HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20031209TO:
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
'FROM: NEILROSS, CFP
RE:
BURLINGAME
DATE: 9 DECEMBER 2003
Why proceed with Buflingame? First, cost. Since the City of Aspen has
already committed $10,000,000 to infrastmCture development costs for the
Budingame project, I can see no justification for jettisoning its involvement
now. Substituting another parcel of land would involve prohibitive capital
investment.
As far as environmental concerns go, I find it persuasive that only five (5%)
percent of the total Buflingame acreage would be taken up by employee
housing in Phase I. Approximately 50 of the 300 acres have been committed
to the 12 to 15 free market homes. The remaining phases II & Iii Will
occupy only another five (5%) or a total of ten (10%) of the property.
Sprawl? Again, the housing occupies a mere fraction of the total acreage at
the site. Even more compelling, the project would not be Visible from
Highway 82.
All in all, I cannot find any real justification for abandoning Burlingame in
favor of another (almost certainly prohibitively expensive) site ..... if it even
exists.
Buflingame best serves not only the economic considerations but also the
environmental and social respOnsibilities which the City has to itself and its
citizens.
Neil Ross
08 03 05: 12p Soldne~
Consul~an~
668
0P87
p.1
Paul and Stcphanic Soldner
PO Box 90
Aspen. CO 81612 .
December 8.200:3
To: Mayor of Aspcn. Hclcn Klandernd
Dear Helen,
I understand that Tuesday December 9'" Aspen City Council will bc making a final
decision about whether or not to go ahead with the Burlingam¢ Housing proposal.
As you can imagine, Paul and i are hopeful that a decision NOT to go forward with the
Burlingame Housing project will occur.
AsPen has always prided itself on choosing to retain the small scale of our Community,
whether the size of business signs, the height of buildings, or the redevelopment of a
hotel or even thc Music Tent. All o1" these decisions were made consciously with the goal
of maintaining the special character of the Aspen we all love.
Certainly the purchase of the Burlingame property by the City of Aspen can be seen as a
great success having already resulted in an increase of alternative housing in the Aspen
area. Bod~ of the existing afl'ordable housing developments that have been (or ;irc beirig)
built have made social,, economic and envjronmenm. I sense. We have historically
stzpported each of these projects and understand their impurtance.
Communities nationwide are becoming increasingly concerned about the complex effects
of urban sprawl. Thc propo.scd Burlingamc Village is ti prime example of such sprawl.
The proposed size of the development, 335 units, housing 600-I 000 people is completcly
out of scale fbr our commtmity, Imagine 2000-3000 additional road trips on Hwy 82.
No comprehensive study has been conducted that the public has been made aware o1' that
accurately measures the huge impact a development this size will make on our schools,
hospital, police and fire departments, roads, sewer, water and transportation costs etc.
Aspen is facing serious fis~:al challenges. Meeting the financial obligations of this
development once it has begun may become impossible.
The remote location and size of the proposed Burlingame Village is contrary in every
way to S,nan Growth.
The fact that dogs will not bc allowed reflects thc sensitive nature of thc area.
Dec OB 03 06: ]2p Soldner Ret Consultant 9?0 GG8 0237
Aspen has a renlistic and exciting opportunity to create f'or future generations a place of
contemplation and recreation as well as a buffer between humans and wildlife by joining
to~e~her and placing under conservation casement four environmentally important
wildlife areas; Red Butte, {already protected but isolated) with Deer l lill-Burlingame, thc
Zoline land (less the 12 free market homes) and 75+ acres ~t the bottom of Maroon Creek
Valley ~hrough a donation fromm Connie Harvey.
Paul and ! are hopeful. We. and others are commitIcd [o comJn-u¢ to help to locate sites
£or af£ordablc housing in and close t<) Aspen, especially on a more human sc;dc, ll~c
Aspen scale. A healthy community and environmcn[ in eve~ sense of thc word is viral to
us all,
Thank you for your dedicated work on the City Council!
Sincerely,
Stephanie and Paul Soldner
CC: Terry Paulson, Torre
Burlingame Village Facts;
Prepared by Tim Semrau, Aspen City Council
Distance from town;
3.1 miles from the Jerome Hotel
(Aspen schools/Aspen recreation complex 2.2 miles from
Jerome Hotel)
Aspen School System Enrollment
Total Students Out of district'; % Out of district
High school 490 116 23.6 %
Middle school 425 89 20.9 %
Elementary 525 99 18.9 %
Total 1,440 304 21%
Open space to be used by Zoline Free market homes, by contract.
18 Free market dwellings totaling 153,000 sq. ft. FAR
(North 40 total build out 72 homes 154,000 sq. ft. FAR)
(Proposed Phase I Affordable housing 120,000 sq. ft. FAR)
Cost of abandoning Burlingame Ranch affordable housing
Traffic intersection already put in
Land Cost
Infrastructure to Zoline's, by contract
City responsibility for Zoline's mitigation units
(Land purchase/infrastructure for 65 +units)
Total cost
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$6,000,000
$10,000,000
$18,500,000
Affordable housing mitigation required by Zoline's Free-mkt housing;
Zero if affordable housing abandoned
Proposed Burlingame Ranch Phase I
110 units (40 Single family lots)
Occupancy Fall 2005
Total Burlingame ranch build out
To be decided in future years, up to 330 units.
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March I9, 2002
Project Financial Analysis and Evaluation - This section includes a detailed
financial analysis of the proposed development program for each site. OveralI
development costs and revenues are estimated along with estimates of the project
subsidies required to develop the recommended program. Because the development
programs differ and a direct cost comparison is not possible, the sites were also
compared assuming a relatively uniform Category 3 ownership program on eack
site. The projects are also evaluated against other evaluation criteria to prioritize the
available housing development options.
Housing Production and Phasing Program - Based on h~using need, available
resources, and the evaluation of development options, a p~tential housing
development program and phasing schedule is detailed. This section also includes
recommendations on housing development options and partnerships to leverage the
most cost effective housing production.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The major findings and conclusions in each plan element are summarized below. This
analysis provides the basis for the implementation strategies and actions that follow.
1. Housing Needs Analysis
Current housing needs were estimated based on the goal of housing 60 percent of the
Aspen area workforce. Based on 2000 total Pitkin County estimated employment of
21,472 and accounting for an average of 1.3 jobs per person, 1.8 employees per
household and allowances for down-valley employment and out-commuting, there are
an estimated 7,800 employee households and a target of 4,6~ouseholds to be
provided in Aspen. Based on an existing su pptv of 3,684 units, there is an existing
shortfall of 995 units. ' ' ----_.
Based on an analysis of the existing workforce by job category, the income distribution
of housing units was then estimated. The existing affordable unit mix by category was
subtracted from the overall demand figures to determine the distribution of current
need as shown in Table 2 below. The estimated need is conservative in that it does not
account for the portion of the existing free-market housing stock that is not res~cted
and is likely to be lost when employees retire or sell their residence.
e-
SUMIvlARY OF NATURAL
B URLINGAME RANCH
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
Sagebrush Shrubland: Shrublands dominated by big sagebrush (Se['iphidium
tridentamm) occupy the deep, fine-grained soils of th'~e valley terraces and lower hillsides.
Muck of this habitat has been replaced by irrigated hay meadows on the Hat terraces or
has been impacted by cattle ~azing. Shrublands are present in the study area on the
slopes of Deer Hill, the two small hills, and in scattered areas.
Montane Shrubland: These shrublands, dominated by Gambel oak (Quercus
gambelii), are extensive on south-facing slopes 'in the vicinity ~.l' Aspen. On some of the
northern exposures, moister and cooler conditions have permitted the establishment or'
individual Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in.termixed within the montane shrubland.
In the immediate vicinity of Aspen, Deer Hill has one of the few remaining examples of
this community type.
Wildlife
According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Wildlife Resource
Information System (WRIS), the project area is not identified as supporting any seasonali
wildlife range or critical wildlife habitat (CDOW 2001). Sightings of elk On the project'
site are rare but elk have been observed using the area during severe winters (Cardomone
2001, Ellsperman 2001) and several sources report a resident mule deer population
(Cardomone 2001, Ellsperman 2001, Wright 200I). Large predators such as black bear
are known to move ttirough the riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River (Wright
2001). Bald eagles may also use this corridor but there are no known nesting or r$ffsdng
sites in the area. Historically, golden eagles have roosted and probably nested on
Butte (Cardomone 2001).
In general, the dense montane and sagebrush shrublands in the project` a. rea provide
good habitat f0-r"s:~cialist bird sPe6ieS'such as"~en-tail'ed towhee, BreWer's sPai~r~~
and common nighthawks (Cardomone 2001, Vidal 2001),
Threatened, Endangered. Species
According to the Colorado Natural Heritage Pro.am (CNI-tP) database for the
area. the property does not' support:~,~urr~t ~"~)oiehti~ll~ ~'en'ed 0rj~_.n.-~I__ang~,..~
~$$ourc~$
Corporation
Three Myths
#1: "Most of us live in affordable housing"
#2: "Burlingame would bust the school
budget"
#3: "AH residents are aging and housing
doesn't serve younger workers"
Or:
I~/~hy we will never house 60% of the workforce,
the schools may have to import more students
from out of district and how even Burlingame
won't stem the loss of worker housing.
By Carlos Green ~
~ Carlos Green is a fictional character (see 1998 Community Plan Update) who can't take
credit for the many people who contributed information contained in this document including the
citizen planners for AACP 1993 and 2000, the housing office, the state demographer's office,
Linda Ventroni and Northwest Colorado Council of Governments and the Aspen School District
capacity committee. Thanks to all of you, prepared by Mick Ireiand, not paid for with tax payer
dollars and not endorsed by any PAC, government or source referenced herein.
78OO
6800
Burlingame
5800
won't
come close to 46oo
replacing 3600
losses
2800
of local
housing. ~6oo
80O
to Aspen
AH
66%'
34%
-200
!1~ Added downvalley
households, 2013
[] Downvalley households
[] Free Market ee housing
[] Burligame
[] Existing AH inventory
Year2003
4t16
1747
1937
Year2013
981
4116
436
330
1937
Chart 1 As free market housing continues to be converted to second homes and vacation uses, the
local worker population will decline even if330 units are built at Burlingame.
ccording to the Aspen Area Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, the Aspen
Ayrban Growth Boundary hosts about 47.4% of the workers who fill 14,000
;on the books" jobs here. Those working households occupy roughly 3,684
units and are almost evenly split between free market properties (1,747) and
designated affordable housing (1,935) units?
The Aspen Area Community Plan of 1993 set a goal of housing 60% of the
workforce, an objective reaffirmed by the city council last week. The Strategic
Plan calls for 995units to be added to the present 3,684 in order to reach the goal
of 4,679 local working units housing about 60% of the work force. The Strategic
Plan specifically notes that the free market units are included in the total needed to
reach 60%.
2 Politically correct mythology holds that "two thirds of us live in affordable housing."
The report's finding that workers are evenly split is corroborated by the tables included in the
Draft of the infill ordinance. See Strategic Plan, pages 5-9. The state demographer predicts
Pitkin County will have 50% more "on the books"jobs by the year 2015, see
www. http://dola.colorado.gov/demoWEconomy/CBEFLFOut, cfi;.}
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 2 of 10
The data in Chart 1 shows why this goal is unlikely to be attained. Even with
no growth in the work force over the decade, the converSion of free market
housing to vacation homes, second hOmes and other uses will probably
swallow up any likely additions of affordable housing, leaving Aspen with a
smaller local working population and lower percentage of workers housed then
today.3
The Strategic Plan states (Page 6):
"It should be emphasized that the portion of the housing stock that is not
restricted (the 1, 74 7 units described above) is not likely to be resold at affordable
rates in the future. Thus, the City should monitor the number of local
employee-households residing in restricted as well as market rate homes to
ensure that both types of housing are accounted for in evaluating the City's total
need for housing. '
3 The 2000 AACP wisely chose to look at housing through a "critical mass" perspective
calling for 800 to 1,300 units in hopes of establishing a sufficient local population to for a
sustainable community. The 60% goal may be unrealistic given the loss of so much free market
for local workers and the expected continued growth in jobs. The state demographer's office
forecasts a 50% increase in jobs by 2015 in Pitkin County, about 25,000 jobs instead of the
present 17,000. Meeting that goal would require 2,340 units to house 60% of the new jobs, 995
units to reach 60% of the existing jobs and replacement units for the loss of free market units
currently occupied by workers that are convened to vacation homes.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 3 of 10
800
West End Aspen Age Group Changes t990-2000
[[]2ooo
7O0
60O
5O0
4O0
300--
2O0
100
0_~
-100 I 0-4
I ~2000 16
.~$%
69 23 103 115 104 157 76 663
64 33 123 163 154 107 49 727
8% -30% -16% -29% -32% 47% 65% -9%
Chart 2 The predominantly free market neighborhood between Main Street and the Roaring Fork
River and from Highway 82 (original) to the river on the East End lost population from 1990 to
2000. Every adult age group under 50 years old lost population and those losses were not offset by
the growth in the 50 plus groups. (Www.census.gov)
Burlingame, even at the 330 build out projection, is unlikely to replace even
half of the units lost to conversion over the next decade. The data over the
last 15 years shows conversions result in second or third home ownership
and falling populations in neighborhoods that are predominantly free market.
Chart 2 is based on census block comparisons between 1990 and 2000 for a
neighborhood that includes the grid streets south of Main Street on Aspen's West
End and the neighborhoods of East Aspen. In spite of a handful of AH projects in
this neighborhood (mostly along Main Stree0,the net population loss was 9% and
particularly large losses were experienced by younger age groups. 18-21 year olds
declined by 30%, those aged 30-39 fell 30% and 40-49s fell 32%.4
4 Source: US Census ,,www.census.gov. Similar results were found in other free market
neighborhoods. The steep declines in residents under 50 were partly off set by explosive growth
in the 50-59 and 60-69 age groups.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 4 of l0
common sense and casual observation shows that gentrification will
continue to erode the local worker housing stock as has been the case since
1987 when 60% of the workforce lived in the town. A recent review of
262 local resident owned properties (Assessor data) and public data bases found
the median age of owners of free market housing is approximately 60, meaning
many of our locals living in flee market are at or near retirement age? Median
prices for the West End properties were about $1.8 million for those homes.
The pattern in Aspen is repeated in Vail, Breckenridge, Winter Park and other ski
resorts where local worker earnings cannot compete with the income of part time
residents. In the Northwest Council of Governments region, a recent survey of
1,350 home owners found extraordinary income and buying power for part time
residents throughout the region from Winter Park to Aspen. In Pitkin County, the
median survey result showed income of about $350,000 a year, the 99th percentile
for the nation. The assertion that free market," ***housing stock is not likely to
be resold at affordable rates in the future." probably ranks as the understatement of
the year. The estimate that 75% of the free market housing stock will be
converted from worker housing to part time residences is quite likely a
conservative assumption.
5 Seven neighborhoods including Snowbunny, Red Butte, Homestake, Bonita, Red Butte,
the West End grid streets, Aspen Grove and Mountain Valley were studies. Assessor records
were analyzed for 262 locally owned properties with resident owners.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 5 of 10
In district enrollment fluctuates
1110
1100
1090 -
1094 ~ 1097
1080
1070
1060
lo2s
· lo15
~ 1007
1050
[~ Sedesl
1040
1030
1020
1010
1000
1997
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Another concern raised about Burlingame is the specter of overcrowded
schools resulting from the creation of 330 affordable housing househOlds.
"Overcrowding" is of course relative and depends on policy decisions by
the district about how many children per classroom are desired and how many out
of district students are served.
A review of current enrollment shows that in district enrollment has not grown
very much in recent years and now stands at 1,097 compared to 1,071 in 1998.
Out of district enrollment stands at 325, up from 211 in 1998.6 The small increase
in in-district enrollment came during a period when at least 457 AH units were
added to the inventory. This suggests that the addition of 457 units did not drive
enrollment because either the units captured local families who had been living in
free market housing and or the increase in local families living in AH units was
offset by the conversion of free market local resident housing to second home use
and displacement of families down valley..
6 The school district committee on enrollment and capacity is working hard to assessthe
issues of capacity and out of district enrollment.. "Overcrowding" or excess enrollment is
partially a function of policy issues like classroom size and decisions on admission of out of
district students. As currently configured, it appears Burlingame's 330 units would be a small
contributor to enrollment changes since the student "supply" comes from a much larger base that
includes 1,937 AH units, 1,747 free market units and hundreds of second homes and hundreds of
Snowmass Village free market and AH units.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 6 of 10
Burlingame would add only 16% to the affordable housing stock in the
Aspen area and, as seen above, AH is only a portion of the housing in the
area. Students reside in free market resident housing, part time resident
housing and in affordable housing. It appears from the Northwest COG study that
a significant portion of part time residents have children living at home but
apparently in smaller proportion than local residents.
The addition of 330 units on a local housing base of 3,684 units together with
Snowmass Village and the second homes contributing to the system is not a huge
bump. Even if Burlingame contributed an additional 100 students to the system,
that gain may be more than offset by the decline in students related to the
conversion of local resident free market homes to part time use.*
7 Second home owners are far more likely to report having grown children no longer
living at home than local residents, according to the Northwest COG survey. About one quarter
of each group reported having children but no data is available on numbers and ages of children
or where they attend school (public or private). As noted, the addition of 457 units since 2000
does not appear to have had much impact on local school enrollment.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 7 of 10
Aspen Population Growth by Age Sector
1990-2000
160%
140%
120%
100%
8O%
6O%
4O%
2O%
0%
-20%
4 0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Popu
~1% Change'. 10.89122.16.76.80;35.951 -S.14 -4.03 ?.18%~,-23.22[-9.42 31.711134.5' 123.4151.77' 100.0178.87 j82.50 0.00%[0.00%= 17.13
Chart 3 Aspen loses population in ages 20-45 in spite of annexations and extensive AH unit
development during 1990s.
Local sales tax data and recent retail trends suggest that Aspen's economy
may be suffering from structural changes in the local economy as well as
national trends. As the local population continues to stagnate or decline, it
is understandable that local serving businesses will have more difficulty that
enterprises serving the growing part time resident sector. In addition, the aging of
the local population in free market housing and the general demographics of the
second home buyers changes the pattern of retail spending.8
Local free market owners and part time residents are much more similar to each
other demographically than AH residents. The Northwest COG survey found the
median age of second home owners to be about 62, compared to the 60 for local
resident free market owners. The analysis of the Aspen grid streets between Main
Street and the Roaring Fork river found a median age of about 40 for all residents
including children while the Hunter Creek census block had a median age of 35.
The town of Snowmass village also had one predominantly AH census block. The
median age in that neighborhood was about 32.
8 Although Aspen gained population from 1990 to 2000, this may have been entirely
attributable to the annexation of additional area including, Silverlode, Williams Ranch, Aspen
Highlands, part of Buttermilk and other areas. Most free market neighborhoods saw declines in
population from 1990 to 2000.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 8 of 10
All of this suggests that the local roots of retail decline in Aspen may have
more to do with demographics than sign codes, parking regulations and
airport runway lengths. Simply put, the new residents and older locals
have different spending pattems and needs than the resort population of 20 or even
ten years ago.9
Three major "locally serving" restaurants, Mother Lode, Chart House and Little
Annie's are either for sale or gone the way of Aspen Drug. Other retail space that
had some local serving aspects (such as Eddie Bauer) are gone. Likely candidates
for replacement? Time share offices, free market residences, high end retail. The
point is, the retail market is shifting to accommodate the spending patterns of the
local consumers and further shifts in the present direction can be expected as the
local resident population continues to decline.
The shift in spending patterns may not be compatible with community visions and
goals. If night clubs, restaurants and other local and tourist serving businesses can
not successfully bid for space against the businesses aimed at retirees and baby
boom second home owners, the resort could become less attractive to the next
generations of skier/borders and summer visitors.
9 For most working people, income peaks at about age 50 and declines through
retirement. Thus, Aspen resident owners in flee market housing may have less to spend on retail
than in the past. The Northwest COG study suggests that part time residents may spend as much
as one quarter of their income locally. However, the same study also suggests only 30% of that
spending is on sales taxable items with much of the rest focused on personal services that are
exempt from sales tax. Ironically, the AH resident with a smaller income may contribute quite a
bit in sales tax since much of his or her spending is on sales taxable purchases.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 9 of 10
Conclusion:
Even at 330 units, Buflingame will not come close to replacing free market units
now housing workers that will be converted into second or third homes. About
half the Aspen area workers now housed in the area live in free market homes that
are unlikely to be sold to workers as present owners retire. The likely impact of
Burlingame on school enrollment is minimal - the addition of 457 units since 1998
had little effect on school enrollment. As part time residents replace locals in the
12747 free market units housing workers, the demand for school space may decline
enough to more than offset any gains caused by Burlingame. Baby boom second
home owners and free market locals are predominantly 55 and older and are
reshaping the retail market away from the youth/tourist orientation with the result
that we may expect fewer local serving businesses, restaurants and night clubs and
more real estate offices, high end retail and personal service businesses.
Burlingame could offset part of the loss of local residents and help support the
locally oriented retail base.
Housing Myths - Carlos Green Page 10 of 10