HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A - Discussion of the process and timeline for the 2003-2004 Annual Review of the Boulder Valley CoCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 11, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date August 28, 2003)
AGENDA TITLE:
Discuss~on of the process and hmehne for the 2003-2004 Annual Review of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Plamm~g Department
Peter Pollock, Plamm~g D~rector
Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Plannmg Manager
Susan Richstone, Planner
Jean Gatza, Presenter
FISCAL IMPACT:
No addihonal fundmg is required m addihon to current resources. Staff review of th~s rtem is
part of the existmg work program and budget.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this item is to discuss the process and schedule far the 2003-2004 Annual Review of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) contams procedures for the Annual Review (See
Attachment A for mformation on the Annual Review from the plan).
The plan states that "The city Plannmg Department and the county Land Use Department shall
establish a process and schedule for landowners and the general publ~c to submit request for changes
to the plan as part of the annual Review " City and county staff have prepared the proposed process
outlmed below for the 2003-2004 BVCP Annual Rev~ew.
s\plan\pbatems\memos\~g03-04bvcp-m~tiate-an-rev2 mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 1
The 2002-2003 BVCP Annual Review was completed m July Two land use designat~on changes,
one service area boundary change and various changes to text were approved Staffls mtent is to keep
this annual review process as streamlmed as possible. The mam purposes for this update are to
1) Provide an opportumty for the publ~c to request changes to the plan
2) Amend the Land Use Des~gnation Map to reflect the Gunbarre] Commumty Center P,lan
3) Amend the BVCP Trails Map
4) Evaluate potent~al changes to some of the Commumty Industnal Areas
5) Revise Econom~c Polic~es based on the City Manager's Economic Vitality Policy
6) Review the BVCP Action Plan
PROCESS AND TIMELINE:
September Pubhsh nohce m Daily Camera begmmng Sept. 7 '
Adopt Gunbarrel Commumty Center Plan
Check-m with city Plamm~g Board, City Council, county Plannmg Commission,
and County Commissioners to d~scuss the annual review process and add rtems to
be cons~dered m the annual review
October October 10 deadhne for fihng apphcat~on to propose changes
Mail nohce to property owners whose property would be affected by a propo~ed
change (30 days pnor to Plannmg Board heanng)
November November 20 Planmng Board heanng to compile list of changes to be considered
m the annual review
List of changes to be considered m the annual review sent to other approval
bodies as an mformation item
December Public meetmgs to mform neighbors of proposed changes (if necessary) ~
City and county staff analyze proposed changes and develop recommendations
February Plamm~g Board and Crty Council achon on proposed changes
March County Plannmg Commisston and Boazd of County Commiss~oners achon on
proposed changes
Durmg the 2002-2003 annual review vanous issues arose regardmg the review process During
the Year 2000 Update to the plan, the process sechon of the plan was revised For this annual
review, staff proposes to use the process outhned above The process sechon of the BVCP will
be rev~ewed and changes proposed m the next ma~or update to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan which is anticipated to begm m late 2004
For the annual review, the Plannmg Board is charged with comp~lmg a list of changes to be
considered m the annual rev~ew The mirial list presented for cons~deration includes all public
apphcations and proposed changes from staff The mtent is to screen out any rtems that the ~oard
may not wish to consider at this hme It is mtended to save staff time and resources by not ,
analyzmg proposed changes that the Plannmg Board is not mterested m considermg.
s\plan\pb-~tems~nemos\~g03-046vcp-~mt~ate-an-rev2 mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Pase 2
A particular ~ssue of confusion m the procedures for the annual review arose m the last annual
review regardmg the clause "The County Planning Commission, C~ty Council, and County
Comm~ssioners may review the crty Plannmg Board's direct~on on the changes to be considered
as part of the annual rev~ew and may add or delete items." Histor~cally, only the crty Planrung
Board reviewed the mrt~al l~st at an Authonzation Heanng Allowmg changes by the other
approval bodies was added in the recent revisions to allow those bodies to further screen out the
l~st of ~tems
In the mterest of keepmg this annual review as streamlmed as poss~ble, staff proposes that the
September m~hal check-m meetmgs wrth each of the approval bod~es will serve as the~r only
opportumty to add items to be considered m the annual review. Staff also proposes that once the
city Plamm~g Board reviews and compiles the hst of ~tems to be mcluded in the annual review m
November, this mformahon will be sent to the other approval bodies as an mformarion rtem only
The ~mtial list of items for considerahon will be acted on only by the city Plamm~g Board, as
proposed by staff All four bod~es will have the abilrty to approve or deny every proposed change
at public hearmgs This issue will be reviewed and amended as needed m the next ma~or update
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
The opportumty for landowners and the general public to submit requests for changes to the plan
w~ll be advertised m the Daaly Camera Any property owner whose property would be affected
by a proposed change m land use designahon or boundary changes will be nohfied at least 30
days pnor to the mrtial Plannmg Board Heanng to compile the hst of items to be mcluded m the
annual review Proposed changes to the plan will be acted upon by all four approval bodies m
duly nohced public heanngs.
QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD:
1 Does the Board agree wrth the proposed process?
2 Are there any items the Board wishes to mclude m the annual rev~ew~
Approved By
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Peter Pollock, Plannmg Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A. Annual Review Changes (excerpt from the BVCP)
s\plan\pb-rtemstinemos\~g03-046vcp-mihate-an-rev2 mem AGENDA ITEM ~i 6A, Paee 3
ATTACHMENT A
2. ANNUAL REVIEW CHANGES
Changes considered dunng the annual rev~ew require a pubhc hearmg and approval by each of
the four signatory bodies• the City Planrung Board and City Counc~l, and the Boulder County
Plannmg Commission and Boulder County Commiss~oners
a. Types of changes that may be considered as part of the annual review:
• Changes m Land Use
• Changes to the road designat~on map
• Changes to the Suhcommunety and Area Plans sechon
• Changes to the Master Plan and Program Summarzes
• Changes to the Background and Supportmg Documentataon
• Changes to the Comprehensave Plan Implementataon sechon
• Changes to the Comprehensave Plan Map Destgnation section
• Text changes and changes to functional maps
• Mmor addiYions or clanfications to the Polacy seetion
• Mmor Service Area boundary changes sub~ect to the cntena set forth below
• Boulder Valley Plannmg Area expansions and contrachons, i.e , changes to the Area III
outer boundary (sub~ect to the cntena set forth below)
b. Criteria for minor service area boundary changes and Boulder Valley Planning Area
expansions and contractions:
(1) Minor adjustments to the service area boundary
Mmor ad~ustments to the serv~ce area boundary are small, maremental serv~ce area
expansions that create more logtcal service area boundanes Changes m designahon of land
from Area III to Area II may be approved as a mmor service area boundary ad~ustment based
on the followmg critena
(a) Maximum size: The total size of the area must be no larger than ten acres
(b) Minimum contiguity: The area must have a mmimum contiguity with the ex~stmg
service area of at least 1/6 of the total penmeter of the area
(c) Logical service area boundary: The resultmg service area boundary must provide a
more logtcal service area boundary (Area IIUII) , as determmed by factors such as. more
ef~cient service provision, a more identrfiable edge to the urbamzed area or
neighbarhood, a more funchonal boundary based on property ownership parcel lmes or
defimng natural features.
(d) Compatibility with the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Plan: The
proposed change of Area III to II must be compaUble with the surroundmg area as well
as the pohc~es and overall mtent of the Comprehensive Plan.
S ~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~IVtEMOS\b~ATTACHMENT A process doc
(e) No major negative impacts It must be demonstrated that no ma~or negatrve impacts on
transportation, env~ronment, services, fac~l~hes, or budget will resuh from an expansjon
of the service area
(t~ Minimal effect on land use and growth projections: The proposed change of Area II]
to II change does not materially affect the land use and growth pro~ections that were the
basis of the Comprehens~ve Plan
(g) Minimal Effect on Service Provision: The proposed change of Area III to II does not
matenally affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilihes and services to the
immediate area ar the overall service area of the city of Boulder
(h) Minimal Effect on the City's Capital Improvements Program: The proposed Area III
to II change does not matenally affect the adopted Caprtal Improvements Program of the
city of Boulder
(i) Appropriate Timing: The proposed Area III to II change will not prematurely open up
development potenha] for land that logically should be considered as part of a larger
service area expansion
(2) Boulder Valley Planning Area expansions or contractions
An Area III outer boundary change may be mit~ated by the Crty or the County and shall be
approved only if it is demonstrated that either expansion or contraction of the plannmg area
~s needed due to changed circumstances or past error m determmmg the boundary
c. Procedures for changes that may be considered as part oFthe annual review:
1) The crty Plannmg Department and the county Land Use Department shall estabhsh a process
and schedule for landowners and the general pubhc to submrt requests for changes to the plan
as part of the Annual Review All proposed changes will be reviewed by the city Planntng
Department, which will prepare a recommendahon m consultahon with the county Land Use
Department on whether to mclude each proposed change m that yeaz's annual review
2) The city Plannmg Board will consider all requests for changes together w~th the staff '
recommendations at a pubhc heanng, and will compile a hst of proposed changes to be
considered during that year's annual review
3) The County Plannmg Commission, City Council, and County Commissioners may review
the crty Plannmg Boazd's direction on the changes to be considered as part of the annual
review and may add or delete rtems.
4) Requests for changes to the Comprehensive Plan that affect an area designated Open Sp~ce
shall be reviewed by the crty Open Space Board of Trustees and the county Pazks and Open
Space Advisory Committee The Board of Trustees will make a recommendation prior to
any action on that change
5) After a hst of proposed changes to be cons~dered dunng that year's review has been
determmed, the city Plannmg Department and county Land Use Department will study, seek
S ~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\b~ATTACHMENT A process doc
appropnate publ~c tnput, and make recommendations concernmg proposed changes The crty
Plamm~g Board will then mit~ate the heanngs on whether or not to approve any of the
proposed changes
S ~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~IvIEMOS\b~ATTACHMENT A process doc
Plannmg Board Meehng - September 11, 2003
Supplemental Materials, presented at the Meetmg.
PROCESS AND TIMELINE:
September Pubhsh notice m Daily Camera begmning Sept 7
Adopt Gunbarrel Commumty Center Plan
Check-m with city Planning Board, City Council, County Plannmg Commission, and County
Commissioners to discuss the annual review process and add items to be considered m the annual
review This zs mtended to get all of the adcLtions under consideration as early as possible.
October October 10 deadlme for filmg apphcatron to propose changes
Mail notice to property owners whose property would be affected by a proposed
change (30 days prior to Plamm~g Board heanng) See BVCP, p. 103, § II.B.4.a.
November November 20 Plamm~g Board pubhc hearing to compile list of changes to be
considered m the annual review See BVCP, p 101, § II.B.2.a(2)
List of changes to be considered m the annual review sent to other approval bodies
so that such approval authority may decide whether it wishes
to add or delete any addrtional rtems to the hst comp~led by the Plannmg Board. See
BVCP, p, 101, § II B 2.c.(3).
December Public meetmgs to mform neighbors of proposed changes (if necessary)
City and county staff analyze proposed changes and develop recommendarions. See
BVCP, p 101, § II.B,2.c.(5)
February Plamm~g Board and CIIy Council achon on proposed changes See BVCP, p. 100, §
II.B.2, mtroductory paragraph and p. 101, § II.B.2.a(5).
March County Plannmg Comixussion and Board of County Commissioners action on
proposed changes See BVCP, p. 100, § II.B.2, introductory paragraph.
K~PLLR1~cannunl updace process for ping hd yU wpd
09/11/2003 17:57 02 PAGE 01
~ PORREGA & AS50CIATES, INC.
~nnceM J, POffBCa P,O, Box 22 BOUIDER, COlOMDO 00.7~b I30J) 44~•9860 FAX ~303) 441 3870
TO: Cfty PlanninQ Board
FROM; Vince Porrace
RE: BVCP Annuel Updeta
DATE: September 11, 2003
Yesterday I sew, for the first time, on the City's website, the steff inemo reparding
the Annual Update to the BVCP. My comments are based on that postiny. I will be
uneble to ettend tonighY~ meeting therefore I providing my commanta in writing. In
additlon thle Item is not acheduled for a public heering, thus you get ta read this. I
trust you wdl consider my comments are intended to be construotive and are based
upon my expeiienCe with the BVCP ove~ meny yeare, and more apeciflcally what
occurred last year.
Last year there was a y4od deal o} confusion rsge~dina tha Land Usa Amendment
process and the staff inemo for tonighYs meeting refers to some o} thet confusion.
but there really was much more to the confusion than contai~ed in the staff inemo.
Last year when the "IIsY of proposed amendments wea presented to the County
Plenning Comm~ssian, and subsequent to my testimony at that hearing, the County
staff was asked'What should we do here' and the reaponse (eomewhat tongue i~
cheek) was'What do you want to doT' The concem was over a number of
procedural questions thet I hed reised. It wae my belief thet the Planning
Commission felt that manY of them had merit end should be addresaed. It is also my
reCOlleCtipn khpt th8 City end County committad to fixing this problem dwing this
year's annual updete.
The problem is somewhat complex and atems from the wo-ding m the BVGP,
which, I don't believe can be circumvented by the recommendetion before you. 7he
proposed'fix' cannot eliminate the Plan's requirements for this process without first
amending the Plen.
The staff is proposmg a'streamlmed' approach, which certainly is not a fix. In f8ct
it seems to fu~ther remove the proCess f+om the publiC by 9~mply seying that the
only signatory body that will actually have a hearing on the piopooed'IisY will be
the City Planninp Boa-d; the other three will be relegated to petti~p an "in}ormetion
only" look. Does the staff proposal, if adopted, prsclude any of the other 3 bedies
from having a pubi~c heeringi I don't think that is the intent, nor do I think a
unilateral action of this Board can make such a changa; but that seems to be what
is being proposed.
I also understand the desire of everyone involved to not have this annual update
take a year, however I think that there is a way to foreshorten the process by
simply improving the process, and doing it now.
The stated timetable is also confusing as it says that "staff prop oses that the
September initial check-in meetings with each of the approval bodies will serve as
their only opportunity (my emphasis) to add items to be considered in the annual
review". How does that work~ Does a check-in constitute an official action~ In fact
what is a"check-in"~ Does the public get to testify at a'check-i n'~
The memo also states that the deadlme for filing an application for proposed
changes is October 10`", which is a little after the "Septe mber check in meetings"
that are the other 3 bodies "only o pportunity to add items". The BVCP clearly
states that the other 3 bodies may add after the PB establishes the first list. That
PB hearing to establish the first list is scheduled for November 20`h, yet the staff
proposal is that "their only opportunity" to add to the list is during these September
check-in meetings. The County Pianning Commission meeting agenda for next week
simply lists the BVCP item as a"Discussion of Process and Timeline". No mention
of any "ite ms" to add to a non-existent list Are there check-in meetings scheduled
before the Council and County Commissioners in September for them to take the~r
only opportunity to add to the list~ What possible context can anyone have at this
time to make such a determination~ Does the staff have a list already prepared~ If
so, when will that be available~
I can't believe that the staff proposal is to go to the 4 bodies in September, and
ask them to provide their recommended changes to the Plan. There is absolutely no
context, there ~s no notice and this makes no sense to me at all, yet that appears to
be what the staff is proposing
Why, if the BVCP states that the Signatory bodies can "a dd or delete"(my
emphasisl", does the proposal before you delete the delete option~ I don't see how
it can be eliminated without changmg the wording in the BVCP and an amendment
to change the BVCP wording is not before you tonight.
Another issue that was a problem last year was 'whe n was a decision final?' I n
other words Plannmg Board creates a list, Planning Commission deletes the Planning
Boards No. 1 desired change cai Pianning Board add it back in? Can anyone add
it back in~ Question was not answered last year, not addressed this year
The fix does not have to be complicated ...sorre random ideas:
.. clarifywhat type of 'hearm g' that all four bodies have on the proposed list, a
public hearing wouid be the simplest and provide the optimum m citizen opportunity
to speak either to argue that their proposal should be added, remstated, or, as is
often the case, to ob~ect to a proposai and request that it be deleted. The BVCP
reqwres the PB to have a pubhc heanng so why isn't the sa me pubhc heanng
required if another signatory body wishes to review the PB action7 I don't thi nk a
check-in gets the ~ob done
.. Q, on the other hand remove the word may in the provision in the BVCP that
governs what the other 3 bodies can do and simply put "shall " seans that would
eliminate a lot of the confusion and establish a formal process that is similar to
most others and is the generally accepted process in land use matters
.. adda simple sentence to the BVCP that states that once a specific proposal has
been deleted that no subsequent action by another signatory body can add it back
to the list
... povide adequate notice of the list and staff recommendations (when the
process starts and after the deadline for requests) enough in advance of the PB
hearing so people have time to review City documents and prepare any testimony
(we had 4 days notice for the McKenzie Junction proposal that came before this
Board last year)
. establish criteria t~at the staff will use to ~udge what list they create, so that
there is some understandmg as to the motivation and rationale.
.. . establishcriteria for signatory bodies to ~udge the requests when determining
what to add or delete, thus allowing the public to have some idea as to how to
address the individual items in terms that will form the basis of findings for adding
or deleting
. povide enough space between meetings so that people can prepare for hearings,
not ramming them all together in a month
. be clea on who can subm~t applications (e.g last year a Planning Board member
proposed a change for a private property that was on the PB list that went to the
County)
.... beclear that the mitial deadline is ~ust that, a deadline and enforce it
....be clear imotifying the other three bodies what their options are ,. last year the
Council simply got a blurb in their Weekly mformation packet that there was a list
moving forward and since the staff got no response from the Council, there was
never an item on their agenda to discuss adding or deleting items
. establisha procedure that gu~des how an item can be added at a hearing by a
signatory body especially when it affects a private property and that property owner
has no ability to testify. I recognize that this is a legislative process and additions
can happen, but perhaps it should somehow be like the Councils ' no surprises'
policy; without some ability for a property owner to address the particular body it
seems there's a little la ck of due process
Some of you may be concerned that items get deleted before they have the benefit
of the staff analysis, and m particular when the City may be advocating a change
that the County may oppose. My answer to that is that the staff and Plannmg Board
already eliminate items through the staff recommendations and PB actions at the
very first public hearmg when the PB sets the initial list. You can't have it both
ways.
On the list called "Main purposes of this update ..." it lists the Gunbarrel
Community Center Plan Is this Plan a Sub area Plan~ Is it the intent to have this
Plan go through a Four Body Review, which I have been told is what has been
discussed? If so why~ The BVCP on page 51 clearly states that sub area plans (and
Subcommunity Plans for that matter) " wili be adopted by Planning Board and City
Council " The BVCP is clear there is no County role according to this section.
The staff inemo seems to be the beginning of an effort to draw down the curtain on
the 4-body review process. If the staff's intent is to delay a real fix on the
amendment process until the Five Year update, and also fold in a discussion of the
future of Four Body Review, then I would not encourage that approach for at least
two reasons• (1 ~ the amendment process was broken last year and stymied the
County Planning Commission when they were asked a series of questions at their
hearing; in fact the City staff representative at that hearing had no response to their
questions other than something to effect that ' we have some work to do on this'
I believe that the County Planning Commission was expecting that this probiem
would be fixed with th~s years update; (2) is there City discussion about considering
including an analysis of the future of the Four Body Review in next years Five Year
Update~ If so then I would submit to you that that discussion will be the single,
most important potential change to the BVCP since its onginal adoption in 1970 It
formed the cornerstone of the plan back then, and remams it's most notable
element.
My first ~ob with Boulder County was to work with the City staff to prepare that
first BVCP starting in 1968 and when finally adopted in 1970, the County
Commissioners and City Council boasted of this Four Body Review. It may be that
the time is upon us to see if this provision remains, as is, in the BVCP, or at all, but
that discussion is much more far reaching than the correction of the amendment
process; they should not be merged.
The staff proposal essentially relegates the public process to the staff and the City
Plamm~g Board; it does not clarify the various roles of the other 3 signatory bodies,
nor the public In fact it bypasses that entire discussion under the heading of
'streamlining' , and reduces the public's role to perhaps one public hearing I do
not believe that the staff can 'assum e' the role of the other three signatory bodies
by settmg their own procedure that ignores what is written m the current plan.
What is written in the current plan is, in fact, the procedure that must be followed.
It is flawed and shouid have been fixed last year. It is not being fixed this year, and
by deferring it by a tire patch, and placing it m the Five Year update seems to
assure it wdl be at least two more years before iYs fixed As m ost of you know the
5 year updates never seem to get finished in any reasonable time, in fact the
Annual Updates (which have been far less than annual) are often lasting almost a
year, as evidenced by the memo before you citing that the 2002-03 Annual update
"was com pleted in July".
On another point I see that once again there is abso~utely no reference to the North
Boulder Sub community Plan I raised this point during last years hearing before you
on the BVCP update and I recall quite clearly that one member (1 believe it was
Simon Moles) commenting that taking a look at the NBSP was something that
should be done Actually this is an example of the City not even follow~ng the Plan
that it has adopted. The NBSP was an arduous process, but it was completed and
adopted. In fact a great deal of the City's gro wth activity has, and will continue to
occur within that area. Why is the City ignoring the Plan, while everyone else has to
'comply' with it~
Quoting from P. 2 of the NBSP (Adopted August 31, 1995) and reprinted in August
2001:
"Plan Compiiance and Updates
The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan has been adopted by Planning Board
and City Council and is summarized in the BVCP. Public and pnvate sector pro~ects
in North Boulder should comply with the goals and recommendations in this Plan
The BVCP states that it is anticipated that subcommunity plans will be revised
every five years, updated as needed, and monitored annually "(This statement
about updates and monitoring is also found in the 2001 printing of the BVCP on
page 51)
I have seen no evidence that any of the 3 action items in the last sentence of that
section of the Plan have ever been done; and there is no mention again this year of
any of them The obvious question is who gets to opt out of complying with the
NBSP, and in fact the BVCP~ Just the C~ty~