Loading...
5B - Public hearing & direction on the Transit Village Area PlanCITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 13, 2006 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and direction on the Transit Village Area Plan: 1. Plan boundaries and how to address issues outside the hub azea 2. Items that will guide development of land use and transportation options in the next phase of the planning process: 1. Refinement of the goals aod objectives adopted at the outset of the project 2. Vision statements 3. Key issues to be addressed 3. Update and discussion on the process for developing the options and the overall project rimeline 4. Location of the Commuter Rail Platform REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Transportation Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Martha Roskowski, GO Boulder Manager Micki Kaplan, Senior Transportation Planner Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner Plannin~ & Development Services Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Planning Manager L,ouise Grauer, Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide direction to staff on the next phase of the Transit Village Area Plan. A public hearing is scheduled for the Mazch 13, 2006 TAB meeting on the following Transit Village Area Plan issues: 1. Discuss and confirm modifying the Transit Village Area Plan boundazies recommended by the Planning Board at the Februazy 16 Planning Board meeting and provide input on how to address issues in the areas outside this area but within the original boundazies; 2. Items that will guide development of laod use and transpoRation options in the next phase of the planning process: • Refinement of goals and objectives adopted at the outset of the project • Vision statements • Key issues to be addressed. RTD Commuter Rail Platform location AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 1 Additionally, staff would like to get feedback from the Transportation Advisory Boazd on the proposed process for developing the options and the overall project timeline as discussed with the working group. BACKGROUND: We are approaching the end of the second phase of the following 4 phases of the Transit Village Area planning process: Phase 1: Data gathering, adoption of goals, objectives, and initial direction Summary of opportunities and constraints Phase 2: Community outreach: whaYs the community's vision? What aze the options? Phase 3: Analysis and evaluation of options Development of the implementation approach Phase 4: Plan adoption: proposed land use and transportation connections and plan for implementaUOn This phase has included extensive public outreach as suggested by the Transit Village Area Plan working group consisting of representatives from Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), Planning Board, and City Council-- the entities who will ultimately adopt the plan (Planning Boazd and City Council will adopt the overall plan and TAB will adopt the transportation components of the plan). In this second phase, three land use and transpoRation concepts were developed from a series of public workshops in September and October and discussed in comparison to the future under current trends. At that time, the idea was to get feedback on the concepts and then refine them into a series of land use and transportation options that would subsequently be analyzed for benefits and impacts in comparison to cunent trends. When the concepts were presented to City Council on January 3, Planning Board requested that Council re-direct the project. It was decided that the working grou~whose original charge was to provide feedback on the schedule, timeline and proposed community outreach-should expand their role to work with staff to help shape the land use and transportation options.~ Since that time, staff has had several meetings with the working group and updates to Planning Boazd, City Council and TAB in preparation for developing land use and transportation options for the azea. As part of these recent updates in January and Februazy, information was provided to TAB, Planning Board and City Council on the regional and local transit context including information about cunent and future transit and the RTD future commuter rail platform location. The materials presented in this memo summazize the work that has been done with the working group and is in response to concerns we heard from the public, Council, TAB and Planning Boud that: ~The working group is not a decision-making body. Ra[her, their role is to "help shape the op[ions that would be presented to City Council, Planning Board, and TAB and to the public; to ensure that they provide a sufficient range of options to represent the range of visions in the community; ro insure they are visionary; and to ensure that the materials presented to the decision-makers and the public are understandable, balanced, accurate and complete." AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 2 • It needs to be clear that changes in the area should provide a benefit to residents of Boulder; • The goals & objectives should be made more specific to provide be[ter guidance as to what the azea is intended to achieve; • The options should be more visionazy; and • The overall planning area is difficult to grasp and the options should focus on a smaller azea to start. • The commuter rail platform issue needs to be addressed. At the February 16, Planning Boazd meeting, the boazd : • Recommended that the city accept information from RTD about the location of the rail platform on the straight track and the future regional bus and bus rapid transit (BRT) station at 30`h and Peazl Street. • Recommended that the city focus first on the hub azea, a smaller central core area shown on the map on the next page, and then on to other azeas. • Requested that staff explore whether the overall timeline could be shortened based on planning for a smaller azea. (Staff had shown a timeline with plan adoption in Mazch 2007). Minutes from the February 16, Planning Boazd meeting aze in Attachment A. INTRODUCTION• This series of public heazings with TAB, Planning Board and City Council is a critical point to get the direction we need to begin work in phase 3 of developing and analyzing draft land use and transportation options and working on a preliminary implementation plan. Following is a brief description of what the options and implementation plan will include. Land Use and Transportation Options Each option is expected to have the following components: L Vision statement • Description • Key components 2. Framework diagram • Connections • Open space/ civic space • "HearP' or hearts 3. Land use diagram • Bubbles showing land uses 4. Transportation Network (ped, bike, auro, transit) 5. Illustrative sketches • Relationship of buildings to the street • Urban form (scale of buildings) • Civic space • Prototypical streetscapes 6. Future growth projections 7. Preliminary implementation techniques/ development strategies (e.g., parking management) AGENDA ITEM # 5B Pa¢e 3 Implementation Plan The following elements and analyses will be included in the final implementation plan: 1. Goals & objectives for the implementation plan 2. Analysis of development phasing and costs: a. Capital and on-going maintenance costs of public improvements needed b. Analysis of expected revenues and exactions under existing regulations and policies c. Phasing/ strategic investment plan for public improvements and infrastructure d. Identification of the funding gap e. Analysis of potential economic value of redevelopment projects 3. Recommended public/private financing strategies to address the gap, e.g. • Improvement districts • Value capture • Bonding • Other Actions, responsibilities and timeline to implement the plan, including: o Code changes, e.g. new or revised zone districts, revised development standards, revised development process (possibly no requirement for concept or site plan review) o Displacement policy for existing uses Before beginning work on the options and the implementation plan, staff is asking for direction on the goals and objectives that will guide the options, the vision statements that will be part of each opdon and the key issues that need to be addressed either in the options or in the implementation plan. Additionally, we need agreement on the boundazies of the planning azea. PLAN BOUNDARY AND PHASING i ' ~ o ' ~ ~~~ I ~t ~ nt_Rd Valm _ _ r '~ ' a ~ ; c°. ! - ~ i ~~Go ; ase Creek ~ i r Q-~ ~ fT _. . _ ~1 a ~ $1 Peari Pkwy ~~ ~ ~ Pe ..-,.._ ~FarmersOdc ~=_ h o ,t:~ ,N~ , ~ _. ~ ~ - ~ ~ .m__ Wai N`~'-+-i " °~~ St ~ ~, ~ l 7 ,T ~£~__ _ ~ ~ N ~ 1 t : , ~ ~ ' --- -~ ~ ; % Lr ~ N _ _ "' 1 ' "" ""_" "" ~ _ ^o =-~~'M d „ • \ % ~ ~ ArapahoeAve 1 ~9._.r i __ ' _- - ~•~ ~' , Y ~ ~. / ' I I c ,~ ~ Planning Boazd recommended focusing first on a smaller azea within the original planning azea-the hub azea as shown on the map above-and then moving on to other areas in the lazger planning azea. It was felt that this approach would allow people to better grasp the azea and create a cleazer more visionary plan for the area that everyone agrees should be the highest priority for change. Staff has recommended that transportation connections would be developed for both the hub area, and the larger planning azea. The planning area identified at the outset of the TVA process is shown in yellow. A smaller "hub area" recommended by Planning Board as the focus of the plan at this time is shown in cross-hatching. AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 4 Question for the Transportation Advisorv Board: Planning Board and the TVAP Working group has recommended focusing first on the hub area. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that the transportation network plan should be developed for the entire area? GOALS & OBJECTIVES The original goals & objectives were reviewed by TAB and adopted by Planning Board and City Council in April 2005. As the process progressed, it was suggested that the goals & objectives be made more explicit to provide clearer direction on the land use aud transportation options and the options assessment. The recommended revisions aim to: a) match specific objectives with each of the lazger goal statements; b) strengthen the notion that the area should provide a benefit to the community as a whole; c) clarify the role that providing a variety of housing plays in supporting numerous overall goals; d) create a new goal related to the role of public space and the need to create a"heart" for the azea; and e) add two new objectives related to preserving views from key public spaces ~ add a new goal to consider this as a plan that will be implemented over many years (iYs been suggested that it should be considered a"50 year plan") and should be flexible for changes in use over time. Additionally, the goal on public engagement was deleted since that is not really a goal of the area plan but a goal of the planning process. The bolded sections in the proposed goals and objectives below represent additions and the strike-outs represent proposed deletions. By way of comparison, the goals, objectives, and direction originally adopted in April 2005 aze provided in Attachment B. Create a well-used and well-loved Aedestrian-oriented place of enduring value that serves all of Boulder, by including: a. Places with special character that signal that you are in Boulder and not just anywhere DSA. b. A mixture of uses including housing to enliven the area. c. Sufficient amount of housing to create neighborhoods d. Comfortable, convenient and safe pedestrian and bike connections within the area, to surrounding neighborhoods, and to key nearby destinations such as downtown, Twenty Ninth Street, the University, Valmont Park, and other employment centers. e. Active walkable streets in a fine grain grid pattern. ~. D ~.! s ..F.. :s., 6. e:Ao..r~ ..61.,. 1.....:..e....e.. ..A N,e ~ J 1 1. l. 1. ,1.,..:..« ..f ..a...,et l.l....b.. ...,le ..f Ao.:el.......,...• .. e„ti.... ,.C ....1.1:.. J b b C .7 1... .. e..ti...... ~.. rl.,.... ,....i . :oi.r : rol 1 .] ,7 1. '1.7' ~ (redundant-this is covered in #1, 2, and 3) 2. Create a central focus or "heart" for the area that: a. Is a community gathering place welcoming to all. AGENDA ITEM # 5B Pa¢e 5 b. Connects to transit. a Connects to Goose Creek. d. Captures mountain views. 3. Support diversitv through land use and travel options that expand opportunities for employees and residents of differing incomes, ethnicities, ages and abilities by including: a. A vaziety of housing types at a range of prices from market rate to affordable (including housing for very low, low, moderate and middle income households) to meet diverse needs (workforce housing, senior housing, family housing, housing for special populations such as those with disabilities). b. Services that support residents, adjacent neighbors and businesses. a Support for the locally-owned and minority-owned businesses in the area. d. Public spaces to celebrate diverse ethnicity e. Space for non-profit organizations. f. Affordable spaces for retail, office, and service industrial uses. 4. Enhance economic vitalitY: Increase economic activity for businesses, increase revenues for the city of Boulder, reduce transportation costs for residents and employees, a~--i~e~ease including: a. Neighborhood-serving retail uses, and regional retail uses that complement the lazge investment of the Twenty Ninth Street Project. b. Convenient and safe connections to Downtown and to Twenty Ninth Street. c. Additional office uses in locations close to the future transit facilities and new residential azeas. d. Locations for key employers in the identified "cluster" azeas, such as natural foods, environmental sustainability, acuve recreation and healthy communities. e. Preservation of azeas for service and general industrial uses. C = = k1. ~ 1.1:.. !`.e..~.. ,.,pl.. e ~l..,r .eflo..l.. ..p .t F....... Y..,.r .w! .,,.,] 1.....:«e.... .. a~ ,,.,. ., :,.~,~.,._ti,.,.a.. „a «i,o ,. ~~~-. ~« ~~-~~ (The goal on public engagement has ~ b ~ o been deleted since that is not really a goal of the area plan but a goal of the planning process.) 5. Connect to the natural environment: Create a place that reflects Boulder's commitment to environmental sustainability and "green° development, including: a. Innovative "greed' energy efficient site planning, architecture and urban design. b. An overall storm water management plan for the area in lieu of property by property storm water detention. c. Connections to existing natural amenities such as the Goose Creek greenway, the Boulder Slough (ditch) and Boulder Creek. 6. Maximize the communitv benefit of the transit investment: I,ocate homes and employment to malcimize access to local and regional bus service, future commuter rail and bus rapid transit, and to allow for a pedestrian- oriented lifestyle, including: a. Improving the balance of jobs and housing in the community through new mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to multiple transit facilities. b. Managed pazking strategies; reduced pazking requirements in the hub; transportation demand management strategies. AGENDA ITEM # SB Paae 6 c. Multi-modal access and mobility within the area and to the rest of Boulder. d. Lively and engaging commuter rail and regional bus locations. 7. Create a plan that will adant to and be resilient for Boulder's lon~ term future. Question for Transportation Advisorv Board: Do you have anything to add or delete anything from the revised list of goals & objectives? Do you recommend using the goals & objectives to provide direction for developing the options? VISION STATEMENTS In response to concerns that we ensure that the options developed in the next phase of the project are visionary, the following vision statements attempt to represent the range of visions that were discussed during the public outreach of the project and in brainstorming sessions with the working group, TAB and Planning Boazd: 1. A center for arts and entertainment • Studio spaces . Artist housing • Clubs and cabarets • Performance venue(s) • Convention center/ hotel • Public spaces that support street performers and outdoor markets • A memorable arrival/ departure statement with beautiful train and bus stations 2. A focus on alternative energy; sustainability city or eco-village • Green buildings and green site planning • Space for environmental non-profits, i.e. Center for Resource Conservation • Businesses that provide green products • Reduced parking, reduced emphasis on cars, increased emphasis on waking, biking and using transit • Neighborhood Sustainability projects (e.g., car sharing) 3. A lively new urban neighborhood • A variety of housing types, prices and densities • Housing for a diverse community (workforce, seniors, families, people with disabilities) • Affordable housing • Young urban professional housing-the "creative class" • "Car -free° housing 4. Celebrate diversity AGENDA ITEM # SB Pa¢e 7 • Reach out to diverse populations for input in developing options . Locally-owned and minority-owned businesses • Mercado concept • Civic space that celebrates diversity and is open and comfortable to all ages and cultures • Services to support adjacent neighborhoods 5. Boulder Employment Center • Focus on employment unique to Boulder • Research, high-tech; connections to CU Research Park . Industry clusters, i.e. natural foods, enviro-businesses • Industrial flex-space for non-profits • Live/work housing 6. Charming chaos • Includes a true mix of uses • Unruly • A mix of old and new, "bohemian' • Fewer rules with change and flexibility expected • Alleys as important as roads 7. Healthy community • Focus on walkability, walking for exercise • Active recreation opportunities • Focus on Goose Creek • Civic spaces that include recreation focus, e.g. outdoar climbing wall • Includes healthy lifestyle for seniors • Businesses in alternative health areas, e.g. massage, acupuncture, yoga • Connections to the new hospital 8. Retail center Include Boulder's retail needs - big box, mid-box Preserve the office/ industrial spaces east of the rail line 9. Active senior focus • Housing mix and amenities for empty nesters and seniors aging in place • Supportive retail • Support services, e.g. senior center, education opportunities • Security emphasis • Accommodations for people with disabilities By way of comparison, under current trends, the future vision could generally be expressed as follows: AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 8 . Bring the regional BRT and rail to town, connect to the local transit network, add park'n ride • Market driven redevelopment under current zoning (mostly industrial) • Site- by- site review • Limited additional housing or mixed use • Incremental infrastructure and public improvements, e.g. minimal new connections and civic spaces Staff suggested the need to prioritize, combine or cull the list to 3 to 4 statements in order to provide one vision statement to guide the development of each option in [he next phase of the project. This differentiation among options would result in more refined differentiation in the results or conclusions of the Options Assessment. The Options Assessment will compaze each option with the "cunent trends" alternative. Since most of the elements of the vision statements aze not mutually exclusive, the working group suggested that another approach would be to have TAB, Planning Boazd and City Council discuss the relative merits of the vision statements and come to one or two visions to guide the development of the options. The differentiation among the options could then be expressed in terms of form and intensity. Two options could have the same vision-the same uses and urban form chazacteristics- but differing levels of intensity (2-3 story buildings in one option as compared to 4-5 story buildings in another, for example). Question for the Transportation Advisorv Board: What vision statements (either prioritized from the list above or combinations of new ones) do you think should guide the development of options in the next phase of the planning process? KEY ISSUES Below aze issues that staff feels need to be addressed during the development of the options. They aze stated as issues because they aze related to things where we don't yet have enough information to establish clear direction in the form of a goal or objective. They include things that will need to be addressed in the hub area as well as the azea outside of the hub, either in the next phase of this planning effort, or as part of the first phase of a subsequent planning effort. In the hub area: Housin 1. The types, forms and quantity of housing that should be provided in the azea. 2. Which populations should be tazgeted (e.g., work force, seniors, families, peoples with disabilities, etc.). 3. The level of affordability that should be provided: inclusionary zoning's 20% required by ordinance, or a greater percentage. a. If more, how should the additional affordable housing be provided--through regulations, development incentives or city subsidies? AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 9 4. In addition to the low/moderate-income affordable housing, whether there should be a middle-income affordability requirement. 5. The development options for meeting affordable housing requirements, e.g. whether all must be on-site (no cash-in-lieu option as is currently available). Development standards 6. Whether the plan should allow an exception to 55 foot height limit in certain locations (requiring a charter amendment and thus a public vote). 7. The intensity of land uses. Non-residential uses 8. The amount of service industrial uses that should be preserved in the azea. 9. The amount of land for general industrial uses that should be preserved in the area. 10. The amount of land for office uses that should be provided. ll. The role that retail uses should play in this azea, including how much retail and what kind (e.g., neighborhood-serving, community retail, mid-box, big box). Transportation 12. Whether the city should consider changing existing parking requirements to allow for greater flexibility for shared pazking and reduced pazking requirements in the TVAP azea. 13. Whether pazking should be managed in the TVAP and the kinds of pazking management strategies that should be considered. (Implementing a pazking district is one example of a pazking management strategy that could be implemented in the TVAP area.) 14. The amount of pazking that will be needed to support current and future RTD transit, , where it should be located and whether some or all of that parking can be shazed with surrounding uses. 15. The kinds of TDM strategies that should be considered in the TVAP, and which strategies will be most effective in mitigating traffic impacts caused by future development. 16. How should the transportation network be planned for in the TVAP area to ensure a fine grain in the hub area, and what size of block will provide this? Outside the hub area HousingSin addition to the issues above) 16. Whether there should be additional housing near the Peleton and if so, what the type, amount and locations should be and whether additional services and amenities would be needed. 17. For any housing on the 29`h Street site, the appropriate adjacent uses and amenities. Parks AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 10 18. How should the city meet the neighborhood pazk standards for a neighborhood park? Should the city consider relocatiag the Mapleton ballfields aod use that site for a neighborhood pazk? Transportation 19. How can key connections be provided to adjacent neighborhoods and destinations outside the hub azea and TVAP area Implementation 20. Whether the city should put mechanisms or tools in place to provide the infrastructure needed to serve the area prior to rezoning properties to higher densities. 21. What the appropriate mechanisms and incentives might be to equalize the benefits and burdens between properties identified for public improvements such as plazas or pazking garages and those which receive additional development potential. 22. The extent to which the existing standazds and fees cover the necessary provision of infrastrvcture and on-going maintenance for the transit village area, and identify alternative mechanisms to cover the gap. 23. Whether fees and talces collected in the transit village area should be earmarked for public improvements in the area, such as roads, parks, plazas, utilities. 24. What funding and phasing strategies aze needed to ensure an integrated transportation network throughout the TVAP azea. 25. What funding strategies aze needed to finance TDM programs. Question for the Transportation Advisorv Boazd: Do you want to add or delete anything from the list of key issues related to trur~sportation? Are these all the issues that should be addressed in the development of the options? Are there any issues on the list for which you wish to give guidance at this time? PROCESS AND SCHEDULE Developing Land Use and Transportation Options The working group provided input on the process for developing the land use and transportation options. The concept that was supported was to develop the options in a 3 day charrette (community workshop) that would be open to community members and property owners to participate in at key points. An urban design consultant would be hired to work with city staff to lead the charrette and develop the graphic components of the options. Below is a summazy of the proposed steps and timeline for this process. 1~ indicates public input opportunity AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 11 March and April ~Step 1 CG PB/ TAB Public hearing and direction on • Vision statements for each option • Goals and objectives that each option must meet • Key issues [hat the options should address • Process for developing the options Aon1 Step 2 Working Group and/ or Planning Board, TAB session(s): Follow up on CC/PB/TAB direcfion & flesh out the visions Identify stakeholders/ local advisors for each vision Identify examples from elsewhere that could be looked to for inspiration Step 3 Meetings with design consultant team & working group to finalize plans for the charrette, identify parricipants, roles, etc Mav ~Step 4 Community design workshop (charrette). Develop 1- 3 options based on direcrion from step 1. (3-days) Each would contain: • Framework Plan, including public spaces, key connections and idenfification of the "heart" or hearts • Connections/ relationship to the larger context • Land use bubble diagram of public and private • I1IusVative ske[ches for each option to show [he rela[ionship of buildings to [he street, overall urban form (scale of buildings), civic space, and streetscape chazacter • The locations, size, and shape of key public spaces, show how they will link to one another and to the commuter rail platform and regional bus/ bus BRT station • Transportation network plan ~Step 5 Targeted outreach to present and get feedback on chanette summary Step 6 Working Group session: Review and discuss charrette summary documents to make sure they're understandable and wmplete une ul 1~Step 7 PB, TAB, CC public hearing Are these the right options to evaluate as part of the options assessment? Overall Project Schedule Based on this proposed process to develop the land use and transportation options, staff has proposed an overall revised timeline, and in response to the Working Group's request to shoRen the overall timeline, it has been shortened by approximately two months from the drafts that were provided in January and February. The revised timeline is provided in Attachment C. The phase of developing the options is somewhat longer than originally proposed based on input from the working group, but staff believes that the options assessment phase can be shortened if the hub area is much smaller. AGENDA ITEM # SB Pa2e 12 The proposed timeline indicates that direction on a preferred land use and transportation option and an implementation approach would be provided by the end of 2006 by TAB (the transportation component of the option), Planning Board and City Council. The final plan will follow in the first quarter of 2007 with final graphics and all of the supporting detailed information. We aze also suggesting joint public heazings with TAB and Planning Boazd and in some cases, with TAB, Planning Board and City Council to shorten the overall timeline. Question for the Transportation Advisory Board Does TAB have any questions or comments about the proposed process and the role of the working group? LOCATION OF THE FUTURE RTD COMMUTER RAIL PLATFORM In January and Februazy, information was provided to TAB, Planning Boazd and City Council on the planned regional and local transit service, its function and role in the Transit Village Area Plan and information on the location of the future RTD commuter rail platform and regional busBus Rapid Transit station. The information was provided to addresses questions raised in the public workshops about future transit service and the potential location of the RTD commuter rail platform. Specifically, materials were provided to TAB, and to Planning Board and City Council on: • Background on the "Regional and Local Transportation ContexP' • Regional and local transportation planning activities affecting the TVA • Current and future regional travel patterns affecting Boulder • Planned transit services for regional and local transit services • A"white paper" provided by RTD on Commuter Rail and platform location • Preliminazy station platform sketches developed by Oz Architects TAB will recall that the RTD "white paper" provided information from RTD on their policy on locating the commuter rail platform on a straight section of track as opposed to a curved track. The RTD "white paper" provided a more detailed analysis of why RTD is unable to construct the rail platform on a curved section of track. RTD will be the operator of the commuter rail service, and thus, the final decision maker on future commuter rail platform location and Commuter rail operation issues. RTD has stated that it will strive to put the rail platform as far south as feasibly possible without sacrificing customer safety and ADA issues. In addition to safety and ADA issues, RTD has stated that it anticipates there will be very few transfers occurring between the regional commuter rail and the regional bus service. RTD staff was present at the February City Council and Planning Board meetings to address questions, however, RTD was unable to attend the Mazch 13 TAB meeting. At the Feb. 16, 2006 Planning Board meeting, Planning Boazd voted to recommend that City Council accept the proposed commuter rail platform on the straight secUOn of track and to accept the current Regional BusBRT Station location at 30m & Pearl Street. (Approach A). Minutes from the Feb. 16, 2006 Planning Boazd meeting are in Attachment A. City Council will be asked to provide formal direction on what input to provide to RTD on the commuter rail platform location at their Apri14, 2006 meeting. At the Mazch 13 TAB meeting, TAB will be asked to consider a recommendation to City Council for formal direction on AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 13 the location of the commuter rail platform. Suggested policy questions regarding the location of the proposed RTD commuter rail platform aze included below for TAB to consider: Question for the Transportation Advisorv Board: What is TAB's recommendation on the rail platform location? Approach A: Accept the infornzation provided by R7D that the rail platform will be located on the straight seckon of track and the Regional BusBRT station will be at the Transit Village site at 30rn & Pearl. Approach B: Direct staff to advocate with RTD for a different outcome. SUMMARY OF OUESTIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD: 1. The Planning Board and Working Group have recommended focusing first on the hub area. Do you agree with this approach? Do you agree that a transportation network plan should be developed for the entire area? 2. Do you have anything to add or delete anything from the revised list of goals & objectives? Do you recommend using the goals & objectives to provide direction for developing the options? What vision statements do you think should guide the development of options in the next phase of the planning process? 4. Do you want to add or delete anything from the list of key issues? Are these all the issues that should be addressed in the development of the options? Are there any issues on the list for which you wish to give guidance at this time? 5. Do you have any comments on the process for developing the options? 5. Do you have any comments on the proposed schedule for the azea plan adoption or the role of the working group in the process? 6. What is TAB's recommendation on the rail platform location? Approach A: Accept the information provided by RTD that the rail platform will be located on the straight section of track and the Regional BusBRT station will be at the Transit Village site at 30~n & Peazl; or Approach "B": Direct staff to advocate with RTD for a different outcome Approved By: AGENDA ITEM # 5B Paee 14 Tracy Winfree ATTACHMENTS: A. Minutes of the Februazy 16 Planning Boazd meeting B. Originally adopted goals, objectives and direction C. Proposed process and schedule D RTD "White Paper" on commuter rail platform location AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 15 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 16, 2006 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) aze retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web aC http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboazd/agendas BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Macon Cowles, absent Simon Mole, Acting Chair Adrian Sopher John Spitzer Phil Shull Claire Levy Elise Jones STAFF PRESENT: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, L,ong Range Planning Manager David Gehr, Assistant City Attomey I,ouise Grauer, Senior Planner Abe Barge, Planner 5. ACTION ITEMS Public heazing and update on the Transit Village Area Plan: working group meetings; regional and local transportation context; and city-wide land use needs. Public Participation: Fenno Hoffman, 505 Geneva Ave. Boulder Bill Roettker, 4507 Mulberry Ct. Boulder Vince Porreca, PO Box 22 Boulder Sue Anderson, 1135 Jay St. Boulder , The following questions were posed to the Planning Boazd by staff. A summary of their responses follows each question. 1. How would you like to provide input between the points in the process when we will seek your formal direction at public hearings? Planning Board was generally supportive of the proposed new process with the working group. Members aze interested in an expanded role, perhaps as the options are developed. Board member L.evy suggested that the process be altered somewhat so Planning Boazd meetings occur prior ro working group meetings. AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 16 2. Are you wmfortable with the plan for providing a clearer method of information sharing? Planning Board is comfortable with the approach that all Planning Boazd members, TAB members and City Council members receive the information sent to the working group. The information will also be posted on the web site: www.bouldertransitvillaQe.net 3. Do you have any comments on how the public should be involved at this phase of setting parameters and the next phase of developing options? Planning Boazd did not address this question. 4. Do you have any questions or comments on the background papers? See list of questions generated by Planning Boazd below. 5. Do you see issues at this time that you think should be considered in developing options for the area? Planning Boazd did not address issues, other than what they included in their questions. 6. Dces the material suggest areas where the goals and objectives in Attachment H should be revised? Planning Boazd did not directly address the goals and objectives 7. Do you need additional information for the March 23 public hearing on: a. Revised goals and objectives b. List of key issues/ choices to consider (overall area & by district) Planning Board made a motion to focus first on the hub azea, a smaller central core azea, and then move on to other azeas. They amended the hub azea to be defined by Valmont on the north, Foothills highway on the east, the rail lines and the ditch on the south and 30`h Street on the east between Mapleton and Valmont. c. How to present choices to the community re: key issues Planning Boazd did not speci£ically address this question. d. Rail platform (recommendation on the city's position on the future commuter rail platform) Planning Board recommended to City Council to "accept the information provided by RTD that the rail platform will be located on the straight section of track and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station will be at the 30th & Peazl site. They made two motions, one on the rail platform, and one on the location of the BRT. They passed both motions. See below for the detailed motions. Other: Planning Boazd requested that staff come back with a revised process for the area plan tha[ shortens the overall length of time for the planning process. AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 17 Questions Questions for EPS on the Retail and Industrial Analvsis: L How much demand is there for industrial space in the transit village area? 2. Are there other locations city-wide for service industrial uses? 3. Is there demand for mixed use industrial development, similaz to Steelyards? 4. Would there be demand for the redevelopment of industrial property into more intense industrial uses? 5. What would the ripple effects to Boulder be if redevelopment pushed the industrial users out to other locations? 6. Other than economic criteria, as used in the EPS report, what other criteria should be used to analyze the impacts of redeveloping the industrial ueas to mixed use or redevelopment? i.e. residents have to drive further for industrial services? Questions for RTD: 1. How will the local buses be integrated with the regional buses? 2. How will local routes impact existing and future neighborhoods? 3. What aze the wnent ridership numbers, on the B buses? 4. Confirm the projected ridership numbers for the train and BRT from Boulder. Do the projections include riders to and From Longmont? Do they include any projected employment or housing with a quarter and half mile of the transit? How would the projections increase with transit oriented development (TOD) in the hub area? 5. What will the percentage of in-commuters using train or bus compared to those driving? 6. Given the ridership projections, how much pazking is needed for those departing from Boulder? What is the relationship between pazking demand and projected ridership? 7. What is the current ridership on the Southwest corridor? And how does it compaze to the projections? 8. Are there models of expected ridership based on ceRain residential and employment densities? Questions for Staff or Others 1. Do employees who work in Boulder but live elsewhere want to live in Boulder? If yes, in what type of housing do they want? 2. What type of density and intensity is needed to create vitality? (DUS/acre, height, number of residents) Employment: 3. What are our needs for industrial/ office space in the future? 4. What kind of space is needed? 5. Do businesses within a"cluster" want to be located close together? Motions Motion made by A. Sopher, seconded by P. Shull to accept the information provided by RTD that the rail platform will be located on the straight section of track. Vote 6 to 0. AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 18 Motion made by E. Jones, seconded by S. Mole to accept the information provided by RTD that the bus rapid transit (BRT) station will be at the 30th & Pearl site. Vote 5 to 1(A. Sopher opposed.) Motion made by A. Sopher, seconded by S. Mole to focus first on the hub azea, a smaller central core azea, and then on to other azeas. (The hub azea defined by Valmont on the north, Foothills highway on the east, the rail lines and the ditch on the south and 30`h Street on the east.)Vote 6 to 0. Motion made by C. Levy and seconded by E. Jones to amend the hub area boundaries to include the west side of 30th Street from Valmont to Mapleton.Vote 5 to 1(A. Sopher, opposed). AGENDA ITEM # 5B Paee 19 Attachment B Transit Village Area Plan Goals, Objectives and Direction Approved by Planning Board and City Council4/26/OS Goals: 2. Create a well-used and well-loved oedestrian oriented vlace of enduring value that seroes all of Boulder. 3. Provide a stron¢ sense of communitv for residents, neighbors, businesses, and the community-at large through the design of sireet blocks, scale of development, creation of public spaces and the connections to them, and variety in scale, land uses, and building types. 4. Maximize the community benefit of the transit investment: Locate homes and employment to maxunize access to local and regional bus service, future rail, and bus rapid transit and to allow for a transit oriented lifesryle. 5. Suvvort diversitv: Include land use and travel options that expand opportunities for employees and residents of different incomes, ethnicities, demographics, and different abilities. 6. Enhance economic vitalitv: Increase economic acrivity for businesses, increase revenues for the city of Boulder, reduce transportarion costs for residents and employees, and increase transit ridership for RTD 7. Connect to the natural environment: Create a place that reflects Boulder's commitment to environmental sustainabllity and "green" buIlding. 8. En~a¢e the vublic: Create a place that reflects input from property and business owners, residents and adjacent neighborhoods. Objectives The Plan should include: 1. A mixture of land uses and intensities that meet Comprehensive Plan policies related to community design, economic vitality, jobs/ housing balance and affordable housing and that oprimize transit use. This will include: a. Multiple housing choices, including a variety of housing types at a range of prices from market rate to affordable. b. Multiple employment opportunities. c. Neighborhood-serving retail uses for residents and employees 2. Places with special character that reinforce Boulder's unique identity and sense of place 3. Functional public spaces designed to accommodate the needs, aspirations, and celebraflons of diverse ethnic groups. 4. Active walkable streets in a fine grain grid pattern 5. Mulri-modal access and mobility within the area and to the rest of Boulder including the Downtown, Twenty Ninth Street, University of Colorado, other employment centers, Goose Creek path, Valmont Park, and other nearby parks 6. A plan for city services including innovative approaches to services such as storm water management 7. Solutions to mitigate traffic unpacts 8. Solutions to mitigate environmental impacts 9. Strategies to promote water efficiency and quality improvements 10. Preserving some of the service industrial uses in this area or in another identified location 11. Support and expand the unique mixture of minority-owned businesses in the area 12. Services that support the residents, adjacent neighbors and businesses, such as child care. AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 20 13. An implementation plan for short and long term phasing that acwmmodates change and adjustment based on the future needs of the community. Proposed Direction for the Next Phases of the Proiect Based on the results of an expert panel and public input on the opportunities and constraints, the following d'uection will help guide the next phase of the projech 1. Transit hub area: Initial planning should focus on the azea in closest proximity to future transit, generally from Valmont south to the ditch south of Pearl Street, from 30~' Street east to Fronrier. To better understand the relationships among the land uses and transportation connections in the area including the transit functions, access to the transit functions -- pedestrian, local bus, bicycle, and auto access--parking, the locarion of the commuter raIl platform, and the transit user movement pattems, the city should develop a framework plan and planning options for the transit hub area. 2. Retail: The 29~h Street project reflects a very large private investment in Boulder's furixre (130 million dollars.) The transit hub area must support this inveshnent in every way: the area should provide connections for pedestrians and bicyclists to go there easily and efficiently. "Boulder is well-represented with national big-box retailers (20,000 - 40,000 SF) and there maybe additional opportunides, especially on sites clustered around Twenty Ninth St and future opportuniries at aging shopping centers.' (added from PB and CC d'uection on the Retail Strategy.) Future retail uses in the transit village area should be pedestrian-oriented neighborhood-seroing uses that do not duplicate 29~h Street. Large format retaIl uses could be located further away from the transit hub area- - east of the rail lines, south of Pearl with access from FoothIIls Highway-- but could negarively impact the desired pedestrian environment for the transit hub area. 3. Housing: There is a strong market for market rate and affordable housing in a mix of multi- family/townhouse/ live-work units in Boulder. Enough housing should be provided in locations to create neighborhoods rather than as scattered isolated pockets of residential uses through this area. Inirial residenrial development will not likely attract many family households and is more likely to appeal to those interested in a more urban residential experience. However, as new neighborhoods reach a critical mass, housing options desirable for families such as townhomes may become more viable in the area. 4. Office: This area is not a particularly strong office location now. Downtown is Boulder's primary class A office location. The area east of the raIl lines and north of Goose Creek (i.e. WIldemess Place) is valuable class B office that could possibly be intensified in the future and reoriented to the rail and Goose Creek. Affordable office locations should be identified. 5. Industrial: Staff should analyze the role this area plays in providing different types of industrial uses to help identify the amount and type of industrial land uses that should be recommended in the plan. 6. Service Industrial: Seroice industrial uses do not support transit and the future transit investment will result in strong market pressure to drive a conversion from service industrial to mixed uses, including residential. The city should work with exisring businesses to develop a plan for transitioning these uses out of the area and to identify altemative locations for seroice industrial uses. 7. Unique Identity: The transit vIllage area should connect to the downtown via Pearl Street and should reinforce Boulder's unique identity. The urban design character of the area should celebrate the core values of Boulderthatinclude: • Open space and natural corridors and greenways, including Goose Creek and Boulder Creek paths • Views of the Flatirons and foothills AGENDA ITEM # SB Pa¢e 21 • The city's mulri-modal corridors- the system of roadways, high frequency transit , bikeways, pedestrian and multi-use paths that tie the city together and make it easy to travel within the city and connect to other areas in the region. • A continuation of the mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented character of Pearl Street east of the downtown into the transit village area. Pearl Street is the "lifeline' and "spine' connecting the downtown to BTV and should extend the familiar character of Boulder to the east. . Identification of special character areas, induding municking the street and block pattem found in the older historic areas of Boulder, with smaller block sizes creating a pleasant, walkable environment. • Recognition that this area will become a new "gateway° to Boulder and should provide a unique welcoming and reinforcing of what sets Boulder apart. . Exploration of potential locations and uses for the historic train depot to this area. 8. Density and Scale: Include a variety of densities in the area. Higher densities will be most appropriate in the transit hub area and at select locations along multi-modal corridors, parficularly Pearl and Arapahce. The Steelyards project is a good model for mixed use in this area, at similar or higher densities in certain locations. 9. Implementation: Adoption of an area plan including a transportarion connections plan must provide clear policy d'uection and will be the first step toward establishing an efficient and predictable process. After plan adoprion, the city should initiate comprehensive plan changes and a rezoning of the area to be consistent with the direction established in the plan supporting transit and the 29t'' Street inveshnents. 10. Investment: All public investments should reinforce and focus the policy direction and should leverage private dollars, particularly in areas more difficult to redevelop. Consider focusing city investment at the transit hub area. An infrashucture plan should create a finer grid of streets and sidewalks and should include a plan for city utIlities such as water and sewer lines 11. Public/ private partnerships: There are a number of Einancing tools that have been successfully used in transit-oriented development and include a mix of public and private investment which should be idenrified for discussion and consideration for implementation of the plan. 12. Parking: Due to the excellent mulUple transit access opportunities at this locaUon, consider reducing the parking requirements in areas close to transit. Parking requirements should be flexible and reduced as much as possible to reflect the planned pedestrian character and a transit oriented lifestyle. 13. "Green" Area Planning: The pian will include "green" planning and urban design concepts and wIll idenrify incentives for innovarive "green' site plamiulg, architecture, and other sustainable methodologies. 14. Significance of the city/RTD-owned site: This is the keystone property strategically located to provide connecrions between future commuter rail, bus rapid transit, local and regional transit and 29~' Street, and multunodal connections to the rest of the Boulder community. Providing well thought out connections wIll be a critical wmponent to the success of the transit hub area and for this new neighborhood. Connections to 29~' Street, CU, downtown, the Goose Creek multi-use path, the Steelyards and adjacent neighborhoods are all critical connections 15. Housing: The city/ RTD-owned site is a good place for housing, pazticularly adjacent to Goose Creek. 16. Transit and Parking Uses: The city and RTD should plan the property in an integrated manner to explore design options meeting current and future transit and parking needs and integration with future phases of development on the site. Any built elemenfs on fhe site should reinforce the long-term goals of the area plan, accommodate RTD's needs, be adaptable to future expectations. Proceed carefully with first phase transit developments. AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 22 BOULDER TRANSIT VILLAGE AREA PLAN DRAFT PROCESS 03110/06 ~~~ ~ 2006 2007 ~'~~~~ ~ ~ ~'~~~~~ ~~ PHASE 3 PHASE 4 Goals, Objectives & , Community Outreach: What is the Community s Vision? Analysis & Evaluation of Options Plan Adoption: Proposed Land Direction What are the Options . Implementation Approach Use, Transportation Connections f~ ortunities & Pp & Implementation Constraints Jar~uary -~~ril N~~;w;° April May - September October - January, 2001 Goals Public ~ublic Input Local and Check in Develop Public Input ~oint Objectives & Input orkshops on egional a~y coun~~i, raft Options Options Assessment Community Survey Public Direction What is the community character, future vision & Context Planning Board & Tqg • Overall Vision & Implement- ~0122-11116 Hearing from City Council & Planning Board communit 's vision? concepts What transit • Land Use . Trans portation ation Cit Council, pportunities i • Land Use services are coming to the . Direction on Revised . Intensity . Character Approach Plannin 9 Board & . ~iv c • Trans ortation p area? Goals and TAB (Network & Constraints Groups • Intensity Objectives Analyze alternative Plan) from analysis & ' Business & • Character Commun- • Key Issues to options Property l d d exper~ panel Owners Develop ity Needs Address an eve op evaluation criteria Draft Plan Plan Ado tion p 01118 01116 P • Minority Conce t Anal sis UVhen Recommended - ublic Groups p s y Developing OptionsforLand ~Utl'eaCh • Neighbors with design teams What are the the Draft Check in Check in Use, Transportation What is the plan General Public ,.~;~ ;~ community's Options . Process for City Council, Cit Council, y antl Implementation process? _ __ --- ~ ~ ` needs for , n ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ r , industrial, retail Developing Planning Board & TAB Planning Board & TAB Check in ~ , aY ~` , ~ & housing? Draft Options Gi~ ~~uncil, Plar~~~ir~~ ~~ar~ 8. ~ '~ !€ ~" ~ • Rail Platform Location What Options Results of Options City Council, TA3 , ~ `' ; • Implementat- Shoultl be Anal zed ~ Y Analysis and Planning Board & ~ir~e~ion an i ~nd ion Principles Further. 06127, 06129, 07111 Evaluation 09l24-10l02 TAB . lDse an~ ~ra~sp~e~ = Direction on Draft ~~3Y~G~~}$S Plan 12l3-12J12 Consultant & City Staff Work with Working Group Input Public Input Public Hearings & ~inal Decisions pegional Transportatlon District December 19, 2005 Micki Kaplan Senior Transportation Planner City of Boulder/GO Boulder PO Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 ,600 Blake Shea, D Denver. Cobredo 80202-1398 ~ ~sze-sooo I\ Re: 30th/Pearl Commuter Rail Station Location Dear Ms. Kaplan: This letter and attached white paper are intended to provide clarification on RTD's position on the location of the commuter rail station platform for the 30th/Pearl Station. As you know, RTD is currently in the final stages of the draft EIS for the US 36 Corridor which will be released in 2006. RTD's position is based on current level of engineering and environmental analysis that has been completed through that process. Our position on the station platform location reflects our current design standards and input from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad. The attached white paper provides a technical summary of RTD's position about the location of the rail platForm. A simplified summary of that position is provided in the following bullets: . RTD's current design standards do not allow for station platforms to be located on a curve. Gaps between the platform and a train located at the station would violate requirements for handicap access under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition, we have received input from BNSF that they will not allow a platform on a curve within their right-of-way. • RTD believes that a separation of the commuter rail functions and regional bus functions at this location is preferable. There will be minimal interface between regional bus activity and regional rail activity at this location because they provide duplicative services. Local bus access to activity centers within Boulder is planned to be provided at both the regional bus facility and the commuter rail facility. If you have any questions about this Ietter or the white paper please contact Bill Sirois at 303.299.2417. Sincerely, iii~J~~ John Shonsey Senior Manager, Engineering c: Henry Stopplecamp, Engineering Technical Services Manager Bill Sirois, Manager, Transit Oriented Development Dave Shelley, Manager, Corridor Planning M Equel OppoAUNty/A~rmative Actlan Employer RTD alignment requirements for Commuter Rail Station Operations RTD has looked at the requests from the community that will utilize the 30"' & Pearl commuter rail station and the Boulder Transit Village dealing with the location of the rail station. The proximity of the rail platform to the Boulder Transit Village is the major concern raise by the community. The desired location for the platform lies within a 4 degree curve on the BNSF inainline. For many reasons RTD's design criteria along with BNSF's policy do not permit placing a station on a curve. Accesses to the vehicles are governed by the Federal Government ADA requirements. These requirements also provide some unique challenges when stations are built into curves. The current location of the 30`h & Pearl Station is within the 1200 feet walk distance outlined by RTD's Park-n-Ride design manual. RTD does realize that if all possible the walk distance should be minimized for our patrons. However RTD can not compromise safety for our patrons and employees. Our primary goal is to provide a safe and relia6le service to our riders. RTD is currently working with the community and local governments to provide a win-win situation. As the project goes into Finai Design, RTD will endeavor to move the station as close to the Boulder Transit Village as safety will permit. RTD's Commuter rail des+gn criteria states, "Locate stations on horizontal and vertical tangent sections." The reil geometry section requires that the tangent section continue a minimum of 85 feet beyond each end of the platform. In developing Ri'D's design criteria RTD took the existing design guidelines from Amtrak, BNSF and UPRR as our starting point. We realize that the host railroads design requirements will govern RTD's design while opereting on their tracks. If RTD operates on the same corridor, but on separate tracks there will be some flexibility in our finaf design and implementation. RTD staff consulted with both BNSF and UPRR railroads on their logic and rational of the various track requirements and station restrictions. Realizing that all three railroads have put considerable effort and research into their development of their design guidelines, it only made sense to utilize their work. It was determined that RTD would use the most restrictive guideline from each of the railroads as a starting point. RTD met with BNSF in 20~3 and talked in depth about their station requirements including locating the station in a curve. RTD used the 30"' and Pearl stations an example of a possible commuter rail station located on a curve. BNSF summarized their policy and concerns in a letter to RTD dated December 23, 2003. ~BNSF policy is not to allo w platforms to be built on curves. There are several reasons for this; the ability for an engineer to see the activity along his t~ain is ~educed, there are c%arance issues between the plafform and the side of a car, and tire supere%vation of the track makes enterrng & exiting the cars difficuli to name a few.' BNSF listed several issues associated by placing stations on a horizontal or vertical curve. Commuter rail cars are not articulated and act as a cord within the track curve. This means that the doors in the center of the car are further away from the platform than the end doors. There is no way to build the platform to match the final door locations. Commuter rail trains will stop, plus or minus 3 feet of their desired spot. As the front end of the car traverses through the station it will remove all protrusions extending past the curvature of the platform. FTA has indicated that FRA normally does not permit high platforms to be built on curves sharper than 1 degree 40 minutes with a maximum of 1 inch superelevation. FRA does not override the host railroad if the railroad states that they will not permit a station on their line to be in a curve. Sight distance for RTD's patrons and operators is aiso reduced. The operator's line of sight down his consist is reduced. Mirrors, attendants or some other methods are required to ensure that the doors are cleared and that no patron is in the way of the train. RTD has evaluated the potential risks associated by placing a station on a horizontal or vertical curve. RTD also looked at ways to mitigate the risks identified with a commuter reil station on a curve. After much discussion with the railroads and other agencies, looking at design solutions and maintenance requirements, it was determined that RTD did not believe that it was in their best interest to permit designing a commuter rail corridor with one or more of its stations on a curve. RTD criteria should be maintained and followed by the corridor designers in order to promote a safe and accessible system. Any modifications to the design criteria must be reviewed by RTD's safety committee. Department of Transportation disability law guidance on full-length, level boarding platforms in new commuter and intercity rail stations states, "level boarding is defined as involving a horizontal gap of no more that three inches and a vertical gap of no more than 5/8 inches." With the cord effect on the distance between the door and platform, this requirement can not be met. Also if the car is on superelevated track the access into or out of the car is a greater challenge for the mobility impaired community. If the station was placed in the curve at 30`^ & Pearl, the gap between the center door and the platform would be greater than 6 inches. This does not meet ADA requirements. A six inch gap is enough distance to catch a small foot or hinder wheelchair/strollers/luggage from entering the railcar. (See attachments) The current location outlined by the EIS, puts the 30t" & Pearl Station is within the 1200 feet walk distance outlined by RTD's Park-n-Ride design manual. The distance is measured from the parking garage/bus turnaround to the platform. RTD currently requires patrons at some stations to walk 1400 feet from their car to the platform. _ RTD tries to minimize the distance this distance as much as possible. RTD has looked at the 30"' & Pearl station to see how far south we can move the station with out placing the station in the curve and maintaining the require track geometry as specified by BNSF. The design team has eliminated the required 85 foot tangent section at the south end of the 30`h & Pearl St station. As the SB train feaves the station it goes immediately into a spiral and then into the curve. The EIS has already moved the station as far south as possible at this time. The Final Design will determine the impact of these exceptions to the design criteria will need to be approved by the RTD's Operations and Safety departments along with BNSF. RTD will co~tinue to work with the community during final design to try to move the station further south. Both parties have to realize that the safety of our patrons is our number one priority.