10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2024
AGENDA TITLE: AMPS Parking Policy Update
PRESENTER/S: Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation & Mobility
Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager
Lisa Houde, Principal City Planner, Planning & Development Services
Chris Hagelin, Principal Transportation Planner
Samantha Bromberg, Senior Project Manager, Community Vitality
________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is to update the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on the
status of the final initiative to implement the Access Management and Parking Strategy
(AMPS) project and to discuss major focus areas to refine the scope of work.
Adopted by City Council in late 2017, AMPS was developed as a guide through which
city staff, leadership, boards, commissions, and the community at large could work
toward improving Boulder’s approach to multimodal access and parking management
across the city. One of the recommendations to come out of the AMPS work was a
comprehensive update of parking requirements and transportation demand management
(TDM) requirements.
Parking code updates and transportation demand management changes were underway in
2020 when the project was indefinitely paused due to staffing impacts during the
pandemic. The project has been reinitiated in 2024. City Council also identified their
interest in completing this project as an important part of the staff work plan for 2024-
2025 at their 2024 retreat.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 1 of 69
The scope of this interdepartmental project involves three main focus areas:
• Off-street parking standards (Planning & Development Services)
• Transportation demand management requirements (Transportation & Mobility)
• On-street parking management strategies (Community Vitality)
Earlier this year, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB24-1304. The City actively
supported HB24-1304. Staff recommends implementing HB24-1304 with this project.
FEEDBACK FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
City Council reviewed staff’s recommended scope at its August 8 meeting and expressed
general support for the recommendations. Council members encouraged staff to continue
exploring the elimination of minimum parking requirements and implementing state bill
HB24-1304 and applying changes citywide. In doing so, council members wanted to
ensure that the community messaging of the project clarifies that changes would not
remove parking from the city, but rather eliminate the code’s minimum requirements.
Council members also expressed interest in reviewing topics like electric vehicle
charging, bicycle parking requirements, and shared parking. Regarding TDM, one
council member asked that the scope be extended more broadly than new development,
and that the desired outcomes of the project be clarified and quantified, with strategies
chosen to meet those targets.
On August 20, staff met with Planning Board to discuss the AMPS update. Planning
Board members, in general, supported staff recommendations and the proposed scope of
the project for the three components:
• In regard to the parking code update, Planning Board members supported the
elimination of parking minimums across all land uses and suggested that staff also
look at bicycle parking requirements related to e-bike charging and site design to
accommodate larger cargo-style bikes and bikes with trailers..
• For the TDM component, Planning Board members stated a desire to use the
policy and requirements to go beyond mitigating impacts and providing
multimodal access and to use the TDM ordinance to stimulate travel behavior
change and contribute to meeting city wide goals. Members did not have
objections to using a tiered approach for the ordinance.
• For the RAMP component, members cautioned staff about the restricting access
to public right-of-way to those that “came first” and pricing this valuable resource
at too low of a cost. On the public engagement strategy, board members urged
staff to think of the significant portion of our population that does not drive and
the impacts of this project and that free parking is essentially a subsidy.
Staff anticipates returning to Planning Board, TAB, and City Council in the first quarter
of 2025 to provide more detailed analysis of best practices and options to receive further
guidance and direction prior to drafting code changes. Staff plans to complete the project
in the second quarter of 2025. A draft project charter is in Attachment A and is expected
to be further refined.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 2 of 69
FEEDBACK REQUESTED FROM THE BOARD
Staff is seeking input and direction from TAB to guide next steps for the AMPS Code
and Policy Enhancements project.
1. Does TAB have feedback on the scope recommendations for the three focus
areas?
2. Does TAB have any other comments or direction to provide on engagement
strategy, project timeline, or other topics?
BACKGROUND:
Off-Street Parking Standards
This specific parking related project has been in process for many years and has been
composed of several phases:
Phase I: In early 2014, an interdepartmental team of city staff began the AMPS project.
In 2014, City Council passed Ordinances 8005 and 8006 to update the Land Use Code
and Design and Construction Standards, which simplified vehicular parking standards,
reduced vehicle parking requirements for warehouses, storage facilities and airports, and
required both short- and long-term bicycle parking standards based on land use type.
Phase II: In 2016, the project team conducted additional parking supply and occupancy
observations at 20 sites, including commercial, office, industrial, mixed-use, and
residential land uses. These observations supplemented more than 30 sites that had
previously been studied in 2014. A range of draft parking rate recommendations,
including parking maximums and minimums, were developed for consideration. The
potential to coordinate and link the recommended parking supply rates with the evolving
TDM strategy was also identified. No changes were adopted at this time as City Council
did not choose to prioritize the project in its work plan and requested additional data
collection before considering reducing parking requirements.
Phase III: In 2019, as part of that year’s Council work plan, a final phase of the parking
code changes was initiated. Another round of data collection was completed at this time.
The planned updates to the parking standards were intended to balance an appropriate
amount of parking based on parking supply and utilization data collected over a multi-
year period while also reflecting the multimodal goals of the Transportation Master Plan
and aligning parking supply rates with the city’s evolving TDM goals. The project was
paused indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
This phase has been reinitiated in 2024, as staffing has returned to full capacity and City
Council, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), and the Planning Board have
indicated interest in restarting the project, including potentially considering eliminating
minimum parking requirements entirely.
Zoning for Affordable Housing: In 2023, the Zoning for Affordable Housing project
included updates to the city’s parking reduction standards to simplify code language, a
change to the process for parking reductions to allow residential projects up to a 25
percent parking reduction without Site Review, and a reduction in parking required for
residential projects that were composed primarily of one-bedroom units.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 3 of 69
HB24-1304: In 2024, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB24-1304. The bill states
that, starting June 30, 2025, local governments may not enact or enforce local laws
imposing minimum parking requirements within transit service areas if the local
government is part of a metropolitan planning organization, like the Denver Regional
Council of Governments of which Boulder is a part. The bill exempts certain projects that
meet specific criteria. Staff recommends implementing HB24-1304 with this project.
Transportation Demand Management Requirements
The purpose of requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans for new
developments is to mitigate the transportation impacts for the new development by
providing programs, amenities, and services to the employees or residents.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, as part of the AMPS work effort, City Council directed
staff to modify the TDM Plan process for new developments and design an ordinance that
provides a mechanism to monitor and enforce regulations, which is not currently in place.
Council also specifically directed staff to integrate a new TDM ordinance for new
development into the efforts to update the city’s off-street parking requirements.
Prior to the project delay, the work effort focused on identifying the key components of a
TDM ordinance for new developments, understanding the different ways each component
could be designed, and establishing options for future boards and council consideration.
Past work also included a review of peer cities with TDM ordinances for new
developments which will be updated during this renewed effort.
On-Street Parking Management Strategies & AMPS
Building on the foundation of Boulder’s successful multimodal, district-based access and
parking system, the AMPS project was initiated in 2014 and identified guiding principles,
over-arching policies, tailored programs, priorities and tools to address citywide access
management in a manner consistent with the community’s social, economic and
environmental sustainability principles. Adopted by council in 2017, the city’s AMPS
approach emphasizes collaboration among city departments and reflects the policies of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Climate Commitment, the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) and the Economic Sustainability Strategy.
The AMPS Guiding Principles are:
1. Provide for all transportation modes: support a balance of all modes of access
in the city’s 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 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 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
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 4 of 69
elegant solutions— those that achieve multiple objectives and have co-benefits.
Plan for the present and future: while focusing on today’s needs, develop
solutions that address future demographic, economic, travel, and community
design needs.
5. Cultivate partnerships: Be open to collaboration and public and private
partnerships to achieve desired outcomes.
The projects identified in the AMPS Summary Report were the culmination of the multi-
year strategic planning process and represent each of the interdisciplinary AMPS focus
areas:
• Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP)
• Civic Area Parking Management and TDM Programs
• Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Review -- Now under Residential Access
Management Program (RAMP)
• Parking Pricing
• Off-Street Parking Standard Changes
• TDM Plan Ordinance for New Developments
In 2019, the Community Vitality department partnered with a consultant to rework the
city’s parking products, including long-term permits, daily parking, and hourly parking,
to better reflect the AMPS vision and specific goals related to neighborhood parking
management and parking pricing. The implementation plan from this work was presented
at a City Council Special Meeting in October 2021. Council supported the
implementation of priority-based neighborhood access management, performance-based
pricing, and graduated fines and mobility safety fines. All three programs were
implemented in 2022.
Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP)
CAMP began in 2017 to address parking, access, and livability issues at the historic park
and in the surrounding residential area by charging for parking at the park, providing a
free shuttle from remote lots and establishing an NPP in the North Chautauqua
neighborhood. After a successful pilot program, the Council directed staff to operate the
CAMP program through 2023 and then to conduct an evaluation of the program.
Following the 2023 evaluation, council directed staff to continue the CAMP program
with minor modifications and conduct a future analysis to explore expanding CAMP
operations under the Trailhead Access Management Program.
Civic Area Parking Management and TDM Program
To manage parking demand and reduce single-occupant vehicle travel by city municipal
employees in the Civic Area, daily parking rates were increased, and a parking cash-out
program was initiated. In 2016, the cost of parking increased from $2 to $3 per day, but
employees who did not drive and park their vehicles in the Civic Area were paid $2 per
day. Together with the EcoPass and Boulder BCycle commuter benefits, the Civic Area
program significantly reduced single-occupant vehicle travel with increasing numbers of
employees taking advantage of the parking cash-out benefit each year. This program was
suspended in 2020 with the onset of the pandemic but is being considered for application
at the future Western City Campus.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 5 of 69
Residential Access Management Program (RAMP)
Priority-based neighborhood access management is the holistic strategy to manage
parking in residential neighborhoods, which was used to create the Residential Access
Management Program (RAMP). RAMP uses existing tools such as Neighborhood Permit
Parking (NPP), and newly identified tools based on data-driven analysis. RAMP conducts
an annual assessment of the entire city based on key metrics, such as parking occupancy,
high trip generating land use, and resident or staff identified areas of interest. Staff
monitors existing managed parking zones regularly to track their performance. The
program aims to be more responsive to user behaviors and neighborhood diversity;
promote predictability, transparency, and understanding of regulations; generate revenue
and achieve cost recovery; advance climate and sustainability goals and increase the
quality of life for everyone, residents, and visitors alike.
Performance-Based Pricing
Performance-based pricing entails variable pricing of on-street parking by block face in
existing paid parking districts. Pricing is based on typical peak occupancy, with higher
pricing for the areas where parking is most in demand and lower pricing for the areas
where parking is least in demand. Pricing for off-street parking in our municipal parking
garages is now uniformly lower for visits lasting two hours or longer. Performance-based
pricing is measured and adjusted annually. This strategy encourages turnover, recognizes
the value of the public street right of way, and responds to user behaviors as well as the
diversity of needs for different user groups. It also generates revenue and achieves cost
recovery, promotes effective parking management, and advances climate and
sustainability goals.
Graduated Fines and Mobility Safety Fines
Graduated fines and mobility safety fines entails graduated fines for most parking
violations citywide, and higher fines for violations that impede mobility safety, such as
parking in a bike lane, in a crosswalk, or in a fire lane. These higher fines are called
“Mobility Safety Fines” and are premiums for safety violations already levied by the city.
Similar to performance-based pricing, this strategy encourages turnover, recognizes the
value of the public street right of way, responds to user behaviors, and the diversity of
needs for different user groups. Graduated fines generate revenue and achieve cost
recovery, promote effective parking management, improves customer compliance, and
advances climate and sustainability goals.
Remaining AMPS Implementation Projects
The last of the identified projects from the original AMPS report include the Off-Street
Parking Standard Changes and TDM Plan Ordinance for New Developments which are
the topics of this memorandum.
ANALYSIS
The following section will provide background information on the main focus areas of
the updates as well as the key questions for City Council input.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 6 of 69
• Off-street parking standards
• Transportation Demand Management requirements
• On-street parking management strategies
Off-Street Parking Standards
History of Parking Requirements
After World War II, car ownership in the United State increased drastically and zoning
codes began incorporating requirements for off-street parking, which is vehicle parking
on private property to serve housing or businesses without parking on the public street.
Over 70 years later, parking requirements remain a significant influence on urban form
and development and mobility options due to their incorporation in most zoning codes
around the country. Typically, parking requirements are based on a number of parking
spaces per square foot calculation, although they can be even more nuanced, based on
number of seats, employees, bedrooms in a house, or other factors.
Boulder’s first zoning ordinance, adopted in 1928, established the first zoning districts,
height, setback, permitted uses, and lot area requirements, but did not include any
mention of vehicle parking. The city’s first off-street parking requirements were adopted
in 1954. While many more specific requirements have been added and new processes to
provide flexibility have been introduced, the basic parking requirements have not
significantly changed in the 70 years since they were first adopted. After a major update
in 1983 the intent of the parking standards was: “in order to prevent undue congestion in
and interference with the traffic-carrying capacity of city streets, off-street parking and
loading shall be provided for all land uses.”
Other than a code standard reorganization in 2006, a comprehensive update of the
parking standards has not been completed since the first requirements were added in
1954. For a detailed history of parking requirements in Boulder, see Attachment B.
Recent Zoning Reform in Other Cities
Many cities throughout the country have been rethinking their off-street parking
requirements in recent years. In 2017, Buffalo, New York was the first major city in the
United States to eliminate parking requirements citywide. Hundreds of other cities have
considered changes to their parking standards since that time. Parking Reform Network
maintains a comprehensive map of cities that have undertaken changes to their parking
standards. Their research is summarized on this map and shows that 78 cities have
eliminated parking requirements citywide, and almost 900 have reduced parking
requirements.
Some examples of other cities similarly sized to Boulder with large universities that have
eliminated all minimum parking requirements include Gainesville, Florida, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Duluth, Minnesota, and Eugene, Oregon. Nearby, Longmont eliminated
all minimum parking requirements earlier this year. Some larger cities like Austin,
Minneapolis, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Raleigh, and Portland have also
removed parking requirements citywide.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 7 of 69
HB24-1304: Minimum Parking Requirements
States have also been focused on parking legislation recently. Parking Reform Network
notes that 22 states have introduced parking reform legislation since 2019, and 10 states
have passed bills so far.
As noted above, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB24-1304 this year, which states
that, as of June 30, 2025, cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization
(like the Denver Regional Council of Governments) shall not enforce minimum parking
requirements for certain uses. The bill applies to minimum requirements for multifamily
residential development, residential adaptive reuse, or mixed-use adaptive reuse projects
with 50 percent residential uses within an “applicable transit service area.”
The official applicable transit service area will be mapped by the state by September 30,
2024. It will include areas that are within 1/4 mile of existing stations served by routes in
an applicable transit plan for:
• Commuter Bus Rapid Transit
• Commuter rail or light rail with planned or scheduled service at least every 30
minutes during rush hour
• Public bus routes with planned or scheduled service at least every 30 minutes for
at least four hours on weekdays
The transit service area will also include areas within 1/4 mile of planned or existing
stations and stops served by public bus routes that:
• Have planned or scheduled service at least every 30 minutes for at least four hours
on weekdays
• And are identified within an applicable transit plan for short-term implementation
or before January 1, 2030.
City staff prepared the map below to generally anticipate the location of the applicable
transit service area before the state releases the official map. About 29,000, or 81%, of
the city’s parcels in the city are expected to intersect a transit service area.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 8 of 69
The bill does provide some potential exceptions to the prohibition on minimum parking
requirements for these uses, although a high bar is set to utilize the exception. Local
governments can impose a parking requirement of one space per dwelling unit for
projects over 20 units or affordable housing developments, but only if findings are met
that “not imposing or enforcing a minimum parking requirement… would have a
substantial negative impact.”
The local governments utilizing this exception would have to support the parking
requirement with substantial evidence of negative impacts on safe pedestrian, bike, or
emergency access, or the existing on- or off-street parking spaces within 1/8 mile of the
project. The city would need to include parking utilization data from the area surrounding
the project, engineer approval, and demonstrate that “strategies to manage demand for
on-street parking for the… [surrounding] area would not be effective to mitigate a
substantial negative impact.” Each year, the local government would have to submit
information to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs about the parking requirements
enforced using this exception.
Research and Data Collection
Comparable City Research
In late 2023, staff completed a review of over 30 different comparable cities to
understand their parking requirements for various uses. A matrix summarizing this
research is available in Attachment C.
Parking Reduction Research
Staff also has been studying parking reductions granted in Boulder for the last several
years to help inform this work. Off-street parking requirements can be reduced by up to
25% administratively, and reductions over 25% can be approved through a Site Review
application. Any reduction over 50% must be approved by Planning Board or City
Council.
On average, since 2011, the city has approved about three administrative parking
reductions per year and five parking reductions annually through the Site Review
process. About three-quarters of requested parking reductions have been approved in
those years. The average approved parking reduction request has been 18%
administratively and 28% through Site Review. Since 2011, approximately 39% of Site
Review applications have included a parking reduction request. The extent of parking
reductions in development projects speaks to a need to comprehensively re-evaluate the
city’s off-street parking requirements.
Parking Supply and Utilization Data Collection
Over the last few months, staff has been working with Fox Tuttle, a transportation
planning consulting firm, to update parking supply and utilization data counts at nearly
50 sites around the city to inform this project. Fox Tuttle has completed these counts
three times throughout the AMPS project, most recently in 2018/2019. Since that data
was 5-6 years old and there have been significant social, economic, and cultural shifts
post-pandemic, a new study of supply and utilization was completed this year. This data
has repeatedly shown that the parking supply dictated by current requirements exceeds
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 9 of 69
maximum utilization across all land uses in the city. More detail is available in
Attachment D.
Requested TAB Feedback: Off-Street Parking Standards
The initial direction from Council in 2014 for the AMPS project was to update the off-
street parking standards, most likely by reducing requirements to better match utilization.
In the many years since the project was first initiated, many more cities have rethought
their minimum parking requirements and even eliminated them entirely citywide. During
the 2024-2025 council retreat, several city council members expressed an interest in
eliminating minimum parking requirements.
As noted previously, it is expected that approximately 81 percent of parcels in the city
will be identified by the State to fall within the “applicable transit service area” where
HB24-1304 prohibits parking requirements for multifamily residential, residential
adaptive reuse, or mixed-use adaptive reuse projects with 50% residential. Staff is also
seeking feedback from TAB on whether those parts of the city that are not included in the
transit service area (19% of parcels) should retain minimum parking requirements for
those uses, or whether to implement the terms of HB24-1304 citywide given the extent of
city parcels expected to be identified to fall within a transit service area.
Proposed Scope of Work: Off-Street Parking Standards
For this project, staff recommends exploring the benefits and drawbacks of eliminating
off-street parking requirements for all uses, while also determining feasible reductions to
the requirements in lieu of a wholesale elimination. Thorough best practices research of
comparable cities that have both reduced and eliminated requirements, as well as
community engagement will inform further recommendations.
Staff recommends applying the terms of HB24-1304 to areas outside of the applicable
transit service area as well, since such a significant percentage of the city’s parcels are
already included in the area. Carving out specific parts of the city where multifamily
residential parking requirements would differ than those within the transit service area
would introduce significant complexity to the code.
These recommendations are summarized in the Scope Recommendations at the end of
this memo.
Transportation Demand Management Requirements
Current TDM Plan Requirements
The foundation for TDM Plans within the development review process is located in
Section 9-2-14(d)(16) and (21), which requires a TDM Plan for all Site Review
applications and requires a traffic study if required by the city’s Design and Construction
Standards. Additionally, in the Boulder Junction area (the MU-4, RH-6 and RH-7
districts), a TDM Plan is required for all development applications that add a
nonresidential use floor area or an additional dwelling unit that demonstrates compliance
with the trip generation requirements of Section 9-9-22.
In section 2.02 of the city of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, it states:
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 10 of 69
(A) Traffic Assessment
The Director will require an applicant to submit a Traffic Assessment in order to
adequately assess the impacts of any development proposal on the existing and planned
transportation system. The Assessment shall include a peak hour trip generation study
projection (Refer to 2.03(J)) and may require additional information as determined by the
Director.
(B) Traffic Study Requirements
For any development proposal where trip generation from the development during the
peak hour of the adjacent street is expected to exceed 100 vehicles for nonresidential
applications, or 20 vehicles for residential applications the Director will require an
applicant to submit a Traffic Study to evaluate the traffic impacts of any development
proposal required to undergo a concept review as set forth in Section 9-4-10, “Concept
Plan Review and Comment,” B.R.C. 1981. The traffic study may include the information
required in Subsections (A) through (K), of Section 2.03, “Traffic Study Format,” of
these Standards at the discretion of the Director.
The TDM Plan requirements are specifically referred to in section I of Chapter 2:
(I) Travel Demand Management Strategies
Include an outline of travel demand management strategies to mitigate traffic impacts
created by proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate
modes travel, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Site Design: Incorporate design features that facilitate walking, biking, and
use of transit services to access a proposed development, including features such
as transit shelters and benches, site amenities, site design layouts, orientations and
connections to increase convenience for alternate modes and reduce multiple trips
to and from the site, and direct connections to existing offsite pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit systems.
(2) Programs and Education: Incorporate alternate modes programs, such as
providing transit passes to employees and residents, van pooling to the site by a
major employer, ride-sharing, parking pricing, and planned delivery services, and
educational measures such, as promoting telecommuting, distributing transit
schedules and trails maps, signing alternate travel routes, and providing an onsite
transportation coordinator or plan to educate and assist residents, employees, and
customers in using alternate modes.
When TDM Plans are required as part of the Site Review process, the current process is
for staff to work with developers and their consultants to design a customized TDM Plan
within the opportunities and limitations of the regulations. Staff works with the developer
to include infrastructure and amenities that enhance multimodal access and options and
focuses on the handful of traditional TDM programs and strategies that can be
implemented by the developer.
Many traditional TDM programs and strategies are not implemented by developers as
they are implemented through employer tenants for commercial land uses or property
managers for residential developments. For example, while a developer can provide
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 11 of 69
short- and long-term bicycle parking or showers and changing facilities, they cannot be
required to implement a TDM program like parking cash-out or vanpool subsidies.
The city has been successful in requiring developers to put funds in escrow to pay for
certain TDM programs, like the RTD EcoPass, but for a limited time period.
Requested Planning Board Feedback: Transportation Demand Management
Requirements
The key components of any TDM ordinance include:
1. Determining purpose and desired outcomes of TDM Plans and the ordinance
2. Setting triggers and thresholds of ordinance applicability
3. Establishment of the measurable objective or performance metric
4. Designing a methodology or formula to set target levels
5. Selection of required TDM Plan design elements
6. Deciding on monitoring, compliance and enforcement requirements
7. Understanding funding and staffing needs
At this time, staff would like to focus on the first two components with boards and
council. Before addressing the other components, staff will want to update the best
practice research and share that information through the engagement process before
returning to boards and council.
Purpose and Desired Outcomes
In general, a TDM Plan ordinance is enacted to mitigate the impacts of a new
development on the adjacent transportation system and surrounding land uses. However,
an ordinance could also be used to go beyond mitigation and be used as a policy tool to
motivate or push further travel behavior change to achieve broader transportation and
community goals.
The overarching reason 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, and the Access Management and Parking Strategy.
However, when designing a new set of policies and a TDM toolkit, it is important to
understand the specific reasons to have new developments comply with an ordinance.
One option would be to design an ordinance that is intended to mitigate the impacts of a
new development on the adjacent transportation system and surrounding area. Or staff
could design one that goes beyond mitigation to the use of incentives and disincentives to
further push mode shift to meet goals. The way to achieve a more significant mode shift
would be through performance measure targets and where they are set for new
developments for ordinance compliance. While pushing beyond mitigation may be
desired, it is important to understand that the overall impact of doing this on only new
development will be small compared to a TDM ordinance that applies to existing
developments. This approach also makes it more difficult for developments to comply
with the ordinance and may cause other unintended consequences.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 12 of 69
Triggers and Thresholds of Ordinance Applicability
In all communities with TDM ordinances for new development, there are some projects
that are exempt from the requirements. Typically, this is based on size or estimated
vehicle trip generation rates. Under current policies in Boulder, the Design and
Construction Standards state that when a commercial development is expected to exceed
100 vehicle trips at peak hour or 20 vehicle trips at peak hour for residential
developments, an approved TDM Plan is required. The city may want to revisit these
figures and raise or lower the thresholds based on staff feedback on the frequency of
exempted Site Review developments.
Most cities with TDM ordinances use a tiered approach. For example, the City and
County of Denver uses a three-tier approach based on size for commercial, industrial or
office uses or the number of dwelling units for residential. In this approach, small
developments of minimal impact are not required to comply with the ordinance. Medium
sized developments are required to include TDM-supportive infrastructure, assign a
transportation coordinator and achieve a designated target SOV rate. In addition to those
requirements, larger developments are also required to identify and implement
programmatic strategies for a TDM Plan, conduct surveys to measure program impacts
and demonstrate achievement of the target SOV rate.
While trip generation or size measured in square feet, or number of bedrooms for
residential, are most typically used, the City may want to consider some other triggers
which either exempt or automatically require a regulated TDM plan. Other options to
consider include location within a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) or
subcommunity plan area or in an existing district such as the Central Area or University
Hill General Improvement Districts (CAGID or UHGID). Under the current code, any
property that redevelops in certain districts in Boulder Junction is already required to
meet the trip generation allowance through the District or independently.
Proposed Scope of Work: Transportation Demand Management Plan Requirements
Staff recommends designing a TDM ordinance for new developments that works in
tandem with the updated off-street parking requirements and improves residential access
and livability. Staff recommends designing requirements that primarily focus on
mitigating the impacts of new development on the adjacent transportation system and
surrounding area, and improving multimodal access, infrastructure and amenities. The
TDM ordinance should also set clear targets for travel behavior that contribute to meeting
city goals through the provision of TDM programs and services for future residents and
employees of the development.
Based on previous direction from City Council and boards and public input prior to the
pandemic delay, staff recommends exploring a tiered approach that considers size and
location with the smallest developments exempt from the ordinance and increasing
requirements for medium to larger developments which have more significant impacts on
the transportation system and surrounding area.
At the TAB meeting, consultants will provide initial findings of the updated best
practices report on TDM ordinance from peer cites.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 13 of 69
These recommendations are summarized in the Scope Recommendations at the end of
this memo.
On-Street Parking Management Strategies
History of On-Street Residential Parking Management Strategies
In 1986, the Boulder City Council adopted the Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program
as a mechanism to relieve spillover parking in residential areas. The RPP program was
designed to give preference in the use of on-street parking spaces to residents or
businesses located within a designated zone, to maintain quality of life by restricting
long- and short-term non-resident parking on neighborhood streets.
The program was first implemented in 1993 when RPP zones were established in the
Mapleton Hill and University Hill neighborhoods. The RPP program restricted
nonresident parking on neighborhood streets to two hours, Monday through Friday from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Concerns about the impacts associated with RPP implementation led
Council to request an evaluation of the RPP program before proceeding with further zone
implementation.
The NPP program was adopted by the City Council in May 1997 as an improved version
of the RPP program. The NPP program was designed to improve the balance between
preserving neighborhood character and providing public access to community facilities.
The NPP program provided for greater flexibility in managing parking restrictions and
expanded the RPP program to make available commuter permits within NPP zones.
Today, twelve NPP zones and one seasonal zone (Chautauqua North) exist. The
provisions for the city’s NPP zone program are set forth in Section 2-2-15,
“Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones”.
NPP parking restrictions limit on-street parking for vehicles without a parking permit.
Vehicles without an NPP permit may park one time only, per day, per zone for the posted
time limit and may not re-park in that zone again on the same day. Vehicles with a valid
permit are exempt from these posted parking restrictions. Residents who live within an
NPP zone may purchase up to two annual resident permits, and a resident permit holder
may receive up to two annual visitor passes when they purchase their resident permit.
Resident permit holders may also obtain two two-week guest permits per year at no cost.
NPP zone residents may purchase additional guest permits for social gatherings at their
home.
Businesses located within a zone may purchase up to three permits for use by employees
and may apply for additional employee parking permits if necessary. The maximum
number of commuter permits issued on any one block face within an NPP zone is four,
which number may be reduced if needed and according to the formulas set forth in the
Boulder Revised Code.
As a continuation of the 2017 AMPS work, RAMP was introduced in 2022. RAMP
utilizes tools such as the existing NPP program to help manage parking and access in
Boulder’s residential areas.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 14 of 69
Proposed Scope of Work: On-Street Parking Management Strategies
In conjunction with the work on the off-street parking standards and TDM requirements,
staff proposes exploring some minor updates to the existing NPP program to allow
application across all neighborhoods regardless of density, and the creation of new tools
within RAMP to help mitigate impacts of new development. Under current regulations,
an NPP is not permitted in higher density neighborhoods. Minor changes to the program
could allow it to be a viable tool for parking management in higher density
neighborhoods by ensuring that permit issuance does not exceed curbside capacity.
New higher intensity development in a residential area could trigger a RAMP study, and
based on observed thresholds, RAMP tools, including but not limited to an NPP, could be
proposed to the surrounding neighborhood for their consideration. Sufficient support by
the neighborhood would prompt a public hearing process for the proposed changes to
determine if they should be implemented.
These new tools would help to manage curbside demand, including vehicle storage,
generated by new development. Along with the existing Curbside Management program
which considers other curbside uses, these RAMP tools could mitigate the additional
demand on the curb generated by the new development. This would enable accessibility
and manage demand in the residential neighborhoods surrounding new development. The
tools will complement the TDM requirements for new developments and will align with
the TMP and BVCP goals and policies to encourage multimodal transportation options
that support walking, biking, and transit use.
SCOPE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes the proposed scopes of work for each topic area for Planning
Board’s feedback in guiding the future direction of this project.
Off-Street Parking Standards
• Explore the benefits and drawbacks of eliminating off-street parking requirements
for all uses citywide, while also determining feasible reductions to the
requirements in lieu of a wholesale elimination.
• Implement terms of HB24-1304 to areas outside of the applicable transit service
area (19% of the city’s parcels).
TDM Requirements
• Design a TDM ordinance for new developments as part of this project.
• Establish requirements that mitigate impacts of new development on the adjacent
transportation system and surrounding area, improve infrastructure and amenities,
and increase multimodal access. The ordinance should also provide access to
TDM programs and services to future residents or employees at new
developments that change travel behavior and contribute to meeting city goals.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 15 of 69
• Use a tiered approach that considers size and location with the smallest
developments exempt from the ordinance and increasing requirements for
medium to larger developments.
On-Street Parking Management Strategies
• Minor updates to the existing NPP program to allow application across all
neighborhoods regardless of density.
• Explore new tools within RAMP to help mitigate impacts and facilitate new
development, triggered by the development review process and proposed to the
surrounding neighborhood for their consideration.
COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Relevant Past AMPS Engagement
Previous phases of the AMPS project included community engagement activities such as
stakeholder meetings, consultations with community connectors, questionnaires, and
open houses. The feedback received throughout the history of the project will continue to
inform next steps, but will be significantly supplemented by further engagement efforts.
Community Engagement Plan
Engagement will be an important part of this project. Thus far, staff has begun
researching how other cities have engaged on this topic with their communities and
brainstorming engagement ideas for Boulder. In addition, staff has started reaching out to
stakeholders to understand the impact of complying with HB24-1304 on residential
parking, especially related to permanently affordable projects. The city’s racial equity
instrument has also been utilized to guide efforts in this project and advance racial equity.
Staff will further develop an engagement plan based on the scope of work provided by
council and boards. Because part of the project is to implement HB24-1304, engagement
on that topic will remain at an “inform” level, while other topics will focus on a “consult”
level of engagement.
The project charter in Attachment A outlines some of the engagement strategies being
explored. Initial ideas for engagement include convening a working group of interested
stakeholders, including one member each from TAB and Planning Board, and
incorporating both in-person and virtual engagement efforts on project options.
NEXT STEPS
Tentatively, staff anticipates returning to both Planning Board and TAB, and to City
Council in quarter one of 2025 to bring best practice research and specific options to
guide ordinance drafting. The goal is to complete this project in the second quarter of
2025, which aligns with the compliance date set in HB24-1304.
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 16 of 69
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Project Charter
Attachment B: History of Parking Requirements in Boulder
Attachment C: Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
Attachment D: Off-Street Parking Inventory and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 17 of 69
1 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
Access Management and
Parking Strategy: Code and
Policy Enhancements
Land Use Cod e Amendment
Project Charter – Working D raft
Project Purpose & Goals ........................................................................................................................... 2
Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Problem/Issue Statement .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Purpose Statement .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Guiding BVCP Policies .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Timeline ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Project Scoping | Q2 2024 | Planning................................................................................................................................................... 7
Engagement and Initial Direction | Q3 2024 | Shared Learning ........................................................................................................ 8
Draft Ordinance | Q4 2024 – Q1 2025 | Options................................................................................................................................... 9
Adoption | Q2 2025 | Decision .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Engagement & Communication .............................................................................................................. 10
Level of Engagement .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Who Will be Impacted by Decision/Anticipated Interest Area ........................................................................................................ 10
Overall Engagement Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Engagement Strategies ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Project Team & Roles ............................................................................................................................. 12
Team Goals .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Critical Success Factors ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Expectations ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Potential Challenges/Risks ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Administrative Procedures ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Project Cost ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Decision-Makers .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Boards & Commissions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix: Engagement Framework ........................................................................................................ 15
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 18 of 69
2 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
Project Purpose & Goals
Background
The City of Boulder is a recognized national leader in providing a variety of options for access, parking,
and transportation. To support the community’s social, economic, and environmental goals, Boulder
must continuously innovate and prepare for a world that is rapidly changing.
This project has been in process for many years and has been composed of several phases.
Phase I: In early 2014, an interdepartmental team of city staff began a new project called the Access
Management and Parking Strategy or AMPS. That year, City Council passed Ordinances 8005 and 8006
to update the Land Use Code and Design and Construction Standards, including simplifications to
vehicular parking standards, reducing vehicle parking requirements for warehouses, storage facilities
and airports, and requiring both short- and long-term bicycle parking standards based on land use
type.
Phase II: In 2016, the project team conducted additional parking supply and occupancy observations
at 20 sites, including commercial, office, industrial, mixed-use, and residential land uses. These
observations supplemented more than 30 sites that had previously been studied. A range of draft
parking rate recommendations, including parking maximums and minimums, were developed for
consideration. The potential to coordinate and link the recommended parking supply rates with the
evolving Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy was also identified. No changes were
adopted at this time.
Phase III: In 2019, as part of a previous Council work plan, a final phase of the parking code changes
was initiated. Updates to the parking code were intended to balance an appropriate amount of parking
based on parking supply and utilization data collected over a multi-year period while also reflecting
the multimodal goals of the Transportation Master Plan and aligning parking supply rates with the
city’s evolving TDM goals. The project was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
This phase has been reinitiated in 2024, as staffing has returned to full capacity and City Council, the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), and the Planning Board have indicated interest in restarting the
project, and potentially considering eliminating minimum parking requirements entirely.
HB24-1304: In 2024, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB24-1304 related to minimum parking
requirements. The bill prohibits the city from enforcing minimum parking requirements within a
defined “transit service area” except for certain projects that meet specific exemptions. By state law,
the city must comply with this bill by June 30, 2025. All changes proposed as part of this project will
need to comply with the new state regulations.
Problem/Issue Statement
A comprehensive update to the city’s off-street parking standards has not been done in many years,
and as evidenced by collected data and continued requests for parking reductions, existing standards
often do not reflect current parking needs in Boulder. Changes to parking needs after the impacts of
the COVID-19 pandemic are not fully understood. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 19 of 69
3 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
requirements in the code have not been revised in many years. The residential access management
program should be reassessed simultaneously.
Project Purpose Statement
This project groups three interrelated topics related to parking: off-street parking standards, TDM, and
the residential access management program. This project will reimagine the approach to parking
regulation in Boulder.
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS:
• Understand the actual parking supply and demand rates that currently exist throughout Boulder.
• Minimize construction of underutilized parking spaces while also avoiding or mitigating
transportation and public on-street parking impacts.
• Encourage efficient use of land.
• Explore the benefits and drawbacks of eliminating minimum parking requirements.
• Reflect the multimodal goals of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan policies to encourage alternative modes of transportation and support
walking, bike, and transit use.
• Increase predictability in the application of parking standards and reduce the number of parking
reductions requested.
• Acknowledge the impact of parking regulations on housing affordability and local business
support.
• Reflect changing market conditions nationwide.
• Comply with state requirements per HB24-1304.
TDM:
• Coordinate and align parking supply rates with the city’s evolving Transportation Demand
Management goals and strategies.
• Design a TDM Plan Ordinance for New Development to mitigate the impact of new development on
the surrounding transportation system and adjacent properties.
• Formalize and codify TDM Plan requirements for new development regarding trip generation
targets, thresholds and project tiers, required plan elements, timing and duration, monitoring
compliance, program evaluation and staffing resources.
• Develop a toolkit for developers on TDM Plan requirements, strategy options, and compliance
guidelines.
RESIDENTIAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:
• Explore the creation of new tools within the Residential Access Management Program (RAMP) and
modification of the existing Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Program to mitigate the parking
impacts of denser development in residential zones by proactively managing curbside demand
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 20 of 69
4 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
• Enhance accessibility and reduce congestion in the residential neighborhoods surrounding new
development.
• Consider tools which complement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
requirements for new development and are aligned with the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to encourage multimodal transportation
options and support walking, biking, and transit use.
Guiding BVCP Policies
The project is guided by many key BVCP policies:
Built Environment Policy 2.16: Mixed Use & Higher-Density Development
The city will encourage well-designed mixed use and higher-density development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable
housing in appropriate locations, including in some commercial centers and industrial areas and in proximity to multimodal corridors and
transit centers. The city will provide incentives and remove regulatory barriers to encourage mixed use development where and when
appropriate. This could include public-private partnerships for planning, design or development, new zoning districts, and the review and
revision of floor area ratio, open space and parking requirements.
Built Environment Policy 2.19: Neighborhood Centers
Neighborhood centers often contain the economic, social and cultural opportunities that allow neighborhoods to thrive and for people to
come together. The city will encourage neighborhood centers to provide pedestrian-friendly and welcoming environments with a mix of land
uses. The city acknowledges and respects the diversity of character and needs of its neighborhood centers and will pursue area planning
efforts to support evolution of these centers to become mixed-use places and strive to accomplish the guiding principles noted below.
Neighborhood Centers Guiding Principles
4. Encourage parking management strategies.
Encourage parking management strategies, such as shared parking, in neighborhood centers.
Built Environment Policy 2.25: Improve Mobility Grid & Connections
The walkability, bikeability and transit access should be improved in parts of the city that need better connectivity and mobility, for example,
in East Boulder. This should be achieved by coordinating and integrating land use and transportation planning and will occur through both
public investment and private development.
Built Environment Policy 2.41: Enhanced Design for All Projects
Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in all development that
encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the following elements:
f. Parking.
The primary focus of any site should be quality site design. Parking should play a subordinate role to site and building design and not
jeopardize open space or other opportunities on the property. Parking should be integrated between or within buildings and be compact
and dense. The placement of parking should be behind and to the sides of buildings or in structures rather than in large street-facing lots.
Surface parking will be discouraged, and versatile parking structures that are designed with the flexibility to allow for different uses in the
future will be encouraged.
Economy Policy 5.01: Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas
The city supports strategies unique to specific places for the redevelopment of commercial and industrial areas. Revitalization should support
and enhance these areas, conserve their strengths, minimize displacement of users and reflect their unique characteristics and amenities and
those of nearby neighborhoods. Examples of commercial and industrial areas for revitalization identified in previous planning efforts are
Diagonal Plaza, University Hill commercial district, Gunbarrel and the East Boulder industrial area. The city will use a variety of tools and
strategies in area planning and in the creation of public/ private partnerships that lead to successful redevelopment and minimize
displacement and loss of service and retail uses. These tools may include, but are not limited to, area planning with community input,
infrastructure improvements, shared parking strategies, transit options and hubs and changes to zoning or development standards and
incentives (e.g., financial incentives, development potential or urban renewal authority).
Economy Policy 5.05: Support for Local Business & Business Retention
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 21 of 69
5 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
The city and county value the diverse mix of existing businesses, including primary and secondary employers of different sizes, in the local
economy. Nurturing, supporting and maintaining a positive climate for the retention of existing businesses and jobs is a priority. The city
recognizes the vital role of small, local and independent businesses and non-profits that serve the community and will balance needs of
redevelopment in certain areas with strategies that minimize displacement of existing businesses and create opportunities for startups and
growing businesses. The city will continue to proactively analyze trends in market forces to shape its activities, plans and policies regarding
local business and business retention. The city and county will consider the projected needs of businesses and their respective employees,
such as commercial and office space, when planning for transportation infrastructure, programs and housing.
Economy Policy 5.06: Affordable Business Space & Diverse Employment Base
The city and county will further explore and identify methods to better support businesses and non-profits that provide direct services to
residents and local businesses by addressing rising costs of doing business in the city, including the cost of commercial space. The city will
consider strategies, regulations, policies or new programs to maintain a range of options to support a diverse workforce and employment
base and take into account innovations and the changing nature of the workplace.
Economy Policy 5.08: Funding City Services & Urban Infrastructure
The city will encourage a strong sustainable economy to generate revenue to fund quality city services and recognizes that urban
infrastructure, facilities, services and amenities are important to the quality of life of residents, employees and visitors to the community. A
strong and complete local and regional multimodal transportation system and transportation demand management programs are essential
to a thriving economy, as they offer options for commuters, help attract and retain key businesses, employers and visitors and provide
regional access to global markets. The city will continue to plan for and invest in urban amenities and infrastructure (e.g., bike paths, parks,
shared and managed parking, public spaces, quality gathering places, cultural destinations and public art) as well as community services
(e.g., open space and mountain parks, high speed internet, fire-rescue, public safety and senior services).
Economy Policy 5.14: Responsive to Changes in the Marketplace
The city recognizes that development regulations and processes have an impact on the ability of businesses to respond to changes in the
marketplace. The city will work with the local business community and residents to make sure the city’s regulations and development review
processes provide a level of flexibility to allow for creative solutions while meeting broader community goals. This could involve modifying
regulations to address specific issues and make them more responsive to emerging technologies and evolving industry sectors.
Transportation Policy 6.02: Equitable Transportation
The city and county will equitably distribute transportation investments and benefits in service of all community members, particularly
vulnerable populations, ensuring that all people benefit from expanded mobility options. Providing more transportation options – like
walking, biking, transit and shared options – in areas where people are more reliant on various modes will have a greater benefit to overall
mobility. New transportation technologies and advanced mobility options provide Boulder with an opportunity to expand affordable
transportation choices to those who need them the most, including those who cannot use existing fixed route transit such as service and shift
workers.
Transportation Policy 6.06: Transportation System Optimization
The transportation system serves people using all modes, and maintaining its efficient and safe operation benefits all users. The city and
county will monitor the performance of all modes as a basis for informed and systematic trade-offs supporting mobility, safety, GHG
reduction and other related goals.
Transportation Policy 6.07: Integrated Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs
The city and county will cooperate in developing comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for residents and
employees, which include incentives, such as developing a fare-free local and regional transit system; promoting shared-use mobility,
ridesharing, bikesharing, carsharing, vanpools and teleworking; and supporting programs for walking and biking, such as secured long-term
bike parking. The city will employ strategies such as shared, unbundled, managed and paid parking (i.e., “Shared Unbundled, Managed, and
Paid” – “SUMP” principles) to reflect the real cost of Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel. The city will require TDM plans for applicable
residential and commercial developments.
Transportation Policy 6.08: Accessibility and Mobility for All
The city and county will continue development of a complete all-mode transportation system accommodating all users, including people
with mobility impairments, youth, older adults, non English speakers and low-income persons. This will include increased support for
mobility services for older adults and people with disabilities, reflecting the expected increases in these populations. Efforts should focus on
giving people options to live well without a car and may include prioritizing affordable public transportation and transit passes, new
technologies such as electric bikes, mobility services and prioritizing connections between multimodal transportation and affordable housing
to facilitate affordable living.
Transportation Policy 6.13: Access Management & Parking
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 22 of 69
6 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
The city considers vehicular and bicycle parking as a component of a total access system for all modes of transportation (bicycle, pedestrian,
transit and vehicular). Such parking will be consistent with the desire to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel, balance the use of public
spaces, consider the needs of residential and commercial areas and address neighborhood parking impacts. The city will accommodate
parking demands in the most efficient way possible with the minimal necessary number of new spaces and promote parking reductions
through a variety of tools, including parking maximums, shared parking, unbundled parking, parking districts and transportation demand
management programs. The city will expand and manage parking districts based on SUMP principles (shared, unbundled, managed and paid)
to support transportation and GHG reduction goals as well as broader sustainability goals, including economic vitality and neighborhood
livability.
Transportation Policy 6.14: Transportation Impacts Mitigated
Transportation or traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable transportation or environmental impacts, or parking
impacts, to surrounding areas will be mitigated. All development will be designed and built to be multimodal and pedestrian-oriented and
include TDM strategies to reduce the vehicle miles traveled generated by the development.
Supporting these efforts, new development will provide continuous multimodal networks through the development and connect these
systems to those surrounding the development. The city and county will provide tools and resources to help businesses manage employee
access and mobility and support public-private partnerships, such as transportation management organizations, to facilitate these efforts.
Transportation Policy 6.16: Integrated Planning for Regional Centers & Corridors
Land use in and surrounding the three intermodal regional centers (i.e., Downtown Boulder, the University of Colorado and the Boulder Valley
Regional Center, including at Boulder Junction) will support their function as anchors to regional transit connections and Mobility Hubs for
connecting a variety of local travel options to local and regional transit services.
The land along multimodal corridors, the major transportation facilities that provide intra-city access and connect to the regional
transportation system, will be designated as multimodal transportation zones where transit service is provided on that corridor. In and along
these corridors and centers, the city will plan for a highly connected and continuous transportation system for all modes, identify locations
for mixed use and higher-density development integrated with transportation functions, emphasize high quality urban design and pedestrian
experience, develop parking maximums and encourage parking reductions.
Transportation Policy 6.18 Transportation Facilities in Neighborhoods
The city will strive to protect and improve the quality of life within city neighborhoods while developing a balanced multimodal
transportation system. The city will prioritize improvements to access by all modes and safety within neighborhoods by controlling vehicle
speeds and providing multimodal connections over vehicle mobility. The city and county will design and construct new transportation
facilities to minimize noise levels to the extent practicable. Neighborhood needs and goals will be balanced against the community necessity
or benefit of a transportation improvement. Additionally, the city will continue its neighborhood parking permit (NPP) programs to seek to
balance access and parking demands of neighborhoods and adjacent traffic generators.
Transportation Policy 6.22: Improving Air Quality & Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Both the city and county are committed to reductions in GHG emissions, with the city committing to an 80 percent reduction from 2005 levels
by 2050 and the county committing to a 45% reduction by 2030 and a 90% reduction by 2050. The city and county will design the
transportation system to minimize air pollution and reduce GHG emissions by promoting the use of active transportation (e.g., walking and
bicycling) and low-emission transportation modes and infrastructure to support them, reducing auto traffic, encouraging the use of fuel-
efficient and clean-fueled vehicles that demonstrate air pollution reductions and maintaining acceptable traffic flow.
Housing Policy 7.01: Local Solutions to Affordable Housing
The city and county will employ local regulations, policies and programs to meet the housing needs of low, moderate and middle-income
households. Appropriate federal, state and local programs and resources will be used locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The
city and county recognize that affordable housing provides a significant community benefit and will continually monitor and evaluate
policies, processes, programs and regulations to further the region’s affordable housing goals. The city and county will work to integrate
effective community engagement with funding and development requirements and other processes to achieve effective local solutions.
Housing Policy 7.07: Mixture of Housing Types
The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a
mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densities to meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income
households of the Boulder Valley population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types, as appropriate. This
may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage courts and building multiple small units rather than one large house on a lot.
Housing Policy 7.08: Preserve Existing Housing Stock
The city and county, recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will encourage its preservation and rehabilitation through land use
policies and regulations. Special efforts will be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 23 of 69
7 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
income households. Special efforts will also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-
income households and to promote a net gain in affordable and middle-income housing.
Housing Policy 7.10: Housing for a Full Range of Households
The city and county will encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to current and future households, persons at all
stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of household incomes and configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children and
other dependents, extended families, non-traditional households and seniors.
Housing Policy 7.17: Market Affordability
The city will encourage and support efforts to provide market rate housing priced to be more affordable to middle-income households by
identifying opportunities to incentivize moderately sized and priced homes.
Local Governance and Community Engagement Policy 10.01: High-Performing Government
The city and county strive for continuous improvement in stewardship and sustainability of financial, human, information and physical assets.
In all business, the city and county seek to enhance and facilitate transparency, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer
service. The city and county support strategic decision-making with timely, reliable and accurate data and analysis.
Project Timeline
2024 2025
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S
PROJECT SCOPING
Internal scoping
Peer research
Consultant contracting
Data collection
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Convene groups
Working group meetings
Be Heard Boulder
In-person events
DRAFTING
Options development
Initial draft
CAO review
PLANNING BOARD AND TAB REVIEW
PB matters 8/20
TAB matters 8/12
TAB final review
PB public hearing
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
Study session 8/8
Agenda/matters
1st reading
2nd reading *
IMPLEMENTATION
*Note: HB24-1304 requires compliance by June 30, 2025.
Project Scoping | Q2 2024 | Planning
• Develop initial scope of work for parking and TDM changes
• Research minimum and maximum parking requirements for several key land uses in peer
communities
• Internal issue identification meetings – engineers, case managers, transportation
• Regular coordination meetings – P&DS, TM, CV
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 24 of 69
8 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
• Engage with consultants to collect updated parking data at 40 sites for comparison to data
collection in 2014/2016 and 2018/2019
• Analyze recent data related to parking reductions
• Develop Be Heard Boulder landing page, update city website
• Begin developing options to present for public engagement
• Meet with interested stakeholders as requested
Deliverables – P&DS
o Peer city research matrix and graphics
o Project charter
o Internal meeting summaries
o Application data
o Be Heard Boulder page
o Working group invite email
Deliverables – Consultant
o Updated parking data spreadsheet
Engagement and Initial Direction | Q3 2024 | Shared Learning
• Send invites for working group
• Finalize option development
• Hold first working group meeting
• Develop and launch Be Heard Boulder virtual engagement
• In-person engagement events
• Present project introduction as Matters item to TAB, Planning Board, and City Council study
session
• Working group meeting to review parking utilization data and best practices research, TDM peer
city review, and options, and TAB/ Planning Board/ City Council direction
• Continued internal staff stakeholder engagement
• Begin potential reorganization drafting strategies
Deliverables – P&DS
o Working group meeting materials
o Engagement summary
o Be Heard Boulder engagement tool
o Initial reorganizing draft
o Materials for in-person events
o Planning Board Matters memo and attachments
o City Council study session memo and attachments
Deliverables – Transportation
o Peer city ordinance review/best practices
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 25 of 69
9 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
o Ordinance design
o TDM Toolkit for Developers
o Engagement and Communication Strategy
o TAB Matters memo and attachments
o Engagement summary
Deliverables – Consultant
o Summary slides & comparison to previous years
o Recommended standards
o 9-9-6 audit
o Methodology slides
Deliverables – Community Vitality
o Peer city policy review/best practices
o RAMP Toolkit for new development
o Engagement and Communication Strategy
o Engagement summary
Draft Ordinance | Q4 2024 – Q1 2025 | Options
•Draft ordinance of parking changes and TDM
•Draft City Manager Rule updates for RAMP toolkit
•Begin CAO review meetings
•Final working group/focus group meeting to present draft for review
Deliverables – P&DS
o Draft ordinance
o Planning Board memo
o TAB memo
o City Council memos
Deliverables – TAB
o TAB memo
Deliverables – Community Vitality
o Draft City Manager Rule updates
Adoption | Q2 2025 | Decision
•Finalize CAO review of ordinance and City Manager Rule updates
•Engagement – feedback on draft ordinance and City Manager Rule updates
•Public hearings at Planning Board, TAB and City Council – final adoption by June 30, 2025
Deliverables – P&DS
o Draft ordinance
o Planning Board memo
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 26 of 69
10 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
o City Council memos
o TAB memo
Engagement & Communication
Level of Engagement
The City of Boulder has committed to considering four possible levels when designing future public
engagement opportunities (see chart in the appendix). For this project, the public will be Consulted on
potential changes. One important factor in this project is that HB24-1304 mandates certain changes
related to residential off-street parking, so communication regarding those changes will be an Inform
level, as the city will now be prohibited from enforcing those types of requirements.
Who Will be Impacted by Decision/Anticipated Interest Area
•Residents and neighborhoods who may be impacted in the neighborhoods where they
live/work/play.
•Historically excluded communities that may be unfamiliar with the methods to offer input.
•City staff, City boards, and City Council who will administer parking-related programs and
regulations.
Overall Engagement Objectives
•Model the engagement framework by using the city’s decision-making wheel, levels of
engagement and inclusive participation.
•Involve people who are affected by or interested in the outcomes of this project.
•Be clear about how the public’s input influences outcomes to inform decision-makers.
•Provide engagement options.
•Remain open to new and innovative approaches to engaging the community.
•Provide necessary background information in advance to facilitate meaningful participation.
•Be efficient with our community’s time.
•Show why ideas were or were not included in the staff recommendation.
Engagement Strategies
WORKING GROUP
Purpose: Convene a group of diverse interests to provide guidance and feedback on potential options
and proposed code changes. One member each of Planning Board and TAB will attend the meetings as
well. Follow-up meetings with Planning Board and TAB members may be scheduled as needed to
solicit additional direct feedback.
Logistics: The working group will meet quarterly throughout the project. The meetings will be hybrid,
held in-person and virtual. Staff will send out time options when convening the group to determine a
regular time and day of week that works for everyone. For each meeting, staff will provide a
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 27 of 69
11 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
presentation and develop engagement activities to solicit the group’s input. A summary of each
meeting will be sent to the group and compiled throughout the project.
IN-PERSON ENGAGEMENT
Purpose: Obtain feedback on potential options for parking, TDM, and neighborhood parking program
changes.
Logistics: Staff will focus in-person engagement to existing events in late summer/early fall 2024. P&DS
and TM staff will prepare engagement activities and informational boards and/or handouts. Staff will
identify 2-3 events to attend. Further planning will take place after more direction is received by City
Council, TAB, and Planning Board in August.
WHAT’S UP BOULDER
Purpose: What’s Up Boulder is a citywide community outreach event. This is a great opportunity to
highlight the project and develop ways to solicit input.
Logistics: The event will be held Saturday, Sept. 7, 2024, 1 – 4 p.m. P&DS will have at least one table.
Communications staff has indicated that the event should not be used for long conversations or
engagement, but this event could be used to pass out flyers or information about the larger project.
BE HEARD BOULDER
Purpose: A home page for all project-related documents, announcements of engagement
opportunities, and virtual engagement.
Logistics: Virtual engagement will align with in-person engagement efforts in the late summer. Staff
will work with consultants to develop options.
OFFICE HOURS
Purpose: Provide an informal forum for interested residents to chat with staff about the project and
answer any questions.
Logistics: P&DS, TM, and CV staff will attend. One will be held virtually and one will be held in person.
COMMUNITY CONNECTORS-IN-RESIDENCE
Purpose: The Community Connectors-In-Residence (CCR) support the voices and build power of
underrepresented communities by reducing barriers to community engagement, advancing racial
equity, and surfacing the ideas, concerns, and dreams of community members.
Logistics: Coordinate with CCR staff to determine if the topic is of interest of the group and schedule a
time to attend a meeting to seek feedback on the project’s racial equity strategies and on any
proposed alternatives or changes. Provide meeting minutes afterwards for approval.
NEXTDOOR
Purpose: Nextdoor is another method to promote opportunities to provide input about the project and
raise awareness that has a wide reach that may reach people who are not otherwise involved or
engaged in planning-related topics.
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 28 of 69
12 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
Logistics: Staff will work with communications staff to craft posts to promote engagement efforts.
WEBSITE
Purpose: The code change website will be maintained and updated throughout the remainder of the
project to inform the public of the project, provide updates, and link to any engagement opportunities.
Logistics: Work with communications staff to make updates as needed to the website.
NEWSLETTER AND EMAIL UPDATES
Purpose: Updates on the project will be provided to interested parties.
Logistics: Staff will work with communications staff to draft content for the planning newsletter during
key engagement windows. Additional email updates will be provided on an as-needed basis.
Project Team & Roles
Team Goals
•Follow City Council and Planning Board direction regarding changes to parking standards, TDM,
and the neighborhood parking program.
•Seek community feedback on proposed standards or criteria and incorporate relevant ideas.
•Solution must be legal, directly address the purpose and issue statement, and must have
application citywide.
Critical Success Factors
•Conduct a successful public engagement process.
•Identify solution that meets policy goals and transportation needs of the community.
Expectations
Each member is an active participant by committing to attend meetings; communicate the team’s
activities to members of the departments not included on the team; and demonstrate candor,
openness, and honesty. Members will respect the process and one another by considering all ideas
expressed, being thoroughly prepared for each meeting, and respecting information requests and
deadlines.
Potential Challenges/Risks
The primary challenge of this project is making sure that proposed code changes avoid land use
impact, unintended consequences, and over complication of the code.
Administrative Procedures
The core team will meet regularly throughout the duration of the project. An agenda will be set prior to
each meeting and will be distributed to all team members. Meeting notes will be taken and will be
distributed to all team members after each meeting.
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 29 of 69
13 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
CORE TEAM
Executive Sponsor Brad Mueller
Executive Team Brad Mueller, Charles Ferro, Karl Guiler
Project Leads
Project Manager Lisa Houde
Community Vitality Samantha Bromberg
Transportation & Mobility Chris Hagelin
Other Department Assistance
CAO Hella Pannewig
Comprehensive Planning TBD
Communications Cate Stanek
GIS Sean Metrick
Community Engagement Vivian Castro-Wooldridge
Executive Sponsor: The executive sponsor provides executive support and strategic direction. The
executive sponsor and project manager coordinates and communicates with the executive team on
the status of the project, and communicate and share with the core team feedback and direction from
the executive team.
Project Manager: The project manager oversees the development of the Land Use Code changes and
overall project. The project manager coordinates the core team and project management. The project
manager will be responsible for preparing (or coordinating) agendas and notes for the core team
meetings, coordinating with team members on the project, and coordinating public outreach and the
working group. The project manager coordinates the preparation and editing of all
council/board/public outreach materials for the project, including deadlines for materials
Project Leads: Other project leads from Transportation & Mobility and Community Vitality will manage
the consultants for the TDM and RAMP topics. Project leads will attend regular check in meetings, help
to coordinate public outreach and the working group, and will attend most board or council meetings
related to the project.
Other Department Assistance: Staff from other departments coordinate with the project manager on
the work efforts and products. These staff members will assist in the preparation and editing of all
council/board/public outreach materials including code updates as needed.
Project Cost
Throughout the early years of the project, staff worked with Fox Tuttle on various parts of the project.
Fox Tuttle is currently completing an update of the parking utilization count. Staff is working on an
updated scope of work for additional consulting assistance, primarily during the initial stages of the
project. The cost of the parking utilization count is approximately $19,000. Further work could be
maintained under $50,000 for continuing services with Fox Tuttle. Additional consulting assistance is
anticipated through Urban Trans (for TDM work) and Dixon (for RAMP). Scoping and cost are still being
determined.
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 30 of 69
14 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
Decision-Makers
• City Council: Decision-making body.
• Planning Board: Will provide input throughout the process, and make a recommendation to
council that will be informed by other boards and commissions.
• City Boards and Commissions: Will provide input throughout process and ultimately, a
recommendation to council around their area of focus.
Boards & Commissions
City Council – Will be kept informed about project progress and issues; periodic check-ins to receive
policy guidance; invited to public events along with other boards and commissions. Will ultimately
decide on the final code changes.
Planning Board – Provides key direction on the development of options periodically. Will make a
recommendation to City Council on the final code changes.
Transportation Advisory Board - Provides key direction on the development of options periodically.
Will make a recommendation to City Council on the final code changes.
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 31 of 69
15 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
Appendix: Engagement Framework
City of Boulder Engagement Strategic Framework
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 32 of 69
16 | DRAFT: July 23, 2024
Boulder’s Decision Making Process
Attachment A - Project Charter
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 33 of 69
History of Parking Requirements in Boulder
After World War II, car ownership in the United State increased drastically and zoning
codes began incorporating requirements for off-street parking, or vehicle parking on
private property to serve housing or businesses without requiring parking on the public
street. Over seventy years later, parking requirements remain a significant influence on
urban form and development and mobility options due to their incorporation in most
zoning codes around the country. Typically, parking requirements are based on a number
of parking spaces per square foot calculation, although they can be even more nuanced,
based on number of seats, employees, bedrooms in a house, or other factors.
Boulder’s first zoning ordinance, adopted in 1928, established the first zoning districts,
height, setback, permitted uses, and lot area requirements, but did not include any
mention of vehicle parking.
1954: The city’s first off-street parking requirements were adopted in 1954. The parking
requirements differed based on the zoning district and use type. While many more use
types and accompanying requirements have been added since then, the basic parking
requirements have not significantly changed in the 70 years since they were first adopted.
1983: The next major update occurred in 1983. The intent of the parking regulation was
stated: “in order to prevent undue congestion in and interference with the traffic-carrying
capacity of city streets, off-street parking and loading shall be provided for all land uses.”
This version of the code incorporated new options for parking deferrals and parking
reductions, acknowledging a need for flexibility in the application of these requirements.
Parking area design standards were added, as well as flexibility for small car spaces.
Bicycle parking requirements had also been added by this point, but were significantly less
than today’s requirements. Vehicle parking requirements were increased to 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit in “redeveloping” districts, with higher requirements for attached units of 3
bedrooms or larger. Nonresidential uses were primarily generalized, rather than specific to
use type, and subject to requirements as high as 1 space per 300 square feet, depending
on zoning district.
1993: In 1993, a significant overhaul of the land use regulations repealed and reenacted
several chapters. The parking requirements at the time necessitated additional options for
flexibility. An administrative parking reduction process was added to the code and the
allowable amount of parking deferrals was increased. The nonresidential parking
requirements were not specific to use type, with some exceptions. In the 1990s, parking
requirements were increased for residential districts dominated by student rentals.
2006: Boulder completed a land use code simplification project in 2006, which reorganized
the increasingly complex regulations and established the general organization of the
parking standards in the code today in Section 9-9-6. Parking requirements were
consolidated into the current parking-specific charts and many more use-specific parking
standards were added. The changes incorporated more diagrams and more emphasis on
parking design standards. The intent section of the parking standards was updated to:
Attachment B - History of Parking Requirements in Boulder
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 34 of 69
“provide adequate off-street parking for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and
interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city streets, and to minimize the visual and
environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving.”
Since 2006, Section 9-9-6 has been updated many times, but primarily with many minor
changes. More significant changes occurred in 2009 to implement the Transit Village Area
Plan, including trip generation requirements and unbundled parking requirements for the
area. In 2014, the initial work of the AMPS project resulted in changes for several use types
as well as the addition of much more detailed short- and long-term bicycle parking
requirements.
Other than the reorganization in 2006, a comprehensive update of the parking standards
has not been completed since the first requirements were added in 1954.
Attachment B - History of Parking Requirements in Boulder
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 35 of 69
Comparable City Research: Parking Requirements
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
BOULDER
Minimum: 1 space
Minimum: Varies
by bedroom#
1 space for 1 BR
1.5 spaces for 2 BR
2 spaces for 3 BR
3 for 4+ BR
(varies by zoning
district)
Minimum: Varies
by bedroom# -
per unit
1 space for 1 BR
1.5 spaces for 2
BR
2 spaces for 3 BR
3 for 4+ BR
(varies by zoning
district)
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
indoor seats: 1 space
per 3 seats
Outdoor seats: if
outdoor seats don’t
exceed 20% of
indoor seats, no
additional parking is
required.
For portion of
outdoor seats
exceeding 20%: 1
space per 3 seats
Minimum:
Depends on total
floor area
occupied by
restaurants,
taverns, and
brewpubs:
>30%: 1 space per
250 sq. ft.
<30% >60%: 1
space per 175 sq.
ft.
<60%: 1 space per
100 sq. ft.
Minimum:
Depends on total
floor area occupied
by restaurants,
taverns, and
brewpubs:
>30%: 1 space per
250 sq. ft.
<30% >60%: 1 space
per 175 sq. ft.
<60%: 1 space per
100 sq. ft.
Minimum:
1 space per guest
room or unit
+
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
of floor area for
accessory uses
-parking reduction for
housing the elderly
-Joint use parking
-Proximity to transit
reduction
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
ANN ARBOR, MI
Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
Maximum:
Up to 600,000 sq.
ft.: 1 space per 250
sq. ft.
More than 600,000
sq. ft.: 1 space per
235 sq. ft.
Maximum:
1 space per 250 sq.
ft.
Maximum: none
ARVADA, CO
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum: Varies
by bedroom#:
1 BR: 1.6 spaces
per DU
2 BR: 2.1 spaces
per DU
3+ BR: 2.5 spaces
per DU
Minimum: 2
spaces per DU
Minimum: 1.4
spaces per unit
Minimum: 5 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 4 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
1 space per guest
room
-Shared Parking Reduction
table
-On street parking credits
-Off street reduction zones
(TOD and Urban centers)
-Allows tandem spaces
-Townhomes min. 2.2/unit
-Senior housing – 1/DU
-Required number of
accessible parking spaces
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
Maximum: for
commercial
centers more than
50,000 sq. ft.
maximum parking
shall be 115% of
minimum
requirements
Maximum: none Maximum: none
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 36 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
BERKELEY, CA
Minimum: none
Minimum:
none
Minimum: none Minimum: none
Minimum:
Differs based on
zoning district, 1 per
300 sq. ft. or 2 per
1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum:
Differs based on
zoning district, 2
per 1,000 sq. ft in
commercial
districts.
Minimum:
Differs based on
zoning district, 1
space per 400 sq. ft.
in residential
districts, 2 per 1,000
sq. ft. in commercial
Minimum:
Differs based on
zoning district,
typically 1 space per
3 guest rooms + 1
space per 3
employees
-AUP to allow shared
parking to meet
requirements
-Some commercial
districts/projects are
exempt from parking
requirements
-Hillside overlay has
minimum reqts.
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
Maximum for R-
BMU: 1.5 spaces for
1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum for R-
BMU: 1.5 space per
1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum for R-
BMU: 1.5 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum: none
BLOOMINGTON, IN
Minimum: none
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space per
DU
2 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
3 BR: 2 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
0.5 spaces per DU
Minimum: 0.5
spaces per DU Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -Shared parking reductions
-Proximity to transit
reductions
-Affordable and senior
housing reductions
-On-street parking
reductions
- No parking reqd. for
duplex, triplex, fourplex in
MD district
Maximum: none
Maximum: 125% of
the required
minimum or 1.25
spaces per BR
(whichever is less)
Maximum: 2
spaces per DU
Maximum: 125%
of the required
minimum or 1.25
spaces per BR
(whichever is
less)
Maximum:
Indoor seating: 10
spaces per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Outdoor seating: 5
spaces per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Maximum: 4
spaces per 1,000
sq. ft.
For large retail: 3.3
spaces per 1,000
sq. ft.
Maximum: 3.3
spaces per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per guest room
BOISE, ID
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
Multi-family:
1 BR: 1 space per
DU
2 BR: 1.25 spaces
per DU
3+ BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
Guest: 1 space per
10 units
Minimum: 2
spaces per DU
Minimum: 0.75
spaces per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per 3 seats
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per guest room
-Transit proximity
reductions
-On-street parking
reductions
-Joint parking reductions
-Minimum for ADUs: 1
space per DU
- Structured parking
exempt from maximum
-Maximum is 1.5x min.
when >20 spaces reqd.
Maximum: none
Maximum: 1.75
times the required
spaces
Maximum: 1.75
times the
required spaces
Maximum: 1.75
times the
required spaces
Maximum: 1.75
times the required
spaces
Maximum: 1.75
times the required
spaces
Maximum: 1.75
times the required
spaces
Maximum: 1.75
times the required
spaces
BOZEMAN, MT
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space
2+ BR: 2 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space
2+ BR: 2 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space
2+ BR: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
1 space per 50 sq. ft.
of indoor dining area
+
1 space per 100 sq.
ft. of outdoor dining
area
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 250 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1.1 spaces per guest
room
+
1 space per
employee
+
Spaces for accessory
uses
-10% parking reduction if
development is within 800
ft. of a transit stop.
-Shared parking to meet
requirements
-Parking adjustments for
affordable housing
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
BROOMFIELD, CO Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1.5 spaces
per unit
2 BR: 2 spaces per
unit
3 BR: 2.5 spaces
per unit
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum: 1.5
spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 space per 150 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 200 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 per guest room
+
1 space per 3
employees
-Joint parking
Minimum for ADUs: 1
space per DU
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 37 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
4 BR: 3 spaces per
unit
4+ BR: 3 spaces +
½ space per
additional BR
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
CAMBRIDGE, MA
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per 400/800/1,200
sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 500/700/900
sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 800 or 1,000 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 2 guest
rooms
-Small business exemptions
-Shared parking
-Proximity to transit
-Age or occupancy
restriction reduction
-Many non-res reqts differ
by zoning district
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
Maximum: 1 space
per 200/400/600 sq.
ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 250/500/600
sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 400 or 500 sq. ft. Maximum: none
CHAMPAIGN, IL
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
Depends on zoning
district, none, 0.25
or 0.5 spaces per
BR
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
Depends on
zoning district,
none, 0.25 or 0.5
spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 space per 100 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 250 or
300 sq. ft.
Minimum:
1 space per guest
room + spaces for
accessory units
-Historic property
reductions
-Shared parking
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
COLORADO
SPRINGS, CO
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space per
DU
2 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
3+ BR: 2 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
Indoor seats: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Outdoor seating: if
outdoor seating is
less than 20% the
size of indoor
seating, no
additional parking is
required. If it is more
than 20% then
additional parking of
1 space per 350 sq.
ft. if required
Minimum:
1 space per
350/400/500 sq. ft.
(depends on size
of retail as defined
“small” “medium”
or “large” in
zoning code)
Minimum:
1 space per 500 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
0.5 spaces per room
+ 1 per 300 sq. ft. of
restaurant or bar + 1
space per 10 seats of
meeting space
-Reduced parking
requirements for affordable
housing
-On street parking where
more than ½ of the space is
located between the side or
rear property line can be
counted towards min.
parking requirements
-Shared parking reductions
-Transit proximity
reductions
-Bike parking reductions
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
COLUMBIA, MO Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
1 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
2BR: 2 spaces per
DU
3+ BR: 2.5 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
1 space per 150 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 300 or
400 sq. ft.
(depends on size
of retail as defined
“small” or “large”
in zoning code)
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
2 spaces per 3
guestrooms
+
1 space per 200 sq.
ft. for accessory uses
-Shared parking reductions
-Transit proximity
reductions
-Credit for public parking
nearby
-Credit for on-street parking
No parking reqd for ADUs
with up to two BR, 1 space
reqd for ADUs with 3 BR
For the M-DT District: No
minimums
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 38 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
1 space per 5 DU
required for visitor
parking
Maximum: 150% of
required minimum in
other mixed-use districts
Maximum: 200% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200% of
minimum
requirement
Mixed-Use
Districts: for
buildings more
than 50,000 sq.ft.
150% of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200% of
minimum
requirement
Mixed-Use Districts:
for buildings more
than 50,000 sq.ft.
150% of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 200% of
minimum
requirement
DENVER, CO
Pg. 415
Minimum:
none
Minimum:
1 space per unit
Minimum: 1
space per unit
Minimum: 1
space per unit
Minimum: 3.75
spaces per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Minimum: 1.875
spaces per 1,000
sq. ft.
Minimum: 1.875
spaces per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per guest room
-Shared parking reductions
-Affordable housing
reductions
-Senior housing reductions
-Proximity to multi-modal
transportation reduction
-Car share reductions
-Small dwelling reduction
-Bike share reduction
-Alternative min. parking
ratios allowed for certain
uses like affordable
housing, congregate living
-Each district has separate
minimum requirement,
these numbers are based
on “general urban
neighborhood” standards
-The suburban district
varies by about 0.25
spaces in each category Maximum: 110% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 110% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 110%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum:110%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 110% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 110% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 110% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 110% of
minimum
requirement
DURANGO, CO
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
Studio: 1 space per
DU
1 BR: 1 space per
DU
2 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
3 BR: 2 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
Studio: 1 space
per DU
1 BR: 1 space per
DU
2 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
3 BR: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
1 space per 75 sq. ft
of “customer access
area”
1 space per 50 sq. ft.
of “customer access
area” for restaurant
w/ drive through
Minimum:
1 space per
200/250/300 sq. ft.
(depends on
volume of retail as
defined “High,
Medium, or Low”)
Minimum:
1 space per 350 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1.1 spaces per room
+ 50% of required
parking for
restaurant and
alcoholic beverage
sales
-On street parking credits
-Bike parking reductions
-Restricting occupancy
numbers
-Transit proximity
reductions
-Shared parking reductions
-TDM programs
-EV and Accessible
parking required
-“Customer access area”
is defined as “the area
where customers
congregate including
seating and standing
areas, waiting areas and
ordering areas, excluding
restrooms and hallways.” Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
EUGENE, OR Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space
2 BR: 1 space
3 BR: 1.5 spaces
0.5 spaces
required for each
additional BR
Minimum:
1 space per DU
Minimum:
1 space
Minimum:
1 space per 66 sq. ft.
of seating floor area
+ 1 seat per 440 sq.
ft. of non-seating
floor area
Minimum:
1 space per 330 sq.
ft. (or 660 sq. ft. -
depends on size of
use)
Minimum:
1 space per 330 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per guest
room
-No required parking for an
ADU
-Parking exempt areas
-Reductions for low-income
housing and senior housing
- On-street parking credits
-2 spaces per DU on flag
lots
-No parking reqt for ADUs
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 39 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
-Proximity to transit
reductions
-Shared parking reductions
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum:
1 space per BR
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -Transit proximity
reductions
- Bike rack reductions
- Shared parking
- On-street parking credit
-Can increase maximums
with better landscaping
Maximum:
Additional 15% of
minimum required
spaces
Maximum:
Additional 15% of
minimum required
spaces
Maximum:
Additional 15% of
minimum
required spaces
Maximum:
Additional 15%
of minimum
required spaces
Maximum:
1 space per 100 sq.
ft.
Maximum:
1 space per 250 sq.
ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Maximum:
1 space per guest
room + 75% of
spaces required for
accessory uses
FLAGSTAFF, AZ
Minimum: 2 spaces
plus 1 space for
each BR over 4
Minimum:
1 BR: 1.5 spaces
2-3 BR: 2 spaces
4 BR: 2.5 spaces
5+ BR: 3 spaces
plus 0.5 spaces for
each BR over 5
Guest spaces: 0.25
per each 2+ BR
units
Minimum:
1 BR: 1.5 spaces
2-3 BR: 2 spaces
4 BR: 2.5 spaces
5+ BR: 3 spaces
plus 0.5 spaces
for each BR over
5
Guest spaces:
0.25 per each 2+
BR units
Minimum: 1.25
spaces
Minimum:
1 space per
employee + 1 space
per 100 sq. ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 3
employees on
largest shift + 1
space per guest
room + 1 space per 3
persons at the max.
capacity of each
public meeting or
banquet room
-Reduced parking
requirements for affordable
housing
-Reduced parking
requirements for High
Occupancy housing
-Transit proximity
reductions
-Shared parking and on-
street parking
-Bike parking reductions
-ADU: 1 space
Maximum: none
Maximum:
Developments
over 10,000 sq. ft.
or more than 25
DUs: Additional 5
% of minimum
required spaces
unless in parking
structure
Maximum:
Developments
over 10,000 sq. ft.
or more than 25
DUs: Additional 5
% of minimum
required spaces
unless in parking
structure
Maximum: none
Maximum:
Developments over
10,000 sq. ft.:
Additional 5 % of
minimum required
spaces unless in
parking structure
Maximum:
Developments
over 10,000 sq. ft.:
Additional 5 % of
minimum required
spaces unless in
parking structure
Maximum:
Developments over
10,000 sq. ft.:
Additional 5 % of
minimum required
spaces unless in
parking structure
Maximum:
Developments over
10,000 sq. ft.:
Additional 5 % of
minimum required
spaces unless in
parking structure
FORT COLLINS, CO
Minimum:
1BR: 1.5 spaces per
DU
2 BR: 1.75 spaces
per DU
3 BR: 2 space per
DU
4+ BR: 3 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
1BR: 1.5 spaces per
DU
2 BR: 1.75 spaces
per DU
3 BR: 2 space per
DU
4+ BR: 3 spaces per
DU
Minimum:
1BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
2 BR: 1.75 spaces
per DU
3 BR: 2 space per
DU
4+ BR: 3 spaces
per DU
Minimum: 1.5
spaces
Minimum: 5 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 2 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 0.5 spaces
per unit
-Affordable housing
reduction
-TOD overlay zone has
lower requirement for
multi-family and mixed use
-Transit pass reduction
-Car share reduction
-Transit proximity reduction
-Bike share reduction
-TOD overlay has 115%
maximum
-In newly adopted land
use code:
-Affordable housing has
lower minimums
-Single-family dwellings 1
space per DU on >40 ft lot,
2 <40 ft lot.
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 10 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum: 4
spaces per 1,000
sq. ft.
Maximum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft. or
0.75 spaces per
employee on largest
shift
Maximum: 1 space
per unit
GAINESVILLE, FL
Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
Maximum: 2
spaces per DU
Maximum:
Multi-Family:
1 space per BR
Maximum: 2
spaces per DU
Maximum: 1
space per DU
Maximum:
3 spaces +1 space for
each 2 seats of
seating capacity
Maximum: 1 space
per 250 sq. ft. (or
500 sq. ft. for large
scale)
Maximum: 1 space
for 300 sq. ft. or 1
space per employee
(whichever is
greater)
Maximum:
5 spaces + 1 space
per guest room +
75% of required
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 40 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
spaces for accessory
uses
GOLDEN, CO
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum:
1-2 BR: 1.5 spaces
3+ BR: 2 spaces
Downtown/ mixed
use districts:
1 space per DU if
less than 800 sq. ft.
Minimum:
1-2 BR: 1.5 spaces
3+ BR: 2 spaces
Downtown/
mixed use
districts:
1 space per DU
for less than 800
sq. ft.
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum:
1 space per 3 seats
Downtown/ mixed
use districts:
1 space per 5 seats
Outdoor seating: 1
space per 10 seats
Minimum:
1 space per 250 sq.
ft.
Downtown/ mixed
use districts:
1 space per 350 sq.
ft.
Minimum:
1 space per 300 sq.
ft.
Downtown/ mixed
use districts:
1 space per 350 sq.
ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per each guest room
+
1 space per two
employees -Shared parking
Unless not stated,
Downtown and mixed-use
districts have different
parking requirements
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
HONOLULU, HI
Minimum: 1 space
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1
space per 1,000
sq. ft.
Minimum: 1
space per 1,000
sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 500 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 500 sq. ft
Minimum: 1 space
per 500 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 1000 sq. ft.
-Joint-use parking
reductions
-Bike parking reductions
-Bike share reductions
-Unbundled parking
-Car sharing reductions
-1 additional space
required for ADU
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
LAWRENCE, KS
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
Multi-Dwelling: 1
space per BR
+ 1 space per 10
units
Minimum: 1
space per BR
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per 100 sq. ft. + 1 per
employee based on
largest shift
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft. (up
to 45,000 sq. ft.) + 1
space per
employee on
largest shift
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per guest room
+
1 space per 1.5
employees
-Shared parking
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
LEXINGTON, KY
Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
- All significant
developments (more than
5,000 sq. ft.) shall be
required to provide a
parking demand
mitigation study when
seeking zone map
amendment Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
LONGMONT, CO
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1.75 spaces
2 BR: 2 spaces
3 BR: 2.25 spaces
4+ BR: 3 spaces
Minimum:
2 spaces per DU
Minimum: 1.75
spaces per DU Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
-For an affordable housing
unit only 1 space is
required
-For the MU-C and MU-D
zoning districts, the
residential minimums are
maximums Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 12 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum: 4
spaces per 1,000
sq. ft.
Maximum: 4 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum:
1 space per unit
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 41 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
MADISON, WI
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 15% of
capacity of persons
Minimum: 1 space
per 400 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 400 sq. ft.
Minimum: 0.75
spaces per bedroom -Shared parking
-Bike parking reduction
-Off-site parking reductions
-Car share reduction
-Moped parking
substitution
-TOD overlay district has
reduced requirement
-ADUs have no parking
minimum
-EV parking requirement
-With some exceptions,
the following districts
have no parking
minimums: Central area,
NMX, TSS, MXC, CC, RMX,
TE, EC, SEC, IL, CC-T, SE,
IG, TOD Maximum: 4
spaces
Maximum: 2.5
spaces per DU
Maximum: 4
spaces per DU
Maximum: 2.5
spaces per DU
Maximum: 40% of
capacity of persons
Maximum: 1 space
per 200 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 250 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1.5
spaces per bedroom
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
-EV parking incentives
-Transit zoning areas have
lower parking maximums
Maximum: none
Maximum: for 4
units or more: 2
spaces per DU
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 1 space
per 75 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per guest room +
Parking = 30% of the
capacity of persons
for accessory uses
PASADENA, CA
Minimum:
1 BR or less: 1
space per DU
2 or more BR: 1.5
spaces per DU
Guest: 1 space per
10 DU
Minimum:
1 BR or less: 1
space per DU
2 or more BR: 1.5
spaces per DU
Guest: 1 space per
10 DU
Minimum:
1 BR or less: 1
space per unit
2 or more BR: 1.5
spaces per unit
Guest: 1 space
per 10 DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
2 spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. in EC-MU-C
Minimum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
2 spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. in EC-MU-C
Minimum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
2 spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. in EC-MU-C)
Minimum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
2 spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. in EC-MU-C)
-Shared parking
-Reduced parking for senior
citizen housing
developments
- No parking required for
first 5,000 sq. ft. of a
project for retail, office,
and restaurant
-No parking required for
first 500 sq. ft. of outdoor
dining Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
PORTLAND, OR
Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
-They have parking
requirement for standard
“A” and “B” which vary
based on zoning district-
residential is Standard A
all other uses are
Standard B in this table
Maximum: 1 space
per 2 DUs
Maximum: 1 space
per 2 DUs
Maximum: 1
space per 2 DUs
Maximum: 0.5
spaces per DU
Maximum: 1 space
per 75 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 200 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1.5
spaces per rentable
room
+ Required spaces
for accessory uses
RALEIGH, NC
Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none
Maximum: none
Maximum:
1BR: 1.5 spaces per
DU
2BR: 2.25 spaces
per DU
3BR: 3 spaces per
DU
4 BR: 4 spaces per
DU
Maximum: none Maximum: 1.5
spaces per DU
Maximum: 1 space
per 100 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1 space
per 200 sq. ft. + 1
space per 600 sq.
ft. outdoor display
area
Maximum: 1 space
per 200 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1.5
spaces per guest
room
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 42 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
5+ BR: 5 spaces per
DU
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU
Minimum:
1 BR: 1 space per
DU
2+ BR: 1.25 spaces
per DU
Minimum: 2
spaces per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum:
Indoor: 2 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft.
Outdoor: 2 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 2 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per guest room
-Shared parking
-Affordable and senior
housing reduction
-Community parking credits
-Car share
-Max parking does not
apply to parking within
structure
-Commercial uses: Lower
or no requirements in
urban center and transit
contexts
Maximum: 4
spaces per DU
Maximum: 4
spaces per DU
Multi-family:
1 BR: 2 spaces per
DU
2+ BR: 3 spaces per
DU
Maximum: 4
spaces per DU
Maximum: 2
spaces per DU
Maximum:
Indoor: 7 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft.
Outdoor: 4 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum: 4
spaces per 1,000
sq. ft.
Maximum: 4 spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Maximum: 1.5
spaces per guest
room
SAVANNAH, GA
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per 100 sq. ft.
(including outdoor
seating)
Minimum: 1 space
per 250 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per guest room
-Downtown parking
reduction area
-Streetcar area parking
reductions
-Shared parking reductions
-ADUs have no minimum
parking requirement
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
SEATTLE, WA
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 0.5
space per DU
Minimum: 1 space
per 250 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 500 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 4 rooms -No additional required
parking for an ADU
-Shared parking reduction
-Transit proximity reduction
-Car share reduction
-Lower restrictions for
affordable and elderly
housing
-Moderate or low- income
units do not have min. reqt.
-Other maximums for
some overlay districts
-Min. reqt. for parking
impact overlay near
university:
1BR: 1 space/DU
2BR: 1.5 space/DU
3BR: 0.25 spaces per
bedroom
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial zones
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial zones,
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial
zones
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial
zones
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial zones,
10 spaces per
commercial use in
multifamily zones
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial zones,
10 spaces per
commercial use in
multifamily zones
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial zones,
10 spaces per
commercial use in
multifamily zones
Maximum: 145
spaces surface
parking in most
commercial zones,
10 spaces per
commercial use in
multifamily zones
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 43 of 69
City Detached
Dwelling Unit
Attached
Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes
TEMPE, AZ
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU (up to 5 BR)
3 spaces per DU (6
or more BR)
Minimum:
1 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
2 BR: 2 spaces per
DU
3 BR: 2.5 spaces
per DU
4 BR: 3 spaces per
DU
Guest: 0.2 spaces
per DU
Minimum: 2
spaces per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum:
Indoor: 1 space per
75 sq. ft.
Outdoor: (no
parking for first 300
sq. ft.) 1 space per
150 sq. ft.
Minimum:
Indoor: 1 space per
300 sq. ft.
Outdoor: (no
parking required
for first 300 sq. ft.)
1 space per 500 sq.
ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per unit
+ Parking for
accessory uses
-Shared parking reductions
-Downtown district has
waived/ reduced parking
minimums
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125%
of minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
Maximum: 125% of
minimum
requirement
TUCSON, AZ
Minimum: 2 spaces
per DU
+
0.25 spaces per
unit for guest
parking
Minimum if under
70 units/acre:
1 BR: 1.5 spaces
per DU
2 BR: 2 spaces per
DU
3 BR: 2.25 spaces
per DU
4+ BR: 2.5 spaces
per DU
Minimum if over 70
units/acre: 1.25/
DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
Minimum: 1
space per DU
(under 400 sq.
ft), 1.5 spaces
per DU (over 400
sq. ft)
Minimum if over
70 units/acre:
1.25/ DU
Minimum: 1 space
per 100 sq. ft.
(including outdoor
seating areas)
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per 300 sq. ft.
Minimum: 1 space
per rental unit+
1 space per 300 sq.
ft. of accessory uses
-Reduction for public open
space
-On-street parking
reductions
-EV parking reductions
-Bike parking reductions
-Landscaping and screening
reductions
-Lower residential
requirements for elderly
housing
-In R-1 zone, single-family
with 5BR has min. of 3
plus 1 space per
additional BR.
Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 44 of 69
Comparable City Research: Bike Parking Requirements
City Residential Restaurant Office Retail Hotel
BOULDER 2 spaces per DU 1 space per 750 sq. ft., Min of 4 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft., Min of 4 1 space per 750 sq. ft., Min of 4 1 space per 3 guest rooms, Min of 4
ANN ARBOR, MI 1 space per 5 DU 1 space per 750 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. N/A
ARVADA, CO 1 space per 4 DU 1 space per 20 required motor vehicle
spaces; 10% long-term
1 space per 20 required motor vehicle
spaces; 10% long-term
1 space per 20 required motor vehicle
spaces; 10% long-term
1 space per 20 required motor
vehicle spaces; 10% long-term
BERKELEY, CA 1 space per DU or 1 space per 3 BR 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft.
BLOOMINGTON, IN 10% of motor vehicle spaces or 1 space
per 5 BR (whichever is more)
5% of motor vehicle spaces 2% of motor vehicle space 5% of motor vehicle spaces 5% of motor vehicle spaces
BOISE, ID 1 space per 10 required motor vehicle
spaces
1 space per 10 required motor vehicle
spaces
1 space per 10 required motor vehicle
spaces
1 space per 10 required motor vehicle
spaces
1 space per 10 required motor
vehicle spaces
BOZEMAN, MT 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces
BROOMFIELD, CO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CAMBRIDGE, MA Short-Term: 0.1 spaces per DU
Long-Term: 1 space per DU for first 20
units; 1.05 spaces per DU for more than
20 units
N/A Short-Term: N/A
Long-Term: 0.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 0.6 spaces per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Long-Term: 0.1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
N/A
CHAMPAIGN, IL 1 space per 1-2 DU or 2-4 BR 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 20 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 20 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 20 motor vehicle
spaces
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
COLUMBIA, MO 10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking
spaces
51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking
spaces
100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking
spaces
200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking
spaces
300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number
of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces
(whichever is less)
10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking
spaces
51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking
spaces
100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking
spaces
200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking
spaces
300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number
of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces
(whichever is less)
10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking
spaces
51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking
spaces
100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike
parking spaces
200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike
parking spaces
300 or more vehicle spaces: 5%
number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces
(whichever is less)
10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking
spaces
51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking
spaces
100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike
parking spaces
200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike
parking spaces
300 or more vehicle spaces: 5%
number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces
(whichever is less)
10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike
parking spaces
51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike
parking spaces
100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike
parking spaces
200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike
parking spaces
300 or more vehicle spaces: 5%
number of vehicle spaces or 50
spaces (whichever is less)
DENVER, CO
Pg. 415
1 space per 4 DU 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft.
DURANGO, CO N/A 1 bike parking space per 10 off-street
parking spaces. No less than 3 and no
more than 30 should be required
1 bike parking space per 10 off-street
parking spaces. No less than 3 and no
more than 30 should be required
1 bike parking space per 10 off-street
parking spaces. No less than 3 and no
more than 30 should be required
1 bike parking space per 10 off-
street parking spaces. No less than
3 and no more than 30 should be
required
EUGENE, OR 1 space per DU (in lot w/5 or more DU) 1 space per 600 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10 guest rooms
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 1 bike rack per 30 parking spaces
(each bike rack holds 2 bikes)
1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces
FLAGSTAFF, AZ 2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required
vehicle parking spaces
2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required
vehicle parking spaces
2 bike parking spaces or 5% of
required vehicle parking spaces
2 bike parking spaces or 5% of
required vehicle parking spaces
2 bike parking spaces or 5% of
required vehicle parking spaces
FORT COLLINS, CO 1 space per BR 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4 units
GAINESVILLE, FL 10% of vehicle parking spaces
Single/two family dwellings: none
10% of vehicle parking spaces
10% of vehicle parking spaces
10% of vehicle parking spaces
4 spaces
GOLDEN, CO 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces
HONOLULU, HI Short-Term: 1 space per 10 DU
Long-Term: 1 space per 2 DU
Short-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft or 1
space per 10 vehicle spaces
Long-Term: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. or
1 space per 30 vehicle spaces
N/A Short-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft or
1 space per 10 vehicle spaces
Long-Term: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft.
or 1 space per 30 vehicle spaces
Short-Term: 1 space per 20 rooms
Long-Term: 1 space per 10 rooms
LAWRENCE, KS Short-Term: 1 space per 20 BR
Long-Term: 1 space per 6 BR
Short-Term: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 space per 20 rooms
Long-Term: 1 space per 200 rooms
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 45 of 69
City Residential Restaurant Office Retail Hotel
LEXINGTON, KY 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle
spaces
LONGMONT, CO 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle
spaces
MADISON, WI 1 space per DU 5% of capacity of persons 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10 rooms
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1 space per DU N/A 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft.
PASADENA, CA 1 space per 6 dwelling units >15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces
<15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle
spaces
>15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces
<15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle
spaces
>15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces
<15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle
spaces
>15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces
<15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle
spaces
PORTLAND, OR For 5 or more units:
Short-Term: 1 space per 20 units
Long-Term: 1.5 spaces per unit
Short-Term: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 2,300 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 per 20,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 per 1,800 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 space per 2,700 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 3,800 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 per 40 rooms
Long-Term: 1 per 20 rooms
RALEIGH, NC
Short-Term: 1 space per 20 units (min of
4)
Long-Term: 1 space per 7 BR
Short-Term: 1 space per 50,000 sq. ft.
(min of 4)
Long-Term: 1 space per 25,000 sq. ft.
(min of 4)
Short-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft.
(min of 4)
Long-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft.
(min of 4)
Short-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft.
(min of 4)
Long-Term: N/A
Short-Term: N/A
Long-Term: 1 space per 20 rooms
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 1 space per 2 DU 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft.
SAVANNAH, GA 1 space per 10 DU 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle
spaces
SEATTLE, WA Short-Term: 1 space per 20 DU
Long-Term: 1 space per DU
Short-Term: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft.
N/A
TEMPE, AZ 0.5 spaces per unit (0.75 spaces for 3+
BR)
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. N/A
TUCSON, AZ Short-Term: 0.10 per BR
Long-Term: 0.5 spaces per BR (min of 2)
N/A Short-Term: 1 space per 20,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 6,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 2 spaces per 12,000 sq. ft.
Long-Term: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft.
Short-Term: 2 space per 6,000 sq.
ft.
Long-Term: 1 per 20 guest rooms
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 46 of 69
Characteristics of Comparable Cities
Population Persons/
HH
Land
Area
Population/
Sq. Mile
University Size Median Rent Median Value
of Housing
Units
Boulder 104,175 2.26 26.33 4,112 University of Colorado: 30k $1588 736k
Ann Arbor, MI 121,536 2.25 28.2 4,094 University of Michigan: 45k
$1299 347k
Arvada, CO
123,436
2.55 38.91 3,028 N/A $1444 424k
Berkeley, CA
117,145
2.4 10.43 10,752 UC-Berkeley 45k
$1767 1.06 million
Bloomington, IN
79,968
2.18 23.23 3,472 Indiana University: 32k
$946 219k
Boise, ID
237,446
2.38 84.03 2,591 Boise State University: 22k
$1009 283k
Bozeman, MT
54,539
2.17 20.6 1950 Montana State University: 17k
$1145 413k
Broomfield, CO 75,325
2.54 32.97 1,692 N/A $1711 451k
Cambridge, MA 117,090
2.13 6.39 16,469 Harvard:6k, MIT: 12k
$2293 843k
Champaign, IL
89,114
2.3 22.93 3,613 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: 33k $922 167k
Colorado Springs,
CO
483,956
2.51 195.4 2,140 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs: 13k, Colorado College: 2k $1196 295k
Columbia, MO
126,853
2.31 66.54 1,720.1 University of Missouri: 30k $890 208k
Denver, CO
711,463
2.44 153.08 3,922.6 University of Denver: 12k; University Colorado Denver: 19k; Metro State: 20k $1397 428k
Durango, CO
19,223
2.3 14.71
1,701 Fort Lewis College: 4k
$1297 473k
Eugene, OR
175,096
2.29 44.18 3,572.2 University of Oregon: 23k
$1075 305k
Fayetteville, AR 95,230
2.23 54.14 1,366 University of Arkansas: 27k
$837 232k
Flagstaff, AZ
76,989
2.45 66.03 1,031.3 Northern Arizona University: 25k $1286 363k
Fort Collins, CO 168,538
2.56 57.21 2,653 Colorado State University: 23k $1373 399k
Gainesville, FL 140,398 2.33 63.15 2,028 University of Florida: 34k $965 180k
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 47 of 69
Golden, CO 19,871
2.4 9.63 1,901 Colorado School of Mines: 7k
$1495 541k
Honolulu, HI
1 million
2.98 600.63 1,586 University of Hawaii: 13k
$1779 702k
Lawrence, KS 95,256
2.28 34.15 2,611.2 University of Kansas: 28k $953 205k
Lexington, KY
321,793
2.36 283.64 1042 University of Kentucky: 30k
$920 201k
Longmont, CO
100,758
2.59 28.78 3,294 N/A $1437 396k
Madison, WI
269,196
2.2 79.57 3,037 University of Wisconsin: 44k
$1147 262k
Minneapolis, MN 425,336
2.28
54 7,088 University of Minnesota: 51k
$1078 268k
Pasadena, CA 135,732
2.44 22.96 5,969 Cal Tech: 3k
$1787 822k
Portland, OR
641,162
2.29 133.45 4,375 Portland State University: 17k
$1325 439k
Raleigh, NC 469,124
2.4 147.12 2,826 North Carolina State University: 25k $1175
267k
Salt Lake City, UT 200,478
2.37 110.34 1,678 University of Utah: 33k
$1050 346k
Savannah, GA
147,088
2.55 106.85 1,321.2 Savannah College of Art & Design: 12k $1049 162k
Seattle, WA 733,919
2.08 83.83 7,251 University of Washington: 46k
$1702 714k
Tempe, AZ 184,118
2.37 39.94 4,050 Arizona State University: 75k
$1230 288k
Tucson, AZ
543,242
2.4 241 2,294 University of Arizona: 45k
$861 167k
Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 48 of 69
7/26/2024
Off-Street Parking
Standards
Inventory and Occupancy
A Project for the City of Boulder
Current vehicle and bicycle parking standards are outlined
in Section 9-9-6 of the Boulder Municipal Code.
Required parking is based on zone district and use type.
For example:
Background
MU-4,
RH-7
RH-3RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH-2,
RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR, IS,
IG, IM, P
RMX-2, MU-2, MH, IMSRR, RE, MU-1, MU-
3, BMS, DT, A, RH-6
Zone District Standard
0 1 1 1 1 Minimum number of off-street
parking spaces for a detached
dwelling unit (DU)
1 space
per DU
N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum number of off-
street parking spaces for an
attached DU or each unit of a
duplex
0 1 for 1-bedroom DU
1.5 for 2-bedroom DU
2 for 3-bedroom DU
3 for a 4 or more
bedroom DU
1 for 1-bedroom DU
1.5 for 2-bedroom DU
2 for 3-bedroom DU
3 for a 4 or more bedroomDU
1 for 1-or 2-bedroom DU
1.5 for 3-bedroom DU
2 for a 4 or more
bedroomDU
1 Minimum number of off-street
parking spaces for an attached
DU or each unit of a duplex
Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. Accessible space requirement
Table 9-1: RESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT AND UNIT TYPE
1
3
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 49 of 69
7/26/2024
16,500+ parking spaces observed at 50 sites between 2014 and 2019, refreshed with new 2024 data.
Peak times, off peak, and specific times of interest (e.g. Target during CU move in)
Focus is on peak times for occupancy data.
Background
Retail Parking Summary
4
6
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 50 of 69
7/26/2024
Per Code:
Typically about one parking space per 300 or
400 square feet
Certain uses can require one space per 250
square feet or up to one space per 100 square
feet
Other retail uses have specific requirements
(e.g. restaurants, retail centers, etc.)
Retail Parking Summary
16 sites observed in 2024
9,030 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Evenings and
Saturday Midday
Average Parking Occupancy: 52%
Minimum Observed Occupancy: 31%
Maximum Observed Occupancy: 78%
Retail Parking Summary
7
8
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 51 of 69
7/26/2024
Retail Parking Summary
49%
40%
31%
68%
61%
52%
87%90%
78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
9% reduction in average occupancy since
2018/19
16% reduction in average occupancy
since 2014/16
Retail Parking Summary
9
11
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 52 of 69
7/26/2024
Retail Parking Summary - Target
302
231
184
340
401
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2014/16 2018/19 2024
Peak Parking Demand Required Parking Provided Parking
18%
more
than
required
Provided 18% more parking than
required
Peak occupancy only reached 89% of the
required parking at the highest observed
2024 data showed 46% peak occupancy
of provided parking (54% of required
parking)
Retail Parking Summary - Target
12
13
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 53 of 69
7/26/2024
Commercial spaces in mixed use projects
4 sites observed in 2024
402 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Afternoon
Average Parking Occupancy: 74%
Minimum Observed Occupancy: 39%
Maximum Observed Occupancy: 91%
Mixed Use Commerical Parking Summary
Mixed Use Commercial Parking Summary
65%
34%
39%
79%
59%
74%
94%
73%
91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
14
15
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 54 of 69
7/26/2024
Average and maximum occupancy is
relatively unchanged over time
Greater variation in 2024 than earlier
Mixed Use Commercial Parking Summary
Office Parking Summary
16
17
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 55 of 69
7/26/2024
Office Parking Summary
RR, RE, RL, RM,
RMX-1, RH-1,
RH-2, RH-4,
RH-5, BT, BC,
BR-2, P (not in a
parking district)
MU-1, MU-3
(not in a parking
district)
RMX-2, MU-2,
IMS,
BMS
(not in a parking
district)
BCS, BR-1, IS,
IG, IM, A
DT, MU-3, BMS
(within a
parking district)
RH-3, RH-6,
RH-7, MU-4
(not in a parking
district)
RH-3, RH-6,
RH-7, MU-4
(within a
parking district)
Zone District
Standard
1:300 1:300 if
residential uses
comprise less
than 50 percent
of the floor area;
otherwise1:400
1:400 if
residential uses
comprise less
than 50 percent
of the floor area;
otherwise1:500
1:400 0 Minimum
number of off-
street parking
spaces per
square foot of
floor area for
nonresidential
uses and their
accessory uses
N/A 1:400 if
residential uses
comprise less
than 50 percent
of the floor area;
otherwise1:500
N/A Maximum
number of off-
street parking
spaces per
square foot of
floor area for
nonresidential
uses and their
accessory uses
Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. Accessible
parking
requirement
Table 9-3: NONRESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT
Generally: One parking space per 300 or 400 square feet
6 sites observed in 2024
2,471 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Mornings
Average Parking Occupancy: 48%
Minimum Observed Occupancy: 34%
Maximum Observed Occupancy: 73%
Office Parking Summary
18
19
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 56 of 69
7/26/2024
Office Parking Summary
55%
65%
17%
69%
74%
49%
78%80%84%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
25% reduction in average occupancy
since 2018/19
20% reduction in average occupancy
since 2014/16
Much more variation post-COVID
Office Parking Summary
20
22
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 57 of 69
7/26/2024
Office Parking – Google Campus
Required Parking per Code: 825 spaces
Provided Parking: 716
Observed Peak Parking Demand: 590
Observed Peak Parking Occupancy:
82% of provided
72% of required
24% reduction
Medical Office Parking Summary
1 site observed in 2024
148 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Afternoon
Observed Parking Occupancy: 86%
Peak occupancy unchanged compared
to 2018/19
23
24
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 58 of 69
7/26/2024
Industrial Parking Summary
Industrial Parking Summary
RR, RE, RL, RM,
RMX-1, RH-1,
RH-2, RH-4,
RH-5, BT, BC,
BR-2, P (not in a
parking district)
MU-1, MU-3
(not in a parking
district)
RMX-2, MU-2,
IMS,
BMS
(not in a parking
district)
BCS, BR-1, IS,
IG, IM, A
DT, MU-3, BMS
(within a
parking district)
RH-3, RH-6,
RH-7, MU-4
(not in a parking
district)
RH-3, RH-6,
RH-7, MU-4
(within a
parking district)
Zone District
Standard
1:300 1:300 if
residential uses
comprise less
than 50 percent
of the floor area;
otherwise1:400
1:400 if
residential uses
comprise less
than 50 percent
of the floor area;
otherwise1:500
1:400 0 Minimum
number of off-
street parking
spaces per
square foot of
floor area for
nonresidential
uses and their
accessory uses
N/A 1:400 if
residential uses
comprise less
than 50 percent
of the floor area;
otherwise1:500
N/A Maximum
number of off-
street parking
spaces per
square foot of
floor area for
nonresidential
uses and their
accessory uses
Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. Accessible
parking
requirement
Table 9-3: NONRESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT
Generally: One parking space per ~400 square feet
25
26
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 59 of 69
7/26/2024
2 sites observed in 2024
513 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Mornings
Average Parking Occupancy: 55%
Minimum Observed Occupancy: 50%
Maximum Observed Occupancy: 60%
Industrial Parking Summary
Industrial Parking Summary
53%
39%
50%
56%48%55%
59%57%60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
27
28
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 60 of 69
7/26/2024
Parking occupancy is relatively
unchanged over time
Maximum observed occupancy did not
exceed 60% of the available supply
Industrial Parking Summary
Lodging/Hotel Parking Summary
30
31
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 61 of 69
7/26/2024
3 sites observed in 2024
786 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Overnight
Average parking occupancy: 38%
Minimum observed occupancy: 15%
Maximum observed occupancy: 49%
Lodging/Hotel Parking Summary
Lodging/Hotel Parking Summary
20%15%
60%
35%38%
51%49%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
32
33
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 62 of 69
7/26/2024
Parking occupancy is relatively
unchanged compared to 2018/19
Maximum observed occupancy did not
exceed 60% of the available supply
Lodging/Hotel Parking Summary
Required Parking per Code: 560 spaces
Provided Parking: 410
Observed Peak Parking Demand: 230
Observed Peak Parking Occupancy:
56% of provided
41% of required
Lodging/Hotel Parking – Embassy Suites/Hilton Garden Inn
26.8% reduction
35
36
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 63 of 69
7/26/2024
Residential Parking Summary
HB 24-1304: prohibits multifamily
residential parking minimums near transit
Effective June 30, 2025
Residential Parking Summary
MU-4,
RH-7
RH-3RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH-2,
RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR, IS,
IG, IM, P
RMX-2, MU-2, MH, IMSRR, RE, MU-1, MU-
3, BMS, DT, A, RH-6
Zone District Standard
0 1 1 1 1 Minimum number of off-street
parking spaces for a detached
dwelling unit (DU)
1 space
per DU
N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum number of off-
street parking spaces for an
attached DU or each unit of a
duplex
0 1 for 1-bedroom DU
1.5 for 2-bedroom DU
2 for 3-bedroom DU
3 for a 4 or more
bedroom DU
1 for 1-bedroom DU
1.5 for 2-bedroom DU
2 for 3-bedroom DU
3 for a 4 or more bedroomDU
1 for 1-or 2-bedroom DU
1.5 for 3-bedroom DU
2 for a 4 or more
bedroomDU
1 Minimum number of off-street
parking spaces for an attached
DU or each unit of a duplex
Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. Accessible space requirement
Table 9-1: RESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT AND UNIT TYPE
37
38
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 64 of 69
7/26/2024
14 sites observed in 2024
2,691 parking spaces
Peak time: Weekday Overnight
Average Parking Occupancy: 70%
Minimum Observed Occupancy: 47%
Maximum Observed Occupancy: 95%
Residential Parking Summary
Residential Parking Summary
52%
57%
47%
68%
83%
70%
90%
100%95%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
39
40
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 65 of 69
7/26/2024
13% reduction in occupancy compared to
2018/19
Average occupancy relatively unchanged
compared to 2014/16
Highest occupancy of all land uses
Residential Parking Summary
Residential Parking – Diagonal Crossing
Required Parking per Code: 591 spaces
Provided Parking: 482
Observed Peak Parking Demand: 325
Observed Peak Parking Occupancy:
67% of provided
55% of required
18.4% reduction
41
42
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 66 of 69
7/26/2024
Mixed Use Residential Parking Summary
41%41%38%
49%
70%
50%
57%
100%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum
Residential parking occupancy is lower in
mixed use projects
Average occupancy relatively unchanged
compared to 2014/16
Mixed Use Residential Parking Summary
43
44
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 67 of 69
7/26/2024
Overall Parking Trends
2024 Average Occupancy By Use
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Industrial Lodging Medical
Office
Mixed Use
- C
Mixed Use
- R
Office Residential RetailPercent Occupied45
46
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 68 of 69
7/26/2024
More parking is available than used at
peak times
Key Takeaways
Observed Amount of
Excess Parking Provided*
at Peak Times
Land Use
22% to 69%Retail
27% to 66%Office
14%Medical Office
40% to 50%Industrial
51% to 85%Lodging/Hotel
5% to 53%Residential
26% to 62%Mixed Use Residential
9% to 61%Mixed Use Commercial
*Not based on parking required by code
Projects that were granted parking
reductions from code minimum have
more parking than used at peak times
Key Takeaways
Amount
Excess
Parking
Provided
(%)
Maximum
Observed
Peak
Demand
Parking
Provided
Reduction
From
Code
Minimum
Code
Required
Land UseProject
126
18%59071624.0%825OfficeGoogle
Campus
180
44%23041026.8%560Lodging/
Hotel
Embassy
Suites
157
33%32548218.4%591ResidentialDiagonal
Crossing
47
48
Attachment D - Off-Street Parking Inventory
and Occupancy Data Summary
10.14.24 TAB Agenda 6 AMPS
Page 69 of 69