Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.worksession.20090901AGENDA JOINT WORK SESSION CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS & PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Sister Cities, City Hall Aspen, Colorado September 1, 2009 4:30 PM WORKSESSION 1. Review of the Aspen Area Community Plan update a. Review of Managing Growth -Cliff Weiss Presentation b. Review of Managing Growth -Lodging and Retail sectors 7:30 PM ADJOURN WORKSESSION MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: August 26, 2009 MEETING DATE: September 1, 2009, 4:30pm in Sister Cities RE: Managing Growth Open Discussion 3 SUMMARY: Both joint meetings on August 18`h and 25`h have given clear direction on items that should be included in the Managing Growth Chapter. The Intent and Philosophy sections seem to be taking shape, and there have been some good conversations about items that should be further discussed when we get to Goals and Action Items. At the August 25`h meeting the P&Zs reviewed the meeting summary from August 18`h and made some changes that helped to clarify what should be included in the Intent and Philosophy sections of the chapter. Below is the list of items that P&Z has stated should be included, with the understanding that the Intent section will be a few sentences and the Philosophy section will be longer and more detailed. Purpose of Managing Growth. 1. The purpose of managing growth it to maintain quality of life, which has been defined as: • Preserving our outdoor lifestyle through high quality of recreation, including backcountry opportunities. • Maintaining a world class level of arts & cultural amenities. • Preserving a built environment that reflects small town character. • Maintaining our historic integrity and azchitectural character • Maintaining and rebuilding a real sense of year-round community. • Preserving our environmental quality, and ensuring that growth redevelopment is environmentally sustainable. • Ensuring there is a balance between recreational opportunities and environmental ethics. Page 1 of 4 Other elements of why we manage growth: • A balanced economy is sustained by a broad and diverse economic base. • Development as an industry is unsustainable. Tourism /the Resort is sustainable. Too much development can degrade long-term sustainability of tourism /the Resort. To ensure that there is an accounting for and mitigation of the impacts from growth, while understanding that some types of growth, such as affordable housing, should not require affordable housing mitigation. Infrastructure should not just include things like transportation, water and sewer - affordable housing and protecting the environment should be seen as required infrastructure. 3. Pacing construction maintains quality of life for residents and visitors. 4. We recognize that by maintaining a high quality of life we will likely attract more people who want to come visit or live here, which creates added growth pressures. 5. There is consensus that we are not opposed to all free market growth. Carrying Capacity 1. We need to determine when quality of life starts to deteriorate for us and our guests as well, or if it already has. 2. We should talk about maintaining certain characteristics (like quality of life). It's important that it is somewhat subjective. Carrying capacity could be a statement like, "we have enough people in town." 3. Carrying capacity can always be increased by expanding infrastructure. But just because we could expand infrastructure and accommodate a much higher population, that doesn't mean we should do that. 4. This plan is about character and not necessarily an ultimate number, though we should examine a cap and rate of growth in the goals and action items. 5. An ultimate population ceiling has to be flexible, but we could identify a number that is not going to be exceeded. Again, this is something we should address in goals and action items. The P&Zs discussed residential growth at the August 25~h meeting and added to the list above (a detailed summary of the meeting is attached as Exhibit A). There was agreement that the-mass, scale, and bulk of what is being built is inappropriate and that there should be smaller house sizes in both the City and County (we should "zone it like we mean it"). There was also agreement that there should be a pacing system for growth, possibly through building permits. SEPTEMBER 1: Although the P&Zs have already begun a productive discussion on the lodging sector, staff has some more detailed questions for the P&Zs to consider on September ls`. Attached to this memo is detailed information on the recent history of the retail and lodging sectors (Exhibits B and C, respectively). Staff has also asked for feedback on the economy and the retail and lodging sectors from CCLC, ACRA, and SkiCo, as well as individuals who are in the retail and lodging sectors. Comments from these groups are also attached to this memo as Exhibits D through G. Staff has also included an excerpt from the 2002 Economic sustainability Page 2 of 4 Report that discusses major trends "affecting Aspen, its competitive position, and the business climate." (Exhibit H) There was extensive public feedback on these subjects from both the "Core Beliefs" "clicker" sessions in July 2006 and as part of the AACP update process. (This was part of the packet for the Aug. 18 meeting -please contact staff if you need another copy.) The "clicker" feedback also included responses on where people would like to see new growth -the highest responses were for the downtown area and the Buttermilk/AABC area. Detailed build out information for these areas is included in the Managing Growth chapter of the State of the Aspen Area Report (SOAA). (Note: As staff has gone back to examine the build-out numbers, we realized an error in the numbers for the commercial core, page 77 of the SOAA. This was due to an incorrect cell reference in excel. The revised numbers are attached as Exhibit K.) Questions to address at the September 151 meeting include: 1. Within the category of a lodge use, there are different types of lodging. For example, the city land use code was amended twice in the last five years to provides a sliding scale of incentives for lodge projects with small rooms (as small as 300 square feet). Should we attempt to further define types of lodging, such as high-amenity lodging versus low- amenity -odging? 2. Are there appropriate locations for luxury lodging versus moderate or economy lodging? 3. Public-private partnerships and/or public financing of new hotels has become increasingly common in the United States. Should we consider such partnerships in an effort to provide a more diverse lodging base? 4. Within the category of retail stores, there are different types of retail. Should we attempt - for the first time in the City of Aspen - to define different types of retail, such as "local- serving retail" versus "tourist-oriented retail," or "international designer brand luxury merchandise chains"? 5. One of the themes raised by CCLC, SkiCo, and the private sector interviews, is the importance that the Aspen Area remain relevant to younger generations. Should we focus on ensuring the Aspen Area is attractive for a new generation of visitors and residents? If yes, what needs to be done in the lodging and retail sectors to do this? Attached as Exhibit I is detailed population segment information for the Aspen Area. This includes data on commuters, a preliminary estimate of lodging population over times, population trends in affordable housing, an estimate of full-time residents not in affordable housing, and an estimate of what the population would be if all the second homes were used full time. Staff is continuing to work on lodging patterns for peak months and will have that data at the September 151 meeting. Also attached is the most detailed information from the Census on the population in the City of Aspen (Exhibit J). The data is from 2000 because the Census does not do a detailed mid-census report for Aspen due to our small size. However, staff believes the numbers are a useful tool today because the Census Bureau did a population estimate for Aspen in 2008 and the total population estimate remained relatively flat (down by 12 people from 5,914 in 2000 to 5,902 in 2008). After reviewing population estimates by segments of population at the Sept. 1 meeting, such as commuters, lodging populations, people who live and work in the Aspen Area, 2nd homeowners Page 3 of 4 etc., the P&Zs should be in a strong position to answer the questions that are critical to subsequent amendments to the Growth Management Quota System: 6. What types of uses do we want to encourage, and why? 7. What types of uses do we want to limit, and why? 8. If growth is to occur, where should it occur and why? Other Logistical Questions: Both the City and County P&Zs do not have a meeting scheduled on September 8`h. Are the P&Zs interested in having an additional special meeting on September 8`h, either to continue open discussion if necessary or to review drafr Intent and Philosophy language and begin a discussion of goals and action items? Some P&Z members asked whether it makes sense to combine the topics of Managing Growth and a Sustainable Economy. Afrer hearing the discussions and preparing the economy materials for the September ]s` meeting, staff believes that it makes sense to combine the Managing Growth and Economy chapters into one. What do the P&Zs think? ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Summary of Aug. 25 meeting Exhibit B: History of Retail Sector Exhibit C: History of Lodging Sector Exhibit D: Testimonials from members of the lodging and retail sectors Exhibit E: Feedback from CCLC Exhibit F: Feedback from ACRA Exhibit G: Feedback from SkiCo Exhibit H: Excerpt from 2002 Economic Sustainability Committee Report Exhibit I: Population Segment Information Exhibit J: 2000 Census data for City of Aspen Exhibit K: Revised numbers for Commercial Core -replace page 77 in the State of the Aspen Area Report Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Summary of Joint Planning and Zoning Commissions Meeting Courthouse Meeting Room /August 25, 2009 The following is not intended to serve as minutes, but to summarize P&Z discussion on the questions posed in the memo. The summary of P&Z responses incorporate elements of previous P&Z discussions. Question 1: • The 1976 Growth Management Plan, the 1993 AACP and the 2000 AACP identified pacing annual development through some kind of building permit quota system, yet such a system has never been implemented. Why do you think this goal has never become a reality? If the P&Zs wish to pursue such a goal, how can the AACP update provide a strong and compelling rationale? • A proposed new chapter of the city land use code called "Development Pacing System" was drafted in 2007, reviewed by Council but not adopted. The "Purpose" section of this chapter may be a helpful starting point for the P&Zs to discuss a rationale for a pacing system (please see Exhibit E). P&Z Response: The "Purpose" statement in the city's proposed Development Pacing System of 2007 (Exhibit E from 8.25.09 packet) is a good place to start in terms of the philosophy behind why pacing of construction activity is needed. The following reflects portions of Exhibit E while incorporating P&Z discussion: "The purpose of pacing construction is to maintain a high quality of life for residents and a high quality experience for visitors by preventing traffic congestion, noise, dust, disturbances and reduction in air quality; creating a safe and enjoyable atmosphere for pedestrians and bicyclists in a community that emphasizes alternate modes of transportation and an outdoor recreational lifestyle; preventing the disruption of the visual and aesthetic character of city and county neighborhoods and the downtown area through the presence of construction trailers, heavy truck parking, construction fences, port-o johns and disruption of landscaping. A number of pacing-related issues were discussed that will be directly relevant when goals and action items are discussed, including a) vested rights, b) a lottery for some limited annual number of building permits, c) a competition for some limited annual number of building permits, d) requiring redevelopment (scrape and replace and additions) to go through Growth Management at the "front end," e) requiring existing vacant lots to go through Growth Management, and f) various strategies for incentives/disincentives in a new process. Question 2: • Both the City and the County have required mitigation for redevelopment projects for many years. The City offers options such as payment-in-lieu for affordable housing or construction of an ADU as well as numerous impact fees, and the County requires a variety of mitigation as part of the building permit process. Should the City and County increase mitigation requirements for redevelopment? Why? Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A P&Z Response: Yes, there should be additional mitigation on redevelopment projects to maintain quality of life by mitigating all impacts, including environmental impacts, traffic and safety impacts, job-generation and the resulting need for affordable housing etc. Paying cash-in- lieu for affordable housing does not "get the job done" in terms of actually providing affordable housing. The need for public entities to subsequently find locations, design, review and build affordable housing places too much of burden on the public. Anew approach to mitigation For redevelopment could include new incentives and disincentives with regard to limiting house size, replacing residential infrastructure without increasing house size and other issues. Question 3: • Should there be changes to house size limits in the City? In the County? Why? P&Z Response: Yes. House size defines your impression of a community's character and identity. New limits on house size will preserve and maintain quality of life by planning for a built environment that ieflects the Aspen Area's historic heritage, by preserving scenic mountain views in the county portion of the UGB, by limiting damage to the natural environment including slope-cuts and erosion, by limiting the public financial burden of additional infrastructure and annual local government operations, by limiting unnecessary use of resources and unnecessary future energy use, by limiting carbon footprints, by limiting construction impacts, by reducing traffic congestion and maintaining the safety and enjoyment of our outdoor lifestyle. Page 2 of 2 Exhibit B Aspen's Downtown Commercial Profile In March 2006, the City Council identified four "themes" to explore as part of a moratorium on land use applications: one of them was "Commercial Mix." The charge for staff was to investigate the mix of commercial uses in the downtown area in order to move forward with a discussion on whether there was a healthy balance and a diversity of uses. The overriding concern stemmed largely from a number of businesses that disappeared in recent years, or were threatened with closing. A related concerned was whether there was enough "locally-serving" businesses for the year-round community. Over the last 10 years, businesses that have closed -- or have been on the verge of closure -- included the Isis Theatre, Aspen Drug, La Cocina, Explore Booksellers, Red Onion, The Crystal Palace, Cooper St. Pier, Funky Mountain Threads, Ute City Bar & Grille, Skier's Chalet, Motherlode, O'Leary's, Zele and others. When a longtime business/property owner decides to retire, sell the business and/or the property -the new buyer tends to pay a high price and may seek to replace the existing business(es) with tenants that can afford much higher rents, and may no longer be "locally-serving." Staff found that these businesses sometimes provided essential products, such as Aspen Drug, or were uses considered necessary in a resort town such as the Isis Theatre -and others were local "favorites' such as La Cocina and the Red Onion. These kinds of concerns were first articulated in the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan after Aspen's downtown commercial profile had undergone major changes in the late 1980s. The concerns were repeated in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan after many international chains opened in the 1990s. Fvrarntc of A~fP nn 'Cnmmerrial Mix' Document Excerpts 1993 Aspen Area Community The community must find ways to strike a balance between the local and tourist Plan shopping opportunities ... Developments which include locally oriented businesses should be encouraged. 1993 AACP Action Items Action Item: Create an acceptable, enforceable definition of "locally" serving uses. Action Item: Explore deed-restricted commercial space. 2000 Aspen Area Community Our economic and business decisions should ... ensure balance and integration Plan between'Aspen the Resort,' and 'Aspenthe Community.' Both residents and a diverse visitor population ... demand a lively, small-scale downtown with diverse and unique shops. 2000 AACP Action Items Action Item: Study and consider ways to support a diversity of small, locally-owned businesses in the commercial core as opposed to national chain stores and tourist- oriented retail. As part of an instant voting keypad session held in July 2006, more than 400 people responded to questions about the mix of commercial uses downtown. Nearly 60% either agreed or strongly agreed that they were "concerned about the current mix of commercial retail and restaurants downtown and how it serves my needs." Just over 62% either agreed or strongly agreed that, "Government should play a role in helping preserve and maintain some essential businesses that serve year-round residents." 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting Exhibit B Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B But the voting session wasn't only about "locally-serving" businesses. Nearly 64% agreed or strongly agreed that, "the current mix of retail stores is too high-end and does not meet the needs and interests of tourists." (Emphasis added.) Throughout this recent process, staff has recognized that the discussion on commercial mix may reflect a community concern over the mix of commercial uses that is offered to visitors -not just concerns over local shopping needs. After all, the downtown is like Aspen's "front porch" -the place where visitors first form their impressions of the City's identity. Some are displeased when passing ahigh-end chain store on Galena that used to be Andres. Others who arrived in town somewhat later remember the Smuggler Bar on Hopkins, and aren't as satisfied with the current retail use. Still others don't mind the changes -some like the fact that few resorts have such an array of international chains. One of the underlying factors is that retail stores are able to pay higher rents than restaurants and bars. Asa result, the prime "AAA" commercial properties have slowly and steadily converted from restaurants/bars into retail. What makes these "AAA" properties so prized is their high-profile, prime locations along what some have called "the vector of desire," which runs roughly south from the Jerome, east on Hopkins, south up Galena, east on Cooper and south up to the Gondola. In years past, businesses like Tom's Market, Andres, Smuggler Bar, Ute City Bar 8c Grille, Aspen Drug and others lined this prime route. Today, all of these businesses have converted to retail, with Bad Billy's on Cooper Street expected to follow this conversion when the building is redeveloped. These highly visible locations tend to form first impressions for visitors. With more than 400. people participating in the 2009 keypad sessions, the question was posed: "If downtown is the place where first-time visitors form their impression of the City's identity -are you generally satisfied with the feeling that is created by our mix of retail stores?" Forty-seven percent said they "don't like the impression we make;' and another 17% said they are "embarrassed when friends visit for the first time." At the same time that prime properties have converted to retail, another trend has emerged over the last 10-15 years -restaurants, bars and nightclubs going underground to find more favorable lease rates. The Double Diamond, Cigar Bar, Eric's Bar, Aspen Billiards, Club Chelsea, Campo De Fiore, Little Ollies, L'Hostaria, Matsuhisa, McStorlies, Roaring Fork Tavern, the Big Wrap and others emerged in the mid- to late 1990s, just as downtown rents began to skyrocket. More recent examples include the Double Dog, Fly Lounge, Parallel 15, Zocalito, Specialty Cheese Shop etc. As part of a legal settlement between City Council and the developers of the Cooper St. Pier building, a bar will be located in the basement when the building is redeveloped. The settlement did not include use restrictions on the first floor, so it is likely Bad Billy's will convert to retail. Another emerging trend is somewhat troubling in terms of downtown vitality. In 1992, there were approximately 72 restaurants/bars/nightclubs in the downtown, and there were 71 in 2000. But as of 2008, there were only 55 - a 22% decrease. It's hard to say what has contributed to this drop, although high rents may be a contributing factor. Another indication of this shift is a recent increase in outdoor food vending applications in the downtown, though a statistic is not readily available. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting Exhibit B Page 2 of 4 Exhibit B Although City Council lifted the moratorium on land use applications in April 2007, the Council had enacted a separate moratorium on issuing building permits in the Commercial Core Zone District in December 2006 -effectively halting changes in use and keeping the current commercial profile in place. (Some locals referred to this as the Red Onion moratorium.)This commercial building permit moratorium was extended through December 2007. In 2007, with the help of a consultant, staff proceeded to explore a range of potential regulations that have been used across the country, with a particular focus on resort areas. In September 2007, the City held another instant keypad voting session to get responses to various potential regulations. More than 90 people participated in the Hotel Jerome Ballroom, and the results were varied: • 83% wanted the City to explore "public-private partnerships to preserve essential commercial uses that are threatened in the future ..."; • 66% liked growth management incentives that might result in local-serving stores in basements, second floors and alley; • 46%favored a cap on "national/international chain stores that sell designer/luxury brand merchandise," while 43% favored a cap on jewelry stores; • 46% favored a new set of review standards before allowing more retail stores on the pedestrian malls (to encourage more restaurants); • 46% favored a "Community Commercial Zone District" limited to "locally-serving' uses; • 44% wanted the City to explore direct subsidies; • 37% were in favor of prohibiting chain stores & restaurants. In December 2007, Council extended the Commercial Core building permit moratorium, and also asked staff to look at the potential for requiring commercial mitigation that would provide some type of local- serving space as part of new development/redevelopment. In January 2008, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) released a membership survey (92 respondents) on the subject of commercial mix, with results similar to the September 2007 "clicker" session. The ACRA survey found that 72 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that the City should "play a role to preserve and maintain some essential businesses i.e. grocery stores, drug stores, Laundromat ... that serve year-round residents." Similar to the earlier clicker session, the only "tools" that attracted more than 60% support were public-private partnerships and growth management incentives to encourage new commercial space in basements, alleys and 2nd floors. Also in January 2008, staff presented Council with a wide range of tools that might be used for city government to play some kind of role in the mix of commercial uses, including new commercial mitigation requirements. No action was taken to adopt any of the tools, but Council asked staff to continue examining the issue. One of the central challenges of this topic has always been the difficulty in defining what is "locally- serving." At a meeting with the ACRA board in 2008, staff gave a presentation asking whether the following businesses were "local-serving' or actually had a more nuanced clientele: Ute Mountaineer, Jour de Fete, The Butcher's Block, Carl's Pharmacy, Paradise Bakery, Cleaner Express, Aspen Sports, Zele, 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting Exhibit B Page 3 of 4 Exhibit B the Aspen Store, the Gap, Aspen Velo, Explore Booksellers. ACRA members agreed it can be difficult to sort such businesses into easily defined categories. Complicating the question is the broader context of changing consumer habits. For example, just five or ten years ago, local residents would likely have been upset with the disappearance of the last store in town that sold CDs. But with the advent of i-Pods, the recent disappearance of Great Divide Music occurred with hardly a whimper. (It was replaced with the clothing and novelty store, "Two Old Hippies.") In order to follow-through on commercial use policies, government requires,a strong definition to work with, or such efforts tend to be fruitless. After two years of research and public discussion, staff concluded that there is no acceptable, enforceable working definition of "locally-serving business." During 2008, city staff and consultant Mark White began to focus more closely on businesses that provide sundries, or "necessities," such as pharmacies, dry cleaning, hardware, gas etc. The overriding concern became avoiding the scenario in which the downtown could lose its last gas station, as almost occurred in Snowmass Village several years ago. In June and July of 2008, staff presented more background information to the Council, including an extensive presentation by consultant Mark White. The new focus built on the apparent community support for apublic-private partnership approach, and was termed "the three-legged stool," made up of: - Identifying stores that provide necessities; - Exploring "succession planning" with such business owners, exploring options to ensure their continuation; - Exploring options for creating space or raising revenues to ensure the continuation of such businesses needed by the local community. One concept for continuing needed commercial uses is a community-owned store, if it comes to that. This widely-used model can bring the community to a decision point regarding what it really wants and needs. In order to get such a cooperative off the ground, a show of proof is required - a demonstration of financial commitment via community "shareholders." Council was receptive to these concepts, and ultimately decided to let the Commercial Core building permit moratorium expire in December 2008. Council decided to let the moratorium expire largely because their perspective appeared to shift away from investigating potential regulatory tools, which could be adopted under a moratorium to prevent a "rush" of applications. Instead, Council appeared more interested in some version of the "three-legged stool" as described above, which does not involve a regulatory approach. Due to other priorities, outreach to storeowners that provide "necessities" has not yet occurred. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting Exhibit B Page 4 of 4 Exhibit C Lod>;ine in the Aspen Area Since 2000 Action Item #14 in the 2000 AACP called for the establishment of a Sustainable Economic Development Task Force. In September 2002, the Economic Sustainability Report was released, making lodging development and redevelopment its top priority. The report identified "Issue #1" as follows: "Aspen has a deteriorating lodging and tourist facilities inventory. This includes small lodges and condominiums that are placed in the rental pool. Not only has the umber of available rooms decreased greatly, but also remaining facilities are not perceived by the visitor as offering appropriate value for their pricing. Lodging owners and potential developers do not perceive a sufficient return on investment to improve existing facilities and develop new ones:' The reports first recommendations was to, "Support redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities." Because much of the disappearing lodging inventory was in the "economy" category, changes to the City Land Use Code in 2005 encouraged projects with smaller lodge rooms. The code changes allowed more height, density and free market residential space if room size averaged 500 square feet. Smaller Rooms During the 2006-2007 moratorium, City Council was not satisfied that the 500 square foot room target was small enough, and established a sliding scale that allowed more free market residential development as lodge rooms got smaller- down to 300 square feet. While many use the term "affordable lodging;' the city has never pursued any kind of regulation regarding price-points. The city's recent interest regarding smaller rooms sizes stemmed from a concern regarding the loss of many smaller lodges and the simultaneous trend toward the development of very large "lodge" or condo/fractional units (over 2,000 square feet in some instances). Recent years have seen the market trending toward Deluxe accommodation projects, such as the Grand Hyatt, Dancing Bear, Residences at Little Nell and the Chart House, which is now under construction. The direction from City Council has been to maintain a balance and diversity in the lodging inventory as noted in the Economic Sustainability chapter of the 2000 AACP, which called for "... a diverse visitor population and ... varied choices of accommodation ...." The most significant example of this effort in the private sector is the new Limelight Lodge. The Limelight's 2005 application generally followed the new code provisions with rooms averaging 500 square feet, but applied for more free market residential space than the new incentives allowed, and was therefore a PUD application. It was approved in 2006 and the new lodge opened in 2008. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit C Page 1 of 3 Exhibit C Reeional Luxury Lodge Development There continues to be substantial growth in regional competition for deluxe lodging. Name Location Rooms Opening St. Regis Deer Crest Deer Valley, Utah 181 11/09 Waldorf Astoria / Dakota Mountain Lodge The Canyons, Utah 201 5/09 Arrabelle at Vail Square Vail 62 2008 Four Seasons Jackson Hole 156 2005 Ritz Carlton Beaver Creek 180 2004 As the regional supply of deluxe lodge units continues to grow, there may be a downward pressure on prices regardless of economic conditions, and this would have a ripple effect on lodging prices below the deluxe level. Downward pressure on pricing at the deluxe level and resulting ripple effects in the moderate category has accelerated during the past year due to economic conditions. It's expected that lodging tax revenue will be down substantially this year. Consultant Research In 2006, the city hired HVS International to prepare a report on lodging issues in Aspen. A brief summary of some of the topics covered in the 60-page report are as follows: • Public sector involvement in lodging projects is increasingly common due to limits on availability of capital for new hotel investments. • High seasonality in Aspen means need for rooms at peak times but encumbers the market with oversupply at other times of year. • Analysis of "unaccommodated demand" shows the Aspen market is capable of absorbing a moderate amount of new supply over the next 10 years. • If there were about 150 more rooms available in the 2005 + 2006 winter seasons, they would have been filled. • Land and development costs significantly higher than most markets. • New moderately-priced hotel not possible in Aspen without a substantial residential component to offset financial losses. • Most public sector involvement is to attract visitors and increase spending. • Aspen's desired result is to induce more affordable lodging opportunities. • Limited food and beverage facilities on-site can result in more moderate prices. • To help control the type of new hotel supply, the city could change zoning to allow luxury hotels on-mountain and limited-service hotels in off-mountain areas. Room size could be altered by zone as well. • The market now sees 300-400 square foot rooms as a mid-rate property, while luxury hotel room size is 600 square feet or more for suites. Unaccommodated Demand HVS used the concept of "unaccommodated demand" to determine how many additional lodging units a community can absorb. The idea is that when occupancy rates reach 85%, people who want to stay in a given area are "diverted" and go elsewhere. Although it might seem that 100% occupancy would be the rate when people are diverted, the concept is that once 85% is reached, people start to be "diverted" due to price and length of stay requirements. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit C Page 2 of 3 Exhibit C Based on data collected in 2004 and 2005, HVS International estimated that from December through March, about 150 rooms could have been filled in Aspen each night if they were available. Data compiled by MTRIP in 2006 showed that luxury hotel occupancy in Aspen routinely exceeded 90% throughout the ski season and in July and August, while moderate hotels exceeded 85% only during Christmas and New Years. Seasonal Occupancy Phenomena. Based on a snapshot of data in 2005 and 2006, occupancy rates for luxury hotels are slightly higher than for moderate hotels in the peak winter and summer months. Moderate hotels hit between 80% and 85% occupancy in peak months, while luxury hotels were about 85% to 90%. Both luxury and moderate hotels both reach their lowest rates of 10% to 25% in April and late October/early November. The only times of year when moderate hotels had the same or higher occupancy rate than luxury hotels was for the week of the X-Games and for Food & Wine. For the X-Games, the extensive production team combined with the demographic of the participants and audience are the likely reasons, while Food & Wine probably has the largest "production team" coming from out of town compared to any special event in the Aspen area. The only months when the occupancy rates of luxury versus moderate hotels diverge substantially are in the shoulder months of May, September and late November. This is likely due to luxury hotels reducing rates enough in off-season so that visitors are willing to pay for the luxury experience, rather than choose the moderate hotel. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit C Page 3 of 3 Exhibit D Private Sector Testimonials: Perspectives on the Aspen Area Economy The following are testimonials from people working in various sectors of the Aspen Area, ranging from lodging, retail and a downtown property owner. Because many business/property owners have important perspectives but are not willing to engage in public debate on hot-button issues, some of the testimonials are anonymous. Mitch Osur /Manager, Aspen Sports President /Aspen Retail Association Mitch Osur and others started the Aspen Retail Association about six months ago. He says the new ARA can "help Aspen be what it needs to be. We can help lifr all boats." The town needs young people, as visitors and as employees. You have the kids who stay here for a year or two and then you have the older generation -there's not much in between. The X- Games is where it's ended and we all need to talk about that. The town needs young people to be successful in the long-term. What will people look for tomorrow? You can't just look at the past. I'm an entrepreneur and I'm against saying there should be quotas for some kinds of stores. If there's four fur shops, then you can't open a fur shop? I disagree with that. I don't think government is adaptive enough to legislate what the retail sector looks like. I don't think rent control is the answer. But I also understand that there are some businesses we really need. I go to the Miner's building almost every day for one thing or another. I like the idea of some kind of outreach with those businesses to be prepared for what might happen down the road. I like the idea of community cooperatives if it comes to that - it's a way to find out what locals really might need. I think it's OK that people go out of town to get a lot of things. That's fine. I don't want Aspen to be like Glenwood Springs. (I should mention that my employees love the Thrift Shop.) I like the idea of sub-grade businesses and I'd like to see more of that. People will find their way there. It would just be more examples of a pretty strong retail community. Compared to a lot of other places, if you walk around town we have lots of unique stores and restaurants - we shouldn't lose sight of that. I understand that people are looking for some more reasonable places to eat. There's demand for that kind of thing - there's a huge line out of McDonalds every day. I used to go out for lunch every day but for quite a while now, I bring my lunch every day. I love to see the vendors. The shaved ice vender is great, everybody loves that. The balloon man has been great -every kid who comes inhere has a balloon in their hand. I think we need to be welcoming to the vendors. I think we need to address the barrier that exists for that mid-market vacationer. There are times in the ski season where it's too quiet -before Christmas, at times in March, depending on when Easter falls. Everyone can work together, from the lodges and the retailers and the skiing company -everybody can work together to offer discounts to really attract that mid-mazket person. We're all going to be open anyway, the lifts aze going to be running, I just think there's more we can do. Of course special events drive business, I always wasn't to see more of them, but I think we can do more if we work together. We all need each other. We don't have to be 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 1 of 7 Exhibit D Keystone to attract a different kind of customer. We're not just a place for the rich and famous -- we're athletic, we're green. You don't have to be quote-affordable to have''/z-priced Wednesdays ... I like the idea of smaller lodge rooms, I like the idea of the low-amenity lodge - it means people will leave the lodge and walk around town to enjoy what's here. Aspen is the real McCoy -it's so walkable and that's a big advantage we have over some other mountain resorts. I'm worried that people are getting too fussy. Let's have the real outdoor concerts. Having Opera in the Park was great the last two years -let's have Warren Miller movies in the park with the snow coming down. I can't figure out if everyone is really committed to Gay Ski Week - I think it used to be a stronger event. The guy who owns Hooters lives up here and he brings 200 girls here in April for photos shoots and so forth -let's make that an event. People got all worried about that Cougazs TV show. C'mon! Seriously? Let's open our arms and let `em come and have fun! I think the July 4`h parade is who we aze. It's just silly enough and just crazy enough so all ages like it -everyone likes it. It's not a norm al July 4`h in America, but it's who we aze. Downtown Store Owner A big breakthrough would be if rents were more affordable. There are some landlords now who aze lowering rents because of the economy. But I'm a strong believer in market forces and not having government involved. If you have a concept the mazket wants to support, it will succeed. If stores go, maybe it wasn't what the market wanted to buy. We're a town that's always been very sought afrer because of the natural beauty and the culture, particularly in summer, and there are a lot of high-end tourists, like Monaco, and that's OK. I think for a long time now, I think there's been a tone and a message that's gone out that they're not appreciated and that's not right. We should embrace everyone. Overall I think we've done a good job balancing the resort and the community. We're very conscious of that as a town. On "locally-serving business" -I've asked people to define it and I haven't heard the definition yet. People might say there's no place for me to buy clothes, but I think people forget that there never really was. And we can't compete with Target and the Internet. So what if we had a new casual clothing store: What I want will probably be different than what you want. Which local are we serving? I think we have a healthy blend. Yes, the big names have the prime locations and if you're doing a quick drive-through, that's what stands out, but if you pound the pavement, there are still a lot of great boutiques. And there's a trend of people going subgrade now, which is primarily a function of lower rents. There's a new clothing store in Peter Fornell's space, there's Pazallel 15, Double Dog. That's not a bad thing. In a way, you want to be a great little find that people go out 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 2 of 7 Exhibit D and discover. It's difficult, but local people are opening businesses such as Gisella. Bad Billy's has created quite a vibe. On the subject of restaurants, when I go to other towns or resorts, I do see more places that are a combination of sandwich and salad for lunch but also offering casual family dining, like Boogies. We don't have a lot of that here: sort of Jour de Fete plus dinner. I think a lot of us have a longing for the past and to turn back the clock, but you know, we have it pretty good here. Yes, town has changed. I think a lot of this discussion about locally-serving business is nostalgia-driven. I got here when Andre's was just closing and I know there are beloved memories of that. People walk past today and it's Prada and it gets their hackles up. Do we really wish we could change it back to when the Brand Building was a hardware store - do we really want the economics of Leadville? As for the future, it's great that the X-Games has introduced Aspen to a new generation. It makes Aspen cool. We need those street concerts. What Michael Goldberg was talking about for a concert in the park was great. Town is going to have to be about more than the Music Festival and Institute crowd, even though of course they're so important. I was flying into Aspen and the woman sitting next to me had been visiting for years. She said she was reading the local newspapers and she said it seems like we want to change our image and our reputation. She said, "It's always been exclusive to a degree. It's not easy to get to, It takes time and money to get here. Why not just accept it as it is?" Courtney Lord Retail Real Estate Development since 1972 Aspen homeowner since 1985 Aspen is fortunate to have always had a vital retail community; there are a lot of local merchants who are very good at what they do and have had long-term success. The Optical Shop and Paradise Bakery are examples that both started in Aspen and then grew into national chains -- but they started here and that's something to be proud o£ The intemationally famous retailers are also important -Aspen continues to be recognized internationally because these stores have the Aspen location listed right on the door in their outlets in Paris, Milan, New York, etc. I'm concerned that Aspen's population has been relatively flat for 20 years which has led to Aspen aging more than other places. This can lead to a kind of calcification in energy and dynamism that's not healthy for a prospering community. The City needs to reach out and talk about a great development plan for the parking lot behind Boogies and other major developmentlredevelopment sites in the Core. Adding retail square footage in the City will have a moderating impact on rental rates allowing for more merchandising depth, new retail concepts, greater variety, and energized streetscape. Reviving development density in the Core will add to the population, take cars off the road, and allow for a natural growth in retail, restaurants, lodging, office and residential (market and 9. ] .09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 3 of 7 Exhibit D subsidized). That should allow options for the next generation of people in the productive years of their lives to afford to select Aspen as a destination as I was able to do in the 80's. Regarding the next generation: The gentrification related to the baby boomer generation is not going to last forever. The question is, how do you connect with my daughter and make Aspen relevant to her and her kind? It would be helpful to see a group of Aspen Stakeholders emerge -- call it "Aspen 2025: The Next Chapter". The group would have as a charter, "How to be relevant to the next generation". One way to stay relevant is to respect Aspen's architecture and history - when I got here in 1967 I fell in love with Aspen because town was "genuine" and that history is part of Aspen's authenticity. You don't get that in Vail. Another way to stay relevant is to build on the institutions we have in terms of culture and the arts. There will always be young people drawn by the arts. We have an embedded base of great institutions that have been established over the last 50 years from the Institute to the Art Museum to the Music Festival. It's institutions like these that can and continue to adapt and respond to the interests of changing demographics, trends, and popular culture. And they need and should have the space to do that. It's a shame that the sale/lease of public land to the Aspen Art Museum was defeated. The extraordinary gift that the institution and its supporters were and are looking to bring to our community is unique. A phenomenal design by an internationally recognized modern architect creating an incredible public building that will be used for all kinds of art and community-enriching activities that will be relevant for all Aspen constituents is the kind of big idea that ends up enhancing Aspen and its continued place in the world of unique destinations. We need to have a mixture of healthy, unique-to- Aspen institutions that continue to set our community apart from others. Downtown Property Owner Locally-serving business is exactly what will never be here - WalMart and Target. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone wants them here and there's not enough space either. The point is they offer products and price-points that no one can compete with - no matter how you cut it. That's why they're WalMart and Target. That's the reality of retail in the last 15-20 years. I loved the shoemaker, the cobbler when we had one, but he doesn't survive today because shoes have become throwaway items. I think it was Mazgo Pendleton many years ago who coined the phrase about being able to buy socks and underwear in Aspen. The Gap sells those things, Eddie Bauer sold those things but they didn't have the volume to support the store. Even then, people shopped downvalley. On the subject of restaurants: There has been a conversion that's taken place over a long period of time where the really prime locations have shifted from restaurant to retail. Andres became Prada, Smuggler Bar was converted, Tom's Mazket became Hard Rock Cafe which became Amen Wardy, Ute City became Burberry, Cooper St. Pier will become retail on the ground floor with the bar/restaurant in the basement. I think this conversion has run its course. Aside from Ruth Chris, I can't think of another really prime location that isn't already retail. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 4 of 7 Exhibit D On generational change: What the Ski Company did with snowboarding and the X-Games was brilliant. I think there is a worry about gentrification and aging of the community. I think you have to think about what your business is. I think the City is in the arts business and whether people like it or not, the City is in the tourism business. On that level, I think we are totally under-marketed compared to what other resorts spend. I think a major breakthrough would be that the City government has a welcomirig posture to everybody, including the second homeowners who keep the town afloat. City government should be open-ended and open-armed. Lodge Owner/Mana¢er The loss of "economy" and "moderate" lodges in Aspen over the last 15-20 years was due largely to the fact that many of the buildings were not built to last, aging proprietors seeking to retire and a product that is out of step with modern traveler seeking modern amenities. Unique is good, run-down is not. In terms of mid-market lodging, our competition as a ski resort is in New Mexico, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Winter Pazk etc. Our status as a destination resort creates a substantial barrier to mid-mazket vacationers. Many people seeking mid-mazket accommodations are relatively wealthy Europeans who will come to Aspen but are looking for a financial break somewhere in the visit. They might want to stay at the most deluxe hotel in town, but they will take a nice new 2"d tier because everything else is expensive. Are these the next generation of ski "bums?" as referred to in your public feedback? Probably not, but they are the next generation. Because we are a destination resort, special events drive our success, but we take them for granted. The loss of HBO comedy fest was a major loss -even if many weren't skiers, they were young and cutting edge, they were cool and hip. Winterskol used to be a fearless, unhinged event -- skiing naked into pools, throwing water balloons in the parade -that you find only in Aspen. There was a feazless attitude, kicking a--, taking names, visiting Doctor Feelgood's head shop, yellow snow, steep deeps, nude anti-fur protests-just get out of my safe life and get wild, while the Institute stretched their minds ... but we've gotten older. We have experienced the taming of Winterskol. Are we a resort first that attracts people who want a great experience of "nutty" Aspen or are we catering first to an aging residential population and second home owners who don't want loud music in Wagner Park? The movies Aspen Xtreme and Dumb and Dumber were GOOD things -but we were too snooty to even let Dumb and Dumber film here. The Cougar show was totally unhinged, but there were a lot of people who felt embarrassed by that. Is that embarrassing? No! Sometimes we're too cool for school. People say if only we had cheaper hotels, people would come here. No, if we had a wet t-shirt contest, people would come here. I'm not being literal here - I'm not saying we should have wet 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 5 of 7 Exhibit D t-shirt contests. I'm not saying we should try to duplicate the hipness and coolness of the past or trade on sex, but we have to find what's cool and cutting edge today, to young people. The X- Games are the only example of that -without the X-Games, we would be in big, big trouble - but that's not enough. We need well-educated world travelers, not people that have no money. "Affordable Aspen" just plays right into our rich reputation. What does that phrase mean to someone who's never been here? It's a defensive position. No really, we're affordable! It's like when Vegas tried to attract families -that bombed. It's only when they went back to that raunchy nasty reputation that it took off again. You are who you are and you have to be that. That doesn't mean we're just a playground for the rich and famous -we're super-athletic and we're environmentally conscious, we're John Denver. We have to be Colorado first. "This is Colorado, and Aspen too." Lodee Manager The term ski bum is ancient history - we just don't have them anymore. A breakthrough in the next 10 years would be building a hotel and turning the Lifr 1 azea into a vital area, a new part of the base of the mountain. That would lift all boats, so to speak. Right now it's deader than dead. If it's all super-expensive that's not good, but making it all moderate, you just can't do it. I think having a mixture of different kinds of offerings would be great. I'm not as worried about having a diverse visitor base as some others. It's OK to say we're a resort on the upper end of the scale. We shouldn't have to be a place where a factory worker in Ohio who makes $35,000 a year would want to come -there are places like that, but Aspen's not one of them. A lot of people look to the past and say it used to be great and yes the rooms were cheaper but you still had to spend money to get here and stay here and people still b----ed about the lift tickets -- that hasn't changed. People who come here still think it's a terrific place. No one says, `Gee I wish I was here 30 years ago.' To worry that it's not the way it used to be, come on, everybody has changed, it's not relevant. The question is: What aze people looking for today? What will they be looking for tomorrow? I think we're seeing a cultural shifr away from the lavish consumption we've see since the 1980s. I think we're moving towards a cultural frugality -not just because of the economy, I think it's a bigger shift than that. Another breakthrough in the next 10 years would be another Limelight. It's good quality -it's not inexpensive, but it's certainly below the St. Regis and the Little Nell, it's a nice property and they've got great personality. I don't think we need chains, and I don't think we need another big super deluxe hotel. Some high-end at Lift 1 would be fine, but not the whole thing. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 6 of 7 Exhibit D As for inexpensive lodges, you just can't develop that in this town with the land prices, the building costs and the mitigation that's required. The Limelight was able to get some concessions and even so they can't be what you think of as "inexpensive." I mean no one's really talking about a Motel 6 on the edge of town, and I don't think anyone's talking seriously about the city publicly subsidizing a new hotel. On the question of whether we have enough local serving retail, some is a result of high rents perhaps but I think most of it is demand -there's just not that many locals to support that local- serving store and I think locals have gotten used to shopping elsewhere for a lot of things and that's just what we do. When Eddie Bauer disappeared, the owner said there just wasn't enough traffic to support it. Some of the high -end stores like Prada, that's OK -it's sort of like people at the zoo staring at the $5,000 purses, it's different, but it would be nice to have some more of those nice funky boutiques we used to have. I'd like some more diversity in retail. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit D Page 7 of 7 Exhibit E Feedback from Commercial Core and Lodging Commission The following was based on several discussions between staff and the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC). It reflects a consensus on feedback for the City/County Planning and Zoning Commissions to consider with regard to the AACP chapter on "Sustainable Economy. " Top Priority: Over the next 10 yeazs and beyond, we are concerned that the Aspen azea will be in jeopardy of becoming irrelevant to younger generations. We need creative thinking to address this generational issue. We need to create the conditions necessary to be an interesting and attractive place to younger generations. A "free-thinking" group of people should convene to discuss and debate this question. Related Action Item: The potential for lodging with v~ small rooms, high density and resulting affordability should be explored, based on "hostel-style" models in large international cities such as Paris and London. Other Goals: When new or redeveloped lodges are considered for approval, one important priority should be that the lodge emphasize "town as amenity" rather than providing a wide variety of amenities on-site. The benefits of this approach include the economic support of downtown retail and restaurants, and walk-around vitality. In addition, "high-amenity" lodges or "private club" models tend to separate visitors from the community-at-large. It's important for all demographics to rub elbows, and we believe this approach will provide visitors with a more genuine experience. While it's critical to consider what the market demands in terms of lodges/amenities, there is recent evidence that the market would support either a "high-amenity" lodge method or a "town as amenity" approach. Another advantage would be to potentially reduce the mass and scale required fora "high amenity" lodge. Other Goals: The City should consider reducing or eliminating affordable housing mitigation requirements for existing small lodges that want to redevelop, as long as the redevelopment plan fits the context of its neighborhood. Small lodges are an important part of Aspen and its history, and housing mitigation is likely to make it difficult or impossible for this aging sector of the lodge inventory to redevelop/expand. Other Goals: We are concerned that some "essential" businesses that provide basic products and services could be replaced with other uses due to high commercial land prices in Aspen. This phenomenon occurred in Snowmass Village not long ago, when the only gas station in town was threatened with closing and redevelopment. It is possible for the community to identify a short list of the types of business that are considered "essential" i.e. phazmacy, gas, hardwaze, Laundromat etc., and begin outreach efforts to understand their short- and long-term future. It would be worthwhile for city government and/or the chamber and/or other groups to explore options for "succession planning" for these kinds of businesses. We understand this may ultimately require public funding, or incentives and negotiations as part of a future redevelopment proposal: These options can be debated and discussed by the community on a case-by-case basis, if necessary. One option used in other communities to maintain a certain type 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit E Page 1 of 2 Exhibit E of business would be a "community cooperative" approach in which shares could be sold -this is a method that could "test" the real demand for a particular type of business. Related Comment: There is a difference between a short list of business types that provide basic and essential products, and the concept of preserving or adding "local-serving business" on a lazger scale. This concept has been debated for at least 15 years without any meaningful results. There are several reasons why the community should move on from this discussion: / When it comes to the concept of local-serving businesses, everyone has something different in their heart that they want to protect. The desire to preserve or create new local-serving business is probably largely driven by nostalgia rather than by a real need. / Local government is not nimble enough to attempt to play a major role in the commercial sector. We don't believe the creation of "local-serving business" can be legislated. / We're concerned that the concept of "local-serving business" also reflects a notion that we are entitled to buy cheap goods in town. It has been adecades-long practice for Aspenites to take occasional trips to Glenwood, Grand Junction or even Denver to buy merchandise that is either not available in town, or is more affordable elsewhere. The Internet is and will continue to play a major role in retail sales in Aspen and across the country. Continuing these practices is far preferable to the endless debate, high cost and almost certainly ineffective role government would have to play in preserving or creating "local-serving businesses." 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit E Page 2 of 2 Exhibit F Feedback from ACRA The following are items submitted by ACRA in regard to Aspen's Economy. Marketinff The foundation of Aspen's economy is a resort economy that depends on a strong tourism sector to sustain lodging, retail, restaurant, and other tourism business; as well as music, arts and special events. The future of Aspen's vitality relies on recognizing the tourism economy and supporting it with a solid sales and marketing campaign that continues to attract visitors and groups to the resort throughout the year. While Aspen enjoys a solid brand perception and benefits from a high rate of return visitors; the tourism industry has become increasingly competitive and will remain so for some time. Travel decisions are based on added value and experience; and travelers are more conscious than ever of where they spend their vacation dollars. Aspen currently has one of the lowest marketing budgets among our resort competitors. In order to gain market share and enhance the tourism economy, we need to recognize the need for an increased marketing budget that falls in line with our competitors. Increased marketing will support our resort economy, sustaining existing businesses and jobs that rely on tourism. Marketing should be seen as sustaining our resort and not necessarily be associated with growth or development. The future of Aspen's tourism economy will need to reflect the changes in the global economy and consumer behavior. We need to continue to offer value added promotions that make Aspen more accessible to a broader audience. At the same time, Aspen needs to retain its brand and quality. While Aspen has relied on repeat visitors and enjoys a solid customer base, our destination marketing will need to engage a broader and more diverse audience with promotions and special events that appeal to a younger and less affluent visitor. The message remains the same, namely that Aspen is a great destination all year round and that it is uniquely positioned with the amount of special events, arts, culture, dining, music, family and outdoor activities for visitors to enjoy. An enhanced sales and marketing campaign for Aspen should include wider distribution of advertising and collateral materials, increased marketing specifically for group travel and destination weddings, increased sponsorship in order to host groups and special events; and increased public relations efforts. Aspen should also create more incentives for film and television crews to shoot in Aspen and make production more accessible as it provides a positive economic return to the local community; in addition to increased exposure to our resort destination. 9.1.09 P&Z Packet, Exhibit F Page 1 of 4 Exhibit F Date: July 21, 2009 To: Debbie Braun From: Jennifer Carney RE: Special Events - AACP Economic Stability Comments Special Events are vital to the economy. They reward local businesses by increasing traffic into their establishments. Events bring people into retails stores, put heads in lodge's beds, and fill tables at restaurants and bars. In addition, events also increase local revenue by hiring local businesses to provide event services. Examples include: security, tent rentals, sound systems & lighting services, printing/copying services, advertising services (newspaper, radio, tv, ad buys, etc.) graphic design services, food and beverage, entertainers, etc. But not every event may benefit each business sector; it's valuable to the community to consider a mix of different types of events throughout the year. A. Event Space: When considering new events that could be produced in Aspen to help stimulate the economy, the lazgest hurdle to over-come is space to host them and in particular, outdoor space. Wagner Park is in great demand as an event location due to its prime location to the downtown core, base of Aspen Mountain, and access to public transportation (proximity to Ruby Park) but Wagner Park is very limited in its ability to host events. Wagner Park is primarily a community park and sports playing field that, when events are hosted on it, damages the surface that could cause injury to players. In addition, the recovery period required for the grass to be maintained at optimal levels limits the amount of games and events that can take place weekend to weekend because the grass needs time to recover following an event or game. A solution may be to construct an alternative playing field for sports, invest in floor covering that could be utilized by many events that would protect the grass, or install alternative grass solutions. Indoor space is also limited for large events that need multiple venues. The City may wish to consider allowing the development of structures that include public meeting space and ideally one that would host a minimum of 250 attendees. Many current structures have smaller spaces that seat 50-90 attendees and that really isn't a big enough space to attract a large group. B. Developmental Criteria: For project developments, the COA may also consider including additional criteria that would allow an event to be produced more successfully. For example, below are suggestions I have shared with COA Asset Management department in regards to the re-development of the Galena Street Plaza/Aspen Garage Roof) should they wish to consider using it for an event space: 9.1.09 P&Z Packet, Exhibit F Page 2 of 4 Exhibit F I.) Access to load-in & load out equipment (parking for vehicles un-loading supplies, trash/compost/recyclerernoval needs, if necessary port-a-potty servicing, etc.) 2.) Turning radius issue around round-about to get equipment trucks in and out 3.) Staging area for prep needs/supplies 4.) Electrical Source: For tents to plug. lights into, blower heaters in the winter, or entertainment (ex: band sound board & instrument needs), etc. It's much easier if we could tap into the city grid for electrical than to bring in our own, smelly, noisy, generators. (I think the city uses electricity powered by wind power so it's considered a greener energy source than a generator as well.) Having electrical access makes it much easier to produce an event over-all. 5.) Water Source: To fill water barrels for tents, and in general water access comes in handy. And then, of course, you need a source to empty the water barrels into when you're done. Other projects could also consider: 1.) Restroom facilities: Permanent facilities offer attendees a much nicer event experience than port-a-potties 2.) Parking for attendees or the ability to accommodate public transportation options such as bus parking C. Permitting Process: The COA manages the event permitting process. Efforts to streamline the process could entice more events to Aspen. And editing some of the city regulations to make it easier to obtain a permit may be appealing to event organizers. D. Loosen regulations for sponsorship recognition: Sponsorships generate funds to allow an organization to produce an event. In return for dollars spent, sponsors are looking for opportunities to receive recognition. Often, COA regulations make it difficult to offer sponsors opportunities that compete with other resort markets. Examples include: Car placements -Car sponsors would like to be in prime locations including across from Pazadise Bakery. Current COA regulations do not allow this. Signage codes -Sponsors can't have logos Facing out into the public from an event venue, etc. In this economy, Aspen should feel lucky when a sponsor chooses to spend its limited marketing dollars in our community. Sponsors have marketing messages that they are trying to send and the City should support them in their efforts and offer an experience that encourages them to return. Reconsider some of the ZGreen event regulations that limit sponsor abilities. Again, a sponsor may be selling a product they need to market so for us to not be able to offer them product sampling b/c the city doesn't allow anything to be handed out that can't be re-used or re-cycled does not encourage sponsors to invest their dollars in our community. Please also remember that sponsorships bring more than just dollars to an event's production, they often bring people that activate their sponsorship for the event that will be renting hotel rooms, eating in our restaurants, shopping, etc. again, driving local business. 9.1.09 P&Z Packet, Exhibit F Page 3 of 4 Exhibit F E. Better coordination to support events among city departments: Example: The COA pays the ACRA a contract for services fee to help produce events in Aspen. But then, a department may charge us back a fee to host the event on City property. (Ex: Parking Department chazging us back for parking spaces used during an event.) F. Evaluate the current times and put event production resources to what is relevant and working today: Example: Soupskol has become one of WinterskSl's most popular events with-in the last few years. Attendees love it, Restaurants participate in it, and it embodies Winterskol spirit that appeals to both locals and visitors. But the pazade is not successful anymore so why do we continue hosting it? No one participates but just because it's "tradition" does it mean that it should still happen? 9.1.09 P&Z Packet, Exhibit F Page 4 of 4 Exhibit G Aspen Area Community Plan Economics Section Initial comments and suggestions regarding the Plan and Vision Draft David Corbin -Planning and Development Dept., ASC 713109 Type of Economy /Plan in General: The AACP should recognize, accept and embrace the fact Aspen has a "resort economy' as its modern economic catalyst, foundation and primary draw. o Other sectors of our local economy, including real estate, construction, retail and various service sectors, largely flow from or build upon this foundation. o The demand for real estate, for example, is predicated upon the existence and appeal of the resort, its features, activities and amenities. Once the foundation of the economy is acknowledged, then consider how to nurture, sustain and promote its /our economic health and well being. Differentiating between the "Aspen the Resort" and "Aspen the Community" is false dichotomy and engenders unnecessary and false choices. o With the demise of mining and ranching there would be no "Aspen Community" as we know it today without "Aspen the Resort." The former is borne by the latter, which also sustains it. The latter could not exist and function without the former. o Inseparable interdependence is the reality of Aspen's social and economic conditions and of all its participants. The area's economy should not then be thought of as consisting of or serving primarily one or the other segment, entity, concept or interest group. The Economics section of the AACP should focus on the interrelationships of all sectors and elements of its economy, fitted together with other elements of the AACP, such as housing and transit for example. o The AACP should be considered and written to reflect this holistic economic perspective. The brief Economics section of the 2000 AACP focused on "economic sustainability" and maintaining an economy in place while "limiting the expansion of the physical size of the community." 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit G Page 1 of 7 We should not be confused between "growing the economy" and "growing or expanding the physical size of the community." They are not synonymous and the new AACP should distinguish between the two. • The Economics section of the new AACP should broaden its perspective to include sustainably protecting, nurturing, promoting and enhancing the economy in broad and comprehensive ways over the long term of the next 10 to 25 years. We should not be dazzled or blinded by selected metrics or categorizations that are not particularly meaningful; nor should we react reflexively to the raw data of such metrics. o For example, while the sheer Dollar volume of real estate transactions and construction permits in the past five to six years is eye catching, the Dollar amount alone of that economic sector does little to inform us or guide public policy regarding the purpose, longevity or effects of that economic activity. o For one thing, recent construction and real estate activity may be as much or more reflective of national macro-economic trends and circumstances than Aspen's own market dynamics in isolation. Certainly the sudden collapse of real estate in the past nine months from historic highs, which dramatically reversed the trends reported in the ERA and State of the Aspen Area Reports of 2008, is reflective of national, even international, macro trends. Aspen's economy and recommendations made regarding it should not be made in isolation, but rather viewed through the wide lens of a large contextual setting and a long lens, which sees beyond and through macro-economic cycles over time. Beyond gross Dollar values, other metrics, such as the number and percentage of jobs in the local economy relating to tourism, recreation, hospitality, and services might indicate that the tourism categories of businesses and business activities are "larger," more impacttul or more significant in many ways than real estate or construction. o The ERA study, "The Aspen Economy," dated October, 2008, supports this idea, stating on page 20, "Although direct ski-generated revenues have been outpaced by real estate income, skiing remains the foundation of the Aspen tourism industry and economy." The report goes on to note that ASC alone provides roughly 3,800 full time and seasonal jobs for its employees. Other metrics of quantifying the resort economy, such as expenditures per guest, per day, when cumulatively aggregated, may be useful measures of the scope, Exhibit G scale and import of local tourism, and of the draw and significance of skiing and other winter recreation in particular. Such metrics, common in retail planning and financial projections, and a specialty of such firms as BBC Research and Consulting and Thomas Consultants, both formerly consultants and contributors to the City as part of the "Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee," dated September, 2002, are probably already part of the City's records and new planning information since the 2000 AACP which might be usefully incorporated in or inform this Community Plan. The Economics section of the new AACP might consider the following questions or similar ones: o Who are we? o What do we want to be? o What does the guest, i.e. the market, want us to be? The purposes found in the answer(s) to that question should become a core part of the AACP document. In the private sector, strategic planning would naturally include a SWOT analysis. A similar exercise might inform the AACP's Economic section. What are Aspen's economic Strengths? Weaknesses? Opportunities? Threats? The perspective of the guest or visitor to Aspen should be heavily weighted and incorporated in the Economic section of the AACP. Skiing, commercial recreation, activities and events were not directly covered or addressed in the 2000 AACP Economics section. As fundamental components of our economy, key attractions to our guests, and frequently the very reasons for our own residencies here these subjects merit focus and attention in the Community Plan. Economy Vision Statements and Policv Themes: Retail Don't try to micro-manage retail mix. o It is a futile proposition for the City to try and manage mix since it is neither a significant landlord, nor a retailing entrepreneur, and is therefore poorly positioned to define or alter supply. o Nor can the City manufacture or create consumer demand for goods and services by type or volume. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit G Page 3 of 7 o Except, the City can grow demand by increasing the number of residents or visitors through in-fill density increases in housing and lodging. If the City wishes to promote or support retail, it could help by reducing the costs of being in business, whether by reducing fees and taxes andlor by subsidizing the effective costs of rent and building occupancy. National trends and vendor consolidation in retail are reducing the number and type of local "mom and pop" retail stores and concepts everywhere. Amazon.com, Internet retailing and direct to door delivery have also altered the retail landscape enormously. The City can't unilaterally alter those macro trends or create new retailers. Instead, the City might simply incent, support, or subsidize if it must, the creation of "incubator retail" where possible and let small, nimble entrepreneurs invent and try new concepts. o Reconsider the ideas and suggestions made by BBC Consulting and Comm Arts in their retail study of a few years ago. Focus on experiential elements of the retail and services sectors. Support and enhance the public areas of the town, specifically the commercial core where people can gather, interact, linger, sit and observe, or do things. Support and encourage restaurants, cafes, bars, activities and nightlife. Encourage sidewalk seating and dining, bringing these activities to the public space. Consider eliminating more traffic and on-street parking in the core, and expanding the Cooper and Hyman Avenue malls to Spring Street and reconsider centralized underground public parking beneath Wagner Park or elsewhere. Capture automobile traffic in arterial park-n-rides on the urban perimeter and in centralized structures in the core and open more pubic right-of-ways to strictly pedestrian use in town ("Zermatt life"). Consider new open air or quasi-open pedestrian "market places" that touch upon the City's public spaces or commons, such as a partially open market on the north end of Wagner Park. Tie such shopping experiences to gathering and relaxing places. Lod in Exhibit G Aspen lost 25% of its lodging bed base (roughly 2,500 hundred beds) in the decade of the 90's, most dramatically among small, lower cost, "more affordable" lodge properties. There is a reason: the economics of such small hotel or lodge properties simply no longer work. Re-development or new development of such properties does return on investment. Neither are such properties typically profitable operationally. These trends are not going to reverse course in the foreseeable future. • Replace this lost bed base with a variety of contemporary lodging products, suitable to today's economic and investment realities. As suggested and recommended in the "Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee," issued September, 2002: "Support redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities." Encourage and incent all types of mixed-use lodging product types, including pure hotel keys, fractional, club and fee simple residential lodge units. • If the City wishes to create or incent the creation of low cost, affordable lodging, particularly for younger, less affluent visitors, consider developing such lodging of sufficient mass and scale necessary to support a financial viable hotel over the Rubey Park Transportation Center or next to the Courthouse over the parking garage, or contributing the land and provide public financing to a private partner for such development. Skiing & Winter Sports Outdoor Recreation Activities and Events Include skiing, winter sports, outdoor recreation, activities and events in the Economic section of the next AACP. Describe the vision, intentions, philosophy, policies and goals to maintain, sustain, promote and enhance skiing and these other activities as economic and experiential foundations for Aspen and its residents. Aspire and state as a goal to be the best winter sports and outdoor recreation resort in North America, if not the world. Consider and recognize the changing demographics of skiing, winter sports and outdoor recreation generally (ASC will separately provide demographic information compiled by the National Ski Areas Association). 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit G Page 5 of 7 • Maintain market share and guest visitation in the face of changing demographics, national economic fluctuations, and increased competition. Maintain the job base and meaningful, attractive employment for the skiing and outdoor recreation sectors of the Aspen area economy. "Crack the multi-generational code" and continuously appeal to, touch and draw from at least three generations of guests, including Gen X and Gen Y. • Through the "X Games' and other means, establish brand relevance and appeal for younger guests and visitors. Provide attractive, appealing and affordable activities, lodging, dining, events and entertainment for Gen' Y and younger visitors. • Offer diverse events and activities, attractive to a wide range of guests and visitors. Appeal to and continue to promote events and activities to specific interest groups among the diverse Aspen audience, reaching a wide range of visitors such as X Games devotees, Food and Wine patrons, Gay Ski Week participants, FIS ski racers, music festival guests and others with special or identifiable interests and reasons for visiting Aspen. Tackle the "affordability problem," offering a range of events and activities (and lodging) that many segments of the Aspen demographic can afford. Emphasize activities and events reaching a new generation of Aspen visitors as a sizeable sector of Aspen's historical audience through its modern era is elderly or becoming so and less able or inclined to visit and participate. The aging local population is also a "threat" to the sustainability of events, activities and entertainment because the traditional local audience is not participating at the same rate and supporting these activities through ticket patronage or serving as volunteers where labor is needed as they once did in the past. Learn who the next generation of Aspen customers and guests is and appeal to them through attractions, events and activities that spark their interests and create an atmosphere, "vibe" or "buzz" that speaks to them and draws them here, rather than other resorts. Identify the next cultural wave for Gen Y, offer events suitable to it and create a destination cache that delivers an experience of interest to the next generation. Exhibit G Among mountain resorts, "own," promote and present at least two events every month in high winter and summer seasons. Distinguish the Dollars spent or invested in an event and the continuing and secondary economic merits of a sponsored event. ASC invests approximately $3MM every year in events. Business promotions such as these should be leveraged as much as possible. The promotional power and "destination driver" of events should be considered in selecting and presenting events. For example, ten to twenty million people view X Games on television; its reach and promotional power far exceeds the audience of visitors who actually attend it or the direct costs of promoting it. Concentrate on events or activities that can routinely and readily draw 1,000 to 1,200 people. Aspen enjoys the highest returning guest ratio among American destination ski resorts, approximately 73% of guests return, a twenty point difference between Aspen and its nearest competitor, due in part to the breadth and depth of the activities and experiences available here -continue to offer a widely diverse range of events and activities of arts, culture, and entertainment to retain this drawing power. 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit G Page 7 of 7 Exhibit H Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee A joint project of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, the Ciry of Aspen, and the Aspen Institute Community Forum /September 2002 Background: Toward the end of 2001, Aspen was faced with several years of lowered economic activity attributable to a combination of several mediocre snow years, the Y2K business consumer travel slowdown, the terrorist events of 9/11, and the general slowdown of the U.S. and world economies following the sustained bull market of the 1990s. Since then, forest fires affecting Colorado tourism and a deepening of the recession have further hampered Aspen's business climate. Concurrently, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, the City of Aspen, and the Aspen Institute Community Forum Board were all interested in gaining a perspective on our current situation. After individual efforts by each of these organizations were begun, it was decided to collaborate on a joint task force to assess the situation and to make recommendations. Narrow Scope: Economic Sustainability can be a fuzzy term and implies a system analysis in which both short- and long-term factors of production are balanced in a manner so as not to permanently deplete resources. The size of the system can be small or large. For purposes of our committee, we focused on the Aspen community, i.e., Aspen and the upper portion of the Roaring Fork Valley. Some members of the committee were familiar with a particularly environmental approach to the issue of sustainability. Much discussion focused on issues of balance between the economy, the community, and the environment. Other members urged a "whole valley" approach, which would extend the geographic area of the committee's concerns. This committee has sought to incorporate these concepts in their information gathering and deliberations. However, it was determined that for purposes of the committee's primary area of concern, the focus would be on sustaining the Aspen resort economy. Recognizing the immediacy of many of the problems facing the Aspen business community, we also focused on those short and long-term items that would have, in our opinion, a positive payback for the community. Quality of Life: Aspen's beauty, its rich cultural heritage, and the diversity of the community are its most sustainable competitive advantages. Our committee operated within the framework that these elements must not be compromised for short-term economic gain. Trends: While relatively simple and perhaps obvious to many, there are several major trends affecting Aspen, its competitive position, and the business climate. We believe that these trends need to be acknowledged and factored into Aspen's positioning as a resort/tourist community. • Maturation of Ski Industry (and its participants). With a tail wind boosting skier visits through the 1980s, the 1990s showed a significant slowing in the number of overall skiers. Concurrently, the economics of resort development brought keen competition to ski area operators as capital 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit H Page 1 of 3 Exhibit H was freely spent on new or expanded area development and paid for by associated real estate sales. Aspen rode this trend to a degree, but in comparison with newer resort areas, Aspen lacked sufficient land to develop and also chose to restrict community growth. These factors had the effect of making additional ski azea infrastructure investments economically unattractive. As a result, today's skier has many more developed areas from which to choose, and expects a consistently high quality of accommodations and infrastructure. • Shift from ski to real estate driven business community. Concurrent with the stock market boom of the 80s and 90s, Aspen's real estate market exploded. Millionaires bought out ordinary folk, followed in some areas by billionaires buying out the millionaires. Ownership shifted from full time residents to part time. Property management, construction, real estate sales, and associated legal and planning businesses surged. The latest phase is the increase in interval ownership projects that have compelling economics for many Aspen visitors-particularly given the current recession. • General shift to upper end consumer. As the more wealthy bought into Aspen, there were fewer tourists, but the total dollars spent kept climbing. The Aspen Skiing Company upgraded its "value proposition" by significantly improving its quality of service-from lifts to snow grooming to restaurants and accommodations, all of which supported a more affluent consumer. Over the course of a decade, lodging facilities became bifurcated, either being on the upper end or through obsolescence, slipping to middle and lower levels of quality. • Shift in retail climate. The types of stores supported by Aspen's shifting clientele also changed. Out went t-shirt shops; in came high-end boutiques. More and more service businesses and mom and pop stores shut down or moved down valley, leaving less shopping selection for the locals. Further, faced with a certain type of store willing to pay any price to be in Aspen, rents rose to the point of rendering the economics of most retail businesses to be marginal at best. • General shift of residency for the "working class," and "Aspen locals" choosing to shop down valley. Particularly with the relatively affordable developments of Elk Run, Blue Lake, and other areas further down valley, many Aspen working families chose home ownership down valley in lieu of condominium living in Aspen. There is support for the theory that as the number of local purchasers has declined, the market has adjusted and expanded its focus to the higher-end purchaser. Additionally, and particulazly with the four-lane work on the highway near completion, an increasing number of Aspen locals shop down valley-whether for snow tires, groceries, lumber, or the typical Wal-Mart run. • Renewed vigor of the Aspen non-profit and cultural institutions. Supported largely by Aspen's upper end clientele, Aspen's premier non-profit institutions (particularly those with entertainment/cultural offerings) benefited from the generosity of both locals and second homeowners. The strength of these organizations further attracted more people to our community who value these institutions. • A new set of challenges for local governments. Service demands grew as more workers required busing (RFTA), transportation and parking facilities, and employee housing capacity was strained and the demand for social services climbed. Concurrently, in the attempt to control 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit H Page 2 of 3 Exhibit H and steer growth, planning and zoning activities mushroomed. These activities were adequately supported during a period of growth for sales tax revenues, but shrinking tax revenues in the current period may force difficult choices. • Ground and air transportation issues remain perplexing. While transportation to and from Denver via car improved by raising the speed limit back to 75 mph and with the near completion of the four-lane highway to Aspen, increased traffic along the I-70 corridor and placement of DIA further from Denver makes ground transportation more difficult. At the same time, with only one airline flying the main Aspen/Denver route, fares tend to be high and flight selections limited. What's more, transportation in Aspen is hampered by the constricted nature of the current entrance to Aspen and by a lack of adequate parking facilities downtown. . Lack of coordination. In contrast to a "one-company town," such as Whistler Village, in which product offerings, prices, and service levels are thought of as a package, Aspen operates as a group of individuals subject to the competitive forces of the marketplace to dictate which businesses and products are successful. This lack of coordinated effort often manifests itself in a mix of products and services that do not optimally reflect the needs of the resort population and local community. • Aspen is affected by the overall economy. Just as Aspen was affected by the silver bust of the 1890s, today Aspen's economy is largely affected by the economic status of its full- and part- time residents and visitors. With over 8 trillion of "wealth" (at least in terms of pricing) knocked out of the stock market, Aspen's residents are also feeling the crunch. Committee Participants: ACRA Committee Co-Chair Stan Clauson and Community Forum Co-Chair Wally Obermeyer would like to thank the following individuals for their participation and contribution to our committee work: ACRA Aspen Institute l~............:.., Fn.-»m ('itv of Acnen Pitkin Countv Jim Baker Jeanette Darnauer Helen Klanderud Shellie Roy Molly Campbell Roy Davidson Steve Barwick David Fleisher Tom Dunlop Julie Ann Woods Barry Gordon Marc Friedberg Chris Bendon Ken Hammerle Michael Kinsley Rick Jones Howie Mallory Jackie Kasabach Charlie Tarver John Norton Hanna Pevny Bill Tomcich We are grateful for statt support proviaea oy rveu nnnur u~ r,~~~,, ~~ ~~~a, ~~~ ~• •••~ • ~~r~^ DiAmato of the City of Aspen. and Crissy 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit H Page 3 of 3 Exhibit I Population Segment Information 1. Commuters 2. Lodging (Note, additional information on the lodging segment will be presented at the 9.1.09 P&Z meeting) 3. Affordable Housing 4. Local & Second Homes 9.1.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit I ~ichibi~Z Population Est-mate Method: Jobs and Employment Data Although the AACP focuses on the area within the Community Growth Boundary, the only areas where statistics on jobs and employment are kept are by cities, towns and counties. In addition, the only recent data for employment levels are at the county level. This means the data below include the Town of Snowmass Village as well as a small part of the Town of Basalt. Table 1 Pitkin County: Jobs & Employment Year Jobs in PitCo* Live+Work in PitCo** Commutin Po . 1985 11,797 6,977 59% 4,820 41% 1990 15,864 7,083 45% 8,781 55% 1995 17,837 7,816 (44%) 10,021 (56% 2000 19,607 8,902 45% 10,705 55% 2005 20,880 9,841 47% 11,039 53% 2007 21,515 10,159 47% 11,356 53% *Source: State Demographer's Office/Colorado Uep[. of t.anor and tmpioymem ** State Demographer's Office/Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment. Estimates "Employed Persons" living in PitCo. (Reduced by 8%, reflectingjob-holders living in PitCo, working outside PitCo, according [0 2000 Census.) It's important to recognize that over the last 10-15 years, there has been a trend of construction companies, building supply companies and related businesses relocating to downvalley locations. Furthermore, the Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment calculates the number ofjobs based on where the employer is located, and not where the actual jobs are performed. This should be taken into account when evaluating the table above. In other words, the job numbers above are somewhat low for the purpose of estimating commuters, especially as we get closer to the present day. For example, at least 350 construction industry jobs most likely relocated from Pitkin County to Eagle or Garfield Counties between 2000 and 2007, according to state records. Adding just those 350 jobs back in - a conservative number -increases the ratio of commuters from 53% to 54%. For additional background information, the May 2008 APCHA survey of 575 employees showed that 45% lived in Aspen, although RRC Associates noted that the surveys were more likely to be filled out by people who live and work in Aspen. It should also be noted that jobs calculations don't include people working without state- required unemployment insurance. Population Estimate Method: Lodging Population The following table was generated in 2005 and shows trends in the average annual population on any given day in the lodging sector, which includes property management units. Staff is working to produce similar population data, but based on peak months such as January and July. Occupancv Rate Multiplied by Pillows 120 ---_ ...----.-._....__..._._.. ~ ' 100 i 80 ~ _ ,~ . 60 u-- - x.- ~- ~~-.. -ne _..._ -- t.:. 40 i 20 `qq~ `qq~' `qcl'~ ,qqQ q9h ~q~lb `qq~ ~qq~ ~q~ ry~ ~~Q~ ~0~~ ,tiC~~ ,yO~ t Pillow Counts (divided by 100) -- Occupancy Rate -a~-Occupancy Rate xPillow Count (divided by 100) Methodolo¢v issues. From 1995 - 2002, ACRA generated occupancy statistics, using weekly information from 10-18 properties, or about 50% of the inventory. However, the reporting properties shifted from week to week, and provided occupancy rates only. This meant that ACRA relied on averaging percentages, which is not the best mathematical approach. From 2003 to fall 2006, Boulder-based RRC generated occupancy information, funded by SkiCo, ACRA, the Town of Snowmass Village and Stay Aspen Snowmass. RRC was able to get broader and more consistent participation, and using more detailed information from each property as they began using automated computer programs. From fall 2006 to the present, MTrip, replaced RRC (funded by the same group) and the methodology improved further to include daily occupancy rates and beginning to include "grey market" units, which are primarily unit rented directly by owners. However, there continues to be a significant margin of error because, 1) property management companies are very competitive and reluctant to give out information; 2) both a high rate of employee turnover and various mergers, consolidations and buy-outs in the property management field resulted in reporting gaps and changes in methodology; 3) some fractional hotels use multiple channels to rent units, including direct-by-owner, Realtors etc.; 4) information on direct-by-owner rentals come only from individual websites that use different methodologies; and 5) Some direct-by-owner rentals are "spot leases" that occur sporadically without use of websites. ~xh~l~i~ ~ Population Estimate Method: Deed-Restricted Housing Inventory These tables were generated using the master inventory list maintained by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, including types of unit. The population factor for each type of unit was simply the table used by APCHA as an estimate for how many employees each type of unit can accommodate. It is not an actual population factor. Most of the County units are located in the Aspen area, including the AABC, although some County units are outside the AACP planning area, including Woody Creek and Aspen Village. (One of the largest contributors to the substantial increase in RO units was the mobile home parks in Woody Creek and Aspen Village.) Table 1: 1990 APCHA Master Inventory /City + County T e Ci /Coon Total Po ./unit Po .total Studio 144 1.25 180 Dorm Units 90 1 90 One-bed 186 1.75 325 Two-bed 313 2.25 704 Three-bed 88 3 264 Caretaker 27 1 27 Sin le-famil 3-bed 117 mostl RO 3 351 Total 966 1,941 Table 2: 2009 APCHA Master Inventory /City + County T e Ci /Coon Total Po ./unit Po .total % increase* Studio 321 1.25 401 123% Dorm Units 258 I 258 186% One-bed 539 1.75 943 190% Two-bed 714 2.25 1,606 128% Three-bed 306 3 918 248% Four-bed 33 3.5 115 n/a Sin le-famil (3-bed) 643 (mostl RO) 3 1,929 450% Total 2,814 6,170 * Percentage increase compared to 1990 inventory Table 3: 2008 APCHA Master Inventory /City Only T e Ci /Coon Total Po ./unit Po .total Studio . 314 1.25 392 Dorm Units 235 1 235 One-bed 493 1.75 863 Two-bed 581 2.25 1,307 Three-bed 217 3 651 Four-bed 30 3.5 105 Sin le-famil 3-bed 182 most) RO 3 546 Total 2,052 4,099 Exh~loi+ ~ Population Estimate Method: Estimated Local and Second Homeowner Population This information was generated using Assessor data for all residential units in the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff divided the data into Local Homeownership and 2"d Homeownership using zip codes on file with the Assessor. According to Venturoni Surveys and Research, based in Dillon, Colo this methodology has a 5% margin of error. To determine the population estimates for both local and second homeowners, staff multiplied the number of bedrooms by 1.5. This methodology was recommended by Linda Venturoni based on a study she did in Summit County that indicated the average person per bedroom is 1.5. The second homeowner population total assume all homes are fully occupied, an unlikely scenario even in peak season. Trend information is not available for this estimate. As en Unincorporated UGB Total 2nd Homeowner Residences 2,181 458 2,639 2nd Homeowner Bedrooms 6,271 1,585 7,856 2nd Homeowner Po ulation 9,406 2,378 11,784 Local Homeowner Residences 1,367 394 1,761 Local Homeowner Bedrooms 3,562 1,222 4,784 Local Homeowner Po ulation 5,343 1,833 7,176 Total # Residences 3,548 852 4,400 Total # Bedrooms 9,833 2,807 12,640 Total # Po ulation 14,749 4,211 18,960 ~.~.~~. 1. Source for data is Pitkin County Assessors Office; data for condos is current as of October, 2008; Data for residences other than condos is current as of August, 2009. 2. 2nd Homeowner info is derived from owner address zip code data (Assumption is that zi codes outside of As en Area indicate out-of--area ownershi . 3. Local Homeowner info is derived using 81611 & 81612 zip codes, as well as zip codes for owners livin in the Roarin Fork Valle ,but outside of As en. 4. 2nd Homeowner data does not include lod in or fractional units. 5. "Inn at Aspen" units in the UGB are included (and assessed) as condos (owned local) and 6 2nd Homeowners, rather than as lod a units. 6. Local Homeowner data is for free-market ownership only. Deed restricted units are not included as part of the local homeowner tallies. 7. Population number is the result of multiplying total number of bedrooms by 1.5 - Thismethodology was recommended by Venturoni Surveys and Research, based in Dillon, Colo. ~xh~bi}7 eneral Characteristics - Numbe Percen U.S. Total o ulation 5,914 Male 3,165 53.5 49.1°/ Female 2,749 46.5 50.9°/ Median a e ears) 36.7 N/ 35.3 Under 5 ears 224 3.8 6.8°/ 18 ears and over 5,137 86. 74.3°/ 65 ears and over 435 7.4 12.4°/ One race 5,843 98.8 97.6°/ White 5,615 94. 75.1°/ Black or African American 26 0.4 12.3°/ American Indian and Alaska Native 14 0.2 0.9°/ Asian 86 1.5 3.6°/ Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 5 0.1 0.1 °/ Some other race 97 1.6 5.5°/ Two or more races 71 1.2 2.40/ His anic or Latino of an race) 363 6.1 12.5°/ Household o ulation 5,637 95.3 97.2°/ Grou uarters o ulation 277 4.7 2.8°/ Avera e household size 1.94 N/A 2.5 Avera e famil size 2.6 N/A 3.14 Total housin units 4,354 N/A N/A Occu ied housin units 2,903 66. 91.0°/ Owner-occu ied housin units 1,496 51.5 66.2°/ Renter-occu ied housin units 1,407 48.5 33.8°/ Vacant housin units 1,451 33.3 9.0°/ Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: ocial Characteristics» Numbe ercen U.S. Po ulation 25 ears and over 4,583 N/A N/A Hi h school raduate or hi her 4,418 96. 80.4°/ Bachelor's de ree or hi her 2,77 60. 24.4°/ Civilian veterans (civilian population ]8 years and over) 396 7.8 12.7°/ Disabili status o ulation 5 ears and over) 44 8.1 19.3°/ Forei n born 693 ll. ll.l°/ Male, Now married, except separated (population 15 ears and over 954 34. 56.7°/ Female, Now married, except separated (population 15 ears and over) g30 34.1 52.1°/ Speak a language other than English at home o ulation 5 ears and over 588 10.5 17.9°/ conomic Characteristics -» Numbe ercen U.S. In labor force (o ulation 16 ears and over) 4,173 80. 63.9°/ Mean travel time to work in minutes (workers 16 ears and over) 12 8 N/ 25.5 Median household income in 1999 dollars 53,75 N/ 41,99 Median famil income in 1999 (dollars) 70,30 N/ 50,046 Per ca ita income in 1999 dollars 40,68 N/ 21,58 Families below ove level 4 3. 9.2°/ Individuals below overt level 471 8. 12.4°/ ousin Characteristics-» Numbe ercen U.S. Sin le-famil owner-occu ied homes 755 Median value (dollars) 1,000,001 N/ 119,60 Median of selected month) owner costs N/ N/ N/A With a mort a e (dollars) 1,975 N/ 1,088 Not mort a ed dollars 514 N/ 295 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) U~C~NSt!SBU.~tE:1U Ife1C~+~9 You Afoke !n(armrA Darrvntts 2000 Census General Characteristics DP-1: Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 20D0 Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data Geographic Area: Aspen city, Colorado NOTE: For information on confdentiality protection, nonsampling error, defnitions, and count corrections see http'./lfactfnder.census.gov/home/en/datanoteslexpsfl u.htm. Subject Number Percent Total o ulation 5,974 1D0 SEX AND AGE Male 3,165 53.5 Female 2,749 46.5 Under 5 ears 224 3.8 5 to 9 ears 204 3.4 10 to 14 ears 221 3.7 15 to 19 ears 208 3.5 20 to 24 ears 498 6.4 25 to 34 ears 1,413 23.9 35 to 44 ears 1,077 18'2 45 to 54 ears 1,049 17.7 55 to 59 ears 371 6.3 60 to 64 ears 214 3.6 65 to 74 ears 301 5.1 75 to 84 ears 120 2 85 ears and over 14 0.2 Median a e ( ears 36.7 (X) 18 ears and over 5,137 86.9 Male 2,775 46.9 Female 2,362 39.9 21 ears and over 4,986 84.3 62 ears and over 548 9.3 65 ears and over 435 7.4 Male 233 3.9 Female 202 3.4 Page 1 of 3 2000 Census General Characteristics RACE One race 5,843 98.8 White 5,615 94.9 Black or African American 26 0.4 American Indian and Alaska Native 14 0.2 Asian 86 1.5 Asian Indian 2 0 Chinese 30 0.5 Filipino 9 0.2 Japanese 20 0.3 Korean 12 0.2 Yetnamese 10 0.2 Other Asian 1 3 0.1 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 5 0.1 Native Hawaiian 1 0 Guamanian or Chamorro 0 0 Samoan 0 0 Other Pacific Islander 2 4 0.1 Some other race 97 1.6 Two or more races 71 1.2 Race alone or in combination with one or more other races 3 White 5,681 96.1 Black or African American 32 0.5 American Indian and Alaska Native 34 D.6 Asian 109 1.8 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 13 0.2 Some other race 124 2.1 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total o ulation 5,914 100 Hispanic or Latino (of an race) 363 6.1 Mexican 252 4.3 Puerto Rican 5 0.1 Cuban 5 0.1 Other His anic or Latino 101 1.7 Not His anic or Latino 5,551 93.9 White alone 5,372 90.8 RELATIONSHIP Total o ulation 5,914 100 In households 5,637 95.3 Householder 2,903 49.1 S ouse 836 14.1 Child 867 14'7 Own child under 18 ears 744 12.6 Other relatives 102 1.7 Under 18 ears 20 0.3 Nonrelatives 928 15'7 Unmarried artner 202 3.4 In rou uarters 27 7 4.7 Institutionalized o ulation 1 8 0.3 ~Noninstitutionalized o ulation 25 9 4.4 Page 2 of 3 2000 Census General Characteristics HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households 2,903 700 Famil households families) 1,083 37.3 With own children under 18 ears 478 16.5 Married-cou le famil 836 28.8 Wth own children under 18 ears 320 11 Female householder, no husband present 164 5.6 Wi[h own children under 18 ears 113 3.9 Nonfamil households 1,820 62.7 Householder livin alone 1,271 43.8 Householder 65 ears and over 139 4.8 Households with individuals under 18 ears 485 17.1 Households with individuals 65 ears and over 337 11.6 Avera a household size 1.94 (X) Avera a famil size 2.67 (X) HOUSING OCCUPANCY Total housin units 4,354 100 Occupied housin units 2,903 66.7 Vacant housin units 1,451 33.3 For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 1,121 25.7 Homeowner vacant rate (ercent 3.9 X Rental vacant rate ( ercent 11.1 X HOUSING TENURE Occu ied housin units 2,903 100 Owner-occu ied housin units 1,496 51.5 Renter-occupied housin units 1,407 48.5 Avera a household size of owner-occu ied unit 2.05 (X) Avera a household size of renter-occupied unit 1.82 (X) (X) Not applicable 1 Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories. 2 Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories. 3 In combination with one or more other races listed. The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race. Source. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrices P1, P3, P4, P8, P9, P12, P13, P,17, P18, P19, P20, P23, P27, P28, P33, PCT5, PCTB, PCT11, PCT15, H1, H3, H4, H5, H11, and H12. Page 3 of 3 2000 Census Social Characteristics DP-2: Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2001 Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) -Sample Dat Geographic Area: Aspen city, Colorado NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, defnitions, and count corrections see http://fa~nder.census.gov/home/enldatanotes/ezpsf3. htm. Subject Number Percent SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Po ulation 3 ears and over enrolled in schoc 902 100 Nurse school, reschool 73 8.1 Kinder amen 27 3 Elements school rades 1-8 348 38.6 Hi h school rades 9-12 199 22'1 Colle a or raduate school 255 28.3 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Po ulation 25 ears and over 4,583 100 Less than 9th rade 62 1.4 9th to 12th rade, no di toms 103 2.2 Hi h school raduate includes a uivalenc 407 8.9 Some colle e, no de ree 981 21.4 Associate de ree 253 5.5 Bachelor's de ree 1,969 43 Graduate or rofessional de ree 808 17.6 Percent hi h school raduate or hi her 96.4 X Percent bachelor's de ree or hi her 60.6 (X MARITAL STATUS Po ulation 16 ears and over 5,190 100 Never married 2,474 46.5 Now married, exce t se araled 1,784 34.4 Se crated 111 2.1 Widowed 119 2.3 Female 106 2 Divorced 762 14.7 Female 453 8.7 GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS randchildren under 18 ear: B 700 Grand arent res onsible for randchildren 0 0 Page 1 of 3 2000 Census Social Characteristics VETERAN STATUS Civilian o ulation 18 ears and ove 5,079 100 Civilian veterans 396 7.6 DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED Po ulation 5 [0 20 ears 621 100 Wih a disabilit 35 5.6 Po ulation 21 to 64 ear<_ 4,504 100 Wth a disabili 366 8.1 Percent em to ed 87.7 X No disabili 4,138 91.9 Percent em to ed 83.7 (X Po ulation 65 ears and over 419 100 With a disabilit 46 11 RESIDENCE IN 1995 Po ulation 5 ears and over 5,578 100 Same house in 1995 2'122 38 Different house in the U.S. in 1995 3,177 57 Same count 1,744 31.3 Different coun 1,433 25.7 Same state 418 7.5 Different state 1,015 18.2 Elsewhere in 1995 279 5 NATIVITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH Total o ulation 5,807 100 Native 5,114 88.1 Born in United States 5,081 87.5 State of residence 1'290 222 Different state 3,791 65.3 Born outside United States 33 0.6 Forei n born 693 11.9 Entered 1990 to March 2000 295 5.1 Naturalized cd¢en 260 4.5 Not a citizen 433 7.5 REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN Total excludin born at sea 693 100 Euro a 240 34.6 Asia 94 13.6 Africa 32 4.6 Oceania 21 3 Latin America 24 4 35.2 Northern America 6 2 8.9 Page 2 of 3 2000 Census Social Characteristics LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME Po ulation 5 ears and over 5,578 100 En lish onl 4,880 89.5 Lan ua a other than En lish 588 10.5 S eak En lish less than've well 237 4.2 S apish 366 6.6 S eak En lish less than "ve well" 205 3.7 Other Indo-EUro can Ian ua es 192 3.4 S eak En lish less than "ve well" 23 0.4 Asian and Pacifc Island Ian ua es 24 0.4 S eak En lish less than "ve well" 9 0.2 ANCESTRY (single or multiple) Total o ulation 5,807 100 Total ancesMes re orted 6,317 108.8 0 0 Arab 40 0.7 Czechl 71 1.2 Danish Dutch 168 2.9 865 14'8 En lish French exce t Bas ue 1 246 4.2 69 1.2 French Canadianl 939 16.2 German 12 0.2 Greek 62 1.1 Hun avian 688 11'8 Irisht 337 5.8 Italian 43 0.7 Lithuanian 155 2.7 Nonve ian 171 2.9 Polish 39 0.7 Portu uese 175 3 Russian 132 2.3 Scotch-Irish zao a.1 sconisn D 0 Slovak 53 0.9 Subsaharan African 187 3.2 Swedish 70 1.2 Swiss 38 0.7 Ukrainian 305 5.3 United States or American 98 1.7 Welsh West Indian excludin His anic rou s 0 0 1,11 4 19.2 Other ancestries (X) Not applicable. 1 The data represent a combination of two ancestries shown separately in Summary File 3. Czech includes Czechoslovakian. French includes Alsatian. French Canadian includes Acadian/Cajun. Irish includes Celtic. Ancestry Code List (PDF 35KB); Place of Birth Code List (PDF 74K6); Language Code List (PDF 17KB) Source. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P18, P19, P21, P22, P24, P36, P37, P39, P42, PCTB, PCTI6, PGT17, and PCT19 Page 3 0( 3 2000 Census Economic Characteristics DP-3: Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) -Sample Data Geographic Area: Aspen city, Colorado NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, defnitions, and count corrections see http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3. htm. Subject Number Percent EMPLOYMENT STATUS Population 16 ears and over 5,174 100 In labor force 4,173 80.7 Civilian labor force 4,173 80.7 Employed 4,021 77.7 Unem to ed 152 2.9 Percent of civilian labor force 3.6 (X) Armed Forces 0 0 Not in labor force 1,001 19.3 Females 76 years and over 2,415 100 In labor force 1,811 75 Civilian labor force 1,811 75 Emplo ed 1,800 74.5 Own children under 6 ears 231 100 All parents in famil in labor force 132 57.1 COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 ears and over 3,860 100 Car, truck, or van --drove alone 1,647 42.7 Car, truck, or van --carpooled 265 6.9 Public transportation (including taxicab) 454 11.8 Walked 785 20.3 Other means 267 6.9 Worked at home 442 11'5 Mean travel time to work (minutes) 12.8 (X) Emplo ed civilian opulation 16 ears and over 4,021 100 OCCUPATION Mana ement, professional, and related occupations 1,686 41.9 Service occupations 674 16.8 Sales and office occu ations 1,067 26.5 Farmin , fshing, and forest occu ations 131 3.3 Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 326 8.1 Production, transportation, and material movin occupations 137 3.4 Page 1 of 3 2000 Census Economic Characteristics INDUSTRY A riculture, forestry, fishing and huntin ,and minin 195 4.8 Construction 273 6.8 Manufacturin 32 0.8 Wholesale trade 70 1.7 Retail trade 447 11.1 Trans ortation and warehousin ,and utilities 109 2.7 Information 140 3.5 Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasin 293 7.3 services 569 14.2 Educational, health and social services 401 10 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 1,151 28.6 Other services (except public administration) 222 5.5 Public administration 119 3 CLASS OF WORKER Private wage and salary workers 3,179 79.1 Government workers 306 7.6 Self-employed workers in own not incor orated business 525 13.1 Unpaid famil workers 11 0.3 INCOME IN 1999 Households 2,949 100 Less than $10,000 168 5.7 $10,000 to $14,999 131 4.4 $15,00010 $24,999 264 9 $25,000 to $34,999 315 10.7 $35,000 to $49,999 466 15.8 $50,000 to $74,999 649 22 $75,000 to $99,999 375 12.7 $100,000 to $149,999 285 9.7 $150,000 to $199,999 78 2.6 $200,000 or more 218 7.4 Median household income (dollars) 53,750 X) With earnings 2,733 92.7 Mean earnin s (dollars) 60,05A (X) Wth Social Securit income 328 11.1 Mean Social Securit income (dollars) 11,195 (X) Wth Supplemental Security Income 48 1.6 Mean Supplemental Securi Income dollars) 3,242 (X) With ublic assistance income 22 0.7 Mean public assistance income (dollars) 650 (X) With retirement income 103 3.5 Mean retirement income (dollars) 37,254 (X) Page 2 of 3 2000 Census Economic Characteristics Families 1,122 100 Less than $10,000 18 1.6 $10,000 to $14,999 43 3.8 $15,000 to $24,999 41 3.7 $25,000 to $34,999 64 5.7 $35,000 to $49,999 176 15.7 $50,000 to $74,999 266 23.7 $75,000 to $99,999 204 18.2 $100,00010 $149,999 101 9 $150,000 fo $199,999 23 2 $200,000 or more 186 16.6 Median Tamil income (dollars) 70,300 (X) Per capita income (dollars) 40,680 (X) Median eamfn s dollars Male full-time, ear-round workers 41,011 (X) Female full-time, ear-round workers 32,023 (X) POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 (below poverty level) Families 40 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 3.6 With related children under 18 ears 22 (X) Percent below povert level (X) 4.3 Wth related children under 5 years 22 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 10.8 Families with female householder, no husband resent 20 (X) Percent below pove level (X) 9.6 With related children under 18 years 12 (X) Percent below ove level (X) 8.9 With related children under 5 ears 12 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 26.1 Individuals 471 (XI Percent below overt level (X) 8.2 18 ears and over 439 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 8.7 65 ears and over 11 (X) Percent below povert level (X) 2.6 Related children under 18 years 32 (X) Percent below pove level (X) 4.4 Related children 5 to 17 ears 0 (X) Percent below poverty level (X ) 0 Unrelated individuals 15 ears and over 374 (X) Percent below poverty level (X ) 13 (X) Not applicable. Detailed Occupation Code List (PDF 42KB); Detailed Industry Code List (PDF 44K6); User note on employment status data (PDF 63KB) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P30, P32, P33, P43, P46, P49, P50, P51, P52, P53, P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P76, P77, P82, P87, P90, PCT47, PCT52, and PCT53 Page 3 of 3 2000 US Census Housing Characteristics DPI: Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) -Sample Data Geographic Area: Aspen city, Colorado NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, definitions, and count corrections see http://factfnder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3.htm. Subject Number Percent Total housin units 4,346 100 UNITS IN STRUCTURE 1-unit, detached 1,150 26.5 1-unit, attached 454 10.4 2 units 196 4.5 3 or 4 units 295 6.6 5 to 9 units 567 13 10 to 19 units 693 15.9 20 or more units 934 21.5 Mobile home 57 1.3 Boat, RV, van, etc. 0 0 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT 1999 to March 2000 195 4.5 1995 to 1998 385 8.9 1990 to 1994 254 5.8 1980 to 1989 727 16.7 1970 to 1979 1,241 28.6 1960 to 1969 934 21.5 1940 to 1959 265 6.1 1939 or earlier 345 7.9 ROOMS 1 room 480 11 2 rooms 508 11.7 3 rooms 821 18.9 4 rooms 840 19.3 5 rooms 491 11.3 6 rooms 300 6.9 7 rooms 286 6.6 8 rooms 287 6.6 9 or more rooms 331 7.6 Median (rooms 3.9 (X) Page 1 of 3 2000 US Census Housing Characteristics Occu ied Housin Units 2,901 100 YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT 1999 to March 2000 820 28.3 1995 t0 1998 1,018 35.1 1990 to 1994 458 15.8 1980 to 1989 272 9.4 1970 to 1979 244 8.4 1969 or earlier 89 3.1 VEHICLES AVAILABLE None 247 8.5 1 1,382 47.6 2 918 31.6 3 or more 354 12.2 HOUSE HEATING FUEL Utilit as 1,569 54.1 Bottled, tank, or LP as 67 2.3 Electrici 1,217 42 Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 6 0.2 Coal or coke 0 0 Wood 36 1.2 Solar ener 0 0 Other fuel 6 0.2 No fuel used 0 0 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS Lackin com lete lumbin facilities 6 0.2 Lackin com lete kitchen facilities 75 2.6 No tele hone service 40 1.4 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM Occu ied housin units 2,901 100 1.00 or less 2,798 96.4 1.01 to 1.50 38 1.3 1.51 or more 65 2.2 S ecified owner-occu ied units 755 100 VALUE Less than $50,000 7 0.9 $50,000 to $99,999 39 5.2 $100,OOOto $149,999 46 6.1 $150,000 to $199,999 32 4.2 $200,000 to $299,999 85 11.3 $300,OOOto $499,999 45 6 $500,000 to $999,999 116 15.4 $1,000,000 or more 385 51 Median (dollars) 1,000,000+ (X) Page 2 of 3 2000 US Census Housing Characteristics MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS Wth a mort a e 523 69.3 Less than $300 0 0 $300 to $499 0 0 $500 to $699 16 2.1 $700 to $999 48 6.4 $1,000 to $1,499 115 15.2 $1,500 to $1,999 85 11.3 $2,000 or more 259 34.3 Median (dollars 1,975 X Not mort a ed 232 30.7 Median dollars 514 (X) SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE Less than 15 ercent 276 36.6 15 to 19 ercent 75 9.9 20 to 24 ercent 82 10.9 25 to 29 ercent 59 7.8 30 to 34 ercent 67 8.9 35 percent or more 190 25.2 Not computed 6 0.8 S ecified renter-occu ied units 1,429 100 GROSS RENT Less than $200 12 0.8 $200 to $299 54 3.8 $300 to $499 40 2.8 $500 to $749 353 24.7 $750 to $999 240 16.8 $1,000 to $1,499 315 22 $1,500 or more 324 22.7 No cash rent 91 6.4 Median (dollars 944 X GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 Less than 15 ercent 226 15.8 15 to 19 ercent 212 14.8 20 to 24 percent 167 11.7 25 to 29 ercent 107 7.5 30 to 34 ercent 104 7.3 35 ercent or more 510 35.7 Not com uted 103 7.2 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices H1, H7, H2O, H23, H24, H30, H34, H38, H40, H43, H44, H48, H51, H62, H63, H69, H74, H76, H90, H91, and H94 Page 3 of 3 Commercial Core Zone District. In the Commercial Core Zone District, which includes the traditional downtown core, there is development potential for 61,630 square feet of commercial space beyond what already exists. As a reference for readers, that's a total of about three City Halls. Commercial space in the downtown area is 92.4% built out. Overall, the Commercial Core is 82.5% built out. At the same time, there is potential for 93,071 square feet of free market residential space (46 free market units) and 92,892 square feet of affordable housing space (133 affordable housing units). It is interesting to note that the amount of potential square footage for free market residential and affordable housing is virtually equal. This phenomenon is due to changes in the City Land Use Code adopted in 2007 that requires developers who wish to maximize the amount of free market residential square footage to also provide the same amount of affordable housing square footage. This buildout analysis assumes that developers will choose this option for financial reasons, as recent development applications have indicated. Figure 16 Commercial Core (CC) Zone District Existing FAR Net Leasable/Livable Commercial 760,014 570,011 Free-Market Residential 118,565 94,852 Affordable Housin 19,939 15,951 Lode 225,982 180,786 Exem t 43,887 35,110 TOTAL 1,168,387 898,709 Development Potential FAR Net LeasablelLivable Commercial 61,630 78,789 Free-Market Residential 93,071 74,457 Affordable Housin 92,892 74,674 Lode 0 0 Exem t 0 0 TOTAL 247,593 227,920 Total After Build Out FAR Net LeasablelLivable Commercial 821,644 648,800 Free-Market Residential 211,636 169,309 Affordable Housin 112,831 90,625 Lode 225,982 180,786 Exem t 43,887 35,110 TOTAL 1,415,980 1,124,828 77 SnteofthAsprnA[ea _'008 1 ManagingGrowth