July 12, 2011 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:09] thank you good evening it is six o'clock on Monday July 12th am calling it to order this meeting of the transportation Advisory Board um Alex Weiner is not able to join us this evening so we have four members of tab we have a quum and we're going to begin um yes I'm I'm sorry your your mic is really wary tonight I'm using the good computer okay just lean into it I guess huh yeah yeah all right we called the order the first order of business is the approval of the draft June minutes

[1:00] uh I did see an email earlier uh that Mark had a couple of um proposed amendments to the minutes uh I think Mark you didn't copy all of tab and Meredith wanted you to just read them in I looked at them they look good to me so if you wouldn't mind reading into the record your proposed amendments um I think we can start from there and of course I'll ask if other members have any other changes okay um I I've got to juggle a couple Windows here to read these so as far as I just so that the tab uh members know I I like dea says I sent this to Tila and uh Meredith but under in our minutes under uh under uh Matters from the board under tab staff operating

[2:00] agreement there are a number of bullets there and I changed the first two bullets well I I changed the first bullet and then I added a second bullet above the next so I'm going to read the first bullet comment that tab's desire is to reach our joint TM goals the safety of citizens and the best outcomes within our fiscal constraints the the second bullet which I added Tab and staff must be able to ask hard questions and express views without it being perceived as an attack on anyone and then finally in the next bullet which was the second but became came

[3:00] thei it reads observation that assumptions of and then it had of something but it should be of this required for Effective collaboration so those those are the changes I um am requesting I believe that was a motion to amend the minutes maybe yes that my second okay thank you would anyone like to uh react to that I as I said I saw them before and they seem fine to me uh tab Ryan or Hutch sounds good to me okay any any other uh changes anyone would like to propose to the minutes great so there's a motion to amend the minutes and as Mark has just

[4:00] described uh and which was communicated in writing to Meredith earlier uh all in favor of the minutes so amended being approved is that how we do this let's do it that way one two three four I see four the minutes are approved as amended thank you uh I I would also just like to say that I appreciate the effort in uh on merid the SP to um uh have the minutes be a little uh more filled out and um uh anyway I appreciate the extra attention to the minutes this month thanks Mark and T I'm gonna jump in um once you guys are wrapped up to go ahead and share the rules thank you sorry I forgot to interject before you started speaking just one moment let me share my screen very timely before we start the public comment the meeting is being recorded um

[5:02] so we're pleased to have you join us this evening to strike a balance between meaningful transparent engagement and online security the following rules will be applied for this meeting this meeting has been called to conduct the business of the city of Boulder activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited the time for speaking or asking questions may be limited no person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding my myself and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted which is 3 minutes for these meetings each person shall register to speak at the meeting using that person's real name any person believed to be using a name other than the one they are commonly known by will not be permitted to speak at the meeting no video will be permitted except for City officials employees and invited speakers presenters all others will participate by voice only the person presiding at the meeting shall

[6:00] enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule if the chat function is enabled which it is during this meeting it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host it should be used for technical online platform related questions only if an attendee attempts to use the chat for any reason other than seeking assistance from the host the city reserves the right to disable that individual's access to chat only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen during the meeting thank you thank you Allison taking care of that um while we are here and sort of doing housekeeping business there is one item of housekeeping with the respect to the agenda oh Eric are you having hard time hearing me right sorry I'll speak up there's a um and I'll probably call in and use my phone for audio soon uh just as another item of housekeeping um because we are a

[7:00] little uh short on Tab members this evening I want to make sure that we get our essential business taken care of while we have a full Quorum um so I would like to reorder the agenda slightly this evening and pull the public hearing and tab recommendation on the CIP projects um up ahead of the monthly update and the seep on arapo um so we would take public comments soon right now and then go directly into the public hearing about the CIP and then pick up the agenda um at the monthly updated item four and then proceed in order so I would like to move that we uh we reorder the agenda this way just to make sure that we have the most numbers of uh tab present um early on in the meeting to take care of that essential business before going along um with the less essential business at the bottom of the agenda do I have support for that motion

[8:00] Mark McIntyre seconds thank you um we good to reorder the agenda that way yes please thank you all right we're reordering the agenda so uh item six will be moved up to be the new item four uh we'll do the monthly update and then the seep on a rapid homeold to use path after that and then carry on uh so now we're going to just carry on with uh uh item number three which is our usual public comment period um as Allison just indicated this is the time for members of the public to uh speak to us and weigh in on items that they would wish to bring to our attention um if it has to do with the capital Improvement projects uh agenda item we have a separate public hearing scheduled for that but there is no other public hearing scheduled this evening so this would be a good time for members of the public to let us know what is on their minds for other items either on the agenda or off this evening typically we have three minutes I say no reason to depart from that uh and so we can move

[9:02] directly into the public comment period okay great so um like I said Tila we are going to aim for the timer being on a smaller screen so that'll actually be replacing my screen um there won't be a a sound with it so I will just go ahead and come online once you see that the time has ended um so Taran we're going to start with you your hand is the one I saw first just one moment while I set up the timer all right Karen you can go ahead thank you I'm Karen hwg and I live across from Fairview High and I'm speaking tonight as a resident who will be impacted by your recommendations to city council and planning board regarding the the CU South uh traffic

[10:01] plans and annexation I have three points the first preco when I had morning appointments out of the range of the skip bus it took me five changes of the stoplight at Table Mesa and Broadway to get through that intersection and proceed North to my appointments I know from direct experience that it that intersection is at capacity the annex the annexation agreement needs a performance standard of no net increase in traffic during Peak periods and that is not currently there as I understand it my second Point Highway 33 access should only be used for emergency access as originally requested by CU in addition to serious safety concerns um including this emergency only as an

[11:03] emergency only access um is best if it's considered a primary entry and exit point it will only add to the traffic already overloaded at the table in Mesa and Broadway intersection third I support a m multimodal transportation system and um from this site to the main campus and given the scale and distance from of this site from the main campus the city in my opinion should provide Tab and all decision makers with estimates of the additional greenhouse gases that will be generated if this campus is approved and built thank you for your consideration of these points as you make your recommendations

[12:02] tonight thank you Karen all right and next up I have Lynn Lynn I'm going to ask you to unmute and you can go ahead and begin speaking I unmuted okay I unmuted myself but then you're other um yeah I come in as someone not from South I come to these meetings all the time I can see this is all about CU South today but um and I come in with the the emphasis on C can you hear me okay okay um because of all the other growth that I see all over this fraking town it is in five years you won't recognize this and you are going to have transportation nightmares that you will not believe 30 uh and um and pearl the red the diagonal

[13:04] Plaza Boulder Junction Gun Barrel 21st 23rd and 20th on Pearl all new condos driving up the land value 17th in Pearl driving up the land value you know electric elevator for cars so they can squeeze every square inch out of the condo you know the Balsam Al Pine ballson North North Boulder all the development up there by the bus stop the bus stop you know greenwash it's got all the solar on it and they've got electric resistive stoves unbelievable this is not a progressive Town unbelievable that something like that could happen I I know it's not your business You're Just Tab but this is all all this stuff is going to cause Transportation nightmares I disagree I'm also dis invested from plan Boulder who

[14:00] my dad took me to meetings at 35 years ago with regards to their suggestion that you relocate CU South at North no that's not a solution that's going to make it even worse you know Boulder has to have a caring capacity and you have to push the envelope liquor Mark another development that was you know originally dick Tharp and flat iron gravel it all comes around doesn't it 5 million bucks off the price good deal for CU dick th who then got involved in the sex scandal at CU because of the liquor Mark Association so steep down from uh primary position he had with lior Mark then sold it to ww Reynolds who sold it to somebody in California that's what Boulder is now it's California right you know it's it's going to be an LA you know at this rate

[15:02] and we are building like there's no tomorrow you've got big troubles ahead so forget about it with CU South that's going to be the end of this place entirely do not do it don't even go there separate the flood plane from the the the thank you LY Station thank you Lyn and next step I have Kurt norback Kurt I will go ahead and un ask you to unmute and you should be able to yourself hello uh Kurt nordback here I have a compliment and a concern I guess uh the compliment is I was privileged to be able to take part on the in the Sip um tour the other day and I just want to thank the city for conducting that it's such a great way for the public and the and tab and staff to get together and talk informally and throw out ideas and just discuss uh details on the ground so I hope really hope that those continue

[16:01] my concern relates to what I heard from staff at the last council meeting in the discussion of NPP and amps saying that um that their expectation was that the way we that we would meet our transportation related climate emissions goal is through waiting for Cafe standards and electrification of vehicles to take care of it and that concerns me very much for one thing it's not going to work that is simply not going to be sufficient uh certainly on the time scale that we need to uh to do things or perhaps ever secondly as you know we also have VMT goals and um and um modal modal shift goals that just changing a little bit of the details of the cars that we're driving you are just not going to meet we need a much more

[17:02] substantive uh change in the way we address uh transportation in this city and I I I think that staff agrees I hope that that was just a misstatement but in any case I would love for staff to clarify that both to the public and to city council at some point Thank you thank you Kurt and next up I have Peter mayor Peter I'm going to go ahead and ask you to unmute hi can you hear me yes hi this is Peter Mayer 1339 Hawthorne Avenue and Boulder I am the co-chair of plan Boulder County I wanted to reiterate some comments that were first sent to you a few months ago and then also sent again uh recently these were prepared by George gerol who is a board uh member of plan Boulder and who is the uh the former uh chair of or head director of

[18:01] uh transportation planning for the county uh and these particularly relate to the proposal for Su South so while we do see some positive changes uh in the draft before you we really believe that more needs to be required uh of Cu as part of this annexation agreement and we hope that you will reiterate these points to city council um first of all the performance standard really needs to include a requirement of no increase of traffic during Peak periods in particular uh and and the staff summary indicates that the current draft agreement limits that to around 5,000 additional daily vehicle trips uh so we really think that that that is going to be problematic number two CU should be required to show how shuttle bus and bike and pedestrian routes are going to move people between their campuses table Mason Broadway table Mason us36 and table Mason Foothills are all already

[19:01] pretty congested we see no discussion or analysis of how the buses will be moved effectively between CU South the main campus and the East Campus would make sense to consider dedicating Morehead as a bike way maybe for local access perhaps uh to connect CU South in the main campus this would take away the buses um off of uh to Table Mesa and Broadway and address some of the concerns from the locals number three we have real serious concerns about the safety of the proposed Highway 93 access point putting in a new unsignalized access on a steep curving Hill with high-speed traffic is clearly a recipe for disaster you have not looked at any data on this as far as we know uh and we feel that that this is really uh basically see doing a bait and switch upon us where

[20:01] they told us at first that they weren't going to need this it was only going to be for emergencies and now suddenly they want a full access point finally there's needs to be a specific agreement or Annex uh that in the annexation agreement to construct a bike and pedestrian Transit underpass under Table Mesa connecting to Morehead as well as to the proposed multimodal Center that would really be a substantial Improvement here thank you so much for all your hard work on behalf of all of US citizens of older we really appreciate it and uh thank you very much for your time this evening thank you Peter all right next up I have Mike Marsh Mike I'm going to ask you to unmute now okay can you hear me yes good evening thanks for your time as a resident of South Boulder I want to express my concerns about a number of major major flaws in the CU South

[21:00] traffic study I sent you about an hour ago three attachments and the first one concerns a timeline these dates really really matter so I'm going to walk through them for you Friday November 13th 2020 was the last day of in-person learning for CU okay Monday November 16th was the the last day of in-person learning for Boulder Valley School District tu Tuesday November 17th is when Fox Tuttle started its 3-day traffic counting in South Boulder the point being on top of the already suppressed traffic due to the generalized effects of coid in general now we had an acute spike in which 46,000 additional people were removed from South Boulder roadways we got that from looking up the students faculty and staff for CU at 42,000 and 4,000 students faculty and staff for the South Boulder k through 12 schools my point is

[22:01] that the traffic study projects 7,000 additional trips per day but the problem is is if you're superimposing that onto a very low bald starting traffic number your ultimate traffic count is going to be far far lower than it it actually is and in addition to this they committed yet another statistical error which is that they used the wrong multiplier so they counted traffic in November that was is the month that was most impacted by coid and therefore it deserves the highest multiplier okay so the lower than normal traffic count you have the higher multiplier you have to assign to it that's just basic statistics but what they did is they went out and borrowed the multiplier from an adjacent month it happened to be October which was the least impacted by coid so therefore it had the least multiplier and you just can't do that you can't cherry pick on both ends of the Spectrum on the one hand get the lowest traffic count you

[23:01] can find but rather than using the multiplier for that which should be Skyhigh you you simultaneously use a very low multiplier now you've got compounded errors on top of errors this would get a failing grade in a 10th grade statistics class we had a PhD statistician in my neighborhood who looked at the fox Tuttle traffic study and he wrote pages and pages about all the errors in it the only response I've heard to this is that oh well that's Fox Tuttle they can do no wrong my point is every one of us even all the way up to the president of the United States has to be accountable and the moment we start excusing people and saying oh they don't have to be accountable because they're thus and so that's a real slippery slope so I'm really hoping that tab can take a hard look at this and offer some critical analysis thank you thank you Mike next up I have Ben Ben I'm going to go ahead and ask you to unmute go ahead go ahead great can you hear me yes great

[24:01] thank you good evening my name is Ben binder I live in South Boulder I'm a registered professional engineer and land surveyor to further Boulder's goal of eliminating traffic related fat fatalities I urge you to question the wisdom of adding a new treacherous intersection on Colorado 93 to serve CU South because of high winds curves Hills very aggressive drivers and high traffic volume about 22,000 average vehicle trips per day Colorado 93 is one of the state's most hazardous roads in the winter Westerly winds blow snow from the Foothills across the road resulting in white outs and Slick icy conditions in fact I refuse to drive 93 lots of times when I'm coming back from the mountains I'll I'll take I70 to Wadsworth and heads North on Wadsworth because I consider 93 to be so treacherous nonetheless CU is demanding a new unsignalized intersection with Colorado

[25:00] 93 located on a curve on a hill Fox tra tuttles traffic impact study states that the amm traffic volumes both directions are 2200 vehicles per hour a vehicle every 1.6 seconds during rush hour a motorist wishing to enter the intersection and turn left and head south to Golden will need to wait for an opportunity to cross two lanes of high-speed North traffic and merge into the high-speed southbound lane with an average of 1.6 seconds between vehicles I explain this situation to a neighbor who described this as a death trap as we know people lose patience and they make decisions uh that are very dangerous when they have to wait forever to get into an intersection while emergency access may be helpful at location I urge you to re exercise good judgment and Common Sense and reject the city staff's recommendation for major intersection at

[26:00] that location I seriously question the advice of any transportation engineer who would recommend an unsignalized access to colado on 93 at that location the idea is so ludicrous I can only imagine the plan is to add traffic signals as a bargaining chip to obtain permission for the unneeded intersection I am very surprised that cu's transportation and engineer and City staff did not look at accident crash data on Colorado 93 after several requests for accident data Garrett Slater returned my call and informed me that one the city is not required to review uh accident data crash data according to the Colorado access code two that such information was not readily available and three the city attorney's office informed him that I would need to submit a in a formal Colorado op record records act request to obtain such data interestingly uh Colorado State Patrol

[27:00] has jurisdiction south of that intersection and they provided me information on the 131 accidents on 93 within the last five years thank you very much thank you and next up I have Stephen hell Stephen I'm going to ask you to unmute right now okay thank you Stephen hell gos grve um two just sort of quick questions um one today we had another ozone action day and the first one I think we had in this year was end of May which is I think a record um so my question is is the transportation department following some of these guidelines driving less not using gas powered equipment um to to mow or to weed during the day during those Zone alert days which it's been about 50% of our days since end of May um because I know even seems like like we could get the transportation department sort of lead on the climate

[28:01] action and switch our Fleet and our contractors to electrical weed eaters and weat blowers and mowers um and the other question I have trying to find it on the new city of Boulder website is sort of hard um the Colorado Regent project to add another car Lane I know there's issues at the bottom of Colorado at um 28th Street with the bike lane going into the really large Bullards and I know Community cycles and people from tab um a month or two ago were discussing with staff on any changes and I can't find any documentation on the old or new website if anything got redesigned right now it's it's the bottom of a hill um um bikes will be doing 20 to 30 m hour into

[29:01] these really large Bullards it's they're like 2 feet wide I know the city doesn't want to remove those Bullards because it will cost money um but right now the design is really dangerous especially in Winter or during rainstorms so I I just can't find any information on the website about that project seems like it's there should be bit information or some construction materials but I can't find anything thing um on that project or any updates thank you thank you Stephen next up I have Margaret and Margaret I'm going to go ahead and ask you to unmute right now hi I'm Margaret LMP can you hear me yes I live I live in South Boulder and I'm a part of a neighborhood organization a safe South bould ER that is um basically dead set against any of

[30:01] the conclusions in the fox Tuttle report because and feel that it should not be used as a guide for instituting any kind of uh decisions on traffic and transportation impacts in South Boulder I just want to summarize some of the objections first of all I'd like to Echo the con concerns that Ben bender and uh and Peter mayor and others have said about the danger of that uh the proposed intersection at 90 Highway 93 which is an absolute disaster the second is I would like to Echo the request that there be a net zero increase required of the CU South uh development in traffic this afternoon I was trying to make a a right turn off of the only e exit from the neighborhood I live in the Frasier Meadows neighborhood

[31:00] uh onto Table Mesa it's at that ramp by the parking ride and the traffic on Foothills and that ramp and all the way south on 36 was backed up and stopped that indicates to me that these the infrastructure in the south end of town is completely overloaded already without having the large numbers of increased traffic that would be proposed with the CU South project to say nothing nothing of the 2,000 parking places that are proposed for the CU South Campus U which would add a lot more traffic the SEC third thing is that the Tuttle study suggests uh as a remedy to the problems of making left turns off Table Mesa anywhere um or even right turns at Broadway to Simply extend the the uh the distance for weight times for people to make a turn to 12 feet now I think that's maybe

[32:02] three bumper-to-bumper cars all that really does is provide a longer space for people to stack up behind a stoplight and wait that is not a solution to traffic so the remedies that are proposed by Fox Tuttle aren't going to work and if you try to take a look at the diagram that they have for the proposed intersection at 90 3 Once you try to figure it out you realize that it's it is a an absolute uh Death Wish waiting to happen for anybody to try to use that so I'd strongly urge the tab to consider rejecting any attempts to accept the traffic recommendations in the CU South proposal thank you thank you Margaret all right and I do not see any more hands raised so I think we're good to go TAA

[33:00] okay thank you is this audio working better maybe okay good all right we'll do it that way then uh as always I appreciate uh when members of the public come and state their views I was expecting to hear a good deal uh on CU south from you tonight we will of course uh turn back to it later on this evening uh but appreciate you coming and giving us your input um next we will move move uh to the public hearing uh about the transportation Capital Improvements project this is part three of three Garrett has been here presenting and giving us some background information the last two tab meetings and in addition um tab had a working session with Garrett and other staff and then of course there was the CIP Bike Tour so there's been quite a lot of activity on this item uh recently so this will be the last touch I believe before the proposed um budget goes to city council for approval uh which is why we will be

[34:00] having a public hearing on this item this evening the way it usually works is uh we will listen to the staff's uh presentation um and hopefully that will be fairly Swift because we have gone through a good deal of this before and then tab will have a chance to ask any clarifying questions that we have and then we will open it up to um public input and have a public hearing speakers again having three minutes to tell us what they think we will then close the public hearing and then tab will have its discussion deliberation and um uh and take action on this item as requested so that's how this will work looks like Garrett's got the um presentation loaded so Garrett why don't you go ahead and take it away great thank you Tila I appreciate the time to be with you tonight and I'll all of your input and uh feedback and thoughtfulness with regard to the capital Improvement program um over the prior three months and appreciate uh Hutch's uh endurance in participating here uh in in light of

[35:02] recent events so thank you um so I will uh taking cues from Tila move through this uh fairly swiftly um so uh I I won't belabor this but uh just to remind everyone the capital Improvement program is the way we take care of the assets that are in the transportation infrastructure Network and we prioritize it consistent with the policies from the 2019 transportation master plan and therefore the uh 22 to 27 recommended Capital Improvement program represents a total $91 million total investment with approximately 16 million in Grants with an average of 13 million a year where the programs comprise about 8 million per year uh this slide as a reminder that the majority of our funding comes through the transportation fund which is largely comprised of uh City sales tax in the city of Boulder and we do our best to try to leverage that funding

[36:00] with uh Grant funds and it's supplemented as well by development excise tax and fees that come through the Development Fund as well as the Boulder Junction fund uh there are a variety of grant opportunities that we pursue throughout the year and on uh uh semiannual to other greater frequency type of intervals and uh We've hit this point pretty hard so I'll move on to the next slide here and uh remind everyone that the primary focus of our Capital Improvement program has shifted from onetime enhancement um Standalone type projects to more ongoing multimodal programs that are focused on safety maintenance and implementation of the low stress walk- and bike Network and vision zero and the neighborhood speed management so uh that is indicated by the pie chart that you see on this slide here uh one of the factors working against the CIP for transportation is the rising cost of materials goods and services and the construction

[37:01] Marketplace is uh of course uh subject to that uh we're seeing uh over the last several years higher than uh typical Consumer Price Index inflation in the construction Marketplace and the last year or so of coid inflation has really had uh an impact on the types of projects that we're doing in the city um So that obviously reduces our ability to further implement the the Standalone projects that we do want to uh fulfill and uh in pursuit of our TMP goals and objectives so this is the table that depicts all and summarizes each of the Standalone projects for the uh the the the boulder uh Transportation fund and we'll be highlighting some of the the key points from this uh as well as the M multimodal distribution across each of these projects this is the summary of uh Standalone projects for the transportation Development Fund which

[38:00] includes the 28 Street multimodal enhancements as well as the 28th in Colorado intersection and then this is the uh this chart that or this the table rather that depicts all of the uh individual programs that were uh noted previously that uh uh and bring attention to the focus that we have on safety maintenance as well as the the the focus on Vision zero and low stress walk and bike Network so uh just a brief summary of each of the the program areas then so the uh payment Management program is the largest line item funding within the maintenance program area and we have approximately uh $5 million a year more or less over the next five years allocated to this program for taking care of our streets so this would include everything from Chip seals and overlays to crack seals and other chemical treatments to preserve the life life of the pavement um we have a this is a top priority because we have such a

[39:01] massive investment in our 300 Center Line miles of streets in the community and uh we want to make sure we're preserving and taking care of that asset then we have our pedestrian programs that are focused on both enhancements but primarily on repair and maintenance of the sidewalk system and making sure that our system is compliant with American with Disabilities Act and Department of Justice guidelines um and this is also a recognition of walking being the fundamental mode of transportation in the community and our desire to make sure that we have facilities to cause that to occur we also have the program for major Capital reconstruction which is focused on uh taking care of the bridges and structures that are underneath our roads and along our pathway system and then the multi-use path program which is uh we have some dedicated to maintenance and and some dedicated to enhancement that helps to repave the pathways such as the example

[40:01] we visited in the community gardens area J at the Longs Gardens uh in uh just this past Friday and then uh some of the other areas that have come into the multimodal focus of of the programs in recent years the neighborhood speed Management program and then we also have uh the vision zero low stress bike Network and focus on Transit line items that were introduced a couple years ago and this is just as it was presented to you last month uh in consultation with Alex Weinheimer as well as further discussion with staff it seems that there is a desire to uh call special attention within the CIP line item to the way that we can integrate Vision zero um more uh transparently with the payment Management program as an example the way the um the the payment Management program repave the stretch of fome and introduced buffer bike lanes and in the

[41:00] way that we're looking to do something similar on Lehi adjacent to Mesa and be Elementary and so uh what this would then look like is we'd go from this slide to the next slide where we would uh we had previously proposed increasing funding on Vision zero capital projects from $50,000 per year up to to $125,000 a year and we would split this line item into two separate lines where we would have the P payment Management program Vision zero improvements at $75,000 a year and then the Standalone Vision zero capital projects at $50,000 a year and so those $75,000 a year enhancements then would be integrated along with the maintenance efforts of the payment Management program to uh um more more fully call attention to the uh the vision zero efforts that are coming to fruition because of the the expenditure of the payment Management program so uh if it's okay we'll just

[42:00] keep moving along but uh and come back to any questions or clarifications that we might have on on this slide uh projectwise we had the four additional projects that were a result of the safer main streets Grant provided by Dr Cog for 28th and Colorado protected intersection the 30th Street separated bike Lanes project and the safer signals as well as the Dr Cog Regional Tech uh Transportation uh and Technology grant for communication and Signal enhancements so we talked about the 28th and Colorado project last time which would introduce protected bike infrastructure as well as Transit service lanes for um enhancing Transit along Colorado and the uh and across 28th Street which is depicted in the graphic on the lower right then the 30s Street separated bike Lanes is an outcome as well as the 28th project of the 30th and Colorado Corridor study and this would Implement separated bike lane facilities along

[43:01] 30th Street from the north edge of the project that's currently under construction at 30th Colorado to the just south of the intersection with aapo and we received two grants here to allow this project to occur one is through safer main streets and the other is from the Transportation Improvement program weightless funding we were able to receive that for a total of about $4 a half million dollar in Grants then the safer signals and the regional transportation technology will improve signal communication such that we'll be able to uh facilitate having a future Transportation um technology uh intelligent Transportation Center where we can um remotely and intelligently uh manage the uh the traffic signal system as well as Implement Vision zero enhancements uh around the signal system that uh would uh uh make each of the The Crossing safer for pedestrians cyclists

[44:00] and vehicles and we talked last time also about the number one missing link in our system the 47 Street sidewalk across the BNSF Railway just east of foot hills and south of the diagonal Highway and then we also have the forthcoming uh HP or highway safety Improvement program Vision zero traffic signal reconstruction at Baseline Mohawk Bolam and Pine and Baseline and Broadway um you'll soon be hearing Communications about the downtown Boulder Station and that will be uh coming forward here in the next couple of months as we begin the seat process for this project just as we've recently been going through it and the the Easter APPA multiuse path project and then finally uh we've got the 28 Street project which we went into an a bit of detail last uh month uh which will provide multimodal enhancements for Regional Transit service along 28th Street which is also the State Highway 119 uh future bus

[45:01] Rapid Transit Corridor so uh with that uh what we are here tonight is to seek a recommendation uh to uh the planning board of the 22 to 27 CIP um and uh after planning board hears and makes uh a recommendation it would then go to city council so um appreciate your interest and uh happy to any any questions you might have thanks Garrett tab any questions Garrett could would you mind backing up to the um the slide you said you knew we would have questions about and then in the meantime I see Mark put up his hand okay go ahead Mark um yeah so I I have several comments that I'm going to say for our deliberations I I do have uh two clarifying questions and um Garrett did

[46:04] you find it a value to review and adjust the modal percentages uh in this latest presentation to better reflect the actual expenditures was that was that a value to you was that a value to anyone else on staff um or was it uh did you do you consider it a good use of time or not uh so I think it was a good use of time because uh as you challenged us to think harder about where the investment actually is residing it causes us to think about are we really pursuing the kinds of projects that we say are our top priorities in the transportation master plan and so I think for the purpose of transparency and making sure that the community is aware that we're spending the Investments uh with the precious resources we have uh in a way way that's consistent with those goals and objectives it it is it is valuable so I appreciate your input into that all

[47:01] right good thank you um the other clarifying question is um as I reviewed last month's CIP presentation and this months and went back and forth and and again I'll make some other comments on that but um is there a total number uh for each mode of the four modes for the 2022 2027 CIP and its relative percentage is there a total uh dollar value investment yeah and then and then it's percentage so of the 2022 2027 CIP 10 million uh bike uh 8 million ped um 12 million Transit and and then the associated percentages is I'm not asking you to calculate it now I'm just one wondering if I missed it or is it available or not or what it I was about

[48:02] to share my screen but you could also look at attachment a of the memo which includes a summary of the percentages as well as the total dollar sums for 22 as well as the 22 to 27 so I'll go ahead and share my screen so you can take a look at it great I I want you to know I have been looking at the memo but and the presentation but there's a lot there since Friday so I understand okay oh that's perfect that's exactly what I wanted to see okay and that's that's in the memo it is okay great excellent thank you I I don't have any other questions thank you okay so Garen I asked you to to pull up

[49:03] that slide when you were um pulling out I think you described it as a a way to better show how you are integrating some of these programs with uh the PMP um and I had gotten a bit of a preview of that thinking from Alex I think the way he was thinking of it was that there would be some kind of way to park PMP just strict maintenance and and putting stuff back where it was versus when we change things around as in connection with and capitalizing on the fact that the roadway is changing as part of a PMP scheduled maintenance and then we do some enhancements that there would be some money drawn not from PMP but from somewhere else is this the kind of the way that that you have settled on how to reflect that kind of pooled money to achieve more than one objective I yes and so hopefully you can could see that I'm sharing that slide again I yes I can see okay so I would describe it as it's it's one way that it

[50:02] could be done I don't know if it's the most perfect way um okay but I think it's one way that it could be done in in a manner that's consistent with what Alex was describing okay so for instance if I if on say Lehi where we are or fome uh the section of fome that's going to get redone as part of the PMP but then we're going to try to put cast in place uh concrete to physically separate that bike lane um are you saying that most of the money for just stripping up and fixing and putting down asphalt again would come out of PMP but then the cast in place concrete curb stuff would be come from the vision zero capital projects line item or something is that how correct right okay and it could and just to clarify so it

[51:01] could the same could be true if we left it as it were previously proposed but Alex felt compelled to note that that uh to call attention to the way uh it it's being uh integrated into the payment Management program it was more transparent to to separate it so the vision zero capital projects could be a bit more encompassing to include Standalone Vision zero Capital project efforts or it can include Vision zero that's integrated and he thought it made more sense U both from uh a staff and tab interaction level but also to a community reporting uh level to be able to call attention to the way we're uh leveraging one program to benefit all involved right um one thing I'm worried about is if we decide we want an improvement and it's not necessarily A Vision zero but it's more a low stress walk and bike thing but we haven't said that money's going to be get pulled from that uh is this doing it this way going to be Complicated by that I I think the way he had described it just like PMP

[52:01] enhancements didn't care which which pocket of money we were pulling the enhancement part out of I I would say it's uh it it it only complicates it from an accounting perspective not from an approval or sort of regulatory oversight perspective okay great okay that's all I have thanks I'm scrolling through Hut youve unmuted do you have any questions yeah Garrett I had a quick question could you take us back to the slide on the fiber optic to the intersections sure and and I'm just wondering how I think about this this this is a clarification question only um do we have fiber optic already at the other major intersections and this is an

[53:01] addition uh or is this uh a selection of these intersections for some other reason so it's it's a there's two parts to the response here the first is uh we don't have fiber everywhere but you might have noticed if you're paying close attention that uh there are a lot of construction vehicles happening uh and moving all about the city because they're busy installing the the city Broadband Network um right as as we speak um the P ponia construction vehicles are are are strong presence in town right now and so they are building that Network out and much like we like to talk about a first and final mile problem in transportation we also have a first and final connection problem with connecting the Broadband to our signal infrastructure so what this RT money will do is help to connect our signal technology or our signal equipment into the Broadband to improve the overall um technology and quality of the interface

[54:01] between the users of the system and and the managers of the system got it so with respect to location uh after this is done are we going to will will we have uh all the major locations we' really like this to be done uh in done or or is this a trench of activity yeah it's this is I would describe it as a first major tranch of activity um so we won't have all of the the signals we'd like connected but we will have a majority of the the signals we'd like to have connected and um and then the the exhibit you're seeing on the right was an attachment to the gr application for the safer signals and that was uh more being able to uh uh Focus that was more on safety and less on technology and so you can see the overlay of The Pedestrian Focus areas with some some of the the signal areas um that were targeted for the vision zero sa for

[55:00] Signal enhancements got it okay thank you very much great thanks any other clarifying questions from tab before we open up the public hearing okay seeing none there are a number of members of the public I don't see any hands up oh Stephen just put his hand up nice job but this is a great time for members of the public to waigh in on what they see and think about the Capital Improvements project Alison are you gonna thank you so first of all I have Stephen hell Stephen I'm going to ask you to unmute just one

[56:02] moment okay Stephen you can go ahead oop sorry I was double muted my okay so um Stephen hell go grve um just relating to the TMP um how we have the reduction of in commuters reduction of vehicle miles um and then some of these projects that were highlighting next few years are adding vehicle Lanes or keeping vehicle Lanes um had a comment we have 500 Center Line miles or 300 um is there any plan to start reducing vehicle Lanes in the city um and make and budget that um two examples here 30th Street it's almost a $6 million project to add a um separated bike lane just because we are trying to keep four lanes

[57:01] of traffic um it seems like that would be a better use to do a road diet on 30th slow the street down uh get the volume of traffic down and it probably cut that budget by 2/3 I imagine um so it's sort of I think long range planning I think the transportation department needs to start looking at the climate emergency that the city council has declared um and one another example of a street that could be narrowed down a stable Mesa I was biking by it at king supers when it was down to one lane um on my bike and traffic was nice doing 20 M an hour no backups um it's back to two lanes there traffic's going 35 M hour and on a bike with a trailer with the kid in there it's a bit scary um so I think overall

[58:01] and sort of like Broadway is six Lane Highway when it should be two lanes um cutting through this city um that seems like all of our projects the 28th Street project is adding more Lanes um the 30th Street project is keeping what we have I think overall I think the transportation department really needs to start thinking about how we're going to reduce traffic to get to the TMP um and these five years of projects are not going to achieve our TMP goals thank you thank you Stephen next up I have Lynn Lenn I'm going to ask you to unmute way um because you know I know you guys are stuck with what planning board does

[59:04] but you're part of the problem too you're part of the system and you have to Advocate that you weren't able to meet your TMP goals because of all this growth you know I drive my car once every six months I don't even have insurance now because it's not worth it I'll just drive once every six months but you know I don't want to drive my car I won't I mean drive my bike I won't drive it east at all I hate it just going to the bigger stores there that I need to and if you haven't got a way to reduce the problem from the root you're going to just be in the reactionary mode and you're not going to like this job anymore you're going going to want to get off planning board I mean Transportation Advisory

[60:00] Board because it's frustrating um it's not you know a lot of these projects that have been going on with planning board the development and everything these people are going to drive their cars because they don't want to want want to move around on their bike in a congested area I I live in an uncongested area by Tila I ride my bike all the around all time around the neighborhood and I just stay home and stay around my area but those people east of here don't have anything but high-rise apartments and congestion to live in and they don't want to ride their bike in that and the bus system is depleted because of the virus and the bus system is just creating more reason to build too you know Transportation uh um development so got to have a say to the other groups in a super master plan of

[61:03] All City operations planning transportation and housing and and get that worked out because otherwise in the future you're you're going to see that these great all this work that Garrett's been doing is going to all be for not because it's people aren't going to enjoy eny it and the place isn't going to be that much nicer it's still driving around in a high high frequency High car highspeed environment that people don't want to do that for enjoyment that's my thing than thank you Lynn next up I have Sue prant Sue I'm going to ask you to unmute and go ahead Hi how are you um so I would just like to uh commend the staff on um doing

[62:01] more with the pavement Management program to get us more safer facilities I think that's a great move forward we've been asking for a long time what can we do that is not a giant planning task and what can we how can we get stuff on the road quicker and the pavement Management program is a great response to that so I really think you've done a great job doing that like to see more of that we'd like to see um more uh working with the city to get more funding within the main city budget and able to to to fund the pavement Management program and other projects like this that are routine maintenance Pro projects um and and just doing more through routine maintenance uh is great and making the street safe through routine maintenance is really is is really a big part of the job of what city transportation department does thank you so much thank you Sue and I don't see any other hands TAA

[63:02] yeah so Kurt had his hand up briefly but then looks like he took it down so I'm gonna assume Kurt knows how to use the hand raising and he means he doesn't want to weigh in oh I see Lisa's hand up Lisa white yep there's Lisa okay Lisa I'm going to go ahead and ask you to unmute go ahead okay um good evening tab um so I was taking a quick look at the um proposed Transportation fund by mod share and at first glance it looks really awesome that we're spending over s and a half million dollars on pedestrians and bicycles um but digging into it a little bit more um it I just couldn't help but feel like the numbers were a little bit misleading um so looking at things like the 28th Street breakdown and seeing that that um is only 10% roadway and the rest is um majority pedestrian bicycle and and um it's primarily a Transit

[64:02] project um but I I feel like a piece that we're missing is the reason that a lot of these projects are so expensive is because of the roadway and um the desire to not impact car travel um and inconvenience drivers in any way seems to be um driving up the cost of a lot of projects s um so like Stephen hadel said earlier um if we were to look at repurposing some space some of the existing space that we have then I feel like there's a lot of potential for for the money that we have within our our transportation funding to make a true impact in creating low stress pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure um so I don't know what's feasible with with this um list of projects but in front of tab right now um but I do hope that in the in the future we can look at how we can spend

[65:02] spend money smartly um maybe do things that that require some political will in order to reach the stated goals that we have in all of our city plans so um thanks for listening Thank you Lisa and it looks like Kurt has his hand back up so Kurt I'm going to ask you to unmute hi sorry I had to step away but I'm back um I would like to Echo a lot of what Lisa just said that I think that the the modal distribution um numbers that that are cited here are pretty deceptive a lot of what um is we're now implementing for bike and and PED in particular um modes are really necessitated by the fact that there are lots of cars here and we're trying to deal with that and so I feel that the the modal distribution just does not accurately

[66:01] reflect that in specific uh some of the the numbers for the signals um changes in particular the the signal fiber project which I think um Garrett said would be used primarily for its uh sorts of of developments that to me is almost 100% for the benefit of Motor Vehicles there there have been studies done that indicate that if you have a a large intersection with enormous bike and ped traffic and zero Motor Vehicles it can function fine with no signals you can have you can have thousands of bikes and pedestrians going through an intersection and it just works it doesn't need a a signal it's sort of self-regulating but even a relatively

[67:01] small number of Motor Vehicles requires a signal so the the very presence of signals is for the benefit of Motor Vehicles it's not for the benefit of the people walking the people biking and so I would just like more awareness of that ideally from staff or ing that some that that that the tab look at these numbers with a a little bit of a skeptical lie because I think as I said a lot of this really is necessitated by the fact that we have a motor vehicle dependent transportation system currently thank you thank you Kurt thanks Kurt any other hands I don't see anyone else uh and I would like to take a moment since uh Mark had already asked about it

[68:00] and both Lisa and Kurt and others uh we talking about the the modal uh distribution numbers I I this came up during our working session uh a little over a week ago uh because it has been a long-standing sort of uh bothersome element um when we're just trying to figure out where all the money went and who it served it hasn't seemed quite accurate for a number of years and so to be fair we asked staff to take a stab uh at at more accurately reflecting sort of what the users were who were benefiting from some of these um I'm not sure we even like pinned down precisely how we were um uh going to change our estimates of of you know who is being served by different um uh projects but but the comments that that were raised just now are we among the the points of discussion and so what's in this is you know staff's first attempt to massage the numbers to to take in some of this input uh and it's definitely we had no expectation it was going to be um you

[69:02] know the precise uh delineation of who's who's getting what but it was a first attempt to to be a little bit more accurate and a little more representative of the kinds of of sentiments that you have raised this evening and that have been raised by tab before so uh you know if it gets approved tonight it doesn't mean we're approving all of the methodology that went into to shifting it it will be part of an ongoing conversation but I do want to recognized uh staff's efforts to sort of meet us uh you know and and listen to those comments and and and sort of try to make this more transparent and more reflective where the money's going so thanks Garrett for that and thank you of course members of the public for for bringing this stuff to our attention and being part of the conversation I appreciate it uh we will close the public hearing now seeing no other hands and I will open it up to um staff discussion uh on the table is a proposed um budget and project list and this is the time for tab to discuss and weigh in

[70:03] and say yay or nay um as I mentioned it's been um several iterations of work on this and so it is feeling to me like we are nearing uh approval of this I don't think that there are any large um objections to anything but if there's any tinkering or in particular if tab has any reaction that modal split this would be a great time um to raise that I also did discuss this briefly with um Alex after our bike tour and so I think we've got his sense um that that this is a project list that we would like to approve this evening is there any other sense from any other member of tab you want to weigh in on any of this Ryan go ahead TAA um so I I don't think have anything to add on the

[71:01] substance of it I I um as you indicated we we've had a number of of meetings on this um I acknowledge um some of the comments we heard from the public about is this really is this really I think overall I would just I want to compliment Garrett and the team for um really going through the number of iterations with with us and I I think this is one of the best I've been with tab since March this is one of the best processes I I suppose on on different matters we we've talked about and I um like to do more of this kind of dialogue where we actually do have a lot of hard questions and we go back and forth and I'm grateful for Garrett and the team taking that that very seriously so um I I'm I'm happy with with where we are on this just you know given given all other uh constraints thanks Ryan Mark um okay so in in uh I know Hutch is

[72:03] getting ready to go and and I'm going to try to keep my comments brief but since I have been uh W to kind of stir the pot on this particular subject over the last couple years I I I I feel I need I need to make some comments here and I want to acknowledge uh three things um about this CIP update um the the distribution rework I I greatly appreciate it's very helpful to me um as as I go through the projects and rethink them uh I'm and I want to acknowledge that I'm sure it was time consuming uh and and many projects you know whether it's 25% or 26% what I what I was looking for I feel like which is something that we got which was a best efforts basis to estimate the modal percentages and so um

[73:02] uh I appreciate that and and I think it's it's important that we all look at these because as I've said before uh how we spend money is much more important than what we say our goals are or what we say we want to do how we spend our money is is really the most uh way of of of analyzing what it is we're doing and and whether we're making progress um I uh I also want to um mentioned that in the last in the last tab meeting not in our working session regarding the CIP Garrett said something that um I'm also appreciative of and that was he said we we went back and we looked at this through a tab lens and you know it's like that is great and and I don't mean this pejoratively but

[74:01] it's about time that is really great and I think that um the acknowledgment of and an anticipation of what tab is going to think of whether it's a c whether it's a CIP whether it's a specific project whether it's uh intersection improvements you know anticipating uh what what tab tab's input is going to be and position is going to be is is helpful to Tab and it's helpful to staff and and I know that you have many lenses you have to look at all of this stuff through uh the eye of the city manager of Council of many people but the acknowledgement of looking at it through tabs lens as one of your lenses um again I I appreciate that um I am also all about progress and uh not as

[75:01] much about perfection and I think that this CIP represents progress both in terms of us reaching our goals and uh in terms of uh transparency uh and in terms of staff and tab tabs relationship so I I welcome that progress um and teal is already referred to it but we we did take advantage of our publicly uh noticed meeting and um I rely on Alex Weinheimer for uh we each tab member comes to this with different areas of expertise and knowledge and uh I I appreciate Alex's and and Alex uh overall is in support of the CIP and and that that's comforting to me uh the modal redistribution the additional detail and and as I I looked through the memo the additional uh Page by Page project documentation all gives me Comfort that

[76:03] um uh what we're doing is transparent and um and certainly worthy of our consideration so um uh I don't want to carry on anymore other than say I'll be glad to make the motion when appropriate to approve the 2022 2027 CIP thanks Mark Hutch do you have anything to add um only one quick thing which is a comment on Stephen hell's comment uh that at this point I'm very supportive of the of the CIP I think that we've run through uh a solid process for it uh what Stephen did trigger for me is uh more more a conceptual question for the future as opposed to anything about our decision now which is you know under what circumstances would we spend money

[77:02] to remove payment pavement and how much pavement and how would that work uh we we've got too we've got a lot of payment pavement that we struggle to keep maintain now much less paying to get rid of some which costs a lot more so it's almost as if we don't have mechanisms to do the types of things he's talking about um other than that very supportive thank you staff for you know I know I know very lengthy and probably from your point of view somewhat repetitive process but I feel like uh this year in particular uh I I really understand what we're going to be doing so thank you I agreed thank you Hutch yeah I uh I am much more comfortable with this year's CIP than I was with last year's um I do think that it's a step in the right direction uh and just to respond to something else that was raised during the public hearing uh I hear you in being concerned that maybe not

[78:00] everything in the CIP uh is as um robust or as uh vigorous as we might want our spending and movement on just operating our transportation Network as a whole in in pursuit of our larger climate goals in particular um and so where we spend our money is a big p of Meeting those climate goals but it's not the only thing and it's certainly not um defensible to say that Transportation Department transportation staff and that the city manager uh through Transportation staff is that's the that's the key way to change how how we use our roads and how we envision um as a community we getting around and jointly achieving a whole lot of changes in Behavior including transportation and how we get around and how we get our stuff um but it's not the only area and it's not the only lever that uh I think that city council and City manager's office should be pulling in order to get

[79:00] uh the systemwide and CommunityWide change and region-wide change that we need to see to really make a big big impact and to achieve our TMP goals in our greenhouse gas goals U but I am much more confident that this this CIP is at least not undermining those efforts uh and is um more transparent in ways that we are supporting other modes other than single occupancy Vehicles the way that we're still uh supporting Transit despite the the the hit that um Transit ridership and and um enthusiasm public enthusiasm and acceptance willingness to ride Transit has taken a hit during Co we are still assuming that's going to be a big part of how we move around and how we pursue our various goals that we've committed to over the you know the past and into the future and so I I am appreciative of the CIP and I would welcome a motion to approve it so moved ah okay Mark moves to approv the CP there is suggested language in the

[80:01] uh memo it's on page two of the memo oh there you go Mark is that the motion you'd like to make uh it is how about that I'll second the motion uh the motion reads tab recommends approval of the proposed 2022 to 2027 Transportation fund Transportation Development Fund and Boulder Junction fund CIP which supports the vision and goals of Boulder's Transportation master plan any

[81:00] discussion on the motion from tab members I can't see you all at once but I see no objection there you are Let's uh if there's no discussion on the motion then let's go ahead and move to a vote all in favor Hutch I need to hear you or see you there you go hands up all right CIP the motion is approved the CIP is approved thank you very much staff for your dedication this took a lot of time I recognize that but I appreciate it thank You tab okay now we're going to return back to our agenda as originally scheduled we'll move to item four the monthly update thank you very much so um this is just going to be a very brief update and

[82:00] um just to remind our viewing public they can also see these statistics on the um on the website in fact our brand new website and um that just launched today so I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that just so that tab um so that you're aware um in terms of preco versus now as we're coming out of Co period that we're down about 10% in terms of travel um from a similar time when you look from May 2019 to May 2021 and so uh we can we still haven't rebounded yet in terms of Trav I'm sorry in terms of um travel during you know postco one of the other things to note is that total crashes in May were reduced 40% approximately compared to on the same time frame um in a May 2019 preco period however um you know so that

[83:00] that reduction is significantly greater in terms of um when you compare it to the amount of travel that's come back now severe crashes on the other hand they they you know they fluctuate from month to month and so in May 2021 uh we had a 20% reduction with four severe crashes compared to five in um May 2019 I think that you know we've heard a lot of uh information input about statistical significance and so it's probably within the boundaries of error um in terms of cycling travel we have had a significant reduction um internal to the city between 35 and 50% depending on the particular area um while the US 36 Bikeway has a 20% reduction compared with 2019 pre-co levels and so you can find all that information on the vision zero um website one of the other things though is when we look at RTD and hop service um that is still very very

[84:03] significantly impacted so when we um look at the statistics right now RTD as a whole on its system reports approximately 65% less ridership than in pre-co level than you know pre-co levels and then for the Hops um service um for 2021 year year to date so January through June writers ship is 77% less than in 2019 year to date so that's a substantial hit that we've taken on the Hop service um in June 2021 hop is 59% less than June 2019 and um over the past three months hop ridership has increased compared to 2020 levels as I noted is still significantly down and that is our Transit and um crash and travel data report during the co period as we come out I feel like we should have a Walter cron kite

[85:02] voice you should or some little radio jingle right traffic on the ones you don't want to hear me sing trust me thank you for that Erica I did ask for that update and I appreciate it you're welcome any questions on that tab I guess my only question is if there's no one bike or there's so many fewer cyclists then how come all of the bike shops are still like sold out it's a global supply chain problem I suspect um yeah all right so if there's no questions on that then we will move along the next item will be uh the Arapaho multi-use path um so this is an update before we have a seep either next month or in September I think it's September um another little housekeeping item I will have to step away for a few

[86:00] minutes somewhere in about half an hour from now and so I would just so we don't have to switch uh ring Masters mid circus I would really just like to ask Mark to take over as uh as for to chair the rest of the meeting just so I can step out without interrupting the meeting if if I need to if you don't mind mark so I'll still be here and I'll still be listening I just might not be attentive enough to to be calling on people and and doing all the housekeeping that I need to take care of so okay so uh who is uh I'm sorry who is doing the rapo East arapo presentation are you ready it's me Mark looks like ran there we go okay there you yeah I was like wait did I just miss a queue or something no you're all good okay all

[87:00] right Carry On Ryan thanks no problem hello everyone my name is Ryan NES I'm a senior Transportation planner with the city of Boulder and this evening I'm going to give a brief overview of where we are with the Easter Appo multi-use path and Transit stops project which as Tila and Mark mentioned is a seep a community community environment enironmental assessment process project um and so we will be talking about the design the proposed design this evening um in advance of finishing the seep and then presenting it to tab on September 13th and holding a public hearing at that time so just a little bit of background um this project is really coming out of the East arapo Transportation plan which is a multimodal vision for the State Highway 7 Corridor between Boulder and ultimately Brighton uh but this project is really uh addressing the lwh hanging fruit in this Corridor which is an incomplete multi-use path system uh

[88:01] between 38th Street and the South Boulder Creek and then also um upgrading existing Transit stops really to help um improve the transit service that exists today in advance of an eventual bus rabid Transit project that is identified in the EAS Appo Transportation plan uh the budget for this project is just under $2 million we received a Federal Grant from the Denver Regional Council of governments and so it is a fairly constrained budget um and so really again just trying to focus on getting the lwh hanging fruit here before we uh engage in a much larger project we held two public meetings so one on March 17th and another on May 26th and we asked the community for feed feedback on a few different items so uh we asked uh folks how they would uh prioritize the width of the multi-use

[89:01] path and the buffer between the path and the travel Lanes we asked folks what they would like to see in that buffer in regards to Landscaping we also uh focused on what kind of amenities are important at the existing Transit stops and then what we might be able to do to improve the uh un signalized Street Crossings so these are crossings that do not have traffic lights you could see in the uh the slide here that there is a section of uh a cross-section of arapo with a 12 foot 12 foot multi-use path and 8 foot buffer and so this was our preferred section this is really what we were trying to achieve throughout the corridor and and really what we heard from folks um was that um in regard to the multi-use path width and the buffer uh both are important so it's important to have a wide multi-use path uh for folks to bike and walk but also to have a significant

[90:03] separation from traffic and of course uh so arabo is a very high volume street with higher speeds and so again we really did try to work towards uh that preferred section where we could unfortunately a lot of this Corridor has very constrained RightWay and because of our limited budget we are unable to get more right away because it would um substantially increase the cost of the project and the timeline uh in which we have to spend the grant so uh you'll see that we we did have to make some adjustments where RightWay was constrained again we also asked residents and uh meeting participants how they would prioritize the landscaping and the buffer and so um we basically Ally focused on three options uh so a higher maintenance buffer with grass and frequent trees uh which you'll

[91:00] see on the left hand side of the slide so this is a picture from 28th Street in the middle the one that is highlighted in green was uh the most popular option that we heard from folks uh and that was a lower maintenance Landscaping uh with some native plantings and some rocks and then still having some trees but maybe not quite as many um and so this really uh isn't as large of an impact on our maintenance staff as the uh the other option and then the third option uh was uh quote unquote No maintenance uh Landscaping so this is basically a stamped and colored concrete buffer between the multi-use path and the roadway and so this was the least popular of the three options that we presented to uh meeting participants and online uh so I should say also that we had a a be herd Boulder questionnaire where we received uh nearly 50 responses to the U the options that we laid out for folks in addition

[92:01] to the uh public meetings that we [Music] held we also uh asked uh meeting participants and be her Boulder uh questionnaire respondents about what type of uh amenities they would like to see at Transit stops and so the most popular two that we heard uh in both beard Boulder and at the public meetings were uh shelters and benches and so of course uh we can't put shelters at every stop uh there are some considerations with uh the level of ridership at the stops um that do or do not get shelters um but what we took away from this was we should put shelters where there warranted and we should uh certainly prioritize seating at as many Transit stops as possible uh so seating came away as as a very important item for

[93:02] those stops and then we also uh will ALS be uh adding bike racks and uh and trash cans where they are needed and then finally we uh had three options for the UN signalized uh Street Crossings so uh we asked uh folks about uh raised Crossings so you'll see a raised cross crosswalk on the left hand side of the slide in the middle we asked about curb extensions so uh physically narrowing the opening in the street thereby um making the crossing shorter and then the third option uh which was the least popular of the two was uh basically just tightening the corners so that um the turning radius was Tighter and and cars would have to take it at lower speed uh what we heard from the engagement

[94:00] process from the meetings in the be her Boulder questionnaire was really uh raise crosswalks uh curb extensions were important um and that we really need to to focus on making The Pedestrian experience better at these uh unsignalized Crossings uh one challenge we have unfortunately is there is a significant amount of flood plane in the corridor uh so to the West it's the Boulder Creek flood plane and then to the east it's the South Boulder Creek flip plane and so that limits a little bit how much we can do in terms of concrete work but we did uh try to focus on on improving those Crossings where we could and so I'll just go through uh the uh Bird's eyee view design very quickly here and then we can come back and uh and focus on details if you like but you could see on the south side of arapo Avenue starting at 38th in Marine um we are widening the path and

[95:03] uh adding buffer uh basically from that Eastern Terminus to uh just about 7,500 feet uh west of Foothills Parkway and so uh this section here is that 12ft path and 8ft buffer that I that I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation that we were really focusing on prioritizing through the corridor and then you'll see also that we have the upgrades to the transit stops uh highlighted here in blue moving East so this is now east of Foothills Parkway um so this would be Boulder Community Health uh we did actually uh add a curb extension at MacArthur drive on the west side of the intersection oops and we did continue that 8 foot

[96:01] buffer with 12 foot path uh through 48th Street um and then that would uh link up with the existing multi-use path in front of The Verdant Apartments this is a rendering that shows what that curb extension with the uh lower maintenance native plantings and uh trees l Landscaping would look like in the buffer moving East so you can see uh the right of way line which in the bird's eye view map here is the dashed black line uh moves in towards the street and so this is where we begin our area where we have some more constrained right away and so uh the path just uh just east of Patton Drive uh needs to narrow down by by two feet and then the buffer is actually 5et and that's really to try to get that balance that that we heard from the engagement process was

[97:00] important while working again within the right of way um because gaining more right of way would it would not be cost effective uh for the purposes of this grant however the uh buffer in the path then uh well the buffer widens uh east of patent drive and then the the path um remains 10 F feet in this section uh up to Koga and then just east of Koga is able to uh bump out again before narrowing down a little bit but really we're trying to to make these uh transition so to speak a little more gentle so that um the the difference between the 10- foot path and the 12 foot buffer isn't too abrupt and the the buffer um here that goes from eight to 10 and then the six isn't isn't horribly uh different from uh driveway to

[98:01] driveway so uh around 50 fish street is where we have the uh the most constrained RightWay and so just uh just east on the south side of Arapaho uh unfortunately we don't have enough space to have a uh have a full buffer as we would like um so this is where we are proposing putting a two-foot buffer with uh stamped and colored concrete between the path and the travel Lanes I would like to note though that there are on street bike lanes that start at 55th Street uh heading Eastbound and Westbound um and continue east of 55th and so there is a little more separation from the travel Lane that's built in because of that uh 5 foot bike lane that exists there today on the uh north side of the street at 56 you'll see that there is also constand right away and so we have that

[99:00] that two- foot buffer but then it actually um widens and so where it widens we're able to to of course make the path wider and the buffer wider um before it then shrinks down again but then after that uh that small section kind of uh center right where it is is narrow on the North side we are really able to um for the most part continue the preferred section um out and I'm sorry this is a uh a rendering of what the stamped and colored concrete and the path would look like in front of the kico station so this is just um east of 55th Street but as I was saying uh as we continue out towards the The Junction with the Boulder Creek path at the South Boulder Creek um we're able to continue that 12 foot path and OT buffer um for

[100:00] the most part I would like to point out in this bird's eye view uh map that uh this section uh just west of the Boulder Creek path in the South Boulder Creek uh will be included in the water view Redevelopment that was uh recently approved by planning board and then uh the other uh change on the south side that i' would like to point out so there's an existing Transit stop that is adjacent to the flat irons Golf Course uh however the issue with this Transit stop is that there is no sidewalk or path that leads to it uh so to access it you need to walk in the uh the shoulder SL existing bike lane that is um that is uh against traffic and so uh what we will do with this project is actually make a slight widening to arapo uh just east of oldale

[101:00] road which will allow us to build a new uh pedestrian pad and Transit stop that will be connected to the existing multi-use path that's there today and this rendering shows that section uh just east of 56 Street on the north side of rabo um where the path is narrow um because of the RightWay but then uh widens out where we have additional right away to add the buffer and so that give you a sense of what the transition will look like so the next steps uh as I mentioned we had the two public meetings on March 17th and May 26th and then of course we're at tab tonight for information and feedback um between now and September 13th we'll finalize our seep and uh bring the seep to tab on September 13th and have a public hearing uh before asking for your

[102:02] recommendation to place the seep on the city council's callup agenda um we would like to do that this fall if you recommend that we do so and if city council recommends that we move forward with the proposed design uh we'll begin final design and engineering at the end of this year uh with the ultimate goal of construction starting late next year or early 2023 and I can uh answer any questions or concerns you may have thanks Ryan uh so Ryan TAA any uh any questions comments about the this so far I had a question but I got so distracted figuring out how to raise my hand you could try light it up and wave it so so I was

[103:03] looking at the low stress walk and bike Network plan uh and it looks like the long-term vision for Arapaho is to have a physically separated bike path of some sort the entire length um and then looking at the beginning of the memo the purpose of this project is to design and construct missing links in the multiuse path system along aapo between 38 and Cherry Veil and so of course on the south side of arapo we're not accomplishing that protected bike lane Vision all the way to Cherryvale because we've got that existing bike lane that um very brave people might use so can you comment on that are we are we done with our work on this uh or are we going at some point to have to undo some of the work that you're doing here in order to achieve the actual intended low stress walk and bike Network planned

[104:02] idea yeah so so the the vision is to have separated bike Lanes on this Corridor in in addition to multi-use path and the brt um so I would say uh the question about whether we have will be undoing work um in we won't be undoing what we're doing here because we're what we're doing is we're establishing a continuous multi-use path system uh on a rabo in this section between 38th and Cherry Veil when we come in if when we come in uh to do the larger project which would include the protected bike lanes and the bus Rapid Transit line depending on you know the grant we received to do that and the the timing of it I mean that could be that could be something that comes in components or could come

[105:00] in a a very large full Capital reconstruction and so it's a little hard to say whether or not we would have to redo some parts of the the corridor um in regard to the multi-use path that we're laying down in the next year but the the uh timeline on that is is farther down the line it's not it's probably not going to happen in the next five years so so what we're doing is we're establishing a continuous multi-use path system as soon as we can in anticipation of having a fully multimodal Corridor down the line if that makes sense hea anything else okay Ryan anything from you I I

[106:00] don't think I have anything to add to to Tila H thank you Ryan for this uh I I'm going to uh ask like keep this slide up here and uh so I am the I am the cyclist headed east on arapo and I when I get to the uh little when I just go past the new Transit pedestrian pad uh I'm confused as to what I'm going to do uh as a cyclist or even as a pedestrian uh carrying on from that the office building just east of the car rental place uh on out what what is what is there and what's my uh safest most comfortable option to continue e e that's a great question and so actually I think this graphic might or yeah start over here um then maybe go to the other

[107:00] one um so that that's a great question and so the option even after this project will be built this project alone is that there's an on street bike lane which is not terribly comfortable that's adjacent to the flat irons golf course so early on in this process we did have the discussion about about um continuing the multi-use path along the uh the property line of the flat irons's Golf Course uh the challenge with doing that is that um most of the golf course is in the uh the FEMA conveyance Zone as it's called so it is a uh a very highly regulated flood plane and so it will require um a very substantial uh flood plane permitting process that would just blow up this project to be quite honest and so in addition to needing to coordinate

[108:02] with the Parks and Recreation Department in order to make that project happen um we we made the call early on that we wanted to try to fill in as many of the missing links in the rest of the corridor as possible before we really addressed this section in front of the golf course which will be the hardest section to build um I will say though that I I and Garrett can correct me if I'm wrong but I I would anticipate that that would most likely happen before we we start a brt project in this Corridor um that's something that parks and wre is working on and we're we're collaborating with them it's just a very difficult section to build because of that flood plan issue so the uh thank you uh the bike path that I'm now carrying on East as I uh with a flat irons's golf course on my right as I go east how wide is that

[109:00] path and it's currently not buffered with paint or anything it's just a it's just a path how wide is that path so I don't know off the top of my head I've actually walked it um so I know that there's it's a standard bike lane so I believe it's 5T wide and then there's a little bit of concrete or uh asphalt rather on the um the south side of it before the edge of the pavement so between the the line that separates the travel lane from the edge of pavment it may be six to seven feet I don't know Garrett do you have a good sense of that if you're still on line I I don't know the dimensions off the top my head ran I think Brian might be here if if he is aware yeah I I do not know in particular

[110:00] I think it's 78p like you said Ryan so um when uh I attended a meeting that uh Alex Weinheimer had with Ryan and Natalie about this section and Alex's concern I had nothing to I just listened in um Alex's concern was about doing things along here that would have to be undone and I think Ryan uh has addressed that he addressed that for Alex and and um I think he's addressed it here tonight that none of us want to see uh doing construction uh spending money and then having to undo it or change it at at a later time and and certainly as my education about Transit issues of Transportation issues has grown uh you know it's amazing how much water has to do with uh these Transportation projects and so my

[111:01] question is um uh could we do vertical Separation on a couple year multi whatever sort of uh length of time we need to as we uh develop redevelop this Corridor I I'm just talking about plastic ballards from 55th to Cherry Veil on the south side of Arapaho to make that that bike lane uh both actually safer and and feel more comfortable to cyc us without spending a lot of money without changing uh flood conveyance stuff and just you know hey we have a we have a segment here that we have Ballard yeah that's a good question I mean that's something we can certainly explore and I think we would um I think Devon is online and he may have some thoughts about that um I know one consideration will be that we will have

[112:01] to work with uh cot and they will have to to sign off on that because it is State Highway 7 um so it's just it's a matter of um you know if the if the amount of space to do that is available okay okay thank you that's that's it for me but I I would certainly want to want to consider that and looking at the bards at uh Spruce and uh 26 through 27th uh the new plastic ballards on our CIP tour um you know again not the most attractive thing but certainly uh give uh give motorists something to avoid and a sense of security so all right thanks Ryan no

[113:01] problem okay having uh no other feedback um we are going to if I get my screens um squared away here uh and having uh we've done the CIP uh we're now ready to move on to the um CU South project update uh starting off I believe with uh Phil welcome Phil hi good afternoon or evening sorry um members of the board uh my name is Phil kler I work as a planner in the planning and development services department I can go ahead and start sharing my screen I am joined today by a member of um CU Boulder and that's Derek Silva assistant Vice Chancellor for business strategy um thank you for being here Derek appreciate it so I'll go through a few slides and I'd like to summarize um some things that are in our draft annexation agreement CU um Boulder does

[114:02] have a couple of slides relating to some of the amendments to the traffic traffic impact analysis um that were a result of tab's previous discussion um and so the packet in tabs um um the memo and tabs packet this evening did include um a summary of Where the negotiations were going as it relates to transportation and I can say that about three hours ago um we were able to release the draft annexation agreement on the city's web page and so we got a link to that um to Meredith and to Erica so they can forward it over to the board so you can have the benefit of seeing that as well um and so what we can do tonight is to um go over some of the key points in the agreement as it relates to Transportation um I'll I'll um hand over the floor to Derek um for a few notes around their traffic impact analysis and then we'll open up for for discussion so a couple of these um won't

[115:02] be will will be fairly familiar to tab we this is our third visit with the board um and it's been helpful to get feedback along the way um Council early on in the process did identify that this was a fairly complex project um and as such wanted to ensure that there are ample opport unities for community members and board members to provide input along the way and so this is in general the kind of the public process we've been going through um and with the release of the agreement today um we are now heading towards um a public hearing before the planning board on July 22nd next week uh and city council will ultimately be holding a public hearing on September 7th of later this year um uh uh and deliberate on on the application at that point um this has been an ongoing conversation that has evolved really over the past um half decade or more um more most recently in 2016 2017 uh the city the University Boulder County um work together to um

[116:03] develop the CU South guiding principles as part of the comprehensive plan the university submitted an annexation application in early 2019 uh and since then there's been a lot of um very transparent and public um dialogue between the two parties um and that was memorialized in term sheet that's just shown here as a screenshot um and then late last year we developed what we called an annexation briefing book just to be able to start describing where we were and where where we were headed in the annexation that's kind of the stage we were at at the last point we were at Tab and so now we've taken all of that feedback um and we've attempted to translate The Guiding principles into uh annexation terms that are clear and enforcable um and we have released the the draft of the annexation agreement um this afternoon for the community to begin um uh responding to uh we are scheduled to have um what we're calling a listening session on Wednesday at 4 uh this will be an opportunity to provide a

[117:01] brief presentation about the the agreement as a whole um and just listen um to members of the community um to um hear what they think about the direction of the agreement um and then again planning board um will be holding a public hearing on July 22nd and City Council on September 7th so our our main um question for tab is whether or not you have input relating to the transportation issues um for the CU South annexation and so in thinking about the terms of the agreement and this meeting we we thought that we could probably um put the general terms into several buckets and so there was establishing access to the property um uh the necessary on-site improvements and offsite improvements necessary um limiting trips to and from the property through various mechanisms um and how to have proactive measures to manage um future mobility and so to take the first one the establishing access um this was

[118:01] discussed in previous tab meeting so it it won't be a surprise to the board members but the agreement does say that the primary access will be from the existing South Loop Drive um and a new access point to State Highway 93 um once constructed by the University South Loop will be con constructed as a complete street with a multi-use path and a buffered bike lane um and secondary access is um um um uh indicated for um Tantra Drive um and that secondary access will be controlled through a mechanical um device U at the University's discretion and it'll include and be open to emergency um access maintenance and Transit and for Tantra Drive the transit um buses will be PR the university will prioritize prioritize electric buses um and it is worth noting that the university as with other um Property Owners is responsible for the permits and the construction to to gain access to the site that we're

[119:01] discussing um the university has also agreed to construct a 12 foot wide multi-use path along the western edge of the property consistent with the city's um transportation master plan um and we are discussing a cost sharing arrangement for A New multi-use Path under Table Mesa um connecting the RT Park and Ride lot to Thunderbird Drive um and I when I said discussing that is because that there are a small handful of outstanding terms and items relating to transportation that are still being discussed um by the city and the university um and most notably um one of those um items is measures needed um to ensure that impacts to the city's Transportation um system are mitigated through off-site infrastructure improvements um and other methods so there are just a handful of um topics that we're still discussing um though um the next topic that we wanted to talk through would be some of the limits that the annexation sets on the property and specifically the trip cap program

[120:01] because this was discussed at your last meeting so the draft agreement does limit the daily automobile trips to and from the property to those amounts shown here and those amounts were calculated through um the University's um traffic impact analysis and again we mentioned earlier and this is an important note with the um compliance of the program that the as the university is responsible for gaining access C permits and so on um to access the property if there was um a scenario where one of those access points were unavailable to the university um that is um somewhat of a risk on the University side in that the agreement spells out that the trips from that particular access point are not transferable and so if there was a problem at the State Highway 93 um those 750 trips would essentially be forfeited until such time when that access could be secured um monitoring and enforcement

[121:01] was something that um uh staff and both parties um took seriously um and so in this case the agreement does spell out um specific ways that the university is responsible um for for uh annually monitoring um uh daily traffic counts um at least one monitoring uh period will need to take place prior to different phases of development proceeding um we did also recognize that there are times when there's a special event there might be a peak in traffic um that um um are just not anticipated now temporary Peak and so the agreement also does include a provision around um 12 special event days that um the university is afforded for the site um for those instances and so the one big question the tab might have is um what happens if we're doing these monitoring um um processes and it goes over the cap and so the agreement does spell out fairly specifically the steps that take place if that happens um

[122:01] and so first off the university would then uh after the report shows that the trips are above that threshold there would be a 90-day period in which the university um would identify and communicate um strategies to the city for lowering lowering those trips um following that there would be an implementation phase of 180 days to actually Implement those strategies and it's at that point where those annual monitoring report reports turning to turn into quarterly reports and what we would need to see is at least two consecutive quarterly reports showing compliance with the agreement um U before it kind of goes back into the normal monitoring um periods um the enforcement piece on the trip cap program is that if we go a whole year of those quarterly reports and there's four of them um the UN there would be a specific amount of funding per trip that the university would would be required to reinvest into this site into its TDM measures in order to lower those trips

[123:02] and so um we thought it was important to kind of talk through some of the enforcement mechanisms of the trip cap program um we also have a provision around maximum parking and this is based on a ratio of um one uh parking space per attached dwelling unit or 600 square feet of non-residential space um and the university has agreed to comply with the city's um short and long-term bicycle standards um the these particular um um topics haven't changed much since since our last visit with tab um specifically that the university um has agreed to construct a multimodal hub um and the agreement does include some minimum standards um and then lastly that the um university the agreement does identify um a number of Transportation demand man management strategies um that um I would probably leave to Derek to talk through in more specificity but overall those haven't changed much since you last um saw them um and with that I might Derek

[124:04] pull up your slides and um I think you can unmute yourself all right thank thank you Phil and uh thank you to my name is Derek Silva I'm the assistant Vice Chancellor for business strategy at CU Boulder and project leads on this annexation project uh so Phil if you can go to the next slide if you don't mind uh so back at the tab meeting in April uh we received a lot of board comments um and it seemed that the comments fell into primarily two categories one was uh revisit the multimodal reduction rate uh the feeling from many members was that that rate was uh actually too low that we weren't capturing enough multimodal reduction as uh as our TDM programs would allow for or should suggest so what we did is we

[125:00] went and we um included factored in commercial on-site uses benefiting the residential community that would capture trips on the site keep folks from going off site to have to go to maybe small format Grocers or that sort of thing we don't know what those commercial onsite uses will be but we would uh specify those on things that would actually have that effect of additional trip capture another one was to collaborate with the city on future multi mobile connections and one of those collaborations uh Phil pointed out which is to to study and and and most likely Implement a some sort of connection from Thunderbird over across Table Mesa to the RTD Park and Ride um another place that we heard it was just about taking consideration more of our TDM programs that we have and where we used a great effect around our main campus and other existing campuses um and then as well I mean part of the Innovation I would say would be the trip cap program it's not something that's been commonly used around here and it's

[126:00] something that we have designed for this project um existing CDM programs expanded to CU South so the things that we do around our main campus and other campuses that work well we'll expand those to CU South as well uh as well see bus access for both University members and the community uh using Tantra drive as emergency and bus access only and then a Morehead Drive we had some conversations around that and we certainly support the effort to change that street to local traffic only you can go to the next slide please and so uh the from tab the tab comments the review comments and then working with City staff uh we determined to increase the multi-mobile trip reduction from 20% to 25% and we believe that's a accomplished through residential development with access to bus bicycle and pedestrian amenities and then the strong TDM programs I mentioned earlier and that's um and it's also those TDM programs are aligned with our own University

[127:00] Transportation goals and we would seek those goals to be implemented here at the site as well internal trip capture uh we increased that from 10% to 15% and that was the an increase that's due to factoring and on-site mixed to use commercial facilities that would be geared toward keeping residents on the site as opposed to uh those trips off site to again maybe small format Grocers could be cleaners could be other uh neighborhood service type uh retail establishments and then trip distribution adjustments uh so concurrently with developing uh this traffic study we've been working on our CU master plan and in that CU master plan uh one thing in our preliminary study that wasn't accounted for was that we're looking at distributing some of the trips from our main campus even over to East Campus and Williams Village so there's a distribution of uses among our campuses that will change the way some of the traffic patterns will evolve from CU South between those other campuses

[128:00] and the net result of this was about a 10% approximate reduction and offside the vehicle traffic and a slight redistribution of those trips around the roadways um so that is the end of our update on this I do have Melle Riley from the campus to talk about TDM where answer any questions about TDM programs and then as well Bill Fox is here to talk about details around the traffic study and the updates thank you I also would like to add that um the board's feedback tonight will summarize it to the planning board and their memo and at the meeting next Thursday as well okay great thank you Phil and Derek were Abby or Michelle uh presenting or or just here to answer questions should they arise here to answer questions should they arise okay all right um okay so tab just so

[129:00] Derek and Phil you may have been listening in we're a little short-handed tonight uh Alex Weinheimer is not here and uh Hutch was here earlier uh and helped us conduct our CIP business but uh to rest up and recover from uh bicycle injury uh he is not here as well so anyway it's the three of us tonight um and um uh I'm ready for comments from Tila or Ryan Tila ready to go thanks Mark thanks Phil thanks Derek uh I checked and I saw that um Phil was on the call during our public comment period I don't know I didn't check to see if Dereck was um but I'm wondering if you can respond to a couple of things that were raised uh both in emails to Tab and at the public comment period tonight um first is about the response uh if there is any response about the timing of the traffic count that it happened during a particular lull um of of vehicles on City roadways anyway and

[130:01] so it might be um artificially low and polanish um and then a second one was addressing a couple of comments about um feeling that certain roadways around the project area are already at Peak capacity and I was hoping you could speak to whether it's good practice or not uh to sort of build your roadways and build your transportation planning to accommodate the worst case scenario or if that's something we really shouldn't be doing and if so why yeah so uh thank you TAA I will um we do have Bill Fox here to address those questions about the study uh and he uh definitely understands the detail and we've been certainly around the initial round of comments we had this was a concern that was raised and we felt that there was adequate adequate explanation for how those particular trips were used to inform the study that is not necessarily aligned with an an overarching impact that's been suggested

[131:00] by some of the comments we've seen but I'll let Bill explain that further sure thanks Derek so we um did everything we could to try to take into consideration the fact that we had to do some traffic counts in November of 2020 during coid and then uh adjust them to represent preco conditions and and the way we did that was to to do counts and we we had we had um most of the intersections for the study we had pre-co Counts from the city's database and we recounted a couple of those key intersections during coid on in November when we were doing other counts at at the ramp volumes where we didn't have any pre-co counts and and really that's the only reason we did counts in November was to try to quantify those ramp volumes where we had no earlier data but when we looked at the preo counts at intersections where we had um and then where we had pre-co information compared it to the coid

[132:00] counts and and generated an adjustment factor that allowed us to apply that same factor to the other locations where we didn't have any pre-co information and then so that was on a peak hour basis and we also made some daily traffic comparisons pre-o during coid and came up with about the same adjustment factor between the two methodologies so we applied that to the to the counts that were taken during coid and we acknowledged that that schools were out people weren't working at their normal Capa or driving to work as they had in the past and and that's why we had to make adjustments but I think at the end of the day we had adjusted ex to estimate of existing traffic in pre-co conditions that's defensible um and staff look looked into that in detail and I believe they agree so that was the adjustment question and the the counting that you referenced and then the other question I think was does

[133:01] it make sense to plan to uh occupy your roadway system at capacity was that the question um and and well what and in any traffic study and in going with City standards for traffic studies you have to document existing operations and then project background traffic growth into the future and the using all the method methods that we can and worked with staff to make sure that we had what we think is a conservatively High estimate of background traffic and and then add the the site traffic to that that's the standard format of doing a traffic study and and then see how the system functions with that level of traffic both existing future background and future with the site and and each one of those checkpoints we look at what's how it's operating and how it might need to oper how it could operate better if necessary and so we've outlined a number

[134:01] of of locations in the study where some adjustments could be made sometimes it's a maybe a signal timing adjustment as the city thinks of um areawide adjustments to Signal timing in the future but we also recommended some physical adjustments um would either provide more capacity or serve um turning movements better and right so that and so in in those recommendations is there an understanding of who pays for that in the future with this with this agreement well I I will say and and I know that that uh Derek has been working with staff to to um think about funding those future improvements and and U certainly anything onsite is is cu's funding but then the offsite improvements I think the city and CU are working on a a strategy for that okay I asked I do share uh a lot of the concern that we've heard um about leaving the

[135:02] southern access point on on Highway 93 unsignalized uh and I've heard it from proper Traffic Engineers I've heard it from uh you know County transportation and they note uh that most of the entrances south south of this location um the intersections that um feed into that Highway are all signalized for you know good reason even with very low volumes um so what happens if we proceed as is planned and we find either a crash Trend uh or higher volumes or some other reason that would warrant putting in a signal what have we done by not providing for that in this agreement now well that's that's a good question as to whether or not there's a contingency for for if and when a signal might be needed you know we we are bound by using national standards there are National warrants for for installing traffic signals and it's a state highway that's Southern

[136:00] access and and sedot will not let you put in a signal unless you meet those those volume thresholds of which our projections say you won't be close on the volume thresholds now and and hopefully there's not a safety um concern that that comes about and and Exhibits itself in terms of a crash history in the future but that would be a something to consider but it's hard to predict um a future need for a signal based on um a crash history that hasn't happened so uh at least initially I I do not believe there's the war a warrant will be met for a traffic signal there and SE Dot's pretty hardcore about um requiring you to meet those warrants before considering a traffic signal if if there there is a warrant that is required though that the agreement does state that the university is responsible for installing that infrastructure okay thank you I didn't understand that my last question before I yield the floor

[137:00] back um talking about Morehead um it's been you know an item of of interest to improve uh the way Morehead is used particularly if it's an access point for see South for other reasons um and you said that you would support a city effort to change the use of that roadway is is there any indication that the city wants to change the use of the roadway like supports this idea of making it local access only or you know a Transit and and multimodal over single occupancy vehicle um modality for that road or is this just you saying we would support such an effort if it ever materialized on the city's side the latter that I understand I don't know of any current initiative to do that yep and I would I would ask if Garrett Slater on the call has any input but I don't believe that there that conversation has been had at a city staff level um okay that's all I have at the moment thanks okay Ryan uh are you you sent me

[138:04] a texi you're struggling with uh with audio or video but anyway if you have any issues let us know but please proceed with your questions and we'll let you know if we have any trouble uh hearing you or understanding okay thank thanks Mark and uh thanks thanks team um couple couple questions this is pretty basic and I apologize this is so really basic to make it complicated but um I we heard in the in the um from some of the public comments today and and before today just a lot of generalized concern about traffic and congestion and increasing cars in in Boulder and I know this is one of the the key the key things that you're trying to mitigate um but could could you just um I'm not sure who this question is for but um who whoever could take it just give kind of a a conceptual overview of of what what is the traffic that we're talking about

[139:00] as far as like the are we talking like what are we concerned about the most is it is it the idea that we will have expect to have commuters coming in from other towns to visit the campus is it that we will expect to have more local traffic within Boulder from the to the campus is it it's it's students coming moving to campus bringing a car now you have more cars around the campus is it all of those or is it something else like like what's the idea of the kind of like the main concern of where the traffic is coming from or what it's going to do to high level if that's if that's answerable so I can I can start and and try to some degree it's all of the above everything that you mentioned in terms of who's going to come and go from where and to where and and I you know the to me uh one consideration for example is that the traffic that's coming to and from the us36 corridor to the southeast um some of that traffic can

[140:00] have a destination here and not penetrate farther into Boulder that's one one uh issue and then but but there there will be interaction between the various campuses within Boulder by folks that live on the site and need to be at any one of other campuses or or folks that need to come to this site to to an academic facility um and and um so I think it's all the above now but what we what we focus on is how will that traffic how is that traffic projected to add to the peak hours of the day primarily those are the times when congestion is most not noticeable we do also project daily traffic but really the concern is during the peak hours when the when the commute to and from work is is occurring going past the site and and trip so trip reduction is is the I don't know what you call it the

[141:01] unit or the or the metric one of the key key metrics what is a trip in that in that sense then is it how is it defined is it is it is it a vehicle arriving at and and Crossing in over to campus or or how's it defined a trip a trip is is uh in a traffic studies find is a a one-way trip if you got in your car and went to the grocery store that's one trip if you get in your car and come home that's another trip so it's a one-way trip to or from the site so we project the traffic exiting and leaving and and each one is a trip and so um that's you know the metric for trips and then and then we you know we start with Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates for residential uh housing and then try to adjust those for Boulder and for this being a part of Cu within Boulder so that's some of the adjustment factors that you've heard or read about okay thanks for that and then so

[142:00] the so then the the the trips to be reduced that we're concerned about from a an engineering standpoint it it it doesn't Ma we're not concerned with focusing on the longer trips coming from I don't know Longmont or golden or something like that um versus just coming coming from up the street it's it's it doesn't matter from a trip reduction standpoint we're just reducing the number of trips across from the public space into the the campus right the study area includes nine intersections I think or 10 with the new intersection and and those are the intersections where we're monitoring that trip making and obviously some of it might only be going a little bit farther than Table Mesa and Broadway but some of it might be going all the way to lions for example so but we don't know um that but we are monitoring the trips to and from the site and how those trips go through the adjacent intersections in the study area okay and so and that's the primary way that we will measure and and seek to

[143:02] mitigate the congestion traffic that we've heard the public is concerned about correct the the study area the staff City staff will pick the study area that they think is most influenced by this site and they've done that and picked these nine or 10 intersections as the key ones to evaluate and so then the study goes forward and does that got it okay and then um just kind of adjacent I I'm sorry if I missed this but is there um is is there any investment planned or I don't know being discussed on on Regional buses you know bringing helping people that are coming from other cities to support the the transportation demand management strategies is that is that part of this well I don't know about an investment in Regional busing but it the certainly the site is situated and located at the edge of a regional Bus Stop very active regional Bus Stop um but most of the transit discussed that

[144:02] will influence the trip making uh above and beyond anybody that does use the regional system is is the CU sponsored shuttle uh highfrequency Transit that will go between the various campuses in Boulder but those those buses would also be available for city folks to to use and and access and ride that service and actually access the site if they wanted to on those buses as well okay okay great and then um my final question is um Bill you you use the phrase Bound by warrant I I have an idea what that means I think what that means is is warrants is is if you need somebody to be injured or or killed to to provide an evident your basis that there's a a problem um to to create a signal for um and and bound meaning that the C dot I'm not sure what they would do but but we we we need that the historical record we can't use a first

[145:00] principl approach and say it's it's just well there are nine different warrants that are considered in in the warrant process that's defined in the fhwa Federal Highway administration's uh manual and uniform traffic control devices includes these nine warrants and that includes you know volume over the course of the day volume over the course of the highest four hours of the day peak hour volume at the at Key intersection also include there's a pedestrian warrant there's um a number of other warrants that may not apply to every intersection but um and then there's clearly a a desire to mitigate um traffic accidents crashes um and you know consider safety as part of the warranting process but it's that's usually not that's not done in a uh you know ahead of time that that uh there's there's thresholds for if you

[146:00] had five or more correctable accidents for example that might be meet the warrant for a traffic signal but it's hard to do that uh proactively okay okay great thank you that's that's all I have I appreciate it Bill okay um I'm going to take my turn unless he you have another anything else at the moment okay all right um so uh you know in in looking at this um uh I've always tried to uh look at it this through the lens of our of our the city's Transportation master plan and and the goal stated there and uh so in general I have to say yes this this the CU South project uh by my judgment only uh um would reduce Inc commuting uh by providing housing for graduate students

[147:02] faculty and staff um it would it would help us achieve our our um uh VMT goals by having people live closer to where they uh work and go to school uh does it help with our Transit goals and it does with a Transit Hub on site um uh you know does it uh does it help with our other goals and and and the trip reduction I think is the trip reduction cap for me is is kind of the key forward-looking element uh and to me this is far more important than the traffic study uh what days the traffic study was conducted because the trip cap is is a vision is the uh numerical embodiment of the vision of where we want to be in the future and and rather than focus on well if you have this many

[148:00] people we're going to have this many more trips because this many people today occupy cars and do it this way we are we are not going to survive if we don't change and so uh you look outside right now with the smoke from the forest fires and the temp anyway if if we don't change and and our future built environment doesn't change uh then you know this is all for not and we can argue about traffic studies so for me the trip cap is this key element and I really have one question about the trip cap and uh is it aggressive enough uh does it represent our current state of uh of of of trying trying to reach our greenhouse gas reduction and climate goals for the city that is declared a climate emergency so I I really ask that as as a sincere question uh both to the university and to City staff um is it

[149:02] aggressive enough and I'm I'm curious your thoughts on that Mark I'll go ahead and respond uh for the University I would say that I think this being a completely new program and given the methodologies that we used to develop the numbers um and and just the the foundations of what a trip what a trip it actually is you know it's it's one it's a one-way trip off the site or onto the site uh with those I do think it's aggressive enough just from the information that we have today okay from from City staff it was something that we were comfortable with and we were comfortable with the method our staff was comfortable with the methodology behind the analysis that got to that point but I think leading into today's release of the agreement it's now a time for um board members and others to be weighing in on this and and

[150:00] asking those sorts of questions so in in answering that question um is there any uh good way or a plan for saying yes we will let's say we operate close to the trip cap we we we come in under it the CU comes in under it but in 10 years from now we're operating uh close to but under the trip cap [Music] um uh have we offset and in fact are we better than what we thought by reducing the number of Inc commuters and calculating a projected reduction in in commutes and and other trips not just from the site you know we we talked about the uh trip reduction numbers and multimodal uh reduction numbers on from the site to places but from from Lafayette Lewisville Longmont where many students faculty and staff uh currently

[151:02] live is there any any calculation of an offset there I'm not totally sure I'm following and and maybe um Garrett or others on the line might might um but at this point I think for staff because we didn't have a site plan to look at to say oh this is going to generate this many trips it was important to us to have some bookends to what wouldn't would not happen on the site and that's where we kind of shared your sentiment about the trip cat being a central part of this um um component of the agreement as well as some of the other um limitations like parking maximums and things like that and we felt a staff that it comfortable with the approach because it's also coupled with the different Transportation demand management strategies and some of the other more proactive measures yeah and Mark I would add to that um one of the things that we're

[152:00] contemplating under the agreement is potentially how we can develop more housing than the 1100 units that's was an approximate number that we're targeting those trip cap numbers don't change right even if we develop more housing out there it's a benefit to the city and the community by releasing pressure the housing market here um but the trip cap number does not float with that so um we're certainly incentivized and would like to develop as much housing on as feasible on the site um and those trip cap numbers will always come in and limit us to some degree um so I think given where we are today and that we would like to have this site be a real benefit to the city is in terms of developing additional housing that's much needed here to me I don't I I think this trip cap is aggressive enough um because there's other it'll it'll provide a natural limit on development a natural ceiling on development um out there and certainly it will we have uh different ratios and caps on even the commercial or the nonresidential units that can go out there so there's many to

[153:00] Phil's Point there's many uh ways that we're kind of slicing this up uh and approaching that same thing including TDM uh the the development caps and limitations in the trip cap itself they all work together to limit development and and and limit trips off the site um while incentivizing us to maximize a residential benefit that we can generate from the site um next uh I I've made a case for this in the past I'll continue to do it uh it's been mentioned by many different people including George gerol and and others that Morehead it to me is really this key element to both um making reaching reaching or or going coming in below the trip caps making Morehead just this um a beautiful safe uh pleasant experience to go from CU South to the main campus and

[154:01] have have it be uh for bikes pedestrian Transit and local cars only and and it's going to take this is really directed at the at at city staff um both in planning and and in transport a that we are going to have to rethink um some of the restrictions and some of the way we view the the privilege of the single occupant automobile that well we really can't tell them where they can and can't go we've got to tell them that unless you live in this neighborhood um you're not going to go on Morehead uh to You're Gonna you're GNA have an entry pass I don't want it to be a gated community but uh it it Morehead to me is the key to making uh people who live at CU South want to walk or ride or take the bus to get to campus and um uh and so it's it's really I think it's partly incumbent on the city to um uh work with CU and make

[155:03] uh real commitments of what we're going to do with uh with Morehead both for the benefit of the residents along there because if we don't do something with Morehead then those people will likely have real complaints that they currently have which is it's a long straight narrow street cars go too fast there's uh it's difficult to enforce Etc so I just want to make a case that uh for the city that U that Morehead and the intersection uh where Morehead intersects Table Mesa and then it's an odd it's it's going to be a difficult intersection to reconstruct to make it safe for uh cyclist pedestrians and buses to get from the um uh the exit of Cu south over to Morehead but I it can be done with the right engineering and the right amount of money but it's it we can't just say well we're going to tweak

[156:00] it a little bit from this current condition to me it needs to be uh completely uh completely changed um last and I that wasn't a question so if you don't want to respond that's fine I would say Mark we do we did add we kind of anticipated that a little bit that there will be opportunities like that and I I would say in a broader perspective to if if annexed first off there'll be a three to five year sort of waiting period before any any development outside of recreational fields are built while the city is getting permitted for its flood mitigation project but we did add a term in the agreement um 18a that does discuss continued and ongoing collaboration and it cites the 30th in Colorado under pass is an example of that um and so it's something that we've recognized and I think in a broader context to to if annexed and this area was um anticipated to see kind of an area of change there probably be other

[157:00] planning projects too also that extended to that general area that we'd want to explore so we're tracking with you though in Morehead okay great well thank you and and um and for other tab members uh you know the uh the transportation section of the draft agreement starts on uh page 17 and uh goes down and i' I've been scanning it here quickly while while still trying to pay attention to everyone and I just have one last uh almost ironic uh comment on page 22 uh which is section 26 section c five Roman numeral five um you deal with parking and it's and I I have to laugh because we've been dealing with parking uh and the uh on our our amps system and our neighborhood parking and everything else and tab's input uh about um the city's uh new proposed changes to

[158:01] our uh parking is uh is that it it doesn't go far enough and I but I I commend whether it was the city or CU um I do notice that uh section five numeral 2 all the parking will be unbundled uh the university will charge Market rates or rates because our contention was that our the city of Boulder doesn't charge Market rates and in fact is subsidizing parking so anyway I support um the and I support uh real market rate parking on C South and continued incentives carrots to take the bus ride yourik bike show up don't have a car at CU South I'm a grad student working at CU do I really need a car uh can I live with an ebike um and part of that decision-making process would be the cost for parking uh where where I reside

[159:03] so I support the principles stated here on page 22 uh and wish the uh CU would more wish the city would more broadly adopt that particular set of parking um uh philosophy thanks I don't have any other comments anyone anyone else Ryan want to go back at it or anything Tila I think Tila is oh Tila is on the Move sorry I'm on the move uh yeah before we depart I did have one more question about um Tantra uh and the chain change uh that happened to change it to uh emergency only can can someone tell me about the the the origin of that I guess what I'm wondering is why is that a useful access now I

[160:00] can't imagine looking at the at the map where an emergency vehicle would prefer to come through Tantra instead of the most direct access on Loop Road so I'm just curious why why it's remaining an access point of all yeah what what was behind that change and ta I can answer this one um for the development will be faced here over a number of years and it it may be some years before we need to construct that Highway 93 access and so if so if we have development around the North and in the north area of the site uh it would certainly be um warranted to have that emergency access or an alternative access out of the site uh so certainly during the phasing that provides that access and and as well it is just something if there's a if there's a true emergency out there we just Envision having that for emergency access only um along with the other two accesses that we'll eventually have out there that having more ways out of the site in the event of an emergency is just a good

[161:01] thing so that to me at least that was my thinking behind that bill I don't know if you have anything to add about other accesses but that was certain L thinking behind it yeah it's also required through our Fire and Life Safety standards so our fire department needs secondary access regardless and okay thank you that's all I have okay um I want to make sure that uh We've uh that you're if you have any questions of us or we weren't clear about something or um something was muddled and I want you to be able to give uh a clear feedback to uh to council and uh and your your staffs um so anything else from us I think similar to the previous two meetings it's been really helpful to hear the discussion um and I I think I'm clear on the notes um and I'm able to

[162:03] summarize it to the planning board um I don't think we were surprised by any of it and I and I think um if I would also just add that you know Council formally asked for the board's input on this and you got the agreement three you know it was public three hours before the meeting so this meeting and so it's while it's the third time with you it's the first time really getting to dive into it and so I would also say that to talk to Erica where if if if um if you're looking at something and and something comes to mind you could always reach out to to to staff um and and we could hear what what any additional thoughts are and I assume that um in the short time I've been looking at the agreement one I'll say that uh the language is clear it's it's not uh as legal ease as one might Envision uh an agreement of this magnitude so I I find it so far to

[163:00] be readable and understandable so that's a plus and uh I assume that uh tab members can provide uh written input Phil would they direct that to you or or I mean what what would be if we if we if we go through this and want to provide uh input as a as a tab member but not as a board position what would be the best channel to do that there is we we compile all the public comment and and we would have that as a kind of a public comment register um it could also be shared with council at at council at at bouldercolorado.gov and and if if Erica or other staff have any other suggestions about that but if if tab had any any other more letter from tab you know council is is voting on this or holding the public hearing on September 7th um it's a possibility that it'll be that the following meeting when it's

[164:00] actually voted on and deliberated okay there's a little time you know in terms of other suggestions um you know CC Meredith um you know so that there's the record within Tab and then also um because you know Ryan went and spoke before um you know with regard to amps and so forth even though it wasn't a formal board position um and I think you know the other thing that there still is an opportunity um not having staff you know come and present Etc but to talk about it at the next tab meeting and um you know think about what you might want to say to Council in addition great thank you okay all right thank you all very much thank you again okay okay all right let me get back to the agenda

[165:01] here um well we are certainly behind schedule but we've had some very important uh things going on tonight okay so staff briefing and tab feedback regarding vision zero Innovation program uh and uh Devin it looks like you're up thank you Mark okay can everyone see my screen okay all right well good evening everyone my name is Devon Joslin I'm the principal traffic engineer for the city and I'm pleased to be here tonight to present an update on the vision zero Innovation program uh there is a lot to cover in this presentation but I'll try to keep it to about 15 minutes in the

[166:00] interest of time and then I'll be happy to answer any questions and certainly listen to the feedback that you have we talked briefly about looking at things through different lenses and I thought this was an interesting perspective of the in section of 26 in Spruce so I wanted to use this as the title slide tonight there are six main things that I want to highlight with tonight's update and the main purpose of the presentation is to give you an update on the progress made uh since we last came to you in March um at the end of the presentation you should come away with a solid understanding of the implementation status of group one projects as well as our plans uh for for how we intend to implement the group two projects so just a little bit of background about the vision zero Innovation program as a refresher uh the program was really developed to install

[167:00] Innovative quick build treatments and the treatments were geared primarily toward uh traffic calming and pedestrian Crossing improvements and these were all done to uh increase the comfort and reduce risk for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as slow vehicle speeds but we wanted to do that through the lens of not just putting these out there for the sake of putting them out there but also uh with a critical eye toward understanding their effectiveness and there are a couple ways that we do that uh with each treatment we certainly uh collect Community feedback but we've also had a stronger emphasis on collecting before and after traffic data and all of this allows us to analyze these results and outcomes and build what we're hoping will be a more comprehensive toolbox for these types of treatments in the future so there are three main uh project types that we are looking to install as part of the vision zero

[168:01] Innovation program and they're listed here on the slide uh curb extensions as you recall often are are used to shorten Crossing distances they also tighten curb radi and slow turning vehicles Crossing treatments are intended to increase pedestrian visibility and provide a refuge space as pedestrians are crossing the street and traffic calming is really geared at slowing vehicle speeds and focusing driver attention so in terms of a group One update um you can see on the map that we had 11 locations as part of our group one projects and all but two of those have been installed uh we are looking to install the speed kidney at on Cherry Avenue near 9th Street uh later this month and we'll also likely get the Harden Center Line at Baseline and Mohawk in within a month or so uh we did experienced some delays

[169:02] getting the product from the vendor for the Harden Center Line uh but we got word last week that the product has been shipped uh so City staff will be installing that uh shortly after we receive the product um there is still some art planned as part of group one um at Grove Street and 17th and Grove Street and 18th um we are very excited about the speed kidney that will be installed um that is a treatment that I believe we discussed with you at an earlier meeting uh but we believe it will be the first of its type in North America so we are planning to do a lot of publicity around it and uh promote it on various channels to make people aware of it wanted to go through uh some updates to the group one feedback that we received um basically for each treatment type as I mentioned we we solicit feedback on a form uh through be herd

[170:02] Boulder and what we see here is that over half of the respondents feel that treatments improve Comfort um 20% feel that the treatments make no change and only 15% of respondents felt the treatments worsened comfort and this was mainly due to confusion over the purpose of the treatment or due to kind of a shared Lane condition that's created for bicyclists due to the narrowing of lanes uh that curve extensions can create uh the not applicable column I want to point out that that means that a respondent couldn't say whether the treatment made things better because they hadn't experienced traveling through the intersection before the treatment was installed so there was really no point of comparison so moving on to the group Two update um you can see on the map here

[171:01] there are now 15 uh locations that were targeting improvements as part of group two and with group two um it's a little bit different than group one in that the seven locations list up at the top under the um nsmp complex corridors uh those are corridors so along a corridor there will be multiple treatments installed um so there are quite a bit more improvements planned as part of group two compared to group one uh I wanted to highlight on here that the seven nsmp complex corridors that were selected um were selected because they had qualified for nsmp when the post posted speed limit was 25 miles per hour and then the speed limit was reduced to 20 miles per hour as part of the 20's plenty project around this time last year um I did also want to highlight here that uh for group two project

[172:00] locations we have had discussions with the fire department utilities as well as the transportation maintenance division to ensure the feasibility of our Pro Pros designs and to design treatments in a ways such as to avoid potential conflicts or concerns so in terms of the nsmp treatment um corridors and the number of treatments planned uh I wanted to highlight here this table um just to give you a sense of the magnitude of the program that we're talking about with respect to these corridors and when I refer to a treatment here I'm calling a curb extension on one corner of an intersection a treatment for example so if we were to install curve extensions at all four corners in this table that would count as four treatments um that's kind of how I developed this table I wanted to highlight here that these

[173:00] corridors are receiving these interim treatments and that staff will evaluate following installation um the treatments will be spaced at about 250 to 375 ft which is the recommended spacing to achieve speeds of about 20 mil an hour and I also wanted to highlight for your information that the interim treatments in no way impact the ability or timing of these corridors receiving more permanent traffic calming measures as part of the nsmp when funding becomes available and when each corridor's turn comes up based on their ranking um the thing that we're hoping to learn by putting these treatments out on an interim basis is whether whether it's you know makes sense to convert them to more permanent projects when that time comes sort of a try before you buy type of approach so this uh slide basically summarizes the prior table um just breaks down the numbers in total so you

[174:02] can see just for the nsmp corridors uh we're in planning about 79 treatments and again these are very lowcost treatments um you know about a ,000 to $1,500 roughly per treatment and to do an entire Corridor uh you know about10 to $15,000 in in rough numbers um the thing that kind of makes these costs have a range is when we install the delineator posts there is quite a bit of labor cost associated with that and if City staff takes on more of the delineator installations that will reduce the cost of the treatments by Corridor um I want want to point out that we do hire a contractor to do the striping for these treatments uh but again the delineators are probably a split between the contractor and City staff and then City staff also handles all the signing for each treatment where where signing is

[175:03] required um so I want to go through again just some of the the reasons why we're doing these uh treatments along the nsmp corridors as well as highlighted few of the potential drawbacks that we anticipate um you can kind of navigate that chart yourself I think um we've pointed out there are some aesthetic aspects of these treatments and just keeping them up as uh potentially the delineators get hit for various reasons um we are creating a few more shared Lane conditions for bicyclists uh but ultimately we feel that the benefits of these treatments outweigh the potential drawbacks and they do give us a point point of reference as we're looking to build out that toolbox and gauge the effectiveness of future traffic combing treatments so there are a few other sites that are planned uh for group two projects and those mainly are uh focused

[176:00] on pedestrian Crossing enhancements either in conjunction with a capital project and some other curb ramp improvements uh such as at the three in the bottom of the table ninth and Cascade 10th and University and fulam and Hawthorne uh as well as a few improvements to existing uh signed and marked Crossings such as out on spine Road near chaperel Court um in terms of the artistic crosswalks uh three of those are planned as part of group two and one from group one uh the one at 17th at Grove um the three locations with group two are ninth in Balsam ninth in Cedar and 19th in Yarmouth Yarmouth um all all of these locations have been prepped and are ready for paint uh we're just coordinating with the artists to get that work completed um a note on 19th and Yarmouth um it's my understanding that that will be installed relatively soon as it's being

[177:02] coordin coordinated with art that's being installed uh at 19th in avocado um we are still exploring a few other hardened Center Line locations and you know we're doing that on the basis of the Safe Streets report as well as taking a look at The Pedestrian Crossing volumes and Signal phasing at the intersections um but really again just taken together with the nsmp treatments um we're planning to install approximately 100 treatments this year as part of our group two projects so we're very very excited to get that going I did want to highlight uh the art that has been completed uh the artist that we hired for 26 in Spruce had a contract with a drone pilot so that's how these photos were taken um there's also I think some videos out on YouTube and Instagram that uh give a nice kind of Arial tour of the

[178:00] intersection that you can look up as well but what I also wanted to highlight here was just how closely the concept design can match the reality of what's put out on the pavement um you know it's pretty astounding to compare this to the design and see that it was pretty much nailed in the field in terms of what was implemented um you know we did hear on the ride uh that the art was maybe not uh robust enough at the intersection so we we took note of that um I think there are some other things that came into play there in terms of weighing the cost of the art installation compared to the cost of the treatment um as it there's obviously the artists time in designing it and implementing it uh that has to be considered as well um so in terms of Outreach uh this kind of goes through the past present and future if you will um want to

[179:00] highlight that we did some site visits along these nsmp corridors uh with the residents and that was a really helpful exercise to kind of gain that firsthand perspective uh from the residents and be a able to experience the corridor firsthand we also had a little fun and put you know kind of some tactical urbanism and tried out some of the treatments with traffic cones as we were out there in the field um I did want to highlight that we have two neighborhood forums planned for later this month on the 21st and 29th and we certainly invite you to attend those meetings um we will be covering the same information in both of the meetings uh basically a comprehensive overview of all the group two projects that we're planning to implement um and I did want to highlight again that following the installation of these treatments we are going to collect um

[180:00] some after data uh just to give us a sense of how effective the treatments were so I wanted to provide an example uh exhibit of what we're planning to show the public at the neighborhood forums uh basically for each of the seven corridors and a few of the other planned group two locations we have exhibits like the one shown on the slide where we'll provide an inset that shows the treatment that is planned at each location as well as kind of some summary bullets about the advantages of the treatment and a photo example of what it might look like um either based on a example in Boulder that's already been installed or one that's been uh implemented in a similar Way by another agency um we'll also plan to go over the various design considerations for each Corridor uh the primary treatment types the spacing of the treatments as well as some of those benefits and

[181:02] drawbacks so in terms of the budget I just wanted to recall here that again these vsip projects are typically cost thousands of dollars per intersection whereas more permanent treatments can cost tens of thousands of dollars per intersection um and again this program was given about um $260,000 total and the bulk of that is being spent on group two because again as I mentioned you're kind of comparing 10 or so treatments in group one to about the hundred that we have planned in group two so that's kind of why the budget breaks down the way it does we are hopeful that if the treatments are found to be successful that we can continue this program in some way uh using funding from our vision zero budgets um though we're not sure you

[182:01] know at this time exactly the funding levels or the project selection criteria that would be applied in future years in terms of next steps you can kind of look at this from left to right top to bottom so we do want to finish up those group one projects we want to get the feedback from the neighborhood forums and we'll use that feedback to finalize our group two project designs we do plan to check in with you again in August uh a very brief update under Matters from staff just to give you a sense of the feedback from the neighborhoods and then we want to try to quickly after that implement the group two projects and then again we want to collect and evaluate that feedback as a whole on the program uh to see how successful we were and how the treatments are being received so with that we have just a few

[183:00] questions uh basically any questions or feedback about the group one projects or questions or feedback about the group two projects and that concludes my presentation thanks Devon that that was a a nice presentation thank you very much you're welcome um Tila you're back on screen hi Devin thanks for that um I have very little feedback for you I think you have all the feedback you need from group one uh I did want to say I really I took a hard look at that exhibit that you had planned to put to uh to use for the up coming public meetings because I think that matters uh and I really like it um in general I think it's great to have everything just on one piece of paper I loved how it was you know three different treatments on one little Corridor so you didn't have to imagine yourself in three different places uh where possible I don't have it

[184:02] pulled up where possible I would make the wording even more brief I suppose so I think you were describing in a different slide not on that exhibit but saying you know uh curve extension shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians there's definitely a more succinct way to get that across and so the the more that you can do that on these kinds of visuals presented to the public the better but in general I really liked how how compact that was how easy to understand it was and I think it should be really useful tool um do you let us know if there's any way we can help facilitate the that Outreach um if you would like to have a tab member you know attend it's I don't have those dates on my calendar but uh reminders as they come closer or we can maybe figure out if you if it would be at all helpful um you know to have more people explain why we're doing this what it means um please feel free to reach out to us but uh nice job thank you oh one more question um that I I saw in the

[185:00] community Cycles feedback but I also might have fed the idea to them what do we think our prospects are for uh this funding for this kind of initiative extending past this year so the funding that was dedicated to the program has to be spent this year but I think given the interest in the program we are going to take a hard look at our vision zero budgets within the transportation and mobility department to see if there are ways that treatments like this uh can be installed on a more widespread basis throughout the city yeah I just have to say I'm so impressed with I me and other people have said been saying bugging Transportation Department for years like just try out some stuff let's just try it cheap and it's okay if it's ugly and let's just get it on the ground and you're really doing it with this program and I just I'm so pleased to see it I know it's not all going to be perfect but it doesn't have to be you just have to try right so good job good job

[186:03] thanks Ryan you uh have any very little I concur with Tila um Devin I think this is um this is very positives um I just my mind goes to okay like let's love to talk about a next the next um chapter with with with new budget and and more project ideas and how we make slip lane sler slip lane safer for uh you know small groups of kids or groups of small kids crossing them but that's that's for a future future time I suppose so um I that's that's it for now I think this looks pretty good thanks for the all the hard work thank you um I just had one question and it was back on the slide where you uh gave the three different types of uh treatments uh showing and one of those treatments was traffic well one of the titles was traffic calming the treatment you showed was a temporary traffic

[187:03] circle that the traffic circle that you showed there uh immediately uh created some uh uh I I know angst within me because um while I am a fan of a properly designed roundabout or traffic circle the small traffic uh circles that don't deflect traffic enough to actually slow them and create to me um create a uh really more of an unsafe condition than a than a than a true through traffic calming system because they they can't take up right of way and again uh the two on Spruce one on Pine uh are examples to me of of of bad ones uh so are you doing uh a traffic circle like

[188:02] this and if so where and uh and is it actually big enough to slow vehicles and to create a true balanced uh east west north south flow through the through the uh through the device we are planning to do one traffic circle uh similar to the one that you see on the slide and the location that we're planning to do this is Aurora and 35th now caveat to that is that the circle will have a diameter similar to the ones on Pine uh however we are pairing it with some curb extension to kind of pinch people from the side as well and try to achieve that calming effect going through the circle have have you um do the people on 35th if if it's I haven't called up Google Maps right now but the my anyway

[189:00] have you discussed that with the people on 35th are they excited about this or I I'm trying to recall if that was something we we talked about as we were doing the field visit and April or if that came to us at a later date um how many I guess they they will see it at the neighborhood forum and have the opportunity to comment on it at I can we I can weigh on that a little bit okay yeah thanks Ryan yeah so so Mark we uh when we went uh out and talked to uh residents we primarily talked to the folks who had applied to the nsmp and so for um for that particular location it was actually a gentleman who Liv lives on Aurora um that said uh three summers ago we installed speed humps on 35th um two speed HS and so there are I mean certainly there are folks on 35th who are interested in

[190:00] traffic cming because we've already done a project there um but as Devin said we will be talking to them through the neighborhood forums before we we go ahead and install a traffic circle okay and the count at the intersection are the counts uh east west north south relatively balanced or is it like Spruce and pine where the counts are wildly unbalanced uh directionally I don't believe we've actually done turning movement counts at the intersection to know for sure my my suspicion is that Aurora is heavier than 35th okay yeah just Bas just based on the the screenline counts so what that means is we just took a a count in a in one point so the the counts uh on Aurora were much higher for the nsmp than they

[191:01] were for 35th when we installed the speeds yeah so don't isn't it um in general isn't it problem atic when you have these highly unbalanced counts and people treat the traffic circle and maybe your curb extensions will solve it but anyway my concern is is that uh people in the dominant uh direction of flow uh treat that as though it's a it's an annoyance and the people uh in the other direction uh treat it as a stop sign kind of obviating the actual intent and and giving credence to the people speeding through in the opposite direction and it's it just creates this um confusion so I I guess it's anyway um it's something that I would sure hope you guys uh look at uh and um and take

[192:03] into account because I I think it's a it's problematic sure understood okay all right um and anything else for Devon okay okay uh til I'll keep going unless you you want to take back over is that okay it's me okay all right um okay we're uh we're doing a little bit better um uh we're on matters matters from staff not on agenda the design and construction standards DCS update Garrett again yes uh Garrett Slater principal Transportation projects engineer and the update is that we uh have the consultant up and running and we had a kickoff meeting a couple weeks ago so they are

[193:00] uh waiting into the Waters of the work and um so we have that update which is more substantive than the last couple of meetings updates but uh expect here probably by uh September we'll have some more meaningful to report um than uh we that we've begun the work but uh just wanted to report that it has uh been initiated okay thank you that put us almost back on schedule Garrett kudos to you okay uh any other uh Matters from staff non-agenda it by its nature non-agenda I don't have it on the agenda you can still bring it up so uh anything from staff we're good thank you very very much okay all right uh now we're now we're really cruising okay um Matters from the board uh The Pedestrian action committee pack update Tila yes it was the uh last meeting of

[194:01] The Pedestrian action committee I'm sorry Amy leen's not on um Lisa White's on she's there it was very Bittersweet um a lot of original members of the cast uh but one thing that got conveyed by all of the participants who hung on um you know this was a group that was convened at the beginning of our transportation Master Plan update and then when their work was done they said they wanted to keep going and Amy was nice enough to facilitate the continued meetings with them and they really at the end of the day felt like they had not just um been heard and participated but that they had made an impact and so uh just in terms of fostering Civic engagement and really being able to say with real conviction you know we have involved community members and given them a thing a thing to be proud of um I do think that that they were and I I again I expressed um a lot of appreciation for uh Amy Len's work um because she was

[195:00] great about organizing giving homework you know it wasn't just to show up once once a month and you know every couple months and try to remember where you'd left off there was ongoing work that she had them look at and think about and uh really internalized it and I can see some of that so I'm I'm hoping we will have more um be able to call on some of those people again as we look ahead to the next TMP update because I think we really kind of hooked them in and so uh really appreciate that it went really well great don't go anywhere next item as well all right so the next one was the vision zero partnership meeting um as DK mentioned the last meeting or two meetings ago um it had been coordinated largely by DK and by city transportation staff in the past um and Boulder County is now taking the lead for the next foreseeable future um like the next year I think uh on organizing these meetings and as a

[196:00] result it had a very different flavor it was much more countywide more Regional Focus um Devon was there to talk about some of the so he showed pictures of this same um Spruce and 26 intersection and talk about some of V zip stuff that we've been doing here in town um to my sha grin he highlighted Broadway Ry um but uh we also had presentations by Boulder County transportation staff uh City of Lewisville City a couple different cities I forwarded the um the slideshow uh and a link to the recording of of the meeting but uh I was really very proud of how it has grown um and a number of participants said that they were looking to things that Boulder has done particularly like the Safe Streets report um and being able to collect data and also showing pictures of things like curb extensions and and these quick build kind of things that we've been able to implement in the recent past as

[197:00] being um attainable for them um I'm forgetting which town it was but one woman was like the sole traffic engineer for the town and they didn't have a TMP but she still so hey I think we can you know we can do something with this uh so to the extent that Boulder wants to hold itself out as being a leader uh in Vision zero efforts in the region I do think that there was some some support for that view um at this partnership meeting so very interested to see where it goes in the next year um under you know County leadership but just to see a more Regional Focus was really great oh and there was a ton of interest in the speed kidney so Devin also mentioned the speed kidney um that he was talking about and everyone wanted to see pictures of it and how's it working and what's the data and he's like we don't have it yet um but yeah so there's gonna be a lot of interest in that going forward I think okay all right great thank you any questions for Tila on either of those

[198:01] items okay um my uh I love this the gak um uh The Greenway advisory committee uh meets uh late this month um but they have not produced their uh CIP or anything that I can share with you to collect your feedback I sent you a a quick email and I don't know if anyone had any time to look at it but um uh just looking at the memo uh that was something that um I wanted to make sure that we drafted I I I I worked on that with the other gak members because I wanted us to the the meetings in the past may have been a little perfunctory and not much coming out of them but as I did a little research into um our Greenways and how they're funded and the fact that in 2018 we uh someone city

[199:02] manager whoever eliminated a position and I'm sure it's complex uh and and um above my head but anyway it was it was actually quite an education for me about how Greenways are funded because we all seem to love them and take advantage of them and commute on them and recreate on them and uh and they really are this uh a really distinctive and important part of Boulder yet um you know it's a it's a mishmash of of of funding sources with a um kind of a mismash of administration without uh a point of uh contact that really head that up and um anyway the memo the for me the key point in that memo was the advocating for one uh to go back to actually having someone uh having a director and administrator of that

[200:02] program uh a single point and two that um that the funding has not uh like every department is is struggling with funding and we know that um uh but uh uh Greenways in particular have been very flat uh and um uh it's something that uh and and because it comes from different sources everyone's like N I don't think I really want to contribute more uh and I was advocating for open space to contribute more and the open space representative didn't like that very much um but anyway they seem to have more money than God so uh anyway that that's all I have to say about it if anyone has any feedback uh about any messages they want me to take to our committee meeting later this month I'm happy to uh to carry that

[201:02] message so Mark I'm glad you sent that and I'm glad you raised the funding issue uh because the one thing that jumped out at me was you're wanting to you know explore leaning on Parks and wreck and open space um and I think you've spent a lot more time thinking about and looking into open space uh and their their money and their restrictions and you know um they seem sort of on back of you know top of mind like relevant um you know subject matter sort of pools of money to be pulling from um but I did want to say uh and I went back and looked at um a great report from Shay Castle um when the budget cuts from coid were really happening so from June June or so of last year uh that you know yes most City departments were expected to cut it seemed like uh open space cut far less proportionally um but that there's also

[202:00] this distinction between essential services and non-essential services and uh largely Transportation work is considered essential as it should um had to cut a whole bunch of of um or or delay a whole lot of work I would rather not see uh done but the extent to which parks and wreck got eviscerated uh is Bears no resemblance to what Transportation had to give up uh and I say that parks and wreck and the library in general and to some extent open space those all seem like extras they seem like add-ons they seem like um non-essential and uh you know enhancements say to our Civic life and yet as someone who relies on some of the services provided by the city through the Parks and recory Rec Department for people with disabilities um it is not only it's not

[203:00] an enhancement it is a necessity and they provide certain services for segments of our population that are underserved and literally have no other uh Outlet uh and so I would be hesitant to lean on Parks and wreck to provide any money because they had huge budget cuts they had huge furlows they're only just now beginning to get back online and we see like half of our pools aren't open and it's not because the pools are not you know good enough or we're worried about Co but they don't have the staff for it um a lot of a lot of programs for developmentally disabled people and elderly people were put on hold last year they're only just now getting online and I consider that much more essential than than uh enhancing the Greenways budget so if Greenways needs to just sit on their hands for a little bit or maybe not hire a coordinator I will shed no tears for them and I would rather not bug parks and wreck now osmp go ahead and hit them up well til that's my only response to

[204:00] what you said yeah well one noted heard and completely understood um and uh and I think that um uh I think that coid and the lockdown and everything has shown us how essential so many things are um uh not just Transportation not just Transit but but our Recreation facilities of support for uh those with uh developmental disabilities the elderly it's it's all essential and um and so understood and when we all all are operating within those uh more constrained budgets but I agree with you about osp's budget but again you know someone else's budget is always easy to kind of look at and and pick on but um uh yes understood and noted

[205:01] thanks anything else okay any uh other open board comment I don't know if this is a comment or a future agenda thing Brian do you have anything I have I have two comments okay I'll go after you okay um okay so I I have two things here um the the first is is uh I think I should do a quick little report out on my field trip to um to city council to talk about amps and parking um I I think it would be good to make sure this is in our record here our our our evidentiary record in in the minutes um or at least the recording um and I've just got a few points I maybe 10 or 10 or 12 points I I just think it would be good for people to know I'm not sure that everybody on I know we have we're sort of short staff today but um that other members um have heard this but this is the time I guess

[206:00] if there's any questions too that we need to follow up on you know this might be the right place um so on um so this is the first thing I have something else I'd like to talk about climate briefly um but on on this on this one um so on I think it was June 22nd I that was the the um the council study session on amps on the parking program um council member Brockett invited tab repres tab representative to speak I and I was the um I was the nominee for that um and so I just gave kind of a report the idea was to give kind of a report out on um what we had been talking about with respect to amps um um and I so I mean most most of the the the um the session was staff giving giving you know giving the presentation um and I just had a short little one you know one one or two minute um Spiel but basically what I was doing there was to say look I'm I'm not representing tab as

[207:00] some that we voted on anything formally um but just to give kind of I guess a little bit of a Zeitgeist of what of what we've been talking about at least from my perspective um and I one of the key points I said was um you know Council um what the kind of things that tab at least some of the tab members including me would like to see done are the kind of things that really require you Council to give the direction to staff to to color Outside the Lines a little bit and they're not going to do it they're not allowed to do it unless you give them the you know the co the cover and the support um and so that was that was sort of a key a key I guess IDE I just wanted to make sure was was clear um so the um I would say that staff you know we've had a number of interactions over the over the last couple of months with staff it was a little confusing because there was it took some time to get the minutes correct and then um there was we had a number of email questions not all that was really in the minutes and and whatnot but I think between Tab and staffs there was there was a a relatively coherent dialogue um

[208:00] not everything was incorporated that I would have liked to see but um and and but and staff um Chris and Chris had said accurately that um sta uh tab would like us to be more aggressive so I that was that was uh I think quite factual and um I I told um when I when I spoke I said that's that's correct and uh I really just reiterated that um some of the written points that we shared with with staff and and really with a focus on saying that you know parking policy is a key way to affect Transportation demand management which is a key way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector um and and this is one of the key things that staff and the and the city of Boulder has control over has really direct control over and can impact today and um when I finished talking mayor Weber thank me for the exhortation which

[209:00] I think says the good news is he he heard they heard you know they heard us um that that we were there so um I'll I'll I'll I'll die knowing that at least they you know heard that um so there was some then some dialogue with staff um and I think let's see my points here um one of the things I thought that was positive is is that uh I'm sorry I forget which um I'm sorry Chris's but which of the Chris's said it but there was an acknowledgement that um parking is part of a big Transportation Systems problem um even if it's not being being used as a climate lever today um but that that was acknowledged um I think that let's see see here um that well I guess that's the second thing his staff did say um H hi your video there um give you a chance to help correct me if I get any of this wrong um but you mean my take was basically staff saying look at this time we are not looking at parking at amps as a climate tool that's just not what

[210:00] we're going to be doing right now um with this um staff did however in the memo um this is in the Brit memo I don't know there was verbal discussion on this but I think this is pretty important in the the written memo H had written that um staff is now looking seriously at reducing or excuse me eliminating parking minimums in in the future um as as a measure which is a which is a really important and big idea um so I just wanted to acknowledge that that that was there um and then I think my final point I know this isn't super super linear but um the final point was council member friend did ask if um staff had checked in with um uh the EAB the environmental Advisory board about um the idea of not using um amps as a parking as a climate tool and the answer was well not formally and council member friend um directed staff to to do so so um I'd be very eager to um you know hear an update on that with the at the right time so um I think that's what I had from bind point I love to give um any any staff a chance to correct me or or

[211:00] you know F fill in any of that um but I just wanted to make sure from just the factual or hopefully factual enough perspective that um that's all here for the record um so maybe either by guess maybe tab tab first if there's any questions or comments you want to you want to add um well I I Ryan I thought you did a great job uh and I uh uh enjoyed watching that segment of the meeting and uh I was I was disappointed in uh in in council's uh General response which anyway it would you know to to have declared a climate emergency and then to say that we're going to take one of our really effective tools and throw it out the window um was uh was disappointing um yeah

[212:01] so and and again I I really urge everyone read the uh the CU document on parking because holy moly this is I mean the university will charge for all parking in the development Zone including without limitation on street or off Street areas it's like wow you know they're they're doing it anyway sometime in the future okay but anyway thank you Ryan for your work and uh uh your presentation to council and keeping us all up to date I think Ryan left out the one like big wave making moment I I suppose was he was put on the spot like so you think that uh you know the NPP permits are priced too low or or are increasing too slowly what would you charge and uh you know it's not something that we discussed and Ryan was like well I don't

[213:00] know thousand bucks seems irrational and you could just see in a couple of their faces like this man is crazy because it sounds like a lot when you you know state it as an annual but it's I know what is that 30 cents a day you know a month I I don't right exactly it was just kind of spitballing it sounds like a lot when you put it that way but there's also a lot of evidence and and studies about how expensive it is just to own a car and how car ownership is one of the most onerous you know um burdens on lower income people if they live in a place where it's necessary and it it was just very interesting and that's of course the one thing that gets highlighted in Bob yates's um newsletter to his constituents who've signed up for his newsletter like that that little sound bite is gonna reverberate for a bit and it was very to me eye opening how much of a nonstarter that was um maybe because we didn't amortise it over the right time period um but to to to to

[214:03] recognize how little some people understand about how much we have to do and how much needs to change um is uh just shows us we have a lot of work to do Mark before I go on to the second one can we make sure to give Chris or anybody on staff a chance to correct anything I got yeah got wrong Chris Chris anybody I know I'm with the spot but I I think that you characterize things you know right as I recall Etc and you know for folks that really want all the blowby blows and so forth we do have a transcript from the um is available for coun okay okay great Mark am I okay to go to the second the second item you're ready to go okay so um I just wanted to pick up on I guess Kurt in public comment talked

[215:02] about um climate and I and I know that we've got next uh I think it's on the the we'll talk about the next session um as a topic so I don't I don't want to put the C before the horse but I did want to just pick up on um a couple things here in starting to think about that that that next session and knowing that we had this Council study session on climate um with a memo with a pretty significant staff memo out on Transportation um I I've had a chance to to digest it a little bit attend that study session and and partly in preparing and and and going through with the um the dialogue with Council and amps I just wanted to to um share a few things um and and so the first one is I I think this is a such a big topic um that we're going to need I guess I'd just like to suggest we have we have a conversation about what this engagement looks like Beyond just simply having it at the meeting next next month I think the way we've gone through the uh the CIP process we've had some some back and forth and in at least one or two focused

[216:01] meetings I this is I mean this is as big of a topic as we're gonna as we're going to get to as far as I'm concerned and um there's just there's so much me to it I mean I've got a five page detailed right up that I'm that I'm ready to to share with you know who you know in the right way and I think a lot of folks have a lot to weigh in on this I just would like to suggest that we um have a discussion about how how how we'll do that um I mean this is one of the biggest as far as I'm concerned this is one of the biggest policies that that the city Boulder will will will will have on its desk um so so that's that's kind of kind of big picture um I so maybe it's there's a there's a working session we do that's just just focus on that at some point maybe it's after after the a iust one or or maybe not um and so leave it at that um I and then on the on the substance I would I don't want to get into that the the Deep because we're going to do this next next month but um I just I would like to offer if I could just two points that um I I've seen and get preparing for the amps dialogue um and it's my read in in

[217:02] in the climate um the memo and the dialogue at the climate study session um is that I I have two pretty big concerns about how the framing for this looks right now and hopefully I'm missing something but the first one is um I don't see VMT or mode shifting in there anywhere and um hopefully I'm just like Miss I've got Pages glued together or something but um that um I would think is something that any modern city um climate plan would have period but then a city like Boulder I would expect it to be enhanced when you think about you we've got an apparatus like tab with with with Community coming every month weighing in on these topics you know with such engagement I mean I'm just sort of like thinking what what am I missing here um so so that's missing the other thing that that seems to be missing is um sort of hard to explain simply but but transportation as a as a system that the plan has these these

[218:00] different systems and then their energy system is one transportation is kind of a subset of of energy um I'm not an expert on City climate action plans per se but that feels like a kind of an unusual treatment and it um it it it seems to um really kind of abbreviate the many interactions and Inter departmental issues and the systems issues that that that have to do with transportation in society for for our city so um I would I would hope we can talk about just the the framing of Transportation becoming more enhanced in there um so I just wanted to put this out there because having gone through parking the parking process I feel like at some point I was too late and I just want to make sure St you that you you understand that this is a this is a really big one that I hope we're going to um we're going to orient to so um those are the two just kind of big substance points um and then and then the um the next thing is I would just like to offer you know as as we get into this some some key and think about the the agenda and maybe this is part of the agenda for the next item but um as

[219:01] as we I'll just keep going because I'm almost finished as we think about the climate having a discussion about the climate plan with respect to Transportation I can think of maybe four or five big questions that I think we really need we as a team with with staff and with tab we really need to work through um so one of those is um what what are we seeing with respect to Performance Trends um with with ghd and transportation and and what are we learning about it like are are we seeing improvements and in which cases where are we seeing um you know um backsliding and if so what why so that's the first one you know against the the goals for ghg and transportation we already do have um the second one is how are we going to integrate the VMT and mode shifting and related Vision zero goals into the climate plan that we already have in our transportation master plan and that absolutely have to get in embedded into that plan um second one is on EV the EV strategy I do recall

[220:01] from the amps the the study session with amps that that the EVs and fuel Federal fuel economy standards if I heard correctly was sort of like the the two big ideas for the the climate program for transportation at this point um I would like to hear about the assumptions that are would are being used to to get get us to the ghg um from that I mean I think there's basically you need to think about the fuel efficiency of the EV the carbon intensity across the average of the system and you need to think about the diffusion rate and that's partly you know the adoption rate and the replacement of M but we need to see a calculation um to to show us what we can get with EBS and um you know in my day job I work for an organization that works in majority on EV so I um I'd love love to help out with this um but in any case that that's the third one and then the fourth one is um a list of priority actions so those

[221:01] things that the council can do or staff can do today even if they're not politically feasible or even if they're not decided that we're going to do them like what are those things that we could just do um that we could just do today um so is as we get into it I think those are some key discussion points that we should have um and folks probably all know this here but um you know transportation is is the large is you know from normal well I shouldn't say normal but conventional accounting is the largest or that you know tied is with the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions um that's true for the country that's true in most States and I believe that's basically true in Boulder even though the the um the inventorying I seen for for um for Boulder seems to not it seems to do more of like just an energy basis but if you if you use the more conventional accounting transportation is is the biggest or tied with basically tied with the biggest so um we we got a lot to unpack in there um so I'll leave it at that other than just just to say that I think we should talk about um what's the what's yeah what's the

[222:01] process for for having this kind of dialogue Beyond just you know having a meeting next um next August so um thanks for that I happy that there's any questions or thoughts on this now either from tab or Stat that's fine otherwise I'm happy to just leave it at that I've got a couple thoughts and uh Ryan I first I I um I really appreciate the fact that uh uh you know you bring to our board uh a um a well-informed perspective and um and uh a renew red sense of urgency I'm in my fourth year and um sometimes uh in the uh day-today transactions of well you know what's this curb radius or whatever you it you can lose the perspective of where we are in in regard to our um uh

[223:04] our climate and and what we're doing or or not doing so anyway I I really appreciate that and and I um I heard you talk about uh I too appreciate the way we had um we've had these CIP working sessions and I find them to be very productive as the tour was productive and so a focused meeting on that uh I I for one don't think um tab has taken advantage of uh our ability to um uh set a second meeting uh have study sessions on on matters uh so anyway I I think we can do more of that but then as I as I thought about that and I thought about some of the uh struggles uh the board has had with staff and I I view this as an

[224:03] opportunity it could be seen as an opportunity for staff and tab to um join together in a sense of urgency and uh in support of uh council's Declaration of a climate emergency and yet giving short shrift and essentially bearing under under like you say under under Energy Systems uh Transportation which is either the biggest or the second largest cont City's contribution to Greenhouse um gas emissions uh here it is here this is our this is our moment we can we can stand up jointly and it would certainly be um much more effective if if this if this was a uh a message that came from uh the transportation department with the support of the transportation Advisory

[225:00] Board versus A dissension letter you know from tab uh you know without without staff support and and I think we we see what on one hand I'm all in favor of speaking truth on the other hand you know we we see what happens when um uh staff supports a uh 17 to $20 uh increase in neighborhood parking permits and you know your your reasonal reasonable proposal was a thousand it it didn't go anywhere so I I would see this uh I I I see this as an opportunity and and I would I would ask staff um that uh you know do they see it as an opportunity for us to uh move forward jointly in ways that we haven't in the past and with a sense of urgency that we haven't uh experienced in the past so

[226:02] that's that's what I would ask so if I could just say something very quickly I think that next month um you'll have you'll all have an opportunity to um hear from at least two departments um and how we're trying to look and navigate through multiple lenses and so forth and um ironically just this last Friday we had had a meeting you know some Transportation staff with our you know climate folks and so forth and um It's A Brave New World out there so I think we'll we all be learning together Erica would you say that um we go into our August meeting with uh climate and uh being a topic and um and

[227:01] then uh with the acknowledgement that uh tab uh will will provide feedback about um our thoughts uh after that meeting and then anyway Ryan I don't know if you would consider it uh enough to just hold off until the August meeting but but you know have uh have high hopes and um uh and some expectations about that uh what happens in August well could I ask maybe markila have I you know this is I've only been joining meetings as a tab member since March did we have we had have we had had like in recent you know within the last year before that a tab engagement with the climate you know the climate team on the climate the climate plan or no no not not that I recall okay then then my answer is I'm I'm very anxious about this because I've I've I've already read the memo that's that that's I I forgot how many is it is

[228:00] it hundreds of pages I can't remember how long it is but I I I've read it it was developed without tab it's been presented to city council I know what it says I've got I've got I'm ready to talk about my feedback I'm a little anxious about say Let's Wait a month and then listen to another presentation about I'd like I'd like to get into let's talk about it so um maybe maybe the answer is Brian just just like write it down and send it in and that's the and that's the answer but um what what feels to me is that transportation that has been um left out it's been left out of it um or at least at least the the the holistic version of transportation that I would expect in a climate plan is has been left out and I don't want to lose time I I don't want to wait until August and then see well okay well now let's start a process of giving feedback and then you know we then we hit the December deadline and it's we have amps again um I think we missed some steps with with amps just from a procedural standpoint and I don't want to do that again so um maybe maybe it's fine to go to August but I just want to register my my concern that um I I think we just have

[229:02] so few opportunities to talk um and you know to get into it and I'd like to do something that's a little more um at the meaningful level that we've done with the CIP process um or at least create enough space to do that if we you know if we need it TAA you're you're you're muted there we go uh Ryan I just wanted to jump in here because I'm not sure if Mark knows or you know other people know but you've had a brief um Email exchange with Miriam hacker on EAB um about this um and I'm looking to see when their next meeting is but it is not unheard of for one or two members of tab to be like a subcommittee and working on something um outside of of uh regular tab meetings and so if it's something that it seems

[230:01] like you know if Miriam or the rest of the environmental Advisory Board um want to interact with us sooner we can definitely you know you could deputize yourself and grab one of us with you and start the conversation that way as well um I I do think that's probably the right I mean I think tab EAB and and staff together I not staff maybe transportation and I mean I know there's a lot of different lenses we that that staff in general has to you know City staff has to look through in general but I do think that the eabb in the tab and then with the right um City staff I think that would that that's the right party parties to bring together okay so I'd be happy to step forward and you know support oh you're our guy don't [Laughter] worry so I'm trying to remember oh I think they just met actually I think they just met because I went to the movies and Miriam couldn't come because she had an EAB meeting that that night

[231:00] so so that that that could be a Challen I mean we don't even we I I literally don't know what they we've had no dialogue with them so right yeah in any case yeah yeah so let's keep pursuing that in the meantime um okay I I think we're coming to a what are we gonna do what what's the what's the what's the absolute next step and um uh you know fine I I I feel the urgency at the same time I'm like okay are we going to decide tonight to have I think the choice is do we go to the next meeting or do we um have a you know with the three of us with two of us missing um say gee we we'd like to meet we'd like to look at Ryan you submit your notes and comments and in

[232:02] the tab meets and we discuss next steps and uh possible action items and and you know again we have some freedom to meet as a as a board that we haven't taken advantage of and uh do we um do we take advantage of that between now uh in the August meeting or or not feel I'm kind of curious what you think about uh or am I am I too Limited in my view what the next step is well when I would when you asked uh Erica sort of what you know what what is possible and what's happening next and what could happen at August I think I would have phrased it as saying is there something on the staff work plan where this would fit uh because we have to of course be

[233:01] mindful that calling extra meetings and asking staff to to come in and weigh in and prepare other stuff and think about things that they aren't already on the path of thinking about because it's on their work plan becomes problematic um which is why I was leaning toward us uh kind of taking it offline and going to other you know appointed and not salaried employees um I do think it would be worth seeing Ryan what you've prepared as sort of you know an initial Salvo for sure um but yeah guess I would ask Erica again does anything like this fit on you know the near near-term staff work plan or what's coming up for our meetings so the short answer is kind of and the kind of part is that in terms of having anticipated trying to give a an up to tab about where things are at something we added onto our

[234:00] program um to meet an August deadline so that we could work together you know our climate Brethren to be able to at least in at right now so that's the um we added that but to give you some context and there is um so so just to give you a little bit of context there is um you know from the state legislation having recently passed you know in terms of transportation funding and so forth there's some additional expectations that are coming around with that for both the state and for the um region at large about um emissions budgets and greenhouse gases and so forth and we need to do some more Exploration with those entities about what their what their expectations are going to be of us as local governments and how our transportation portfolio fits within

[235:00] that and so we had anticipated you know warning about that and also in our in our go forward our a proposal for funding um for 2022 we've proposed internally to the city manager's office and so forth to get funding for us to start to um do more exploration you know around um data and information that are needed for a transportation Master Plan update and you know for 2022 budget and I think the last thing that would say is that it's been interesting because as you had pointed out you're not the only ones um as tab members that are interested in how we can make advances in the city for you know um reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so I think that there's a broader conversation that

[236:00] needs to occur you know throughout the entire city um perhaps in a planning context or whatever and that it's sort of beyond my scope and portfolio of Transportation because all these things have impacts and implications together and we just haven't gotten together yet to have that discussion understood so then Erica I would just offer that that um I think that again I haven't done a full analysis of you know 100 100 cities climate plans to so this is a hypothesis I haven't done the analysis but I think it's pretty unusual to to not have transportation as a sector as a as a system defined in in the ght plan and then have mode shifting and BMT as goals so I would just suggest that I I feel like um for something a plan that's so seems to be so far along and to be missing that something it's very surprising and so I I hear you that that

[237:02] a lot of people you know want to have a say want to have a voice but there's something here that that deserves I think a special inquiry um so in any case but I hear you I know there's a lot lot to lot to manage so thank you I would propose to move this issue uh forward by um Ryan if if you we you know we don't want to violate uh uh open meetings laws and and that sort of thing and we want to be very cognizant of that but I certainly would be interested Ed in your initial set of notes and thoughts uh about uh the climate plan and and mainly um a what what some steps forward might look like and then uh and then we uh we can try to uh try to figure out how to

[238:03] move with uh with speed and urgency while still operating within uh the uh you know the relationship with staff uh within our operating agreement Etc and um anyway I know it feels highly unsatisfactory but I I I don't know more than that uh at this hour what what to tell you and if you have something some other suggested back I'm I'm all ears but I would like to like to see if if either we need you know take that step or some other step that you want to Su I think that's fine I think I'll well I'll I'll consider my exhortation for tonight complete and um HP happy to share that and Eric and team thanks for you know being being a team players hearing me out on all this so um yeah I'll I'll aim to share I'll probably share it through that the tab you know

[239:00] the tab email serve and make that somehow public so people could see it and um I guess we just go from there okay um thank you uh Tila you had something you were unsure whether it's a future agenda topic or an open board comment but since they're right next to each other here we are you call it what what you want but speak up sure uh I was just wanting to give an update um Erica and Natalie and I have been meeting I think we'd met for the third time last week um on the draft tab rules and procedures I told you that we've been pulling um resources that had been prepared a while ago from the city attorney's office and looking what other boards do and so it is a nearly nearly to a state where we can um circulate that to the rest of tab to have a look at and uh and think about um whether we want to adopt it at all you know um but to the extent that it has been maybe um desirable in this

[240:01] recent months um you're going to see it soon is all I wanted to tell you about um and so I'm not sure if will have time to circulate it well in advance of next next tab meeting or the one after that but I'm really hoping we'll have something to look at before the next tab meeting even if it's not on the agenda okay okay uh any other future agenda topics Mark I have one I don't I don't know if this is next month um because I think we might be filling up but um I forgot who mentioned it but I I at some point recently became aware of of well I I became to I came to believe that we would benefit from a discussion on um on automatic speed enforcement um measures and understanding are there are there State Statute or other other Co codes that are

[241:02] barriers to um to to automatic enforcement and just like what's poent promise and potential that sort of thing yeah actually TAA or I can um I think uh meet with you phone in person whatever and give you a whole bunch of information about that the city's position on it the terrible state laws that that limit our ability to to do things um the city's lobbying position which is they're in favor of additional off automated enforcement uh the equity I can bring Etc but are very afraid of actually bringing it up anyway we can be brief on this but uh you could talk to Tila or i on this um not that we're experts but we did make a pass at this early in the year uh with um Carl um

[242:00] Castillo our legislative coordinator and um read up on the state law and uh had some support from uh other members of the community and Etc so anyway it's a big topic and um we can help you out with that okay that sounds fine I'll withdraw it then as a yeah submission for now okay um okay uh moving on uh I guess the ABCD here is um just kind of a reminder to us all here uh Thursday July 15th The Joint planning board tab working session uh I think um after today we all should have the corrected link to those packet materials and um we can uh be prepared for that

[243:01] meeting but I I I like the joint planning board tab meetings and uh looking forward to that um I don't know if anyone has any other comment on it but we'll be prepared and ready to go on that I hope uh Hutch is feeling well enough to uh participate um Monday July 26 Greenway advisory committee we've covered that uh anyone has any other feedback that they want to send me in writing I'm happy to take it or or in a phone call um climate and transportation August and pedestrian Crossings to be determined okay um and you know the the only other thing I'll say about The Pedestrian Crossings is as my request for the discussion about that uh is not just their design but it it does include the the community SMP in in how we go about

[244:02] determining the locations and um uh locations and designs and placement of those those treatments so that's all I have to say about pedestrian Crossings anyone else all right okay it's uh 10:05 I the recording was paused there for a second I thought that was that is that someone telling me we're we're done um anyway uh anyway does anyone have anything else here that we haven't covered that we need to cover before we adjourn uh I just think I just saw in the chat Ryan's not sure if he can make the um planning board meeting on Thursday is that right I don't know yes I almost certainly can't make it okay uh I don't know if Alex is planning to make it or not uh has Alex uh reply to your

[245:06] invitation I don't know we need to check okay yeah is it a problem if we can't muster up three three tab members well wait oh yeah that's what I'm saying yeah um well I you know given that uh so I think there's an agenda setting meeting um and Alex is yeah tomorrow okay no it's Wednesday it's Wednesday I got a conflict on Wednesday but not tomorrow so is covering that so I'm assuming he'll make it on Thursday yeah so maybe on Wednesday we can have a headcount okay okay good thinking Natalie thank you all right then okay all right um well uh I Tila uh

[246:01] would you like to give the chair tonight the motion to adjourn I would like to move to a journ Mr chair okay all right uh do I have a second for that second okay all right well then uh then I'll add a third and and off we go okay thanks as always to the members of the public who hanging on nice to see you we'll see you next month all right night everyone bye night bye