BVCP and Options to Reduce Projected Job GrowthJanuary 23, 2001 City CounciUPlanning lioard Study Session
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and Options to Reduce Projected Job Growth
AGENDA
6:00 1. Introduction and Overview of Policy Options (See Section 11
• Study session purpose
Overview of policy options:
Current Policy (No Action)
Increase Housing (Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes)
Further Reduce Job Growth (Potential code changes in commercial
areas)
Questions or clarif cation?
6:25 2. Revised Impact Analysis (See Section 21
Presentation of revised impact analysis and transportation analysis results
Are there any questions or comments on the revised impact analysis?
7:20 - 7:30 Break
7:30 3. Proposed Comprehensive Plan changes to increase housing (See page 1-41
Overview of proposed changes to the land use map and related issues
Do Planning Board and City Council have questions or comments on the staffproposal?
7:50 4. Options to reduce future job growth in commercial areas (See p.1-16 )
Presentation and discussion of options
Do Planning Board and City Council want to pursue options to reduce future job growth?
If so, which strategies and options do you prefer?
8:45 5. City-owned land inventory (See Section 4)
Overview of land inventory process and results
Are there sites that should be considered for housing development?
9:15 6. Planning Reserve (See pa eg 1- 241
Do Planning Board and City Council want to have further discussion of additional changes
to the Planning Reserve as part of this major update?
9:45 Adjourn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Toor and Members of City Council
Members of Planning Board
FROM: Ronald A. Secrist, City Manager
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director of Long Range Planning
Jean Gatza, Planner 1
Beverly Johnson, Environmental Planner
Louise Grauer, Planner
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner
Michelle Allen, Planning Intern
DATE: January 11, 2001
SUBJECT: danuary 23 City CouncillPlanning Board Study Session on the Year 2000
Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Platt and Options
to Reduce Future Job Growth
This section ofthe notebook contains the study session cover memo which lays out a range of policy
options and summarizes the impacts of each option. The memo is organized as follows:
Paee
I. BACKGROUND 1-2
II. POLICY OPTIONS
A. Current Po[icy and Trends (No Action} 1-6
B. Increase Housing (Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes) 1-S
C. Further Reduce Job Growth 1-16
I. PLANNING RESERVE 1-24
II. NEXT STEPS 1-25
Attachment A- Revised employment projections and mixed-use assumptions
Attachment B- Information on community livability.
Attachment C- Maps of proposed land use and open space changes.
Attachment D- Toolkit and FAR analysis for reducing projected job growth
Attachment E- Executive Summary, $oulder Valley Employee Survey,1999
Attachment F- November 16 Planning Board memo on the Planning Reserve
1-1
III.
The Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was initiated in March of
1999. The following two key themes were identified for the update:
• Increase affordable housin~pportunities - Provide additional affordable housing
opportunities for the target groups identified in the Comprehensive Housing Strategy.
Identify appropriate housing prototypes and locations for additional housing and mixed-use
development, focusing on transit corridors, commercial centers, and industrial areas.
• Enhance the overall character and urban form of the communitv - In particular, focus on the
future role of the city's commercial centers and corridors. This includes addrassing issues
related to long-term sustainability from an economic perspective as well as creating better
places in terms of the mix of uses and activities, function, and design.
Phase One (March - August 1999) included the development of affordable housing and rnixed use
prototypes, identification of potential locations, creation of citywide options for adding housing and
mixed use development, and impact analysis of the options. The draft options and options
assessment were discussed by the Planning Board and City Council in a joint study session on
August 31, 1999.
During Phase Two (September - December 1999), the options were refined and there was a major
public outreach effort that included a newspaper insert, questionnaire, videotape, and random sample
telephone survey. 676 people responded to the questionnaire and 401 telephone surveys were
completed. There were 25 presentations and discussion groups, a community forum and two mixed
use workshops. Applications for proposed changes to the plan were accepted from the public.
Phase Three (January - August 2000) was a period of analysis and formulation of staff recom-
mendations. Staff compiled the survey results, reviewed the public applications, re-evaluated the
planning reserve boundary, and identified proposed changes to the land use map, Area I, II, III map,
and policies. Potential changes to the plan were brought forwazd to the Planning Board and City
Council for direction in February and March. In May, the County Planning Commission and County
Commissioners reviewed the items proposed for further consideration. During April, May, and June,
staff analyzed and refined the potential land use map and policy changes.
Staff's initial recommendation for proposed changes to the land use map were published in the
Sunday Camera and all property owners affected by proposed changes were notified. Two open
houses were held in June for the public to find out more information and to comment on the
proposed changes. Approximately 130 people attended the two open houses.
We aze now in Phase Four (September 2000 - June 2001), the adoption of changes to the plan.
Changes to the plan are being considered in several stages:
1-2
Chanees to the Area III - PlanninQ Reserve boundary - In September, 159 acres were
approved for a change from Area IIT - Planning Reserve to Area III - Rural Preservation
Area.
2. Chanees to the nolicies - Changes to the policies have been approved by the Planning Boazd,
City Council, and County Planning Commission. The County Commissioners will consider
proposed changes to the policies on the morning of January 23.
Chanaes to the p,rocedures for amendin~the nlan were approved by the Planning Board and
the City Council and will be considered by the County Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners early in 2001.
4. Chan~es to the Land Use and Area I.II,III Map - On August 8, 2000 a joint City
Council/Planning Board study session was held to discuss staff s recommendations for
changes to the Comprehensive Plan land use map, Area I,II,III map, and policies prior to
beginning the approval process. At the study session, City Council and Planning Board
requested the following additional information and analysis prior to considering land use
map changes:
• Revise the employment projections to better reflect redevalopment potential and
recent trands towards increased intensity in commercial areas ( Attachment Al.
• How might the proposed changes impact existing service industrial and service
commerciai uses7 What strategies are available to preserve these uses7 (page 1-13)
• Provide more detail on the impact analysis that has been done to date. (Section 2)
• How would additional population affect community livability? (Attachment Bl
• Who can be expected to live in the additional units? (Attachment Bl
Options for reducing projected job growth - In addition, City Council requested that staff develop
options for reducing projected job growth in commercial areas outside of the downtown. This is not
the first time the city has worked on reducing projected jobs. As part of the 1997 Comprehensive
Rezoning, tha city reduced projections by approximately 12,000 jobs by:
• Adding FAR maximums and establishing new zoning districts in the downtown;
• Adding FAR maa~imums in all industrial zones and limiting office uses in service industrial
areas; and
• Purchasing industrial land and converting to parks and open space (Valmont Park Site and
IBM East).
On Septembar 19, the City Council removed Table Mesa, Basemar, Diagonal Plaza, and the
Gunbarrel Squaze shopping centers from the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes and directed
that more detailed planning be done for these sites prior to considering a land use map change to
mixed use. In response to requests from the neighborhood, a public meeting was held on December
6 to provide the Table Mesa and Basemar neighborhoods with an opportunity to voice their opinions
and concerns about the possibility of mixed use development in their neighborhood center. Section
3 of the notebook includes summaries ofthe comments from the meeting and additional information
mailed to all of the meeting attendees.
1-3
II. POLICY OPTIONS
The major focus of this update to the Comprehensive Plan has been increasing affordable housing
opportunities and encouraging mixed use development in the city's commercial areas. The key
impetus for considering increasing the amount of housing in the community is to provide more
affordable housing opportunities for the growing number of people who commute in to work here.
In addition, due to the large amount of proj ected job growth and growth in in-commuting, the policy
emphasis has shifted to include reducing proj ected job growth as an important community objective.
Staff has outlined a range of policy options for City Council and Planning Board discussion. The
options are summarized below and further detail is provided on the following pages.
Policy Options - Summary Chart'
Projected Change Total (Area I and In
Housing Jobs Housing Population Jobs Daytime
Units Untts Population2
Boulder Today N.A. N.A. 45,880 110,080 105,740 147,991
Current Policy 4,860 45,530 50,740 121,500 151,270 197,756
Increase Housing
Area I 1925 -47ll 53,328 127,582 146,771 195,513
Area II 663 212
Reducejob growth:
Low N/A -4,079 N/A N/A 142,692 191,434
Medium -9,318 137,453 186,192
High -13,020 133,751 182,493
A. Current Policy and Trends (the "no action" alternative). This option projects jobs, housing
units and in-commuters based on the current Comprehensive Plan, zoning and current trends
using the revised employment projections (see Attachment Al.
B. Increase Housing (Proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan)
• Area III - Reinforce the city's urban growth boundary and compact land use pattern
by reducing the size of the Planning Reserve and moving lands from Area II to III.
• Area I- Provide additional affordable housing and reduce projected job growth by
encouraging mixed use development in the city's commercial areas.
~Midpoints aze used in this summary chart for all of the options that have a range of projected population
and employment changes.
ZDaytime population for the putposes of this report includes residents who work in Boulder, employees
who commute in from outside Boulder, children and other residents who do not work. For the options with ranges,
the midpoint was used in calculating daytime population.
1-4
' • Area II - Provide a diverse inix of new affordable housing opportunities and needed
community facilities by increasing proposed densities where appropriate and
designating sites for community facilities.
C. Reduce projected job growth - Three options are proposed for reducing projected job
growth in commercial areas in addition to the reductions from the Comprehensive Plan
changes. The reduction in job growth would be realized primarily through code changes that
establish ma~cimum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in commercial zoning districts.
1-5
A. CURRENT POLICY AND TRENDS (NO ACTION)
Current trends and the changes that are projected to occur based on current plans and policies
provide the base case or "no action" alternative, and provide critical background information in
considering alternatives for the future.
Trends in Population, Employment, Dwelling Units, and Commuters
(Area I and II)
160000
140000
120000
100000 ~ Population
80000 t Employment
~_Dweiling Units
60000
t In-commuters
40000
20000
0 T,-
1970 1980 199Q 1995 2000 2010 2~20
As shown in the chart above, the key trend in Boulder in recent years has been the enormous growth
in employment and the corresponding increase in in-commuting. Employment growth has exceeded
housing and population growth, resulting in an increasing gap between the number of people who
work here and auailable housing. Since 1990, employment has increased by 28,920, from 76,820
to 105,740, an average annual growth rate of 3.1 %. At the same time, the population increased by
12,950, from 83,310 to 96,260, an average annual growth rate of 1.4%.
With an increasing number ofpeople working in Boulder and limited housing, the number of people
commuting into Boulder has been steadily increasing and traffic congestion has increased. The
shortage of housing, strong economy, and relatively high salaries of many of the new jobs has
resulted in large increases in housing costs.
These trends are projected to continue. Assuming current policy and trends, by 2020 the population
is projected to increase by 11,420 to 121,500, employment by 45,530 to 151,270 and the number
of persons commuting into Boulder is projected to reach 92,759.
I
.
.
•
'
'
•
= ~
~t
.~ --
•
_ .
~
•
.'
.
- .~ - ~~
1-6
~ Regional Trends - Boulder County Population and Employment
-- - --~
450,000 i
400,000 ~
350,000
300,000
250,000 t Employment
200,000 t Population
150,000 -
100,000
50,000 -
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Since 199Q Boulder County's population increased by 48,350 people to a population of 273,700,
an average annual growth rate of 2%. Similar to the city of Boulder and many communities along
the Front Range, the number of new jobs in Boulder County increased at a rapid rate. From 1990 to
2000, the number of jobs increased from 139,840 to 186,800, an increase of 46,960 jobs, or an
auerage annual growth rate of 2.9%.
Both population and job growth are expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate. The County
population in 2020 is expacted to reach 385,040, an increase of 71,560 people, and a 26% increase
above the current population. Based on adopted comprehensive plans, the number of jobs in
Boulder County in 2020 is projected to be 340,600, an increase of 153,800. For every new person
moving into Boulder County communities it is estimated there will be 1.38 new jobs created, These
projections would result in a three-fold increase in in-commuting county-wide.
Overview of Impacts -(The impact analysis is located in Section 2)
Current Policy and Trends results in:
• the greatest number of jobs in the future,
• the highest projected future vehicle miles oftravel,
• the highest stormwater runoff concern,
• the most noticeable increase in noise,
• the greatest air pollution, with a particular concern noted for particulate air pollution
• increased demand for park and recreational services,
• impacts to the provision of police protection services,
• highest impact to fire response times due to traffic, and
• the greatest increase in the demand for child care services.
^
.'
~ • •~
.
.' .
- - , .
.
.~
.'
.
1-7
B. INCREASE HOUSING (PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND USE MAP)
The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan can be grouped into three key concepts:
1. Area III - Reinforce the city's urban growth boundary, compact land use pattern, and
separation from other communities.
2. Area I- provide additional affordable housing and raduce projected employment
growth by encouraging mixed use development in the city's commercial areas.
3. Area II - Provide a diverse mix of new affordable housing opportunities by
increasing proposed densities where appropriate and provide for needed community
facilities.
Attachment C includes a map showing the proposed changes to the land use map, a map showing
proposed changes to the open space designation, and proposed changes to the open space definitions.
Planning Board is scheduled to consider the land use map changes in March.
An overview of the key concepts and issues for discussion follow.
1-8
1. Area III - Reinforce the city's urban growth boundary, compact land use pattern and
separation from other communities.
Several changes to the Boulder Yalley Comprehensive Plan 's Area I,II,III map further the city and
county's commitment to promoting a compact urban service area, preserving areas with
environmental values, and providing a rural buffer between Boulder and adjacent communities.
These changes include:
• DecreasingthesizeofthePlanningReserveandexpandingtheArealll-RuralPreservation
Area on the city's northern edge. This change has been approved, reducing the size of the
Planning Reserve from approximately 690 to 493 acres.
• Moving several properties acquired as open space or not suitable for urban development
from Area II (the city's service area) to Area III - Rural Preservation Area.
Overall, potential areas for future city expansion are proposed to be reduced by 273 acres (197
acres in the Planning Reserve and 76 acres of privately owned property in Area II).
1-9
2. Area I(existing city limits) - provide additional affordable housing opportunities
and reduce projected employment growth by encouraging mixed use development in
the city's commercial areas.
Additional housing uaits: 1873-1975 Additional populaNon: 4400-4640 Job reduction:-4869 to -4553
The changes in Area I focus on encouraging mixed use development in commercial and
industrial areas, increasing density in a few select locations, and preserving the character of
existing residential neighborhoods. These changes are aimed at increasing affordable hausing
opportunities in the city, reducing projected job growth, improving the jobs: housing balance,
reducing projected in-commuting, protecting the character of eacisting residential neighbarhoods,
and revitalizing the city's commercial areas.
1-10
3. For Area II (the city's annexation area), promote a diverse mix of new affordable
housing opportunities on vacant Area II sites by increasing proposed densities
where appropriate and providing for needed community facilities.
Additional housing units: 663 Additional population: 1,558 Additional Employment: 212
There are very few vacant parcels remaining in Area II. The proposed changes focus on increasing
the density on parcels that are suitable for residential development, and preserving the rural
character ofparcels not suitable for development by designating them for environmental
preservation or removing them from the city's service area. The vacant parcels in Area II provide
the last remaining opportunity in the service area for new residential neighborhoods with diverse
housing types and significant amounts ofaffordable housing. The city's community benefit policy
for annexation provides the opportunity to obtain significant affordable housing benefits from
annesations, over and above the 20% required by inclusionary zoning. Area II also provides an
opportunity to locate community facilities.
1-11
Overview of Impacts - Increasing Housing (Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan) results
in:
• the greatest increase in affordable housing opportunities,
• a reduction in the growth in employment, compared to the Current Policy and Trends
Option,
• making significant steps toward the city's goal of hauing 10 % of our housing
permanently affordable to low and moderate income households,
• highest demand for additional police officers,
• highest increase in operational costs for fire protection services,
• an increase in demand for parks in currently unserved commercial and industrial
areas,
• a slight decrease in traffic (azound 4,000 daily vehicle trips) when compared to the
Current Policy and Trends Option,
• a positive effect overall to air pollution and noise associated with traffic compared
to the Current Policy and Trends Option.
1-12
Discussion Issues
Since the August study session, as we continue to evaluate the appropriate future land use for
different areas, we have been rumiing into conflicts between the various objectives of:
• providing additional affordable housing
• reducing job growth
• preserving service commercial and service industrial usGs
Three areas where this has surfaced and the related issues are described below.
1. 28"' Street north of Mapleton
Several sites are proposed for mixed use along 28`h St. north of Mapleton. These sites were
identifiedlastyearaspotentialsitesformixedusedevelopment. Sincethattime,concernshavebeen
raised about preserving the "service commercial" uses found along this,stretch of28"' St.
~
mn~m
~~
The characteristics that made many of these sites look attractive for mixed-use development (older
buildings, low intensity development, likely redevelopment sites) are characteristic of service
commercial uses. So, we have run into conflict between the goals of prpviding more housing and
encouraging mixed ase along 28th St. and the goals ofreducing job grow~h and preserving "service
commercial" uses in the community. "Service commercial" refers to c.¢mmercial areas that have
developed as auto-oriented areas of lower intensity one-story development and include small-scale
retail and services such as paint stores, appliance sales and repairs, aqto parts, etc. These areas
provide important services to the community and would likely be lost if higher intensity
redevelopment were to occur. This area of 28"' St. was given the name "service city" in the 28'~ St.
Charrette last smmner due to its service commercial character.
1-13
Staff proposal
• Change the recommendation for the 28`^ St. sites north of Mapleton and south of Iris
to recommend that no land use changes be approved for these sites at this time.
• Consider creating a service commercial zoning district that would include both FAR
limits and a tailored list of uses.
Removal of these sites would reduce the number of projected residential units as part of the
Comprehensive Plan changes by approximately 250 units and reduce up to 132 additional jobs in
the job reduction scenarios.
2. Land use west and south of Valmont City Park
The area to the west and south of Valmont City Park has been proposed for a land use map change
from Performance and General Industrial to Mixed Use Industrial. This area is zoned General
Industrial and includes a variety of industrial uses. The existing uses to the south of the park are
service industrial uses. In 1997, this area was zoned General Industrial due to its adjacency to the
park site. Existing property owners have expressed concern that encouraging residential uses in this
area will lead to the existing industrial uses being pushed out over time. City Council has also
expressed concern about preserving exisring service industrial uses.
Rd
Both the proposed land use map change to Mixed Use Industrial and the existing zoning of General
Industrial will likely lead to a loss of the existing service industrial uses over time. If the Planning
Board and City Council want to preserve the existing service industrial uses, the areas where service
industrial uses exist should probably be rezoned to Service Industrial.
Staff proposal:
• Change the recommendation for the area west and south of the Valmont City Park
to recommend no land use changes at this time.
• Considerrezoning the areas with existing service industrial uses to Service Industrial.
1-14
These changes would reduce the number of residential units proposed as part of the Comprehensive
Plan update by 175. If any properties are rezoned to Service Industrial, it would reduce projected
job growth for the current trends scenario by approximately 200 jobs.
3. Reynolds property on the north side of Arapahoe west of Cherryvale
Most of this 26 acre, vacant site is zoned General Industrial, and a small portion of the site is zoned
Service Industrial. The landowner is proposing that a small portion of the site zoned General
Industrial be changed to residential, and the Service Industrial portion of the site be rezoned to
General Industrial.
,
)
~
~ ~/'
-- ~ingto ~
• R ilro`^~~ q~ - :
~
- ~~i ~ ~_
: ---
, ~ i
:~
: ~
;
;
~
-_ ' ~ _
rapa oe . ~ ~-
~'~~ I -~ .
~ _ ~.~_ ~
i
~~ i ~ ~
~ I °- ----
~ ~ ~ ~
i I
The benefits of the proposal are:
• conversion of 3.2 acres of industrial land to residential uses
• a net reduction in projected job growth
The downside is the loss of 2.6 acres of land zoned service industrial.
Staff proposa[:
• Add these sites to the proposed land use map changes.
• Notify adjacent neighborhoods due to the late addition of these sites to the proposed
land use map changes.
These changes would reduce projected job growth for the Comprehensive Plan updatebyl33,
and increase the number of projected residential units by 60.
Do Planning Board and City Council have any questions or comments on the staff proposal7
1-15
C. REDUCE PROJECTED JOB GROWTH IN COMMERCIAL AREAS
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation changes currently
recommended by staff would reduce commercial job projections by 4,401 to 4,702 through:
• changing existing commercial land uses to residential; and
• changing existing commercial land uses to mixed use (converting a portion of the
commercial land use to residential land use).
Therefore, the BVCP sites are not included in the job reduction options presented here. Crossroads
and many adjacent sites are already proposed for some projected job reductions through mixed use
land use designations.
Since the city focused on reducing projected jobs in industrial zones and downtown in 1997, the
focus now is on commercial zones. The projection for job growth from additional development in
commercial zones is 21,080 - just under half tlte total amount projected under current policy. The
projected jobs are distributed as shown in the chart below.
Where Future Jobs are Projected under the "No Action" Alternative
~--a w~p~ .
~k ~
~ ti .~
Commercial Zones 21,080 Not previously addressed; current BVCP update
proposal reduces approximately 4,500 projected
jobs in these zones
Industrial Zones 13,720 Reduced in the 1997 Comprehensive Rezoning
Downtown 2,590 Reduced in Comprehensive Rezoning
North Boulder 1,260 Reduced in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
& subsequent Comprehensive Rezoning
Area II 2,440 BVCP update proposal increases this projection by
212 jobs. The proposal reduces jobs on some sites,
but increases the projection on others (primarily the
Community Hospital site at Foothills and Arapahoe).
CU 4,440 Not in City's control (includes main campus and
research park)
Total NewJobs 45,530
Projected at Build-out
Current Jobs 105,740
Total Jobs Projected 151,270
at Build-out
Therefore, ofthe 45,530 new jobs projected, 21,080 are located in commercial zones, and the BVCP
proposes reducing these by approximately 4,550, leaving approximately 16,530 that are being
discussed in this section of the memo, or approximately 36% of total projected new jobs.
1-16
Objectives
The purpose of further reducing projected job growth is to mitigate the anticipated impacts to
transportation, housing, community character and overall quality of life. In developing options and
strategies to reduce job growth, staff has identified the following initial objectives:
• improve the jobs: housing balance in the community and reduce in-commuting;
• focus the reductions on commercial zones (i.e., only areas not addressed in the 1997
comprehensive rezoning);
• preserve the city's sales tax base and focus job reduction strategies on projected
office uses as opposed to retail uses;
• protect certain locations for service commercial uses;
• substitute residential for non-residential development where appropriate;
• minimize the number of non-conforming uses/buildings created; and
• structure to allow the potential for re-development on appropriate sites and at an
appropriate scale.
Strategies for Reducing Projected Job Growth
The proposed tools for reducing future job growth are:
1. Code changes to reduce non-residential development potential, including:
• establishing Floor Area Ratio (FAR)3 malcimums for non-residential uses in
commercial zones; and
• limiting certain commercial uses, particularly those that generate higher FARs or job
creation potential;
2. City purchase of sites to eliminate development potential and further other city goais;
3. Public/ private partnerships to reduce job growth and achieve multiple city goals; and
4. Conversion of commercial land to residential land.
The job reduction scenarios in this section include a combination of some of these tools. Each tool
is described in more detail in Attachment D.
As we learned in the 1997 comprehensive rezoning, establishing maximum FARs and purchasing
sites aze the most effective tool in the city's control to reduce projected jobs. Since all ofthe zoning
districts currently allow residential uses and the objective is to reduce projected jobs, not residential,
staff recommends establishing a maximum FAR for non-residential uses only. This would provide
an incentive for additional residential uses, since adding residential would then be the only way that
additional development beyond the non-residential FAR ma~cimum could be achieved. In the case
of purchase, there aze very few vacant sites remaining in the city's service area, and therefore the
opportunities are scarce and the costs extremely high.
3FAR means the ratio of the floor azea of a building to the azea of the lot on which the building is situated.
For example, a 3,500 sq. ft, building on a 7,000 sq. fr, lot would result in an FAR of 0.5:1 (sometimes expressed as
.5 FAR) and a 7,000 sq. ft, building on a 7,000 sq. ft. lot would be expressed as an FAR of 1:1.
1-17
Job Reducrion Scenarios
Below are three scenarios that es6mate the amount of projected job reduction that can be realized
through different FAR limits in each zone at different thresholds. They are broad brush by design,
since we are seeking preliminary feedback and direction from Planning Board and City Council on
the overalt objectives and the amount of raduction that is appropriate. We expect to develop a more
refined proposal upon receiving this direction.
Job , High .~ob~ =M~cllum Jab i.ow ~; Job°:;
~~ Reductio~ `; ~ Saena~ia ~' ~ ~ Red`uation 8can~riq; ; ~ Redaatipn ~ ~ Scenar~o' } ~ Reciuction `~~ `:
-6~C8t~~~'~ i ~J r
:,~ t ~ r r' i
~ , _i
Limit FARs in 0.30 FAR 4,740 0.35 4,021 0.45 2,011
CB-D and
CB-E *
Limit FARs in 0.30 964 0.40 755 0.5 377
RB-D *
Limit FARs in 0.25 3,043 0.40 1,886 0.55 629
RB-E "
Limit FARs in 0.25 3,073 0.40 2,656 0.55 1,063
TB-D *
City Purchase Gateway 1,200 NIA N/A N/A NIA
Site *'
Total 13,020 9,318 4,079
Reduction
% ofnew 79% 56% 25%
commercial
jobs
~ Limits the FAR of non-residential only.
** The site located at Foothills Pazkway and the Diagonal, zoned TB-D.
Consequences
Four potential consequences of limiting non-residential FARs aze:
A. This strategy would primarily limit office uses, not retail;
2. It will deter redevelopment in cartain cases;
3. It could have an effect on the overall built form and community character; and
4. It will create an incentive to buil@ new housing.
l. Limiting Office Uses
As we learned in the Market Analysis for the Boulder Ualley Regional Center (ERA, November,
2000), office demand in the region is high, and Boulder is considered a particularly desirable
location. This demand is the main reason that we are experiencing an increased intensity in the
commercial zones. Office uses have the highest FAR potential since the use of structured parking
is the single most effective way to maximize floor area, and office uses are marketable in
1-18
conjunction with 100% structured parking. Retail users/ vendors typically expect at least some
amount of surface parking. In addition to the increased job growth associated with the strong office
market, there is a concern that office uses will begin to displace retail uses, affecting not only sales
tax revenue, but also retail uses that provide needed goods to the community (e.g., service
commercial). The strong office mazket and subsequent impacts to the community is not unique to
Boulder. Attachment D contains articles about other communities facing these same issues.
Some growth in office uses is both to be expected and provided for. However, this will need to be
balanced with the community desire to limit job growth by limiting the potential future growth of
certain types of office jobs. We may wish to focus on ailowing offices that provide services to the
community, such as small scale insurance or real-estate offices, and limiting those that generate
significant new employment due to the need for additional services to the business and its
employees, such as high-tech offices.
Since retail uses typically occur on the first floor only, FAR maximums will not limit retail
development until FARs are set below .2 or .25 (which was the typical FAR for sites containing all
single-story buildings in our tests, see Attachment D, page D-8). In fact, there may be certain
locations where we may wish to protect ground-floor retail (i.e., allow office uses only above the
first floor as we do in the RB 1-E zone downtown), or other locations where we may want to prohibit
office uses altogether (for example, in a service commercial zone).
B. Potential Deterrent to Re-development
Establishing a non-residential FAR limit will be a deterrent to redevelopment for some sites,
particularly where there is already a stable income on the property, and redevelopment is only
financially worthwhile in conjunction with substantial commercial development potential. For other
properties, the FAR limits may be an incentive to add residential, particularly as land prices increase
and there is a financial benefit to intensify properties (more on this in #4 below).
3. Community Character
Establishing maximum FARs will affect the overall building massing on sites, and hence the site
character. Lower FARs are typically associated withmore auto-oriented, suburban character, which
may be appropriate for certain sites (where service commercial is desired, for example), but not for
other sites. It is for diis reason that staff has proposed limiting non-residential FAR only. This
would allow for residential uses and would result in higher overall FARs where more intensity, and
less auto-dominant urban character is desired. (Note: For examples of what different FARs result
in as to building massing, see page D-8 ofAttachment D. Included are site plans and a summary
of the number of stories per building.)
4. Potential Incentive ta Add Residential
Under the job reduction scenarios, the only way to add the level of intensity that is now the trend
would be to add housing, since all the commercial zones currently allow housing. In certain
locations this would be desirable, particularly the TB-D zone which is meant to provide a transition
between commercial and residential zones, and the RB zones which are regional centers. However,
there may be certain locations where encouraging residential is not desired.
1-19
If approximately half of the subject sites add residential above the non-residential FAR limit at an
intensity consistent with the current trend (i.e., .6 -.8 FAR), this could result in up to approximately
750 to 2,300 new units (low to high scenario respectively). These additional units were not
considered part of either the Comprehensive Plan options or the job reduction scenarios, so staffhas
not included them in the impact analysis. There would be both benefits and impacts to adding
housing. It would improve the jobs:housing ratio, but would result in some traffic and facility
impacts as well.
At this time, we would like your feedback on whether we should address the question of how the j ob
reduction strategy should affect the amount of housing that might be added here in conjunction with
the job reduction options. If so, what issues and concerns would you like us to address in the next
phases of the project?
Zoning/ Non-conforming Analysis
To detarmine the implications to existing properties ofcreating FAR Iimits, staff first looked at what
the theoretical by-right FAR in each of the commercial zones is today since none of the commercial
zones under consideration currently set an upper limit on building square footage.^ The limiting
factors are the bulk standards such as minimum parking per square foot ofbuilding, minimum open
spaceandbuildingsetbacks,andmaximumbuildingheight. Exceptwherethereareparkingdistricts
(University Hill and Downtown), parking requirements typically establish the biggest limitarion
on building square footage. As land becomes more valuable and there is a desire to intensify land
uses, however, the use of underground or structured parking results in substantially higher FARs
than with surface parking.
Second, staff analyzed existing building FARs for each zone to determine the degree to which non-
conformities would be created at different FAR limits. This is important because it has implications
to property owners wishing to make changes to their buildings. First, buildings on sites that are over
the new FAR limit would not be allowed to expand non-residential square footage. Secondly, they
would be considered "non-standard buildings," and any modifications to the building would need
to be considered through the Use Review process (see Attachment D, page D-6 for the relevant
regulations).
The results of these two analyses are provided in Attachment D, and a summary chart analyzing
the job reduction scenarios against this information is provided on the next page. This chart
summarizes what our analysis tells about each job reduction scenario as it relates to:
• whether the proposed FAR limit falls within the theoretical by-right range of each zone; and
• the number of non-conforxnities that might be created in each zone.
4The RB-E zone is the exception, where there is an FAR maximum of 2:1. Because of building height
resh-ictions and on-site parking requuements, however, it would be virtually impossible to obtain this FAR, aven
with 100% shuctured parking. Tha maximum FAR in the downtown is only 1.7:1 and there are no on-site pazking
requirements.
1-20
Implementation Refinements to Address Non-conformities
For those scenarios that create an unacceptable number of non-conformities, there are a number of
refinements that could be made to the scenario in the next phase to address the issue, such as:
1. Revise the non-conforming/ non-standard building review process to make it easier to make
modifications to existing buildings that are already above the new FAR limit.
2 Reflect pockets of higher FARs by either creating new zoning districts and applying
different FAR limits to them or creating overlay zones with different FAR maximums. New
zoning districts could be, in effect, sub-districts that would have the same uses and standards,
but different FARs. This is similar to what was done in the downtown.
We expect to discuss these and other options with you in more detail after we get your general
direction on the job reduction scenarios that we are seeking at this time.
FAR Analysis Summary Chart
CB-D/ CB-E RB-D RB-E TB-D
' T1)eOt`6t1¢a~. ,Ry:Right ! .25 to .49* .24 fo .36* .3 - .66" .27 f0 .46*
~AR*. s
,
;" `
' FI~R flhiit -
{isoposed ;:
'
Migh Scenario
' ' i .30 30 25 25
, . . .
Medium Scenar~a~ ~ ! .35 .40 .40 .40
Low:Scen~r~o ",,,'~.;;i' ~-` .45 .50 .55 .55
~ ,
~s#1md~Qd ~ ~f Norn+co
~
~~~
~ °s ~~
^ 'E ~-
hformttie~ Cr~~t , ,
esi'~' ~
; ~
~ ~ ; °~~~' ~
~
~
...... .~ .
,. ,.
~.
~.:> . ~. , .,. ~.. _ .
~ ~ . ,.. ~> a
, ~~.,_.ay ~..~s_ .
; klfgh $G~nario` '~ ,;~,' ' 9 out of 59 total 9 out of 33 26 out of 49 29 out of 52
~'' ~`' ~~'
`T1118d14~~•~~QR[lAJIQ 'r,:S g out of 59 3 out of 33 8 out of 49 14 out of 52
TG4W,SCep~~io ,~,; "~ ~`~; i' 2 of 59 0 3 out of 49 3 out of 52
* The theoretical by-right FAR is expressed as a range to indicate what FAR could be achieved using only
surface parking (low end of the range), or with structured parking (top end of the range). See Attachment D,
page D-8 for detailed analysis.
** Some numbers include multiple buildings (see Attachment D, page D-5 for the detailed analysis and
assumptions)
1-21
Summary of Costs and Benefits
Overall, the job growth reduction options resutt in:
• a reduction in job growth,
• decreased traffic, air pollution and noise impacts associated with job growth.
• decreased impacts to most city services compared 10 other policy options.
It is important to note that, depending on the job reduction strategy chosen, additional residentiai
development may result as discussed earlier.
High Scenario
Costs/ Downsides:
• EsYimated $11 million to purchase the Gateway site.
• Creates 73 non-conformities (37% of existing projects would be non-conforming). To
minimize this impact, there may be some zoning and development review options that could
be considered.
Most restricrive FAR, will allow for few new office uses except in industrial zones
Would deter redevelopment of some existing sites where redevelopment may be desirable
to improve the existing character.
Benefits:
• Greatest reduction in projected jobs (13,020, or 79% of new commercial jobs projected
assuming the BVCP changes).
• Would provide the greatest incentive to add housing.
• Would result in the most significant reduction in single occupant vehicles (SOVs) driven by
in-commuters (11,067 vehicles per day).*
Medium Scenario
Costs/ Downsides:
• Creates 33 non-conformities (17% ofexisting projects). To minimize this impact, there may
be some zoning and development review options that could be considered.
• Would deter some redevelopment, but allows for office uses above the first floor.
Benefits:
• Reduces projected jobs (9,318 or 56% of new commercial jobs projected under current
trends).
• Reduces the number of SOVs driven into Boulder by in-commuters by 7,920 vehicles per
day.*
1-22
Low Scenario
Costs/ Downsides:
• Creates 8 non-conformities (4% of all existing projects).
Benefits:
• Reduces projected jobs (4,079 or 25% of new commercial jobs projected under current
trends).
• Reduces the number of SOVs driven into Boulder by in-commuters by 3,467 vehicles per
day.*
*Assumes the same percentage of SOVs driven by in-commuters as today. See also chart on page B-3
Do Planning Board and City Council want to pursue options to reduce future job growth?
If so, which strategies and options do you prefer7
1-23
III. AR~A III - PLANNING RESERVE
As part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), changes
to the boundary of the Area III-Planning Reserve Area were approved which reduced the size of the
Pianning Reserve from approximately 690 to 493 acres (see map on the following page). At their
meeting on September 19, City Council asked that the Planning Board consider eliminating or
further reducing the size of the Planning Reserve. Staff took this request to the Planning Board as
a public hearing item on IVovember 16 (see Attachment E). The Planning Board was asked to
consider initiating a study of the Planning Reserve. The BVCP requires a comprehensive study to
expand the Area III - Rural Preservation Area.
Planning Board voted 5-2 (for: Nielsen, Gowen, Jacobs, O'Hashi, Pommer; against: Ruzzin, Gunter)
not to initiate further study of the Planning Reserve at this time for the following reasons:
• the original planning reserve concept still has merit and circumstances have not changed
enough since the Area III Planning Project to warrant eliminating the designation,
• a study has already been conducted for this five year update to the BVCP which resulted in
substantive changes to the size of tha Planning Reserve,
• further study could delay the adoption of the land use map changes, and
• further study is not justified at this time but another study may be necessary as part of the
next five year update.
Board members Ruzzin and Gunter supported the idea of further study and felt that something could
be gained by exploring the community need for the Planning Reserve. They also felt that further
study could add more clarity about the future of the Planning Reserve - especially regarding the
development potential of private properties.
Since the item was requested by City Council, Planning Board members suggested that the item be
placed on the January 23 joint study session agenda for further discussion.
Do Planning Board and City Council want to have further discussion of additional changes to
the Planning Reserve as part of this major update?
1-24
IV NEXTSTEPS
1. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan - Proposed changes to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Area I,II,III Map are scheduled for
'consideration by the Planning Boazd on March 8, 14, and 15, and for City Council
on April 3. Following approval by the city, the proposed changes will be forwarded
to the County Planning Commission and County Commissioners.
2. Options for reducing future job growth - These would be implemented through
code changes. Depending on the direction received from the Planning Board and City
Council, staff anticipates working on these during the spring and summer, with
proposals being brought forward for adoption in August and September.
This is an extremely compressed timeframe, considering that the comprehensive rezoning
for indush-ial zones took nine months. A similar project for commercial areas would be
somewhat simpler since not all business areas would necessarily be rezoned, rather the code
requirements for developing in the existing zones would be revised. But this project would
clearly involve significant public involvement, analysis, code development and decision-
making.
The other implication of these next steps is the effect on other initiatives that might be
considered for action in 2001. The completion of the Comprehensive Plan update and
pursuing actions to reduce future job growth would affect the ability of the Planning
Department to do additional projects. This might include area planning for the Boulder
Valley Regional Center or one of the neighborhood shopping centers where mixed use
development might be considered, as well as dealing with the issues of pop-ups and scrape-
offs or accessory units.
As usual, we face many opportunities to implement the new policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. The issue will be just which ones should receive the attention of the
Planning Deparhnent and when.
1-25
ATTACHMENT A
Employment Projecrions and Mixed-Use Assumptions
Employment Projections
The Planning Deparhnent has prepazed revised projections of future job growth based on the
current Comprehensive Plan, current zoning, and current trends. The projections assume
significant redevelopment in our commercial areas outside of the downtown to more urban
densities based on the trend being seen in recent projects.
Different Floor Area Ratios (FARs) were used for different zoning districts based on recent
projects and an assessment done by a consultant to determine a m~imum `by right' FAR. In
projecting future buildout, we assumed 75% of all properties would redevelop at these higher
FARs.
Zones Projected FAR Current Average FAR
CB and RB-D 0.6 0.255 / 0.27
RB-E 0.65 0.29
TB-D 0.7 0.32
Under this redevelopment scenario, the commercial azeas would see very significant job growth.
Currently, there is no maximum FAR in the CB-E, CB-D or TB-D zones. The maximum allowed
FAR in the RB-E zone is 2.0: l.
2000 Existing Jobs Growth to Total Jobs at
(Area I & In Buildout Buildout
Revised Employment 105,740 45,530 151,270
Projections
The amount of growth projected in the CB, RB-E, RB-D and TB-D zones is 21,080 jobs - an
increase from 3500 jobs projected for these areas in past projections.
To account for an intensification of employment over time - more people working in the same
space - the commercial projections use a multiplier of 285 square feet per employee, instead of
300, as previously used for business and commercial uses (a 5% decrease). This is closer to the
multiplier found in the downtown for office uses. It is anticipated that new development in these
commercial areas would be more predominantly office uses, not retail uses. We added the same
5% intensification factor to the projections for the industrial areas, North Boulder, and Area II
amounting to an additiona1870 jobs.
A-1
Staffhas contacted APA, ULI, local contacts, peer cities and California cities facing similaz
growth pressures. To date we have found no studies or data tracking the amount or effects of job
intensification. If communities are seeing an increase in jobs, they aze either not tracking it or
are restricting'development in other ways and are not awaze of the increase. We have found no
communiries that do their own job projections. Typically, they rely on the regional COG for
population and employment dafa and projections.
Comprehensive Plan Changes - Mixed-use Assumptions
For the mixed use changes, we assumed a likely FAR and a split of square footage to each use:
Mixed Use Business: 0.8 FAR; Range of 50% to 60% commercial uses and 40% to 50%
residential uses.
Mixed Use Industrial: 0.6 FAR; 50% commercial and 50% residential uses.
Mixed Use Residential: 0.8 FAR; 40% to 50% commercial uses and 50% to 60% commercial
uses.
Dwelling units were estimated at 1000 sfper unit of the residential square footage.
A-2
ATTACHMENT B
INFORMATION ON COMMUNITY LNABILITY
Introduction
This report addresses a number of issues raised at the August 2000 study session about the
numbers and impacts of in-commuters, the daily population of Boulder, and the assumptions
about who would live in the additional housing units. The first section will describe the daytime
population of Boulder, and the second section will describe who would live in mixed use
residentia] units. A description of the methodology used to determine daytime population is
included at the end.
Daytime Population
Daytime Population
Boulder's daytime population for the purposes of this report includes residents who work in
Boulder, employees who commute in to Boulder, children, and all others who live in Boulder
and do not work. Daytime population does not include visitors or University of Colorado
students who live elsewhere and commute to Boulder. The methodology for calculating daytime
population is included on the last two pages of this report.
Today, Boulder's daytime population is estimated to be almost I50,000 and based on current
trends is projected to grow to almost 200,000 in 2020. The following table includes projections
of total daytime population including the number of in-commuters for each policy option.
Daytime Population
Year 2020
Year 2000 Current Increase Job Job Job
Trends Housing* Reduction- Reduction- Reduction-
Low Medium High
In- 52,833 92,759 85,276 81,197 75,958 72,256
commuters
Daytime 147,991 197,756 195,513 191,434 186,195 182,493
Population
"` Where there was a range stated, for this chart, a midpoint was used.
Employees Commuting into Boulder
According to the Boulder V alley Employee Survey 1999, in-commuters are more likely to drive single
occupant vehicles than Boulder resident employees who are more likely to use alternative travel
methods. (ATTACHMENT E contains the Executive Summary, Boulder Yalley Employee Survey
B-1
1999. The full report is on the city's website at www.ci.boulder.co.us/hroe/a&e/99bvescv.htm.)
Approximately 53,000 employees commute into Boulder every day and 85 percent of them drive
single occupant vehicles (SOVs), resulting in appro~mately 45,000 automobiles occupied by a
single commuter. Under current trends, and using the same percentage travel mode share, this
number is projected to increase to approximately 79,000 automobiles with single occupants in the
future. This does not include multiple occupant vehicles. This may be a worst case scenario since
the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) assumes a significant reduction in single occupant vehicle
travel for in-commuters. However, in-commuters will continue to have the biggest impact on
daytime traffic congestion in Boulder.
The chart below from the Boulder Yalley Employee Survey, 1999 (ATTACHMENT E, or see
previous page for website location) shows the transportation method for getting to work for Boulder
Valley resident employees compared to those who live elsewhere. As it shows, in-commuters to
Boulder are much more apt to use the single occupant vehicle to get to work (85 percent) than
Boulder Valley resident employees (61 percent), who are much more likely to use other methods to
get to work (39 percent compared to 16 percent for in-commuters.) "Other methods" includes
multiple occupancy vehicle, transit, bicycte, and on foot.
Summary of Transportation Method for Boulder Valley and Other City employees 1991-1999
Travel Bouider Valley Other City
Mode
`99 `97 `95 `93 °91 `99 `97 `95 `93 `91
Single 61% 58% 62% 62% 65% 85% 80% 82% 84% S1%
occupant
Vehicle
Other 39% 42% 38% 37% 34% 16% 19% 18% 17% 18%
Methods
The chart below translates the percentage travel mode share into number of employees and number
of employees who drive single occupant vehicles (SOVs) into Boulder. Since new jobs will
continue to grow faster than new housing units, in-commuting SOVs will continue to increase over
time.
B-2
The Number of In-Commuters Who Drive Single Occupant Vehicles to Work
Year 2020
Year 2000 Current Increase Job Job Job
Trends $ousing* Reduction- Reduction - Reductiou-
Low Medium High
In- 52,833 92;759 85,276 81,197 75,958 72,256
Commuters
No. Who 44,908 78,845 72,484 69,017 64,564 61,417
Drive SOVs
to work
* Where Utete was a range stated, for this chart, a midpoint was used
It is cleaz that no one strategy will be able to significanfly reduce these numbers. Several strategies
have been identified as part of this Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and others
are being considered through other means:
Increase the number of housing units through mixed use development which would also
replace some office use (jobs); additional housing units would result in some reduction in
the projected number of in-commuting cars. From the Boulder Yalley Employee Survey
1999, Boulder resident employees are more likely to use alternative travel methods (39
percent) than employees who live outside Boulder (16 percent.) Alternatives include
multiple occupant vehicies, bicycle, by foot, transit, or work at home.
Further reduce office use (jobs) in commercial zones through revisions to the zoning code
and the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR); reducing jobs will reduce in-
commuting.
Identify ways to reduce single occupancy vehicle use (travel demand management);
Regional and local transit improvements including rail and bus options aze being covered in
separate efforts, including with RTD and the Major Investment Study (MIS) for the US36
corridor. Other efforts aze on-going through DRCOG and at the County level.
Who Might Live in the Additional Units?
The following section presents information about who might live in additional mixed use units as
proposed. It looks at the questions of what type of housing is preferred by whom, who is moving to
Boulder, where they moved from, and whether preference can be given to those who already live
and/or work in Boulder.
Who Lives in Permanently Affordable Housing?
Over 95 percent of the current beneficiaries of Boulder's housing programs are locally employed.
For permanently affordable units, or those either subsidized with public funds or produced by
private developers as a result of inclusionary zoning, the City can give preference to those who
already have a job in Boulder, and who currently live in Boulder.
B-3
Housing Preferences
There have been several surveys and focus groups conducted over tha last two years to determine
the demographics and degree of preference for the types of units which would likely to be included
in mixed use projects in commercial and industrial azeas. The type of units include townhouses,
condominiums, apartments or flats, and live-work units. Sources include the Citizens Survey 1999,
and the Boulder Housing Needs Assessment 1999 and The Market Assessment Report 1999, both by
Rees Consulting.
From the Boulder Housing Needs Assessment 1999 when asked "would you consider living. ,.", 42
percent said yes to a building with retail stores on the ground floor; 40 percent said yes to a
residential development located next to a shopping center; 39 percent said yes to living next to an
office park; and 38 percent said yes to a live-work unit with office/work space and living quarters,
The demographics for these Boulder residents show they are primarily renters, persons age 25 to 34,
and adults living alone or with other unrelated adults. Seniors may also be a target market.
From the survey of commuters from the Housing Needs Assessment 1999, 6.5 percent indicated
they plan to move to Boulder in the future, and another 42 percent indicated they might want to
move to Boulder in the future depending on circumstances. If we assume approximately 53,000 in-
commuters today, there would be 3,445 commuters planning to mova to Boulder, and another
22,000 who might wa~it to move in the future. Over 42 percenf of those responding indicated they
would move if attached units were available in the price range of $80,000 to $200,000. Half of
those indicating interest in moving to Boulder indicated they would buy immediately, 30 percent
said they would rent, and 19 percant were uncertain.
These data, from both residents and commuters, show that there aze a significant number of young
professionals, particularly those in their late twenties and thirties, with middle incomes, some who
already commute into Boulder to work, others who already live here, some who aze renters, who
would be interested in moving Yo new units, particularly condominiums, townhouses, or live-work
units.
Where Boulder Residents Are Moving From
The most common reason for moving to a new city is because of a job. In Boulder the top reasons
are the University of Colorado and the physical environment. From the Citizens Survey 1999 we
know that approximately one third of the respondents lived in Boulder 3 years or less and almost
half (46 percent) are "very" or "somewhat likely" to move away from Boulder in the next five
years. The median length of resi@ency in 1999 was 7.1 years. From the Housing Needs,4ssessment
1999, we see that half of those planning to move in the next three yeazs plan to move out of state.
According to the Citizens Survey1999 approximately 4 percent of the population was born in
Bo:~lder, and 96 percent moved here from somewhere else, mostly out-of-state.
B-4
From the Housing Needs Assessment 1999 we see that more than half of the household population
(55 percent) has moved at least once in the last three yeazs, which means that the majority of
Boulder's households have housing payments that reflect recent mazket prices. Of those that moved,
most of the moving was from one residence within the community to another (59 percent.) The
other moves were as follows:
Where residents last moved from within last three years:
Did not move 45%
Moved: 55%
Other Boulder residence 59%
Out of State 23%
Other CO community 10%
Boulder County community 8%
Total: 100% 100%
More people who moved into Boulder in the last three years moued from out-of-state, which is
consistent with the overall population of Boulder, where a majority previously lived outside of
Colorado. Of those who lived in Boulder less than 5 years, a higher percentage moved from
Boulder County or metro Denver (28 percent) than those who have lived in Boulder more than 5
yeazs (23 percent.) This could be due both to the increased number of residents in the region as well
as the increased number jobs in Boulder and the possibility that these respondents were in-
commuters before they moved to Boulder.
Methodology to Determine the Daytime Population
The Boulder Service Area (Area I and II) has a current population of approximately 110,080 people,
45,880 dwelling units, and at a 4 percent vacancy rate, approximately 44, 045 households. A
description of each of the components of the following worksheet is described below, as well as an
explanation of the percentages used for the 2020 projections. Where data was available, we used
results from the Citizen Surveys, since there are responses fxom multiple years.
From the data in the Citizens Survey 1999, there are 1.54 workers per household. From
previous Citizen Surveys, we know the number of workers per household has increased
slightly since 1995, as more people enter the workforce.
Workers per household
1995 1997 1999
1.3 1.47 1.54
In the fuhue we may see a conrinuation of the trend of more residents entering the
workforce. However, another trend is the aging of the population and more residents
retiring. We used the same multiplier, 1.54 workers per household for the 2020 projections.
B-5
Of the total number of resident workers in 1999 (67,829), 78 percent worked in Boulder,
including 12 percent who work at home, and 22 percent commuted out of Boulder to work..
A higher percentage, or 95 percent, of students work in Boulder. Since the Citizen Survey
1995, there has been a slight decrease in out-commuting and a slight increase in residents
working in Boulder:
Place of Emplovxnent ~ 1997 1999
At home NA 12% 12%
in Boulder 75% 67% 66%
Elsewhere (out-commuters) 25% 21% 22%
Total 100% 100% 100%
For 2020 we used the same percentage working in Boulder (78 percent) and the same
percentage out-commuting (22 percent).
There aze 105,740 jobs today. In-commuters represent the difference between the total
number of jobs and the number of resident workers who work in Boulder. For the yeaz 2000,
the number is approximately a 50-50 split between in-commuters and Boulder resident
workers. This is also consistent with anecdotal information from the Housing Needs
Assessmen~ 1999, in which Boulder employers estimated that 50 percent of their employees
live in Boulder and 50 percent are commuters.
For the number of children we used 17.3 percent, used also in the Housing Needs
Assessment. We have used the same percentage in 2020.
"Others" are other resident who don't work, either retired, stay-at-home parents, disabled,
students who don't work, and those who don't have to work.
The daytime population as calculated below includes residents who work in Boulder,
employees who commute into Boulder, children, and all others who don'Y work. It does not
include any visitors who might be in Boulder for conferences, shopping, or other reasons. It
also does not include the number of students who commute to the University of Colorado
from outside Boulder.
The number of employed Boulder residents and the percentage that work in Boulder are not
consistent with numbers from the Boulder Housing Needs Assessment 1999. That survey
came up with a higher total number of employed residents, a lower percentage of residents
who work in Boulder, and thus a higher percentage of out-commuters. We have used the
Cirizen Survey numbers for the percentage who work in Boulder since there are three years
worth of data. The number of Boulder employed residents used in this report is consistent
with data from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment.
B-6
Worksheet to EstimaYe-Dayrime Popnlation
Today 2020 Under Currept Trends
Population , 110,080 121,500
Dwelling Units (DUs) 45,880 50,740
Households (@ 4% vacancy
rate for DUs) 44,045 48,710
Resident workers (1.54
workers per household) 67,829 75,014
Residents who work in
Boulder (78%) 52,907 58,511
Residents who commute out
of Boulder to work 14,922 16,503
Total jobs 105,740 151,270 .
In-Commuters 52,833 92,759
Children who live in Boulder 19,044 21,020
Other residents who don't
work 23,207 25,466
Daytime Population 147,991 197,756
S:~PLAN~data\longrang\compplg~B VCP~ZOOOPLAN~Analysis\12301 jobsandcommuting2.wpd
B-7
.~
~
U
U
~
~
U
cc3
~
Proposed Changes
to the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map
January 2001
~'~ Or. .; e~y
, sr
~ ~~~3~:
~:
Yarmo
~~ ~ T Y
r:
Violet Ave.
s
---~
N
~
1
a
~i
~
N
~~ 9 ~
~ Independenca Ra.
t y
£';: ~,y. ~
pea~ P u~i
~ 7a
1
~
~
u
N
N
~
b
8 ~
~ a
N
C ~ Arapahoa Rd.
~b ;~ 8
i:..,
;~
b
~~~~ ~~ ;.
e` ~ " `-~- ~
M=nero~
~
~
~ `
,
Rd.
1
~
~_
~
:
~
South Boulder Rd.
s D~•
~04
.m
~
~
7
118
9
..a1e - -, ,
~
% .~ nr. -
~
!
Legend for Land Use 1Kap
Location
Present Designation
Proposed Designation
€~~.~~ ,~ a ~! .~~ ~9~`~ ~~'P'` ,~, ;
__ _ ~ t1~ ~~.M., titie, $uu(de~ ~,: a a ~.~~ . ~ ~' . ~~ ;~~ ,~~ ~ ~: k~,~,~~, ., ~ :; ~.~.
la. W. of Folsom, S. of Canyon
lc. E. of Folsom, N. oF Peazl
Id. E. of Folsom, S. of Spruce
le. E. of 28th., N. of Spruce
lf. W. of 28th., N. of Spruce
lg. E. & W. of 28th, N. of Mapleton
lh. E. of 28th, N. of Mapleron
Ij. W. of 30th, N. Of Mapleton
lk. W. of 30th, N. of Mapleton
11. E. of 28th, S. of Glenwood
Im. E. of 28th, S. of Glenwood
]n. E. of 30th, N. of Mapleton
lp. E. of 30th, N. & S. of Bluff
lq. E. of 30th, N. of Baseline
lu. W. of 28th, N. of Valmont
2a. E. of 28th, N. of Arapahoe
26. W. of 28th, S. of Canyon
2f. W. of 30th, S. of Baseline
3a. E. of 30th, N. & S. of Pearl
36. E. of Foothills Pkwy, N. & S. of Old Pearl
4a. E.& W. of Broadway, N.& S. of Alpine
46. W. of Broadway, S. of North
4e. W. of Broadway, N. of Alpine
5. E. of Diagonal, N. of Mineral
6. E. of 30th, S. of Baseline
7. Multiple locations
High Density Residentia] & Arterial Business
General Business
General Business
Genetal Business
General Business
General Business
General Business
General Business
General Business
General Business
Medium Density Residential
General Business
General Business
Medium Density Residential
General Business
Regional Business
Regional Susiness
Community Business
Community Industrial & Light Industrial
General Industrial & Performance Industrial
High Density Residential
High Density Residential
High Density Residential
LightIndus[rial
Medium Densiry Residential
Arteria! Business
Mixed Use - Business
Mixed Use - Business
Mixed Use - Residential
Transitional Business
Mixed Use - Business
Mixed Use - Business
Transitional Business
Public/Semi-Public
Mixed Use - Indus[rial
Mixed Use - Business
High Density Residential
Transitional Business
Mixed Use - Business
High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use - Business
Mixed Use - Business
Mixed Use - Business
Mixed Use - Industrial
Mixed Use - Industrial
Transitional Business
Community Business
Public/Semi Public
Transitional Business
Public/Semi-Public
7a. Transitional Business
76. High Density Residential
7a Communiry Business
7d. General Business
7e. W. of SSth, N. of Arapahoe Light [ndustrial Transitional Business
8. Glenwood Ct. General Business High Density Residential
9. E. of 28th, S. of Marine Low Density Residen[ial Medium Density Residential
10. Mobile Home Parks Medium Densiry Residential Manufactured Housing
Il. E. of Broadway, S. of Lee Hill Rd. Medium Density Residential Mixed Densiry Residential
20. Multiple sites (ciry-owned) Varies Public/Semi-public
21. Multiple sites (ciry pazks) Varies Urban and Other Parks
€~~~~1~~the~i's~~~Uac@i~t~~~~°~1~'z~~~'~a~~ ~ s , ~ ~ "~ ~~~
12. E. of 47th, S. of ]ay Rd.
13. E. of 30th, N. of Kalmia
14. E. of SSth, S. of Baseline
15. S. of East Boulder Rec. Center
16. E. of Cherryvale, S. of Arapahce
17. E. of Footltills Pkwy, N. of Arapahce
18. Mobile Home Parks
19. Multiple sites
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Densiry Residential
Performance Industriat & Open Space
Light Industrial
Low Density Residen6al & PerFormance [ndustrial
Public/Semi-Public, Open Space,
Low Density Residential
C-2
12a. No Change
12b. Medium Densiry Residential
13a. Mixed Density Residentiai
13b. No change
13c. Medium Densiry Residential
13d. Medium Density Residential
14a. Medium Density Residential
14b. No Change
14c. Area III - Urban and Other Pazks
14d. Area III - Environmental Preservatio
15a. Mixed Density Residential
15b. Very Low Density Residential
15c. Environmental Preservation
16a. Medium Densiry Residential
166. Open Space
17a. Environmental Preservation
17b. PublidSemi-Public
Manufactured Housing
Open Space - owned
~
~
~
. ``
BVCP Year 2000 Update - Proposed OS Designation Changes and Other Changes in Area ill
~ Curreet B.V.C.P. Area 111 d. PlannMg Area Boundary
~ Proposed B.V.C.P. Area ill & Pianning Area Boundary 'A`
~~~ Open Space - Owned (Includea Clty 8 County Land) /\
~ Open Spaee - Conservatlon Easement ~/J
~ - Environmentai Preservation N
- Other Public and Private Land Designated as Open Space ~ 0 1 2 Mles
NaP P~~M bp tlw Cipr of BeuW~r
Plannixs Dapa'6ns~t 618 Lab, 7217000
. ~ Change M Urban and 04her Parks TM~a~-«+~-+rw~+++-•.~+^+~da•TM~~r+~-++-.~+-
ne....b..w~ ~`a`4 ~~. a..r.as~.ww aaweo a a. ~ti...w. as W..a rrw
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND USE MAP RELATING TO OPEN SPACE,
PUBLIC LANDS, AND THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
Staff is proposing several changes to the Open Space, Non-Urban Pazks, and Urban and Other
Parks land use designations, and is proposing changes to the Planning Area Boundary (see
attached map). The following is a discussion of Yhe proposed changes. The proposal is based on
input from city Open Space staff and the Open Space Board of Trustees.
A. Change the Ooen Space land use designation.
Staff is proposing changes to the current Open Space land use dasignation to better
represent the intended use of lands that are designated for open space purposes. The
Onen Space designation was originally applied to public and private lands throughout the
Boulder Valley in 1978 to provide guidance in the overall development of the Open
Space program and to indicate the overall planning concepts which have been adopted by
the City and County through the BVCP. Over the yeazs, the Open Space program has
grown and new rural preservation policies for Area III have been adopted which provide
additional tools for meeting open space and other environmental preservation goals. The
Onen Snace land use designation no longer represents acquisition goals of the program
but highlights accomplishments of the city and other agencies, and the general use of the
land.
Staff is proposing that the current Open Snace designation be divided into three
subcategories to differentiate between public and private property and to further denote
intended use of specific lands. The following are the proposed changes to the land use
designation definitions.
O~en Space
Open Space designations on the BVCP Map include the following three
categories of lands:
1. Land already acquired by the City; or
Boulder Counry for open space purposes;
2. Privately owned land with conservation easements or other deve[opment
restrictions; and
3. Other public and private land designated prior to I981 which the ciry
and cnunly would like to preserve through various preservatian methods
including intergovernmental agreements, dedications, or acquisitions.
Open Space designations are not intended to limit acquisition, but to be indicative
of the broad goals of the program. Other property which meets Open Space
purposes and functions should be considered and may be acquired. Open Space
C-4
designations indicate that the long-term use of the land is planned to serve one or
more open space functions. However, Open Space designations may not reflect
the current use of the land while in private ownership.
B. Apply a new Open Space - Acquired desigaaHon to several city-owned properties.
Staff is proposing that an Ouen S~ace-Acquired land use designation be applied to several
properties now under Open Space Department management. The proposed changes include
applying an Open Space-Acauired designation to: 1) new city acquisitions; 2) a few
previously acquired properties without an Open Space designation; and 3) two areas
previously designated as Non-Urban Pazk (Mountain Parks and Sawhill Ponds).
C. Create a new Environmental Preservation designation.
The Onen Space designation has been useful in azeas I and II in signaling environmental
resource concerns on private lands. However, there is concern that applying a new Onen
Snace designation to private properties within azeas I and II would falsely imply that the city
intends to acquire the properties. Staff is proposing a new Environmenta] Preservation land
use designation for a few private properties in Areas I and II to indicate the City's intent to
preserve environmentally sensitive land through methods other than open space acquisition.
This proposal was previously included in the packet of staff recommended land use map
changes which Planning Board reviewed this past summer. The following is the proposed
definition for the new land use designation:
Environmental Preservation
TheEnvironmental Preservation designation includesprivate lands in Areas I and
II with environmental values which the City and County would like to preserve
through a variety of preservation methods (including intergovernmental
agreements, dedications, development restrictions, rezonings; acquisitions, and
density transfers).
D. Eliminate the Non-Urban Parks designation and expand the defmition of the Urban
and Other Parks designation.
The Non-Urban Parks land use designation is currently applied to a few lazge pazcels in the
Planning Area which were not previously under city or county open space management. The
pazcels that are designated as Non-Urban Parks include Boulder Reservoir, Sawhill Ponds,
Mountain Parks, and Eldorado Canyon State Park. Staff is proposing that the designation
for Mountain Parks and Sawhill Ponds be changed to Onen Space-Acquired to reflect the
recent transfer of these properties to Open Space Department management. Staff is also
proposing that the remaining two parcels (Boulder Reservoir and Eldorado Canyon State
Park) be designated as Urban and Other Parks and the Non-Urban Pazks designation be
eliminated. The following are the proposed changes to the designations:
GS
_ ~ a rles
, ~
, > ,
> ,
~ > >
, , ~
~
~ > •
Urban and Other Parks
VKLYbVI~. vv~~aa~~w~ ~~~ Ywi u~ ~v~b~~ v~~~vvv a w~~ ~~ ~~ v• ~. -. --.-.
• ~ ) •
) •
J
) ) ~
f p ~A.
~v~•`''
• )
Urban and Other Parks includes public lands used for a variety of active and
passive recreational purposes. Urban parks provided by the City include
pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and city parks as defined
in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The speci6c characteristics of each
park depend on the type of park, size, topography and neighborhood
preferences. Neighborhood parks typically provide a children's playground,
picnic facilities, benches, walkways, landscaped areas and multi-use open grass
areas. Other park uses may include recreational facilities such as basketball or
tennis courts, community gardens, and natural areas. There are three
community park sites (Harlow Platts, East Boulder and Foothills) w6ich are
fully or partially developed. Land for two large multi-use city parks has been
acquired at the Valmont Park site, where development will begin in 2001, and
C-6
the Area III - Planning Reserve site which is to be held to meet future
recreational needs. The Boulder Reservoir is a regional park which provides
opportunities for fishing, swimming, boating, picnicking, etc. Public
recreational facilities, including recreation centers, a golf course, swimming
~pools, ballfields, a sports wmplex, etc. are also included in this category.
E. Change several city-owned properties to a Public or Urban and Other Parks land use
desiguations.
Several city-owned properties have had designations consistent with the surrounding land
uses. Staff is proposing to change the designations on these properties to better reflect the
long-term intended use of the sites.
F. Expand the Boulder Valley Planning Area boundary to incorporate new Open Space
acquisitions.
The BVCP is jointly adopted by the City and the County and guides land use and
development in the Boulder Valley Planning Area. The BVCP Planning Area is defined as
the azea within the Boulder Valley in which the City and the County will share responsibility
for planning land use and development through their intergovernmental agreement. The
Planning Area is specifically delineated on the BVCP land use map and is roughly defined
as the azea bounded by the mountain backdrop on the west, Davidson Mesa and the Dry
Creek and Coal Creek drainage on the east and southeast, the south county line on the soutti,
Gunbarrel Hill on the northeast, lands north and west of the Boulder Reservoir and land west
of Left Hand Valley Reservoir on the north.
'The city owns and manages numerous acres of land outside the immediate planning azea and
throughout Boulder County (e.g. City of Boulder watershed, Fourth of July campground).
In addition, the Open Space Department has acquired lands beyond the BVCP Planning
Area. The intent of the B V CP Planning Area is to reflect the City's interest in comprehensive
land use planning for areas within and around the city.
Staff proposes to expand the Planning Area to include some of the Open Space acquisitions
over the last few years which aze contiguous to and fall into the general Planning Area
definition. Staff is also proposing to redraw the Planning Area boundary along the south
county line to remain consistent with the above definition. This change would remove one
city-owned open space property from the Planning Area. Please see the attached map ofthe
proposed new Plannirig Area boundary.
C-7
ATTACHMENT D
Job Reduction Tool Kit and FAR Analysis
A Tool Kit for Reducing Pro~cted Jobs Growth
1. Code Changes
There are two regulatory methods to limit commercia] growth. These are: a) establish Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) maximums for non-residential uses in commercial zones; and b) Limit certain
commercial uses, particulazly those that generate higher FARs or job creation potential.
a) FAR maximums
In most commercial zones in the city, Yhere is not a prescribed limit on building square footage.
The biggest limiting factor is the minimum parking requirement. As land becomes more valuable
and there is a desire to intensify land uses, the use of underground or structured parking results in
substantially higher FARs than with surface parking. The recent trend has been for a greater
intensification of land and higher FARs in commercial zones. Establishing a maacimum FAR
could ensure a prescribed limit to non-residential uses.
Commercial Zonina Districts that agpl~
• Community Business Zones (CB-D and CB-E). Currently has no FAR limit.
Allows all retail, office and residential usas.
• Transitional Business- Developing Zone (TB-D). Currently has no FAR limiY;
however, TB-E has a maximum FAR of 0.5:1. Allows office, parsonal service,
hotel, and residential uses. Limits retail uses (allowed only in association with
and located wifhin hotels}.
• Regiona! Business- Developing Zone (RB-D)(located in Gunbarrel). Currently
has no FAR limit. Allows all retail, office and residential uses.
• Regional Business-Established Zone (RB-E)(located in the BVRC). Cunent limit
is 2:1. Allows all retail, office and residential uses.
b) Limit Uses
Given the nearly unlimited office mazket potential and the generally higher FAR potential for
this use, staff has suggested that one of the objectives for job reduction should be to focus
reductions on office uses over retail uses. There aze several possible approaches to this,
incIuding:
• Establish a maximum percentage of office use per project ;
• Prohibit first floor office uses in certain zones;
• Require office uses to developed through Use Review only in certain commercial zones
(they are currently allowed by-right in all commercial zones). Establish use review
criteria to address under what circumstances office uses could be approved; or
• Prohibit office uses altogether in certain zones where there is a desire to keep FARs
D-1
relatively low and preserve certain retail uses; for example in a newly created service
commercial zone. •
2. Purchase Sites
There may be sites within Area I where eliminating development potential entirely would both
reduce potentia] jobs and further other city goals. Staff will evaluate the potential costs, funding
sources, and job reduction benefits of purchasing sites in the city.
3. City- Landowner Partnerships
As we have learned from the mixed-use workshops and our analysis of the feasibility of
implementing mixed-use development, there may be a need for the city to take a more active role
to achieve some of the objectives of mixed-use development in certain locations. Public-private
partnerships could achieve a reduction in future jobs- either by reducing development potential
or by replacing commercial development with housing- and achieve other city objectives as well.
Potential roles for the city include:
• providing housing subsidies
• participating in joint development
• purchase of portions of a site for parks or other public amenities
• facilitation of transportation system planning and right-of-way dedication for streets,
pedestrian, and/or bicycle systems.
4. Convert Commercial Land to Residential
As part of the recommended land use map changes, staff has identified sites to convert from
commercial to residential. The sites that we have focused on aze those that currently have
predominantly residential land uses, but commercial zoning. In these areas, the underlying
zoning has resulted in a number of viable residential uses being demolished to make way for
office and other non-residential uses, and rezoning will ultimately be required to ensure that the
trend does not continue.
While staff feels we have done all that we can with this tool, we have included it to acknowledge
that it is a tool for reducing commercial growth.
FAR Analysis
The job reduction scenarios include a range of FAR malcimums resulting in a range of the
number of future jobs that can be reduced. In order to analyze what FAR maximum was
reasonable for each zone, staff tested the by-right development potenrial of our commercial
zones and the thresholds at which an unacceptable number of existing sites would become non-
conforming. The following is our methodology and test results.
Methodoloev:
• Test a number of sites in the subject commercial zoning districts to determine what the
by-right FAR range would be in each zone. Use existing sites of varying sizes and
configurations. Test what the maximum commercial development would be if no
D-2
variances to existing standazds were granted. If feasible, utilize structured or "tuck-
undet" parking to test how far FARs could be pushed under by-right development.
Analyze existing FARs in each of the above zoning districts to determine the threshold at
which an unacceptable number of non-conforming lots would be created,
Based on the results, @etermine a reasonable FAR limit for each zone. Assume that there
will be some structured or tuck-under pazking and some mix of retail and office, but don't
assume 100% office redevelopment as is allowed.
Kev Assumptions:
1. The sites under consideration exclude those proposed for BVCP land use designation
changes. Therefore, Crossroads and many ad~acent sites aze not affected by this analysis
or the proposed job reductions-- they aze already proposed for some projected job
reductions through mixed usa land use designations.
2. In developing theoretical by-right FARs for each zoning district, the assigtunent was to
push for the maximum development potential on each site while still meeting all of the
by-right standards. No residential uses were assumed for these tests, and structured
parking was used wherever feasibla.
3. The existing FAR analysis is for built projects only. The source of information is the
County Assessor's Recards.
Theoretical Bv-Right FARs on Tested Sites ("bv-rieht" develonment)
CB: .238 -.31 (all surface pazking) to .4 -. 48 (some struchued pazking)
TB-D .269 -.3 (all surface parking) to .366 -.46 (some structured pazking)
RB-E .3 - .34 (all surface pazking) to .47 - .66 (structured parking)
RB-D .24 (all surface parking) to .36 (some structured pazking)
Kev Conclusions:
• The results of the FAR tests resulted in theoretical by-right FARs ranging from .24 to .66.
The biggest variable was how much sriuctured parking was used.
• Office uses have the highest FAR potential since the use of structured pazking is the
single most effective way to maximize floor area, and office uses are viable in
conjunction with 100% structured pazking. Retail users/ vendors typically expect at least
some amount of surface pazking.
• Since retail uses typically occur on the first floor only, FAR maximums will not limit
retail development until FARs are set below .2 or .25, which was the typical FAR for
sites containing all single-story buildings.
• The RB-E zone (in the BVRC) has the highest by-right FAR potenHal since the parking
requirement is less than in the RB-D, CB and TB zones. There is not a significant
difference in FAR potential among the CB-E, CB-D and RB-D zoning districts.
• Recently developed projects in the RB-E zone tend to have lower FARs than what our
D-3
test sites showed the potential for. We tlunk that this is because major retailers want
greater pazking ratios than we require in RB-E, or because there's a limit to how much
siructured parking is acceptable to retail customers. As the demand for office uses
expands and the demand for retaiI mazket Iessens, however, we can expect more intensity
in the RB-E zone district as well.
Projects with higher FARs did not necessarily result in better overall site design. For
example, some of the higher FAR site plans incorporated under-building parking at the
street level resulting in a poor street presence, or pedestrian-level interface, whereas the
lower FARs always included one-story buildings. These were typically retail uses which
would incorporate pedestrian-interest windows.
Since the predominant use in the TB-D zone is office, we are seeing substantial
intensification in this zone (recent projects have been approved at .8 FAR). The high
demand for office uses and the strong office market in Boulder make this zone an
important one to focus on for projected job reduction.
D-4
Non-conforming Analysis
Below are charts summarizing the built FARs on the subject sites in the subject zones. Note: A
total FAR was figured for commercial centers that encompass several parcels and involve many
buildings. In these instances, the number of buildings involved is noted on the bottom of the
table. Each baz on the graph includes FARs up to an including the number noted. For example,
.20 includes all FARs over .15 up to and including .20.
CB-D FARs
9
8
I
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
~ ry v~i~ n, "r~. 'o v o~ o'V'c. o^ o~ e
0 0 o e o o e o
FAR
.25 includes 1 PUD w/ 7 bldgs (Diagonal Plva
.30 includes 2 PUDs - 4 bldgs (W illow Springs; 12 bldgs (Meadows)
RSD FARs
tz
10
p 8
? 8
z a
z
0
~° o ~ o~~`. m"~'. o? o'~ o'~~. o^ o~ c
0 0 0° O o 0 0 0 0
FAR
.25 includes I UD w/ 3 bldgs (Gunbartel Sq.)
~ CB-E FARs
B
F
p 6
~ ~
z 3
2
1
a
°
~__ o 0 0 o a o o°e ~~ o o a o e o e°o
F~ _ _
.20 includes 1 PUD w/ 3 bldgs (Basemar)
.25 includes 2 PUDs - 5 bldgs (Freuhaufs; 7 bldgs (Table Mesa)
.35 includes 1 PUD w/ 10 bldgs (Whole Foods)
RB-E FARs
e
~
c`~ s
~ 5
~ 4
r~ 3
z
i
0
~ ~ o ^ o N ~ ~? ao ~ o '~O o '~ o ~ : d ~ o
0 0 0° o 0 0 6 0 0
F~
TB-D FARs
~ _-..~~.-----.
a
~ 6
e~
z'
z
,
0
°g;oo~o~e;vovao;a~o~
FAR
.25 includes I PUD w/ 3 bldgs (Offices)
.35 includes 2 PUDs - 6 bldgs (King Soopers); 3 bldgs {Levers)
.40 includes 2 PUDs • 3 bldgs (Merstiels); 10 bldga (Village)
.55 inciudes I PUD w/ 3 bldgs (Golden But~
D-5
Regulations Affecting Non-Standard Buildings (excerpt from the Boulder Revised Code)
9-3.5-3 Changes to Non-Standard Buildings and Lots and Non-Conforming Uses.
Changes to non-standard buildings, non-standard lots, and non-conforming uses shall comply
with the following requirements:
(a) Non-Standazd Buildines:
(1) Criteria: The city manager will grant a request for a building modification for a non-
standard building if such building modification meets the following requirements:
(A) The proposed modification complies with all of the applicable requirements
of Chapters 9-3.1, "Uses of Land," 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," 9-3.3,
"Site Development Standards," and 9-3.4, "Specific Use Standazds and Criteria,"
B.R.C. 1981; and
(B) The building coverage of the non-standard building, as modified, is no greater
than the building coverage allowed in the underlying zoning district.
(2) Maintaining a Non-Standard Setback: If a foundation and the exterior walls above it
that encroaches into a required setback aze removed and replaced, such foundation and
wall shall be reconstructed in compliance with Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density
Standards," B.R.C. 1981. As part of any activity requiring a building permit, in order to
maintain a non-standard setback, at a minimum, the applicant shall:
(A) Retain the exterior wall and the existing foundation that it rests upon. The
exterior wall shall, at a minimum, retain studs, the inner sheathing of the exterior
wall and interior wall finish, that may include, without limitation, plaster, drywall,
or paneling; or
(B) Retain the exterior wall studs and the fully framed and sheathed roof above
for that portion of the building within the required setback.
(3) Use Review and Variance: A request to change, expand, or modify a non-standazd
building in a manner not in conformance with the provisions of Chapters 9-3.1, "Uses of
Land," 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," 9-3.3, "Site Development Standards," and
9-3.4, "Specific Use Standazds and Criteria," B.R.C. 1981, may be granted only if the
following standards are met:
(A) Changes, expansion, or modifications to non-standard building that contains a
non-conforming use shall require approval under Section 9-4-9, "Use Review,"
B.R.C. 1981; or
(B) Expansion or modificarion of a building that does not meet the standazds of
Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981, shall be required to
seek approval of necessary variances pursuant to Section 9-3.6-2, "Variances and
Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. '
D-6
(4) No Non-Standard Changes to Standard Buildings: If a non-standard building has been
modi&ed so as Yo be in conformance with the provisions of Title 9, "Land Use
Regulation," B.R.C. 1981, any future modifications to the building shall be in
conformance with the provisions of this tida.
(5) No Addition over Fiftv-Five Feet: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the expansion of the height of a building, any part of which exceeds the maximum height
imposed by Section 9-3.2-3, "Building Height," B.R.C. 1981. The provisions of Section
4-3.2-3, "Buitding Height," B.R.C. 1981, and Section 9-4-11, "Site Review," B.R.C.
1981, supersede the provisions of this section.
D-7
Boulder Commercial Zoning Study
Draft Report
December 2000
~_ __.:~
c~ uva n1 - c~v4. .
~ ~µr.{
J ~
~,~ ~.
~__..~ ~
~
~\ ' 'Ft.vRw'_~_6
\ k.
j. \r ~. .
~ ~~,~~~. ~
/ ~ ~~ ~~,
~ / )~
L
~
I
` ~ -~
~~..
;
x_a~x ~
L ~1
~~,~~•~
I „~. ' , ~
~ ~ ~ V ~~
. ~ . :. .- . ...
~,~, ~ eouia~
,a~'r~%'' i'
~
1 ~~
~~ :\~~
~~.,~~,
~~ rv~,,.w~--i
~~~
I
D-8
CIVIT~S
Boulde~ Comme~cial Zoning Study
Draft Report
December 2000
This project has been prepared by:
CIVITAS, Inc.
Client
Rulh M. McHeyser, Director
Long Ra~ge Pla~ning
City of Boulder
Park Central Building
1739 Broadway, Room 305
Boulder, CO 80306
SfudyConsultan(s:
CIVITAS, Inc
1200 Ban~ock Street
Denver, CO 80204
(303~ 571. 0053 Phone
(303~ 825 . 0438 Faz
CIVITIS
D-9
Boulder Commercial Zoning Stvdy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background
Goai ofthe Project ...................................................................................... .......................................1
Pmpose of this Report ............................................................................... ....................................... 1
ProjectDescripdon .................................................................................... ....................................... 1
Me[hodology ............................................................................................. ....................................... 1
Project Assumptions .................................................................................. ....................................... 2
Reproduction of Significant Code Requirements ...........................:........... ....................................... 2
$tlldy $IteS
Site 1-RB-D: Gunbarrel ........................................ ........................................................................... 4
Site 2- CB-E: Williazns Village ................................ ......................................................................... 10
Site 3- CB-E: Cox Comer ....................................... ......................................................................... 16
Site 4 -RB-E: Circuit City ....................................... ......................................................................... ?2
Site 5- RB-E: 28'" & Canyon .................................. ......................................................................... 28
Site 6-T'B-D: 28'" & Aurora .................................. .......................................................................... 34
Site 7- TB-D: Boulder Junction ............................ .......................................................................... 38
CIVIT~S DraQ December2000
D-10
Boulder Cnmmercial Zoning Study
Background
Goal of the Project
The City of Boulder wishes to modify their existing zoning ordinance in an effort to
manage job growth witlrin the City's standard commercial zone districts.
Purpose of this Report
This report has been prepared to present examples of maximum development potentials
for eight study sites selected by city staff and located in the City of Boulder commercial
zone districts. The preliminary objectives of this report are as follows.
• To present examples of passible maximum as-of-right development on each
the commercial study srtes addressed in fhis study.
~ To derive a Floor Area Rado (FAR) and square footage for each of the
development options.
Project Description
Civitas was commissioned by the City of Boulder in December 2000 to provide concep-
tual studies for maxanum as-of-right development options in the City of Boulder's com-
mercial zonin~ districts. The example development options have been based on plausible
ma~cimum development capacities for each site and described in square footage and
overall FAR.
The zone districts studied were RB-D, RB-E, CB-D, CB-E, and the TB-D. Actual sites
were selected by city staff to determine their maximum capacity to accommodate com-
mercial uses. This entailed the development of site plan studies, using the as-of-right
requirements of the zona district, open space, parking requirements, and pazking lot
landscaping requirements.
Methodology
To evaluate potential maximum job growth, the commercial districts were analyzed for
their as-of-right capacity to accommodate development. Findings in this report will be
used by City staff to generate a plausible maxunum employment yield for the selected
sites which will then be prorated to represent the potential employment yield for each of
the commercial districts,
CIVIT~S Dre4 December2000
D-11
BoulderCommercial Zoning Study
ProjectAssumpfions
^ The examples developed are not recommended development options for the
selected sites, nor do they provide the best possible maximum development.
^ The examples do not consider site sensitive contextual issues that would
constitute actual preferred design options.
^ The examples are considered to be plausible options for maximum development
capacity but are not market or proforma driven.
^ Parking structures were included in options where they were consideied to be
reasonable development opportunities within the overall maxunum development
for a site.
^ Development options are based on as-of-right conditions and do not include
typical variances received by similar development projects in the districts.
^ For the purpose of this study, 7 of the 8 sites were to be considered cleared sites
without existing building structures.
Reproduction OfApplicable Code Requirements
Applicable Overal[ Landscaping Requirements
^ All setbacks adjacent to a street are landscaped in accordance with the
Streetscape Design Standards.
^ Front and side setbacks shall contain landscaping.
Screening Parking Lots from the Street
^ A parking lot screen is provided for pazking azeas adjacent to rights-of-way.
^ Minunum width of parking lot landscaping screen is 5 feet.
^ Minimum width of landscaped area between sidewallc and the parking lot is 6
feet.
Screening at Parking Lot Edges
• All parking azeas are screened at properiy lines adjacent to residential use or
zoning district or public pazk.
• Minimum width of landscaping strip is 6 feet.
Applicable Interior Lot Landscaping Requirements
~ Lots with 16-160 spaces: at least 5% of the pazking area shall be landscaped.
• Lots with more than 160 spaces with 1 doubled loaded row of parking: at least
5% of the parking azea shall be landscaped.
^ Lots with more than 160 spaces and more than one row of double loaded parking:
at least 10% of the parking area shall be landscaped.
CIVIT~S Dra4
D-12
BoulderCommercral Zoning Study
• No more than 3 double loaded rows of parking are situated consecutively without
providing a planting area a minimum of 8 feet wide along the center between
rows for the full length of each pazking row.
^ Interior parking lot landscaped area is a nunimum of 150 square feet in size and
has no dimension less that 8 feet.
Overall Minimum Open Space Requirements for Businesses and Industrial
Uses
• For buildings over 25 feet in height and under 35 feet: 10% of the lot.
Definition of Usable Open Space for Businesses and Industrial Uses
^ Landscaped areas
• The following count for no more than 50% of the total required usable open
space: indoor usable open space, which may include malls, pedestrian ways, plaza,
and other open areas within a building if open space is oriented directly toward
the major pedestrian entrance of the building.
D-13 DraQ December20oo
Boulder Commercial
STUDY SITES
Site 1- RB-D: Gunbarrel
Lot Size: 379,565 Square Feet
Zoning Description: RB-D - The Commercial Center within the Boulder Valley,
containing retail and commercial operadons which are
serving or will serve outlyrng residential development.
Maximum Height: 35 Feet
Parking Ratio: 1 for 300 Cars
Front Setback: 20'
Side Setback-5treet: 20'
Side Setback-Lot: 20'
Rear Setback: N/A
General Description:
The site rs located in northern Boulder and is an aggregadon of 2 sites. The curved
easterly lot line produees a site with a front setback along Lookout Road and two
side setbacks with no rear setback.
Two options have been developed which explore maximum development with one
option considering surfaee parking only and another option utilizing both surface
and structured parking. The structured parkrng optian considers a 3 story parking
garage with tuck under parkrng and increased the potendal FAR 31 % above a
surface parking only option. Structured parking allowed the building footprints to
increase from 1 story to 2 and 3 stories thereby provided the increased FAR
CIVITIS DraQ December2000
D-14
Bou7der Commercral Zoning Sludy
Site 1- RB-D: Gunbarrel: Context and Setbacks
LC9OKOVT t~0~p
-_--.
~~ \
..~- -~.
~
~'.
:~
..
'I~~
~,~
~
~ 4~
~~,~
2c~
~
I
20~ ~
~
..` ~
.
. /"~ ~ \rr.
; ~ lc^ _ _ ~.
' ~\
~~~\~/~
~\ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~
.
,/••
iy~
~I
d ,
ul ~
~]
~
~
n
~
r
..--~ ..~~
~ • r--^--'---^%i
~
• ~ 1
~ ~~ ~ • i~ `\~ ~i,
; ~
~~ I
~ _-__,._ ~a~-~~ L
zv~ \' 1
~ '~~ ~
,` ,
I ~~ ~
' ~ \
~ ,
~ ; \~
~ ~ ~ ~so
~~ ,
~w. ~
~~
CIVITIS Dre$ Decem6er2000
D-15
~ 0 5U 100' ~ ~0'
BoulderCommercia(
Site 1- RB-D: Gunbarrel: Surface Parking Option
Lot size: 379,565 sf
Surface Parking (FAR: 0.238)
USE - R OF
STORIES
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING
Block A Retail 1 14,000 14,000 48 48
Block B Anchor retail 1 44,500 44,500 148 148
Block C Retail 1 16,250 16,250 54 57
Block D Retail 1 15,600 15,600 52 55
To'rnL 90,350 90,350 302 308
CIVITIS Drefl, December2000
D-16
BoulderCommercial Zoning Sh~dy
Site 1- RB-D: Gunbarrel: Surface Parking Option
4Ot~KG U'~"
~~ . ..
! .
: r1-r~"~1
[ZORD
civ~r~s D-17
BoulderCommercialZoning Shtdy
Site 1- RB-D: Gunbarrel: Structu~ed Parking Option
Lot size: 379,565sf
Mixed Surface and Structured
# OF
USE STORIES Parking (
FOOTPRINT FAR: 0.359)
REQUIRED PROVIDED
TOTAL PARKING PARKING
Block A Mixed-use 3 14,000 34,000 114
Block B Anchor retail 1 44,500 44,500 148 136
Pazking st. Pazking 3 126
Block C Mixed-use 2 15,000 30,000 100 57
Undr. Prk. 46
Block D Mixed-use 2 14,000 28,000 94 54
Undr. Prk. 42
TOTAL 87,500 136,500 456 461
CIVIT~S OreQ December2000
D-18
~ Boulder Commercia! Zoning
Site 1- R~-D: Gunbarrel: Surface and Structured Parking Option
L 0 O k. O c1 T R, a:, h D ~
~~ ~
~~. .
tiwT~s D-19
j (."
i ~
C
~lJ
`~. ~
:~
~
~ a w ~ar . .~~ 2oa
BoulderCommercialZoning Study ~
Site 2 - CB-E: Williams ~llage
Lot Size: 352,904 Square Feet
Zoning Description: CB-E - Communiry Business areas containrng retail centers
serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-rype stores
predominate.
Maximum Height: 35 Feet
Maximum Stories: 3
Parldng Ratio: 1 for 300 Cars
Front Setback: 25' from Baseline
Side Setback-Street: 20'
Side Setback-Lot.• 12'
Rear Setback: 20'
General Description:
The site is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 36 wrth good visabiliry from passerbys.
Two opdons have been developed which explore maximum development with one
option considering surface parking with a retail anchor and three smaller mixed use
buildrngs. The other option utilizes both surface and tuck-under parking with three
mixed use burldings closer to the street and three offrce buildings towards the rear
of the site. This option considers tuck-under parking and realizes and increased
potendal FAR of 51 % above a surface parking only option. The increased FAR is
due to the ability to develop three different 3 story offtce buildings deep in the site
with 2 story mixed use buildings along the street.
CIVITIS Draft, December2000
D-20
BoulderCommercial Zaning Study
Site 2- CB-E: Williams ~llage - Context and Setbacks
r" °•-`---+~ V .`,l }------.. -..~
g A3E irIME.
l2!
~::~_it.~~~_'~~
~.
,I
~
~~~
(.
~
,, i"
~
:
~
; !°
~).
r
1
~ a sv ,ar '~an
• ~/
CIVITIS DraQ December2000
D-21
Baulder
Site 2- CB-E: Williams ~l/age - Surtace Parking Option
Lot size: 352,904sf
Surface Parking (FAR: 0.309)
USE # OF
STORIES
FOOTPRINT .
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARHING PROVIDED
PARKING
Block A Mixed-use 2 7,500 13,500 45 45
Block B Mixed-use 2 7,500 13,500 45 45
Block C Mixed-use 3 14,400 36,000 120 120
Block D Anchor retail 1 46,000 46,000 153 155
ToTAL 75,400 109,000 363 365
GIVITIS D-22 Draft, December2000
- ~ BoulderCommercialZoningStvdy
Site 2- CB-E: Williams ~l/age - Surface Parking Option
'~'~•---~ ~_ .. .. ..~
-'~'--. bAS~.LINE .^
TI~ __ .... ..._ ~_t~ , _ . ~ ~ ~ ' _ ._
'-
~ ~ ,_.
~L~ ..
9 41
~, 9 '
' b S ~5
`•` ~~oe,ic/4 ~
~
~
/, ~
/,
~
~i _
F-
w
f
Y
h
z
. ~,
I O .
dl '
~ I
~
\
CIVIT~S Dreft, Decem6er2000
D-23
~+ ~~ ~i~~ - ~~ - -
BoulderCommercia!
Site 2- CB-E: Williams ~llage - Surface and Tuck-Under Parking Option
ivi-xea ~urtace ana iucK-una
-----
' er rarxu-~
- -
~ ~rax: u.4ua~
--- --
~ i
-----
~
-
___I
k O F
REQ UIRID ~
PRO VIDED I
, USE STORIFS FOOTPRINT 1'OTAL PARKING PARHING ~
~B1ockA Mixed-use 2 13,000 20,000 67 67 ~
;B1ockB
" Mixed-use 2 12,500 20,000 67 67
i-_-
iBlockC_ "_
Mixed-use _
2.
6,000
16,000 _
54 ,
54 ;
;BlockD Office 3 1,800 23,000 77 78 ~
IB]ockE
-- Office
- 3
- 2,000
- _- - 35,000
r 117
'
~ 118 ~
-- ---~
IB1ockF Office 3 1,800 29,000 97 97 !,
ToTaL 37100 143,000 479 481 I
CIVITIS DraQ December2000
D-24
BoulderCommercial
Site 2- CB-E: Williams Vllage - Surface and Tuck-UnderParking Option
~1
I
~
/
CIVIT~S DraQ ~ecember2000
D-25
~ a so ~ar zav
Boulder
Sife 3- CB-E: Cox Corner
Lot Size: 27,568 Square Feet
Zoning Description: CB-E - Communrty Business areas containing retail centers
serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-rype stores
predominate.
Maximum Height:
Maximum Stories:
Parln'ng Ratio:
Front Setback:
Side Setback-Street
Side Setback-Lot:
Rear Setback:
35 Feet
3
1 for 300 Cars
20'
IS'
12'
20'
General Description:
The site is located at Pearl and 26th srieets and is an aggregation of 4 individual
parcels. Exisdng buildings adjacent to the property have minimal front yard
setbacks.
7ivo options have been developed which explore maximum development with one
opdon considering surface parking with a 1 story retail building and the other
option utrZizing two liner mixed-use buildings with tuck-under parking. The latter
opdon realized a 91% increase in FAR over the former opdon. Due to the small size
of the site, parking is the primary limrtah'on to development. The abiliry to create
tuck-under parking allowed ground floor retail and upper level office rather than 1
story retail buildings surrounded by surface parking as illustrated in the first
option.
CIVIT~S DraQ December2000
D-26
BoulderCammercinl Zoning Study
Site 3- CB-E: Cox Corner - Context and Setbacks
J
/
cr\
\ a
; ti ,
~ ._
f
~
~ a so iar iaa
Drafl,December2000
D-27
BoulderCommercialZoning Study
Site 3- CB-E: Cox Corner- Surtace Parking Option
Lot size: 27,568sf
Surface Parking (FAR: 0.254)
# OF REQUIRED PROVIDED
USE STORIES FOOTPRINT TOTAL PARKING PARKING
Block A Retail 1 3,500 3,500 12 14
Block B Retail 1 3,500 3,500 12 14
TOTAL 7,000 7,000 24 28
CIVIT~S Dre$
D-28
BoulderCommevcial7.oning Smdy
Site 3- CB-E: Cox Corner- Surface Parking Option
~ a so ~ar zaa
1 ~~
. ~
~` ~~ •
i
+
T - .-~
~~~~~~~ .~
N~ •
CIV IT15 Draft, Decem6er 2000
D-29
BoulderCommercialGoning Study
Site 3- CB-E: Cox Corner
Lot size: 27,568sf
Surface and Structured Parking (FAR: 0.486)
#OF REQUIRED PROVIDED
USE STORIES FOOTPRINT TOTAL PARKING PARKING
Block A Mixed-use 2 1,700 5,400 18 18
Block B Mixed-use 2 2,500 8,000 27 28
TOTAL 4,200 13,400 45 46
CIVIT~S DreQ December2000
D-30
BoulderCommercial Zoning Smdy
Site 3- CB=E: Cox Corner- Surface and Tuck-Under Parking Option
~~
`~~ ,
Y
~
I
~ a sa iar zm
CIVITIS DraR, December2000
D-31
BoulderCommercralZoning Study
Site 4- RB-E: Circuit City
Lot Size: 281,7655 Sguare Feet
Zoning Description: RB-E - The Region,al Business Center of the Boulder Yalley,
cantainrng a wide range of retail and commercial operations,
including the largest regional-scale businesses, where the
goals of the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan are implemented.
Maximum Height: 35 Feet
Maximum Stories: 3
Mazimum FAR: 2:1
Parking Ratio: 1 for 400 Cars
Front Setback: 20'from Pearl Street
Side Setback-Street: 20' from the centerline of 28th Street
Side Setback-Lat: 12'
Rear Setback: 20'
General Description:
The site rs Zocated at Pearl and 28th Skreets and is an aggregadon of 3 individual
parcels.
Tivo options have been developed which explore maximum development with one
option considering surface parking only with a retail anchor and four smaller
mixed use buildings. The other option utrlizes both surface and a parkrng structure
with a retail anchor and three mixed use buildings. This latter opdon realizes an
increased potential FAR of 41 % above a surface parking only opdon. The
increased FAR is due to the ability to develop three different 3 story mixed-use
buildings rather than 1 story buildings illustrated in the surface parking opdon.
CIVR15 Drert, December2000
D-32
--- BoulderCommercialZoning Study
Site 4- RB-E: Circuit City - Context and Setbacks
, ^k ~~ -,
~ ,, i, , ..
,,, . : , ' ,,'` ~~''.
~
.~/~,~%r-,~y'"tlb. . - r~ .. ~.f'.. ~ . ~L`.
.r ^ / 1~
, ~.~~~ .. ~ ,1.~ ~.
/~ ~ ~~'^'~~ / f
. .~.. „ ~."~!"~.~ t-. . ~1 /- j . .
I
f
~
i
~
i
'.
-;~..,:;,, ~
r.:w+~~'
~ ,
v
~
"
s _ ~
t
-
am' "
~
D-33
BoulderCommercial
Site 4- RB-E: Circuit City- Surface Parking Option
Lot size: 281,765sf
Surface Parking (FAR:
# OF ~ ~ ~ REQUIRED ~ PROVIDED
Block A Anchor retail 1 36,000 36,000 90 92
Block B Mixed-use 1 6,600 6,600 17 17
Block C Mixed-use 2 8,800 14,000 35 35
Block D Mixed-use 2 12,000 22,000 55 55
Block E Retail 1 16,000 16,000 40 40
TOTAL 79,400 94,600 237 239
CtV1T15 Dreft,December2000
D-34
BoulderCommercia!
Site 4- RB-E: Circuit City- Suriace Parking Option
` ~
/!
~ ~,~ . /,
1 / S~~ ~'f`~~ ~ /~,~~'
„~/' ~,i'A~~ •' -',fil~~'i
~ a sa taa saa
CIVIT~S DreQ December2000
D-35
.~
BaulderCommercial
Site 4- RB-E: Circuit City- Surface and Structured Parking Option
Lot size: 281,765sf
Surface and Structured Parking (FAR: 0.471)
USE # OF
STORIES
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING
Block A Anchor retail 1 36,000 36,000 90 92
Block B Mixed-use 3 6,600 24,000 60 20
Block C Mixed-use 3 8,800 27,000 68 39
Block D Mixed-use 3 12,000 36,000 90 60
Pazking st. Retail at grd. 3 9,900 9,900 25 137
TOTAL 73,300 132,900 333 348
CIVIT~S DraQ Decembar2000
D-36
BovlderCommercia!
Site 4- RB-E: Circuit City- Surface and Structured Parking Option
~
r
~/~, .~~
1 p~~, s'f~~'. ~~io'
' ~-~,-~
~~/~'
~, _ ~ +
'.
CIVIT~S Draft, December2000
D-37
~
BoulderCommercial Zoning Study
Site 5- RB-E: 28"' & Canyon
Lot Size: 77,197 Square Feet
Zoning Description: RB-E - The Regional Busrness Center of the Boulder Yalley,
containing a wide range of retail and commercial
operations, including the largest regional-scale businesses,
where the goals of the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan are
implemented.
Maximum Height: 35 Feet ,
Maximum Storres: 3
Maximum FAR: 2:1
Parkrng Ratio: 1 for 400 Cars
Front Setback: 20'
Side Setback-Sdeet: 20'
Side Setback-Lot: 20'
Rear Setback: 45'
General Description:
The site is located at Canyon Boulevard and 28th Street and is an aggregadon of 3
individual parcels.
7Lvo options have been developed whiCh explore maximum development with one
option considering surface parkrng with three 1 and 2 story buildings and the other
opdon udlizing 3 three story mixed-use buildings with a 3 story parking structure.
The latter option realized a 117% increase in FAR over the former opdon. Due to
the small size of the site, parkrng is the primary limitadon to development. The
abiliry to create structured parking allowed the buildings to realize the height
limitadon of 35 feer rather than 1 and 2 story buildings surrounded by surface
parking as illustrated in the frrst option.
CIVITIS DreR,December2000
D-38
BoulderCommercialZoning Study
Site 5- RB-E: 28"' & Canyon - Context and Setbacks
C.~41.k4'Q W C+~L.Vb..
~
~ ~ ~
~ ,
~ i i
b-. ~ ~ ; ; , , rr^1
~ \
1 '.. • ~ ~~-, ..
,~
, `~ ~ .~f ~ . ~.
`, .:-. y~ ~ ~(
r:.~ ~ N(
~ ~ ~ 4 ~
F'~'~ ;: tL' I "~,
~ ~
~ a ~ ,~ ~
CIVITIS DraQ December20oo
D-39
Boulder Commercia!
Site 5- RB-E: 28"' & Canyon - Surface Parking Option
Lot size: 77,197sf
Surface Parking (FAR: 0.303)
USE # OF
STORIES
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING
Block A Retail 1 5,000 5,000 13 13
Block B Mixed-use 2 7,400 13,000 33 34
Block C Retail 1 5,400 5,400 14 15
TOTAL 17,800 23,400 60 62
CIVIT~S Dreft, December2000
D-40
_-------- p tion
Site 5- RB'E~ Z~ & Canyo~ - Surface Parking P
~ ~.r.,..1 ~
Q ~
D_41
CIYILS - _-
BoulderCommercial
Site 5- RB-E: 28~' & Canyon - Strucfured Parking Option
ILot size: 77,197sf ! i i
- I
-
---
-- -
~~Structured Parking (FAR: 0.658) _ ;
- ---__._____._ ---
~ ------- ----
_ ; ;
,
- #OF
--
- REQUIRID
- PROViDED~
---
USE
STORIFS
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL -
PARKING ---~
PARKING I
iBlockA Mixed-use 3 5,400 18,800 47 j
----
~BlockB
Mixed-use -
3 -
5,200
~ -
15,000
~ -
38 ----,
~BlockC Mixed-use~ 3
-
-- 5,700
----- 17,000 ~43
Parking st.~ 3
- - -- -- 138 I
{TOTAL 16 300 50,800 128 138
CIVITIS DreR, December2000
D-42
Site 5- RB=E: 28"' & Canyon - Structured Parking Option
~
_~
,s ____,.~
~
`J./ a :o ~ao ~
preft,Dacember2000
c~vR~s
D-43
BovJderCommerciaJ
Site 6- TB-D: 28'" & Aurora
Lot Size: 114,806 Square Feet
Zoning Description: TB-D - Transitional Business areas which have been or are to
be primarily used for commercial and complementary
residential uses, including, without limitah'on, temporary
lodging and office uses.
Maximum Height: 35 Feet
Mazimum Stories: 3
Parking Ratio: 1 for 300 Cars
Front Setback: 20'
Side Setback-Street: 20'
Side Setback-Lot: 20'
Rear Setback: 45'
General Description:
The site is located at 28th Street Frontage and 28th SYreet and is the only study area
with an exisdng building. The site slopes down from 28th Street Frontage and from
28th Street allowrng opportunides for street access to the second floor of buildings
with tuck-under parkrng.
One opdon has been developed to explore maximum development. The exisdng FAR
of the site is .199. The addition of two other buildings with both surface and tuck-
under parkrng increased the FAR to .366 for an increase of 84%. Since the .
additronal buildrngs are 1 and 2 stories tall, it is conceivable that a more aggressive
structured parking solution could increase the FAR more. However, due to other
uses in the area this did not seem to be a realisdc opdon.
CIVITIS Dreft, December2000
D-44
BoulderCommercialZoning Shrdy
Site 6- TB-D: 28"' & Aurora - Context and Setbacks
I
I
~. ~U-~o R
_
,,~
~ti~
~- ,.
. ~'.r`
~ o ~ ,~ ~
D-45
DraQ Decemher2000
BoulderCommercial Zoning Smdy
Site 6- TB-D: 28~" & Aurora - Surtace and Tuck-Under Parking Option
Lot size: 114,806
Surface and Tuck-Under Parking (FAR: 0.366)
USE # OF
STORIES
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVmED
PARKING
_
Existing 2 11,400 22,800 76 76
Block A Office 1 6,000 6,000 20 20
Block B Off'ice 2 2,000 13,200 44 45
TOTAL 19,400 42,000 140 141
CIVIT~S DraR, December2000
D-46
Bo~elderCommercial Zoning Study
Site 6- TB-D: 28"' & Aurora - Surtace and Tuck-Under Parking Option
~ o sa ,ar an
CIVIT~S Dreft, December2000
D-47
BoulderCommercial Zoning Study
Site 7- TB-D: BoulderJunction
Lot Srze: 40,874 Square Feet
Zoning Description: TB-D - Transidonal Business areps which have been or are to
be primarily used for commercial and complementary
resrdential uses, including, without limitation, temporary
lodging and offtce uses .
Maximum Height: 35 Feet
Parkrng Ratio:
Parking ratio:
Maxrmum Stories:
Front Setback:
Side Steback-Street
Side Setback-Lot:
Rear Seatback:
1 for 300 Cars
1 for 300 cars
3
20'
20'
20'
45
General Description:
The site is located along Bluff srreet at the intersecdon of 30th and surrounded by
low density buildings with adjacent vacant lot.
7ivo optrons have been developed which explore maximum development with one
option considering surface parking with a 2 story retail burldrng and the other
option utilizing a three storyo~ce building wrth tuck-under parking. The latter
opdon realized a 72 % increase in FAR over the former option. Due to the small size
of the site, parking is the primary limitadon to development. The ability to create
tuck-under parking limits the use of an o~ce buildrng and does not cotttribute to
the quality of the street character, however it does allow the achievement of higher
FAR.
CIVIT~S Draft, December2000
D-48
BoulderCommercral
Site 7- TB-D: Boulder Junction - Context and Setbacks
- f ~
~.
.____...~ • ~
~ a sv iar sao'
CIYIT~S Draft,Dacemher2000
D-49
Boulder Commercial
Site 7- TB-D: Bou/derJunction - Surtace Parking Option
Lot size: 40,874
Surface Parking (FAR: 0.269)
USE # OF
STORIES ~
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING
Block A Off'ice 2 5,500 11,000 37 37
TOTAL 5,500 11,000 37 37
CIVIT~S Drafl, December2000
D-50
BoulderCommercial
Site 7- TB-D: BoulderJunction - Surface Parking Option
~..
'to~
~
F1,L. U P'~ STIP~~..~..T
~ a sa iaa zar
CIVITIS DreQ December2000
D-51
~"'~' _ ~
I
Boulder Commercia!
Site 7- TB-D: Bou/derJuncfion - Surface and Tuck-UnderParking Option
Lot size:
ISurface and Tuck-UnderParking (FAR: 0.464) i ~ I
~^.~ _, _-_..~..~ -" # O F ~_v ~~ REQ UIRFA PRO VIDID ~
~ USE STORIFS FOOTPRINT TOTAL PARKING PARKING I
IB1ockA OfFice 3 1,200 19,000 63 65
!TOTAL 1,200 19 000 63 65 ;
CIVIT~S - Draft, December2000
D-SZ
BoulderCommercral
Site 7- TB-D: BoulderJunction - Surtace and Tuck-UnderParking Option
~ .BL.v*~ .STR,~~-t
n
m
r
~ -
n .
~
~ a w ~m 2ar
CIVITIS DraQ December 2000
D-53
BoulderCommercial Zoning Study
Site 8 - CB-D: Glenwood
Lot Size: 108,403 Square Feet
Zoning Description: CBD - Communiry Business areas which have been or are to
be primarily used as retail centers serving a number of
neighborhoods, where retall stores, offices, and convenience
services predominate.
Maximum Height:
Parking Ratio:
Mazimum Stories:
Front Setback:
Side Setback-Street:
Side Setback-Lot:
Rear Setback:
35 Feet
1 for 300 Cars
3
90'from 28th Street
20' from Glenwood Drive
20'
45'
General Description:
The site rs Zocated ar 28th SYreet and Glenwood Drrve and is the only CBD site
studied.
One opdon has been developed to explore maximum development. The opdon
tocates a 3 story offrce buitding along 28th Street with surface parking atong
Glenwood Drive. This simple option provides the reasonable FAR value of .442. It
is conceivable that a more aggressive structured parking saludon could increase the
FAR more. However, due to other uses in the area this did not seem to be a realistic
option.
CIVIT~S Dre$ December2000
D-54
BoulderCo~nmercial
Site 8- CB-D: Glenwood - Confext and Setbacks
!
--~
~ .
.`~..__
i
~
~J
~
1"
h
s
M
0_01
V
~ i
~-,. . ..~
°`~
~~
~
~~
i I
l,~L~hlh(OOD ~D~tVE-.
~, i
... ....~..~~~. ~ ~
~- '~--i ~~"-i ""~-~-~ '.i
~ ~ ~ 20~ ~ ,
~f`' gy~~~` ~ ~' ~
1y...- - ~ - ,~. 1
, ,
~ rIJ 1 .~~
I 5~0~~ ~ ~ . ~ .
f
t '
i ~ 53~-~i-`'~
--~--.~.~,.~ ' -'~-+-'~_
~ / ~ -,~-~1~.__ ~. ~
~ a so ~m zaa
~
CIV IT~S Drefl, December2000
D-55
Bou7derCammercral Zaning Stvdy
Sife 8- CB-D: G/enwood - Surface Parking Option
Lot size: 108,404sf
Surface Parking (FAR: 0.442)
USE # OF
STORIES
FOOTPRINT
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING
Block A Office 3 16,000 48,000 160 161
TOTAL 16,000 48,000 160 161
CIVIT~S Drefi, December2000
D-56
BaulderCommercial
Site 8- CB-D: G/enwood - Surface Parking Option
~ ~~• ..~.--.. ~.. ._
Z , l~LENWOpI~ Dt~IVE
~ , ,, .. -
~ g~o~~ ~ ~
,V 16 1 ~
; i ie
~ ~
~ a ' ` ,t
~ ~
- ~ 18 IS 13 I) 13 i~ ~) ~ 4s~
~ f
~ '
~.. ~ , ,o ~
,
,
_ ~ ~s ~~ ~
~_
. .~
20'
---_... ~
I I
~
~ ~ ~ ,o~ ~
CIVIT~S D 57 Dreft,December2000
SA FriOay. Nov. S0. 20D0 Datly Naws
~
P.A. to fi t office invasion
C7
ci,
~
BY MIQT IALALIN:I(
n...xEwsst,riwmm
To prevent popular neighborhood
s[ores from being ~eplaced by do[coms
and investment firtns,
Palo Alto officials are
preparing laws that
would ban grou~d floor
offices in busy retail
suips.
The interim laws
would target Midtown,
Califomia Avenue,
g~T Chadesron Road and
other commemial areas,
City Manager Fank Benest told lhe Daily
News yesterday.
"We ue a generai erosion of neighborv
hood serving retail," Benest said. "As we
lose some of these, it starts to threaten the
quality of life in our neighborf~oods."
The new laws would last until the city
compktes the two-year update of its zon-
ing laws, Benest said.
Prevenung ground Floor retail is the
first pan of the city's proposal.
Amther idea is to make sure that a
retail sroro moves in when an office
vacates gmund floor space in [he tazgeted
commercial areas.
LItGe proteeUon
Benut will prcsent the proposed laws
co City Council at its Nov. 20 meeting.
The only part of Palo AI[o where
ground floor offices are banned is the
downtown sve[ch of University Avenue
and some of its side streecs.
But officials began focusing on Mid-
town last month atter a series of popular
stores had been foreed ou[ by skyrocket-
ing rents and replaced by offices.
Crlsis underway
"I don't think we even need to discuss
whether this is an emergency;' said resi-
dent Karon White, who trequrndy shops
in Midtown.
Last month, residems rallied around
Midtowds Harmony Bakery, when its
owners announced ~heir landlord was
doubling their rent and the 10-yearold
smre would have [o move or go out of
business.
The bakery has closed, but its o~4ncrs
have s[ruck a deal lo move down [he
sveet into the Palo Alto Co-op Supermar-
kct, and it should reopen in the coming
wceks.
SPeadY solution
White said she was pleased to see the
city moving so fast on the laws.
She said its vital that the new laws but
put in place be(ore [he wning code is
upclated two years from now.
'6y then, Midtown could become an
omce svip;' she said.
ARer ihe proposed laws are presented
ro council, the city will hold a series of
public (o`ums [hroughou[ Palo AI[o so
residents can commen[ on the ideas.
~
~
y
Y
n
x
~
~
z
H
G
'_ . :Lf+'a;Y . . , . .
Urgent Call
~For Housing
a I n Bay Area
Cities urged to build up
vvithin boundaries
Bylason B.johnson
CNRONICLE STAFF W RITER
A coalition of housing and envi-
ronmental groups vowed yesterday
to pressure Bay Area cities to build
more than 100,000 new affordable
housing units over the next six years.,
The coalition said cities risk un-
dermining the region's economy
and its environment if they fail to
act. Their figures come hom a new
state-mandated assessment of the re-
gion's housing needs conduc[ed by
the Association of Bay Area Govem-
ments.
The association calls fot building
more than 230,000 new homes in
the nine Bay Area counties, with
about half going to families with
incomes ranging from $31,650 to
$75,960.
Local govemments must include
the housing projections in their gen-
eral plans by 2002, but are not re-
quired to build all the units. If a city
fails to adopt the projections it can
be sued or miss out on some state
funds.
Many.cities have balked at meet-
ing such goals, something the Bay
Area Transportation and Iand Use
Coalition aims to change with its
- AFFORDABLE: Page A26 Col. l
D-59
Housing Crisis
Expected to
Hurt Economy
- AFFORDABLE
From Page A25
Fair Share ]OOK campaign.
Members of the coalition -
which includes the Greenbelt Alli-
ance, Urban Ecology and the Non-
Profit Housing Association - said
their members will put pressure on
cities by calling council members
and attending town hall meetings
and public workshops.
"Housing is an environmenta] is
sue, and the lack of affordable hous-
ing is harming our environment;'
said Tom Steinbach, executive di-
rector of the Greenbelt Alliance, at a
news conference near the Walnu[
Creek BART station.
Coalition members stressed the
need for building cheaper housing
in existing communities and near
transit hubs like BART.
"This process is often viewed as a
bitter pill by local jurisdictions;' said
Rachel Peterson of Urban Ecology.
"This is important. We're facing a
housing crisis in our cities."
Under the plan, Alameda County
would need to build over 6,200 new
units a year, while Contra Costa
would have to build over 4,6Q0
units.
"There are a lot of jurisdictions
that just don't want to build any-
thing, and that's no[ possible;' said
Contra Costa Supervisor Mark De-.
Saulnier, a member of the Associa-
tion of Bay Area Governments
board.
Communities in Santa Clara
County are being asked to provide
nearly 58,000 units of housing dur-
ing the next six years, with San Jose
- the area's largest city - asked to
come up with nearly half that num-
ber alone.
City officials said those figures are
relatively in sync with what San Jose
is already doing. A mix of about
4,000 regular and affordable resi-
dences are being built there annual-
ly. Within that mix, San Jose expects
to have about 6,000 units of new
Bay Area housing needs
Projected number of housing units needed in each Bay Area County over
the Re~rt srx years and the rtumber of unrts rteeded for low and very 7ow
income families.
Total Very low
County proJected need ineome• Low income••
Alameda 46,793 9,910 5,138
Contra Costa 34,710 6,683 3,782
Marin 6,515 1,241 618
Napa 7,063 1,434 1,019
San froncisco city/county 20,372 5,244 2,126
San Mateo 16,305 3,214 1,567
Santa Clara 57,991 11,424 5,173
Solano 18,681 3,697 2,638
Sonoma 22,313 4,411 3,029
•$31,650 for a family of tour ••$50,640 for a family of four
Source: Assxiation oi Bay Area Govemments
ChranicleCraphic
affordable housing built by 2004,
said David Vossbrink, a spokesman
for Mayor Ron Gonzales.
San Jose, long a bedroom com-
munity for Silicon Valley, can do
this for several reasons, Vossbrink
said. It has been slower to develop
than other South Bay and Peninsula
cities and still has open land on
which to build. The city is also ag-
gressively redeveloping its down-
town and is also using 20 percent of
its redevelopment funds - $240 mil-
lion - for affordable housing.
But in cities such as Palo Alto,
building 1,397 units over the next
six years - let alone affordable units,
is dif6cult - not necessarily because
of citizen opposition to increased
density, but because the city is built
ou[, said Councilman Bem Bee-
cham.
San Mateo actually supported
ABAG's bid to increase the number
of units it should bui[d each year,
recognizing that an increase in local
job growth would worsen conges
tion without a cortesponding in-
crease in available homes, said Bar-
bara Kautz, community
development director for the city.
San Francisco increased its hous-
ing supply ]ast year by 1,285 units -
the largest gain since 199] - but
only 240 of those were affordable
housing units, according to a study
released this week by the San Fran-
cisco Planning Department.
In the North Bay, city and county
planners said efforts would 6e made
to reach the regional housing pro-
jections, even though several plan-
ners said they considered the num-
becs too high. '
Chris Gustin, the planning direc-
tor for American Canyon in south-
em Napa County, said the city
strives for "smart growth." But he
said it is difficult to create housing
for all income Ievels with the rea]-
life constraints of available land,
transportation and water supplies.
"I think the numbers are too
high, bnt it is possible that we can
reach them;' Gustin said.
Greg Carr, a comprehensive
planning manager for Sonoma
County, said those numbers don't
look for baiance throughout the Bay
Area.
"We've got all kinds of letters to
ABAG saying why the unincorporat-
ed share for Sonoma County is too
high;' said Can. "We think that is
inconsistent with the goals of our
general plan, which promotes city-
centered growth."
Barbara Collins, an affordable-
housing strategist for Marin Coun-
ry, said shortages of available land
and high prices are key s[icking
points. The going rate for one acre
of land is about $I million in the
county.
Chronicle ataf(~~~era Caro/yne 2inko,
Pamela -. Podger and ~onathnn Curiel
contri6uted to this report.
D-60
m~uu~ numu~~
1 ,f ~ ~
~Il~ n ~I atl ~. r
~~ o o t
~ a e
r~S~~
V " ~~
Nlission District Fights ~
Case of Dot-Com Fever ~~~
San Francisco Encla
Hy EVELYN NfEVES
SAN FRANC]SCO, Nov. 4- B~
day, the Mission District still look
like the workhorse immigrant neigh
borhood it has beep for a hundred
years. ~
Old women wearing kerchiefs,
pulling shopping carts to mam-and•
pop grocery stores, still own the
streets. Young mothers wheeling
strollers chat in Spanish on street
corners. Taquerias selling $3 burri-
tos are packed.
But 6y nigh[, it becomes clear why
the 6Tission is at the center of one of
the mast [ense battles over the fu-
ture of San Francisco in decades.
This is when the newcomers - most-
ly young, white and affiuent - come
home [rom the jobs that afford ihem
i700,0001oft condominiums in former
warehouses, and when the limou-
sines pull up to the bistros that have
taken over the butcher shops and
bakeries on Valencia Street. This is
when the warnings - "Artists Evict-
ed!" stenciled in red paint on the
sidewalks, posters that say "Gen-
trify Me" undet lhe head of Medusa,
graffiti Ihat says "Dot Com" with a
line across it on buildings in progress
- begin to make sense.
]t was only a matter of time 6efore
San Francisco rebe(]ed against its
latest incarnation as a eombinatio~
6edroom, home office and den for
Silicon Vailey. The city's artsy, bohe•
mian soul could onfy a6sorb the big,
gest, fastest money-making machine
ever tor so long without a crisis. And
as artists, nonprotit organizations
and working•class tenants are being
evicted in record numbers to make
way {or richer, glossiec arrivals, the
hue and cry against the dot-com
world has reached fever pitch.
~ This is not to say that San Francis•
--m; where tvro compefinginitiatives
a on Ihe Nov. 7 ballot are 6eing pro-
moted as the solution ro unbridled
gmwth, is the only city inthe Sificon
Valley web saying "enough' is
enough," Palo Alto, the heart of Sili•
con Valley, has enacted an emergen•
cy ordinance banning companies
`
ve Resists Changes
/ fror~tting up i~ scree~t-le~vel e~tail
spaces. Redwood City, t e he~ adquar-
t r3"of Oracle, Excite@Home and
Napster, imposed a moratorium on
~~most new n(fic_ e d~evelupment to as-
sess the consequences of such
growth. Other strongholds af the new
economy, including Menlo Park, San
Carlos and San Mateo, have either
enacted nr plan tc enact similar mor-
atoriums on high•rech development.
San Jose expects a long legal battle
and Seattle-style protests aEter ap-
proving a $13 bilGon, 20,OOaworker
complex for Cisci, Systems.
But it is here in San Francisco, a
ciry that boasts U~at it is one ot [he
top culturai destinations in the coun-
try, that the dot~com backlash is seen
and felt the mast.
In part, this is because the city's
quirky landscap~: has changed so
much so quickly. AIo vacant lot is
safe. Neither is any small crompany
wilh an expi~ing lease. The dot-com
economy, which hit its stride here in
1996, has dictated real estate costs,
which have reached unaffardable
levels downtown for all but the dch-
est companies. The price of prime
downtown commercial real estate
has more than tripled in five years,
to ;85 per square fo~t today from
$25.25 per square taot in 1995.
These wsts have reverberated
throughout Ne city. Small compa-
nies eager to be in San Francisco
have set up shop in a fnrmer ware-
house district known as South ot
Market, or SoMa, antl, more and
more, in the Missior. pt least a dozen
arts groups have been forced to close
because of rents Nat have jumped to
5~0,000 a month from SZ,500, or be-
cause they were evicted when buiid-
ings were sold for ~ew oifices.
Just the fact that the Mission, with
its_ homely -tenen~ent- buiidings,
squashed•together houses and teem-
ing streets, has come to symbolize
the housing crisis underscores how
de3perate the real estate situation
has become in this city. The neigh-
borhood, which is 62 percent Latino,
is poorer than most in San Francis•
co: 83 percent of the residencs are
(~l~e 1etu~o~k~ime~
Growth initiatives
pit technology
against tradition,
tenants, compared with 65 ta 70 per•
cent in San Francisrn as a whole, and
the per capita income is $20,112, ver•
sus $32,941 citywide. In recent years,
rents here havegone from about $500
for a 250-square-toot smdio apart-
ment to $1,200 for that same studio,
in a plain building with no amenities.
But because the Mission is the
neighborhood of choue tor Ehe ciry's
large array of activist groups, it is
noi taking its new•found popularity
among the wealthY lying down.
Several groups have been tormed
W tight gentrificatice~, Ncluding the
Artists Eviction Defense Coalition
and the Mission Anti•Displacement
Coalitian, an umbrella group of at
least a dozen neighborhaod organiza-
tions. 71~e antigentrification groups
have organized sit-ins at dot-com
buildings and protest rallies, and
they plan more in the coming weeks.
"i think it's O.K to say that in
residential neighborhoods, especially
in low-income neighborhoods, we
can't ga with the whole idea of supply
and demand;' said Luis Granados,
executive director of the Mission
Economic Development Association,
which assists residents and small
businesses. "If we were to do that,
the entire neighborhood will become
a giant dottom office park, and it's
comfng to that. lt's realty coming ro
that"
Even now, when Internet compa-
nies are shaky, with seemingly more
ot them shutting down than starting
up, the hideous traf[ic jams, housing
prices that are the highest in the
country and rewrd numbers of evio-
tions have led to such resentment
that Mayor Willie Brown, in his re-
cent state-0f-the-city speech, srernly
lectured re5idents against blaming
dot-coms tor the city's pro~lems.
"There is absolute]y no justifica-
tion for scapegoating arryone," he
said. "Dot-commers! lf I hear that
one mare time, Pm geing to
scream!"
The mayor also used his state-of-
the•ciry speech m campaign for an
initiative known as Measure K,
which is backed by his ma,n cam-
paign contri6utors, [he dowmown de-
velopment inrerests.
Measure K would impose a[wo-
year moratorium on new projects
larger than 25,000 square feet in the
Mission and an adjacent neighbor-
hood, Potrero Hill, and allew a one•
time lifting for ihe next 15 manths of
the city's annual limit on of[ice space
of 950,000 square [eet to gase the
spaee shortage. It would also exempt
many areas irom the grow~h limit
and create [he post of development
czar, appointed by the mayor, ro
oversee projects.
The competing initiative, 5teasure
L, which is sponsored by ar::sts and
neighborhood activists, ban<_ new de-
Y Z1
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2000 ~
velopment in paRS ot the Mission
and South of Mazket districts, ap~
plies an indefinite moratorium on
new development in two neighborv
hoods and other parts of SoMa, and
bans so-calted live-work loft com
struction, witfi far [ewer exemptions
irom the annual growth limit.
Live-work lofts have become con-
tentious. They were designed to cre-
ate affordable housing for artists.
But larger developers have used
loopholes in the live•work loft laws to
put up buildings exempt from cer• .
tain development taees that dot•com
companies have used tor otfice space
only, or aftluent renters or buyers '
hace usetl anly tor housing.
For some longtime residents of the
Missian, however, neither measure
much matters; [he neighborhood is
already nearly gone. Pedrp Linares,
a drummer who moved here trom
Lima, Peru, 16 years ago, said most D-61
of his neighbors had moved. "No one
can afford it here anymore;' he said.
"The ald neighborhoad we kne~s
dcesn'i belong to us anymore."
San Franasco's bohemian Mission District is reElected in windows of a restaurant, part of an influx oE upscale development that angers some people.
Attachment E
Division of Audit and Evaluation
City of Boulder
December 1999
E-1
_ 1999 Boulder Valley Employee Survey Page i
Table of Contents
Page
...
xecuhve Summary ..........................................................i~i
1999 Boulder Valley Survey Report ..............................................1
Background .............................................................1
Modal Shift among Boulder Valley Employees, 199]-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ModalSplitin 1999 .............................. ........................?
Modal Shift of the Work Commute, 19.91-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Modal Shift of Work Commute Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Characteristics of the Work Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Trip Length and Duration ......................... .......................9
StartTime ..................................... ......................12
Trip Linking .................................... ......................13
Vehicle Occupancy .............................. ......................14
Working at Home and Telecommuting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Trips Mada During the Work Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Transit Use ....................................... ......................20
Eco-Pass Participation ........................... ......................21
Distance from Home to Nearest Bus Stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Use ofHOP and SKIP ............................ ......................29
Employees' Child Care Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Factors Influencing Modal Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix I: Breakdown of Selected Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix II: Modal Split by Demographic Variables' . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix III: Comparison of Results to the Travel Diary Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix N: National Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix V:Survey Methodology ..............................................47
Appendix VI: Copy oF Survey Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
References .................................................................63
E-2
1999 Boulder Valley Employee Survey page iii
Executive Summary
Background
D The Boulder Valley Employee Survey (BVES) is a biennial survey of employees who work
within the Boulder Valley. The BVES was designed to tap an important dimension of travel
behavior within Boulder, that of empioyees who work in Boulder, but may not necessarily live
here. The first survey of Boulder Valley employees' transportation habits was conducted in the
summer of 1991. Follow-up surveys were implemented in the summers of 1993, 1995, 1997
and 1999 so that comparisons could be made to determine changes in work commute
characteristics.
~ Employees are chosen for inclusion in the survey in two stages: first, companies are randomly
selected from within Boulder Valley, and then employees are randomly selected from within
the companies that agree to participate.
~ Of the 528 companies selected for participation in 1999, 270 actually participated, providing
a company response rate of 52%. (If the 93 selected companies that were actually out of
business are taken out of the calculation, the company response rate would be 62%.)
~ Of the individual employees selected to participate, 63% completed the survey, providing
1,094 completed surveys.
D The data, once collected, were statistically weighted by company size and location to better
represent the Boulder Valley work force.
D With a sample size of over 1000, the margin of error around the results is approximately 2%
per year. Thus, for a difference to be statistically significant between years, there must be a
shift of at least 4% (2% around each study year).
Modal Shift among Boulder Valley Employees,1991 to 1999
Modal Split 1999
~ The fundamental purpose of the Boulder Valley Employee Survey is to determine the modal
split of work commute trips for those who are employed within Boulder Valley. Over two-
thirds of employees surveyed in 1999 (74%) commuted to work by driving alone in a single
occupant vehicle (SOV). The next most common mode of transportation used to get to work
was multiple occupant vehicles (MOVs, e.g., carpools or vanpools) (9%) followed bybicycling
(6%), transit (4%), and walking (3%).
D The usual definition of modal split is the percent of trips made by certain modes. Modal split
can also be defined using the number of mi[es traveled. The modal split of miles traveled for
the work commute in 1999 was 84% SOV, 9% MOV, 5% transit, 2% bike and 03% walking.
Not surprisingly, vehicular travel accounts for a greater proportion of the miles traveled for the
work commute.
E-3
Page iv 7999 Boulder Valley Employee Survey
a Since 1991, the year of the fust administration of the Boulder Valley Employee Survey, the
percent of trips to work made via SOV has remained almost constant, ranging from a low of
68% in 1997 to a high of 74% in 1999.
> The proportions of employees choosing other modes for the work commute have not changed
significantly since 1991, although transit mode shaze increased from about 2% in 1991 to
almost 5% in 1993, where it has stayed to the present.
a The mode of transportation used for the work commute of Boulder Valley employees varies
by city of residence. In alI study years, those who live in cities other than Boulder are more
likely to use an SOV (80-85%) for their commute trip, than are Boulder residents (58-65%
SOV).
~ While multiple occupancyvehicletrips (MOVs) increased in 1995 and 1997 (particularlywhen
measured in miles, rather than number of trips), 1999 results show a statistically significant
decrease in this mode, mostly in favor of SOV trips.
~ Over the studyperiod there has been an increase in the proportion of commuting miles traveled
via transit by Boulder Valley employees, up 4% from 1991 levels; from 1.3% of all miles
traveled in 1991 to 5.5% in 1997.
Characteristics of the Work Commute
Trip Length and Duration
m The average work commute for Boulder Valley employees in 1999 is 11.6 miles. The average
commute duration is about 23 minutes. These have increased by only about one mile and/or
two minutes since 1991.
a Non-vehicular commutes are, on average, of much shorter distance than automobile or transit
trips, and walking commutes much shorter than bike commutes. Average vehicular
commutes, both automobile and bus, were over 11 miles in 1999 (ranging from 11.6 miles for
MOV trips to 14.3 miles for transit trips), which has been the case since 1993. The average
bike commute was less than 3 miles, and the walking commute was about a mile on average.
a Carpooi or vanpool trips (MOV) tended to be longer than drive alone trips (SOV), about 2 to
3 miles longer on average, from 1993 through 1997 but in 1999 they fell slightly below
average SOV trip distances. However, transit trip length has graduatly increased from about
8 miles in 1991 to 14 miles in 1999.
E-4
P999 Boulder Valley Employee Survey Page v
StaH Time
m Over half of Boulder Valley employee commutes started between 7:00 and 9:00 am. There
appears to be a gradual shifr over time from the early part of this peak (7-8 am) to a slightly
later start (8-9 am),
Trip Linking
D"Trip linking" refers to those trips made by commuters on the way to or from work. The need
to make stops is often given as a reason for driving alone. However, there is a positive side
to trip linking; errands run on the way to or from work may mean fewer trips made at other
times.
~ About half of survey participants in all years of the Boulder Valley Employee Study have
reported making one or more stops on the way home from work the day prior to completing
the survey.
> The average number of stops made by employees on the way home from work is one.
Vehicle Occupancy
D Average vehicle occupancy for all automobile commutes of Boulder Valley employees was
about 1.1, which has been the case throughout the years this study has been conducted.
D Multiple passenger vehicle commutes (MOVs) have an average of 2.23 persons per vehicle
in 1999, again not much different from the average in previous years (which range from 2.15
to 2.33).
Working at Home and Telecommuting
~ Single occupancy vehicle use for the work commute can be reduced by eliminating the need
for making the trip to work from home. Some people work out of their home, either because
they run a business from their home, or because they can telecommute on at least an oceasional
basis.
~ About 3% of employees in both 1997 and 1999, and 2% in previous years, reported that they
worked at home when asked how they got to work.
D Due to the design of this study, in which employees aze given the surveys at their worksite, the
proportion of employees who may periodically telecommute is most likely underestimated.
> In 1995, questions about the telecommuting patterns of employees were added to the study
questionnaire. From 1995 through 1999, about 11 % of employees surveyed reported that they
telecommute at least occasionally.
E-5
Page vi 1999 Boulder Valley fmployee Survey
Trips Made During the Work Day
D An important piece of the pichue when looking at employee travel patterns is the number of
trips made during the work shift for business or personal reasons. The need to have a vehicle
at work for either purpose can influence the commuting mode choice. Further, these trips, if
taken by car, add to the congestion in Bouider.
~ About two-thirds of Boulder Valley workers made at least one trip during the workday, a
figure which has remained consistent across study years.
D The average number of trips made during the day per employee is about two.
> The mode most often used for these trips made during the work day was an SOV (70%).
Transit use for workday trips has increased, however, from 1% in 1991 to nearly 3% in 1999.
n Some employees are required to run errands during their workday as a part of their job. In
1991 and 1993, just under 40% of workers had to do so. From 1995 through 1999 this
proportion increased to over 40% (44% in 1999).
D Since 1995 the proportion obliged to use their own vehicle for work related enand trips has
increased somewhat. Over one-third of all workers in the Boulder Valley since 1995 ran
errands for their job using their own vehicle.
> Of those who reported they must use their vehicle at least occasionally for work, until 1999
about 85% in each study year drove alone to get to work. In 1999 this proportion dropped to
about 79%. Those who did not run errands for work were somewhat less likely to drive alone
to work; only 67% to 75% of these workers in each study year drove alone.
D Among those who must run work-related errands but whose employer provides a vehicle, the
proportion who drive alone has dropped from 85% in 1991 to 67% in 1999.
Transit Use
D ManyprogramsaimedatreducingSOVtravelfortheworkcommuteconcentrateonincreasing
transit use. Thus, a section of the Boulder Valley Employee Survey questionnaire is
specifically devoted to questions about bus travel.
D Study participants were asked how many, if any, one-way trips they had made by bus on the
previous day. In 1999, 8.1 % of workers reported they had made at least one trip on the bus the
day before, compared to 3.4% in 1991.
D The number of trips per day by bus riders has remained fairly constant at about 2 trips.
a Respondents who had ridden the bus were asked whether the purpose of these bus trips was
work-related or for other reasons. Between 60 and 80 percent of all bus trips were work-
related across the study years.
E-6
1999 Boulder Valley Employee Survey Page vii
Eco-Pass Participation
D In the 1997 implementation of the survey, employees were asked whether or not they had an
Eco-Pass. Eco-Pass availabiliry has increased from 14% in 1997 to about 20% in 1999.
D Employees with an Eco-Pass were much more likely to have ridden the bus for their commute
than those without an Eco-Pass; 13% of Eco-Pass holders had taken the bus compared to 2%
of non-Eco-Pass employees.
D Survey participants who did not have an Eco-Pass were asked why they did not. The most
common reasons given were that they wouldn't ride the bus even if they had one, or that their
company does not offer one.
Distance from Home to Nearest Bus Stop
D Between 26 and 30% of study participants reported they lived less than two blocks from a bus
stop, in each study year and about another 30% had a bus stop within 2 to 5 blocks from their
home.
~ Distance to a bus stop from employees' homes has changed littie over the study period.
Use of the HOP and SKIP
~ In 1997 and ' 999 e•~• ~l~yees were asked about their ase of Boulder's smalt, frequent bus
services, the HOP and SKIP. Ridership in 1999 was about 12% for each service.
Factors Influencing Modal Choice
Need to Transport Children to Child Care
~ The need to transport children to and from child care is a factor influencing employees' mode
choice for their work commute. In 1999 a series of questions about child care were included
in the survey.
~ Results indicate that 12% of the employees have children in out-of-home care and 90% of
these respondents report being responsible for transport of their child(ren) at least some of the
time
D Although there was very little difference in reported SOV use for the work commute beriveen
those transporting children and those who did not (about 74% for each group), 32% of those
with child care transport responsibilities said they "definitely" would use other travel modes
if they didn't have children to get to and from child care.
E-7
Page viii 1999 Boulder Valley Employee Survey
Other factors inJluencing mode choice
D Many demographic and employment characteristics were measured as a part of the Boulder,
Va11ey.Employee Survey. The association of these characteristics with travel choices was
statistically tested.
D Not surprisingly, the single most important factor affecting whether or not a respondent drove
alone to work was whether or not a car was available for commuting.
a Other important factors were: city of residence, employee needed own vehicle at work to run
errands for job, employee made stops on the way from work, location ofemployee's workplace
(greater distance work to home associated with greater SOV use), employee's hourly wage
(alternate modes used more by lower wage employees), and size of company (smaller
companies have more SOV use).
D Eco-Pass status was also associated with travel choices, as employees with an Eco-Pass were
more likely to have used alternate modes. This may be because employees who are more likely
to ride the bus have obtained an Eco-Pass, or that possession of an Eco-Pass encourages
alternate mode use.
E-8
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 16, 2000
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: November 9, 2000 )
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration ofinitiation of a comprehensive study of the Area III - Planning
Reserve Area and potential expansion of the Area III - Rural Preservation Area.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Susan Richstone, Senior Planner
Bev Johnson, Environmental Planner, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
City Council has asked the Planning Board to consider eliminating or further reducing the
size of the Area III-Planning Reserve Area. The Planning Board is being asked to consider
initiating a study of the Area III - Planning Reserve. The BVCP requires a comprehensive
study to expand the Area III - Rural Preservation Area. The study would evaluate various
oprions for expanding the Area III-Rural Preservation Area and their implications.
BACKGROUND:
The Area III-Planning Reserve is an area of approximately 493 acres located directly north and
east of U.S. 36 (28th Street Extended) (see map in Attachment A) The Area III-Planning
Reserve is an interim Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designation until it is decided
whether this land should be placed in the Area III-Rural Preservation Area or in the city's
F-1
Service Ar@a.
As part of the Yeaz 2000 Major Update to the BVCP, Planning Board and City Council directed
staff on February 24, 2000 and March 21, 2000, to proceed with a study of the Planning Reserve
for a potential boundary change to expand the Area III-Rural Preservation Area and reduce the
size of the Planning Reserve azea. A land use suitability report of the Planning Reserve was
completed in May 2000. This report supported expansion of the Rural Preserve by
approximately 196 acres by demonstrating that the above criteria had been sufficiently met. The
proposed boundary change was based on new resource information about Natural Ecosystems,
Environmental Conservation Areas, drainage basins, steep slopes, and critical species habitat.
BVCP policies concerning community design (clear urban boundaries and the design of
enhyways) also supported the original staff recommendation.
The proposed changes to the Planning Reserve boundary have been considered by all four bodies
(Planning Board, City Council, Boulder County Planning Commission, and County Board of
Commissioners). At their meeting on September 19, the City Council requested that Planning
Bom~d consider eliminating or further reducing the size of the Area III-Planning Reserve Area.
ANALYSIS:
History of the Planning Reserve
The Area III- Planning Reserve is an area where the city and county intend to maintain fne option
of expanded urban development in the city beyond the time frame of the 15-year planning period
of the BVCP. It is intended as an interim designation until it is decided whether this land should
be placed in the Area III-Rural Preservation Area or in the city's Service Area (Area I or II).
The current boundaries of the Planning Reserve were established during the last major update to
the BVCP and are based on the outcome of the Area III Planning Project (February 14, 1991).
At its January 1990 goal setting session, City Council adopted the following objective: "To plan
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area III, including the identification of potential growth
areas in what is now Area III and future land use patterns." Council established this goal based
on the following issues:
1. absence of any long-term plan or vision for Area III.
2. diminishing supply of lands in Area II relative to population projections
3. unpredictability of Area III to II change decisions
4. piecemeal consideration of Area III to II changes
5. inadequate analysis of Area III to II changes
6. inadequate citizen involvement process
7. lack of adequate policy direction
F-2
Ten goals were established by the city and the county for the Area III Planning Project including
the Following which are relevant to the development of the Planning Reserve:
1. Inventory and identify what land may have development constraints or should be preserved.
Determine what land is suitable for urban development.
2. Evaluate what areas in Area III would be the most suitable locations for expansion of the
Service Area.
3. Establish a process to determine the need for additional land in the Service Area and use that
process to evaluate amount and timing.
In addition, 17 project assumptions were established, two of which are relevant to the
devalopment of the Planning Reserve:
1. Some areas currently designated as Area III will remain in non-urban land use and others
may support urban development.
2. Contiguous expansion of the Service Area will be primarily based on the availability of
urban services.
Given these and other goals and assumptions for the Area III Ptanning Project, city and county
staffs, as well as a self-selected citizen's advisory committee, worked on five topics between
1990 and 1992. The topics included: a land use suitability analysis; city urban services reserve
capacity analysis, compliance with BVCP policies, Gunbarrel/Heathenvood issues; and Area I/II
vacant and redevelopable land inventory.
Staff originally identified four potential planning reserve areas totaling 1,750 acres. The
decision-makers reduced this to the one existing Planning Reserve Area of 667 acres which has
since been reduced to 493 acres by the city and county actions this past summer. Based on
public hearings and discussion of the above findings, the city and the county decided that only a
small amount of Area III land should be considered for future urban expansion, and only if more
detailed planning for these limited areas demonstrated that the benefits to the community
exceeded the potential negative impacts. The final action adopted by the city and the county
included the following conclusion:
Areas outside of the Rural Preservation Area should be identiflied as a Planning
Reserve Area. The intent is to protect both rural preservation and urban development
options. "This protection is needed until more detailed conceptual land use and services
planning for potential growth is completed...and subsequent determinations are made on
which portions of the Planning Reserve Area shoutd ultimately be placed in the Rural
Preservation Area and which should be brought into the Service Area." (pg.18, Area III
Planning Project Policy Direction Final Report, August 19, 1992.)
Other specific directives included, "more detailed planning for the Planning Reserve Area
F-3
should be completed before the decision is made on whether lands in the Planning Reserve
should be preserved as rural or urbanized" and "Service Area expansion is not desirable to
provide additional land for future development - it must provide a broad range of
community benefits." (pp.18-19, Area III Planning Project Policy Direction Final Report,
August 19, 1992.)
Why have a 1'lanning Reserve?
A major tenet of the BVCP is the service azea concept that divides the Boulder Valley planning
area into three major azeas - Area I, Area II, and Area III. The service area concept serves as a
primary growfh management tool for the city by promoting a compact development pattern,
separation between communities, preservation of lands outside the Service Area, and efficient
service provision and logical extension of city services.
In creating the Planning Reserve in 1992, the city and the county decided it was important to
maintain a long-term option for urban expansion beyond the IS year time frame of the BVCP
while defining the city's overall growth boundaries. The city and county understood that
unforeseen circumstances and needs may arise in the long-term future which may necessitate
limited expansion of the city.
The city and the county recognized that in order to maintain strict urban growth boundaries,
expansion of the Service Area should only oucur if it provided a significant level of community
benefit. In other words, the Planning Reserve was intended to remain in Area III unless there
was substantial community need to support Service Area expansion. The Planning Reserve was
not intended as an area where piecemeal expansion could occur but where the city would weigh
options for Service Area expansion based on an area-wide planning effort.
It is important to emphasize that if the Planning Reserve tlrea remains as is, the option would
still remain to place more properties in the Rural Preserve in the future. The Planning Reserve
designation does not assume urban development of the area, it simply leaves the option open for
future city expansion. If the Planning Reserve designation is eliminated, it will be more difficult
to reverse the decision in the future and to address certain community needs that may arise.
Development Potential in the Planning Reserve
As recently amended, the Planning Reserve consists of sixty-two parcels ranging in size from
one-half acre to 161 acres. Almost one half of the Planning Reserve or roughly 236 acres are
publicly owned by either the City, the Housing Authority, or the U.S. Forest Service.
Approximately 257 acres of land remain in private ownership.
The Planning Reserve is in unincorporated Boulder County. Approximately three-quarters of the
properties in the PIanning Reserve are zoned Agricultural. One quarter of the entire Planning
Reserve is zoned Rural Residential. Less than five properties (approximately 5-10 total acres)
located along U.S36 have a Transitional zoning designation. The Agricultural and Rural
F-4
a
Residential 'Loning Districts consist of rural areas where agricultural uses and compatible
residentiaC development aze allowed. The Transitional Zoning District allows both a variety of
residential uses and a limited number of business uses which are compatible with residential
development. Some institutional or public uses are allowed through a special review process in
these districts. Without city services available to this area, development is limited to one unit per
35 acres or one unit per existing legal building lot.
Properties within the Planning Reserve aze subject to the same County regulations as properties
within the Rural Preservation Area. However, the Planning Reserve remains lazgely undeveloped
as compared to other azeas in the Rural Preserve. This may be due in part to the Planning
Reserve designation in that landowners may be reserving their options for development in
anticipation of future Service Area expansion.
Because of the potential for future urban expansion into the area, the properties in the Planning
Reserve are valued slightly higher than other lands in the Rural Preservation Area. As the
number of properties in the Planning Reserve decreases, the value of the remaining lands is likely
to increase. Further improvements to these properties would raise the value of the land, making
urban expansion into this area more difficult and costly.
Parks and Recreatio~rooerty; The Pazks and Recreation Department owns 198 acres of land in
the Planning Reserva. This land was purchased with the purpose of providing a site for the
future development of an active regional park. Development of the site will require the extension
of city services to the area at the time of development. At the time the site was purchased, it was
assumed that the site would be annexed prior to development. If the park site is movcd to the
Rural Preservation Area, the process for extending city services to the site would change. The
city could annex the site as Area III-Annexed, similar to the Boulder Reservoir, or could extend
out-o£ city services to the site. If the property were to remain in Area III, then the city would be
considering extending less than the full range of urban services to the site:
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policy 1.20(~ states that "...publicly owned property in
Area III may be annexed to the City even if the property requires less than a full range of urban
services or requires inclusion under City jurisdiction for health, welfaze and safety reasons." In
addition, Policy 3.11(b) states that it is appropriate for the city to "extend limited utility service
in Area III and Area II in circumstances that further the BVCP goals."
In general, public uses in Area III are intended to be those uses that are not "urban," are
compatible with the rural character of the Area III - Rural Preservation Area, and do not require
the full range of urban services. Urban uses aze most appropriately located within Area I.
Planning staff took this item to the October 23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting for
their comments. Three out of seven Board members were present for the discussion. In
summary, all three Board members were neutral on the matter and did not see an immediate
impact on the planning for the pazk.
F-5
Pazks and Recreation staff, however, have the following concems regarding changes to the land
use designation on the park properiy:
The Rural Preserve designation suggests that uses will not be "urban" and should be
compatible with rural chazacter of the surrounding land uses. This could prove to be an
obstacle to the development of active recreational facilities on this site. This site was
originally purchased with the intention of providing for future active recreational needs,
with bond funds approved for that purpose by Boulder citizens in 1995. This land was to
be kept available for recreationai needs that may devetop over the next 50 years; it is
important that we not foreclose the option of developing this property over the long term.
In addition, the provision of active recreational sites has been important in taking off the
pressure for inappropriate uses of the Open Space and Mountain Pazks lands.
If the park property is designated as Rural Preserve it may be more difficult to obtain
approval for the annexation of the site or the extension of the "full range of urban
services" necessary to support the development of recreational facilities.
Pazks and Recraation staff recommends that:
No changes be made to the Planning Reserve designation at this time. If Planning Board
and Council decide to transfer additional properties into the Rural Preserve, staff
recommends that the park site and the adjacent properties necessary to create a reasonable
Service Area boundary be retained in the Planning Reserve;
If a transfer of the pazk site into the Rural Preserve is considered, that an expanded public
process be pursued which involves recreational user groups as well as the public at large
and affected property owners; and if the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is
interested in further exploring this issue, that it take place in the context of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan update.
Gateway Fun Center Propert,y: Gateway Fun Center is located in the Planning Reserve. Last
year, as part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the BVCP, Gateway requested a Service Area
Expansion to enable annexation and the extension of city utilities to the site. The Planning Board
and City Council did not support a Service Area Expansion. However, they expressed interest in
considering out-of-city utility service. The BVCP provides for out-of-city utility service to Area
III if it would further BVCP goals. The City Council asked staff to explore the option of out-of-
city service under conditions that would cazefully restrict it to this property and would not induce
development of adjacent properties. If the designation on the Gateway Fun Center is changed to
Rural Preserve, the extension of services would need to be consistent with BVCP goals for the
Area III-Rural Preservation.
What would further study entail?
The BVCP establishes the requirements for changing the Planning Reserve or Rural Preservation
F-6
Area boundary. In order to make a change to the Rural Preserve boundary, a comprehensive
stady must be completed which demonstrates that the following criteria have been met:
l. A demonstrated need for either expansion or contraction of the Area III-Rural
Preservation Area due to new information on land use suitability based on the following:
• ~ environmental resource or hazazd constraints
• feasibility of efficient extension of urban services
• compact and efficient urban form
2. A demonstrated need for either expansion or contraction of the Area III-Rural
Preservation Area due to changed circumstances or community needs.
Further study of the Planning Reserve would not necessarily provide new information regarding
environmental resources or the feasibility of efficient extension of urban services. Staff could,
however, explore the changed circumstances or community needs that may support further
changes to the Planning Reserve.
By leaving the Planning Reserve as currently adopted does not mean things will not change.
Development of certain pazcels within the Planning Reserve under current county regulations
may make it more difficult far future expansion into this area. However, there may be alternative
options for truly presarving all or a portion of the area for fiature consideration. A new study of
the Planning Reserve would explore these options and their implications.
A new study of the Pianning Reserve may include the following:
• Analysis of changed circumstances, community policies and goa(s, and
community needs regarding level of support for future urban expansion.
• Outline of alternative scenarios for further contraction or elimination of the
Planning Reserve. (e.g. compiete elimination of the designation, move only
certain private parcels to the Rural Preserve)
• Outline implementation strategies for each scenario. (e.g. Expansion of Rural
Preserve, landbanking, Open Space acquisition)
• Outline of implications for each scenario.
F-7
QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD:
Are you interested in a study to explore oprions for further reduoing the size of or
eliminating the Planning Reserve Area?
2. Are there specific issues or options that the Board would like staff to explore in a new
study?
Approved By:
~~ ~~
Peter Pollock
Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Map of the Planning Reserve Area
F-8
~
~
ATTACHMEN'T A:
Map of the Planning Reserve
Revised
I m act Anal ~sis
p Y
Yeax 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Revised Impact Analysis
January 11, 2000
Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................2-3
Purpose .......................................................................2-3
Background ................................................................ 2-3
Overview of Options ..................................................2-5
Summary of Impacts ............................................................2-7
Overview of Impacts by Option .................................2-7
Summary of Impacts by Factor ..................................2-8
Discussion of Impacts .......................................................... 2-10
Stormwater Quality .................................................... 2-10
Noi se .......................................................................... 2-11
Transportation ............................................................ 2-13
Air Quality ................................................................. 2-19
Housing ...................................................................... 2-21
Services
Parks and Recreation ...................................... 2-24
Utilities ........................................................... 2-26
Police ............................................................. 2-29
Fire ................................................................. 2-30
Library ............................................................ 2-31
Schools ........................................................... 2-32
Human Services ............................................. 2-33
Fiscal (Economy) ....................................................... 2-34
2-1
List of Figures
1. Policy options - summary chart
2. Summary of impacts by factor
3. TMP mode share objectives
4. Shifts in resident mode share
5. Shifts in commuter mode share
6. Daily VMT trend since 1993
7. Daily VMT in 2020
8. Average daily traffic in 2020
9. Daily carbon monoxide emissions
10. Daily particulate emissions
11. Housing affordability for income target groups
12. Number of afFordable housing units provided by each policy option
13. Park level of service for each policy option
14. Population and employment projections used in utility master plans
15. Police service impacts based on service standards
16. Analysis of annual revenue generated by increase in residential dwelling units
17. Analysis of annual revenue generated by increase in residential dwelling units
18. General Fund pro forma income statement
2-2
Introduction
Purpose
This document is a revision to the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Options Assessment completed in Fall 1999. The purpose of this
report is to provide an updated. analysis of the potential impacts of proposed policy options to
environmental, social and fiscal factors.
Since the 1999 Options Assessment, the population and employment projections based on
current policy and trends have changed. In addition, the BVCP land use changes proposed by
staff have been refined. This document presents an overview of the methodology used in the
1999 Options Assessment and an update of the anticipated impacts based on the revised policy
options. The revised analysis includes a summary of the approach to assessing the potential
impacts of land use changes on several environmental and community factors. The report also
outlines conclusions based on the policy options listed on page 2-5.
Background
The purpose of the 1999 Options Assessment was to describe the potential environmental, social,
and fiscal effects of five city-wide land use options proposed as part of BVCP major update. The
1999 assessment was originally discussed in a joint Planning Board/City Council study session
in August, 1999. The analysis was then refined for the public review and comment on proposed
changes to the BVCP in late 1999. The 1999 Options Assessment was presented to the Planning
Board and City Council along with the proposed land use map changes at board and Council
meetings in February and Mazch 2000.
Several concerns and comments were raised about the impact assessment at the joint study
session on August 8, 2000. The following additional information was requested:
• Provide more detail on the analysis that had been done to date relative to the impacts that
would result from the proposed land use designation changes.
• Provide information on the population thresholds at which there would be significant
impacts.
In September, the Planning Department prepared revised employment projections. The new
estimates project an additiona122,700 jobs in comparison to the employment projections
prepared last year. The new projections constitute the new "no action" alternative under the
current Comprehensive Plan and therefore, staff has revised the impact analysis to assess the
impacts of the new projections. Council also has requested that staff explore several job
reduction options in addition to the proposed land use map changes.
This report provides a summary of the original assessment process and assumptions used for
2-3
assessing community-wide impacts. The impact assessment has also been revised to reflect the
changes in population and employment projections.
The following factors are assessed in this docuxnent:
Stormwater Quality
Noise
Transportation
Air Quality
Housing
Services
Parks and Recreation
Utilities
Police
Fire
Library
Schools
Human Services
Fiscal Impacts (Economy)
The following factors were omitted from the 1999 Options Assessment and this revised analysis
because a preliminary review found that there would be no potential impacts under any of the
options at the comprehensive plan level:
Agricultural land
Unique geological features
Geological hazards
Historic and cultural resources
Resource conservation (site design factor)
Light pollurion (site design factor)
Wetlands and wildlife habitat
Flood hazard
The analysis of each factor includes an overview of the process and assumptions used to make
each assessment, an outline of the impacts of each policy option, and a discussion of potential
regulatory strategies for mitigating impacts. Where applicable, population thresholds are listed to
indicate at what population level there would be a significant impact to certain factors.
Two consultants provided assistance with this report:
Charlier and Associates - Transportation and Air Quality analyses.
Carter-Burgess, Inc. reviewed the 1999 Options Assessment and provided
recommendations for this revision. These recommendations were incorporated into this
final document. Carter-Burgess also provided the noise assessment, and a summary of
the impacts.
2-4
Overview of Options
The major focus of this update to the BVCP has been increasing affordable housing opportunities
and encouraging mixed use development in the city's commercial areas. The key impetus for
considering increasing the amount of housing in the community is to provide more affordable
housing opportunities for the growing number of people who commute in to work here. In
addition, due to the large amount of projected job growth and growth in in-commuting, tha
policy emphasis has shifted to include reducing projected job growth as an important community
objective.
Staff has outlined a range of policy options for City Council and Planning Board discussion. The
options are summarized below and further detail is provided on the following pages.
A. Current Policy and Trends (the "no action" alternative). This option projects jobs,
housing units and in-commuters based on the current Comprehensive Plan, zoning and
current trends using the revised employment projections.
B. Increase Housing (Proposed changes to the BVCP)
• Area III - Reinforce the city's urban growth boundary and compact land use
pattern by reducing the size of the Planning Reserve and moving lands from Area
II to III.
• Area I- Provide additional affordable housing and reduce projected job growth
by encouraging mixed use development in the city's commercial areas.
• Area II - Provide a diverse mix of new affordable housing opportunities and
needed community facilities by increasing proposed densities where appropriate
and designating sites for community facilities.
C. Reduce projected job growth - Three options aze proposed for reducing projected job
growth in commercial areas in addition to the reductions from the Comprehensive Plan
changes, The reduction in job growth would be realized primarily through code changes
that establish maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in commercial zoning districts.
In the analysis of impacts from reducing job growth, impacts from increased population
(if combined with other options) were not assessed.
2-5
Figure 1: Policy Options - Summary Chart
ProJected Change Total (Area I a~d II)
Housing Jobs Housing Populatfon Jobs Daytime
Units Units Population'
Boulder Today 45,880 110,080 105,740 147,991
Current Policy 4,860 45,530 50,740 121,500 151,270 197,756
Increase
Housing
Area I 1873 to 1975 d553 to -4869 53,276 to 127,460 to 146,613 to 195,513
Area II 663 212 53,378 127,698 146,929
ReduceJob
growth: 142,534 to
Low (Not -4,079 NIA N/A 142,850 797,433
Medium assessed) -9,318 137,295 to 186,194
High •13,020 137,671 182,492
~33,593,to
133,909
~Daytime population for the purposes of this report includes residents who work in Boulder, employees
who commute in from outside Boulder, children and other residents who do not work. For the options with ranges,
the midpoint was used in calculating daytime population.
2-6
Summary of Impacts
Overview of Impacts by Option
Current Policy and Trends - This policy option results in:
• the greatest number of jobs in the future,
• the highest projected future vehicle miles of travel,
• the highest stormwater runoff concern,
• the most noticeable increase in noise,
• the greatest air pollution, with a particular concern noted for particulate air
pollution
• increased demand for park and recreational services,
• impacts to the provision of police protection services,
• highest impact to fire response times due to traffic, and
• the greatest increase in the demand for child care services.
Increase Housing Option - This policy option results in:
• the greatest increase in affordable housing opportunities,
• a reduction in the growth in employment, compared to the Current Policy and
Trends Option,
• making significant steps toward the city's goal of having 10 % of our housing
permanenYly affordable to low and moderate income households,
• highest demand for additional police officers,
• highest increase in operational wsts for fire protection services,
• an increase in demand for pazks in currently unserved commercial and industrial
areas,
• a slight decrease in traffic (around 4,000 daily vehicle trips) when compared to the
Current Policy and Trends Option,
• a positive effect overall to air pollution and noise associated with traffic compared
to the Current Policy and Trends Option.
Reduce Job Growth Options -- These policy options result in:
• a reduction in job growth,
• decreased traffiq air pollution and noise impacts associated with job growth.
• decreased impacts to most city services compared to other policy options.
• (Depending on the strategy chosen, additional residential development may result
per Section 1 of the notebook. The impact analysis could be updated and refined
at a later time to reflect this potential.)
2-7
Summary of Impacts by Factor
Staff and consultants analyzed the impacts of the policy options on environmental resources of
concern and on the provision of government services. A summary of the findings is included in
Figure 2 on the following page:
2-8
Figure 2: Summary of Impacts by Factor ~
~
Boulder Today 2020
2000
Current Policy Increase Housing (Proposed Reduce job growth
changes to the BVCP)
Population 110,080 121,500 127,460 to 127,699 N/A
Jobs 105,740 151,270 146,613 to 146,929 133,593 to 142, 850
Daytime Population 147,991 197,756 195,513 1&2,492 to 191,433
VMT 2.61 2.87 2.85 2.74 - 2.83
Stormwater Quality not assessed. Largest increase in Substantial improvement in Reduction in traffic results in
stormwater runoff (from Area II from moving land to less pollutants from cars.
traffic increase). Area III.
Noise not assessed. Slightly less noise from
Has the most noise from traffic, more potential for Least amount of noise from
traffic. conflicts between residential traffic.
and other uses.
Transportation
Air Quality
Housing
VMT exceeds TMP goal for
2020 by 4.4%
Cunent CO and particulate
(evels exceed TMP goal.
CO emission levels are
dropping.
1800 permanently affordable
units (p.a.) - 4.6% of existing
Area I units
Significant level of service
impacts from projected
employment increases - VMT
exceeds TMP goal by 15%.
Highest daily carbon
monoxide and particulate
emissions.
up to 1,458 p.a. units for low
and moderate income - 7.4%
of existing Area I and
projected annexations.
up to 2,237 units for middle
income.
Slightly less VMT - exceeds Lowest VMT - exceeds TMP
TMP goal by 14% goal by 10%
Slightly less carbon monoxide
and particulate emissions.
Lowest increase in carbon
monoxide and particulate
emissions.
up to 2,250 p.a. units for low
and moderate income - 8.7%
of existing Area I and
projected annexations
up to 3,424 units for middle
income.
not assessed.
Parks and Recreation
Park service standazds of 2.0
acres per 1,000 population
currently met. Population
would need to reach 170,000
to go below standard.
Highest ]evel of city-wide
park acrea~e per resident.
Largest impact to demand on
recreation centers.
Slightly lower level of city-
wide park acreage per
resident.
Impacts to park provision
standards in cunently
unserved areas.
Less demand for recreation
programs from out-of-city
workers.
Water Utilities
Wastewater Utilities
Police
Generally capacity exceeds
average daily demand.
Master Plan outlines planned
capacity improvements.
Planned capacity
improvements completed.
Current service standard is 1.7
officers per 1,000 population,
Increases average day demand Increases average day demand Decreases average day
by .27 million gallons by 1.2 million gallons demand by up Yo .5 million
(compared to master plan). (compared to master plan). gallons (compared to other
Increase is within planned Increase is within planned policy options).
system capacity. system capacity.
Anticipated demand is within Anticipated demand is within Anticipated demand is within
current capaciry of the system. current capacity of the system. current capacity of the system.
Increased demand for officers Highest demand for additional not applicable.
due to increased population. officers due to increased
population.
Fire
Planned capacity
improvements aze completed.
Demand for service will be
less than the BVCP Option.
Highest impact to response
times due to traffic.
Additional housing will
increase fire protection
service needs.
Operational costs will be the
highest.
Impact to response times
would be less than Current
Policy.
Less impact on response times
due to traffic impacts.
Library
Planned capacity
improvements in North
Boulder and in main library
system.
Increased demand for services
wouid be less than BVCP
Option.
Increased demand for services
expected from additional
residents.
Increased demand for services
would be less than other
options.
Schools
Human Services
Fiscal (Economy)
Available capacity.
City currently provides
significant support for a
variety of human services
through.
City is heavily dependent an
sales ta~t to cover operating
costs. Capital expenditures
covered through excise taxes
and fees
Adequate capacity will be
available.
Greater employment will
increase demand for child
caze.
Revenue from additional
residents would cover the
addiCional operating costs at
current service levels.
Adequate capacity will be
available.
Less need for child care than
under Current Policy.
Increase in demand for human
services due to increased
lower income population.
Revenue from additional
residents would cover the
additional operating costs at
current service levels.
not applicable.
Less demand for child care
services than other options.
notassessed.
2-9
Discussion of Impacts
Stormwater Quality
Assessment Process:
In 1999, the proposed BVCP land use changes were evaluated using a model developed
by the Water Quality Division as part of the Boulder Creek Watershed Study. Each
option was assessed in terms of the increase or decrease in effective runoff and total
pollutant loads relative to current land use trends which wonld resuk from the proposed
land use changes. Impacts were evaluated on both a subbasin and watershed level. The
model, however, did not measure the effects of increased traffic on major roads within the
city.
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were included in the development of the model used to
estimate the impacts of land use changes on water quality:
• Stormwater quality in an urban setting is lazgely dependent on the relative amount
of impervious surface within a subbasin;
• Greater land use intensities will result in more imparvious surfaces such as
buildings, roads, and parking lots;
• Compact urban design and infill development can promote better water quality by
decreasing the amount of sprawl and increasing the amount of protected open
space outside the city; and
• Best management practices associated with redevelopment and new development
will improve the current quality of the stormwater from a site.
• Increased traffic on roads will increase the amount of pollutant runoff from cars in
the form of oils, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and grease.
• The majority of road nznoff flows directly into the streams with little or no
treahnent.
Update:
No changes to the previous report have been made.
Impacts:
Current Policy and Trends- Although the model used to measure impacts from
land use changes did not factor in the impacts of increased traffic on the roads, the
assumption can be made that more cars on the roads would result in an increase in
pollutant runoff. The vast majority of road runoff is not treated and enters the
streams directly from the stormwater sewer system. Therefore, among all the
policy options, the most significant impact to water quality is expected to be from
the growth in employment with the current policy. Mare jobs in the city are likely
to result in greater traffic.
2-10
Increase Housing OptionlReduce Job Growth Options - The proposed BVCP
land use changes in Area I would have little effect on current trends in water
quality stemming from individual development sites. The proposed changes,
including the job reduction options involve redevelopment of existing urban areas
within the city. Overall amounts of impervious surface associated with
commercial and industrial uses would not change significantly if mixed uses were
combined in these areas.
The proposed BVCP land use changes in Area II, however, would result in a
significant overall decrease in pollutant loading on a watershed basis relative to
current trends. The proposed changes include designating a portion of individual
properties as Environmental Preservation and moving a significant portion of one
site along Baseline Rd. to Area III. These land use changes would result in the
preservation of several acres of floodplain, wetlands and wildlife habitat which all
support the protection and enhancement of water quality.
General Comments - Over the last decade, municipalities and states are phasing
in stricter federal regulations regarding stormwater management. Due to these
required changes in the treatment of runoff, any redevelopment of existing
development sites in Area I would presumably result in moderate decreases in
pollutant loading.
Population Thresholds:
The model used to assess changes in pollutant loads does not take population levels into
account. Changes in water quality aze primarily affected by the relative amounts of
impervious surface within a watershed and the effectiveness of stormwater management
programs.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
• Federal, state, and local regulatory changes which require more stringent
stormwater treatment practices both at the site level as well as the sub-basin level.
• Impacts to streams from stormwater runoff is best mitigated through the
development of best management practices and sewer outlets and through the
enhancement of stream and riparian habitat.
Noise
Assessment Process:
Noise impacts in the 1999 Options Assessment were qualitatively assessed based on
discussions with the city's noise enforcement officers and their experience with
complaints from various types of neighborhoods.
2-11
Assumptions:
• Noise impacts were assumed to come from three different sources:
Noise resulting from conflicts in land uses
Noise from increases in density
Noise from traffic increases
Many noise impacts within the city result from a conflict between residential land
uses and other types of land uses, including industrial, commercial, and active
recreation.
Update:
The following is a revised assessment provided by Carter-Burgess, Inc. Analysis of
likely noise increases were evaluated qualitatively using projections in employtnent,
dwelling units, population and traffic as indicators.
Impacts:
Current Policy and Trends - The greatest noise impact from current policy
trends will likely be noise from increased traffic on city streets and in pazking lots.
Generally, the policy option with the greatest VMT will result in the highest
noise. Another issue related to congestion is that, although noise decreases as
speed decreases, the time period of the traffic noise changes. Generally, as
congestion increases, the peak period spreads, so that more travel is occurring
during evening or early morning hours, when it is likely to be more of a nuisance.
Increase Housing Option -There is a potential for increased noise impacts
resulting from a conflict between residential and other land uses. The residential
and industrial conflict is likely to be greatest in mixed use industrial areas where
there are current industrial uses that are planned as mixed use including
residential. The only site that this may be an issue is in the industrial area south
and west of Valmont Park.
Residential and commercial use conflicts are likely to be greatest where a
residential area is located in close proximity to a commercial use which operates
into the evenings. Such uses are most commonly assumed to include restaurants
and bazs, but also include grocery stores or gas stations.
Noise from active park uses in the mornings on weekends and into the avenings
have been an increasing conflict in the city over the last few years. Adding
residential uses near an active park site will likely result in more conflicts and
complaints related to these active park uses.
In residential areas proposed for increases in density, there wi11 be some
2-12
corresponding increase in noise. This is the case for some sites in Area II and
along 30"' St. in Area I. Any increase in dwelling units and population will cause
corresponding increases in noise from such sources as barking dogs, children
playing and cars starting. Increases in employment wili increase noise from traffic
coming to and from the place of employment. This will be an issue with any
policy option that results in an increase in employment, dwelling units and
population.
Reduce Job Growth Options - The proposed job reduction options would result
in less noise from cazs and overall traffic on the roads than would be anticipated
under the current policy and trends.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
Potential mitigation strategies that can be considered for noise impacts are:
• Appropriate site planning, to minimize conflicts between uses.
• Provision of dense landscape buffers or concrete or masonry walls, where
appropriate, between uses.
Transportation
Background:
In its Update to the Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the city expressed its
long term goals for transportation in terms of preventing long term growth in "traffid' -
measured in daily vehicle miles of travel and also in average daily tra~c. The TMP,
adopted by City Council in July 1996, relied on a mix of travel behavior (mode shift),
infrastructure investment and land use management strategies to achieve these goals.
The mode shaze objectives (% of daily person trips) adopted in the 1996 TMP are shown
in the Figure below, compared to actual statistics in 1994, the year the plan was first
produced in draft form. (Note: this data reflects total travel by residents and commuters.)
Figure 3: TMP Mode Share Objectives
(% ofperson 1994 Actual 2020 Objective
trips)
SOV 44% 25%
MOV 22% 29%
Walk/Bike 30% 39%
Transit 4% 7%
TOTAL 100% 100%
2-13
Ovea the intervening years, Boulder has made initiai progress on the travel behavior
aspect of this program, with measurable increases in transit mode shaze for both residents
and commuters. Resident mode shares for all trips (all Boulder residents working here
and in other places) are shown in the Figure below. Commuter mode shares (all Boulder
workers living in Boulder and elsewhere) are shown in the next Figure. (This data is
taken from Boulder's biennial employee travel surveys and resident travel diary studies.)
Figure 4: Shifts in Resident Mode Share
(%ofperson trips) 1990 1998 Shift
SOV 44.2% 40.4% -3.8%
MOV 26.3% 25.1% -1.2%
Walk/Bike 27.3% 29.6% +2.5°/a
Transit 1.6% 4.1% +2.5%
School Bus 0.6% 0.7% +0.1%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
The Figures indicate more significant progress in mode shift among Boulder residents
than among commuters, but the trends in both cases are in the right direction.
Figure 5: Shifts in Commuter Mode Share
(% ofperson trips) 1991 1999 Shift
SOV 73.0% 74.0% +1.0%
MOV 11.8% 8.7% -3.1%
Wallt 3.5% 2.8% -0.7%
Bike 6.5% 8.4% 0.019
Transit 1.7% 4.5°/a +2.8%
Work at Home 1.6% 3.5% +1.9%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0°/a
The city has also proceeded on schedule with its infrastructure inveshnents. However,
the land use forecasts utilized in the 1996 TMP update have not held true. Specificaliy,
there has been significantly more growth in employment than predicted. Residential
growth has also been somewhat higher than expected in 1996, although the differences
are not as pronounced as the job growth differences.
As a result of these various trends, daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in Boulder Valley
has grown to about 4.4% more than the 2.5 million VMT set by the TMP as a goal. This
represents the combined effects of:
~ Significant success at encourage resident mode shift;
2-14
Some success at encouraging commuter mode shift; and,
Rapidly growing employment resulting in increased traffic into Boulder.
Given the magnitude of the employment trend, the estimate for VMT in 2000 is a sign
that the above transportation elements of the program are working well. However, the
data suggests that 2.5 million VMT in 2020 may not be a reasonable goal if employment
growth continues at the pace of the last several years.
Figure 6:
DAILY VMT TREND SINCE 1993 (millions)
Calendar Year
Assessment Process and Assumptions:
To evaluate the implications of the policy options, transportation forecasts were made to
the year 2020 for each of the Increase Housing Option as well as for the "job reduction"
scenarios. These forecasts were made utilizing the same forecasting methodologies
developed far the Transportation Master Plan Update.
Forecasts to 2020 were developed for five scenarios:
1. "CURP" - the trends that would result from continuation of trends under current
policies;
2. "BVCP" - the trends that would result from implementation of the proposed
changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan;
3. "Low Job Red" - the trends expected if job growth to 2020 were reduced by 4,079
jobs;
4. "Med Job Red" -- the trends associated with a reducrion of 9,318 jobs; and,
5. "High Job Red" - the trends associated with a reduction of 13,020 jobs.
2-15
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
The Boulder Traffic Modei, a computer simulation model, was utilized to generate traffic
forecasts for scenarios 1(CURP) and 2(BVCP). The significant level of effort required
to produce new simulations for these scenarios was necessary to allow analysis of future
traffic levels on specific roadways near the sites affected by the potential BVCP changes.
Transportation forecasts for the three job reduction scenarios (3, 4 and 5) were made
utilizing more streamlined algorithms. These were derived from relationships revealed in
the computer simulations completed over the past year in connection with the BVCP
update. These forecasts are reliable at the valley-wide level, but do not allow us to
forecast traffic impacts in specific roadway corridors.
All five of the forecast scenarios assume that Boulder will stay on track to achieve its
mode share objectives for 2020 - a reasonable assumption based on progress to date. The
forecast scenarios also are based on new regional forecasts (to 2020) of employment and
population prepared by DRCOG and made available last summer.
Impacts:
General comments -The charts on the following page show the results for daily
VMT (vehicle miles of travel) and average daily traffia The VMT chart clearly
shows the impact of higher employment. With current trends, Boulder will be
about 15% over its goal of 2.5 million VMT in 2020. The addition of almost
300,000 VMT resulting from this higher employment also has a significant impact
on the congestion of the street system, with a number of street segments going to
a Level of Service of F. Implementing the proposed BVCP changes would pull
the projected VMT back down slightly. The results indicate that the current
version of the traffic simulation model is quite sensitive to changes in
employment in Bouldar Valley. This seems consistent with actual traffic
measurements over the past several years.
Under the BVCP scenario, total daily traffic in Boulder Valley would be slightly
lower in 2020 than under the CURP scenario. This is largely due to the reduction
in employmenY in the scenario as fuhzre developmenY is converted to residential
development. The difference - 4,000 daily vehicle trips - is less than one percent
of the daily total. The travel model indicates that this translates into corridor-level
differences of 100 to 200 vehicles per day on major arterial streets, less than that
on other streets. This change is not enough to be reliably detected by counts or
perceived by drivers. However, it does bring daily traffic (as opposed to VMT)
back in line with levels anticipated in the TMP.
2-16
Figure 7:
DaiIyVMTin 2020 (millions)
3.500 2.870 2.847 2.829
3.000 2.500 ~ ~
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
TMPGoaI CURP BVCP Low Job Med Job High Job
Red Red Red
Scenarlo
Figure 8:
Average Daily Tra(fic in 2020 (thousands)
2-1~
TMPGoaI WRP BVCP Low Job Red Med Job Red High Job Red
Scenarlo
Changes under the job reduction scenarios are more pronounced, reflecting the
relative importance of the employment data in a job-rich environment. However,
even under the most aggressive job reduction scenario (High Job Red), Boulder
would still be about 10% above its VMT objective in 2020.
All of the various scenarios show daily traffic at levels consistent with TMP
forecasts. The reason for this phenomenon is the growth in average trip length
associated with increases in travel into Boulder by residents of other parts of the
region. This increased travel into Boulder is partly associated with in-commuting,
but is also associated with increased travel into Boulder for other purposes
(shopping, etc.). Because these trips are, on average, longer, the VMT forecast is
high even though the auerage daily traffic forecast is favorable. This general
relationship was anticipated in the TMP, but its magnitude has been greater than
expected.
Finally, the traffic model indicates that under most of the scenarios, congestion in
2020, measured as the percent of total lane miles congested, will be weli within
the range expected in the TMP. This is in part a result of the forecasts in daily
traffic data (see above) for the scenarios being consistent with the expectations of
the TMP.
Potential Mitigation Strategies for Higher VMT:
The recent travel trends in Boulder and the results of the scenario forecasts are generally
encouraging with respect to daily traffic. However, the VMT data is potential cause for
concern, if for no other reason, because it signals potentially higher levels of air pollution
from mobile sources (see Air Quality Section below).
If the city desired to intervene in the VMT trend by means other than land use changes, it
would have to reduce the VMT predicted for 2020 by from 10% (High Job Red scenario)
to 15% (CURP scenario). The principal means available would be to change travel
behavior even more than currently planned by shifting mode share away from travel in
private vehicles.
Since resident travel behavior is already considerably less auto-oriented than non-rasident
travel behavior, and since much of the anticipated problem is caused by increased trauel
into Boulder, one approach to mitigating VMT growth would involve impacting regional
travel. Since these trips aze long (generally over ten miles), the most promising mode
shift strategy would be to improve regional transit services in and out of Boulder. This
should be coupled with more extensive use of Eco Passes to ensure good return on the
transit investment, as well as other travel demand management strategies. At the same
time, further shifts in local travel away from personal vehicles should also be considered.
Here, enhanced transit strategies could be coupled with walk/bike strategies.
2-18
Overall, a 10% to 15% reduction in the VMT otherwise expected in 2020 is possible,
although a 10% reduction would be considerably easier than a IS% reduction. The
required mode shifts would be on the order of 5% to 8% (in addition to already planned
mode shifts) if focused on the longer regional trips.
Air Quality
Impacts:
General Comments - The transportation forecasts generated for each of the
various scenarios have implications for future air quality. The two pollutants over
which Boulder has the most leverage (in terms of local mobile sources) are carbon
monoxide and PM~o (small particulate matter). Both of these pollutants are of
concern only in the winter months.
Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from motor vehicles haue been improving
rapidly since passage of the 1991 Clean Air Act Amendments, which required
lower tailpipe emissions of CO. As a result, the rate of CO emissions per vehicle
mile has been dropping even as daily VMT has been increasing. This trend,
forecast to 2020 for each scenario, is summarized in the chart on the following
page. The comparable CO statistic for 1996 was estimated to be 100 tons, and
2000 is estimated at 65 tons. Thus, even though the scenarios all come out higher
than the TMP forecast, they all lie within the TMP goal (continued improvement)
- due to expected improvements in emission rates as older vehicles retire from the
regional fleet.
The trend for particulate emissions is not so positive. A high percentage of
Boulder's PMio is associated with "re-entrained" road dust - thrown up by
moving motor vehicles, as opposed to tailpipe emissions which are generally low.
Our winter maintenance practices have helped and some further improvements are
possible, but in general we have not seen the improvements in particulate
emission rates that we have in CO emission rates. This, coupled with growing
VMT, means the particulates forecast, shown in the chart below, is not as positive
and is not within the TMP goal of continued improvement under all scenarios.
(The comparabie PM10 statistic for 1996 was estimated to be 3.41 tons, and 2000
is estimated at 3.43 tons.)
2-19
Figure 9:
Datly Carbon Mono~cide bnissions (Tons - January Day in 2020)
Scenarlo
Figure 10:
Daily Particulate Emissions (Tons - January Day in 2020)
Scenarlo
2-20
'fMPGoaI New CURP New BVCP Low Job Red Med Job Red Ffigh Job Red
TMP Goal New CURP New BVCP Low Job Red Med Job Red Mgh Job Red
Housing
Assessment Process:
The 1999 Comprehensive Housing Strategy provided a series of recommendations aimed
at increasing affordable housing opportunities for four target groups: low and very low
income; moderate income; middle income workers; and University of Colorado students,
faculty and staff. Affordability for these target groups, using 1999 area median income
statisYics, is shown below:
Figure 11: Housing AffordabiliLy for Income Target Groups
Target Income for Affordable Rent or
Group Household Price
of 3
Very Low $ Low less than $37,000 $325-$700/month
Income less than $110,000
Moderate Income $37,000 to $49,000 $111,000 to $150,000
Middle Income $49,000 to $74,000 $150,000 to $225,000
The options were assessed by the relative degree to which they meet relevant BVCP
housing goals and address the following factors:
Mixture of Housine Tvpes
• diversity of housing types.
• opportunities for target groups and household types.
Intggration of Low Income Housing
• location of proposed housing.
Balancing Housine Supplv with Emplovxnent Base
• number of additional dwelling units for each option.
• increases or decreases in employment.
Permanentlv Affordable Housing
• potential percentage of units permanently affordable to very low, low, and
moderate income households.
Affordability to Middle Income Households
• potential percentage of units affordable to middle income households.
2-21
Assumptions:
A variety of assumptions were used to arrive at the potential amounts of affordable
housing for each of the options. It was assumed that the following mix of housing types
would be developed with each option:
Corridors:
Multi-family housing, Mixed use (80%)
Townhomes (20%)
Centers:
Multi-family housing, Mixed use (90%)
Townhomes (10%)
Industrial Area:
Multi-family housing, Mixed use (100%)
Area II:
Multi-family housing (30%)
Townhomes (25%)
Single family, detached (45%)
Based on existing programs, regulations and pracYices we have assumed that up to 30% of
all new units built within the existing city limits would be permanently affordable to very
low, low, and moderate income households. Existing and proposed regulations require a
developer to provide 20% of permanently affordable units, while city subsidy funds could
be used to secure an additional 10°/a as permanently affordable to very low, low and
moderate income households.
There are no existing regulations or programs that secure the affordability of middle
income housing. An estimate was made of the potential number of middle income units
that could be produced given past practices, the economics of the development and the
assumed unit mix for each option as listed above. It is estimated that 45% of ttte total
number of units may be affordable to middle income workers given that 30% of the units
would also be permanently affordable to low and moderate income households.
In order for Area II land to be brought into the city and developed, the property owner
must enter into an agreement with the city. Past practice has resulted in at least 30%
permanently affordable low and moderate income housing and at least 25% new units
permanently affordable to middle income households. Using the market analysis
provided by Rees Consulting, Inc. in the 1999 Options Assessment, an additiona124% of
the units could be affordable to middle income households for a total of 49% middle
income housing and an overall total of 79% of the units affordable to low through middle
income households.
2-22
Update:
The following assessment has been updated to reflect new policy option projections.
Impacts:
General Comments - The options all provide additional housing opportunities
for low, moderate and middle income households. Housing types and locations
with higher densities provide the best opportunities for greater affordability to the
target groups, Providing a range of housing types for the target groups increases
the opporlunities to capture those people willing to trade off certain amenities in
order to live in Boulder and not commute in to work. For example, providing
housing neaz transit stops and close to workplaces would reduce the need to own a
car for some people.
Figure 12: Number of Affordable Housing Units Provided by Each Policy Option
Projected change in Number of additional Number of additional
number of dwelling units for very low, low, units for middle income
units and moderate income workers
workers (Area I - 45%
(30%) Area II - 49°/,)
Current Policy 4,860 1,458 2,237
and Trends (Area I -3,600
Area II - 1,260)
Increase
Housing 1873 to 1975' 562 to 593" 843 to 889*
Area I 663* 199* 298*
Area II (up to 2,638)* (up to 792)' (up to 1,187)*
(Total Areas I, il)
*in addition to Current Policy and Trends
Increase Housing Option - The proposed BVCP land use changes would create
opportunities for up to 792 units permanently affordable to low and moderate
income households and up to 1,187 units affordable to middle income households.
In addition, there would be a decrease in employment by approximately 5,081
jobs. If the job reduction strategies were combined with the proposed BVCP
changes, we would further improve the jobs/housing imbalance and make
significant advancement towards achieving the city's goal of having 10% of our
housing stock permanently affordable to low and moderate income households.
2-23
Services -Parks and Recreation
Assessment Process:
Impacts to park and recreation services were assessed based on service azea standards
outlined in the 1996 Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Assumptions:
The master plan identifies levels of service standazds to determine park needs. Level of
service standards for neighborhood and community parks are measured both by the
amount of park land per resident on a city-wide and subcommunity basis and a service
radius based on the maximum desired walking distance from residents' homes to a park
in their neighborhood. Impacts to parks from a service radius standard will be addressed
in the individual parcel reports and are not included in this document. The following are
the standards for the level of park acreage for neighborhood and community parks:
Neighborhood parks: 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents on a subcommunity and city-
wide basis
Community parks: 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents subcommunity and city-wide
Total: 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents subcommunity and city-wide
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not provide for parks and recreational
services in non-residential neighborhoods, however, there is a discussion about the
desirability of providing recreational services in non-residential areas.
Update:
The following assessment is an update from the 1999 report and reflects changes in the
projected population and employment figures.
Impacts:
General Comments - None of the policy options would have much impact on the
city-wide level of service provided by parks and recreation in terms of overall
acreage per resident (see figure below).
2-24
Figure 13: Park Level of Service and Policy Options
Projected Anticipated Level of service for
populaHon park acreage neighborhood and community
(Nelghborhood park needs(acres/1000
/Cammunity) residents)"
1996 Master Plan 125,959 509 4.04
Boulder Today (Service Area) . 110,080 489 4.44
Current Policy and Trends 121,500 509 4.19
(Service Area)
Increase Housing Option 127,460 to 509 3.99
127,699
* Based on a total projected neighborhood, pocket park, and community park aareage of 509
acres at build-out.
Although there may be some impact to recreation centers and the availability of
sport facilities such as softball fields and soccer fields, estimates of the impact to
these facilities were not assessed. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not
include standards for the number of recreation centers and facilities based on
population. There is, however, currently a high level of demand for ballfields and
it may be assumed that this demand will likely increase with an increase in both
employment and population.
The master plan does not outline any additional recreational centers beyond what
currently exists. However, Valmont Park and the regional pazk site in the
Planning Reserve is expected to address future active recreational needs as they
arise. In addition, the existing recreation centers may be redesigned to meet
expanded and changing needs of the community.
Current Policy and Trends - Based on existing baseline non-resident
enrollments, stafF assumes that increased employment within the city would have
an impact on park and recreation services. No specific data is available on non-
resident worker use of existing facilities. Increased commuting times may affect
non-resident worker use of city facilities in the future.
Increase Housing Option - The most significant impacts to park and recreation
services from the proposed BVCP land use changes will result on a site-by-site
basis where housing is being proposed in currently unserved areas or in areas
where there is a major road barrier between an existing pazk and a residential area.
The current 1996 master plan bases service standards on residential land uses and
does not identify park standards for commercial and industrial areas. Individual
areas where there is a park provision issue will be highlighted in the parcel reports
for the adoption hearings.
2-25
Although park land fees are assessed to new residential development (on a
dwelling unit basis) for the purpose of acquiring and developing new park and
recreational facilities, a housing project in a commercial or industrial area may not
provide enough density within a certain area to justify a new park acquisition. In
addition, these fees are not applied to non-residential development and are often
waived for permanently affordable housing units.
Reduce Job Growth Options - The proposed job reduction options will likely
offset any impacts which would result from the increase in employment
anticipated under the current policy and trends.
Population Thresholds:
With the anticipated level of neighborhood and community park acreage of 509 acres at
buildout, the population of the service area would have to reach 170,000 to lower the
community-wide service standard below 3 acres of neighborhood and community pazks
per 1,000 population.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
• Require private parks or recreational facilities to be developed by the private
sector in new non-residential development projects.
• Require employers to pay into a fund targeted toward facility ranovations and
expansions.
Services - Utilities
Assessment Process and Assumptions:
Impacts to utilities were not discussed in the 1999 Options Assessment. The city's utility
master plans outline future system rehabilitation and development needs based on BVCP
growth and development goals and policies. At the time of the assessment last year, all
the adopted utility master plans were based on earlier BVCP projected build-out
populations which far exceeded the 1999 current policy projections used for comparison.
Staff re-examined impacts to water utility capacity using current mastar plans. The chart
below lists the population and employment projections from which the existing master
plans are based.
2-26
Figure 14: Population and Employment Projections Used in Utility Master Plans
Master Plan Master plan buildout Master plan buildout
(Adoption year) population projections* employment proJections*
Current Policy = 721,500 Current Policy = 151,270
Increase Housing Option = Increase Housing Option = -
127,899 146,929
Raw Water Master Plan 157,600 118,500
(1988)
Treated Water Master Plan 126,230 115,193
(2000)
Wastewater Facilities Plan 166,500 n/a
(1990)
Wastewater Collection System Plan 170,000 n/a
(1983)
* All projections are for the Service Area (Areas I and II)
Update:
The following is an updated analysis of the impacts to each of the utility master plans.
Raw Water
Impacts:
General Comments - Although employment projections exceed master
plan estimates under all options, population estimates used in the master
plan more than compensate for the projected change in the number of jobs.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
In general, outdoor use associated with residential land uses result in the highest
water usage on an annual basis. Regulatory changes that could lead to a decrease
in water use include: increases in water rates, changes in landscaping practices
through xeriscaping, and more efficient irrigation systems.
Treated Water
Assumptions:
Since the 1999 Options Assessment was completed, the U6lities Division updated
the Treated Water Master Plan and based the plan on population and employment
projections used in the Water Conservation Futures Study. This study examines
Boulder's trends in water use patterns and updates Boulder's fuhue water demand
projections and reliable supply capability. Projections used for the study were
2-27
obtained from several information sources and are lower than those included in
this report on page 2-6.
The following assumptions about general water usage were included in the Water
Conservation Futures Study and were used in calculating impacts of the options
on the treated water system in particular:
Residents use 171 gallons/day/capita.
Workers (day people) use 30 gallons/day/worker
Single family homes account for the greatest fraction of total water use
(37%), followed by multi-family homes (30%),
commercial/industrial/institutional (29%) and municipal government use
(4%).
Impacts:
General Comments - The combined impact of the new population and
employment estimates on the 2020 average daily demand would be to
increase the projected flow from the range of 19.4 mgd - 21.6 mgd, to a
new range of 21.03 mgd - 23.22 mgd. A maximum increase of only 7.7%
over the currently projected average day conditions in 2020. Since the
1999 average daily water demand was 20.3 mgd, the relative impact of this
increase is very small over the 20 year planning horizon. In addition, the
treatment system is designed to accommodate demands of 10% over the
average day condition - allowing for flexibility in demographic and
climatic changes over time.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
Same as for raw water
Wastewater Collection
General Comments - The wastewater collection system is designed according to
the buildout population level of 170,000 projected at the time of the 1983 master
plan. The interceptor sewer system, in fact, is cunently running at less than half
capacity. Impacts to the collection system are lazgely related to the amount of
inflow or leakage into the system from old or faulty sewer lines. However,
localized problems aze addressed annually in the department's ongoing
rehabilitation program for the system.
2-28
Wastewater Treatment
General Comments - Similar to the raw and treated water systems, the
wastewater treahnent system is expected to meet needs for a maximum buildout
population of 166,500 with modifications outlined in the Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Master Plan. In addiYion, all recommended modifications to Yhe
treatment system have been completed and the treatment plant is currently capable
of handling buildout population and employment demands under the all the policy
options.
Stormwater Collection and Drainage System
General Comments - Impacts to the stormwater and drainage system are based
primarily on land use and impervious surface coverage within the collection
basins as well as climatic conditions. Changes in population or employment levels
have an indirect effect on the carrying capacity of the system. Generally, land uses
which promote compact urban form and less impervious surface within an overall
watershed will haue less impact on the drainage and stormwater systems.
Currently, the Utilities Division is updating the Comprehensive Drainage Utilities
Master Plan on an individual drainageway basis. The South Boulder Creek and
Fourmile Creek drainageway studies are underway and assume full buildout of the
urban area based on current land use designations. The proposed changes in land
use as outlined in the Increase Housing Option will not change FEMA hydrology
which assumes full development of the city. In fact, the changes proposed for
Area II in particular would reduce impacts to the South Boulder Creek
drainageway.
There is potential, however, for any increase in dwelling units and jobs to affect
the stormwater collection system on a localized basis. These impacts would be
assessed on a case-by-case basis and improvement costs would be the
responsibility of the private landowner upon redevelopment.
Services - Police
Assessment Process:
Impacts to police services were assessed by basing current and projected population and
staffing levels on level of service standards outlined in the Police Master Plan.
2-29
Assumptions:
Boulder's Police Department has established a baseline ratio of staffing to popalation
based on 1986/87 population and service levels. The ratio assumes that police service
was satisfactory at that time and is an appropriate test of adequacy. The current service
ratio proposed as the standard is 1.7 per 1,000 inhabitants for total department staffing.
The standard provides a systematic method for translating the impact of growth into the
number of police personnel required to maintain an adequate level of service.
Impacts:
General comments - Demand for police services are likely to increase due to the
additional residents (see chart below):
Figure 15: Police Service Impacts Based on Service Standard
Projected change in Number of additional officers
population needed to meet service
standard
Current Policy and Trends +11,420 19
Increase Housing Option +6,199 11
(in addition to Current Policy) (in addition to Current Policy)
Reduce Job Growth Options n/a nla
The prospective residential additions near the Crossroads Mall and in the city's
industrial sites could be served with the current stations and operational resources.
Thus, no significant capital expenditures for police services are expected to be
generated by the mixed use developments. In general, there will be some increase
in police service costs related to the proposed developments, but the costs will be
mitigated by the location of the developments.
Services - Fire
Assessment Process:
The Fire Department Master Plan (1996) was used to assess the impacts to fira service
capacity from the various options. Impacts to fire protection services are measured by the
impact on response time (service standard = response time in less than 6 minutes) and
level of sarvice due to:
demand and capacity related issues; (adequate facilities exist)
travel distance; and
traffic congestion and mitigation.
2-30
Assumptions:
Several assumptions are used in the Fire Master Plan which are relevant to this
assessment:
The Fire Department will continue to experience increases in calls beyond build-
out due to in-commuting, continued job growth, tourism growth and increased
citizen expectations.
Current fire codes have minimized fire risk in commercial and multifamily
structures.
Update:
The following is excerpted from the 1999 Options Assessment. Additional analysis may
be found in the Fiscal Impacts section on page 2-34.
Impacts:
General Comments - Based upon current standazds, the Fire DepartmenYs level
of service is adequate throughout most the city. Additional housing, however, is
likely to increase fire protection service needs. Residential property generates a
higher number of service calls than does commercial property, due to emergency
medical responses.
In addition, the majority of the residential development will be in high density
areas that are currently traffic congested and difficult to serve. The major concern
with increased densities is the deteriorating response times for the day-to-day
emergencies.
City fire officials do not expect that the proposed additional development would
create the need for a new fire station. In sum, the developments will raise
operating costs to fire protection services, but should not generate significant
additional capital expenditures.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
The increase in service demand in the more congested commercial areas will be mitigated
by the replacement of older commercial sites with relatively higher fire hazards with
newer, more fire-safe developments. For example, additions such as ceiling sprinklers
can greatly reduce the risk of fire damage.
Services - Library
Assessment Process and Assumptions:
Impacts to library service capacity were not included in the original impact assessment.
The 1996 Library Master Plan was broadly based on an extensive public survey and the
2-31
Library Productivity Analysis (1993) which compared Boulder library services to that of
peer cities. Service standards for the library aze not directly based on population levels.
Having completed a series of expansion projects, the library master plan does not outline
any major facility expansion needs in the future except to complete the North Bouider
Branch Library and to accommodate technological changes as they arise.
Impacts:
General Comments - Impacts to library service delivery, however, were
estimated in a report by BBC Research and Consulting. The proposed BVCP land
use changes are expected to generate additional staffing needs and operating costs
with an estimated annual increase of $30,000. Higher population levels may also
require an increase in the size of the cotlection at some facilities.
Potential Mitigation Strategies:
The Library Master Plan lists several strategies for managing increased circulation levels
and operating costs. These strategies include the following:
• Improve the materials handling and circulation operations; and
• Work toward the installation of unstaffed, self-service checkout stations for
patrons.
Services - Schools
Assessment Process:
Planning staff from the Boulder Valley School District reviewed the options to determine
what effect the original Increase Housing Options would have on the capacity of the
school system.
Assumptions:
The overall assumption used in the analysis was that the student yield from each of the
options would be low based on the type and location of housing provided.
Impacts:
Schools within the areas tazgeted for additional housing should be able to absorb any
increase in demand based on the following:
• The targeted area where development would occur within their attendance areas
include central Boulder. The schools in this area (Columbine and Whittier} have
current enrollments below projections.
• The average growth percentage rate for middle and high schools has been
negative.
2-32
Services - Human Services
Assessment Process:
Impacts to human services were not included in the 1999 Options Assessment.
Update:
Staff from Housing and Human Services reviewed the revised policy options and
provided the following assessment of poYential impacts to human services:
Impacts:
Current Policy and Trends - Relevant trends which will impact human services
over the next 20 years include the following:
Growth in jobs. As more workers are brought into the city, the need for
access to affordable, quality childcaze increases. The Increase Housing
Option will reduce this need somewhat.
Reduction in the proportion of employers who provide health care
coverage for employees. If current trends continue, a greater proportion of
Boulder's residents will not receive healthcare coverage from their
employer, but, because they aze employed, will have an income too high to
qualify for Medicaid. This means a greater proportion of Boulder residents
will rely on city-subsidized healthcare delivered by private non-profits.
The options will add to this impact by increasing the number of residents.
Increase in population. A 10% increase in population (from today's
estimates) is likely to equate to at least a 10% increase in human service
demand. Additionally, since approximately 1/3 of new units added will be
targeted to families and individuals at or below 70 percent of the annual
median income, this demand will probably be somewhat higher. The
options will increase population by approximately 6000 people.
Increased proportion of older residents. If present trends continue,
Boulder will experience both an increasing proportion of its residents
being elderly and an increasing average age of older Boulder residents.
This will place greater demand for current services and will add to the
need to ensure families' access to planning care options far elder family
members. The options would increase the older population by a small
percentage.
2-33
Increase Housing Option - This option would add approximately 2500 to 2600
households in Areas I and II (over what would occur with no revisions to the
BVCP), while reducing employment by 4600 to 5500 (from the current expected
growth of 45,000 new jobs). The impact of this option on the human service needs
of the community, though substantial, are minor when compared to the anticipated
growth in needs due to current policy and social trends.
Fiscal Impacts (Economy)
Assessment Process and Assumptions:
General Fund operaYing revenue - A financial model was created to estimate
General Fund operating revenue and expenditures associated with increases in
population (see Figure 17 on page 2-37). Revenue was estimated very
conservatively:
• assuming a relatively low market value per dwelling unit of $175,000;
• assuming a relatively high proportion of sales taxable spending would
occur outside of the City of Boulder; and
• fixrther factoring down total taxable spending by 20%, to account for a
higher proportion of low income and student population than the average
population in the Bureau of Labor Consumer Expenditure Survey.
Sales tax revenue includes the following three components:
The undesignated General Fund 1.0% that does not expire;
The undesignated General Fund 0.38% that expires in 2011; and
The designated Public Safety 0.15% that expires in 2004 (election related
to extension planned for 2001).
Incremental revenue from additional jobs in the community was not included in
this analysis.
General Fund operating costs - Most likely" assumptions were used for
estimating operating costs associated with increased population (see Figure 18 on
page 2-38). Current service levels were assumed. As with the revenue estimate,
costs related to increases in jobs were not included.
Impacts:
Net Impact of Incremental Residential Development - The analysis concludes
that utilizing "most likely" estimates, revenue generated by the additional
2-34
population would cover the additional General Fwd operating costs required to
support services at current service levels.
Though not probable, two areas have been identified where capacity problems
could occur with increased population. The first is Fire Deparhnent services that
are impacted by both the demographics of the additional population and the level
of traffic congestion in the city. Depending upon the current capacity of any
given station, if calls for service generated by the increased population and
increased jobs exceed the 3,000 call capacity serviced by a fire apparatus and
associated crew, an additional fire apparatus would be required with a capital cost
of $400,000 and annual operating costs of $700,000. Generally, call volume is
higher for low income and senior populations. Also, if traffic congestion were to
increase significantly, a new fire station could be required to maintain current
response times.
The second area identified as having probable service capacity problems is in
Parks and Recreation services. The model accounts for fairly minimal additional
maintenance expenses to offset increased usage of current parks. While the
current Parks Master Plan projects adequate parks to cunent "buildout"
assumptions, significant residential densification in an area such as Crossroads or
the industrial azeas could generate the desire for a park facility in that area with
unplanned associated capital and maintenance costs. (Please see the section on
Parks and Recreation Impacts on page 2-24).
Impact of Commercial Development -While the financial model attempts to
evaluate only impacts related to increases in residential dwelling units/population,
it is not possible to totally isolate the impact of revised assuxnptions related to
increases in jobs. In general, given the higher assessed valuation factor applied to
commercial / industrial properties (29% versus less than 10% for residential
properties) plus the use tax paid by most businesses, it appears reasonable to
assume that most operating costs associated with the additional jobs would be
covered by a combination of incremental property tax and use tax revenue
generated by new businesses. Nonetheless, increased traffic congestion would
appear to be a significant overlapping issue. While traffic impacts are analyzed in
a separate section of this document, it is important to note here that increased
traffic congestion related to additional jobs could also impact General Fund
operating costs and could possibly result in the need for additional fire apparatus'
and / or an additional fire station.
Development excise taxes (DET) - Two factors apply to the question of whether
current development excise taxes totally recover capital costs related to new
development - rates and units. 5ince DET rates were established at a level lower
than calculated in the Tischler & Associates study, it is reasonable to conclude
2-35
that new development is not currently paying the total capital cost of growth. If no
or minimal additional capital facilities are required to service the increased
population, revenue from applying the current rates to more units could result in
DET revenue more closely approximating the true cost of growth. This fairly
simplistic view does not address the fact that increased use of facilities could
reduce service levels.
2-36
Fignre 17
ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL REVENUE GENERATED BY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
N
i.i
v
ESTIMATED
Hustiaod &
Husba~& wife Single :-
wifeoNy w7chiWren person Aveiage
3,000 4,146 '1,987 3,044
2,380 2,888 'I,520 2,263
388 299 321 336
290 337 210 279
1,009 1,142 852 1,001
107 92 52 82
855 1,047 690 864
'134 168 78 127
317 392 141 283
139 153 77 123
428 526 235 396
72 59 24 52
229 237 135 200
156 113 78 1'16
s2s s~a azz ns
1,680 2,520 1,202 1,801
E55mated% _ EstTaxabte-
Es'
I
purchasedin ~
:.Spe~dingin
Boulder Boulder
80% 2,435
50% 1,131
50°h 168
100% 279
100% 7,001
25% 20
50 % 432
~plicablel Sales Ta:
legNatiwe mma~
ata ~ 3.6%1ar20W &
~ ror zooi (~m s~
xmtlimineimpa¢M
77 16
3 3
4 4
15 i6
0 0
7 7
80°h 101 2 2
80% 227 3 4
D
50 % 62 1 1
25% 99 2 2
25% 13 0 0
25% 50 1 1
50% 58 1 ~~
50% 388 6 ns~~ss+.~esmaens~n
25k 45D 7 7 "9`°°"m"°`s°"~swea°"~ae`
Vehiclepurchases(netouUay) 3,791 4,946 2,072 3,603 75% 2,702 41 43
Maintenance 8 repairs 766 934 447 714 50°h 357 5 6
Entertainment 0 0
Ns, radios, sound equipment 579 815 484 626 50 % 313 5 5
Pets, toys & playground equipment 377 516 226 373 50 % 187 3 3
Personal care producGS & services 471 541 299 437 50% 219 3 4
Reading 215 197 121 178 0% 0 0
Miscellaneous 931 1,091 707 910 25% 227 3 4
Total 19,237 24,137 72,374 18,583 10,919 '167 175
Taxable spending reduced to re9ec[ higher proportion of lower income residents 140
ESTIMATED PROPERN TAX REVENUE
Mill levy inGuding 2 mills for Public SafeTy ~0.908
Avg market value per tlwelling und 175,000
Est assessed valuatlon % 9 %
Property taz revenue per dwelling unit 172 i
~
~ ~
p0r
~~
~- ~
(
~
ESHMA7EU TOTAI REVENUE ; tlnit ASSUmpfions
. . _
Sales taz /'140 See above model
Propertytax ~~ 172 Averege market value per unit of 175,000
Cable N f2nchise tax 12 Average cable services of $20 per month per dwelling unit
Admissions taz 6 Avg $10/month fazable admissions per dwelling unit (would be less'rf new theater is n o[ built at Crossroatls)
Specific ownership fax 10 Avg vehicle value of $10,000, 1 vehicle per Owelling unit
Tobacco fax 12 $5 per resitlent ($$6.25 in 1999), 2.4 resitlents per dwelling unit
Total 352
Food at home
Food away from home
Alwholic beverages
Utilities, fuel & public services
Natural gas
Elecficity
Fuel oil & other fuels
Telephone services
Housekeeping supplies
Laundry & Geaning supplies
O[her household protlucts
Household fumishings & equipment
Household te#iles
FumiWre
Floor wverings
Nlajor applia~ces
Small applianceslmisc housewares
Misc household equipment
Apparel & services
Transporfation
e~~~
o(I~wsin9 p'/
wmp plan analysis.xls
Figure 18
GENERAL FUND PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
-: 4,860 Qweliin9 Add'12,536 .
PerOwelting:-.~ Unttsto Dwelling -
:` Unit $uildouf -:Units --~~ Totai -' NOTESlASSUMPTION5 -
. . . .. .. - ~4.860 . . . 2.536 . . .. ~~396~. . .. : . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. ..
REVENUE
SalesTax $
Property Ta~c
Cable N Franchise ta~c
Admissions Tax
Spec~c Ownership Tau
Court fees & charges
Tobacco Tax
Total Revenue $
EXPENDRURES (at current service levels)
City Council
Municipal Court
City Attomey
Ciry Manager
Visitors Bureau
N Environmentai Affairs
~',~ GDMID
O0 Communications
Insurance
Information Systems
HRIS
Finance/Budget
Police
Fire
Parks 8 Reaeation
Public Works
Library
Arts
Open Space & Real Estate
Housing/Human Services
Planning
Total ExpendiNres
ESTIMATED NET FISCAL IMPACT
140 $ 680,400 $ 355,040 $ 1,035,440 See model .
172 835,920 436,192 1,272,1~2 Avgmarketvalueperunitof$175,000
12 58,320 30,432 58,752 Average cable services of $20 per month per dwelling unit
6 29,160 15,216 44,376 Avg $10/mo tauable admissions per DU (less if new theater is not built a[ Crossroads)
10 48,600 25,360 73,960 Avg vehiGe value of $10,000, 1 vehicle per dwelling unit
12 58,320 30,432 88,752 50% generated by residents =$5 per resident in 2001
12 58,320 30,432 88,752 $5 per resident (est @$5.6 for 200~ ), 2.4 residents per dwelling unit
364 $ 1,769,040 $ 923,104 $ 2,692,144 -
$ - $ - $ - Adequate capacity
na 50,000 25,000 75,000 Add'I clerk & security as appearances incr.
na 50,000 25,000 75,000 Add'I prosecutor time to review traffic rases 8 support incr court activity
0 - - - Adequate capacity
0 - - - Adequate capacity
D - - - Increases oHSet by increased trash tax revenue
0 - - - Adequate capacity
0 - - - Adequate capacity
na 10,000 20,000 30,000 Costs related to add'I employees
0 - - - Adequate capacity
0 - - - Adequate capacity
0 - - - Adequate capacity
144 699,840 365,184 1,065,024 1.7 officers per 1,000 population @$60,000 each for pe & npe (2.4 pop per DU)
Likely rase, no add'I capital req'd, some incr in npe & overtime Worst case, need add'1
na 100,000 200,000 300,000 apparatus 8 crew @$800,OOO/yr or add'1 station
na 50,000 50,000 100,000 To buildout, $SOK for add'I park maint, Add'I pop may require add'I park site
na - - - Increases offset by increased development fees
No cap'Ral facility req'd except North Bldr branch which is curten8y inGuded in the cip, increase
na 50,000 25,000 75,000 in coilection size only to support incr in population
na - - - Adequate capacity
na - - - Adequate capacity
na 100,000 50,000 150.000 Add'I staffing in children/school based services, housing & senior services
na. - Increases offset by increased development fees
$ 1,109,840 $ 760,184 $ 1,870,024
$ 659,200 $ 162,920 $ 822,120 Modeled revenue exceeds cost by these amounts
~ CITY OF BOULDER
~/~,~;//' Planning Department
~ ~~~.
~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Coloraiio 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • emaii building-services@ci.boulder.co.us
www.ci.boulder.co. us/buildingservices
January 9, 2001
Dear community member,
Thank you for attending the Dec. 6 meeting to discuss the possibility of mixed-use at the Table Mesa
and Basemar shopping centers and for your interest in the future of our community.
At this time, the city does not plan to immediately pursue a more detailed planning effort for either of
these centers. Based on the comments from the meeting, and taking into account the fact that we do not
plan to initiate a more detailed planning effort in the near future, an additional meeting has not been
scheduled at this time. We will keep your name on file, and you will be notified if the city initiates any
planning efforts for either of these centers.
Since many of you asked for both a written summary of ineeting comments as well as some additional
information, enclosed are:
. notes from the small group discussions
. a summary of written comments
. some additional information on mixed-use
. a housing fact sheet
'Thank you again for participating in the Dec. 6 meeting. If you have any question5 or comments, please
feel free to call Louise Grauer (303-441-3134) or Susan Richstone (303-441-3271).
Sincerely,
~~,~~~~?~
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Community Meeting to Discuss Mixed Use at Table Mesa and Basemar Centers
12/6/00
Smafl Group Discussions - Flip chart notes
Summary of all groups
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and
preserved)
Community environment, like it the way it is, beginning to thrive, positive momentum
Small locally owned businesses, variety, basic needed services, range of businesses
Concern for existing businesses; reasonable rents
Always full occupancy, functional
Decent restaurants, Cafe Sole, Bagel shop, reasonably priced
Grocery store, book store, library, tiras, outdoor-oriented businesses, gym
Diversity of people - can run into friends, friendly, welcoming, feel like I belong
Walkability/bike access, fun to walk around, close to neighborhood, wide sidewalks
Good public transportation, buses, transit
Reasonable parking, park in front of stores, can find a space, good size, open, disabled parking
Location - close to residential, convenient, the only place in south Boulder to shop
Open feel, lower density, neighbarhood-scale, not too crowded
Right amount of lighting
Access from any direction, any side of the site, to each business - convenience
Outside space, sheltered, quiet areas, buffered from cars
Mountain views, back-drop, open space at New Vista school
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
More accessible for driving, bikes, walking, transit, add underpasses, bike racks
Improve bikepaths along Broadway, Table Mesa, add bus pull-outs
Improve traffic flow within the center and adjacent, better controlled intersection
More/better landscaping, trees, courtyard, plaza, larger pedestrian areas, seating
Needs more pazking and incentives for people without cars
Ways to create community, cultural development (e.g. dance studio, kids activities)
Could use a facelift, aesthetics, better architectural design, especially on the east side
More housing - you can walk to schools
More local restaurants (e.g. Dots) - not chains, outdoor restaurants
Relocate the Social Services office - it does not really serve this community, add a post office
Additional uses that provide for a more exciting night life
Stores located near the streets with parking behind
Better safety - especially for young children
Eliminate speed bumps
Would like a survey - a systematic way to see what people want
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Loss of existing businesses, failing after remodel, increase in rent, loss of momentum
Traffic increasing and congested parking, loss of parking, speed bumps
Spillover parking into residential neighborhoods
Movie theater, resulting in less parking available
Promoting or supporting more reliance on cazs
Not addressing the existing traffic and safety problems at the intersection and with bicycles
Add housing, Implementation of PUD- approved 24 residential units,
Too much affordable housing, new housing won't just be for people working in Boulder
Less diversity of shops, increase in expensive or franchise shops, reduce commercial space
Homeless shelter, student housing
Eliminating any neighborhood connections
More noise, increased 24 hour use
No public process for any land use change proposal
Density - number of people using services, congestion
If plans for the site make unrealistic assumptions about human nature (driving habits, crime, crowding,
how many CU students will cram themselves into one apartment...)
If the landowner tries to `max out' or intensively redevelop the site
If the ratio of parking spaces to commercial square footage is unrealistic
If the city interferes too much with the private market
Tall buildings - keep views, keep one story
Too much lighting
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and
disadvantages)
Mixed feelings
If projects require a heavy public subsidy and are highly regulated, then mixed use is a bad idea
Greater density, intensity and crowding, serious problems for the surrounding neighborhood
Good to have more residents to support center, promotes small shops
Improved safety - 24 hour env., more eyes on the street
Better than other regional development, OK if reduces congestion and sprawl
Less traffic per unit, energy efficient, efficient use of the land
Parking overflow into neighborhood, more traffic overall
Good place for it due to transportation access (transit)
More housing, aparhnents are OK, variety of housing, 20% affordable
Good for senior citizens
Cheap aparhnents, means CU students - that means crime, parking problems ... `the Hill'...
Table Mesa not big enough to make a difference - small numbers only
Would it really be for workers, the needy? Consider priority housing for center employees
Means revitalization, improved aesthetics
Not good for families, rentals, less stable population
Increases in noise, building height
Hard to evaluate without numbers and density
City-wide goals of transit, density, affordable housing being put on neighborhood center
2
Limit growth, need to look at broader strategies for reducing jobs
Concern for lo6al businesses, increased rent, Redevelopment will push out small business
Can be win/win, lively - if done right, have seen it work in big cities and compact towns
Want, green spaces, trees, less asphalt, insure adequate open space, bike/pedestrian trails
Make it more homey/cosy
Avoid making it a place that doesn't feel safe, friendly - mixed use could do that
Not greater than 100 units, scale is key - number of units, location
Mixed use good for Crossroads, try if there first, see how it works
Preserve community character
Table Mesa is successful as is, already a mixed use neighborhood
Great environment for young people but not for family environment of Table Mesa
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics
and central issues to explore?
Yes -if we challenge assumptions that underlie mixed-use idea and build plan from the bottom up
-if it is truly a grass-roots effort
-if intent is to make improvements to what we have rather than promote something completely
different in character and scale
-if it's long term
-but not a green light for mixed use
-helps direct change in positive directions
-if the neighborhood is going to be given real power that balances the combined power of city
government and economic interests that favor densification
No -not until existing traffic problems are solved
-biased toward big change and densification, predisposes change
-mistrust of the city government make us skeptical of a neighborhood planning effort
-we need a different effort - between the city and University to deal meaningfully with student
housing needs, including building significantly more srixdent housing
Questions
- how would it be used?
-how would it affect private property rights7
-Can we be defensive about what we want to protect?
Transportarion, traffic flow, transit, parking, less cars, bicycle access, people mover (monorail)
Integrate neighborhood, business owners, property owners
The devolution to neighborhood control is not a good thing because it is not responsive to the greater
common good and makes it more difficult to address issues city wide
Input by the neighborhood into a larger, more comprehensive planning process is better than a
neighborhood plan
Change happens - no growth is not an option
Tie the plan into neighborhood - density along Broadway/Lashley
Feasibility of mixed use succeeding, examples of a similar projects .
Demographic study of who would live in units, families not likely to live above shops
Parks and open space
Density and height, noise, safety - improve lighting, handicap accessibility
School traffic
Housing - good for seniors and students
Mix of for sale, rental, unrelated people/unit enforcement
Incorporate public uses, library, Boulder Valley School District
Neighborhood input into services, hours of operation, other impacts
Performances at plazas, amphitheaters
Create community space - indoor and outdoor (recreation center/library)
Curb ramps - make the azea more walkable
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes -does not need to be in February, only if change is pending, prior to anything being done
-need more information
-feedback from tonight's meeting; synthesize input- what did the city hear tonight?
-discuss alternative approaches
-to continue rebuilding trust and to help solidify the opposition to change
-to be kept up to speed with new information, more specific information from the city
-to get a sense of what could happen on the site
No -go with neighborhood plan
-only if major changes proposed
Will comments be heard? People do not want to be ignored
Turn out tonight - shows people are concerned
General Q& A, town meeting format, town hall type meeting
Have representatives from planning, housing, transportarion, developers (Reynolds), City Council
Talk about comparable examples of mixed use
More information before we meet (e.g. housing)
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
If mixed use is being proposed - need underground parking for residents
Look at Crossroads for mixed use (see if successful?)
This discussion is not based on affordable housing
If housing is only a drop in the bucket - redevelopment issue
What things can you deed restrict?
Possible to divide ownership of center - so small businesses could own them
Would this be a windfall for the developer7
Current ordinance of three unrelated occupants in a residential dwelling (this is an idea to add
affordable housing in the city)- make this a higher number - take it to a vote
We could end up worse off - more congestion, more cars that impact pedestrians/bicyclists
Would like a survey - a systematic way to see what people want
Concern that mixed use brings too many people
Post sumcnary of ineeting in businesses and send out by mail
Support neighborhood input
Concern that south Boulder gets "second class" treatment compared to north Boulder
Those opposed to mixed use are strongly opposed, particularly if the site density changes greatly.
Concern over what could happen now
4
Flip Chart Notes from Each Small Group Discussion
Basemar Center
Recorder: Annie Noble
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and
preserved)
Small locally owned businesses good (everyone felt)
Always full occupancy
Comprehensive - broad range of businesses
Walking access
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
More accessible for driving, all modes, walking
Traffic flow
More/better landscaping
Better access to transit (like Crossroads)
Needs more parking
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Concern of businesses failing after remodel
Concern of rent going up
Traffic increasing
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and
disadvantages)
Good idea, not too intense
Some would not like affordable, low-income
Do not want students, concern of trashing out (like Hill)
Good for senior citizens
Concern of businesses - chemicals, fumes, problems with residents
Some would like to see affordable housing as part of this
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics
and central issues to explore?
Plans are important, which includes park, parking, trails, transportation, traffic flow, transit
Needs to respect individual rights, integrate neighborhood with shopping center
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes, if decide to move in this direction (prior to anything being done)
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
If mixed use is being proposed - need underground parking for residents
Look at Crossroads for mixed use (see if successful?)
5
Table Mesa- Group 1
Recorder: Ruth McHeyser
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and
preserved)
Locally-owned businesses (coffee shop) - place to see neighbors - preserve sense of community
Proximity to library
Diversity of uses and merchants
Great King Soopers
Park close - pull up front - walk to several stores
Connections to neighborhoods - can easily walk to and within the center
Friendly, welcoming - feel like I belong (with low income housing - will it be the same?)
Open space at New Vista school is an amenity
Mountain views, back-drop
Size of parking spaces - good, safe
Transit, bus access
Gym is awesome
It works - and is not overly congested
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Improve pedestrian connections, placement of bridges
Better, controlled intersection at Table Mesa and Broadway
Upcoming project - Table Mesa from Broadway east to 46th
Improve bikeway along Broadway - visibility, overgrown junipers
Bike path on Table Mesa one way only - need safe option for other direction
More ways to create community - cultural development (e.g. dance studio, kids activities)
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Change in land use designation to add housing
Less diversity of shops and increased traffic (auto) ~ greater density
Homeless shelter
Implementation of PUD - approved 24 residential units and congested parking
Eliminating any neighbarhood connections
Any more mechanical unit noise (e.g. King Soopers)
Increased 24 hour use (beyond King Soopers & gym) - would make it noisy for neighbors
Concern about public process. Make sure residents get notified when any land use change is proposed.
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and
disadvantages)
Avoid making it a place that doesn't feel safe, friendly - mixed use could do that.
Merchants are at the mercy of local residents to succeed. IYs a delicate balance.
Critical mass of density - potential concern
Like idea - vibrancy, green spaces, pedestrian friendly, lively - if done right
Have seen it work in big cities and compact towns
The place for mixed use in Boulder is Crossroads - test it there - rather than change places that people
like
Consider Table Mesa a mixed use neighborhood (even though no residential in center)
There is mix of uses in neighborhood - immediate area
Scale is key - number of units, location
More units ~ more cazs, traffic generator, traffic noise, impacts neighborhood residents
Housing in centers - guaranteed for center employees - may consider
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics
and central issues to explore?
Unqualified YES
Can we be defensive about what we want to protect?
How would it be used?
Don't rule out future neighborhood meetings
How can it affect how a private landowner uses his land7
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
What would be purpose? (1)
Maybe not - if no change pending - but if there aze changes, we want to be part of process! (3)
Why wait to do neighborhood plan? (3)
Keep momentum going - meet every few months? (4)
City Council must do a better selling job on affordable housing (5)
7. Do you have any additional comments or quesHons?
No comments
Table Mesa- Group 2
Recorder: Bev Johnson
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and
preserved)
Diversity of people - Cafe Sole, Dive Shop, Bagel shop - mixer of diverse users
"Landlords"/independent ownership is better
Likes what it is today
Wants it to remain a place to work/drive to comfortably
Decent restaurants, grocery store, basic services
Wants small services in neighborhoods
Table Mesa has all the services we need
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Could use a facelift -"aesthetics" needs improvement - especially on the east side
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Adding more units
Increase in density = congestion, restrictive parking, less aesthetically pleasing
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and
disadvantages)
Rents will rise with the amount of mixed use being proposed
How can you make it affordable so that the small businesses are not driven out?
City incentive to raise taxes has driven increase in jobs
What is rationale for mixed use here and now?
Redevelopment pushes out small business owners
Limit growth - do not just increase housing to address jobs issue
Skeptical of "affordable housing" approach
Lack of benefits of mixed use in this center - it has everything - iYs working now
Need to look at broader strategies for reducing jobs
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics
and central issues to explore?
Likes what happened in North Boulder (Vic's)
Property owners should be involved
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Will comments be heard7
Need meeting to get a sense of what could happen on the site
What is the city's role in guiding the development?
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Will comments be heard?
Table Mesa- Group 3
Recorder: Jean Gatza
l. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and
preserved)
Neither Table Mesa, nor Basemar are dying - both aze still vibrant
Table Mesa already has good transit
IYs a very mixed - good community environment now
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
More housing - you can walk to schools
More local restaurants (e.g. Dots) - not chains - would rather have Cafe Sole rather than Peaberry's
Fix existing traffic problems - currently cars are crossing bike lanes in/out of gas stations, which is
very dangerous - turns are dangerous for bicyclists
Relocate the Social Services office - it does not really serve this community
Addition of bus pull-outs
Incentives for people without cars
Additional uses that provide for a mare exciting night life
Stores located near the streets with parking behind
Bikepath along Broadway/Frontage Road, parallel to Broadway - Darhnouth and Table Mesa - no bike
bath going down Table Mesa
Table Mesa and Tantra need bike/pedestrian improvements
Fix sidewalks - why do sidewalks meander?
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Adding more people will add more cars/traffic - when there is already a parking problem now
Too many upscale buildings - too expensive
Shops have struggled for a long time
If you build affordable housing - it gets expensive
If you get the ultimate traffic jam - people will not be able to use cazs and will not be able to drive
Any increase in density will increase problems in South Boulder
Afraid that the good existing businesses will change
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and
disadvantages)
Years ago nothing going on in Table Mesa and there is now
Traffic intersection at Broadway and Table Mesa - improvements next yeaz - left turn south from Table
Mesa is bad - adding more bikes or more traffic will be worse - Hanover is bad as well - traffic is
biggest concern - won't favor mixed use - until traffic concerns are addressed
All agree mixed use housing is useful - now we need to discuss where mixed use is appropriate
Mixed use is better suited for areas with berter traffic access
Keeping vibrant shopping keeps trips down for nearby residents
Why should Table Mesa be the poster child7
New housing won't just be for people working in Boulder - people work everywhere
9
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics
and central issues to explore?
North Boulder shopping center (Community Plaza) was refurbished but did not add housing
This area is in the vicinity of six schools - open enrollment ~ more driving from all over the city
Traffic and access issues continue to be a problem
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Turn out tonight - shows people are concerned
People need to be kept up to speed with new information
People do not want to be ignored
Need for more information - all information needs to be informative
Need more specific information from the city - more productive
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
This discussion is not based on affordable housing
If housing is only a drop in the bucket - redevelopment issue
What things can you deed restrict?
On page 10 of the handout - What can be done? What is planned?
Possible to divide ownership of center - so small businesses could own them
10
Table Mesa- Group 4 Recorder: Randall Rutsch
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? ('Things to be protected and preserved)
That it is there and serves the neighborhood
Diversity of businesses
Independent, privately owned businesses
SKIP right there
Accessible by walk and bike from the neighborhoods
Grocery store is key to the center
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
More walkable, is very dangerous and difficult to walk anywhere within the center
More public spaces
More landscaping and aesthetics
More places to meet and talk
Break it up and make it walkable
Traffic control so don't feel like you take your life in your hands to walk through the parking lot
More varied businesses- bookstore, bar
More storefronts with pedestrian interest
Tire store and social security not compatible in current locations
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Increased impacts from housing
Would this be a good place for children? Too much pollution
Loss of King Soopers, grocery store
Loss of parking, is very difficult on weekends
Increased traffic on Table Mesa
Increased number of people who will not all take alternative modes, so will be more vehicle traffic and
parking problems
Loss of businesses that are here
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
Keep the existing businesses
Any approved residential units will take away parking
What is the cost to the ta~cpayer?
Could be a positive thing
Could get us walking more to and through the center
Bottom line is an increase in traffic
Is too small an area to do a mixed use project and expect alt. modes to have an affect
Students and others need a place to live, if could afford apartments they might not double up in residential
neighborhoods with those impacts
Could make a much more pleasant place without more development
Businesses will fail during construction
Businesses in town need to hire people, it would be more attracrive to them if employees could live locally
11
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
Should have a neighborhood plan •
Density is not the real issue, rather the plan, amenities and traffic impacts are
Need to address heights of any redevelopment
Need to provide criteria, staging, tradeoffs
The center, traffic, parking, amount of commercial should be looked at in relation to impact
Need to understand what Reynolds wants to do
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes- to specifically explore the effects of traffic relative to adding residents or commercial.
Need a thoughtful, detailed discussion of traffic, as is the key to disagreements and support or concern
over redevelopment of the center
Need to distribute information before the meeting
Big issue is traffic- need hard numbers
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
12
Table Mesa - Group 5 Recorder: Susan Richstone
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and preserved)
Protect existing locally owned businesses
Walkability/bike access
Views
Convenience - lots of services
Fun to walk azound
Good public transportation
Not too crowded
Local neighborhood services as opposed to Pearl Street
Martin Park and bike path
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Underpass under Table Mesa
Walkability: within center (Pettyjohns/King Soopers to anywhere else)
Driveability - King Soopers back towards Cafe Sole
Bike accessibility through center
Safety concerns - especially for young children
Could use a public space
Crossing bridge at entrance to King Soopers dangerous for pedestrians (walking east or west on Table
Mesa)
Revitalize east side of center (Social Security) poor connections
Vehicular entrances and exits and bike paths - poor visibility
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Don't lose Savers
Density - number of people using services
Traffic
More people living there
Concern that types of shops would change
Be more expensive
Existing locally owned tenants businesses would be driven out
Less parking
Spillover parking into residential neighborhoods
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
Good place for it due to transportation access (transit)
Try it in Crossroads first, see how it works
Loss of whaYs there today
Lack of space will dictate types of housing
Great environment for young people - not for family environment of Table Mesa
Will change character
Would be good to have more residents to support center
Would need to ensure adequate open space
13
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
centralissuesto explore?
No, not until existing traffic problems are solved
Yes, if it's a long-term look
Could influence future changes
Issues: traffic, zoning, pedestrian circulation, parking, maintaining views, needs to address families (they
will not live above shops)
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes, doesn't need to be in February
General Q& A, town meeting format
Have representatives from planning, housing, transportation, developers (Reynolds) and City Council
Talk about comparable examples of mixed use
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Disruption of existing business during redevelopment
14
Table Mesa - Group 6
Recorder: John Pollak
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and preserved)
Ambience - hang out (coffee shop)
Mix of stores
Location - close to residential
Views
Functional - small neighborhood shopping, parking
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Complicated pedestrian and auto circulation, difficult to navigate
Eliminate speed bumps
Broadway side dead - revitalize
Architectural face lift/landscaping
Affordable housing - add good mix of shops
Status quo - more retail, less office
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Not upscale Pearl Street Mall - keep normal stuff
Not tall buildings - keep views, keep one story
No more congestion
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
Need definition - geographically specific
Four members in the group were opposed to height, housing, affordable housing - too compact -
congestion - adding 500 residents is inappropriate
Two mambers in the group supported the concept - efficient use of the land
Preserve community character - center should not subsidize housing
Mixed feelings
Buy in from owner and neighborhood (azea plan)
OK if raduces congestion and sprawl
Keep rents affordable (retail)
Table Mesa is successful as is
Amount of housing is frightening
Support for better design
Less pazking focus
Affordable housing, if limited number and done right
Smal] offices/small businesses
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
Generally yes, but not green light for mixed use (refer to question #4)
IS
Group was split... some felt a neighborhood plan and another mtg would be useful as a means to have a
voice in future development... others were concerned that acceptance of a plan/mtg would be seen as
condoning redevelopment and they prefer status quo.
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Only if major changes proposed
Town hall type meeting
See answer to question #5
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
16
Table Mesa - Group 7
Recorder: Michelle Allen
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and preserved)
Locally owned/affordable businesses
Reasonable rents for business
You can walk to it
Reasonable parking - you can find a space, good size
Good bus service
A good meeting spot - can run into friends - cultural center
Concern to keep the existing businesses - don't let existing businesses get priced out of the market - keep
the variety of businesses
Entertainment
King Soopers
The only place in south Boulder to shop
Open feel - lower density - parking lots - open
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Larger variety - more shops, different types
Places where people can congregate
Larger pedestrian area - where I do not need to worry about auto impacts
Courtyard/plaza - music - a focal point - street entertainment
More friendly to bikes - racks
Entice the developer with mare retail
Better use of existing space (Savers/utilize the parking space there)
It needs a face lift - win/win - revitalization/concern that Boulder is losing out to Hwy. 36
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Don't reduce amount of commercial
Too much affordable housing
More cars that impact pedestrians/bicyclists
Anything that would hurt existing businesses
We could end up worse off - more congestion
Don't flatten whaYs there
Would like a survey - a systematic way to see what people want
Concern that mixed use brings too many people
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
Can be win/win
Want trees, less asphalt
Make it more homey/cosy
Not 500 people - don't over do it - not greater than 100
Need impact assessment
Traffic/parking - 93/36
Mixed use good for Crossroads
Table Mesa not big enough to make a difference - sma11 numbers only
Tie in the library - bike/pedestrian trails
17
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
Sounds wise '
Can help incorporate adjacent uses - the library
Access to open space
Consensus of support for a plan
Create community space - indoor and outdoor (recreation center/library)
Curb ramps - make the area more walkable
Plan for seniors
Less cars
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
50% said no - go with neighborhood plan
50% said yes - feedback from tonighYs meeting
What did the city hear tonight?
How does that affect what is happening in the rest of the city?
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Would this be a windfall for the developer?
Cunent ordinance of three unrelated occupants in a residential dwelling (this is an idea to add affordable
housing in the city)- make this a higher number - take it to a vote
18
Table Mesa - Group 8
Recorder: Louise Grauer
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and preserved)
Scale - neighborhood
Services provided (useful) locally-owned convenient layout:
Parking available - good flow
Neighborhood gathering place
Walking
Reasonably priced
Affordable rents
Low traffic impacts on neighborhood
Accessibility by car
2. What would make the center better? ('I'hings we might promote for the future)
Improve east side (fewer local business) - not integrated into neighborhood
Improve maintenance, lack of aesthetics
Better sidewalks to connect
Improve character, architectural design
Intersection of Table Mesa and Broadway - underpass under Table Mesa
Public sitting areas
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Housing that would exacerbate parking demand
Student housing
Increased traffic
Rent and price increases
Lose needed services
Keep "suburbia" (cost and priorities)
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
Hard to evaluate without numbers and density
The center is economically and socially viable on its own
City-wide goals of transit, density, affordable housing being put on neighborhood center
Table Mesa Center revitalized on its own (let that play out)
Improve aesthetics - how it ties in to Table Mesa neighborhood
Neighborhood wants input
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
Traffic and noise
Yes, tie into neighborhood - density along Broadway/Lashley
Feasibility of mixed use succeeding
Examples of a similar project
Demographic study of who would live in units
Parks and open space (expand park)
19
Genuine community input - density and height
School traffic
Housing (senior housing) could benefit neighborhood
Noise on Broadway and Table Mesa
Incorporate public uses
Add grocery store, drug store
People mover (monorail)
Safety - improve lighting, handicap accessibility, bicycle access
Local businesses
Hours of operation (late restaurants, etc...) and impact on neighborhood
Neighborhood input into services (e.g. child care, Hungry Toad)
Mix of for sale, rental and demographics
Unrelated people/unit enforcement
Welcoming to neighborhood students
Performance at plazas, amphitheaters
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes, need another meeting sometime to:
-receive results
-synthesize of input
-discuss alternative approaches
-summarize results on the website
-survey with three questions before a plan
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Toedtli and Grinnell intersection congested
Don't want to lose momentum
Post summary of ineeting in businesses and send out by mail
Support neighborhood input
Concern that south Boulder gets "second class" treatment compared to north Boulder
20
Table Mesa - Group 9
Recorder: Mike Hughes
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and preserved)
Can find parking
Library
Book Store
Can get tires for your car
Great mix of outdoor-oriented businesses
Locally-owned businesses that serve the community's needs
The mix of businesses
Spaciousness
Right amount of lighting
Location of parking for disabled people
It is beginning to thrive
Positive momentum
Access from any direction, any side of the site
Access to each business - convenience
Outside space
Views from the cafe
2. What would make the center better? ('I'hings we might promote for the future)
Make it more walk-able
Reduce the car-pedestrian conflicts
Improve the pedestrian crossings
Make it easier to drive around the site
Improve the landscaping
More trees
Improve the aesthetics
Reduce congestion so that drivers can get out of the site
Individuals have to choose to drive less - walk more
Improve access to public transit at the site
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Adding density
Generating more traffic
Not addressing the existing traffic and safety problems at the intersection
If the planners get involved in what should be a free enterprise
If plans for the site make unrealistic assumptions about human nature (driving habits, crime, crowding,
how many CU students will cram themselves into one apartment...)
Putting the local business out of businesses
Doing an expensive redevelopment that leads to higher rents, displaces local businesses, and promotes
replacement with national chains
Promoting or supporting more reliance on cars
If the landowner tries to `max ouY or intensively redevelop the site
If the ratio of parking spaces to commercial square footage is unrealistic
21
If you add housing
If you add housing but don't provide sufficient dedicated parking spaces
If you add tall buildings
Losing the unique mix of outdoor-oriented businesses
If the city interferes too much with the private market
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
If mixed use projects require a heavy public subsidy and are highly regulated, then mixed use is a bad idea
If it means greater density and intensity, then iYs a bad idea
Mixed use, urban development is more energy efficient
Mixed use, urban development is safer - mare eyes on the street
If it comes from a carefully considered neighborhood plan, it's OK
Apartments are OK
The city sends mixed signals - the city raises taxes, making it more expensive to live in Boulder while
complaining about affordability and the city sends signals that reuse is good, then when a great reuse
happens (Savers) the city says `get rid of it and redevelop the site'
Negative reaction because of all the things sited in answer to other questions - density, congestion, traffic,
crowding
If mixed use means cheap apartments, that means CU students - that means crime, parking problems ...
`the Hill'... serious problems for the surrounding neighborhood
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
If the neighborhood plan says `leave well enough alone' - yes, let's haue a neighborhood plan
If the neighbarhood is going to be given real power that balances the combined power of city government
and economic interests that fauor densification
The devolution to neighborhood control is not a good thing because it is not responsive to the greater
common good and makes it more difficult to address issues city wide
Input by the neighborhood into a larger, more comprehensive planning process is better than a
neighborhood plan
Yes - if we challenge the assumptions that underlie the mixed use idea and build a plan from.the bottom
up
Yes - if it is truly a grass-roots effort
Yes - if the intent is to make improvements to what we have rather than to promote something completely
different in character and scale
I'll second that - you don't buy new silverware when the silver you have just needs a little polishing -
LeYs just polish the silver we have
No - the neighborhood plan is biased toward big change and densification, so starting a planning is the
`nose of the camel in the tenY and once you have the nose you will have the whole camel - and the plan
will say increase density not only on this site, but in the neighborhoods around it
The level of mistrust of the city government would make us skeptical of a neighborhood planning effort
What we need is a different efFort - a cooperative effort between the city and the University to deal
meaningfully with student housing needs, including building significantly more student housing
22
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes, definitely - to continue rebuilding trust and to help solidify the opposition to change
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
No comments
My own sense of the group:
The group supports having another meeting to explore concerns about the future of the Table Mesa site.
Support for a neighborhood planning process exists, though I don't sense that it is deep in this group. The
support is tinged with skepticism. I do not sense urgency from this group to start a neighborhood plan.
There is greater urgency to settle the lingering doubts about near-term change at the site.
The group is not uniformly in opposition to any change, and in fact easily generated a list of changes that
would be welcomed. Some support aspects ofmixed-use development. Those opposed to mixed use in
this group are strongly opposed, particulazly if the site density changes greatly.
23
Table Mesa - Group 10
Recorder: Peter Pollock
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? ('I'hings to be protected and preserved)
Walkable/close to neighborhood
Wide sidewalks
Views, views, views
Variety of shops
Sheltered, quiet azeas - buffered from cars
Local shops
Adequate parking
Unlimited number of curb cuts onto neighborhood streets
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Major cut-through (pedestrian) to improve circulation
More outdoor restaurants
Post office at Table Mesa
Improve facades
More bike friendly (internal, across Table Mesa)
Underpass at Hanover
More friendly streetscape
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Un-traditional architecture
Speed bumps
Loss of sport shops
Mixed use if too dense
Too much light
Less pazking
Loss of local shops
Big box other than grocery
Chain stores
Noise from HVAC, etc...
Movie theater, resulting in less pazking available
More traffic - unsafe
Rents too high - high prices
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
Better than other regional development
Less traffic per unit
Improved safety - 24 hour env.
More housing
Variety of housing
More close customers
Promotes small shops
20% affordable
Revitalization
24
Parking overflow into neighborhood
More traffic overall
Not good for families
Rental - less stable population
Noise
Impact on otherwise stable neighborhood
Would it really be for workers, the needy?
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
Predisposes change
Helps direct change in positive directions
Change happens - no growth is not an option
Could increase costs
Should include BVSD
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
More information before we meet (e.g. housing)
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
What could happen now?
S:~PLAN~dataUongrang\compplg~BVCP\2000PLAN~ 12-6-OOflipcharts.wpd
25
~.'~
~ ~~0j~
~~„',
I"
I ~~I~i~1~:11u
1
I
I
d i. .. .. ~~ ,
....4F L.~W.hW.Ln+~~
~
/.
~ r ~, , ,.I'r
~ I I 'i'IA
u'4i
~
~ ~
~'~.i
~ 1 4,
~ " 1 yw
M
Y
~W f
~~~I
IN A.
I
~
f
iM1 Y 4 ~~i.y' ~ (al
..... . .
I
I
I
/ j~p~f i I '~,.~~I
I.
! ~ 1
~ ~ ,1~4 p 1I 1.
~I'f, 1 }!Y
~ N ~ J ~
~. I
I
1"
f ~~~
n.W4.,~~. .. i ~~
~ 1
1
b
L ' . .,.
~,~'~
;p;{
~
5
~ ~ I iM~ ti~Y
~ I ~
I !I "~~ Ill ~ ,~
~~ I
i~ ,'
~ /~
~ d^~~,
~ I
N,
^rl ~
i i
4
. i f I i ~ I.i~ ~4~'~~
.~'r Y~ ~
l
'~
~ ~ '
~~
~
,1Mf/
4 ~" 1 ~ d
~
IY n d
~
~ NS d
~Yrl~ ii`'
' ~~
i ^e
'
'
~ , M
,
ri
'
~
~
0 H
i p
~ ~ ~~
~ i
luii ir
~
'~V J ~
f
~
r
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
~{
~ ~ u _
i
, ~ ~
~
~
.
I
' ~
"
,
~
~ ,
. + i
' ' r7
r M
~'S~ '~ r ', r p ;w n~ , ~ ~i
~
,
~ .
~ ~~ t ~~
r
~ i
~
~
~ i °
~
'
.~~ ~ ~
~ ,~
"
~
' i
,
~y
., ~ ~
I~ ~ , .
~
~ ~-
~
~ ~
r
~~~ i
~
~
~ ~ l , ,
~~' ~
,Ay
~' .
~~ ~ •
~ ;
,
+;~ ~ , !~ ~ ~,
~ ~: . ~ ~
~
V,:y ~, M~
: ~ i,
~ ~
;~ ,
,, ~~ y
"
'
'' ' , ~i
~ r ~ ,
t" i
'
'
''
~
~ ~ i ~~'
" ar i ., r : ' ~
~.
~
I
' ~ ~., i
~
~
i
~-~~
i i u i r
~ ~ e H :'
ri i i
I ' ~ .,
~ ~
~
v
i i r'
~
~
,~ i
~
~ ~ ~ ~ y~
~ ! I
n
II ^ ~ N ~~
~ ~ 4~~i'I~
~
I y
~ ~ ~
~,I ~
~
.
I.
I I
I
J ~I
~
I I~ ~I~
~
I ~. i~. .
1 i
i
11 ~
I
M1
I
I
1
~
I
I
~
~
)
~
i
~
~ M1
~
~
Y~ ~ a
11hll~p!]YII~
A ~ / 'd I
~ J I
~~~
II~
Ihrt~eM~'~~ ~1
i
' ~+
~ l
~ u ~ 1 w
Ill ~ r
~
tl
~ '~ /f
~~~ 1 0{ ~I I
i~ 1
1
~'
~ ~
iii ~A~I Ql I , mlyi~ ~
N: rt Y~Nr .~ , ~~
~'~'~~ 1
. . ~, ~~~ r . , .
i
Community Meeting to Discuss Mixed Use at Table Mesa and Basemar Centers
12/6/00 Summary of Written Comments
Total number of signed-in attendees: 168
Total number of written responses : 53
Overall written responses to mixed use in Table Mesa and Basemar:
1. positive 23
2. mixed 12
3. negative 16
4. uncommitted 2
*The numbers in parentheses refer to the number of time similar responses made on different comment forms.
Table Mesa (51 responses):
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (Things to be protected and preserved)
Diversity of shops serves most everyday needs (19)
Local, privately-owned neighborhood businesses, personalized (17)
IYs a place for neighbors to eat, shop and gather, sense of community (11)
IYs convenient, accessible, centrally located, and close (9)
Multiple access routes for pedestrian (pedestrian friendly), bicycles, and cars (8)
It's intimate, small, and quiet (6)
Transit, bus access (6)
It works, exists, is well used, and is improving (5)
Parking tight, but adequate, near store fronts (4)
Great mountain views and extraordinary sunsets (4)
Cooking school, sports shops, packaging store, grocery store - King Soopers (3), Cafe Sole! (3), Savers and
social security office
Buffered from traffic, and residential areas (2)
Access not overtaxed by demand exceeding usability
Plenty of pazking
Less yuppy feel than the rest of Boulder
The shops are good but a complete redesign is called for
Exactly the way it is now - leave it alone
Speed bumps
Space available is used and designed for use at a density compatible with success
Location and connections to residential, retail, New Vista school and open space
It's not overdeveloped
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
Improve pedestrian circulation inside and around the center - more pedestrian friendly (13)
Improve interior and adjacent traffic circulation, corridors, intersections and access (11)
More trees, flowers and birds - landscaping (10)
More public spaces for informal sitting/visiting, a place for high school students at lunch (6)
More, independently owned businesses, varied merchants, and shopping (6)
Improve aesthetics, friendlier facilities, smaller buildings, improve building facades, needs a facelift (6)
Bicycle friendly (6)
Complete pedestrian/bicycle underpasses especially across Table Mesa west (5)
Underground parking; parking gazage if additional housing is added (3)
Improve safety (3)
Complete redesign, create a central plaza (3) ~
Pool hall (3), post o~ce (2), day caze center, brew pub, breakfast restaurant, ice cream shop, an internet cafe
for students and old folks
Sufficient parking (2)
Integrate affordable housing (2)
More things for kids, children places (2)
Re-do parking plan
Nothing - being left alone
Expand indoor seating at the bus shelter (bus stop north of Bank One)
Additional parking behind buildings along Broadway
Recycling for cardboard and cartons
Build bicycle/recreation equipment garages
Sense of a strip-mall feeling (south side)
Focus on shops for students
Some affordable housing units (e.g. lofts on top of existing retail)
Add more stop signs
Traffic calming
More entertainment, like open air movies, ice/skating arena
Health care options
Relocate the Social Security office
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (I'hings to avoid)
Increased traffic, traffic jams, more cars, without improving intersections, ingress/egress and adjacent
corridors (16)
Loss of independent shop owners and others who can't afford high rents (this is unfair to existing
businesses), more franchises (13)
Density increase; up zoning (8)
Any attempt to build high and dominate the landscape (7)
Loss of pazking, why add more houses, cars and shoppers without a place to put them? (7)
The city's proposal (e.g., mixing housing) (5)
More noise (residential air-conditioning units, traffic, 24 hr businesses) (4)
A large parking garage, more parking (2)
Half hearted or weak architectural solutions - be bold - won't look outdated in 15-20 yeazs (2)
More lighting to detract from the natural sky (2)
Eliminating connections to neighborhoods (2)
Expensive/exclusive shops that are too trendy and yuppy (2)
Change in how the space is used, existing businesses already meet the needs of the adjacent neighborhood
More rentals (We're at the SATURATION POINT with rentals in Table Mesa.)
More commercial development providing low paying jobs
A homeless shelter for vagrants
No more curb cuts on Gillaspie, which was guazanteed by the city when the King Soopers went up
Less pedestrian and bicycle access
Loss of grocery anchor
Number of units proposed does not make for good mixed use
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
*A few exampies of the types of comments made are included in each category
Concern for existing businesses (7)
-Insure the preservation of existing businesses, what will happen to them?
-Existing business owners have invested their lives in building up their customer base
-Rant will go up
-Wonderful existing businesses can be strengthened by adding people to the immediate neighborhood
and by adding visual interest in terms of design and architecture
-Businesses removed during renovation - construction would seriously damage those left
Traffic concerns (6)
-Mixed use would not work if too many residents and cars overwhelm a parking and road system that
is close Yo capacity (2}
-Why are you hying to increase population density and therefore traffic congestion?
-Inevitable traffic impacts and the city's opposition to acquiring additional ROW necessary to
mitigate them
Mixed use - con (23)
-All negative - stop turning us into sardines in a small can, we are not sazdines
-Good idea but not for this center
-This is already a mixed use area
-More need for retail stores not residential
-This idea appears to be nothing more than low income housing in disguise
-It is a vital, vibrant shopping center already
-Increased density is a concern
-Do not block views
-1/5 affordable units is not worth it
Mixed use - pra (16)
-Mixed use can work if properly considered (number of units kept low/diverse range of types)
-Allow additional people to live and work in Boulder
-Both Table Mesa and Basemar shopping centers are highly appropriate for mixed use; both are
located to capitalize on local and regional bus service
-Very positive - advantages far outweigh disadvantages
-I think mixed use promotes our "old time"neighborhood feeling
-OK if kept small - no more Yhan 50 units
-In support for a mixed use center that would provide affordable housing and create a vibrant public
space that will be active into the evening
-Housing, especially for the elderly
-As long as community support is established first
Other comments
Crossroads is a better site for mixed use, do it at Crossroads first and see how it works (5)
We have many rental homes in the area, Table Mesa is already mixed use (2)
If there was a guarantee of housing for the center employees, that would be different (2)
I support adding affordable housing, especially far the people who work in retail and office nearby (2)
I am intrigued at enhancing the retail center for the south Boulder neighborhood. I am indifferent to the
affordable housing issue per se
Add underground parking
Cheap rentals provide housing for students
3
I am suspicious there would be many condos/townhouses, a dozen or two wouid hardly put a dent in what is
needed to make a difference
Unless the projected 43,000 new jobs in Boulder are substantially reduced, the possible housing benefits are
essentially inelevant, and counterproductive from an impacts perspective
Teachers and firefighters would not necessarily get these units, but nonessential workers looking for a
handout •
I like adding green spaces, more pedestrian connections and senior housing - people who don't drive much
I am in favor of any plan that reduces the housing density and does not increase the building height at all!
I'd love to see Table Mesa remodeled but multi-use is of no importance to me
Concerned about increasing density in existing neighborhoods e.g.: Lashley Lane
(Warnings) - in five years it will happen! First the city thinks about a plan, then asks if the neighborhood
would consider such a plan, then it becomes the law!
Advantages - more security late at night
Will give Table Mesa a true heartbeat, pedestrian access and shopping
More landscaping and green islands, cool the hot summer pavement
How about adding park space to Table Mesa shopping center?
Must be done with neighborhood input, must beautify the neighborhood
Why entertain new projects when old ones not even started7 (Reconstruction of Table Mesa Drive)
The tranquility of the neighborhood in Martin Acres III was lost when signs appeazed directing traffic to
DETOUR from Table Mesa Drive through numbered streets
My observations over the yeazs, the Planning Board starts with `wouldn't it be nice' and ends up with `this is
what we are going to do'
I object to the proposed rebuilding - there is insufficient parking in some areas as it is; would create an
unacceptable height overall. I hope this does not appear to be a case of NIMBY because I do see the
need for housing in Boulder
Clarify the objectives and analyze the costs/benefits of the functional effects, rather than pursue some vague
visual image
Mixed use development can advance multiple city interests such as infill, can serve as a valuable transition
between residential and commercial uses and enhance existing businesses by providing more 24/7
customers, not to mention adding to the property and sales tax bases
Affordable housing is needed, but should not be available to CU students
Skeptical of including affordable housing with mixed use, mixed use must be economically self-supporting
and viable
Replacing the Social Security office with a two-story residential building is workable, anything else would
likely destroy the vibrant community that exists in the center today
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics and
central issues to explore?
Yes (16) No (4)
Key issues: traffic, transportation, parking, bicycle/pedestrian connections and safety/integration, pazks,
density distribution, crime, landscaping, aesthetics, economical impacts, neighborhood impacts,
community space, environmental impacts, quality of life and affordable housing (18)
Involve the neighborhood, and businesses - citizen involvement is crucial- be up front (5)
Keep local businesses (3)
Depends on what the plan is, what is a neighborhood plan? (3)
Look at impacts of different aspects (all impacts, not externalities) (2)
4
Promote cultural activities - recreation and entertainment, teen-oriented uses (2)
A neighborhood plan would allow the neighborhood to affect commercial property owners
Should include the Boulder Valley School District
Demographic study - who will live there?
Of course because people have to buy in, but don't give the neighborhood veto power because they will veto
all change
Only if the plan is created by the community, not city employees
Perhaps, but it needs wide support and should provide the neighborhood a measure of protection against
changes in the plan or policies that ue inconsistent
Look to the North Boulder plan as an example
How binding will the plan be7
As long as it maintains the character of the neighborhood
Oniy if redevelopment is inevitable
Fear of devolution of communities to neighborhoods
Don't want to be the first to try this kind of experiment
Retain character of the small shops and create better ixses for larger spaces (e.g., Social Security)
Guarantee no up zoning of adjacent neighborhoods - otherwise we will fight you
Zoning has to be loosened so that limited community activity could be inserted into residential areas
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Yes: (23) No: (5)
-to clear up disagreements regarding traffic impacts, and on the adjacent neighborhoods
-before any preliminary plans are made
-only if there is a draft plan to review
-for conversation and discourse, find out what is really happening
-discuss community plan - community space, meeting places
-to dissipate the negative reactions to mixed use
-to learn what came out of the discussion groups tonight
-to discuss hypothetical options and alternatives
-to allow for dialogue, find room for compromise
-discuss a range of development options, phasing, no need to present issues as all or nothing
-a more open forum, less orchestrated by governing authorities
-one that is more structured and guided
-to listen to the community
-to learn more about affordable housing
-to discuss land use impacts
-to establish trust between the city and the community
-to hear about the developers plans for the center, what is the by-right density for the Table Mesa
area?
-to clear up misinformation regazding mixed use
Put information/summary results on the website
Need more information on housing before another meeting is scheduled
Need continued input - February is too early
Table Mesa meeting only
Is the city going to make this multi-use against the obvious wishes of the audience tonight?
5
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Demonstrate really attractive, viable mixed use at Crossroads first (3)
Preserve existing local businesses; what will happen to the existing businesses? (2)
City Council has to persuade residents that affordable housing measures can be achieved:
-with no increase in taxes; assist Boulder residents, who work in Boulder, not those who live in
Boulder and commute to work outside of town
-by preventing the speculation in subsidized property that has taken place previously
-by improving neighborhoods, without negatively impacting property values
-by keeping local traffic noise down to a minimum
What options for affordable housing other than mixed use are being considered?
Simply `hoping' that affordable housing residents will use public transport, and will not own two to three
cars per residence, is not good enough
The way to make some housing affordable is to pass legislation that forces developers to provide available
housing at cost, as opposed to `market rates'. In this scenario, the developers make less profit, but
subsidies from others are not required
Don't portray the issue as mixed use or not, it's an issue of ensuring the center's economic vitality and
neighborhood-serving functions, a pre-crisis look at how best to manage the centers evolution
What could happen without a plan?
What aze the actual number of housing units planned?
Think long-terxn and look for solutions that will work for decades (e.g., high density housing should be built
along zones served well by transit)
Adding housing is a good thing and should be sold on its own merits rather than meeting city affordable
housing goals
Overturning cunent prohibition on more than three unrelated people living in a house would be cost effective
(no subsidy) - use existing housing stock
What is the basis of negativity to mixed use? "Lower class" of residents?
I have lived in a mixed use development - the amenities and convenience are fabulous. The architecture
which integrated the uses was beautiful, created a wonderful environment for daily living
Mixed use should definitely be implemented at Table Mesa, Basemar and Crossroads
I came to Table Mesa for quiet - leave it alone
The city needs to put priorities in order, need more enforcement of existing ordinances (inoperable cars,
trash, weeds); perhaps more city legislation to clean up the area
I was truly embarrassed by some people in the audience who were rude to the city presenters. I may disagree
with multi-use but there was no excuse for such discourteous remazks. So sorry for the uncivil
behauiors of some!
We need GENLTINE neighborhood input
I am really disappointed at the negative reactions I sensed from some of the more vocal critics of this process
High density is not by definition "bad"
Alternative transportation, increased residential density and affordable housing are closely related. I think
mixed use is a good way to promote these goals, thanks for listening
Don't load up affordable housing issues with fears about density
Link housing to employees - maybe even make a preference or restriction on cars
I would like the city to defer improvements to Table Mesa between Broadway and Tantra pending the
completion of the neighborhood plan. I understand that such improvements will put bikes, buses, and
cazs together in the existing ROW as per the transportation Master Plan - this is a bad idea
6
Mixed use as experienced on the Hill incurs greater levels of behavior detrimental to the peace and health of
the community. Until strategies which prevent such consequences prove successful and a budget
exists on a continuing basis, no mixed use should invade areas with residential neighborhoods
adjacent or neazby
Without specific plans to review, it is not possible to accurately assess negative or positive impacts
Anything short of full consideration of the mixed use concept and its applications to these two specific sites,
at this stage, would be sadly short-sighted and needlessly limiting
Traffic calming in the city should be expanded, especially in south Boulder
Review the IPP, especially in regards to putting a cap on population numbers; no more than 100,000
The government needs to cut back it's budget
Rezone business and industrial areas to include affordable housing
Changing the land use design could force out existing businesses
There is a need to upgrade Table Mesa and Broadway
Building and maintaining the community and respecting the environment is key
I do not want to see affordable or subsidized housing in these two centers
The center currently serves people of all ages and works well now, so why alter the character?
Increasing density will decrease the livability and usability of the centers and roads
The Table Mesa proposal is not friendly to middle income families and established neighborhoods
Where will the service providers live if affordable housing is not considered?
Basemar (2 responses):
1. What are the best aspects of the shopping center? (T'hings to be protected and preserved)
Small businesses (2)
Easy access
Always full - occupancy
Comprehensive, broad range of businesses
2. What would make the center better? (Things we might promote for the future)
More small businesses, local commerce
More accessible for all modes, driving, walking, traffic flow
More/betterlandscaping
Better access to transit (like Crossroads)
More parking
3. What kinds of changes could make it worse? (Things to avoid)
Expansion or a move away from small businesses (increased rent) to chains or corporate (2)
More traffic (2)
4. What are your reactions to the idea of a mixed use center?(Advantages and disadvantages)
We need local pockets of commerce to avoid traveling too far for needed items - but housing and commerce
together creates too much traffic - don't mix (2)
Good idea, not too dense
Some would not like affordable housing, concern with students trashing
Good for senior citizens
Would like to see affordable housing as part of this
5. Would you be supportive of a neighborhood plan? If so, what are the important topics attd
centralissuesto explore?
What is a neighborhood plan?
We need pockets of commerce neaz residential areas to minimize the need to travel far
Plans are important which include park, parking, trails, transportation, traffic flow, transit
Needs to respect individual rights, integrate neighborhood with shopping center
6. Is there a need for another meeting in February? If so, for what purpose?
Only if the Planning Department is about to approve something stupid
Yes, if decide to move in this direction (need a meeting prior to anything being done)
7. Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Boulder needs a better balance of commercial/residential development - there is too much commercial
development for auailable housing
If mixed use is being proposed we need underground pazking for residents
Look at Crossroads for mixed use (see if it is successful)
S:~PLAN~data\longrang\compplg~B VCP~2000PLAN~ 12-6summaryofcommentforms.wpd
Mixed-Use Development
8 january 2001
iNhatis mixed-use?
Mixed-use means a mix of different land uses
(for example, retail, office, and residential) in
one project. For the update to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Platt the city of Boulder is pro-
posing adding residential land use to commer-
cial and industrial areas, including public or
civic uses.
Where did the mixed-use concept originate?
Before zoning, prior to 1916, different uses did
exist adjacent to each other. Zoning was devel-
oped to segregate uses, primarily to protect resi-
dences from noxious impacts produced by com-
mercial and industrial uses. Over time, the seg-
regation of uses became prevalent because of
the increase in reliance on automobiles.
This pattern of segregation of uses has resulted
in an increase in "multi-use" business parks or
suburban commercial centers that include
office, retail, or public uses. Interlocken and
Flatirons Mall are examples of multi-use proj-
ects. In contrast with mixed use, multi-use
development is usually low density with few, if
any, pedestrian connections between uses.
Multi-use projects do not reduce automobile
trips.
Why is the city of Boulder proposing mixed-use in cer-
tain locations as part o f the major update to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan? What will it
mean to have a mixed-use land use designation?
There are two primary objectives for mixed-use
development: to increase affordable housing
opportunities for people who work in Boulder,
and to encourage the revitalization of commer-
cial areas. A change to a mixed-use land use
designation means that the city will encourage
or require housing to be included with retail
uses when new development or redevelopment
of these sites occurs. For example, the addition-
al housing could be either for-sale or rentai
housing, located in second stories above retail
shops or in separate buildings.
How did the city ofBoulder select the (approximate)
20 sites that were chosen for possible changes to
mixed-use?
The chosen sites include the following: industri-
al and commercial sites with redevelopment
potential that are located on existing or
planned high frequency transit corridors; unde-
veloped or underdeveloped industrial or com-
mercial sites, preferably located on existing or
proposed transit or rail lines, or located near
parks or open space areas.
Four commercial centers were originally includ-
ed: Table Mesa; Basemar; Diagonal Plaza; and
Gunbarrel Square shopping centers. These have
been removed from the update to the Boulder
valley Comprehensive Plan process until more
neighborhood planning is conducted.
Below is an example of a"live-work" type
mixed-use project.
In order to use land resources more efficiently,
the pendulum is now swinging back to a more
urban pattern with compact development tak-
ing piace, which was common before the auto-
mobile was so dominant. This urban pattern is
intended to create well-designed places with a
diversity of uses that are friendly to pedestrians.
Mixed-Use Developmenc
S~cramento, CA (from Van Meter, Williams, Pollak)
Live•work units, California (from Van Meter, Williams & Pollak)
What are the bene/its o f mixed-use?
• Mixed use provides a friendly environment to
transit and pedestrians, with reduced large open-
surface parking lots, more attention to pedestrian
connections, buildings in a more compact pat-
tem, and higher quality urban design.
• Convenient with necessazy secvices within waik-
ing distance of residences
• More diverse housing types with higher-density
housing (condominiums, townhouses, apart-
ments, ]ive-work units) more likely to be afford-
able, whether market-based or permanently
affordable
• According to a Portland Oregon study, mixed-use
environments result in as much as 25 percent
reduction in automobile trips per household.
What are the disadvantages o f mixed-use?
• Potential conflicts between various uses due
to impacts such as noise, smells, truck traffic,
hours of operation
• Additional trips and increased congestion
• New construction is expensive and may
zesult in incceased cents, resulting in the loss
of existing businesses
What is the economic feasibility af developing mixed-
use in commerciai or industrial zoning districts?
A workshop was held in December 1999 to
determine the financial feasibility of mixed-use
projects in commercial or industrial zones,
given Boulder's inclusionary zoning ordinance
which requires 20 percent permanently afford-
able housing in any residential project.
Affordable housing in Boulder is defined at
under 80 percent of the area's median income
(in Boulder for a two-person family, this is
approximately $47,360 annual income.)
Panelists found that residential use is economi-
cally feasible in commeicial and industrial sites
given the housing demand in Boulder.
Variances to allow shared parking and reduc-
tions in open space requirements might be
required. Where high land costs exist, mixed-
use projects would require higher density to be
economically feasible.
The residential units in commercial or indus-
trial areas are exempt from the residentlal allo-
cation system which is a plus in terms of
reduced processing time and ease of proiect
phasing. There are still fewer financing oppor-
tunities for mixed use compared to "tried and
true" single-use projects. However, as mixed-
use projects become more common, financing
is becoming more available.
Are there examples of m3xed-use dn ciries similar itt
size to Boulder? iNhere are ihere exampTes ofgood
mixed-use projects in other cities?
Berkeley, California, and Redmond,
Washington have good examples of mixed-use
projects. Below is an example from Vail,
Colorado, including a groce:y store with a resi-
dence above.
What about projects similar in scale to Crossroads?
• Mizner Park in Boca Raton, Florida is an
exampie of a redeveloped shopping center. A
project in San Diego, Uptown San Diego,
shown below, is a conversion from a strip
shopping area to a mixed-use shopping street.
• In Redmond, Washington, the Redmond town
center is a redeveloped shopping mall, also
shown below.
Mixed-Use Developmen[
Mixed-use in Vail, Colorado.
Uptown San Diego, CA (from Van Meter, Williams, Pollak)
have been submitted for other mixed-use proj-
ects, including one downtown and one on
Spruce Street, west of Folsom.
Are there any mtxed-use projects in Boulder?
There are several small-scale inixed-use proj-
ects located along Pearl Street at 8th and 9th
and at 19th and 20th Streets, where up to 14
residential units are located above and behind
small retail shops. Ttvo examples are shown
below:
A larger project, the Steelyards, with 90 units, is
under construction at 30th Street, north of
Pearl Street, where the Boulder Steelyards was
formerly located. Development applications
Who would live in the residenNal units fn mixed-use?
Recent commuter and housing needs surveys
show significant support from commuters who
would prefer higher-density housing in mixed-
use projects in Boulder to commuting in from
adjacent communities. The BoulderHousing
Needs Assessment 1999 and focus groups identify
the demographics of these taeget markets. FoL
the most part they are renters, age 25 to 34, and
unrelated adults. They are moderate- and mid-
dle-income workers and graduate students.
The first-time buyers at the mixed-use project at
9th and Pearl Street were predominantly singles
and childless couples in their 20s and 30s; first-
time buyers at 8th and Pearl were somewhat
older, from 3Qs to SOs.
Potential buyers or renters who work in Boulder
can be given preference for permanently afford-
able and subsidized units; people who live in
Boulder can also be given preference.
What is the difference between the comprehensive
plan lnnd use map and zoning?
The comprehensive plan expresses the commu-
nity's long-term vision. Through the land- use
map, future desired land uses are designated.
Zoning regulates the specific uses allowed on
each parcel and the corresponding development
requirements such as parking, density, and set-
backs. Zoning implements the vision expressed
in the comprehensive plan.
How will zoning be a(fected by tNe proposed compre-
hensive plan land use map changes?
If the land use map changes are approved by
the four signatory bodies to the comprehensive
plan (the City Planning Board, City Council,
County Planning Commission and County
Commissioners), the city may propose changes
to the development (zoning) regulations for cer-
tain zoning districts in order to create incen-
tives for mixed use. Some sites may be proposed
for rezoning.
Mixed-Use Development
Redmond, WA (from Van Meter, Williams, Pollak)
8th and Pearl Street, Boulder (WolfF-Lyon)
20th and Pearl Street, Bouldec (Coburn Development)
~.___
~= _'_" _
December 2000
City of Boulder Housing Fact Sheet
How do Boulder's housing costs compare to other places in the Front Range?
• Housing in Boulder has historically been more expensive than neighboring towns for a
variety of reasons including the presence of the University, the desirability of the community,
and the limited amount of land.
• Boulder's housing costs have increased at a pace comparable to other communities along the
Front Range.
Changes in Single Family Housing Prices Along the Front Range
Denver 1990 1999 % Increase
Avg. Single Family Home $ 102,766 $ 208,274 103%
Boulder
Avg. Single Family Home $ 147,500 $ 303,909 106%
Douglas County
Avg. Single Family Home $ 127,415 $ 267,309 110%
• In 1999, the average Condominium and Townhouse sold for $153,760.
• In October 1999, the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the City of
Boulder was $912.
• Over the last ten yeazs, home prices have climbed twice as fast as personal income.
• A two-person household earning 80% of the Area Median Income ($47,360) can afford a
$140,000 house. This leaves a$163,909 GAP for a single family home.
. A$21,760 GAP exists for the same family attempting to purchase an affordable condo or
townhouse.
• Preliminary information for 2000 indicates that the median sales price for single family
homes in Boulder increased by 26% and attached by 22%.
Why is this GAP a concern?
• It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to live where they work.
• Vital employees who cannot afford to live in Boulder include:
/ Health Care Providers
/ Fire Personnel
/ Retail Service Providexs
What financial resources are available?
• Boulder Affordable Housing programs are funded with federal and local funds.
• These sources provide approximately 2.5 million dollars annually to support affordable
housing initiatives.
How much affordable housing does the City require residential developers to build?
• In 2000, the Boulder City Council passed an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which requires
20% of all residential development to be Permanently Affordable to low and moderate
income households. Developers can fulfill this requirement on-site or they can utilize the
following options:
/ Contribute units or land off-site
/ Pay cash-in-lieu of developing units
Who are we helping?
• Currently, there are approximately 1,800 permanently affordable housing units in Boulder.
Housing funds combined with the inclusionary zoning program are anticipated to secure an
additional 125 permanently affordable units per year.
• The City of Boulder's Affordable Housing programs serve households whose incomes fall at
or below 80% of the Area Median Income. Financial resources are used to help households
whose incomes are below 68 percent of the area median income, or $45,200 for a 3-person
housahold.
• Over 95 percent of the beneficiaries of Boulder's housing programs are locally employed.
• Over 75 percent of the beneficiaries of Boulder's housing funds have annual household
income below $25,000; over 90 percent of the beneficiaries have household income below
$40,000.
What else is being considered to increase affordable housing?
• Boulder's Comprehensive Plan and City Council haue established a goal to secure 10 percent
of tha total housing stock as permanently affordable. In order to reach this goal, the Housing
Implementation and Funding Task Force recommended securing 2,700 Permanently
Affordable units in the next 10 years.
• Density bonuses and fee/ta~c waivers are being evaluated as incentives for the production of
affordable housing.
• As part of the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the community is
discussing options to create additional housing for moderate and middle-income Boulder
workers and seniors primarily in mixed-use projects. This is one strategy to decrease the
number of in-coxnmuters to Boulder.
• Additional housing in mixed-use projects will provide market-rate housing alternatives that
will be affordable to moderate and middle income households (up to 120 percent of the Area
Median Income), or $79,920 for a 3-person household. Middle income households can
typically afford to purchase a townhouse or condominium for up to $240,000.
• In new mixed use projects, 20 percent will be permanently affordable, and for these,
preferences will be given to people who already work and/or live in Boulder.
S:\PLAN~data\longrang\compplg~HOUSING\10301City of Boulder housing factsheet.doc
City-Owned Land Inventory
BACKGROUND
At their January 2000 goal-setting session, Council discussed the potential for using city-owned
properties for affordable housing. At the March 14, 2000 BVCP study session, Council directed
staff to conduct an inventory of city-owned lands to look for housing opportunities. This request
was part of a conversation concerning a public appiication to change the land use of the municipal
airport to a residential designation. Council directed staff to conduct an initial inventory and to
consider all city-owned properties except for Open Space properties.
A group of staff from the Planning Departtnent, Housing and Human Resources, Public Works,
Parks and Recreation, and Open Space and Reai Estate, met several times to develop and refine
the inventory. Below is an analysis of the inventory and a discussion of the top sites with the most
potential for adding affordable housing. The initial inventory of the sites has been presented to
department directors for their input.
During the preparation of the inventory, the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) came
forward with a few undevelopad sites owned by the district and inquired about the possibility of
City interest in these properties. Both school sites are located in Area II and neither site is directly
contiguous to the city. City Housing staff had a preliminary discussion with BVSD planning staff
about the potential for affordable housing on these two sites with the possibility of targeting the
housing for teachers and B VSD employees. Staff have initiated preliminary discussions with the
County Housing Authority to further explore the possibilities.
ANALYSIS
Staff has completed a draft inventory of city-owned properties using the city's geographic
information system (GIS). City-owned properties are organized into three separate lists which are
described below.
A. All city-owned properties in Areas I, II, and III.
This is the initial list generated from the County tax assessors data. Copies of the
complete list will be available at the study session. A list and map of a11 the city-owned
properties in Areas I, II, and III will be auailable at the study session.
B. City-owned properties in Areas I and II with some potential for housing.
(see list and map in Attachment Al.
The initial inventory above was refined to exclude the following:
4-1
Open Space owned and designated sites,
Minor transportation and utility right of ways and fee-owned easements.
Creek corridors, wettands, and high hazazd and conveyance flood zones.
After the above sites were eliminated, the list was refined to describe the remaining sites
and to categorize each site according to the level of existing or planned use. The parcels
were then grouped according to the following categories:
Cateeories:
1 undeveloped parcels/no planned use
2 redevelopment potential or potential to relocate use
3 underdeveloped but with land use incompatibility or constraints
4 fully developed or planned for specific use/not feasible for development due to
size, location or other physical constraints
C. City-owned sites with the most potential for affordable housing.
The following is a discussion of the top eight city-owned sites (categories 1 through 4)
that were identified by staff has having some feasibility for development of affordable
housing on the site:
Public Works/Transportation Right-of-Way
Location: Baseline and 55`h St.
Size of buildable area: .93 acre
Potential number of units: 6-14 units
This is a small, vacant parcel on the southeast corner of 55"' St. and Baseline Rd. It
is located in Area IIa and is cunently designated as Low Density Residential land
use. Multi-family residences aze located across the street. Single family homes are
also adjacent to the site. Planning staff has included this pazcel in the proposed
land use designation changes for the BVCP major update. The proposed land use
for this parcel is Medium Density Residential. The Housing Authority has
contacted the Transportation Deparhnent about this site.
Proximity to transit and services: On bus route, near bike paths and East
Recreation Center, near middle school, elementary school < 1 mile, Meadows
Shopping Center about %z mile.
2. Parks and Recreation - Fortune Park
Location: 1920 4~' St. (at Canyon Blvd.)
Size of buildable area: 0.15 acre
Potential number of units: 1-2 units
4-2
This an existing single family house on a Parks and Recreation property at Canyon
Blvd. The department is preparing to apply for a demoliUon permit for the
sriucture. The buildable area could accommodate two units, and would be next to
a pocket park.
Proximity to transit and services: On bus route, bike paths, next to park. Near
downtown. Schools within 1 mile.
Fire De~artment - 1888 Violet Ave.
Location: 1888 Violet Ave. (at 19"' St.)
Size of buildable area: 0.70 acre
Potential number of units: 1-10 units
This parcel is adjacent to Fire Station #5 in the North Boulder subcommunity. A
single family residential house exists on the site. The parcel is zoned ER-E but is
adjacent to higher density MH-E and MR zones. The parcel would need to be
rezoned to build more than a 1-2 units on the site.
Proximity to transit and services: On bus route, elementary school and park bout 2
blocks away, middle school < 1 mile, North Boulder shopping center, with
grocery, about 1 mile.
4. Librarv: Blvstad-Laeser House
Location: 1117 Pine St.
Size of buildable area: 0.18 acre
Potential number of units: 1-3 units
This parcel is adjacent to Carnegie Library on Pine St. The library currently uses
the building for storage but is interested in selling the property. The building on
the parcel is landmarked by the city which would limit significant changes to the
exterior structure of the building. The parcel is zoned HZ-E,
Proximity to transit and services: Downtown location, on bus route, schools
nearby.
5. Parks and Recreation - Iris Center
Location: 3198 Broadway
Size of buildable area: 1.00 acre
Potential number of units: 2-6 units
The Iris Center is currently the location of the Pazks and Recreation Department
administration. The site is adjacent to the North Boulder Recreation Center and
the Iris Gazdens on North Broadway. Use of the site for housing would require
4-3
demolition of the existing structure (which was originally built as a church).
Proximity to transit and services: Near elementary school, bus to middle and high
schools, next to Rec Center, on Broadway bus routes, shopping <1 mile.
6. Fire Deparhnent - Fire Station #6/Gunbarrel
Location: 63`a St./Gunbarrel
Size of buildable area: 0.96 acres
Potential number of units:
This site is located in Gunbarrel, neaz the Diagonal and 63Td St. It is located in a
commercial and industrial area, making the site less compatible for residential
development. Availability of the site for housing depends on further assessment of
the long-term needs of the Fire Department.
Proximity to tr~nsit and services: On bus route, Gunbarrel shopping center nearby,
bus distance to schools.
Parks and Recreation - undeveloned outlot in Gunbarrel
Location: 63~a St. and Longbow (Gunbarrel)
Size of buildable area: 33 acres
Potential number of units:
This parcel is an undeveloped outlot in the middle of an industrial area off 63`d St.
Commercial and industrial uses surround the lot on three sides. The parcel was
acquired by Pazks and Recreation several yeazs ago through annexation of the area.
The Parks and Recreation Deparhnent has no plans for use or development of the
lot. The lot is fairly constrained by steep slopes on the property. There may be
some opportunity for a live/work type of development.
Proximity to transit and services: On bus route, Gunbarrel shopping center nearby,
bus distance to schools.
8. Public Works/Utilities - Pumn Station
Location: 6801 Baseline Rd. (Area IIb)
Size of buildable area: 0.43 acre
Potential number of units:
This pazcel is the current site of a utility pump station. The pump station uses
approximately'/z of the site. Infrashucture may limit potential for further
development of the site. The site is in Area IIB and is not contiguous to the city.
Proximity to transit and services: On bus route, shopping, commercial > 1 mile,
4-4
next to middle school, bus distance to elementary and high school.
9. Public Works/FAM - The Yards
Location: 5050 Pearl Pazkway
Size of buildable area: 4-10 acres
Potential number of units:
Large parcel with some portions of property currently used and plans pending for
portions of the property. Available acreage dependent on needs of the Public
Works Department.
Proximity to transit and services: Near Boulder Creek path, and on the LEAP bus
route, most shopping 1 mile +/- , bus distance to schools.
D. Other potential sites
In addition to the above inventory of city-owned properties, other publicly owned
properties with some potential for providing affordable housing are presented in the
following attachments: 1) Attachment B is a list of the properties managed through the
Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and the University Hill General
Improvement District (UHGID). CAGID and UHGID properties are listed separately
because they aze subject to a separate management authority and restrictions; 2)
Attachment C is a list of the Boulder Valley School District properties which the district
has put forward for possible use; 3) Attachment D lists the properties currently owned
and managed by the City of Boulder Housing Authority.
DISCUSSION
The inventory presented in the attachments is a list of city-owned properties by existing or
planned use. The results of this analysis show that for the most part, most of the land that the city
owns is either fully developed or planned for a specific use or purpose. Based on current
programs and plans, a limited amount of city-owned land is presently available for other uses. It
should be noted that the properties listed in above as having the most potential for adding housing
may have a number of constraints such as incompatibility with adjacent land uses.
Although the city owns several thousand acres of land throughout the valley (and elsewhere in
Boulder County), the majority of city-owneQ undeveloped land was acquired for specific purposes
and often with restricted funds. Open Space properties, for example, may only be used for
specific open space purposes as outlined in the Open Space charter.
The parcels listed that appear to have the most potential for housing are those properties which
currently have some amount of unplanned or undeveloped space or an existing use which
potentially may be relocated. Each of the eight sites above has been screened on a preliminary
4-5
basis to rule out sites with major physical constraints. Staff, however, has not yet looked into the
political, legal, or financial feasibility of using these sites for affordable housing.
With board and Council direction, staff could also look into the feasibility of providing housing in
combination with other existing uses on a developed site. Other properties listed in Attachment A
could be considered for redevelopment to add housing to the existing use.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: List and map of City-owned Properties in Areas I and II
with Some Potential for Housing.
Attachment B: List of Properties Managed through CAGID and
UHGID.
Attachment C: List of Boulder Valley School District Properties With
Potential for Housing.
Attachment D: List of Properties Owned by the City of Boulder Housing
Authority.
4-6
Attachment A:
Ezclusions: CI~/-Owned Properties in Areas 1 and II with Some Potential for
OSownedarWdesignated Affordable Housing
ROWs
Floodzones January 3, 2001
Wetlands
~
~
Z
W
W
~
¢ W O ~ d' W
~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ U ~ Q Q
Q Q: Z F"
a Z Z W W Q
N Q ~~ ~ O ~ J
tn
w O
w
a
~ F- r (7 ¢ ~ _ } ~ ¢ z ~ m
i
c w w Z a o = > o o ~ Q o
Q
~
~
o
~
~
°
m
5
=
°
= z
g
~ ~
°
m
0085447 1 PWlTRAN ROW 0 55TH County/SR Area IIA LR 0.93 0.93
0033129 2 FIRE 1888 Violet Ave. 4365 '19TH ER-E Area I LR 0.92 0.15
0004713 2 LIB Blystad-Laeser House 1117 PINE HZ-E Area 1 HR Yes 0.18 0.70
2042 2 PR For[une Park 1920 4TH MXR-E Area I MXR Yes 0.32 0.18
0085000 2 PR Iris Center 3198 BROADWAY LR-E Area I LR 1.47 1.00
0072129 3 FIRE Fire station #6 0 63RD IG-D Area I pI 2.02 0.96
0084939 3 PR undeveloped 0 LONGBOW P-E Area I PI 3.14 0.33
0085051 3 PW/FAM Yards 5050 PEARI P-E Area IIA PUB Yes Yes 44.59 4.00
0108666 3 PW/l1TIL Pump station 6801 BASELINE County/RR Area IIB PUB 0.80 0.43
0012297 4 FlRE Fire station 4~ 00 DARLEY LR-E Area I LR 0.'17
0037195 4 FIRE Fire station 1350 55TH ENCLV Area IIA MR 1.01
0085072 4 FIRE Fire station 2441 PORTIAND MXR-E Area I MXR 0.48
0085185 4 FIRE Flre station 2225 BASELINE HR-E Area 1 PUB 0.52
0112298 4 FIRE Fire station 0 19TH ER-E Area I LR Yes Yes 0.56
0112299 4 FIRE Rre station 0 19TH ER-E Area I ~R 0.03
0000662 4 HHS Youth Services 2160 SPRUCE MU-X Area I HR 0.42
0001250 4 HHS EFA office bldg. 927 MARINE MXR-E Area I MXR 029
0085600 4 HHS The Edge 1301 ARAPAHOE RB3-X Area I PUB Yes Yes 0.98
33212 4 LIB North Boulder library 4540 BROADWAY BMS-X Area I MUB Yes Yes
0003465 4 LIB Main librery 959 ARAPAHOE I P-E Area I PUB Yes Yes 1.~1
CaYegory:
1 - undeveloped/no planned use
2 - redevelopment pote~ai
3- underdevefopedllarM use incompatibility or constraints
4- fuly developed, physipl constraints, or approved master plan
Attachment A:
Exclusions: Clty-Owned Properties in Areas i and II with Some Potential for
OSownedanddesignated Affordable Housing
ROWs
Floodzones January 3, 2001
Wetlands
.A
~
~
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area 1 PUB
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB Main librery 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB Main library 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 LIB library 3595 TABLE MESA MR-E Area I MR
4 LIB Camegie 0 PINE HZ-E Area I HR
4 Police main station 1805 33RD P-E Area I LI
4 PR Angel Pines 5706 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PK
4 PR Greenleaf 2490 SPRUCE P-E Area I PK
4 PR Heuston 3200 34TH MR-D Area I MR
4 PR Valmont Park 3158 AIRPORT ENCLV Area IIA OS
4 PR Valmont Park 4942 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 5022 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 5030 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 3160 AIRPORT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 5098 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 5325 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 5150 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 5100 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR Valmont Park 0 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI
4 PR PleasanNiew soccer 0 47TH P-E Area I PK
4 PR Pleasantview soccer 0 KALMIA P-E Area I PK
4 PR North Boulder Commu 0 BROADWAY P-E Area I PK
4 PR North Boulder Commu 0 LEE HILL P-E Area I PK
4 PR East Boulder Rec Ct 0 55TH P-E Area I PK
4 PR Eaton Park 4900 63RD P-E Area I PK
4 PR Access to Eaton Par 4950 63RD P-E Area I PK
Category:
'I - undeveloped/no pianned use
2 - redevelopment potential
3- underdevelopedlland use incompah'biiity or constraints
4- Tuly developed, physical constraints, or approved master plan
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.09
Yes 0.16
424
Yes
1.47
2.00
19.11
Yes 16.11
Yes
11.06
5.18
0.95
20.41
16.65
0.95
7.31
20.86
31.68
13.65
43.49
11.66
20.38
2.05
Attachment A:
~G~S;o~s: City-Owned Properties in Areas I and II with Some Potential for
OSownedanddesignated Affordable Housing
ROWS
Floodzones January 3, 2001
WeUands
0068445 4 PR Campbell Robertson 0 PEARL MXR-E Area I MXR Yes Yes Yes 0.08
0068784 4 PR Campbell Robertson 280 SPRUCE MR-D Area I PK Yes Yes Yes 0.51
0069124 4 PR Siazio ballfields 0 VALMONT P-E Area I OS Yes 40.37
0069124 4 PR Stazio bailfields 0 VALMONT P-E Area I OS Yes 0.00
0069124 4 PR Stazio ballfields 0 VALMONT P-E Area I OS I Yes 0.00
~
~
Category:
~ - undeveloped/no pWnned use
2 - redevelopment potential
3- underdevelopedlland use incompatibility or constraints
4- fully developed, physical constraints, or approved mastet pian
Attachment A:
~
~
0
Exclusions:
OS owned and designated
ROWs
Floodzones
WeUands
City-Owned Properties in Areas I and II with Some Potential for
Affordable Housing
January 3, 2001
0069124 4 PR Stazio balifields 0 VALMONT P-E Area I OS ~ Yes 0.91
0069186 4 PR Valmont Park 5333 VALMONT ENCLV Area IIA PI 1.25
0077310 4 PR Shanahan Ridge 3299 REDSTONE LR-D Area I PK 3.40
0077940 4 PR Meadow Glen 0 PENNSYLVANIA LR-D Area I PK 0.81
0083943 4 PR Wonderland 0 POPLAR LR-D Area I PK 7.39
0084572 4 PR Barker 1518 SPRUCE RB2-X Area I RB 0.49
0084957 4 PR Heatherwood 0 HEATHERWOOD Area IIA PK 5.52
0084989 4 PR Columbine 0 GLENWOOD LR-E Area I PK 4.41
0084992 4 PR Catalpa 0 19TH LR-E Area I OS 129
0084993 4 PR Melody 0 16TH LR-E Area I PK 125
OOS4995 4 PR Parkside 0 KALMIA LR-D Area I PK Yes Yes Yes 5.58
0084997 4 PR Pineview 0 CLOVER LR-E Area I PK 1.04
OQ85009 4 PR Salberg 0 19TH LR-E Area I PK 2.97
0085003 4 PR North Boulder Rec C 3170 BROADWAY P-E Area I PK 5.26
0085013 4 PR Palo Central/South 0 PALO Area IIA PK 1.42
0085014 4 PR Palo Central/South 0 PALO Area IIA PK 1.41
0085015 4 PR Palo North 0 30TH Area IIA PK 3.05
0085021 4 PR Heuston 3200 34TH P-E Area I PK Yes 7.53
0085049 4 PR East Boulder Rec Ct 0 55TH IM-D Area I LI Yes Yes Yes 0.00
0085061 4 PR Mapleton balifields 0 MAPLETON P-E Area I PK Yes Yes 7.67
0085076 4 PR Civic Park/Bandshel 1777 BROADWAY P-E Area I PK Yes Yes Yes 2.07
0085079 4 PR Fitrpatrick 0 18TH LR-E Area I LR 0.27
0085093 4 PR Spruce Pool 2130 SPRUCE MU-X Area I PK 0.48
0085126 4 PR Spruce Pool 2150 SPRUCE MU-X Area I PK 028
0085163 4 PR Beach 0 12TH LR-E Area I PK Yes 1.06
0085163 4 PR Beach 0 12TH LR-E Area I PK Yes 1.00
0085171 4 PR Pottery lab 0 AURORA LR-E Area I ~R Yes 0.11
0085188 4 PR Arrowwood 0 30TH LR-E Area I PK Yes Yes Yes 2.02
0085194 4 PR Scott Carpenter 0 30TH LR-E Area I PK Yes Yes 1.01
0085201 4 PR Aurora 7 0 AURORA LR-E Area I PK 4.72
0085203 4 PR Arapahoe Ridge 0 EISENHOWER LR-D Area I PK I 4.66
Category:
'I - undeveloped/no planned use
2 - redevelopmeM potential
3- underdevelopedlland use incompatibility or constraints
4- fully developed, physipl constraints, or approved master plan
Attachment A:
~
~
Ezclusions:
OS owned and designated
ROWs
Floodzones
Wetiands
City-Owned Properties in Areas I and II with Some Potential for
Affordable Housing
January 3,2001
I0085219 4 PR Golf Course 0 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PK Yes Yes Yes 124.04
0085271 4 PR North Boulder Park 0 7TH LR-E Area I PK 029
0085333 4 PR Maxwell Lake 0 LINDEN PARK LR-D Area I LR 0.19
Category:
~ - undeveloped/no planned use
2 - redevelopment potenfial
3- underdeveiopeMand use incompaG6ility or constraints
4- fulty developed, physical constraints, or approved master plan
Attachment A:
a
~
N
Exclusions:
OS owned and designated
ROWs
Floodzones
Wetlands
City-Owned Properties in Areas I and 11 with Some Potential for
Affordable Housing
January 3, 2001
0085334 4 PR Linden Park 0 LINDEN PARK LR-D Area I PK 2.45
0085442 4 PR Thunderbird 0 PAWNEE ER-E Area I PK Yes 6.10
0085443 4 PR Keewaydin Meadows 0 PAWNEE LR-E Area I PK 4.56
0085474 4 PR West Highland 0 DARTMOUTH LR-E Area 1 PK 6.58
0085488 4 PR Bear Creek 0 LEHIGH LR-D Area I PK Yes Yes Yes 6.66
0085498 4 PR Harlow Platts 0 GILLASPIE LR-E Area I PK Yes 40.05
0085499 4 PR Tantra 0 LUDLOW LR-E Area I PK 5.26
0085501 4 PR Tantra 0 MOOREHEAD MR-D Area I PK Yes 10.49
0085521 4 PR Shanahan Ridge 3501 LEHIGH LR-D Area I LR 1.03
0085595 4 PR Canyon Park 0 CANYON HZ-E Area I PK 224
0085669 4 PR North Boulder Commu 895 LOCUST P-E Area I PK 1123
0085671 4 PR Wonderiand Park 0 POPLAR LR-D Area I PK Yes 7.92
0085693 4 PR Maxwell Lake 0 LINDEN PARK LR-D Area I PK Yes 626
0085705 4 PR Norfh Boulder Park 0 8TH LR-E Area I PK Yes Yes 12.23
0085735 4 PR Smith 0 GILBERT ER-E Area I LR Yes Yes 1.11
0086591 4 PR Pineview 0 CLOVERLEAF LR-E Area I PK 0.60
0088810 4 PR YMCA 0 28TH P-E Area I PUB 0.19
0089316 4 PR ballfields 0 JENNINE LR-E Area I LR 0.03
0092678 4 PR Chautauqua 650 BASELINE LR-E Area I PKNU Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 75.25
0095474 4 PR Wonderland Park 0 NEWPORT LR-D Area I PK 7.14
0098284 4 PR Palo East 4340 CORRIENTE Area IIA PK Yes Yes 4.06
0098289 4 PR Wonderiand Park 0 POPLAR LR-D Area I PK Yes 4.81
0099253 4 PR Wonderfand Park 0 POPLAR LR-D Area I PK 0.61
0'101946 4 PR Meadow Glen 0 LOVE LR-D Area I OS 0.18
0106416 4 PR East Boulder Rec Ct 0 55TH P-E Area I PK 8.47
0109667 4 PR Meadow Glen 5652 PENNSYLVANIA LR-D Area I PK Yes 1.53
0'110061 4 PR Christensen Park 0 FRANKLIN MR-D Area I PK Yes Yes 2.81
0110078 4 PR Tantra 0 TANTRA LR-E Area I PUB 5.59
8654 4 PW/FAM Dairy Center 2590 WALNUT RB-E Area I GB
0001308 4 PW/FAM Main library parking lot 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB 0.00
0004401 4 PW/FAM Main library parking lot 1021 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB 0.16
Category:
1 - undevebpedlno planned use
2 - redevelopment potential
3- underdevebpedAand use incompatibility or constraints
4- tulty developed, physical constraints, or approved master ptan
Attachment A:
EzWusions: CI~-Owned Properties in Areas I and 11 with Some Potential for
OSownedanddesignated Affordable Housing
ROWs
Floodzones January 3, 2001
Weflands
0005972
0005973 4
4 PW/FAM
PW/FAM New Britain parking
New Britain Building 1101
1101 ARAPAHOE
ARAPAHOE P-E
P-E Area I
Area I PUB
PUB Yes
Yes Yes
Yes 0.34
0.31
OD09293 4 PW/FAM Atrium 1300 CANYON RB1-X Area I PUB Yes Yes 0.49
~
w
Category:
~ - undeveloped/no planned use
2 - redevelopment potential
3- undercJevelopedlland use incompaGbility or constrainfs
4-Tully developed, physiql constraints, or approved master plan
Attachment A:
~~~S;o~s: City-Owned Properties in Areas I and II with Some Potential for
OSownedanddesignated Affordable Housing
ROWS
Floodzones January 3, 2001
Wetlands
.A
~
~
886
0094857
0114729
0116468
5197
114457
4 PW/FAM Main library parking lot 1015 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/FAM Municipal Bldglparking 1777 BROADWAY P-E Area I PK
4 PW/FAM Park Central lot 1705 BROADWAY P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/FAM New Britain parking 1129 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 PWlFAM Park Central 1739 BROADWAY P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/FAM Main library parking lot 1750 10TH P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/FAM Main library parking lot 1045 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 PW~FAM Main library parking fot 0 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/FAM The Edge 1301 ARAPAHOE R83-X Area I PUB
4 PWlFAM Mustard's 1719 BROADWAY P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/TR,4N Foothills ROW 5180 SOUTH BOULD TB-D Area I AB
4 PW/TRAN ROW at Valmont - pr 2948 47TH IS-D Area I CI
4 PW/TRAN ROW at Valmont - pr 2948 47TH IS-D Area I CI
4 PWlTRAN Trail easement 2455 SUMAC ENCLV Area IIB OS
4 PWfTRAN Airport 3300 AIRPORT P-E Area I PUB
4 PW/TRAN Trail to park 1000 MOOREHEAD MR-D Area I MR
4 PW/TRAN Access drive 3200 34TH HR-D Area I HR
4 PWITRAN Airport 3300 AIRPORT P-E Area I PUB
4 PWITRAN ROW 0 CONCORD MXR-E Area I MXR
4 PWlTRAN Tree farm 0 FOOTHILLS RR-E Area I VLR
4 PWITRAN ROW south of Majest 0 BROADWAY LR-E Area I LR
4 PW/TRAN ROW at Pearl 0 47TH IG-D Area 1 LI
4 PWlTRAN Centennial trail 5220 CENTENNIAL LR-D Area I LR
4 PW/TRAN Airport 3300 AIRPORT P-E Area I PUB
4 PWITRAN ROW at Del Prado 0 PALO MR-D Area I MR
4 PWIUTIL Mapleton Mobile Home 2635 MAPLETON HR-D Area f HR
4 PW/UTIL Mapleton Mobile Home 0 28th P-E Area I HR
4 PW/UTIL Pump station 3715 IRIS HR-D Area I HR
4 PW/UTIL Drainage/detention 0 MERRITT LR-D Area I LR
4 PW/UTIL Reservoir 0 LINDEN ENCLV Area IIA LR
4 PW/UTIL Welland/flood mitig 0 36TH LR-E Area I LR
Category:
1 - undevebpedlno pianned use
2 - redevelopment potential
3- underdevelopedlland use incompatibility or constraints
4- fully developed, physical constraints, or approved master plan
Yes
Yes
0.11
0.35
1.12
0.35
0.14
024
0.02
0.78
1.64
0.16
0.17
'8.34
0.14
2.49
7.00
220
0.51
1
10.00
Attachment A:
~
~
Exclusions:
OS owned and designated
ROWs
Floodzones
Wetiands
0085476
0085692
City-Owned Properties in Areas I and II with Some Potential for
Affordable Housing
January 3, 2001
Reservoir
0
LR-E ~Area I ~PUB ~
LR-D Areal LR Yes
Category:
1 - undeveloped/no planned use
2 - redevelopmeM potential
3- underdevebpedAand use incompa6bility or conslraints
4- fuity devebped, physical constraints, or approved master plan
PARK
7.18
4.98
~
Attachment B:
CAGID/UHGID-Owned Land Inventory
January 2001
.p
~
J
w
~
~ ¢
Z '
W W ¢ ¢
a Z
o ~
z ~
~n Z
z U
¢
o ~ a ~ ~ g ~
~ W w U a a Z a ~
~ ~ cn -
~
v~
a z
~
w
~
~
o a
> o
Z ¢
o w
0
i
¢ c~ o o a a ri m g ~ z
0085100 2 CAGID* Parking lot 2121 BROADWAY RB2-X Area I RB 0.48 NW comer of Broadway and Spruce
0000939 2 UHGID* Parking lot 1155 PLEASANT HR-E Area I HR 0.30 May be limitations on uses
0085161 2 UHGID' Parking lot 0 14TH HR-E Area I HR 0.44 May be limitations on uses
0068154 4 CAGID' Parking structure 1500 PEARL RB1-X Area I RB 0.81
0085077 4 CAGID' Parking IoUteahous 1340 CANYON RB3-X Area I PUB 1.59
0085083 4 CAGID* Pariting structure 1126 WALNUT R61-X Area I RB 0.66
0085084 4 CAGID' Parking lot 918 WALNUT R61-X Area I RB 1.02
0085097 4 CAGID' Parking structure 1100 SPRUCE R62-X Area I RB 0.49
0106692 4 CAGID' Parking structure 2031 BROADWAY RB~-E Area I RB 0.05
0107077 4 CAGID' Parking structure 2041 BROADWAY RB1-E Area I RB 0.03
0120056 4 CAGID' Parking structure 1100 SPRUCE RB2-X Area I RB 0.00
0085326 4 UHGID' Parking lot 0 PLEASANT BMS-X Area I CB 0.22
Category:
2 - underdeveloped
4- tuliy developed, physipl constraints, or approved master plan
Attachment C:
Boulder Valley School District Properties With Potential for Housing
January 2000
Z
0
a
~
~
W
~
undevelaped
undeveloped
undeveloped
undeveloped
~
w
m
~
~
z
w
w
~
H
~
0
0
6600
0
w
~
a
z
F
w
w
~
~
TWIN LAKES
KALUA
GLENMOOR
al
ai
U~
>~
m
;a IIA
:a IIA
:a IIB
;a IIB
w
~
~
0
Z
~
w
~
w
~
¢
3.93
5.81
7.81
2.29
~
w
O
z
Gunbarrel GID
Gunbarrel GID
South of Sombrero Marsh
South of Sombrero Marsh
~
~
Attachment D:
Housing Authority Properties
January 2001
~
~
~
z
~ o
m U W F~.
_ ~ ~ Q a ~
~ z o z l
a W ~
~ W W W W Z U =
I
Z
I
O 1-
Q O v~ v~ v~ ~ m~ J W
OD00281 HA 925 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB 15
0000930 HA 2637 VALMONT HR-D Area I HR 67
0002055 HA 3140 BROADWAY HZ-E Area I HR 46
0005197 HA 2635 MAPLETON HR-D Area I HR 35
0006520 HA 837 20TH HR-E Area I HR 13
0008225 HA 951 ARAPAHOE P-E Area I PUB 15
0008953 HA 2232 BLUFF MXR-E Area I MXR 2
0011508 HA 4990 MOORHEAD HR-E Area I HR undeveloped
0032952 HA 4789 28TH MXR-D Area I MR
0069266 HA 4650 N BROADWAY MU-D Area I MUR
0069267 HA 4769 28TH MXR-D Area ! MR
0071411 HA 1005 POPLAR LR-D Area I LR 14
0076032 HA 3315 CHISHOLM HR-D Area I HR 1
0076032 HA 3315 CHISHOLM HR-D Area I HR see above
0076100 HA 3240 iRIS HR-D Area I HR t
0076100 HA 3240 IRIS HR-D Area I HR see above
0084981 HA 1603 ORCHARD ER-E Area I LR 1+ 1 lot undev.
0085016 HA 3512 NOTTINGHAM HR-D Area I MR 55
0085098 HA 301 PEARL MXR-E Area I MXR 34
0085119 HA 1940 WALNUT HZ-E Area I OS 95
0085245 HA 690 MANHATTAN MR-E Area I MR 43
0085697 HA 1133 PORTLAND CB-E Area I HR 50
0085697 HA 1133 PORTLAND CB-E Area I HR
0085714 HA 0 CANYON HR-X Area I PK 82
0088206 HA 3267 30TH CB-D Area I CB 30
0089044 HA 2707 VALMONT HR-D Area I HR 1
Attachment D:
Housing Authority Properties
January 2001
0092704 HA 3303 MADISON HR-E Area I ! HR 1
0092705 HA 3303 MADISON HR-E Area i HR 1
0092712 HA 3303 MADISON HR-E Area I HR 1
0093832 HA 5763 ARAPAHOE IG-D Area I LI office
0093833 HA 5763 ARAPAHOE IG-D Area I LI see above
0093834
0093873 HA
HA 5763
3009 ARAPAHOE
MADISON IG-D
HR-E Area i
Area I LI
HR see above
1
0095152 HA 0 22ND HZ-E Area I HR
0100977 iHA 625 WALDEN MR-D Area 1 MR 923
0100977 HA 625 WALDEN MR-D Area I MR see above
0103779
0114457 HA
;HA 895
0 CHERRY
~28TH MR-D
P-E Area I
Area I MR
HR undeveloped
0120620 ~HA 2675 ~MAPLETON HR-D Area I HR child care bidg.
~
N
O