February 25, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] And then we're going to be running right into a matters agenda item for parking strategy. And outside of that we don't have anything planned. So with that I'll pass it over to Vivian to talk through our rules. Great. Thank you. Good evening, everybody nice to see you, Thomas. I'll just pull up the slides, and I'll quickly go through them. So good evening. We have one member from the public joining us online. Thank you for joining us next slide, please. I'll go ahead and read the rules of public participation. City is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have a lot more information about this on our website. Next slide, please. and I'll just go over some specific examples of rules of decorum in our code and other guidelines that support productive atmospheres, and these will all be upheld during the meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[1:17] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that participants identify themselves by their 1st and last name. Next slide, please. and just quickly we ask that people raise their hand virtually, and there's a process for in person as well. But I believe there's nobody signed up for open comment. So I'll just move to open comment. If that's okay with you, chair. Be great.

[2:00] And I'll just double check with Thomas that there's nobody signed up to speak in person. That's correct. We don't have anybody signed up here. Thank you, Vivian. Okay, we have one person, Lynn Siegel. for online comment. Please go ahead. You have 3 min, Lynn. Stop already boulder is built out. Stop every corner I go to. It's another building, you know, Bunda, what does Hindi do it, Demos? And then it builds up 4 stories. No, that was supposed to be 3, like Ml. Said, supposed to be less. Who owns this town? Steven Tebow or Coburn. I guess Coburn's the new tebow, you know. Who, nay. is the caterpillar, one of the caterpillars that's demoing Gaza, and in boulder it's gonna be demoed

[3:03] it's a car dealership that should be kept a car dealership because of all the commuting that's going on in boulder because of all the growth that you are encouraging in this town. Stop the subsidies, stop the height amendments. You can't stop a developer from building something, I admit that, and it might look uglier than H. After it's done. But I'd rather see ugly than see them subsidized by our own city. It's called suicide ideation, just like Israel. Gotta stop somewhere. This is utterly ridiculous between. See you South, you know. And now, with the inflation and with the trump administration, and with the downfall of the whole entire economy. you know, and it's full steam ahead for Boulder.

[4:03] This is not in any way, and I tell you this from coming from the West Coast, a progressive town. This progressive is stacked. All these boards are stacked with the most unprogressive, the most regressive, the most super republicans that I've ever seen in my life. But I don't come from here. I've only been here since 1987, but I know better. and I know better not from visiting and traveling and getting away from this place because I can't, and I don't. I know it because I've lived in other places that are a lot better than this place. So it's not this idyllic place, and people are not going to be coming here forever at the rate that it's self-destructing. So please just stop at some point. Stop all of these things, all of these subsidies, and I see you've got a light meeting tonight. That's fascinating, because it says 6 to 11 at night, but I guess

[5:10] I'm reading something wrong in there, but we'll see. Thanks bye. Thank you for being with us tonight. There are no other people online from the public. So back over to you, Chair, and wish you a good meeting. Thanks, Vivian, and thank you, Lynn, for your public comments. Appreciate that. We are on to. We've got 3 sets of minutes to approve. Thank you, Thomas, for for all these minutes appreciate that. I believe some board members have sent back comments, and they've been added in right. Laura and mark. Both had comments that were added in. So with that said, We're going to just start at the top and ask if someone would like to go ahead and put. Make a motion for the January 7th draft planning board meetings to be approved, minutes to be approved.

[6:09] I move approval of the January 7th minutes second mark seconds any other comments before we go to a vote. seeing none. I'll just go down the line here. Kurt. Yes. Mark. Yes, Laura. Yes, Mason. Yes, went out of order. Ml. Yes. Claudia is absent, and I'm a yes, okay. Going on to the second set of meeting minute meeting minutes from January 21, st would anyone like to make a motion? I move approval of the January 21st meeting meeting minutes? I just have a question. So the changes I suggested haven't seen. I mean, I I made them and sent them to you. Do they get incorporated?

[7:03] Yes, all the changes that I received are incorporated. Okay, great. Thank you, I will. I'll second seeing no discussion, I'll go ahead and go down the line again. Kurt. Yes, Mark, yes, Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Ml. Yes. Claudia is absent, and I'm a yes as well. Okay, the final set of minutes is from January 28.th Would anyone like to make a motion to approve. I'm on a roll. I move approval of the January 28th meeting minutes. I'll second great any discussion. None, Kurt. Yes, Mark. Yes, Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes. Ml. I was absent. Emma was absent. Claudia is absent now, and I am also a yes, okay, great. That gets us through our meeting minute approvals. And we're going to go straight into the matters. Item for this evening, which is the project update on access management and parking strategy amps, code and policy enhancement. I'll pass it over to Staff to begin.

[8:11] Thank you. Chair. Good evening. Planning board. I'm Lisa Hood, Principal Planner, with planning and development services. I'm joined tonight by Chris Haglund from transportation and mobility, and Sam Bromberg from community vitality is going to be here a little bit late, but she will be here to answer your questions about the on-street part of this project I'm going to go through. We have about a 20 min presentation, but, as you remember from the previous update. There's 3 main topics. So I'll kind of pause at each one and see if you have any questions on each one. I'm also going to present Sam's slides. so I might not be able to answer clarifying questions until she's back, but so we might hold those till the end. But we'll see how it goes. All right. So we'll get started. This is an update on the Amps project. As you know, it is a 3 pronged 3 departmental project we're working on off street parking, on-street parking and transportation demand management or Tdm.

[9:03] these are really interrelated topics and projects. And that's why we're bringing them together all 3 together and analyzing them all, because, as you shift and change the requirements for each one of these, it affects the other 2. So that's why we're choosing to do this as kind of a three-legged stool project. As you remember, we talked with you about this project, introduced it back in August. Your feedback and direction on the project has been instrumental in the work that's been completed over the last few months. We've been hard at work with multiple consultants and staff working on the project. And so we're excited to update you on what we've the recommendations, as we further developed them over the last few months, and just a quick reminder of the feedback that was given by both planning board and tab last fall. We also went to Tab last month or a few weeks ago, but generally, if you remember, the Board expressed support for eliminating the parking minimums across all land uses interest in bike parking as far as Tdm. Requirements. The Board expressed a desire to use Tdm. Requirements to stimulate travel, behavior change supported the tiered approach, which, of course, we'll talk about more, and then, for on street parking management talked about like access to the public right of way and things like that.

[10:20] So we've been taking that feedback. That's a really quick summary, but all of your feedback and helping that inform the next steps of this project. So the scope of the project, and how it applies. We are. The intent of this project is to implement the final outstanding recommendations from the Amps report that was adopted back in 2017. I think there were 10 different implementation steps. All of them have been done except 2. And it's update the Off street parking standards and create a Tdm plan ordinance for new developments we added in the on street parking as the 3rd leg of the stool. Just because of the interrelated nature of all of these. and because we had this new factor come in in the last year, which was that the State passed the State Bill related to minimum parking requirements, and that by affecting that because the original idea was to just update parking standards. So by taking it further to eliminating minimum parking, we wanted to make sure we were also thinking about on street parking. At the same time.

[11:20] as far as applicability, the changes would apply to new development and redevelopment. So it's not something that would retroactively require compliance with the standards. Just like almost every zoning code update that we do. These standards will apply as new development and new businesses come in. So that's how that would apply. So I'll go quickly through the off street parking standards. So, as you know, that's the parking that's accommodated on the private on private land. and we had a brief cover. Memo, but it links to the longer City Council memo for you all that describes all of these in more detail, but just to go through the more fleshed out recommendations

[12:00] based on planning Board's direction as well as city Council and tab, and our further research over the last few months and a lot of best practices. Research staff is continuing to recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide for all land uses. So, taking it further than just what the State Bill requires. We also looked into many cities when they have eliminated. I think there's about 80 cities in this country that have eliminated minimum parking, and many of them will add maximum parking requirements. We looked into that and determined that there wasn't much value to adding that maximum parking requirements were essentially eliminating one process to replace it with another, and while maximum parking requirements can be helpful in a very specific location like we have right now in Boulder Junction, and we would be open to that in specific locations. Maximum parking. We didn't think that citywide having maximum parking requirements would really have the utility that the administration of it would warrant.

[13:02] Thirdly, related to bike parking standards. We've heard lots of interest about updating the design standards. And so we're committed to looking at those. Those are in the design and construction standards and making sure this is something we actually the phase one of amps did address the bike parking requirements. It's now been 11 years since, phase one. This project's taken a while. But looking back at some of the changes over the last 11 years there's been a lot more adoption of like cargo bikes and e-bikes and things like that. So just making sure that the design standards that we have are able to accommodate kind of the more common bike parking that we have going on. Now. We also looked into shared parking. The State created a bunch of best practices, and we are looking into better ways to support shared parking. If we don't have a minimum parking requirement, it's not necessarily something that the city has to require for sharing of parking. But we're trying to understand where the city's place is in supporting that and incentivizing it so that parking can be used efficiently.

[14:06] and then related to ev charging. I think planning board brought that up in August as well as some of the other boards. We looked at our Ev charging requirements. The energy conservation code is actually where the Ev charging requirements live. And that was just recently updated. And so we looked at that, looked at other cities, we really are in line with what the kind of best practice is already. And so there's not much utility. We didn't see much utility in having it, both in the energy conservation code and the land use code. So we think we're covered currently for ev charging. and one of the things to know is if we get rid of, or we were to get rid of minimum parking requirements that doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't be ev charging, because the Ev charging requirements are based on parking. That's provided. So if there's parking being provided with a development, whether we have a requirement or not, a certain percentage has to be ev ready, regardless of whether we have a minimum parking requirement.

[15:02] So those are the recommendations related to off street. I'm going to do on street parking. and so this is primarily related to the neighborhood permit parking or Npp program. And so these recommendations are split into recommendations for both the existing Npp areas and then for new and redevelopment, so as far as existing Npp evaluating and adapting processes or policies for non residential parking in the Npps, especially near schools and commercial areas and other high demand zones so that could be looking at whether we should replace the current 2 or 3 h time limits with paid parking in those areas for non-permit holders. secondly, collaborating with the Boulder Valley School district to formalize a park and walk zone around elementary schools. 3, rd consider reducing the number of guest and visitor permits that are available in overcrowded Np. Zones. Right now, residents can purchase 2 visitor permits with no annual usage limits

[16:08] in addition to multiple guest permits that can last up to 2 weeks. And so there's a potential for misuse with that. So, as part of the project, we would be analyzing parking data to determine the extent of guest and visitor, permit usage and consider consolidating it into a more simplified system. That isn't. That makes sure it's available for residents, but isn't subject to potential misuse. 4th is exploring, limiting. Npp permits to one per eligible resident, to reduce excess, vehicle storage on the public right of way, and align, permit parking or parking permits with actual need, and then implementing an escalating rate structure for households that are requesting multiple permits introducing a Tdm. Wallet. This ties a bit with Chris's topic as well, but establishing working with vendors to develop a program framework to encourage the use of alternative transportation options.

[17:02] and then the last one for Npp zones is to consider further limiting the availability of residential and visitor permits on mixed use blocks or for mixed use buildings to make sure that curbside access in mixed use areas, balances the needs of both the residents and the businesses and visitors to that mixed use area for new development. The recommendations or new or redevelopment are to limit new Npp programs. So kind of keep what we have now, but not expand additional Npps. And if we were to have new Npps, it would be areas that are significantly impacted by commercial activities, schools, or recreational facilities. And then, as far as how it ties with new developments, developing some thresholds. For when a new Npp is proposed for an area that's impacted by that development based on utilization data and anticipated new trip generation. So developing a threshold. For if this project is going to have a certain impact on this street. Maybe that's when we proactively analyze whether an Npp would make sense in that area.

[18:09] And Sam can answer more specific questions on that one. Sorry I didn't pause after off Street. I can pause now. Does anyone have any questions on off street? Clarifying questions? Good night, Kirk. Thank you. You were on such a roll there. I'm sorry I was nervous about presenting someone else's topic. Just a couple of questions. So in terms of the retroactive applicability I'm just trying to understand. So currently, at my house, I have an off street parking place. If we eliminate the requirements, and I decide, oh, I'd rather make that into a garden. Am I allowed to? Yep, you'll be able to. Yeah. So it's not completely retroactive, or it, I should say, well, okay.

[19:08] I think I get. I think I get what you're saying. It doesn't. It does still apply to existing situations. Yeah, but it's not that it's not like we could by saying it's not applied retroactively. It's like we couldn't go taking supers and say your bike parkings or your parking is out of compliance without them coming in for a permit. Usually that's usually when we apply those requirements. But in terms of the off street parking requirements, those will apply retro. The elimination will apply retroactively. Right? Yeah. My explaining, I think Brad's going to explain. I'm not explaining very well, but got it. So what this would do is create legal nonconformity. So, in in other words, now you would have situations that were nonconforming allowances, by by having more permissive abilities, and anytime you decrease a nonconformity that's allowed. But you're not prospectively required to bring something.

[20:09] So in other words, there's grandfathering. But you're allowed to move into into new standards as you would like to. Okay, I think I understand. Great. Thank you. The Next question is about the ev requirements, and this probably wouldn't apply to this current process. But I'm just wondering if we've thought about any mechanism whereby a new development, instead of providing, or maybe, in addition to providing ev charging on site, could somehow fund or provide ev charging on street that could then be publicly available. Which seems like it's actually something that

[21:03] we need more. Anyhow, we had a someone speaking at the meeting last week who was talking quite about a bit about Ev charging, and basically the need for more publicly available ev charging. I'm just wondering if that's anything that's come up or that could come up. I don't know whether it would fit under Kobec or something else. Yeah, yeah, that's a great topic. And people have brought that up. It's not part of this project. But I know that other departments in the city, like climate, initiatives are looking into that kind of public on street ev parking. There's 2 existing ones around the city where we already have that one thing that we run into with. Well, this isn't necessarily on street, but sometimes we run into issues where people can't meet their parking requirement because they're trying to change it to ev requirements. So there could be some more opportunities opened up by this project. But we are looking into it. The city is looking into it. It's something that we're interested in is, but not necessarily as part of this project.

[22:07] Yeah, can I ask a question about Evs? Since we're on that topic. what is the ratio in the code today energy code today? As it relates to parking? So let's say, just take an example. You've got a a 10 unit multifamily going up. They're going to put 10 parking spaces in. What's the ratio for ev charging? I knew you were going to quiz me on that. It's really complicated. So there's different electrical requirements. So there's like, Ev ready ev light. But they're all a percentage. So I don't know, I might phone a friend. So for 10 spaces. And over, it's 5% of the spaces need to be actually ev installed. 15% of the spaces need to be ev ready.

[23:00] Okay? So in that in that scenario. I'm assuming that 5% would mean that you'd have to have one right? Because you have a minimum of minimum one, and then you have a 2 that are ev ready on top of that and that and that I'll save comments. It's just. It's a question which is around this as as we go to parking elimination, and and there's going to be fluctuation, and how people park. or how how parked these developments are, depending on what their needs are perceived, needs, etc. Does the ratio. Has anyone analyzed? If a ratio makes sense, or if if it would make sense to have a minimum, if you're going to have parking, for instance, in the case, in the exact same example I used. Would it make sense to? If anyone's going to provide 10 parking spaces? In that case. would we have a minimum of like 0 point 5 per dwelling unit, or something like that, to make sure that

[24:05] we're actually accommodating the future. And how people are, how mobility is changing. Yeah, I think that's a good point. We can connect with the folks with the energy conservation code to see how that's done. The best practices research that I've done. I think they're all ratios. In most cities they use ratios. I think that it might be helpful to have, maybe, like a couple of years of data to see what kind of parking is provided if we don't have minimums to be able to establish what that number should be, or if we have a good analog of a different city. Who's done it earlier? We could base it off. Of that I'll save comments. Sorry, Kurt, I interrupted. Your thing. That was my questions on on Evs. Great thanks. Just one more question, and it's just to verify. When I was reading the memo to Council, and it was talking about the shared parking sort of the. I think it was talking about switching to make it an administrative approval process or something, and I was just. I was mystified like why, we were getting involved in this at all. But then you kind of addressed it, and it sounded like

[25:11] it wouldn't. If there's no requirement, be if the parking requirements go away. But it would be just more of a city process to facilitate, shared, or encourage, shared. Yeah. So that's what we're trying to explore whether there's something we can do that's helpful, like provide template agreements or something that property owners could use. There's been there's some cities that do that right now. It's fairly complicated to share parking because you have to. They have to come up with legal agreements to do that. And so yeah, we're trying. We're still trying to understand that role because there are rules for cities, but that usually ties to when you have a minimum parking requirement making sure you're meeting that. So it's kind of, an we're in a middle ground. So we're looking into it. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Go down the line, mark.

[26:01] So I'm going to go back to the ev parking question. So as we develop new Tdm standards and so forth, those will eventually get adopted into our land use code. But we've adopted the energy code, right? So currently, our Tdm requirements are subjective and our energy conservation code now seems to be numerically objective in terms of ev charging requirements, so has ev charging requirements effectively been removed from our purview under site review. Because we don't. We don't determine stud spacing, or you know that sort of thing right? That's not part of the site, review, criteria, or gallon per minute flow of faucets. So consequently, now that we've adopted ev charging requirements in our energy conservation code

[27:02] and our energy conservation code applies to the built environment as we build it is this gone from our purview. And is it gone for applicants? As a way to say. I have a kick? Ass. Tdm, plan. We're we're doing 20 charging spaces when 10 are required. So and I'm I'm curious about this relationship until the land use code is updated, maybe with more specific Tdm requirements. Did you have something? Chris? Yeah, I was just going to add, I do have a slide in my presentation. Oh, Chris Hagelin, transportation mobility! I do have in my presentation a slide that looks at Tdm plan elements, and that includes a section that's kind of infrastructure and amenities. And so that would really be looking at as kind of how you alluded to of develop development projects going above and beyond what is required by code to enhance their Tdm program. You know that certainly would be more in the, you know, kind of optional area. We would look to having, you know.

[28:13] Tdm plan requirements. But you know that's something where an applicant could go above and beyond the code to enhance their plan. Yeah. And I would just add that the it doesn't necessarily because the energy conservation code already outlines the numbers that likely doesn't need to be in the land use code. But that doesn't mean we don't need. We can't have references to the ev charging requirements or how they relate to Tdm, it just doesn't really make sense to duplicate them and the energy concert. The reason, I think. Well. I would assume that the reason it's in the energy conservation code is that it's really complex with the electrical requirements. And so it makes more sense amongst all the electrical standards. Okay? So speaking of charging and electrical requirements, so as it stands now, we are quote investigating, considering

[29:05] bike, charging requirements. But the proposal that as it's formed now isn't specific to what would be incorporated into a new ordinance. Is that right? Right? Yeah, we're looking into that. We've gotten some conflicting public feedback about the public charging or the bike charging about whether that's more important or other items. So we're still looking into that and studying kind of other best practices. Okay, sticking to bike, charging for a second. At a recent meeting an applicant made reference to potentially new State law. I think it was State law being developed, that where bikes are being charged there may be new requirements for the room itself to our burn, to some, anyway, some standards, because of the flammable nature, lithium, ion batteries.

[30:04] cheap batteries on cheap bikes, burning and exploding, etc. So Do you know anything about that? And and how is, how might that be incorporated into our bike? Charging requirements in the land use code? I think I it sounds vaguely familiar, so I think I might have seen it in a State legislative summary. Does that sound familiar to you, Hela? I haven't heard of that particular one, but it may still be out there. It sounds a little bit more like something that would fall under the building code type, health and safety codes versus zoning. Right? But that's just a guess I haven't seen it. Okay, And then the my last one is so in one of your prior slides, you said, limit new Npp programs or areas.

[31:01] So at 1 point I might have been in favor of that. But actually, it seems like the Npp. Might be a good way to simply price parking that if we just started applying Npp principles kind of everywhere. then that's a way that's it's a tool we already have. So what's the thought behind the direction of limiting new Npps, when, in fact, a more, possibly a more equitable path would be to have Npps darn near everywhere, and and that the parking may be free. The parking may be cheap. but it might. You know it's a tool that we've already have at our disposal. So what's your thought on why, we would be limiting and future Npps. Yeah, I'll share my thought. But when Sam gets back I'm sure she can add, or when she gets here. I'm sure she can add more, but I think the idea is to limit the Npps as they've been used in the past, which is mostly for residential uses, and instead retool the program so that it's helpful in those mixed use high intensity zones where there's lots of competing interests rather than just the preserving residential interests. And so it's, how do we use that program

[32:19] more strategically in those high impact areas? Great. Thank you very much. Sorry. I didn't see your hand. It's okay. So following up on that, is there any area that an Mpp wouldn't make sense. I know this. you know, we were hoping for Sam. But yeah, I know. I'm sorry. I know that the most recent Npp that was brought to Tab Chris was. It was not adopted. But I don't know the details of that. Oh, can we pause on that one and have Sam answer it because she's the expert? Yeah, yeah, for sure. And then I only have one more. And actually I'm sorry. 2 more.

[33:10] I feel like I should know the answer to this, so I'm a little embarrassed in asking. But I know I understand the relationship of removing parking in terms of the Site Review criteria. Is there any interaction with form-based code? I don't think so. I've I've searched the language, but you know folks can opt into form-based code. It doesn't. Does it interact with that? The the form-based code itself doesn't have parking standards. The general title Ix parking standards applied in the form-based code areas as well. So as those get amended, it would apply the same way. And if somebody developed under form-based code. great cool, that's what I assumed. But I wanted to ask. Also on the ev charging. Are we prioritizing any certain types of chargers like level 2 or fast, or anything like that? Or is that just completely out of scope?

[34:04] I believe that's in that complicated table about ev like ready. I'm looking at Charles to see if he knows. Yeah, there's requirements for, like as you get up there in the more than 11 dual port charging station is required. There's requirement for ev ready spaces. There's requirements for ev capable light spaces. I'm not seeing anything that requires the fast chargers at this point, although there are standards for the minimum charging rate. So they have to charge at a minimum rate of 6.2 Kva. So there are some of those standards that already exist makes a lot of sense. How are those standards created and was like excel? Or I guess my, my question really result revolves around a concern I have in terms of the impact on the grid, particularly at like commercial public spaces midday, when there's already high level of usage was there. Consult consultation with

[35:12] Excel, or any other group on creating those standards. I know that climate initiative worked on the standards along with the building department, but they largely. They were updated this year, but they also largely implemented State law requirements to. I don't know if the State worked with. Excel. But but we're basically required to have those standards. Thanks. Thank you. And George, you may have seen Ml. Also has her hand up. So okay, great, thank you. So I have a couple of questions. So right now, we're just doing the off street parking section questions and holding off on the neighborhood parking stuff. If you want to try me on on the neighborhood, I'm happy to wait till we have a full complement of staff who work on that program. So I'll just stick to the off street parking stuff. And then we have another section coming, too. Right? Okay. So as regard the off street parking, you know. Of course, we currently use those parking minimums that we're talking about getting rid of to judge whether a site review project is over parked, or if they're, you know, trying to reduce their parking impact from what we would expect

[36:24] if that goes away. how will planning board have a yardstick basically to know whether a project is over parked under parked that kind of thing. Yeah, that's a great point. I. There are some site review criteria that talk about an overabundance of parking surface, or something like something along those lines, so there would still be some reference to that. I would caution that parking requirements are not a scientific number, and so it's been a guideline for 75 years of one per 400. You know. It's not

[37:00] It's not. We base it on best practices and things like that. So it's been a guideline, it could still be something that you look back at and say the minimum requirements used to be one per 400, and you're way over that. And so we consider that to be over parked or something like that. So but there is that Site Review criteria about the overabundance of asphalt. I think that would be useful, at least in the short term, to give us a yardstick to know whether a project is over parked, to continue for staff to calculate that even if the applicant isn't held to any particular parking minimum, just to let you know. Give us something to think about for specifically for Site review projects. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry you're right. You're right, George. I apologize. Okay, next question. We had an applicant talking about lender parking requirements, and I think in that case the lender that they wanted to use required one space per residential unit. Is that something common to all lenders? Or what do we know about what lenders require for residential development?

[38:00] So I think it varies based on the lender, and it varies based on the market conditions and recent sales and things like that. I know when I worked for Minneapolis prior to when they eliminated parking requirements. Lenders were not sold on the idea that you wouldn't need parking. And then there were, you know, 15 projects built without parking that successfully had renters, and then they adjust the lenders adjust. So that's just in one city an example. But I think they can adjust their rates, and each lender is different. Okay, so that's not like an industry-wide standard that varies by lender. Okay? Good to know. And then my last question in this section. I think it would be in this section. In the Council summary. The Council members had a question about the Transit Oriented Communities Bill, and they asked about a potential overhaul of the Site Review process due to that transit oriented Communities Bill. And I'm not familiar with what that bill might do to our site review process if it hasn't already.

[39:01] that would be great to get a quick rundown on that. Carl Geyler planning and development services, the Transit Oriented Communities Bill was passed by the State last year. It doesn't go into effect until like 2027. But in addition to requiring cities to calculate an aspirational number of housing units that would have to be accommodated through zoning. It does mention that if there are residential projects that are greater than 5 acres in size, that those be allowed through like, basically like through a buy right process. So we do have site review thresholds now that are based on square footage or acreage. So in there are some cases where larger residential projects may have to go into site review, even if they're not requesting modifications. So we will have to update the code. If we want to comply with that State law to basically exempt out residential projects that are 5 acres or more.

[40:17] There, there is still an option of allowing site review for flexibility, you know, for modifications or going through height modifications that would still be allowed. But we would have to tweak the code for that. I'm sorry. Can you elaborate a little bit on that last section? So when you say that we'd have to allow 5 acres or more to go through a buy right process. That's only if they are not requesting exemptions through site review, like height modifications or setback modifications. Yeah, basically what the State Bill says is that if there's any like property that's over 5 acres and is proposed for a residential project, a jurisdiction can't require a discretionary review for that. So I think in this case we're talking more like a 3 story project that meets setbacks and height limits under today's code. That would require a site review. In some cases it depends on the zone.

[41:14] The State language basically says that that can't go through a discretionary process. But in our discussions with State officials. We were concerned about losing the Site Review process. Because if we're talking about a 4 story or a 5 story building, there's emphasis on design and also getting more permanently affordable housing that we would potentially lose that. So they did indicate to us that that would still be allowable. If a developer were to elect to go into a site review to ask for modifications. Okay, so it's just that we can't require site review for those 5 acre plus projects simply based on the fact that it is a large development 5 acre plus. Okay. But if they're asking for modifications to their zoning. Then it would still go through site review, or we could still do that. Yes, okay, thank you. That's very useful to understand. Thank you. That's the end of my questions.

[42:04] Ml, do you have any questions for this section? I do. I have a couple of questions. one clarification. Just going back to the single family kind of the question crook was asking, single family house. they're not required to build a garage and parking for cars. Is that correct? If we eliminate minimum parking requirements? Yes, okay, that would be the case. So that's just a clarification. Let me see. So there was a city council question about reimagining, existing underutilized parking lots. and I looked at that information from the consultant about how much off street? No, yes, how much off street parking is in the city, and so, if we eliminate parking minimum citywide.

[43:07] we could potentially see a lot of land opening up. How is there any thinking about trying to capture some public benefits out of the redevelopment of those parking lots. Yeah, I think when we, when that question came up at council, we talked about how this could be a good topic to discuss during the comprehensive plan process of what? What would be the value that we'd want, or what valuable change would we want to see in parking lots if they were to, you know, eliminate a few spaces or eliminate it entirely. What would that? What would like the best use of that be? And so I think that's a good opportunity with the timing, with the comprehensive plan, to have that be something that's thought about. Would that result in a in a unique zoning situation, so that it would only apply to reuse of existing parking lots and

[44:07] how they might impact our affordability. Goals, commercial, residential, etc. Could you restate that question? Zoning that it triggers down to can we? Could we capture in the zoning regulations a reuse for current existing parking areas that will become potentially redundant. I see what you're saying. I think that we would, if we were going to get some feedback on what the better use of land might be in the comprehensive plan. We'd want to let that inform any zoning changes. But we have discussed a lot of the major shopping centers are in puds or prior approvals like that. And so we've discussed potentially some thinking through, as we think through this ordinance, thinking through

[45:04] some minor modification standards, or something like that that would support an easier or facilitate an easier process of changing that land to a different use. And so we're still thinking through that. Okay, so it won't be included in this particular in this particular process. But it's looking to be incorporated in the Boulder Valley comp plan. Is that correct. Yeah, I think there could be further changes down the road. But just kind of administratively. Well, well, we are planning to think about that with this ordinance of, you know, if people wanted to get rid of 10 parking spaces and change that to something else. Determining what level of amendment to that Pud would be required to do something like that. Okay, perfect. That's my question. Thank you so much. Thanks. Great have a quick to Mls. so does the new lack of parking minimums

[46:02] mean that any parking requirements associated with adus are going to be modified or eliminated. Yes, so actually, we, the ordinance. The adu ordinance was just passed by council. I don't know. When was it? A week ago, 2 weeks ago, which eliminated parking requirements for adus already. So there are no parking requirements for adus anymore. So the prior ordinance, where we had minimum where we had low income based, and that's all gone. Yes, adus and adu without parking requirements. Correct? Great. Thank you. Technically, it's not effective until March 8.th But yes. anybody else. Otherwise you have clarifying question for the presentation you didn't see. No, I'm it's just a question. Yes, and I've been sitting back waiting to hear what other folks have asked. But yes, I had some questions based on the Council memo that I assume were not covered in the presentation.

[47:01] Try to keep it quick. So the the Fox Tuttle report concluded that Boulder's bike parking requirements are still strong relative to comparison communities. but that report only discussed the quantity of parking required. So I was curious if staff or Fox Tuttle have done any work to identify models or best practice on the more qualitative aspects of bike parking requirements, things that we've discussed here like charging availability cargo, bike accommodations, etc. Do we have models for those kinds of policies? Yeah, we've been looking at other cities for that. And so that's the plan is that this, the scope of this project, will include some design changes, design, requirement changes, but not the quantitative changes. Okay, thank you. I'll leave it there right? Go ahead, Kirk. I have one more question that I think is a Lisa Hood question. So I'll ask it here, and that is just whether you have considered the possibility of changes to other things around parking that aren't the parking requirements in the code, but are like geometric standards like. When I was on landmarks board. The one that constantly was coming up was the 24 foot backup distance requirement. Are you thinking about potentially looking at those as part of this whole thing?

[48:15] We are looking at it, and we have just in the last few weeks been looking at other cities and their their design requirements. That's something that the engine. It's kind of more in the engineers world, and so we'll be talking through our engineers with our engineers about whether there's some changes to that. There's kind of complicated standards about small car standards and things like that. So there could be some small tweaks that we would make based on the other cities. We're not far off from what other cities are doing, but there could be some minor changes we would make all right. I think we can move forward all right. Thank you. Once again. Chris Hageland, principal project manager for transportation mobility here to talk about the Tdm. Plan requirements for new development section.

[49:03] So back in the fall of 2024 Boards and Council expressed their support for a tiered approach. To ensure that the focus of this ordinance is on the most, the largest and most impactful developments, and that we also manage staffing needs and resources required to manage an ordinance program. So, following some additional work, staff is recommending using a 3 tiered approach tier 0 being the smallest projects would be exempt from the ordinance tier. One would have required Tdm plans and annual financial guarantees. but without vehicle trip generation targets or ongoing monitoring tier 2, which would be our largest, most significant and impactful projects, would have vehicle trip generation targets based on land use, location size and also parking supply. So we always want to think about making that parking supply work by having additional Tdm requirements for that tier. 2 projects would also have annual and remedial financial guarantees, and would be monitored for compliance annually until they are found to be in compliance for 3 years.

[50:13] Current site review guidelines, as we kind of discuss automatically are triggered by a size threshold, so all large developments would be subject to this ordinance if they meet the tier thresholds. Besides, the smallest tier 0 projects would be exempt from this ordinance. We were also thinking about exempting our zoning. That already has trip reduction ordinances associated with that that would be those that are found mostly in Boulder Junction right now, but are now going to be occurring in other areas of the city. Mu, 4, Rh. 6, and Rh. 7, and then also based on previous some input. We received from Boards and Council, and are much earlier work on this project to either partially or or fully exempt. 100% affordable housing

[51:06] staff recommends using that three-tiered approach. And we've been looking at Denver system. Denver recently implemented their Tdm plan ordinance for new development. We're looking at their thresholds as a starting point. And we're conducting analysis right now to how we adjust those figures in the boulder environment. We're going to be coming up with 3 different levels of options for those thresholds for consideration. This chart shows the Denver size thresholds for different types of land uses. And then we've also added, you know, what does that kind of equate to using some standard assumptions in in terms of how many employees or residents would be in those developments of that size. And then the last column shows how many projects are in each threshold level that are currently in our site. Review, pipeline, that pipeline those projects could be anywhere from one to 3 years old in that pipeline. But this just shows, you know, if we were to use Denver's

[52:12] threshold demarcations where? Where would have projects fall right now? So like for commercial, we would have 5 of the projects would be tier 0 and be exempt. One would be at the middle size tier and 2 would be in the largest tier and require the most Tdm requirements based on our best practices. Review staff is recommending using vehicle trip generation as the metric of success for our Tdm programs. There's many reasons for this. This metric can be measured accurately using simple technology, it does not rely on surveys and getting response rates. The rates and methodologies for measuring vehicle trips are well established. We currently use them in our Boulder Junction area with that trip reduction ordinances.

[53:04] I think the other benefit is that ite the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Their trip generation. Tables take into account all types of trips, not just the trips of residents or employees, but all the trips. So also, including like things like package, delivery service vehicles, visitors, etc. Staff also recommends that a 3rd party conduct the survey, using a standard methodology and a reporting template designed by staff. The real hallmark of this ordinance approach is the use of financial guarantees. Initial input from boards and council also included. The purpose of this ordinance is not just to mitigate impacts around developments or to improve multimodal infrastructure access. But to use the Tdm plan ordinance to provide an ongoing contribution towards meeting city and climate goals. The new Tdm ordinance will help solve issues with the current process and provide clarity and expectations for city staff developers, tenants, and the public

[54:09] in developing any Tdm ordinance. There's really 2 key challenges to overcome, one having a development requirement that's on a property owner. But knowing that Tdm plans, consisting of traditional or innovative Tdm program services or incentives are actually implemented by the tenants. Also, knowing that Tdm programs, the most effective strategies, programs and services have ongoing annual costs, they do not end so based on best practices and borrowing from municipalities in Virginia, primarily in Fairfax and Alexandria, we recommend using an approach that expands on the city's current use of financial guarantees for the tier one and tier 2 projects. The city currently uses financial guarantees for things like eco passes, but often limited to those the 3 years

[55:04] In this situation annual financial guarantees would be put in place by the developer or the owner, and provide ongoing annual funding that is used by the tenants or property managers. In the case of residential properties to implement the Tdm plans that have been approved through the process, our most effective Tdm programs, the ones that really change behavior. As I mentioned, they have annual costs, things like ecopasses. parking cash out programs, micromobility memberships. Innovative approaches, like a transportation wallet concept which would provide that flexibility and encourage more innovative approaches also requires annual funding. Remedial funding would be required for the highest tier 2 projects, and this funding is used to augment annual funding. If the property is exceeding its vehicle trip generation target and is out of compliance. This is done in in these Virginia context, where a portion of the remedial fund is used to augment that annual funding, if they're not making it to provide additional funding so that additional Tdm programs can be implemented by the tenants.

[56:15] Initial, financial guarantee rates would be set based on size, estimated employees, residential units and the estimated cost of the required Tdm plan elements. This approach, as I mentioned, expands our use of financial guarantees and provides the mechanism for property owners to pay the ongoing and annual cost of Tdm programs implemented by the tenants and property managers. This would equate to an ongoing cost to property owners of the largest developments. But we know that the removal of minimum parking requirements equates to a significant cost savings related to the construction and maintenance of parking spaces. There is also a lot of flexibility in the financial, the annual financial guarantee approach in terms of the rates. What the cost covers in the in the Tdm. Plans that are implemented by the tenants and the duration of the requirements. So all these dials can be moved as well, and we can discuss that how they can be moved.

[57:22] There's a wide variety of Tdm program elements that can be included in any Tdm plan for residential, commercial or mixed use developments. Staff recommends that when designing a Tdm. Plan that some of these elements would be required elements on the context, some of these elements that I think are likely to be required. Elements are highlighted on this slide. The business and neighborhood ecopass programs remain the 2 most effective tools in influencing travel behavior, especially combined with parking management policies and programs like paid parking or unbundled parking for the infrastructure and amenities as we alluded to, we would be looking for elements in Tdm. Plans that move beyond code requirements and provide enhanced access or on-site services.

[58:12] As I mentioned that the annual financial guarantee model of a Tdm ordinance does equate to ongoing requirements from the property owner to be paid to the tenants. and so these will increase annual costs to 1st the developers and then the eventual owners of the property. But, as I mentioned, the removal of those parking minimums will likely translate into significant one-time capital and ongoing annual maintenance costs. Parking is expensive to build. It is expensive to maintain a developer that can build significantly less parking in that site that cost savings can literally pay for years or decades of Tdm programs for their tenants just to kind of walk through the basic steps that would happen with each of the tiers. So if

[59:03] a property is determined to be a tier one. The size and the tier determine what the annual financial guarantee would be. We would also design an initial Tdm plan based on what that annual financial guarantee level is, we would go through the Tdm approval process. Likely a planning board once the project is completed, and then we have welcome, Sam. Once we have tenants that are coming in, we can do some Tdm plan adjustment. And then we would implement that plan. That plan would be in effect, for the year. We would have an annual report at the end of that from the from the property. That would explain what the Tdm program that was implemented in the use of those annual financial guaranteed funds, we would look to see if there are any needed remedial actions based on the performance of that plan.

[60:02] and then we would have continual process, evaluation to improve the whole step from what the rates are, what the Tdm plan requirements are, etc. We can always iterate on those and make adjustments for the tier. 2 developments. Again, the similar initial steps, size and tier, determine what the annual financial guarantee level is. Along with the remedial financial guarantee, we would design an initial Tdm plan based on those annual financial guaranteed levels. We would go through a Tdm approval process, seeing what elements are required. And we would also set the target for the vehicle trip generation target for that plan. Once tenants are actually in, we can do any plan adjustment based on those tenants. And then we would implement that after a year of implementation and occupation, we would have the property owner conduct with through a 3rd party a vehicle trip generation study. This would lead to an annual report that shows whether or not

[61:09] the Tdm plan was actually implemented, and whether or not they met the target based on whether or not they were in compliance, this would call for either remedial action or ongoing, monitoring in terms of the tier. 2 monitoring process. We're looking at an annual monitoring process. We have an established trip generation target, and there would be an annual trip, generation study and report if a property was found to be in compliance. 3 consecutive years, then that annual monitoring could would end. We could monitor it every 5 years, or only if something comes up, some issue comes up. There's varying best practices in that regard. But if a property is out of compliance if they're exceeding their vehicle trip generation target. Then a portion of that remedial funding financial guarantee is used to augment the next year's annual financial guarantee that Tdm plan is redesigned, improved, and then at a new funding level to provide additional Tdm services to those residents or employees.

[62:17] Then a New year, a New 3 Year cycle would start, if that after 3 years they were in compliance every year, then they would be outside of the monitoring process. So again, there's a lot of different dials to turn and tweak in this. This is, you know, based on our review of best practices, of how we would design a Tdm ordinance that would provide that ongoing funding for Tdm programs for those who are the tenants of these properties that would fall under the ordinance. So overall recommendations are to use a financial guarantee approach this funds, those annual Tdm program needs for the tenants of those properties. We would use a tiered approach to not only focus the this ordinance on the most significant developments, but also to manage our our city staffing levels and demands. And then we do have some ideas on

[63:14] other types of land uses that would be exempt from this ordinance, including those that already have a Tdm. Ordinance associated with it through its land use, and then the affordable housing. Happy to take clarifying questions. Thank you, Chris, for the presentation, and, Lisa, thank you also. I forgot to thank you a couple about questions about Tdm, specifically. And, Chris, you probably said this, and I didn't catch it in the detail. But how? So the Tdm. Plans would be approved per property. How is that connected or not connected to site Review? So it'd be part of the Site review process. The the Tdm. Plans would have to be approved. They would contain likely required elements such as like the ones that I've highlighted. But then it's also what rounds out the use of the annual financial guarantees and other elements. So there there is a level of requirement, and then there are some options within.

[64:16] So there's some flexibility and customization. The ecopass is a great product, but it doesn't work everywhere. Gotcha. Okay? And so that is still connected to our site. Review criteria, then? Yes. And so this Tdm plan process is only for projects that go through site review, not for buy right projects correct? And would it be for form-based code projects. Yes, it could be used as part of form-based code. Okay. But then it would be working with staff rather than through planning board. That's correct. Again, form-based codes are still subject to call up by the planning board. But okay, thank you. And so those tier 0 small developments, even if they. If if it is a development that goes through site review, they would no longer have that Tdm criterion. Yeah, if it's the smallest one, and we can set that threshold.

[65:07] you know, you know. Where do we want to concentrate our our energy and our efforts? You know we can set that threshold. So. you know, most small developments are exempt. But we can. We can adjust that. So, depending on you know where we want to be in terms of our focus of our effort and additional staffing because there will be additional staff. So even even if it's a project that goes through site review, let's say it's a small project with 10 units, but they want a height modification. Our criteria that says a Tdm plan will be complied with. That results in a significant shift. Yada Yada Yada, we no longer would have that criterion, because we have exempted it from Tdm, yeah. And I would think a you know, development of only 10 units has so little impact that do we want to concentrate our efforts on that? Thank you and get back to that in the comments. But I'm going to respect, not making comment. Now, if I may add something to that, we still have to work out the details. Yeah. But I think

[66:04] the way I understood how you are envisioning the program, the details of the Tdm plan may actually be determined after there is a site review approval. Yeah, I mean, there's going to be an initial. But then it's going to have to be modified once we have actual tenants. Yeah. So there's a component. I think that this is not anticipated to involve the planning board in the decision-making process, which is probably one of the things that you were curious about. Yes, yeah, I am curious how it interfaces with our site. Review criteria about Tdm plans. which is a big thing for us often. the the triggers for the different tiers you use. Denver's as a model, and I think in the memo it said, to use Denver's as a starting place, and I wasn't sure if that meant a starting place for analysis, or you're suggesting, we just adopt no, a starting place for analysis. Okay? So when the ordinance is actually approved, we would have tiers that are based on bolder rationale. Exactly. And so what we're doing right now is we're developing kind of 3 different levels as options for consideration. Okay, great, thank you.

[67:11] And then, you know, we talk about this old Tdm. Toolkit, one of Mark's favorite things in the world which is outdated and not best practices. Is that old Tdm toolkit going to go away or be updated? How does it interface with this? Yeah, it would be updated. So part of our scope of services we have with our consultant support, is once an ordinance, is created and adopted, then they would also create some of that collateral material, such as a Tdm toolkit that would aid developers also support staff and and planning board as well. So a new toolkit will be developed. Thank you. Those are my Tdm questions. Thank you for the presentation. I just have, I guess, 2 questions. So

[68:02] the administrative process sounds interesting and a positive step in right direction. Given how? How it'll be able to adjust with new tenants. I'm kind of wondering, though. Have you sized, based on the thresholds that start the analysis. Have you sized the additional staffing needs that this will require to administer? So we we certainly had a lot of discussions about them of what it would take. What we are thinking is, you know. What would it take in terms of planning and development service frontline staff and and engineering, you know if they're no longer dealing with a lot of parking reductions. Does that free up some of their their time to focus on some of the Tdm. But likely there could be a need for for additional frontline staffed in the planning and development services based on where we set those thresholds. If we have one or 2 tier, 2 developments a year.

[69:03] probably a minimal impact versus. If we have, you know, 5 or 6, we also likely would need someone in transportation mobility. Probably not a full fte, but someone who would work on Tdm plan approval, assessment of final reports of trip generation studies. So that's likely to be a portion of an fte, and then likely in our financial services. People who work with financial guarantees, you know, if you're develop building up the number of financial guarantees year after year that that's likely going to be. Maybe you know, overtime an additional fte for that. But you know our vision is, you know, how do we correctly balance those tiers to get, you know, to make sure this ordinance is applied to impactful developments, but also to manage those staffing needs and levels. I'll just add one thing, that part of the intent of this ordinance right now. There are, as have been expressed by planning board. There are limitations with our current Tdm requirements, and that they're not very prescriptive. And there's a lot of back and forth about what do we really want? And things like that. And so by having more required elements, optional elements, and a much more standardized process that should introduce some additional efficiency.

[70:24] Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate it. I'm glad you brought up the funds. That was my next question. How are the funds managed? Is there currently a guarantee type program that this folds into? Is it through a trust like, what does that look like? So we currently use financial guarantees right now, if planning board approves a Tdm plan that has a Tdm requirement. The developer puts funding for 3 years of an estimated cost for those ecapasses into a financial guarantee with the city. The city holds that financial guarantee

[71:00] when that property is occupied and has tenants. Then, once that tenant has a contract with Rtd. For that ecopass, the city pays Rtd directly out of that financial guarantee. That's how we ensure that that element of the Tdm plan has been implemented by it. So this would. Essentially, we're using the same system that we have now for financial guarantees. But generally historically, we've used them only for eco passes. This would open up the door for the financial guarantees to be used for other types of Tdm programs that we would require in the plan great, that makes a lot of sense, and then the duration is is really probably the biggest difference of how long? the financial guarantees are used right? Right? And I remember you saying something to the effect of it's not used, it's rolled forward, etc. So does the duration shift based on the say, like interest rates that the funds accumulated at, or anything like that.

[72:05] I have not looked into connections with interest rates generally with the financial guarantees, you know, we usually estimate them at a higher level, because it's always harder to go back and ask for more money, and so oftentimes, after 3 years of the ecopass requirement, then there are some residual funds that are returned to the, to the person who put them in. Okay, the return to the owner. Okay, that's great. I'll let others ask. So I'm going to not comment. But I have to put a little context on this. The other night at a site review. There was some suggestion in regard to Tdm. That this requirement would fall upon the tenant, and the the applicant was kind of like, well, you can't do that. That was kind of portrayed. So what is our

[73:06] and I? I immediately thought, well, of course we can. But anyway, what is the legality of having Tdm requirements pass through to tenants and future tenants and future owners, future building owners. as as time goes on, because there seems to be a misunderstanding of what, whether whether or not we can actually require future tenants to have and participate in. And yeah, participate in Tdm plans that were approved during Site review. So I can certainly let hell. And so let me just say, in terms of you know how this works in out like in the Virginia municipalities that were kind of looking at for examples. The requirement is on the property owner. It is not on the tenants, but the funding comes from that property owner for the tenants to implement

[74:12] the program. So the funding is available, which is usually the main impediment to implementing any Tdm program is that it costs money annually so generally right. Now, when a Tdm plan is imposed that becomes part of the development, approval, and a development agreement incorporates that that property owners comply with the development, approval, and and that also obligates that everybody who uses the property operate consistent with the development agreement, and then how it can be enforced. It depends a little bit on how the code is written if it allows us to enforce against just property owners or other users of the property. But it's certainly possible.

[75:00] if I may add to that, just because this seems like a time to bring it up. I will say in our discussion with council, and not suggesting anything by this of council, but I think it was a little hard for some of them initially to understand that the what's being proposed is something that would run with the property indefinitely. and I know that's not technically a tax or a fee. It's probably a fee. I don't know what it technically would be. No, I don't. I wouldn't probably wouldn't call it either. Yeah. So it's this thing that we're not gonna put a label on. But that would be, you know, legally possible, but but the main point being that it would run in perpetuity. So it does represent a pretty significant you know, commitment on the part of of the city in terms of sustaining something. It's a it's a new program, essentially. And and some council members did kind of with that realization. Recognize that there's an economic impact right to those properties on an ongoing basis. I will say in my, I haven't been in all the conversations internally, but it's become

[76:15] pretty clear to me from the great research that Chris and and others have done, that there really is not a mechanism short of some sort of systemic revenue system to ensure that those mechanisms are of alternative modes, and all the other things we associate with Tdm. Can be sustained and realized. I feel like the team has really combed the best practices in the world, and and that's a pretty key element, and I suspect it'll continue to be brought up so just wanted to highlight that for both the Board's awareness and and to highlight that we are aware of the implications of that, too, and proposing that that mostly answers my question, the the follow-on would be, that's

[77:05] true that it's obviously true of certain things like eco passes and stuff that as long as Rtd. Has Eco. Passes and they've committed to ecopasses. Okay? But tenant managed programmatic elements like Gee Van Pooling, parking cash outs, etc. tenant A goes away. Tenant B comes in. Tenant B is a giant multinational company, and says, You know, hey, we do things our way here. The city still would have, if if under site review, if under project approval. They had committed to programmatic elements. Then, just like having lighted fire escapes and that sort of signs we would be able to require future tenants to comply with

[78:01] the development. Is that right? With with whatever was in the development agreement. Yes, okay. And and I think if there was a significant change in use, we would want to go back and revisit that Tdm plan to make sure that it's appropriate for the tenant. And I think that's 1 of the strengths of this program is that or this approach is that the property owners, providing the financial guarantee that financial guarantee is essential to paying for all the Tdm programs. They all have a cost. They all have annual costs pretty much, no matter what it is. But there's flexibility in what specific Tdm policies programs can be implemented using that funding. And I think that's why you know Fairfax and Alexandria use that approach because it it solves the biggest issue of funding

[79:00] and on the ongoing nature of Tdm programs. But it also provides the flexibility that the funding can be used for a variety of programs. In some cases you could be completely agnostic to what is in the Tdm plan. All you care is about. Are they hitting that trip? Generation target doesn't matter how they get there. Other places have some requirements, some have very prescriptive, and I think we should err on the side of flexibility and customization. You know a hand, you know, a few requirements, but then the flexibility to be creative within the funding that's available for those tenant programs. And the city staff can help develop those programs along with, like our transportation management organization boulder Chamber transportation connections can also help kind of modify and customize those Tdm plans. And if uses change, we can go back and and modify those as well. Thank you.

[80:06] Thank you. Chris. Yeah, I have a number of questions. So you were just talking about the potential of a change in use. So say, there's use A and use B, which are both allowed uses in the Zone and it. But they potentially have very different trip generation rates. If the use changes, there's no use review involved. What would trigger that that reanalysis or or potential change in the are? Whatever those acronyms are. Yeah, I'm not sure if the legal, what legally would require it. I don't know, Hella, if you have anything. if but to me, if the use changes significantly and the trip generation changes significantly, then I think we would want to require that that Tdm plan be amended. And if they're a two-tier project, that their trip generation target also change.

[81:11] which then would could also affect their annual financial guarantee and the amount of money that's used to implement those tenant Tdm programs. I'm not. I don't know the the legal mechanism. Yeah, as I mentioned before, we haven't drafted it yet. It's it's a good question and and something to think through as we set it up. I think we we would want to set it up, maybe with the expectation. If it's set up in the way that. as new tenants come in there can be adjustments, then we would want to set it up with that expectation at the start, then it might differ over time based on what a particular use is, and the impacts of that. We'll have to think through that. And we have the ordinance language from, you know, the municipalities that use this model. So we have that to refer to as well, and I don't know if Chris mentioned this. But the cities in Virginia have done this for many years, and so it's not like we would be modeling off of something that's brand new. They have decades of experience of implementing this. So they're pretty good cities to look at.

[82:19] Great. Okay. Then, are we? Are, you is, oh, get this out! Is the expectation that in determining these financial guarantees we would sort of be looking at the net. Present value of the cost from here to eternity and adjust that relative to, for instance. the current cost of providing parking. I'm just worried. We could impose

[83:00] costs on these businesses that are pretty enormous. I mean, it depends on the discount rate that you apply. But I'm just worried that if we're not looking at that we may not be able to, we may not be properly accounting for the real implications. Yeah. So in in the Virginia models. I'll just refer to it that the financial guarantee amount is based on estimated costs of the Tdm programs. So they have a similar transit pass like the ecopass. They know how much that costs. If an ecopass is one of the required elements, then that cost would be reflected in the annual financial guarantee amount. So the annual financial guarantee amount is based on the hard costs of Ddm programs. So the way they do it is they they have an initial rate. That rate is based on size, location.

[84:06] parking supply could be, you know, part of that equation to determine what is that annual financial guarantee based on square footage for commercial or a number of units for residential. But that was developed based on, you know, actual costs of Tdm programs per employees. Now, as I mentioned, you know, we've turned in this approach that we're discussing. We've kind of turned that dial up to say that this is ongoing. It's covering the costs of Tdm programs, the hard costs. So if you require Eco passes, you require b-cycle membership, we know what those costs are. We can look at what it is, you know, in terms of the estimated number of employees, we can figure out what that financial guarantee level should be. Now, there's an option. I mean, you could certainly dial that down.

[85:01] and the annual financial guarantee no longer covers the full cost of implementing a Tdm program. It could just be for one of the required elements. You could also dial it down and say, You know what this financial annual financial guarantee paid by the property owner is used to subsidize a Tdm plan that is implemented by a tenant, so that some of the financial burden is on the tenant as well. So there, there's all different spots along that dial. You know what we're proposing, based on the input that we've received from boards and council is that if you want an ordinance that makes a difference contributes to city goals prominently shows. You know, the impact of Tdm, well, that would be an ongoing annual requirement that covers the cost of Tdm programs. But you know, we do understand. As Brad said, you know, that's a significant financial cost ongoing onto property owners. We know that there's the parking savings, you know. You build 30 less parking spaces that would have been underground.

[86:06] I mean, that's millions could potentially millions of dollars that can fund Tdm. For a long time. So that's the balance. But you know we're in control of these dials. We can dial it up. We can dial it down. And same with the tiers, you know. If we're thinking, if we get annually 12, Site Review projects a year that are going through, you know how many of these are going to be tier? One. How many of them are going to be tier? 2. How many are going to be tier? 0. So we're in control of all these dials to manage the impact on property owners, to provide the benefit to the tenants and staff time and resources. So hopefully, that helps. Yeah, yeah, it does. Thank you. It would be nice as we're considering these. to have some estimate of what? Yeah, the net present value is just so that we can compare it against other things. Yeah. So as part of our analysis that we're working on right now, you know, I mentioned with the tiers. We're kind of looking gonna develop a high medium and low.

[87:14] We're going to do that same with the financial rates. So we'll change that dial, and we could have. Okay, here's what an annual financial guarantees for a tier 2 project would be. you know, here's a medium option. Here's a high option. So we want to develop those. So you have the actual numbers like, what does this mean in terms of dollar amounts great? Thank you. I also have a question about another aspect of Tdm. Which doesn't actually cost anything. In fact, it nets the property owner money, and I think it's 1 of the most effective in in my view, one of the most effective strategies which is pricing parking. And we've gotten quite a bit of pushback lately, especially with regards to commercial projects where the the developers don't want to commit to pricing parking.

[88:17] I think, partly because it's effective, you know, and the employees don't like that, I guess. How does that fit into this? Would would that still be allowed? Would it be a required element? Could it be a required element, so that it's not something that we have to negotiate with the developer about it just is, yeah, I, you know, in my opinion, as I've said. You know. we have a really effective tool in the ecopass. Its impact is magnified by having paid parking. So I think that you know, if we have a legal mechanism to require that

[89:01] parking is paid. Then I think, really, it's 1 of the most effective things what the annual financial guarantee can do because it's not free, it has to be administered, it has to be enforced. There has to be a way to monitor it, so there isn't. There is a cost to having paid parking. Well, that's something a financial guarantee can do for the tenant who is now required to have a paid parking system and to monitor and enforce. Or you know, if it's a multi-tenant commercial, then that property management company needs to create design monitor and enforce paid parking. So that does come at a cost. And that's something that could be part of this financial guarantee model. Okay, thank you. Next question for multi-unit residential. So for for other for commercial, and I forget what land uses land use categories you had there. Most of the thresholds were based on floor area

[90:09] for multi-unit residential. You had a threshold based on number of units. Yes, and that is actually something that we've been trying to move away from. For instance, in our site review thresholds. We've moved away from per number of unit thresholds to floor area thresholds in order to avoid, because, as it's structured there, if somebody's deciding, oh, do I build 25 units or 26 units? I look at this. And I'm like, I'm going to build 25 units. Yeah, right? And so it incentivizes building fewer in certain cases, potentially build building fewer units that maybe are larger or more expensive. And so did you look into just going to a floor area threshold also for residential I have not, and I was just trying to think of our best practices. Review if if any of them use that

[91:07] but I I'll go back and check. You know. It's certainly something we can look into as as an option. I think you know one reason that. you know, we kind of get stuck on units is the neighborhood. Eco. Pass is based on units, you know. Cost is based on units. The thresholds, for when Rtd. Allows or or does not allow a neighborhood Eco pass program is based on units. So I think that's probably the you know kind of the framework, I was thinking, but we can certainly look at floor error, ratio great. And the last question is that so single unit residential is exempt here, which I mean historically, I think. And if you look at it, trip generation manual, that has the highest rate of trip generation, right of any residential land use.

[92:04] What are the equity implications of exempting single unit residential? Well, I don't know if equity would be at the top of my list, why, we would exempt them. I would exempt them because in the scheme of things a single unit has such a minimal impact on our transportation system and network that how much city staff. Time and effort would we take to approve monitor Tdm. Plans for a single family household? I just I don't see the economics of why we would do that. Thank you. Great thanks, Kurt. Ml, any questions before I just ask a few pointed ones. 2 2 quick questions. One is specific to how this would be implemented relative to, let's say, a shopping center. That's 100,000 square feet. Today. They've got a parking lot in front of them.

[93:07] they evaluate it. They can add 150,000 square feet more by eliminating 2 thirds of the parking. Is it the intent of this to look at the entirety of that development when they do that, when they take that parking out of commission, then that becomes the 250,000 square feet in total rather than just the 150,000 new, even though they're their grandfather in just question. Yeah, I think if you're looking at something of that size and significant. It would probably be in the highest level. You would be looking at a trip generation target for the whole for the whole, so so regardless of size, you would look at the entire. When when you take a portion of parking out of commission, you would then take the entirety of the square footage for the development. Yeah, we look at it. Yeah. I mean, I think that's my initial thought on that. I haven't thought of that particular example. But yeah, I think that's how we would do it. And and in part because you know how you have to do trip generation studies by looking at exits and entrances from the properties and counting vehicle trips, be really hard to do. Just a portion.

[94:16] and that would tie with the Site Review Amendment. The whole property is part of the Site Review. Okay? Great. In the presentation you had that thresholds and project estimates is that from Denver, or is that that's from us that's from us. Yes, so that's what's being proposed. No, as I said, you know, we just want to. We were looking at Denver as a starting point. Yeah, and looking at Denver, here's how our projects would fall into Denver's tiered system. But now, you know, as I said, we're conducting analysis right now where we're going to come up with 3 different options. you know modifications to these levels. But since Denver has, you know, recently devised theirs. So I got it. Yeah, a quick question relative to the categories there. So as you've put the the projects that have gone through Site review, and where they land in those categories

[95:12] is light industrial in general, commercial office or industrial in this cat and in this categorization, because you got the pipeline. So I'm just trying to. Yeah, I would have to go back and find out that answer for you. Okay, you know, we had our pnds. Engineers look back at. You know what's in Site Review, and they kind of fit them into Denver's categories so they may not reflect the eventual categories that we use. But you know we were just kind of showing if we were to use Denver, here's got it. So in what's presented here. You don't know where light industrial fits. I am not sure of it in general commercial. And we are looking. We're looking in more detail at each of those projects as we develop the 3 different options. So we'll have more specific boulder. This was just an initial. Do you? Given that trip? Generation is probably generated. Well, I want to make an assumption. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I'm assuming that trip generation is

[96:10] mostly generated by the individuals that use the property. What is the direction that you're taking relative to this matrix. Because you know you can, you can look at this matrix and say, well, you've got in the case of the industrial category. Right? You have tier one where you got 300 to 600 employees. whereas the general commercial, you know you're only you're looking at, you know. Tier one getting going into tier 2 at 166 employees. So what's the are you looking at like? What's what's your rationale that you're kind of diving into. Yeah. So I mean that estimated employees and residents really just came from the size and assumption of employees per square foot that kind of generally accepted in the industry.

[97:01] You know what I guess what I would be looking, Morad, is, how many projects depending on the size, thresholds. How many projects are we looking in each tier. and the level of effort that's needed on city staff to do those? I think we could also look at the employee amounts to say, where do we want to have the most significant impact of the ordinance? And so we could make adjustments to those. But I don't think I've done kind of exactly what you've express, but we can certainly look at that. Okay, just questions. That was it. Thank you. Any other questions. Great? yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Let's go back to Mpp. When Sam. Now, Sam is here, I do have a couple just closing slides. Maybe before we do that, if that's okay, there's just 2. But I just wanted to let you know the upcoming schedule for this. So you have an idea of the timing. So we are planning several public consultations or engagement is going to happen in March, and we'll have online engagement on be heard boulder from mid March to April. So as you start to see notifications about that, please spread it far and wide. We'll be drafting the ordinance, you can tell we're. We're thinking of a lot of things, but haven't put pen to paper because we want to hear from the public

[98:24] and also the boards and council. And then we are tentatively scheduled to bring an ordinance for a public hearing on May 6th to you all. We'll also go to Tab the next week, and then city Council is scheduled for the end of June. Remember, there is the State Bill compliance deadline of June 20th related to multifamily. Yeah, that's it. Okay, it was only one slide. Now questions great. Why don't you go ahead, Lauren? You have something teed up. Hi, Sam. So some questions about the Npp program. So, and this came up earlier that

[99:01] one of the things in the memo said that you're considering limiting all new Mpp block and zone applications within 3 blocks of a commercial zone school and a recreational facility. And I'm just curious. Why would we want to limit where we can have Npp programs? Why wouldn't you want to neighborhoods to have access to an Npp. If they are asking for it? Right? It's a good question and apologies for my tardiness. I'm also a grad student, and I'm a little frazzled. I hope that I can answer. I think we're. And should you introduce yourself? Oh, I'm Sam Bromberg, I'm a senior project manager with community vitality. I'm part of this working group. Thank you. it's a great question, and it's 1 that council had as well. And I think we're we're hoping to limit just new Npps coming online. We don't want the Npp to be used as a tool in neighborhoods where residents just don't want other residents parking on their block. It should be used as a tool in neighborhoods where there's other demands and pressures on the curbside that you know we need to kind of moderate access to. I hope that

[100:14] answers your question. Well, I think they understand the concept, but I guess I'm not sure about the logic. And, Mark, I don't know if you want to throw in on this one. it falls under comment, so I'll hold my fire until then. Okay, I guess it. It relates to the idea of paid parking helps to dissuade people from having too many cars and taking too many trips. And so why would we want to limit the Npp as a tool that encourages people to to better utilize that limited resource by paying for it. So if you have an answer to the question of like some of the thinking that we're not understanding or haven't heard yet.

[101:00] I think we're just working off of best practices at the moment, but we're certainly open to looking into other alternatives. Nothing is set in stone but currently, as it's written like our current regulations, do require some amount of visitation to be able to like. That's 1 of the metrics for forming a new zone. So I think that's kind of the direction we were thinking is is still going that way. But visitation, meaning from people who don't live in the neighborhood. Right? Okay, okay, thank you. Another idea in the memo about this says ideally, the city should increase the permit fee for additional permits purchased after 4 per household. How is that household definition working for things like co-ops or multiple unrelated roommates like, I can see how that would work for a nuclear family. But we're not. We're not basing our household definition on blood relationships anymore or marital. So

[102:03] how does it? How does it work for a bunch of unrelated people living together in a household right? I think that was one of the things that we were considering, but not necessarily like a strong recommendation of. We're going to implement this. I think it. That was like. The extreme version is that we could escalate rates, and that's something that a lot of other cities do, because, you know more cars in a household is more pressure on the street. And so that house represents sort of like a bigger. you know, pressure on that limited curbside space than other houses that might not be taking up as many on street spaces. But one of the reasons why it might not work in this context is because we have a lot of houses where you have multiple people unrelated, living together like students. And so there was some equity concerns. And so I'm not sure it would work in our context. But there are other levers that we have which could be, you know, if. for example, limiting permits to one per per license driver. So it's not people who have multiple cars. It's we're not punishing people who are co-living together.

[103:10] Great. Thank you. Again, on this idea of equity for for students in particular. On this one you talked about long term versus short term residents, and determining, like people who lived here more than 4 years could have a lower cost for permits specifically as a way to dissuade students from bringing cars. Can you talk more about the logic of that is that is that also something that you just kind of. It's something that you see. But you're not really considering it for boulder. Yeah, exactly right. It was when we did our pure city review. There are other cities, including Denver, that take that approach. That's not an approach we're currently considering for boulder. But I wanted to lay out all of the different findings from other cities, so that, you know we could understand holistically what what's on the table, what what levers we do have available to us.

[104:04] But I'm not sure that that's 1 we're strongly considering at this time. In fact, I would say. we're definitely not okay. And then my last is similarly, it talked about in the example from Denver that addresses located within a residential parking permit zone, and in a large multi-unit dwelling might be ineligible for those parking permits. If the number of units is significantly greater than the immediate on-street parking supply, and that that does seem to disfavor people who live in multifamily buildings. Is that also something that you just put in there for completeness? Or is are we considering that for boulder. Yeah, no. I mean, I think when I laid out the options, I had a matrix of like highest impact and lowest impact. And what the staff is recommending is that medium impact. That is another example of like that high impact option that we don't think is necessarily a good idea for boulder. Specifically, I also have equity concerns about something like that. I think there are other mechanisms that we can use to make sure that we're not

[105:08] selling more permits than we have available parking for something like a city like Fort Collins, for example, they have, you know, a set number of permits that they'll sell for an entire zone, and that zone might include some multifamily residential and some single family residential. And it's sort of like a 1st come 1st serve, which which is also a little bit tricky. So there's definitely a lot to think through. And it's a complicated subject. And we're we're we're trying to navigate it as best we can. Thank you. So I think this will follow on from Laura's questions that she just had. And I was curious what kind of data. The currently city the city currently collects on Npp permits.

[106:01] So do we track available on street parking spaces by zone or by block face. Do we track resident versus visitor counts by zone. Do we track permits issued by household, by address, by any other measures like, what data do we have? And how is that going to be used to inform any proposed changes? That's a great question. We have a lot of data. Sometimes it feels overwhelming how much data we have. We do collect regular occupancy, counts at different times of day at different times of year, and different days of the week, as well to understand, kind of like, what are the trends that we're seeing throughout the season for these different zones? So we do have a lot of data collection in terms of. You know how the how these different neighborhood zones are being utilized throughout the year. We don't have very good data on who is specifically utilizing it, just because you know, how do you tell? If someone's a resident or a visitor, it's a really, it's it's a hard thing to be able to discern. So there's some ways in which we can kind of like make some assumptions, but really that that one is quite tricky, because we're not actually like

[107:10] running their plates to the Dmv. And checking like, who is a registered, and that might not give us information. But we do have, like all kinds of permits, sold permits sold per households. How many households are in each Npp. And all of that is going to be factored into the analysis. We're actually in right in the middle of doing as well as you know, understanding all of like the costs and the revenues coming in for the program. So you'll see a lot more of that in our in our final yeah, the part I was most curious about was actually who the permits are being issued to not necessarily usage. But since you have some proposals about limiting numbers per household or limiting to licensed drivers, if there is that data set already existing where you can see like, Hey, the average household has 2.3 parking permits just the same as they have kids, or whatever like, are those numbers out there? Yeah, they are out there, and they are being factored into the analysis. And we're also going to be asking a lot of these questions to residents as well in our outreach and engagement, because just because people buy or don't buy permits does not mean that they have or don't have these vehicles. And so I think we also need to just ask them.

[108:20] You know what their usage is and understand. You know. How how do they have people visiting them like? What? What is their perception of of what's happening as well. Okay, thanks. Well, I'll ask my specific questions. I have a question 1st of all about the park and walk is that one that's 1 that you are considering or aren't considering. We are considering. Okay, great it seems like, based on my experience. Just, you know, going past the neighborhood schools that there aren't that many people

[109:09] like parking right by the school. It tends to be either parents stopping and sitting in their cars, which I think is not necessarily considered parking. I don't know if their cars are still running, or just being in a big pickup drop off line. So I'm I'm just. I'm trying to understand the goals there, and and how you see that meeting them. I think we we can use it as a lever to try and combat some of the issues that we see with people like idling and sitting in line, and the congestion around those schools. It's also a program that Bvsd already has in markets. And so we are trying to find some synergy there to alleviate a problem. I think we've also heard concerns from

[110:09] parents that the rules around in the Npps around schools are not flexible enough for their needs, so they feel like they wouldn't be able to park and walk, because right now the regulations and Npps is you can park once per day in the Npp. And and people have to pick up and drop off their kids. So that's twice. So if we can maybe change the regulations to give a little bit more flexibility, can we solve for some of these challenges that the schools are facing. Can I just add to that how many Bvsd schools are in current Npps? Not very many. Okay, I know of at least 3, 4, 5.

[111:01] There's I'll have to get back to you on that. Okay. So the idea would be that people can park further away and then walk their kids. And and has that been to the extent that Bvsd has been using it? Has it been successful? I can't speak for Bvsd. We are planning. We are attempting to connect with them on on this. That's some of the outreach engagement that we're doing as well. But okay, thank you. And the other question is about regulating mixed use area participation. This is one we are considering. It's something that we we are considering and and specifically just thinking about, how do we? How do we find that balance? And how do we address the different needs between a mixed use neighborhood, and maybe a single family residential neighborhood. You know, they have different needs and different uses. So how can we make sure that we're adapting for both cases.

[112:18] I'm trying to understand, though. And maybe maybe this gets to my more fundamental question, which is really. what are we trying? What is the basic goal of the Npp programs. I mean, the basic goal is to, I mean, we have sort of like a tragedy of the Commons, right? There's more people that want to have access to this limited curbside space than we have space for. And so how do we manage those competing demands and make sure that we have an equitable approach where we're not just saying, Okay, residents only. or we're favoring, you know,

[113:03] people who are coming in to do commerce at local businesses only. And so but I'm I'm still missing how, whether a particular building is all residential, or even all commercial or mixed use, how that factors into what you just said. How if if people want to use the parking because they're going to the salon. how is that different from people wanting to use the parking because they're commuting in, or because they're a resident. because that use will look different for all of those different people. So someone who is a resident. You know. They need a place to park their car overnight. That's a longer period of time, or someone who's in commuting. They're going to be parking, you know, during the hours of the day someone who's coming in to visit a salon. They need a space for just maybe 2 h, 1 h. And so it's, you know. How do we plan for all of those different uses and make sure that there's space available for all those different users.

[114:14] knowing that there's a limit on. It's a finite resource of how much space that we have. I'm not. Hopefully, I'm doing an okay job here. Chris, feel free to jump in. If you have any other thoughts. you know, I would just add that there is a component of just kind of neighborhood livability wherever you have a commercial area that has a managed district. Oftentimes people just want to go a couple blocks over to avoid paying for parking in the managed district where we're using, parking, pricing to manage demand. And then we have issues with residents who are unable to park anywhere near their homes. And that is a factor that led to some of our Mpp programs just trying to control that spillover. And so if you can manage the parking in an area around a managed district

[115:08] provide some parking for some residents, but also provide parking with commuter permits for those people who are working, and then in some cases providing short term paid parking for people. So it's a way to make sure that a variety of different users demand is is met in that area, and that our our desire to manage parking in a commercial area isn't just easily. you know, thwarted by driving a couple blocks over. So. But I'm still missing something, because it seems like. What you're saying is, you're arguing that there should be able to be an Npp there. But what I'm reading in the memo is that for mixed use. we would be limiting the use of Npp. So yeah, I was more trying to the origin of Mpps in Boulder. That's right. That's how the Npp program began in Boulder was really managing around, managed parking districts and stopping the overflow.

[116:14] So I was speaking of the origin, not of future intent of the program. And I think we're not. I think there's some confusion, because in the memo I laid out like these different levels of impact that we could have. And so one option is, yeah, we could say, if you're in a mixed use area, you don't qualify for an Npp, that's not necessarily what the direction that we're trying to go. We're just pointing out that these, you know. they require sort of some different attention and some different tools than maybe your single family residential neighborhood. Okay, okay, that makes a lot more sense great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other burning questions. Otherwise I would suggest that we pop the key issues up. It's 8 o'clock.

[117:05] I would imagine we're at least going to go for another half an hour as people discuss their points of view, so we can either go forward or take a break. It's kind of up to the even the minority, if anyone needs to take a break. But you want to take a break, or you just want to power through. Break. Yeah, let's take. Let's take a 5 min break. and we'll be back at 8 0, 5.

[125:00] We're gonna put the key issues up. What do you? Maybe you can. Just who's ever kind of running this show? What are you looking for for feedback from us would be helpful to sort of make sure that we're concise and clear and getting you what you need. Yeah, I feel like we've heard a lot of feedback kind of through the questions. So we've got a lot of good input there, as you can tell from our answers. We haven't drafted a word of this ordinance, but we've thought a lot about all of these topics, and so the more that you can guide or direct like this is what you would like to see in the ordinance for Tdm. For on street, for off street really concrete, because we are moving into the engagement phase. And so, and we are on a quick timeline, and so kind of taking the scope that we currently have the topics that we've already talked about narrowing that to like these are my main priorities, for each topic would be helpful. Great

[126:00] with that, said, I think we'll take all 3 of these questions, each one of us, and just kind of go down the the line. Or if someone wants to start first, st they're welcome to so, and maybe we just try to organize our thoughts to to what you were saying. Mark wants to start, Marcus, to start. So 1st I'm I'm I'm really excited by the fact that we're going through this exercise tonight and that you haven't drafted the ordinance because it's like, now's the time. And so I realize that. And I don't want you to construe some of my comments as harsh. I just want to really direct that it's like, Hey, this is the time we've been working on parking Tdm. Holistically for year and a half now. And so, anyway, I don't want there to be like oh, I should have said, you know, that when the ordinance is baked and we're we're voting on it.

[127:08] So I think, for me. Well, my comments are directed towards the key questions. They are a little more, a little more general. and the 1st one is that from a philosophical or an underpinning, or a foundation to the planet to the ordnance is something I've said before, and that is we should price parking everywhere consciously. And that doesn't mean that we don't have free parking in a lot of places. It just means that we've decided consciously to have free parking in some places, and we charge X and others and Y and others, and depending upon the circumstance. But we, price parking that is, as a as a tool, as a city. We say this is whether it is

[128:04] whether it's in the public right of way, or in a downtown garage, or in an Npp. We price it, and sometimes we give it away, and sometimes we don't, but we consciously price it. So that to me that that needs to be an underpinning in this whole thing, because I think when you go out to do your survey the assumption with the broader public. And this is true in my family. This is true with my friends. Is that parking is free, and it's it's this abnormal is free, it's a it's a right, and it should be plentiful and abundant, and it shouldn't cost me anything. and I think we have to start making changes to that assumption. And you know, and people eventually come around to it sometimes. But it's like, Oh, okay, yeah, I guess it is city property, and I can't put a 10 by 20 foot wardrobe out in front of my house and say, I want to store my ski gear in there.

[129:14] but I can store my car there for free. So anyway, I just want us to consciously. Price parking I also the another underpinning element should be that as we in the business of land use and development and and code implementation require applicants and developers to practice sump principles to charge for parking, to unbundle it, separate it, etc. That we shoot ourselves in the foot when we require that of of a development, and feet away.

[130:02] We have free on-street parking it. Just it just doesn't work. And I see. Cu, I think we should. You know, it's funny we've gone all over to these different cities, and I commend that at the same time. See, you knows how to charge for parking. and on their properties they charge for parking. It's just that's their default mode as constant as a consequence, though, because We have neighborhoods near high rise, dense buildings, and and see you charges for parking. The fact that we don't have an Npp. Or a method for charging for parking means that the residents in those neighborhoods are inundated with students trying to avoid paying for parking. That Cu is charging an actual market rate for so so we need to practice

[131:03] what we preach in terms of charging for parking, and it would make it would make compliance with our development code so much easier for developers that. And I'm not that I'm trying to make it easy for them, but you know we again we tell someone to charge for parking, and then the neighbors get all upset because they know that it's free on street parking half a block away. And so as a tenant, it's like, Okay, this is great. I don't have to pay for parking. I'm just going to park on the street, and so we need to practice that in regard to the Npp. I think the Npp. Can be expanded as a way to charge for parking in lots of places. It also, and Chris and IA long time ago, before in the before Times, we were on the transportation funding working group that Chris led.

[132:03] And One of the things I became aware of is the inequities in and how we treat different peoples as they come into town, and they and they need to park from farther away, or whatever. And so I would urge us to evaluate a mechanism, to charge more to charge for Npp. Parking permits as an in-commuter, as a resident, or whatever based on the value of the vehicle from your vehicle registration rather than just on the just at a flat rate. Because if I'm living at 14th and Pine, you know Big House and I want to park on my street, and I drive a Bmw. X. 5. But I'm competing for that parking space with

[133:03] the young person driving in from Lafayette to wash dishes at a restaurant downtown for his job. Then. You know, we're charging we in theory we're charging the same for that for that Npp permit, and I would encourage us to evaluate mechanisms, to make that more progressive, like a progressive tax schedule than these flat rates. And so finally, in regard to the Tdm. Part of this I was really frustrated by the Fox Tuttle recommendation and Claudia kind of addressed this in regard to the bike code that it is. They've they've kind of it feels like a an ill-timed punt, and they haven't sat in this room and heard us after site, review after site, review, concept, review after concept review, struggling with developers that

[134:09] want to. They say, you know, 114 bike spaces are required. And we did 115, and they're alternating vertical hanging in a very narrow space we selected, you know, if you can figure out what they've selected. But they they cram in anyway, the bike parking. as is written in the code is, does not address many of the issues that make e-bikes a real tool to reduce single vehicle traffic movements, etc. And so I was really disappointed. That Fox total didn't, didn't really address a lot of the qualitative aspects rather than the quantitative aspects. Finally, I'm a

[135:01] super strong supporter of the Park and walk program. And I think that you know, if Bvsd and the city get together and make it a cultural thing like, Hey, you know, this encourages safety. It encourages save art. Save save the bees, save the environment with kids that then suddenly, kids are telling their parents. You know, Mom. you're supposed to let me out over here. I can walk on my own, etc. Or park here, walk me from there. I, anyway? I think that I live near a couple schools and the morning afternoon crush of parents. It's really kind of awful, and it is an incredible amount of idling. And anyway, I used this technique with my daughter when she went to Boulder High, and you know, it's like who would drive her part way to school. It's like, Okay, I'm turning around here. I am not crossing Arapaho. So yep, okay, got it. That concludes my remarks.

[136:12] I'm looking forward to this for efficiency's sake, I will say I'm very supportive of the work that Staff has been doing. It's very clear that you've done your research. You've looked at other communities. You've looked at best practices. You've thought about what might be practical, what things would cost, very impressed and very supportive of what you've put in front of us. So I'll have just a few comments. Number One. I would like to see continued calculation of parking minimums for site review as information for planning board, even if we don't have parking minimums anymore. And I am supportive of eliminating the parking minimums. Number 2. I do have some equity concerns about eliminating the tier 0 and the affordable housing from the Tdm. Requirements. I completely understand the practicality that it's more work on staff to administer it, and the actual benefit that you get in terms of trip reduction might be quite small. I'm more concerned. And maybe there's a creative solution here. I'm more concerned about those residents having access to the benefits of Tdm programs like

[137:25] really good bicycle parking and Eco passes and scooter share and parking cash outs, and that kind of thing. So is there a way that we can get those benefits for those residents without having to do all of the trip generation and monitoring, and that kind of thing. So I'll leave that comment there. I'm especially concerned with the affordable housing component of it, the 100% affordable housing. I totally agree with reducing burdens on those developers, but really want to see those residents get the benefits. Number 3. The relationship of the Tdm plans to the Site Review process. We talked about how we're not quite sure how that's going to work in practice. I will say I will have 0 interest in planning board being involved in crafting these Tdm plans if it is functional and working, and it's doing the intended purpose the same way that our building code does right like, we don't have to review people's compliance with building code because it just works right and hopefully, we can get Tdm to that same place where we don't have to be involved because we know that it's working.

[138:25] And lastly, with regard to the neighborhood parking program, I do agree with with Mark that let's think really hard about limiting where it could be applied, because I do think that charging for parking especially can have benefits. Aside from just making sure that residents have a place to park near their home. But maybe that's not the right tool. I mean, it sounds like there. We do have paid parking programs that are not the Npp. So maybe the Mpp is not the right tool for that. But I agree with the concern that Mark raised. and I do have concerns about charges. What we talked about like charges escalating per household. I like better the idea of limiting it to one permit. Per registered driver.

[139:07] You said you're not considering pricing up for short term residents. Yay, let's hopefully hang on to that. And then I also am would be very concerned about limiting the number of permits available for large multifamily developments. I don't want to disprivilege people just because they live in an apartment building rather than a single family home. Those are my comments and thanks again for all of your work. And, Sam, I didn't thank you for your slides that you prepared that Lisa did a great job of presenting, but I know it was work on your part. So thank you. I'm going to be. I'm going to cut out maybe half of my comments, because I agree with Mark and Laura. especially on the on the Mpp. Expansion, and the charging for for parking, moving more towards some principles the and I'll also just keep this to

[140:01] non-flourishing statements. So I think the bike parking just tacking on to what Mark was getting to it could mirror. Kind of that ev table that we saw where there's like a specific mix that's required for the charging or the horizontal storage. Or what have you you could have some table like that. The only other thing I really want to add is when we're talking about the Tdm program. I imagine we're going to get a follow up discussion where we talk about those that present value costs that Kurt you were bringing up. From my point of view. If Tdms are being required, it's because it's a non buy. Right? Use? Essentially, those non buy right uses last into perpetuity. So I would like to consider the Tdm. Being into perpetuity as well. I'm not saying that's what I'll agree to, or whatever. But seeing that that

[141:04] what those costs are compared, just knowing what that is would be helpful when exactly the when you're doing perpetuities, interest rates really matter, and what you use. So I would suggest looking at what those guaranteed funds have been earning over time and just using that as a base rate. But you know you do, you? And that's all I really got to add, of course. Sure I will take these in order for number one. I agree with not imposing maximum parking requirements, although there are some benefits, bicycle parking. I agree with comments that we need to address the long term bike parking, and make sure that it is usable for various kinds of bikes. The shared parking we talked about. I'm supportive of encouragement, of shared parking, the ev charging. I mentioned that I would love to see some kind of mechanism, for on Street

[142:07] ev charging as opposed to Off Street in terms of the Tdm. I think some of my ideas came through on this. I was. I do think that the thresholds for multi-unit residential should be based on floor area and not a number of units. I think that that was clear. and yeah, as Mason said, getting some kind of metric of the current, the net present value of these guarantees, just so that we understand real implication of this in terms of the the Npp. Yeah, I I agree with what all of my colleagues have already said, which is that really, in my view, the long term goal should be a parking, pricing, an equitable, parking, pricing mechanism. So in my ideal world, we would not be so currently, if you go out and you don't pay for parking. It's subsidized parking, right? We are subsidizing people driving. We are subsidizing people

[143:17] parking there because there are real costs. There are capital costs. There's the the value of the land. Land is very expensive in boulder, and there's maintenance costs. And so currently we are subsidizing people for driving and parking, and I would like to see pricing to make up for that wherever it makes sense. As Mark says, there may be places where you know the enforcement cost is greater than the revenues that would be generated. And so that doesn't make sense. But in general, if you're you know parking on street or or any in any public place in the city, including like park lots. or at at rec centers. I think all of that public parking, it would be equitable for it to be priced, especially if there were an exemption for people who live in affordable housing, who get snap benefits, who are on Medicaid, or you know some, there can be some exemptions like that. So

[144:23] in my ideal world we would be moving to that and not expanding. So then, once I got that, I finally realized, oh, yeah, not expanding. Npps makes sense. If we're also moving in that direction. So that would be my idea. Don't keep the Mpp's program, you know, with some tweaks without expanding it too much, but move towards a regime of pricing, parking in public parking wherever we can across the city boulder.

[145:01] I think that's it. Thank you. Great! I'm out. Thank you. And Gosh! Thanks for the conversation. I think that this amps project really highlights the complexity of the role we've given automobiles in our in our cities. I totally empathize with Staff, and actually the beautiful job that you've done in organizing not only the questions, but the information, so that it speaks to as broad a concern as possible as precisely as possible. So I I commend that you know my main concern. I mentioned before. When we change the land use from auto storage. Once we removed the parking requirements. That could be a pretty significant amount of land, and I would definitely encourage us to be proactive

[146:06] on encouraging how that existing parking areas will transition to new uses. I think that that there is an opportunity there to impact some of our goals in affordability and environmental concerns. and it would behoove us, I think, to be proactive. I know we talked about maybe it belongs in the Boulder Valley comp plan process. But let's not lose the fact that by changing the parking requirements we are, in fact, freeing up. A significant amount of land in the city. Other than that. Yeah, I think that this has been an excellent conversation, and I thank Staff, and I thank my fellow Board members. Great thanks. Ml. Claudia, do you have?

[147:05] Thanks. I'll make a few comments on each of these regarding the 1st question. The only aspect I want to comment on is the bike parking, and I'll be a little bit repetitive here, because it was important to me that we bring this up. I think the recommendation to just study further bike parking is a little disappointing. I would like to see some improvements and some tools for us in any ordinance that comes through. And part of this is because bike parking, as we've discussed in a lot of reviews here, is increasingly programmed into fairly confined spaces of our developments for a lot of different purposes. But this is an aspect of new development that's very difficult to change after the fact. And, as Mark has said, we see developers really proposing minimum space necessary to meet our city requirements primarily via vertical storage. And so every time we're not able to address this, we're locking in suboptimal solutions. So I do hope we get some tools to address the quality of bike parking in any ordinance

[148:10] regarding Tdm, you've asked for input on using financial guarantees. I think that's a great approach. I think it's more than justified by the potential cost savings from reducing parking. I think it's worth pursuing over the longest time frame possible in our development approvals. But I do also hope that any proposed Tdm ordinance will also include some components that outlive these kind of inherently time, limited financial and programmatic commitments. So I was really glad to see a list of some of those physical infrastructure components on that. Tdm menu. I hope some of those, or you know, some combination of those actually make their way into the requirements you asked for input on the three-tier system. I think in theory that is a sound way to evaluate

[149:02] where we should be requiring Tdm. Where we can let it go. I think the devil is in how you choose those thresholds. At any rate, the the number of projects that we're seeing in each tier, I think, is not a good criteria for setting those tiers. I think it can be a red flag if we're not seeing projects in any of those tiers, as is the case, I think, is the case when we're using those Denver numbers as a draft. But it might be more in line with our project goals to use something like trip generation estimates as you go about refining those tiers. and then on street parking management. following that philosophy of pricing, parking everywhere that my colleagues have articulated. And I agree with the Npp program. I think, is pretty wildly underpriced and under regulated relative to the cost of providing and maintaining that public right of way for parking.

[150:01] and if that kind of underpricing continues, as we simultaneously remove off street parking minimums, I think members of the public are quite right to be upset about that. So, as Kurt articulated, doing successful and equitable parking reform requires action from both property owners and the city. So in that context. I think almost all of the neighborhood permit limits that you've studied in comparison. Cities. Almost all of them could be implemented in some form here in boulder, doing something like one permit per licensed driver some sort of limits on permits per household limits on visitor permits the only strategy in that listing that really gave me pause was requiring local vehicle registration and licensing, so leveraging that against students. I'm glad to hear that that's not being seriously considered. I also support that idea of shifting from time limited to paid parking for non-residents in those Npps.

[151:06] I agree with the analysis that provides more flexibility for drivers. It allows the city to do more nuanced management of demand. and it creates some parity again, that everyone is paying something for parking rather than just residents who want that ability to park long term with a permit. And honestly, it also feels that that kind of pricing of of parking outside of the permit system would address some of that rationale that you've shared for the school walk proposal. I'm kind of ambivalent about that school walk zone proposal, as you've explained it so far. being mildly acquainted with school zone, traffic patterns and parent psychology, I'm honestly not sure whether it would lead to any meaningful change in travel behavior. But anyway, as you do explore that, I think you know, school partnerships are always good when we're talking about transportation, we have a ton of work to do on safe school, commute citywide. But if there are higher impact investments, as we talk about managing on street parking that we should probably stay focused on those

[152:16] cool. I'll try to go against what the the questions are and specific things that I want to hit on maximum parking requirements. I'm fine. Leaving that out bicycle parking. I see no reason why we can't add charging into this. I just it just doesn't make any sense to me. Charging is pretty basic for bikes shared parking. Yes, electric vehicle charging. I disagree. I think this needs to be thought through in tandem with this, because I think that a straight up ratio in a, in a. in a situation where we're not, we're not having parking minimums is going to lead to diminished parking. And that's also going to lead to diminished Ev charging. And I think we should be going the other direction. So I think we need to be looking at it from the standpoint of

[153:10] the the number of potential occupants, or whatever, and then based on that, how many parking spaces are being provided and some minimums around. If there are parking spaces being provided, some minimums around Ev, based on some kind of occupancy levels, we'll leave you that to figure out or to think through. But that's a thought on that as it relates to eliminating parking requirements. I'm not entirely on board with it. However, knowing that it's happening. I think the key is to understand, and it was pointed out a few times in the presentations to understand the value that's being created for landowners. and to the point where they don't need to provide as much parking, restructured parking, and even surface parking is extremely expensive. We should not be afraid, as a city to capture a portion of that value, to fund our goals. And so from that standpoint, I want to sort of reinforce what you were saying on the dials and make sure we dial it up high enough

[154:18] that we can really support the goals that we're trying to achieve with Tdm through financial guarantees from developers. I see no reason not to do that, and whether we run a net present value or however we, we look at it economically, I believe strongly in what was presented, that we will see that there's these programs can be funded for decades through the elimination of some parking on those sites. as far as the thresholds. Just again the nature of my question, you know. I I to to Claudia's point, too. I think that needs to be focused on trip generation.

[155:06] because because we're seeing. And my question around light industrial was, we're seeing light industrial looks office awfully like office. And we're seeing some other uses, and so just trying to base it on use, and not actually what trips and how employees, how people are actually using the facility, I think is important. I'm not sure. I you know, I think Sump is really interesting on a commercial standpoint. I'm not sure it works, because if you're an employee of a company, and they're providing parking, even if they charge for parking. They're just going to rebate it back some other way to the employee, and that's reality. So I think it's a great aspirational thing for my colleagues. But again, I don't know how that practically works when you understand that that employer is also paying that employee, and they're paying for parking. That's going to get netted out in one way or another. That's just reality. but but I'm not opposed to trying to chase it down. I just don't know how that would work in reality.

[156:06] does planning boards. Yes, on street parking. I disagree with my colleagues. It's not that there are significant costs to on street parking. but we have to remember that that this, you know, a lot of this was paid for and is paid for through taxes and through other things, and we need to respect residents, ability to have a decent quality of life, and I believe that's a component. And so I think the Npp that's being presented in what Staff is recommending is generally alignment with where I would want to see things. you know, taking my own examples of family members, etc. You know, it's important that my father has a place to park, you know a block or less from his house. He has a garage, but it's below grade, and it's challenging. And so, and just to increase parking costs on people

[157:10] for on street parking. I don't believe in that, either, because, unless that was to be looked at simultaneously with all the other cost burdens that our residents or commuters are facing, because these things can't be looked at in a vacuum. And we've seen our property taxes get raised by 30 or 40% over the decade, if not more. And and I think that's important that we take a holistic view of what the financials of residences really are, and the fact that these things are paid for one way or the other, and there is a cost to them. But if we're going to overlay more costs on one side, then some cost needs to come out of the network, and it just can't be a. It can't be just an add-on without accommodating somewhere else. So those are my thoughts on that. Anybody else have any final thoughts.

[158:06] Did you guys get what you needed from us? Yes, this is very helpful. I did have one small one that I forgot to mention. I would like to see more consideration to the impacts of something like fast charging at commercial. due to potential impacts on the grid. Maybe that's all solved by how much is charged for that. And then people use it less or whatever. But I'm a little bit concerned with subsidizing. Yeah, that instead of moving us more towards a car, light lifestyle. Great if there are no further direction or comments from Staff, and you got what you needed from us. We'll close this matters item out. and looks like Brad wants to chat with us. Are we on to matters. Yeah, absolutely. Before they leave. I want to just thank our colleagues again, in community vitality and transportation transit

[159:06] for being just such close partners on this, and you know we happen to be the project. Sponsor quote unquote, but it really is, I think, is demonstrated equal. And I also wanted to make another point really to the board in this regard. I would never say like that. The low hanging fruit, regulatorily has happened in the last 10 years. That probably happened 50 years ago, and I think, as a community, we've been working with the mid level and high level hanging fruit in in a sense. But I have to observe that some of these topics, wildfire landscaping amps. couple of them, I'm sure I'm forgetting, really represent a very high level of commitment by the city manager and council, and you all to, and a challenge and a commitment from us to

[160:01] think very much across departments and about systems holistically. And I I hope, even while excellent work is being brought forward to you like this, that you do kind of acknowledge and recognize the inherent challenges in doing that. I've been doing this for a while, and certainly topics like this have come up, and in other jurisdictions I've worked, and we've been able to move it along. But I would say not always this successfully or this comprehensively and holistically. and I think that's going to represent the future as well. I think the City Manager office recognizes that we're building capacity. We're building organizational structures. We're building relationships that really allow us to do that. And and I would just ask for your grace and understanding, as we kind of build into that, but also just the recognition that we really are taking very seriously this effort of taking the big

[161:01] kind of chunky problems on and and behind all of this is a whole bunch of administrative, organizational job description. I mean, there's a whole bunch of stuff that's happening to make sure that we can enable and sustain these kind of cross departmental efforts. And I'll just say one last thing about that which was before I started in Boulder I had a perception that departments and functions were not siloed. and when I got here I found that was very much the case. I was very excited that the organization, compared to many organizations, is not siloed, and I think the fact that there's even more emphasis on making sure that doesn't work. And we don't get in the way of our disciplines or our organizational structure, or things like that is is really exciting so big. Thank you. in a long-winded way to our colleagues and to the whole team for their work, and thank you for supporting us and guiding us and inspiring us, and challenging us along the way as we do that

[162:11] that was probably a longer speech than anybody wanted at this time of night. The last thing I'll mention is, it sounds like we have landed on our retreat date on August 20 second. and hopefully everybody can make it, and has marked their calendars and is excited, for that's April 20. Second, right? Yes, it's April 20 second, which also starts with a did I say, August? I'm sure I did. Okay, so with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are you asking for questions about the retreat or just matters? Just matters in general. Yeah, we're still on the early side on the retreat. I'd say, Okay. you and I had our

[163:03] during an agenda meeting, or maybe it was Charles I had written an email. And was that, were you going to address that tonight, or another time, or well, so hell! And I talked about it a little bit this week, and we're trying to decide whether or not that was a better retreat topic. or whether or not Market's more helpful for the attorney's office to call you, or if it's an out, loud conversation you want to have with the board? Oh, I'll say this is certainly an out loud conversation with the Board, that not for my years only, or anything like that. And that as a group, we have a lot of great and weighty retreat topic suggestions already. So, and I think this this is something that in the in the public hearing room I would be fine with that again. I'm not speaking for anyone else. But well, if the attorney's office is comfortable with that, then we could just schedule a date to

[164:11] run through those questions. Okay, thank you. We haven't forgotten, though. Okay, yeah. I just unfortunately, I didn't say this before these guys left. They were very eager to get out understandably. But I just want to second what you said. You know, I started getting involved in city activities. I don't know 25 years ago, or something right, and I did see the departments as being very siloed. I was shocked how the transportation didn't talk to planning and planning didn't talk to community vitality and stuff like that. And it is definitely changed. And so I just want to really appreciate and acknowledge that, and and including what you have done to help make that

[165:07] to help bring bring these department this cross departmental coordination and and collaboration together. So I really, I just appreciate it. I think it's been. It's made the organization so much more effective. So thank you. Oh, go ahead, Laura. But just curious. What is the process for determining the topics for the retreat. We've had some nominations or suggestions. And where do we go from here? Charles and I are going to talk about that tomorrow. Okay, stay tuned. Thank you. Dun dun dung matters, items, calendar check. So when's our next meeting? And what do we have on tap

[166:01] next week? And you'll be talking about. It's an affordable housing. I forgot the actual like 0 homestead or something. It's the nexus study. Oh, okay, I thought we had a so Hhs will be presenting Sloan. Walbert will be making her triumphant return to planning board. We don't have a site review or something like 0 homestead. Did that get moved? No, that is on the 18.th Okay, thank you. I was noticing. The next couple of meetings on the calendar are listed as virtual. Is that correct? Probably not? That is not correct. Okay, good to know. I'll change those. That's an old calendar format. Thank you. That's stuck over, I guess. Thank you. So no upcoming virtual meetings. Everything is in person moving forward, hybrid as as usual. Thank you. Great anybody else. We'll adjourn the meeting. Thanks. Everyone.