October 9, 2023 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] It's now. So the meeting is on. Thank you, Veronica. I'll go ahead and call to order the Transportation Advisory Board meeting for Monday, October ninth, 2023. Before we get started with business. We'll go over our technical rules. So I'll kick it back over to Veronica to go over our technical ground rules. Okay. could you let me know if you are able to see my screen? Okay, perfect. To have you join us today to strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security, the following rules would be applied. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the city of boulder activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time for speaking is limited to 3 min. No person shall speak except when recognized by myself, and no person shall speak 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're commonly known by will not be permitted to speak. If you're on the phone, please use the raise hand function, using the star 9 to raise hand and star. 6 to unmute.

[1:20] Yes, no video will be permitted except for city officials, employees and invited speakers and presenters, all others will participate by voice only. I will be enforcing these rules by muting anyone who violates any rules. The QA function is enabled, it will be used for individuals, community. With myself it should be used for technical or online platform related questions only only the host and individuals designated by myself will be permitted to share their screens during the meetings. Thanks, Alex. thanks, Veronica, and it looks like Trini is in attendees and set it up a panelist hopefully we can get her shifted over.

[2:03] The third item on our agenda is the approval of the August 2023 min. I wasn't at this meeting, so, of course, be abstaining. I heard Becky did a fabulous job cheering in my absence. So thanks again for doing not Becky. are there any amendments to the next that any tab members would like to bring forward? Not seen any? I'll entertain attorneys in the panel section? So I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes as they are. I moved to approve the August 2023 min. I second thank you both. There's no other discussion, those in favor or votes with one abstention. Thanks everyone. We'll now move to agenda. Item 4, which is public comment.

[3:01] Any member of the public, wishing to address the Board about a transportation related. Matter will have up to 3 min. Do so. If you're interested in speaking to us tonight, please use the raise hand feature within the Zoom Platform, and our technical host will begin calling on you. And again, you'll have 3 min. Okay, it looks like Patricia is raising their hand. Could she confirm, Patricia that you're able to speak? Yes, I'm here. Oh, you may begin. Okay. Good evening. My name is Patricia Whittaker, and I'm a 30 year resident of South Boulder. I'll start by stating that I support efforts to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. Given the continued hope and focus of elected officials for people to walk and bike more. I'd like to bring attention to a couple things that I, as someone who walks daily view as impediments, and I'd appreciate your input on how best to raise awareness about them. It was suggested by one of our mayoral candidates that I bring my concerns to this board

[4:06] first? Might there be a way to encourage the city to promote a fall cleanup campaign, one that requests anyone who has properties along sidewalks to trim back overgrown plants in their landscaping, so that sidewalks are fully exposed to their entire width. This might be done through the city's newsletter utility, Bill, mail, postcard, and or next door. This is a good time to do so, not only for fall plant material, clean up and aiding tricksters seeking treats on dark Halloween night, but also, it being prior to winter, when shoveling will need to happen. offer a reminder on the head as well. I know about, and have used in choir boulder to report overgrown sidewalk obstructions, but rather than provide a warning or fine, wouldn't encouraging community members to be considerate of others, be a more proactive, kinder method? Asked residents to clear the way along property lines for people walking to school, to the bus, to the store those walking dogs or pushing strollers and people using walkers in wheelchairs. This I've experienced with my elder parents who had lived with us.

[5:11] How can we help those who walk, be it simply for their health, or, more importantly, out of necessity. Second concern with the influx of lime scooters. I'm seeing poorly parked, disbanded scooters often in the sidewalks, and they are heavy to move aside. I was forced to recently near an assisted living facility, when, pushing my mom in her wheelchair, just taking her out for a stroll in the fresh air. Is there any etiquette around their use that you know of? Can the city send a letter requesting that Lyme provide its users courtesy guidelines for parking scooters once done with them. Thank you for listening to my concerns, and I hope you'll join me in supporting safe wide paths for pedestrians to navigate. Thank you, Patricia. Those are certainly some good ideas for us to keep in mind

[6:00] might circle back to comments in a minute. next up? I think we have Tom Mckinnon. Okay, could you confirm? You're able to unmute. Okay? Can you hear me. Yes, thank you. Good evening. My name is Tom Mckenna. I live at 2218 Mapleton Avenue in Boulder tonight. I'd like to address what I think can only be called an an epidemic of loud street racing noise in boulder It happens at all hours, mostly at night, mostly late at night when we're trying to sleep. The the health effects of loud noise are noises are well known, and even more so. The health effects of lack of sleep is is better known. So it's an important issue for the city. Besides just being an annoyance. loud after market exhausts are illegal in Colorado. However, it's classified as a a class B infraction, and the fine is $15 to $100. No point. So I can only assume that it's not worth the effort of the police to do anything about it given that.

[7:09] Oh, penalty! So one thing is, I'd like to see the city impose a large fine for noise. Vio violations. However, I fully recognize that this is virtually impossible to enforce because of the transient nature of the the street racing. It's moving so fast. But what I'd like to report on tonight is that fortunately, there's a viable technological enforcement solution. A company in the United Kingdom named intelligent instruments makes a photo microphone device so very similar to a photo radar or photo red light when it senses a noise louder than the decimal threshold. It it it makes a recording of the sound and video and has software to do automatic license plate or recognition. I've reached out to the company to get more information. I haven't heard back from them. But I've seen from other sources that the cost is about 30 30,000 us

[8:05] per unit. This is currently implemented in New York City and London, New York City for well, over a year. London. I'm not. Don't have too many details about it. But there have been tests. Pilot tests in Knoxville, Miami Beach, Washington, DC. And even in Longmont recently. So what I would suggest is that the the Tab or the city form an ad hoc study group members with members from the tab, the police and citizens to look into this to see if it would be viable for boulder and make recommendations for the 2,025 budget cycle. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Thanks, Tom. Sorry to learn about your your nose interruptions. Any other members of the public wishing to speak. Now it be time to raise your hands.

[9:01] See? Check, Brock. Okay, do you confirm you're able to speed check? Yes, I can. Oh, you may begin. Thanks. First of all, I'd like to very much thank the Department for the construction of the beautiful facility at Thirtieth in Colorado I went to the ribbon cutting, and it was really phenomenal to see would have been built there. I thought it was wonderfully done. Very expensive, for sure, but it's a it's a beautiful facility. and I think it will help a lot of students move from east campus to the main campus, and other people get around a very tricky intersection that has a lot of serious crashes over the years. The other topic I'd like to bring up real briefly, is snow clearing. It's October. We're gonna have our first snow, maybe later this week. Even. I'd really like to see a prioritization of bike routes, especially those that are key connecting bike routes between multi use paths little sections that are on streets, for example, forest

[10:04] between the growing gardens and Nineteenth Street is a classic example. Every winter that gets covered with snow, and then it gets packed ice, and it's it's really impossible to to go down. And there are several other streets like that. I don't know them all, because I don't get around as much in winter, but I really like to see those prioritized. I know there's not a huge snow removal budget, and we have to be careful about how it's spent. But I think, given our priorities transportation priorities that that this should really be a priority for still removal across the city. Thank you very much. Thanks for your service. Thank you. Looks like Glen Siegel has her hand raised. Lynn. Could you confirm, you were able to speak. Yeah, the yeah. perfect. Well, thank you. The beginning. First of all. I wonder why Transportation Advisory Board didn't have something to say about the sprawl development

[11:06] of Waterview. especially in light of Jared Polis's big campaign against sprawl. No, it's coming in right in the middle of that. and there's a garage for every unit in that place. 400 some units cross from the JCC. Just drives up the congestion on a rapo and all over boulder for these kind of developments that are completely. I'm dependent upon getting out of place. It's like an open air prison. An and why don't you make the developers pay? Why don't you lobby the planning board that they can't produce things like this and like

[12:00] efficiencies and smaller units which drives more developer interest and more physical people. And those people don't share cars in communal housing. They do. But there's no there's no pushing for communal housing at all in Boulder. It's all individual. And so those kind of models of living are just really archaic. I'm not from around here. I'm like from Pacific Northwest, where it's more normal. But here the only thing here is growth, growth, growth, growth, you know, lie tech funds, low income housing, text. low income housing tax credits to push for more Federal funds so that we can build more and more and more. And I don't care if it's transportation oriented development. its development period.

[13:01] and it's not helping bolder. And then there's no money for me to drive my bike around. because and I drive my car about twice a year. but it just really makes me angry when I have to dodge potholes big potholes on major streets like Sixth going through Mapleton. This is a main thoroughfare that gets through. It's more direct than fourth, or you know it's it's less direct than ninth. But I use it all the time. Big potholes and just seems. And you know linear side things that you can really hurt yourself on your bike with. So make the developers pay, not not the public make the developers thanks, lyn any other members of the public wishing to speak to us to night.

[14:04] not seeing any thanks to everyone, had joined us. Let me might be glad to know that later tonight we will be talking about some hands. little more integration with transportation and planning chuck thanks for reaching out to us always. Tom, that was a good idea. I've heard a little bit about that concept, and I know this staff and the State through updated. Say, a lot that Staff is able to look into more. it's automated enforcement. I think this is a good idea. You've you've flived for them to potentially consider as well. And, Patricia, that I know the city has good communication strategies when it comes to snow removal. So this feels like a little bit analogous just at a different season to that. Ryan. Yeah, just real quick. You're you're thanks, Alex. You're taking on what I was just thinking with a lot of really good input. We just heard on this on this vegetation hazards and the scooter hazards, I guess on scooters, will we do? We have an item to address that at any point soon. I know you know it's pretty new. The scooters out is probably probably hearing a lot from the public on the experience. Can anybody speak to the

[15:17] should we plan for it to talk about that in a more organized way at some point soon? We'd be happy to provide an update to under matters of the future meeting. To just kind of provide some of the things we're working on. And Valerie feel free to chime in here. I think just appreciated the comment that Patricia Patricia shared. And we our team, is doing a lot to address, just the feedback we're hearing from the community. We knew that there would be a bit of a you know, learning curve with the users and also on our end, where we can make improvements to just guide users to either use lime groves and and also we can. We can look at where there's Manda mandatory parking zones kind of based on feedback that we're hearing. And so the team has been responding to

[16:10] that feedback that we're hearing. And also I know they're working on kind of a communications campaign to to help people. Just understand how to be kind of a courteous user. So, Valerie, is there anything more to to share there? You covered a lot there and this is Valerie Watson, deputy director. Ii appreciate feedback from our community members like Patricia's tonight. It helps us understand. What neighborhoods are experiencing so that we can then, you know, work with Lyme through their agreement with the city to make iterative changes to the program. So in addition to that safety and courtesy messaging campaign that we're going to be working on and launching hopefully in the next few months. We can also work with lime for them to provide in app messages to their users as well. So I think we are finding that folks are just maybe a little confused about the best place to park them when they in their rights. And that's something we can continue to work on and raise with lime

[17:19] great. And then, in the meantime, should citizens just using choir boulder to send any suggestions or input or that sort of thing on scooters? That's right. The the most direct way to get an improperly parked scooter addressed is to report it to Lyme directly, and that information is on our website. But we recognize that community members want to make sure that the city's also aware of these issues. So inquire, Boulder is the the second stop. If you, if you're a community member and want to report an issue that you've experienced. Okay, great thanks. And sorry to dominate this. But I just, I thought also on the vegetation one that was an interesting suggestion. Is there any? Is there any? I don't know. Response on that like, is there?

[18:01] I thought that was a really good point, and just kind of you know, we're actually already in the mode of I'm sure you've seen messaging around the upcoming snow season. The teams preparing for just our winter ahead. And and you know, I think it's good feedback for us to think about. Is there an opportunity for us to also get messaging out there around how folks can be a good neighbor and kind of clear the way I like. I broke down a lot of what she said. So we'll, I'll talk about that with our communications team and see where there's opportunities there. If I could chime in really quickly on that we had, and and I think you're correct to tie it to some of the messaging and awareness about the upcoming snow season. But a few years ago we were talking I who might have been with the with the path that pedestrian Advocacy Committee action Committee about developing. I think it was Minneapolis that had do hangers. You know the kind of cardboard things you can stick on someone's doorknob. Instead of sending code enforcement when someone complains about a failure to clear a sidewalk that a neighbor could just stick a door hangar on and say, Hey, here's a reminder you're responsible for doing this and I it seems like something we could

[19:24] we had talked about, but never actualized. Having a standard, you know. Boulder city of boulder, sort of messaging or or door hangar design. But it could be similar kind of obstructions of sidewalks from vegetation and snow. Great, that's yeah. That's good to know. Thanks for reminding me of that before your time, Natalie. Well, I actually remember, like II think I was here just in a different role. And I remember some conversations about that. I was gonna flag. I think sometime soon we're gonna talk about some ice removal strategies. As a matter as a vitamin tab. That's right? I believe it's actually next month. Yeah, okay, so it'll be an opportunity for us to

[20:13] can the further detail about the the smaller paths around town that check flagged? Yes, definitely, yeah, I'm yeah. I'll leave it at that with that, we can excellent discussion, everyone we can move on to agenda, item 5, which is a concept plan check in on 56 75 Arapel, Arapahoe Avenue. LUR. 202-30-0036. We have some people from planning and development with us tonight, Natalie, do you want to introduce your colleagues? Sure, I'd be happy to do that, Hi Chandler? Thanks for being here. So Chandler is. Gonna take this item, and I think he's ready to go. Yeah. and we do have the applicant team. I know they're planning on attending

[21:02] Meredith. I'm not sure if you saw my email with their names, or if they're online yet, but just wanna make sure that they can be promoted to panelists at some point so they can speak. Yeah, Veronica, I think it's fear. And peers JVA. Oz. Else are we missing? If you can forward me that email. Natalie or Meredith, I can look out for them alright. Can everyone see my screen? Yes, it's still on present remote. But it's up. Okay. Are you seeing the presentation or the presentation with notes? Perfect. Okay. oops. So yes, thank you. Everybody on the Transportation Advisory Board. Here tonight to talk about 56 75 around.

[22:03] This is a site review application. It did go through concept review prior. And that's when it was referred by city council the subject property is located less than a quarter mile east of the 50 Fifth Street, in Rapo Avenue intersection on the north side of Rapa, near the eastern edge of the city, and within the Ig Zone district. The site is roughly 9.5 acres in size and is currently vacant. City records indicate that the property was annexed in 1987. So, as I mentioned before, the project's currently in site review. The proposal is for 3 new life sciences, buildings, really 2 life sciences, buildings, and an amenity building. Totaling roughly 413,000 square feet. The current proposal. They are not asking for a parking reduction. So they're meeting city of boulder parking requirements. It's a mix of surface parking and underground parking.

[23:03] In terms of the transportation system adjacent to the site the project is located within a quarter mile of 3 RTD transit routes the jump, the 206 and the 208 there are 2 bus stops that serve the jump route adjacent to the site at the 5,700 block of revenue over Rapahoe Avenue. There are 4 bus stops serving routes, 206 and 208, located at 50 Fifth, and around 2, 50, Fifth and Arapaho stops. Serve northbound southbound traffic from the 206 and the other 2 stops serve eastbound and westbound traffic for the 208. There's currently a 5 foot wide, unprotected bike lane on both sides of the street from 50 Fifth to 70 Fifth. and from foothills to 50 fifth. On the north side there's a 12 foot multi use path, and on the south side the multi use path is incomplete. This image here is from the transportation Master Plan, showing proposed connections. So as you can see. There are existing on Street pass that which I just mentioned.

[24:06] and proposed off street paths on nearby properties, and kind of oddly along the railroad adjacent to the site. But no connections in the Tmp go through the site. Can I interrupt? Really quick? I know that's kind of against the are there connections shown on the low stress walk of bike network. I don't believe so. Okay. thank you. I'll check. Okay. So the review process. this went through concept plan in 2022. It was referred to tab by city council. They did not really provide much direction in terms of what they wanted. Feedback on the applicant came in for Site Review earlier this year. They're currently in the second round of review.

[25:04] So for tab recommendation feedback. What we're looking for tonight is feedback on access and connectivity to existing multimodal system, including, the connection of the building to a Rappo AV and multimodal and pedestrian circulation and then overall alignment of the project with the transportation goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan and the Transportation Master Plan. Ultimately this will be a staff level decision with subject to planning board callup. So key issue number one for tonight is, does the proposal provide adequate access and connectivity to the existing multimodal system, including connection of the building to Arapo Avenue, as well as existing multimodal and pedestrian facilities. This image here is just an image of the site plan and hopefully, you've all had a chance to look at the Tab application package that they provided. They're showing up variety of kind of soft pedestrian paths, and then some hardscape bicycle and pedestrian paths, as well as vehicular circulation. Within the site.

[26:08] The campus will have an entrance along Rapa Avenue. The bike path is connected to help facilitate alternate modes of transit from the multi use path along Route Avenue to the site secured bike parking areas, and a pedestrian trail system is also planned through the site to connect the amenity and office buildings. Key issue number 2 is is the proposed project generally consistent with the transportation goals of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and the transportation master Plan as I mentioned in the Memo staff, finds generally that it's consistent with the transportation goals. The site does have some constraints in terms of connectivity. There is a a high functioning wetlands at the very front of the site which precludes development being pushed up towards Arapaho Avenue. So the site's kind of.

[27:00] or the project is kind of required to be set back a good amount. But, all things considered. Staff finds that they've done a pretty good job of addressing the Boulder Valley Comp plan and transportation master plan goals. Specifically, reduction of single occupancy. Auto trips, integrated transportation demand management. Transportation impacts, mitigated low stress walking bike network and reduction. Oh, yep, sorry. There's some redundancy in the policies in the Tmp. And the Bvcp. Oh, okay, that's the end of my slideshow. I will stop share. I'm happy to answer any questions, and hopefully the applicant is here, and they can also answer some questions as well. Thank you. Sandlers. Donate staff members have any clarifying questions will be clarifying questions. First.

[28:07] Tia. thanks, Alex, I was curious because of the location of the wetlands here on this site, and then the intention to include subterranean parking. can you speak to like if there are any complicating factors that we are, that that the builders, anticipating because of putting below grade parking in an area that seems to be already collecting water. Yeah. I mean, the city has, you know, strict wetland regulations with a a buffer in terms of development around the wetlands. So they're they're outside of the buffer in terms of the wetlands. The site is also subject to floodplain. But a previous development. Basically re-graded and kind of elevated the building part of the site so that it's out of the floodplain.

[29:03] This came up in planning board as well at the Concept Review. And yeah, they're they're required to meet all of our floodplain regulations and all of our wetland regulations. But they've been taking that into consideration since. Concept review. So I don't. I don't think that Anything unexpected is likely to occur here. Okay, thank you. And you noted that. the developer's not asking for a reduction in parking reduction. And that's kind of unusual these days. Why why do we think that there's so much parking required for this site? What is what is different about this than what we've seen in other recent developments in the area. In particular, it's pretty transit rich for for what we're planning, and even what's already there. Yeah, I mean, I can defer to the applicant in terms of why they feel like they need all that parking. I mean. Ultimately, the the city has fairly high parking requirements in the Ig zone. It's we require one space per 400 square feet of floor area.

[30:05] so it's really up to the applicant whether they decide they want to pay for all that parking and meet the parking requirements or ask for a parking reduction. I'll I'll probably defer to the applicant in terms of why they decided that they need all that parking instead of asking for a reduction. But we can't really require them to ask for a reduction. Unfortunately. sure. But I'd be curious to hear from them. Why, why, they need all that parking. except we have some raised hands. Looks like Joe has a Sandra's. Okay, Joe. Could you let me know if you're able to speak? I am. Yes, yes. Can you hear me? Sure? Thank you. Yeah, Joe Anastasi Oz architecture on behalf of our client. We did explore this in detail the clients, you know, analyzed it from a number of perspectives, from leasing potential tenants marketability and with that, determined that the 2.5 per 1,000, that one per 400 square feet is the best ratio for them to be successful on the leasing and marketability side with the tenants. Now.

[31:28] if they need to reduce that if that's the suggestion, I think they're willing to sort of reduce that as well. A little bit and and hopefully still be successful. And also they are providing additional you know, increased pedestrian bike connectivity increased bicycle parking, and some other means as well in lieu of that, but at least from the leasing side. That's that's kind of deriving the overall parking ratio at this point. Has there been any change in that kind of analysis since? Covid? There has been? Yes, yeah. They they ran that analysis this week as well. And the life science standpoint, some of the research tech they are a little bit more office focused within the building. And that occupancy a little bit more demanding than a more of a hybrid work from home type model. And so that's what that's what they're seeing and the tenants that they are. They are talking to.

[32:21] Okay. My last sort of I don't know, Clara. I don't know if I'm not sure if it's a clarification question or whatever. But I am looking at the low stress walk on bike network. And. to be fair, the maps are kind of not very fine grain, but to me it looks like at the northern end of this site. on our low stress walk and bike network. It is a proposed multi-use path to be built. And so when these things when these parcels develop, is when we try to enhance those, can I get a little more clarification from staff.

[33:01] yeah, yeah, I can try to answer that. So there was some some pretty weird stuff related to the Tmp, I mean, I'm assuming that the low stress walking bike network plan gets incorporated into the transportation master Plan. Is that correct? Does anyone know? That's my understanding? Yes, right? That's part of the Tp. yeah. So there was. There was a connection shown that basically went across the direct middle of the site. That kind of dead ended on the other property. And initially, we told the applicant they had to provide that connection. We did a bunch of research internally and realize that that connection was basically a holdover that was supposed to be removed during the adoption of the East Boulder Subcommittee plan and hadn't been removed. So it was showing up on the Tmp. Originally, and we spoke with Gis. We spoke with long range planning about the East Boulder subcommittee plan, and they verified that the path that was shown going into this site was actually intended to be removed. So they have updated the East or the Transportation master plan, gis layer

[34:17] to remove that path. that's probably an oversight on our part to not realize that it was also in the low stress walking bike network connections plan but that was basically an error on Staff's part that was still there that was supposed to be removed. Well, it sounds to me. We have now a conflict between the East Boulder subcommunity plan and the Tmp. well. yeah, and I mean, it would be interesting to have Brad here. But my perspective, I think, is that as the East Boulder subcommittee plan, you know, plans like that, and that one is adopted by council and updates. So just like, you know, Tvap 2 is happening right now. And you all have been involved in that and and that updates what is currently in the Tmp connections plan. And so if you go and look at the Tmp connections plan, and we haven't

[35:14] made those changes yet. Then they look like they're in conflict. But but whatever the most kind of relevant or updated planning document should be, the thing that's kind of taking precedent over and and and should be consistent with our connections plan, and it is kind of a clerical era if our connections plan isn't consistent with those things. But we should be updating it essentially, as those types of plans get updated like East boulder, subcommittee or tvap 2, does that make sense? Yeah, so I think what I hearing, you say, is like the most relevant meaning, like, sort of the more fine grain localized plan should take precedence. Is that fair to say, yeah. And what we've and what we've updated. So you know, in the 2019, we updated the Tmp connections plan when we update the Tnt.

[36:08] But since then we've done other planning that's updated the Tnp connections plan. And so it needs to be. you know, essentially consistent with those other planning process updates. Okay. I am failing to find the sentence in the memo, because I don't quite remember where it was but I believe that there was a reference to an adjacent parcel, I think. to the east, I think, is what I remember them saying. But anyway, an adjacent parcel was going to build a connection to the Boulder Creek path, and I thought that maybe was the wrong name with the the wrong path. Name it just. It struck me as strange that this applicant is saying, well, my next door neighbor's gonna build a connection. And we're gonna let bikes through there. But we're not gonna actually plan a connection on our

[37:05] site plan. any response to that? I mean, ultimately, through Site Review. We're only really able to require connections that are shown in adopted transportation plans, adoption, transportation plan. That's that's kind of my point. Right now, what I think, what Natalie was trying to explain and and what I what we determined as staff is that the East Boulder Subcommittee Plan takes precedence. and connections that are updated or adopted through that plan form the transportation master Plan and the lowest dress walking bike network. And so with the adoption of the East Boulder subcommunity plan. The connection that was shown through this site is no longer there, so we do not have the adoption of the plan. It was still there. What you're telling me is through a subsequent modification by Staff.

[38:03] Now it's not there. It was considered a clerical error and got removed subcommunity plan that it wasn't removed immediately from the transportation master Plan. Gotcha. Yeah. okay, I'll let someone else ask questions. Now. yeah, I mean, I I'm not sure like we we did. This was a big issue that we talked about, and it's not like we didn't want them to provide a connection. It was really. We spoke with the city attorney's office. We spoke with transportation staff. We spoke with engineering staff. long range staff. And everyone said, Yeah, that connection should not be there anymore. That was taken out of these boulders subcommittee plan. So we have no stick to make them provide a connection to the site. Thanks for that. My main question. Parallel teal, is about. We're so used to hearing from council members and planning board members. How often

[39:01] parking productions are allow, encouraged, and we always give them out. So to hear that applicant and 2023 doesn't want a reduction when a lot of boards and commissions will get to the later tonight are talking about. How are parking minimums are are higher than citywide. We need do any other tab members have any questions they'd like to ask. II don't have a question, but II also feel. I guess, sort of puzzled and interested in yeah, that it feels unusual that the proposals not seeking a parking reduction, and like. maybe there's a good reason for that. But it just it just feels unusual. And so I heard the response was. there was an an economic analysis, and that's the result. So I guess I'm not sure where else to go with it.

[40:04] but so I guess this is, that's the comment. I don't have anything else. Attorney Becky. Have any questions. Okay, anyone from Tab. Have any kind of tricky without a question from council? Is there anything that any tab members would like to say to get into our records or encourage staff to pass along to council. Okay, Alex, can I just sort of like point order on this? the language? III guess I'm not even sure what we're being invited to do here, because I lost it, but it says no action or recommendation is requested for tab. So do. Is anybody want to hear from us, or like, what? Wh? What's being requested?

[41:00] Yeah, I mean, it's it's a little bit tricky when Council refer something we're we're trying to help counsel to realize that it puts us in an awkward position when they just say yes, let's refer to Tab, but they don't give any direct feedback or kind of direction in terms of what they want. You guys to comment on so that's why the the 2 key issues are kind of the, you know, the boilerplate key issues. I mean any feedback that you provide. I will include in the staff memo to the planning board. And the applicant, you know, we'll we'll provide a response to it, if nothing else. So it's it's fairly open, ended. But yeah, I mean, in general kind of your your feelings on the project's consistency with the Tnt and with the comp plans, transportation policies, and just kind of overall feedback on the sites, connectivity and kind of transportation amenities. Okay, so open. Mic. I'll just take the chance to say, and sorry this is not what you were expected, but I guess you did say open mic, more or less, my words not yours. But if it's awkward, I would suggest next time

[42:04] when counsel referred something to Staff, that when there's a chance to ask for clarification from counsel regarding what do you want? That would be that would really help us here, and I would think, be a pretty easy thing to threats in the moment. And I agree, if it's like, Well, what are we doing here. But so let's ask. I think that's because it's come up in other cases, too, where counsel maybe provide direction, and when the clarity is not, you know, sought as far as like or establish like. Okay, like, what's the plan? So I would just encourage next time counsel, ask to chat feedback that in the moment. Just make sure we get question framed for us properly. Absolutely. And I don't have anything. This is helpful, so I don't have anything else on the project. Well, said Ryan. tiles. thank you. I would like to register

[43:03] encouragement, I suppose. and for the applicant to seek a parking reduction at this site. As I mentioned, it is pretty transit rich. We're talking. 6 bus stops within a stone's throw. It's located within a quarter mile the jump. 206208. It's also close to Foothills Parkway high, 157 in us. 36 that have bus service. We have expanded sort of the capacity for line scooters. We've been talking a long time about how this area is not very rich in sort of daytime destinations for office workers. And we're working on that. We're trying to discourage them from driving their cars. Once they do arrive at the site for you know, short meetings or close nearby trips. I'm not seeing a whole lot of detail in the Tdm portions of this application. That are giving real

[44:10] priority or emphasis on alternate micro mobility. Potential. I think that there was. So III hear you saying that there was a and I'm still looking at the low, low stress walk and bike networks. This is the second point here. so I see the pathway that you're talking about staff. That was showing a connection in the middle of the site. But it's not quite clear to me how long decided it looks like there's a connection, maybe along the railroad on the northern edge of of this property as well, and that I, as I understand it, is an existing desire line or intended multi use path connection. Can staff speak to that?

[45:02] Yeah, I mean that one's tricky because it's it's in railroad right away, right? And the only time that we can really require these paths is when a property owner comes in for a redevelopment proposal or redevelopment proposal. So so you're saying that that pathway on the northern end is actually not on this property. And it's also just kind of a very yeah, very long range type of connection. Ii mean exactly. I seem to recall that there was a a mix of bike parking, both covered and uncovered, and I think maybe that was the temporary versus longer term bike parking and again whip an eye to trying to encourage alternate modes of transportation for people who are on the site. even only during the daytime, and even only short term. The difference between covered parking.

[46:03] And I'm not talking about like secure parking, but just to not have rain and snow dumped on your your bike. You might. I could imagine employees and regular workers there, leaving a bike on site for their own personal use while on site, and the difference between having it covered and uncovered is is pretty phenomenal, so I wouldn't encourage. yes, secure bike parking, but also just sort of covered parking and more comfortable parking for for bikes and micro mobility. curious whether there's a lot of talk about added pedestrian pathways. And you know there's some bike circulation plan on this but how that interacts with a rap a ho avenue it it appears that you're planning to incorporate with the multi use path, and so that way. That would, I think, mean a raised crossing, so that the multi-use path doesn't dip at this intersection

[47:04] is, is, it might be too early to to weigh in on that or it might be too fine grain to detail. But I would encourage any connection with the multi-use path that's on a Rappaheo avenue to remain at grade So that a rider on or a user of the multi use path doesn't have to dip, and someone crossing the multi use path. A driver or cyclist has to encounter some kind of change in elevation. and and I think that's about all that I have at the moment. It looks like a lot of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities are just basically in and out of Arapaho, and not really connecting to neighboring parcels. That's probably just the nature of the beast here, but to the extent we can encourage flexibility and openness, and maybe in the landscaping plan or the grading so that as adjacent parcels develop. it will be easier and seamless, and relatively not have to undo any work. To connect to those parcels, to create some alternate connectivity. O away from a Rappaheo avenue which we know is kind of a hostile walking and biking environment. I would encourage that.

[48:12] That's it. Thank you. Thanks, Tila. I think the one thing I'd like to flag is that we're very publicly spending hundreds of millions of dollars on transit investments along this corridor. And so it's a little disappointing. It's kind of feels like either the applicants isn't aware of that upcoming opportunity to be less car dependant, or we've overestimated the market demand for transit. Along this corridor there seems to be a little bit of a we've as a region sub region. We're spending hundreds of millions on this corridor to cut back on thin commuters and

[49:00] at a place little office people were having no parking reductions. Something seemed kind of off there till sorry I forgot I have one other item on this, and that is, you know, as an empty lot. Of course this parcel is is generating 0 vehicle trips right now. Which is a little unfair to to like. Compare it to what they're anticipating. For you know daily demand. But it cannot possibly be said, in my opinion that this development will reduce single occupancy, vehicle trips. So I think that that lends a little bit more credence to saying we need stronger transportation demand management on this site than we might otherwise be expecting or or anticipating. So again, just encouraging the applicant to really rethink, and I think, strengthen their their claims on sov diminishment and transportation demand management, and and all that is tied with the parking. Application. Thank you.

[50:10] Anyone else from tab. Alice, can I? I'm sorry. Can I do one more? Yeah, I just thought of something. So this is also the applicant. So much is is for I guess, for council. Think about maybe planning board. II I don't know what's in the economic calculation of that. The parking like this is good for the, you know, make sense from the investment standpoint. But intuitively, I think that there is probably there are probably a lot of assumptions and calculations that are based on like, what's the what's the future market of boulder? For, you know, resale value and whatnot. And so that feels to me related to the types of policy that our city council is pursuing. If we are sending a signal that we're going in a firm direction of creating a true multi-modal system in which transit and safe streets to walk and Vic on are Co. Equal with cars. That would be sending is, you know, a signal to developers. That's the kind of place that's gonna be the kind of place that

[51:19] is building for that kind of a footprint of use is gonna have the highest value. So to me, that's a that's a statement for council and for the planning board and to say to some extent, the city maybe, is not sending the right economic incentives. If a developer building a state of the art facility in in what we think of as a transit rich area on a network of multi-use paths is looking at the investment fundamentals is not thinking that this is any. You know that if this needs any parking reduction, we're we're not. We're not sending right signals as a city. So believe it that thanks, Ryan. I don't try to straw pull tab members

[52:00] who all would think it'd be fair to say that the application is not consistent with our Tmp goals. I don't have enough to say that I feel a little not sure about it, but I don't. I don't have enough to say this conflict. Yeah, II kind of struggle because I, on the one hand. there's like a better scenario I could envision, but I feel like also that reaching the Tnt goals is constrained by other policies we have in place that lead to the development being as it is. And so it's a bit hard to say. You know, that the development I don't think it's development a problem so much as like. There's a series of other issues and regulations that require things to be done a certain way that make it difficult to reach our Tmp goals. So so I don't. So II can't. I feel like there's not not much that can be done to the development to address that, since the problem lies elsewhere. Okay, well said. And I think we'll have.

[53:00] So the the direct, the feedback for counsel in terms of the proposal, we won't have anything specific, but the the issues that you outline, Becky. Those are things that we're actively working on. And so I think that helps motivate some of the other initiatives at this board identified in our past retreat. I think. In particular, our parking policy is so outdated. Just the the number of parking spaces we were assuming are required. Are are sort of based on old thinking that we were hoping to undo with our, you know, latest, and next to latest TMP updates, and that means sort of more aggressive Tdm. More aggressive reductions and single occupancy vehicle. And that means more aggressive reductions in the ability for people to drive and park. They're single occupancy vehicles. So the fact that this development is playing along by the old rules means it is not progressive enough in the direction we were hoping to guide. The city's growth and change and and the Tmp, that's why I think it's not consistent with our Tmp goals

[54:09] sounds like a great thing to say to counsel as we try to flag the parking Coder form. So do we? Do. We want to have someone from Tab come to planning board when this is discussed, so that you know somebody when who was here for this discussion, is able to speak to some of the deliberation at planning board or and or at council. You can. So as of now this it's a call up item. So really it's it's a staff level approval, and then planning board has the ability to either call it up for a public hearing or not. And if they call it up for a public hearing, they basically have to make a finding, or somebody has to kind of give a reason why they feel like it's not consistent with the Site Review criteria. So if they, if they don't want to call it up, then there's not really an opportunity

[55:00] to speak to planning board about it. And if they do, then there's a public hearing. I honestly don't know the policy about about kind of having Advisory Board members comment on applications at public hearings for callup. So II can't really advise you one way or the other. I I'd say you could come, it wouldn't necessarily. It wouldn't necessarily be for Tab to speak affirmatively about it. But to be available to answer questions and if we are too late unless planning board decides to hear our input to make any input. Then I question Ryan's, you know, or I second Ryan's question right from the beginning like, what? What are you asking us and why? It seems pointless to invite us to give input if that input doesn't even need to be recorded or or reflected upon, or debated, or anything things that we said. Yeah, I'll just sorry I was just gonna say, III do want to say that your your input definitely gets input into the packet that goes forward to planning board. Right? Chandler, can you confirm? Yeah. So I'll I'll summarize all the input that is received tonight.

[56:15] And and so I think it's just a question of, because this still really is kind of new process for for the departments and for the city and council, and so I think if it does get called up at planning board, I imagine there would be an opportunity for somebody from Tab to be present and answer questions. You know that's certainly something that we can do to let them know that you're there if they call it up and have a public hearing. I think that makes you know that would be appropriate and kind of fits into process that we've done in the past. So II just wanted to offer that clarity cause. II do think while we we are still kind of struggling with this process where Council recommends these things to come to other boards because it it feels just still still a little bit unstructured for us, and a little vague.

[57:14] they're they are hearing your input and and planning board is, too. So I think we just haven't totally dialed it in yet. I appreciate that, Natalie. Thank you sake. What's the date? May I request an email to tab when that date becomes known? In case one or more of us is interested in attending and being available. Thank you. Training. Thank you. So as a suggestion and thinking about, you know all of our goals and long term, and I know this may sound like something completely out there, but you know these infrastructures do exist in more progressive cities, so could there be any consideration to allocating some of this parking to bikes.

[58:07] so we could have that as something to tap into if the growth goes as planned. I mean, II would defer to the applicant. yeah, we're generally not. It's just the thought, I think, that you know it's I want to believe that we will need more bike parking than car parking. Yeah, I mean, II agree I would love it if our parking requirements went down and our bike parking requirements went up. But right now I'm just kind of we're constrained by the regulations that are in place. So it's really up to the applicant. If they if they want to reduce the parking and increase bike parking if they're meeting all the code stuff we don't, we can't really tell them to add more bike parking and take away car parking, unfortunately.

[59:00] Well, at least then. I second what Tila said about making sure that there's protected bike parking for the people that are working and need that. Thank you. Good suggestion. So sounds like Shannon. You'll have individual feedback from us. No action by the board when it comes to reporting back to planning board, and then sounds like there's some shared confusion, slash suggestions for city council. When we do this in the future. Yeah, I know. And we have questions like, do you agree with this? The proposed changes to the connections plan like, that's something for us to directly react to I think in the past, we've typically had something to react to. And that's helped frame our conversation. So if they can be a little more explicit. I want to ask, cause, I think for your sake, more than ours. Yeah. Benefit us all. Yeah. And it's worth. We're we're trying to get it. So that like, it's also kind of awkward when

[60:06] when projects aren't required to come to tab until they're already in Site Review. right? So they've already spent a bunch of money on file designs. And you know they're they're in the actual process of seeking an approval. They've been through 2 rounds of staff review. And then we're bringing them to you guys as an advisory board. What we're what we're trying to do is is get it. So that if it's referred in concept review that they're required to come to tab before they submit for Site review. So that they have the ability to, you know. Take all this feedback and put it into their first round of plans that they're submitting for review as opposed to trying to change it like midstream. So anyways, that's that's something we've been discussing internally as staff as well. And then we're gonna Try to formalize shortly here. Yeah. Sorry to drag this on, but I just wanted to be really crisp with the executive summary for city council.

[61:01] because this may just go into the minutes, and that's it. And it's that I think there's a I would say, a finding here that the 5 members of Dab I think all 5 of us. Will felt a little. All felt a little surprised that in in late 2,023 we have a developer building, a state of the art project. not seeking, not even asking for for car parking reductions. And there's some discussion we have, determined that that we do not have city policy is not yet providing incentives encouragement sufficient to to drive developers to do that. And I just think we should be. We talked about parking, and that's fine. But like the headline is we we. Our city policy is not driving that type of behavior. And we're a little bit flummoxed that that's still happening. So I hope that somehow, in the minutes that's not thanks, man. thanks for joining us tonight, Chandler, and to the applicants and the rest of the team working on this.

[62:05] Thank you. Have a good evening. Here's off. That includes agenda. Item 5. We'll move on to agenda. Item 6. So our semi annual update on vision 0 crash data presented by Devin. Jocelyn. Thank you, Alex. I appreciate the introduction. Let me pull up my presentation. Okay, well, good evening, Tab. My name is Devin Jocelyn. I'm the city's principal traffic engineer, and I'm here tonight to provide an Update on crash trends and vision 0 action plan implementation. Tonight I'll walk through 4 main things. I'll first provide a severe crash summary. I wanna review the 2023 severe crash trends to date. Also provide an update and some insights on ebike crash trends. And this provides ebac ebike crash trends dating back to 2016.

[63:11] And I'll provide an update on action plan implementation. There's a lot of exciting things going on with that that are already underway that I wanna share with you. And finally, I'll identify next steps for future tab updates. so wanted to start with a summary of total crashes that have occurred this year. And note that this slide includes all crashes that have occurred citywide from January through August 2023, and these include property damage only crashes as well as crashes that have occurred on private property. There have been 1,080 total crashes citywide year to date through August 2023. Compared to the same period in 2022 total crashes in 2023 are down, 97, the reduction of 97, total crashes in 2023. Compared to this same time period, on 2022 corresponds to an 8% decrease in total crashes.

[64:14] Even though the primary focus of this update is on severe crashes. It is important to understand also how total crashes are tracking this year compared to prior years. This gives a sense of the bigger picture and illustrates how we are tracking on the vision 0 objective of reducing other types of crashes. Any crash, whether injuries occur or not, has cost to society and can disrupt our lives. Understanding total crash numbers also helps give context to the percentage of total crashes that result in serious injuries or fatalities. And just as refresher in boulder, we call severe crashes those that result in serious injuries or fatalities.

[65:00] I wanna note here also on this slide some of the longer term trends that we've seen relative to total crashes in the city. Total crashes have been decreasing since reaching a high of 3,074 total crashes. In 2016 there were 1,788 total crashes in 2022 representing a 42% decrease in total crashes in that time period. So I'll move now to providing an update of severe crashes, and these next few slides will run through a lot of the data and trends that we've seen this year relative to severe crashes, and again, severe crashes are those that include serious injury or a fatality. This slide compares the monthly severe crashes that occurred in 2,022 to 2,023. Note that the severe crash data only includes severe crashes that occurred on public streets, and this excludes any severe crashes that may have occurred on private property.

[66:12] So far this year there have been 40 severe crashes. 3 fatal and 37 serious injury. and that's city wide year to date through August 2023, compared to the same period in 2022. Fatal crashes in 2023 are up 3, and serious injury. Crashes are up 6 you'll see that the number of severe crashes varies from month to month. and is quite frankly hard to predict. Therefore it is difficult to estimate how 2023 severe crash totals by year's end will compare to 2022 in 2023. The number of severe crashes per month has ranged from 3 to 8.

[67:00] If this pattern were to hold, 2023 would end up relatively comparable, albeit perhaps slightly higher than 2022, but likely still lower than pre-pandemic years, which experienced more than 60 severe crashes per year. On average. this slide shows how severe crashes are occurring by mode, and we see that most severe crashes involve a vehicle with another vehicle. Although severe crashes, that involve a vehicle with either a bicyclist or pedestrian, are each very similar in number. and the most common severe crash types that occur include crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists. fixed objects, right angle crashes and approach turn crashes. This slide shows the location of severe crashes this year by street classification.

[68:04] So far, in 2023, over 75% of severe crashes have occurred on either a principal arterial or minor arterial. and you'll recall from the same streets folder report. The finding that 67% of severe crashes occurred in an on an arterial roadway for the period between 2018 and 2020. So we're actually seeing even a slight increase so far this year that even more crashes are occurring on arterial roadways, and we've seen in the past. and you can see that collector and local streets taken together represent 7% of severe crashes, while sidewalks and multi use paths together represent 6% of severe crashes. This slide shows the location along the transportation system where severe crashes are occurring. and you'll see that most severe crashes occur at either signalized intersections

[69:07] or along roadway or multi-use path segments. This slide shows the age range of the at fault driver or roadway user. And you'll note that that varies but most range from 20 to 29 or 30 to 49. This slide shows the age range of all parties involved in severe crashes. You can see that this is distributed mostly across 3 a age ranges spanning from 20 to 64. And what I wanna highlight here is that trends to date in 2023 indicate that fewer youth and older adults have been involved in severe crashes compared to the trends we saw noted in the safe streets. Report for the period from 2018, through 2020.

[70:07] I wanna transition here and discuss briefly the 3 fatal crashes that have occurred within the city to date. You'll see the dates and some a high, level information about those crashes listed here on this slide. I'll note that the investigations for the 2 fatal crashes that occurred in August are still ongoing, so I won't speak to specific details of those tonight. But I do want to acknowledge the 3 people who lost their lives in these 3 fatal crashes this year. and just to remind everyone that these people are not just numbers. They are our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, and friends. and they've been killed in the course of the every day act of moving from place to place. The impact on their families, friends, and communities is immense and permanent. Let's take a moment to remember the lives of

[71:14] Dusanka, Zupansky, 65, Owen Eldridge, 19, and Brett Christensen 45. Oh. want to transition to talk about some ebike crash data. This was compiled by staff in response to a request from City Council, and we shared an ebike safety update with City Council and an information packet. At the October fifth, 2023 Council Meeting. But I thought it would be important to reiterate some of that information here tonight at the Tab meeting

[72:05] For those that are interested that may be listening in tonight. The full. You bike Safety memo can be found on the city Council website. If you look at the agenda for October fifth. The memo is available there. So I'll walk through this table and you'll see first of all, that it does include data from the period 2016 through 2023. And the data that we had in 2023 goes up to mid August 2023 and you'll see. The left column indicates kind of the severity of crashes ranging from fatal serious injury, minor injury, possible injury and property damage only, and then the columns to the right indicate the number of crashes within those

[73:00] severities by year. So you'll see down on the lower right corner of the table that there have been 32 total ebite, total e-bike involved crashes that have been reported since 2,016. And again. This is all citywide crashes and that in 2016, through 2022, the number of E-bike crashes each year ranged from one to 6 but so far, in 2023 there have been 10 evic related crashes. So 10 of the 32 for the period from 2016 to 2023 year to date have occurred this year, and 2023 we'll see in the top rows of the table those show that there have been no fatal crashes, involving involving e-bikes during the time period analyzed. There have been 8 serious injury crashes and 15 minor injury crashes.

[74:04] There have also been 7 possible injury and 2 property-only damage crashes the bottom rose the bottom row at the the bottom row. Excuse me. Shows the percentage of e bike crashes as compared to crashes involving all bicycles this, percentages ranged from 0 point 5% to 4.7% for the years 26 through 2022 but you can see that so far this year, e bike crashes relative to all bike crashes are at 20.8% based on the data reported so far in 2023. What I also want to point out here is that Staff looked closely at where these ebike crashes were occurring, and we did not see any correlation between crash location and proximity to schools.

[75:02] And it's really too early to draw other conclusions about the data and recent trends. This is something staff will continue to monitor as new data becomes available. this slide provides a summary of ebike-related crashes by mode involved. And we see that O over 80% of ebike crashes that have been reported since 2,016 have involved an e-bike with a vehicle. Only 2 crashes have involved an E bike and another per bike. 0 crashes have involved an E bike and a pedestrian. This slide shows the age range of all parties involved in ebike crashes. and you'll see that no ebike crash crashes dating back to 2016 have involved persons under the age of 15. Most people involved in ebike crashes over between the ages of 20 to 64, with an about equal split between those age ranges respectively.

[76:13] So I'll transition away now from the crash data trends and give you an update on vision, 0 Action plan implementation. And just keep in mind again that the Vision 0 Action Plan was finalized earlier this year in May, and that the plan covers a 5 year time period from 2023, through 2027. And this is just a reminder. For all those listening that the Vision 0 Action Plan categorized actions into 4 main groups. The first is to implement and improve engineering solutions. This includes things like updating our single practices, reviewing and implementing more pavement markings and signing, taking a closer look at right turn, slip lanes and reviewing crash data and pursuing grants to receive funding to do projects within the plan.

[77:11] This first category included the bulk of the actions within the plan. 9. Total actions, although that 9 included. Many sub actions as well. Broken out in the table that you'll see on the next slide. The second category was to pair engineering with education and enforcement. The third category was to improve internal vision 0 practices. And the fourth category was to improve vision 0 data and transparency. What I'll say here is that this table summarizes the action plan, progress to date and to date. Staff has initiated efforts on 26, of 34 actions. The plan identified 2 actions for implementation 2023 other actions were identified as either ongoing or to be completed within the 2024, through 2027 timeframe

[78:11] and just as another reminder as well the the overall structure of actions within. The plan focuses, first on updating key practices, then implementing those practices, first across the high risk network, then across the remainder of the trans transportation systems. So many of these actions are dependent on a prior action being completed. This table again shows the status of the actions. Green indicates that an action is on track to be completed or has been completed. Golden indicates an action is underway, but less than 50% completed. Gray indicates an action has not been started. and you'll see that most of the actions that haven't been started are identified for future years. Or, again, they may be dependent on another action being completed in a prior year.

[79:03] and I would say that, given the recent completion of the plan, things are well underway and staff will be adding the 2024 actions into our work plans to ensure successful and timely completion of them. The next few slides will provide more key details on key progress on actions within each of the 4 categories of actions identified in the plan. So you'll see here that these actions have to do a lot with signal timing changes or implementation of no right turn on red restrictions. They also have to do with implementing high priority, low cost solutions. That are identified within the the action plan as well as higher cost solutions that were identified in the plan and the work on the core arterial network. And what I'll say here is that the the action plan was

[80:03] really instrumental in developing and formulating and justifying, documenting the basis for our save streets and roads for all Grant application, which was a very sizable application. That we that will address all the high priority, low cost solutions, and higher cost solutions included in the plan. So we're really hoping that we are successful in that grant pursuit and then, relative to the baseline road phase, one can project additional elements are planned to be added along the corridor earlier this month. These include tall curb and strategic locations as well as additional delineators. and I'll note that on the Iris Avenue can project, an open house is planned to be held, and on October 20 fourth, at Foothill Elementary School. I talked about how the action plan informed the safe streets and roads for all application that we submitted. We are expecting to hear back

[81:08] on whether we received the demonstration funds that we requested for a right turn. Slip, lane design study. We are expecting to hear later this month. If we received the demonstration funds and the implementation funds that we we requested. We're expecting to hear in December. Whether we received those funds or not. and Action 7. I know. Some of you on the board are involved in the work with the speed limit, setting and signing practices. That project is well underway. And we plan to give Tab an update earlier next year on that project. These just show some photos of the no right turn on red prohibitions that were implemented recently at Broadway and Arapaho, as well as Broadway and University.

[82:05] and these show some of the work to date on the baseline road phase, one core arterial network improvements. and these show the great work that Staff has been doing to engage with the community on the Iris Avenue corridor project. actions in this category have to do a lot with coordinating with the Boulder police department. How? On crash data and various other enforcement topics. Relative to action. 11, we've been prioritizing and compiling data to support photo enforcement expansion. We have plans that are underway to add 2 additional red light running cameras next year, and we're also in the process of preparing a resolution for City Council consideration. Tentatively scheduled on December seventh.

[83:11] That has to do with a resolution designating corridors on which we would expand automated enforcement and relative to action. 15. In the plan I know. Some members of the Board were present at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Thirtieth Street in Colorado Avenue project that was held last week. That was just a a wonderful event, and it was great to see the community come together to celebrate the opening of that project. And these are some photos from that event for any of that weren't in attendance. And these are some photos of the project taken before sunrise. and they just speak to how well, let the project is, and

[84:05] just how great it is all all times a day. and this shows a member of the board and some staff from the city as well as other folks. At the State Capitol, following their testimony on the photo radar or automated Enforcement Expansion bill earlier this year. Relative to improving vision, 0 practices, I mean, vision 0 really is at the forefront of our work, and we actively work to participate in regional vision. 0 meetings. With both Boulder County and Dr. Cog. Our staff, we're proud to say, attends and presents at conferences such as nacto and the C dot, traffic, safety summit. And all this is done to really learn and share knowledge and keep up to date with industry. Best practices relative to action 18, which has to do with improving vision, 0 data and transparency.

[85:08] we are continuing to maintain and update the crash data dashboard. I do want to note here, though, that boulder police recently switched record management systems. And this has caused a momentary lag and crash data updates to the dashboard recently. and it staff are working to code a handshake between the new system with the dashboard. But in the meantime we will continue to pass along information about severe crashes in a timely manner. For next steps. We wanna hold ourselves accountable to continuing it to implement the vision 0 Action plan and reporting out on progress each year. and we'll plan to come back to the board in second quarter next year to give an update on Final 2023 severe crash numbers the results of Grant awards and more details on the status of other action items.

[86:07] So we had one question for the board tonight. That was what feedback does Tab have regarding progress on vision, 0 Action plan implementation. And for anyone who's interested and wants to reach out to learn more my contact info is here. Thank you very much. Thanks, Devin. That was thorough and insanely educational as usual. I really appreciate you taking the time to honor the the people that we lost, and bringing the human element into this. I look forward to looking through a little bit closer, or like the the table, with all of the severe crashes and the characteristics. or the the factors that that possibly contributed to those. This was a mixed bag of depressing news. But certainly actions that are being taken by staff that don't make it feel like a totally helpless situation.

[87:10] Attorney. Well, first of all, II just wanna commend Devin for such a brilliant and thorough and fantastic job, because this plan I don't know how much of. How many of you are aware. But this plan is a necessary tool to apply, for example, for the safe streets, for all Grant and other communities can lean on Devin's work in order to apply as well. That was something that was discussed that one of the vision 0 regional meetings. And so thank you so much, because your work is speaking for not only for our city, but other cities nearby that can benefit from that. And I have a couple of questions just regarding the data. And that's just for, like, I just wanted to know if you knew when you were gathering the data.

[88:08] do you have the breakdown? Of how many of the people were male or female, like as far as gender? Yes, we have that data available. I don't have it right at my fingertips, though. But perhaps before we end this discussion we can get you some information on that. That's awesome. And also, do you have any information whether any of these crashes were speed related. or how many of these were speed related. That's another great question that I don't have really available. No? Well, whenever you have it, I think I would be really interested in just seeing. But yeah, enforcement expansion.

[89:15] And we're in the process of preparing a map. That shows where the speed related crashes have occurred throughout the city, and it'll show quite clearly the corridors where enforcement is most justified. That's amazing. Thank you. Brian. We're doing questions. Now, I have a few questions, and then we'll do comments after that. Is that right? Thanks for presentation communicated data really? Well, I appreciate all the diligence.

[90:00] yeah, it's great, great presentation. So I have a few questions my first question is. I guess I'm just thinking like big picture. What do I take away from this? And II think what I saw was, we are improving safety outcomes. But I'm not sure. I mean, there's a lot of different at the end. There's a lot of steps and actions, and I guess can you? Just I mean, I don't know. Maybe summarize it so that I like in a simple way, are we like, yeah, how are we doing? And to what do you attribute that? And like, what are the few big things that you know the city should look forward to happening based on that? Yeah, great question so certainly in terms of total crash numbers. That's an area where we have seen pretty dramatic reduction in the number of total crashes that are occurring across the city. That's where I mentioned earlier, a 42% reduction in total crashes. In 2022 compared to 2016 but there's been an overall downward trend in total crashes. Since 2016

[91:13] severe crashes are, as I mentioned, a little bit more unpredictable, and can vary from year to year. For various reasons. But we have. I guess, in general, again seeing a a decrease in severe crashes that have occurred per year since. Kind of that 2016, 2017 time period. Back in those years we were experiencing about 60 severe crashes a year, and we've seemingly cut that number to, you know, 50 or less. 2021 was 46 and 2022 was 48. So we are seeing gains as well in reducing severe crashes.

[92:00] And I think it's many factors at play. I think it's not just our department that can share in the credit of that, because it is such a multi departmental approach to vision 0 that involves certainly transportation and mobility, but also planning and development services, staff and police department staff as well as the the first responders who, you know, are the ones on the front lines responding to those crashes and providing the care that those people need. In a timely and effective way to help save lives also. and so I think the action plan and the big picture is just one of the many things that we can point to. But certainly. Yeah, look, to continue to to implement pro implemented action is to make progress. Sorry to interrupt you. Okay? So just to summarize so big takeaways, improvements happening overall to lesser extent, improvements are happening with severe crashes. We attribute this to the overall kind of systems approach. That's that's what I think. Okay, thank you that yeah. And I'll just put in a plug, too, that you know a lot of this.

[93:15] certainly has to do with human behavior as well, which you know, is is difficult to control and account for and accommodate on on the transportation system. So I think there's just acknowledgement as well that each road user kind of shares in the responsibility of creating a safe system for all. Thank you. Okay, I got a few more, so I'll try. I'll try to get them in. And second one is I didn't. I'm not sure if I saw the time series on crashes or serious crashes for people outside of vehicles like pedestrians and cyclists. What does the trend look like on that? And forgive me if I missed a slide, or I don't know if you know I don't.

[94:01] I don't think we have a slide. Specifically speaking, to pedestrian bicyclist involved crashes. we had information that shows what percentage of severe crashes have involved bikes, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Is there anything? You know? I mean, it's 5 now. But just like, got the top of your head like just the general story, like, what's happening with bike and and pedestrian crashes over time. Yeah, over time. I think I'd have to point back to like the safe streets folder report that certainly provided the information for a 3 year period, which is a little better time period to look at for trends than just a kind of 8 and a half month or 8 month year period that was presented here tonight. Got it. Okay? Great. And then I final hard question, is, so this will be the last meeting we have before there's a city council, a new and a new city council. That's going to be taking off. Figure out their work plan, I mean, I you'll have some chance to re engage with them. But

[95:03] I'm just thinking about. So tab is the conduit to city council on. It's giving them advice and what do we take from this? As far as recommendations. If if if asked to go forward like from a city council level, like you know. So when we've got the cam, that's the City Council initiative that maybe re-adopted, refined, or something else. There could be other things. And II know in general it might be awkward to tell City Council how to do the business, but I guess, on the other hand. that's taps. My question to you is like, what what are the political or the, you know, high level things that could help really help, you know, assuming no constraints, things could really help to move this along. You really have the wind at your back. Yeah, that's a great question. And II certainly would welcome any other staff to weigh in as well. Yeah, I'm happy to win just appreciate the question, Ryan. I think.

[96:08] really like the work that has been laid out. An action plan is the work that we know we need to do and it will take time and resources, and you know, money and staff to do it. And so kind of you're probably tired of hearing me say this. But, you know there, there's just a matter of we have limited resources, and so we need to constantly be juggling. What is, you know, the highest priority? Where can we put our resources at any given time to be able to further the work that we have, you know, laid out ahead of us with both can and vision 0 action plan. So I think we have kind of the the guide of the work that needs to get done. And now it's just a matter of

[97:02] assigning resources, and, you know, bringing like, engaging with the community and having the conversations and that all just takes time. And and we don't have limitless resources. So we we have to. Just do that in a measured way in a strategic way. And what's gonna get us? Kind of further as quickly as we can. Okay, I think our money and specifically, money for staff would help to do more, more, faster and bigger, I guess I heard. Yeah. okay, yes, okay. Thanks. Sorry. Sorry to push you. Now. See, Alex, I just had 2 comments I can do now, or I can wait. What are you like? Okay, thanks. Thank you again, Natalie. I guess. So. This is sort of a comment. I don't have anything on the the within. Your scope is more about wider scope, and one thing I'm thinking about is You know, I think the way that vision 0 is currently we're imagining it. It's with respect to existing.

[98:04] So if you think about the metaphor of like people, you know, people crossing you don't create. You don't look. People are swimming across the river to figure out if you need a bridge, and this is sort of the story about like what's going on on the bridge. But I'm thinking about everybody who's not crossing the river. All the people who are isolated, the kids and the seniors and the others who are just not out there like riding their bikes or walking, because Iris, and whatever other materials. are just intuitively dangerous and scary, and so I guess I'm just wondering. I guess this is. This is a comment is, I would love to see an expansion of of some consideration of that in future vision. 0 work. I'm not sure if this is a question. If I'm actually answering a question you you offered. But you know, I just think it's really if it feels good to see some of the the progress is happening, and I feel really great about that. And yet still I know that. You know, a second grader or fourth grader can't free range around their own home in most places in Boulder. And there's, you know, thousands of thousands of those examples. Seniors don't feel like it's safe to go out on an electric track right now, and so can we start to quantify that a little bit more about the number of people who are isolated because the the continued you know, danger and arterials, and

[99:20] such, despite the great progress that we're seeing like exist, I guess, like the existing split in modes. so that's my first comment. And also colleagues might disagree with me. That that's the business of of the vision 0 plan here. But that's my input and the second thing is also sort of on scope is, as you were talking about the 3 deaths. I was thinking about all the wider deaths in the county, and I recognize that this is this is the city, not the county. and yet still, most Polaroids. you know, move pretty quickly outside of city limits, and it and it feels a little narrow to think about. This story is only in terms of like just the city, and I don't know that there's some obvious way that we reflect the wider county story in this

[100:04] plan or the implementation but it feels relevant to me that we, you know, if you think about the daily life of a boulder. Right? you know, or the weekly, that there might be some coordination reflected here. And we're like some contextualization here and like, how are we doing with the new Overall county and a region or something like that? So, anyway, you probably need more money and staff to We are very tied in with the county, and then the Denver Regional Council of Governments. and that they have a regional vision. 0 plan, which does look a little bit more broadly about or around the Denver metro area to understand what are the issues most agencies in the region are experiencing and what can be done to ex address those regional safety type issues? And they. They are often ones along with Cdot, who are

[101:07] kind of the leaders in developing education campaigns and things of that nature. To help address the the more regional trends that we're seeing related to Vision 0. Okay. well, I guess my, you know, going back to the county and just focusing on Magnus this white stuff. you know, I left our cip tour feeling so elated. I was so happy. II just I was in such a good place, and then Magnus got killed a couple of days later, and I just every day. I just think you know I know the energy in in the city. I know it. It's really challenging for me to convey to others that I know how much work is being put in, and how

[102:05] you know vibrant, and you know how much people really want things to change. But yet I feel that we have all this red tape, I mean. there has to be a way to cut like all these steps so we can get stuff done. And I understand there's limited budget. But but yet there's things that to me are are no brainers, and I know I don't know how we got to this place where we have to follow all of these multiple steps to get to what we want to get done. And I think we're wasting all this time. And people are getting killed in the process. And you know we we know what to do. We know how to do it. And we do have the budget to do certain things. So it's kind of like, well, do we really? And and and maybe this sounds really dumb. But you know, coming from someone that is not an engineer, and it's not in this space other than as a victim myself. Does it? Does it make sense to you guys to to like, perhaps

[103:10] not have to do all of this community engagement, I mean, I'm not saying not to do it. Period. But you know it just seems like such a long process. When we know the community, nobody's gonna say, oh, we don't want to be safer. We don't want this to be implemented. I mean, I understand there's certain things that are more complicated, but in the main II don't think anybody would object to being able to get 2.8 from Point B safely. I mean, III just don't get that. So my comment. in short, is just, is there any way to cut back on all of these steps, so we can actually get stuff done that we all want, you know, and I know we do. And you know, to to make sure that things don't continue to happen. and I don't know who that question is for or who that call. Yeah. And I'll say, I mean, I think II hear you, and I think there's certain circumstances where we are able to, you know. Certainly we kind of make our engineering decisions and

[104:16] like with the no right turn on Reds right? Like. obviously, who we had communication with through the vision or Action Po plan process. But ultimately, we're implementing rent. No right turn in reds. And there are definitely people in the community that don't agree with that implementation tool and we're making an engineering decision to implement that. So there are certain things where you know, you could say community engagement is more the inform realm. But then there are other bigger conversations and projects that really are further along on that engagement spectrum with the community where we really need to be collaborating with them and getting their input to inform any potential changes in the future. So I think it's it's a spectrum, and depending on what it is that we're implementing. We can be somewhere along that spectrum, but it you know it varies from project to project.

[105:14] No, and I and I totally appreciate that. And and I and I see how some, some circumstances in some situations would be more demanding. But maybe if we could go back and do some house cleaning on, just like the very basic, you know, like you said, like, we're, we're we're doing this. And you know, on our right hand turns and presenting the the community with data on. Why, we're doing this instead of having to go through this whole drawn out process. But in in this, in the right circumstances, right? I mean all I'm trying to say is, I think we need to move faster. and you know, and just cut down on whatever it is that's getting in the way. Thank you.

[106:00] No. Yep. Becky. thanks. Yeah. Treaty. I kinda agree, and on the sort of process piece. And I think this ties into what Ryan was asking about, too, as far as what counsel can do, and I think getting to a point of having less process requires for some kinds of actions a lot more council will. and political will behind something, so that there doesn't have to be a big conversation about whether something will be safer, but rather, you know, just the conversation is just about, how do we come adapt it? So it invests works for the community. And I think until any item, some. Some of you know that I'm like very supportive of policies that are more binding in terms of, you know, when we make a road safer, we invest in a certain level of safety. And it's not really any discussion whether we it's going to be, you know, whether it's going to be a protected Bike Lane. Because it's a big road. There will be, you know, question of how it's gonna be designed. And I think in an ideal world. That's how it works like the road will get built to whatever the plans have said is the required level of safety. But I think that can't happen when Council isn't like, or it's hard to happen when there's no policy that requires it. And Council isn't consistently behind it.

[107:23] And so I think, until one or both of those things happen that there ends up being a lot of like project by project, sort of seeing what is politically feasible. So that's my my personal opinion on it. I think that's the same true of lots of places. And why it's just gets yeah, right? Why, sometimes they get slowed down. So. Yeah, I hope I think Council's kind of started down that path, and I hope we can see more and more of that political will from council. either in the form of a policy that says, Yes, we're going to do this consistently, or that says, or at at a minimum, that they stand behind the changes that you know aspires to the plans that we have that say, yes, we need certain things on this road to make it safe. So

[108:08] so definitely in a group. Agree with you there training? I had a couple of other things, I mean, I think, echoing others. Thanks, Devin. It's great presentation. I really appreciate you bringing it to us. So we can kind of check in on all this. Really, you know, excellent data to be able to review. So thank you. I did a book question. I don't know if you have any answer to this. So I know that there were. So. There are 3 fatalities that were on city roads. And then there's one fatality that the police have in their system that happened in a parking lot. So I know that's private property. It looks like it was that in Mcguckins parking lot, and I'm just wondering if you know anything about what happened there, or if or if there's somebody I could ask to find out what happened. That crash? Yeah, the one I don't wanna misspeak. But that one, I believe, was was quite sad, and I believe it was an older

[109:07] I wanna say, woman who I think, essentially accidentally backed into or drove into a person in the parking lot. But I would need to again pull the report and confirm those details. So from my from my recollection for that private poverty. Crash that happened in Mcguckins. Devin's correct about it being an older woman. but the she actually was hit by her own car. So she left the vehicle on reverse as she got back out to do something, and the car continue rolling in to her. Okay, thank you. Veronica. Yeah, thank you for that detail.

[110:04] Appreciate it. answers that question. And One other question. I have. You know. Chuck brought it up in a in an email he sent to to tab as well. And and something worrying about is is the kind of flashing yellows that are on some of our signalizing intersections. And I know, Devin, you said you can't speech all the details of the most recent crashes in August. So I? Yeah, I can appreciate that. But from what I know, it appears that one of those was a left, or and from the table that one of them was a left hand turning vehicle with an oncoming vehicle. and so I don't know if that was, or I think maybe the table did say it was a flashing yellow. I'm wrong, but I guess I I'm just given that. We know that there's a lot of data that shows that these unprotected turns are dangerous. Both, like Boulder has a lot of crashes on left turns. There's F Hwa data that shows that these flashing yellows are less safe than protected left. So I'm wondering why we we and we have a lot of them. We have a lot of these flashing yellow lefts on arterial roads at all hours of the day.

[111:22] Is this something that we're going? We're looking at changing? Is it hard to change like, why are these things in place? I'm just if you could give me some context here that'd be really helpful. Sure. What I'll say to that is that our current traffic signal timing practices were developed in 2018, and they were developed using research from Nchrp as well as peer cities. and then kind of adapted to boulder. And I think when I say adapted, it's just we kind of tweaked the crash thresholds and and things like that to fit our context of our street transportation system.

[112:04] and we have identified in the action Plan that that is one of the signal timing practices that we want to look at next year. So we're acknowledging that research may have changed. And there could be new things to review. And and considering how we implement left, turn phasing at intersections. Okay? Great thanks. Yeah. That's that's great to know. And I'm curious. like, technically speaking, if you decide we're no longer gonna have flashing yells at this particular intersection, or on this road, or or whatever it may be. How how does that change happen like? How hard it is, how how hard is it to change how a signal works assuming you already have the assuming that flashing yellow is there? I realize there's some signalizing intersections that don't have protected left, and you'd have to change the whole lighting head. Sorry. I don't know what's called. But

[113:02] yeah. So how hard is it to to change is change how the signal works. Oh, so there, that's a that's a bit of a tricky answer. What I'll what I'll say is that largely to date. Our our practice has been based on many factors. and those include the the left turning volume, the opposing through volume, the number of crashes at the intersection the speed of the opposing traffic. The number of lanes crossed, the number of pedestrians or bicyclists in the kind of parallel crosswalk that the left turning vehicle would be turning into. So it's more so of the analysis and reviewing that data and running it through the criteria. That is the time consuming part, the the implementation of the left turn phasing, is a change to the traffic signal controller programming. And that's a relatively straightforward thing to do.

[114:03] Okay, so that last piece. Yeah. So like, if if it was decided based on the criteria, this should be changed. It could like, would it take? Of all we know? All we know is done, and it's gonna be changed. It takes. It's just like, is it a day or a week, or how like. I know, it's really specific to know how this works. it's some time to re visit the the controller programming. And then we we test the programming on what's called a bench in our signal shop, and we let it run and review that it's running correctly. And we typically do that for a week before we implement it in the field just to assure that it's gone through its full, you know. Weekly timing plan changes and everything, and the transitions are correct, and there's no hiccups in the program. So II mean, it's a little hard to put an actual like time of labor to it. But

[115:03] relatively straightforward. Once you have decided what you want to do. Okay. great, thank you. And I guess my kind of last. I have more of a comment on the left hand. I'm really the left hand or the left turn I'm signaling. I'm excited. That department's gonna look at it next year. And yeah, I think that it sounds sounds to me from what I know. Like, this is a relatively low cost way of potentially saving, you know, lives and given intersection where this technology is already in place. I do hope, as part of that we're able to figure out like what the default should be so like instead of well, if the default now is flashing yellow, and if it meets certain criteria, then we make it protected, but rather like that, if protected, is safer, which research has shown for other cities.

[116:03] that that would be the default, and then there'd have to be certain criteria met in order for the unprotected or the flashing yellow to be in place to me, that that would make sense from like a vision, 0 safety perspective, that the default is the safest thing, and then the less safe thing is the requires the criteria. So that's my my thinking, based on the research I've seen from elsewhere. That suggest that that is the safer route. But yeah, very excited for this to be looked at next year, and thank you for answering my detailed questions on it. I do appreciate it. yeah. And I guess the last thing I was just a comic for counsel, really, which is just as they're looking at these different crash numbers, particularly with ebikes, since that's an area of interest to them, is to think about the rates. So there weren't very many as many ebics in 2,016, so there wouldn't be as many crashes. And I'm not saying that's the only reason the numbers change, but that's certainly going to be a big reason. There are a lot more, you guys today, bigger percentage of the

[117:09] like feet out there. So I hope they're keeping that in mind. So thank you again for this great analysis and for bringing it to us, really appreciate it. You're welcome. Yeah, clearly giving people Ebikes, but we still need to work on places for them to be written. Taylor. Thank you. Becky. I love how you think II second, your last point, and your second to last point, and probably the third last point. But it's it's terrific to have you on the board. I definitely agree on the like. Safest design should be the default, and we should be looking at that for signal timing. For, you know, road geometry for all kinds of things. So thank you for saying that out loud and reminding us that Devin, I really really wanna echo Alex, and and appreciate you taking the time to name the victims and think about them and say they're not numbers. It's really important to me and a lot of other people in the space. So I appreciate you doing that tonight.

[118:09] My only question right now is about City Council having asked for ebite crash numbers, and I think, as Becky pointed out. Well, the stats don't feel very alarming to me. You noted that there aren't a higher incidence of crashes around schools which, and I know that this is probably part of the motivating factor for for council to have asked for the stadium in the first place, in that discussion. Here's my question in that discussion with council. Was there any sort of conclusion by staff, conclusion by council, about whether the hand ringing and concern about e-bike usage, and crash rates was warranted warrants looking at more. Or were they satisfied? Sort of with the picture? That the data is giving us. I see Natalie's unmuted. She wants to jump in on us well, only because I

[119:05] and just my mind is spinning in so we ended up submitting. They? They had a number of questions kind of around ebike safety and things that you know, kind of the current landscape related to ebike safety. So that's a very broad topic in the city of Boulder. So we ended up putting together the team put together an IP that was actually in coordination with open space mountain parks to given just ebikes on trails. And that went into their packet on October fifth. So this past Thursday. So it was only an information item. We didn't have a discussion with them. It essentially kind of what led to that was, it was, if if there's a desire for them to have further discussion after we shared that information with them. Then they're, you know. Welcome to ask for that. But we haven't heard anything since that's the middle and we were, you know, I actually didn't think about we. We could have included that as an information item for you all, just to have in your pack. It says an Fyi but now that I'm here telling you about it, it's it's in the October fifth packet for council. So you know, encourage you to check that out, cause there was a lot of great information that the team put together for that.

[120:20] Yeah, I'm just more curious. Was there a response or a way to to summarize any response from council about that information that you gave them? Not yet. If we hear something. We can certainly share that at a future meeting all the children are coming out. It's late. Why aren't they in bed? Mine are in bed. Okay. anything else. old hand? Looks like it. Okay, thanks. Again. Devin and Staff. Clearly. By the all the interest and tap questions and ideas. There's a lot to unpack here. So really appreciate this really informative presentation.

[121:06] Thank you. Lost my agenda. But I think we're on to matters first from Staff. You're meeting Natalie. Sorry. I just said that we do not have any matters under staff tonight. Yep. matters from the board. I know, Becky, you'd email us about parking. Yeah. I just wanted to give a quick update on the effort around off street parking and asking for council to put in their 2024 work plan. To update the off street parking ordinances. So let me give you an yeah update on that. So the initial language I shared tweaked a little bit. Just just based on feedback to make it clearer. But the intent is the same

[122:09] and so far we have 17 individual board members who have signed on in support from 7 different boards. And I'm still doing a lot of outreach to ports. Mainly. What I've been doing is going to their public comment. If they have a meeting in some cases they don't have a meeting this month. And then following up via email with. I'm trying to with the individual board members when possible. In some cases individual board members. Emails are not listed online, and then following up with them again a week later to see if they'd like to sign on. So. Yeah. So I think generally it's been positive. Of course, you know, via email, even like so many people responding to emails and reading emails. So that's gonna always gonna be a limitation but yeah, I think I think, even for those people who don't sign on, it's a good opportunity to sort of put the issue in front of them as something to think about, as it relates to the topic that they are board is concerned with. As one example, you know, sharing it with environmental board, I think is useful if it's not on their radar already like it should be because it has such huge implications for environmental issues. So

[123:24] and I think just the exercise of getting it. Front in front of them is good, even if people thought everyone signs on. There are a couple people who have expressed. you know, interest in revising the ordinances aren't sure about elimination of minimums, which is in our statement. which I understand. But you know, should the item become a part of Council's agenda? That will be, of course, discussed in the evolution of the ordinance. So nobody has a hard no, though. So that's good. So I think people are either, you know, have minor concerns, or just haven't responded. If if they aren't signed on so

[124:08] yeah, my goal is to do as much outreach as possible before the end of October. And then by the end of October, kind of whoever signed on. Gonna call it then, so that in there's a bit of a break during the election weeks, and then in sort of November, maybe early December. Do some outreach to Council members incoming council members, as well as those who are continuing on to share the request with them. Try to get that done well before the holidays. So that's kind of my plan right now. And I mentioned this before. But if any of you have contacts on boards that you could reach out to. That's always helpful. You know. Personal connections are always a good way to introduce an idea that otherwise, for some folks is kind of foreign and a little wonky. So it's nice to be able to hear it from somebody, you know, rather than a random email. So, yeah, going. Well, so far. So just keep checking along.

[125:05] Thanks for doing that, Becky. Really encouraging. I love it. Are there any boards you're still waiting to contact or there are a few I have not reached out to I'd say the main one like landmarks and I haven't talked to. They has some some pertinence to their work. The board of zoning adjustment. I'm not really clear on their roles, but it sounds related. So I'm going to reach out to them and possibly the University and downtown Management Commission. So I don't. I also don't know exactly the scope of what they discuss. So and there are others. I'm just in the process like I've reached out to them once, but haven't followed up yet. And yeah. a lot of people respond at the follow up point. So good job, thanks for doing this.

[126:02] Yeah, this isn't an unprecedented effort. Don't think anyone could name when the last time something like this happened. So I think this this huge left is hopefully worthwhile, and and shows the the broad interests, and how I mean, we just talk about it when it comes to transportation, community vitality that need to coordinate across departments. This is, take taking that to a whole nother level. So thanks for checking away at this. Sure, yeah, I think it's kinda nice opportunity to have sort of this, you know, proactive trying to. I know we. We try to do this in certain ways, but it's easy to be reactive when things come to us. But I think asking boards to be sort of proactive this way is maybe a little hard sometimes for folks to sort of feel that out. But also I think some folks are really excited about that opportunity. So, yeah, so sounds good. Yeah, for this or otherwise.

[127:04] No, I'm Becky. I just. I'm supportive. And I appreciate what you're doing, Becky. Thank you. Cool right. I think I saw you had something about the payment management program. Yes, so I'd like to see if I could interest anybody in a in a brief discussion on on the topic of pavement financing and which I'll just early explain, and you feel free to call me off this, if if if not of interest. But My interest was peaked listening to the Council City Council meeting last Thursday. In a in in that at the end of a discussion about how the city is fiscally constrained, how we're gonna pay for pavement financing. And it's not just the city is constrained, but as we just heard. money and money stands in the way of us, being able to literally make our streets safer. And so you know, in a similar way that I think there's an emerging recognition among a lot of people, including on our city council that parking management can do a lot of things. I think the way that we manage pavement also has some some similarities. And so, you know, I think

[128:12] the the quick. My quick thought on this is that if if everybody, if all users use and have the say, if all users of transportation use pavement the same way and have the same impact on it. This wouldn't be very, very noteworthy discussion. But, that's not the case. And I sent an email to to you all a few days ago, with a few bullet points that that I'd like to read. Just so we have it here. For the record. And then I'm gonna propose just a quick perspective and then see if anybody wants to add to it. So just just 4 things to say. One. We know that heavier vehicles have an exponentially greater impact on roads. While doing more to pollute. And it needs to the public and at the and at the upper end of the weighted personal passenger vehicles that range is increasing, yet people still have the ability generally to buy conventionally size vehicle. So we have this. This range of impacts is increasing. I mean, in terms of the the types of impacts. Users have.

[129:07] secondly, with electrification, the the range is stretching further both on the high end, with respect to say, like very heavy Suvs that have big batteries, but also with respect to the low end, and that that with micro mobility and e-bikes people, we are starting to use scooters and e-bikes instead of cars, which is which is reducing their per person impact and then maybe more of like a kind of a premise. Just to be clear, we have a lot of policy goals. That in which boulder express is an intent to significantly increase safe and effective biking and walking. So those goals include motion, vision, 0, Vmt reduction and Ng, reduction and the modes of biking and walking, if you can think of them as modes have very minimal impact on the cost of maintaining our pavement. And my final kind of bullet point here, on observations is that

[130:02] the city boulder is a real center of leadership with transportation demand management. This is a topic that our staff knows well, our council and Tab talk about. And you know we we in general should have the ability to think creatively about how to align travel, behavior with outcomes that create the most public benefit. So, to summarize all this in my mind, II think we have an interest in at least asking the question for a city and a department that is looking for ways to find money pay, Rose, which is evidently, you know a a something we really need to get our arms around. II think we have, an opportunity to at least consider, are there any innovations, or I don't know new thinking that we should offer that city council should be thinking about with respect to financial strategies and I guess I would offer. II think there's at least 2

[131:01] 2 things that I would. I would want city Council to really be mulling over, as we consider some new raising, some new slug of money. And one of those is the idea of of user design user based design. And how we do do fees. So one way or another, and maybe it's I don't mean 100% users pay one to one for their impacts. But one way or another. We start to think about ways to and to to ask users who either have heavier vehicles, probably weight based. but to some extent heavier vehicles do something more to help to pay into this. To this system. There's also mileage based and other approaches. But just the general idea that considered that there's a user based framework. We had to look at and then the other. The other conceptual idea is that we have a, we have an opportunity to be more resource, efficient in the way that we determine the overall footprint of pavement needed by the way, that we manage parking parking policy and our land use overall, and so we can control the denominator of pavement needed.

[132:11] In general and these might be things that are long term. Take a lot of would take a lot more than just what we can do as a city on this this first iteration. But I just wanted to throw it out there that II think City Council should at least be hearing, as we go through this discussion about how do we finance our next pavement that there are ways to think about this that are innovative. So I'll entertain any like agreement additions or anything else. And if nobody wants to talk about this. I'm happy to just just let it go. But I thought I'd try. Oh, okay. Ryan, I was just also going to just add. So the Transportation Legislative Legislative Review Committee actually is, you know, in the process of drafting potential bills for next session. And I can't remember which Senator Jean Sanson might know if she's listening to this. But A senator or senators actually have proposed a bill around this idea of through registration. You know, fees that

[133:18] vehicles of a certain type and size are required to pay into an enterprise fund that would then fund transportation. Improvement projects is, I think, the general gist of the of the proposed draft bill. So far. And Dean told me. It's Senator Cutter is proposing this. So I think it's being talked about, you know, at the statewide level and just wanted you to have that awareness. I did not know that Becky did, and sent me an article on that. So yeah, there's a Cpr article. thank you, Pat.

[134:00] Actually, Natalie, can I ask you while you're on the on there. Do you know, off like off hand like how to think about what is pavement costs like, whether it's an annual terms like ha! What's what's the but we have a wonderful team of people who do, Garrett is. I'm listening. He's welcome to chime in here. Around the pavement. Cost of pavement and future cost of payment. So, Ryan, IIII well, let me say, for the record. My name is Garrett Slater, principal transportation projects engineer engineer, and I understand that your your question is the cost of payment. Is that is that yeah, big big picture city council says we want all the potholes gone everywhere. Make make the pavement be smooth and awesome, like what does that cost, and how to how to think about the way that that costs. Yes, I am retic to give you a number up top my head right now, because that's a very important question, and we aren't accustomed to looking at what the cost would be to address everything all at once. But we can do some research and follow up with you soon on that, Ryan.

[135:14] Thanks for that. And I mean, this came up. This came up on Thursday. One of the council members said, Hey, maybe we should. This is a core function of the of government to to make sure potholes don't exist, and we and we should be considering it like a pavement district. I mean, that came up so like the the question of like the scope of paying for pavement is like this, is, this is now so thanks for that. Thanks for being able to give that a look. You bet. Thanks, Ren Becky. thanks. I emailed Ryan about this. But I'll just mention one of my. you know that it's hard to well to your point about the denominator, Ryan. That it's hard to separate.

[136:03] You know the the land use design from how much pavement we have, and if we have a mile of road. so we're not very many people versus a mile road, serving a lot more people because of the land uses. Then that's gonna change, like how much money everyone needs to be putting in to maintain the system. I realize that's very overly simplistic. And I definitely don't know all the mechanisms behind how the funding is generated and allocated. But, you know, I wonder there's sort of a a long term sustainability issue that seems like a lot of cities are dealing with as far as building systems that just were never maintainable cost wise, and so require a lot of sort of hard choices, or coming up with new money to satisfy something that was just never really affordable to maintain. So that's not very like practical response, I guess, in the sense of what can be done. But I like. I guess I think of as Council is really serious about having really having the resources to really maintain

[137:01] all the infrastructure. Then it's like, it's impossible to really handle that without addressing the fundamental fundamentals of how what's required to support our land. Use choices. I guess. Can I just respond and say, I think that's a really good point, Becky. Maybe there's like a third that you're to me, you're adding a third conceptual like idea in here, which is. yeah, what are the who who is generating what? What developments are generating or maintaining the need or the impact. And I just think this is one of those topics where Council doesn't necessarily know that this is like a question that they can ask. But what they do know is they don't. We don't have enough money in our departments. We don't have enough money. And so I guess I'm just yeah trying to raise that this might be a way to generate money, and it's our who, who, if not tab, then to at least, you know, try to raise some innovative thinking about it. So I think that's a good third one. and it connects to the sorry, quick comment it connects to the off street.

[138:02] Parking policy work, too, because parking isn't necessarily the highest value, like tax value. Generating use of a land often isn't. And so, if land can be devoted to things that generate more revenue. I mean again, I know it can be complicated in other ways, but like being able to build higher. Yeah, more revenue, generating things than parking lots that we force and required to be built, you know, could is one of the many ways to sort of get out some of these issues. I don't think it totally answers the question, but you could also look at the cip in years past, how much money's been allocated to the payment management program, and remembering that some of that goes to curb or work and kerb ramps. But if people are dissatisfied with the current condition more than twice as much. Maybe we can do twice as much per and maintenance. But

[139:00] I think, yeah, probably be a hard thing to put an exact number on cause, as we've seen in years past, the fluctuations from year to year. and the material prices, and then the lifetime of the infrastructure is decades long. So it's complex. But yeah, thanks for bringing this up. And I do worry about the we're incentivizing Hep's. And we know the damage that those do so might get worse before it gets better. That. Oh, you had rain. Yeah, most yeah, unless, Taylor, if you have anything. No, okay, yeah, that's it. I'm gonna write some of this down and maybe think about a way to I don't know how to share exactly. But yeah, I'm good for. Now, I maybe come back on this thanks. So ryan, I just wanted to weigh in on my general support, in the direction, you're headed, thank you. thanks.

[140:01] I had an update. I wanted to provide for standing to thirtieth in Colorado, on our on the tab cip bike tour. We stopped at the Thirth and Colorado intersection to see the 2 underpasses that were open last week. I didn't make the opening. and and it's nbsp, how much the project costs. We were told it was 12 million and a steel, because it cost the city only 4 million bucks. I suspected these figures weren't right. However, with the personnel involved in the history of information accuracy issues, it wasn't the best place to to ask that question decided to follow up after effects. and that'd be more appropriate. I followed up with Natalie, and she confirmed that it was. She confirmed the 12 million figure. I questioned why we were being told 12 when the cip material said it cost more. When we've been presented on this in the past, it cost more. And the product website said, it cost more. The website said 15.9 million. And so last week I got a response that indicated that the figure on the website was correct. So again, 15.9

[141:07] and a table with a project cost breakdown, so wanted to share a couple of things that stood out. The contribution from the city was almost 7 million, so twice what we were told on the tour. and she wasn't getting credit for a 2 million dollar contribution they made. The project was celebrated the large contributions that the see you in the city pull together as a partnership. But the number, the sum on the website was 2 million less than the sum of the CEO and city contributions in the table that was trying to clarify the, you know. Question the first place. So I followed up to see if the website should include that. So we can honor. See you and their partnership with what they contributed and got a boiler plate response without really the question being acknowledged.

[142:02] so remain confused, followed up, got a response. That the 2 million was admitted because it was part of the relocation for Z. Fiber. And therefore it can be considered a private utility cost and private utility costs typically aren't included in city budgets. For our accounting reasons. Also found it interesting to learn that there were 4 more entities that had to relocate their utilities. In each of those was a pretty significant cost. So in interest of transparency, since most of us and staff and even some community members are on the right, wanted to provide. What think the contributions were? 7.9 5 million from the city. 5.2 million from Cu and 4.7 5 from a tip grant. So the sum of that is 17.9 million across the partnership including. But then, if you pull that

[143:03] 2 million out, you get the number that's on the website for the project total. even though the fiber stuff, I believe, was ancillary to the project with the way that the geometries of that intersection worked. So why does? Why do I think this is matter? It's a very uncomfortable conversation for me. I don't like doing this. but the the project is literally set in stone, and it'll likely that remain the way it is longer than any of us will be around these some of these tunnels. You know what they last forever. and the project cost is a is a matter of facts. When someone asks how much did this project cost? It's a simple question that should be dignified with the transparent answer on the first try, I would hope, or the second try, or the third here both curious taxpayers and city officials deserve pretty basic information on what might be the most expensive city of Boulder capital project in my time on the board, if not

[144:01] a bit longer. as was mentioned earlier, almost verbatim, was the transportation mobility. The Transportation Mobility department will never have limitless resources to make the progress towards our community's goals. Like we discussed tonight with the vision 0 data, we're gonna have to best utilize our resources. And I think we can all understand each other better, and learn from discussions about cost benefit. If you ask 10 people what the benefit of a project is, you can expect 10 different answers, and that's great great to learn from one another. If you ask 10 different people how much a completed project cost, you should not get 10 wide ranging answers. and then, speaking to several of the tour attendees about the project cost both board members and community members who joined us. I was well on my way to getting 10 different answers more than halfway there. We also just received a

[145:00] an email from a community member who can send our meetings pretty often exciting a 12 million dollars project cost. People are pretty thoroughly confused. And though, I need to rehash conversations years ago. But we've been accused of of why we got to this point, but we were accused of not understanding our role support. and I don't understand how we can meet the expectations of those who have questioned us. If both sides aren't coming to our conversations in a transparent and ethical manner. it's somewhat unclear to me what the expectations of staff are in the border of ice code. There's a section called Expectations, and at times I really struggle to see how or if those are being met. We'll never be able to effectively communicate with Council on transportation policy. Our Tartar purpose. If people have to jump through hoops to get basic information it's and it only gets more complicated with. For example, when individuals in the department have not been transparent about budgets like this, and maybe some other things. Individuals in the department haven't been transparent about the structural integrity, but bridge

[146:17] an individual in the department selectively quoting a tab motion to their choosing or individuals in the department summarizing community engagement in ways that might justify their actions but couldn't be backed up with evidence. Lenari asked them to do so. and I wanna be clear cause it's been pointed out. Maybe I wasn't. I maybe haven't always been great about this. My concerns aren't. They? Don't apply broadly. I have no reason to think that most staff members are doing anything but an honest job that is in the best interest of our community. My currents are relatively isolated, but they've been going on for years and years. We've talked about this from time to time. and I feel this is an appropriate forum to voice them, because some individuals on staff choose to use this forum in ways that undermine not only tab but their coworkers and the community members who take the time to tune in this.

[147:10] and the individuals who ever see the department resources like tonight are continuously telling city officials and taxpayers that the department is underfunded. and that more progress on our team goals is dependent on more funding as how it's historically been framed. and I would hope in the case of this capital projects and all projects that they're willing to be transparent about resource implications. and willing to engage in meaningful discussions on benefits. If individuals on staff tab counsel anyone throughout the community wanna celebrate this underpass and protected intersection project as a cost, effective partner project partnership project. They're obviously welcome to do so. I, if I long join in the others who we've heard from over the years, who question the cost effectiveness of spending

[148:00] somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 years of non-maintenance improvement budget on a single intersection. One intersection that in the last 6 years has been the location of 2 of our 300 severe crashes we're obviously welcome to question. That is a database approach that is spending our money wisely. So at this point, let's most concerning to me this recent project is that the 2 individuals within the department most responsible for overseeing our transportation tax dollars either had the courage to throw themselves a public celebration last week with while lacking the courage to tell us clearly how much they spent. or they didn't actually understand how our tax dollars were being spent. But we're making some pretty strong assertions about what had been done moving forward. It's really exciting the conversations that we're about to have on some potentially transformative projects, conversations that are gonna be between

[149:05] tab and staff, between staff and council counsel and tab community members waiting in the whole time. And I worry that those will be at risk of succeeding if we don't respect one another and hold ourselves to reasonable expectations. And so, maybe, and on a slightly high note. It's great to finally have an A/C grade intersection in the city. I think we probably would have been a later 10 years ago. Well, on our way 5 years ago. I'm hoping we can learn from this one, though we can anticipate. I've heard great things and some small concerns, I think are, we can take care we can take into consideration in the future and hopefully improve this sort of this sort of accurate infrastructure, and then below grade. Of course I still haven't seen it, but I saw some videos of somebody passing through the underpass. And it's it's gorgeous. It looks expensive, certainly.

[150:00] So it'll be here for. like so much longer than us people will enjoy it for sure. But yeah, just getting back to what I tried to raise a few years ago at the whole ethics. Candor, transparency. This feels like the latest in a isolated but recurring thing that undermines all of our efforts here. Well, I'll respond. Thanks, Alex, since I'm one of the 2 people that you're talking about. So yeah. The communication that we had. I know. Garrett, on the Cip tour, shared the 12 million dollar number and when you reached out to me I had checked with Garrett to confirm the 12 million, and he was referencing. A construction cost number from a overall construction contract. Just off the top of this head. And so we recognize that that was not the full picture and address that in the email. And I'm happy to send that whole email chain to the entire tap board and then, as we kind of broke down all of the costs that see fiber 2 million was

[151:13] not in the 15.9 for the reasons that you explained and the reasons that we explained in the email. So definitely recognize that there's a need to just make sure that we're talking about the total project cost consistently. I think we were gonna update the project website. If we haven't yet, we plan to do that to just lay out all those costs, and including the Cu fiber as and recognizing that there were other fiber costs, fiber relocation costs as well as part of the project. So we plan to do that and thank you for your feedback. Alex. thanks. Yeah. I'd like the the website have been updated to reflect that it was just took a while to get. I was mentioned that I was confused, and it wasn't adding up, and so I appreciate it. When I,

[152:02] on a second per third try. Got a response there. you bet. So I'm fine moving on everyone else's. These are very uncomfortable. But if our meetings are used to pass along things that need to be corrected. They ought to be corrected. I think so. If we're comfortable moving on. I know, Tony, you had an announcement at about an event that is near and dear to you. So maybe that can be a slightly more positive note for us to end on yeah. And well, and thank you, Alex, for addressing these things. I think that, you know, like in every relationship, I think we need to talk about things to make sure that you know we are all on the same page and and clear with our relationships moving forward. And II appreciate you speaking up. And you, Natalie.

[153:03] very much so. Yeah. So I just wanted to bring forward the world day of remembrance. I have been very grateful for all the support that the city has offered the world day of remembrance in the past. And it's gonna be the third Sunday of November, as always. We're working with some families. To make sure that this day is memorable, and I will give more updates in the next tab meeting. But if you can, you can please make sure to mark your calendars, because we would love for all of you to attend. And yeah. so third Sunday of November the nineteenth is that? Yes. looks like it. Just put it on my calendar. Thank you. And during the day it won't be at night. I will not do that anymore. So for a day event, hopefully, we'll get a nice and sunny day.

[154:09] So hope so. Yeah. any other items under matters not ceiling, as always feel free to reach out, if you have any for next month. Speaking of next month that 10 of things on our agenda at least, are the annual snow ice program removal and then decided to get going on the conversation about photo speed radar enforcement resolution. yeah. So 2 things that we heard from community members to a degree about earlier today. So hopefully, if they're still with us tonight, they might tune in. Then with that entertainment motion to adjourn. I second.

[155:00] who was the first I moved. We adjourn. hey, Ryan? With the motion, Tony with a second, all those in favor unanimous of favorites. Thank you everyone for staying on late, and we'll see you all next month. Thank you. Thank you.