Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/30/2012-RegularOctober 30, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Weitkunat. ("Secretary's note: Councilmember Troxell arrived at 6:04 p.m.) Councilmembers Absent: Horak Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Mayor Weitkunat stated Item No. 3, Consideration of the'appeal of the August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals Decision to Approve a Variance to Allow the Existing Off -Premise Sign (Billboard) Located in the BNSF Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road to be Removed and Reinstalled at a New Location Within the Same Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road, has been postponed to the November 6, 2012 Council meeting. Consideration of an Appeal of the Hearing Officer's August 16, 2012 Decision to Approve Aspen Heights Project Development Plan, #PDP110018, Hearing Officer Decision Upheld with Conditions The following is staff's memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2011, Breckenridge Land Acquisition, LLP, submitted a Project Development Plan (PDP) for a combination of single family detached, two-family and multi family dwellings in the C- C-N, Community Commercial North College zone district. As proposed, the project consists of 220 dwellings on 31 acres located south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. On August 7, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing in consideration of Aspen Heights PDP. On August 16, 2012, after consideration of testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the PDP. with one condition ensuring proper submittal of a landscape plan for the clubhouse. On August 30, 2012, Tom Lawton filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing Officer decision. 116 October 30, 2012 The appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This is a request for 220 dwellings on 31 acres located south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. The dwellings, and the number of bedrooms, would be divided in the following manner: 82 Single Family Detached (3 bedrooms per unit) 62 Two Family (duplexes) (2-3 bedrooms per unit); 76 Multi -Family (row -houses, 3 — 6 units per building) (2-3 bedrooms per unit). There would be a total of 600 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. (The applicant has indicated that there is a potential for all 82 single family detached dwellings to be converted to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses featuring a mix of 4-5 bedrooms per unit at some point in the future. Such conversion would be subject to the procedures and standards of Section 3.8.16 and could possibly increase the total bedroom count to 720. Such conversion is not the subject of this P.DP.) All dwellings would be two-story. There would be 786 off-street parking spaces. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, outdoor sport court and leasing office. Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine Drive are two public streets that would be extended to serve the site. Blue Spruce Drive would not be extended south to Mandell Street. Redwood Street would be extended south to connect with the existing Redwood Street so there would be a complete roadway between existing East Vine Drive and Conifer Street. A segment of the new, re -aligned Vine Drive would be constructed along the project's southern property line but will not extend to North College Avenue. ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER At the public hearing, the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review process allows the Hearing Officer ten working days to render a written decision. On August 16, 2012, the Hearing Officer provided a written decision approving the PDP. with the one condition as recommended by staff that a landscape plan be provided for the clubhouse. ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On August 30, 2012, Tom Lawton filed an appeal alleging that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? 117 October 30, 2012 2. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer exceeded his authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter? 3. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer substantially ignored his previously established rules of procedure? 4. Did the Hearing Officerfail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer considered evidence relevant to his findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing and/or Failure Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 2.2.6(B)(D). Land Use Code Section 2.2.6(B) reads as follows: "(B) Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted with a sign, giving notice to the general public of the proposed development. For parcels of land exceeding ten (10) acres in size, two (2) signs shall be posted. The size of the sign(s) required to be posted shall be as established in the Supplemental Notice Requirements of Section 2.2.6(D). Such signs shall be provided by the Director and shall be posted on the subject property in a manner and at a location or locations reasonably calculated by the Director to afford the best notice to the public, which posting shall occur within fourteen (14) days following submittal of a development application to the Director. " The appellant alleges that the property was not posted with a sign in a timely manner and that the location of the sign that was posted was not in a sufficiently prominent location. The appellant asserts that the intention of the Development Review Guide, as found on the City of Fort Collins Current Planning website, was not followed. On page three, lines 4 — 9 of the verbatim transcript, the following was read into the record by the Hearing Officer: Mr. Lopez: "The common development review procedures are codified in Section 2.2. The submittal of the PDP is step three; the public hearing is step seven. Asper City Council Resolution 2012-064, the PDP was remanded back to the public hearing, step seven, not back to the submittal, step three. The project was submitted on December 14, 2011. City records indicate that two signs were posted by December 27, 2011. " Land Use Code Section 2.2.6(D) reads as follows: 118 October 30, 2012 D) Supplemental Notice Requirements. Mininuan Notice Radius Sign Size All developments except 800 feet 12 square feet as described below. Developments proposing 800 feet 12 square feet more than fifty (50) and less than one hundred (100) single-family or two family lots or dwelling units. Developments proposing 800 feet 12 square feet more than twenty-five (25) and less than one hundred (100) multi- family dwelling units. Nonresidential 800 feet 12 square feet developments containing more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) and less than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of floor area. Developments proposing 1, 000 feet 12 square feet one hundred (100) or more single-family or two-family lots or dwelling units. Developments proposing 1, 000 feet 12 square feet one hundred (100) or more multi family dwelling units. Nonresidential I,000feet 12squarefeet developments containing ` fifty thousand (50,000) or more square feet of floor area. Nonresidential 1,000feet; plus, 12squarefee[ 119 October 30, 2012 Minimum Notice Radius Sign Size developments which with respect to propose land uses or neighborhood activities which, in the meetings, judgment of the Director, publication of a create community or notice not less than regional impacts. seven (7) days prior to the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. Zonings and rezonings of 800 feet 12 square feet forty (40) acres or less. Zonings and rezonings of 1,000 feet 12 square feet more than forty (40) acres. The appellant does not provide any specific allegation with regard to Section 2.2.6(D). As to mailed notice, the verbatim transcript states on page three, lines 10— 13: Mr. Lopez: "Also in compliance with Section 2.2.6(A), mailed notices advertising the public hearing ofAugust7, 2012 were mailed to affected property owners within the specific notification area fourteen days prior to the public hearing date. The notification letter was mailed out on July 25, 2012, thus complying with the standard. " B. The Decision Maker failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering grossly misleading evidence in the hearing due to disingenuous presentation of the proposal. The appellant does not provide a Land Use Code citation regarding this allegation. The appellant alleges that the applicant's presentation indicated that the PDP would contain 600 bedrooms. The developer, in fact, will construct 712 bedrooms. The developer has indicated that, at some point after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a request for a variance or a waiver will be made to convert the single family homes to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. Therefore, the applicant's presentation to the Hearing Officer was disingenuous, suggesting a pattern of occupancy which is not that which is intended. The Hearing Officer stated in his decision on page 18: "16. Section 3.8.28 — Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations. After issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the single family detached dwellings will seek conversion to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses to allow four to five tenants per unit. This request is not before the Hearing Officer at this time. " 120 October 30. 2012 The verbatim transcript states on page 45, lines 15— 19: Mr. Shepard: "I think the Last one before Ward or Mark come up here is the, to again reference that the three -unrelated and how we get more than three into a dwelling unit. That's originally part of the Code that was adopted even before the Land Use Code when Fort Ram Village on Plum Street desired that. It's been expanded now to allow extra occupancy rental house, which is in 3.8.16. It's a basic development review, it is not a modification, it's not a variance as was stated. " C. The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the Hearing Officer or the City of Fort Collins conducted an Administrative Hearing when the PDP should have been considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. The appellant does not provide a Land Use Code citation regarding this allegation. The appellant asserts that the Development Review Guide, as found on the Current Planning website, indicates that while the zoning of the proposed development site is not residential, the surroundings of the site on two sides are. As such, this application matches almost exactly the City's example development requiring a Type 2 review. The Hearing Officer stated in his decision on pages 5 and 6: "1. Section 4.19(B)(2)(a) — Permitted Use. This standard lists the permitted uses in the CCN District, subject to administrative review. Residential uses including single family, two-family, single family attached, multi family dwellings, group homes, extra occupancy rental house and mixed use dwellings are permitted per subsection (a). " The verbatim transcript states on page 45, lines I — 5: Mr. Shepard: "There was a comment about some vagueness as to a Type I or Type II review. It's not vague, it's a hard and fast rule, it's very strict. The Land Use Code, in Article IV, very explicitly says either you are a P and Z review, or you are an Administrative Hearing Officer review. There's no crossing over. The only way that you can cross over requires a text amendment which has to go to the Planning and Zoning Board and then two readings by Council. " D. The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that he exceeded his authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or ignored its previously established rules of procedure in failing to consider City Plan in his decision. The appellant does not provide a Land Use Code citation regarding this allegation. The appellant asserts that two policies from City Plan were not properly considered by the Hearing Officer: • Policy LIV 7.7 — Accommodate the Student Population 121 October 30, 2012 "Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well -served by public transportation. " Policy LIV 37.3 — Supporting Uses and Housing "Include student -oriented housing, retail services, and entertainment designed to function as part of the Campus District. Form strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages throughout the district and provide connections to city systems beyond the campus. " The Hearing Officer stated on page 18 of his decision that the PDP complied with Section 3.6.5(B) — Location of Existing Transit Routes due to the fact that the PDP is located along Transit Routes 8/81 which serves Conifer Street in both directions. The Hearing Officer included in his decision on pages 3 and 4, six excerpts from the North College Corridor Plan. This is a geographically specific sub -area plan that formed the basis of the C-C-N zone district and includes the subject property. An adopted sub -area plan is considered a component of City Plan. The Hearing Officer concluded on page 19 that the decision that the PDP complied with the 2007 North College Subarea Plan. E. The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair remanded hearing by substantially ignoring previously established rules ofprocedure by reason of the Hearing Officer already having decided the case in the original hearing. ' Lands Use Code Section 2.2.7(A) reads as follows: "2.2.7 Step 7. Public Hearing (A) Decision maker. (1) Administrative Review (Type I review). An administrative review process is hereby established wherein certain development applications shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Directorpursuant to the general procedural requirements contained in Division 2.1, and the common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2. For those development applications that are subject to administrative review, the Director shall be the designated decision maker. (2) Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2 review). A- Planning and Zoning Board review process is hereby established wherein certain development applications shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to the general procedural requirements contained in Division 2.1, and the common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2. For those development applications 122 October 30, 2012 that are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review, the Planning and Zoning - Board shall be the designated decision maker. " The appellant asserts that having already ruled in the affirmative in the original hearing, the Hearing Officer is, therefore, biased and unqualified to consider the PDP in the remanded hearing. Hearing the same case a second time, regardless of differing testimony, it would be extremely hard to issue a decision contrary to the original. Further, Section 2.2.7(A) gives no indication that "the Director", as the "designated decision maker, " can delegate the role. Finally, Section 2.2.7(D)(1) requires that "the Director" (not "the designated decision maker) close the public hearing.. The Hearing Officer read into the public record a memorandum prepared by staff. The relevant subsection of this memorandum is found in the verbatim transcript which states on page 2, lines 24 - 34: Mr. Lopez: "One of these allegations challenged the legitimacy of the City of Fort Collins using a Hearing Officer. In response, please note the following from Section 1.4.9(E) (emphasis added): "(E) Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision appears requiring the Director or some other City officer or employee to do some act or perform some duty, such provision shall be construed as authorizing the Director or other officer or employee to designate, delegate and authorize professional -level subordinates to perform the required act or duty unless the terms of the provision specify otherwise. With respect to the review of development applications eligible for Type I review, in addition to or in substitution for delegation to subordinates as above authorized, the Director may engage the services of an attorney with experience in land use matters. " City Attorney Roy outlined the appeal process. He noted no new evidence is admissible except in response to an allegation that a fair hearing was not held because the hearing officer relied upon evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading, or in response to Council questions. He discussed the options Council has upon hearing the appeal. Mayor Weitkunat asked for general procedural objections. Tom Lawton; appellant, stated two documents were not included in the Council packet and two documents in the packet did not have a source cited. He stated the two missing documents were a Student Housing Action Plan preparation document and a Power Point presentation. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the first document is referred to as the Student Housing Action Plan Process Summary. The document was referenced by Mr. Lawton during his testimony before the hearing officer, as per the verbatim transcript. The actual Process Summary itself was not submitted until after the close of citizen input. It was submitted electronically near the end of the hearing. Shepard stated he does have ten hard copies of the document available should Council wish to review it. Shepard clarified that Exhibit 2 was submitted by Mr. Mickey Willis, though the document is an email from Mr. Lawton. 123 October 30, 2012 Shepard stated the Power Point presentation referenced by Mr. Lawton was presented from an Wad. An electronic version, to be converted to hard copy, was not received until after the close of citizen input. There are no objections to giving Mr. Lawton additional time to present his documents. Shepard stated Exhibit 7 was submitted by the applicant to the Hearing Officer at the public hearing during the time set aside for applicant rebuttal. Councilmember Manvel stated he would like to see the visuals of Mr. Lawton's presentation. City Attorney Roy suggested the applicant be allowed to speak to the issues. Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes Street, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant did not have any objections to Mr. Lawton showing what was presented at the public hearing. Shepard stated the public hearing was a remanded hearing held on August 7, 2012. He presented project statistics and summarized the appeal allegations. Mayor Weitkunat asked that Councilmembers reveal any observations made or discussions held on a site visit. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he did attend the site visit to view the property. APPELLANT PRESENTATION Mr. Lawton discussed the fact that the Student Housing Action Plan was in process, but not completed, at the time the Aspen Heights project was submitted. He discussed the points of his appeal. His first allegation related to the notification sign posting on the property proposed for development. Mr. Lawton also alleged the Hearing Officer considered grossly misleading evidence relating to the project's proposed number of bedrooms. Mr. Lawton alleged an unfair hearing and claimed the project should have gone before the Planning and Zoning Board. The proposed site is not near an educational campus and is not served by public transportation. He opposed the fact that the same Hearing Officer presided over the remanded hearing. . APPLICANT PRESENTATION Deanne Frederickson, Aspen Heights Planner, discussed the proposed Aspen Heights development. She discussed the benefits of the project to the area and students and noted the project meets all Land Use Code standards without any modifications or variances. Ms. Liley discussed the appeal allegations. She noted the extra -occupancy process, per the Land Use Code, must occur after the PDP process and discussed the fact that the proposed project is a permitted use. Ms. Liley discussed the public transportation availability for the site and noted student housing is encouraged to be placed throughout the city. Additionally, Ms. Liley noted remands always go back to the original Hearing Officer. She requested the Hearing Officer's decision be upheld. 124 October 30, 2012 Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, spoke in favor of the project. He noted affordable housing options are often taken by students and these types of projects will aid in freeing up affordable housing for families and others who need it. Monica Sweere, Old Town North, LLC Manager, supported the project. APPELLANT REBUTTAL Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the adequacy of the Transfort system to serve such a large development and questioned the fact that the project did not go before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Lawton opposed certain aspects of the Land Use Code regulations. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Ms. Liley stated the appeal did not address issues with the project itself, but rather the process. She stated the applicant has consistently followed the currently outlined process. She requested that the decision of the hearing officer be upheld. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilmember Manvel asked about the impact of the potential of increasing the number of bedrooms on the traffic analysis . Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer, replied the traffic analysis was done based upon the potential for additional bedrooms, with a ten percent downgrade for alternative modes, though there is likely to be a higher usage of alternative modes. Councilmember Manvel asked, whether or not the community will provide shuttle bus service as no additional Transfort bus service is planned. Stanford replied those issues are not part of the overall traffic analysis. Shepard replied the developer has publically indicated that shuttle service will be considered, should demand exist. There is no condition, at this point, that would mandate shuttle service. Ms. Liley stated the developer is willing to provide shuttle service if the demand exists. Councilmember Poppaw asked about the possible need for additional bus service on the route that would serve this development. Shepard replied Transfort Planning has not indicated the buses on that route are at capacity. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked what the City is requiring with regard to on -site ditches, one of which is to be eliminated and one of which is to be enhanced. Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner, replied the main north -south corridor will be preserved through the project. A second drainage that runs into the main area will be removed. The area that will be preserved will be widened to from twenty feet to fifty feet and will be planted with native grasses, shrubs, and trees. Mitigation for the area that is going to be removed will occur in the regional pond. 125 October 30, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if this irrigation ditch will have a buffer. Ex replied it is not an irrigation ditch, but is a wildlife corridor and will be preserved at a width of fifty feet and will not have a fifty -foot buffer on each side. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about on -site trees. Ex replied most of the trees, particularly in the wildlife corridor, are Russian Olive and will be replaced. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the timeline for prairie dog habitat restoration. Ex replied the development agreement for the project will stipulate how the funds are transferred in the restoration process. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager, replied the mitigation funds will be applied the following restoration season. It takes up to ten years to fully restore a piece of property to prairie. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested changes may need to be made at some point with the mitigation dollar amount when the time it takes for restoration is considered. He disagreed with one-to-one mitigation for wetlands as well. Ex noted the quality of the wetland is being considered rather than just the acreage. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the possibility of relocating the prairie dogs to Soapstone Natural Area. Sears replied part of the management plan for Soapstone is to not relocate prairie dogs from off -site. Existing on -site prairie dogs will be allowed to exist and grow a colony naturally. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how many prairie dogs are estimated to be on -site. Ex replied she was unsure. Mayor Weitkunat suggested Council address the fair hearing issue of the appeal. Councilmember Manvel stated the signage complies with existing regulations and traffic impacts were calculated based upon the possibility of adding more bedrooms Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Council find that the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in consideration of the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan #110018. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer approving the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan #110018, because the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land Use Code. Councilmember Manvel noted discrepancies between City Plan and the Land Use Code may need to be addressed: however, this project has abided by the regulations in the Land Use Code. While the project may not be optimal from the perspective of nearby residents, City Plan calls for infill projects. He noted the stormwater and street improvements in the area will benefit the community. 126 October 30, 2012 Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated there is room for improvement in the City's policies and processes, though the developer should not be punished because of that. He suggested restoration and wetland mitigation policies should be examined as well as possibly improving the wildlife corridor area to a greater extent. Ms. Liley stated the applicant is willing to work with staff on the issue of improving the wildlife corridor area. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the stormwater area look a bit more natural with contours and interest. City Manager Atteberry replied staff would address the issue. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the applicant would be willing to work with Transfort to discover a trigger point for the need for shuttle service and to address capacity issues. Ms. Liley replied she would prefer that issue be a condition of approval. City Attorney Roy clarified that the motion should include the condition that the developer work with staff on improving and/or enlarging the wildlife corridor area and should include the condition that shuttle service be provided unless it is found to be unnecessary. Councilmembers Troxell and Manvel accepted the conditions to be part of the motion, Mayor Weitkunat noted public input on the Land Use Code process is appreciated and should be brought forth for the next set of Land Use Code changes in May. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Resolution 2012-099 Adopting a Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, Postponed to November 6, 2012 The following is staf 's memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins Utilities staff has been working on updating the City's Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. The current Policy was adopted by City Council in September2003 (Resolution 2003-104). Since the Policy's adoption, the Utility has seen a significant reduction in water use while continuing to plan for future water needs. The updated Policy will provide further direction regarding the planning, management and maintenance of the City's water supply system needed to assure a safe, reliable drinking water supply and provide for an appropriate level of water conservation. It will also provide guidance on how the City may use its valuable water resources to meet other beneficial purposes for its citizens and the surrounding community. 127 October 30, 2012 BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION History Since the Fort Collins Water Utility's origin in the 1880s, the City has been focused on providing a high quality and reliable water supply to its customers. Policies that have supported the Utility in providing this water supply, as well as encouraging water conservation, have included the 1988 Water Supply Policy, the 1992 Water Demand Management Policy and the current 2003 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. This Policy update should continue the objectives of providing a sustainable and integrated approach to ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable supply of water for. the beneficial use by customers and the community, while managing the level of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource. Much of the work on the Policy update was performer) in 2011 and included educating and gathering input from a Community Working Group (CWG) that had diverse water related backgrounds and perspectives. After six meetings with the CWG, a draft Policy update was developed that incorporated many of their issues and concerns. The proposed Policy update was presented to Water Board at its November 17, 2011 meeting. After match discussion, the Board voted unanimously to recommend to City Council support for the draft policy. The Policy_ update was presented to City Council during a work session on January 10, 2012. Council did not feel the Policy update was ready for adoption and requested additional information. Much of the material developed for the Policy update, CWG and Water Board was provided to the City Council for the January 10, 2012 work session. Materials provided for that meeting are available for review on the City's website at www.fcgov.com/citvclerklaeendas.phha. One of the key updated Policy sections that was discussed during the January 10, 2012 work session (as well as by the CWG and Water Board) was the water supply planning criteria. The.three main planning criteria used to develop the City's water supply system are the drought criterion, storage reserve factor and planning demand level. These criteria determine the amount of water supplies and/or facilities the City needs (e.g., the amount of storage required) and should be somewhat conservative to account for uncertainties in water supply planning. The following describes each of these criteria separately. Drought Criterion The drought criterion defines the level of reliabilityfor the City's water supply system. In general, water supply systems yield less in more severe droughts. For example, a water supply system that can provide 30,000 acre-feet of water through a I -in-50 year drought might only be able to provide 20,000acre-feet during aI- in- 100year drought. The City has used al-in-50year drought criterion since the 1988 Water Supply Policy. This criterion has provided a reliable supply system to date, but not without issues during the early 2000s drought. Storage Reserve Factor A storage reserve factor is a criterion to have a certain percent of annual demand in storage through the design drought criterion (1-in-50 year drought). This storage reserve provides a short- term supply to address emergency situations, such as pipeline shutdowns (which can and have ' 128 October 30, 2012 occurred during drought conditions). Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin for meeting the storage reserve would help diversify the City's water supply system, which is highly reliant on CBT storage. The storage reserve factor can be equated to the number of months of demand that can be met as shown in the following table: Storage # of Winter # of Reserve Month Summer Factor Demands (July) Month Demands 0% 0.0 0.0 5% 0.9 0.4 10% 1.8 0.7 15% 2.8 1.1 20% 3.7 1.5 25% 4.6 1.8 Planning Demand Level The planning demand level is the amount of demand the water supply system should be developed to meet. Since acquiring water supplies takes many years, projecting future demands is required to determine which supplies and/or facilities treed to be acquired. The planning demand level is measured in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and is used along with projected population and large contractual use needs to determine future demand levels (and thus water supplies and/or facilities to acquire). The planting demand level can be higher than current use or water conservation goals to accountfor uncertainties in water supply planning that might reduce the yield of the City's water supplies. The City's current average water use is 150 GPCD and the 2009 Water Conservation Plan has a goal to reduce use to 140 GPCD by the year 2020. The water supply planning criteria values initially presented in the updated Policy were those being used by the Corps in the permitting process for the Utilities proposed enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, which has been ongoing for several years. The criteria originally presented in the updated Policy were the values currently being used in the Halligan permitting process of the 1-in- 50 year drought criterion, a planning demand level of 162 GPCD (2002-2007 average use), and a 15% storage reserve factor. Although there were some divergent views from CWG members on these planning criteria, the majority of CWG members felt that the water supply planting criteria (used in the Halligan permitting process) were set at reasonable levels. The Water Board also discussed and considered changes to these criteria during its November 2011 meeting, but decided they should remain the same to avoid potential delay to the Halligan permitting process. At the January 2012 work session, some Council expressed concern with having a planning demand level that is above our current water use level (150 GPCD) and water conservation goal (140 GPCD), and wanted a clearer explanation of the planning criteria and how they relate to the City's water supply needs, the size ofHalligan Reservoir and the City's water use and conservation efforts. As a result, Council did not feel the Policy was ready for adoption. A summary of its feedback during the work session is attached (Attachment 1), along with staff responses to Council's issues (Attachment 2). 129 October 30, 2012 Following the City Council work session, Utilities staff contacted the Corps to ask how changes to the planning criteria in the Policy would affect the Halligan Reservoir permitting process. The Corps stated it conducts an independent study of the City's water supply needs and that the planning criteria values being used in the process seemed reasonable. Prior to issuance of a permit, the Corps will revisit these values and make adjustments as necessary. This input allowed for some flexibility in the planting criteria values used in the updated Policy. Utilities staff met with the Water Board's Water Supply Committee on April 16, 2012 and the full Water Board on July 19, 2012 to discuss potential options for changing the water supply planning criteria. Changes to these criteria focused mainly on revising the planning demand level (in GPCD) and the storage reserve factor (SRF). Several options for changing these criteria were presented by staff, including the previous 162 GPCD and 15%SRF, 150 GPCD and 15%SRFand 140 GPCD and 20% SRF. After some discussion, the Water Board voted unanimously to revise the updated Policy to include the planning criteria suggested by the Water Supply Committee of 150 GPCD and 20% storage reserve factor. The Board's discussions are described in the attached Letter of Support and Water Board minutes (Attachments 3 and 4). In addition to the issues regarding the water supply planning criteria, Council wanted the updated Policy to include more focus on economic development and water innovation as well as a discussion on the relationship of population growth to watersupply and demand planning. The updated Policy now includes these changes, along with the revised water supply planning criteria recommended by Water Board. The Council work session, scheduled for August 28, 2012 to further discuss the updated Policy (among other topics), was cancelled. Following the cancelled work session, Council Leadership reviewed the material provided and determined that an additional work session was not necessary and asked that the updated Policy be presented to City Council for formal adoption. Supporting Information Water Use The City currently delivers about 26,000 acre-feet/year of treated water and 4,000 acre feetlyear of raw water (which irrigates the City's parks, golf courses, etc.). Demand levels have declined significantly over the last few decades front around 230 GPCD in the early 1990s to about 200 GPCD before the drought year of 2002. The average use over the last several years (2006-2011 normalized use) has been about 150 GPCD, indicating a 25 percent reduction in per capita water use from before 2002. The majority of these water use reductions have come from the City's residential customers, but the commercial sector has also reduced its water use significantly. These reductions are a result of water conservation efforts by our customers that have been aided by the City becoming fully water metered in 2003 (along with tiered and seasonal rate structures) and the Utilities water conservation program. Utilities conducted a landscape preference survey with an online survey panel to gage customer's desire for changing landscapes in Fort Collins as it relates to the potential for additional water conservation and its potential impact on existing landscapes. Results of the survey indicated general satisfaction with current landscapes in Fort Collins (especially trees) and support for.additional xeriscape. Results indicated no strong opinion regarding additional water conservation, which coincides with recent general Utilities surveys that indicate the majority of customers believe water conservation efforts are at the correct level. 130 October 30, 2012 Water Supply Sources The City's water supplies generally come from two main sources: the Poudre River and the Colorado -Big Thompson Project (CBT). On average, the City gets about half its treated water supply from each of these sources each year. The City's Poudre River water supplies include its senior directflow rights, converted agricultural rights (mostly from shares in the irrigation ditches that run through the City) and the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir system. The CBT supplies are administered by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), which allocates the supplies to unit owners through a variable annual quota. The City receives delivery of its allocated water from Horsetooth Reservoir and does not own or operate that reservoir. Policies of the NCWCD limit carryover of unused CBT water in the project facilities (including Horsetooth Reservoir). The yield of the City's water supplies is mostly dependent on snowntelt runoff, which is subject to high annual and monthly variability. Because the City plans for its water supply system to meet demands through a 1-in-50 year drought, there are adequate supplies in most years. The City can currently meet about 31,000 acre feetlyear of treated water demands through the 1-in-50 year drought without restrictions. Future Water Demands and Supplies The Water Utility is expecting a future projected need of approximately 37,400 acre-feet/year of treated water demands by 2050 (at 150 GPCD). The increase in demand is mostly from a projected increase in population of around 35,000 people in the Water Utility service area, but also includes an increase in large contractual use of approximately 3,000 acre feetlyear. This future demand should be near a build -out condition, since the Water Utility has a limited growth potential due to surrounding water districts. These districts will meet some of the future water demands projected within the City's Growth Management Area. The City, will continue to acquire additional water rights and/or cash in -lieu -of water rights through Raw Water Requirements, which requires developers to turn in water rights or cash to meet the water needs of additional development. The City has been working towards acquiring and/or developing storage capacity to help manage its current and future water rights. Operational storage is a critical need to help meet legal requirements associated with the City's converted agricultural rights. The City is pursuing local gravel pits to meet these operational storage needs. Carryover and vulnerability protection storage can help meet the City's projected future demands, as well as provide a storage reservefor disruptions to the City's supply system. The City ispursuing suing the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir to meet these types of storage needs. Water Supply Planning Criteria As discussed above, these criteria determine the amount of water supplies and/or facilities the City needs (e.g., the amount of storage required) and should be somewhat conservative to account for uncertainties in water supply planning. The I -in-50 year drought criterion defines the level of risk for the City's water supply system. The 20% storage reserve factor provides a short-term supply to address emergency situations. This factor incorporates having 20% of annual demand in storage (through the 1-in-50 year drought), which equates to about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demand or about 1.5 months of summer demand. Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin for meeting the storage reserve would help diversify the City's water supply system, which is highly reliant on CBT storage. The 150 GPCD planning demand level is higher than the 140 GPCD water conservation 131 October 30, 2012 goal to account for uncertainties in water supply planning, such as the potential effects of climate change. Water supply planning is a long-term process with many uncertainties. The water supply planning criteria seek to balance the benefits and risks of developing a reliable water supply with the associated costs and impacts of doing so. These criteria determine the amount of supplies and/or facilities needed, but it is the City's water use that mostly impacts the river system (except for construction and inundation impacts to the river). Planning for higher water use levels could provide the City more flexibility to use supplies for other benefits such as supporting local agriculture, if the City continues to reduce water use (e.g., meets the water conservation goal). Surplus Raw Water The City has surplus supplies in many years as a result of planning its supplies for meeting demands through a 1-in-50 year drought. Most of these surplus supplies are currently rented to agriculture on a year-to-year basis that generate revenue and help reduce water customer rates. The City recognizes recent interest in entering long-term arrangements with agricultural renters. Any unused or unrented surplus water is essentially left in the River, which is typically diverted by the next senior water right(s). Using the City's surplus supplies for instream flows is currently difficult under current Colorado water law. However, Utilities staff is working with other City departments and the State of Colorado on initiatives to improve Poudre River flows. Environmental Considerations The City's water use reduces flows in the Poudre River and other watersheds. However, most of the flow reductions on the Poudre River (between the lower Poudre Canyon and the middle of Fort Collins) are from irrigation company diversions. Most diversions for the City's future uses will not reduce flows through Fort Collins, since the City will mostly use waterfront converted agricultural shares that have historically diverted upstream of Fort Collins. Rey Policy Elements The Policy update has significantly changed from the current Policy adopted in 2003 and was developed with much input from the CWG, as well as some revisions from the Water Board and City Council. The following are the key updated Policy elements: • General Policy Language and Introduction In order to align with Plan Fort Collins and incorporate sustainability concepts, references to policies stated in Plan Fort Collins and incorporation of triple bottom line concepts (considering economic, environmental and social aspects) have been added throughout the Policy update, especially in the introduction. • Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management This section reduces the average daily use (water conservation) goal to 140 GPCD by 2020, compared to 185 GPCD in the current policy. This revised goal was developed in the 2009 Water Conservation Plan, which includes programs and measures used to reach the goal. Since it may be 132 October 30, 2012 updated on a more regular basis (at least every 7 years), future conservation goals will be adjusted by subsequent Water Conservation Plaits. The Policy also states the peak day use goal of 350 GPCD by 2020, compared to 475 GPCD in the current policy. In addition, this section mentions the use of water rate structures to provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently and how population growth is. connected to water supply, and use. Water Supply Reliability This section uses the three main planning criteria discussed above to develop the City's water supply system. The Policy states that the City's water supplies should be maintained to meet an average demand of 150 GPCD through at least a 1-in-50 year drought, while maintaining 20% of annual demand in storage through that drought. These criteria are designed to deal with potential uncertainties in water supply planning, one of which is the potential effects of climate change. In addition, this section mentions maintaining a plan for responding to projected water supply shortages. Additional Supplies and Facilities This section addresses alternatives for meeting the City's future needs that best fit the City's water supply system. It includes working towards long-term water sharing arrangements with agriculture and is not specific about the amount of storage capacity required. Water Quality This section focuses on protecting our watersheds and maintaining the taste and quality of our treated water. Surplus Raw Water This section includes a strong commitment to use the Utilities surplus supplies for beneficial purposes such as supporting local agriculture and supplementing flows in the Poudre River. • Regional Cooperation This section directs the City, to maintain good working relationships with regional entities that are affected by the City's water use and supply planning. Once the updated Policy is approved, Utilities staff and consultants will create a report that summarizes the updated Policy and provide supporting information. This report will be provided to City Council and others once completed. Summary The Water Board's recommended changes to the water supply planning criteria and the options presented to it should provide an adequate and reliable water supply with only a slight change to the previously projected amount of water supplies andlorfacilities required to meet the City's future needs. Also, the updated Policy will provide further direction regarding the planning, management, and maintenance of the City's water supply system needed to assure a safe, reliable drinking water 133 October 30, 2012 supply and incorporates an appropriate level of water conservation. It will also provide guidance on how the City may use its valuable water resources to meet other beneficial purposes for its citizens and the surrounding community. FINANCIAL I ECONOMIC IMPACTS Reliable water supplies are essential to providing economic health and sustainability in Fort Collins. These supplies provide economic and social benefits to the City's citizens, businesses and surrounding community by having adequate water for health and public safety; home, school and industrial use; and healthy landscapes. The updated Policy will guide the Utilities in preparing for future water supply needs and continued demand management. Most of the Utilities operations associated with the Policy update are currently.funded, such as the Water Resources Division and the Water Conservation Program. Most of the actions, projects and/or programs that will be guided by the updated Policy are either already approved (including funding) by City Council or will be brought before them in future individual actions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The updated Policy will guide the Utilities' actions, projects and programs that may have both positive and negative environmental impacts. In general, the City's use of local and regional water supplies has adverse effects on its surrounding natural environments. However, actions taken through the City's water conservation and other efforts help to reduce those impacts. The updated Policy seeks to balance the benefits of providing a reliable water supply with the environmental impacts associated with providing that supply. Individual actions, projects and/or programs that will be guided by the updated Policy will be brought before the City Council in the future, at which point the environmental impacts can be more fully described. BOARD 1 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Water Board unanimously voted to approve the updated Policy with adjustments to the water supply planning criteria mentioned above in the background section. The Board's discussions are described in the attached Letter of Support and Water Board Minutes. PUBLIC OUTREACH Much of the work for the Policy update was performed in 2011, including an extensive public outreach effort mainly through the formation of a Community Working Group (CWG). Six meetings were held with the CWG to inform and discuss policy issues and their direct input was used to develop the updated Policy. Their input and discussions were documented in a memorandum that was provided with the January 10, 2012 work session materials, which is still available for review on the City's website at www.fcgov.com/cityclerklagendas.t?hL). A letter from CWG member Gary Wockner (Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper), who requested it be given to City Council and Water Board, along with staff responses to those comments are attached for review (Attachments 5 and 6). The Water Board was involved throughout the entire Policy update process in order to provide City Council with its recommendations. In addition to the outreach with the CWG and Water Board, much of the Policy update information was posted on the City's website, a landscape preference survey was conducted with a Utilities customer online survey panel, and presentations were given to 12 other City boards and interested organizations (22 groups were contacted). A 134 October 30, 2012 letter from the Lorimer County Board of County Commissioners is attached for review (Attachment 7). Through these various public outreach efforts, the three levels of the public engagement spectrum (inform and consult, involve and collaborate) were employed. Opportunities were provided in all these efforts for individuals to provide comments on the Policy update, which provided few comments which were similar to the CWG and Water Board input. Given this level of public outreach and since additional outreach was not requested during the January 10, 2012 work session, no additional outreach was performed. " Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager, stated this Policy helps guide the Utilities in balancing water supplies and demands. The objective of the Policy is to ensure a safe, adequate, and reliable supply of water for the use of customers and the community, while managing the level of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource. A community working group helped develop the language with participation from the Water Board and other boards, as well. Dustin discussed the main changes in the Policy, which include a reduced water conservation goal, acknowledgment of planning criteria which consider climate change, and a stronger commitment to use surplus supplies. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the term "sustainability" is over -used and discussed the possibility of re -using water. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how building Halligan Reservoir supports the healthy, natural environment. Dustin replied the wording referenced by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson attempts to relay a triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental objectives. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested alternative wording. Dustin replied the item could return before Council at a later date or could possibly be amended this evening. Mayor Weitkunat asked how, fires and other water supply disruptions fit into the Policy. Dustin replied disasters and disruptions are included in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan. The Plan has not gone into effect as a result of the High Park fire, though there is a potential for restrictions in the future. Councilmember Manvel asked about the impact of Halligan Reservoir on water storage. Dustin replied it will double the amount of storage in the Poudre basin. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if staff is comfortable with the final Policy document. Dustin replied the working group represents the community and he is comfortable with the document. Kevin Gertig, Water Resources/Treatment Operations Manager, replied he is comfortable with the document as it is proactive; however, staff would like to take Council's input and adapt accordingly. Councilmember Troxell commended staff work on the Policy. He suggested the Policy allow for the explicit inclusion of innovation. Councilmember Manvel stated the inclusion of in -stream flow information and climate change are examples of innovation. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the item be postponed to future consent agenda after wording changes are made to include Council's suggestions. 135 October 30, 2012 Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone consideration of Resolution 2012-099 to the November 6, 2012 meeting. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. (:SEAL: FORTCATTEST: � City Clerk M yor 136