Loading...
7A - 2000 Major Update to BVCP and consideration of motion to remove from further consideration follCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 20, 2000 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: April 14, 2000) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and discussion of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and consideration of a motion to remove from further consideration the following items: 1. Service Area Expansion in the general area of 5775, 5801 and 5885 Jay Road; 2. Service Area Expansion in the general area of 4800 N. 28th Street (Gateway Fun Park); 3. Land Use Map designation and Area IIB to IIA change for certain land owned by the University of Colorado, located west of U.S. 36 and south of South Boulder Road (CU South); 4. Land Use Map designation change for the Boulder Municipal Airport, located in the general vicinity of 3300 Airport Road. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner Ruth McHeyser, Presenter OVERVIEW: At the Apri120 meeting, The Planning Board is being asked to eliminate certain items from further consideration as part of the major update, and to review and comment on staff's proposed process and timeline for Phase III of the update. The Planning Board is scheduled to discuss progress on the update at both the May 1? and June 22 meetings. At the June 22 meeting, we are planning to bring forward for adoption a boundary change to the Area III-Planning Reserve that would result in expansion of the Area III-Rural Pre~ervation Area. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #/~I Page 1 BACKGROUND: On February 24, the Planning Board held a public hearing and provided direction on the items that should be further considered and evaluated as part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Following the February 24 Planning Board meeting, the City Council discussed the update at a study session on March 14 and provided direction on the update at their March 21 meeting. The City Council concurred with most of the items authorized for further consideration by the Planning Board, however there were four items that the Council indicated they were not interested in considering as part of the update. A map showing the location of the four sites is included as Attachment A: A land use change to residential for the Boulde~ Municipal Airport. Council does not believe this warrants further consideration this time. 2. The University of Colorado's request to change the land use designations for CU-South. The Council indicated that the~~ believe it is premature to consider land use changes to the property until the South Boulder Creek Floodplain Study is comple~Y~d and there are further discussions with the university on the proposed developmen~ for the site. Service Area Expansion for `:~ateway Fun Park. However, the Council would like staff to explore the option of out-of-city utility service, under conditions that would carefully restrict it to this property and not induce development of adjacent properties. Expansion of the Gateway facility will be subject to County land use approval. 4. Service Area Expansion for Jay Road parcels. Since the County Commissioners have indicated that they are not interested in this proposal, the Council thought this should be removed from further consideration. In addition, Council requested that, in considering options to further reduce potential job growth, staff should explore options and incentives to encourage mixed use as well as potential purchase opportunities, including the opportunity for the city to purchase properties and then sell to developers. Council also added the following items for further consideration as part of the update: 1. Evaluate possibility of increasing residential density on North Broadway between Violet and Lee Hill. 2. Examine the area east of Folsom, between Spruce and Mapleton, for a potential map change to reflect existing residential uses. 3. Add pazks back into the inventory and explore potential for housing at the Valmont site and any other appropriate park sites (e.g. Fortune Park). s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #/A Page 2 Staff has added these items to the list of sites to be further considered and analyzed as part of the update. ANALYSIS: ITEMS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE YEAR 2000 MAJOR UPDATE TO THE BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN At the February 24 meeting, the Planning Board took the following action on the four items proposed for removal from further consideration: 1. Boulder Municipal Airport - The Board supported staff's recommendation that the airport be included as part of an inventory of city-owned sites. 2. The University of Colorado's request to change the land use designations for CU-South - The Board supported staff's recommendation that this site be considered for a land use map change. The University also requested that this site be moved from Area IIB to IIA. Area IIB to IIA changes may be considered at any time. Consistent with Council's discussion that it is premature to consider a land use map change, it follows that it is also premature to consider moving the site from Area IIB to Area IIA. 3. Service Area Expansion Request for the Gateway Fun Park - The Planning Board requested more information and analysis on this item. 4. Service Area Expansion Request for 5775, 5801, and 5885 Jay Road - The Planning Board requested more information and analysis on this item. Below please find additional information on the the two requests for service area expansions (items 3 and 4 above): Area III-Planning Reserve to Area II change (Service Area Expansions) Both of these sites are in Area III. The Comprehensive Plan contains specific direction concerning the procedures for an expansion of the service area. Some of that direction is as follows: The Jay Road site is in the Rural Preserve, which requires it being moved to the Area III- Planning Reserve in advance or concurrent with consideration of an Area III to II change. Such a change can only be approved after a comprehensive study has been completed by the City and County demonstrating a need for contraction of the Rural Preserve due to new information on land use suitability or due to changed circumstances or community needs. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #//~} Page 3 2. Area III to Area II changes can only be considered during the Comprehensive Plan five- year update process, and may only be initiated by the City or the County. Prior to consideration of an Area III to Area II change, a joint City-County Service Area Expansion Plan must be completed for the area proposed to be brought into Area II. The study must address the following: types of development needed to meet long-term community needs; key requirements to ensure compliance with community goals and policies; conceptual land use and infrastructure plan components; requirements for development impact mitigation and offsets; and development phasing. 4. There are also seven criteria set out in the Comprehensive Plan which must be satisfied before an Area III to Area II change is approved. Those include: a. Minimum Size of combined parcels (at least 40 acres), b. Minimum Contiguity (1 /6 of perimeter); c. Logical Extension of the Service Area (desirable community edge, etc.); d. Compatibility with Surrounding Area; e. No Major Negative Impacts; f. Consistency with Capital Improvements Program and Master Plans; g. Appropriate Timing for Annexation and Development. Area III to Area II changes require adoption by all four of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan signatory bodies. Provision of out-of city utility service The Comprehensive Plan provides for utility service extension to Area III under specified (and limited) circumstances. If there is an interest in extending such utility services to either the Gateway or Jay Road locations, that mechanism potentially provides an alternative to expansion of the Service Area and annexation. Comprehensive Plan Section 3.11 provides that utilities may be extended to Area III upon a finding that such extension of service furthers Comprehensive Plan goals. The plan specifically references furtherance of the following Comprehensive Plan policies: 2.01 Unique Community Identity 2.02 Physical Separation of Communities 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern 3.08 Consistency of Utility Extension with Comprehensive Plan 3.09 Efficient Extension of Utilities 3.10 Utility Provision to Implement Community Goals Out-of-city extension of utility service would not require any change to the Comprehensive Plan, as long as such extension was justified as fiu-thering Comprehensive Plan goals. There aze several policy issues that would have to be addressed prior to considering out-of-city utility provision, such as: s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #/A Page 4 • Are these unique circumstances or should the policy apply to a substantial number of sites? • What are the long-term implications of providing utility service to Area III properties? • What types of development could be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for Area III? • The sites would continue to be subject to County land use regulations - does this affect each site's ability to achieve their development goals? The Area III Planning Project The Area III Planning Project (1991) identified the land in Area III as suitable or unsuitable for possible service area expansion. The Jay Road site, which was placed in the Rural Preservation Area as a result of the Area III Planning Project, was shown to be affected by the following factors: Agricultural Land - The site is identified in the County Comprehensive Plan as being land of state-wide agricultural importance (it still is on the most recent County maps). Properties to the east, west, and south of this site have the same designation. Property to the north is within Area I. Lands of state-wide importance are those lands that do not meet the national criteria for prime farmland but are still of state-wide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. These lands fall into one of three categories: irrigated lands, irrigated lands with inadequate water supply, or potential dry cropland. 2. Geological Development Constraint. A portion of the site may have swell potential. Most all property in the general area (including most of Gunbarrel) have the same constraint. In and of itself, the presence of this single geologic hazard was not a significant factor in establishing Area III boundaries. 3. Airport Influence Zone. This site is in AIZ 4. (Properties to the north, south, east, and west are also in the AIZ 4) Although properties in this zone may be annexed to the City (the Gateway site on the Diagonal is also in AIZ 4), most of AIZ is still in Area III. According to Section 9-11-6 of the Boulder Revised Code, a person with property in this zone and annexing to the City may be required to sign an avigation easement with the City. In addition, all new utility lines on the property must be placed underground. NEXT STEPS Attachment C includes a timeline for the current phase of the project. During this phase we will be analyzing and bringing forward for adoption changes to the Land Use Map, Area I,II,III Map, and plan policies. We anticipate being able to complete the four body adoption process by October. Following adoption of the map and policy changes, we would bring forward a draft plan with changes to the remainder of the plan sections. We hope to be able to complete s:\plan\pb-items~memos~sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #~~ Page 5 adoption of the entire document in the Year 2000. Below please find more detailed information on the proposed timeline and process for each of the componeiits of the current phase: Planning Reserve - Staff is currently completing the study of the Planning Reseri~e. In May, we will review the study and recommendations with the Open Space Board, notify property owners in the Planning Reserve, publish a map of the proposed chan~e in the newspaper, and hold an open house on the proposed changes ior members of the public (tentatively scheduled for May 23). We plan to bring proposed changes to the Planning Reserve boundary to the Planning Board and Council for adoption in June. We are proposing to bring this piece of the update forward ahead of the land use map and policy changes for several reasons: It is a relative~l~ discrete piece of the update that we believe can be addressed independentl} of the other pieces of the update Open space is interested in moving forward in pur::hasing some properties in the area The staff work on this item is almost complete and ready to move forward. There are a lart~e number of land use map changes and it will help make the hearings in September mcsr:, manageable if we hold the hearings for this item earlier. Changes to the Land Use Map and Policies - As the Boazd knows, a large number of sites are being analyzed and considered for potential land use map changes. We have begun to analyze and prepare reports for each of the sites. We will be preparing a report that includes individual reports for each site. The individual report will include information such as: a map, description of the site and surrounding land use, current and proposed land use designation, estimated dwelling units and commercial square footage under existing and proposed land use designations, and an evaluation of each site by objectives and criteria. The sites along 28th Street will undergo public review as part of a charrette being jointly planned by Transportation, BURA, and Planning. We will also be holding meetings with both city staff from other departments and the landowners of the three industrial sites to help us evaluate the issues and potential land use designations for these sites. The Board reviewed a prelimi:aary list of objectives at the March 16 meeting. In addition, we have started to work on the proposed policy changes. We plan to notify all property owners and everyone on our comprehensive plan mailing list, publish a map, and hold two open houses in June to provide information to the public on proposed land use map and policy changes, and to provide an opportunity for feedback. During May and June we will also be going to each of the relevant city boards to review proposed policy changes. During 3uly, staff would review what we heard from the public and reevaluate and revise our recommendations as appropriate. We will update and discuss with the board our progress on the analysis and recommendations at the May 18 meeting. At the June meeting, we will discuss the feedback from the public with the board. We are anticipating holding a joint Planning Board/City Council study session on August 8 to discuss staff s recommendations on the policy and land use map changes, and then hringing the proposed changes forward for adoption in September. We anticipate that we will need to schedule 2 afternoon and evening sessions at Planning Board for the adoption hearings. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #/ A Page 6 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS A1 Gunter requested that staff respond to some questions. Attachment D includes the questions from Al and responses to the questions. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Staff conducted a major public review process and solicited suggested changes to the plan from the public during October, November, and December of 1999. The results of the public participation process are included in the Public Participation Report available from the Planning Department. The Planning Board held a public hearing and provided direction on the items that should receive further consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update at its February 24 meeting. The City Council discussed the update at a study session on March 14 and held a public hearing and provided direction at its March 21 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the following items be removed from further consideration as part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: 1. Land Use Map designation change for the Boulder Municipal Airport, located in the general vicinity of 3300 Airport Road. 2. Land Use Map designation and Area IIB to IIA change for certain land owned by the University of Colorado, located west of U.S. 36 and south of South Boulder Road (CU South);, 3. Service Area Expansion in the general area of 4800 N. 28th Street (Gateway Fun Park); 4. Service Area Expansion in the general area of 5775, 5801 and 5885 Jay Road; Approved By: ~~eter Pollock • Planning Director s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM #/~ Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Map showing sites proposed for removal from further consideration for a Comprehensive Plan change Attachment B: Letter from Richard Luna Attachment C: Timeline Attachment D: Responses to Al Gunter's Questions s:\plan\pb-itemslmemos~Sr420.pbm AGEI~IDA ITEM #/~ Pa~e 8 ~~~~~ Q '4~ Attachment A " 0.25 0 0.25 MileS ra p.weN y u. uy M~eww~ ~ n.~y,~ awn~ a~ i.~, imro Agenda Item # » Page # ~ ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B MarCh 20, 2000 (Dear PZsnning Baard Member, This ie a copy of letter that I have faxed to inter~sted parties in the effordable ho~aing cammunity: City Housing Autho€ity, Habitat for Humanity, Th3stle Courm. Houising, etc. ) Dear , I'm writing to update you, and the cther potential buyers, about the Comprehensive Plan application that my neiqhbors and I have auban.itted to annex our 3 properties, totaling 35 acrea (of which we~d like to:sell approximately 28 for afforda.ble housing and comraunity uses~, located at the northwest corner of Jay and S~ine Rds. We realize that the price cf the lnnd ha3 a great deal to dc with the "affordable" in affordable housing and that without knc~wing the price it is difficult fve your orqanization to knaw if you would be able build a financially viable project, and thereby to knaw if your organization wanta to go on record as beiag in eupport of our proposal. In order to addreas this very iuaportant question, during the last f~sv days I have talked aith the othes prcperty own9rs to'see if we could arzive at a price that the 3 of us cauld agree an,':and ws haves $150,000 per acre. Z hcpe that this is perceived as an extre~slv atttactive price and ons that'can only be affared by us because are~re all ~or.g t:.:~e cs,~:~rs oF th~ ~Lr prcperti~s and sna=a a dasir~ to sae them used to benefit the coauaunity rather than a sma11 number of indivic~a~.s . Fc: ~~_ ari3ar. ~~~a is w::a~ has : een paid for other ~a_ ~sls : . ~~ ~O ~r ~~~^~~'t7 . 1•fJp~ - :_~ ~'r1 f'~fl rTQ ii~Y ~. S /acre 8i93 4990 Moorhead iii~h-~ COB Fious. Au±h. $400i{ 2.Q~ I9I,388 11/93 Lo=3 2-~ ia`12::3 'v=~ ~~ T: ist1Q G~up $=~SD"zC 3. a~ 131,148 2/90' Vior.et ~ HollcS,- 'rIabitat For Hu~a. $380I{ 1.67 347,305 Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~ 1/98 Carlson Court Sub. ITS Const~.-uc. $923.5K 1.83 504,645 12/98 28th St. Drive-In COS l~ous. Auth. $4.2M 31.6 132,911 12/99 4805 Hase-` line Rd. Miles King ~74flR 1.26 587,302 8ote: the above iaformntioa wae qst3zered from the public records and is beliaved ta'be aecurnte - pleass aoa't hesitate to point out aaY errorer Thia offer ie canditioned oa ths sallars, buyers and the City of 8culder being able to came to terms on a number of issuea, moet impcrtantly: - agreement te annex all 35+/_ acses - sals t~ take placs by thQ end of 2000 - acceptable financinq t~l"'3II8 - te~s ta be~stnlctured to allaw sellers to take advantaqe of any potential tax benefits - all 'due diligence' ex~penses to be paid by the proposed buy~~(s) (i;.e. su_Tveys, engineering, EPA a9saaameata, etc.) ~- wates (and poasibly sewes) to be made available to e~ciatl.ng structures within 120 days agter sale I hape that y'cur organization aeea this as an opportunity to very significantly;further the availability of affordable housinq in Bou~der az:d ~v=3I enzhusi~s~i~ally endorse our propoaal. Plsasz don't hesitate to call me with-any questions. 5incareiy, Ric::a= d Luna 3Q3-~99-O1~I houie office 303-931-56~5 cell 383-998-7625 fax Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ I~ ~ `~ ~ Attachment C Year 2000 Major Update to the BVCP Timeline for Land Use Map, Area I, II, III Map and Policy Changes April ~ May ~ June Planning Complete Area [II- Planning Reserve study Reserve Review of study and recommendations by OSBT Notify PR property owners, publish map, open house 4 body adoption hearings Inventory of Preliminary screening/analysis of sites City-owned property Further evaluation, recommendations on sites Prepare analysis and report for each site Changes to Land Use 2gth St.charrette, industrial site meetings Map Notify landowmers, publish map, open houses Joint CC/PB Study Session/adoption hearings Policy Changes Process Changes Draft proposed changes Notify public, hold open houses Review by City Boards Joint CCIPB ~tudy Session/adoption hearings Convene working group, draft changes 4 body review ~md adoption July August Sept Oct ~ y ~ n x ~ z y n ~.1 A"l~lAI;HM~N r ll From: Al Gunter Questions for staff regarding Comp plan update. Impacts of the proposed changes with regazd to centers and corridors have not been addressed adequately and there is conflicting information that needs to be resolved. 1) It is relatively easy to get the cost per unit for the major infrastructure costs. This is particularly important for the market rate units. ?he method is to take the dollars generated by the Tischler study, bring them up to date, and compare them with the dollazs that would be collected today. For example, according to testimony before us by the parks department , their average bid is up over 9% and has been increasing at that rate for several years. This is not surprising since the builders groups have been saying that building cosu have be~n increasing by about 9°,% a year. Tat:e the T:sc:ilzr numbe: for pazks and recreation, inflate it by 9% compounded to 2000 and compare it to what we would expect from the units if they were to be built today. This gets you the current subsidy for those impacts on parks. Do the same for other impacts. This wzll help us determine the long term financial impacts from this development. If you disagree with this methodalogy please state rationale. 2) There are inconsistencies in the various methods used to deternune traffic impact. The study currently being used comes out with a totally different number than the straight forwazd observarions of 5.5 trips per household times 3000 households or 16,540 trips less the projected reduction of in commuting (3000 x 20% X 2.8) per day for the projected movement of people &om the county to the city. Please detail the assumptior~.s and.explanations of thc discrepancy, paying attention to assumptions regarding out commuting (current estimate has been 18% but the new numbers are 25%), % of new residents that are expected to move from county ( the housing study suggests that over half of new residents are from out of state and only about 20% move from the county), the imbalance in the growth of in commuting vs in city and the cuirently changing trends, the potential for intercity mass transit to improve the in commuting numbers as they have in city numbers, and the effect of jobs at home ( the latest employee survey suggests 7% of Boulder workers work at home, up from 4%. 3000 X.07 = 210 jobs) on both commuting and other daily trips. 3) Make all numbers attributed to the changes in corridors and centers net of azea 2. Please provide separate numbers for all of the parts of the proposed changes separately, in particulaz the area 2 sites and the planning reserve? t) There are no guarantees that these unit projections aze accurate. What restrictions do you plan to impose to keep the numbers at the projections? Other questions: 4~enda Item # ~~ Page # /~ 1) How many jobs per square feet were used in job calculations. Please detail types and amounts as well as rationale for use? 2) What % of home employment is used in the jobs scenario? 3) What other job redu~tion scenarios are to be brought forward? 4) How many jobs will be required to support the 3000 units. 5) Using government policy to increase development in the middle of a boom is contrary to good economic principles. Alan Greenspan would not be proud. Why not wait? 6) How many jobs will be created to build the 3000 units. How many jobs will be required to service these workers. Where will the workers Iive? aqanda Item # ,_~ Page ~ / y ATTACHMENT D Responses to A1 Gunter's questions: 1. We have asked Tom Hagerty, the Budget Director, to review and respond to this question, and do not yet have a response. 2. Jim Charlier, our transportation consultant, prepared the following response to this question: The basic question appears to be whether the analysis prepared last fall underestimates the traffic impacts of adding 3,000 housing units to the City's buildout. The traffic impact estimates used in the analysis was drawn from a traffic model that simulates traffic generation and distribution on the Boulder Valley roadway network given a specific land use data set. The changes in travel patterns resulting from adding 3,000 households would include effects associated with households that: - move in from outside the region and take jobs in Boulder; - move in from outside the region and take jobs outside Boulder; - move in from outside the region and are not employed; - move in from outside the region and attend college, with or without jobs; - move in from somewhere else within the region and take jobs outside Boulder; - move in from somewhere else within the region and take jobs in Boulder; - move in from somewhere else within the region and are not employed; and, - move in from somewhere els within the region and attend college, with or without jobs. It would be virtually impossible to forecast each of these cases and analyze their net traffic impacts on the Boulder roadway network. Looking only at raw numbers, Boulder residents produce about 5.5 vehicle trips per day per household on average. If all of the vehicle trips produced by residents of the 3,000 new households were "new" trips on Boulder roadways (in other words, about 16,500 trips), this would represent about a 3% increase in the daily vehicle trips anticipated by 2020. The traffic model takes a regional mix of commercial and residential land uses and balances trip generation and trip attraction according to algorithms that are based on trip generation and attraction rates, trip length, travel time and a variety of other factors. Based on this process, the model estimated a net increase of about 2,000 daily vehicle trips. This appears to indicate an existing imbalance in employment and retail such that some of the trips associated with those households would already have been traveling on some portion of the Boulder roadway network, resulting in a smaller net impact than the raw calculation in the previous paragraph. This 2,000-trip estimate represents about a 0.3% increase in the daily vehicle trips anticipated by 2020. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # /j! Pa~e ~5 It seems reasonable to expect the traffic impact to be less than the 3% estimate and it is not impossible that the ultimate outcome would be greater than the 0.3% impact. It may be that bracketing the analysis in this manner is fair and avoids suggesting we have a higher degree of forecasting accuracy than we actually have. 3. The land use map changes will all come forward for adoption as individual sites, with the information provided on each site. We are currently starting to work on preparing the individual site analysis and reports. i 4. All of the pr~jections are estimates based on the land use change being proposed. The zoning, not the land use' map change, controls what can actually be developed on the site. Both restrictions to keep numbers within certain parameters as well as incentives to achieve the goals of the plan, will need to be discussed and addressed in terms of plan implementation. Many of the ideas proposed in the update - e.g. residential units (mixed use) in commercial areas - is allowed today in the CB zoning district. Other questions: 1. Employment Multipliers As part of the Options Assessment that was developed early in the BVCP update process, staff assessed the accuracy of the employment multipliers used for projecting industrial employment that were used earlier during the comprehensive rezoning project. This resulted in some changes to the multipliers. The original assumption was that our multipliers might be too low given what we logically know about increasing costs for space and changes in industry. From the sampling data, we have indeed found this to be the case. As part of the Options Assessment, therefore, staff revised the assumptions as follows. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~Sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # /~ Page ~(~ Zones Past Multiplier (sf / emp) New Average New Multiplier I-S 650 596 600 I-G 405 363 350 I-M 535 394 400 RB Downtown* 333 285 300 RB-E BVRC** 400 350 CB / RB-D 400 400 TB 286 349 300 *RB Downtown numbers came from analysis by RRC in the 1997 Downtown Alliance process. These multipliers are also used for the office and civic uses in the No Bo village center. **RB-E - BVRC numbers were revised to reflect general trends toward more intense employment in retail areas. These multiplers are also used for the retail uses in the No Bo village center. 2. Home employment We used percentages from the 1999 Citizen Survey (11.9% of Boulder residents work out of their home), based on which we estimate roughly 8,000 people work out of their homes. I've attached a summary of the most recent employment estimates we have prepared. 3. The Planning Board discussed job reduction scenarios on February 17 and February 24. 4. This question was asked of Melanie Rees, the consultant who prepared the Housing Needs Assessrnent, at the 2i17/00 Planning Board Meeting. Her response: We have looked at the issue in some mountain resort communities - with a real emphasis on homes that are used for other purposes than primary residences. Those are homes that are corporate homes, second homes, or short-term vacation accommodations. In doing so, we have seen a correlation between disposable income and the multipliers. There is going to be a study done later this year sponsored by the towns of Telluride and Aspen to get further with this issue. The multipliers and how many jobs, in essence, that will be stimulated by these 3,000 additional housing units will depend very much on the income levels of the persons that reside in those units. Persons of upper incomes will have bigger multipliers than persons with smaller disposable income... There are so many other economic drivers in this community, and there is s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # ~//9 Page ~~ so much land for job creation (as opposed to housing) that the jobs will be created. Whether they are people serving commuters that are running errands at lunch or whether they are servicing people living in these 3,000 housing units, I think that would be a really hard test to make - saying that the jobs won't happen were it not for these 3,000 housing units. Typically, when we do residential and commercial linkage programs we have to make the argument that this happens because of these nexus considerations. Given the way this community is and the way jobs are created, it would seem a hard argument to make. 5. No response. 6. Same a~ 4 above. s:lplan\pb-items~rnemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # ~~ Page ,~4 New Employment Estimates and Projections The Planning Department's estimates for current and projected employment have been revisited as a part of the 2000 BVCP Update. As our data and tracking capabilities improve, so does our ability to assess both the current situation and projected future development. The estimate for current employment is derived using a 1994 base for employment and square footage, updated annually with building permit information. Before the re-evaluation, the 1999 employment estimates were: Area I Area II Area I& II Current Employment Growth to Buildout Total at Buildout 90,500 1,350 91,850 19,100 1,550 20,650 109,600 2,900 112,500 To better assess cunent trends in job types, space issues and rising land costs, we sampled the square footage and employment in commercial and industrial areas in the city. The results of this study indicated that the multipliers for square footage per employee used for both current estimates and projections were significantly low (the low estimate of square footage per employee indicates an intensification of employment - more people in less space. } Also, our base did not account for `at home workers'. The Citizen Survey, conducted once every 2 years, indicates that there are a significant number of people in Boulder who work exclusively out of their homes and this number is rising rapidly (6000 in 1997, 7960 in 1999). When the new multipliers were used to re-estimate employment from 1994-1999 (using building permits and square footage), the result was a 3.5% increase in employment. The 1994 base was increased by 3.5% to reflect this intensification of employees. This yielded a current number for employment of 94,600 for Area I and 1,390 for Area II. The projections for growth to buildout were also re-evaluated. Projections for vacant and redevelopable parcels were re-calculated using the new multipliers and areas with redevelopment potential were re-evaluated. This yielded a buildout projection of 24,800 jobs in Area I and 2,300 jobs in Area II. We also added an estimate of people who work at home and would otherwise not be counted in the current estimates. Using percentages frorn the 1999 Citizen Survey (11.9% of Boulder residents work out of their home) we estimate roughly 8,000 people work out of their homes. Adding this to the estimate for current employment, we calculate a total estimate of current employment in Area I of 102,600. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # ~r7 Page ~/ Area I Area II Area I& II Current Employment 94.600 1,360 ~~,960 At Home Workers 7,960 ,,960 Total Current Employment 102,560 1,360 103,920 Growth to Buildout 24,760 2,320 27,080 Tc~tal Employment at Buildovt 127,320 3,680 131,000 1999 Empioyment by Subcommunity Current (Jan.11999) Projected Growth to Buildout Total Employment at Buildout SUBCOMMUNITY Area I Area II Area I Area II Area I Area II Area I& II CentralBoulder 23640 140 2270 0 259I0 140 26050 Crossroads 15290 0 2200 0 17490 0 17490 CU 11700 0 4440 0 16140 0 t6140 East Boulder 2092U 330 5800 1170 26720 1500 28220 Gunbarrel 13240 0 7270 0 20510 0 20510 North Bonlder 3790 I10 1200 100 4990 210 5200 Palo Park 320 0 1360 0 1680 0 I680 South Boulder 7680 0 10 0 7690 0 7690 Southeast Boulder 5980 780 210 1050 6190 1830 8020 TOTALS 102560 1360 24760 2320 127320 3680 131000 s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # /A Page ~~ Projected Growth to Buildout SUBCOMMUNITY Area I Aren II Central Boulder 2270 0 Downtown 1740 Other Redevelopment 530 Crossroads 2200 0 Vacant 710 Redevelopment 1140 Approved 350 CU 4440 0 Main Campus 950 icesearcn rarx ~~+y~ East Boulder 5800 1170 I Vacant 2880 i 860 Redevelopment 1820 ~ 310 Approved 1100 Gunbarrel 7270 0 V acant 2200 Redevelopment 180 Approved 4890 North Boulder 1200 100 Yarmouth North 320 Village Center 800 Mann Property 80 I Palo Park 1360 0 Gateway 1210 Other 150 South Boulder 10 0 s:\plan\pb-itemslmemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # /~ Pa~e ~/ Sotitheast Boulder 210 ~ 1050 Vacant 40 Redevelopment 170 Arapahoe -Cherryvale 1020 TOTALS 24760 2320 s:\plan\pb-itemsMemos\sr420.pbm AGENDA ITEM # l~/ PaEe ~~