Loading...
5 - Consideration of a recommendation regarding periodic updating of the 2003 Transportation MasterCITYOFBOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DA1'E: June 13, 2005 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation regazding periodic updating of the 2003 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) amendment process PRESENTER/S: Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner PURPOSE: At its January 31, 2005 meeting, the Transportation Advisory Boazd (TAB) was presented with the outline of a suggested approach to updating the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). This builds on the concept of having a"living" TMP that would be more timely and accurately. The TMP Web site, the Map It application and the supporting project data base provide the technical basis for the periodic updating of the plan. This item presents a proposal based on TAB's discussion of what updates should be considered and their level of review. BACKGROUND: The 1996 TMP, as the first update of the Transportation Master Plan, contained the intention of making the plan a living document. It established an annual amendment process and the periodic assessment of progress under the policies of the plan. While a number of annual reports have been published since the 1996 TMP, the amendment process was used formally only once. As a result of the City's purchase of the Valmont Pazk site and the approval of a development plan, the functional classification of several streets were changed on the TMP functional classification map in 1989. The 2000 staff Project Prioritization also changed the Plan as it explicitly identified the city's spending priorities although it was never adopted as an amendment. As part of the 2003 TMP process, a complete data base of individual projects was developed and is available tluough the Web based Map It application. Because this data is maintained in a digital form and not in a published document, it can be updated on a regulaz basis. The availability of the data and its increasing use in a vaziety of azeas highlight the need to keep this information as cunent as possible. PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROCESS: The January discussion with TAB suggested the following principles: The Web-based TMP should be as up-to-date as possible. The amendment process needs to be expedient and be reflected very quickly in the Web-based plan; The significance of the proposed change should be reflected in the level of review Transportation Advisory Board Agenda I[em V. Page 1. applied to that item; The impacts of the change on the investment programs of the plan need to be included and tracked; and The project database will be used to comprehensively track changes and maintain a history of all changes. The proposed amendment process reflects these principles and the levels of review discussed in January. It also recognizes that any changes in project type or additions will impact the investrnent programs of the TMP with the potential of financial impact being a key element in the level of suggested review. This process proposal reflects the belief that substantive changes to the Current Funding investment program will require TAB and potentially City Council review in a public heazing format. Proposals that add projects to the Current Funding investment program will need a corresponding reduction somewhere in the program, so the addition and removal of projects should also require TAB and City Council review. Proposals tha[ would add projects to the Action Plan or Vision investment programs aze proposed to have TAB review to deternune which investment program they should go in, with a potendal review by City Council. Amendment Tvpes The following amendment types aze contained in Attachment A and aze intended to encompass the types of potential changes affecting the TMP. While the recommended process for each type is contained in [he table in the Attachment, definitions and discussion of the approach for each item aze provided below. Technical corrections with limited fiscal signiticance These aze anticipated to be correcUOns to text or project descriptions that correct cleaz errors or reflect improved knowledge on an individual project. Additional planning and engineering work on a particular project such as improved costing estimates resulting from other efforts would be included in this category. Technical corrections with significant fiscal impacts Project costing in the TMP was generally done on a unit cost basis for major cost azeas such as right of way. The costing spreadsheet was structured so that the unit costs can be changed and project costs recalculated on that basis. When there aze significant changes in the unit costs as demonstrated by recent construcdon projects, the project costs of the TMP would be recalculated based on this recent cost experience. Completed projects TMP projects that aze completed would be documented in the project data base. This category would include projects that aze constructed by the city, other public agencies and private development. Development approvals with no fiscal impact The TMP and Transportation Network Plans (TNPs) identify a fine grain of transportation connections, some of which aze expected to be provided by private development activity. The adopted TNPs allow some flexibility in the actual location of these facilities with the expectation that the actuallocation will be determined during the development approval process. The actual location of these improvements should be reflected in the TMP at the end of the development review process. Transportation Advisory Board Agenda Item V. Page 2. Development approvals with a fiscal impact Development review and negotiations with the city may result in significant changes to the facilities proposed in the TMP. The recent approval of the Twenty Ninth Street development contains a number of transportation facilities that differ from those listed in the TMP and will not provide a number of facilides called for in the TNP and TMP for that azea. The transportation facilities resulting from this development should be reflected in the Current Funding and potentially the Action Plan of the TMP as additional facilities are unlikely during the life of the plan. As the Vision program is unconstrained by timing or funding, it could serve as a place to maintain elements of the city's uansportation vision that may seem precluded for many yeazs. The TAB would be tasked with deciding whether to retain this vision and which investment programs to place it in. Accepted city plans Master plans, area plans and Transportation Network Plans ('TNPs) and CEAPs may all produce changes in transportation facilities that should be reflected in the TMP. As the city develops more master plans and increasingly uses the azea planning and TNP processes to refine expectations in specific azeas of the community, the need to maintain consistency between plans will increase. As all of the plans are accepted by City Council after a public review process, the TMP would be updated administratively to reflect adopted plans. Change in facility type Members of the public, as well as various city groups and acitvities, aze continuously suggesting or producing changes in facility type relative to the TMP, particulazly for the bicycle system. This type of change would likely have either a fiscal impact or reduce the level of service anticipated; therefore, a public hearing and decision by the TAB is suggested. Addition of a facility with no Sscal impact While this may be an unlikely occurrence as most facility additions would be expected to come from one of the categories identified, formally adding a facility to the plan should have a public hearing and decision by the TAB. Addition of a facility with a fiscal impact For the reasons cited above regazding the need to change the investment programs of the TMP, additions of new facilities witt~ a cost to the city are a significant change to the plan and should have a public hearing and decision by both the TAB and City Council. Policy changes Since the 1996 TMP, it has been possible to consider policy changes on an annual basis. Staff proposes to continue that policy as outlined in the 1996 TMP: "Such changes can be initiated following recommendations by either city staff, members of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), or members of the Planning Boazd. Minor changes can be accepted by a majority of the TAB, and a report provided to the City Council who have the option of calling up the change for their consideration. More substantial changes will receive a recommendation from TAB and must be adopted by the City Council following noticed public heazings before each body. Factors that would seem important in considering the needed level of review would include the cunent and likely level of controversy, the amount of analysis required to clarify the issues, the Transponarion Advisory Board Agenda Item V. Page 3. level of uncertainty in the analysis or the expected results, the potential impact to property owners both in terms of the number of properties affected and the level of impact, and the financial implications of the proposed change. The deternunation of a"more substantial change" would be made by the TAB Chair and the Director of Public Works for Transportation. TAB ACTION REQUESTED: The TAB is asked to consider the proposed amendment process for periodic updates to the TMP and provide a recommendation to City Council on the process. STAFF RECQMMENDATION Staff believes that the proposed amendment process will provide timely updates to the TMP with a reasonable amount of staff effoR. Staff asks the Boazd to recommend approval of the update process to City Council. Attachment A. Table of Amendment Types and Process Transponarion Advisory Board Agenda Item V. Page 4. Attachment A Technical corrections Review and make change No Role No Role No Role As needed with limited fiscal administratively Technical corrections Review and pr~vide a Review and adopt following a No Role Advise with a weekly Considered with significant fiscal recommendation to TAB public hearing information packet action item annually as im acts needed Completed projects Review and make change Informed of changes No Role No Role Quarterly Development approvals Review and make change Informed of changes Discretionary approvals have No Role Semi without project or fiscal administratively been reviewed by the Planning annually im acts Board so no additional role Development approvals Review and provide a Review and decision following a Discretionary approvals have No Role Semi with project or fiscal recommendation to TAB public hearing been reviewed by the Planning annually im act Bo~rd so no additional role Accepted city plans Review and make change Informed of changes Plans have been reviewed by Plans have been accepted by Quarterly administratively the Planning Board so no Council so no additional role additional role Change in facility type Analyze and provide a recommendation to TAB Review and decision following a ublic hearin No Role Advise with a weekly information acket action item Annually Addition of a facility without fiscal im acts Analyze and provide a recommendation to TAB Review and decision following a ublic hearina No Role Advise with a weekly information acket action item Annually Addition of a facility with a fiscal im act Analyze and provide a recommendation to TAB Review and recommend to Council followin a ublic hearin No Role Review and accept following a ublic hearin Annually Policy changes Analyze and provide a recommendation ro TAB Review and recommend t~ Council following a public hearing Review and reeommend to Council following a public Review and accept following a public hearing Annually Trcu~sportation Advison~ Boar~l Agenda ltem V. Page 5,