August 11, 2025 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] Starting the tab meeting. Alright, Darcy, all yours. Okay, thanks so much. Hi, everyone. I'm calling the August 11th meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board order. Our Chair, Trini Willerton, is not able to attend tonight, so as Vice Chair, I will run the meeting this evening. My name is Darcy Kitching. Veronica Sun is our technical host. Veronica, would you like to review the rules of the virtual meeting, please? Yes. All right, thank you for joining the Transportation Board meeting. To strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security, the following rules would be applied for this meeting. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the City of Boulder. Activities that disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time for speaking is limited to 3 minutes. No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding, and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting using the person's real name. Any person believed to be using a name other than the one they are commonly known by will not be permitted to speak.

[1:10] Please use the raise hand function to be recognized for public comment. If you're on your phone, you will need to press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. No video will be permitted except for the city officials, employees, and invited speakers and presenters. All others will participate by voice only. The technical host at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rules. The Q&A function is enabled. It will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should be used for technical and online platform-related questions only. If an attendee attempts to use the Q&A for any other reason. Then seeking assistance from the host, the City reserves the right to disable the individual's access to the chat. Only the host and the individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screens during the meeting. Thank you. Great, thanks, Veronica, I appreciate it. So our first order of business is to approve the minutes from our two meetings in July.

[2:08] … So we have minutes from, our meeting of July 14th. 2025, that was a regular meeting. … Do TAB members have any comments or corrections to the minutes? No? Okay, does anyone want to move to approve the minutes of the July 14th meeting? I move to approve the minutes of the July 14th meeting. Thanks, Mike. A second. Okay, great, awesome, thank you very much. And let's go to the, minutes of our tab orientation session on July 24th, 2025. Any corrections or notes, on that? I assume everyone's had a chance to review all the minutes. Excellent. Good. Okay, anyone want to move to accept?

[3:05] The… Minutes from the TAB orientation meeting. I'll move to approve. Okay, thank you, Hannah. Second? I'll second. Okay. I think I can second, I'm not sure. I was gonna give Michael a chance, but, …. Yeah, I did, I guess I'm… I'm not on mute, am I? No, no, we hear you. I think… I'm sorry, I think it's the last one, I didn't, do a sort of raise hands to approve, so… Let's… let's go through the whole process to, … okay, so… we've… Moved and seconded to approve the minutes. Any… … … Okay. All in favor? Raise your hand. For both of them?

[4:03] Hi. Can we do both of them, Meredith? Okay, great. All in favor of approving both sets of minutes. Bye. Bye. Excellent. Okay, we approve both sets of minutes unanimously, 4-0. Excellent. Okay, we do, this evening, have two public hearing items. So at this time, we can welcome public comment that does not have to do with the two public hearing … Items on the agenda. Veronica, do we have… I guess, how do we… how can we do that? Do we have any general public comment to take at this time? Let's see… if anyone who would like to speak at this time, if they could raise their hands using the raise hand function.

[5:00] We have two people with their hands raised. Lynn Siegel, could you confirm you're able to speak? Yeah. Perfect. So… I talked to Ernan this week, and I realized, we've spoken before about… he's in aerospace, my dad was in aerospace, but, you know, if we could only get around that way, that'd be great, but I live in Boulder. I can't afford to use the plane to get around. I have to use my bike. And when I use my bike, and I go rushing down Spruce to get to another city meeting on time. I have to slow way down to get through all the ruts and crevices and stuff in the streets. And then my glass bottle jumps out of my cage, because I don't mess around. I go fast. And I don't have electric assist.

[6:03] I use my legs. And… I don't appreciate it. I like a smooth ride. And, … You know? In Gaza, we're killing… Babies trying to get some water, you know, every day. And that money, all that money that we're spending. On this endless war, Could be used for smooth streets in Boulder. That's the fact. So the best thing you can do is say, free Palestine, get out of Gaza, Fix this war situation. You know Greater Israel? They want Sudan, too. Lebanon, Syria, every… it's called Ezrat Israel. Greater Israel. They want the whole world. And they're going through the U.S. to do it. And I don't want to give it to them. I want my streets flat.

[7:01] It's not off-topic. So, do something. Give me my streets, you know? And, like, Stop the endless Pronatalism from Elon Musk. You know, that's affecting me too, because I don't like to go out to 28th Street, because it's a nightmare. It's just fast cars moving everywhere, and I want the peace and quiet of my West Boulder neighborhood. But I have to go there if I want to get any good stuff at the Whole Foods, because the Whole Foods by me doesn't have much. So… You know, make a real 15-minute neighborhood. Make it so… The neighbors are all sharing or trading vegetables, so I don't have to go down to 28th Street. But instead, what's happening is all at planning board. But you're not there.

[8:02] You're not there. You just have to experience all the subsidies they give to these developers to build more and more higher-end places with more and more homeless, more and more congestion. Thank you, Lynn. It looks like Jenny has… their hand up. Jenny, could you confirm you are able to speak? Yeah, I am able to speak. I, I do want to speak about one of the, topics on the agenda, so I wasn't exactly. Jenny, just if you could wait until we get to that agenda item, there will be time for public comment as part of each public hearing item, so if you could hold your comments until that time? Sure. Okay, thank you so much, I appreciate it. Anyone else, Veronica? It doesn't look like anyone else has their hand up for public comment.

[9:01] Okay, thank you very much. And tonight, just before we get into the first public hearing item, I did want to acknowledge that, in the past week, we have had a serious injury crash in the city, and it is our tradition on this board to acknowledge, serious injury and fatal crashes, with… this was with a, a bicyclist. Valerie, I don't know if you can or would like to say anything else about that crash, just for us to hold space for this incident. Thank you, Darcy. This is Valerie Watson, Interim Director, Transportation and Mobility. Yes, last week there was a serious injury crash involving a bicyclist, struck by a person driving, a vehicle on Edgewood. I think the information we have at this time is that the bicyclist was transported to the hospital, and we're in critical condition at the hospital, but I don't have any other information to share regarding the crash at this time.

[10:08] With every crash that we experience as a community that, results in a serious life-changing injury or, a fatality, we do try to work as quickly as we can with our police, partners in Boulder Police Department, just to understand the circumstances of the crash, ensure if there's anything that we can do, You know, in the field, we always take a look at those locations, and so at this time, we're still waiting on information from our partners at Boulder Police. It takes a while to process the police reports. But I really appreciate you raising that, Darcy, and holding space for those affected by this crash. Thank you, Valerie. Yeah, I think it's important for all of us to be aware of what's happening, and just to make sure that we acknowledge

[11:00] … these events. Okay, so let's move into, our first public hearing item. Tonight, we have a public hearing regarding the Residential Access Management Program, or RAMP, The neighborhood parking permit zone amendments. Tab will be asked to make a recommendation to see Council tonight. We'll hear staff's report, ask clarifying questions, and then open it up for feedback from the public. You'll be given 3 minutes to address the board on this topic, after which TAB will deliberate… we will deliberate and form a recommendation to Council. Valerie, would you like to introduce this item? Thanks. Darcy, I'm gonna hand that right over to Samantha Bromberg. Hernan, did you have a question? Oh, nope, okay, he's good. I'm gonna hand that right over to Samantha, thank you. Thanks, Valerie and Darcy. Let me just pull up my slides real quick.

[12:02] And… put it in presenter mode. Alright, can everyone see my screen okay? Alright, cool, thank you. Good evening. Members of TAB, my name is Samantha Bromberg, Senior Project Manager. Thanks for having me here tonight. I'm here today to seek feedback on potential NPP zone amendments to the zones of High Sunset, Columbine, and Fairview. Just a little bit of background before we get started. Adopted by Council in 2021, the Revitalizing Access in Boulder work sought to redesign parking management in Boulder. The main tenets of the new Residential Access Management Program, which is the umbrella program for the NPP, are as follows, annual monitoring of the program. Strategic and data-driven approach to how we make changes, income-qualified discounts for those residents who need a little bit of extra help, for the program to achieve cost recovery and not be subsidized from the general fund.

[13:11] to phase out existing NPPs that do not meet key metrics, and finally, to achieve community reinvestment, specifically in mobility initiatives. Goals 1 through 4 have already been implemented, and we are focusing tonight on that fifth item in the list. Though it is important to note that work has begun on that sixth item, the community reinvestment item. In the form of the proposed pilot in Goss Grove, which we spoke about while TAB was delivering the elimination of parking minimums a few months back. That's in partnership with the, the TDM ordinance, which I believe, is another one of the public hearings tonight with Chris Haglin, you'll hear from later. Alright, key metrics for removing an NPP zone. We are looking at parking utilization, permit demand, and visitation.

[14:06] We regularly track parking utilization and permit demand across all of the zones in the NPP, that's part of our annual monitoring, as part of the zone… as part of the updates to the program. And to calculate visitation, we used a technology called Placer AI. Placer AI creates statistical estimates to provide visit patterns and does not track individual people. The estimates are based off of data from panel mobile devices and are extrapolated to show visitations. Using these three criteria on the slide, staff have identified three zones, which I named High Sunset, Columbine, and Fairview as candidates for further study and engagement. Now, I'll just pause for a second. Nan, you have your hand up. Did you… did you have a question, or…? That I can address. Yeah, could you provide more, background on… amps. So there's amps.

[15:02] And there's also a ramp. A ramp inside of amps. Yes, we love acronyms. Here in local government. I'm sure that you've, realized that, so far, but AMCIS stands for Access Management and Parking Strategy. It is kind of like the overall lens for all of access management and parking strategy across the city, and it's a very… that's a very wide umbrella. It encompasses everything from the Chautauqua Access Management Program. to the TDM ordinance that you're gonna hear about tonight. the elimination of parking minimums, and then RAMP, which is this Residential Access Management Program, is sort of underneath that umbrella of AMPS. RAMP was created to manage demand, parking demand in residential neighborhoods. So, yeah, this is, like, we have curbside management, which is also part of AMPS. That's for, sort of, our commercial districts, and then RAMP,

[16:00] is really for those residential areas, so the NPP, which stands for Neighborhood Permit Parking. That is one of the tools of RAMP. Not the only tool, but that's the one that's most widely known, talked about, and experienced by our residents in Boulder. So… These, …. We will have time for clarifying questions after Sam's presentation, so if you could just hold your questions until after her presentation, that'd be great. Thank you. Yes, apologies for launching into it. I know it's really confusing with all the different acronyms, and it is a super layered and complex kind of system, so… We can come back to that later. Process to change or remove a zone is as follows. First. As I mentioned, we are looking at those criterias, those key metrics, which are, you know, the utilization, visitation, and permit demand. Once we've flagged a zone for potential changes or removal, then we'll conduct community engagement.

[17:06] After community engagement, we'll come to you all and conduct a public hearing. Depending on staff recommendation and the recommendation of the Transportation Advisory Board, it'll then be approved by the City Manager and sent to Council. on consent. So that's the process. We're at step 3 right now. And I will launch right into the specifics of the zones. So Fairview NPP, it's at the south end of the city, it's just southwest of Fairview High School. You can see the parking lot at the intersection of Gillespie and Greenbrier, the parking lot for the high school. There are several segments of road in the area, both in and outside of the MPP, which do not allow parking Monday through Friday from 8am to 4pm. Those are not considered part of the MPP, and there are no changes considered as part of this process for those, restrictions.

[18:06] All homes in the zone have access to off-street parking, and non-residential use of the zone is primarily by ferry for you students. We estimate, using that Place for AI data, that there are approximately 11 non-residential visits to the zone per day. The next zone that we are considering is High Sunset. It is located east of Broadway and north of the Whittier neighborhood. I'll point out that this map shows a little bit of woodier and High Sunset. It was just the best, that I could make it, but High Street, Sunset Boulevard, those are included in the zone. It's bordered by Casey Middle School to the west, and ends in, the cul-de-sacs, I think I just said that, sorry. With the exception of small segments of 14th Street, all homes in the zone have access to off-street parking. Non-residential demand in the area primarily comes from construction activity, as the neighborhood has experienced numerous home renovations over the years.

[19:13] Previously, it also experienced downtown parking spillover. However, post-COVID, we no longer see the same demand during the week as we did before COVID. Using Placer AI data, we estimate approximately 19 non-residential visits to the zone per day. Columbine NPP is just south of Baseline and west of Broadway. To the north of the zone is New Vista High School, and crossing Broadway to the east of New Vista is CU Campus. Not all homes in this zone have access to off-street parking. Non-residential use of the zone is primarily from students. And using Placer AI data, we estimate approximately 71 non-residential visits to the zone per day.

[20:02] So, as I mentioned, as part of this process, we underwent, some community engagement. Once the zones were under consideration, … We engaged community members from each of those three zones to gather input on whether the zone should remain in place. We first sent a letter to all addresses within the zones, and then followed up with an email to all current permit holders. Both the letter and the email included details about the proposed changes, a link to a feedback form, and an invitation to an in-person feedback forum held at our offices. The majority of the feedback received indicated strong support for retaining the current NPPs. Both Fairview and High Sunset residents expressed strong support for retention of the zones, whereas about a third of Columbine residents expressed interest in zone removal. Two-thirds, obviously, were in favor of keeping it. And resident feedback was a very important consideration in the creation of the options that I'll review next, as well as our staff recommendation.

[21:12] The first option, is no changes. This is the staff recommendation. This option would retain all existing MPP zone boundaries, hours of operations, and time limits for non-permit holders, with no modifications to the current program structure. This really reflects most of the resident feedback that we heard that was Quite strongly in favor for retaining those zones. And it would retain, you know, the revenues from permit sales and citations. Alright, option 2, targeted modifications to existing zones. So this option would involve modifying the three zones that are under review. Staff evaluated both the zone boundaries and the time limits for non-permit parkers using data and resident feedback to guide proposed changes.

[22:04] Implementation would require regulatory sign removal or modification in the zones, and would require… and would reduce general fund NPP permit and enforcement revenues due to the smaller zone sizes. The proposed changes are for high sunset, not pictured on the slide, just increasing the time limit for non-permit holders from 2 to 3 hours. For VeerView, which is on the left. Reducing the zone boundaries, as displayed. And for Columbine on the right, reducing the zone boundaries as displayed, and changing the time limits from 2 to 3 hours. Option 3 is removal of zones. This option proposes the full removal of High Sunset Columbine and Fairview MPP zones. While this would simplify program administration and enforcement, it doesn't align with the strong resident feedback received expressing a clear desire to retain the permit program in place.

[23:12] So, short and sweet, I'll open it back up for questions to Tab, and I do have some motion language on the next slide, if we… if and when we're ready, obviously we have to go through the public hearing process, but, … I will take your questions at this time. Wonderful. Thank you, Sam. If you could stop sharing for a minute so that we can see, I can see the, … Hands up for clarifying questions, and then we'll come back to that motion language. So, tab members, what clarifying questions do you have for Sam? Just raise your hand. Yeah, Michael? I was wondering, Sam, if you have any idea why the Columbine residents had a different view of this program than the others? Is there something special about Columbine?

[24:02] That's a great question. Columbine is the largest of the three zones, and so I think there's just a greater diversity of folks who live in the zone. I also think that the majority of the demand that Columbine sees is mostly on the eastern side of the zone, which is the closest part of the zone to both New Vista High School and CU. So I think because most of the demand is coming from those two places, that's the area that sees the most demand, that is most in favor of retaining the zone. And the western side, I did hear some comments about… concerns about Chautauqua hikers, though the… Columbine and PP regulations and the paid parking at Chautauqua are at opposite times. They're… they're enforced, like, exactly opposite from each other. Chautauqua is paid on the weekends.

[25:00] And Columbine's free on the weekends, Columbine is managed during the weekdays, and Chautauqua is not. So, I'm not sure that concern is… … As concerning as others, but that… that's my… that is my, educated guess. to why there's… there's more interest in zone removal from… from Columbine. And is there any reason… so, presumably these zones were created For a reason, right? Because they were experiencing people parking, and is there any reason to believe that these zones wouldn't revert to those… or the same problems wouldn't re-arise in the absence of these, these zones? It's certainly possible. We have been steadily expanding the NPP program over the years, and we've never actually removed part or a full NPP zone. We've only expanded the program, and so This is the first time we've gone through this process since the Revitalizing Access in Boulder work.

[26:04] happened to create the Residential Access Management Program. This is very new to us, so there's a lot that we don't know. It's… it's very possible, especially you know, since all three are near schools, you know, that's a consideration. In particular, Fairview and Columbine that are near high schools, you know. Having managed parking in place to support the permit program that those high schools offer, so that's a consideration as well. Okay. Thank you. Other clarifying questions? Sam, I have one. I'm, … oh, go ahead, Aaron, I'll come back to mine. Okay. Yeah, could you provide some background on these neighborhoods, like, that were chosen for this MPP? like… this is, like, I guess, legacy stuff, right? Like, it seems like kind of random, like, little pieces of streets here and there.

[27:05] that are part of this MPP program. So, like, do you know how they were selected? Like… Like, the high sunset thing, it looks kind of weird on the map, you know, it's just, like, this piece of the street, this other piece of… this other loop. It doesn't seem like it's that close to downtown. not see you, so… Do you know, like, the history of that? I was just kind of curious on that… on that end. Yeah, your audio is cutting in and out, but I'm pretty sure I captured your question, which is, you know, the history of how these zones came to be. And, … the way that zones are created, the process has, historically and still today initiated via resident petition. So the residents who live in the zone, they elect to request that the city implement some kind of parking management by signing a petition. The city then evaluates the neighborhood to determine, you know, what is the demand like? Is some kind of parking management merited? And then it goes through the process of, very similar to zone removal.

[28:16] there's a proposal, there's community engagement, there's a hearing at the Transportation Advisory Board, and then it ultimately goes to Council to implement the zones. I can tell you, Fairview and Columbine were implemented, because of their proximity to schools, and so they're experiencing spillover parking from the schools, the high schools that they're nearby, and then, of course, Columbine is also relatively close to CU. It has… Columbine has been around for a very long time, and it has also expanded over the years. The boundaries have… have grown, year over year. … and High Sunset, I… I'm not as familiar with the history, but I believe it was a combination of downtown spillover parking.

[29:04] And, the construction in the area that's been kind of ongoing for many years, and still is ongoing, today. So, there's just, you know, the residents had this request for us to manage parking in their neighborhood because of the pressures that they're experiencing, the outside pressures. And that's how the program came to be, through a public process. Okay, okay. Thank you for that. My next question is, if you could elaborate on how this placer Software is used for vegetation estimates. Like, are you able to obtain street? … blood level data, Like, what do you ask from it? … Like, how do you get the values that you're getting? Like, those 20% here, 20%, 24% there?

[30:02] Okay, well, there's two different… I think there's… there's two different data sources. So Placer AI is… is, like, a newer tool to the city that we've started to use. It is… it's pretty gen… general. And basically, it tells us, you know, us… what… based on, like, a… we draw boundaries in a map, and it tells us, based on those boundaries, within those boundaries. How many… visits, and we can, you know, select what type of visits occur, and it's… and it gives it to you, for, like, one calendar… we put in for one calendar year. It doesn't get much more specific than that, because it's really… it's not tracking individual cell phones, like I said, it's more of, like, a statistically significant study, and I apologize, I'm not… I'm not super familiar with, like, all the nitty-gritty details of how it works, but basically, we took that annual number and divided it by 365, so it's not perfect, but it does help us understand…

[31:08] some of the visitation. We've struggled with this over the years, of, like, how do you determine who's a resident, who's a visitor? And we've tried a couple different mechanisms, we're trying this one. We know it's not perfect, but the percentages that you're referring to Of the occupancy, that is, data that we collect by, driving the neighborhoods and basically counting cars along the street. So that's a much more accurate representation of how many cars are parked on the street. That doesn't tell us who the cars belong to, that just tells us, you know, at any given time, how many cars are parked, relative to the capacity for that entire curb space. If that makes sense. And so we use what we call license plate readers, which are cameras attached to our enforcement vehicles, and they just are counting cars.

[32:02] Yeah, so that was my next question, like, when you said 20%, Does 20% of the block is being used for parking, or 20% of the permits issued are being used? Great question, … 20% occupancy would mean that if a curb has space for 10 vehicles, there's only 2 vehicles parked at that time. Okay, okay. Regardless of whether they have permits or don't have permits. So… One second, let me take notes… Regardless of COVID. So, this data seems weird, though. Like, these numbers seem weird. Like, if you look… the feedback on the PDF, People claim that these streets are packed. So, there's a huge discrepancy, and there, you know, I'm sure, like.

[33:01] The people who give feedback are the most vocal, so maybe they tend to… let's assume they exaggerate somewhat. But the discrepancy between the numbers and what people are experiencing on the ground is very different. That, to me, is kind of like a red flag. That means that either… like, something is wrong in the data collection, or in the data querying, or… I mean, measuring occupancy versus turnover, perhaps don't… do people see three cars parking in a short amount of time, they see that as They experience that as high occupancy. like… Basically, people's experiences are not validating the data, and that will give me significant pause. Like, you have data, theoretical, but experimental stuff is not working, so, like… something to solve, and I just wanted to, like, flag that. Because reading these comments, it does also make it seem like these streets are way more occupied than what these numbers will reflect.

[34:06] Yeah, I appreciate you flagging that concern. I think there's a couple things at play here, and I can speak to some of them, and, you know, they're not gonna answer every single… doubt. I think certainly there's always a difference between perception and reality. That's something that we experience very, very frequently in our department, that, you know, … someone's experience of things is not always, you know, it doesn't always match this number that is just a number, right? That's different from someone's loved experience. The numbers that we present in terms of the occupancy, they're averaged over an entire zone. So there could be, like, one block that's more occupied than the other 19 blocks, but it's gonna average out you know, lower, right? And so, that's… that's part of the challenge, is there's gonna be some blocks that are higher and some blocks that are lower. Similarly.

[35:05] There's gonna be certain times of day, and days of week, and weeks of year that are going to vary as well. There's trends over time that come into play. So, for example, if you visit Columbine. in the middle of summer, when school's not in session, it's gonna look very different than, you know, the first week of schools back. And so. you know, we do try to look at peak times as well as off-peak times. The numbers that I've presented are averages, but I also made sure that when I'm looking and I'm identifying zones for potential removal, I'm also looking at the peak times to make sure that they're not overly high either, and none of these zones Show extreme parking, and that very well could be because, as many people pointed out in their comments, the program is effective.

[36:01] And… and curbing people, you know, parking all day. So… you know, I think… There's definitely a real fear, that a lot of the residents have, that if we were to remove parts or all of the program, that Parking occupancy would get much worse than it is today, but… I can say that, you know, we… we didn't just go one or two times. These are, like, we go multiple times to collect data, and we do try to vary the times that we collect data to ensure that we get a good sampling. We've worked with IT to understand, okay, how many times do we need to go to make it statistically significant? We've done some of that work, so… We've done the best that we can to make it as accurate as possible, but it's never going to reflect 1000% at each minute of every day, what the picture is, because it changes so frequently. Yeah, and that makes it hard for me to give feedback, right? Like, I mean, we're saying, like, anything under 30 could probably be phased out.

[37:06] And then all the numbers say 15, 20, 26. But then people are saying all their things, so who do I trust? Like… if you want some, like, some sort of… I mean, I can give you, like, a guess, right? I guess just trusted people, because they'll be the ones complaining, but if that's the case, then why am I even collecting data at all? Like, it's useless. So, I don't know, it's just something to consider, like, to me, it's like, that's a big red flag, especially, like, it's so off. something is missing in that model, and I don't know what it is, but… Just wanted to point that out. Let's see… Oh yeah, sorry, I guess moving on to the next one, where did option 2 come from? I understand option 1 and 3, but option 2… and at recommendations, I didn't feel like they followed from anything in the memo.

[38:00] …. They're based on a combination of factors, … One is, like, we have very low parking occupancy, so we're looking at, you know, what areas most need parking management, and what areas least need parking management. So… the areas that have slightly higher parking occupancy than others, right? I said it block by block, it differs. The blocks that are closest to a trip generating destination are gonna be more parked up than the blocks that are further away. So, that's what we were looking at, was, like, the proximity to, you know, the generator of the traffic, but also, you know, just changing the time limits will allow more, … Flexibility in those people who do need to make short trips, so it'll be easier for visitors of the zones as well. And then potentially just balance out the demands of those people who are not residents, but still need access to the curb, and also the residents who need to make sure that they can park reasonably close to their home, and so they don't have

[39:08] Any sort of, undue burden of getting to their home. With groceries, or what have you. Was that from the… from the survey, like, the feedback? I wasn't sure if that's what it came from. Yeah, I mean, I think it was a combination of the feedback that we heard, but also staff expertise, and knowing these zones really well, and having visited them many times, You know, we… not only did we have the in-person feedback forum, where we heard a lot of different comments from residents. But, … In addition, you know, I worked with our parking enforcement team. They're out there all of the time, every single week of the year, to make sure that any proposal that I made was reasonable and was in line with, you know, what they believed would have been… would be best practice as well.

[40:05] Okay, so it comes from stuff. … Is this program self-sufficient? Like, the money that you guys get from ticketing and stuff like that. Offset the cost of, you know, like you said, the enforcement. Yes, at this time, the program overall is… Achieving cost recovery, which means that the revenues from permits and citations cover the cost of the administration of the program. That said, you know, certain zones perform better than others, so within the program. there's sort of, like, some kind of subsidizing going on, but the program overall, meaning all of the NPP program, all the NPP zones together. They do not need, additional subsidizing from the general fund this time, so… They're self-sufficient.

[41:00] As a unit. So I guess keeping them is, like, no harm, no foul, basically. Just makes life inconvenient for some… for the minority. But… It pays for itself. It seems like most people do want it. That's… that is why… that is basically how staff came to the conclusion that option one, no changes, was the best path forward. Okay, that's all I got. Thank you very much, I really appreciate it. It uncovered my question. So, Mike, anything to ask? No, I think everything's pretty clear from the…. Okay. Memo. Yeah, great. Well, let's move into, feed… public feedback on, … this particular agenda item. So, members of the public, thank you for your time and interest in this topic and making Boulder a better place to move around. So now we invite your feedback.

[42:00] Please use the raise hand function on your screen to be recognized and state your full name. You'll have 3 minutes to speak. Veronica, do we have anyone wishing to speak about the ramp? Neighborhood parking permit adjustments? Yes, we have Jenny. Jenny, would you be able to confirm you're able to speak? Yes, I think I'm able to speak. Perfect. My name is Jenny Schwartz, and I live at 2122 Mariposa, so right in the Columbine neighborhood on the eastern side, where it is really close to New Vista and CU. I was part of the community that helped get this, program in place in our neighborhood, especially, like, at the very beginning. It has expanded a lot. I think people started to see our blocks, and like, how'd you do that? And then they talked to us, and it started to expand and expand. I first want to say I wasn't in… I was out of the country when I got your paperwork, so I wasn't able to complete your survey, which is why I'm attending this meeting. But I'm really glad I have, because I really want to second your recommendation for option one.

[43:08] I also want to… I think your questions, Renan, were so good, and I can speak a little bit, you know, to the history, but I think mainly I want to speak to your question about the data collection. I, too, find it remarkably meaningless, because the reason that we don't have high numbers parking on our street today is because we have the permit parking in place. So however many times SAN, you know, comes and collects data, whether it's summer, fall, morning, night, it's all happening under the umbrella of, we have the permit in place. So, if you could have seen what our neighborhood was like before we had it in place, I'm sure you could understand a little bit better where I'm coming from. Not only do we have, you know, more people with what you're calling spillover parking, we have huge amounts of spillover traffic. We have huge amounts of spillover trash, garbage. We have huge amounts of spillover crime. We basically have tons and tons of CU students driving up and down our street really fast, parking wherever they can, throwing their garbage around.

[44:14] And, you know, I'm sure that's also compounded by NuVista, but in my experience, it was much more CU than NuVista-driven. I think that may be all I want to say. The last thing I want to say is, because I'm from the column by neighborhood, I just don't want to mischaracterize the data. The data is that two-thirds of our neighborhood, is in favor of retaining the program. Maybe that's less than compared to Fairview or the other, but it's still an overwhelmingly large percentage of our neighborhood, and I don't want to mischaracterize that as, like, why is Collin combine less. it's not less… it's less, maybe, than the other two, but I agree with you, Sam, that a lot of that has to do with the huge size of our permit program, and the way it was expanded over time, and the really different, you know, issues that are facing, like, east in our neighborhood compared to west in our neighborhood. So, thank you so much for taking the time to hear what I have to say.

[45:16] Thank you, Jenny. Veronica, do we have other speakers on this topic? Yes, Barbara, would you be able to confirm you're able to speak? Yes, I'm here. Perfect, you may begin. Thank you. I'm a neighbor of Jenny's, and Jenny and I were… active in getting that petition going, to get this block included in the NPP, and… I second what she said, which is… The reason why there aren't any cars, or there aren't volumes of cars, is because the signs are there. And… I had photographs when we went to the meeting to try and implement this, I don't remember what year it was, of the street on a Tuesday and the street on a Sunday, and Monday through Friday, the streets were completely packed with CU students, and that maybe was one trip

[46:14] Multiple trips all day long from morning to night, where students would come and leave their car all day, so it was… Pretty challenging to live here, and… not only could you not park in front of your house or unload, I have a garden business, so it's important for me to park. In front of my house, so I can load and unload plants, etc. … But I just feel like with… The energy that it brought to the neighborhood, and people talking, people talking on their phones, dropping things, getting stuck in ice, like, it completely changes the way the neighborhood feels when you become a parking lot for a university. So that was the reason why we did it, and… It's made life much more peaceful here, and it was, like.

[47:01] pretty alarming to me when I saw that you're potentially thinking about doing this, because… in my opinion, it will completely go back and see you as a bigger university, Boulder as a bigger city, there's a new high school, New Vista's probably going to be bigger, so there's just more need to… park, and we are two blocks from Broadway and Baseline. And it's also a bus line. So people could then park here and use the bus and go to Denver, the airport, or whatever, so… I'm a strong, very passionate opponent in favor of keeping the signs, because we worked really hard to get them implemented. To keep the neighborhood a neighborhood and not a parking lot for the university. So, thank you very much. Appreciate being able to talk. Thank you, Barbara. We have a few more hands up. Hamel, would you be able to confirm you're able to speak?

[48:01] Do you hear me okay? Yes, perfect. Great, I'm a resident of High Sunset. And thank you, Sam, for listening to us in the… in the in-person session and making option one the recommendation. … I think we shared our concerns on our street being around construction traffic. There was one piece of feedback, Sam, that I don't know how to… quite, see this as the right forum, which was… The way the evaluation process is designed is so heavily dependent on this metric of 30%. And yes, you know, a consultant told you to do that some years ago, and council blessed it. And I am just trying to preempt the scenario where A couple of years down the road, when you re-evaluate the programs again.

[49:00] you again start using this arbitrary 30% metric. And I think this is where Hernan was going with his… Commons is that And as you in the in-person meeting as well shared, Sam. If you look at the weekday traffic for Sunset High, it jumped up to, like, 29%, so please, if you could revisit the evaluation criteria for the NPP program Do not rely exclusively on that 30% metric. Thank you. Thanks, Camille. Veronica, we have others? Yes. Let's see, Lynn, would you be able to confirm you're able to speak? Yes. Perfect, you may start. Jenny and Barbara, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[50:00] If you really want to protect your neighborhood, you'll do something about CU South, the South. Yeah. like… Plain remediation project that is, like, $94 million of your money, you know, and… and just adds fuel to the fire up on the hill. Big time. Did you know that Horizons International, which was supposed to be the homeless center 25 years ago, if, … … what's-his-name, didn't change his vote the last minute. … It's gonna go up to 4 stories. Rent by the bedroom. So they're stacking them in, tight. And each one of those people don't come here just to walk around. They come here because this is Colorado, and they gotta go up skiing, and they gotta go out camping, and they gotta have a car. And they're gonna… And CU's just bursting its seams.

[51:04] And the city just lays down on their behalf. And we gotta stop. Another thing that's coming? is the fact that you're considering making longer times for the TPP? Is that what it's called, TPP? you know, 3 hours instead of 2 hours, or 2 hours instead of 3 hours. If you're… if you're tweaking things there, you're gonna have to have more enforcement, and that's my tax dollar. So… I recommend prevention. I know we have a blue line, I get that. But we have a blue line for a reason, because there's a high quality of life here, or there was, I should say. You know? Jenny and Barbara, I'm in, you know, on the edge of Mapleton, so I don't have to deal with what you have to.

[52:01] I'd say it's pretty unfair that you have to take the hit for these See you, students! And… You know, it's just grow, grow, grow. Two health science centers here. One's not enough. Quantum Computing Initiative. Sundance, that's not CU, but Sundance is going to bring all of these entities, the limelight. Gotta get my glasses on here. Football games. You know… We gotta stop these big events. Because when there's a football game, no one can park. Two miles from their place. It's ridiculous. We… it's so anachronistic to have these huge events. Boulder Creek Festival, you know, like, 27….

[53:04] Thank you, Lynn. We have one more person left. Jeff, would you be able to confirm if you're able to speak? I can speak, can you hear me? Yes, perfect. Great. Well, thank you for the opportunity to, express my concerns here. I'll be quick. First of all, I agree with Jenny and Barbara that the data is completely irrelevant. You know, what's happened in the past with permits isn't going to be a good way to forecast what's going to happen when the permits are lifted. So that's the first point. The second point is just to speak a little bit from experience. I live on 20th Street, and, you know, we already see problems with kids from New Vista. driving down the street, hanging out in our yard, smoking cigarettes, leaving their butts there. We see people, you know, since we're so close to baseline and 36, we see people driving in the neighborhood, parking their trucks, and just sleeping overnight in the neighborhood.

[54:01] So, it strikes me that when we lift… if this… if this parking restriction is lifted. 20th Street is going to be a complete parking lot, and we're going to be bombarded with CU students, with new VISTA students. with people coming into town and looking for a place to park their car for the day, and our neighborhood is just gonna go completely downhill. So, I'm a strong proponent of keeping the existing restrictions. I really appreciate all your time, and I will turn it back to other folks. Jeff, thank you very much for, for sharing your thoughts. We do require a full name to be able. Jeff Kodish, K-O-D-I-S-H. Thank you so much, appreciate it. You bet. Anyone else, Veronica? Now that was everyone for this public hearing. Thank you. Okay, great. So let's move into our, deliberation and our resulting recommendation to City Council. Staff recommends that TAB consider the following motion.

[55:05] TAB recommends that the City Council approve staff's recommendation of Option 1, No Changes. What feedback do you TAB members have? Anyone want to deliberate this any further? I… I would, agree with staff's recommendation, Their, justification is partly, mitigating any new expenses associated with enforcement adjustments, as well as General fund revenue losses associated with reduced permit sales and citation revenue, combined with the, the testimony, that they collected and that we heard tonight, Seems, the right recommendation to go forward with. Thanks, Mike. Ernon? Thank you.

[56:01] I just want to repeat what I said, I guess, in terms of feedback, that there appears to be a significant discrepancy between all the resident feedback and the data that we're seeing, and even, like. What other people mentioned, that cutoff of 30%, which doesn't make much sense. Based on data collection, many residents reported that The streets can be consistently full, the data doesn't reflect that, or it's not capturing that. So, you know, either the data is incomplete, or inaccurate, or maybe there are other factors that are influencing perceptions. So, I feel that… Until this gap is explained and reconciled. like, no option should be considered at all. Like, I mean, obviously I'm supporting option one by default, but other options should not even be considered, because we don't have any grounding to kind of analyze what to do. So yeah, just, you know, don't… option one, go with that, just based on resident feedback alone.

[57:02] And hopefully work… try to figure out the discrepancy and see if we can, you know, improve the data collection and… Studying what really is going on in the ground. Yeah, that's about it. Thank you. Thanks, Ron. Mike, you had something else to add? Just responding to that concern, … I think Sam explained, part of that, that, a lot of the feedback is about, blocks that are not under this NPP, and also about the conditions before the NPP went into effect, is my understanding, that being crowded. Did you have a different, interpretation, Hernan? I think my interpretation is that you're asking me a question, or like, you're asking me to give feedback on something, and you're presenting me polarizing versions of reality. So, which one do I follow to make this decision?

[58:03] I'm gonna go with what the people are reporting on the ground. Whereas the data, I feel like it's either incomplete or something is missing. But those are completely polar opposites. But if you want my feedback, it's kind of hard to make an informed decision, right? I think that's what I'm getting at. Yeah, I would… so, thank you, Renam, for speaking to the, … the… balance of sort of the metrics that the staff have landed on, and then the, you know, evidence that they've collected post-NPP, in these three areas, which do kind of validate the success of the program. I mean, that's what we're hearing, is that the Occupancy that's measured and averaged here is, … you know, it sort of just bears out that, yes, these neighborhoods are not over-parked right now, right?

[59:02] Sam, I guess I think it would be… it would be useful to all of us to have some kind of perspective on I mean, I know that these neighborhoods were… came into this program over a long period of time. Any pre-data may not have anything to do with what would happen if the program were eliminated now. There might be some scenario planning or something that could be done to sort of estimate, that difference between, you know, what you're measuring right now versus what the anticipated, parking occupancy would be if those streets were removed from the program. I think just more information would… would be helpful, but at the same time, I, I think that… staff's recommendation is the right option for us here because of, like you said, Hernan, also because the, people who have spoken in favor of the program have

[60:08] kind of strong, feelings about that, and… and, are witnessing its effects in their neighborhood, in… to the positive. Hernan, what else did you want to add to that? But I guess I will go in a different direction. I will say, like, what does a 30% even mean if we cannot really reliably measure it, right? Like, we're saying this program is working so well. The only reason we see low numbers is because of the program existing, so… measuring how things will be without the program is therefore impossible, right? But it's like, then what's the point of measuring the data at all? as a point of reference. Well, I mean, to observe the current level of. parking occupancy. I think that's a very valuable exercise. I mean, you have to see what

[61:00] And there actually is, so that's really important, and that's what staff is doing. But does the 30% make sense, then? Because 30% is relative to what? Like, we don't know how removing this ordinance will affect the parking, really, objectively. I think we could ask Sam why they set the 30% threshold, but I understand that, I mean, from just thinking about… well, Valerie, go ahead, please, inline this. Hi again, Valerie Watson, Interim Director. I… I just wanted to add some context, since we have a lot of new TAB members. On this board, there have been, several previous, TAP boards and composition of members, who, over the years have really. provided pretty strong guidance to staff, to take a look through data-driven methods at underperforming NPPs, meaning, MPPs where they may no longer be needed. Maybe conditions have changed along a commercial area, that is not creating the demand that there used to be, and so they wanted a mechanism to be put in place

[62:09] that wasn't just purely subjective or purely based on community feedback, but that had, as you kind of articulated, Darcy, and Sam did before, some kind of data-driven way to really quantify what the utilization is, turnover, other metrics like that that are very common for the transportation profession looking at parking. So, I just wanted to offer that context. why this item is here tonight. Previous TAB board, before you all were elected, had requested, this, look at certain NPPs that kind of met those criteria to see if they were underperforming. the Community Vitality Department has followed through on that guidance from previous tab, and… and are here tonight to offer you those… those results. So, I hope that that's helpful for understanding, like.

[63:02] why they're even here seeking this guidance from the Transportation Advisory Board. Yeah. Thank you, Valerie, I appreciate that, and I want to just build on that a little bit to say that I do think it's really important for us to evaluate these programs in a way that realistically provides a portrait of how they're functioning. with… and so I was going to say… my own notes have to do with the kind of democratic approach here, and I really deeply appreciate, Sam, the, the depth of your work here. I disagree that this data is meaningless. I do think it's meaningful to the degree that it provides context about current utilization. That's important. We need to know that. I also really deeply appreciate the extent to which you sought and, evaluated and Analyzed, public feedback, and, both of those things together, I think, have provided us really meaningful information about whether or not to

[64:04] maintain this, the, the program in these areas that technically, you know, with the count data, have, are below that 30% threshold. But, but I appreciate also this balance of, of cost and, revenue. And it sounds like they're balancing out pretty well. So if you were to remove some parts of these neighborhoods as specified in Option 2, that may reduce revenue and add cost if you had to, you know, if you extended the time, of the parking allowance in those areas. At this point, it does seem to me as well that option one is the right choice. There may be further ways to, continue to kind of grow the analysis here, but I think we have information, sufficient information, to say that, yes. it's worth maintaining these programs right now. Hernan? No, I just wanted to say, like, I mean, I think I want to clarify that what I'm saying is, we're measuring parking data

[65:06] with the presence of a sign that says Neighborhood Parking Permit. And we're using this data to make decisions about parking, When that sign is gone. I mean, they're apples and oranges. It's not necessarily. It's to see how much utilization is happening now under the program. So, if these streets were full at 100% all the time with the permit program, you know, so that would mean that cars are cycling every 2 hours, right? That there's somebody taking parking space. I mean, that… that would demonstrate, you know, that there was incredible demand there, right? I mean, just because Well, anyway, go ahead, I'll let other people speak to that. Valerie? I guess, how can you, like, how can you extrapolate, right? Like…

[66:01] Let's say we have 24% with a sign. what is the extrapolation value without a sign? Like, are we using… I mean, we can use…. Question that's being asked. No, I know, but, I mean, like… Well, it is, because you're asking which option to take. And one of the thresholds is a 30% value. So, I mean, you can say, okay, we're gonna be safe, like, do a 2.5 factor of safety, right? Like, we have 20% times 2.5, It's gonna be 50%, so it's… it's larger, but there's not, like, an objective metric here, so it's like, okay, what are we using this data for exactly? I'm not… So, like, unconvinced. Okay, fair enough. Michael? I, I'm… I'm finding that I reconcile this sort of conflicting data, as Evnan is describing it, in turn… in a particular way, which is that the 30%

[67:02] is just a threshold criterion for an evaluation of whether there is continuing need. I will acknowledge, as Kamel noted, that you know, maybe there needs to be some additional nuance to the criterion. Staff have picked up on that nuance, which is why they are recommending option one, right? I mean, if it was just… if the decision-making criteria was 30% and you're done, right? It would go away. Yeah. So the 30% just triggers the analysis. Staff have looked at it and realized, oh, well, the conditions that created the problem in the first instance remain, and so we continue to need this program. Now. you know, I think Annan is right, that you cannot, you know, rely on current survey data about occupancy to predict what things would be in the absence of the permit program, but… That… that's kind of… that was my second question earlier. Is there anything… is there any reason to believe that the…

[68:04] the problem that pre-existed the NPP program would not simply return in the absence of the program, and I'm not seeing anything to lead me to believe that it wouldn't simply return. And so, you know, for that reason, this seems to me as Close to a no-brainer is, … tab is ever likely to encounter. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that too, especially because Of, you know, what some of the commenters mentioned about the expansion, you know, New Vista has expanded and enlarged, and, you know, there are more CU students. I mean, the conditions, if anything, may provoke more, parking demand. So, so yeah. Turn on. Yes, sorry, the last thing I would like to say is… Back to the… to this criteria, it's like, you know, every time this criteria gets targeted, then there's this whole process that's gonna take time.

[69:02] Budget money review, so… It would be good to have a good metric, just because of that. Budget and money and time constraint, because, you know, we're going through this process, we've been talking about this for an hour, like, there is a cost associated with it regardless, when these numbers get triggered. So that's something else to consider in terms of, like, rethinking how the data is collected, what is collected, and how these triggers are activated. If I. Sorry, Sam, go ahead, yeah. Thanks, Darcy. If I might, Hernan, just to that point, there isn't a… there isn't a requirement that every time the numbers drop below 30%, that we go through this process of re-evaluation. What the city manager rule states is that we have the option

[70:00] to consider… changes and removal, the impetus for why we're here tonight is really from the strong desire that staff had heard from previous TAB members, that they would really like us to undergo this work, and so that's really why we're here, is to follow through with the process that was suggested by TAV and approved by Council, and, we're… learning as we go. We're learning from this process, and, there's definitely some valuable insights that we'll be able to take back with us, and that will inform, … decisions moving forward about how and when we evaluate these programs. But as Darcy mentioned, the evaluation tool is still important and still something that we'll undertake year over year, just to… just to have some insight into how the How the parking management is, performing in the different areas where we do undertake parking management across the city.

[71:04] Thank you, Sam. Would you like to say anything about how the 30% was arrived at, since we weren't part of that process? Yeah, I mean, it's… it's really from industry best practice, so, typically under 60% is… what you would consider maybe underperforming, but that's really a criteria more for paid and managed blocks. So we are looking for something that's, like, extremely low, That is, like, kind of the bottom threshold that we could possibly choose for this. …. But it's really… Yeah, it's really just… It's useless to have a permit, right? Like, yeah. And I'll just clarify, too, that even where the program is in place, if you don't have a permit, you can still park in the zone, just… you're limited to how long you can park there, so… the demand is both from residents that have a permit. Commuters that have a permit, and also, other residents or visitors that need temporary parking for a couple of hours.

[72:12] Okay. Thank you all. That was a, detailed discussion, and I appreciate it. I appreciate going through, all of this, and Sam, I hope that… hope that, you were able to get some… some good feedback. So, let's go ahead and, move toward the, the recommended motion, staff's recommended motion. … Would anyone like to move to approve staff's recommended motion, which is… HAB recommends that the City Council approve staff's recommendation of Option 1, no changes. I moved. Hi, son. Mike? And seconded by Michael. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. I'm not.

[73:00] Okay. … Great. Anyone opposed? Nope. So the motion passes unanimously, 4-0. Thank you all very much, appreciate it. We have another public hearing, this evening. … Which is also probably going to…. spark a lot of conversation. So, our next agenda item is, …. Number 6, … Also, a public hearing regarding the access management and parking strategy. For AMP's Transportation Demand Management, Ordinance. So, Tao will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council tonight. We will hear staff's report, ask clarifying questions, and then open it up for feedback from the public. You'll be given 3 minutes to address the board on this topic, after which Chad will deliberate and form a recommendation to Council. Okay, Valerie, would you like to introduce this item? Thanks, Darcy. So, yes, another panel of fabric on that AMPS umbrella. I'm gonna hand it over to Steven to introduce this item. Thanks.

[74:07] Awesome, thanks, Valerie. Hey everyone, my name's Timurijo, I'm the Transportation Planning Manager, and I'm excited to introduce another part of the Access Management and Parking Strategies, or AMPS, project. We're looking to get TAB's recommendation to City Council on the final component of the AMPS work, which is a TDM ordinance for new development that was adopted by Council in 2017. Earlier this summer, TAB recommended that City Council adopt ordinances and related code changes for the other two legs of the stool, the elimination of minimum parking requirements, and residential access management policies, or RAMP. AMP is a multi-department effort between Planning and Development Services, Community Vitality, and Transportation and Mobility, and represents years of work by city staff in our community. We're seeking your input on the proposed ordinance and rules, and a recommendation to City Council to move forward with the TDM ordinance. And with that, I'll hand it off to Chris Haglin to walk you through his slides.

[75:02] Thank you, Steven. I'm gonna share my screen. Can everybody see my screen? Excellent, thank you. Yeah, so once again, thank you, Steven, for the introduction and Valerie. My name is Chris Hagel, I'm Principal Project Manager here at the City of Boulder in the Transportation Mobility Department, and I've been part of the AMPS project, since its beginning. Even before the Council approval of the, of the AMPS, work program in 2017. I'm here to specifically talk about the TDM ordinance for new development. And the purpose of this meeting is for TAB to make a recommendation to City Council on the ordinance, and this ordinance is numbered 8713. As Steven mentioned, AMPS is a multi-departmental effort. This particular segment of the AMPS work program had, was a three-legged stool. In June, we… the city adopted the ordinances around that, residential access management program, which was also Sam's lead on that.

[76:15] And then, in July, we've, we, City Council adopted, the parking code changes that was led by Lisa Hood, and, that was… also included, the monumental elimination of. Parking minimums. requirements in our city. And so I'm here to talk about that final leg, the TDM ordinance. So, essentially what this is, is when there is a new development. what are we going to require happens at that new development, in terms of the access, to TDM programs and strategies. by the residents and employees. Some of these strategies include things like the EcoPass, vanpool benefits, carpool benefits, parking cash-out programs. Those are the types of things that, we have been interested in requiring of new developments, and so this ordinance is really the design on how we do that.

[77:11] And so why a new ordinance? Well, we know that we want to make improvements to the current process. We want to increase clarity for developers about what is required for the properties that they are developing, and then also for the future owners. And we also want to provide a way for the city to monitor and evaluate, TDM programs so that we can continue to improve that program over time with data. And we also needed a way to enforce the TDM ordinance as well. Currently, we don't really have an enforcement mechanism, so these are some of the things we want to do to improve, this, program. Over the years, when, you know, thinking about the development of this ordinance and what it takes, three fundamental factors really stood out to city staff.

[78:01] One is that, you know, through… in the development process, developers can provide infrastructure, they can provide amenities, those physical things that typically have one-time capital costs, perhaps some ongoing maintenance, but it's really that one-time capital improvements that developers can provide. But when we look at TDM programs, those are really implemented by the tenants of those buildings, whether they're a commercial tenant with employees, or they're a residential building with residents. And we know that the best TDM programs, based on the numerous surveys we've been doing in our city since 1990, we know that the most effective TDM programs in changing travel behavior have annual costs. So, we have to figure out who is going to pay that annual cost, what is that annual cost? … When we developed this work program item, we developed the purpose of it and of this TDM ordinance. And originally, it was kind of threefold, but I added another one because so much of this was initially related to the parking minimums. But the purpose of this ordinance is to mitigate the impacts of new development, not only on our transportation system.

[79:18] But also adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhoods, which was really kind of that ramp component as well. The second one is to enhance access and use of multimodal investments that the city has made, and those valuable TDM programs that really help change travel behavior Third is to complement this whole, idea that we've just recently implemented of eliminating parking minimum requirements for new development. So how can TDM kind of help that new, environment that we're going to be living in? And finally, we wanted to have an ordinance that actually contributes to the meeting of transportation goals. Both transportation-related and climate-related.

[80:00] As we develop the ordinance. we had lots of decision points. We had to debate different policies, and we frequently use this metaphor of the policy dial of, where are you going to turn these policies? What is the best fit for the City of Boulder? So, some of those key questions that we asked ourselves in developing the ordinance is. To which developments would this apply to? Would this apply to all developments, or a limited set? If it's a limited set, what are the characteristics that we would use To, to kind of delineate which ones it applies to and which ones it doesn't. what type of TDM programs are required? I think in this, you know, stepping one step back for this question, we could be completely agnostic to how development mitigates their impacts, or we could have a very prescriptive approach where we say, you need to do X, Y, and Z, you need to implement these programs. But we know that we want to have that flexibility, too, because not all developments are the same, and context changes.

[81:04] We also have to decide who pays. Really, it's the developer or the owner who can pay for these things, or it's a cost that the tenants have to pay. So we have to decide where we're going to fall on that. Once we decide who pays, well, how much is it? What is going to be, How is this money going to be used? Is it going to pay for the fully loaded costs of developing a TDM program? Which, by that, I mean not only the cost of an EcoPass, but what's the cost to administer and manage that program, for those tenants? Or is it just going to cover the hard costs? You know, what is the exact subsidy for a vanpool monthly? We can determine what the exact hard costs are. Or, would this money just merely subsidize, those programs that would be required that the tenants implement? So we had to figure out that. And then also, how long are these requirements?

[82:00] active, and how are we going to monitor those properties to ensure that they are, one, implementing the program, and two, if they have requirements, or a trip generation target, for example, in our ordinance, are they meeting it? What happens if they're not meeting it? So all those things we have to ask ourselves in developing this ordinance. Well, we came up to… we came up with some answers. So, in terms of applicability, what we're looking at, is using a tiered approach, where the, … the ordinance applies to all projects that meet the thresholds of new floor area. So, if you're building a new floor area that meets the thresholds Then you would have to, … abide by the ordinance. If you fall below that threshold, you would be exempt from that. We really want to have this tiered approach to make sure that we focus on the larger, more impactful projects, and to also manage the staff time and costs. Implementing any new ordinance in any new program is going to come with some staff costs that we have to understand.

[83:09] We also have to think about the exemptions. So, the exemptions would be, naturally, the smallest ones, or we call Tier 0, the smallest projects which do not meet the size thresholds, which would be exempt. And then the three zoning, land uses that already have a TD ordinance associated with them, and this came about through the Boulder Junction work and the ordinance that, is there for those land uses. Based on using this tiered approach of a Tier 1 kind of being your medium, and Tier 2 being your largest ones, they would have differing requirements throughout this TDM process, as you can see in the chart. In terms of the TDM elements, we decided to really take a package approach, which provides us some prescriptive nature, but also that flexibility that we know is necessary in this context after developing and working with developers and tenants for years on these types of programs.

[84:07] The first package is really the EcoPass Plus, we call. So, we know that the EcoPass is our most effective TDM tool. It changes travel behavior, not only for work trips, but non-work trips. I think nothing is more effective in changing, family travel behavior than the neighborhood EcoPass, and we have data that clearly shows That people with those passes travel very differently. But along with that, what would be some of the other programs that could complement that, such as bike share, car share or vanpool subsidies, participation in Dr. Cogg's Way to Go program, which is our regional TDM program, and then also, what would be the requirements and duties of the property manager or the employee transportation coordinator, who has to be on that site, kind of helping to manage those programs. But we also know through experience, that the EcoPass is not always the best tool, given perhaps the context or the location of a project, and so we've developed this second package that really has that flexibility of being kind of your transportation wallet. On the commercial side, this could take the form of a parking cash-out, where essentially you're paying employees not to drive, they receive funding, which they can then use to buy things like their transit passes.

[85:21] want, so a B-Cycle membership, Lime scooter rides, anything like that to go. Kind of on the residential side, we usually term it more of a transportation wallet idea, but still that flexibility that allows a resident to kind of choose how they're going to be using those funds to help them travel. And because we always want to encourage innovative and creative ideas, we also have our third package, which really, you know, if a developer and a property owner comes to us with a really innovative idea, we want to leave that door open to try that. So, we do have a customized option as well. Of course, all of these plans ultimately will be approved at the staff level.

[86:03] So you can be assured that the TDM programs that, and plans that are, approved will meet, our guidelines for changing travel behavior and have an impact on people's behavior. One of the main mechanisms we're going to use to ensure that TDM programs are paid for and are able to be implemented by the tenants is to have a financial guarantee. This is a mechanism that the City of Boulder is very familiar with. We currently use a financial guarantee for things like EcoPasses under our current TDM program, but this is a way of kind of expanding our use of financial guarantees. We also borrowed a bit from our best practices report from municipalities in Virginia who have also used the financial guarantee route. So, because we want to see an ordinance that really contributes to goals.

[87:04] And changes travel behavior. We're looking at having these be annual financial guarantees year after year. Owners of properties would pay these fees to ensure that the tenants of their buildings, whether they're residents or employees, have access to these programs. We would have financial guarantees for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. Again, they would be paid for by the developer or the owner. They would be held by the city as they are now, and then dispersed to the tenants, once they have a TDM program that's been, approved, a plan that's been approved. Again, these are used to to fund those programs, like buying EcoPasses, subsidizing van pools, providing parking cash out. Micromobility credits, all of those things. For the Tier 2 level, so our largest properties, there would be a second financial guarantee, and this would be our remedial financial guarantee. So, this is… think of this as a second pot of money.

[88:02] So, if the first pot of money, your annual financial guarantee, is not achieving the results, and you need to add more TDM programs to the plan, or increase financial incentives to get people to change their behavior, then you can take a portion of that remedial financial guarantee, augment the TDM program, provide more benefits or higher incentives. And that can be used to kind of create a new level of a TDM program. These have been used very successfully in Virginia. In terms of setting the rate, they're based on square footage and the number of residential units, but I think the commercial side and the square footage side is a little more complicated, so I can certainly explain that. But basically, what we did is we looked at, you know, what would be the cost of providing these TDM programs, or a suite of programs, to employees. Of a company. You know, some…

[89:01] programs like the EcoPass, you have to buy it for everybody, so that's an easy one to figure out the cost. It's 100%. But other things, like vanpool subsidies, may only be, picked up by a few, people in the company. Maybe, like, 5% of people would take advantage of something like that. So we did have to try and use some assumptions of pickup rates of different types of TDM programs to come up with about how much are we looking at spending per employee, and then for those commercial land uses, we translate that employee number to square footage by looking at the type of land use and the square feet that is typically seen in those land uses. per employee. Now, the slide everybody wants to see, well, how much are we talking about? So, and these are, of course, all, estimates. you know, I think the beauty of the ordinance we've designed is that many of the tables and charts, like the financial guarantee rights, like the thresholds, and the vehicle trip generation targets that you'll soon see, these are all located in our city manager rules so that adjustments can be made over time by staff.

[90:13] and the city manager without having to go back to a complex ordinance change. So, you know, our hopes is this is going to be an iterative process, we're going to implement this program, we're going to collect data, we're going to evaluate the program, and then we can make adjustments on any of these things, the rates, or the thresholds, or the trip targets, based on actual data, and really get that dialed in. … But as I mentioned, for our commercial side, we looked at a Tier 1 of approximately about $200 per employee, and a Tier 2 of about $350, and then we translate those into land use and square foot per employee to get out the rates you see here. You also see on this the different tiers and the square footage of that new floor area. That would either put you at a Tier 0 if you were below.

[91:02] a Tier 1 or a Tier 2. We also have a similar for our residential units, looking at what would be kind of the cost of implementing these different TDM packages, at those, residential uses, and then looked at it by dwelling unit. One of the reasons we really did focus on dwelling unit is that the Neighborhood Eco Pass is an RTD program, and they use a unit basis for all their costs for that. And a 40-unit development is the minimum for that type of program. … In order to give you some examples of what these rates may be like, I tried to find some projects within Boulder that you may be familiar with to give you an estimate of what tier they would be in, based on their size, and then approximately what their annual financial guarantee would be.

[92:00] So, for example, the view on 26th Street, a residential development with just 20 units, it would just barely make the threshold, you know, their annual financial guarantee would be about $3,600. Per year. And so these are annual costs. You know, like a Whole Foods on Pearl that we're pretty, probably all familiar with, a Tier 1 development, 79,000 square feet at 36 cents per square feet, their annual financial guarantee to provide those benefits to their employees would be about $28,000 a year. And this would buy everybody an EcoPass. Also, bike share memberships, fan pool, subsidies, those types of things, if they were in that package A. Now, I think a lot of people may see some of these costs and say, wow, that's a lot of money, but just remember that, you know, one of the reasons this ordinance is paired with the elimination of parking minimums is because there's a great deal of money to be saved.

[93:00] On the side of development by eliminating those minimum parking requirements. Parking is very expensive to build, and it's also expensive to maintain. The city is finding that out with our… with our getting very old parking structures in our downtown now. We're seeing the cost of annual maintenance increasing as those structures have aged. But you can see that Having, eliminating 10, 20, 30, even for larger developments, 50 parking spots, that could pay for TDM for a long, long time. As I mentioned, you know, we're looking at vehicle trip generation. That's really our metric of success. We're looking at, how many vehicle trips are generated by that new property. Of course. determining that, or doing that type of study may not always be possible, depending on how it's… the property is laid out and entrance and exit points, so we will have a survey of either employees or residents as a backup, as well, if we need to… to do that.

[94:08] But vehicle chip generation is really what it's going to be. The city uses ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineers vehicle trip generation, for many different types of programs. We know that the City of Boulder travels a little differently than ITE, but we know that about You know, approximately how… how… how lower our vehicle trip generation is on average across the board. So we're still comfortable with using it… using this, because it's really about proportionality of trips between land uses. What we're really looking at is the vehicle trips that are done by residents and employees. The money that we're collecting from property owners to be used to implement these programs are for residents and employees, so we are particularly looking at the trips that are generated by those two groups.

[95:01] And in general, we're looking for about a 30% reduction in vehicle trips. That will make a significant impact in our city, and it's also what we've used in other parts of the city that have those MU4, RH6, or RH7 land use designations. We've also used that 30%. But as I said, this is really a starting point. What we want to do is, once we have this program going, collect data to understand what actual trip generation is, and where targets can be set, to better reflect the actual on-the-ground experience. So, once again, the reason why those are found in the city manager rules. … All the staff will provide the methodology for these types of studies. We'd like it conducted by a third party, and then this would be a cost paid for by the developer owner. Again, this vehicle trip generation study only applies to our largest Tier 2 developments, where we want to

[96:04] Focus our attention. In terms of the monitoring process, again, applying to Tier 2 developments, looking for that trip generation target, 30% below the ITE expected rates, They would provide an annual trip generation study and report. If a property is found to be in compliance 3 consecutive years, then that annual monitoring can cease, and we'll look at monitoring every 5 years. To just check on and make sure that they're still performing well. However, if a Tier 2 property is out of compliance, they've exceeded their trip generation budget, then we would have to take remedial actions. The first remedial action is really to use a portion of that remedial financial guarantee, second pot of money. That a portion of that is used to augment the annual financial guarantee money.

[97:00] A new TDM plan can be created with those increased, funding, expanding either the benefits or the programs, or increasing the financial incentives. And then a new 3-year cycle starts, and we'll continue to monitor them until they're compliant 3 years in a row. So that, in general, provides a kind of an overarching framework for this type of new development, ordinance. Really focus on how do we get TDM programs into the hands of both residents and employees of new development. And how they can continue over time so that we can change, trip making and minimize the impact of those developments on our system surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent properties. The next steps, for this last leg of this AM stool is to go to Planning Board. We're scheduled to go on August 19th. And then, we will… we have a council date for the first reading of the ordinance, which is typically on the consent agenda for September 4th, and then a second reading scheduled for September 18th.

[98:12] Now, if that ordinance passes. then some additional work happens. We need to work on the implementation and the actual program. This includes a lot of the internal procedures, standard operating procedures, that's done by our frontline planning and development service engineers. For our financial staff that are involved with handling, getting and dispersing escrow. Money, and then… also all the outward-facing things, such as developing the toolkits for developers and for tenants so that they can make use of the money and implement the programs that are in the staff-approved plan. We anticipate that, you know, if we get the ordinance passed in September or soon after, then we will be able to implement this by the second quarter of 2026,

[99:06] Getting all those things in place so that staff can begin, developing this program and implementing this program. … In terms of the questions we have for TAB, this was contained in your… in your TAB memo, about TAB recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance, including, but not limited to, applicability of the ordinance, the financial guarantees, the rates. tier thresholds, vehicle trip generation targets, or the monitoring process. We were keen on hearing TAB's input on that. We only have a few days to… before we prepare for the Planning Board memo, but we will certainly share TAB's, any feedback, with Planning Board and then Council. And then we do have a, recommended motion, for TAB, which is here, which I can come back to. But I guess at this time, I'm happy to answer any clarifying questions.

[100:04] Thank you, Chris, I appreciate it. Can you stop screen sharing so we can see each other, and thank you. Okay, great. Mike, you have your hand up with a clarifying question. Yeah, I guess the, I have a specific concern about say I'm a developer. Looking to develop a 99 dwelling unit housing development. I'm paying $180 per unit, and say, Darcy wants to build a 100 dwelling unit. And she's gonna pay $420 per unit, so that's more than twice what I'm paying just for adding one additional unit. Am I getting that right? Well, we have to set a line somewhere. I mean, I think that's what we can say. There has to be a delineation at some point, but yes, I understand your point.

[101:08] It's just, you know, it's difficult to… you know, we could have more multiple tiers. would, I think, be the only other way to combat that, but at some point, you've got to draw the line and say, you know. Where, where the… where it's divided. And I'll just add, sometimes with things like this, we need to keep things simple for ease of administration by staff in the future. Makes sense, thank you. Other clarifying questions about this? complex ordinance. Yes, fair enough. Thank you. I… I do have a few questions, … From the memo, I was getting confused, like, we use… Employers and developers interchangeably.

[102:02] It seems to me that this applies to new developments. Or… Yes, it is new developments or redevelopments that are adding floor area. And the, the…. Yeah. Two entities that are the same, or, you know, or function the same, are the owner or the developer. Oftentimes, it's the developer that develops it, they sell the property, but… so we kind of say developer-owner. Which is different from the tenants who are in it, who are the employers and the employees. Or the residence, if it's a residential development. Yeah, that kind of confused me, like, … When you say employees, employees of the people who rent the…. Yeah. Or the people who own the space? Well, it's… I would say, typically in Boulder, we have commercial developments that are. 8. developed.

[103:00] Sometimes they're developed and then owned by the same entities. A lot of times they're sold. And then oftentimes, that space is leased to multiple different tenants. Yeah. Occasionally, we do have a single large development that is a single owner who's also the, you know, tenant of that building, but I would say that… fairly rare occurrence. Typically, we have, in large developments, there is going to be a developer, maybe the owner, and then there's going to be multiple different tenants who are leasing space from that development. What we want to ensure is that the tenants of these developments receive, the TDM benefits. Yeah, I'm so confused. I mean, I think it's… you guys have done an amazing work putting it all together. Like, there's so many moving components. Yeah, it's very complex. Yeah, but it is kind of confusing me, and it does seem like So…

[104:04] it seems to me a little bit of a hot potato game. Like, who does the burden of the reporting and the paying The fees and all that fall into at the end of the day. The owner of the property. The owner of the property. Okay. Yep. I'm… They fast to… It seems like they have, like, a package that you're gonna… packages that you're gonna provide, like a menu of options, right, to… incentivize… The employees, which will be the employees of the businesses renting the space, to use… Eco passes and such. Yeah, yeah, I mean, essentially. So, you know, think of it, you… if you're the owner of a property, you've developed a piece of land, and you… maybe you have 3 different commercial spaces that you're leasing to 3 different tenants, and they're all businesses. What we're saying under this ordinance is that you, as the property owner.

[105:05] We'll be paying for those TDM. plans. We are going to develop those TDM plans with those tenants, because tenants have different needs, and we're going to say, okay, for tenant A, you know. We think this type of TDM plan will work for you, and guess what? The property owner will be paying for those EcoPasses for you. second tenant, maybe they need more flexible, they're looking at a parking cash-out situation, where they're gonna pay their employees not to drive. And then the employees can use that money for anything. It is the owner of that property that is paying that amount, so they pay an amount. It goes to the city in form of an escrow. The city holds that money. Once that TDM plan is developed for that tenant, then that money is dispersed to pay for it. So if I say, okay, we're ready to contract with RTD on our EcoPass program, that money comes from that escrow account to pay for it. It's how we currently do it.

[106:03] We currently use escrow accounts for EcoPasses all the time. Developers put money in an EcoPass, and then once the space is actually filled by a tenant, and the tenants are there, then we say, okay. now we can… we can pay for your EcoPass contract with RTD with the money from the escrow account, paid for by the property owner. Okay, so that… I think I read that at the beginning, so this… a version of this program already exists, so this is not… 100% new. Correct. We do have an ongoing program. We've been… I've been doing them for almost 2 decades, so we have a program, but it's really been confined to just Eco Passes and only 3 years. So, typically, in today's world, we require a developer put an escrow, escrowed money into a city-held account, and it would pay for 3 years of EcoPasses. After those 3 years.

[107:01] The money's gone, and, you know, the employer and employees could continue it on their own, but there's no longer a requirement that they do that. And it's really just been for EcoPasses. What we're doing is we're changing the duration, we're giving the developers really clarity on what they'd be spending. and then the programs would be implemented by the tenants. That's always the really difficult thing about what we've been doing for years, is that we put a lot of requirements on the developers, and they say, oh, we're gonna implement these types of TDM programs, but it's really the tenants that implement them. It's the tenants that implement them and give those benefits to their employees. And that's where that disconnect has been. And so this is really offering a way that we're still going to develop TDM programs for those tenants, but now we have funding, ongoing funding, coming from the property owner, to pay for those benefits.

[108:02] I have a few more questions, Darcy, but maybe let somebody else… Please. The questions that you're asking are likely what a lot of people are thinking, so please keep going. Okay, so is this, like, a linkage fee? Like, I mean, it looks like a tax, right? It sounds like a tax, but it's not a tax, I guess it's a fee. Is it like a linkage fee kind of deal? Like… What do you guys call it? I don't know the legal term it would be. I mean, we've used the term financial guarantee. That's what we use currently in the development review, site review process that we have now. We call it a financial guarantee. that is a condition of approval, like, to get your building permit. But I don't know… I would have to ask our attorneys, like, what would be an analogous legal term. But this is different, right? Like, this is, like, it seems like it's…

[109:00] it's like, let's say, financial guarantee, but it is in perpetuity. It's for, like, as long as the building is there. It's gonna, like, exist. Yes. I mean, that is… that's where we turn that policy dial, is that this would be ongoing. Is this a new kind of vehicle, or has this been done before in the city? Well, we've done the escrow financial guarantee, …. 3 years. Yeah, it's only… it's been limited to 3 years, and really, it has only been used for EcoPasses, you know, one type of TDM program. a new vehicle, because, I mean, it's similar, but now it's in perpetuity. Yeah, and it's really a condition of approval. Is… is the way… that I describe. It's a condition of approval to get your Then this is what you're providing. And it's the first time we'll have this in ordinance form. I mean, it's the first time it'll really be written out to the… Yeah.

[110:03] Yeah, it's not in any ordinance, it's in… Vaguely written in our, in our design and construction standards at this time. Right. It formalizes the process. Yep, correct. So, I guess with the current setup that you guys have for the 3 years. What are your success stories from that? Well, I think certainly we see that a lot of the time after the 3 years. some developments continue with their program. I think maybe a business who's leasing that spot says, you know, our employees have benefited from the EcoPass program, they want to see it continue. It's a relatively cheap employee benefit to provide, you know, compared to, like, health insurance, and that they continue doing it. But there are certainly developments that after the 3 years, they stop providing the benefits, the TDM benefits, to their employees.

[111:01] On the residential side, we've seen a lot of success with the Neighborhood EcoPass program continuing after those 3 years, but oftentimes it takes the formation of an HOA and a majority of the residents in that program to want to continue it after that 3 years. But, you know, I would say one of the drawbacks is that a lot of our TDM plans And the way in which we can actually make sure that things are being done is with… through… has only been… the EcoPass has really been the success story. We haven't been able to… to use the financial guarantee system for a lot of the other TDM programs that we've seen, and the different benefits that we can provide, and other effective ones. Are you concerned about, like, you know, adding this perpetual costs, … It could make new buildings more expensive to, like, build, you know, operate, lease.

[112:02] … Yeah, I think in our conversations with developers, you know, that we engaged with earlier in the spring, you know. they said all costs get passed down eventually, you know, to the tenants. So, there is going to be some increase in the cost of, you know, developing in Boulder, but I think, you know, that is certainly balanced out, and probably more balanced out, by the benefits that our, residents and employees are going to receive from that in changing travel behavior, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think there's a strong benefit that comes from that cost. But, yes, there is going to be an increase of cost. And, I don't remember if you mentioned… I think you mentioned a few mon… monitoring… to… to evaluate the effectiveness of the TVM packages. Yes.

[113:00] That's part of the program, right? Yes, for sure. So, like, for Tier 1, you know, we're gonna see what programs are implemented, how they're implemented, and we can collect information from those annual reports to understand that. But really, it's the Tier 2, the larger ones that have the trip generation study being conducted annually, until they are in compliance three years in a row. We'll be able to take that data and really see what packages of TDM programs are the most successful? What is really the true cost of spending? You know, we're using assumptions and estimates to come up with these rates. And so we're going to be able to dial those in, also. And we can even look at the thresholds over time. Like, where are we delineating between a Tier 1 and Tier 2? Do those need to move? Are we missing developments that may have impacts in our city, and can we change those things? So, those are all things that we can look at over time and kind of dial in the program.

[114:01] How does this affect remodeling? Like, if a building needs to be remodeled, … Is… is that… was that trigger? I know we talk about new developments and maybe adding some floor. It's, it's only when they add Floor area that meets those triggers. Yeah, yeah. So it's new floor area that meets the triggers. So, if they're just remodeling a building. that, you know, that would not trigger the ordinance. It's based on new floor area. That way, we capture both new development and large, significant redevelopments. Yeah, yeah. … No, and that makes sense. I think… I don't love, I guess, but I understand why, you know, like you said, you have to draw the line somewhere. Is that this only applies, it seems, to, like, new developments. You know, usually these newest, more energy-efficient buildings are the ones that

[115:01] Dr. Perry, this birding, this bureaucratic burden. Whereas older buildings with, you know, larger parking lots, no transit amenities. Of no concern at all. You know, they don't have any comparable obligations. That seems like an imbalance, I understand, like, you know, I don't see a fix for it, but…. They're gonna. like… … put some concern in me, I guess. I just want to point that out. … Let's see, what else I have here? Yeah, I can just say that's, like, half for now. …. Can you just weigh in a little bit on that, because we do have, like Chris said, you know, he's been doing this for 20 years, we do have a variety of models around the city that are addressing those, you know, existing property, TDM needs and, transportation demand. And so, you know, we have things like the special districts, like Boulder Junction, that have their own funding for a variety of TDM tools.

[116:09] We've got, TDM plans that we're, providing, ongoing support for, throughout the city, so it's not that existing buildings and communities don't have, these tools or, city incentivization of using those tools, we actually do… we're… we're constantly working on… on that. So, this adds to… it's really addressing the impact of new development, right, Chris? Yeah, yeah, no, we have TDM programs that are available, and incentives, and subsidies, and rebates that are available to all existing properties and businesses in the City of Boulder. We have our neighborhood EcoPass program for residents as well. When we, back in 2017, when this AMPS program was developed, we were specifically told to develop a TDM ordinance

[117:05] For new development, to improve the current process. It was not about, you know, all existing developments, it was really focused on improving the process that we have, and focused on new development. But yes, we have a lot of very good, successful TDM programs available to any existing business. But, I mean, but is it the same, though? I mean, like… They don't… do they have an obligation to pay $30,000 to $50,000 a year? Well, the City of Boulder provides Eco Passes for all their employees, and prior to COVID, we were spending almost $140,000 a year. on Eco Passes for city employees, so… most, you know. That's why I said these programs have annual costs. If you're giving subsidies for vanpooling, if you're buying B-Cycle memberships.

[118:01] If you're buying EcoPasses, these all have annual costs, and currently there are, you know, hundreds of businesses in Boulder that provide things like this to their employees and spend that amount of money every year. I'll disagree. by choice. Sure. Yes, sometimes by choice, or they were, you know, in the development site review program, they were required to do it, and they continued after those initial 3 years. Yeah, yeah, …. But this is different, right? This is a mandatory fee now. No, it would be a requirement of receiving your building permit, is that you would have to put up the financial guarantees. And then, to get your certificate of occupation, you have to, you know, maintain that. You have to show that you're implementing the program. Yeah. If it's helpful, I'll just touch on, Ernan, that there are transportation management organizations, you know, Boulder Chamber Transportation Connections is

[119:04] the TMO that covers the City of Boulder. There's Commuting Solutions that works broader, you know, in the broader region here, and they exist to provide those types of connective services for employers. for developments, that exist today. And, we can, you know, outside of this meeting, walk you through the role of TMOs in that, as well as some of the other activities that we've described here tonight. I think, I'll just touch on also that, you know, I think Chris mentioned this pretty briefly in this wealth of information tonight, but, for, gosh, about a decade, TAB and Council have been asking for this to be a tool applied to new development, and, you know, I think the reason is that that offers the greatest opportunity for, you know, the value capture of being able to turn the dial on our climate and transportation goals. And so, you know, really, that's been the scope of this effort for about a decade, and so I just wanted to mention that, because sometimes

[120:09] we gloss over the history, and this item in particular really just has a long trajectory of work under that AMPS umbrella, so just wanted to touch on that as well. Yeah, thanks, Valerie, appreciate that. Mike, sorry to keep you waiting so long. Go ahead. I'm generally concerned that the proposed cost structure increases The per unit cost for larger housing developments, since many affordable housing projects are larger developments, this could inadvertently discourage and burden Low-cost housing production, … So… Is… is that… I mean, is there a way to… Address that. Well, yeah, we… believe me, we have had a lot of conversation around

[121:00] How this ordinance should or should not apply to affordable housing development specifically. You know, you've got to look at, you know, the cost of providing these TDM programs have… they have costs. You know, TDM programs have costs. They have annual costs. But they also have benefits. A thing like an EcoPass could be a game changer for a family who's living in affordable housing, in the city of Boulder. You know, the cost of an EcoPass. For a residential unit in the City of Boulder starts at $120 per unit. That is $10 a month. That is… provides a pass for the whole family, whoever's living in that unit. So, originally we were thinking about, do we exempt affordable housing so they don't have the added cost of having to pay into this DDM ordinance? And forsake the benefits that it could provide, providing Eco Passes, B-Cycle memberships, car share memberships, those types of things.

[122:07] Or do we have it apply and know that it is going to affect the cost? But we understand these benefits are there. We kind of landed in a spot where, currently… we subsidize TDM programs, namely the Neighborhood EcoPass program, for affordable housing units. So, just to give you an example, when a market rate residential property goes through our current site review process, that developer pays money immediately into the Neighborhood EcoPass program, provides it for 3 years. They cover the full cost of that program. Under our current program, if an affordable unit, maybe a Boulder Housing Partners project comes in, the city subsidizes their neighborhood EcoPass program from the beginning. We subsidize generally about 39%.

[123:02] Of the cost is subsidized by the city, and we propose that we will continue to do that, so that if a Boulder Housing Partners project comes in, we want to have the residents have access to these great benefits, they have a cost. But as a way to lower that cost to developers like Boulder Housing Partners, the city would provide a subsidy and basically subsidize the TDM program for those developments. Well, maybe I shouldn't have used the word affordable housing, since that has a specific definition, but there is a spectrum of lower costs versus middle and luxury housing, and the lower costs tend to be Higher number of units, … if I could suggest something on the pay structure, … If you are going to have this higher cost per unit for a higher number of, you know, the tier. You could do it some… the way we do, like, graduated income tax, where you're just paying the higher amount on…

[124:05] On the amount of unit… number of units that are above. Appreciate it. Other than on all of them. So it's kind of a graduated…. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's something we can certainly look into. And discuss. It's an interesting idea, so that it's not just a clear break with a clear price difference, but more gradual. Change, based on perhaps its additional units over a certain amount. Then this is how it… the fee increases. That's good input, thank you. Yeah, thank you, Mike, that's… appreciate that. Michael, go ahead. I'm… I've been quiet because I thought we were just in the clarifying questions So…. We've kind of gone into all…. And we do need to get to public input, I'm sorry, I was also interrupted, so, …

[125:05] Yeah, clarifying question. Last one. No, I don't have any. I was just wondering if…. Sorry. Bold . By fire until later. I'm sorry, I got a little distracted. That's okay. Let's… let's do invite public comment at this point, and then we can… we can really deliberate. Okay, thank you. Thank you, members of the public, thank you for your time and your interest in this topic and making Foulder a better place to move around. We are now ready for your feedback. Please use the raise hand function on your screen to be recognized and state your full name. You'll have 3 minutes to speak. Veronica, do we have anyone wishing to speak on this topic? Let's see… as of right now, no one has their hand. Okay. We have one more, actually. We just had a last minute hand. agree. Lynn, would you be able to confirm you're able to speak? This is… yeah, yeah. Perfect.

[126:00] Okay. This… this feels… this board feels like an iteration of Planning Board. To me, I follow Planning Board, Water Resources Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees, Landmarks Board. And planning board, and TAB. That's 5. Anyway… Integrating all of these things. the real… the real kind of problems I see with this situation, and I agree with it all, you know, like, all the different modes. But… The problem is, it's another… side thing that a developer can complain, but we have to have this, this, expense, this extra expense, whereas I'd rather see it all in one thing they have to pay, and then you get distributed this much for transportation, you know? One… one bucket.

[127:00] And then it spread out. And the reason is, Because… You can… first of all, there needs to be a quantification. Of specifically what each individual in this community uses, all the impacts, the police, the fire, the water, the everything. And then, with any project, It goes… based on how much impact you're gonna have, you have to pay impact fees, and they're not just 25%. Because that's a piddling nothing compared to their actual result of impact. And their, you know, the cost of living, and the cost of more homelessness, and the cost of the trash, and the cost of the mental health, and the whole thing gets huger and huger when you over-impact place like Boulder that has a blue line. There is a blue line here.

[128:01] And… Much as I like this… Ordinance. it's kind of putting things in the weeds when the developer comes up and says, oh, but we have all these other expenses. Instead, they can complain about one big expense. And we can really shut this down, because As much as you've got people going around in these alternate modes. guess what? You're gonna have people crashing into each other, because there's too many, and they're… and bring it and they will come. Sundance, Limelight, you know, CU South, Planning Reserve, all of these developments, they're going up all over, you know, the, Folsom, and what is it called? … The one at Folsom and Pearl. Huge developments, you know, the McKenzie Junction, 30th, and Pearl.

[129:04] It needs to stop. Thanks, Lynn. Veronica, is there anyone else who would like to speak? We have no one else. Okay. Well, let's… okay, let's start our deliberation. … and the resulting recommendation to City Council. So, just to reiterate, the staff is recommending the TAB consider the following motion. The Transportation Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinance. Ordinance 8713, adding Section 9-9-19, Transportation Demand Management. BRC1981. To establish requirements for new developments, and setting forth related details. Okay, what further feedback do we have, or other, perhaps not clarifying, but deeper questions for Chris. Actually, I have one, Chris. I'm curious about what research you've done into the staffing costs of implementing the ordinance, and how many FTE do you think it might take to care… to monitor this?

[130:14] Yeah, so we…. We've certainly thought about, you know, the… you know, as we've developed the thresholds, for example, we have looked at projects that are in the site review pipeline, projects over the last 10 years, to determine where different projects would fall within the thresholds to get an understanding of the volume of work. So part of the threshold setting is related to how do we manage and mitigate, you know. you know, having to have a lot of extra staff to administer this program. We do know it's going to take some administrative staff. You know, on the planning and development services side, those frontline people who are in the development application process.

[131:03] I really hope that we're simplifying the process for them. Right now, the TDM process is really one of negotiation. There's a lot of back and forth, because we don't have… an ordinance to really guide what we're doing and what's required and what the clear expectations are. Therefore, you know, we're gonna be providing that new environment, at that time of initial review, it's really determining, based on the land use and the size, what the tier is, what the annual financial guarantee would be, if they're a two-tier, what that trip generation target might be. So. we're hopefully simplifying it for them. So, I think the impact may not be much on P&DS. … transportation mobility staff, we will be responsible for approving TDM plans, and helping implementation of those plans with the tenants and the residential property managers that are using these funds. So there is going to be an impact. It's going to increase over time as the number of projects we're looking at. So there could be in the future, you know, you know.

[132:16] half FTE that's going to be required to manage this program once it's really mature. … The financial side is, you know, we currently… our financial staff currently manages escrow accounts for virtually every site review project that comes by. There's escrow accounts. Sometimes they're for TDM, sometimes for construction. of a new sidewalk that the city's gonna do, but they have to pay for it. So they handle these all the time, but really, it's gonna be the effect of accumulation, if… it is so desired by Council that this is an ongoing annual requirement, then over time, the amount of cases that the financial staff have to manage in terms of escrow accounts will increase. So there's likely to be, over time.

[133:05] A need for someone to… manage that. We haven't quantified that… that amount yet. But it would, you know. Over the first 3 years, it would probably be the same as it is now. It's really kind of in that year 4, year 5, where you have now that annual aspect kicking in, that will… increase that load over time, but it will be, I think, a, you know, a gradual year-over-year increase in the need. Yeah, thank you, I appreciate it, because as… yeah, there'll be more to monitor as more projects come online. The more compliant they are, you know, that annual monitoring goes away. So hopefully we have good compliance. We provide them with the tools and the money to be compliant. Yeah, exactly. Well, and I wanted to say that I appreciate how you've put the, the fee structure under the city manager so that that can be, … adjusted as the costs of TDM programs change and as other factors. You know, the dial metaphor, I think, is really apt here, and I appreciate your thinking about it that way.

[134:10] And also, you know, the context sensitivity of this… of this work, really understanding, what's happening in each kind of development is so important, what they have access to. So, thank you for thinking all that through so thoroughly. Go ahead, Hernan. Thank you. I don't want to build up on what Mike said. like… Let's say we have a new development, … here… does it… does this only apply to commercial or residential as well? It's commercial and residential. Based on the number of units. Okay. what's the cost per unit? Like, the cost… how much is… I mean, because, like. I think somebody mentioned earlier, this is gonna get passed.

[135:00] to the tenants, right? To the… To the families, like, let's say we're in a reservation unit. I don't know what the average…. Yeah. Your footage is, like, what is that family gonna pay extra per year? with this… programmed. So, yeah. So, like, you know, if we assume that every cent is going to be passed down. potentially to tenants. You know, for a Tier 1, it's $180 per year, per unit. For the year two, $280 at these current rates. You know, and what they get for that is Eco Passes for the family, bike share memberships, Lime credits, car share memberships, car share credits. Those are the types of things that you get in exchange for that. that much. Holy, holy… Are you guys negotiating with this? How are you reaching those economies of scale? What's, like…. Well, like, the RT… like, the EcoPass is an RT program, RTD program. Yeah, no.

[136:00] the price, you know. What about lime? You mentioned lime and other. Yeah, I mean, they, they have, you know. I think it's gonna be, like, per ride clock. So, they have a per-ride cost. B-cycle, they have annual memberships. you know, we have gotten some discounted, kind of, corporate rates for large-scale projects, like Boulder Junction, where we have a general improvement paying district paying for those DDM benefits. So, you know, we have been able to work out some you know, kind of volume, I guess you could say volume discounts, but typically, these are programs that the city's not setting the price. They're set by the service provider. But just to add to that, too, like, RITD's Neighborhood Eco Pass program is a bulk pricing program, so it's. You have to buy it for every unit. then, yeah, I mean, it's cheaper than… and, you know, Senate Bill 161 that just passed comes with a requirement to assess whether a neighborhood, you know, a multifamily neighborhood wants neighborhood eco-passes, and that allows them to get the bulk pricing. So there's also… there is bulk pricing in this or not.

[137:07] Yeah, yeah, for the…. Yeah, what…. Neighborhood That's for sure. With the RTD, I get, like, I see into those neighborhood ecopasses and the EcoPass for employers. I mean, but that already exists, right? Like, for the new stuff, you're… and that's part of the already, the TDM. what you're proposing new is to extend this to other modes of transportation, I think. You mentioned Lime, B-Cycle. This will be just, like, coupon codes, like gift cards, basically, that the family can use, or how does they access those pro… how do they access those programs? Like, so, for example, if you had a new residential development, and their TDM plan was to provide EcoPasses and bike share memberships to every resident. So… you know, for that bike share component, what they do in Boulder Junction is they provide a special code That the resident can use to sign up for their annual membership, and they would have it

[138:06] you know, in this case, maybe it's like they sign up, and then the, the tenant, the property manager, you know, will get an invoice from B-Cycle, and they'll pay that annual membership out of their TDM fund. Because the resident has access to it, they can sign up for it, and, you know, they can get either the free or the discounted rate, what, you know, what is in the TDM plan. So, that's why it's important that, you know, like, on a residential side. All these large residential developments have property managers, and this would be the type of program that they would… they would, … They would, implement and maintain. But you're providing these TVM packages. Are you coordinating all of this? Like, these special codes and all of that, or does that fall on the. That would be through the service provider. I mean, we would, the city staff would help develop the TDM plan that the tenant is going to implement using the money in the annual financial guarantee, but they're working with the service providers.

[139:09] As they, you know, currently do in, like, places like Boulder Junction, where we have a TDM program for all residents and employees. In that case, the money's coming from a property taxing district. In this new case, it's coming from the owner of the property. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Michael? Well, I, have to commend you. I think the architecture of this… this ordinance is really elegant. And, you know, it's… it's, I think, benefits from having looked at what other municipalities have done in this regard, and then also informed by our existing experience. So I think overall, it's a really excellent, design.

[140:02] you know, I… if there's improvements to be made, I think there… I mean, I… I think Mike's suggestion of looking at, you know, a marginal guarantee, marginal guarantee is worth, exploring. I think it is a good idea, to require that the annual report be signed and certified by a principal. Because inevitably, some section of… some percentage of the community will lie to you, and it'll be nice to communicate to them up front that they could be held accountable for false statements that they make in those reports. But apart from that, I mean, I think this is… this is excellent. And… I guess… you know, my principal concern is the concern that Ernan was touching on, that this applies principally only to new and redeveloped properties. And, you know, and I understand that, you know, we have these other TDM programs in place, but of course, if

[141:08] those were enough, we wouldn't need this ordinance, right? So we're doing this because…. We recognize that those other tools, while good. might not get us where we want to go in the long term. So, while I, you know, I think this ordinance should go forward with the little tweaks that we've been talking about, and exploration of, you know, possible changes to the marginal rates. I would also love to see us, as TAB, advise that Council and, you know, direct staff to take a look at whether and under what circumstances this program should be expanded beyond new and redeveloped properties. There will be a legal analysis as to, you know, whether that can be done, but then that legal analysis will almost certainly hinge

[142:05] On what particular… what that program looks like. I suspect that if you had some retroactive program, it would not look exactly like the program you've devised for new developments. It might be different, right? It might be more sort of transportation wallet kind of stuff, as opposed to some of the other things. … But I'd love that analysis to take place, because first of all, as I understand it, there has been no legal analysis of whether and under what conditions these kind of ordinances could be made retroactive. And that's fair, right? I mean, this was, as I understand it, this was always focused on new development, so there was no cause to go back and do that analysis of retroactivity. But I think it would be valuable to have that analysis done with an eye to what a more broadly reaching program might look like. Because, you know… we have…

[143:03] pretty substantial. Progress to be made, When it comes to inbound, cross-boundary. commuters, right? We have a lot of this inbound commuting, and that's the area where we've made the least progress. And to me, it seems like TDM is very likely the largest and most effective hammer we have, or the largest and most effective strategy we have to address that problem. So, it seems like we'd leave a lot of cards on the table. If we weren't to at least analyze whether and under what conditions You know, this program or a variant of it could be expanded. So, again, I think this is a sensible place to begin. I love it as it is. I think some minor changes could be made to improve it. And I fully acknowledge that if we were to expand a program, you know, to existing developments, that Council would also need to take a close look at staffing levels, because it can all be CRIS.

[144:10] But, you know, I would hate for Council to walk away from this thinking, well, we already did TDF. We're done, right? That, I think, would be a misapprehension of fact, right? This is a starting place, not the finishing line. And… and I think, you know, that having that analysis done would make that clear, but it would also inform decisions Council might make about where to go in the future. The great thing, too, is that it was, you know, kind of like we've been doing on all these CAN projects. It'd be kind of phase one and phase two. So you learn from Phase 1 what works, what's sticky. You know, what… what's labor-intensive, you know, that kind of stuff, and then that could inform what kind of work is done in Phase 2. But that'd be my recommendation, about how we proceed.

[145:02] Thank you. They're none? Thank you. … I wanted to ask, like, what other feedback have you gotten on this, proposal? Like, what kind of feedback have you gotten from developers? Oh, pretty much. managers, like, what are some points of contention or things that… I mean, it seems from what you said earlier that… It should make certain pieces easier, But… I mean, obviously the money, but what, like, what are some Like, some critiques of it. Yeah. So, I think, you know, cost is always going to be at the top. That is going to cost more to develop in Boulder. Boulder is already the most expensive place in the Front Range to develop, and now we're going to make it even more costly. So I think that was certainly the number one. You know, balancing that out, there was, you know, a real hope to kind of streamline and clarify the process around TDM. They feel that, you know, site review costs a lot of money. They're mostly going to site review for parking reductions.

[146:16] And so… which then triggers the TDM, so, they're looking at, hopefully this will be streamlined, and the expectations will be really clear. But I think some of the other concerns are, communication. So… and that's a concern now, and, you know, a lingering concern of when you have requirements on an owner. But then you have a leasee, a tenant, that has to implement them. the communication that before the lease, the person signs that lease to have their business in this property, understanding that there is a TDM requirement on this property, and that you're going to have to do something, and that something is going to take time.

[147:04] You know, it will be paid for by the owner, but it will have to be implemented. So, they feel that, you know, an area, a key area to focus on in the implementation is that communication between entities and then with the city. So that, that, I think, was another concern of how you do that and, you know, how is it written into leases to understand that. So that's certainly something we heard. I think we heard from a lot of, you know, from… we had meetings with Boulder Housing Partners. They certainly also, you know, they were part of that conversation about weighing the cost and benefits. You know, we currently work with Boulder Housing Partners to implement EcoPass programs now, and we subsidize them. You know, to help them pay for it. And they get an ongoing subsidy year after year. So, I think, you know, they, of course, are concerned about the cost of the development, but I think they also see the benefit

[148:07] Of their attendants having access to these programs, may be even more valuable. You know, and I think that, … You know, for the… residents. or, you know, kind of our general public who intended the engagement. I think their main concern is always that if you're going to eliminate parking minimums. At a development. What if you have a developer that builds no parking? Yes, they have these TDM requirements, but… people have cars, and they're gonna park in their neighborhood. So that is, you know, an ongoing concern, which is why that third leg of the stool was part of the project, to understand how can we better develop you know, one of the tools being our neighborhood parking permit program to help mitigate those impacts. But I think that was kind of the concern we heard most from the general public was.

[149:01] you know, yes, you have these TDM programs, but is it going to make a difference if people… if developers don't provide parking? Okay. Yum. I mean, I have some concerns overall that I've been kind of taking notes as we've been discussing. I am concerned that it will require significant more city staff to administer. You said that it should stabilize as time goes on, like, maybe to, like, I think you said half FTE eventually, but… I mean, that's just the optimistic approach. It is more paperwork for developers and property managers. I mean, it feels like a tax, because of the perpetuity of it, and it also kind of sends the optics that, you know, to live in Boulder, you kind of require this annual payout. it will cost, more for new buildings to maintain, right? Because some of that money, like, It's…

[150:02] They make cuts to kind of allocate money for this escrow. It seems like you guys really like the 30%, but it's… You're saying, like, it should lead to a 30%, or you want to reach a 30% vehicle trip reduction. I mean, this is so depending on location, what kind of tenants you have. the transit quality, like, I don't know, it just seems very… … Like, the burden is on the owner, but it really depends on the people that are… you know, working or living in the building, I don't know. …. what we've discussed already, this only applies to new developments, and like I said, like, yeah, we have some TDM now, but, you know, obviously we need a new one, so… it's… I feel there's an imbalance there, but I don't… I think that's just part of, … not much you can do about that. I think it's just kind of, like, how things are right now. … And I don't know, I mean, as I was reading this, it just feels…

[151:03] I appreciate the work you've put into it, but it feels so complicated. It's like this massive bureaucracy. That puts a lot of pieces in place. That are kind of hard to measure or be able to see, like, okay, this is what's working, this is what's causing this issue, like, to track, you know, what's… it would be hard to track, like, what to improve. I don't know, I'm… It's like… building an airplane, and you'll say, like, let's fly it, you know, without testing it. Like, it's a lot of moving pieces here with people and agendas and… you know, safe cost reduction on money, and I don't know, it just… I feel a little, unease about it. I don't know. It's a very complex process. You know, we were asked to design an ordinance that gives people access to these programs. And we know these programs. change behavior. We have our Boulder Valley Employee Survey, we have our Modal Shift Report. We know access to things like a B-Cycle membership, an EcoPass, vanpool subsidies, they all change behavior. So, you know, when we were asked to design it, it's like, well, how do you get those programs into the hands of people?

[152:16] And ultimately, how do you pay for them? They all have a cost, they have an annual cost, so the money has to come from somewhere. We could either just make the tenants pay it. you know, that's the other option. You just say, you're required to do it, and you've got to pay for it all. You know, in this way, we thought, it's the developer who's building it. They're building a building, they're building the amount of parking. It's their responsibility to pay for the programs that are going to mitigate those impacts on our transportation system, the surrounding properties, and the neighborhoods. You know, that's how we came to that conclusion. Because these programs have costs. who pays for them? And then the question is, well, how long do you pay for them? You know, we were asked to design a program that's going to contribute to our goals.

[153:07] Well, what does that mean? That means… having it ongoing. that's the only way that it's going to help contribute to those. So, and I understand your confusion, and, you know, it is a very complex thing, but it's built off of what we do now. You know, we have a system like this, but it's limited. It's limited in scope, it's limited in duration, it's limited in impact. And so, we're trying to take this new ordinance to Improve on where we are now. Well, and as a… as a… professional in this area, I'll say that what I appreciate about this ordinance is that it does provide … the, the guarantee, or the sort of teeth, to a TDM plan, right? So right now, we do have TDM plans. They're very hard. My organization is one of those that try… that has… tries to, you know, works really hard to help

[154:08] property owners implement those TDM plans in an ongoing way, and they're… Because there are a lot of options involved in that, it's, you know, that can be a real challenge. So, this actually provides order and structure and requirements that will enable, as Chris has said, those programs to be implemented in an ongoing way. And I think, Chris, that you presented very well in your presentation and in the memo. That, this is ultimately a… a balance of, you know, cost of parking, cost of programs. you've got… parking is expensive, and maintenance of parking is expensive. And yes, to a developer, it might seem like, well, that's a one-time cost, and this is gonna add to my overall costs, but there… it's a, …

[155:12] there's a real comparable sort of trade-off there, and the TDM programs then allow for… like, we're seeing there's great research in Boulder Junction, you know, just looking at what's happened with their, with the TDM, funding and programs that were built into that project, the reduction in trips is actually greater than was anticipated. So we know that these programs do work, we know that people move to places like Boulder Junction without a car. And one of the reasons that they do that is because car share is available. If they want to go to the mountains, they can take out a car share car. So, there are a lot of, … There are a lot of… ways that I think that this ordinance is going to, provide

[156:03] Structure, foundation, and ongoing growth and acceleration of our TDM implementation and uptake. So, yeah, go ahead, Michael. I was just going to add that I think it's… I think… I like the way that it's structured right now, and I think it's very important that the financial guarantee rest on the developer rather than the tenant, because the developer is the one who's going to be in the, sort of. in the position of internalizing all those costs for parking, right? And they're the ones who are going to be analyzing, hey, you know, I've got all this asphalt here allocated to parking, I could reduce that and put an additional building on there, for example, I can… I can achieve some, you know, financial gain from reassigning some of this asphalt to a higher and better purpose. if I can reduce the amount of parking demand, from employees and anyone else, right? So the tenants aren't going to be doing that kind of thinking. They're just like, what's my… what's my lease, you know? But they're not going to be thinking about the bigger picture, and so by placing this on the developer.

[157:15] The developer is now in the position of having to weigh, you know, what the actual cost of the parking is, and probably from, you know, at that point. they and the tenants will realize, yeah, this is money well spent, because if I don't have employees driving in, now I've, you know, the limited parking spaces I've got can be used for customers instead of employees. And if I have an excess of space after that, hey, I can build another structure and lease out more space. So, I don't see that happening if you put the… if you, you know, if the financial guarantee rests on the tenants. So, I… I like the architecture you've got. Like Chris mentioned, I mean, these programs have costs, you know, they have ongoing costs.

[158:02] So those have to be. Okay. Put into the program. I like the way you put it, Michael. Does the program take into account parking space? Like… If you put… Less parking space, you get, like, maybe more credits or something like that? We, we did not do that. You know, we certainly thought about… you know, think about, you know, a development and their level of parking, their level of TDM. You know, the less parking they provide, the more TDM they have to provide. And that was our thinking for a long time. when the House bill came with the elimination of parking requirements, we kind of had to rethink that equation a little bit. … And, you know, we were thinking it was going to be directly tied to the amount of parking spaces. Now, with, with that elimination, we thought, well, let's figure out what are the TDM programs that we want to provide.

[159:06] we want those tenants and residents to have access to, and that's how we kind of went about it. So we kind of changed thinking when that house bill came. Yeah, okay, okay. Okay, do we have anything else we want to deliberate on before we… Move to the motion on the… No, move to the motion. Yes, Michael? So, I heard a suggestion from Mike about, exploring this marginal financial guarantee. So I'm wondering, do we need motion language around that? And then I also had a proposal, I think, to sort of analyze the expansion of this, and I'm wondering if we need motion language around that before we jump into voting on

[160:01] on, … motion language. Or, I don't know, I'm a newbie, so maybe this is done in… I don't know. Yeah, I… I don't… I don't know. Do we add… maybe we, I think we can speak those… those expectations into the motion language. Do you want to just remind me so I can write that down here? Do you want me to share my screen? Yeah, if you could… but just the little things that we were mentioning before. Language, yes. Yeah. I thought it was just a… I thought it was a yes or no question. Is that right? Well, it's a…. That is the motion. I don't see it. Oh, there it's coming, it's coming. Alright, there it goes. … I don't know, I would suggest… I think that you could make, within the motion, the recommendations About, you know, like, the graduated, or… Marginal rates, you know.

[161:03] I think, Michael, your thing about, like, asking counsel to direct staff to investigate, to me, that may be a separate… that feels like a separate thing coming from Tab. Sure. If you agree, Valerie. Right, that's, kind of a request for Council to consider directing staff to explore a future work program item. But I think Mike Mills' suggestion could become a modification to this suggested motion. Okay, and can you just remind me how to… How'd I put that in here? So I could say at the end of this, you know, our approval anticipates that… X. Does somebody want to dictate that? I think, perhaps. To summarize it is to investigate the use of graduated rates… Based on increasing…

[162:12] number of residential units. I don't know, Michael, does that…. Based on the number of units above the…. Each threshold. Yeah. Tier 1 threshold. Yeah, I think for each of the… for each of the…. Tier 2, definitely Tier 2, yeah. Based on the number of units that you would have a graduated rate between two years. Okay. Something like that. Yeah. Investigate the use of graduated rates based on the number of units above the threshold. I guess just to be devil's advocate, like, I feel that would incentivize developers to not put any parking space at all. Which will make some people angry.

[163:02] Oh, well, they might have trouble selling or renting out units. Maybe. I mean, that's… I mean, that's a… that's a parking minimum question. That's…. Yeah. No. You know, I think, you know, we allow it, but I think to be marketable. I think it will be very rare that we'll see a development without any parking. … I hear of those in very large cities. Alright, I've got, I've got good language here. Okay, so… Let's add a recommendation. … Prior to… … making the motion. So the, the recommendation… would be… TAB recommends that City Council direct city staff to analyze whether and to what degree

[164:02] Expansion of the transportation demand program to… existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 developments outside of existing special districts. would be legally viable and help the city meet its goals in terms of reductions in traffic and parking requirements. Enhanced access and use of multimodal investment and greenhouse gas emissions. Right. That makes sense, okay. Did you send that to me? Yeah, that's what I was thinking of for this. The separate thing. The thing about expansion…. That's separate, yeah. Okay, so let's… so that's a recommendation that we're making. Huh. And then let's, … address the… The, motion about, …. Darcy, may I just, as a point of order, if you could, take a vote on that recommendation to Council before you move on to the motion language for adopting the ordinance?

[165:04] Because every… everything that we're doing, yeah, we need to have, agreement about this. Chris, I do have… I do have this language in my notes, so you can, stop sharing so we can… I can see the… The, participation in this motion. What are we asking? Can you paraphrase it, please? Can we see those words somewhere? You know. Put them in the chat. me… Yeah, that's a good idea. I can quickly type it into the chat tab. I'll speak it as I type it. Tab recommends… that council… Sorry, my typing tab recommends that Council direct city staff. to analyze… Whether and to what degree… Expansion of the… T… It's TDM.

[166:06] program. to existing… Tier 1 and Tier 2. developments… Outside of existing special… Districts… would be… Legally. viable. and help… The city meet its goals in terms of Reductions… In traffic, and… Hurricane… Environments… Enhanced… Access…

[167:01] And the use of multimodal… Investment… and greenhouse… gas emissions. Okay. Is this based on Michael's suggestion? I believe so. Yes. Our resident lawyer. Okay, there we go. Got it. Sorry, I had to type it out. Wow. Okay. I've not seen it anywhere. Oh, I'm sorry, I sent it accidentally to Meredith only. Let me redo that to everyone. Copy, paste? Yeah, I'm just gonna copy-paste, posts and panelists, there we go. Okay, there we go, now everybody should be able to see it. TAB recommends that City… that Council direct city staff to analyze whether and to what degree expansion of the TDM program to existing

[168:02] Tier 1 and Tier 2 developments outside of existing special districts would be legally viable and help the city meet its goals in terms of reductions in traffic and parking requirements, enhanced access and use of multilateral investment and greenhouse gas emissions. Okay. This is a question about retroactive application. Yes. They're basically asking for the citywide EcoPass. I mean, I guess we're excluding Tier Zero, right? Okay. Is that… is that what kind of… we're kind of asking? I mean…. Oh, man. I think it would be putting TDM requirements on existing developments. Exactly. Of the same size as the ordinance would require. Yeah, so yeah… Exempting our smallest little businesses. Exactly. Exactly. What was the, Tier 1 again? I'm sorry, I didn't take note of that. 40 or more. Reporting to 99. What example do you use, Chris? Do you use… was it Whole Foods that you used as an example?

[169:03] Oh, well, that was on the commercial side. So, the commercial side, the thresholds… Like, for office, it's $25,000 and $50,000 for Tier 1 and Tier 2, respectively. Same with retail. Light industrial, it increases $75,000 to $125,000. So, they differ based on land use. Okay, I'm sorry, what was it for presidential? Residential was 40 units, and then 100 units. So, if it's between 40 and 99, it's a Tier 1. If it's over a… it's 100 or more, it's a Tier 2. And, single-family homes, would that be Tier 0? Those are, yeah, those are not covered by the ordinance. It's only multifamily attached dwelling units. Multifamily and commercial. Is there merit in asking for Tier 1 and 2, and not just all 3 tiers?

[170:00] It's just… there's just two tiers that are…. Yeah. Junior. I think… I think Amnon is asking whether there would be value added in amending this language to include Tier 0. Because, you know, potentially you'd want to reach those folks. I… I didn't include it, simply because I know that it… that would be, you know, that would be a massive program. I would not… I would not recommend that at all. I mean, they… there are different means for addressing… yeah, no, I would not add that to the ordinance. And I guess, yeah, Tier Zero is not included in this TDM program anyway, right? Right, exactly, yeah. Yeah, okay. Well, and, okay, so…. Yeah, I like the language. Okay, so this is a… this is a recommendation that we're going to move on. Now, Valerie, with that language about adding the, grad… graduated rate between the tiers.

[171:02] Is that a second recommendation that we need to move on as well? Yes, I mean, I think you have an option here on how you'd like to craft that, as a board. So, you could also similarly make this as a separate recommendation from adopt… recommending that they adopt the ordinance, or you could tack it on as a… amendment to the ordinance, but because it's more of an explore, and it's an idea that was kind of generated tonight, it's really up to the prerogative of the board, but I might suggest that you make it a separate recommendation from recommending the adoption of the ordinance. That's great. Okay, I can type that in. Okay, so let's… first, let's address this, idea of expanding the ordinance to existing properties. So, does anyone want to move to formally make this recommendation?

[172:01] Can I do that? I believe so, yes. Okay, so Michael moves to adopt the recommendation that he introduced. Good. Any seconds? I'll second. Okay, mic seconds. Okay, great. All in favor, or any discussion? All in favor, raise your hand, say aye. I…. I…. I want to say O. Okay, okay, good. Are we all? Okay, so that recommendation passes unanimously, 4-0. Let's craft a little language about the graduated Rate to, address the, sort of. minimal increases over and above. So TAB recommends… well, marginal, yeah. Tab recommends that staff… this is really to staff to explore, right? To staff, explore

[173:05] adding… graduated… I graduated… yeah, graduated rates… Keep going, Mike. Based on…. marginal…. increases in… learning units, And…. per footage. surfootage. above… to your thresholds. Good. … Okay, good. Do we want to add a little bit, saying, to what effect? So, yeah, dwelling units and square footage above tier thresholds. to, … Well, I think that makes sense, that's fine. It's fine, because it's… yeah. it brings in that idea that you're not just making that cut off, like, one unit above wouldn't double the price. Okay, great, so here's that language. TAB recommends that staff explore adding graduated rates based on marginal increases in dwelling units and square footage above tier thresholds.

[174:14] Okay, can I get a motion to make this recommendation formal? How you move? Mike? Who would like to second that? A second? Michael, okay, great, all in favor? Say aye. Raise your hand, say aye. Are you not in favor, Karna? There's 3 in favor. Okay. I don't really understand. I want to discuss. Yeah, I think so. Okay. Because I think I'm moving in the opposite direction. I want to make this simpler. I already… this is, like, I think one of my concerns, you know? I want to vote yes for this ordinance, but I want to put a big asterisk in it, because I have a lot of concerns. So I think this moves in the opposite direction, where it's like, this is already highly complex. And then, I don't… Philosophically, I agree with this.

[175:03] But it's, like…. I'm making this thing more complicated than it ever. Or would it be? Yeah. And… and I don't like just throwing things out there without… I mean, like, I like the first one, the first language, because it's exploring, but there's nothing set in stone. I guess this one is exploring as well, but… It's like adding more things to it. I would say that, In the application of the current system, as it's proposed, it is complicated for a developer to consider You know, making a 99 unit. Development versus a 100 unit, and more than doubling the price of this fee, so… That's why I think… It's, you know… But the order says land use based, right? Or is it… it's not per unit, or is it… It is per unit. So there's… yeah, on the housing side. It's okay to dissent on this if you, we can… we'll capture that as well. We'll just, take the vote as it is, and, …

[176:07] We don't have to… Michael, did you want to add anything to that? Well, I was just gonna say that I… while I understand Ernan's point, I also think that developers are used to dwelling in a world of complexity. I mean, you know, these projects that they pursue are massive, things. They are not, you know, they have large staff that is responsible for navigating all of this stuff, and the TDM ordinance, by comparison to most of the other things they're grappling with, is relatively simple. So, you know, I would be… I would share your concern, Annan, if we were placing this complexity on the tenants, I think they would be overwhelmed by the complexity of something like this, or at least, potentially, some of them would be. But I… I think it'd be a rare developer who would… who would trip on something this small.

[177:04] That's my take on it, but I understand where you're coming from. Okay. Could you cl- could you clarify, like… Yeah, because the rent is… okay, okay, the commercial is per square footage, and the residential is per unit. Okay. … Wait, so how does that work? Can you explain then, like…. Yeah, so, I mean, you might actually change the threshold to… for Tier 2 from… 100 down to maybe 70 or something, so that… You're paying the higher rate, but only per unit above that threshold. So you're not paying… Like, as it currently is, If you're making a 99… unit development. You're paying, 99 times $180, that's…

[178:02] Just under $18,000. But if you make a 100-unit development, you're paying 100… Times 420, that's 42,000, so that's more than twice The fee, just for adding one additional unit at that threshold. …. Mike, I just want to clarify one thing. The annual financial guarantee is the annual amount. The remedial financial guarantee is that one-time payment. So, they would be paying $280 and then the one-time payment to have that reserve fund. So they don't pay the remedial financial guarantee every year. It's a one-time kind of sum that we can use to augment. Remedial…. Okay, so I didn't get that. The remedial is only one-time payment? Yes. That's… that's 140 per unit. Yeah. But the annual is going up from 180 per unit to 280 per unit, so…. Yep. That's basically 18… Just under 18,000 for 99 units versus… 28,000 for 100 units.

[179:11] Why the big jump? Thank you. that's the way the tier is designed, that's why I'm saying we should change it so that You're only paying $280 per unit above… the threshold…. But I think it goes back to what I said earlier, like, why is it so complicated? Why is it not linear, then? Like, all these cut-offs, you know? Like, why not 105, why not 110? Like, it just… it confuses me. you know. I'll add… I have to put it…. I have to put the line somewhere if we're. Yeah, you have to put the line somewhere, and developers know, I mean, you know, I guess the question becomes then, do we get a lot fewer units than we need? I don't… that's a whole different thing. Let's just… let's… let's re… address this particular request, recommendation that we're making. It's okay to dissent, we'll capture the dissent and the reason for doing that.

[180:09] … So I'm just gonna, … let's… We have been discussing, so we've got the motion, we've got the second, let's take another vote, just so we're clear. Okay, so all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. For this…. Recommendation. Okay, and, all opposed? Bye. Okay, and would you like to, … state the reason for your descent, Hernan, so we can get it in the record. Yeah, I mean, I think… First, I don't… I think… I don't think… I think I agree with the graduated rates, but… I don't know, like, I feel like it's a little complicated. I think the problem is already complicated, we're adding more stuff to it. I feel like if we're gonna do this, and let's have Tier 1A, Tier 1B, Tier 1C, until E, and then Tier 2A, B, C, like, I feel like…

[181:04] I don't know, it just… I don't know what the final version of this is the cleanest as possible, but I feel like this is not it, you know? I… something feels off. Okay, that's fine. So it, so… This recommendation, has 3 votes to one. Yeah, Meredith? Erna, may I say that you agree with the concept, but it's too complex, as stated? I feel we should clean the ordinance in general. I think that's one of my… what I've been kind of saying, like, in this meeting. And I think this could be part of our… the cities, it shouldn't be part of it. First, we should, like, clean the main ordinance, and then consider, like, graduated rates, I feel. I'm not sure, like, I just feel like something feels off to me, like, this is not the… It feels very complicated.

[182:00] And I think we're citing more complication to that. Sorry, the hold is clear. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Meredith. Okay. … Okay, great. Let me just check… I'm here…. We have two more. Okay. Presentation. Yes, but, to just close, well, okay, now we need to do the motion on the… Propose… the, the, staff's recommended promotion. Okay, so now, would anyone… here, I'm going to read it again. This is staff's recommended motion. The Transportation Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinance. Ordinance 8713, adding Section 9-9-19, Transportation Demand Management, BRC 1981,

[183:08] to establish requirements for new developments and setting forth related details. Can I have a motion? I saw you. approve this. Mike, okay? A second? Michael? Alright, you guys are great. …. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Wait, so… How can I include my concerns, or at least let my concerns be known? Will that be part of the memo? Yes, we will get your concerns. If you would like to dissent from the vote for this recommendation, you can do that. I mean, I don't wanna dissent, like, I honestly… I really appreciate what you, Darcy, and Chris, and Michael explained, like, you know, I think the benefits are definitely there. And I think, like, moving towards this unified framework, I think that's good.

[184:02] But I wonder if all this language with AFG and RFG and Tier 1, and Tier 2, and Tier 0, like, I feel like… There could be a little more clean in there than maybe, like… … I don't know, I think I have proof of the concept itself, but I feel that the ordinance could do a couple… could go through a couple more drafts, perhaps. So it's not like a… it's not like a no, but it's like a yes with an asterisk kind of deal. So, …. To, yeah, to capture that, you might need to… to, … not be in favor of the motion, but to dissent and state your dissent again. So, I mean, because otherwise we have to make another kind of recommendation, I think. So, why don't we do this? Let's do a vote. So, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Okay, so I see 3 eyes, all opposed. Yep, alright.

[185:00] Okay, and go ahead and state your… Reason for dissenting, there none. Okay. So that that can be captured by Meredith. Okay, … I think I need a reduction, though, sorry. Can you give me one minute? …. Well, go ahead, Valerie. For a point of… point of order. Yeah, I… I just want to interject here, being, you know, the observer here from the city staff, that… Hernan, what I'm hearing in your comments is that you support the adoption of the ordinance, so that would not be a dissenting vote on this motion. Okay. But rather, we do have a record through the video of this, recording, and all of the notes that staff have been taking tonight, of your feedback and your positions that we can summarize in, you know, our memorandum moving forward and our presentation to Planning Board and Council. So that, you know, as a practice, staff are capturing all of the feedback that we

[186:03] hear when, when we, you know, have discussions like this, what really gets, formalized in memos, are moments just like this. So, I just want to make that clarification. What I'm hearing is that you're not dissenting from the adopt… recommending the adoption of the ordinance. You just have extra feedback that you'd like to be, documented. Is that correct? I think so, I think I feel comfortable with that, and I think that's kinda, yeah, what I wanted to get at. Okay. Alright, so let's take… let's take the vote one more time, just so that we can really capture… what it… what it actually is. Okay, so… All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. I mean. Okay. So, any… proposed. Right, so the motion passes. 4-0, and then, as Valerie mentioned, our whole discussion is captured, and the, concerns and needs for further clarification are captured.

[187:09] Okay, wonderful. Thank you so much. And Chris, we wanted to just, thank you for all of your long-term work on this project, and we know that it was offset by COVID, and it's something that you've put so much time and consideration and professionalism into, and we're really grateful for, all the work that you've done and how… how you've received our feedback this evening. Thank you so much for, for listening and for taking notes and being open to, to our recommendations. I really appreciate that. You, you are… I mean, you were…. I would like to… I would like to reiterate that I had a… I had a German PhD advisor who was very harsh, so sometimes the way I provide feedback can be… I feel harsh, but I do admire, sincerely admire the work you've put into this, and all the time you've dedicated, and all the work you've done. It's…

[188:06] I can see the massive amount of information and pieces that you put together, so I do respect that and admire it. I want to make that clear for the record. I appreciate that, thank you. Thank you. It is very complex developing these types of requirements. Thank you. And thinking about every situation that could come about, so… But, yeah, I appreciate your input as well. I think it's been really helpful. receiving feedback. I've enjoyed working with Darcy throughout the project and bouncing ideas off her as well. So, I think we have some really good feedback to go back, and we'll let Planning Board know what that feedback is, and then also Council as we move this forward, but really appreciate your time and your input tonight. Thanks so much. confused. Thank you so much for all your leadership in the field as well. Okay.

[189:00] Great. All right, so we've now come to agenda Item 7, the staff presentation and tab feedback regarding snow and ice response 2024-2025 Season Review. Staff will tell us about this item and is just looking for feedback. This is not a public hearing item. Okay, Valerie, do you want to introduce us? Thank you, Darcy, and thank you, staff, for patiently waiting tonight, for this item. I'm gonna hand it right over to Ellie. Hello! I'm just gonna share my screen, and then I'm gonna… from here. Oh, sorry, …

[190:08] So, are you seeing my screen? Are you seeing my PowerPoint presentation here? Yes, you're still just in the slides mode, but not in presentation mode yet. Alright. There you go. Alright, good evening, TAB members. I'm Ellie Evans. I'm the project manager supporting our Snow and Ice Review project currently. The 2024-25 snow season was the culmination of a 3-year project to review and update our snow and ice program. During that review, staff engaged in multiple rounds of engagements to make sure the program was one that met the needs of our community. What we ended up with is a data-driven yet flexible program that is more sustainable for staff, more equitably serves all Boulder residents, and better supports safe multimodal travel. We couldn't have gotten here without the guidance and direction from TAB that we received, which was really invaluable as staff moved forward in the update process.

[191:04] We're here tonight to provide an update following our first full season operating the updated snow and ice program. We'll discuss how the program is serving the Boulder community, and highlight what went well last winter. We'll also outline some lessons learned, and report out on how we're shifting things moving forward to address some gaps that arose throughout the winter. We're excited to share what we found, and looking forward to hearing your feedback. And with that, I will actually hand it off to Leonard Molina, who will be your primary presenter tonight. All right, thank you, Ellie. I'm Leonard Molina, and I work in the City's Transportation and Mobility Department, supporting field operations, including the snow and ice program. I'll pick it up from here with a look back at this past off-season, what we saw, how we responded, and what we're focused on moving forward. So, this was our first season using the new Storm Size Response Framework, which was introduced in fall 2024.

[192:06] It gives staff a clear structure for how to respond based on how much snow is expected. And it helps the public know the level of service to expect. This framework covers not just streets, but also multi-use paths, the bike network, bus stops, and shoveled areas that transportation and mobility maintains. And it groups the storms into three different categories, small, medium, and large. With, the forecasted totals being 3 inches, 3 to 8, and 8 inches. For each storm, we have targets for when different parts of the network should be cleared. That gives us consistency, but it also allows flexibility so we can scale up or down, depending on the actual conditions. This table right here shows why total snowfall isn't always the best way to understand how demanding the snow season really was. So if you look at 2024 and 2025,

[193:08] For that season, we actually had nearly 24 inches less than the year before. But we actually responded to more snow events and ran almost the same number of snow shifts. So these snow events are counted when we see at least half an inch of accumulation. So even smaller storms are part of this picture. The number of events doesn't always equal the number of snow shifts. Some storms are long or complex and may span multiple shifts, while others require more than one team rotation because of timing, temperatures, or refreezing. Frequent mid-sized storms, for example, can be just as resource heavy as a few major ones, especially if they hit during busy hours or on consecutive days. So, while snowfall was down, the operational demand in terms of staffing, equipment, and materials was right in line with the previous season.

[194:10] Now, this past season, staff responded to a wide range of challenges while working to meet service expectations across the network. One improvement that helped was adding a winged plow, which is shown here. These plows allow us to clear more road with each pass, improving efficiency and reducing the time needed to clear key routes. In mid-January, we had an unusually long stretch of very cold weather for Boulder. well below freezing for several days, paired with a series of small snowstorms. These conditions created unique challenges. At those temperatures, anti-icing and de-icing materials don't work as well, especially on streets with less traffic to help activate them. During that cold period, we focused our material use on high-priority intersections and known trouble spots. Once the temperatures warmed, we expanded coverage and sent additional trucks to improve conditions across the network, including on Priority 2 and 3 routes.

[195:14] Over the course of the season, we listened to community feedback and gathered data to better understand where adjustments could be… could make the most impact. This was our first year running the updated program, and we approached it with flexibility and adaptability and openness to input. In some cases, we made targeted route adjustments during the season, such as adding a handful of Priority 1 segments and making smaller changes in Priority 2 and Priority 3 routes. These updates, along with what we learned this year, will guide our planning next season. Now, while in-season changes address specific needs, any future adjustments will be reviewed carefully to assure that they align with the program's long-term goals.

[196:01] Let's take a look at some of the highlights of the updated program from the 24-25 season. So the updated program is serving more residents than before, and doing so in a way that better reflects Boulder's equity goals. This past year, more homes were directly adjacent to a snow route. And we increase the share of those routes that run through areas where residents may face greater barriers to safe winter travel. Such as limited transportation options, language barriers, or lower incomes. These changes weren't made to cut service or because of budget reductions. While costs are rising, the focus on using our resources was More efficiently and improving coverage in the areas where it can make the biggest difference. Many of these adjustments were simply just formalized the way our crews have already been operating in the past years. By refining the routes, we were able to serve more people and make sure our efforts are distributed more equitably across the city.

[197:09] And I want to stress, this is important to us. We hear what the community members say about winter travel, and that input plays a role in how we shape and improve the program. Another highlight of our updated program is how well we're serving all travel modes. Snow and Ice Response continues to prioritize Boulder's most critical routes. High traffic streets, transit corridors, and emergency access routes, because those have the greatest impact, immediate impact, on safety and mobility. But we are committed to serving everyone who needs to get around in the weather, whether it's by car, on foot, by bike, or by transit. This past year, we made targeted additions to the multimodal network. Included protected bike lanes on portions of Colorado Avenue and 30th Street.

[198:03] new multi-use path connections in North Boulder and along the South Boulder Creek Corridor, and improved connections near key transit stops in schools. Our program continues to prioritize multi-use path plowing. With a dedicated team that works throughout every snow event to clear snow from the entire network of paths maintained by transportation and mobility. Our recommended cross-town route bike network was a key criteria in building the response routes for medium and large storms. And we're now… and now we're clearing more of our… our… excuse me… more of our on-street bike network before… than ever before. Critical connections piloted last year will continue to be cleared, including Juniper Avenue, east of 26, to provide access to Elmer's 2-mile path, and Old Tail Road and Gaptor Road to provide continuity in the low-stress bike network.

[199:02] along South Boulder Creek, and access to the US 36 regional bikeway, among others. These connections make a real difference. They help people reach work, school, transit, and other destinations safely, even in winter weather. Now, we also want TAB and the community to know how important ensuring safe multimodal travel in the winter is to us. We listen to the feedback from the residents, and it helps us understand where we can make changes And where they can make the most impact. So… One of the guiding principles of the snow and ice response program is that it continues to evolve based on what we learn each season. This past winter, we identified a few areas where conditions like steep grades or critical connections created consistent challenges. In some cases, we were able to address the mid-season. But those changes require careful consideration, coordination, and routing adjustments. We don't make mid-season changes lightly. They have to be evaluated to ensure they support the program's overall goals.

[200:12] What we learned last season is directly shaping what we'll do this season. For example, we're shifting certain priority segments to our small storm response to improve safety and connectivity. Especially on higher traffic streets that support transit routes, like the Hop on 9th Street and College Avenue, and in areas that are critical for public safety access, and to ensure multi-use path connectivity, like on Harvard Lane between Table Mesa and Dartmouth. We're also refining how we coordinate with our transit partners and other city departments to make sure our efforts support their operations, whether that's keeping bus routes accessible, helping emergency vehicles reach where they need to go, or ensuring safe passage for all modes.

[201:00] The goal is to keep improving efficiency and service where it matters most, while staying consistent with the storm size framework that helps guide our decisions. Another thing we learned from last season is that the better our information, the better we can deploy our resources, especially in a city like Boulder, where conditions can vary a lot from one neighborhood to another. Right now, we rely on consensus local forecasts to guide our storm size response. And they're useful, but they don't always give us the level of detail we need, especially with Boulder's microclimates, where one part of the city can get several inches more than another. That's why we're looking at new technology to close that gap. So tools like cameras and road surface sensors can give us real-time, location-specific data. This helps our crews know where conditions are deteriorating faster, and it helps supervisors make quicker, more accurate decisions about where to send plows and apply materials. One of the most promising tools we're looking at is PlowOps.

[202:09] It's a system that shows where every plow is in real time, what routes have been completed, and where we still need coverage. For supervisors, it's like having a live dashboard of operations. For drivers, it can help with routing and avoiding duplicate passes. And for the public, it can provide a map showing where plows have been, so they can better plan their travel. We're aiming to pilot PlowOps this coming season, pending final approvals. Other agencies have adopted similar systems, and while we may be a little behind in this area, we're focused on catching up with tools that fit Boulder's needs. It's about giving our staff the right tools to work more efficiently, and giving the community more visibility into what's happening during a storm.

[203:00] Staffing and resources are always an important part of how well we can deliver the snow program, especially during frequent storms or large events. The program was originally designed to have 5 wing plows in operation. Those trucks really help improve efficiency, but having equipment isn't enough. We also need trained operators to run them effectively. This graphic that you see here gives a quick snapshot of where our staffing stands. stands. Going into the season, we filled the three full-time positions. That we were looking to add. So now we're staffed at the level that we've planned for. A few of those team members are still learning the routes and equipment, but they bring us closer to where we want to be. We're in a stronger position than we were last season, but you can see there's still a gap before we're fully staffed. The gap is where the support from utilities and other work groups comes from, especially during medium and large storms. So for those storms, we'll continue bringing in help from our partners in utilities to make sure that we have enough drivers to cover all snow operator routes. That cross-department support is an important part of making the program work. It's one of the ways we can stay flexible and responsive, even in changing conditions.

[204:21] Looking ahead to the 25-26 season, our focus is on refining on… is on refining what's working and continuing to make thoughtful improvements. So that includes Holding pre-season coordination meetings with internal and external partners, like Boulder PD and our transit partners, so everyone is aligned before the first storm hits. We're also aiming to launch the Plow Ops, which will give us both our crews and the public Better real-time visibility and operations, and continuing to explore other technology that can make us more efficient. On the community side, we'll be bringing back the snowplow naming contest for local students, a fun way to get people engaged with the program and aware of the work that goes into keeping Boulder moving in the winter.

[205:08] And most importantly, the program remains flexible on conditions, using what we've learned to make data-informed adjustments that support safe travel for everyone, whether they're driving, biking. walking, or using transit. The program is working, and each season, we're building on that foundation to make it even stronger. Thanks, Leonard. So just some questions for Tab, clarifying questions, or any feedback on the approach, that we're currently… using. And I can stop sharing my screen. Yeah, thanks. Thanks very much, Leonard. I appreciate your, presentation. Any, Feedback, or…? Questions? Yeah, Michael? Well, I think the plow ops thing is a great idea, having a sort of marauder's map of

[206:05] on the ground conditions, I think it'd be really, really useful. I… I have, you know, admittedly, a personal pet peeve, but I'm… presume I'm not alone when it comes to plowing, and it's kind of indica… suggested by, you know, the… the… the bar graph you had there, where you had the, you know, the plow… the… the plow operators and then the bike path plowers, right? The two roads and bikes. And what I… I experience frequently is that the… I think it's the… the bike path… I think the scenario is the bike path plow goes through first. And then the, you know, the road plow goes through again, second, and piles a bunch of snow, so now I've got this ridge. So if I'm on the bike path, I encounter a ridge of snow, and I cross the street, and another ridge of snow. I'm just wondering, is there a way to… to make… to mitigate that problem, to address that problem? Is it supposed to already happen? Is it just not happening? It's just a thing that keeps hap… I experience it frequently, and… and… and, you know, because of the importance of

[207:14] of clearing these routes for multimodal travel, I just know that that's an issue, right? That's… that's very often the reason that I, you know, if I'm… if I'm trying to get to the bus or something like that. I… I'll drive or have somebody drive me to the bus stop, because I don't want to deal with that. So I'm just wondering, is there a solution to that, or am I asking for the impossible? Or the unreasonable, I should say. I know it's possible, it may be unreasonable. There are solutions, … The specific scenario that you're talking about is one of the most difficult to deal with, and the reason is, is because… When you're working in an urban environment. one of your biggest challenges is snow storage. And when a large plow truck passes, especially on a four-lane road, we have to put the snow somewhere. And we try to time it to where, a plow truck, you know, the…

[208:15] … Sorry. where the, pickup, or side-by-side or UTV, whatever vehicle it is that we're using to clear the bike path makes that path and gets it cleared at an appropriate time. So… plow routes over by CU, plow routes off of Broadway. There's a time that we try to get those plowed. The trucks are more dependent on when snow starts falling. Having experienced drivers that slow down, that have the proper angle of the plow so that they're rolling snow over it instead of blasting it over the bikeway would be absolutely wonderful, but it is…

[209:00] A training and institutional knowledge and an experience thing that we're working on in retention, training, having enough staff. All of those things are things that we're working on internally that would improve the program. So, yes, there are things that we can do, and we're trying to do that better. I hear ya. We… believe me, our Bikeways folks are the first ones to get, ticked off when they go clear a path, and then somebody comes back and covers all the work that they just did. Okay. Well, yeah, I encourage that work to go forward, then, in sensitizing folks to that issue, because it is especially, like, I'm thinking of this year, when, as you mentioned, we had that long period of cold. Right? Those little mounds were, like, welded in place for weeks. And once they do get frozen in place, they're just virtually impossible to remove. So then.

[210:03] then it's not just during the snow event that I'm not biking, I'm not biking for weeks thereafter, because that mound persists, so… I know it's a… I expected your answer to be what it was, which is that it's a difficult thing. I'm just hoping that the folks who do this work can be, like. Bearing in mind that for it to actually succeed, It's gotta succeed. Yeah, and a lot of that, you know, comes with us planning and doing a better job of creating areas to store snow, and then, probably a communication thing, too. On the road, it's easy because we put our plow down, and we put material down, cars go over it. And we can't do that on a bike path as much. So, we're not going to be spraying or putting material down because a bicyclist, a pedestrian is going to be using that path. So, it's really on us to be more efficient, to be timely, and clean… and clear those paths

[211:09] Before they get smushed, not allowing the splashback to ice up. And like I said, it is an… it's really internal process on our part that will improve that, and hopefully with retention and keeping staffing levels up, that is something that we really hope to improve this season and seasons to come. Yeah. Climbing. We know it's complex, yeah. Go ahead, Erna. Thank you. Let me lower my hand… Okay. One second, I moved my screen. … Okay. So, if I remember correctly, last winter, the major point of contention with this new model was those,

[212:02] Steep streets, That they said they were, like, the cars were, like, sliding or whatever. It seems like… The model was tweaked. or the process was tweaked such that now those streets are first priority? Is that right? There were a subset of streets that we elevated to first priority. I think some of the, kind of smaller streets on the outskirts of town, there were some cul-de-sacs and things I know were points of contention. Those will remain, on priority 2 or 3 routes. With staff kind of acknowledging and understanding that we hear the feedback that we're getting about those streets, and it's their, you know, locations that we are continually monitoring. Unfortunately, resources are such that to add some of those sections of segments of streets. It would require an additional mileage, you know, to get to those streets for the plows to go to, which currently isn't quite feasible within the resources that we have to elevate to Priority 1. But having said that, we kind of have…

[213:13] Those locations documented and are aware that they're kind of potentially sticky problem locations depending on conditions, and we will be kind of monitoring them when storms happen. So… I guess, can you walk me through it, like… There was this problem with this, like, this new schedule launched. And then I remember there was this whole thing on the hotline where … … People had complained, like, a very large number of people had complained that they lived on streets that were… … had, like, a particularly large shadow, or a… or a steep incline, and they were, like, having issues, you know, their cars were sliding. this didn't happen before, or was it just a, like, this didn't happen under the old schedule before this was adopted, or was this just, like, a one-year free thing that happened that… I mean, I think I read in the memo that this last winter was…

[214:15] different. It was, like, characterized by many… storms that… and freezing temperatures for longer. So, was it just, like, bad luck, or was the previous program… did the previous program account for those streets with… Large shadows and steep inclines. So…. I'd like to speak a little bit to that. So, the program didn't really change that much over the years. The biggest difference is what we did was formalize the response, the framework, the chart that we showed at the beginning. So… and that gives our internal people and the public a clearer

[215:00] level of service that we're going to be going out with. Now, what you're talking about in the memo is completely accurate. This year was a weird year, but… every year is its own animal. So, you take 4 years ago, when the Marshall Fire occurred, we didn't have a significant storm… no significant snowstorm until Thanksgiving, and we had an extremely dry winter, and then we actually had huge fires in winter because of the odd conditions that happened. So, yes, it was a weird year, and who knows what we get this summer. I mean, this winter. We could get three 12-inch storms, and then the conditions will be completely different. So, like, like you read in the memo, yes, the prolonged and frequent small storms really was a challenge for us this year. We did the best we could, and we had to wait, really, for temperatures to help us with, …

[216:03] With getting those cleared and making them safe for everyone to use. And that is… so there's, there's… Difference in the winter, and the storms, and the temperature cycles. that is what you think led to, like, I think… Mark Wallach said, like, he got, like, 80 people writing to him on the hotline. That, I mean, it's just, like, a freak accident, … A freak… free coincidence that led to, like, all these people being angry. Because, I mean, you're saying the program didn't change much, so… Then it was just coincidence. I wouldn't… I wouldn't characterize it like that, … I would just say that that was a big factor. We get quite a bit of complaints every single year, …. We….

[217:00] Well, go ahead, Kelly. I may, too, as well, I think the primary difference that we're seeing, that the community, I think, is seeing, is that the way that we are operating the program now is under this storm-sized framework. So, during small storms, 3 inches and less, we just plow the first priority streets. Up to 8 inches, then we're elevating our response to both first and second priority streets. In years past. we've kind of done everything during every storm, with the first priority streets being done at a higher frequency, or kind of sooner. And the reason we switched to this kind of updated framework, is really to… in… In service of kind of using efficient… using resources more efficiently, … to… I think that the… The, prolonged freezing period that we saw this year kind of posed a little bit of a challenge to the new framework, and that is unlike years generally, and that's kind of why we switched it, because generally, with 3 inches or less, we're seeing

[218:08] Small snow accumulation and weather kind of… or sunshine and warmth kind of supports the melting of that eventually. It supports our material application and things like that. So there is that… that is kind of the primary difference that you're seeing, and I think that change in conjunction with that series of small storms with freezing temperatures. Kind of was the perfect storm, if you will, to kind of create this, kind of perception in the community of that change. Okay. Yeah, let me ask you… to that. Hold on. The biggest change is, this season, is the consistency. The framework is meant for us to provide a consistent response. And in previous years, if we got enough complaints, or if we got enough push from of people that were vocal, we would go and respond. But the framework was meant for us to responsibly use our staffing and our resources and be consistent with that response to whatever, …

[219:08] Whatever conditions are out there. And meets, you know, we want to have a program that's sustainable and consistent and meets And, like, meet specific service levels. That was a big goal of ours. You know, in terms of time it takes to clear streets, right? So…. Yeah, and I think… and I want to understand, like, how we got to that framework, since I wasn't involved, you know, I wasn't part of this board. And I guess what I'm asking, I guess, like, these priority streets are based on transit, I assume. Like, first priority, second priority, third priority? Is it based on transit? So, it's based on, … and maybe I can share my screen again. Let me share my screen one more time, and we can just look at the… … So this is our storm size response kind of framework chart, so you can see first priority streets and streets with higher traffic, emergency response routes, and then we also always clear our protected bike lanes during a first priority response, as well as multi-use paths and shoveled areas.

[220:11] Our second, priority, kind of, like, medium storm response streets, include crosstown bike routes, any remaining transit and emergency response routes, but at this point, with kind of the shifts that we made, it's essentially all transit routes that we're doing now. Heavily used alleys, and then our steeper street grades. And then, in our kind of large storm response, we're also including in that moderately steep streets. Were those steep, great streets there last year, or is that new? Nope, this is the… this has been the framework for the, … this was the framework for last season as well. Okay. Okay. And this was already there, like, 2 years ago as well, like, something similar with these Deep gray streets.

[221:02] I might let, JR speak to… so, this is kind of… one of the goals of the updated Storm Size Response Framework was to have a more data-driven program, and in the past, that isn't what we had. It was kind of like a program… I think our first priority streets. We're always our higher traffic streets, but everything else kind of just happened over time. I might let J.R. Combs, who is… oh, please, Valerie, go ahead. Yeah, I think I can add some clarity there, Hernan. So, I think what you're asking is, like, are the exact same streets in first priority the ones that we've always done? The answer is no. When we changed this program, we really focused the deployment of our resources in small storms, so those under 3 inches, to focus on those, you know. emergency routes, the ones that… the, you know, descriptors that Ellie just went through, that are found on that graphic. And so, what I think you're hearing from Leonard and Ellie, and what we've talked about before, is that

[222:05] The… before we had this storm-sized response framework, any kind of rhyme and reason to where we go and what we do. The department was really operating in a demand-based fashion. That means, as complaints would come in, we would kind of just add in routes, whether it was feasible for us or not. Okay. And the city, not just transportation, not just the snow response program. But the city as a whole. is really shifting gears to established levels of service for the community, and that is tied to our annual budgeting practices and the metrics that we use to make sure that we are budgeting and resourcing the programs and services that we provide. And so, that's something I just… I want to highlight, that it's kind of bigger than just this program. And this program is really kind of at the vanguard, at the bleeding edge of establishing an actual framework of level of service for the community, so folks know this is where the city will provide service and when. So, I think that's the big answer to your question. The short answer to your question is that, yes, I think in small storms, a lot of community members

[223:21] used to being able to put in a complaint. and then have service deployed, and that was not working for the resourcing, and the staffing that we have at the city. And so we have moved to more of a rational deodated kind of, program. I think that gets at what you're asking, but let us know if you need more information on that. I guess my question will be then, the follow-up will be, does a framework place enough weight On the importance of clearing steep, great streets. Rather than moving them to, like, second or third tier.

[224:01] I mean, like, was the complaints that were received last year just a byproduct of the change in framework, from a demand-based to a more centralized approach? That, as people get informed, it will fade away, or there's… Tweaking that the framework requires in order to provide … I know, … A good level of service, especially for, you know, streets that may get iced, may get icy really quickly, and then, you know, cars may slide. like, I guess I'm trying to figure out, is the framework… does the framework need tweaking, or are we just… I mean. I guess… if so many… I run a business, right? So if so many people complain about that, about something, I will be like, oh, you know. Something is weird, so I need to go back and see what went wrong. But if you're saying, like, people always complain this is normal, then it's okay, this is part of the process. So I'm trying to understand what is my baseline.

[225:03] like… And go from there, and I figured out a framework Maybe needs tweaking, or it's just, like, it's just as good as it gets, kind of deal. I hope that makes sense. Yeah, that's… that's a great question. Ellie, do you want to reiterate what you were touching on earlier about what the team looked at, what we deemed was feasible? Yeah, absolutely, and I think… I think… or not, I think the unsatisfying answer is it's kind of a combination of everything that you mentioned. We would love to kind of have the resources to be clearing all of those steep streets, right? But to add those steep streets, kind of that… on the west side of town that we were getting those complaints about, I think it's… it was, like, 5 miles of streets, and it would have needed to add 20 miles of plow, right? Because we need to actually access those street streets. So…

[226:01] I think… it's a combination, I think, of folks of the on-demand, kind of history of the program. the weather that we saw, and then also potentially some tweaks. Now, the… I think… I think the beauty of the program that we created is that it is flexible, and continual evaluation is always a… is a priority, I think. So we're always listening to community feedback. And unfortunately, we just have to kind of balance that community feedback with the resources that we have, the staffing resources, the equipment resources, materials, even equipment storage and things like that. So it's really finding a balance between serving the community the best that we can. And kind of using our efficient… our resources efficiently. So does that kind of answer your question? I think so. Yeah, I mean, it does. I'm still, like, a little… it does seem like a safety concern, right? Like, I feel snow removal does seem like a very, very basic city…

[227:03] Oops. Can you guys hear me? I've been talking too much, my AirPods died. No, I guess I was getting, like, city… snow removal, those seem like a very basic… thing that taxpayers should get back in exchange for paying taxes. And, I mean, I understand you cannot do everything, I understand that, you know, you have these priorities, but it's like, if we're going into the ground of, like, having steep, great streets. … I mean, it's like, we're moving into the arena of, like, safety, right? If, like, these cars are sliding down their hills, is this, like, a… is there something we should look a little more into, I guess, is what I'm trying to get at? And that's it, like, I don't know, but… I mean, it does seem, like, important, but I don't know, I don't know. I just wanted to throw that out there, like…

[228:00] I mean, it does seem like there's a safety concern there. That it might be worth looking a little more into. Yeah, thanks for that feedback, Aran. We always are in touch with police dispatch during snow events, and so when there are safety issues that pop up, in locations, you know, we are… those are the first calls that we're responding to, is to help our public safety partners out there, address things in the field. And so, we are very flexible, you know, really monitoring conditions. storm to storm. Every storm is different. I, you know, Leonard mentioned every season is different. Every storm can be different, depending on temperatures and other variables. So, we're very flexible. We monitor those conditions, we deploy resources when they're needed. So, yeah, I hope that helps give you additional context for, for how we, you know, kind of operate from, on a storm-by-storm basis. Yeah. What was the resolution of the whole hotline thing last year? Like, did you guys deploy plowing to those streets in the end, or you were like, there's no budget for that? Sorry, like, I didn't follow all the way to the conclusion.

[229:10] Whatever happened to that discussion. Yeah, you know, I think that the council member withdrew the request for a discussion at Council because, you know, with… in multiple conversations with staff, we were able to describe exactly what we are, telling you tonight, and… and that was satisfactory, for that… that inquiry from Council… that council member. And so, you know, I think, what… what we did do is kind of look at how we might deploy resources to some of those steeper streets, but again, that's where we have to plow, about 30-plus lane miles, of additional street just to reach those 2% of streets, so, or 2 miles of streets, sorry, not percent. And so that's, that's, what we took a look at in subsequent storms after that conversation that, that happened in that kind of time that you're talking about around the hotline conversation.

[230:08] And we found that, you know, looking back at the whole program and the whole season, and really looking at tons of other things, too, about the program. You know, those… those streets are not going to be added to the small storm response at this time. But like I just mentioned, we are constantly monitoring conditions, we are always responding to problem spots. And, you know, of course, our priority, and that's why we use the word priority, is, you know, those arterials. where our first responders need to get around, where people need to get to work, to the hospital, to school, things like that, right? And so, when we have resource availability, once those streets are in good shape, we are responding to spot locations, and we're very flexible in that sense. But yeah, I… I'm… I think your feedback is taken. Thank you for that.

[231:02] Yeah, and let's, we're about an hour behind schedule, so let's move forward if that's satisfying to everyone. Are there any more final comments on this agenda item? I just had a quick…. Oh, that's weird. Yeah, which is… and it relates to what Hernande was talking about, Valerie was just talking about. Is that where those, friction sensors you're talking about might be placed on those deeper streets? Yeah, I think that's… I think one of the, as we discussed in the memo, right, one of the challenges I think the projecting has, and the snow program has, is, the data, right? Like we mentioned, things are so different across the city. What's happening on the east side is going to be so different than what's happening on the west side, and we really have to rely on these kind of larger-scale, higher-level forecasts. To call in staff to clear snow. So yeah, having things like friction sensors, I think, in the immediate, can allow us to know what's happening in the immediate, and it can also help us plan for the future. If we…

[232:03] kind of see repeated issues in a certain location. So, that's not something that we are kind of currently resourced for, but it is a technology that we're kind of keeping in our back pocket and continuing to explore. But yeah, definitely something that would be beneficial in those kind of more shaded, steep locations, I think. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, thanks, everyone. Thank you, Ellie, and thank you, Leonard, for your, presentations and your explanations, and for your work on this, this important issue. Appreciate it. Yep, thanks for your time. Okay, so now we are moving into, matters from… Staff… I have a regional transportation update here. Is Gene Sanson still with us? She is, and at this late hour, I think her presentation would become very abbreviated, so if we don't, you know, have enough time tonight, we can always defer to a future month, but, you know, looking to the board for, what you would like to do.

[233:12] I would prefer to push it to… Another month, next month, if that's okay? Sounds good. Okay, are we… shall we take a vote? We all just… we all gave a thumbs up. Yep. Hi. Thumbs up. Okay, let's… let's go ahead and get to the end of our meeting this evening, since we are so far behind, and I know that people are tired. Alright. …. See you all next month! Thank you! Gina, I'm so sorry, and thank you for sticking with us this long. I mean…. No, it's… I think next month would be better. It's a pretty dense presentation, and so I think having the time to walk through it with you all would be appropriate next month. Thank you. I think we'd absorb it better, and we'd appreciate it more, so thank you so much. Thank you for sticking with us all this time. You bet. …

[234:00] Okay, so, we have, matters from the board, a tab orientation recap and follow-up. Valerie, was that your item? I think that was at your discretion to… I'm sorry, if you'd like to ask your fellow tourists. Yeah. That's right. Does it… would anybody like… I mean, we… it was a wonderful opportunity, thank you, staff, for, meeting with us, at the end of last month, and just giving us a really thorough overview of the responsibilities and roles, of our board. I think we all appreciated it. Any feedback from the board for staff? The… just as… in terms of recap, we learned from the, someone from the city attorney's Office, Valerie and her perspective. Perspective of, Tila Duhaime, who was, who served 8 years on… on TAB and brought, wonderful. perspective and directives for us, and I… I personally really appreciated that a lot.

[235:05] Tila's wisdom and knowledge is very, … Very welcome, and her perspective on our responsibilities. Anybody want to add anything, or shall we move on? If you'd like to say anything else, Valerie, please do. I'll just mention that I think, Ernan, you did send an email, after the orientation, if you'd like to speak, that… that this might be a good time. Thank you. We can talk about it next time, I'm tired, it's 10PM. It's okay, like, I mean, it's like, yeah, well, I want to talk about that, but I think we can wait another month. Good. Yeah. Okay, any open board comment? I was just going to mention, aligned with one of our, future agenda topics, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan process is, ongoing.

[236:00] And the city and the planners involved with that process have invited community conversations on, August 19th. So, all around the city, people are going to meet in small groups, at different places, and, have a facilitated conversation, facilitated by, UniFi, the, consultant who's working with The city to lead the, outreach and engagement for the BBC CP update, and we are hosting one of those community conversations at the Boulder Chamber from 6 to 8 30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 19th, and it's open to everyone, and we look forward to seeing members of the community There, so I just wanted to add that. Anything else from anyone? Could you forward the, invitation, just in case? Oh, of course. I will do that, yep. Exactly. It's on the, the Boulder Chambers. events calendar, but I'll be happy to send, send that out to everyone as well.

[237:00] Yeah, we'd love to have you there. Okay, great. And, … Open board comment. Okay, future agenda topics. There's just one thing, an agenda item in September on the VVCP update, staff presentation, and our feedback on that, so that I'm anticipating that. Okay! This is our first four-hour meeting! Congratulations, everyone! I mean, my first 4-hour meeting, I should say. I'm sure that there have been others in the history of TAP. And our last, right? Let's… let's keep it… you know, but I have to say, I do really appreciate the discussions tonight. These were two very important… … public hearing items, and I'm… I'm really glad that we got to have a detailed conversation. My son is not as glad. So, okay, great. Would someone move to adjourn the meeting, please? I move to adjourn.

[238:00] A second. Okay, thank you, Anna. And Michael seconded. Okay, all in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Bye. All right, it's unanimous. Anyone opposed? No, okay. We voted to adjourn at 9.58 PM. Thank you all so much for sticking with us, appreciate it. Thank you, guys. Exactly. Thanks, everyone. everyone. Good night, thanks very much.