[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: BVCP survey results comments

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Weaver, Sam

Fellow Council member and Hotline followers,

I have reviewed the results of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Community (BVCP) Survey and Focus Groups report in some detail.  Here are my thoughts in advance of our upcoming hearings.

Overall, I was extremely pleased with the rigor with which the survey was executed and the results presented.  Staff and the consulting firm which designed the survey (RRC Associates) were thoughtful about the questions to the community (which Council reviewed), and went to great lengths to make sure that enough surveys were returned that we had a small margin of error (+-3.2% margin of error at the 95% confidence interval).  This means that within the limitations of the form of the questions, we have extremely valid results that are representative of the overall community outlook.  And one other point of praise - the method of presenting rankings of preferences from a list of options is extremely clear by presenting clusters of top-2 and top-3 percentages.  Thanks to all for the thorough work!

Here are the notes that I took as I read each section (statistics cited are from the weighted results, there are comments on the weighting impacts later in this message):


1.     Overall, Boulder's residents seems fairly satisfied - 94% rate the overall quality of life in Boulder and immediate areas as Very good or Good.

2.     There is a general lack of familiarity with the BVCP, its processes, and its relation to growth in Boulder Valley.  11% of respondents know Quite a Bit or are Very Familiar with the BVCP process.

3.     24% of community follows discussions of the BVCP.

4.     Diversity of housing types and pricing tops the list of community values in need of attention. (Top 3 = 63% weighted, 50% unweighted)

5.     Transportation came in second on the list of values in need of attention. (Top 3 = 46% weighted, 46% unweighted)

6.     The perception of growth and change in the community is very mixed, and can be read as positive or negative depending on predisposition.

7.     There is not a lot of appetite for growing or shrinking the potential number of future jobs in Boulder - 57% said keep the current course.  For the second survey, I think this should be a topic for tradeoff questions that focus on the impacts of commercial growth on housing availability and affordability to understand better how the community would advise decision-makers on prioritization and solutions.

8.     There is relatively clear support for the current residential growth management approach, as it was presented.

9.     There is more support for letting market forces decide commercial growth rates, than having a City system to manage commercial growth.  This could likewise be part of more focused survey questions in the follow-up survey.

10.  There is strong support for mixed-use development.  Perhaps in the follow-up survey a visual preference sequence of questions regarding mixed-use development would be informative.

11.  There is strong desire to re-develop some current shopping areas.

12.  There is strong support to require new development to support permanently affordable housing, height limits on buildings, and linkage fees.

13.  The Boulder community feels very strongly that community benefits and high construction quality should be required for height limit exemptions.  Editorial note: There is no such requirement in the current Site Plan Review criteria.

14.  91% of respondents find the quality of life in their neighborhoods to be Very Good or Good.

15.  Most respondents (60%) think things have improved or stayed the same in their neighborhoods over the recent past.  14% think things have gotten worse.

The weighting, or the re-stating of the survey results based on the number of respondents versus the actual make-up of the Boulder population, is a statistical balancing act.  If certain populations, based on age, housing status, racial identification, or other identified factors, were under- or over-represented, the weighting exercise was meant to state the survey results based on equalizing those factors.  Based on my reading of the weighted and un-weighted results, for the majority of queries that exercise made little difference.  There are a few exceptions that I found to be significant, which are listed below.  UW is unweighted statistics (raw respondent opinions), W is the weighted (rebalanced respondent opinions based on some factoring of respondent identification).  In the body of the report, we were presented the weighted, re-balanced versions of the survey results.  We should keep in mind that the more weighting of the raw results required, the less confident the result.  The results below are the ones that it seemed to me that we should pay closer attention to these differences.


1)     Diversity of housing types value top 3 - UW = 50%, W = 63%

2)     Increase housing potential - UW = 33%, W = 43%

3)     Requirements for new development - Limit height and protect views - top 3: UW = 55%, W = 46%

4)     Requirements for new development - Require linkage fees - UW = 51%, W = 44%

5)     Requirements for new development - Provide permanently affordable housing - UW=37%, W = 47%

6)     Requirements for new development - Exceed standard for energy performance - UW = 33%, W = 42%

7)     Like most about neighborhood - Mostly owner occupied - UW=42%, W=27%

8)     Like least about neighborhood - Affordable - UW=24%, W=36%
There are several takeaways for me that I will cite in our upcoming meetings, but aside from the exceptions noted above, there is great agreement between the statistically valid unweighted results, statistically weighted results, and open website polling that was done for this effort.  I thank and praise all involved, and look forward to our discussions in the coming meetings.

All the best,

Sam Weaver
Member of Boulder City Council
weavers at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:sam at sam4council.org>
Phone: 303-416-6130