Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.15.2015 BJAD Packet Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) Joint Commission – Parking and TDM Meeting & Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) – Parking Meeting October 15, 2015 4 - 6 pm 1777 West Conference Room, 1777 Broadway REVISED AGENDA 1. Roll Call  BJAD TDM: Hyde-Wright, Koval, Osborne, Pawlowski, Pedersen  BJAD Parking: Koval, Osborne, Pedersen, Shanahan, Wells 2. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest 3. Convene as the BJAD – Parking Commission 4. Public participation 5. Status of Depot Square Garage Parking Access System 6. Update on permit parking fees and management 7. Request from 3001 Pearl for the District to Waive the $2000 Penalty in the First Amendment to Depot Square Parking Purchase Agreement 8. Adjourn as the BJAD – Parking Commission 9. Convene as the BJAD Joint Commission 10. Approval of the August 5, 2015 Meeting Minutes 11. Feedback from Both Commissions: AMPS Presentation and Recommendations 12. Discussion of Dual Commission Meeting Format 13. Matters from Commissioners  Depot Square Plaza Rules feedback 14. Matters from Staff  Update on Depot Square Projects  City Council Study Session 10/13/15 – Boulder Junction and Pollards Property 15. Action Items 16. Adjourn as BJAD Joint Commission Attachments:  Meeting Minutes August 5, 2015  AMPS Study Session Memo  Boulder Junction Study Session Memo  First Amendment to Depot Square Parking Purchase Agreement  Second Amendment to Depot Square Parking Purchase Agreement  Memorandum regarding BJAD Parking Pricing  Maintenance Agreement Upcoming Meetings/Topics AMPS Study Session – November 12 Commissioner Terms: BJAD 2015 Priorities: TDM Commission Term Expires John Pawlowski-Chair 3/2018 Property Owner/Rep - Boulder Junction’s new community implementation John Koval-Vice Chair 3/2016 Property Owner/Rep - Planning on Pollard site Alex Hyde-Wright 3/2020 Citizen at Large - Installation of quiet zones Susan Osborne 3/2019 Citizen at Large - “Last mile” transportation strategies Scott Pedersen 3/2017 Property Owner/Rep - Council / Commission knowledge collaboration - BJAD two boards’ consolidation potential Parking Commission Term Expires - Informational sessions with City Council Susan Osborne-Chair 3/2019 Citizen at Large John Koval-Vice Chair 3/2016 Property Owner/Rep Scott Pedersen 3/2017 Property Owner/Rep Jeff Shanahan 3/2018 Property Owner/Rep Thomas Wells 3/2020 Citizen at Large 1 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS DISTRICT NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Ruth Weiss – 303-413-7318 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: TDM: Pedersen, Pawlowski (absent), Koval, Hyde-Wright, Osborne Parking: Pedersen, Shanahan, Koval, Wells (arrived at 10:19 am), Osborne STAFF: WINTER, MATTHEWS, WEISS, HAGELIN, GUILER, STAFFORD, GEHR GUESTS: TYPE OF MEETING: Regular August 5, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 1 – Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 9:10 a.m. AGENDA ITEM 2 – Approval of the June 3, 2015 Joint Meeting Minutes (Action Item Below) AGENDA ITEM 3 – Disclosure of Conflict of Interest: Completed. AGENDA ITEM 4 – Public Participation: None AGENDA ITEM 5 – Form Based Code - Guiler: Guiler said there is a study session with council next week. Good summary of Form Based Code in study session materials. AGENDA ITEM 6 – Depot Square Update: Edward Stafford, Development Review Manager in Public Works and the Project Coordinator for Boulder Junction, said the bridge over Goose Creek has been completed and the Pearl Multi Way Boulevard is also completed and open to the public on the north and south sides. Junction Place is open to the public and traffic with some punch list items to complete. The parking garage has a TCO and valet parking is available for the hotel. The Parking Management System is being installed. The hotel is fully open and operational, residential housing is working on TCO this week with punch list items to complete. There are some city payment issues to developer and working on multi party negotiations. August 13th is the grand opening, and RTD to begin service on August 17. Bike Shelter, see revised agenda update attachment; the pocket park is challenging for a shelter. Osborne asked about how much space will be taken from park, Stafford said it has not been determined due to public process on design and conceptually design work is next year and will take several months. Koval asked for the preferred location and Stafford replied it will be integrated into the park. Pedersen said negotiations have begun with the selected vendor, Protection Tech, who is under contract for the gate access system, Matthews provided feedback to the draft contract. Specifications for the parking access system are compatible for all user groups, the system was ordered, 25% of system was prepaid, equipment installation began three weeks ago, Protection Tech is on site; all available equipment has been installed, and system to go online shortly. Protection Tech will be pulling wires through the conduits, software has been programmed, and computers are ready. The system will go online almost immediately and Protection Tech will be paid upon the installation an additional 50% with the final 25% when system is deemed satisfactory by all users. The system will be operational prior to August 17th. RTD has been working with Protection Tech to make sure they are complying with the Parking Management Agreement. Printers for buses will not be installed until first quarter 2016. License plates will be read and validated one day at a time at Depot Square and fixes are being created for a temporary fix for RTD. Winter said the District needs to know the card access system will work for BJAD permit users. Matthews said cards need to be in the system as a standard with other permits offered by city of Boulder and Protection Tech has not been in touch. Confirmation of the card system RFID capability with the city’s system is needed. Pedersen said there was not a date for a system training program for the garage unit owners. Koval said the system is complex, and asked if staff and developer are on the same page. Winter asked Pedersen to 2 confirm that all aspects of the access system specs will be happening. Pedersen acknowledged they can sit down with the developer when operational, have all concerned bring their RFID cards and use the system to confirm it works as contracted. Koval is concerned with the ability to deliver the garage with TCO when the residents move in; the garage infrastructure needs to be complete and compatible. It is the responsibility of district to get this access system installed. Pedersen said that the system should function as anticipated when it’s brought online and there is financial recourse for an undelivered system. Koval said the garage has to be open to facilitate resident housing. Haddock said the recourse is in the first amendment agreement to the Parking Purchase Agreement: payments by 3001 Pearl LLC of $2000 per day. Winter said there is concern about having the garage open to all users without the software system in place to track which type of user is parking in the garage. Parkers using the garage before the access system is in place and operational has liability issues; who is responsible for damage and maintenance. Osborne said the controlled access system operability is imminent. The 18 month construction project has turned into a 24 month process, hence the delay in an operational garage. Winter presented the initial set up of parking permit pricing and distribution including information sent to the commission in January; Guiding Principles were discussed and how the program can evolve and the rates change over time. Winter said it’s $1.25 per hour to park hourly in the garage and on street; permits are proposed to be $150 a quarter and looking at proportional distribution within the user groups – district residents, employees and customers based on the number of units or employees. Permit holders will need to document living or working within the district. SP Plus will help with the management of the access system. Osborne asked if a Solana individual wanted to use spaces, what is the process. Winter replied permits would be allocated based on the proportional number of units within the current district. If the demand exceeded the number of permits, then there would be a lottery system. After the Boulder Junction area is built out, then the district would conduct another lottery to distribute permits. Hyde-Wright said to increase the permit prices. Winter said it’s a matter of knowing who the users are and what the market is for parking permits. Osborne acknowledged that there is free parking at the brewery in the evening and its impact. Winter said the Steelyards has free parking and they have expressed concern. A survey was suggested by Osborne, bikers, bus riders and how to make it work as a TOD. Hyde-Wright asked how the pricing moves people away. Koval said there is a need to meet the obligations of the district to provide parking and there needs to be a balance of the infrastructure and users should not to be priced out. Koval continued that there is an obligation for the district to generate revenue. Koval said that people will pay for parking, particularly for office users. Koval suggested allocated permits and then refigure. Koval continued that there may be a need for a tiered parking system. Winter said they have the ability to adjust and modify the Guiding Principles. Osborne also mentioned that there will be a lot of affordable housing which needs to be accommodated. Koval asked if we are purchasing the unit as it seems that there is non-payment issue. Haddock said the contractor A&P stopped work on the project and there is also a stop on the project inspections. Koval asked if the district is buying something that is involved in litigation. Haddock responded that staff is working on avoiding that situation. 3001 Pearl and A&P have scheduled mediation. Pedersen said the district needs to consider the contractual agreement on behalf of the district. Pedersen said there is nothing in the parking agreement about having a functional parking management system and is not a concern of the board. Haddock said that is incorrect and a functional parking system is a requirement in the parking purchase agreement. Haddock said staff needs guidance: If the closing between 3001 Pearl and the district happens and the district owns the parking unit before there is a functional parking access system who is responsible for liability and does the district agree with needing an as “new” unit, and does the district wish to reduce the requirements in PMA amendments or require more. The maintenance agreement presented by 3001 Pearl had the district responsible for maintenance and liability and is not supported by staff. Koval asked about the district’s indemnification in purchasing the unit if there is litigation and if there is a disagreement with deliverables. Haddock presented a worst case scenario: the district owns a unit in a garage without a functional parking system in a project that does not have CO. There was concern expressed about just two parking commissioners taking action. Osborne and Koval will give advice to staff. The commission asked is the district protected against liens, are we compromising the real estate investment. Staff will do everything to protect the district. Shanahan and Pedersen recused themselves at 10:24 a.m. Winter sought board feedback from the Commission about the second amendment to the parking purchase agreement and the maintenance agreement for the parking structure before the parking access system is operational. Osborne asked if it is operational as Pedersen represented would this agreement be moot. The response was yes. Winter wanted the same 3 assurances and discussions that 3001 Pearl has given to the other parking users - RTD and the hotel - about how the system would work for district users. It is simple request. As presented by the developer the maintenance agreement is not satisfactory for the district users as the district would be responsible for maintenance and liable for damage but cannot identify who the district user is without the system. The proposal is that the district accept title to the parking unit so that 3001 Pearl can get its permanent financing. Winter said that the consideration is also to not to stand in the way of the hotel housing and RTD using the parking garage. Item 3 in the agreement lets the garage be used and the developer is responsible for any damage and delivering the garage in “new” condition when the district accepts it. The commissioners expressed concern about losing leverage to get the parking system fully functional by allowing a TCO for the garage for the other users: housing, hotel and RTD – fearful 3001 Pearl would not be motivated to get the full job done. There is concern about disappointed rate payers. The city is trying to take a global approach to a solution with the city and district. In order for 3001 Pearl to get permanent financing the district and the housing need to take title of their units, getting A&P working to complete the project, have the city paying public improvement funds to get A&P working, and escrowing money to get the parking access system completed and or have the district take over. One solution is to have the district take over the parking access system complete with the escrow from 3001 Pearl. Winter proposed getting Standard Parking and getting the other unit owners involved. Wells arrived and a brief overview was presented regarding the 2nd amendment and 3001 Pearl presented Agreement for Maintenance of Parking Structure gives use of the garage to the district with the developer responsible for liability and maintenance until the district accepts the access system. There is pressure from the housing to get access to parking to get their CO. Also the bus station will be opening and needs the parking. Stafford reviewed the financial situation. Koval suggested that the district be flexible. Koval said to go ahead and proceed with the CO and getting the project done, district will continue penalty, and the district has access to the garage. There was support of district taking over the system if it is not protracted. 3001 Pearl responsible to deliver a garage in mint condition. The commissioners said that staff conducted themselves very professionally. There is concern about additional delays in getting the parking access system operational and functional. Osborn suggest if needed to call a special meeting. Gehr summarized the discussion and the direction from the commission: it is okay to negotiate with 3001 Pearl and have the district take title of garage without an operating parking access system and not make payments until it is deemed functional by the district conditional upon: setting up an escrow by 3001 Pearl to insure that parking system is fully functional as per the parking management agreement, with self help for failure, and in interim period, 3001 Pearl will take liability for any damages responsibility through the maintenance agreements. Payments by the district are not due until there is a functional parking access system. Winter will reach out to the other parking unit owners. The Commission asked the staff if there was clear direction and the staff responded yes. Osborne thanked staff for all their efforts. AGENDA ITEM 7 – Matters from the Commissioners: Alternate meeting time of first Wednesday at 4 pm preferred. AGENDA ITEM 8 – Matters from the Staff: Alternate meeting time of 4 pm was discussed later in the day to address conflicts with jobs. Meeting adjourned at 11:09 a.m. ACTION ITEMS: MOTION: Koval motioned to approve the June 3, 2015 meeting minutes with corrections by Koval. Shananan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 4 -0. FUTURE MEETINGS: September 17, 2015 1777 West Conference Room, 4 – 6 p.m. Regular Meeting 4 APPROVED BY: BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS DISTRICT JOINT COMMISSION Attest: Ruth Weiss, Secretary Scott Pedersen, Chair - Parking John Koval, Vice Chair - TDM MEMORANDUM To: Boulder Junction Access Districts – Parking and TDM From: Molly Winter, Director, Department of Community Vitality Kathleen Bracke, GO Boulder Manager, Public Works Transportation Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner, GO Boulder Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Karl Guiler, Senior Planner, Planning Housing + Sustainability Jay Sugnet, Senior Planner, Planning Housing + Sustainability Date: October 15, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to: 1. Seek the Boulder Junction Access Districts – Parking and TDM Commission input on draft recommendations for key priorities for 2015 and 2016: a. options and draft recommendations on car sharing policy; b. options and draft recommendation for parking code amendments; and c. draft recommendations for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies for new developments. 2. Share ongoing community engagement and work plan items related to AMPS and next steps. The purpose of AMPS is to review and update the current access and parking management policies and programs and develop a new, overarching citywide strategy in alignment with city goals. The project goal is to evolve and continuously improve Boulder’s citywide access and parking management policies, strategies, and programs in a manner tailored to address the unique character and needs of the different parts of the city.   Staff has gathered input from the community, boards and commissions to help identify 2015 priorities for further research and community discussion. Ongoing outreach to the city advisory boards and the community has served the dual purposes of educating the public about the multimodal access system and seeking input and ideas about future opportunities for enhancements. The community and board members attended an AMPS open house in September 2015, and provided the input summarized in Section II below. Staff is preparing the most recent feedback from the boards and commissions, surveys, and September 21 open house, which will be submitted to council prior to the study session. Questions for the Boards and Commissions 1. What is your input on the following AMPS 2015 priority work program items: Updates to Off-Street Parking Code Regulations a. Recent parking data shows that current parking requirements generally require more parking city wide than is needed for land uses. Which scenario for parking code changes would be advised moving forward (see Section III)? TDM Plans for New Development b. What are the pros and cons related to the two approaches – district focused and city-wide – for a TDM Plan ordinance for new developments? c. Should staff include in the city-wide approach an option to have the trigger based on the number of employees or bedrooms/housing units or number of peak hour vehicle trips? Car Share On-Street Parking Policy d. Should the city include a designated on-street parking alternative for car share companies in our car share on-street parking policy? e. Should the city include a permitting process for geo-tracked car share vehicle to park in undesignated public right-of-way parking spaces in managed districts, in excess of time restrictions present in these areas? 2. Do the Boards and Commissions have any feedback regarding the ongoing AMPS community engagement and related work plan items and next steps?   MEMO ORGANIZATION I. Background II. Community, Board and Commission Feedback III. Updates to Off-Street Parking Code Regulations (Land Use Code) IV. Transportation Demand Management Plans for New Development V. Car Share On-Street Parking Policy VI. Parking Pricing Preview VII. AMPS Implementation VIII. Ongoing Work and Coordination Related to AMPS IX. Next Steps I. BACKGROUND The Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) project approach emphasizes collaboration among city departments and close coordination with the numerous interrelated planning efforts and initiatives such as the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), Economic Sustainability Strategy, and Climate Commitment. Guiding principles for AMPS include:  provide for all transportation modes;  support a diversity of people;  customize tools by area;  seek solutions with co-benefits;  plan for the present and future; and  cultivate partnerships. In addition of considering enhancements to existing districts, AMPS is examining parking and multimodal access policies and strategies outside of the districts, including parking requirements by land use, bicycle parking requirements, neighborhood parking permit program, and on-street parking throughout the community. Elements of the AMPS project include:  integrated planning, coordinated with other master planning efforts;  a focus on goals and guiding principles that create an adaptable set of tools and methods, allowing the city to continually improve and innovate to achieve its goals;  evaluation of existing and new parking and access management policies and practices within existing districts and across the community, including on- and off-street parking, and public and private parking areas; and  development of context-appropriate strategies using the existing parking districts as role models for other transitioning areas within the community and incorporating national best practices research. The full text of the project purpose, goals and guiding principles are shown in Attachment A. City Council held study sessions on June 10, July 29, Oct. 28, 2014 and May 26, 2015 to review work to-date on the seven focus areas (District Management, On- & Off-Street Parking, Technology, Transportation Demand Management, Code Changes, Parking Pricing, and Enforcement) and provide overall direction on the approach for AMPS, as well as short-term code changes. Staff prepared summaries of the study sessions for June and July 2014, October 2014, and May 2015. It is important to note that if Ballot Questions No. 300 and 301 are passed by the voters on November 3, there will be implications for the AMPS work effort. This memo reflects current staff thinking on AMPS. If the ballot measures pass between now and the City Council Study Session on November 12, staff will need to reevaluate the overall AMPS work plan to reflect the city’s approach to implementing the two measures. The City Attorney’s Office submitted an information packet memorandum to City Council on Oct. 6 with additional information on plans for implementation of the ballot measures if they pass. II. COMMUNITY, BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Staff continues to compile community, board and commission feedback to inform the development of AMPS. Staff has been conducting outreach to residents and commuters through the project website, surveys, Inspire Boulder, and a series of coffee talks throughout Boulder to help develop an understanding of how the community currently views parking and access management. To provide feedback on the relationship of potential changes to the parking code and the TDM Plan ordinance for new developments, staff has convened a stakeholder group consisting of neighborhood and business representatives, developers, and transportation engineers to gather feedback on proposed changes. This group will be meeting throughout the fall of 2015 as staff prepares for the November study session with Council. Associated with the current phase of work the following community, board and commission activities have occurred or been scheduled.  September 21 – AMPS Joint Board Workshop  September 28 – AMPS Open House  October 5 – Downtown Management Commission  October 8 – Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District  October 12 – Transportation Advisory Board  October 14 – Downtown Boulder, Inc.  October 15 – Boulder Junction Access Districts Commissions  October 15 – Planning Board  October 21 – University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission  November 12 – City Council Study Session A summary of feedback from the commissions and boards will be provided at the study session. A summary of recent community engagement, as well as the full documentation of comments received as part of this phase of AMPS, is available on the AMPS website. III. UPDATES TO OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS (LAND USE CODE) With the exception of the recently approved “fixes” and addition of new bike parking regulations to the parking code in 2014, the City of Boulder has not conducted a comprehensive review of its parking requirements or updated the standards for some time. The current parking requirements do not reflect the travel mode shift that has occurred in Boulder in recent years or the desired continued mode shift in the future. Boulder’s current mode split (including higher than regional and national trends for walking, biking, and transit) is reflected in the high number of parking reductions that are requested and approved for new development projects and in data that shows an increasing use of transit and bike facilities. As part of the AMPS process, the city is evaluating updates to the land use (zoning) code to ensure that parking is being provided according to contemporary and future travel needs. These needs should take into account the higher percentages of people choosing to walk, bike and ride transit as alternatives to the automobile. This memo outlines the best practices that staff has researched and discussed in previous memoranda, includes new data on parking supply and demand in the city (see Attachment B – Parking Study), and specifies three scenarios ranging from conservative to more aggressive related to how much of the parking regulations should be updated. Based on direction received from review boards and council on these scenarios, staff will return with more specific land use changes and analysis for consideration. It should be noted that parking regulations, particularly those that may impact residential areas may be affected if the Ballot Questions 300 and 301 pass on November 3 as discussed in the Executive Summary. Staff’s work on evaluating the current parking requirements are informed by policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, discussed below, and the Transportation Master Plan’s (TMP) goals of encouraging transportation options and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). City policies seek to require more efficient parking solutions and avoid excessive parking as expressed in the two Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies below: 6.09 Integration with Land Use Three intermodal centers will be developed or maintained in the downtown, Boulder Junction and on the university’s main campus as anchors to regional transit connections and as hubs for connecting pedestrian, bicycle and local transit to regional services. The land along multimodal corridors will be designated as multimodal transportation zones when transit service is provided on that corridor. In these multimodal transportation zones, the city will develop a highly connected and continuous transportation system for all modes, identify locations for mixed use and higher density development integrated with transportation functions through appropriate design, and develop parking maximums and encourage parking reductions. The city will complete missing links in the transportation grid through the use of area transportation plans and at the time of parcel redevelopment. 6.10 Managing Parking Supply Providing for vehicular parking will be considered as a component of a total access system of all modes of transportation - bicycle, pedestrian, transit and vehicular - and will be consistent with the desire to reduce single occupant vehicle travel, limit congestion, balance the use of public spaces and consider the needs of residential and commercial areas. Parking demand will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible with the minimal necessary number of new spaces. The city will promote parking reductions through parking maximums, shared parking, unbundled parking, parking districts and transportation demand management programs. Consistent with the policies mentioned above, staff is considering incorporating the following best practices from other communities into the land use code:  Updated parking requirements that include new parking minimums and parking maximums;  Shared parking requirements;  Automatic parking reductions;  Unbundled parking in areas outside of Boulder Junction; and  Requirements for electric vehicle charging stations. Staff worked with Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Consultants on analyzing different land uses throughout Boulder in different contexts (e.g., suburban locations away from transit vs. mixed-use locations along transit routes) to evaluate current parking needs. The study, which looked at the parking supply and demand of over thirty locations during peak and non-peak periods and during the university school year, found that parking supply exceeds demand in all instances. Therefore, consistent with the policy direction provided by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and goals of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), reducing parking requirements – principally for commercial and office uses – is warranted. The data also indicates that there is not a strong correlation between the parking needs of properties in more urban, walkable mixed-use locations versus more isolated, vehicle-oriented, suburban locations. This is due to city’s high level of walk-ability, bike-ability and transit access. While differences can be seen between these locations, they are not large enough to necessitate complicated, localized parking requirements, but rather it makes sense to have updated parking requirements per land use citywide. Based on the parking data results and the intrinsic connection between reducing parking requirements and encouraging transportation options, staff has been working on creating updated parking regulations that are linked to new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements (in addition to those TDM requirements discussed later in this memorandum). The approach is to create new parking maximums and parking minimums per land use such that if a new development includes parking amounts towards the lower end of required parking, the required TDM strategies would need to be more robust to offset the need for parking and encourage transportation options. Staff is looking for direction on whether this is a good approach and also how aggressive the numeric parking amounts should be changed. Questions: a. The Fox Tuttle Hernandez parking data shows that current parking requirements generally require more parking city wide than is needed for land uses. Which scenario for parking code changes below would be advised moving forward? Scenario 1 • Minimal change to current parking requirements. • Parking lots would continue to take up large portions of sites. • Spillover impacts would be largely avoided. • May result in continued applications for parking reductions. • Would have the least impact to businesses reliant on provision on parking. • Least alignment with city BVCP policies and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) goals. Scenario 2 • Recognizes that alternative modes are a growing trend in Boulder based on transit use and bike-ability. • Would entail a reduction in parking supply requirements closer to the average parking demand numbers in the data. • More flexibility in site design as parking lots would take up some portions of sites. • Would likely result in tighter parking availability during peak periods and potential for some spillover for some land uses. If spillover parking into neighborhoods occurred during peak periods, mitigation through the Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) program may be necessary. • Would include implementation of new TDM requirements in the land use code. • Would likely reduce the amount of applications for parking reductions. • May have a moderate impact to businesses reliant on provision on parking. • Better alignment with city BVCP policies and TMP goals. • Would be more of an incremental approach towards TMP goals. Scenario 3  Recognizes that use of transportation options is a growing trend in Boulder based on transit use and bike-ability.  Would entail a more significant reduction in parking supply requirements to potentially less than the current demand.  Greatest level of site design flexibility with parking lots and garages taking up minimal portions of sites.  Spillover parking may be more likely. If spillover parking into neighborhoods occurred during peak periods, mitigation through the NPP program may be necessary. • Would include implementation of more robust TDM requirements in the land use code.  This scenario would result in minimal applications for parking reductions.  May have a detrimental impact on businesses reliant on provision of parking.  Most alignment with city BVCP policies and TMP goals.  May have biggest impact to travel behavior and modal choice if less parking is available. IV. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT Staff is developing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan ordinance for new developments. The work represents a systematic approach to holistically address the impacts of new commercial and residential developments on our transportation system. This TDM Plan ordinance work is moving forward together with two other initiatives that are also addressing the impact of new developments. The two initiatives include changes to the city parking code and an impact fee study that includes evaluating the feasibility, design and implementation of a multi- modal impact fee. Parking Code Changes As described above, staff is considering changes to the city parking code which establishes parking supply requirements for new developments. One possible modification includes the establishment of parking maximums in addition to current parking minimums. Due to the connection between parking supply, parking management and TDM, there is a need to evaluate the relationship between the parking code and TDM strategies and move these two work items in tandem. For example, if both parking maximums and minimums were implemented, the closer the parking supply is to the minimum required number of parking spaces, the more robust the TDM program should be to limit parking demand and prevent spillover parking in surrounding areas. To move the parking code changes together with TDM Plans for new developments, staff formed a new stakeholder group with representatives from the development, commercial and neighborhood communities. The group met in early September and will meet together two more times during the next several months to provide input and feedback on the design of a TDM ordinance within the context of a modified parking code. The need to develop the TDM Plan ordinance and parking code changes together was a direct outcome of earlier input from developers and property owners in the spring of 2015. Development-Related Impact Fees and Excise Taxes A second related initiative is the city’s update to the development-related fee studies. The city has retained TishlerBise and Keyser Marston Associates to assist in the analysis. The update is examining four different areas: 1. an update of the 2009 Impact Fee study; 2. affordable housing linkage fee on non-residential development; 3. the preparation of a study to create a public art program for new development; and 4. a study of both the capital and operating impacts to multimodal transportation facilities and services of new development. The last area related to multimodal transportation facilities and services will employ new thinking regarding traditional Transportation Impact Fee and other funding programs. TischlerBise will employ innovative approaches toward Multimodal Mobility Fees that consider different requirements for infill/redevelopment; variations due to geographic subareas and multimodal options; and approaches to recognize the need to move people, not cars, and finding ways to pay for those improvements. For example, the revenue could be used to fund the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, bike-sharing stations, long-term secure bicycle parking, car share vehicles, or transit facility improvements. This type of fee has the potential to work as a foundation for the TDM Plan Ordinance in which the fee provides for initial capital improvements and long-term TDM programs and service commitments are required through the ordinance. The development related fee study is expected to conclude in 2016. TDM Plan Ordinance for New Developments The overarching reasons for incorporating TDM into the Site Review process and regulating implementation and evaluation is to meet the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the City of Boulder’s Sustainability Framework and the Transportation Master Plan. At the last AMPS Study Session, City Council directed staff to study two approaches for a TDM Plan ordinance for new developments; a city-wide approach and a district approach. City-wide Approach There is wide variety of ways a city-wide TDM Plan ordinance could be designed in terms of:  what is measured to determine compliance;  level of the specific targets of the measurable objective(s);  triggers for requiring compliance;  required elements of the TDM Plans;  timing and duration of monitoring; and  enforcement. Other considerations include identifying a sustainable way of monitoring and administrating the program. Depending on the triggers and thresholds for compliance, a city-wide TDM ordinance could require significant staff time and resources. Based on feedback from boards and council, a possible city-wide TDM Plan ordinance would measure single occupant vehicle (SOV) mode share and use vehicle trip generation as a way to verify survey results of residents and employees. The specific targets would be based on existing SOV mode share data, land use, size and location in terms of level of multi-modal access and service. These targets would likely be lowered over time to reflect the city’s long-term sustainability and transportation master plan objectives. The trigger for requiring compliance would be based on peak trip generation as currently outlined in the city’s Design and Construction Standards. Currently TDM plans are required when a commercial development is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips at peak hour and 20 vehicle trips at peak hour for residential developments. Boards and council have discussed lowering the commercial threshold, but there has been no clear consensus. Another option for a trigger that has come out of the stakeholder process at this point is size of commercial and residential developments in regard to the number of employees or the number of housing units or bedrooms. One advantage of this trigger is that the ordinance would be designed to require the compliance of commercial tenants as oppose to property owners on the commercial side. One of the difficulties of a TDM ordinance linked to the property is that the owner of the property has less influence on the travel behavior of their tenants as a business has on its employees. In terms of the TDM Plan design and the question of required elements, feedback supports the idea of maintain as much flexibility as possible with very few required elements. Of the wide variety of possible elements, Eco Pass participation, appointment of an employee transportation coordinator, participation in the evaluation process, and the unbundling of parking were identified as being required elements when appropriate. Based on initial feedback, city boards and council support allowing a three year period to meet targets with annual monitoring. If after three years the property is in compliance, the annual monitoring ends but properties would be periodically monitored as targets are lowered over time. If the property is in non-compliance, a revised TDM plan would be required with additional programs and incentives and the property would have one more year to reach compliance. It has also be discussed as an option to require support from a transportation consultant or membership in transportation management organization to receive the necessary technical assistance if a property is non-compliant after the initial three years. If the property continues to be in non-compliance – an enforcement phase would be initiated. After several board and council meetings, there remains little consensus on what enforcement looks like. The spectrum of input ranged from making a good faith effort is sufficient to meaningful fines and penalties. Some feedback from the stakeholder groups on this topic is that using fines is counterproductive as it takes away from funding possible TDM programs and services. Often if a property is in noncompliance it is related to the level of multi-modal service. In other words, it may not matter how robust a TDM Plan is or how much “teeth” an ordinance has, if there are no accessible transportation options for employees or residents to use. District Approach The district approach is modeled after the system that has been implemented in Boulder Junction. In Boulder Junction, the city adopted a Trip Generation Allowance, which states that only 45 percent of all trips by residents and employees can be completed in a single-occupant vehicle. Rather than meeting the ordinance as individual properties, the owners voted to establish a TDM Access District. The TDM Access District is a general improvement district that collected property taxes to provide TDM programs and services designed to meet the target of the trip generation allowance. The TDM Access Districts works in conjunction with a Parking Access District that provides funding for parking management and the construction of shared parking structures. The revenue from the TDM Access District is currently used to provide Eco Passes to all residents and employees, discounted bike share memberships and free memberships to car sharing organizations. There are many benefits of this approach. The taxes provide a sustainable and flexible source of revenue for TDM programs and administration of the district. The focus is not on individual property compliance and monitoring, but on how the district operates as a whole, and providing incentives for travel behavior change by providing the necessary programs and services rather than on the disincentive of fines and penalties. If in non-compliance, enforcement and penalties are not necessarily required as taxes can be raised to provide the necessary programs and services to increase mode shift. The district approach would also provide a way to bring not only new developments, but also existing commercial and residential properties in our highest trip generation area under the ordinance. The citywide model would only cover new developments and has a limited impact on overall trip generation. If the Boulder Junction model is applied to our current parking districts in downtown and on University Hill, this approach would concentrate resources on the higher density commercial areas of the city where parking demand and vehicle trip generation are the highest. Furthermore, a district approach could be coupled with an ordinance covering any significant developments that occur outside of existing districts. With increased development in North Boulder and along East Arapahoe, a TDM Access District approach combined with capital investments in multi- modal facilities and service could significantly improve long term sustainability and reduce the impacts of new developments. One critical disadvantage of the approach is that the establishment of a general improvement district (GID) requires the vote of property owners even with an ordinance in place. In Boulder Junction, the option to form a district was developed as an alternative to individual properties meeting the requirement of the Trip Generation Allowance on their own. Next Steps The next steps in designing a TDM Plan ordinance for new developments is to develop the criteria for setting targets and produce a matrix outline the targets for different land uses, sizes and locations for the city-wide approach. For both approaches, staff will be working with an internal working group and the City Attorney’s Office to begin to craft potential ordinances reflective of the two models. Similar to potential parking code changes, the current approach to the TDM Plan ordinance will need to be reevaluated if the Ballot Measures 300 and 301 pass on November 3 as discussed in the Executive Summary. Questions: b. What are the pros and cons related to the two approaches for a TDM Plan ordinance for new developments? c. Should staff include in the city-wide approach an option to have the trigger based on the number of employees or bedrooms/housing units? Or number of peak hour vehicle trips? V. CAR SHARE ON-STREET PARKING POLICY Car sharing has been recognized as a viable transportation option for use in urban areas. The City of Boulder currently has a relationship with eGo car share that operates out of public and private parking lots. Staff has been approached by other car share companies wishing to operate in Boulder and a clear on-street parking policy is needed to help guide those conversations. There are two basic models for on-street car sharing parking. The first is a roundtrip model where the vehicle is located in an assigned position and must be returned to that position. The second model allows for geo-tracked vehicles to be rented from any geo-fenced location, driven to another geo-fenced location, and left for the next customer to find using a GPS-based mobile application. Both business models have asked for (geo-tracked requires) on street parking privileges. The roundtrip model would require a specific marked space in the public right of way, while the geo-tracked, one-way model would require some type of permit or exemption from parking at a pay station or in an NPP or other managed parking location. Current policy is that on-street parking is shared, unbundled, managed and paid (SUMP), to meet these requests would require both a change in policy and in ordinance. A draft consultant report is available for more information. Questions: d. Should staff include a designated on-street parking alternative for car share companies in our car share on-street parking policy? e. Should staff include a permitting process for geo-tracked car share vehicle to park in undesignated public right-of-way parking spaces in managed districts, in excess of time restrictions present in these areas? VI. PARKING PRICING PREVIEW Based on the SUMP principles, parking pricing is a key component of parking management ensuring parking turnover and creating an incentive to use other transportation modes. It is also a critical element in creating economically viable and accessible community commercial districts. Since the three access/parking districts – downtown, University Hill and Boulder Junction – are the only commercial centers that have customer paid parking, it is essential to approach parking pricing policies carefully and thoughtfully, mindful of the impacts to businesses and the perceptions of the public consumers who have the alternative to shop, dine and visit commercial areas without paying for parking. All elements of parking pricing are under consideration: long-term, permit parking, short term, hourly parking, and short term parking fines, as well as the cost of the parking permits in the Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) areas. The consideration of parking pricing will be undertaken in a phased approach from 2015 through 2016. Community engagement and outreach will be an important component throughout the process. Please find below an update the status and next steps of parking pricing in all areas: Progress Update  Long-term, Permit Rates: Updates to long-term permit rates in the downtown and on the hill, and in NPP commuter permit rates are included in the 2016 budget process which take into account increases in permit parking rates charged in the private and non-profit sector. Historically, permit rates have been increased on a regular basis. Prior to 2014 the rates were increased every other year. Beginning in 2014, the permit rates have been increased on an annual basis based on demand and monitoring of private parking rates. In the last three years the permit rates have increase 28.6 percent in the downtown. The proposed rates for 2016 are: o Downtown garages: $360 per quarter o Downtown surface lots: $210 per quarter o University Hill surface lots: $185 per quarter o NPP Commuter permits: $90 per quarter Staff will continue monitoring parking supply and parking rates on a regular basis to recommend further adjustments as needed.  Parking Fines: The current on-street, overtime at meter parking fines have not been increased for more than 20 years and staff will be presenting council with recommendations for fine increases, as well as considering a graduated fine approach, in the first quarter of 2016. Currently, staff is working with the AMPS consultant, Kimley-Horn, who surveyed communities nationwide and in Colorado to research rates for a number of parking fines. A summary of the research to date is included in Attachment C. This background data will inform the recommendations. The rate of the overtime at meter fines has a proportional relationship with the short term parking rates so it is important that these two issues are considered together.  Short-term, Hourly Parking Rates: The on-street and garage hourly rates will also be reviewed, including the option of variable rates at different times of day or in different locations. Numerous communities across the country have instituted different approaches to short term parking rates using performance or geographically based criteria. A report from Kimley-Horn on potential pricing strategies and applications is available here. Prior to developing any recommended changes the first step will be to determine the goals of parking pricing. Short term parking rates were last increased in 2007. Outreach and community engagement will be critical to arrive at an informed and balanced recommendation. In order to learn directly from other communities, staff will be organizing along with our consultants a panel of representatives from peer municipalities to share their experience with performance based parking pricing.  Boulder Junction: The Boulder Junction district developed a parking pricing strategy to implement the shared, unbundled, managed and paid (SUMP) principles and reflect the market of the surrounding area. Staff is also phasing in on-street parking management as newly constructed streets become available.  Neighborhood Parking Program: The rates for the Neighborhood Parking Program (NPP) permits will be evaluated – both business and resident – to ensure a comprehensive pricing approach. Currently, the residential permit rate is $17 per year and the permits for businesses embedded with an NPP is $75 per year. The residential rates were last increased in 2006. Community outreach and engagement will be integrated into every stage of this process. It is estimated a recommendation will be forthcoming in the first quarter of 2016. Next Steps Staff will continue to work on the policy options described above and will return to the boards and city council in the first quarter of 2016. VII. ACTIONS IN PROGRESS The following are AMPS related action items currently in progress. New Technology Improvements  Staff has selected a vendor (contract negotiations are underway) for the replacement of the downtown garage access, revenue control, and permitting systems to a state-of-the-art system that will coordinate with other technologies such as the variable messaging system. Installation is expected in 2015 and will take approximately two months to complete. Installation will be phased and managed to maintain access to the garages.  With the projected completion of the Depot Square mixed-use development in Boulder Junction in the second quarter of 2015, staff is working with the multiple parties – the hotel, RTD, affordable housing and Boulder Junction Parking District – to implement a parking management system to accommodate the variety of users of the shared parking.  The Department of Community Vitality is pursuing an innovative pilot program with a downtown Boulder startup company, Parkifi. Parkifi is developing a real-time parking space occupancy technology system and is proposing to pilot the program in the Broadway and Spruce Street surface parking lot, in on-street spaces downtown, and potentially in the downtown garages. The pilot consists of installing sensors in parking spaces at no cost to the city. The sensors are connected to a Parkifi gateway that is connected to a cloud-based dashboard that displays occupancy data. The goal will be to work with the city’s existing mobile payment vendor, Parkmobile, to provide real-time parking data to customers. Installation of the sensors is expected within the next couple of months as the details and specifications are worked out. Shared Parking The goal of a shared parking partnership policy is to maximize potential opportunities for additional shared and managed parking between private developments and established parking districts. The proposed policy could require a mandatory step in the development review process for projects of a certain size located inside one of the three parking districts (downtown, University Hill and Boulder Junction) to explore options and opportunities for additional parking and/or parking management strategies benefiting the entire district. Partnerships could take a number of different forms, including adding district-funded parking to the private development and/or district management options to increase or maximize private parking utilization to the benefit of the district as well as the private property owner. Staff is proposing the approach of requiring a mandatory discussion between the developer and the parking/access district during the review process with voluntary compliance. There are several examples of potential and implemented partnerships between Boulder’s access districts and private developments. These include St. Julien Hotel and the downtown parking district Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID); the Depot Square garage in Boulder Junction between multiple parties (RTD, Hyatt Hotel, affordable housing, the depot and the Boulder Junction Access District - Parking); the current negotiations between CAGID and the Trinity Commons project; and the University Hill General Improvement District (UHGID) and Del Mar Interests. Initial discussions are underway between BJAD and the S’Park development in Boulder Junction, and between UHGID and a coalition of property owners for a potential development at the southwest corner of Broadway and University. Based on Council feedback from the last study session, staff is proceeding with the development of a policy that would be incorporated as a step in the development review process. District Satellite Parking Strategy Parking opportunities are becoming more limited for employees in the downtown and the University Hill commercial area. This strategy explores opportunities for shared parking facilities for non-resident employees who commute into Boulder for work along major transportation corridors associated with available transit service, off-street multiuse paths, and on-street bike lanes, and ideally with a multimodal “mobility hub.” Commuters could park their vehicle at vacant lots outside of the commercial districts and then finish their trip into work by transit, bike, carpool, bike share, or car share. RTD already has several free Park-n-Ride locations that are primarily used for trips from Boulder to areas outside of the community that could be used by in-commuters. Staff is reviewing different types of locations:  existing public (city, RTD, CDOT) and/or private parking lots with multimodal amenities;  existing parking lots that would require amenities such as sidewalks, bus shelters, etc.; and  locations without existing parking facilities that could become satellite locations. These types of satellite parking lots could be used by employees driving into the city and finishing their trip by transit, carpool, biking, and/or walking. Satellite parking lots could also be used for special events parking. As one of the action items from the Transportation Master Plan, the city is continuing to work with CDOT, RTD, Boulder County, and area property owners to explore the concept of a mobility hub for north Boulder, at the intersection of north Broadway and US 36. The mobility hub could include potential opportunities for enhancing transit operations and passenger amenities, bike parking, bike share, car share, and satellite parking (Park-n-Ride), kiss-and-ride, etc. The project team is currently revising the conceptual site plan designs based on prior City Council input. The city’s consultant is working on an analysis of the different potential locations, travel sheds that have the greatest number of employees in-commuting, location assessments, and recommendations regarding the highest priority opportunities both long- and short-term. A presentation of the consultant findings is available here. All sites will be reviewed to ensure compliance with existing zoning regulations and project specific requirements. Staff is pursuing the short term options as well as working with other entities such as CDOT and the County to include satellite parking options in corridor studies along SH119 and East Arapahoe. Coordination with Civic Area project for access/parking/TDM programs In conjunction with proposed changes to the Civic Area, staff is working to develop recommendations on how to holistically manage civic area parking and a strategic TDM plan to increase access to the Civic area by city staff, residents, library patrons, and visitors. With construction set to begin in 2016 and the potential loss of some parking spaces, staff will be implementing new TDM strategies and enhancing existing programs to reduce the parking demand by employees of the city government. Some of these programs will be piloted at the end of 2015 and potentially formally adopted in 2016 prior to construction. VIII. ONGOING WORK AND COORDINATION RELATED TO AMPS In addition to the items described above, the project team is advancing work in several AMPS focus areas in 2016. Districts  Negotiations are continuing for a shared parking option between the Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and Trinity Lutheran Church in downtown for a mixed-use project, including senior affordable housing, additional congregational space, and additional parking.  Negotiations are also continuing for a public-private partnership redevelopment of one of the catalyst sites - the University Hill General Improvement District (UHGID) Pleasant Street parking lot - for a hotel, and a district parking garage.  Downtown and University Hill development and access projections will be updated during the second and third quarters of 2015 to reflect recent zoning changes on the hill, projected development, and the results of the employee travel surveys. This is a valuable tool in anticipating the access needs, including parking, for the downtown area.  The downtown bike rack occupancy count was completed in August 2014. This survey provides valuable information and informs staff of locations for additional bike racks. Based on the data from the final report and recommendations, additional bike parking was added to the West Pearl area.  Staff will be developing recommendations for guidelines for the creation of new access/parking districts. Suggested locations include East Arapaho and North Boulder. Transportation Demand Management  The communitywide Boulder Valley Employee Survey was completed at the end of 2014 with a special subsample taken from downtown employees. A survey of the travel patterns of the University Hill commercial district employees was completed in the beginning of 2015. A hill employee pilot Eco Pass program is recommended in the 2016 budget for implementation in 2016.  The property owner of the future Google campus at the southwest corner of 30th and Pearl streets petitioned to join the Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) – Travel Demand Management (TDM) and was accepted by the Boulder Junction Access District-Parking. In addition, staff is in initial discussions with the Reve project at the southeast corner of 30th and Pearl about their petitioning to join the TDM district. On-Street/Off-Street  A downtown parklet study determined potential criteria and locations, operational parameters and considerations, installation requirements, and recommendations for potential parklet sites. The evaluation of the pilot parklet on University Hill has been completed and provided valuable information for the development of future parklets in the downtown.  An alley master plan for the University Hill commercial district is proposed in the 2016 budget.  Beginning in 2015 and continuing into 2016, a review will be conducted of the Neighborhood Parking Permit program’s regulations and how the program serves the variety of community needs. Staff will also be preparing the Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) that is called out in the Chautauqua lease. In addition to the Chautauqua leasehold, the surrounding neighborhoods will be included to address any spillover impacts. Preliminary discussions are underway with the Steelyards Association regarding the potential for a coordinated parking management and TDM program for the mixed-use neighborhood in anticipation of the completion of Depot Square at Boulder Junction. The homeowners’ association has expressed interest in creating a form of a NPP in their mixed-use neighborhood. IX. NEXT STEPS Information from the community outreach and input from the City Council and boards will be used to refine the AMPS 2016 work plan items. In second quarter of 2016, staff will schedule a joint board workshop in preparation for a council study session to consider a final AMPS Summary Report. Not all AMPS topics will be addressed within the AMPS umbrella, therefore an on-going strategy will identify future action items to address the next generation of Boulder access and parking needs. A timeline of all AMPS work plan items is shown in Attachment D. As noted throughout this memo, the potential passage of Ballot Questions No. 300 and 301 on November 3 will influence the discussion at the City Council study session on November 12. This memo reflects the current thinking on AMPS and if the measures pass, staff will need to reevaluate the overall AMPS work plan to reflect how the city implements the two measures. Community engagement and outreach will continue to ensure public feedback and participation with the AMPS. Attachment E shows an info-graphic that staff will use to help explain the overall purpose of AMPS, moving forward. For more information, please contact Molly Winter at winterm@bouldercolorado.gov or Kathleen Bracke at brackek@bouldercolorado.gov, or visit www.bouldercolorado.gov/amps. ATTACHMENTS A. AMPS Project Purpose, Goals and Guiding Principles B. Tuttle, Fox Hernandez Parking Study C. Parking Fines in Boulder and Other Cities D. AMPS Timeline E. AMPS Infographic ATTACHMENT A: AMPS PROJECT PURPOSE, GOALS, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES Purpose Building on the foundation of the successful multi-modal, district-based access and parking system, the Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) will define priorities and develop over-arching policies, and tailored programs and tools to address citywide access management in a manner consistent with the community’s social, economic and environmental sustainability principles. Goals The Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) will:  Be consistent with and support the city’s sustainability framework: safety and community well-being, community character, mobility, energy and climate, natural environment, economic vitality, and good governance.  Be an interdepartmental effort that aligns with and supports the implementation of the city’s master plans, policies, and codes.  Be flexible and adapt to support the present and future we want while providing predictability.  Reflect the city’s values: service excellence for an inspired future through customer service, collaboration, innovation, integrity, and respect. Guiding Principles 1. Provide for All Transportation Modes: Support a balance of all modes of access in our transportation system: pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and multiple forms of motorized vehicles—with the pedestrian at the center. 2. Support a Diversity of People: Address the transportation needs of different people at all ages and stages of life and with different levels of mobility – residents, employees, employers, seniors, business owners, students and visitors. 3. Customize Tools by Area: Use of a toolbox with a variety of programs, policies, and initiatives customized for the unique needs and character of the city’s diverse neighborhoods both residential and commercial. 4. Seek Solutions with Co-Benefits: Find common ground and address tradeoffs between community character, economic vitality, and community well-being with elegant solutions—those that achieve multiple objectives and have co-benefits. 5. Plan for the Present and Future: While focusing on today’s needs, develop solutions that address future demographic, economic, travel, and community design needs. 6. Cultivate Partnerships: Be open to collaboration and public and private partnerships to achieve desired outcomes. ! P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FOXTUTTLE.COM ! ! ! Date:!September!11,!2015! ! To:!!!Karl!Gulier!–!City!of!Boulder! ! From:!!Carlos!Hernandez!–!Fox!Tuttle!Hernandez!Transportation!Group! !!Bill!Fox!D!Fox!Tuttle!Hernandez!Transportation!Group!! !!Drew!Willsey!–!Fox!Tuttle!Hernandez!Transportation!Group! !!! RE:$$$2015$Parking$Study$Results$$$$$$$$$$ ! This!memo!summarizes!the!results!of!a!parking!study!conducted!in!the!City!of!Boulder!between!! Spring!and!Fall!2015.!This!study!is!an!extension!of!a!prior!study!that!was!conducted!in!Summer! 2014.!The!purpose!of!these!studies!is!to!provide!the!Transportation!Advisory!Board,!Planning! Board,!and!the!AMPS!project!with!actual!parking!data!from!selected!sites!around!the!city.!!The! attached!summary!presentation!provides!specific!details.!The!key!findings!from!the!2015!parking! study!are!summarized!in!Table!1!below.!!The!ranges!shown!in!the!table!include!sites!studied!in! 2014!as!well!as!the!ones!studied!in!2015.!!A!detailed!list!of!all!sites!studied!and!when!their!peak! demands!occurred!can!be!found!at!the!end!of!this!document.! ! Table$1:$Parking$Supply$and$Demand$Rate$Ranges$(2014$&$ 2015)$by$Land$Use$Type$(Not$Including$On$Street)! ! Land$Use$Type$ Observed$Supply$ Range$ Observed$Demand$ Range$Units$ Lowest$Highest$Lowest$Highest$ Residential$0.48!1.72!0.43!1.27!(Spaces!per!DU)! Commercial$2.57!5.92!1.96!4.39!(Spaces/1000!sq.!ft.)! Office$1.92!4.15!0.92!2.79!(Spaces/1000!sq.!ft.)! MixedPuse$ (Residential)$0.82!1.58!0.42!1.17!(Spaces!per!DU)! MixedPuse$ (Commercial)$1.69!2.89!1.3!2.22!(Spaces/1000!sq.!ft.)! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!2 ! ! 2015$Study$Details$ $ In!April!and!early!May!of!2015,!Fox!Tuttle!Hernandez!(FTH)!staff!conducted!a!comprehensive! cityDwide!parking!study!of!6!commercial!sites,!5!office/light!industrial!sites,!8!residential!sites,! and!3!mixedDuse!sites.!!The!dataDgathering!phase!of!this!study!was!completed!before!the!end!of! the!spring!semester!at!the!University!of!Colorado.!!Additional!followDup!midDweek!counts!were! conducted!at!selected!commercial!retail!sites!in!August!and!September.!!! ! Sites! were! chosen! in! the! interest! of! obtaining! a! representative! sample! of! the! entire! city.!! Therefore,!sites!adjacent!to!the!Community!Transit!Network!and!bike!network!were!evaluated! as!well!as!sites!with!fewer!destinations!and!higher!reliance!on!motor!vehicle!access.!!A!visual! survey!of!building!occupancy!and!resident!occupancy!was!also!conducted,!and!only!commercial! and!residential!sites!that!appeared!to!be!near!or!at!full!occupancy!were!studied.!!Finally,!followD up!calls!to!some!of!the!residential!sites!were!made!to!determine!the!ratio!of!students!to!nonD students!for!those!complexes!to!enable!better!understanding!of!parking!patterns!of!university! students.! ! For!all!commercial!sites,!parking!demand!was!sampled!3!times:!weekday!afternoons!between! noon!and!2!pm,!Friday!evenings!between!5:30!and!7:30!pm,!and!Saturday!afternoons!between! noon!and!2!pm.!!For!all!residential!sites,!parking!demand!was!sampled!once!on!weekdays!after!8! pm.!!For!all!office!sites,!parking!demand!was!sampled!once!on!weekday!afternoons!between!2! and!3!pm.!!MixedDuse!sites!were!sampled!4!times!in!order!to!ensure!the!peak!demand!was! captured!considering!the!unique!and!more!complex!demand!fluctuations!at!those!sites.!!These! samples!were!taken!on!Friday!afternoons!between!noon!and!2!pm,!Friday!evenings!between! 5:30! and! 7:30! pm,! Saturday! afternoons! between! noon! and! 2! pm,! and! Saturday! evenings! between!5:30!and!7:30!pm.!!Additional!midDweek!samples!were!conducted!at!four!commercial! retail! sites! in! August! and! September.! ! These! additional! samples! were! taken! on! Tuesday! afternoons!between!noon!and!2!pm!and!Tuesday!evenings!between!5:30!and!7:30!pm.!!Parking! supplies!were!determined!at!the!time!of!the!first!demand!observation!at!all!sites,!and!any! significant!changes!in!supply!that!occurred!during!subsequent!samples!were!noted!and!taken! into!account.!FTH!staff!photographed!peak!demand!at!all!sites!when!possible!(i.e.,!when!peak! demand!occurred!during!daylight!hours).!!Supply!rates!were!observed!in!the!field!on!study!days! and!adjusted!when!necessary!for!temporary!supply!constraints!such!as!special!events!taking! place!in!the!lot.! Results,!once!entered,!were!then!used!in!conjunction!with!gross!square!footage!figures!and/or! residential!unit!counts!that!city!planning!staff!provided!to!determine!the!observed!supply!rates! and!peak!demand!rates!for!all!sites!(spaces!per!1000!square!feet!for!commercial!and!office!sites! and!spaces!per!dwelling!unit!for!residential!sites).!Rates!were!calculated!both!including!and! excluding!any!applicable!onDstreet!parking.!! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!3 ! ! ! !$ $! 0.0! 0.2! 0.4! 0.6! 0.8! 1.0! 1.2! 1.4! 1.6! 1.8! 2.0! 27th!Way!&! Baseline! (Creekside)! Moorhead!&! Table!Mesa! (Coronado! Apartments)! 17th!&! Broadway! (Mul`ple)! 28th!&! College! (Landmark)! 30th!&! Glenwood! (Glenlake! Apartments)! Spine!&! Williams! Fork!Trail! (Meadow! Creek! Apartments)!Spaces$per$DU$Chart$1:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$ResidenQal$Sites$(Excluding$On$Street)$ Supply!(Off! Street)! Demand!(Off! Street)! 0.0! 0.2! 0.4! 0.6! 0.8! 1.0! 1.2! 1.4! 1.6! 1.8! 2.0! 27th!Way!&! Baseline! (Creekside)! Moorhead!&! Table!Mesa! (Coronado! Apartments)! 17th!&! Broadway! (Mul`ple)! 28th!&! College! (Landmark)! 30th!&! Glenwood! (Glenlake! Apartments)! Spine!&! Williams!Fork! Trail! (Meadow! Creek! Apartments)!Spaces$per$DU$Chart$2:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$ResidenQal$Sites$ Supply!(All)! Demand!(All)! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!4 ! ! ! !! !! 0.0! 1.0! 2.0! 3.0! 4.0! 5.0! 6.0! 7.0!Spaces$per$1000$square$feet$Chart$3:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$ Rates$for$Commercial$Sites$(Excluding$On$ Street)$ Supply!(Off! Street)! Demand!(Off! Street)! 0.0! 1.0! 2.0! 3.0! 4.0! 5.0! 6.0! 7.0!Spaces$per$1000$square$feet$Chart$4:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$ Rates$for$Commercial$Sites$ Supply!(All)! Demand!(All)! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!5 ! ! ! !! ! ! 0.0! 0.5! 1.0! 1.5! 2.0! 2.5! 3.0! 3.5! 4.0! 4.5! 5.0! Manhadan!&! South!Boulder! Fla`ron!&! Central!Ave.! Pearl!Circle! East! Airport!Road! East! 26th!&!Pearl! (Google)!Spaces$per$1000$square$feet$Chart$5:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$Office$Sites$(Excluding$On$Street)$ Supply!(Off!Street)! Demand!(Off!Street)! 0.0! 0.5! 1.0! 1.5! 2.0! 2.5! 3.0! 3.5! 4.0! 4.5! 5.0! Manhadan!&! South!Boulder! Fla`ron!&! Central!Ave.! Pearl!Circle!East!Airport!Road! East! 26th!&!Pearl! (Google)!Spaces$per$1000$square$feet$Chart$6:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$Office$Sites$ Supply!(All)! Demand!(All)! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!6 ! ! !! !! ! 0.0! 0.5! 1.0! 1.5! 2.0! 2.5! 3.0! Arapahoe!&! 33rd!(Peleton)! Yarmouth!&! Broadway! (Uptown! Broadway! Mixed!Use)! Yarmouth!&! Broadway! (Uptown! Broadway! Residen`al! Only)! 30th!&! Steelyards! Place!! (Steelyards! Mixed!Use)! 30th!&! Steelyards! Place! (Steelyards! Residen`al! Only)!Spaces$per$DU$Chart$7:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$MixedPUse$(ResidenQal)$Sites$(Excluding$On$ Street)$ Supply!(Off!Street)! Demand!(Off!Street)! 0.0! 0.5! 1.0! 1.5! 2.0! 2.5! 3.0! Arapahoe!&! 33rd!(Peleton)! Yarmouth!&! Broadway! (Uptown! Broadway! Mixed!Use)! Yarmouth!&! Broadway! (Uptown! Broadway! Residen`al! Only)! 30th!&! Steelyards!Place!! (Steelyards! Mixed!Use)! 30th!&! Steelyards!Place! (Steelyards! Residen`al! Only)!Spaces$per$DU$Chart$8:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$MixedPUse$(ResidenQal)$Sites$ Supply!(All)! Demand!(All)! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!7 ! ! ! !! $$ $ $ $ $ 0.0! 0.5! 1.0! 1.5! 2.0! 2.5! 3.0! 3.5! 4.0! Arapahoe!&!33rd! (Peleton)! Yarmouth!&!Broadway! (Uptown!Broadway)! 30th!&!Steelyards!Place! (Steelyards!Commercial! +!Office)!Spaces$per$1000$square$feet$Chart$9:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$Rates$ for$MixedPUse$(Commercial)$Sites$(Excluding$On$ Street)$ Supply!(Off!Street)! Demand!(Off!Street)! 0.0! 0.5! 1.0! 1.5! 2.0! 2.5! 3.0! 3.5! 4.0! Arapahoe!&!33rd! (Peleton)! Yarmouth!&!Broadway! (Uptown!Broadway)! 30th!&!Steelyards!Place! (Steelyards!Commercial!+! Office)!Spaces$per$1000$square$feet$Chart$10:$Parking$Supply$&$Highest$Demand$ Rates$for$MixedPUse$(Commercial)$Sites$ Supply!(All)! Demand!(All)! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!8 ! ! Comparison$to$Peer$Cities$ $ In!order!to!gather!perspective!on!and!context!to!Boulder’s!existing!parking!code,!FTH!staff! reviewed!the!parking!rate!requirements!of!three!other!selected!cities:!Davis,!CA;!Walnut!Creek,! CA;!and!Portland,!OR.!!!Tables!summarizing!how!Boulder’s!code!compares!to!these!peer!cities! are!given!below.!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $ $ ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY Use  Type Davis,  CA Portland,  OR Walnut  Creek,  CA Boulder,  CO Detatched  Dwellings 1  covered  space,  1  uncovered  space  for  0  -­‐  4   bedrooms;  1  additional  uncovered  space  per   additional  bedroom. 2  covered  spaces  per  DU.Typically,  1  space  per  DU;  0  for  MU-­‐4  or  RH-­‐7. Attached  Dwellings 1  covered  space,  1  uncovered  for  0  -­‐  3  bedrooms,  1   additional  space  per  additional  bedroom. 1  additional  space  per  DU  compared  to  detatched   dwelling  requirement. Multi-­‐family  Dwellings 1  space  for  0  -­‐  1  bedrooms,  1.75  for  2  bedrooms,  3   for  for  3+  bedrooms. 1.25  spaces  per  studio,  1.5  per  1  bedroom,  2  per  2   bedrooms,  2.25  per  2+  bedrooms.    At  least  one   space  must  be  covered. Retail 1  space  per  300  sqare  feet  of  gross  area.Minimum:  1  space  per  500  square  feet  of  net   building  area.  Maximum:  1  per  196  square  feet.1  space  per  250  square  feet  of  RFA. Restaurants  (Dine-­‐in)1  space  per  3  seats.Minimum:  1  space  per  250  square  feet  of  net   building  area.  Maximum:  1  per  63  square  feet. 1  space  per  5  seats  and  1  per  75  square  feet  of  floor   area  for  portable  seats  or  tables. Mixed  Use 1  space  per  350  square  feet  of  gross  commercial   area;  1  per  DU.N/A 1  space  per  200  square  feet  of  rentable  floor  area   up  to  50,000  square  feet,  1  per  250  square  feet   after  50,000.  Residential  requirement  determined   on  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis. *  Requirements  listed  are  minimums  unless  otherwise  noted Typically,  1  space  per  DU.Minimum:  Varies  by  zoning.    Either  1  space  per  DU;   1  for  1  -­‐  2  bedrooms,  1.5  for  3  bedrooms,  and  2  for   4  +  bedrooms;  or  1  for  1  bedroom,  1.5  for  2   bedrooms,  2  for  3  bedrooms,  and  3  for  4  +   bedrooms.    No  minimum  for  MU-­‐4  or  RH-­‐7.     Maximum:  typically,  no  maximum  except  for  MU-­‐4   and  RH-­‐7  (1  space  per  DU  maximum). Minimum:  Varies  by  zoning.    No  minimum  for  RH-­‐3,   RH-­‐6,  RH-­‐7,  MU-­‐4;  1  space  per  400  square  feet  of   floor  area  for  BCS,  MR-­‐1,  IS,  IG,  IM,  A;  1  per  400  sq.   ft.  if  residential  is  less  than  50%  of  FA  (otherwise  1   per  500  sq.  ft.)  for  RMX-­‐2,  MU-­‐2,  IMS,  BMS;  1  per   300  sq.  ft.  if  residential  is  less  than  50%  of  FA   (otherwise  1  per  400  sq.  ft.);  1  per  300  sq.  ft.  of  FA   for  all  other  zones.    Maxiumm:  typically,  no   maximum  except  for  RH-­‐3,  RH-­‐6,  RH-­‐7,  and  MU-­‐4  (1   space  per  400  sq.  ft.  of  FA  if  residential  is  less  than   50%  of  FA,  otherwise  1  space  per  500  sq.  ft.). Table 2: Summary of Basic Rate Requirements Across Selected Cities by Major Land Use Type ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY Example  Number  of  DU's  or  Amount  of   Square  Feet Davis,  CA Portland,  OR Walnut  Creek,   CA Boulder,   CO**** 1BR  DU 2 1 2 1 2BR  DU 2 1 2 1 3BR  DU 2 1 2 1 4+BR  DU 2 1 2 1 1BR  DU 2 1 3 1 2BR  DU 2 1 3 1.5 3BR  DU 2 1 3 2 4+BR  DU 3 1 3 3 1BR  DU 1 1 1.5 1 2BR  DU 1.75 1 2 1.5 3BR  DU 3 1 2.25 2 4+BR  DU 3 1 2.25 3 5,000  SF 17 10 20 17 15,000  SF 51 30 60 51 40,000  SF 133 80 160 133 5,000  SF 67 20 40 67 10,000  SF 133 40 80 133 15,000  SF 200 60 120 200 10,000  SF  with  10  DU 39 40 60 0  -­‐  43 25,000  SF  with  40  DU 111 90 165 0  -­‐  123 50,000  SF  with  200  DU 343 300 400 0  -­‐  367 *  Requirements  listed  are  minimums **  Assuming  200  seats  per  5,000  sq.  ft.  of  restaurant  space ***  Assuming  1  space  per  DU  for  Walnut  Creek,  CA  and  Boulder,  CO  mixed-­‐use  residential  (actual  requirement  determined  on  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis) ****  Assuming  typical  suburban  zoning  type  (highest  minimum  possible  listed;  minimums  may  be  lower  depending  on  other  criteria) Restaurants  (Standalone  Dine-­‐In)** Mixed  Use*** Detatched  Dwellings Attached  Dwellings Multi-­‐family  Dwellings Retail Table 3: Examples of Space Requirements per Parking Code by Selected City and Land Use Type (Not Including Reductions) ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!9 ! ! Correlations$to$Transit$Network$Accessibility$and$Bicycle$Facilities$ $ In! addition! to! comparing! Boulder’s! parking! code! to! that! of! selected! peer! cities,! FTH! staff! researched!each!2015!study!site’s!proximity!to!transit!routes,!both!on!and!off!the!Community! Transit! Network! (CTN),! as! well! as! proximity! to! existing! bicycle! facilities,! and!related!those! proximities!to!parking!demand!in!order!to!ascertain!if!any!correlations!exist.!!!These!correlation! graphs!are!depicted!below.! ! !! !! 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 0!2!4!6!8!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Transit$Routes$ Chart$11:$Commercial$ Demand$versus$All$ Nearby$Transit$Routes$ 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 0!1!2!3!4!5!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$CTN$Routes$ Chart$12:$Commercial$ Demand$versus$Nearby$ CTN$Routes$ 0! 1! 2! 3! 0!1!2!3!4!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Transit$Routes$ Chart$13:$Commercial$ Mixed$Use$Demand$ versus$All$Nearby$ Transit$Routes$ 0! 1! 2! 3! 0!0.5!1!1.5!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$CTN$Routes$ Chart$14:$Commercial$ Mixed$Use$Demand$ versus$Nearby$CTN$ Routes$ ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!10 0 ! ! !! !! 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 0!2!4!6!8!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Transit$Routes$ Chart$15:$ResidenQal$ Demand$versus$All$ Nearby$Transit$Routes$ 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 0!1!2!3!4!5!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$CTN$Routes$ Chart$16:$ResidenQal$ Demand$versus$Nearby$ CTN$Routes$ 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 0!1!2!3!4!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Transit$Routes$ Chart$17:$ResidenQal$ Mixed$Use$Demand$ versus$All$Nearby$ Transit$Routes$ 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 0!0.5!1!1.5!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$CTN$Routes$ Chart$18:$ResidenQal$ Mixed$Use$Demand$ versus$Nearby$CTN$ Routes$ ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!11 1 ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 0!2!4!6!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Bike$FaciliQes$ Chart$19:$Commercial$ Demand$versus$Nearby$ Bike$FaciliQes$ 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 0!2!4!6!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Bike$FaciliQes$ Chart$20:$ResidenQal$ Demand$versus$Nearby$ Bike$FaciliQes$ 0! 1! 2! 3! 0!0.5!1!1.5!2!2.5!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Bike$FaciliQes$ Chart$21:$Commercial$ Mixed$Use$Demand$ versus$Nearby$Bike$ FaciliQes$ 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 0!0.5!1!1.5!2!2.5!Peak$Demand$Rate$Number$of$Nearby$Bike$FaciliQes$ Chart$22:$ResidenQal$ Mixed$Use$Demand$ versus$Nearby$Bike$ FaciliQes$ ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015$Parking$Study$Results! September!11,!2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Page!12 2 ! ! Key$Questions$To$Consider$ $ The! following! questions! can! be!considered! as! part! of! upcoming! conversations! with! Transportation!Advisory!Board!and!Planning!Board!regarding!parking!code!adjustments:! ! •Should!new!requirement!be!a!parking!minimum,!parking!maximum,!or!both?! o If!no!minimum,!should!parking!reductions!be!eliminated?! o If! maximum,! should! a! new! exception! process! be! created! to! allow! for! more! parking!in!certain!circumstances!and/or!when!requested?! •Should!different!parking!requirements!be!created!depending!on!zoning!district/typology! or!by!land!use!type,!or!a!combination!of!the!two?! o If! by! typology,! should! proximity! to! multiDmodal! networks! or! CTN! routes! be! considered?! •If!parking!reductions!are!kept,!should!the!criteria!for!obtaining!a!reduction!be!more! stringent!or!more!lenient?! •What! methodology! should! be! used! to! determine! option! ranges! (i.e.,! conservative,! moderate,!progressive)?! •Can! the! data! determine! automatic! percentage! parking! reductions! that! should! apply! under!certain!scenarios?! •How!do!other!AMPS!components!factor!into!any!proposed!code!changes!(e.g.,!TDM,! district!parking!enforcement,!et!cetera)?! •Where!should,!if!at!all,!unbundled!parking!be!required!outside!of!Boulder!Junction?! •Should!special!considerations!be!made!in!the!updated!code!for!electric!vehicles!(EVs)?! o If!so,!how!many!EV!stations!should!be!required?! o What!type(s)!of!EV!stations!should!be!required?! ! $ ! $ $ ! ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 2015  Sites Weekday   Afternoon  2   -­‐  3  PM   (Tuesday   thru   Thursday) Weekday   Late  Night  8   -­‐  11  PM   (Tuesday   thru   Thursday) CU  Move-­‐in   Tuesday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM CU  Move-­‐in   Tuesday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM Tuesday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM Tuesday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM Friday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM Friday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM Saturday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM Saturday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM 2 28th  &  College  (Landmark)0.83 X 9 20th  &  Glenwood  (Glenlake  Apartments)0.8 X 10 27th  Way  &  Baseline  (Creekside  Apartments)1.08 X 14 Spine  &  Williams  Fork  Trail  (Meadow  Creek  Apartments)1.27 X 16 Moorhead  &  Table  Mesa  (Coronado  Apartments)0.76 X 19 17th  &  Broadway  (Multiple)0.77 X 22 20th  &  Steelyards  Place  (Residential  Only)0.79 X 23 Yarmouth  &  Broadway  (Uptown  Broadway  Residential  Only)0.43 X 3 Arapahoe  &  33rd  (Peleton)2.22 0.9 X X X X 6 26th  &  Walnut  (Marshall's  Plaza)1.96 X X X X X 7 20th  &  Steelyards  Place  (Mixed  Use  Portion)1.3 0.42 X X X X 8 29th  &  Walnut  (Target)*2.15 X X X X X 12 Broadway  &  Quince  (Lucky's  Market/Nomad)3.14 X X X X X 13 Yarmouth  &  Broadway  (Uptown  Broadway  Mixed  Use  Portion)1.58 1.17 X X X X 15 26th  &  Pearl  (Hazel's/Wahoo's)3.36 X X X 17 28th  &  Iris  (Safeway)3.26 X X X X X 20 Baseline  &  28th  (Loftus)2.88 X X X 1 Manhattan  &  South  Boulder  (Multiple)2.79 X 4 Flatiron  &  Central  Ave.  (Multiple)2.61 X 5 Pearl  Circle  East  (Multiple)2.75 X 11 Airport  Road  East 1.71 X 21 26th  &  Pearl  (Google  Campus  -­‐  Largest  Two  Buildings)2.14 X *  Peak  demand  (2.61  rate)  that  occurred  on  CU  move-­‐in  day  is  noted  in  red  highlight.    Typical  peak  demand  is  highlighted  in  yellow. 2014  Sites Weekday   Afternoon  2   -­‐  3  PM   (Tuesday   thru   Thursday) Weekday   Late  Night  8   -­‐  11  PM   (Tuesday   thru   Thursday) CU  Move-­‐in   Tuesday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM CU  Move-­‐in   Tuesday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM Monday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM Monday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM Friday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM Friday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM Saturday   Afternoon   12  -­‐  2  PM Saturday   Evening   5:30  -­‐  7:30   PM A Walnut  &  9th  (Multiple)0.43 X B 18th  &  Marine  (Multiple)1.04 X C 21st  &  Goss  (Multiple)0.53 X D 28th  &  Pearl  (Whole  Foods  Shopping  Center)4.39 X E Broadway  &  Baseline  (Basemar)3.36 X F Broadway  &  Table  Mesa  (King  Soopers)2.77 X G 28th  &  Arapahoe  (The  Village)2.77 X H 28th  &  Iris  (Willow  Springs  Shopping  Center)3.16 X I 29th  &  Arapahoe  (29th  Street)2.09 X J Pearl  &  Foothills  Northwest  Side  (Multiple)1.73 X K Pearl  &  Foothills  Southwest  Side  (Multiple)0.92 X Residential Commercial/Retail Industrial/Office Site  ID   Number Residential Commercial/Retail Office Highest  Commercial   Demand  Rate   Observed   (Excluding  On   Street) Highest  Residential   Demand  Rate   Observed   (Excluding  On   Street) Days  Studied  (Highlighted  Indicates  Peak  Demand  Observed) Site Site  ID   Number Site Highest  Commercial   Demand  Rate   Observed   (Excluding  On   Street) Highest  Residential   Demand  Rate   Observed   (Excluding  On   Street) Days  Studied  (Highlighted  Indicates  Peak  Demand  Observed) Table 4: Summary of Days Observed in 2014 & 2015 by Site ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2.79 DASH LEAP 206 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 36 3 2 0.83 STAM ORBIT 201 J 1 2 3 1 1 2 36 3 4 2.61 LEAP 206 208 S 0 3 3 1 1 15 1 5 2.75 LEAP 206 S 0 2 2 1 1 15 1 6 1.96 HOP LEAP ORBIT DART 205 F/H/T 206 1 3 4 1 1 70 6 8 2.15 HOP BOUND ORBIT LEAP 205 206 2 2 4 1 1 70 6 9 0.8 BOUND 205 208 1 2 3 1 1 2 57 5 10 1.08 BOUND 204 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 57 5 11 1.71 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 12 3.14 SKIP M 1 1 2 1 1 2 46 4 14 1.27 205 0 1 1 1 1 2 36 3 15 3.36 HOP ORBIT DART 205 206 F/H/T 1 3 4 1 1 70 6 16 0.76 DASH LEAP 204 206 1 2 3 1 1 2 57 5 17 2.73 BOUND ORBIT 205 208 F/H/T 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 4 70 6 19 0.77 HOP SKIP DASH STAM 203 204 4 2 6 1 1 2 57 5 20 2.88 BOUND 203 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 70 6 21 2.14 HOP ORBIT DART 205 206 F/H/T 1 3 4 1 1 70 6 3 2.22 0.9 JUMP S J 1 2 3 1 1 2 57 5 7 1.3 0.42 BOUND 208 1 1 2 1 1 2 70 6 13 1.58 1.17 SKIP M 204 1 2 3 1 1 57 5 22 0.79 BOUND 208 1 1 2 1 1 2 57 5 23 0.43 SKIP M 204 1 2 3 1 1 57 5 Walkability   Rating Walkability   Rating   Index Mixed  Use  Sites On  Street   Bike  Lane Bike  Facilities Total   Proximate   Boulder   Transit  Routes Total   Proximate   Numbered   Transit  Routes Total   Proximate   Transit  Routes   (All) Site Future Boulder  Community  Transit  Network Other  Transit Existing Highest   Commercial   Demand   Rate   Observed   (Excluding   On  Street) Highest   Residential   Demand   Rate   Observed   (Excluding   On  Street) Paved   Shoulder Sidewalk   Connection Soft  Surface   Multi-­‐use Street  with   Single  Bike   Lane Total   Proximate   Bike  System   Features Transit Designated   Bike  Route Multi-­‐use   Path Table 5: Site Transit & Bike Route Access Analysis ATTACHMENT B: TUTTLE, FOX HERNANDEZ PARKING STUDY Parking Fines in Boulder and Other Cities *Increase was for “safety violations” only, not overtime fines.                                                                                                                                                                                                       **Escalating fines:  Breckenridge is based on 365 days; Fort Collins has no meters; overtime fine escalated based on 180 days (Initial infraction is warning)                                                     Note:  Pasadena fines have been increased based on the CPI so are not in even dollars. Table data is rounded to nearest dollar. Austin has “standard” fines, with a lesser amount accepted for a certain period after issuance. Table displays the reduced “early payment” amounts.   INFRACTION Boulder, CO  Ann Arbor, MI  Austin, TX  Breckenridge, CO  Colorado Springs, CO  Denver, CO (Including  Cherry Creek)  Fort Collins, CO  Longmont, CO  Madison, WI  Pasadena, CA  Portland, OR Santa Monica, CA Seattle, WA Most Recent change 2007* 2010201520102012Expired/Unpaid Meter $15 $20 $30N/A$20 $25NA NA$25 $47 $60$53$44Overtime Parking‐Meter $15 $35 $40 $30‐200**$30 $25NA NA$35 $47$39/45/65$53$ 47Overtime ‐Non‐Meter $20 $35 $30 $30‐200**$30 $25W‐$50** $20$35 $47$39/45/65$64$47Outside Lines/Markings $15 $ 35$40 $30 $40 $25 $25 $30 $41 $39$53$47Double Parking $15 $50 $70 $30 $50 $25$ 25 $10$30 $47 $80$53$47Loading Zones (Commercial) $20 $45 $40 $30 $50$ 25$25 $40 $41 $90$53$53No Permit (in Permit Zone) $25 $25 $40 $30$25 $25 $30 $47$64$53Bus Stop $25 $35 $40 $30$25 $25 $45 $281 $100 $304 $47Crosswalk $25 $35 $40 $30 $50 $25 $25 $20$30$ 47$90$53$47Red Zone/Fire Lane $50 $50 $70 $30 $70 $50 $25 $30‐100$58 $80$53‐64$47Parking Prohibited $25 $35 $40 $30 $50 $25 $25 $25$ 30$47$64$47No Stopping/Standing $25 $35 $40 $30 $50 $25 $25 $30‐45$53 $80$64$47Fire Hydrant $50 $40 $70 $30 $50 $25 $25 $35$30 $53 $150$53$47Blocking Traffic $15 $35 $40 $30 $50 $25 $25 $41 $50$53$47Disabled Parking $112 $125 $300 $100 $350 $150 $100 $100 $150$362 $160‐435$ 399$250Blocking Driveway $25 $35 $40 $30 $50 $25 $25 $30 $47 $90$ 53$ 47ATTACHMENT C: PARKING FINES IN BOULDER AND OTHER CITIES AMPS Summary Report2nd Quarter 2016 Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Development & Implementation Development & Implementation Alternatives Analysis Policy/StrategyRecommendations Policy/Strategy Recommendations Development & Implementation Policy/StrategyRecommendations Development & Implementation Policy/Strategy Recommendations Alternatives Analysis Policy/Strategy Recommendations Development & Implementation Alternatives Analysis Policy/Strategy Recommendations Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Policy/Strategy Recommendations Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Policy/Strategy Recommendations Alternatives Analysis Policy/Strategy Recommendations Development & Implementation Implementation Alternatives Analysis Implementation Alternatives Analysis Policy/StrategyRecommendations Development & Implementation Implementation Policy/StrategyRecommendations Policy/StrategyRecommendations Development & Implementation Development & Implementation Policy/StrategyRecommendationsAlternatives Analysis Development & ImplementationPolicy/StrategyRecommendationsAlternatives Analysis Development & ImplementationPolicy/Strategy Recommendations Access Management & Parking Strategy Timeline Analyze Satellite Parking and Other Mobility Options Explore Shared Parking Policy with Public-Private Partnerships Develop Criteria to Pilot New Multimodal Districts Develop Civic Area Access & Parking Strategy Reassess Long-term On-Street Parking (72-Hour) Limitation Develop a Curbside Space Management Plan Explore Transportation Demand Management Optionsfor New Private Developments Transportation Demand Management Toolkit for Private Developments Explore Trip Reduction Tools for Existing Commercial Investigate Bundled First & Final Mile Strategies Explore Parking Cash-Outs for CAGID Employees Evaluate Neighborhood Parking Permit Program Pricing Evaluate Pricing Options for Parking Rates Recommend Amount for Overtime at Meter Fine Consider a Graduated Fine Structure Install New PARCS Equipment in Downtown Garages Integrate PARCS Software with Existing Technology Explore Applications to Enhance the Parking Experience Evaluate & Update Parking Requirements Explore Automatic Parking Reductions for Beneficial Projects Evaluate Expansion of Shared, Unbundled, Managed & Paid Parking in New Districts or as Potential Overlays 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER 1ST QUARTER 2ND 20162015City Council Study Session on AMPS - Nov. 10, 2015= City Council Review of Draft Recommendations = City Council Review of Policy/Strategy Recommendations DistrictManagement Code Pricing Technology Parking $$$ TravelOptions Policy/ Strategy Recommendations Alternatives Analysis Policy/Strategy Recommendations Implementation Development & ImplementationPolicy/Strategy Recommendations ATTACHMENT D: AMPS TIMELINE Access Management & Parking Strategy Boulder is a national leader in providing options for access, parking and transportation. To support the community's social, economic and environmental goals, it is important to create customized solutions that meet the unique access goals of Boulder’s diverse districts, residential and commercial. AMPS: A balanced approach to enhancing access to existing districts and the rest of the community by increasing travel options — biking, busing, walking and driving — for residents, commuters, visitors and all who enjoy Boulder. mixed use neighbor- hoods • North Boulder historic commercial • Downtown • University Hill residential • Mixed Use • Multi-Family • Single-Family office park • East Arapahoe • Flatirons Park transit oriented development • Boulder Junction Depot Square suburban commercial • 29th Street • Table Mesa • BaseMar PEARL DIAGO NAL9 3 / B ROAD WA Y US 3 628th ARAPAHOE FOOTHILLSLongmontntLongmoontnt LafayetteeLNNNederlandde Golden Denver mixed useemixed usee neighbor--r- hoods • North Boulderou hhhistorichhhhistorich cccommerccial •• Downtown •• University HHill residential • Mixed Use • Multi-Family • Single-Family ce parkkoffi t Arapahoe• Eas tirons ParkFlat• Fla tttransit oorientedooriented ddevelopmentdevelo ent • Boulder Junctiono Depot Squarepo ssuburban ccommerciall • 29th Street • Table Mesa •• BaseMar LyonsLyons district management codepricing TOOLS FOR CHANGE technology parking $$$ travel options minute neighborhood 15Mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhoods where residents can easily walk or bicycle to meet all basic daily, non-work needs. bouldercolorado.gov/amps ATTACHMENT E: AMPS INFOGRAPHIC Study Session MEMORANDUM TO: Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works David Driskell, Executive Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability Michael Calderazzo, Fire Chief David Gelderloos, Administrative Battalion Chief Molly Winter, Director of Community Vitality David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Susan Richstone, Deputy Director, Planning, Housing and Sustainability Jeff Yegian, Housing Division Manager Edward Stafford, Development Review Manager for Public Works Jay Sugnet, Project Manager – Housing Boulder Eric M. Ameigh, Public Works Projects Coordinator DATE: October 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Update on Boulder Junction I. PURPOSE The purpose of this study session is to: 1. Update City Council and solicit feedback on the implementation of the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) to date; 2. Provide council with preliminary analysis of location options for Fire Station #3; 3. Solicit feedback on possible next steps for the city-owned site at 30th and Pearl streets; and 4. Provide council with an update on general fund finances related to Boulder Junction development. Since adoption of the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) in 2007, the city, RTD and private developers have begun implementing the vision outlined for the Transit Village Area, which is now referred to as Boulder Junction. Significant investment has been made in public improvements, several development projects have been constructed, and more are approved, under construction or in the planning stages. As a result of these investments, there has been 1 progress toward the vision articulated in the plan. A study session in July 2012 provided council with a comprehensive update on that progress. The purpose of this study session is to share new developments since July 2012 and to provide information and analysis which will frame key 2016 decisions within Boulder Junction. II. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL 1. Does council have questions or feedback regarding the current status of the TVAP’s implementation? 2. Does council have questions or feedback regarding preliminary analysis related to the relocation of Fire Station #3? 3. Does council have questions about the next steps proposed for the city-owned site at 30th and Pearl streets? III. BACKGROUND In 2000, the city initiated a planning effort for a transit-oriented development (TOD – For more information on the definition and components of the TOD, see Attachment A.) in east Boulder as an extension of the 28th Street corridor planning project. The 11.2-acre site at the northeast corner of 30th and Pearl streets (then owned by Pollard Friendly Motors) was identified through a site selection process as the preferred location for a TOD. The site was acquired by the city in October 2004 and named “Boulder Transit Village.” Transit Village Area Plan The TVAP was adopted in September 2007 after a planning effort that began shortly after the acquisition of the Pollard Motor property in 2004. The plan outlines a set of goals and objectives for achieving a broad vision established for the 160-acre Transit Village Area. The vision for the Transit Village Area as articulated in the plan includes the following: 1. A lively and engaging place with a diversity of uses, including employment, retail, arts and entertainment, with housing that serves a diversity of ages, incomes and ethnicities; 2. A place that is not overly planned, with a “charming chaos” that exhibits a variety of building sizes, styles and densities where not everything looks the same; 3. A place with both citywide and neighborhood-scale public spaces; 4. A place that attracts and engages a broad spectrum of the community, not just people who live and work here or come to access the transit in the area; and 5. A place that emphasizes and provides for alternative energy, sustainability, walking, biking and possible car-free areas, e.g., an “eco-village.” The TVAP Implementation Plan describes the process and timeline for various regulatory changes, funding mechanisms and programs to implement the TVAP. A phased approach to implementation is outlined in the plan as follows: 2 • Phase I will occur in the first 10 to 15 years in the area between 30th Street and the railroad tracks; and Figure 1 Phase I Implementation • Phase II (below) will generally occur thereafter and focus on the areas east of the tracks and west of 30th Street. 3 Figure 2 Phase II Implementation The TVAP has been amended twice since adoption in 2007. Amendments in 2010 included the addition of storm water guidelines, design guidelines for the Junction Place Bridge over Goose Creek and the Public Arts Master Plan. Amendments in 2012 included a connections plan and modifications to the street sections for Junction Place and Pearl Parkway. City-owned Site at 30th and Pearl streets In 2004, the city purchased eight acres on the west portion of the Pollard Motor site for mixed- use development, and RTD purchased 3.2 acres on the east portion for a transit facility. As part of the purchase agreement, Pollard Motor retained a lease to occupy the western 5.5 acres of the site through 2016. The site was acquired for $9.5 million and funded through the following sources: 1. $2.5 million in funding from RTD; 2. $2.1 million in Community Housing Assistance Program (CHAP) funds; 3. $2.4 million borrowed through a Fannie Mae line of credit established with council approval and repaid with the city’s local affordable housing funds; and 4. $2.5 million financed by Pollard (terms: 6.5 percent interest with monthly payments) The city’s goals when it purchased its portion of the site were to: • advance Boulder’s long-range vision for a TOD that maximizes public investment in multimodal transportation, infrastructure improvements and affordable housing; • create a mixed-use development with predominantly residential uses and some supporting commercial uses as determined by a future market study; • create a range of housing types; • create a substantial amount (up to 50 percent) of permanently affordable housing, with the remaining 50 percent of the housing sold or rented at market rates; and • create a mix of ownership and rental housing at a range of 220 to 300 units. 4 The city’s affordable housing investment in the site, following repayment of the Fannie Mae line of credit and seller financing from Pollard Motor, totals more than $6 million to date. Investment in the property was seen as a way to facilitate a mixed-use, mixed-income TOD while making significant progress towards the city goal of 10 percent permanently affordable housing within the community. The 10-percent goal was initially adopted in 1997 as a policy in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and became a central component of Boulder’s Affordable Housing Strategy in 2000 and was reaffirmed in the 2011 Affordable Housing Task Force Report. The goal, which translates to approximately 4,500 permanently affordable housing units, has served as the basis for most of the city’s affordable housing efforts since 2000. To date, the city and its partners have succeeded in achieving 4/5 of that goal citywide (the city passed the 8 percent mark in 2015). Chapter 3 of the TVAP, titled “Urban Design,” envisions that the city-owned site will be used to create a new transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood that is predominantly residential, with some retail and office space. Located in the Pearl Street Center District of the planning area, it is envisioned as a high-intensity mix of housing and associated commercial uses, capitalizing on its central location and the regional bus facility. Up to half of the residential units on the city-owned site are envisioned as permanently affordable housing for low- to moderate-income, primarily workforce, households and/or targeted to hard-to-serve populations that would greatly benefit from proximity to transit, such as people with disabilities. Since 2005, the build-out estimates for the city-owned site have been reduced from 5.5 developable acres to 4.3 developable acres due to a number of factors including the location of a ¾-acre pocket park, realignment of Junction Place, 30th Street and Pearl Parkway redesign, siting of the historic depot building and other public improvements around the site. Accordingly, housing estimates for potential residential apartments or condos, assuming ground floor retail/commercial along Pearl and 30th streets, have been reduced. The city has leased 4.3 acres of the 5.45-acre property to Pollard Friendly Motor Company through Oct. 30, 2016. The original lease ran through Oct. 30, 2014, but Pollard exercised an option in the lease to extend to 2016 and also to purchase a portion of the city’s Municipal Service Center as a site to relocate its business. Pollard is currently working to secure the necessary permits for construction at its new location. At a July 2012 study session, council discussed the future of the site. It was decided at that time to delay any firm decisions until the first phase of TVAP implementation had progressed further and the real estate market had recovered more fully from the recession. The Boulder Junction Area since TVAP Adoption Since the TVAP was adopted in 2007, a number of factors have changed (in particular in economic and market conditions), implementation activities have begun, some modifications to the plan have been approved, and significant public and private investments have been made or are in progress. In addition, several changes to the city-owned site at 30th and Pearl streets have occurred, impacting the lease area for Pollard Motors and reducing the developable size of the site. 5 Regulatory Changes Regulatory changes that have been implemented in the Boulder Junction area since TVAP adoption include: 1. BVCP Land Use Map changes for all of Phase I; 2. adoption of new zoning districts and subsequent rezoning including specific “concurrency” criteria to allow rezoning; 3. adoption of new trip generation requirements to mitigate the impacts of traffic; 4. adoption of revised street sections for Junction Place and Pearl Parkway; 5. creation of two general improvement districts; and, 6. modifications to the MU-4 zoning district which, among other things, allowed commercial kitchens and eliminated limitations on non-residential floor area. See Attachment B for details of Boulder Junction regulatory changes. Public Improvements Significant public improvements have been completed or are proposed for construction in the near future. The Capital Improvement Bond approved by the voters in November 2011 has supported a number of the key transportation connections in the area. Completed improvements include: • the relocation of the historic Boulder Jaycees Depot; • transportation upgrades along 30th Street including new bike lanes; • a multi-use accessible path connection between 30th Street and the Goose Creek Greenway; • mid-block pedestrian crossings; • construction of the new Junction Place street; • new public plaza that surrounds the depot and transitions into the recently constructed Junction Place; • new Goose Creek bridge that connects the redeveloped areas to the northern area of Boulder Junction; • transformation of Pearl Parkway into a pedestrian and bike friendly, multi-way boulevard; • new traffic signals; and, • additional multi-use paths. A future pocket park along the south side of Goose Creek is expected to enter the design phase in 2016. A bike shelter has also been proposed to be included in the pocket park (See Heads Up from Aug. 3, 2015). See Attachment C for details and a map of completed public improvements. Financing of Public Improvements The TVAP implementation plan identified nearly $10 million in Phase 1 key public improvements that needed to be constructed in the area, including Junction Pl., the Junction Pl. Bridge over Goose Creek, new traffic signals, Boulder Junction Park, stormwater improvements, and multi-use path improvements. The implementation plan quantified the city’s share in the 6 Phase 1 public improvements at nearly 60 percent of the total cost, with the share attributable to private development at 30 percent (the remaining 10 percent was projected to be paid by FasTracks or TIP funding). In addition, new public improvements were added to the plan in 2012, including the Pearl Parkway multi-way boulevard and the Boulder Slough Bridge and path connections. An adopted principle for TVAP implementation was that “Any public improvement to be funded by the city should benefit the city as a whole or implement the vision for the area.” Given the significant funding needs, a one-time policy decision was made to use excise taxes and construction use tax collected within the area to pay for the key public improvements which would benefit the city as a whole and implement the vision for the area. The fact that the excise and construction use taxes would not materialize until later years created a timing issue for the improvements which needed to be built in the short term. At the time, the CIP was funded at a level lower than today’s and the general fund was therefore identified as the best source of funds for the improvements. A plan was put in place for general fund reserves to be loaned as a solution to the timing issue. Future construction use tax, as a general fund revenue, was looked to as the logical mechanism for repayment to the general fund. However, the 2011 passage of the Capital Improvement Bond and the award of federal transportation grant funds made the general fund loan unnecessary at that time. Instead, the bond funding and the grant funding addressed the timing issue and the loan from the general fund never occurred. Because the loan never occurred, there was no need for construction use tax to be returned to the general fund. Due to the public improvements still required to fully implement the plan, the excise and construction use taxes from development in the area have been collected and will be spent on future public improvements within Boulder Junction. Private Development Following adoption of TVAP, and subsequent city-initiated rezoning (that required property owners to agree to participation in the parking and access districts in order to be eligible for rezoning), the city began receiving applications for private development in the area. Approved and/or completed development projects include the following: 1. Solana (3100 Pearl St.): 319 apartment units along with two retail uses and a fitness facility on the ground floor, with building frontages facing the new street of Junction Place and the recently completed Pearl Parkway. This project is completed. 2. Depot Square (3151 Pearl St.): Nearly completed, this mixed-use development includes an RTD below-grade bus transit facility (opened in August 2015), a 150-room Hyatt Hotel (opened in May 2015) and a four-story parking structure that is “wrapped” on three sides by 71 apartments that are being rented to qualifying residents as permanently affordable units. Also nearing completion is the restoration of the historic Boulder Jaycees Depot building in Depot Square that will house a new restaurant. 3. Nickel Flats: A 17-unit attached residential condominium building immediately north of Goose Creek on the west side of Junction Place. This project is expected to be completed in the fall of 2015. 7 4. Boulder Commons: A Site Review for 100,000 square feet of office and retail space, east of Nickel Flats and across Junction Place, was recently approved by the Planning Board. Construction documents for the project are currently under review. 5. S’PARK: A planned development within the northern portion of Boulder Junction to create a new mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood comprised of seven distinct areas which, in total, will contain 168 market-rate housing units, 77 permanently affordable housing units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and office space. A Site Review was approved by the Planning Board on Sept. 3, 2015 and is subject to City Council call-up in October. As a part of this Site Review, changes to the TVAP Connection Plan were also proposed. On Oct. 6, council will consider a motion to approve changes to the Connection Plan as approved by Planning Board. 6. Reve, a proposed mixed-use development on four separate parcels at the southeast corner of 30th and Pearl Streets, is proposed to contain 244 housing units and more than 130,000 square feet of commercial and office space. As proposed, 126 of the housing units and approximately 20,000 square feet of the commercial and office space would fall within the TVAP area. A Site Review application is currently being reviewed for this project and it is expected to be presented to Planning Board in late 2015 or early 2016. The developers are currently considering their options for meeting Inclusionary Housing regulations. See Attachment C for details and a map of completed development projects. Form Based Code Pilot As part of the Design Excellence Initiative, the city is piloting a Form Based Code (FBC) in Boulder Junction. The city will test FBC as an approach to address design quality and development review issues recently articulated through community, board and council conversations. It is anticipated that council will consider first reading of an ordinance before the end of 2015. Access and Travel Demand Management To realize the goals of the TVAP plan and create a transit-oriented development, two general improvement taxing districts were created in 2010: a parking district and a travel demand management (TDM) district. They were named the Boulder Junction Access General Improvement District-Parking (BJAD-P) and Boulder Junction Access General Improvement District-TDM (BJAD-TDM). They are based on the successful downtown parking district and implemented in conjunction with zoning regulations for parking maximums for residential uses to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and promote transit and other alternative modes of transportation. The TDM district provides funding for EcoPasses and car and bike share programs. The parking district provides mechanisms to create parking that is shared, unbundled, managed, and paid. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) fees paid by developers for the first two years after issuance of the certificate of occupancy and the property taxes on residential and commercial properties are used by the TDM District to purchase EcoPasses and to provide discounted Boulder B-Cycle memberships and free carshare memberships for all residents and employees of Boulder 8 Junction. To date, one commercial property and two residential properties are paying into the district, and 355 Eco Passes have been issued. The development at Depot Square presented the opportunity to construct a shared parking garage between BJAD-P and the other Depot Square uses including the hotel, the Depot, RTD and the housing units. In order to ensure the parking principles that create a TOD will be met, a Parking Management Agreement (PMA) was created by the parking owners and users. The PMA allows for owners to place unused parking spaces into a pool that will be managed by the BJAD Parking District. The Depot Square parking garage is now shared between five different users through a condominium association, called the Depot Square Owners Association (DSOA). BJAD has 100 spaces to manage with the goal of supporting the access needs of all users within the district. Details on the operation of the garage are currently being finalized. In addition, DSOA will consider the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at its next meeting. BJAD - Parking Development and Financing As part of the Depot Square public-private partnership, BJAD-P entered into a lease/purchase agreement with Pedersen Development for the district’s condominium unit interest of 100 spaces in the parking structure. The lease/purchase price is $2,606,633 with a repayment term of seven years without interest. The annual payments for the lease/purchase are approximately $372,000, with the first payment due in 2015 and the last payment due in 2021. New districts of this kind generate low property tax revenues in the early years before the property is developed. The BJAD-P will only have revenues from property taxes and parking fees from users of the parking structure. Therefore, it will not generate sufficient revenues to make the annual payment in the early years. To take advantage of the opportunity to acquire parking spaces for BJAD-P, the city entered into an agreement with BJAD-P to cover the shortfalls in the early years with general fund dollars. When the district generates sufficient revenues to make the annual payments, the city’s general fund will be repaid. The ability of the BJAD-P to make its lease/purchase payments and to repay the city’s general fund will be based on the pace of development and the value of property within the district. If the district’s revenues rise more quickly than anticipated and the district is better able to make its lease/purchase payments, the annual loan amounts from the general fund may decline. At the end of the seven year repayment period for the parking lease/purchase, staff will identify the amount owed by BJAD-P to the general fund and establish a repayment schedule. The following table provides the projected loan amounts from the general fund to the parking district through 2019, the last year for which a shortfall is currently projected: Year Expected General Fund Loan to BJAD 2015 (Revised) $324,365 2016 (Recommended) $312,848 2017 (Projected) $238,461 2018 (Projected) $288,106 2019 (Projected) $9,405 9 IV. ANALYSIS TVAP Vision and Goals At the outset of the Transit Village Area planning process, the City Council and Planning Board adopted six goals for the area. The following is a discussion and analysis of accomplishments to date in achieving those goals. Goal 1: Create a well-used and well-loved, pedestrian-oriented place that includes a special character, a mix of retail and commercial uses, a significant amount of housing and engaging, convenient and safe pedestrian and bike connections. What’s happening? The initial developments and new shared street designs are setting the tone for a pedestrian-oriented place with a distinctive character. A mix of uses is occurring with the addition of the hotel, Depot Square housing, the RTD bus terminal and the new plaza surrounding the Depot, creating a stronger public space and “heart” south of Goose Creek. Goal 2: Support diversity through land use and travel options that expand opportunities for employees and residents of differing incomes, ethnicities, ages and abilities by including a variety of housing types at a range of prices from market rate to affordable; services that support residents, adjacent neighbors and businesses; support for locally owned and minority-owned businesses in the area; public spaces to celebrate diverse ethnicity; space for nonprofit organizations; and affordable spaces for retail, office and service industrial uses. What’s happening? Prior to the S’PARK proposal on the 10.9-acre former Sutherlands Lumber site, the majority of housing built in Boulder Junction has been rental housing in apartment buildings. Largely due to market conditions, this predominance of one- and two- bedroom rental apartments has raised some concerns. S’PARK proposes a richer mix of rental and ownership housing and a greater diversity of housing types and unit sizes, as well as commercial and retail uses. In addition, the public plaza surrounding the Historic Jaycees Depot and pocket park are more predominant as the central public spaces than envisioned in the original plan. Goal 3: Enhance economic vitality: Increase economic activity for businesses, increase revenues for the city of Boulder, reduce transportation costs by including neighborhood- serving retail uses and regional retail uses that complement the large investment of the Twenty Ninth Street project, and provide convenient and safe connections to downtown and to Twenty Ninth Street. Provide additional office uses in locations close to the future transit facilities and new residential areas. To enhance economic vitality, the city should develop a realistic economic development plan that includes implementation techniques for public/private partnerships. What’s happening? Recently constructed and proposed residential projects are adding housing to support new and existing non-residential uses in the area. The partnership on the Depot Square site between a private developer, RTD, and the city led to a successful mixed use development plan that includes a hotel, restaurant/bar, and small retail spaces in addition to the bus station facility. Solana provides both residential units and neighborhood-serving 10 retail, and both S’PARK and Reve propose to deliver an even greater mix of uses (e.g. office and retail). Goal 4: Connect to the natural and built environment: Create a place that reflects Boulder’s commitment to environmental sustainability and “green” development, is integrated with the natural features in the area, and connects to the larger city fabric. Include innovative “green” energy-efficient site planning, architecture and urban design. Develop an overall storm water management plan for the area in lieu of property-by-property storm water detention. Provide connections to existing natural amenities such as the Goose Creek greenway, the Boulder Slough (ditch) and Boulder Creek, and take advantage of views and view sheds from key locations. What’s happening? Depot Square, Junction Place and Pearl Parkway are piloting the use of LED street lighting. The Depot Square development utilized sustainable development features such as permeable hardscape, a living wall and solar photovoltaic panels, and it is anticipated to be LEED certified. Guidelines for storm water low-impact development techniques were approved in August 2010. The developments north and south of Pearl Parkway include key connections to the Boulder Slough and the Goose Creek greenway. Goal 5: Maximize the community benefit of the transit investment: Locate homes and employment to maximize access to local and regional bus service, future commuter rail and bus rapid transit, and to allow for a pedestrian-oriented lifestyle. Develop lively and engaging commuter rail and regional bus locations. Improve the balance of jobs and housing in the community through new mixed-use neighborhoods in areas close to multiple transit facilities. Develop and adopt managed parking strategies; reduced parking requirements in the hub; and transportation demand management strategies. Encourage multimodal access and mobility within the area and to the rest of Boulder. What’s happening? A managed parking strategy with improvement districts has been implemented, and new zoning districts have TDM requirements and parking maximums. The regional bus facility is complete, along with the hotel and a public plaza integrating the historic Boulder Jaycees Depot. Public infrastructure is being designed in a pedestrian- oriented scale, with key connections to the citywide multimodal system. The US 36 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Managed Lanes and Bikeway project is largely complete from Pecos to Broomfield, and the Phase 2 US 36 project all the way to Boulder is anticipated for completion in early 2016. RTD is scheduled to begin the US 36 Flatiron Flyer BRT service in January 2016. Given the FasTracks fiscal realities, it is likely that the US 36 BRT/transit service and Depot Square station will be the primary regional transit connections to TVAP. The number of new jobs in the area is outpacing the creation of new housing units. In the spring of 2015, the property where the Google campus will be located successfully petitioned into the BJAD-TDM district and will be added to the tax base and receive the benefits of the district TDM programs. Goal 6: Create a plan that will adapt to and be resilient for Boulder’s long-term future: the plan builds in flexibility, allowing for serendipity and changes in use over time and provides for increased density in targeted locations. 11 What’s happening? The TVAP has been amended twice since adoption in 2007. In 2010, storm water guidelines, design guidelines for the Junction Place Bridge over Goose Creek and the Public Arts Master Plan were adopted. In 2012, the connections plan and street sections were modified for Junction Place and Pearl Parkway. The sanitary sewer infrastructure serving the site was upsized to accommodate increased development potential. Housing Housing development has progressed in Boulder Junction since TVAP adoption. The Depot Square and Solana (3100 Pearl) residential projects are complete, and additional projects are either approved or in the review process. TVAP originally envisioned 1,400 to 2,400 new residential units. There are currently 490 units in the area with another 245 approved at the S’PARK development and an additional 126 proposed for the portion of the Reve development that falls in the TVAP area. No other residential projects are currently proposed within the TVAP area at this time. TVAP also envisioned that the percentage of permanently affordable housing units would exceed 20 percent, or what would normally be required through Inclusionary Housing. The current percentage of permanently affordable units is 20 percent. If the S’PARK development is completed as approved, the percentage would increase. The Reve development is still considering options for meeting Inclusionary Housing requirements. TVAP Existing (includes Steelyards) TVAP Existing + S’PARK (approved) Unit Type -Affordable Rental 71 148 -Affordable Ownership 27 27 -Market Rental 319 440 -Market Ownership 73 120 Unit Total 490 735 % Perm. Affordable 20% 24% Fire Station #3 Recent analysis by the Fire Rescue Department has led to the conclusion that Fire Station #3, located at the corner of 30th St. and Arapahoe Avenue, should be relocated for a number of reasons. First, Station #3 is not well positioned to meet minimum standards for response time in its coverage area. Second, it is a critical facility located in the 100-year floodplain and the high hazard flood zone and thus at risk during flood events. Third, it would require significant modifications in order to be brought up to modern professional standards for use by existing and future units, but it cannot be altered due to its location in the flood plain and other site constraints. In order to achieve the standard four-minute travel time in the station’s coverage area that is required in the BVCP and to serve both existing and projected future needs, the station should be moved to a location generally within an area bounded to the north by Valmont Road, to the south by Mapleton Avenue, to the east by 30th Street and to the west by Folsom Street. Additional analysis can be found in the April 14, 2015, study session memo. 12 There are a number of design considerations for a future Station #3. These include site access, flood plain issues, the desire for the incorporation of a community space, a site area large enough to accommodate the needs of a fire station and the number of floors. A number of potential sites were previously identified as options, but at this time only three options are under serious consideration for their ability to meet the objectives of relocating the station. They are the Mapleton ball fields site, the city-owned site at 30th and Pearl streets and a future site to be identified and acquired in the 30th Street corridor between Pearl and Valmont. The following is a preliminary analysis of the pros and cons of the three possibilities: Site Pros Cons Mapleton Ball fields • City ownership • Flexibility on site size • Could likely accommodate drive- through bays • Good access to Mapleton and 30th • Good location for a community space • Potential for shared parking arrangements • No demolition required • Possible parking limitations • Possible issue with covenant requiring Parks and Recreation use • In 500-year floodplain – site would need to be raised 5 feet to meet city critical facility floodplain regulations, adding cost and design complications City-owned Site, 30th and Pearl • City ownership • Flexibility on site size • Could likely accommodate drive- through bays • Good access to 30th • Good location for a community space • Potential for innovative combination with other site uses • Possible parking limitations • In 500-year floodplain – site would need to be raised 5 feet, adding cost and design complications • Could possibly reduce potential to achieve TVAP and affordable housing goals Future Site TBD • Could possibly find a better site out of floodplain, with sufficient size to accommodate all needs • Not owned by city • Acquisition process • Acquisition cost • Unknown availability 13 City-owned Site at 30th and Pearl Streets TVAP envisions that the city-owned site will be used to create a new transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood that is predominantly residential, with some retail and office space. Located in the Pearl Street Center District of the planning area, it is envisioned as a high-intensity mix of housing and associated commercial uses, capitalizing on its central location and the regional bus facility. Up to half of the residential units on the city-owned site are envisioned as permanently affordable housing for low to moderate income, primarily workforce households and/or targeted to hard-to-serve populations that would greatly benefit from proximity to transit, such as people with disabilities. Its MU-4 zoning designation supports these intended uses. The approach to the future development of the site has been to plan for an issuance of a request for proposals (RFP) closer to the time when the lease with Pollard Motors expires. Similar to the successful process for developing Depot Square, an RFP is envisioned to be used for development of the site, which could include identified criteria for success to guide proposals for development but allow a high level of creativity and a range of design solutions. The city could, at that time, provide the land at little or no cost in return for the delivery of specified community benefits as part of a comprehensive development proposal. Those benefits would include specific unit types and mix as well as income levels, but could also include other priorities (understanding that reduction in affordable housing benefits may require the application of other funds in order to repay the initial investment of affordable housing funds). The developer(s) chosen through the RFP process would develop and sell or lease the commercial spaces and residential units. The criteria for success in the RFP would be developed by an interdepartmental city team with council and board input and would be informed by community forums. This type of process has been successfully utilized in the past, most notably with the Holiday Drive In. If the site is developed with a mix of commercial space, market rate housing, and/or affordable housing, further progress on the original acquisition goals and the goals of TVAP will be made. However, since the adoption of the TVAP, a number of community needs have emerged that could possibly be addressed at the site. If council believes there is a better use for the site than what is anticipated, the goals for the site could be revisited. If necessary, TVAP could be amended to reflect different priorities. The design of the eventual redevelopment will be influenced heavily by the FBC pilot. V. NEXT STEPS Pollard Site Between now and the end of 2015, staff will develop a more detailed process and timeline for crafting a RFP and selecting a developer. The process will include consultations with council, all relevant boards and commissions, stakeholders, and the general public. Staff will return to council with a proposed process and a draft RFP in the first quarter of 2016. Council may also choose to consider this item at its January 2016 retreat in the context of all work program priorities. The development timeline may be longer than the remaining time on the existing Pollard lease. If it appears that redevelopment activities will not commence by the time the lease expires, staff 14 will explore options to keep the site in productive use until such time as redevelopment work can begin. Council is also expected to consider first reading of the FBC pilot ordinance before the end of 2015. Fire Station #3 If council is interested in moving forward on either of the city-owned sites, staff will complete a more detailed analysis of design options and possibilities for overcoming obstacles to development of those sites. The analysis would include an estimate of costs. If council believes the city-owned sites do not represent the most desirable options for relocation of Fire Station #3, staff will develop a proposed strategy for identifying and acquiring a different site in the 30th St. corridor between Pearl Street and Valmont Road. In either case, staff will report back to council during the second quarter of 2016. Staff is anticipating that funding for a relocation of Station #3 may possibly be placed on the ballot in 2017. In order to achieve that potential objective, rigorous analysis will need to take place in 2016 to prepare for the ballot initiative process in 2017. Council may also choose to consider this item at its January 2016 retreat in the context of all work program priorities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Details on the Components and Definition of a Transit Oriented Development Attachment B: Boulder Junction Regulatory Changes Attachment C: Completed and Proposed Public Improvements (map included) 15 Components and Definition of the Boulder Transit Village Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) In 2000, the city started to formulate a plan for a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as an extension of the 28th street corridor planning project. The 11.2-acre site at the northeast corner of 30th and Pearl streets was named the “Boulder Transit Village” (BTV) and identified as the preferred location for a TOD through a site selection process completed in July 2001. Eight acres on the west portion of the site were purchased by the city for mixed-use development and 3.2- acres on the east by RTD for a transit facility. The site is the home to Pollard Friendly Motor Company (Pollard’s), which retains a lease option to occupy the western 5.5-acre portion of the site through 2016. Intensive mixed-use development projects around transit stations are commonly known as transit-oriented developments, or TODs. TOD projects have been very successful in many communities and are considered to have many positive benefits in terms of economic development, transit ridership and congestion management. The following TOD elements would be provided on the 11-acre BTV site: •a transit station to accommodate safe, efficient and convenient transfers for passengers of the current community transit network, including local and regional service, and future bus rapid transit and commuter rail; •enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities; •housing, with a significant level of affordable housing; and, •supportive commercial and retail services. Attachment A - Components and Definition of a Transit Oriented Development 16 Boulder Junction Regulatory Changes Consistent with the actions outlined in the TVAP implementation plan (approved in September 2007) the following has occurred: • Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map changes for all of Phase I have been completed. • New zoning districts were adopted in May 2009, creating a new Mixed Use 4 (MU-4) district, Residential-High 7 (RH-7) district and Residential-High 6 (RH-6) zoning district. • 19 parcels were rezoned in August 2010 to MU-4, RH-7 or RH-6, consistent with the plan. • Changes were adopted to the rezoning criteria specifically for the three new zoning districts, including “concurrency” requirements for transportation, water, wastewater and storm water management and flood control, and TDM services. • New trip generation requirements were adopted in the zoning code to provide approaches to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by development, ensure that the amount of land used for parking is the minimum necessary and provide opportunities for parking that are efficiently used during all times of the day. • Two General Improvement Districts were created in July 2010 – the Boulder Junction Access General Improvement District – Parking (BJAGID – Parking), and the Boulder Junction Access General Improvement District – Travel Demand Management (BJAGID – TDM). • Changes were made to the MU-4 zoning district to allow commercial kitchens, catering and manufacturing uses of less than 15,000 square feet; to prohibit fraternities, sororities and dormitories; to require use review for some larger offices; and to eliminate limitations on nonresidential floor area. Attachment B - Boulder Junction Regulatory Changes 17 Bluff St Junction PlPearl Parkway Foundry Pl Iron Forge PlSteelyard Pl 32nd St33rd St34th StCenteGreenD31st StPrairie Av Frontier AvWildernessPl30th StValmont Rd Pearl Pkwy What's Happening at Boulder Junction?City of Boulder 09.30.150300600150 Feet 3 There are many public and private development and improvement projects in the area, with more in the pipeline. See below for details and visit www.bouldercolorado.gov/public-works/boulder-junction. 1. S’PARK - A planned development within the northern portion of Boulder Junction to create a new mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood comprised of seven distinct areas which, in total, will contain 168 market-rate housing units, 77 permanently affordable housing units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and office space. A Site Review was approved by the Planning Board on Sept. 3, 2015 and is subject to City Council call-up in October. 2. Boulder Commons - A Site Review for 100,000 square feet of office and retail space, east of Nickel Flats and across Junction Place, was recently approved by the Planning Board. Construction documents for the project are currently under review. 3. Nickel Flats – A 17-unit attached residential condominium building immediately north of Goose Creek on the west side of Junction Place. 4. Junction Place Bridge at Goose Creek – A new bridge crossing over Goose Creek and connecting the new Junction Place to 33rd St. This project was completed in coordination with Depot Square. Funding came from the Capital Improvement Bond. 5. Future Pocket Park – Design will begin in 2016. 6. Pollard Site (30th and Pearl) – A city-owned property purchased with affordable housing funds. The current lease with Pollard Friendly Motors expires in 2016, at which time the site will be available for redevelopment. 7. Depot Square (3151 Pearl St.) – This mixed-use development includes an RTD below-grade bus transit facility (opened in August 2015), a 150-room Hyatt Hotel (opened in May 2015) and a four-story parking structure that is “wrapped” on three sides by 71 permanently affordable housing units. Also nearing completion is the restoration of the historic Boulder Jaycees Depot building in Depot Square that will house a new restaurant. Funding for these projects came from a Federal TIP grant, city affordable housing funds, RTD funds, and private financing. 8. Pearl Parkway Multi-Way Boulevard (30th St. to BNSF Railroad) Project – A new street design was developed for the section of Pearl Parkway from 30th St. to the railroad. Funding came from both the Capital Improvement Bond and Federal TIP funds. 8a. Pearl Parkway Electrical Undergrounding – The overhead utility lines on the south side of Pearl were placed underground on the north side of Pearl from 30th St. east to the railroad. The project was funded with the 1% Xcel underground fund and city transportation funds. 8b. Traffic Signal at Pearl Parkway and Junction Place – A new traffic signal was installed and jointly funded by the city and adjoining developments. 9. Pearl Parkway (30th St. to Foothills Pkwy.) Multi-Use Path Improvement Project – A multi-use path on the north side of Pearl Parkway was installed from 30th St. to Foothills Pkwy. Funding came from a Federal Transportation Improvement (TIP) grant. 10. Solana (3100 Pearl St.) – 319 market rate apartment units along with two retail units and a fitness facility on the ground floor of buildings facing the new street of Junction Place and the recently completed Pearl Parkway. 11. Reve Pearl District – A proposed mixed-use development on four separate parcels at the southeast corner of 30th and Pearl Streets, is proposed to contain 244 housing units and more than 130,000 square feet of commercial and office space. As proposed, 126 of the housing units and approximately 20,000 square feet of the commercial and office space would fall within the TVAP area. A Site Review application is currently being reviewed for this project and it is expected to be presented to Planning Board in late 2015 or early 2016. 1 10 2 98 7 45 3 8a 8b 6 11 Flexible Local Street alignment per approved TVAP Transportation Connections Plan Proposed Local Street alignment per S’PARK Site Review Plan Flexible Local Street alignment per approved TVAP Transportation Connections Plan Attachment C - Completed and Proposed Public Improvements 18 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY VITALITY (DCV) MEMORANDUM To: BJAD Parking Commissioners From: Molly Winter, Director, DCV Kurt Matthews, Parking Manager, DCV Donna Jobert, Finance Manager, DCV Ref: Depot Square BJAD Parking Pricing Date: October 15, 2015 Background As part of the Depot Square project, a shared parking garage is being built to provide parking for the district. Garage ownership is shared between the district, RTD, the hotel, and the housing unit as a Condominium Association. A Parking Management Agreement (PMA) is also in place governing aspects of the garage, in that all parking is to be shared, unbundled, managed, and paid (SUMP). (See Attachment A) Each owner will have their own management system. PMA allows for owners to place unused spaces into a pool that would be managed by the BJAD Parking District. Negotiations are currently underway for the parking access and revenue control system (PARCS) that will control access to the garage and monitor utilization by all condominium members. The garage will be managed via this PARC system, and there will not be a lot attendant present during hours of operation. The Depot Square garage parking allocation is as follows: 100 - BJAD Parking 71 - Residential units 136 - Hyatt Hotel 75 - RTD 9 - Depot Square Restaurant Current development projections show that demand on the District spaces will be generated by the overflow RTD bus station patrons, commercial properties, employees and restaurant users. New development is underway north of the new bridge with commercial and residential uses that will also be a factor. Boulder Junction is a nascent district and demand is unknown and very dependent upon development and the types of uses. Parking Pricing Approach The BJAD parking pricing approach is based on the SUMP – shared, unbundled, managed and paid - principles, current parking management strategies as well as incorporating the TOD approach of Boulder Junction with the overlay of the BJAD TDM district. Also the Parking District has a fiduciary responsibility to monitor revenues in order to cover expenses as well as repay the City’s loan to acquire the spaces. The AMPS project which is developing a citywide strategy for access and parking management will also be applicable to the on-going development of parking management and pricing throughout the city. A key element of the strategy will be to monitor utilization and demand and remain flexible to the evolutionary nature of Boulder Junction. As background information, below are the essential components of the current parking pricing in the existing access/parking districts:  Current rates in the Downtown and Hill managed parking are $1.25/hour for on-street parking (average time limit of three hours) and $1.25/hour in the garages for the first 4 hours, then $2.50/hour after that.  There is no limit on hours charged in the garages; however, we set a $20 maximum per day, which is in line with a lost ticket fee of $20.  Permit rates are currently $330/quarter in the downtown garages; surface lots are $200/quarter downtown and $175/quarter on the hill. (There is currently a 1200 person waiting list for downtown permits.) In considering the parking pricing strategy, there are a number of factors that will influence the decisions. These include:  integration with the TDM access district programs;  additional demand for residential permits from Solana, Nickel Flats and onsite affordable units;  the role of parking pricing in supporting the city’s sustainability goals: economic, environmental and social;  consideration of parking pricing rates in the area;  potential demand for employee permits particularly from the Hotel;  the short term demand from the Hotel and the Depot restaurant;  the number of spaces that will be allocated to District management from the other condominium members;  the spillover parking demand from the RTD station (scheduled to open in August 2015);  the timing and type of development within the area; and,  the financial viability of the District. Staff Recommendations: Short Term Rates Staff recommends that the short term District parking rates for the Depot Square garage be consistent with the current on-street parking rate of $1.25/hour in the other access districts. The AMPS project will be considering changes to parking pricing both in terms of rates and how parking is charged by location and by duration. Regarding the duration of charging for parking, staff is recommending that the short term rates be charged 24/7. There are several reasons for this. First, we are not envisioning a parking lot attendant at this location since there are multiple users with varying needs. Secondly, the district is just one of five garage users and automated entry is the best system to accommodate all users (RTD, housing, Depot, Hotel and the district). All parking rates will be integrated into the PARCS system based on the individual users needs. And finally, given the proximity to the RTD BRT station, it is important that the district spaces are not used for long term storage by individuals that would arrive when parking is not charged; leave their car during vacation and take RTD to DIA; and then return when parking is not charged and depart the garage without paying. It would essentially be providing free long term parking to non-district users. Long Term Permit Rates Paying for permit parking is a new concept in the Boulder Junction area – both for residents and employee; and thus there is not a robust market from which to make comparisons. The most immediate comparable is the permit rate at the residential Solana development which is $50/month. To our knowledge, there are not comparables for employee parking permits in the area. Given the uncertainty of demand and paucity of comparable pricing for long term permit parking and based on input from the Boulder Junction Access District Commissions, staff recommends the rate of $75/month or $225/quarter. It will be very important to closely monitor the demand and utilization during the next several years as the Boulder Junction area and surrounding developments are built out and make the appropriate adjustments. Staff will provide regular updates to the Parking Commission on permit sales and utilization. Allocation of Parking between Permits and Short Term As with the permit parking rates, it is currently difficult to have a definitive formula for the allocation spaces between short and long term users. The demand for parking will drive the allocation of the spaces. As a starting point, the initial approach will be to ensure that all user types – permits for residential and employees, and short term users – will have accessibility to parking. A lesson learned from the other districts includes the potential for overselling employee permits. The introduction of residential permits into the parking mix is a new one; the other district management districts do not include residential permits. Again, closely monitoring the situation and remaining flexible and responsive to the evolving demand will be essential to both meet the needs of the Boulder Junction residents, employees and users, and remain consistent with the TOD and SUMP principles. Based upon the allotment of 100 district parking spaces, and the anticipated growth of the area, staff is recommending not selling all available spaces at the beginning. Staff’s recommendation is an allotment process of 33 (business or employee) and 33 (residential permits – Boulder Junction and Solana). The other spaces will be held for short term use. Staff will be clear that permits are subject to revocation as the district builds out and demand changes. New developments within Boulder Junction will also have permit demand. Once the district is built out then a district wide lottery can be established to allow access of all developments to the permit pool. Also staff can evaluate the amount of oversell that can be established and still maintain access to short term parkers. The permit acquisition process will involve the potential permit holder to purchase the permit through our office. Staff will then contact the parking operator with the name and permit number and the parking operator will then activate the permit in the system. To secure a permit, purchasers will need to provide proof of employment or residence in the District. Permits will be required to be renewed on a quarterly basis (matches current practice) and require continued validation of residency and employment in the District. Questions for the Board:  Does BJAD Parking Commission support the staff approach to the BJAD parking pricing strategy?  Does BJAD Parking Commission support the staff recommendations regarding: short term pricing, long term permit rates and parking allocation?  Does BJAD Parking Commission have any other suggestions or comments? Attachments: Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement Attachment A: Parking Management Agreement