Meeting Packet - University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission - 09/19/2012
UNIVERSITY HILL COMMERCIAL AREA MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - September 19, 2012
COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 1777 BROADWAY - 9 AM
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Election of Officers
3. Approval of the August 15, 2012 Minutes
4. Police Update
5. Public Participation
6. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Make a Recommendation to City
Council of the Downtown and University Hill Management, Parking Services 2013
Budget
7. Update on 14th Street Public/Private Redevelopment - Michael Boyers
8. Update on Alcohol/Land Use Code Change Project
9. UHNA Update
10. CUSG Update
11. Parking Services Update
12. Matters from the Commissioners
13. Matters from Staff
• Pro Cycling Race Update
• Hill Revitalization Update:
o Residential Service District
Attachments
• Police Stats - August 2012
• Update on Alcohol/Land Use Code Change Project
• DUHMD/PS 2013 Recommended Budget
DUHMD/PS 2012 Priorities UHCAMC 2012 Priorities
Univeneity Hill Revitalization Support the Residential Service District
• Support for creation of a Residential Service District • Support Capital Improvement Funding for the
• Innovation District/Organizational Options Commercial Area
• 14'h Street Lot Redevelopment • Support the Hill Ownership Group
• Round 2 Capital Investment Strategy Projects • Support Creative District
Parking
• Signage Project and Downtown Garage Improvements
• Technology Enhancements
• Access/Parking Management Strategy
Downtown Capital Projects
• 15" Street (Canyon to Arapaho) Streetscape Design and
Implementation
• West Pearl Streetscape Design
• Pearl Street Mall Interactive Kiosks
• Civic Use Pad Recommendations
• Civic Park Master Plan participation
Boulder Junction
• Access Districts (Parking and TDM) Implementation
• Depot Square Parking Garage
o District Parking Spaces
o District Management
• Public Space Management
Events
• Pearl Street Mall 35h Anniversary (August)
• Pro Cycling Challenge August 24-26
Mission Statement: We serve the downtown, University hill and affected communities by providing quality program, parking enforcement,
maintenance and altemative modes services through the highest level of customer service, el icient management and effective problem solving.
t
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HILL POLICE CALL STATISTICS
MONTH Assault Auto Theft Burglary Crim. Mis. Crim. Tres. Disturbance Domestic Drunk DUI Felon Menacing Fight
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
January 5 8 6 4 11 16 14 10 5 5 15 11 10 1 7 6 4 4 12 3
February 6 7 3 3 7 19 15 12 2 3 10 8 5 4 13 15 4 3 3 6
March 9 1 4 20 43 18 23 1 11 5 15 2 1 9 10 2 3 1 4 11
April 12 5 4 6 24 15 30 25 7 9 13 13 3 3 14 14 6 7 2 12 6
May 1 6 2 1 17 17 32 23 11 3 14 16 4 8 11 10 12 8 8 5
June 5 3 2 15 13 17 11 5 3 7 13 5 2 5 13 3 3 4 2
July 5 2 1 2 9 14 18 16 3 5 13 5 3 4 13 6 3 3 3 1
August 4 6 5 5 19 13 23 19 7 4 14 12 1 1 16 7 7 4 13 6
September 10 2 23 27 2 13 2 18 3 7
October 10 2 22 32 4 16 7 11 2 1 10
November 8 2 19 25 1 13 4 13 4 8
December 4 2 5 8 4 8 4 10 2 4
MONTH Fireworks Harassment Hill Noise Indec. Exp. Liq. Law Vio. Loitering Narcotics Noise Open Door Party Prowler
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
January 3 2 4 10 48 39 1 22 1 2 1 10 9 2 2 1 2
February 2 1 5 3 65 31 1 13 3 3 2 2 8 16 1 2 4 3 4
March 5 4 7 3 28 72 3 3 28 1 5 10 13 14 3 2 1 1 3
April 10 6 3 4 60 70 1 1 3 3 2 5 17 29 1 3 5 1 4 4
May 15 6 9 10 66 85 1 1 1 2 1 31 20 1 2 3 1 1
June 12 12 3 8 69 81 2 3 4 1 4 28 21 2 4
July 83 17 4 4 41 53 1 1 1 1 1 3 18 13 1 1 1 4 4
August 15 7 3 3 86 47 1 5 12 2 2 2 2 38 23 2 1 1 5 2
September 9 7 119 30 4 4 36 2 1
October 2 5 67 4 6 1 4 32 1 6
November 1 5 32 11 1 9 2 3
December 2 5 24 2 4 6 1 4
MONTH Robbery Sex Assault Shots Stabbing Suicide Suspicious Theft Threats Trespass Weapon Welfare Ck
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
January 2 1 2 1 8 10 18 18 1 11 7 13 6
February 1 8 12 10 17 1 1 7 11 7 19
March 1 1 1 1 1 3 10 13 22 4 2 6 15 1 4 12 7
April 1 1 3 11 5 23 15 2 1 12 8 1 17 9
Mav 1 2 1 1 1 12 10 17 25 2 2 11 7 1 8 6
June 1 2 3 1 9 10 21 20 1 2 9 8 1 11 13
July 1 1 2 2 1 10 4 22 15 2 2 4 8 1 3 7 12
August 1 1 2 3 1 10 10 23 25 1 1 16 11 1 13 8
September 1 2 3 1 8 24 14 19
October 7 7 35 4 15 13
November 4 1 2 27 3 12 2 10
December 1 4 9 9 1 5 4
a~ ~ o
ofi gory
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: Update on Alcohol Land Use Code Changes and request for
feedback onoptions moving forward.
PRESENTERS:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Susan Richstone, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager for Community Planning and
Sustainability
Karl Guiler, Planner It/Zoning Code Amendment Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to provide City Council with an update on alcohol/land use code
issues and to seek council input related to some proposed options for code changes. In 2004, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 960 (see Attachment A), which expressed the city's
recognition that it has a role in addressing the overconsumption of alcohol as an important
health, safety, and welfare issue in the community. To counter this complex behavioral issue,
the city has taken a multi-faceted approach including ongoing coordination between the Police
Department, the Beverage Licensing Authority (BLA), University of Colorado (CU), the CU
Campus-Community Coalition, the Municipal Judge, Responsibility Hospitality Group (RHG)
and neighborhood organizations to reduce the negative societal impacts of alcohol abuse. These
endeavors continue and include, but are not limited to:
1. Police Department efforts to patrol high incident areas and special events, respond to
nuisance parties, enforce underage drinking laws, enforcement against the use of fake
IDs, ID checks at bars and liquor stores, education to sellers about the legal impacts of
selling to minors, increased patrols near off-campus parties, among a variety of other
enforcement programs.
2. The Police Department continues to use sobriety check points at various times of the year
and/or after certain events.
3. Boulder Police also work to educate students on the impacts of alcohol abuse, including
but not limited to presentations and distribution of pamphlets.
Packet page number 71 Agenda Item 6C 1
4. Coordination between the City of Boulder Police Department and the University of
Colorado Police Department.
5. BLA efforts to increase penalties and enforcement against establishments that violate
laws related to serving under-aged patrons, conduct of licensed establishment, annual
license renewals, and over-service of alcohol.
6. BLA license conditions for state-approved alcohol service training for hospitality staff.
7. BLA focus on RHG membership so that members might have information on available
advanced education for specialty training on security, false IDs and best practices.
8. Housing and Human Services (HHS) participation with the Boulder County Public
Health in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
9. HHS collaboration with the Mental Health Center serving Broomfield and Boulder
counties and the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) to place intervention specialists
in City of Boulder middle and high schools.
10. Educational outreach and awareness by a number of community organizations including
the CU/City oversight committee, RHG and AACT (Addressing Alcohol Concerns
Together), which is a coalition composed of city, county, university, and community
leaders, which work together to examine and alleviate the negative impacts of
irresponsible alcohol consumption.
11. RHG training on best practices to reduce alcohol-related incidents and refusing service to
intoxicated patrons.
12. Promotion of alcohol-free events and settings and more strict control of alcohol at
sporting events.
13. Outreach to license holders and students regarding Party Smart.
14. Stricter enforcement of alcohol infractions, including quick action by the university's
Student Conduct committee, which can ticket students and may require students to attend
special courses on living more harmoniously in the community.
15. Visitation by the Off-Campus Housing and Neighborhood Relations group to houses that
pose problems and promotion of responsible living on the Hill through distribution of
flyers.
16. Work by the CU Parents Association and Office of Parent Relations to educate parents
about how they can communicate with their children on roles and responsibilities of
students as neighbors.
17. Updates and regular coordination of the Coalition for Responsible Community, which is
composed of University Administrators, City Police, Fire and Code Enforcement
officials, CU Police and Greek organizations.
One of the many other factors in addressing alcohol consumption in the community is local
zoning regulation, which can inform the placement, hours of operation and operational
characteristics of establishments that serve alcohol. Staff developed a work program in 2010 that
anticipated completion of land use code changes in 2011. Due to other prioritized work program
items and an increase in development review applications in 2010 and 2011, progress on the
proposed Land Use Code changes was slowed, although some progress has occurred since the
last update to council. The progress to date will be detailed later in this memo.
This discussion is also particularly timely based on the recent City Council call-up and denial of
the La'au's Taco Shop Use Review application at 1335 Broadway (see the weblinks below):
Packet page number 72 Agenda Item 6C 2
4 March 7, 2012 public hearing on the La'au's Use Review:
hup:l .huuldercc~lc~radu.~~u~' tiles Cit~`;U~OC'0uncil .lgcndasl2012;03072012A,rrnda A~!e
nda 03072012Website.pdf
4 April 3, 2012 adoption of finds of denial for La'au's Use Review:
hull:! w~~~~.huuld~rroluraclu.~_u~ lilesiCitv1'•r,20CC0unCIl Aeendas 201? 0403?012At enda,'04.
03.2012 FINAL Atzenda Packet.pdf
City Council input and direction is being sought to prioritize potential code changes identified in
previous community and council discussions. These include:
• Zoning code changes to the Use Review process and potential new definitions related to
establishments that serve alcohol that would apply city wide, and
• Implementation of targeted code changes to reduce or limit alcohol-serving establishments
on University Hill.
Based on council input and direction, prioritized code changes will be developed for
consideration and adoption, including community outreach and notification as appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed land use code changes are a part of the Community Planning and Sustainability
work program.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
• Economic: Resulting land use regulations may potentially have an impact on where certain
types of establishments that sell alcohol may be located and the density of such uses.
Prohibition or additional restrictions on establishments in certain areas of the city (e.g.,
University Hill) could have a negative economic impact to local business, the vitality of the
areas and revitalization opportunities.
• Environmental: None.
• Social: Resolution 960, adopted by council in October 2004, recognizes that the city has a
responsibility to provide leadership in addressing the critical issues of health, safety and well-
being stemming from alcohol abuse and can influence policies, regulations and enforcement.
To date, city work efforts have been focused in the areas of beverage licensing, code
enforcement, land use, trend analysis, human services and community education.
BACKGROUND:
Following adoption of Resolution No. 960 (Attachment A) on Oct. 19, 2004, the city convened
the Land Use Alcohol Advisory Group (LUAAG) to discuss the issue of overconsumption of
alcohol in the community from a zoning perspective. City Council provided the following
goal/direction on the issue:
Moclify city policies and regulations in order to reduce overconsumption of alcohol in the
community, allow for congenial places for people to socialize, keep people safe, and
minimize impacts to adjacent uses.
Packet page number 73 Agenda Item 6C 3
On April 14, 2009, City Council held a study session regarding alcohol abuse prevention. The
purpose of the study session was to obtain council's feedback on goals and objectives related to
the role of land use regulations and beverage licensing in alcohol abuse prevention; to identify
which land use and beverage licensing options to analyze further; and to ask if council would
support initiation of a larger alcohol abuse prevention strategy with other partners in the
community. A copy of the summary of the study session can be found as a part of Attachment B
and the goals and objectives are listed below:
• Recognize distinctions between high risk and low risk types of licensed alcohol
establishments;
• Avoid locating high risk types of licensed establishments near residential
neighborhoods, the university and within mixed use developments;
• Minimize external impacts of high risk type licensed establishments; restrict high risk
uses to defined areas where their impacts can be contained, and education, enforcement
and policing efforts coordinated (i.e., the "Concentration" policy model);
• Allow for congenial places for people to socialize that add vitality to existing and
planned centers in the community.
• Support the city's long-standing policies and city structure that promote a
variety of regional, subcommunity and neighborhood activity centers distributed
throughout the community in focused nodes of concentrated activities and with efficient
delivery of services (e.g., police and transportation).
• Provide clarity and predictability for residents and business owners about where
different types of alcohol establishments are allowed and what rules will apply.
• Provide review processes that address all the issues while minimizing conflicts between
business owners and residents.
At the study session, council directed staff to:
• Declare the work of Land Use Alcohol Advisory Group (LUAAG) complete. While
instructive, the LUAAG project was dissolved following the outcome of the Thunderbird
Burgers, LLC v. City of Boulder, et. al. case where it was found that the city had no
authority in regulating the specific hours that alcohol could be served. As much of the
preliminary work focused on alcohol service, no regulatory changes resulted.
• Develop a work program to create policy and code changes to implement a
"Concentration Model" for location of high-risk licensed establishments, and new use
definitions and standards for high-risk licensed establishments.
• Establish a new community working group to assist staff in developing the specific
regulatory changes.
ANALYSTS:
Since the last update to City Council in March 2010, there has been some progress to report
ranging from on-going community-wide initiatives to address overconsumption, research on peer
community regulations on how each city addresses alcohol serving establishments, receiving
input from the community working group and taking the group's input and implementing process
Packet page number 74 Agenda Item 6C 4
improvements. Ideas for code changes were also identified by the group and it is these points that
staff is seeking specific City Council input. These potential code changes are discussed in the
`Options for Consideration' section that follows this section. This section will expand upon the
work that is discussed above.
On-2oine community-wide initiatives: The following initiatives are routine and involve a
variety of community organizations:
• Restart work with the Alcohol Advisory Group for a holistic review of city endeavors to
address alcohol abuse. The Alcohol Advisory Group consists of city staff from a variety
of departments (City Manager's Office, Finance, Boulder Police Department, Planning
and Development Services, Downtown and University Hill Management Division and
Parking Services, Municipal Courts, University of Colorado) that meet on a regular basis
to review data regarding alcohol and quality of life violations in order to monitor trends
and identify potential problem areas. Staff can then communicate the information to the
appropriate organization and take proactive measures if needed.
• Maintain connections with the local Responsible Hospitality Group to broaden the
effectiveness of government by working with outside individuals and understanding
license holder perspectives. (Responsible Hospitality Group is a membership
organization of Boulder-area alcohol license holders that focuses on best practices within
the hospitality industry, provides a forum and advocacy group for the industry and
provides educational and mentoring programs to their members. A representative
regularly attends the BLA meetings).
• Continue outreach meetings to the community. Outreach meetings are held regularly
with all new liquor license holders to communicate with and educate new owners about
the city's regulations and Responsible Hospitality Group programs. The outreach team
includes members from the City of Boulder - Boulder Police Department, Downtown and
University Hill Management Division/Parking Services, Liquor Licensing - and a
representative of the Responsible Hospitality Group. The goal is to help make the
establishment successful.
Peer Community Research: In addition to initiatives discussed above, staff researched
previously identified peer communities with similar populations and university settings to see if
any have unique and useful regulations that address late night establishments and/or
establishments that serve alcohol.
The following communities were contacted: 1) Eugene, OR; 2) Palo Alto, CA; 3) Santa Cruz,
CA; 4) Santa Barbara, CA; 5) Tempe, AZ; 6) Fort Collins, CO; 7) Norman, OK; 8) Madison,
W1; 9) Ann Arbor, MI; 10) Provo, UT; 11) Colorado Springs, CO; 12) Goleta, CA; 13) Denver,
CO, and 14) Lincoln, NE. A matrix that discusses each city and their approaches to the issue is
found in Attachment C.
The findings of this research are listed as follows:
Packet page number 75 Agenda Item 6C 5
• Community regulations ranged from very little specific regulations on alcohol establishments
to very restrictive regulations that do not permit establishments to earn more than 50% of
their profits from alcohol sales (i.e., Palo Alto, CA).
• Most communities have a conditional use permit requirement similar to Boulder's Use
Review. Communities have heard similar complaints about the subjectivity of the approval
criteria. Boulder's requirements are more focused on neighborhood involvement and
preparation of management plans than most communities.
• Most communities have better definitions of different alcohol establishments as compared to
Boulder. Tempe, AZ, zoning regulations, for example, are linked with the state definition for
liquor license types.
• Few communities have specific regulations on alcohol establishments versus other uses. The
one community that has extensive regulations is Santa Cruz, CA. Uses are differentiated
between "high" risk and "low" risk. Some of the standards could be helpful, but most
seemed somewhat subjective and unnecessary (e.g., requirement for security guards and/or
cameras).
• Other than having less restrictive requirements for bars in downtown areas, no clear
examples of "concentration" models were found. Provo, UT, only permits "stand alone" bars
in its central business district, which concentrates the uses. However, Provo is considering
changing its regulations to become similar to Palo Alto's restriction on alcohol sales. Several
communities have dispersal requirements (e.g., Colorado Springs, CO, Lincoln, NE, Santa
Cruz, CA). At present, based on existing zoning that concentrates commercial areas within
Boulder's downtown, University Hill and the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC), the
city already functions under a "concentration" model.
Community working Eroup: Staff twice convened a community working group consisting of
members of the University Hill neighborhood, the University of Colorado, Beverage Licensing
Authority members, and members of the hospitality industry, including business owners on the
Hill. While there was not consensus on all issues, the following perspectives were useful in
determining what land use code changes could be effective:
Hospitality perspective:
• Focus should be on creating clear and predictable (transparent) regulations and/or
standards on zoning regulations/liquor licenses.
• Frustration from the hospitality industry about the lack of certainty in investing in
locations where zoning entitlements are discretionary (i.e., Use Review) and are
dependent on neighborhood reception.
• Frustration about the prospect of additional regulations on an already difficult process.
• There is lack of clarity and no consistency between management plans.
• Process for zoning and liquor licenses should be more checklist-based, providing step-by-
step clarification of process.
• City needs clear definitions for establishments that serve liquor.
Packet page number 76 Agenda Item 6C 6
• Businesses should be allowed to change and adapt to stay marketable and vibrant;
management plans and conditions inhibit adaptability.
Neighborhood perspective:
• Neighborhood meetings are not working.
• Complaints are minimal about establishments because people are either too busy, are
weary of the city's process, or are intimidated by business owners.
• Businesses should have "operational business licenses" that require renewal after a
certain period of time to make sure business are still consistent with their management
plans and conditions of approval.
• Regular reviews of approvals are needed for establishments that serve liquor.
• Take burden off of neighbors to be the watch dogs. City needs to intervene.
• Residents should have responsibility to report violations and then the city should act,
similar to how people report fires and firefighters fight fires.
• There's an over concentration of liquor establishments in certain areas of the city and
restaurants evolve into bars from 1 I p,m. to 2 a.m.
Key issues:
• The interest in greater clarity of management plans and process and more helpful
neighborhood meetings.
• Lack of enforcement - follow up needs to be improved.
The group agreed that:
• There is no "silver bullet" to solve the behavioral problems associated with alcohol abuse
and that there is substantially a high compliance rate among restaurants and bars within
the City of Boulder.
• Adding superfluous regulations will not solve the "problem" of alcohol abuse and may be
ineffective in addressing the issues singularly.
• The coordination between the city's Planning Department and the Beverage Licensing
Authority (BLA) should be improved to create more predictability for the hospitality
industry and neighbors, and standard management plans and checklists should be used
between Planning and BLA. More predictability (and clarity) was one of the goals of
City Council. Different management plans could be drafted for different types of alcohol
establishments and would include questions used by planning and BLA to understand
individual operating characteristics. A checklist of all the steps required from Use
Review to liquor license could be created for the use of all stakeholders.
• Follow-up methods should be explored. For instance, a procedure could be created that
would trigger re-evaluation of approved Use Reviews if a certain number of substantiated
complaints were received indicating that a business was not complying with its approved
management plan and/or conditions of approval.
Packet page number 77 Agenda Item 6C 7
• Adding additional definitions for different types of alcohol establishments may be useful
in cases where a restaurant may evolve into a bar or tavern in evening hours. This could
be used to initiate Use Review or address violations of approved Use Reviews. This also
adds clarity to the review process for staff and the community.
Process Improvements: Based on the input from the Community Working Group staff intends
to make the following process improvements that would apply city-wide:
• Require more effective and consistent management plans and conditions of approval for
higher impact uses. Management plans could be more standardized and specifically
tailored to different types of alcohol establishments.
• Enhance BLA's role and coordination with Planning. Presently, the Use Review process
in the Department of Community Planning and Sustainability is separate from the
subsequent liquor license review of BLA. The principal reason for this is that State law
does not permit submittal of a liquor license until all zoning approvals are obtained. Staff
could explore methods for a better coordinated BLA liquor license review of Use Review
applications. Staff agrees that improvements could be made by aligning the public
noticing process for Use Review and BLA applications, as well as standardizing
checklists, application materials and handouts. BLA has also provided separate input on
methods to address overconsumption as outlined in Attachment D.
• Increased enforcement against businesses that are not following their management plans
and/or conditions of Use Review approval. While complaints about establishments are
not necessarily frequent, the city can increase its enforcement powers on any
establishments and potentially revoke Use Review approvals and / or take action against
individual liquor licenses. Increased enforcement would likely entail more focused police
presence at certain times in problem areas and would likely require additional staff
resources.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
In combination with the broad multi-agency approaches to address overconsumption in the
community discussed within this memorandum, staff is seeking City Council direction on the
options below. These options specifically entail changes to the Land Use Code.
Implement code changes that would apply city-wide:
A. Use Review Monitoring: One of the suggestions from the Community Working Group
was to require a form of follow-up after a Use Review is granted. This follow up could
occur as a neighborhood meeting within a certain period of time after a Use Review is
approved (e.g, one year) and a use begins operation or a requirement that Use Reviews
require periodic renewals.
i) Follow-ups: Follow-ups would be an opportunity to have the neighborhood and
city evaluate how the use is operating according to its management plan and
whether the conditions of approval are being followed, Establishments that are not
Packet page number 78 Agenda Item 6C 8
following its plan or conditions would be required to make changes or updates to
address identified issue or risk losing their Use Review approval.
ii) Renewals: Renewals could be required periodically (e.g., every three years) to
evaluate how an establishment is operating in accordance to its management plan
and conditions of approval. As opposed to the option above, which would include
one follow-up, renewals every couple years would keep the establishment on
notice that its approval is not necessarily permanent and is contingent on its
efforts to harmoniously operate within its surroundings.
Both of these options would require additional staff resources with the likelihood of more
repeat Use Review applications and enforcement involvement. Better notice of
community hearings and improved coordination between Use Review and liquor
licensing timing of hearings would also be undertaken. A combination of these process
improvements and repeat applications would likely require additional fund allocation for
Planning and BLA for additional staff resources. To reduce impact to resources, another
option would be require these processes in higher impact areas where residential uses are
proximate (e.g., University Hill, East and West Pearl Street) rather than city wide.
B. Add new zoning definitions for different types of alcohol serving establishments:
Presently, the City of Boulder zoning code does not differentiate between restaurants,
bars or taverns and regulates them uniformly. Adding new zoning definitions to
differentiate establishments by level of potential impact was an option discussed by the
Community Working Group. As stated in the `Peer Community Research' section,
several different peer communities have a wider array of more prescriptive definitions
(e.g., restaurant, bar or tavern, night club etc.) that help differentiate "high impact"
establishments from "low impact" establishments and enable a more effective review of
potential impacts. Typically, higher impact establishments would be those that serve a
greater amount of alcohol, including hard alcohol, and may have late hours of operation.
Definitions could also link different types of establishments specifically to liquor license
types.
Implement targeted code changes to reduce or limit alcohol-serving establishments on
University Hill:
During its consideration of the La'aus Use Review application, City Council expressed concern
that:
(a) there is an over concentration of late night establishments on University Hill that serve
alcohol; and
(b) University Hill is a focal point for the problems related to overconsumption of alcohol
largely due to the number- of late night and alcohol serving establishments in close proximity
to residential neighborhoods.
Based on this, a more focused approach on University Hill may be necessary to address the
concerns related to alcohol establishments in that area to maintain compatibility between the
uses, which is a primary purpose of zoning review.
Packet page number 79 Agenda Item 6C 9
There are two approaches that could be taken to reduce or limit alcohol-serving establishments
on University Hill: one tied to the liquor license waiver around the University of Colorado and
the city's existing ordinance, which establishes that waiver from state law; the other connected to
land use code and zoning regulations. Both approaches have several options that could be
considered. Both approaches and their related options are described below. While these
approaches may not necessarily represent the "concentration model" previously identified as a
preferred approach to managing alcohol service and consumption, they respond directly to
concerns that have been expressed by council and the community during the past year.
A. Revoke or modify the 500-foot liquor license waiver around the University of
Colorado:
In 1987, state liquor laws changed the minimum drinking age for 3.2% beer from 18 to
21. In response, existing businesses licensed to serve 3.2% beer on University Hill
became concerned that their liquor licenses would no longer be valid since most were
within 500 feet of the University of Colorado (and the state law prohibits the sale of
alcohol within 500 feet of a school or university).
In response, City Council approved Ordinance 5069 in September 1987, waiving the
500-foot requirement for the principal campus of the University of Colorado, making
establishments located within 500 feet of the university eligible for Hotel & Restaurant
Licenses (HR). The HR license type was chosen because of a requirement that 25% of
revenues be in food sales. Nevertheless, the category is a full service liquor license (wine,
beer, hard alcohol).
i.) Revocation of the 5007foot liquor license waiver: Revocation of the 500-foot
liquor license waiver would result in no additional liquor licenses being issued
within 500-feet of the university. Existing establishments would be grandfathered
and could transfer their liquor licenses to future tenants. This option would:
(a) address the concern about overconcentration of establishments on the Hill that
sell alcohol; and
(b) would close the door to any new establishment requesting a license at a site
that does not currently have a liquor license.
If this option were undertaken, existing establishments would likely see an
increase in value by virtue of the lesser likelihood of new competition. Similarly,
there could be an economic impact to University Hill as it would turn away some
business and may impact revitalization efforts.
ii.) Modification of the 500 foot liquor license waiver for beer and wine licenses only:
Alternatively, the waiver could be altered by the City Council to permit
alternative license types like Beer and Wine Licenses only. This approach would
permit additional establishments that wish to serve alcohol, but would prohibit the
sale of hard alcohol. Arguably the service of hard alcohol has the potential to
Packet page number 80 Agenda Item 6C 10
exacerbate the problem of overconsumption as it enables quick intoxication as
compared to beer and wine.
It should also be noted that as opposed to Hotel and Restaurant (H&R) Licenses,
which have a requirement that at least 25% of gross receipts come from food
sales, Beer and Wine Licenses have no such provision. As opposed to option (i)
above, option (ii) would likely have a decreased impact to the economic vitality of
University Hill, but may not fully address the concern of overconcentration of
alcohol serving establishments on University Hill.
The 500-foot waiver impacts those areas that are around the "principal campus" of
University of Colorado. The 500-foot measurement is not a straight measurement, but
rather it is "measured as a person would walk safely and properly, without trespassing,
with right angles at crossings and with the observance of traffie regulations and traffic
signals" per Colorado Liquor Code Regulation 47-326. Distance Regulation -
Applicability and Measurement.
The specific land area around the university is described in the applicable city code
section 4-2-4, "State Law Procedures Apply," B.R.C. 1981 below:
4-2-4 State Law Procedures Apply.
(a) Provisions of the Colorado Liquor Code and the Colorado Beer Code governing procedures
for applications, hearing, and decisions for state liquor or fermented malt beverages apply for
city licenses.
(1) The principal campus of the University of Colorado is eliminated from the application
of'the five hundred foot distance restriction of stibparagraph 12-47-313(1)(d)(1), C.R.S.,
for hotel-restaurant liquor licenses only. For the purposes of this section. the principal
campus is defined as the area generally circumscribed by Broadway Street on the west;
Baseline Road on the south; 28th Street, Colorado Avenue and Folsom Street on the east;
and Boulder Creek, 17th Street and Universi, Avenue on the north.
This area impacts most of University Hill with the exception of a small number of
properties that are beyond a logical 500-foot walking distance as discussed above. In
addition to University Hill, the following areas would be impacted by any changes to the
waiver:
• The majority of the Basemar Shopping Center at the corner of Broadway and
Baseline.
• A variety of commercial properties on the south frontage of Baseline Road.
• Limited commercial businesses on the 28`t' Street frontage road.
Figure 1 on page 11, as follows, shows the general extent of these impacted areas:
Packet page number 81 Agenda Item 6C 11
Arapahoe Ave
t ~ ~ ry Jt-`-s~
i
University Ave"
r-
►ewaglwBY Aw W
w
Colorado Ave
University
°°"eQaAve of Colorado L~
alb
y ~ a
y
s Ike
Eu*MAre
(-A
{ ~La
Aurora Ave
C"Gade A"
Legend BacelefeRd Baseline Rd
Greek
500 Ft Buffer
Principal CU Campus
Parcels
A l CU Main Campus
500 ft Buffer
Packet page number 82 Agenda Item 6C 12
B. Implement targeted Land Use Code changes, specifically on Universih, Hill:
Recognizing that there is a concentration of late-night alcohol serving establishments on
University Hill, changes to the Land Use Code could also reinforce the ban on future
licenses and prevent additional late-night establishments. The following zoning options
have been identified and are listed by the degree of potential impact (from low to high
impact) to establishments on the Hill:
i) Hour-based standards and restrictions: Restaurants and taverns could continue to be
permitted on University Hill to operate after 11 p.m. through the Use Review process
as they do today. However, more specific standards could be applied including but
not limited requirement for security plans, mandatory coordination with other nearby
establishments, signage to remind customers of the impacts of noise and behavior on
surrounding neighborhoods and clear posting of taxi numbers etc. Police Department
and Beverage Licensing Authority review could be required. If there were restaurants
or taverns that clearly do not follow their management plans, the city could exercise
its right to revoke such approvals. As stated above, this option will likely require
more staff resources.
ii) Use-based standards and restrictions: In conjunction with a city-wide code change to
better define different types of establishments that serve alcohol, greater restrictions
could be considered for higher risk uses (e.g., night clubs, pubs, liquor stores, bars
and taverns vs. restaurants with no liquor licenses or with beer and wine licenses
only) with greater restrictions on those that serve more alcohol. These standards and
restrictions could be in addition to those that are based on hours of service.
iii) Concentration-based standards and restrictions: Spacing requirements already exist
in the Land Use Code to avoid overconcentration of certain uses (e.g., residential care
facilities, group homes and accessory dwelling units). Basically, the spacing
requirements do not permit certain uses within a specified distance from a similar use
to avoid overconcentration. Spacing requirements or saturation limits could be
implemented to avoid additional late-night establishments or any additional density of
higher impact uses.
iv) Hoag-based prohibition: Restaurants and taverns that operate after 11 p.m. could be
prohibited on University Hill entirely. Existing restaurants and bars would be
permitted to continue operation, but an intensification of additional late night uses
would be avoided with sucli a prohibition.
v) Use-based prohibitions: Certain uses, tied to newly created definitions by level of
impact, could be prohibited on University Hill entirely. For instance, an establishment
that has a liquor license and functions like a bar or tavern could be prohibited
outright. This change would create a number of uses on the Hill that would be
considered non-conforming uses and would have to operate according chapter 9-10,
"Nonconformance Standards," B.R.C. 1981 of the Land Use Code. For instance, if a
use were to cease operation for at least one year, its use would not be allowed to
continue.
Packet page number 83 Agenda Item 6C 13
With additional regulations and prohibition of new uses on the Hill, it is expected that
any combination of these actions could have an economic impact on University Hill.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As stated above, staff recommends a phased approach to Land Use Code changes. Initially, the
simplest, most straightforward code language changes that would have the highest potential for
addressing overconsumption of alcohol and overconcentration of alcohol establishments are
suggested. Staff has listed the items below that it recommends City Council direct staff to begin
work.
Phase I: In addition to using existing tools more effectively (i.e., the standard process
improvements discussed above), the following as the first phase is recommended:
A. Add new zoning definitions for different types of alcohol serving establishments based on
level of impact (high risk vs. low risk). This change would apply city wide. The Use
Standards table would need to be updated with the new uses with some being permitted
by-right up to those required through Use Review depending on the zoning district and
surrounding context.
B. Implement time based renewals for Use Review for higher impact uses within General
Improvement Districts. This would include University Hill and East and West Pearl
where commercial uses are in close proximity to residential uses. This option would
require submission of a new Use Review every three years for establishments that require
Use Review. Existing approved Use Reviews could be grandfathered or alternatively,
renewals could be retroactively required for existing approved Use Reviews. However,
the latter option would be a significant increase in application processing on a yearly
basis.
A more effective approach may be to send out notices for public input every three years
for establishments that have Use Review approval and only reconsider a Use Review that
triggers established thresholds for review, such as responses from concerned neighbors
and/or clear violations of management plans or conditions of approval. Use Reviews that
do not trigger these thresholds would not require reconsideration until the next three year
iteration. This would best differentiate establishments that are well operated from ones
that may be problematic and would also reduce the amount of workload for staff.
Once these options implemented, staff would monitor the effectiveness of the changes. Staff
would recommend a two year period of evaluation.
Phase II: If staff and/or the community were to find that additional changes should be made to
the code, staff would then recommend considering the following option as the second phase:
A. Understanding that City Council has identified an overconcentration of alcohol serving
establishments on University Hill, revoking the 500-foot liquor license waiver around the
University of Colorado would address this most acutely and would permit no additional
liquor licenses.
Packet page number 84 Agenda Item 6C 14
I
Again, following this action, staff would monitor for effectiveness and if found necessary after a
two-year evaluation, some of the other options contemplated within the `Options for
Consideration' section could be implemented in the future.
All Land Use Code changes will require Planning Board review at a public hearing, as well as
first and second readings at City Council before adoption. Staff also intends to refer any code
changes to the previously assembled Community Working Group and the Beverage Licensing
Authority for review and comment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 960
B. Summary of 2009 study session
C. Matrix of peer community regulations
D. Beverage Licensing Authority (BLA) Incentives, Regulation, Education and Enforcement
Options Chart
Packet page number 85 Agenda Item 6C 15
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 960
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING ALCOHOL ABUSE IN OUR COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, the Boulder City Council has a responsibility to lead in addressing the critical issues
of health, safety, and well being stemming from alcohol abuse within the city; and
WHEREAS, alcohol abuse is a multi-faceted social problem with many causes, requiring the
efforts of the entire community to address; and
WHEREAS, Boulder is not alone in experiencing the impacts of alcohol abuse, as indicated by
recent alcohol-related incidents in other communities; and
WHEREAS, leaders of the University of Colorado have re-committed to changing the
prominence of alcohol in the culture of student life, and University officials have asked for
support from the. City in this effort; and
WHEREAS, the City of Boulder participates with the University of Colorado and community
members on a University-City Oversight Committee to address issues of mutual concern,
including alcohol abuse; and
WHEREAS, the University of Colorado Student Union and the City already cooperate in
promoting personal responsibility among students through joint funding of the University
Liaison, a position that provides education and outreach to support the quality of life of students
who live off campus; and
WHEREAS, the City's ability to influence beverage licensing policies, code enforcement and
zoning and land use regulations are other areas where changes in City codes, programs or
practices might compliment the efforts of the University of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, ways the City can address alcohol abuse should not focus simply on legal options
but also on the City's human service and community education programs as well as partnerships
with the University of Colorado, University of Colorado Student Union, Boulder County, the
Boulder Valley School District, the Human Services Coordinating Council and others;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER:
The City of Boulder recognizes and encourages the University of Colorado's commitment to
changing a culture among CU students in which high-risk use of alcohol is tragically too
common, and the City of Boulder will cooperate with the University of Colorado's efforts.
The City of Boulder will address, to the extent it is capable, the health and safety issues
associated with alcohol abuse in the greater community.
Packet page number 86 Agenda ltem 6C 16
The City of Boulder will participate in community-wide efforts, involving both private and
public sector leaders from throughout Boulder County and the region, to better understand the
causes of alcohol abuse and consider appropriate, collaborative solutions.
The City of Boulder, as part of this community-wide effort, will undertake a review of City
beverage licensing policies, code enforcement and zoning and land use regulations in order to
identify the existing and relevant authorities available to the City. Staff shall propose policy and
ordinance changes, if appropriate, to address identified concerns.
The City of Boulder will review the impacts of past efforts to address alcohol abuse and underage
alcohol use, including an analysis of the unintended consequences of past efforts.
Approved this 19th _ day of October , 2004.
Mayor j
ATTEST:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and R"or(u
Packet page number 87 Agenda Item 6C 17
1Staclii};~'>>t h
a.`0t?A TAE •3~~tiy'i, 2019
A433,01)f)A Td`1'LE, Consideration of a niotion to accept the summary of the April 14., 2009
City Council Study Session regarding alcohol abuse prevention.
I
l'Xtr;Sl?iV't'llt:~: '
.lane S. Braut EEO, City :VlL1I1L1gC1'
Paul .1. Fcthccstc}n, 1)01)111y ('ity MOnal;er
Rob 1-ichem, Finance Director / Acting Executivc Director o1'Administrative Services
j David Oriskcll, Executive Director of Community Planning
Ruth t1lcl leyser, Deputy Director of Community planning
Cliarlcs Ferro, Senior Planner
MisltaNvn Coin., Deputy City Clerk liar Lic<:nsing
Jennif'cr iCorbclik, University Liaison
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of the April 14, 2009 City Council Study Session was to summarize the direction
from. Resolution 960, report on progress to date in addressing the issues raised in the resolution,
and receive Council's feedback on:
fl Council's goals for alcohol abuse prevention in the connnunity and specific objectives
related to the role of land use regulations and beverage licensing establishments in
addressing the goals;
Land use and beverage licensing options to analyze further; and
Whether council supports initiation of the development of a larger alcohol abuse
prevention strategy with other partners in the community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council accept the April 14, 2009 City Cotrnczl Study session
Slll1i111aI`; lil~ lllil'U 11;111 tllt~ ':1"ilil~Fl lC~'7.1'.:i:; '~`Lti7C~1?[!i`!3t
1
Laud Use Regulatim.k
Several actions 1br fuwrl ~,vork ~~r~; suggcatcd:
o Declare the tivork o€LUAAG complete, _lr~ci ;ii-sotvo the - L,I.
Iughiiglited the Clt#fiCUlty Of USing Only,'
Packet page number 88 Agenda Item 6C 18
IiB.Li ..>_I pk-'C' iii. 1 '.I tlii~4r li _IGL i;... il,
a di_f%erent approach.
clop a. work program to creme policy and code changes to impleine-ni the
'Iiceniration alodei (ftl.icy Model) for loca.tioii of high risk 11censed estab.lisi,,cneo_ts,
d new use definitions and standards for high risk licensec! esi,)hlisl menu (Opiior ~I).
~abtish a new cornrnuiiity working group to assisl siaRC in developing 1.1-te spcciiic
ulatory charges.
crorlc. ~n~~r~ranl to i L~nnin~~ 13o-ird iii iLZli 7UL) ~ror direction rind
-11 actions foi• future work are suggested:
'f council accepts any licensing objectives and options and it chooses to implement the I"
'riority future options, the cleric will coordinate with the BLA, other city departments,
iu1 the RHG.
and tools and it chooses to implement
council accepts any of Land Use's objectives
..rn, the clerk will assist Planning related to licluor licensing in their new community
orking group.
i i COLincil accepts any licensing objectives and options and it chooses to implement any
iher future options, the clerk v fill conduct a cost and benefit analysis on the selected
[1 ions with other city departments and the BLA.
is clerk will provide this costs and benefits analysis on the council-selected options to
the city manager for the cou.ric.il's review.
The clerk will participate in new licensee mcntoring and licensee education on belialf'of
the BLA, and from the beverage licensing perspective, will work with all community
partners in a coordinated effort to reduce alcohol over-consumption.
In that Cotaicil was generally in favor of the options presented at the April 14'x' study session,
with exceptions mentioned herein, the Deputy City Clerk for Licensing (Cleric) scheduled a
public hearing at the ILA May 20, 2009 hearing. The Cleric has also presented and explained
options provided to Council to the Responsible Hospitality Group (RLIG) and informed the RUG
of BLA's May 20''' public hearing. 71te Clerk is continuing to participate in available community
discussion on alcohol issues, As well, the Cleric is now attending, in conjunction with new
licensee inspections, licensee .mentoring meetings that will include BPIF alcohol enforcement
officer, an MG mernber, and a DUI-E1/ID staff member and which are coordinated by business
assistance staff from Downtown and University Hill Management Division (DUHMD).
At the May 20"' BLA hearing, the BT,A members were generally in favor of the options provided
to council, but they were not in favor of. i) occupation tax waiver for licensees who are RHO
members in the amount of RHG membership cities, ii) acceptance of the e-version of TIPS
alcohol service classes as requested by licensees, iii) a city press release to publicize licensees
that pass yearly compliance checks, and iv) after discussion with Officer .i.-leather Frey, BPD
alcohol enforcement officer, they were not in favor of random selection of licensees to undergo
compliance checks to allow more police officer time for undercover enforcement because
Packet page number 89 Agenda Item 6C 19
~ 1 i I lOIJA OilrccrS would be -aceded I'Oj' L111y City LLilderCUVer' Opertltroils C. c .il iLc faGl t1.at
ti ;stsees would recogit.izc the G1 D alcollol ersforreiner of ice_• in their establishm',n s.
he BLA also expressed concern, si.rnila, to coux-`.cil, with the mode of gallicriag petitions in
P,ottlder, suggesting that a map of TLA designated Neighborhood should be available to
prospective pei.ition sigwn es that would include rlunl.bers ol'eXis'_i:tg liquor licenses located within
!,he designated boundaries. ' he 17L A discussed t;!2e type of undue concentration dais. and
instructions given to BPI), discussed heavy hours and over-scrvire in Boulder, and discussed the
Mate law changes needed to mandate server training before any sate or service of alcohol begins.
During their May 2W" hearing, the BLA also recommended several helpful text changes to the
options chart for beverage licensing oplions, suggested combination of several options so that
:ny changes to ctu•rent processes would be most efficient, and suggested ways to better engage
CH in BLA publiC hearings through more elleettve hearing notice and possib1c strategic
Pulflicatiurr ol.'contiscatcd fake and false Ills with CU. Thic BLA was gcnorally in favor {with
expected consultation with the IZH(i) of evening hearutg tinses, greatly cacouraged increased
Funding fir BPD Undercover alcohol cnforeetment (especially fot• over-service enforcement), and
the R .A thoughl, if funds were made available for this purpose, that notice to all addresses
~~ill1➢i i!{1(~ I~:c`i ~i tii' .:ta, `i!C:2. il'i'< C~ "1 0 L,C I't [Atblic participation in BLA hearings.
t,_,-erage licensing options given to
c;Ouncil. The BLA expressed Lhat further discussion is warranted on the current :F3LA practice of
allowing licensees to select their own suspension days when a violation occurs. The BLA also
,,have the Cleric a hearing process suggestion to schedule all new liquor licensees to undergo a
renewal hearing before the BLA after their first year of operation. This required renewal hearing
would allow the BLA to check-in with new licensees to ensure compliant businesses, and this
suggestion will be reviewed by the Cleric for addition to the possible options for council review.
As was mentioned at the study session and in specification of the Clerk's continuing work, once
13LA input has been organized and WIG coninient liar hcen gathered, assistance froin other city
departments will be enlisted as to the feasibility of proceeding with options and to conduct a cost
benefit analysts ofthe options. The Clerk will also schedule additional public hearings ou
council options as needed before the BLA. The Clerk will assist in future with liquor licensing
resource materials for any band Use public process with Planning,
Approv i :
;'ilLt~5 u( {s10[l 011 tl i"
A. . .
sunilllrfiy 0i l lvI'~' 2009
9i21~S _`[1 I nncl tact Rc onl !tllln elf?ll
Packet page number go Agenda Item 6C 20
r t'O.i ~`l,r zr i I G" ".iii 1 ~r
City Comic& Mayor Matthew Appelbaum, Deputy Mayor Crystal Gray, Suzy Ageton, Macon
Cowles, A1.gelique Espi)loza, Lisa 1Vlorzel, Susan Osborne, Ken Wilson
Staff- Jane Brautigam, City Manager; Jcrry Gordon, City Attorney; David Gehr, Deputy City
Attorney; Ruth McHeyscr, Exceutive,Director of Com unity Planning; Police Chief Mark
Beckner; Maureen Rait, Fxccutive Director of Public Works; Charles Ferro, Senior Planner;
Mishawn Cook, Deputy City Cleric for Licensing; Jennifer Korbelik, University Liaison and
Brett Weidernan, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Cwnsultant. Robert Cole
PIJRPOSE:
The purpose of the April lay, 2009 City Council Study Session. was to summarize the direction
from resolution 960; report on progress to date in addressing the issues raised in the resolution,
and receive Council's feedback on:
Council's goals for alcohol abuse prevention in the community and specific objectives
related to the role of land use regulations and beverage licensing establishments in
addressing the goals;
Land use and beverage licensing options to analyze further; and
Whether council supports initiation of the development of a larger alcohol abuse
prevention strategy vrith other partners in the community,
OVI--' RVIll;1W,
Following introductions of staff aad the study session by Jane Brautigam, Jennifer Korbelik,
Charles Ferro, Mishawti Cook and Ruth Mel-ieyser presented an overview of the topics to be
discussed and identified questions to help frame City Council's discussion. rIhc discussion was
divided into three general pails, followed by council discussion of the related guiding questions:
1. Overall Goals/ Strategy,
2. Land Use Regulations, and
3. Beverage Licensing.
C3 TV C OUNCOIL 00SC:URISIO-M
Council discussed the issues and provided feedback on the questions as noted below.
Packet page number 91 Agenda Item 6C 21
L
r-
,flect council 's goals for addressing alcohol abuse
l 1. Does the .following goal ,sicrierraeni re
prevention?
Establish city policies and regulations in orde io reduce over- asnsuoilpiton of alcohol in the
comm.u ity, in order to:
Keep people alive
Keep people healthy
o Keep people out of trouble; and
A Lower the level of community conflict
Couticil disc ussioii:
0enerally, City Council supported the goal of establishing policies and regulations to reduce
over-consumption of alcohol, There was some concern expressed that !he bullet points relating to
keeping people alive, healthy, out of trouble, and lower the level Ofconnnunity conflict was
somewhat negative. Council members suggested incorporating language about keeping the
coY munity safe and healthy and providing congenial places to socialize as well as tying the goal
to the city's social sustainability goals.
Council also discussed the importance of including the Boulder Valley School District, parents,
and middle school students as stakeholders in the city's work related to over-consumption of
alcohol.
In addition, Council requested that an analysis of unintended consequences of past efforts to
address alcohol abuse, as mentioned iii Resolution 960, be completed.
2. Does council generally agree that:
a, a more comprehensive approach is needed to address alcohol abuse in the cotninunity,
utilizing research-based best practices, and working with key cornrnunity partners and
stakeholders to design and irnpletnent the appropriate structure and ,strategies?
b, fxirther evaluation of land use regulations and city beverage licensing tools and
techniques is needed in order to continue the alcohol abuse prevention work that falls
under the city's purview?
Council discussion:
Council supported the adoption of a comprehensive, "Environmental Management" approach
and ctnphasized the importance of including house parties as well as licensed establishments in
the city's strategies. Council members requested an update on enforcornent strategies and tools,
house parties and nuisance abatement, including an analysis of whether there has been a.
correlation between parties/problem properties and the "broken window" theory.
City Council agreed with staff's recommendations for future work:
U Continue on-going wot-k related to over-consumption of alcohol;
Develop a comprehensive strategy/approach that builds on cuxrent and past work, in
partnership with com un ty stakeholders,
Packet page number 92 Agenda Item 6C 22
Does council agree i-vith the following objectives for land use regulations in ad 'ressing the
- 11 and stcrff.rrther development of code or rode r4menclrnents, based on the objectives jor
it Consideration?
Ile
, cognize clisiinctions Letvvc cn high risk and low risk type!; of licetrsecl estab_islrrii.enfis;
Avoid locating Irish - isk types of licensed establislunc is am, r~ei_ghborhoods, ffic
university and within mixed use developments;
Minimize external impacts of high risk type licerisecl establisluuents;
Support the city's long-standing policies and city structure that promote a
Variety of regional, subcommunity and neighborhood activity centers distributed
throughout the community hi focused nodes of concentrated activities and result in
fficient deli-very of services (eg, police and transportation).
Coordinate land use policies for location ol'high risk establishments with existing
policies for location of community activity/entertainment centers
'nuncil discussion:
Fitv Cotinc-il tlt~,rcecl vviih the objectives J.Presented by staff t171d had a detail-eel discussion relative
di_ot 111-d _ ~.rtd
d, specific options provided by staff. Councils discussion focused on establishing hours of
)oration for high risk establishments as well as the fact that restaurant / tavern size affects the
arl fount of iirrpacts a use has on a suiroun(Ug areri. There was also a discussion related to the
correlation between liquor license coneerrtration and calls for 911 service and that licenses for
beer and wine only may be appropriate for certain areas.
Council discussed the fact that clearly defining goals and focusing efforts on the larger issue of
reducing over consumption of alcohol should not be contused with issues of neighborhood
impacts such as noise and neighborhood parking problems. Council agreed that these were
scpaxate issues and that the focus should be targeted specifically at reducing fire over
consumption of alcohol and creating places that are safe and healthy for the entire conmunity.
There was some frustration expressed regarding the fact that there are many causes related to the
over consumption of alcohol and that the locus should not be to prohibit all establishments that
serve alcohol but rather to create specific zoning definitions that define high and low risk uses.
Council agreed that better defined uses would provide rraorc certainty to business rcnvners and
neighbors in all areas of the city.
4. Does council have any queslions or comments on the j~olicy rind red r-rlrrtor,y npiio"s that cao
most effectively address these objectives (1br land use re„
Generally, council agrC.ed with staff's preterred option to 1Gf, 1,%0 'i: 11 1
policy and code changcs to implement the concentration model for log aLion ol'ltighrisk lik,, lTx A
BSI-tillklimelli, nd llc l! It dCliliiilcji-3 I'h ~t~.'nd:lrCiS i{)1' 111;;11 -~szk lic;'11secl. ~1~.7t~htill{llCi'il .
Packet page number 93 Agenda Item 6C 23
11 is ji:,L! 111 ~ )LdLi It°suII 1P_1S-C Cl~',"aLlilll Ili 11L~.~~ltS CLCf[':IILI01 h'ckp Lo I II-rd I-)
1?i11 risk uses ilL-ough Z011111g, 1,vhile also providing new condi~iona-.I use standards and reduced,
hi d io1 discretionary use review.
r115 option provides the incsi. lb.daiiccd approach and greiltesit potential effectiveness.
1 niplemcating chalages to use deliaitions and zonc,d locati.oi)s would set clearer community
P:,,pectations about allowed locations, and would sirnplily 'L(-Le needed, conditional. use standards.
roes council generally agree with the following objeclives for city beverage licensing in
lressing the goal and staff's further development of code or code aniendrnents, bused on the
"c1iv,-s fbr° council consideration?
°rovidc incentives to license applicants and existing licensees to operate liquor licensed
,:stablishments in a responsible way.
Broaden application of state and city regulation's to local authority hearing processes, to
111,0vide better public hearing notice, community involvement, licensing information and
~o require operation of liquor licensed establishments in more compliant ways.
ncourage server edveation in responsible alcohol service and owner and manager
training in proper licensed establishment operations.
Comprehensively enforce state laws and regulations and local laws and procedures,
llirough partnership with alcohol enforcement and beverage licensing hearings, to
iriandate responsible operation of liquor licensed premises.
Council discussion:
Generally, City Council was in favor oVthe balanced approach presented, including Licensee
Incentives and :server Education on the one side and Robust Regulations and Comprehensive
Enforcement on the other side. Council expressed a sentiment that much of the over-
consumption of alcohol that occurs happens at house parties and that they would like the
problem of house parties actively addressed.
d. Doe's council have any questions or convnents on the policy and regulatoFy options that can
most effectively address these objectives.for beverage licensing?
Counc-ill discussion:
Council evidenced interest in all 22 beverage licensing options provided to it, except for the 2or1
option in the incentives category, that of a city occupation tax waiver of half of the WIG
membership dues for licensees that belong to RHG. Council provided feedback to the licensing
area to explore all of the other 21 options provided. Council stated, for the last option under the
regulations objective, that of mandatory notice to all addresses within 300 feet of a proposed
licensee, premise, that 300 feet may be too shall a radius, and instead, suggested using 600 feet
radius.
fn addition, council discussed the City of Boulder's use of the state recommended penalty
guidelines for licensee violations and the Beverage Licensing Authority's increase in I of the 16
violation types, that being penalties different from those recommended for conduct of
Packet page number 94 Agenda Item 6C 24
ti1.~a,IlliSlllllCLlt J101. ~1~j15. C;ul'.i1C11 C\%1~Af L~CCCI C~311CC~'11_ i~lJl)Lll Litt; Ohllill}1'i 0;i hou',LLz, a v, sLNtccl
<:u a Rcsponsibh; Hospitality Institute conference hcAd iii Boulder on October, 2007 i11at: Boulder
I1as heavy pours (high amount of alcohol in each drink served) a.nd has ao overall culture of over-
crvice. Cotulcil expressed sure-rise that servers may be under 21 years olci axed that alcohol
service training is not. mandatory before cniployi-aent, but instead; servers ]nay reczive baiting
11p to six nzorntlis after hire v/hile stint complying with curren local Training c011ditio11s.
As to beverage licensing and in addition to the possible options presented, council also
luestioncd if keg registration might be made mandatory. Council suggested that compliance
,-liecks should be focused on problem establishments to ensure their continued compliance with
.tpplicablc laws. Council wondered if there might be a possibility of more cost recovery for
~ilcohol violations, Council also expressed interest in reviewing the way that petitioning is
conducted for City of Boulder liquor license applications.
'.;;ouncil expressed several times the need to receive feedback from the Beverage Licensing
luthwity members on all of the options presented.
OTHER/ SUIT MARY -
7. Are there options that should be added? Which options should be analyzed further?
Council discussion:
]'he options that council focused on for further analysis are included in the above beverage
licensing discussion summary.
Packet page number 95 Agenda Item 6C 25
Atr~ehmrnl C
RE..CI!LATION OF ALCO1101, ESTABLISHMENTS [N PEER CONIMLNITIES
(t) SPCCil]C rcgulalions on (2) Special precedures/pcrmil ? (3) Cunct•n[rsgctl or dispersal? (4) Design requirements': (5) Coordination frith lurallStalc
bars/taverns? beverage cmand?
Eugene, OR No spvctfc w ularrons for alcohol B:u, tequue Conditional Use \o dis{4:rs;d r,r cuacenuation None. Liquor liccn,e i .t'd by n[.CC. J
stahlrshntents. Peraut in neighhorhood ,unur crl: No to l ! et pool exisrs. A
commercial zone.
Pahr : llo, CA \n, hotvcver, eland :ihm an_mc CUP tuµtired ivr auy L kncraGy aispersCd. Vltcn cvur No. There is a maximum size of After CUP, applicant would
have
tavrrrrs are col porn it~~th establishment serving alcohol. 'eating and drinking services" are eating and drinking services in to gcl approval from CA ABC. No
1-srIbli,hments roust q. I'y as Neighbors receive notice. Staff permitted. some zoning districts (e.g., 5,(}W local be vcragc control exists.
"cating and drinking services" level unless called up. CUP also sf).
where at least 50% of revenues are required for any commercial
from food, business within 50 feet Of a
residential property that is open
from I0pm to Gam.
Santa Crur, CA • 1 us fiirh nsk arrct igw risk u.ws Conditional Use Permits and j lliyh_risk- establishments may not Walls may be required around Yes with CA
ABC. No local
defined. Look @ 24.12.1140. public involvement required for be closer. than 600 feet of each parking areas adjacent to beverage control exists.
High risk applicants must provide high risk alcohol establishments. other. May not be located any resitlCnlial.
"responsible beverage service" See 24.12.1144. Low risk closer than 600 feel from any
training. Special security and establishment reviewed as school, playground, hospital, cte.
management Clans may be administrative use gcrmits. PC or CC can reduce this
r uired. requirement. Appears to be
dispersal model.
Sanla Barbara, CA ND Specific xg__u_I;uio-im on alcohol none. Wherever allowed by zoning. No California ABC issues license and
establishments. coor( inares with zoning to
determine if use permitted in a
particular zone. No local beverage
, I _ control exists.
Tempe, A2 * Alcohol sales ; rc linked to the Use permit required for bars No disiance requirements. Not specipically, but there ate Permitting process expressly
licked'
State liquor license tyres (17 (Series 6) and liquor stores (.series However. most uses are general design guidelines that to State processes. Liquor license
series). 9). Restaurants (series 121 and concentrated in downtown or at the apply to all uses, ]'here is a ,tarts at State and forwarded to
Convenient Stores (series 7 or 10) mall. requirement to delineate outdoor City for recommendation. Council
are by-right. Security plan with areas where alcohol is consumed. Liquor License Review Conunittee
Police Department required. Use Angled railings required to avoid reviews applications prior to
permits go to public hearing. drinks being set. submission to the Stale Liquor
Control.
Port t •ullins, t'U" Yes. Iktinitions for v:rrinus Ivrxcs j Some uses arc required to go Dependent on 'raining districl. I NO. Planning reviews requests prior to
of restaut'anl;, hars, and niylaclubs ihrough Type 2 review (Planning City Clerk and clerk scuds
esi,t. and Zoning hoard) prior to I inspeelion rt:qucsts following
operation in cortain zoning approval. Local Beverage
districts. Authority robce by nninici al
\,,I n.iR. ()Is I;ar, con,idered ••sle•c•:rl u,r" ant! Requires Smci-A Use Prrnril. Di,txrscd by vmuc of iornmorcial I Not yw, ih,"'11c to ;rl,>,r:nl C)K I,v.v r lr
tr.'s ,n.r. ur:r
can he permitted in conurrerrinI which is dons it ugh a rezoning district locations. Spacing establishmctlu. rvquirvmeata and licensing.
zones. procedure. Very suh.lectivc requirements arc enforced by OK
Y outcomes` No specific standards. law4 y -P' principally
Madison, %Yi Nu s eciCic resuituwns related to Ont<luor calm areas er uses that Dis tcrsed vinue of the IcleaLton Adequate buffered se auction from i Alcohol
establishments alcohol cstabltshments. do not meet parking requirements of zones Char permit bars etc. patio to pedestnan way. Kclalivcly reguleled by slate liquor license
- are conditional uses. Use has to be j subjective. laws.
_ identified to be permitted. JI
Arm Arbor, M1II° Not in the zonine code. Noi No zorI review or use permit. Generally, concentrated in No. LLC review. No zoning review,
li
regulated differently than City Council Lylunr I.iccnse downtown and around campus. No
restaurants See Section 109, conLmince tLl.C) revicwsdl an_ zoning requirement for spacing.
Liquor. XCtiliu ccu)surtt Ilion a I lg_Aioris. Stale taw requires spacing front
schools etc. _
I'rovn, CT Yes. City code dciinsuishts Conditional lice Prrnuts:arc St'rntiwlnne Kars arc Holy. None spec ilic to alcohol ilUSinCSS licensing dcpertmonl
between bars, night clubs, cabarets, required for:dcohol establishments permitted in the C'BD and are establishments. coordinates with the Si ow rut any
taverns, and standard restaurants. and require Planning Commission becoming non-conforming as new required inspections and approvals
Regulation is by land use and by approval. aces will require them in No local hcvei are control exists, II
the beverage licensing authority, association with a restawam use but the municipalily doe., have a h
ctrvwtdc. business licerrsingdivioonIhal
enforces State regulations 0u
alcohol.
Color.uh, Spriu;;,, t t) Yes. SPCCifc dc.f niIiptt_s for Certain uses th:n have liquor Liquor stores and resieurcints d_o No Land use review reviews liquor
lc[ tyunlnl, hor and J or licenses require CUP approval in not have spacing requirement; I licenses forwarded from city clerk.
atablislnncnIt exist. Specific certain zones. CUP requires public however, taverns require at ]cast Determines spacing requirements
is t lemons for each also exist. See notification and meetings. Must go 200' to a residential zone or etc. and if CUP required. l.acal
him] itnan%on Mutants. n1 PC'. I Pr[tlxnv _ _ _ ilipu,rT K). r,i} _
f L,letn, t' \ \t. spectficdelimnonx far hari alit i CUI'axprilyd for No distance rcquirentenls exist in -l Ih sign li a'it+v Board reviewS Ctx)rdinmiotr with Calilornia
ARC
taverns exist. Regulaled the stu*IC barsltavcrnhemauraulx in certain the Zoning Code. exterior changes, but there arc not is done. ABC may impose
as restaurants. zoning district. Permitted by-right specific stand i ds litr alcohol additional tcstrictions if tequesled
in others. Planning Comma siun establishments. by the city. [)ties not allow an over
decision required for C UIP. I concentration without a waiver.
Denier, CO Yes- Funny. Drinking Use permits are required for such Protected districts exist where if an Requirements exist for closure No local beverage board.
Establishments, Brewpuhs and establishmems and are reviewed by alcohol establishment is within I times, wall heights, and location of Coordination with State ABC.
liquor stores are defined, zoning. Excise and license pr.rfomt certain buffers, they must cease I outdoor scaling areas. Permits
licensing of bars, taverns, brew operation by Wpm (except tetnporaiy canvas or umbrellas to
pubs, etc. Fridays) and must go through provide shade. Wall weather
variance proceduros (12.4.7), surfaces required.
Liquor stores must be dispersed
I (1,000 feet from one anorher)
Linvuln, NE Yes. Any csiablishtncnt (c.g., bar, I Limited to unnnnorcial and Generally disper:.cd, however, 1 W No. Internal Liquor Committee exists
grocery store) surving/sell in,g industrial zoning and no closer 15001. limit eliminalcs marry older is more advisory on "hid picture"
alcohol requires Special Permit than 100 feet to a residential commercial districts. hums and is not cuordimucd with
approval. district. Other requirements in zoning applicatinns.
Fgan„a Inm 6C 7
Fn,a.a r,:,,ge nu:I,n~.1 u7
i
Dom your community Itave srxcI fir use derinitinns roralculiol ttstablishtnents, such ac hays or taverns' Arc they regulated difTerently rroin restaurants iv.g., high risk ts,
low risk)? When in your zoning
Code enn the applurahle derinitinns (ound?
2) If your cunnmunity reguhutvs ulvornd cstahlishntenIs. where might eve lipid ihase specilic ntandnrds and review prncessew iu the zoning cexle? Iro aIcuhul esiahlislmxols
rCgUirea cnnditiunaI a'{e permit Ia)
operate? Are the Cuemreuuily nndlor review herdies generally involved (e.g., public hearings, rleigteborhond mectingsi he the review nr+uch cm michme it,?
31 Are atcuhul v-sUblWkinenls Iermilted in enncentruied urcxs nr are they generally dispersed? In other word,, k Mere At sp wing requirement orsuch uses from residential arras
or front other alcohol
cst:rhlishmcnis?
d) Are there any specific drsigu requirements for such estahli hmermi related to onldiAor seating, lighting, and general size' Are management plan; r cviviwud to inquire al!uut
err regul:de hour% uI' ujimiti n.
Irish remuvnl, delivery hours etc.?
it lfuw is mview enordinaled with local Ixvcrage control authorities? Are liquor license types a rador in zoning review!
r;,_+nr D.rM r m OA 24
Attachment 1)
Bevei-affe Licensing Authority (BLA)
IICU] tiyes, 12c ul.tIiort. -AiicaIior+,& hn!'urccnieitt Ohl inus_QmrI wit It 11,1, A
rrlaiorily input Il-nnl liay 20, 20119 and August 19. 2111111 !BLA Public I Icarims
1) Objective: Provide incentives to license applicants and existing licensees to operate liquor licensed establishmens ui a
r:_ lwnsihlc+ manner.
Goal: To reduce over-consumption through non-regulatory incentives, often in cooperation with Responsible Hospitality
Group (RHG), a local volunteer trade organization of liquor licensees.
Option Resource Timeframe BLA Input
_ __Impact
a) Periodic specialty training, such as RHG and BPD Currently Yes. BLA suggests that further specialty training
door staff/ security training, fake/ false Done might be encouraged through use of DBI &
Ills. & best practices for private parties. _ llUHMD contacts. _
(cont.) Assistance and suggestions for BLA, Currently Yes
struggling licensees. Licensing, w. Done
help of RHG,
DBI, & BPD
(cant.) RHG membership as BLA Currently Yes
mili}atin„ factor by BLA. Done
(cont.) BLA hearing attendance and RHG Chair Currently Yes
mentoring. Done
b) Occupation tax waiver for half of city Future No, RHG membership should have value itself.
RHG dues. Option
c} Honor Licensees who have no RHG with Future Yes, BLA discussed that IDing is uniformly done,
violations after 10 and 20 years of input from the Option but avoidance of over-service should be new
operation. City focus.
d) Advertising campaign on over- City, RHG, & Future Yes, BLA states, as in New Zealand, campaigns,
service and community expectations. perhaps CU Option for ex., "We serve drinks, not drunks" campaign
was effective, Added funds or grant needed,
2) Objective: Broaden application of state and city regulations to local licensing processes, for better notice of public hearings,
increase community involvement, license information, and to ensure compliant operation of establishments.
Goal: To reduce over-consumption through current and enhanced regulatory means.
Option Resource Tinreframe BLAInput
_ hn ~acL t -
a) Mandatory renewal Licensing and FI urc Yes, however, first BLA must be presented with ovcr-
hearings after over-service BLA i)hti; vr• 1.; service violations for shove cause hearings.
violations. 7'rior1L:,
b} More thorough Licensing, city Future Yes, renewal hearings have. shown positive changes at
investigation of renewing enforce depts., Option licensed locations w. issues and renewals deserve annual
licensees. and BLA scrutiny.
c) CU participation of BLA CU, Licensing, 1 uutr,= Yes and BLA suggests that when CU is in designated
hearings for license and DLA (>ht vn- 11 Neighborhood to send notice to Gary Chadwick at CU who
applications located in its 1'noriLy might coordinate CU's response on license applications.
neighborhood.
d) (i) Reexamine 500 foot Input from CU, Future Yes, BLA by majority suggests reexamining the 500 ft.
waiver for H&R adjacent to enacted by City, Option waiver, along with the definition of CU campus boundaries
cu. and followed by and amending to allow Beer and Wine licenses as more
Licensing, _ fully described below.
d) (ii) Reexamine CU Input from CU, Futurc Yes, BLA by majority suggests reviewing what Denver
principal campus definition as enacted by City; Option does surrounding DU and other CU campuses.
it relates to 500 font waiver, and followed by
Licensing
d) (iii) Consider amending Input from CU, Future Yes; BLA by majority suggests review if city should allow
waiver to Beer & Wine enacted by City, Option inclusion of beer and wine licenses and if city could require
licenses rather than Hotel- and followed by that Uni Hill licensees convert to Beer and Wine and/or
Restaurant which serve hard Licensing how best to provide incentives if city can't require
alcohol. conversion from H&R licenses. BL A discussed that Beer
Packet page number_ 91_- and Wine class licenses do not have a food percentage
- Agendalrern-6C --29--
requirement, and as such, the BLA by majority is opposed
to inclusion of Beer arid Wine licenses in tlds area unless
the zoning definition of "'restaurant" includes a mandatory
food percentage. _
g) BLA evening meetings. BLA and F-uturc Yes, BLA is in favor of this change to make hearings more
I.,icensing ioion- I available to neighbors, BLA suggests collecting ;data on
iortty whether other local licensing boards meet at night. (Public
ronmrent: As of last RHG 5121109 mtg., RHG is not in favor
_ of evenin>> nree~in.S~sJ,
h) Mandatory license Licensing and Future Yes, BLA, like council, thinks this is valuable, but feels that
application notice to all Zoning Option 600 ft. radius is better and realizes that licensing can only
addresses within 300 foot do this type of notice if it gets funds to complete it BLA
radius also feels legal notice text is too small, Also suggests better
BLA notice through Neighborhood Associations, HOAs, ad
campaigns, NFCH, Channel 8, and any print material, such
as city newsletter.
i) BLA license reucwal BLA, BPD, City G.unrre Yes, BLA suggested that they might have renewal hearings
hearings required for 1'r year Staff, Licensing, t Ilxroar I" with all new licensees to review how first year of business
of license. and new priority operations went, acknowledging council's concern with .
Licensees. heavy pours and aver- service. This would allow BLA to
intervene early and assist if there are problems at licensees.
BLA did discuss if business licenses could add
_ supplemental local conditions to establishments.
J) BLA will change procedure BLA and Future Yes, BLA by majority determined to change hearing
that allows licensees to select Licensing. Option procedure allowing licensees to select their own suspension
own suspension days days, instead making all suspensions for violations from a
show cause heariu~ begoin on same date.
k) BLA suggests to review BLA, City, Future Yes, BLA by majority would like council to discuss what
what changes in state law Licensees, and Option changes in law are needed to advocate training requirement.
would be required to mandate Licensing. BLA held a hearing and suggests a change to BLA Rules, of
server training and changes to Procedure so that server training is completed in 90 days,
BRC for server training in 90 rather than 6 months and is renewed every 3 years. (Public'
days. comment:.RHG says that immediate training may be
_ im osyible unless e-training is accepted_ by BW.
1) BLA suggests review of BLA, City, Future Yes, BLA thinks that petitioning should be reviewed, as to
petitioning practices and Applicants, and Option if city could have more control over petition practices. BLA
supplemental information Licensing. commented that local fees are mated so the city would need
to make a significant increase in licensing fimding for
petitioning oversight, Ata minimum, BLA discussed that
petitioners should provide total numbers of existing licenses
already in designated Neighborhood and day of week.
m) Undue_Concentration data BPD and Future Yes, BLA thinks that resource materials should be given to
to BPD to allow for a more Licensing Option BPD command staff when an undue concentration opinion
extensive review. is rec bested so all parties better understand legal question.
3) Objective: Encourage education participation hi responsible alcohol service training.
Coal: Reduce perceived culture of over-consumption in our liquor licensed establishments through better education of our
business owners, managers, servers, and door staff.
Option Resource Tlrmeframe BLA Input
_Impact _ _ _
a) Boulder acceptance City, BLA, Future Option No, BLA thinks that if state does not accept it, Boulder should
of e-version of server Licensing, not. [Public comment: RHG suggests that tr'tts would be less
training. & outside expensive and more immediate for licensees,'.
vendor
_ trainers _
b) New liquor RHG, t:micnth, Dour ~l Yes, BLA thinks that this ntentoring should happen prior to
licensee meatoring. DUHMD, h?utucr.~01)6nu receiving liquor license.
Licensing, With c1crk at
BFD, $ wsp'OhI±t- I..
Boulder I'riolitw.
Chamber.
Packet page number 100 Agenda Item 6C 30
(11 State law changes 13LA, City, Furore Option. Yes, BLA by majority would like council to discuss waat
to certify or license Licensees, changes in law are needed to advocate training requirements
servers independently aid mandating licensing servers independently before they can
Licensin& apply for jobs. See also Objective 2, option K for other local
- - changes.
4) Objective: Comprehensive enforcement of state and local laws to iuaadate responsible operation of liquor licensed premises
to reduce over-consumption and over-service.
Goal: To reduce over-cousu-option through active,enforcement of current and enhanced regulations.
Option Resource Hulefrnme BLA Input
fmp.1 t-
a) Targeted food BLA, Future "Yes, BLA thinks this should occur when needed.
percentages auditing- Licensing, Option
& Finance
b) BPD Patrols in parking BPD Future No, $LA thinks that BPD officers are already in license dense
lots and alleys to enforce Option areas. BLA asked that surrounding neighborhoods also be.
azainst public consumption. _ included in patrols and that bike patrols should be, added.
c) Universal Tzespass Boulder Future Yes, but BLA recommends to RHG that this item should be a
Agreement among Licensees Option cooperative effort among its members for them to undertake
Licensees independently,
d) Random selection of $PD huture No. BLA is opposed to random selection or lict=nsccs for
licensees to undergo yearly Option compliance checks, but Iil-A supports a distinction between low
compliance checks to allow risk and high risk locations for compliance checks. BLA is also
more officer time for concerned that BPD resources may be lost it; officer time is freed
undercover, enforcement. up; and that ibis item alone would not enable BPD to undertake
more undercover actions since alcohol officer is so recognizable to
licensees. Instead, added fundinglofficer resources must be
available for on-site stake outs, esp. over-service, fake IDs etc. to
allow 2 officer undercover ops.
e) Provide full funding for City and Future Yes, BLA strongly recommends this option and suggests
BPD alcohol undercover BPD Option combination of it with below item i. As described above, BLA
enforcement operations, feels that the alcohol oftcer must have depth of resources to
such as over-service and involve 2 officers when warranted to address known over-service
fake/false IDs checks. or fake Ills etc. issues at licensed establishments.
0 City press release to City Future No, BLA thinks that this option would be supportive of licensees
publicize licensees that pass Option but would not reduce over-consumption issues.
annual compliance checks.
g) Publicize licensees who City, Future Yes, BLA thinks that this option would be a good idea; however,
confiscate fake/false IDs. BPD, and Option BLA would suggest it to CU, with a focus on marketing to young
poss. CU persons at welcome back to school time. Alcohol Strategy Group
or CU Communieutions mi& take the lead on press
_ release/articles for this. _
h) Earmarking fines in lieu BLA., Future Yes. However, often the deterrent effect is lost with fines. BLA
of suspension for BPD City, and Option suggests that if a fine is accepted, then fine slinuld be paid for total
enforcement/education after Finance. of suspended and abeyance days. CAO/BLA notes that per law
deposit into general fund. flnea in lieu arc to be deposited into city's general fiend of local
licensing authority.
i) Provide educational BPD and Future Yes, BPD currently does some interventions in this area and BLA
outreach to licensees who Licensing Option has seen some positive results with renewal discussions,
do not confiscate fake IDs. _ l
*Options that would require minimal additional staff resources or would require minimal additional collaboration,
other than that which is currently occurring, from other city departments, BT,A, and ether community entities are
identified above as shadcd options.
'"It is important to note that abovo listed 01)tiolis if selectal will reSldt in nicronsed staff x~s~lurce raluircniciits,
including but not limited to, Licensiug, Office, Boulder Police, City Attorney's Office and Finance departmcr;ts.
Additionally, there is likely to bean economic development impact in connection with above. listed itcaus.
Packet page number 101 Agenda Item 6C 31
Clty of Boulder
Downtown and University Hill Management Division
Parking Services
2013 Recommended Budget
$9,403,000
The mission of Downtown and University Hill Management/Parking Services is to serve the
Downtown, University Hill, Boulder junction and other neighborhoods by providing quality
programs, parking, enforcement, maintenance, and alternative mode services with the highest
level of customer service, efficient management, and effective problem solving.
Downtown and University Hill Management
Division and Parking Services
i
Administration Parking and
Access
Department Overview
Administration
Provide administrative and financial support to the department, customer service to
patrons, and sales and administration of commercial and residential parking
permits. Provide staff liaison support to four advisory boards: Downtown
Management Commission, University Hill Commercial Area Management
Commission, and two Boulder Junction Access Districts - Parking and Travel
Demand Management.
Business Assistance and Events
• Manage public space permitting on University Hill, the Pearl Street Mall, and
citywide; coordinate with downtown and hill business organizations; provide
business retention and outreach services; and coordinate capital improvements
downtown and in the Hill commercial district.
Parking and Access
Parking and Access includes:
• Operations and Maintenance. Maintain and operate downtown and University Hill
automobile and bicycle parking infrastructure, including six surface lots, five
garages, 4,440 on-street auto parking spaces, and over 1,300 bike racks. Plan for
the implementation of the Boulder Junction Access Districts.
• Travel Demand Management (TDM). Administer the downtown travel demand
management programs: employee EcoPass, Car Share and Bike Share.
131
Downtown and University Hill Management Division
Parking Services
• Parking Enforcement. Use education and enforcement to manage parking in the
downtown and University Hill commercial areas, in ten Neighborhood Parking
Permit zones, and citywide.
Table 6-14: Downtown and University Hill Management Division J Parking Services
Summary Budget
2011 2012 2013
Actual Approved Recommended
PERSONNEL
AcIrninistration 645 6.45 6-45
Business Assistance and Events 1.50 1.50 1.50
Parking and Access: Operations TOM and
Enforcement 34.30 34.30 34.30
Capital Improvements Program,
Interdepartmental Charges and Debt Service -
Total Personnel 42.25 42.25 42.25
1EXPENDITURE
Administration S 1,000,941 S 1.079 833 5 1,122,915
Business Assistance and Events 674,007 341,214 348,424
Parking and Access: Operations TDM and
Enforcement 4,100,213 4,202,004 4,368,700
Capital Improvements Program,
Interdepartmental Charges and Debt Service 3,291,526 3,523,924 3,562,961
Total Expenditure $ 9,066,687 $ 9,146,976 $ 9,403,000
FUNDING
General $ 1,257,575 S1.217.791-
1,217,791 S 1,292,277
Dow ntow n Commercial District 7,283,261 7,326,405 7,478,043
University Hill Commercial District 507,725 552,486 569,734
Boulder Junction General Improvement
District-Parking 18,126 17,314 12,599
Boulder Junction General Improvement
District-TDIVI - 32,980 50,347
Total Funding $ 9,066,687 $ 9,146,976 $ 9,403,000
2012 Accomplishments
• Completed Hill Residential Service District proposal and timeline
• Completed downtown garages signage and interior improvements design
• Completed l 5th Street streetscape design
• Developed Chautauqua Parking Management Plan data collection
• Coordinated plans for the Pro Cycling Challenge race.
132
I
Downtown and University Hill Management Division
Parking Services
Key Initiatives for 2013
• Initiate Pearl Street Mall smoking ban pilot
• Develop Hill Residential Service District Petition and Election Process
• Examine Innovation District Development
• Explore Redevelopment opportunities with the UHGID parking lot on 14" St.
• Implement 151" Street Streetscape, West Pearl Streetscape, and Mall Interactive Kiosks,
all 2011 Capital Improvement Bond projects
• Conduct parking technology assessment.
Table 6-15: Downtown and University Hill Management Division / Parking Services
Significant Changes Between 2012 and 2013 Budget
2012 2013
Approved Recommended Total 2012 2013 FTE
Budget Budget Change FTE FTE Change
Increase in Credit Card Fees $ 29,000 $ 41,000 S 12,000 0.00 0.00 0.00
W • COMMEW9 DISTRICT
Increase in Credit Card Fees $ 156.60-O -S 230,000 S 74,000 0.00 0.00 0.00
UNIVERWY, HILL. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.'
Increase in Credo Card Fees S 26.000 S 37,000 $ 11,000 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Changes, Downtown and Unlverslty KII
Management DivisionlParking Services $ 97,000 0.00
133
Table 6-16: Downtown and University Hill Management Division / Parking
Services Department Detail Page
Variance -
2012 Approved 2013 Recommended 2012 Approved to
2011 Actual Budget Budget 2013 Recommended
Standard Standard Standard Standard
FTE Amount FfE Amount FTE Amount FfE Amount
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAM
Administration
Department Administration 6.45 S 982,815 645 S 1,029,539 6.45 S 1,059,969 S 30,430
Planning Boulder Junction Access
GIDs 18,126 50,294 - 62,946 12,652
Subtotal 6.45 S 1.000,941 645 S 1,079,833 8,45 S 1,122,915 - S 43,082
Business Assistance and Events
BID Funding for SurveylDatabase S 8,250 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 S
BID Funding for Events/Marketing 38,058 38,059 38,059
BID Funding for Trash,
Ambassadors, Kiosk - 24,477 - 39,803 25,146 (14,657)
Citywide Event Permitting 0.50 53,317 0.50 55,533 0 50 58,419 2.886
Citywide Film Permitling 0.10 5,924 0.10 6,170 010 6,490 320
Civic Plaza - Farmer's Nlarket - 2,360 - 1,800 - 1.800
Dow ntow n and Community
Inprovements - Pearl Street
NblVDow ntow n Streetscape 491,123 110,500 - 110,500 (0)
Nlall Operations 0.45 24,939 0 45 40.738 0 45 50,069 9,331
Nfall Permitting 0 45 24,938 0.45 40,736 0.45 50,068 9,330
News Box Program 2,621 - 2.873 - 2,873
Subtotal 1.50 S 674.007 1.50 S 341,214 1.50 S 348,424 $ 7,210
Parking and Access: Operations
TDMI and Enforcement
Meier Program 3.00 $ 650,783 3 00 $ 605,156 3.00 $ 753,400 3 88,244
Public Inf orm3lioNtxononic Vitality 20.934 - 37,000 - 37,000
Parking Garages/Lots - Dow ntow n
and University Hill 17.73 1,566,694 17 73 1.671.586 17.73 1.690.959 19,372
University Hill Streetscape and
Public Space Maintenance 1 03 90,440 1.03 92,016 1.03 96,916 4,900
- Neighborhood Parking Program 1.09 67,682 1.09 88.342 1 09 91,843 3,501
Parking Fnforcerrent and Special
Event Iiforcement 10.95 813,209 10.95 794,543 10.95 842,748 48,205
TDM- Carrrrerical District Access
Program 0.50 40,301 0.50 40,014 0.50 41,535 1,521
EccPass Program 796,720 - 792.848 - 793,800 952
CAGIDParking Refunds 16,103 16,000 16.000
Trash Bag Supplies Oulside the Fill
Business District - 17,348 4.500 - 4,500
Subtotal 34,30 S 4,100,213 34.30 S 4,202,004 34.30 S 4168,700 S 166,696
Capital Improvements Program,
Interdepartmental Charges and
Debt Service
Capital Improvement Program 3 86,762 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ -
Inlerdepartrrental Charges 327,740 278,721 276,637 (2,084)
Debt Service 1,925,934 1.929.517 1,935,752 6,235
Revenue Tranfers 951,090 915,686 950,572 34,666
Subtotal $ 3,291,526 $ 3,523,924 - $ 3,562,961 $ 39,037
Total 42.25 S 9.066,687 42.26 E 9,146,976 42.25 S 9,403,000 S 256,024
WIPENDITUREBY CATEGORY
Personnel $ 2,475,120 $ 2,622,884 $ 2,741,219 $ 118,335
Operating 3,399,039 3,438,181 3,557,772 119,592
Interdepartrrentat Charges 484,784 588,817 585,478 (3,339)
Capital 125,215 260,000 275,000 15,000
Debt Service 1,925,934 1,929,517 1,935,752 6,235
Other Financing 658,596 307,578 307,779 201
Total $ 9,066,687 S 9,146,976 S 9,403,000 $ 266,024
134
I
Table 6-16: Downtown and University Hill Management Division / Parking
Services Department Detail Page (Cont.)
Variance -
2012 Approved 2013 Recommended 2012 Approved to
2011 Actual Budget Budget 2013 Recommended
Standard Standard Standard Standard
FTE Amount FTE Amount FfE Amount FfE Amount
f"FFINGMD EXPENDITURE BY FUND
General 14.33 $ 1,257.575 14.33 S 1,217,791 14 33 S 1,292,277 $ 74,485
Downtown Con., rcialOistrict 2429 7,283,261 24.29 7,326,405 2429 7,478,043 151,638
University FVl Coa rercial District 3.63 507,725 3 63 552,486 3 63 569,734 17,248
Boulder Junction General
InproverrentNtrict-Perking 18,126 - 17,314 12,599 (4,715)
Boulder Junction General
Improvement District-MM - - 32,980 50,347 17,367
Total 42-25 $ 9,066,687 42.25 $ 9,146,976 42,25 $ 9,403,000 5 256.024
135
Table 7-26: University Hill Commercial District Fund, 2013 Fund Financial
N
T 7' COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ 685,785 $ 722,624 $ 711,945 $ 705,316 $ 684,276 $ 649,815 $ 600,995 $ 535,117
Sources of Funds
UHGID Sources
Property Tax S 25,967 S 27,575 $ 28,127 $ 28,690 5 29,264 $ 29,849 S 30,446 $ 31,055
Ow ners hip Tax 1,220 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
14th Street Lot-Meters 58,240 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000
Pleasant Lot-Meters 16,856 14,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Pleasant Lot-Permits 37,991 37,996 37,996 39.896 39,896 41,891 41,891 43,986
Parking Products - Meterhoodsrrokens 4,576 1,260 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
Interest and Miscellaneous 5,491 3,644 1,847 1,439 2,053 1,949 1,803 1,605
City of Boulder General Fund Transfers
On-Street Meters $ 314,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000
University Ave Meters (beginning 7/1111) - 115,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000
13th & Pennsylvania Lot - Meters 55,805 - - - - - - -
Parking Products - Meterhoods/Tokens 11,768 7,605 3,900 3.900 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900
Interest and Miscellaneous 12,043 8,504 4,311 3,357 4,790 4,549 4,207 3,746
Total Sources of Funds $ 543,957 $ 543,584 $ 560,761 $ 561,882 $ 564,503 $ 566,738 $ 566,847 $ 568,892
Uses of Funds
UHGID Uses
Parking Operations Personnel $ 104,771 $ 103,347 $ 120,809 $ 125,641 $ 130,667 $ 135,894 $ 141,330 $ 146,983
Parking Operations NonPersonnel 75,642 51,794 76,675 78,209 79,773 81,368 82,995 84,655
Capital Major Maintenance/Inprovements - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Capital Replacement Reserve 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
DUHMD/Admin Personnel 33,290 36,172 38,001 39,521 41,102 42,746 44,456 46,234
DUHMD/Admin Non Personnel 13,822 10,034 10,034 10,235 10,439 10,648 10,861 11,078
Eco-Pass Program - 675 675 675 675 675 675 675
Sick/Vacation Accrual 364 1,254 1,254 1,304 1,356 1,411 1,467 1,526
Cost Allocation 27,083 24,237 23,632 24.105 24,587 25,079 25,581 26,093
IY
Table 7-26: University Hill Commercial District Fund, 2013 Fund Financial (Cont.)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
City of Boulder General Fund Uses
Parking Operations Personnel $ 39,758 $ 46,338 $ 40,840 $ 42,474 $ 44,173 $ 45,939 $ 47,777 $ 49,688
Parking Operations Mon Personnel 67,372 81,468 67,586 68,938 70,316 71,723 73,157 74,620
DUH IYAdmin Personnel 67,589 73,440 77,154 80,240 83,450 86,788 90,259 93,870
DUHM❑/Admin NonPersonnel 46,336 20,372 20,372 20,779 21,195 21,619 22,051 22,492
Special Studies and Consultants 50,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000
Marketing/Economic Vitality 4,400 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Sick/Vacation Accrual 243 1,069 1,069 1,112 1,156 1,202 1,251 1,301
Cost Allocation 18,055 23,286 23,632 24,105 24,587 25,079 25,581 26,093
Carryovers a Encumbrances 4,100 - - - - - -
Total Uses of Funds $ 507,725 $ 556,586 $ 569,733 $ 585,337 S 601,476 $ 618,171 $ 635,442 $ 653.309
SickNacation Accrual Adjustment $ (607) $ (2,323) $ (2,323) $ (2,415) S (2,513) 5 (2,613) $ (2,718) $ (2,826)
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves $ 722,624 $ 711,945 $ 705,316 $ 684,276 S 649,815 $ 600,995 $ 535.117 $ 453 527
Reserves
Operating Reserve $ 126,931 $ 139,147 $ 142,433 $ 146,334 $ 150,369 $ 154,543 $ 158,860 $ 163,327
Pay Period 27 - Reserve 7,914 9,814 11,714 13,714 15,714 17,714 19,714 21,714
SickNacation/Bonus Reserve 18,302 20,625 22,948 25,364 27,876 30,490 33,207 36,033
Total Reserves $ 153,147 5 169,586 $ 177,095 $ 185,412 S 193.960 3 202,746 $ 211,782 $ 221,075
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves $ 569,477 $ 542,359 $ 528,220 $ 498,864 S 455,856 $ 398,249 S 323,336 $ 232,453
N
M
Ul