May 20, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] The May 20, th 2025, city of Boulder planning board meeting. We have all planning board members present, with the exception of George Boone, who will be absent tonight. So we're all here in the room. our 1st order of business is public participation, and we have Amanda with us tonight to both help us manage the meeting and to provide us the rules for public participation. I don't see anyone in the room, Amanda. Is there anyone online. And if there's no one online, then you may not have to go through the rules and we can move on. But there we go. Let me see here. Sorry. Just one second.

[1:02] My share screen is. let's see, we do have some folks joining us online. So I'll go ahead and go through our rules of decorum. Okay, great, thank you. There we go, all right. Thank you. Folks, for joining us this evening. Sorry. My screen looks a little different than what's in person. The city has engaged with community members to Co. Create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes. Please visit our website.

[2:03] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this 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. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. we're in the Zoom Webinar format. So for those of you joining us online, when, if you'd like to speak, you will use the raise hand function, just hover, hover your mouse over that raise hand, icon, at the bottom of your screen. I don't see anybody on the phone. So I'll skip that

[3:00] you can also do this by clicking on the reactions button in the bottom of the screen. Each participant will have 3 min, and there'll be a timer displayed. and I will call your name when you're when once you raise your hand, and that's it. Thank you. Okay, so no public participation. Anyway, we could have. I should have asked. But anyway, that's that's fine. We'll carry on. Thank you for helping us with that Amanda. Okay, the next order of business is approval of minutes, and we have 3 sets of minutes that need to be approved individually. There has been some discussion and some email information from Laura Kaplan here about this. And so

[4:02] I'm going to begin by formally asking for a motion to approve the February 4th meeting minutes, and then, after we get a second, we can discuss the approval of each of minutes. Kurt, I move to approve the February 4, th 2025 meeting minutes. you know I want. I'm sorry I'm gonna back up just a second. So Laura sent an edited set of minutes and so and they didn't go back to the process and come back from the city. But I believe that that's Hela, are we? With the process that happened which Laura made some suggested edits. But they didn't go back and forth from the city.

[5:05] is it? Or which which set of minutes are we being asked to approve? Because the packet, the minutes in the packet are different than the minutes, as edited by Laura. So I think maybe we're not ready to approve the minutes as edited by Laura. because Stephanie hasn't had time to work on that. Okay, then I'm going to have a little discretion here and say, Laura, would you want to address both your edits specifically, and the more generally what you are hoping to see in future minutes that may prompt a round of discussion, and then we may, in fact, delay approval of the minutes because of this. Thank you, Mark. Well, I think the fact that we are not able to approve the minutes as edited, I would ask that we not consider the unedited minutes, because I think that they're

[6:08] not complete from my perspective, and I'll say that first, st I really appreciate the hard work that went into the minutes. I think that they did a really good job of capturing, especially for the quasi judicial reviews that we did, the motions, the amendments, the votes that were taken. I appreciate all the hard work that went into that. The thing that I focused on in editing was that in the discussion part. you know, I think staff are really trying to condense and summarize and make it easy for people to digest our minutes, and I do appreciate where they're coming from on that for a quasi judicial item which appeared in all 3 sets of minutes they all had quasi-judicial items. I feel pretty strongly that when we, as a board, discuss a code citation that that should be reflected in our minutes, especially if that is the record of our quasi judicial decision. Anybody who is wondering, you know, what? What did we talk about? What were the concerns that may have influenced, how people voted

[7:03] should be able to look at our minutes and not have to dig through packets of information to find those code citations. So when I edited the minutes I focused on the code citations that I brought forward, but because I'm the only one who did that. It looks like I'm the only one who made code citations, which is far from true right, like all the other board members, also made code citations. So what I asked for was to delay the approval of these minutes, and then going forward when we have a quasi-judicial discussion that the minutes reflect the code citations that we bring up, in addition to summarizing the substantive concerns that those are paired. With. What code section does that respond to? Because we are doing a criteria based review and people should be able to find what code section we're referring to. So that's why I asked for a delay of approving the minutes. So, Kurt, yeah, go ahead. Thanks. I just wanted to add that, Laura, you also brought up the suggestion of adding Timestamps in the the minutes, which I think would be incredibly helpful for people wanting to use the minutes to go back and look at the relevant discussion in that area. And so I just want to highlight that also and say, I think that that would be incredibly helpful just for for use as the of the minutes as a public record, a useful public record in the future.

[8:26] Ml, no, no, no, I'm sorry. I thank you. I'm here. I would like to agree 100% with what Laura has brought up. I think that the the recent projects that we've looked at, especially as they come into maybe what appeared to be a gray area of what governs what I think it's important that we not only as board members, know the regulations, the criteria, but that we are able to cite it, and thus reference it when we're making our points. So I excuse me absolutely concur with you. Laura and I agree with the way Hella put it, that we're not ready to vote on approving these minutes.

[9:21] So we still. So I'm going to suggest that someone, Laura, maybe you, Kurt, if anyone make a motion to postpone approval of all 3 sets of minutes. I will also point out that Brad came up. Oh, thank you. I wasn't looking up there, Brad, do you want to weigh in on this. Yeah, good evening. Planning board members and apologies for being remote, but appreciate the accommodation. Just want to support the idea of deferring it. We would want to bring to you

[10:01] some logistical. Well, we'd want to look into some of the logistical and legal implications of of what's being proposed, and with with that coming in the last day or 2, of course we've not been able to do that, but appreciate the time to to be able to do that with maybe delaying, delaying the approval. If I could just make one more comment. I'll also say, Amanda brought to our attention during the agenda setting meeting that the city is working on a process to try to standardize meeting minutes across boards, and is moving towards very high, level summary notes, and I made the comments that I hope that staff, you know Amanda or other staff, will bring to that process that a quasi judicial decision, if that is the record of a quasi judicial decision is our meeting minutes that that may need to look a little different than other kinds of meeting minutes. Because I and I do feel really strongly about this code citation point, but I recognize that it would take more work on Staff's Point on Staff's part to make sure that they are citing the code correctly, even if we don't cite it correctly in the in the meeting, or somehow note that one thing that I think that we can do as board members to make it easier on whoever is compiling the minutes is, if we are

[11:13] working from notes where we have written down what code sections we are citing, that we send that to Staff after the meeting, so that they don't have to try to match up our verbal comments with. you know. 9, 2, 14 h. 2 big, a little Roman numeral, 3, right like. It's sometimes hard to figure everything out from the verbal comments. So I think that we can do some work in sharing our notes with Staff, for when they are compiling the minutes. but of course they would want to go by the record of what is actually said, not what we wrote down, just just as a reference to help locate things with that said, I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we delay approval of the February 4, th 2025, February 18, th 2025, and March 18, th 2025 meeting minutes until Brad or other staff. Do you have a date that you'd like us to delay till

[12:09] or just delay them for? Now? Yeah, I think we could just delay them until reconsideration until reconsideration until Staff brings them back for reconsideration. I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I think we've had plenty of discussion, but I want to make sure if anyone has any other discussion now is the time to do it. Otherwise we'll go down the line. I'm going to start with Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. okay. Now we can move on from minutes to discussion of call ups and continuations. We have the 1st item for a a call up item, a site review, amendment and use review to allow the existing structure at 1836 19th Street to be used as a single family detached dwelling unit in the Rh. 2 zoning district, and to amend the existing Pud.

[13:13] B. 83, 64. To maintain the existing rear deck. These applications are subject to potential. Call up on or before. May 20, second, 2025. Do people have questions, issues, or desire to call this up? Kurt? I just have a question and feeling. I may have asked this before, and I apologize if that's the case. But there's an existing Pud. And then we're considering a site review, or there is a site review in amendment in process. In this case, how do those? Often those are mutually exclusive processes? Right? So I'm just trying to understand how those work together, because there can be some conflicting aspects, can there not?

[14:06] Are you asking of a subdivision process and a pud amendment process? No, no. pu. An existing Pud. And then site review on top of the Pud. So the amendment process. Okay, yeah. If there's a conflict between the existing Pud and what's proposed in the Site Review amendment. Is that what? You're getting it? Well. no, I'm not saying that there is such a a conflict. I'm I'm trying to understand how the 2 go together because I could imagine that there could be conflicts. Maybe maybe this is not something that I need to. Well, no, I can. I can talk about that a little bit. So pud puds were a previous approval type under the code, and our code states that if you want to make changes to that approval. You go through the site review process. So the code sets forth how these previous types of approvals can get amended.

[15:06] Okay, so this is the process for amending a pud. Okay, I apologize for that. That's a good question, Laura. So I I do have a lot of questions about this one, actually. And I am likely interested in calling it up. So I guess my question is, are any other Board members? Do you know that you're interested in calling it up, in which case we can maybe skip the questions. But if it would be useful to do the questions tonight, I can go through some questions now. or wait. If we know we're going to call it up. Yeah. Ml, I have some significant questions as well. They might be able to get answered tonight, or it might be more of a let's just get all the information together and review it properly here. so I could go either way. Try to get my questions answered or not? Can I ask one more process question, which is, how many board members does it take to call it up? Because I know we were talking about changing it to 2. But did we adopt that? Or we did? Okay, takes 2. Okay, thank you. And so I'll just say that

[16:14] It sounds like there's interest in this. And so. But I want everyone to not mistake discussing a call up item, to be a the call up itself right? So questions are appropriate right now, especially if they help you decide whether to call it up or not. Not. not in detail about the call up what you may think about it, but to help you decide whether to call it up. So. Who wants to go 1st with questions? Ml. I'll just ask one relevant question in that regard. So I understand that the deck was not part of the original pud. It was illegally added after

[17:04] So my question is, is the Pud amendment coming on board because they are seeking to change? These setbacks that were given by the Pud Shannon, do you want to speak to that. Yeah. Hi, good evening board. I'm Shannon Moller, the planner on the project. Yeah. Part of the Pud amendment is to formalize the setbacks that apply to this deck that exists there today in a lot of our older puds that we have on file decks just simply weren't addressed or shown, even though we know that that a deck was was installed at some point possibly close to when or at the time that it was constructed. We just don't have great records on that. So in that case we have to either go back and amend the pud, or figure out some way to

[18:06] formalize things for decks. In this situation. So if if that deck were within the Pud setbacks, would they need a site review. Yes, yes, if there's if there's a deck that's built and it's it's not consistent with what would be allowed under the typical zoning standards. That's when we identify that. You know, amendment to the typical setbacks is needed to to allow that deck to stay there. So my question is, if it met those typical setbacks that were articulated in the Pud. would they still need a site review? I understand? That they're doing a use review because it's going from a group home to an individual home. But will they? If the deck was not out of compliance. Would they need a site review.

[19:02] No, they would not need a Site Review amendment if if there was no deck, or if the deck met this typical setbacks for this zone. Okay, that's my question. Thank you, Laura. Do you have questions? I have a lot of questions, but I'll try to keep it to the ones that may inform the desire or not desire to call it up. So I I'm curious about this conversion of a group home into a single family unit. Is a group home considered to be a multi-unit development. No, it's its own use category in the use chart. So it's just a separate type of use. It's not considered like a dwelling unit. It's sort of its own use. So it is neither a single family home nor a multi-unit dwelling. It's its own thing. Yeah, that's right. It's helpful. And

[20:01] it so group home like, what is the use that is allowed now? Is it only a group home? Or are other things allowed. There, now. The because the group home ceased to operate, the use that was allowed there would have expired. So the only uses that are allowed by right in this zone district would be those that are attached. Dwelling units. higher density, residential uses, things that are allowed by rights. So the use review is needed because the code was updated fairly recently in 2019 to try to discourage conversions of multi-unit properties into single family dwellings. So it is essentially a multi-unit dwelling right now. That's the only thing that's allowed. There. No, it's not a multi-unit dwelling. It's it's basically a structure. That was. It was previously allowed to be the group home

[21:02] that since expired. So there really is no current use that's approved there right now. Is anybody living there right now. I'd have to ask the applicant to speak to that if if we wanted them to. If if. Well, regardless of whether somebody is living there right now. If the owner wanted to live there as a single family home, could they do that? Would there be. That's why they're in the use review process. Technically, it's not a legal use until you go through the use review process. Okay. But it would be like a nonconforming use or like, would anybody kick them out if they just lived there like, what's triggering? The user view? Is it because they want to update the property. Yes, the applicant came in for a building permit to do some updates to the property, and that's why it entered into this process. Once it was identified that both the Site Review Amendment to do maintenance to the existing deck was going to be needed, as well as the Use Review, because the proposed use is just a single family home use.

[22:10] Okay. I am curious whether anybody is living there. Now, let's just we don't have to ask that question. But if somebody were living there now, would anything prevent them from continuing to live there if we did not approve this use? Review. I don't know if if legal staff wants to wait on that. My general understanding is that if if there's a if there's a complaint based. you know, like a complaints brought up, then the city would be go through enforcement actions on that. So right now the property owner is in the process of going through this review to try to, you know, bring everything up to to the correct legal status. Okay, I do have a couple of other questions. Thank you. So if we approve this use review for the single family use.

[23:03] could the property owner. My assumption is, it would be legal for them to demolish the existing structure and come back with a a different build, whether by right or site. Review. No, the use review is only really applicable to to what's shown on these plans and the Site Review. So if they were to come back in and and redo my understanding is that they would need a new review for that new structure. Let me know if that's incorrect. Anyone else that wants to speak to that. But would they need a new use review, or they would just need a new site Review if they wanted to convert this into a very large home. Once it is the Use Review is approved as a single family home. Could they expand it, make it bigger, put another floor on top of it. Knock down the building. That's there. My understanding is. No, I don't know if Hella wants to speak to that. After the Use Review is reviewed is approved. I guess we'd have to look at the amendment criteria if you make changes to the approved use on whether or not that would require additional review, and I suspect it would. It probably would. Yeah, but it wouldn't be a change to the use. It would just be a change to the structure, right? We've already approved it as a single family home. Why couldn't they expand it once it's approved as a single family use.

[24:23] Yeah. Based on the review criteria we have in the code, and and some of it just looking at it. I didn't work on this particular approval, but it talks about pedestrian interest and so forth. There could be changes to that. But generally, if there's physical changes to the property, there's a review involved with that. if a use review was approved. Yeah, we. We have our typical conditions of approval on this. That we apply to most all of our use reviews that speak to the applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use unless they go back through this process.

[25:02] Well, that's the approved use. I'm not talking about the approved use. I'm talking about expanding or modifying the approved building right? It would still be a single family, home. Yeah, typically for a use review, we would take the conditions that it's in things like the square footage of the building. That sort of thing. And so, if there was a proposal to, you know, double the square footage of the building and rebuild it, or something of that nature that would that we would consider that an expansion of the use. Okay, interesting. I didn't anticipate that. That's good to know. Well, and we'd still have to re amend the pud. So there would be a process associated with that as well. So that could be either an administrative procedure or we'd have to amend the Pud in a similar process. Okay, thank you. And then the last couple questions I have relate to the analysis that was done about the Use Review criteria, and in particular, looking at whether.

[26:03] whether detached dwellings are the predominant dwelling unit type. This is found on page 40 of the document. and I was curious about you. Talk about detached condos. What is a detached condo. I don't think I've ever seen that term before. Yeah, for this analysis. I tried to look at all of the structures that were kind of in this block radius of this area in an attempt to kind of provide some numbers to quantify what's going on in this area. So I looked at our what we have there. We have detached dwelling units that are on their own lot, and we also have a number of properties where it's a detached dwelling unit, and it's on a shared lot, and they've been condominiumized so that each person can have their own ownership of the home. So that's getting into the weeds a little bit. But that's all to say that there was 49% of the structures were a detached home of either on its own lot or condominiumized, just trying to go through kind of the numbers and the character of what's around there.

[27:15] So a a development that is condos that are. These are all like little cottage units, or they're all their own little detached dwelling unit. Is that what you're saying. There's a mix of properties in this area. So there's detached dwelling units on their own lot. And there's also detached dwelling units that they're on a shared lot, and they've been condominiumized. So they just show up in our system slightly differently. Yeah, I'm trying to understand what detached dwelling units on a shared lot look like. Is that like a cottage court, or is that like townhouses, but they have a foot of separation between them, or I don't know that I. We have a lot of historic homes where it was built as multiple homes on a lot like a house behind a house or configurations like that, and over time folks chose to condominiumize those out so that they could have their own separate ownership of each of those historic homes that were built like 2 homes on a lot.

[28:18] Okay, that's helpful. And is that characterized as a multi-unit dwelling or a multi-unit project, or as single family homes. Those meet our definition of a single family home. Each home is its own detached structure. Okay? All right. So I guess I'm still not entirely convinced that 49% means that the predominant dwelling type is detached dwelling units like that's less than 51% which would be attached dwelling units. So I'm not entirely convinced that it it meets the code. We're talking about basically creating a single family home lot in the middle of Rh. 2.

[29:02] There's no single family zoning anywhere, even touching this Rh. 2 zone, let alone in the middle of it, and so it feels like going backwards to me. I'm not sure why we're wanting to approve a single family home in the middle of a high density area where we're expecting buildings to be updated and turnover over time like a lot of the dwelling units around this structure are quite. They look a bit older, and like they're going to turn over sometime in the near future. So I am interested in calling this up. I don't know if anybody else is okay. I was just going to say so, based on Laura's questions that have analyzed this in depth. Does this? I want to emphasize that. Does this a peak, your curiosity, and want to call this up as a second person. And while a lot of this is interesting, I do question whether or not

[30:07] questions speak to whether or not we would approve or deny this based on the Site Review criteria for the zone. So I'm just caution about that I just want to clarify. I was focusing on the Use Review to approve this as a single family home in the middle of Rh. 2. Does anyone want to follow along with Laura's desire to call this up? I will. I'll call this up as well. Okay, so great. We have 2, and it's called up. Okay, we can move on. The second one is a item 4 B call up item, minor subdivision review to subdivide one existing lot

[31:00] to subdivide one existing lot into 2 new lots on the 14,392 square foot property at 8 55 Union Avenue. This approval is subject to call up on or before. May 2120, 25 questions, comments, concerns, or desire to call it up. Sure. So I have a question on. If the original lot remains as it is. Could they put middle housing on? There is that one of the options? I believe they could do it. Excuse me, I believe they could do an adu. not a duplex or a no, not in this particular zone. If I'm not mistaken. Okay. that that was my question. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay. Seeing no desire to call this up or additional questions, we're moving on to

[32:04] 5, our public hearing. Item, Item 5, 8 is a public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding the following proposed ordinances, one. Ordinance, 8,700, amending. Section 2 dash, 2, dash, 15. Neighborhood permit parking zones and chapter 4, dash neighborhood parking zone permits to update standards for on-street parking and 2 ordinance, 86, 96, amending, amending and title Ix. Land use Code, Brc. 1981. To modify off-street parking requirements and amending chapter 2. The City of Boulder Design and construction standards. Ecs originally adopted. Pursuant ordinance. 59, 86 update standards.

[33:03] bicycle. Mr. Chair, can you turn your mic on? It was off. It wasn't. It was not the longest agenda title of all times. Okay, well, I hope the the room mics caught that, or do you want me to reread it? Yeah. bigger. All right. Here we go. Item 5. A public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding the following proposed ordinances, one. Ordinance, 8,700, amending section 2, 2, 15. Neighborhood permit parking zones and chapter 4, 23. Neighborhood parking zone permits to update standards for on-street parking management and 2 ordinance 86, 96, amending and title Ix. Land use Code, Brc. 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements and amending chapter 2 of the City of boulder design and construction standards. Dcs originally adopted. Pursuant to ordinance 59, 86 to update standards for bicycle parking.

[34:17] Okay, that's our public hearing. And and here's how it's going to go. Staff's going to give their presentation. We are going to ask them questions, and then we will have a public hearing. and we will deliberate. But I want to make a distinction between there's 3 areas tonight that we're discussing. And I just want to make sure. And I was confused by this as I went through the packet. So I made a couple calls today and got some great help. And that is so because the Tdm portion of the holistic view of parking bike parking on street, off street parking. And Tdm.

[35:02] are, we're holistically being reviewed. What we have tonight is 2 parts of that with a 3rd part being presented. but not with an associated ordinance that we are recommending council, adopt, not adopt or make amendments to. So the Tdm portion of the presentation and the packet are, we are able to ask questions, provide general feedback or specific feedback, but it's distinct from us recommending to council that they adopt the 2 ordinances as proposed, or with modification. And so I would like us as a board and staff to to emphasize the items, the 2 items, the 2 ordinances that are critical for us to provide our input about tonight and not to de-emphasize. Tdm, I love tdm, but I would like us to be more focused and more specific about the 2 ordinance items. So.

[36:18] having said that Staff is ready for their presentation. thank you, chair for that great intro. Good evening. Planning board members. My name is Lisa Hood. I'm a principal planner with planning and development services tonight. I'm joined by Chris Hagelin from transportation, mobility, and Sam Bromberg from community vitality, and we are excited to be here presenting 2 of the 3 ordinances. The purpose of you reviewing this tonight is to make a recommendation to city Council on ordinances 8,786, 96. You've seen this many times, and the chair already alluded to this. But we have been reviewing all 3 of these topics holistically from on-street parking off street parking and transportation demand management, or Tdm. They have 3 separate ordinances.

[37:08] So you're looking at 8,786, 96 tonight the ordinance for Tdm is still being worked on, but is forthcoming in the next couple of months you'll have your chance to see the official ordinance, but Chris is here, and will provide a lot of detail on the kind of fundamental features of that ordinance. You've seen a lot of this background slides before, because we've come to you several times, but for folks that might be online who haven't seen it. I'm still going to go through it and just remind us kind of of the framing of this project amps goes back to 2014. So we are 11 years into this project phase. One focused on bike parking requirements and simplifying some of the standards for certain uses. Phase 2. Council did not actually adopt the the changes. They requested additional data collection. We did the data collection in 2019, starting with phase 3. Then we were paused for Covid for several years.

[38:07] We started back up in 2023, and our target completion for the parking side of things is the end of June. And then Tdm. Ordinance following shortly after the project, scope and applicability really comes back to an Amps report that was adopted by city Council in 2017. So there were so many implementation items in that report that are already complete. There are 2 that are not complete Update the off street parking standards, the vehicle parking standards and update the Tdm plan for new development or ordinance for new developments. So that's really that was the initial scope of this project was to complete those last 2 items. Last year a new aspect was brought into the project, which was the House Bill that was passed related to minimum parking requirements. When that came into the fold we wanted to make sure that we were incorporating on street parking management strategies. So we were really having a holistic view of parking regulation across the entire city.

[39:03] And that's how Sam got brought into to be the 3rd part of our trifecta reminder on applicability. This will apply to new development and redevelopment. It does not retroactively require compliance with the new standards, so any new application that would come in after the effective date would have to comply with the new rules, just like almost every other quote, land, use ordinance that you see. We committed to evaluating entire section 996. That's our off Street Park or our parking standard section of the Land use code during the project. But the bicycle parking scope was limited to just the design standards. As I said phase one was focused of the project back 11 years ago, was focused on bike parking requirements and then based on transportation Advisory Board, the Planning Board and City Council's topics of interest in the multiple times that we've come and talked with you all we focused on design standards. And so that's what you'll see in the ordinance

[40:01] before you tonight. Just highlighting that we have this. The reason these slides might look very familiar to you is that you've seen them several times, as well as city Council and Transportation Advisory Board. We have received a lot of great direction from you all on the crafting of the ordinance. So thank you for the consistent feedback throughout the last year or so, as we've tweaked the scope and confirmed and finalized the scope of a What is a very complicated 3 part project. I also wanted to highlight the more general community engagement. This project's been focused at mostly a consult level of engagement, but because of the State Bill, which I'll explain on a later slide. There are some parts of it that are just an informed level. We've had multiple notifications in our planning and development services. Newsletter throughout the last year or so as well as developed a be heard boulder page, and a city web page, which houses all of the information about these 3 topics. We've had several stakeholder meetings over the last, probably 6 months or more, with community cycles and bike boulder and kind of bike advocates in the community

[41:10] as well as general public engagement. We had 6 community consultations over the last few months. Starting, we had an event back in September, where we actually grouped some of the housing land use code amendments as well as parking, talked with residents of affordable housing communities. And then in March is when we had a really big push of public engagement, where we went to the Chamber, we had a meeting with the neighborhood and community leaders, our community connectors and residents. We had this meeting where we developed a boulderopoly, monopoly style. Game related to Tdm. And Parking. where we got great feedback from affordable housing folks that live in affordable housing communities and other represented groups, and then a meeting with frequent applicants and technical experts as well. We actually were at Transportation Advisory Board with pretty much the exact same memo, exact same presentation just last week. They did recommend approval they wanted, they included in their motion, considering comments from the tab members at the meeting, and then some separate written comments, as well as public comments from community cycles which were similar to the ones that you would have received.

[42:21] They also wanted to make sure to express their support for a future work plan. Item, where we can really focus on bike parking and the utilization a utilization study. All right. So the presentation, as you know, is split into 3 different topics. I will start with off street parking standards, then pass it off to Sam again. I'm going to go through some of the background that might be basic to you. But just to give some context. the 1st parking requirements off street parking requirements in Boulder were in our 1954 zoning code. This is a fundamental shift to eliminate minimum off street parking requirements. It's something that's been a part of almost every community zoning code. Since World War 2. They have had a significant influence on urban form and development, as well as the mobility options of people that live in communities around the country.

[43:10] It's usually based on a number of spaces per square foot or a ratio. There's some examples of how that works in boulder. We also have parking reductions which you're all familiar with. And we did study during this project about the last 15 years of site review projects. So major development projects have included a parking reduction. Parking reform, as you all are familiar, is a hot topic in zoning lately. So since 2017, when Buffalo, New York was the 1st major city to eliminate off-street parking requirements. Citywide. Nearly 80 cities in the United States have eliminated their minimum off-street parking requirements, including our neighbor Longmont States are also taking notes. So 22 States have introduced legislation related to parking reform, and 10 have passed it. including Colorado. So last year, Colorado State Legislature passed House Bill 2413, 0, 4. And what that bill does is prohibits jurisdictions like boulder from enacting or enforcing minimum parking requirements for properties that are at least partially located within the transit service area. It doesn't apply to every type of land use. It only applies to multifamily residential development or mixed use things like that.

[44:25] When we did the analysis of our transit service area, we estimate that 77% of the city's parcels are in the Transit Service area. You'll remember that this was a big part of the discussion in some of your earliest meetings about this project, and whether to apply, go further than what the State Bill requires, and apply it. Citywide compliance is required by June 30, th so that is part of the impetus between the kind of split between ordinances that we're reviewing tonight. And you all know the rationale that the State has used to support eliminating minimum parking requirements locally.

[45:05] You might remember that in those earlier phases Council was asking for data collection about parking supply and utilization. So over the last 10 years we have done a lot of parking supply and utilization counts at many different times of day, different times, different types of uses, and the conclusion has continuously come back to the fact that in along every single type of land use we have more parking than is being utilized. It differs based on the particular land use, and there might be particular sites that are worse than others, but on average, the parking occupancy is much lower than the parking supply that's been provided by our off street parking requirements over the last 75 years. One thing that was interesting in the last round to highlight is, we actually looked at some projects that had significant parking reductions approved. And what we found is that even those sites that have large parking reductions that had been approved were not fully utilizing the parking that was provided.

[46:03] So that's the background. It's a 51 page ordinance, I think so. It's a long ordinance. So these are the high level summary of the changes that you'll see. The 1st is eliminating minimum off street parking requirements citywide for all land uses. I do want to underscore. This is a big step. This is a very significant zoning change in the last 70 years of zoning. It's been a part of most zoning codes for all of that time. So it's a big step to eliminate the minimum off street parking requirements because it applies citywide. And for all land uses there were the reason the ordinance is so long is because parking is intricately intertwined into almost every section of the land use code. And so there are a lot of accompanying code updates that you would have seen that were just references to required parking or our parking reduction processes or procedural things that just once you got rid of the minimum off street parking requirements. There were just a lot of other parts of the code that need to be cleaned up.

[47:01] Then the other changes. I wanted to. Highlight are related to things that we've talked about at previous meetings, and we've received direction from you all and from Tab and City Council. We wanted to make sure to be able to support shared parking. So the parking that does exist, we want to be efficiently utilized by multiple uses. So we have a differentiation in the definition to make sure that shared accessory parking is different than a principal parking facility, like just a parking garage. We've talked about ev charging before. There's a minor change that we've included in the ordinance that updates our energy conservation code, which previously had some language about required parking. And so it's just been updated to talk about provided parking. Finally, bicycle parking standards. I have another slide on this, but we've talked again about those parking design standards. The feedback we got from planning board, tab and City Council over those many meetings was to look at the design standards and see how we could improve both the bike security and also the Usability, especially for cargo bikes and e-bikes, which have become more prominent since the major update in phase one in 2014,

[48:11] going into a little more detail on bike parking standards. Just so you know exactly what the changes are so related to the larger bikes, the cargo bikes that we've talked about before, where there's a requirement for more than 20 spaces or 20 spaces or more. There. The ordinance includes a 5% requirement that those be spaced or sized for those larger bikes related to vertical and tiered racks. Something else. We've talked about. The ordinance limits, the number of those higher racks to a maximum of 50% of the required spaces, and they have to have a mechanically assisted lifting mechanism. So to explain these photos. The one on the left is a bad example. This is a apartment building in Denver, where all of their parking is vertical, and there are no lifting mechanisms to help people get their bikes up there. The one on the right is what we would call tiered racks, which is a little less common in boulder, but just

[49:08] also limiting that requirement, or the the maximum to 50% for those related to E-bike charging for long-term parking. Where there's more than 100 spaces required. We've added in a requirement that 5% of those be able to be charged. We've talked before about safety issues with that that is covered by the fire code to ensure that the those spaces where there might be charging would be safe. And then we've talked a lot with stakeholders about increasing an emphasis on security for bikes. And so you'll see a lot of new language integrated into the bike parking standards related to tamper resistant anchors, heavy duty locks just adding more transparency, surveillance and illumination, and just generally trying to incorporate crime prevention through environmental design or septed principles into our standards.

[50:00] Also we've incorporated some improved wayfinding requirements, like additional requirements for signs to help people find where the bike parking might be if it's not obvious. And another aspect related to wayfinding is, there's a new prohibition that doesn't allow designs to require the use of stairs to access a bike parking area. I'm going to pass it off to Sam, who will go through the on-street parking management site. Thanks, Lisa. Hi, everyone. I'm Sam Bromberg, Senior project manager with community vitality. Thanks for having me here tonight, I'll be talking about our on-street parking management strategies to better manage on-street parking as a city group. Excuse me just one second, Lisa. given the length of. Would you like us to hold questions on all 3 areas until the end? Is that preferable versus taking questions about 3 specific divisions in the subject.

[51:00] When we went to tab. We did it all the way through, but I think it's up to the chair's discretion. If you'd like to stop. We're about halfway through now. I would say, in the number of slides, keep going. Okay. Okay. Alright. To better manage on street parking as the city grows and transportation patterns, evolve boulders planning to update the neighborhood permit parking or Npp program. The goal is to expand Npp availability to all neighborhoods, not just low density areas and to introduce new tools through the residential access management program or ramp. These updates will help us more effectively address potential parking impacts from new and redevelopment projects in light of the potential elimination of parking minimums based on our research and what we heard from the community, we're proposing to reduce residential permit. Allocations from 2 to one per licensed driver. Engagement showed that most Npp households own about as many vehicles as they have licensed drivers so for many. This change will have little impact

[52:05] permit. Data also suggests that this shift could reduce the total number of permits issued by about 15%. This proposal supports one of the key goals of the project, which is encouraging better use of off street parking and reducing the number of vehicles stored long term on public streets for households without off street parking, who still need more permits. There's a backup option which is flex permits, and we'll get to that shortly to help manage demand in higher density areas. We're also recommending the city manager the authority to cap total residential permits in a zone when going through that public zone creation process to ensure that we're not able to issue more permits than there are available curbside spaces. We heard clearly from the community that the current guest and visitor permit system is confusing and perhaps not well utilized. A lot of folks said. It's hard to understand the difference between guest and visitor permits and what rules apply to each. The data backs that up most people only use. Guest permits a few times a year or not at all, and visitor permits even less

[53:07] to simplify things. We're proposing to replace both with 2 new streamlined options. One is day passes, and one is flex permits. The day passes for the day, passes households, and Npps would get 25 per year. Each. One is good for 24 h, and can be used one at a time or back to back across different days and vehicles based on feedback. 25 should cover most households, needs. The flex permits would be valid for an entire calendar year, and are meant for folks who have more intensive needs of the curbside space. So long term guests, extra household vehicles, or regular visitors like caretakers or service providers, they're going to be priced the same as a residential permit to reflect their higher value. The new setup is designed to be simpler, more flexible, and better align with actual usage, while also discouraging, discouraging misuse

[54:08] to stay ahead of parking issues that can come with big new developments or redevelopment projects. We're proposing new step, which is that whenever traffic assessment is required, based on Boulder's design and construction standards, we'll also do a city led parking study these studies would look at parking occupancy. How many trips the project is likely to generate, and how easy it is to get around by other modes, like walking, biking, or transit. That information would help us decide whether to create a new Npp zone, adjust an existing one or remove a zone if it's no longer needed to help with school access and ease. Congestion staff is recommending that the city manager be given the authority to create park and walk zones near schools. These in these zones people could park more than once per day as opposed to one longer, 2 h session, making it easier to handle both drop offs and pickups or school events.

[55:05] Rather than just being able to park once per day in the Zone. The change will give the city permission to implement this program. Once we have that permission, we can work with Bdsd staff to determine our approach to the implementation. We want to be smart about where we're implementing it and make sure that it's on block set makes sense for pedestrian access to the schools. Based on feedback from city Council staff is proposing a pilot program in the Goss Grove neighborhood. The pilot will switch from time limited parking to mobile pay, only paid parking for people without permits, and provide free ecopasses to all the residents there. Goss. Grove was chosen because it scores high on parking demand, transit, access, and housing density. This pilot will help us find out 2 things. One is, can paid parking revenue cover, the cost of giving residents free eco passes and 2. How does switching to paid parking change, parking, demand and behavior on the street.

[56:08] The paid parking will be managed through Park Mobile, and will track transit usage to see overall effects of the pilot. The goal is to reduce reliance on cars, improve parking management, and see if paid. Parking can support our transportation demand management efforts in the long run staff completed a financial analysis to make sure that the proposed changes can keep ramp financially sustainable in the long run. The analysis looked at removing, underperforming Npp. Zones, which was something that we had recommended in 2024 ramp report. limiting how many permits are issued, 2 to one per person. replacing guest and visitor permits with day passes and flex permits. and then the potential addition of paid parking and offering free eco passes to residents. This table on the slide

[57:00] shows the analysis for all these proposed changes except the pilot, which is the paid parking and the Eco passes that was included in the memo packet. The pilot itself is expected to maintain cost recovery. And if eco passes are offered in all Npp zones with revenue from paid parking, it would still be expected to achieve cost, recovery or maintain cost recovery if paid. Parking is not implemented, and we wanted to offer free eco passes to residents of Npp zones. We would need to double the cost of the permit fees to be able to maintain that cost recovery. I think that's all of my slides. Thank you, Sam Chris Hageland, principal project manager, with transportation mobility here to give you an update on the transportation Demand Management Plan requirements for new Development

[58:00] Staff, has been asked to design a Tdm ordinance that mitigates the impacts of new development on our transportation system, adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods to expand multimodal infrastructure and access and to contribute to meeting our citywide goals. The ordinance would apply to all projects, including by rights I review and form based code that meet the the size thresholds the approach uses a tiered approach with the smallest projects, Aka tier 0. Being exempt from the ordinance, medium sized projects or tier, one would have some requirements, while the largest projects tier 2 would have more requirements, including trip generation targets and a monitoring process to measure compliance. since most of the since most of the most effective Tdm programs in annual. let me start again. I had a little problem with my page. Since the most effective Tdm programs and services have annual costs that are ongoing. The approach uses a financial guarantee model to ensure that funding is available to implement these Tdm programs. So in this approach the developers or the property owners pay the annual financial guarantees

[59:21] which are held by the city and then dispersed to the employer tenants or residential property managers to implement the Tdm. Plans. As as explained in the memo, this leg of the Amps project will return to boards and council in the fall. I believe we have dates in August, and then a council date in September for this ordinance. So, as I mentioned, boards and council in previous trips, supported a tiered approach that would focus our efforts on the most impactful development projects, and also by to manage staffing needs and resources to manage a new compliance program

[60:01] following additional work staff recommends using a three-tiered approach. As I had mentioned, tier 0, the smallest projects being exempt tier one having some requirements and tier, 2 having more requirements. We are also looking at some other exemptions. Currently, Mu. 4, Rh. 6 and Rh. 7 have a Tdm. Ordinance attached to them. Those originally found in Boulder Junction, so we could exempt those. And then we're also working on how to deal with permanently affordable housing. Certainly providing some exemptions may reduce the financial burden. But we still want to expand these programs and have and have the residents of these permanently affordable housing developments have access to these important Tdm programs as well. So we're looking at how to balance affordable housing in that respect. In this tiered approach we've come up with a number of different scenarios. This is kind of our middle scenario of looking at what the different square footage or number of residential units would constitute each tier. This chart also shows that if we looked at the years between 2019 and 2024

[61:17] roughly, how many plans would fit into each tier to give you an idea of where they would fall on this type of scale. what the average plans per year would be, the percent of the plans that would are submitted which tier they would be in. But I think what's really interesting, even though we have this tiered approach where some properties would be exempt overall. This approach would cover the vast majority of square footage or residential units being proposed in the city for our metric of success. We're looking at vehicle trip generation vehicle trip. Generation studies can be done accurately. They do not rely on surveys. We also have access to our Institute of Traffic engineers, trip generation tables that we can work from or that are highly respected

[62:12] for the tier. 2 projects we would look at creating a standard methodology for setting those targets that would be based on zoning size and location, and we would want a 3rd party to conduct those trip generation studies and submit a report overall. We're looking at a general kind of default goal of around a 30 percent reduction from it rates, of course. This we could have some flexibility in this, for different types of land uses, such as retail or or specialty housing. So we're looking into that as well as I mentioned, the cornerstone of the ordinance is the use of financial guarantees. The city currently uses a financial guarantee model mostly for Eco passes and mostly of a limited duration, because

[63:00] the most effective Tdm programs have ongoing annual costs, we'd be looking at ongoing and annual financial guarantees for both tier one and tier 2 projects. Those funds again, would be held by the city and then dispersed to the tenants to fund Tdm programs that are approved at the Staff level. A secondary remedial financial guarantee would be needed for the tier 2 projects. These are the ones that have the vehicle trip generation targets. So let's say, we have a development that does not meet its target. Then you can use a portion of the remedial fund to augment the annual fund, thus increasing the overall amount and being able to amend the Tdm program and offer new incentives to either those employees or residents. The rates would be based on square footage, which is a proxy for the number of employees, since most of our Tdm. Annual costs are related to per employee, or the number of residential units

[64:01] we would be looking at requiring different Tdm elements depending on the context. Some of these may be Eco passes or transit incentives. Or let's say, if the ecopass would is not considered to be the most effective tool because of location. You may use a transportation wallet idea, but we're also looking at. When would we require different types of parking management? Whether this is the unbundling of parking on residential neighborhoods, or paid parking or parking cash out for commercial sites. But there are a number of different Tdm elements that could be required. So we're in the process of determining those requirements. Now, of course, the annual financial guarantees under this Tdm model ordinance would have an on new ongoing cost for our property owners. But at the same time our elimination or potential elimination of the minimum parking standard would mean that there would be significant cost savings.

[65:00] We have, through our engagement process, updated some of these numbers from the last time you saw them, where some of the underground parking people are saying they're coming in at more, closer to around $100,000 per spot. So you can imagine a development that builds 1020, 30, less parking spots. That is significant cost savings. Which, then is we're being asked to invest into these ongoing Tdm programs. Of course, parking also has annualized maintenance costs as well. But we see that with the elimination of the parking minimums, this could fund Tdm for years or even decades. just to kind of give you an understanding of what different projects would go through in terms of the the steps they would go through. So a tier one project its size and and land use would determine the tier and therefore the annual financial guarantee. The developer would submit an additional initial Tdm plan design. That plan would be approved at the staff level. Once tenants are actually in that

[66:09] development after construction, that Tdm plan could be adjusted based on that context, adding that flexibility to it, that Tdm plan would be implemented, and then there would be an annual report from that property owner, showing that the annual financial guarantees funds were spent, and the Tdm. Plan that was approved was actually implemented. We could look at some remedial actions, maybe adjusting those Tdm plans based on feedback from the property owner and the tenants, and then all of it would feed into kind of an ongoing evaluation process where we're continually looking at the Tdm process or annual financial guarantee rates to make adjustments over time. a tier, 2 project would have a slightly different path. We'd look at the size and tier to develop, determine the annual financial guarantee and that secondary remedial financial guarantee. Again, the next few steps are the same in terms of the initial Tdm plan the approval at the Staff level. Any adjustment, once we actually have tenants in the building

[67:13] that Tdm program would be implemented after a year. We do a vehicle trip generation study conducted by a 3rd party using a methodology created by staff that would produce an annual report, and we would know whether or not they were in compliance, whether they were meeting their trip, generation, target or not if they were meeting it. Great 3 years in a row. You're done with annual monitoring. If you're in compliance, if you're out of compliance, not meeting your target, there will be remedial actions, including the use of that remedial financial guarantee to increase that annual amount and be able to provide further Tdm programs and incentives to those tenants. And again, ongoing, monitoring. So just to kind of reiterate for the tier, 2 monitoring process. there'd be a trip generation target. There'd be the annual studies and reports if there. If a property is in compliance, 3 years in a row. That's great. The annual monitoring stops, and we could have them monitored every 5 years or

[68:11] case by case basis. But if they're out of compliance again, that portion of the remedial financial guarantee is used to augment the annual that a new Tdm plan is formed based on that new amount. money coming in. And then a New 3 year cycle would start. So in terms of next steps as you can imagine, this is very complex ordinance. It's a brand new ordinance that we're writing. So we? We are following our public engagement in March, and then further engagement in April. We're looking at some refinements looking at land use designation and those exemptions initially we had. We're looking at kind of general commercial office and industrial. We see the need to further split those into more land uses to be in the charts. We're still looking at the annual financial guarantee and remedial financial guarantee rates and what those would be developing different scenarios that will ask for your consideration in August.

[69:16] We're looking at the Tdm and parking management strategy requirements. What would be required, in what context, understanding the compliance, process and enforcement for those projects that may be out of compliance. Again, we'll return to boards and council in the fall with a draft ordinance for your consideration. If that ordinance is passed. Then we're going to shift a focus. We'll be looking at all the internal standard operating procedures that we have to create kind of within transportation, mobility planning and development services and our financial team which would be handling the financial guarantees, we would develop a property owner and developer toolkit so that they understand the ordinance and how to comply to the ordinance and the develop Tdm. Plans

[70:05] with the support of staff and organizations like Boulder Chamber transportation connections. Then we would have to create the external facing Tdm ordinance program pages to let folks in the general public know about what the ordinance is, and then we'd be expecting to implement this ordinance in 2026, and that is all I have. Thank you for your time. and I do have a couple just concluding. So in summary, these are the 3 topics and kind of the main issues that we talked about. But just to highlight, the key issues. This speaks to how chair the chair also talked about splitting up the conversation. But the key issues that we've laid out in your memo on page 2 is, first, st does planning board recommend any modifications to either ordinance, 86, 700, which is the on street parking management ordinance, or 86, 96, which is the off street parking standards. And then, second, does planning board want to provide any additional guidance regarding the Tdm ordinance that's still under development that will complement the other ordinances.

[71:08] We have a suggested motion, and that's also in your packet. So the motion would follow both of the 2 ordinances, and we're happy to take any questions. great as as it was with the other times. That was an excellent presentation. Thank you very much, and it's nice to see this evolve. So again good work. And now it's time for questions, and let's focus on questions, and then we'll do deliberations and comments and motions. But questions. Now is a excellent time. It's just a procedural question. I'm wondering if we should do if we want to do questions on all 3 pieces, and then advice and recommendations on all 3 pieces at the same time, or one by one. Do okay questions on the 1st ordinance and recommendations for the 1st ordinance, and then move on to the second

[72:04] and then move on to the last piece. It's it's easier for me to organize my thoughts. Let me ask the questions, and then let me give my advice on this piece. Close this piece out, move on to the next piece, but I'm willing to be overruled if other people prefer different. I'm I'm fine with starting in the way ordinance 8,700 in the way it was in the packet was 8,786, 96. And then Tdm, is that right? Yes, although it's a little confusing. Because I talked 1st and it was 86, 96. So right, okay, packet and your order are 2 different things. But anyway, I'm going to propose. We take Kurt, you, you look at. You're ready to speak. You have a proposal. Well, I was just going to suggest doing 86, 96. First, st okay? Because I think that that may be the bulk of the comments. Yeah, okay, then, let's do this. We're going to take 86, 96. Let's 1st

[73:05] focus on questions that might help us clarify our input or motions or modifications to motions. But let's focus on questions on 86, 96 first, st and then we'll debate 86, 96, and then move on from there. Is that agreeable? Okay? All right. Who's who's got some questions ready about? If I may interject for a moment. You also need to fit in a public hearing at some point. Oh. right? Okay, okay, before yeah. Public hearing. Thank you. That's a good reminder. Okay, we're we're going to. Okay. Let's go the way we normally do this is questions public hearing. And then we come back for debate. So we're going to do that.

[74:01] But that that actually, that means we need to do all 3, because we don't want to have 3 sessions of public hearing. Okay? All right. Okay, thank you. Amanda. Okay, yeah. You know, this stuff's complicated. Could we still do our questions in 3 rounds just to keep them organized? And to make sure that we're not necessarily repeating each other. Okay, let's start with questions. On 86, 96, move to questions, to 8,700. Move to questions about Tdm. have a public hearing. And then we'll go back around to input motion making, etc. Okay? All right, we want to keep it legal and efficient. All right. Okay, questions on 86, 96,

[75:00] Claudia, I have at least one that I'm ready to go with. How would the new rules in 8,696 affect parking where there is an existing approved pud or site review, so would properties developed under prior approvals have an opportunity to make changes to their parking supply, and if so, how? Yes, they would. There is a section of the ordinance that speaks to prior approvals, and essentially makes. it says, no other approval has any force or effect. It's on page 55 of your packet. So essentially, if you're modifying a pud, the Pud used to require a hundred spaces. If we have no minimum off-street parking requirement. they can determine how many parking spaces they would want on that, and be able to make those changes. Okay, so would they have to go through any sort of administrative review process to do that. No, okay, thank you.

[76:00] Unless it affected other features of the Pud. Okay? And then one more question. how do we currently calculate, or how are Ada parking requirements calculated? They are based on provided parking. So the number of Ada spaces is based on if you provide 10. So it's not related to required. So the Ada does not require parking outright. In any circumstances a building could have no parking, and that's fine, according to the Ada, correct. But if it has 4 spaces, or whatever number of spaces. They need to have the correct number of Ada. Okay, thank you. Kirk. sure, let me start with section 9, 6, 4, a. 1 b, which relates to the.

[77:02] It's a you put a change in there, but it relates to displaying merchandise in parking areas, and I'm just not clear if that refers to on-street parking or off street parking. Do do you need that citation again? 9, 6, 6 a. 1. b. Do you have a packet? Page, Kurt? Oh, so related to temporary events. That's yeah. Okay. Repeat your question. No, that's fine. it does it? It talks about. You can't. Basically, you can't put merchandise in a parking area. Is that an on-street parking area? Is that an off street parking area? It doesn't seem to clarify? Well, it's a it's a specific land use so, or use type so temporary event. So it would apply to private property, so it would not

[78:03] be relevant to public right of way. So you can't. If you have a parking lot you can't put under that. You can't put merchandise. You can't have a sale and put merchandise in your parking lot for the temporary events which are limited. They're typically Christmas tree sales. Things like that. It's not something I'm super familiar with. So I don't know, Charles. If you maybe know more about that on temp sales versus. let's say we're 9, 6, 6, right now. 9, yeah, 9, 6, 6 a 1 b was. And it just came to my attention because there were changes made in there. and it seemed especially since we're no longer requiring parking. In the 1st place, it seemed surprising that we said that you can't put merchandise in your parking lot.

[79:04] Okay? Well, oh, and this applies to industrial properties. Right? It's actually so. It's not. I'm seeing temporary event as 9, 6, 6 h. 1 h. And that's the prohibition from selling merchandise. That's not something. We were attempting to change. Yeah. 9, 6, 6, a. 1 b is about merchandise being stored in industrial uses. I don't have that in the ordinance. Is there a mix up between the red line, the few, the proposed future numbering, and the current. No, because I think this is this is right at the one of the 1st changes, so I don't think that there's a there's a change there. Yeah, it's what you said, Charles. Well. okay, I don't want to belabor this. It's not a big deal. But I will maybe. Then just hold that as a minor comment. Okay, thank you.

[80:10] Then let's see. In 9 9, 14 d. And yes, I should have gotten packet pages, and I failed to do that which was dumb. I'm sorry. We have these thresholds in terms of the lot area for the the the amount of parking as a proportion of the lot area, and where the higher landscaping standards go into effect. And I'm just wondering where the I think we have a 50% threshold and a 60% threshold, and where those just kind of rule of thumb, or

[81:00] is there any particular basis for those 50%, 60% that was based on professional recommendations of our urban designer and landscape architect on the staff? Okay, yeah. And do we have we seen properties that are or or projects that have parking over 50% over 60% of the thought area? I would have to defer to them. But this this was the number that they recommended. And it's not something that we typically see. As Chris mentioned, parking is very expensive, maybe decades. Old Parking might have done that. But in recent years we haven't seen a ton of that level of property being used for parking. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, that's helpful. And then I have one kind of major question.

[82:04] which is about the what seemed to me to be effectively parking requirements in the Dcs. For particular street typologies. So the Dcs. For shoot. I didn't write down what street typology it says, but has but A common parking court is must be provided at a ratio of 0 point 5 additional spaces per unit. For example, another one. This is in the residential street. 2 2.0 9 residential street area, 2 on-site parking spaces meeting all city requirements shall be provided on each city single family lot. These are in cases where there isn't on street parking.

[83:01] Did you look at that and decide that that didn't need to change because it, I mean, in effect. Those seem like they are parking requirements. Yeah, that's a great highlight. So the scope of the project had to remain fairly limited. And so, while there's 1 small change to the Dcs related to bike parking or bike lockers. It was not an overhaul of the design and construction standards, that is, there is a planned update in the next year or 2 on the design and construction standards. It's an engineering document, very different from the land use code. And so it's not something that we incorporated in the scope of this project to review the Dcs. And you're not concerned that these parking requirements will make us inconsistent with Hb. 2413, 0, 4. Defer to legal. Do you have the the section those are in? I can give you a specific section.

[84:02] So in the Dcs section 2.0 9 d. 3 F. For example. And maybe maybe you can ask the next question, and I'll try to find it and take a look at it sounds good. Sounds good. Might take me a little bit. Okay, those are all my questions, for now. Okay, we're going to come back to you on your question. There, Kurt. Other questions, Laura. Thank you. Chris and Lisa and Sam. So on this section. So right now, with Site Review. We do see the how much parking is provided, what type of parking is provided ev spaces. We also see the bicycle parking. Will we still see those things in Site review. Will that still be part of the process, even though we no longer have parking minimums? Yes, that's still an important part of the site design that you'd be reviewing. Okay, thank you.

[85:11] I know that you looked at a lot of peer cities, and it talks about how Buffalo, new York, was the 1st major city to remove parking requirements citywide. and it does say that 53% of new projects provided the same amount or more off street spaces than was previously required by code. That's a concern that I have is that currently our tools give us the ability to ask the applicant to provide less parking. There's an incentive to do that. Will we have any tools once this goes through, if this it passes to try to get less parking on site if we think the project is over parked. So that was something that we raised. Can't remember. If it was the previous meeting, or the one before. But we asked about maximum parking requirements, because many cities, especially the 1st few, like buffalo that eliminated minimum parking requirements, instituted a maximum parking requirement. However, in looking at the research, the maximum parking requirement didn't have much impact on the number of parking spaces that ultimately are provided. And ultimately it's the same approach to kind of picking a number that a maximum would be.

[86:23] and we would have the administrative, the we would just have to replace parking reductions with maximum parking reductions so administratively. We're kind of 0 sum to add maximum parking. So when we talked about that in the previous, when we've come back for direction and made that point. The direction we got was that we didn't need to have maximum parking requirements. There is the Site Review standard related to site, access, and access and and design, where planning board is able to make that finding on the criteria about, or criterion about whether the sites being over utilized for

[87:02] excessive paving and things like that. So we would have that. But it would not be a numerical quantitative. You have 101 spaces, and the maximum is 100. We we ultimately did not think that that was necessary in the ordinance. Okay, so there's there's not. If I'm understanding correctly. There's not much of a tool to request, less parking, or even to to have a yardstick to know if the project is over parked without maximum parking requirements. No, okay. So we wouldn't get any kind of calculation that says, previously this project would have had a parking minimum of X spaces, and they're requesting y spaces. We're not going to get that analysis anymore without minimum parking requirements. It wouldn't be part of the code. You could certainly consider it and do the math go back in old code versions. But it wouldn't be something you should base. I guess that you would base the decision on. Okay? So so in effect, it would make it discretionary. Again, in terms of is this project minimizing the amount of pavement that is necessary. Correct. It's a discretionary standard in site review. Okay? All right. Thank you.

[88:07] Another question. On page 90, you talk about some small projects can require a planning board approval simply because of a parking reduction request. Currently, I'm just curious how how many projects did you do any kind of analysis of how many projects have gone through Site Review simply, and only because of a parking reduction request. That's a great question. We have that data. But I don't have it at my fingertips right now. Okay, that's okay. It's mostly curiosity. I don't think it's going to impact my advice. this may be a repeat of Kurt. Your question. I'm sorry I wasn't listening as much as I should have, because I was focused on revising something, but on page 1, 52, it talks about expansive parking lots, and if a project is determined to have expansive parking lot, which is more than 50 or 60% of the total lot area, then they have extra landscaping requirements.

[89:01] How was that 50 or 60% determined? Yeah, so is that the same question, yeah, I'm sorry. That's okay. So it was the professional recommendation of our urban designer and landscape architect on staff. Okay. that that amount of payment should have more landscaping. Yeah, and that it was equivalent to kind of what the previous requirements had been, which was, I think, 110% or 120% of what the requirement was. Okay? All right. Thank you. Sorry for the repeat. There a quick question about the tiered racks in the bike parking requirement. You said that no more than 50% can be tiered or hanging racks. How are those tiered racks calculated? Are you calculating all of the spaces on both the top rack and the bottom rack for the tiered racks, or are you only counting the top? Each parking space would count as one. Okay, if it's a tiered rack, so the ones that are horizontal on the bottom would also count in that 50% of maximum tiered. And yeah, and that's kind of where the 50% comes from logically, like the ones

[90:02] above and below 50. Okay, so I'm just so like, if they have a tiered rack, you count every space in that tiered rack, and that counts within that 50% that can be tiered or hanging. Is that right? The the upper racks are limited. So if you had 20 spaces. You can only have 10 that are high. Gotcha makes sense. Gotcha. Okay? So for every tiered rack, you're only counting the upper tier as contributing to that 50% correct. Okay, all right. Thank you. That's useful to know. I'll stop there. Thank you. Hey, Mel? Thank you, folks. That was an enlightening presentation. I appreciated seeing the data and the facts. And you know how we're getting to where we're going. I have 4 questions on ordinance. 8, 6, 9, 6. 1st off is so if we have no parking requirements, citywide. But we have 2 zones that have maximum.

[91:06] Why do 2. What? Why are those 2 zones unique. Yeah. So actually, the research I was mentioning about maximum parking requirements, while the conclusion from that research was that citywide maximum parking requirements generally don't have the benefit to weigh the cost of them. Location, specific maximum parking requirements can be a useful tool. And so where we have instituted maximum parking requirements would be like Boulder Junction. where we are really trying to drive a specific mode, and so having those local location specific ones. So there would still be opportunity in the future to add location, specific maximum parking, and that those maximum parking requirements have been maintained in this ordinance. Okay, so we we do have that in our current

[92:00] or in in this proposed ordinance, and we could expand. It is what I'm hearing you say. What was the last thing you said it could be expanded to other areas if we need. Okay? So the second question I have here is the single family residential without a garage. So they need to provide 2 bike spaces. 75% long term and 25% short term. And all the specificities that go with that. it seems like a mighty lot of burden for single family residents. Did I understand the code to say that if they have without a garage correct? Yes, they would have to have 2 2 bike parking spaces per unit, and the long term one needs to have the cover, and it needs to have certain kinds of security and locks. And and this is somebody's house, right? It would have to meet the long term bike parking standards is that common? They have those big requirements on a single house.

[93:02] It's typical to have long term parking standards. Yes, and I didn't see other cities where it's differentiated by land use. Type. Okay? Next set of questions. Same ordinance. So if there's no parking requirement, if that becomes policy, oh, developments such as shopping malls, would they be able to reuse that land that is now parking? Yes, there it would open up a lot of flexibility for folks to renovate existing parking that might be underutilized for other uses. And it's basically free land, right for the people, because it had been used up as a code requirement. Does the city have any thoughts about development fees on newly available land like prior parking. We have not gotten into that or haven't talked about that.

[94:01] Wouldn't they be subject to. This is an interesting topic. I'm sorry to no go ahead. Okay, but let's say Baseline and Broadway, which is an underutilized part of parking lot. They wanted to add an additional pad. Okay, Starbucks wants to move over a little bit and fine. They're going to add an additional pad that Pad would go through the city process and incur all Standard City fees and everything. Building permits tap fees, all those sorts of things. Yes, yeah, okay. But you were asking about like something on top of that. Is that? Well, because it was land that wasn't really available, I think of it as free land. Right suddenly. They can do something with this land that was just sitting there, as Mark pointed out, in some cases not being used for its intended purpose. But that hasn't. That's not part of the conversation yet. We haven't. I think we did ask the question before, not we. I think. George asked this question before, just saying, Hey, there's, you know.

[95:09] something economic going on here that should be considered. Those are my questions. Thank you. Mason. Claudia Mason, go ahead again. Thank you for your presentation. These, these sets of codes, do they regulate how schools are built? We do have parking requirements for schools. Currently. So without having parking requirements. So schools are part of this. Okay, great. Just wanted to make sure. just just a point of clarification sure, because we we did review new vista and we if it's a bvsd school. they they can tell us to take a hike on our thoughts on parking and bike storage and everything.

[96:07] Okay? Cool. Yeah. But other non-bsd other non-bbsd, I see, I see that's a distinction. Well, Cu is also accepted. Of course. Yeah. Bvsd and Cu, everything is covered except for Cu and Bvsd, okay, cool, cool. And then I saw. And I hope I get this right. This is the long term bicycle parking. Section 9, 9, 6 c. 4 H. The language states a hundred spots. I was looking at Trigger, the the qualification, or the or the part of the code. I was looking at other cities that with similar regulations being proposed. and I saw things like 20 just things that are much smaller. Is there a reason why this number was 100. Yeah. So the city just recently adopted the 2024 fire code. And that's the the requirement that once you have 5 e-bike charging spaces. They have to have the specific safety requirements for the room or the room that the charging is in, and so it's an if you have 100, and the requirement is 5%, we'd have 5 charging spaces, and then the fire code would

[97:17] apply. So the number was chosen. And this this states that if there's a hundred bicycle parking spots, then at least 5% must have electrical. But that 100 was chosen because that 5% would trigger. That would be 5. Yeah. 5 parking spaces. So if it was less so, you could also do a different mathematical ratio. Yeah, okay. cool, that's all my questions. Did that make sense, Claudia? Sorry could I ask a follow up to that? If if a building was built with different construction standards for this fire code. Could you have more than 5 e-bikes charging in a long-term storage room? Yes, so it's just at 5 5, and above is when the fire code would apply. If you only had 4, then the fire code. So your your inclusion of the 5% or the number in here was to try to set some sort of number that did not trigger a higher construction standard.

[98:21] It was to ensure that the requirement was triggering the same requirements that would have fire because we've talked about the safety concerns. Do you have other questions on 86, 96. I do have 2 more quick questions. One also has to do with the bike parking numbers. And that is, how did you arrive at the 5% number for cargo type bike parking that was. that was by looking at some other cities that had either code requirements or a lot of cities, just have guidelines, for how many should be.

[99:05] you know, divvied up for cargo spaces or larger spaces, and so that seemed pretty in line with some of those pierces. Is any of that actually based on use patterns on market trends. So something that's been raised several times in conversations is that it would be useful to have a bike parking utilization study that was not part of the scope of this project. If you'll remember phase, one of the project in 2014 was the focus on bike parking. We decided to limit the scope to design standards. And so being able to do that kind of level of analysis just isn't within the scope of this project. Yeah, I understand that I was curious. If the other cities that you were looking to for models have done that work, I'm not sure. Okay, thank you? And then my last question was just following up again on this question of Ada Parking. I had meant to ask, Does Hb. 13. 0, 4. Address Ada parking at all? Are cities allowed to require Ada parking in frequent transit zones?

[100:04] I would have to look at the bill specifically. I know it does mention that cities can or this doesn't impact accessibility requirements. I can look that up also to see exactly how it spurted. Yeah, that would be really helpful for my comments. Thank you. Okay, I have just one, and that is On page 146 of the packet, which is, I think, 30, 7 of the memo of your portion of the memo, the table, the 9. What what will become 9, 4, table 9, 4 is currently 9, 8. These requirements remain unchanged from some earlier date. When when was this table put together?

[101:00] Anybody know how long ago that was. can you? It's 9, dash 9, dash 8, and will become 9. Dash 4. The bike parking requirements. Yep, this is from phase one of amps phase one which was (202) 014-2014. Correct? Okay. so 11 years on that. And and so the scope of this project, I, you decided not to modify any of these minimum bike parking requirements. Correct. We're just focused on the design standards that we had talked with you all at previous meetings about. Okay. Great. Any other questions, Kurt, yeah, just a few more on page. Did we ever? Did we ever answer your no, I'm just going to come back to that, or if you want to. Yeah, I'm ready to respond. And I think we should delete that requirement.

[102:00] Okay? And there were. There were 3. I found 3 different similar citations in the Dcs. All right, I'm ready to write them down. Yes, okay. So that was 209 d. 3 F, also 209 d. 2, a. okay, and 2 0, 4 M. 5, a. So if you could take a look at those NMM. As in Mary, 5, a. Okay, yeah, we'll look at all of those great, thank you. And then a couple of questions on page 140 of the packet you are recommending, adding. Sorry did I see? What did I say? 1, 30, page 1, 30 of the packet

[103:04] you are recommending, adding a 9, 9, 5, c. 8, which reads residential driveways. Any residential driveway, access or curb cut must lead to an off street motor vehicle, parking space meeting the requirements of the title in the city of boulder design and construction standards. It seems to me that there can be benefit to having curb cuts that don't lead to an official parking space like someone just wants a ramp to for a wheelchair, or a stroller, or a motorcycle, or something like that. I'm trying to understand why all curb cuts have to go to parking. This was a recommendation based on our engineering staff. So that's a question I can bring back to them before we finalize the ordinance. Okay for Council.

[104:02] Yeah, can I just call agree on that real quick? We we saw one project where this was probably a couple of years ago, and I'm not remembering where the project even was, but they talked about having garages for toys rather than cars. So for things like your kayak or your mountain bikes or your you know other things that might be motorized vehicles, but not a car. So I just want to add that to Kurt's very good comment that maybe not. All curb cuts need to be for car service. And then my other question is about a comment that I think was included in a number of the letters that we got about the idea of exempting or excluding bike parking from the far calculations to avoid the this current situation where there's an incentive for developers to squeeze the bike parking as small as possible because it's not revenue revenue generating space. Right?

[105:10] Is that something that you looked into that you gave consideration to. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts or feedback on that possibility. Yeah, absolutely. We thought we thought through it. We have on the work plan of future projects, a whole evaluation of our floor area ratio tables, our definition. Things like that. It's actually a lot more complex. It seems really simple to exempt bike parking. It's much more complex and much more interwoven into our code, and would have more significant implications than I think it appears great. Thank you. Anyway, thanks to phone a friend to Carl for finding the State Bill reference if I can. So it's nothing in this section lowers the protections provided for persons with disabilities, including the number of parking spaces for persons who are mobility impaired, including under the Ada Act.

[106:09] So it doesn't lower the requirements for Ada. And, like I said before, the Ada requirements are based on provided parking not required right? So my question was, is there anything in 13? 0, 4 that precludes the city from having an Ada parking requirement in that frequent transit zone? So let's say, for example, we're proposing, getting rid of parking minimums for all uses citywide. Could that be accompanied by something that says, actually, we should have a minimum number of Ada parking spaces in particular land uses in interpreting State bill on the fly. I would say that we could probably have our own Ada requirement as long as it is not lower than what the Federal requirement is. Okay. Thank you.

[107:04] Okay. I think that concludes our Q. And A on 86, 96. Now we go to 8,700 Q. And a. And then we'll proceed from there. But questions on ordinance proposed ordinance. 8,700, Laura. Okay, so for 8,700. This would give the city manager the authority to limit the total number of permits issued in his own, if that would strain the on-street capacity. So if the permits were limited, how would they be distributed? First? st Come, first, st serve annual lottery. Have you? Have you gotten that far in terms of thinking about how you make that fair. Yeah, we we haven't gone that far simply because that would only apply to a new zone. So we'd have to kind of stipulate that as we are creating the new zone, typically, what we do for our permits in other areas is they are 1st come 1st serve.

[108:07] So there are plenty of examples of places in the city where, for example, we sell permits to in commuters, and those are all 1st come 1st serve, they do turn over, and then new people can purchase them. But yeah, it's it's it is. It is a challenge. When you have more demand than you have supply for these permits. So okay, Laura, I can. I follow? Are you before you go on to that? This is my only question on this. I didn't understand this statement really at all, because gives the city manager the authority to limit the total number of permits issued in a zone. If the number of dwellings we're not talking about incommuters, if the number of dwellings will lead to a strain on the available on-street capacity, so I don't understand

[109:08] in light of your answer and her question. not even how would we distribute those? But what does it mean that the number of dwellings in a zone would create a strain versus selling in commuter permits or something else. I don't understand that the in commuter permits was just an example of how we administer permits when there's more demand than supply. Because we do have this current problem in especially our downtown area. For example. the what, the, what limiting the number, capping the number of permits in a zone based on how many dwelling units. What we're getting at is, let's say there's a zone with 1,500 dwelling units. And there, that's in this, in an area where you know, there's only like 5 blocks. and those 5 blocks only accommodate 20 cars each. So you've got 100 available parking spaces and 1,500 units. You know. You don't want to sell 1,500 permits

[110:09] for a hundred spaces. and so we have to find a way to cap the number of permits that we'll sell so that we're not. I mean, there's no point of having a a permit program. If you're selling more permits than available spaces that doesn't do anything to manage the parking. And so that's I think, what we're we're trying to get at. I think I understand that concept, Mark, are you just? You're pointing out the word dwellings is exclusive to residential dwellings, but the demand at the number, the on street capacity, and the demand for that capacity might be based on. There's a school nearby. There's a business nearby, not just the number of dwelling rights. Is it somehow related to the fact that that this is a neighborhood parking program? Or why is it dwellings and not just any potential use for the street capacity, I'd have to get

[111:02] back to you. Let me look at the section really quick, or and and the others part of that query is those 1,500 units in those that sounds like a lot for that number of blocks. But anyway, we're we're just. Anyway, we've got a lot of dwelling units, those dwelling units exist. And so when we create an Npp we have a 6 block area. It's got a thousand units. They've been most of those dwelling units have been there for decades. And so what we're doing is creating a pricing and a management system for the existing on street parking, which is a public asset and managing that we're not suddenly

[112:02] creating greater demand or or a taking away the number of on-street spaces. The condition exists. What we're doing is managing it. That's true. If the area has been existing for a while. But if we're talking about like new and redevelopment. and Npps in in zones where there's new and redevelopment. Those units might not have been existing for a long time. So we're trying to be forward thinking as well. But I think there's some comments in your question that we can. Okay, yeah, yeah, you'll you'll get to those. So okay, that, yeah, go ahead. Okay. so so later on in the document, and I'm sorry I don't have a page reference. it says, to better manage demand in higher density Areas staff recommends authorizing the city manager to cap the total residential permits per Npp zone subject to the public zone creation process. So 2 questions are we only talking about capping residential permits? Or are we talking about capping all permits in these zones? We already have a process where we cap

[113:22] commuter permits block by block. It's based on, you know, where based on like, what we think the block can accommodate. We would also be potentially capping the flex permits right now we do. Cap visitor permits in certain areas, and the flex permits are kind of a replacement for that. So we would be capping those as well, in addition to the residential. But basically we're trying to, we're we in in a new zone because this doesn't exist currently. that we're creating where there's a lot more demand than there is supply for parking. It's going to be trying to figure out. How do we accommodate all these different users? And it's going to mean caps on every use type, just to make sure that we do have space available for all those different use types.

[114:13] Okay? So you're not just talking about capping residential permits, but capping any kind of permit. Right? Okay? And then I'm not familiar with the public zone creation process. Yeah, can you say a little bit about that. And and the reason why I'm asking about it is, you know, does the planning board have any input into that? Does city council have any input into that? What does that public zone creation process look like? So there are certain requirements that need to be met before we'll move forward as a city with a proposal for any kind of parking management, and those are and and one of those requirements is a petition, a public petition. once those requirements are met, we create a proposal as city staff. We send it out to the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood as well.

[115:09] and we invite public comment. We invite the neighbors to a public hearing which is held at the Transportation Advisory Board, and then Transportation Advisory Board makes a recommendation to council, and that proposal and Tabs recommendation go to council on consent. They can call it up or not. And then the zone is either created or it's not okay. And so, as part of that process is where the caps would be created through this process that goes to council goes to tab and then council right? We want to make sure that there's some public participation in that process or not. We're not just coming up with it, and not inviting the public to to be part of that conversation. Got it I was more concerned with. Is this a city manager administrative decision, or does it go through a process that then council weighs in on the caps and all of that? And it sounds like it is a public process that Council weighs in on. So that's good to know. Thank you.

[116:11] I'm sorry, but it says gives the city manager the authority to limit it doesn't say subject to tab subject to council, call up it just says, gives the city manager authority to limit the total number of permits issued in a zone it does say, subject to the public zone creation process on a different page, and I'm sorry that I don't have that page number. So am I understanding correctly that the city manager's authority to cap the permits. goes through this public zone process. Right? It's and that's historically been the case for the we haven't had the authority to cap residential permits as a whole. But we have capped certain types of permits like visitor permits, and that has been part of the zone creation process. So we're keeping in line with what we've historically done, and then just expanding it to make sure that again, we are able to apply this tool in higher intensity use cases? Right? Okay? And so would any changes to the Cap go through city council as well? Or would the city manager be able to do that administratively.

[117:21] I'd have to. I need to refer back to the city manager rule. But typically changes to a zone require a public process. So my guess is, it would require a public process if you're going to change the cap. But That'd be great to get it to look that up and make sure that we. We know whether the it's confusing because there's the city, the the neighborhood permit parking program is like there's 2 different documents that we refer to. We've got our ordinance Brc language. And then we have city manager rules because a lot of our

[118:00] processes we want to have outlined in the city manager rules. So that is clear. The procedure that we're following. So I'm kind of like going back between the 2. I think it would be good to know what's intended. We might have some comments about it, so I'll move on to. I have just a couple more questions. So am I understanding correctly. The 25 day passes are just given to each household that has a neighborhood parking permit. Is that per permit per license driver, or that's per household. That would be per household. Okay? And those are free. Right? Those 25 day passes. Those would be free. Okay, but the flex permits they have to buy in the same way that they have to pay for the normal permits correct, and they would be the same cost which is which is a departure from our current practice. Okay, thank you. Last question on page 94. It sounds like there has been a longstanding recommendation to remove underperforming Npp zones. Yes, what what does underperforming mean in this context?

[119:04] Underperforming the way that we've outlined it is is really like a measure of occupancy. So how how are the zones being used. If the zones, if there's like no one parking in them. then do we really need to manage parking in those zones? So that's how we're measuring underperformance. We put out an annual report every year. So the one in 2024 that we put out identified like the 3 most underperforming zones as ones that had been underperforming for multiple years in a row, and that we will be going through a public process to potentially remove again, even the removal of the zone requires the public process. Okay? So underperforming is related to. there's not competition for parking in those zones. It's not related to cost recovery or anything like that. No, okay, great. Thank you.

[120:01] Any other questions on 8,700 Kurt. how many zones? How many Npp zones are there currently 13. If you count Chautauqua, which is kind of a funky one. it's well, it's seasonal, is why, it's funky. Right? Sorry. Yeah, okay. And what is the current? Permit? Fee, or what are the fees? Currently a residential permit is 51 50, I believe, for the 2025 calendar year visitor permits are $5 for the calendar year. So it's a very different. It's a big difference. Guest permits are the 1st 2 are free, and then any guest permit after 2, I believe, is $5, and those are up to 2 weeks in length. and we've got commuter permits. We've got business permits. There's like a whole host of other permit types. I don't know if you want me to continue or not. Well, I was wondering about the commuter permits. Those are, I believe, 39, 50

[121:09] a month in 2025. So they are considerably more expensive than a residential permit. Yeah, okay? And how many of the zones. I know there are these, what 3 that are where there isn't really. there's more supply than demand. I guess there are potentially yeah, there are at least there are 3 zones that we've identified, that we believe no longer merit parking management based on the demand for parking. Okay? And then of the other 10. I guess the it sounds like the other 10. The demand is greater than the supply in the other, I mean. So that's part of the annual report, where we do kind of report back on those numbers, I would say the there's a number of zones that are performing pretty optimally where we're able to manage, supply and demand. And then there's a couple zones that are

[122:13] where the where the demand is still greater than the supply. For example, in the Goss Grove neighborhood where we're suggesting this pilot. There's greater. There's even with the parking management in place. There's still greater demand than there is supply. So we're having some challenges in that neighborhood. Which is why we're testing something new. Okay? Which is a perfect segue. Okay? Because I was going to ask about that one, too. So I didn't. I'm sorry I didn't follow all the mechanisms that you're proposing there. So you're talking about paid parking. which it sounds that's different from a paid parking permit. Is that mean just like having meters or those

[123:01] kiosk things? Or, yeah, I mean, so we're we wouldn't be installing actual kiosks we'd be, and we'd just be installing the Park mobile signage. But it means so right now in Gosgrove, if you were to go and park, and you did not have a permit. You could park once per day for up to 2 h for free. And so, instead of that time, limited parking. If you did not have a permit. you can go and park in Goss Grove, but you now have to pay hourly for that parking. We for this pilot. For the purposes of this pilot. We're not going to limit the time that you can park because we're hoping that the the pricing is an economic incentive to, you know, eventually create some turnover of parking. And and so you have this app on your phone or something like that, right? And you put stuff into it. And so if you're

[124:03] if you're a resident there, say, and maybe your car is out on the street all the time, is it. Are you charged at the same rate? Then, as a shorter term. if you are a resident of the Zone, you'd be eligible to be able to purchase a residential permit. Oh, so there is still a part permit. Yeah, the permits. We're not doing anything with the, with the ability to purchase a permit. This is just, for if you do not have a permit, and you're coming in to park for a couple hours for a day, if you you know, if you're just visiting the area. or, for example, if you're a boulder high student and you can't get a permit to park in the boulder high lot, and you choose to park in the Goss Grove neighborhood. Now you can park all day as opposed to having to move your car every 2 h. You just have to pay for that parking.

[125:00] Okay? And is this also replace the commuter. Permit? No, we're still a commuter. There's still a commuter permit. They are like chronically sold out in Goss Grove, because again, this is an area where demand exceeds supply. So it's 1 of the things that we're. It's we're testing it out. You know, we're not entirely sure how everything is going to be able to work together. But it is a pilot for that reason, so that we can understand. Okay, what is the impact of these changes have on the supply and demand? Because we frankly don't know exactly what the impact is going to be okay. Thank you. It looked like Mason. I was gonna call it week. But yeah, are you done? Or, oh, okay, cool. Yeah. So a lot of my questions have been asked, but are relayed so. But there's still some follow ups for this pilot project with the with the additional metering. Where does the where do those funds go?

[126:04] Well, everything that's on street is technically general fund. Okay? we are like with the intention of the pilot is that we're going to be providing eco passes, and it's sort of like a 1 for one exchange. And again, we don't know whether I mean, we have estimated, and these are just estimates, because when we implement it. everything could change. But our estimates are that we'll be able to generate enough revenue from paid parking to cover the cost of the Eco passes. And this is looking at. We have some like cell phone data to look at visitation to the area and understand how people are using it. That's kind of how we estimated it, but but these are rough estimates. So if if we were to generate additional revenue. For example, we might be able to try and offer additional benefits to those residents as well. Tdm. Benefits like we could look at. Do we offer some lime scooter credits, because that was kind of the second most popular option after an ecopass.

[127:10] When we, when we went out and questioned residents about what kind of benefits they would like to see. But essentially the money goes back to the residents. The men of the money goes back to the general fund. But it, yeah. But then finds its way great. Yeah. Did you all consider tiers for number of permits for houses? So instead of having it just be 2 at a flat tier, having it be one at one price, 2 at another. That sort of thing. The permit numbers in terms of the residential permits are per licensed driver, not per household. The flex permits are for households per household. Am I? Does that make sense? So we're not limiting the number of residential permits per household. It's just limited. based on how many licensed drivers live in that household. We felt that was more equitable. Because if you have

[128:04] a household where you have 5 different people rooming together who are unrelated. Then one person is not subject to a higher fee than the next person. but that each person who is a licensed driver is eligible to get a permit at the same cost. But if you have one driver who has 2 vehicles. They can only purchase one permit, and then they might have to use a flex permit for their second vehicle if they want to park it on the street got it? Some similar question, do you all consider discounted rates for seniors, low income, and disabled residents? We already offer those for our residential permits? Yeah. And I think I had one more. Let me scroll. I didn't edit my stuff. No, I think everything else has been asked. Thanks.

[129:01] Okay, I've got one I'll follow up on on this Npp pricing. So the pricing that you just described to us is the pricing that came about from the really big deal adjustment of a couple years ago. Right? So the $51 for an annual residential permit that was, that's actually an increase from what it was a couple years ago. That's correct. Yeah. In 2019, we had kind of a rehaul overhaul of the program and cost recovery was identified as one of the major directions that we wanted to go, or achievements that we wanted to get to. So we have found that we at this price. which was kind of where the recommendation ended from 2019, we are achieving cost recovery with the program. Does that? Does that answer? Yeah, you're achieving cost recovery.

[130:04] But it's not dynamic pricing that responds to market forces, IE. You have some Npps where you have an abundance of unutilized parking, and that's priced the same as Goss Grove, where you have a chronic shortage of of spaces. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. And so, speaking of Goss Grove, have you surveyed? Have you done a pricing survey of Cu and boulder high or Bvsd. but in particular boulder high, because I I know that Cu charges more than you. So when you have 2 stores selling the same item and one charges a lot more. They might have more on the shelf. But they're like, okay. And you have another store that says, Oh, I'm going to sell lobster for a buck of tail.

[131:06] but I'm chronically out of it. They need to raise their prices. Seems seems like. So I'm I'm asking you, have you? Did you survey to us? Is there any variability in your program to actually respond to demand? Currently there is not. But we have to remember the different types of permits that are available. So residential permits are only available if you are a resident of that zone. But yeah, that, for example, commuter permits which are not available. Those aren't priced differently based on the zone. Currently. No, okay. all right, thank you. Yeah. Any other questions. On 8,700. We still have one more to go here. Okay, so I'm going to propose we do. Tdm public hearing, which might be very short, and then we'll take a little break.

[132:03] So questions on the Tdm. Program. And again, we don't have an ordinance to parse. But any feedback for Chris as they continue to work on their Tdm ordinance. Kirk. Yeah, the the A. Annual financial guarantee and rft. Yeah, those are in perpetuity, right? As you're currently considering it. Like to infinity. Correct? Okay, you know, based on the idea that Pdm programs have annual costs. Chris, I think your mic is off. Excuse me. Sorry. Yes, currently we are. We are recommending in perpetuity because Tdm.

[133:03] Costs have annual costs, things like the Eagle Pass you got about, you know if that's a requirement, you would have to buy them every year. And so that's how we have it now. But we can also consider, you know, that is a policy lever that you can move. You know. Currently, we have usually a 3 year requirement for things like Eco passes under our current guidelines. You know, under this new ordinance you could have it in perpetuity. You could have it 10 years, 15 years, 3 years, you know, but I think you know if our intention is to create a program that contributes to meeting city goals provides increased access to modal multimodal programs and mitigates the impact of the development, then that would be in perpetuity. But it is a policy lever that can be changed. Great. Thank you. And then my only other question is about the trip generation study. So

[134:02] you were. You were referencing ite trip generation handbook. But then you also were showing something with a tube counter. Right? So the as you're envisioning it now, the trip generation study would be based on actual measurement, or it would be based on the Ite. Tg, yeah, numbers, we would set the goal based on ite rates. So we know what, based on land use and size, we have an ite rate from the trip tables. We would say that our target would be lower because we want to reduce vehicle trips, and then the study would actually measure trips going in and out. We would create a methodology. We would want a 3rd party to conduct the study. It could be done by cameras. It could be done by tubes on the road to actually count trips going in and out with the standard methodology, and then we would know whether or not

[135:01] the trip count is above or below the target, and whether or not they were in compliance with their trip generation count. So how does that work like I live in? Oh, place! And I walk out my front door. Am I going to walk down the block to go to Mcguckin, or am I going down the other way to get in my car and drive off someplace. How do you measure that? It's vehicle trip generation. So you're only looking at the vehicle trips that are generated. You're not looking at walking trips. But if I again, if I'm walking out my door to go to get get in my car oh, you know. Well, if you were living in a multifamily residential development, your car would be likely parked on site, you know, if that's the case, and then you would be driving out of an exit. And that would say, Oh, a trip has been okay. So it's assuming the parking on site.

[136:04] Yeah, we're looking at on the trips generated to the property and from the property. Well, yeah. And again, I was just imagining someone who parks just on the street, you know. but lives in the in the development. But it sounds like that would not be captured. Correct? Okay, that would not be canceled. Okay, thank you. Can I colloquy on that? So we eliminate all parking minimums. An apartment building goes up that has 20 units and provides no parking, and everybody who has a car presumably parks on the street. So there's no way to calculate the parking impact of that building. That is good point, or the trip generation of that building. I think that that's something we'll have to look at. In that case you could do surveys. you know. I would say that we would want to rely on actual counts when we can. But we could have surveys as a backup to look at trip generation.

[137:06] Okay, thank you. Yeah. Ml, just kind of following on that line of thinking so. If a project comes forward and says we don't need any parking, we're not going to provide any parking. The Tdm plan would capture their means to provide for all the need on the site. How? How do people justify 0 parking on site? Through what means does that? Is there any way. I guess I don't understand what your question is. So you just were talking about, you know, an apartment complex that was providing 0 parking. And

[138:01] there are. It's it's surrounded by a neighborhood. And the neighborhood didn't want, you know, office cars taking up all the spaces that they might need or want. But the accountability to the development to accommodate some basic parking or to justify. We don't have any parking at all, because everybody works for the same company and the same company's right next door. Is there any way to to justify a 0? A 0 on-site parking proposal? Well, I guess I don't see the purpose of the ordinance as justifying the amount of parking. It's more that if a development had 0 parking they would still have an annual financial guarantee that's based on square footage or the number of units, and that money would be used to provide things like eco passes to the residents and those.

[139:04] So there's that annual financial guarantee. But I don't think there, you know, we haven't conceived of anything where, you know we would look at justifying. Well, no, just how how are they going to accommodate the cars that do show up there? And I'm hearing you say that there would be this money. Yeah, that would then provide. I call them the Tdm strategies. Yeah, it would pay for that. And then we also have that 3rd leg of school stool, the resident resident access management program the ramp. So we could also look at well, how do we manage the on street parking around a development so it doesn't negatively impact the surrounding area or surrounding properties. And so the city could consider. If a developments chart has 0 off-site parking or on-site parking, then what changes should we make to manage demand on the on street, and so we could make changes and say, Well, instead of free parking, we're going to go to time restricted or paid parking on street as a way to mitigate those impacts and manage demand. Yeah, that makes sense. It all comes back to the trifecta. Yeah, right? Cool. Thank you.

[140:15] Okay, I'm going to jump in because you mentioned something that has been I've been wanting to ask about. And I read the packet, and it's like. wait. What's ramp? And and how is it different from Npp? And I think I asked this at the last time this was presented. But I'm still a little confused by you, said, Oh, we haven't built. We have an apartment building. It has no parking, so we're going to manage parking on the street. But you, said Ramp. Not Npp. So now I'm confused. Yeah, I mean, it's all access management. You know. Ramp Npp is one specific program under kind of the ramp umbrella right? There's there's many different ways. We can manage public right of way in neighborhoods. One way is through an Npp one way, maybe just time restricted parking one could be

[141:08] paid parking, right? So there's many tools. Okay. So now, paid parking, though, is when I think of paid parking downtown on street paid parking with meters and that sort of thing that's not actually part of ramp, because ramp is focused on residential. True. Yeah, I mean, we're just talking, you know, basically, how do we, as the city want to manage public right of way adjacent to new developments that may have a changing use or an impact on the surrounding properties. Okay, or residential neighborhoods. So in a residential area. I understand we have ramp. And it's it's a big thing. And Npp is part of it.

[142:01] What are the other tools currently are we have? Do we have any other tools that we've implemented, that you would put under the ramp umbrella other than Mpp. Well, I would say that it is how we manage parking, whether it's paid time restricted. So that is one thing. We also have our curbside management guidelines that we implemented, I guess. Now, 2 2 years ago, we we developed a set of guidelines which basically looks at curbside uses that are available, that we could change designation of public right of way to change curbside uses. This is, there's a wide variety loading zones, flexible loading zones, designated Tnc. Pickup and drop off locations. You could have, you know, dining parklets, you know. There's a whole number of different curbside uses under ramps specifically. Besides the Npp. Another good example that we've talked about tonight is the park and walk program. For example, Bvsd.

[143:09] just a small example that we we covered today. Okay, great. Thank you. That that helps me. Okay. okay, any other tmp, questions. Tdm, tm, right? Okay, yeah. Okay, Laura, I have some. And thank you. Again, Chris. Okay, so and I just want to say about the 0 parking. That could be a commercial building, too, right? Not just residential, that that certainly could. And and I would say, you know, when you look at best practices across the country. you know, there's different ways to measure whether or not a Tdm plan is in compliance. You can look at the vehicle trip generation, but there are a lot that use surveys to do it. You know. I lean toward a more accurate count as being better than a survey. But in some cases, you know, as the example you brought up, we may have to use a survey. And that's okay. Thank you.

[144:09] Okay. So a big one, a big question I have is it says that staff recommend that Tdm plans be approved through an administrative review staff level review process rather than through site review of form-based code. and that Tdm plans will be approved if they meet requirements and prescriptive standards. So those prescriptive standards, how are those going to be developed? Well, I think one thing we're looking at is, you know, one it the size the land use would determine what those annual financial guarantees are. So that's kind of the money that the tenants can work with to develop. You know their plans, but I think there would be in certain situations other requirements. For example, we could look at a multifamily residential, and we could say that we would require participation in the neighborhood, ecopass and unbundling of parking.

[145:04] We could make those requirements of the plan. So that's like an example of those things that prescriptive things that we would require in certain contexts when they're appropriate. The standards would also be in the ordinance or the city manager roles that you would recommend. So you would see them. Okay? So those would go through planning board and city council. Yeah, and then be applied by staffing and then be applied by staff. Yes, okay, okay, thank you. And and so those those rules live in either the ordinance or the city manager rules. Good to know. Correct? Okay, a very specific question. And I'm going to try to make this as short as I can. You talk about annual financial guarantees being calculated, based on land use and size as expressed as a cost by total square footage for commercial and the number of units for residential developments. Why, number of units for residential rather than square footage. We've been trying to move away from number of units because of the whole problem of not wanting to encourage bigger units, bigger, fewer units and penalize smaller, more numerous units.

[146:17] Yeah, I think you know, one of the main reasons is that one of our most effective tools in changing travel behavior is the ecopass and the neighborhood ecopass Rtds program is priced per unit and not per resident. So there's it's a single price per unit doesn't matter how many people are in it. And so that's 1 of the reasons. You know, we were looking at per unit. I think you know, we also contemplated, you know. Is it a bedroom per bedroom would be another way of of doing it. But you know, when we're open to looking at both both variables. That is very helpful. Thank you. Can I? Can I follow up on that? Because I had the similar question.

[147:03] and I don't understand the relationship between the threshold for the tiers. And what? How Rtd. Charges? What? Why are those things? Why do those things need to be tied together? So for the on the residential side Rtd charges per per unit. So if it's a a neighborhood within a map that has 40 households, they're going to say it's the contract price is this times 40 to get to the what what the neighborhood has to collect? If it's a multifamily residential, the cost for the eco passes per unit. They also have a minimum of 40 units to start a new program. So if there was a new development going in a new multifamily residential development, and it was not adjacent to any existing neighborhood ecopass program where that it could kind of join into it would have to be at least 40 units to be able to participate in the neighborhood ecopass program. So given that that's 1 of our most effective tools and changing travel behavior. You know, some of our thresholds are kind of based on that Rtd program.

[148:23] Okay? So colloquying on that. So you've mentioned a few different tools that could be used. But it sounds like the ecopass is the major one that you're thinking of, at least for residential. whereas when we have talked about Tdm plans, we usually, you know, try to go beyond just the provision of ecopasses. Yeah, it sounds like you did some kind of a survey to say, Well, what kind of benefits do people want, and ecopass was number one and sounds like number 2 was like e-bikes and lime scooters. I guess I'm trying to figure out.

[149:03] you know. Are we? Are we creating the program rules based around this one benefit? That right now is the most popular but might not be. I'm struggling to understand. Is this going to be more than just an ecopass program? Yeah, yes, I think it certainly will. I often use the ecopass as an example, and I probably use it too much. But you know we know from our surveys in terms of changing travel behavior. Households that have the neighborhood ecopass travel significantly, statistically, significantly different than households without. It is by far our most effective tool in changing travel behavior. But that's not to say that that would be the only we could also look at micromobility memberships or credits like for B cycle or for lime, and also the neighborhood ecopass may not be the right tool in every situation depending on access to transit. Then you may want to go to a transportation wallet idea which provides the flexibility for people in a unit to determine how they want to spend the money that they receive through the property manager, you know, in the annual financial guarantee.

[150:08] Perhaps it's buying like 2 people buy an Eco pass or buy a b-cycle membership, and another one joins car share. So there's flexibility. I think you know one of the ways in which I've been thinking about it is, you know. a lot of times the ecopass plus other things. But if the ecopass is not the most viable tool, then maybe it's more of the transportation wallet, plus other things and kind of having those that general kind of dual package approach. But I want to allow a lot of customization and innovation as well. So I wouldn't say that. You know, we're this is just about the Eco pass. I probably use it too much of an example. But it's because I love it. Gotcha. Why wouldn't you just do the wallet concept for everyone? And then they could choose the ecopass if they want, or they could choose something else. If they're more of a car share or lime grove kind of person. The ecopass you have to buy for every unit to get the discount. So it's an Rtd program. You cannot individually opt in or out of the ecopass. The ecopass starts at $120 per household.

[151:22] You know. If you were to say, Oh, I just want to buy transit passes a monthly local Rtd transit pass is 90 some dollars. so the ecopass is such a deal, but you would have to buy it for every unit. So if there's a hundred unit multifamily complex to do the ecopass. It has to be purchased for every unit. It's not an amount. Yeah, thank you. And then I think I just have one other question. So on page 102, which is part of the summary at the end of the memo. there's a sentence that says in terms of plan requirements.

[152:01] Staff will apply a more prescriptive approach requiring additional elements, or take an agnostic approach in which more flexibility and customization is allowed. and the focus is on meeting the vehicle trip generation targets, regardless of what benefits or programs are implemented. I don't understand that. Or are you saying, are you asking for whether we prefer the prescriptive approach or the flexible approach? Or are you saying you want the ability to do either the prescriptive? I'm thinking more of the philosophical philosophical approach to the ordinance, we could be very prescriptive and say, This development comes in, you must provide A, B and C, or we can say, you know, if it's a tier 2 and they have a trip generation target, we don't care how you get there, but you've got to get to the target. And this is the money that you have to use to provide the incentive and benefits. And

[153:00] you know it's it's 1 of those policy dials. Do you want to go more agnostic? Do you want to go? More prescriptive? They each have their pros and cons, you know. And I, when I think about Cu south. Right? We basically said, Here's your trip, budget. You know, we use the term trip budget for that one. But we didn't really say, you know. here's how you have to get there. It's just you have to get there. You can decide how you get there. Okay. So you're asking for us to weigh in on. Yeah, it's 1 of those policy levers. Okay, thank you. Okay, any more questions on tdm. okay, I would like us to move on to our public hearing. and we can we again no one in the room and, Carl, unless you want to get up and say Hello, and we'll see if we have anyone. Oh, 2 participants have raised their hand. Excellent! Okay, great.

[154:02] great. Thank you. Okay, for those of you joining us online. Now's your time to raise your hand. If you'd like to speak to this item, and we will start with Lisa Spaulding. Lisa, you have 3 min. Thank you, Lisa Spaulding, and I'm speaking for Plan Boulder County. Over the last few years the city of Boulder has undergone significant changes in our land use code to increase the number of dwelling units in residential neighborhoods and to increase the number of people living in these dwelling units. We're only beginning to see the repercussions from these changes in. For example, the spike in student rental rates. Before we had time to deal with the adverse effects of these changes we were confronted with Hb. 2413, 0, four's prohibition on enacting or enforcing minimum parking requirements on multifamily housing developments in the designated transit corridors. This will result in more dwelling units with more occupants who have cars and fewer places to park them.

[155:08] Dola's map of the applicable Transit service areas published to guide the implementation of Hb. 2413, 0, 4 covers, as Lisa said, about 77% of the parcels within the city of boulder, so one could see the logic and staff suggestion that the prohibition on minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential developments be implemented citywide. however, ordinance 86 96. Expansion of the prohibition to commercial uses, industrial uses and single family housing demands more public process. We believe, in our opinion, the current city Council is overloading, planning staff with work and pushing them to move quickly. Any changes to the Npp program should be tailored to the needs and desires of each neighborhood. Whittier offers a model for shared streets that gives equal weight to the economic vitality of small businesses and the needs of residents and other neighborhoods have been able to prevent developers from shifting the parking burden for luxury, student housing to established residential neighborhoods with little parking by requesting that tenants be denied parking permits. And Npps. So there are lots of uses for these amps

[156:26] is a complex, an extremely complex project which will affect various neighborhoods differently, and presents significant risks to small businesses. It's also fails to adequately grapple. We feel with the parking requirements of 80% of our in commuters who drive to work. If ordinances. 86, 96, and 8,700 are pared down to the essentials necessary to meet Hb. 2413, 0, four's June 30th deadline. The city could spend more time fixing problems with multifamily residences as they arise, and apply those lessons later to a gradual implementation for commercial, industrial, and single family uses.

[157:11] and we also encourage any of you who can make it to join plan boulders, community conversation on the future of transportation in our city this Friday, from noon to 1 30 in the main libraries. Boulder, Greek room. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Lisa. Up next we have Alexi Davies. Alexi, you have 3 min. I see that you're unmuted, but we can't hear you

[158:10] just one moment. Alexi, we still we we can't hear you. We see that you muted and unmuted. But hmm! See ya. How about now? There you go! All right. Go ahead! Sorry about that. Hello, members of planning board and staff. Alexi Davies, community cycles first.st Thank you. Staff, for improving Boulder's bike parking code. Tab accepted the proposed ordinance, wording with a modification that comments be considered as part of a future work plan. Item, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed near term or bundled with the Tdm. Work not deferred to an unstaffed work plan, item.

[159:07] vertical and stacked racks. Community cycles, opposes vertical and stacked racks because they're difficult for people with mobility challenges and unsuitable for e-bikes and cargo bikes, and they also have maintenance challenges. We see lots of vertical racks in development these days, since it saves space that counts against the floor area ratio. We hope parking can be exempt from far calculations. Just like car parking is cargo and e-bike accommodations, elevators. The current Ada minimum elevator dimensions don't work for large bikes accessing long-term parking. The ordinance ordinance needs to specify an adequate elevator size. When long-term parking relies on elevators. charging stations, the proposed charging station quantities are too low and require too high a minimum number of spaces to even require charging capabilities. Some e-bike security systems rely on the battery and some ebay bike batteries are very difficult to remove. You can't just take the battery up to your apartment always.

[160:18] in addition, spaces reserved for cargo bikes need to be clearly marked. So non-cargo bikes don't park in these spaces. We think these issues. If they can't be addressed immediately, they need to be included in the Tdm updates this fall. And finally, 2 future work items that we need a planning board and staff support on on street bike parking requirements. We're glad Staff is considering a utilization study to determine the quantity of bike racks needed development. Some off street bike parking requirements appear quite insufficient. Let's make this a funded work item. And lastly, retroactive application of code. Most bike parking spaces at commercial and multi-use residential properties in boulder do not even meet existing code. Assuming the site even has racks, there needs to be a phased in retroactive application of bike parking code.

[161:15] We are observing the study of the retroactive application of the Wui ordinance and hope bike parking can follow the precedent set by smart regs, wood shingles and outdoor lighting ordinances. It's a complex topic, needs discussion and analysis, but secure bike parking in and around existing buildings is an urgent need if we want to meet Boulder's goals. Thank you. Guys. Thank you. All right. Great. Anyone else online now is your chance to raise your hand if you'd like to speak great, not seeing anyone else. Okay, thank you, Amanda. Thank you to our public participants, and I'm going to propose a 7 min bio break, and we'll

[162:12] be back here at 8, 50,

[171:45] and and not just what Staff wants, but level formality. So

[172:03] okay, I'm going to call the meeting back to order. And before. So we're done with our public hearing. The public hearing is closed. and before we go on to board deliberations we had an an incompletely answered question that Hella would like to address to one of Claudia's questions, and so take it away. Hella, yeah. I looked at House Bill 2413, 0, 4. With regard to your question of whether or not we could require a minimum of accessible parking spaces, and I actually read the bill as allowing us to require what the Ada requires and State law may require, and it's based on the comma placement in that section. It essentially says nothing in this section, and I'm leaving out the unnecessary part of the sentence, lowers the protections provided for persons with disabilities under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, and and then it also lists the State law section

[173:03] and going to the Dola website. The example they provide is that voluntary parking is provided, and then local communities can require the amount of parking that is required under the Ada. If it's voluntarily voluntarily provided parking. may I ask a question on a particular scenario? Let's say we had a development proposal with 0 parking which is now allowed under this proposed code. Is there any way that a municipality could require? Ada parking in such a proposal? The way I read the bill. If it falls. if it is one of the developments that's regulated by this bill, then no, thank you.

[174:09] Okay, all right. Well, we've had a a thorough hearing and discussion on the 2 ordinances and the Tdm proposal. So we are. We can. We can do a couple different things here, and I'm I'm going to make a suggestion and then try to accommodate board members desires. So I'm going to propose that we deliberate. 8,700 or 86, 96, 8,700. And then Tdm, and when I say deliberate, we can do this by providing feedback

[175:03] about things. We like things we don't like things we wish were there, and then we can one scenario. We vote on the Ord. We vote on the ordinance, on our recommendation, the Council adopt the ordinance. The main motion with staff taking into account are, verbal recommendations and comments. That's 1 way of doing it that leaves a lot up to staff to convey to counsel what it is that we said and advised and recommended, the alternative would be to. And this is not a quasi judicial process. We are, if you read the main motion, we are advising counsel to adopt this ordinance, and to avoid

[176:02] some of the complexities of making motions. I'm going to suggest that we adopt the main motion. We. We propose the main motion and vote on that. and then we have other additional motions, and I'll just give an example. I've written out some of my own. and that we relatively quickly debate those and vote on those and the votes recorded that information. The advantage to that is that when we have a concise motion that is voted on and the votes recorded. So let's say it's a 5, 2 vote the motion and the vote count is conveyed to council, and I think that while it may take longer than just audibly going through things. It puts a finer point on it.

[177:03] and it provides clearer direction to council. And my recent interactions with council members have pointed to council, at least, many members being very interested in what planning board had to say about things. Because we do things like have a 2 and a half hour, hearing on parking, which council is not likely not going. This will. This won't take that long for them, and and they Many of them don't have the same level of interest in parking that that many of us do. So. That's my proposal, and I'll just give an example on this. This might make Lisa upset. But, for instance, I have drafted a motion that just says, I move the Planning Board advise the city council to direct staff to modify ordinance, 8,696 to remove bicycle parking from floor area ratio calculations and requirements.

[178:17] So we've got. I'm not making that motion. At this second I'm using as an example. We would get a second. We would, I hope, relatively quickly debate it, and then we would vote on it, and then we would move on. So that's my proposal. If people have a different idea if they really want. And so and if you. as a board member don't want to make any motions and don't want to just simply want to say, Hey, I support this, and I think this one change would be great. Please note. please note what you're doing. That's also fine. So anyway, I'm I'm I'm offering up this as as a path forward. But I'm open to anyone's comments or suggestions.

[179:11] Laura. So I guess my suggestion would be. I appreciate what you're saying, Mark. I would suggest a hybrid where, if we think something is essential for council to hear how we feel about it, and we really want to like make it more directive. We follow the pathway that you have described, but I would like to also have the ability to just say to staff, Hey, please consider Xyz, and do that in comments as well. So maybe we go through sort of the less important comments 1st or at the end. I don't care but that for the motion making, we reserve just the things that we think are very essential for voting on by the whole board. What would you think of comment that we go down the line? Orders 86, 96,

[180:02] go down the line with comments and then revert to going down the line. 2 motions. Kurt, yeah, I like that idea, because then we'll have a feel for what other people are saying and what we might agree with, and what might rise to the level of an actual motion. Okay? All right. Who's ready? With some pithy commentary on ordinance. 86, 96. I'm ready. Great! I'll start off and get this done. So I'm largely supportive of the proposed ordinances as part of a long overdue shift away from quote unquote, free parking, which has encouraged and subsidized car dependent development to the detriment of many other health, safety, and environmental goals in the city. There's a couple of things in particular I want to call out

[181:07] here in terms of support. I want to say, I really appreciate the thorough review that Staff has done of the entire code for all appearances of parking requirements, parking minimums, also the work that you have done to make some sections of the code still workable like that work you did, developing alternative measures of excessive parking that might require more landscaping. So thank you for thinking through those concepts. I also want to specifically applaud the pilot program in Goss Grove to charge for all on street parking and use those funds to try supporting eco passes. I think it's really important that we are strengthening alternatives when we are introducing appropriate pricing for parking. and in addition to the data that that program is going to generate, I think that kind of approach can really affirm for people that what we're really talking about here is a transportation and mobility ecosystem and not just a yes. No question about motor vehicle parking. So thank you for piloting that.

[182:11] I also want to really appreciate one of your attachments in the memo, the Empty Spaces Graphic. We've seen that before, because that really speaks to something that's always on my mind when we talk about parking, and that is, what else could we be doing with this space? And so when we think about what we could. what other options we have in our urban spaces when we're not parking cars everywhere. I think there's a lot of of cool things that we could be doing patios and gardens and more spaces for trees and kids play areas. And these are opportunities we lose when we require excess parking the one caveat that I did want to mention with regard to off street parking which I alluded to in my questions is that I really am worried about the potential loss of Ada parking spaces. This is really important to me. I think it's a thing a lot of people with mobility challenges worry about. And it's not something that we, as a city, are good about providing in the public realm.

[183:15] I'm also very aware that there is no one on this board or in the engagement that we've seen representing this population with mobility challenges. We're very good at advocating for people on bikes. We're very good at advocating for pedestrians to a lesser extent for transit users. So I just really want to make sure that this user group is considered. And it matters because 0 parking, which could now be a possibility, and which I for the most part welcome as a possibility. could also mean 0 Ada Spaces. I did have a simple motion to ask Council to consider asking for reasonable accommodation for accessible parking. Even in those 0 parking scenarios based on what I'm hearing from the city attorney and her reading of Hb. 2413, 0, 4. It sounds like State law might not, might not allow this.

[184:05] But I do want the record to reflect this concern for bike parking. I am supportive of the amendments that some of our cycling advocacy groups are suggesting here. I'm hoping that one of my other board members might make some motions around those particularly around charging for e-bikes. It sounds like we have some relatively strict requirements in the building code for safe charging setups, and I think it would be really good to not have people setting up ad hoc, charging solutions like extension cords in the absence of adequate infrastructure. So I think we would actually be doing a service on a lot of levels by requiring more actual safe up to code e-bike infrastructure. And should I do. Tdm, now to Mark, are we doing that separately? No, we'll do that.

[185:01] I'm sorry. Let's do that separately, please. All right, then I will stop with my comments. Now. Okay, great. Who's next? Laura? Okay, I'm I'm sticking with just the off-street parking. Right? That's what we're talking about. The off street parking, ordinating 6, anything to do with 86, 96, 86, 96. Okay, that's the off street parking section. Okay, bike parking and bike parking. So I have 3 sections to my comments. The 1st is some, some very simple, I hope. pieces of the ordinance itself that I wanted to ask about potentially changing. I don't think those rise to the level of a whole group vote and amendment. I just want to put those out for Staff to think about. I do want to talk about some things that I would be supportive of if we want to talk about doing amendments or recommendations as with a group vote. and then some of the future things that are not part of this ordinance, but I think are related and tied to next step. Kind of things.

[186:02] So first, st specifically with the ordinance on page 119, there's a section of the ordinance that talks about home occupations, and there's existing language there. And I think that maybe some things were struck that don't have anything to do with on-site parking, and in particular it says no traffic is generated by such home occupation in a volume that is inconsistent with the normal parking usage of the district that's been struck out, and I just want to ask Staff to take a second look at that, because I don't think that has to do with providing off street parking. I think that has to do with the usage of the on street parking. So it's on page 119 for home occupations. The idea that the home occupation shouldn't be generating such a volume of traffic that's inconsistent with the normal usage of the district, you know. Say, for example, somebody has a home business doing retreats, and they have 50 people parking all weekend long, you might still want to have some kind of enforcement mechanism around that.

[187:07] The second one, page 148 in the ordinance talks about. facilitate easy locking of your bicycles without interference to or from adjacent bicycles, and, as some of our commenters have pointed out, sometimes it's not bicycles that are the problem. But like adjacent structures like the bike rack, is like right next to the building, in a way that you can't park your bike. So I would suggest looking at that language and adding something about adjacent structures or other obstacles that could interfere with bike parking. That's on page 148 on page 128. There's a piece of the code that I did not understand, that talks about site, access and control and controlling vehicle access to the public right-of-way. and it says, the requirements of this section and subsections B through E below, apply to all land uses, including detached dwelling units, as follows, only if access to the property is provided for the purposes of off street parking, loading, space, or operational access or other provided vehicle, circulation.

[188:18] etc, etc. I didn't understand why that clause was included. Only if access to the properties provided for these certain purposes, and I just wanted to ask Staff to take another look at that and see if it makes sense to you, because I, with my level of knowledge, couldn't really understand it. So those are the 3 specific things in the code. I am very open to a group motion about the percentage of vertical and stacked and tiered racks, I think limiting it to 50% is maybe too generous. I would recommend going smaller, or I'd be supportive of going smaller. The far calculations and exempting bike parking areas. I really like that idea. And I'm sensitive to Staff's caution that this is more complicated.

[189:06] But maybe there's a motion we can craft about making sure that that doesn't drop off the radar without necessarily including it. In this ordinance. The cargo bikes and e-bike accommodations. I agree that the 20% or sorry that the the the percentage that is in the code right now, which I think is 5% might be too little. So I'd be open to a motion to making that more the charging stations I would support. What Claudia, said the elevator access. I don't know if I know enough about elevator code and and what it would mean to ask for bigger elevators. But I do think that's something that Staff should take a look at if they haven't already making sure that if the long-term biking area is only serviced by the elevator, and that is a required thing that people would have to do to get to that parking, making sure they can actually get there, and that the elevator isn't preventing that.

[190:00] That's the so. That's the motions that I would be supportive of at least based on what I know now and then future work that needs to be staffed. I agree with community cycles about the utilization study as a potential future work element. And the looking at the retroactive application of all these bike racks we have that are non-functional or non-existent throughout the city. And then I wanted to add one. which is, this is the concern that I have about. If we do go down the path of eliminating parking minimums. And it looks like we probably are going to do that. Is that going to result in a lot of over parking compared to what we're getting now, are we going to actually get more surface parking because of that, with not having mechanisms to ask for parking reductions? So I would love to see as a future work. Item, staff monitoring that situation to see if there's something we need to do in the future, because we're getting over parked. But I don't know that we need a motion about that. I just want to put that on Staff's radar.

[191:02] Great, thank you, Laura. That is a way of being anyway. Right? Please proceed. Ml, I'm accepting myself. Okay, all right. There we go. Okay. So let me see, I've got 2 kind of comments to make so removing the parking requirement. On-site parking requirement is a significant land use shift, and I think that to have some conscious strategies about how how this land might be reused would be, would behoove us to get kind of ahead of the game and begin to think about this. Kurt sent out that that thing for us to read earlier today. And I got a great quote from there. It said, cities get what they require and potentially lose what they desire.

[192:06] And we talk about walkable neighborhoods. And I wonder if we can tie this potentially newly available land to creating walkable neighborhoods, to incentivize that land to contribute to walkable neighborhoods. So that is a suggestion that I think comes from just our land use is going to shift, and we've got. We do have some areas in town that are big parking lots. So let's put them to use to meet our goals, not just to get rid of the cars, but perhaps to lead us to the walkable neighborhoods. So that's 1, thought, the second one I've I've already spoken about. So we're removing the requirement. We're potentially removing the requirement for auto parking. which in some capacity most people use. Most people use cars. And yet we're proposing bike storage regardless of need. So I am looking to support a motion that would exempt single family residential uses from the long term bike storage requirements. There are many residences that don't have bikes. Don't use bikes, don't need bikes, and to have that a requirement.

[193:24] I think, is overburdensome. And that's it. My simple 2 comments. Thank you. Well, ml, that was that was great. Well, you you really lowballed this, and then you came through with a nice, concise set of comments. Great, thank you. Okay, who's next? Kurt? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks again, for all the work that you guys have all done on this. This is an amazing project. It's a really significant step for us. It's something that people have been talking about for literally decades, and it's an exciting time to be actually getting

[194:08] to the precipice of this, and I think it will. It will bring about about some great improvements in the city in terms of our sustainability and equity and resilience. So with that, said, Let's see, I just have a few suggested comments. I raised this section 9, 9, 5, c. 8, which relates to it's a section added, that says that any curb cut needs to lead to a parking space, and I just I feel like that section is not necessary. I don't think that I think that there are curb cuts that could be useful for wheelchairs, for strollers, as I mentioned, for motorcycles whatever. So

[195:03] I would recommend removing that. I agree with everything that Laura said about in regards to the bike parking requirements, and so I would certainly support some motions on that in terms of the landscape, the I forget what we call them, but the additional landscape thresholds. It sounds based on what you were saying that those 50 and 60% thresholds might be too high that we're. It sounds like these days. We never even get to 50%. And so either, if we're not going to get there. We should just not have it in there. Or if we really feel like this is something that we need to to do, then they should be at levels where they would be meaningful. So so something lower

[196:08] and the last thing that I want to bring up is, I'm concerned that we well, I fully support eliminating the the parking mandates. For numbers. I'm I find it very odd that we're retaining all the parking, dimensional and geometric standards. Because it those made sense when we were requiring a certain amount of parking. And we don't want people to provide parking spaces, parking spaces that are one foot by 2 feet, or whatever. But if they're doing it of their own volition, and based on their own understanding of what their residents need their tenants need they need, and so on. To me. I don't see why we should be imposing fairly large minimum size standards and and spacing standards, and so on

[197:10] on the parking. It! The a lot of those standards feel like they were designed so that you could. you know, navigate your Cadillac Eldorado out of the garage, and one of the ones that I 1st encountered when I was on landmarks board was the 24 foot backup rule which really imposed a lot of restrictions on the location of of garages, on alleys, because, as I understand it, it says that from the front of the parking space to the far side of the alley needs to be 24 feet. Well, that all of a sudden puts your your garage well off the alley, which then, in cases that we were looking at it, messed up the

[198:03] the design of the yard. It sometimes put it like unpleasantly close to the house. It even could, you know, potentially result in increased fire danger, and so on. And you know, if if I'm building a garage and I say, I want this garage for my smart car, I shouldn't have to. It seems like have 24 feet of backup space. So in, though that may not go in this ordinance, I understand, but I really I feel like we could at least significantly simplify those and potentially eliminate a bunch of them. The analogy that I was thinking of is we don't require. If you're building a dwelling unit, we don't require you to provide a refrigerator.

[199:04] But this would be analogous to saying, Well, we don't. You don't have to have a refrigerator, but if you do provide a refrigerator, it needs to be a really big one, you know which to me doesn't make sense, and it that is to me is not consistent with a lot of our our larger goals. so I hope we will consider as I said, either eliminating or or significantly downsizing some of those, and allow more flexibility. And for, for you know, people to evaluate for themselves what they need, as we're doing with the number of parking, also the the size and the configuration of the parking. And those are my only comments on this. Thanks, Mason.

[200:01] So I took the. Before we had this discussion I took the opposite approach. I actually wrote 5 motions, and I'm just going to leave my comments to mostly that everything. I agree with all my my colleagues here, and have nothing new to really add. Great! Thank you. I, too. have 5 motions. We'll see what what overlaps and and I and I sense, you know, the air goes just goes out of the room here. Right? Okay, I sense that. And and I would encourage us. Well, 1st of all, I do. I also want to thank Staff for the excellent work over a long period of time that carries on with the Tdm. Ordinance. And so you know, great appreciation there and the fact. So I want to before we go to motion making. I want to emphasize that. This is a level of motion making. That is advisory.

[201:03] Okay, we are not. We are not writing code. We are not conditioning a property. This is advisory, but it's it's a specific, concise method of offering advice. So with that said, I want people to be feel free to. Yeah, I like that. Let's vote for it. Or, yeah, I'm not going to vote for that. But we don't. We don't have to have a whole lot of deliberation on each motion. We've had a lot of education tonight. We've had a lot of discussion. And so as we get into this motion making. we can try to be prompt, quick, and efficient. Okay, so who has? Who has? Who wants to lead us off with? Well, and and I also, we can start with a motion. If if someone wants to to adopt

[202:00] the advice that we adopt. 86, 96, there's a there's a motion written for that. And then subsequent motions would be advice about that. Okay, please. And I'm going to suggest that I don't see a reason to way we way it's worded there is. We would advise that you adopt both. If we're going to adopt both, and then make motions advising about changes to both. We can go ahead and and just, in fact, propose adopting both. And just do that right now, if we but we aren't, we haven't debated 8,700 at all. So let's just do 86, 96 would be my suggestion now that I'm verbalizing this. So planning board. Rec, so the motion.

[203:01] If someone wants to mark, may I make a motion? Yes, please save me. I move. The Planning Board recommends that city council adopt ordinance. 8,696, amending title, 9, land use Code, Brc. 1981, to modify off street parking requirements and amend. Chapter 2 of the City of boulder design and construction standards, Dcs originally adopted. Pursuant to ordinance, 5,986 to update standards for bicycle parking. Second. okay, we have a motion. We have a second. We can. As motion maker. You are privileged to say anything you'd like. We can deliberate, and I'll call a vote when it feels appropriate. I do not have any additional commentary. Okay. any additional commentary. Okay, I'm going to call a vote on that. And so I'm going to read the ordinance. Read the motion again. Planning Board recommends City Council, adopt the following proposed ordinance, ordinance

[204:16] ordinance 86, 96, amending title Ix. Land use. Code Brc. 1981. To modify off-street parking requirements and amending chapter 2 of the City of Boulder design and Construction Standards, Dcs. Originally adopted pursuant pursuant to ordinance. 59, 86, to update standards for bicycle parking. So I'm going to go to my left here. Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. Okay. So great congratulations. We've adopted 86, 96. Now, does anyone have any additional motions regarding 86, 96,

[205:02] as advice to counsel for for changes. So I think all my motions were on this one. So we might need to adjust wording, based on what you just said that this is not about writing code, or anything like that, happy to adjust in any way. as you guys know, very new to motion making. So I made the top to be. We can read each of these as just one at a time with the top bit, added each one. But essentially what I saw were parts of the code that I thought could be improved. so there were parts. Should I just speak to each one? And then we go. Let's I would. I would request. Yes, that you

[206:03] pick one, and then here's what I'm going to suggest. You pick one you. There's there's a moment. You make a motion, and there's a moment, and people hold off seconding. And if someone has a critical correction or change suggested change to the wording before it's seconded. Then we discussed that briefly. Make any modifications, and then we make the motion. Get a second and go from there. So pick one. I'm sorry. Can I? Just Hella! You can correct me if I don't have this right. But I think it would be better rather than making a motion and then editing it for Mason to just read. I am about to make a motion that says this, does anybody want to propose edits before I formally make the motion. I agree with that. Thank you, Laura.

[207:02] You could also do a straw poll before you start drafting. Okay, So this section of the code I'm about to make a motion worded like this, this part of the code. This would just be to add language to this line. And this is specific for K. Through 12. The reason why I thought this was, should I speak to it, or is that? No, let's let's just you're about to make the 1st the 1st one up there. Yes. Well, I was going to ask if anyone has any suggested changes before I make the motion. Yes, yes. Does anyone? So Mason's got up there? The 1st item add language to 9, 9, 6, etc. Does anyone have any suggested wording changes, or should we proceed? I have a suggested friendly amendment which is to to honor your suggestion that we avoid writing code to just say, rather than add language to this specific code section to say, add language to the ordinance

[208:03] that schools serving any grades, and then staff could pick where it goes in the ordinance. So it's not necessarily in that particular line. if that if that serves Mason that serves so this is 8, 8, 6, 9 6 to ordinance, 8, 6, 9, 6. So just as a what I did in my, in all my potential motions, I said, I'm I move that planning board. Advise the City council to direct staff to modify ordinance 86, 96. And then that was, that was a universal beginning. So yeah, I like that. Okay, so move planning board, advise City Council to direct staff to modify ordinance, maybe go a little slower. So Amanda can make the change in real time. Okay.

[209:04] she's actually got all. My. Oh, okay, great, actually cut and paste. Wonderful if I if I may say I don't think you have to have the language about directing staff. You could also just recommend a change to the ordinance, because Staff also always considers whether or not to make that change before moving forward to council. Okay. I'm fine. With that as well. It's up there. We can move with this. So it would be, I move that planning board recommend a change to ordinance 8, 6, 9, 6,

[210:05] and whether that's done at the Staff level or the City Council level you're recommending the change. Is that is that what I heard. Hella. Yes, I move the Planning Board recommend the change towards Nc, 6, yeah, that works Amanda. Maybe it should be. Recommend a change to ordinance. 8, 6, 9, 6 to Colon. Okay, there you go, Mason. I think you've got a a motion. Okay, any other thoughts or changes. Okay. I'm wondering why you were calling out long term parking. Here, as opposed to short term. It seems like the proximity to the entrance is maybe higher priority for short term.

[211:03] Yeah, I think that's because when I was reading through the long term, that's where they had the 300 feet requirement. Or maybe maybe I got that wrong. yeah, it is. It's in 4 B, it says, the bicycle parking area shall be located on the site and area within 300 feet of the building it serves. So I was putting it there, because that's where they had it. Honestly, okay. And do they? I'm sorry I don't have that up. Do they have a distance requirement for short term. because short term is presumably what most of the students would be using. Right? They do. It's 50 feet from the main building entrance short term, I see. So they've already got that for short term. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Great thanks. Hope. Go ahead. Can I just ask staff. If you recall why it said 300 feet, and if 100 feet would pose some kind of obstacle that we have not considered

[212:05] sure. So 300 feet is the length of a typical block. So that's what that 300 foot standard comes from. It might be complicated ordinance drafting to identify a specific use that has a different standard. But it could be accommodated. And I did see this in other cities codes. When I was researching. I think you're ready to? All right, I'm gonna pull the trigger. I move that planning planning board recommended change to ordinance 8, 6, 9, 6 to add language to the. We can probably get rid of that part. Add language for schools serving any of grades. K. Through 12 long term bicycle parking must include bike racks located within a hundred feet of main entrance.

[213:04] Seeking a second, I will second. okay, we have a motion, and a second. You can, if you want to speak additionally to this. Now is your chance. Yeah, I feel that that schools deserve, and you'll see there's other motions in here around schools deserve separate consideration for these requirements. And that's basically why. Why, again, I saw this in other cities when I was researching students, you know, may have needs that adults don't. So I thought this was a reasonable consideration for Staff to make to take any other comments. Okay, I'm just going to say that I am in complete sympathy with this, however, given

[214:03] the applicability, the narrow applicability of essentially a private school, and many private schools are struggling, we don't have that many. It's it's a it's A. It's a wish that I wish we could apply to Bvsd, and it doesn't apply to Bvsd. So I'm I'm not going to support it. But any other comments, Kurt. yeah, just quickly. I will support it. Yeah, I understand your point. But I think it can. It can potentially influence Bvsd, you know, if they see that this is a requirement? Yeah, they don't have to follow it, but it might influence them, and 300 feet is, that's a long ways to walk. So. Laura.

[215:00] So I seconded it because I wanted us to debate and think about it. I think I do have a concern that these small schools, some of them, may have existing buildings. And so is this just for new construction, or does this apply retroactively. This is just new construction, just new construction, just new construction. Okay? Well, then, that alleviates my concern. All right. Thank you. Okay, without further comment. I'm going to call a vote, and I'm going to go down this way this time. Kurt. Yes. Ml, yes. Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Mason. Yes. Phenomenal. Okay. That one that one passes. okay, now that we've got. Now we've got our formula figured out all right, let's go so I would like to see if anyone has any recommended changes before I propose this amendment. Where should I read the language? Or just let's let's well, let's modify it to do the thing that we said, which would be change after the colon, we would say, add

[216:14] change ordinance, 86, 96 to you seem like you need a word like we need to strike, add language. But then put a word in front of all. Is that what I'm seeing here? Add language, stating, Yeah. yes, stating, that would probably be fine. So this is in reference to A. D that just says the bicycle parking area shall include adequate clearance around racks or lockers, to give cyclists room to maneuver. and to prevent conflict with pedestrians or parked cars. I felt like that was really vague. There were some questions and comments around this, so I wrote up some language that could be considered

[217:02] to be added to this, Does anyone have anything they would like to adjust, or. if I could add, there are clearance standards in the design and construction standards in the Dcs. Yeah. what are those? Because I was looking 5 feet wide behind. There's a number of them. Yeah. Oh, yeah, there they are. And yeah, I missed that one. So we can mix this one. I'm not going to propose this one. Yeah, it's 2, 11 h, 1 a i, and it's like exactly what I proposed, and more. So no, forget that. And then the private property onsite standards are right below that section. Okay, yeah. That takes care of that one. Okay, thank you. Sorry for not being more careful. I was a little

[218:00] confused by why, some things were in the Dcs. And here, and vice versa. That's fine, that's fine. So this next one needs to be adjusted a little bit. Just the top. Suggest that suggest, maybe, instead of all that. So 4 H. Where are we? Let me get back to that section. Sorry I was looking at Dcs. For H. Is new, and it says where more than 100 bicycle parking spaces are required, minimum off-street parking requirements. At least 5% of spaces must have electrical outlets accessible to horizontal spaces for charging. and what I thought this would do is provide additional guidance around like

[219:03] for the electrical charging stations. What I've seen in other codes from other cities was language around. How big those spaces must be to accommodate larger bicycles. And that's what I pulled. I think I pulled this one from Portland. Basically. So I do have a comment on this one. And that is as I. I have a similar thing. So I'm happy to work on yours in terms of accommodating cargo bikes. Right? Yeah, okay, And what I looked at the Rad wagon, which is longest wheelbase. The mesh dimension is around 6 foot 6 I could not find, and I realize what this says, is accommodate larger bicycles with a minimum dimensions of 10 feet by 3 feet, so

[220:04] there's no bike out there. Not no, there are very few or rare that they're the bike is 10 feet long. So the way this is the language, I think, should read 8 feet long by 3 feet wide. rather than 10. I'm fine with that again. I just pulled this from another city. So yeah, the most most long wheelbase cargo bikes are about 6 and a half foot long, so 18 inches beyond that. So a little more wordsmithing. So, Amanda, could you delete the specific code reference and then say, add language that bicycle charging spaces shall accommodate.

[221:00] Mason does that. Is that what your intention is? Okay? Thank you. Yeah, exactly. And that's why I chose to be in that same spot because it would be triggered the charger. Can I ask you a question? Why is there a weight requirement? Because these bikes are heavy, and I don't know if all spaces. all build spaces required that again I pulled this from other code, so I'm not exactly sure why that weight requirement was in there is that logical to include? I'm not sure how we would confirm that. Yeah, it's yeah. We can mix that. They're on the ground. Yeah, yeah, instead of the weight support. Can you just say 3 feet wide period and be located at ground level? It already says that they're horizontal. Well, it would not be the upper ones. The bicycle charging stations already have to be horizontal. Yes, but aren't the the tiered racks are horizontal, though? Right?

[222:02] Yes, but we're really parsing, getting very detailed here. Well, I'm comfortable getting rid of that after the end, unless other people want it. Let's get rid. Let's may I make a suggestion? Yeah, please. My suggestion would be to get rid of the extra detail when possible, because I think, given that we are making advisory motions. Right now these advisory motions will be more likely to be taken seriously if they are as simple as possible. So my thought, there is a lot of the code is pretty detailed on certain parts, and this part seemed to be lacking, which is why I was asking for it to be considered to be added in as a motion maker. You you get to. When you're ready

[223:00] you get to go. I feel pretty ready. Let's not drag it on anymore. Can you scroll up so I can see the top, and then I'll make the motion. Yep, you're okay. I move that planning board recommend a change to ordinance 8, 6, 9, 6. To add language, that bicycle charging spaces shall accommodate larger bicycles with minimum dimension of 8 feet long by 3 feet wide. I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second, any additional comments. any additional deliberation? I think we've covered it. Okay, I'm going to start with Mason. Yes, Laura. Yep, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes. Kurt. Yes, I'm a yes, and Laura. Yes, okay, great. We've got 2 down. Yes, 2 more. 2 more to go. Sorry, guys.

[224:02] on this last one. We need to do some wordsmithing. Get rid of the add language in the code part. This was F. So this was talking about how how many required bicycle parking spaces may be hanging, and here it says, half no more than one half. So I was thinking here that for schools, especially K. Through 8, I didn't go high school on this one. I can see an argument foregoing high school. That vertical is just not acceptable honestly for that age range. So I thought it would be helpful to call that out separately. That's why that's there. Does anybody have any suggestions before I make the motion. I guess my question would be to staff is whether this is needed because a do you have outdoor long-term parking? And if it were vertical, wouldn't it have to have a lift?

[225:04] And who would do that outside right? The the requirement does include it also says it has to have a mechanically assisted lift. I would say, because of the limitations of Bbsd, we don't. We don't see a lot of schools that we're reviewing bike parking for so it might not touch a lot of new development. I guess I have a question. Do you see? Outdoor long-term parking? I thought long-term parking was typically secured in the building. It can be outdoor, but it has to be covered and meet all the other standards I see. Brad has come on to the screen, and so we don't have a motion on the floor. Brad, help us out here. Yeah. Good. Good evening. I wanted to just kind of elaborate a little bit on what Lisa just kind of said in passing, which is.

[226:00] we don't actually have site review approval in any robust way for Boulder Valley for the public schools. So so we do want to recognize how limited. The application of this would be just in general. And I hear that. And I think, Kurt, I always know I'm doing a good job when Brad comes on so good to see you. And as Kurt said, I think Pbscd is aware of what the city does. There are schools that we do review and edge cases are the ones that I'm worried about. So. Sure. Yeah. Nope, fair enough. Just wanted to be sure to share that and and emphasis and and make sure that was clear from Lisa's point. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, are you ready? Yeah, I think. So. I move that planning board recommended change to ordinance. 8, 6, 9, 6 to for schools serving any grade K through 8 schools.

[227:03] All outdoor, long-term parking must be horizontal. Can we get rid of outdoor? Actually, I'm sorry. Can we just say long term. Can we get rid of outdoor? Yeah, sorry. I'll say it again. Remove that planning board record. I move that planning board recommend a change to ordinance. 8, 6, 9, 6 to s. For schools serving any grades. K. Through 8 schools. All long-term parking must be horizontal. not very clean. But you guys get it. Okay? Seeking a second, I'll second, okay, we have a motion. We have a second mason. You may speak additionally if you like. No additional comments. Okay, any other deliberation comment for me. The criteria that it's essentially inapplicable is going to be.

[228:00] It's not that I don't support this in principle. It's just in practical terms. So you, Laura, just a comment. Long-term parking at a school isn't isn't the long-term parking generally like 1st who's using the long term parking at the school rather than the short-term parking. Would that be staff? Or is that where the kids are parking in the long-term parking? This comes up so rarely. I need to look at the how we define short and long term second. unless anybody else knows quicker than I, I mean, could we just modify this? To say, all bike parking intended to serve students must be horizontal. I think the intent is because the vertical requirement is in the long term standards. That's probably where you we're coming from. With that got it. I would be more inclined to support it if it just said all bike parking intended to serve students must be horizontal

[229:07] rather than specifying long term or short term. and the intent section talks about long-term bicycle parking serving employees, residents, commuters, and other visitors who generally stay at a site for several hours supper hour. So it's like all students. I mean, I think we had a motion in a second, so I don't know that we can edit it at this point, but at the chair's discretion. I'm going to allow it. I don't like it in practice, but it's the hours late. So okay, then, I would just say, all bicycle parking intended to serve students rather than long term. If that's okay with the motion maker and the second, just say all bicycle parking intended to serve students delete long term.

[230:11] and you can delete the second. All there just intended to serve students. Yep, okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Edited it illegally. It's just a recommendation. Yeah, yeah, it's just a recommendation. Okay? let's let's let's vote on this. Yes, Mason. Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes. Now we've added it. I'm a yes, okay, cool. There we go. The very last one will be quick. We've talked about this in length. The 100 number was chosen to Trigger, because that's also the same level that triggers the fire code that felt arbitrary to me.

[231:05] 20 made more sense with keeping the 5%, because that gives you one bicycle parking. In this case I think the reference by keeping it simple and referencing, the code section changing 100 to 20 like, accomplish this without. I actually support keeping the code reference in in this in this instance. and remind us, Mason, this is about electrical bike charging. Yes, and the 100 is in reference to what. Now, let's see, let me let me get to it real fast. Yeah, Mason, if you have a page number in the packet. That would be really helpful. 1, 49. Thank you. And I think that this is 9, 9, 6 E. Not 9, 9, 6 c. Oh, I might have. I thought C was the new new letter.

[232:01] I could have been seeing that wrong. Yeah. So 1, 49 in Pdf. Page 68 of 1 70. But in the middle of the footnote on the right, it's number 40, if that's not confusing enough. yeah. So this reads, when more than 100 bicycle parking spaces are required at least 5% of spaces. Much must have electrical outlets, and I thought they should have electrical outlets if it has at least 20, if it has at least one charging. Can I ask if any of my colleagues have a different motion addressing the same issue? Thank you for that question, Claudia. I do. Great and and I'll we'll discuss this mine.

[233:01] Mine is more encompassing. Mine says planning board advises city Council direct staff to modify ordinance, 8,696, to state that all long-term bike parking shall accommodate charging at all bike spaces with a standard electrical outlet within a 6 foot distance of each bike parking space. And here's so. Anyway, that that's that's mine. and that would encompass the and the ordinance 86, 96, that when you have long-term bike parking, you accommodate charging 400%, I am more inclined at the moment to support Mark's suggestion. Simply because I had an issue with that 5% of spaces, regardless of what the total number is, 5% seems low.

[234:07] Yeah, that's why I was asking if anybody else had add a motion around this, ready to go. And I'll just speak to this again. I haven't made a motion or anything. Yet this is a board discussion that the whole logistics of managing. So one, you're building a long-term bike parking space. This is new construction. It's buildings going up as of now. So you're building new construction. You're building a long-term bike parking room. And now you're going to say, Oh, okay. these 20 spaces, or these 5 spaces, or whatever it is, get charging, and these don't. But you're running the electricity in there. You're running. You're creating outlets. Just extend them around the room. Don't have people fighting over who gets to park their bike in a charging spot or not, or who needs to deny it or doesn't, and you eliminate this whole move to try to extract your battery, get it up

[235:13] to charge in your house, which I am opposed to from safety standpoint. And anyway, it's just we're talking 2 prong electric, 3 prong electrical outlets that we require every 2436 inches along every wall, in every room in every dwelling. You know it's it's we have very strict codes on kitchen counters. You have to have 2 prong, 3 prong electrical outlets like everywhere, and I'm glad we have them in our kitchen, but it's like it's frequent and it's expensive. So in a bike in a bike long term bike storage room. I'm just saying all of it.

[236:00] So, Mason, do you want to pursue this, or do you want to? Now let's discuss yours. Okay, all right, are. And are you done with your motion making? I think, so. Yeah, okay, great. Okay. Other other. Do other people have other motions? Are we discussing yours, Mark, well, we have this up. Let's go to yours. Okay? All right. Okay. So unless people have okay question. I would like to ask a question to staff. I don't understand how bicycle charging requirements work, and whether they are standard electrical outlets or some different kind of charging infrastructure when we say that bicycle parking spaces must have have charging. Is it a standard electrical outlet, or is it something else? I don't actually know either. I'd like to answer that question, and because, as someone who's

[237:04] who is involved in the E-bike marketplace, chargers at one end have a proprietary connector that connects the dongle, that's that's the official term for taking the A/C. Voltage, converting it to DC. And sending it to the battery. So you have a section of cord that's DC. Voltage, from the dongle to the battery to the bike. and then from the dongle back to the outlet. That is all. Standard Ulce approved. 3 wire cord to a to a 3 prong standard outlet. There is no e-bike out there that has any other requirement for charging other than a 1. 20 volt. 3 prong outlet. None guarantee it, thank you. And then.

[238:03] having a standard electrical outlet within a 6 foot distance of every bike parking space. if we required that. Or if Staff looked into that, and I'm assuming you could do, you would do this research because it's just a recommendation. But would this cause any problems before we make a recommendation about this. Do you any known problems or foreseeable things that we might not be considering? I think that we should consider the additional costs of development that would be incurred based on that. And how that affects housing costs. Another thing is that I can hear my the engineer saying in my head is that we do actually require bike compliance with bike parking requirements when there's like a change of use or something so adaptively reusing a building it would, might be challenge more challenging to comply with this. We also don't have. We have bicycle parking requirement

[239:01] reductions, but we'd probably want to think, through some kind of flexibility for certain situations, if people cannot accommodate And also it might be something that could be well informed by a bike parking utilization study to understand whether 100% of all long-term bike parking needs to be for electric bikes. I have 2 follow-on questions in a living room. What is the spacing requirement for a three-prong electrical outlet one to another? I'm an expert on a lot of things, but not everything. I think it's it's in the bill. It's I mean, it's a standard spacing in the building code. Yes. Oh, I think it's less than that. Okay, even if it's even if it's 10 feet. So you've got 10 feet and you have bike parking that accom. Anyway, it's actually the the frequency of an outlet or putting in

[240:06] conduit with outlet strip type connectors. There's a number of different standard electrical solutions that would accommodate this, and as far as expense goes. Again, we require electrical outlets. We require ventilation in bathrooms. We require operable windows. We require all sorts of things in our building code, and this would be this would simply be a similar requirement. It is not different electrical service. It's not high amperage, electrical service, it's not level 2 charging for cars. This is a 3 prong electrical outlet. May I ask another question? Sure. And, Mark, are you anticipating that people would use these outlets by stringing extension cords? No, because I have a bike charger cable, and it's about 2 feet long.

[241:05] You have a rad bike. Yeah, I do. Okay. I measured my rad bike charger and my Abenton bike charger. They are both 7 feet long. If you measure from the 3 prong outlet to the DC. Connector to the battery, they're both 7 feet. You must have a different model than I do, because mine is not. I can't. Okay. Well, anyway, my experience is that supplied? You might have to use an extension cord. But you know what an extension cord on a low voltage, low amperage, low wattage application like this is actually one of the safer applications for use of extension cord. It's prohibited by the fire code to use an extension cord. Yeah, okay, yeah. So that's why I have it within 6 feet. If if you have a 2 foot

[242:03] long charging cable. I I don't know what to tell you about that. I don't know how to accommodate that in in this particular thing I'm I'm ready to. I'm going to make this motion and see if I get a second. And we're gonna we're gonna fish or cut bait here amend, it's gone. I move the Planning Board recommend a change to ordinance, 8,696, to state that all long-term bike parking shall accommodate charging at all bike spaces with a standard electrical outlet within a 6 foot distance of each bike parking space. Second, okay, we have. I feel like, I've spoken to this enough. Any other board deliberation.

[243:04] Okay, Kurt, I'm going to start with you. I'm sorry. I can just make one comment. Sure. I just want to point out. Community cycles gave us a recommendation for this particular item, and their recommendation was at least 20% of spaces have chargers which matches, current market share of e-bikes. I'm assuming, and ideally 100% to avoid retrofits, to apply to all facilities with 5 plus bike spaces, I would be more inclined to support something that says at least 20% shall be charging capable or have an electrical outlet. And ideally, a hundred percent like that, to me feels like a more supportable recommendation than every biking parking space should be within 6 feet of an outlet quarter. I am still going to support this particular motion, I think, given that this is advisory, and this is a somewhat new issue that we are raising and trying to raise some awareness around. It is worthwhile to ask for the higher end, and I know that community cycles will also be communicating with council about their preferred amendments. So I'm comfortable. Moving forward with this

[244:15] great, thank you. Okay, did. I start the vote? I tried to. Okay, all right. Okay, I'm going to start with Kurt. I'm voting. Yes. Okay. Ml, yes. Claudia. Yes. Laura, I'm voting. No, because I prefer community cycles version. Okay. Mason, yeah. Okay. And I'm a yes, okay. That one's down. Shall I continue? Does okay? let's Amanda. Let's go to the far. Let's just tackle that big one. It's short, but it's big. It's short but mighty.

[245:05] and I'm just going to. I'm just going to make the motion and seek a second, and then I'll I'll I'll speak to it, and we can deliberate. But I want to move this along. You don't want any friendly suggestions for wording. Okay, we'll do it. Go ahead. So I would be more likely to support this, if, rather than recommending a change to this ordinance, we move that planning board recommend staff examination of how best to remove far from or remove bicycle parking from far. Something like that, because it sounds like Staff is going to recommend that it's not practical for this ordinance, and I want to respect that. So I move. The planning board recommended change to ordinance 86, 96 to remove bicycle parking from floor area ratio calculations and requirements.

[246:08] I will second. Okay, so I'm going to call it myself. I'm going to speak to this. I respect Staff's concerns about the complexity, and whenever I know something about something. And someone says, Oh, that's easy. That's simple. 99% of the time they're wrong. So I'm not saying, this is necessarily easy or simple. I am saying that as part of an 18 month, 18 to 24 month process, where we are really modifying our code, trying to make real advancements, trying to reach our our goals. As stated in the Tmp. Our climate goals, all of these things, our equity goals, our housing goals

[247:00] that we exempt, we exempt atriums. We exempt all sorts of things, including car parking from far calculations, and and while it may not be simple or easy, I am also not creating the specifics. I'm saying. We advise council to tell Staff to figure this out, and and to not increase the cost. The burden of on housing by including which it is currently floor area ratio calculations on bike parking. So that it's to me it's it's it is it's not easy, but it actually is relatively simple. So and but I'm I'm allowing Staff to address the complexities in the drafting of

[248:02] of this. Should council take our advice. Kurt. yeah, I feel like the the general concept of exempting bicycle parking areas from the far calculations is really important. I'm sympathetic with what with Laura's concern that it may not necessarily be part of this ordinance. But you know this is just an advisory thing. Anyhow, I think that the general concept will get conveyed, whether we call it. We request that it be part of 8,696, or not, and so I'm supportive either way. I think the main thing, from my standpoint is just to make sure that Council is hearing, and staff are hearing that there is a strong desire from this board to make this happen in some fashion or another, understanding that there are additional complications. I don't doubt that. And you know it's not clear exactly in what guise this will happen. But

[249:09] I'm hopeful, very hopeful, that it will happen in some form or another before too long. Any other deliberation. Okay, Kurt. Yes. Ml, yes, Claudia. Yes. Laura, I will say yes with the caveat that I hope Staff conveys what Kurt and I have, said Mason. Yes, and I'm a, yes, okay, I have a final. We're we're to my final one. And Amanda, I'd like to go to the table.

[250:01] okay, so this is table. 9. Dash 4, 9. Dash 4 is the proposed table location. It was 9. Dash 8, and that's on page. I believe that's 1, 45, packet 1, 45, yes, or packet 1, 41, 46. And so as I went through, I so I rather. I'm not speaking to my team. I'm not speaking to my motion yet. I just want to say that I took a practical look at the table, and I am making suggested changes to specific lines of the table for building types. And I don't know man Amanda, can can we zoom zoom in on the yeah.

[251:08] And so and if yes, so, only the items shown. So the table has a whole bunch of items that I did not change, and I've only changed these line items in the table, and if you want I can, I can. Speak. I think it'd be better to make the motion, and then I can speak to what the changes I made were from the from the table, or people up for that. Is that okay? Yes. Is there abroad? Yes, the the what it is. Is this table

[252:02] table 9. Dash 4 is off-street bicycle parking requirements. and I found them in a number of instances to be inadequate. And I so I'm going to go ahead and make the motion, and I'll simplify it by saying. Amanda, let's go back up to the okay. I move that planning board recommend a change to ordinance, 8, 6, 9, 6. To require a change to table 9, 4. The proposed table location be modified with the following requirements in the table. And so if I get a second, then I'll walk you through from to what? Second? Okay? All right, I'll speak to this motion the dwelling units without a private garage.

[253:05] Okay, now. And Ml, oh, I actually, I modified it after Amanda Amanda. Can I want to change that to one second multi-unit dwelling units without a private garage that your only change. Yes, my only change. I will still second that. Okay, so the the the table, as it stands now, says dwelling units without a private garage, 2 per unit that would apply the 2 per unit would apply to the millennium.

[254:03] Right? The the 400. You know, 300, some units that each unit is a 4 bedroom unit. Okay, so if you have 2 per unit. but you have. So you would have 600 bike parking spaces, but 1,200 beds. 2 per unit is inadequate. So I changed that to one per bed. Okay, yeah, sure. So for staff. That line in the table that talked about dwelling units without a private garage was that intended to be multi-unit developments or single family units without a private garage. Sorry can you repeat the question? So in the original table it talks about residential uses, and it says, dwelling units without a private garage, and it sounds like Mark is interpreting that to mean multifamily like, you know the millennium, or was that intended to apply to single family units or all of the above. It doesn't apply to a specific land use. There's a definition for private garage. And it's basically it's something that you can get into. But other people can't.

[255:17] Okay, but a dwelling unit without a private garage that would include, like a big complex like the millennium if it didn't have a private garage. Correct? Okay. But to Aml's point, earlier in the evening. if I was building a single family house without a private garage, then this. In this case the the preface of multi-unit dwelling units would would not apply to them. Okay, go ahead, Kurt, are there other things in this table that are per bed. Yes. in the existing table. It's not per bedroom, it's per bed, it's it's it's labeled as per bed. So I follow the nomenclature of of the existing

[256:04] of the existing okay, group living facilities. It currently is one space per 3 beds. So a fraternity, a sorority, a dorm would. A rooming house would be required to have one bike parking space per bed. I mean for for 3 beds. Currently, I am saying one per bed, changing it from 3 3 beds to one per bed. One. Okay. Group living. All others is currently one per 5 beds. I'm changing it to one per 1.5 beds. The public and institutional uses is

[257:08] public and private, elementary middle schools and high schools. Is currently 5 per classroom, and I am suggesting, the greater of 10 per classroom, or one per 2 students based on mean attendance and the same thing for public and private colleges and universities. It is currently 5 per classroom, and I have the same clarification, same change. the greater of 10 per classroom or one per 2 students based on mean attendance, the and finally,

[258:04] office uses current. Where did office go? That's 1 per 1,500 square feet, one per 1,500. That seemed awfully high to me to have a 1,500 square foot office with one space, and I've changed it to one per 750 square feet of floor area with a minimum of 4 chair if I could just interrupt just acknowledging the late hour. Yes. So when we talked about this with tab and with planning board multiple times, that changing the requirements was never part of the scope of the project. We have not analyzed this. We do not have data to support any of these requirements. That's why we've tried to express the utility of doing a utilization study where we can use that to inform future requirements. The scope of this project was limited to design standards as we discussed at previous meetings, and

[259:13] I just want to put that out there noted, and I appreciate that, and I'll simply respond by saying. Let's just take the 1st line item, and, Brad, I'll get to you in just one second. But using the large, you know this board sees, has seen a number of large student housing projects come through that are all 4 and 5 bedroom units, and and to have those be constructed with a with a 2 per unit construction requirement. When you have you could be, you could be short by half or more.

[260:03] If everyone brought a bike. And who do we want to come to boulder without a car? Students is the most you know. They get eco passes. They have bus service. they have friends that have cars. Who do we want to come with a bike? And who should we accommodate with a bike students living in large, multi-unit, many multi-bedroom complexes. So that was my initial impetus for this. And then I looked at the rest of the table, and I acknowledge I don't have a utilization study to back up my recommendations. But Brad. Yeah, just just to add to that point. Mr. Chair. you know, I think we are. We are happy, as we've said earlier to to commit to that or acknowledge that a utilization study would be important.

[261:02] If the the basic point of of some of these comments is that there should be standards that are right sized we could certainly do. That is, is something we could commit to. I recognize you're well into this discussion, and we respect that. And if that's where you want to continue, but just want to offer that up as a as an alternative to to trying to parse these, which we would want to verify anyway, through future study. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to stop my commentary. Anyone else want to weigh in before we take a vote on this. Okay, Laura. I will not be supporting this largely for the reasons that Lisa and Brad described. I'm not comfortable with the 7 of us substituting our judgment for a utilization study. I'm extremely sympathetic to the idea that these standards which have not been changed in this project are too low, and I would be very susceptible to an amendment that are receptive to an amendment that says, we highly recommend a utilization study, and in particular to adjust this table. But I'm not comfortable making changes just based on our personal opinions. At 11 o'clock at night or 10 o'clock at night, or whatever time it is.

[262:21] Any other comment. Deliberation. Okay. So, Mason, I'm going to start with you. I'm going to agree with Laura on this one and vote. No, Laura, no, Claudia. Now, Ml, I think you're attempting to do something very meaningful here to make some changes that would matter. But I'm going to vote. No, just it's going to create too much chaos. I think Kurt and I'm with others. No, okay, all right.

[263:03] I'm a yes, okay, all right. That concludes my motion making. So does anyone any other member have any other? Oh, did you get an email from me, Amanda? Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. We've been busy. It should have one motion from me, and one motion from Ml. And I'm going to send one too

[264:44] well and typing on any keyboard when everyone's sitting looking is like is that the pressure is just terrible. I hate that.

[265:10] Okay, Kurt or Ml, who's who's up on this one? This one's mine, so I'll go ahead. This is just intended to capture some of my comments about the dimensional standards, not requesting any change in the current ordinance, but requesting that in the future that they be examined for to be simplified or potentially eliminated. So I move that the Planning Board request city Council and staff to consider simplifying or eliminating the parking dimensional standards, including the required 24 foot backup distance from the code, in order in order to avoid unduly requiring design around large vehicles. I'll second that. I didn't want to jump to a second. If you're seeking additional advice. I I don't, but I'm also want to move it along, so

[266:05] may I ask. My standard question of staff. Is there any unintended consequences here that we were not considering that you're aware of? So the dimensional standards are reviewed by the engineers, who are much more familiar with them. When we had multiple internal meetings with the engineers, they felt that retaining the dimensional standards was important for safety and consistency, and things like that, so I wouldn't be the one to speak most to the intent or support. But I think the way that you've crafted it as something to consider in the future as something we can certainly do. And it's just not something that we studied as part of this program. It was. It wasn't part of the original scope. So it's we haven't even scratched the surface on it. So we're kind of stabbing in the dark on this one. Yeah. And that's why I was not intending to get into any sort of specifics. I was just trying to convey the

[267:04] the general gist. Okay, any other deliberation. Okay, Mason, I'm going to start with you. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Amel. Yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes, okay, all right. Next

[268:19] take it away. I'm out. Yes, thank you for putting that up there. So, as I said before, you know, we're we're removing the auto requirements, which just about all of us use. And we're requiring long term bike storage to be subject to these pretty significant requirements. Not everybody has bikes, not everybody's capable of riding bikes and so it seems like an undue hardship put on the single unit. Residential units that of

[269:03] if people have a bike. I think I don't know anybody that doesn't protect their bike on their own property. So I I think it's kind of redundant in any case, and could be a hardship in many cases. Ml, can I just clarify in the current off street bike parking table? There's not a requirement for long term or short-term bike parking for units with a private garage. Are you taking that into consideration here? These are the ones. For without a private garage, without okay, so single unit detached without a private garage. Oh, maybe we should put that in there. Amanda. Could you add that I didn't? I didn't have it. Single unit detached, residential, without a garage use without a private garage, without a private garage.

[270:04] And I would delete use. That's my suggestion. Okay, I move that planning recommended change to order single unit. Detached residential use, so residential use, single unit, detached single unit, detached residence residence residents without a private garage, residents with an E residents take the T out. Yeah, there you go without a private garage from the long-term bike storage requirements. All right, you ready to make that motion. I am anybody. Have any questions concerns thoughts. I move that planning board recommended change to ordinance, 8,696 to exempt single unit, detached residences without a private garage from the long term bike storage requirements.

[271:12] I'll second that any deliberation on this commentary, Kirk. I won't be supporting this. I do think it's important for all especially detached residences to have some kind of long term bike storage. Yeah, the current, you know, the current. The current resident may not use it, but a future resident. Very well, May, and it makes sense. I don't. I don't find it an onerous requirement, so I respect what Ml. Is doing, but I will not be supporting this Laura. I just. I have a question. I just want to make sure that I understand what those long term bike storage requirements are that are onerous. I don't know if Ml. If you want to comment on it. I know you mentioned like the

[272:06] the security, I think, like the cameras, and I'm not sure exactly what is required for a single unit detached resident in terms of long term bike storage requirements. It isn't any different right? Right? It's the same as it would be for a commercial or a multi, or anybody. It's the requirements are the same. Lisa. Do you want to? Do you want to run through them, Lisa? Or I can go back and look at the code real quick. Yeah. So it's everything that would be. It's page 67 of 1 70. Of the this item I don't have the packet numbers 39 of my numbered ordinance. That would be packet number 1, 48, I think 148. Yes, thank you. So it has to be covered access, restricted and designed to include at least one of the following security strategies. So in a locked room, it's probably what you would do with a locked room or locked area.

[273:04] Has to be within 300 feet can't be served by stairs, has to be adequately lit. has to have adequate clearance. If it's in that one doesn't apply. and then we have the new new limits of vertical racks would apply also, and then the electric charging. based on your motion, would also be required. Okay, so they couldn't, for example, lock their bike up on their patio, or or they'd have to have some kind of storage space that is not locking their bike up on their patio, or just leaning against the wall in their living room, right? So a locked room or a fence. or in the view of a security guard. see the cost of a security guard. Okay? Any other questions. Deliberation.

[274:01] Okay? I got a question. So an area enclosed by a fence. I assume that means, could a yard? That doesn't it have to be like enclosed like the fence goes up to the roof. Sort of thing. Not, I see, not like a 3 foot fence around your backyard. It's got to be covered, too. Okay? The previous language was fence with a locked gate. We had some recommendations from the police department related to this, so it was resistant to forced entry or climbing, allowing transparency incorporates a gate with heavy duty gate lock resistant to manipulation. Okay, Kurt, I'm going to start with you unless again last call and deliberation. Comment. Okay, Kurt. No. Ml, yes, Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Mason.

[275:01] No. I meant, yes, I'm for it. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. It's getting late. I meant, yes, yeah. Okay. okay. And I'm a yes, okay, any other. Any other motions. I sent one, and I'm about to send a few more. I'm sorry. I know it's a lot. It's a lot. Oh, it wait. Your motion is a lot. I want us to consider the community cycles suggestions, so I want to at least talk about them and consider them. I do know the hour is late. but I don't want these to fall off the radar do. Would it be appropriate to just do sort of a straw poll on those? Do you want to do them one by one? Or do you want to say. evaluate the community cycles recommendations? I think we should do them one by one, so that Council knows how we feel about them. I think they deserve consideration, even though it's late.

[276:02] I am sorry for everybody who would like to go to bed. I would, too. and I know we still have 2 more sections to do that. We may or may not want to suggest moving to the next meeting. Oh, my God, I'm just. Oh, my God, I just forgot about that. Okay, all right, let's let's go through this just as as quick as we can. I think they're pretty self-explanatory, and that we've had a lot of conversation. But I'm happy to have whatever process we need. Okay, so this one, I'm not going to make the motion yet, but this is the idea that we should be monitoring, and I suggested over the next 3 years whether ordinance 8, 6, 9, 6 results in more or less parking in new development compared to current parking minimums and average parking reductions. I think this is probably something staff want to do, anyway. So hopefully, this is non-controversial. I see Staff nodding. Lisa, do you foresee any issues with this? Or would you suggest any changes like as a timeframe around.

[277:00] No, I think this is something we did for the accessory dwelling unit ordinance as we made incremental changes, and it was really informative. So if folks are okay, I'll go. I guess I'm speaking maybe above my grade. But, huh! I don't know if anybody else on staff wants to weigh in. No, I think it's really important and a good suggestion, and was very helpful when we kind of did the study on. Adu. So I would agree. folks. Okay, if I go ahead and make the motion, or do you want to comment? Nope. it sounds like Staff is planning to do this, anyway. Do you need to have a recommendation? So for other. If you remember, we did the process simplification ordinance last year, and we got it wasn't necessarily a motion. But we got your feedback that you wanted to see us. Look at how that made changes. So we'd probably, whether it's a motion or just a recommendation that's useful to have this on record. If you'd want council to see it very specifically sure. Thank you.

[278:04] I'd like to get it on record. If that's okay, please, I move the Planning board recommend a next step to monitor over the next 3 years, whether ordinance 8, 6, 9, 6 results in more or less parking in new development compared to current parking minimums and average parking reductions. Second, okay, we have a motion. We have a second any deliberation. Okay, Mason's got his light on. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes, okay boom, all right. And then, Amanda, did you get my other email. There's a bunch of one liners here just all separated out. And hopefully we can go through them pretty quick.

[279:28] So this is this is not exactly what community cycles recommended. They recommended limiting it to 5% of bike parking spaces which seemed a little bit austere to me, and like a big jump. but having lived in a place that had these vertical racks, I can attest that they are awful, although I have never had one with a list, a lift mechanism. But any any suggested wording changes, any suggested wording changes. Okay? I was trying to explain. I went to 25% because it seemed like a compromise between Staff's 50% and community cycles. 5%.

[280:00] Any suggested changes. If not, I move that planning board recommend limiting vertical and stacked or tiered racks to 25% of bike parking spaces. Second. okay? Deliberation. Okay, Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. and Amanda. I tried to put these in the chat, but I have somehow been I can't access the zoom for some reason. Would it be better if I tried to copy them into the chat. Oh, I'm sorry. It's just sharing the screen like this. That's why I'm typing now. Gotcha. Okay, so I'm sorry about that. So while Amanda is typing, this is directly from community cycles recommending that spaces reserved for cargo bikes be clearly marked with signage, so that non-cargo bikes do not park in these spaces.

[281:08] and I just did that one piece of it separately. I think this is helpful just for a little bit of public shaming, so that people understand that those cargo bike spaces should be reserved for cargo bikes. I'll speak to this when when it's made any any any changes in wording? Okay, I'll go ahead and make the motion and see if it gets a second. I move that planning board recommends spaces reserved for cargo bikes need to be clearly marked with signage. So non-cargo bikes do not park in these spaces. Second. okay, we have a motion. We have a second any deliberation.

[282:00] My comment is, and I and I just am now thinking about this, that this speaks to the scarcity and deficiency of our bike parking specifications and what you end up doing. So I would be bummed if Mcguckins had big truck parking now. Well, it's a mark space for a big truck. I have a big truck. My truck is 22 feet long. and so you know, but I don't go to Mcguckin's expecting to accommodate my truck over other vehicles. and what this speaks to is that on the surface it makes sense. But, on the on the other hand, it speaks to the fact that we aren't designing bike parking to just accommodate bikes, all sorts of bikes.

[283:05] And so we're creating the kind of logistical challenge interactions that hey? That bike doesn't qualify. My e-bike is a short tail cargo bike. I don't know is that a cargo bike? So anyway, it's just I'm not. Gonna I haven't decided how I'm going to vote on this. But it does speak to our bike parking design requirements being again focused around minimizing floor area devoted to bike parking and accommodating fewer rather than greater types of bikes. So I'll decide when I get there. Yeah, I feel like a different analogy would be signage for electrical cars or signage for efficiency cars like. So I mean, I hear what you're saying, and I agree. But I think it makes sense, especially for someone who's like not the most perceptive person in the world. I might accidentally park in a cargo spot if there's not a sign, not out of spite, just because I'm like

[284:13] sometimes a little preoccupied, I guess so I hear what you're saying. But I think I might might support. You know there's there's a precedent in car, in car parking where they identify compact cars, small cars. and then you see a giant car pull in. So I mean, I think we try to organize ourselves. And I don't know to what end. Really the signs matter. Okay, any other deliberation. K. I'm going to start with Kurt this time. Yes. Ml. yes. Hey, Claudia?

[285:00] Now, Laura? Yes, Mason, yeah. And I'm a no. So that passed 42. Okay, all right. I'll just speak to the next one as Amanda is pulling it up. It's the idea of elevator size that may be blocking garage access for people with large bikes. I softened this one a little bit, and so I'll just tell you my language as Amanda pulls it up. I wasn't ready to try to make this a hard and fast requirement. But to say that this should be studied. so recommend that staff examine whether and how to specify adequate elevator minimums when parking relies on elevators, and that should say, when bike parking relies on elevators. could I suggest solely on elevators? The only instance? And I actually talked to Alexi today about this.

[286:05] and I spent some time looking at elevator dimensions and hospital elevator depths and going back to cargo bike wheelbase lengths. And the I think this is going to be very rare. I think it's important, but if the long-term bike parking is solely accessed by elevator, and there is no ramp and no other access, then. Yes. there needs to be accommodation only in. I don't want to start specifying deep elevators. Elevators are already a really a big additional cost to great benefit to some community members. But anyway, you start getting into deep elevators, and it's a whole. It's a whole nother thing. I accept that friendly wording change. Amanda, could you please add the word solely bike parking relies solely on elevators in the last line.

[287:11] and just sorry just for reference. We did very recently consider a project where the bike parking the long-term bike parking was accessed by elevator. Oh, really, I don't. Okay. Great. Okay? Good. To know. Okay. I have a question for Lisa, did you? Did you? Reference somewhere in your presentation? The So. Parking can't be accessed by stairs. but it didn't say they can't be accessed by elevators. Is that correct? Correct? Okay, so elevators are still on the table. I imagine that if this does get into code. The main impact would be that developers would not design buildings where the bike parking relies solely on elevators, which is a good deterrent, right? It's a good deterrent. That would be a good outcome. Yeah.

[288:07] okay. So I will go ahead and make the motion. I move that planning board. Recommend that staff examine whether and how to specify adequate elevator size minimums where bike parking relies solely on elevators. Second. great, we have a motion. We have a second, any additional deliberation. Okay, Mason. Yeah. Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. okay. My next one is Amanda apologies. Who seconded Kurt? Did thank you, and it was unanimous. The next one goes back to bike parking spaces for larger bikes. Sorry these are a little out of order. and this is the community. Cycles recommendation recommend that at least 20% of required spaces be designed for larger bikes. I added, eg. Cargo bikes

[289:08] where more than 5 spaces are required. so that would line up with the electrical requirement as it currently stands. Right? So it's what do you mean by that? As as recommended by staff, or as recommended by Mark. No. Currently, in the currently in the code as as written as provided by some packet, is 20% of Oh, no, it was 5. It was 5%, 5% of 100. Never mind. Sorry. Yeah. I don't think this needs a lot of does anybody want to recommend changes to the language.

[290:04] I'm comfortable with this as a recommendation to show that we support council, thinking very seriously about this and as well as staff. Okay, ready to make that move. Yes. Was it already moved and seconded, I've lost track. I'll move it. I move that planning board recommends that at least 20% of required spaces be designed for larger bikes, eg. Cargo bikes where more than 5 spaces are required. Second. okay. Deliberation. Okay. Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Amel. Yes, Kirk, yes, and I'm a yes. okay. I have just 2 more really quick. The next one is community cycles recommendation to do a future utilization study to establish empirical requirements for bike parking quantities and just getting that on the record

[291:00] utilization study to establish empirical requirements for bike parking quantities basically justify what we're requiring with data. And I think we're all assuming that that will result in increased requirements. But who knows any friendly amendments or language suggestions. utilization, study, utilization, study, utilization study. Thank you. Amanda. If you could add the word utilization study in the middle there. Okay, I move the planning board recommend a future utilization study to establish empirical requirements for bike parking quantities. Second. okay. Moved and seconded additional deliberation. Hearing none, Mason's got his microphone on. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes.

[292:03] yes, Kurt, yes, I'm a yes last one again. Thank you to community cycles for the language here. I think this is something we have talked about before as a board recommend development of a phased retroactive application of bike parking code to existing development. And this is just recommending that that be developed. It's not giving a timeline or saying what should be in it, but that we should at some point retroactively apply these requirements to existing development. And I'll just say that when I read this I'm not assuming that it means every piece of the code will be applied exactly as written now, but that a plan will be developed to say what should be done retroactively.

[293:07] Can I? Yeah, you want to talk about the wording or the motion yourself ahead of myself. Never mind. Okay. and any wording changes. I think, Amanda, we need to add the word development at the end of existing. Okay, any suggested changes before we go to a motion. Okay, Laura, I move that planning board recommend development of a phased retroactive application of bike parking code to existing development. Second. Okay, additional deliberation. I just very quickly, I feel like this is really, really important. There's a lot of an awful lot of bad bike parking out there, and to me it feels a little bit similar to the application of smart Regs, which was a retroactive requirement, you know, that was imposed on

[294:06] on existing buildings, and you know it. It took some work, but I think it was a big improvement, and I think this could be similar. I have a question, hey, Mel? So speaking about the smart rigs that was commercial. think primarily. No, that was only residential, the retroactive. So are you talking about like housing projects, every kind of project, every kind of development. Are you limiting it to commercial development, or what do you? I don't think it's specified. I think it's just saying something needs to be developed to look at retroactive application of code to existing development. And it's not saying everything. It's not saying which specific things need to be applied, but that we need to be thinking about this. And we need to develop a plan. Got it? Okay, Brad's on screen here.

[295:00] Yeah. Just to speak to this idea of retroactive, which certainly you can not suggesting you shouldn't or couldn't have that as a recommendation, but just for a little context on that. when the lighting regulations, or the smart regs, or the requirement to retroactively do shingles were enacted, it was recognized that those were always triggers that were happening at some point in the life cycle of that building. In the case of smart Regs. It's when there's a license, a rental license being done. So there's a mechanism to be able to do this. It's it's a another matter to to do do it kind of in in general terms. So we would. You know we would want to give you some analysis about what the the practical effect of various versions of this would be, but but certainly recognize this as a recommendation, and and can work with that as a general comment.

[296:01] Great. Thank you, Brad. and I just want to respond to again. Thank Brad and say, I think that's that's my assumption in supporting this recommendation is that there will be some complexity to it, and how it's done, and it's not going to be just. Every piece of code is bam applied at a certain date to all you know, existing development, that there it will be sensitive to context and needs and legal issues. And all of that. So yeah, it would involve a legal analysis as well. It would involve a legal analysis as well. Absolutely, absolutely. Okay. Any additional deliberation on this. Okay, Kurt, I'm gonna start with you. Yes. Ml. yes. Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Mason. Yep. And I'm a yes.

[297:00] okay. We're 1 3rd through. Oh, right? Right? Okay. Okay. Like, we're gonna we're gonna close. We're gonna close 86, 96. Okay, we're going to move on to 8,700. And I think we have done some exemplary speedy work here, and I want to keep that up so. Why don't those that have feedback and not motions? Oh, yes, so if it pleases the board. It would be great if we could get through ordinance 8,700 tonight. So the neighborhood parking program yep. just recognizing the late hour, wondering if we might be able to punt the feedback on Tdm. To next week. Absolutely that way. We can excuse Chris. Yes, and so we'll have that conversation on the 27.th So if we can get through the Mpp stuff tonight, I think that success

[298:05] I concur with that just show of thumbs from the board. Yes, okay, thank you for your work. Where I had. We actually thought of this earlier, you might have left an hour or 2 ago. Okay. And Sam, you're you're up. So we're gonna we're gonna try to make this as quick as we can for all of us. And so maybe Lisa. yeah, up to Staff. But maybe, Lisa, I asked Lisa, and she wants to stick it out to the computer. But she's also welcome. She's also welcome to go. Okay. okay, So I'm going to suggest we provide. If you if you have something that's a motion, save it and make a motion when you're when it's ready. But we're going to let those that just have commentary go first, st and then

[299:04] we'll move into motion making. And we're going to make it all pretty quick. Yes, Kurt. yeah. So just to come in doesn't need to be a motion. I think that there's to me, it feels like there's pretty clear evidence that we need to consider adjusting the the fees, especially the commuter fees based on the actual demand for the particular area. It sounds like, maybe that was kind of something that was in your heads already. But to to just have a flat fee for all areas irrespective of demand, doesn't seem like it makes sense. Okay, any other comments. Laura. really quickly. I just want to say, I really appreciate the work that has gone into this. I'm very supportive of what you have brought forward in the ordinance. I want to say. I'm really glad to see that Staff are deliberately, not pursuing strategies to penalize newcomers or students, or that limit housing development on the basis of street parking availability. I think, even though other jurisdictions have done that. This is the right thing for Boulder. We don't.

[300:10] We don't privilege people who have been here longer just because they've been here longer. We don't look down on students, and we don't want to limit our housing development just because it's in an area that is more urban and has less street parking. So with you, 100%. Thank you for that. I do want to say the one the one piece of feedback I have is when the city manager does decide to limit the parking permits that are available to less than what might be ideal. Just put a lot of work into thinking about how to make the the distribution of those permits as equitable as possible, because I am concerned that 1st come 1st serve privileges. People who are just going to hang on to these permits for for years or decades, and people who are new, or who are in our community for shorter periods of time will have much more trouble accessing those permits which works against our desire not to penalize newcomers and students. So maybe rethinking 1st come 1st served, if possible. I don't know if there's a better alternative. But I appreciate thinking hard about that.

[301:22] Okay, additional comments. I have. A motion, just one. And, Amanda, do you still have access to that. Google, Doc. Okay, yes. And so I've edited it. I've edited it. And so it's it's slightly different. So and since you're not showing on screen. If you can copy and paste, or I don't know whatever way works for you.

[302:01] Oh, yes, okay, Laura, thank you. Okay, actually. where are before we go to my secondary motion? We are going to. Oh. could we pull up? The staff? Recommended motion for ordinance? 8,700? Yes, thank you.

[303:33] Yes. I can make it verbally while you yeah, while you anyway, I'm just going to quote from I'm going to make this motion just to move us along. I move the Planning Board recommend the City Council, adopt the following proposed ordinance.

[304:04] ordinance, 8,700 amending. Section 2. Dash. 2, dash 1, 5. Neighborhood permit parking zones. And chapter 4, 23. Neighborhood parking zone permits to update regulations for on-street parking management. Second, okay, deliberation on this. Okay, Mason, you're ready. Yes, Laura. Yes, with big appreciation for the work that was done. Claudia. Yes, Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes, and again, thank you very much for this. I have a few words to say. About 80 about all the work you guys have done, but we're going to carry on. We're going to get this concluded. Okay, does anyone have a

[305:08] motion in regard to 8,700 that they'd like to make. okay, I'm going to put one out there. And we'll just see okay, can I make a quick comment, sorry, I just want to say, I'm really excited for the pilot. I know that other cities do a lot of these like Spillover, with the charging along with the permitting, and I think it's super exciting. So great. Okay, Amanda, while you oh, there, yes, okay, all right. So we'll see if anyone wants to suggest wording changes to this. But my intention

[306:05] through this motion is to and now you. Tonight you've been frequently you talk about accountability, etc, and and I think that in this case. What I'm seeking is that we we we condition, we require. We suggest we push developments to unbundle and charge for their parking. And that's a great thing, and when we do that we take, we have no account accountability as a city for all the free parking on the street next to the development. And and so it creates. The neighbors don't like it, because they say, Well, who's going to pay for parking in the development when you can park for free on the street.

[307:03] And so and so all it is is an attempt to get us to practice what we preach and support. and the and I think that the Npp is tool in our toolbox to do that. So any wording changes that would help achieve my end. Yes, I have a suggestion, so I don't think I would support this as a hard and fast shall create, because sometimes there might be an Mpp nearby, or the size of the development might not merit a whole new Npp. But I would support it if you change the wording in the last 3rd to the last line, to say, the city shall examine whether to create an appropriately sized Mpp. That surrounds the project shall consider sure shall consider.

[308:03] I don't know what the right language is. Maybe. So consider creating Sam. Maybe Sam can weigh in here. What what we want to do is make sure that you have a trigger in your process to think about new Mpps whenever we approve a development with unbundled and paid parking. So what's the right wording here? Well, I just want to perhaps point out or remind the board that we do have this trigger for a parking study with any newer redevelopment. So I feel like this is this is getting to that, and just maybe a different way. And maybe I'm not understanding. Maybe, Lisa, maybe we don't understand what doing a parking study entails or leads to. Yeah, I mean, I. So the park. The parking study is required whenever there's a traffic assessment required by the design and construction standards, and the study is something that we, the city specifically community vitality, want to undertake to determine whether an Npp zone needs to be created, altered.

[309:09] etc, in the surrounding neighborhood. So is this a, is this a change to the ordinance that you're proposing? Or is this something? It's in the proposed changes to the ordinance? Okay, so. it's a slightly different trigger, though, because that's triggered whenever there's a traffic study and you're suggesting a trigger of unbundled and paid parking, regardless of whether a traffic study is triggered. Yes. thank you for that clarification. I'm I'm comfortable with the language that shall consider shall consider creating an appropriately sized Mpp. I'm comfortable with that, and about to make that unless someone has words

[310:00] different. I would just again take Hela's advice here and remove. Advise the city council to direct staff, and instead, say. the planning board recommends a change to ordinance. 8, 7, 8, 700. So that okay, that's fine. Oh, Amanda, I thought you lost it for a second. There it all flashed before our eyes. Okay. I move that planning board recommends a change to ordinance. 8,700, so that anytime the city approves a project through the site Review process, where parking is required to be unbundled and paid. the city shall consider creating an appropriately sized Npp that surround that surrounds with an S. The project. I'm sorry. Can I make one more potential friendly amendment? You have limited this to the Site Review process. Do you also want to extend it to form-based code? Because that also looks at large projects? You know, I specifically excluded form-based code.

[311:11] because if form-based code is supposed to be an all encompassing rule. If you stay in the box, you do what's within the box, anyway, I specifically excluded form-based code. But thank you for bringing that up as I thought about that. And anyway. okay, so I've made that motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, any additional deliberation? I feel like I already spoke to it. So anybody else have anything to say. My main concern about this is just the the difficulty of doing the Npp analysis, and the process that we have for creating an Npp is.

[312:02] seems it feels pretty cumbersome. And so the amount of work that would be involved. and I'll speak to that in the sense of I think the The Npp program should be under transportation. It should be a matter of course. As as on street parking in residential areas, becomes an issue more frequently, especially as we developed denser and more multifamily housing and create 15 min walkable neighborhoods. This will come up more and more and more. Consequently. So it was smaller developments, 8, 1012 units. We hope we have these small developments kind of merged through our neighborhood. But they're going to have. We're going to approve these, and we're going to encourage them to use unbundled and paid parking, and the neighbors are going to

[313:10] fight about. So I think this ought to become a standardized, relatively quick process. That is just like, Oh, okay, we're doing unbundled parking here. The neighbors don't like it. We're going to do an Npp and they get to pay their 60 bucks a year for their parking spot. Can I just say that? And maybe this is because of the wording ambiguity. But when I read shall consider creating, I don't read that as the city shall do an Npp analysis right? They could. I just want them to think about it. And and if they see clearly that it's not needed, or that there's another Npp nearby. They don't have to do the whole analysis. I just want them to consider it so I don't read it in the same strict way that you're reading it. Kurt.

[314:06] Okay? Kurt's mulling it over. Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. okay. Anything else for 8,700. Okay, I want to close with a big thanks for staying late. And I know. This was, as you know, as we started making motions. this became a thing. And but I want to emphasize to all that worked on this all of staff, that this board takes this opportunity to improve our Npp. Our bike parking our on street and off street bike parking requirements really, seriously, because it's important to the city parking is a big issue for all of us. It comes up in all of our site reviews and news reviews and everything. And so the opportunity to do this we take really seriously, and we're sorry to keep you so late.

[315:23] but it's because of your good work and the level of respect and seriousness. We take our duty to evaluate this. that we went through all of this, all these gyrations. So again, thank you for your patience with us, and take it as a compliment that we that we really read your work carefully? Yeah. And so before we move on, would it be possible for us to continue. Item 5. A. To the next meeting, which is May 27.th For the continuation of the discussion and feedback of the Tdm. Portion of this right I move to continue. Item 5 a

[316:13] to I'm sorry. The date was the May 27, th the May 27th planning board meeting. Second, okay. and hold hold on a sec, the manager said. 5 A is an ordinance. I haven't been able to pull up the agenda, but maybe we can confirm real quick that we're the Tvm portion is the Tdm portion is not in the agenda title. That's why not sure. If it is it. Just item that item 5. It's just. It's 8,789, 86, 96 that are in the title. Not sure. How do you? Then, is it? Agenda is is the entire agenda. Item item 5, correct. Let's just make it. Item 5.

[317:00] Can we modify it? Just to say, we move to continue discussion of the future Tdm ordinance to that meeting and not specify an agenda item under under item 5 under item 5, a. Okay. I move to continue the Tdm. Portion of item 5 of tonight's agenda to the May 27th planning board meeting. Second. Okay, all right. Now, we're voting Mason. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes. Kurt, yes, okay. I'm a yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay, matters. I have no matters tonight. Well, I do. Okay, very quickly. You know. So council takes a recess every summer.

[318:02] and the planning board typically does that as honor about the same time as councils. So Council is going to be on recess from June 27th to July 18, th and just wanted to check with the board to see if you wanted to do a recess this year, and if so. if the 24th through the 15.th So that means 3 meetings off June 24th July 1st and then back at it on the 15, th so that'd be 2 meetings canceled the 24, th and the first.st So just from my standpoint, I would be fine continuing to meet during that portion. If it is helpful to staff and avoids super long other meetings. Anyone else input on this I will be traveling and calling in from a European time zone, so I would appreciate a recess. But I will make it work if I have to.

[319:10] Laura. I am. I defer to the people who have the most constraints here, so if Staff don't want to meet, I'm happy to not meet, and that's we don't have any items currently scheduled for the 24th or the first, st except for maybe that call up from tonight. But I'm sure we could probably work around that. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. So I defer to others. I think there's an advantage that for staff. their vacation, etc, that Council's taking a recess, so they don't have to show up to council meetings and stuff, and so if if we don't recess, then this like, then it's then it's not really a break. So I can. I say.

[320:02] can we say to Charles, Yeah, that sounds okay. Okay, great. Then we'll get it on the calendar. The 24th and the first.st Thank you. That's it from Staff. Thank you. Okay. Hella, anything on your part? Nothing from me. Thank you. Okay, all right. I'm going to adjourn the meeting, and we can all go home. Okay. I don't have a computer.