August 20, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:03] Alright. Thank you. I'd like to call this August 20th planning board meeting to order. 1st order of business is public participation. So, Vivian, before we start, maybe we can just read out the rules of engagement. Yes, of course. Can you all hear me? Yeah, yeah. Okay, great. Good evening, everyone. My name is Vivian. I help facilitate the public participation in pub planning board meetings. So I'll just read through these city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about this productive atmospheres. Vision on the city website.

[1:08] Next slide, please. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder, rice, code and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will be upheld during this meeting. First, st all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. Second, no participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants are required to identify themselves by their 1st and last name. And if you do not know how to change that if you're joining us online and haven't done it already, you can send me your 1st and last name through the QA. And the QA. Function is meant for these types of procedural issues and questions and not related to content. Next slide, please. So to let us know you want to speak at at the given time. You can find this icon, the raised hand and press that, and we'll know that you would like to speak. And if you're joining by phone, you can press Star 9. And this next slide just shows another way to get to that menu.

[2:16] there's an expanded reactions icon menu that you can get to. I don't know where it went. There it is. thank you. And I believe we have some people in person who would like to speak during the open comment. and just a reminder that open comment. Each person gets 3 min and the subject matter should just be related to something not on the agenda. Later. Yeah, and and just a clarification. The the items that are on the agenda later are not public hearing items. So this is the only opportunity for the public to speak so they can speak to anything that we have, whether it's on the agenda or not, because it's not a public hearing. Yeah, thanks for that. Okay. So 1st up in person, we have Martha Raskowski. So if you'd like to step to the podium and give your comment.

[3:09] Hi, I'm Martha Raskowski. I live in Martin Acres. I'm here to talk about parking. I am so happy that you're taking on parking. It is the single most consequential thing in the intersection of transportation and land use. And I'm on the better Boulder board. We sent you our position. Elizabeth Patterson sent our statement, so I'm not going to read our statement, but know that better. Boulder is all on board with eliminating parking mandates citywide as am I, and I encourage you, as you look at the scope presented by Staff to encourage them to think big and go bold with eliminating parking minimums, not just for new development, but also for existing development. A couple of reasons. We have a lot of vacant retail around the city base. Mar in my neighborhood needs love, and I think reducing parking requirements will allow more uses to come into and

[4:06] and serve our neighborhoods also, in the last year or 2, 3 of my neighbors in Martin Acres have gone through, I would say, planning hell when they had a house that they had bought where somebody had renovated their garage, turned it into living space. They come in to do more remodels, and all of a sudden they run into the parking requirement. Buzz saw at huge expense huge problems for them to try to go back and undo what was once allowed, but now isn't allowed in terms of parking. So, just for my Martin Acres, neighborhood neighbors, and others in their small houses. Please get rid of all parking minimums citywide for all uses. I'm also really happy to see that you're approaching. You're going after the Tdm requirements, because currently. the way I understand it, basically, we want developments to build less parking. But we hold it hostage. They can only build less parking if they do, bus passes and other good things. And that's just not a great relationship. And it's going to be trickier to figure out when you don't have that push and pull, but I know this excellent staff can figure it out. So thank you for taking on parking.

[5:28] Thomas. Can we get a little more volume out of that microphone. If is that possible, to do that. I can look into it. Hi! I'm Tom Volkhusn, and I'm speaking as an individual, but also as a representative of the Indian Peaks group of the Sierra Club. Our Ex. What happened there? Sorry. Oh, sorry. You're good. Okay. I don't know what's going on with it.

[6:06] Is there something to do to make it say 3 or sorry? I'm having problems with the in room timer? I'll just do a separate timer and go ahead cool. Alright. So again, I'm Tom Volkhasen, and I'm speaking as an individual and as a representative of the Indian Peaks group of the Sierra Club and our Executive Committee voted to support the policy of removing all parking minimum citywide, and that includes multifamily and single family, residential, commercial and office space and new and remodel. So the statewide requirement with Hb. 2413 0. 4 would require removing parking minimums for multifamily on 81% of the city. And it's kind of crazy to keep a sort of remnant requirement on 19% of the city.

[7:00] so there's a lot of bad things about parking that environmental organizations are concerned about. Obviously water and air pollution, heat islands. It encourages car travel, more air pollution, more carbon. It's unpleasant and unsafe for active travel. and one of the advantages of getting rid of the parking minimums rather than just reducing them is, it would free up staff resource for things that are more important. And I know I've personally done remodels in the city of Boulder, and the parking requirements basically make many adu and duplex and unit additions impossible. So if we can get rid of the parking requirements, we can free up a lot of potential housing and the other thing that I wanted to talk about was the Tdm. Proposal, and I'm glad to see the city working on Tdm. But I'm concerned that requiring small projects to

[8:00] do studies and like, do traffic studies even, could make a really big cost burden. In other words, if you, it's unclear what the standards for new Tdm. Study requirements will be. But if you have a small project and you have to spend $50,000 on traffic study and Tdm study that's going to have a big impact on affordability, or even the viability of the project that will just cross over from a profit to a loss with that $50,000. So instead of requiring studies, I think it's better just to require Tdm measures for small projects. In other words, you got to have the bike rack, and you got the other individual Tdm measures. But I think spending on requiring small builders to spend a lot of money on studies and consultants is probably a bad idea. So just getting back to the beginning, I encourage the city to remove all parking minimums

[9:01] citywide and to do that for all uses. And there's many, many us and international municipalities that have done this. And I'm not aware of any of them that have had a problem, because building owners know how much parking they need, and will provide it if they have to, and having the city do, it just ends up with what we've seen, which is utilizations of very low levels. Great. Thank you to our in person community members. Now, we can move to our online attendees and see if anybody would like to speak. Please raise your virtual hand, and I will call on you. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have 3 min. I drive my car 5 times a year. and I do not support getting rid of parking minimums. I do support that. We use it in leverage to the development of massive infill and densification in boulder.

[10:06] This is killing the town. See you south. See you, general expansion, the crane on the hill, the the conference center, the hotel, the millennium, the loss of the sales, tax revenue to high-end student housing with cars all with cars, plenty of cars and huge football games that really drive a lot of congestion. And and my concern, for example, with 2,206 pearl, and the micro efficiency there, and they're asking for twice as many units and no parking. and just assuming everyone's going to use bikes. And they don't. You know what this is a car oriented society. It's never going to change. We, unless people stay put.

[11:01] Does Tom Volkhausen go on the airplane, you know. Does he go across town. Does he go to the mountains? You know. I don't go anywhere. I draw. I go where I can ride my bike close, and that's it. Occasionally I drive a little bit of a distance, but not much. So what's the story here? People want to move, want to go places want to go out of. You know they live here when you live here, live here. If you want to go, visit somewhere else, go there and live there, and then go to another place and live there. But it's really inefficient to have huge football games. Huge holiday gatherings and intensity of use is just riding my bike around. Today. I'm never doing this again on the student move. In times it's impossible to get around town. There's lines everywhere. The grocery stores. I had to wait to buy my one lemon. I had to wait for this huge cart of this mother buying the daughter of the whole

[12:03] thing to fill her refrigerator. And then that's another thing that brings to mind, because, see you in Seattle, where I'm from, we had quarter system, but still the same thing. You have one quarter off. People shouldn't have quarters off. You just go to school, finish school. If you want to have a holiday, take a year of a holiday, but having a holiday in the middle is very costly, an air flight going back to your home for the summer. All the stuff that goes into the landfill all of the new stuff that you buy that just gets thrown away after 3 months. These are inefficient modes of utility of land use. You know what happens in the 3rd quarter, or whatever you call it, the the other semester of the unoccupied space. It's wasted. So talk about ways.

[13:02] Thank you. Thank you, Lynn Siegel, for joining us and other community members online. That concludes the open comment back over to you. Chair. Thanks, Vivian, and thank you to the public for your comments. We don't have any minutes to approve. I don't believe we have anything until the staff presentation. So unless there's anything else, we can move forward with that all right. Oh, can you read out the item just for the record. Oh, sorry. And it's not a public hearing. But just so, it's on the record. Yeah, thank you. So the matters from the planning board and planning director and city attorney, access management and parking strategy code and policy enhancements, project introduction. Thanks, Thomas. I don't have screen sharing ability, do you mind? I'll make you a co-host. Just one second. Sorry about that.

[14:02] You should be good to go now. Okay, thank you. All right. Good evening. Planning board. I'm Lisa Hood, principal city planner with planning and development services really excited to bring forward this item to you tonight. It's a cross departmental project. So I have with me, Chris Haglin from transportation and mobility, and Samantha Bromberg from community vitality. This project is being led by planning and development services. But we're working as a team to bring forward 3 different disparate topics within this project. The presentation that we're going to give you tonight will start with some project background. We'll go into the 3 different focus areas that align with the 3 different departments. And then we'll talk through our initial scope recommendations and hopefully have a good discussion there. Like I mentioned, there's 3 different focus areas. This is related to this overall Amps, access management and parking strategy implementation and code project. So we'll be talking about off street parking standards, transportation demand management or Tdm requirements, and on street parking management strategies.

[15:18] I'm always a big fan of visuals. So just to clarify the difference between those 3 focus areas when we talk about off street parking. That is the parking that's required by zoning by the land use code to be accommodated on private property. And so there is a requirement for every type of housing and type of business, a certain number of parking spaces for those uses, and that's how our land use code is set up. Now compare that to the on street parking. That's how we deal with the public right of way, and how the city manages parking on the public right of way. So that's the 2 different topics there and then. Tdm is really the way that all of the different strategies that we use to efficiently efficiently move people around the community. Whether that's walking, biking, taking transit, or even driving.

[16:06] This amps project has a long history. It's 10 years in the making. It was initiated back in 2,014. The strategy was adopted by city Council in 2,017, and a lot of great work has been done to implement amps, the Chapa access management program or camp, the civic area parking management and Tdm programs. The neighborhood permit parking or Npp review. That's now under the umbrella of residential access management program or ramp. And then the parking, pricing study. There are 2 remaining items, implementation items that were identified in amps back in 2,017 that have not yet been completed. The off Street parking standard changes and a Tdm plan ordinance for new developments. So those are part of this project that we're bringing forward to you tonight, even though those 2 have not been adopted yet. There's been a lot of work that's been done on those 2 items over the last 10 years. So there was a phase, one of the Parking and Tdm updates, where we simplified and reduced some standards for certain uses, we added bicycle parking requirements. This is all back in 2,014, we had phase 2, where we actually had proposals for reducing the parking requirements for all the uses

[17:17] that was in 2,016 council did not choose to adopt any changes at that time. They actually requested that we do additional data collection. The data collection has been a really important important part of this project throughout the 10 year period. And so they wanted to see more data collection before they made any reductions to parking requirements. So we did some more data collection in 2,018 and 2,019 kind of kicked off this phase. 3 of the project we were all set to go in spring of 2,020, to bring forward this project and to the boards and council, and then Covid hit, and the project was, paused indefinitely in addition to it, impacting the staffing capacity of most of the departments of the city that were related to this. It also just was a time that we needed to kind of let things pause and see what happened in relation to parking in the city. You know we needed to take that time, as

[18:14] everything changed with social, economic, everything to see. Just give some time to get back to a new normal and then see what parking what the parking situation was on the other side of that, so we reinitiated, especially the parking side at the end of last year started doing some of the initial research, and I'll talk about that in a few slides. But we're hoping to complete this now. 3 part project by mid next year this project is actually backed by a lot of the policies in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. There are too many to fit on a slide, but those are just the topics. Those are in the project charter, if you're interested. But there are a lot of policies that align with this implementation measure of these changes.

[19:01] There's also policies in our transportation master plan that set aside some certain, some objectives for various measurable objectives like Vmt. Vehicle. Miles traveled reducing greenhouse gases, improving safety, and that we're tracking regularly how the city is doing on each of those objectives, and so that ties into all this work as well. The questions that we laid forward in the memo for you, and that we're hoping to discuss with you tonight is to get your feedback on the recommended scope. That Staff's going to explain through the presentation for the 3 different focus areas. And then any other comments that you might have on the engagement strategy project, timeline or any other topics. So with that, oh, and I also, we brought this to council on August 8.th So an almost identical presentation was given to city council just to give you an idea council provided general support of the staff, recommended recommendation or staff proposed recommendations. They encouraged us to continue exploring the elimination of minimum parking requirements

[20:11] implementing the State Bill, which I'll talk about later and applying changes citywide, clarifying, messaging about parking requirement changes. As this is a change to the the requirements in the code, but not necessarily that all parking would go away in the city. Things like that. They brought up some other topics that they wanted us to investigate things like electric vehicle charging, bike parking and shared parking, and then also just better tying the transportation master plan objectives to the work in this project. I'm going to start off with the off street parking standards focus area, and then we'll jump to Chris and Sam. So some background on off street parking again. That's the private property parking. The 1st parking requirements were put in the 1,954 zoning code in Boulder. So much like most cities in the country after World War Ii. That's when you see the introduction of off street parking requirements and throughout the country off street parking requirements have had a significant impact on urban form and development, as well as the mobility options of people that live in this country.

[21:17] If you look at almost any zoning code. It's going to look very similar to what Boulder does with off street parking requirements. It's typically a required number of spaces per square foot, based on the use. Sometimes it can be based on the number of bedrooms or number of seats or things like that, but usually it's kind of a ratio. and it can seem like it's scientific because it's a ratio and math and things like that. But mostly it's looking at existing conditions. The history of parking usage and utilization, and also looking at other communities. And what the rules are there. So there's not an exact science to it. Boulder has not updated comprehensively our parking requirements in the 70 years that we've had parking requirements. But a few examples of how this works. If you have a 12,000 square foot retail space in our BC. Business community zoning district. That's a 1 to 300 ratio, 300 square foot ratio. So you'd need 40 spaces off street, accommodated for that retail space

[22:16] that's about the size of like a small grocery store for a residential, for a 50 unit building with a variety of 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms in our RH. 5, which is a high density residential district. You'd need 87 off streets, parking spaces over time with our parking requirements. We've found the need to introduce flexibility into those requirements. And so over the last several decades, we've included parking reductions as a possibility that's been tweaked over time as well. So right now, applicants can request a maximum reduction of 25% in their parking. You guys see these in projects that come before you sometimes when they're raised to a higher level and require planning board approval. Beyond that, 25%.

[23:05] As part of this. We've also been looking at the parking reductions that have been approved in the last 14 years or so, and when looking at all of the Site review approvals. About 40% of those major development proposals have included a parking reduction that's been approved. So almost half have needed to reduce that parking requirement parking reform has been a significant part of the planning and zoning conversation. In the last few years, especially since 2,017, when Buffalo, New York, was the 1st major city in the country to eliminate parking requirements citywide with their sustainable development code. Since then there's a good site, that kind of compiles. All of this data called Parking reform network, and since then 78 cities in the United States have eliminated all of their minimum parking requirements. You can see those on the map. and then that same site also tracks. How many have reduced parking requirements? So 900 cities have reduced parking requirements in at least part of their city

[24:06] States are also taking note of parking reform. 22 States have introduced some kind of legislation, and 10 States have passed it. including Colorado. So this year, Colorado, the Colorado State Legislature passed House Bill 2413, 0 4, as referenced by one of our public commenters. and the bill prohibits minimum parking requirements. If a property is at least partially within what's called the transit service area that only applies to multifamily residential development or the adaptive reuse of a building for residential uses or mixed use. With a majority residential. You can see the map on the side. The State is going to provide an official map by the end of September. But city Staff estimates that, based on the wording in the bill, 81% of city parcels would fall under that transit service area. So that's the blue part.

[25:01] that you see on the map. The State Bill also says that compliance with these requirements would be required by June 32,025, and you might wonder why this has become a big topic of conversation, and why it's a part of the planning and zoning discussion these days, but the State, in their preamble to the bill, noted the many different studies that supported their rationale, for why they passed this bill. They found in these studies that local minimum parking requirements increased vehicle miles traveled increased greenhouse gas emissions and then also increase development and housing costs. So some stats that you might have heard is in the Metro Denver area. The average surface parking spot adds $25,000 each spot or space that's provided to the overall development costs. And then just a surface parking not structured. Did I say structure? I might have said those backward structured as 25,000 surface is 10,000 per spot. And so you can see that that adds to the development costs. And then the concern is that that increases housing costs to provide this parking.

[26:15] So that's why this has become a major topic of conversation I mentioned. We've already started work on the parking piece. We did comparable cities research that was in your memo packet. and that was of over 30 cities. And actually we did that last year. And since that happened. Longmont, actually, our neighbor, passed a bill, I think, in May that eliminated parking requirements citywide. We also completed another round of parking supply and utilization data collection. I will go over that in later slides. I mentioned the parking reduction research. We drafted the project charter. That's in your memo packet. We did our initial iteration of the racial equity instrument to really think through the benefits and burdens associated with eliminating parking requirements.

[27:02] as you could see from the the last slides. There are a number of benefits that have been talked about, which are reducing the environmental improvements and and also reducing housing costs, but really thinking about what the impact of that. This. what potential burden this could create by eliminating parking requirements, especially for people who have their livelihood depend on their vehicle. So say, that's somebody who works in construction that has needs safe and secure parking for the tools in their truck, or somebody who drives lyft or uber, and their vehicle is their livelihood. So just trying to think broader about this topic, and we'll continue to do iterations on the racial equity instrument throughout the project. We've also been researching other cities engagement strategy engagement strategies to understand what's been successful in other communities that have studied this issue. We've drafted an outline of the community engagement plan.

[28:03] We have also been starting stakeholder engagement. We had a good discussion with boulder housing partners to try to understand what impact, if any are the city's minimum parking requirements have on how they decide how many spaces to provide in a project. Alright. that's the background on parking I'm going to. I want to go through this supply and utilization data collection summary. This has been, like, I said, a big part of the project throughout the many phases, and we have looked at over 16,000 parking spaces at 50 different sites over this 10 year period. So we refresh that all at all of those sites with this year. We've looked at peak times off-peak times, specific times of interest, all the slides that I'm going to show you are peak times for the occupancy. So that's the typical maximum utilization. And that's what we're studying. So we looked at many different types of land uses in those 50 different sites. You can see a summary here for the purpose of time. I'm only going to go over office, residential and retail, but you can see that it varies by land use. So if you think of if if something was showing 100%, that means that every single space that's provided for that land use is being used. So you can see it varies by land use. Some are as low as 38%, some as high as 86%, and then I'll go through a little bit more in detail on those ones on the right.

[29:28] starting with retail. So the current code requires for retail, like I mentioned in the example. On the other slide one generally one space per 300 or 400 square feet. It gets more complicated. That's not uncommon to boulder parking codes are complicated in other places as well. It gets more complicated, based on restaurants and things like that, and retail centers which I don't have to go into, because it gets pretty in the weeds, but suffice it to say it's complicated, but it's generally one space per 300 or 400 square feet.

[30:02] This year we looked at 16 different retail sites, so over 9,000 parking spaces. The peak time was weekday evenings and Saturday midday. So that's when we counted. And what we saw through all of those sites was an average parking occupancy of 52%. So that means about half of parking spaces are being used at peak times. Half are not. The great thing about this project being so long term is that we're able to compare over time over those last 10 years, and see what trends and changes have occurred in that utilization over time. So with retail, you can see a pretty steady decline since 2,014, 16% reduction in average occupancy. What's interesting with this, obviously, Covid is a big change. But also there's been online delivery. All of the changes to brick and mortar retail that have happened in the last 10 years. How many things people are buying on Amazon Prime? You can just see that the number is declining

[31:03] for retail and for each one of these land uses that I'm going to show you tonight. I also wanted to show an example. Just so you can kind of think of a specific site. So, thinking of the target at 28th Street, when we went out to account. At peak time 184 spaces were being used. The requirement based on the the city code. The current code is 340 spaces. And target actually has more space, more parking spaces than are required by code. So they have 401. So just seeing that difference between what's actually being used, what's required and what's provided looking at another land use office. This was when we were really interested to see how it changed after Covid. So the current code requirement is one space per 300 or 400 square feet. We looked at 6 different sites this year about 2,500 park parking spaces as you can expect. The peak time is weekday mornings and kind of a similar parking occupancy to retail 48%. So half being used, half not being used.

[32:01] This one. When you look at the 10 year period, you can see the more drastic drop from Covid or after Covid. So there's much more variation. But a 21% reduction in average occupancy. Since we 1st started counting in 2,014 for the office example. We, I wanted to show the Google campus. So to walk you through what this slide is trying to say. So based on the that ratio. The Google campus is fairly large, so the part the minimum parking required would have been 825 spaces for those sides of buildings when they got their approvals they got a 24% parking reduction approved, which means that they provided 716 parking spaces. When you look at these 2 different graphs. It's comparing what percentage is being used, based on what's provided or required. And so when we went and looked on a weekday morning 556 spaces were being used. When you look at

[33:05] that percentage of what's provided is 78. So that's 78% of the parking that they provided is being used at peak time. That's pretty high. Still, 22% that's going unused. It's a high, utilized, highly utilized site. But when you look at the percentage of parking spaces that are being used compared to the parking that's required, only 67% compared to our code requirements are actually being used. So that's 2 thirds. I just have a quick math question. I'm sorry. But the code minimum parking required 8, 25, a 24% parking reduction. My math says that that doesn't. That's not a hundred 10 space reduction. 25% would be more like 200 and 200 and something. Let me, I'll check my math. Okay, I think I checked it. But

[34:06] okay, carry on. Yeah. I was looking at Memos from 2,015, so I'll double check where I got those numbers. But thanks for pointing that out. It looks like that. 67% might be correct, though from the 5, 56, and a 25. Okay. okay, I will double check while they are talking. And yeah. and check our memos and things like that. But suffice it to say that they, the difference between what's provided and what's required is what the point I was trying to get across. Okay, so moving on to residential, that's last the last land use. I wanted to go over so current code requirements, one space per dwelling unit. If it's a detached unit, and then, if it's attached. It's a little more complicated because it depends on the number of bedrooms. Some areas of the city, some zoning districts actually don't have parking requirements in Boulder Junction for residential. We looked at 14 different sites this year. 2,700 parking spaces. The Peak time for residential is weekday overnight, because when you're sleeping, your car is usually there.

[35:08] The residential is the highest utilized land. Use. Its average parking occupancy was 70%. When we look over the 10 years. There wasn't as much of a difference based on Covid relatively unchanged. But there's still a 13% reduction that we saw in our numbers since the last time we counted in 2,018 and 2,019. And like I said, it's the highest occupancy. The example is the diagonal crossing the Mysa building, the one that's between the 2 sides of the diagonal. So hopefully, the math math is right here. The minimum parking required is 591 spaces, they received an 18.4% parking reduction. So they provide 482 parking spaces. When we went out in the middle of the night 325 parking spaces were being used. So when you look at, provided that's 2 thirds of what they provided. So that's the developer

[36:02] determining they thought they needed 482 spaces to make that project work. Only 67% are being used. When you look at the comparison of what's being used based on our parking requirements, only 55%. So about half. So the code, if they had not gotten that parking requirement. The code would have required them to build twice as much parking as they're using. The key takeaways from this data collection is that across all land uses more parking is available than is used at peak times. Pretty simple. It differs based on the different land uses. There's some that go as far up as 85% of parking excess parking being unused. Some are closer mixed use commercial down to 9%. So it varies based on the land use, but across all of them there is excess parking. and something we thought that was really interesting to see this time around, especially was looking at those projects that had received parking reductions, and even those projects that have parking reductions are still still have excess parking.

[37:03] And so those were the key takeaways for that. All right. So I will go do my math, and I'm gonna oh, no, I have one more side. Sorry. So the proposed scope, as you saw in the memo is that we're hoping to study with the off street parking is to explore eliminating off street parking requirements for all uses. If that doesn't deter, isn't determined to be feasible, we will still study what reductions would be in line with that utilization data. But but starting off with exploring, eliminating off street parking requirements. going back to that slide that showed the transit service area that's relevant to the State Bill staff is recommending that we apply those changes citywide rather than to the just 81% of parcels that are in that transit service area. The reason for that is just to not add additional complexity to the code for kind of small areas that would be challenging to implement essentially.

[38:01] And I will pass it over to Chris. Now, thanks. Good evening planning board, Chris Hagelin, principal planner transportation mobility. And I'm here to talk to you about our Tdm Component of this project. So way back, when the parking code update started in 2,014 staff was directed to align these parking code changes with a new ordinance in the Tdm realm for new development. The primary reasons for this alignment were to implement an ordinance that works in a different type of parking environment, one with maximums and not with minimums, and it was also to set to create a Tdm ordinance that set specific and measurable targets for those Tdm plans and provide the city with a legal mechanism to evaluate monitor and enforce compliance

[39:00] in our current process which is outlined in the design and construction standards. There really isn't a mechanism in there to set specific, measurable objective targets like something about vehicle trip generation or single occupant vehicle use. It does not provide a standard methodology for evaluation or monitoring of Tdm plans, and nor what to do in case a development is out of compliance. The current process is really focused on providing amenities and infrastructure that a developer can provide and a handful of Tdm strategies. You know, we have a very successful ecopass financial guarantee process that we use to make sure those passes are are out in people's hands. But really, most of the traditional Tdm strategies policies, programs that that you can think of really can't be implemented by the developer. They are really implemented when the tenant

[40:01] is in the development, whether it be an employer or a residential property manager. That's where those more traditional Tdm policies and programs can be implemented. It was also thought that as the city moves away from parking minimums to parking maximums, that there would be a relationship between the Tdm requirements. So as the amount of parking supplied lowers. there's a greater need for Tdm programs and strategies to make that parking work and not to negatively impact surrounding areas between 2,014 and 2,019, the city worked on. looking at Tdm ordinances across the country with a best practices report. And through that we identified kind of the key components that make up any type of Tdm ordinance and then trying to understand all the different options within each of those components and the policy decisions that would need to be made. And throughout that process we brought information to boards and Council to help

[41:12] basically create a vision of what this Tdm ordinance would be, and how it would function in order to meet our goals as a city. Some of these key components of any Tdm ordinance for new development would be looking at. What is the purpose or the desired outcome of the ordinance? What are the triggers and thresholds. As one of our public commenters said, you know, when is this ordinance required, and when maybe our property is exempt from it? Also looking at what are the specific measurable objectives or performance metrics that are the key part of the of the Tdm ordinance, you know, for example, vehicle trip generation. It could be peak hour, vehicle, trip generation. It could be sov mode, share of the residents or the employees at that site.

[42:03] There also needs to be a specific methodology to set those target levels. If your metric is vehicle trip generation, what is the formula that is used based on the type of development to say where that target is that that development needs to hit any type of Tdm plan is made up of number of elements that could be policies, programs, services, and we would have to think what would be required. What wouldn't be required. You know, we could think of being fairly agnostic to what is in the Tdm plan as long as they meet those measurable objectives, or we could have a lot of different elements required in the Tdm plan, such as ecopasses or unbundled parking. Something like that. Another component of a Tdm ordinance is, how is it monitored? How long is a property monitored for compliance. And then once, if a development is out of compliance, what are the enforcement Protocols? What can the city do to a development?

[43:08] And then all these kind of the way in which we structure this Tdm ordinance will all have an impact on funding and staffing needs as well. We always sometimes joke about, you know people city staff rushing up in a blue jacket with yellow Tdm letters on the back like the FBI raids. You know the Tdm. Police coming for you. I don't think we want to be there. what I really want to do in this discussion is is focus on the 1st 2 components of those Tdm ordinance. So really, what is the desired outcome? And then also, what are the triggers and the thresholds? Oftentimes, when I think about these things I think of a pendulum. And where on that pendulum swing do we want to be? You could think that on one end of the pendulum that we are merely seeking to mitigate the impacts of that new development on the immediate surrounding area and the transportation system

[44:09] on the other side of that pendulum swing. We could think of this ordinance as a policy tool to really push travel, behavior change in order to meet city goals in the middle of that swing. There's a number of other objectives we could think about. We can think about expanding multimodal infrastructure, expanding multimodal access. providing all those amenities and infrastructures to help people choose modes other than single occupant vehicles. So we need to think about where on that pendulum, do we want this purpose of of the of the Tdm ordinance. The other key thing is the triggers and the thresholds, and this was brought up during public comment as well of of When do you require a development to

[45:02] comply to this type of ordinance, so we can think of of a dial on one end of that dial this ordinance could apply to every single new development redevelopment in the city. We could also change that dial to where we could have a tiered approach. The city of Denver recently implemented a Tdm ordinance where they use a tiered approach. 3 levels, the lowest level. A property has to submit a Tdm plan. But there's no ongoing, monitoring, or enforcement. They're a very small development, not much of an impact. Do your plan implement it. You're good to go. But then there's also a medium and a large level as well. So you can think of the requirements increasing as size increases. The largest. You could think of a project like a Cu South level, where there'd be very strict requirements. And you know, in the case of Cu South, where we developed a trip budget.

[46:03] there's a number of different things that could influence the thresholds and the triggers, such as the size of the development. The type of the development, like the land use location is that location have a high level of multimodal level service or a lower level. You can also think about what is going to be that change in vehicle trip generation. We have very little new development in Boulder. A lot of it is redevelopment. So there's already trips being generated. But what is that net? New trips. If the development is going to become more intense. we can also think about what is the parking supply that's going to be provided. And how are we going to make that parking supply work without negatively impacting the other areas? So figuring out where on that dial do we want to be? And do we want to have kind of a

[47:02] one that applies to all? Or do we want to have a tiered approach? So the scope that we're proposing is to design a Tdm ordinance that's based on best practice and input from our Boards Council and our the community working group that we are proposing to form to help us along the way right now, you know, kind of up until the point which Covid created this long pause in this project we were considering a purpose of this ordinance, would be to mitigate the impacts of the surrounding area and the transportation system of that new development, but also really looking to improve mobility and access through the provision of Tdm programs. We would also think that a tiered approach would probably be best for the city of Boulder, where there would be some exemptions based on size and intensity of development, but with increasing requirements based on size and the proposed impact of that of that development on the surrounding area and the transportation system.

[48:12] And now I will switch it off to Sam. Thank you. Next slide. Thanks. A little background on the history of On-street parking management strategies in residential neighborhoods in 1,986, the residential permit Parking or Rpp program was adopted by Council. This original program was designed to relieve spillover parking from commercial districts into residential areas. Preference was given for residential and business use of curbside space over all other users in 1,997, the Neighborhood parking program or Npp. Sorry neighbourhood permit. Parking was designed. And that's the program as we know it today. It was designed to improve that balance between neighborhood use and public access between 1,997 and 2,01812 Npp. Zones and one Seasonal zone were created.

[49:07] All of those zones have time restrictions for vehicles that don't have a parking permit and offer limited non-residential permits for other types of usages. In commuting between 2,019 and 2,021 community vitality conducted the revitalizing access and boulder project to address some of those original amps initiatives from 2,017 that Lisa went over quite early in the Powerpoint, and the result of that work was data-driven parking management for both residential and commercial districts. As you may remember from my visit a few years ago some of you were there. Today. The Npp. Exists as a tool of our residential access management program. It is still restricted to lower density neighborhoods. There are very few restrictions on the allocation of residential permits.

[50:01] and there is a petition required for the implementation of an Npp. We do have a curbside management program which can evaluate curbside use directly adjacent to new development and in commercial districts. But we don't have a mechanism to proactively examine neighborhoods surrounding a new development and determine if changes to on street uses should be implemented to mitigate potential impacts of that new development next slide. So our proposed scope for this project is to update the existing Npp program so that it can be applied in any neighborhood across the city to create new tools under our residential access management program that help facilitate higher intensity development by managing on street demand, such as paid or time restricted parking. Those are tools that already exist. and to explore the possibility of a proactive residential on street parking study, triggered by new higher intensity development resulting in a proposal for for parking management.

[51:12] All right. So we have this summary slide of the scope recommendations I don't have. I won't go through those since we just said that. But just a reminder that the questions that we have for you tonight related to your feedback on the scope recommendations, and then any other comments. And if it's helpful I can keep this up all right. Thanks, great presentation. Thank you clarifying questions from the board before we get in. I think we should do a round of clarifying questions. And then, before we get into any sort of commentary, just so we can make it quick. For the 1st time around. Go ahead, Mark. I'm sorry I'm going to go after. Thank you for all that. Thanks for all the work on this a couple of fairly quick questions. I think.

[52:04] One is that, I guess, for Lisa. Any do would, if we wanted to distinguish between whether a change to the off street parking mandates would apply to only new development or also to existing buildings. are I'm not framing. This very well is is that a distinction that we could make? Is that a distinction that you are thinking about? Is that a distinction that could be in the code. I'm just trying to understand because I don't it. It seemed like, mostly you were presenting it in the context of new development. And I'm just trying to understand how it would apply to existing developments. And whether that's a separate question we need to address. Sure. So I think the idea and what we've seen in other communities is that it would apply to both new and existing development a lot of the businesses that run into issues with parking requirements are in existing buildings as they change out, and maybe the new use has a higher parking requirement. Things like that. So I don't think

[53:12] that at this point we're contemplating a difference between new or existing. That doesn't mean that we couldn't. Certainly there would be a I'm sure we can find a way to draft that. But I haven't seen that in other communities a differentiation between new and existing development. Okay, great. Thank you. And then I guess maybe also for you. There are lots of I don't know about lots, but there are certainly requirements in the code that relate to like parking geometry like the size of a space, or the backup distance, or those kinds of things. Are you also looking at modifying or getting rid of those? Yeah, that's a great question. So we the same consultant that's been doing the data collection we have under contract to do an audit basically of our entire parking. Section 996 of the land use code. And specifically looking at those parking design standards, our bike parking requirements, everything that's in that section. They're going to look at and compared to best practices and things like that. Because, like I said, we haven't. We haven't comprehensively looked at parking as a topic

[54:21] for 70 years. We've done some tweaking. So it's it's due time to look at the entire section. Great. Thank you. So thank you for this. And I I. This has been something I've been really interested in over the years that you guys may may know. Am I misreading the scope of the plan in that it really doesn't include

[55:01] unpaid parking in the public right of way, unassociated with a development or with a management district. So it would be looking at unpaid parking in a residential area, or basically parking in a residential in residential neighborhoods that are like adjacent to new development. but not in commercial districts where we already have a mechanism for looking at how we might change curbside use, which is the curbside management project. Okay? Does does it address project here. and an adjacent street here and here. within walking steps away. That is currently not in an Npp. So I'm I'm talking about

[56:02] right of Way city right of way, parking not in an Npp adjacent to or nearby. A project does does anything in the scope of this address address that parking, if it's not in an Npp. If it's res. If it's a residential area. it does. But so the plan. So where does it? Where? Where in the scope of work does it? Is that the minor modifications to Npp? Or is that under ramp? I'm it's I'm confused by how Ramp relates to Npp. So that's another question for me. So yeah, so the Npp is a tool that exists under the umbrella of the residential access management program. So it's 1 tool that we have in our toolbox. But we're hoping to create more tools for those blocks that are walking distance to this new development that are in residential areas.

[57:01] We're hoping it's the 3rd item under on street parking management strategies is this proactive review of the surrounding neighbourhood to determine whether or not changes need to be made to that surrounding neighborhood to mitigate impacts from that new development. Because we know that, you know, if if parking isn't provided in that new development, it's possible it could bleed into that neighborhood. And so that's the idea of this proactive review is to determine. based on specific thresholds and triggers. Is there going to be enough need generated by that development that we might consider managing parking in the adjacent neighborhood. That's, you know, walking distance. That is part of the scope of this project. Good! I I didn't get that. It wasn't wasn't clear to me that that was an essential. I think, that should be an essential and focused part of this so great. I'm glad to hear that

[58:02] under what city department would that public right of way parking that is not yet in an Npp. Is that managed by transportation, planning, or community vitality? If it's not managed parking, it would be transportation and mobility. If there is a petition to manage parking in a residential neighborhood, it would be handled by community vitality. If it's a commercial district community vitality has a delegation to determine where parking should be paid, and at what? At what cost. But we work in very close collaboration with the city's principal traffic engineer and with our planning team as well. Okay? And so, Samantha, you're with community vitality. Yes.

[59:00] yeah. And and I'll just add that last summer we adopted our curbside management implementation guidebook. I brought that to both cab and planning board within that we looked at catalysts of change. So when would we change? Curbside uses in an area one of those catalysts of change is new development or redevelopment. So if a new development comes in and maybe it's a change of uses. we can look and say. will that change of use dictate a change in curbside uses as well? Or should the city evaluate whether or not we should change those curbside uses based on this land use change. And I think of an example like student housing and the need for additional loading zones for student housing

[60:01] that can also be used for Tnc pickup and drop off Uber and Lyft. You could think of curbside uses around micro mobility. And so the new implementation guidebook allows the city to look at new development as this catalyst of change, and say, should the city look at making some changes to on those adjacent streets, to curbside uses to to better manage and create more efficient use of public right of way. So that that is now part of our our work is to look at those curbside uses. Okay? Last question, I think. will there be a set of you published a set of guiding principles from amps from way back? When so, this is a this is a significant major project.

[61:00] and Will there be a set of guiding principles and goals that's short and readable and understandable by your average boulderite. Will that be developed? Is that something that comes after the community group? Is that something I'm that's there now, and I'm just missing do, anyway. So when would that when or is that is that kind of really simple, clear, like page 2 of the Tmp, it says, you know, our transportation plan will be equitable, will provide choices, etc. So, and I know this is not a master plan, but it is a really important big project. So anyway, thank you. Get my question. Yeah, sure. So I think that what we want to do is build on our existing policy. So we have the Boulder Valley Comp plan policies which we would be all of these code change projects that we always bring to. You are trying to implement those policies. It's the regulatory

[62:04] implementation of policy. So we would use those Boulder Valley comprehensive plans, policies the Tmp. The transportation master plan policies. the charter that's attached to your memo has a project purpose statement, and things like that. That's the same one that we've been using, or we used in 2,019 as well. So we could certainly update that. I think it'd be really interesting in our discussion tonight if you all wanted to lay out what your goals with this project would be, and that's something we could maybe work on with. The. I didn't mention this in the presentation, but we're hoping to form a community working group. So maybe that would be probably like an initial meeting with the community working group is to further develop those charters that I I mentioned is in your packet. It's always a draft document. So we're constantly updating and changing. It's not final or anything like that. So I think better, tying it to our existing policies in the Comp. Plan and Tmp, but also just laying out what the goals are for these 3 projects, I think, would be a good idea.

[63:04] Great, thank you. Perfect. Thank you. So just to follow on to Mark's question about the proactive ramp review around new development. Can you say more about like what changes might be sparked by a proactive ramp review when there's a new development that creates higher intensity. Are you talking about like now? You're going to have parking permits in the neighborhoods, or it's going to be paid curbside parking instead of free curbside parking, or like what kind of changes might happen. Thank you for the question, and I realize I did not introduce myself in the presentation. So I apologize for that. I'm Samantha Bromberg, Senior project manager community vitality. the changes that we would be looking at would be something like a combination of, you know, permitted parking and paid parking. Those are the tools that we currently use. So we'd be looking at whether we could introduce new tools. Maybe we could introduce some kind of like Tdm benefits to an Npp. But certainly we would need to make sure that

[64:07] the supply of permits is not exceeding the demand for those areas. That's 1 of the big things. But the proactive ramp review would look at. Does this area? Would this area benefit from managed parking after the new development goes in? And if so, how should we manage it? And then we would put forth a proposal to the community. We would likely still do community engagement and go through a public process to make sure that people have an opportunity to give us their feedback and tell us how they feel about that. And then, if it were to be adopted by council, we could implement it, but likely some kind of combination of permitted paid, and maybe other benefits. Thank you and forgive my ignorance. But a neighborhood parking permit system. Does that have to be approved by the neighborhood? Or that is a council decision. So currently, we still require a petition from the neighborhood to initiate a proposal, and then it goes through a public process where we 1st go to public hearing at the Transportation Advisory Board, and then we go to council. So it does require that Council approval to be implemented.

[65:15] And so what we're proposing is that instead of requiring the petition as the impetus for us to create a proposal is that the new development? You know, that creates that higher trip generation potentially would be the impetus for us to do that parking study and suggest to the neighborhood. You know this is our proposal. This is what we think would be benefited. This would benefit the community and then go to that public hearing process. So we would still go through that process and require council approval. Okay, but a petition would no longer be required. That's what we're exploring. Okay. I'm just curious about that. I don't understand that process very well. So it's it's good education for me.

[66:02] My next question, I think, is probably for Lisa. You mentioned the use of the racial equity instrument in doing some of the assessment for the, I think, for the off street parking standards, and could you. could you pull out those key takeaways again? You might. You might have gone through them. But, like what would you say? Are the key things that you found out through the use of that racial equity instrument. Yeah, absolutely. That's a great question. So we've gone through the initial steps. Some of the later steps are because we're still refining the scope, so we'll keep working on it. But one of the initial steps is determining the benefits and burdens of a project. And so there's benefits to eliminating parking requirements. This was focused more on the parking side of things. But There's benefits, the environmental ones that we talked about. Housing costs things like that, but some of the burdens that we thought through, and that we'd want to explore through further conversation with the community would, like, I mentioned, would be the people that rely on their cars for their livelihood, and so they need safe and secure parking. And so we need to ensure that throughout the steps of this project that we're kind of seeing all sides of how these parking requirements affect people's lives.

[67:11] And so, yeah, and then the racial equity instrument also allows us to lay out, what kind of data do we have? Who do we need to talk to more. I think we're going to have robust conversations with boulder housing partners and about their sites and things like that. So yeah, we're in initial stages, but we'll continue work on it throughout. Thank you. And that bleeds into my next question, which I think is also for you. You mentioned that you talked to boulder housing partners. About? What impact does the current parking requirement have on their decisions? Can you summarize for us what they told you? Yes, not much. not much impact. They determine what number I mean. They it obviously determines what kind of process that they know for their timeline that they would have to go through a site review to request a certain size parking reduction, but essentially they determine what numbers they need to meet in order to get the funding for their projects and what will be utilized by their residents.

[68:13] Okay, thank you. And then I have one more question. If that's okay. Last question is. you know, my experience on planning board for the last couple of years is the primary way that we think about parking reductions or parking minimums where the rubber hits the road is, if a really big reduction is requested, then we put a lot more scrutiny on their Tdm plan and ask for a lot more. And so can you talk more about the interrelationship between eliminating off street parking minimums and the Tdm plan so that we know that we're still getting a functional Tdm plan. That's sort of proportional to the impact of the project. Sure. Yeah, I mean, the way I see it is that we want the developments to function and not negatively impact our surrounding transportation system or surrounding neighborhoods.

[69:05] For example. So when you look at how much parking is being proposed at that site. You can think about the lower that goes the increase need for Tdm to make that site work and function properly without that negative impact. So that's the way I see that as the parking supply goes up. the the need for Tdm gets higher and where that manifests itself is on a target level. So if we were to say that our Tdm ordinance is based on peak hour, vehicle trip generation that that target then moves up and down. So lower parking amounts. That target is also, gonna you know, you can only predict. Well, actually, it lowers, too. I got my hands backwards, but it actually lowers, too, because you're you're saying that we need this play, this site to function. You can only produce this many vehicle trips at Peak hour. So the less parking you

[70:12] produce. That target is going to get harder and harder to meet, which means you're going to have to employ stronger, more powerful, more you know, effective Tdm programs and strategies. I think the key thing is that that happens after the site is occupied. you know. And that's and I think that's the problem with our current system is that it's really focused on the developer and what the developer can do, and which is mostly infrastructure and amenities, whereas all your traditional Tdm, you think about parking cash out transit subsidies, Van Pool subsidies. You know all those different strategies that we know work. Those can really only be implemented with the tenants, and so the the ordinance has to apply, you know, to the property. So it's an ongoing requirement that you can only produce X amount of vehicle trips, for example, or we could have sov mode share as our target as well. And you can only have this many Sov trips.

[71:14] Does that answer your question? I'm still catching up. But yes, thank you. I can also add that we we also have consulting help on the Tdm side of things. And so we're going to be doing best practices research for that also. And just keep in mind that this isn't our uncharted territory. There's 78 other cities that have eliminated parking requirements and then have also made changes to their Tdm, so we'll look at other cities and see what's been successful or less successful in other cities, and build off of that as well. Thanks, Lisa. I'm glad you mentioned the comparison cities, because my question had to do with them, but a different point of comparison.

[72:01] You mentioned that some of the research you've been doing on comparison cities has actually been on their public engagement process around these kinds of reforms, and we know from our discussions here in the city of Boulder and planning board, that parking can be a really emotional and charged issue for a lot of folks in the community. What have you learned about doing public engagement around parking from cities that have actually completed comprehensive reforms. Yeah, that's a great question. And I think Vivian is online. So if she wants to add anything because she was part of doing that research or the big part of doing that research. But I would say the general takeaway from looking at other cities is, we were surprised to see that public engagement was fairly limited on these parking reforms. I think the the general thing that we were seeing was that these were high level policy decisions that were determined through comprehensive plans. Oftentimes cities were simply implementing a direct policy in their comprehensive plan. That said eliminate parking requirements.

[73:00] And so through that implementation, you know all the public engagement that went into that comprehensive plan. Policy, of course, was robust and things like that. But the actual elimination of parking requirements maybe didn't have, you know, a years long engagement process related to it because it had been part of a bigger policy conversation. I don't know, Vivian, if you're here in the ether. and don't want to add anything. If maybe she's not, let's see, I can actually tell. She might just be here at the beginning. I don't think she's here anymore, but she might have more to add. I'll give her a second to show up. If she is there. Then a second follow-on question about engagement. If I can find myself in my notes. Is obviously with a project of this length going back, you know, 10 some years. In some forms there's been a substantial amount of engagement in various forms already, and other than the passage of time. I'm just curious if you feel like something is missing from that engagement process or other perspectives that you're still looking for. That have not been part of the discussion so far.

[74:06] Yeah, I think the interesting thing with this project is how much it has evolved, both in boulder and around the country like this topic has evolved over those 10 years the same way that it's evolved in boulder going from. Oh, let's make some little tweaks to our parking standards and reduce it to more significant reductions to now. In the last 6 years, 78 cities have eliminated parking requirements entirely. So we haven't done engagement on that question about eliminating parking requirements because that wasn't even contemplated in 2,018. I don't think it was more about. Tell me if I'm wrong. It was more about maybe making at the time in 2,018. The conversation was about making our minimums a maximum. So we'd want to do more targeted engagement about that specific question about eliminating parking requirements. Because we haven't done that yet.

[75:07] Mason. Awesome thanks for for the thoughtful questions Board and the thoughtful Presentations city. I was a quick follow-on about the Bhp. Conversation. Do you have a sense of the car to unit ratio at current Vhp properties. Right. I don't. Actually, Charles, do you maybe know? No, okay. I'm not sure. I do know. When we had that conversation they said that they were going to do their own parking counts of all of their properties this summer. So we're hoping to get that data from them, and we'll learn more. So it's coming, and a quick question about process. We are just talking about scope. Here. You're looking for feedback. If this covers what we think you all should be researching. Exactly. Yep, yep. Cool, and then I saw on the calendar that you're coming back to us 1st quarter 2025. I assume that's about the the language proposals.

[76:08] and also to tab that correct. Yeah, that would be kind of a midpoint check in. So we wouldn't have ordinance language at that point. That would be kind of the determination of the proposed changes without the actual ordinance drafting. To make sure we're on the right track. And I didn't get to catch up on Tab, and I didn't hear you mention how that meeting went. Can you summarize their feedback? Yeah, I'll have Chris. Kind of stuff, where? Yeah, sure. So we are going to tab in September, September. Okay, yeah, it's October. Yes. 8 12 in the packet. Yes, yeah, we we they discussed it very briefly under matters from the board. But we're going to do this full presentation at a later date. Okay?

[77:01] Great a couple of other questions. Real quick. So I'm not. I was wondering if there's additional work around. How to couple these changes with work around creating a more inclusive transportation system is that is that ongoing? Is there anything like that. Tell me more about what you mean by that. So I would assume that the the thought is, you know, we're incentivizing, using alternative means of transportation. And that's going to change, you know, potentially change demand along with other demographic changes changing demand on our transportation systems. I assume that there's some kind of discussion around. That is that to my. it's my assumption, correct. Yeah, I I think you would be correct in that. It's certainly part of our transportation man, master plan, and and the general policies that that guide our work in transportation is creating a more equitable system, more inclusive system, and and one that provides greater access and mobility and viable options for all segments of our community. So that that's very much embedded in all our work.

[78:24] I was assuming so, but I didn't want to make assumptions at the same time. So more more specific on these scopes. For the Tdm. Work. I assume that monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are are super important to the effectiveness of Cdms. Are we reviewing that as well? Is that part of the scope. Yes, that that's 1 of the the components of any Tdm ordinance would be to think about how long we would be monitoring sites. You know there are some that you know. If they do, an annual evaluation of a development post occupation, if they are in compliance like 3 years in a row, then that development is considered good to go, and is no longer going to be fully monitored again. There's other places that the monitoring continues

[79:21] forever. But maybe it's a every 3 year period. So there are options for how you would do monitoring of of the the ordinance, and we can think of that could also change. If we have a tiered approach. you know the smaller developments like in Denver, they don't do any monitoring evaluation. The smallest tier submits a Tdm plan. They implement it, and there's no monitoring or enforcement. They're considered so small. They're not going to make a big difference. But the monitoring changes as you go to your medium, and then your larger developments in that tiered system, where the requirements become more rigorous, the larger your development is.

[80:06] Yeah, that makes total sense. And I imagine this is a little related. But are we thinking about data collection to to measure the the impact and effectiveness of these changes. Yeah, I think what we, you know, once we determine what that measurable objective is that we're going to monitor and create target levels with, you know. Most commonly it's either vehicle trip generation, usually at a designated peak hour or a single occupant vehicle, mode, share. If you were to do vehicle trip generation that is monitored in a different way. You could put tubes on the road, you could put cameras up. You can look at trips in and out of the site. If your target was a single occupant, vehicle, mode, share, then that would rely on a survey

[81:00] of the residents or of the employees of the of the commercial tenants in that property so based on what metric we choose to to monitor. That will also then change. What is the methodology. We use to track that to see whether or not they're below the, you know, whatever target level is created in that formula. Some summarily, I I assume. we're going to be looking at strategies to keep some of these requirements. Flexible. Yeah, I think flexibility is really a key. As I mentioned, you know, there are some Tdm ordinances in different parts of the country that have a very specific list of programs, policies, services that are provided under the Tdm plan. It's like, you must do this. There's also ordinances

[82:09] that don't care how you get to the target as long as you get to the target. And you know, in those cases it's usually the city or a local transportation management organization that helps those tenants develop their plan and decide what elements are right for that specific situation that will help them get to that target. So, you know, and that's where the city could say. you know. we could have a lot of requirements. Maybe we could have a couple, you know our ecopass requirement, I think, works really well. We know from our surveys that the ecopass is the most powerful Gdm. Tool we have for changing travel behavior in the city, you know. That may be one of the strategies we would consider as being required. You know. We could also look at, you know, on the residential side, something like unbundled parking to be an absolute requirement

[83:05] after that, do what you need to do to get to that target, so we can see where we want to be kind of on that pendulum. Then sorry. My last question. are we considering phases of implementation for these requirements? If you're thinking about, you know, when does a development need to be? In compliance? Most of the ordinance ordinances usually give a development. 3 years I've seen to get to the the compliance target level. So the 1st couple years they're implementing Tdm plans. Maybe they're not reaching the target level. So they have to adjust their plan. Introduce new track strategies or programs. Year 2. They're measured again. If they're not doing it, you know, they they got one more year to get there and then. Usually, it's, you know, after like a 3 year period. If they're in noncompliance, then other steps could happen, and those other steps vary widely across the country. There are some cities that say.

[84:20] good job, keep on trying. There's other cities that have fines and other types of penalties that are in that are used to enforce compliance. Yeah, I was. I appreciate that answer. That was kind of wish I had asked it. so I was happy to hear the response, but I think I was kind of leaning more towards implementation of the requirements like in this neighborhood. You know, we'll take it to this level, and maybe the next level. I don't know that kind of phase. Well, I you know there could be some geographic elements to it, based on multimodal level of service of you know where they would need to meet the target, you know. Certainly any development in our downtown or any of our managed districts that have high levels of of

[85:12] multimodal access. You know we could think of more aggressive targets versus areas that have less of that. If that if that's what you're referring to in terms of area. All my questions. Thank you. Thanks, Mason. I just have a few questions, and we'll follow up with any other additional questions, and then we could go into comment from the board. Would you mind pulling up the residential? It looks like you have 3 snapshots and data. Can you pull that? The residential one? No, it was the. It was the dates. Yeah. So that one I found extremely peculiar. Right? So you have 68% in 2,014, 2,01683%

[86:01] in 2,018, and then back down to 70% in 2,024. So have you looked at that data to understand what was I mean? That's quite a disparity between 68% and 83%. Yeah, so our consultant fox total has done the data collection at for all 10 years. So they have massive spreadsheets on all of these. They're not with us tonight to give more details. But I can ask them to look into that more. Yeah, because it calls into question, then, right? The data set in general, right? Because then the question is. to to my knowledge, I don't know anything that would drive that magnitude of increase between 2,014 and 2,016 and 2,018. And then the question, the logical question would be, why the decrease? And and would there be that kind of magnitude of decrease? So it would be really helpful as we go into this to just scrub that data set to really understand what's happening there.

[87:01] Because obviously, if that trend would continue up that 83% would be a whole different discussion. Right? So it's interesting enough. I think it might be worth digging into. Similarly, on the retail side. Could you pull up the retail data set? So that was that was super interesting, too. And actually, you have one for target. Can you pull that one up. Yeah. all right. So the target one was super interesting just from the standpoint of. do we know as it relates to their it's probably not information we have, but their sales, because it almost points to target being really unhealthy. So again, like it calls all kinds of questions, you know? Is this a. Is this a trend that we expect to continue? Or or is that is that 1? 84. As we, as we look forward as we look forward to project these things, to to help inform us on what policy makes sense like? Where is it going? Because that looks really dramatic?

[88:10] So another question, I probably don't have an answer for that right now. Yeah, I think the only thing I would say is that that's why they tried to do multiple sites is and find the average. So if target was really low or something, there's I think they did 5 or 6 other retail sites. And so that's why they use that average occupancy for this one so or they have minimum and maximum and average to try to understand the differentiation between the various sites. but I I will say, like the comparison, even though it looks nice in the graph. It's not a perfect data set because some buildings weren't there anymore, or some buildings were built by 2,018 that weren't in 2,014. So it's not a direct comparison in terms of like a perfect statistical survey, I would say, so. Okay, take it with a grain of salt. Yeah. And and to your to your point in the presentation around.

[89:03] retail a lot of retail shifting to online and potentially that impacting. Some of this it would be, I think it would be interesting from a community perspective to break out grocery retail versus retail, right? Because grocery isn't shifting to that extreme. and so I'll say that as sort of more a question if we could understand that, because those are part of those 15 min neighborhoods and those groceries tend to be hubs. And I don't know. It's hard to see in this. are we, you know? Are we blending grocery retail with other retail? And does that? Is that is that a different data set, or does it? Does it look pretty much the same as this average, and that one would be very interesting because grocery changed a lot after Covid, and you know, pickups and deliveries that I didn't even know that existed before. Covid. So yeah, that would be. I can't remember exactly all of the sites. But I think.

[90:02] another question that I didn't see in the presentation was sort of a question around. Obviously 100% occupancy on parking can be a bad thing, right? Because there's there's a lot of friction. So I don't know if you have a sense of what the appropriate vacancy rate is for a parking lot at a peak period where there's not excess friction. Yeah, I think that's why we are using consulting help. So we have transportation planning consultants, the the ones who have been doing the the data collection that are going to provide that recommendation from their expertise. Okay, so we don't. You don't have a specific answer to that? Okay, great, I would say. Our speaking for our principal traffic engineer. He would probably probably throw out 85%, you know, is kind of that ideal where it's filled. But there's still spots available.

[91:02] I think, is that, yeah, we concur. Yeah. So if it was 85% that that would be well utilized. Parking versus, you know. Clearly we have underutilized all right. Great, thank you. And then I saw that there were comments from Council. It's more a question than a comment at this point. Regarding Ev, which obviously has changed a lot and has a different trajectory going forward, too. Has that been considered in your study yet, or ev charging, and and how that impacts all of this? It hasn't yet. It came up with council. It'll certainly be a part of the conversation, and some. It's something we saw in other communities that even if they eliminated parking requirements they would have some mention in their code about what you do with electric vehicle charging same with accessible spaces. Great? I think that was all my questions. Let me just look real quick. Oh, I I did have a question, and it's it's more again. It's probably not data you have now, but as planning board right? We often to Laura's question. You know, we get involved a lot of times when there's a a parking reduction beyond the administrative. 25% right? And so

[92:19] it would be interesting in this process to understand what outcomes we were able to achieve as a city when we made accommodations as a board beyond that, so that we're informed that because I see that as a as a major point of leverage for planning board to get involved, and to to make sure a development is really planned thoughtfully, especially since we tend to see that in larger developments, and so to the extent that we can understand benefits of those accommodations that were made when we got involved. Beyond that, 25% that would be helpful. Or if there were any benefits. If it was just a waste of everybody's time, so I don't know but it would be. It would be. It would be interesting to understand that even if we just had a few data points where it's not a full data set. But maybe there are 5 projects. And what were the outcomes? And

[93:18] was that helpful and and and is that something that we can help replicate when we think through this, so that we don't give away leverage for the city. Yeah, I think that's a great point. And we've already tracked kind of the numerical side of the parking reduction. So we can look at that. All right. Those are all my questions. Does anyone have any additional questions that that that might have propped up? If not, we can go to comment from the board. Go ahead, Kurt. Got you right that time. That's right. 1st sort of a Meta question. Do you? Are you going to be wanting comments on this project. Charter as well.

[94:01] comments, questions, yeah, absolutely anything that we've shown you. Okay, yeah. Sounds good. And then one specific question for Samantha in the memo. It says that the Npp. Achieves the terminology. Cost recovery. What costs go into that? The I'm not. I don't want to say that the Mpp. Achieves cost recovery because we are in the middle of doing a financial analysis. But the costs that go into the administration of an Npp. There are the costs of like actually implementing it, which is, you know, installing the signs. But then. primarily, the cost is the administration of the Mpp in the enforcement, because parking enforcement needs to go around, you know, once every 2, 3 h to see whether or not vehicles have moved in the appropriate amount of time that don't have a permit, and then the administration of the permits themselves by our customer service front desk staff.

[95:13] So those are the the principal costs of the administration of the program. Okay? So it doesn't call it doesn't include the value of the land. the cost of the paving. No, the cost of storm water runoff from the paving all those other kinds of things. Okay. So speaking of 1324, 13, 0, 4, 1st of all, I was impressed with the timeline. Right? It seemed like, Okay, this is a more aggressive than maybe this project might have been in the past. Would is is well, 1st of all, what? What is the required date for implementation of 2413, 0, 4.

[96:04] So that State Bill says that subject jurisdictions have to come into compliance. By June 32,024, 2025, 2025. Okay, and and again, I'm speaking for me, not for city of Boulder or any other entity. when when we, when the State eliminated occupancy limits the city pretty quickly drafted an ordinance and we adopted it correct? Yeah, we haven't actually adopted an ordinance related to it. We we haven't. We changed the occupancy last year. Carl Gyller, planning and development services. We did change the occupancy regulations last year per the direction from council to look at a different number. Since then the State laws passed that makes the current occupancy not based on familial relationships. So we do have to make an update to the code. So we are preparing a new ordinance that will come before planning board this fall. Oh, that that hasn't been we actually.

[97:18] I guess we. We have implemented it from an enforcement standpoint. But correct, not from a code. Yeah, we still need to update the code to to reflect the changes. Okay, well, so back to my question, thank you, Carl, I I I had that wrong. My question is. should Council decide to adopt. to come into compliance with 2413 0 4 at an earlier date? Can't we just rip the Bandaid off that and take that off the table. And suddenly our public process is about tdm. maybe about parking maximums. Npp. You know it's about these things. But it's not about parking minimums. Because

[98:09] we've done a we've. We've come into compliance with the State's regulation. and consequently we've actually narrowed the scope and potentially decrease the timeline for lots of angst about parking minimums and stuff. And and so, anyway, that that seems like something that could happen. Is that possible that we could just change our ordinance to come into compliance with 24, 1,304, and then go on with the rest of this project. I think that certainly it could be. The focus areas could be divided from each other. But I think that in our discussion as Co. Project managers. We thought that or the city just it makes sense to bring all of these together because they're very interrelated. And so, and although the State Bill does touch part of the Off Street parking standards project. It's a larger project, and it always has been a larger project than simply, multifamily residential in a transit service area. So it's

[99:20] it doesn't cover commercial. It doesn't cover other types of residential things like that. So while it could be separated off. it probably makes more sense to have the comprehensive conversation. And one thing we tried to talk about a little bit in the project Charter, is that the parts that relate to the State Bill are probably more of an informed level of public engagement. So it's less of a consult, less of a question in those multifamily transit service areas in the other areas. It's more of a consult where we're asking people about their feedback and what the best option is. There are fewer options related to the topics that are covered by that State bill. Great! That's a good explanation. Thank you.

[100:01] Questions. Any other questions. Before we go to comments. All right. Great I suggest we go to comments. Maybe we try to limit our commentary to 3 to 5 min each, and then if you want to circle back. If you've missed something, or if somebody else has missed something, then feel free to circle back at that time. Does anyone want to go first.st Mason Mason wants to go first.st Might as well right. Yes, I'll keep my comments brief, based on the answers to my questions. I believe that the scope is is fine. I think it's complete. I think it's thorough. and I'm excited to see this step towards a creating, a more equitable, sustainable and just community. So nice work here. And yeah, I agree with it. Thanks, Mason

[101:02] Kurt. I am going to be less brief than Mason. Shocking everyone. Okay, yeah. Well, I'm very excited that we're moving forward with this. This is something that I think a lot of people have been pushing for for a long time, and it's great to see it finally moving forward. And I agree with what Lisa was just saying, that I think all 3 of these elements are crucial to making the entire program be successful. And so I really, I'm grateful that Staff is bringing these as 3 sort of a three-legged stool right? And so I I think that that's wonderful. The off street parking standards. Question to me is quite straightforward, I think. That clearly. We're moving in the right direction

[102:04] to just eliminate all mandates across the city for all uses, and I hope that staff does not put based on the direction from council, and what at least the 1st 2 people on planning board are saying, I hope Staff is not putting a significant amount of time into. you know, working on other kinds of of code changes, because it seems like that would not be. That's not probably the direction that we're going to be going in the long run. when it comes to tdm. I'm very concerned about the level of monitoring and staff involvement and and expense of consultants, and all that kind of thing that may be entailed in some of the more complex manifestations that we were talking about here.

[103:12] So I would urge us to. Well, it seems to me that they're sort of there are. There are kind of 2 levels in terms of Tdm, in my simplistic way of looking at it. there's straightforward stuff as as you, Chris were talking about. There's straightforward stuff that you can do on site as a developer, implementing, putting in good bike parking, improving a bus stop, maybe making sure that the sidewalks are right putting in showers. I don't know various kinds of things like that that are very clear. We can make them the requirements very prescriptive and and unambiguous. And it's just something that people have to do. And I think it can be quite simple and just

[104:13] go into the project plans from the beginning. then there are the implications of either new development or actually existing development. the the costs that are imposed on our transportation system, the bus service, the maintenance on the streets. You know the need for pedestrian crossings, all these kinds of things. and, or, you know, running a vampill service, or whatever. and it doing that, managing a lot of that on kind of a project by project basis and monitoring it and designing it in the 1st place, and monitoring and stuff.

[105:04] It seems difficult and costly, and not necessarily very efficient, like you could have a project here that's running a Van Pool program. And then you could have a project right next door. That's also running a Van Pool program. Well. that's probably not the most efficient way to design a transit system. Right. So I, in my again, probably very simplistic thinking. I come back to thinking of it more as from a standpoint of an impact fee. And so could it be implemented partly in that way, either just straight as an impact fee or sort of as a impact fee cash in lieu of some of these other programs that could go into a city

[106:04] alternative or multimodal transportation fund, or something to, you know, support more frequent bus service on the hop, or for you know, improving sidewalks or various kinds of things, where we can take that funding and look holistically at the city, and think about not not not focusing so much about on the implications in the immediate vicinity of a development which are important. But they're not in my mind. They're not necessarily where you get the most bang for the buck. It seems like if we can think. And and we do think, as a city holistically about, you know, where are the greatest safety problems in in our transportation system? Where are there missing links? Where is the bus service inadequate those kinds of things? And if we have

[107:10] the A. The ability to think more holistically like that, but then also additional funding for that. To me that seems like it might end up in the in the overall scheme of things. providing greater bang for the buck. As I said, less, a more efficient use of the money that is actually being put into this a more efficient use of staff time and and more, a more efficient process for the developer. So that, obviously, is a very significant change from where you've been going. But that's the way I think about it.

[108:01] for the Npp. And ramp. If we're giving away for free a valuable product. that is a subsidy right? It's a socialized, a socialization of that cost. There are a lot of things that are that that are very important for human life where we do not socialize that cost water in the city of Boulder. If you use water, you have to pay for it. If you buy food. If you want food, you have to pay for it right? If you want shelter, you have to pay for it. If you want medical care, you have to pay for it.

[109:03] Those are all much higher on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or whatever that thing is called, then parking. parking, and yet parking. In most parts of the city. we give it away for free. It is a very valuable resource, it is, or it's a very costly resource, I should say right? Because. you know, land is expensive. In this city paving is expensive, the upkeep is expensive, plowing is expensive, all these things are expensive. So all of this is to say that 1st of all, I appreciate that we're moving towards a regime where we're

[110:00] where we're charging hopefully appropriate levels for more of the public parking that we have. I think we should be moving to a regime where we are charging for all the parking in all the public barking in this city, no matter where it is. all the on street parking, all the the lots, including at parks, and so on. I don't think we should be giving any of that away for free. There are real costs to that. That this, the city, the the that city taxpayers pay. and I mean, it would be interesting to know the details, but I feel that those costs probably are imposed very inequitably. 1st of all, a fair amount of our funding comes from sales tax right, which we know is

[111:01] an inequitable way of raising revenue. If we think about it from sustainability, equity, and resilience standpoint, that framework that supposedly I shouldn't say supposedly, that underpins everything we do in the city. I giving away free parking is not sustainable. It? It's subsidizing, driving, right subsidizing cars. That's not sustainable. I don't believe it's equitable. We, you know. I don't know the the data for for the city of Boulder, but nationwide, poorer households are much more likely to not own a car than richer neighborhoods than richer households. and I think in general, just looking at my neighborhood, the there's a bunch of wealthy people around, and you know they got a bunch of cars, and they're

[112:04] they're they are driving around all the time and parking them on the on the street all the time, and I think that those you know the the wealthy people in large single family houses are probably imposing. are getting much more benefit from that free parking than the person who lives in low-income housing or or that sort of thing. So you know, I don't think we have good data specifically on boulder. But I I have seen data nationwide that says that free parking basically is a subsidy for the wealthy. So it's not equitable. And you know it's not to to subsidize a car centric transportation system is not resilient.

[113:03] So I would like us to start from this scr framework and think about, how do we really achieve the goals of of that framework? And what does that mean in terms of management, pricing of of all of our public parking in this city. So okay, I've talked enough. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt Mark. Okay, I swear I didn't talk to Kurt before I wrote my comments. We did not have a conversation in in regard to projects like this, and I was involved in the West trail study area. That was a really like heartache controversial project. maybe before a lot of your times. But anyway, I've been involved in a number of things that have been really

[114:06] hard for the community to the community has struggled to deal with, and I think some of those struggles come from poor and bureaucratic messaging at the beginning. that leaves the public wanting. For what is it that the city all these bureaucrats of the city are doing? And why are we doing this? And you know, etc. And so I wrote down what I think are, it's just like a just a draft, an idea of what should be the preamble to to the project. and that is Tdm. And parking policy will reflect our goals for climate, resilience and improvement, equity goals and the economic welfare of all residents. Parking will be priced

[115:01] everywhere. Any subsidies will be used to reach our equity and climate goals. The city will be a partner in and adhere to the parking regulations we develop for off-street parking. for implementation of on street parking. And so just like at the beginning. I think it's important that the community knows that there is this framework. There's a box around this we are. We are going to reform parking. and and it may affect their parking space in front of their house or in front of their job, or whatever it may affect them. But it's part of reaching. are already approved. I'm so glad you referred back to that long list of Bvc policies that that this project attempts to address.

[116:01] But I think that many times the you know the community, we all we're human. And so we see things, you know, outside our front door, outside the door of our car. And it's like, Oh, I can't Park, that's a pain in the ass. And so, you know, anyway, I I deal with this within my family and stuff, and I talk to my mom about parking. It's like, well. I'm not paying for marketing, so anyway. So I I really get it. And but I think the messaging really needs to be like direct and not buried. It needs to be really direct, so that people understand right from the beginning. And and we can. we can blame some of it on state law. We're going to adhere to state law. So the the other thing I wanted to emphasize is is this relationship? We've kind of got it broken up in these 3 areas. But the relationship, especially between off and on street parking, is so intertwined

[117:06] and and Samantha, this is not against you, but it just bugs the heck out of me that we have 3 departments that manage and touch stored cars. It's really like. you know. Anyway, I'm I don't have it out for community vitality. You guys do a great job at a bunch of other stuff. But really I think it should. My my clear opinion is that parking should be managed by transportation and or planning. But the when I when we review a project and we tell a developer. you shall separate, unbundle and charge for your parking. and yet 10 feet away is a free parking spot that a tenant, you know it's like, wait, wait, we are, you know we don't adhere to that. And what I'm suggesting is

[118:03] we must. If you're going to have. If you're going to tell a developer, you've got to separate, unbundle, and manage and pay for your parking. Then then the street next to it. we should be able to do the same, and we should be able to point to our success and our policies in in doing that. and the final thing is, there's this word impact in there a lot. It's in the document. Oh, this is an impact. It's an impact. No, this is people living in in housing. And the impact is the car and the parking. and one person's impact is another person's fair use of a public asset. And so I I think sometimes our messaging even around that, that well, this development. This house, this 20 apartments is going to impact impact generally means negative

[119:08] impact means negative. And so we, we phrase it in a way that, oh, the poor neighbors are impacted by these people by providing housing for this group of people over here. And they came second. and these other people came first.st And you know what public right of way doesn't address who came 1st and second public right of way. Parks and stuff are not about. you know. I got here before you. I was born here, and you weren't. So I would caution us and and examine our wording in that document about impacts versus fair use versus just what is a community asset? What is a shared use? So those are my comments. great Laura.

[120:01] Thank you, and thank you to my colleagues for all of your really thoughtful, thought-provoking, really great comments I want to follow on to and maybe try to weave together something. Mark was talking about, something Kurt was talking about with this idea of an impact fee. And I take your point, mark that it's not great to be talking about a development. If housing is imposing these horrible impacts right? Like we could avoid that. That would be great. But the city does have a mechanism for assessing impact fees. The way that we do for affordable housing. And I really do like Kurt's idea here that if we can move away from doing Tdm. On a project by project basis and do more of the impact fee, and then have, like a community pool, to do what makes sense for the city as a whole. It's Chris, right, Chris, you showed a slide with that pendulum, and it looks like Staff's recommendation is to be sort of more on the side of focusing on the impacts of new development on the adjacent areas, and sort of that end of the pendulum rather than the other end of the pendulum. Yeah. Well, the other side was like focusing on citywide goals and trying to achieve citywide goals, and I probably come down a little bit more towards the latter, which I think, is where Kurt was going with his impact fee idea, which is, let's try to use this the way that we do with our affordable housing fee and say, yes, every time a developer takes up land

[121:26] that's land that can't be used for affordable housing, so they owe us something that can be used to improve affordable housing throughout the city. Same thing could be done, I would think, with the Tdm. Concept. I don't know if that involves having to go through a study and a mechanism like we did. I assume that it does like we did for affordable housing. but I would. You know you asked about your scope. So I would really consider looking at that as part of your scope, if that is something feasible. I see Brad is coming up to the mic. So, Brad, do you want to talk about that? Yeah, I I don't want to interrupt planning board discussion too much. But I just since this idea is kind of being vetted a little bit. I do want to provide some clarity that

[122:05] under case law and and maybe laurel can affirm or correct me on what I'm saying. But development impact fees have to be directly related to the service at hand. So it's not possible, for example, to charge a development impact fee to a house for you know, for police, but then use it for fire. Those have to be very distinct buckets, so I don't know that there would ever be a legal mechanism to charge impact fees for a house that would then be related to that. But maybe Laurel can articulate it. Oh, that's correct. I realized I didn't introduce myself on the record earlier. I'm laurel with the city attorney's office. I agree with you and and a big part of impact fee, too, is how that particular development directly impacts the neighborhood. So, for example, with fire. if you bring in a bunch of development in. They're paying this fire impact fee. It's because that's going to go ahead and start helping pay for

[123:07] fire departments for staffing. For of that neighborhood. So we would have to. The reason there's studies on these is we have to make sure that any fee is directly related to the impact that that particular development has. So it's possible it would have to be studied more. And just to further articulate that. So basically, it's the per capita impact. So you're basically buying into the system. When you when you cause an impact to the water treatment plant, for example, there's been reverse math that says, here's how much the service costs divided by the current population. That's a per capita. This new development is going to create the equivalent of 20 new people. And and then that's the amount. So and we'll talk a lot about impact fees when we when we get into kind of service levels and things. But that's just a quick primer on that. Yes, thank you. And

[124:00] and to me, not being an attorney and not having as much experience as all of you, it makes sense that we're talking about. You build a new building. It results in more trips, generated results in more pressure on the transportation system, and the whole Tdm program is designed to alleviate those impacts. And so it seems like, maybe it's a concept that could have legs. So if it's appropriate to add that to the scope to study that concept, or at least take the initial steps. I would be supportive of that. You're asking for scope. Input. That's what I would say. But again. If it's not a feasible concept, you folks would know better than I would. So I just want to support that concept and and kind of give it a boost. May I comment on that? Just because I'm not sure how many of you are aware of the transportation funding work that transportation mobility was doing. That is another project that got put on hiatus due to the pandemic. But prior to the pandemic I was the project manager looking at

[125:01] new innovative transportation funding mechanisms. And I believe, Mark, you, were on the on the working group for that Through that process we identified a number of viable funding mechanisms that could be used for transportation. the one that had the highest level of consensus among both staff, the working group and boards, and we were. We had taken it to council a couple of times. But you know, Covid interrupted, everything was what we were referring to as a transportation mobility. Fee it is built off of what's called a transportation maintenance fee, which was tested in Colorado by the Colorado Supreme Court. It was a case involving Fort Collins. They ended up not implementing it. But the city of Loveland did implement what they called a transportation maintenance fee. So this is a fee that is collected

[126:06] on all existing properties, not just new development, all existing properties, and what the city of Loveland does with it is they generate the revenue. and that revenue is specifically used for transportation maintenance. then, that frees up other funds to be used for other types of improvements and enhancements to the system. We initially proposed a transportation, maintenance fee concept as a way to raise additional funding for transportation, to help maintain it because we're deferring maintenance every year and then freeing up additional money for enhancements through the process with boards and council. It kind of morphed from a transportation maintenance fee to a transportation mobility fee where the revenue collected could be used on a variety of different funding needs throughout the city, including maintenance or enhancements or the type of annual programs. We do have transportation impact fees and development excise taxes on new development. The thing is that's a 1 time

[127:17] one time cost where most of the things that we're looking at that would really make a difference like we've always talked about trying to get Rtd to do the community wide ecopass. That would be an ongoing annual cost, so we would need a mechanism that would provide ongoing funding. That's scalable, that's predictable. And that would be this type of fee. We could do it through utility billing. How much a property pays could be based on trip generation! The larger the property, the more trips that it generates pays a higher fee, and then that fee is used by transportation to do that. Holistic

[128:05] improvements, the city to affect travel, behavior, and and help meet our transportation and climate goals. You know that effort was paused with the pandemic. But recently I've been having some meetings about, you know whether or not we're going to bring back this idea for transportation funding, because I think you know, a lot of what we're talking about is about new development. But you know, as I mentioned in the memo. You know, new development is a drop in the bucket. you know, compared to existing development. When you think especially about net new trips. very few Greenfield development. We're redeveloping properties where there's already trips being generated. Maybe it's going to produce a trip a bit more. But that net new is is nothing compared to what goes on every single day by existing development. So I agree that if we want to create a mechanism, a funding mechanism that helps meet that more holistic goal on.

[129:08] on existing developments. Then something like the transportation mobility fee would be the funding mechanism that can do that, you know. And I think we were almost there when the pandemic hit. We were scheduled to take it to council. I believe in March of 2,020. So but I really appreciate that discussion because you know so much of it. You know, we're focused on new development. We're focused on what the developer can do. But we know that the true need is much more than new development. Claudia Web compounds. Laura, were you finished? Okay. I'll try to get reoriented on my notes here. A lot of my thoughts have already been covered.

[130:06] but I also did want to start with some commentary on the goals of this process, and I think I'm going to echo a lot of what my colleagues, Kurt and Mark, have already said. you know, reading through this packet that you put together for us. I really appreciated some of the history there on the Amps process, and the inclusion of the guiding principles that have been part of this project for the last 10 years, and one that really struck me as I was reading through. It is the the Amps process. as I saw it talked about putting the pedestrian at the center, even though we're talking about all modes of mobility and transportation. There's that specific phrase, the pedestrian at the center, and then also about ensuring access for people of all ages and all stages of life. And as we hopefully bring this project to a conclusion, I think it's important to remember that about 30% of our population are non drivers, children and youth people with disabilities, seniors.

[131:09] folks who can't afford private automobiles, and what I would call conscientious objectors who choose not to drive. But these folks are also really affected by parking, and how we structure that in the city our parking policies affect, how we allocate resources, how it feels to use other modes of transportation, etc. So while we are talking about parking in this process, and that can get incredibly technocratic. And I think we are going to get into some of that when we start talking about pricing when we start talking about what are minimums, maximums, etc, in different zoning districts. That's a very technocratic discussion. But we have these guiding principles that really talk about why we are doing this. And so, as we continue to scope this project, I would really encourage us to focus on some of those bigger goals around moving towards

[132:01] non car forms of mobility in the city. The why of what we're doing here should be not just about updating our numbers to reflect a current reality. They should not be necessarily just about coming into compliance with state policy. Those are bureaucratic goals. I understand that. You know we're we're good at doing that. That's easy. That's safe. But I think we should be explicit about the climate and equity and travel mode goals and really aim to have policies that we need to meet those. So that's my preamble. which I think is probably shades of what you've already heard here. A few comments on some of the specific scoping things that we've heard tonight in terms of off street parking. I definitely think we should be moving towards eliminating those minimums citywide. And for all uses, as we've seen in that review of comparison cities. These are no longer novel policies. We find them in a lot of different kinds of urban settings.

[133:08] big cities and small college towns, non-college towns, etc. So there are a lot of models out there and then. I think it's also important to do this uniformly across the city. The State has made some requirements around multifamily residential, but to be honest, a dwelling unit is a dwelling unit. They have parking needs or not. So let's try to be uniform. I also think we should be going citywide, because, even though the State is defining these transit areas for us, and they are extensive. That is only a snapshot of this moment. In time we forget. Sometimes I think, that transit transit coverage is changeable in the future, and hopefully, we're going to be talking about that in other contexts. there's a question of whether we should be talking about parking maximums in this scoping. It seems to me that there is a place for that. Again, we have cities moving in that direction.

[134:08] and at least some of the data that we are seeing from the parking utilization studies. suggests that we are generating over parked situations, even when we are providing reductions that developers are asking for. So how do we get on top of a situation like that? It seems like maximums might be one way to do it. On. Tdm. I think I'm losing track of who mentioned what now? But I think it was Laura who talked about the pendulum of going for immediate impacts versus citywide and system, wide impacts and changes, I would certainly be on the side of looking at those larger system, wide changes that we can that we can move towards with Tdm plans. I think about some of these larger development projects where we do Tdm projects.

[135:08] we talk about them as creating impacts on their surrounding neighbourhoods. I also think we can think about them as beachheads and points of leverage. Right? So where do you have opportunities to make larger shifts in how we do transportation and mobility. You have opportunities to do that. When you have a significant number of new housing units going in, when you have a significant change in land use that is going to change intensity. so I think we should be thinking about Tdm, in the same way that that's a place to leverage some bigger changes in our system. and then we have already had a fair amount of discussion about the cost of all of these things. And I think. Actually, Chris mentioned it earlier in the staff discussion about what kinds of staff resources and costs these programs make. I think that's an important thing to be thinking about everything that we do with relation to parking takes resources to design, to enforce, to provide the infrastructure, the land, the paving, the sewage, etc.

[136:11] So again, to the extent that we can, I think we should be talking about cost, recovery, revenue, revenue generation, and ways to reallocate those revenues that parking can create in order to support some of these other goals that we have. I just had one more thing highlighted in my notes that has not come up yet, and that is when we're talking about public engagement strategies for the coming year to get us across the finish line. I think these kinds of issues. Parking are always likely to be more compelling to people who drive cars in terms of engagement. So if you put a call out on on next door, or whatever other media you're using to generate public engagement. The people who are going to tune in to talk about parking are people who park cars and drive cars. And I again getting back to my preface, about 30% of folks not being car drivers

[137:09] in this community. I think it's important to think about how to get their perspectives. They may, they may experience more, I would say, like downstream downstream impacts from parking policy. It's not about where they can park their vehicle. But it's about the trade-offs that we create in the city when we talk about parking for resources and land uses. So how can we get those folks involved and also giving input on this kind of policy? I think that's it. Great. I think that leaves me. I'll be brief. I brought up that residential data because I thought that was really weird, that that that delta between the 2,014 study and the 2,018 study was a 22% increase in parking and residential.

[138:02] That doesn't really make sense to me. Nor does the the decrease. So the question is, what data is right and what data is captured incorrectly, because that's going to make a huge difference on how you determine policy around these things. I also think that Evs are coming right, as it relates to residential parking. I'm trying to pick my words differently than what has already been heard, because I do agree with a lot of my colleagues here, too. But Evs are coming, I think, nationwide. They're 9% of sales. I think, Colorado. They're higher because of all the incentives that are in place in Europe. They're they're approaching somewhere around 25 to 30% of sales. I know from my own experience. I parked my vehicles on the street because it was more convenient to my house than my own parking space. Only when I shifted to an Ev. Did I find the need to park in my own parking space? And so when we talk about climate and balance and all these different things, we also need to determine. How much do we want to incentivize that? Obviously the State is looking to incentivize Evs a lot. But I would argue if I didn't have a parking space off street, I'd probably just have a gas vehicle and be fine. And so that's a trade-off that we need to think through, especially as that accelerates over the next decade

[139:23] as it relates to the comments around subsidy as far as off street parking. I disagree with that, I think, as as as we look to remove minimums. And certainly, as the State has looked to remove minimums, and they're going to impact us one way or the other. I think a city's mandate is to provide infrastructure for their citizens, and I do believe, off street parking, and the roads that serve cars are part of our infrastructure, not necessarily a subsidy. That's a that's a mechanism of how people want to view things and how policy is shaped. But there's an argument, I think, on both sides of the equation.

[140:10] I think in general, I'm I'm in agreement with with how things have been put forward am concerned that by removing parking minimums. we create a 1 time lift and entitlements for property owners. and that lift and entitlements for property owners translates into immediate value in their land in an inelastic market like Boulder I I don't see this really dramatically impacting housing costs, but I do see this as immediately impacting the value of property owners land. And I'll take myself as an example, because I can't wait for this to happen in cities where I deal with in development.

[141:00] because I know that the instant that that happens the land is more valuable. And so we're creating, and and that being balanced with to acknowledge that we're creating value for the landholders to in their ability to now develop that land in a different way than they could have without those parking minimums. What I think is incumbent upon the city and policymakers is to make sure that the value creation that's being created through removal of those parking minimums is somehow captured. or at least partially captured. for the city to to implement what we need to do as far as the funds that are needed for Tdm. etc. So that we just don't give away entitlements without getting anything back as a city. And I am concerned about that because I do think that at all shapes the policy that we're doing, and I think we have to acknowledge and analyze

[142:05] what this change does to the value of the land that it impacts. and how the city can share in that monetization to push forward the programs that are important for us as a community. So some food for thought. There, I don't have any answers around that more. It's just some, some real noodling that I think needs to take place. and that's it. Any other thoughts or statements, any clarification that you guys would like from our comments? I don't think so. I think that was pretty thorough thanks. Excellent discussion. Yeah. thank you. All right. I think that concludes that component of our agenda

[143:03] the only thing else is just to debrief meeting calendar check any thing, Brad, you would like to bring up, or he's gonna tell us how busy we're gonna be. Well, my task here is done. No. Before I do speak to that, I did want to echo just a great appreciation for the very thoughtful in depth and sophisticated. Can I use that word conversation about the topic at hand, which is a difficult one. So thank you for all those important thoughts, and we are working to intertwine and untwine them. Yeah, a couple of things. You're you're going to be very busy the next few months. We're going to be asking you for some special meetings. If we haven't already. I'm not sure if those surveys went out looking over that way. Yes, yes, yeah, I think we're all set for November 12.th

[144:03] But but be forewarned that others could happen if certain dominoes fall certain ways and other things happen. So appreciate your flexibility in advance. We're you know. We're trying to be thoughtful about meeting those out in a way that doesn't, you know, burn all of us out. But but there are a lot of things that are kind of coming together here towards the end of the year. so thank you in advance on that. The other thing I can't remember if we mentioned is the comprehensive plan. Kick off on October 19, th you'll get more formal noticing about that. But if you want to mark your calendars. Now, this is a community wide kick off. Regarding the comprehensive plan. Now that I say that I recognize we're going to say that also on Thursday when you're there. But but you might want to mark your calendars for that community event from one to 4, and I think that concludes all my comments unless you have any questions for me?

[145:03] Yes. quick question. We have a joint meeting with City Council on Thursday. Is that correct? Do we have reading material for that I am not seeing a packet in my email. There is a council packet. If I'm not mistaken, you should have the council packet. Okay? So we should refer to the council packet. Yes, thank you. And just a reminder that is remote. I think a link was sent out to you guys today, so we won't be in person for that, I think, Thomas included the link to the packet when he sent the link out just a little bit before this meeting. So just the meeting link and packet should be in one email together. So if you come here you'll be alone. I might still be here, and there won't be any dinner. You don't live here, Brad. Well, we do, but not just this room, and sometimes we move to other rooms. We're like that teacher, you know, that goes home and sits in the closet. I have did anyone else?

[146:00] Am I getting old and losing my hearing, or does anyone else struggle. Yeah, I am getting old, that's for sure. I really struggled at different times, hearing the speakers tonight, and like, when you were speaking, I was getting this like weird little bit of like back and forth. So anyway, I have this loud, booming voice. So I'm sure you're all like I heard Mark. But anyway, I was really struggling to hear some of the speakers at times tonight, and when I've gone I've I've had this before. When I've gone back and watched the Youtube tape. The it gets the the recording gets our voices really? Well, anyway, am I the only one? Or is anyone else struggling? I'm sorry I'm not alone here. Your question. I was just gonna sorry. Just beat me, too. We spent too much time together.

[147:04] I will say, having watched. Been in Council chambers the last month or 2. They're struggling with kind of that amount to my my armchair. Quarterbacking observation is that some people talk from this distance and some from this distance. And and the group back there when they've got where we've got technicians. Monitoring stuff can kind of adjust that. But they're still having problems, for whatever reason. Now, okay. And it seems to be too like when the air turns on that. There's also some of that as well. I've noticed. So also, if I may just a reminder, these new technology that we have does have, if you want to plug in earphones to it will pick up the audio a little bit better. Oh, wow. okay, there is a there is a ox port instead of headphones. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. Oh, yeah. I will also point out it's a full moon. I think that's so. That might be affecting things.

[148:02] Super blunt. There's another question. Any1. 0, go ahead. Yeah. Hi, Brett, I have a question for you. I got an email. And it looks like Carl left. I got an email, I think. coming from Carl's email address about the new, the the newest iteration of zoning for affordable housing, whatever it's called family friendly. vibrant communities rated G rated G neighborhoods or something. Yeah, it's getting late and but looking through. So there was some information, or there was a link, I think, talking about the program in it. It concerned me a little bit, because it seemed like it was contemplating quite a number of zoning changes based on the existing comp plan.

[149:01] which. or a year, or maybe 2 away from changing. And so I was concerned that we might be putting a lot of time and effort into changing things that were the foundation would potentially very soon be changing anyhow. Yeah, I appreciate that. The short answer to that is that Council, when it discussed its priorities at the retreat in March. acknowledged the role that the comprehensive plan may have in housing and housing affordability, but also expressed a desire to keep moving forward on changes that could be made sooner than that. So there is a scenario, and Charles can keep me honest on this, where we're bringing actual code changes to you all, and council by the end of the year. Yet I think now, obviously, that's subject to the public input. And if something causes pause, but that would

[150:01] cause new law to be put into effect. Yet this year. bear in mind the Comp plan won't get adopted until a year and a half later. and so it was their interest in in keeping that moving forward really along the lines of it being kind of a 2.0 of the, as you acknowledge the zoning for affordability with with slightly different context and and goals, but really building on that. So I don't think that fact is lost on anybody. Nor is anybody presupposing that the comprehensive plan couldn't bring yet another generation, there could be 3.0. Yeah, there could be a 3.0. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So I don't know if that helps. Okay, yeah, that is helpful. So it sounds like the staff work on. That would be wrapping up within this calendar year. That's the plan. Okay, yeah. thank you. Just wanted to confirm anybody else.

[151:00] All right. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Everybody. Thanks. Everyone.