July 23, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] At what's the name? Okay, that's mine again. Hang on. Laura's here. Oh, Laura's online. Very good. Oh, I thought this was a virtual only meeting my bad. That's what it says on the website. Is that? Oh, that's Thursday. We've had confusion in that regard. So just to be clear, we are both in chambers and online today. The Thursday meeting is Council's meeting, and that is not to be confused with August 20 second's joint meeting, planning board and council. So just if you were like Ml, planning on showing up somewhere, either online or in person this coming Thursday. You don't need to do that. Okay. so I I am going to call the July 23rd here in Boulder, Colorado, planning board meeting to order.

[1:05] are we recording? Yes, we are. And we're recording all right. We have no minutes to approve, or any other business to proceed with other than public comment. And so, Vivian, I'm not expecting a lot, but I guess we have to go through everything. So would you please go through the rules of engagement for public comment? I will, and Thomas is just pulling them up. Okay. We don't have too many people from the public with us, but I will go ahead and read them next slide, please. So I'll read off these rules or guidelines for public participation in our meetings. And just letting you know that the city has worked with the community to develop a vision for productive atmospheres, for meetings, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy, for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have a lot more information about this on our website

[2:19] next slide, please. And the following are examples of rules of deform found in the boulder, vice code and other guidelines that support this productive atmosphere's vision, and these will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants are required to identify themselves by their 1st and last name. So we can call on you next slide, please. and if members of the public would like to speak during open comment or public hearing. I think we don't have public hearing today. You raise your virtual hand, look for the hand, icon, and click on that, and we'll know that you would like to speak and call on you by your 1st and last name.

[3:13] and if you're joining by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing start. And this just shows another way to get to the hand icon. So let's see if we have any hands raised. Anybody would like to speak during open comment, which is an opportunity to address the board. On any items not on the agenda. This is the time to do so give a few awkward seconds just to make sure. And I think we're okay. So back over to you. Chair, thank you. Thank you, Reuben. so we have no minutes to approve, no discussion of dispositions or call-up items. no public hearing items. So we move on to item 6

[4:04] matters from the planning board, planning director and city attorney under matters 6. A training and pre-update overview of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. or we're fixing to get ready to start thinking about doing something with this. So I'm going to turn this over to to Staff. Thank you. My name is Chris Wranglos. I'm a senior planner in comprehensive planning, and sitting next to me this evening is Tess Shorn, who's a city planner in comprehensive planning as well. I also want to acknowledge Tucker Horst, who's in the audience with us tonight. He's our comprehensive planning intern. He's been with us for about 2 months now, and has done a really great job providing some overview and some assessment of the Boulder Valley Comp plan and beginning to do some analysis for us. And. sir.

[5:00] get the presentation. One second. Okay. And again, this is an opportunity for our staff to share a bit of an overview of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and our goal is to help develop a foundational understanding of the Bvcp. Its intent components and share a bit of its history prior to the official kickoff of the 2025 major update. Later this fall our staff will be back on August 20, second for a joint session with city council and planning board to share out and seek feedback on the draft, scope, schedule, and community engagement plan. Provide a quick rundown of the agenda. We'll talk a little bit about what comprehensive plans are, what Boulder Valley comprehensive plan is some of the key history and key milestones throughout our process, and preview a little bit of what we can expect the process and next steps to be.

[6:13] And we'll start really here with Colorado state regulations, just to point out that the State of Colorado does require the adoption of a comprehensive plan for any municipality with a population over 2,000, which we are well over. It encourages that the principal purpose is to be a guide for the achievement of community goals and plan elements that address, recreation and tourism water supply, including water conservation and strategic growth are required by State statues. But what is a comprehensive plan? Just generally speaking, a comprehensive plan is a high, level, visionary plan to help guide a city's future. These plans are based on long-standing community values, and they help guide how the city will grow into the future.

[7:02] They typically include topics, such as land use transportation and parks and open space, though, as you'll see with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, this is not an exhaustive list. so, philosophically speaking, we develop and maintain comprehensive plans to set aspirational goals for a desired future with at least a 15 year time frame or a fifteen-year time horizon, and I'll point out that this may look different in some communities for us it's 15 years, while others may be looking at a 20 or a 30 year time horizon. They're meant to weigh trade-offs and make difficult decisions, be deliberate and intentional about how we grow and tackle new and emerging needs, such as sustainability, equity, and resilience in our community. They provide a unifying framework, a policy framework of which key decisions in our community can be weighed against. We want our community to shape its future. It's very much of a community-driven plan, and presents an opportunity to come together as one boulder

[8:01] to make tough and important decisions, be deliberate about our future and hopefully achieve the intended outcomes that we, as a community collectively hope to achieve. And what a comprehensive plan is not a comprehensive plan is not intended to be a fine-grained, regulatory document. That fine-grained level of detailed planning and regulatory items are achieved in small area or subcommunity plans. and through zoning and municipal codes. And with this type of plan, again, we really are at that 30,000 foot view, a very visionary and aspirational document and jumping into Boulder Valley's comprehensive plan here a little bit, or the Bdcp. As you will often hear it referred to as this is the jointly adopted and governing long-range planning document for the Boulder Valley, which includes both the city of Boulder and land in unincorporated Boulder County. It guides long-range planning decisions on growth, the built natural environment, transportation, climate, economy, housing, and community well-being and safety

[9:10] in terms of the overall structure within our city organization the Bvcp is aligned with and informed by the sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. It also informs the citywide strategic plan. It sets the broader policy goals that are often distilled into action-based regulatory documents like our subcommunity and area Plans department plans, citywide strategies, development standards and zoning and also influences budgeting and resourcing across the organization including within the city's annual capital improvement program and the operating budget. And I do want to point out here that Boulder County does have their own comprehensive plan as well. The Boulder County comprehensive plan which is very well aligned to that of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and it governs all unincorporated lands outside of the Boulder Valley.

[10:04] the city and county have a longstanding tradition of working together. And really this is since the inception of the 1st Boulder Valley comprehensive plan in 1 77, which was created centered around guiding growth in a positive way throughout the Boulder Valley. The 1977 plan is also when the city and county entered into the intergovernmental agreement which stipulates that both the city and county would follow the plan. The land use map as well as the policies regarding utility, provision, and new urban development. and this was intended to only occur in areas with the full range of urban services. Since then there's been a fairly consistent framework vision and values around growth management in boulder and urban service provision. while the framework and vision for guiding growth in the Boulder valley has remained stable for 50 years. The plan's policies, its procedures have certainly evolved. and it is important to note, as you'll see within the Bvcp. There are city specific policies where it says the city shall versus the city and county shall. And so those policies that say the city shall only apply to the city, whereas policies that mention both the city and county apply to both the city and county.

[11:20] I will also point out that the approval of the Bvcp is a forebodied decision, including those bodies you see on the slide. meaning that both the city and county will need to work together and ultimately approve the same plan. I'll spend a little bit of time on this slide, as it is an important one, but we'll start to walk through some of the components of our current Boulder Valley Comp plan. and we'll start with the service area framework or the area 1, 2, and 3 planning areas, as it is often referred to as. And again, this is the framework. As a result of the 1977 Boulder Valley Comp Plan, which sought to establish a new intergovernmental tool

[12:00] between the city and county to help guide growth in the Boulder Valley. And essentially, this framework sets the standard and expectation that urban development only occur in areas that are served by urban services. While allowing the remaining areas of the Boulder Valley to remain rural. it was established for a couple of different reasons. It was established to limit, sprawl, preserve the rural buffer between the city and adjacent communities, to maintain a well-defined city edge to prevent patterns of leapfrog development and ultimately to maintain the compact nature of our community. So, looking at the colors on the map here area, one is going to be most of the yellow that you see, and this is the city limits proper which has adequate urban facilities and services. Again, this is where we want urban development to occur. Area 2 is the gray sort of the gray fringe areas you see around the city. And these are areas that are now under county jurisdiction where annexation into the city is anticipated. So long as that growth is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan.

[13:09] and it's important to note that both area one and 2 together, make up the service area. Another term you may hear referenced often. and then moving on to area 3 area 3 is most of the green that you see, and it is the remaining area within the Boulder Valley, generally under county jurisdiction. and is intended to remain rural without urban facilities and services. And it's important to distinguish that area 3 is divided into 2 areas, the area 3 rural preservation area. This is most of the green that you see on the slide. and this is where the city and county intend to preserve existing rural land uses and character. And then the area 3 planning reserve, which is a little bit hard to see, but it's the lighter green sort of blob just to the north of town. and this is where the city and county intend to maintain the option of future service area expansion.

[14:06] and, as you know, city staff are currently preparing the urban Services study, which is the 1st step of evaluating weather expansion into the planning reserve is feasible, and should be considered so highlighting some of our urban services. This is the full range of urban services and standards that we define to serve urban development which is defined in the Bbcp. The city is the preferred provider of these urban services, and these standards are intended to be minimum requirements or thresholds for services that must be delivered to existing urban development, new development, and for redevelopment to be considered adequate. Jumping to the land. Use map. The land use map describes future land uses and character that help to shape development and redevelopment by establishing aspirational and broad future land use patterns throughout the Boulder Valley.

[15:08] Our land use designations, describe the characteristics, locations, and uses for each category in the Bbcp, and we currently utilize the land, use designations under a couple of different categories, 5 of them residential industrial business, open space and other. And I will point out that there are 26 different land use designations within these categories. and I think it's important to be able to distinguish between land use and zoning, which are oftentimes confused as they may appear very similar on paper. Essentially land use is visionary. It's forward looking and aspirational in nature. It describes the community's vision and desired uses across the Boulder Valley. and it may or may not be the same use than the existing use that is there today. And finally, the land use. Map informs future zoning and rezoning decisions in order to bring both land use and zoning into alignment

[16:07] for zoning. On the other hand, this is a legal property right? It sets more specific development, related standards than land use does. It includes regulations around allowed uses. building form and intensity of development. But the 2 do need to speak to one another. So, to use a metaphor, one way I like to think about this is to to think of a birthday cake land use describes the desired cake like a chocolate cake. whereas zoning is the recipe right that we need to follow in order to make that chocolate cake. If we don't get the recipe or the zoning right to match that chocolate cake or the land use, then we may end up with a cake that we didn't intend to make touch briefly on subcommittee and area planning. The city is broken down into 10 geographic subcommunities that provide a more focused area of study and provides a framework for managing change and implementing the Bbcp policy at a more local level within the city.

[17:07] This essentially helps translate large-scale planning ideas expressed in the Bbcp. To a more localized and human scale. Adopted. Subcommunity plans consists of the North Boulder subcommunity plan, and the most recently approved East Boulder subcommunity plan and examples of the most recently adopted area plans in the city include the Transit village area plan for the Boulder Junction area as well as the Alpine balsam area plan for the former Bch site in future Western city campus and all subcommittee and area plans are influenced by the policies that are established within the Bbcp. And are one of the key implementation tools in realizing its vision. And I want to point out that a key culture of the Bbcp is that we regularly update it. It's not a plan that gets written sits on a shelf, collects dust and then completely rewritten.

[18:04] Our Bbcp is a living vision document for our city, and continues to evolve and change with the changing needs of our community. Since the 1977 older rally Comp plan. We have had 7 major updates since on an established regular schedule to ensure that the vision and needs of our community continue to be met. It's reviewed every 5 years for possible amendments to reflect changes and circumstances and community desires with major updates happening every 10 years with the most recent update occurring in 2015. It's been 10 years now, so we'll, as we've mentioned, be kicking off major update to the Boulder Valley Comp plan here this fall which Tess is going to provide a little bit more information on shortly after discussing some of our key planning milestones. Hello, everyone! My name's Tess shorn, and I'm going to talk to you 1st a little bit about the history. Pre. 1977. The 1st Comp plan, that kind of led to our growth management in these plans.

[19:09] So since 1977, Boulder Valley has undoubtedly changed. But 2 important factors that shape the urban form of Boulder are its mountain backdrop and surrounding open space. Boulder's distinctive sense of place and compact size did not happen by accident, and I will be sharing some history about this. So in talking about history, we must 1st acknowledge that the city of Boulder is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of indigenous peoples who have traversed lived and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley. Since time immemorial. These indigenous nations include the Apache, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, Shoshone, Sioux, and Ute. we honor and respect the people of these nations and their ancestors. The city of Boulder also recognizes that those now living and working on these ancestral lands have a responsibility to acknowledge and address that past the city refutes past justifications for colonialization of indigenous lands, and acknowledges a legacy of oppression that has caused intergenerational trauma to indigenous peoples and family

[20:26] boulder, began as a small mining town in more recent history, and then grew slowly opening the University of Colorado in 1877, and for a long time after that remained a small college town. However, between 1950 and 1970, Boulder's population, more than tripled, growing from around 20,000 to almost 67,000. Because of this rapid population growth community members grew concerned about sprawl continuing into the mountains. So in 1959, the blue line was added to the city charter as a tool to limit that sprawl. It restricts city water and sewer services. On the west edge of the city.

[21:12] on the heels of the institution of this blue line. The Boulder community sought to preserve open space lands around the entire city, and in 1967 Boulder became the 1st city in the nation to institute a dedicated sales tax to purchase open space lands. This approach to growth, management and rural land preservation was further defined with the adoption of the service areas that Chris had previously talked about in the city and county, 1977, Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. and this has been the fundamental framework for focusing growth within city limits ever since the impacts can be seen here, as the city-owned open space has been purchased over the last 50 years. You can see that there's quite a bit more open space than there was in 1967.

[22:03] So while the community members were concerned about this growing outward. During this time they were also concerned about growing upward. A few development proposals were submitted that included 100 foot tall buildings and community members were worried about preserving views of the mountains and kind of preserving Boulder's small town character. So voters passed a change to the city's charter to institute a 50 five-foot height limit in 1971 based. And this height limit was based upon the height of a mature cottonwood tree. Again. Since the seventies, much of the city's growth management has occurred through the Bvcp. But this is the past. That kind of led us to the 1st Bvcp. So now I'm going to move on to the 2,015 major update which was our most recent major Update and kind of give you a general overview of what can be found in that

[23:01] update. So the Boulder Valley vision of 2015 was the community honors its history and legacy of planning for a livable community, surrounded by open space and rural lands, while striving together to create and preserve a truly special place that is sustainable, resilient, equitable, and inclusive now and for generations to come. And you can see there's still kind of that character of wanting to preserve the open space surrounded by a compact city. In this vision statement. the culmination of a community process in 2015 led to 7 focus areas. And these focus areas, I just want to note can be subject to change. Moving forward in this 2025, major update these 7 focus areas include housing, affordability and diversity growth, place, design, quality and placemaking small local businesses, resiliency and climate commitment.

[24:02] subcommittees and area planning and arts and culture. The 2015 major update also had policies which were organized into these topic areas. And each of these topic areas has quite a few policies within them. And policies function and overlap. Not one single policy is currently prioritized over another. So all policies are weighed carefully, and tradeoff choices are considered kind of when that's necessary. And as a reminder, some policies are specific to the city, and some apply to the city and county, and this reinforces the value of a joint adoption with the 4 Body Review process now moving on to the exciting new update 2025, which you'll hear a lot more about in August. But we'll just give you a brief overview. So what you can expect during a major update. There's a lot of changes and edits allowed which includes changes to pretty much all of our maps. We can change any of our policies, criteria for urban service standards, etc.

[25:20] we will be kicking off this major update later this fall publicly, and because so much can be changed and adjusted during a major update. I want to reiterate that the Bvcp is a reflection of our community who we are and who we want to be in the future. A plan of this magnitude and importance to the community requires a lot of time with the community which we will anticipate spending nearly all of 2025 doing. We'll be engaged in conversation with our community to answer many key questions and decide what our vision for the next 20 years is, we hope to proceed with a draft plan and hold public hearings for the adoption in mid to late 2026.

[26:05] Speaking of community engagement. We'll be sharing our overall engagement strategy and more details with you in August, and we plan to engage the community in a variety of ways. Today, we just want to highlight one of our plans to stand up a community assembly which is both our greatest engagement innovation in this process and also our deepest level of engagement. There is 2 main components to the assembly. one the random selection process, and 2 the in-depth deliberation for the group to arrive at judgments that balance competing values, such as freedom of choice and fairness to different social groups. We have engaged a consultant to support us through the design and implementation of this in August. We will share more details about this process, and we will ensure that the Community Assembly complements all our engagement strategies.

[27:02] and then finally, next steps. So, as I said a couple times, August 20 second, we'll be back to share with you a scope, schedule and engagement strategy for this 2025 major update. And then we plan on October 19th to have the community-wide kickoff of the Bbcp. Thank you so much for listening. Okay, Seth, that concludes your presentation. Thank you very much. That was really great, and I certainly learned a few things that I didn't know in that. So that's great. Now comes time for the planning board to fire away with questions. Who let me get my. So I can see in our see, our online participants here. Hold on. Okay.

[28:00] Who's got some questions ready? Ml. thank you for that great presentation. I mean, I learned a bunch of stuff as well. We're all growing. I. And through the presentation I came up with some questions that I think, have have. I've noticed through my work on planning board. So on that diagram where you had the Bvcp. The sub community plans and the zoning. and you had the arrows going from Bvcp down to zoning. Is there a process for considering the arrows going in the other direction as well? I guess I'd throw a question back at you. And are there specific arrows that you anticipate going the other way. Whether that be for subcommunity and area plans or citywide strategic plan. Well, you know one of the things that I think

[29:10] is could use more support in the planning board. Decision-making process is a relationship from the parts to the whole. And I see the Bvcp's role, as I'm sure we all do as providing the whole. And so I think it's critical to understand how the parts make it back to the whole, because it's a it's a very fuzzy process for us where it's kind of like in whole or in part. You know, you can meet the Bbcp. And if you find one here and one there, you're good to go. It. It doesn't seem to really honor the value of the Boulder Valley Comp plan. So I I think it might behoove us to consider

[30:00] how those specific pieces are what they look like when they hit back at the Boulder Valley Comp plan. And I'm thinking, in particular, you know, we do area plans. And then we get projects that come to us. It's like, well, the area plan says this, that yeah, but we would want to do this. and it seems like there really isn't a means for us to hold accountability to that intent. You know we see the arrow going from Bvcp. There, but we don't see it being accountable back. so that I don't know if that clarifies what I'm trying to say it's like we need a means to make ourselves accountable back to the Boulder Valley Comp plan. I think that's really great feedback, and something that we can consider. One of the areas that I think we can improve on is developing metrics and understanding how we are implementing these plans. And that might help develop that communication back and forth. And so that's something that I think we can certainly work on and take that feedback as we

[31:02] embark on the 2025 update. And as we identify new subcommunity and area plans to develop as we develop those metrics, we can communicate better back out. And how these plans are achieving the vision that is established within the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan. Excellent! I love that answer. Thank you very much. Can I just add to those comments Brad Mueller, director planning and development services. So I think we're hearing. And you're thinking about this on on different kind of levels in a different context, which is really good. And certainly action items for comprehensive plan are a good technique for implementation and measuring and reporting back are. And I'll just share one other kind of perspective that, I think, is maybe different, but related regarding comprehensive plans throughout my career I've heard mostly criticisms, but observations of comprehensive plans as

[32:00] being able to say whatever somebody wants it to say. So. In other words, it's kind of like well, it's open to interpretation, and it can say whatever you want it to, and my response to that for what it's worth has always been. That's true. It's an aspirational document, and it reflects the complexity of a society and the complexity of a community's values. But in reality we deal with that every day, with every development proposal that comes forward, and so we will see a design that comes in where the designer has already had, and you can appreciate this already made trade-offs between access and view sheds and all these different things. It's not uncommon for us to have to reconcile competing comments. For example. you need to put in a stormwater detention pond here. Access has to be here. Well, that's the same physical location. They can't be in the same area. So we have to reconcile those. And it doesn't mean one value is wrong versus the other. It just means a judgment has to be made about how those can be accommodated, and the same is true in the comprehensive plan. There's a value that says trails are great, and there's a value that says

[33:16] open view sheds are great, and those may be competing at any given time when applied, because those might have to occupy the same physical space. But the quasi-judicial decision-making process, or administrative ones, through rules or through discernment by the staff that we do is designed, I would submit, to try to reconcile those competing values that are expressed in a comprehensive plan, using judgment and site-specific facts. So for my part, I'm comfortable with the reality that a document that is by definition aspirational has competing values because I think that reflects reality, and

[34:03] I encourage us to think about that too, and as we talk about it with the public, to acknowledge that as well. thank you for that, Brad. And you remind me that planning is a dynamic. It's a dynamic thing. So you're absolutely, I think, spot on. That is the challenge in that. Not. Every context is going to translate the same information in the same way, because it it has its own nuance. And I and I think that that that is the challenge in making steadfast regulations that also have an aspirational component to them. You know there's kind of a contradiction there, but I think that the intent with the Bvcp. And its aspiration, and then the specificity of, say, a zoning. It would be nice if there was some transparency as to okay, how? What do those dashlines look like? Right? And I love the idea of getting some data points in for that. I think that would be one way, because, you know, those can be read uniquely.

[35:11] Tell. Awesome. Yeah. And again, those are great suggestions. And I'm confident we'll look into different ways to operationalize that I will just add to, and and then apologies for the long soapbox. Answer. But, you know it. It is very possible this speaks again to a common criticism of people abusing. You know, the comp plan, quote unquote, and, it is true, a handful of times in my career I've seen somebody stand up and say, Well, look, you know it says policy, blah blah blah, that means we have to do that. But you know there's a whole context to the comprehensive plan, intent and competing other considerations. And again, I would submit, that's what policymakers are by definition supposed to wrestle with and make informed judgment-based decisions.

[36:02] Thank you. Kurt. If you're ready. sure, Brad. can I follow up on that? Since you're talking about the policies. particularly in the context of development processes. so you give the example of. for instance, a conflict between the need for stormwater and the need for access or something. Well, there are policies that say we need to deal with stormwater, and there are policies that say we need to have access. My question is. does having those policies in the Comp plan actually, then affect anything in terms of, particularly when we're looking at specific

[37:02] developments. Yes, I would argue, they absolutely do on a couple different levels. Chris showed that chart of the relationship of the CIP and the budget and the zoning code, and these different things as implementation elements to a comprehensive plan. So I would say already, institutionally, that's built in when you see a specific application, that is, there was a law that was adopted that was consistent with that planning policy. But the other way it comes in is when you are deliberating on. Does this comply with the comprehensive plan? At that point you can be very specific about which of those policies apply in a particular case. Now, that doesn't mean if the law says you need to have access and stormwater, you know, there's a way to not do that. You have to have both.

[38:04] but it certainly can give guidance towards the soft aspects of planning, compatibility, walkability, intensity. aesthetics, and this is one of those things that there's a constant tension in the planning industry and community about. What are those things? What do they mean? Well, I had a law professor. Say they mean whatever you decide them to mean. I mean, you're making a judgment on a site specific case that in this particular case it is compatible, and you can lean on and cite elements of the comprehensive plan to say, Well, this is why it is such and such planning at its root is not. It's not an exact science, it's not engineering, it's not, is the answer. 3 or 4. It is by design. Those types of societal questions. And again, that's where the comprehensive plan gives guidance to make those judgment-based decisions.

[39:06] and it and it, you know, it should help in a council members and a planning board member's consideration of an item before you know, before it gets heard. It certainly is a good thing to cite when making a decision. It's especially good to cite. If you're denying something or going against a particular staff recommendation, we always counsel you and Attorney's office. Does that giving a reason, for it means that it will hold up in court, and those are all valid reasons. But that's a very tactical reason. The more philosophical reason that I've always felt is important is just to know that you're making the decision based on a weighing of the values as expressed. Okay. thank you. Sure, maybe something to continue to discuss. Yeah, fair enough.

[40:00] I have a question, I think maybe back to Chris, a very high level question. So back in 1977, when we started doing. Or maybe this is really for Tess when we started doing the was when we when we 1st did. The comp plan there was. That was still a time of a significant amount of expansion of the city. There was a lot of question about what should get annexed. What shouldn't there was all this negotiation, I think, between the city and the county that to me, seems like it's pretty much completely over right. We have the the pretty definitive map, right? Chose areas 1, 2, 3, and we're still annexing some area, 2 stuff. We're not annexing in any area 3 stuff other than plant, possibly area 3 planning reserve. There's no discussion of

[41:00] of annexing anything in Area 3, that it seems like that is a it's baked. It's it's decided. So given that what value is there in continuing to have this joint city county process for body review? All this kind of thing? Are we kind of past that stage. I'll go ahead and start and then give it off to Chris. But I think the reason it is baked is because of this comprehensive plan and the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, because that is the regulatory document that enforces this map and enforces this to continue. And I understand that we now own a lot of the open space surrounding. But it is the document that provides this bakedness. As you're saying. I think what I'll add to that, too, is that it's

[42:00] general best practice to engage in regional planning efforts. A lot of the issues that face our community in the Boulder Valley don't know jurisdictional boundaries. And so it's a partnership that we value with the county, and being able to establish a really clear vision of the entire Boulder valley. Whether that be transportation issues or land use issues. It's really seen as as best practice for us to engage in those types of regional efforts. And this tool. The Boulder Valley Comp plan, and the intergovernmental agreement that we have with the county has has really been that mechanism for us to continue conversations in regional planning efforts that again extend beyond our city boundaries. But couldn't we have the Iga without all the all this city county structure in the Comp. Plan per se

[43:01] we are lining up. Hello, planning word, Christopher Johnson. Comprehensive planning manager. I appreciate the question and short answer is, yes. The intergovernmental agreement at every major update that intergovernmental agreement is re-upped and re-signed by both city and counties, and so certainly there could be changes that modify the way that that dynamic works, or that interaction, and the responsibilities of both of the parties as part of the as part of the IGA. I'd like to go back and speak just a little bit to your question around sort of the value of having the county be part of this conversation and part of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan process, and I will say that that has evolved over time. So in those early days, in the late seventies and through the eighties it was a 4 body review for essentially everything. So you know, any changes to the comprehensive plan

[44:00] required that 4 body review that has changed over time to now you know, decisions that are within the service area so obviously within the city limits, but also within the area 2 areas. Those are essentially just city decisions that come to you as planning board and city council. The county is not involved in those decisions any longer, and so that dynamic and the responsibilities of each group have changed over time. As this is a major update, the conversations around what is defined as area 2, what areas are defined as area 3. Those are open for discussion, and so I think there still is a tremendous value, that it is a joint process, and that there is the ability for both the city and county to weigh in on those on those decisions as opposed to being one side or the other. you know, having all the chips on on their side, and being able to have those conversations without the other. And so, I think, you know, even though a lot of the open space has been purchased by the city, and a lot of the, you know, the the major moves have been decided. There's still a lot of nuance around the edges of the city, where I think there's still a lot of value to having both city and county at the table for those conversations.

[45:14] Brad, I don't know if you I have more so. My colleagues have given great answers, and I would encourage thinking about those, and I'll add one more generally. I don't like to frame answers as fear-based. But I think it's important to reflect on the fact that we live at a point in history where general consensus with values have been shared with the county politic and citizens for many decades. Now, obviously variation here and there, but values of centralization, of urban services and preserving mountain backdrops and you know, these types of things have have been

[46:03] really part of the legacy of the Community Valley for many, many decades in the abstract. It could not necessarily be that way. Moving forward and There could be a change without a plan like this that precipitated a situation where 500 acres were under a single ownership in unincorporated county. Outside of the open space areas. We're a new town. We're developed using a metropolitan district and county subdivision regulations, if you know, if they were to so desire. And we didn't have such a plan as this. And while that seems maybe abstract and far flung today, I can tell you that is happening up and down the front range today, and has for 20 years I myself have been involved in just such a plan

[47:02] proposed. There are mechanisms in place to do that. I personally think, for all the reasons that the other 3 mentioned, and for what I'm adding that there is not only benefit in the legacy of the plan, but the practicality of it, and I would add to their reasons that planning departments look at it as a model, because that type of hand and glove, inner jurisdictional cooperation is very rare. You certainly see counties and cities working together comprehensive plans and consulting with each other, but actually going to the step of having it be shared. Document that they agree on represents a high level of collaboration and diplomacy that's unseen in most parts of the country, and envied frankly by many great thank you.

[48:02] If it's all right with Laura and George, I'm going to call on myself just to follow up specifically on Kurt's question. And Brad, don't go away because I think there you might. So and again I'm I asked this not like because I didn't hear the answers, but it's it is so intriguing and interesting, and not just like intellectual gymnastics. But it does. I've been questioning well, and and people have questioned me about the Comp plan update. Well, okay, so Boulder works, joint city of Boulder works jointly with Boulder county and today for me, I learned that. Okay. State mandate says, if you're a town above 2,000 population, you have to have a comprehensive plan. So I have had people advocate to me that Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, should be part

[49:06] of the Bvcp. I don't advocate for that. And then, if it's above 2,000. Well, then, the town of lions would fall into that. Maybe they could form the L coalition and take everything over. Why is it the city of Boulder and the and and Boulder County. and do the Ltounds have something similar? Or are they doing their own comprehensive plans? Thanks Mark. Yeah, that's a great question. So there exists something, and I am not going to get the entire name right? So I'm going to call it what it is colloquially known as the super IGA, which is an intergovernmental agreement between the county and all of those other towns that you have referenced. Lafayette. Louisville, Lyons, Netherlands

[50:07] Boulder is a party to the super IGA as well, essentially, that stood for 20 years, and that it was essentially an agreement between all of the municipalities within the county to agree to the concepts of rural preservation and focusing growth internal to those cities, and where urban services were were provided. Each of those locations does have their own individual comprehensive plans for their cities. I'm not exactly sure of the relationship that they have in terms of their comprehensive plan to the county, and that kind of thing. but in particular boulder, and the city of boulder and boulder counties relationship. And really the geography of the Boulder Valley is what defined why we have that relationship with the county, and also partly why those other communities are not included because they fall just outside the defined boundary, planning boundary for the Boulder Valley. As it's currently defined.

[51:14] The Boulder County comprehensive plan does cover the entirety of the county, and really includes all of those unincorporated areas surrounding those other municipalities. And just another quick side note in terms of State legislation. a similar requirement for counties that have populations of greater than 100,000 people. They are also required to have a comprehensive plan. So that's partly why the county has its own standalone comprehensive plan that covers the entirety of the unincorporated lands within the county. And then we have the Boulder Valley that that really, you know, defines and and shares our subset geography within that larger county area.

[52:00] Okay. go ahead, Brad. Yeah, maybe I'll just add to that, too, one of the criticisms in the literature and academia of comprehensive plans is that they're based, as everybody understands, on geopolitical lines. And you know it is often observed that things like air and water and animals, not to mention people and traffic. Don't observe geobolical boundaries, and there is a school of thought that says planning should be done regionally, and should be based on natural constraints, and that's very hard to administer in practice, because jurisdictions are where the administrative authority lies. But the Boulder County comprehensive plan is based on the value on the valley. And so it really does have its origins in what is is seen as a preferred planning methodology of being geographically defined. And so, while there are many ways that you could, of course, slice, that you could go up into watersheds. You could go into commuter sheds a million different ways. There is a certain logic that is meaningful

[53:15] in terms of using the geography defined as the Valley and Christopher identified, I think, very smartly the relationship of the super IG and some of those other mechanisms. I would say, too, that to try to do a comprehensive plan with 8 jurisdictions would be a feat unmatched. So we do want to make sure that our reach doesn't exceed our grasp. I would say. Okay, follow on on the logistics of approval. So we have this for body approval. But what I heard just a little bit ago during the presentation was that there are parts of the Bbcp that are city-specific.

[54:02] So are. are those parts exclusive to the approval process of planning board and city council. The parts that refer to the city alone. They are able to be amended by planning board and city council alone, so the overall update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan will be required to be adopted by all 4 bodies, but if there are amendments or changes in the future, there are time, frames, and periods in which those amendments can be made. and anything that is within the service area. Those are specific just to the two-body review with planning board and city council. and is the approval process similar to what we experienced with the East boulder subcommunity plan, that is

[55:00] there is no approval until in this case the 4 bodies approve exactly word for word. The same document is that correct? Yes, that is correct. So we anticipate a lot of coordination and some joint sessions with both city and county decision makers to make sure that we're trying to get ahead of those kind of the minutia of amendments and changes that can occur late in the process. So that's something we are well aware of and working diligently to make sure that we can plan ahead for that and try to minimize some of those conflicts towards the end. Okay, I have a couple more questions. But, Laura, George, let's let's give you guys a chance, and maybe you'll ask the same things if you guys have any questions. Nope. No, I don't either. So. Okay, alright fine. I'll I'll carry on for a moment. Early on.

[56:00] Chris, you! You pointed out that the distinction between land use and zoning. And you mentioned that zoning involves property rights. So I want to make sure I understand what are the limitations to changing zoning. In this, you know we the plan. The plan drives land, use land, use drives, zoning. What are the limitations to changing, zoning with and without property owners consent. And so because Boulder has. We have sometimes done some things that have resulted. both the city and the county that have resulted in lawsuits and struggles and angst. where we change zoning down, zoning up, you know, things that were were done may be in compliance with plans, but not necessarily in you know, historical. The historical context of the property, or the what the property owner deemed as their development right? So can you talk a little bit about the land, use

[57:10] versus zoning and what our ability is to change zoning without property owners, agreement and consent. I'm actually gonna look to our city attorney or our director to answer that question. It's a great question. I just want to be careful about how we answer it. Okay. yeah, it is a good question, and it's a sensitive topic, and you know I would start that by saying that you know zoning is, you know, it is a property right? It runs, you know, essentially runs with the land, and the oftentimes, you know, the property owner will make decisions based on based on that. And I will say that while people generally don't like things being done to them, and that's partly why it becomes very controversial. The city does maintain the right to legislatively change zoning without the property owner's consent, that is, if I remember correctly, it's just part of the police powers of the city to be able to regulate the lands that are within the city as they see fit.

[58:22] We, of course, also have very specific rezoning criteria, so if it is an applicant requested change, it has to meet very specific rezoning criteria. And obviously the zoning request needs to be consistent with the land use that's defined within the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. while that zoning is a property right, and it's seen as relatively stable. It is not a vested right that absolutely belongs to the property owner and can never be changed. That is something that is within the jurisdiction of the city to change through a legislative process.

[59:03] I just wanted to add, that's yeah. I agree with you completely. And one thing I wanted to add on there is, we do it through a legislative rezoning. Usually we do. Legislative rezonings. For a reason, quasidential is very hard to change a zoning process, and that is partly because it allows property owners to come and speak, to be able to be heard by people like all of you like city council. So it's something that is generally done as a legislative rezoning. And that's important, so that there is a chance to be heard again as a property right as somebody who may be getting their zoning changed in a way that they don't appreciate. And if we do a rezoning. It does have to be aligned with the comp plan aligned with the land use designations that can be really important for us. Otherwise there could be legal challenges like spot zoning and other things. Thank you. Okay, I have one last one, and it's on a completely. Oh, go ahead, follow up. Since we're talking about the relationship between land use and zoning

[60:06] my understanding, I should have looked this up. My understanding is the mapping between land use designations and zoning districts is in the code, right? It's not in the Comp plan. I didn't see it anywhere in the comp plan, right? Just the map itself is in the comp plan. Right? The land use map. right? Yeah. But what the mapping from a mathematical standpoint which zone districts apply? Or, yeah, are are subsets, I guess, of which zone districts that's in the the or the the code, right? Like a legislative. Yeah, it was adopted by ordinance, right? So so that could be changed kind of arbitrarily. Theoretically right? It can't. But but again, you want to make sure that it aligns with the Bbcp. And the land use map.

[61:05] Any sort of zoning needs to match that right. And so when you say arbitrarily, I guess any sort of legislative change has to go through you all through city council goes through public hearing process. So it's not really arbitrary. I would say, yeah, sorry. That was, I'm sure, not the right word, especially when talking to a liar, but I mean that there are no comp plan restrictions on really other than maybe some of the definitions that talk about the intensity limits or that sort of thing. There aren't really restrictions on for mixed use business, for example, there aren't really restrictions on what zone district can be classified as a compatible zone district with the mixed use business

[62:00] land use? Right? You're saying, that's a finding that we do through our ordinance process through the right? Yeah, yeah, okay. thank you. Just wanted to clarify. But I'd come to Brad if he has additional. Well, I think I followed that. And I think I'll just add that there is a what what do we call the yes, the magical cheat sheet. And Chris probably has a better understanding of that. But basically, there's something that kind of maps land use to zoning district types precisely as laurel speaks to, which is that. you know, if there's a gray industrial color in the zoning map. The city wouldn't be able to, just unilaterally. you know, make that residential because the comprehensive plan would have a corresponding land use type that is diametrically opposed to that.

[63:06] so that would either necessitate not making that zoning change on that, you know, changing it from gray to blue, or whatever, or making a land use type map change in the comprehensive plan. Course, you know. Concurrently. So accurate about the magic sheet. Okay? Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, can I? I'm sorry I'm on a roll here, can I? Can. I just add one more thing is. and this is a little bit of a preview. So I'm getting a little bit ahead. But we recognize that the evolution of the comprehensive plan, if you were to put and Chris did the 2 up there you can see the land use typology and the comprehensive plan, and the zoning map, and they are both very, very fine grain. We will

[64:01] bring forward at a later time an observation that that's a little unusual for comprehensive plans to be that fine grain, and that has evolved over the years. It's much more typical to have those land use designations be larger, aggregated areas that would encompass multiple kinds of zoning types. So you might be hearing some suggestions from us in the future about that. Okay, great. my last question jumps to the process side of things. And you mentioned this community assembly. how many people do you anticipate being in as part of this community assembly from my understanding somewhere around 50, 5, 0 5 0 some. Yeah, not not a firm number, but somewhere in that range. Okay? And

[65:01] Do you? You know we are, I think, rightly. strive to achieve equitable representation. Voices that aren't usually heard, etc. Conversely, when we try to slice and dice people and make sure we have the right number of slices. Sometimes we start putting people into narrower slices than so then they might be, normally thought to be part of. So do we have a plan. And how are we going to select those folks? How? How are we going to address the issue of representation and that sort of thing? Because it's perilous, and I don't. I'm glad that probably some consultant is doing that. But anyway, and then, at the end, these 50 people work for a year or so, lots of meetings, lots of hours, a lot of people.

[66:10] And yet the actual decision comes down to council planning board and the county. And so sometimes when you develop these giant processes with a lot of people you manage to just ultimately make a lot of people frustrated because their particular viewpoint was not adopted, and ultimately a counsel that they may or may not have liked adopts a plan. So anyway, it's partly a comment, partly a question. You want to elaborate a little more on this community assembly and the selection process, etc. Yeah. So the a lot of this will be talked about in the August meeting. But the short answer to your 1st question is, yes, we have thought about it. Yes, our consultant is on it, so rest assured on that case, and we'll give you much more detail about that in the future. And then.

[67:07] as well as your second question, we're thinking deeply about it. And I think a big piece of this Community Assembly is getting buy-in from the boards and the county on taking whatever feedback is given to them seriously. Obviously, the decision is up to boards and councils. the for the Community Assembly to be successful, I think taking their feedback seriously is a big piece of that. So that's why we're introducing it so early. Yeah, okay. okay, that was that's it for me. Did anyone else anything else come to light for anybody before we in this? Okay. Kurt. Okay, you're thinking about one more. Well, I'm thinking about so many more.

[68:05] No, I I'll hold off. Pending the the next meeting. One thing just a long term request. Very detailed is it would be great to get. I'm a paper guy, cause I'm old. I would love to get a printed version of the land. Use map like where you can actually read it sometime that we can start poring over. I mean. Brad was sort of referencing, possible change an approach to that which would be fine. But if we're if we're going to stick with generally the current kind of approach, it would be nice to be able to really dig in on the land. Use map at some point. And I do that best, not on a screen, but on paper. Okay,

[69:00] Does Staff have any final comments? Or was this was this helpful to you? Do you anything that we need? We didn't ask, or we should have, or supplied to you that we no, I think this was great. I think this is exactly what we are ultimately hoping to achieve is, and hopefully we did provide a bit of a foundational understanding of what the Boulder Valley Comp plan is. But we're really excited to come back to you all in August and share a little bit more info around what the draft scope and schedule and process is ultimately going to look like. There's going to be some new issues that we're going to tackle with this comp plan. Update one of those being equity. We're a lot better positioned now as a city than we were in 2015 to tackle some of those issues. We have the racial equity instrument. We have a really robust system of community connectors that we'll be engaging strongly with to help connect us to some of the more underrepresented communities that have historically been not as well represented in these large scale planning processes. So we're excited to kick this thing off, to share more info with you, and really get out with our community and help shape what the future of Boulder is going to look like for the next 15 years.

[70:14] Great! Well, thanks very much. So I'm going to close. Item 6 a. And we'll move on to any matters from the board or staff that haven't been addressed tonight. Laura. I do. I have one. I realize I didn't introduce myself on the record. I'm Laura with the city for the city attorney's office. I wanted to just briefly mention the rules of procedure, and I wanted to thank all of you guys for all of your great comments and feedback. We're putting those together and creating a draft where we highlight each of the different feedback based on who requested it and answering all of your questions. So the goal is to have it come before you sometime in August. But it depends on availability and planning board meetings, so wanted to let you know that that's coming forward, and thank you all so much for your great feedback on that

[71:05] great well, we look forward to those, and even though they're draft, I have been referring to them just even as just good procedure to. Anyway, I've been referring to them in the last couple meetings to answer some questions I had about sharing and stuff, and I know they're draft. I know we haven't adopted them, but anyway, it's been helpful to me. Good. I'm glad to hear that. Yeah. And if anyone has additional things that they would like to add feel free to email me. Okay? Well, then, unless I hear an objection, I'm going to move to adjourn. Okay. we're adjourned. Thank you. Everyone.