Loading...
Meeting Packet - DMC - 9/12/2011 DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION September 12, 2011 5:30 p.m. Off Site Meeting 13th Street Conference Room, 1720 13th Street AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of July 11 and August 1, 2011 Meeting Minutes 3. Public Participation 4. Police Update 5. Parks Update 6. BID Update 7. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Recommend to City Council the Downtown Round 2 Capital Investment Strategy Projects 8. Matters From Commissioners 9. Matters From Staff • Downtown Garage Signage and Enhancement Project • Civic Use Pad Update • DT5 Ordinance Change Attachments • Sales and Use Tax Revenue Report - May 2011 • Police Stats - August 2011 • Downtown Boulder Open/Close List • DT5 Memo to City Council • Capital Investment Strategy Round 2 Projects 2011 DUHMD/PS Areas of Focus 2011 DMC Priorities • CAGID Capital Plan Phase II • Establish a Sustainable Maintenance and • Hill Redevelopment Improvement Fund for the Pearl Street • Downtown Improvements Mall and Downtown Streetscape. • Civic Use Pad • Support Civic Use Task Force • Boulder Junction Access and Parking Recommendations and Participate in Civic Districts Master Plan/"SoDA" Study. • Encourage Vitality and Excitement of Downtown Boulder as a Revenue Generator and the Heart of the City. Mission Statement: We serve the downtown, University Hill and affected cone nunities by providing quality program.. parking enforcement. maintenance and alternative modes services through the highest level of customer service.. efficient management and effective problem solving. CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Ruth Weiss - 303-413-7318 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: CORNELIUS, KOVAL (absent), McMULLEN, PATTERSON (absent) STAFF: ''INTER, CUNNINGHAM, WEISS, LANDRITH, WEINHEIMER, MARTIN GUESTS: SEAN MAHER, DAVID BECKER, NOLAN ROSALL, BILL FOX TYPE OF MEETING: REGULAR August 1, 2011 AGENDA ITEM 1- Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 5:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 2 - Approval of the July 11, 2011 Minutes: (See Action Item Below) AGENDA ITEM 3 - Public Participation: None AGENDA ITEM 4 -Police Update: Weinheimer commented on the significant decline inactivity from 2010 with particular focus on the decline in theft and bar calls. AGENDA ITEM 5 - Parks Update: Martin mentioned that all is going well on the Pearl Street Mall: there were two irrigation breaks in the past week and they are under repair. Tulip Bulb Giveaway is August 11 at 11 a.m. with 15,000 bulbs to distribute. AGENDA ITEM 6- BID Update: Maher mentioned that they are in the midst of a busy summer; three more Bands on the Bricks; Sidewalk Sale this weekend; and, CU Banners are going up by end of the month. Both the DBI and BID Boards have voted overwhelmingly to support the staff recommendation to extend the FAR Bonus commercial space. AGENDA ITEM 7 - Presentation on Downtown Development and Parking Projections and DT-5 Zoning Changes: David Becker, RRC, approached the podium and detailed the methodology of their projections. The two scenarios being investigated are: 1) if the FAR Bonus continued in its current form where that increment of development capacity between 1.7 FAR and 2.7 FAR could used for residential or residential and parking; and, 2) the proposed zoning change where the FAR bonus could be used for commercial development. Projections were done for the two scenarios and also compared the delta between the two. Becker continued that it was a bottom up approach, began by looking at all of the development sites and parcels in the DT5 Zoning District, offered that there are 63 parcels or so legal parcels and identified, with the aid of COB GIS, the existing land area and the existing built square footage on each parcel. McMullen asked if there were parcels excluded and Becker replied that First Presbyterian was exempt and identified sites that potentially would not be developed. Becker continued by discussing what is currently built and what legally could be built with current building scenarios. Becker offered what can only be used for residential and/or parking gives the developer less flexibility from a design standpoint with less potential market if it were only residential as opposed to residential and commercial. It was found that with using the assumptions, there is an additional 1.01 million square feet of development potential under the existing scenario and approximately 1.16 million additional square footage under the proposed scenario. The proposed zoning change would account for an additional 150,000 square footage of development. Timing of development within five year increments, 5 to 10 years; 10 years and beyond was discussed. Development potential for residential and commercial was discussed. Becker continued with various other projections for DT-5 Zone and current zoning: employment projections and residential unit projections. Cornelius questioned the 240 residential units and its time frame, Becker replied in the next 20 to 25 years for full build out. Cornelius questioned their method to come to conclusions. McMullen questioned if it were units for rent or for sale, Becker replied that it wasn't concluded. Winter offered that the market has proven to be strong for ownership. Winter introduced Bill Fox and his parking and access demand data. Fox explained that they are looking at the parking and traffic implications of the DT-5 zone change. Fox continued that the existing zoning would have less impact than the zone change. There will be more traffic based on the land use projections with the build out of the area. Parking implications of the land use change, did actual block by block counts of private parking space in CAGID. Preliminary numbers show Boulder significantly below national average from a parking demand perspective. Fox is currently working on parking supply and demand rates and working on projections to the change in parking. Alternative modes share/use was discussed. Winter mentioned that new employees and how they will hit the budget in the area of EcoPasses. Winter continued that the challenge is to project the utilization of the parking system, parking has been provided with increments for commercial parking, each residential unit has 1.8 spaces and this is for commercial. Projections for the number of spaces to allay concerns. Winter provided some areas of projections in order to avoid over providing of parking. Fox offered that week day mid day parking when employees are in, parking supply and demand and will begin to look at the Friday evening entertainment crowd and need more data on Saturday event driven parking. McMullen offered that the model exists in other urban entities. Winter mentioned that the issue has been raised to maximize parking, reduce vehicle use, and that it is all about making downtown vital and the best it can be. Staff proposal will be going to Planning Board on Thursday. Rosall mentioned that the numbers are so large that they are difficult to conceptualize at 70,000 - 90,000 sq ft and it is just not DT-5. McMullen is strongly in support of the DT-5 zone change with the center line of Canyon and encourage both Planning Board and Council to pass it. Cornelius was in full agreement with McMullen motion. AGENDA ITEM 8 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Recommend to City Council the Adoption of the DLTHMD/PS Capital Improvement Program: Capital investment strategy to do enhancement and the CIP is for replacement dollars for existing amenities on the mall without additional taxes. Cornelius and McMullen were in full support. AGENDA ITEM 9 - Matters from the Commissioners: Cornelius offered that his questions have been answered. AGENDA ITEM 10 - Matters from the Staff: Matthews offered that signage and enhancements have been approved; want to get the painting done before the cold arrives, signage should be rapped up by January and scope of work should be completed in July 2012. Matthews continued that Boulder Junction might have a garage and the Camera site may have a garage. Scope of work has been approved and Matthews is awaiting the contract. Downtown stakeholders will be asked for input. Matthews is looking for an assessment of technology available and see how the garages are being utilized. McMullen offered that the Civic Use Pad is working with EPS (an economic analysis firm) to generate a Performa and report to quantify the "layer cake approach" for the site. McMullen met with WOW folks and heard their desire for involvement. a round table discussion is eminent. Also met with National History Museum director and he is putting together a roundtable discussion to include key stakeholders to discuss art meet science and mentioned that Morzel strongly supports the effort. Landrith offered the number of EcoPasses to date and the mandatory audit is currently underway and TDM Last Mile Project is in the works with EcoCarShare and BCycle. Cornelius questioned the use of the EcoPasses by employees and Landrith replied that tracking information is not available since there is no technology to get the facts. Homecoming parade will be downtown this year, starting at the Courthouse and will take the place of the Stampede. Winter mentioned the opening on DMC and that it needs to be a property owner or property owner representative (taxpayer). The link is online and they must be a city resident. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: MOTION: No quorum 2 MOTION: McMullen is strongly in support of the DT-5 zone change with the center line of Canyon and encourage both Planning Board and Council to pass it. Cornelius was in full agreement with McMullen's motion. FUTURE MEETINGS: September 12, 2011 13'h Street Conference Room Off Site Meeting APPROVED BY: DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Attest: Ruth Weiss, Secretary Christopher Cornelius, Vice Chair 3 City of Boulder Sales & Use Tax Revenue Report May, 2011 Issued July 15, 2011 This report provides information and analysis related to 2011 year-to-date (YTD) sales and use tax collections. Results are for actual sales activity through the month of May, the tax on which is received by the city in the subsequent month. Any questions should be directed to Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer at (303) 441-1819. REVENUE COMPARISONS TO COMPARABLE PERIOD IN PRIOR YEAR Table 1 lists the categories of sales and use tax collected by the City of Boulder. It illustrates the percent change in the various areas for May YTD 2011 over the same time period in 2010. As reflected in Table 1, total sales and use tax has increased from the 2010 base by 13.70%. A significant portion of this increase was from construction use tax revenue for large one-time construction projects at CU. TABLE 1 ACTUAL REVENUE % CHANGE IN TAX CATEGORY REVENUE % OF Increase/(Decrease) TOTAL Sales Tax 5.97% 77.98% Business/Consumer Use Tax 20.08% 9.74% Construction Use Tax 113.90% 9.75% Motor Vehicle Use Tax 21.97% 2.58% Refunds -90.09% -0.04% Total Sales & Use Tag 13.70% 100.00% The beginning months of 2010 were weaker than the balance of the year. Therefore, it maybe more difficult to maintain the level of increases experienced May YTD 2011 as the comparative 2010 results strengthen toward the later part of the year. Although we still struggle to return to pre-recession trends, Table 2 also illustrates that recent collections may be getting closer to recovering some of the losses experienced during the recent recession. TABLE 2 3 YEAR MAY YTD COMPARISON Percent Increase/(Decrease) Category 2009 2010 2011 Retail Sales Tax (5.49%) 5.12% 5.97% Business./Consumer Use Tax (incl. vehicles) (3.83%) (9.98%) 20.47% Construction Use Tax 14.92% (34.25%) 113.90% Total (3.81%) (0.37%) 13.70% ANALYSIS OF RESULTS • Retail Sales Tax - Actual retail receipts are up by 5.97%. This is down from last month when the YTD increase was 6.38%. • Business/Consumer Use Tax - This category tends to be volatile in nature and the short-term results do not necessarily reflect trends. But after two years of negative results in this category, we are hopeful that the May YTD increase of 20.08% is an indication that business confidence is improving and, combined with temporary changes to Federal tax policy, will result in continuing increases in business investments. • Construction Use Tax - This category is up by 113.90% May YTD. This is primarily due to 3 large construction projects at CU. These large projects are one-time in nature and we expect total year 2011 construction use tax revenue to be down from that collected in 2010. • Motor Vehicle Use is up by a healthy 21.97%. This category is only 2.58% of total sales and use tax revenue, but after several years of decline the trend continues to move upward. Hopefully, this is another indicator that the economy will continue to improve in the coming months. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MAJOR CATEGORIES Although it is too early in the year to firmly identify trends, the following monthly information will begin to form a data base that will provide a better indication of trends as the year progresses. Retail Sales Tax - May YTD increased by 5.97%. Jan Feb May Apr May 17.88% -4.71% 8.00% 5.83% 4.35% Food Stores - Retail sales tax revenue for food stores is up by 2.92% YTD. Jan Feb Mar Apr May 24.77% 1.59% (9.54%) 4.78% 0.11% Sales at Eating Places are both an important revenue source (Eating Places comprise about 12% of sales/use tax) and are a significant indicator of the health of the economy in the city. This discretionary category is correlated with unemployment (disposable income) and consumer confidence. Total May YTD retail tax at Eating Places is up by 8.06%. Jan Feb Mar Apr May 9.77% 3.08% 9.75% 7.16% 10.16% Apparel Store sales are up by 17.05% for the year. This increase includes the first full month of returns from the new Nordstrom Rack store located in the TwentyNinth Street area. Jan Feb Mar Apr May 6.63% 0.96% 9.89% 21.04% 17.05% General Retail is up by 6.31 % YTD. Jan Feb Mar Apr May 7.10% 0.84% 11.14% 10.01% 6.31% Utilities (primarily retail sales tax on natural gas and electricity) are down by 6.39% YTD. Tax on Public Utilities comprises approximately 6% of total sales and use tax revenue. Jan Feb May Apr May (10.66%) (0.54%) (8.33%) (11.26%) (0.99%) MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESS SALES TAX In response to the interest expressed in this emerging industry, this section has been added to the monthly revenue report. As a newly emerging industry with no significant previous year history, comparison of current tax receipts to prior year data will not yield much useful information. Instead, monthly sales tax revenue remitted by these businesses in 2011 is presented below. Total May YTD retail sales tax revenue collected in this category is $312,434. This industry represents less than one half one percent of total sales and use tax collections. Jan Feb Mar Apr May $55,982 $68,348 $58,134 $71,721 $58,248 Significant YTD increases i decreases by tax category are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 2010 RETAIL SALES TAX Change in Com arable YTD Collections STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES: ■ Food Stores up by 2.92% TransportationiUtilities down by 6.09% ■ Eating Places up by 8.06% Computer Related Business down by 12.14% ■ Apparel Stores up by 17.05% ■ UHGID (the "hill") down by 1.02% ■ Home Furnishings up by 13.88% Gunbarrel Industrial down by 13.33% ■ General Retail up by 6.31% Public Utilities down by 6.39% ■ Automotive Trade up by 6.99% ■ Building Materials Retail up by 1.26% ■ Consumer Electronics up by 88.47% ■ Downtown up by 6.43% ■ 28t1' Commercial up by 2.75% ■ Univ. of Colorado up by 4.97% ■ Basemar up by 17.71% ■ BVRC (excl 29`1' St) up by 2.25% ■ TwentyNinth St up by 5.38% ■ Table Mesa up by 3.58% ■ The Meadows up by 5.72% ■ All Other Boulder up by 20.98% ■ Gunbarrel Commercial up by 5.79% ■ Out of State up by 20.60% ■ Pearl Street Mall up by 10.26% ■ Boulder Industrial up by 9.87% 2010 USE TAX Change in YTD Comparable Collections) STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES ■ Motor Vehicle Use Tax up by 21.97% ■ Computer Related Business Use Tax up by 78.13% ■ Construction Use Tax up by 113.90% (primarily due to one-time projects at CU) ACCOMMODATION TAX Authorized by a vote of the people in November of 2010, Accommodation Tax increased from 5.5% to 7.5% on January 1, 2011. Therefore, the following chart provides information on both the May YTD increase in base revenue (the comparison at 5.50%) and revenue associated with the increase in rate. 2010 2011 % Change Tax at 5.50% $1,084,948 $1,170,714 7.91% Additional 2.00% Tax $425,714 Total Accommodation Tax $1,084,948 $1,596,428 ADMISSIONS TAX Admissions Tax decreased by 1.01 PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Nordstrom's Rack opened for business in Boulder on April 28`x'. The store occupies a 39,000 square foot space and opened with 100 employees. May 2011 is the first full month of sales from this newly opened store. The Business Research Division of the CU Leeds School of Business published an update of the Leeds Business Confidence Index on July 1, 2011: Colorado's business leaders remained positive, albeit generally less optimistic, looking ahead to Q3 2011. The Leeds Business Confidence Index (LBCI) measures the confidence of Colorado business leaders in six categories: national economy, state economy, industry sales, industry profits, hiring plans, and capital expenditures. The LBCI's reading slipped from 56.8 to 51.6 from Q2 to Q3. Confidence waned across all metrics, although most indices remained above the neutral mark (50). Business leaders pointed to more upside potential on sales and profits, which appeared to translate to capital expenditures and hiring. Sales and profits expectations are positive, but subdued for Q3 2011, continuing a pattern of two steps forward, one step back. The sales index recorded a reading of 55.8, and profit, 53.1 - a drop of more than five points each. Consumer confidence and prices will impact sales and profits. According to the Conference Board, the Consumer Confidence Index fell in May from 66.0 to 60.8. The BLS reported the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers rose 3.6% year-over-year in May, while core inflation was up 1.5% year-over- year. Producer prices for finished goods climbed 7.3%. While hiring expectations remained positive, this indicator garnered the lowest rating among industry- specific questions for Q3 - a reading of 52. While 30% of respondents expect a moderate increase, only 1.3% anticipate a strong increase. According to the June 20, 2011 publication of Focars Colorado: Economic and Revenue Forecast by the Colorado Legislative Council Staff: Although still slow, Colorado's economy gained momentum in late 2010. Both nonfarm employment and consumer spending are growing at rates faster than in the nation. Colorado's economy was boosted in 2010 by tourism, robust agricultural markets, and a recovery in the energy industry. Despite clear signs that the state's economy is expanding; ongoing challenges exist that continue to restrain the recovery. Small and medium-sized businesses face tight credit conditions and the commercial real estate sector continues to struggle. Consumers face tight credit, falling home prices, and high levels of debt and unemployment. Finally, the financial and housing markets continue to work through the imbalances that caused the recession. The revised State Legislative Council forecast (issued June 2011) for percentage change in various economic indicators follows: 2010 2011 2012 2013 Unemployment Rate 8.9% 8.5% 8.0% 7.3% Personal Income 2.3% 4.1% 4.7% 5.3% Wage and Salary Income 1.0% 3.1% 4.4% 5.4% Retail Trade Sales 6.6% 4.9% 5.0% 5.2% Denver-Boulder Inflation Rate 1.9% 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% Slightly different forecasts of similar data from the June 2011 Economic and Fiscal Review by the Governor's Office of State Planning and Budgeting includes the following: 2010 2011 2012 2013 Unemployment Rate 8.9% 9.0% 8.7% 8.1% Personal Income 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 4.4% Wage and Salary Income 1.0% 1.8% 2.9% 4.0% Retail Trade Sales 6.4% 5.2% 4.2% 4.7% Denver-Boulder Inflation Rate 1.9% 3.5% 2.4% 2.6% An article by Aldo Svaldi in the June 8, 2011 Denver Post includes the following information: Colorado's GDP rose 1.4% last year, adjusted for inflation. That's the 381h-slowest growth rate in the U.S. and behind the 2.6% average, according to...the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Businesses have been substituting capital for labor in this recovery, one reason the rebound hasn't translated into more jobs, said Richard Wobbekind, executive director of the CU Business Research Division. Whether that becomes a long-tenn trend remains to be seen, he said, but it appears to be holding back the recovery. Government spending contributed 0.29% toward Colorado's overall growth rate, versus 0.04% nationally. "We are (now) seeing a lot of the private-sector job gains being wiped out by declines in state and local governments," Shields said. (Martin Shields is the director of the Regional Economics Institute at CSU.) An effect of government budget cuts is illustrated in an article by Beth Potter in the April 29 - May 12, 2011 Boulder County Business Report. This type of funding cut will both reduce jobs and construction use tax revenue in the City of Boulder. Some area construction workers could lose their jobs as a result of a $10 million cut in federal funding to renovate... "Building 1" at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This report will be updated and will be available on approximately the tenth business day of each month. ~IAY YTD Actual Total Net Sales/Use Tax Receipts by Tax Category 2414 2411 % Change % of Total Sales Tax 26,949,741 28,558,209 5.97% 77.98% Business Use Tax 2,970,050 3,566,559 20.08% 9.74% Construction Use Tax 1,668,867 3,569,749 113.90% 9.75% Motor vehicle 773,783 943,798 21.97% 2.58% Refunds -152.886 -15.154 -90.09% -0.04% Total Sales and Use Tax 32,209,556 36,623,160 13.70% 100.00% HAY YTD:Actual Total Net Sales/Use Tax Receipts by Industry Type 2410 2411 %Change °/a of Total Food Stores 4,524,501 4,730,591 4.55% 12.92% Eating Places 4,298,484 4,638,309 7.91% 12.66% Apparel Stores 957,825 1,136,661 18.67% 3.10% Hoine Furnishings 856,765 970,816 13.31% 2.65% General Retail 7,104,898 7,517,479 5.81% 20.53% Transportation/Utilities 3,291,402 3,087,121 -6.21% 8.43% Automotive Trade 2,019,615 2,303,661 14.06% 6.29% Building Material-Retail 1,101,684 1,114,685 1.18% 3.04% Construction Use Tax 1,405,087 2,953,565 110.21% 8.06% Construction Sales Tax 188,937 118,802 -37.12% 0.32% Consumer Electronics 660,228 1,169,673 77.16% 3.19% Computer Related Business Sector 1,765,442 2,220,209 25.76% 6.06% All Other 4,187,575 4,676,744 11.68% 12.77% Refunds -151886 -15.154 -90.09% -0.04% Total Sales and Use Tax 32,209,556 36,623,160 13.70% 100.00% IiAY YTD Actual Total Net Sales/Use Tax Receipts by Geographic Area 2410 2011 °fo Change 1/o of Total North Broadway 467,362 521,882 11.67% 1.43% Downtown 2,187,539 2,351,749 7.51% 6.42% Downtown Extension 216,265 130,310 -39.75% 0.36% UHGID (the "hill") 437,791 467,551 6.80% 1.28% East Downtown 207,914 228,711 10.00% 0.62% N. 28th St. Commercial 1,734,606 1,789,061 3.14% 4.89% N. Broadway Annex 178,409 233,354 30.80% 0.64% University of Colorado 398,310 412,927 3.67% 1.13% Basemar 630,022 735,833 16.79% 2.01% BVRC-Boulder Valley Regional Center 6,377,472 6,682,001 4.78% 18.25% 29th Street 2,458,786 2,624,329 6.73% 7.17% Table Mesa 884,735 928,242 4.92% 2.53% The Meadows 361,389 377,659 4.50% 1.03% All Other Boulder 1,391,056 1,599,860 15.01% 4.37% Boulder County 478,606 356,341 -25.55% 0.97% Metro Denver 1,498,570 1,642,920 9.63% 4.49% Colorado All Other 72,209 83,392 15.49% 0.23% Out of State 3,316,013 5,057,914 52.53% 13.81% Airport 5,408 5,739 6.11% 0.02% GrmbarrelIndustrial 1,467,353 2,209,531 50.58% 6.03% Gunbarrel Comrmiercial 393,429 420,659 6.92% 1.15% Pearl Street Mall 819,954 881,920 7.56% 2.41% Boulder Industrial 3,020,183 3,176,099 5.16% 8.67% Unlicensed Receipts 393313 726,984 84.84% 1.99% County Clerk 773,783 943,798 21.97% 2.58% Public Utilities 2,191,964 2,049,550 -6.50% 5.60% Refunds -152,886 -15,154 -90.09% -0.04% Total Sales and Use Tax 32,209,556 36,623,160 13.70% 100.00% MAY.YTD Actual °o Change Miscellaneous Tax Statistics 2414 2011 Taxable Sales:: Total Food Service Tax 196,029 218,404 11.41% Acconunodations Tax 1,084,948 1,596,428 7.91% Admissions Tax 224,233 221,973 -1.01% License Fees 13,425 11,600 -13.59% Trash Tax 865,897 429,681 -50.38% USE SALES COMPARISON OF YEAR-TO-DATE ACTUAL REVENUE FOR THE YEAR 2011 TO COMPARABLE PERIOD USE TAX BY CATEGORY SALES TAX BY CATEGORY 1IAYTDActual I~IAI'YTI1l:Actr►al 2:10 21311 °o Chaig~ Standard Industrial Code 201:(1 2011 Change 18,470 93,118 404.17% Food Stores 4,506,031 4,637,473 2.92% 37,517 33,842 -9.79% Eating Places 4,260,967 4,604,467 8.06% 2,858 18,845 559.27% Apparel Stores 954,966 1,117,817 17.05% 8,683 5,042 -41.93% Home Furnishings 848,082 965,774 13.88% 677,808 684,765 1.03% General Retail 6,427,091 6,832,714 6.31% 141,405 129,115 -8.69% Transportation/Utilities 3,149,997 2.958,006 -6.09% 782,557 98008 25.24% Automotive Trade 1,237,058 1,323,573 6.99% 4,563 3,729 -18.27% Building Material-Retail 1,097,121 1,110,956 1.26% 1,405,087 2,953,565 110.21% Construction Use Tax 0 0 na 0 0 na Construction Sales Tax 188,937 118,802 -37.12% 53,935 27,018 -49.91% Consumer Electronics 606,293 1,142,655 88.47% 741,268 1,320,407 78.13% Computer Related Business 1,024,174 899.802 -12.14% 1,538,549 1,830,571 18.9800, All Other 2,649.025 2,846.172 7.44% 5,412,701 8,080,106 4928°e Total Sales and t:se Tax 26,949,741 28,558,209 5.97% tTSE TAX BY CATEGORY SALES TAX BY CATEGORY 'Z :'TD } cliaZA' Dctul X010 211 °fA C1aiee Geographic Code 20.10 2011 °a C Vane 24,011 21,328 -11.17% North Broadway 443,352 500,554 12.90% 74,881 103,234 37.86% Downtown 2,112,658 2,248,514 6.43% 4,281 10,599 147.55% Downtown Extension 211,984 119,711 -43.53% 8,973 43,095 380.26% UHGID (the "hill") 428,818 424,457 -1.02% 16,151 10,815 -33.04% East Downtown 191,763 217,896 13.63% 30,010 37,605 25.31% N. 28th St. Commercial 1,704,596 1,751456 2.75% 12,610 63,714 405.24% N. Broadway Annex 165,798 169,641 2.32% 14,891 10,436 -29.92% University of Colorado 383,419 402,491 4.97% 19,019 16,611 -12.66% Basemar 611,003 719,223 17.71% 102,352 265,739 159.63% BVRC 6,275,120 6,416,262 2.25% 11,406 45,354 297.65% 29th Street 2,447,381 2,578,975 5.38% 5,951 17,990 202.29% Table Mesa 878,784 910,252 3.58% 6,047 1,988 -67.12% The Meadows 355,343 375,671 5.72% 606,373 650,521 7.28% All Other Boulder 784,682 949,339 20.98% 205,206 92,137 -55.10% Boulder County 273,400 264,203 -3.36% 506,207 525,870 3.88% Metro Denver 992,362 1,117,050 12.56% 26,845 25,456 -5.18% Colorado All Other 45,364 57,936 27.71% 167,836 1,261,190 651.44% Out of State 3,148,178 3,796,724 20.60% 243 747 206.90% Airport 5,165 4,992 -3.35% 1,114,801 1,903,988 70.79% Gunbarrel Industrial 352,552 305,543 -13.33% 1,969 6,525 231.46% Gunbarrel Commercial 391,460 414,134 5.79% 26,148 6,649 -74.57% Pearl Street Mall 793,806 875,272 10.26% 1,320,809 1,308,963 -0.90% Boulder Industrial 1,699,374 1,867,137 9.87% 252,090 633,500 151.30% Unlicensed Receipts 141,223 93,484 -33.80% 773,783 943,798 21.97% County Clerk 0 0 na 79,807 72,255 -9.46% Public Utilities 2,112,156 1,977,294 -6.39% 5,412,701 8,080,106 49.28% Total Sales and Use Tax 26,949,741 28,558,209 5.97% Tax by Mo & Category TOTAL CITY SALES AND USE TAX COLLECTIONS o/oCltange in Taxable REVENUE CATEGORY YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY 1UN 1UL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL > Sales RETAIL SALES TAX 2004 4,394,136 4,170,467 5,327,051 4,339,5944;461,055 5,340,555 433312841749,658 5,542,805 4,450,7314,518,6296,602,036 58,229,844':. 145% Rate 3 41 % 2005 4.255,041 4,453,370 5,232,389 4,3E3,026 4;576,864 5,535,196 4 494,079'. 5,013.379 5,550,916 4,541.7904.769,7006,932 929'. 59,708 680 2.54% 2006 4,734,249 4,645,436 5,537,253 4;6594581 4,882,331 6,129,363 4737773! 5,237,757 6,156,056 4,950,305! 4,387,847 7,891618! 63,949446! 7.10% Rate Chg 3 41%13.56% 2007 5,118,353 5,014,615 6,918,421 4;965,981 ! 5,500,701 6,712,841 5;565T371 6,393,028 6,954,377 5,747.963, 5,695,703: 8,411,484 72,998 8381 9.34% Rate Chg356%>3.41% 2008 5;197400 5,105,109 6,005,946 5,3314475,488,450 6,572,335 5508796'. 6,258,640 6,620,535 5,382,779 5,255,155 7,443,455 70,170045'.. 0.35% Rate3.41% 2009 4;919,570 4,659,632 5,850,038 5,0776485;131444 6,428,343 5206,770'. 5,790,533 6,093,314 5,170,325'. 4,735,769'. 7,814,230 66,877,613'. -4.69% 2010 4,576,034 5,386,190 6,196,697 5,3202255,470,595 6,895,283. 5,522,076 5,943,315 6,855,385. 5,652,938 5,240,2118,414157 71,473106'. 6.87% 2011 5,394,367 5,132,437 6,692,597 5,630,200 5,708,608 28,558,209 -60,04% Change from prior year (Month 17 88% -471% &00% 583% 4.35% -10000% -10000% -10000% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% Change from prior year (YTD) 17 88% &67% 6.56% 638% 5.97% 15 62%. -2T46% -36.97% -45,25% -50.61% 54.71% -60.04% CONSUMER USE TAX 2004 980,229 665,018'. 899,453 742,692 724,614 866,974 810,8741 922,401 941,990'. 728,634 750,971 1,181776 10,215,625! -139% (includes Motor Vehicle) 2005 827,887 507,036 951,085 1,016,614 ! 1,103,592 1,001,048: 864,720'. 788,465 1,094,030 758,937 968,467:- 1,248,300 11,130,180'. 8.95% 2006 686,686 517,101 1,277,146 577,1441 964,529 781,362: 895,4031 776,258 1,054,696 727,776 1,092,224 1,287,15710,637,482 -4.43% Rate Chg 141%13.56% 2007 763,650 574,006: 975,178 888,726'. 733,196 858,072- 975,456 652,501 923,6671 732,463!. 716,317! 1,575,908'. 10,369,140'. -6.63% RateChg3.56%>341% - 2008 - 818,034 991,472 1,109,160 669,214'. 736,901 1,067,769732,3341 596,399 899,934 989,683 ! 599,8761 1,253,26710,464,043 535% Rate3.41% 2009 909,558 657,250 1,062,587 997,891 531,724 790,819, 858,325 1,299,767 989,089 741,578 698,452 1,600457 11,137,497 644% 2010 687,502 778,796 913,223 701,931 662,382 945,800 620,328 633,593 909,315 752,143 618,493 1,366,131 9,589,636 1390% 2011 1,247,135 650,595 1,034,670 727,395 850,561 4,510,357 5297% Change from prior year (Month) 8140% -16.46%: 1330% 363% 28.41% -10000%. 10000%: -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00%- -100.00%'. Change from prior year(YTD) 81.40% 29.42% 2123% 18.77%'. 20.47% 382% -15.06% -24.11% -34.18% -40.69% -45.15%1 -52.97%1 CONSTRUCTION USE TAX 2004 210,383 336,148: 387,487 490,426 ! 229,416 181,732 204,851'. 155,409 212,299 119,283 238,459'. 283,087 3,048,978'. -10.50% Rate 3.41 % 2005 912,585 782,540 287,865 461,878'. 456,073 913,197 186,408 235,308 282,503 276,247 288,104 ! 514,975 5,597,684 ! 83.59% 2006 197,263 331,341 420,749 294,094'. 337,237 774,420 352,533'. 261,409 343,749 559,975'. 410,958'. 1,018,272'. 5,302,000'. -5.28% Rate Chg 3 41%13.56% 2007 293,078 347,860 112,016 293,061 621,413 430,207: 1,119,425 259,226 421,376 286,524 376,978 253 590 4,814,755 -13,02% RateChg3.56%>341% ! 2008 330,080 347,219 748,549 454,797 327,855 241,649 100,759 442,652 347,954 217,885 107,831 381,753 4,048,982 1221% Rate341% 2009 944,905 111,907 425.028 776,511 279,761 995,132 721,209 676,301 235,485 223,169 591,970 1,467,798 7,449,176 8398% 2010 591,599 242,591 245,829 362,619'. 226,230 1,921,675 1075078'. 467,423 245,361 234,021 406,868'. 531,670 6,550,964'. -12.06% 2011 622,872 281,210 274,661 240,970 2,150,036 3,569,749 4551% Change from prior year (Month) 529% 15.92% 1173% -3155% . 850.37% -10000% -100,00% ' -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% Change from prior year (YTD) 529% 8.38% 9.14% -1.59% 113.90% -&58% -23.49%'. -30.46% -33.63%'. -36.40%'. -40.69%'. -45.51%'. TOTAL FOR MONTH & CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR (MONTH & YTD) 2004 5,584,748 5,171,633 6,613,991 5,572,712 5,415,085 6,389,261 5,348,853 5,827,468 6,697,093 5,298,647 5,508,059 8,066899 71,494,448 0.47% Rate 3.41% 2005 5,995,513 5,742,946 6,471,340 5,831,518'. 6,136,529 7,449,441: 5,545,207 : 6,037,152 6,927,449 5,576,9746,026,271'. 8,696,204 76,436,545'. 6.91% 2006 5,618,198 5,493,878: 7,235,148 5,530,696'. 6,184,096 7,685,145 5,985,709'. 6,275,424 7,554,5001 6,238,056'. 5,891,030'. 10197,046'. 79,888,928'. 4.52% Rate Chg 3.41%>3.56% - 2007 6,175,081 5,936,481 8,005,615 6,147,768'. 6,855,311 8,001,120.: 7,660,252 ! 7,304,754 8,299,420 6,766,951 6,788,999'. 10,240,98288,182,7325.7 3% Ratechg3.56%>3.41% 2008 6,345,513 6,443,800 7,863,654 6,455,459 6,553,206 7,881,753, 6,341,889, 7,297,691 7,868,4236,590,3471 5,962,862; 9,078,475 84,683,0701 026% Rzte341% 2009 - 6,774,033 5,428,789 7,337,653 6,852,0495,942,929 8,214,294'. 6,786,3047,766,601 7,317,887! 6,135,072 1 6,026,19110,882,485 1 85,464,286! 0.92% 2010 5;855,134 6,407,577 7,355,749 6,384,774'. 6,359,207 9,762,758 7,217,482 7,044,332 8,010,061 6,639,102'. 6,265,572'. 10,311 957 87,613 706'. 2.51% 2011 7,264,374 6,064,242 8,001,928 6,598,565 8,709,206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,638,315 5818% Less Refunds ' 2004 -1,343 -10,505 -636 872: 5,963 151 1,299 -4643 -244 -27,318 -5,758 -4,330 -63,061 2005 -246 -66,044 -909 -2,666 -1,647 10,080. -3,062 3,207 -B46 -1,586! 0! -4,757 -96,051'. 2006 -40,302 -5,272 -22,761 -3631 -5,099 0 0 -7,568 -806.: -5,947!. 406 -16,773 -105,296 2007 0 -38,291 -2,013 -729 -9,326 14,547 -14,440! -677 0 -5,9630-5,015-91,001 2008 -978 0'. 46,974 -1,409'. 0 2,375 445 -91493 -1,429: 0-48,521 -500 -112,1231 Less Refunds 2009 -3,335 0: 0 1,111-602 692'. 967-3,520 -2,747.': -179,087 -65,331-26376'. -283,770, 2010 -3,469 -68,130 -35,924. -1444! 33,920 -3,832 -1,648! 3,204 -7,969: 0! -12480! -214-183,234'. 2011 -8,569 2,479 _.-1,188 2,918 0 _-15,154 Adjusted total 2004 5,583,406 5,161,128 6,613,354 5,571,840 5,409,121 6,389,110 5347,554 5,822,825 6,696,849 57271,329 5,502,301 8,062,569 71431,386 1.01% Rate 3.41% 2005 5,995,266 5,676,902 6,470,431 5,828 852 6,134,882 7,439,361 5,542,145 6,032,946 6,926,603 5.575,388'. 6,026,271 8,691 446 76,340,493'. 6.87% 2006 5,577,896 5,488,606 7,212,388 5,530333 6;178,998 7,685,145 59857096,267,856 7,553,694 6.232,110: 5,890,624 10.180273! 79,783631! 4.51% Rate Chg3.41%13.56% 2007 6,175,081 5,898,190 8,003,602 6,1470396,845,984 7,986,572 7645,812 7,304,077 8,299,420 6,760,988 1 6,788,999 10,235,967 88,091,731 5.76% _ 2008 6,344,536 6,443,800 7,816,680 6,454,050 6,553,206 7,879,378 6,341,444 7,288,198 7,866,995 6,590,347 5,914,341 9,077,975 84,570,947 0.23% Rate3 41 % - 2009 6,770,698 5,428,789 7,337,653 6,850,938 ! 5,942,327 8,213,602 6,785,337 ! 7,763,080 7,315,140 57955,985 5,960,860 10,856 109. 85,180,517'. 0,72% 2010 5,851,665 6,339,447 7,319,826 6,383,3306,315,288 9,758,926 7,215,834 7,040,127 8,002,092 6,639,102 6,253,092 10,311744 87,430,472 2.64% 2011 7,255,806 6,061,763 8,000,739 6,595,647 8,709,206 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,623,160 5811% % Change (month) 24.00% -4,38% 9.30% 3.33%3T91%, -100.00%_ -100.00%I -100.00% -100.00%_ -100,00% % -100.00%1 -100.00%'. %Change (YTD) 24.00% 9.24% 9.26% 780% 1170% 1274% 2554%. 3486% 32.98% -48.32% -52.51% -58.11% El X U_ M N N r Q M CO N (n O Q cD N M (n N (n Q N r N f~ m LO Q N co O N W Q o 0 0 0 N N m Q N M Q~pp W m m W 1~ N W r (O I~ M Q N N C (O N m m O m m M O M m r c0 cO O I~ M C N (O M O N In f- N W n O m m N I~ n m W W O W W m n CO h V 0 m O O c0 I~ U) W W I~ m 0 N Q W O M M N W W N V M O N Q Q co O W O M (D O Q M O m M I~ M O M M r N M 7 r Q f~ M W m N f~ Q Q r m co O (D N Q W 0 M M Q M Q W V 7 7 V M d V' <t m V V In Q 'd' In Q Q ~O m m M Q v UJ N N Z (n In ❑ ` (n (D LO m N Q N M M V O N 1O N f~ N r N m r m (D O m N m N o 0 o e U M (n W (D ~ Q m m f~ Q Q Q O m Q co (n cD O N I Q N Q in W (D N Q W - O (0 M m ❑ N Q m m N M m In m W (D m m (O W (0 O W Q (D M W M N m U) M m m N ^ po O to L m I~ N m Q M 1~ Q Q Q C N (D (D I~ O N C r 0 7 m (n N M O f~ n m m (O (D (p M O M N V N N M N Q N M N N m M N fti N N lq Q O N N Q M V M M W Q ❑ m M Q co m m m (D t) m m r o 0 0 0 (D N (n (D co O O O r OQO N CO N ( O 00 (O m O U N ~ C c9 C ~ C O LL U v E W Q m m Q (D O m m m m m co m In m m W N N r i~ O m O N (n m V M o e e o (D 0 0 (n M cD O (D M N M co m m N (D In W O N V N (n m r o m (Ij ID 0) m w r O Q N Q (n co O W n m 1~ r (O (n W co f~ u7 O r N O m m d In f~ O (p M N U C O N N N N N N N N r N It) O N n N N N N N N N N M N r N N N N p 07 n 7 _ U a ❑ to o a ~ o 0 3° 3° U 'a N W o m m m v N M co o m M W n Q M Q m (n r- W o m M r (n 0) M M m N N M C m (O ~ f' m OD c0 O '1 O Q 0 0 I- m O N 0) r iO 1~ m m O m (n ao O (n y N M Q m O M M O co I- M M M m M (D V O M m I- N O N W m In Q N m n m M O (D W (O Q N r Q M N (D r M op m m m m O M m N M m I~ m 0 f~ M (n to W CO O O N N (n N M M W M 0 M Q Q Q V M Q W m O O M Q r (y C M cD m d L U c C (i ) M N Q I~ N N m 0 Q O co m CO v O Q M Q r r O (D (O m N 1~ m o at o e I~ N N m n (O m (O m Q (D (n M O m7 m V V M O f~ N Q M N W Q Q r ` O O ti Q( t m (n r Q r N N O N l7 Q (D t- M M (D CO N M N W O (D r r m v Q M N (O N V N r (O M r M N (n N M Q cO O W N O co W m m m r N ~T lh (O 01 W 'C N N n N N r N co r t~ (D co 0 Q N 7 ~ LL o o e e v (n CO CO O I~ m m m O N 0 I~ O M M n M N m N 0 (O Q M ? i~ m m I~ co N M M N 1~ N (D r- DD V r 0 N (D (n Q M r (n N O' r N m M m N W (D O O Ih N m Q -y N m (O O (O 1~ n0 m N W Q N (O M r O N (D m N cD O r n N M N co M O r OD D? (p n n Q1 U y (O (D N O Q O m r N W N CO W u7 M r to cD Q m m N Q r m N N (n (p N a D N N M Q Q Q M Q Q Q Q Q to N N M M M M M Q M Q M Q Q N M M M Q 1~ C G V r r o e o 0 N m N Q m N M m Q (n N O M Cl W m r N m M LO M N m m co t~ co d N m M M m u7 m tO f~ Q In f~ m (n q In m (O N (O m m M m m M M m f~ N 00 ~ m N V m M m Q O m N M Q r M M O m (D W M O h M h U m o M m Q, t W C N 00 m (n O M N M M W r W [t O N M I~ O r r W N CO m V M (D n CD co d m W r r Q M V W N V t~ r m m N lO (O Q m m K (n N M to O Cj (O (O 1+ ^ N N N N N N N N N (0 N N N N N N N N N N OD N N N N N N 01 V C N N w d y cn N r co D O M O V (O n r (O W Q m O o 0 5 r W N M (O 00 00 t0 m m (O Q (O m co N 1~ (n m m (u CD (f1 p n M M M I~ M O m Il M O c0 O N N O O fD r p n M L6 m N M m N M CO V p) (y ,D 0 r O x °o H N d R N L C O m o ~ E O v v o A N N N y 0 0 o 0w m 6 O O y Q V N N N 2 E E E > `o o `D 0 0 0 E m W m a x x x c c c E o J .-J J lO (O l7 y Q to Q y( Q L L L y p 0 0 0 O C S] T' C T m a > U p C d C T m O. O } V i D N o N N N (L Q Q (n 0 z0 N H H H e N (O m N (O O M (f) N co co CO m O (fl co 00 W m rY (O O W W M M h h m m m o 0 0 0 O N (D O m m W O h It CV N h (D W h M O cn R m (O M W (n N O V M h r CD ❑ co O CO N W h h (D m (fl ~ W O M (D (C h (f) (fl m O N V m't CD r m 0 0 to m N ([f J N W N (D v m CO m W O (O M m m co co m N d' h r (D h Cfl (fl O N Z a co (D It O V (O m V 0 (D h h co (f0 (n (O M (D W h O O V W LO I-- O O r m"t h M h 0 X Q F- Cl) co d' It C co V IO V V dt CO M d V V (O (O LO (D V cD OD M If) C LO M r U U 0 O N r m O N CO M CD O O M O N V h r M m M CO O r 00 N (O m W N N M CO W M o o e o d O O O N W (D N h m (O co r 00 (D O N M N O N ) N M co to h CO N W (o O) O O V M (fl W r M (fl ~ r N N r W M_ m h V O N (O W h co M m h ~t d M (n 00 'O « m y CO N W CD O O h W m CO O m 'IT v W M N h (O M V h W m to (n m M ❑ Q N N V r N LO co co M r h N N V M N O M M m M N m~ N N h M N co N N N m O Q N U N W CO M N m r N M V m It o h m N M m LO m 0 0 W co (n CD O h o 0 0 0 ❑ C U) m m O C O h V' O IO W W CO d' m co (O 'IT W O m M 00 N M CO CO N h (D h M O N (D O CO M W O m m h M h r h O M 00 CD V h W 0_ M O (D (O N O O r W M co rn It 0 W U W mWNMrrMW rCD (0 M r- WO co co M vCOLO M r- o) (n O O C~ ❑ Q = N h N N O r M h co O N ❑ U 0 0 C N W V 'C M V O O (D m m co N h M h m M -13, W N m (O M m 0 h M h W O LO 0 0 0 o C (O It co O W m N'IT M CO CD C) (D CO V m CO (O h V W h M m O N CO 00 co m co C) h N m CO r O V N V (O M O W W h m h r U-) U-) CO W h LO O r V O O W (O h Q) M r r O O N N N c "T N N N r r N r (0 N h N N N N N N N C \i N N N N N N r Q7 h LL 7 N M d d U a ~ D H CL m IT v CD M I- O O W O '1*- CD 00 W d' 0 0 M (D (O h W m 00 m (D co o 0 0 0 = co 10 co 0 M h LO N h V m N N co co m r h It N O (O r W co V (n N d' (O r (D d u) M M h O M M O m W M d' M M_ r CO CO M W W Ln V d' W CO ~ h O m (`O ' ' 'Lf O N (ti N O :a (D h "Zr co W (O dz N V M N h N W h m m W M O M 0 (O W O h O N W m (D M CD C W W O O N N r tO N r r W M W m O r M V ~Y '7 V M (O W m r O N M N O C M c~ 1 O U w co W O O (f) M N (f) M O O N h h W (O CO m r CO (O N N V h (O M h V N 00 O 0 0 0 0 O d r (!7 co O M co O V N O m m~ m O co (f) r W C m CN ~ Il- h W "1 00 h (O It N N M W N O N CO (Ch h't N <t h (D V V N 00 '7 (O N m d' C CON d O M 1 L'E M O N U7 N W M{ M~ N (O N N~ O r N h h 6 W N 0 W W M N W 04 n (D 00 c 0 0 o e N 'D W O h co (D (O O N co h O M M h M N W N O In d' M g h m m h co d' V d' N N m (O d' M r LO N O O N m m m N co (D O 00 a) N m _ co M M r N h (O co d 00 h 0) y, W N m (D O W P- W m CV M (fl N CO m r O N CO m N M C r h N M N W M( r W m N CD CO N O~ O M N N CO N W W U) M h h CO M IT m M I-- N V CO I'- N N v (n O N h r L Cl 60 " N M V 4 V M V V r V '7 co N N M M M M M d' M M 'r d' N M M M't L Y ~F c aN d N N N V (D W Cn O W LO N 0 W W M W r h (D (D O h CD W (D M V 0 0 0 0 d (D d U h OD to (.0 h m O r CO W h m m r N O W V' M h N C) (D N L,) h N CD M V M O (fl M V m h Co V Cl (O h W O O r h (M (O r W CD OD W h O O O h M N r O CO M (O h N co "t !t 7 h M co O O h (D M It It M M M 0 M m h r _m (D V W _m (n h N (D C d m CO N r V zl- It CD N It W N m m m N (O (D V O CO (O (D (V M W (O IO h r N N N N N N N N N (D r N N N N N N N N N N OCN N N N N N ' C N N W M N rn M (D h o_ m O v (n h r (n (D d cD o 0 0 0 0 W N M (O co 00 W m m CO It (O (D M N h tO CO m r O Q) -O N h co M Cl) h r M O 0)h r r M CD CD (O N N CD O W h (n Ih ('M to In (p N r r M m N M M n d m M o O co r N LL M m r O _d = ~ a+ ~ O R o m O r 0 0 o O r r y r v o CD 0 3 d N N N O M M o0 O) O > O O O O O r y O O O L v d d N N N CL E E E E x O O O O to w Vl d d d N O) N N (U f' R 9 N N O~1 C -0 9 0 1] Q N p) 9 fC (Q (0 iC rn L E E F- m E E m r E E t t t t :m3 2 > U U U U (D CD 0 :0 :3 C> a) Q) CD a) c CD Oo m ° 3 a o aa) a U m o m o o a~i ° a m o W o 0 0 0 0 N LL Q 7 M Q (n 0 Z❑ N N M LL Q Q (n O Z❑ N N LL Q M Q (n O Z❑ N e o 0 0 X CO V f` CT W LO O lf) t` r` Cn 'IT N W (n W O N (fl N (n r A V (n W O(0 h o 0 0 0 (n J N O M M W W LO r Nr r~ (D (0 ^ O Co N O O O M CD 'V r` Cn V] V (n d' O N O N (D N} Q Lr W O N M U, r W co W W 7 N (D r_W M O W O N (D 0 C) M V W r (n 11 0) N N CO F r- N O (n V O) (D M (D r- U-) O (n (D r M O O W W r _M P- W In O O r N i W) n T Ln O 00 O O V V' (D (n Cn Cn CV N N r:O N N N M f` (D O) N N N N N n N M O n N W ~ N N Z C7 ~ a U N r V h O N~ r` n O O O N CT U') V (0 O In V (n M V n O M n W 0 0 0 0 N M C) M n N W V O N M N r O N Co O N M N O W W 117 V (O h M V p N M M r CD O (A N r r In r O r"T W r M W O N O N CO W V W In O CO r f` M ' O (D t O v M M M d' M U') v c M (D N M N (n r- CC) (n r- Ln r M.1 (n V r N O N O O w O N I- qq Q m rn O O Cl) V (D C)) N M (D W (D W M 10 It O O r- r M co r'- N r" W CO M o 0 0 0 CD CT h W O W (D 00 N In V M (n (D N W O O OD 00 r V d' M M M 00 W N f- M O O n (D M ~p O N O O) 00 N r- M M r_ M r` N O O Cl) M O 0) N O r (D O r (7) 'IT O (D O O) N M (D r 'U U 'D W N M O M I- In M M to to le a Ln M N M N a O L V lO O U) O C N N 0 0 C C M M V M LO Ln (D V 2. 'T W t0 N (h_ '7 .a LO r9 co to W L qt W 0) M M V V co N (v V m c C7 ~ iL N U M V (n M Ln O (n IL W O M W O W N r• W co CD (D f` N Ln V c0 Ln o e e a N M N CD O O M O V co r co (D O O M CD O d' N m 00 C In M In V O p a1 0 0 n. y t (0 cD O 0 "Y N h L d cc M M M O d' CO M m (D M V) (D I- O OD V r CO M ' O O 1~ 'CP E.~ (o coP-:cfl of oio~oo Mir, co r-: aorooiMriorrio~ I-: r-: oi oio 00 00 q o ~ O ~ 3 LL 6 O W O V CO co IT M N CO h n W (0 N M 6) N CO W W N W r N- W ~ 0 0 0 o U) N r CD (D r` O co M V M M M p N "T N M r` (0 r\ (J) V 6) N M IT W le N O (D O 3 O ti N O Cn (D O O 0)V~ n to r- CP CS) W CS) M M N R O N V CD O N O Q y O (D t` t` O (D V N M V W D W O O M CO D) CO CO r- (n r~ Lo O) W N r` N r r O O Q O N N N N M M M <n (M M M M r N M N M V ~t V M It M V N N V M V N Qf Q ~ O O N N O M O N co O r~ M M 0) N 0 n In (D O M M M W -1 M c() M o ~ o 1.10 O O r- W 0) O (i7 LO co (n W M m C (0 co W (n (n M N O n c) (n W r- O r n co LO p M LO (D rT N N O) (D d: O W r (p n V N M m (D O_ W M O 00 O N (D (D O 0) co M 00 Cn C 0) M r0 (D (n ti r- co O ui N r, v M Ln L(5 U5 M V (O Co r ~ o (O r- m O M M N CO co r` N 00 W CJ) O W W (D co 01 co O W r- W m c:> O W m (D n 01 co r, w r- W M Lu d C M (D co N N M O M (O r~ N r rv (n M N (O V r- Or-- N V (0 to O u7 M en e o 0 0 to Ln r-- ^ N (n In V CP W N O W p 00 W N r- W V r` V r` r p V L!) O0 O co O O O v O N (C(O m V W 0 n r1 r- V C~ (n 0 O N V N C O W (3 0 M r O V C) rn 6) M r h N O V V M M V M (6 M M M N V rn M M~T M M V M M W N M M M M O O O LL N 7 C K ~Q G7 R O O fn rno~ E N N N OJ co cr) O O CD U o N a N N N 3 M M E E E> O O O 0 0 0 .O O 0) w w w Q. R 00 w w o x x x C G C O to J J" J t t N IA d1 Q Q Q U U U~ H cc E N N O r H (a y o 0 0 Q1 co 7 U - N C p 0 (U Of 0 7 ` ]7~~ O D r6 O 0 0 0 0 e- C -0 . C 7 CV U U r. .6 0 Q) N LL 2 a Q U) O N N LL a Un O Z❑ N N,, 2 2 a ~ -Di Q W 0 Z 0 N F- F- F- e N d M W W (n R W W N m o O O N N O W m O O W m m d W r R 0) d N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X N O r O R 0 O O O V (0 Um d co 07 In R CQm d M R C cc mN C' O m r N J m r r CO m N N W r m dr dLo 0) m Rr (D r ~ W RW R RO D) m N Ct1 ~ M Lo ~ U Q 00 It N (n d (0 d (0 W R N m d W d O O N d m W 0 n O M R d ~ O ~ LCY 00 U) ~ d d CD O O r M 0 ti W met M V W (D O N m m O r r L() t, d LO m r-- r O O Lo r- h } O r N N N N r r N N r N N N N N r N M r N co m N N O ❑ W Q cr C7 ❑ U N d (!7 0(D (D R R m 0 0 m N N O N (n O m N O 6) R (D m e o 0 o U N r N m R co m d lf) N d N 0 (D N m d N d d d co 00 V (D O m d ti N T LO T o O r R r r co r (O co V R co m Lr m d O N m N co O d co O O (D O R m n N N N r- p Y CO LO d M M In CO LO M M fh ~ m N d 00 d c0 CO L(') t` d co d fh N N O F- Q N M LlJ Q a ❑ 00 m 00 rn rn R CO M N m 00 W r M M d O N W R N W 0 C) 0 0 0 o m O C N O W W to 01 co 0 Rtf) C) to d It 0 0 d (V O m 0) r N ti O O N U O N 00 (D d(nM N ()Om N NmrM M (o r p (D (D CD N U Co M O (9 u r' r co co c C r N A O LL ~ U W W O 07 u) W r co d (D _N co N co C) (f7 N co (D O 0 co (f) d m C N Lr) O N R r o 0 0 o U) a) d u0 O M O (D d R Lo m m (O r co N (f) N (D co u-) co R It V fn 00 M d Vi r O O M 0 d r R d r l j C)7 d r 0) d N N (q (O O O M (n 0 W O O L'M V LO r p cD co m m m ti LO O M lf7 (O M W M N M N d O U d' V (n c0 (C) C) N to 6 ui 2 3 C C m m d m (n (n (D (D (n d d co W N M d d 0 (D (D (D Ln LO m m co d d (D N _ 0 ` ❑ O O M VU-) M ((1 O LO R In 0) m W C) O W N R m (o W m R N 0 u') It r 00 R 0 0 0 0 U) N co R N O O O m O d m m (D (D Q) 0 U7 0) O d N (!7 CO O m (t7 d 0 O CA ti 0A 0A W t m (D O T d N R lf] d m m M M O d m CO 0? (D M L (9 r -L Lo m d r M M O O 1~ C N (0 W~ W O m O r- O O m m R m r-- O m M M O r M 0 v R f- m m O r M m r CO 00 O 2 ` LL O O O R R (D (n M CO M N O co N m co N n w m r- m n O R (D 0 0 0 0 Q WOmOdr(DLf0m0R~ N NCONORONOMrd~ O W C'4 m N N0) LO O d r d M O O m O r 0 0 d R 0 (D R J R (D N ti R r" N h r (D d "-:N LO O N r y (D R R R R (D LO N d IT W O co (D O M O d 0 (D M R Lo R an O W N R N O r N M li Q O N CN N N M m m Cl) M m Cl) sT r (V M N d d (n v m v m d le N N d m d N Q Ln I~ V co W m m O M W R W M d7 W (V O R It m O N '7 d W 00 d (0 O m ti o 0 0 0 G~ N co d N R N N O O d r h r R N O M 0) L2 N O N N 0 0 N O LO {n O in P.- CI U) W r C L d (=R C l! P- d ti r W 0) O O R r C \L d ccc (y r W LQ 0 0 M (D 01 t~ C d m R R Lo R m m c) (O N R d (D N CO (O LO LO d' d (o N W O (o O R W co (o N M N 0 W (O R R W W O) O W W (D co a) m CO m r, m Q) O O W 0) (D R O CD R m R W M Wa K CY) co co co 0) O) W 0 0 C7) O co fR d m 00 O N IT CO N N N V a7 W N N R d d 0') O O CO N O O (D d) d (D r W O N R CO O CO O) !f M O O 00 O d Co O O cD R 0 0 0 'O CD (D O V W N R R R (C O O M (7 O d d (C) r m W D7 d) (D r 0 0) d 0) Lr 0) n Ln co Ln Ln O L IT d N co m d M m Cl) m N d le (V d (n Co M d Cl) an d M m (D Ln N CM m m m T P pp to e- O LL r r r r N M C N s 0 0 E N m v 0 : rno~ 0 0 0~~ rn o 0 0 3 N N N O M M (1 00 O O O O L O 0) r O N N N Q R E E E E Y R y O O O O N Q N Q N Q d d d d r- c m j N w? N E E E v, ? E E Imo m m m - a) s s s Q c y _ o ° C) - C) - c _ ° s U U U U Cm U. > 0 o a o au o m o 0 co o m c 7 (D o a~ o o m a) c>> O o o c N~LL~Q~ ~Q(nUZONN~u ~Q~-) )QUIUZONN~LL~Q~~-)Q(nOZ❑N o 0 0 0 LnwwC tooooooo (O CO ~r r r ~ 00 ~ M CO N f` M M r- Cl N N Lo u) (D co ~ r M O O LO 00 00 LO CO U) O O r 0 0 M N N M O r~ O~ N N V m N 0 O M CD Ln M O Lfn O cl d" N O LC1 Cl) CA O O t N D) O M r- M W r 00 11 N O r CD 00 CO O O LO N M N CO N CA Lf) N Lo T Lo co Co ti r-- r-- r-- ro cc I` O M ce) t` O CD O r 00 O) f~ r t` M r Ln CO o 0 r N M 00 M M r Co Ln t It V) h CA ti qt (D N r M (D O IT N M r- N In O r l-- (fl N (D d' N- qf I~ LL) n M co O O oo I` (0 LO It ti LO Cl) N r CO Lr) N O N V 'c7 LO LO (D O (o ti O 0 LO (D Co N r ~ M 0) r 00 O ti ti M I r- N CD 14- O M1 O ti 00 LO I-~ O LO co OIt N M oo 00 I` CO V U) N LO o r M r- N CA O r M M O CO P-r` M M (0 00 r_ C \T O O O r~t M N r M r (D O (D L) N O r NLo Lr)0(o~nl`r~coo 0r-- 0000 I-- 00 m m m ti O rt r- O O 00 Co r o 0 Lo O N I- cf' N O M CA CO LO r r 00 LA o O 'q O N O O O W O r LO M O (n M N N Lf) , O O O N O (3 M N O O Lo O 00 CO O r o 0 0 'q 00 00 O N 00 r Lf) r- Co O ti ti ti r (D Co 00 T- ~ 00 to O O r'ZT 00 P- M CD O CO 00 CO (D \o O M CY) N~ (D 00 O CD t- N d M M O r LO LO O LO O r CO ti 00 r n U') CF) N O q~i C4 r17 M O (D N U) C6 (D O~ ti r- O CV N r ll7 M n O N CO O O qr LO U) Co (D 0 ti (o ~ t~ CD 00 r• ti U) 0 r LO LO LO (D M r N O M O Q O N (D M M o r Ln r ti 00 N W V- M o o M Cl (D LO oo r ti r M r N M r'100 O LO N T.. N M O n C \i V M'i r- V M M CD -i N 00 MIt w r- M LO W o V m r M ~r "I Lr) LO Lf) o (D (D (D CD Lr) r` N r-IT M 00 N ti D) CA fl- V O O 00 r~ Q O M V (D M r O N V M O N r O O r 00 zr M R O O O V ti CO N I N M O M Lf) Il M (D 1-t-r-0 C) O M N (D O LO co o) O) N Co d) ti I- V Lr) Ln Lo (o Lo Lr) (D Ln 'l i- I- LO (D M (D 00 LO O) U) r- CD M CD r r I- O m n! O N r (o D) 00 r- I\ o oo (o r- LI) M LC) 0 0 47 M O CD LO O N C) M (D o -0) O LO N M CO r IL °1- N O) V L() N (3) O M V LLj 00 V O 4 r M ,:I,, M r 0 CD cM O r'IT M r LO O I~ C M ~t LO 'IT LO LO LO LO Ln Lr) (D r N cO N N ti N D) N O M O) (D 00 r 0 LO N O O) CD Lo Lf) (D M Co r- r- ~r O co (O to to -0 r_ M O (o CO O O U) M ~t r 00 LO r 0) r Q N M M -q Ln o f 00 O) M N O C y5 N V N N r N V M CO 00 (0 M ti 00 O 'T 'IT Lr) LO LO [o LO LO LO 14- O cf r 7 to C M r r~ CO CO (D 00 I~t LO LO r Nr~ r o j N 0 o) r- O h CA co M 00 o N M r- N O D M 0 0 ('M N CO N CA r O N (D C) CO M w N M oo r-(o pl CA 00 CO r U) M (o M CA Cl) M N 00 CO N (D OD 0) r r 0 00 M 'I-t LO 'IT LO (fl LO LO LO Lf) LO r- Ln H (O d C r` ti 00 (0 LO N O 00 OD CO 00 p O 00 o) CD N I- I- Ln O) CD r T O M N N CD CO M O O CD CO fl- 'It r O In 1` > Co O LO N LO N 00 (A ~ r M M O `O 3 l() o CD r M o n n r M r` r 0 0 ` (T V ~t 0 LO U) r- LO Ln (D LO v 00 ~ c L1 c r+ E U C ` O O 6- 0 M t U) d A E E NCY) C L ~ L. V - d ~ t. G d d ~ CD n (LS a~+ C t? O C 7) d U 0 d o u U T ) LL~Q~7~Qcn 0 zo F-&>, m Y e e e a a e e e ;e at e e e e °gi v a ,o %o vni n m ern m n v N n e W N ~ m of M e ~ o ° me ae Ne.-e^e W eme me o w o Y m o Q O o m o e ' o ppo Pry °omomo Rio mo r o ^ ~o nm o ~ oe oho ~ o ° o 1- m tD m P Fn' m d W m mw ~ m m ,O Yl ~ N P ^ N w w w w w w vdi w w w w M w N N w ~p \ S e O e [0r~ ~ Ne M S m F%e ^ 9O e H C L1 I~0NO N ID ~Ia tnO iDmN qC7 ~N mr W t0 m n OI m N O ~ m [P ) P P ~ ~ tNi.~ O m N N egi ~ M M N S C Q~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ,Nn w N w w w h w _ ~ n ein~md'me a dpp`me Ne en°e °.E ^ Ne~yv 3ppE~eV m{ep mP ,(e~ ~ e s g Z N N N N N S N N_ N N f7 N S tN0 M~ tN~l ~ M~ M CJ N M I t") W l7 ~ N~ N n! ~ C a m m ~ N S S m A N ^ d A A ~ ~ d' in vNi ~ w ~ ~ w w ui in N w in in w w rn~e° gie W e° ~ • •me ne !e^ e'$:F Mpe ~e ~2e°e ^eeI a Ne° o cN V mMVmi °'N°v~u~ rni°i)SN ~,o QQm~~p r^ r ^m Pm Nrmr~mm m °o L O N O t7 M m S N Pp1 m EO lh ~ N (~I 01 N ~ N m H O1 N M N U ~ w w w Mw w N w w w w w w w vp O - W Me ° ° e Ne Ne Ne r epp eNee r e N eMe NeeNec e C ~ y M M ~ M N P ~p P O~ N m W N ~ N q ^ n ^ C> ^ ^ ^ n r U Q m ~ N ^ - ^ - ~ ~ ~ ! m f - f ~ M N N W N ^ ~ ^ ~ w w w A u) `Ne W e ^e a Ne •N..e ~e e e em{ep ~rqj ee ^m epm E C m N r t0 P Q N O ~/mJ O C] d u^') O n Q d. O O O Cm'f fN'~ N (h P. CN') m N N 1N') j ~ E V E m N N a ~ M m O Oml S O N N Omp m GM'1 O m ~ y q in ^m tD p n r n a m N ifl ~ W d m M uN4 w v v w _ O w v' ~ w w v, w A x M ^ e ae Mc w\ Neme d Q a+\ n eM N\ L2 e I ,Q V n^ M O, O N^ H Q 1~ H N O N N N n N Ql rv O Y co w d ^ O f n ^ q d O D O a a M N P. N M n n A N O m m N ~ m LL m - w ~ ~ aw ~ mw mw w w w M - Vmi N - N - V c A r n A O N ~ O O O O C O O O O O O a m m N W o 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 Q~ ~ N N N N - U N Y ~ ~ OI A ° e ~ ^ e e_ ~ N e e N r ~ W O ^ n m N T P , • . ~ n ^ N O ~ r ^ VD Yf Oi m o\ e p eme Oa Mo ae o e Pe Aa ne ~~myOe ^e ^pp ~Q a ~^.~e S a o °\m°A a ^e 'I e ;;e ~+e me Mpph ma ~e Ne ~e 'V a M Oe cm0 O N O V 0- 0 S O m 0 ONO O A 00 u O n S m S O D S N S O ~ N 00 N S N 00 ~ O P O ~ M W O P O S O 1 N Q.-•- t 7 I l J O N~ ^ m^ •A ^ NI ^ tG d ^ tG O ^ ^ O^ m O^ O ^ Om ^ ~D ^ T n !•i m p a p Ol p O^ a t+; O O Of n O ' O ~.j Of f~ a ` a n a p 0) ^ Q, ^m^ Q O, ~p m N^ ~ c m a n < O^ N^ ^ Ol W N r _ O N_ N m 7 tp W ~ O! N tp O f") O m ^ m^ H~ N O ^ f7 ^ W M n n m M a - N N n ^ m N N N V N d m Q~ ^ W n O: d~ w w w w w w w in w w w w w w w° wM m w w N pp {{pp N w w w N Q N m\ NOOI °m Q O000Q, O V elm",MN~M NO7NMC ^ NSODo N O ^ N ~N ON P~ ~N tOONQN ~In 'R i7 NjNr t°~)N(°J~ l7 p NNN Y N a d^^^ n^ O d N - N P O t'l f7 yqj Z O n C N O [7 O N M ~j m ~ ~ A n O P ~ t Gl ° N m ~ pNp N ~ ~ taD a l7 Q N ,y ip O a V dw 19 - VI - - N h N Im/! VPi d pCppp S t~0 (7 (O N m N N m m Ll ~ Q w to ~ y m M N Of N N ^ N N m ~.Mj S N N a w w Q ~i N N t~ •n j w w ,n N N H M w w w _ c ae ° e erne Ne ^ ° meMe °Je n'ee'-e ~eeo~2pe: dQ° ^ e c me ~e N3° r e Ne oe me eve pe ^ °QW ~o a „o-,e U p A SN NON PNmN P NbN ONiN ~N ~N~pN mN N~p NM{pN~M~ S~ Cl M q A Q NN O - N[! NM d'O N N W MNNmNQ ° Mmc~f N y Mp M t'l N 0) M O N W r P n n O = N Y n f r N OO ! N pnpp N N t~f n 07 C Y V M N ~ a •D m Ol O O O ~ O A C y N ~ N ~ O Q N ~ m N N! 00 S n~ V^^ O f, CD in w w Nw w w •n w - : •Nn •n •n •.Ni w w mY C7 ~ ~ ~ ° ~ n N ul w w w n ,^i, C7 N i ^ '6 w w vi an w in ~n ! 9 9y~ N N N V` .p e ^ eme me Ne 3e No ,(j~a QQ a ^W a NA pNpe S~mN m N Ode pe Me N~ ~@ ~p pp~EmeFN\° QWQ a Q1e Ne O~ a~ y e OO e Ne O C {+ajP u1MSa-v MN ANON ON (~mmm M^ N ^ d Oma a mm and m mI~ Mr Sr -mm0~0 NO O1^~ n aNa d O d~N N n ^ n a a t7 m t7 b N d a M m O O n M N ^ tM O N Q N^ ° S S W Q S (~I OppI Cpp'l N M a P V E H o N d N e- N W N N 2 C w M w w •n .w w N N N w w N N N q 0 ~ < S W h m O r a p~p ~ N a 7 N W~ U H LL w w - w F LL M N VPl N N "i N N N Vl VI N N b9 6 F- e °O\° W N\ O oNeN O p ~n e W A °e ~e eme oe Ne me °W ry'° m° 'o e~eg\~Mn oe oo° ~e emre oe N~~e °eN ° m U Y N~ ^ ~O~ N~ M~O.N- t0~ ~INP N.n-m.n- °.M- Y Y b<D~MM NM mp M Of Of o Mn°I°~Nra i(1n O'°mV ^ Aaa YM m' m h ^ N n ti ` N NMmM OM qf"J MM M{{t~pplM ^ P8m mMtppDMNM~MN N m Q m w w w w - - S - - w w N ^ N ^ ^ d N N b m Q I7 N N N N CJ N N N C w N w Q w w Nw N N ~ N - N N N N w - w N A cc ° ° ° ~ee Mm T°rve e~pve' pe~pTmeo A a ~v v mg 0 Ne Ne N e me me me 0D°,e ~0 w e\°°a m p mYe o r Q-RN d ~0m P b V W S^ Q M nS 17 nl M^ M P M OI ~n~M M mN 0tW1 M m^ N ~y w.-p N p Z• C Y1 N p O M p N P m f C 0,' O ^17 N t'1 mf7nM ~M ~t'~pW (~I MOM a N t7 ~ N LL q ^ Y. W P b r M a ^ P S P M O N 01 r m M N O S $ (~l C n O N F .0 a ~ m m n M a m N_ N~ _A S T ,rn T E W a^ v M Mw - h N N N w M w N w w w V W a~ ~ O C O - N N ~ - ~ - m d w w VMJ w N N N ^ ^ w w w w K - - N fD N'. e ~i e N eme me° mey n e v en N ~'oe (Q~ a Pio ae ae E m ^ eM ° e e ~j ~A oe ^ m °N~ O R YM~ ^ ~O~N^a^^N~ m ^.-tOp~fNh tr0 Ol^ MNN NQ NN E YGI~S~ O~ ~O OPO^ t~0~ ~p °•e Of° N' Of n' N° `i d Or Of C1 m O- N Q d N O m ~^~^m^ S y m- w w - w Ww - w w w in - - N - - - T N D m t~I m N S Q Q o N t7 O N GMi tp (4=] D } LL N w w w Vi w ^ O N - - - - N w ~ ~ a w w U q A ~ W ~ ~ - O O O O O O O ~ o ~ ~ Q, T O c m •L M ~ o a m n U~ ~ N N N N N '.vV N N N N N ^ ^ a a a ~ ~ a ~ N NO N N O S S S S O O p~ a a S N U V f COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MALL POLICE CALL STATISTICS MONTH Assault Auto Theft Burglary Crim. Mis. Crim. Tres. Disturbance Domestic Drunk DUI Felony Menaci Fight 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 January 5 12 3 2 1 4 5 1 15 9 1 21 12 2 8 5 February 4 4 2 1 5 6 3 2 6 10 4 2 23 9 3 3 10 6 March 5 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 17 11 3 2 15 9 7 2 5 5 April 2 1 2 1 5 8 7 3 2 11 8 2 4 7 May 6 6 1 1 2 4 1 15 8 1 1 17 8 4 3 4 4 June 5 7 2 2 1 2 3 7 16 9 2 10 13 2 1 7 11 July 6 1 2 2 1 5 4 1 13 8 1 7 10 3 1 2 4 2 August 8 10 1 1 1 3 1 1 13 15 5 9 11 5 9 8 12 September 10 2 3 1 2 11 3 16 4 13 October 2 1 4 4 14 16 4 12 November 4 2 1 5 2 10 21 2 8 December 3 1 2 2 1 11 2 19 2 5 MONTH Fireworks Hang Ups Harassment Indec. Exp. Liq. Law Vio. Littering Loitering Narcotics Noise Open Door Party 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 January 7 3 7 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 5 1 2 February 4 5 5 5 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 4 3 March 4 9 6 4 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 8 2 April 6 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 5 7 3 3 May 10 6 5 3 1 5 2 1 2 4 12 3 3 June 8 7 10 4 1 1 6 7 4 3 18 16 4 1 July 5 7 6 8 2 2 10 5 4 3 14 10 4 2 August 7 9 6 12 1 4 9 7 5 4 4 6 12 1 1 September 9 3 6 3 1 1 1 October 8 7 1 1 5 2 7 2 November 1 16 12 2 1 2 1 1 1 December 8 5 3 3 5 1 MONTH Prowler Robbery Sex Assault Shoplifting Shots Stabbing Suicide Suspicious Theft Trespass Weapon 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 January 1 2 12 14 17 10 2 February 3 10 10 9 9 1 March 2 3 19 18 10 8 April 1 1 1 3 1 18 8 5 13 May 1 2 2 1 12 18 9 14 June 2 1 29 21 4 3 July 1 30 14 3 7 August 2 1 1 1 23 36 6 21 September 1 1 1 20 9 2 October 1 1 20 9 November 2 17 12 December 20 10 Opened in 2011 Business Number Street Open Date Notes Pizzeria Locale 1730 Pearl St 15-Jan-11 Moved - Buffalo Exchange 1813 Pearl St 20-Jan-11 Microsoft- Bin Mobile 1900 15th St 1-Mar-11 Green Piece Pipe and Hydro 1200 Pearl St 1-Mar-11 Ozo 1015 Pearl St 20-Jan-11 Shambla 1521 Pearl St 15-Jan-11 Frasca's II Caffe 1720 Pearl St 15-Mar-2011 Piece Love Chocolate 805 Pearl St 20-Mar-2011 Where Bayleaf Was Steve Madden 1142 Pearl St 20-Mar-2011 Define Defense 1805 11th StA 1-Apr-201 1 Arete Julie Kate Photography 1805 11th St B 1-Apr-2011 Arete Hi Consignment 1468 Pearl St 15-Mar-2011 Where Subway Was Isu ortU 1825 A Pearl St 1-Apr-201 1 Posh 1468 Pearl St 1-Apr-2011 Wine & Painting (on 15th/Pearl) The Yellow Deli 905 Pearl St 20-Apr-2011 Elm and Oak 2037 13th Street 28-Apr-2011 design firm/redord label Beans Inc 1300 Pearl St 15-May-2011 Food Cart on Mall McDevvit Taco Supply 1300 Pearl St 15-May-1 1 Food Carton Mall Style b Boulder Interior Design 2015 10th St 25-May-2011 Gaiam 1215 Pearl St 31-May-2011 Where Chicos Was Los Osias 2027 13th St 11-Jun-2011 Replaces Draft House The Kitchen Next Store 1039 Pearl St 11-Jun-2011 Shug's Low Country Cuisine 2017 13th St 1-Jun-2011 Where B side Lounge was Eclectix 935 Pearl St 11-Jun-2011 Antique Shop Lunieva 1500 Pearl St 15-Jun-11 from the owner of BolderWorld 3rd and Vine Design 1815 Pearl St 30-Jul-11 Antique Shop Sweet Boulder 2027 Broadway 1-Aug-1 1 formal) Powells Sweet Sho NAME CHANGE: Wood Creek 1207 Pearl St 1-Aug-1 1 Formal) Paradise Cured Cheese Shop 1825 B Pearl St 15-Aug FirstBank 2021 Broadway 9-Sep- 11 where FirstTier Bank was Closed or Moved in 2011 Business Number Street Closed Date Notes The Camera 1048 Pearl St 15-Jan-2011 Moved out of BID Crystal Dragon 1521 Pearl St Replaced with tibet/nepal shop Charlie and Watson 1825 Pearl St 15-Jan-2011 Juanita's 1043 Pearl St 30-Jan-2011 Colorado Draft House 2027 13th St 15-Jan-2011 Feather Thy Nest 1825 Pearl St 15-Mar-2011 Newton Gallery 1500 Pearl St 30-Mar-2011 Chicos 1215 Pearl St 1-Apr-2011 Moved Out of BID (to 29th St.) Bookends Cafe 1115 Pearl St 20-May-2011 new Rest. concept b John Platt Little Mountain 1136 Pearl St 30-May-2011 Outdoor Source 2027 Broadway 30-May-2011 Paper Doll 1141 Pearl St 1-Jun-2011 Great Awakenings 1717 15th St 1-Jun-2011 Boulder Nordic Sport 1717 15th St 1-Jun-2011 Moved out of BID Oliv You and Me 2043 Broadway 1-Jun-2011 Studio One Dental 1610 Canyon 1-Jun-2011 Moved Lai's Alterations 2027 Broadway 5-Jul-2011 Moved out of BID Powells Sweet Sho 1200 Pearl St 1-Aug-2011 Name Change Move to 2027 Broadway Los Oasis 2027 13th St Belvedere Belgian Chocolate Shop 14th St Not reopening after Oak fire Future Business Number Street Open Date Notes QuickLeft 902 Pearl St Former Atmosphere Space 1- o flF g0`~ CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only an ordinance amending Title 9, Land Use Code B.R.C. 1981: 1. Section 9-7-1 Table 7-1 "Form and Bulk Standards" adding a 65-foot supplemental setback for zone districts Downtown-5 (DT-5) and Public (P) along Canyon Blvd from 9t'to 16th Streets. 2. Section 9-8-2 Table 8-2 "Floor Area Ratio Additions" adding a floor area addition for commercial uses in the DT-5 zone district. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning and Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Brian Holmes, Planner II Louise Grauer, Senior Planner Sam Assefa, Urban Designer Molly Winter, Director, DUHMD/Parking Services City Attorneys Office David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Public Works Maureen Rait, Executive Director Tracy Winfree, Director of Transportation Martha Roskowski, GO Boulder Program Manager Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Bill Cowern, Traffic Operations Engineer Housing and Human Services Services Karen Rahn, Director Andy Proctor, Manager Housing Planning Michelle Allen, Housing Planner Consent Item 3G Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is for City Council to consider Planning Board recommendations (August 4 meeting) on two code changes in the downtown, both of which were previously discussed by City Council at its May 3, 2011 meeting. The draft ordinance is in Attachment A. 1. Section 9-7-1 "Form and Bulk Standards" Table 7-1 to add a 65-foot supplemental setback along Canyon Boulevard in zone districts Downtown-5 (DT-5) and Public (P) from 9th to 16th Streets. 2. Section 9-8-1 Table 8-2 "Floor Area Additions" B.R.C. 1981 to add a floor area addition up to a maximum of 1.0 for commercial uses in DT-5 zone district subject to a housing linkage fee. City Council adopted the 65-foot setback along Canyon Boulevard from 9th to 16th Streets in the Downtown Ui,ban Design Guidelines at its May 3, 2011 meeting and requested staff to bring back a proposal to codify the 65-foot setback. This would replace the former 78-foot major street setback along Canyon Boulevard that was deleted from the code in 2000 along with other major street setbacks in the central area. Council also requested at its May 3 meeting to bring back a proposal to allow a floor area addition in the DT-5 zone district for commercial uses, similar to the floor area addition for residential uses. This floor area addition would be tied to a housing linkage fee. Staff's original analysis and recommendations in April 2010 identified the demand for additional Class A office space downtown and suggested it be given equal consideration with housing. The purpose of this proposed change is to provide the opportunity for class A office space in the downtown where there is very little available, particularly larger office spaces. Currently, the base floor area (FAR) in the DT-5 is 1.7 with additions allowed: one for housing (.5) and one for parking (.5), or 1.0 FAR for housing if the parking addition is not used. The maximum FAR in DT-5 is currently 2.7 and is not proposed to be changed. Planning Board recommended (6-0) that City Council adopt the 65-foot setback along Canyon Boulevard and also recommended (6-0) a maximum floor area addition of 1.0 for commercial uses in DT-5 in conjunction with a housing linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot on the additional floor area. The housing linkage fee was analyzed by TischlerBise in the Development Excise Study 2008 (See Attachment B). The analyses of the proposed additional commercial square footage in DT-5 by RRC (See Attachment C) and Fox Higgins (See Attachment D) show the following: • Through build out, there could be an additional 440,000 square feet of non-residential floor area: estimated to be 120,000 square feet in the next 5 years (2012-2016); 160,000 square feet in the 2017-2021 period and 159,389 square feet after that. • Through build out there could be an additional approximately 2000 trips per day. • The proposed change could result in a reduction in additional housing units downtown, from an estimated potential of 240 additional units to a potential 92 additional units. Consent Item 3G Page 2 • The proposed linkage fee could generate approximately $7.7 million in affordable housing funds through build-out, which is $3.5 million less than what might be generated by Inclusionary Housing (IH) in-lieu fees if and when new units are added downtown. • Economically, the potential increase in commercial space downtown could generate (at build-out) an additional $5.5 million per year in employee spending; $190,000 per year in new sales tax revenues; $51,000 per year to CAGID at build-out; and $43,000 to the Business Improvement District (BID). STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests Council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motions: 1. Motion to introduce on first reading and order published by title only an ordinance proposing an amendment to Title 9, "Land Ilse Code "B.R.C. 1981 related to the following sections: Section 9-7-1 Table 7-1 "Form and Bulk Standards " B.R. C. 1981; Section 9-8-2 Table 8-2 "Floor Area Ratio Additions "B.R.C. 1981. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic: The proposed floor area addition for commercial uses in the DT-5 zone district will provide increased revenues to downtown businesses, the BID, the Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and the city's General Fund. • Environmental: The proposed setback of 65 feet from the centerline of Canyon Boulevard will implement the vision for Canyon Boulevard as a grand boulevard with additional landscaping and greater safety separation for pedestrians and bicyclists from auto traffic. Social: The addition of the housing linkage fee as a community benefit will provide a benefit to the city's Affordable Housing Fund. OTHERIMPACTS • Fiscal: The future implementation of the vision for Canyon Boulevard would be part of a larger study and would be included in a future Capital Improvements Program. • Staff time: No increase: the proposal is within staff's normal 2011 work plans. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board considered these changes on August 4 and unanimously recommended to council the adoption of the two proposed code changes in order to create a more vibrant downtown with additional engaged creative employees working there. Planning Board also voted (4-2) to revisit the results of this code change after 5 years. Draft minutes of the Planning Board March 17 meeting are included in Attachment E. The Boulder Design Advisory Board (BDAB) discussed the proposed code changes on July 13. Members supported both code changes. Members discussed the arcade condition, where the first floor would be set back 65 feet from the centerline of Canyon and upper floors could encroach over the first floor, forming a first floor arcade. The board requested additional information on the arcade condition and examples from other places. Draft meeting notes are included in Attachment F. Consent Item 3G Page 3 PUBLIC FEEDBACK: The following meetings were held since the May 3 City Council meeting: • Notification of the proposed code changes mailed to property owners adjacent to Canyon Boulevard. Links to the staff memo were e-mailed to those property owners who have attended meetings on SoDA. • A follow-up meeting with Downtown Boulder Inc (DBI) policy committee July 27 at which the committee voiced support for the proposed change. • BDAB reviewed and supported the proposed changes at its July 13 meeting (Attachment F). • DBI, Downtown Management Commission (DMC), and the BID board held a joint meeting on June 8. There was general support for the proposed changes. • Several meetings were held with the property owner of 1580 Canyon, who is concerned about how the supplemental setback will affect his property. BACKGROUND As part of the downtown code and South of the Downtown Area (SoDa) meetings, Planning Board and City Council had several discussions about community benefit for additional floor area. Staff had included a list of potential community benefits in exchange for the additional commercial floor area in DT-5: • Cultural or artistic floor area (percentage of the lot area) • Publicly accessible open space: such as at-grade plazas, courtyards or rooftop spaces (percentage of the lot area) • Commercial Linkage Fee for nonresidential floor area (See Attachment B, Affordable Housing Excise Tax, TischlerBise, 2008) Although there was support for these other community benefits, the only one that can be implemented in a timely manner is the housing linkage fee since it has already been analyzed by TischlerBise. The other potential community benefits listed above would have to be further analyzed to establish the necessary nexus. Planning Board and City Council both adopted the 65-foot setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way (ROW) in the Guidelines. The setback included the option of an arcade condition, where the first floor is setback 65 feet from the centerline of Canyon, and upper stories overhang the first floor setback by 12 to 15 feet. City Council agreed with the urban design vision for the xublic realm focused on the south side of Canyon but wanted it to be part of a larger study from 9` 1 to 16'x' Streets which would include the city-owned property and the area of the Farmers Market. By codifying the 65-foot setback, the ability for future streetscape enhancements along Canyon Boulevard would be preserved. The setback would only apply to properties along Canyon Blvd as they redevelop. Consent Item 3G Page 4 ANALYSIS 1. Change to the DT-5 Zone District Currently in DT-5 there is a 1.7 base floor area ratio (FAR) which can be used for either residential or non-residential uses. In addition, there is a .5 floor area addition for residential uses and a .5 floor area addition for parking uses, or 1.0 floor area addition for residential uses if the parking bonus is not used. The proposal is to mirror this DT-5 requirement: the 1.7 base FAR can be used for either residential or commercial uses. In addition, there would be a .5 floor area addition for commercial uses or a maximum 1.0 floor area addition for commercial uses if the parking bonus is not used. A housing linkage fee would be paid on the additional commercial square footage. The maximum FAR (2.7) would not change. Core Project Principles ➢ Respond to the changing needs of Boulder's downtown core to ensure that downtown remains a vibrant center of the city's economic, cultural and social life. ➢ Respond to the expressed community need for more and better office space in the downtown core. ➢ Acknowledge the market realities of delivering "market rate affordable" housing units in the downtown core given its high land prices (absent a high level of public subsidy). ➢ Recognize the value of downtown to the community at-large as well as to the community of downtown businesses, residents and property owners. ➢ Address the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of transportation impacts. ➢ Ensure adequate and balanced access to downtown by all modes of travel. Analysis of the proposed change and impacts to the economy, the affordable housing program, parking services, and access to downtown are described below. Data Analysis An update of existing and future estimated development in all of the CAGID area is scheduled to be completed in the next month. Since the change to DT-5 was being considered by Planning Board prior to completion of the overall downtown analysis, the initial analysis has focused on additional projected development and corresponding trip generation in the DT-5 zone, which is the downtown's highest density zone district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) intensity in DT-5 would remain at the current 2.7 for either the residential or nonresidential option. Most of the projects developed in the DT-5 zone district in the last ten years, however, have developed at a lower intensity than 2.7 and we would expect this trend to continue because of the physical and regulatory constraints of each site, including the provision of open space, setbacks, and parking access. See the diagram in Attachment G for the existing FARs of projects on the north side of Canyon Blvd in the DT-5 zone district. Projections The RRC report on development projections is included in Attachment C. In summary, under the existing zoning, through build-out, an additional 1.01 million square feet of development is projected, approximately 550,000 square feet of nonresidential space, and 460,000 square feet of Consent Item 3G Page 5 residential space. The incremental commercial space under existing zoning is projected to house between 1,673 and 1,880 employees, depending on the employment intensity assumptions utilized. Employment will vary over time depending on market conditions. The incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 240 residential units. This compares to 1.17 million square feet of development projected with the proposed DT-5 zone change, including approximately 990,000 square feet of commercial space, and 180,000 square feet of residential space. Under the proposed change to DT-5, the projected additional commercial space, 990,000 square feet, could house between 2,240 and 3,160 employees and the additional residential space is projected to result in approximately 92 residential units. The differences in development projections between the existing residential FAR policy and the proposed commercial option are shown in the table in the report in Attachment C. Economy ➢ What are the potential economic benefits to the downtown of the proposed DT-5 changes? The additional property tax revenues to the Business Improvement District (BID) based on the proposed change and the additional non-residential uses, could add an estimated $43,115 annually by build-out, and to CAGID, an estimated additional $50,814. A survey from June 2011 showed that downtown employees spend an average of $86 per week in restaurants and shops. The increase in the number of employees downtown will have a positive impact for downtown businesses and corresponding sales tax revenues. By 2022, the total incremental expenditures could be $5.5 million annually with resulting incremental annual sales tax revenues of $190,000. ➢ What would be the potential economic benefits to the community at-large? • Provide additional Class A office space to the Boulder commercial market. This market is limited and has a low vacancy rate, particularly in downtown Boulder. There are currently very few options for large floor plate office space in downtown Boulder. • Increase the likelihood of retaining existing Boulder primary employers, particularly those that are seeking Class A space or that prefer a central Boulder location. In some cases, these employers are choosing space in other communities in Broomfield and Boulder counties or elsewhere in the region and country because they cannot find adequate choices in Boulder (especially those seeking upgraded or newer space). Business retention and expansion is a key goal of the city's economic vitality program. • Attract new start-up and mid-stage primary employers to the downtown area and to Boulder. These companies could support and strengthen Boulder's key industry clusters (aerospace, bioscience, IT/tech, clean tech, natural/organic products, and outdoor industry) and add to the community's "entrepreneurial density." • Taxes and fees generated by primary employers and employees benefit the Boulder economy and the city of Boulder, supporting services for the Boulder community. Primary employers often pay high wages in a wide variety of industry sectors. The companies pay Consent Item 3G Page 6 taxes directly to Boulder and their employees patronize Boulder restaurants and shops, which also generates tax revenues. Access ➢ What would be the potential additional parking demand that could result from this change? The downtown parking district - CAGID - is currently updating the parking model for the downtown area. A detailed inventory of existing public and private parking space supply and demand in the district has been completed and current parking supply and demand rates have been developed for the peak weekday mid-day period when most employees are present. The existing parking rates reflect the high alternative mode share that exists for downtown Boulder access (currently approximately 63 percent). In fact, the current parking demand rates in the CAGID area are approximately 1/3 less than the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) national average parking rates for similar individual land uses. At buildout of the downtown area, the DT-5 zoning change would result in 148 fewer dwelling units and 442,000 additional sq. ft. of commercial floor area (office assumed). Using the existing parking supply and demand rates for the CAGID area, Fox Higgins has projected the impacts of the DT-5 zoning change as follows: • 237 fewer residential parking spaces would be built, resulting in 144 fewer occupied residential parking spaces during peak weekday mid-day times • 961 more commercial parking spaces would be supplied (at today's rates) of which 657 would be occupied during peak weekday mid-day times. The supply and demand numbers referenced above reflect the weekday mid-day period downtown when all public spaces have an aggregate occupancy of approximately 74 percent and all private spaces have an occupancy of approximately 61 percent. However, it should be noted that there are other times of the day and week when many of the downtown parking facilities are fully occupied. For example, on Friday evenings the three CAGID parking garages west of Broadway are often full or nearly frill. There are also times during weekend days when the two CAGID parking structures east of Broadway are full. On-street parking during these times is typically full and parking extends out into the residential areas around downtown. In this context, the commercial parking supply in the structures and lots serves a shared parking function as downtown visitors on nights and weekends occupy parking spaces that were used by employees during the weekday mid-day period. To address increased access demand, various strategies will be explored to maximize alternative modes of transportation and minimize parking impacts. City transportation staff has estimated that the downtown area may achieve a 70 percent alternative mode share for access through expanded and/or new transportation demand management (TDM) programs including: • Eco Pass programs; • Car share and bike share programs; • Additional transit service, and improvements to 101 and Walnut RTD transit station, which could include a new bike station; and • US 36 bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements due to arrive by mid 2015. Consent Item 3G Page 7 If this is realized, the reduced trip making would suggest that only 782 more commercial parking spaces would be supplied in the DT-5 district for the new commercial floor area. However, the bigger impact of increasing the alternative mode share to 70 percent in the downtown area is the effect it will have on the existing downtown users. This mode shift could decrease the demand for existing downtown parking by hundreds of spaces. Management of both existing and future parking supply and price are also critical to maintaining and increasing the downtown's alternative mode share in light of the DT-5 zoning changes. The following strategies are being considered to reduce long term parking demand: increasing the utilization of existing public and private parking, increasing the price of public parking, using variable- priced parking, "smart parking" systems with real time information, developing joint shared public use of private parking, and public/private development of additional parking. These and other strategies will be discussed further for the downtown as part of the CAGID parking evaluation project. Also, site specific TDM and parking management strategies will be considered through the site review process. If the downtown area is successful in increasing the alternative mode use for access to the area, it will reduce the parking demand by both existing and additional land uses. Housing ➢ How many potential new housing units might result from the existing FAR bonus policy in the downtown core? Table 1 in the RRC report (Attachment C) shows 240 residential units projected at build out under the existing zoning, with an average unit size of 1650 square feet. This is based on the assumption of an overall average FAR of 2.3. This projection assumes approximately 46 percent of all incremental development will be residential. Currently, residential development represents 14 percent of the total existing downtown development. In the December 2008 analysis of downtown residential development by staff, 233 units were projected at 50 percent residential, very similar to the RRC report. At 75 percent residential, the 2008 study projected 355 units. The analysis by RRC of the proposed FAR policy change to DT-5 assumes continued but lower levels of residential development downtown, creating an additional 92 units through build-out. ➢ What might be the total potential contributions to the city's affordable housing program under both the existing policy and proposed new policy? In the first ten years of the Inclusionary Housing (IH) program, very few affordable units were created in the DT-5 zoning area. This is due to the high cost of land for development and the economic calculations developers make in order to recoup the costs of their land investment. Since 2000 when both the downtown residential floor area bonus and IH were put in place, 172 housing units were built in the downtown area. Twelve of these replaced existing units and as such had no affordable housing requirement for a total 160 new units. IH required 32 affordable units. Of these, half, or sixteen would be expected to be built on-site. Of the sixteen, four were built on-site, three single family homes were provided off site, and for nine units, the developer contributed cash-in-lieu plus an additional 50% for an affordable Consent Item 3G Page 8 unit required on-site but not provided on-site. Developers contributed cash-in-lieu at the standard rate for the remaining 16 required affordable units. The comparison of an FAR addition for residential use with the corresponding cash-in-lieu (CIL) and an FAR addition for office use with the corresponding housing linkage fee shows that the city would receive more funding from the residential use. However, under either scenario less residential development is projected overall in the DT-5 zone in the next five years or so. Analysis Analysis was performed on two prototypical projects downtown to test the scenarios that may result using the following assumptions: Scenario 1: No change to the current code for DT-5 (IH); and Scenario 2: A mix of office and residential, based on the development assumptions in the RRC report, applying IH to the additional residential floor area and a linkage fee to the additional commercial floor area. Additionally, this level of analysis was performed across all development as projected in the DT-5 zone district in the RRC report. Prototypical project 1 is a lot of 21,500 square feet with a small existing building, and project 2 is a 41,500 square foot vacant lot. The results of this analysis are represented in the following table: Proposed Change to DT-5: Comparison between Residential and non-Residential Communi Benefit - Cash Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Variance Residential Addition(No Non-residential Change) Addition Complete $11,185,000 $7,721,000 ($3,463,000) DT-5 Area Prototypical $486,400 $349,200 ($137,800) Project 1 Prototypical $619,600 $354,900 ($264,700) Project 2 Affordable housing benefit is realized in either units or cash-in-lieu of units. In the downtown, few affordable units have been created due to the high cost of land for development and the economic calculations developers make in order to recoup the costs of their land investment. Consequently, the proposed change would have a neutral impact on the production of affordable residential units downtown. Most downtown projects contribute cash-in-lieu of units to meet their IH requirements. Community benefit in the form of cash contributions to the affordable housing fund are expected, although they would be at a reduced level with the proposed change. Summary As community benefit programs in the form of either a commercial linkage fee or IH would operate in parallel to each other, staff feels that adding a community benefit standard for non- residential development in the DT-5 zoning district will provide developers an alternative manner in which to develop their properties, while at the same time capturing adequate community benefit for the Affordable Housing Program. Consent Item 3G Page 9 Development Feasibility ➢ What would be the relative development feasibility for housing vs. commercial space under the existing and proposed FAR bonus options? The research detailed below indicates that with all things being equal, modifications to the density bonus to allow class A office space is likely to result in more commercial and less residential development in the DT-5 zone. This conclusion assumes that the only factor under consideration by a developer is the cost to comply with community benefit requirements, and does not include other factors such as current housing or office demand, costs of construction or developer return on investment. Cost In Boulder, the cost of development is higher for residential versus commercial development, due partially to the IH requirement that 20% of units in any given residential development be provided in satisfaction of IH requirements (including the option of paying cash in lieu of providing units) and due to the residential parking requirement. In comparison, changes contemplated to the DT-5 zoning district anticipate that for commercial developments, a linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot will be applied to the additional floor area portion of the project. Financing As capital markets around the country have experienced dislocations over the past several years, the availability of capital has been constrained for multifamily residential developments. Bank financing for these projects is typically now only accessible to the most solid developers with proven track records; therefore very few residential developers will qualify for financing. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a branch of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is currently one of the nation's largest lenders for multifamily rental developments. Due to the number of projects in Boulder that are FHA-approved, as well as those funded by other means, the FHA is unlikely to finance a multifamily rental project in Boulder until existing FHA-funded rental projects have been leased-up. HUD does see Boulder as a market opportunity in part because of its low unemployment rates as well as a decline in vacancy rates and an increase in average monthly rents, but would likely delay approval of the finance of any new projects until existing projects are adequately leased up. Financing for commercial projects remain similarly constrained at present. While some banks are willing to provide financing, those qualifying are often those with the least need for bank-offered financing. Vacancy Commercial Chris Boston with Gibbons-White Inc. reported that there is very little availability of office suites of more than 7,000 square feet in size, which can pose a challenge for companies looking to move downtown (Boulder County Business Report, June 24, 2011). The Newmark Knight Frank/Frederick Ross First Quarter 2011 Boulder Market Report states that the market ended the year 2010 with flat absorption. While the first quarter of 2011 experienced a slight decline, the forecast is for moderate improvement over 2010, with leasing activity steady throughout the balance of the year and slight increases in rental rates expected later in the year. Additionally, the Consent Item 3G Page 10 Downtown submarket continues to demand the highest rental rates among the seven Boulder submarkets. Residential-Rental Rental vacancy rates throughout Boulder remain extremely low, at 3.5% excluding the University Hill area according to the latest available data from the Colorado Division of Housing (4cn Quarter 2010). Nonetheless, due to the high costs of land and the high costs of construction downtown the likelihood of rental housing development in the DT-5 area is considered low, at least in the short term. Residential-For Sale While the exact number of residential for-sale units on the market fluctuates in the DT-5 area, the Boulder Multi Listing Service (MLS) indicates a number of unsold units with prices below $2 million. With unsold for-sale units in the area, funding for construction of additional units may be difficult to obtain. Transaction Volume According to Micah McKee with All? Commercial Real Estate in a letter written to Sean Maher of Downtown Boulder Inc. in June 2011, the total transaction and dollar volume for building dealings within the Boulder Business Improvement District (BID) has decreased, as with the rest of Boulder County. Within the Downtown BID, there was a drop in transaction volume by 98 percent in four years, from roughly $22.5 million to $400,000. Office Condominium transactions have performed better from a low of three transactions (2008) to a high of ten transactions (2010). Seven projects were completed in the downtown area between December 2007 and June 2011, adding 72,585 new square feet of office, retail and miscellaneous to the District. He noted that the demand for office space is substantially greater than retail space. Summary Construction funding remains constrained for development of new units in the residential or commercial categories. While financing may be obtained in either category, the terms may be prohibitive, or available only to the most well capitalized borrowers. Vacancy rates for rental housing throughout Boulder remain at extremely low levels, though land costs and the availability of financing point to difficulty in the development of rental housing in the downtown area. Difficulties in obtaining financing due to dislocations in the commercial real estate banking area as well as indications of unsold units downtown point to a small likelihood of condominium development in the DT-5 zone in the near term. While financing constraints also exist in the market for commercial real estate construction loans, there appears to be a shortage of larger-sized commercial space downtown. The market for downtown commercial space is also expected to improve moderately, and the demand for office space downtown appears to be stronger than for retail space. While all categories of development thus appear to have present constraints, allowing a floor area addition for Class A office space in the DT-5 zoning district is expected to increase the relative attractiveness of this development alternative and provide needed flexibility for developers. Additionally, if the cost of compliance with Boulder's community benefit priorities is compared between IH on residential projects and a linkage fee on commercial projects, the linkage fee cost is projected to be less on a project by project basis. Consent Item 3G Page 11 A reduced cost for complying with community benefit standards for development of Class A office space downtown should increase the relative attractiveness of this type of development option, while still providing resources to the Affordable Housing Program in support of the City's affordable housing goals. DT-5 Code Options Option Description Pros Cons Comment 1 No change to No change; no No additional Class A DT-5 additional impacts office space and over existing zoning related economic benefits; no additional benefit to the affordable housing fund if no residential development occurs in the short term. 2 Allow a Would result in half Would not provide the maximum of .5 the projected total projected additional floor amount of office additional amount of area for square footage and class A office space commercial use half the number of downtown and related in DT-5 additional trips. economic benefits. 3 Allow a Would provide the Would generate Planning Board maximum of maximum amount approximately 2,000 recommendation; 1.0 additional of new class A additional average staff floor area for office space trips per day which recommendation commercial use downtown and the could result in in DT-5 maximum related increased traffic. economic impacts. 2. Codifying 65 foot Supplemental Setback from the Centerline of Canyon Boulevard Between 9M and 16th Streets Purpose As part of the adopted changes to the downtown zone districts and to the Guidelines approved by Planning Board and City Council (March 17 and May 3, 2011), a 65- foot setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way and corresponding conceptual streetscape for the public realm were adopted in the Guidelines in order to preserve the right-of-way for future design options along Canyon Boulevard. A comprehensive urban design approach for Canyon Boulevard from 9th to 16' h Streets is planned to be part of a future larger civic center master plan effort. Council requested staff to codify 65-foot Canyon setback now in order to preserve the Canyon Boulevard public realm for the future enhancements/ improvements based on the completion of Consent Item 3G Page 12 the larger study. Council requested that staff identify properties affected by this code change. Staff has been working with property owners with projects on Canyon Boulevard to help identify maximum developable floor area while preserving this 65- foot setback on the first floor. The urban design vision for Canyon Boulevard as stated in the Guidelines is: Canyon Boulevard and Broadway accommodate large volumes of traffic moving through the downtown. Streetscape features should be designed to buffer pedestrians from traffic impacts, provide greater building setbacks and detached sidewalks with planting strips between the sidewalk and curb. In areas with detached sidewalks, well designed landscaping and street trees should be provided. On Canyon Boulevard, the use of landscaped median strips and pedestrian safe zones should be designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. (Guidelines, pages 40 and 65.) Design of the Public Realm In order to preserve the future opportunity to implement a vision for the public realm along Canyon, a minimum setback was adopted in the Guidelines. An analysis of the proposed Canyon Boulevard streetscape has determined that 65 feet is the minimum setback from the centerline of the right-of-way needed to preserve the opportunity for the future vision for Canyon Boulevard. An example of an enhanced Canyon streetscape that could be implemented in the proposed setback given the high hazard flood implications where no additional parking would be allowed is shown below. The drawing to be included in the Guideline shows the design of the public realm along Canyon Boulevard and an arcade design on the south side of Canyon which would allow the second story and above to project from 12 to 15 feet over the first floor setback, including the supporting columns. Car7Y(M Blvd. Looking East i -MM f tcr7T 65' b Canyon Boulevard 65' Suplemental Setback Consent Item 3G Page 13 BDAB had a number of questions about the details of the arcade condition and about feasible first floor uses. Staff will come back with additional information about uses, design details, examples of arcades, and other details as part of a civic center master plan. (See the draft notes from the meeting in Appendix F.) NEXT STEPS: The Second Reading and public hearing on these code changes in the downtown are currently scheduled for Council consideration on Sept. 20. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft ordinance B. TischlerBise Analysis of the Housing Linkage Fee C. RRC Report D. Fox-Higgins Report E. Draft Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 2011. F. Draft Notes from Boulder Design Advisory Board (BDAB), July 13, 2011 G. FAR diagram Consent Item 3G Page 14 ATTACHMENT A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "LAND USE CODE", B.R.C. 1981, TO IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN URBAN 3 DESIGN PLAN, AMENDING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CANYON BLVD, MODIFYING THE 4 FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS IN THE DT-5 ZONING DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. 5 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, 7 COLORADO: 8 9 Section 1. Section 9-8-2 (e)(3), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: 10 9-8-2 Floor Area Ratio Requirements. 11 12 (e) District-Specific Standards: 13 (3) Maximum Supplement ' Additional Floor Area: in DT- 2:. In the DT-2 district, the maximum supplemental-FAR additional components floor 14 area consisting of either residential floor area, parking within the principal building or detached garages that is not included in the FAR calculation is 0.5 FAR. 15 B) In the DT-5 district, the_maximum _FAR additional _components that can be added to 16 the base FAR in Table 8-2 shall be a floor area ratio of 1.0. Each component of the additional FAR shall not exceed the maximum FAR additional components listed in 17 Table 8-2. To be eligible for the non-residential floor area, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay the housing linkage fee in section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981 for 18 each square foot of additional floor area above the base floor area ratio for which the addition is requested. 19 20 21 22 23 24 RTLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 15 I Section 2. Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, Table 8-2, is amended to read: 2 TABLE 8-2: FLOOR AREA RATIO ADDITIONS 3 DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 MU-1 MU-2 MU-3 NAT-4 BT-2 BMS IS-1/2 IG INI INIS BR-1 (c) Base FAR 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 10 0.5 0.67 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 n/a 4 (a) Maximum total FAR 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 n/a ru/a n/a n/a n/a ru/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 additions (FAR) FAR additional components: 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 041.0 n/a n/a n/a tu/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1) Residential floor area N) 6 (FAR) 2) Residential floor area if at n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a rt/a n/a 7 least 35% of units are permanently affordable and at least 50% of total floor 8 area is residential (FAR) 3) Residential floor area for n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 a project NOT located in a general improvement district I that provides off-street 10 parking 4) On-site parking provided 0.5 0.5 0.5 n/a 0.5 Not Not Not n/a n/a Not Not Not Not Not n/a 11 entirely within the principal counted counted counted counted counted counted counted counted structure, or above grade parking structure 12 5) Below grade area used for Not Not Not Not Not n/a u/a n/a n/a Not Not n/a n/a n/a rr/a n/a occupancy counted counted counted counted counted counted counted 13 6) Nouesidential floor area n/a n/a n/a n/a LO n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a (FAR) (see subsection 9-8- (b) 2(e)(3) and subsection 4-20- 14 62, Table 4) Maximum allowable FAR 2.0+ 2.0+ 2.7+ 2.2+ 2.7+ 0.67+ 0.6+ 1.0+ 2.0+ 0.5+ 1. 0+ 0.5+ 0.5+ 0.4+ 0.6+ 4.0 (stun of base plus all row 5 row 5 row 5 row 5 row 5 row 4 row 4 rows 4 row 4 row 5 rows 4 row 4 row 4 row 4 row 4 15 available additions) above above and 5 above above and 5 above above above above above above 16 17 18 19 K:\PLZO1o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 16 20 I Footnotes: 2 (a) FAR up to 1.85:1 if property is located in a general improvement district providing off-street parking. 3 (b) The maximum additional FAR eomaonent_is 1.0 if par-king bonus NOT u FAR additional 4 co_m~on_en_is may_b_e_combined, but shall-not _e_xc_eed the 1.0 maximum total floor_ar_ea ratio limit. (c) See subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(2)(J), B.R.C. 1981. 5 (d) The maximum amount of floor area for nonresidential uses is .5 of the total floor area. This 6 floor area may be increased to .75 of the total floor area if the standards in subsection 9-8-2(e), "District-Specific Standards," B.R.C. 1981, have been met. 7 (e) n/a: not applicable. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RTLMo-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 17 1 2 Section 3. Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981jable 7-1, is amended to read: 3 Table 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS 4 I I I BT-1 BC 5 BR IS-1 DT-1 A RH-2 RL-1 IS-2 RM-3 DT-2 Zoning RR- RR-2 RH-5 RM-2 IG RL-2 RH-1 RH-3 BMS DT-3 MU-2 6 District 1 RE P RMX-1 BT-2 IM RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-7 BCS MU-3 MU-4 DT-5 DT-4 IMS MH 7 Form module a b c d e f G h i j k 1 m n o p q r s 8 SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS Principal Buildings and Uses 9 Minimum 25'=(k 20' 15' 10' 0'_Lk) See section 9-7- front yard 13 landscaped 1 o setback (e)(ln) 11 Minimum 25--0 20' 20' 20' 10' 20'~ See section 9-7- front yard 13 setback for all covered 12 and uncovered parking 13 areas Maximum n/a n/a nn/a 10' n/a n/a 10' 15' n/a 10' nn/a 14 front yard k( ) landscaped setback for 15 comer lots and side yards 16 adjacent a street 17 18 19 K:\PLZO1o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 18 20 I I I , I B-1 i I i - - 2 BR IS-1 DT -l A RH-2 RL-1 IS-2 RM-3 DT-2 Zoning RR- RR-2 RH_5 RM-2 IG RL-2 RH-1 RH-3 BMS DT-3 MU-2 District 1 RE P RMX-1 BT-2 IM RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-7 BCS MU-3 MU-4 DT-5 DT-4 IMS MH 4 Form module a b c d e f G h i j k 1 In n o P q r s 5 Maximum n/a Ida Ida 15' n/a n/a 15' 15' n/a 15' Il/a front yard landscaped setback for 6 an interior lot 7 Minimum 25' 12.5' 15' 10' 1' per 0' or 5' 1' per 0' I' per 2' 10' 0' for fast and 0' 0' 0' n/a side yard (k 2' of (b) 2' of (attached of bldg. second stories (k) landscaped bldg. bldg. DUs): 1' height. 12' for third 8 setback height, height, per 2' of 10' nun. story and above from a 10' 10' bldg. scree I mnl. min. height, in. 5' 9 (detached DUs) 1 Mnumunl 15' 10' 5' 10' 0' or 1' per 2' of 0' or 5' 0' or 3' 0' 1' per 3' 0' or 0' or 0' or 5' 0 or Vol 12' 0' or 5' See section 9-7- side yard 12' bldg. height. (b) (attached of bldg. 12' 5' 12' 13 11 setback 5' nun. DUs): l' height, from an per 2' of 5' nun interior lot bldg. 12 line (i) height. 5' Imtl. (detached 13 DUs) Minimum 40' 25' 20' 15' 20' n/a n/a ida Ida n/a 14 total for both side yard 15 setbacks Mniinnun 25' 25' 20' 10' 15' 20' 15' 20' 15' 0' 15' 15' 10' See section 9-7- rear yard 13 16 setback (f) Minimum See section 9-7-9 Il/a 17 side yard bulk plane 18 19 K:\PLZO1o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 19 20 1 I I I I BBCI I I I I - 2 BR IS -1 DT -l A RH-2 RL-1 IS-2 RM-3 DT-2 Zoning RR- RR-2 RH-5 RM-2 IG RL-2 RH-1 RH-3 BMS DT-3 MU-2 District 1 RE p RNLX-1 BT-2 IM RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-7 BCS MU-3 MU-4 DT-5 DT-4 IMS MH 4 Form module a b c d e f G h i j k I to n o P q r s Minimum tila nla n/a u/a 20' 15' 15' 20' 20' front yard setback from a 6 street for all principal buildings and uses 8 for third story and above 9 Accessory Buildings and User Minimum 55' 55' Behind 55' Behind Behind 55' 55' Behind 55' 55' Behind rear See section 9-7- 10 front yard rear wall rear wall rear wall rear wall wall of 13 setback of of of of principal uses (e) principal principal principal principal stricture 1 1 structure structure structure structure Minimum 25' 12.5' 15' 10' I' per 0' or F per 0' 1' per 2' 10' 0' 0' 0' 0' n/a 12 side yard Lk) 2' of 5'(b) T of (attached of bldg. (k) landscaped bldg. bldg. DUs):l' height. setback height, height, per 2 of 10' nun. from a 10' 10' bldg. 13 street nun. tnin. height. 5' (a)(i) nun. 1 4 (detached DUs) Minimum 15' 10' 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See section 15 side yard 9-7-13 setback from all 16 interior lot line 17 Minimum 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See section rear 9-7-13 18 19 K:\PLZ01o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 20 20 I BBTC-1 , 2 BR IS-1 DT-1 A RH-2 RL-I IS-2 RM-3 DT-2 Zoning RR- RR-2 RH-5 RM-2 IG RL-2 RH-1 RH-3 BMS DT-3 MU-2 District 1 RE P RMX-1 BT-2 IM RM-I RH-4 MU-I RH-6 RMX-2 RH-7 BCS MU-3 MU4 DT-5 DT-4 IMs MH 4 Form module a b c d e f G h i j k 1 m n o P q r s 5 yard setback (fl Minimum 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6- 6 separation between accessory 7 buildings and any other 8 building r4a R4 a/a a4a 28 43' 29 24 9 se4-eR4 yard t €renra 10 oret fq; all principal 11 rigs and 11~eq €ov third 12 above 13 Footnotes: 14 In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: 15 16 (k)For properties located in the DT-5 and -P zoning districts and shown in Appendix I. the minimum setback shall be as recFuired b ,section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk St_andards," B.R.C. 198.1_}Table 7-1 Form_ And Bulk Standards or 6.5 feet 17 measured from the centerline of Canyon Boulevard right-of-way_ 18 19 K:\PLZO1o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 21 20 1 APPENDIX I to Table 7-1: Form and Bulk Standards Pine St 3 _ 4 I Slr,lca~t~- 1 - rr ~n~ 5 Y r m 4 I to f ~Peal Stt ~ R Fey.,. t~. 7 ; u-i g Walnut St 9 h h sA -V , ' - x h • - tas k- • , i. 7y-Yr%r'y-+ k"F x~." x" ~ , .ate k x-"-~'-• t y~ - ~ i k yy } xk .Jr Y q'rr a~'•r ka. X`yS''.-~~y'S ~i" l ~ t . ~ :Y'4. k- . ' .a .t _.k a-^`~''y~' a -s~~°i s;T ' y. ' t';'a 10 _ ? 11 XS Y X? S k} Yx S rrY~ - -f ..a r y on 4 410 is X~~•K.W k 13. t}'T~ 4•' rt''~1Y -i3 .k X' 1 h' ~kk-.4~FS N°~1} ~TY.. I. 12 13 .1 firaAa,~iae , ~ 14 'AIV i j1- 15 + II 16 Legend II II 6-1, Foot Sotack Area 17 1 II I GrancviG'.v rtiu 18 19 K:\PLZO1o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 22 20 I Section 4. Section 4-20-62, "Capital Facility Impact Fee," B.R.C. 1981, is amended by 2 the addition of a new subsection (b), to read: 3 (b) Additional Floor Area - Affordable Housing Linkage Fee. Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, permits floor area components above the base floor 4 area in the_DT-S-zoning district. No erson_engaed_in non-residential development that person is associated with constructing additional floor area components permitted under the 5 requirements of section 9-8-2 shall fail to pay a housing linkage fee of $9.10 per sg. ft. for such floor area. 6 7 Section 5. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of 8 the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. 9 Section 6. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title 10 only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for 11 public inspection and acquisition. 12 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY 13 TITLE ONLY this 6th day of September 2011. 14 15 Mayor 16 Attest: 17 18 City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record 19 20 21 22 23 24 RTLMo-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 23 I READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED 2 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20 3 4 Mayor 5 Attest: 6 7 City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RTLMo-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC Consent Item 3G Page 24 ATTACHMENT B DEVELOPMCN i EXCM TAX S-MY City of Boulder, Colorado M v A _ - _ Residential and nonresidential development in the city of Boulder currently pays a Housing Excise Tax (HET) to help provide permanent affordable housing in the City. As part of the Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study, TischlerBise was asked to calculate an impact fee or excise tax for Affordable Housing. Due to limitations in the State Impact Fee Act and impact fee case law, TischlerBise recommends an excise tax for Affordable Housing. If this Development Excise Tax is approved by the voters, the current HET should be repealed. The City's current adopted goal for provision of permanent affordable housing is 10 percent of the City's housing stock. The breakdown of units by income category is 35 percent of units for very low-income households (<30% of Area Median Income (AMI)); 40 percent for low-income households (30-68% AMI) and 25 percent for moderate income households (69- 80% AMI). The City's current inventory of approximately 2,800 permanently affordable units is short by approximately 1,700 units. The City will continue to pursue adding these units to the inventory to meet the current need through a variety of means such as funding, policies and planning, direct services, and asset management.l Funding is currently from a variety of grants and loans-approximately $3.5-4.5 million annually-provided to non-profit and for-profit agencies and housing developers. Public investment is used toward acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of permanently affordable rental or for-sale housing. Funding and financing sources include locally-controlled funds such as Affordable Housing Funds (from the General Fund and Cash-in-Lieu); Community Housing Assistance Program (CLAP); property tax dedicated mill levy; Housing Excise Tax; CDBG (federal funds); HOME (federal funds); and Private Activity Bonds (tax-exempt bond allocation that may be used to finance affordable housing). State and Federal funds and financing are available as well. 13 Policies and Planning: Design, development and implementation of policies that increase affordable housing inventory. Planning efforts focus on identification of future housing needs and mechanisms to address them. Planning staff also implements the city's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which requires that at least 20 percent of new residential development is committed as permanently affordable. Discussion below from, City of Bor(ldcr At i)rdable Ilotisiri, Report, Febrrraril 2008. Tischler0lie Consent Item 3G Page 25 aFVELOPMEN7 EXCISE TAX S'i U©Y City of Boulder, Colorado If the City were to stop growing today, the affordable housing goal would still be pursued through the above means. However, the City will not stop growing and additional units will be required to meet the needs of future development. To meet the City's future affordable housing needs, TischlerBise recommends implementation of a development excise tax for affordable housing, paid only by nonresidential development. Nonresidential development should pay the affordable housing excise tax because employment is the most direct generator of affordable housing needs. The recommended DET component uses a plan- based methodology driven by the City's adopted goal for affordable housing and the average cost to the City to subsidize the provision of affordable units. It should be noted, that impact fees or development excise taxes on new residential development can be waived for affordable units. If the City were to adopt impact fees, the amount waived or foregone would have to be covered through other means (such as from the General Fund) to make each impact fee account whole. This should be addressed in the ordinance that adopts the fee. Without this waiver, the proposed impact fees will add to the cost of an affordable housing unit. Furthermore, the consultant recommends that 'the existing dedicated property tax for housing and other existing funding sources be used to correct the existing deficiency in LOS and cover housing-related operating costs. With this funding strategy, Boulder will be able to correct the existing deficiency in affordable housing with property tax revenue and other means such as inclusionary zoning, while meeting its future growth-related affordable housing needs through the updated development excise tax. Nonresidential development will be assessed the tax per square foot of gross floor area, or based on unique demand indicators, such as the number of rooms in a hotel. The tax rate is derived by multiplying the affordable housing cost per employee by the number of employees per demand indicator. Figure 13 summarizes the demand for affordable housing units through 2030. The current employment base of 97,750 jobs is projected to increase to 117,400 jobs by 2030. Residential development is projected to increase by 7,500 units. Assuming the City's current target of 10 percent as permanently affordable, an additional 750 units are needed to accommodate future affordable housing needs brought about by nonresidential development in the City. The 750 units are further broken down by income category, per the City's targets at 35 percent for very low income, 40 percent for low income, and 25 percent for moderate income. The projected net increase of 19,650 jobs is used as the denominator in the LOS calculation for affordable housin Consent Item 3G Page 26 DEVELOPMENT EXCISH TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Figui-e 13. Affordable 1-lousirig Dei-ciwid Denrand Units Base Year 2030 Net 2008 Projection Increase Jobs in Boulder 97,750 117,400 19,650 Housing Units':' 45,000 52,500 7,500 10% Perllranentlp Affordable HU Goal 750 %oJAff U1111S`` 35% Very Low lnconleAfl. Units (<30% AMI) 262 40% Low Income Aff. Units (30-68% AMI) 300 25% Moderate Income Aff. Units (69-80% AMI) 187 TOTAL 750 Current affordable housinggoal is based on 45,000 total housing units, therefore this is huse year flg ure. City of Boulder adopted targets. Figure 14 provides detail on total subsidy required for each affordable housing unit income category and the City's estimated share of the subsidy..hacome levels and affordable prices are from 2008 housing data, provided by City staff. City subsidy estimates were provided by City of Boulder staff based on recent practice. The City share of the subsidy is the basis for the excise tax calculation. However, it should be noted that staff notes that the external sources of subsidy that are used to leverage financing-namely Federal funds, foundation money, donations to non-profits, tax credits, etc.-are not anticipated to increase to meet additional future demand generated by new nonresidential development. If this is the case and the City share increases commensurately, the methodology used to calculate the Affordable Housing excise tax, which is based on current practice, may not fully cover future costs. This should be monitored for potential refinement in future updates. Tischleri! r Consent Item 3G Page 27 DEVELOPMENT LXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Vic ure 141. Affordable Housing Costs / Subsidy Requirement Median Income Moderate Income Lowlncome Vvy Low Income %ofAlIII (rnage) 100% 69-80% 30-68% <30% %of'AMl (assumption)-> 75.7°/x= 50.0%= 30% Asstuned Income for Household Size* $78,300 $59,265: $39,150 = $23,500 Affordable Price of Attached Unit*" $220,600 $156,700: $89,078: $36,500 Median Price of AttachedUnit** $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 1 $250,000 Total Subsidy Regiurod $29,400 $93,300: $160,922. $213,500 Ci ty Sh u-e of Subsidy' $0 $50,000 $60,000. $70,000 City orBoulden, 2008 Housing toad Income Data; assume 3-pen-Son household City ofBoulden; 2008 Housing and Gncome Data; assumes Attached Unit City of Boul der The City's total share of the cost to provide permanently affordable housing due to new nonresidential development between 2008 and 2030 is estimated to be approximately $45.8 million. The, estimated cost was derived from the projected increase in the need for affordable units and the current estimated City subsidy per unit. Based on the projected increase in employment from 2008 to 2030 of 19,650, the cost per job is $2,328. Detail is provided in Figure 15. Figure 15. Projected Future Affordable Housing Costs Cost of Affordable Housing City Cost Affordable Total per Unit' U77 ils Need" Very Low Income Aff. Units (<30%AMI) $70,000 262 $18,375,000 Low Income Aff. Units (30-68% AMI) $60,000 300 $18,000,000 Moderate Income Aff. Units (69-80% AMI) $50,000 187 $9,375,000 TOTAL $45,750,000 Net Increase in Jobs (2008 thru Buildout) 19,650 Net City Cost per Additional Job in Moulder $2,328 See Subsidy Requirement"; represents the estimated City share of gap bet aeon median price aitd affordable pricefor allacliut uruit.e Based on net increase in affordable unit needs by income category multiplied by estimated City share ofsubsidy required To derive the affordable housing development excise tax per square foot, the City cost per job is multiplied by the number of employees per demand unit. For example for retail establishments, the cost per job of $2,328 is multiplied by 2.86 employees per 1,000 square feet and divided by 1,000 ($2,328 x 2.86 / 1,000 = $6.65 per square foot). As shown in Figure 16, the resulting affordable housing excise tax for office development is 19 times the City's current adopted tax rate of $0.49 per square foot of nonresidential development. Tischlem Consent Item 3G Page 28 DFVP!_OPMEN'i PXCIS[]-TAXSTUDY Cily or Boulder, Colorado Virgure "16. nffordrible Housing aevelopr en- Excise Tox CalculUAC>n LevelOfService Per Employee Af ordable Housing City Cost per Job $2,328 =1 EmployeesPer Excise Tax code 1, 000 Sq F1 per Sq Ft NOniesidentiol (Floor Area) 820 Retail / Restaurant 2.86 $6.65 770 Business Park 3.16 $7.35 710 Office 3.91 $9.10 610 hospital 3.38 $7.86 520 School 0.92 $2.14 151 Mini-Warehouse 0.04 $0.09 150 Warehousing 1.28 $2.97 110 Light Industrial 2.31 $5.37 Excise Tax per 0111er Norn-esidential Demand Indicator 620 Nursing Honk. (per bed) 0.36 $838 565 Day Care (per student) 0.16 $372 320 Lod.giig (per rocnu) 0.44 $1,024 TschlerHis Consent Item 3G Page 29 DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado ~~I_~I ]I I~~,'1LJ /~~h]l~ I ~C?UIJI~1~~ IIIJCtil7 ~ I ~>(Ccil<~I ~ l Tl°V~.~ A new excise tax for Vehicles and Equipment may be used to expand the City's fleet to maintain the current infrastructure standard. This excise tax uses the same calculation steps as the impact fee for Municipal Facilities, with both residential and nonresidential development paying the cost of additional vehicles and equipment. As shown in Figure 17, the total value of Boulder's fleet (---$24.7 million excluding fire apparatus that will be funded with fire impact fees) was allocated 72% to residential development and 28% to nonresidential development. This cost allocation is based on Boulder's functional population that accounts for residents and jobs, with adjustments for commuting patterns. The current count of vehicles and equipment by class, along with the average purchase price for each class, were provided by City staff. 'd !R- [l Consent Item 3G Page 30 ATTACHMENT C RRC ASSOCIATES ..,sue An SYR Company MEMORANDUM TO: Molly Winter and Louise Grauer, City of Boulder FROM: David Becher and Nolan Rosa[[, RRC Associates RE: DT-5 Zone Development Projections Under Existing and Proposed FAR Bonus Regulations DATE: July 20, 2011 Introduction RRC Associates has prepared development projections for the City of Boulder DT-5 zoning district in order to evaluate the development patterns which might occur as a result of proposed changes to the City's policy for floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses in this district. Specifically, this memo discusses future development projections in the DT-5 district under two scenarios: 17 status quo, i.e. regulations pertaining to the DT-5 FAR bonus remain unchanged; ci d 2) proposed. change, i.e. regulations pertaining to the DT-5 FAR bonus are amended-to permit commercial uses. The analysis also examines the incremental differences in projected development between the two scenarios. This memo first summarizes the overall results of the analysis, and then reviews the methodology and assumptions underlying the analysis. Summary of Results As summarized in Table 1 to follow, under existing zoning, it is projected than an additional 1.01 million square feet of incremental new development will occur in the DT-5 zone through the "2022-x" period (i.e. between the present and likely practical buildout). This includes approximately 547,000 square feet (sgft) of commercial space and 466,000 sgft of residential space. The incremental commercial space is projected to house between 1,673 and 1,880 incremental employees (depending on the employment intensity assumption utilized; 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103 ^ Boulder, CO 80301 • 303/449-6558 • 3031449-6587 FAX • www.rrcassoc.com Consent Item 3G Page 31 M. Winter and L. Grauer 7/20/11 employment is likely to vary over time depending on market conditions). The incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 240 residential units (assuming a similar average unit size as today). As summarized in Table 2 to follbw, under the proposed zoning scenario, it is projected than an additional 1.17 million square feet of development will occur in the DT-5 zone through the "2022+" period. This includes approximately 988,000 sqft of commercial space and 179,000 sqft of residential space. The incremental commercial space is projected to house between 2,742 and 3,163 incremental employees. The incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 92 residential units. Table 3 to follow illustrates the incremental difference in development projections between the proposed zoning regulations and the existing zoning regulations. The proposed zoning scenario is projected to generate approximately 150,000 more square feet of development than the existing scenario, including approximately 440,000 more square feet of commercial development and 290,000 less square feet of residential development. Additionally, the proposed zoning scenario is projected to generate 1,069 -1,283 more employees than the existing scenario, and 148 fewer residential units than the existing scenario. These results reflect the assumption that somewhat more development will occur in aggregate under the proposed regulations than under the current regulations, due to a combination of market demand and design feasibility reasons. Additionally, the results reflect the assumption that the nature of development which occurs will be more heavily weighted towards commercial development than residential development under the proposed zoning regulations than under existing zoning. RRC Associates 2 Consent Item 3G Page 32 M, Winter and L. Grauer 7/20/11 Table 1 Projected DT-5 Development: Status Quo Zoning Scenario 2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 Grand Total Measure Existing Incremental Incremental Incremental to 2022+ (existing + future Commercial built sqft 1,530,656 93,209 276,429 177,299 546,937 -2,077,593 Residential built sgft 251,755 931269 182,184 190,537 465,990 717,745 Total built sqft 1,782,411 186,477 458,614 367,836 1,012,927 2,795,338 Jobs - low projection nla 272 862 538 1,673 n/a Jobs - midpoint proj. n1a 291 913 572 1,776 n1a Jobs - high projection n1a 310 964 606 1,880 n/a Residential units n1a 48 94 98 240 n1a Table 2 Projected DT-5 Development: Proposed Zoning Scenario 2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 Grand Total Measure Existing Incremental Incremental Incremental to 2022+ (existing +future) Commercial built sqft 1,530,656 215,780 435,878 336,688 988,346 2,519,002 Residential built sgft 251,755 3,723 74250 99,890 178,563 430,318 Total built sgft 1,782,411 219,503 510,828 436,578 1,166,909 2,949,320 Jobs - low projection n/a 569 1,249 925 2,742 n/a Jobs - midpoint proj. n/a 618 1,338 997 2,953 n/a Jobs - high projection n/a 666 1,428 1,070 3,163 n/a Residential units n/a 2 39 51 92 n/a Table 3 Projected DT-5 Development: Comparison of Proposed Zoning Scenario vs. Status Quo Zoning Scenario 2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 Grand Total Measure Existing Incremental Incremental Incremental to 2022+ (existing + future Commercial built sgft 0 122,571 159,449 159,389 441,409 441,409 Residential built sgft 0 (89,546) 107,234 9t O,G47) 287.427 {287,427} Total built sgft 0 33,025 52,215 68,742 153,982 153,982 Jobs - low projection n/a 297 386 386 1,069 n1a Jobs - midpoint proj. n/a 327 425 425 1,176 n/a Jobs - high projection n/a 356 464 463 1,283 n1a Residential units n/a 46 (55) 47 148 nla RRC Associates 3 Consent Item 3G Page 33 M. Winter and L. Grauer 7/20/11 Methodology and Assumptions The following discussion summarizes the six-step approach and accompanying assumptions used in the analysis. Step 1: Prepare DT-5 land and building inventory City of Boulder GIS staff developed an inventory of "summary sites" in the DT-5 zoning district, consisting of legal parcels or (in some cases) combinations of parcels under common ownership or subject to a single development plan. A total of 63 sites or "sub-sites" were identified. For each site, estimates were developed for the total land area, total existing built square footage (per Boulder County Assessor records), and existing above-grade FAR. A map of development sites in the DT-5 district (as well as other sites in the Central Area General Improvement District - CAGID) is attached to end of this memo. The analysis found that the DT-5 sites currently have an aggregate of approximately 1.43 million square feet of total land area and 1.78 million square feet of existing above-grade floor area, for an existing aggregate FAR of 1.24. Ste 2. Proiect additional development ca acit For each site in the DT-5 district, additional zoned development capacity was evaluated. While both current and proposed DT-5 regulations permit development up to a maximum of 2.7 FAR, it was assumed for purposes of this analysis that not all sites would develop to their theoretical maximum potential in the foreseeable future. Instead, for projections purposes, it was assumed that sites with additional zoned capacity would eventually develop to an aggregate average of 2.3 FAR under the current zoning regulations, and,to an aggregate average of 2.5 FAR under the proposed FAR bonus regulations.' A higher FAR.4as assumed under the - proposed regulations, for reasons of both increased development feasibility/flexibility and expanded market opportunity, given that the proposed regulations would add commercial development as a permitted use for FAR bonus purposes. From this analysis, it was estimated that at "practical" buildout, a total of 1.01 million additional square feet of floor area would be developed in the DT-5 zone under the existing zoning regulations, and 1.17 million additional square feet of floor area would be developed under the proposed regulations. 1 It was further assumed that future development would only take place if there was a minimum of 3500 square feet of additional floor area that could be built up to the 2.3 or 2.5 FAR modeling thresholds respectively; or if the additional development capacity was equal to at least 10 percent of the size of the existing floor area; whichever was greater. Additionally, based on existing uses and recency of development, some parcels with additional zoned capacity were assumed to be unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future in a way which would be influenced by the proposed DT-5 regulations, e.g. the U.S. Post Office site, selected residential projects, and religious uses. RRC Associates 4 Consent Item 3G Page 34 M. Winter and L. Grauer 7/20/11 Step 3. Proiect future incremental development by time period The development projections outlined above were broken down by five-year time period, specifically 2012-16, 2017-21, and 2022 or later (i.e. through likely practical buildout). For several development sites, timing assumptions were based on submitted plans or conversations with property owners. For selected other sites, timing assumptions were made by City staff and RRC Associates. For remaining sites, if the existing structure was built in 1996 or later, it was assumed that future incremental development would take place in the 2022+ time period. If the structure was built in 1995 or before, it was assumed for projection purposes that 20 percent of the remaining zoned capacity (up to the 2.3 or 2.5 threshold) would be built in the 2012-16 timeframe, 30 percent would be built in the 2017-21 timeframe, and 50 percent would be built in the 2022+ timeframe. (For these latter sites, it should be noted that a given individual site would not necessarily be expected to develop pursuant to these assumptions, but rather that the sites in aggregate would be assumed to exhibit this general timing distribution.) Step 4. Project future incremental development by type of use For both zoning scenarios, existing built square footage was assumed to continue in its present use into the future. To the extent that some existing buildings might be "scraped" and redeveloped, it was assumed that the future uses would have the same general,nature of use (residential or commercial) as the existing uses. By contrast, for the remaining incremental FAR capacity, a different mix of uses was assumed for each of the two zoning scenarios. For the status quo zoning scenario, the following uses were assumed: o North of Canyon: 100% of remaining available FAR increment beiwcen 0 to 1.7 is developed as ' commercial. m South of Canyon: 20% of remaining available FAR increment from 0 to 1.7 is developed as residential, 80% as commercial (i.e., a higher residential mix is assumed south of Canyon than north of Canyon). • All areas: 100% of remaining available FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.3 is developed as residential. For the proposed zoning change scenario, the following uses were assumed: North of Canyon: 1001 of remaining available FAR increment between 0 to 1.7 is developed as commercial. o South of Canyon: 20% of remaining available FAR increment from 0 to 1.7 is developed as residential, 80% as commercial (i.e., a higher residential mix is assumed south of Canyon than north of Canyon). 0 All areas: remaining FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5 which is developed in 2012-16:.100% development as commercial. (This reflects an assumption that market conditions currently strongly favor commercial development over residential development, and will continue to do RRC Associates S Consent Item 3G Page 35 M. Winter and L. Grauer 7/20/11 so in the next five years. However, for later time periods, summarized below, it is assumed that market conditions for residential development will gradually improve.) ® All areas: remaining FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5 which is developed in 2017-21: 80% development as commercial and 20% development as residential. All areas: remaining FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5 which is developed in 2022+: 67% development as commercial and 33% development as residential. Again, it should be noted that a given individual site would not necessarily be expected to develop pursuant to these assumptions. Instead, it is assumed that the development sites in aggregate will exhibit this distribution of use assumptions. Step 5. Project future incremental employment Incremental future employment was projected based on the following assumptions regarding the utilization of commercial space: ® Net leasable space is equivalent to 85 percent of gross square footage (after deducting for common areas, stairways, etc.). ® Commercial vacancy rate is 5% (i.e. effective full occupancy). m First-floor tenants have a range of 4.8 to 5.1 employees per 1000 sqft of gross leasable area (corresponding to the low and high range of "employment intensity" observed in CAGID in selected years over the 1994 - 2011 period). • Upper-floor tenants have a range of 3.0 to 3.6 employees per 1000 sgft of gross leasable area (corresponding to the low and high range of "employment intensity" observed in CAGID in selected years over the 1994 - 2011 period). A set of "low", "midpoint" and "high" employment scenarios were developed corresponding to the range and midpoint employment intensity measures described above. Step 6. Project future incremental residential units Incremental future residential units were projected based on the following assumptions regarding residential space: • Deduct 15 percent of gross residential space for hallways, stairways, and related common areas. • Divide remaining square footage by an assumed average of 1,650 square feet per unit. e (The above assumptions are the same as those utilized in a 12/2/08 City analysis regarding downtown residential development potential.) RRC Associates 6 Consent Item 3G Page 36 t ~ .is h l~ a a7tn s+ m # SA,E P tt ti - - ; t o o _ PP S. ! ~ l y 1 s.,. 11 , r'' .F^++~'•. ~ ~Y 3 3 = ~ E a rBtG ~ ~ - i m 571 ~ z r°~~ w NE N~ (7 'mss t t L.T 4 a t'~ r Ljsb _ 32 s t a 1 _ t~ "t a: st tsu s~~ 1" y N k _ !-1 a y `4 ti s tamsi 1_ m x tl £ l t 1r= ~r'1 s ~ t Est t $ t ~ z 3 ~ 3to~~t ~ ~ e• si t N ' ' ' _ t3U St 1 ~ b k ~~k ta. urn x r 1 l a _ ='a .~-Z . •`S`9i'~" s7 'taro si i - .-ce- ~ - G `N-. 'arc, ~ a F 6~d roY ~ S l r ly ~ t m c _ zyf .aun 5"^ 0 ~-d t 6 t' . r,: c t $ / - ttu st. t ~ ~ a k$" tw- NO # -i 4 ? 9tt t _ wr s » s, ~t 3 rx. m sAr- ie J- W Consent Item 3G Page 37 ATTACHMENT D SOX T R AN S P O R T AT 10 N G R O UP MEMORANDUM To: Molly Winter From: Bill Fox Date: July 21, 2011 Project: Downtown Boulder DT-5 District Zoning Change Study Subject: Trip Generation Comparison for DT-5 Changes At your request we have prepared a set of preliminary trip generation estimates for the DT-5 District in downtown Boulder. under the following two land use scenarios: ® Existing zoning which allows a density bonus for residential development on upper floors Revised zoning that would allow a density bonus for commercial development on upper floors. We have then estimated the ability of the downtown street grid to accommodate the additional traffic. This approach is similar to that used previously when evaluating the impacts of the proposed land use changes in the Downtown Alliance rezoning project. Projected Additional Development: The land use projections for each scenario in the DT-5 zone have been provided by RRC Associates with intermediate year and buildout totals as follows: Scenario: Year 2012 - 2016 Year 2017 - 2021 Year 2022+ Total Existing Zoning • Dwelling 48 94 98 240 Units • Upper Floor 61,273 143,870 102,341 307,484 Commercial S q, Ft. Revised Zoning ® Dwelling 2 39 51 92 Units ® Upper Floor 183,844 303,319 261,730 748,893 Commercial S q. Ft. RO: Box 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 803078-2768. PHONE: 303-652-3571 ~ FAX: 303-772-3329 oFz 303-652-6574 Consent Item 3G Page 38 Ms. Molly Winter July 21, 2011 Page 2 of 3 These land use projections on the upper floors are in addition to a projected additional 240,000 sq. ft. of first floor commercial space in the DT-5 District. Trip Generation: An estimate of additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed new development in the DT-5 District has been made for each of the two zoning scenarios using the following key assumptions: ® Initial trip generation rates for residential, office, and retail uses were based on information in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. ITE rates for residential development are per dwelling unit, and for commercial development are per 1,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor area. Note that this methodology did not need to use the number of employees in the trip generation calculation since there may be some variability over time as to the assumed employee density per building area in downtown Boulder. • It was assumed that these ITE trip rates already account for or include an alternative mode use share of approximately 10% which is the approximate national average. ® Boulder specific alternative mode use factors were then applied based on recent surveys and discussions with Transportation staff as follows: - Downtown employee alternative mode trip reduction factor of 63% (this accounts for single occupant vehicle (SOV) access of 34% and 3% for multi-occupant vehicle (MOV) drivers). - Downtown resident alternative mode trip reduction factor of 73% (this is approximately twice the city-wide residential alternative mode use due to the downtown location, proximity to transit, and walkable destinations, etc.) - Both of the above Boulder specific trip reduction factors were them reduced by 10% to account for the above mentioned alternative mode use that is already included in the national average trip generation rates. The resultant trip generation estimates are detailed on the attached Table 1 for each planning horizon. On a daily basis, the buildout trip generation in the DT-5 zone is summarized as follows: Buildout traffic increase "s per day) in the DT-5 District. Zoning Upper Floor Emphasis Additional Trips Per Da Existing Residential 5,225 Revised Office 7,144 Increase due to zoning change: 1,919 includes ground floor development that is the same under either zoning alternative Consent Item 3G Page 39 Ms. Molly Winter July 21, 2011 Page 3 of 3 It can be seen that the revised zoning scenario (with more office space rather than residential) will generate less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day more than the existing zoning scenario. This is a relatively small traffic increase when compared to all of the traffic generated by the downtown area. For context, the Broadway / Canyon intersection alone currently serves over 50,000 vehicle trips per day. I anticipate that the downtown grid of streets will be able to accommodate the approximate 2,000 trip per day increase in traffic at buildout caused by the revised DT-5 zoning. It should also be noted that: • The alternative mode use in downtown Boulder is much higher than anywhere else in the City, particularly for employees. In fact, if the same increment of office space were to be added elsewhere in the City, we would anticipate that the additional traffic would be more than twice as high. • Even though the downtown area already leads the City in alternative mode share, there is also the highest potential to further reduce automobile use through transportation demand management (TDM) measures. The bike share program, the car share program, additional bus transit service, improvements to the 14th Street transit plaza, a new bike station, and more aggressive parking management and parking all have the potential to increase the downtown alternative mode share and further reduce automobile traffic. This is true not only for the incremental development in the DT-5 District, but also with the existing users in the downtown area. hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate. to call if you have any questions. WCFI Consent Item 3G Page 40 Downtown Boulder DT-5 District Zoning Change Study pox Table 1. Vehicle Trip Generation Estimate Comparing Existing Zoning (Residential) and Revised Zoning (Office) Year 2012 - 2016 Boulder Trip Paily Tfac AM Peak Hour Tmific PM Peak Hour T.M. Rate Adjustment Land Use ITE Code Size Unit Factor") Ratel'1 Total I. Out Rate 11 Total in Out Rate"' Total In Out Existing Zoning - Residential Apartment 220!223 48.0 Owetling Unit 0.37 6.65 118 59 59 0,56 10 2 8 0.62 11 7 4 Office 710 61.3 1,000 sq. R. 9.47 i1.61 317 159 158 1155 45 39 8 1.49 43 7 36 Total: 435 218 217 55 41 14, 54 14 40 Revised Zoning -Office Apartment 22=23 2.0 Dwelling Unit 0.37 6.65 5 3 2 0.56 0 0 0 0.62 0 6 0 Office 710 183.8 1,000sq. tL 0.47 71.01 951 476 475 1.55 134 118 i6 IA- 129 22 107 ToWI: 956 479 477 134 118 16 129 22 107 Dlffeiegee6ReviseBiMlnus Fitlsfin9: : '2: 3;E... . ..::'62'1': 261 ::260 , . : 1 R:. .79 .477. . ' 2 Year 2017-2021 Boulder Trip DaOy Traffic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Rate Adjustment Land Use Irecode SEze Unlt Factor{'} Rat lo Total fn Out Rate"' Total to Out Rat-(') Total out Existing Zoning -Residenf_iaf Apartmenti8 220f223 94.0 Uvetling Unit 0.37 5.65 231 146 115 0.56 19 4 75 0.62 22 14 8 offim 710 }43.9 #,000 Sq. R. 0.47 11.01 745 373 372 1.55 105 92 13 1.A9 10; 17 84 Total: 976 489 487 124 96 28 122 31 92 Revised Zoning - Ot6ce Apadmentf0 2201223 39.0 Dwelling U it 0.37 6.65 96 A6 48 0,55 8 2 6 0.62 9 fi 3 Omce 710 3D3.3 1,000 sq. R. 0.47 11.01 1,569 785 784 9.55 221 144 27 1.49 212 36 176 Total: 1,665 833 632 229 196 331 1 22142 179 . ..::664 • :344 '..:345 : A o -400 . 5 St9 s ; . Diff,etehce: -11V - _ RevisaAMinus ExisHn9 • " - - . Year 2022+ 'Boulder Trip Daily TmRic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Rate Adjustment Land Use ITE Code Size Unit Faetor"I Rate"1 Total In Out Rate") Total In Out Rate"" Total In Out Existing Zoning - Residential Apartment", 2201223 98.0 Dwelling Unit 037 6.85 241 121 120 0,56 20 4 160,62 22 1 5 7 dfFce 710 102.3 1,000 sq. R. 0.47 11.01 _ 529 265 264 1.55 75 66 9 1.49 72 12 60 Total: 770 386 384 95 70 25 94 27 67 Revised Zoning - OMce Apartment 2201223 51.0 Dwelling Unk 0.37 6.65 125 63 _62 __0.56 I1 2 9 0.62 12 8 d Office 710 261.7 1,000sq, ff. 0.47 1},01 1,354 677 677 1.55 191 168 23 1.49 183 31 152 ToWI:4,479 740 739,201 170 52 196 39 156 P1A8rerite:'Rev,ISeb:Mlnus Eit!stin(: ' - .w9 354 31117 777E 784- Total Year 2012 - 2022+ Boulder Trip Daily Traffic AM Peak Heur Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Rate Adjustment Land Use ITE Code sire Unit Factor", Ratelv Total In out Rata 7 Total In Out Rate(') Total in out Existing Zoning -Residential Apartment" 2201223 24D.0 Dwelling Unit 0.37 6.65 591 296 295 0.56 50 10 40 0.62 55 36 1g Office 710 307.5 1,000 Sq. R. 0.47 11.01 7,591 796 795 1.55 224 997 27 1.49 215 37 978 Total: 2,;82 1,092 1,090 274 207 671 1 270 73 197 Revised Zoning - Office Apartment 220!223 92.0 Dwelling Unit 0.37 6.65 226 173 113 0.56 19 4 15 0.62 21 14 7 Otltce 710 748.9 1,0005q. fl. 0,A7 5101 3,675 1,938 i,g37 9.55 546 480 66 524 84 435 , I, 1.49 I Total: 1,1G1 2,051 2,0501 1 565 4114 s1 546 103 442 D9ffeieniet Revtsed.Minus EiiisOne•. . _ _ ' is14 459 ,'.::460 - ' E: 291 ..::277 .~14 275 :.....30..::245 Ground Floor Commercial 820 120.0 1,000 sq. R. 0.47 42,94 2,422 1,211 1,211 9.1m 56 34 Z2 3.73 210 103 107 Ground Floor OfRce 790 720.0 3,000 sq. R. 0.47 11.01 621 319 310 1.55 87 77 10 1.49 84 14 70 Ground Floor Total: 3,043 1,522 1,5211_ 1 1441 11 32 ~2g4 :117 177 Tdid13Y-~~i„-2422; WIIh~£MIS81ig7e5>Aentlal,-zoc8n0"'=.. ~ _-6225. 2,6fA ,_~Sti ..w Ipt alY h, m 573 Lsedcarnrytgrt:jaizonPgg.-.___ - - 1. ITE trip generation rate 2. Using the higher of the ITE rates for Apartment (220) and Luxury CondofTownhome (233) 3. Trip rate adjustment factor based on Boulder specific alt. mode use data minus 10% to account for the national average all. mode use assumed in the national average trip generation rates. For example, Downtown employee alt. mode use (non-driver) of 63%. Therefore, factor= 1-0.63+0.10=0.47 Trip Oen-t-DTS.As Consent Item 3G Page 41 ATTACHMENT E CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES August 4, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Bill Holicky Willa Johnson Tim Plass Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Danica Powell STAFF PRESENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer Louise Grauer, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6.05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by M. Young, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved 5- 0 (B. Holicky recused, D. Powell absent) the July 7 Planning Board minutes, as amended. On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board approved 5-0 (A. Brockett abstained, D. Powell absent) the July 21 Planning Board minutes, as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Consent Item 3G Page 42 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Site Review for Height Modification Correction, LUR2011-00027, 809 Pine Street B. Floodplain Development Permit, LUR2010-00035, 3005 Arapahoe Ave. The board did not call up these items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the following proposed code changes downtown: 1. Add a 1.0 floor area addition for non-residential uses in conjunction with a housing linkage fee in the DT-5 zone district. 2. Add a 65-foot building setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right- of-way in zone districts P and DT-5, from 9th to 16th Streets. Staff Presentation L. Grauer and S. Assefa presented the item to the board. Public Hearing 1. Sean Maher, 3565 Catalpa, Boulder - Executive Director of Downtown Boulder, Inc. and Downtown Boulder's Business Improvement District (BID). Spoke in support of the staff recommendation due to the high demand of office space in a vibrant setting like downtown Boulder. 2. Chris Cornelius, 2331 Broadway, Boulder -Downtown Management Commission Board Member. Spoke in support of the staff recommendation. 3. Susan Graf, 2440 Pearl - President and CEI of the Boulder Chamber. Spoke in support of workforce housing and Class A office space and supports the staff recommendation. 4. Charles Hunker, 7318 Clubhouse Rd. - Retail business owner downtown and DBI Board Member, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. 5. Rich Majors, 2120 13th Street - Owner of 1580 Canyon site. Spoke to the impact of the 65' setback will have on his property and asked for a change in the rear yard setback due to the 20% loss in FAR. 6. Adrian Sopher, 3008 Folsom Street - Architect and consultant to Liquor Mart. Spoke in regards to the connections plan that could be extremely impactful due to the future connections. Board Discussion M. Young expressed concerned about the environmental impact that full build out will have, as it will generate an additional 2,000 car trips totally 4,500 additional tons of metric tons of C02, per the EPA website. A. Shoemaker and T. Plass will support the staff recommendation. A. Shoemaker responded to M. Young's comment that downtown Boulder was designed to hold more of those car trips versus the suburbs due to the high level of alternate mode use. He felt this conversion will add to the Boulder brand, create additional community and help Boulder transform from a bedroom community into a vibrant community hub. T. Plass liked the approach to create an overall vision downtown, as opposed to changing for one parcel. He expressed concerns that the linkage fee needs to be set at an appropriate level, but supports the change to allow office space in DT-5 for the same maximum FAR as residential uses. Consent Item 3G Page 43 W. Johnson was concerned for the loss of affordable development funds, but also feels that the city should be flexible to the market conditions. She likes the idea of a sunset provision, as she would like to see more of a mix with residential. B. Holicky expressed concerns about creating a downtown without residential and doesn't agree that planning should be contingent on market conditions. He would rather the City took a longer term view and doesn't agree that Boulder is a bedroom community since 56,000 people commute into Boulder. He felt that the city needs to create more housing, not more jobs. He would favor the 0.5 floor area addition for office use, since he feels that if development provides all office use at the higher FAR, it could be a detriment to the core. A. Brockett agreed with B. Holicky. He felt this change makes the code flexible to the market, helps create a more vibrant core in downtown and he would not want to take it away the flexibility due to the pendulum swing that could happen again between residential and commercial. On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by A. Brockett, the Planning Board recommended approval (6-0, D. Powell absent) for the Planning Board to support the proposed code changes for City Council consideration and action with respect to code changes DT-5 FAR bonus for commercial. M. Young would like a sunset provision to review code change and make adjustments, as needed. A. Shoemaker would not support it as a friendly amendment. W. Johnson proposed a sunset at 2015. A. Shoemaker rejected it. M. Young proposed a resolution to revisit the change in code at the end of three years to review how well the commercial uses and linkage fee are working and seeing if it needs any adjustments. W. Johnson felt that three years wasn't enough time and, in turn, suggested five years. A. Shoemaker seconded it and requested staff report back with all the data so that the city council could reconsider. Staff noted that every program that every single FAR project would come to planning board. On a motion by M. Young, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board recommended approval of a resolution to revisit the DT-5 change in five years to review how well it is working. (4-2) D. Powell absent, B. Holicky and A. Brockett opposed). On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended approval (6-0, D. Powell absent) to support codify a 65-foot setback from the centerline of canyon blvd right of wad from 0th to 16th streets for properties in the public (p) or DT-5 zones. B. Floodplain 101 Presentation and Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9-3 "Overlay Districts", Section 9-16-1 "Definitions." B.R.C. 981 to Amend Floodplain Regulations in Order to Protect Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations in the 500- and 100-year Floodplains. Staff Presentation K. Knapp gave a presentation to the board on Floodplain 101. C. Coleman presented the item to the board. Consent Item 3G Page 44 Public Hearing 1. Susan Graf, 2440 Pearl Street - spoke to a concern that there hasn't been a good public comment on the process and asked for more time to allow more businesses to review and give input. 2. John Tayer, 4310 Ludlow Street- asked for the PB to postpone any action on this until there is more time to review and comment since they did not get the ordinance until 3:00 p.m. today. Board Discussion The board discussed with the Deputy City Attorney, staff and public about the process the recommended code changes took and the best way to move forward to help meet everyone's needs. On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved (6-0, D. Powell absent) the proposed code changes for City Council consideration and action, as shown in Attachment A, with any necessary wordsmithing, as recommended by all parties. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. S. Richstone discussed the agenda for the Joint Planning Board/Landmarks Board meeting on August 18. B. D. Driskell gave an update of the Energy Futures project. C. Date for the Joint PB/BDAB tour - 3rd Thursday in September 22, 4:30 p.m. 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. APPROVED BY _ 0 Board Chair DATE Consent Item 3G Page 45 Attachment F DRAFT Boulder Design Advisory Board (BDAB) Meeting Agenda Summary July 13, 2011 Topics of discussion: 1. Proposed DT-5 Code & Guideline changes 2. BDAB Roles and Responsibilities Proposed DT-5 Code Changes:.5 or 1.0 FAR for Non-residential Use • Generally agreed with proposed changes. 65' Setback • Generally agreed that the 65' supplemental setback from the centerline of the ROW of Canyon Blvd. on the ground floor, with allowance for upper floor projections into the setback was good. • All agreed codifying it was OK in opposed to having it in the Design Guidelines. Upper Floor Projection over Ground Floor Arcade BDAB had several questions and issues with codifying the upper floor projection over the first floor "arcade" from a design and land use perspectives, including the following: • A "descriptive" guideline that is more flexible in opposed to "prescriptive" design guidelines would be appropriate to guide the design, scale and character of the arcade. • The focus of the guidelines should be more on the character of the "public realm", i.e., sidewalks, landscaping, trees, etc., rather than on the buildings. • Consider a variety of ceiling heights for the arcade, anywhere from 14' to 18' height. • Consider a variety of column spacing such as 10' wide spacing (which works with standard architectural modules & parking spacing) of spacing, and other spacing that would help express the 25' lot pattern currently in the Design Guidelines. • Expressed concern about non-active ground floor land uses such as banks that would not activate the arcade as opposed to retail uses. • Some felt since existing retail spaces at One Boulder Plaza are not doing well, there is no reason to believe that retail will thrive along Canyon, especially with less visibility due to the arcade. • Others felt we should be designing for the next 50 years and not be constrained by current economic or other conditions since the area would be much denser in the future and could attract more retail. • There was also concern that because the arcade would be in the shade, whether that pace would be desirable form retail as well as pedestrian Consent Item 3G Page 46 • An arcade concept for a "market-place" type of uses would be desirable, and it could work well at the City site at 13th & Canyon. • Concern about whether an arcade along the north side of buildings would be desirable since it would be in the shade. • BDAB members asked to have various examples of arcades from other places, and that we comeback to them with various options and recommendations regarding the arcade concept. BDAB Roles and Responsibilities • Elected David Biek to serve as the chair. • Agreed to have minutes taken by staff in a summary format which the Chair and board members would discuss and approve at the end of each meeting. • Staff to highlight sections of guidelines relevant to the specific review of projects in advance. • The Tuesday before BDAB meeting, the chair to discuss agenda with staff to prioritize the order of review and time. • Asked to have some involvement at various stages of project review as appropriate. For example, an early concept level review just on building massing and placement, and a later review on architecture and design. • Want to have a joint PB/BDAB site tour for buildings to evaluate/discussion what worked and didn't work. • Suggested creating an ongoing documentation to evaluate the guidelines to identify those that do not work or are contrary to current design goals and objectives, but exist in the current Guidelines. Consent Item 3G Page 47 ATTACHMENT G 900 Walnut St. 1050 Walnut St. 1877 Broadway 1800 N. Broadway & 1801 13th St. 1360 Walnut St. 1495 Canyon Blvd, & 1470 Walnut St. F.A. R.1.27 F.A. R.: 4.0 F.A. R.: 2.77 F.A. R.: 2.19 F.A. R.: 2.2 F.A. R.1.66 s ik c cA a 30-T-INa STS is PEARL U1 ST' J _ A CANYON g~V IPA ~ y w~► NOA A Air mi" _ •c ARAPAHOE AVE. . -%K-41110 L - i 1095 Canyon Blvd. 1155 Canyon Blvd. 1300 Walnut St. 1301 Canyon Blvd. 1800-180214th St. 182015th St. + 1 F.A. R.: 2.4 F.A. R.: 2.2 F.A. R.:1.74 F.A, R.: 2.53 F.A. R.:1.67 F.A. R.1.0 N -ILI Average F.A.R.: 2.15 Existing FARs North Side of Canyon Boulevard Consent Item 3G Page 48 City of Boulder Capital Improvements Program Unfunded Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Downtown Farmer's Market Facility Department: DUHMD Subcommunity: Central Boulder Funding Source: Round 2 - 2012 CIP Bond Project BVCPArea: Category: New Idea CEAP Required: NO CEAP Completed: 1 Project Description: With the proposed consolidation of IT and the possible relocation of remaining city staff from the Atrium, this project proposes that the Atrium facility be converted for year-round use for a farmers' market. Costs identified include some minor demolition with the majority of tenant-desired modifications becoming a tenant responsibility. Relationship to Guiding Principals: 47-CIP should - promote community partnerships. With locally grown foods becoming more important for promoting health, sustainability and local businesses, a year-round need for a Farmer's Market and a facility to house that need is desired in the community. The Atrium building, which is on 13th Street, adjacent to the current Farmer's Market, can provide this need for the community and expand and extend the availability of locally grown food to Boulder citizens. Public Process Status, Issues: Siting and planning reviews would be required. Relationship with Other Departments: Project would be coordinated with FAM and Parks and Recreation. along with OSMP real estate for lease negotiations. Est Total Cost Annual On-going Operating Costs $100,000 $0 Description: Assumption is that tenant would be responsible for all costs in operating, maintaining, repair, renovations, and replacement of building components. Source of Funding: City of Boulder Capital Improvements Program Unfunded Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Downtown Civic Use Building along Canyor Department: DUHMD Subcommunity: Central Boulder Funding Source: Round 2 - 2012 CIP Bond Project BVCPArea: Category: High-Priority Action Plan CEAP Required: nJp CEAP Completed: Project Description: The proposal is to provide the funding for the exterior of a public/private facility at the civic use pad. Since 1998, the potential has existed for a civic facility at the pad adjacent to the St. Julien Hotel. The civic use is a requirement (expiring in 2020) of the Urban Renewal Plan for the site. While several organizations have explored the potential of a facility at this site, no building has materialized. The 4th Civic Use Task Force, appointed by the City Manager, presented a recommendation to City Council in May 2010 to re-envision the site with a new approach called the "layer cake." Given the inability of organizations to financially undertake the construction and operations, the task force proposed that a strategy that would make the project feasible financially by breaking down the components of the project in order to facilitate the project including allowing complimentary and compatible private uses, such as an art cinema or additional hotel meeting space. The rationale is that revenue from the private uses could help subsidize "civic uses" within the facility. Relationship to Guiding Principals: Public Process Status, Issues: The city manager appointed 4th Civic Use Task Force comprised of two city council members and representatives from the downtown, the arts, Planning Board and the community to make recommendations to City Council regarding the liability of creating a civic use on the pad adjacent to the St. Julien Hotel. Relationship with Other Departments: Est Total Cost Annual On-going Operating Costs SO SO Description: The goal is to have the ongoing operating costs of the Civic Use facility to be covered by the private and civic uses within the building. Source of Funding: