The URL can be used to link to this page

04.17.25 City Council Agenda M ayor Aaron Brockett Council M e mbe rs Taishya Adams Matt Benjamin Lauren Folkerts Tina Marquis Ryan Schuchard Nicole Speer Mark Wallach Tara Winer Council Chambers 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 April 17, 2025 6:00 PM City M anage r Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde City Attorne y Teresa Taylor Tate City Cle rk Elesha Johnson AGE NDA FOR T HE REGULAR MEE T ING OF T HE BOULDER CIT Y COUNCIL 1.C all to Order and Roll C all A.C onsideration of a motion to call an Executive Session of the C ity C ouncil pursuant to §24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S., concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; and §24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S., determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators 75 min B.Earth Day Declaration presented by Council M ember M arquis 10 min 2.Open C omment 3.C onsent Agenda A.Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder C ity C ouncil and convene as the Knollwood M etropolitan District Board of Directors; and Consideration of a motion to: (1) accept the Boulder C ounty District Court’s order of appointment of the Boulder City Council to serve as the K nollwood M etropolitan District Board of Directors; (2) adopt the B ylaws of the Knollwood M etropolitan District; and (3) designate, in addition to any other place where such notice may be posted, that notice of any public meeting of the B oard be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the P enfield Tate I I M unicipal Building located at 1777 B roadway, B oulder, C olorado 80302; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Knollwood M etropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Packet Page 1 of 568 Council. B .Consideration of a motion to accept the M arch 13th, 2025 Study S ession summary regarding the C ouncil Process Working Group Discussion C .Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an access and parking easement agreement conveying an access easement to the Housing Authority of the C ity of B oulder, the owner of a property generally located at 951 Arapahoe Avenue, over the city-owned S enior Center property at 909 Arapahoe Avenue in exchange for access and parking easements benefitting the city’s senior center and library property on Arapahoe Avenue D .Consideration of a motion to approve the conveyance of a perpetual non-exclusive easement to the M ountain View F ire Protection D istrict for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system and authorize the city manager to enter into and execute said easement E.Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with B oulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of 2043 P earl S treet, Boulder, C O, known as Arbor House F.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only O rdinance 8685 granting authority to the approving authority under T itle 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981 to grant a 9-year vesting period for the approved site specific development plan at 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Reviewed under case no. L UR2024-00036 G.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only O rdinance 8694, amending Sections 4-20-43, “Development Application F ees,” 8-6-6.5, “S mall Cell F acilities in the P ublic Right-of-Way Permits,” 9-6-4, “S pecific Use S tandards – P ublic and Institutional Uses,” and 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B .R.C . 1981, to align city code with federal law regarding local government permitting of wireless telecommunications facilities; and setting forth related details H.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only O rdinance 8695, amending Chapter 10-8.5, “Wildland Code,” B .R.C . 1981, to adopt by reference the 2024 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code C ouncil with certain amendments, and setting forth related details I.Consideration of a motion to accept the February 27, 2025, C ity Council M idterm Check-in S ummary 4.C all-Up Check-In A.Consideration of a S ite Review for the redevelopment of 2555 30th St. with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. T he proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and Packet Page 2 of 568 proposes 142 units including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units totaling 111,495 square feet. T he proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55’ in height, a request for a 6% parking reduction, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and building size (B M S ). T he proposal also includes an administrative amendment to T VAP. T he applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. L UR2024-00047 5.Public Hearings 6.M atters from the C ity M anager A.C ivic Area P lanning Analysis and E merging D esign Priorities 90 min - 20 min staff presentation/ 70 min council discussion 7.M atters from the C ity Attorney 8.M atters from the M ayor and M embers of Council 9.D iscussion Items 10.D ebrief 11.Adjournment 3:55 hrs Additional M aterials Presentations Item Updates Information Items A.Update on M arch 7th C hat with C ouncil B oards and Commissions D eclarations A.Celebrate Diversity M onth Declaration B .National Volunteer Appreciation Week D eclaration presented by M ayor P ro Tem Folkerts C .Arbor Day Declaration D .E aster D eclaration Heads Up! E mail Packet Page 3 of 568 This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on M unicipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m. Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting. Boulder 8 TV (Comc ast c hannels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with the television remote control. C losed c aptioning also is available on the live HD stream on B oulderChannel8.com. To activate the c aptioning service for the live stream, the "C C " button (whic h is loc ated at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is providing captioning services. The c ouncil c hambers is equipped with a T-C oil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speec h loss may c ontact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656. Anyone requiring special pac ket preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please request special pac ket preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call (303) 441-1905 at least three business day s prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o c ualquier otra ay uda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negoc ios dias antes de la junta. Send elec tronic presentations to email address: CityClerkS taff@bouldercolorado.gov no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. Packet Page 4 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to call an Executive Session of the C ity Council pursuant to §24-6- 402(4)(a), C.R.S., concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; and §24-6-402(4)(e), C .R.S., determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to call an Executive Session of the City C ouncil pursuant to §24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S., concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; and §24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S., determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators AT TAC H ME N T S: Description No Attachments Available Packet Page 5 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Earth Day Declaration presented by C ouncil Member Marquis P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description E arth Day Declaration Packet Page 6 of 568 Packet Page 7 of 568 Packet Page 8 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder C ity Council and convene as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; and C onsideration of a motion to: (1) accept the Boulder County District Court’s order of appointment of the Boulder City C ouncil to serve as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; (2) adopt the Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District; and (3) designate, in addition to any other place where such notice may be posted, that notice of any public meeting of the Board be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, C olorado 80302; and C onsideration of a motion to adjourn as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City C ouncil. P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Hella Pannewig, Senior C ounsel, 303.441.3020 Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney III, 303.441.3020 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adjourn as the Boulder City C ouncil and convene as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; and Motion to: (1) accept the Boulder County District Court’s order of appointment of the Boulder City C ouncil to serve as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; (2) adopt the Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District; and (3) designate, in addition to any other place where such notice may be posted, that notice of any public meeting of the Board be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, C olorado 80302; and Packet Page 9 of 568 Motion to adjourn as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder C ity Council. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3A - K nollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 10 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; and Consideration of a motion to: (1)accept the Boulder County District Court’s order of appointment of the Boulder City Council to serve as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; (2)adopt the Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District; and (3)designate, in addition to any other place where such notice may be posted, that notice of any public meeting of the Board be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Hella Pannewig, Senior Counsel Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney III Joel Wagner, Interim Chief Financial Officer Joe Taddeucci, Public Utilities Director Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 1 Packet Page 11 of 568 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2019, the city annexed just under 50 homes along the western border of the city in a subdivision called Knollwood. At the time, the Knollwood Metropolitan District (the “District”) served the residents of the subdivision by providing services such as water and street maintenance. As part of the annexation process, the city and the District entered into an intergovernmental agreement (the “Annexation IGA”) in which they agreed to dissolve the District by transferring the provision of the District’s services to the city and to limit the powers of the District following such transfer. The Annexation IGA states that the District shall be dissolved for all purposes except paying financial obligations and outstanding bonds of the District. The Annexation IGA also requires that upon such limited dissolution, the Boulder City Council serve as the Board of Directors of the District until all financial obligations and bonds are paid and the District can be finally dissolved. The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to officially accept the appointment, by the Boulder District Court, to serve as Board of Directors of the District, to adopt Bylaws for City Council’s operation as the Board, and, in compliance with state law, designate a place where notice of the Board’s meetings will be posted. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motions: Motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; and Motion to: (1) accept the Boulder County District Court’s order of appointment of the Boulder City Council to serve as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; (2) adopt the Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District; and (3) designate, in addition to any other place where such notice may be posted, that notice of any public meeting of the Board be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302; and Motion to adjourn as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 2 Packet Page 12 of 568 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – The city strives to provide services to its residents, such as water and traffic control. The city has already assumed water services and traffic control for the area of the District. The remaining, limited purpose of the District is payment of District debt and bonds. The outstanding debts will be paid through taxes (and potentially other charges) imposed on property owners within the boundaries of the District. City agreements with the District and a court order of the Boulder County District Court require that City Council serve as the Board of Directors for the District until its remaining limited purpose is fulfilled. • Environmental – The environmental impact of the City Council becoming the District Board and managing the limited District is negligible, if there is any such impact. The District is currently managed by a board of directors that consists of property owners within the District. • Social – The city has already transitioned the provision of water and traffic control services to the city. Taking over the management of the debt payments of the District will permit the city to eventually extinguish the District and be the sole provider of water and traffic services within the boundaries of the city. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – The District was formed many years ago to provide services and finance such services. Any outstanding financial obligations and debt of the District will be paid for by property owners within the District. Following annexation, the City assumed street maintenance responsibility and traffic enforcement within the area of the District consistent with such maintenance and enforcement occurring in other areas of the city. • Staff time – Processing of debt payments, preparation of a budget, and appropriating funds for the District will be included in the normal staff work plans, and the Boulder City Council, operating as the Board for the District, has the option to hire consultants to assist with such work. Costs associated therewith would be costs of the District. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. Note that the dissolution of the District required an election by District electors. A vast majority of District electors who voted in the dissolution election voted to dissolve the District. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 3 Packet Page 13 of 568 BACKGROUND In 1965, the Knollwood Water District was formed to provide the properties within the District with water services. In 2015, the Boulder District Court approved converting the water district to a metropolitan district to provide additional services. The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County approved an Amended Statement of Purposes for the District in December of 2015, which added street improvements and safety protection through traffic and safety controls and devices to the types of services and facilities to be provided by the District. In 2019, the City of Boulder annexed 47 homes, known as the Knollwood Subdivisions, along with the properties at 150 Green Rock Drive (which is not part of the District) and 2285 Knollwood Drive. The general location of the annexed Knollwood Subdivisions is provided on the map below (Note that 150 Green Rock Drive is not part of the District.): In the Annexation IGA the City Council and District agreed that the city would provide water service and manage the public streets as part of Boulder’s municipal services. The parties collaborated in the construction of water mains to connect the Knollwood properties to the city’s water utility. The parties also agreed to limit the District’s services and, following connection to the city’s water utility, to seek a court order dissolving the District, so that the District’s sole remaining function would be payment of the District’s outstanding financial obligations and bonds. The District has two outstanding financial obligations: (1) a $500,000 general obligation loan that was issued in 2017 and matures on December 1, 2031, and (2) a $2,270,000 general obligation loan that matures on December 1, 2039. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 4 Packet Page 14 of 568 Following annexation and connection to the city’s water system, the city now provides the District’s properties with water services and manages the public streets as part of the Boulder municipal systems, which were the essential services provided by the District, and the District has proceeded with the District dissolution process. At a special council meeting on October 10, 2024, City Council approved the execution of another intergovernmental agreement, see Attachment A to the October 10, 2024, special meeting packet linked above, setting forth the agreed upon District dissolution process (“Dissolution IGA”) and the steps involved in the transfer of management of the District from the current board of directors to the City Council. State law establishes the dissolution process for metropolitan districts in C.R.S. §§ 32-1-701 to 710. This process requires an election by the District’s electors. An election was held on February 4, 2025, and a majority of the voters approved the dissolution of the District (by a vote of 36:2). On March 13, 2025, the Boulder County District Court entered an order dissolving the District for all purposes except payment of financial obligations and outstanding bonds of the District. The court’s order can be found in Attachment A to this agenda item. Consistent with both state law and the intergovernmental agreements between the District and the city, the Court also ordered that City Council serve as the Board of Directors for the District. The Dissolution IGA anticipates that the City Council will begin to act as the Board of the District within four weeks after recording the court’s order of dissolution. With this appointment, each council member becomes an Ex Officio Director of the District. ANALYSIS Now that the District Court has ordered the City Council to serve as the Board of the District, staff recommend that the City Council consider adopting a motion to: (1) accept the Boulder County District Court’s order of appointment of the Boulder City Council to serve as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; (2) adopt the Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District; and (3) designate, in addition to any other place where such notice may be posted, that notice of any public meeting of the Board be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Acceptance of Appointment to Serve as Board of the District A motion to accept the court’s appointment of City Council will accept the court’s order and accept the council’s obligations as set forth in the Annexation IGA to act as Board of Directors for the District. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 5 Packet Page 15 of 568 Adoption of Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District Staff recommends adoption of the proposed Bylaws of the Knollwood Metropolitan District (the “Bylaws”) which can be found in Attachment B to this agenda item. The Bylaws are intended to regulate the council’s organization as the District’s Board and ensure compliance with a variety of legal requirements associated with the organization and management of a metropolitan district board. The Bylaws are also intended to help minimize the need for Board action by appointing ex officio officers of the Board consistent with state law requirements. If the Bylaws are adopted, the mayor will be ex officio chairperson and president of the Board and District, and the mayor pro tem will be ex officio vice chairperson and treasurer. The Bylaws appoint an executive director to have general supervision and administration of the District’s affairs and authority to delegate his or her executive director powers. In the absence of another appointment, the Bylaws appoint the city manager of the City of Boulder as executive director. In addition to establishing officers and delegations for the management of the District’s affairs, the Bylaws establish procedures for the meetings of the Board to meet applicable state law requirements. Finally, the Bylaws incorporate the budget process for the District. The budget process is also regulated by state law. Adoption of an annual budget, appropriations, and setting a mill levy will be the main tasks the council will have as the Board of the District, with the District’s sole remaining purpose being the payment of outstanding financial obligations and bonds. Some legal requirements when acting as the District Board may differ from those that apply to council meetings and actions. For example, Board Directors are subject to the state’s conduct for local government officials. Designation of the Penfield Tate Bulleting Board as Place to Post Meeting Notices Finally, to meet Colorado Open Meetings Law requirements, staff recommend that the City Council designate the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located on the southwest corner of Broadway and Canyon as the place where notice of any public meeting of the Board be posted. NEXT STEPS If the Bylaws are adopted, the city manager, as executive director, will further delegate the management of the District to city staff and start managing the affairs of the District consistent with the Bylaws. ATTACHMENTS A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 6 Packet Page 16 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 7 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 17 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 8 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 18 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 9 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 19 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 10 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 20 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 11 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 21 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 12 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 22 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 13 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 23 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 14 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 24 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 15 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 25 of 568 Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 16 Attachment A – Boulder County District Court Limited Dissolution Order Packet Page 26 of 568 Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District ARTICLE I AUTHORITY Section 1.1. Authority. The Knollwood Metropolitan District (the “District”) is a quasi- municipal corporation, and a political subdivision of the state of Colorado organized and operating pursuant to Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Act”). Section 1.2. History. The District was formed in 1965 as Knollwood Water District to provide the District’s residents with water services and was converted to a metropolitan district in 2015 to also provide street improvements and traffic and safety controls. As provided in the Amended Statement of Purposes dated October 9, 2015, the conversion was approved by the Boulder District Court on December 17, 2015, in Case No. 1965CV018489. On October 3, 2019, the properties within the District were annexed to the city of Boulder pursuant to Ordinance 8348. As a requirement of annexation, the owners of the District properties had to use their best efforts to obtain a court order, pursuant to Section § 32-1-101, C.R.S., dissolving the District to assimilate services of the area with the city. In addition, the District and the City of Boulder entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Annexation and Transition of Municipal Services dated April 15, 2019, pursuant to which the city agreed to construct, and the District finance, certain water and street improvements to enable the city to provide water for domestic purposes to the properties within the District as well as street and traffic services. Following the construction of these improvements, the city commenced water utility service and street and traffic services to the properties within the District and the District initiated dissolution proceedings pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 32-1-701 to 710, for all purposes except as necessary to adequately provide for the repayment of the District’s financial obligations and debt. On February 4, 2025, District electors voted to dissolve the District at a special election. Following the election, the Boulder County District Court ordered on March 13, 2025, the limited dissolution of the District and that the City Council for the City of Boulder (“City Council”) serve as the Board of Directors for the District. Section 1.3. Limited Purpose. The District is a metropolitan district pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 32-1-101 et seq., as amended, with the limited purposes of payment of financial obligations and outstanding bonds. Section 1.4. Office. The principal office of the District shall be located in the city of Boulder, Colorado. The Board may at any time and from time to time change the location of its principal office. The current principal office address is 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 17 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 27 of 568 ARTICLE II OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL Section 2.1. Board of Directors. Per Boulder District Court order, dated March 13, 2025, the governing body of the City of Boulder shall serve as the Board of the District to perform the duties associated with the purpose of payment of financial obligations and outstanding bonds. The members of the City Council are therefore ex officio appointed to the Board and each such member a Director of the Board. The terms of office of such Directors shall be coterminous with their terms of office on the City Council. Section 2.2. Oath of Office. Each Director, within 30 days of commencement of the Director ’s City Council term, except for good cause shown, shall take an oath or affirmation in accordance with C.R.S. § 24-12-101. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-901, the oath shall be filed with the Clerk of the District Court and the Division of Local Government in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. At the time of filing the oath, at the expense of the District, each Director shall file a performance bond, for the faithful performance of such Director’s duties, in the sum of no less than $1,000 with the Clerk of the District Court. The Board’s Treasurer shall file a corporate fidelity bond in the amount of not less than $5,000, conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties of the Treasurer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, instead of providing these bonds, the District may obtain crime insurance for its Directors and Officers to protect the District from any dishonesty, theft, or fraud by the person, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-14-102. Such insurance must be purchased from an insurance provider licensed in the state of Colorado and evidence thereof provided to the Clerk of the District Court. Section 2.3. Compensation. No Director may be compensated for serving in the capacity of a Director of the Board; except that they are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable and necessary expenses, including travel expenses, incurred in the discharge of their duties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City Council members may be compensated as set forth in the Charter of the City of Boulder and Boulder Revised Code for meetings of the City Council and for service as members of the City Council. Section 2.4. Officers. The Officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson who shall be the Chairperson of the Board and President of the District, a Vice Chairperson who shall be the Vice Chairperson of the Board and Vice President of the District, a Treasurer who shall be the Treasurer of the Board and the District, and a Secretary of the Board. Section 2.5. Chairperson. The Mayor of the City of Boulder shall serve ex officio as Chairperson of the Board. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Board. Section 2.6. Vice Chairperson. The Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Boulder shall serve ex officio as Vice Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson; and in the case of vacancy of the office of the Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 18 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 28 of 568 Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chairperson until the vacancy is filled Section 2.7. Temporary Chairperson. In the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson, the remaining Directors shall select a member from among those present to perform the duties of the Chairperson at any meeting of the Board. Section 2.8. Treasurer. The Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Boulder shall serve ex officio as Treasurer of the Board and District. The Treasurer shall keep strict and accurate accounts of all money received by and disbursed for and on behalf of the District in the permanent records of the District. The duties and all powers of the Treasurer are provided and delegated to the Executive Director. Section 2.9. Executive Director. The Board shall appoint an Executive Director who shall serve for such term as the Board may establish. The Executive Director shall: a) have general supervision over the administration of the affairs and business of the District subject to the direction of the Board; b) have the care and custody of all funds of the District and shall deposit the same in the name of the District in such bank or banks as the Executive Director may select; c) sign all orders and checks for the payment of money and shall pay out and disburse moneys under the direction of the Board; d) keep regular books of account showing receipts and expenditures and also of the financial condition of the District; e) designate in writing the person or persons to perform their duties hereunder in their absence; f) delegate the Executive Director’s powers; g) have authority to enter into and execute contracts on behalf of the District; and h) have any other powers from time to time as may be assigned by the Board. In the absence of an appointment of an Executive Director to the contrary, the Board hereby appoints the city manager of the City of Boulder, Colorado, to oversee the day-to-day operations of the District with all of the powers provided and delegated to the Executive Director by the Board. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 19 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 29 of 568 Section 2.10. Secretary. The Executive Director shall also serve ex officio as Secretary of the Board. In that capacity, the Executive Director shall: a) keep or cause to be kept correct and permanent records of the District, including, without limitation, certificates, contracts, bonds given by employees, and all corporate acts; b) keep in visual text format, that may be transmitted electronically, a record of all the Board’s proceedings; c) keep the minutes of the proceedings of the Board; d) see that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these By- Laws and as required by law; e) be custodian of all records of the District; f) keep in safe custody the seal of the Board; and g) in general, perform all duties incident to the office of Secretary and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to the Secretary by the Board. In the event the Executive Director/Secretary role is vacant, the Chairperson shall assign these duties to a designee. The Secretary may designate in writing the person or persons to perform on their behalf the duties hereunder. Section 2.11. Legal Counsel for the District. In the absence of an appointment of legal counsel to the contrary, the Board appoints the City Attorney’s Office of the City of Boulder as the legal counsel. The Board or Executive Director may also employ an attorney or attorneys licensed to practice in the state of Colorado to provide legal counsel to the Board and the Executive Director on issues relating to Special District Law and other general and special legal matters of interest to the Board and the Executive Director. Section 2.12. Personnel. The Board or the Executive Director may from time-to-time employ personnel considered necessary to exercise the District’s powers, duties, and functions in accordance with the purpose of the District. The selection and compensation of such personnel is determined by the Executive Director, subject to all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. ARTICLE III MEETINGS Section 3.1. Regular Meetings. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held in the City Council Chambers of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 in person, in a virtual format, or a combination thereof at such a time as designated by the Board. The Board may from time to time, with advanced notice, designate a different regular physical location for its meetings. The Board may provide by resolution the time and place for the holding of additional regular meetings. In the absence of a regular meeting time, the Board shall conduct its business by way of special meetings. Section 3.2. Special Meetings. Any Director or the Executive Director may call a special meeting of the Board for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the notice thereof. Special meetings include study sessions. The written notice for the special meeting must be delivered to each Director, served by mail, personally, or through electronic communication at least 24 hours prior to the special hearing. The notice shall include the date, time, and location of Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 20 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 30 of 568 the special meeting and the purpose of which it is called and shall comply with the requirements of these bylaws and the requirements of C.R.S. § 32-1-903(2), as amended. Section 3.3. Annual Meeting. There shall be an annual meeting of the Board consistent with C.R.S. § 32-1-903(6) where the Board will not take any official action and that includes: a) a presentation from the District regarding the status of outstanding bonds, if any; b) a review of unaudited financial statements showing the year-to-date revenue and expenditures of the District in relation to its adopted budget, as amended if applicable, for that calendar year; and c) an opportunity for members of the public to speak and ask questions of the District. Section 3.4. Open Meetings. All official business of the Board must be conducted only during meetings at which a quorum is in attendance, although a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. All meetings of the Board must be open to the public with exceptions for executive session. Section 3.5. Notice. Notice of time and location of a meeting shall be in accordance with the requirements of C.R.S. § 24-6-402. In addition to any other place where notice may be posted, the notice shall be posted on the bulletin board in the first-floor lobby of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Unless a different place is identified at the Board’s first regular meeting of the calendar year, this shall be the designated place of notice. The notice of any meeting held virtually and does not include physical presence must include the method or procedure, including the conference number or link, by which members of the public can attend the meeting. The posted notice for any regular or special meeting at which the Board intends to make a final determination to issue or refund general obligation indebtedness, to dissolve the District, to file a plan for the adjustment of debt under federal bankruptcy law, or to enter into a private contract with a Director, or not to make a scheduled bond payment, shall set forth such proposed action. Section 3.6. Quorum. A majority of the elected members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the Board. The Directors present at a duly organized meeting may continue to transact business until adjournment, only so long as a quorum is present. If less than a majority of elected City Council members is present at a meeting, a majority of the Directors so present may adjourn the meeting from time to time without further notice. At any such adjourned meetings of which a quorum shall be present, any business may be transacted which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally called. If a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority shall decide any questions that may come before the meeting except as might otherwise be provided herein or by law. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 21 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 31 of 568 Section 3.7. Rules of Order. Except as provided herein or as advised by the District’s legal counsel, all matters of procedure are governed by the then current Robert’s Rules of Order except when a majority of the Board votes to suspend said Rules, or when such Rules may be in conflict with these Bylaws or the laws of the state of Colorado. ARTICLE IV FINANCES Section 4.1. Annual Budget. Each year, the Board shall consider and approve by resolution a budget based upon recommendations submitted by the Executive Director. The Board shall provide a public comment period during the meeting at which the Board adopts the annual budget for the District as required by and meeting the requirements of C.R.S. § 29-1-103, et seq. a) Budget. On or before October 15 of each year, the Executive Director shall prepare and submit to the Board a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year. Such proposed budget shall be accompanied by a statement that shall describe the important features of the budget plan and by a general summary which shall set forth the aggregate figures of the budget in such a manner as to show the balanced relations between the total proposed expenditures and the total anticipated income or other means of financing the proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year, as contrasted with the corresponding figures for the last completed fiscal year and the current fiscal year. b) Notice of Budget Hearing. The Executive Director shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation a notice regarding the proposed budget that meets the requirements of C.R.S. § 29-1-106, as amended, and contains the following information: i. The date, time, and location of the hearing at which the adoption of the proposed budget will be considered; ii. A statement that the proposed budget is available for inspection by the public at a designated public office; and iii. A statement that any interested elector of the District may file any objection to the proposed budget at any time prior to the final adoption of the budget by the Board. c) Budget Hearing and Adoption. The Board shall hold a hearing and consider the proposed budget. Any objections of electors shall be considered at that time. The Board shall review and revise, alter, increase or decrease items as it deems necessary in view of the needs and probable income of the District. Adoption of the proposed budget shall be effective only upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board. Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 22 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 32 of 568 d) Appropriation. At the time the Board adopts the budget, no later than December 31 of the current fiscal year, the Board shall enact a resolution making appropriations for the budget year. The amounts appropriated shall not exceed the expenditures specified in the budget. The budget and appropriations must be adopted and made prior to certification of the mill levy pursuant to state law. Appropriations shall be made by fund or by spending agencies within a fund. e) Amendments. Changes to the budget or appropriations after adoption may be made pursuant to the standards therefore set forth under state law. Section 4.2. Charges and Annual Mill Levy. The Board shall set rates, tolls, fees, or charges and certify to the Board of County Commissioners for Boulder County the amount of revenue to be raised by the annual mill levy of the District necessary for payment of the District’s financial obligations. Section 4.3. Effective Date. The annual budget, the appropriation of funds, and the certification of the mill levy are effective upon adoption. Section 4.4. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the District shall be the calendar year. Section 4.5. Expenditures Not to Exceed Appropriation. The Board and no Officer of the District has authority to expend, enter into any contract, or otherwise bind the District to expend any money or incur any liability in excess of the amounts appropriated. Multi-year contracts may be entered into where allowed by law or subject to annual appropriation. Section 4.6. Filing of Budget. No later than 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year, the Executive Director shall cause a certified copy of the adopted annual budget, including the budget message, to be filed with the Division of Local Government in the Department of Local Affairs. The filing shall include a copy of any resolutions adopting the annual budget, appropriating monies, and fixing the rate of any mill levy. Section 4.7. Audit and Audit Exemption. The Board or Executive Director shall cause an annual audit to be made of each fiscal year of all financial affairs of the District through December 31 in accordance with the requirements of state law unless an application for an exemption is filed and an exemption has been granted by the state auditor pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-1-604, as amended. The audit report shall be completed no later than June 30 of each year. The Executive Director shall maintain a copy of the audit report for the District as a public record subject to public inspection at reasonable times at the principal office of the Board. The Executive Director shall forward a copy of the audit report to the state auditor within 30 days of completion of the audit report. Section 4.8. Conflict of Interest. Any Director shall disqualify themselves from voting on any matter in which the Director has a conflict of interest unless the Director has disclosed such conflict to the secretary of state and to the Board in compliance with C.R.S. § 18-8-308, and the Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 23 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 33 of 568 Director’s participation is necessary to obtain a quorum or otherwise enable the Board to act. A Director with a conflict of interest who does not vote on a matter shall also refrain from discussing the matter with other Directors or attempting to influence the decisions of other Directors in voting on the matter. Directors are subject to and shall act consistent with the standards of conduct established for local government officials in Article 18 of Title 24, C.R.S. ARTICLE V AMENDMENTS AND SUSPENSIONS OF BYLAWS Section 5.1. Amendments to Bylaws. The Bylaws of the District may be amended or suspended in the Board’s sole discretion upon a majority vote of the Board at any regular meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose. Section 5.2. Conflicts with Law. If any part of these Bylaws conflicts with any applicable laws, the law shall supersede the Bylaws in conflict therewith. ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS Section 6.1. Severability. The invalidity of any provision of these Bylaws shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and in such event these Bylaws shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid provision were omitted. Section 6.2. Headings. Descriptive headings are for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or construction of any provision herein. Executed this 17th day of April 2025. _________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Chairperson and President Knollwood Metropolitan District ATTEST: _______________________________ Secretary Item 3A - Knollwood Metropolitan District Page 24 Attachment B – Bylaws of Knollwood Metropolitan District Packet Page 34 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the March 13th, 2025 Study Session summary regarding the C ouncil Process Working Group Discussion P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to accept the March 13th, 2025 Study Session summary regarding the Council Process Working Group Discussion AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3B - Consideration of a motion to accept the March 13th, 2025 Study Session summary regarding the Council P rocess Working Group Discussion Packet Page 35 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept the March 13, 2025, study session summary regarding the City Council Process Working Group. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council Process Improvement Group determined a list of 15 process improvement priorities for staff and council consideration and potential implementation. Several of these items required immediate full body direction before staff could move forward. For this agenda item, city staff provided background on the operation of the City Council Process Working Group, described six process improvement items that required full council direction, and sought direction on those items. ANALYSIS Council provided the following comments and direction on the six process improvement items before them on March 13th. 1. Mayor Pro Tem Elections Council discussion on this item centered on whether to formalize longstanding, unwritten criteria by which council members elect the Mayor Pro Tem (MPT) in council procedure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the March 13, 2025, study session summary regarding the City Council Process Working Group Item 3B - Motion to accept 3/13/25 Study Session Summary re: Council Process Working Group 1 Packet Page 36 of 568 A majority of council members indicated support for a proposal by Council Member Speer to formalize these criteria with the intention of making MPT elections fairer and more predictable. Council Member Speer’s proposal, as submitted via Hotline prior to the meeting, is outlined below: 1. The starting point is that the MPT is the longest-serving Councilmember who has not yet served as MPT and is willing to serve as MPT. 2. If more than one member of Council meets the criteria in (1), those Councilmembers should send an email via Hotline expressing their interest in being entered into a random selection process at least one week before the MPT selection meeting. 3. At the MPT selection meeting, a random selection process chooses the MPT (e.g., the process used to randomly select open comment speakers when >20 people sign up). 4. In a case where the longest-serving Councilmember(s) who haven't yet served as MPT do not wish to be MPT, there are two possible scenarios: a. There is at least one Councilmember who qualifies as the next-longest- serving Councilmember, hasn't yet served as MPT, and is willing to serve as MPT. In this case, restart the process at (1) with that/those Councilmember/s. b. Every Councilmember who is willing to serve as MPT has served one term as MPT and is willing to serve a second term. In this case, any Councilmembers who have not yet served two terms as MPT and are willing to serve as MPT would proceed to steps (2) and (3). Should a scenario ever arise where every Councilmember who is willing to serve as MPT has already served two terms, the same process could apply in moving people to third or more terms. While a majority of council members indicated support for exploring the above proposal, several members expressed concern over whether the individual selected by a randomized process would ultimately possess the facilitation and organizational skills that would make them the most qualified council member for the role. Additionally, concern was expressed about the use of tenure as one criterion by which the MPT would qualify for random selection. Staff next steps: The City Attorney’s Office will draft a new process for MPT elections using the above outline as a guide, and council will be asked to evaluate and vote on the new process at a future meeting. 2. Landmark Reviews Council members discussed whether to consider process changes that would result in landmark reviews taking less council time at regular meetings. Ultimately, council did Item 3B - Motion to accept 3/13/25 Study Session Summary re: Council Process Working Group 2 Packet Page 37 of 568 not express interest in reducing the number of items that currently require council review. Some council members expressed support for staff to explore changes to historic preservation processes, as anticipated to be a result of the update to the Historic Preservation Plan scheduled to occur later this year. Staff next steps: None at this time. 3. Council Employee Performance Reviews Council was asked to consider whether to formalize a process that ensures all nine council members evaluate each of the three council employees during the annual employee review process. The conversation centered around how to enforce any such process given council’s status as a self-regulating body. Three primary themes emerged from the discussion: 1. Some council members shared that they would benefit from better getting to know the three council employees so that they feel more comfortable providing accurate and comprehensive performance reviews. 2. While council did not seem interested in formalizing mandatory participation in performance reviews in council procedure, several members supported the idea of sharing the names of council members who do not complete reviews publicly at council meetings. 3. Several members of council expressed interest in using executive session to conduct performance reviews. Because this was not on the table for discussion at the March 13th study session as part of this item, pursuing this idea would require further full council discussion. Council next steps: The Council Employee Evaluation Committee (CEEC) will consider the above themes and discuss ways to facilitate and encourage council member and employee interaction. They will discuss different options for encouraging participation in employee performance reviews and will bring them back to council for consideration at a future meeting. 4. Use of Community Member Email Addresses Council defined the crux of this issue as the practice of collecting email addresses in one’s official capacity as a council member and adding them, without the consent of the address holder, to personal or campaign-related newsletters. A majority of council members expressed interest in codifying a policy that formally prohibits this behavior. Importantly, council members distinguished inappropriately adding email addresses to newsletter campaigns from communicating with community members one-on-one to discuss issues of mutual concern and build trust between government and community. Item 3B - Motion to accept 3/13/25 Study Session Summary re: Council Process Working Group 3 Packet Page 38 of 568 Staff next steps: The City Attorney’s Office will draft rules prohibiting council members from adding email addresses gained in their official capacity as elected officials to personal or campaign-related newsletters without the consent of the address holder. Council will consider this change to procedure at a future meeting. 5.Opportunities for Council Members to share ceremonial responsibilities and cover CAC absences Current council procedure outlines that the mayor shall, when possible, share ceremonial responsibilities among council members. It similarly outlines a process for appointing council members to vacant Council Agenda Committee (CAC) seats when members of the committee are absent. Council procedure does not currently define a role for city staff in administering the sharing of ceremonial and other responsibilities among council members. Council discussed whether to formalize a different process by which the mayor might share these responsibilities and whether staff would be responsible for administering a new process. Generally, council members did not indicate interest in administering a new process due to timing and other logistical constraints, with the exception of a small language change to revise “whenever possible” to “when the mayor is unavailable, the mayor shall…” in council procedure. Even though council did not support developing and administering a new formal process, the mayor and council members discussed the following requests of one another: The Mayor asked council members to share the types of speaking events they would be interested in covering so that he has a better understanding of which opportunities to delegate and to whom. Council members seemed interested in learning more about when and where the mayor is speaking on behalf of the city. Council members supported using an uncodified process to provide structure to appointments for CAC absences. Several people suggested setting deadlines by which council members share their interest in filling in on CAC before the mayor appoints a substitute to avoid a “first come first served” approach when absences are known at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Staff next steps: The City Attorney’s Office will draft the suggested changes to the council procedure. Staff will pursue options to support the informal process of providing a deadline for council members to express interest in serving as CAC substitute before the mayor appoints the substitute. 6. Declarations Item 3B - Motion to accept 3/13/25 Study Session Summary re: Council Process Working Group 4 Packet Page 39 of 568 The majority of council supported a comprehensive staff review and redesign of the council declaration process for council review at a future meeting. In the interim while staff are reviewing and drafting proposed revisions for council consideration, council members supported the following: Proceed with reading declarations that have been recently scheduled by CAC. This includes March and April, 2025, declarations as well as the currently unscheduled Declaration Condemning Anti-Muslim Hate. Staff will provide CAC with a list of declarations that community members expect council to read aloud based on prior years’ experience. CAC will evaluate the list and determine which declarations to read aloud and which to convert to issue only. Assume, until council adopts a redesigned declaration process, that all declaration requests approved by the Mayor are to be issued only, not read aloud, unless a scheduling request is made and CAC determines that a declaration should be read aloud. Staff next steps: Staff will work on a comprehensive evaluation and redesign of the declaration process for council review at a future meeting. Given staff capacity constraints, this work may not be completed until Q3 2025. NEXT STEPS Next steps for staff and council related to each of the six items above are described in the analysis section. Staff will continue working on the remaining process improvements recommended for consideration by the City Council Process Working Group that council did not consider at its March 13th Study Session. ATTACHMENTS A – Full List of 15 Process Improvement Priorities Item 3B - Motion to accept 3/13/25 Study Session Summary re: Council Process Working Group 5 Packet Page 40 of 568 Attachment A – Full List of 15 Process Improvement Priorities (in priority order) -Note: The items are phrased as problem statements to be addressed by the appropriate staff and council committees. The abbreviation “CM” or “CMs” stands for “council member(s)” Item No annual board/performance evaluation for council as a body Scope and intent of council research requests not always clear / CMs do not always follow nod of 3/nod of 5 procedure CMs not required to take Right Use of Power training Declarations during meetings take too long & Declaration procedure not clearly defined or in alignment with council rules CMs do not consistently follow rules of procedure No specific hotline submission guidelines & Hotlines sent without adequate time for council and staff review Mayor Pro Tem election norms and informal criteria not formalized in council procedure Council committees do not have charters or workplans Videos and presentations during open comment are logistically difficult and disruptive Landmark reviews take too much meeting time Not all CMs participate in council employee performance review questionnaires No formal guidelines for CAC requests from CMs Concern about improper use of information gained in official capacity (especially community email addresses) Public speaking opportunities at city events not equitably available to all CMs & CAC absences & fill-in opportunities not equitably available to all CMs Variability in CM meeting facilitation skills and comfort Item 3B - Motion to accept 3/13/25 Study Session Summary re: Council Process Working Group 6 Attachment A – Full List of 15 Process Improvement Priorities (in priority order) Packet Page 41 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an access and parking easement agreement conveying an access easement to the Housing Authority of the C ity of Boulder, the owner of a property generally located at 951 Arapahoe Avenue, over the city- owned Senior C enter property at 909 Arapahoe Avenue in exchange for access and parking easements benefitting the city’s senior center and library property on Arapahoe Avenue P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Michele C rane Facilities and Fleet Deputy Director 303-441-4275 C raneM@bouldercolorado.gov RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an access and parking easement agreement conveying an access easement to the Housing Authority of the C ity of Boulder, the owner of a property generally located at 951 Arapahoe Avenue, over the city-owned Senior C enter property at 909 Arapahoe Avenue in exchange for access and parking easements benefitting the city’s senior center and library property on Arapahoe Avenue B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M No prior history I S T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T O N T HE C O U N C I L WORK P L AN? N/A H AS T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T B E E N B U D GE T E D? N/A AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and P arking E asement Packet Page 42 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an access and parking easement agreement conveying an access easement to the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, the owner of a property generally located at 951 Arapahoe Avenue, over the city- owned Senior Center property at 909 Arapahoe Avenue in exchange for access and parking easements benefiting the city’s senior center and library property on Arapahoe Avenue. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Michele Crane, Facilities and Fleet Deputy Director Hella Pannewig, Senior Counsel EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to Section 2-2-8, “Conveyance of City Real Property Interests,” B.R.C. 1981, City Council approval is required for conveyance of any interest in any city real property. The purpose of this memo is for council’s consideration of a motion to authorize the execution of an access and parking easement agreement (“Agreement”) which is attached as Attachment A to this memorandum. The Agreement would grant an access easement to the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, d/b/a Boulder Housing Partners (“BHP”), the owner of the property known generally as Arapahoe Court at 951 Arapahoe Avenue (“Arapahoe Court”) over the city-owned senior center property at 909 Arapahoe Avenue (“Senior Center Property”). The Senior Center is also known as the West Age Well Center. Access would be granted through the Senior Center parking lot to the parking spaces on the northern side of Arapahoe Court. In the Agreement, BHP would also grant the city easements to access the west side of the City of Boulder library property (“Library Property”) at 1011 Arapahoe Avenue and rights to use five of the Arapahoe Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 1 Packet Page 43 of 568 Court parking spaces. The Agreement would formalize an informal shared access and parking arrangement that has existed for many years. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS Economic – The granting of an access easement to BHP will make Arapahoe Court a marketable property. Arapahoe Court does not currently have any other way to access the parking spaces on its property. The easement will also allow the city to continue to use the Arapahoe Court property for access, delivery and maintenance purposes associated with the Senior Center Property and Library Property as well as use of five parking spaces on the Arapahoe Court property. Environmental – No environmental impacts are anticipated from the Agreement. The access and parking arrangement that is being formalized has existed for many years. The Agreement does not involve any physical change to the properties involved. Social – Formalizing an agreement for the Senior Center’s use of the parking spaces provides direct access for older adults who would otherwise be unable to access the center if they had to park further away. OTHER IMPACTS Fiscal – No budgetary impacts to the city organization are anticipated. Staff time – This work was performed as part of the normal work plan for the Facilities and Fleet division. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an access and parking easement agreement conveying an access easement to the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, the owner of a property generally located at 951 Arapahoe Avenue, over the city-owned Senior Center Property at 909 Arapahoe Avenue in exchange for access and parking easements benefiting the city’s senior center and library property on Arapahoe Avenue. Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 2 Packet Page 44 of 568 PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND The Arapahoe Court property is located between the Boulder public library and the city’s Senior Center Property. Arapahoe Court was built in the early 1950s and became one of BHP’s first properties in the 1970s. Until recently, BHP operated Arapahoe Court as public housing for people who are disabled or are over 62 years old with limited income. The property is in need of renovations. BHP had planned to invest in the property and perform major renovations; however, its location in the 100-year floodplain disqualifies it from being renovated with HUD funding. Considering these constraints, BHP has determined that it is in its best interest to dispose of the Arapahoe Court asset and use the proceeds of the sale to build additional affordable housing elsewhere. Figure 1 shows the current development of the Senior Center Property, Arapahoe Court, and the Library Property. The properties have been developed in the current configuration and have shared access drives for many decades. The shared use has never been formalized through written easements or other agreements. Figure 1 – Map of Senior Center Property, BHP Arapahoe Court, and Library Property BHP is planning to sell Arapahoe Court. Currently, Arapahoe Court’s parking spaces are accessible only through the Senior Center parking lot. To render Arapahoe Court marketable, BHP desires to formalize the previously informal access arrangement through the granting of an easement. The proposed Agreement would also secure the city’s use of five Arapahoe Court parking spaces to provide parking for visitors to the Senior Center Property and access to the west side of the Library Property through the BHP Property as currently developed and used. Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 3 Packet Page 45 of 568 ANALYSIS Access easement for the benefit of BHP’s 951-953 Arapahoe Avenue property (Arapahoe Court) If approved, the city would grant BHP an access easement from Arapahoe Avenue over the Senior Center Property to Arapahoe Court. Arapahoe Court is currently developed such that the only access to the Arapahoe Court parking area is through the Senior Center Property. However, no easement has been expressly granted for such access. The access and parking easement agreement would grant such easement securing access through the Senior Center Property. The easement would allow for access through established drives on the Senior Center Property that the City may from time to time relocate. The BHP access easement will automatically extinguish if Arapahoe Court is redeveloped in a manner that would reasonably allow for direct vehicular access to be created to the existing parking area on Arapahoe Court or a differently designed parking area. The easement runs with the land and would benefit future owners of Arapahoe Court. Access easements and parking easement to the benefit of the city The proposed access and parking easement agreement would also grant access and parking rights over the Arapahoe Court property to the city. Pursuant to an informal arrangement, the users of the Senior Center have for many years been able to use several Arapahoe Court parking spaces. In addition, the city uses the current access drive across the Arapahoe Court property for deliveries and to access and service a sewage facility on the Library Property. This access through Arapahoe Court is currently the only feasible access to service the sewage facility of the Library Property. The current access drive partially crosses the Arapahoe Court property. In exchange for the access rights over the Senior Center drives, BHP would grant to the city access easements and a parking easement for use of 5 Arapahoe Court parking spaces by Senior Center users. The city easements will automatically terminate upon occurrence of certain situations, including, for the access easement, redevelopment allowing for unobstructed use of a 14-foot alley connecting the Senior Center Property to the Library Property. The parking easement will automatically terminate upon significant redevelopment of Arapahoe Court or change of use, sale, or significant redevelopment of the Senior Center Property. The city’s parking needs in this area are associated specifically with the Senior Center use and the parking needs of the less mobile population that visits the Senior Center. The parking spaces subject to the city parking easement and the city access easement are depicted in Figure 2. Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 4 Packet Page 46 of 568 Figure 2 – Map of city parking spaces and city access easement The easements may also be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. In light of the parcel pattern in the area and interrelated current development, it is likely that the city and any future property owner of Arapahoe Court will seek conversations with each other when planning redevelopment of their properties to discuss future access and parking design and arrangements. Staff recommends that city council approve the motion authorizing execution of the Agreement. NEXT STEPS If city council approves execution of the Agreement, the next step would be execution of the Agreement by BHP and the city manager, followed by recording of the Agreement ATTACHMENT Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 5 Packet Page 47 of 568 After recording, return to: For Administrative Purposes Only Boulder Housing Partners Property Address: 951-963 Arapahoe Ave. 4800 Broadway Grantor: The Housing Authority of the Boulder, CO 80304 City of Boulder, d/b/a Boulder Housing Partners City of Boulder, Colorado Grantee: City of Boulder, Colorado The Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, d/b/a Boulder Housing Partners ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT (Arapahoe Court) This Access and Parking Easement Agreement (“Agreement”), dated this ___ day of __________, 2025, is between THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, a body corporate and politic, doing business as Boulder Housing Partners (“BHP”); and the CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado home rule city (“City”). BHP and the City are each referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” BHP owns real property legally described on Exhibit A and addressed as 951-953 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado (the “BHP Property”). The City owns that real property addressed as 909 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado upon which exists a senior center, legally described on Exhibit B (“Senior Center Property”), and 1001 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado upon which the Boulder Public Library operates, legally described on Exhibit C (the “Library Property”). Each of the City and BHP has and does use certain parking spaces that exist on the BHP Property (“Parking Spaces”) pursuant to an unwritten mutual agreement. The BHP Property is currently accessible only through the Senior Center Property. With the City’s permission, BHP has and does access the BHP Property through the Senior Center Property. The City uses a portion of the BHP Property adjacent to the existing City alley right-of- way for access and delivery activities to and from the Senior Center Property and to and from the Library Property and for maintenance and servicing of sewage facilities on the Library Property. The Parties now desire to memorialize the access and parking arrangement. BHP desires to formally grant to the City easements for access over the BHP Property and use of designated Parking Spaces and the City desires to formally grant BHP access to the BHP Property across the Senior Center Property. Therefore, the Parties agree as follows: Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 6 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 48 of 568 1.Grant of Access Easement to BHP. The City hereby grants to BHP, and its tenants, residents, licensees, contractors, invitees, representatives, agents, and successors and assigns, for the benefit of the BHP Property, a non-exclusive easement for access over the Senior Center Property (“BHP Access Easement”), together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of such easement. Access pursuant to the BHP Access Easement must be taken through drives on the Senior Center Property (“BHP Access Easement Area”). The City may from time-to-time, and with prior written notice to BHP, relocate the drive or drives through the Senior Center Property provided that at least one drive location provides adequate access from Arapahoe Avenue to the BHP Property. The City shall have the right to grant additional easement rights in the BHP Access Easement Area if such uses and additional easement rights do not interfere with or otherwise adversely affect any of BHP’s rights. The City’s use and enjoyment of the BHP Access Easement Area shall not unreasonably interfere with or adversely affect BHP’s rights to use the BHP Access Easement Area. 2.Use of BHP Access Easement. BHP may use the BHP Access Easement for access to the BHP Property from Arapahoe Avenue and from the BHP Property to Arapahoe Avenue, and other uses necessary or incidental to the reasonable access between the BHP Property and Arapahoe Avenue. Any other use by BHP of the BHP Access Easement and the BHP Access Easement Area is prohibited. The BHP Access Easement shall continue until terminated by mutual written agreement, or upon the earlier to occur of the following: a.the City grants and records an alternative access easement providing generally equivalent access and upon terms mutually agreeable to the Parties; or b.the BHP Property is redeveloped in a manner that reasonably allows for direct vehicular access to be created on the BHP Property between Arapahoe Avenue and the Parking Spaces or a differently designed parking area on the BHP Property. 3.Grant of Access Easement to City. BHP hereby grants to the City, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement (a) for access to the City Parking Spaces (defined below), the Senior Center Property, and the Library Property; (b) for maintenance and servicing of sewage facilities on the Library Property; and (c) for deliveries over the BHP Property in the location of the current drive, identified on Exhibit D, (collectively, the “City Access Easement”), together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of such easement. The City Access Easement shall be for the benefit of the City’s tenants, residents, licensees, contractors, invitees, representatives, and agents. BHP may from time-to-time, and with prior written notice to the City, designate and/or relocate the specific drive or drives through the BHP Property provided that at least one drive location adequately provides space for the City to access the City Parking Spaces, for maintenance and service of sewage facilities on the Library Property, and for deliveries to and from the Senior Center Property and the Library Property. BHP shall have the right to grant additional easement rights in the City Access Easement area if such use and additional easement rights do not unreasonably interfere with or otherwise adversely affect the City’s rights. BHP’s use and enjoyment of the City’s Access Easement area shall not unreasonably interfere with or adversely affect the City’s rights to use the City Access Easement area. Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 7 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 49 of 568 4.Use of City Access Easement. The City may use the City Access Easement for access, maintenance and service of sewage facilities on the Library Property, deliveries over the BHP Property, and other uses necessary or incidental to the reasonable use of the City Access Easement. Any other use by the City of the City Access Easement is prohibited. The City Access Easement shall continue until terminated by mutual written agreement, or upon redevelopment of the BHP Property removing any interference of the use of the entire width of the existing 14-foot alley right-of-way bifurcating the BHP Property . 5.Grant of City Parking Easement. BHP hereby grants to the City an easement to use 6 Parking Spaces on the BHP Property (“City Parking Spaces”), as designated on Exhibit D, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of the City Parking Spaces (“City Parking Easement”). BHP may from time-to-time, and with prior written notice to the City, relocate the 6 Parking Spaces on the BHP Property. Any Parking Space on the BHP Property not designated herein shall be for the sole use of BHP and its tenants, residents, licensees, contractors, invitees, representatives, agents, and successors and assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall have the sole right to use the partial parking space along the border of the BHP Property and the Library Property. 6.Use of the City Parking Easement. The Parking Easement shall be for the benefit of the City, its tenants, residents, licensees, contractors, invitees, representatives, and agents. BHP shall have the right to grant additional easement rights in the Parking Space area if such additional rights do not interfere with or otherwise adversely affect the City’s parking rights. BHP’s use and enjoyment of the BHP Property shall not interfere with or adversely affect the City’s rights under this Agreement. The City Parking Easement shall continue until terminated by mutual written agreement or upon the earlier to occur of the following: a.Redevelopment of the BHP Property involving demolition of at least one of the two buildings existing on the BHP Property on the date of this Agreement; b.redevelopment of the Senior Center Property involving demolition of the building existing on the Senior Center Property as of the date of this Agreement; c.Change in use of the Senior Center Property; or d. Conveyance by the City of the Senior Center Property to another party. BHP shall not be responsible in any way for any loss of or damage to any vehicle, its contents or accessories, or any property left on the BHP Property, resulting from theft, vandalism, accident, conduct of other persons, fire, or any other casualty or cause except, to the extent allowed under the law, where caused with negligence, recklessness, intent, or purpose by BHP, its agents, or employees. The City understands that BHP will not provide any traffic control or security protection for the Parking Spaces. The City further understands and agrees that the City and the Senior Center Property tenants, licensees and invitees use the City Parking Spaces at their own risk and assume all risks in connection with such use of the City Parking Spaces. 7.Maintenance and Repair. If the surface of any portion of the area of the BHP Access Easement, the City Access Easement, or the City Parking Spaces is disturbed by any Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 8 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 50 of 568 Party’s exercise of any of its granted under this Agreement, the responsible Party shall restore the area to a condition substantially the same or better than existed as of the commencement of such activity. 8. Reservation and Waiver of Other Rights. Each Party hereby waives any claim to or interest in the other Party’s property on the basis of this Agreement or otherwise except for the rights granted by this Agreement. Each Party hereby reserves the right to use their respective properties in any manner and for any purpose that does not interfere with the other Party’s rights under this Agreement. 9. Insurance. Each Party shall maintain, at its expense, and keep in force at all times, a policy of comprehensive general public liability insurance, including a contractual liability endorsement, and personal injury liability coverage, from an insurer reasonably acceptable to the other Party, which shall include coverage against claims for any injury, death, or damage to persons or property occurring on, in, or about the BHP Access Easement Area, City Access Easement area, or the City Parking Spaces, as applicable, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 with respect to the BHP Access Easement Area, City Access Easement area, or the City Parking Spaces, as applicable, and the City’s or BHP’s use thereof. Each Party shall name the other party (and its agents, contractors, tenants, and any other third parties required by the other Party), as additional insureds on such insurance policies. 10. Binding Effect. This Agreement runs with the properties identified herein and binds the Parties and their successors and assigns. 11. Termination and Release. If this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part, by mutual agreement or by the terms herein, the Parties agree to execute and record a release of any right granted herein. 12. Authorization. Each person signing below represents that the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to its subject matter. (signature pages follow) Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 9 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 51 of 568 The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date above. BHP The Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, Colorado, a body corporate and politic, doing business as Boulder Housing Partners By: Name: Jeremy Durham Title: Executive Director STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2025, by Jeremy Durham, Executive Director of The Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, Colorado, a body corporate and politic, doing business as Boulder Housing Partners. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ____________ _________________________________________ Notary Public Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 10 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 52 of 568 CITY City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city By: Name: Title: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2025, by ___________________________________________, as ______________________ of the City of Boulder. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ____________ ________________________________________ Notary Public Attest: _____________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ City Attorney Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 11 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 53 of 568 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the BHP Property Parcel I: The Southerly One-Half of the Westerly 100 feet of Lot 10 of Smith’s Addition to Boulder, EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of said land conveyed to the City of Boulder by Deed recorded May 5, 1909 in Book 324 at Page 66, County of Boulder, State of Colorado. Parcel II: That portion of Lot 10, Smith’s Addition to Boulder, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 10; Thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 10 a distance of 187 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence Easterly and parallel to the Southerly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 100 feet; Thence Southerly and parallel to the Westerly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 37 feet; Thence Westerly and parallel to the Southerly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 100 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 10; Thence Northerly along said Westerly line, 37 feet to the True Point of Beginning, County of Boulder, State of Colorado. Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 12 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 54 of 568 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of the Senior Center Property Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 13 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 55 of 568 EXHIBIT C Legal Description of the Library Property Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 14 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 56 of 568 EXHIBIT D City Parking Spaces Item 3C - 951 Arapahoe Access and Parking Easement 15 Attachment A - Access and Parking Easement Agreement Packet Page 57 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to approve the conveyance of a perpetual non-exclusive easement to the Mountain View Fire Protection District for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system and authorize the city manager to enter into and execute said easement P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kim Hutton, Water Resources Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to approve the conveyance of a perpetual non-exclusive easement to the Mountain View Fire Protection District for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system and authorize the city manager to enter into and execute said easement. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3D - Mountain View F ire P rotection District E asement Packet Page 58 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to approve the conveyance of a perpetual non-exclusive easement to the Mountain View Fire Protection District for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system and authorize the city manager to enter into and execute said easement. PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities Chris Douville, Deputy Director of Utilities Kim Hutton, Water Resources Senior Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council consideration is requested concerning conveyance of a 0.56-acre perpetual non- exclusive easement to Mountain View Fire Protection District (MVFPD) for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system within a portion of the City-owned Utilities property shown on Attachment A (Utilities Property). MVFPD would like to modify their existing septic system, which treats wastewater from the Flagstaff Station 10 fire station, to reduce operational costs. The modification includes building a leachfield to treat the liquid component of the fire station’s wastewater. MVFPD’s property is not large enough to construct a leachfield. Therefore, MVFPD is requesting an easement to install and operate the system on Utilities Property. The Utilities Property is 107.4 acres and grant of an easement of 0.56 acres to MVFPD will not interfere with the municipal source water operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the conveyance of a perpetual non-exclusive easement to the Mountain View Fire Protection District for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system and authorize the city manager to enter into and execute said easement. Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 1 Packet Page 59 of 568 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – If approved, Mountain View Fire Protection District (MVFPD) will bear all costs related to installation, operation, and maintenance of the onsite wastewater treatment system and no economic impacts to the city are anticipated. •Environmental – If approved, MVFPD will build a new onsite wastewater treatment system for Flagstaff Station 10. A properly sized onsite wastewater treatment system will protect public health and water quality; eliminate and control causes of disease, infection, and aerosol contamination; and reduce and control pollution of the air, land, and water. Additionally, reduced waste hauling will result. •Social – MVFPD Flagstaff Station 10 provides fire protection services to the Flagstaff Community as well as parts of unincorporated Boulder County, including City of Boulder municipal source water infrastructure. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal– MVFPD will compensate the city $9,000.00 for the perpetual, non-exclusive easement based on comparable market land values which will be deposited in the Water Enterprise Fund for use towards water utility operational needs. •Staff time– Staff time towards this project is included in the 2025 work plan. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None PUBLIC FEEDBACK None BACKGROUND The City of Boulder owns a parcel of land (approximately 107.4 acres) at 5682 Flagstaff Rd (Attachment A). The parcel was purchased by the Water Enterprise Fund and is managed by the Utilities Department for municipal source water operations. Source water facilities, including a pipeline (Boulder Canyon Penstock) and a valve house are located on the eastern portion of the parcel. The Boulder Canyon Penstock conveys source water from Kossler Reservoir to Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Facility and Betasso Water Treatment Plant. MVFPD owns the parcel of land (approximately 0.4 acres) immediately south of the city parcel at 5748 Flagstaff Rd (MVFPD Property) as described and depicted in Attachment B. MVFPD’s Flagstaff Station 10 is located on the MVFPD Property. Flagstaff Station 10 provides fire protection services to the Flagstaff Community as well as parts of unincorporated Boulder County, including City of Boulder municipal source water infrastructure. Flagstaff Station 10 accommodates a 24/7 crew. The City of Boulder has enjoyed a decades-long partnership with Flagstaff Station 10, with the fire crews using Utilities land for training purposes and Utilities property benefitting from tree maintenance and wildfire mitigation services. Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 2 Packet Page 60 of 568 MVFPD currently uses a septic system in which wastewater from Flagstaff Station 10 is stored in a vault on MVFPD Property and pumped and hauled offsite every 21 days. Due to the great expense associated with pumping and hauling, MVFPD would like to modify their wastewater management system to reduce operating costs by constructing a leachfield to treat the liquid waste, while the smaller portion of solid waste would still be stored in a vault and pumped and hauled off site for disposal. MVFPD does not have adequate space on its property to construct the leachfield, so they approached the city about constructing the leachfield on the adjacent Utilities Property. A consultant for MVFPD conducted a soil survey on the Utilities Property and determined the soil properties are appropriate for siting a leachfield and meeting Boulder County Public Health’s Onsite Wastewater Treatment System regulations. MVFPD is seeking an easement from the City of Boulder to construct, operate, access and maintain the leachfield component of an onsite wastewater treatment system on 0.56 acres of Utilities Property, as depicted on Attachment A and described on Attachment C. Operation and maintenance of an onsite wastewater treatment system in compliance with Boulder County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System regulations will be protective of public health and water quality. If the system is not in compliance with Boulder County regulations, the City of Boulder can require MVFPD to abandon or remove the leachfield from Utilities Property and relinquish the easement. MVFPD will compensate the City of Boulder $9,000 for the easement, an amount based on comparable market land values. If the city does not grant the easement, MVFPD will continue to operate the existing septic system at great expense. ANALYSIS City Council’s options are to either approve the conveyance of a perpetual non-exclusive easement to MVFPD for the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system and authorize the city manager to enter into and execute said easement, or to not approve, in which case MVFPD will continue existing operations. Because the installation and operation of an onsite wastewater treatment system on Utilities Property will not interfere with Utilities’ operations; construction, maintenance and operation of the system in accordance with terms and conditions of a Boulder County permit will be protective of Utilities Property and resources; and the easement will include provisions for reversion and termination if the onsite wastewater treatment system is abandoned, staff recommend that City Council approve the conveyance of the easement and authorize the city manager to execute the easement. NEXT STEPS If this request is approved, Utilities staff will work with City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office to execute the perpetual non-exclusive easement in substantially the same form as shown in Attachment D. ATTACHMENT(S) •Attachment A: Map of Utilities Property, MVFPD Property and Easement •Attachment B: Property map of MVFPD •Attachment C: Legal description of easement •Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 3 Packet Page 61 of 568 MVFPD Property (5748 Flagstaff Rd.) Utilities Property (5682 Flagstaff Rd.) Easement across Utilities Property for MVFPD Boulder Canyon Penstock N Butterfly Valve House Attachment A: Map of Utilities Property, MVFPD Property and Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 4 Packet Page 62 of 568 The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: A tract of land located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 71 West, 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the center of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 71 West, of the 6th P.M., which lies in Kossler Lake; thence N 89°38'16" W, a distance of 157.98 feet along the East - West centerline of said section 10 to a witness corner monumented by a two-inch iron post with an aluminum cap; thence continuing N 89°38'16" W a distance of 340.66 feet along the East - West centerline of said section 10 to a point monumented by a one - half inch iron pin with an aluminum cap; thence S 12°43'27" E, a distance of 116.15 feet to the true Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S 12°43'27" E, a distance of 286.76 feet to the centerline of Boulder County Road No. 77; thence N 21°10'47" E a distance of 238.00 feet along the centerline of said Boulder County Road No. 77; Thence N 68°49'13" W a distance of 159.95 feet to the true Point of Beginning, County of Boulder, State of Colorado Attachment B: Property map of MVFPD Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 5 Packet Page 63 of 568 Flatirons, Inc. Land Surveying Services www.FlatironsInc.com 38409PROFESSIONAL LAND S U RVEYOR COL O R A DO LICENSEDJ ESS J ACOB KUNTZAttachment B: Property map of MVFPDItem 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District EasementPage 6Packet Page 64 of 568 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 71 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO Flatirons, Inc. Land Surveying Services www.FlatironsInc.com 38409 PROF E S SIONAL L A N D SURVEYORCOLORA D O L I C E N S EDJESS JA C OB K U NTZAttachment C: Legal description of easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 7 Packet Page 65 of 568 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 71 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO Flatirons, Inc. Land Surveying Services www.FlatironsInc.com 38409 PROF E S SIONAL L A N D SURVEYORCOLORA D O L I CE N S EDJESS JA C OB K U NTZAttachment C: Legal description of easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 8 Packet Page 66 of 568 Page 1 of 4 The CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado home rule city (“City”), whose address is 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302, for $9,000 (Nine Thousand and no/100 Dollars) and other good and valuable consideration, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to the MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a special district organized under title 32, article 11 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (“Grantee”), whose address is 3561 N. Stagecoach Road, Longmont, Colorado 80504, a perpetual non-exclusive easement for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining an onsite wastewater treatment system (“Easement”) in, on, under, and across property owned by City as described and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, (the “Property”) under the following terms and conditions: 1.Under this Easement, the Grantee and Grantee’s agents shall have the following rights: a.The right to access, install, construct, reconstruct, use, operate, maintain, repair, inspect, survey, test, and remove an onsite wastewater treatment system to treat wastewater (OWTS) from the Grantee’s property as described and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of such easement, in, on, under, and across the Property; and b.Grantee shall access the Easement solely from the following two locations: i) Grantee’s property as described and depicted in Exhibit B; or ii) the right of way adjacent to the Easement on Flagstaff Road, aka County Road No. 77.Grantee shall not access the Easement from the City’s Property to the east of the Easement and shall not create any formal or improved access to the Easement from Grantee’s property or the right of way. 2.Grantee has the sole responsibility to install, construct, use, operate, maintain, repair, inspect, survey, test, and remove, if and when necessary, all parts of the OWTS, including but not limited to all outfall lines, distribution boxes, septic tanks, and other equipment used as a part of the OWTS, and to maintain and repair the absorption field. The OWTS shall be in compliance with Boulder County’s Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Regulations effective May 24, 2018, as may be revised. If the OWTS is not in compliance with such regulations for a period of ninety (90) days, Grantee shall be deemed to have abandoned the Easement pursuant to Paragraph 7. 3.Subject to the requirements of this Paragraph, City retains the right to use and occupy the Easement for all lawful purposes which do not impair or interfere with the Grantee’s rights and privileges under this Easement. a.City shall not itself or through other persons or entities, erect or construct GRANT OF PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 9 Packet Page 67 of 568 Page 2 of 4 any building or other permanent structure, or allow the installation of other utilities on, over or in the Easement without obtaining the specific written permission of the Grantee. b.City shall not install pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parking areas and associated curb cuts, driveways, fences, posts, pole or walls within the Easement without obtaining the specific written permission of the Grantee. 4.The terms of this Easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon City and its heirs, agents, lessees and assigns, and all other successors to it in interest, and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property. 5.City warrants that City has full right and lawful authority to convey the real property interests contained in the Easement granted herein. 6.Grantee shall restore the surface of any ground it may disturb in the course of exercising any of its rights under the Easement, including initial construction of the OWTS, to substantially the same condition that existed prior to such use by the Grantee, subject only to the limitations set forth in this Easement. 7.Grantee shall be deemed to have abandoned the Easement if at any time after initial construction, the OWTS has ceased to be used for a period of six consecutive months. Grantee’s non-use of the Easement shall be considered proof of intent to abandon. In the event of abandonment, all rights granted shall automatically revert back to the City, and the Easement shall be of no further force and effect; and Grantee shall remove from the Property or otherwise abandon the OTWS as requested by the City and in compliance with Boulder County regulations. Also, in the event of abandonment, Grantee agrees to record in the real property records of Boulder County, Colorado, evidence of Grantee’s abandonment and the relinquishment of Grantee’s rights created by this Easement. 8.Grantee agrees that it will cause any contractors performing any work on the Property to procure and maintain in force, at its or their own cost, the insurance coverages and other contract requirements set forth in Exhibit C. Grantee is a “public entity” within the meaning of the CGIA and shall maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet its liabilities under the CGIA. 9.Neither party is required to indemnify the other in connection with this Agreement. However, each party assumes responsibility for its actions and omissions in the performance or failure to perform work under this Easement, as well as the actions and omissions of its contractors, agents, and employees. Neither party waives or intends to waive the limitations on liability which are provided to the Parties, their officers, and employees under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24- 10-101 et. seq., C.R.S. (“CGIA”). Grantee agrees to cause its contractors performing any work on the Property to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all losses, claims, demands, liabilities, injuries, damages and expenses, including, without Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 10 Packet Page 68 of 568 Page 3 of 4 limitation, attorneys’ fees and court costs the City may suffer or incur which may arise from negligent or wrongful performance of the Grantee contractors while working on the Property. 10.The parties hereto agree that neither has made or authorized any agreement with respect to the subject matter of this instrument other than expressly set forth herein, and no oral representation, promise, or consideration different from the terms herein contained shall be binding on either party, or its agents or employees, hereto. 11.This Easement shall be recorded, at Grantee’s sole cost, in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office in which this Easement is located. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this instrument to be duly executed as of this day of 2025. CITY: City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city By: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Date: _________________________ City Attorney’s Office Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 11 Packet Page 69 of 568 Page 4 of 4 Accepted by: MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ___________________________ Title: __________________________ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________ 20__, by as ____________________ of the Mountain View Fire Protection District. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: ________________ (SEAL) ______________________________ Notary Public Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 12 Packet Page 70 of 568 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 71 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO Flatirons, Inc. Land Surveying Services www.FlatironsInc.com 38409 PROF E S SIONAL L A N D SURVEYORCOLORA D O L I C E N S EDJESS JA C OB K U NTZAttachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 13 Packet Page 71 of 568 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 71 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO Flatirons, Inc. Land Surveying Services www.FlatironsInc.com 38409 PROF E S SIONAL L A N D SURVEYORCOLORA D O L I CE N S EDJESS JA C OB K U NTZAttachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 14 Packet Page 72 of 568 EXHIBIT B The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: A tract of land located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 71 West, 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the center of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 71 West, of the 6th P.M., which lies in Kossler Lake; thence N 89°38'16" W, a distance of 157.98 feet along the East - West centerline of said section 10 to a witness corner monumented by a two-inch iron post with an aluminum cap; thence continuing N 89°38'16" W a distance of 340.66 feet along the East - West centerline of said section 10 to a point monumented by a one - half inch iron pin with an aluminum cap; thence S 12°43'27" E, a distance of 116.15 feet to the true Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S 12°43'27" E, a distance of 286.76 feet to the centerline of Boulder County Road No. 77; thence N 21°10'47" E a distance of 238.00 feet along the centerline of said Boulder County Road No. 77; Thence N 68°49'13" W a distance of 159.95 feet to the true Point of Beginning, County of Boulder, State of Colorado Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 15 Packet Page 73 of 568 Flatirons, Inc. Land Surveying Services www.FlatironsInc.com 38409PROFESSIONAL LAND S U RVEYOR COL O R A DO LICENSEDJ ESS J ACOB KUNTZAttachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive EasementItem 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District EasementPage 16Packet Page 74 of 568 EXHIBIT C Attachment D: Grant of Perpetual Non-exclusive Easement Item 3D - Mountain View Fire Protection District Easement Page 17 Packet Page 75 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Boulder C ounty to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of 2043 Pearl Street, Boulder, C O, known as Arbor House P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Vicki Ebner/ Operations and Homelessness Sr Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of 2043 Pearl Street, Boulder, C O, known as Arbor House. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3E - Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an I G A with B oulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Packet Page 76 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of 2043 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO, known as Arbor House. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Tate, City Attorney Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Kurt Firnhaber, Housing and Human Services Director Vicki Ebner, Operations and Homelessness Strategy Senior Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2043 Pearl Street (Arbor House) is currently owned by Tribe Recovery, Inc. and is used for non- residential mental and behavioral services. Boulder County will be purchasing the property and would like to transfer ownership to the City of Boulder. The Intergovernmental Agreement establishes role and responsibilities for all parties, with the City of Boulder taking over ownership and maintenance of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Management of both the Arbor House and adjacent residential treatment home promotes a diverse and sustainable economy that supports needs of all segments of the community. This action also supports the continued city and county partnership for Project Recovery. •Environmental – People experiencing unsheltered homelessness have negative impacts on the environment. Behavioral health treatment prevents unsheltered homelessness for these individuals. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of 2043 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO, known as Arbor House Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 1 Packet Page 77 of 568 •Social – People experiencing homelessness, or those exiting institutions at risk of unsheltered homelessness, who have significant substance use disorders, require housing and essential treatment resources to stabilize. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – The county does not require funding for transfer of ownership; however, this Intergovernmental Agreement protects the city’s initial investment of $300,000 in the property and the city’s investment in the adjacent property. Funding for future maintenance and repair issues would be covered through the General Fund. •Staff time – Staff time investment would be part of the normal work plan. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None PUBLIC FEEDBACK None BACKGROUND Arbor House, 2043 Pearl Street, is currently owned by Tribe Recovery Homes, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit providing outpatient addiction recovery therapeutic services on the Property in conjunction with a sober living home at 2041 Pearl Street. The city owns the 2041 Pearl Street property and leases it to Tribe Recovery. In 2023, the city and the county each contributed $300,000 to Tribe for the purchase of Arbor House. The cost of owning this property for Tribe Recovery Homes has diverted resources for needed programs expenses to their mortgage and has become unsustainable. To protect the investment, the county has agreed to utilize American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to purchase the property. Using the grant to purchase the property means that the property must be used for behavioral health services and any subsequent change in use or disposition of the property must comply with Treasury Department rules and federal regulations on federal awards, including but not limited to 2 CFR 200.311. However, the county does not wish to own the property or to incur the maintenance and management liabilities that come with the property. The property would then be owned by the City and leased to Tribe Recovery Homes in the same approach of the neighboring home at $1 per year and they would be required to cover maintenance of the facility. ANALYSIS Project Recovery provides a unique service within the continuum of services provided to the city’s unhoused individuals. To that end, the city purchased the sober living home on the adjacent property. The two properties function separately but are intertwined. Maintaining ownership allows the city to ensure that critical supportive treatment services continue to be provided to benefit the residents of the city and specifically the residents of the sober living property. ATTACHMENTS A – Intergovernmental Agreement Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 2 Packet Page 78 of 568 Page 1 of 10 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOULDER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BOULDER REGARDING REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2043 PEARL STREET THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (“IGA”) is made effective the ____ date of ________, 2025, by and between the COUNTY OF BOULDER, a body corporate and politic (the “County”), and the CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”). County and City are each a “Party,” and collectively the “Parties.” In consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this IGA, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: RECITALS A.Colorado Constitution Article XIV, Section 18(2), C.R.S. §§ 29-1-201, et seq., and C.R.S. § 30-11-410, provide that political subdivisions of the State may contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each of the cooperating units. B. A building located at 2043 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO, known as Arbor House, is owned by Tribe Recovery Homes, Inc. (“Tribe”), a Colorado nonprofit providing outpatient addiction recovery therapeutic services in conjunction with a sober living home at 2041 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO, known as Mother House, which Tribe leases from the City. C.In 2023, the City and the County each provided Tribe $300,000 that Tribe used towards the purchase of Arbor House (also referred to herein as the “Property”), with each government entering into respective funding agreements with Tribe. Tribe financed the remainder of the purchase with a mortgage currently serviced by FirstBank. D.Tribe desires to sell Arbor House and the City desires to own Arbor House so that behavioral health services will continue to be offered at that location; however, the City does not have sufficient funds to purchase the Property and has requested the County to assist in acquiring it. E.The County has secured a grant from the Colorado Behavioral Health Administration (“BHA”), which the BHA funds using federal ARPA money and distributes in compliance with Colorado Senate Bill 22-196, which established early intervention, deflection, and redirection from the criminal justice system for the people with behavioral health needs. BHA distributes these grants to fund programs and strategies that prevent people with behavioral health disorders from becoming Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 3 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 79 of 568 Page 2 of 10 involved with the criminal justice system and redirects such individuals from that system to appropriate community-based treatment and support services. F.To assist the City in ensuring the continuation of behavioral health services on the Property, the County will use a portion of the grant money to purchase Arbor House. However, the County does not want the responsibilities that come with owning the Property. Therefore, this IGA establishes the terms under which the City will assume all responsibility for the Property while it is under County ownership. Furthermore, this IGA establishes the terms under which the County will convey the Property in fee to the City. G.Whether the County or the City owns the Property, the City will use it consistent with its current purpose of providing services to divert and deflect individuals with behavioral health needs away from the criminal justice system and into appropriate treatment. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this IGA, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1.Mutual Intent and Contingent Approval. a. It is the mutual intent of the Parties for the County to purchase the Property and to convey it to the City in fee in return for the City continuing to support behavioral health services on the Property. b.The Parties recognize, however, that conveyance from the County to the City is subject to approval from BHA as the grant issuer and that BHA may not provide its approval until after the period of performance of the Grant Agreement (defined below). As of the effective date of this IGA, the end date of the period of performance is June 30, 2025, and BHA has indicated it may extend the period of performance until June 30, 2026, or a different date as it determines appropriate. Any change to the period of performance will require an amendment to the Grant Agreement between BHA and the County. 2.Legal Description of the Property. The legal description of the Property is: Unit No. 2, The Pearl Street Condominiums, according to the Condominium Map of Pearl Street Condominiums, recorded October 15, 1996 on Film 2163 at Reception No. 1650505 and amended by Corrected Condominium Map of Pearl Street Condominiums recorded June 22, 2001 under Reception No. 2164405, and as defined by the Condominium Declaration of the Pearl Street Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 4 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 80 of 568 Page 3 of 10 Condominiums (the “Declaration”), recorded October 15, 1996 on Film 2163 as Reception No. 1650506, in the Office of the County Clerk and Recorder, Boulder County, Colorado, together with an undivided 50% interest in the common elements appurtenant thereto as described in the Declaration. Also known by street and number address as 2043 Pearl Street #2, Boulder, CO 80302. 3.Purchase Agreement with Tribe. Following mutual execution of this IGA, the County will seek to enter into a purchase agreement with Tribe for the County to purchase the Property, with the intent of closing on the Property no later than sixty (60) days after mutual execution of the purchase agreement. The County will undertake due diligence on the purchase. The County retains sole discretion whether to close the transaction for any reason, including but not limited to a change to the Grant Agreement or the availability of grant funds. 4.City’s Right of First Refusal. The Parties acknowledge that the City has a first right of refusal to purchase the Property, pursuant to the Funding Agreement between the County of Boulder, State of Colorado and Tribe Recovery Homes, Inc., dated April 11, 2023 (the “County Funding Agreement”). The City hereby waives its right to first refusal and declines to purchase the Property from Tribe. 5.City’s Funding Agreement and Consent to Sale. a.The City and Tribe entered into a Local Funding Agreement dated July 10, 2023, and recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder on July 18, 2023, at Reception No. 04014927 (the “City Funding Agreement”). Under the City Funding Agreement, Tribe is prohibited from transferring, hypothecating, or alienating any interest in the Property without the written consent of the City. By executing this IGA, the City provides its consent to Tribe selling the Property to the County. b.Under the City Funding Agreement, the City secured its grant to Tribe by a promissory note and deed of trust on the Property. The City agrees that it will promptly execute and deliver to the County or any third party the County directs such instruments as may be reasonably necessary to terminate or release the promissory note and deed of trust with respect to the Property. If the City fails to execute any releases required by this Section 5 within ten (10) days of the County closing on the Property, such releases will be automatic with no further action necessary on the part of Tribe, the City, or the County. Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 5 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 81 of 568 Page 4 of 10 6.Closing. At closing, the County will take title to the Property from Tribe and the County will either record or direct the title company to record a Notice of Federal Interest on the Property in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Parties acknowledge that the Notice of Federal Interest provides notice of the federal rules and regulations that apply to the use and disposition of the Property. 7.City Assumption of All Ownership Responsibility. From the time the County closes on the Property with Tribe, the City shall assume for the Property all the responsibilities that accompany ownership of real property in fee, including but not limited to, maintenance and repair; landscaping; management; safety; insurance; utilities; landlord obligations under existing and future leases; obligations under any covenants, conditions and restrictions and condominium declarations; compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and all costs and expenses associated therewith. The City’s responsibility shall continue until such time as the County may convey the Property in fee to the City or the County ceases to own the Property. In no event shall the County have any responsibility for the Property, financial or otherwise. 8.Conveyance from County to City. a. Following approval from the BHA and any other applicable state or federal agency, the County will convey to the City the Property in fee. The City agrees to accept the Property in fee. The Parties agree to execute any additional documentation or agreements as necessary to effectuate that conveyance, and if required by law or to comply with state and federal funding requirements, the City agrees to record a Notice of Federal Interest against the Property. The City agrees that upon closing with the County, the City will continue to comply with the use restrictions required by applicable state and federal regulations arising from the grant funding the County will use to purchase the Property from Tribe. The use restrictions will run with the land and be binding on the City’s successors and assigns. b.In the event the conveyance to the City is closed, the City will execute a promissory note and provide it to the County, and a deed of trust will be executed and recorded, for the $300,000 the County contributed towards Tribe’s purchase of the Property (the “County Grant”). The promissory note and deed of trust will be in a form approved by the County Attorney. c.The County Grant shall become immediately due and payable by the City to the County following the occurrence of any one or more of the following events: Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 6 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 82 of 568 Page 5 of 10 i.All or a part of the City’s interest in the Property is transferred to a party other than the County; or ii.The filing of a petition for any proceedings under federal or state bankruptcy acts or other similar-type proceedings seeking protection from creditors by the City, or a court enters a decree or order for relief with respect to the City under any applicable bankruptcy or insolvency statute brought by any person against the City, which decree or order is not stayed; or iii.The giving of an assignment for the benefit of creditors by the City without the County’s prior written consent; or iv.The dissolution of the City as a municipality; or v. The failure of the City to use the Property, for a period of 30 or more consecutive days, in compliance with this IGA and/or the use requirements of the Notice of Federal Interest, except under circumstances beyond the control of the City which prohibit the use of the Property for the designated purpose. d.The City’s obligation to pay the County Grant to the County shall be secured by the promissory note and deed of trust on the Property, which shall entitle the County, upon the happening of an event of default, as specified in this IGA, to take possession of and sell the Property in any manner provided by law and to credit the net proceeds against the City’s obligation under this IGA and against all costs, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, foreclosure, possession, and/or sale. 9.Compliance with Use Restrictions. a. The City and the County acknowledge and agree that the County’s purchase of the Property is funded by a grant from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Behavioral Health Administration using federal funds from the American Rescue Plan Act. The County’s grant agreement with BHA is identified as CMS # 24 IBEH 183787, as amended by amendment contract CMS # 25 IBEH 195246 (collectively, the “Grant Agreement”), both attached hereto as Exhibit B. Purchasing real property using grant funds come with certain restrictions on the use of the Property that apply in perpetuity. From the time of closing on the conveyance from Tribe to the County, the Parties Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 7 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 83 of 568 Page 6 of 10 shall comply with the use restrictions required by the Notice of Federal Interest and applicable federal, state, and local law. b.If the City intends to change the use of the Property at any time or the City intends to dispose of the Property during the City’s ownership of the Property, the City shall notify the County in writing of the intended change or disposition no later than ninety (90) days before the change or disposition is effective. 10. Cooperation with Grant Requirements. To the extent the County is required to report any information to the state or federal government related to the City’s use of the Property, the City agrees to timely provide the County such information. The City and the County agree to work in good faith to avoid the need to return or reimburse the grant funds to the state or federal government. 11. Recording. The County will record an executed copy of this IGA with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, Colorado, following closing on the Property between the County and Tribe to put potential subsequent purchasers on notice of the terms and conditions contained herein. Exhibits to the IGA will not be recorded. 12. Future Interests. The term of this IGA shall run with the land and be perpetual. It is not intended to create a future interest in land. However, if this IGA is deemed to create a future interest in land, such interest shall vest, if at all, during the lives of the undersigned, plus 20 years and 364 days. 13. Compliance with Laws. The City agrees to own and use the Property in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, including but not limited to local land use regulations. 14. Nondiscrimination. In owning, managing, and maintaining the Property, the Parties shall not discriminate against any person based upon that person’s legally protected characteristic as defined by federal, state, or local laws. The Parties shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits subrecipients of federal financial assistance from excluding from a program or activity, denying benefits of, or otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of race, color, or national origin (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), as implemented by the Department of the Treasu ry’s Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this IGA. Title VI also includes protection to persons with “limited English proficiency” in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., as implemented by the Department of the Treasury’s Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, and herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this IGA. This assurance applies for the period during which the Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 8 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 84 of 568 Page 7 of 10 Property is used for the purpose for which federal financial assistance was provided or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. 15. Notices. All notices provided for herein shall be in writing and shall be sent to the address set forth below (or such other address as a Party may hereafter designate by notice to the other Party as required hereby) of the Party for whom such notice or communication is intended: If to the City: City of Boulder Attn: Director of Housing & Human Services 1300 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 With a copy to: City of Boulder City Attorney’s Office PO Box 791 Boulder, Co 80302 CAOadmin@bouldercolorado.gov If to the County: Boulder County Attn: County Administrator 1325 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80302 With a copy to: Boulder County Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 16. Governmental Immunity. Each Party and its officers and employees are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive, any provision of this IGA, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or as otherwise available to each Party and its officers and employees. 17. Binding Effect. The City and the County each bind itself, its successors and assigns to the other Party to this IGA with respect to all rights and obligations under this IGA. Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 9 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 85 of 568 Page 8 of 10 18. No Assignment. Neither this IGA nor any of the rights or obligations of the Parties will be assigned by either Party without the written consent of the other. 19. Relationship of the Parties. Nothing herein will be construed to create a joint venture, partnership, employer/employee or other relationship between the Parties other than independent contracting parties. 20. No Multiple Fiscal Year Obligation/Appropriations. Nothing herein shall constitute a multiple fiscal year obligation pursuant to Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this IGA, the City’s and the County’s obligations under this IGA are subject to annual appropriation by their respective governing bodies. Any failure of such body annually to appropriate adequate monies to finance the Party’s obligations under this IGA shall terminate this IGA at such time as such then-existing appropriations are to be depleted. Notice shall be given promptly to the other Party of any failure to appropriate such adequate monies. 21. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this IGA and all rights of action relating to such enforcements shall be strictly reserved to the City and the County. Nothing contained in this IGA shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other third person. It is the express intention of the City and the County that any such party or entity, other than the City or the County, receiving services or benefits under this IGA shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only. 22. Dispute Resolution. The Parties have entered into this IGA with the understanding and expectation that each Party will continue to collaborate to effectuate the intent of this IGA. The Parties will attempt to resolve any dispute arising out of or related to this IGA through good faith negotiations between designees of the Parties. If the matter is not resolved within thirty (30) days of receipt of a written request to negotiate submitted by a Party, the Parties will attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith through an agreed upon alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) procedure, or in default of agreement, through an ADR procedure as recommended to the Parties by a mutually agreed upon mediator. Nothing in this paragraph will be construed as prohibiting a Party from applying to a court for interim injunctive relief. 23. Governing Law. This IGA will be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof will be brought in Boulder County, Colorado. Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 10 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 86 of 568 Page 9 of 10 24. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this IGA by either Party will not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligations of this Agreement. 25. Severability. If any provision of this IGA is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof will remain in full force and effect. 26. Entire Agreement. This IGA and the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement of the Parties. 27. Amendments. This IGA may only be modified upon written agreement of the Parties. 28. Authority of Signatories. The signatories to this IGA affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this IGA, and all necessary actions, notices, meetings, or hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this IGA have been made. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this IGA as of the latter day and year indicated below. CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado home rule municipality Date: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Attest: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney’s Office County of Boulder, a body corporate and politic Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 11 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 87 of 568 Page 10 of 10 Date: Marta Loachamin, Boulder County Commissioner Attest: Item 3E: Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an IGA with Boulder County to allow for the city to assume ownership and maintenance of Arbor House. Page 12 Attachment A – Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Page 88 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8685 granting authority to the approving authority under Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C . 1981 to grant a 9-year vesting period for the approved site specific development plan at 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00036 P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8685 granting authority to the approving authority under Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C . 1981 to grant a 9-year vesting period for the approved site specific development plan at 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00036. B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Denied by PB 2.18 and called up by C C on 3.18. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. F latiron Ct. Vested Rights Packet Page 89 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8685 granting a nine-year vested property right for the approved site- specific development plan for a property located at 1855 S. Flatiron Court, and setting forth related details. Applicant: Andrew Faulkner, BioMed Realty Owners: BRE-BMR 1855 FLATIRON LLC BRE-BMR FLATIRON VIII LLC REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Alison Blaine, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject application is to redevelop a site located at 1855 S. Flatiron Court, under case no. LUR2024-00036, with three new Research and Development buildings. The Site Review application was initially brought to Planning Board on January 21, 2025 where it was continued on February 4, 2025 and February 18, 2025. The Site Review application and associated ordinance was scheduled for City Council call-up consideration on March 20, 2025. City Council called up the item, and Ordinance 8685 requires City Council approval for consideration of the companion vested rights request. The public hearing for the Site Review application and second reading for the vested rights request is scheduled for May 1, 2025. The ordinance can be reviewed in Attachment A. Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 1 Packet Page 90 of 568 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board Planning Board reviewed the ordinance as part of a Site Review application on January 21, 2025 where it was continued on February 4, 2025 and February 18, 2025. At the continued hearing on February 18, 2025, Planning Board voted 3-3 (M. Roberts absent) on a motion to recommend the vested rights to City Council. The motion did not receive an affirmative vote of four, and the motion failed. Therefore, the board neither recommended approval nor denial of the vested rights to City Council, as described in the Procedural Rules of the Planning Board. For a full summary of the Planning Board process and feedback on the Site Review application, refer to the March 20, 2025 City Council agenda and call-up memo. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Consistent with Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, staff provided notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location of the application, and signs have been posted by the applicant. Staff did not receive comments during the application review process. One member of the public spoke during the public comment period at the Planning Board hearing for the Site Review application. BACKGROUND This memorandum is only for City Council to review the request to establish Vested Rights greater than three years for a total of 9 years. A separate memorandum will be prepared for the Site Review call-up, which is scheduled for a City Council Public Hearing on May 1, 2025 concurrently with the 2nd Reading for the Vested Rights request. Details on the Site Review proposal can be found at the Planning Board January 21, 2025 archives. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8685 Approval of Ordinance 8685 would permit granting a 9-year vesting period for the approved site-specific development plan. The applicant has proposed a 9-year construction period for the project, which is allowable through the Site Review process. To protect property owners from future zoning or land use actions that would delay, alter, diminish or otherwise impact an approved development during that time period, the applicant is seeking vested rights for the approval that last for 9 years. Colorado’s Vested Property Rights Act, C.R.S. 24-68-101, et seq., (the “Act”) allows for the creation of vested property rights the applicant is seeking. The Act defines “vested Suggested Motion Language: Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8685 granting a nine- year vested property right for the approved site-specific development plan for a property located at 1855 S. Flatiron Court, and setting forth related details. Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 2 Packet Page 91 of 568 property right” as the “right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of a site-specific development. Approved site review plans are “site specific development plans.” Once a statutory vested right is established, a local government is precluded from taking any zoning or land use action that would alter, impair, diminish, or delay the development of the property consistent with the approved plans. Generally, statutory vested property rights have a duration of three years from the date of approval. Any longer time period has to be included in the development agreement and approved by ordinance of the City Council. Section 9-2-20, “Creation of Vested Rights,” B.R.C. 1981. Approval of a vesting period longer than three years in Council’s legislative discretion. The applicant is seeking vested rights for 9 years to be protected through the anticipated construction period. ANALYSIS The decision of council on the ordinance would be based on the project’s consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (“BVCP”) policies related to Light Industrial Areas (BVCP Policy 1.11) and Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas (BVCP Policy 5.01) among the other relevant BVCP policies as discussed below. Request for Vested Rights greater than three years and extension of demolition permits Staff finds the proposed request for vested rights reasonable and appropriate given the scope of work and considering the BVCP goals achieved by this project and is recommending approval of the vested rights request. CONCLUSION As stated above, staff finds that the proposed ordinance allows a project that accomplishes many objectives of the BVCP and is consistent with these most relevant BVCP policies as summarized below: 2.21 Light Industrial Areas: The proposed ordinance would be consistent the following objective as stated in Policy 2.21: “The city will encourage redevelopment and infill to contribute to placemaking and better achieve sustainable urban form as defined in this chapter” 5.01 Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas: The proposed ordinance would be consistent with the objective to incentivize business retention and revitalization, as stated in Policy 5.01: “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.” Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 3 Packet Page 92 of 568 5.02 Regional Job Center: The proposed ordinance would be consistent the following objective as stated in Policy 5.02: “The city supports strategies that recognize Boulder’s continued role as a regional job center, consistent with economic sustainability goals and projected employment growth.” 5.07 Industry Clusters: The proposed ordinance would be consistent with the objective to incentivize a diverse economic base and incentivize business as stated in Policy 5.07 “The city will support an industry cluster approach to business development. This approach involves a focus on supporting multiple businesses in an industry and considering special financial and technical assistance programs and other tools to retain, expand and attract businesses in those clusters. Boulder’s key industry clusters include aerospace, bioscience, clean tech, data storage, digital media, natural and organic products, recreation, software, tourism and the creative sector.” ATTACHMENT Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance 8685 Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 4 Packet Page 93 of 568 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8685 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NINE-YEAR VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT FOR THE APPROVED SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1855 S. FLATIRON COURT, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, FINDS: A.This ordinance shall be effective only as to the parcels of land generally known as Flatiron Business Park located at 1855 S. Flatiron Court, which together are approximately 9.59 acres in size, and more particularly described as Lots 3 and 4, Flatiron Industrial Park Filing No. 2, County of Boulder, State of Colorado (the “Property”). B. BRE-BMR 1855 Flatiron LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the owner of the Property (“Owner”) and has filed Site Review application #LUR2024-00036 for redevelopment of the 1855 S. Flatiron Court site (the “Project”). C.The Owner plans a phased expansion and redevelopment of the Property over a period of approximately nine years. In association therewith, the Owner is seeking a vesting period of nine years for the site-specific development plan. D. On January 21, 2025, February 4, 2025, and February 18, 2025, the planning board held a public hearing and approved with conditions Site Review # LUR2024-00036 and neither recommended approval of nor denied this ordinance. E.In addition, the city council finds that the site review for the Project constitutes a site- specific development plan within the meaning of Subsection 9-2-20(a), B.R.C. 1981, and Section 24-68-102, C.R.S. F.The Boulder Revised Code and Section 24-68-104, C.R.S. require city council approval of any vesting period of a site-specific development plan approval that exceeds three years. Attachment A - Ordinance 8685 Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 5 Packet Page 94 of 568 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G. The city council having reviewed the Project, finds that a nine year vesting period is appropriate. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. The city council finds that an extended vesting period for the Project is in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Boulder and consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The city council hereby grants and approves a nine-year vesting period for a site-specific development plan submitted under Site Review #LUR2024-00036 (“Development Plan”). Such nine-year vesting period supersedes any other vesting period referenced in the Vested Rights Option Form and/or Waiver executed by Owner, or otherwise. The following elements of the Development Plan shall be vested for nine years: The number of buildings, the footprints of such buildings, the location of such building footprints, total square footage for each building, the above grade floor area for each building, below grade floor area for each building, the height of each building, building architecture, number of car and bike parking spaces, and the phasing plan all as approved in the Site Review Case No. LUR2024-00036. Applicant further requests vested rights in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan. The city manager is authorized to enter into a development agreement for the Project including the vesting period granted in this ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall only be applicable to BioMed Realty, its subsidiaries, or its successors, or affiliates. Section 4. This ordinance shall not be construed to limit the ability of an approving authority of the site review for the Project to modify other development standards through the Attachment A - Ordinance 8685 Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 6 Packet Page 95 of 568 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 site review process. If the site review application is called up for review by the city council, the city council retains the authority granted by this ordinance to permit the modifications stated herein. This ordinance shall expire immediately if the owner of the Property allows the site plan approval to expire under the requirements of Chapter 9-2, “Review Processes,” B.R.C. 1981. Section 5. The city council adopts the findings and recitals above into this ordinance by this reference. This ordinance shall be considered an amendment to Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981. To the extent that this ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of the city, such other ordinance shall be suspended for the limited purpose of implementing this ordinance. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as a waiver of the city’s police power. Section 6. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 7. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 17th day of April 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8685 Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 7 Packet Page 96 of 568 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 READ ON SECOND READING, AMENDED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8685 Item 3F - 1st Rdg Ord 8685 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. Vested Rights Page 8 Packet Page 97 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8694, amending Sections 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” 8-6-6.5, “Small C ell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” 9-6-4, “Specific Use Standards – Public and Institutional Uses,” and 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, to align city code with federal law regarding local government permitting of wireless telecommunications facilities; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Karl Guiler, Policy Advisor Senior RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8694, amending Title 4, Chapter 20, “Fees,” Title 8, C hapter 6, “Public Right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases and Vacations, Title 9, C hapter 6 “Use Standards,” and Title 9, C hapter 16, “Definitions,” B.R.C . 1981, to amend the standards for wireless communications facilities and small cell facilities, and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Packet Page 98 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8694, amending Sections 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” 9-6-4, “Specific Use Standards – Public and Institutional Uses,” and 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, to align city code with federal law regarding local government permitting of wireless telecommunications facilities; and setting forth related details. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor Geoff Solomonson, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This ordinance has been drafted in response to rulings and interpretations by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in regards to wireless communications facilities and small cell facilities. In addition to the descriptions and analysis provided in this memo, the proposed ordinance is provided in Attachment A. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed code changes as required by the Land Use Code. If passed, changes typically go into effect 30 days after adoption by City Council. Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 1 Packet Page 99 of 568 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8694, amending Sections 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” 9-6-4, “Specific Use Standards – Public and Institutional Uses,” and 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, to align city code with federal law regarding local government permitting of wireless telecommunications facilities; and setting forth related details. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board – Ordinances changing the Land Use Code require Planning Board recommendation to City Council. On April 1, 2025, Planning Board reviewed Ordinance 8650 and unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance to City Council with the following motion: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by M. Roberts to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance, amending Title 4, Chapter 20, “Fees,” Title 8, Chapter 6, “Public Right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases and Vacations, Title 9, Chapter 6 “Use Standards,” and Title 9, Chapter 16, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, to amend the standards for wireless communications facilities and small cell facilities, and setting forth related details. The planning board voted 6-0. Motion passed. J. Boone absent. Planning Board also had questions about design, separation, and height requirements, which is established in existing code and is not proposed to change with this ordinance. The board also had questions about the definitions of Telecommunications provider, Telecommunications services, and Small cell facility and whether any updates are necessary. Staff has looked at these definitions further and determined they fit the intention of the code requirements and are consistent with federal and state ordinances. A minor clarification was made to Small cell facility for determining criteria. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Since these changes are in response to federal legislation, engagement has been limited. Notification of the current changes has been announced in the Planning and Development Services monthly newsletter, which reaches over 5,000 people. As part of the newsletter, staff has provided a link to the webpage that includes a description of all the project. There has not been any public comments or feedback. Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 2 Packet Page 100 of 568 BACKGROUND The FCC introduced significant changes to the size, implementation, and processing of wireless communication facilities and small cell wireless facilities in 2018 (FCC 18- 133A1), which the city of Boulder addressed mainly with changes to Section 9-6-4(f), “Specific Use Standards – Public and Institutional Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, and the creation of Section 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” B.R.C. 1981. Small cell facilities are a wireless communication facility that is mounted on structures 55 feet or less and has an antenna enclosure of no more than three cubic feet and equipment of no more than 28 cubic feet and is otherwise referred to as a micro wireless facility. Since the 2019 ruling, the FCC has released subsequent rulings and interpretations (DA 19-277A1, FCC 20-75A, & FCC 20-153A1), which further changes implementation and processing of small cell facilities as well as clarifying language in the 2018 ruling. The State of Colorado released a house bill (HB 17-1193) in response to the 2018 FCC ruling and has a forthcoming house bill (HB 25-1056) (not yet adopted) that aims to further change review procedures. Wireless communication facilities, which include small cell facilities, are an antenna or series of antennas used for transmitting personal wireless services. Wireless communication facilities that are larger or taller than small cell facilities are sometimes referred to as a macrocell. These can include large lattice towers, and any number of small installations. When transmission equipment is mounted on an existing eligible support structure the equipment is “collocated.” Instances where transmission equipment is modified, including collocation, removal or replacement, without changing the physical dimensions of the equipment, is referred to as an “eligible facilities request.” A more detailed description of the FCC rulings and State of Colorado House Bill is provided below: FCC 18-133, In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Development by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment This ruling, which was released on September 27, 2018, was intended to provide service in new areas, prohibit restrictions of a new carrier, improve existing services, and provide fair access to services and providers by: • Adjusting a maximum application fee, new infrastructure fee, and yearly recurring fees. • Providing clarity on reasonable aesthetic requirements. • Requiring a local jurisdictional review shot clock for collocation applications and new structure applications. • Defined that applications that are not approved within the designated shot clock timeframe are deemed approved. Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 3 Packet Page 101 of 568 DA 19-277, Small Entity Compliance Guide This guide, which was released on April 11, 2019, clarifies the language of FCC 18-133 in regards to the shot clock review time for a siting application for collocation for small cell wireless and other wireless facilities on new or existing structures. The guide also clarifies the tolling period of the shot clock in the event of an incomplete application or application missing documentation when the clock shall restart, resume and run during the review process. Failure to act upon an application is further clarified. FCC 20-75A, In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012 This ruling, which was released on June 10, 2020, further clarifies when the shot-clock period begins and when the application can be tolled (paused) or delayed. This ruling also interprets a previous provision regarding a substantial increase to the height of an existing or proposed antenna. This ruling also interprets a previous provision regarding a substantial increase to the height of an existing or proposed antenna. Concealment is also addressed in this ruling at the time of original approval of the application. FCC 20-153, In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligations to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012 This ruling, which was released on November 3, 2020, determines a substantial change in the excavation or deployment of a wireless facilities, revises the definition of “site”, and clarifies treatment of a facility site in the event of a zoning change from the local jurisdictions initial review of the application. CO HB 17-1193 This bill, which was released on April 18, 2017, in preemption to the FCC 18-133 ruling contains similar language to align the State of Colorado regarding wireless communications facilities and small cell facilities. This bill also included applicable legal definitions for the process and descriptions of facilities that align with FCC rulings and interpretations. CO HB 25-1056 This bill, which was passed by the Colorado Legislature on March 18, 2025, defines state legislated shot clocks for eligible facilities requests and macrocells. The bill also prevents local jurisdictions from implementing permits for removal and equipment changes. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 8694 Ordinance 8694 incorporates several changes from the FCC rulings and interpretations and has also been reviewed by an outside consultant, Wilson Williams Fellman Dittman, Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 4 Packet Page 102 of 568 to verify and ensure Boulder meets federal code regulations, FCC designations and interpretations, and aligns with definitions with CO HB 17-1193. The following sections provide background and summarize major topics related to this proposed ordinance. Proposed Ordinance 8694: Amendment Summary Section 4-20-43 (15), “Development Application Fees.” • Clarifies the fee for a wireless communication facility, eligible facility request, small cell facility in the public right-of-way, multiple applications, new vertical infrastructure in the public right-of-way, additional facilities fees, and yearly fees for small cell in the public right-of-way based upon the FCC 18-133 ruling. Section 8-6-6.5 ,“Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits.” • Adds existing definitions from Section 9-16 of technical terms, which apply to this section. • Clarifies the definition of wireless communication facility to include small cell facilities as an umbrella term and changes small cell facility definition to clarify connectivity to wireless communication facility. • Clarifies height allowance and enclosure maximum size in the definition of small cell facility based off of federal definitions in 47 CFR 1.6002 • Removes vague application process language to direct to full review procedures for all wireless communication facility types in Section 9-6-4(f)(4). Section 9-6-4(f), “Specific Use Standards – Public and Institutional Uses.” • Clarifies the standards for the type of wireless communication facilities in Section 9-6-4 (f)(1). • Updates the excavation and deployment for transmission equipment and screening based upon FCC 20-153. • Adds language directing to required application fees for wireless communication facilities similar to existing language in Section 8-6-6.5 • Clarifies the review procedure for new wireless communication facilities, collocation or modification (other than eligible facility requests), eligible facility requests, small cell facilities, and equipment changes. • Adds language in the small cell facility review procedure to clarify application completeness, shot clock regulations per type of review, notification requirements for application completeness, and standards for review for small cell facilities in the right-of-way under Section 8-6-6.5. Section 9-16, “Definitions” • Adds definitions applicable to Section 9-6-4(f) including, “Act”, “Base Station”, “Deployment”, “Tower”, from CO HB 17-1193 and 47 CFR 1.6100 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 5 Packet Page 103 of 568 • Modifies definitions applicable to Section 9-6-4(f) for “Substantial Change” and “Wireless Communication Facility” based upon interpretations and definitions in FCC 20-153 & 47 CFR 1.6100 Attachment A contains the proposed ordinance for approval. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issue for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Does City Council recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? The following analysis is provided to demonstrate how the project objective is met through the proposed ordinance. What is the reason for the ordinance and what public purpose will be served? This ordinance has been drafted in response to the FCC rulings and interpretations with information taken from the State of Colorado house bill regarding wireless communication facilities and small cell facilities as well as federal codified definitions. The ninth circuit court had been reviewing and released interpretations of the FCC rulings in September, 2024 and is partly the reason for the city delaying an ordinance to update the city’s regulations to comply with the federal law. These changes impact how the city reviews wireless communication facilities and small cell facilities and are intended to keep Boulder up to date with the latest wireless communication facility direction. New state legislation has recently been passed and is awaiting Governor Polis’ signature, CO HB 25-1056, that may also impact local regulations, but staff intends to evaluate before proposing additional updates. How is the ordinance consistent with the purpose of the zoning districts or code chapters being amended? This ordinance will amend chapters of the land use code to clarify the review procedures for wireless communication facilities and small cell facilities and make sure the code is consistent with federal code, rulings, and interpretations and current state law. Are there consequences in denying this ordinance? The changes in the ordinance are intended to address the federal legislation. The consequence of denying this ordinance is that the city would fall into noncompliance with FCC rulings such as size, review procedures, and applicable fees which could potentially leave the city up to legal challenges from businesses, community members, and/or the federal government. What adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance? Staff does not anticipate that adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance. Currently, Boulder has ordinances in effect that capture the majority of the intent of the FCC 18-133 ruling; however, this ordinance is intended to clarify the review procedures, add definitions of applicable legal definitions for clarity, and to amend the applicable fees in line with the subsequent FCC rulings and interpretations. Both Section Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 6 Packet Page 104 of 568 9-6-4(f) and Section 8-6-6.5 address concealment techniques and spacing requirements for new and collocation of small cell wireless and wireless communication facilities in the event of an increase in small cell applications. What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinance? Why? As stated, there are ordinances in effect in the Boulder Revised Code that capture the majority of the intent of the FCC 18-133 ruling. Until recently, the City has received a limited amount of applications for small cell facilities in the right-of-way; however, with the recent transfer of streetlights from Xcel Energy to the City of Boulder, increased interest in small cell applications from providers has prompted a review of current code policies and their compatibility with recent rulings and interpretations. How does the ordinance compare to practices in other cities? This ordinance will align Boulder’s requirements with federal and state legislation, and create uniformity of our code policies with other nearby communities along the front range, which have also updated their regulations to comply with the legislation. Examples include Greeley, CO and Fort Collins, CO. How will this ordinance implement the comprehensive plan? This project implements several relevant policies noted below. Procedurally, the changes will clarify the fees, application, and review process for wireless communication facilities and small cell facilities in Boulder. As stated above, the changes are intended to align Boulder’s requirements with federal rulings, interpretations, legislation, state legislation, and uniformity with other front range communities. Intergovernmental Cooperation Policy 1.02 Policy Assessment The city and county will assess and be responsive to the external effects of their policies on other entities and jurisdictions. Consequences and tradeoffs will be considered before making decisions on them. Intergovernmental Cooperation Policy 1.04: Compliance with Land Use Regulations With regard to public facilities owned and operated in the other’s jurisdiction, the city and county will respect and abide by existing land use regulations insofar as being reasonably practicable. Intergovernmental Cooperation Policy 1.19: Provision of Urban Services in the Boulder Valley The city is an adequate provider of facilities and services. These facilities and services will continue to be supplied to Area I. The city will make them available to Area II within the planning period pursuant to the city’s annexation policies and Capital Improvements Program. The city and county intend that new urban development not occur until adequate urban facilities and services are available to serve the development. The county’s experience indicates that the provision of the full range of urban facilities and services by a municipality is preferable to provision of urban Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 7 Packet Page 105 of 568 facilities and services by special districts and private groups in part because municipalities have politically accountable leadership, general police power and the ability to coordinate provision of adequate urban facilities and services. Therefore, it is hereby presumed that adequate facilities and services can be provided only by the City of Boulder. The city will extend, furnish or provide such services at such time as it can provide them all as provided under paragraph 1.19(a) on the following page and the Urban Service Criteria and Standards in Chapter VII of this plan. However, it is not the intent to preclude the development and use of alternative facilities and service systems for new urban development so long as they are adequate as provided under paragraph 1.19(b) and the Urban Service Criteria and Standards section of this plan. Natural Environment Policy 3.11: Urban Environmental Quality To the extent possible, the city and county will seek to protect the environmental quality of areas under significant human and urban influence and will balance human needs and public safety with environmental protection. The city will develop and apply community-wide programs and standards for new development and redevelopment so that negative environmental impacts will be mitigated and overall environmental quality of the urban environment will be maintained and improved. 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 5.11: Communications Infrastructure The city will promote opportunities to enable Boulder residents, businesses, visitors and public or private institutions to connect affordably, easily and securely. The city and county will support and facilitate the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure (e.g., broadband) and other improvements that serve the community, help businesses thrive and grow, foster the growth of emerging telecommunications industries and support emergency systems. Local Governance & 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. Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 8 Packet Page 106 of 568 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ordinance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 9 Packet Page 107 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 8694 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4-20-43, “DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES,” 8-6-6.5, “SMALL CELL FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMTS,” 9-6-4, “SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS – PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES,” AND 9-16-1, “DEFINITIONS,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ALIGN CITY CODE WITH FEDERAL LAW REGARDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITTING OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: . . . (b)Land use regulation fees:….. . . . (15)An applicant for a wireless communications facility, including small cell facilities in the public right-of-way, shall pay the following fees:….. New, modification to, or collocation of wireless communications facility, and eligible facilities request, for each facility that is part of the application …..$2,440 Small cell facility in public right-of-way, up to two five facilities as part of the application …..$2,440500 New vertical infrastructure in the public right-of-way intending to support one or more small cell facility …..$1,000 Wireless communications facilities, including sSmall cell facilitiesy in the public right-of- way, applications with more than two facilities shall pay $2,440 plus shall pay $100 each for any additional facilities that are part of the application. Small cell facilities in the public right-of-way are subject to a yearly fee of $270 per facility. . . . Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 10 Packet Page 108 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 2. Section 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (b) Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Antenna shall mean any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves such as, but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes, whip antennas, directional and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more elements, multiple antenna configurations, or other similar devices. Collocation means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communication purposes. Eligible facilities request means any request for modification of an existing eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such facility involving: (1) collocation of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment; or (3) replacement of transmission equipment. . . . Small cell facility means any of the following: A personal wireless service communications facility as defined by the federal “Telecommunications Act of 1996” as amended as of August 6, 2014; or A wireless service communications facility that meets both of the following qualifications: The facilities are mounted on structures fifty feet or less in height including their antennas; are mounted on structures no more than ten percent taller than other adjacent structures; or, do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than fifty feet or by more than ten percent, whichever is greater; Each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet; and Primary equipment enclosures are no larger than seventeentwenty-eight cubic feet in volume as measured on the exterior surface of the enclosure. The following associated equipment may be located outside of the primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not included in the calculation of equipment volume: Electric meter, concealment, telecommunications demarcation box, ground-based enclosures, back-up power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switch and cut-off switch; or A micro wireless facility. . . . Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 11 Packet Page 109 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wireless communications facility means a facility used to provide personal wireless services as defined in U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(C); or wireless information services provided to the public to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or wireless utility monitoring and control services. A wireless communications facility does not include a facility that is an accessory use. A wireless communications facility includes an antenna or antennas, including without limitation, directional, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, small cell facilities, support equipment and their permitted supporting structure, but does not include the support structure for the wireless communications facility or its attached components if the use of such structure for the wireless communications facility is not the primary use. This term does not include mobile transmitting devices used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle hand held radios/telephones and their transmitting antennas. . . . (k) Application and review. Applications for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way shall be processed and reviewed using the review procedures and requirements described in Section 9-6-4(f)(5), “Wireless Communications Facility,” B.R.C. 1981, for the review of initial applications and for eligible facilities requests. The city manager shall be the final approval authority for all eligible facilities requests. Applications for small cell facilities within a right-of-way will be reviewed by the city manager to determine that the requirements of this section have been met. If the review determines that one or more of the conditions required by this section have not been met, the city will notify the applicant in writing describing the reasons therefor or the conditions that have not been satisfied. . . . Section 3. Section 9-6-4, “Specific Use Standards – Public and Institutional Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: COMMUNITY, CULTURAL, AND EDUCATIONAL . . . INFRASTRUCTURE (f) Wireless Communications Facility: (1) Applicability: This subsection (f) sets forth standards for wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way as outlined in subsection (2) or not located in the public right-of-way as specified in subsection (3) as well as the applicable review processes and required review timeframes. (2) Standards for wireless communication facilities located in the public right-of-way: Small cell facilities in the public right-of-way shall follow the standards located in Section 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” B.R.C. 1981. Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 12 Packet Page 110 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (A) Review Criteria: The city manager shall approve the request if the request: (i) is an eligible facilities request for an eligible support structure with no substantial change, new stand-alone small cell facility, or collocation of a non-eligible facility request and small cell facility; (ii) complies with the originally approved design elements and other conditions of approval, including but not limited to colors, textures, surfaces, scale, character, mounting, projection and siting, or any approved amendments thereto, except where noncompliance with those elements or conditions is solely limited to the thresholds of increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets or new excavation or deployment area identified in the definition of substantial change; (iii) does not defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure. Any design element that places the wireless communications facility out of view, hides it from being noticed, blends it with its surroundings or otherwise minimizes the visual or aesthetic impact of the facility is a concealment element of the eligible support structure; and (iv) complies with the standards pursuant to Section 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, if the request is a small cell facility in the right-of-way. (13) Standards for wireless communication facilities not located in the public right-of-way: A wireless communications facility may be approved as a conditional use and principal use on a lot if the following standards are met: . . . (G) Transmission Equipment and Screening: Transmission equipment other than antennas shall not be mounted to a building wall, penthouse or mechanical equipment enclosure and shall be designed and located to minimize any adverse aesthetic impact. Such equipment shall be invisible from view whenever possible, for example, by locating within the principal building, on the roof so as to be invisible from adjacent street and properties or behind parapet walls. When it is not possible to locate such equipment out of sight, it must be located to minimize its visibility and be designed to be screened from view by materials that are consistent and compatible with the building design, color and materials without increasing the apparent height of the building. Where it is not possible to locate such equipment within or on the roof of the building, it may be located in ground mounted cabinets. Such ground mounted equipment shall, to the extent possible, be screened from view through undergrounding, design that is architecturally consistent with that of the building, or other design options, approved by the manager, that will blend the equipment with the surrounding setting and built environment, including but not limited to materials, colors, textures, and landscaping. When determining whether a certain location that minimizes adverse aesthetic impacts is possible, functionality of the equipment may be considered. All buildings, shelters, cabinets, and other accessory components shall be grouped as closely as possible. Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 13 Packet Page 111 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Excavation or deployment of transmission equipment up to thirty feet in any direction outside a tower’s site does not constitute a substantial change in the physical dimensions of a tower or base station. Deployments outside the site boundary, including the thirty feet of the boundary for towers is limited to transmission equipment and not new towers. The expansion of up to thirty feet is subject to all other applicable requirements of the B.R.C. 1981. . . . (4) Application Fees: An applicant shall pay the fees described in Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” B.R.C. 1981, for wireless communication facilities. (25) Review Processes: Wireless communication facilities subject to this section shall be reviewed as follows: A new wireless communications facility and any collocation or modification to such use shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981, and the requirements of this Subsection (f) except that eligible facilities requests shall be reviewed pursuant to the following procedures and standards: (A) New wireless communication facilities: New wireless communication facilities, collocation or modification to such use, other than those listed in subsection (B) shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981, and the requirements of this subsection. (i) Timeframes for review: The review timeframes for applications in this subsection are summarized in Table 6-6. (B) Eligible facilities and small cell requests: Eligible facilities requests, including small cell facilities and equipment changes with no substantial change, new small cell facilities, and collocation for non-eligible facility request small cell facilities shall be reviewed pursuant to the following procedures and standards: (Ai) Application Requirements: The applicant shall submit an eligible facilities request, for the facilities subject to this section, on an application form provided by the city manager and shall include allny information necessary for the manager to consider the type of request, including, whether the application is an eligible facilities request or small cell facility and also demonstrates compliance with the review criteria established by this subsection. If the application is for a small cell facility, the application must additionally demonstrate that the application and meets the review criteria established in this Subsection (2)standards in Section 8-6-6.5, “Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, if the request is a small cell facility in the right-of-way. The city manager shall determine the application to be complete when all required documentation and information is submitted pursuant to the review and timeframe for review provided for by this subsection. The application may not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case for the proposed modification or collocation. Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 14 Packet Page 112 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Bii)Review: (i)a. Type of Review: Upon receipt of an application for an eligible facilities request subject to this subsection, the city manager shall review administratively such application toand determine whether the such application submittal so qualifies.. begin review for completeness. (ii)b. Timeframe for Review: Within sixty days ofthe review timeframe as shown in Table 6-6 from the date on which an applicant submits an application seeking approval of an eligible facilitiesthe request, the manager shall approve an application unless the manager determines that the application is not an eligible facilities request, new small cell facility, or collocation for non-eligible facility request small cell facility. (iii)c. Tolling of Timeframe for Review: The sixty-day review period timeframe as shown in Table 6-6 begins to run when the complete application is filedsubmitted. The city manager and the applicant may mutually agree to toll the review period. The sixty-day review period timeframe shall also be tolled where the manager determines that the application is incomplete. The review period is tolled for incompleteness pursuant to the following standards: a1. Within thirty days of receipt of the application, the manager must notify the applicant in writing, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information required for determination of an eligible facilities request; b2. The written incompleteness notice tolls the timeframe for review; c3. The timeframe for review begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the manager’s notice of incompleteness; d4. Within ten days of the supplemental submission, the city manager shall notify the applicant in writing that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original incompleteness notice; and e5. The timeframe is tolled in the case of a second or subsequent incompleteness notice pursuant to the procedures for the first incompleteness notice. Second or subsequent incompleteness notices may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original incompleteness notice. (iv)d. Failure to Act: In the event that the city manager fails to act on a request seeking approval for an eligible facilities request within the timeframe for review, accounting for any tolling, the request shall be deemed granted. The effective date of any deemed-granted approval, regardless of the facility type, shall be the day the city receives written notice from the applicant, after the review period, accounting for any tolling, has expired, that the application has been deemed granted. If the application requires a traffic control plan or other permit related to public safety, the applicant shall not commence construction or substantially change the Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 15 Packet Page 113 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wireless communication facility until a traffic control plan or other permit is obtained. (C) Review Criteria: The city manager shall approve an eligible facilities request if the request: (i) Is an eligible facilities request for an eligible support structure; (ii) Does not result in a substantial change; (iii) Complies with the originally approved design elements and other conditions of approval, including but not limited to colors, textures, surfaces, scale, character, mounting, projection and siting, or any approved amendments thereto, except where noncompliance with those elements or conditions is solely limited to the thresholds of increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets or new excavation or deployment area identified in the definition of substantial change; and (iv) Does not defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure. Any design element that places the wireless communications facility out of view, hides it from being noticed, blends it with its surroundings or otherwise minimizes the visual or aesthetic impact of the facility is a concealment element of the eligible support structure. (Diii) Decision: If the city manager finds the review criteria of Subparagraph (2)(AC) are met, the manager shall approve the eligible facilities request. If the manager finds that the applicant’s request does not meet the criteria of Subparagraph (2)(AC), the manager may approve with written conditions or deny the eligible facilities request and provide a written disposition with the reasons for conditional approval or denial, as well as any conditions required at the time of approval, to the applicant. The manager’s decision shall be supported by substantial evidence in the written record. Upon issuance of the denial decision, the manager shall review the application pursuant to the procedures established in Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981, and the requirements of this Ssubsection (f) and may request additional information and documents from the applicant to permit appropriate review. (Eiv) Compliance with Other Laws: Notwithstanding the approval of an applicationfor an eligible facilities request, all work done pursuant to the application must be completed in accordance with all generally applicable laws, regulations or other rules reasonably related to public health and safety, including but not limited to, building and safety codes. (Fv) Remedies: The applicants and the city may bring a claim related to § 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455) to any court of competent jurisdiction. (C) Timeframes for Review: Table 6-6 summarizes the review timeframes from the date of submittal for wireless communication facilities. Any of the timeframes identified in Table 6-6 may be extended by mutual agreement of the applicant and the city. Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 16 Packet Page 114 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE 6-6: TIMEFRAME FOR REVIEW Type of Wireless Communication Facility Timeframe for review from date of submittal New, non small cell, wireless facilities. 150 Days Collocation or modification wireless communication facilities which are not eligible facilities requests, new small cell facilities, and collocation of non-eligible facility request small cell facilities. 60 days New stand-alone small cell facilities. 90 days Eligible facility requests. 60 days Collocation of non-eligible facility request small cell facilities. 60 days (i) The sixty-day timeframe for non-eligible facility request collocations may be tolled if it is determined by the city manager, based on available resources, that it cannot reasonably and adequately review the collocation application or siting application due to another pending application for affordable housing, renewable energy, project of a government entity, or any other project for which law establishes a timeline to review permits. The city shall advise the applicant in writing of the duration of the tolling and the reason for its determination. (36) Abandonment and Removal: No property owner or applicant shall fail to remove a wireless communications facility that is abandoned or is unused for a period of six months. Section 4. Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: A—E . . . Act means the city manager’s grant of a siting application or issuance of a written decision denying a siting application. (Wireless Communications Facility) . . . Base station means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Federal Communications Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communication between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined below or any equipment associated with a tower. (1) The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 17 Packet Page 115 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 communication services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (2) The term includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems and small cell networks). (3) The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (1) through (2) of this definition that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. (4) The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under this section, does not support or house equipment described in paragraphs (1) through (2) of this definition. . . . Deployment means placement, construction, or modification of a wireless communications facility. (Wireless Communications Facility) P—T . . . Substantial change means a modification to the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure (that is not a legal nonconforming tower structure located on a lot or parcel and not in the public right-of-way and was built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Federal Communications Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities) that results or includes any of the following: (1) An increase in the height of the eligible support structure by more than ten percent or more than twentyen feet, whichever is greater. Changes in height shall be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height shall be measured from the dimensions of the eligible support structure, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and inclusive of any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act on February 22, 2012; (2) Addition of an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude more than six feet from the edge of the structure; (3) Installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; or, installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated with the eligible support structure, or else installation of ground cabinets Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 18 Packet Page 116 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that are more than ten percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the eligible support structure; or (4) Excavation or deployment outside the area in proximity to the eligible support structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground, or excavation or deployment outside of the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the eligible support structure or utility easements related to area in proximity by more than thirty feet in any direction, excluding any access or utility easements; or. (5) Does not defeat the concealment element of the eligible support structure. If the eligible support structure is a legal nonconforming tower structure that is located on a lot or parcel and not in the public right-of-way and was built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Federal Communications Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, substantial change means a modification to the physical dimensions of the tower that results in or includes any of the following: A. An increase in height of the tower by more than ten percent or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater;, where separation refers to the distance from the top of the existing antenna to the bottom of the proposed antenna and does not include the height of the new antenna; B. Addition of an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; C. Installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; or D. Excavation or deployment outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. . . . Tower means any structure built for the sole purpose or primary purpose of supporting Federal Commission-licensed or authorized antennas, including the on-site fencing, equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets associated with that tower but not installed as part of an antenna as defined herein. (Wireless Communications Facility) . . . U—Z Wireless communications facility means a facility used to provide personal wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(C); or wireless information services provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or wireless utility monitoring and control services. A wireless communications facility does not include a facility that is an accessory use. A wireless communications facility includes an antenna or antennas, including without limitation, Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 19 Packet Page 117 of 568 K:\ITAD\o-8694 1st Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 directional, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, small cell facilities, support equipment and their permitted supporting structure, but does not include the support structure to which the wireless communications facility or its components are attached if the use of such structure for the wireless communications facility is not the primary use. The term does not include mobile transmitting devices used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or hand held radios/telephones and their associated transmitting antennas. Section 5. This Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 6. The City Council deems it appropriate that this Ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this Ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 17th day of April 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk Attachment A - Oridnance 8694 Item 3G - 1st Rdg Ord 8694 Small Cell Wireless Regulations Updates Page 20 Packet Page 118 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8695, amending Chapter 10-8.5, “Wildland C ode,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt by reference the 2024 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface C ode of the International Code Council with certain amendments, and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Lisa Houde and Rob Adriaens RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8695, amending Chapter 10-8.5, “Wildland C ode,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt by reference the 2024 edition of the International Wildland- Urban Interface Code of the International C ode C ouncil with certain amendments, and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WU I Code Update Packet Page 119 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8695, amending Chapter 10-8.5, “Wildland Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt by reference the 2024 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code Council with certain amendments, and setting forth related details REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Planning & Development Services Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Rob Adriaens, Chief Building Official Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor Lisa Houde, Principal City Planner Fire-Rescue Mike Calderazzo, Fire Chief David Lowrey, Division Chief - Fire Marshal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council identified Wildfire Hardening & Waterwise Landscaping Policies & Regulation as one of its 2024-2025 work program priorities. The proposed changes in Ordinance 8695 represent the first step in changes for the wildfire hardening project. There is already significant work being done throughout the city organization to mitigate wildfire risk, which is summarized in the Dec. 12, 2024 study session memo. This code change focuses on the building code regulatory changes that could further support wildfire hardening of buildings and properties in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) area of the city. Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 1 Packet Page 120 of 568 For 11 years, Boulder has had special building regulations for the WUI area. To regulate this, Boulder has adopted the 2012 and 2018 International Wildland Urban Interface Codes with local amendments; the 2018 code is currently in effect. The International Code Council (ICC) updates the International Wildland Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) every three years through a collaborative and consensus-based process involving experts, stakeholders and public comment throughout the country. ICC’s approach to code development ensures that building codes are robust, adaptable, and reflective of current safety and construction standards. The proposed code change includes adoption of the ICC’s 2024 edition of the IWUIC as well as new local amendments designed to address specific wildfire concerns in the City of Boulder. The proposed ordinance is available in Attachment A. This project also includes a reevaluation and update to the WUI area map that identifies where the IWUIC requirements apply (see Attachment C). The second reading memo will include a separate motion to officially identify the map area. The map significantly increases the number of properties included, though the vast majority of new WUI area properties are within the Class 3 ignition resistant zone, which has the simplest property management implications. If passed, the IWUIC would go into effect on August 1, 2025 along with the other ICC codes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8695, amending Chapter 10-8.5, “Wildland Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt by reference the 2024 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code Council with certain amendments, and setting forth related details. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board – Planning Board will review the ordinance on April 15, 2025 and will provide a recommendation to City Council. The board’s recommendation will be included in the memo for second reading, scheduled for May 15, 2025. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK A consult level of engagement was used for this project. Relevant feedback on wildfire hardening efforts was also received during the recent update to the Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2024. Since some of the proposed changes to the WUI area are based on the state’s Wildfire Resiliency Code Board model code, elements of the map changes are limited to an inform level of engagement. Notification of the upcoming changes has been announced in several editions of the Planning and Development Services monthly newsletter, which reaches over 5,000 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 2 Packet Page 121 of 568 people. Two community meetings were held in March, an in-person event attended by about 35 people and an online meeting with about 15 attendees. A presentation of the proposed updates was shared at both meetings and staff from both the Planning & Development Services and Fire-Rescue departments were available to answer questions. Feedback received in the community meetings was generally positive regarding both the expansion of the WUI area and the proposed local amendments to the code. Some attendees were concerned about the limited applicability of the proposed changes, specifically that the requirements would not apply to properties until a building permit is sought and would only apply to the specific scope of work. Staff is continuing to analyze the staffing and resource implications of requiring a greater level of compliance, such as at the time of property sale or rental license; this will be addressed in later aspects of the Wildfire Hardening project. A summary of questions asked at the community meetings is provided in Attachment D. An online engagement page has also been developed on Be Heard Boulder to summarize the proposed changes, provide important documents and updates on engagement opportunities, and includes an ideas wall for community members to leave comments. Comments received so far can be viewed on the Be Heard Boulder page linked above. Council and Board Input City Council City Council identified Wildfire Hardening & Waterwise Landscaping Policies & Regulation as one of its 2024-2025 work program priorities. At its retreat, Council agreed to establish a priority that encompasses a review of policies and regulations focused on wildfire hardening strategies (building and properties) and waterwise landscaping (such as native plant use). The proposed changes in Ordinance 8695 represent the first step in changes for the wildfire hardening project. The council priority project kicked off this fall and is a multi-departmental collaborative effort. There is already significant work being done throughout the city organization to mitigate wildfire risk. This code change focuses on the building code regulatory changes that could further support wildfire hardening of buildings and properties. City Council provided direction on the project at the December 12, 2024 study session (see summary of council comments). Notably, the City Council directed staff not to move forward with applying regulations retroactively to properties, but rather to apply requirements to properties at the time of building permits. Several council members also indicated interest in expanding the WUI area. Additionally, City Council asked that staff study opportunities to require compliance with wildfire hardening requirements upon property sale or rental license, as well as the staffing and resource implications of this work. This is still being studied and will be addressed separately, later in the project. Planning Board The Planning Board was introduced to the project at the December 17, 2024 meeting. The board expressed general support staff’s initial recommendations related to the IWUIC. Several topics were discussed including the interaction of historic preservation review with wildfire requirements, how the WUI map and regulations are updated with new data Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 3 Packet Page 122 of 568 or fire science understanding, how to incentivize neighborhood compliance, the importance of education and outreach, the classification of new WUI areas, concerns that complaint-based enforcement can be inequitable, and questions about whether identifying properties within the WUI affects insurance coverage. BACKGROUND International Wildland Urban Interface Code The City of Boulder routinely adopts and enforces a full set of codes that regulate buildings and construction in the city (Title 10, B.R.C., 1981). Most of these codes are based on model building codes developed by the International Code Council (ICC), with local amendments to address issues specific to the Boulder community. For example, through local amendments, Boulder has prohibited wood roof coverings and required Class A (most restrictive) roofing to mitigate fire risk since 1994. The IWUIC Boulder first adopted the IWUIC in 2013, and it was effective on January 31, 2014. In 2019, the 2018 version was adopted and is the version the city is currently enforcing. The ICC model codes are updated on a three-year cycle and the city typically adopts every other cycle of these codes. Boulder most recently adopted the 2024 set of codes but the IWUIC was set on a separate timeline to allow for more robust engagement. The purpose of the IWUIC is to regulate the use, condition, and construction of structures within WUI areas to mitigate the risk to life and structures associated with the spread of wildland fires into the interface area and to minimize the potential spread of structure fires into wildland fuels. It establishes minimum regulations for the safeguarding of life and for property protection. The IWUIC requires new construction and additions or remodels to homes within the identified WUI area to meet additional regulations beyond the standards found in the general construction requirements of the city’s building code. These additional regulations include fire resistant materials, underfloor areas, roof coverings, eaves, rain gutters, windows, and ventilation openings. The 2024 IWUIC update with proposed local amendments is intended to significantly reduce the wildfire risk of new construction within the city of Boulder. This code only applies to new construction, modifications, and relocated structures in the WUI area. State of Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code Board In 2023, Senate Bill 23-166 was adopted which established a wildfire resiliency code board to adopt model codes, requiring governing bodies with jurisdiction in an area within the WUI to adopt codes that meet or exceed the model code standards. By July 1, 2025, the board is required to circulate rules concerning the adoption of codes and standards for the hardening of structures and reducing fire risk in the defensible space surrounding structures in the wildland-urban interface in Colorado. Jurisdictions like Boulder would be required to have codes that meet or exceed the state’s model codes and apply that to all properties identified by the state as located within the WUI. Drafts of the state model code and map have been released and city staff have ensured that the proposed code changes align with state requirements. Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 4 Packet Page 123 of 568 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 8695 The main changes proposed include adopting the 2024 IWUIC, as well as the proposed updated WUI area, and local amendments to the IWUIC. These local recommendations are summarized below. 2024 IWUIC The 2024 version of the IWUIC incorporates a few changes to note: • Administrative formatting updates to align with the other I-Code format • Updates what is considered "Ignition-resistant (IR) building material" • Added a flashing requirement to Class 1 Ignition Resistant Construction • Updated requirements for vents for both Class 1 and Class 2 Ignition Resistant Construction • Added requirements for vents to Class 3 Ignition Resistant Construction Proposed WUI Area The IWUIC requires the WUI to be identified and reviewed at least every three years. This project includes reevaluation and an update of the identified WUI area. The second reading memo will include a separate motion to officially identify the map area. The proposed map would increase the number of properties from 4,667 parcels, mostly located on the western side of town, to 16,391 properties, including areas on the eastern side of Boulder. The map is delineated by the areas of the three tiers of ignition resistant construction required by the IWUIC. The vast majority (11,517 or 98%) of new WUI area properties are identified within the Class 3 ignition resistant zone, which has the least restrictive requirements. 207 properties are identified in the Class 2 ignition resistant zone, which has more restrictive requirements (see summary of varying class requirements in Attachment B). The map in Attachment C identifies the current and proposed WUI area, as determined by Boulder Fire-Rescue staff (view the interactive map). The degree of fire resistance required for construction in the WUI area depends on several factors, including available water supply for firefighting, the fuel hazard, and the number of days of critical fire weather. Most areas in the interface area in Boulder require 1-hour fire resistance materials. In addition to construction standards, the IWUIC requires vegetation management plans as a part of building permit applications in the interface areas. Fire-Rescue staff also completed additional modeling based on fire behavior data and applied research about ember travel and home exposure to embers. This included areas where torching and crown fire could occur, combined with commonly cited research about home exposure to long range ember cast. This ember modeling informed the expansion of the WUI boundary east of Broadway in portions of north and South Boulder, and to Broadway in central Boulder. Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 5 Packet Page 124 of 568 The WUI area has also been updated to ensure that all parcels included in the state’s Wildfire Resiliency Code Board WUI map, scheduled for adoption in the coming months, are also incorporated in the city’s WUI area. Proposed Local Amendments to the 2024 IWUIC As with other ICC codes, the 2024 IWUIC is recommended to be adopted with several local amendments. Aside from local amendments being carried forward from the 2018 version, the following are new to highlight: Chapter 2: Definitions • Amended definition of “defensible space” • New definition of “noncombustible zone” Chapter 5: Special Building Construction Requirements • Requires noncombustible decking material and screening below new decks in the Class 3 zone. • Requires all new fences and gates within 8 feet of a structure to be constructed of noncombustible material in the WUI area. Chapter 6: Fire Protection Requirements • For new construction, requires fuel modification distance in accordance with level of hazard. • For new construction, requires all new habitable buildings and structures within 10 feet of a habitable building have a 5-foot noncombustible zone. • For new construction, limits plants in defensible space (5-30 feet) to only low- flammability plants. • For new construction, prohibits the planting of new junipers. Attachment A contains the draft the ordinance and the full IWUIC is available here. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issue for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Does the City Council recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? The following analysis is provided to demonstrate how the project objective is met through the proposed ordinance. What is the reason for the ordinance and what public purpose will be served? The purpose of the larger Wildfire Hardening project is to reduce Boulder’s wildfire risk to homes by updating codes and policies, such as ignition-resistant building code requirements and landscaping codes, and by enhancing, expanding, and further operationalizing education and incentive programs that help residents reduce risk on their property. This ordinance will adopt the latest 2024 IWUIC with local amendments specific to Boulder that mitigate potential risk. The project would also significantly Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 6 Packet Page 125 of 568 expand the WUI area where the code will apply. This will serve the public purpose of contributing to Boulder’s multifaceted approach at reducing wildfire risk. How is the ordinance consistent with the purpose of the zoning districts or code chapters being amended? The purpose of the city’s WUI code is to “protect public health and safety by regulating the use, condition, construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of buildings, structures, and premises within the wildland-urban interface areas in the city in order to prevent the spread of fire and risk of harm to persons and property from the intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures, as well as to prevent structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels.” With this ordinance, the city would adopt the 2024 IWUIC update with local amendments. The project will also expand the mapped WUI area to further reduce wildfire risk. The expanded map area is based on the soon-to-be adopted state requirements as well as ember modeling as described in the memorandum above. Are there consequences in denying this ordinance? If this ordinance is not adopted, the 2018 IWUIC would remain in effect. While this provides significant protection, important new standards like the noncombustible zone, low-flammability plants, and others would not be regulated. Additionally, if the WUI is note updated, the WUI would remain limited to the far western edge of the city, despite ember modeling knowledge that indicates additional risk in other areas of the city. What adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance? The city currently has the 2018 IWUIC in effect with local amendments, which provides risk mitigation beyond what many other communities have, with extensive requirements for ignition-resistant building materials in particular. The proposed 2024 IWUIC with local amendments would further strengthen the code requirements by incorporating more of the defensible space protections like a noncombustible zone, low-flammability landscaping requirements, noncombustible fence connections, and ignition-resistant decking requirements in Class 3. The updated WUI area would also expand the applicability of these requirements. What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinance? Why? As noted previously, the city adopts the suite of ICC codes every six years. The other codes were adopted on March 20th with an effective date of August 1, 2025. The intent is to adopt the IWUIC to have the same effective date of August 1, 2025 as the other codes. Additionally, the city is required to comply with the state’s Wildfire Resiliency Code Board model codes within 3 months of the final adoption on July 1, 2025. Furthermore, this is an important step in the City Council 2024-2025 work program priority related to wildfire hardening. Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 7 Packet Page 126 of 568 How does the ordinance compare to practices in other cities? To better understand the various approaches to regulating the WUI, staff researched 15 peer communities, primarily located in Colorado, with some additional communities out of state that are known to have strong fire mitigation efforts. This research found that there were generally a few different approaches to fire mitigation regulation. • Austin, TX and Chaffee County, CO have adopted the IWUIC code without additional wildfire mitigation standards in their zoning code -- this is the current approach in the City of Boulder as well. Later steps in the wildfire hardening project may consider additional changes to the land use code, similar to those of the following communities: • Ashland, OR and Boise, ID have established a WUI overlay district within their zoning or land use codes rather than incorporating specific requirements for the WUI in their building codes. • Many Colorado communities such as Colorado Springs, Douglas County, Jefferson County, and Loveland have incorporated both building code and land use code requirements, often with a WUI overlay district established in the land use code. How will this ordinance implement the comprehensive plan? The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) is the overarching policy document for the city. Several relevant policies are adopted within the BVCP, with the following most directly applicable to this project: Natural Environment Policy 3.20: Wildfire Protection & Management As Boulder County’s climate changes, the intensity and frequency of wildfires is likely to increase. The city and county will require onsite and off-site measures to guard against the danger of fire in developments adjacent to natural lands and consistent with forest and grassland ecosystem management principles and practices. Recognizing that fire is a widely accepted means of managing ecosystems and wildfire risk, the city and county will integrate ecosystem management principles with wildfire hazard mitigation planning and urban design. Natural Environment Policy 3.10 Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation & Resilience The city and county are working to help mitigate climate change globally and recognize that climate change adaptation is an important area for consideration. Preserving large ecological reserves enhances the resilience of native ecosystems and reduces the loss of native biodiversity, ecological processes and ecosystems as the climate changes. Additionally, the city and county will use an adaptive management approach to assess potential impacts from changes in the local climate. Open space management plans guide other strategies related to climate change, such as changes to visitation rates or visitor experiences (e.g., heat exposure or scenic quality) on open space. Overall strategies may include: 1. Actively improve our understanding of the effect of climate change on local ecosystems and of actions that may help maintain or restore the ecological functions of natural systems under a changing climate; 2. Actively identify and monitor ecosystems most vulnerable to climate change using biological indicators of sensitivity and response; Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 8 Packet Page 127 of 568 3. Protect large reserves of open space land to support the long-term viability of native plants and animals; 4. Conduct restoration of degraded environments and management of natural ecosystems to enhance their resilience in the presence of climate change, using existing management plans and the best available science. In some cases, this may involve ecosystem transition to alternate states or novel ecosystems (e.g., to ecosystems now found at different elevations, to variations of current ecosystems, or ecosystems changing in other ways that cannot be forecast with certainty today); 5. On-going attention to the wildland urban interface environments to improve management of both natural resources and human-wildlife conflicts and to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire; and 6. Including specific management guidance and direction regarding climate change mitigation, adaptation and resilience when city and county agencies prepare master plans. Community Well-Being & Safety Policy 8.09 Resilience in Public Safety & Risk Prevention The city and county will provide focused efforts around public safety, risk prevention and early intervention. Working with the community, the city, and county will strive to prepare all segments of the community for uncertainty and disruptions by encouraging community and individual preparedness and creating a culture of risk awareness. The city and county will prepare for, respond to and manage wildfire hazards by implementing wildland-urban interface regulations and developing, updating and implementing multi-hazard mitigation programs and plans. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ordinance 8695 Attachment B: WUI Class Requirement Comparison Attachment C: Proposed WUI Area Map Attachment D: Summary of Community Meetings Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 9 Packet Page 128 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8695 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-8.5, “WILDLAND CODE,” B.R.C. 1981; TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE 2024 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 10-8.5-1, “Legislative Intent,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-8.5-1. Legislative Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to protect public health and safety by regulating the use, condition, construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of buildings, structures, and premises within the defined wildland-urban interface areas in the city in order to prevent the spread of fire and risk of harm to persons and property from the intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures, as well as to prevent structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels. The city council hereby adopts the 20242018 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code with certain amendments, additions, and deletions thereto found to be in the best interests of the city. Section 2. Section 10-8.5-2, “Legislative Intent,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-8.5-2. Adoption of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code With Modifications. (a)The 20242018 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code Council is adopted by reference as the City of Boulder Wildland Code and has the same force and effect as though fully set forth in this chapter, except as specifically amended by the provisions of this chapter. (b) Appendix B, "Vegetation Management Plan," and Appendix C, "Fire Hazard Severity Form," and sections contained therein are adopted. Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 10 Packet Page 129 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (c) Section 101.1, “Title,” is repealed and reenacted to read: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the City of Boulder Wildland Code or Wildland Code or wildland code, hereinafter referred to as “this code.” (dc) Section 102.4.1, "Conflicts," is amended to read: 102.4.1 Conflicts. Where conflicts exist between provisions of this code and the referenced standards or the building, residential, or fire code, the most restrictive provisions shall govern. (ed) Section 103.1, "Creation of an enforcement agency," is repealed and reenacted to read: 103.1 Division of Building Safety. "Division of Building Safety" means the administrative unit established by the city manager or the manager's delegates, and the personnel assigned to the unit by the manager. The Division of Building Safety administers the City of Boulder Wildland Code assisted by a Community Risk Reduction, established within the fire department, under the direction of the manager. (fe) Section 104.83, "Liability of the code official," is repealed and reenacted to read: 104.83 Liability. The Wildland Code shall not be construed to hold the City of Boulder or any of its employees, officials, or agents responsible for any damage to persons or property by reason of inspection or reinspection or failure to inspect or reinspect as herein provided or by reason of the approval or disapproval of any equipment as herein provided. No employee, official, or agent of the city who enforces, attempts to enforce, or is authorized to enforce the Wildland Code renders him or herself or the city liable to third parties for any damage or injury to the person or property of such third parties as a result of enforcement or nonenforcement of the fire codeWildland Code. The city assumes no duty of care by virtue of the adoption of the Wildland Code. No person is justified in relying upon the approval of a plan, the results of an inspection, or the issuance of a certificate of inspection or occupancy, and such approvals, inspections, and certificates are not a guarantee that the plan or work so approved, inspected, or certificated in fact complies with all requirements of the Wildland Code. It is the duty of the person owning, controlling, or constructing, altering, or maintaining any building, or structure, or premises to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the requirements of the fire codeWildland Code, and it is such persons and not the city who are responsible for damages caused by negligent breach of such duty. (f) Section 106, "Appeals," is repealed and reenacted to read: SECTION 106 APPEALS 106.1 Appeals. (a) Any appeal under this section shall be heard by the Board of Building Appeals established under Section 2-3-4, "Board of Building Appeals," B.R.C. 1981, Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 11 Packet Page 130 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unless the city manager determines, due to the nature of the issues in a particular appeal, to appoint a hearing officer under Section 1-3-5, "Hearings and Determinations," B.R.C. 1981. (b) Any person directly affected by a decision of the code official or an order issued under this code may appeal the decision or order on the ground that: 1. The decision or order was based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder; 2. The code official erroneously failed to approve an alternative material or method pursuant to Section 105.3 prior to its installation or use. In determining such an appeal, the board shall apply the standards of Section 105.3, but the board shall have no jurisdiction to consider if a material or method expressly prohibited by this code is an acceptable alternative; or 3. The code official has erroneously failed to grant a modification pursuant to Section 105.1. In determining such an appeal, the board or hearing officer shall apply the standards of Section 105.1. The code official has the burden of proof under paragraph 1. The appellant has the burden of proof on appeals brought pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3. The board or hearing officer shall determine the appeal and decide whether the code official's interpretation or application of such code was correct or in error at a hearing under the procedures described in Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. (b) An application for appeal must be filed in writing with the city manager within fourteen days after the date the decision or order was served. (c) An applicant for an appeal shall pay the fee prescribed by Section 4-20-47, "Zoning Adjustment and Buildings Appeals Filing Fees," B.R.C. 1981. The fee for an appeal heard by a hearing officer shall be the same as the fee for an appeal heard by the Board of Building Appeals. (d) The city manager may apply to the Board of Building Appeals, without fee, for an advisory opinion concerning alternative methods, applicability of specific requirements, approval of equipment and materials, and granting of special permission as contemplated in Section 105.1, Practical difficulties, or Section 105.3, Alternative materials or methods, of the Wildland Code. (e)(a) The board or hearing officer has no authority to interpret chapter 1 (the administrative requirements) of this code except as expressly provided in this section, nor, because this code sets minimum standards, to waive any requirement of this code. (g) A new section 104.11, “Compliance with Federal and State Law,” is added to read: Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 12 Packet Page 131 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104.11 Compliance with Federal and State Law. The code official may modify for individual cases the provisions of this code to allow a design, installation, construction, use, or maintenance not in compliance with the provisions of this code, if otherwise the provisions of this code would result in a violation of federal or state law, legislation, or regulation, and the modification would be the minimum modification that provides relief. (hg) Section 1057, "Permits," is repealed and reenacted to read: 1057 Permits. The provisions of Section 105, "Permits," of the City of Boulder Building Code, Section 105, "Permits," of the City of Boulder Fire Code, and Section 105, "Permits," of the City of Boulder Residential Code, apply, as otherwise applicable to the work requiring the permit. (ih) Section 1068.1, "General," is repealed and reenacted to read: 1068.1 General. The requirements of Section 107.1, "General," of the City of Boulder Building Code apply. (j) Section 106.2, “Information on plans and specifications,” is repealed and reenacted to read: 106.2. Information on plans and specifications. Plans and specifications shall be drawn to scale and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed, and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. (ki) Section 109.3.610.4.6, "Prosecution of violation," is repealed and reenacted to read: 109.3.610.4.6 Violations. (a) General Provisions. (1) No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, improve, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building, or structure, or premises in the city or cause or permit the same to be done except in conformity with all of the provisions of this code and in conformity with the terms and conditions of approval issued under this code, or of any directive of the code official. No person shall violate the provisions of this code, fail to comply with any requirements thereof, or fail to comply with any order issued by the code official under this code. (2) In accordance with the provisions of Section 5-2-11, "Prosecution of Multiple Counts for Same Act," B.R.C. 1981, each day during which Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 13 Packet Page 132 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 illegal construction, alteration, maintenance, occupancy, use, or violation continues constitutes a separate offense remediable through the enforcement provisions of this code. (3) The owner, tenant, and occupant of a structure or land and the agents of each of them are jointly and severally liable for any violation of this code with respect to such structure or land. (4) The remedies for any violation of any provision of this code or of any permit, certificate, or other approval issued under this code or other City of Boulder codes or of any directive of the code official may be pursued singly or in combination. (5) If any person fails or refuses to pay when due any charge imposed under this section, the code official may, in addition to taking other collection remedies, certify due and unpaid charges to the Boulder County Treasurer for collection as provided by Section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes, Charges, and Assessments to County Treasurer for Collection," B.R.C. 1981. (6) The code official may charge the cost of any action taken to correct or abate a violation, as authorized by this code, plus up to fifteen percent of such cost for administration, to the property owner. If any property owner fails or refuses to pay when due any charge imposed under this section, the code official may, in addition to taking other collection remedies, certify due any unpaid charges, including interest, to the Boulder County Treasurer, to be levied against the person's property for collection by the county in the same manner as delinquent general taxes upon such property are collected, under the procedures described by Section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes, Charges, and Assessments to County Treasurer for Collection," B.R.C. 1981. (b) Administrative Procedures and Remedies. (1) If the code official finds that a violation of any provision of this code or any approval granted under this code exists, the city manager, after notice and an opportunity for hearing under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981, may take any one or more of the following actions to remedy the violation: (A) Impose a civil penalty according to the following schedule: (i) For the first violation of the provision or approval, $100; (ii) For the second violation of the same provision or approval, $300; and Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 14 Packet Page 133 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (iii) For the third violation of the same provision or approval, $1,000; (B) For a violation concerning the use of a residential building under a rental license, revoke such license; (C) Require the filing of a declaration of use as provided in subsection (e); or (D) Issue an order reasonably calculated to ensure compliance with the provisions of this code or any approval granted under this code. (2) Prior to the hearing, the code official may issue an order that no person shall perform any work on any structure or land, except to correct any violation found by the code official to exist with respect to such structure or land. (3) If notice is given to the code official at least forty-eight hours before the time and date set forth in the notice of hearing on any violation that the violation has been corrected, the code official will reinspect the structure or land. If the code official finds that the violation has been corrected, the manager may cancel the hearing. (4) No person shall fail to comply with any action taken by the code official under this section. (a) Criminal Penalties. Violations of this code are punishable as provided in Section 5-2-4, "General Penalties," B.R.C. 1981. (b) Other Remedies. The city attorney may maintain an action for damages, declaratory relief, specific performance, injunction, or any other appropriate relief in the District Court in and for the County of Boulder for any violation of any provision of this code or any approval granted under this code. (c) Declaration of Use. If the code official determines that a person is using a structure in a way that might mislead a reasonable person to believe that such use is a use by right or otherwise authorized by this title, the code official may require such person to sign under oath a declaration of use that defines the limited nature of the use and to record such declaration in the office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder against the title to the land. In addition to all other remedies and actions that the code official is authorized to use under the Boulder Revised Code or other applicable federal, state, or local laws to enforce the provisions of this code, the code official is authorized to withhold any approval affecting such structure or land, including, without limitation, a building permit, use review, site review, subdivision, floodplain development permit, or wetland permit, until such time as the person submits a declaration of use that is in a form acceptable to the code official. Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 15 Packet Page 134 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (lj) Section 1109.34.7, "Violation penalties," is repealed and reserved. 109.3.7 Reserved. (m) Section 112, "Means of Appeals," is repealed and reenacted to read: SECTION 112- MEANS OF APPEALS 112.1 Appeals. Any appeal under this section shall be heard by the Board of Building Appeals established under Section 2-3-4, "Board of Building Appeals," B.R.C. 1981, unless the city manager determines, due to the nature of the issues in a particular appeal, to appoint a hearing officer under Section 1-3-5, "Hearings and Determinations," B.R.C. 1981. Any person directly affected by a decision of the code official or an order issued under this code may appeal the decision or order on the ground that: 1. The decision or order was based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder; 2. The code official erroneously failed to approve an alternative material, design, or method pursuant to Section 104.2.2, Alternative materials, design and methods, prior to its installation or use. In determining such an appeal, the board or hearing officer shall apply the standards of Section 104.2.2, but the board or hearing officer shall have no jurisdiction to consider if a material, design, or method expressly prohibited by this code is an acceptable alternative; or 3. The code official has erroneously failed to grant a modification pursuant to Section 104.2.3, Modifications. In determining such an appeal, the board or hearing officer shall apply the standards of Section 104.2.3, Modifications. The code official has the burden of proof under paragraph 1. The appellant has the burden of proof on appeals brought pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3. The board or hearing officer shall determine the appeal and decide whether the code official's interpretation or application of such code was correct or in error at a hearing under the procedures described in Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. (a) An application for appeal must be filed in writing with the city manager within fourteen days after the date the decision or order was served. (b) An applicant for an appeal shall pay the fee prescribed by Section 4-20-47, "Zoning Adjustment and Buildings Appeals Filing Fees," B.R.C. 1981. The fee Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 16 Packet Page 135 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for an appeal heard by a hearing officer shall be the same as the fee for an appeal heard by the Board of Building Appeals. (c) The city manager may apply to the Board of Building Appeals, without fee, for an advisory opinion concerning alternative methods, applicability of specific requirements, approval of equipment and materials, and granting of special permission as contemplated in Section 104.2.2, Alternative materials, designs and methods, or Section 104.2.3, Modifications, of the Wildland Code. (d) The board or hearing officer has no authority to interpret chapter 1 (the administrative requirements) of this code except as expressly provided in this section, nor, because this code sets minimum standards, to waive any requirement of this code. (nk) The definition of "Code Official" in Section 202, "Definitions," is amended in that the definition of “Code Official” and “Defensible Space” are repealed and reenacted and in that a definition for “Noncombustible Zone” is added to read: CODE OFFICIAL. Code official means the city manager or the city manager's delegate. DEFENSIBLE SPACE. An area that has been modified and is maintained to reduce fire risk, intensity, and spreading by disconnecting fuel loads both vertically and horizontally. In this area, natural and manmade fuels are treated, removed, and reduced to slow the spread of wildfire and alter fire behavior. NONCOMBUSTIBLE ZONE. A five-foot area around a building or other structure having no vegetation and no combustible material. (ol) Section 403.2, "Driveways," is repealed and reenacted to read: 403.2 Driveways. Driveways shall be provided when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of a building is located more than 100 feet (30,480 mm) from a fire apparatus access road. (pm) Section 403.2.1, "Dimensions," is repealed and reenacted to read: 403.2.1 Dimensions. Driveways shall be provided as defined in Section 503.2.1, "Dimensions," of the City of Boulder Fire Code, as locally amended in Paragraph 10-8- 2(b)(116), B.R.C. 1981, for an "accessible private drive" and with a minimum unobstructed height of 15 feet (4572 mm). (qn) Section 403.2.4, "Turnarounds," is repealed and reenacted to read: 403.2.4 Turnarounds. Driveway turnarounds shall have a turning radius to accommodate an SU-30 vehicle. Driveways that connect with a road or roads at more than one point shall be considered as having a turnaround if all changes in direction meet the radii requirements for driveway turnaround. Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 17 Packet Page 136 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (ro) Section 403.3, "Fire apparatus access road," is repealed and reenacted to read: 403.3 Fire apparatus access road. When required, fire apparatus access roads shall meet the requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. (sp) Section 404.2, "Water sources," is repealed and reenacted to read: 404.2 Water sources. Water sources shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. (tq) 503.2 Ignition-resistant building material. Add the following, as option 5: 5. Deck surface. Approved wood thermoplastic composite lumber with an ASTM E84 flame-spread index no greater than 200, or any approved Class A roof assembly. A new section 503.2.4.4, “Decks, appendages, and projects,” is added to read: 503.2.4.4 Decks, appendages, and projections. Decks and other unenclosed structures attached to buildings shall be constructed of a material meeting the following: 503.2.4.4.1 Surface. The surface shall be constructed of approved wood thermoplastic composite lumber with a flame-spread index no greater than 200 or any approved Class A roof assembly. 503.2.4.4.2 Framing. Framing shall be constructed with one of the following methods: 1. 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction. 2. Heavy timber construction. 3. Approved noncombustible materials. 4. Fire-retardant-treated wood labeled for exterior use. (u) Section 504.2, “Roof assembly,” but not including, Section 504.2.1, “Roof valleys,” is repealed and reenacted to read: 504.2 Roof covering. Roofs shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Boulder Building Code and the City of Boulder Residential Code, as applicable. (vr) Section 505.2, "Roof coveringassembly," but not including Section 505.2.1, “Roof valleys,” is repealed and reenacted to read: 505.2 Roof covering. Roofs shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Boulder Building Code and the City of Boulder Residential Building Code, as applicable. (ws) Section 506.2, "Roof coveringassembly," but not including Section 506.2.1, “Roof valleys,” is repealed and reenacted to read: Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 18 Packet Page 137 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 506.2 Roof covering. Roofs shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Boulder Building Code and the City of Boulder Residential Building Code, as applicable. (x) A new Section 506.6, “Appendages and projections,” is added to read: 506.6 Appendages and projections. The surface of decks, projections, and unenclosed structures attached to buildings with habitable space shall be constructed of material that complies with Section 503.2.4.4.1 “Surface”. (y) A new Section 506.6.1, “Screening,” is added to read: 506.6.1 Screening. Appendages and projections shall have a noncombustible corrosion- resistant mesh with openings not to exceed 1/8 inch around the perimeter or shall be designed and approved to prevent flame or ember penetration under the appendage or projection. Exception: The framing material meets the ignition-resistant building material requirements of Section 503.2, “Ignition-resistant building material.” (zt) Section 507.1, "Replacement or repair of roof coverings," is repealed and reenacted to read: 507.1 Replacement or repair of roof coverings. Replacement or repair of any wood roof shall meet the requirements of Section 10-5-5, "Wood Roof Covering Materials Prohibited," B.R.C. 1981. (aa) A new Section “508 - FENCING” is added to read: SECTION 508 – FENCING 508.1 Installation and replacement of fences. All fence and gate sections within 8 feet (2.4 m) of buildings with habitable spaces or within any structure within 10 feet of a building with habitable spaces shall be constructed of noncombustible materials in accordance with Section 503.2.1, “Noncombustible material.” (u) Section 601.1, "Scope," is repealed and reenacted to read: 601.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter establish general requirements for new buildings, structures, and premises located within wildland-urban interface areas. Only the requirements of Sections 607.1, "General," and 607.2, "Storage for off-site use," shall apply to new and existing buildings, structures, and premises located within wildland- urban interface areas. (bbv) Section 603.2, “Fuel modification,” is repealed and reenacted to read: Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 19 Packet Page 138 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 603.2 Fuel modification. Buildings and structures constructed in compliance with the conforming defensible space category (moderate hazard, high hazard, or extreme hazard) as identified within the wildland urban interface area by the code official shall comply with the applicable fuel modification distance established in Table 603.2 or with fuel modification to the lot line, whichever is less. The distances specified in Table 603.2 shall be measured on a horizontal plane from the perimeter or projection of the building or structure as shown in Figure 603.2 (cc) A new Section 603.2.4, “Noncombustible Zone,” is added to read: 603.2.4 Noncombustible Zone. All new buildings with habitable space and all new structures shall have a noncombustible zone. (dd) A new Section 603.2.5, “Fuels planted within defensible space,” is added to read: 603.2.5 Fuels planted within defensible space. Fuels planted within the defensible space, in the area that is between 5 feet (1.5 m) from the building or structure and the property lot line, but not to exceed 30 feet (9.1 m) in width, shall be low-flammability plants with a rating score between 7.5 and 10 as identified by the Colorado State Forest Service. (ee) A new Section 603.2.6, “Junipers,” is added to read: 603.2.6 Junipers. No species of junipers (juniperus spp) shall be planted. (ff) The first sentence of Appendix C, "Fire Hazard Severity Form," is repealed and reenacted to read: The appendix may be used in place of Table 502.1 to determine the fire hazard severity. Section 3. The city council deems it appropriate to repeal the adoption of the 2018 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code and adopt by reference the 2024 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. The International Wildland-Urban Interface Code prescribes standards of construction, alternation, movement, repair, maintenance, and use of any building, structure, and premises within the wildland-urban interface areas of the City of Boulder. The city council orders that at least one copy of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code being considered for adoption by reference in this ordinance be on file with the Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 20 Packet Page 139 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city clerk, Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and open for public inspection during the business hours of the city. Such copy shall be certified to be true by the mayor and the clerk. Section 4. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any violation of the provisions of the code adopted by reference herein shall be punishable as provided in Section 5-4-2, “General Penalties,” B.R.C. 1981. Section 5. The city council orders and directs the city manager to make any additional citation and reference changes not included in this ordinance that are necessary to properly implement the adoption of the 2024 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code and all related local amendments. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect on August 1, 2025. It shall be applied to building permit applications submitted on or after the effective date. Building permits applied for before the effective date shall be considered under the code in effect at the time of application. Section 7. The city council intends that the sections, paragraphs, clauses, phrases, items, and compliance options of this ordinance and the code adopted herein by reference be severable. If any compliance option, item, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance or the code adopted herein by reference is declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgement or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity does not affect any of the remaining compliance options, items, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance or the code adopted herein, unless it appears to the court that the valid provisions of the section or ordinance are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the void provision that it cannot be presumed the Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 21 Packet Page 140 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 council would have enacted the valid provisions without the void one; or unless the court determines that the valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent. If the provision of an exception invalidates a prohibition, but the prohibition without the exception would be valid, then it is council’s intent in such cases that the exception be severed, and the prohibition upheld. Section 8. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern. Section 9. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 17th day of April 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 22 Packet Page 141 of 568 K:\PLBI\o-8695 1st rdg 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code-1804.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8695 Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 23 Packet Page 142 of 568 2024 IWUIC Requirements – Ignition Resistant Class Comparison IGNITION-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 Roofs x x x Eaves– ignition resistant enclosure x Eaves – Solid enclosure no exposed rafter tails x Gutters and downspouts x x x Exterior walls x x Flashing x Underfloor enclosure x x x Appendages and projections x x x (local amendment) Underfloor enclosure of appendages and projections x x x (local amendment) Exterior glazing x x Exterior doors x x Vents x x x Vents: Performance requirements x x Vents: Prescriptive requirements x x Vent locations x x Detached accessory structures x x Underfloor enclosure of detached accessory structure x x Fencing – noncombustible connection x (local amendment) x (local amendment) (local amendment) Attachment B - WUI Class Requirement Comparison Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 24 Packet Page 143 of 568 Proposed Wildland Urban Interface Area City WUI Proposed Area 2025 Ignition Resistant Type City WUI (Existing) Ignition Resistant Type -Cla�; 1 Ignition Res1:;tant Con�trudic,nCJ Or,<,.s I lunilim -Clnss 7 ru11iliori Re;istant Construction Rc�i,tant Con,tructbnCJ C'oss 2 lgnitkm -Clas, 3 Ignition Re;istant Construction Res1;;tant lcmstructic,n D C!e,ss 3 Ignition Re;lstant Construction / ,., ,, ,✓,,•� / I I • = City Limits 0ownership Parcels I I -- 0!16.J II I 697Tf1 � zi l'6 ./ �/ '" ,1.; ·,;;,.....-" __,,, "Rl l _,,....,...., ,-\ .,...,....._"I I '10 y>---<.fCJLl,� ' � GREEN MOU,'.�AIN 5524 fl L r;,f[Hand VaU11;/.las11r·io11 S1a1 D1tcli Bo�lder Rc�.or.\ioir Maturnl Arna li -1t � ,,..�? .�lf/()TN ,>;:/ 0-.,?� �Lagerman , l'.�ricultuml--'e,e,e,rn �LJ"�'''"' \fon�r.:h_fko��--'-'s"""'""'""''"cc-=�-'='9'r,1'="'======±= I ,(;1; %__J r "� ---_,�m,:ar:t:h':S:cc=?C,"m"""'•,=,=======\lw.e;c,l! • • -StacD;;;'.j l,,,,}, �&,d / 25 ."t, / � , � ��-=:l � t � a , if/:/'/! o,, r " ' j �b ��'f� // t�, '"(i l t 5' S," '1jY ',<' I )\ f 3 ;F/' "1/ i I 11 ;,i � -4.J �L .. ../ �L e,,�ek-Ekw� I � '" -"7 11 ....$, ... ,-1~ � � -\ ;j 0o_qt1Lak,e _____ __,T _-_-__,Tft-1---------==---H-----_J-----I//H5170ft -� -,:: ✓ :', __.,..?\\ I I 'Y' ----::--'�R,1--,--�l . ("' r1-1 --=-,- �-' Sixmile /.leS9fli0.'f C/i{uc/J/Aine Pond " t Dr_H£rPdk forn \1/ats,:o Har� Leggett Rf!s �! J/New DryC:..jt ) \ Current To: 2/28/2025 4:55 PM Attachment C - Proposed WUI Area Map Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 25 Packet Page 144 of 568 WUI Code Community Meeting 03/19/2025 6-8 pm Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, Conference Room N101 Approximately 30 attendees Introduction Lisa Houde (Planning & Development Services) introduced the item. Chief David Lowrey (Boulder Fire- Rescue) presented the WUI code and the proposed changes. Discussion Retroactive Enforcement •Are there parts of this that should be applied retroactively? Phase over a time frame. Can it be enforced retroactively? •Could we just apply code retroactively and deal with enforcement staffing later? •A certain percentage of population will follow the law so make the rules mandatory on a retroactive basis. Focus on lower cost things? General Comments and Questions •What constitutes non-combustible? •Concern that 0-5 foot distance around houses will exacerbate urban heat island effect. •Concerns expressed about vegetation around 311 Mapleton and that new rules won’t be retroactive. The right-of-way people aren’t doing their job. Sidewalks are being covered with pine trees/ADA issues. •In the newly defined WUI area, how many homes fall into the area? How many permits have been pulled in the WUI? We need this data to be pulled and shared. •City Council does not have the relevant info about how important these changes are and the positive impacts of doing the changes even on existing properties. City Council did not have a full idea of these topics when they provided direction. •Sorry to not see more design professionals here tonight. Communities need to get together. If your neighbors don’t make changes then it makes no difference. We need to get groups together to get buy in. •Would be good to get together with insurance companies to help lower insurance rates if there is more compliance. •You have to meet fire mitigation requirements in Boulder County, right? Defensible space. Within the WUI, you should be able to do that. Not everyone pulls permits, but many will and it will make a Attachment D - Summary of Community Meeting Questions Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 26 Packet Page 145 of 568 difference. With neighborhoods and people caring, hopefully we help monitor that (low hanging fruit). • Decks and porches – (appendages and projections) – a porch would have the same requirement as a deck. What about with the Landmarks Board? • How are conflicts between departments reconciled? • What’s happening in the wildland areas? • Many landmarks cases where they can’t get a metal roof. Metal roofs should be required. • Most of the people will not be compelled to meet the requirements. We would like a list of all the things that we should do (low hanging fruit). I did a search for fire resistant fencing, couldn’t find anything. Get it out now and people will start paying attention. • Get people together at the library to teach them these things. • What plans do you have for outreach to the design build community? • Real Estate professionals- would like Fire-Rescue staff to come speak to our group. • Are taller, denser buildings more at risk for spreading fire? • Do you have examples of renovations, alterations to existing houses that would trigger the new code? What about roofing permits? • In regard to the LA fires, are you aware of what caused the extensive range of the spread? What’s Next? Lisa Houde summarized the next steps, upcoming meetings, Planning Board and City Council dates, Be Heard Boulder, and discussed waterwise landscaping as the next phase. Also discussed the detailed home assessment program. Final Questions and Comments • Is the detailed home assessment program run by city staff? • Very surprised when a condenser was installed along side yard – dangerous – how could this have happened? Need to be able to get around my house. • Are the city and county coordinating on grants in the same timeframe? Are HOAs in this new cycle? Attachment D - Summary of Community Meeting Questions Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 27 Packet Page 146 of 568 WUI Code Virtual Community Meeting 03/20/2025 2-3:30 pm Zoom Meeting Approximately 15 attendees Introduction Welcomed community members. Use the chat for any clarifications, it will be monitored throughout the presentation. Take questions after the presentation. Discussion During Presentation • Are there ANY requirements for properties in the WUI that are not making changes to their home people need to follow? It sounds like there are not but I just wanted to be sure I have the information correctly or if I am missing something? • I assume these are required for remodel - is there a percentage of remodel where these are triggered, or it is it any change? • It appears State WUIC will have a map only showing two color zone - red and orange will be high and will probably also extend out from map limit 1 mile - will you be following that final map? • Will you require new decking that needs to be ignition resistant to be Class A or Class B - Trex decking is rated Class B? • How will you deal with landscaping being installed at any time by homeowners not part of building permits? • Will a permit for new windows then need to follow WUIC - especially in Class 1 zone which required the fire rated or tempered glass? After Presentation • I understand the results of the straw poll council took back in Dec about considering required measures for existing parcels. Since then, the L.A. fires have occurred. Has this topic been reconsidered by the council or do you expect it will be? • What about those who aren’t educatable, but would be amenable to a menu of foliage? Not worth the expense? • Can you do a gallery view for these zoom meetings? Is that too expensive? I would like to know who I am present with and their questions in the audio. Attachment D - Summary of Community Meeting Questions Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 28 Packet Page 147 of 568 • (Re: Insurability) Will conforming to these amendments enable a building designation as a "WILDFIRE PREPARED HOME" from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety or similar, pursuant to proposed house bill “hb25-1182”? • Why is a condenser that completely obstructs my sideboard setback acceptable? This causes tunneling alterations. • How will a homeowner know they are in the WUI area? Is there a map online can they refer to? • What about accessibility? The 311 project is going to be driving the demand for evacuation, and I am going to need to access my own place to defend it myself. The condenser blocks me from my house. • What does defensible space mean for low flammability? • Can anyone just block their side yard setbacks? How could this possibly be the case with all the new anti-gas utilities improvements demanding large condensers? • It’s not the 5 ft. combustible zone I am concerned about. The condenser is obviously not combustible unless the power was not cut and wind ripped out the 220 current serving as ignition. This is why it needs to be dialogue. Attachment D - Summary of Community Meeting Questions Item 3H - 1st Rdg Ord 8695 WUI Code Update Page 29 Packet Page 148 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the February 27, 2025, City C ouncil Midterm C heck-in Summary P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to accept the February 27, 2025, C ity Council Midterm Check-in Summary AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3I - Consideration of a motion to accept the F ebruary 27, 2025, City Council Midterm Check-in Summary Packet Page 149 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept the February 27, 2025, City Council Midterm Check- in Summary. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the February 27th, 2025, City Council Midterm Check- in meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND In April of 2024, City Council set the priorities for their term, as described in the retreat follow- up discussion memo from May 2nd, 2024. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the February 27, 2025, City Council Midterm Check-in Summary. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 1 Packet Page 150 of 568 The Council Retreat Committee planned the 2025 Midterm Check-in, in partnership with staff, to provide updates on the priority projects identified at the April 2024 retreat. Staff in the City Manager’s Office also provided updates on Citywide Strategic Plan progress. The full summary of the meeting can be found in Attachment A – Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation). ANALYSIS Staff did not receive any council member feedback related to the Midterm Check-in through the QR code that linked to a Formstack questionnaire provided by staff at the end of the meeting. This questionnaire will remain open should council members wish to share feedback related to the content, process, or facilitation of the 2025 Midterm Check-in. NEXT STEPS As described at the end of the Midterm Check-in, the upcoming retreat schedule is as follows: •Spring 2026 – Truncated retreat, one-year priority setting exercise (allows for priority setting for the final year of 2023-2026 council member terms and the first year of 2025- 2028 council terms) •Spring 2027 – Full retreat (regular two-year priority setting exercise for the last two years of the 2025-2028 council member terms and the first two years of the 2026 – 2030 council member terms) •Spring 2028 – Regular midterm check-in •Subsequent years will alternate between full retreats and midterm check-ins. ATTACHMENTS A – Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 2 Packet Page 151 of 568 City of Boulder Council Mid Term Check-in February 27, 2025 City of Boulder Council Chambers Online Recording Meeting Summary ATTENDANCE Council members: Taishya Adams, Matt Benjamin, Aaron Brockett, Lauren Folkerts, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard, Nicole Speer, and Mark Wallach Staff: Pam Davis, Chris Meschuk, Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, Megan Valliere, Mark Woulf, Department Staff (Directors and Priority Project Managers) Facilitation team: Dominique Ashe and Heather Bergman from Peak Facilitation OPENING ACTIVITY: CITY DEPARTMENT TRIVIA Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager, led City of Boulder Council members through a team-based trivia activity. Council members participated in this activity to test their understanding of the City’s history and operations. UPDATES ON COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECTS Lead staff members for each of the Council’s eleven priority projects provided the Council with a status update on each priority project, except for the completed Council Pay Increase priority. Detailed project management timelines and milestones for each Council priority project are available at the 2024-2025 Council Priority Projects Dashboard using this link. Highlights of each presentation are summarized below. For projects on which council members asked questions of staff, council questions are indicated in each section using italics, and the corresponding answers from staff are in plain text. I.2025 Major Update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Staff will work on the following tasks during the next three months: •March: Staff will flnalize the visions and focus of A Boulder Tomorrow and send an IP memo update, including a draft vision for an upcoming community conversation, by the end of the month. •April: The third and longest phase, community engagement called A Boulder Direction, begins. This phase will focus on informing the public and gathering feedback on policy options and analysis to create recommendations for the draft plan. The flrst community event will be held on April 12, 2025. Council members are encouraged to help spread the word about the process. •May: Based on engagement outcomes throughout April, staff will host a joint study session on May 22, 2025, with the Boulder Planning Board to discuss policy concepts. Staff will also seek direction from the Council on developing the Policy Concepts and Analysis Roadmap to set boundaries on policy evaluations and land use analysis that staff will conduct in the summer. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 3 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 152 of 568 Questions on the BVCP Update Will there be any statistically valid polling, or will the Council and staff make decisions based on community members' attendance? Staff anticipate conducting a statistically valid survey in September or October 2025 and potentially a second one later in the process. These polls cost, on average, $40,000. II. Citywide Long-term Financial Strategy • The City of Boulder ’s long-term flnancial strategy focuses on developing a comprehensive citywide strategy to help guide flscal decision-making and ensure the City’s long-term flnancial health. • This strategy builds on prior policy recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission reports of 2008 and 2010, the 2019 budgeting report, and recent lessons learned reports from the 2019 COVID pandemic period, all of which called for a comprehensive flnancial plan. These reports cautioned the City’s overreliance on sales taxes and dedicated funding sources and encouraged the development of an outcomes-based budgeting system. • This strategy is a two -year initiative supported by multiple departments with four primary work objectives: o Developing a long-term flnancial plan for the organization o Identifying alternative funding and revenue opportunities o Deflning core services and benchmarking against peer communities o Developing a multi-year tax ballot measure strategy with policy guidance from three Council members on the Financial Strategy Committee (FSC) • Phase 1 is nearly complete, including a citywide inventory of existing fees and aligned programs to assess current cost recovery levels and align programs with a core services hierarchy. The project team will develop a multi-year tax ballot measure framework for 2025 and 2026, with the 2025 ballot focusing on addressing unmet and underfunded needs. • Phase 2 will prioritize next steps, including developing a 5-year comprehensive financial plan, conducting additional research, analyzing revenues and service levels through benchmarking, and identifying potential tax ballot measures for 2026. This phase w ill also include engagement and communication plans to increase understanding of the City’s financial constraints and gather input from the community on priorities and desired service levels. • The project team will update the Council on April 3, 2025, with additional details on this flnancial strategy initiative. Questions on the Long-term Financial Strategy How will reconciliation and reparations be considered in this process? The project team developed guiding principles as part of the City’s long-term strategy, which includes flnancial sustainability, equity, and resiliency. In phase 2, the team will examine existing fees and subsidies related to equity and assess the potential tax burden. Reparations are not part of the scope of the LTFS. What does the communication plan for this strategy entail? Engagement will occur in two phases. The team will use community feedback from 2024-2025 budget activities and Boulder Community Connectors sessions. A statistically valid voter survey will be conducted for the 2025 tax ballot. From March 2025 to May 2026, the team will host Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 4 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 153 of 568 information sessions and gather input from Community Connectors and residents on the 2026 tax ballot measures. Does the project team have any ballot measures in mind? Over the past four months, the team collaborated with the FSC to develop the 2025-2026 tax ballot framework. The 2025 approach focuses on maintaining underfunded needs, while 2026 emphasizes expanded investments in core programs and services. The FSC identifled culture, resilience, and safety taxes—including infrastructure—as potential measures. The team will conduct a 2025 polling survey and report to the Council in April, May, and June. When does the polling on potential ballot initiatives flt in with an opportunity for the Council to review a preliminary set of engagement questions and then the results? The Council will have a touchpoint before polling on April 3 and April 8. Then, in June, staff will provide the polling results. III. Homelessness Programs and Innovations • The program focuses on three areas: the high utilizer initiative, the Homeless Solutions for Boulder County (HSBC) system evaluation, and a citywide homelessness strategy update. • The high utilizer initiative has a lower budget than originally anticipated. The HSBC evaluation report was completed in January 2025, and the homelessness strategy update will be implemented this summer. IV. Economic Development Plan and Program Enhancements • The project aims to broaden support for various economic initiatives. • Staff will provide the Council with a draft economic vitality strategy this April. • Over 500 businesses responded to a recently conducted survey. • The initiative has reduced commercial vacancies through code changes and process improvements. Last year, the City increased support for small businesses, focusing on the hospitality sector with a lodging business area assessment. • An affordable grant program is being developed to address current market gaps. Work is also underway to increase the resources available to small businesses. Questions on the City’s Economic Development Plan and Program Enhancements How are signiflcant economic challenges and changes being incorporated into the plan? Staff are in an information-gathering phase. The City is collaborating with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce to host a survey to understand the current economic impacts across the city. Is part of this initiative to identify city codes or policies that stifie economic vitality? No, the strategy will not identify speciflc codes or policies. The engagement survey will provide further direction by surfacing challenges in codes and policies. Nonetheless, the strategy will identify additional process improvement opportunities. The City previously invested in establishing a Business Equity Project Manager position. Will this initiative result in a fllled position? The Business Equity Project Manager position is fllled, and staff are actively working on options for a supplier diversity program. Will the draft plan and the commercial vacancy update include action points by the time the Council sees them next, or will the discussion focus on the problems? Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 5 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 154 of 568 Council and staff will discuss issues and actions. Staff will identify actions that the City can take immediately, while the plan is intended to be implemented over 3-5 years. V. Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update • The CAP update offers a streamlined approach to inform the community about focus areas and key priorities like resilience, emphasizing strategic, systems-level changes for broader impact. This update will align with the BVCP update, emphasizing compact land use. It also strengthens climate and flnance aspects, highlighting funding sources and alignment with the City’s long-term flnancial strategies. The plan will also address the climate-water nexus, connecting climate and water-related issues. • Staff are developing plan-related activities, content, and communications, focusing on actionable roadmaps and interdepartmental engagement to manage climate risks. • An updated resolution will be presented to the Council by the third quarter of 2025. The CAP is expected to be launched in the third quarter. Questions about the CAP Update What is staff’s thought process on the community literacy/capacity aspect of the CAP? Some of the past and current collaborative initiatives in the climate equity space (e.g., Boulder County Climate Equity Fund) can help point to places where community literacy/capacity is most needed. VI. Commercial Area Connections and Quality of Life • The initiative follows a multi-project approach, focusing on pedestrian lighting and the University Hill streetscape. Plans include sidewalk enhancements and other improvements based on public input, with several projects expected to be completed by summer. • Staff are conducting an improvement district analysis in commercial areas using Progressive Urban Management. The analysis is closely tied to the ongoing flnancial strategy. The study will offer recommendations related to flnance, governance, and connectivity. • A Council study session on April 24 will review the flndings. Based on Council’s direction, staff will prioritize long-term needs, develop BVCP-related policies, and issue a request for proposals for blueprint work in the second quarter. • The City is working on infrastructure improvements to activate street events, aligning with the Council’s priorities. Summer and fall activations will focus on public art and outdoor dining opportunities. At the April 24 meeting, Council members will have the opportunity to revisit this topic for further discussion. Questions Regarding the Commercial Area Connections and Quality of Life Project When the Council proposed this priority, the main effort was to improve pedestrian connections between University Hill and downtown. What near- and long-term changes should the City expect? In the short term, the City has installed wayflnding posts in the University Hill neighborhood. The City’s Parks and Recreation department is also installing additional street lighting. Regarding long- term changes, the Transportation Department will provide input on assessing pedestrian movement through 13th Street. VII. Wildfire Hardening Policies and Waterwise Landscaping Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 6 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 155 of 568 • Council members discussed these projects in December 2024. Their focus is on updating codes and policies related to wildflre preparedness and waterwise landscaping. • An estimate is being completed for the resources needed for waterwise landscaping. • Additional Council requests are being considered for applying wildflre risk compliance to property sales. • In the coming months, a wildland-urban interface (WUI) designation based on catastrophic (CAT) modeling be brought forward. • The City is consolidating a plant list for flre resilience and waterwise landscaping. • Community engagement for the 2025 WUI building code begins in March, with adoption expected in May. The land use code, which includes the flre-resilient plant list, will follow. • Staff will check in with Council in late July, with changes expected for adoption in September and October. Questions on the City’s Wildfire Hardening Policies and Waterwise Landscaping When staff return to the Council in April, how much will the focus be on actionable steps to create flre-resistant properties at the individual home level? Building/structure hardening will be the most granular aspect involving changes, such as fencing and landscaping within 5 feet of structures. These changes would apply to structures on open space infrastructure. As staff prepare to complete this Council priority, what are the key next steps or areas of focus to address wildflre concerns moving forward? The Community Wildflre Protection Plan (CWPP) has many implementation steps. City departments are collaborating on this work, and an inter-departmental working group (including Open Space and Mountain Parks, Fire-Rescue, Utilities, Climate Initiatives, Communications and Engagement, and the City Manager’s Office team) is helping to move the project forward. Will any analysis that the City conducts show how to press insurance companies to acknowledge the City’s wildflre risk reduction work? Experts in Fire Service have explained that there is not a clear connection between insurance modeling and city initiatives. Conversations with insurance companies reveal that they are protective of their risk algorithms and do not consider the City’s rating of the community when underwriting. However, the more work the community accomplishes, the more likely insurance companies will consider it. Given the success of curbside home hardening assessments in the community and the potential expansion of the WUI map to include more homes, what is the likelihood that curbside assessments will be extended to these additional properties? Curbside assessments will be provided citywide, not just in the WUI. The curbside assessment map will adjust to the new map lines and CAT modeling assessment. VIII. Family Friendly, Vibrant Neighborhoods • This Council priority builds on the zoning for affordable housing changes made in 2023, which supports transit corridors and allows for more missing middle housing. The ordinance was adopted in February 2025, which allows for duplexes along bus corridors. The project is now closing and moving toward implementation. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 7 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 156 of 568 • The BVCP update is prioritizing housing as a key focus. Research from the Bloomberg City Leadership Program will be completed by this summer. The results of the Leadership Program align with possible policy changes in the BVCP. • The City may also explore other options related to homeownership and housing affordability. IX. Manufactured/Mobile Home Community Support • Council initiated this strategy in 2019 and adopted it in 2022. • Staff has focused on revisiting and dedicating time to the collaborative effort involving various departments and community partners. Community engagement meetings were held with residents and property owners within the city to understand the current mobile home park maintenance needs, operation costs, and mobile home parks' outlook. • The Manufactured Housing Strategy Action Plan is available on the City’s website. The action plan includes 35 items, with only one item remaining, which is to explore the potential for a future partnership agreement with mobile home park owners regarding rent assistance. • Staff and Council will revisit the initiative’s progress on June 12, 2025. Questions on the Manufactured/Mobile Home Community Support Initiative If the City is not receiving a positive response from mobile home property owners regarding rent stabilization, what should the Council/staff’s next steps be? Should the City consider increasing enforcement, and if so, what methods of enforcement would lead to better results? • Regarding affordability, the State prohibits rent control, so any agreements with mobile home park owners will be voluntary. The outcome is currently unclear, and staff have had a challenging time creating those conversations. • In terms of infrastructure code compliance, mobile home park owners are held accountable, but there is a flnancial hurdle to complying. A study on infrastructure replacements was conducted years ago, indicating a large initial capital investment. City staff can commit to returning to the Council this June to present potential options. X. City Council Process Working Group • This working group has been a collaborative effort between the City Manager’s Office, the City Attorney, and Council members Adams, Marquis, Speer, and Winer. • Initially, the full Council provided 36 suggestions for process improvements. The working group prioritized 15 improvements based on the range of ideas. These improvements can be accommodated within the existing staff work plan and are grouped into four categories: o Administrative in nature and do not require council direction o Ideas that are already being addressed by staff o Ideas that require input from a Council committee to create recommendations before being considered by full council o Ideas that need further initial Council direction to determine the next steps • The working group remains active, although it is not permanent. It will meet again toward the end of the council term to evaluate the process, progress, and experience. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 8 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 157 of 568 Questions Regarding the City Council Process Working Group Is it possible to continue this working group, evolving it with new process improvements throughout each Council session? The working group was initially scoped for the duration of this Council’s term. This working group was established as a Council priority to be concluded Q4 2025. Without a clear process, it is difficult to ensure fairness. Given that it is ongoing, should this be a Council priority or a standing process? Overall, the focus should be on continuous improvement. If the existing rules of council procedure had been followed all along, the Council might not have experienced the challenges it did. Process improvement has always been part of the Council retreat, and this priority was created to address it speciflcally. It is important to consider how many priorities there are and the impact on staff workload when setting those priorities. Is there a plan for how to organize process improvements going forward? If a Council member has additional suggestions beyond what has been discussed, who should they reach out to? • Staff will provide an update in Q2 on both agenda management and board/commission processes as part of their work plan. That would be a natural time to bring forward any process-related suggestions. • Ideas outside of this scope should be communicated to fellow colleagues and the City Manager’s office so that the impact can be properly assessed and prioritized accordingly. XI. City Council Member Pay Increase This priority has already been completed. CITYWIDE STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATES Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager, provided Council members with updates on the citywide strategic plan. Highlights from her remarks are summarized below. • The City of Boulder has many plans (e.g., strategic, business, departments), and staff set to create a citywide strategic plan to bring them all together. The citywide strategic plan is in its third year of implementation. Staff presented a framework in Q1 of 2024 to the Council. • The focus of the plan for 2025 includes building on implementation and looking at enhanced outcome measurements. This matches efforts for budgeting for resilience and equity using key performance metrics. • Staff’s goal is to enhance the citywide strategic plan by ensuring its measurability and accountability aspects. For many staff, it is hard to manage the workload, respond to community and Council inquiries, and maintain self-accountability. To address this proactively, staff hired a consultant to help establish evaluation criteria that address these challenges, which is currently underway. • Boulder aims to become the highest-performing organization it can be by integrating all work into one cohesive effort. Highlights of the City’s Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience (SER) Framework Goal Areas The SER Framework guides and organizes the Citywide Strategic Plan. The seven goal areas are indicated below in the bold text, while the abbreviated titles of relevant strategies are indicated in italics. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 9 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 158 of 568 Safe (3 strategies) • Community Safety: Efforts have been made in critical locations, with successful hotspot work on the Hill and North Boulder through the stratifled policing plan. Over 1,000 encampments were addressed in 2024, and the high utilizers initiative has been an ongoing focus. A new chronic nuisance ordinance has been approved to provide additional tools for addressing safety. The review of limited commission staff, such as parking enforcement and code enforcement, continues to assess their effectiveness in improving safety. Vision Zero capital improvements are also underway as part of this strategy. • Disaster Prevention and Preparedness: Key improvements in wildflre hardening, landscaping, and emergency preparedness include the implementation of a new community text alert system. This system allows for real-time notiflcations, which is a signiflcant upgrade from previous methods that required people to look up information online. Operational improvements were also made to ensure that evacuation information is now updated instantaneously on a public-facing map after a 911 alert, which signiflcantly reduces anxiety in the community. Additionally, there was intensive work with the Boulder Valley School District on evacuation planning for schools, recognizing the vulnerability of schools during mass evacuations. The CWPP has been updated and building and WUI codes have also been revised. • Employee Workplace Safety: A citywide safety program has been reestablished, integrating the previously decentralized efforts from various departments. This program now includes a team structure, safety training for every supervisor and manager in the City, and an operational committee made up of staff from various departments to support ongoing safety initiatives. A safety mascot, "Safety Rocks," was introduced to promote the program. Healthy and Socially Thriving (one strategy) • Equity-focused programs: This strategy aims to create a socially thriving and healthy community in Boulder where all residents can meet their basic needs while enjoying high levels of social, physical, and mental well-being. This includes providing access to services, as well as recreational and cultural opportunities that focus on equity and belonging. The healthy and socially thriving-centered strategy emphasizes strengthening equity-focused programs to advance this goal. A key element of this strategy is ensuring that equity is centered in all areas of work. Early results from the Elevate Boulder program, the City’s guaranteed-income pilot, suggest improvements in food security, utility expenses, and overall mental health for participants. Human services funding has been recently leveraged to support emergent community needs, including rental assistance and sheltering. Youth voices will guide funding decisions for the allocation of $2 million from the proceeds of the sale of the Denver Broncos. Engagement efforts also include work related to Primos Park and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update. Livable (two strategies) • Support diverse individuals and families to live in Boulder: This strategy supports diverse individuals and families in Boulder by opening a modular housing factory in the Ponderosa community to create permanently affordable homeownership opportunities. The City is exploring innovative approaches to affordable housing through the Bloomberg initiative and making progress in building more units, though current funding falls short of meeting demand. New projects like the modular housing factory aim to address this need while staff Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 10 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 159 of 568 work to streamline application processes for city programs with income eligibility requirements to make assistance more accessible. • 15-minute neighborhoods: The City took a signiflcant step forward with the adoption of form-based code as part of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Additionally, policy work is expected in both the commercial district analysis and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update to advance the 15-minute neighborhood concept further. Accessible and Connected (two strategies) • This goal area includes addressing the many deflnitions of accessibility, such as physical, multimodal transportation, and digital accessibility for City information and engagement processes. • Multimodal transportation systems and environmental goals: o This strategy focuses on reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions through investments in existing systems. Key areas include Vision Zero, aimed at improving the City’s core arterial network, and two transportation projects in the summer of 2025: North 30th Street Preliminary Design and Folsom Street Safety Improvements. o The access management and parking initiative, reviewed by the Council earlier this year, addresses off-street parking standards, transportation demand management, and on-street parking, aligning with state legislation. o Enhancements to trails and multi-use paths include the opening of the North Sky Trail, development of the OSMP trail system, and efforts on the US36 Multi-use Path, connecting to the Rocky Mountain Greenway. Regional planning includes improvements along Colorado 119 and Diagonal Highway, with bus rapid transit, managed lanes, and a commuter bikeway to Longmont, as well as support for the Boulder to Erie Regional Trail. • Accessibility to City Information and Engagement: o This strategy aims to improve public accessibility to City meetings, information, and programs through equitable engagement, involving key departments such as the City Manager’s Office, Communications and Engagement, Finance, Innovation and Technology, and Human Resources. o Key focus areas include digital accessibility, language access, and enhancing the City’s Community Connectors Program. Staff have improved digital access to City services, developing better applications for people with disabilities, in compliance with state mandates. Phase 1 is complete. Operations have also been improved, such as creating resource guides for City staff to understand service levels for non - English speakers. Training programs are being developed for employees with Spanish language skills to support the community. The Community Connectors Program has received resources to enhance community engagement. o Council members will receive an update this April on this goal area, which includes enhancements to agenda management software and improvements to staff memo templates. Staff will also undergo training on creating concise, well-organized memos, with a focus on racial equity assessments, climate sustainability considerations, and flscal notes in policymaking decisions. Environmentally Sustainable (three strategies) Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 11 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 160 of 568 • This goal addresses community energy sources, responsible resource use, and the protection of Boulder’s ecosystems. Collaboration across city departments supports initiatives focused on community development, sustainability, and governance. • Community and Ecosystem Resilience: This strategy enhances resilience to climate change impacts through collaboration with Climate Initiatives, Planning and Development Services, Utilities, and Open Space and Mountain Parks. Key initiatives include creating cooling areas for extreme heat, water conservation programs, and outreach for water-wise landscaping, irrigation consultations, and lawn removal services. • Emissions Reduction: This strategy aims for an 80 percent reduction in emissions and a 70 percent reduction community-wide by 2030. Key initiatives include partnering with Excel Energy for renewable power, acquiring the City’s streetlight system to convert to LED, and enhancing technology and cost-efficiency for emissions reduction. Efforts at Chautauqua focus on underground utilities and transitioning off natural gas. The new Fire Station 3 is part of a deconstruction project to replace aging buildings, retroflt for energy efficiency, and electrify the fieet. • Sustainability Policies: As part of this strategy, the City is implementing a socially responsible procurement policy that incorporates environmental values into purchasing and developing embodied carbon policies aligned with sustainable practices. In the summer of 2024, the Council approved an updated energy conservation code with new incentives to reduce embodied carbon emissions. Additionally, the BVCP continues to guide and align the City’s sustainability initiatives. Responsibility Governed (two strategies) • Organizational and Financial Best Practices: o In January 2025, the City implemented a new flnancial system to improve flnancial management and decision-making. As part of this, a citywide asset management strategy was launched to efficiently manage assets. Staff will inventory all assets, assess their condition, and use this data to make more strategic budget decisions. o The Western City Campus development will centralize customer service, improving processes and technology to enhance the resident experience. This effort will create seamless in-person and digital interactions for the community. o The City established a Center of Excellence for project management, involving nearly 500 project managers across departments. This center will create tools and resources to support these managers and improve the City’s project execution. • Employee Growth, Retention, and Development: The City supports leaders and managers through programs like the two -day Leadership Summit and has launched an employee affinity group program to foster retention. The employee development program, paused during COVID-19, will be rebuilt and fully implemented this year, focusing on training, professional development, and aligning resources across the city. Economically Vital (one strategy) • Economic Vitality and Development: This strategy aims to build a healthy, equitable, and resilient local economy through innovation, diversity, and collaboration, fostering economic mobility while aligning with community values. The economic vitality strategy update and district analysis will help guide small business support activities, considering both current budget resources and projected needs for the 2026 budget process. Staff are exploring public flnancing tools, such as general improvement districts or the potential creation of a Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 12 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 161 of 568 downtown development authority, to accelerate economic development and better align with the City’s goals for growth. Council members will review and discuss these flnancing options at their April 2025 meeting. Questions Regarding the Citywide Strategic Plan Council members asked staff clarifying questions about their updates on the Citywide Strategic Plan goal areas and strategies. Their questions are indicated below in italics, and the corresponding answers are in plain text. A few years ago, after the Marshall Fire, a Council member asked how people without cars were being included in the emergency management plan. The City’s alert system relies on digital devices, and behaviors are changing. How are these factors being considered in our emergency alert plans? Since the Marshall Fire, staff have developed educational materials and workshops to help non -car owners prepare for disasters. They have also worked to encourage residents to sign up for BoCo alerts. As an interim solution to reduce reliance on social media, the City is collaborating with trusted Community Connectors, including those who visit homes during evacuations. The initiative involves cultural brokers to build trust within communities, with support from the Housing and Human Services Department. Additionally, the City’s siren system is being upgraded, with plans to reposition sirens in areas where people are more likely to be outdoors. How does the concept of 15-minute neighborhoods, where people can meet most of their needs close to home, align with our economic development plan? The BVCP update allows the City to deflne the role of different commercial centers, distinguishing regional and neighborhood areas. It will guide amenities and economic development strategies, with tailored approaches for downtown and smaller centers. A key focus is strengthening the economic strategy across all commercial areas. For example, East Boulder’s subcommunity plan proposes tools like a general improvement district to support development. The district analysis explores tools to make these areas more adaptable to changing conditions and needs. Staff expect to align tools and policies more effectively through short-term strategies, using insights from the BVCP update and district analysis to support economic development. The Citywide Strategic Plan is the most cohesive document the City has. What are staff’s thoughts on its future development, and what will the process look like? While staff created an initial version, the document may be developed in partnership with the City Council in the future. It is a three-year plan, and looking ahead to 2027, staff would like to co-create new ideas and strategies with the community and other stakeholders. What is the plan for addressing higher-level outcomes and value-driven results, and how will the City ensure budget deflciencies are addressed? • In 2026, the City will engage the community to determine desired service levels and budget capabilities, supported by clear metrics and program evaluations. Budgeting efforts began with a focus on resilience and equity. • A consultant is interviewing departments to create outcome measurements that go beyond metrics and outputs. The key question is whether spending is achieving the intended results; if not, adjustments will be made. The goal is to better align the budget with the City’s strategic objectives, categorizing programs as "essential," "important," or "amenity" as part of the long-term flnancial strategy. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 13 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 162 of 568 Is the City planning to install underground utility wires in other areas of the city outside of Chautauqua? Under the recent franchise agreement with Excel, funding was requested for undergrounding projects, including 19th Street, Chautauqua, and downtown. Once completed, the funds will be exhausted, requiring discussion on prioritizing and funding future underg rounding areas. Is any of the undergrounding work, particularly downtown, eligible to be bonded under the Capital Construction and Repair Services (CCRS) initiative, or could it potentially be expanded in the future under this program? It is possible to expand it in the future; however, there is no current capacity in the CCRS initiative to fund them. Is there a way for Council members to engage in disaster-related tabletop exercises, and how can the City continue supporting community groups and small businesses in resilience planning, especially with new considerations like public safety power shutoffs? • Tabletop exercises are regularly conducted among City staff who manage disaster response and recovery operations. • Staff can explore opportunities to help Council members to understand their role during emergencies. • Tabletop exercises are important for community groups, especially considering lessons learned from events like the 2013 flood. Public safety power shutoffs are a new consideration that needs to be integrated into planning. Additionally, the Small Business Development Center has received a state grant to support resilience planning, and this could be a key area for further discussion and support through tabletop exercises. Have City staff discussed with Excel how to improve the pattern for public safety power shutoffs in the city? Yes, there have been discussions, particularly focusing on critical facilities and improving redundancies to prevent power outages in key areas. What is the next iteration of Tribal consultation in terms of responsible governance? The City has multiple layers of consultation with Tribal communities, including efforts to restart meetings. The University of Colorado Boulder has brought in an assistant vice chancellor to enhance engagement. Plans include a community event in fall 2025. The OSMP Fort Chambers concept plan was co-developed with the Cheyenne and Arapahoe tribes. Quarterly Tribal meetings continue to address Indigenous perspectives, and discussions are ongoing about a management plan for sacred sites on City property. When will Council members have the opportunity to define the scope and vision of the Downtown Core Arterial Network (CAN) Study, and why is it being pushed back, especially with so many linking aspects? • The Downtown CAN Study currently focuses on operational improvements like pedestrian safety and bike connectivity. • The delay is due to resource allocation, with the study slated for 2026 and beyond, depending on resources. The City is prioritizing major corridor efforts, including the Folsom and Iris Street studies. The Folsom Street study will continue until June 2025 , while the Iris Street study is paused until further funding is available. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 14 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 163 of 568 Does staff think the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance is working? Does the City have enough officers to manage it effectively? Community members continue to question the effectiveness of the City's Chronic Nuisance Ordinance, especially on the Hill. The Police Department may request additional enforcement resources. In the meantime, efforts are being made to maximize current deputies' capacity. However, additional staffing will be necessary to manage the ordinance effectively. With so many priorities, some Council members are concerned that staff are spread too thin and pressuring them to say yes to all the Council's priorities. How can staff ensure that they are not overextending themselves? City staff are encouraged to be honest with leadership and the Council about the resources needed to achieve each priority. The City is addressing this by using outcomes -based budgeting, assessing total costs, and considering new fees to support efforts. This approach ensures effective resource allocation and prevents unnecessary strain on staff. How will the long-term financial strategy help educate the community about how the budget works and communicate what is important to them? The City will be discussing its long-term flnancial strategy on April 3, 2025, focusing on supporting the 2025 tax initiative. Staff will identify key communication channels and engage the community in the second and third quarters of this year to discuss service delivery trade-offs, evaluate existing programs, and explore improvements. How will the budgeting process change with the implementation of outcome-based budgeting, and how will Council members be involved? • The City is starting its budgeting process for 2026 with a focus on proactive engagement, starting this April and May. • Departments will begin working on their budgets, and previous Council input will help guide this process. Staff will continue developing the budgets during the Council's break and will present them for review in August. How are food systems incorporated into the city’s climate work? Food systems are not currently within the scope of Boulder's climate initiatives, and priorities need to be balanced. However, there are regenerative components related to food and agriculture that could be part of the conversation about trade-offs in the future. How can Council members best express appreciation for all that City of Boulder staff do? Staff appreciate when Council members acknowledge their efforts in meetings and when individual Council members send personal notes of thanks to them or Nuria. Showing staff grace and understanding during delays is also highly valued. Could the City reconsider renaming the concept of "15-minute neighborhoods," especially when elements like food, energy, and materials systems are not part of this concept? Otherwise, the concept could be perceived as a self-contained system, which would be untrue. A previous community assembly on the matter discussed the idea of flnding a better name for "15- minute neighborhoods." The general conclusion was that the phrase is ingrained in the existing plan. The concept is primarily related to mobility, not all aspects of life, and there will be a more detailed explanation in future conversations. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 15 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 164 of 568 OVERVIEW OF UPCOMING YEARS' RETREAT SCHEDULE Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager, provided Council members with a review of the upcoming year's retreat schedule. Her update is summarized below. •City staff are on track to complete Council priorities by the end of 2025. •A retreat for one-year priority setting is planned for 2026 due to the back-to -back elections that year. •A retreat for setting two-year priorities will be held in spring 2027 to set priorities for the next term. •The Council retreat schedule will return to its regular cadence starting in 2027. Item 3I - Motion to accept Feb. 27th, 2025, Midterm Check-in Summary Page 16 Attachment A - Notes from February 27th City Council Midterm Check-in (provided by Peak Facilitation) Packet Page 165 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a Site Review for the redevelopment of 2555 30th St. with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. T he proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and proposes 142 units including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units totaling 111,495 square feet. T he proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55’ in height, a request for a 6% parking reduction, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and building size (BMS). T he proposal also includes an administrative amendment to T VA P. T he applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024- 00047 P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Rev iew PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 Packet Page 166 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE: Call up consideration of a Site and Use Review for the redevelopment of 2555 30th St. with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and proposes 142 units including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units totaling 111,495 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55’ in height, a request for a 6% parking reduction, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and building size in the BMS zone. The proposal also includes an administrative amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan. The applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00047 and LUR2024- 00065. Applicant: Nicholas Kuhl, Coburn Partners Owner: 2555 30th Street LLC REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Alison Blaine, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the Planning Board’s decision on an application for a Site Review to redevelop a site with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. On March 18, 2025, the Planning Board held a public rehearing and voted 7-0 to approve the application with conditions. The Planning Board decision is subject to a 30-day City Council call up period, which concludes on April 17, 2025. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on April 17, 2025. The staff memorandum to Planning Board and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available on the Records Archive for the Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 1 Packet Page 167 of 568 Planning Board. The applicant’s plan set and written statement is provided in Attachment C. The recorded video from the hearings can be found below: • February 18, 2025 hearing (item begins 1 hour 38 minutes into the video). • March 18, 2025 re-hearing (item begins 38 minutes into the video) REVIEW PROCESS The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the above- referenced application for review and comment at a public hearing. Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, the project requires Concept Plan and Site Review because development exceeds 50,000 square feet of floor area in size for the BMS zone and 30,000 square feet of floor area in size for the BT-1 zone. A Use Review is also required for ground floor residential uses in a BT-1 zone. The Concept Plan was presented to Planning Board in May 2024 and was not called up by City Council. Because the project requires a height modification and includes a request to establish vested rights, the Site Review application requires a staff recommendation and final decision by the Planning Board at a public hearing, subject to call-up by City Council. Site Reviews are subject to the Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981. The Use Reviews are subject to the criteria in Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed amendments to the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) are reviewed and approved administratively by staff. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At the public hearing on February 18, 2025, the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing to review the proposed Site Review and Use Review applications for the development of a residential development with ground floor commercial uses. Following staff and application presentations and a public hearing, K. Norback made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve the applications. Four amendments to the motion were proposed. The first two amendments failed, which included a denial of the height modification request and a conversion of at least 50% of the frontage on 30th Street to be commercial, neighborhood serving uses. The next two amendments passed, which included a revision of the 30th Street façade to clearly identify entrances with architectural features and removing the language “where possible” from the transportation demand management plan (TDM) as it relates to SUMP principles (shared, unbundled, managed and paid). Planning Board then voted 3-3 (M. Roberts absent) on the overall motion to approve the Site and Use Reviews, resulting in a failed motion. In the case of a tie vote, the Planning Board Procedural Board Rules state that a failure to receive an affirmative vote of four members on a second motion results in a defeat of the item and that the applicant may request a rehearing. Without having four affirmative votes for an approval, M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to continue the item for preparation of denial findings. Planning Board directed staff to return with draft finding of denial for the board’s consideration on March 18, 2025. Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 2 Packet Page 168 of 568 The applicant requested a rehearing in writing within seven days, as permitted by the Rules, rather than proceed with the discussion of denial findings. At the re-hearing on March 18, 2025, the Planning Board held another quasi-judicial hearing to review the subject project. The Board discussed the project’s consistency with Site and Use Review criteria and TVAP and made recommendations for additional conditions. Following a public hearing, the Planning Board approved the applications with conditions by a 7-0 vote with the following motions: On a motion by M. McIntyre and seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted 7- 0 to approve Site Review application #LUR2024-00047 and Use Review application #LUR2024-00065, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, as amended by the Planning Board. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by M. Robles, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to amend the original motion to require at least 50% of the frontage along 30th Street be commercial uses open to the public, as approved by staff at the time of Technical Document review and modifying the parking reduction percentage as appropriate. On a motion by L. Kaplan made a motion and seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to amend the original motion to require that the architecture clearly identify the entrances along 30th Street to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Technical Document review. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by M. Roberts, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to amend the original motion to require SUMP principles for all parking, and the language “where possible,” be stricken from the TDM plan. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by J. Boone, the Planning Board voted 4-3 to amend the original motion requiring the 30th Street frontage be no more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth with the street-front spaces on the ground floor, maintaining the gabled roof form, to align with the 30th Street character district and the Site Review criterion that the project align with the subcommunity plan, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Technical Document review. Three additional motions were made proposing conditions of approval that failed and were not incorporated into the approval. The first additional motion was to lower 25% of the elevated courtyard to the ground level. The second additional motion was to amend the amendment language above from “the 30th Street frontage” to read “the 30th Street frontage south of the stairwell.” The third additional motion was to restore the 30th Street frontage to four stories. All three of these motions failed. Ultimately, the Planning Board approved the application subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the conditions detailed in the motions above. The Planning Board Disposition can be found in Attachment A. Refer to Attachment B Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 3 Packet Page 169 of 568 for the draft meeting minutes from the Planning Board meeting. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Consistent with Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, staff provided notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location of the application, and signs have been posted by the applicant. Staff received several comments from neighboring property owners as part of the Site Review application. Members of the public also spoke at the public hearing on February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025. Some neighbors expressed support for the project while others expressed concern about the requested height and the possible off-site path crossing city-owned property located to the south and west of the site. Written comments are included as Attachment F. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes staff analysis and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for the Planning Board. MATRIX OF OPTIONS The City Council may call up the Site Review and Use Review applications within thirty days of the Planning Board’s review. Any application that it calls up, the City Council will review at a public meeting within sixty days of the call-up vote, or within such other time as the city and the applicant mutually agree. The City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on April 17, 2025. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Planning Board Notice of Disposition Attachment B: February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Attachment C: Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Attachment D: Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Attachment E: Applicant’s TDM Plan Attachment F: Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 4 Packet Page 170 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that on March 18, 2025 the following action was taken by the Planning Board based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-2, B.R.C.1981, as applied to the proposed development. DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: 2555 30TH ST DESCRIPTION: Site and Use Review for the redevelopment of 2555 30th St. with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. The project includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and developing 142 dwelling units totaling 111,495 square feet. The project also includes an administrative amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan. LOCATION: 2555 30TH ST LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A APPLICANT: MELISSA HARRISON, COBURN PARTNERS SCOTT HOLTON, ELEMENT PROPERTIES BILL HOLICKY, COBURN PARTNERS NICHOLAS KUHL, COBURN PARTNERS OWNER: 2555 30th Street LLC APPLICATION: Site Review, LUR2024-00047 and Use Review, LUR2024-00065 ZONING: Business - Transitional 1 (BT-1), Business - Main Street (BMS) CASE MANAGER: Alison Blaine VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: YES; the owner has requested the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-2-20, B.R.C. 1981. APPROVED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: •Section 9-7-1, Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards: Height modification for one 55-foot-tall structure, where a maximum of 35 feet in the BT-1 zone and 38 feet in the BMS zone is otherwise allowed by-right. •Section 9-7-1, Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards: Setback modifications to allow for a 10-foot front yard setback, where the minimum is 20 feet in the BT-1 zone, and a 5-foot side yard setback, where the minimum is 15 feet in the BT-1 zone. •Section 9-7-1, Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards: modification to the maximum number of stories for a building to allow for 4 stories where the maximum allowed in both the BT-1 and BMS zone is 3 stories. •Section 9-7-1, Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards: Building size modification to allow for more than the maximum floor area of 15,000 square feet for any principal building in the BMS zone. •Section 9-9-6, Parking Standards: Parking modification to allow for a 6% parking reduction. This decision may be called up by the City Council on or before April 17, 2025. If no call-up occurs, the decision is deemed final on April 18, 2025. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 5 Packet Page 171 of 568 FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED FINAL PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLANS. IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Code (B.R.C. 1981), the Applicant must obtain applicable building permit approvals and start construction within three years from the date of final approval. Failure to comply with the three year rule or approved phasing may cause this development approval to expire. For a use review without construction requiring a building permit, the use must be established within three years of the date of final approval. At its public hearing on March 18, 2025, the Planning Board approved the request with the following motions: On a motion by M. McIntyre and seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve Site Review application #LUR2024-00047 and Use Review application #LUR2024-00065, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, as amended by the Planning Board. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by M. Robles, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to amend the original motion so that at least 50% of the frontage along 30th Street be commercial uses open to the public, as approved by staff at the time of Technical Document Review and modifying the parking reduction percentage as appropriate. On a motion by L. Kaplan made a motion and seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to require that the architecture clearly identify the entrances along 30th Street to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Technical Document Review. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by M. Roberts, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to amend the original motion so that SUMP principles are required for all parking, and the language “where possible,” is stricken from the TDM plan. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by J. Boone, the Planning Board voted 4-3 that the 30th Street frontage be no more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth with the street-front spaces on the ground floor, maintaining the gabled roof form, in order to align with the 30th Street character district and the Site Review criterion that the project align with the subcommunity plan, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Technical Document Review. Site Review Conditions of Approval 1.The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all plans prepared by the Applicant on January 15, 2025, and the Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan dated November 27, 2024, all on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. 2.Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit, and obtain City Manager approval of, a Technical Document Review application for the following items: a.Final architectural plans, including material samples and colors, to ensure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on the plans prepared by the Applicant on January 15, 2025, is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural intent is performed, including that the architecture clearly identify the entrances along 30th Street and that the 30th Street frontage be no more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth with the street-front spaces on the ground floor, maintaining the gabled roof form, in order to align with the 30th Street character district and the Site Review criterion that the project align with the subcommunity plan. b.A final site plan which includes detailed floor plans and section drawings. c.A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and includes city approval for offsite sanitary service line from adjacent property owner. Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 6 Packet Page 172 of 568 d.A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. e.Final transportation plans meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to: street plan and profile drawings, street cross-sectional drawings, signage and striping plans in conformance with Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards, transportation detail drawings, geotechnical soils report, and pavement analysis. g.A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to ensure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right of way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. h.A detailed outdoor lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, indicating compliance with section 9-9-16, B.R.C.1981. 3.Concurrent with the Technical Document Review application, the Applicant shall submit an application for a wetland permit with respect to the Southern Path – City Property (defined below) (the “Wetland Permit”). 4.Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the easements necessary to serve the development, including but not limited to the following easements as shown on the plans prepared by the Applicant on January 15, 2025, meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, as part of Technical Document Review applications, the form and final location of which shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager: a.A 25-foot-wide utility easement on the northern portion of the site. b.An 8.5-foot-wide public access easement along the eastern edge of site adjacent to 30th Street. c.A variable width public access easement along a portion of the western edge and southern edge of the site. d.Variable width drainage and water quality easements throughout the site. 5.The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining a right-of-way reservation for a future alley turnaround as shown on the plans prepared by the Applicant on January 15, 2025, meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 6.Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit an Administrative Review application to vacate the existing 20-foot-wide Emergency Access easement (Rec. Nos. 03101453 and 03103054), the form and final location of the vacation shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. 7.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount equal to the cost of providing eco-passes to the residents of the development and employees of the commercial tenant space for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. 8.Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall construct and complete at no cost to the city, subject to acceptance by the City, public improvements in the form of: (1) 30th Street improvements, which shall include a buffered bike lane, curb and gutter, an eight-foot-wide landscape strip, and a ten-foot wide sidewalk, all as shown on the plans prepared by the Applicant on January 15, 2025; and (2) the following, each serving the site in conformance with the approved engineering plans and with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards: (a) that portion of the eight-foot-wide multi-use path travelling north/south and located: (i) on Applicant’s property; and (ii) adjacent to the west property line; (b) that portion of the eight-foot-wide multi-use path travelling east/west and located: (i) on Applicant’s property; and (ii) adjacent to the south property line; and (c) in the event that the City issues all required authorizations and approvals, whether in its capacity as the owner of the property to the south of Applicant’s property (the “City Property”), or in its regulatory capacity, (including, without limitation, issuance of the Wetland Permit), that portion of the eight-foot-wide multi-use path travelling east/west and located on the City Property, but only with respect to that portion of the path that is located: (i) adjacent to the southern boundary of Applicant’s property; and (ii) east of the western boundary of Applicant’s property (the “Southern Path –City Property”). Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 7 Packet Page 173 of 568 9.The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all stormwater quality improvements and stormwater detention improvements, including but not limited to permeable parking lot paving. 10.The Applicant shall ensure that at least 50% of the frontage along 30th Street be commercial uses open to the public, as approved by staff at the time of Tec. Doc. and modifying the parking reduction percentage as appropriate. 11.SUMP principles are required for all parking and the language “where possible,” is stricken from the TDM plan. USE REVIEW CONDITIONS 1.The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all plans prepared by the Applicant on January 15, 2025, the Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan dated November 27, 2024, the Applicant’s written statement dated November 27, 2024, all on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. 2.The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. Approved On: Date By: Brad Mueller, Secretary of the Planning Board March 18, 2025 Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 8 Packet Page 174 of 568 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NE1/4 OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE N 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, THENCE S00°07'00"E, ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTER LINE OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 794.02 FEET, THENCE S89°46'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 40.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING S89°46'30"W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED ON FILM 636 AS RECEPTION NO. 880392, A DISTANCE OF 378.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 906 AT PAGE 205, THENCE S02°27'45"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 906 AT PAGE 205, A DISTANCE OF 62.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S89°46'30"W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 906 AT PAGE 205, A DISTANCE OF 217.26 FEET, THENCE S00°07'00"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 948 AT PAGE 18, A DISTANCE OF 158.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED ON FILM 636 AS RECEPTION NO. 880392; THENCE N89°46'30"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED ON FILM 636 AS RECEPTION NO. 880392, A DISTANCE OF 593.58 FEET; THENCE N00°07'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 221.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF BOULDER IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED APRIL 22, 1999 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 1930632. Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 9 Packet Page 175 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 18, 2025 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and an audio recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jorge Boone, Chair (virtual) Mark McIntyre, Vice Chair Laura Kaplan Kurt Nordback ml Robles Claudia Hason Thiem PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mason Roberts STAFF PRESENT: Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney II Thomas Remke, Board Specialist 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair, J. Boone, declared a quorum at 6:30 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person: Britt Worth Virtual: Lynn Segal 3.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A.Call Up Item: Use review for a Specialized Instruction Facility to operate in an RH-2 zone at 2111 Arapahoe Ave. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing site with one new building for the Nalandabodhi organization. The call-up period expires on Feb 21, 2025. This item was not called up by the board. Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 10 Packet Page 176 of 568 B. Call Up Item: FINAL PLAT to subdivide Lot 18, Shining Mountain Subdivision Filing No. 2, into 20 lots for detached single unit residential development. The plat also includes dedications of drainage and public access easements. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before February 20, 2025. Reviewed under case number TEC2024-00046. This item was not called up by the board. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Continuation of consideration of a Site Review application for the redevelopment of a 9.87-acre site at 1855 S Flatiron Ct. with three Research and Development buildings totaling 207,011 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for two three-story buildings up to 50’ in height, a request for a 23% parking reduction, and a modification to site access control to allow for two access points. The applicant has requested Vested Rights for a period of nine years. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00036. The opportunity for public comment on this item has closed and will not be reopened. Board Comments: MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve Site Review application #LUR2024-00036, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Café and amenity space in building three (first building to be built) will be enlarged with a focus towards amenities that reduce trips to/from the site. Examples could include and are not limited to: more café seating and a greater variety of offerings, bike maintenance and repair area, a small store for sundry items, workout area, child care center. Retail amenities shall be open to the public during normal operating hours. Amenity space will be pushed toward the entrances of the building so that all visitors to the site know of their presence. 2. Prior to permit approval or technical documentation review, applicant shall resubmit a TDM plan that will focus on substantial trip reduction by car. Examples could include but are not limited to: better and more convenient horizontal long-term bike parking beyond the city requirements that accommodates longer wheelbase and heavier e-bikes as well as e-bike charging at a majority of bike parking spaces. Applicant shall enumerate proactive TDM policies that will inure to and be binding upon any tenant for a 10-year period from certification of occupancy. Possible policies are: parking cashout program, company sponsored transportation to/from the site, more car shares than what is in the current application, subsidization of and coordination with micromobility providers. These conditions are subject to staff approval. 3. Site design will be refined at the cul-de-sac to create a larger and more welcoming entrance for pedestrians and cyclists to the central open space of the site and access to the multi-use path connection. Applicant shall create a pedestrian connection from the path between buildings 3 and Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 11 Packet Page 177 of 568 2 and between buildings 2 and 1. These pedestrian connections will require removal of some parking spaces to create clear and landscaped connections. Multi-use path connections will be open to the public at all times unless closure is needed for repair or maintenance. The city will have sole authority to close the path. 4. To accommodate the site review conditions above, an additional parking reduction will be allowed. This approval includes an increase in the allowed parking reduction from 23% to 32%. Planning Board voted 1-5. Motion failed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION: L Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles to deny site review application LUR2024- 00036, finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the application meets the review criteria, and adopting the denial findings of fact as prepared for the Planning Board’s consideration of these applications, as revised by the Board during the February 18, 2025 meeting. Planning Board voted 3-3. (C. Hanson Thiem, J. Boone, and M. McIntyre dissenting). MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to amend the denial findings of fact (section 3e). Planning Board voted 3-3 (J. Boone, ml Robles, M. McIntyre dissenting). Motion failed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles to amend the denial findings of fact (section 1a) to add after “one small commercial space”, “(600 square feet), a café in one of the buildings with a single commercial space amounting to less than 1/3 of 1% of the project square footage,”. Planning Board voted 5-1 (J. Boone dissenting). Motion passed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to recommend the denial of Ordinance 8685, granting a 9-year vested property right for the site-specific development plan for a property located at 1855 S. Flatiron Ct. and setting forth related details. Planning Board voted (C. Hanson Thiem, M. McIntyre dissenting, J. Boone abstaining). Planning Board voted 3-3. Motion failed. B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Site and Use Review for the redevelopment of 2555 30th St. with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and proposes 142 units including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units totaling 111,495 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55’ in height, a request for a 6% parking reduction, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and building size in the BMS zone. The proposal also includes an administrative amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan. The applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00047 and LUR2024-00065. Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item to the board. Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 12 Packet Page 178 of 568 Board Questions: Alison Blaine and Charles Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Scott Holton and Bill Hollicky presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Scott Holton and Bill Hollicky answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In Person: 1) Britt Worth Virtual: 1) Virginia Winter (powerpoint) 2) Lynn Segal Board Comments: 03:53:21 Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review Criteria of the Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, including the Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification? Key Issue #2: Is the proposed vehicular parking reduction consistent with Parking Reduction Criteria of the Land Use Code section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981, as well as applicable Site Review criteria? Key Issue #3: Is the proposal consistent with the vision for the area as shown in the Transit Village Area Plan? C. Hanson Thiem agrees with the staff analysis and believes the project is consistent with the BVCP, and noted that it supports core policies that encourage infill and compact development, the jobs/housing balance, and walkable, connected neighborhoods. She believes it satisfies Site Review Criteria. She also believes it meets requirements for height modification, noting that she believes it preserves mountain views from public spaces. She believes the application is consistent with the Parking Reduction Criteria. She is unsure about full consistency with the TVAP plan, but noted that it contributes to the vision for the neighborhood by adding housing units and variety, and continuing to build out grid of mobility connections. L. Kaplan noted that there is a lot to like about this project, but noted that the board needs to be careful when considering making exemptions to city code and plans. She is wary about setting a precedent that a resident-serving commercial amenity is the same thing as having an active commercial space that serves the neighborhood. She believes this is an important component of achieving the TVAP’s vision of 30th Street as a main street business area. She believes the application generally meets the site review criteria, but is concerned about consistency with the subcommunity plan. For the height modification, she does not believe that it meets the criterion relating to form and massing being consistent with the character established in adopted plans and guidelines. She had other concerns about the visibility of entrances from the public realm and the lack of a ground level courtyard. Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 13 Packet Page 179 of 568 J. Boone agreed with the views expressed by L. Kaplan. He agrees that the building is too massive and needs some additional permeability. He doesn’t believe the board should be giving any leniency for this application on commercial space requirements. K. Nordback agreed with comments from C. Hanson Thiem. He supported the general architectural design and appreciated the relative simplicity. He appreciated that the entry grade at 30th Street was lowered. He believes the reduced setback on 30th Street is appropriate to make it feel more connected to the street and active. He understands Laura’s concerns relating to height and consistency with the TVAP, but believes the TVAP is intended more as a guiding document for determining consistency with the site review criteria. He feels the parking reduction is appropriate. He is concerned about the proposed location of the path to the west, and would like to see a bridge, which he understands may not be feasible. Ml Robles agreed with L. Kaplan’s concerns related to TVAP consistency. M. McIntyre noted that it seems unrealistic to mandate that an applicant put ground-level retail space in an area surrounded by vacant ground-level retail. He finds that it is consistent with the height modification criteria and the parking reduction criteria. He finds it generally consistent with the TVAP plan, with the acknowledgement that the plan has allowances for variance. He has concerns with the architecture and the extruded roof form. MOTION: K Nordback made motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve Site Review application LUR2024-00047 and Use Review application LUR2024-00065, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, as amended by the Planning Board on February 18, 2025. Planning Board voted 3-3 (L. Kaplan, ml Robles, J. Boone dissenting). Motion failed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles to amend the site review approval to remove the approval for the height modification. Planning Board voted 3-3 (C Hanson Thiem, K. Nordback, M. McIntyre dissenting). Motion failed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by J. Boone to amend the approval to require that at least 50% of the ground floor uses along the 30th St. frontage be commercial neighborhood- serving uses. Planning Board voted 3-3 (C Hanson Thiem, K. Nordback, M. McIntyre dissenting). Motion failed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to amend the approval to require architectural emphasis and identification of all entrances along 30th street, to the satisfaction of staff. (5:03.) Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion to amend the application to reflect that SUMP principles are required for all parking and the language “where possible” be stricken from the TDM Plan.. (5:08) Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 14 Packet Page 180 of 568 MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to continue the item to March 18, 2025. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:37 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 15 Packet Page 181 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES March 18, 2025 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and an audio recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jorge Boone, Chair Mark McIntyre, Vice Chair Laura Kaplan Kurt Nordback ml Robles Claudia Hason Thiem Mason Roberts PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney II Thomas Remke, Board Specialist Vivian Castro Wooldridge, Community Engagement Senior Project Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, J. Boone, declared a quorum at 6:30 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal 3. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. Call Up Item: Site Review Amendment to develop a vacant parcel south of Winchester Cir. in the Gunbarrel Tech Center, currently addressed as 0 Homestead Way. The proposed two-story building will be about 66,000 square feet and will have future industrial and office uses. The call-up period expires on March 19, 2025. K. Nordback made a motion to call up this item seconded by M. McIntyre. The item is called up. Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 16 Packet Page 182 of 568 B. Call Up Item: FINAL PLAT to subdivide the 5.3-acre parcel at 5691 S. Boulder Rd. into 16 residential lots for redevelopment of the site with fifteen (15) new homes (comprised of six (6) permanently affordable homes and nine (9) market-rate homes) and six (6) ADUs on the 2.4-acre western half of the site and one (1) new home in the general location of the existing (currently vacant) single family home at the east end of the site per the approved Annexation and Site Review (LUR2020-00057 & -00058). The plat also includes dedications of right-of-way for new residential streets (Peacock Place and Peacock Lane), five (5) outlots for stormwater detention/water quality and drainage improvements, private drives and pedestrian and open space facilities, and dedication of utility and access easements. This application is subject to potential call up on or before March 18, 2025. Reviewed under case number TEC2024-00012. This item was not called up by the board. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public Rehearing and consideration of a Site and Use Review for the redevelopment of 2555 30th St. with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and proposes 142 units including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units totaling 111,495 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55’ in height, a request for a 6% parking reduction, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and building size in the BMS zone. The proposal also includes an administrative amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan. The applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00047 and LUR2024-00065. Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Alison Blaine and Charles Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Chris Jacobs and Bill Hollicky presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Chris Jacobs and Bill Hollicky answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In Person: 1) Solomon Biers-Ariel 2) Michael Farrington 3) Macon Cowles Virtual: Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 17 Packet Page 183 of 568 1) Margot Smit 2) Virginia Winter 3) Lynn Segal Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review Criteria of the Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, including the Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification? Key Issue #2: Is the proposed vehicular parking reduction consistent with Parking Reduction Criteria of the Land Use Code section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981, as well as applicable Site Review criteria? Key Issue #3: Is the proposal consistent with the vision for the area as shown in the Transit Village Area Plan? M. Roberts believes the proposed project is consistent with the Site Review criteria, including the height modification. He believes the proposed parking reduction is consistent with the criteria in the Land Use Code. He also believes it is consistent with the TVAP, a concern that left the board tied 3-3 on relevant votes at the prior hearing. C. Hanson Thiem believes the project is consistent with the BVCP, noting that it supports infill and compact development, jobs/housing balance, and the creation of connected, walkable neighborhoods. She believes the proposed modifications to the access and transportation connections improve on the grid proposed in the TVAP. She believes it is consistent with the Height Modification criteria, noting that it preserves mountain views from public spaces and orients common areas of the development towards mountain views. She supports the parking reduction. She agrees with staff analysis that the proposal meets the Use Review criteria for ground-floor residential uses, noting that the ground-floor uses mimic commercial and office uses. L. Kaplan believes staff and some of her colleagues are permitting too much flexibility in the interpretation of codes and plans, believing that the board has a stricter duty to uphold criteria-based decisions. There are many components of this project that she would love to approve, but she does not believe that it meets several necessary criteria. She believes approval of this project in its current state supports the abandonment of the 30th Street business main street concept in the TVAP plan. Ml Robles agreed with many of the views expressed by L. Kaplan. She does not believe the height modification fits the character of the area of the west side of 30th Street and that it could create a dangerous precedent for the future of the area. She is also concerned with undermining the intent of the TVAP in the area. M. McIntyre noted that he believes this project fits the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the function of the site towards meeting overall city goals is much greater than the current benefit offered by the existing car dealership. He believes the application meets the site review criteria and parking reduction, and he believes that it is consistent with the intent and goals of the TVAP. Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 18 Packet Page 184 of 568 K. Nordback believes the project is consistent with the Site Review Criteria, including the height modification. He believes it meets the Use Review Criteria. He recognized that the TVAP is a useful guiding plan, but that it was created under a much different global context. In sum, he feels that the project is consistent with the TVAP, as viewed in the current global context and current city goals. J. Boone noted that the project is being presented by many colleagues as a binary decision between housing and a car dealership. He believes that a few changes could bring the project into compliance with the criteria while still providing a great housing opportunity for Boulder. MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to approve Site Review application #LUR2024-00047 and Use Review application #LUR2024-00065, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as amended by the Planning Board. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion to amend seconded by ml Robles that at least 50% of the frontage along 30th Street be commercial uses open to the public, as approved by staff at the time of Tec. Doc., and modifying the parking reduction percentage as appropriate. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion to amend seconded by ml Robles that 25% of the elevated courtyard along the south frontage be lowered to ground level to provide gathering space for building users to comply with the additional requirements for height modification, as approved by staff at the time of Tec. Doc., with any appropriate changes to the parking modification. Planning Board voted 1-6 (all board members dissenting except L. Kaplan). Motion failed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to amend the main motion to require that the architecture clearly identify the entrances along 30th Street to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec. Doc. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion to amend seconded by M. Roberts that SUMP principles are required for all parking, and the language “where possible,” is stricken from the TDM plan. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion to amend seconded by J. Boone that the 30th Street frontage be no more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth with the street-front spaces on the ground floor, maintaining the gabled roof form, in order to align with the 30th Street Character district and the Site Review criterion that the project align with the subcommunity plan, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec. Doc. Planning Board voted 4-3. Motion passed. MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre to amend the above amendment to change “the 30th Street frontage” to read “the 30th Street frontage south of the stairwell”. Planning Board voted 3-4 (ml Robles, L. Kaplan, M. Roberts, J. Boone dissenting). Motion failed. Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 19 Packet Page 185 of 568 MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to restore the 30th Street frontage to four stories. Planning Board voted 3-4 (M. Roberts, L. Kaplan, ml Robles, J. Boone dissenting). Motion failed. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 6. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:37 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE Attachment B - February 18, 2025 and March 18, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 20 Packet Page 186 of 568 2555 30TH ST 30TH STREETMAPLETON AVE GOOSE CREEK POND & GREENWAY BT-1BMS 19,405 SF 63,870 SF 289' - 0" 5' P.S. CO. EASEMENT (EXISTING) PROPERTY LINE N89”35’44”E -376.53’N00”14’05”W -221.00’N02”32’06”W -62.55’S00”14’05”E -158.50’S89”36’00”W -.27’S89”35’44”W -378.76’ PROPOSED TRANSFORMER & SCC 30TH STREETACCESS DRIVE 2555 30TH STREET 15' +/- 35' +/- 25' +/- 35' +/- 30' +/- 35' +/- LOADING, TRASH, FIRE TURNAROUND (RE: CIVIL)12' - 6 1/2"13' - 7 7/8"10' - 9"47' - 11 1/2"50' - 9 7/8"PROPERTY LINE 50' - 9 3/8"STEELYARD PL GOOSE CREEK POND AND GREENWAY BT-1BMS 15' - 10 1/4" 15' - 3 1/8" 20' - 10 1/4" 289' - 0"10' - 11 1/2"25' - 0" LOW POINT 5277.5' RE:CIVIL PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT, RE: CIVIL GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT MAX HEIGHT 5332.5' 55'-0" PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY EASEMENT, RE:CIVIL PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY EASEMENT, RE:CIVIL PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT, RE: CIVILPROPOSED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY EASEMENT, RE: CIVIL 20' FRONT SETBACK (BT-1)12' SIDE YARD SETBACK (BT-1) 12' SIDE YARD SETBACK (BT-1) 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK (BMS) 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK (BMS)NOTE: 0' REAR YARD SETBACK (BMS)WATER ENTRY, RE:CIVIL TO AWNING11' - 0"TO AWNING 12' - 10 3/4"TO PLANTER WALL5' - 11 3/4"10' FRONT SETBACK PROPOSED (BT-1)5' SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPOSED (BT-1) PROPOSED FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY RESERVATION, RE: CIVIL PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT, RE: CIVIL UNDER BENCH LIGHTING POOL 30TH STREETPARKING LOT SIDEWALK COURTYARD PODIUMSIDEWALK SCONCE LIGHTING LEGEND BOLLARD OVERHEAD LIGHT AT BUILDING CANTILEVER RAILING LIGHTING WALL CAP LIGHT STRING LIGHTS ALL LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING WILL COMPLY WITH C.O.B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING SECTION(S) 9-9-16, 9-9-16(10), 9-9-16(11), 9-9-16(12), 9-9-16(13) GLOBE LIGHT LIGHT POLE RECEPTACLE FOR HOLIDAY TREE LIGHTING GOOSE CREEK PATH 30TH ST28TH ST/ US 36MAPLETON AVE VALMONT RD BUS STOP B-CYCLE STATION RTD STATION DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTE EXISTING DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTE PROPOSED MULTI USE PATH EXISTING ON STREET BIKE LANE EXISTING GOOSE CREEK LANE BUS LINES TRANSIT LEGEND STREET PARKING BIKE PARKING UP TO COURTYARD ELEV.ELEV. BUILDING ENTRY CIRCULATION LEGEND ACCESSIBLE ENTRY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE PRIMARY BICYCLE ACCESS PRIMARY VEHICLE ACCESS PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 3 4 L T B IK E S P A C E S 40 ST BIKE SPACES (17)(15) (4)(2) (3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(2) (3)(3)(3)(3) (3)(3)(3)(3) (3) (1 ADA) (2) (4) (3) (2 ADA) (2) (1)(3 6 )1 9 L T B IK E S P A C E S 10 ST BIKE SPACES 10 ST BIKE SPACES (5) 8 ST BIKE SPACES 8 ST BIKE SPACES CAR SHARE SPACE (2) (3) (4)(4)(4)(2) 1 0 6 L T B IK E S P A C E S (2 0 )(1 4 )(3 6 )WAGONS NEAR ELEVATORS FOR RESIDENT USE (3)ELECTRIC BIKES (7)STRD BIKES (3) (4)(4)(4)(4) (3) (2) 19 LT BIKE SPACES STANDARD PARKING SPACE LOADING COMPACT PARKING SPACE BUILDING ENTRY SHORT TERM BIKE STORAGE PARKING LEGEND LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE 1 2 L T B IK E L O C K E R S 5' P.S. CO. EASEMENT (EXISTING)PROPERTY LINE N00”14’05”W - 221.00’30TH STREET2555 30TH ST (35' BUILDING @ REQ'D SETBACKS) 15' +/- 35' +/- 25' +/- 35' +/- 30' +/- 35' +/- PROPERTY LINE STEELYARD PL GOOSE CREEK POND AND GREENWAY BT-1BMS LOW POINT 5277.5' XH XA XD SURVEY BENCHMARK ELEV: 5282.18' ELEV: 5281'ELEV: 5280'ELEV: 5282'ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278'ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5281' ELEV: 5282' XESETBACK12' - 0" SIDESETBACK5' - 0" SIDESETBACK5' - 0" SIDESETBACK12' - 0" SIDESETBACK 0" REAR XF XG SETBACK 20' - 0" FRONT XCXB 5' P.S. CO. EASEMENT (EXISTING)PROPERTY LINE N00”14’05”W - 221.00’30TH STREET2555 30TH ST (35' BUILDING @ REQ'D SETBACKS) 15' +/- 35' +/- 25' +/- 35' +/- 30' +/- 35' +/- PROPERTY LINE STEELYARD PL GOOSE CREEK POND AND GREENWAY BT-1BMS LOW POINT 5277.5' SURVEY BENCHMARK ELEV: 5282.18' ELEV: 5281'ELEV: 5280'ELEV: 5282'ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278'ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5281' ELEV: 5282'SETBACK12' - 0" SIDESETBACK12' - 0" SIDESETBACK 0" REAR SETBACK 20' - 0" FRONT XH XA XD XE XF XG XCXB 5' P.S. CO. EASEMENT (EXISTING)PROPERTY LINE N00”14’05”W - 221.00’30TH STREET2555 30TH ST 15' +/- 35' +/- 25' +/- 35' +/- 30' +/- 35' +/-10' - 9"48' - 8 1/4"PROPERTY LINE 50' - 9 3/8"STEELYARD PL GOOSE CREEK POND AND GREENWAY BT-1BMS 15' - 3 1/8"20' - 10 1/4" 90' - 9"289' - 0"10' - 11 1/2"25' - 0" LOW POINT 5277.5' A C D G E W1 B F JHI SURVEY BENCHMARK ELEV: 5282.18' ELEV: 5281'ELEV: 5280'ELEV: 5282'ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278'ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5281' ELEV: 5282' USGS 5323.57' K USGS 5330.52' USGS 5331.99' M USGS 5331.99' USGS 5325.56'USGS 5325.56' USGS 5327.56' N P O a R T S W U V L Q i h g f d b ce USGS 5327.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5326.06' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5330.23' USGS 5331.66' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5323.70' USGS 5331.66' USGS 5328.05' USGS 5323.69' USGS 5325.81' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06' USGS 5323.57' USGS 5329.28' USGS 5329.28' USGS 5329.28' USGS 5329.28' X USGS 5332.00' USGS 5332.00' USGS 5332.00' USGS 5325.56'USGS 5325.56' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5325.56'USGS 5332.00' USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06' USGS 5326.56' USGS 5326.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5324.17' USGS 5326.06' USGS 5323.39' Y USGS 5332.00' Z 48' - 8 1/4"50' - 9 3/8"15' - 3 1/8" 20' - 10 1/4" 90' - 9"289' - 0"10' - 11 1/2"25' - 0" 5' P.S. CO. EASEMENT (EXISTING)PROPERTY LINE N00”14’05”W - 221.00’30TH STREET2555 30TH ST 15' +/- 35' +/- 25' +/- 35' +/- 30' +/- 35' +/- PROPERTY LINE STEELYARD PL GOOSE CREEK POND AND GREENWAY BT-1BMS LOW POINT 5277.5' SURVEY BENCHMARK ELEV: 5282.18' ELEV: 5281'ELEV: 5280'ELEV: 5282'ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278'ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5278' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5279' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5280' ELEV: 5281' ELEV: 5282' A B USGS 5325.56' i h g f d e USGS 5329.90' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5330.23' USGS 5331.66' USGS 5325.56' C D E USGS 5325.56' R S USGS 5325.56' USGS 5323.70' USGS 5331.66' USGS 5328.05' USGS 5323.69' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5329.90' USGS 5325.56' USGS 5329.28' USGS 5329.28' JI K M N OLUSGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06'USGS 5328.06' USGS 5325.81' USGS 5323.57' P Q USGS 5323.57' USGS 5327.56' T U USGS 5327.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5329.28' USGS 5329.28' GFUSGS 5326.56' USGS 5326.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5327.56' USGS 5330.52' USGS 5331.99' USGS 5331.99' a W V b c X USGS 5332.00' USGS 5332.00' USGS 5325.56'USGS 5325.56' USGS 5325.56'USGS 5332.00' USGS 5323.39' Y USGS 5332.00' Z USGS 5325.56' 853 SF COMMERCIAL 3902 SF RESIDENTIAL 4732 SF RESIDENTIAL 649 SF RESIDENTIAL 256 SF UNINHABITABLE COB AREA LEGEND BIKE PARKING COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE UNINHABITABLE427 SF RESIDENTIAL 415 SF BIKE PARKING 564 SF BIKE PARKING 355 SF BIKE PARKING 158 SF RESIDENTIAL BT-1BMS 631 SF BIKE PARKING 141 SF UNINHABITABLE 855 SF UNINHABITABLE 208 SF UNINHABITABLE 407 SF BIKE PARKING (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32) (33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54) (62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)(71)(58)(59)(60)(61)(57) (56)(55) (75)(76)(74)(78)(79)(77)(81)(82)(80)(84)(85)(83) (99)(100)(98)(96)(97)(95)(94) (93)(92)(90)(91)(89) (87)(88)(86) (73)(72) (101) (102) (103) (104) (105) (106) (107) (108) (109) (110) (110) (112) (113) (114) (115) (116) (117) (118) (119) (120) (121) (122) (123)(124) (125) (126)(127) (128) (129) (130) (131) (132) (133) (134) (135) (136) (137) (138) (139) (140) (141)(142) (143) (144) (145) 531 SF STORAGE 306 SF UNINHABITABLE 5849 SF RESIDENTIAL 27278 SF RESIDENTIAL 121 SF UNINHABITABLE222 SF BIKE PARKING 275 SF BIKE PARKING BT-1BMS 5855 SF RESIDENTIAL 28286 SF RESIDENTIAL 126 SF UNINHABITABLE222 SF BIKE PARKING 271 SF BIKE PARKING BT-1BMS 5857 SF RESIDENTIAL 27118 SF RESIDENTIAL 126 SF UNINHABITABLE222 SF BIKE PARKING 271 SF BIKE PARKING BT-1BMS *PER C.O.B. TITLE 9 - LAND USE CODE, CHAPTER 16 DEFINITIONS, FLOOR AREA: FLOOR AREA MEANS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL LEVELS MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR FRAMING, OR TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS IF THERE IS NO EXTERIOR FRAMING, OF A BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF, WHICH INCLUDES STAIRWAYS, ELEVATORS, THE PORTIONS OF ALL EXTERIOR ELEVATED ABOVE GRADE CORRIDORS, BALCONIES, AND WALKWAYS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR PRIMARY OR SECONDARY EGRESS BY CHAPTER 10-5, "BUILDING CODE," B.R.C. 1981, STORAGE AND MECHANICAL ROOMS, WHETHER INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL TO THE STRUCTURE, BUT EXCLUDING AN ATRIUM ON THE INTERIOR OF A BUILDING WHERE NO FLOOR EXISTS, A COURTYARD, THE STAIRWAY OPENING AT THE UPPERMOST FLOOR OF A BUILDING, AND FLOOR AREA THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF UNINHABITABLE SPACE. N89”35’44”E -376.53’N02”32’06”W -62.55’S00”14’05”E -158.50’S89”36’00”W -.27’S89”35’44”W -378.76’30TH STREET2555 30TH STREET 15' +/- 35' +/- 25' +/- 35' +/- 30' +/- 35' +/- STEELYARD PL GOOSE CREEK POND AND GREENWAY BT-1BMS LOW POINT 5277.5' MAX HEIGHT 5332.5' 55'-0"FROM PROPERTY LINE100' - 0"FROM PROPERTY LINE 100' - 0" FROM PROPERTY LINE 100' - 0"FROM PROPERTY LINE100' - 0"25' - 0" 5275 5280 5277 5278 5280 5275 5280 5277 SR-2.11 SR-2.1 2 SR-2.2 2 SR-2.26 100 2BR 102 STU 104 STU 106 STU 108 STU 110 2BR COMMERCIAL SPACE WORKSPACE MAIL ROOM PARCEL ROOM LOBBY BIKE STG. TRASH ROOM ELEC MDF BIKE STG. STORAGE ELEV ELEV BUILDING ABOVE BUILDING ABOVE SR-2.2 5 AWNING ABOVE DOG WASH STAIR 2 STAIR 1 24' - 0"24' - 0" OFFICE OFFICE POOL ABOVE FIRE RISER / WATER ENTRY POOL EQPT RM VESTIBULE 5' - 0"BIKE STG.24' - 0"24' - 0"25' - 3" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" BALCONY ABOVE PATIO FENCING, RE: LANDSCAPE 1 A200 2 A201 4 MECHANICAL BIKE STR. SR-2.1 2 SR-2.2 2 SR-2.26 SR-2.2 4 212 3BR 210 2BR 208 STU 206 STU 204 STU 202 STU 200 2BR 223 1BR PLUS 227 STU 229 STU 231 STU 233 STU 237 2BR 241 2 BR PLUS 247 STU 249 1BR 256 1BR 254 STU 240 1BR 238 1BR 236 3BR 234 1BR 232 1BR 230 STU 228 1BR 226 1BR 224 1BR 222 1BR 220 1BR 218 1BR216 1BR 252 STU ELEV ELEV BIKE STORAGE ELEC/IDF OPEN TO BELOW ELEC 225 2BR 235 STU 250 MICRO UNIT 248 MICRO UNIT 258 STU 214 3BR 203 STU 201 STU AMENITY SR-2.2 5 GYM BR BR 211 1BR 209 STU STAIR 2 STAIR 1 IDF/JANTRASH GREATER THAN BLDG HT 118' - 4 3/4" 205 STU A121 2 SR-2.11 SR-2.1 2 SR-2.2 2 SR-2.26 SR-2.2 4 312 3BR 310 2BR 308 STU 306 STU 304 STU 302 STU 300 2BR 305 STU 323 1BR PLUS 318 1BR 320 1BR 322 1BR 324 1BR 326 1BR 328 1BR 330 STU 332 1BR 334 1BR 336 3BR 338 1BR 340 1BR 342 1BR 344 1BR 354 STU 358 STU 351 1BR 349 1BR 347 STU 341 1BR PLUS 327 STU 329 STU 331 STU 337 2BR 316 1BR 360 1BR PLUS ELEV BIKE STORAGE ELEC/IDF TRASH 325 2BR 333 STU 335 STU 314 3BR 356 1BR 352 STU 350 1BR 339 MICRO UNIT 303 STU 301 STU ELEV SR-2.2 5 309 STU 311 1BR STAIR 2 STAIR 1 IDF/JANELEC SR-2.11 SR-2.1 2 SR-2.2 2 SR-2.26 SR-2.2 4 412 3BR 410 2BR 408 STU 406 STU 404 STU 402 STU 400 2BR 405 STU 409 STU 423 1BR PLUS 416 1BR 418 1BR 420 1BR 422 1BR 424 1BR 426 1BR 428 1BR 430 STU 432 1BR 434 1BR 436 3BR 438 1BR 440 1BR 442 1BR 444 1BR 454 STU 456 1BR 451 1BR 449 1BR 447 STU 441 1BR PLUS 427 STU 429 STU 431 STU 437 2BR ELEV BIKE STORAGE ELEC / IDF TRASHELEC 425 2BR 433 STU 435 STU 414 3BR 452 STU 450 1BR458 STU 439 MICRO UNIT 403 STU 401 STU ELEV SR-2.2 5 411 1BR STAIR 2 STAIR 1 IDF/JAN ROOF DECK 1 SR-2.11 SR-2.1 2 SR-2.2 2 SR-2.26 SR-2.2 4 5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"SR-2.2 5 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12" ELEV. OVERRUN ELEV. OVERRUN ROOF HATCH ACCESS ASPHALT SHINGLES TPO ROOF ROOF LEGEND RESIDENT DECK POTENTIAL SOLAR AREA LEVEL 15279' -3" LOW POINT -USGS5277' -6" MAX BLDG. HT.5332' -6" LEVEL 213' -7 7/8" LEVEL 324' -3 3/4" LEVEL 434' -11 5/8"MAX BUILDING HEIGHT55' - 0"GLULAM COLUMNS STOREFRONTMETAL AWNING 2 155 LEVEL 4 T.O.P44' -0 3/4" TOP OF ROOF5332' -0"54' - 6"4 4 LEVEL 15279' -3" LOW POINT -USGS5277' -6" MAX BLDG. HT.5332' -6" LEVEL 213' -7 7/8" LEVEL 324' -3 3/4" LEVEL 434' -11 5/8"MAX BUILDING HEIGHT55' - 0"PARKING SCREENINGGLULAM COLUMNS METAL AWNING 2 3 1 5 5 5 6 LEVEL 4 T.O.P44' -0 3/4" TOP OF ROOF5332' -0"54' - 6"4 3 LEVEL 15279' -3" LOW POINT -USGS5277' -6" MAX BLDG. HT.5332' -6" LEVEL 213' -7 7/8" LEVEL 324' -3 3/4" LEVEL 434' -11 5/8" LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0" PRE-FINISHED METAL SHADOW BOXES MAX BLDG HEIGHT55' - 0"3 1 5 55 5 2 LEVEL 4 T.O.P44' -0 3/4" TOP OF ROOF5332' -0"54' - 6"2 6 LOW POINT -USGS5277' -6" MAX BLDG. HT.5332' -6" LEVEL 213' -7 7/8" LEVEL 324' -3 3/4" LEVEL 434' -11 5/8" 21 5 MAX BLDG HEIGHT55' - 0"LEVEL 4 T.O.P44' -0 3/4" TOP OF ROOF5332' -0"54' - 6"LEVEL 15279' -3" LOW POINT -USGS5277' -6" MAX BLDG. HT.5332' -6" LEVEL 213' -7 7/8" LEVEL 324' -3 3/4" LEVEL 434' -11 5/8"MAX BUILDING HEIGHT55' - 0"1 15 5 LEVEL 4 T.O.P44' -0 3/4" TOP OF ROOF5332' -0"54' - 6"2 LOW POINT -USGS5277' -6" MAX BLDG. HT.5332' -6" LEVEL 213' -7 7/8" LEVEL 324' -3 3/4" LEVEL 434' -11 5/8" LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0" 2 5 1 MAX BUILDING HEIGHT55' - 0"LEVEL 4 T.O.P44' -0 3/4" TOP OF ROOF5332' -0"54' - 6" EXTERIOR INTERIOR BACKER ROD AND SEALANT WOOD LOOK COMPOSITE SIDING PER ELEVATIONS CONTINUOUS SEALANT BEHIND NAILING FIN WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS WRB CAULK JOINT METAL TRIM WOOD LOOK SIDING PER ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS SELF-ADHERED FLASHING INTERIOR BACKER ROD AND SEALANT BACKDAM AT SILL WRB METAL TRIM, SLOPED TO DRAIN WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS SELF-ADHERED FLASHING BACKDAM AT SILL BACKER ROD AND SEALANT WRB ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL PER ELEVATIONS J CHANNEL EXTERIORINTERIOR EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL PER ELEVATIONS WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS INTERIOR BACKER ROD AND SEALANT J CHANNEL WRB CONTINUOUS SEALANT BEHIND NAILING FIN EXTERIORINTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL PER ELEVATIONS WRB SELF-ADHERED FLEXIBLE FLASHING BACKER ROD & SEALANT WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS METAL HEAD FLASHING WITH DRIP EDGE TO MATCH WINDOW, SLOPE 5 DEGREES J CHANNELMETAL HEAD FLASHING WITH DRIP EDGE TO MATCH WINDOW, SLOPE 5 DEGREES WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS WOOD-LOOK COMPOSITE SIDING PER ELEVATION WRB INTERIOR EXTERIOR SEALANT SELF-ADHERED FLEXIBLE FLASHING RAINSCREEN PER MANUFACTURER METAL TRIM 1/4"EXTERIORINTERIOR WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR WEEPS @ 24" O.C. THRU-WALL FLASHING BRICK FACING GALV. STEEL LOOSE LINTEL EXTERIOR INTERIOR BACKER ROD AND SEALANT CONTINUOUS SEALANT BEHIND NAILING FIN WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS WRB CAULK JOINT BRICK PER ELEVATIONS WINDOW PER ELEVATIONS SELF-ADHERED FLASHING BACKDAM AT SILL BACKER ROD AND SEALANT WRB EXTERIORINTERIOR BRICK PER ELEVATIONS SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW 11.27.2024WWEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E EEEEE EEESSSSWWWWWWWW W W W WWWWWWW E EEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE UP 1 CO 1 QMU 1 ANS 1 QB 1 MSS 2 GDE 1 MSS 2 QB 3 PVS 2 PCR 3 ATH 3 MSS1 CGIC 3 PCR 2 CC 3 PH 3 ANS 1 CO 1 QMU OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC ART ON WALL GLASS FENCE AT POOL ALONG EDGE OF RAIN GARDENS BELOWTERRACED LANDSCAPEMETAL GUARDRAIL/ FENCE PRIVATE TERRACE WITH FENCE DIVIDERS INDOOR/OUTDOOR EXERCISE POOL AND DECK LOUNGE SEATING LANDSCAPE AREAS WITH MAXIMUM SOIL VOLUME COMMUNITY GARDEN ARTIFICIAL TURF (FLUSH WITH SURROUNDING PAVING) PERGOLA WITH OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND SEATING PRIVATE PATIO RAIN GARDEN/WATER QUALITY FEATURE (TYP.) FENCED BIKE PATIO 6' CONCRETE WALK 10' CONCRETE WALK TRANSITION FROM 10' TO 6' WALK COVERED SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING (40 SPACES) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP) - TOTAL 8 GARDEN STORAGE 5' HIGH METAL POOL FENCE VARIETY OF SEATING SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING (10 SPACES) SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING (10 SPACES) PATIO BMS ZONE BT1 ZONE SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING 8 SPACES SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING (8 SPACES) TRANSFORMER AND SWITCH CABINET SEE SHEET L1.5 FOR OFF-SITE PATH CONNECTION SAUNA LEGEND SHADE TREE ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING BED (SHRUBS, ORN GRASSES, GROUNDCOVERS) POLLINATOR GARDEN SEED (RAIN GARDEN) ARTIFICIAL TURF EDGER FENCE NATIVE SEED N 010 20 FT SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 20 Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 42 Packet Page 208 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML1.1 PRECEDENT IMAGERY 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW N 015 30 FT SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 30WE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EEEE EESSSSWWWWWW W WWWWW E EEEEEEEEEEE UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ART - SITE STAIRS AND WALLS TERRACED LANDSCAPING POLLINATOR PLANTS IN RAINGARDENS COVERED GUEST BIKE PARKINGCOURTYARD PLANTINGS COURTYARD AMENITIES SITE FENCING 11.27.2024 Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 43 Packet Page 209 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML1.2 LANDSCAPE INFORMATION 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW OTHER LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL HAVE ALL WIRE, TWINE OR OTHER CONTAINMENT MATERIALS, EXCEPT FOR BURLAP, REMOVED FROM TRUNK AND ROOT BALL OF THE PLANT PRIOR TO PLANTING. 2. GRADES SHALL BE SET TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES. GRADES SHALL MAINTAIN SMOOTH PROFILES AND BE FREE OF SURFACE DEBRIS, BUMPS, AND DEPRESSIONS. 3. OWNERS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 4. ALL SHRUB BEDS ADJACENT TO TURF AREAS SHALL BE EDGED WITH ROLLED TOP STEEL EDGER. 5. ALL SHRUB BED AREAS, PERENNIALS AND GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 4” LAYER OF GORILLA HAIR MULCH. DO NOT USE WEED BARRIER FABRIC IN ANY OF THE LANDSCAPE BEDS. 6. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED; ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE INCORPORATED AT THE RATE OF AT LEAST FOUR (4) CUBIC YARDS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. 7. PLANTS ARE GROUPED BY WATER USE ZONE TO CONSERVE WATER. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL MATERIAL QUANTITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ACTUAL NUMBER OF PLANT SYMBOLS SHALL HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE QUANTITY DESIGNATED. 9. REFER TO THE CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STREETSCAPING STANDARDS FOR ALL WORK WITHIN PUBLIC AREAS. 10. REFER TO THE CIVIL ENGINEER DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND UTILITY INFORMATION. 11. REFER TO THE CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 12. SOD SPECIFICATION: REVEILLE® HYBRID TURF GRASS OF KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS AND TEXAS BLUEGRASS SOD AVAILABLE THROUGH: GRAFF'S TURF FARMS 9809 N. FRONTAGE RD I-76 PO BOX 715 FORT MORGAN, CO 80701-0715 P: 970-867-8873 CITY OF BOULDER LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. LANDSCAPING SCHEDULE: (A) NOTHING SHALL BE PLANTED BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND MARCH 1 WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY. STOCK, OTHER THAN CONTAINER-GROWN STOCK, SHALL NOT BE PLANTED BETWEEN JUNE 1 AND SEPTEMBER 1 WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY. BARE ROOT STOCK SHALL NOT BE PLANTED AFTER APRIL 30 OR IF PLANTS HAVE BEGUN TO LEAF OUT. (B) NOTHING SHALL BE PLANTED DURING FREEZING OR EXCESSIVELY WINDY, HOT, OR WET WEATHER OR WHEN THE GROUND CONDITIONS CANNOT BE PROPERLY WORKED FOR DIGGING, MIXING, RAKING, OR GRADING. (C) NOTHING SHALL BE PLANTED UNTIL THE ADJACENT SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PAVEMENTS, IRRIGATION INSTALLATION AND FINISH GRADING IS COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DIRECTOR. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE IN APPROVED, OPERATING CONDITION PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING. 2. SITE PREPARATION AND ALL PLANTING SHALL BE COMPLETED, AT A MINIMUM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. SITE PREPARATION SHALL INCLUDE TILLING THE SOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF SIX INCHES BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE, TOGETHER WITH SOIL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE LANDSCAPING TO BE PLANTED. 3. TURF GRASS SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 25 PERCENT OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS ON THE SITE. 4. ALL PLANTING BEDS AND A 3-FOOT DIAMETER RING AT THE BASE OF EACH TREE WITHIN SOD OR SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH ORGANIC MULCH AT LEAST 4” DEEP. 5. GRAVEL, ROCK MULCH, OR CRUSHER FINES SHALL NOT BE USED UNDER TREES OR ANY PLANTING AREAS. ROCK OR GRAVEL MAY ONLY BE USED AS A SPECIFIC ORNAMENTAL FEATURE IN LIMITED AREAS (SUCH AS AT THE BOTTOM OF A DRAINAGE SWALE OR DRY RIVER BED) OR AS A PEDESTRIAN PATH OR PATIO. 6. WEED BARRIER FABRIC SHALL NOT TO BE USED IN ANY PLANTING AREAS. 7. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GROUPED BY WATER NEEDS. A MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT OF ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS (INCLUDING ANY TURF GRASS) MUST USE LOW TO MODERATE WATER DEMAND PLANTS. THE LANDSCAPE SHALL BE DESIGNED SO THAT, AT MATURITY, NOT MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE LANDSCAPED AREA IS EXPOSED MULCH. 8. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST BE ZONED TO DELIVER DIFFERENT APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS OF WATER TO DIFFERENT PLANT ZONES. THE SITE SHOULD BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION, BUBBLER, OR MICRO-SPRAY SYSTEMS. ALL TREES WILL BE ZONED SEPARATELY FROM TURF GRASS. ALL IRRIGATION ZONES SHALL USE A SMART SYSTEM THAT ADJUSTS FOR RAINFALL, SOIL MOISTURE, AND OTHER WEATHER FACTORS. 9. PROTECTIVE MAINTENANCE: AN APPLICANT FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL SHALL PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND CARE FOR ALL EXISTING TREES REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO ANY PROJECT OR CONSTRUCTION SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT WARRANTY PERIOD TO ENSURE THAT EXISTING TREES SURVIVE AND ARE NOT DAMAGED. REFER TO CHAPTER 3 OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR ALL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. (ONLY APPLICABLE TO EXISTING PUBLIC STREET TREES OR EXISTING PRIVATE TREES THAT WILL MEET THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9-9-13 BRC 1981) 10. ALL NEW TREES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 10’ FROM ANY EXISTING WATER OR SEWER UTILITY LINES OR FROM LIGHT POLES OR OVERHEAD UTILITY POLES. ALL NEW UTILITY LINES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 10’ FROM ANY EXISTING PUBLIC STREET TREE. A mixture of perennial, cool season, drought tolerant, grasses suitable for areas where mowing is difficult or not desirable. It grows an average of 8-12 inches a year with normal rain fall in the Intermountain region and the Desert Southwest. This mix is a great soil stabilizer. Our wildflower mixes are very compatible with this mix. Characteristics: ¾Grows 8-12 inches tall ¾Requires little to no maintenance ¾Grows well in elevations up to 10,000 ft Seeding Rate: New Seeding Dryland: 20-25 lbs/acre Irrigated: 40 lbs/acre Overseeding Dryland: 10-15 lbs/acre Irrigated: 20 lbs/acre Mix contains: 30% Ephraim Crested Wheatgrass Slightly rhizomatous bunchgrass with germination in 14-21 days. Drought resistant and winter hardy with a deep root system making it an excellent soil binder. Crested wheatgrass is well adapted to stabilization of disturbed soils and does well on a variety of soil types. 25% Sheep Fescue Bunchgrass with germination in 14-21 days. Well adapted to most soil conditions and is great for soil erosion control and low maintenance mixtures. 20% Perennial Rye Bunchgrass with germination in 5-10 days. One of the most widely used grasses and is adaptable to a wide variety of soils and climate conditio5ns. It has a leafy head and fine stem. 15% Chewings Fescue Sod-forming grass with germination in 7-21 days. Fine fescue that is shade tolerant and requires little water. Persists in dry soils and infertile soils. 10% Kentucky Bluegrass Sod-forming grass with germination in 14-21 days. Resistant to drought and some salinity. It is used to reclaim disturbed area such as gravel pits, cut roads, roadsides, and mines. Formulations & varieties are subject to change without notice! Spring 2009 LOW GROW GRASS MIX NATIVE SEED MIX ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED PLANT SCHEDULE KEY SIZE QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE EXPOSURE FLOWER COLOR SEASON AMTC 1 GAL ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 'TERRA COTTA'TERRA COTTA YARROW 18-24"18-24"LOW SUN PEACH SUMMER AQCH 1 GAL AQUILEGIA CHRYSANTHA YELLOW COLUMBINE 2-3'18-24"LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE YELLOW LATE SPRING TO EARLY SUMMER ATU 1 GAL ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA GAY BUTTERFLY 18-36"18-24"LOW SUN ORANGE, YELLOW MID TO LATE SUMMER CPL 1 GAL CERATOSTIGMA PLUMBAGINOIDES PLUMBAGO 8-12"18-24"LOW ADAPTABLE BLUE MID TO LATE SUMMER EFC 1 GAL EUONUMUS FORTUNEI 'COLORATUS'PURPLELEAF WINTERCREEPER 12-18"3-6'LOW ADAPTABLE INSIGNIFICANT EARLY SUMMER GJB 1 GAL GERANIUM 'JOHNSON'S BLUE'BLUE CRANESBILL 18-24"2-3'MEDIUM ADAPTABLE VIOLET-BLUE EARLY SUMMER GRO 1 GAL GERANIUM ROZANNE BLUE CRANESBILL 12-18"1-2'MEDIUM ADAPTABLE VIOLET-BLUE LATE SPRING TO SUMMER MFM 1 GAL MONARDA FISTULOSA MENTHIFOLIA NATIVE LAVENDER BEE-BALM 2-3'18-24"LOW SUN LAVENDER MID-SUMMER PST 1 GAL PENSTEMON STRICTUS ROCKY MOUNTAIN PENSTEMON 18-24"12-18"LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE BLUE EARLY TO MID-SUMMER ZGG 1 GAL ZINNIA GRANDLIFLORA 'GOLD ON BLUE'GOLD ON BLUE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ZINNIA 6-8"8-12"VERY LOW SUN GOLDEN YELLOW MID TO LATE SUMMER 0 KEY SIZE QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE EXPOSURE FLOWER COLOR SEASON AC 1 GAL ACHNATHERUM CALAMAGROSTIS UNDAUNTED ALPINE PLUME GRASS 2-3'2-3'LOW SUN TAN MID-SUMMER CAO 1 GAL CALAMAGROSTIS ACUTIFLORA 'OVERDAM'VARIEGATED FEATHER REED GRASS 1-3'1-3'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE GOLDEN TAN SUMMER CB 1 GAL CALAMAGROSTIS BRACHYTRICHA KOREAN FEATHER REED GRASS 3-4'2-3'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE PINKISH-TAN LATE SUMMER MSA 1 GAL MISCANTHUS SINENSIS 'ADAGIO'COMPACT MAIDEN GRASS 3-4'2-3'MEDIUM SUN PINK LATE SUMMER MSP 1 GAL MISCANTHUS SINENSIS PURPURASCENS FLAME (PURPLE MAIDEN) GRASS 3-4'2-3'MEDIUM SUN BRONZE TO SILVERY WHITE MID TO LATE SUMMER NT 1 GAL NASSELLA TENUISSIMA MEXICAN FEATHER GRASS 2-3'1-2'LOW SUN LIGHT BEIGE SPRING PVH 1 GAL PANICUM VIRGATUM 'HEAVY METAL'HEAVY METAL BLUE SWITCH GRASS 3-4'12-18"LOW SUN PINK FALL PVS 1 GAL PANICUM VIRGATUM 'SHENANDOAH'SHENANDOAH RED SWTICH GRASS 3-4'12-18"LOW SUN TAN LATE SUMMER PO 1 GAL PENNISETUM ORIENTALE ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS 2-3'18-24"LOW SUN WHITE LATE SUMMER SH 1 GAL SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED GRASS 24-30"18-24"LOW SUN GRAY-GREEN SUMMER TO FALL 0 KEY SIZE QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE EXPOSURE COLOR SEASON AMGH 5 GAL ARONIA MELANOCARPA GROUND HUG GROUND HUG CHOKEBERRY 10-15"2-3'LOW SUN TO SHADE WHITE LATE SPRING AML 5 GAL ARONIA MELANOCARPA LOW SCAPE MOUND LOW SCAPE MOUND BLACK CHOKEBERRY 1-2'18-24"LOW ADAPTABLE WHITE LATE SPRING AXCC 1 GAL ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X COLORADOENSIS CHIEFTAIN CHIEFTAIN MANZANITA 3-4'5-6;LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE SOFT PINK LATE WINTER TO EARLY SPRING AXCP 1 GAL ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X COLORADOENSIS PANCHITO PANCHITO MANZANITA 10-15"3-5'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE SOFT PINK LATE WINTER TO EARLY SPRING BBC 5 GAL BUDDLEJA 'BLUE CHIP'DWARF PURPLE-BLUE BUTTERFLY BUSH 24-30"2-4'MEDIUM SUN PURPLE-BLUE SUMMER TO FALL BMR 5 GAL BUDDLEJA 'MISS RUBY'MISS RUBY BUTTERFLY BUSH 3-5'3-5'MEDIUM SUN TO FILTERED SHADE REDDISH-PINK MID TO LATE SUMMER CCF 5 GAL CARYOPTERIS X CLANDONENSIS 'FIRST CHOICE'FIRST CHOICE BLUE MIST SPIREA 2-3'18-24"LOW SUN BLUE MID TO LATE SUMMER EFI 5 GAL EUONYMUS FORTUNEI 'IVORY JADE'IVORY JADE EUONYMUS 2-3'4-6'MEDIUM FILTERED SHADE TO SHADE N/A N/A LVC 5 GAL LIGUSTRUM VULGARE 'CHEYENNE'CHEYENNE PRIVET 6-8'4-6'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE WHITE EARLY SUMMER PM 5 GAL PHILADELPHUS MICROPHYLLUS LITTLELEAF MOCKORANGE 4-6'4-6'LOW SUN WHITE SUMMER PON 5 GAL PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS 'NANUS'DWARF NINEBARK 4-5'4-5'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE WHITE LATE SPRING PBPB 5 GAL PRUNUS BESSEYI PAWNEE BUTTES CREEPING WESTERN SAND CHEERY 15-30"4-6'LOW SUN WHITE SPRING PC 5 GAL PRUNUS X CISTENA PURPLE LEAF PLUM 6-8'4-6'MEDIUM SUN PALE PINK MID-SPRING RAG 5 GAL RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW'DWARF FRAGRANT SUMAC 2-3'6-8'LOW SUN YELLOW EARLY SPRING RTA 5 GAL RHUS TRILOBATA 'AUTUMN AMBER'CREEPING THREE-LEAF SUMAC 12-18"3-6'VERY LOW SUN YELLOW EARLY SPRING RA 5 GAL RIBES ALPINUM ALPINE CURRANT 3-6'3-6'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE YELLOWISH-GREEN MID-SPRING RKS 5 GAL ROSA KNOCK OUT SUNNY SUNNY KNOCK OUT ROSE 3-5'3-4'MEDIUM SUN YELLOW/CREAM SUMMER RNW 5 GAL ROSA 'NEARLY WILD'NEARLY WILD ROSE 2-3'2-3'LOW SUN PINK EARLY TO LATE SUMMER RW 5 GAL ROSA WOODSII WOODS' ROSE 3-6'3-6'LOW SUN PINK EARLY SUMMER WFRP 5 GAL WEIGELA FLORIDA 'RED PRINCE'RED PRINCE WEIGELA 4-6'4-6'MEDIUM SUN TO FILTERED SHADE RED EARLY SUMMER WFR 5 GAL WEIGELA FLORIDA 'RUMBA'RUMBA WEIGELA 2-3'3-4'MEDIUM SUN TO FILTERED SHADE DARK RED SUMMER 0 KEY SIZE QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE EXPOSURE COLOR SEASON ANS 2.5" CAL 4 ACER NEGUNDO 'SENSATION'SENSATION BOXELDER 25-30'20-25'LOW SUN YELLOWISH-GREEN EARLY SPRING ATH 2.0" CAL 3 ACER TATARICUM HOT WINGS HOT WINGS TATARIAN MAPLE 15-20'15-20'LOW ADAPTABLE GREENISH-WHITE SPRING CGIC 2.0" CAL 1 CRATAEGUS CRUS-GALLI INERMIS CRUSADER THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN 12-15'12-15'LOW SUN WHITE SPRING MSS 2.0" CAL 4 MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 20-25'20-25'MEDIUM SUN WHITE SPRING PVS 2.0" CAL 3 PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'SHUBERT'SHUBERT OR CANADA RED CHOKEBERRY 20-30'15-25'LOW SUN WHITE SPRING PCR 2.0" CAL 5 PYRUS CALLERYANA 'REDSPIRE'REDSPIRE PEAR 30-35'20-25'MEDIUM SUN WHITE SPRING 20 KEY SIZE QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE EXPOSURE COLOR SEASON CO 2.5" CAL 2 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN HACKBERRY 50-60'40-50'LOW SUN N/A N/A CC 2.5" CAL 2 CORYLUS COLURNA TURKISH FILBERT 30-45'25-30'LOW SUN N/A N/A GDE 2.5" CAL 2 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 'ESPRESSO'SEEDLESS KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 50-60'40-50'LOW SUN YELLOW-GREEN SPRING QB 2.5" CAL 3 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 40-60'40-60'LOW SUN TO FILTERED SHADE N/A N/A QMU 2.5" CAL 2 QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII CHINKAPIN OAK 35-50'35-50'LOW SUN N/A N/A 11 KEY SIZE QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE EXPOSURE COLOR SEASON PH 8'3 PINUS HELDREICHII (LEUCODERMIS)BOSNIAN PINE 15-25'10-12'LOW SUN N/A N/A 3 EVERGREEN TREES PERENNIALS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES DECIDUOUS SHRUBS ORNAMENTAL TREES SHADE TREES 11.27.2024 Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 44 Packet Page 210 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML1.3 LANDSCAPE DETAILS 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW DECIDUOUS TREE OPPOSITE SIDE SAMEOPPOSITE SIDE SAME LC LC DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO REVISED: ISSUED: DRAWING NO. JULY 2, 1998 DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN SHRUB SHRUB SPECIFICATIONS MULCHED, SOD-FREE BASE AROUND BALL BALL EVERGREEN TREE TRUNK PLUMB AND 8" GREEN STEEL TEE POSTS WITH BLADE ON TREE SIDE NOTES: RUN DOUBLE STRAND 12 GAUGE WIRE THROUGH GROMMETS IN 2'' NYLON STRAP. RUN WIRE TO 2. SEE SPECS FOR PLANTING OF PLANT PIT TWO TIMES LARGER THAN BALL DIAMETER. ROOT BALL PLANT PIT TWO TIMES LARGER THAN BALL DIAMETER BACKFILL FINISH GRADE WITH SOD OR MULCH, BACKFILL REMOVE ALL FOREIGN MATERIALS FROM TRUNK AND BALL FOLD BACK TOP HALF OF UNTREATED BURLAP UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE SRW TREES AND SHRUBS PLANTING DETAIL 3.02DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS APPROVED BY: STRAIGHT TREES PER POST AND TWIST FOR SLIGHT VINES AND GROUND COVERS. 3. DETAIL IS TYPICAL IN INTENT ONLY. TO BE 1'' SEE PLAN JSH ROOT BALL TO BE 2'' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE TENSION 1. WRAP TRUNK WITH 4'' TREE WRAP PER SPECIFICATIONS. NW NW 120 TREES UNDER 3'' CLP TREES 3'' CLP AND UP STAKING PLAN PROTECTIVE CAP SECURED TO STAKE OCT. 17, 2000 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO INVERTED "U" DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RJH JSH APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWING NO. ISSUED: REVISED: JULY 2, 1998 2.52.B OCT 6, 2009 2'-4"* 2'* * 4' 6" CONCRETE PAD INVERTED-U RACK 6' *** 2'* * 1'-4" 13'-4" 1'-4" 2'-4"* 6'-0" 1'-4" 2'* * 3'- 6 " 7'- 6 " 2'-4"* 6" CONCRETE PAD 2'-4"* 2'* * INVERTED-U RACK 3'-4" MINIMUM WHEN INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO A WALL OR CURB. NOTES: EXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. PAD SIZE MAY VARY AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. PAD IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH CLASS B CONCRETE. EXCAVATION AND/OR EMBANKMENT REQUIRED FOR PAD CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE PAID FOR SEPERATELY, BUT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE PAD. CONCRETE SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2% TO DRAIN. * SIDE-BY-SIDE END-TO-END 3' MINIMUM WHEN INSTALLED PARALLEL TO A WALL OR CURB. 5' MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM CURB FACE WHEN INSTALLED ADJACENT TO A CURB WITH "HEAD-IN" AUTOMOBILE PARKING. ** 10' MINIMUM IF MORE THAN TWO "U" RACKS IN A SERIES. *** BICYCLE RACKS DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO REVISED: ISSUED: DRAWING NO. JULY 2, 1998JSH RJH INVERTED "U" BICYCLE RACKS 2.52.A NOTES: DIMENSIONS: 1. HEIGHT-33'' FROM THE GROUND 2. CONTINUOUS BEND INSIDE RADIUS=7'' MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION: 1. MINIMUM OR 1 1/4'' SCHEDULE 40 STEEL PIPE (1 5/8'' OUTSIDE DIAMETER) 2. MAXIMUM 1 1/2" SCHEDULE 40 STEEL PIPE (2'' OUTSIDE DIAMETER) 3. SOLID ONE-PIECE CONSTRUCTION; CONTINUOUS BEND; LEGS 14''-18'' APART 4. GALVANIZED WITH BLACK POWDER COAT FINISH 5. FLUSH MOUNTED WITH WELDED BASE PLATES (6'' DIAMETER, 3/16'' THICK BASE PLATE). HIDDEN OR VANDAL- RESISTANT FASTENERS (SCREWS OR EXPANSION BOLTS) FLUSH-MOUNT BASEPLATE TYP.3/16"3/16" 6"33"7" INSIDERADIUS7/16" HOLE (TYP.) BASEPLATE DETAIL (TYP.) 1" 120° (TYP.) OCT 6, 2009 SECTION PLAN CANOPY DRIP LINE PROTECTIVE FENCING DURING CONSTRUCTION AERATION BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION FENCE LOCATION AT DRIP LINE OR 15' FROM TRUNK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER AND SHALL ENCLOSE TREE TREE FENCING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4' HIGH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING POSTS SETTING TO 2' IN GROUND MADE OF DURABLE METAL "T" OR EQUIVALENT SEE SECTION PROTECTED ROOT ZONE WITHIN THE CANOPY DRIP LINE-ACTUAL FEEDER ROOTS EXTEND WELL BEYOND DRIP LINE DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO REVISED: ISSUED: DRAWING NO. JULY 2, 1998JSH RJH PROTECTED ROOT ZONE AND DRIP LINE 3.12 OCT. 17, 2000 SITE FENCING SITE FENCING ON THE PODIUM TO BE A VERTICAL PICKET, POWDER-COATED ALUMINUM OR STEEL POOL FENCE TO BE 5'-0" EDGE OF PODIUM FENCE (GUARDRAIL) TO BE 3'6" 11.27.2024 POOL FENCE TO BE GLASS PANELS ON SOUTHERN PORTION SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 45 Packet Page 211 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML1.4 COURTYARD 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEWSSSS123132 ENHANCED PAVING COURTYARD PEDESTAL PAVERS - CONCRETE PAVERS, TWO COLORS COURTYARD PEDESTAL PAVERS - TURF TRAYS AND TURF NOTE: ALL ENHANCED PAVING AT GRADE AND PRIVATE PATIOS ARE COLORED AND SCORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE POOL FENCE PRIVATE TERRACE POOL FENCE MURAL TIERED PLANTINGS PATH RAISED PLANTERS COMMUNITY GARDEN BOXES POOL FENCE BEYOND TIERED PLANTINGS PATH PERGOLA WITH OUTDOOR KITCHEN OPEN FLEX AREA PRIVATE TERRACE RAISED PLANTERS PRIVATE TERRACE RAISED PLANTERS PERGOLA BEYOND TERRACED PLANTINGS BEYOND ACCESS STAIRS PATH GUARDRAIL BEYOND COURTYARD SECTION THROUGH POOL Scale: 1" = 10'-0"1 COURTYARD SECTION THROUGH PERGOLA/ OUTDOOR KITCHEN Scale: 1" = 10'-0"2 COURTYARD SECTION THROUGH STAIRS Scale: 1" = 10'-0"3 11.27.2024 Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 46 Packet Page 212 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML1.5 OFF-SITE PATH CONNECTION 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW 11.27.202452815281ST E ST ST ST ST C P ST ST W W W W WWWWWWW OFF-SITE PATH CONNECTION NEW LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG CITY MU PATH. PLANTINGS AND IRRIGATION TO BE DETERMINED DURING TEC DOCS N 010 20 FT SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 20 Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 47 Packet Page 213 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML2.0 LANDSCAPE COMPLIANCE 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEWWE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE ESSWWWWW WWWW EEEEEEE E UP BMS ZONE OPEN SPACE AREAS Scale: 1" = 40'-0"1 WE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE ESSWWWWW WWWW EEEEEEE E UP BT1 ZONE OPEN SPACE AREAS Scale: 1" = 40'-0"2 WE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE ESSWWWWW WWWW EEEEEEE E UP PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPE Scale: 1" = 40'-0"4 LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE - ENHANCED PAVING (Type 1) OPEN SPACE LEGEND ROW LANDSCAPE PRIVATE PATIOS GRAY CONCRETE SIDEWALKS NOT COUNTED HARDSCAPE - ENHANCED PAVING (Type 2) LANDSCAPE - PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE RAIN GARDEN LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE - TURF TRAYS NOT COUNTED TOWARD OS. SEE DETAIL 3 THIS SHEET WE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE ESSWWWWW WWWW EEEEEEE E UP COURYTARD PODIUM AREAS COUNTED TOWARD OPEN SPACE Scale: 1" = 40'-0"3 11.27.2024 Open Space Requirements BMS Zone 15% of total area Total Area 19,405 SF Required 2,911 SF Provided 8,309 SF BT1 Zone 30% of total area Total Area 63,870 SF Required 19,161 SF Provided 19,425 SF BMS Zone BT1 Zone Category Actual Can Count Unit % of OS Actual Can Count Unit % of OS Notes 1 Landscape 8,177 8,177 SF 7,563 7,563 SF 2 ROW Landscape N/A N/A 1,498 1,498 SF 8%Can count up to 10% of required (or 1,940 SF max) 3 Enhanced Paving Sidewalks 132 132 SF 5,956 5,574 SF 4 Community Courtyard (Podium)N/A N/A 11,092 4,790 SF 25%Can count up to 25% of required (or 4,790 max) 5 Private Patios at grade - - SF N/A N/A N/A N/A Can count up to 25% (or 728 max) of required BMS zone only 6 Private Balconies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Not included since private patios total 25% 8,309 8,309 SF 26,109 19,425 SF Landscape Requirements A Site Parameters Total Lot Size 83,275 SF Total Building Footprint Area 32,976 SF Total Parking Lot Area 13,942 SF Resulting Total Landscape Area 36,357 SF B Street Trees Required and Provided Frontage LF Required Provided 30th Street 189 5 6 C Total Quantity of Plant Material Required and Provided on Site Area in SF Required Plus 15%Provided Trees Required 1 Tree per 1500 SF of landscape area 36,357 24 28 28 Shrubs Required 5 Shrubs per 1500 SF of landscape area 36,357 121 139 150+ D High Water Usage E Parking Lot Landscape Area in SF Required Provided Interior Parking Landscape (5%)13,853 693 722 Interior Parking Trees (1/200 SF)693 3.5 4 Parking Lot Screening - street Parking Lot Screening - north Does not include ROW and Interior Parking Lot Trees; includes 4 ex trees to remain The project does not contain any high water usage plants. Full screening via 42" shrubs provided Full screening via 42" shrubs provided At the time of tec docs, exact quantities and species to be provided Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 48 Packet Page 214 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan.6/26/2024 12:39:01 PML3.0 TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION PLAN 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW N 015 30 FT SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 30 All tree protection standards of Ch. 3 and 10 of the Design and Construction Standards shall be met with particular attention given to grading impacts, limitations of stockpiling, soil compaction prevention and vehicular routes. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any site disturbance and remain in place for the duration of the project. Only hand digging may occur within the dripline of any tree to be preserved. Provide sufficient irrigation throughout construction to maintain the long term health of the tree(s). At the time of Building Permit (final technical documents), a detailed ash tree management plan prepared by an arborist licensed in the City of Boulder will be provided, addressing the treatment or proposed removal and replacement of all existing ash trees. This will include a plan and narrative describing the following: a. identify a replacement species & size for each location b. a description and commitment to a timeframe for replacement. c. street trees are shown to be removed and replaced as part of this Site Review application The Ash on private property may be identified for a phased removal and replacement depending on size and condition. The phased approach should include annual inspection by a certified arborist to ensure prompt removal if condition declines, trees smaller than 10” trunk diameter should be removed and replaced concurrent with the permit. EAB STATEMENTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECVCV5281528052805 2 7 95279 52795279 52795278 527 8 52785279 5279 52785278527852785278527852815279 TR GM IRV EV CV CR IRV IRVIRV ST WM WM S WV WM IRVIRV HY C IRV IRV CO ST CV ERE IRV ST ST WM IRV CO GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD #76245 #76246 #76248 #76249 1234567 89 10111213 14 57 5556 54 53 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 40 39 41 383736353415-18 19-24 25 26 27 28 29-33 52WE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EEEE EESSSSWWWWWW W WWWWW E EEEEEEEEEEE UP SECTION PLAN CANOPY DRIP LINE PROTECTIVE FENCING DURING CONSTRUCTION AERATION BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION FENCE LOCATION AT DRIP LINE OR 15' FROM TRUNK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER AND SHALL ENCLOSE TREE TREE FENCING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4' HIGH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING POSTS SETTING TO 2' IN GROUND MADE OF DURABLE METAL "T" OR EQUIVALENT SEE SECTION PROTECTED ROOT ZONE WITHIN THE CANOPY DRIP LINE-ACTUAL FEEDER ROOTS EXTEND WELL BEYOND DRIP LINE DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO REVISED: ISSUED: DRAWING NO. JULY 2, 1998JSH RJH PROTECTED ROOT ZONE AND DRIP LINE 3.12 OCT. 17, 2000 POLLINATOR GARDEN SEED (RAIN GARDEN) TREE LEGEND 67 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN TREE IDENTIFICATION CIRCLE/NUMBER FOR TREES GREATER THAN 6" DBH PUBLIC TREE 6" DBH OR GREATER TO BE REMOVED TREE REMOVALS TREE PROTECTION ZONE. PROTECT ALL ROOTS IN THIS ZONE PRIVATE TREE 6" DBH OR GREATER TO BE REMOVED TREE CONDITION GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD GOOD ASH TREE RUSSIAN OLIVE EXISTING TREES REFER TO THE TREE INVENTORY REPORT FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION NOTE: EVERY EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC TREES (#1 AND #42) DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF THEY ARE COMPROMISED BY XCEL OR OTHERS, THEY WILL BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE CITY OF BOULDER STREET TREE SPECIES. ID Common Name Scientific Name DBH (in)General Health Notes 1 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanicus 23 Good Street Tree - Keep and Treat 2 Littleleaf linden Tilia cordata 6 Good Keep 3 Littleleaf linden Tilia cordata 7 Good Keep 4 Littleleaf linden Tilia cordata 6.5 Good Keep 5 Littleleaf linden Tilia cordata 7 Good Keep 6 Littleleaf linden Tilia cordata 6 Fair Remove - Development 7 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 21.5 Fair Remove - Development 8 Blue spruce Picea pungens 7 Good Remove - Development 9 Blue spruce Picea pungens 7 Good Remove - Development 10 Blue spruce Picea pungens 7 Good Remove - Development 11 Blue spruce Picea pungens 6.5 Good Remove - Development 12 Blue spruce Picea pungens 6.5 Good Remove - Development 13 Hawthorn Crataegus sp.6 Good Remove - Development 14 Western hackberry Celtis occidentalis 7.5 Fair Remove - Development 15 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 18 Good Remove - Development 16 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 6 Good Remove - Development 17 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 27 Good Remove - Development 18 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 7 Good Remove - Development 19 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 11 Good Remove - Development 20 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 6.5 Good Remove - Development 21 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 9 Good Remove - Development 22 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 9.5 Good Remove - Development 23 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 7 Good Remove - Development 24 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 8 Good Remove - Development 25 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 7.5 Good Remove - Development 26 Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 19 Good Remove - Development 27 Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 8 Fair Remove - Development 28 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 11 Good Remove - Development 29 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 21.5 Good Remove - Development 30 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 13.5 Good Remove - Development 31 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 6.5 Good Remove - Development 32 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 20.5 Good Remove - Development 33 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 8.5 Good Remove - Development 34 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 36.5 Good Remove - Development 35 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 30.5 Fair Remove - Development 36 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanicus 6 Good Remove - Development 37 Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos 7 Good Remove - Development 38 Pear Pyrus sp.15 Good Keep 39 Pear Pyrus sp.13.5 Good Remove - Development 40 Pear Pyrus sp.14 Good Keep 41 Northern red oak Quercus rubra 3 Poor Remove - Condition 42 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanicus 17 Good Street Tree - Keep and Treat 43 Northern red oak Quercus rubra 4 Fair Remove - Development 44 Western hackberry Celtis occidentalis 8.5 Good Remove - Development 45 Western hackberry Celtis occidentalis 6 Good Remove - Development 46 American elm Ulmus americana 10 Good Remove - Development 47 American elm Ulmus americana 10 Good Remove - Development 48 American elm Ulmus americana 6 Good Remove - Development 49 American elm Ulmus americana 10 Good Remove - Development 50 American elm Ulmus americana 7 Good Remove - Development 51 American elm Ulmus americana 7 Fair Remove - Development 52 American elm Ulmus americana 11.5 Good Remove - Development 53 American elm Ulmus americana 9 Good Remove - Development 54 American elm Ulmus americana 9 Good Remove - Development 55 American elm Ulmus americana 12 Good Remove - Development 56 American elm Ulmus americana 10 Good Remove - Development 57 Blue spruce Picea pungens 7 Fair Remove - Development 11.27.2024 Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 49 Packet Page 215 of 568 SHEET No. 2718 Pine Street #100 Boulder, Colorado p: 303-442-3351 Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittal are representative of the size, massing, architectural character and detailing. Repeat building types, if any, may have their own unique detailing, coloring, and final configuration but will be consistent with the quality of buildings shown in this package. Window locations illustrated on the floor plans are approximate. Final window locations subject to revision dependent upon site specific conditions. See site plan for lot specific building orientation. Lot specific metrics are included on the civil site plan. L4.0 WEST SIDE COURTYARD 2555 30th St 2555 30th St. Boulder, CO SITE REVIEW 11.27.2024ELECN89°39'10"E 107.31'(C)(R)FOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOC FOC FOCFOCFOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOCFOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC SDDGMST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS SSST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST T ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 60245277.98STMH100385278.42SSMH 104105277.39FF-GARAGE 104115277.38FF104125278.36BC NE104135289.85BH 104155277.54BC GSAS104295277.98EBX-SWITCH 104875277.22BG102104885277.47BG102 104895277.26BG102104905277.28BG102104915277.18BG103104925277.47BG103104935277.26BG103 105275277.50STMH108215278.27BC NE108225279.08BC NE 1012 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECVCV5281528052805 2 7 95279 52795279 52795278 527 8 52785279 5279 527852785278527852815279 TR GM IRV EV CR IRV IRVIRV ST WM S CO ST CV ERE IRV ST ST WM IRV CO ST WWE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E EEEEE EEESSSSWWWWWWWW W W W WWWWWWW E EEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE UP WEST SIDE COURTYARD Scale: 1" = 20'-0"1 COMMUNAL SEATING AREA PLAY BOULDERS WITH SEATING PERMEABLE SURFACE (TYP) Attachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 50 Packet Page 216 of 568 P.A W.7 W.5 W.8 W.6 W.A W.A W.B W.B W.C W.C 4 W.3 W.3 W.D 2 A302 W.2 W.2 W.4 3yds3yds3yds3yds110 2BR 1 108 STU 1 106 STU 1 104 STU 1 102 STU 1 100 2BR 1 103 BIKE STG. 101 DOG WASH 109 BIKE STG. 107 STAIR 1 119 TRASH ROOM 115 ELEV 121 VESTIBULE 116 FIRE RISER 112 MECHANICAL 105 HALL 119129b 109(54) (89) 114 ELECTRICAL 5 ' - 5 1 /2 " 3 2 ' - 8 " 3 8 ' - 1 1 /2 " 10' - 0" 105.00° 5 9 ' - 6 " 4 3 ' - 6 " 5 1 ' - 6 " 4 3 ' - 0 " 3 7 ' - 0 " 2 IN001 3 IN001 4 IN001 5 IN001 6 IN001 LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0" 400 2BR 1.1 300 2BR 1.1 200 2BR 1.1 100 2BR 144' - 8"LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0"44' - 8"LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0"49' - 0"LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0"49' - 3"LEVEL 1 WEST5281' -0"47' - 7" UPPROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT.SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITYEASEMENT. SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER.PROPOSED DRIVEWAY RAMP ACCESS.PROPOSED 8' LANDSCAPE BUFFER(8.5' FROM FLOWLINE) .PROPOSED 10' DETACHED CONCRETE MULTI-USEPATH.8' PUBLIC CONCRETE WALK.PROPOSED PRIVATE CONCRETE DRIVE.PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.).PROPOSED DETENTION / RAIN GARDEN WATERQUALITY FEATURE.PROPOSED PRIVATE INTERNAL WALK.SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS.PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER &CONNECTION CABINET LOCATION.EXISTING ADJACENT TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN.PROPOSED SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING ON CONCRETEPAD. RE: LANDSCAPE PLANS.SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR PRIVATE DRIVE ACCESS.LIMITS OF ROOF OVERHANG (TYP.). RE: ARCHCURB OPENING W/ FOREBAY.PATIO AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE.PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE.SITE WALL SEPARATING EXTERIOR TUCK-UNDERPARKING AND INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE.PROPOSED POOL. RE: LANDSCAPE.EDGE OF BUILDING PODIUM STRUCTURE/PARKINGGARAGE BELOW.PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT.EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.). RE: LANDSCAPE.PROPOSED TREE (TYP.). RE: LANDSCAPE.SITE PLAN KEY NOTESPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING2555 30TH STREETROOFTOP COURTYARD &LANDSCAPE OVER CONCRETEPODIUMRE: LANDSCAPESEE ARCH PLANS FOR FLOORPLANS INCLUDING PARKINGLAYOUT BELOW PODIUMGOOSE CREEK PATHCONNECTION TO WEST -SEE NOTE THIS SHEETGOOSE CREEK PATH CONNECTION NOTE:THE PATH CONNECTION TO THE GOOSE CREEK PATH TO THEWEST OF THE PROJECT SITE IS SHOWN IN CONCEPT. PATHCONNECTION IS NOT PART OF SITE REVIEW APPROVALREQUIREMENTS FOR 2555 30TH REDEVELOPMENT. SEE EXHIBIT"B" INCLUDED WITH THIS SITE REVIEW DOCUMENT PACKAGEFOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS.SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COC1.00CIVIL SITEPLANAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 52Packet Page 218 of 568 UPLEGENDPROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESSEASEMENT DEDICATIONPROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT DEDICATIONPROPOSED DRAINAGE & WATER QUALITYEASEMENT DEDICATIONEXISTING EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTTO BE VACATEDPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY RESERVATIONSHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.31.202550% DESIGNDEVELOPMENT2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COC1.01DEDICATIONSEXHIBITAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 53Packet Page 219 of 568 EMUPPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING2555 30TH STREETROOFTOP COURTYARD &LANDSCAPE OVER CONCRETEPODIUMRE: LANDSCAPESEE ARCH PLANS FOR FLOORPLANS INCLUDING PARKINGLAYOUT BELOW PODIUMPROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER SERVICECONNECTION VIA NEW SANITARY MANHOLE.PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC SANITARY SEWERSERVICE CONNECTION TO NEW BUILDING.PROPOSED PRIVATE 3" WATER SERVICE TAP, METERVAULT, AND CONNECTION TO STRUCTURE.PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICECONNECTION.PROPOSED PRIVATE IRRIGATION SERVICE TAP, METERVAULT, AND CONNECTION.EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO BEREMOVED/ABANDONED IN ACCORDANCE W/ CITYSTANDARDS.PROPOSED PUBLIC 16"X8" WATER MAIN WELDOLETECONNECTION (DETAIL TO BE DETERMINED ATTECHNICAL DOCUMENTS) & 8" GATE VALVE.PROPOSED PUBLIC 8" PVC WATER MAIN.PROPOSED PUBLIC 8" PLUG W/ T.B., 8" GATE VALVE.PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY (8"X6"TEE, 6" PIPE, GATE VALVE, HYDRANT SETTING).EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TO BE REMOVED.PROPOSED PRIMARY ELECTRIC SERVICE TO NEWTRANSFORMER.SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE TO STRUCTURE.EXISTING ELECTRIC TO BE RE-ROUTED UNDER NEWWALK TO AVOID STREET TREES.EXISITNG FIBER OPTIC TO BE RELOCATED ASNECESSARY TO FOR PRIVATE STORM INSTALLATION.EXISTING PUBLIC LIGHT POLE TO BE RELOCATED.UTILITY KEY NOTESPROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT.SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITYEASEMENT. SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER.PROPOSED DRIVEWAY RAMP ACCESS.PROPOSED 8' LANDSCAPE BUFFER(8.5' FROM FLOWLINE) .PROPOSED 10' DETACHED CONCRETE MULTI-USEPATH.8' PUBLIC CONCRETE WALK.PROPOSED PRIVATE CONCRETE DRIVE.PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.).PROPOSED DETENTION / RAIN GARDEN WATERQUALITY FEATURE.PROPOSED PRIVATE INTERNAL WALK.SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS.PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER &CONNECTION CABINET LOCATION.EXISTING ADJACENT TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN.PROPOSED SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING ON CONCRETEPAD. RE: LANDSCAPE PLANS.SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR PRIVATE DRIVE ACCESS.LIMITS OF ROOF OVERHANG (TYP.). RE: ARCHCURB OPENING W/ FOREBAY.PATIO AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE.PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE.SITE WALL SEPARATING EXTERIOR TUCK-UNDERPARKING AND INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE.PROPOSED POOL. RE: LANDSCAPE.EDGE OF BUILDING PODIUM STRUCTURE/PARKINGGARAGE BELOW.PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT.EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.). RE: LANDSCAPE.PROPOSED TREE (TYP.). RE: LANDSCAPE.SITE PLAN KEY NOTESSHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COC2.00PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLANAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 54Packet Page 220 of 568 EMUPPROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT.SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITYEASEMENT. SEE DEDICATIONS EXHIBIT, SHEET C1.01.PROPOSED PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER.PROPOSED DRIVEWAY RAMP ACCESS.PROPOSED 8' LANDSCAPE BUFFER(8.5' FROM FLOWLINE) .PROPOSED 10' DETACHED CONCRETE MULTI-USEPATH.8' PUBLIC CONCRETE WALK.PROPOSED PRIVATE CONCRETE DRIVE.PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.).PROPOSED DETENTION / RAIN GARDEN WATERQUALITY FEATURE.PROPOSED PRIVATE INTERNAL WALK.SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS.PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER &CONNECTION CABINET LOCATION.EXISTING ADJACENT TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN.PROPOSED SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING ON CONCRETEPAD. RE: LANDSCAPE PLANS.SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR PRIVATE DRIVE ACCESS.LIMITS OF ROOF OVERHANG (TYP.). RE: ARCHCURB OPENING W/ FOREBAY.PATIO AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE.PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE.SITE WALL SEPARATING EXTERIOR TUCK-UNDERPARKING AND INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE.PROPOSED POOL. RE: LANDSCAPE.EDGE OF BUILDING PODIUM STRUCTURE/PARKINGGARAGE BELOW.PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT.EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.). RE: LANDSCAPE.PROPOSED TREE (TYP.). RE: LANDSCAPE.SITE PLAN KEY NOTESPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING2555 30TH STREETROOFTOP COURTYARD &LANDSCAPE OVER CONCRETEPODIUMRE: LANDSCAPESEE ARCH PLANS FOR FLOORPLANS INCLUDING PARKINGLAYOUT BELOW PODIUMGOOSE CREEK PATHCONNECTION TO WEST -SEE NOTE THIS SHEETGOOSE CREEK PATH CONNECTION NOTE:THE PATH CONNECTION TO THE GOOSE CREEK PATH TO THEWEST OF THE PROJECT SITE IS SHOWN IN CONCEPT ONLY. PATHCONNECTION IS NOT PART OF SITE REVIEW APPROVALREQUIREMENTS FOR 2555 30TH REDEVELOPMENT. SEE EXHIBIT"B" INCLUDED WITH THIS SITE REVIEW DOCUMENT PACKAGEFOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS.SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COC3.00PRELIMINARYGRADING PLANAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 55Packet Page 221 of 568 UPTURN MOVEMENT DESIGN VEHICLE:TURN MOVEMENT SHOWN IS AN AASHTO SU-30SINGLE UNIT TRUCK TO REPRESENT THE LARGESTEMERGENCY / DELIVERY VEHICLE / MOVING /TRASH TRUCK TURN MOVEMENT ANTICIPATEDAND ABILITY TO TURN AROUND ON SITE.SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COC4.00TURN MOVEMENTDIAGRAMAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 56Packet Page 222 of 568 LEGENDEX. ASPHALT PAVEMENTEX. MAJOR CONTOUREX. MINOR CONTOUREX. SPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARYSTORM WATER FLOW DIRECTIONDRAINAGE BASIN DESIGNATORDRAINAGE BASIN IDBASIN AREA [AC]TIME OF CONCENTRATION [MIN]RUNOFFCOEFFICIENTSPROPERTY BOUNDARYEX. FENCEADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARYEX. UTILITY POLEEX. OVERHEAD UTILITIESEX. TREESDESIGN POINTDRAINAGE BASIN STORM RUNOFF [CFS]MAJOR STORM RUNOFFMINOR STORM RUNOFFEX. CONCRETE PAVEMENT1. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS BASED ON ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY BYFLATIRONS, INC. DATED 01/29/2024, JOB NUMBER 23-80,712.2. THE LOCATION OF THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THEFIELD SURVEY BY FLATIRONS, INC. THE LOCATIONS OF THEUNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON SAID SURVEYAND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS (WHICH MAY INCLUDE CITY OFBOULDER GIS DATA, THE UTILITY OWNER OR UTILITY LOCATINGSERVICES). THE SANITAS GROUP, LLC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR UTILITYINFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. THE SANITAS GROUP, LLCRECOMMENDS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE UTILITIES BE FIELD VERIFIEDPRIOR TO ANY DIGGING ON, OR ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.3. EXISTING TREE LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON THE FIELD SURVEY BYFLATIRONS, INC.4. BASIS OF BEARINGS: A BEARING OF SOUTH 89°35'44" WEST ALONG THENORTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED ON02/01/2022 AT REC. NO. 03943287, BETWEEN A FOUND ILLEGIBLE 0.75"BRASS TAG (A 2' OFFSET CORNER WEST OF THE CALCULATED PROPERTYCORNER) AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY AND A FOUND#5 REBAR WITH A 1.25" RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "ARCHER & ASSOC"AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY.5. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS A GROSS AREA OF 83,275 SQUAREFEET (1.91 ACRES), MORE OR LESS.6. BENCHMARK: A GPS DERIVED ELEVATION ON AN ON-SITE BENCHMARKAT THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER, BEING A #5 REBAR WITH A1.25" RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "ARCHER & ASSOC".ELEVATION = 5282.18 FEET, NAVD 88 DATUM.EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY NOTESDESIGN POINT1Q5 [CFS] Q100 [CFS]2.931.03EXISTING CONDITIONS RUNOFFSUMMARY TABLE27.722.97310.654.00EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE DESIGNATOREX. GRAVEL40.410.10OVERALL SITE11.064.104 (BASIN OS1)0.410.06SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, CODR-1EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAINAGEAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 57Packet Page 223 of 568 UPDRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARYSTORM WATER FLOW DIRECTIONDRAINAGE BASIN DESIGNATORDRAINAGE BASIN IDBASIN AREA [AC]TIME OF CONCENTRATION [MIN]RUNOFFCOEFFICIENTSDESIGN POINTDRAINAGE BASIN STORM RUNOFF [CFS]MAJOR STORM RUNOFFMINOR STORM RUNOFF1. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS BASED ON ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY BYFLATIRONS, INC. DATED 01/29/2024, JOB NUMBER 23-80,712.2. THE LOCATION OF THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE FIELDSURVEY BY FLATIRONS, INC. THE LOCATIONS OF THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIESSHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON SAID SURVEY AND INFORMATION PROVIDEDBY OTHERS (WHICH MAY INCLUDE CITY OF BOULDER GIS DATA, THE UTILITYOWNER OR UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES). THE SANITAS GROUP, LLC IS NOTRESPONSIBLE FOR UTILITY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. THE SANITASGROUP, LLC RECOMMENDS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE UTILITIES BE FIELDVERIFIED PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING ON, OR ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECTPROPERTY.3. EXISTING TREE LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON THE FIELD SURVEY BY FLATIRONS,INC.4. BASIS OF BEARINGS: A BEARING OF SOUTH 89°35'44" WEST ALONG THE NORTHLINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED ON 02/01/2022 ATREC. NO. 03943287, BETWEEN A FOUND ILLEGIBLE 0.75" BRASS TAG (A 2'OFFSET CORNER WEST OF THE CALCULATED PROPERTY CORNER) AT THENORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY AND A FOUND #5 REBAR WITH A 1.25"RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "ARCHER & ASSOC" AT THE NORTHWEST CORNEROF SAID PROPERTY.5.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS A GROSS AREA OF 83,275 SQUARE FEET(1.91 ACRES), MORE OR LESS.6. BENCHMARK: A GPS DERIVED ELEVATION ON AN ON-SITE BENCHMARK AT THENORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER, BEING A #5 REBAR WITH A 1.25" RED PLASTICCAP STAMPED "ARCHER & ASSOC".ELEVATION = 5282.18 FEET, NAVD 88 DATUM.EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY NOTESDESIGN POINT1Q5 [CFS] Q100 [CFS]0.530.20PROPOSED CONDITIONS RUNOFFSUMMARY TABLE20.000.0037.061.48LEGENDEX. MAJOR CONTOUREX. MINOR CONTOUREX. SPOT ELEVATIONPROPERTY BOUNDARYEX. FENCEADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARYEX. UTILITY POLEEX. OVERHEAD UTILITIESEX. TREESPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREX. ASPHALT PAVEMENTEX. CONCRETEEXISTING STORM STRUCTURE DESIGNATORPROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENTPROPOSED CONCRETEPROPOSED RAIN GARDENPROPOSED STORM STRUCTURE DESIGNATOR4 (BASIN OS1)0.530.16OVERALL SITE7.061.48PROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM MANHOLERAIN GARDEN1WQCV [CF]MIN. VOLUME REQ'D[CF]440265PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN SUMMARY TABLE2205166399332749286065588358MIN. TOTAL VOLUME3,15440.000.00SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, CODR-2PROPOSEDCONDITIONS DRAINAGEAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 58Packet Page 224 of 568 UPPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING2555 30TH STREETPLAN NOTE:THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW FEASIBILITY OF AFUTURE LAYOUT WHERE THE NORTHWEST ALLEYCONNECTION IS MADE AND THE ACCESS TO 30THSTREET WERE TO BE CLOSED; SHOULD PROPERTYOWNER AND CITY DETERMINE THIS TO BE ANACCEPTABLE CONDITION AT A FUTURE DATE. THISPLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A REQUIREDIMPLEMENTATION AS PART OF THE SITE REVIEWAPPROVAL.SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COEXH-AFUTURE ALT.Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 59Packet Page 225 of 568 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING2555 30TH STREETPLAN NOTES:·THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW A CONCEPTUAL CONNECTION FROM THE 2555 30TH STREETPROJECT TO THE GOOSE CREEK PATH. A DETAILED ANALYSIS TO CONFIRM FEASIBILITY WILL BECOORDINATED WITH CITY OF BOULDER STAFF DURING THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT PHASE OF THEPROJECT.·THE PORTION OF THE PATH ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 2555 30TH PROJECT SHALL BECONSTRUCTED BY THE 2555 30TH DEVELOPER.·THE PORTION OF THE PATH WEST OF THE 2555 30TH SITE CONNECTING TO THE GOOSE CREEKPATH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE 2555 30TH SITE REVIEW, BUT RATHER SHALL BECONSTRUCTED AS A CITY OF BOULDER PROJECT IF DETERMINED TO BE FEASIBLE. THE DEVELOPEROF 2555 30TH WILL COORDINATE WITH THE CITY ON THE FEASIBILITY AND FINAL SCOPE DETAILSDURING THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR 2555 30TH.CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OFPOTENTIAL PATH CONNECTIONTO GOOSE CREEK . SEE NOTESTHIS SHEET.WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY (PRELIMINARY):CITY PARCEL R0144018 (WEST OF 2555 30TH PROPERTY)TOTAL OUTER WETLAND BUFFER AREA ON PARCEL: 6,868 S.F.EXISTING HARDSCAPE IN OUTER BUFFER AREA: 0 S.F.PROPOSED HARDSCAPE IN OUTER BUFFER AREA: 1,212 S.F.TOTAL PERCENT HARDSCAPE IN OUTER BUFFER: 17.6%CITY PARCEL R00075745 (SOUTH OF 2555 30TH PROPERTY)TOTAL OUTER WETLAND BUFFER AREA ON PARCEL: 17,354 S.F.EXISTING HARDSCAPE IN OUTER BUFFER AREA: 1,525 S.F.PROPOSED HARDSCAPE IN OUTER BUFFER AREA: 769 S.F.TOTAL PERCENT HARDSCAPE IN OUTER BUFFER: 13.2%SHEET No.2718 Pine Street #100Boulder, ColoradoP: 303-442-3351Disclaimer: The buildings illustrated in this submittalare representative of the size, massing, architecturalcharacter and detailing. Repeat building types, if any,may have their own unique detailing, coloring, andfinal configuration but will be consistent with thequality of buildings shown in this package. Windowlocations illustrated on the floor plans areapproximate. Final window locations subject torevision dependent upon site specific conditions. Seesite plan for lot specific building orientation. Lotspecific metrics are included on the civil site plan.901 Front Street, STE 350Lousiville, ColoradoP: 720-346-16561.15.2025SITE REVIEW2555 30th2555 30th STREET,BOULDER, COEXH-BOFFSITE PATHCONNECTIONAttachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written StatementItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 60Packet Page 226 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 61 Packet Page 227 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 62 Packet Page 228 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 63 Packet Page 229 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 64 Packet Page 230 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 65 Packet Page 231 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 66 Packet Page 232 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 67 Packet Page 233 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 68 Packet Page 234 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 69 Packet Page 235 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 70 Packet Page 236 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 71 Packet Page 237 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 72 Packet Page 238 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 73 Packet Page 239 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 74 Packet Page 240 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 75 Packet Page 241 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 76 Packet Page 242 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 77 Packet Page 243 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 78 Packet Page 244 of 568 Attachment A - Applicant Plan's and Written StatementAttachment C - Applicant’s Project Plans and Written Statement Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 79 Packet Page 245 of 568 CRITERIA CHECKLIST AND COMMENT FORM SITE REVIEW SECTION 9-2-14(h) LUR2024-00047 ADDRESS: 2555 30th St DATE: February 4, 2025 CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL SITE REVIEW APPLICATIONS (1)Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) criteria: Meets criteria (A) BVCP Land Use Map and Policies: Yes The proposed project is consistent with the BVCP land use map and, on balance, with the goals and policies of the BVCP particularly those that address the built environment. In applying this, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion and consider whether a particular goal or policy is intended to be applied to individual development projects or is to guide city policy decisions, such as regulatory actions. The BVCP does not prioritize goals and policies, and no project must satisfy one particular goal or policy or all of them. Staff Response: The BVCP land use map designates the property “Mixed-Use Business” which is described as: Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the following BVCP policies: •1.10 Growth Requirements •1.11 Jobs: Housing Balance •1.22 Channeling Development to Areas with Adequate Infrastructure •2.03 Compact Development Pattern •2.24 Commitment to a Walkable and Accessible City •2.33 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment (B) Subcommunity and Area Plans or Design Guidelines: Yes If the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable plan and guidelines. Staff Response: The site is located within the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) Phase 1. Per TVAP, this area is designated as the “30th Street Corridor District,” which is intended to provide a mix of commercial and residential uses in Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 80 Packet Page 246 of 568 two- and three-story buildings located adjacent to the street. Further, the vision of the area as specified in the plan is to transform 30th Street into a business main street that serves the neighborhood and introduces a pedestrian-friendly street front. Additional objects include a mixed-use land designation, new residential and diverse housing, and connection to the natural and built environment. To align with aspects of the plan, the project incorporates ground floor commercial uses to activate the pedestrian realm and provide a mix of uses.. A commercial tenant space is proposed for the southeast corner including outdoor seating in a patio area. The ground floor façade along 30th Street is comprised of residential uses including a coworking space, leasing offices, and mail rooms. Though considered a residential use, the operating characteristics of these areas function like a non-residential use. The building design in transparent with façade recessions to activate the ground floor and create a welcoming pedestrian experience for residents, visitors, and employees. Although it exceeds the height and FAR of the MU-1 land use prototype identified in the plan, the project’s design meets the plan’s intent with a varied façade and gabled roofline to respect the guidelines and add a relief to the density and height. In alignment with TVAP, parking is screened from the street and located partially below grade and fully enclosed within the structure. The applicant is coordinating with city staff to develop a multi-use connection between the subject site, city-owned greenway, and the larger network to better integrate the site with the natural and built environment. (C)Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: N/A Any new commercial building greater than 30,000 square feet in floor area and any 30,000 square feet or greater addition to a commercial building shall either have a net site energy usage index (EUI) of zero or is designed to achieve a net site EUI that is 10 percent lower than required under the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. It shall be a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this criterion at time of building permit. For the purpose of this requirement, “commercial building” shall have the meaning defined in the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. Staff Response: N/A; primarily residential. The commercial area will be less than 30,000 square feet. (D) Urban Edge Design: N/A If the project is located within the urbanizing areas along the boundaries between Area I and Area II or III of the BVCP, the building and site design provide for a well-defined urban edge, and, if, in addition, the project is located on a major street shown in Appendix A of this title, the buildings and site design establish a sense of entry and arrival to the city by creating a defined urban edge through site and building design elements visible upon entry to the city. Staff Response: N/A; the proposal is not located within the urbanizing areas along Area I and II or III of the BVCP. (E)Historic or Cultural Resources: N/A If present, the project protects significant historic and cultural resources. The approving authority may require application and good faith pursuit of local landmark designation. Staff Response: Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 81 Packet Page 247 of 568 N/A; the proposal does not involve any historic or cultural resources. The site was reviewed by Landmarks staff and it was determined an LAC was not required. (F)Housing Diversity and Bedroom Unit Types: Yes Except in the RR, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, projects that are more than 50 percent residential by measure of floor area, not counting enclosed parking areas, meet the following housing and bedroom unit type requirements in (i) through (vi). For the purposes of this subparagraph, qualifying housing type shall mean duplexes, attached dwelling units, townhouses, live-work units, or efficiency living units, and bedroom type shall mean studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, or three-bedroom units. Staff Response: The project site is 1.9 acres and provides two housing types: attached dwelling units and efficiency living units. There are over 20 dwelling units that include studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. (i)Projects five acres or less shall include at least one qualifying housing type. In projects with efficiency living units, at least one additional qualifying housing type shall be provided consistent with the requirements of this paragraph; Yes (ii)Projects greater than five acres shall include at least two qualifying housing types; N/A (iii)Projects ten acres or more shall include at least three qualifying housing types; N/A (iv)Projects greater than five acres shall include at least five dwelling units of each required qualifying housing type; N/A (v)Projects with more than 20 attached dwelling units shall include at least two different bedroom types, and; Yes (vi)If a project does not meet the requirements of subsections (i) through (v) above, the applicant shall demonstrate that the project fulfills another at least equivalent community need related to housing policies identified in the BVCP. Yes (G)Environmental Preservation: N/A Staff Response: The site is already developed and contains some mature trees. Existing trees will be preserved where practical. The proposal does not involve any impacts to natural features. No endangered species have been discovered on-site to-date nor documented in municipal publications such as the Critical Wildlife Habitats and Migration Corridors map. Excavation is required for the proposed parking. The finished floor elevations of the east and west edges of the project were designed to conform to the natural slope of the site. (i)The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List and "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County and their habitat. Yes (ii)Where excavation occurs, the location and design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land with tiered floor plates, and the site design avoids over-engineered tabling of land. Slopes greater than 50 percent should be avoided and, to the extent practicable, any such areas shall be stabilized with vegetation. Yes (2)Site Design Criteria: Meets criteria The project creates safe, convenient, and efficient connections for all modes of travel, promotes safe pedestrian, bicycle, and other modes of alternative travel with the goal of lowering motor vehicle miles traveled. Usable open space is arranged to be accessible; designed to be functional, encourage use, and enhance the Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 82 Packet Page 248 of 568 attractiveness of the project; and meets the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors to the project. Landscaping aesthetically enhances the project, minimizes use of water, is sustainable, and improves the quality of the environment. Operational elements are screened to mitigate negative visual impacts. In determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A)Access, Transportation, and Mobility: (i)The project enables or provides vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between sites consistent with adopted connections plans relative to the transportation needs and impacts of the project, including but not limited to construction of new streets, bike lanes, on-street parking, sidewalks, multi-use paths, transit stops, streetscape planting strips, and dedication of public right-of-way or public access easements, as applicable considering the scope of the project. Where no adopted connections plan applies, the applicant shall, in good faith, and in coordination with the city manager, attempt to coordinate with adjacent property owners to establish, where practicable, reasonable and useful pedestrian connections or vehicular circulation connections, such as between parking lots on abutting properties, considering existing connections, infrastructure, and topography. Yes Staff Response: As required by TVAP, the project will dedicate an 8-foot-wide public access easement along 30th Street to accommodate 30th Street improvements including a buffered bike lane, a 10-foot-wide sidewalk, and 8.5-foot tree lawn. These street improvements enable safe connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles from other sites along 30th Street. The project will also amend the existing connections plan in TVAP to convert two secondary street connections along the southern and western boundary into multi-use paths. The applicant is proposing new multi-use connections along a portion of the western edge and southern edge of the site and crossing onto city-owned property to the south to link 30th St. to the Goose Creek bike path network to the west. A public access easement will be dedicated for the portions of these connections on the subject site. (ii)Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and infrastructure that support and encourage walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Yes Staff Response: As described above, the applicant, in partnership with the city, is constructing a multi-use path along a portion of southern and western edges of the property and onto city-owned property to the south and west. The accessible path encourages residents and visitors of the site to utilize alternative forms of transportation. Enhanced pedestrian infrastructure along the 30th Street right-of-way will include a buffered bike lane and detached sidewalk. The multi-use path, right-of-way improvements, and other on-site amenities like a bike patio with maintenance and washing stations will improve the pedestrian and bike network while encouraging walking and biking as alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. (iii)A transportation demand management (TDM) plan will be complied with including methods that result in a significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes. Yes Staff Response: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan was provided that includes the following measures: -Short- and long-term bicycle parking provided and on-site bicycle commuter amenities. -EcoPass program for residents and employees for the commercial space. -Dedicated carshare. -On-site fitness facilities and coworking space to reduce vehicle trips. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 83 Packet Page 249 of 568 -Bike fleet for use by residents. (iv)Streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways, trails, open space, buildings, and parking areas are designed and located to optimize safety of all modes and provide connectivity and functional permeability through the site. Yes Staff Response: Vehicles access the site via the singular driveway and can park in the parking garage or to the north of the building. The one vehicle access point minimizes potential conflicts with other users who have alternative access points. For instance, primary pedestrian access is from the 30th St. right-of-way with additional residential access from the south. Distinct building access points are located on all sides of the building and are separate from vehicular traffic. Bikes can access the site from 30th St. and the adjacent multi-use path to the south and west. Pedestrian and bike access ties into proposed on-site open space, adjacent and off-site open space, and existing bike infrastructure to the east and west of the site. (v)The design of vehicular circulation and parking areas make efficient use of the land and minimize the amount of pavement necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project. Yes Staff Response: Because of the single vehicle access point and integrated parking within the structure, minimal pavement is used for circulation. Some surface parking is located to the north of the development. The site is primarily comprised of building area, open space, and landscaping. (vi)Where practicable and needed in the area and subject to coordination with the city manager, the project provides curbside parking or loading or both consistent with city policies on curbside management. N/A Staff Response: N/A; curbside parking or loading is not needed to serve the site. (B)Open Space: (i)Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and designed to encourage use by incorporating quality landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade, hardscape areas and green spaces for gathering. Yes Staff Response: The development is oriented around a central courtyard that provides hardscape areas in the form of an outdoor exercise area, pool, community garden, outdoor kitchen, and various seating areas. Other hardscape amenity areas include a bike patio along the multi-use path connection with bike maintenance and wash stations. Supplementary gathering areas are located to the west of the building. Hardscape areas are mixed with green spaces including central turf and landscaping and shrub beds throughout the courtyard and along the edges of the site. Users of the site have access to shaded areas to gather under the pergola of the outdoor kitchen. The courtyard and a fourth floor viewing balcony provide access to sun. Quality landscaping is proposed along all edges of the development to buffer the site from adjacent uses. (ii)The open space will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property. In mixed-use projects, the open space provides for a balance of private and common areas for the residential uses and includes common open space that is available for use by residents of the residential uses and their visitors and by tenants, occupants, customers, and visitors of the non-residential uses. Yes Staff Response: Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 84 Packet Page 250 of 568 A variety of open space areas are provided for the use of residents, tenants, and visitors. A commercial tenant space with seating is located along the 30th St. right-of-way and is accessible to public and building residents. Residents and their visitors have access to the central courtyard with amenities including a pool, outdoor fitness area, community garden, covered outdoor kitchen, bike patio, and a variety of seating areas. Seating and gathering spaces are also proposed on the western corner of the site. Further, each residential unit has a private patio or balcony that is separated from the public realm by fence dividers. (iii)If the project includes more than 50 dwelling units, including the addition of units that causes a project to exceed this threshold, and is more than one mile walking distance to a public park with any of the amenities described herein, at least 30 percent of the required outdoor open space is designed for active recreational purposes. Yes Staff Response: The project contains more than 50 dwellings that are less than one mile from a public park (Mapleton Ball Fields). The project is also just over a mile from Columbine Park. (iv)On-site open space is linked to adjacent public spaces, multi-use paths, city parks, or public open space if consistent with Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks or Department of Parks and Recreation plans and planning for the area, as applicable. Yes Staff Response: Users of the site will have direct connection to the adjacent Goose Creek path and greenway via the proposed multi-use path connection to the south of the site. The central courtyard and some residential access has been designed to orient towards the adjacent greenspace to allow for permeability between adjacent properties and through the subject site. Additional open space areas will be near the Goose Creek greenway on the western edge of the site. Attractive landscaping, terracing, and a stairway integrate the subject development with existing and adjacent natural features, as encouraged by TVAP. (C)Landscaping and Screening: (i)The project exceeds the minimum landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-12, “Landscaping and Screening Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, by at least fifteen percent in terms of planting quantities, includes a commensurate area to accommodate the additional plantings, and, where practical, preserves healthy long-lived trees. Yes Staff Response: The project exceeds the requirements for trees and shrubs (6 street trees where 5 are required, 28 site trees where 24 are required, and over 150 shrubs where 121 are required.) The area dedicated for parking lot landscaping is 722 square feet where 693 square feet are required. Where practical, healthy long-lived trees are preserved. However, some tree removal is necessary to allow for site redevelopment. (ii)The landscaping design includes a variety of plants providing a variety of colors and contrasts in terms of texture and seasonality and high-quality hard surface materials, such as stone, flagstone, porous pavers, and decorative concrete. Yes Staff Response: The submitted planting schedule shows a variety of perennial plants in varying colors like yellow, blue, and purple. Perennials are contrasted with grasses and deciduous shrubs. Proposed trees include both aesthetic ornamental and functional shade trees. Additional textures are incorporated using concrete scored with two different colors. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 85 Packet Page 251 of 568 A total of 10 different species of perennials, 10 species of ornamental grasses, 21 species of deciduous shrubs, 6 species of ornamental trees, 5 species of shade trees, and 1 species of evergreen trees are specified. (iii)The landscaping design conserves water through use of native and adaptive plants, reduction of exotic plant materials, and landscaping within stormwater detention facilities to create bioswales or rain gardens, or other similar design strategies. Yes Staff Response: Natural species are proposed throughout the project to conserve water. Native seed mixes, climate appropriate ground covers, and low-water use plants are proposed. Rain gardens are planted with pollinator garden seeds to turn functional spaces into landscape elements. The project does not contain any high-water use plants. (iv)Operational elements, such as electrical transformers, trash storage and recycling areas, parking, and vehicular circulation, are screened from the public realm through design elements, such as landscaping, fencing, or placement of structures, to mitigate negative visual impacts. Yes Staff Response: Trash is located within the structure. Parking is screened within the confines of the building and surface parking is screened with landscaping. Other surface level areas dedicated to vehicle circulation and utility transformers are screened with landscaped buffers or located internally when possible. (3) Building Siting and Design Criteria: Meets criteria Building siting and design are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, are compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent specified in this paragraph. Buildings are positioned and oriented towards the public realm to promote a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience including welcoming, well-defined entries and facades. Building exteriors are designed with a long-lasting appearance and high-quality materials. Building design is simple and to a human scale, it creates visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience. Building roof design contributes to a city skyline that has a variety of roof forms and heights. In determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A)Building Siting and Public Realm Interface: (i)New buildings and, to the extent practicable, additions to existing buildings are positioned towards the street, respecting the existing conditions or the context anticipated by adopted plans or guidelines. In urban contexts, buildings are positioned close to the property line and sidewalk along a street; whereas, in lower intensity contexts, a greater landscaped setback may be provided to match the surrounding context. Yes Staff Response: The surrounding area is urban with developments positioned close to the street to create an active streetscape. The site is in an area with ground floor commercial and residential uses located near shopping centers and transit hubs. Additionally, the area is designated in TVAP as a commercial corridor that encourages active uses and buildings that engage with the public realm. The proposed development is positioned close to right-of-way to match the existing conditions and meet the intent of TVAP. The eastern façade also incorporates high levels of transparency, a recessed entry, and commercial ground floor space to create a welcoming entry that interacts with the public realm. (ii)Wherever practical considering the scope of the project, parking areas are located behind buildings or set back further from the streetscape than the building façade. Yes Staff Response: Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 86 Packet Page 252 of 568 Parking is primarily located below the building and away from the public realm. However, there are 60 surface parking spaces to the north of the building. The site design places surface parking away from the greenway and open space to the south and instead situated near the building and closer to higher intensity uses. (iii)Along the public realm, building entries are emphasized by windows and architectural features that include one or more of the following: increased level of detail, protruding or recessed elements, columns, pilasters, protruding bays, reveals, fins, ribs, balconies, cornices, eaves, increased window glazing, or changes in building materials or color. Yes Staff Response: The main entry is located along 30th Street and is emphasized by a high percentage of glazing, recessed entry, shift in material, and architectural features such as slanted support beams that are protected with overhangs. The commercial space entry is also located along 30th Street on the southeast corner of the building. A change to dark materials, increased glazing and storefront windows, and an integrated awning emphasize the commercial entrance. Another private residential entry point is located along the multi-use path, which is identifiable with a recessed portal and slanted support beams. (iv)Defined entries connect the building to the public realm. Unless inconsistent with the context and building’s use, along the public realm, one defined entry is provided every 50 feet. Buildings designed for residential or industrial uses may have fewer defined entries. Yes Staff Response: The façade along 30th St. contains three entries. The main entry point is defined by higher levels of glazing, material changes, and a façade recession. This semi-public entry point leads to the lobby from the public realm and provides access to leasing offices and a co-working space. There are two other anchor entries on the 30th St. façade – the ground floor commercial space to the south and a semi- public residential entry to the north. Both anchor entries are defined by storefront glazing. There is a private residential entry on the southern side adjacent to the multi-use path. There are fewer entries along the southern façade consistent with the characteristics of residential uses. (v)If the project is adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity in terms of allowable use, density, massing, or scale, the project is designed with an appropriate transition to the adjacent properties considering adopted subcommunity and area plans or design guidelines applicable to the site, and, if none apply, the existing development pattern. Appropriate transitions may be created through design elements such as building siting and design or open space siting and design. Yes Staff Response: The parcels immediately adjacent to the project are zoned BMS and BT-1 with one parcel to the north also split-zoned between BMS and BT-1. The project is not adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity. The BMS and BT-1 zones are considered a similar intensity in terms of allowable uses, FAR, and open space. (vi)The building’s siting and relationship to the public realm is consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, is compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. Yes Staff Response: See response to criterion (i) above. TVAP has identified the subject site as the 30th St Corridor District and envisions a business main street that introduces a pedestrian-friendly street front. The building’s siting close to the public realm, as well as design elements like higher levels of glazing, outdoor seating, a commercial tenant space, and recessed main entry aligns with the plan’s goals for a pedestrian friendly and activated street front. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 87 Packet Page 253 of 568 (B) Building Design: (i)Larger floor plate buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of forms and heights. Yes Staff Response: The building form has been designed to appear like three masses: two “wings” that run north/south and a “hyphen” that connects the two wings running east/west. The building form is distinct for each of the three masses. For instance, the two wings have gabled roofs and are cladded with blue siding accentuated with wood insets. The “hyphen” has a largely flat roof with a parapet of varying heights and façade recessions. The primary building cladding for the hyphen is wood-look siding. The three masses are further distinguished by a change to black composite siding to create a joint and reinforce the appearance of separate masses. Ground floor material changes and façade recessions express the different building forms and features. (ii)To the extent practical considering their function, mechanical appurtenances are located within or concealed by the building. If they cannot be located within or concealed by the building, their visibility from the public realm and adjacent properties is minimized. Yes Staff Response: Mechanical appurtenances will be central to the roof to reduce visual impact from the ground level. The parapets along this portion of the roof as well as mechanical screening will further reduce visibility. (iii)On each floor of the building, windows create visual interest, transparency, and a sense of connection to the public realm. In urban, pedestrian main street-built environments, it is a best practice to design at least 60 percent of each ground floor façade facing the street as window area. Otherwise, it is a best practice to design at least 20 percent of the wall on each floor of a building as window area. Blank walls along the most visible portions of the building are avoided. Yes Staff Response: The primary entrance along 30th Street contains a high level of glazing to create a sense of connection to the public realm and draw attention to the semi-public entrance. The commercial corner on the southeast corner also contains high levels of glazing along 30th St and the adjacent multi-use path. Where practical, ground floor public fronting walls contain high levels of transparency. Small windows are proposed within the storage and mechanical areas along the multi-use path to avoid blank walls while maintaining an appropriate amount of transparency for the use. Floors above the ground floor have been designed with an appropriate amount of transparency for residential uses. (iv)Simple detailing is incorporated into the façades to create visual interest, without making the façade overly complicated. This detailing may include cornices, belt courses, reveals, alternating brick or stone patterns, expression line offsets, window lintels and sills, and offsets in window glass from surrounding materials. Yes Staff Response: Visual interest is achieved with the inclusion of façade recessions, change in materials to accentuate entries, higher levels of glazing, and support columns. Details create visual interest along the public realm while also calling attention to entries and change in building form. (v)Balconies on buildings with attached dwelling units are integrated into the form of the building in that exterior walls partially enclose the balcony. Balcony platform undersides are finished. Yes Staff Response: Where proposed, balconies are all partially enclosed within the form of the building. Per response from the applicant, the balcony platform undersides will be finished. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 88 Packet Page 254 of 568 (vi)The building’s design, including but not limited to use of materials, color, roof forms, and style, is consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, is compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. Yes Staff Response: As indicated previously, the site is located within TVAP and therefore subject to additional objectives guidelines. The plan does not provide guidance on materials or colors but does encourage building design with a variety of building forms or uses. The proposed building design introduces a variety of roof forms to provide a shift in appeared heights and density and align with the intent of the MU-1 land use prototype. The plan also provides general guidelines for urban design. The project’s building placement and design, permeability, open space, and parking is consistent with the character established in TVAP. Building materials will also complement the surrounding developments, including brick buildings across the street on the 30th St. and the wood-look siding of the Bluebird development to the south. (C)Building Materials: (i)Building facades are composed of high-quality, durable, human-scaled materials. High-quality materials include brick, stone, polished concrete masonry units, wood, architectural high pressure laminate panels, cementitious or composite siding, architectural metal panels, or any combination of these materials. Split-faced concrete masonry units, stucco, vinyl siding, EIFS, and unfinished or untreated wood are not considered durable, high-quality materials, but may be used on a limited basis and not on facades facing the public realm. High quality materials are focused on the ground floor facades on all sides of a building and on all floors of facades facing the public realm, and, overall, comprise the vast majority of all building facades. Yes Staff Response: The material palette for the building façade is composed of metal panel, wood-look cementitious siding, dark masonry, and asphalt shingles for gabled roof forms. High-quality and durable materials are proposed for all building elevations. The material palette is consistent for allowable materials on frontages. (ii)Monolithic roofing membranes, like Thermoplastic Polyolefin, are not used on roof surfaces that are visible from the street level. Yes Staff Response: As shown on the roof plans, areas with monolithic membrane roofs are not visible from the street due to the flat roof and parapets. Gabled roof forms that are visible from the street level include asphalt shingles. (iii)The number of building material types is limited, and the building materials are applied to complement the building form and function. The organization of the building materials logically expresses primary building features, such as the spatial layout, building entries, private and common spaces, anchor corners, stairwells, and elevators. Yes Staff Response: The material palette is limited and not overly complicated. The materials have also been organized to express different features and uses. Metal panel is used for residential areas on the east and west wings with wood-look cementitious siding in the insets. A change in material to dark cementitious siding is used to create a “joint” between the three different masses. Public areas and areas that interact the most with the public realm are represented by dark masonry on the ground floor. Along the south façade, a change in materials differentiates access points between residential and common areas. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 89 Packet Page 255 of 568 (iv)Building cladding materials turn convex corners and continue to the inset wall. This criterion does not apply to changes that occur at an interior corner nor to detailing elements, such as cornices, belt courses, reveals, offsets in expression lines, lintels, and windowsills. Building cladding materials do not change in-plane unless there is at least a 12-inch wall offset. Yes Staff Response: The ground floor brick masonry wraps around the front corners of the façade. There are belt courses between the 1st and 2nd floor where the brick transitions to siding. The proposed wood-look sidings and metal panels provide vertical and horizontal expression lines. Additional horizontal expression is provided in the parapet cap along the top of the building. Other transitions in materials are between building volumes with at least a 12-inch wall offset. (v)Any newly constructed building that includes residential units and is located within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway, or expressway is designed to achieve an interior day-night average noise level of no more than forty-five decibels. Noise shall be measured in a manner that is consistent with the federal Housing and Urban Development's standards in Sections 24 CFR §§ 51.100 to 51.106 for the "measure of external noise environments," or similar standard adopted by the city manager in the event that such rule is repealed. The applicant shall provide written certification prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the sound abatement and attenuation measures were incorporated in the construction and site design as recommended by a professional engineer. N/A Staff Response: N/A; not within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway, or expressway. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR BUILDINGS EXCEEDING HEIGHT OR FLOOR AREA LIMITS Eligible for height modification? Yes 9-2-14(b)(1)(E) Height Modifications: A development which exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," or 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981, or of Paragraph 9-10-3(b)(2), "Maximum Height," B.R.C. 1981, to the extent permitted by that paragraph for existing buildings on nonstandard lots, is required to complete a site review and is not subject to the minimum threshold requirements. No standard other than height may be modified under the site review unless the project is also eligible for site review. A development that exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5 or 9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, must meet any one of the following circumstances in addition to the site review criteria: (i)The height modification is to allow a roof that has a pitch of 2:12 or greater in a building with three or fewer stories and the proposed height does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the zoning district by more than ten feet. N/A (ii)The building is in the industrial general, industrial service, or industrial manufacturing zoning district and has two or fewer stories and the building's height is necessary for a manufacturing, testing, or other industrial process or equipment. N/A (iii)The height modification is to allow up to the greater of two stories or the maximum number of stories permitted in Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981, in a building and the height modification is necessary because of the topography of the site. N/A (iv)The height modification is to allow up to the greater of two stories or the maximum number of stories permitted but no more than five feet above the maximum building height under Section 9-7- 5(a) or 9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, in a building where the height modification is necessary because the building has to be elevated to meet the required flood protection elevation. N/A Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 90 Packet Page 256 of 568 (v)At least forty percent of the dwelling units in the building meet the requirements for permanently affordable units in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; at least forty percent of the floor area of the building is used for dwelling units that meet the requirements for permanently affordable units in Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; all floor area above the first floor of the building is used for dwelling units; and the permanently affordable units in the building are not used to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements under Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981, for dwelling units located in any other building. N/A (vi)The height modification is to allow an emergency operations antenna or a pole. N/A (vii)The height modification is to allow an expansion of an existing building that exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5 or 9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, if the existing height was approved as part of a planned unit development, site review, or height review and the expansion is not within a fourth or fifth story. N/A (viii) The building or use meets the requirements of Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981, for a height bonus, and is not in the RR, RE, RL, RMX-1, MH, or A zoning district. Yes (4)Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification or Exceeding the Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Meets criteria Any building exceeding the by-right or conditional zoning district height as permitted by Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981, and any building exceeding the by-right floor area limits as permitted by Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(B), B.R.C. 1981, shall meet the following requirements: (A)Building Form and Massing: Yes The building’s form and massing are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, are compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. The building’s form, massing and length are designed to a human scale and to create visual permeability into and through sites. In determining whether this is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors: (i)The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of-way. Yes (ii)All building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street, excluding alleys, are designed to appear as at least two distinct buildings. To achieve this, façade segments vary in at least two of the following design elements: Yes a. Type of dominant material or color, scale, or orientation of that material; b.Facade recessions and projections; c.Location of entrance and window placements; d. Roof forms; and e. Building height. Staff Response: The southern building façade along the multi-use path is expressed as three separate elements – the south face of the two wings and the southern edge of the courtyard. Terraced plantings and material changes express the distinct elements of the building and hide the parking and utility uses on the ground floor. The frontage along 30th Street is over 120 feet in length and the design incorporates material changes, varied roof forms (flat and gabled), and façade recessions to give the impression of two distinct buildings. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 91 Packet Page 257 of 568 (B) Building and Site Design Requirements for Height Modifications: Yes (i)Buildings requiring a height modification shall meet the following requirements: a.Height Modification Other than Height Bonus: For buildings no taller than three stories and subject to a height modification pursuant to Subparagraph 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(i) through (vii), the building’s height, mass, and scale is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. N/A Staff Response: N/A; taller than three stories. b.Height Bonus: For buildings taller than three stories subject to a height modification pursuant to Subparagraph 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(viii), B.R.C. 1981: Yes 1.Guidelines or Plan: The building’s height is consistent with the building heights anticipated in adopted design guidelines or subcommunity or area plans for the area; or Yes 2.No Guidelines or Plan: If no such guidelines or plans are adopted for the area or if they do not specify anticipated heights for buildings, the building height is compatible with the height of buildings in the surrounding area or the building is located (1) near a multi-modal corridor with transit service or (2) near an area of redevelopment where a higher intensity of use and similar building height is anticipated; and N/A 3.Additional Requirements for a Height Bonus - Views: The project preserves and takes advantage of prominent mountain views from public spaces and from common areas within the project. In determining whether this is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors: Yes i.If there are prominent mountain views from the site, usable open spaces on the site or elevated common areas on the building are located and designed to allow users of the site access to such views; ii.If the proposed building is located adjacent to a city managed public park, plaza, or open space, buildings are sited or designed in a manner that avoids or minimizes blocking of prominent public views of the mountains from these spaces; Staff Response: (b)(1): Area plans are intended to be a guide for development and typically do not prescribe height or FAR limitations greater than what is allowed in the code. In general, the project meets the intent of the plan, the underlying zoning, and land use designation. The proposed development is along a multi-modal corridor (30th St.) and is close to RTD where housing and a height modification are suited for this area. The land use prototype is meant to create a mix of buildings where the predominate height should be 1 to 2 stories but others may be up to 4 stories. The applicant has modulated the roof form and height is consistent with the area plan. Nearby buildings such as the Reve and Boulder Junction south of the subject site are up to 4 stories in height. (b)(3): The development has a top floor viewing balcony for resident use to allow access to views. The site is also located adjacent to the Goose Creek Greenway. The orientation of the building and open courtyard area allows for views of the mountains from the public. 4.Additional Requirements for a Height Bonus – Open Space: Yes i.If the project site is greater than one acre in size, an inviting grade-level outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard is provided, designed as a gathering space for the building users. The following are considered elements of successful design for such a space, as practicable considering site conditions and location: ii.The width of the space is no less than the height of building walls enclosing the space; Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 92 Packet Page 258 of 568 iii.Seating and other design elements are integrated with the circulation pattern of the project; iv.The space has southern exposure and sunlight; v.Hard surface areas are paved with unit pavers, such as bricks, quarry tiles, or porous pavers, or poured-in-place materials. If poured-in-place materials are used, they are of decorative color or textures; vi.Amenities, such as seating, tables, grills, planting, shade, horseshoe pits, playground equipment, and lighting are incorporated into the space; vii.The space is visible from an adjoining public sidewalk; and viii.At least one tree is planted per 500 square feet of space. The trees are planted in the ground or, if over parking garages, in tree vaults. Staff Response: (4)(i): The intent of this section is to encourage additional open space as part of a requested height modification. The proposal includes an elevated courtyard with areas for sun and shade, places to gather, and residential amenities. Additional gathering and seating areas are proposed on the western and eastern corners of the site. (4)(ii): The dimensions of the courtyard are greater than the walls enclosing the space. (4)(iii): A variety of seating options are included within the courtyard, including near amenities and within the circulation pattern of the site. (4)(iv): The opening of the building to the south allows for southern exposure and sunlight. (4)(v): The courtyard features pedestal pavers and poured in materials. (4)(vi): Amenities in the courtyard include a pool, grill, outdoor kitchen, community garden, and lawn area for lawn games. (4)(vii): The courtyard will be visible along a public sidewalk from the south. (4)(vii): At least one tree is planted per 500 square feet of available planting area. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR LAND USE INTENSITY AND HEIGHT MODIFICATIONS (6)Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications: Meets criteria Modifications to minimum open space on lots, floor area ratio (FAR), maximum height, and number of dwelling units per acre requirements will be approved pursuant to the standards of this subparagraph: (A)Land Use Intensity Modifications with Open Space Reduction: N/A (B)Land Use Intensity Modifications with Height Bonus: Yes In the BMS, BR-1, IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-2 zoning districts if associated with a request for a height bonus, the floor area of a building may be increased above the maximum allowed in Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, as follows, provided the building meets the requirements for a height bonus under Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981: (i)In the BMS zoning district outside a general improvement district providing off-street parking, and in the IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-2 zoning districts, the base floor area ratio (FAR) in Table 8-2, Section 9-8- 2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by up to 0.5 FAR. Yes Staff Response: Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 93 Packet Page 259 of 568 The BMS zoned portion of the site is outside of a general improvement district and therefore the base FAR has been increased by 0.5 for a total FAR of 1.17. (ii)In the BR-1 zoning district, maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) may be increased up to a 3.0 FAR. N/A (C)Additional Criteria for a Height Bonus and Land Use Intensity Modifications: Yes A building proposed with a fourth or fifth story or addition thereto that exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," or 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981, together with any additional floor area or residential density approved under Subparagraph (h)(6)(B), may be approved if it meets the requirements of this Subparagraph (h)(6)(C). For purposes of this Subparagraph(h)(6)(C), bonus floor area shall mean floor area that is on a fourth or fifth story and is partially or fully above the permitted height and any floor area that is the result of an increase in density or floor area described in Subparagraph (h)(6)(B). The approving authority may approve a height up to fifty-five feet if one of the following criteria is met: (i)Residential Developments: If the development is residential, it will exceed the requirements of Subparagraph 9-13-3(a)(1)(A), B.R.C. 1981, as follows: Yes a.For bonus units, the inclusionary housing requirement under Chapter 9-13, “Inclusionary Housing,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be increased by eleven percent. The resulting inclusionary requirement may be satisfied by any option allowed in Chapter 9-13 to meet inclusionary housing requirements. For example, if Chapter 9-13 requires twenty-five percent of units to be permanently affordable, for bonus units that requirement is increased by eleven percent so that at least thirty-six percent of the total number of bonus units must be permanently affordable units. Yes b.For purposes of this Subparagraph (i), bonus units shall mean a number of units that is determined as follows: A percentage of all the units in the building that equals in number the percentage of bonus floor area in the building. For example, if twenty percent of the building's floor area is bonus floor area and the building has one hundred units, twenty percent of those one hundred units are bonus units, resulting in twenty bonus units. Yes c.The city manager shall review the development's compliance with this increased inclusionary housing requirement pursuant to the standards and review procedures of Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981. Yes Staff Response: Compliance with these requirements is a condition of building permit issuance. (ii)Non-Residential Developments: For non-residential developments, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing portion of the capital facility impact fee in Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981, at a rate of 1.43 above the base requirement for the bonus floor area. In a building with several types of non- residential uses, the bonus floor area of each type identified under Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981, shall be a percentage of the bonus floor area that equals in number the percentage of the total floor area in the building of such use type. For nonresidential uses with a fee that is calculated per room or bed under Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981, the increased rate for the affordable housing portion of the fee shall apply to bonus rooms or bonus beds as applicable under that section; the number of bonus rooms or bonus beds shall be determined consistent with the methodology for bonus units in Subparagraph (i)b. above. N/A (iii)Mixed Use: If the development is a residential mixed-use development, the requirements of Subsections (i) and (ii) above shall apply to the bonus floor area according to the percentage of the total building floor area of each use. Yes Staff Response: Compliance with these requirements will be a condition of building permit issuance. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 94 Packet Page 260 of 568 (iv)Alternative Community Benefit: Pursuant to the standard in this Subparagraph (iv), the approving authority may approve an alternative method of compliance to provide additional benefits to the community and qualify for a height bonus together with any additional floor area or density that may be approved under Subparagraph (h)(6)(B). The approving authority will approve the alternative method of compliance if the applicant proposes the alternative method of compliance and demonstrates that the proposed method: N/A a.Will improve the facilities or services delivered by the city, including without limitation any police, fire, library, human services, parks and recreation, or other municipal facility, land or service, or will provide an arts, cultural, human services, housing, environmental or other benefit that is a community benefit objective in the BVCP, and N/A b.Is of a value that is equivalent to or greater than the benefits required by this Subparagraph (h)(6)(C). N/A ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR PARKING REDUCTIONS OR LOCATION (7)Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: Meets criteria The applicant demonstrates, and the approving authority finds, that any reduced parking on the site, if applicable, meets the parking reduction criteria outlined in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (A) Whether the probable number of all motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated; Staff Response: The project is proposing a 6% parking reduction to allow for 145 parking spaces to be provided where 154 are required. The TDM Plan included with the application details strategies that will be used to reduce the demand for automobile travel/ ownership, including provision of NECO passes for residents, required bike parking and maintenance station, and dedicated carshare space. Overall, given the site’s location near several major transit lines as well as within walking distance of many nearby services and businesses, it is anticipated that the parking provided for residents on site will be adequate to accommodate the motor vehicles to be owned by residents and visitors. (B) The availability of off-street and nearby on-street parking; Staff Response: On-street parking is available on Bluff St., east of 30th St. as well as Bluff St. and 29th St. west of 30th St. (C)Whether any proposed shared parking can adequately accommodate the parking needs of different uses of the project considering daytime and nighttime variability of the parking needs of uses; Staff Response: On-site parking will be shared with residents of the development and those visiting the ground floor commercial space. (D) The effectiveness of any multimodal transportation program that is proposed at reducing the parking needs of the project. Applications including such programs shall describe any existing or proposed facilities and proximity to transit lines and shall demonstrate that use of multimodal transportation options will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis; Staff Response: As noted in the TDM Plan, the site is situated in close proximity to multiple transit lines and multi-modal transportation facilities, including sidewalks, multi-use paths, and transit stops. The applicant will provide neighborhood eco-passes for residents for three years and will provide information on transit and other multi-modal options to residents. The site is also well-situated to allow easy pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby business areas and open space. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 95 Packet Page 261 of 568 (E)If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, whether the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change; and Staff Response: N/A; parking is not reduced due to nature of occupancy. (F)If considering a parking reduction for a use nonconforming as to parking, the approving authority shall evaluate the existing parking arrangement to determine whether it can accommodate additional parking or be rearranged to accommodate additional parking in compliance with the design requirements of subsection (d) of this section. If additional parking can reasonably be provided, the provision of such parking shall be a condition of approval of the requested reduction. Staff Response: N/A; this is a new project and is not considered nonconforming to parking. USE REVIEW SECTION 9-2-15(e) LUR2024-00065 CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL USE REVIEW APPLICATIONS (e) Criteria For Review: Meets criteria No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: (1) Rationale: Yes The use either: (A)Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; Yes (B)Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; N/A (C)Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in appropriate locations and group living arrangements for special populations; or Yes (D)Is an existing legal nonconforming use or an expansion that is permitted under Subsection (f) of this section; N/A Staff Response: The proposed ground floor uses are considered residential uses because they exclusively serve the residential units. The ground floor uses, however, do not contain any dwelling units and instead include a lobby, coworking space, offices, and mailroom. On-site residential amenities, such as a coworking space, reduces traffic impacts to the surrounding area that would otherwise by caused by residents driving to offices or other workspaces. The co-working spaces support the shift towards hybrid/virtual working. Incorporating residential ground floor uses also fosters BVCP Policy 1.11 (Jobs: Housing Balance) by adding housing in support of existing jobs. Ground floor amenity spaces provide direct access to leasing offices, deliveries, mail, etc. (2)Compatibility: Yes The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties, or, for residential uses or community, Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 96 Packet Page 262 of 568 cultural, and educational uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; Staff Response: The proposed residential uses are located on the ground floor and are compatible with the uses of nearby properties, including the development immediately to the south, which is fully residential. Although considered residential uses, the ground floor does not contain any units and is comprised of residential amenities like coworking spaces, leasing office, mail rooms, etc. The use functions much like a non- residential use and is compatible with surrounding uses in the area including retail, restaurants, and personal services. The proposed residential use including a building lobby and amenities will not create impacts or change the area. The building will still function as a mixed-use development and bring housing to the area. (3)Infrastructure: Yes The use will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater and storm drainage utilities and streets, compared to an allowed use in the zoning district, or compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use; Staff Response: The proposed use will not affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area. The proposed development containing residential and nonresidential uses will provide streetscape improvements, storm drainage, and other utility improvements. (4)Character of Area: Yes The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area; and Staff Response: The subject site is located within the Transit Village Area Plan and is designated as the “30th Street Corridor District” in the plan where a mix of commercial and residential uses located adjacent to the street are encouraged. The vision of the area as specified in the plan is to transform 30th St. into a business main street that serves the neighborhood and introduces a pedestrian-friendly street front. Additional objectives include a mixed-use land designation, new residential and diverse housing, and connection to the natural and built environment. The inclusion of ground-floor residential uses is compatible with the plan’s direction for mixed uses and vibrancy. While the uses are considered residential, they operate and function like a nonresidential use. The lobby and coworking spaces are visible from the street through large windows and activate the public realm. The ground floor uses may serve visitors as well as prospective tenants visiting the site. The uses are compatible with the commercial retail space located on the southeast corner of the same development and create an engaging street front. (5) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Nonresidential Uses: N/A There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts to nonresidential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the substitution of one nonconforming use with another nonconforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental or recreational need in the community, including, without limitation, a use for a daycare center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art studio or workshop, museum, or an educational use. Staff Response: N/A; there is no conversion of dwelling units to nonresidential uses. Attachment D - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 97 Packet Page 263 of 568 Travel Demand Management Plan 2550 30TH STREET Boulder, Colorado Prepared for Coburn Partners 2718 Pine Street, #100 Boulder, CO 80302 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 November 27, 2024 LSC #240150 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 98 Packet Page 264 of 568 Introduction This Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan has been prepared for the 2550 30th Street residential development in Boulder, Colorado. The site is located south of Valmont Road and west of 30th Street. The site is proposed to include about 142 apartment dwelling units and about 828 square feet of retail space. Full movement access is proposed to 30th Street. The location of the site with respect to the surrounding land uses and roadway system is shown in Figure 1. The conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. This TDM Plan supports a 20 percent alternative travel mode reduction and a 5.8 percent parking reduction supported by the various TDM alternatives available in the City of Boulder and the TDM measures proposed by the applicant. Existing Alternate Travel Modes Description The following existing conditions contribute to the transportation demand management goals of the City of Boulder. The site is well-positioned to make good use of these existing opportunities. Existing Transit Service The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the governing body responsible for fixed- route transit (public transportation) service throughout the Denver metropolitan area, in- cluding Boulder. Figure 3 shows the existing bus stops and transit routes within the vicinity of the site, including the following routes: • 204 • 206 • 208 •AB • BOND •FF •JUMP Demand-responsive services are available to both seniors and persons with disabilities through Via (formerly Special Transit). Established in 1979, this non-profit provides safe 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #230461) November 27, 2024 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 1 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 99 Packet Page 265 of 568 and affordable rides in accessible buses to people with limited mobility. Rides are sche- duled in advance and have a 30-minute pick-up window. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network The City of Boulder maintains an extensive bicycle and pedestrian network throughout the City. Figure 4 shows bicycle and pedestrian routes within the vicinity of the site. In addition, many of the streets in the project vicinity have attached or detached sidewalks. 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #230461) November 27, 2024 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 2 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 100 Packet Page 266 of 568 SITEMapFigure 1VicinityScale: 1"=500'Approximate Scale2550 30th Street TDM (LSC #240150)2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #240150)November 27, 2024LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 3Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 101Packet Page 267 of 568 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #240150)November 27, 2024 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 4 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 102 Packet Page 268 of 568 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #240150)November 27, 2024LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 5*Site Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 103Packet Page 269 of 568 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #240150)November 27, 2024LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 6* Site LEGEND:On-Street Bike Lane Designated Bike Route Multi-Use Path Separated Bike Lane Paved Shoulder Climbing Lane Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 104Packet Page 270 of 568 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategy for Multi-Family Residential Units Table 1 shows the actions the applicant intends to take to increase the percentage of alternative travel modes utilized by the site and to decrease parking demand. An alternative travel mode reduction of 20 percent and a parking reduction of 8.5 percent is supported by the TDM measures proposed by the applicant combined with the propo- sed use and location consistent with the Boulder Revised Code. 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #230461) November 27, 2024 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 7 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 105 Packet Page 271 of 568 2550 30th Street TDM Plan (LSC #230461) November 27, 2024 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 8 TDM Measures TDM Measure Details Orientation Packets An orientation packet will be provided to each new resident which includes brochures, maps, and other resources to inform residents of their transportation options. This packet will include RTD bus information, the City of Boulder bicycle and pedestrian map (or similar), and information on special events. This packet will be provided initially by the developer at the time of sale or by a lessor thereafter. Evaluation Through sales or lease agreement, the site's residents will agree to participate in annual on-line or paper surveys regarding their use and satisfaction with transportation demand management programs. The evaluation is expected to be administered by the property management - the City of Boulder will provide the survey questions using Survey Monkey or similar on-line tools.The developer will secure agreement to participate, with the expectation that 10-20% of residents will actually participate based on typical survey return rates. The City of Boulder will be responsible for data analysis and summarization. Pedestrian Enhancements Improvements will be made to the existing sidewalks around the site. Bike Enhancements The site will have connections to the existing sidewalks and paths in the vicinity of the site including the Goose Creek multi-use path. Car Share The applicant plans to provide a car share parking space to be managed by a car share operator. Additional details on car share are included in the written statement. Transit Enhancements Information about transit service will be provided in the orientation packets, also described above. The building manager will have an on-site employee serve as the transportation coordinator to assure residents are fully aware of the various TDM measures that are available. Additional Measures The applicant is providing a fitness space, pool, and coworking space to help reduce vehicle-trips. The proposed fleet of ten (10) bikes and two (2) wagons for resident use will be provided by the Applicant, will be managed by the property manager on “first come, first served” basis and subject to certain rules and regulations and a liability waiver. This bike amenity will offer residents who don’t own a bike to be able to use a bike for sporadic trips. The wagon amenity will enable residents to be able to more easily walk to the adjacent grocery stores without the need for taking a vehicle to shop and be able to return with a load of groceries straight to their residence. These bike and wagon amenities will be stored in Long Term Bike Parking and in the service area of the garage, respectively. The Long-Term Bike Parking areas will have sufficient electrical service for e-bike charging for approximately 20% of the required bike parking. NECO Pass Program Participation The applicant proposes to participate in the NECO Bus Pass program. The applicant will pay the cost of providing ECO passes to residents for a period of three years upon request if they don't already receive a pass from their employer or other arrangement (such as being a student at CU). The applicant will work with residents at the end of the three-year ECO pass program period to determine utilization rates and if there is community interest in continuing the program. If there is good utilization or community interest, the applicant will assist residents to establish a community-based program or work to assist with financial support to purchase passes. Meet Short-Term Bicycle Parking Requirement The site is proposing 74 short-term bicycle parking spaces which meets the requirement of 74 short-term bicycle parking spaces. Meet Long-Term Bicycle Parking Requirement The site is proposing 214 long-term secure and covered bicycle parking spaces which meets the requirement of 214 long-term bicycle parking spaces. SUMP Parking Principles The applicant proposes to follow the City's SUMP parking principles where possible. This includes having the parking be shared, unbundled, managed, and paid. The SUMP principles will be implemented by the Project property manager through the terms of the residential leases with residents and the general operation of the building as directed by the Applicant/Owner. Proposed parking areas will be shared amongst the residents, the car share vendor, and the retail suite. Parking will be by permit only and will not be offered as part of any lease at the Project. The estimated range of the monthly parking cost will be between $150 and $200 per month depending on the market price for parking in the area. As such, any given resident who chooses not to own a vehicle and park within the Project might save up to $2400 per year on parking lease costs. Parking leases will be separate from the residential and retail leases. Parking rules will be managed by the property manager and access to the garage will be access controlled by software and hardware with programmed parking fobs. With respect to the retail uses and associated SUMP principles implementation, as noted above, the Project is approximately four (4) years from completion and has not yet marketed or leased the proposed retail space. None of the proposed parking spaces in the Project are dedicated to the retail space and are, therefore, able to be managed by the property manager under the SUMP principles described above. Vehicle Parking The applicant is proposing 145 vehicle parking spaces for residents which is less than the requirement of 154 vehicle parking spaces which results in a parking reduction request of 5.8 percent. Table 1 2550 30th Street TDM Plan - Multi-Family Residential Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 106 Packet Page 272 of 568 LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: lsc@lscdenver.com November 27, 2024 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Coburn Partners 2718 Pine Street, #100 Boulder, CO 80302 Re: 2550 30 th Street Boulder, CO LSC #240150 Dear Mr. Kuhl: In response to your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this updated traffic impact analysis for the proposed 2550 30th Street redevelopment in Boulder, Colorado, to address City comments. As shown on Figure 1, the site is located south of Valmont Road and west of 30th Street. REPORT CONTENTS The report contains the following based on coordination with City staff: the existing roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site including the lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, etc.; the existing weekday peak-hour traffic volumes; the typical weekday site-generated traffic volume projections for the site; the assignment of the projected traffic volumes to the area roadways; the projected short-term and long-term background and resul- ting total traffic volumes on the area roadways; the site’s projected traffic impacts; and any re- commended roadway improvements to mitigate growth in background traffic or the impacts of the site. LAND USE AND ACCESS The site is proposed to include 142 apartment dwelling units and about 828 square feet of com- mercial space. Full movement access is proposed to 30th Street. The conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Area Roadways The major roadways in the site’s vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and are described below. •30th Street is a north-south, four-lane minor arterial roadway east of the site. The inter- sections with Mapleton Avenue and Bluff Street are stop-sign controlled. The posted speed Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 107 Packet Page 273 of 568 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Page 2 November 27, 2024 2550 30th Street limit in the vicinity of the site is 35 mph. There are dedicated bike lanes and detached sidewalks on both sides of the road adjacent to the site. •Mapleton Avenue is an east-west, two-lane local roadway south of the site. The intersec- tion with 30th Street is stop-sign controlled. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 20 mph. There are detached sidewalks on both sides. •Bluff Street is an east-west, two-lane local roadway north of the site. The intersection with 30th Street is stop-sign controlled. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 20 mph. There is on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides. •Pearl Street is an east-west, four-lane principal arterial south of the site. The intersection with 30th Street is signalized. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. There are dedicated bike lanes west of 30th Street and detached sidewalks on both sides of the street. •Valmont Road is an east-west, four-lane minor arterial roadway north of the site. The intersection with 30th Street is signalized. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. There are dedicated bike lanes and detached sidewalks on both sides of the street. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 3a shows the existing traffic volumes in the site’s vicinity on a typical weekday and Figure 3b shows the existing lane geometry and traffic controls . The weekday peak-hour traffic volumes and daily traffic counts are from the attached traffic counts conducted by Counter Measures in July, 2024. 2028 and 2044 Background Traffic Figure 4a shows the estimated 2028 background traffic and Figure 5a shows the estimated 2044 background traffic based on an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent consistent with the assumptions agreed to by City staff. Figures 4b and 5b show the assumed future 2028 and 2044 background traffic control and lane geometry. Existing, 2028 Background, and 2044 Background Levels of Service Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative measure of the level of congestion or delay at an inter- section. Level of service is indicated on a scale from “A” to “F.” LOS A is indicative of little con- gestion or delay and LOS F is indicative of a high level of congestion or delay. Attached are specific level of service definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The intersections in Figures 3a through 5b were analyzed to determine the existing, 2028 back- ground, and 2044 background levels of service as appropriate using Synchro. Table 1 shows the level of service analysis results. The level of service reports are attached. 1. 30 th Street/Valmont Road: This signalized intersection currently operates at an overall LOS “C” during both morning and afternoon peak-hours. By 2028, the morning peak-hour Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 108 Packet Page 274 of 568 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Page 3 November 27, 2024 2550 30th Street is expected to operate at LOS “C” and the afternoon peak-hour is expected to operate at LOS “D” and are expected to do so through 2044. 2. 30 th Street/Bluff Street: All movements at this unsignalized intersection currently ope- rate at LOS “B” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours and are expected to do so through 2044. 3. 30 th Street/Site Access: This intersection was analyzed only in the total traffic scenarios. 4. 30 th Street/Mapleton Avenue: All movements at this unsignalized intersection currently operate at LOS “B” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours and are ex- pected to do so through 2044. 5. 30 th Street/Pearl Street: This signalized intersection currently operates at an overall LOS “C” during both morning and afternoon peak-hours. By 2028, the morning peak-hour is expected to operate at LOS “C” and the afternoon peak-hour is expected to operate at LOS “D” and are expected to do so through 2044. TRIP GENERATION Table 2 shows the estimated trip generation potential for the currently proposed land use based on the trip generation rates from the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 2021. The site is projected to generate about 1,002 vehicle-trips on the average weekday, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the morning peak-hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., about 15 vehicles would enter and about 44 vehicles would exit the area. During the afternoon peak-hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., about 48 vehicles would enter and about 30 vehicles would exit the area. These estimates are expected to be reduced by about 20 percent due to alternative travel modes as shown in Table 2. This reduction is supported by a separate Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan. On the average Saturday, the site is projected to generate about 700 vehicle-trips, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the Saturday peak-hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., about 32 vehicles would enter and about 32 vehicles would exit the area. These estimates are expected to be reduced by about 20 percent due to alternative travel modes as shown in Table 2. This reduction is supported by a separate Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 shows the estimated directional distribution of the site-generated traffic volumes on the area roadways. The estimates were based on the location of the site with respect to the regional population, employment, and activity centers; the site’s proposed land use; and are consistent with the assumptions agreed to by City staff. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 109 Packet Page 275 of 568 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Page 4 November 27, 2024 2550 30th Street TRIP ASSIGNMENT Figure 7 shows the estimated weekday site-generated traffic volumes which are the directional distribution percentages (from Figure 6) applied to the weekday trip generation estimate (from Table 2). 2028 AND 2044 TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure 8a shows the 2028 total traffic which is the sum of the 2028 background traffic volumes (from Figure 4a) and the site-generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 8b shows the 2028 recommended lane geometry and traffic control. Figure 9a shows the 2044 total traffic which is the sum of 2044 background traffic volumes (from Figure 5a) and the site-generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 9b shows the 2044 recommended lane geometry and traffic control. VISION ZERO HIGH RISK STREET NETWORK ANALYSIS The section of 30th Street from Pearl Street to Valmont Road adjacent to the site is identified by the City of Boulder as a high risk street. Existing Conditions A summary of the City’s crash history for the past five years in the general area is included in the appendix. It shows no fatalities over the five-year period but there were nine crashes that resulted in severe juries. Two severe injuries occurred at the 30th Street/Pearl Street inter- section, one occurred at the 30th Street/Mapleton Street intersection, five occurred at the 30th Street/Valmont Road intersection, and one occurred on Valmont Road near 30th Avenue. They are summarized in the section below. There is not a specific crash pattern. 30th Street/Pearl Street: 1900494 1/15/2019 - Front Vehicle to Side Vehicle - Night - Dry 2106525 7/25/2021 - Overturning - Night - Dry - Alcohol Involved 30th Street/Mapleton Street: 2302901 3/30/2023 - Vehicle vs Bicycle - Day - Dry 30th Street/Valmont Road: 1913618 11/16/2019 - Front Vehicle to Side Vehicle - Night - Dry - Alcohol Involved 2002625 3/19/2020 - Overturning - Day - Dry - Bicycle Involved at Driveway 2007165 8/1/2020 - Vehicle vs. Bicycle - Day - Dry 2202728 3/25/2022 - Limited Info Provided 2310625 10/20/2023 - Vehicle vs. Bicycle - Day - Dry Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 110 Packet Page 276 of 568 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Page 5 November 27, 2024 2550 30th Street Valmont Road Near 30th Avenue: 1914701 12/17/2019 - Vehicle vs. Bicycle - Night - Dry Proposed Condition to Help Reduce Accident Probability The following characteristics will help reduce the crash probability in the area: 1. The proposed site will relocated the existing full movement access on 30 th Street to the north to align with the existing access to the east. 2. The proposed site replaces a prior commercial site so no increase in traffic is expected in the area based on historic conditions. 3. The proposed access to 30 th Street will have driveway flares rather than corner radii to reduce vehicle turning speed. This will help reduce vehicle/bicycle conflicts at the drive- way. 4. No additional travel lanes are expected or recommended in the area. 5. No crosswalks lengths are expected to be lengthened from redevelopment of the site. 6. The proposed site will not be adding any new unprotected left-turn movements. 7. There are no mid-block crosswalks at 30 th Avenue in the area so there will be no impacts related to this type of crossing. 8. The project will provide acceptable sight distance both to and from the relocated access point for both vehicles and non-motorized users such as pedestrians and cyclists. This will help reduce vehicle/bicycle conflicts at the driveway. All sight triangle requirements of Section 9-9-7 will be met at the driveway access and multi-use path intersections. 9. The proposed site is not planning any obstructions that would block or limit pedestrian/ cyclist flow in the area. This will help reduce vehicle/bicycle conflicts at the driveway. 10. The proposed site will provide ADA ramps where applicable to ease pedestrian travel in the area. The sidewalk that crosses the driveway access will be elevated above street level for pedestrian safety. 11. The applicant will be adding a segment of buffered bike lane adjacent to the site which will improve bicycle safety in the area of the site. Summary of Analysis The proposed site redevelopment will improve pedestrian and cyclist access in the area and has many positive characteristics that should help reduce the probability of a crash in the area. PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE The intersections in Figures 8a through 9b were analyzed to determine the 2028 and 2044 total levels of service. Table 1 shows the level of service analysis results. The level of service reports are attached. 1. 30 th Street/Valmont Road: This signalized intersection is expected to operate at an over- all LOS “D” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. 2. 30 th Street/Bluff Street: All movements at this unsignalized intersection are expected to operate at LOS “B” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 111 Packet Page 277 of 568 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Page 6 November 27, 2024 2550 30th Street 3. 30 th Street/Site Access: All movements at this unsignalized intersection are expected to operate at LOS “B” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. 4. 30 th Street/Mapleton Avenue: All movements at this unsignalized intersection are expected to operate at LOS “B” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. 5. 30 th Street/Pearl Street: This signalized intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS “D” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. The east- bound left-turn movement is expected to degrade from LOS “E” to LOS “F” in 2028 with the addition of site-generated traffic. The LOS “F” can be mitigated back to LOS “E” by shifting one second of green time from the westbound through movement to the east- bound left-turn movement. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Trip Generation 1. The site is projected to generate about 1,002 vehicle-trips on the average weekday, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the morning peak- hour about 15 vehicles would enter and about 44 vehicles would exit the site. During the afternoon peak-hour, about 48 vehicles would enter and about 30 vehicles would exit. These estimates are expected to be reduced by about 20 percent due to alternative travel modes. This reduction is supported by a separate Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan. 2. On the average Saturday, the site is projected to generate about 700 vehicle-trips, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the Saturday peak- hour, about 32 vehicles would enter and about 32 vehicles would exit the area. These esti- mates are expected to be reduced by about 20 percent due to alternative travel modes as shown in Table 2. This reduction is supported by a separate Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Projected Levels of Service 3. All movements at the unsignalized intersections analyzed are expected to operate at LOS “B” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. 4. The signalized intersections analyzed are expected to operate at an overall LOS “D” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2044. Conclusions 5. The impact of the proposed 2550 30 th Street development can be accommodated by the existing roadway network with the following recommendations: Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 112 Packet Page 278 of 568 Mr. Nicholas Kuhl Page 7 November 27, 2024 2550 30th Street Recommendations 6. No off-site roadway improvements are recommended. The applicant should follow the re- commendations of the separate Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan to help increase the alternative travel mode trips generated by the site. * * * * * We trust this information will assist you in planning for the proposed 2550 30th Street redeve- lopment. Respectfully submitted, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. By: Christopher S. McGranahan, P.E. Principal/President CSM/wc Enclosure: Tables 1 and 2 Figures 1 - 9b Traffic Counts by Counter Measures, Inc. LOS Descriptions LOS Printouts Accident History from City Website G:\Shared drives\Denver Projects 2021-2030\2024\240150-2250-30thStreet-TG&A\TIA\Nov-2024\2550-30th-Street-TIA-112724.wpd Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 113 Packet Page 279 of 568 Table 1Intersection Levels of Service Analysis2550 30th StreetBoulder, ColoradoLSC #240150; November, 20242028 Total Traffic2044 Total Traffic2044 Background TrafficMitigated (1)2028 Total Traffic2028 Background Traffic Existing TrafficMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-LevelMove-Levelmentofmentofmentofmentofmentofmentofmentofmentofmentofmentofmentof DelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceDelayServiceTrafficPMAMPMAMPMPMAMPMAMPMAMControlIntersection No. & LocationSignalized30th Street/Valmont Road1)33.1C30.0C33.4C30.0C34.0C30.0C34.4C30.0C34.3C29.9CEB Left47.0D36.1D46.9D36.0D46.7D35.7D46.9D35.6D46.7D35.6DEB Through/Right64.1E28.1C62.7E28.1C52.3D27.7C51.5D27.7C47.8D27.6CWB Left 37.0D32.3C37.4D32.3C37.9D31.9C38.3D31.9C38.3D31.8CWB Through38.0D30.8C38.5D30.8C39.0D30.5C39.4D30.5C39.3D30.5CWB Right17.9B13.6B17.6B13.7B16.7B13.5B16.4B13.5B16.3B13.5BNB Left36.1D26.9C35.8D26.9C34.4C26.4C34.2C26.4C33.9C26.3CNB Through35.2D27.2C34.9C27.2C33.6C26.8C33.3C26.7C33.0C26.6CNB Right18.8B12.9B18.5B12.9B17.1B12.8B16.8B12.8B16.6B12.8BSB Left24.9C17.0B24.4C16.8B22.7C16.6B22.2C16.4B21.9C16.3BSB Through/Right36.926.636.726.635.326.235.326.234.826.2Entire Intersection Delay (sec /veh)DCDCDCDCCCEntire Intersection LOSTWSC30th Street/Bluff Street2)7.9A7.6A7.9A7.6A7.9A7.7A7.9A7.6A7.9A7.6ANB Left14.3B9.9A14.3B9.8A13.3B9.6A13.3B9.6A0.0A0.0AEB Left10.4B10.0B10.3B10.2B10.1B10.2B10.0B10.1B9.3A8.7AEB Through/Right14.5B9.8A14.5B9.7A13.4B9.5A13.4B9.5A12.9B9.5AWB Left 10.6B8.9A10.5B8.9A10.3B8.9A10.3B8.9A10.0B8.9AWB Through/Right8.5A7.6A8.5A7.6A8.4A7.6A8.3A7.6A8.4A7.6ASB LeftTWSC30th Street/Site Access3)8.1A7.7A--------8.0A7.7A----------------NB Left11.7B9.5A--------11.1A9.4A----------------EB ApproachTWSC30th Street/Mapleton Avenue4)8.3A7.9A8.2A7.9A8.2A7.9A8.1A7.9A8.1A7.8ANB Left13.2B10.3B12.8B10.2B12.5B9.9A12.2B9.9A11.9B9.8AEB Approach13.5B10.4B13.4B10.4B12.7B10.2B12.7B10.1B11.9B9.6AWB Approach8.4A7.7A8.4A7.7A8.3A7.7A8.3A7.7A8.3A7.7ASB ApproachSignalized30th Street/Pearl Street5)108.8F37.5D87.7F37.2D71.1E86.4F37.0D71.3E36.8D68.7E36.7DEB Left50.9D34.9C50.9D34.9C47.7D47.7D34.6C47.7D34.6C47.1D34.5CEB Through0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0AEB Right51.6D41.8D51.6D41.8D49.8D50.8D41.4D50.8D41.4D50.6D41.3DWB Left 47.1D36.9D47.1D36.9D45.5D45.3D36.2D45.3D36.2D44.9D36.1DWB Through0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0A0.0AWB Right24.4C12.3B24.3C12.2B24.5C23.8C12.0B23.7C11.8B23.6C11.7BNB Left23.4C18.0B23.4C17.8B23.4C22.6C17.2B22.6C17.0B22.4C16.8BNB Through/Right88.4F12.2B86.1F12.1B53.9D53.0D11.9B51.9D11.7B50.4D11.6BSB Left17.9B1.0A17.6B0.9A16.9B16.9B0.9A16.6B0.7A16.4B0.7ASB Through/Right41.122.939.622.935.636.222.435.222.534.722.4Entire Intersection Delay (sec /veh)DCDCDDCDCCCEntire Intersection LOSMitigation is to shift one second of green time from the westbound through movement to the eastbound left-turn movement.(1)Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 114Packet Page 280 of 568 Table 2ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION2550 30th StreetBoulder, COLSC #240150; November, 2024SaturdayVehicle-Trips GeneratedSaturdayTrip Generation Rates (1) Peak-HourPM Peak-HourAM Peak-HourAverageAveragePeak-HourPM Peak-HourAM Peak-HourAverageAverageOutInOutInOutInSaturdayWeekdayOutInOutInOutInSaturdayWeekdayQuantityTrip Generating CategoryCURRENTLY PROPOSED LAND USE2929274643146469570.2050.2050.1890.3210.3040.0964.556.74DU (3)142Multi-Family Housing (2)33331154453.2193.3513.2953.2950.9441.41665.7054.45KSF (5)0.828Commercial Unit (4)3232304844157001,002Total =666109314020020% ATM Reduction (6) =252624393512560802Net Trips =Notes:Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition, 2021(1)ITE Land Use No. 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) - No directional distribution rate given for Saturday Peak-Hour - 50% in/out was used(2)DU = Dwelling Units(3)ITE Land Use No. 822 - Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) - No Saturday rate given so 10x the Saturday peak-hour rate was used(4)KSF = 1,000 square feet(5)The alternative travel mode reduction is supported by a separate Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan.(6)Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 115Packet Page 281 of 568 SITEMapFigure 1VicinityScale: 1"=500'Approximate Scale2550 30th Street (LSC #240150)Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 116Packet Page 282 of 568 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 117Packet Page 283 of 568 SITE Traffic Existing Figure 3a 1 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 2 3 45 1,000 35 26 Intentionally Left Blank 100 34 70 408 253 82 98 231135 193 213 176 54 89 318 111 127 271 102 474 123 356 479 233 161 81 77 517 284 74 108 188176 185 357 157 39 109 537 80 205 365 83 483 149 409 560 107 0 0 1 0 0 7 9 278 4 268 46 3 0 594 14 27 346 23 0 9 1 804 41 42 29 50 1 0 46 6 1674 79 413 25 42 34 579 3 16 394 4 0 4 0 801 15 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 118 Packet Page 284 of 568 SITE Geometry and Traffic Control Existing Lane Figure 3b 1 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 2 3 4 50 5 Intentionally Left Blank Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 119 Packet Page 285 of 568 SITE Background Traffic Year 2028 Figure 4a 1,000 35 26 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 1 2 3 45 102 35 71 416 258 84 100 236138 197 217 180 55 91 324 113 130 276 104 483 125 363 489 238 164 83 79 527 290 75 110 192180 189 364 160 40 111 548 82 209 372 85 493 152 417 571 109 1 1 1 1 1 7 9 288 4 273 47 3 1 606 14 28 353 23 1 9 1 820 42 43 30 51 1 1 47 6 1675 81 421 26 43 35 591 3 16 402 4 1 4 1 817 15 330 640 400 870 Note: Annual growth rate of 0.5 percent was assumed based on coordination with City staff. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 120 Packet Page 286 of 568 SITE Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Year 2028 Background Figure 4b 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 5 1 2 3 4 Intentionally Left Blank Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 121 Packet Page 287 of 568 SITE Background Traffic Year 2044 Figure 5a 1,000 35 26 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 1 2 3 45 110 38 77 451 280 91 108 255149 213 235 194 60 98 351 123 140 299 113 524 136 393 529 257 178 89 85 571 314 82 119 208194 204 394 173 43 120 593 88 227 403 92 534 165 452 619 118 1 1 1 1 1 7 10 308 4 296 51 3 1 656 15 30 382 25 1 10 1 888 45 46 32 55 1 1 51 7 1882 87 456 28 46 38 640 3 18 435 4 1 4 1 885 17 355 695 435 940 Note: Annual growth rate of 0.5 percent was assumed based on coordination with City staff. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 122 Packet Page 288 of 568 SITE 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Year 2044 Background Figure 5b 5 1 2 3 4 Intentionally Left Blank Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 123 Packet Page 289 of 568 SITEof Site-Generated TrafficFigure 6Directional DistributionScale: 1"=500'Approximate Scale2550 30th Street (LSC #240150)65%5%25%5%15%35%5%10%Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 124Packet Page 290 of 568 SITE Site-Generated Traffic Assignment of Figure 7 40200 1 1,000 35 26 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 2 3 45 3 9 1 210 6 2 1 2 1 0 1 12 14 4 8 8 12 23 8 16 25 4 14 6 2 6 5 4 12 18 19 13 4 1 12 8 3 2 1 4 1 4 2 40 280 520 80 800 120 280 40 400 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 125 Packet Page 291 of 568 SITE Total Traffic Year 2028 Figure 8a 1,000 35 26 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 1 2 3 45 102 35 74 416 258 93 101 238148 203 219 181 55 91 326 113 130 277 104 483 125 363 490 238 177 87 79 527 290 75 110 192180 189 365 160 52 119 551 84 210 376 86 493 152 417 575 111 1 1 1 1 1 7 9 288 4 285 47 3 1 620 14 28 357 23 1 9 1 828 42 49 32 51 1 1 47 6 1675 81 427 26 48 39 603 3 16 420 4 1 4 1 836 15 330 640 400 870 8 12 23 8 16 25 4 14 Note: These volumes are the sum of the volumes in Figures 4a and 7. 800 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 126 Packet Page 292 of 568 SITE Figure 8b 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 5 1 2 4 Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Year 2028 Total 3 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 127 Packet Page 293 of 568 SITE Total Traffic Year 2044 Figure 9a 1,000 35 26 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 1 2 3 45 110 38 80 451 280 100 109 257159 219 237 195 60 98 353 123 140 300 113 524 136 393 530 257 191 93 85 571 314 82 119 208194 204 395 173 55 128 596 90 228 407 93 534 165 452 623 120 1 1 1 1 1 7 10 308 4 308 51 3 1 670 15 30 386 25 1 10 1 896 45 52 34 55 1 1 51 7 1882 87 462 28 51 42 652 3 18 453 4 1 4 1 904 17 355 695 435 940 8 12 23 8 16 25 4 14 Note: These volumes are the sum of the volumes in Figures 5a and 7. 800 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 128 Packet Page 294 of 568 SITE Figure 9b 2550 30th Street (LSC #240150) Scale: 1"=500' Approximate Scale 5 1 2 3 4 Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Year 2044 Total Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 129 Packet Page 295 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THBLUFFST24 Site Code : 00000008 Start Date : 7/9/2024 Page No : 1 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: BLUFF ST CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER Groups Printed- VEHICLES 30TH ST Southbound BLUFF ST Westbound 30TH ST Northbound PRIVATE DRIVE Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 06:30 AM 0 24 0 1 0020022 0 0 0200 51 06:45 AM 2 26 1 1 2010019 1 0 0000 53 Total 2 50 1 2 2 0 3 0 0 41 1 0 0 2 0 0 104 07:00 AM 0 57 1 0 1010522 5 0 1000 93 07:15 AM 0 49 3 0 2020132 0 0 0000 89 07:30 AM 3 45 0 0 2040233 2 0 0000 91 07:45 AM 6 70 1 0 5050340 2 1 0000133 Total 9 221 5 0 10 0 12 0 11 127 9 1 1 0 0 0 406 08:00 AM 1 99 2 1 0130075 3 0 0010186 08:15 AM 4 132 0 4 201102120 2 0 0000277 Total 5 231 2 5 2 1 14 0 2 195 5 0 0 0 1 0 463 04:00 PM 4 174 0 0 401000234 3 2 0000431 04:15 PM 9 147 0 0 60800219 9 4 0020404 04:30 PM 8 156 0 1 13 0 17 0 0189 6 3 0010394 04:45 PM 7 143 0 0 801301 199 12 0 0000383 Total 28 620 0 1 31 0 48 0 1 841 30 9 0 0 3 0 1612 05:00 PM 4 153 0 0 901300 229 10 4 0040426 05:15 PM 5 155 0 0 30701 182 10 1 0010365 05:30 PM 11 143 0 0 70802 194 14 6 0030388 05:45 PM 2 127 0 0 90701159 3 4 0000312 Total 22 578 0 0 28 0 35 0 4 764 37 15 0 0 8 0 1491 Grand Total 66 1700 8 8 73 1 112 0 1819688225 121204076 Apprch % 3.7 95.4 0.4 0.4 39.2 0.5 60.2 0.0 0.9 94.0 3.9 1.2 6.7 13.3 80.0 0.0 Total %1.6 41.7 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.4 48.3 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 130 Packet Page 296 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THBLUFFST24 Site Code : 00000008 Start Date : 7/9/2024 Page No : 2 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: BLUFF ST CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound BLUFF ST Westbound 30TH ST Northbound PRIVATE DRIVE Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 07:30 AM Volume 14 346 3 5 368 91230337 268 9 1 285 0010 1687 Percent 3.8 94. 0 0.8 1.4 27. 3 3.0 69. 7 0.0 2.5 94. 0 3.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 100 .0 0.0 08:15 Volume 4132 0 4 140 20110132 120 2 0 124 0000 0277 Peak Factor 0.620 High Int. 08:15 AM 08:15 AM 08:15 AM 08:00 AM Volume 4 132 0 4 140 20110132 120 2 0 124 0010 1 Peak Factor 0.65 7 0.63 5 0.57 5 0.25 0 30TH ST PRIVATE DRIVE BLUFF ST 30TH ST Right 3 Thru 346 Left 14 Peds 5 InOut Total 291 368 659 Right23 Thru1 Left9 Peds0 OutTotalIn23 33 56 Left 7 Thru 268 Right 9 Peds 1 Out TotalIn 356 285 641 Left0 Thru0 Right1 Peds0 TotalOutIn11 1 12 7/9/2024 7:30:00 AM 7/9/2024 8:15:00 AM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 131 Packet Page 297 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THBLUFFST24 Site Code : 00000008 Start Date : 7/9/2024 Page No : 3 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: BLUFF ST CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound BLUFF ST Westbound 30TH ST Northbound PRIVATE DRIVE Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 04:45 PM Volume 27 594 0 0 621 27 0 41 0 68 4 804 46 11 865 0080 81562 Percent 4.3 95. 7 0.0 0.0 39. 7 0.0 60. 3 0.0 0.5 92. 9 5.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 100 .0 0.0 05:00 Volume 4153 0 0 157 90130220 229 10 4 243 0040 4426 Peak Factor 0.917 High Int. 05:15 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM Volume 5 155 0 0 160 90130220 229 10 4 243 0040 4 Peak Factor 0.97 0 0.77 3 0.89 0 0.50 0 30TH ST PRIVATE DRIVE BLUFF ST 30TH ST Right 0 Thru 594 Left 27 Peds 0 InOut Total 845 621 1466 Right41 Thru0 Left27 Peds0 OutTotalIn73 68 141 Left 4 Thru 804 Right 46 Peds 11 Out TotalIn 629 865 1494 Left0 Thru0 Right8 Peds0 TotalOutIn4 8 12 7/9/2024 4:45:00 PM 7/9/2024 5:30:00 PM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 132 Packet Page 298 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THMAPLETON Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 6/27/2024 Page No : 1 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: MAPLETON AVE CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER Groups Printed- VEHICLES 30TH ST Southbound PARKING LOT Westbound 30TH ST Northbound MAPLETON AVE Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 06:30 AM 1 38 4 0 000011 30 0 1 0061 92 06:45 AM 1 50 6 4 0000628 0 2 1050103 Total 2 88 10 4 0 0 0 0 17 58 0 3 1 0 11 1 195 07:00 AM 1 55 2 2 0000563 3 1 2060140 07:15 AM 2 53 4 2 0000959 3 0 30110146 07:30 AM 1 90 11 1 101010 69 0 0 3090196 07:45 AM 1 115 8 6 102012 111 1 0 70120276 Total 5 313 25 11 2 0 3 0 36 302 7 1 15 0 38 0 758 08:00 AM 1 89 14 7 20008108 3 0 13 0 18 0 263 08:15 AM 0 100 9 2 001016 125 2 0 60110272 Total 1 189 23 9 2 0 1 0 24 233 5 0 19 0 29 0 535 04:00 PM 3 149 10 4 426123 192 5 8 83180436 04:15 PM 3 175 8 2 801020 211 4 2 80170459 04:30 PM 5 155 5 3 405015 187 4 0 10160400 04:45 PM 2 135 8 4 302014 209 1 1 10 0 17 0 406 Total 13 614 31 13 19 2 14 1 72 799 14 11 36 4 58 0 1701 05:00 PM 5 153 7 4 302021 188 10 1 10 1 24 0 429 05:15 PM 6 161 12 5 202022 223 6 9 10 0 20 0 478 05:30 PM 3 130 7 7 809022 181 8 7 12 0 13 0 407 05:45 PM 1 124 27 5 000020 135 3 2 14190341 Total 15 568 53 21 13 0 13 0 85 727 27 19 46 2 66 0 1655 Grand Total 36 1772 142 58 36 2 31 1 234 2119 53 34 117 6 202 1 4844 Apprch % 1.8 88.2 7.1 2.9 51.4 2.9 44.3 1.4 9.6 86.8 2.2 1.4 35.9 1.8 62.0 0.3 Total %0.7 36.6 2.9 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.8 43.7 1.1 0.7 2.4 0.1 4.2 0.0 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 133 Packet Page 299 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THMAPLETON Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 6/27/2024 Page No : 2 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: MAPLETON AVE CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound PARKING LOT Westbound 30TH ST Northbound MAPLETON AVE Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 07:30 AM Volume 3 394 42 16 455 4040 846 413 6 0 465 29 0 50 0 79 1007 Percent 0.7 86. 6 9.2 3.5 50. 0 0.0 50. 0 0.0 9.9 88. 8 1.3 0.0 36. 7 0.0 63. 3 0.0 07:45 Volume 1115 8 6 130 1020 312 111 1 0 124 7012019276 Peak Factor 0.912 High Int. 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 08:15 AM 08:00 AM Volume 1 115 8 6 130 1020 316 125 2 0 143 13 0 18 0 31 Peak Factor 0.87 5 0.66 7 0.81 3 0.63 7 30TH ST MAPLETON AVE PARKING LOT 30TH ST Right 42 Thru 394 Left 3 Peds 16 InOut Total 446 455 901 Right4 Thru0 Left4 Peds0 OutTotalIn9 8 17 Left 46 Thru 413 Right 6 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 448 465 913 Left29 Thru0 Right50 Peds0 TotalOutIn88 79 167 6/27/2024 7:30:00 AM 6/27/2024 8:15:00 AM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 134 Packet Page 300 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THMAPLETON Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 6/27/2024 Page No : 3 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: MAPLETON AVE CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound PARKING LOT Westbound 30TH ST Northbound MAPLETON AVE Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 04:45 PM Volume 16 579 34 20 649 16 0 15 0 31 79 801 25 18 923 42 1 74 0 117 1720 Percent 2.5 89. 2 5.2 3.1 51. 6 0.0 48. 4 0.0 8.6 86. 8 2.7 2.0 35. 9 0.9 63. 2 0.0 05:15 Volume 6 161 12 5 184 2020 422 223 6 9 260 10 0 20 0 30 478 Peak Factor 0.900 High Int. 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:15 PM 05:00 PM Volume 6 161 12 5 184 80901722 223 6 9 260 10 1 24 0 35 Peak Factor 0.88 2 0.45 6 0.88 8 0.83 6 30TH ST MAPLETON AVE PARKING LOT 30TH ST Right 34 Thru 579 Left 16 Peds 20 InOut Total 858 649 1507 Right15 Thru0 Left16 Peds0 OutTotalIn42 31 73 Left 79 Thru 801 Right 25 Peds 18 Out TotalIn 669 923 1592 Left42 Thru1 Right74 Peds0 TotalOutIn113 117 230 6/27/2024 4:45:00 PM 6/27/2024 5:30:00 PM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 135 Packet Page 301 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THPEARL Site Code : 00000016 Start Date : 7/9/2024 Page No : 1 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: PEARL PKWY CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER Groups Printed- VEHICLES 30TH ST Southbound PEARL PKWY Westbound 30TH ST Northbound PEARL PKWY Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 06:30 AM 8 41 2 3 13 37 5 4 531 9 1 530 4 3 201 06:45 AM 11 39 5 1 12 37 8 1 93111 6 734 2 0 214 Total 19 80 7 4 25 74 13 5 14 62 20 7 12 64 6 3 415 07:00 AM 10 49 5 11 23 39 12 11 74010 811 31 3 6 276 07:15 AM 20 56 8 4 33 76 8 8 11 47 11 9 15 50 6 4 366 07:30 AM 20 82 8 5 28 80 27 9 25 69 21 9 18 45 18 2 466 07:45 AM 23 90 14 10 36 90 18 5 20 112 31 5 17 88 21 9 589 Total 73 277 35 30 120 285 65 33 63 268 73 31 61 214 48 21 1697 08:00 AM 19 91 8 16 45 120 18 20 13 85 28 10 16 72 21 2 584 08:15 AM 18 102 9 21 40 119 20 10 16 91 28 9 30 79 17 4 613 Total 37 193 17 37 85 239 38 30 29 176 56 19 46 151 38 6 1197 04:00 PM 43 139 33 8 37 117 25 12 42126411333 140 34 8 851 04:15 PM 60 134 17 8 42 126 17 12 48 124 39 7 54 135 39 6 868 04:30 PM 48 150 30 11 41 97 19 10 49 154 37 9 32 124 31 5 847 04:45 PM 45 119 21 8 45 133 24 10 67 130 35 8 45 137 37 16 880 Total 196 542 101 35 165 473 85 44 206 534 152 37 164 536 141 35 3446 05:00 PM 43 165 36 20 53 139 34 14 43182371141 106 59 7 990 05:15 PM 56 113 21 15 41 118 26 23 35129491443 155 34 8 880 05:30 PM 61 140 31 12 49 93 23 28 40119362032 119 46 8 857 05:45 PM 41 136 13 17 35 105 22 21 34 119 28 8 26 108 33 10 756 Total 201 554 101 64 178 455 105 86 152 549 150 53 142 488 172 33 3483 Grand Total 526 1646 261 170 573 1526 306 198 464 1589 451 147 425 1453 405 98 10238 Apprch % 20.2 63.2 10.0 6.5 22.0 58.6 11.8 7.6 17.5 59.9 17.0 5.5 17.8 61.0 17.0 4.1 Total %5.1 16.1 2.5 1.7 5.6 14.9 3.0 1.9 4.5 15.5 4.4 1.4 4.2 14.2 4.0 1.0 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 136 Packet Page 302 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THPEARL Site Code : 00000016 Start Date : 7/9/2024 Page No : 2 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: PEARL PKWY CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound PEARL PKWY Westbound 30TH ST Northbound PEARL PKWY Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 06:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 07:30 AM Volume 80 365 39 52 536 149 409 83 44 685 74 357 108 33 572 81 284 77 17 459 2252 Percent 14. 9 68. 1 7.3 9.7 21. 8 59. 7 12. 1 6.4 12. 9 62. 4 18. 9 5.8 17. 6 61. 9 16. 8 3.7 08:15 Volume 18 102 9 21 150 40 119 20 10 189 16 91 28 9 144 30 79 17 4 130 613 Peak Factor 0.918 High Int. 08:15 AM 08:00 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM Volume 18 102 9 21 150 45 120 18 20 203 20 112 31 5 168 17 88 21 9 135 Peak Factor 0.89 3 0.84 4 0.85 1 0.85 0 30TH ST PEARL PKWY PEARL PKWY 30TH ST Right 39 Thru 365 Left 80 Peds 52 InOut Total 521 536 1057 Right83 Thru409 Left149 Peds44 OutTotalIn472 685 1157 Left 74 Thru 357 Right 108 Peds 33 Out TotalIn 591 572 1163 Left81 Thru284 Right77 Peds17 TotalOutIn522 459 981 7/9/2024 7:30:00 AM 7/9/2024 8:15:00 AM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 137 Packet Page 303 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THPEARL Site Code : 00000016 Start Date : 7/9/2024 Page No : 3 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: PEARL PKWY CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound PEARL PKWY Westbound 30TH ST Northbound PEARL PKWY Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 03:45 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 04:45 PM Volume 205 537 109 55 906 188 483 107 75 853 185 560 157 53 955 161 517 176 39 893 3607 Percent 22. 6 59. 3 12. 0 6.1 22. 0 56. 6 12. 5 8.8 19. 4 58. 6 16. 4 5.5 18. 0 57. 9 19. 7 4.4 05:00 Volume 43 165 36 20 264 53 139 34 14 240 43 182 37 11 273 41 106 59 7 213 990 Peak Factor 0.911 High Int. 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:15 PM Volume 43 165 36 20 264 53 139 34 14 240 43 182 37 11 273 43 155 34 8 240 Peak Factor 0.85 8 0.88 9 0.87 5 0.93 0 30TH ST PEARL PKWY PEARL PKWY 30TH ST Right 109 Thru 537 Left 205 Peds 55 InOut Total 828 906 1734 Right107 Thru483 Left188 Peds75 OutTotalIn879 853 1732 Left 185 Thru 560 Right 157 Peds 53 Out TotalIn 901 955 1856 Left161 Thru517 Right176 Peds39 TotalOutIn777 893 1670 7/9/2024 4:45:00 PM 7/9/2024 5:30:00 PM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 138 Packet Page 304 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THVALMONT Site Code : 00000015 Start Date : 6/27/2024 Page No : 1 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: VALMONT RD CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER Groups Printed- VEHICLES 30TH ST Southbound VALMONT RD Westbound 30TH ST Northbound VALMONT RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 06:30 AM 9 34 4 0 14 41 21 1 620 3 1 217 2 1 176 06:45 AM 19 38 2 0 25 39 25 4 411 9 5 443 3 6 237 Total 28 72 6 0 39 80 46 5 10 31 12 6 6 60 5 7 413 07:00 AM 17 43 7 3 21 38 26 3 16 37 13 8 326 1 7 269 07:15 AM 13 47 5 7 18 65 36 1 16 29 11 2 241 7 2 302 07:30 AM 26 62 3 5 31 83 23 1 64113 3 54419 2 367 07:45 AM 30 84 19 8 29 80 28 3 18 61 29 3 65613 2 469 Total 86 236 34 23 99 266 113 8 56 168 66 16 16 167 40 13 1407 08:00 AM 32 55 15 4 34 74 24 4 34 53 33 4 18 76 17 1 478 08:15 AM 23 70 17 2 29 119 27 4 24 58 23 4 57721 5 508 Total 55 125 32 6 63 193 51 8 58 111 56 8 23 153 38 6 986 04:00 PM 18 83 15 7 61 154 32 10 48 119 27 7 17 113 28 6 745 04:15 PM 36 97 21 6 52 129 46 3 41 130 37 8 44 80 28 2 760 04:30 PM 37 92 16 8 41 126 53 12 62 100 35 6 23 103 41 7 762 04:45 PM 32 89 20 4 41 91 64 6 58 137 40 5 15 107 31 3 743 Total 123 361 72 25 195 500 195 31 209 486 139 26 99 403 128 18 3010 05:00 PM 32 73 28 13 67 145 62 8 29109472028 106 44 8 819 05:15 PM 25 86 27 11 73 102 41 7 59 128 41 8 25 102 32 5 772 05:30 PM 38 70 14 4 50 136 66 7 47105481232 93 28 9 759 05:45 PM 44 104 16 9 44 91 61 8 32 96 39 6 19 74 24 3 670 Total 139 333 85 37 234 474 230 30 167 438 175 46 104 375 128 25 3020 Grand Total 431 1127 229 91 630 1513 635 82 500 1234 448 102 248 1158 339 69 8836 Apprch % 22.9 60.0 12.2 4.8 22.0 52.9 22.2 2.9 21.9 54.0 19.6 4.5 13.7 63.8 18.7 3.8 Total %4.9 12.8 2.6 1.0 7.1 17.1 7.2 0.9 5.7 14.0 5.1 1.2 2.8 13.1 3.8 0.8 Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 139 Packet Page 305 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THVALMONT Site Code : 00000015 Start Date : 6/27/2024 Page No : 2 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: VALMONT RD CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound VALMONT RD Westbound 30TH ST Northbound VALMONT RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 07:30 AM Volume 111 271 54 19 455 123 356 102 12 593 82 213 98 14 407 34 253 70 10 367 1822 Percent 24. 4 59. 6 11. 9 4.2 20. 7 60. 0 17. 2 2.0 20. 1 52. 3 24. 1 3.4 9.3 68. 9 19. 1 2.7 08:15 Volume 23 70 17 2 112 29 119 27 4 179 24 58 23 4 109 57721 5108 508 Peak Factor 0.897 High Int. 07:45 AM 08:15 AM 08:00 AM 08:00 AM Volume 30 84 19 8 141 29 119 27 4 179 34 53 33 4 124 18 76 17 1 112 Peak Factor 0.80 7 0.82 8 0.82 1 0.81 9 30TH ST VALMONT RD VALMONT RD 30TH ST Right 54 Thru 271 Left 111 Peds 19 InOut Total 349 455 804 Right102 Thru356 Left123 Peds12 OutTotalIn462 593 1055 Left 82 Thru 213 Right 98 Peds 14 Out TotalIn 464 407 871 Left34 Thru253 Right70 Peds10 TotalOutIn492 367 859 6/27/2024 7:30:00 AM 6/27/2024 8:15:00 AM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 140 Packet Page 306 of 568 COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : 30THVALMONT Site Code : 00000015 Start Date : 6/27/2024 Page No : 3 N/S STREET: 30TH ST E/W STREET: VALMONT RD CITY: BOULDER COUNTY: BOULDER 30TH ST Southbound VALMONT RD Westbound 30TH ST Northbound VALMONT RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on 04:45 PM Volume 127 318 89 32 566 231 474 233 28 966 193 479 176 45 893 100 408 135 25 668 3093 Percent 22. 4 56. 2 15. 7 5.7 23. 9 49. 1 24. 1 2.9 21. 6 53. 6 19. 7 5.0 15. 0 61. 1 20. 2 3.7 05:00 Volume 32 73 28 13 146 67 145 62 8 282 29 109 47 20 205 28 106 44 8 186 819 Peak Factor 0.944 High Int. 05:15 PM 05:00 PM 04:45 PM 05:00 PM Volume 25 86 27 11 149 67 145 62 8 282 58 137 40 5 240 28 106 44 8 186 Peak Factor 0.95 0 0.85 6 0.93 0 0.89 8 30TH ST VALMONT RD VALMONT RD 30TH ST Right 89 Thru 318 Left 127 Peds 32 InOut Total 812 566 1378 Right233 Thru474 Left231 Peds28 OutTotalIn711 966 1677 Left 193 Thru 479 Right 176 Peds 45 Out TotalIn 684 893 1577 Left100 Thru408 Right135 Peds25 TotalOutIn756 668 1424 6/27/2024 4:45:00 PM 6/27/2024 5:30:00 PM VEHICLES North Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 141 Packet Page 307 of 568 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS From Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) LOS Average Vehicle Delay sec/vehicle Operational Characteristics A <10 seconds Describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 sec/veh. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. B 10 to 20 seconds Describes operations with control delay greater than 10 seconds and up to 20 sec/veh. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. C 20 to 35 seconds Describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec/veh. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle length, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D 35 to 55 seconds Describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec/veh. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E 55 to 80 seconds Describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec/veh. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F >80 seconds Describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 sec/veh. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over-saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 142 Packet Page 308 of 568 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS From Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Applicable to Two-Way Stop Control, All-Way Stop Control, and Roundabouts LOS Average Vehicle Control Delay Operational Characteristics A <10 seconds Normally, vehicles on the stop-controlled approach only have to wait up to 10 seconds before being able to clear the intersection. Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street do not have to wait to make their turn. B 10 to 15 seconds Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach will experience delays before being able to clear the intersection. The delay could be up to 15 seconds. Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street may have to wait to make their turn. C 15 to 25 seconds Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach can expect delays in the range of 15 to 25 seconds before clearing the intersection. Motorists may begin to take chances due to the long delays, thereby posing a safety risk to through traffic. Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street will now be required to wait to make their turn causing a queue to be created in the turn lane. D 25 to 35 seconds This is the point at which a traffic signal may be warranted for this intersection. The delays for the stop-controlled intersection are not considered to be excessive. The length of the queue may begin to block other public and private access points. E 35 to 50 seconds The delays for all critical traffic movements are considered to be unacceptable. The length of the queues for the stop-controlled approaches as well as the left-turn movements are extremely long. There is a high probability that this intersection will meet traffic signal warrants. The ability to install a traffic signal is affected by the location of other existing traffic signals. Consideration may be given to restricting the accesses by eliminating the left-turn move- ments from and to the stop-controlled approach. F >50 seconds The delay for the critical traffic movements are probably in excess of 100 seconds. The length of the queues are extremely long. Motorists are selecting alternative routes due to the long delays. The only remedy for these long delays is installing a traffic signal or restricting the accesses. The potential for accidents at this inter- section are extremely high due to motorist taking more risky chances. If the median permits, motorists begin making two-stage left-turns. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 143 Packet Page 309 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 253 70 123 356 102 82 213 98 111 271 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 34 253 70 123 356 102 82 213 98 111 271 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 275 76 134 387 111 89 232 107 121 295 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 292 655 178 348 984 439 595 1707 761 610 1452 286 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.49 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2763 749 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2959 584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 175 176 134 387 111 89 232 107 121 176 178 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1736 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1765 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 9.0 9.4 5.9 9.5 5.9 2.7 6.1 6.3 3.7 6.0 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 9.0 9.4 5.9 9.5 5.9 2.7 6.1 6.3 3.7 6.0 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 292 421 411 348 984 439 595 1707 761 610 872 867 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.42 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.25 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 592 579 348 1185 528 638 1707 761 635 872 867 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 34.9 35.3 27.4 31.7 30.4 13.4 26.2 26.3 12.7 15.5 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 3.9 3.9 2.5 4.0 2.2 1.1 2.7 2.5 1.4 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 35.1 35.6 27.6 31.8 30.5 13.5 26.3 26.6 12.8 16.1 16.3 LnGrp LOS CDDCCCBCCBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 388 632 428 475 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.8 30.7 23.7 15.3 Approach LOS C C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 57.0 7.7 33.9 10.5 55.9 12.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 8.2 3.7 11.5 5.7 8.3 7.9 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2 HCM 6th LOS C Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 144 Packet Page 310 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC Existing 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 01912372689143463 Future Vol, veh/h 0 01912372689143463 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 10 1 25 8 291 10 15 376 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 570 725 190 530 721 151 379 0 0 301 0 0 Stage 1 408 408 - 312 312 ------- Stage 2 162 317 - 218 409 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *819 583 *962 *819 587 *990 1382 - - 1424 - - Stage 1 *814 734 - *863 772 ------- Stage 2 *934 767 - *907 733 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *788 573 *962 *808 577 *990 1382 - - 1424 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *788 573 - *808 577 ------- Stage 1 *810 726 - *858 767 ------- Stage 2 *904 763 - *896 725 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 9.1 0.2 0.3 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1382 - - - 962 808 961 1424 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - - 0.001 0.012 0.027 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 0 8.7 9.5 8.9 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - -AAAAA - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 0 0.1 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 145 Packet Page 311 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC Existing 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 0 50 4 0 4 46 413 6 3 394 42 Future Vol, veh/h 29 0 50 4 0 4 46 413 6 3 394 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------0--0-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 32 0 54 4 0 4 50 449 7 3 428 46 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 782 1013 237 773 1033 228 474 0 0 456 0 0 Stage 1 457 457 - 553 553 ------- Stage 2 325 556 - 220 480 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *739 469 *933 *739 452 *933 1319 - - 1342 - - Stage 1 *826 735 - *711 658 ------- Stage 2 *880 656 - *880 716 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *713 450 *933 *675 434 *933 1319 - - 1342 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *713 450 - *675 434 ------- Stage 1 *794 734 - *684 633 ------- Stage 2 *843 631 - *827 715 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 9.6 0.8 0.1 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1319 - - 838 783 1342 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - - 0.102 0.011 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - - 9.8 9.6 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 146 Packet Page 312 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 284 77 149 409 83 74 357 108 80 365 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 284 77 149 409 83 74 357 108 80 365 39 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 309 0 162 445 0 80 388 117 87 397 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 201 842 549 842 1197 1355 404 520 1646 173 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.50 0.49 0.10 1.00 0.99 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2698 804 1781 3244 341 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 309 0 162 445 0 80 254 251 87 216 223 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1726 1781 1777 1809 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 7.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 1.2 9.0 9.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 7.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 1.2 9.0 9.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 842 549 842 1197 892 867 520 902 918 V/C Ratio(X)0.44 0.37 0.30 0.53 0.07 0.28 0.29 0.17 0.24 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 218 921 602 921 1305 892 867 566 902 918 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.2 34.4 0.0 41.2 35.9 0.0 11.7 15.6 15.9 11.6 0.0 0.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 3.4 0.0 1.9 5.0 0.0 0.4 3.7 3.7 0.9 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 34.5 0.0 41.3 36.1 0.0 11.7 16.4 16.8 11.6 0.6 0.7 LnGrp LOS D C D D BBBBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 397 607 585 526 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.0 37.5 15.9 2.5 Approach LOS D D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 58.8 11.0 29.6 9.2 58.2 11.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.4 7.0 26.4 7.0 46.4 7.0 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.0 6.4 13.8 4.5 11.3 2.0 9.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.2 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 147 Packet Page 313 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 408 135 231 474 233 193 479 176 127 318 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 408 135 231 474 233 193 479 176 127 318 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 443 147 251 515 253 210 521 191 138 346 97 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 272 561 184 306 936 417 558 1674 747 425 1239 342 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.21 0.20 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.45 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2627 864 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2750 760 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 298 292 251 515 253 210 521 191 138 222 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1715 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1734 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 19.0 19.4 13.0 15.0 16.8 7.3 15.6 12.7 4.9 9.4 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 19.0 19.4 13.0 15.0 16.8 7.3 15.6 12.7 4.9 9.4 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 272 379 366 306 936 417 558 1674 747 425 800 781 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.55 0.61 0.38 0.31 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 637 614 306 1451 647 642 1674 747 427 800 781 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.0 44.6 45.1 32.9 38.1 38.7 16.1 33.4 32.2 16.4 20.7 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 1.4 1.5 15.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 8.4 8.3 6.8 6.5 6.5 3.2 7.5 5.6 2.0 4.0 4.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.3 46.0 46.7 47.8 38.3 39.3 16.3 33.9 33.0 16.6 21.6 21.9 LnGrp LOS CDDDDDBCCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 699 1019 922 581 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.5 40.9 29.7 20.5 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 58.1 12.0 35.6 11.9 60.5 18.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 29.4 7.0 47.4 7.0 37.4 13.0 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 11.7 7.7 18.8 6.9 17.6 15.0 21.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.8 HCM 6th LOS C Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 148 Packet Page 314 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC Existing 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 8 27 0 41 4 804 46 27 594 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 8 27 0 41 4 804 46 27 594 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 0 9 29 0 45 4 874 50 29 646 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1149 1636 323 1288 1611 462 646 0 0 924 0 0 Stage 1 704 704 - 907 907 ------- Stage 2 445 932 - 381 704 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *501 332 *846 *501 354 *769 *1265 - - 1080 - - Stage 1 *737 659 - *678 604 ------- Stage 2 *725 584 - *797 659 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *462 322 *846 *485 343 *769 *1265 - - 1080 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *462 322 - *485 343 ------- Stage 1 *735 641 - *676 602 ------- Stage 2 *681 582 - *768 641 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 11.2 0 0.4 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) * 1265 - - - 846 485 769 1080 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.01 0.061 0.058 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 0 9.3 12.9 10 8.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - -AABBA - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 149 Packet Page 315 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC Existing 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 1 74 16 0 15 79 801 25 16 579 34 Future Vol, veh/h 42 1 74 16 0 15 79 801 25 16 579 34 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------0--0-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 46 1 80 17 0 16 86 871 27 17 629 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1290 1752 333 1406 1757 449 666 0 0 898 0 0 Stage 1 682 682 - 1057 1057 ------- Stage 2 608 1070 - 349 700 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *521 224 *846 *521 221 *769 1254 - - 1114 - - Stage 1 *765 678 - *510 489 ------- Stage 2 *725 481 - *797 662 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *478 205 *846 *440 202 *769 1254 - - 1114 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *478 205 - *440 202 ------- Stage 1 *713 668 - *475 455 ------- Stage 2 *661 447 - *709 652 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 11.9 0.7 0.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1254 - - 649 555 1114 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - - 0.196 0.061 0.016 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - 11.9 11.9 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.7 0.2 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 150 Packet Page 316 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 161 517 176 188 483 107 185 560 157 205 537 109 Future Volume (veh/h) 161 517 176 188 483 107 185 560 157 205 537 109 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 175 562 0 204 525 0 201 609 171 223 584 118 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 208 758 449 758 1140 1334 374 270 1056 213 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.47 0.17 0.72 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2741 768 1781 2947 594 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 562 0 204 525 0 201 394 386 223 352 350 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1732 1781 1777 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 17.7 0.0 0.4 16.4 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.8 10.0 11.1 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 17.7 0.0 0.4 16.4 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.8 10.0 11.1 11.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 758 449 758 1140 865 843 270 637 632 V/C Ratio(X)0.84 0.74 0.45 0.69 0.18 0.46 0.46 0.83 0.55 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 800 553 888 1140 865 843 270 637 632 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.7 44.1 0.0 50.4 43.6 0.0 23.6 20.3 20.6 32.7 12.5 12.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.9 3.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.8 17.7 3.4 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.0 8.0 0.0 2.8 7.3 0.0 1.9 7.5 7.5 5.7 3.7 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.7 47.1 0.0 50.6 44.9 0.0 23.6 22.1 22.4 50.4 15.9 16.4 LnGrp LOS E D D D CCCDBB Approach Vol, veh/h 737 729 981 925 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.2 46.5 22.5 24.4 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 47.0 14.0 29.6 14.0 62.4 14.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.6 * 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 41 9.0 28.4 9.0 52.4 12.0 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 13.5 12.0 18.4 12.0 19.8 2.4 19.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.4 0.2 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 151 Packet Page 317 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Background 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 258 71 125 363 104 84 217 100 113 276 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 258 71 125 363 104 84 217 100 113 276 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 280 77 136 395 113 91 236 109 123 300 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 289 656 177 345 983 439 592 1705 760 607 1450 286 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.49 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2766 747 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2958 584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 178 179 136 395 113 91 236 109 123 179 181 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1736 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1765 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 9.2 9.5 6.0 9.8 6.0 2.8 6.2 6.4 3.7 6.2 6.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 9.2 9.5 6.0 9.8 6.0 2.8 6.2 6.4 3.7 6.2 6.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 289 421 411 345 983 439 592 1705 760 607 871 865 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.42 0.44 0.39 0.40 0.26 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 360 592 579 345 1185 528 633 1705 760 630 871 865 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 34.9 35.4 27.4 31.8 30.4 13.5 26.2 26.3 12.7 15.6 15.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 3.9 4.0 2.5 4.1 2.3 1.1 2.7 0.1 1.4 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 35.2 35.6 27.7 31.9 30.5 13.5 26.4 26.7 12.8 16.1 16.4 LnGrp LOS CDDCCCBCCBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 395 644 436 483 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.9 30.8 23.8 15.4 Approach LOS C C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 56.9 7.7 33.9 10.6 55.8 12.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 8.4 3.7 11.8 5.7 8.4 8.0 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2 HCM 6th LOS C Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 152 Packet Page 318 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2028 Background 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 11912372739143533 Future Vol, veh/h 1 11912372739143533 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 10 1 25 8 297 10 15 384 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 581 739 194 541 735 154 387 0 0 307 0 0 Stage 1 416 416 - 318 318 ------- Stage 2 165 323 - 223 417 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *819 570 *962 *819 574 *990 1371 - - 1416 - - Stage 1 *805 727 - *855 766 ------- Stage 2 *934 763 - *907 727 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *788 560 *962 *807 564 *990 1371 - - 1416 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *788 560 - *807 564 ------- Stage 1 *800 719 - *850 762 ------- Stage 2 *903 758 - *895 719 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 9.1 0.2 0.3 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1371 - - 788 708 807 960 1416 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.001 0.003 0.012 0.027 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 9.6 10.1 9.5 8.9 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - -ABAAA - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 0.1 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 153 Packet Page 319 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2028 Background 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1 51 4 1 4 47 421 6 3 402 43 Future Vol, veh/h 30 1 51 4 1 4 47 421 6 3 402 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------0--0-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 33 1 55 4 1 4 51 458 7 3 437 47 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 799 1034 242 789 1054 233 484 0 0 465 0 0 Stage 1 467 467 - 564 564 ------- Stage 2 332 567 - 225 490 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *739 452 *933 *739 436 *933 1306 - - 1330 - - Stage 1 *813 727 - *699 650 ------- Stage 2 *880 648 - *880 708 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *711 433 *933 *672 418 *933 1306 - - 1330 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *711 433 - *672 418 ------- Stage 1 *781 725 - *672 624 ------- Stage 2 *840 623 - *825 706 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 10.1 0.8 0.1 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1306 - - 827 712 1330 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - - 0.108 0.014 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 9.9 10.1 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 154 Packet Page 320 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Background 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 83 290 79 152 417 85 75 364 110 82 372 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 83 290 79 152 417 85 75 364 110 82 372 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 315 0 165 453 0 82 396 120 89 404 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 200 842 550 842 1187 1348 404 514 1641 174 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.50 0.49 0.10 1.00 0.98 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2695 807 1781 3242 343 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 315 0 165 453 0 82 260 256 89 220 227 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1725 1781 1777 1809 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.2 9.2 9.5 2.6 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.2 9.2 9.5 2.6 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 842 550 842 1187 889 863 514 899 915 V/C Ratio(X)0.45 0.37 0.30 0.54 0.07 0.29 0.30 0.17 0.25 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 921 598 921 1294 889 863 558 899 915 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.2 34.5 0.0 41.3 36.0 0.0 11.8 15.8 16.1 11.7 0.0 0.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 3.4 0.0 2.0 5.2 0.0 0.5 3.8 3.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.8 34.6 0.0 41.4 36.2 0.0 11.8 16.6 17.0 11.7 0.6 0.7 LnGrp LOS D C D D BBBBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 405 618 598 536 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.1 37.6 16.1 2.5 Approach LOS D D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 58.7 11.1 29.6 9.3 58.0 11.1 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.4 7.0 26.4 7.0 46.4 7.0 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.1 6.5 14.0 4.6 11.5 2.0 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.3 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 155 Packet Page 321 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Background 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 416 138 236 483 238 197 489 180 130 324 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 102 416 138 236 483 238 197 489 180 130 324 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 452 150 257 525 259 214 532 196 141 352 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 269 562 185 304 938 418 555 1668 744 419 1232 342 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.21 0.20 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.45 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2627 865 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2748 762 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 305 297 257 525 259 214 532 196 141 226 225 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1715 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1733 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 19.5 19.8 13.3 15.3 17.3 7.4 16.0 13.1 5.1 9.6 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 19.5 19.8 13.3 15.3 17.3 7.4 16.0 13.1 5.1 9.6 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 380 367 304 938 418 555 1668 744 419 797 777 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.80 0.81 0.85 0.56 0.62 0.39 0.32 0.26 0.34 0.28 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 637 614 304 1451 647 636 1668 744 420 797 777 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.0 44.7 45.2 33.0 38.1 38.8 16.3 33.7 32.4 16.6 20.9 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 1.5 1.7 18.5 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 8.7 8.5 7.2 6.6 6.7 3.2 7.7 5.7 2.0 4.2 4.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.4 46.2 46.9 51.5 38.3 39.4 16.4 34.2 33.3 16.8 21.8 22.2 LnGrp LOS CDDDDDBCCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 713 1041 942 592 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.7 41.9 29.9 20.7 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 57.8 12.0 35.7 12.0 60.3 18.0 29.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 29.4 7.0 47.4 7.0 37.4 13.0 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 12.0 7.8 19.3 7.1 18.0 15.3 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.3 HCM 6th LOS D Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 156 Packet Page 322 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2028 Background 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 28 1 42 4 820 47 28 606 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 28 1 42 4 820 47 28 606 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 1 1 9 30 1 46 4 891 51 30 659 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1174 1670 330 1315 1645 471 660 0 0 942 0 0 Stage 1 720 720 - 925 925 ------- Stage 2 454 950 - 390 720 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *477 344 *846 *477 *369 *743 1263 - - 1112 - - Stage 1 *718 646 - *701 *614 ------- Stage 2 *701 607 - *797 *646 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *437 334 *846 *460 *358 *743 1263 - - 1112 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *437 334 - *460 *358 ------- Stage 1 *716 628 - *699 *612 ------- Stage 2 *654 605 - *767 *628 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 11.5 0 0.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1263 - - 437 723 460 725 1112 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - 0.002 0.014 0.066 0.064 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 13.3 10 13.4 10.3 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - -BBBBA - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 157 Packet Page 323 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2028 Background 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 1 75 16 1 15 81 817 26 16 591 35 Future Vol, veh/h 43 1 75 16 1 15 81 817 26 16 591 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------0--0-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 47 1 82 17 1 16 88 888 28 17 642 38 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1316 1787 340 1434 1792 458 680 0 0 916 0 0 Stage 1 695 695 - 1078 1078 ------- Stage 2 621 1092 - 356 714 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *497 227 *846 *497 224 *743 1236 - - *1112 - - Stage 1 *749 667 - *538 504 ------- Stage 2 *701 494 - *797 651 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *453 208 *846 *418 205 *743 1236 - - *1112 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *453 208 - *418 205 ------- Stage 1 *696 657 - *500 469 ------- Stage 2 *635 459 - *708 642 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 12.7 0.7 0.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1236 - - 632 505 * 1112 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 - - 0.205 0.069 0.016 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - 12.2 12.7 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.8 0.2 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 158 Packet Page 324 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Background 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 164 527 180 192 493 109 189 571 160 209 548 111 Future Volume (veh/h) 164 527 180 192 493 109 189 571 160 209 548 111 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 178 573 0 209 536 0 205 621 174 227 596 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 208 758 443 758 1136 1334 373 271 1055 214 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.47 0.17 0.72 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2742 767 1781 2944 596 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 573 0 209 536 0 205 402 393 227 359 358 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1732 1781 1777 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 18.1 0.0 0.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.2 10.2 11.5 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 18.1 0.0 0.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.2 10.2 11.5 11.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 758 443 758 1136 865 843 271 637 632 V/C Ratio(X)0.85 0.76 0.47 0.71 0.18 0.46 0.47 0.84 0.56 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 800 547 888 1136 865 843 271 637 632 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.0 44.3 0.0 50.5 43.7 0.0 23.7 20.4 20.7 32.6 12.5 13.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.4 3.4 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 19.3 3.6 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 8.2 0.0 2.9 7.4 0.0 2.0 7.7 7.6 5.8 3.8 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.3 47.7 0.0 50.8 45.3 0.0 23.7 22.2 22.6 51.9 16.1 16.6 LnGrp LOS E D D D CCCDBB Approach Vol, veh/h 751 745 1000 944 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.3 46.8 22.7 24.9 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 47.0 14.0 29.6 14.0 62.4 14.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.6 * 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 41 9.0 28.4 9.0 52.4 12.0 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 13.9 12.0 18.8 12.2 20.2 2.8 20.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.5 0.2 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 159 Packet Page 325 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Total 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 258 74 125 363 104 93 219 101 113 277 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 258 74 125 363 104 93 219 101 113 277 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 280 80 136 395 113 101 238 110 123 301 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 289 650 182 344 983 439 593 1705 760 606 1441 283 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.49 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2741 768 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2960 582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 180 180 136 395 113 101 238 110 123 179 182 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 9.3 9.6 6.0 9.8 6.0 3.1 6.2 6.5 3.7 6.2 6.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 9.3 9.6 6.0 9.8 6.0 3.1 6.2 6.5 3.7 6.2 6.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 289 421 411 344 983 439 593 1705 760 606 865 859 V/C Ratio(X)0.13 0.43 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.26 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 360 592 577 344 1185 528 629 1705 760 629 865 859 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 35.0 35.4 27.4 31.8 30.4 13.4 26.3 26.4 12.7 15.8 16.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.1 2.3 1.2 2.7 0.1 1.4 2.6 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 35.2 35.7 27.7 31.9 30.5 13.5 26.4 26.8 12.8 16.4 16.6 LnGrp LOS C D D C C C B C C B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 398 644 449 484 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.9 30.8 23.6 15.5 Approach LOS C C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 56.6 7.7 33.9 10.6 55.8 12.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 8.4 3.7 11.8 5.7 8.5 8.0 11.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2 HCM 6th LOS C Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 160 Packet Page 326 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2028 Total 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 9 1 23 7 285 9 14 357 3 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 9 1 23 7 285 9 14 357 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 10 1 25 8 310 10 15 388 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 592 756 196 556 752 160 391 0 0 320 0 0 Stage 1 420 420 - 331 331 - - - - - - - Stage 2 172 336 - 225 421 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *819 555 *962 *819 559 *990 1366 - - 1399 - - Stage 1 *800 724 - *839 756 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *934 752 - *907 723 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *788 545 *962 *807 549 *990 1366 - - 1399 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *788 545 - *807 549 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *795 716 - *834 752 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *903 747 - *895 715 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 9.1 0.2 0.3 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1366 - - 788 696 807 958 1399 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - -0.001 0.003 0.012 0.027 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - - 9.6 10.2 9.5 8.9 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A B A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - -0 0 0 0.1 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 161 Packet Page 327 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2028 Total 3: 30th Street & Site Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 23 8 330 400 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 23 8 330 400 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 -- 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 25 9 359 435 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 635 220 439 0 - 0 Stage 1 437 - - - - - Stage 2 198 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -- - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *766 *933 1364 - - - Stage 1 *856 - - - - - Stage 2 *908 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *760 *933 1364 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *760 - - - - - Stage 1 *849 - - - - - Stage 2 *908 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 0.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1364 - 865 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.044 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 9.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 162 Packet Page 328 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2028 Total 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 1 51 4 1 4 47 427 6 3 420 48 Future Vol, veh/h 32 1 51 4 1 4 47 427 6 3 420 48 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 35 1 55 4 1 4 51 464 7 3 457 52 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 824 1062 255 805 1085 236 509 0 0 471 0 0 Stage 1 489 489 - 570 570 - - - - - - - Stage 2 335 573 - 235 515 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *739 430 *933 *739 413 *933 1274 - - 1322 - - Stage 1 *785 708 - *693 646 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *880 643 - *880 688 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *710 412 *933 *671 395 *933 1274 - - 1322 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *710 412 - *671 395 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *754 707 - *665 620 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *839 617 - *825 686 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 10.2 0.8 0 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1274 - - 822 704 1322 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - -0.111 0.014 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 9.9 10.2 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - -0.4 0 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 163 Packet Page 329 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Total 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 290 79 152 417 86 75 365 110 84 376 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 290 79 152 417 86 75 365 110 84 376 52 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 315 0 165 453 0 82 397 120 91 409 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 202 842 554 842 1165 1339 400 511 1577 218 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.50 0.48 0.10 1.00 0.98 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2696 806 1781 3135 434 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 315 0 165 453 0 82 260 257 91 231 235 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1725 1781 1777 1792 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.2 9.3 9.6 2.7 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.2 9.3 9.6 2.7 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 202 842 554 842 1165 882 857 511 894 902 V/C Ratio(X)0.47 0.37 0.30 0.54 0.07 0.29 0.30 0.18 0.26 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 212 921 592 921 1272 882 857 554 894 902 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 34.5 0.0 41.3 36.0 0.0 12.0 16.0 16.3 11.8 0.0 0.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 3.4 0.0 2.0 5.2 0.0 0.5 3.9 3.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 34.6 0.0 41.4 36.2 0.0 12.0 16.9 17.2 11.9 0.7 0.9 LnGrp LOS D C D D B B B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 410 618 599 557 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.1 37.6 16.4 2.6 Approach LOS D D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 58.3 11.4 29.6 9.4 57.6 11.4 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.4 7.0 26.4 7.0 46.4 7.0 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.1 6.8 14.0 4.7 11.6 2.0 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.3 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 164 Packet Page 330 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Total 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 416 148 238 483 238 203 490 181 130 326 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 102 416 148 238 483 238 203 490 181 130 326 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 452 161 259 525 259 221 533 197 141 354 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 272 560 198 303 951 424 551 1655 738 416 1217 336 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.22 0.20 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.44 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2574 909 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2751 759 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 311 302 259 525 259 221 533 197 141 227 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1707 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1734 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 19.9 20.2 13.4 15.2 17.2 7.7 16.0 13.2 5.1 9.8 10.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 19.9 20.2 13.4 15.2 17.2 7.7 16.0 13.2 5.1 9.8 10.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 272 387 372 303 951 424 551 1655 738 416 786 767 V/C Ratio(X)0.41 0.80 0.81 0.85 0.55 0.61 0.40 0.32 0.27 0.34 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 637 612 303 1451 647 628 1655 738 416 786 767 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.7 44.5 45.0 32.8 37.8 38.5 16.5 33.9 32.7 16.9 21.4 21.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 1.5 1.7 19.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.9 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 8.8 8.7 7.3 6.6 6.7 3.4 7.7 5.8 2.1 4.2 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 46.0 46.7 52.3 37.9 39.0 16.7 34.4 33.6 17.1 22.3 22.7 LnGrp LOS C D D D D D B C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 724 1043 951 594 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.5 41.8 30.1 21.2 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 57.1 12.0 36.1 12.0 59.9 18.0 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 29.4 7.0 47.4 7.0 37.4 13.0 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 12.1 7.7 19.2 7.1 18.0 15.4 22.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.3 HCM 6th LOS D Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 165 Packet Page 331 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2028 Total 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 28 1 42 4 828 47 28 620 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 28 1 42 4 828 47 28 620 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 9 30 1 46 4 900 51 30 674 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1194 1694 338 1332 1669 476 675 0 0 951 0 0 Stage 1 735 735 - 934 934 - - - - - - - Stage 2 459 959 - 398 735 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *477 322 *846 *477 *345 *743 1243 - - 1099 - - Stage 1 *699 634 - *701 *614 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *701 599 - *797 *634 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *436 313 *846 *460 *335 *743 1243 - - 1099 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *436 313 - *460 *335 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *697 617 - *699 *612 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *654 597 - *766 *617 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.4 11.5 0 0.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1243 - - 436 711 460 723 1099 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - -0.002 0.014 0.066 0.065 0.028 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 13.3 10.1 13.4 10.3 8.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - -0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 166 Packet Page 332 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2028 Total 3: 30th Street & Site Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 16 25 870 640 14 Future Vol, veh/h 8 16 25 870 640 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 -- 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 17 27 946 696 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1231 356 711 0 - 0 Stage 1 704 - - - - - Stage 2 527 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -- - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *429 *820 *1227 - - - Stage 1 *774 - - - - - Stage 2 *677 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *409 *820 *1227 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *409 - - - - - Stage 1 *738 - - - - - Stage 2 *677 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.1 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) * 1227 - 614 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - 0.042 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - 11.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 167 Packet Page 333 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2028 Total 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 1 75 16 1 15 81 836 26 16 603 29 Future Vol, veh/h 49 1 75 16 1 15 81 836 26 16 603 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 53 1 82 17 1 16 88 909 28 17 655 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1336 1818 344 1461 1820 469 687 0 0 937 0 0 Stage 1 705 705 - 1099 1099 - - - - - - - Stage 2 631 1113 - 362 721 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *497 208 *846 *497 207 *743 1226 - - *1112 - - Stage 1 *736 658 - *516 489 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *701 479 - *797 645 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *452 191 *846 *418 190 *743 1226 - - *1112 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *452 191 - *418 190 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *683 648 - *479 454 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *635 445 - *708 635 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 12.7 0.7 0.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1226 - - 618 502 * 1112 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 - -0.22 0.069 0.016 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 12.5 12.7 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - -0.8 0.2 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 168 Packet Page 334 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Total 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 527 180 192 493 111 189 575 160 210 551 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 527 180 192 493 111 189 575 160 210 551 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 192 573 0 209 536 0 205 625 174 228 599 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 208 758 443 758 1133 1337 372 270 1043 224 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.47 0.17 0.72 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2746 763 1781 2910 625 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 573 0 209 536 0 205 404 395 228 365 363 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1733 1781 1777 1758 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 18.1 0.0 0.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 18.1 18.3 10.2 11.9 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 18.1 0.0 0.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 18.1 18.3 10.2 11.9 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 758 443 758 1133 865 843 270 637 630 V/C Ratio(X)0.92 0.76 0.47 0.71 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.85 0.57 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 800 547 888 1133 865 843 270 637 630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.1 44.3 0.0 50.5 43.7 0.0 23.8 20.5 20.7 32.7 12.6 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 40.3 3.4 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.9 20.3 3.7 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 8.2 0.0 2.9 7.4 0.0 2.0 7.8 7.7 5.9 3.9 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.4 47.7 0.0 50.8 45.3 0.0 23.8 22.3 22.6 53.0 16.3 16.9 LnGrp LOS F D D D C C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 765 745 1004 956 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.4 46.8 22.7 25.3 Approach LOS E D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 47.0 14.0 29.6 14.0 62.4 14.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.6 * 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 41 9.0 28.4 9.0 52.4 12.0 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 14.2 12.0 18.8 12.2 20.3 2.8 20.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.6 0.2 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 169 Packet Page 335 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Total 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street PM Peak - mitigated Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 527 180 192 493 111 189 575 160 210 551 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 527 180 192 493 111 189 575 160 210 551 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 192 573 0 209 536 0 205 625 174 228 599 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 223 758 472 758 1104 1314 365 268 1043 224 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.21 0.00 0.09 0.21 0.00 0.20 0.48 0.47 0.17 0.72 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2746 763 1781 2910 625 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 573 0 209 536 0 205 404 395 228 365 363 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1733 1781 1777 1758 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 18.1 0.0 0.7 16.8 0.0 0.0 18.4 18.6 10.2 11.9 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 18.1 0.0 0.7 16.8 0.0 0.0 18.4 18.6 10.2 11.9 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223 758 472 758 1104 850 829 268 637 630 V/C Ratio(X)0.86 0.76 0.44 0.71 0.19 0.48 0.48 0.85 0.57 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 223 800 547 859 1104 850 829 268 637 630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 44.3 0.0 49.6 43.7 0.0 24.4 21.1 21.4 32.8 12.6 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.0 3.4 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.0 21.1 3.7 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 8.2 0.0 2.9 7.5 0.0 2.0 7.9 7.8 6.0 3.9 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.1 47.7 0.0 49.8 45.5 0.0 24.5 23.0 23.4 53.9 16.3 16.9 LnGrp LOS E D D D C C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 765 745 1004 956 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.6 46.7 23.5 25.5 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.4 47.0 15.0 29.6 14.0 61.4 15.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.6 * 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 41 10.0 27.4 9.0 52.4 12.0 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 14.2 13.0 18.8 12.2 20.6 2.7 20.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.6 0.2 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 170 Packet Page 336 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Background 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 280 77 136 393 113 91 235 108 123 299 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 280 77 136 393 113 91 235 108 123 299 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 304 84 148 427 123 99 255 117 134 325 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 277 655 178 333 980 437 576 1692 755 595 1441 285 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.49 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2762 750 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2958 584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 194 194 148 427 123 99 255 117 134 194 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1735 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1765 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 10.1 10.4 6.6 10.7 6.6 3.0 6.7 6.9 4.1 6.8 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 10.1 10.4 6.6 10.7 6.6 3.0 6.7 6.9 4.1 6.8 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 277 421 411 333 980 437 576 1692 755 595 866 860 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.22 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 345 592 578 333 1185 528 613 1692 755 611 866 860 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 35.3 35.7 27.7 32.2 30.7 13.6 26.7 26.7 12.9 15.9 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 4.3 4.4 2.8 4.5 0.0 1.2 3.0 2.8 1.6 2.8 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 35.6 36.0 28.1 32.3 30.8 13.7 26.9 27.2 12.9 16.5 16.8 LnGrp LOS CDDCCCBCCBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 429 698 471 524 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 31.2 24.2 15.7 Approach LOS D C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 56.6 7.8 33.8 11.0 55.4 12.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 9.0 3.9 12.7 6.1 8.9 8.6 12.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 6th LOS C Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 171 Packet Page 337 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2044 Background 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 10 1 25 7 296 10 15 382 3 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 10 1 25 7 296 10 15 382 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 11 1 27 8 322 11 16 415 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 627 798 209 584 794 167 418 0 0 333 0 0 Stage 1 449 449 - 344 344 ------- Stage 2 178 349 - 240 450 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *793 565 *933 *793 569 *990 1393 - - 1382 - - Stage 1 *836 742 - *823 745 ------- Stage 2 *934 742 - *880 741 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *759 555 *933 *780 559 *990 1393 - - 1382 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *759 555 - *780 559 ------- Stage 1 *831 733 - *818 741 ------- Stage 2 *902 737 - *867 732 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 9.1 0.2 0.3 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1393 - - 759 696 780 961 1382 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.029 0.012 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 9.8 10.2 9.7 8.9 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - -ABAAA - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 0.1 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 172 Packet Page 338 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2044 Background 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 1 55 4 1 4 51 456 7 3 435 46 Future Vol, veh/h 32 1 55 4 1 4 51 456 7 3 435 46 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------0--0-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 35 1 60 4 1 4 55 496 8 3 473 50 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 863 1118 262 853 1139 252 523 0 0 504 0 0 Stage 1 504 504 - 610 610 ------- Stage 2 359 614 - 243 529 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *685 469 *905 *685 450 *905 1315 - - 1340 - - Stage 1 *841 739 - *709 652 ------- Stage 2 *853 648 - *853 718 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *658 448 *905 *617 431 *905 1315 - - 1340 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *658 448 - *617 431 ------- Stage 1 *805 737 - *680 624 ------- Stage 2 *812 621 - *794 716 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 10.4 0.8 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1315 - - 788 681 1340 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - 0.121 0.014 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 10.2 10.4 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 173 Packet Page 339 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Background 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 314 85 165 452 92 82 394 119 88 403 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 89 314 85 165 452 92 82 394 119 88 403 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 341 0 179 491 0 89 428 129 96 438 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 193 842 550 842 1146 1331 397 491 1624 173 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.49 0.48 0.10 1.00 0.97 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2697 805 1781 3239 346 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 341 0 179 491 0 89 281 276 96 239 246 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1725 1781 1777 1808 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 8.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 1.3 10.3 10.5 2.8 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 8.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 1.3 10.3 10.5 2.8 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 842 550 842 1146 877 852 491 891 907 V/C Ratio(X)0.50 0.40 0.33 0.58 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.27 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 201 921 585 921 1251 877 852 531 891 907 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.5 34.8 0.0 41.7 36.5 0.0 12.2 16.5 16.7 12.0 0.0 0.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 3.7 0.0 2.2 5.7 0.0 0.5 4.3 4.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.2 34.9 0.0 41.8 36.9 0.0 12.2 17.4 17.8 12.1 0.7 0.9 LnGrp LOS D C D D BBBBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 438 670 646 581 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 38.2 16.8 2.7 Approach LOS D D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 58.2 11.5 29.6 9.6 57.3 11.5 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.4 7.0 26.4 7.0 46.4 7.0 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.1 6.9 15.2 4.8 12.5 2.0 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.6 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 174 Packet Page 340 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Background 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 451 149 255 524 257 213 529 194 140 351 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 110 451 149 255 524 257 213 529 194 140 351 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 120 490 162 277 570 279 232 575 211 152 382 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 267 601 197 303 990 442 525 1616 721 388 1174 325 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.43 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2628 864 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2749 761 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 330 322 277 570 279 232 575 211 152 245 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1715 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1733 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 21.1 21.4 14.0 16.5 18.5 8.3 17.4 14.2 5.7 11.0 11.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 21.1 21.4 14.0 16.5 18.5 8.3 17.4 14.2 5.7 11.0 11.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 267 406 392 303 990 442 525 1616 721 388 758 740 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.81 0.82 0.91 0.58 0.63 0.44 0.36 0.29 0.39 0.32 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 267 637 615 303 1451 647 595 1616 721 388 758 740 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 43.9 44.3 32.8 37.2 37.9 17.4 35.2 33.8 18.2 22.9 23.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.2 2.5 30.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.2 1.1 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 9.4 9.3 8.5 7.1 7.2 3.7 8.4 6.2 2.3 4.8 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.4 46.0 46.9 62.7 37.4 38.5 17.6 35.8 34.9 18.5 24.0 24.4 LnGrp LOS C D D E D D B D C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 772 1126 1018 641 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.4 43.9 31.5 22.8 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 55.2 12.0 37.4 12.0 58.6 18.0 31.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 29.4 7.0 47.4 7.0 37.4 13.0 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 13.3 8.2 20.5 7.7 19.4 16.0 23.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.7 HCM 6th LOS D Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 175 Packet Page 341 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2044 Background 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 30 1 45 4 888 51 30 656 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 30 1 45 4 888 51 30 656 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 1 1 9 33 1 49 4 965 55 33 713 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1271 1808 357 1424 1781 510 714 0 0 1020 0 0 Stage 1 780 780 - 1001 1001 ------- Stage 2 491 1028 - 423 780 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *429 307 *820 *429 *333 *718 *1227 - - 1064 - - Stage 1 *707 634 - *677 *593 ------- Stage 2 *677 580 - *773 *634 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *388 296 *820 *412 *321 *718 *1227 - - 1064 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *388 296 - *412 *321 ------- Stage 1 *705 614 - *674 *591 ------- Stage 2 *627 578 - *740 *614 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.7 12.1 0 0.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) * 1227 - - 388 685 412 699 1064 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.003 0.014 0.079 0.072 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 14.3 10.3 14.5 10.5 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - -BBBBA - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 176 Packet Page 342 of 568 HCM 6th TWSC 2044 Background 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 46 1 82 18 1 17 87 885 28 18 640 38 Future Vol, veh/h 46 1 82 18 1 17 87 885 28 18 640 38 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------0--0-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 50 1 89 20 1 18 95 962 30 20 696 41 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1429 1939 369 1556 1944 496 737 0 0 992 0 0 Stage 1 757 757 - 1167 1167 ------- Stage 2 672 1182 - 389 777 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *473 165 *820 *473 163 *718 1216 - - *1073 - - Stage 1 *736 654 - *496 470 ------- Stage 2 *677 460 - *773 636 ------- Platoon blocked, % 1 111111--1-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *425 150 *820 *389 147 *718 1216 - - *1073 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *425 150 - *389 147 ------- Stage 1 *679 641 - *457 434 ------- Stage 2 *606 424 - *675 624 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 13.4 0.7 0.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1216 - - 600 469 * 1073 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 - - 0.234 0.083 0.018 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 12.8 13.4 8.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.9 0.3 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 177 Packet Page 343 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Background 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 178 571 194 208 534 118 204 619 173 227 593 120 Future Volume (veh/h) 178 571 194 208 534 118 204 619 173 227 593 120 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 193 621 0 226 580 0 222 673 188 247 645 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 208 758 417 758 1120 1335 373 252 1056 213 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.47 0.17 0.72 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2743 766 1781 2947 593 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 193 621 0 226 580 0 222 436 425 247 388 387 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1733 1781 1777 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 20.0 0.0 2.3 18.4 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.2 10.0 13.2 13.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 20.0 0.0 2.3 18.4 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.2 10.0 13.2 13.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 758 417 758 1120 865 843 252 637 632 V/C Ratio(X)0.93 0.82 0.54 0.77 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.98 0.61 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 800 520 888 1120 865 843 252 637 632 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.2 45.0 0.0 51.2 44.4 0.0 24.3 20.9 21.2 35.8 12.8 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 41.5 5.9 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.2 50.4 4.3 4.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 9.3 0.0 3.2 8.3 0.0 2.2 8.6 8.5 8.4 4.2 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87.7 50.9 0.0 51.6 47.1 0.0 24.3 23.0 23.4 86.1 17.1 17.6 LnGrp LOS F D D D C C C F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 814 806 1083 1022 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.6 48.4 23.4 34.0 Approach LOS E D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 47.0 14.0 29.6 14.0 62.4 14.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.6 * 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 41 9.0 28.4 9.0 52.4 12.0 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 15.6 12.0 20.4 12.0 22.2 4.3 22.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.1 0.2 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 178 Packet Page 344 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Total 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 280 80 136 393 113 100 237 109 123 300 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 280 80 136 393 113 100 237 109 123 300 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 304 87 148 427 123 109 258 118 134 326 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 277 649 183 331 980 437 578 1692 755 592 1432 282 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.48 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2738 770 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2959 583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 195 196 148 427 123 109 258 118 134 194 197 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1765 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 10.2 10.5 6.6 10.7 6.6 3.3 6.8 6.9 4.1 6.8 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 10.2 10.5 6.6 10.7 6.6 3.3 6.8 6.9 4.1 6.8 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 277 421 410 331 980 437 578 1692 755 592 860 854 V/C Ratio(X)0.15 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.28 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 345 592 577 331 1185 528 609 1692 755 609 860 854 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 35.3 35.8 27.8 32.2 30.7 13.6 26.7 26.8 12.9 16.1 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 4.4 4.4 2.8 4.5 0.0 1.3 3.0 2.8 1.6 2.8 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 35.6 36.1 28.1 32.3 30.8 13.6 26.9 27.2 12.9 16.8 17.0 LnGrp LOS C D D C C C B C C B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 432 698 485 525 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.3 31.2 24.0 15.9 Approach LOS D C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 56.3 7.8 33.8 11.0 55.4 12.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 7.0 38.4 7.0 34.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 9.1 3.9 12.7 6.1 8.9 8.6 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 6th LOS C Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 179 Packet Page 345 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2044 Total 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 10 1 25 7 308 10 15 386 3 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 10 1 25 7 308 10 15 386 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 11 1 27 8 335 11 16 420 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 638 816 212 600 812 173 423 0 0 346 0 0 Stage 1 454 454 - 357 357 - - - - - - - Stage 2 184 362 - 243 455 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *766 601 *933 *766 605 *962 1386 - - 1426 - - Stage 1 *829 738 - *879 776 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *907 773 - *880 737 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *734 591 *933 *754 595 *962 1386 - - 1426 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *734 591 - *754 595 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *824 730 - *874 772 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *875 768 - *868 729 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 9.2 0.2 0.3 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1386 - - 734 724 754 940 1426 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - -0.001 0.003 0.014 0.03 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 9.9 10 9.8 8.9 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A B A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - -0 0 0 0.1 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 180 Packet Page 346 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2044 Total 3: 30th Street & Site Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 23 8 355 435 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 23 8 355 435 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 -- 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 25 9 386 473 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 686 239 477 0 - 0 Stage 1 475 - - - - - Stage 2 211 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -- - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *739 *905 *1354 - - - Stage 1 *854 - - - - - Stage 2 *908 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *733 *905 *1354 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *733 - - - - - Stage 1 *847 - - - - - Stage 2 *908 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) * 1354 - 838 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.045 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 9.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 181 Packet Page 347 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2044 Total 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 1 55 4 1 4 51 462 7 3 453 51 Future Vol, veh/h 34 1 55 4 1 4 51 462 7 3 453 51 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 37 1 60 4 1 4 55 502 8 3 492 55 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 888 1146 274 869 1169 255 547 0 0 510 0 0 Stage 1 526 526 - 616 616 - - - - - - - Stage 2 362 620 - 253 553 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *685 444 *905 *685 425 *905 1283 - - 1333 - - Stage 1 *811 720 - *703 648 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *853 644 - *853 698 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *657 424 *905 *617 406 *905 1283 - - 1333 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *657 424 - *617 406 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *776 719 - *672 620 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *811 617 - *794 696 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 10.4 0.8 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1283 - - 783 673 1333 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - -0.125 0.015 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 10.3 10.4 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - -0.4 0 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 182 Packet Page 348 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Total 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street AM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 314 85 165 452 93 82 395 119 90 407 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 314 85 165 452 93 82 395 119 90 407 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 101 341 0 179 491 0 89 429 129 98 442 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 195 842 554 842 1128 1323 394 489 1570 212 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.49 0.48 0.10 1.00 0.97 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2699 804 1781 3146 425 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 341 0 179 491 0 89 281 277 98 249 253 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1726 1781 1777 1794 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 1.3 10.3 10.6 2.9 0.0 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 1.3 10.3 10.6 2.9 0.0 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 195 842 554 842 1128 871 846 489 887 895 V/C Ratio(X)0.52 0.40 0.32 0.58 0.08 0.32 0.33 0.20 0.28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 199 921 580 921 1233 871 846 528 887 895 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.5 34.8 0.0 41.7 36.5 0.0 12.3 16.7 17.0 12.1 0.0 0.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 3.7 0.0 2.2 5.7 0.0 0.5 4.3 4.3 1.1 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 34.9 0.0 41.8 36.9 0.0 12.3 17.6 18.0 12.2 0.8 1.0 LnGrp LOS D C D D B B B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 442 670 647 600 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 38.2 17.1 2.8 Approach LOS D D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 57.9 11.8 29.6 9.7 57.0 11.8 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.4 7.0 26.4 7.0 46.4 7.0 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.2 7.1 15.2 4.9 12.6 2.0 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.6 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 183 Packet Page 349 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Total 1: 30th Street & Valmort Road PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 451 159 257 524 257 219 530 195 140 353 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 110 451 159 257 524 257 219 530 195 140 353 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 120 490 173 279 570 279 238 576 212 152 384 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 270 599 210 303 1003 447 522 1603 715 385 1159 319 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.42 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2579 905 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2753 758 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 337 326 279 570 279 238 576 212 152 246 245 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1707 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1734 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 21.5 21.8 14.0 16.5 18.4 8.5 17.5 14.3 5.8 11.2 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 21.5 21.8 14.0 16.5 18.4 8.5 17.5 14.3 5.8 11.2 11.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 413 397 303 1003 447 522 1603 715 385 748 730 V/C Ratio(X)0.44 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.57 0.62 0.46 0.36 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 637 612 303 1451 647 587 1603 715 385 748 730 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 43.6 44.1 32.6 36.8 37.5 17.7 35.5 34.1 18.6 23.3 23.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.5 2.9 31.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.2 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 9.6 9.5 8.7 7.1 7.1 3.8 8.5 6.3 2.4 4.9 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 46.1 47.0 64.1 37.0 38.0 17.9 36.1 35.2 18.8 24.5 24.9 LnGrp LOS C D D E D D B D D B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 783 1128 1026 643 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.5 44.0 31.7 23.3 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.6 54.5 12.0 37.9 12.0 58.1 18.0 31.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 29.4 7.0 47.4 7.0 37.4 13.0 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 13.5 8.1 20.4 7.8 19.5 16.0 23.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.9 HCM 6th LOS D Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 184 Packet Page 350 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2044 Total 2: 30th Street & Boulder Fire Rescue Driveway/Bluff St PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 30 1 45 4 896 51 30 670 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 8 30 1 45 4 896 51 30 670 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 125 - - 125 - - 80 - - 80 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 9 33 1 49 4 974 55 33 728 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1291 1832 365 1441 1805 515 729 0 0 1029 0 0 Stage 1 795 795 - 1010 1010 - - - - - - - Stage 2 496 1037 - 431 795 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *429 285 *820 *429 *309 *718 1227 - - 1052 - - Stage 1 *688 622 - *677 *593 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *677 572 - *773 *622 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *388 275 *820 *412 *299 *718 1227 - - 1052 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *388 275 - *412 *299 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *686 602 - *674 *591 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *627 570 - *740 *602 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 12.1 0 0.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1227 - - 388 672 412 697 1052 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - -0.003 0.015 0.079 0.072 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 14.3 10.4 14.5 10.6 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - -0 0 0.3 0.2 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 185 Packet Page 351 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2044 Total 3: 30th Street & Site Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 16 25 940 695 14 Future Vol, veh/h 8 16 25 940 695 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 -- 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 17 27 1022 755 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1328 385 770 0 - 0 Stage 1 763 - - - - - Stage 2 565 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -- - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *380 *795 *1188 - - - Stage 1 *750 - - - - - Stage 2 *653 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *360 *795 *1188 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *360 - - - - - Stage 1 *710 - - - - - Stage 2 *653 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) * 1188 - 567 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - 0.046 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - 11.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 186 Packet Page 352 of 568 HCM 6th TW SC 2044 Total 4: 30th Street & Mapleton Avenue/Irish Dance Driveway PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 1 82 18 1 17 87 904 28 18 652 42 Future Vol, veh/h 52 1 82 18 1 17 87 904 28 18 652 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 57 1 89 20 1 18 95 983 30 20 709 46 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1454 1975 378 1583 1983 507 755 0 0 1013 0 0 Stage 1 772 772 - 1188 1188 - - - - - - - Stage 2 682 1203 - 395 795 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *473 149 *820 *473 146 *718 1192 - - 1073 - - Stage 1 *717 641 - *475 456 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *677 445 - *773 622 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *424 135 *820 *388 132 *718 1192 - - 1073 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *424 135 - *388 132 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *660 629 - *437 419 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *605 410 - *675 610 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 13.5 0.7 0.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1192 - - 587 464 1073 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 - -0.25 0.084 0.018 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - 13.2 13.5 8.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - -1 0.3 0.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 187 Packet Page 353 of 568 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2044 Total 5: 30th Street & Pearl Street PM Peak Synchro 11 Report CSM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 191 571 194 208 534 120 204 623 173 228 596 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 191 571 194 208 534 120 204 623 173 228 596 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 208 621 0 226 580 0 222 677 188 248 648 139 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 208 758 417 758 1117 1337 371 252 1043 223 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.47 0.17 0.72 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2747 763 1781 2911 624 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 208 621 0 226 580 0 222 438 427 248 395 392 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1733 1781 1777 1758 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 20.0 0.0 2.3 18.4 0.0 0.0 20.1 20.3 10.0 13.6 14.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 20.0 0.0 2.3 18.4 0.0 0.0 20.1 20.3 10.0 13.6 14.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.35 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 758 417 758 1117 865 843 252 637 630 V/C Ratio(X)1.00 0.82 0.54 0.77 0.20 0.51 0.51 0.99 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 800 520 888 1117 865 843 252 637 630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.2 45.0 0.0 51.2 44.4 0.0 24.4 21.0 21.3 35.9 12.8 13.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 61.7 5.9 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.2 52.5 4.5 4.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 9.3 0.0 3.2 8.3 0.0 2.2 8.6 8.5 8.6 4.3 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 108.8 50.9 0.0 51.6 47.1 0.0 24.4 23.1 23.4 88.4 17.3 17.9 LnGrp LOS F D D D C C C F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 829 806 1087 1035 Approach Delay, s/veh 65.4 48.4 23.5 34.6 Approach LOS E D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 47.0 14.0 29.6 14.0 62.4 14.0 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.6 * 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 * 5.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 41 9.0 28.4 9.0 52.4 12.0 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 16.0 12.0 20.4 12.0 22.3 4.3 22.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.1 0.2 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM Plan Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 188 Packet Page 354 of 568 PrmaryCollsionTypeCaseNumberUnitsInvolved CrossStreet StreetTypeDirectionFromIntersectionFeetFromIntersection CollisionDate HitAndRunStatus LightingCondition RoadCondition WeatherCondition SeverityNumKilledNumSeriouslyInjuredNumInjuredOrKilled DUIAlcoholDrugSuspectedBicyclesInvolvedPedestriansInvolved RoadDescriptionCrash_TimeCOLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE 1900320 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-01-10T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1404COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1900494 3 30TH STREET/PEARLCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-01-15T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2008COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1900776 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-01-23T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1834COLLISION W/ MV - REAR TO REAR1900841 2 30TH STREET/PRIVATE2019-01-24T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1210COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1900848 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDS 2019-01-25T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK ICYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1644COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1900837 2 MAPLETON AVENUE/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-01-25T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1315COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1901428 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-02-09T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1715COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1901432 2 /30THCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-02-09T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1825COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1901610 2 /30THCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-02-14T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1212COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1902171 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-02-28T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1110COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1902203 2 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-03-01T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION658COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1902448 3 /MAPLETONCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-03-10T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1626COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1902655 2 /VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-03-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT SNOWY/SLUSHY SNOW/SLEET/HAPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 YES YES NO NO AT INTERSECTION1128COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1903160 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 2019-03-25T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1224COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1903195 3 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDS 2019-03-26T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1259COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1903651 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-04-06T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1742COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1903721 2 /MAPLETONCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-04-08T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1042COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1903923 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-04-12T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED2201COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1904169 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-04-18T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1833COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 1904243 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-04-20T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1326COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 1904979 3 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-05-08T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED WETRAINPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2051COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1905020 2 30TH ST/PEARLCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-05-09T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2031COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 1905032 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-05-10T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1201COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1905511 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDS 2019-05-21T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1711COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1905520 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-05-21T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1830COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE1905765 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 2019-05-28T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO NON-INTERSECTION856COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1906199 2 /PEARL STREETCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-06-07T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1211COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1906886 2 30TH ST/PEARL PKWYCITY ST/CNTY RDN 2019-06-24T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1344COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1907080 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-06-28T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1512COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1908109 2 30TH ST/GLENWOOD DR.CITY ST/CNTY RDS 2019-07-22T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1820COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1908494 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 2019-07-30T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1527COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1908526 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-07-31T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED950COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1909147 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 2019-08-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED2030COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE1909511 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-08-21T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO AT INTERSECTION1615COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1909883 3 30TH ST/VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RDW 2019-08-26T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1335COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1909964 3 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDW 2019-08-28T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED903COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1910094 2 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-08-30T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION714COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1910353 2 /VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-09-03T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1727COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1910842 2 /30THCITY ST/CNTY RDN 2019-09-12T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1715COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1911130 2 30TH ST/MAPLETON AVECITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-09-18T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1809COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1911734 2 /30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-10-01T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETRAINPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1128COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1912288 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-10-14T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1726COLLISION W/ OBJECT1912325 1 30TH ST/VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-10-15T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1338COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1912523 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-10-20T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1335COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - PARKED MV 1913949 2 30TH ST/PRIVATE PARKING LOT2019-10-23T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT900COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-OPPOSITE D 1912691 2 /VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2019-10-24T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1800NON-COLLISION - OTHER NON-COLLISION 1912797 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-10-27T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT SNOWY/SLUSHY SNOW/SLEET/HAPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION810COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 1913321 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-11-09T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1740COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1913474 2 PEARL ST/30TH STE 2019-11-13T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1727COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1913618 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-11-16T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 2 YES YES NO NO AT INTERSECTION2126COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE1914116 2 30TH ST/VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RDN 2019-12-02T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION900COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 1914723 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-12-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1416COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE1914701 2 VALMONT RD2019-12-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO YES NO PARKING LOT630COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE1914762 2 30TH ST/VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-12-18T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO YES NO AT INTERSECTION1201COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1914937 2 3OTH ST/VALMONT RDS 2019-12-23T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1412COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR1915118 2 /30THCITY ST/CNTY RD 2019-12-30T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1448COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2000733 2 PEARL PARKWAY/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-01-22T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION639COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2001002 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDS 2020-01-29T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1723COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2000984 2 30TH ST/PEARL PARKWAYCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-01-29T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYRAINPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION915COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2001616 2 PEARL PARKWAY/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-02-12T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETSNOW/SLEET/HAPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1614COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2001647 3 /VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RDS 2020-02-13T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1327COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2001694 2 30TH ST./VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDS 2020-02-14T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1417COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-OPPOSITE D 2001848 2 30TH ST/PRIVATE PARKING LOT2020-02-18T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - UNLIGHTEDRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1803COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2002043 2 PEARL PKWY/30TH ST.CITY ST/CNTY RDE 2020-02-24T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1032COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2002414 2 30TH ST/STEELYARD PLCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-03-04T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1353COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2002479 2 30TH ST/VALMONT AVECITY ST/CNTY RDS 2020-03-05T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1624NON-COLLISION - OVERTURNING2002625 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2020-03-09T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO YES NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1054COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2002660 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-03-10T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION900COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2002968 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-03-17T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1636COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2004388 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-05-11T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION739COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2007165 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2020-08-01T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYRAININCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO YES NO INTERSECTION RELATED1606COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2007979 2 30TH ST/MAPLETON AVECITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-08-23T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1615COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2007980 2 /30THCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-08-25T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1632COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2008065 2 30TH ST/VALMONT ROADCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-08-26T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1211CRASH HISTORY - JANUARY 2019 -NOVEMBER 2023Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 189Packet Page 355 of 568 PrmaryCollsionTypeCaseNumberUnitsInvolved CrossStreet StreetTypeDirectionFromIntersectionFeetFromIntersection CollisionDate HitAndRunStatus LightingCondition RoadCondition WeatherCondition SeverityNumKilledNumSeriouslyInjuredNumInjuredOrKilled DUIAlcoholDrugSuspectedBicyclesInvolvedPedestriansInvolved RoadDescriptionCrash_TimeCOLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE 2008898 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-09-17T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1109COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2009475 2 30TH ST/PRIVATE2020-10-03T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1154COLLISION W/ OBJECT2009568 1 PEARL ST/30TH STREETCITY ST/CNTY RDS 2020-10-06T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1047COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2010270 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2020-10-26T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED SNOWY/SLUSHY NONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2145COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2011188 2 30TH ST/MAPLETON AVECITY ST/CNTY RDS 2020-11-25T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1331COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2011772 2 BLUFF ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2020-12-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED840COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2011917 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2020-12-22T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1741COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2100956 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-01-27T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1430COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2101133 2 30TH STREET/VALMONT RD CITY ST/CNTY RDS 2021-02-06T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1518COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2101523 2 PEARL ST/30TH ST.CITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-02-21T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION804COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2101642 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-02-24T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO YES NO AT INTERSECTION200COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2101791 2 PEARL PKWY/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2021-03-02T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1749COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2102561 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 2021-03-31T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1919COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2102766 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-04-05T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1808COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2104169 2 PEARL ST/30TH STW 150 2021-05-20T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1301COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2104993 2 PEARL PKWY/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-06-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1014COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2105187 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-06-18T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1736COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2105570 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-06-30T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1047COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2106383 2 30TH STREET/VALMONT ROAD CITY ST/CNTY RDS 50 2021-07-22T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1255COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2106398 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDN 150 2021-07-22T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1809NON-COLLISION - OVERTURNING2106525 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-07-25T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO YES NO NO AT INTERSECTION2056NON-COLLISION - OTHER NON-COLLISION 2107428 1 30TH ST/VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RDS 50 2021-08-19T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETRAINNOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1905COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - PARKED MV 2107400 2 30TH STREET2021-08-19T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHTNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT820COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2108084 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-08-31T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1400COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2109089 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-09-23T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 YES YES NO NO AT INTERSECTION2317COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2110089 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 510 2021-10-21T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY POSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1153COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2110224 2 30TH ST/VALMONTCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-10-25T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1333COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2110355 2 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 35 2021-10-29T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION700COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2110482 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 485 2021-11-01T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY POSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1417COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2110631 2 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-11-05T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1745COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2110733 3 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 125 2021-11-08T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1240COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2110768 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-11-09T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1504COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2110954 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDS 150 2021-11-15T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1056COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2111464 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDS 25 2021-12-01T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1156COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2111866 2 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-12-12T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2330COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2112018 2 /PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-12-16T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYWINDPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 YES YES NO NO AT INTERSECTION2230COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2112006 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 535 2021-12-16T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1553COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2112018 2 /PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-12-16T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYWINDPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2230COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2112018 2 TWIN LAKES RD/BRANDON CREEK DCITY ST/CNTY RDS 227 2021-12-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYWINDPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION10COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2112018 2 TWIN LAKES RD/BRANDON CREEK DCITY ST/CNTY RDS 227 2021-12-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYWINDPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 YES YES NO NO NON-INTERSECTION10COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2112141 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-12-20T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1837COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2112231 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2021-12-23T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1945COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2200326 2 28TH ST/VALMONT RDSTATE HWY2022-01-12T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1943COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2200689 2 30TH STREET/PEARL PARKWAY CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-01-23T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1735COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2201005 2 PEARL PKWY/49TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-02-01T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED SNOWY/SLUSHY SNOWPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1748COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2201906 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 150 2022-02-28T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1308GROUND2202728 1 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STE 283 2022-03-25T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIONNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO NO NO1106COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2203140 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 100 2022-04-05T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1511COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2203110 2 30TH STREET/VALMONT ROAD CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-04-05T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION700COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2203713 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-04-22T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1251COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2204713 2 VALMONT ROAD/WILDERNESS PLACCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-05-19T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION920COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2204879 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 494 2022-05-24T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED913COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2206081 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDN 260 2022-06-06T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO CROSSOVER-RELATED1932COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2205934 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 542 2022-06-23T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1456DITCH2206272 1 VALMONT RDOTHER RDWY2022-07-03T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - UNLIGHTEDRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 YES YES NO NO AT INTERSECTION212COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2206279 3 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-07-03T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1129COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2206366 2 PEARL PKWY/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 30 2022-07-06T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION731COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2206909 2 30TH STREET/VALMONT RD CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-07-20T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETRAINPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1731COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2207093 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDS 222 2022-07-26T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1440COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2207691 2 PEARL ST/30THCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-08-11T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1535COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2208326 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 155 2022-08-25T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1205COLLISION W/ OBJECT2208855 1 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDS 200 2022-09-05T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION804COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2209164 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-09-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1006COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2209400 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 12 2022-09-19T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO INTERSECTION RELATED842COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2210156 2 /PEARLCITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-10-10T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION550COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2210168 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDS 25 2022-10-10T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1146COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2210272 2 FOOTHILLS PARKWAY/ARAPAHOE AVSTATE HWY S 50 2022-10-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED810COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2210290 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-10-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1410COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2210490 2 PEARL ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 110 2022-10-18T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2325COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2210800 3 28TH ST/VALMONT RDSTATE HWY S 25 2022-10-27T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1821COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO FRONT 2210976 2 30TH STREET/MAPLETON AVE CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-11-01T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1517COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2210986 3 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDN 100 2022-11-02T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1124COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2211479 2 VALMONT RD/30 TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 526 2022-11-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED SNOWY/SLUSHY CLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1650COLLISION W/ PED2211891 2 30TH STREET/PEARL PKWY CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-12-01T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYWINDPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO YES INTERSECTION RELATED2134CRASH HISTORY - JANUARY 2019 -NOVEMBER 2023Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 190Packet Page 356 of 568 PrmaryCollsionTypeCaseNumberUnitsInvolved CrossStreet StreetTypeDirectionFromIntersectionFeetFromIntersection CollisionDate HitAndRunStatus LightingCondition RoadCondition WeatherCondition SeverityNumKilledNumSeriouslyInjuredNumInjuredOrKilled DUIAlcoholDrugSuspectedBicyclesInvolvedPedestriansInvolved RoadDescriptionCrash_TimeCOLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE 2212509 2 30TH ST/PEARL ST CITY ST/CNTY RD 2022-12-20T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1625COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2300560 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 120 2023-01-17T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1526COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2300729 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-01-22T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAWN/DUSK DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1734COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2301269 2 /30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-02-07T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1929COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2301678 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-02-19T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1215COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2302106 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDE 100 2023-03-05T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO YES NO NON-INTERSECTION1117COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2302169 3 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDN 77 2023-03-07T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1225COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2302325 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-03-12T07:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1420COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2302423 2 30TH ST/VALMONT RDCITY ST/CNTY RDS 60 2023-03-15T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1630COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2302486 3 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDW 60 2023-03-17T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1147COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2302684 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-03-23T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1250COLLISION W/ OBJECT2302803 2 SPRUCE ST/PRIVATE PARKING LOT2023-03-27T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHTNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1206COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2302901 2 30TH STREET/MAPLETON AVENUE CITY ST/CNTY RDN 175 2023-03-30T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYCLOUDY INCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO YES NO NON-INTERSECTION907COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2304396 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-05-10T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETRAINPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1558COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2304581 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 210 2023-05-15T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1658COLLISION W/ OBJECT2305196 1 VALMONT ROAD, BOULDER, CO 803012023-06-02T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHTRAINPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1051COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2305421 2 30TH STREET/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 225 2023-06-09T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED933COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2305535 2 BLUFF ST/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-06-12T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT WETCLOUDY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1730COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2305839 3 30TH STREET/PEARL PKWY CITY ST/CNTY RDN 100 2023-06-21T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1349COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2306235 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-07-02T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION943COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - PARKED MV 2307426 2 MAPLETON AVENUE2023-08-03T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHTNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT900COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2307479 2 PEARL STREET/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RDE 80 2023-08-04T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1741COLLISION W/ PED2308014 2 VALMONT RD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-08-18T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO NO YES AT INTERSECTION1207COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2308176 2 /PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-08-22T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO AT INTERSECTION1300COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - PARKED MV 2308539 2 30TH STREET2023-08-30T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHTNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO PARKING LOT1433COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2309008 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STREET CITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-09-08T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION1945COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2308995 2 30TH ST/PEARL PKWYCITY ST/CNTY RDS 75 2023-09-08T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO INTERSECTION RELATED1605COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2309191 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 240 2023-09-13T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPOSSIBLY INJURY0 0 0 NO NO NO NO CROSSOVER-RELATED1033COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2309984 2 MAPLETON AVE/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 10 2023-10-03T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO YES NO INTERSECTION RELATED1629COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO REAR2310102 2 30TH ST/MAPLETON AVECITY ST/CNTY RDS 400 2023-10-06T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK1354COLLISION W/ MV - FRONT TO SIDE2310469 2 30TH STREET/VALMONT ROAD CITY ST/CNTY RD 2023-10-16T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DARK - LIGHTED DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO AT INTERSECTION2039COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2310625 2 VALMONT ROAD/30TH STCITY ST/CNTY RDW 160 2023-10-20T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEINCAPACITATING INJURY0 1 1 NO NO YES NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS RELATED 1405COLLISION W/ OTHER VEH - BICYCLE2310784 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 289 2023-10-24T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONENOPN-INCAPACITATING INJUR0 0 1 NO NO YES NO NON-INTERSECTION1805COLLISION W/ MV - SIDE TO SIDE-SAME DIREC 2311091 2 30TH ST/PEARL STCITY ST/CNTY RDN 100 2023-11-01T06:00:00 MOTORWAY COLLISIO DAYLIGHT DRYNONEPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NON-INTERSECTION1628CRASH HISTORY - JANUARY 2019 -NOVEMBER 2023Attachment E - Applicant’s TDM PlanItem 4A - 2555 30th St. Site ReviewPage 191Packet Page 357 of 568 Re: Project 2555 30th St, Review LUR@)@$-00047 Proton Mail <njrosen@protonmail.com> Fri 8/30/2024 10:54 AM To: Blaine, Alison <blainea@bouldercolorado.gov> External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear Allison, I have a negative comment to make about this project. I have an offie in Steelyards at 2500 30th St. so directly across the street. Traffic on this route has multiplied greatly in the past ten years and will do so even without this project going forward as a large number of residents continue to move into the already extant enormous residential buildings along 30th on the west side and the new one on the west side. These, with the addition of the new traffic light by the (beautiful) firehouse, will further bog things down for people who work and live here, not to mention that it is a major artery. Sincerely, Neil Rosen, Psy.D., PC Psychoanalysis 303-494-1116 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) . Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 9/3/24, 8:51 AM Mail - Blaine, Alison - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/options/accounts-category/automaticReply?nativeVersion=1.2024.814.200 1/1 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 192 Packet Page 358 of 568 Strong Support for 2555 30th St Nithin Ravi <ncr0517@gmail.com> Fri 8/30/2024 3:09 PM To: Blaine, Alison <blainea@bouldercolorado.gov> External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi Allison! I am a resident at 2903 32nd St, Boulder, CO 80301 writing strongly in support of the proposed development at 2555 30th St. Yay for more housing in Boulder! Best, Nithin 9/3/24, 8:54 AM Mail - Blaine, Alison - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/options/accounts-category/automaticReply?nativeVersion=1.2024.814.200 1/1 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 193 Packet Page 359 of 568 Comment on Project 2555 30th St. Steve Schwalb <steveschwalbis@aol.com> Mon 9/2/2024 3:28 PM To: Blaine, Alison <blainea@bouldercolorado.gov> External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hello Alison: I received the notice of the proposed site review for the subject project, and offer the following comment for your consideration. We own a residential property in the Steel Yards, across 30th St. from the subject area. Included in the Steel Yards neighborhood is a small park, which is designated for use by Steel Yards residents only. However, numerous people from the new developments on the north and east side of Steel Yards regularly bring their dogs to this park, both to exercise them and provide a place for the dogs to relieve themselves. Some pick up after their dogs but many do not. Boulder is obviously a dog-friendly community and we fully endorse that. However, there are no accommodations being incorporated into the numerous new developments to support dogs. With 140 units, it is reasonable to assume that this new project will have 30-50 dogs. Without other options nearby, the dog owners will be tempted to follow the lead of the aforementioned residents from other developments and utilize the Steel Yard park. I submit that the city should require developers to incorporate on-site places for dogs to relieve themselves. We have seen such facilities in apartments we have rented in other cities and it was well received by the residents. Thanks for your consideration of my input. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Steve Schwalb 206-851-4002 9/3/24, 8:54 AM Mail - Blaine, Alison - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/options/accounts-category/automaticReply?nativeVersion=1.2024.814.200 1/1 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 194 Packet Page 360 of 568 LUR2024 - 00047 Dominique Scott <dominique.scottefurd@gmail.com> Tue 9/3/2024 9:00 AM To: Blaine, Alison <blainea@bouldercolorado.gov> External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi Alison, My name is Dominique Scott. My husband and I bought a townhouse at 3121 Bluff Street in 2019. One of the reasons the property was priced as high as it was was because of the flatiron's view. We were told that no one would ever obstruct our views with Boulder's building height laws. Over the weekend I received a letter in the mail with review number LUR2024-00047. The new build of 140 Units is requesting a height modification. I was really sad to read this as I'm pretty positive that this would take away the views we paid top dollar for and were promised would never be obstructed. The new building would also take away from the Steelyard's views. The Steelyards is a very special neighborhood that has been here for a while and any of the top floor apartments or apartments with decks would lose their mountain views to this new apartment building too. Reading the letter I assume that the apartment building has already been approved, but I will just add that 30th street is already very busy and I can only imagine that adding another apartment building is going to make the area a zoo! Thanks for taking the time to read my email and consider our feelings regarding this building. Kind regards, Dominique Scott 9/5/24, 2:45 PM Mail - Blaine, Alison - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGNjZGEzNDU3LTA1MzctNDdlNS04YWEyLWJhYTgzODUxOGJiZgAuAAAAAAD4%2BPOv3vClSo1R4EF%2F5…1/1 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 195 Packet Page 361 of 568 Review No. LUR2024-00047, 2555 30th ST Virginia Winter <gwinter@equinoxconsultancy.com> Wed 9/11/2024 7:18 AM To: Blaine, Alison <blainea@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: g Winter <gwinter@equinoxconsultancy.com> External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi Alison, I am in receipt of the August 20th Boulder Planning and Development Services site review notice of the above mentioned project: 2555 30TH ST. As a property owner at 2930 Bluff Street (Apt. 312) I/my complex community would be due WEST of this proposed project and have a couple comments/concerns. First it doesn’t seem to me that the project fits the zoning for Business Trainsitional and Business Main Street. There have been in the past 4 - 5 years many apartment complexes completed or being constructed within a 4-6 block radius of this site -many still UNOCCUPIED. There are also several commercial spaces that have been up for lease and unoccupied for years including those on east Valmont at Wilderness Place. I am concerned that to approve yet another 140 unit ‘complex’ which will be sited on the lot as shown in the design, when the adjacent like type properties are not yet fully utilized/occupied, is unwise for good urban planning. Commercial e.g. EV charging stations, small businesses, retail, cafes, small grocery shops would seem to better serve the 30th and Valmont ‘intersection, rather than greater human densification. The Bluebird Permanent Supportive Housing project has just been finished to the south of this ’site’ and the new City Fire Station one block to the north. This reinforces my concern that a 140 unit residential apartment complex with accompanying parking, traffic would not be well situated. Near to this site the multi-use path and creek riparian zone have been devastated in the last five to eight years by unhoused people occupying City lands and deteriorating public spaces. I’m concerned about the impact on existing social trails that such a development at 2555 30TH ST. would have. The traffic and bike intersections in this area are already heavily congested. I don’t see this property fitting our pressing need for housing units for mid to lower income residents. I’m concerned about the ‘four story’ height modification. I look south out my patio doors to the Google headquarters along Pearl Street. That Google office building is less obtrusive on the urban landscape because they stayed withing the City’s 3 story limit (or maybe I’m wrong there is no longer a three story City restriction). If 2555 30TH ST is approved as designed, balconies or windows would face our Goose Creek Condominium, potentially increase the ambiant noise levels and further drive away the pond life and birds that occupy the City lands along the Creek, adjacent to my/our residences. In addition, and this concerns me a LOT there’s the potential for high levels of nighttime light pollution an issue for bird migration (note the City’s dark skies programs) and this will generally degrade the quality of life since I bought my condo in 2009. Lastly, we at Goose Creek Condominiums are across the Bluff and 29th street intersection where the new Rally Flats ‘affordable housing’ complex of 150 or more units (now being completed). My feeling 9/13/24, 10:04 AM Mail - Blaine, Alison - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGNiYjM2NDQxLWVlM2QtNDJhNS1iYzI4LTI3ZDFiNWU3MThjZgBGAAAAAABHrHbGR4eqQLNhpX3WZ…1/2 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 196 Packet Page 362 of 568 is that in this zone of the City we need places for people to find QUIET spaces, work/jobs and obtain services. Thank you for your time to receive my comments. Sincerely, Virginia Virginia (G) Winter (she/her) Managing Principal Equinox Consultancy LLC 2930 Bluff Street #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 T: 303.355.4924 C: 303.518.4587 Connect on Linkedin 9/13/24, 10:04 AM Mail - Blaine, Alison - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGNiYjM2NDQxLWVlM2QtNDJhNS1iYzI4LTI3ZDFiNWU3MThjZgBGAAAAAABHrHbGR4eqQLNhpX3WZ…2/2 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 197 Packet Page 363 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 198 Packet Page 364 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 199 Packet Page 365 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 200 Packet Page 366 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 201 Packet Page 367 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 202 Packet Page 368 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 203 Packet Page 369 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 204 Packet Page 370 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 205 Packet Page 371 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 206 Packet Page 372 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 207 Packet Page 373 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 208 Packet Page 374 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 209 Packet Page 375 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 210 Packet Page 376 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 211 Packet Page 377 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 212 Packet Page 378 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 213 Packet Page 379 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 214 Packet Page 380 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 215 Packet Page 381 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 216 Packet Page 382 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 217 Packet Page 383 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 218 Packet Page 384 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 219 Packet Page 385 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 220 Packet Page 386 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 221 Packet Page 387 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 222 Packet Page 388 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 223 Packet Page 389 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 224 Packet Page 390 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 225 Packet Page 391 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 226 Packet Page 392 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 227 Packet Page 393 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 228 Packet Page 394 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 229 Packet Page 395 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 230 Packet Page 396 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 231 Packet Page 397 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 232 Packet Page 398 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 233 Packet Page 399 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 234 Packet Page 400 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 235 Packet Page 401 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 236 Packet Page 402 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 237 Packet Page 403 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 238 Packet Page 404 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 239 Packet Page 405 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 240 Packet Page 406 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 241 Packet Page 407 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 242 Packet Page 408 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 243 Packet Page 409 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 244 Packet Page 410 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 245 Packet Page 411 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 246 Packet Page 412 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 247 Packet Page 413 of 568 City of Boulder Planning Board 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder, CO 80302 Subject: Support for 2555 30th St. Site Review Dear Members of the Boulder Planning Board and Staff, On behalf of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Boulder’s Transportation Management Organization (Boulder Chamber Transportation Connections), I am writing to express our support for the proposed development at 2555 30th St. This project represents a valuable opportunity to enhance Boulder's economic vitality, workforce housing availability, and overall community livability. As Boulder continues to experience significant demand for housing and commercial space, well-designed, mixed-use developments like 2555 30th St. play a crucial role in fostering a dynamic and sustainable environment. This project aligns with the City of Boulder’s and the Boulder Chamber’s goals for long-term planning objectives, including increasing access to workforce housing, promoting transit-oriented development, and strengthening our local business ecosystem. It is located in an area intentionally designated for housing, benefiting from significant community investments and walkable amenities. As such we wanted to highlight several of the housing and transportation advantages in this proposal including prescient pedestrian / bike planning, 143 residences, Eco Pass, CarShare, and bike share option along with 214 long-term bike parking spaces, and 74 short term bike parking spaces. We appreciate the Planning Board's thorough review of this proposal and encourage its approval to advance Boulder's vision for a more inclusive and economically resilient community. Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can provide insight or assistance in supporting this important initiative. Sincerely, Jonathan Singer Senior Director of Policy Programs Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 248 Packet Page 414 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 249 Packet Page 415 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 250 Packet Page 416 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 251 Packet Page 417 of 568 1 Public Comment from Virginia L. Winter, taxpayer and resident and small business owner at 2930 Bluff Street, #312, Boulder, CO pertaining to Case No. LUR 2024 00047 and 2024 00065 2555 30th Street Development Proposal and the proposed extensions of the Goose Creek Greenway, Multi-use Path (MUP) designed by the City of Boulder, in collaboration with the Applicant. I am aware that Planning and Development or Transportation Department staff may have already approved 'off site' concepts for the multi-use path extensions my comments focus on. I understand that some of the proposed MUP extensions are not fully but partially within the designs provided by the Applicant. I understand that these elements have been previously agreed to and referenced as cost-shares (part Applicant, part City) if determined to be feasible. I understand some of these elements may be taken up in a 'Tec Doc,' an event after Feb. 18, 2025. I'm grateful to have this opportunity to raise my concerns and help the Planning Board focus in on what could be happening to this precious City open space area. Using an accompanying powerpoint presentation, I want to breathe life into those concerns by visually illustrating them and hope to convince you not to recreate what we’ve already got, because there are negative consequences for doing that. All comments below are tagged in blue with a relevant subsection of the Site Review Criteria. An Addendum following my comments lists, by partial quotation, cited subsections of the Site Review Criteria or other Land Use Code sections. A) Open Space Quality, Loss of Habitat and Neighborhood Fragmentation I have a concern for loss of peaceful natural view-scape. 1)The City's MUP extensions would be taking away a primary reason for investing in housing at 2930 Bluff Street. A four story 2555 30th development will also block views of the sunrise and diminish daytime sunlight for those living due West of this project. Section 9-2-14 - Site Review Criteria, (a) Purpose and Purpose 2) The proposed east west extension of the multi-use path would denigrate natural values of the riparian ecosystem (wildlife habitat, water filtration by plant life, and flood mitigation). The conceptualized multi-use path (MUP) extensions would constitute an avoidable loss of wetland. LAND USE - Section 9-3-9 Wetland Protection, Subsections (2) (3) (4) (5) 3) This plot of open space is a natural habitat for dozens of bird species. Boulder County designated "species of concern" have been observed at and on this open space location. Of note are a few species that are dependent upon isolate or restricted habitat, e.g., the black crowned night heron, bushtit, black tailed prairie dog, common garter snakes. All 50 + species I've observed at/on this open space are one of Boulder's cultural resources! Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria, Application Requirement (d) 17 and Site Review Criteria, Application Requirement (h) (1) (E) Prepared for the Boulder Planning Board by Virginia L. Winter, 2930 Bluff St. #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 Site and Use Review, Public Hearing for LUR 2024 00047 and 00065, for use on February 18, 2025 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 252 Packet Page 418 of 568 2 4) MUP extensions as conceptualized would cause wasteful destruction of existing sustainable green space. Along with several mature trees this open space has two NEW thriving pin oak trees provided by the Cool Boulder program of our City. Residents planted these in 2023 in this area next to the current dirt trail. These City provided trees would be destroyed by constructing the conceptualized MUP extensions leaving 2555 30th from the west and southwest edges. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria (a) 3 B) Public Safety I have safety concerns relative to the siting of multi-use path (MUP) extension as proposed, where it may connect at the current Greenway junction of Bluff and 29th, this is also a STREET INTERSECTION / JUNCTION. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria (h) (2) (iv) 1) The already unsafe ingress/egress for the existing MUP at 29th and Bluff is on a BLIND CURVE which will not be improved by increased car/bike/foot traffic. Of note: 150 permanently affordable housing units at Rally Flats expected to come 'online' in 2025-6, will "turn up" that volume. This intersection currently experiences high volumes of daily travel for residents, cars, light and industrial trucks, emergency vehicles, child care center family pick up and drop off, pedestrians, wheel chairs, bikes, e-bikes, Lime scooters, unhoused folks with carts of belonging/shopping carts, and domestic animals. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria (h) (2) (iv) 2) The proposed MUP extension and increase in neighboring property population density is a general public safety threat of special concern for my condominium complex because this 5 way junction is AT the only egress/ingress for the 30+ unit Goose Creek Condominium complex. Our driveway is in high use daily by residents as well as needed for Police, Fire and other emergency response vehicles. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria (h) (2) (iv) 3) An extension of the MUP westward from 2555 30th is unnecessarily duplicating the paved MUP path already in year-round public use. Taxpayers should not be asked, even in part, to pay for the City approved design concept that proposes to pave an additional segment(s) of the MUP not in compliance with cited Site Review Criteria and slated for the exclusive use of 2555 30th Street residents; especially when a viable option already exists. Our wonderful Goose Creek Greenway path currently receives City policing, encampment clean-up, and other maintenance services. Increased occupancy of this delicate zone would increase water and land pollution as a result of increased use, especially due to dog/pet walkers, who don't pick up pet feces. Section 9-2-14 - Site Review Criteria, (a) Purpose Prepared for the Boulder Planning Board by Virginia L. Winter, 2930 Bluff St. #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 Site and Use Review, Public Hearing for LUR 2024 00047 and 00065, for use on February 18, 2025 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 253 Packet Page 419 of 568 3 C) Social Equity and Environmental Protection Make no mistake, the Applicant's proposal will change the predominant character of the surrounding neighborhood. 1) The City appears to have given preliminary approval to the MUP extensions with the notion of adding new green landscaping along the south side of Goose Creek Condos, and that could have significant view scape impact for the residents and owners As several of the public comments mentioned this would bring pavement within a few feet of people's decks; an encroachment of resident owner's private property. I invested in this property location because of the City open space buffer that existed between my Condo and the Creek. People bought at Goose Creek Condominium(s) because it had an unobstructed view of the creek, with the Goose Creek MUP easily accessible, and the majesty of the foothills as our southern view. This would unquestionably be an impairment of prominent public views of the foothills, in particular for my complex as 2555's western neighbors. LAND USE - Section 9-3-9 Wetland Protection Unnecessary paving over of green open ground increases ambient heat & negatively effects City climate profile and intentions for sustainable or livable cities Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria, (a) 3. 2) City Staff and Applicant seem convinced that the 'social trail' seen on maps was or is a bona fide social trail, it never existed for east-west pedestrian social traffic. In the seventeen years at my location I can attest to the fact that no one, including my bus hopping 'neighbors' used this 'path' because it went NOWHERE you could not get through to 30th street. It exists today for multiple reasons including: a long period of neglect by the City Forestry and Parks department, and because of the chronic use by vagrant and/or unhoused persons who have occupied this creek bank for camping, public urination/defecation, loitering for drug use and drug trafficking/sales. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria, (h) (2) Site Design Criteria 3) Shunting ped/bike transit along the narrow, north bank of Goose Creek for those desiring to travel west from the applicants two proposed exits from the 2555 30th lot has the effect endangering more of the public and exclusively benefiting 2555 lot residents and diminishing the quality of open space for surrounding neighbors, public visitors, and the Boulder community at large. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria (h) (2) (iv) 4) In the past decade my condo complex has seen an significant increase in trespass, property theft and multiple types of criminal behavior, which HAS effectively decreased our sense of neighborhood safe space. Police call logs and records will back me up. I have "Dispatch" on speed dial. As proposed, these extensions could encourage, once again, an attractive hiding zone behind the Bluebird MH apartment building for dangerous and sustained criminal behavior and bring it even closer to the Bilingual Childcare Center at 2700 29th Street, Boulder. Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria (a) 5. Prepared for the Boulder Planning Board by Virginia L. Winter, 2930 Bluff St. #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 Site and Use Review, Public Hearing for LUR 2024 00047 and 00065, for use on February 18, 2025 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 254 Packet Page 420 of 568 4 5) Healthy mobility options are available now without this extension! Bikes, wheelchairs, or pedestrians leaving the east and southeast corner of 2555 30th lot, and also, cyclists riding south on 30th Street, where a bike lane improvement is planned, can safely access the paved Goose Creek Greenway at a distance of one tenth of a mile (routing: south on the west side of 30th, right turn on Mapleton, immediate right onto GC Greenway) Section 9-2-14 - Site Review Criteria, (a) Purpose 6) If any extension of the Goose Creek Greenway MUP off the 2555 30th street Lot has to be considered to help the applicant satisfy their Site Review criteria, there is another option. If necessary, a shorter, single segment extension could be sited due south from the southern boundary of the 2555 30th lot from their planned paved alley way over Goose Creek. I understand this may require a wetland permit, or environmental assessment and include a small bridge to be build straight across the creek; but it would have no curves. Building a creek bridge hasn't stopped the City's MUP development before and this route has been seen in PAST Transportation Master Plans at this location. This would also allow the 2445 30th Street Bluebird apartment residents to safely access this extension. I've spoken to Maggie Langan, of Brothers Property Management, the onsite Community Manager; she informed me that at the time of the construction the "Bluebird" housing facility, the City of Boulder required the Bluebird Corp to build a solid, high fence on three sides to effectively cordon off the north, west, south sides of this residential building, thereby inhibiting access to the open space behind although with the Hyundai dealership there, trespassers find a way around. Why then does the Applicant at 2555 30th get preliminary approval to design in a new alleyway segment / bike way that the City will finish off at taxpayer expense? 7) Flood risk can change over time due to intra-city development and environmental changes. Goose Creek Condominium buildings have Flood Elevation Certificates on file with the City. The proposed staff approved MUP extensions or any re-routing of the existing MUP could have site and neighborhood wetland drainage implications and may require a new storm water report or wetland environmental impact assessment. Will the new construction or landscaping and paving change the ability of Goose Creek Condo owners to insure our homes as a result of the need to acquire flood insurance that at present we do not need? Land Use Code Section 9-3-8 Floodplain development. I am unconvinced that the challenge of wetland permitting or the cost of bridge building across the creek makes fragmentation of open space and altering the floodplain in my neighborhood, an acceptable or environmentally preferable option. LAND USE - Section 9-3-9 Wetland Protection and Land Use Code Section 9-3-8 Floodplain development ===================End of Comments===================== Prepared for the Boulder Planning Board by Virginia L. Winter, 2930 Bluff St. #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 Site and Use Review, Public Hearing for LUR 2024 00047 and 00065, for use on February 18, 2025 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 255 Packet Page 421 of 568 5 Addendum SITE REVIEW CRITERIA & LAND USE CODE REFERENCES City of Boulder Title 9 Land Use Code (December 2024), and Section 9-2-14 -Site Review Criteria, Selected 'quotes' Used as References above. (a) Purpose and Purpose '...to promote the most appropriate use of land, to improve the character and quality of new development, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space, to ensure compatible architecture, massing and heights of building with existing...; to promote the safety and convenience of pedestrians bicyclists and other modes within and around developments...implement goals and policies of the BV Comprehensive Plan...' (a) 3.'Sustainability: Projects are designed to be sustainable and address greenhouse gas emissions and prevent or mitigate impacts to the natural environment.' (a) 5. 'Projects preserve and enhance the communities unique sense of place through the creative that respects historic character and the project's relationship to the natural environment, public realm and surrounding area.' (d) Application Requirements (d) 17. 'Plans for the preservation of natural features existing on the site or plans for mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features existing on the site from the proposed development and anticipated uses. Natural features include, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian area, drainage areas and habitat for species on the federal Endangered Species list, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or if prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are present on the site, a statement of intent that specifies how the applicant will address prairie dogs consistent with... etc.' (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: (h) (1) (E) Historic or Cultural Resources: If present, the project protects significant historic and cultural resources. (h) (1) (G) Environmental Preservation: (1) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to the natural features, including without limitation healthy long lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas and species on the federal Endangered Species list, and "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" ...' etc. (h) (2) Site Design Criteria: The project creates safe, convenient and efficient connections for all modes of travel, promotes safe pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of alternative travel with the goal of lowering motor vehicle miles traveled. Usable open space is arranged to be accessible, designed to be functional, encourage use and enhance the attractiveness of the project, and meets the needs of the anticipated residents occupants, tenants and visitor to the project. (h) (2) (iv) Streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways trail, open space, buildings, and parking areas are designed and located to optimize the safety of all modes and provide connectivity and functional permeability through the site. LAND USE - Section 9-3-9 Wetland Protection, Subsections of 9-3-9 that pertain: (2) The city council finds that many streams, wetlands, and water bodies have been either lost or impaired by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building, channelizing, polluting, and other acts. Piecemeal and cumulative losses destroy or diminish the functions of the remaining streams, wetlands, and water bodies. Prepared for the Boulder Planning Board by Virginia L. Winter, 2930 Bluff St. #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 Site and Use Review, Public Hearing for LUR 2024 00047 and 00065, for use on February 18, 2025 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 256 Packet Page 422 of 568 6 (3) The city council finds that it is necessary for the city to ensure protection by discouraging development activities in streams, wetlands, and water bodies and those activities at adjacent sites that may adversely affect the visibility and functional values of these resources. (4) The city council finds that it is necessary to ensure no net loss of wetlands, by encouraging avoidance of direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of the city's water resources and adjacent buffers. (5) The city council acknowledges that much of the city was developed prior to awareness of the value of protecting streams, wetlands, and water bodies. The city council seeks to find a reasonable balance between the property owners' desire to make reasonable uses of their properties and the public's interest in preserving and protecting these important water resources. When the destruction or diminution in function of these resources cannot be avoided, the city council finds that impacts on streams, wetlands, and water bodies should be minimized and mitigation provided for unavoidable losses. LAND USE - Land Use Code Section 9-3-8 Floodplain development Prepared for the Boulder Planning Board by Virginia L. Winter, 2930 Bluff St. #312, Boulder, CO. 80301 Site and Use Review, Public Hearing for LUR 2024 00047 and 00065, for use on February 18, 2025 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 257 Packet Page 423 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 258 Packet Page 424 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 259 Packet Page 425 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 260 Packet Page 426 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 261 Packet Page 427 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 262 Packet Page 428 of 568 Criteria viewshed analysis 1:1 Ratio Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 263 Packet Page 429 of 568 1:1 Ratio Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 264 Packet Page 430 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 265 Packet Page 431 of 568 Site Location 1:2 Ratio Existing Auto Oriented Context Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 266 Packet Page 432 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 267 Packet Page 433 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 268 Packet Page 434 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 269 Packet Page 435 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 270 Packet Page 436 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 271 Packet Page 437 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 272 Packet Page 438 of 568 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 273 Packet Page 439 of 568 Public Comment on LUR 2024 0004 and 00065 Regarding 2555 30th Street Development and Proposed Extensions of the Goose Creek Greenway Multi-use Path (MUP) designed by the City of Boulder in collaboration with the Applicant By Virginia L. Winter 2930 Bluff Street, #312, Boulder, CO Taxpayer, 17-year resident and small business owner Why sacrifice an inner city open space sanctuary? Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 274 Packet Page 440 of 568 Goose Creek Condos Southwest view (2013) Proposed MUP Existing MUP Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 275 Packet Page 441 of 568 Bluebird MH Apt. Housing View east at sunrise from my condo Hyundai Dealership Lot Goose Creek Condos East view (2025) Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 276 Packet Page 442 of 568 Goose Creek Path Goose Creek Path Neighborhood aerial view (2025) Goose Creek Path Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 277 Packet Page 443 of 568 Existing Trees and Fence Goose Creek Greenway aerial view (2025) Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 278 Packet Page 444 of 568 29th & Bluff Streets Intersection (2025) Bluff Street Blind Curve Child Care Center Driveway Goose Creek MUP Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 279 Packet Page 445 of 568 2013 Flood along Goose Creek Greenway as flood water receded Proposed MUP Goose Creek Greenway (2013) Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 280 Packet Page 446 of 568 Goose Creek Path Goose Creek Path Existing MUP Connection (2025) Goose Creek Path Proposed Path Source: City of Boulder, Planning and Development Services, 2011 Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 281 Packet Page 447 of 568 Bats Red Fox Mule deer Raccoon Skunk Prairie Dog Squirrel Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Garter and water snakes Mustrat Painted turtle Belted Kingfisher Black crowned night heron Great blue heron Cooper’s Hawk Red tail Hawk Crow Raven Doves (Eurasian collared) Bushtit Cackling geese Canada geese Bluejay Downy woodpecker Northern Flicker Mallard ducks Hooded Mergansers Chickadee black capped Dark-eyed Junco Western Wood Pewee American Goldfinch House finch House sparrow White crowned sparrow Song sparrow Spotted Towhee MacGillivray's warbler Yellow warbler Cooper’s Hawk Red tail Hawk Crow Raven Doves (Eurasian collared) Indigo Bunting Lazuli Bunting Barn swallow Tree swallow Flycatchers -various European Starling Grackle Wilson warbler Lesser Goldfinch Says Phoebe Western Bluebird Nuthatch Cormorant Western Tanager Wildlife at Goose Creek (50+ species) Attachment F - Public Comment Item 4A - 2555 30th St. Site Review Page 282 Packet Page 448 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C ivic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Design Priorities P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Shihomi Kuriyagawa 303-915-1154 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E N/A B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M At the beginning of the 2023, Boulder Parks and Recreation launched the scoping phase for the C ivic Area Phase 2 Project and confirmed the project process, scope and priorities in a December 14 Study Session with C ity Council last year. At the August 1, 2024 meeting, staff shared the process and results of Engagement Window 1: Park Perceptions and Future Activation, as well an overview of next steps for Engagement Window 2: What We Heard: Vision and Values. T he intent of this item is to provide City C ouncil with the planning analysis report findings, a summary of Engagement Window 2 and an update on emerging design concepts for the C ivic Area. I S T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T O N T HE C O U N C I L WORK P L AN? Yes H AS T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T B E E N B U D GE T E D? Yes WHAT P RI MARY SU STAI N AB I L I T Y F RAME W O RK OU T C OME I S B E I N G SU P P O RT E D? Healthy & Socially T hriving C ommunity AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 6A - Civ ic Area P lanning Analysis and E merging P riorities Packet Page 449 of 568 Attachment A P art 1 P lanning Analysis Summary Attachment A P art 2 P lanning Analysis Summary Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 450 of 568 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Design Priorities PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility Joanna Crean, Director of Facilities and Fleet Cris Jones, Director of Community Vitality Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities Mark Davison, Planning Senior Manager, Parks and Recreation Shihomi Kuriyagawa, Senior Landscape Architect, Civic Area Project Manager Emily Urquhart, Landscape Architect Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The intent of this memo is to update City Council on the Civic Area Phase 2 project. The update for the planning analysis phase includes 1) site analysis findings, 2) East Bookend redevelopment analysis 3) Engagement Window 2 summary, and 4) emerging design priorities informed by the site analysis and community input from the two engagement windows to-date. The project team will inform on these updates and will take questions and feedback from City Council on the four topics noted above. The project team will incorporate this feedback as they move into the next stage of the design process and will return to council in the fall of 2025 with a concept plan for review. After the concept plan has been reviewed and priced, specific aspects will move into schematic design and construction based on feasibility and available funding. Schematic design will be presented to council at the end of 2025. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 1 Packet Page 451 of 568 QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL 1.Does council have feedback on the planning analysis and redevelopment process for the East Bookend? 2.Does council have feedback on the emerging design priorities for the Civic Area? FISCAL IMPACT Cities all over the country recognize their downtown spaces as core economic engines that are key in unifying communities, building memorable destinations for tourism and creating opportunities for robust local economies to thrive. Revitalizing the Civic Area, a prominent space in Boulder’s downtown center, will be no different. Investment in the Civic Area can reinvigorate the space, affirming it as the heart of Boulder for major events and festivities. Increased activity will attract more visitors, adding to the local revenue generation, and breathe new life into this major urban center that will support retail and, with its natural setting, improve community health. Currently, in the adopted 2024-2029 Capital Improvement Plan, there is $18 million in funding from the Community Culture, Safety and Resilience tax for the design and construction of Civic Area Phase 2. The initial steps through the design tasks have identified the site program and associated costs for these improvements to the civic spaces, public aspects of the East Bookend (block located within 13th Street, 14th Street, Arapahoe, and Canyon) and the Arboretum Path. The $18 million will only cover a portion of the overall Civic Area concept design, and so priorities will have to be identified on how to allocate the funding for phase 2. With this in mind, the project team will develop a concept plan that will be used to inform what elements of the site program move into schematic design, based on community input, feasibility and costs. Once the funding is prioritized and allocated for phase 2, the project boundary will be delineated for only the elements that can move into construction and implementation. The concept plan will represent a long-term vision for the Civic Area with clearly identified design and programs for the space as a whole. Areas of the concept plan outside th priorities for Phase 2 will become part of a phase 3 effort, for which funding has yet to be identified. BACKGROUND In 2023, the project team launched the scoping task for the Civic Area Phase 2 project, including updating City Council in December on the overall project process, scope and goals at the December 14, 2023 study session. In 2024, the project team moved through the planning analysis phase which included research of the existing conditions, gathering technical data, and engaging the community in imagining the future of the Civic Area. The community input was sought through two windows of engagement. The first window asked community members to dream big for the Civic Area and a summary of the findings can be found here in the August 23, 2024 council IP. The team has now finished evaluating community input from the second window of engagement (held last October to December 2024); findings from the technical site analysis; and findings from the East Bookend redevelopment analysis. This marks the completion of the planning analysis task, informing the initial design ideas for the Civic Area, East Bookend, and the Arboretum Path. In evaluating the design ideas, a sense of what to prioritize has emerged, based on community wishes alongside site constraints and feasibility. These findings are outlined below and will be shared with council at the April 17th Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 2 Packet Page 452 of 568 meeting. More project information can be found on the Civic Area Phase 2 website and the full project process and schedule is detailed in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Civic Area Phase 2 Project Process and Schedule PLANNING ANALYSIS REPORT FINDINGS The planning analysis phase was conducted over the course of 2024, including extensive inventory of existing conditions, an evaluation of feedback from phase 1 of Civic Area improvements, and guidance from existing city policies that inform decision-making, especially with regards to the East Bookend. The following is a summary of the planning analysis work. The full Site Analysis Document can be found in Attachment A. Site Analysis Through the planning analysis process, the project team examined: the history and cultural stories of the site, the existing transportation network and gaps in accessibility, current programming and desired needs from the event spaces as well as an environmental inventory and study of the natural resources in the space. The major planning constraints and opportunities that emerged from this analysis include, but are not limited to: •Improving the fragmented appearance of the Civic Area with a distinct and cohesive identity and upgrading wayfinding to be user friendly •Improving universal access and multimodal connections into and within the Civic Area Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 3 Packet Page 453 of 568 •Exploring how to conserve existing natural features along the creek and meet the community’s desire for a greater connection to the creek and its recreation opportunities •Evaluating program options that can preserve the character of and enliven uses of the historic buildings while telling all stories of the Civic Area. With historic preservation, there are currently five individual landmarks within the project boundary, and changes within the landmark boundaries will be reviewed for consistency with the General Design Guidelines. Non-designated buildings over 50 years old will be evaluated for their historic, architectural and environmental significance. •Managing the floodplain while supporting future development, park programming and uses. The project team is exploring examples of other cities that are creating opportunities through innovative design to provide vibrant public spaces within floodplains. These ideas will be incorporated into the design for the Civic Area. Diagrams of the High Hazard Zone and 100 Year Floodplain can be found in Attachment A. Floodplain analysis included but was not limited to: High Hazard Zone (HHZ): Considered the most significant risk to life and property and thus has major development constraints. In the HHZ, no new structures or additions intended for human occupancy are allowed, and only non-substantial improvements (below 50% of the value of the building) to existing buildings are permitted. A building that is touched by the HHZ is regulated as if the entire structure is in the HHZ. 100 Year Floodplain: Building permits are required to conform to flood protection standards that require the lowest floor of any building to be at least two feet above the 100-year water surface elevation. Significant additions and remodels (greater than 50% of the size or assessed value of the building) generally require that the entire structure meet flood regulations. New parking lots are not permitted where flood depths would exceed 18 inches. Key Guiding Policies Several existing vision plans, design guidelines and future development improvements overlap with the Civic Area Phase 2 scope. These guiding plans and policies will be woven into the overall design to create a cohesive downtown space that reflects Boulder’s larger goals for the built environment: o The 2015 Civic Area Plan outlines Seven Guiding Principles: Civic Heart of Boulder, Life Property and Safety, Outdoor Recreation, Celebration of History and Assets, Enhanced Access and Connections, Place for Community Activities and Arts and Sustainable and Viable Future. o City Council provided additional guidance at the Study Session on December 14, 2023 to align with the outcomes of the Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) framework. Council also asked the project team to demonstrate how guiding plans and policies will inform the project as it moves towards a final design to ensure accountability of the city’s vision, values, and goals. Attachment A includes evaluation of existing plans, policies and design guidelines and their relevance to this project. The project will use this evaluation to ensure the design of the Civic Area seamlessly integrates into the complexities that make up the downtown space. o Another key request council made was to specifically prioritize multimodal and universal access to and through the Civic Area for pedestrians, cyclists and people experiencing disabilities and to create a multimodal environment that is welcoming, accessible, safe, and Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 4 Packet Page 454 of 568 community-oriented. The project team has completed a Transportation and Mobility Analysis, and next steps will incorporate recommendations into the emerging design while coordinating with the Transportation and Mobility Department, along with all the programming, environmental, facility, amenity, and other analyses that have been conducted. EAST BOOKEND REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS As part of the planning analysis phase, a Programming and Use Study was conducted to examine East Bookend’s future development opportunities within Civic Area. The major goal of the project team is to balance community benefit along with public, nonprofit, and private sector goals. The scope of the East Bookend is shown in Figure 2. The highlighted area is the boundary of the East Bookend, and the dark red buildings denote city-owned buildings while buildings shown in light red are privately owned. Figure 2: Scope of the East Bookend - Programming and Use Study The East Bookend study included a market analysis of development types and the potential to reprogram city-owned existing buildings. It also reviewed parking and identified public spaces as part of creating an integrated Civic Area. The goal was to assess whether any market shifts in development opportunities, feasibility parameters or community desires had changed since the 2015 Civic Area Plan was created a decade ago. Figure 3 outlines the process the project team is undertaking to examine appropriate programming and use types at the East Bookend in the Civic Area, and Attachment B includes the full summary of the analysis. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 5 Packet Page 455 of 568 Figure 3: Program and Use Study Process The project team completed an analysis of current and future market and economic trends for different land uses and real estate product types. This study provided a baseline for planning, programming, and the types of partnerships the city may enter into for the East Bookend. The study outlines trends and movements of the greater Boulder population regionally, including who is moving into the city as well as the desired activities and housing types these groups are looking for. For example, the market analysis found that of the population moving into downtown Boulder, several of these groups were most likely looking for multi-unit housing types and interested in the ‘foodie’ scene and cultural events. From this evaluation, development types were identified in the market analysis based on population, economic, and market trends, including data from broader nation-wide shifts and local trends of the Boulder County region. The development types were reviewed against the existing and approved future development stock across the city, and evaluated against other front range communities including Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette, and Arvada. After collecting this information, the development types were analyzed to see where they could be successful in the Civic Area’s East Bookend. Figure 4 outlines the key viable development types the East Bookend could support: residential, food and beverage, retail and local employment. When compared with the original goals of the 2015 Civic Area Plan, many of the suggested development types remain the same, with a few additions, specifically in the residential market sector. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 6 Packet Page 456 of 568 Figure 4: Development Types From the development types above, and taking from the overall vision for the Civic Area, four high level themes for the East Bookend emerged: • Community Residential • Food and Beverage • Arts and Culture • Health and Recreation These four themes, either on their own or in combination, create an identity for the East Bookend that supports civic use and creates a more attractive downtown for the community. The themes also lay a foundation for next steps in seeking development partnerships with either private entities or nonprofits. The purpose is to create a strong vision for redevelopment in this vital area at the heart of Boulder. The project team is now exploring high level pro formas: financial models that illustrate what the financial position would look like if specific development scenarios were built. This evaluation includes the cost of development and operations in relation to the potential revenue generated. Figure 5 shows three example high-level pro formas of different development scenarios for East Bookend. Each of the three diagrams evaluates a different combination of East Bookend development including mixed-use residential, retail (in food and beverage), public park space, and cultural buildings (such as art galleries or a cultural center). Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 7 Packet Page 457 of 568 Figure 5: Example of Development Types with High Level Pro Forma Studies at East Bookend Next steps would be to invite private sector and nonprofit groups to collaborate closely on potential development opportunities with the city through a Request For Interest (RFI) process, seeking groups interested in collaborating on the revitalization of East Bookend. This would help advance redevelopment of the East Bookend by: •Identifying potential partners in the private development sector and interested nonprofits to collaborate on development •Confirming the identified development types with members of the private sector, and create a strategic plan for private development implementation and nonprofit partnerships with the city •Identifying any other development types and partnerships not accounted for in the process through conversations with interested parties •Marketing the East Bookend themes to a broader audience and gaining regional and national attention for development opportunities Overall, this process can help to market the East Bookend to attract a visionary developer ready to forge a strong alliance with the city and reimagine a brighter future for the downtown Civic Area. The partnership can leverage the Farmers Market and create an expanded public space where local food, events and community activities take center stage. One recent example of this type of redevelopment is The Railyard in Sante Fe, New Mexico. This redevelopment reworked the historic grounds of the railyards, creating an integrated plan that sought to “transform the historic Railyard into a sustainable and inviting public space for recreational, social, artistic, and commercial activities in a way that embraces Santa Fe’s cultural and historical significance and upholds the community’s vision.” With year-round structures for the Santa Fe Farmers Market and investment in space activation through programs, events, and easy booking of spaces, Railyards is now thriving. It demonstrates how vision can become reality to reinvent a key space downtown. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 8 Packet Page 458 of 568 Cities all over the nation look to reinvigorate their core downtown spaces, knowing these spaces contribute to their economies in a big way, and Boulder is no different. Creating a bustling city center with vibrant communities, local economies and pristine urban outdoor spaces is the path forward to a successful Boulder community. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WINDOW 2 FINDINGS From October to December 2024, the project team conducted the second engagement window to confirm “What We Heard” in the first window and gain feedback on preliminary design ideas for the Civic Area. Per council direction and existing policy, the project team prioritized equitable and transparent engagement to ensure all community members could participate and feel heard throughout this process. Equity in Engagement Plans for the second engagement window utilized the Racial Equity Instrument to better understand the project team’s reach and whether the project was ensuring participation of historically excluded groups. All engagement material was available in English and Spanish, and Spanish-speaking staff and Community Connectors where involved every step of the way. In this second window, outreach included: o Two project Community Connectors who helped co-create engagement  Designing an equity-focused engagement process  Promoting engagement events to historically excluded communities  Evaluating public feedback and confirming representation of historically excluded communities in the emerging design o Engagement opportunities at locations with diverse participation  Pop-up stations showing the two design sketches were placed at the Main Library, NoBo Library, and the three recreation centers in Boulder  These were left up for three weeks with options to write in answers or vote virtually  Results showed ample feedback from youth and other historically excluded groups including responses in Spanish o Community Connectors in Residence feedback sessions  Equity Instrument review: gaining insight on how to reach a wider audience  Spreading the word for engagement opportunities to historically excluded groups  Civic Area site walk and feedback session  Review of design ideas (first session)  Review of design ideas (second session) o Uplifting youth voices through on-going engagement in Spring 2025  Growing Up Boulder (GUB) is facilitating multiples sessions and on-site field trips with Boulder Day Nursery, Whittier Elementary School and Boulder High School (BHS)  At BHS, GUB worked with multiple classes and the Zonta club to gather specific feedback on what teens most want to see in the park Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 9 Packet Page 459 of 568 Design Feedback and Themes Two concept diagrams were created in response to design ideas heard from the public during previous engagement. During this engagement window, community members voted for their favorite diagram, Creekside Social or Adventure Loop, shown in Figures 6 and 7, as well as their favorite amenities in each. This engagement activity informed prioritization for deciding which improvements to bring forward into the concept design phase and pursue within the project budget. The Creekside Social diagram illustrates a park that prioritizes flexible, welcoming social spaces to foster community connection and passive opportunities to engage with nature. The Adventure Loop diagram focuses on community requests for active recreation, nature immersion, and unique experiences, creating a more intensely developed and programmed park approach. The project website includes images of the below design diagrams in more detail. Figure 6: Creekside Social diagram Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 10 Packet Page 460 of 568 Figure 7: Adventure Loop Diagram The community also had a chance to submit open-ended comments in response to the Creekside Social and Adventure Loop diagrams. Figure 8 shows the top themes, ranked in descending order, that emerged from these comments. Unsocial behaviors and safety were the top themes shared by all community members and by historically excluded groups. These themes were further organized into four categories in which community members wanted to see change occur: placemaking (spatial design), social behaviors (safety, rules and regulations), space activation (programming desires) and operations and maintenance (taking care of what we have). Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 11 Packet Page 461 of 568 Figure 8: Emerging Themes from Open Ended Comments MAJOR PRIORITIES ADVANCING INTO THE DESIGN PHASE Design ideas have emerged with key civic amenities and space activation ideas being identified by the community and then evaluated alongside feasibility and existing policy guidance. The project team identified the most popular amenities that emerged from community input in engagement windows 1 and 2: •Expanded, year-round Farmers Market •Community gathering areas such as a Beer Garden, Teen Hub and Nature Center •Boulder Beach to create a vibrant gathering area that is safe, fun, and connected to nature •Food Truck Plaza to support events and space activation •Creek Walk that creates better access to the creek and preserves the natural feel •Zipline along the Arboretum Path Figure 6 below shows a more extensive list of the most popular features from both diagrams, with the top six most popular highlighted in red. The diagram shows general ideas; their scale and location are conceptual only. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 12 Packet Page 462 of 568 Figure 6: Most Popular Features from Engagement Window 2 Diagrams Additionally, by partnering with Growing Up Boulder (GUB) and working with Boulder High School students, the idea of creating a ‘third space’ for teens emerged as a top priority. Students identified a need for a safe, flexible, and affordable space such as a teen-run café where they can connect and relax after school. GUB is also working on engagement with elementary students and preschoolers to gather insight on designing a park where youth can explore the natural environment, learn, and be creative. A nature center or field station—an outdoor recreation and learning hub designed for all-ages programming—is one popular idea that could serve this purpose. Parallel to the design process, the project team is also developing a Park Management Plan to ensure that once the renovations are complete and ribbon cutting occurs, partnerships are in place for space activation, operations and enforcement of rules. The summary below highlights how the emerging design will be supported by several parallel processes to ensure success for the Civic Area Phase 2 project: •Connecting to Nature Engagement Series: In the spring of this year, the Día del Niño (Children’s Day) event will launch the city’s Connecting to Nature engagement series, set to extend throughout the summer with kids concerts, picnics, and a pop-up nature play in Central Park. The launch event will have an interactive, community-built mural guided by a local artist. This will start the effort to form identity and storytelling in Civic Area and the nature play engagement series will act not only as the third window of engagement but help activate the space throughout the summer. •Space Activation Collaboration: The project team is establishing key partnerships with community organizations from around the city that would like to support programming and activation within Civic Area. The project team sees the collaboration launching this year as a way to implement the recommendation from council to partner with community organizations, Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 13 Packet Page 463 of 568 nonprofits and other key community stakeholders in bringing Civic Area to life—as well as supporting the work to make the engagement process more equitable and transparent. •Social Behaviors - Operations and Safety Team: Feedback from the community and City Council identifies the need to define acceptable social behaviors that reflect the community's shared goals for Civic Area to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive space for everyone. As part of developing the Park Management Plan, the project team is coordinating with the Safe and Managed Public Spaces team (SAMPS), the Boulder Police Department, the Housing and Human Services Department and others to address community concerns about safety in the Civic Area. •Governance Strategic Group: The project team is working closely with the Community Vitality Department to coordinate governance for the Civic Area in conjunction with the Districts Analysis and Commercial Areas Blueprint to align with larger city-wide goals across Boulder’s major urban districts. Governance evaluation started in 2024 and will run through 2026 in alignment with these parallel efforts. NEXT STEPS The team will take findings from the planning analysis phase, including community engagement and council input, to develop the concept plan for the Civic Area, which will be ready by the end of Q2. With the concept plan in place, a third engagement window will be held for community input on the concept design plan through the summer. Based on findings from engagement window 3, the team will bring the design concept plan to council in Q4 for questions and feedback. A critical part of the feedback will be to identify what aspects of the design concept plan will be prioritized for the $18 million dollars in funding. With this information in hand, the identified priorities will inform what moves forward into the final stages of the project, schematic design, construction drawings and implementation of phase 2. Project Touch Points: •Planning Analysis o Incorporate council input into the emerging design •Concept Design: Launched at the beginning of 2025 o Engagement Window 3: Connecting to Nature (pop-up series): June – September 2025 Monday, June 16 - Pop-up grand opening, Meadow Music with Jeff and Paige Monday, July 14 - Meadow Music with Jeff and Paige at the Bandshell And more events to come: food trucks and collaborations with existing summer festivals such as Creek Fest •City Council Concept Review: End of 2025 ATTACHMENTS A – Planning Analysis Summary, Part 1 and Part 2 B – Programming and Use Study Summary Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Page 14 Packet Page 464 of 568 SITE ANALYSIS Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 465 of 568 2Site Anal- Landscape Architecture, Architecture, Experience Design Urban Design Anderson Consulting Engineers Hydrology Fox Tuttle Transporta- tion Biohabitats Ecology Valerian Landscape Architec- ture JVA Civil & Structural Engineering TheatreDNA Theatre Design /AV Streetwise Arts Art Consultant Ricker Cunningham Economics Introduction Site Analysis Team Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 466 of 568 Guiding Framework Sustainability, Equity and Resilience Framework Civic Area Plan 7 Guiding Principles The Park Management Model Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 467 of 568 4Site Anal- Guiding Framework Sustainability, Equity and Resilience Framework The Sustainability, Equity and Resilience Framework establishes the strategic groundwork for Boulder’s city policies, programs, and projects, forming the backbone of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, annual budget, and organizational planning efforts. It aims to realize a future in Boulder characterized by equitable access to health, prosperity, and fulfillment, irrespective of race, ethnicity, age, gender, ability, religion, sexuality, or socioeconomic status. The community is committed to readiness, adaptation, and resilience in addressing present and emerging social, economic, and environmental challenges, prioritizing core service delivery and tackling systemic inequities through city policies, practices, programs, and financial decisions. Goals & Objectives: Safe •Positive neighborhood and community relations •Public infrastructure is well maintained and reliable •Natural resources, like water, air and land, are protected Healthy and Socially Thriving •Access to abundant recreation, cultural and educational opportunities •Enjoy social, physical and mental well-being Livable •Infrastructure that accommodate a diverse set of community needs for working, learning, playing, and living Accessible and Connected •Multimodal transportation system Environmentally Sustainable •Care for ecosystems •Support clean energy •Increase access to and participation in local climate actions •Reduce the proliferation of non-reusable materials, toxins, and hazardous products Responsibly Governed •Strategic decision-making with opportunities for accessible community engagement in multiple languages and timely & reliable data and analysis Economically Vital •Promotes creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and provides support for small businesses and community-based Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 468 of 568 5Site Anal- 2015 Civic Area Plan Guiding Framework The Civic Area Plan provides a road map for how the Civic Area can transform into an even more extraordinary place that reflects the community’s shared values as well as its diversity. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 469 of 568 6Site Anal- 2015 Civic Area Plan - 7 Guiding Principles The Civic Heart of Boulder1 2 3 4 5 6Life & Property Safety Outdoor Culture & Nature Celebration of History & Assets Enhanced Access & Connections Place for Community Activity & Sustainable & Viable Future7 City Center. Unified Public Space. Space for All. Boulder’s Civic Area has symbolic, geographic, and functional importance and should serve as an inclusive place for people to interact with each other and with government. The area should be complementary to Pearl Street and Downtown. Flood Safety. Secure and Protected Environment for All. Boulder’s Civic Area is located within the 100-year flood- plain, with much in the High Hazard Zone (HHZ). Existing conditions within the Civic Area can create unsafe experienc- es for those visiting, special consideration should be placed Cohesive Green Space. Creek Access. Recreation. Boulder’s Civic Area is a central place to enjoy the outdoors in the middle of the city. The linear “green” along Boulder Creek will be a unifying focus, providing natural beauty, ecological function and connection to nature. Integrated & Inclusive History. Celebrate Historic Assets. Boulder’s Civic Area has a historical focus and many long- standing functions and facilities highly valued by the community, such as the library, Sister City Plaza, Farmers’ Market and Teahouse. Historical stories should be celebrated Connected & Multi-modal. Universal Access. Boulder’s Civic Area has well-used bicycle and pedestrian amenities and convenient transit connections, serving as both an important destination and connector. Travel within and access to the area will continue to be improved to Cultural Hub. Arts and Entertainment. Consistent Activation. The Civic Area offers potential to become the cultural center of Boulder, fostering cultural, arts, science, educational or entertainment amenities that are otherwise lacking in the community. Environmentally & Economically Sustainable. All future uses and changes in Boulder’s Civic Area’s public properties will exemplify the community’s sustainability values (i.e., economic, social and environmental). The 2015 Civic Area Plan establishes seven (7) main principles to guide design and development, inclusive of values identified by a rigorous planning process, public engagement effort, and City Council approval. Guiding Framework Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 470 of 568 The Park Management Plan Model 7Site Anal- In 2020, SPUR (San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Associ- ation) partnered with urban design firm Gehl on a long-term research project on San José’s largest urban green space, Guadalupe River Park. The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department has identified the Park Management Mod- el as a useful tool for the Boulder Civic Area Phase 2 Project. The Site Analysis has been organized around these four topics, as part of an effort to continually consider the many different factors, systems, and roles that come together to shape a vibrant, successful, equitable public space like the future Boulder Civic Placemaking Spacial design and the physical features that give shape to a place Space Activation The programming, uses and activities that draw people into a space Taking Care of What We Have The maintenance, operations and stewardship of a place Social Behaviors The standards that create a shared civic life through rules, rights and ac- Guiding Framework Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 471 of 568 CIVIC AREA PARK PLAN Site Analysis Key Findings Site Context Project Site 7 Guiding Principles: Opportunities & Constraints Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 472 of 568 Site Context Boulder City Limits + Boulder Creek 9Site Anal- CITY OF BOULDER Boulder Creek Flagstaff Mountain Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Boulder Civic Area Located next to downtown Boulder and adjacent to the foothills, with Boulder Creek running directly through the site —Boulder Civic Area is uniquely poised to blend City and Nature. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 473 of 568 Site Context Boulder Context Source: City of Boulder Parks & Recreation 10Site Anal- The Civic Area’s neighbors include Pearl Street, the RTD Bus Station, CU Campus, The Arboretum, Flagstaff Mountain, and the forthcoming Conference Center. It can be both a connector and a destination in its own right. Boulder Creek runs directly through the site, offering an Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 474 of 568 Site Context Downtown Boulder Source: City of Boulder - Downtown Projects 11Site Anal- Improvements to the Civic Area will be integrated with other nearby Downtown projects. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 475 of 568 12Site Anal- Site Context Phase 2 Site Boundary The project scope includes the area between 9th and 14th Streets and Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard, along with the highlighted Arboretum path area. The size of the project site is approximately 24 acres. Phase 2 Site Boundary Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 476 of 568 13Site Anal- The Civic Area today Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 477 of 568 14Site Anal- Project Site Area Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 478 of 568 15Site Anal- Opportunity to amplify Energetic recreational and civic hub where community and nature converge Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 479 of 568 16Site Anal- Broadway divides the The Boulder Civic Area lacks a cohesive and legible identity. There is not a distinct sense of arrival. Site Analysis Key Findings 1. The Civic Heart of The Civic Area is experienced as a collection of separate, There is no clear sense of arrival as one enters the Civic Area from any EXISTING Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 480 of 568 17Site Anal- Civic Area needs a cohesive identity to create a welcoming space and sense of arrival for downtown Boulder. Given its central location and existing assets, it is poised to become a green, civic hub. Site Analysis Key Findings 1. The Civic Heart of Opportunity for the entire Civic Area to have a cohesive, legible identity as an urban Opportunities for gateway moments at key thresholds OPPORTUNITY Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 481 of 568 G 13th & Canyon Blvd H 18Site Anal- A 9th & Canyon Blvd Site Analysis Key Findings 1. The Civic Heart of There is a lack of a “sense of arrival” at the edges and potential gateways into the Civic Area. 14th & Arapahoe AveFBroadway & Arapahoe AveE9th & Arapahoe Ave A B C D E F G H B C DBroadway & Canyon Blvd 13th & Canyon Blvd 14th & Canyon Blvd Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 482 of 568 Arts & CultureNature Community History Outdoor Recreation 19Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 1. The Civic Heart of Boulder Building upon its central location and diverse assets, the Civic Area is poised to become a green, civic hub. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 483 of 568 20Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 2. Life & Property Safety High Hazard Zone (HHZ) New Britain, Park Central, and the Library parking lot are slated to be removed due to their location in the Developable area in the bookends The Floodplain restricts building and development. Removal of buildings and parking in the HHZ presents opportunity for more park space. Throughout: There are minimal educational or interpretive elements that share information about the ? EXISTING Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 484 of 568 21Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 2. Life & Property Safety Broadway underpass feels unsafe for many Lack of lighting can make the Civic Area feel unsafe at night in many zones, and in this area in particular The only public restroom is often closed Bandshell receives frequent vandalism & graffiti Berms create a lack of street visibility, reducing perceptions of Skatepark can feel unsafe and under the Library bridge can be dominated by unsanctioned camping EXISTING Many feel unsafe on site. Unsanctioned camping and the lack of lighting and amenities such as re- strooms can make some visitors feel uncomfortable. There is an opportunity to enhance perceptions of safety, comfort, and welcome for all visitors. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 485 of 568 22Site Anal- Creating a Safe and Welcoming Space Through design, programming and activation, operations and maintenance, and governance, the Civic Area can become a space where all feel safe and comfortable. Site Analysis Key Findings Additional site lighting throughout the park and along the creek will help make the park welcoming to all users at all times of day and night Provide accessible and safe restrooms Enhance Views in and out of the park Enhance views & lighting in the Improve education about recreation within the HHZ Opportunity for education and cleanup volunteering 2. Life & Property Safety Throughout: Opportunities to create a more welcoming space where all visitors feel safe and comfortable Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 486 of 568 23Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings Graffiti & Vandal- ism Unsanctioned Camping Playground Mainte- Planting MaintenanceLawn & Understory On-site Trash 2. Life & Property Safety Creating a safe and welcoming space will include efforts in all 4 facets of the Park Management Model (including addressing some of the current challenges with operations and Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 487 of 568 24Site Anal- Not enough daily activities that draw people to the site. When there aren’t specific events, there aren’t sufficient attractions to draw people (particularly young people) to visit and spend time in the Civic Area. Site Analysis Key Findings 3. Outdoor Culture & The Library Phase 1 Lawn& Event Space The Bandshell (planned events only) Food & Beverage (note that Park Central Building will be removed due to its location in HHZ) Boulder Creek Path Skatepark (feels unsafe) The Teahouse ($) S&T Building ($) Tubing in the Creek (only water recreation option) Farmers Market (2/wk, seasonal) EXISTING Creek Access Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 488 of 568 25Site Anal- Activate & enhance the connection between nature and the surrounding City environment There is an opportunity to activate the site with daily attractions and programs for a wide range of visitors. Site Analysis Key Findings 3. Outdoor Culture & Enhance the ditch nature zone Expand water recreation opportunities New programs and activations could draw visitors on a daily basis, even when there are no OPPORTUNITY Maintain a diversity of trees in upland park spaces Establish more riparian trees and vegetation in protected zones along the creek edge Clearly visible creek access and interpretive features Take advantage of shady spots under the mature trees Protect and celebrate existing notable trees New park spaces in zones that are in the HHZ Celebrate mountain views Examples of Future Additional Program & Activations Transform surface parking into vibrant spaces Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 489 of 568 Chautauqua Park Panorama Point Whitewater Tubing & Recreation Bike Trails Scott Carpenter Park North Boulder Park Boulder Reservoir Mount Sanitas Trail The Flatirons Eben G. Fine Park Marshall Mesa Loop Mallory Cave TrailRecreational Boulder Attractions — Recreational The Civic Area exists in an ecosystem of Boulder’s varied outdoor recreation opportunities; it should complement and offer a unique outdoor experience, especially leveraging its historical & cultural significance and urban location. 26Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 3. Outdoor Culture & Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 490 of 568 Pearl Street Mall Museum of Boulder CU Boulder The Fox Theater Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse Boulder Farmers Market North Boulder’s (NoBo) Art Mackey Auditorium Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art The Dairy Arts Center Boulder Theater Chautauqua Auditorium Boulder Attractions — Cultural The Civic Area also exists in an ecosystem of Boulder’s varied cultural attractions. It should stand unique, partially in its concentration of multiple civic assets in one location. 27Site Anal- Art GalleriesCultural Site Analysis Key Findings 3. Outdoor Culture & Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 491 of 568 28Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 4. Celebration of History & Assets The Library Penfield Tate II The Bandshell Shumard Oak The Teahouse City and Storage Transfer Building The Atrium Lack of historical storytelling. The historic assets are disconnected and do not communicate their stories well to visitors. Many layers of history are currently invisible — like the site’s Indigenous and Black history. EXISTING Northern Red Oak European Crabapple Western Catalpa White Oak Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 492 of 568 29Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 4. Celebration of History & Assets Uncovering the history and telling cultural stories There is an opportunity for cultural storytelling in this area; the buildings and the landscape can tell more diverse perspectives from the many people who have lived before us. One of Boulder’s First Neighborhoods of Historically Excluded Community Members Land along Boulder Creek is an essential part of the ancestral homelands of Indigenous peoples who have lived here The Library Penfield Tate II The Bandshell The Teahouse City and Storage Transfer Building The Atrium OPPORTUNITY 1860s Historic Ditch European Crabapple Western Catalpa Shumard Oak White Oak Northern Red Oak Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 493 of 568 30Site Anal- Pre-1850sPre-1850s The creek side land is a sacred and essential part of the ancestral homelands of Indigenous Peoples who have lived on and traveled through them since time immemorial. Boulder has an archival silence, or gap, in our historical record, for the Native American/Indigenous perspective of history. 1850s - 1880s1850s - 1880s Boulder City Town Company ignored the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie and claimed 1,280 acres alongside Boulder Creek to establish the future town. In 1871, the City of Boulder was officially incorporated. In 1873, railroads arrived in Boulder. Boulder initially served as a mining supply town for the mining activity in the foothills of the Rockies. This is also the first record of houses constructed along the Creek near 11th St and Water St. Three ditches were dug across the area by 1871, used to provide irrigation to farms. Train lines and the freight depot at 10th St and 1930s - 1960s1930s - 1960s New structures were built: The Bandshell in 1938; The Municipal Building in 1951; a train car monument; the library; the Atrium Building in 1969. Counterculture activists came to Boulder to advocate for peace. These “flower children” gathered publicly and often lived on public land. Due to some residents’ concerns about open drug use and the counterculture movement, the City Manager banned outdoor concerts in Central Park to try to deter this “hippie element” in 1969. 1890s1890s The 1890s were marked by a catastrophic flood in 1894. This area proved to be challenging for residents as it is within the floodplain, however, many residents remained due to lack of options. Both Black and white residents lived in the six houses along the north side of the creek between Broadway and 9th St. A few houses served as brothels 1990s - 1910s1990s - 1910s Commercial buildings were constructed in the area due to the proximity to the rail lines, notably a coal gasification plant, a fruit warehouse and the City Storage and Transfer Building. In 1907, the Boulder City Improvement Association contacted Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. to request advice on “how to improve our city.” Olmsted, Jr. published a report that included advice on flood preparation, drawing focus to the creek. Olmsted Jr.’s planning work 1920s1920s The city began to purchase the lots between 10th and 11th Streets, displacing residents. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. prepared a “Report on the Improvement of Boulder Creek” for the area that spanned the length of the creek from 9th to 17th Streets, with the intention of mitigating flood damage. The plan was to be funded by a new parks bond, but the bond issue failed, so the city moved forward with a plan for a smaller area. Olmsted, Jr.’s firm prepared plans for “Park and Boulder Creek”, establishing Central Park as 1970s - 1980s1970s - 1980s The train monument caboose, which was destroyed in 1958 by vandals, was replaced in 1975 after a community- led fundraising drive. The Dushanbe Teahouse was accepted as a gift from the people of Tajikistan. The Boulder Creek Path was constructed through Central Park alongside the creek. A community-led effort to “Save the Bandshell” resulted in its historic designation. Free summer concerts were promoted for the park. Since 1987, the Farmers Market has been held on 13th St. Indigenous History Railroads & Mining Supply Town New Structures Built & Hippies Arrive Floods & Early Urban Development Commercial Buildings & City Acquires Land & Builds Central Park Public Space Projects (Source: Downtown Boulder Civic Area storymaps) 3A. Site Cultural History Civic Area Site History Site Analysis Key Findings 4. Celebration of History & Assets Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 494 of 568 31Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 5. Enhanced Access & Connections Canyon Blvd, Arapahoe, and Broadway are Circuitous bike path travel here Arboretum Path could be enhanced as a connector, as it currently has challenges surrounding perceptions of safety and with steep Perimeter roads act as barriers. No full loop connecting the entire site. EXISTING Broadway is a major public transit corridor with buses arriving every 3-5min at most Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 495 of 568 32Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 5. Enhanced Access & Connections Create an Accessible and fully Connected Space throughout the Park and Beyond There are strong connections from major multi-use paths. There is an opportunity to create universal access and further connect this site to surrounding destinations through equitable accessibility. RTD Station (Future expansion is an opportunity to create new “front 13th is a potential location for Adequate parking will be key A full loop through the Civic Area site would connect and also be its OPPORTUNITY Potential extension of path to solve circulation issues*. 11th St is an opportunity for connections as a major desire line between The Hill and Downtown Example of a Future Site-Wide Improve the legibility, convenience, and appeal of public transit along Broadway Potenial circulation route will ensure tree protection for notable, large-diameter trees. * Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 496 of 568 33Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 5. Enhanced Access & Connections Arboretum Path could be an enhanced Given its prime location, there is an opportunity to further connect the site to surrounding destinations and prioritize the ped and bike experience. OPPORTUNITY 11th St is an opportunity for connections as a major desire line between The Hill and Downtown RTD Station (Future expansion is an opportunity to create new “front Positioned with prime connectivity N, E, S, and W, Civic Area could become central node In addition to the loop within the Civic Area, a larger loop network could connect the site with surrounding Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 497 of 568 Transportation & Mobility Summary 34Site Anal- This summary below outlines major transportation and mobility issues facing the Boulder Civic Area. These include addressing barriers posed by adjacent roadways, enhancing connections to transit stations, and optimizing multi-modal access while preserving park space. Issues Summary 1.Universal and Equitable Access •Major roadways adjacent to the Park function as access barriers to the site as well as disrupting views and causing noise issues. A review of crossing treatments and signal operations at key crossings should be undertaken. It should be determined whether any new crossing treatments should be added. Streetscape enhancements which would screen the site from these roadways should be also be considered. •ADA circulation as well as access to programming and amenities should be studied for all disabilities to create a cohesive and welcoming space for all. •The cost of parking for the park is a barrier. There have been community requests for a free shuttle that accesses the library, park, and Pearl Street to help lower barriers for all community members 2.A strong connection is needed between the Civic Area & the RTD Station. The additional transit facilities on 14th Street, adjacent to the site, will help provide this connection. The site design should connect 14th Street to the east end with walking and bicycling facilities. 3.There is excellent multi-modal connection to the park from two major multi-use paths which pass through the Civic Area and intersect. These facilities present an opportunity for enhanced non-motor vehicle access to the site. However, determinations will have to be made about how those facilities move through the site and serve their transportation function while minimizing impact on park space. There is an unresolved decision on the need for and alignment of a direct connection to the 13th and Canyon intersection. 4.13th Street within the Park has been identified as a key location for change. Options include a shared street, an event street or a car-free space. In addition, changes to 13th Street’s transportation use may influence bicycle facilities and parking need. Decisions about 13th Street need to be made in consideration of those challenges and opportunities. 5.Adequate parking will be key to successful access to the Park. Some existing parking will be removed and some new land uses will generate additional parking. In addition, the demand for parking at the RTD station and the station’s current supply of parking in determining the parking needs for the Park. Parking structures are likely going to be needed to accommodate parking demand. 6.The Arboretum Path connects the Civic Area and the new hotel/conference center at the University of Colorado. The people using the center provide a great opportunity for new users of the Park. However, it will be important to make sure that the connection between the two sites feels safe and comfortable for people walking and biking between them. A sense of wayfinding will be needed to make connections to the Civic Area, and beyond to Pearl Street and the rest of downtown from the Hill. Intersection of Canyon Blvd & Broadway Phase 1 Multi-Modal Path Site Analysis Key Findings 5. Enhanced Access & Connections Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 498 of 568 35Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 6. Place for Community Activity & The Bandshell The Farmers Market Civic Plaza Old Oak Grove Liberty Grove Library Parking Lot (used for Creek Fest) The Green Canyon Theater in Public Library North (only indoor space) (196 capacity) Barriers to event hosting and lack of infrastructure. Other than the Bandshell and Library theater, for any other event, hosts must provide all event infrastructure. EXISTING Small Event/ Gathering Space in Mt. Sanitas Room Lyrics Bend Outdoor Classroom Infinite Walk of Peace Existing Public Artworks on (Hatched areas) Existing Event Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 499 of 568 36Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 6. Place for Community Activity & There is an opportunity to make it easy for a range of cultural events to be hosted. The natural and built infrastructure in the Civic Area provide the basis for diverse events to take place year-round. Potential outdoor performing arts space, as proposed in Civic Area Plan Potential performing arts uses, as proposed in Civic Area Plan OPPORTUNITY Potential arts & cultural uses in the West Bookend, as proposed in the Examples of Future Additional Event Locations / Venues Examples of Future Additional Public Art, integrated with Other Goals Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 500 of 568 Programming & Activation Summary 37Site Anal- Civic Area Events Permitting Overview: •Events in the Civic Area are permitted by Boulder Parks and Rec, with coordination levels required by BPR dependent on the class of event. Challenges Summary: •Permitting process can be cumbersome, especially for small- er events •People experiencing homelessness deters event producers •Cost of the permit deters event producers •Need better facilities for trucks to park, can’t be on turf or under drip-lines •At Bandshell, only enough for 1-2 food trucks •Lack of electrical hookups for food trucks, only at Bandshell •No restrooms, high cost and high vandalism to rent •Ability to secure Bandshell would mitigate problems Opportunities Summary: •Additional facilities for larger events •Improved infrastructure for events (restrooms, electrical hookups, parking pads for food trucks) •Improved permitting process •Expansion of Arts in the Park program •Upgrade security of Bandshell Current Bandshell users include: • City of Boulder Arts in the Park Program • Boulder Creek Festival • Boulder Symphony • Boulder Art & JazzFest • LatinX Colorado Festival • Colorado Brazil Fest • Boulder Arts Outdoors • Boulder PrideFest • Myriad of civic concerts and performances • Boulder Ballet • Food and clothing givewaways • Movie nights • Boy’s Club • Political rallies • Local bands Current Civic Area Permittable Locations: • Bandshell • 13th Street (Farmers Market) • Civic Plaza • Old Oak Grove • Liberty Grove • Library Parking Lot • The Green • Canyon Theater in Public Library Site Analysis Key Findings 6. Place for Community Activity & A number of challenges make hosting events within the Civic Area challenging for many groups. There is an opportunity to make it easier for a wide range of diverse events and programming to take place on site. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 501 of 568 Programming & Activation Summary 38Site Anal- Music Performances Farmers Market Family Concerts Boulder Creek Fest Arts in the Park Pride Festival Site Analysis Key Findings 6. Place for Community Activity & Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 502 of 568 39Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 7. Sustainable & Viable Future The natural ecology within the site is highly modified. Challenges with erosion, weed control, vegetation establishment and over-use in sensitive riparian zones all contribute to an ecology altered from an ideal natural state. Unsanctioned camping damages EXISTING Existing tree canopy does not reflect a master planned approach to the park space Challenges with soil compaction, streamside erosion, and vegetation Underutilized park Underutilized green Many of the existing riparian trees along the creek are in poor condition Canopy coverage is needed for shade throughout the site Soil characterized by sandy sediment is not compatible with Lack of shade on east side of bandshell seating Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 503 of 568 40Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings 7. Sustainable & Viable Future Upland Trees Riparian Trees Restoring the Ecology through Climate Conscious Design There is an opportunity to increase ecological function and climate resiliency by supporting biodiversity, soil function, stream health, and re-vegetation, while also educating about sustainability. OPPORTUNITY Add diverse tree species to the existing urban forest Increase riparian vegetation consistently along creek corridor Young trees here will mature to create more canopy coverage in the park space Invite new types of interactions with the Example of great views of the Find creative ways for visitors to interact with the creek while minimizing the impact of foot traffic on important riparian vegetation and sensitive soils (boardwalks, decks, Design site amenities that can accommodate flooding and changing Incorporate green infrastructure for stormwater Enhance in-stream flows and channel Increase thermal comfort through shade Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 504 of 568 41Site Anal- The site is part of a linear riparian corridor that provides crucial habitat and connectivity between ecoregions (woodlands, foothill shrubland, and high prairie). Site Analysis Key Findings 7. Sustainable & Viable Future Ecological Crossroads Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 505 of 568 42Site Anal- 1. Rocky Mountain maple 2. Grey alder 3.Red birch 4. Cottonwood 5. Peachleaf willow 6. Willow 7. Red osier dogwood 8.Silver sagebrush 9. Sedge 10. Spikerush 11. Switchgrass 12. Western wheatgrass 13.Bulrush 14. Ute ladies’-tresses * 15. Cattail 16. Long-eared owl 17. Colorado hairstreak butterfly 18.Virginia’s warbler 19. Lazuli bunting 20. Green-tailed towhee 21. Blue-grey gnatcatcher 22. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse* 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 27 2 23.Bivalves and mussels 24. Northern redbelly dace 25. Plains topminnow 26. Brassy minnow 27. Orangespotted sunfish 28.Northern leopard frog 29. Common shiner 30.Freshwater mollusks FLORA FAUNA These species rely on riparian habitat. Riparian zones have been significantly impacted/reduced due to development and changes to Site Analysis Key Findings 7. Sustainable & Viable Future Flora & Fauna * This illustration includes examples of species that can be found in riparian zones of this ecoregion. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 506 of 568 43Site Anal- Site Analysis Key Findings Civic Area Site Analysis Key Findings The Civic Heart of Boulder1 2 3 4 5 6 Life & Property Safety Outdoor Culture & Nature Celebration of History & Assets Enhanced Access & Connections Community Activity & Arts Sustainable & Viable Future7 The Civic Area can benefit from a cohesive identity that supports a sense of arrival and a welcoming and inclusive space that is a green and civic hub. The floodplain poses a number of restrictions on development, and there is a need for all visitors to feel safe and welcome on site. There are opportunities to further promote a vibrant outdoor culture and site activities by supporting habitat and introducing more activities for a range of users. Boulder’s rich history and Civic Area assets can be celebrated by featuring more historical storytelling in the site’s design and programming. The pedestrian and bike experience on site can be improved by better connecting to surrounding destinations. Civic Area can become a more accessible event host, providing diverse spaces for community activity, arts, and culture. There is an opportunity to increase ecological function and climate resiliency in Civic Area, serving as a model. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment A Part 1 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 507 of 568 CIVIC AREA PARK PLAN Site Analysis Appendix Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 1 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 508 of 568 Site Anal- Zoning District: DT-5 Description: Downtown 5 Purpose: The business area within the downtown core that is in the process of changing to a higher intensity use where a wide range of office, retail, residential, and public uses are permitted. This area has the greatest potential for new development and redevelopment within the downtown core. Description: Residential-High 1 Purpose: High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed Zoning District: BT-2 Description: Business-Transitional 2 Purpose: Transitional business areas which generally buffer a residential area from a major street and are primarily used for commercial and complementary residential uses, including without limitation, temporary lodging and office uses Zoning District: BC-1 Description: Business-Community 1 Purpose: Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate Zoning District: RH-2 Description: Residential-High 2 Purpose: High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed Zoning District: RMX-1 Description: Residential- Mixed 1 Purpose: Mixed density residential areas with a variety of single-family, detached, duplexes, and multi-family units that will be maintained; and where existing structures may be renovated or rehabilitated Zoning District: BMS Description: Business-Main Street Purpose: Business areas generally anchored around a main street that are intended to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; retail uses on the first floor; residential and office uses above the first floor; and where complementary uses may be allowed Zoning District: P Description: Public Purpose: Public areas in which public and semi- public facilities and uses are located, including without limitation, governmental and educational uses Zoning District: DT-1 Description: Downtown 1 Purpose: A transition area between the downtown and the surrounding residential areas where a wide range of retail, office, residential, and public uses are permitted. A balance of new development with the maintenance and renovation of existing buildings is anticipated, and where development and redevelopment consistent with the established historic and urban design character is encouraged Zoning District: RL-1 Description: Residential-Low 1 Purpose: Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities The site is primarily zoned “Public,” with the East Bookend zoned “Downtown 1” and the Arboretum Path zoned “Business-Transitional 2”. The site is surrounded by mixed-used Downtown zoning to the north and east, and primarily Residential Site Analysis Zoning Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 2 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 509 of 568 Site Anal- St. Julien Hotel Boulder University Inn Food Chase Bank Boulder Municipal Court Canyon Center Residential Residential Residential Residential Senior Housing Boulder County Historic Court House Pearl Street Mall Boulder High School Evert Pierson Memorial Kids’ Fishing Ponds RTD Station One Boulder Plaza (mixed- use) Vacant Retail Office Office Gas Station The Rink Business Center PLANNED St. Julien Hotel & Event Space Site Analysis / Existing Conditions Edges / Office Office UBS Financial Morgan Stanley Wells Fargo Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 3 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 510 of 568 Site Anal- Downtown Non-Historic Area Source Plan: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (2018) The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines designates this zone as the “Downtown Non-Historic Area.” These guidelines are administered by three bodies: the Design Advisory Board (DAB), Landmarks Board (LB), and Downtown Management Commission (DMC). Downtown Design Advisory Board The Design Advisory Board (DAB) reviews projects valued over $25,000 located in the Non-Historic Area and Interface Area which involve the construction of a new building or exterior work on an existing building Site Analysis / Existing Conditions - Overlays Downtown Design Guidelines Areas The site is entirely within the “Downtown Non-Historic Area” as designated by the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (2018). The block between 13th and 14th streets is called out as within the boundary of the Downtown Interface Area Source Plan: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (2018) Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 4 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 511 of 568 Site Anal- BID Downtown Boulder is also a business improvement district, called the Downtown Boulder Partnership (DBP), meaning property owners tax themselves to make their community cleaner, safer and more vibrant. The tax is used by the Downtown Boulder Partnership (DBP) to purchase services that supplement those provided by the city and to provide a comprehensive consumer marketing program. Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) The Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and the City of Boulder’s Department of Community Vitality are responsible for parking operations and related services for the downtown area. The Downtown Management Commission (DMC) advises the CAGID business affairs. Guiding Policy Section Site Analysis / Existing Conditions - Overlays Districts & Overlay Zones Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 5 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 512 of 568 Site Anal- Install traffic calming features and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan West Senior Center Improvements Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Site Analysis / Existing Conditions Proposed Related Downtown Projects Install gateway promenade Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Provide opportunities for food trucks at Civic Area Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Park at the Core Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Mixed Use Community Services and Innovation Center Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Public Market Hall Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Farmer’s Market Expansion Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Structured Parking Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Teahouse Persian Gardens Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area East Bookend Existing Conditions Report East Bookend Properties Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 6 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 513 of 568 Site Anal- Canyon Complete Streets Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area East Bookend Existing Conditions Report 10th St Sidewalk Source Plan: Transportation Master PlanDowntown Core Arterial Network Framework: Accessible and Connected Andrews Arboretum Option A, B and C Source Plan: Andrews Arboretum Promenade Study Install traffic calming features and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes Source Plan: Boulder Civic Area Plan Parking Garage Updates Source Plan: CIP Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Source Plan: Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Management Plan Downtown Streets as Public Spaces Framework: Design Quality and Placemaking Multimodal Streetscape Improvements on 11th St to connect Hill to Downtown; Source Plan: Central Broadway Corridor Design Framework Site Analysis / Existing Conditions Proposed Related Downtown Projects Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 7 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 514 of 568 Site Anal- AB2 AB2 AB2 AB2 Colorado Ave Regent Dr9th StGlenwood Dr 30th StV a l m o n t D r Gree n b r iarBlvd Table Mesa Dr G i l laspi eDrGillasp i e D rLehigh StGreenbriarEisenhower DrAurora Ave McIntire StMo o r h e a d A v e Moha wkDrManhattan DrTalbot Dr Thomas Dr Western Ave Conestoga St Tenino Ave 55th StMohawk DrSioux DrCrescent DrSpine RdGillaspie DrCentral AveYarmouth Ave4th StManhattanDrFlatironPkwy 9th St27th WayCollege Ave Maxwell Ave Hawthorn Ave Alpine Ave 63rd StFront Range Ave 20th St13th St Euclid Ave 9th StCentral Ave Arapahoe Ave Arapahoe Ave Arapahoe Ave B r o a dw a y B r o a dw a y Baseline Rd Baseline RdBaseline Rd S o u t h B o u ld e r R d Baseline Rd28th St30th StFolsom St 30th StCanyon Blvd Pearl St Spruce St Spruce St Walnut St Walnut StPearl St Canyo n B l v d P e a r lP k w yD ia g o n a lH w y DiagonalHwyValmont RdValmont Rd28th St29th St Mall55th StBroadway19th St19th StFolsom St26th StIris Ave Cherryvale RdCherryvale Rd Table M esa Dr B r o a d w a y Jay Rd Jay RdJay Rd Diagonal Hwy 28th St ExtBroadway F o o t h ills P a r k w a y 55th StLee Hill DrTo Lyons To Lafayette/Erie To Lafayette To Louisville/Lafayette To Denver/DIA To Golden N bus to Nederland Climb bus to Gold Hill To Gunbarrel/Longmont U.S. 36 &TABLE MESASTATION TANTRA DR &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride 39TH ST &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride 27TH WAY &BROADWAYPark-n-Ride CHURCH OFNAZARENEPark-n-Ride BOULDER JUNCTIONAT DEPOT SQUARE DOWNTOWN BOULDERSTATION University of Colorado Boulder BOULDERGUNBARREL ManhattanArts / Academics Boulder Community Hospital SummitMiddle CreeksideElementary Mount ZionLutheran School Platt Middle HillsideLearning Center Crest ViewElementary Casey Middle NewVista High BoulderHigh HalcyonMiddle-High Mountain ShadowsMontessori School BixbySchool Sage Elementary Bear CreekElementary Shining MountainWaldorf School ColumbineElementary University HillElementary JarrowMontessori School CommunityMontessoriElementary Fairview High FlatironsElementary MesaElementary Sacred Heartof Jesus Boulder Community Schoolof Integrated Studies HorizonsK-8 CentennialMiddle Arapahoe RidgeHigh High PeaksElementary Southern HillsMiddle Friends'School WhittierInternationalElementary Tara PerformingArts High BoulderWatershed School 36 119 157 157 36 119 7 93 93 36 36 Y JYYJ J J J FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF5 FF6 N Y J J208 FF4 FF4 FF4 FF4 FF4 GS GS AB1 AB1 FF1 FF1 FF1 FF1 FF2 AB1 FF2 FF5 FF2 FF5 GS GS AB1 FF2 FF5 208 205205205205204204204 204 204 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 225 225 225E 225E 225E 225 225 225 225 206206 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 209 209 209 209 209 206 206 206 205 205 205 205 208 208 208 208 208 FLEXFLEXFLEXFLEX FLEX FLEX FLEX FLEX AB2 SKIPSKIP BOLT BOLTBOLT BOLTBOUND BOUND STMP STMP JUMP JUMP HOP HOP BOLT BOLT BOLT BOUND HOP HOP HOP DASH SKIP BOUND DASH DASH SKIP SKIP DASH SKIP SKIP BOLT SKIP SKIP CLIMB CLIMB DASH HOP 206•236•DASH•AB1•AB2FF1•FF2•FF4•FF5•FF6 204•206•DASH•AB1 204•206•DASH•SKIP FF1•FF2•FF5•AB1 DASH•SKIP•FF1 FF2•FF5•GS•AB1• 206•236•FF6•AB2FF4•FLEX•BOLT DASH•BOUND•SKIPAB1•GS 204•205•208•225•BOLT•HOPDASH•FLEX•JUMP•CLIMB AB1-•FF1•FF2•FF5•GS•N•Y Downtown Boulder/ The Hill/ CU/ Twenty Ninth Street Broadway Downtown/ BVSD Arapahoe Campus via Arapahoe Boulder/ Lafayette, Erie via Arapahoe Baseline/ Iris via 30th Street CU Main Campus/ East Campus via Colorado Boulder/ Louisville/ Lafayette via S. Boulder Rd Boulder/ Longmont via Diagonal Hwy Boulder/ Gold Hill (operated by VIA) Table Mesa/ Moorhead/ North 19th Downtown/ 28th Street/ Gunbarrel/ Heatherwood Pearl Pkwy/ 55th/ Manhattan Dr/ Gillaspie Dr Downtown/ Flatirons Business Park via Iris/ Valmont CU / Mohawk Dr Boulder/ Lafayette via Baseline Boulder Junction US36/ Table Mesa Boulder skyRide to DIA via E-470 Boulder/ Denver Union station- All Stations Boulder/ Denver Union station - Express Boulder Junction/ Denver Civic Center Station Boulder/ Anschutz Medical Campus Boulder/ East Boulder/ 28th St/ Denver Union Station Boulder/ Golden/ Federal Center/ West Line Longmont/ Gunbarrel/ CU Boulder/ Nederland/ Eldora Mountain Resort Lyons/ Boulder TRANSIT SERVICE LEGEND 206 SKIP HOP BOUND LONG JUMP JUMP DASH 225/225D/225E 236 204 CLIMB 209 205/205T 208 FF6 FF5 FF1 GS Y FLEX N BOLT J FF2 FF4 AB1/AB2 STAMPEDE FF1 GS AB FF2 225 204 209 206 205 208 J N FF6 FF5 STMP CLIMB JUMP LONG JUMP BOLT BOUND HOP DASH SKIP Park -n-RideStation Route Direction(One Way)Bus stop ConnectingroutesDASH•SKIP GS•J•ABBus-BikeShelter FLEX FF4 Y Boulder/Longmont/Fort Collins (operated by TransFort) 236 .5Mile.25Mile 1Mile.5Mile.25Mile 1Mile 236 236 236 NMAP LEGEND Park Hospital Lake/reservoir Schools College DOWNTOWN BOULDER STATION GATE ASSINGMENTSDowntown BoulderStationDowntown BoulderStation FREQUENCY LEGEND All day, frequent service All day, periodic service Peak hour service only 2nd StPeakto P e a k HwyB o u ld e r C a n y o n D rCaribou Rd Peak t o P e ak H w y E ld o r a Rd Nedarland HS NEDERLANDPark-n-Ride To Boulder To Eldora Ski Area 119 119 119 72 N N NEDERLAND NOP Q R S T U Colorado Ave Regent Dr9th StGlenwood Dr30th StV a l m o n t D rGreen b r iarBlvd Stanford A v e G i l laspi eDrGillaspie DrGillasp i e D rLehigh StEisenhower DrAurora Ave McIntire StMo o r h e a d A v e Moha wkDrManhattan DrTalbot Dr Thomas Dr Western Ave Conestoga St Thunderbird Rd Tenino Ave 55th StMohawk DrPawnee DrSioux Dr Sioux DrCrescent DrSpine RdHeatherwood Dr 61st St75th St75th St76th StGillaspie DrCentral AveYarmouth AveLeeHillRd Vassar D r4th StManhattanDrFlatironPkwy 71st St9th StAdams Cir Kent StPonca Pl27th WayCollege Ave Maxwell AveHawthorn Ave Alpine Ave 63rd StFront Range Ave 20th St13th St Euclid Ave 9th StCentral Ave Arapahoe Ave ArapahoeAve Arapahoe Ave B r o a dw a y B r o a dw a y Baseline Rd Baseline RdBaseline Rd S o u th Boul der Rd S outh Boulder Rd Baseline Rd28th St30th StFolsomSt30thStCanyon Blvd PearlSt SpruceSt SpruceStWalnutSt WalnutStPearlSt Canyo n B l v d P e a r lP k w yD ia g o n a lH w y DiagonalHwyValmont RdValmont Rd28th St55t StBroadway19th St19th StFolsom St26th StIris Ave Boul d e r T u r n p i k e Cherryvale RdCherryvale Rd Table M esa Dr B r o a d w a y Jay Rd Jay RdJay Rd Diagonal Hwy75th StLookout Rd28th St ExtBroadwayN Foothills Hwy F o o t h ills P a r k w a y Baseline Rd Arapahoe Ave 55th StTo Lyons To Longmont To Lafayette To Lafayette To Louisville To Denver/DIA To Golden To Nederland U.S. 36 &TABLE MESASTATION TANTRA DR &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride 39TH ST &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride 27TH WAY &BROADWAYPark-n-Ride CHURCH OFNAZARENEPark-n-Ride BOULDER JUNCTIONAT DEPOT SQUARE BOULDER Gunbarrel ManhattanArts / Academics EisenhowerElementary SummitMiddle CreeksideElementary Mount ZionLutheran School Boulder JewishDay School DouglassElementaryPlatt Middle HillsideLearning Center HeatherwoodElementaryFoothillElementaryCrest ViewElementaryCasey Middle Bridge School BoulderPrep High NewVista High BoulderHigh HalcyonMiddle-Senior BoulderCountry DayMountain ShadowsMontessori School BixbySchool JusticeMiddle-SeniorCharter Sage Elementary Bear CreekElementary Shining MountainWaldorf School ColumbineElementary University HillElementary JarrowMontessori School CommunityMontessoriElementary Fairview High FlatironsElementary MesaElementary Sacred Heartof Jesus Boulder Community Schoolof Integrated Studies HorizonsK-8 CentennialMiddle Arapahoe RidgeHigh High PeaksElementary Southern HillsMiddle Friends'School WhittierInternationalElementaryTara PerformingArts HighSeptemberSchoolBoulder Watershed School367 119119 157 157 11936 1197 7 119 7 93 93 36 36 Y JJYYJ J J J FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF6 FF5 FF6 N Y J JJJY208 FF4 FF4 FF4 FF4 FF4 GS GS AB AB FF1 FF1 FF1 FF1 FF2 AB FF2 FF5 FF2 FF5 GS GS AB FF2 FF5 208 205205205T205205205205205205204204204204 204 206 206 206 206206 206 206 206 206 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225225 225 225 206206 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 206 206 206 205 205 205 205 205T208208208 208 208FLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEX FLEX FLEX FLEX FLEXSKIPSKIPBOLTBOLTBOLTBOLTBOUNDBOUND STMP STMP JUMP JUMP LONG JUMP HOP HOP BOLT BOLTBOLT BOUND HOP HOP HOP DASH SKIP BOUND DASH DASH SKIP SKIP DASH SKIP SKIP BOLT BOLT SKIP SKIP CLIMB DASH DASH 206•209•DASH•ABFF1•FF2•FF4•FF5•FF6 204•206•DASH•AB 204•206•DASH•SKIPFF1•FF2•FF5•AB DASH•SKIP•FF1FF5•GS•AB• 206•FF6•FF4•FLEX DASH•BOUND•SKIPAB•GS Downtown Boulder/ The Hill/ CU/ Twenty Ninth Street Broadway Downtown/ BVSD Arapahoe Campus via Arapahoe Boulder/ Lafayette, Erie via Arapahoe Baseline/ Iris via 30th Street CU Main Campus/ East Campus via Colorado Boulder/ Louisville/ Lafayette via S. Boulder Rd Boulder/ Longmont via Diagonal Hwy Boulder/ Gold Hill (operated by VIA) Table Mesa/ Moorhead/ North 19th Downtown/ 28th Street/ Gunbarrel/ Heatherwood Pearl Pkwy/ 55th/ Manhattan Dr/ Gillaspie Dr Downtown/ Flatirons Business Park via Iris/ Valmont Table Mesa/ Frasier Meadows to CU Main Campus Boulder/ Lafayette via Baseline Boulder skyRide to DIA Boulder/ Denver - Express Boulder/ Denver - All Stations Boulder Junction/ Denver Civic Center Station Boulder/ Anschutz Medical Campus Boulder/ East Boulder/ 28th St/ Denver Boulder/ Golden/ Federal Center/ West Line Longmont/ Gunbarrel/ CU Boulder/ Nederland/ Eldora Mountain Resort Lyons/ Boulder Boulder/ Fort Collins TRANSIT SERVICE LEGEND 206 SKIP HOP BOUND LONG JUMP JUMP DASH 225 204 CLIMB 209 205 208 FF6 FF5 FF1 GS Y FLEX N BOLT J FF2 FF4 AB STAMPEDE FF1 GS AB FF2 225 204 209 206 205 208 J N FF6 FF5 STMP CLIMB JUMP LONG JUMP BOLT BOUND HOP DASH SKIP Park -n-RideStation Bus-BikeShelter Localbus stop Local/Regionalbus stop ConnectingroutesDASH•SKIPGS•J•AB FLEX FF4 Y MAP LEGEND FREQUENCY LEGEND Railroad Creek/Ditch Greenway Park/Open SpaceCity TrailheadGolf course Schools Hospital B-CycleEGO Car ShareParking Lake/reservoir Street All day, frequent service All day, periodic service Peak hour service only Walnut Street Canyon Blvd14th StreetDOWNTOWN BOULDER STATION GATE ASSIGNMENTS Downtown Boulder Station 36 36Park Dr Main StMainStMainStEvansStBloomeld PlEwald AveHigh StPark St Kelling Dr1stAve2nd Ave3rdAve3rd Ave Stickney St MtviewSt4th AvePark St 2ndAveHigh St Seward StEvans St Railroad AveRailroad AveRailroad Ave Upper5thAve5thAve5th Ave5th AveBroadwayLYONSPark-n-Ride ToBoulderYYLYONS 1.5 Miles.5Mile 2.5 Miles ECO PASSAn annual transit pass purchased by a company for its employees or by a neighborhood of 40+ houses. This pass is valid for one year and provides unlimited usage of all RTD Local, Regional, Rail, and Airport routes. Visit www.bcecopass.com for more information.VALUPASSAn annual pass available in any pass category (local, and regional). This pass is paid for in advance at the cost of 11 months of service and provides the 12th month of service free of charge!**Prices based on 2018 pricing are subject to change.For more information on RTD passes, visit www.rtd-denver.com.TRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPBOULDER COUNTYBOULDER COUNTYWWW.BOULDERCOUNTY.ORGBOULDER20182018RTD FARES & PASSESRTD FARES & PASSES2018 RTD FARES**2018 RTD FARES**OTHER RTD BUS PASSES**OTHER RTD BUS PASSES***Seniors 65+, People w/Disabilities, Medicare Recipients, K-12 ages 6-19. Up to three children age 5 and under ride free with a paying adult.† Day Pass provides unlimited rides on bus and rail within one service day for the price of a round-trip. The Local Day Pass is valid for Local fare, and the Regional/Airport Day Pass is valid for Local, Regional, and SkyRide Airport fare. -Regional Day/Monthly passes and Eco Pass provide free access to Denver International Airport SkyRide service.ECO PASSAn annual transit pass purchased by a company for its employees or by a neighborhood of 40+ houses. This pass is valid for one year and provides unlimited usage of all RTD Local, Regional, Rail, and Airport routes. Visit www.bcecopass.com for more information.VALUPASSAn annual pass available in any pass category (local, and regional). This pass is paid for in advance at the cost of 11 months of service and provides the 12th month of service free of charge!**Prices based on 2018 pricing are subject to change.For more information on RTD passes, visit www.rtd-denver.com.$2.60 $4.50 $9.00$1.30 $2.25 $4.50$5.20 $9.00 w/ regional pass$2.60 $4.50 w/ regional pass$26.00 $45.00 w/ regional pass$13.00 $22.50 w/ regional pass$23.50 $40.50 w/ regional pass$11.75 $20.25 w/ regional pass$99.00 $171.00 w/ regional pass$49.00 $85.00 w/ regional pass-FREE- -FREE- -FREE-LOCAL REGIONAL SKYRIDESTANDARD FARE-DISCOUNT*DAY PASS†-DISCOUNT*DAY PASS BOOK(5 days)-DISCOUNT*10 SINGLE RIDE BOOK-DISCOUNT*MONTHLY PASS-DISCOUNT*ECO PASS FOR MORE INFORMATIONFOR MORE INFORMATIONRegional Routes with irregular schedules of 60 minute frequency or less: 236, FF5, FF6, FLEX, GS, J, N, Y, AB2†††15-30 minute frequency within Boulder *10 minutes from May- August **15 Minutes from May – August **30 minutes from May - AugustPara más información de RTD en Español, llamaa 303.299.6000RTD WebsiteBoulder County TransportationGoogle Online Maps/ TripPlanningCity of BoulderCall-n-Ride– Interlocken/Westmoor– Longmont – Louisville–SuperiorCU Student TransportationFor Real-Time Transit InfoHOP& Late Night Transit ScheduleInformation Final Mile Bike SheltersWay to Go Carpool/Vanpool Information Eco Pass InformationVia Mobility Services(formerly Special Transit)www.rtd-denver.com0093.144.303tisnart/moc.elgooGGOboulder.net or 303.441.32669898.434.303303.434.8990303.994.3551/ 303.994.35520698.434.303..20645512875072.537.303boulderbustracker.com, ‘Transit’ App303.447.8282www.busthenbike.comLOOP.854.3038594.144.303303.447.28485am6 7 8 9 10 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 117-1030601560306015153030307-10**30306060†15151530†30303060307-10**1515307–10**15***3030†††60307-10**15307-10***7-10**15***157-107-10**1030307-1015†††607-107-10301510151515101515156012pm**HOPSKIPJUMPLONG JUMPBOLTBOUNDDASHSTAMPEDE205225†228FF1FF 2FF 4LDWEEKDAY BUS FREQUENCIES - IN MINUTES12am101515AB2 AB2 AB2 AB2Colorado Ave Regent Dr9th StGlenwood Dr 30th StV a l m o n t D r Green b r iarBlvd Table Mesa Dr G i l laspi eDrGillasp i e D rLehigh StGreenbriarEisenhower DrAurora Ave McIntire StMo o r h e a d A v e Moha wkDrManhattan DrTalbot Dr Thomas Dr Western AveConestoga St Tenino Ave 55th StMohawk DrSioux DrCrescent DrSpine RdGillaspie DrCentral AveYarmouth Ave4th StManhattanDrFlatironPkwy9th St27th WayCollege AveMaxwell AveHawthorn Ave Alpine Ave 63rd StFront Range Ave 20th St13th StEuclid Ave 9th StCentral AveArapahoe AveArapahoeAve Arapahoe AveBroadway B r o a dw a y Baseline Rd Baseline RdBaseline Rd S o uth Boulde r Rd Baseline Rd28th St30th StFolsomSt30thStCanyon BlvdPearlStSpruceStSpruceStWalnutStWalnutStPearlStCanyonBlvd P e a r lP k w yD ia g o n a lH w y DiagonalHwyValmont RdValmont Rd28th St29th St Mall55th StBroadway19th St19th StFolsom St26th StIris Ave Cherryvale RdCherryvale Rd Table M esa Dr B r o a d w a y Jay Rd Jay RdJay Rd Diagonal Hwy 28th St ExtBroadway FoothillsPark w a y 55th StLee Hill DrTo Lyons To Lafayette/Erie To Lafayette To Louisville/Lafayette To Denver/DIA To Golden N bus to NederlandClimb bus to Gold Hill To Gunbarrel/Longmont U.S. 36 &TABLE MESASTATION TANTRA DR &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride 39TH ST &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride 27TH WAY &BROADWAYPark-n-Ride CHURCH OFNAZARENEPark-n-Ride BOULDER JUNCTIONAT DEPOT SQUAREDOWNTOWN BOULDERSTATION University of Colorado Boulder BOULDERGUNBARREL ManhattanArts / Academics Boulder Community Hospital SummitMiddle CreeksideElementary Mount ZionLutheran School Platt Middle HillsideLearning Center Crest ViewElementaryCasey Middle NewVista High BoulderHigh HalcyonMiddle-High Mountain ShadowsMontessori School BixbySchool Sage Elementary Bear CreekElementary Shining MountainWaldorf School ColumbineElementaryUniversity HillElementaryJarrowMontessori School CommunityMontessoriElementary Fairview High FlatironsElementary MesaElementary Sacred Heartof Jesus Boulder Community Schoolof Integrated Studies HorizonsK-8 CentennialMiddle Arapahoe RidgeHighHigh PeaksElementary Southern HillsMiddle Friends'SchoolWhittierInternationalElementaryTara PerformingArts HighBoulder Watershed School36 119157 157 36119 7 93 93 36 36 Y JYYJJJJ FF6 FF6FF6FF6FF6 FF6 FF6 FF5 FF6 N Y J J208 FF4 FF4 FF4 FF4FF4 GS GS AB1 AB1 FF1 FF1 FF1 FF1 FF2 AB1 FF2 FF5 FF2 FF5 GS GSAB1FF2FF5 208 205205205205204204204204204206206206206206206206206 206 225 225 225E 225E 225E 225 225 225225 206206 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 209 209 209 209209 206 206 206 205205205205208208 208208 208FLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEX AB2 SKIPSKIP BOLT BOLTBOLT BOLTBOUNDBOUNDSTMPSTMPJUMP JUMPHOPHOPBOLTBOLTBOLTBOUNDHOPHOPHOPDASH SKIP BOUND DASH DASH SKIP SKIP DASH SKIP SKIP BOLTSKIP SKIP CLIMB CLIMB DASH HOP 206•236•DASH•AB1•AB2FF1•FF2•FF4•FF5•FF6 204•206•DASH•AB1 204•206•DASH•SKIPFF1•FF2•FF5•AB1 DASH•SKIP•FF1FF2•FF5•GS•AB1• 206•236•FF6•AB2FF4•FLEX•BOLT DASH•BOUND•SKIPAB1•GS 204•205•208•225•BOLT•HOPDASH•FLEX•JUMP•CLIMBAB1-•FF1•FF2•FF5•GS•N•Y Downtown Boulder/ The Hill/ CU/ Twenty Ninth Street Broadway Downtown/ BVSD Arapahoe Campus via Arapahoe Boulder/ Lafayette, Erie via Arapahoe Baseline/ Iris via 30th Street CU Main Campus/ East Campus via Colorado Boulder/ Louisville/ Lafayette via S. Boulder Rd Boulder/ Longmont via Diagonal Hwy Boulder/ Gold Hill (operated by VIA) Table Mesa/ Moorhead/ North 19th Downtown/ 28th Street/ Gunbarrel/ Heatherwood Pearl Pkwy/ 55th/ Manhattan Dr/ Gillaspie Dr Downtown/ Flatirons Business Park via Iris/ Valmont CU / Mohawk Dr Boulder/ Lafayette via Baseline Boulder Junction US36/ Table Mesa Boulder skyRide to DIA via E-470 Boulder/ Denver Union station- All Stations Boulder/ Denver Union station - Express Boulder Junction/ Denver Civic Center Station Boulder/ Anschutz Medical Campus Boulder/ East Boulder/ 28th St/ Denver Union Station Boulder/ Golden/ Federal Center/ West Line Longmont/ Gunbarrel/ CU Boulder/ Nederland/ Eldora Mountain Resort Lyons/ Boulder TRANSIT SERVICE LEGEND 206 SKIP HOP BOUND LONG JUMP JUMP DASH 225/225D/225E 236 204 CLIMB 209 205/205T 208 FF6 FF5 FF1 GS Y FLEX N BOLT J FF2 FF4 AB1/AB2 STAMPEDE FF1 GS AB FF2 225 204 209 206 205 208 J N FF6 FF5 STMP CLIMB JUMP LONG JUMP BOLT BOUND HOP DASH SKIP Park -n-RideStation Route Direction(One Way)Bus stop ConnectingroutesDASH•SKIP GS•J•ABBus-BikeShelter FLEX FF4 Y Boulder/Longmont/Fort Collins (operated by TransFort) 236 .5Mile.25Mile 1Mile.5Mile.25Mile 1Mile 236 236 236 NMAP LEGEND Park Hospital Lake/reservoir Schools College DOWNTOWN BOULDER STATION GATE ASSINGMENTSDowntown BoulderStationDowntown BoulderStation FREQUENCY LEGEND All day, frequent service All day, periodic service Peak hour service only 2nd StPeaktoPeakHwy B o u ld e rC a n y o n D rCaribouRd Peakt o P e ak H w y E ld o r a Rd Nedarland HS NEDERLANDPark-n-Ride ToBoulder To EldoraSki Area 119 119 119 72 N N NEDERLAND NOPQR S T U Colorado Ave Regent Dr9th StGlenwood Dr30th StV a l m o n t D rGreen b r iarBlvd Stanford Ave G i l laspieDrGillaspie DrGillasp i e D rLehigh StEisenhower DrAurora Ave McIntire StMoorhead Ave MohawkDr Manhattan DrTalbot DrThomas Dr Western AveConestoga St Thunderbird Rd Tenino Ave 55th StMohawk DrPawnee DrSioux Dr Sioux DrCrescent DrSpine RdHeatherwood Dr 61st St75th St75th St76th StGillaspie DrCentral AveYarmouth AveLeeHillRd Vassar D r4th StManhattanDrFlatironPkwy 71st St9th StAdamsCir Kent StPonca Pl27th WayCollege AveMaxwell AveHawthorn Ave Alpine Ave 63rd StFront Range Ave 20th St13th StEuclid Ave 9th StCentral AveArapahoe AveArapahoeAve Arapahoe AveBroadwayBroadwayBaseline Rd Baseline RdBaseline Rd South Boulder Rd South Boulder RdBaseline Rd28th St30th StFolsomSt30thStCanyon BlvdPearlStSpruceStSpruceStWalnutStWalnutStPearlStCanyonBlvd P e a r l P k w yD ia g o n a lH w y DiagonalHwyValmont RdValmont Rd28th St55t StBroadway19th St19th StFolsom St26th StIris Ave BoulderTurnpike Cherryvale RdCherryvale Rd TableMesaDr Broadway Jay Rd Jay RdJay Rd Diagonal Hwy75th StLookout Rd28th St ExtBroadwayN Foothills Hwy FoothillsParkway Baseline Rd Arapahoe Ave55th StTo Lyons To Longmont To LafayetteTo LafayetteTo Louisville To Denver/DIA To Golden ToNederland U.S. 36 &TABLE MESASTATION TANTRA DR &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride39TH ST &TABLE MESAPark-n-Ride27TH WAY &BROADWAYPark-n-Ride CHURCH OFNAZARENEPark-n-RideBOULDER JUNCTIONAT DEPOT SQUARE BOULDER GunbarrelManhattanArts / AcademicsEisenhowerElementarySummitMiddleCreeksideElementaryMount ZionLutheran School Boulder JewishDay School DouglassElementaryPlatt Middle HillsideLearning Center HeatherwoodElementaryFoothillElementaryCrest ViewElementaryCasey Middle Bridge SchoolBoulderPrep HighNewVista HighBoulderHigh HalcyonMiddle-Senior BoulderCountry DayMountain ShadowsMontessori SchoolBixbySchoolJusticeMiddle-SeniorCharter Sage Elementary Bear CreekElementary Shining MountainWaldorf School ColumbineElementaryUniversity HillElementaryJarrowMontessori School CommunityMontessoriElementary Fairview High FlatironsElementary MesaElementary Sacred Heartof Jesus Boulder Community Schoolof Integrated Studies HorizonsK-8CentennialMiddle Arapahoe RidgeHighHigh PeaksElementary Southern HillsMiddle Friends'SchoolWhittierInternationalElementaryTara PerformingArts HighSeptemberSchoolBoulder Watershed School367 1191191571571193611977119 793 93 36 36 Y JJYYJJJJFF6 FF6FF6FF6FF6FF6FF6 FF5 FF6NY J JJJY208FF4FF4FF4FF4FF4 GS GS ABABFF1FF1FF1 FF1 FF2ABFF2FF5FF2FF5GSGSABFF2FF5208 205205205T205205205205205205204204204204204206206206206206206206206206225225225225225225225225225225225206206204204204204204204204209209209209209209209209209206 206 206 205205205205 205T208208208208208FLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEXFLEX FLEXSKIPSKIPBOLTBOLTBOLTBOLTBOUNDBOUNDSTMPSTMPJUMP JUMP LONG JUMPHOPHOPBOLTBOLTBOLTBOUNDHOPHOPHOPDASHSKIPBOUNDDASHDASH SKIP SKIP DASHSKIPSKIP BOLT BOLTSKIP SKIP CLIMB DASH DASH206•209•DASH•ABFF1•FF2•FF4•FF5•FF6204•206•DASH•AB204•206•DASH•SKIPFF1•FF2•FF5•ABDASH•SKIP•FF1FF5•GS•AB•206•FF6•FF4•FLEXDASH•BOUND•SKIPAB•GSDowntown Boulder/ The Hill/ CU/ Twenty Ninth StreetBroadwayDowntown/ BVSD Arapahoe Campus via ArapahoeBoulder/ Lafayette, Erie via ArapahoeBaseline/ Iris via 30th StreetCU Main Campus/ East Campus via ColoradoBoulder/ Louisville/ Lafayette via S. Boulder RdBoulder/ Longmont via Diagonal Hwy Boulder/ Gold Hill (operated by VIA)Table Mesa/ Moorhead/ North 19thDowntown/ 28th Street/ Gunbarrel/ HeatherwoodPearl Pkwy/ 55th/ Manhattan Dr/ Gillaspie Dr Downtown/ Flatirons Business Park via Iris/ Valmont Table Mesa/ Frasier Meadows to CU Main Campus Boulder/ Lafayette via Baseline Boulder skyRide to DIA Boulder/ Denver - Express Boulder/ Denver - All Stations Boulder Junction/ Denver Civic Center Station Boulder/ Anschutz Medical Campus Boulder/ East Boulder/ 28th St/ Denver Boulder/ Golden/ Federal Center/ West Line Longmont/ Gunbarrel/ CU Boulder/ Nederland/ Eldora Mountain Resort Lyons/ Boulder Boulder/ Fort Collins TRANSIT SERVICE LEGEND206SKIPHOPBOUNDLONG JUMPJUMPDASH 225 204CLIMB 209 205208 FF6 FF5 FF1 GS Y FLEX N BOLT J FF2 FF4 AB STAMPEDE FF1 GS AB FF2 225 204 209 206205 208 J N FF6 FF5 STMPCLIMBJUMPLONG JUMPBOLTBOUNDHOPDASHSKIP Park -n-RideStation Bus-BikeShelter Localbus stop Local/Regionalbus stop ConnectingroutesDASH•SKIPGS•J•AB FLEX FF4 Y MAP LEGEND FREQUENCY LEGEND Railroad Creek/Ditch Greenway Park/Open SpaceCity TrailheadGolf course Schools Hospital B-CycleEGO Car ShareParking Lake/reservoir Street All day, frequent service All day, periodic service Peak hour service only Walnut Street Canyon Blvd14th StreetDOWNTOWN BOULDER STATION GATE ASSIGNMENTS Downtown Boulder Station 36 36Park Dr Main StMainStMainStEvansStBloomeld PlEwald AveHigh StPark St Kelling Dr1stAve2nd Ave3rdAve3rd Ave Stickney St MtviewSt4th AvePark St 2ndAveHigh St Seward StEvans St Railroad AveRailroad AveRailroad Ave Upper5thAve5thAve5th Ave5th AveBroadwayLYONSPark-n-Ride ToBoulderYYLYONS 1.5 Miles.5Mile 2.5 Miles ECO PASSAn annual transit pass purchased by a company for its employees or by a neighborhood of 40+ houses. This pass is valid for one year and provides unlimited usage of all RTD Local, Regional, Rail, and Airport routes. Visit www.bcecopass.com for more information.VALUPASSAn annual pass available in any pass category (local, and regional). This pass is paid for in advance at the cost of 11 months of service and provides the 12th month of service free of charge!**Prices based on 2018 pricing are subject to change.For more information on RTD passes, visit www.rtd-denver.com.TRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPTRANSIT MAPBOULDER COUNTYBOULDER COUNTYWWW.BOULDERCOUNTY.ORGBOULDER20182018RTD FARES & PASSESRTD FARES & PASSES2018 RTD FARES**2018 RTD FARES**OTHER RTD BUS PASSES**OTHER RTD BUS PASSES***Seniors 65+, People w/Disabilities, Medicare Recipients, K-12 ages 6-19. Up to three children age 5 and under ride free with a paying adult.† Day Pass provides unlimited rides on bus and rail within one service day for the price of a round-trip. The Local Day Pass is valid for Local fare, and the Regional/Airport Day Pass is valid for Local, Regional, and SkyRide Airport fare. -Regional Day/Monthly passes and Eco Pass provide free access to Denver International Airport SkyRide service.ECO PASSAn annual transit pass purchased by a company for its employees or by a neighborhood of 40+ houses. This pass is valid for one year and provides unlimited usage of all RTD Local, Regional, Rail, and Airport routes. Visit www.bcecopass.com for more information.VALUPASSAn annual pass available in any pass category (local, and regional). This pass is paid for in advance at the cost of 11 months of service and provides the 12th month of service free of charge!**Prices based on 2018 pricing are subject to change.For more information on RTD passes, visit www.rtd-denver.com.$2.60 $4.50 $9.00$1.30 $2.25 $4.50$5.20 $9.00 w/ regional pass$2.60 $4.50 w/ regional pass$26.00 $45.00 w/ regional pass$13.00 $22.50 w/ regional pass$23.50 $40.50 w/ regional pass$11.75 $20.25 w/ regional pass$99.00 $171.00 w/ regional pass$49.00 $85.00 w/ regional pass-FREE- -FREE- -FREE-LOCAL REGIONAL SKYRIDESTANDARD FARE-DISCOUNT*DAY PASS†-DISCOUNT*DAY PASS BOOK(5 days)-DISCOUNT*10 SINGLE RIDE BOOK-DISCOUNT*MONTHLY PASS-DISCOUNT*ECO PASS FOR MORE INFORMATIONFOR MORE INFORMATIONRegional Routes with irregular schedules of 60 minute frequency or less: 236, FF5, FF6, FLEX, GS, J, N, Y, AB2†††15-30 minute frequency within Boulder *10 minutes from May- August **15 Minutes from May – August **30 minutes from May - AugustPara más información de RTD en Español, llamaa 303.299.6000RTD WebsiteBoulder County TransportationGoogle Online Maps/ TripPlanningCity of BoulderCall-n-Ride– Interlocken/Westmoor– Longmont – Louisville–SuperiorCU Student TransportationFor Real-Time Transit InfoHOP& Late Night Transit ScheduleInformation Final Mile Bike SheltersWay to Go Carpool/Vanpool Information Eco Pass InformationVia Mobility Services(formerly Special Transit)www.rtd-denver.com0093.144.303tisnart/moc.elgooGGOboulder.net or 303.441.32669898.434.303303.434.8990303.994.3551/ 303.994.35520698.434.303..20645512875072.537.303boulderbustracker.com, ‘Transit’ App303.447.8282www.busthenbike.comLOOP.854.3038594.144.303303.447.28485am6 7 8 9 10 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 117-1030601560306015153030307-10**30306060†15151530†30303060307-10**1515307–10**15***3030†††60307-10**15307-10***7-10**15***157-107-10**1030307-1015†††607-107-10301510151515101515156012pm**HOPSKIPJUMPLONG JUMPBOLTBOUNDDASHSTAMPEDE205225†228FF1FF 2FF 4LDWEEKDAY BUS FREQUENCIES - IN MINUTES12am101515Site Analysis - Transportation & Mobility Transportation & Mobility: Public Transit The Civic Area is well connected to public transit. Broadway is a major public transit corridor with buses arriving every 3-5min at most times of the day For additional information, refer to the Appendix. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 8 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 515 of 568 Site Anal- Site Analysis - Transportation & Mobility Transportation & Mobility: Public Transit (Bus Stops) Downtown Boulder Station is a major transit connector across the street from the Civic Area at 14th and Canyon Blvd. In addition, bus stops are located along 9th, Canyon Blvd, Broadway, and near 14th and Arapahoe. This bus stop can feel unsafe for riders that use these bus routes (including Boulder High students) Source: RTD System Map: (www.rtd-denver.com/system-map) Downtown Boulder Station feels disconnected to the Civic Area Park, even with the expansion of the bus gates south down 14th street. Potential future development on the East Bookend will help define the relationship between this transit hub and the Park at the core of the Civic Hub. For additional information, refer to the Appendix. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 9 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 516 of 568 Site Anal- Penfield Tate II Municipal Building Glen Huntington Bandshell Atrium Building Power Substation Highland School Municipal Building Glen Huntington Bandshell Atrium Building Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse City Storage and Transfer Building Boulder- City Storage and Transfer Building Site Analysis - Historic Landmarks Historic Landmarks Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 10 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 517 of 568 Site Anal- Penfield Tate II Municipal Building In 2020, the City of Boulder renamed the Municipal Building, located at 1777 Broadway, in honor of Penfield Tate II, Boulder’s first and only African American mayor, to celebrate his contributions to the Boulder community. In 1971, Tate became the first African American elected to Boulder City Council. In 1974, council members elected him Boulder’s mayor. Tate is celebrated as a strong and involved leader who stood up for the rights and protections of minority groups, including the LGBTQ+ community, at a time when few people would. The building was designed by James M. Hunter & Assoc and built in 1951. The second phase was completed in 1962. Today, the building houses the Boulder City Council and hosts many public meetings. Glen Huntington Bandshell The Glen Huntington Bandshell, located in Boulder’s Central Park, is a historical landmark significant for its distinctive architectural style and cultural importance. Designed by architect Glen Huntington and built in 1938, the Bandshell exemplifies the Art Deco style, characterized by its unique bandshell shape, streamline modern design elements, and the use of local stone, which helps it blend naturally with its park setting. The Bandshell was created as part of a larger civic improvement effort during the Great Depression, funded by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which aimed to enhance public spaces and provide employment. It has served as a central venue for community events, concerts, and gatherings in Boulder for decades, fostering a strong sense of community and cultural expression. As a recognized historic landmark, the Glen Huntington Bandshell is not only a testament to Boulder’s architectural and cultural history but also reflects the city’s ongoing commitment to preserving its historical sites. Its presence in the Boulder Civic Area underscores the area’s importance as a hub for community and cultural activities, making it a key feature in any considerations of the area’s development or redesign. Source: Daily Camera Site Analysis - Historic Landmarks Historic Landmarks On Site Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 11 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 518 of 568 Site Anal- The Atrium Building The Atrium was built as a bank for Midland Savings and Loan in an area on Canyon Boulevard where four other banks were located as the street became a major Boulder thoroughfare. Several branch banks for Midland Savings and Loan were designed by Wagener, all are dominated by an expressive roof form. This building is crowned with a large skylight at the apex of the roof pyramid and originally had a double-height atrium space in the main hall. Stone columns support the roof and frame its large storefront windows. This landmark status reflects Boulder’s commitment to preserving its architectural history despite the development pressures in the area, often referred to as the “east bookend” of the civic center. The City of Boulder owns this building and has used it since the 1980s for government offices. In 2022, the City Council voted to landmark the building. It is anticipated that the property will be re-purposed once the city offices are relocated. Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse The Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse is a symbol of international friendship and cultural exchange, located in the heart of Boulder, Colorado. It was a gift from Boulder’s sister city, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, and was constructed in 1987. The teahouse was meticulously crafted by more than 40 artisans in Tajikistan and then shipped to Boulder, where it was reassembled and opened to the public in 1998. Architecturally, the teahouse is renowned for its intricate and vibrant hand- painted ceramic tiles, carved cedar columns, and a Persian-inspired fountain, all of which reflect the rich artistic traditions of Tajikistan. Its design and decorations incorporate traditional Persian elements, symbolizing the shared human values and the connection between the East and the West. Today, the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse serves as a restaurant and cultural center, offering a menu that blends Eastern and Western culinary traditions and hosting various cultural, private, and community events. It stands not only as a popular culinary destination but also as a monument to cross-cultural friendship and Site Analysis - Historic Landmarks Historic Landmarks On Site Source: Carnegie Library for Local History. Rendering by Jack Beavers.Source: historicboul- Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 12 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 519 of 568 Site Anal- City Storage and Transfer Building The City Storage and Transfer Building is a historical building with a rich legacy that spans over a century. Established in 1906, it initially served as the warehouse and offices for the City Storage and Transfer, a company founded by Martin B. Larson. The building’s significance is enhanced by its continuous adaptation and expansion, including an addition in 1931 that nearly doubled its size, and the construction of another building at 1730 13th Street in 1946 to accommodate the growing business. Ownership of the building transferred to the City of Boulder in the late 1970s after the company had renamed itself City Moving and Storage, Inc. Since its acquisition by the city, the building has served as a cultural hub, initially housing the Boulder Art Center and subsequently known by various names including the Boulder Center for the Visual Arts (BCVA) and currently the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art (BMoCA). Throughout its history, the building has retained its cultural significance, continually serving as a vital space for community engagement and the arts. This historical trajectory from a functional storage facility to a cornerstone of Boulder’s cultural community underscores the building’s adaptability and the city’s commitment to preserving and re-purposing 1954 Site Analysis - Historic Landmarks Historic Landmarks On Site Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 13 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 520 of 568 Site Anal- 1.Historic Preservation review is required for exterior changes within each of the five landmark boundaries, and for non-designated buildings over 50 years old if demolition is proposed. 2.There are three levels of review: staff, committee and the Landmarks Board. City Council may call-up a decision by the Landmarks Board, with the exception of approval of non-designated demolition applications. 3.The criteria for review is found in Chapter 9-11 Historic Preservation B.R.C. 1981. For designated properties, the work must also meet the 1.Five individual landmarks are located within the Civic Area: The Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, the Glen Huntington Bandshell, the Atrium Building, the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse, and the City Storage & Transfer Building. Exterior changes within the landmark boundaries requires review. 2.Some of the non-designated buildings over 50 years old are potentially eligible for landmark designation. Review early in the design process is recommended to determine whether demolition would be approved. 3.Additional information on the historic preservation review process is available online, https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/ departments/historic-preservation. Site Analysis - Historic Landmarks Historic Preservation Review Process Civic Area Considerations Oglala Sioux from the Pine Ridge Reservation dance in the Boulder Bandshell in 1956 to promote Frontier Days in Cheyenne. Source: Daily Camera. Source: www.boulder- City of Boulder Municipal Building & Addition. Source: Carnegie Library for The Atrium Source: historicboul- City Storage and Transfer Building Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 14 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 521 of 568 58Site Anal- Definition: Transitional area between permanently saturated wetlands and upland terrestrial ar- eas. Topography, soils, and available moisture sustain a wide range of plant species. Ecosysystem services: •Foothills riparian shrublands support the highest breeding bird densities of any City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Park ecosystem. •The majority of species in the nearby ecoregions rely on riparian forests at some point in their life cycle. •Healthy riparian habitats sequester carbon and are valuable for mitigating climate change. Riparian areas include woody plant material and build organic matter in soils. •Although they comprise less than 2% of the state’s land cover, riparian areas supply habitat for approximately 80% of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish na- tive to Colorado (Knopf 1985). Unique features: •Rare habitat: The Narrowleaf Cottonwood / Bluestem Willow Woodland plant asso- ciation is found ONLY along the foothills streams of the Colorado Front Range and in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. •Riparian areas in built environments host continuous stands of forest, where in the past creeks may have been characterized by smaller stands of trees interspersed with herbaceous or shrub vegetation. (Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan, 2010). •The riparian habitat along Boulder Creek in the project area displays a unique hybrid of Foothill riparian and Plains riparian plant communities. •Seasonal and episodic flooding is a primary driver of this ecosystem and is essential to maintaining a mosaic of plant associations. Design considerations: •Protect vegetated areas from compaction and enhance in-stream flows. *This information is meant to provide context and inspiration for site exploration, but is not a report of site conditions. Crucial Riparian Habitat - Overview of the regional eco- Site Analysis - Landscape & Ecological Context The linear riparian corridor of Boulder Creek provides crucial habitat, displaying a unique hybrid of Foothill riparian and Plains riparian plant communities. Seasonal and episodic flooding is a primary driver of this ecosystem and is essential to maintaining a mosaic of plant Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 15 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 522 of 568 Source: City of Boulder Forestry - Public Trees by Species and Size (www. Site Anal- Site Analysis - Landscape & Ecology Existing Tree Canopy 40m Tree Size >30 >20-30 >10-20 >1-20 Tree Species Willow Coffeetree (Gymnocladus) Pear (Pyrus) Catalpa (Catalpa) Hawthorn (Crataegus) Plum/Cherry (Prunus) Juniper (Juniperus) Linden (Tilia) Spruce Apple Oak Cottonwood (Populus) Elm (Ulmus) Honeylocust (Gleditsia) Pine (Pinus) Ash (Fraxinus) Maple (Acer) The primary riparian tree canopy adjacent to the creek consists of Cottonwoods and Willows. The variety of tree species on upland portions of the site reflects the City’s desire to maintain a diverse urban tree canopy, which currently includes oaks, maples, and other ornamental and shade trees. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 16 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 523 of 568 Linden (Tilia) Site Anal- Site Analysis - Landscape & Ecology Existing Tree Canopy Willow Oak Cottonwood Honeylocust Apple Ash Maple Elm Pine Coffeetree Catalpa (Catalpa)Hawthorn Chokecherry Pear Juniper (Juniperus)Spruce Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 17 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 524 of 568 Site Anal- Source: City of Boulder Floodplain Information (GIS online) Site Analysis - Stream & Floodplain - FEMA Flood Zones High Hazard Zone 100-Year Extent Floodplain Within the 100-year floodplain, building permits are required to conform to flood protection standards that require the lowest floor of any residential building to be at least two feet above the 100-year water surface elevation. Non-residential buildings must be elevated or flood- proofed to the same elevation. Significant additions and remodels (greater than 50% of the size or assessed value of the building) generally require that the entire structure be brought into conformance with food regulations. New parking lots are not permitted where flood depths would exceed 500-Year Extent FloodplainThe conveyance zone represents a preservation zone for passing flood flows along the creek corridor without increasing flood depths, redirecting floodwaters, or adversely impacting land areas or properties. The conveyance zone includes areas where new development or grading is expected to impact flood depths elsewhere. In this zone, new development typically requires a private engineering analysis to ensure that flooding conditions are not worsened (must demonstrate that it Conveyance Zone High Hazard Flood Zones (HHZ) are considered the most significant risk and thus have major development constraints to minimize loss of life and property damage. In the high hazard zone, no new structures or additions intended for human occupancy are allowed and only non-substantial improvements (below 50% of the value of the building) to existing buildings are permitted. A building that is touched by the HHZ is regulated as if the entire structure is in The 500-year floodplain delineates the flood limits resulting from a design storm that has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 18 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 525 of 568 Site Anal- Site Analysis - Existing Conditions Boulder Cultural Context funky, fun and artistic & creative Swoon Art House BMoCA Boulder Theater NCAR Mesa Laboratory CU Boulder athletic academic outdoorsy Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 19 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 526 of 568 Guiding Documents Guiding Documents, Plans, and Policies Site Anal- The Boulder Civic Area Phase 2 Project is guided by the numerous planning initiatives, studies, and policies that preceded this effort. Guiding planning documents include City of Boulder Guiding Plans & Documents List •Andrews Arboretum Promenade Study, 2018 •Boulder Downtown Station Expansion Plan •Boulder Parks and Recreation Historic Places Plan, 2023 •Boulder’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, 2022 •Boulder Social Streets on 13th pop-ups evaluation •Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2021 •Calculating the Value of Boulder’s Urban Forest •Central Broadway Corridor Design Framework, 2017 •Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment, 2023 •City of Boulder Engagement Strategic Framework, 2018 •City of Boulder Facilities Master Plan, 2021 •City of Boulder (OSMP) Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan (2010) •Community Cultural Plan, 2015 •Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan, 2022 •The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, 2002 •Draft Boulder Civic Area East Bookend Existing Conditions Report, 2018 •The Master Plan for Boulder’s Civic Area, 2015 •Parking Evaluation + Memo •Racial Equity Plan, 2021 •Sustainability, Equity and Resilience Plan, 2022 •Transportation Master Plan, 2019 Other Reference Documents •City of Boulder (OSMP) Land-based Carbon Inventory and Nature Based Solutions (2023) •Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Policy (Boulder County) •Downtown Boulder Vision Plan, 2022 •Local Carbon Removal and Resilience Strategies (Boulder County) •Boulder County Parks + Open Space Weed Management Policies and Procedures •Sustainability, Climate Action and Resilience Plan (2023) Overarching Themes While each guiding document is contains its own in-depth plans and recommendations, certain high-level overarching themes emerge across the planning documents. 1.Supporting multi-modal transportation, Complete Streets, and a walkable city 2.Offering wide-ranging and flexible programming and outdoor recreational opportunities 3.Accommodating continuous high use of the Civic Area as an active urban gathering place 4.Supporting a visitor experience that blends natural and built environments For additional notes on the Guiding Documents related to the Boulder Civic Area, refer to the “Guiding Documents” summary. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities 20 Attachment A Part 2 Planning Analysis Summary Packet Page 527 of 568 1Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 BOULDER CIVIC AREA JUNE 5, 2024 Programming & Use Study Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 528 of 568 2Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Introduction Programming and Use Study Team Ricker Cunningham Economics Boulder Parks and Rec Core Team Landscape Architecture, Architecture, Experience Design Urban Design Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 529 of 568 3Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Introduction Programming and Use Study of East Bookend CITY STOR A G E & TRANSFER B L D G CITY STOR A G E & TRANSFER B L D G . TEA HOUS E IT OPERATIO N S THE ATRIU M Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 530 of 568 4Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Introduction Programs and Use Study Process Program and Use Study Recommendations 1. Market Analysis •Demographic Trends of Boulder and Trade Area •Industry Trend of Boulder and Trade Area •Development Opportunities for Civic Area 2. Develop - ment Types 3. High Level Pro Formas Percentages of: •Residential •Office •Retail •Food + Bever- age •And more Associated Feasibility for each development We Are Here Study two development scenarios across east + west bookends and the Tate Building •Private Development •Public / Private Development Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 531 of 568 5Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Introduction Council Priorities •Prioritize equity, diversity, inclusion, and access in the engagement process •Prioritize the SER framework in parallel to the seven Guiding Principles to ensure Boulder’s goals for a resilient, sustainable, and viable future. •Prioritize multi-modal and universal access to, through and in the Civic Area. Pedestrian, bike, other mobility devises, ADA requirements, universal access and multimodal transportation will be studied in the Civic Area to create a welcoming, accessible and community-oriented Heart of Boulder, including connectivity to adjacent sites •Ensure and demonstrate how guiding plans and policies will inform the project as it moves towards a final design (and how they intersect) to ensure accountability to the city’s vision, values, and goals •Work to provide clarity around the engagement process (including outreach, roles, input, decision making, etc.), with each stakeholder, partner, and community based organizations •Develop a process by which acceptable social behaviors are identified to reflect common community goals for the Civic Area that ensure the space is viewed as welcoming and safe, and all members of the community feel that they belong there Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 532 of 568 6Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Introduction Programming from 2015 Civic Area Plan East Bookend West Bookend Municipal Building 1.Food/Farmers Market 2.Housing 3.Retail 4.Commercial/Office 5.Civic Space (park, creek and water access, plaza) 6.Hotel 7.Structured Parking 1.Performance 2.Cultural Uses 3.Housing 4.Structured Parking 1.Repurposed for Cultural Uses 2.Education Programs 3.Youth Programs Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 533 of 568 7Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 534 of 568 8Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Market Study Scope: Trade Area TRADE AREA DEFINTIONS A trade area is defined as an area from which a project (s) or locale will draw the majority of its residents (housing), patrons (retail), employees (office, industrial, institutional), and visitors (lodging) – and those areas that will likely be a source of competition (supply) and demand. The boundaries of a trade area are often irregular as they are influenced by the following conditions: ▪Physical Barriers ▪Location of Possible Competition ▪Proximity to Population and | or Employment Concentrations ▪Zoning ▪Market Factors ▪Drive Times, Spending and Commuting Patterns ▪Others Boulder Civic Area Trade Areas (10-,20-and 40-Minute Drive Times) 14 Trade Area DefinitionTRADE AREA DEFINTIONS A trade area is defined as an area from which a project (s) or locale will draw the majority of its residents (housing), patrons (retail), employees (office, industrial, institutional), and visitors (lodging)– and those areas that will likely be a source of competition (supply) and demand. The boundaries of a trade area are often irregular as they are influenced by the following conditions: ▪Physical Barriers ▪Location of Possible Competition ▪Proximity to Population and | or Employment Concentrations ▪Zoning ▪Market Factors ▪Drive Times, Spending and Commuting Patterns ▪Others Boulder Civic Area Trade Areas (10-,20- and 40-Minute Drive Times) 14 Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 535 of 568 9Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Target Market Groups Groups represent most likely targets for attached housing products in the trade area, including Civic Area and its surroundings •highly mobile and educated •spend on rent, clothes, tech •live close to their jobs •late twenties and thir ties •92.7% live in attached product units •living on own for the first time after college •time is spent in school, part-time work, socializing and fun with friends •looking to learn life lessons outside classroom •fast food and frozen dinners •first online generation •seek lower density neighborhoods in urban areas •highly connected, makes environmentally friendly choices •many embrace “foodie” culture •many enjoy music and art •travels frequently Metro Renters housing product: Multi-Unit Rental Dorms to Diplomas housing product: Non-family households with 2+ persons Emerald City housing product: Single Unit; Multi-Unit Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 536 of 568 10Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Target Market Groups: Age Cohort Migration Millenials represent the largest segment of renters and are looking for ownership opportunities. Gen X is now moving to suburban neighborhoods which provide urban type amenities. Gen Z is focused on affordability, showing signs of attraction to urban and inner ring neighborhoods Millenials Age 26-40 Gen X Age 41-55 Gen Z Age 5-25 Data represents 2023 census data and projected 2028 data for the trade area, including Civic Area and its surroundings Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 537 of 568 11Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Data represents Q1 2024 for the trade area, including Civic Area and its surroundings Retail Despite high vacancy and negative absorption, Boulder still comprises nearly 1/3 of new construction in the overall Metro area. These factors indicate a retail market in transition. Expenditures by new residents resulting from household growth could potentially support an additional 650,000 sf of new retail space in the next 10 years. SUPPLY DEMAND Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 538 of 568 12Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Data represents trade area ownership demand, including Civic Area and its surroundings, from 2024 to 2034 Residential: Ownership The Trade Area shows demand for over 4,000 total ownership units, 1,600 of which is for single family attached units. This indicates demand for single-family attached development in the Trade Area. SUPPLY DEMAND The Mark on Pearl by Patrick Brown Group Multifamily construction dominates building activity at 56% of all permits. Only 4% of permits were for single family attached units. This indicates a lack of single family attached units in the Trade Area. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 539 of 568 13Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Data represents trade area residential demand, including Civic Area and its surroundings, from 2024 to 2034 Residential: Rental Boulder exhibits lowest vacancy rate and highest rent level for multifamily. Also disproportionately high new absorption (12%) and new construction (11%). These are indicators of demand for multifamily development in the Trade Area. The Trade Area has opportunity to realize steady growth in residential development over 10 years, potentially adding 2,800 rental units. This indicates demand for high-density, lower- maintenance housing products. SUPPLY DEMAND Oliv student housing development by Core Spaces Architect: Sopher Sparn Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 540 of 568 14Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Data represents trade area affordable housing demand, including Civic Area and its surroundings, from 2024 to 2034 Residential: Affordable Housing RCThe City of Boulder is currently at 8.3% of their 15% goal of affordable housing units. Current supply comprises only 25% of Moderate/ Middle income AMI. This indicates an opportunity for growth. The highest demand for housing in the Trade Area is for the “missing middle” ($75,000 income and higher). The Trade Area could add 5,400 units (rental and ownership) to address this market segment over the next 10 years. SUPPLY DEMAND 30 PRL Bluebell Affordable Housing Architect: Coburn Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 541 of 568 15Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Data represents trade area office demand, including Civic Area and its surroundings, from 2024 to 2034 Office Despite high vacancy rate and negative absorption, Boulder still comprises an outsized share of new construction. This indicates a relatively unstable market and should be approached cautiously. Based on annual employment growth of 0.8%, the Trade Area could support 1.1 million square feet of office space over 10 years, with an emphasis on replacing obsolete space, rather than building new office space. SUPPLY DEMAND Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 542 of 568 16Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Specialty: Performance Space RIOSLocally, there are a variety of performance venues of varying capacities and costs of use. Most mid-size venues are not affordable to local groups and the 500-750 seat venue is missing from the local offering. This indicates an opportunity for growth. With a per forming arts complex as a long term goal, local groups have indicated a need for performance support space in the short term. The Civic Area has opportunity for adaptive reuse to support the needs of local performance groups. SUPPLY DEMAND Data from Ricker Cunningham and Create Boulder Arts Complex Report Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 543 of 568 17Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Specialty: Food & Beverage, Farmers Market RIOSFood and Beverage opportunity in the Civic Area can be supported by the Farmers Market, with additional opportunities to partner with other local groups like Mad Agriculture. With over 15,000 acres of Boulder’s working lands leased to farmers and ranchers, The Civic Area being home to the Farmers Market has a unique opportunity to be a hub that connects the community to Urban Agriculture. Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 544 of 568 18Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Key findings to inform development types renters* Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 545 of 568 19Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Key Trend Data Market Analysis: Development Themes (includes Civic Area Plan goals and new development types) Construction / Site Activation Community Residential Food & Beverage Art & Culture Health & Recreation 4.Experience Ser vices* 5.Recreation Facilities* 1.Specialty Food 2.Restaurant/Bar 3.Food Service/Food Trucks 1.Neighborhood/Local Service Space * 2.Live/Work “Maker” Space * 3.Per forming Arts/Support Spaces 1.Health Practitioners* 2.Wellness Activities* 3.Outdoor Gear Retail & Rental* 1.Single Family Attached Units* 2.Rental Apartments targeted to “middle income” renters* 3.Mixed-Income Rental Apartments (market-rate and affordable)* *New programming types identified outside of the 2015 Civic Area Plan Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 546 of 568 20Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Development Precedents Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 547 of 568 21Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Development Case Study Example Type 1: Private Private development offers less control by the City and community but eliminates financial burden. However, when land is City-owned, more public-sector input can be mandated. Clayworks, Golden Description: redevelopment of five city blocks owned by the Coors family in downtown Golden. Developer: AC Development Scale: 12.4 acre site, 1.2 million square feet Programming: 700k sf office space, 80k sf of restaurant/retail, 125sf of Coorstek HQ, 250+ apartment residences, 150 room boutique hotel, 40% open space Character renderings of Clayworks Development Architect: Tryba Architects After many community meetings, the City approved a rezoning of the district to allow for the development. Business BenefitCity Benefit Community Benefit Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 548 of 568 22Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Development Case Study Business BenefitCity Benefit Example Type 2: Public/Private Partnership PPP model can offer sustainable financial support while achieving public sector goals. Lessens burden on governments and increases opportunity for innovation. Cheech Marin Center for Chicano Art & Culture Description: Conversion of a 1964 mid-century library into a public art museum celebrating Chicano art and culture. Development Partners: Riverside Art Museum, City of Riverside, Cheech Marin Scale: 61,000 sf historic library Cheech Marin Center for Chicano Art and Culture Architect: Page and Turnbull Community Benefit Community Benefit Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 549 of 568 23Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Examples of Development Products Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 550 of 568 24Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Examples of Development Products Overview of Development Opportunities BOULDER C A N Y O N D R ARAPAHOE A V E9th STBROADWAY11th ST9th ST BOULDER C R E E K PHASE 1: COMPLETE D PUBLIC LIBRARY SOUTH WEST AGE WELL CENTER PUBLIC LIBRARY NORTH MUNICIPAL BLDG BANDSHEL L NEW BRITAIN BOULDER CREE K P A T H CREEKSIDE PLAYGROU N D GB2 SKATE PARK PARK CENTRAL LINCOLN PL11th ST13th ST14th ST EAST BOOKEND WEST BOOKEND BMoCA OPERATION S TEAHOUSE IT THE ATRIUM B O U L D E R C R E E K P A T H 15th ST Public Park Use Historic Landmark Right of Way Total public land: 20-25% Development Opportunity CITY STOR A G E & TRANSFER B L D G . WEST AGE WELL CENTER MUNICIPA L BUILDING Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 551 of 568 25Programming and Use Study 6/5/2024 Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use $$$ Residential Mixed Use $$$ $$ $$$ $$$ Park Park Park -$-$ -$ Cultural -$$ Retail Retail RetailRetail $$ Ofﬁce $$$$ $$$$$$$ Affordable Housing 0 Retail $$ Ofﬁce $ Park -$ Cultural -$$ Affordable Housing 0 Examples of Development Products Example of potential development types with pro formas (East Bookend) Business Benefit City Benefit Community Benefit Business Benefit City Benefit Community Benefit Business Benefit City Benefit Community Benefit Item 6A - Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Priorities Attachment B Market Analysis Summary Packet Page 552 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Update on March 7th Chat with C ouncil P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I nformation I tem A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Packet Page 553 of 568 INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Ryan Hanschen, Community Engagement Manager Megan (Meggs) Valliere, City Council Program Manager Matt Chasansky, Cultural Vibrancy and District Vitality Senior Manager Lauren Click, Arts and Culture Manager Cindy Sepucha, Arts Program Manager Date: April 17th, 2025 Subject: Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council: Arts & Culture EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Focus Audience: Arts & Culture Community Date and Location: March 7th, 2025 Nobo Bus Stop Gallery (4895 Broadway Boulder, CO 80304) Council Participants: Mayor Pro Tem Folkerts Council Member Winer (Mayor Brockett and Council Member Wallach were unable to attend due to illness) Number of Participants: About 30 participants City Staff in Attendance: Megan Valliere, City Council Program Manager Matt Chasansky, Cultural Vibrancy and District Vitality Senior Manager Lauren Click, Arts and Culture Manager Cindy Sepucha, Arts Program Manager Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 1 Packet Page 554 of 568 Brendan Picker-Mahoney, Arts Program Manager Jake Hudson-Humphrey, Public Art Program Coordinator Ellie Kennedy, Community Vitality Operations Specialist Philip Barash, Public Sphere Projects, Boulder Arts Blueprint consultant Jennie Kovalick, Public Sphere Projects, Boulder Arts Blueprint consultant Conversation Themes: 1. Greater support for broad, year-round marketing efforts to increase visibility and awareness of the arts in Boulder. 2. Additional direct assistance for artists and creatives. 3. Continued financial assistance for businesses in the creative sector. 4. Desire for additional, ongoing engagement with individual artists and creative sector leaders in Boulder. 5. Concerns about 2A funding. Image Courtesy of Hailie Borges, c/o NoBo Art District Image Courtesy of Hailie Borges, c/o NoBo Art District Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 2 Packet Page 555 of 568 FISCAL IMPACT Nominal costs that fit within the current budget related to providing refreshments for participants. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS As Chats with Council are designed to advance meaningful and inclusive community engagement, the sustainability impacts of each event are anticipated to be positive and include fostering connection, participating in constructive dialogue with elected officials, and cultivating a deeper trust in city government. BACKGROUND In 2019, Boulder City Council committed to continue trying new approaches to engage community members who do not typically participate in council matters and formal meetings. The purpose of Chats with Council is to give a more diverse set of community members a convenient, drop-in opportunity to engage with their elected officials. These engagement opportunities are designed to promote short, two-way conversations about issues that matter most to residents and others in the city. The idea originated from council members, who are often as frustrated as community members by the lack of time to have meaningful conversations during open comment or public hearings. Past sessions have featured one to three participating council members at each event, with no formal agenda or presentation. Community members are welcome to come by anytime during sessions and stay for as long – or as short – as they wish. Image Courtesy of Hailie Borges, c/o NoBo Art District Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 3 Packet Page 556 of 568 When everyone participating wants to discuss one topic, the conversations can be more in-depth. If there are a variety of topics participants wish to discuss, a staff coordinator captures the topics and seeks to make time for as many of these as possible. Some experimentation has also occurred around smaller, more focused audiences, especially when there are specific language needs, as well as rotating stations that can be particularly effective when the participant group is large. Some sessions have also featured walks that combine elements of a tour with more casual conversation. Chats are designed to provide a forum for an initial contact between community members and City Council, and council members are then encouraged to share what they heard with their colleagues and continue conversations with community members as desired. While staff facilitate post-event follow-up in the form of a brief questionnaire and shares notes from the event with community members, staff do not possess capacity to create ongoing feedback loops or communication mechanisms for each Chat with Council. ANALYSIS While staff had initially planned small group conversations with dedicated notetakers in each group, the event format adapted in response to last-minute council member absences. The ratio of council members to community members was not conducive to small group conversations since each person would receive limited time for back-and-forth dialogue in groups of 15 or more people. Staff adapted the format to more of a meet and greet reception format to promote individual dialogues between community members, the two council members, and city staff in attendance while also encouraging networking and community building among attendees themselves. Staff and council members reported on the following repeated themes from the conversations with members of the arts and culture community: 1. Greater support for broad, year-round marketing efforts to increase visibility and awareness of the arts in Boulder. a. Community members mentioned the importance of generating more support for arts among the whole community and, in doing so, making Boulder more of an “arts destination.” i. Boulder Arts Week is one example of a broad effort to increase visibility and awareness. ii. Additional opportunities could include consistent, year-round artist markets and similar venues for artisans to sell products and wares. iii. Opportunities to promote Boulder as an arts community outside of the City to bring in visitors and entice workers. b. Identify spaces in the community that can be activated and transformed through arts and creative interventions to enhance community vitality and promote the arts and culture industry. i. If these spaces already exist, how can we ensure community members are aware of them and that they are affordable for community use? 2. Additional direct assistance for artists and creatives. Several ideas were shared: a. Housing for visiting artists b. Live/work spaces for artists and creatives such as the ArtSpace model Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 4 Packet Page 557 of 568 c. Affordable and attainable housing options for rent and purchase for artists in the community 3. Continued financial assistance for businesses in the creative sector. Specifically, participants recommended: a. Support for venues such as theaters and galleries in the city b. Focused support for small businesses in the creative sector c. Funding assistance for organizations that were bolstered by ARPA dollars during the COVID-19 pandemic d. Assistance with costs related to commercial leasing, particularly high energy bills and increasing property taxes 4. Desire for additional, ongoing engagement with individual artists and creative sector leaders in Boulder. a. Participants mentioned frustration with the Western City Campus engagement process and felt that the input they provided at open houses was not incorporated into the project. b. Some participants appreciated individual conversations with council members at the March 7th Chat with Council, while others were disappointed in the lack of a more formal, moderated discussion. Potential options for future engagement could address this feedback and be structured differently. 5. Concerns about 2A funding. a. Community members expressed concerns about the allocation of funds from the 2A Arts, Culture, and Heritage Tax. b. Local advocacy groups, such as Create Boulder and the 2A Petition, advocate for directing the entirety of the tax revenue toward grants, venues, and direct support for artists. City Staff Note on Theme #5, Concerns about 2A funding: Since its passage in 2023, the City of Boulder has allocated 2A funds in alignment with the language of the tax measure. Staff conducted a short-term needs assessment to evaluate immediate priorities, including extensive engagement with nonprofits, to structure the 2024 budget. The community’s immediate needs, articulated during that engagement, are currently being met. Given ongoing budget constraints and the structural impact of a dedicated tax, the city must allocate a portion of the revenue to essential staff salaries and administrative costs to effectively manage and implement arts programs. These programs include a multimillion-dollar public art initiative, a $1.3 million grant program, research and evaluation efforts, and other critical cultural initiatives. These professionals are vital to ensure the smooth distribution of grants, the coordination of cultural programming, the long-term sustainability of Boulder’s arts sector, and good stewardship of the 2A fund. Misinformation has been circulating in the community, and was heard at the Chat with Council, that 41% of Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 5 Packet Page 558 of 568 the 2024 budget is dedicated to administration. This is not accurate: the actual figure is 24%. While the City acknowledges community concerns, it remains committed to transparency and ongoing dialogue to balance operational needs with direct funding for arts organizations. NEXT STEPS These themes will be shared with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update team in the context of the Boulder Arts Blueprint planning that is integrated with the BVCP update. Also, the Arts Blueprint research project is underway and includes analysis of current conditions and data, benchmarking against other cities, a literature review, collaboration on data projects and analysis from the BVCP update, and community engagement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Flyer for Chat with Council: Arts and Culture Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 6 Packet Page 559 of 568 https://bldr.fyi/council-chat-arts Information Item A: Update on March 7th Chat with Council Page 7 Attachment A - Flyer for Chat with Council: Arts and Culture Packet Page 560 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C elebrate Diversity Month Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Celebrate Div ersity Month Declaration Packet Page 561 of 568 Packet Page 562 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M National Volunteer Appreciation Week Declaration presented by Mayor Pro Tem Folkerts P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description National Volunteer Appreciation Week Declaration Packet Page 563 of 568 April 20-26, 2025 Packet Page 564 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Arbor Day Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Arbor Day Declaration Packet Page 565 of 568 Packet Page 566 of 568 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E April 17, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Easter Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, City C ouncil Program Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description E aster Declaration Packet Page 567 of 568 Packet Page 568 of 568