Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.02.13 DMC Packet DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION December 2, 2013 5:30 p.m. -Regular Meeting 1777 West Conference Room, 1777 Broadway AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval November 4, 2013 Meeting Minutes 3. Police Update 4. Public Participation 5. Parks Update 6. BID Update 7. Update on West Pearl – Brian Wiltshire 8. Civic Area Plan Update - Bouldercivicarea.com – Assefa and Ellis 9. CAGID Build-out Projections – Winter and Becher, RRC 10. Matters from Commissioners Board Council Assignments DMC Priorities 2014 City Council Goals 2014 – Input and Suggestions 11. Matters from Staff AMPS Update Pay by Phone and Consultant Civic Plaza Remediation Project – Matthews Joint Board Chair Lunch Trinity Lutheran Proposal Update Attachments Sales and Use Tax Revenue Report – September 2013 Revenue and Expenditures – January to September 2013 Police Stats Downtown Boulder Open/Close List DUHMD/PS Priorities 2014 Downtown Build-out Projections Memo from RRC 2013 DUHMD/PS Areas of Focus2012 DMC Priorities University Hill Revitalization Civic Center Master Plan Support for creation of a Residential Service District Address Homeless Issues Innovation District/Organizational Options Outreach and Communication with City Council th 14 Street Lot Redevelopment Retaining Boulder Companies Downtown Parking Forecasting Downtown Boulder Parking Needs Technology Enhancements West End Streetscape Revitalization Project Access/Parking Management Strategy Continue to Support the Vitality of the Mall and In collaboration with the Transportation Master Plan o Downtown Boulder Update Downtown Capital and Planning Projects th 15 Street (Canyon to Arapaho) Streetscape Implementation th and Walnut Pedestrian Improvements Implementation 14 West Pearl Streetscape Design Pearl Street Mall Interactive Kiosks Implementation Civic Use Pad Recommendations Civic Park Master Plan participation Mission Statement: We serve the downtown, University Hill Boulder Junction and affected communities by providing quality program, parking Access Districts (Parking and TDM) Implementation enforcement, maintenance and alternative modes services Depot Square Construction Coordination through the highest level of customer service, efficient Administration management and effective problem solving. Remodel reception area TBBI Planning CRM and new website implementation Additional Items: Pearl Street Smoking Ban Implementation Revisit Mobile Food Vending Ordinance Complete CAGID Garage CIP Projects Pearl Street Mall Code Changes Randolph Center Condominium Association Declaration CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Ruth Weiss – 303-413-7318 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: KOVAL (absent), CRABTREE, SHAPINS, DEANS, MILLSTONE (absent) STAFF: MATTHEWS, HERRING, JOBERT, WEISS, HAYDEN, JOHNSON GUESTS: SEAN MAHER, SUZY AGETON TYPE OF MEETING: Regular November 4, 2013 AGENDA ITEM 1 – Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 5:34 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 2 – Approval of the October 7, 2013 (See Action Item Below) AGENDA ITEM 3 – Police Update: Johnson offered that there is not a lot to talk about for the month of October. Halloween was less of an event than last year and the Hill was busy but nothing out of control. Johnson mentioned that fights and disturbances are now lumped together and consistent with the rest of the year. AGENDA ITEM 4 –Public Participation: none AGENDA ITEM 5 – Parks Update : Hayden offered that the irrigation refurbishment project on 1300 block is winding down; trees removed will be replanted in the spring; flowers have been planted and the only block without tulips this spring with be the 1200 block. Shapins mentioned the bus station remodel. AGENDA ITEM 6 –BID Update: Maher commented that the Munchkin Masquerade on Thursday was a huge success and there were about 6000 – 7000 people on the mall. Lights of December parade is 12/7 and the Holiday party will be 12/5 with Sterling Rice hosting in their new space. Maher continued that downtown was economically impacted by the flood with some having lost over 30% of revenue. This will be watched carefully and a crafted message about the mall being open will be sent out shortly. Deans offered that the Masquerade was incredible. The change in the hours of the Munchkin Masquerade was mentioned and Maher offered that the timing was moved to accommodate working parents. AGENDA ITEM 7-Board and Commission Committee Report and Recommendations – Commission Feedback – Suzy Ageton: Suzy Ageton approached the podium and offered she was impressed with the commission as it moved along in the meeting. Ageton and Plass have been working on this project since early in the year. It was decided it was useful to move forward with looking into support of staff and commissions to enhance the functioning and performance of boards and commissions. Ageton continued that they have been working to create some recruiting videos that are designed to interest people in the boards and commissions. They are looking to create a group to help with boards and commissions. Ageton continued that some boards do not get along well, board’s recruitment was discussed, assisting in group dynamics, and, Ageton is looking for commissioner feedback for the work they are doing. Deans questioned if there were specific problems that brought this issue. The response was that in recruiting and in the talking of the job and in the orientation of recruits and looking at an opportunity to do it differently. Shapins mentions that the objective being taken on by council was a great idea, offered that our city there needs to engage the broader spectrum of the community, reaching out, using social media, break rigidity, work with a friendly website, and work with those that do not have the electronics, working with them. Ageton agreed with Shapins to reach the boarder community and invite in a proactive effort. Shapins mentioned that the boards could work more holistically with planning and transportation more regularly and address more issues. Shapins offered that the number of boards needs to be streamlined and there is a need for more grass roots representation. Deans mentioned that the board has given motions to issues to council and would like to see a dialogue on the council’s reaction. Deans would like to see some recognition for the work the boards do and the stand taken. Ageton mentioned that council has heard it from numerous sources and hope that council will be more interactive. The topic of too many boards was discussed and it is hoped this will become an ongoing committee. Ageton thanked the board for their service. AGENDA ITEM 8 -Civic Area Plan Update – Assefa and Ellis: Moved to December meeting. 1 Concept for a Public Private Partnership between CAGID and Trinity Lutheran Church: AGENDA ITEM 9 –Matthews mentioned that the only way to get more parking is to develop public/private partnerships. Matthews continued that as downtown grows, parking needs to grow and it’s just a reality. There will be studies done on the economics and will get some preliminary thoughts from the board. Shapins offered that it is important to include in the analysis to demonstrate the downtown economics goals and how the goals will be achieved. Shapins offered that it should be parking plus to make it work. Matthews mentioned that it’s just not parking but transportation access. Matthews continued that here is an opportunity for you but it is in the very beginning of the process. Shapins questioned if it’s a lot or a structure, and Matthews replied that it is underground parking with a lot for parishioners during church hours. The philosophy is for shared parking per Matthews. Deans offered that it’s for 16 apartments tenant parking. Matthews used Boulder Junction as an example. It is designed to be senior affordable residential housing with access to a space but nothing reserved. Management of the lot was discussed. Crabtree questioned if it will be seen down the road and is looking to see the pros and cons outside of CAGID, is it the right location for the demand and need, and an overall evaluation of the cost. Matthews mentioned that if parking is to be built downtown, it will need to be underground. It will be managed parking. Pricing strategy was mentioned. Matthews offered that AMPS is looking at the pricing issue. AGENDA ITEM 10–Matters from the Commissioners : Shapins is looking forward to hearing about the Civic Pad. th AGENDA ITEM 11 Matters from the Staff: – Matthews mentioned that 14 Street project is almost done and there will be a thth and Walnut Transit Center; 15 grand opening in the spring; there is a major renovation of the bike racks anticipated at 14 Street east side is done, working on the west side and should be done in December with amenities installed in the spring; West Pearl is progressing with a bid shortly and targeting an early February start; the Daily Camera Alley Plan is being created to th address access; the streetscape design was discussed; irrigations will be installed for all street trees; rebuilding the 9 and Pearl th intersection that will have a small community space; 10 and Pearl will have a more structured bus stop and doing in conjunction with the Daily Camera to look seamless; new signage for the west end to bring public west; the street and curb rebuilding is designed to accommodate disabled persons and be more pedestrian friendly. Deans questioned the Tesla building remodel. Joint Meeting follow-up was mentioned and Matthews asked the board to think of 2014 priorities. Meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: MOTION: Shapins motioned to approve the October 7, 2013 meeting minutes with Crabtree seconding the motion. The motion was approved 3-0. FUTURE MEETINGS: December 2, 2013 1777 West Conference Room Regular Meeting APPROVED BY: DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Attest: Ruth Weiss, Secretary Sue Deans, Chair 2 Opened in 2013 BusinessOpen DateNotes kidrobot1468PearlSeptember-12replaces Life is Good/Jake's On Pearl Rocket Fizz1441PearlSeptember-12replaces Pennyweights Press Play1005PearlSeptember-12replaces Round Midnight West Flanders Brewery1125PearlSeptember-12replaces BJ's Athleta1133PearlNovember-12Women's athletic apparel Nod and Rose1220WalnutNovember-12Apparel Retail Therapy1638Pearl December-12Women's apparel (formerly Now & Zen) Hub Boulder1877BdwyDecember-12Temporary shared office spaces A Café2018BdwyDecember-12Replaces Crepes ala Cart Jaipur Indian Restaurant1214WalnutDecember-12Replaces Bombay Bistro Earthbound Trading935PearlFebruary-13national soft goods (replacing Eclectix) Timothy's of Colorado1136SpruceFebruary-13fine jewelry Meta Skateboards1505PearlMarch-13 Island Farm1122PearlApril-13Soft goods/clothing The Riverside1724BdwyApril-13Event center, café, wine bar, co-working space Bohemian Biergarten201713th April-13Replaces Shugs Bishop101910thApril-13home furnishings (owners of 3rd and Vine) ReMax of Boulder1320PearlApril-13replaces Little Buddha Old Glory Antiques777PearlMay-13Replaces West End Gardener Yeti Imports2015BrdwyMay-13Replaces BolderWorld Into Earth1200PearlJuly-13Replaces LeftHand Books The Savvy Hen1908PearlJuly-13 The Dragontree1521PearlJuly-13Day Spa Steele Photgraphy203911thJuly-13 FlipFlopShop1110PearlAugust-13Replaces Blue Skies BOCO Fit2100PearlAugust-13Fitness gym Ceder & Hyde201510thOctober-13Apparel Fjall Raven777PearlOctober-13replaces Old Glory Lon203713th November-13Gifts Boulder Brands1600PearlNovember-13Marketing services Closed in 2013 BusinessClose DateNotes 1122PearlSeptember-12 Wenger 1600PearlSeptember-12 Gondolier 1005PearlSeptember-12became Press Play Round Midnight 935PearlSeptember-12re-located Eclectix 2018BdwyNovember-12re-branded as Arlene's Crepes ala Carte 211510thJanuary-13 Silhouette 1234WalnutDecember-12 Shooter's Bar&Grill 1214WalnutDecember-12 Bombay Bistro 130013th January-13Moved to Lafayette Sensorielle 1320PearlFebruary-13Moved to Yehti Imports Little Buddha 170813th March-13Moved to Table Mesa Boulder Map Gallery 1110PearlMarch-13 Blue Skies 1200PearlMarch-13 Left Hand Books 1955BdwyMarch-13 Installation 777PearlMarch-13 West End Gardener 2015BdwyApril-13replaced by Yeti Imports Bolder World 1642PearlJun-13 Swiss Chalet 1646PearlJune-13Chelsea to replace Lilli 1710PearlJune-13 H Burger Timothy's of Colorado1136SpruceJuly-13 Atlas Coffee1500PearlJuly-13 Sweet Bird Studio201717thJuly-13 Old Glory Antiques777PearlJuly-13 A Café2018BdwySeptember-13 Om Time2035BdwyNovember-13 Future BusinessOpen DateNotes AlexandAni1505PearlFall 2013Jewelry Wok Eat946PearlFall 2013replaces World Café Zeal 1710PearlFall 2013replaces H Burger Made in Nature170813th Fall 2013Organic food products DUHMD/PS2014Priorities DRAFT hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ,ŝůů HillReinvestmentStrategyDevelopment,AdoptionandImplementation CapitalImprovements MarketingandEvents OrganizationalStructure CleanandSafe Innovation SmokingBan th 14StreetMixedUseDevelopmentPartnership ͞WĂƌŬůĞƚ͟pilot ŽƵůĚĞƌ:ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ ImplementationofTDMDistrict PILOTpayments Revisedbudgetprojections DepotSquareGarageOperations ParkingPlanforfuturedevelopment SmokingBan ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶ ͞WĂƌŬůĞƚ͟Study SmokingBan CivicAreaPlanParticipation CivicUsePadRecommendation ImplementationofBondProjects: th 15StreetStreetscape WestEndStreetscape WĂƌŬŝŶŐ AMPSPhaseIImplementation:WorkPlanDevelopment,ScopeandPhasedImplementation GarageArtsPlan ParkingPhilosophy NPPExpansions /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů DivisionValueGoal:___?_______ NameChange OfficeSpacePlanningandRemodelPhaseII MEMORANDUM TO: Molly Winter, City of Boulder DUHMD/PS FROM: David Becher, RRC Associates, and Nolan Rosall, R & C Advisors RE: CAGID and Civic Area Plan (CAP) Development Projections DATE: November 24, 2013 Introduction This memo summarizes development projections for the City of Boulder Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and the Civic Area Plan (CAP), as compiled by RRC Associates. The projections are intended to provide a base of information which can be used for a variety of general planning purposes, including land use and transportation/parking evaluations. The projections update and expand upon earlier CAGID development projections produced by RRC in November 2011. The 2013 effort entailed a detailed re-examination of the portion of CAGID south of Canyon, motivated by the advancement of the CAP planning process, and a 1 desire to better understand the plans of private property owners south of Canyon. The geographic area of the study also expanded to include areas outside of CAGID, specifically the th2 western portion of the CAP in the area bound by Broadway, Arapahoe, 9, and Canyon. The 2013 effort also involved selected updates to the 2011 development projections for the portion of CAGID north of Canyon. The 2013 projections are the latest in a series of periodic efforts by DUHMD/PS to assess downtown development patterns and projections, building upon prior analyses conducted by RRC in 2011, 2006, 2001, and 1997 (when initially conducted as part of the Downtown Alliance effort). This memo first summarizes the overall results of the buildout analysis, and then reviews the methodology, assumptions and background data underlying and informing the analysis. Figure 1 The 2011 analysis assumed no new development on the City-owned parcels in the eastern portion of the CAP, thth specifically the block bound by 13, 14, Canyon, and Arapahoe, given that the area was under study in 2011. 2th Note that the block bound by Broadway, 13, Canyon, and Arapahoe (including Central Park and developed areas south of Boulder Creek) is excluded from this analysis. 4940 Pearl Ea--6587 www.rrcassoc.com FAX CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 1 below illustrates the study area, with the boundaries of CAGID, the east CAP area, and the west CAP area highlighted. Figure 1 Map of CAGID and CAP boundaries Source: City of Boulder GIS; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 2 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Summary of Results Following are principal findings from the buildout analysis. Please note that all findings exclude 3 the portion of CAGID area south of Arapahoe (i.e. Boulder High School area). Additionally, it should be noted that the square footage data discussed in this report excludes floor area associated with parking garages. Existing built square footage: As summarized in Table 1 to follow, RRC estimates that the total CAGID area currently has approximately 3.50 million square feet (sqft) of developed residential and nonresidential floor area (excluding parking garages). This includes approximately 373,000 sqft of residential floor area (10.7 percent of total), and 3.13 million sqft of nonresidential floor area (89.3 percent of total; includes commercial, governmental, religious, and other types of uses, but excludes parking garage space). These estimates are based primarily on Boulder County Assessor records, supplemented in some instances with historic DUHMD/PS building records. Approximately half of the existing built floor area in CAGID is located in the DT-5 zoning district (51 percent), with an additional 4 percent in DT-1, 11 percent in DT-2, 3 percent in DT-3, 28 percent in DT-4, and 2 percent in P and RMX-1. The portion of CAGID south of Canyon, inclusive of the east CAP, currently has approximately 230,000 square feet of built space, including 32,803 sqft of residential development and 197,197 square feet of nonresidential development. This amounts to approximately 6.6 percent of the total existing built square footage in CAGID. Looking beyond CAGID, the west portion of the CAP outside of CAGID currently has approximately 149,533 sqft of built space (excluding the Municipal Building, which is in CAGID). This includes the Park Central / New Britain / Mustards buildings, the library space north and south of Boulder Creek, the Senior Center, and the Arapahoe Court apartments. The total existing building space in the entire study area, including CAGID and the west CAP, is approximately 3.65 million sqft. Projected future incremental development: RRC projects that an additional 1.57 million square feet of development will be built between 2013 and ultimate practical buildout in CAGID (excluding the east CAP). This includes approximately 406,000 square feet of residential development (26 percent of total) and 1.16 million square feet of nonresidential development (74 percent). 3 The CAGID boundary includes a modest amount of land south of Arapahoe currently used as Boulder High School parking lots and a portion of the Boulder High School building. These parcels are zoned RH-1 (Residential High-1). When the CAGID boundary was originally established, these parcels were privately owned (e.g. the former Sturtz & Copeland greenhouse and other uses). These parcels have been excluded from this CAGID buildout analysis, insofar as it is assumed that future uses will continue to be school-related and only indirectly affected by CAGID land use/transportation policies. RRC Associates 3 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Additionally, based on preliminary planning, the east CAP area could have approximately 206,000 to 457,000 square feet of incremental additional development (although actual levels of additional development could be less, depending on which potential plan elements get built, and their ultimate size). Total incremental future development in CAGID (including the east CAP) could thus be in the 1.77 2.03 million sqft range. Geographically, within CAGID, approximately 1.08 million additional sqft is projected to be built north of Canyon. South of Canyon, additional development is projected to total approximately 691,000 to 942,000 square feet, of which approximately 206,000 457,000 sqft is in the east CAP (although actual development might be less), and 485,000 sqft is outside of the east CAP. An additional net total of -35,000 sqft to +124,000 sqft is projected to be built in the west CAP south of Canyon, depending on the mix of development options realized. (The -35,000 scenario assumes demolition of the New Britain / Park Central / Mustards buildings, and no new incremental sqft built elsewhere in the west CAP.) There is no set timeframe for ultimate practical buildout, but is assumed to be several market/financial feasibility constraints. Projected future incremental jobs and residential units: As illustrated in Table 2 to follow, the projected incremental nonresidential space in CAGID is projected to house between 3,524 and 4,777 incremental additional employees (depending on the development and employment intensity assumptions utilized; employment is likely to vary over time depending on market conditions). This includes approximately 3,419 to 3,933 jobs in the portion of CAGID excluding the east CAP, and 105 to 844 jobs in the east CAP. Note that these jobs are in addition to currently existing jobs in CAGID, 4 currently estimated in excess of 8,400 jobs. Additionally, between -170 and +104 additional jobs are projected in the west CAP area (excluding the civic pad north of Canyon). Combined, total incremental additional employment at buildout in CAGID plus the west CAP is projected at 3,354 4,881 employees. 4 Estimate is provisional and subject to refinement. As of 10/23/13, the DUHMD/PS employee Ecopass database documented 8,345 employees in CAGID, including 5,908 full-time employees and 2,437 part-time employees, excluding City of Boulder and Boulder County employees working in CAGID (assumed to number in the hundreds). The Ecopass database may also undercount part-time employees and independent contractor employees who are ineligible for Ecopasses. The total employee count was up by 7.6 percent, or 588 employees, from the 7,757 employees documented in the Ecopass database as of 5/25/11. RRC Associates 4 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Additionally, the projected incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 193 net new residential units in CAGID excluding the east CAP, -10 to +190 units in the east CAP, and 0 100 units in the west CAP, or 183 483 residential units in CAGID and the west CAP combined. Again, these units are in addition to existing residential units, estimated at roughly 235 units. Projected total development at practical buildout: RRC projects that CAGID will have approximately 5.27 to 5.53 million square feet of developed floor area at practical effective buildout, depending on the east CAP development scenario assumed. This includes approximately 874,000 to 974,000 sqft of residential development (17-18 percent of total) and 4.40 to 4.55 million square feet of nonresidential development (82- 83 percent of total). Of this development in CAGID, 4.35 million square feet is projected to be located north of Canyon (79-83 percent of total), while 921,000 1.17 million is south of Canyon (17 21 percent). Of the portion south of Canyon, approximately 667,000 sqft is projected to be outside of the east CAP area, while 254,000 505,000 sqft is projected to be within the east CAP area (although again, actual square footage could vary depending on the size and mix of CAP components which are developed). An additional 114,000 274,000 square feet is projected to be located in the west CAP area outside of CAGID. For CAGID and the west CAP area combined, total square feet at buildout is projected in the 5.38 5.80 million square foot range, depending on the actual CAP development mix. Projected incremental development by time period: Of the 1.77 2.03 million incremental square feet projected to be built in CAGID the future, RRC projects that approximately 352,000 sqft will be built in the 2012-16 period; 583,000 788,000 sqft will be built in the 2017-21 period; and 839,000 885,000 sqft will be built in the 2022+ period (Table 3). By subarea, the portion of CAGID north of Canyon is projected to have 262,000 sqft built in the 2012-16 period; 356,000 sqft built in the 2017-21 period; and 465,000 sqft built in the 2022+ period. The portion of CAGID south of Canyon is projected to have 89,000 sqft built in the 2012- 16 period; 227,000 432,000 sqft built in the 2017-21 period; and 374,000 420,000 sqft built in the 2022+ period. The west CAP area south of Canyon is projected to have no additional development in the 2012-16 period; -28,000 to + 54,000 sqft of incremental development in the 2017-21 period; and -7,000 to +71,000 sqft of incremental development in the 2022+ period. RRC Associates 5 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Existing and projected development relative to FAR zoned capacity: To help place existing and projected development in context, development can be expressed in FAR terms, and compared to FAR zoned capacity in the respective zoning districts. These comparisons are illustrated in Figure 2 to follow. As shown in Figure 1, excluding parking structures (but including finished below-grade sqft), existing development varies from a low of 0.76 FAR in DT-1 (outside of the east CAP) to a high of 1.52 FAR in DT-4. When expressed as a ratio to zoned capacity, existing built FAR (above and below grade) varies from a low of 38 percent of zoned capacity in DT-1 (outside of the east CAP) to a high of 69 percent of zoned capacity in 6 DT-4. At practical buildout, FAR is projected to vary from 1.59 FAR in DT-1 (outside of the east CAP) to 2.08 in DT-5 (outside of the east CAP). The DT-1 through DT-5 zoning districts 7 are each projected to be built to 71 82 percent of their zoned capacity. Projects built or proposed in CAGID to date in 2012-13 time period: Since the 2011 projections were developed, one major project has been built (third floor addition at 1600 Pearl) and six major projects have been proposed in CAGID, as summarized in Table 4 to follow. Three of the projects are in the DT-2 zone and four are in DT-5. Collectively, these seven projects (as proposed) would bring an additional 226,031 square feet of development to CAGID, including 183,448 square feet of nonresidential development (81 percent of total) and 42,583 square feet of residential development (19 percent of total). The DT-2 projects would collectively build very close to the maximum allowable FAR (proposed FAR 1.99 vs. 2.0 maximum). The DT-5 projects would build to a proposed above-grade FAR of 2.37 and a total (above and below grade, excluding parking) FAR of 2.77, as compared to the legal maximum above-grade FAR of 2.7. Several of the projects would involve significant amounts of parking, while some would provide no parking or reduced parking from existing conditions. Altogether, this information helps provide a rough reasonableness check on some of the buildout assumptions used elsewhere in the analysis, including assumptions regarding intensity, use mix, and timing of development. an analysis of projects built or permitted in the 1997-2011 period.) 6 Note that while both above and below grade sqft is included in the FAR calculations described here, only above- grade FAR is counted against the FAR cap for zoning regulation purposes. A modest 3 percent of existing floor area in CAGID is below grade (excluding parking garages). 7 Again, note that below-grade square footage is included in the calculation of projected FAR relative to zoned capacity. However, below-grade square footage represents only a modest 3 percent share of total existing floor area in CAGID (excluding parking garages). RRC Associates 6 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Table 1: CAGID and CAP: Existing Built Square Footage (Sqft) and Projected Sqft at Buildout PROJECTED PRACTICAL PROJECTED FUTURE BUILDOUT (Sum of existing plus EXISTING (2013) BUILT SQFTINCREMENTAL BUILT SQFT (excl. projected future incremental. (above and below grade; excluding parking)parking)Parking excluded.) Finished Total residential & nonresidential Residential nonresidential Non- Non- sqftsqftfinished sqftresidentialResidentialTotalresidentialResidentialTotal Area and zoning districtLand Sqft CAGID - NORTH OF CANYON (including Civic Pad in West CAP): DT-2389,787366,75630,273397,029141,54095,236236,776508,296125,509633,805 DT-383,211118,8460118,84633,3487,86841,216152,1947,868160,062 DT-4642,853947,11128,749975,860144,25842,661186,9191,091,36971,4101,162,779 DT-5 (N of Canyon)1,171,2951,489,687251,7551,741,442551,20667,654618,8602,040,893319,4092,360,302 RMX-148,5197,63229,56837,2000007,63229,56837,200 SUBTOTAL2,335,6642,930,032340,3453,270,377870,351213,4191,083,7703,800,383553,7644,354,147 CAGID - SOUTH OF CANYON (excluding East CAP): DT-1 (excl. CAP)131,05372,66427,18099,84449,31159,614108,925121,97586,794208,769 DT-5 (S of Canyon; excl CAP)174,13659,541059,541242,808132,992375,800302,349132,992435,341 P (Public) - incl. Municipal BldgTBD22,472022,47200022,472022,472 SUBTOTAL305,189154,67727,180181,857292,118192,607484,725446,795219,787666,582 CAGID - SOUTH OF CANYON - East CAP only, apartment scenario (rather than hotel) - PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE: Option A - low sqft168,00842,5205,62348,143111,48094,377205,857154,000100,000254,000 Option A - high sqft168,00842,5205,62348,143166,480194,377360,857209,000200,000409,000 Option B - low sqft168,00842,5205,62348,143152,48094,377246,857195,000100,000295,000 Option B - high sqft168,00842,5205,62348,143262,480194,377456,857305,000200,000505,000 CAGID TOTAL - under minimum and maximum East CAP scenarios (apartment scenario rather than hotel): CAGID total - under East CAP option A low SF2,808,8623,127,229373,1483,500,3771,273,949500,4031,774,3524,401,178873,5515,274,729 CAGID total - under East CAP option B high SF 2,808,8623,127,229373,1483,500,3771,424,949600,4032,025,3524,552,178973,5515,525,729 WEST CAP (excluding Civic Pad north of Canyon & Municipal Bldg; only including portion not in CAGID) - PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE: New Britain / Park Central / Mustards buildingsTBD35,533035,533(35,533)0(35,533)000 Other portions of West CAP area (library, senior center area) - SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION: Option A - low sqftTBD101,00013,000114,000000101,00013,000114,000 Option A - high sqftTBD101,00013,000114,00090,000090,000191,00013,000204,000 Option B - low sqftTBD101,00013,000114,00010,000010,000111,00013,000124,000 Option B - high sqftTBD101,00013,000114,00073,00087,000160,000174,000100,000274,000 CAGID TOTAL, PLUS WEST CAP - minimum and maximum sqft scenarios: Minimum SF: E. CAP A (low sf, apts) & W. CAP A (low sf)TBD3,263,762386,1483,649,9101,238,416500,4031,738,8194,502,178886,5515,388,729 Maximum SF: E. CAP B (high sf, apts) & W. CAP B (high sf) TBD3,263,762386,1483,649,9101,462,416687,4032,149,8194,726,1781,073,5515,799,729 Notes to Table 1 are on following page. RRC Associates 7 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 NOTES TO TABLE 1: Note: All results exclude CAGID area south of Arapahoe (i.e. Boulder High School parking lots and portion of school building). Note: All results exclude above- and below-grade parking. Note: Nonresidential sqft includes building space occupied by commercial, governmental, religious, and other nonresidential uses. CAGID land area (2.81 million sqft) excludes land area in P district. Note: Buildout analysis assumes that any need for additional public parking can be accommodated (i.e. analysis hasn't tested whether need for public parking may serve as a constraint on buildout scenarios). Buildout scenarios could be modified as needed after parking analyses are completed. Note: In the east CAP, one project component is 100 200 hotel rooms or apartments (assumed in these projections to be 100,000 200,000 sqft of development). The projections shown in Table 1 assume that this project component would develop as apartments rather than hotel rooms. If the component were to instead develop as hotel rooms instead of apartments, residential sqft would drop and commercial sqft would increase accordingly. Note: In the east and west CAPs, incremental development has been pro-rated by time period based on preliminary estimated probabilities of timing by PDS staff. Source: Built square footage data from Boulder County Assessor (supplemented in some cases by 2006 DBI databases and City of Boulder Facilities Management databases); land area from City of Boulder GIS. Buildout assumptions outside of CAP per RRC Associates; buildout assumptions in CAP per 7/30/13 CAP City Council study session packet, 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle parking analysis, and RRC Associates. Table 2 Projected Incremental Additional Jobs and Residential Units in CAGID: 2011 through Buildout NUMBER OF JOBSNUMBER OF LowMidpointHighRESIDENTIAL AreaprojectionprojectionprojectionUNITS CAGID excluding east CAP3,4193,6763,933193 East CAP105475844(10) - 190 CAGID total3,5244,1514,777183 - 383 West CAP (excluding civic pad north of Canyon)(170)(33)1040 - 100 CAGID plus West CAP3,3544,1184,881183 - 483 Source: RRC Associates; 7/30/13 CAP City Council study session packet; 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle CAP parking analysis. RRC Associates 8 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Table 3: Projected Incremental Development in CAGID / CAP by Time Period 2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 to Buildout Sqft Incremental Incremental Incremental 2022+ Incremental (existing+ SqftSqftSqftSqftincremental) Existing Sqft CAGID components: CAGID North of Canyon Nonresidential sqft2,930,032233,299302,280334,772870,3513,800,383 Residential sqft340,34529,15353,633130,633213,419553,764 Total3,270,377262,452355,913465,4051,083,7704,354,147 CAGID South of Canyon (excluding east CAP) Nonresidential sqft154,67746,36261,838183,918292,118446,795 Residential sqft27,18043,12052,72996,758192,607219,787 Total181,85789,481114,567280,677484,725666,582 CAGID South of Canyon (east CAP option A low SF only; apartment scenario rather than hotel) Nonresidential sqft42,520038,48073,000111,480154,000 Residential sqft5,623074,37720,00094,377100,000 Total48,1430112,85793,000205,857254,000 CAGID South of Canyon (east CAP option B high SF only; apartment scenario rather than hotel) Nonresidential sqft42,5200163,48099,000262,480305,000 Residential sqft5,6230154,37740,000194,377200,000 Total48,1430317,857139,000456,857505,000 CAGID TOTAL (under minimum and maximum east CAP sqft scenarios [apartment scenarios]): CAGID Total (under East CAP option A low SF) Nonresidential sqft3,127,229279,661402,598591,6911,273,9494,401,178 Residential sqft373,14872,273180,739247,391500,403873,551 Total3,500,377351,933583,337839,0821,774,3525,274,729 CAGID Total (under East CAP option B high SF) Nonresidential sqft3,127,229279,661527,598617,6911,424,9494,552,178 Residential sqft373,14872,273260,739267,391600,403973,551 Total3,500,377351,933788,337885,0822,025,3525,525,729 West CAP low/high sqft scenarios: West CAP (option A, low SF) Nonresidential sqft136,5330-28,426-7,107-35,533101,000 Residential sqft13,000000013,000 Total149,5330-28,426-7,107-35,533114,000 West CAP (option B, high SF) Nonresidential sqft136,53303,57420,89324,467161,000 Residential sqft13,000050,00050,000100,000113,000 Total149,533053,57470,893124,467274,000 CAGID plus WEST CAP TOTAL (minimum and maximum sqft scenarios): CAGID plus West CAP (E. CAP A (low sf, apts) & W. CAP A (low sf)) Nonresidential sqft3,263,762279,661374,172584,5841,238,4164,502,178 Residential sqft386,14872,273180,739247,391500,403886,551 Total3,649,910351,933554,911831,9751,738,8195,388,729 CAGID plus West CAP (E. CAP B (high sf, apts) & W. CAP B (high sf)) Nonresidential sqft3,263,762279,661531,172638,5841,449,4164,713,178 Residential sqft386,14872,273310,739317,391700,4031,086,551 Total3,649,910351,933841,911955,9752,149,8195,799,729 Source: RRC Associates; City of Boulder CAP plan and PDS staff. CAP estimates are provisional and subject to change. RRC Associates 9 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Figure 2 Existing FAR, Projected Buildout FAR, and Legal Maximum FAR; and Existing/Projected FAR vs. Legal Maximum FAR per Zoning Summary by DT Zoning District in CAGID Above-Grade Parking Structures Excluded 3.0100% 93% 2.72.72.72.7 90% 82% 81% 2.50 80% 77% 2.5 75% 80% 71% 2.2 2.08 2.02 2.02.0 70% 69% 1.92 2.0 1.81 60% 1.63 1.59 1.5255% 1.49 53% 1.43 51% 1.550% 50% 1.34 40% 1.02 38% 1.0 30% 0.76 Existing built FAR (above and below grade; excl. parking) Projected built FAR at buildout (above and below grade; excl. parking) 20% 0.5 Legal maximum FAR (excl. parking)0.34 13% Existing (2013) built FAR (above & below grade) as a % of legal zoning limit (excl. parking) 10% RRC projected buildout FAR (above and below grade) as a % of legal zoning limit (excl. parking) 0.00% DT-1 (excluding east DT-2DT-3DT-4DT-5 (Total, excluding DT-5 (N of Canyon)DT-5 (S of Canyon; CAP)east CAP)excluding east CAP) CAGID Zoning District Source: RRC Associates (projections); Boulder County Assessor (existing building sqft); City of Boulder GIS (land area). Table 4 Projects built or proposed in CAGID in 2012-13 time period Max SQFT AT BUILDOUT (excluding parking)allowable ExistingTotalBuildout:Incr.Incr.Incr.FARProposedProposed built sqft(above &AboveBelowNon-Resi-Res.newcomm'lres(w/total FARabove-gradeProposed AddressZoneSite sqft(all comm'l)below grade)gradegraderesidentialdentialunitssqftsqftsqftadditions)(excl. pkg)FARparking 1707 WalnutDT-214,0964,80028,09828,0980028,0982623,298(4,800)28,0982.01.991.9926 spaces 1738 PearlDT-221,13225,47542,00042,000042,0000016,52516,52502.01.991.9925 spaces 901 PearlDT-210,8035,90021,60421,60407,11914,485415,7041,21914,4852.02.002.0013 spaces 1048 PearlDT-559,26676,635170,234159,93410,300170,2340093,59993,59902.72.872.70~271 spaces 1301 WalnutDT-521,03722,31064,30247,12817,17464,3020041,99241,99202.73.062.2410 spaces 1600 PearlDT-531,19456,26974,56958,59615,97374,5690018,30018,30002.72.391.88None 909 WalnutDT-56,300016,61313,1083,50516,6130016,61316,61302.72.642.08None TOTALS163,828191,389417,420370,46846,952374,83742,58330226,031183,44842,583n/a2.552.26 DT-2 total46,03136,17591,70291,702049,11942,5833055,52712,94442,5832.01.991.99 DT-5 total117,797155,214325,718278,76646,952325,71800170,504170,50402.72.772.37 Source: City of Boulder Planning and Development Services; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 10 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Methodology and Assumptions Introduction and overview The 2013 projections update largely re-used the 2011 projections for the portion of CAGID north of Canyon (with modest updates), and entailed a more intensive analysis of the area south of Canyon. More specifically, projections for the portion of CAGID north of Canyon were kept largely the same as in 2011 (and summarized in 11/2/2011 report), except for updates to reflect completed building projects, an improved accounting of below-grade building space, and a correction/adjustment to the assumed practical buildout capacity in DT-3 for modeling 8 purposes. For the portions of the study area south of Canyon that are within the east and west CAP areas, RRC incorporated development projections outlined in the 7/30/13 City of Boulder CAP study session memo, including a detailed listing of possible project components outlined in the 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle CAP parking analysis. Additionally, City Planning and Development Services staff assisted by developing preliminary timing projections for the CAP elements utilizing the 2014-16, 2017-21, and 2022+ timeframes. Finally, for the portions of CAGID south of Canyon and not in the east CAP, RRC developed density, use and timing projections based on interviews with the owners of several of the larger parcels with significant additional development capacity. For parcels with smaller amounts of additional development capacity, projections were developed using the same assumptions which were applied in 2011. RRC also interviewed several of the property owners in the east CAP area as well. RRC provided DUHMD/PS with a report summarizing the results of these interviews in August 2013. The following discussion more specifically summarizes the six-step approach and accompanying assumptions used in the buildout analysis. Step 1: Prepare land and building inventory As part of the 2011 projections effort, City of Boulder GIS staff developed an inventory of CAGID, consisting of legal parcels or (in some cases) combinations of parcels under common ownership or subject to a single development plan. A total of 228 sites or sub- sites were identified. For each site, estimates were developed of the total land area, total existing built square footage (per Boulder County Assessor records), and existing above-grade FAR. 8 The maximum permissible FAR (with bonuses) in DT- that incremental new development would occur up to a practical FAR limit of 2.05 under certain conditions. In 2013, RRC adjusted the modeling to assume that incremental new development would occur up to a practical FAR limit of 2.3. RRC Associates 11 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 In the 2013 update, this inventory was updated as warranted to reflect building activity which had occurred over the 2011-13 period, as well as an improved accounting of below-grade square footage. Additionally, the 2013 update was expanded to include the building inventory in the west CAP area outside of CAGID. The building inventory in the west CAP was developed primarily from City of Boulder Facilities Management records (as most buildings in the west CAP are owned/managed by the City of Boulder). As summarized previously (Table 1), the analysis found that the CAGID and CAP sites currently have an aggregate of approximately 3.65 million square feet of existing floor area (excluding floor area in parking garages). Step 2. Project additional development capacity For the east and west CAP areas, projected additional development was derived from the 7/30/13 CAP City Council study session memo, inclusive of the 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle CAP parking analysis, and supplemented by additional RRC/PDS staff assumptions where needed. The 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle analysis (developed in consultation with PDS staff) outlined development conditions at buildout for two different development scenarios in both the east and west CAP areas. These development scenarios are outlined in Table 5 to follow. In the remainder of the study area, projections of additional development were primarily based on an analysis of additional zoned development capacity. It was assumed that not all sites would develop to their theoretical maximum zoned potential in the foreseeable future, due to physical, regulatory, and/or market/financial constraints. Instead, for projections purposes, it was assumed that sites with additional zoned capacity would eventually develop to a level somewhat below the theoretical legal maximum, on average. Specifically, in DT-5, it was assumed that sites with remaining development capacity would develop to an average FAR of 2.5, or 0.2 below the maximum legal FAR (with bonuses) of 2.7. Similarly, in DT-1 through DT-4, it was assumed that sites would develop to an FAR of 0.15 to 0.40 below the theoretical legal maximum applicable to each district (Table 6 to follow). Note that individual sites might develop to a greater or lesser degree than these thresholds; the thresholds represent averages for modeling purposes. Moreover, it was further assumed that future development would only take place if there was a minimum of 2500 sqft (DT-1 through DT-4) or 3500 sqft (DT-5) of additional floor area that could be built up to the assumed practical buildout thresholds; or if the additional development capacity was equal to at least 10 percent of the size of the existing floor area at the site; whichever was greater. Additionally, based on existing uses and recency of development, some parcels with additional zoned capacity were assumed to be unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future, e.g. the U.S. Post Office site, selected residential projects, and religious uses. RRC Associates 12 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 In the portion of CAGID south of Canyon, property owners who had plans to redevelop their properties generally expressed a desire to maximize their build interviews. RRC sees this feedback as being supportive of the buildout FAR assumptions outlined in Table 1, particularly for the south of Canyon area. tal of 1.74 to 2.15 million additional square feet of floor area would be developed in the CAGID / CAP areas, as summarized previously. Table 5 Projected development at buildout in east and west CAP areas (Note: Actual development could differ, depending on the mix and size of project components that get built) EAST PORTION OF CAP (13th/14th/Canyon/Arapahoe block): Option AOption B UseLow SFHigh SFLow SFHigh SFNotes Public market10,00015,00010,00015,000 Municipal office0055,000110,000 Office50,000100,00050,000100,000 Hotel or apartments100,000200,000100,000200,000100 - 200 rooms/dwellings (assume 100k-200k sqft) Teahouse and expanded BMOCA24,00024,00010,00010,000 Performing arts center70,00070,00070,00070,000800 - 1200 seats (assume 70,000 sqft) CAGID parkingN/AN/AN/AN/A TOTAL SQFT254,000409,000295,000505,000 WEST PORTION OF CAP (west of Broadway): Option AOption B UseLow SFHigh SFLow SFHigh SFNotes Existing library84,00084,00050,00050,000 Library North - ArtsN/AN/A20,00040,000 Library North - Performing ArtsN/AN/A14,00014,000Same footprint as today (200 seat mezzanine expansion to existing 205 seat theatre). Gallery - arts relatedN/AN/A10,00020,000 Senior Center30,00040,00030,00050,000 Senior housingN/AN/A0100,0000 - 100 dwelling units. Assumes 1000 sqft/unit. Gallery - arts - events (N of Canyon)10,00010,00010,00010,000Included in CAGID portion of RRC analysis Hotel (N. of Canyon)20,00020,00020,00020,000Included in CAGID portion of RRC analysis Municipal building24,00024,00024,00024,000Included in CAGID portion of RRC analysis Municipal office080,000N/AN/A TOTAL SQFT168,000258,000178,000328,000 Source: RRC Associates; 7/30/13 CAP City Council study session packet; 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle parking analysis. RRC Associates 13 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Table 6 Projected Development Intensity Assumptions for Sites with Remaining Zoned Capacity Legal maximum RRC assumed FAR(with practical RRC assumed minimum additional capacity threshold (between existing Zoning District bonuses) buildout FAR FAR and practical buildout FAR) for development to occur DT-1 2.0 1.8 2500 sqft or 10% of existing building sqft, whichever is greater DT-2 2.0 1.85 2500 sqft or 10% of existing building sqft, whichever is greater DT-3 2.7 2.3 2500 sqft or 10% of existing building sqft, whichever is greater DT-4 2.2 2.05 2500 sqft or 10% of existing building sqft, whichever is greater DT-5 2.7 2.5 3500 sqft or 10% of existing building sqft, whichever is greater P n/a n/a n/a - assumed already built out RMX-1 variable n/a n/a - assumed already built out Source: RRC Associates. Step 3. Project future incremental development by time period The development projections outlined above were broken down by five-year time period, specifically 2012-16, 2017-21, and 2022 or later (i.e. through likely practical buildout). The initial 2012-16 timeframe reflects the fact that the analysis builds on the 2011 projections, and a desire (for efficiency) to avoid recalculating five-year projections starting from 2013. Separate timing assumptions were used for different areas and zoning districts in the study area, as outlined below. In the east and west CAP areas, preliminary timing assumptions were provided by PDS staff for the various project components, assuming the project components get built (not a given). The timing assumptions were expressed in terms of the probability that the respective elements would get built in the three respective time periods, as shown in Table 7 to follow. RRC Associates 14 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Table 7 Timing Assumptions for Project Components in the East and West CAP Areas EAST PORTION OF CAP (13th/14th/Canyon/Arapahoe block): If project occurs: Likelihood of occurring in: Component2014-162017-212022+ Public market0%80%20% Municipal office0%80%20% Office0%80%20% Hotel or apartments0%80%20% Expanded BMOCA0%50%50% Performing arts center0%30%70% CAGID parkingTBDTBDTBD WEST PORTION OF CAP (west of Broadway): If project occurs: Likelihood of occurring in: Component2014-162017-212022+ Existing libraryExistingExistingExisting Library North - Arts0%50%50% Library North - Performing Arts0%50%50% Gallery - arts related0%60%40% Senior Center0%50%50% Senior housing0%50%50% Gallery - arts - events (N of Canyon)0%100%0% Hotel (N. of Canyon)0%80%20% Municipal buildingExistingExistingExisting Municipal office0%80%20% Source: RRC Associates; PDS staff. In the DT-5 zoning district north of Canyon, timing assumptions varied by site, as follows: 1.For several development sites, timing assumptions were based on submitted plans or conversations with property owners. 2.For selected other sites, timing assumptions were made by City staff and RRC Associates. 3.For remaining sites, if the existing structure was built in 1996 or later, it was assumed that future incremental development would take place in the 2022+ time period. If the structure was built in 1995 or before, it was assumed for projection purposes that 20 percent of the remaining practical development capacity would be built in the 2012-16 timeframe, 30 percent would be built in the 2017-21 timeframe, and 50 percent would be built in the 2022+ timeframe. (For these latter sites, it should be noted that a given individual site would not necessarily be expected to develop pursuant to these assumptions, but rather that the sites in aggregate would be assumed to exhibit this general timing distribution.) For the portions of CAGID south of Canyon and outside the east CAP, timing assumptions were developed based on interviews with property owners (where applicable; interviews were RRC Associates 15 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 conducted with all owners of parcels in the DT-5 zoning district, and owners of larger parcels with the greatest redevelopment potential in the DT-1 zoning district). For the remaining zoning districts/parcels with additional capacity (i.e. owners in DT-1 who were not interviewed, and parcels in DT-2, DT-3 and DT-4), it was assumed for projection purposes that 20 percent of the remaining practical development capacity would be built in the 2012-16 timeframe, 25 percent would be built in the 2017-21 timeframe, and 55 percent would be built in the 2022+ timeframe. As noted in Table 3 previously, in the study area as a whole, it is projected that approximately 352,000 sqft will be built in the 2012-16 period, 554,000 842,000 sqft will be built in the 2017- 21 period, and 832,000 956,000 sqft will be built in the 2022+ period. As a cross-check on the reasonableness of these results, note that in Table 4 previously, projects built or proposed in CAGID in the 2012-13 timeframe to date sum to 226,031 incremental square feet. Assuming these projects get built by 2016, and some additional projects come forward, the 352,000 total sqft projected in the study area for the 2012-16 period should and amounts of development could of course differ). Step 4. Project future incremental development by type of use Again, the use assumptions varied by geographic area, as described below. For the CAP areas, use assumptions were taken directly from CAP documentation (7/30/13 study session memo and 7/23/13 Fox Tuttle parking analysis, as summarized in Tables 5 and 7 previously). For parcels in CAGID south of Canyon and outside the CAP where RRC conducted interviews, use assumptions were based on owner feedback (where owners had specific expectations). In the remainder of the study area, existing built square footage was assumed to continue in its present use mix into the future. To the extent that some existing buildings might and/or redeveloped, it was assumed that a commensurate amount of space in a new building would have the same use mix in the future. For the remaining incremental FAR capacity, a varying mix of uses was assumed for each zoning district. These assumptions were based on nformed by development patterns in each area, and described further below. For DT-5 (other than parcels where RRC had specific owner feedback), land use assumptions varied by location (north vs. south of Canyon), FAR increment (below 1.7 vs. above 1.7), and/or time period, as described below and illustrated in Table 8 to follow: DT-5: Remaining available FAR increment between 0 and 1.7: RRC Associates 16 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 North of Canyon: 100% of remaining available FAR increment between 0 to 1.7 R is developed as commercial. South of Canyon: 20% of remaining available FAR increment from 0 to 1.7 is R developed as residential, 80% as commercial (i.e., a higher residential mix is assumed south of Canyon than north of Canyon). DT-5: Remaining available FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5: Sites developed in 2012-16: 100% development as commercial. (This reflects an R assumption that market conditions currently favor commercial development over residential development, and will continue to do so in the next five years. However, for later time periods, summarized below, it is assumed that market conditions for residential development will gradually improve.) Sites developed in 2017-21: 80% development as commercial and 20% R development as residential. Sites developed in 2022+: 67% development as commercial and 33% R development as residential. Table 8 Land Use Assumptions for Incremental New Development: DT-5 Zoning District Incremental new development (built 2012+) 0 to 1.7 FAR increment: FAR increment above 1.7: Built 2012-16: Built 2017-21: Built 2022+: Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential share (remainder share (remainder share (remainder Zoning District share share residential) residential) residential) DT-5: North of Canyon 100% 0% 100% 80% 67% DT-5: South of Canyon LI QRJXLGDQFHIURPRZQHU 80% 20% 100% 80% 67% Source: RRC Associates. For DT-1 (other than parcels where RRC got specific owner feedback) through DT-4, land use assumptions varied by zoning district and floor, as summarized in Table 9 to follow. In all zoning districts, ground floor development is assumed to be more heavily commercial than upper floors. Additionally, development in the DT-1 district (entirely south of Canyon) is assumed to tilt more heavily residential than the other zoning districts. Again, it should be noted that a given individual site would not necessarily be expected to develop pursuant to these assumptions. Instead, it is assumed that the development sites in aggregate will exhibit this distribution of use assumptions. RRC Associates 17 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Table 9 Land Use Assumptions for Incremental New Development: CAGID Zoning Districts Other Than DT-5 Incremental new development (built 2012+) Ground Floor Mix: Upper Floor(s) Mix: Commercial Residential Residential Zoning District share share Commercial share share DT-1 (if no guidance from owner) 60% 40% 30% 70% DT-2 85% 15% 50% 50% DT-3 100% 0% 80% 20% DT-4 90% 10% 75% 25% P (Public) Built out Built out Built out Built out RMX-1 Built out Built out Built out Built out Source: RRC Associates. Step 5. Project future incremental employment Outside of the CAP areas, incremental future employment was projected based on the following assumptions regarding the utilization of commercial space (also summarized in Table 10 to follow): Net leasable space is equivalent to 85 percent of gross square footage (after deducting for common areas, stairways, etc.). Commercial vacancy rate is 5% (i.e. effective full occupancy). First-floor tenants have a range of 4.8 to 5.1 employees per 1000 sqft of gross leasable CAGID in selected years over the 1994 2011 period). Upper-floor tenants have a range of 3.0 to 3.6 employees per 1000 sqft of gross leasable CAGID in selected years over the 1994 2011 period). A set of , the range and midpoint employment intensity measures described above, as illustrated in Table 2 previously. Within the CAP areas, incremental future employment was projected based on RRC assumptions regarding employment:sqft ratios for the respective types of uses, as summarized in Table 11 to follow. RRC Associates 18 CAGID and CAP Development Projections November 24, 2013 Table 10 Employment Assumptions for Incremental New Nonresidential Development (outside of CAP areas) Commercial vacancy rate: 5% % of gross commercial space which is leasable: 85% Employees per 1000 sqft of leasable space: "Typical" first "Typical" upper floor uses floor uses Historic minimum 4.8 3.0 Midpoint of min & max 4.95 3.3 Historic maximum 5.1 3.6 Source: RRC Associates; DBI/DUHMD-PS tenant / Ecopass databases. Table 11 Employment Assumptions for Incremental New Nonresidential Development (inside of CAP areas) ComponentAssumed employees/1000 sqft Public market5 Municipal office3.3 Office3.3 Hotel1 employee/unit Expanded BMOCA1 Performing arts center1 Gallery - arts related1 Senior Center1 Source: RRC Associates. Step 6. Project future incremental residential units Incremental future residential units within the CAP areas were taken directly from the preliminary CAP development scenarios. Elsewhere, incremental future residential units were projected based on the following assumptions regarding residential space: Deduct 15 percent of gross residential space for hallways, stairways, and related common areas. Divide remaining square footage by an assumed average of 1,650 square feet per unit. (The above assumptions are the same as those utilized in a 12/2/08 City analysis regarding downtown residential development potential.) Table 12 Residential Unit Assumptions for Incremental New Residential Development (outside of CAP areas) Share of gross sqft used for common areas, access, etc. 15% Average unit size (sqft): 1650 Source: RRC Associates; Boulder County Assessor database. RRC Associates 19