Loading...
6A - 2005 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehesive PlanCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 18, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: Discussion and Direction on the 2005 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan including: a. The future under the current comprehensive plan, including population and employment projections, a summary of impacts, and the city structure/ city form b. The possibility of a community discussion on density c. The work plan for the Transit Village Environs Area Plan d. The public process for the major update PRESENTERS: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Planning Manager Louise Grauer, Planner Susan Richstone, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We aze at the end of the first phase of the Comprehensive Plan Major Update involving the key areas of focus far the update. This has included public outreach on the history of the Compiehensive Plan and its role in shaping the community and input on emerging issues that might need to be addressed in this comprehensive plan update (i.e., the Planning 201 sessions and a public meeting on September 13). Based on this input and a joint study session with Planning Board and City Council on July 27, five areas of policy focus and two areas of land use focus were identified for this update. Planning Board and City Council endorsed these areas of focus at their meetings on October 14 and November 9 respectively. The focus azeas are: Policv Areas: 1. Economic Prosperity 2. Social Equity and Diversity 3. Environmental Sustainability 4. Urban design 5. Regionalism Land Use Areas: 1. Transit Village Environs Area Plan 2. CU South Land Use Suitability Analysis s:\plan\pb-items\memos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 1 Ouestion for the Board: Does the board have any comments or questions on the work plan for the area plan? Does the board agree with the goals and objectives of the work plan? 4. The Public Process for the Major Update The working group has had one initial discussion on the public process and provided some feedback. Staff would like feedback at this time from the Board on the draft proposal for public process for this update. Ouestion 1'or the Board: Does the board have any questions or comments about the proposed public process? Does the board agree with the direction of the proposed public process? THE FUTURE UNDER THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. Employment and Population Estimates and Projections Planning staff has updated the city's employment and population projections for the major update. The projections are based on the current comprehensive plan and zoning and aze summarized on the chart below. Draft 2004 Population and Employment Estimates and Projections for Areas I& II Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2005 Major Update Existing* BVCP Projected Realistic (Jan. 2004) Estimate to 2030 Buildout Population 111,500 +12,900 +~z,g00 ~24,400 124,400 Jobs 101 100 +z4,400 +70,900 , 125,500 172,000 Jobs to Population .91 1.01 1.38 Ratio Dwelling Units 48,850 +6050 +6050 ~5q,g00) (54,900) *based on DRCOG 2004 estimates The projections have been updated to reflect a 2030 and "realistic buildouY' for both population and employment. The 2030 projection corresponds to the timeframe used by the Denver Regional Council of GovernmenYs (DRCOG) projections for the region. "Realistic buildouY' is based on the likely amount of development under current regulations. It does not assume that all properties develop to 100 percent of their maacimum zoning capacity, but rather a likely maximum. More information on the methodology and assumptions used in the projections, as well as a comparison to estimates and projections used in the jobs/housing project impact assessment in 2002 are provided in Attachment A. Since the 2002 impact assessment was completed, population and job projections have changed. While population estimates and growth rates are relatively similar to those used s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 3 Additionally, we have received 25 requests from the public for changes to the plan. On December 2, Planning Board and City Council will hold a public hearing regarding which of the public requests should go forward for further consideration. Staffwill also prepare a briefing paper on the topic of service provision and on Comp Plan amendment procedures. Service provision will include an evaluation of the plan's service provision policies and the Urban Service Standazds and Criteria section. The paper on amendment procedures will review the current procedures and identify potential areas for change including four-body review, the process for service area expansions, and the public request process. These papers will initially be a staff effort, followed by public review and input during the public workshops. Before we move into the second phase of the update process, it is important to understand what the future would look like under the current comprehensive plan. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the following four items with the boazd: 1. The future under the current Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Staff has prepared information on: • Exisring and projected future employment and population • An assessment of the impacts of the projected growth • Overall city structure and urban form today and in the future under the comprehensive plan, and how that translates into the areas of the community that ' can be expected to change the most in the future in comparison with azeas that can be expected to remain relatively stable. Question for the Board: Does this information adequately portray where we are today and where we might be in the future under the current Comprehensive Plan? 2. Community Discussioa on Density The Boazd has expressed a desire to have a community discussion on density as part of the Update process, and staff would needs clarification from the board about the issues related to density that aze of most concern before we develop a proposed process. Questionfor the Board: What aspects of density are most important and what is the best way to discuss density issues with the community? Are you primarily concerned about: a. urban design and architecture? b. impacts to services and fiscal costs? c. a future maximum population and employment number? d. density in certain locations? 3. The Transit Village Environs Area Plan One of the land use focus areas identified for this update is the azea in and around the proposed transit center. Staff would like feedback from the boazd on a draft work plan for the proposed area plan. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rmll-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 2 in the 2002 impact assessment, job estimates and growth rates have been reduced. Because of recent job losses, Boulder's job estimates today aze relatively similar to those in the year 2002. In addition, DRCOG has reduced estimates for future growth rates for the region. Based on their analysis, estimates for average annual job growth has been reduced over the 25 yeaz period from 1.53 percent average annual growth projected in the 2002 study to a.8 percent average growth projected in this update. Further, the implementation of Resolution 922 adopted at the culmination of the jobs/ housing project resulted in a number of rezonings and changes to the land use regulations which reduced projected jobs and increased projected housing. Consequently, the revised job growth projection over a 25-year time period is roughly 40 percent less than that projected for the jobs/ housing project. B. Impact Assessment At a joint Planning Board/City Council study session on September 24, 2002, staff presented an extensive impact assessment as part of the Jobs/ Housing Project. (Planning Boazd recently received copies of the 2002 Impact Assessment.) The purpose of the assessment was to provide an analysis of the potential environmental, social, and economic effects of "Current Trends" and three alternative future land use scenarios created as part of the proj ect. Outcomes under Current Trends and each alternative scenario were analyzed for the Year 2025 as well as at zoning capacity (the maximum growth allowed within given zoning). For this update, staff has provided a discussion of the 2002 Impact Assessment in light of the revised projections and changes in the city's budget picture. Included is a summary of key conclusions from the 2002 Impact Assessment, what has changed since the assessment was done, and new observations (see Attachment B). The biggest change affecting the 2002 assessment is the revised job growth projections. Overall, this change in projections has reduced the anticipated impacts relative to the 2002 Current Trends projections. Attachment B summarizes the extent to which projected impacts have decreased In short, the impacts most closely match the impacts associated with the lowest job growth scenario developed for the jobs/ housing project (Scenario 3). As with the 2002 assessment, by far the greatest impacts of future growth aze related to transpor[ation. Since the 2002 assessment was completed, however, the Transportation Master Plan has been updated, and it identifies improvements needed to mitigate these impacts, and a process is currently underway to identify sources to fund the recommended transportation improvements. The other significant change since the 2002 assessment is the city's changed fiscal picture and revised budget forecasts. City sales and use tax revenues have declined, resulting in 4-yeaz, $11 million budget reductions and associated city service reductions. An additional $2.2 million cuts are proposed for 2005. To assess the impacts of these changes, the city hired Kate Simson Love, former city of Boulder Director of Finance, to update the 2002 assessment that she prepared for the jobs/ housing project. The revised assessment analyzes both the city operating and capital budgets and anticipated expenses. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 4 It is based on the 2004 base budget and operating levels of service, which aze at a lower level of service than the 2002 assessment due to recent budget cuts. The assessment analyzes incrementa] revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, the 1992 0.15% Fund, and the Library Fund associated with future growth. Staff also assessed total projected revenues and costs associated with capital funds and capital needs based on the revised growth projections and adopted service levels. The assessment concludes that, similar to the 2002 assessment, revenue associated with tested levels of growth in population and jobs would be in excess of anticipated operating expenses at 2030 and realistic buildout. The change from the 2002 assessment is that the operating budget would be at a reduced level of service from what was assumed in the early assessment (i.e., based on 20041evels of service which are lower due to recent budget cuts). Also as concluded in the 2002 assessment, there will be capital needs associated with growth which cannot be covered by capital revenues alone, particulazly in the azea of transportation. For each of the areas of projected capital shortfall, sh~ategies aze underway to identify potential funding sowces (e.g., the transportation project mentioned above). Further, the model assumes a very conservative level of future sales and use t~ revenue, since it does not take into consideration new retail projects such as 29~h Street and the projects underway along North Broadway. The model is based on the current levels of per capita and per employee sales and use ta~c generation. As more retail opportunities are added in the city, it is likely that in particular, per capita sales tax generation will increase in the future. The additional revenues associated with increased sales taat generation could potentially bring service levels above 20041evels and/ or be used to fund some of these capital needs. C. City Structure and Urban Form The Comp Plan defines and describes in text and a map, the four elements of the city's overall shucture: Natural setting and open space defines Boulder's shape and size 2. The Mobility grid defines important intersections and corridors 3. Activity centers define areas of high activity and intensity. This includes the three regional centers: the historic downtown, the Boulder Valley Regional Center and the University of Colorado with the University Hill commercial area. Subcommunity and neighborhood centers form a second tier of centers that focus retail and service activities at locations that are easily accessible to surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Special character areas define the quality of Boulder's centers and residential neighborhoods. Each of these areas-- residential, commercial centers, and industrial areas-- have unique qualities that are to be preserved and enhanced. s:\p(an\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 5 (See pages 13 and 14 of the Comp Plan and Map 2). The diagram and description do not include the nodes of higher residential densities that are located alon~ the multi-modal corridors, including Broadway, Pearl, Arapahoe, and the 28`h and 30` Street corridor. Staff has drafted revised city structure/ urban form maps with this additional layer of information (see Attachment Cl. Included are three draft maps: a) City structure/ urban form today; b) City structure under the comprehensive plan at 2030; and c) What this says about azeas that can be expected to undergo the most change in the futwe in comparison to those that can be expected to remain relatively stable. The azeas of stability and change map is being used to delineate those nodes or pockets where significant change of use, character, or density is anticipated, and those areas where existing character and use will be preserved. These areas can be described as follows: Areas of Chanee: Areas where significant change in character, density and/or use is anticipated along with significant future population or employment growth. Areas of change often result from city actions to actively shape future redevelopment, either through regulatory changes or investment. Areas of Stabilitv: These are areas where significant change in chazacter or use is not anticipated, although infill development is possible. The azeas of change include areas of high density as well as low-density residential uses, neighborhood commercial centers, and industrial pazks. Redevelopment and infill will occur as part of the natural life cycle of buildings. In these azeas it is important to identify unique physical elements: distinctive development patterns or azchitecture, historic or cultural resources, amenities such as views, open space, creeks, irrigation ditches, varied topography, and distinctive community facilities and business areas. The following areas have been identified as azeas of change. Additional detail on each of these azeas is in Attachment D. 1. North Broadway 2. Downtown 3. 28`h & 30`h Street Corridor/ Transit Village Environs 4. 28 Street Frontage Road/ Williams Village 5. McKenzie Junction at Foothills Pkwy and the Diagonal 6. Pearl Parkway/ Valmont City Park/ City Yards 7. 63`d Street Recycle Row 8. Gunbarrel Community Center 9. University of Colorado: Research Park, CU South, and Grandview Terrace s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 6 Ouestion,j'or the Board: Does this information population and employment estimates and projections, impact assessment, and the city structure/ urban form maps-- adequately portray where we are today and where we might be in the future under the current Comprehensive Plan? COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ON DENSITY Both Planning Board and City Council raised the issue of density at their joint Study Session on July 27. The study session summary indicated that the Board and council felt that it is, "important to have a community discussion about density: density supports other city goals such as affordable housing, transportation policies, livability (design), and social equity." In order for staff to develop a process for a"community conversation" about density, it is important to know what aspect or aspects of density are most important. Are you primarily concerned about: a. urban design and architecture? b. impacts to services and fiscal costs? c. a future maximum population and employment number? d. density in certain locations? If the key concems are population and employment growth and where densification may occur in the future, the current comprehensive plan, city structure maps and discussion above on the azeas of change could provide the framework for the discussion with the community. The diagrams show where density exists and is planned in nodes along the multi-modal corridors and in clusters in certain azeas of the city also along multi-modal corridors. If the key issue is urban design and architecture, it will probably be most effective to focus the discussion on the urban design element of a particular area of the city, such as the Transit Village Environs study azea. The urban design element of the Transit Village Area Plan could utilize a number of different approaches. Some initial thoughts are included below. If the key issue is impacts to city services and costs, the impact assessment provides a comprehensive look at city services and the capital and operating costs and revenues anticipated under the cunent plan and various alternative scenarios. Question for the Board: What aspects of density is most important and what is the best way to discuss densiry issues with the communiry? Are you primarily concerned about: a. urban design and architecture? b. impacts to services and fiscal costs? c. a future maximum population and employment number? d. density in certain Iocations7 WORK PLAN FOR THE TRANSIT VILLAGE ENVIRONS AREA PLAN Introduction and Context The city initiated a site selection process in 2002 to determine the best location for a transit village to include a regional transit station, high density housing, and supporting retail services- in close proximity to the rail lines-- to accommodate future rail service between Boulder and Denver. The process analyzed four sites, one in each of the 4 quadrants of the intersection of the s:\plan\pb-items~nemosUml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 7 rail lines and Pearl Street. The best location, based on a number of criteria, was determined to be the northwest quadrant of the rail lines at Pearl Street, or the Pollard site, an 11 acre site on the northeast corner of Pearl and 30`h Street. The transit station will include local and regional buses and potential future commuter rail to Denver. The new transit service will provide high frequency transit service in the 30`h Street corridor. The Goose Creek bikeway is immediately adjacent to the site. Housing will be an important component, and was specifically called out in Resolution 922. The city has always envisioned transit oriented development surrounding the transit village-in an approximate half mile or walking distance of the transit station. The city has purchased the property, the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) is beginning and the time is right to develop an area plan for the transit village environs which in turn would give rise to potential land use designation and transportation connection changes in the area and potential design guidelines zoning changes. Purpose Area and subcommunity plans serve as a basis for future land use decisions, for reviewing and approving development projects, for ensuring desirable transportation connections, urban design character, public improvements, and public facility locations. An area plan for the transit village environs will provide a common understanding between the city, property owners and citizens on the future ofthis area. Objectives As the work of the area plan progresses, a set of goals and objectives should guide the work. The study area around the transit village is unique since it is within a half-mile radius, or wallcing distance of the future transit station. The area is bounded by Valmont to the north, 28`h Street to the west, Walnut Street to the south and Foothills Highway to the east. In addition, an analysis of land use and transportation connections was conducted in conjunction with the review and analysis oF the 33`d and Arapahoe project, for the azea south of the transit village study area, from Walnut on the north, 30~h Street to the west, Arapahoe to the south, and Foothills Pazkway to the east. If the 33`d & Arapahoe site review is approved, this azea will be incorporated into the overall transit village environs study area, and if not, it will not be included. (see map Attachment E). We have identified the following draft goals for the azea plan: 1. Location efficiency: the conscious placement of homes and places of employment in proximity to transit 2. Rich mix of choices: a mix of land use and mobility options that expand opportunities for households of different incomes, different demographics, and people of different abilities. 3. Value capture: for Boulder, increased revenues from increased sales and property values; for residents, employers and employees, reduced transportation expenditures and increased convenience; for RTD increased faze box revenues. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~nnl t-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 8 4. Place-making: creation of a well-used and well-loved place of enduring value. (Source: Greenberg, Ellen, "Using Zoning to Reap the Benefits of TOD", August 2004, Zoning Practice, Issue Number 8. An azea plan should be developed which addresses all of the following objectives: The area plan should include: 1. Active walkable streets 2. Adequate city services available to both the residents and employees 3. Multiple housing choices of different types and income ranges 4. Multiple choices for places of employment, for different types of business spaces and different price ranges. 5. Good access within the area, and to and from adjacent areas including 29`h Street, the 28`h Street shopping street, the Downtown, Goose Creek bikeway / Valmont Pazk, and the future neighborhood park 6. Multiple transportation options to provide alternatives to the auto and corresponding maximum parking requirements. 7. Analysis of traffic congestion 8. Analysis of environmentally hazudous elements 9. The identification and preservation of special character 10. The availability of neighborhood-serving retail uses 11. Analysis of flooding and stormwater issues 12. Building intensity and concentration: intensity relates to development on individual sties, while concentration relates to the cumulative activity in the "tsansit zone". Regulating for intensity and concentration that support transit productivity is a specific objective that will require some additional reseazch and discussion. Source: "The Eight Elements of a Great Neighborhood", from the Mazket and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, ULI Colorado Volume 2 Issue 1, Summer 2004. Outcomes/Tasks Create a land use and urban design plan a. Develop several land use sketch plans based on community-wide planning principles; investigate altemative approaches for the urban design plan i.e. visual preference survey, urban design criteria, use oF a framework plan (see above) b. Identify locations for public facilities, with emphasis on a park c. Ensure that the land use altematives aze consistent with population and employment projections 2. Create a circulation plan, for bikes, pedestrians, auto, and transit. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 9 3. Create an implementation plan including funding and the process far changes to the land use map, design guidelines, the Transportation Master Plan, zoning regulations, and possible grants or outside funding sources. Ques[ion for the Board: Does the board have any comments or questions on the work plan for the area plan? Does the board agree with the goals and objectives of the work plan? PUBLIC PROCESS A flow chart showing the overall public process for the update is included in Attachment F. Although each of the key components of the update (public requests, policy changes, Transit Center Environs Plan, CU-South, Process Changes) has its own work plan, the chart shows the phases of the update and key stages of public input, policy direction, and decision. Staff is working with the Planning Boazd/City Council working group to refine the public involvement plan. In Phase 1, a major public outreach effort occurred through the Planning 201 sessions and the September 13 community meeting. We are now at the beginning of Phase 2, where efforts will focus on working with "partners" to prepare background information and briefing papers in each of the key policy and land use areas. Phase 3 will be the key stage of broad public outreach and input, focusing on a public workshop in February. At this point in time, our initial thoughts aze to focus the outreach on: 1. Education about the future under the current plan: • Existing and projected future employment and population • An assessment of the impacts of the projected growth • Overall city structure and urban form today and in the future • Areas of change and areas of stability Ask the communitv: Are we headed in the right direction? if not, what changes are needed? 2. Briefing/ background papers on the key areas of potential change: Policy Focus Areas: • Economic Prosperity • Social Equity and Diversity • Environmental Sustainability • Urban design • Regionalism Land Use Focus Areas: • Transit Village Environs Area Plan • CU - South s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~nnl 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 10 Other: • Service Provision • Comp Plan Amendment Process Ask the communitv: What policy and other text changes are needed? What is the vision for the Transit Village Environs Area? YVhat areas need to be addressed in a land use suitabality study for CU-South? Question~or the Board: Does the board have any questions or comments about the proposed public process? Does the board agree with the direction of the proposed public process? Approved By: / Peter Pollock, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Population and Employment Projection Methodology B. Addendum to the 2002 Jobs to Population Project Impact Assessment City Structure C. City Structure Maps A, B, C D. Description of the Areas of Change E. Transit Village Map and Planning Process F. Public Process s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rmll-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 11 ATTACHMENT A Methodology for Population and Employment Projections Comparison of Population and Employment Estimates and Projections (Areas I 8 II) BVCP Projections for the Major 2002 Impact Assessment / Zoning Update Capacity Existing* BVCP Projected Existing Current Trend Capacity (Jan. 2004) Estimate to Realistic (Jan. 2001) Estimate to Estimate 2030 Buildout 2025 Population 111,500 +~Z.900 +12,900 ~~3,600 +12,700 +12,700 124,400 124,400 126,300 126,300 Jobs 101 100 +24,400 +70,900 101,900 +43,400 +114,700 , 125,500 172,000 145,300 216,600 Jobs to Population .91 1.01 1.38 .90 1.15 1.71 Ratio Dwelling +5,800 +5,800 Units 48,850 +6050 54,900 48,100 (53,900) (53,900) *based on DRCOG 2004 estimates Population Estimates The estimates for 2004 population and dwelling units aze from DRCOG and were developed earlier this yeaz. Both DRCOG and the State Demographers Office have accepted Boulder's Census challenge for an additiona14,420 people. However, DRCOG estimates Boulder's population as of January 1, 2004 as 101,547 and the State Demographer estimates the city's population as of July, 2003 as 97,763. This is due to a difference in the methodology used to estimate population and the vacancy rate assumed. We aze using the DRCOG estimates to maintain consistency with the estimates we have used in the past. We will continue to monitor both sources of population data to best inform our process. Population Projections The residential projections were developed by assessing specific azeas or pucels where housing growth is anticipated. The 2030 population and dwelling unit projections assume that all projected residential growth will occur by 2030, which is less than .5 percent per year, and therefore is the same as the buildout projection. The projection for new dwelling units has increased since 2001. There are new areas where additional housing was not projected in the past, for example, Gunbarrel, 28`" Street Frontage Road, and residential in some industrial areas, which were specifically called out in Resolution 922. Employment Estimates The estimate for 2004 current jobs was based on the DRCOG 2002 jobs estimate (ES202 and non-ES202 jobs) and adjusted to 2004 by adding new jobs based on new square footage. The s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml l-]8-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 12 number of jobs used for the Jobs / Housing Project was based on DRCOG's estimate of jobs in 2000. DRCOG has since revised the region's job numbers. In 2001, DRCOG estimated Boulder's jobs for 2000 to be 97,600 (Area I only). In June of this year, they revised the 2000 Area I jobs estimate to 102,500 and estimated jobs in 2002 at 97,000, showing the loss of approximately 5,500 jobs from 2000 to 2002. Employment Projections Zoning Capacity As part of the jobs housing project, a task force was charged with reviewing and helping staff refine the city's estimates and forecasts for future job and population growth. In addition to 20- 25 year forecasts, the task force requested that we look at the total amount of nonresidential development that could occur under the city's existing regulations in commercial and industrial zoning districts. Based on this input, staff analyzed the city's "zoning capacity" to determine how much capacity the city's zoning on all parcels allows. This analysis was different from any previous analysis done by the city in that it assumed that 100% of all sites develop to the maximum allowed in the zoning district where one is included. This analysis has no timeframe associated with it, recognizing that it is impossible to accurately predict the amount of growth that will occur within a given time period. For the jobs/ housing project, the 20 yeaz forecasts were estimated based on an assumed growth rate; they were also framed as being somewhere between the level of existing development and ultimate zoning capacity. Realistic Buildout During Comprehensive Plan updates, the city uses projections to a 20 - 25 timeframe and to "realistic buildout." The general methodology for the new buildout projections and the zoning capacity projections used in the jobs/ housing project is very similaz; however the assumptions have been adjusted to look at future development differently. The projections developed for the jobs/ housing project were designed to describe the marimum amount of projected new development if all non-residential properties developed to the maximum allowed. The projections developed for the comprehensive plan update provide another type of projection; one not based on the upper limit, but based on likely development under cunent regulations and the current land use map. For example, "realistic buildouY' assumed that 95% of industrially zoned parcels would develop to 100% oF the maximum allowed in the zoning district whereas the "zoning capacity" projections assumed that 100% of industrially-zoned pazcels would develop to the maximum allowed in the underlying zoning district (i.e., .4 FAR for IM and .5 FAR for IG and IS zoning districts). The realistic buildout projections also assumed lower FARs in some zoning districts. For example, in the RB-E and RB-D zones, "realistic buildout" assumed that 95% of parcels in the zoning district would develop to 0.7:1 FAR. "Zoning capacity" projections assumed that 100% of the parcels in these zoning districts would develop to 1:1 FAR. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos4m11-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase # 13 ATTACHMENT B Addendum to the 2002 Jobs/ Housing Impact Assessment 11l10/04 BACKGROUND At a joint study session on September 24, 2002, staff presented the results of an impact assessment as part of the Jobs/Housing Project. The purpose of the assessment was to provide an analysis of the potential environmental, social, and economic effects of four alternative future land use scenarios. The assessment analyzed probable future outcomes based on trends under land uses which existed at that time (Current Trends) and probable outcomes of three alternative land use scenarios. (See Aropendix 1 for an overview ofthe project and the scenarios.) The various land use scenarios used in the project were meant to describe a range of potential future job and population mixes and levels of growth. In general, "Current Trends" represented the highest growth scenario. Scenarios 1 and 2 represented moderate growth scenarios and scenario 3 represented the lowest potential future growth. Impacts under Current Trends and each alternative scenario were analyzed for the Year 2025 as well as at zoning capacity or the maximum amount of development allowed under existing zoning. The Impact Assessment looked at the effects of growth in the following areas: Jobs, Population, and Housing Economy Transportation City Services and Budget Environment Community Character WHERE ARE WE NOW? As part of the 2005 Major BVCP Update, the city has updated the population and job projections. While population estimates and growth rates aze relatively similaz to those used in the 2002 impact assessment for Current Trends, job estimates and growth rates have been reduced. The revised job growth projection over a 25-year time period is roughly 40% less than that projected for the Jobs/Housing Project under Current Trends. Job projections for the year 2030 are now similaz to those projected under Scenario 3 at 2025 (the lowest job growth scenario). At "Realistic Buildout" the total number of jobs in the community is projected to be at levels similar to those under Scenario 1 at zoning capacity. The chart below provides a comparison of the 2005 major BVCP update projections to the projections used for the 2002 Impact Assessment. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemoskmi 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pa¢e # 14 Comparison of 2004 Projections and Projections Used in the 2002 Impact Assessment Note: 2002 Impact Assessment estimates projected a slightly higher population buildout than current (2005) projections because they were based on an existing population reflecting Boulder's 2000 Census Challenge population which has since been revised downward by more than 3,000 people. ~ ~ ~ 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 15 SUMMARY OF KEY RESULTS FROM 2002 AND NEW OBSERVATIONS The following is a discussion of the key conclusions from the 2002 assessment, an overview of variables that have changed, and new observations based on revised projections for each ofthe key issue areas. Transportation Kev Conclusions from 2002 The 2002 transportation impact assessment modeled future land use scenarios based on three different funding levels: 1) current facilities (no future funding), 2) a continuation of current funding levels, and 3) a fully funded Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Key findings of that study were that: Under current trends and all the scenarios, by 2025, the transportation impacts will exceed the limits set under the cunent Transportation Master Plan goals [i.e, the 1996 TMP], even if all the improvements listed in the current TMP were implemented. All the scenarios have levels of jobs and population significantly above those on which the TMP was based and result in significant increases in congestion levels and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Assuming current funding levels in the future, congestion levels will increase from today's levels by a range from 60% in Scenario 3 to 100% in Scenario 1. With a fully funded TMP, the congestion increase would range from 37% to 70% over today's congestion. However, a capital shortfall of approximately $204 million is estimated to cover these improvements. • The largest transportation increases aze from trips into and out of the community. All scenarios reduce these regional impacts as compared to Current Trends since all improve the projected jobs to population balance. Scenario 3 comes closest to balance, and thus results in the least amount of regional transportation impacts. 2. What has chan~ a. Revised Growth Projections (now closest to Scenario 3) b. Adoption of the 2003 Transportation Master Plan Update, which assessed impacts based on the Scenario 1 gowth projections under a fiscally constrained investment program based on Current Fundina sources, under an Action Plan that would require "action" on behalf of the city to identify the sources and potential for additional funds, as well as a"Vision" Plan which describes the long-terxn post-2025 transportation system and funding requirements. c. The city is working with a task force on options for funding future transportation improvements at the levels modeled in the 2003 TMP. 3. New Observations Scenario 1 projections were used as the land use basis for the 2003 TMP plan; since the revised projections are lower than scenario 1, the impacts and costs outlined in the 2003 TMP can be seen as a worst case scenario. (Scenario 1 is now closest to projections for s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemosUml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 16 Although the Current Funding level of the TMP would significantly improve the expected traffic conditions in 2030 and at build-out above the impacts with current facilities only, additional improvement would result from funding the Action Plan of the 2003 TMP. An additional $280 million in addition to current funding and projected revenues from new growth would be needed to fund the Action Plan of the TMP, however. The TMP also includes an assessment of other impacts based on scenario 1 growth projections, such as changes in levels of service of multi-modal corridors of mobility for all modes of transportation. For more information, see the TMP website at: http•//www ci boulder co us~ublicworks/depts/transportation/mastemlan/ Economy Key Conclusions from 2002 The conclusions reached in the 2002 economic assessment were that although the scenarios represented a significant reduction in the amount of development under current trends at capacity, 1) all scenarios would allow a significant amount of additional job growth and, 2) Boulder would continue to be an employment center under all scenarios, with significant business opportunities. A key to maintaining a healthy economy would be to ensure that we retain flexibility for business expansion, retention and attraetion in those sectors identified as critical to the city's economic health. Of highest priority is enhancing the city's retail opportunities. The best land use strategies attract more retail. All scenarios do this. 2. What has changed? a. Revised Growth Projections b. An economic downturn, high vacancy rates, and the loss of approximately 5000 jobs in Boulder. At the end of the ls` quarter of 2004, Boulder's overall 17% commercial vacancy rate was lower tha~l the rate in surrounding communities. The downtown Boulder and Gunbarrel submarkets experienced declining vacancy rates between 2003 and 2004. Conversely, vacancies increased significantly in s:lplanlpb-itemslmemos~rml1-18-046vcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Page # 17 "realistic buildout.") The conclusions in the 2003 TMP are that projected growth in population and employment would result in increased congestion - depending upon the level of fiinding--as shown in the chart below (from page 34 of the 2003 TMP). Longmont which finished the 1 s~ quarter of 2004 with a 31 % vacancy rate, about the same as the rate in Broomfield. c. Adoption of a city ordinance that allows residential uses in industrial zones in appropriate locations and gives flexibility to property owners to add residential uses. d. Revisions to the Service Industrial zoning district to allow for more flexibility for allowed uses. e. An Economic Vitality Director was hired by the city and an Economic Vitality Advisory Board has been appointed. Key areas of focus include activities related to business retention, the development of a retail strategy for the city, and analyzing gaps in the city's employment base. 3. New Observations Significant new job growth is possible under the revised projections. Retaining existing businesses, retaining flexibility for business expansion, and enhancing retail aze still priorities for the city. Community Character Key Conclusions from 2002 The 2002 Impact Assessment concluded that there would be a significant difference among the scenarios in the mixture of uses that would be allowed or encouraged in several commercial and industrial azeas. All scenarios, however, would retain the hierarchy of scale within the city from most to least intense as follows: commercial zones downtown, University Hill, the BVRC, the transitional business zones, industrial zones, and neighborhood commercial centers. What has chan¢ed? a. Revised Growth Projections b. Implementation of Resolution 922, including: i. Creation of a service commercial zoning district and rezoning of an azea along Valmont east of 30~h to service commercial ii. Creation of a new high density residential zoning district and rezoning of the azea adjacerit to CU along the 28u Street frontage Road from business to high density residential iii. Adoption of an ordinance to allow residential uses in residential zoning dishicts in appropriate locations iv. Revisions to the service industrial zoning district to allow for more flexibility for allowed uses a. Rezoning of approximately 20 properties to implement BVCP land use designation changes made in the Year 2000, 2002, and 2003 updates. b. City purchase of the Transit Village site at 30`h and Peazl and FASTracks passed, making this area a new focus for potential future mixed uses. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paae # 18 3. New observations. The changes listed above provide more flexibility for uses in the city's industrial zones, where the most amount ofpotential future employment growth is projected. Additionally, they have resulted in more mixed-uses in the city's commercial zones. Overall, the city structure as described in the comprehensive plan and discussed in the staff inemq is not expected to change significantly. The focus under the current comprehensive plan and revised growth projections, will be in adding housing in appropriate locations, encouraging mixed uses in the commercial zones, and in upgrading the existing commercial and industrial areas with appropriate infill and redevelopment. Fiscal 1. Kev Conclusions from 2002 The overall conclusion of the 2002 assessment was that capital expenses associated with additional gowth would not be fully covered in any scenario because of a$204 million deficit to cover transportation improvements. For all other city capital needs, incremental revenue from taxes would exceed incremental operating expenses in all scenarios and possibly cover capital expenses. The assessment noted that: • There are cunently unfunded capital needs, especially in the azeas of Parks and Recreation, to reach or maintain adopted levels of service under current growth rates and zoning. This is because several master plans aze not fully funded to meet projected levels of service. Funding sources for these capital needs aze not part of this analysis. • The primary services impacted are Transportation, Police Services, Fire Services, and Parks and Recreation. Although impacts to these services (except Transportation) are similar under all scenarios, the ability for capital revenues to cover costs of capital needs differs among the scenarios. However, incremental tax revenues would exceed incremental operating expenses under Current Trends and all scenarios annually through the yeaz 2025. This excess taY revenue may be sufficient to supplement any capital shortfalls for police, fire and pazk deficiencies under Current Trends and all scenarios. 2. What has chanQed? ' a. Revised Growth Projections b. City sales and use tax revenues have declined, resulting in 4-year, $11 million budget reductions and associated city service reductions. An additional $2.2 million cuts are proposed for 2005 c. List of currently unfunded city needs has grown. 3. New Observations Former city Finance Director Kate Love was hired to revise the analysis of fiscal impacts based on new assumptions regarding the city's current budget and revised growth projections. This analysis utilizes the same methodology as the 2002 assessment; however, it included a snapshot of the budget situation at two points in time (2030 and s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 19 "realistic build-ouY'), whereas the 2002 assessment looked only at the budget situation at one point in time (2025) for four alternative futures. The analysis is provided in Appendix 2. The conclusion of the revised analysis is similar to the conclusions from the 2002 study, in that operating revenue associated with anticipated growth in population and jobs is expected to pay for the incremental expense of providing various services to future new residents, businesses and workers at 2030 and "Realistic BuildouY' based on 2004 service levels. However, there will be capital needs associated with growth which cannot be covered by capital revenues alone. As pointed out in the 2002 assessment, these are: a. A new neighborhood park to serve new residences in the BVRC and Transit Village area. b. Transportation improvements identified in the (now 2003) Transportation Master Plan. c. A new fire station on the east side of town to service new growth in the BVRC and east Boulder. The analysis of capital revenue and expenditures associated with incremental growth shows that revenue generated by the year 2030 would not be sufficient to pay for any of the above capital needs. By build-out, however, additional revenues would likely cover the cost associated a new neighborhood park. Transportation revenues, however, would be insufficient in funding capital improvements identified in the 2003 TMP. Although marginal net income from operating expenses could help to fund some improvements, the net operating income is not likely to fully offset these capital costs. It should be noted ttxat although the fire station was identified as a future need associated with growth in both the 2002 and this revised analysis, as part of the Fire Master Plan update analysis (currently in process), it is now identified as a current need, rather than a need associated with future growth. As part of the Transit Village Environs Area Plan, staff expects to identify a pazk location and potential funding source. The city is also now working on a strategy to fund the 2003 TMP improvements. Raw Water Supply Kev Conclusions from 2002 The 2002 assessment concluded that growth projected under all scenarios at both 2025 and zoning capacity could be accommodated with the city's present raw water supply even under a one-in-hundred-yeaz drought condition. 2. What has chaneed? Based upon issues raised during the Jobs/Housing Project, the city conducted an additional study of the effects of potential climate change on water supply. The Utilities Division funded a study which modeled various climate change scenarios defined by the combination of two variables: Boulder's future water demands and the potential impacts of global climate change on Boulder's water supply system. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase # 20 New Observations The new projections have not changed the basic conclusions reached in the 2002 assessment. The climate change study, however, concluded that if global warming were to cause very severe reductions in streamflow in the basins feeding Boulder's water supply, it would impair the city's ability to meet future water needs at the level of reliability presently anticipated and greatly increase Yhe number of yeazs when water use cutbacks would be needed for any anticipated future job/population scenarios (as presented in the Jobs/Housing Study). If, however, global warming were to cause moderately severe reductions in streamflow, Boulder should be able to meet its water demands in all years by following the guidelines for implementing water use reductions in the Drought Plan. If there aze no changes in future hydrology as compared to past hydrology, Boulder would be able to supply water in conformance with both the reliability criteria and the Drought Plan for all proposed futwe scenarios. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rmll-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 21 ATTACHMENT B, Appendix 1 Analysis of City of Boulder Revenue and Operating Expenditures Associated with Increases in Population and Jobs (General Fund, 1992 0.15% F~nd and Library Fund) OVERVIEW The city hired Kate Simson Love, former city of Boulder Director of Finance, to update an analysis of the impacts to revenue and operating expenditures associated with growth. The previous analysis was conducted as part of the 2002 Jobs/Housing Project Impact Assessment. Due to changes in the city's budget, a revised analysis was needed to reflect current budget assumptions. Since the assessment was done, revenues have decreased and we've cut expenditures. The revised assessment is based on the 2004 base budget and levels of service (see more information about the city's current budget situation on the following webpage: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/budgetgap~. This analysis reviews incremental revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, the 1992 0.15% Fund, and the Library Fund associated with future growth. The packet also includes an analysis of total projected revenues and costs associated with capital funds. METHODOLOGY 1) This analysis has been performed at a very high level, using average revenue and costs at the current mix of types of businesses and population. 2) Since fund balance was used to support the 2004 service base, this amount was added to the projected cost of the various scenarios. This model has been constructed to develop "order of magnitude" conclusions rather than to project specific amounts that will be available under the scenarios tested. 3) Al] amounts have been calculated in 2004 dollars. It is assumed that, over time, inflation will impact revenue and expenses at approximately the same level. 4) The model assumes that all sales/use tax is generated by either residents or businesses within the city. Although, not technically accurate, it appeazs to be a conservative assumption at this point in time. Because retail opportunities in the City of Boulder are limited at this time, it is safe to assume that the amount of sales-taxable resident purchases outside the city exceeds the amount of sales-taxable non-resident purchases in the city. If significant retail is added in the future, some estimate of residenUnon-resident mix of purchases should be added and some level of non-resident sales tax should be added to the revenue impact of retail jobs. 5) For the analysis, it was necessary to begin with a service standazd or expenditure "base" from which to calculate the current incremental service cost per current residenUjob. Adopted service standards, where available, were used for projecting incremental costs. Where no service standard exists, the current budget was used as the expenditure "base." 6) The analysis includes a calculation of projected average revenue associated with each resident and job. Although revenue from jobs and residents is intrinsically interrelated, models were developed to estimate whether sales/use ta~c revenue is generated by either s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pa¢e # 22 the business sector or individual consumer and whether property tax revenue is generated by the residential or non-residential sector. Tables: 1- Analysis of Impact of Growth in Population and Jobs - Operating Budget 2- Analysis of Impact of Growth in Population and Jobs - Capital s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~rml ]-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee # 23 Table 1 Analysis of Impac[ of Growth in Population and Jobs Ineremenfal Changes Variable Revenue & Curr Trend Projected ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF GROWTH IN Cost 2004 Revlsed Estimate to Realistic POPULATION AND JOBS ON GENERAL, 1992 Budget 2004 2030 Bulldout Factor 0.15%, AND LIBRARY FUNDS REVENUE AND 101,077 24,423 46,468 Jobs EXPENDITURES AT 2004 LEVEL OF SERVICE Per Resident Per Job 111,500 12,750 0 Population Sourcea of Variable Revenue 7 43 GF %Sales/Use Tax from individual consumption 183.31 20.438,840 2,337,154 0 1.43°/ GF (o~Current miz- est 72% individual consumption 1 43 GF YoSales/USe Tax from business consumption 78.64 7,848,360 1,920,544 3,853,932 1.43% GF ~Curtent mix - est 28% business consumphon 7992 15% Sales/Use Tax from individual consumphon 20 34 2.288,000 12.770 0 15% Fund (~Current mix - est 72N individual consumption 1992 .15% SaleslUse Taz from business consumption 8 73 882,000 213,118 405,463 15°h Fund @Current mix - est 28% business consumption ResidentialProperryTaz-GF 4883 5,221,080 597,027 0 Residentialproperties=43%ofcurtenltax Non~esidentialPropertyTax-GF 6847 6,920,940 1,872,29i 3,181,618 Non-residentialpiopetlies=57%ofcurtenttan ResidentialPropertyTaz-PublicSafety 1540 1,716,560 198,288 0 Residentialproperties=43%ofcurtenttax Non-residential Property Taz - Public Safety 22 51 2,275,440 549,809 1,048,040 Non-residential properlies = 57 % of curtent Wx ResidentialPropertyTaz-Library 194 218,593 24,787 0 Resitlenhalpmperties=43%ofwnenttaz Non-residentialPropertyTaz-Librery 284 287,712 89.374 131,988 Non+esidentialpropeNes=57%ofwrrentlax Xcel Franchise Fees - residential 20 11 2.242,840 258,445 0 Based upon ratio of actual valuaUon = 88 % Xcel F2nchise Fees - business , 13.70 1,385,180 334,693 836,770 Based upon ratio o! actual valuation = 42 % Cable N Franchise Fees - residen~al 7 02 783,000 89,536 0 Assume all residential customers SpecifcOwnershipTaz-residential 1387 1,078,000 778,099 0 Assume70% residents,30%businesses Specifc Ownership Taz- business 4 57 482,000 117,832 272,386 Assume 70 % residents,30°k businesses Tobacco Taz 1 95 217,500 24,871 0 Based on population, usageNolume reduced by 50% CouA Fees & Char9es 1.150,000 na na Assume increased fees would cover increased costs 70%Contingen forchanges in avera e mix Safe ma in Total Vanable Sources of Revenue 310 71 199.46 55,493,005 8,586,41622 9,268,197 Uses oi Variable Revenue City Council 280,000 Fized cost Municipal Court 7,237,000 Assume increased fines 8 fees would cover increased costs City Attomey 7,680,000 85,000 85,000 1 new atlOmeywith Bither Scenano City Manager _ 962.000 Fized wst Economic Vitality Program 2W,000 Fized cost ConvenUon 8 Visitors Bureau 593,000 Funding dependent upon revenue Non-departmental 259,000 Fixed wst Contingency 117,000 Rxed cost Fuel Contingency 160,00o Fized cost Exlraordinary Personnel E~pense 780,000 Fized cost Environmenfal AHairs 987,000 Funded by fees -changes depend upon programs DUHM~/Parking Services 820,000 Most likely fixetl wst unless new NPPS or metered areas Public AHairs 932,000 Fixed cost Unemployment & Volunteer Insurance 708,000 25,000 30,000 Conservative estimate - may not be necessary Property & Casualty Ins. 7,241,000 100,000 150,000 Conservative estimate - may not be necessary Compensated Absences 281,000 20,000 25,000 Conservative estimate - may not be necessary Infortnation Technology 3,351,000 Fixed cost -change based upon prog2ms (unded Computer Replacement 824,000 50,000 75,000 Conservative estimate - may not be necessary I/T Technology tunding 50,000 Fixetl wst -chanqe based upon prog2ms funded I/T Telecommunications funding 44,000 Fixed cost HR/OE 1.428,000 Fixetl cost Finance/BUdget 2,507,000 Fixed cost Police-perresitlent 12420 19,947,150 7,583,550 0 Seefootnotes#3foroprcalcmethodology Police-perjob 13.80 2,216,350 337,037 641,231 SeefootnOtes#3foroprwlcmethodology Fire 10,804,000 1,000,000 2,100,000 Seefootnote#4 Public Works 1.488,000 27,000 50,000 Atld'I environmantal enforcement suppoM1 untler either scenario Muni Faulihes Fund 750,000 100,000 150,000 Conservative estimate to cover maint of new facili6es EquipmentReplacement 24,000 10,000 15,000 Approxsameunderanyscenario Facilities Renovation & Replacement 621,000 100,000 150,000 ConservaUve esUmate to cover maint o( new facilities Parks 4,013,000 120,000 120,000 Assumes 1 new park - see footnote #6 Arts 0 89 199,000 11,378 0 50% fxed, 50% variable, all based upon population Agen~ Imm ~ , _ (~A_w_ Pag~ ~~2,.~_ Table I Anaiysis ot ImpaM of Growth in Population and Jobs Ineremental Changes Variable Revenue 8 Curr Trentl ProJected ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF GROWTH IN Cost 2004 Revised Estlmate to Realtstlc POPULATION AND JOBS ON GENERAL, 1992 Budget 2004 2030 Buildout pa~~or 0.15%, AND LIBRARY FUNDS REVENUE AND 101,077 24,423 46,466 Jobs EXPENDITURES AT 2004 LEVEL OF SERVICE Per Resident Per Job 111,500 12,750 0 Population Real Estate 106,000 Fixed cost HHS - per pop 21.00 3,659,040 267,783 0 20%fixed, balance variable @ 80 % residenis, 20 % jobs HHS - per JOB 5.79 914,760 741.480 269,135 20%fixed, balance variable Q 80% resitlenis, 20 % jobs Humane Society Bwlding Loan 115,000 Fixed cost Police/Fire Old Hire Contribution 247,000 Fized cast Sub-fotal Uses 83,167,300 3,978,208 3,860,366 Debt Service paymenis 2,398,000 Fized cost Recreahon Activity Fund - residenls 9 96 1 J 10,600 128,997 0 See footnote if5 RecreationAChvityFUnd-jobs 122 723,400 29.817 56,728 Seefootnote#5 Planning & Development Services Fund 1,901,000 "Govemmental" service costs fixed, Variable portion covered by fees AROrdable Housing Fund 444.500 Increases mvered by developers (pilt or building) LibraryFund-residents 78.49 4,124,000 235,788 0 50%fixed,50%vanable,80%indrviduals,20%jobs LibraryFuntl-jobs 5.10 1,031,000 124,559 236,980 50%fixed,50%vanable,80%individuals,20%~obs Open Space/Min Paifcs allocation 1,012,000 0 Fixed cost -change based upon prog2ms funded CAGID & UHGID Funds (MeterTrensfers) 1,420,000 Equals revenue wllected P&~F Funtl Excise Tax Admin 5,000 Fuced cost Sub-total Transfers Out 12.405,500 517,182 293,708 Debt Service - muni portian 721,000 Fixed cost Debt Servits - P&R portian 443,000 Fixed cost 08M Four Mile Complex (P&R) 169,000 Fixed cast Human Services - residenis 10.79 1.136,700 129,981 0 Assume all vanable 90% residenlial, 10%jobs HumanServices-~obs 125 128,300 30,518 58,061 Assumeallvariable90%resitlentia1,70°kjobs Environment- Residents 1.13 728,500 14,465 0 Assume all variable w/efforts tlevoted 50 % residenUal, 50 % business Environment - Jobs 1.25 128,500 30,566 58,153 Assume all variable w/e(forts devoted 50% residential, 50% business Vouth Opportunity 2 27 253,000 28,830 0 All variable, all resident based Arts 2 27 253,000 28,930 0 All variable, all resident based Sub-toW1 7992 15% Fund Expenditures 2,755,000 263,391 718,274 UseofFUndBalance 1,591,000 1,591,000 7,591,000 Safely Margin Contingenc Safe margin Total Incremental Exp including 2004 use of fund bal 6,349,761 5,887,288 NET INCOME 2,236,855 3,406,909 1. GF 1.43 % sales tax and 7992 0.15% sales Wc continue ihrough 2030 or.38% tax reduced to cover operating & maint only when 38% debt service exlinguished 2 Milllevycontinuesat10.748mills(GF+publicSafety,grossofTABORCredit) 3 Police service sfandard is 7 7 offcers per 1,000 population, 1 GericaVdispatcher position for every 10 offcers, 1 vehicle per 4 o(ficers. For analysis, used $74K rqst per offcer, $SOK per clericaUlO =$5K, $8K vehicle maintl4 =$2K for a sum of =$81K per offcer and $138K 4 Additional fire station needed without any growth, vrould be needed sooner with growth Growth vrould add calls !or servica and increase response time due to increased congestion w/2030 scenano, would neetl add'I ladder Wck at station #3 aQ$900K oper cost and 3550K capital (assume Wck leased @$100K/yr) for annual cost of $7 million). w/buildout scenario, would need add'I fre Wck at station #2 (oj$900K oper cost and $750K capital (assume Wck leased Q$200K/yr) for annual cost o( $1 1 million). 5 Assume use (~ 90% residents, 10 % jobs. Capacity limitations may require prowding less service to non-residents or charging higher fees to non-resrtlents to support increased capacity. 6 Assume no impact related to ~obs. Population inuease would require 8 to 7 acres os new parkland at a cost of behveen $70K and $720K. ~ende ~tem ~ 6~ pag~ 4 o7S Table 2: Analysis of Impact of Growth in Population and Jobs - Capital Current Trends Current Trends 2030 Realistic Buildout Notes/Assumptions RevenuelExpenditure (change from 2004 existing) (in addition to 2030 Cate o 9 rY projections) +6,050 dwelling units + 24,400 jobs +0 dwelling units + 13,350 population + 46,500 total jobs + 0 o ulation Ariached housino Attached housino + 5445 du's +0 du's (+7,078,500 sq. ft.) (7300 sq. ft./du) Detached housinu Detached housina +605 du's +0 du's (+1,331,000 sq. ft.) 2200 sq. ft./du Nonresidential Nonresidential +8,004,587 s . R. +15,538,317 s . ft. CAPITAL REVENUE Residential Revenue DET Police $987,000 0 Q$155.32/unit-attached $233.21/unit- detached Library $1,542,000 0 Q$242.74lunit-attached $364.31/unit - detached Fire $823,000 0 Q$129.61/unit-attached $194.61/unit - detached HumanServices $286,000 0 @$4526/unit-atttached $66.78/unit - detached MunicipalSpace $1.029,000 0 @$161.92/unit-attached $243.14/unit - detached Parks $7,093,000 0 @$1,116.53/unit-attached $1,673.96/unit - detached Recreation $1,773,000 0 @$279.15/unit-attached $418.50/unit - detached Transportation $7,184,000 0 @$1,114.32/unit-attached $1,845.84/unit - detached HET $1,732,000 0 @0206/sq. R. (attached or detached) pgenaa Item # ~~__ ~9~ ~~_ Table 2: Analysis of Impact of Growth in Population and Jobs - Capital Non-Residential Revenue DET Police $1,345,000 $2,610,000 $0.168/s .ft. Fire Human Services $1,345,000 $672,000 $2.610.000 $1,305,000 $0.168/s .ft. $0.084/s .ft. Munici al S ace $1,601,000 $3,108,000 $0.200/s .ft. T2ns ortation $12,967,000 $25,172,000 $1.620/s .ft. HET 83,52z,ooo Ss,a3~,oo0 @SO.aa/sq.n. TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE Police $2,332,000 $2,610,000 Libra $1,542.000 ~ Fire $2,168,000 $2.610,000 Human Services $958,000 $1,305,000 Munici al S ace $2,630,000 $3,108,000 Parks $7,093.000 4 Recreation $1.773,000 0 Trans ortaUon $20,151,000 $25,172,000 Housin HET) $5,254,000 $6,837,000 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Based on facilities needed to meet demands created b new rowth. Police $3,000,000 - $5,000,000 $2,610,000 Adding on to the Public Safely Bldg. wifh a 3 story @25,000 sq. ft. &$200/sq. ft=$5 million or Adding to the north of the existing building @18,000 sq. ft. &$175/sq. ft. _ $3.1 million Fire $2.700,000 $2,610,000 To maintain response time fargets, staff assumes for capifal, 200K for apparatus and 2.5 million for a new fire station in Easl Central Boulder. Parks $6,000,000- $8,000,000 0 Cost of acquisition and development of a 5 acre neighborhood park in the Crossroads subcommunity Boulder Junction area Transportation , . • NET INCOME/COST POIIC@ ($668,000 t0 2,668,000) $2,610,000 Total revenue to buildout would cover anticipated e enditures, however, need ma be resent b 2030. Fire ($532,000) $2,610,000 Tofal revenue to buildout would cover anticipated expenditures, however, need for new fire station currently exists. Pd~kS $1,000,000 Q Based on upper approximate cost of park acquisition. Transportation *To fully implement the 2003 TMP, a deficit of approximately $280,000,000 is anticipated. ~qenda Item ~ 6~ - Page #~ Current City Structure ,,~. ,- ~~~,, t , ~ ~_ ~~I ; ~--~. .~ , J ~ ~ ~ ~ Activity Center ~ Multi Modal Corridor Boulder, City Limits N ~ Community and Regional Parks Greenways Area II 4 ~ 5 ~ ~ Miles ~ Neighborhood Center ~ Current Medium and High Density Residential Area III ~-~ ~~~ I_~ Other City Limits Future City Structure ~-- ~ , _~ _r l~, i' y / A" ! Marshall Lake i~~` S ~ I t -_ ~z~ _ ..n.-,,,,..... ~~ i uisville~ _, ~.~ ~ ~ ti _:_ ~~ _ ~ ; _ __ ~ _ ~ ~...~~ __--__JI \ \ ' ~~~ ~._ ~l ~ ~ ' Z% ~- -- -' ~ ~ __• ~ ~E Neighborhood Center ~ Multi Modal Corridor Area I I N ~ Community and Regional Parks Greenways Area III 4 ~ 5 ~ ~ Miles ~ Future Community and Regional Parks ~ Current Medium and High Density Residential ~ Other City Limits ~~ ~~ Future Medium and High Density Residential y cn ~v ~ Q m m ~ ~ I I a : ~ ~ ~, ~ 1~ ~ Activity Center •••• Future Rail Areas of Change N ~E Neighborhood Center ~ Multi Modal Corridor Areas of Stability Q Q 5 ~ ~ Miles ~ Community and Regional Parks Greenways ~___ J Boulder, City Limits ~~ ~-~ ~ Future Community and Regional Parks ~ Other City Limits ATTACHMENT D Description of Areas of Change North Broadwav: The areas along North Broadway, shown on the North Boulder subcommunity Plan (NoBo Plan) as the North Boulder Village Center, industrial and mixed use areas. This area is currently being redeveloped based on the NoBo plan, and is undergoing changes in use and character. Population and employment growth is anticipated. 2. Downtown: The downtown includes the commercial azeas generally from Spruce Street on the north, Canyon on the south, from 9`h to 16~' street, although in spots is expands to South to Arapahoe and east to 17`h street. The historic district is not expected to change in character, although additional residential can occur in the future. 3. 28`h & 30`h Street Corridor/ Transit Village Environs: The 29`h Street project is underway and its redevelopment will result in significant changes in character, and in the transportation network. The city has purchased the Boulder Transit Village site from the Pollard family, and planning and development is expected to occur over the next several years, reflecting significant changes in use and character as well as additional residential density. As a result of the city and RTD investment in the transit village, an azeas plan for the environs within generally a half mile of the transit village is anticipated which will result in a land use and transportation connections plan for the area. Ti is anticipated that changes in both use and character, with increased population and employment density occurring over time. Other redevelopment may be expected to occur as a result of the 29`h Street project and additionai land use changes to mixed use business land use that were approved in tke 2000 Update to the Comp Plan within this corridor.2 4. 28`h Street FrontaQe Road! Williams Village: As part of the 2000 major update to the Comp plan, the azeas along the 28`h Street Frontage Road from Colorado to Aurora had a land use change from transitional business to high density residential uses, in part because of its adjacency to the University of Colorado main campus. The Williams Village shopping center site at the southwest comer of Baseline and 30ih Street received a land use designation change to mixed use business from community business. This mixed use area is adjacent to the University's property where new residential units have been built and where additional housing may be planned for the future. 5. Gatewav Parcel: This is one of the few vacant parcels of this size in the city. While various proposals have been reviewed by the city, there is no current development application for the property. s:\planlpb-items\memos~rml 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee #3~ 6. Pearl Parkway// Valmont Park/ Citv Yards: The city is in the ~rocess ofrevising the master plan for the city yazds property, along Pearl east of 49~ Street. The yards may be reconfigured, and the park will be redeveloped in the future. As a result of these future city actions, additional changes may occur in the azea between New Pearl Parkway and Old Pearl, east and west of 49`h Street. 63`d Street Recvcle Row: The area along Arapahoe from about 55`h to 63rd Street contains a number of small under-developed industrially-zoned pazcels, most are in the city, but several of which are in Area II, and aze County enclaves. The azea north of Arapahoe west of 63`d Street contains a number of large pazcels that aze expected to add industrial/ waste recycling uses. Parcels include Western Disposal's site (in Area I), the Brickyards and Resource 2000 (in Area II). The Valmont Butte site (owned by the city, in Area III} is immediately adjacent to the area, on the east. Gunbarrel Communitv Center: A public process to develop an azea plan for the community center areas of Gunbarrel ahs been completed and approved by the city. New mixed use development as well as redevelopment in some azeas is expected, with both changes in use and chazacter of this area, along with population and employment growth. 9. CU: CU has indicated some changes in their master pian regazding their Research Park, the South Campus, and the Grandview Terrace area. Final plans have not been completed, but it is anticipated that changes in character and use will occur in these area as well as additional employment growth. s:\planlpb-itemslmemoskml ]-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee #~ ~ TTACHMENT E ~,.,..,a_ ~+__ u ~ ~ ,~ .~~ ATTACHMENT E Planning Process for the Transit Village Area Plan Planning Process Phase I.Opportunities & Constraints What Data gathering Issue identification Discussion / agreement on objectives Who Identify stakeholders: property owners, University of Colorado, students from a planning class, RTD, Urban Land Institute (ULn, Downtown and BVRC interests, citizens, city and county staff: current and long range planning, transportation, parks, economic vitality. When October - December Phase II. Land use and transportation altematives; urban design concepts What Several charrettes with key stakeholders to identify land use, transportation, and urban design alternatives Who Stakeholders identified above, ULI expert panel, other consultants if grant request is successful When January - Mazch Phase III. Public review and land use, transportation, and urban design alternative recommendations; When April - May Phase IV. Adoption hearings When June - July Phase V. Implementation Plan When August - September s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos~nnl 1-18-04bvcp.mem AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pa e#. ATTACHMEN'I' F November 10, 2004 What are the key areas of focus for the update? Project kick-off and early public input • Planning 201 sessions • September 13 public meeting Planning Board and Council identify policy and land use areas of focus County check-in Public submits requests for plan changes 2005 Major Update to the Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan What issues need to be considered in each area? What is missing? Prepare briefing papers and background analysis for key policy areas and land use areas Planning Board and City Council check-in Four bodies hold public hearings and screen public requests Public Process - November 2004 What does the public think? Gather broad public input through: • Workshops • Web site • Newspaper ads • Written piece From: • Civic groups • Board & Commissions • Neighborhoods City/County meetings to discuss update issues: • Planning Bd/ County PC • City Council/ BOCC . Neighborhood meetings where appropriate What types of changes to the plan are needed? Analysis, staff recommendations and policy direction: • Staff reviews public process report, conducts additional analysis and makes recommendations for policy, text, and land use focus areas • Joint City Council/ Planning Board meeting for direction • County check-in What specific changes should be approved? Draft of plan changes • Planning Board reviews proposed policy changes • Staff revises • Public comment draft ~it Village Environs Plan Adoption ~ ::~m~' Staff Analysis & Recommendations ~ Four body public hearing and action agenda Item # 6~ __ Pag19 3S