actions along with the rest of us. However, his professional background in affordable housing brought some new ideas to the table.
JULY 2001
COUNCIL CONFLICTS CONTINUE
As new councilors more supportive of managed growth were elected the council had numerous conflicts that prevented them from coming to consensus and dysfunction continued. Even something as simple as Councilor Anderson’s announced resignation caused an uproar among some of the council members.
The release of the housing study indicated there were a variety of issues that needed addressing. In order to find a way forward for the council a guiding document was created. I have this document.
LAFAYETTE CITY COUNCIL’S COLLABORATION STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Summary:
On September 3, 2000, the Lafayette City Council directed staff to conduct a housing study to assess the adequacy of housing in Lafayette and to advocate more permanent affordable housing. During the discussions, the City Council realized that it was imperative to address other factors beyond the study scope.
The City Council believes that in order to ensure a sustainable future for our community, certain planning efforts must be taken. They include substantial efforts to plan the undeveloped edges of the City through the Comprehensive Plan, minor revisions to our residential growth cap, a commitment to diversity in our housing, and continued effort to obtain a healthy economy.
To achieve these objectives, the Council supports an effort to insert more specificity and detail into the Comprehensive Plan land use map. The City will work with the community to create a document that provides more certainty with respect to future growth areas. Council will adopt an urban growth boundary to limit sprawl.
Council will establish a housing program with multiple tools to achieve diverse housing for Lafayette. They believe that housing diversity provides for our future social and economic well-being by ensuring the retention of a diverse community and providing a workforce proximate to jobs. Through an annual process, the Council will prioritize needed housing under the current annual housing cap of 200 permits per year.
Council will be a leader in regional discussions concerning revenue sharing and other intergovernmental agreements concerning regional issues, such as growth and housing.
This collaboration statement establishes the City Council’s position regarding future growth in Lafayette. The Council’s statement includes four broad categories:
* Comprehensive Planning
* Housing Programs
* Limits on Residential Growth
* Economic Sustainability
JULY 2001
Within the Council’s Collaboration Statement was the following language that pertained to changes to 2B which was due to come back to the voters for an additional six-year extension in November 2001.
Limits on Residential Growth
Background: In November, 1995 the citizens approved a housing cap of 200 permits per year for a six (6) year period. Pursuant to contractual agreements, more than 1200 units had received approval to be built over that time. Therefore, no new housing projects have been considered for Lafayette since 1995. The City was not able to address the growing need for independent retirement housing and workforce housing. Some projects that would have met specific housing needs were abandoned due to lack of permits. It is important for a vital city to offer a balance of housing in order to keep its economy healthy. In addition, the limitation on the supply of building permits in Lafayette and surrounding communities had the unintended consequence of increasing demand, resulting in higher housing prices.
( As I stated in part one the city was actively seeking higher-end housing. The limit on building permits did not result in higher housing prices, those housing units were in the pipeline before 2B was approved. Nor did 2B increase the demand for permits it just slowed the process.)
Council Positions:
1. The Council supports a binding growth boundary to limit sprawl.
2. The Council recognizes that the citizens of Lafayette desire restraint in the issuance of permits for new housing units.
3. A range of affordable housing options is needed to support the growing and changing needs of residents. It is important to have housing for persons of all ages and to assure there are housing opportunities for residents to grow up and grow old in Lafayette.
4. A range of housing options tends to support continued economic growth and economic stability.
5. The citizen’s desire to prioritize certain types of housing was never realized because there were too many units with pre-existing commitments.
6. One of Lafayette’s key qualities is that it is a community that is small enough to have a “home-town” feeling and includes households of different ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds
7. Residential units should be factored, based on size, to account for their impact on city services and consumption of land.
8. Currently, the number of grandfathered units estimated to remain as of January 1, 2002 is approximately 201* (see tally below).
Directives to Staff:
1. In addition to providing the voters the question of extending the current Charter Section 6.10 Residential Growth Management growth management language for an additional six (6) years, provide an alternative ballot issue for consideration in the November 2001. The alternative will retain the annual 200-unit cap for an additional 6-year period, starting in January 2002.
2. The alternative ballot question for the November 2001 election will include the minimal necessary change to the current residential growth management framework.
3. The alternative ballot question will include language to support the housing programs endorsed in this collaboration statement.
4. The ballot issue will contain a mandatory binding growth boundary to restrict the unlimited geographic outward growth of Lafayette.
5. All grandfathered residential units may be built on a time schedule outside of the new 200 per year limit.* (see tally below).
6. Multi-family residential units should be measured as less than one unit and large homes should be measured as more than one unit. That is to say, attached homes are equal to 1⁄2 unit, and homes larger than 4,000-sq. ft. are equal to 1.5 units.
* 201 grandfathered units as of January 1, 2002 are estimated to include:
Indian Peaks: 162
Hawk Ridge: 33
Wild Ridge: 2
Blue Heron South: 3
Waneka Landing: 1
A NEW IDEA FOR THE BALLOT LANGUAGE
There continued to be disagreement among councilors about whether to grandfather the remaining 201 permits.
Councilor Proctor suggested asking for an exemption from the cap for 50 permits per year for affordable units only. These would be for households making between 50% to 80% of the area median income at that time $49,000 to $65,000 a year. Council supported this idea.
A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO ARISES
As the process to create this new version moved forward I had one of those “in the middle of the night you sit up in bed with a sick realization” moments.
My nightmare wake-up call was this. If there are two competing ballot questions for the same issue could managed growth be killed completely? Our group discussed this and Grant Swift, a math teacher, gave us this breakdown to illustrate this could happen.
We have 40 voters.
20 are in favor of growth management, 20 are against it. An even split.
The 20 against it, vote no on both issues, they don’t want any limits on growth.
Of the 20 for growth management, 10 prefer the council’s version, they vote yes on it and no on the original.
The other 10 prefer the original 2B, they vote yes on it, and no on the council version.
Although we began with an even split for and against growth management, we finish with:
30 no votes on the original 2B, 10 yes votes.
30 no votes on the council’s version, 10 yes votes.
Both ballot issues fail
We jumped into action and lobbied some on the council to withdraw their version in order to prevent the total loss of managed growth.
THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
We made our case about the danger of placing two competing measures on the ballot at the same time.
I suggested allowing us a clean vote on 2B while putting each of the changes council wanted as separate ballot questions. Yes or no on a growth boundary, yes or no on grandfathered permits, yes or no on the extra 50 affordable permits.
WHAT THE COUNCIL DID
When the time came for the council to approve placing their version on the ballot, City Administrator Klaphake suggested an alternative. (We called this the Klaphake Compromise) He suggested eliminating the grandfathering of the 201 permits while adding the extra 50 permits for affordable units. Council agreed.
However, now the issue of a split vote was raised creating the possibility of failure for managed growth. In spite of this four councilors voted in favor of taking their new version to the voters.
Councilors Proctor, Grant and Avery voted no. Proctor and Grant, supporters of managed growth and the new changes (the 50 affordable permits being Proctor’s idea), stated their agreement with the concerns raised relating to splitting the vote. Avery had been a no all along.
THE TWO BALLOT QUESTIONS MOVE FORWARD
QUESTION NO. 2A
SHALL CHAPTER VI, SECTIONS 6.10, 6.12, 6.14 AND 6.15 OF THE CHARTER BE AMENDED BY [1] EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS THEREOF FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF SIX YEARS; [2] EXEMPTING UP TO 50 PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS ANNUALLY FROM THE BUILDING PERMIT CAP; AND [3] REQUIRING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CONTAIN A BINDING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY?
QUESTION NO. 2B
SHALL THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI, SECTIONS 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14 AND 6.15 OF THE CHARTER BE EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF SIX YEARS WITHOUT FURTHER AMENDMENT?
VOTE FOR BOTH FOR MANAGED GROWTH
A discussion ensued between those of us who had watched the progress and were now planning our campaign in support of the amendment. We could see only one way forward, Grant Swift came up with our slogan and we were on our way. Vote for Both for Managed Growth!
Our campaign was successful and the voters approved both questions with 2A getting more votes. We now had managed growth for another 6 years, 50 extra permits available for each year to be used for permanently affordable housing, and a yet to be determined, growth boundary.
NEVER AGAIN
After the realization that a competing ballot question to 2B could cause the loss of managed growth, no changes were put on the ballot during the extension year again.
HISTORICAL NOTE:
BIG CHANGES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAPPENED IN 2001
Some of us had been asking for changes to the makeup of the Planning Commission. At the time the mayor and two councilors served on the commission with 6 residents appointed by the mayor.
We wanted to remove the councilors from the commission and have the entire council appoint the members. We felt this would create a better method of checks and balances with the council checking the work of the planning commission.
With this change, councilors would no longer be in the position of analyzing the work of their own colleagues, and we hoped there would be less rubbing stamping of the commission’s decisions by the council.
The council was supportive of this change and they placed the issue on the ballot, changing the number of members to 7, removing the councilors, and requiring the appointment of the commissioners to be done by the entire council. The voters approved.
QUESTION NO. 2C
SHALL CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.14 OF THE CHARTER BE AMENDED BY LIMITING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEVEN MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT ALSO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND PROVIDING FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION?