July 10, 2023 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] And now, and the webinar is starting. Okay, Alex. Thanks. So call to order the Transportation Advisory Board meeting for July tenth, 2,023 before we get to business we'll go over our ground rules for the virtual meeting. All right. I'm gonna start sharing screens. Let me know if you can see it. Yes, cool. Well, we're pleased to have you join us today. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the City of boulder activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meetings are prohibited. The time for speaking is limited to 3 min. No person shall speak except one recognized by myself, and no personal speak for longer than the time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting, using the 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.

[1:01] Please use the raise hand function to be recognized for the public comment. If you're on the phone, you will need to press Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. No video will be permitted. Except for city officials, employees, and invite speakers and presenters, all others will participate by voice. Only. The person presiding at the meeting. Should the forces rules by meeting anyone who violates any rules the Q. A function is enabled, it'll be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It can be used for technical or online platform related questions only if in a T. If an attendee attempts to chat for any other reasons that are the other than seeking assistance from the host. The city reserves the right to disable the individuals. Access to the chat. Only the host of individuals as needed by the host, will be permitted to share the screens during the meeting. Thanks, Alice. thank you. Veronica. Second on our agenda for tonight is the approval of the minutes from our past meeting.

[2:03] I didn't have any comments. Brian, Becky, everything okay. entertain a motion to approve them as is my second. I'm sorry. Yeah I' I don't think that Becky can put on because she was in maintenance, so can we? Do. We need to hold off on this until we have a quorum of attendees. Some, please. That's correct. Okay, so maybe we can come back to this when we have a fourth number attendance. Yeah, that's my understanding. Okay?

[3:00] Because of that, we'll move on to agenda. Item number 3, which is public comments. Any member of the public wishing to address the Board about a transportation matter that is not a public hearing. Tonight we'll have up to 3 min to do so tonight. We'll have a public hearing on the capital improvement program and the East Aurora neighborhood parking permit expansion. So if you're here to talk about either of those items, there will be a more appropriate time to address the board later. Anyone interested in speaking please use the raise hands tool within the Zoom Platform, and our technical host can call any. not seeing. No. I we have one brandy. I'm gonna ask you to on mute yourself. Please let me know if you are able to. Can you guys hear me?

[4:00] Yes, perfect. Okay, I this is my very first meeting. So I just want to know how to Sign up for public comment. on the Npp. And what I I know you said that we we have more appropriate time later, but I'm used to doing these in person where I can see you and get some feedback, and that's not the case right now. So I just want to make sure that I I know when we get to agenda. Item 5, there will be a staff presentation, and after the staff presentation will open up the floor for public comment. it will make a similar and not spent about raising your hand to speak. Then. okay, so there's not a list or those kind of type things that if I I've just been to these meetings, and there's been a lot of people wanting to talk. And I yeah, I want to make sure that everybody has time and or that, yeah, we've got a list going.

[5:04] Yeah, there, there won't be a a list of speed when we when we get to that, it's a little different than a a city council meeting. But welcome, and we'll look forward to hearing from you when we get to to that topic. Thank you all right. If anyone else would like to speak. Please the raise hand function. All right, Lynn. I want to ask you to on mute. Please confirm. You're able to do so. Yes. perfect. Yeah, I was just this week testifying regarding that Panamoto development towards Longmont. And it was kind of interesting, because it appears there's some confusion.

[6:04] 2 of the testifiers. one speaking diametrically opposed to each other. Both came from this group called Prosper. I think it's called Prosper Long Month. And the co-chair and co-founder of it was one of the people that testified, and and he was testifying against this development. It's a conservation easement vacation request. for a 4,430, some unit 40 acre space near Airport Road, on the diagonal near the diagonal and he. It was interesting because he brought up the fact that the the

[7:02] cost of tr traversing to your job commuting to your job was one of their main issues, and the other person that spoke for the development used from the same. You know. Prosper Longmont use the same argument for the development. So you know, housing is is a really confusing situation when it comes to transportation, and how and and impacts of climate change and impacts from You know all of the things that are costly about main maintenance and operation, and and of roadways and stuff. So it's it. What disturbed me about watching this development as it

[8:01] proceeds to hopefully the the the conservation easement will be vacated. But what's disturbing is to see that now it's not just boulder. It's long month, and after it's long month it's going to push the growth out of Longmont, and it pretty soon. Detroit is going to be. you know. expensive housing. So growth is what's impacting the whole situation. And that's what I'm always bringing up at the Transportation Advisory Board to please have some say about just growth for the sake of growth. because it's not helping your situation. Thanks, Lynn. all right. It does not look like anyone else has their hand raised. Alex. Okay, I don't see Trinity on the call.

[9:04] Oh, it does look like trainees on the Tony, are you here? See? Yeah. yeah. Sorry. Okay. Welcome. We skipped over approval the minutes because we need 3 of us who are at the last meeting, and since Becky was absent at the last one Now that you've been right here, we have our enough to to approve the minutes. Did you have any edits to those? No one says the word. Okay? I think Ryan had moved that we approved the minutes, as is, and I second that. and so we'll do a vote. Now all those in favor

[10:00] passes for with 3 permanent votes, and Becky Hustain thanks, Meredith. which brings us to agenda. Item 4, which is a public hearing on the 2,023 to 2,029 capital improvement program being a public hearing. there'll be an opportunity for any members of the public interested in speaking about the matter, to do so, to address the Board after we hear a staff presentation person, I'll turn it over to Karen. Good evening. Good to be with you for the third of 3 monthly presentations on the capital improvement program. I am joined with you this evening by Lindsey Merr and James Smith, who are both principal project managers and the Capital Projects division of the Transportation and Mobility Department and myself. I am a civil engineering senior manager, with the transportation and about Mobility department. So we're here to revisit the items that were presented to you last month. So not a lot has changed from what we presented to you. So we will not go into the same level of detail as we did last month. But provide a reminder of the programs and projects that are included in the 24 to 29 C. I, P.

[11:20] And with that we'll go ahead and get started. And I want to make sure you're actually seeing the slideshow here. Correct? Yeah. Okay, good. So the the the the cip is the way that we invest make investments in our transportation master plan. and those investments are consistent with the ranking of the hierarchy, where we want to make sure that we are taking care of our system, and that we're prioritizing vision, 0 travel, safety and system operations as top priorities. And then we have the subsequent other priorities that are outlined in your memo, and on this slide

[12:04] the next slide here talks about our consistency with the sustainability, equity, and resiliency framework, and I will say that you will continue to see more about the way our investment programs, as well as our capital improvement program projects are tied to the sustainability and equity framework through the use of a tool that the city is adopted recently, starting last year, called Open Gov. And did I do that? Perfect? Are are we good to keep going. Okay, all right. So you will continue to see the ways that the cip is connected to the Sarah framework and outlined in the open. Gov reports that will be shared with the public here in the coming weeks. So our 24 to 29 C. I. P. Represents an approximately 100 million dollar investment with 17 million dollars in grants, and hopefully, that number will grow over the next year or so as we wait announcements of pending grant applications and 24 to 25. We are looking at an average of 20 million dollars per year

[13:22] with that number dropping off because of the the the recent Dr. Cod transportation approval program grants and our annual capital maintenance and mobility programs comprise about 8.5 million dollars per year over the course of this cip. Of course, most of our funding comes through sales tax. So that, subject to how the economy is doing, and we also do everything we can to supplement that with Grant funds which we've highlighted in the past. so that we're using our local dollars to make to turn our pennies in our quarters into full dollars by allowing us to be competitive with pursuing and receiving Grant funds through the doctor, cog, tip program, the highway safety improvement, or each set program transportation all to alternative programs or tap and see for us to school, all of which we've been successful in obtaining funding over the last calendar year.

[14:22] We have also. we'll have an update for you on this later this evening. Just submitted an application for C streets for all, and are continuing to keep our eyes open for other opportunities, such as reconnecting communities and smart grants. The challenge that we're facing, of course, is the reducing power of our dollar. Given the inflationary market pressures. Excuse me particularly in the construction marketplace which you've seen in this slide over the last couple of meetings. So our investment program is proposed to be balanced over the course of this cip about 50 50 between projects and programs and

[15:03] the notable changes that you've seen. And what we're proposing is increases to be able to make announcements to the mob, the to the confluence path area. And so we're looking for an increase one time and 2,024 for allowing construction of the Belmont Multi-use Path additional funding for Nineteenth Street, additional funding for the Easter rap a whole 47 sidewalk and downtown boulder station and an increase to the T. T. And P. Line item and removal of deficient street light replacement because of that now being an effort of the the city to take over the purchase of all the Excel Street light. So that will be an item that's covered elsewhere in the the city budget for the future. So you've seen this slide previously as well. That talks about each of the capital programs. James is going to touch on those again here in a moment. These are the annual ways that we preserve the integrity and the assets that we've made significant investments in over the years and are focused on taking care of these vital assets that are used by all modes of trouble travel throughout the community.

[16:19] and then we have the individual projects which were also I outlined and included in in your memo, including the new projects that were recently awarded as part of the 22 to 25 as well as the 24 to 27 tip awards, and the safe routes and the Tap project are also included in this summary. The Transportation Development Fund also provides funding for us to be able to coordinate when we have capital approval, projects that are adjacent to development as well as make investments and signals where they are warranted, and also has an item for providing local match for tip projects as well as Tmp implementation.

[17:10] So with that, I'm going to hand it off to James to provide a recap of the capital maintenance programs. That's good. Hello, Ted, thanks for having us again. The following size will briefly describe the various cip capital asset maintenance programs. So first up is our payment management program or Pmp, the Pmp prioritizes the safety and preservation of the transportation system by maintaining the approximately 300 Mile Street system, Karen Boulder. This includes inspecting and rating all streets on a 3 year interval to maintain awareness of the existing conditions which guide and where payment rooms and rehabilitation products will be focused in future years. the P is identified as a priority, one or high priority

[18:01] and we use the Pci score to to help guide and prioritize our work. and then the pmp also works to leverage the proposed improvements identified through the efforts of vision 0 and core material network planning to do this, the mobility Enhancements Initiative, which is part of the payment management program incorporates bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements into annual pavement, resurfacing work to help make our streets safer for walking and bikey next slide. Our next step are the pedestrian focus programs. These programs include the pedestrian facilities enhancements program. the pedestrian facilities repair and replacement program and the sidewalk maintenance. Program these programs are 100% dedicated to pedestrian movement. The sidewalk maintenance budget funds. The miscellaneous side of our repair program cycle compares under this program identified through citizen reports throughout the entire city.

[19:08] The pedestrian facilities repair replacement and 88 improvements budget funds. The annual sidewalk repair program. This program focuses on a specific area of the city where repair needs are identified by our staff and then shared with Jason property. The costs are shared with the Next is the pedestrian facility enhancements budget. It's an ongoing funding program that includes the installation of missing sidewalk lanes and pedestrian crowsing. So gene treatments these programs. Are identified in the the T is prior to one as well, and the various implementation locations are prioritized each year using condition level and program guidance documents and then next slide next for the multi-use path programs. These include the multi-use path enhancement budget and the multi-use path capital maintenance budget.

[20:04] These programs are dedicated to enhancing and maintaining the current 80 plus miles of path within the city to meet the needs for pedestrians and bicycles. these. These are also a priori, one investments or high priority and then, lastly, the last one. lastly, is the capital reconstruction program is used largely to fund the Bridge asset management program and provides funding to repair existing major and minor structure for adjustments that are close to or at the end of their useful life. This funding provides the ability to complete the capital repairs that are not typically eligible for grant funding. this is also a priority, one investment. And then the multi, I'm sorry. But this program is identified in the I apologize. The bridge Health Index is used to prioritize this work. The Bridge Health Index is a bridge performance measure to rate

[21:08] the overall health and of the structure integrated between one and 10, I think with that, that's all the programs that we have. So moving on to the next item, and the cip is the tip local match and T up implementation, which is reflected on the project side of the the table, and we are proposing to increase that historically, we have been around the 3 million dollar level. And we're proposing to increase that to the 4 million dollar level so that we are able to continue to be competitive in the to the future, and being strategically positions to pursue grant opportunities as they come forward to us. And so examples of that would be, say, streets for all the smart grants, and we are also a minor partner in the Protect Grant, for which right now we are not being asked to provide any funding, but

[22:12] if we decide to participate and add additional enhancements to that project, we would be asked to provide funding such as making better bike and pedestrian improvements as part of that project. And so we would want to have that funding available to us. And so the a a other aspect of this is being able to keep up with the level of matching we've provided in the past with inflation being where it's at. This will continue to provide a competitive advantage to the city and being successful in pursuing Grant. Yeah. So I'm now gonna hand it off to Lindsay to talk about some of the specific projects that were introduced to you last month. Thanks, Garrett. So, as Eric mentioned, I'm gonna just do a quick refresher on some of the cip projects that are being proposed to be funded in 2,024.

[23:07] So first is the Baseline road project which is focused on making baseline road from 28 Street to Foothills Parkway safer, more comfortable, more connected. really, for for any type of mode that users choose to travel. So this project has 2 phases, construction of phase, one of the project started in June. So about a month ago. and then in 2,024, the city will develop and design for further improvements. in phase 2. And the phase 2. Portion of the project includes constructing additional bike, lane, protection, intersection, and pedestrian crossing improvements, transit efficiency and safety improvements, such as 40 bus islands, and converting some of the phase, one improvements into more permanent features and construction of phase 2 is estimated to begin in 2,025

[24:04] next one. So this is the Thirtieth Street project. This project is from a Rappaho avenue to the that diagonal highway. and it proposes to complete preliminary design for protection. to bike facilities and transit stop improvements. the project will develop and evaluate conceptual transportation design options to improve multimodal travel along Thirtieth Street, and it will include the preliminary engineering, and then all of the cost estimates for the transportation improvements. the preliminary engineering plan will provide facilities for users of all ages and ability, and it will help me. The city's vision, 0 goal of eliminating fatal and serious injury collisions as well as improve the travel conditions for transit users, pedestrians, and bicycles by addressing travel, comfort, and security. And so this is a continuation of the Thirtieth Street corridor study.

[25:02] which was completed in 2,016 and 2,017, and the safe routes are the safe streets and routes for all of the Ss. For a grant for implementation that was just submitted a few days ago. will be addressed for this project. Next project. You're it. Excuse me. So the Broadway Bat Lanes project. So this will include design and construction of intersection improvements to provide to transit priorities at 2 intersections at Broadway and T. One Mitsa and then Broadway and Regent. There's also a component where we're going to provide analysis of converting the general purpose. Traveling along Broadway between table we sent 18 to the business access transit or the that lanes. By using mainly striping and signage. However, the funding for this is just for the intersections which will then provide the with needed to complete the future link conversions, and so construction of the intersection is planned to begin in 25

[26:09] next one again. and the Manhattan safe streets to school project will provide improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to increase safety and provide convenient travel options and then encourage just the active lifestyles in the neighborhood. The project is looking into final design, and construction is planned to take place in 2,025. So the Easter rap the whole final design from 28 Street to Fort Hills Parkway will implement better facilities for walking by team and transit consistent with the Easter apple transportation plan. So this is a tip and seed out from the project, and it's going to take the approximately 15% level design schedule to be completed later this year, and advancing in the final divide by the end

[27:01] of 2,024, and so see, that is project manager for all the preliminary design. But the city of Boulder will be the price. So some additional cip projects with tip grants that will actually start in 2,025 includes the fulsome streets pine, the Colorado corridor study and preliminary design. The street designing construction between Colorado and Aurora and the West Colorado Regent to fullsome project. which is added to a wait list for grant funding, and we are anticipating to receive word on if you received partial or full funding sometime in 2,024. And so then there are also several projects that are currently being funded by the community culture, safety and resilience fund, and so these include the replacement of the central average. The corroded signal poll replacement, the short term pavement management program funding, boost

[28:06] purchasing of the Excel Street lights. some supplemental funding for 20 Eighth in Colorado, and supplemental funding for Thirtieth Street multimodal improvements. and then a project on by the avenue for a bridge, for bridge, for a park, and then for improvements on 4 mile can increase all right. So our next steps are to take this information to planning board along with all of the other departments in the city for their review and input. And then this will also go to City Council in September and October for their review and consideration and approval, and, as Alex noted, this is a public hearing, so we are looking for a recommendation of the 24 to 29 cip to planning board as a part of this agenda item this evening, and

[29:02] at this point we are happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks, Garrett, welcome back, James and Lindsay. Tab. It now is the time for clarifying questions. We'll have more time to provide feedback and talk about a potential motion after we hear from the public on this one. Does anyone have any questions before we get to that right. I think I have a question or 2. Garrett, Lindsey and team. Thanks so much. this is very clear. in the details. I have a big picture question. and I'm just. And my understanding is this is a major portion of the transportation and department's overall budget. and I'm just wondering if you can could confirm that, or or maybe correct it. Correct my thinking regarding the that. This is sort of like the one of the biggest pieces, and maybe specifically say, like.

[30:04] just big picture, how? What? What percentage of the overall transportation budget is this is the Cip project or program, and and and then, like, what are the other big pieces of budget just to give a sense of contact, please. Thank you. Yes. So I'm gonna ask not only to chime in on this. I do have, some some recent experience working on the preparation of our department wide budgets. And I think that historically, the cip has represented probably depending on year to year anywhere from 25 to 35% of the overall budget. I think the next 2 years are an anomaly, 24 and 25, and that we have some pretty substantial projects coming forward that are boosting it to a a higher ratio to where it might be approximately 40% of the overall. But I know. So I I think we've got Gastonia here. But as our budget analyst to to be able to speak to the the ratio of the overall budget that I made a reference earlier, Ryan, to open Gov. Which, as a a finance and government the trans. Or, excuse me.

[31:16] we have transparency and government finance tool that the city is using, and there are a number of charts and graphs and tables that you'll be able to explore, to get a sense of our overall budget here fairly soon, when that is shared with the public. So not only feel free to jump in here. Yeah, I'll just confirm it historically has been, I think, in that, like 25% ish place of the overall budget. At least, if we're speaking, I think. around the transportation fund And but, as Garrett said, kind of over the next couple of years. We're seeing the cip probably be on a bigger percentage. It might be 40%. I haven't really looked at it closely. But and that's because of as we've talked about a lot of grant funding that's coming in over the next couple of years. we have a we have a big vip the next couple of years, which is exciting.

[32:17] and it's also a lot for us to to be doing. So. Okay, got it And and that's great news. And understand. That's also a lot yeah, like, but the dawn thing, maybe some respects. Can you just say then, so that a quarter to a third is, or something of the overall budget. That's what this is. The Council sees. Are there other main budget items or proposals that will go to council. Besides, Cip, just in so far as that providing perspective to, you know, for the proposal of the Council. what else will they see that's a budget like a big budget item or or budget proposal. So I can. Yeah. So I can speak kind of generally about our 2,024 budget request, and we can come back to council or practice. Have a at a future evening to provide a summary of kind of what our 2,024 budget request was.

[33:11] but we really the the main focus of our 2,024 budget request is to continue to provide the level of service that we provide today with the increasing cost to provide that level of service. So we're seeing. you know, I would say, rounding big numbers. About a 2 million ish increase over 2023, and Garrett can correct my math on that But that's really just to continue to provide the level of service from an operation to maintenance standpoint of our system that we're providing today and edit, you know, at a big increasing cost to do that. We did have some other enhancement adjustments that we needed to make a couple of personnel requests to support just ongoing needs. You know, you saw

[34:00] over the next couple of years. We have a lot of design and construction projects on our plates, and we're going to need some additional personnel to help with that work. So That that's our request. Nothing's been approved yet, but we can certainly come back to tab at a future night to give a more detailed kind of summary of what our request was. Okay. So the picture I'm getting just to understand the the context of the of how this budget fits the over budget that council you'll ask for Council feedback on. There's the overall budget that's not today. That's that's the overall budget for another day, and there's a cip budget council will see both of those. There's not other major chunks. This is sort of the biggest single item, the Council will see for transportation outside of the overall budget request. That's correct. Great. Okay. to to clarify Ryan. The reason that we come to tab for input and recommendation on the capital improvement program specifically, and not the overall operating budget is. It's in your charter. And the the boulder revised code that it's in your purview to review and recommend the capital improvement program.

[35:08] And that's not unique to transportation. Every other department in the city that has a Board is asked to do the same. So the Parks and Recreation Recreation Advisory Board, the the Rep for utilities Osbt for open space. They are all conducting similar reviews of the cip which are recommended to to planning board. Planning board also does not get to direct approval on the operating budget. That is only through city council. Got it. Okay, thanks very much. I'll say the rest for comments that helps me to to. Yeah. Sort of put my thoughts together. Thanks very much. I have one question. When this goes to council, does this go as a presentation similar to the one we received tonight? Or is it mostly in there packet along with the other budgets.

[36:00] That's correct. It will go in as a packet, so Council will see a very high level presentation that describes key operational enhancements as well as key capital improvement investments. But they will not get this level of detail in their in in the presentation within the the the the content of the memo. They should see very similar type of information as what was in your packet. Okay, thanks. Any other questions from Tab. not seeing any. We'll go ahead and open this up for the public. Hearing any member of the public wishing to talk about this item, please use the race hand tool. and our technical host will call on you, and you'll have 3 up to 3 min to address the board. All right. It looks like Thomas has had his hand up. So, Thomas, I want to ask you to on you. Please confirm. You're able to be so. Okay, can you? Can you hear me?

[37:07] Are 2 of us here? we're here for the 30. First to 30 Eighth Street parking. Is that going to be on the agenda. Yeah, that's our fifth agenda item, this is the fourth one So after we conclude this public hearing, we'll move on to that one, and that' be the appropriate time to address the board about. Okay. Great, thank you. The Easter Aurora neighborhood parking. Permit expansion cool. Then I'll call on someone else. oh, Lexi, I'm gonna ask you to on mute. Please confirm you are able to do so good. This is a Lexi Davis. I guess I have a common request on automatic speed enforcement. I know. After it goes to council, a resolution going to council, probably in the fall, I heard.

[38:02] Is there going to be a purchase of cameras and installation of those cameras. And would that be part of Sip? I think it's very important to tie it in Division 0. I mean, that should be a high priority. So more of a question, probably too late to throw it in the bucket. Now. thanks to Lexi, the staff have an answer on that one that they'd like to provide at this time. So the speed camera enforcement is not part of the capital improvement program for transportation and mobility. That is part of an operational budget, and I see Devin has turned on his camera, so he might be able to speak more correctly about the the way that's funded. Yeah, Alexey. good evening, everyone. My name is Devin Jaws, and I'm the principal traffic engineer for the city. Alexi, in response to your question. We've been working very closely with the police department, and my understanding is the police department is doing some planning and adding in some items for their 2,024 budget to help with expansion of the photo speed enforcement program.

[39:14] All right, we'll move on to the next question David has there he? Not? I'm gonna ask you on mute. He's confirmed. You're able to do so. I've yeah, I believe I am. just a quick, a quick clarification, and this might just a quick clarification. It might be too far off for for that. But I would love to hear more of. In regard to the supplemental funds for the Thirtieth street multi multi-modal improvements. I was kind of wondering, what what improvements for being planned in in specific. So I think we made reference in our presentation to 2 different segments of Thirtieth Street. There was a segment from a Rappaho to Iris or the diagonal highway, which is a corridor study and preliminary design.

[40:10] And so the outcome of that will be based on our pretty robust community engagement effort and consulting with stakeholders affected along the corridor. And so it's too early to know what will come of that effort. But the desire is to bring forward recommendations for the quarter that make it easy for people to travel along and across the 30 street quarter on that segment. and then the other section of Thirtieth Street that is funded for design and construction is between Colorado and Aurora, which would connect to the intersection currently wrapping up construction and put in place better bike Lane and pedestrian facilities in that section from Colorado to Aurora, consistent with the recommendations of the Thirtieth and Colorado quarter study

[41:07] all right. it doesn't look like anyone else has their hand up, Alex. So you may continue. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, my wife. I could out there for a second. And did did you mention the third project that's nearing construction north of the underpasset to a Rappaho? Yes, that project is also It was not mentioned this evening as part of the cip presentation, but it is imminent. And we're looking for that one to start construction this year. That which you connected, and be under the intersection at Colorado to just south of a Rappaho. Then to David's question, that'll include the same number of traveling some back of curve, protected bike lanes, sidewalk and trans stop enhancements and potentially crossing enhancements to make it safer to get across the street

[42:00] and then the city is also secured, funding to do preliminary design north of the Rappah, that might take some of those features and extend them all the way up to the diagonal correct. seeing no more. we'll close the public hearing, thanks to everyone who joined us with questions. Sorry. I just saw another hand go up When I ask you to unmute yourself. So this is interesting. You can ask questions rather than just ha! Give a statement about the hearing. If chat. The step chooses to respond to questions. That's their prerogative. But generally these are opportunities for people to provide feedback. That's for the Board's consideration as we do our deliberation and recommendation to council. That's great. I just haven't noticed that being part of protocol before. Pretty cool. yeah. well, Natalie says, yeah, we have all these cip funds, and that's great.

[43:05] But I kind of think of them. And the way that I think of why tech funds for housing. you get a lot of grants and you get them, probably because there's matching funds and the Federal grants or State grants, or what have you? And they're they're at the same time that they're offered to the city. Then they're also promoting a lot more growth. And from my perspective of riding my by family drive my car once every 6 months or so. I just don't like to go East, and I live at 6 than doing. I don't like to go east and boulder at all, because it just adds so much time to wherever I'm going, in stop lights and and So the more

[44:02] the more you're getting these funds and and putting them through and improving doing traffic improvements. You're also you know, paving the way for just more growth. And and that's the sad thing about you know that that's the bad side of getting all this spending done. Thank you for joining us again, Lynn. No one else. Okay. we'll open up for tab feedback and an eventual recommendation for planning board and council trend. Well, I am just really grateful for all this work that you guys have done. I I've seen some of the Grant work that has been.

[45:05] I'm sorry I don't know. I don't know what that was, anyway, So I just wanted to say, Thank you. And you know, just addressing how this is gonna negatively impact, I don't see any negative impact. I was a user of east folder roads when my child went to Manhattan Middle School, and I personally experienced how much of my time I had to. And that's because I had to find alternative routes. So these improvements, I think, will benefit a lot of people. They'll save a lot of lives. And I'm just incredibly grateful for all your work. So thank you. Ryan or Becky. Right

[46:01] Hi! second trainee on the The incredible work that Staff has done and is doing to both. Flip this kind of a bunch together and prepare for and staff up to to do the work ahead. I really appreciate the diligence of this study here itself, and what's gone into it? and I have feedback. But it's the feedback is really just about how you label the package that is going to City Council. And so if I if you bear with me to just maybe review a couple of points, and then I'll I'll make my my my conclusion. so this is the most important large item of of detailed budget for transportation that gets a real look from the public and from city council. It's also really one of the largest chunks of the overall budget around a quarter or a third, or something like that. And it, you know, it goes up and down. and it's also about capital projects, which is something that is specified in city code to have public review cross departments.

[47:07] and it's so important in part because it's about effectively about the physical system that we are building for the city of Boulder going forward and The picture is not great from a from a financial perspective. as the mental reads so sales because I'll just read it because sales tax funds, nearly 70% of transportation and because construction cost indexes have an outpacing inflation rate. This has led to reduce spending power and reduce opportunities for managed Federal estate ground funds. And as I heard just commented verbally a few moments ago. we have about a 2 million increase over 2023, just to maintain the same level of services. So I think the study here, or the the proposal, does a really good mechanical analysis of what's happening.

[48:04] But it's pretty muted, and I'm not looking at the actual number of the Council. So maybe this will be. Maybe this is not a critique of what's coming to Tab, but what I would propose consider highlighting when this does go to council. Is that What I don't see in here as much on the the financial situation that gives a a set of choices to counsel about what's really before them. for a city that has ambitious Tmp goals. climate goals, and other goals, and I guess I would summarize it as something like we are doing an incredible amount with funding and the funding we have that we are given. That we have, you know. been authorized to pursue and have time to pursue. is a limiting factor for Boulder City of Boulder, delivering the greatest possible livability for residents of visitors.

[49:04] Transportation is core to climate, action and equity, and other goals that are of great consequence for the city. and we could be doing more with more money. More money that it is not, you know. It doesn't have this that doesn't have. And not to mention that we still don't even have transit back up to where it was in a 2,019 levels and these are things that are not on the staff to figure out. But I do think that the discussion for council about the most strategic elements of budgeting for transportation. This should be on their desk very clearly, And written as a set of choices, and the choices are something like. keep going business as usual, or you know, council be aware that we are limited with funds we have.

[50:04] and there's, you know. there could be conversations about how to how to do more. from presumably from your from your standpoint, through kinds of things city council could could do. You could work on, get up with. I don't know how you would put that exactly from a staff perspective. but I think that some way to to label this to counsel with the strategic significance that the Council really has a choice here, not just to not just to say, will you please approve it? But the Council has a choice to say you really want to crank on a multimodal, completely walkable, bikeable transit ridge center or city city. that, you know, there. There are options that that you counsel could do work on. So. I'll leave it with that. And thank you for your work. Thanks, Ryan. yeah, I do this. Having seen how this has evolved over the past 5 years to me, I mean, this is exciting. It doesn't feel like business, as usual. feel like. When I got onto the board. A lot of the projects were small and reached and extravagant, and price, and we were missing some of the low cost

[51:12] opportunities. And this does a really good job of spreading the money that we do have to impact as many trips as possible and and address our most pressing needs. And so to me, this feels far more scalable than any budget I've seen in previous years, and hopefully, something that will inspire some confidence and additional support from council. I think the presentation that we saw did a good job of highlighting the connections between the projects that are coming up in the core material network carrying that the interface with Council is going to be pretty limited. I think one thing that would be informative would be it map that shows how these projects directly interact with the core material network. So highlighting segments or intersections

[52:03] that have been completed. If there are any things that are funded already or in construction. And then what this budget accomplishes, and I think it'll show an immense amount of work in progress that's been made in just a year and a half, but it will also highlight the gaps that are forming for things that aren't funded, and that might help make the case to scale this operate being funded. Oh, we lost you for Alex. Yeah. yeah, at the at the part where you said, where it's like scalable, I think. And then. okay, yeah, I think this is scalable. And what should inspire confidence? And and council to provide additional funding. Did you hear me when I was talking about a map. Okay, cool. Yes, I'm ready to support this this evening, and it is exciting to see a lot of things that this board has been involved with in the past, from the pavement management program to the core material network to some of the tip projects that we've brought forward

[53:23] be formally. formally and incorporated into the into the city budget. I just say I agree. Oh, sorry I forgot to. I don't know if I clarified that in my remarks. Yeah, totally support, ready to ready to endorse this awesome Becky. Any comments? Right? I just have a trouble on me. I'm meeting no, no, I think I'll I'll kind of thanks to everyone for all over. And I also I agree I'm supporting of what's been

[54:02] for here? Do you want to pull up the motion language? If you have that, Andy? And if anyone would like to make a motion, please do so move to approve. I second move to approval. And this call, public regarding public hearing and tab recommendation regarding 2023 capital improvement program. we? I moved to make move to approve the the the the department's request. Sure, if I did that properly, I don't look at it properly. I said. Okay, let me let me maybe start you say I. I I move that we approve staffs

[55:02] recommendation for the 2,024 to 2,029 cip to planning board that I'm looking at. Thank you. You with a second. my second. Any other deliberation. if not all those in favor. Please raise your hand. C, and 4 of us passes unanimously. Awesome. Thanks, team, thank you. I just want to say, before you move on to the next item. Really appreciate all the feedback and input and your collaboration through this process. It's always enjoyable and appreciate the the effort this year from all of you. and we still have a fun bike to our head. That's great good work, Gary and James and Lindsey. Thank you that

[56:04] we lost Alex my back now. Not really. Ryan. You might have to take over for Alex or Becky. Sorry that you might have to take over from Alex. Okay, Alex, are you? I can tell. No. Am I going? Can you hear me? We can. Now. Okay, sorry. I'm trying to switch network. So I might cut out again. All right. Looks like them. Okay? So we have a couple of things here. Sorry about that issue. the residential access management programs will be a briefing for tab and for us right feedback as well as a public hearing on the East Aurora neighborhood parking permit expansion that being a public hearing. It means there'll be an opportunity for members of the public wishing to address the Board to do so after we've

[57:13] seeing the staff presentation. I know we have a few people interested in speaking about this, and thank you for sticking with us as we get to this item. so that I'll turn it over to Staff for the presentation. Good evening, Tab. Chris Jones, here director of the Community Vitality Department. We're joined by Sam Bromberg in community Vitality and Bill Cowan this evening from Fox total, who's been helping us with some analysis of the East Aurora neighborhood as well as other elements of the residential access management program. So without further ado, I think I'm just going to hand it over to them to begin their presentation. Thanks, Chris. just gonna share my screen.

[58:02] And can everybody oops see that? Okay? Yep. all right. Thanks for having me here tonight. If you'll recall Bill Coward and I attended the March Tab meeting and solicited and put on a couple of questions about the continued development of ramp and the criteria for how we can apply ramp strategies and the administration of the Npp program staff hoped to develop the criteria in order to respond to petition requests for Nvps that meet all Key metrics. including the petition to expand the existing East Aurora and PP. Zone. We are here tonight on 2 fronts, first, to present the developed criteria, and second, to make a recommendation on a proposal. In response to the East Aurora and PP. Expansion Petition in a public hearing. I am joined again by Bill, who will be presenting on the criteria we developed and how we applied it to the east of our proposal for the agenda tonight. First, I'll offer some additional background about how we got to this point. I'll then hand it over to Bill to discuss her work, to develop the approvals of criteria, and how we applied it to the east of our Npp expansion petition.

[59:08] I'll then review the community. Engagement results. Our staff recommendations open up the floor for questions, will conduct the public hearing, and will end with a formal motion. I want to offer a quick refresher on how we got here. The residential access management program was identified in the access management and parking strategy adopted by Council in 2,017. This graphic visualizes the key ongoing projects related to amps which includes work to advance Updates to the parking code and adoption of a Tdm. Ordinance that could begin as soon as 2,024, depending on council priorities. Further exploration of new and expanded residential access management tools will be included as part of those work plan items. The ramp policy was developed after extensive community engagement and approved by council in 2,021.

[60:00] The program itself was built out by Staff, put through the city's racial equity instrument, and later approved by council in 2,022. At that same council meeting in 2,022 staff presented the case of the East Aurora Andpp Expansion Petition, which met all criteria for moving to a Staff proposal council, directed Staff to move forward with the program and prepare a proposal for the East. Aurora and PP. Expansion petition. It was at this time that Staff identified an opportunity to further refine the proposal approach and use the petition to show how the approach could work. This brings us to tonight's presentation. How does ramp work to meet our city-wide sustainability, equity and resilience framework goals ramp addresses the goals of safe. livable, accessible, and connected and responsibly governed. The parking management solutions implemented under ramp help support the existing transportation system, manage congestion and allow community members easier access to their homes.

[61:01] It has proven successful at supporting parking management efforts at traffic generating destinations. RAM schools are to be more responsive to user behaviors and neighborhood diversity, promote predictability, transparency and understanding of regulations, generate revenue and achieve cost, recovery. advanced climate and sustainability goals and increase the quality of life for everyone, residents and visitors alike. Here we can see all the key metrics for what thresholds need to be met for staff to consider adding a new managed parking zone. We're adding blocks to an existing managed parking zone. The metrics include parking, occupancy, visitation, zoning barriers to movement and resident petition. The petitioned area for the East Aurora and PP expansion, met all the criteria outlined on my previous slide, and in November 2,022, Council directed Staff to explore the possibility of expanding the zone.

[62:06] We've reached Step 4 in the process that was initiated by the area meeting all key metrics. I will now turn it over to Bill Cower and a fox, subtle to review how we approach the additional criteria needed to create the proposal. Using the petitioned East Aurora and PP. Expansionary as our test case. Next slide. Please. Good evening, members of the Tab As Samantha noted Fox Tuttle's been working with city staff to develop recommendations for additional ramp implementation criteria and to help staff help, staff apply the criteria to the current East Aurora expansion proposal. The recommendations for ramp implementation criteria included the public process requirements for non-petition blocks and determining regulations of non permit parking specifically paid parking time restrictions, or both.

[63:05] Our approach to making recommendations on these criteria involved the feedback that we received from yourselves at your March thirteenth meeting. It also included a needs, wants and considerations, assessment from key staff stakeholders. and it included a peer review research that we did with 7 Us. Communities. Now, there's much more detailed information in our technical memorandum. But in summary, our recommendations for criteria, one where that non petitioning blocks would not have to specifically petition to be included. They would express support or concern through the public process and subsequent tab public hearing. and then for criteria to Regarding the regulation of non permit parking. It was our recommendation that city staff provide specific information. The policymakers regarding the following

[64:01] assessment of equitable access through multimodal options and availability of external parking. available white space anticipated for non permit parking the type of trip being generated for by trip generating land use in this case. Williams village long term or short term parking. and the assessment of walking biking trip, generation, land use, and and whether the pay station could be strategically staged if pay stations were to be considered a part of the proposal. Next slide, please. So we then applied these new criteria to the east, Aurora and PP. Expansion, which is currently under consideration the current East Aurora and PP. Zones in place on streets north of Aurora. and it was requested in response, primarily in response to students parking in the neighborhood for classes at the campus.

[65:07] The area petitioning for expansion into the into the zone now are blocks south of Aurora. Their concern is primarily students living in one of the village campus housing. and who have long term parking in their neighborhood streets or on their neighbored streets. Cu does provide space for long-term storage of student vehicles, but the students have to pay a fee. They have to buy a permit approximately $235 a semester to have that permit. and that would allow them to park in that lot, and consequently some students park for free in the East Aurora neighborhood. The residents living on those blocks submitted a petition per Npp. Regulations to expand the East Aurora and PP. To include their blocks in July of 2,020 next slide.

[66:00] So this is a photograph of 30 First Street. You can see Williams village in the background. It just shows the extent which the street is parked up. Next slide, please. This is a little bit further north. over by Arrowwood Park again. 100% parking utilization. Next slide, please. And again, this is 30 s Street, one block over. You can see Williams village in the background. And again, the street is experiencing very high parking utilization next slide, please. So this graphic shows the study area. The existing zone is noted in red. The blocks petitioning for expansion into the zone are noted in green. There's also several streets that we're not a part of the petition which may be impacted by the expansion and are being studied as well.

[67:01] and these are the ones that are noted in blue. Next slide. So the following of the evaluation components used to determine whether an Npp expansion should be placed in the study area, and if so, how the non permit parking should be managed again. Hourly restrictions paid, parking, or both. We first looked at determining the parking utilization on the residential streets. We also sought to document the extent to which non-resident parking was associated on those streets. We determine the availability of alternative parking and other multimodal service for non resident users. This is the Tdm plan that's referenced in the Npp regulations. We evaluated the expected resident, permit parking density. This is particularly helpful and determined whether it be appropriate for paid parking management. and then confirming whether paid parking infrastructure could be considered as a part of this zone.

[68:04] Next slide, please. So parking utilization is the first thing that we evaluated the city's neighborhood permit. Parking zone regulations suggest that block should be considered for new zones or expansions. If evaluations show that there's at least 3 instances where the block or block face as 60% or greater parking utilization. Each of the block faces within the study zone were evaluated multiple times. the blocks which did have 60% utilization or greater, on at least 3 different evaluation attempts are noted with the solid lines. those that did not, or noted with the dash lines. The greatest level of parking appears to be on the western blocks, 30 First Street, through 30 Fifth Street. and then Aurora Avenue also has several blocks with high utilization. You probably know that the block of Madison Avenue and the block of 30 Fifth Street, south of Colorado. They also have very high parking utilization

[69:03] over the land you send those roadways is high density residential, and therefore these streets are precluded from the program. Next slide, please. So the Npp. Is not a great tool for mitigating parking impacts that are generated solely by people living in the neighborhood. Therefore the Mpp regulation suggested at least 25 of the vehicles parked should be owned by people living outside of the neighborhood. City staff has traditionally looked at vehicles parking during the day and overnight to try and draw conclusions about non-resident parking. However, this method is less reliable now we have more people that are working from home, and it's especially challenging when the non resident parking is long term parking rather than like a class or commute type parking. So it's difficult to determine whether a person parked both day and night as a person working from home or a student parking long term. For example.

[70:04] therefore, we supplemented our analysis with a review of parking utilization both during the school year and during summer break. and most of the students wouldn't be in town. That analysis showed that there would be a demonstrable increase in parking utilization during the school year compared to summer break. For example, on 30 s Street. directly across from Williams village, the street had over 60% parking utilization quite a bit over 60 79% of the time that it was studied during the school year. and it never exceeded 60% during the summer break. So when you consider that. coupled with the high parking utilization. the number of homes, and how parking looks on other streets, it seems apparent that there is a considerable amount of non resident parking on at least some of these streets next slide, please.

[71:01] So the city's Npp regulations also note that a Tdm evaluation should be performed for new or expanded zones to determine the availability of onsite parking and multimedal options for people who are currently parking in the study area, and who would not be eligible for permits for the East Aurora expansion nearby transit service and facilities for walking and biking to Key City destinations were considered a part of this evaluation. In addition, the availability of long-term onsite parking at Williams village campus was considered. Evaluation showed that there was good transit service, excellent bicycle facilities, and a network of multi-use paths, all of which connect this area to Key City destinations. See, you students also have access to eco-passes, and it be cycle membership as a result the transit. Pedestrian and bicycle real estate scores for this area were they're shown in the Slide 51, 76, and 100 respectively.

[72:03] There is again long term parking available in Lot 622 of William Village. this is, comes at a cost of $235 approximately per semester. These results suggest that there wouldn't be an equity issue implementing an Mpp extension expansion. Nor would there be an issue if paid. Parking were used to manage the non permit parking in the Zone. However, the availability of long term parking at William Silly Williams village. plus the fact that the parking is long term rather than short term. We'll suggest that using paid parking would probably be of limited value at this. In this expansion. Next slide, please. So the density of housing, and specifically the likely density of resident permit vehicles on street or factors, and determine whether paid parking would be appropriate for a new or an expanded zone. Staff undertook a comparison of the number of residents within different existing zones, and the number of resident Npp. Permits obtained in those zones

[73:10] to determine how many permits each residence was likely to obtain for any newer expanded zone. This evaluation showed that there was an average of one permit for 2 households or 0 point 5 permits per household averaging across the current program. This value aligned particularly well with the data specific to the existing East Aurora and Vp. Which is the closest one next slide. Please. Staff then reviewed the parking capacity and the number of households for key blocks within the study area. A determination was made about how much of the white space would likely be occupied by resident permit parking the values for these blocks were fairly low, generally less than about 20%. This suggests that resident permit parking would not fill a large portion of the white space, and there would be space available for non permit parking to occur.

[74:05] depending on the type of parking valued in the study area. This could mean that a paid parking approach for non permit parking might be appropriate again, in this case, since the desired parking is long term. and there would be a less expensive option at Williams village. It's not likely that paid parking would be the appropriate tool next slide, please. and so that brings us to our conclusions. the blocks between 35 thirty-first and 35 are highly parked up with a significant number of vehicles belonging to people who don't reside in the study area. the blocks between 36 and 39, as well as portions of Aurora. or close enough that they would likely see spill over parking if they were included not included in the. There are multimodal transportation options for non residents currently parking in the area. This would support the paid parking approach if it were

[75:03] to be included. anticipated resident permit. Parking density is low enough to support a paid parking approach. But the type of trip that it type of non resident trip that seems to be common here in the presence of that onsite parking at Williams village. that does not support the paid parking approach for this zone next slide. So this graphic shows the expansion proposal which was sent to the neighborhood for review. It includes all the block faces which which were part of the original petition in Blue Box on 30 Ninth Street and Aurora in yellow, which we thought should also be included, because we either have a high utilization today, or because we would expect the new expansion to push parking onto those streets. This is the proposal which residents reviewed and responded to. And with that

[76:00] I'll pass this presentation back over to Samantha to talk about that public process. Thanks Bill to solicit feedback from community members in the east of our area staff mailed out a postcard and later a letter with details of the proposal and a link to an online questionnaire. The materials were sent out to all residents, owners, and businesses in the proposal area, as well as surrounding blocks. All responses to the proposal were included in the packet. After analyzing the responses, Staff found that although the proposal was created in response to a resident-driven petition. most respondents were in opposition to the expansion of the Mpp. Staff received a total of 228 responses to the proposal, with comments on 194 of the responses of those who are opposed to the proposal and left comments. 70 respondents. Site cost to permits 31 site. No perceived need for parking management, and 20 disapprove of the specific structure of the program.

[77:09] Those who mentioned the cost of the permits for context. The cost is $40 per year for a residential permit in 2,023, bring up the high cost of living in boulder. The recent increase in property taxes, and many express frustration that residents should have to pay for a permit at all. Respondents who cited no perceived need for parking management, stated that parking was not an issue on their block. Finally, those who disapproved of the structure of the program mentioned that the proposal would create parking impacts on nearby streets, and that there are not enough permits being offered per per per household. This was clarified in the fa cues, but many people mentioned in the comments that only 2 permits could be purchased per household when it is, in fact, 2 permits per resident. Another common theme across both those in opposition and those in support, is the idea that you should be responsible for, or at least aiding in resolving the parking issues.

[78:04] Comments in support of the proposal include safety concerns due to poor visibility with current parking, congestion, difficulty of parking near one's home, and many suggest that the restrictions could extend beyond what was proposed particularly overnight restrictions. Interestingly, the support for the proposal was higher, coming in at 44 on the blocks that did not petition, but were included in the proposed expansion Boundaries staff have identified 4 possible options to respond to the petition to expand the East Aurora Andpp Zone. as well as 2 options, which, if the east of our Nvp. Is expanded, could be implemented along Baseline Frontage Road and Aurora Avenue to support the holistic parking management of the area options, one through 4, or, as they relate to the Npp Zone and options A and B are for the ramp blocks outside the Mpp zone, which, if the zone is expanded, would need to be managed for a holistic approach

[79:05] option. One is to take no action. At this time we could revisit the petition. If conditions change in the future option 2 is to expand the East, Aurora Andpp to cover only the blocks that petitioned option 3 is to expand the Npp. To the proposed blocks, which include both the petitioned and the non-petitioned blocks. Option 4 will entail additional engagement activities and program development activities. This could include other options such as bringing to you to the table in a more meaningful way if the Npp. Were to be expanded. Staff are recommending that baseline fronted road to the south, and the sections of, or Avenue not included in the Npp. Be managed as part of ramp. The options for managing parking on the identified block ramp blocks outside the proposed Npp include option a for time limited parking to mirror the regulations in the Npp. An option B for paid parking option B would include 90 min of free parking, followed by unlimited paid parking for a maximum of 72 h, starting at the base rate for on-street parking.

[80:12] Although the data suggests that the area would benefit from parking management, and that parking congestion is severe, especially on the blocks closest to Williams village there is not sufficient support from residents to expand the existing Npp. Or management of surrounding ramp blocks at this time. based on the comments receive. Staff suggests that additional community engagement and program and development activities take place over the summer and fall and staff return to Tab and council later this fall. assuming tub support for the staff recommendation staff will recommence outreach and engagement activities with the East Aurora Neighborhood and program development activities. The questions we have for Tab are. does Tab have any feedback on the proposed criteria modifications for ramp? And does Tab support Staff's recommendation to conduct additional community engagement and program development activities and return to Tab and council at a future date to revisit this petition.

[81:09] At this time we can address questions from tab members prior to the public hearing. Thanks to the bill, any questions for the team here. Becky? Thanks. yeah, I have a couple of questions. one what? I was curious. Why, high density residential is precluded from the program. So the program was developed originally to assist with issues regarding spillover to neighborhoods from a neighboring traffic generated and destinations. And so it doesn't address like a high number of residents parking in those neighborhoods. And so currently the regulations for the Npp program state the high density. Residential neighborhoods are not included

[82:13] or not, or are precluded or are would not qualify for an Npp. Do they qualify for any? For, like other parking management. some other part of our parking management like universe. That would be potentially a question for transportation and mobility. But they would not qualify for anything under ramp. Currently. Okay, thank you. my other question is I didn't quite understand why long term parking doesn't support paid parking. Oh, it might not as I'm saying it, maybe it's making sense. So is it because somebody wouldn't bother to like. They're not going to park there

[83:01] because they need long term parking, and they don't need short term parking. So why would they pay anything for a short? Okay. that's great. Thanks. Just had to think through it. A little more. okay. And that was my only question. Thank you. Brian, or training. You have any questions. Right? thanks, Alex. First Tila had a note that Kara Memo that came in, and I don't know if there's a way to make that part of the the the docket here. But she had a quick. quite some some I don't know. Specific points. should I? Can those be incorporated. summarized, at least in the minutes? I think I've seen that in the past. I'm seeing it, not from Natalie.

[84:00] Yes, I think her feedback can be incorporated. Brian, was there a question in there that? Yeah, I just wanted to give to you a chance to go first. So I yeah, thank you. Bill, and Chris and and Samantha team. I just have a few questions about the What I think, is 2 elementary schools on the the top left of the map. Is it? Is it possible to show the map of the Aurora and the 30 at the streets is that is that? Thank you. Do you have that right? The top left there, Aurora and left of the I'm sorry to, I said, the top left to the right. So basically above 30 Ninth Street, Aurora, that's B. Csis elementary school, and I. P. Some medical school joining it right, is that right? Okay, thank you. So I as I thought I didn't. I don't think I heard much about those elementary schools 2 of them. So joining. you're a lot of us to you. So I guess I have a few questions just as far as like how.

[85:04] whether and how? the perspective of what's happening with those schools. is is a part of this whole parking picture in the neighborhood. and I suppose my, so, maybe I 3 questions. The first one is just. is there any general? I don't know thing that the team could off from as far as like. What? What are the dynamics around this parking situation with with school traffic? So like I, it sounds like non. Resident traffic is an issue. Are many of those teachers and parents searching for parking or not? Or, yeah, just what could you say anything about that? What I could perhaps offer is that the proposal had parking regulations going up to about a block before the elementary school. so there would have been unmanaged parking for any activities related to that school. on the block after 30 Ninth Street.

[86:04] but we didn't see super high density or high occupancy parking too far to the east of 30 Ninth Street, but we didn't extend our study that far in that direction, either. We were primarily occupied with the petition blocks and just the surrounding blocks. and I don't know if Bill, you want to add anything else. Yeah, I I would only offer In addition to that, just from my prior experience with the city. that the predominant parking impacts in and around that school mostly had to do with pick up and drop off activity, not with long-term parking. They provide for long term parking on their site. There certainly are pick up and drop off issues that impact that neighborhood, but that would not be likely to be impacted by the Mpp.

[87:01] okay? So then it. And so then, from a like a first principles, I guess it's perspective. I'm hearing. Sure there's there's a couple of schools there, but it's not clear that that would be whether there's an app or not, or whatever it need to be designed. There. There's not. Don't expect there to be much It's interaction with the school. Okay? And does that include? I'm thinking about pedestrians and bicyclist trying to get to school with this. Can you imagine, either way, whether you you know. regardless of what recommendation, that there's a there's an implication here for safety or or I guess vehicle level traffic levels that would effect active training travelers. Well, I believe there are bike lanes along Aurora Avenue, or at least it's it's a a bike path along Aurora Avenue. And so if we managed parking along Aurora Avenue, it would be safer for cyclists and pedestrians trying to get to the school if they were coming from thirtieth.

[88:02] For example, the proposed parking management. for Aurora Avenue under ramp, not part of the Mpp. So it's not shown on this map, but it would basically extend from where the dotted yellow lines and all the way to 30 Ninth Street. So ideally, you know, managing the parking there would help reduce congestion and then create safer conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. And same for a baseline frontage road as well. Yeah, there's generally understood to be a correlation between reducing motor vehicle traffic and a a safer environment. And that's part of the goal. Okay? And Sophie, yeah, thanks. Thank you. Maybe I missed that sort of a big idea. So so in general, the Mpd. You, you would say, if you pursue it with would tend to reduce motor vehicle traffic in area overall. Yes. less conflicts with bikes, and that

[89:01] yes, and if I might interject. when we see block faces that are over utilized. When it comes to parking, you're going to see more vehicles that are approaching, parking spaces that are closer to stop signs. driveways. And when you have that amount of activity, there's a lot more blind spots and issues with side triangles that lead to crashes. So maybe what I would summarize that I've heard is, the team is aware that there's there's a couple of schools there considered what you know, that the whether or not there are key impacts, you know, with perspective, which direction we go with it here doesn't seem to be a substantive reason not to. And, in fact, if we went forward and you would expect it to reduce on average or probabilistically conflict of the is that fair? Yes. great. Okay. And then just for the to be thorough. The

[90:00] did so. I sound like there wasn't like a real signal from in the petition, like the real signal of representing stakeholders from the school, like, you know, parents or resid, I guess residents talking about school traffic or teachers, or they just there wasn't. This was not despite the being just wasn't reflected. They weren't coming out in the survey. It wasn't a prevalent theme. I think the theme was more surrounding Cu students and the management of Williams village. Okay. Okay. I. I think those are my questions. Thank you. Thanks. Everybody. Appreciate it. Any other questions from Tab, or can we open it for the public hearing? No, I just wanted to add that, you know, basically, Brian covered all my questions regarding, you know, pedestrian and cyclist safety. So I don't have anything else. Okay. with that we'll open up the public hearing. Thank you. To the members of public who stuck with us to this point.

[91:03] Now it's the time I see a couple of you found the race hand to use the raise hand tool within the Zoom Platform, and our technical host will start calling on you, and you'll have up to 3 min to address the board. All right. whoever sharing screens can we have that stop sharing these? Thank you. All right. Well, looks like Mike has their hand up. My! Could you confirm you're able to speak? Yes. Can you hear me? Perfect? Yes, you may start. thank you, and thanks to the board, and thanks to the outside experts who consulted on this. my name is Mike Chaffin. I've been a resident of Boulder since 2,009, a resident of a resident of the neighborhood since 2,014, and I've been a homeowner in the neighborhood since 2,017 over the last 6 years since I bought my house. They haven't noticed any change in parking utilization on my street due to the construction of the large dormitories. It Willville I saw no change. and partially as a consequence of that I want to speak in strong opposition to the creation of this zone. For me the zone does not solve a problem.

[92:11] Neither I nor any of my guests or any of the service workers that I have had to my house. I've had a difficulty finding parking. There's always spots available next to my house or in one or 2 houses to either side. it's not an issue. in the permit zone on the north side of the neighborhood. The streets are nearly empty. They're less than 35% full. I just want to note that that less than 35 is nearly the complement of the 60% threshold that's used for the expansion. So it's clear that residents in the parking zoom that currently exists could still find parking, even if the parking spots were 60% occupied most of the time. with regard to the 60% threshold, I do want to raise a question because this expansion increases the size of the area by a factor of more than 4. I have to wonder whether the 85% threshold is more valid particularly in light of the fact that the reason for the expansion is different.

[93:12] then the reason for the creation of the original zone. So it doesn't solve a problem for me. In fact, it creates a problem, because now I need to manage parking for me and my household, for my guests and for service workers. I understand that process for purchasing permits and for purchasing temporary permits. but this just creates additional cognitive load for me in terms of deciding whether to use a visitor permit for service workers who might be performing plumbing repairs or roof repairs for my house versus guests that might be coming for a week later in the year. So in conclusion, because it does not solve a problem for me. and because it creates a problem. This proposed parking restriction does more harm than good. I would urge the Council to

[94:01] take note of the fact. Sorry the Board to take note of the fact that nearly 70% of residents oppose the zone. and I would urge the Board to respect the vote of the people in this matter, and reject this proposal by option. One and find a test case that will be more suited to putting a zone in place. Thank you very much for your time. Thanks, bye. all right, Thomas. I want to ask you if you are able to unmute unmute. Can you hear me? Perfect? Yes, we begin. Yeah, I my name is Thomas David Keego. I'm here with my neighbor Mary. We live on Thirty-first Street. We live on 30 First Street. first of all. it sounds like you're recommending option for continued on discussion and community involvement. could we do an experiment on a couple of the blocks or say we get

[95:09] metered, paid, parking on 30. First, we get the 3 h time limit on 30 s. I think that if we could see this and experience this you'd you'd get more community involvement and community interest. And and to this discussion about this second I wrote in my written comment. A third proposed option. that if you don't want to do pay parking, could we at least get painted parking spaces on the street. there's 3 room to park, 3 cars in front of each of our houses, and what I see is that the first car parks kind of in the middle, the second car parts behind the first car, leaving a 3 quarter space on one side in a one quarter space on the other side, and then a third car tries to park in the 3 quarters

[96:20] length space and ends up partially brought blocks to the mic. Drive to driveway. If if if if we had the painted parking spaces. it would increase the number of cars that could park, and it would reduce the number of parking tickets and reduce the number of blocked driveways. And my neighbor would like to to say something. Okay. I I notice that.

[97:02] I think even if you have, you know, we have to pay to park on the street, or we have the drop. 3 white lines that we, you know, keep it down to 3 cars in front of a house. All the spaces are always going to be full. I don't think you're going to counteract students who don't want to pay the $500 a year at Cu. They're still going to try to park. And what's gonna happen? Sure, I have a pass for my guest. Well. that's fine. But there's not going to be a space once they arrive in the neighborhood. Kids are going to park for whatever the 2, 2, 3 h limit zoom to another space immediately they leave the first space. A second student or not a student is going to pull in there. I think it's not a actually a good solution. And I don't think all those students live at the dorms. I mean, they do need a place to park, I think, drawing the white lines good old-fashioned way. Pain is so cheap. Go for the pain. One

[98:10] It'd be a nice, at least beginning simple solution. And we could see how it works. Do you more to say, David, I think that's my basic input thank you. Thank you both. Meredith. Did you catch the second name? Okay for the records? Jason, I will ask you to on you. Please confirm. You are able to do so very faintly. So my name is Jason File Sticker. I'm a Ph. D. Grad student and Kimmy. So I live in the zone because I wanted to be close to East campus for my work. I strongly agree with everything that Mike said.

[99:01] All of that checks out and makes total sense to me. I only agree with Thomas's statement regarding maybe painting lines. because I do see it as a very inefficient use of the parking spaces. occasionally. I'm glad to hear that the recommendation to the board is not to immediately implement it, and to at least look into options, I guess further. I do think that the proposed expansion, as Mike said, would just be a another mental burden, and while the cost is not incredible. Still another cost to attack on to a poor grad statement. And I do think that a decent number of these houses are rented out to students and graduate students who would not appreciate extra cost, and also the social burden that it would bring as well right grad, student or grad student grad school itself is sort of a mentally and socially taxed thing So being able to have gatherings and not have to worry about parking.

[100:12] it's sort of a nice thing to have, especially, you know, if people indulge themselves, and you don't want people driving home, and you would like to be able to offer a couch and not have to worry about them getting Toad ticketed, or anything like that. it would be nice not to have to worry about that. I think that engaging with to you to remedy the relatively high barrier to parking financially at Williams village would be probably the best solution moving forward. I don't know how feasible that is. I don't know what type of negotiating power the Board has here. but I think that that would probably be the best way to address it at the cause. Not try to remedy it in a side way. yeah, I can also comment on the parking usage regarding the elementary school in the attached park pick up and drop off is not a problem with students and parents

[101:12] the bigger problem is probably the little League baseball that comes through seasonally and fills up a lot of spots on the north side. But even that is not a huge problem, and I feel that the white lines proposed by Thomas would probably help a lot with that. A lot of people parked very inefficiently. They're here quickly and get to their game as needed. But yeah, overall, I don't approve of it. And that's about it, I suppose. Thanks. Drew, I'm gonna ask you to on mute. Please let me know if you're able to do so. Hello! Can you hear me. Yes, perfect. Great. Okay. Thank you. Guys very much for for inviting us to comment here. my name is Drew Moral. I live at 8, 8 5 30 Ninth Street, and that's just on the corner of Aurora and 39 thread across the street from the school.

[102:07] I've lived here for about 6 years, and throughout the whole time I've commuted to work by bicycle on Aurora have and I do not think that this Mpp is necessary. In fact, I strongly oppose it. I think that it will ultimately just cause a lot of stress among residents. I mean frankly, nobody likes having parking vultures hovering around their neighborhood. You know I I I actually did bring up the school in my survey response. And I I just wanted to say that Ryan, when he spoke earlier, was correct. That's Most of the parking on my street is associated with that school. and also, you know, things like a park activity, little league baseball stuff. But you know we're part of a community and the school is is the bedrock of our community, and and the park is is so important. And you know, if people come and fill up my street because they're teachers teaching in a school.

[103:01] Well, that's fine with me. I don't want to add any stress to their lives. And I also wanted to tell you about my neighbor Camila. she looks just behind me. She's a Spanish speaker, and was a little hesitant to speak, but she's a senior citizen who recently lost her husband. She does not own a car But over the course of the past year to there were constantly Hospice workers coming and going to her home. And it's just kind of hard for me to imagine how she would navigate the system. and I I just think it'd be confusing and stressful for her. And it's it's just frankly unnecessary. The photos that you guys showed earlier of Thirty-first and 30 s Street. They just frankly don't represent my my neighborhood at all and I. I am sympathetic to people who are maybe closer, farther, farther west. But frankly, you know, in in terms of my neighborhood, I don't think this would be a a an improvement. I wanted to also mention that before the pandemic we had an Rtd bus line that went along Aurora Avenue. That was the 209 line and at the start of Covid that was shut down. So you know, I think if if the intention is to reduce motor vehicle traffic in the area. trying to revamp the 209 would be a a great thing, because it really connected my neighborhood with

[104:18] the university and other parts of of of town. So you know, just to summarize I I do strongly oppose this measure. I don't think it's necessary. I think it would add a lot of stress to our lives. I think one of the stated goals earlier of the program was to generate revenue and achieve cost recovery. And that's kind of what it feels like, you know. Start a program and then have it pay for itself by by our parking citations. And I I don't like to feel that. But anyway, thank you guys very much for considering my opinion. Thank you. True. all right, brandy. I'm gonna ask you to on mute. Please confirm you're able to do so. Am I unmuted?

[105:00] Yes, you are. You may begin right on. So. My first comment is to I don't know. Think about a holistic approach. and please consider what the new rules of increasing the number of unrelated people that can live in houses in our neighborhood, that if we increase the number of people who unrelated people who can live in our neighborhood. There will be more cars. That means more need for permits, which means that a landlord would have to provide a permit in order that they could rent their homes and or just increasing the number of people in cars coming to our neighborhood. I also would like to acknowledge that baseline frontage road is really the problem.

[106:00] In my opinion, I you I live 3 houses away from the frontage road, and I am really actually quite disturbed that this road is not included in the Npp. There are CEO employees who use this. There's homeless people who use this maybe simply putting out a place where the people to use the toilet or to clean up the trash that is incurred on the frontage road would be much appreciated, such that the people could actually park there and live there for 72 h without causing stress to our community. I again just want to iterate that the problems are the Baseline frontage road. It's people blocking the stop sign at 30 Fifth Street

[107:01] people blocking our fire hydrants, people parking in the wrong direction, facing in the wrong direction, people parking too far from the curb. And really, it's just the rules that we currently have are not enforced. So if we can't enforce the rules that we have. Now, I'm not sure how $40 a house here is going to get that that problem to to happen. We do have 2 homes that I believe need to be considered 7, 1034 Street has no parking usable parking in front of our house, due to stop signs and fire hydrants and 7, 1030 Sixth Street. Their driveway is on Frontage road, and they get parked in all the time. Have a child, and they can't leave their home. I think I think we just need a survey of

[108:02] the people parking on Baseline Frontage road, and I'm disturbed. That is not in this plant. Thanks, brandy. all right. looks like we have one more question for you. You should be able to unmute yourself. Thank you. How's my audio? Great! Great! My name is Lee Pain. I live in the northwest area this under consideration here. I've lived in the same house for 21 years. I am going to my twelfth year of Viking to be Csis with my 3 children. What? This neighborhood, in a great extent is my children grew up. I would classify the issues that we're seeing more as a an annoyance and not so much a management issue. In my personal opinion, I think, Fox Tel did a great job of assessing that it's primarily residents

[109:01] and seasonal issues with students. and given the fact that the off street parking requirements for single family residential probably does not equate to the number of residents that are in the house. It's always probably going to be a resident issue. I, personally don't feel like that. That's a fair burden to place upon those renters, especially when the vast majority of them are students, as is the the neighborhood itself. should this be implemented, I I would have pretty great concern that the issue would just push north to Aurora, and then the neighborhoods north of Aurora itself. Many students park in that area to go to the research part. So this is not simply overflow from Williams village. It's an issue that permeates itself towards north, and I feel like that. That issue would then be exacerbated. As this is, it just premiates other parts of the neighborhood. and to that end as I mentioned, I bike to Bcs. I asked for Vcs. I asked for going on 12 years next year.

[110:05] Idiot! There is safety concerns on that street. We back to school every day. The traffic control measures that have been installed on that street of reduced parking, and they've decreased bike or safety by pushing bicyclist into the flow of traffic instead of being able to hurt, hug the curb When cars are not parked there. As I mentioned, I feel like that. That issue will be exacerbated, as well as probably early school events, not only for drop off, but also for classes and the circulation in those areas there, there is a big drop off issue and pick up issue. it's not that far to walk if you end up having to park in the neighborhood, should it be allowed. But bicycling is is pretty unsafe the geometry of the intersection of Aurora, and 35 is not well suited for the round temporary. It seems, round about that's been installed there. I've seen several crashes there because of that and those those measures which have been removed as you as you continue east on, or Roy and get towards Mo Mohawk, have been removed and the bicycling there is much safer. Thank you.

[111:16] Thank you, Lee. Any one else interested in speaking, I must see any additional hands. Okay. enrollment. That's what needs to be done for prevention of the problem and would see you South. It's going to spread throughout this whole community. They need to stop and up already. Enough of a good thing. Too much of a good thing, I should say. That's what needs to be done. Prevention

[112:00] done. Thanks, Lynn. right. It looks like there is no one else. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and open it up for tab discussion with the opportunity to provide a recommendation. If we would like. One thing that came up through this question for staff is the prospect of marking spaces on a residential street? Is that something that the city does to maximize the amount of cars that can fit on a along a certain curve. Looks like Natalie wants to. Oh, for sure. Yeah, I was going to ask Devin to respond to that. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Alex. that is certainly something that we do in various areas. One area was near Chautauqua as a means of the program there to manage parking. And certainly in the downtown area.

[113:00] it is something we could potentially consider. For East Aurora, however, There are challenges with that as well, and and namely, being the maintenance aspect as well as folks. seemingly not following those markings as well as people think they might. so those those are some of the challenges with the working spaces being marked. Okay. Had members have any waiting, anyway, on the the options that were presented. Yeah, I yes, my, I have a few concerns about option for Well, I guess I'll mention one at the start. And maybe I just missed this in the past, but I think the fact that the program only serves low density residential. So it is concerning to me, because

[114:05] effectively, I guess I'm assuming the whole city. You know, everyone pays for a program that only serves a portion of neighborhoods based on the characteristics of housing in those neighborhoods, and whether it's the family or single family homes, and creating that economy with no real rationale to me is like, really, that's really concerning because it seems like a really big inequity in how we provide services to community. so that's kind of just like a bigger concern of mine. but beyond that I guess it. Further, my concern is that with option 4. I'm not really clear what we would gain. like what would be gained either by the community or by city at large by spending more time on this decision. There's been a lot of analysis done, and I understand it was part of developing broader kind of policy recommendations. And so that's why maybe it was more expensive. And it wouldn't be like in the future when it was repeated. But

[115:12] but I yeah, I'm concerned about spending more time on it. I'm not clear there's much to be gained, and also for the same reason of with a different density of housing, that you know a lot of that for sort of supporting the whole city is supporting this work, and it's focused on a very small area. And a lot has been done. Analysis and outreach and conversation. And it doesn't feel like a very efficient use of resources to keep having the conversation without any kind of clear change in outcome that would result in in my view. I'm not sure what other option would arise. And I don't support bringing. See you into it. I just I feel like you is not responsible for every aspect of the lives of people who go to school there or work there. You know they have a role, but

[116:05] it does not extend, I think, to every aspect of how each person see you travels around and so I don't. I don't see this as a Cu issue. You know they price their parking, they put a value on perking. They have on their land. And that may be dissuading some people from from bringing a car at all to the city, you know. That could be what it's doing. So which you know, I many would see as a benefit. But yeah, I guess just a a kind of few more points on that. Which is that. Yeah, I think the community members deserve an answer one way or another, whether they're going to move forward or not. And also, if we have criteria to decide that either we're going to use that criteria or we aren't And if we've built on this criteria, gotten all this information done. All this input, we still don't know. I then maybe is, you know, is, does that mean it's not working what we've done, you know I'm just. I'm kind of confused about why, none of that is enough to to move forward one way or another and I think you know, we need to move on to other places that might merit if we decide. No, this doesn't merit management. Then, you know there's other place parts, lots of other parts of the city, other communities that also deserve.

[117:19] you know, equal attention. whether or not. That's however, we arrive at which one's focus on And I think also, ultimately, you're never gonna know what the whole neighborhood thinks, because we never get full participation in polling. So we don't really have a representative view of what the neighborhood thinks, and that's, you know, pretty much impossible to get without a representative poll, which is hard to do. So. You know, we can keep pulling people. We can keep asking people, and we'll keep getting different viewpoints. But ultimately we need to have some path for for making a decision, and then moving on and being able to replicate it in a kind of an efficient way that recognizes that we can't spend an undo amount of resources on a limited part of the city, especially since the program is already focusing on a limited part of the city by excluding people who live

[118:05] in in a higher density housing. So that's why I support making a decision one way or another. Probably option one or option 3 and I'm not very supportive at moment of option for. But, you know, interested in hearing other have members thoughts. If you hit most of my points. Brian, do you have anything? Oh, Well, I'm sorry. I don't know if I can do this but you but, Becky, you've germinated a question which is, I I now realizing I don't. I'm not sure it fully grasp to what extent city code just gives us the definitions for what staff needs to do versus that pass more discretion. I think there's a goes back to 1,981, the Mps. Established, and sort of it's just what we have. And so I I don't know if it's possible to ask Staff on that, but

[119:06] I think implied, implied in your feedback is like, can staff that that's forge in your mouth. But what I'm thinking of is like, you know, the staff have the ability to. I don't know we we tool to some extent or or no, are we? Is we sort of fully working with what we have for city code in in setting up before options. I don't know if Chris or Bill or Samantha, what is the right? That city code really defines Npv. As we. Okay. yes, that's correct Ryan. The the code that pertains to neighborhood parking permit zones clearly describes what the processes for establishing or expanding zones and tab has the option to accept whatever plan Staff has put forward. we're not recommending that you do that based on community engagement.

[120:00] the plan that we have put forward along those lines is the petition zone with the added streets? If Tab wanted to recommend that that npp be pursued and implemented. Then the next step is to put that on the council consent agenda within 30 days. and that council has the option to call it up and take it another direction or approve on consent. And then Staff would get to work on implementation. Thanks, Chris. And so I think the the What I read is just, we have a 40 year old city code that defines some of these goals and aims that I think tab members, including me, are not extremely satisfied with that. You know this. This goes literally a character. Neighborhood character is written into city code there.

[121:01] So I don't know. I guess I so now I'm making a comment. I'm just recognizing that there is. There is some There's city code is to defining some of the parameters that are causing some indigestion here. So, anyway, that's just my obsession. I guess I would just say, Yeah, I'm I'm just sort of torn. I between agreeing, Becky, I I agree with you. You said I. Also maybe just stepping back, though I I think I mean? That's I. I appreciate what's that has done and is doing within the bounds of the law and resources available. And You know, Sheila, Sheila had her her memo that we'll we'll get into the minutes. just to summarize her. Her her top line. It was a Shih number 4 goes number 4. not for the reasons that She has it, some comments about it, but but sort of torn between supporting that and and saying, I like we. I like where you're going, Becky, that like, you know, if if

[122:03] we just need to make it this, if a decision needs to be made like, can we really? Are we going to know more later? so I don't know. I I I I sort of tend towards Number 4. And just, you know, giving staff the the, the the space to, I guess, just to to sort of trust them to, to pursue what they can within the bounds of of legal and and then I would just follow this with I could be given this otherwise but that that's how I'd be leaning But then I'd also feel compelled to say something very similar to what I did when we talked about the cip. which is I think it would help. If we had a the right. We had a forum to consider strategic issues here as as whether it's tab or it's the or city staff. and and that is that we don't have a very good functioning. a system of transit transportation options, which is something that our a commenter drew moral pointed out.

[123:03] So when parking comes up, we're collectively in a scarcity mindset. not just in divvying up who gets parking privileges, but literally saying that boulder is too full for more people. But you know, if we had. in my view, in my imagination, if we had transit buses running up and down boulder every quarter mile each 15 min. latitudinally and longitudinally And if parents and kids really would say they, they could ride bikes safely to the schools in the neighborhood and to the destinations. I would imagine that the level of worry about parking, which is really about where people are going to have to store an expensive vehicle they have to own would start to dissipate, maybe not totally, but would start to erode. So that's bigger than the scope of this proceeding, but I also don't think it proceeding like this should go by without us labeling this, calling it out Especially with something that council is going to see and pointing out what? What are the options on the table for Boulder strategically, to get this right and go beyond a scarcity mindset to thinking about abundance. And what a what a real multi role system looks like. So I'll step down. And I again, I'm happy to support number 4 and appreciate staff work on this.

[124:21] Thanks, RAM. I think if we were to do anything, the most logical thing to me would be to include, expand the zone to include the Non petition spaces and try to incorporate any of the negative, any of the feedback that's been gathered so far to improve upon what you've proposed. I think the extent to which this has been studied and analyzed, and the community has been engaged is rather robust. For how much of an an impact this is, and and just the limited resources that the city has. that's it. I think I'm leading towards option one and taking no action.

[125:01] I second you, Alex. I think that even though it's really hard to get like an accurate number of people that would represent accurately the people that live there, like Becky said. I mean, we have heard a number of people that actually live there that have lived there for years and years and years. express, and take the time to come and express that on this forum, which I think is very valuable in itself. so I don't know. I I'm I'm with you, Alex. I think that maybe just kind of focusing on a different area that may be more prevalent for the monies that the city can invest in. Yeah, I'm not necessarily saying, like a different area that might be retooling the Npt or focusing on limited staff resources on another challenge that we've got plenty of before us. So we've conducted a public hearing. So we have the opportunity to provide a formal recommendation to council, although we are not required to do so.

[126:08] Is there a motion that anyone would like to ring forward, or the thought that we would wanna work to turn into a mission. can I? Just? I'll ask you to say one more thing before we do this. I I think. the the I don't know if this goes into the motion, but to me the the what Council should here is city code needs to get fixed. That's the that we're going to keep doing this. We're going to keep doing this. And and you know, having this sort of well, staff, are you doing it right unless we speak city code. So we we know it. Why don't we say it and use this as an opportunity to focus on that? Yeah, we can certainly put whatever group as we want into the motion, so with the motion, be tonight to follow option. What recommend option? One to counsel.

[127:04] and then, Ryan, do you wanna add some context for council on why we reach that and what might be. Well, I'm I'm actually a little bit hesitant to to oppose. I don't suppose the right word, but I I'm inclined to go with what Staff is recommending, which is option, for with, while saying also city Council, we have a you know, 40 year old code, that this is all based on, and everybody is frustrated and disappointed in the community. Well, you know all kinds of problems with it. But to give Staff the the space that you know, follow what what they'd like to recommend that that's my estate. And I think that's what I don't want to put words in the heels. Not but she also did support that in her conclusion, I guess. like you. Where do you stand at the moment? I definitely support. And I appreciate, Ryan, that you looked at the code the ordinance. And to understand that. Yeah, that's the foundation of some of the problems here. And

[128:07] I think it would be great to use the opportunity to tell counsel, but that it needs to change and but yeah, but I also would. I mean, I'm I support option one I score out for 3. I don't feel too strongly about between those 2. I don't support an option for just because I just I just don't see. I just don't know. I don't see an outcome that would be any different from the once we have before us. I'm just not. I just can't envision what kind of input would change anything we've already seen many factors. So, yeah. But I, I support the recommendation on that ordinance change. Okay? So it sounds like we could have the unanimous recommendation. If we didn't touch the options, but have provided broader feedback. I think I agree with Becky on this, and so the only way we would have a 3 person supporting any individual thing would be if any you were comfortable with.

[129:11] I think I would stick to option one. So Becky, me trying to support it. Option one we'd have a majority. But I'd also be. I'm not that I'm doing anything, so we could just have a unanimous thing about improving the code and the programs available. Yeah, yeah, I I would go for that as well. But then, what? What? What? What happens with the option. For I mean, we just don't make a recommendation. Yeah. So I'm also included in Code around residential access management is an annual report where we take a look at problem areas throughout the city. So if Tab was to vote on option one no action for this particular neighborhood at this time. It doesn't mean that we won't still continue to track it in the same way that we are tracking

[130:12] problem areas throughout the city. So the the Tagli, or the the additional information option was, one is no action this time until conditions change and those changing conditions could be a revision to neighborhood parking ordinances that provide us other tools to mitigate these the challenges experience in this neighborhood. Yeah, that's helpful. Chris, is that it sounds like, Chris, you're nudging me to to say, number one is is fine without causing a bunch of heartache for. Yeah, you're smiling. So I'm gonna get my little. So yeah, I'm happy to go with the the group here. number one with the note. some kind of a node on that that we think the city code is for our 40 plus year old city code. It is continually problematic in these proceedings about parking and needs attention.

[131:12] I would be happy to support that. And is that in the context of RAM, do we wanna try to provide some guidance to council on where they might make headways here, or do we want to already find leaving it? Vegas? Just the coding is updating. Well, Becky, go ahead. I think there's something about alignment with with part. You know, our our parking policy and our our goals. They're embodied in the Tmp. I don't know if we spill that out. But vision 0 mode shifts the Mt. Reduction climate action that you know that that these things are can be at odds because of how code is written, and we should seek a

[132:07] city code that it's advancing us in the future direction that we want to add. You sign. and and I'm not sure if there are other parts of it. have not the code on this, but I mean specifically that program should not distinguish between weather neighborhoods, merit being served based on the type of housing in the area. Okay, I'm trying to pull this into a motion. So move the tab recommends option, one which is no action, and that

[133:07] we would like to see city code be updated to expand the tools available within the neighborhood parking program to better advance our Tmp. Goals and ensure that all neighborhoods within the city are eligible for consideration in the program it seems close. I don't know about. I I don't know about tools as much as alignment with, so the part parking policy should be aligned with. I think the tools could be pricing. I I would think of a Lyman is a more fundamental explanation of where you're trying to head in my I don't know. Maybe that's just my amendment.

[134:05] I I forgot what the words were the long as it was expand the tools available within the Npp. To better advance our Tmp goals. I would I would prefer it line with rather than advance. But I I don't care. I it's fine. You did a good job of okay, align with T. And P. Goals. Any other edits or feedback support on position a second. Take a second out. Did you get seconded? Sorry I wasn't so.

[135:01] thanks, Brian. Any other discussion? Not all in entertain a question or about all those in favor. Okay, right? This is unanimously. Is that all you need from us, Chris? Yes, thank you so much, Tab. And thank you. Sam and Bill and the rest of the folks who've been working on this item for some time, and we're looking forward to continuing the conversation on that that bigger level of working with planning and transportation and mobility on some retooling or alignment of our of the tools that we have available to better serve protocols. So thanks everybody. Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Team and Meredith. So try to type this up and email the wording to you. You didn't catch it. Okay. I will do that. And thanks to the members of the public who spoke to us tonight and and stuck around for our discussion.

[136:07] Looks like we're a little bit behind schedule as we move to agenda. Item, for these will be 2 concept plan reviews for first, the or maybe the same time, 2206 Pearl and the Pearl East Innovation Building. I'm not sure who I'm training this over to. That's me. Welcome. Yes, Chandler and Scott. principal planner with planning and development services. And yes, these are 2 active applications. both are site reviews that were referred to tab by council, and I will jump in here and share my screen

[137:01] notes. We are. We're seeing your notes screen. Okay, how's that. There you go all right. so I will do. A 2206 pearl first, I believe those was the first on the agenda. So an apologies. I thought it was. Item 6, looking at the agenda originally, but it's item 4 so I'm 6. This is, or madam, for is a site and use review at 2206 Pearl Street. so project summary This is a site and use for you to redevelop 2206 Pearl Street, with a new building, consisting of 45 studio apartment dwelling units roughly, 100 square feet of retail space and 700 square feet of a cafe restaurant space. They are requesting a 60% parking reduction to allow for 18 parking spaces where 45 are required.

[138:06] in terms of the transportation system. the site is well located. I know that's somewhat small, but you can see that The site is located on the hop which runs along Pearl Street, and is also nearby several other bus routes. there's also existing on street bicycle facilities on spruce and walnut. I'm about a block to the north and south of the subject site. so the review process this went through concept plan review earlier this year, and it was referred to cab by City Council. they're currently in Site review. and Council has didn't provide a ton of specific feedback. So we are asking for recommendations and feedback on their parking management plan and their transportation demand management plan. ultimately this will go to planning board for a final decision.

[139:05] so key issue one is, does Tab have any feedback on the applicants proposed Tdm plan or parking management plan. Tvm strategies, and these are also included in the staff. I'm random. so there are multiple bike and multi-use paths within the city of the site. The applicant is proposing to provide nico bus pass funding for residents that's neighborhood eco-pass and a business ego pass funding for employees. There be cycle in Colorado car share locations with an easy walking distance. they will be required to provide new and they have sidewalks at the edges of the site to improve pedestrian activity. they're proposing a total of 98 bike parking spaces, consisting of 28 short term and 70 long-term spaces. 25 of the long term are in the garage, and then one space in each of the residential units.

[140:03] they're offering a monthly alternative transportation fund. How much total is $150 a year for residents that don't have a vehicle. and sign something, saying as much. The project owner is looking into options for commutify, which is a local transportation consultant company to manage the Alternative Transportation Fund. The lease is, proposed to include language that residents will not be allowed to have a vehicle to receive the alternate transportation fund unless they can prove they have a suitable offsite location to store. Their vehicle secured storage area and the gradual combat parking and charging for E bikes. These scooters and other micro mobility devices. there's a gear maintenance area and evaluation tools they're proposing include surveys and assessments to determine what strategies work best during the first 3 years, and what should be adjusted moving forward in terms of parking management strategies. they are providing unbundled parking, meaning that the cost of parking is separated from the cost of rent.

[141:04] So Redgers pay for an onsite parking space separately from the unit itself. the monthly fee for on site parking would be 125 to 150 a month. I don't think they've determined that yet. renters who are car free would therefore save 1,500 to 1,800 a year. In addition to the alternative transportation on allowance. in addition to the 18 spaces that they're providing which you need code. they're also providing 8 tandem spaces. So city code doesn't count tandem spaces. because they're blocking back in distance. But we do allow them. So if you count those as well, they're providing 26 bases, not 18. There's also an onsite car share space with Colorado car share that will be funded by the developer. So residents will have the ability to use a car share vehicle. and then there's shared onsite loading Tnc base, which provides additional options for uber lifts, deliveries other red shares, etc.

[142:02] oops. So that's the summary of my presentation. And now, I'd be happy to answer questions or The applicant is also here to answer questions. If the Board has any. Thanks, Chandler, and do you want us to ask questions and then provide feedback on this concept before we move on to the second one. I mean, it's up to you guys. I I feel like that maybe might be a little bit easier. But if you want me to just jump into the second one, I'm happy to do that. Okay, let's maybe try to do that. Does Tab have any questions. First on this concept plan channel. Can you flip it back to the previous slide? Please. Sure. thank you. I guess, Michael, can I, Alex, man?

[143:01] Thanks? Challenged. I think there's one question some of the question asked on our previous Cdm presentation. is there? It was the any chance there was any like, I guess, survey work or anything that would represent our out outreach down to a representative population asking like how this would help with it? Would this be interesting? You know, as far as driving behavior change. a anything like that would suggest, there's an empirical basis that this, you know, is gonna make behavior happen. I mean there, there's existing research. I don't know that the applicant has done any of their own surveys. but there's definitely research supporting Tdm. Overall as a as a means of changing travel behaviors. I might refer to transportation staff if they're still on to discuss that. I don't know if if Chris is on here or not. But Chris could probably existing research.

[144:01] Yeah, So I would say, you know, we have a a of research from our both our residential travel diary and from our Border Valley employee surveys. We started doing those in 1990 in 1,991 respectively. and we know for sure that a combination, for example, of paid parking combined with eco-passes, is one of the best ways to change travel behavior. we have that documented in statistically significant surveys. typically people with access to an eco-pass not only take more work and school trips with the bus, but they also take non work trips We know from our neighborhood eco-pass surveys in the past that families with neighborhood eco-passes not only take the bus more, but they also walk and bike more. So we do have a lot of empirical evidence of this. we do not have empirical studies on like the alternative transportation funds. The. This is a suddenly used, a technique. And really, this is kind of a a bonus on top of a a really robust Tdm plan where you have

[145:09] combination of the unbundled parking the neighborhood E go pass, and then, people who don't have a vehicle. Not only do they save by not having to pay for that parking because it's unbundled. they're also getting a fund that could be used for something like buying a an annual B cycle membership, for example. So so I think you know, we we haven't done studies of that, because we've used it so rarely. but this is to me just an an added bonus on top of a very robust okay, thanks, Chris, thank you both. And yeah, that that $150 fund was sort of what I was thinking about is like, do we have an idea about the stringency of that. And you know sensitivity at different levels. But but great, thank you. This is this is really really nice work. no more question. Sorry if I missed it. Did you say how many years the Nico Bus Pass funding would be in

[146:05] 3 years to start? I believe that it's just I think they're intending. If it's working for residents. they're intending to keep it going. I think that the plan is to kind of check in and monitor it after 3 years. Okay, and is this within an existing Nico zone? I believe so. So. To be absorbed into an existing. These residents would be eligible to continue in the Nico program with an existing neighborhood that's participating it. It could be on its own. I it's over 40 units. So that's the minimum for Rtd, so it could continue on its own. if it's not associated with an adjacent neighborhood. To begin with And just. you know something on the 3 years, you know, that's that's something our city attorney's office is comfortable with with having, because the developer typically puts funding in escrow.

[147:06] we have been doing this for a long time. virtually, I think, we had one instance where one development after the 3 years cease the program. Within a year the residents restarted it through their own Hoa program to collect the fees. So I think in general. we have about 100, about 100 continuation of program after the 3 year developer phase for residential developments. Are there developments in the past that have been 5 year. There's been one. I believe it was Washington village. Okay. okay, thank you. So for me, question wise any other questions from tab on this one. Okay, I guess. Might as well open up for feedback specifically requesting feedback on the parking strategy. And the Tdm.

[148:10] I would say, I look pretty close to this, and it's an incredibly walkable area. with a lot of necessities in close proximity. I know the parking utilization in my building which has one parking space per unit, and the units are up to 3 bedrooms are overnight parking, and this low, and it's even lower. During the day. maybe 75, 80. So that firm believer in an investment and multimodal transit and bundle parking. And and these Tdm strategies in this area, I think it's in a part of town that's that's well suited for this type of development, so supportive of of the programs and the the plan that we're seeing I I I agree with you. My only question is on the the bike parking, and I would hope that it's as modern as possible in terms of best you know best in class inverted use or

[149:10] use of those, but also plenty of space for you bikes. I need you by charging. Yes, I see long term and short term. I'm not sure what overnight what that means for security of the bikes. but I'm I'm support of it. I just like to this, you know. Be able to tell people moving in that. You know you can. You can bring any bike. You don't need a car. It's it was to put it, not gonna be problem, easy to navigate. And there's room for lots of people to do that. That'd be my. but, Becky, if she can correct me on, I guess ways to talk about that or stay it for her. It's bye, bye. certainly. I missed that last part you said Ryan. It might. Oh, sorry. I'm just saying I think you know this. You know bikes better than me. So I, if you know the correct mayor. Yeah. I think your own point. it I will just add my, which all kind of kind of recurring them for me that I just I

[150:11] I think it. We should make it easy for developments to not have to build parking. They don't want or need So for that reason I'm it's for expect you to do you have anything on this one. If not, we can go ahead. So the all right channel you want to move on to the Pearl East Innovation Building. Sorry. Let me get my mouse back on my screen here. I've got 2 screens going, and sometimes the mouse only wants to work on one. There we go.

[151:05] stop share for a sec notes or presenter view or a presentation presentation. Okay, thanks. So, moving on to the next item. This one is for a proposed development at 48 45 per east circle, which is within the Pearl East Business Park. this is a relatively all business park. It's about 32 acres. It consists of 9 developed plots with 11 buildings. lots of service parking

[152:07] and is located generally south of Pearl Parkway and east of Foothills Parkway, north of the Bnsf Railway, and west of the cotton would grow open space The sites included in the current proposal are comprised of 2 parcels located at 48 75 and 48 45 per early circle. the 2 parcels are approximately 173 or 174,000 square feet. Total. So the project summary. This is a site review the building, as proposed, is about 115,390 square feet, located on what is currently an existing surface parking lot between 48 45 and 48 75 perly circle the building is 3 stories 45 feet in height, which by right height, designed for life sciences. a roughly mix of 60% lab and 40% supporting office space

[153:03] in terms of the transportation system. the site, as I said, is located on Pearl parkway. There's also the multi-use path adjacent to Pearl Parkway, which runs immediately next to the site and connects to the multi Path within the cotton drove open space. I might let the applicant. I'm I'm not exactly sure of the status of the bus. Stop or the the nearby bus stops. It says that they're closed currently. But I haven't actually been able to verify that personally. there are. There is be cycle station, on site, which was just added by the developer. And then the existing site. has detached sidewalks, and relatively strong pedestrian circulation for an office site in terms of the review process. Similarly, this went to concept plan in 2022 it was referred to Tab by City council.

[154:01] in this case Council asked for tab recommendation and feedback on access and connectivity to the existing multimodal system, including connection of the building to Pearl Parkway and existing multimodal pedestrian circulation. as well as the projects alignment with the transportation goals of the Walter Valley comprehensive plan and the transportation master plan. and this. actually, incorrectly says planning board decision, this will be a staff level decision subject to planning board. Call up So key issue number one is, does the proposal provide adequate access and connectivity to the existing multimodal system, including connection of the building to Pearl Parkway, as well as existing multimodal and pedestrian facilities. as you can see here on the site plan. the applicant. This is from the applicants. package. they are proposing a variety of improvements, a direct connection from the multi-use path to the front of the building.

[155:03] they're also providing a bike parking at various locations around the building. a new south entry that connects to existing sidewalks within the park. And then, yeah, short and long term by parking on both sides of the site and case you number 2 is, is the proposed project generally consistent with the transportation goals of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, as well as the transportation Master Plan And, as I mentioned in the Memo the the proposed project replaces a service parking lot and an office park that is currently significantly over parked. So they are not asking for a parking reduction. But they are bringing the overall office park closer to just code standards as opposed to being over parked. So, by repurposing this parking lot and creating new connections to the multi model system along with Tdm strategies, staff finds this project aligns with several goals and policies of the boulder really complain. And Tmp.

[156:03] including reduction of single occupancy. Auto trips integrated transportation demand management programs. transportation impacts, mitigated all mode transport, all mode transportation system and safe and complete streets. low stress walk and bike network, a reduction of single occupancy. Auto trips. That's a repeat. etc. So I will go over the Tdm strategies here hopefully, everyone can kind of see these. So these are the Tdm strategies that the applicant is proposing so 34 short term bike parking spaces. which meets the minimum code requirement. same thing with long term bike parking spaces. 96 are proposed. they're proposing to include ride, sharing information and employee orientation packets this may include ego car sharing be cycle bike, sharing Dr. Cog's way to go and write, sharing with uber

[157:04] pedestrian enhancements on the site, including improvements to existing sidewalks to improve connectivity, and there are also several proposed plaz, those with shade trees and seating located around the site. bike enhancements the site as connections to existing sidewalks, and in the Cindy, including existing multi-use paths along Pro Parkway, at Foothills Parkway. there will be a bike room with direct access, as well as lockers for short-term storage and a place to change shoes. There will also be charging stations for E bikes, and to be cycle station with 8 bikes was recently added. to the business park their showers proposed in the locker rooms. Those lock groups will serve as well changing facilities. I already said, talked about the transportation information in the employee packets. these. This applicant as well, will be providing a bego passes for employees.

[158:01] I'm same thing 3 year period, and then coordination following the initial 3 years. and there'll be 81 parking spaces. which is less than what's required by code for lot for but it's also bringing. As I mentioned, the total parking spaces. I think the let's see the combined campus, including the new building, requires 1,456 total parking spaces. and after this development there will be 1,493 parking spaces, so there's still a surplus, but they are bringing it down. that is the end of my slideshow. And now I'd be happy to answer questions or to refer anything to the applicant. If you have any questions for them. Thanks, Sandler. any questions and or feedback.

[159:07] I don't have any questions but I think. Support Staff's assessment. And I do think it's exciting to see a development where there was. It's kind of extra empty parking lots. So yeah, in that regard, it sounds like a great project. Thanks, Becky. I don't have anything on this one. And Tony, you awesome thanks, Chandler, and team for joining us to you on. Stand by alright, thank you all very much. You, too.

[160:01] and that concludes our main agenda items and brings us to matters. It looks like there are a few from Staff. So turn it over to Natalie and you can start directing. Yeah, you bet. Let me. just take a second to get my screen set up. You got us all caught up. Good job. There you go. I know I expected to be much later. are you? Are you all in my my slide? My. okay, great. So good evening, Tab members. My name is Jean Samson. I'm a principal transportation planner with the city, and I'm pleased to be here this evening. on the regional transportation front. We have a lot to celebrate, and a lot of work still ahead of us. So this evening I'm just going to briefly share progress on 3 important initiatives that are helping us to meet our local and regional goals of enhancing

[161:15] equity, increasing access and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And these will be the 0 fare for better air transit program. news on the Colorado, 119 safety and Mobility Improvement project connecting Boulder to Longmont. And then, lastly, the next steps we're taking to advance the Colorado 7 East Arabaho transportation plan connecting boulder to our Eastern neighbors. Okay, so jumping right in the 0 fair transit program. So during the months of July and August. I'm sure you all have heard all Rtd transit services will be free for riders to board, including local and regional bus routes and accessoride pair of transit service. the city of Boulder, in partnership with Rtd. And via mobility services will also provide 0 fair services or is providing the 0 fare services on the local boulder. Hop bus route that you see here. This is pretty neat. This is the second year of a statewide initiative to help produce harmful

[162:10] air pollutants by increasing the use of transit, and provides the opportunity to welcome back those whose travel habits have changed because of the pandemic Last year Boulder County Boulder City Council passed a resolution in support of 0 fare for better air and the initiative clearly alliance with the goals laid out in our city's transportation master plan. And then, I think, a fun factoid. that we're sharing is that in 2,021, on road emissions accounted for 26% of Boulder's greenhouse gas emissions. So by leaving their car at home just 2 days a week, community members can reduce their Ghg emissions by over 3,000 pounds per year. So that's the kind of like fun fact you can share with your neighbor, your friends when they're considering using transit and particularly trying it this month or next. Given that the fare is essentially free.

[163:01] So please help us spread the word via your social media networks, your friends and your neighbors. and then I also wanted to share on a related note that in the middle of this 2 month initiative later this month the Rtd Board will be voting on a 0 fair for Youth pilot program for a period of up to 18 months, which would make transit free for all riders 19 years of age and under and based on the results of the pilot and Rtd's ability to secure stable funding for the program. It may be made permanent. So stay tuned and we'll keep you posted when A decision is made by the Rtd board. So, moving on to the next item, I wanted to share information on the Colorado, 119 or diagonal project. So 2 weeks ago we received the thrilling news from Congressman Jonah Goose. That Boulder County is the recipient of a pretty monumental 25 million dollar grant from the Department of Transportation. This funding is made possible through the D OS basically raise grant which stands for rebuilding American infrastructure with sustainability and equity discretionary grant program. That's a mouthful. We call it the raise Grant. And I think

[164:09] you guys have probably read about this in the news. but what this allows us to do is it complete? A critical piece of a hundred 60 million dollars plus funding puzzle for the entire project, which will include regional bus, rapid transit, a commuter bikeway and important intersection safety improvements. As you can see here together, these improvements will provide greater transportation, options and safety for people using all modes of travel while supporting our mobility and transportation goals. You know, this successful funding package includes local, regional, state and Federal funding. That's a result of over 10 years of collaboration and teamwork by all of our organizations, and with much support from Tab, including the city of Boulder, Boulder County, Longmont, C. Dot, N. Rtd. And this will allow us, or allow c.to begin construction next year, providing a critical link to the city's 20 Eighth Street Improvement Project, which is also getting underway this summer.

[165:07] So some exciting news on that front. and last, but not least, is the Colorado 7 on Easter Rap Hope Project. So we wanted to make you aware of some exciting progress on this project. see.as Lindsey mentioned earlier this evening, see, that is initiating preliminary engineering on this segment of Easter. Rap a host, so that would be what they are calling segment a. There are several segments within this regional corridor. We are the western segment of Colorado 7, and we we get the designation of being segment a between 28 Street and 63 Street. So this is essentially the next phase of designing the long term vision of the city's Easter Rap Hope Plan, shown here on the left, and adopted in 2,018, the preliminary engineering project will help to advance and refine the East Arapaho vision to a 15% level of design, including cost estimates, whereby the city, as also mentioned earlier this evening, will then take the lead in advancing the Western segment of the project between 20 Eighth Street and Foothills Parkway to final design. Next year, having secure tip funding for this past year for that project.

[166:16] so, getting back to where we are today with the preliminary engineering project, see, Dot launched a project website that you see here in an online presentation which offers an introductory overview of the project and encourages community members to participate and provide input and feedback various via various public engagement opportunities that will be made available later this summer and through the fall. This presentation is available through August eleventh. And again, just asking that you please help us to spread the word on this important next step in designing improvements to a regional can corridor. And you can see that project website below. And I can also perhaps put it in the chat or send it via email as well. So you have a direct link to that website.

[167:03] And that concludes my brief presentation. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Jean. Some exciting progress, any questions. the questions, good good work, thank you and congratulations to you. Progress. Yeah, it. It takes a village, right? Yeah. And congratulations. I'm really excited about your grant, and I think that it's just a reflection of a lot of work. So thank you. Thank you so much. of course. And it's super exciting about the youth pass having youths myself. It sounds like a very exciting plan.

[168:02] all right. You want to keep wanting to keep us moving. Have a good evening. Thanks. Good night. Okay. Melanie Sloane is here to give us an update on Ken. Hello, everyone. just one moment while I start my video. Okay, thanks. Everyone. Melanie Sloane here to talk with you this evening about the core arterial network. So just one moment. I pull up my presentation. Okay? So tonight, I'm probably providing an update on the core arterial network. It's initiative work plan funding and specific updates on the priority corridors being Baseline Road Irs Avenue and Folsom Street. You've heard from several of my colleagues tonight, from Lindsey to Garrett, and then Gene, just now about projects. So some of this might sound familiar. but I think so much for your attention. So I think we have some really good information to share.

[169:17] So the what I want you to take away from this work plan update is that the can initiative remains on track with 15 projects on 8 of the 13 corridors, having funding or being active and planning design and or construction, and 2,023 and 2,024. As shown on this map. you can see the A can corridors with active projects shown in pink and the 3 priority corridors highlighted and yellow. And I'll share updates on those in a few slides. So when we? look at that list. We know many of those projects benefit from Grant funds and 22. The cities was successful in gaining 10.7 million dollars for can projects through various grant pursuits, and 23, we continue to pursue grant funding for can infrastructure through 2 grants.

[170:15] The Denver Regional Council of Governments 24 to 27 transportation Improvement program or tip, and the Colorado Department of Transportation 24 to 26 transportation alternatives program or cap. and I'm pleased to announce that 3 additional can quarter projects received funding from the tip and the tap in 23 that initiates work on each of those in the first quarter of 25. Those are called out on this map and from north the south. It's design and construction of the 20 street multi use path from 4 Mile Canyon Creek to Jay Road, a project that you're familiar with from Briar tip funding discussions. preliminary design and community engagement for Folsom Avenue from Pine Street to Colorado Avenue. That's a can. Priority, corridor and engagement and design of multimodal transportation improvements on Thirtieth Street from Colorado to Baseline Road, and funds for construction of those from Colorado Avenue to Aurora Avenue, and Garrett spoke to that one a bit earlier since the same project.

[171:17] But what I want to do tonight In this brief time together is really focus on those 3 priority corridors, baseline, iris, and fulsome. So let's look in more detail at those starting with the first priority Corridor, Baseline Road from Thirtieth Street to Hills Parkway. That's being implemented in 2 phases and phase, one leverages planned pavement resurfacing to gain those safety benefits now between 20 Eighth Street and Foothills Parkway. As you see in this diagram. the changes are informed by what we heard from the community in the fall, and they address themes of reducing vehicle speeds, making intersections safer and more comfortable to travel through and providing more separation between people, biking and driving.

[172:04] and that phase. One work is ongoing, and we'll wrap up in November. So phase 2 of the baseline project will provide more significant changes to the corridor between Thirtieth Street and Foot Hills Parkway, that begins in the first quarter of 24. Once tip funding is available. the community engagement strategy for a phase 2. It will be informed by Staff's participation and design for civic change, fellowship that will build skills for inclusive and equitable engagement that will also benefit other can court or work. So the second priority corridor is Iris Avenue from Broadway to 20 Eighth Street that focuses on making travel, and Iris safer, more comfortable and more connected. related, but separate work to improve the crossing at Fifteenth Street, and Iris is anticipated to begin in the fall of this year, and as Jean was talking about. We have this really wonderful project on the future diagonal bike way east of 20 Eighth Street, and so planned connections to Iris from there also being contemplated and related efforts

[173:16] in spring of 23 for Iris contract staff contracted with consultants to support community engagement, data, analysis, and engineering. And then throughout this year the project team is going to focus on listening to the community through equitable and meaningful engagement as well as collecting information on existing conditions, including multimodal travel data and then design development alternatives, analysis and initiation of a community and environmental assessment process or seep will begin an early 24 after community input and data is collected and analyzed. The Third priority corridors, Folsom from Pine to Colorado Avenue, and that project is between previously implemented protected bike lanes on Folsom from Belmont to Pine, and planned improvements on Colorado Avenue from region. Excuse me, Regent to Folsom.

[174:10] and it will follow planned traffic and pedestrian signal crossing improvements that Falseman pine to be made in 2,024. Those tip funds. They are available the first quarter of 2525. Excuse me, and we'll initiate community engagement and advance conceptual design. That planned project on Colorado Avenue was not awarded tip funds, but is ranked in the top 5 on the tip wait list for a potential award if additional funds are identified by Dr. Cog for waitlisted projects. So after tonight, Staff will submit an information item to count at their July twentieth meeting. It will provide a bit more of a comprehensive overview of what I've shared with you tonight like initiative work, plan and funding strategy as well as those updates on those corridors. And with that that concludes my presentation.

[175:04] Thanks, Millie. There's a lot going on there. Sure, I'll come back to these in more detail, moving forward. But are there any pressing questions for a melody tonight? Not seeing any hands from? Oh, right? Oh, so I can't hear you, Ryan. I think you're muted sorry about that. Thanks, Melanie. Just a quick question. big picture. So heads up, Natalie. I am. just really incredibly impressed with the work of can over the last year or 2 years. It's just so much happening here. so much to be proud of for the team here. and I know that looking ahead, it's it's it's a multi year project that goes out a ways, and it goes out beyond the timeline of the current City Council's 2 year work plan. And so, as a city, the city Council thinks about can and looks to the future.

[176:07] can you say anything about what it can looks like within being E en enshrined in a 2 year work, plan, or versus one that is not doesn't make a difference to staff. I realize this might be like a bigger question. Then you can easily answer. But you know, council as Council thinks about what's going forward. We can, I think it, you know, might be of interest. Thank you. Melanie. Do you want me to? I'm sure. Yeah, no, I think so it's a good question, Ryan. And I think, hopefully, what's obvious is in the work that we're doing, that there's longevity to it, right the the funding that we've pursued is obviously well into the future. It commits us to work being done into the future.

[177:04] and and I think you know what I continue to talk about with the team is that you know the work that we're doing with the can. We've we've kind of organized it and structured it in a bit of a different way. But it's always been work that's in the transportation master plan and in past transportation, master plans. we've just focused the work to be structured. in a kind of a work plan that is easy to communicate, easy to kind of tell a story. and we've been able to to focus the work and and our resources to align to that. So you know whether a future council wants to call it can or not. You know the I think the work is going to live on, so I guess that's my kind of personal opinion about it. But I think we've talked about that as a department, and I've certainly talked about it with the city manager's office in that way, so

[178:06] I don't know, Melanie, if you have anything to add no or or others, Alex. I think the the maps are a really powerful communication tool, and to my I mentioned earlier and talking about the cip. I think a map showing the Cip projects which show how much is has been done, and then we might get to it a little bit more later, when Tony and I provide an update on our work to support council and primarily their focus on can having a map of what's missing can illustrate the the needs of places to focus. So I think the the more of apps that show the different you show the status of different segments of different streets, because, like, as we heard during public common, even Thirtieth Street. block by block, it changes pretty rapidly whether something's been study design funded. It's it's all over the place, and I think maps are really powerful tool to to show the status of everything, and and where we can what to be proud of and at what we to.

[179:09] So if I'm moving forward. yeah, I'll say Melanie and the team have worked hard on developing a memo for council to provide an update similar to what we're doing for you tonight. on all the work today. And one of the things I think we're thinking about doing is having a map in there that really shows really everything that she just talked about around what's been funded? what has yet to be funded. You know what's wait listed what we're continuing to pursue. So And and you know, as we've applied for tip cycles and stuff. That's the way we've been able to communicate what it is that we're pursuing. So I agree, the using the map is an effective way to do that awesome anything else for can tonight.

[180:01] Becky. I'll decide that I've seen some of the changes on Baseline as I moving around, and it's been really exciting. I can already kind of feel, feel the difference with some of those changes. So I I really appreciate that work and excited that there's even more to come. So thank you. Thanks, Becky. Yeah. thanks. Melody. thanks. Everyone. Not only. yes, yeah, we've got one more mark Chiseler is with us to provide an update on a Cmpi project. Yeah. So good evening, Tad. So my computer just did a somersault and did a reset right before this presentation, which is pretty terrifying. So If for any reason I freeze out Daniel Sheeter is going to take over. So let me share my screen.

[181:02] So Veronica looks like I am disabled and sharing my screen. Is that working now? It is very good. all right. Are you guys able to see the presentation. Yes. awesome. Thanks you. Okay. So good evening, Tab. My name is Mark Chisler, and I'm a project manager in the Transportation and Mobility Department tonight I'll be sharing information about our project staff has recently kicked off and is focused on developing speed limit setting and signing practices. So at the end of the presentation, we will be asking you to select a Tab representative and alternate to be part of the community working group. So please keep that in mind as we're going through tonight's presentation.

[182:05] So we're gonna talk about the projects background purpose and goals, including the budget and funding sources, give an overview of the scope and schedule. And lastly, talk about next steps and then make that a tab action request. So background. Earlier this year, we finalized our 5 year Vision 0 Action Plan. this project originates directly from that action item or from an action item, within that plan which is to update and implement folders, policies and practices regarding speed limit, setting to better align and target and actual operating speeds. so we understand that speed limit setting and signing is just one piece of the overall puzzle and aligning target and operating space. Other puzzle pieces that complement this work are designing construction standards and practices and speed management. So physical speed, mitigation devices and enforcement traditional and automated. So each contributing and overlapping with each other as they work to help eliminate serious injury and fail crashes.

[183:11] So before diving into the projects, purpose, and goals, I like to provide a historical context with how the city has set speed limits and install speed limit signs over the last several decades. So changes in speed limits have been on a typically shorter roadway segments typically completed by consultants who do use a context, sensitive approach. Whoever this has led to some inconsistent outcomes speed limit signing has primarily been at the discretion of the city traffic engineer, which is a personal preference, and we've had many of them. So this has led to inconsistencies in signing size and placement along corridors. So what's the purpose of this project? the speed limit setting, assigning practices, projects will incorporate industry best practices to develop a framework and improve the consistency for establishing and communicating speed limits citywide Continuing the effort to reduce speed. Related crashes on city owned collectors and arterials.

[184:06] So we're going to get there by developing a quantitative city-wide approach and practice for speed limit, setting and signing and creating a transparent document to share that methodology with the community and its stakeholders. Since Boulder has several State highways traversing through the city, staff is participating, partnering with the Colorado Department of Transportation as they are also working on developing a new methodology for a speed limit setting. So we do have a seat at the table. And we are currently working on a pilot study with them on South Broadway. That's pretty exciting. So the total budget for the project is $125,000. a hundred 3,488 is funded through Dr. Cox, community mobility, planning and implementation grants, and then the remaining $21,512 is funded by the Transportation Mobility Department, and this is a really great example of staff for leveraging grant opportunities to complete vision. 0 actions.

[185:10] So there are 5 tasks that guide this project. The first is community engagement, peer agency and best practices review speed limit setting and signing methodology, that public facing documents, and then, lastly, speed limit and signing and recommendations. There are 3 components to the projects community engagement, the Transportation Advisory Board stakeholder engagements and the projects website. we anticipate 3 touch points with tab. The first is tonight sharing an overview of the project. We'll then come back to share the draft methodology, and then, lastly, share the final results. Our stakeholder engagements will be both internal and external. The internal group will include planning and development services, older police department boulder, fire and rescue along with other departments as part of the community stakeholder working group. We anticipate to work with the Transportation Advisory Board Community cycles, the center for people with disabilities and bolder transportation connections. So so these groups will essentially be able to provide feedback on purity and best practices to be considered as staff develops our methodology.

[186:17] And then, lastly, we'll have an updated website where staff will inform the public about the project, and this will also include a direct communication link 2 city staff. So here's a high level summary of the remaining 4 tasks. Staff will be reviewing best practices described by the National Association of City Transportation Officials. the National Cooperative Highway Research program and the You may want uniform track control devices. And we'll also have discussions with peer agencies that have developed similar methodologies. we'll take what we've learned. And through conversations with our stakeholder groups develop a methodology tailored for boulder

[187:00] staff will then take that tailored methodology along with how it was developed and create a public facing document. Staff will use this document to review collectors and arterial city-wide and develop recommendations for any speed limit changes including signing. And then note, this, methodology isn't just for existing roadways but also for capital projects. So we can actually, where we can directly influence the projects. Infrastructure, design to align with the recommended speed limit. So overall, we anticipate a 6 to 8 month timeline for the project community engagement will be ongoing peer review, and with the methodology developments will occur this summer and fall. and then, using the methodology and implementing any changes to the system. We begin in early 2,024, and then, depending on the extent of what those recommendations are. implementation may be out of scope, for this project will be coordinated in late 2,024, and beyond all right next steps. So we have our first community stakeholder working group meeting tentatively scheduled for the week of July 20 fourth.

[188:05] we've begun investigating industry best practices and having conversations with pure cities leading into our methodology development in September, and we're planning to come back to tab in the fall to share that draft methodology for your feedback. All right. So here's the fun part. we do have a request of tab to participate in the community working group. we're looking for one representative and an alternate here's an outline of expectations and commitments partner with the city, and actively participate in those group discussions. We anticipate roughly 2 or 3 meetings 6 to 8 h total. which will be held virtually or in person person. we also anticipate 2 to 4 h of homework which will be essentially investigating, reviewing speed limit and setting signing practices from other agencies and then providing feedback on Staff's draft methodology.

[189:01] So, Alex, if it's okay with you, I'll hand it over to you to tap and discuss this request from Staff. Yeah, thanks, Mark, this is exciting stuff, and it's good to see you again. Yeah. You see, man. I'm always interested in modernizing the way we think about traffic and engineering so. or my name in the hat, are there any other people on the board that would be excited about serving as the representative for alternate for this. I'd be happy to do either. I either alternate or representative. Okay. right? Thank you. Would you mind if I was the primary and you were the backup on this? Yeah, go for it. Awesome thanks. It looks like it'll wrap up around before my my term is up, so won't be. Drop it off before then.

[190:03] Awesome. So, Alex, you'll be the representative, and then Becky will be the alternates looking forward to working with you, too. And then, lastly, if you guys have any questions, comments and feedback feel free to contact me directly. and thanks so much for your time this evening. You're welcome. Yeah, looking forward to being a part of this and reporting back to T about the process. You're welcome all right. Our final matters. Item is an update on our say, streets and roads for all application, and Garrett and Devon will be co-presenting. Yes, good evening again. So happy to share with you that a few days ago we submitted our 2023 C. Streets for all application to the Federal Highway Administration and the Department Federal Department of Transportation.

[191:01] It was a big effort that entailed a lot of staff time and a lot of support from some of our consulting partners to bring the application to fruition. And it was perhaps, one of the most multi collaborative efforts that the the Department has ever put forward in a in a Grant application. And the way that the application started with a considerable amount of data that had gone into the preparation of the Boulder C streets report and the vision 0 Action Plan is the basis for figuring out what we want it to include in the application then working with the planning team to help us figure out how we might put that into a a narrative and a theme, and then from the capital project side to put some costing and estimates together, as well as some schedules, and so the application I'll just want to say and and give some kudos to the work that is gone before this application. It could not have happened without all the tremendous effort that went into the vision, 0 action plan and the say, streets we would have. There's this, there's no way it would have happened at all. So it's It's great that we were in a place that we were ready to pursue, that because of that body at work.

[192:26] I feel like our application is going to be really competitive because of that, but also because Boulder has been so proactive in a number of other ways. I think, that we were able to point to our community and strategic engagement framework plan that we have a racial equity plan, that we have our own racial equity mapping, that we have an Ada transition plan. We have a transportation master plan that's been updated as recently as 2,019. We have a sustainability, equity and resiliency framework. We have a green infrastructure plan, the comprehensive flood study.

[193:06] They. They were curious to know about our asset management systems that if they're gonna give us a big chunk of funding. What are we going to do to take care of that? So we were able to speak to our advanced and mature systems for being able to take care of the assets that we are experienced with asset management. And then also, of course, the low stress walk and byte network. We're integral to the application. So all this work that's been going on over the last, many, many, many years, set a strong foundation for us to put together what I believe is a really compelling application. So just a little bit about it. there are some very Federal forms, if you've done had any interface with the Federal Government in any way, whether it be your taxes or social security, or whatever the case may be. You know how crude and clunky, their standard Federal forms. That was no, and there was no exception to that. With this process for the C streets. For all application, we had our clunky Federal forms. We had to fill out that where we really were able to tell our story is in the 12 page narrative, where we were able to weave together the the crash

[194:14] problems and types that we are trying to solve for. And all of these frameworks and studies that the city is oriented towards trying to to accomplish and and moving forward all of our goals. So the 3 problem types we specifically included in the application are pedestrian safety and unsignalized, high-risk network crosswalks prevalent crash patterns on heavily travel can corridor specifically a rap a hall between 28 and 33 Street and 30 Street from Pearl to the diagonal highway and prevalent crash patterns at high risk network intersections to include improvements such as addressing right turn slip lanes, tightening quarter radii, installing race meetings and multi-use path, crossing improvements so, and

[195:05] and in pursuit of solving all those problems, there was a plethora of data, as I mentioned, that went into demonstrating the need for this funding. and a key component of that was computing a benefit cost ratio for those that aren't familiar with BC ratios. That's simply a a computation of the numerical benefit divided by the numerical cost. And our ratio came out at 10 to one based off the specific guidance that was included in the notice of funding opportunity from the Us. Department of transportation. So we believe that also is very compelling the total request that we put forward for the implementation grant is for about almost 25 million dollars for in total project funding. And we requested 20% local match that we would need to bring about 5 million dollars, and that would yield 20 million dollars and grant funds. That would be implemented between 2025 and 29.

[196:10] The other component of the application was a planning and demonstration grant. So a in addition to working together, we held a couple of meetings. as some of you are aware, at the Nectar Conference that was held in Denver, there was a breakout session on the Ss. For a application. So we grab some of those folks time while we were there. We also met with representatives from the us.to to get some clarification, and what we learned is that they have a a whole lot of money to award for planning and demonstration grants. And so we also added to our implementation. Grant a request for a 4 million dollar project or 3.2 million dollars, and funding that could be awarded to help us look at the the potential for addressing right turn bypass treatments and and various ideas and and concepts that are out there for us to be able to make those safer crossings and and safer interceptions for all users.

[197:10] So beyond our own organization, we had support on this effort from Colorado Department of transportation boulder, county community cycles, the center for people with disabilities. The it could be me boulder transportation connections and Rtd, so really happy that we had that level of support for our application. And I think that is the high point in terms of when we expect to hear. We've been told that the planning and demonstration grant awards notifications will go out in October and the implementation grant awards will go out in December, so we're got a little bit of waiting ahead of us before we get any word as to the results here. Devin, if I miss anything, feel free to jump in.

[198:00] Yeah, thanks so much, Eric. just really excited to present this project. And I'll touch just a little bit more on the relationship and correlation to our vision. 0 action plan work, and how we leverage that plan to inform this application and make a strong case. I want to highlight that our funding requests tied directly to actions 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. So a total of 5 of our 20 actions in our action plan are addressed in this application. action. 2 had to do with addressing those higher cost solutions on the Hr. N to address top crash patterns, and we did that in our application through, including all of the higher cost projects that were identified within the vision. 0 action plan Action 3 had to do with implementing capital projects to improve safety and comfort, including protected bike lance protected intersections

[199:00] and set back multi-use path crossings on high priority Hr. And and can corridors. And we did that through including the Arapaho Avenue corridor and the Thirtieth Street Corridor. And then we action 6 had to do with Updating the pedestrian crossing treatment installation guidelines and documenting relevant h sip information or existing marked Crosswalk locations that no longer meet the guidelines. and through a preliminary evaluation, using F Hwa and Denver guidance. We identified 9 locations for enhancement to crossing treatment types. 3 locations that are proposed to be changed from static signs to our Rfps. And 6 that are planned to be upgraded from our Rfb. To a pedestrian signal action. They had to do with pursuing this type of funding and Action 9 had to do with the demonstration. Grant that, Garrick, this discussed so just really fortunate that the timing and sequencing of our work aligned in such a great way. to transition so smoothly from the action plan. Completion into this grant request.

[200:19] Awesome. very exciting, and a lot of things seem to be clicking timeline, wise, and, I think less planning and more doing in the in the near term, especially if this is successful. and I've heard a lot of exciting things from training. So yeah, no, no. I am so incredibly happy for you guys. And I'm so excited. And I'm sure you guys are going to get it. And I'm like crossing my fingers. But it really on a personal note. I mean, it's just so. So inspiring to see that you guys really put so much work into this? And and yeah, I'm sure I'm sure we're gonna get it. If anyone was interested in reading the application. Is it available online anywhere?

[201:01] I don't think we've shared it online. But I'm we're happy with to share it with Tab. Natalie, I I can. I just send it out to the tab email. Or what's the best way? Yeah, we can send it out. perhaps. Yeah, if you want to just send it. Just we can. We can talk offline about the mechanics of it. But we'll get it sent to you. yeah. And I'll I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. one, just we. We're also working kind of on the legislative front to make sure that, like the delegation is aware. So we're doing what we can on that side of things to help us gain support for our application. and then Just the second point. I I just wanted to again. Just think the team! There was a huge effort. by Valerie Garrett and Devin to really, you know all the lake work, and and of course, staff that supported them too. but this was, I mean, it's a one of a kind, great opportunity, and it took a one of the kind of lift by our team to make it happen.

[202:12] I think everyone's feeling a little little tired. but yeah, it's amazing. And and now fingers crossed hopefully, we get something. Yeah, definitely looking forward to into the year and hearing the results cool. Then anything else from staff. That's all we have. Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Now, matters from the board. The only thing that made on the agenda was about racial equity trainings I was. I've signed up twice, and unfortunately both have been canceled, due to lack of attendees. I was wanting to hear how many people were able to attend. But I think I since learned that Tony, Becky and Tilo, we're all in the same training.

[203:01] that correct. And then, Ryan, have you been able to attend the training, yet I have attended one in the past. I think I did like a pilot version of it, and I can't. I'm not I. I so I'm not sure if the of the answer to that I need to see if I've done it or not. Okay, I just wanted to get inventory on who had done it. It sounds like the city is changing their approach to how it's being offered, and maybe to a monthly basis, and I'll make sure to sign up again when that opens up. Yeah, we'll be sure. I believe they it was kind of back in their court to get a communication out to boards and commissions around the next training opportunity. So we'll be sure that that gets to you all when we hear something. Okay, thank you. And then the other thing I had was our homework for this meeting, which was to provide an update on what, if anything, people have done with their homework from the board retreat. In May.

[204:05] Again, we had the 3 focus areas for us to Do research, talk to staff, get ready to potentially provide recommend recommendations to the next Council that they retreat. We had pretty and I looking at ways to support councils especially on can efforts. Becky and Tila, looking at parking code reform, and then Ryan and Becky, looking at opportunities for more coordination between departments. So I think it' be good if we just nothing don't need to have anything to polish. I know training. I don't for tonight, but just a and that update Tony and I have discussed how we think we can best support council and one opportunity to really see us emphasizing that there's a lot of more capital money needed for can. And so one that could be dusting off some of the work that had been done in the past to look for a new

[205:04] transportation funding mechanism to expand the amount of money that's available. and to emphasize that with our current funds there's not, we'd have to pivot away from can to fund something else, and so that might be a really good time to focus on policy and programmatic things the city can do to keep the capital funding available for for can as much as has been in recent years. and we discuss the desire to have a a map of all of the different can segments to get a sense of where the status of those are, and potentially at a future board meeting under matters try to identify a list of top 5 priority projects. ones that would help fill in some of the gaps that we see in the network, some that we think might be most impactful, due to a variety of reasons, or provide the best cost benefit, and that to be, that be a list that we could discuss with staff, but then also have as like a a

[206:03] policy or priority recommendation for council in the future. So I'd be interested in seeing what maps staff might already have. They would we could use to to frame our conversation turning that with anything from our recent talk. No, no, and I well, I guess just the all the like charts that you've done to keep track of what's been done in each project, which I think was really valuable for for console. I think it's really important to see where things are advancing and where things are just kind of like missing certain elements. So yeah, what she's referring to is, I've I've made a list of each segment, and that's status. And so. like 30 is Street. We've got a bunch of different segments because they're in different phases, and it's in a list which is in all that visual, I think. if there's a map of that, it would be the the most compelling. So

[207:02] they'll reach out to badly and melody and see what all you guys have on hand. Atwise. Becky and Ryan. Any update on the opportunities to coordinate between departments. Becky, you you want me to start, or did you? I don't know if you remember, we met back. So so I go for it. I. All I have is sort of some details on North Broadway. Conversations. sir. Oh, okay. So on the the department Interd environmental thing. on that topic. We yeah. So Becky and I met, like, I mean, we made like right after the retreat. So this is this point. It's quite an exact I took some notes, and now I'm looking in my my files, but I don't know if I actually succeeded in sharing out my notes back with you for us to move on. So I this is a good prompt

[208:01] to do that. But frankly, we we talked about parking ordinance which we which we have, I mean, dealt with to some extent today in a previous agenda item and and a little bit regarding how city code with between, you know, treating land use in some cases over here and transportation over there. working over there, housing over there. And and you know those there, there could be an opportunity for greater alignment integration. That's one of the big things I call We had a little more little more detail here. like you feel free to to win, and then I will commit after this to sending you the latest that I have, and then I don't know there, what? Exactly to do. But I guess, Becky, you want to anything else. yeah. And I can speak to sort of a just was like a related piece I was looking at with just having more conversations around our Broadway and specifically like where there possibilities like, what would it.

[209:08] I guess why this is related. It's because it's from our understanding crosses over at like multiple departments per view. So it's kind of an example of a project that falls in the middle of multiple departments. so it's kind of a useful case study for us to understand how this all works better. or where there might be sort of challenges. So anyway, So I got a you from conversations around that my understanding was initially that. and there couldn't be any changes from Broadway, for instance, closing the parking to try to make the by plane safer in the north that direction without updating the north. or that. I forget what the name is it the subcommittee plan for that area? we need to be updated in this particular section of it. We need to be updated, and then that would have to be a council work. Item, I have to go on any engagement process. So to clarify that I just asked

[210:05] legal staff, and they pulled in planning staff to figure out, is this a legal requirement, or is it just a practice? Or why does why does it have to be this very prolonged process to make any change potentially, if it's. you know, not a, you know, big big change in terms of necessarily cost, or like the entire screens. And they said legally, No, you don't have like that process is not necessary. It is historical practice to do that, but it is not required per se to change a such community plan, and you don't have to go through. You don't have to have a work plan item and go through a a long engagement process. technically, what's required is a vote by planning for a public hearing with a vote, by planning board, and then a public hearing of the both by Council to change the section of the Subcommittee plan. So that's what I was told by legal and planning. And then I talked to planning board and learn that typically we don't put forward items. So so a planning board wouldn't come forward and say, we have this idea. We want to have a public hearing about they react to things that are brought to them and and they have such a full plate that they it wouldn't make sense for them to be bringing for additional things on top of that. They already have so much to do.

[211:23] and so they'd only be considering a change if it was put in front of them by the planning department or by city manager prioritization. It's my understanding. so that kind of brings me to now. understanding that if anything were to change, yes, the sub community section of the plan would have to change, to say you could prohibit parking in the North Downside. But you know, do something else with that space. but it essentially would have to be a city manager, a priority that was communicated to planning that was put in front of planning for to have a click, hearing.

[212:02] to make the change that. Then we go to council, and we have to be passed there as well. So the so that leads me to understanding. I don't know if this is 100% correct. But my understanding now is that that kind of change would have to be a directive from the city manager at this at this particular jump Junction, and which leads me to wonder if it's worthwhile to tab to have some kind of conversation with the city manager around that, you know, understanding that again. All the history of the project that we talked about before you don't have to go through again, but that the city manager does have authority here to move, to make change if if they want to. without this, in the name of safety. Essentially. so that. That's where I've ended up with that and whether we, as a body want to get, you know, go further and recommend the city manager, make that

[213:10] choice as part of you know, prioritizing. Hi, Andrew corridors and being able to kind of me identify what is in some some ways I know not, not always in some ways lower hanging, for in in the sense of it's not rebuilding an entire street but some potential way to make a street safer. That city of manager does have authority over granted. it is still to be passed by planning for the city council, so I understand it's not their choice alone, but raising the issue would be the city manager's choice. So that is what I learned through my conversations about North Brad, probably, and I happy to be corrected if anything. I said it was not quite right by anybody else's understanding.

[214:04] Thanks for looking into that, and taking the time to me with all the potential necessary parties So Becky and I have talked in the past about what could possibly be done up there. I see. I would support providing something to the city manager. I think there are varying degrees of impact we could have with different costs associated. One would be to the current plan or the current street doesn't have parking on the west side of the street. However, the plan allows for an expanded parking space, and I think we've heard from people that having the cars across the bike lane is not desirable, and so I think the lowest hanging fruit would just be that pull out the option for adding the parking, and that might create an opportunity to also change the curve. so I'd see that as, like the the lowest hanging fruit, and then above that would be

[215:05] some sort of for mediation. I don't know what it would look like for that northbound line that Becky mentioned. and then I don't know if it could, it might not be possible to swiftly look at a a potential long-term cross-section that has redevelopment happens. It could sort of take on a a different form. But if there are interest, I think something to the the city manager, CC. Council is something that I'd be willing to engage John in the in the future, and I think that the big motivation that it's a safety concern. They've seen the night, how many cool things are coming all over town and in this one neighborhood, with like one primary street. there's there's not one of the most diverse neighborhoods in boulder both from ethnic demographics, income demographics. There's

[216:01] nothing too exciting coming that way in the foreseeable future, and this would be an opportunity to to remedy that. And hopefully mesh the the quality of of infrastructure that we're putting elsewhere. Natalie. Yeah. So I'm just thinking. And I'm trying to be helpful. because I think you know what likely will like. I appreciate kind of the research you did, Becky, and I think where this will likely it. It's kind of like chicken, and a sort of thing where this will likely back to is You know whether whether it's directing, you know, the department to do this. But but typically I mean my my experience with the city managers offices. you know, they want to understand how it's going to impact departments work plan. And and this one would impact planning and transportation work plans right from planning development services and transportation work plan.

[217:08] even if even if we scaled it back and didn't do community engagement, and just which, like technically, we're still doing community engagement, going to planning board and then council. But even if we basically came up with kind of a minimal community engagement process. there would be an impact to our work plan into planning and development services work when and so then that goes back to council. Right of what are our work plan priorities? And does council see this as a priority more so than the work that is already on the plan for planning and development services and for transportation. because, I mean, I could speak for myself, you know, for the Department, for transportation that that were pretty at capacity, I mean, I would say

[218:01] we're beyond capacity, right? And so to add this to the work plan. Something is going to have to stop for a little while while we give this attention. And and I don't know what land development services would say, but likely they would say, we don't have capacity for this. If this is something council wants us to do, then they need to They need to tell us that this is a priority over whatever of the 9 other priorities that is on P. And Ds's work plan right now from council. so I think you know, even though, even if you, I'm I'm just trying to be helpful, because, like, even if you structure this request an area, it's gonna come back to the departments. And it's gonna come back to. Is this a priority for council to, you know, prioritize our work plans in this way, and then the final thing I'll say is, you know, in my experience. tab and or planning board and council don't like to make decisions like in a vacuum. They don't want to without their being extensive community engagement. They're not going to. Typically at least what I've seen make a decision, and so

[219:09] even if we tried to kind of shortcut the process and go to just planning board and then council, I don't think they would let us, I think they would say, Have you done community engagement? What have you heard from the business community on this? What have you heard from, you know, stakeholders along the corridor for this. so I I think you know it. It's both a work plan prioritization exercise for council, and it's potentially more community engagement than than you might wish for it to be. So. I mean, that's just like my opinion or 2 cents. You can take it or leave it. Yeah. And I I I I appreciate that. And I I'm sure there's always more work in a lot of these rather than I can understand. I just got it from what they sound like. But I guess. My, well, what I mean, my biggest concern is just somebody's gonna get very hurt or killed because the way it's designed. And I feel like frequently this sort of like through this process, a lot of times the response has been, well, we don't know what the business numbers think, and I think

[220:16] you know, if our reasoning is, we don't know what the business members think. but we know that it's unsafe because of the design doesn't need best practice standards for safety. Then it's not really, you know, as a and I I mean it's it. It doesn't make sense to me that we would, you know, kind of defer to this a community engagement process that might result in continuance of unsafe conditions. Because then we're sort of it feels like it's kind of setting ourselves up for failure and future can projects where we're going to get the same exact feedback, you know. Somebody's going to say no, you can't do that because I don't like it, and then we won't build it. And then we're going to end up with the same outcome. So that's part of my fear is that this is like it's not gonna that feedback is not going to change, because it's same in every

[221:03] every single city to be honest. And so, having this sort of political will that says, Yes, we will do something about a situation that's unsafe, because safety is the number one priority. So that's like one of my concerns is sort of allowing that to be the kind of dominant narrative, and also, I think, part of what. And having these conversations I run into is sort of like it's sort of a, and not not in what you're but It's sort of this sort of reference to what we have so community plan and dictate what can be done, and I think it's it's not like letting this sort of piece of paper be the thing that we use to defend. Why, we can't do something is a bit of a like application of responsibility for decision makers ability to change outcomes as well. So I mean, I hear the sort of capacity piece, and if Council needs to put forth.

[222:03] I don't know attached to it, or something for it to happen then, you know, maybe that is a bigger conversation, but having just completed something or somebody could like, if somebody gets hurt or killed, I want to be able to explain to the public why that happened. And I it feels likely that that's going to happen, because the design. you know, I don't want the defense to be that it was this piece of paper, or, you know, like it, just. it's really hard to accept that when we're making so many high priorities of these other places where people get injured throughout the city. Why, this one priority, when we just got all this attention? so so I don't know. I swear like going through this long community engagement process to end up with something. I don't. I just doesn't feel it doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel like it. Sense of well, for the future. if that's kind of where we landed. I don't know it. It's just really hard to accept to be on it. That like this is. This is kind of where we

[223:06] yeah, I appreciate you sharing that back in it feels like I. I feel like I bear some responsibility before I listen where the some of the limited people it sounds like the city staff is not understandably have the capacity to do anything where some of the rare people in a position to say something, and it feels like we're currently obligated to keep right and raising it to the the people who could set something into motion. obviously not going to solve it tonight, so perhaps we could pick this up at. And that's end of meeting, or or at another time, Ryan, I saw you unmuted earlier. Did you have something on this? Yeah. And just it just reminded me that. I mean, this goes back to what I said earlier that, like the this, this seems like the strong force here is is is available resources, and that there should be a political slash values decision about, are we going to pursue choices that they do things to improve?

[224:04] to make life better? I mean, if you look at what I Pcc in their their middle climate change says about the way city carbonization give you cost curves, and they show you that the public transit and walking and biking or cost negative pay money back. It's not. It should not be complicated that these are that that making completely safe and transfer rich environment, something we can do and we can afford to do it and make life better. But it's staff can't just do it on its own. It's something that needs to go to City Council to consider what what the strategic options are, and this seems to me like one of those. This question, that of where we don't have the resources is, we don't, and that's not Staff's fault, you know, and if it that, that's something that's a political decision that we need to put on the table where? And I think some of the other answers will become easier if we can. That unfortunately, it's not super super fast. so anyway, this will. This is helping me to remember some of the the the documentation that I had started putting the other Becky following our discussion. So I'm going to reanimate that and send that your way. And then we can circulate it with

[225:07] okay. And that might need to come in a meeting versus. Okay, I'll get that. Okay, I think that's that's enough. On the the second. item, more of it. Come just like the first one. Becky, do you have an update on the parking code reform that you and Tila are working on. Yeah, this will be really short, we don't. We? We haven't gotten very far on that discussion. I was mostly focused on the other conversations. around North Broadway. So more to come on that. Okay, yeah. No worries. We got half a year before the the retreat, so of time to refine these and reach out to the the relevant boards. If there are some to try to. and and council members and candidates to gain traction and support for these ideas. Natalie.

[226:05] yeah, I was just going to kind of highlight what Samantha mentioned in her presentation earlier today or tonight, around the Tm ordinance update and the parking code Update. So the those 2 work items have kind of been on the back burner, and and I think this is somewhat what kind of instigated the work. Item, that the retreat for you all to to kind of help gain traction for that work. So what I I'll just say is, Staff is starting to talk about that being on the work plan for 2,024 that's highly dependent on council priorities. And so you know, basically a as long as other priorities don't take away all the capacity in P. And Ds. And transportation to do that work. Then I think there's good likelihood that that could be on the 2024 work plan.

[227:09] So that's I thought would be positive news for you all, because I know that. that's something that Tab has been looking forward to for a long time. So yep. got you. I guess Ryan just touched on one more thing. do we have a date for the cip bike tour. Yes. yeah. 20 fourth. So I'll send that out. I just wanted to kind of get it. General. check the good to go. I believe so. And she's yeah.

[228:05] awesome. Thank you for your assistance and and the setting up the poll for that. Okay, thank you. And then this will be our last meeting before then. I know sometimes people have certain requests on different projects, either things that are underway or areas that we've talked about And so if anyone has the thoughts at Garrett, and the past is welcomed. input on any suggestions that he develops the the route for it. That's true, great. that is correct. I appreciate you flagging that Alex, happy to accommodate any requests so that we can put together a route that accommodates those. Yeah, thank you. But with that being in in 2 weeks, try to get those in, and sooner rather than later. That's all I had for matters. Any other port numbers I just want to share something that maybe I I I hope that it's appropriate. It's just something that I'm super excited about, and that you guys are going to start seeing in the streets.

[229:08] And so, is it? Okay? If I share something? Oh. wait a minute. It may not be as easy as I thought. it's not really. Oh, my gosh, okay, hold on. Yeah, I can't to share my screen. For some reason. No, me, either. you should be able to share if you click on the share screen button on the bottom with the arrow. Yeah, no, it was in my settings. Something's wrong. Oh, no, it's gonna I have to quit the well, I'll just. I'll just email it to you guys. it's a shame because it would have been really, you know better note, but It says I have to quit Zoom in order to be able to share it. So.

[230:04] Oh. sorry! Well, you don't want to share with us verbally looking forward to so For years I've been trying to do this, and somehow it just all came together and in. Well, in collaboration with C. Dot, we're going to launch this messaging campaign to kind of raise awareness about the safe systems approach, which was a challenge within itself, but just sharing the basic concept. So people can get a little bit more familiar with what we mean, what we talk when we talk about the same systems approach. We chose to focus on safety on speed. And so it's this whole campaign. We're gonna have 5 flat iron buses. We're gonna have 5 buses here in Boulder. We have bus shelters. We're gonna have there's a giant screen, that Union station. We're gonna have that. So we have different things that I wanted to share with you guys visuals. But so it's super exciting. And

[231:02] yeah. but I can't share it. So I'll send you guys an email? but it'll be live at the end of July, first week of August, and it'll be around for 3 months. So so it congrats again. I remember you telling me it was something you were aspiring to do for a while, and then everything sort of fell into place, and of a multi month campaign with, was it 5 butter and flyers? And they have a lot of visibility. Yeah. thank you. So any other matters or exciting bits of news from the board. Not seen anything. on the future in the topics. It's blink, but I'm sure something will come up. Yes, we we have a couple items the next couple of months that we're we're trying to balance

[232:03] between the between August and September. So more to come, and if we for some reason have nothing in August we will let you all know. Sounds great. Okay, thank you. With that I think that it completes the agenda, and we can entertain a motion to adjourn second. Alright. You have the motion turning off the second. All those in favor unanimous with 4 of us. Thank you. Everyone. Have a great night. Good night.