PBC Comments on the 2005 Five-Year Comp Plan update

May 23, 2005
Mayor Mark Ruzzin
Members of the Boulder City Council
P. O. Box 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306

RE: PLAN-Boulder County Comments on the 2005 Five-Year Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan

Dear Mayor Ruzzin and Members of Council:

PLAN-Boulder County (PBC) thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the 2005 five-year update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). This position paper has been reviewed and approved by the PBC Board.

OPENING COMMENT

PBC is concerned that the BVCP has increasingly included detailed policy statements and new areas of policy which are inappropriate for inclusion in the BVCP and historically never intended for four-body review.

Before it comments on the topics covered in the staff memorandum prepared for the April 26, 2005 joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Board, PBC wants to make a general comment about the direction this update seems to be taking. Unfortunately, this change in direction began not with the current update but with prior updates. The majority of policies being considered for the 2005 update are so detailed that the original purpose of providing four-body review for major land use decisions in the Boulder Valley is being lost. We see the BVCP becoming a Christmas tree laden with ornaments representing the favorite policies of various interests groups, contrary to that original purpose. The original BVCP concentrated on a land use map and a diagram setting forth the issues for four-body review and policy guidance for a twenty-year planning period into the future.

In addition, many of the current recommendations deal not only with an inappropriate level of policy detail but with short-term issues as well. The BVCP should be sufficiently flexible to react to current issues and changing conditions while maintaining this policy guidance for the long term. Perhaps it is time to consider returning to the original purpose of the BVCP and to create another document encompassing more detailed policy statements on a broader range of social and economic issues applicable solely to the City of Boulder.

A. PLAN POLICIES

PBC's Comments on Ideas Recommended for Inclusion in Plan Policies
(Pages 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Staff Memo)

GENERAL POLICIES

1 and 2: Jobs:Housing Balance

PBC supports maintaining language addressing a jobs:housing (population) balance. Updating the jobs, population and housing numbers in each five-year BVCP update is an important planning tool to help the City and County evaluate regional traffic congestion, affordable housing and other community impacts. In addition, the current jobs:housing policy is an ultimate goal that should be unaffected by a recent drop in the number of jobs in the Boulder Valley. Long-term policy should not be set by short-term peaks or low points.

However, we urge caution regarding how a jobs:housing ratio is applied. For example, a .65:1 ratio would be applicable to a situation where we had 650,000 jobs available to a population of 1 million people in the Boulder Valley. This example is, of course, an exaggeration but illustrates why it is unwise to set policy based solely or heavily on a jobs:housing balance. Finally, PBC urges that adoption of a jobs:housing balance consider the regional effects of the policy beyond the confines of the Boulder Valley.

REGIONALISM

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9: Regional Cooperation, Regional Impacts, Identify Regional Efforts, Viable Agricultural Economy, Service Provision, Regional Economic Development Strategy

PBC reaffirms its commitment to regional cooperation and evaluating regional impacts. However, PBC has questions regarding how the proposed policy language, if adopted, will be folded into existing policies. The proposed new policies seem to be merely tweaking existing policies.

COMMUNITY DESIGN

10 and 11: Areas of Change and Role of Area Planning

PBC reaffirms its support of the concept that new growth should occur through infill and redevelopment. Smaller units are more affordable to persons who work in the community and consume less energy to build and maintain. For infill and redevelopment in and around established neighborhoods, care should be taken to respect neighborhood character. It is important that neighbors are involved in the area planning process and have a clear understanding of the city goals intended to be addressed by infill and redevelopment.

ECONOMIC VITALITY

31: Tourism

PBC feels that the details of the city's tourism policy should be set forth in the forthcoming Tourism Master Plan. Setting forth in the BVCP an emphasis on sports tourism while omitting the arts, heritage tourism and other tourism-related activities is not appropriate.

HOUSING

33. Regional Housing Solutions

PBC supports efforts to increase regional solutions for affordable housing. Other cities in Boulder County as well as Broomfield County now experience the lack of affordable housing that the City of Boulder has experienced for some time. This provides an opportunity to work with these communities to address affordable and workforce housing issues in a regional manner.

PBC's Comments on Ideas for Discussion
(Pages 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Staff Memo)

GENERAL POLICIES

Should we add the concept of "core community values" to the plan that would consist of the 4 "Es?"

PBC supports the Planning Board's original motion and rationale on this proposal not to include the 4 "Es." As stated in our introductory paragraph, the BVCP is first and foremost a land use plan to guide the wise use of our physical resources and for the future development of or preservation of the same. It was and is not intended to contain each and every policy or platitude of the city, no matter how well-intentioned. It was adopted as an IGA with the County in order to provide a sound legal basis for defending our managed growth policies against Robinson-like litigation. We should not be rewriting the BVCP every five years. We do not feel that the Council's direction to include a preface statement for the BVCP that includes the "Es" as a filter resolves this fundamental problem with the concept.

COMMUNITY DESIGN

Should we promote mixed use along multi-modal corridors such as Broadway, Pearl and Arapahoe at the edges of neighborhoods?

PBC supports the position taken by some Council and Planning Board members that Area Plans are a better way to address this concept. Area Plans are already envisioned by the BVCP and seem to be a better planning tool to provide the kind of detailed planning individualized to the needs, desires and carrying capacities of particular areas of the City.

In addition, using the term "Broadway, Pearl and Arapahoe" gives no definition to the areas one intends to be affected or studied. These streets currently take on many characters depending upon where in the city they are located. Each street, along its length, has low density residential, high density residential and commercial, as well as public uses. We appreciate the change in direction made at the last joint meeting to "consider" high density mixed-uses along these streets.

Should the City adopt a policy that encourages non-conforming residential properties to a return to density more consistent with neighborhood character?

PBC supports the Council and Planning Board in finding that this issue should be resolved in the update to the land use regulations where its impacts can be quantified.

Should the Uni Hill business area be changed from being part of the University citywide activity center to a neighborhood center?

PBC does not understand why this issue is being treated differently from other map changes, for which we have existing procedures. In addition, the City should not rush to make this change in the BVCP update. The discussion that is underway regarding the future of the area should continue at its own pace. The concept of a new commercial land use designation appropriate to this area is intriguing and should be explored.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Should we adopt the "Precautionary Principle" for guiding human activities and preventing harm to the environment and to human health?

In many ways, the inclusion of the precautionary principle is not unlike the inclusion of the 4 Es. It is intended to be a filter through which we evaluate all policies. If you decide to include the 4 Es in the BVCP as such a filtering device, then the Precautionary Principle should be the filter with the finest mesh. If you decide to accept our opening recommendation to adopt a separate policy document, then it would fit better in that document and not the BVCP.

ECONOMIC VITALITY

Should we change Policy 5.03 (Balancing of Employment and Housing) which currently states that the city intends to reduce potential nonresidential development, to reflect that a desired balance of housing and employment should be achieved by improving the availability of housing rather than by negatively impacting jobs?

PBC urges the Council and Planning Board to review its statement regarding jobs:housing that appears earlier in this letter.

Should we improve transportation connections, especially roads, between Boulder and other cities in the region to improve access to jobs and housing?

PBC supports that Council and Planning Board direction given at the April 6, 2005 joint meeting that the Transportation Master Plan covers this issue.

Should we identify areas that should be protected for industrial and office uses only, especially for expanding businesses in Boulder, in which encroachment of housing should not be allowed?

It would seem that if the City has correct land use designations and the corresponding correct zoning classifications in place, this discussion would be unnecessary. The concept of mixed use may need further refinement. For example, mixed use does not necessarily include housing but could be a mixture of commercial and industrial uses. If there is a desire to provide more commercial uses such as restaurants to which one working in an industrial area could walk, this becomes more of a zoning than a land use designation issue. The City should also consider whether it desires to limit the opportunity for employers to provide housing for employees on site as is being done in some Colorado resort communities and in other high land value areas of the country.

Should the City provide more single family housing options to serve families?

PBC wonders what is driving this discussion. Does the City feel that we do not have enough land zoned for single family dwellings or that our detached/attached housing ratio is out of balance? Statistics show that, for covenanted affordable housing units the large majority of which are attached, the percentage with a child 18 or younger has been double that for the City as whole. If the goal is to provide new detached dwelling units, then we must come up with an equitable method to subsidize the cost of land on order to achieve some measure of affordability.

PBC's Comments on Suggestions Not Recommended for Inclusion as Plan Policies
(Pages 15, 16 and 17 of Staff Memo)

PBC's comments focus on those suggestions that the Council and Planning Board decided to carry forward for further discussion contrary to staff's recommendations.

GENERAL POLICIES

1. Adding carrying capacity as a new approach to growth management. Assess present and projected carrying capacity of the Boulder Valley including metrics associated with various services.

PBC supports this concept and appreciates it being brought forward for discussion. A thorough and comprehensive understanding of total carrying capacity, in the context of preserving our quality of life, will allow us to make better-informed decisions on the future path we choose for the Boulder Valley. This is important in light of projected growth in housing, commercial and industrial sectors. Determining the total carrying capacity using various metrics is essential in knowing when critical thresholds are being approached. While PBC does not endorse bringing the Boulder Valley to its ultimate carrying capacity, it is essential to establish criteria with markers to identify when thresholds are near. Once total carrying capacity is identified, we recommend that the public be engaged to establish what may be more acceptable targets. Metrics that we recommend be included are roads and transit systems; water supply and quality; sewer and waste treatment; air and water pollution; parks and recreational facilities; open space; schools, libraries, hospitals and social services; and police, fire and emergency medical services.

2. Add that the City and County will bring their regulations into compliance with the BVCP within three months of revision of the plan.

PBC supports the concept of consistency at the earliest possible time between new BVCP policies and City and County regulations. However, the three-month period is insufficient to allow time for development by staff of regulations and an adequate public process. In addition, we question whether this type of issue should be a BVCP policy and feel that it should be handled in another manner.

COMMUNITY DESIGN

5. Balance history with new development to keep the character that is unique to Boulder. Potential historic districts should be identified and guidelines for redevelopment in each district should be published. New historic districts should be encouraged.

7. Revise the historic preservation program summary to remove references to historic district designation, change the review threshold of demolition review to 75 years, and stipulate that landmark and historic district designation should be allowed only with property owner consent.

PBC does not understand this attack on the City's historic preservation program that has resulted in the designation of 135 individual landmarks and approximately 1,100 buildings in historic districts with few controversial issues over 31 years. When controversial issues have arisen, City staff and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board have studied them and made recommendations. With land values skyrocketing and the financial desire to demolish the character-defining attributes of the City's built environment increasing, now is not the time to be compromising a successful program. We understand that the desire to increase the demolition threshold from 50 years to 75 years stems from 1950s ranch-style homes reaching the 50-year age threshold. This issue could be handled by including additional significance criteria besides age to the review threshold. Finally, this level of detailed policy does not belong in a BVCP update discussion.

HOUSING

31. The City should consider alternatives to inclusionary zoning. The term "affordable housing" should be removed from the plan and replaced with the phrase/concept "access to housing." "Access" would not confuse the relative term "affordable" with programs that increase the availability of housing through creative methods. There are alternatives (i.e. down payment grants, land trades, regional solutions) that should be studied.

The programs suggested as "alternative" programs for inclusionary zoning are already part of the City's comprehensive housing strategy. In addition, creative and innovative ways to provide housing for lower and middle class households is already encouraged by current BVCP language. PBC has no objection to reevaluating the term "affordable housing" but feels that the process to do so should not burden the BVCP update process.

URBAN SERVICE STANDARDS

PBC supports revising the policies relating to provision of adequate facilities and services to reflect the change in development/redevelopment focus from Area II to Area I. The plan should have one set of policies that applies to both.

PBC also supports revision of the "Urban Service Criteria and Standards" section to be consistent with completed master plans including master plan service standards.

ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES APPROACH FOR TRANSPORTATION AND WATER

PBC supports the new (for Boulder) "Adequate Public Facilities" approach. This approach requires that all new development or redevelopment maintain the following standards for both existing and new residents through appropriate mitigation. This protects current citizens from further degradation of their vehicular transportation system and raw water supplies.

For transportation:

• No more than 20% of signalized intersections shall be a LOS E or F.
• No increase in total VMT.
• No increase in average travel times on major arterials.

For raw water, provide enough raw water to meet the following needs using current water usage levels as a standard and considering the effects if a reasonable worst case climate change scenario and potential build-out:

• Essential services: ² 1000 year drought
• Landscape viability: ² 100 year drought.
• Full satisfaction of all uses: ² 20 year drought

PBC concurs with the list of three ideas recommended for inclusion in the BVCP amendments procedures: (1) "Call Up" or referral process; (2) Joint meetings; and (3) Service area expansion process.