Loading...
5 - Information Items (4)tu f TO: CENTRAL RECORDS FROM: /~ .r~ /~ m~~~cr ,~c~`c~ (Name/ Boa d r Commis 'on) PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of: ~L9rY.C~ S. .~'DD / (Date of Meeting) d r e..r - ~ i,; ~ PORRECA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ . VI1CB111 J. POflECO P.O. Box 22 BOULDER. COtOf1A00 BN06 (303~ d47-9B54 FN( ~303~ 447-3B70 To: Mayor and Members of City Coundl From: Vlnce Porreca Re; BVCP / Job Reductian / Housing Production February 6, 2001 ~ First an apology for the tardiness of this letter but events surrounding your study session, conversations with City staff and many members of the communiry, plus my own schedule are the reasons. The attachment was sent to you in December of 1999, so iYs ofd news, but I would encourage you to read it again in the context of current discussions. • I will make my points as, more of a list, not necessarily in any priority. One point of information: I, too, am concerned about the potentiai for a'job takeover' of Boulder, but it's not going to happen overnight, or even before this Novembers election, so proceed with caution (think of it like traffic calming). As a 34-year resident of Boulder this is a very important issue to me, as it should be to even a 34-day resident. So lets be sure of the probiems, review and evaluate the assumptions and carefully rnnsider solutions whi(e having the `unintended consequences clearfy in our sight~. ..,.... Gry staff has said that there is no project yet regarding the job reduction matter. QuesGor~? How much staff time has been expended to date on a non-project? There are lengthy memos, and, now, finaliy, recognition that this non-project is something that needs to be discussed with the affected property owners and general public. It is ironic that the very people you may be counting on to deliver such things as affordable housing have, for the most part, been left out of this in any meaningful way. ....... We are also being told that the job reduction project is NOT part of the BVCP ... most observers would differ. In fact several documents place this effort squarely under the BVCP update; e.g. A• Z-3 of the Revised Impact Analysis, and the fact that some properties proposed for Land Use Map changes are also in the job reduction map. ....... Property owners are in a quandary about the BVCP land use map revisions. Since they have no idea what will follow the map changes, IYs like being asked to buy a car and not sure if we're even going to have a drivers license. The staff must have some idea what code changes would follow the map ~hanges, and each property owner should be told this in advance of any action on map changes. How does one know whether to support the changes without knowing what comes next. Once the map is changed 1t is then used as ~ustification for code changes, so tell us what you're contemplating so we can develop a rational position on the map changes. Do it well in advance of any hearings and meet with ail the property owners. Don't hide under the guise af'it'S a general action'. We should have learned from the 1997 down zoning, invoive the public early, and often. A reasonable process arose out of that effort. Why ~ haven't we used that process here? For the general public it seems rather lame to say that there is no project yet. Why the staff has even identified, by specific numbers, how many properties will be non-conforming, and they produced a voluminous packet for the joint study session. IYs hard to convince us that at least the staff hasn't been working on a project. ....... Is the project job reduction or housing production? Since housing is allowed now in most of the business zones what do we need to change? Why isn't anyone doing it? Fxamples such as the Steelyard must be tempered with the long time that redevelopment has been contemplated on that site. I worked on it in 1988 when Cub Foods was interested in locating there. Is there any link between the dropping of the housing in shopping center concept and the new housing in small commercia! properry concept? ....... Just what is mixed use? If for no other reason this subject needs a full community discussion, not a simple I..and Use Map hearing and the expectation of acceptance. Why are the impacts of 2500 to 3000 new housing units not assessed ...see p.2-5 of the impact analysis daument, last sentence. Surely adding as many units as say exist in some nearby towns must have some impact on more than what is fisted in the staff report. I have a feeling that if I were to propose a 2500 unit subdivision the staff would find considerably more to comment on in the `impact' column. .... Another issue that should be important consideration for the Council: How many of ~ the properties that are affected currently house local businesses? There has been mu~h taik among the Council about preserving, supporting and enhancing our local businesses, but this project seems to target them while leaving areas of major national businesses out. Slow down both the ]ob Reduction praess and the BVCP Land Use Map changes. If the sky is falling we all should be together in not letting it happen, but it's not going to hit in the next 6 months. Don't force hearings on the BVCP with artificial timetables. ,...... Assumptions made in the staff reports need a full discussion and, if necessary, debate. Why does the staff assume a 75°~ redevelopment of properties? Over what time period? Do FAR limits realiy decrease real jobs? What are the economic impacts of all of these changes? LeYs not make the same mistakes that were made in the past, especially where public process is concerned, You have the ability tonight to make sure that this BVCP update and associated processes are conducted in a manner that Boulder prides itself on: An open and inclusive process. ~ ~ PORRECA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ~ YllCent J. POtreca . P.O. Box22 80UlDER, caORPDO b0305 ~3W~ a4)-995a FPX(303~ q47.3e7o To: Boulder City Council Boulder County Commissioners Ciry of Boulder Planning Board Boulder County Planning Commission From: Vincent J. Porreca ~, ' Re: Boulder Valley Conprehen ive Plan 5 year Update December 16, 1999 i Almost 32 years ago, when I started work for the Boulder County Planning Department my first task was to develop, in conjunction with the City Planning Department, a plan for the Boulder Valley. This was to be, and did become, the first Comprehensive P!an in the State to be jointfy adopted by a City and a County. When we began pub(ic presentations of the Plan we had a slide show that we pre~ented. Among the very first slides in the carousel was one showing 4 arrows pointing inward ir a circle. Each arrow depicted one of the key agencies that would influence and drive the P.an: the County, The City, The University and the School District. That slide represented the comerstone of the Plan: cooperation. We need that cooperation now more than ever. The purpose of this memo is to respond to the request in the Daily Camera newspaper insert for citizen comments and I chose this method as 2 lines for "other issues that should be considered in the plan" on the insert questionnaire were hardly enough. In addition the affordable housing g~al, in some form, is a necessary and long overdue step for the City to take, but a misstep at this time may not allow for another chance. Therefore I believe that questions about that proposal need to have answers now, not at a public hearing a few months hence. Pemaps answers exist to many of the questlons I will raise,, but they weren't included in the insrt. The most notablequestions is'What happened to the rest of the Plan?" The insert is significant in that it was theCity's major communication with the majority of its citizens about this update. The main, and seemingly only focus, is esser.tially a housing strategy. What about all the other components that vilf be needed to make affordable housing successful7 How about affordab(e and conveniently ocated shopping and serv+ces? Wouldn't that be an ideal place to encourage laal businesses? -low about affordable transportation? ~ I may have missed it, but was there some decision by all 4 signatory bodies to have such a narrow focus for this update? IYs a major new direction, one that has considerable merit in its ~ concept and goals, but it seems to lack a comprehensive evaluation of all the policies it impacts and that will mpact it. It may be helpful to consider this as a giant development application and think of the que5tions you would be asking the applicant. The City is the `applicant' here and needs to pro~ide the answers. The followin; are some thoughts on subjects that may merit discussion durir ~ this update. Some are d:ectfy~related to the affordable hc.~sing goal, others may not be. AREA II ~1 ANNEXATION - What will be thr: jurisdictional future of Palo 'ark, Heatherwood and other.~eveloped but unincorporated Gunbarrel lands? What is the futu ° of other Area 2 lands? W'~ not provide more guidance for property owners and City staff -~like by providing a more he'~Ful Policy on "Community BenefiY'. Tf a staff seems fixated on ar~ordable housing as being ~'~e~~nly communiry benefit. There are many oChers. In some instances iYs as simple as com3~~anee with the BVCP. If the City is not,interested in any annexations, or they are only ir:erested in specific uses, then this should be addressed in the Polices regarding annexation, end certa,nly the County should be a party to any such changes. Will thr, City comply with the rnandat~ry language of Policy 1.21? That policy is titled "Annual Review of Annexations and capital improvements" and says, in part, that "progress by the City on both annexation and capital improvements shall be reviewed annually by the City and the County....", The Plan says "shal/'. We shouid follow our own plan, especially when it says shall. PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES - There are unincorporated lots facing problems with wells or ~ septic systems. The City will not extend utilities and annexation is slow moving and sometimes not feasible due to a variery of factors. Why not address this point now and look at the Policies that affect this issue. This issue has become more and more prevalent in recent years but there is no mention of looking at it in this update. I'm certain that if yo~ talked to the County and the Health Department that you'd find support for reviewin~ the applicable policies. TRANSPORTATION - In the 1980's I served on the City's or.'qinal Ad Hoc Transportation Committee and our charge was to develop a Transportatior Master Plan (T~~1P). It was a long process, one that resulted in a plan that was costly, but also seemed to hav~ a good deal of realism attached, Since then that TMP has been revised, expanded and now sits, as a sometimes used, sometimes not, monument to money. The revised TMP ~s c•~st to implement is astronomical. Is that why the integration of that Plan in+~~ this update is not r,entioned? It would seem critical to the success of a housing progr~, n that proposes to inc+ease densiry in neighborhoods and especially transportation corridors .hat the proposal thoraighly addresses the transportation impacts. Just think back to the recent Council meeting as th;~ Council correctly and thankfully challenged CU to address the transportation impacts ofits Master Plan. You must ask the same of your own Plan. In fact a review of BVCP Section 6, Transportation, appears to not even mention the TMP by name. Currently the City stafF is working on a plan for 28`" Street. What policies in theBVCP are affected? What changes are needed? How does this update mesh with that efbrt? ~ 2 The ability to control our traffic woes may be even less than we think. A recent USA Today ~ article stated that Indianapolis (IN) grew by 150,000 peopie between 1982 and 1997, but changed driving habits made it seem as if 800,000 people had moved into town. So how about looking at transportation policies in this update? After all, we-are taiking about adding 2920 dwellings that were not contemplated in the BVCP or the TMP. In the late 1980's I chafred a County Commissioner- appointed Rail Transportation Task Force. Among the volunteers on that Task Force were AI Bartlett, Mlke Rowe and then County Commissioner Buz Smith: When our work was completed we forwarded information to all of the cities and counties in the corridor asking for their input; the response was underwhelming. Perhaps the timing was wrong then. Perhaps it's time to try again. Community Facilities - As Boulder grows, and ages, there are changing needs for specific community facilities, yet nowhere are we addressing the ability for providers to expand in their current location or places for them to move to, and stay within the City. What better time than now to pian for the support servicesthat go along with the additional housing that this update proposes? Recent examples abound~, Thistie Community Housing, retirement and assisted living housing, hospital expansion, Humane Society, Peoples Clinic, Safehouse, Homeless Shelter, day care centers, etc. Manyof these agencies are non-profit organizations and funds are limited. The cost of land is high, tre availability low, and the process to gain approval is long and, for some, rife with neighbortood resistance. The City has periodically talked of a `transit center' in general terms, yet th~e is no attempt to define, let alone project a location for such a facility. Take a look at BVCP Policies 3.18 and 3.19 dealing with schools and 8.06 - . 8.09 that deal with community services. Policy 8,09 specifically references Interagency cooperation. PARKS & RECREATION - The Parks Depar,ment is land rich and facility funding poor. We have acquired a substantial acreage along Vamont for a park. We have had, for probably over a dozen years, a large park site in North Bouleer. When will either of these two park sites be provided with the facilities we need now? We havean acute deficiency of athletic facilities at some of our schools. Boulder High for example, ha~ no basebatl or softbail fields, no tennis courts, no swimming pool, shares a football field (F~cht) with Fairview; has no treck on which meets can be held, The School District must move qUr.kly to address this huge inequity between Bouider High and other High Schools in the Dr,trict. What better way to cooperate than to address shared facilities, costs and usage in ths BVCP update, THE UNIVERSITY - There are many topics of mutual oncern and therefore mutual solution between the City and CU. Begin with housing, and mov~to transportation and recreation. A renewed commitment to cooperation during this BVCP upate is needed. Is it time to consider adding CU as a signatory body as to policies which affeclor are affected by them? Comments by the Council about the CU Master Plan and iYs processvere on target, yet, other than CU's Pentium speed `public review' it may be helpful for the Ciy to ask similar questions of the BVCP update. ~ THE COUNTY - The relationship with the County is interspersed throughout most of these headings: annexation, community facilities, transportaUon, economy, housing, yet this update ~ seems almost exclusionary in its lack of reference to 8oulder County, the othe~signatory body to the BVCP. Has the County been talked to about the `Yalley-wide" traffic impacts (more later). TDR's - Since the Ciry and County signed an agreement regarding TDR's several years ago the City has not pursued implementation. The City needs to either establish a plan to implement this, in conjunction with +he Counry, or forget it and not have the staff talk to applicants about it. THE NUMBERS -There i: much talk about a jobs-housing bala~ ,:e, yet I have been told the housing component excluces all dwelling units in Area II. If th;:, is true, then why would you exclude these units? It seems odd since the most densely dereloped areas (Heatherwood / Gunbarref, Palo Park, Orang~~ Orchard} are on Ciry uti(ities. Hcre's a few numbers to ponder (information obtained from tF;e Boulder Counry Planning DeFartment on December 9, 1999): Gunbarrel Area 2 subdivisions - 4200 units built or permits isued; Palo Park, Orange Orchard and Githens Acres - 589 units built; Pine Brook Hills, Bow Mountain, Boulder Heights, Carriage Hills, Olde Stage (the'Mountain' subdivisions, technically nct Area II) 853 units buiit or permits issued. That adds up to 5642 units ... It's also odd that the insert talks about traffic impacts'yaley-wide" (see "Impacts" in the newspaper insert), but when we talk about jobs-housing lialance we may not be saying 'balley- wide". We should be consistent in our jurisdiction / numoers relationship. If we don't want to count the houses outside the Cit~;, but in the Valley, tl~en rnaybe our traffic numbers should only count the cars on City streets that are registerert to ;n-city residents; it'il probabiy help ~ those Levei-of-Service F intersections. ECONOMY - Crossroads has been on a downhili s~de for years and once again we are trying to figure out how it can catch up with, compete wth, or survive as a shopping destination. In years past it was a County-wide destination, tl~en X shrunk to perhaps the southeast County, now the survival as a shopping destinati0n of ~~-City residents is in jeopardy. The update is silent on most of these issues but now is thetime to address policies that would assist the survival of this center. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSTNG pRQHUSAL - What Policies are proposed for change, creation or deletion to support this proposal? Wh~: assumptions were made to arrive at the location and numerical pieces of this proposal? bVhat:tud+es were completed? This following is based upon informatiucontained in the newspaper insert and specifically the numbers presented. Additional units over and above the cun:nt build-out projections: 2920 Number of additional units by location:::orridors - 700 Centers - 1410 Induslril Area - 380 Area II - 430 ~ Existing Reidential Neighborhoods - No number 4 • Corridor location: The pfan cal(s for adding 700 units, of which 210 are to be permanently ~ affordable and 315 are to be middle income affordabie. This leaves 175 units unaccounted for in the Corridors. The insert specifically calls out very low, low, moderate and middle income housing in the text, and assigns numbers to each of these i~ the "Housing Options" page, but there are unexplained gaps between those assigned types and the total in each of the locational sections. Overall it appears, when you total up the numbers presented, that there are 660 uniks unaccounYed for so an explanatidn would be in order. Sample Questions for the Corridor location, .... Where along these major Corridors, will these 700 units be built? .... South Broadway is mentioned, why not North Broadway? .... Many of the intersections along these corridors already have Level of Service problems, what impacts wili this proposal have on them? .... Where, along these Corridorswill you fird affordabie land to build affordable housing? .... Where are the Transportation tackground materials? For example the insert says (or implies) that only 2200 new daily trips will be added due to the Corridor additions. That's just a shade over 3 trips per day per unit. Acheck with City staff showed that even if afl 700 units were attached the minimum number t~e staff told me they would use is 6 trips per day. That . would be 4200 new trips. If a private d:veloper proposed the trip generation numbers mentioned in the insert, they wouldn'tget past a pre-application conference these numbers. Is the assumption that the majority ofthe residents of these units will use alternate modes and if so, on what is that based? .... If the unaccounted units are mariet rate, what ADT factor will be used for them? And how many market rate units do you reallyexpect to be build at Diagonal Plaza or along 28w Street? .... Has there been a true economicanalysis of how these units will be financed? Do we have definitive information that says the ~enders are ready to finance units in the areas described? What assessment has been made of the commercial areas where leases abound, including ground feases? Has a financia~ analysis been completed that demonstrates that affordabfe housing can be buiit in these~ocations with the land values that curcenNy exist or wiil exits? Why would someone build r~sfdential units if they have eupansion potential for commercial uses? Are we going to offerincentives7 If so we should put them on the table now, not after the Pian's proposed chan~s are adopted. Incentives proposed now may garner more support for the overall plan, .... How were the numbF's arrived at in each location, and where is the analysis that shows where, in each of the lorational categories these units will be built? ,...~ What's happened to he idea of buying existing units to aid in bulkfng up our affordable . housing? What Code changes will be required to implement this proposai? ... The insert map showed dots that appeared to be `residential' by the legend, however ~ seve2l of them are questionabie as they are shown in fully developed neighborhoods. The text projects no numbers assigned to `e~cisGng neighborhoods' and the map has no additional explanation other than a legend. • .... I understand that preyious monitoring of permanently affordable units has been self- reporting by the owners, not a careful monitoring by the City. Assum~ ~g the proposal is implemented, what are the administrative costs to assure that units ~emain affordable? ..,. When wili traffic prajections be refeased and needed improvem~:nts to these streets be funded and built? A private developer would have to prepare a Tr~r~sportation Demand Management Plan and if private developers are being counted on 'n provide these new units, how wiii they address this question in their application, if we don't address it now with some Policy statements that accompany this update? Apply the same questions to "Centers". In these focations thestaff is talking about adding 1410 units but saying that "increases traffic by about 2600 daiy trips vailey-wide". Something has to be missing .... 1410 units that only increases daily trip~:by 2600? ThaYs 1.8 trips per day per unit. Would you believe that from an applicant? The section entitled "Existing Residentiat Neighborhoods" spys that the City is "proposing encouraging accessory units in neighborhoods throughou!the City". No numbers are assi9ned to this section, therefore impacts are really difficult to jucge, but certainly with such a sweeping statement as "throughout the City" one must question whY the insert wouid say "Has a negligible impact on daily traffic valley-wide" (there's thahialley-wide again), The concern will be within the neighborhoods, and indeed the biocks. Is tht City ready to approve accessory units "throughout the City"? Will there be a simple, low cat and short process that keeps the cost of the accessory unit down? Doesn't this section taket.~e 2920 additional units above that level and if so, how far? It would seem reasonable for such a significant proposal to be accepted by the general pubiic that much more information needs to be on the table nov, ai 1 therefore I would hope that not only are there answers to these questions and explanations ui the assumptions, but that they also receive the same widespread dissemination as did the propos~ii itself. It may not be wise to wait for public hearings to answer the questions. We're ~skin~ the•,-.ommunity to `buy' a large item here, and we should be prepared with a thorough sales ~~rogr3~n: ~ 8r~~-~7y February 8, 2001 ~ ~Members of the Boulder City Planning Board Boulder Municipal BuilQing Broadway and Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Dear Planning Board Member, The citizens of Boulder,are pleased that you are looking hard at the big problem of job growth in Boulder, especially as it relates to Boulder's inventory of housing. Relative to this burgeoning imbalance problem, I want to remind you of one very significant element of this problem that exists on our norCheast doorstep, the proposed Gatewav project at the confluence of47th Street, the Foothills Highway and the Longmont Diagonal, astride the primary northeast City access. Gatewav promises well and truly to inundate both the awkward intersection and the City, itself, with its thousands of day trips and its thousand-plus on-sit8 jobs. Almost no one sees it as a promising project. The Boulder County Commissioners have all three stated their unequivocal opposition to Gatewav. Open Space personnel think it is a terrible shame that it wasn't made into open space. Planners today are struggling with its ungodly number of site-specific problems: flood-plain dilemmas, alternate transportation access restrictions, City-entry view obstacles, inordinately difficult vehicle access to the site, compounded site drainage problems, and so on. • If, in fact, the ew project is constructed, it will become a nightmare for the City of Boulder and all its citizens. If twenty percent of its 1000 workers cannot afford to live in Boulder, it will create a deficit of 200 additional affordable homes. If the project happens, its 6000 trips per day will clog this entry intersection to the point that its over- and under-passes will have to be remodelled at huge expense. All adjacent roads, busstops, paths, soccer fields and open space will be impacted by pollution problems of large proportions. The additional public safety and transportation costs will be immense. Anyone commuting through this already overloaded intersection will come to loathe the planning that allowed it. The ultimate cost will include not just loss of entry view or open space, but alsc~a~iu~e financial burden on the City and its citizens of millions of dollars, now unforeseen. I urge you to look at this important site and reconsider its incorporation into our Open Space program. To do otherwise, at this critical time, wili allow an opportune moment to pass and to increase, in a tragic way, the destruction of Boulder's way of life. I would take no pleasure in saying, "I told you so." Thank you for your serious further consideration of this problem. Sincerely, ~y ~Lt7~. ~Rodg fE~y~~ 4082 Old Westbury Ct. ~ Boulder, CO 80301 Ph: 303-449-8049 ni~ ny. nr ~an~i.,..., ...,...~ .,. ~ I I~I~`~ ~ To: Boulder County Commiseianora From: A1 Gunter~ Aoldder Plaaaing $oard; Re; Prnposed BvCp pol#ay Chenges Datc: Fabruary lB, 2001 ~ V. cjVll~.~~/vy~ tio vu . ~~ ~ pr. /~i l ~I ~ . ~. BvC.~' - /75" ., `" ~~~ ~,~,,,+~ ~"' c~~vy1 : .r ~.~ ~ k~' Skevo PomerAncc;'formor City Couneil memher in addition ko thc iysucs we idontified in our pre~ious n~amo, two othet policy chan~;es have been proposad that we feal merit th~ County'S attentjon. Policy 5.01 DIV~RSIA7.ED EMPLOYMENT RASE. 7'lie curtent policy says "Tha City ead the L'ounty slsa.ll nupport maintenancc and expan~ion of a reasonably Qivecsif]ed employment bese within the Bnulder Vatley..." The City iH proposing to ~lelete the wards "maintenatice of' in this frat contenca. This is in exactly the wrong dircatioa. Inylead, the policy should delate tho worda "nnd axpnnaioa" and l~tive the word "maintenance", rnading "`fhe City and the Couniy shall aupport meintenanoe of a rcasonably diversified cmployment base withitl the Boulder Valley.,.". Thi9 would tefleot the City's job raduction policy diteckion and come closer to meeting the County's naed. (We note that si~nifie~,nc job growth will occur zvnn wirh the s~ongest of the curren4 proposala.) ' palicy 6,08 TRANSPURTATION IIV,IPACT. The City is proposing to changa the ler~guago in tha £rst sonton.oe fmm "Traffic intpncts from a proposrd dovelopmont that aaus~ uttac:cnptable community or enviionmen[al impacts are rc~uired to be mici~ated by the developeP' to "Trat2ic impucts from n proposed devclopmc+nc thai cause ~ unEu:ceptable cnmmunity or anvironmental impaccs, orunacceptable teduacibn, in levcl of service shail be miUgated," The wording ia vague in that what constitutos en "unaccopc~ble reducdan in LOS" la lett undefinod and other refcroncas to LOS in the policies ere proposEd to bo removod. Purther, the poliCy is signiftcantly weakcned by lettin~ develnpers avoid reaponaibitity for the impacts nf their developmez~t. We noto that trnf'tic congcation is the biggest issue in b~th lhc: City and the County, and tha C.ity hes no plans Atal are adeqvate !.n mainteln L05. 7'herrt'ore we auggoel edding the LOS language to the originel policy, end leauo the tequirement thtst the dnvelnpers musf mitigato their impects. OV~RALL iSSUE: '1'he BVCP ahould be the documcnt that ptovides the direotiun far resnlving traclcoffs, for example, between more development under cwrant rulcs and m¢intenauce of iraffic LOS. Thc current BVCP contains maay worthwhtlc policloe, end mnny mo~+e are boing propoaed with [his update,l3owever, the proposed policios not only feil to reaolvc t~adeot'fs, but could be u6ed to 9upport conflicting, dinectione simultfineously. There is discusslon at thu City about having an "action plea" to deal with auch majur issucs, and that this is wrere the ~adnoffs wi11 be considercd, These issues and their resolution are exacdy whAt. shovld be in the Comp Plan updatn and aubject to four-body roviow. Tha Commiasioncrs should insist that an "action plan" 6e eomploled and integtetcd inw thc Comp Plan update. ~ RECEIVED "DUNi-' n, n.u.+,oanu~aR' OFf/Cf FEB 2 U 2001 . REG'D eY_---~-~---- f~-°' ..~_,_.__-~ (/~ (.i -i i fV To; Will Toor & Lisa Monel - City Council; Mark Ruzzin - Planning Board ~ From: Steve Pomerance Re: BVCP 2000 Update Date: February 25, 2001 I have discussed the process and content of the BVCP update with each of you, as well as with a number of other people, and I would like to lay out a number of poin[s that have arisen in our discussions. Map Change Process~ ' Some of you have said to me that you would like to get the BVCP map updated with your proposed Iand use changes so as to remove 5,000 jobs up front and thus make the process of reducing the job numbers easier for the rest of the process. I am certainly supportive of reducing job growth, and this is an interesting theoretical point, but unfortunately, you are simply not ready to do this. Comprehensive plans have, as their basis, land use designations that identify the range of uses and densities that are proposed for the area so designated. (This is required even in the state statutes.) In the old days, we could change a designation, for example, from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and everyone would know what the uses and ranges of densities were. Now this is no ]onger possible, since new "mixed use" designations have been created that ]ack these use and density standards. This was o.k. in North Boulder, since the process generated a very detailed land use plan (with well defined uses, bulk ~ requirements, setbacks, design, etc.), then the land use designation and zoning categories were designed to fit this plan, and finally the BVCP and code changes were made AFTER the process of determining what was going to happen was complete. You are proposing to make changes to land use designahions THAT DO NOT WELL DEFINED USES AND DENSITIES, and to do this BEfiORE any detailed pubIic process has lead to agreement on a detailed, planned outcome. Proposing changes, like to Mixed Use Industrial, leaves the land owner, the neighbors and the general public almost totally in the dark as to the allowed uses and the allowed densities. The Planning Board hearings will not illuminate the Board, since the land owners of the allegedly 600+ parcels, the neighbors and the public have no clue as to what to expect, and so will have nothing useful to say. Given the failure of the process that occurred with Table Mesa and Basemar, I would think that you would not want to go through this again, but you are setting yourselves up for it. People will start seeing sinister motives and manipulation of the public in this unless you correct the process soon. You say that the land use changes will reduce job growth by 5,000 jobs, But how can anyone know this? There is simply no way to know if a change to a mixed use designation will lead to a building with one story of non-residential and 2 stories of residential, with appropriate setbacks, parking, etc., (with significant job reduction), or 55' high building with 90% office and industrial space, built to the lot line, with a few apartments on the top floor, (and a whole ~ lot more jobs). Fixine the Immediate Process: ~ To deal with the map change process, I strongly suggest that you cancel the Planning Board land use hearings SOON before the process looks worse than it already is. Then you need to re-start the BVCP process, doing what was done in North Boulder and in the Comprehensive Re-Zoning, with the public outreach and detailed planning first, and the BVCP map update and re-zoning at the end. (Of course, you will also need to rewrite the mixed use designations with use and density restrictions so that the public can know what can happen, and more importantly what can not happen, but that is insufficient without the public process and detailed planning first.) Although I am reluctant to propose this, because you may take it wrong, I would further suggest that you hold an informal meeting with those of us former council members who participated extensively in earlier updates. From my memory, Cindy Carlisle, Sally Martin, B. J. Miller, Allyn Feinberg, and I were the members that actually did most of the work on the various regular and "inegular" updates, although others were of course involved in the decision-making process. We have made all the mistakes, and perhaps we could help you avoid some. There are few staff with very much experience in doing a comp plan update, and since it appears that no one is bothering to point out the difficulties with the current process, perhaps you should take advantage of our painfully won expertise. Fixine the Policies: I strongly suggest that you each re-read the changes you approved. Many of the proposed changes go in the opposite direction from where you (now) say you want to go, and you wiil • need the policies to support your goals, not undercut them. See the two memos A1 Gunter and I sent to the County for examples. I must admit that it distarbed me that the amendments passed with unanimous or almost unanimous votes at Council; perhaps no one was paying careful attention. I further suggest that, to clean this up with the County Commissioners, you recall the policies, and acknowledge that they are not up to date with your new goals (of jobs reduction and addressing traffic) and then fix them. Doine the BVCP Update: What follows is a more in-depth look at the current situation and process, with some suggestions. As best as I can tell, the major stated aims for this update are jobs reduction and improved housing affordability, with some attention to "economic sustainability", whatever that is. But, there are some hidden goals, uncertainties and tradeoffs that need to be illuminated. It appears from dissecting your material that the real goals are to improve the following, acknowledging that the best that may be accomplished is prevention of significant deterioration: l. Maintain an economically diverse population 2. Prevent traffic from increasing 3. Reduce impacts on neighboring communities and rural residents ~ 4. Maintain service industry and service commerciat base . 5. Keep a base of people who both work and live in Boulder Reducing job growth will clearly help reduce pressure on housing prices, and thus help diversity. It will also help prevent traffic from getting too much worse (both locally and regionally), and reduce housing needs that are pushed out on other communities. (Remember, 40,000+ more jobs would create about another Longmont's worth of residential development.) But if not managed properiy, constraining job growth can push out services. Building more housing, with some permanently affordable, coUld help somewhat with diversity, reducing impacts on neighbors, and keeping people who work and live here. But it is a giant stretch to believe that adding housing will not substantially increase traffic. And unless restricYed, it has Yhe political liability of helping people move here while impacting those who already live here and are struggling with housing price increases. There are a number of issues and tradeoffs that need to be illuminated, that have so far remained in the dark, so to speak: 1. The 2000 traffic analysis that supposedly demonstrated little or no traffic impacts from additional housing needs to be reconciled with the 1995-6 work (TMP and Tishler) showing very significant costs to further growth. The methodology is different in each case - the 2000 work considered marginal impacts, assuming jobs were already here, and the 1996 work allocated costs based on trip ends. But the differences are too stark to be . ignored. 2. Tn parallel, the other impacts of housing growth need to be properly evaluated, e.g. parks, police, etc. Again, stating that the impacts are minimal flies in the face of all previous analyses. 3. The cost/benefit relationship for more C/I growth should be evaluated. We started this some years ago with a hypothetica140,000 sq. ft. office building, looking at the fees and taxes. But this work tteeds to be completed to show exactly how much more it costs to serve than is collected in fees and taxes (including sales tax from employees who live out of town but buy their lunch here.) Obviously, you need to include the costs of mitigating the traffic generated, currently unaccounted for on either the residential or non-residential side. Why do this? Because you witl hit the wail when the argument is made that we need ever-more growth to keep the City going. (This argument is bogus because it fails to deal with these unmitigated costs, but you already know that; what you need to do is demonstrate it.) 4. The effect of lowering job growth and its supply/demand effect on housing prices should be evaluated. I would bet that the total improvement in housing affordability (measured by total reduction in housing prices) from reducing job growth by 50% would be many, many times that gained by increasing the permanently affordable housing stock, given ~ any reasonable level of expenditura, and it helps ALL Boulder citizens, not some at the expense of others. 5. You need to re-do the survey work to clarify the citizens' tradeoffs about more growth. I suggest that with accurate traffic data, people's support for any more growth is minimal, • and that whatever you can do to minimize traffic congestion increases will be supported. The housing survey was useless in clarifying the acceptable tradeoffs - it simply was a "feel good" survey. I suggest you use the new citizen's survey to good effect in identifying people's real interests and tradeoffs, so that you have a legitimate basis for proceeding. Alternatives to Land Use Chanees in Addressing Job Reduction: In addition to the staff's quite limited approach (lowering FAR's, etc.), you should look at other ways to get at both job growth and its impacts. Lowering FAR's is appropriate and I support it, but it is limited in effect because of the non-conforming issue, and has no effect on job density increases in existing buiidings. Although the devices suggested here do not affect uses or building envelopes, they do affect traffic generation, and could reduce job growth. And since traffic is the citizens' biggest concem (not affordable housing for a few), you ought to take it on directly as w ~ll as indirectly. For example, limiting parking at job sites, with a city organized van and car pooling effort, could at least address some of the traffic increases. You could fund this with a fee on non- residential parking spaces (legal, I believe, given Bloom vs. Ft. CollinsJ Businesses could install parking meters or electronic boxes to collect from drivers to cover the fee, and the fees . could fund the van pools. This has the advantage of providing a legitimate and justifiable economic disincentive to increased job density as well as to new construction. Transportation impact fees should be raised to cover the costs of necessary improvements. This is again an appropriate disincentive to building more C/I, and a strong one if the numbers are set to cover the full cost, instead of a smali fraction as now, and is legal given Bloom. You could start a lottery with parking charges paid by solo commuters, giving free lottery tickets to car-poolers and bicyclists. Even if you only collected $0.50/commuting car, in one week the pot would be something like $200,000 -$250,000. That's a big incentive to bike or car-pool! And where has the discussion of non-residential inclusionary zoning gone? It seems to have died. It kills two birds with one stone. The point is, land use regulations are not the only device. Economics works here too. And these approaches provide businesses an"ouY', so that they can see ways to do a necessary expansion if they really have to, and services can survive. ~ 4 ~ • cc: James Pollard Joseph C. Franch Mayor and Members of City Council City Planning Board Board of County Commissioners Ron Secrist, City Manager Peter Pollock, Planning Director Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner Enclosures: Attachment A: Agenda for meeting with Property owners, handouts, and foIlow up communications Attachment B: Year 2000 Update Public Process Attachment C: Parcel report included in the March 8 Planning Board packet 5:...\compplg\B VCP\2000p1an\...\porreca.let2 . CITY OF BOULDER Attachment A Planning Department - Long Range Division 1104 Spruce Street- Second Floor(llth and Spruce Parking Structure) Boulder, Colorado 80302 Phone(303)441-1880 FAX (303)443-8196 AGENDA Property Owners' Meeting North and South Sides of Pearl Street east of 30th (West of the rail line) May 10, 2000 8:00 - 10:00 AM Boulder Public Library Creek Room l lth and Arapahoe Arapahoe Street Entrance There wilI be someone to let you in at the South entrance on Arapahoe (Library is not open at 8 AM) 8:00 Welcome, Introductions, Agenda 8:05 Year 2000 Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Background - Susan Richstone 8:15 Oiher background information - Housing Prototypes Tim Van Meter Transportation Bob Whitson 8:30 Input from property owners 9:30 Summarize, recap 10:00 Adjourn ~ ~ ~ A-/ ~y~~ i~~ ~'/ J PORRECA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~^ ~ Vl~C8~1 d POne4'U ~ p.0. Box ]2 BOUL~Efl. C0~02y'JO 80306 ~303) 4d7•9854 ~IU( ~363~ Sdi.387C Peter Pollock, Planning Director City of Boulder Planning Department PO Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Peter. February 14, 2001 VIA FAX & US MAIL This letter is being written on behalf of Thirtieth and Pearl, LLC, owner of the properly at the northeast corner of 30'" and Pear1 St. in Boulder (described In the attached exhibit A). 'Thls site has been the home of Pollard Motors since 1970 and currently has two main buildings with approximately 70 employees. We are currently preparing a Site Review application in order to accommaiate current and future needs. The purpose of this letter is to express concems and ask questions about the proposed Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Map Amendment proposed for this properly, We are requesting that any hearing to consider such amendments not be held until a full discussion of the stafF proposal and the Implications of the map change, and subsequent ~ City actions based upon those changes have heen presented to us. We also want to have an opportunity to review said proposals and receive answers to our questions. The lack of information and direct dialogue between City staff and affected property owners makes It impossible to evaluate whether or not the staff propo5al is In the best interests of the owner. Accordingly we have the following questions bo which we would like written responses as soon as possihie. ........ Will you postpone any hearings on the Land Use Map Amendments until a full and informative public process between affected property owners and staff has been completed? ....... Why is this properly, which was aiso induded In the down zon(ng just a few years ago, tncluded in thls praess7 ......, Is this property also inciuded in the properties targeted in the job reductlon study? ...... I5 there an accepted definition of `mixed use? If so, what process was used, and by whom, m estabtish that definition? In the staff document for the ]an. Z3rd slvdy session entiUed "Agenda & Memo", Attachment A is entitled Employment Projections and Mixed Use Assumptions. Page Q-Z . contains a paragraph entftied'~Comprehensive Pian Change5 - Mtxed Use Assumptions". ,... What Is the definition of Mixed Use Industrial, the designation the staff is proposing for the property? . ....... According to p. A-2 of the afnrementloned memo the staff `assumed' Mixed Use Industrial would be "0,6 FAR; 50°k Commeraal and 50~ residential uses," On what are these assumptions based7 ........ As this property is zoned IS-E, why doesn't the staff assumption (stated above) not allow for any percentage of the land to be developed "Industrial'? ....,... Does the elimination of industrial mean that the auto dealership wiil become non- conforming~ .....,.., What Is the goal of the mixed-use concept? ......... Is the stafPs proposal to r~quirethe 5D% split between "commercial" and residentlal on this property? If so, how, and if so why~ Will this be applicable to all properties zoned IS-E or wlll it only impact this properry? ........ What "commercial" uses are you contemplating that will take up 50°k of the site7 ....... Have you completed an economic analysis of the impact of the staff proposal on this property? If so would you provide us with a copy? ... What do yau envision as the desirable attributes of this slte for residential ~ devel~pment? Have you consldered the air quality at this intersectfon and it's relationship to permanent residents7 Has the staff evaluated the impact on residential uses of the very high treffic volumes that are adjacent to two sides of the property? ,,.... What Is the impact of the rail line? Are you familiar with how many trains per day use this line? ...... What will be the future of the auto dealership? Will expansion be limited? Are you intending the dealership to simply go away7 ...... Does your proposal provide any economic incentive fnr the properly owner of a successful busfness, (with extremely Iimited relocation opportunities in the City) to conslder a change In use? ....... Is it the staff's intention to seek a zoning change on the property once the BVCP map change is made7 If so, what zoning district are you proposing for the property~ ...... Does the staff intend to propose revisions to the I5-E zoning district aRer a map change? If so, what do you propose tn change7 .:...., What benefit would there he to the property owner from the proposed BVCP map change? . .... Why hasn't the staff met with property owners to discuss these matters? Do you . plan to do so prior to holding any map change hearing? If so, when w)II that process begin) If not, why not? Why are you proposing a change to thls property's land use designation at al!? ......, Why has the staff not discussed the long taiked about transit center when dealing wlth this properly? I understand that even now another Depattment of the City may be studying that option, ....... What is the relationship of this BVCP map amendment to the future of Crossroads? ,...... Has there been any discussion about wai4ng for any changes to these properties unttl there fs a plan for the Crossroads area7 ,...... How are the BVCP map amendments being coordinated with Crossroads planning and the 2B"' Street Project, both of which seem to have a pre-decision public process? Until there are answers to these, and additianal questions concerning impacts, both intended and unintended, a property owner (and, in fact, an elected or appolnted official) dcesn't have enough information to determine whether or not the proposed land use map amendment is something that should he supported. ~ I'm Certain that the answers to these questlons will raise others, but fnr now answers to these questions should get us srtarted. A useful and open public process needs to begin and be completed prior to any action by the Planning Board. My cllent is entitled to this information in order to ascertain what, ff any, impact the current proposals have on the property and to be able to respond accordingly, regarding th;s properry. I wlll look fonvard to your detalled responses to our initial set of questions, and again urge you to consider deferring the scheduling of any public hearings unt11 you have completed a true public outreach effort with a!I the atPectec Attach. c: James Pollard ]oseph C. French Mayor & C+ty CounNl City Planning Board 9oard of Counry Commisstoners Ron Secrist, City Manager ~ ~'~i~,B.; A ~~> ~ca~ oESCairnoH o~ o,~a~,vo. ,-B~,szoss ~ ALL TNAT POR'lION OF LOTS 8 AND ~, COMM 30, A SLBD1V131ON RFCORDED DECE~t9ER Zi, 1A7~, IIa Yll-N PII.fi P-5 P-1 i17 AND a17A aF ?AE RFCIIRDS OF BOULDEY COUMY, COLOAADO, AND A iAACT DP LNYD t.OCA'CED 1N Tf1E S6Lr1'HwEST ll~ OF 11~ NOATI~AST 1/4 DF 9EC7TQN 29, TOWNSi~ 1 NOQ17~i, ftANGE 70 WFST OF THE 6TH PRIIVCIPAL -~Wp],W, COLRVTY OF SOUI,DBR. STA7E OF COLORADO, D6SCH18Bp AS FOLyOWS: COMMENCING A'f I'F~ NORTHWEST CORNER OP 7i~ Sp[,~1'tiWES'C U~ OF T!~ NORTt~1SY U4 OF SAID SECTION 2B, fROM WHICH TFIe GFNIER OF SAID SECTiON E9 BEARS SOVfH 00 DEGREES l~ b~iVl'FS 20 $ECOQVDS FAST, Tf~NCE NORTN 9Y DEGBFFS 40 MDVU1'E316 SECOND9 EASi, 689.1b FEFI ALONG 1'FIE NOR11i LL~18 OF'i!~ SDUTHWFST 1/4 DF T'F~ NDR'I'S~AST 1/~ OF SAiB SECl70N 29 TO TF1E NOATFiWFST CORNER OF TF~ p~Sf 1/2 OF 17iE SoITCHWE571/~ UF TF1E NOdTl~AS? 1/4 OF 5AID SEC170N 29 ANL Tl~ TRUF POII~1T OF BEGj{V(dIIHC; THFNGE CONTIIVUINC NC~RT}I i9 DEGAEE$ ~0 MLNVI'FS 1s SECONDS PAST. 202.]4 PEET ALONG Tt~ NORTti LINE OP TF~ 50[7PfiVyEST 1/{ OP Tt~ NORTNF~IST 3!4 OF 5liID SECTION 29 TO A POWf ON A LINE 25.0~ FEET NORTHWES7ERLY, AS MFASLJRP~ RADIAL FROM 2HE CFNTFRLINE OF 7HE BURL{NGTOAT NOATHF1tN AAIIROAD iRACK ~I 19BU); TF~NCE SOU'fF~RLY, 29U.o7 FEE'T ALONC A LiriE 25.00 PEET VPESfERLY AND CONCFNTRIC M?fH T!~ CENTERLINE OF TFIE BURI.IlVGTOIY NOhTHERN RAQROAD TRACK (IIV 1990j AND ALONG TF~: ARC OP p CtJityE CUNCAVE T9 THE FAST TO A POII~T TANGENT, SnID ARC HAVII9G A RADiU$ OF 919.81 AEET, A CENTAAL ANGLE OF 18 DEGREFS OC M1NlTIF_S Dl SECONDS AND 8E1NG SUBTENDPD BY A CHOHD Tt7A? BEARS SOVI'H D3 DEGREFS 37 ff4NUTPS 29 58COND5 W£ST. 268.H7 PEET; TFff1HCE $OCT171 U5 DEGREE,S Z4 MINUTFS 3t SECONDS FAS7', 1T0.57 FPE1' 0.fANG A IINE ~ 2S.0o WSET WE5IERLY AND PARALLEL VNTH TFiE CEN'fF.RLIlVE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTFIERN RAILROAD ?RACK (A 3990} TO A POIISf OF CUItVE TO Ti~ L~C: 71~NCE 90UT1~',RLY, 1Se.si FEET ALONG A LIIVE 2S.OO FFET WESTFRLY AND CONCENTRtC W!T}! TF~ CFNTERI.INE OF TF~ $URLINCTON NOR'17~ILERN RAII.ROAD TAACK (W 1990) ANb ALONG 7'}g ARC OF SAID CL7lYE TO 71iE NDRTH I~NE YJi7E.VDED EASTFALY THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYFD TO NAT[ONAL CO~ST&UC14V COi.~wNY, iNC. AS DESCR~FD IN WARRAIVTY DEED R&CORDED ON PII.M I07T AS AELEP'f[ON N0. 353627 OF Tk~ RE.CORDS OF BOULnER COUNIY, COLORADO, SAID ARC HpWVG A RADlUS OF 3181.61 FEET, A CEN7RAL ANGLE OF O6 DFLREE$ 09 MINtTI'ES 19 SECONDS AND BEWG SUBTFNDED BYA CHORA THAT BEARS SOUIH OB DECREFS 2a MIIVVCES 11 SFCONDS FAST. 158.24 FSEI'; TF~NCE SO(ffH 74 DEGRFES 49 MIIJUTFS 00 SECONDS WEST, 718.]1 FEEt' ALONG T1~ NORTH LRdE EXl'ENDED EA5IERLY, ALONG THE NORTH L1NE. ALONG THE AlORl}I LiNP EXSENDED WESTFRI.Y APID ALONG'f5~ NOE'rH LII~E OF iHAT TRAC'I OF LAND AS DESCR~ED oN SAID FII.M lOt7 AS RFCEP710N NO. 353827 i01f~ WFST LINE OF'I}1E EAST l/Z OF THE $OUTHW65T 1!I OF IHE NOR'I}ITAS!' 1/~ OP SAII? SECIfON 29; TF~NCE NORTH oa DEGREES 1Z MIId[TCES aa SECO~iDS WF_ST. 70.9o FEHT ALUNG YF~ Vv£ST UNE DF T!~ EAS71l8 Op' 7'F~E SOUi}ilWEST 1/~ OF'L7~ NORTHEAST l/~ OF SAID SEC170N 29 7'0 'i'HE SOU1Si LINE OF PARCEL A CONVEYED TO 77tE CITY OF HOULDER AS bESCR~FD M GBANT OP EASbMFNT r1J~~ RIG13x' FOR PCiBLtC SCREE7 RECORi]ID ON FII,M il BH AS RECE7fI0N N0. {T5073 OF THS RECOHI7S OF BOLTLDER COi]A-IY, COLORADO: TI~S(CE SOUTH 7l DEGRLES 4B MIIVU7ES 00 SECOND9 WESf, 154.46 FFET ALONC TF~ SOVrii LINF OP S4ID PARCFl, A TO'fHE SoITfF{WEST CORNER THEREOF; TS~NCE NOR7'}i 60 DflGREES 14 MIIVL*fFS 20 SE[ONDS WFS7, 41.~0 FEEf AIONG'I7~lE WFST LIIdE OF SAID PARCEL A To 7X~ NORTHWES2 CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUiH 7~ DEGRF~S 49 M1NVfE9 00 SECONOS VYESC, 863L FFET ALONG TF~ . d~ . E.?ir.~<,- ij C~/ ~ Our Order Nn. A88752063 LEGAL UESCRIPTIDN N~YTIiERGY R1G}II.OF~ WAY LAVE OF PBASL SI&EE! W 1'F~ CCI'y OP BoULD£R; TNENCE 9aVCFl 77 DEGREES Ol MaV[JlP4 os SECONA9 WFST, 285.16 PYFP ALONG 7HE NORTHEAI.Y RIGHT•OF-WAY 1.B~E OF SAtD PFARL StREh'f; THENCE SOi1Sti 74 DE(iRELS ~Y MitiU7F.3 00 SECONDS WPSt, 111.RS FP~T ALONC THE NORTi1FALY BiG}~l'-OE•WAY I.BVS OF SAtb PPA$L SfRtZT TO A POWf O~P CUBV~ TO'I~ RIGfIf; '1'f~NCE NOHTHWES'iFR1.Y, EP.3o FBET ALONG'1'~@ NORTHFRLY AIGHT•OF-WAY ],BVE OF SAID PBABL STREET AND ALCNC Y'F~ ARC OF SAiD CURVE, SAID p8C }y~yWG A RAD1U3 OF T1.00 FEEi', A CENTRAL ANGLS DF 56 DEGRP~3 00 b~DNU'lE5 00 gELpIVpS AND gpING SLiBTENDED 8Y A CHORD THAT BBARS NORTI~ 7T DECREES 11 MpYt,'CES p0 SF.CONDS WESf, 68.89 FEET: iHENCB NOaTR4VESTfRLY, E.33 FESI' N.UNG 7T~ NORT4[ERLY RIGHT•pF-WAY LINE oF SAID PEARL STREEl' AND ALONG 't]~' ARC OF A C11RVE C~BCAVE TO THE NORIHEAS7 TO THE WEST T~TS QF'[7~1AT'CRACT OF LAND COIWFYED TO 3000 PP~IAI. PP~RTNFRSfi@ AS DFSCA~pp IN WARRAN'lY LECD BFCORDED ON FIIM 10TS AS sECEP'ITON N0. 36129U OF Ti~ REGORD OF ROULDER COUN[Y, COLORADO. SAID .4RC FUVINC A RADIUS OP 36.00 FEEt, A CENTRAL ANCLE OP Ri DEGREFS ~2 MIlVVffPS 3a SECONDS AND SEIlVG SLJBS~+IDED $Y A GHORD THAT HE4RS NORTH 35 DEGRSES 5s ~tIN~TrES 46 SECONDS WEST, 2.39 FEEf; Tk~NCE NORTkI 00 DEGREES 14 A4NUTFS 20 SECONDS WEST, Zp.34 FBET pLpNG 1HF WESf LII~ QP TFL4T TRACT OF L.lL~1D AS DESCRIDED ON SAm FI[M 1075 AS RECEPTION NO. 353290 TO THE NORTHVYEST&RLY COANER TH&REOF; TNENCE NOBTH Ol -EGAEES 29 MlNU1`FS 13 SECONDS WL'Sf, 102. 93 FEET ALONC '1'HE EASS RicxT-OE-WnY I.II~ oF 3o11i S'cR~Ei' W z[~ Ct!'Y oF BoLZnH& TO '[7iE SoUrHWEST CORNER ~ OF SAID LOT ~' TtIEIVCE NOA'I'ki 02 DEGREES 11 MINLfiES 10 SECONDS WPST, 208.l1 FEET AI.ONG S}IE WES'f LINE OF SAID LO? 4 TO TFjE NORTHWES7 CORNFR THEPFAF; 'rxF-NCE NORTH 1S DEGREES 11 MINUTFS 6o SECOI3D3 EASi, 0.~6 FEET ALONG'i7~ NORTH LLVE OF SAfD LOT 4 TO THE Sotl[HWECT coRNER OF 4AID LOT 3; TiffNCE NORTN 02 DEGREES 11 MII~I[TtES 10 SECONDS WF.~'C. ?a.00 FF.FT ALONG'ISIE WES'I' 1.1N6 DF Sq[D LOT 9; T}~NLE NORTH 00 DEGREFS 14 Iv~1fTIF5 t0 SECONDS WEST. 274.50 PEET AI,ONC'THE WPST LIIVE OP SA1D LOT 4't0 T'HE NO&THWFSr CORIVER 11{ER80F; 'IHEtiCE NO&I7i 89 DEGREES ~5 MIN[l[f5 ~{p SECONDS EAS'f, ~94.6o FFF.T ALONG T'HE NOKl'H LIIVE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTF179 DEG&EES ~9 MIN[7rES 4D SECOVDS EAST, 131.13 FEk'T ALONG TFII: NORTH L1NE OP SAm LOT 3 TO Y}~ NORTHFAST CORNEK Tf~REOF, A P01M ON Tt~ VYEST LINE OF Z7~ FAST Lx OF TFiE SOl71HVVES'f ll~ OF 7HE NORTNF.AST 1!~ OF SAm SPCTION 29; THEIVCE NORTH 00 DFGREFS 12 MIIVVfPS 00 SPCONDS WEST, 121.33 PEET ALONG T}LE yVEST I.INE OF 71~ EAST ]f2 OF THE SOU7tiWFST ]M OP Ti~ NOR7'f~AST 1/~ OF SAID 5EC7SON t9 TO IHE TRUB POIIJl OP BEGINNINC. LEGAl. OESCRIPTION PREPARED SY: KFNr S. AL8ER5 DREXEL BARRELL k COhSANY ae~o PEARL FAST CIRLLB ~ll~ BpULDER, CDLORADO tOSO1.2/7S (303)112-4338 ~ BrC~- i78' / ~ ~~r~~~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning Department 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email building-services@ci.boulder.co.us www. ci. boulder, co. us/buildinqservices Mr. Vincent J. Porreca Porreca and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 22 Boulder, Colorado 80306 March 2, 2001 VIA FAX and US Mail Dear Vince: This letter is in response to your February 141etter to Peter Pollock on behalf of the owner of the property at the northeast corner of 30"' and Pearl Street. As part of the five year update to the Boulder . Valley Comprehensive Plan, this site is proposed for a land use designation change from Community Industrial to Mixed Use Industrial. As you point out in your letter, because this property is currently zoned IS-E (Service Industrial- Established), it was one of the sites included in the 1997 comprehensive rezoning project. For this reason, staff felt it important to do some extra outreach to the property owners early in the process both to give them information on the comprehensive plan and what was being considered for their site, and to get their feedback. When we met with them on May 10, 2000, we had not yet finalized our recommendations on land use designation changes. Attached is a copy of the agenda for that May 10, 2000 meeting, and some fol]ow up communication (see Attachment A). As with all properties proposed for land use designation changes, the property owners also received two ]etters informing them of the proposed change, what it means, and an announcement of upcoming open houses where they could get more of their questions answered. In answer to your questions, I offer the following: Will you postpone any hearings on the Land Use Map flmendments until a ful! and informative public process between affected properry owners and staff has been completed? The Planning Board public hearing on the proposed land use designation changes is scheduled for March 8, with deliberation to occur on March 14 and March 15. A public open house was . held on March 1. 2. YVhy is this property , which was also included in the downzoning just a few years ago, incla~ded in the process? This site is included because it meets the criteria that were established for designating sites as ~ mixed use. These include: a commercial or industrial site; an underdeveloped site; located on two high frequency transit routes (the LEAP and the BOiJND); located on proposed rail route; and near other amenities. We did not •exclude consideration of sites subject to the 1997 comprehensive rezoning project, though, as I mentioned above, we did extra outreach to them early in the process to get their input. 3. Is this praperty also included in the properties targeted in the job reduction study? The commercial growth management project ( that you have referred to as the job reduction study) will include properties located in the city's commercial zones not addressed in the 1997 comprehensive rezoning. Since this property is zoned industrial, it will not be included. However, if the property is designated mixed use industrial as recommended by staff, it will be included in our look at the specific implementation of the mixed use land use designations, which could happen concurrent with the commercial growth management project. 4. Is ther°e an accepted defnition of `mixed use'? Ifso, what process was z~sed, and by whom, to establish the deftnition? Mixed use in general is defined as a mix of different land uses, specifically including housing as one component, with commercial or industrial uses. Civic and public uses could also be included. ~ The definitions for each of the mixed use land use designations are in the comprehensive plan and were originally adopted during the last major update. The definitions have been discussed with property owners, the public, and Planning Board throughout the update process, and are proposed for change. At the May 18, 2000, Planning Board update and discussion on the comprehensive plan, the Board specifically discussed revising the current definitions. The May 18 staff inemo states that, "the land use map designations... will need to be revised. The racommended approach in this major update is to identify sites appropriate for additional residential uses through mixed use development or redevelopment, evaluate land use changes based on criteria, listening to public input, and recommend changes. The intent is that the Comprehensive Plan land use map designations represent the community's vision, and various implementation approaches are possible." Staff is proposing revising the mixed use industrial definition as follows: "Mixed use industrial means that industrial uses will predominate. Neighborhood retail and service uses may be allowed. Housing compatible with and appropriate to the industrial character will also be encouraged or required." The revised definitions will be considered in conjunction with the land use map changes. Planning Board public hearing will be March 8, and Board deliberation will be March 14 and 15. ~ 5. YT'hat is the deftnition of Mixed Use Indarstrial, the designation the staff is proposing for the property? ~ See # 4 above. 6. Accordirrg to p. A-2 of the afo:•ementioned memo the staff `assumed ' Mixed Use Industrial would be "0,6 FAR, SO% Commercial and 50% residential uses. " On what are these assumptions based? This was an error in the memo. The assumption was actualiy 50% industrial, 50% residential. The assumption was based on existing mixed use zoning districts. As this property is zoned IS-E, why doesn't the staff assumption (stated above) not allow for any percentage of the land to be developed "industrial"? See # 6 above. I apologize for the error and the confusion that it caused. 8. Does the elimination of industrial mean thdt the auto dealership will become non-conforming? We are not proposing the elimination of industrial, The definition of mixed-use industrial states that industrial uses will predominate. Additionally, the proposal at this time is for a land use designation change, not a zoning change. • 9. YYhat is the goal of the mixed-use concept? As stated in the materials that were prepared for the many public discussions on this issue: Mixad use is a development type that meets many of the community's goals, including: • Use land resources more effectively through a more compact type of development; • Increase pedestrian activity, thus potentially reducing automobile use through a more urban pattern; • Inerease pedestrian activity by adding convenient services within walking distance; • Increase transit ridership through more intense development located along transit lines; • Enhance urban design which can increase economic activity and thus sales tax revenues; ~ and • Provide a diversity of housing types more affordable to low, moderate, and middle income residents. 10. Is the staff's proposal to require the 50 o split between "commercia! ° and residential on this properry? If so, how, and if so why? Will this be applicable to all properties zoned IS-E or will it only impact this prope~~ty? The desired mix will be industrial and residential, with complementary retail as appropriate. Options for implementing mixed use range from more incentive-based to more regulatory, and will be developed in a public process after the comprehensive plan is adopted. Some of the options for implementation that have been discussed include: • Initiate an area plan with property owners and staff; • Develop city- private property owner partnerships; • Revise the code to allow live/work and attached units in general industrial zones by right; ~ • Reduce parking and open space requirements for projects with mixed use; • Reduce non-residential floor area ratios; • Allow an increase in density with the addition of residential use; • Rezone properties to existing mixed use zones. It is likely that implementation of the mixed use land use designation will employ many of these strategies, and will depend upon the level of intensity that is appropriate, as well as other factors. This discussion will occur through a participatory process with the community and individual landowners after the comprehensive plan is adopted. 11. YVhat "commercial ° uses are you contemplating that will take up SO% of the site? Industrial uses are anticipated as part of the mix, not commercial. The only commercial uses that would be anticipated woutd be complementary to the primary industrial uses on the site. 12. Have you contemplated an economic analysis of the impact of the staffproposal on this prope~~ry? If so would you provide us with a copy? We have not done an economic analysis of the proposed change on this specific property. A fiscal impact to city costs and revenues was prepared for overali proposed land use designation changes, and it was included in the Impact Analysis prepared for the January 23, 2000 study . session. Please let me know if you would like a copy. 13. What do you envision as the desirable attributes of this site for residential development? Have you considered the air quality at this intersection and its relationship [o permanent residents? Has the staff evaluated the impact on residential uses of the very high traffic volumes that are adjacent to two sides of the properry? The qualities that make the site desirable for residential include its proximity to high frequency transit, the Goose Creek path which will ultimately connect to the Valmont park site and the Boulder Creek path, and the nearby shopping and recreation facilities. The main down-side will be the noise, but residents will know about this before choosing to live there, and for many people the other desirable qualities will outweigh this down-side. Living here would be a life- style choice. There are examples of this type of residential mixed-use environment all over the country, and the Steel Yards project immediately to the north has had substantial interest from people who recognize the benefits of living in this area. We did not do a site-specific air quality analysis, although we did a city-wide analysis as part of the Impact Analysis, discussed with Planning Board and City Council at the joint study session on January 23. 14. What is ixnpact of the rail line? Are you familiar with how many tr•ains per day use this line? Currently, the line carries 8- 10 freight trips per day. It is assumed that the rail line will stay, . 4 and that if the line becomes commuter rail as recommended in the US 36 Major Investment Study, the number of trains using the line will increase significantly. ~ 15. What will be the future of the auto dealership? Will expansion be limited? Are you intending the dealership to simply go away? Since this proposai is for a land use designation change, non-conformities would not be created. If the proposed mixed use land use designation is approved, it would signal that in the future, the desire would be that the property re-develop into a mixture of uses, including housing. 16. Does your proposal provide any economic incentive for the property owner of a successful business, (with extremely limited relocation opportunities in the Ciry) to consider a change in use? The land use designation is the city's long term vision for the future. Ii does not require that a property owner redevelop his/ her property. As part of implementing any land use designation change, we would look at incentives for adding housing, in addition to the other approaches mentioned in #10. ~ 17. Is the staff's intention to seek a zoning change on the property once the BVCP map change is made? If so, what zoning district are you proposing for the property? As mentioned in #10, we will look at a number of implementation options, one of which is • crearing new zoning districts and/or rezoning, both of which we did in the 1997 comprehensive rezoning. 18. Does the staff intend to propose revisions to the IS-E zoning district after a map change? If so, what do propose to change? The only zoning change to IS-E that has been discussed is the possibility of allowing live/work units or other housing types in the zone. 19. What benefit would there be to the property owner from the proposed BVCP map change? Aithough the tand use designation changes are proposed to meet community wide objectives and not necessarily to provida benefit to individual property owners, a potential benefit to the property owner could be that the change signals a long-term desire for a greater mixture of uses than is envisioned in the existing designation (community industrial). 20. Why hasn't the staff inet with property owners to discuss these matters? Do you plan to do so prior to holding any map change hearing? Ifso, when will that p~~oocess begin? If not, why not? As mentioned in the second paragraph, staff has met individually with property owners. We • have also had an extensive public outreach, summarized in Attachment B. 21. Why are you proposing a change to this properry's land use designation at all? We are proposing a land use designation change because it meets the criteria as a site desirable ~ for mixed use development. Encouraging mixed use development is a key theme in the Year 2000 Update to the comprehensive plan. 22. YVhy has the staff not discussed the long talked about transit center when dealing with this property? I understand that even now another Department of the City may be studying that option. The transit center for this general area has been discussed and was a consideration in recommending the site for mixed use. See the parcel repo[t sent to the property owner and included in the March 8 Planning Board packet (Attachment C). 23. What is the relationship of this BVCP map amendment to the future of Crossroads? Crossroads is recommended for a land use designation change to mixed use business, which reflects the desired vision of the future of the site. 2~4. Has there been any discussion about waiting for any changes to these properties until there is a plan for the Crossroads area? There is cunently no plan being developed for Crossroads. 25. How are the BVCP map amendments being coordinated with Cross~~oads planning and the 28`~ ~ Street Project, 6oth af which seem ta have a pre-decision public process? See # 24 re: Crossroads. The comprehensive plan rewmmendations for the site have been discussed with the 28'h Street design committee and Planning staff is a member of the team. The project will include a plan for a secondary street network and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections in the area, which will support the mixed use land use designations being proposed here. I hope this information answers your questions. I would be happy to meet with you or interested property owners if it would help, or call me at 303-441-3292. Sincerely, ~~~~U~~~~~ Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director of Long Range Planning • 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: 3-8-Od TO: City of Boulder Planning Board RE: Proposed changes to Boulder Valtey Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Agenda Item # 6A (Parcel No. 15a, 15b and 15c -(SE of East Boulder Recreation Center) The purpose of this Memo is to bring to your attention some of the concerns, complaints and objections to the change of use proposed for the above parcel. We apologize in advance that this information comes to you at the last minute, and perhaps not as complete and as organized as it will be in the near future. However, despite the list of "notices" Yhat appears aY the beginning the 3-8-00 Agenda and attachments, the vasY majority of people living in the neighborhoods directly and adversely impacted by this matter were not aware of the proposal, or of this hearing, until appro3cimately one week ago. We note that a letter was sent to all property owners "who would be affected by the proposed changes ...". We note in passing that no such letter was received by several of the owners abutting the subject parcel on the west, and certainly not by the people in the neighborhood immediately to the west whose property is also adversely impacted. There is no question that Boulder is an expensive place to buy a home, an expensive place to maintain that home, and a very difficult place to find "affordable", let alone "low income" housing. There is also no question that, as stated in the Staff Report, "For many years, the City Council, city boards, citizens, and staff have struggled with the challenge of affordable housing, and have pursued a number of major community efforts." Boulder continues to be a very popular, and expensive place to work and live. Attempting to alleviate the problem is commendable; doing so by destroying a neighborhood is despicable. Staft's Report outlines the history of the problem, projected job and population trends, and possible solutions. The Report is replete with references to more affordable housing opportunities, reduction of job growth, reduction of "in-commuting", and that ever- popular word, "diversity". A particularly telling passage, and one that encapsulates the attitude that appears to prevail: "Housing types and locations with higher densities provide the best opportunities for greater affordability to the tazget groups. Providing a range of housing types for the target groups increases the opportunities to capture those people willing to trade off certain amenities in order to live in Boulder and not commute in to work. For example, providing housing near transit stops and close to workplaces would reduce the need to own a car for some people." The goal is to "capture" a"targeY' group that is willing to trade off certain amenities in order to live in Boulder. There is no concern with: 1. People who already live in Boulder and are NOT "willing" to have amenities they have enjoyed and financed for years stripped away. 2. Neighborhoods that are established, well kept and attractive burdened with TRII'LE THE AUTO TRAFFIC. 3. Homeowners who have spent 30 years paying off their homes, who rely on the increased value of those homes for a large portion of their retirement, and who suddenly are faced with the very real prospect of decreasing values because they no longer live in a quiet residential neighborhood of similar homes, but on a minor freeway serving a more "diverse" and higher density project. 4. The gross ittconsistency of pushin~ flood plain designation for an area (thereby increasing insurance costs and restricting renovation and remodeling alternatives for longtime residentsl WHII.E AT THE SAME TIME ~ronosing to TRIPLE the allowable buildin densitk 5. The vehicular traffic impact of this site cannot be miti a,g ted• per the Report (There is some implication that the traffic could be spread out by extending Kewanee east. This is ridiculous. The owners who originally purchased in this area were assured by the City Kewanee would not be extended. It is a narrow, residential street that carries almost exclusively locaJ traffic, with the occasional delivery or service vehicle. If 1,200 more trips per day are no big deal, try adding them to your neighborhood.) The suggestion that e3ctension of Kewanee would help is accompanied by the note that this would avoid "unnecessary local traffic on 55~' Street." It you don't want unnecessary traffic on 55`~' street, what makes you think the adjacent subdivision wants it? If they had wanted to live on a thoroughfare, they would have purchased a home there. Despite the not-so-subtle bias toward approval of the proposal, even the Report must acknowledge the most obvious objectionable aspects of this proaosai: 1. The property is not within the apparently acceptable 1 mile of an employment center. 2. It does not respect existing neighborhood character or encourage "sensitivity to exiting context." 3. It does not raflect existing neighborhood character. 4. It does not have adequate services and facilities for vehicular access, either available or planned. 5. It is not in an area with a mix of complimentary land uses. 2 In addition, and contrary to the statements in the Report, this proposal DOES NOT: Show compatibility with adjacent land uses. It is surrounded on two sides by low density, single family residences, on the third side by a large community recreation center and land (with single family residential adjacent to that, and on the fourth side by open space. Tripling the density of this parcel cannot be construed by even the most ardent "diversity" advocate as compatible with the adjacentland. 2. Encourage increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto dependency. To the contrary, this parce is not in a transit-oriented/pedestrian friendly area, and is not served by high frequency transit. This means, as noted in the re o~rt an increase of almost 1,200 daily vehicle trips. Not only does this not help with Boulder's traffic problem, it exacerbates it. 3. Despite the comment in the Synopsis, this change does add vehicle tri s to an arterial intersection that is now con e,g stet! Try getting on to South Boulder Road at Manhattan or 55'~ street, and then try to say there is no congestion. 4. Creating high-density residential use from low density residential land does not preserve and protect environmental resources. It destroys them. The "plusses" under Environment in the Synopsis are ludicrous. Destruction of wetlands is not a plus. Destruction of wildlife and/or native plant habitat is not a plus. Building in an existing or planned flood zone is not a plus. There are prudent and productive alternative. In a recent Parks/Recreation meeting, the need for additional soccer fields was mentioned. This site, or a portion of it, would be idea] for expansion of the already existing fields, and would have very little of the impact on the land or the adjacent homes. The land would also be ideal for the expansion of the East Boulder Rec center, something that has also been mentioned at Parks and Rec. Perhaps the word that best summarizes these many pages of the Report is "density". Again and again higher density is uttered as the answer to a host of problems. That is a faulty premise. If higher density is the answer, why do refugees from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., flock to Colorado? Wa know Colorado is the best place in the country to ]ive, but another reason is that they are tired of the crowds, of the high density housing, of the constant encroachment on their neighborhoods by more and more people. The City and County have made a conscious and very public decision to reduce the number of jobs in Boulder, yet this proposal increases the housing and therefore the number of people. It is foolhardy, shortsighted, and ludicrous to speak of reducing jobs while at the same time piling more and more people on to less and less land. Closing the front door while you build a bigger back door doesn't solve the problem. We respectfu]]y encourage you to vote no on Agenda Item 6A with respect to the East Boulder Recreation Center. 3