Loading...
06.26.25 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 June 26, 2025 6:00 PM City M anage r Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde City Attorne y Teresa Taylor Tate City Cle rk Elesha Johnson AGENDA FOR T HE SP E CIAL ME ET ING OF T HE BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL 1.Call to Order and Roll C all 2.Consent Agenda A.Consideration of a motion to accept the April 3, 2025 Regular City Council M eeting M inutes B.Consideration of a motion to accept the April 17, 2025 Regular City Council M eeting M inutes C.Consideration of a motion to accept the M ay 22, 2025 Study S ession S ummary regarding the 2025 Boulder Valley Comprehensive P lan (B V C P) Update D.Consideration of a motion to accept the F indings of F act, Conclusions and Recommendations of S pecial Counsel, S tefanie Boster, D eputy City Attorney, City of F t. C ollins, finding that no violations occurred concerning Code of C onduct complaint #2025-002, filed against C ouncil M ember Taishya Adams E .Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder C ity Council and convene as the B oard of D irectors for T he B oulder M unicipal P roperty Authority; Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 163 amending Resolution 161, adopted by the B oulder M unicipal P roperty Authority on M arch 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters set forth therein as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s pavilion building; and setting forth related details; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Board of D irectors for T he Boulder M unicipal Property Authority and reconvene as the Boulder City Council F.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order Packet Page 1 of 1100 published by title only Ordinance 8702, amending Section 2-2-11, “T raffic Engineering,” B.R.C. 1981, updating the definition of T raffic E ngineer to implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan L ivable and Accessible and C onnected Strategies; and setting forth related details G.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8706 amending Chapters 6-14, "M edical M arijuana," and 6-17, "Recreational M arijuana" B .R.C. 1981, to allow co-location for both medical and recreational marijuana businesses; and setting forth related details H.Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8707 adopting S upplement 163 which codifies previously adopted Ordinances and Appe ndix Council Procedures as amendme nts to the Boulde r Re vise d Code , 1981; and se tting forth re lated de tails I.Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to order published by title only, and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8708 amending Ordinance 8691, adopted by emergency measure on M arch 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters and reimbursement provisions set forth in S ection 3, “S upplemental Act; P arameters” and S ection 6, “Reimbursement,” as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s P avilion Building; and setting forth related details J .1. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8704 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for a 20-foot wide alley right-of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, generally located north of 1729 Athens S treet and southerly of 1328 17th S treet and 1712 M arine S treet (L UR2024-00060); AND 2. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8705 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for 18th S treet right-of-way extending south approximately 313.88 feet from Athens Street, generally located east of 1950 Colorado Avenue and 1234 18th S treet and west of 950 Regent Drive (L UR2024- 00060) K.T hird reading and consideration of a motion to adopt O rdinance 8697, amending T itle 4, “L icenses and P ermits,” Title 9, “L and Use Code,” and T itle 10, “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations; and setting forth related details 3.Call-Up C heck-In A.North 30th Street P reliminary Design P roject - Community E nvironmental Assessment P rocess (C E AP ) Packet Page 2 of 1100 B.Consideration of a Water and Wastewater S ervice Agreement Between the City of Boulder and T he University of Colorado at Boulder for T he North B oulder Creek C ampus C.Consideration of a C oncept P lan Review and C omment Request for a proposed redevelopment at 2955, 2969, and 2995 Baseline Road and 735-775 30th S treet as two (2) 4-5 story multifamily student housing buildings with a total of 100 units. Reviewed under case no. L UR2025- 00012 4.P ublic Hearings A.S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8703 designating the property at 3375 16th S t., City of B oulder, Colorado, to be known as the Orchard House, as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic P reservation,” B.R.C . 1981; and setting forth related details 20 minutes - 10 minute staff presentation/10 minute public hearing and council discussion B.S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt the following ordinances: 1. Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood P ermit P arking Zones,” and C hapter 4-23, “Neighborhood P arking Zone P ermits,” to update standards for on-street parking management; and 2. Ordinance 8696, ame nding and Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off-stre et parking re quirements, and ame nding Chapte r 2 of the City of Boulde r De sign and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to modify standards for motor ve hicle and bicycle parking 90 min - 30 min staff presentation/60 min Council discussion 5.M atters from the City M anager A.P olling S urvey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot M easures – L ong- Term F inancial Strategy 60 min - 20 min presentation, 40 min discussion 6.M atters from the M ayor and M embers of Council A.Discussion on methods to improve Open C omment 45 M in 7.Discussion Items 8.Debrief 9.Adjournment Packet Page 3 of 1100 3:35 hrs City C ouncil documents, including meeting agendas, study session agendas, meeting action summaries and information pac kets c an be accessed at www.bouldercolor ado.gov/city-council. This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on Municipal Channel 8 and the city 's website and are re-c ablecast at 6 p.m. W ednesdays and 11 a.m. Friday s in the two weeks following a regular counc il meeting. Boulder 8 TV (Comcast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning servic e operates in the same manner as similar servic es offered by broadc ast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with the television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on Boulder C hannel8.com. To activate the c aptioning servic e 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 c aptioning services. The c ouncil chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656. Any one requiring special packet preparation suc h as Braille, large print, or tape rec orded versions may c ontac t the C ity Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please request spec ial packet 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 days prior to the meeting. Si usted nec esita interpretacion o c ualquier otra ayuda 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 electronic presentations to email address: C ityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. Packet Page 4 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the April 3, 2025 Regular C ity Council Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Elesha J ohnson, City C lerk AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2A - D RAF T April 3, 2025 Council Meeting Minutes Packet Page 5 of 1100 Item 2A – DRAFT April 3, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers Thursday, April 3, 2025 MINUTES 1. Call to Order and Roll Call: Mayor Brockett called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Council Members present: Adams, Brockett, Folkerts, Marquis, Schuchard, Speer, Winer Virtual: Benjamin, Wallach Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to AMEND the agenda to ADD: • Item 8A – Discussion and “Nod of Five” request to ask staff to prepare a Lunch and Learn on Human Relations • Item 8B – Discussion and “Nod of Five” request to add a future Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council agenda item on AI Practices and Policies • Item 8C – Discussion and “Nod of Five” request to add a future Study Session item on Agricultural Practices Show of hands vote Carried 9:0 A. Boulder Arts Week Declaration presented by Mayor Brockett Packet Page 6 of 1100 Item 2A – DRAFT April 3, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 2. Open Comment: (Public comments are a summary of actual testimony. Full testimony is available on the council web page at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/city-council > Watch Live or Archived Meetings.) Open Comment opened at 6:10 p.m.  In-Person 1. Steven Schwartz spoke on public safety 2. Kristen Marshall spoke on freedom of speech 3. Evan Ravitz spoke on various 4. Rob Smoke spoke on council meeting process and procedures 5. Michele Rodriguez spoke on general 6. Eric Gross spoke on genocide 7. Neal McBurnett spoke on addressing unrepresented Boulder voters via Proportional Representation on Council 8. James Duncan spoke on City Council Resolutions 9. Mike Reichert spoke on tree Ordinances and Funding for Urban tress did not show 10. Scott Miller spoke on Boulder’s electric gride 2.0 11. Eve Patridge spoke on understanding faith and community 12. Frida Silva spoke on protecting vulnerable communities 13. Sarah Napier spoke on money  Virtual 14. Laura Gonzalez spoke on first amendment violations 15. Lynn Segal spoke on Gaza 16. Lauren Feldman spoke on wildfire mitigations/Flagstaff 17. Julie Shaffer spoke on threatening speech directed toward specific council members 18. Padi Fuster Aguilera spoke on Boulder silencing of anti-genocidal voices Packet Page 7 of 1100 Item 2A – DRAFT April 3, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 Open Comment closed at 6:48 p.m. 3. Consent Agenda A. Consideration of a motion to accept the recommendation for the appointment of Denean Hill as Municipal Court Associate Judge and direct the Mayor to sign the employment contract attached hereto as Attachment A B. Consideration of a motion to accept the February 6, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes C. Consideration of a motion to accept the February 13, 2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes D. Consideration of a motion to accept the February 20, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to ACCEPT consent agenda items A- D Speer / Wallach Approved 9:0 4. Call-Up Check-In 5. Public Hearings A. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8686 designating the property at 658 Pleasant St., City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Tiara House, as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related details Marcy Gerwing, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a presentation and answered questions from Council. The public hearing opened at 7:02 p.m. and the following spoke:  In-Person: 1. Laura Schaeffer  Virtual: 1. Lynn Segal The public hearing closed at 7:06 p.m. Packet Page 8 of 1100 Item 2A – DRAFT April 3, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to adopt Ordinance 8686 designating the property at 658 Pleasant St., City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Tiara House, as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related detaila Folkerts / Wallach Adopted 9:0 6. Matters from the City Manager A. Update and Check-in on Long Term Financial Strategy Charlotte Huskey, Budget Officer, provided a presentation and answered questions from Council. Mayor Pro Tem Folkerts, called a recess at 7:17 p.m. due to disruptions in Council Chambers. Chambers was cleared and Council reconvened at 7:25 p.m. 7. Matters from the City Attorney 8. Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council A. ADDED: Discussion and “Nod of Five” request to ask staff to prepare a “Lunch and Learn” on Human Relations Council directed staff to explore an opportunity for the Human Relations Commission to have a discussion over lunch or dinner. B. ADDED: Discussion and “Nod of Five” request to add a future Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council agenda item on AI Practices and Policies This item did not receive a “Nod of Five” and will not move forward. C. ADDED: Discussion and “Nod of Five” request to add a future Study Session item on Agricultural Practices This item did not receive a “Nod of Five” and will not move forward. 9. Discussion Items 10. Debrief 11. Adjournment Packet Page 9 of 1100 Item 2A – DRAFT April 3, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 There being no further business to come before Council at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned by Mayor Brockett at 9:43 p.m. Approved this 26th day of June 2025. APPROVED BY: ______________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Packet Page 10 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the April 17, 2025 Regular City C ouncil Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Elesha J ohnson, City C lerk 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 April 17, 2025 Regular C ity Council Meeting Minutes AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2B - D RAF T April 17, 2025 City Council Minutes Packet Page 11 of 1100 Item 2B – DRAFT April 1 7, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers Thursday, April 17, 2025 MINUTES 1. Call to Order and Roll Call: Mayor Pro Tem Folkerts called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m. Council Members present: Benjamin, Folkerts, Marquis, Schuchard, Speer, Virtual: Adams, Wallach, Winer (arrived at 6:56 p.m.) Absent: Brockett A. Consideration of a motion to call an Executive Session of the City 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 A motion was made by CM Speer to move into the Executive Session and seconded by CM Benjamin. Motion Carried 5:0 B. Earth Day Declaration presented by Council Member Marquis Council reconvened to the regular meeting at 6:02 p.m. 2. Open Comment: (Public comments are a summary of actual testimony. Full testimony is available on the council web page at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/city-council > Watch Live or Archived Meetings.) Open Comment opened at 6:11 p.m. Packet Page 12 of 1100 Item 2B – DRAFT April 1 7, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2  In-Person 1. Leslie Glustrom spoke on Xcel Electric Franchise and Profits 2. Marie-Juliette Bird – did not show 3. Martha McPherson spoke on use of our taxes 4. Susan Hall spoke on concern for citizens mental health 5. Bryce Billard spoke on public service announcement 6. Macon Cowles spoke on social housing 7. Alicia Curtin spoke on Wildfire Mitigation 8. Jan Burton spoke on Wildfire Mitigation 9. Jim Morris spoke on oppose war in Palestine 10. Evan Ravitz spoke on various 11. Frida Silva spoke on Protecting vulnerable communities 12. Michele Rodriguez spoke on general 13. Rob Smoke spoke on public process 14. Elliot Fladen spoke on continuing education on genocide standards  Virtual 1. Josh Schlossberg spoke on wildfire and forests 2. Elliot Fladen moved to in-person 3. Aram Bingham spoke on peace, city manager 4. Geof Cahoon spoke on voting procedures 5. Joseph Aamidor spoke on uniqueness of Uni Hill 6. Laura Gonzalez spoke on abuse of power 7. Padi Fuster Aguilera spoke on shameful use of resources and censoring of freedom of speech Open Comment closed at 6:56 p.m. 3. Consent Agenda A. Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Knollwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors; and Packet Page 13 of 1100 Item 2B – DRAFT April 1 7, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 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. B. Consideration of a motion to accept the March 13th, 2025 Study Session summary regarding the Council 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 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 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 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 5682 Flagstaff Rd. E. 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 F. 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 G. 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, Packet Page 14 of 1100 Item 2B – DRAFT April 1 7, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 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 H. 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 I. Consideration of a motion to accept the February 27, 2025, City Council Midterm Check-in Summary Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to ACCEPT consent agenda items A- I Speer / Benjamin Carried 8:0 NAY on 3H: Speer 4. Call-Up Check-In A. Consideration of a Site 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 (BMS). The proposal also includes an administrative amendment to TVAP. The applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00047 Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director and Alison Blaine, Senior City Planner answered questions from Council. NO ACTION 5. Public Hearings 6. Matters from the City Manager A. Civic Area Planning Analysis and Emerging Design Priorities Shihomi Kuriyagawa, Senior Landscape Architect provided a presentation and answered questions from Council. Alison Rhodes, Parks and Recreation Director answered questions from Council. Packet Page 15 of 1100 Item 2B – DRAFT April 1 7, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 Abby Stone, from the design team RIOS also answered questions from Council. Council took a recess at 8:10 p.m. due to disruptions in Chambers and reconvened at 8:13 p.m. 7. Matters from the City Attorney 8. Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council 9. Discussion Items 10. Debrief 11. Adjournment There being no further business to come before Council at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned by Mayor Pro Tem Folkerts at 8:38 p.m. Approved this 26th day of June 2025. APPROVED BY: ______________________________ Lauren Folkerts, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: ________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Packet Page 16 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary regarding the 2025 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVC P) Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Amelia Harvey, Project Coordinator 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 May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary regarding the 2025 BVC P Update AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Packet Page 17 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept the May 22, 2025, Joint Special Meeting Summary regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Update. PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Planning & Development Services (P&DS) Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Dept. Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, Community Engagement Senior Program Manager Sarah Horn, Senior City Planner Tess Schorn, City Planner Community Vitality Lauren Click, Arts and Culture Manager Housing & Human Services Hollie Hendrickson, Housing Policy Senior Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This summary covers the May 22, 2025, Joint Special Meeting with City Council and Planning Board about the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). View the meeting memo here. The meeting was an important milestone in Phase 3 of the update process, called “A Boulder Direction,” and focused on two primary goals: 1)Confirming the proposed vision, values, and areas of focus informed by community engagement Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 1 Packet Page 18 of 1100 2 2) Introducing seven preliminary policy and land use concepts for potential exploration and community conversation during the summer. Staff presented an overview of community input, outlined how the plan framework is evolving based on that feedback, and shared seven concepts that could lead to more substantive changes in policy or land use. The meeting provided an opportunity for members to ask clarifying questions and offer guidance that will inform upcoming engagement and analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PRESENTATION & COUNCIL DISCUSSION SUMMARY Staff began with a short overview of complementary projects led by Housing & Human Services and Community Vitality departments. These projects, alongside other city initiatives, are informing the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (Plan) update. Next, staff shared a summary of what’s been done in Phase 2 (“A Boulder Tomorrow”) and the first steps of Phase 3 (“A Boulder Direction”). This included a look at how the team has engaged with the community, what people shared, and how that feedback helped shape the plan’s vision, values and areas of focus. In the final part of the presentation, staff shared seven initial concepts recommended for further investigation pending Planning Board and City Council comments. These concepts were developed through community engagement and interdepartmental collaboration with subject matter experts. The goal was to learn whether members wanted staff to do more research and analysis on each concept to facilitate additional community conversations. The recommended concepts to explore were: • Revisions to the BVCP Future Land Use Map and Land Use Map Designations • Reconsider Physical Composition • Consider a Needs Based Approach to Policy Implementation (“Targeted Universalism”) • Collaborate with Regional Partners to Consider Future Community Investment • Consider Options for Enhancing Boulder’s ‘Night Economy’ • Rethink Boulder Valley’s Natural Infrastructure Systems • Consider Options to Reawaken Boulder’s Funkiness Suggested Motion Language: Motion to accept the May 22, 2025, Joint Special Meeting Summary regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Update. Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 2 Packet Page 19 of 1100 3 Members had opportunities to ask clarifying questions and provide input on various parts of the presentation. Key questions posed to members were: Key Takeaways Across discussion topics, members repeatedly expressed support for streamlined terminology, simplified language and clearer definitions of phrases and terms. Members were also broadly supportive of bold and aspirational language. Adaptability and flexibility came up frequently in discussion, with members emphasizing the importance of responding to rapidly evolving community interests, as well as local, national and world events. Equity and climate integration continue to be top of mind for this group. Vision The vision statement presented was: Our community is welcoming, diverse, and committed to the Boulder Valley. We balance economic and housing opportunities with respect for nature and open lands, serve as a model to others as we face a changing climate, and leverage our community assets and innovative spirit for the benefit of future generations. Overall, members felt that the vision statement would benefit from further workshopping to capture important community values. Most comments and questions on the vision statement related to phrasing as it pertains to inclusivity and actionability. Key takeaways include: • Active and aspirational: Members broadly supported revising the vision statement to be more actionable, aspirational and bold. Some felt that the current iteration lost the action-oriented wording of previous iterations. • Accessible and equitable: Multiple members expressed support for equity and accessibility to be reintroduced to the vision. They also cautioned that using present-tense language when talking about inclusion and belonging could feel out of touch to those whose lived experiences don’t currently reflect those ideals. • Other comments of note: It was noted that the vision statement could better reflect the prioritization and urgency of climate action as well as environmental stewardship, avoiding purely human-centric language. There was also interest in providing more clarity around some phrases, such as “committed to the Boulder Valley,” if possible. 1. Do Planning Board and City Council have questions about the vision and values? 2. Do Planning Board and City Council have questions about the recommended areas of focus? 3. Do Planning Board or City Council have questions about any of the concepts? 4. Which concepts should not be explored, would be nice to explore, or need to be explored? Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 3 Packet Page 20 of 1100 4 Based on member feedback and comments received during the joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and County Planning Commission, staff propose to refine the vision statement to a single sentence supported by a series of commitments, as follows: Our community works together to ensure everyone belongs, to create opportunities for all and to sustain the health of the Boulder Valley for future generations. • We will balance housing opportunities and economic activity with natural ecosystems and rural lands. • We will serve as a model for innovation and action as we face a changing climate. • We will strengthen physical and social connections that are accessible to everyone. • We will embrace our diverse experiences, community partnerships and creative spirit to solve tough problems. City staff will circulate this revised vision with County staff to ensure alignment among all policy makers. Values The group largely supported staff’s findings that the Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) values are in alignment with the community’s values. Members urged staff to continue applying these values to all ongoing work. Some members emphasized the need for more quantitative accountability and better clarity on how the values translate into measurable outcomes, particularly in the context of equity. Areas of Focus The seven areas of focus presented were: 1. Climate Action 2. Inclusive Local Economy (New) 3. Food Systems (New) 4. Housing Choice and Opportunity 5. Multicultural, Multigenerational Community (New) 6. Safety 7. Travel Options There was general support for the seven proposed areas of focus for community conversations, though members raised questions about alignment, structure, and clarity. Several comments focused on how these areas of focus would be integrated into the final plan and whether there would be future opportunities for input. Staff clarified many broad topics will ultimately comprise the final comprehensive plan document. Other key themes included: Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 4 Packet Page 21 of 1100 5 • Clarity of terms: Members recommended refining terms such as “inclusive economy” and “community-minded business” to ensure shared understanding. There was also support for more clearly describing the goals of some areas of focus. • Affordability: There was an interest in ensuring that affordability remains a central consideration across multiple areas of focus, such as housing choice, local economy, food systems, and more. • Support for food systems: Members were supportive of the inclusion of food systems as an area of focus. • Additional topics: Subcommunity and area planning, along with historic preservation were other topics identified as areas of interest for some members and for staff to consider going forward. Concepts to Explore Council and Planning Board members were asked to indicate support for further research and community engagement around the seven recommended concepts as well as define any relevant guardrails for each topic. Members were given a handout to record their thoughts on each concept and indicate if they felt the concept needed to be explored further, would be nice to explore if time permits, or should not be explored as part of the Plan update. These worksheets were collected and are included as Attachment A. Below is a summary of the input received. NOTE: Responses collected via the handout (summarized below) were not formal votes; some members selected multiple options or left items blank. 1) Revisions to the BVCP Future Land Use Map and Land Use Map Designations Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 0 2 13 There was broad support for simplifying the existing map, reducing the number of land use categories, and increasing adaptability for future outcomes. Many saw this concept as an opportunity to better align policy with current community goals and improve flexibility in decision-making. Some members felt this should be analyzed as a way to support 15-Minute Neighborhoods. Bold action was encouraged for this concept. 2) Reconsider Physical Composition (e.g. testing potential of Area II and Area III- Planning Reserve revisions, exploring changes to height limit, etc.) Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 5 Packet Page 22 of 1100 6 Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 4 2 10 This concept received mixed feedback. Members were generally supportive of doing more research into ways that Area II and the Area III -Planning Reserve could support community needs in relation to housing, economy, food systems and travel options. This was represented by the tally of members’ interest in ‘needing to explore’ this concept. Most members expressed caution or opposition to changing the height limit, citing it as an essential feature of Boulder. However, some felt there may be an opportunity to provide greater flexibility or allowances that would provide benefit to the community, such as more attractive architecture and more accessible rooftops for gathering spaces such as restaurants and gardens. 3) Consider a Needs Based Approach to Policy Implementation (“Targeted Universalism”) Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 3 5 6 Overall, while members support the intent of this concept (more equity-oriented outcomes), many felt that this equity work is already being implemented through other frameworks and questioned the need for additional research and analysis. Most members felt “targeted universalism” to be an overly academic term and cautioned against introducing new terminology that holds little meaning to the community. 4) Collaborate with Regional Partners to Consider Future Community Investment Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 2 6 7 Overall, members responded supportively to this concept, particularly its potential to enable bold, coordinated efforts on housing, transit, mental health, and food systems. They emphasized the need for clear parameters, both in terms of the types of projects considered and the roles of various partners. Several members expressed a desire to ensure this work builds meaningfully on existing intergovernmental efforts, rather than duplicating them. Others cautioned that collaboration should be guided by clearly identified, data-driven community needs. 5) Consider Options for Enhancing Boulder’s ‘Night Economy’ Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 6 Packet Page 23 of 1100 7 Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 5 7 4 Some members questioned whether this concept belongs in the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to other economic development plans. Others saw value in expanding evening activities to support equity and economic goals, noting that a supported night economy has the potential to affect multiple areas of focus of the Plan update. It was suggested that an evening economy may also support greater adaptability and energy conservation in a warming climate. 6) Rethink Boulder Valley’s Natural Infrastructure Systems Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 0 0 14 This concept received unanimous support. Members advocated for better integration of green infrastructure, urban heat mitigation, pedestrian-friendly corridors, and nature in urban design. Members also encouraged a focus on equity and ensuring that all community members have access to clean air, water, and nature. Urgency and bold action were encouraged on this concept. Members expressed support for expanded purpose and more consistent management of the greenways system. 7) Consider Options to Reawaken Boulder’s Funkiness Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore 8 5 3 Members felt for the most part that this concept is lower on the list of priorities. Some felt that this topic is outside the role of government, while others felt that it would be the result of good policies, but not a concept to research on its own. However, members mostly supported identifying and removing regulatory constraints that stifle originality, character, and diversity in urban design and use. NEXT STEPS Based on recent feedback gathered from the community and comments from policy makers, staff will focus efforts on more in-depth analysis and exploration of the following concepts: • Revisions to the BVCP Future Land Use Map and Land Use Map Designations • Rethink Boulder Valley’s Natural Infrastructure Systems Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 7 Packet Page 24 of 1100 8 • Reconsider Physical Composition Staff will incorporate limited additional investigation of the other four concepts into the overall analysis of existing policies and potential options for change. The team will use the feedback from this meeting to guide research questions and engagement tactics for Phase 3 of the plan update. Over summer and fall of 2025, staff will: • Conduct community engagement around preliminary analysis, priorities and associated trade-offs • Apply land use scenario modeling and equity analyses • Connect with regional partners to coordinate ongoing work • Report back to City Council and Planning Board in late August • Prepare and launch a statistically valid survey in addition to a companion online questionnaire and community engagement events ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 8 Packet Page 25 of 1100 A BOULDER FUTURE Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update May 22, 2025 City Council & Planning Board Joint Special Meeting: Member Handouts NOTE: Responses collected via the handout were not formal votes; some members selected multiple options or left items blank. Concept Do not explore Nice to explore (if time) Need to explore Key ideas and guardrails identified Revisions to the BVCP Future Land Use Designations & Map 0 2 13 •Focus on simplification and flexibility •Bold action encouraged Reconsider Physical Composition 4 2 10 •Avoid substantial changes to the 55’ height limit. •Explore how modest roof form variations and allowances could provide community benefit. •Explore how Area II and III can better support community needs. Consider a Needs Based Approach to Policy Implementation (“Targeted Universalism”) 3 5 6 •Should already be happening through application of existing frameworks. •Support further analysis only if necessary to advance equity goals. Collaborate with regional partners to consider future community investment 2 6 7 •Opportunity for bold action around housing, transit, health, and food. •This work must be project driven. Consider Options for Enhancing Boulder’s ‘Night Economy’ 5 7 4 •May be better suited to economic vitality or Arts & Culture strategies. •Interest in how this can support other goals such as sustainable energy use, economic vitality and equity goals. Rethink Boulder Valley’s Natural Infrastructure Systems 0 0 14 •Emphasis on green infrastructure that supports environmental goals while offering community benefits. •Support for nature in urbanized settings to include front yards, ditches, bioswales, and public rights-of-way. Consider Options to Reawaken Boulder’s Funkiness 8 5 3 •Mixed views on whether and how government should be involved in cultural expression and creativity. •Support for removing regulatory constraints that stifle originality and diversity in urban design and use. Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 9 Packet Page 26 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 10 Packet Page 27 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 11 Packet Page 28 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 12 Packet Page 29 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 13 Packet Page 30 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 14 Packet Page 31 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 15 Packet Page 32 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 16 Packet Page 33 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 17 Packet Page 34 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 18 Packet Page 35 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 19 Packet Page 36 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 20 Packet Page 37 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 21 Packet Page 38 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 22 Packet Page 39 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 23 Packet Page 40 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 24 Packet Page 41 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 25 Packet Page 42 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 26 Packet Page 43 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 27 Packet Page 44 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 28 Packet Page 45 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 29 Packet Page 46 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 30 Packet Page 47 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 31 Packet Page 48 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 32 Packet Page 49 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 33 Packet Page 50 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 34 Packet Page 51 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 35 Packet Page 52 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 36 Packet Page 53 of 1100 Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 37 Packet Page 54 of 1100 Name: Concepts to Explore 0---01---------1(?/ Do Not Nice to Explore Need to Explore (if time) Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: N �e.J -h, --\k�� c we h-_ l l 7 � bnJ-�6ls­ o.. rl't rN .PI � i b1 e \ IAI\.J?\ IAS-i. �f" L-1 � 1Yi c.l-1 e J 0vv Y\. b \-o 2-4 .,,..: 0 e ,-.__J o---o---CPI Do Not Nice to Explore Need to Explore (if time) Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: wo"'-l" be. �ooJ -h +es-I-C: Y-e>,.""5� o+: s-k,-ks-h c""l l1,.. \Jo..l �J Si.r.; e.'c) i t'\cJ�J � @Hv\..v�";f e,l-e.vc..+-wJ, S�\.(JJel\s I s.bJ.,-e s WA t.,,t'hre. i c>c--,;;r .v.J-v-o o tftv' h> d \ ti\..., be 1-kr--u.S? of-: R_.J--Sf "-U? - o----�-------0---0 Do Not Nice to Explore Need to Explore (if time) Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: Na )r-- 5'"'-(Q,__ � l"\-e.e..A � '":> c)A.Q -we rt.. o.\rw7 ��'1 e1 vt;ry -bq-e.i>-�17ss. & � CAra kl a,b,,..x IA"'-�" kAAe.J._ i0'.'::y'-rd5, \\ k ki rJ-.., � � .\:k.e w e.A.J .J-l,,;,u-1- 'A.L\°)h�w-�oocl5 ht>..� \e5S' C\C.ce.SS +o ¥-, 1, 6) 2--- Gorl re..&.\re.c,;h·'='j re 1 ov..rc.es ,t-t) -lh o5e_ \..,i� � \/Y"'loS} \""'\e...-�"->· 0 Do Not Explore @ o--.--o Nice to Explore Need to (if time) Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: /\Jot S'W-<L. \,v-€.. ./"\.e...d � S,eec..,lc..-1 +1oo....s- Qv\ M � s j � �'re_ cio �:-_j ; + a.. lrQ.,(_J. 7 .A BOULDER, FUTURE --•••---••••I_,.,--••---••-••-•••--•&al••--•-• Laura Kaplan Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 38 Packet Page 55 of 1100 Qt------�--0 Do Not Nice to Explore Need to Explore (if time) Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: N oi � �\5" n-e.eJs h k a.. 0----0---� Do Not Nice to Explore Explore (if time) Need to Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: tss.e-�.\-i"-! t--o p�i.r i0c__r�J.e.J 0---------0t-----� Do Not Nice to Explore Need to Explore (if time) Explore If you believe additional guardrails would be required, please provide details: /' I - - I . ,, . I:-,., It L0V'\ n <Nf::L /'IV)._, c..-1 '?f I'\ \ s IA_ tc:. C ol/\ O � 7 _____Q_ S'L--b CAf:eaq �e..re ' fu_" �; f'\./! ss I (9 'J\A-""-1A-'"'-: ½, c.,h__'\[1:<. c:.J-e...r i ) a. ,.Jk..� Attachment A - Completed Member Worksheets: Concepts to Explore Item 2C - May 22, 2025 Study Session Summary Page 39 Packet Page 56 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the Findings of Fact, C onclusions and Recommendations of Special C ounsel, Stefanie Boster, Deputy C ity Attorney, C ity of Ft. C ollins, finding that no violations occurred concerning C ode of C onduct complaint #2025-002, filed against C ouncil Member Taishya Adams P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney, 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 accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Special C ounsel, Stefanie Boster, Deputy C ity Attorney, C ity of Ft. C ollins, finding that no violations occurred concerning Code of Conduct complaint #2025-002, filed against Council Member Taishya Adams. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2D - Motion to accept Special Counsel's Report & F indings Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Packet Page 57 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Special Counsel, Stefanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney, City of Ft. Collins, finding that no violations occurred concerning Code of Conduct complaint #2025-002, filed against Council Member Taishya Adams. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 was properly filed with the city clerk on March 3, 2025, pursuant to Section 2-7-10, “Enforcement,” B.R.C. 1981 by Jeff Skovron. Stefanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney, City of Ft. Collins, was appointed as Special Counsel to investigate this complaint on March 20, 2025. She has completed her investigation and issued her report June 3, 2025. The city attorney is asking that council accept Boster’s findings that no code of conduct violations occurred concerning Code of Conduct complaint #2025-002, filed against Council Member Taishya Adams. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 1 Packet Page 58 of 1100 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS  Economic: None.  Environmental: None.  Social: Careful and independent investigation of ethics complaints supports community trust in government. OTHER IMPACTS  Fiscal-Budgetary: Any costs will be covered by existing budgets.  Staff Time: Any work will be part of existing work plans. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2025, the city clerk received a sworn Code of Conduct Complaint pursuant to § 2-7-10(b)(2) from Jeff Skovron alleging violations of the Code of Conduct amounting to discrimination. The complaint alleged that:  Council Member Adams barred Jewish Boulder citizens from attending a book group publicly sponsored in her capacity as a council member; and  Council Member Adams has misused her personal social media account (IG) to promote a program (book group) advertised as open to all, and then barred specific Boulder citizens from attending the advertised program Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Special Counsel, Stefanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney, City of Ft. Collins, finding that no violations occurred concerning Code of Conduct complaint #2025-002, filed against Council Member Taishya Adams. Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 2 Packet Page 59 of 1100 ANALYSIS See Attachment A NEXT STEPS Council can accept the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations of Special Counsel, Stefanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney, City of Ft. Collins or not. ATTACHMENT Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 3 Packet Page 60 of 1100 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF BOULDER, COLORADO JUNE 3, 2025 PREPARED BY: STEFANIE BOSTER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CO 300 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (970) 416-2463 SBOSTER@FCGOV.COM         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 4 Packet Page 61 of 1100 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 The Complaint ............................................................................................................................ 1-2 Description of Investigation………………………………………………………………… ….2 Relevant Code Provisions…… .................................................................................................... 3-4 Analysis and Discussion………………………………………………………………………...4-9 1.Sequence of Events……………………………………………………………………..…4-5 2.Application of the Code Provisions ………………………………………………….…....5-8 Summary of Issues, Findings of Fact, Conclusions .........................................................................9         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 5 Packet Page 62 of 1100 Boulder Report H 1 INTRODUCTION On March 20, 2025, acting pursuant to Section 2-7-10 of the Boulder Revised Code (the "Code" or "BRC"), the Boulder City Council (the "Council") directed the Boulder City Attorney's Office to obtain the assistance of outside counsel to initiate an investigation of a complaint filed with the Boulder City Clerk's Office on March 3, 2025 (the "Complaint"), by City of Boulder resident Jeff Skovron (the "Complainant"), alleging that City of Boulder (“City”) Councilmember Taishya Adams (Councilmember "Adams") violated the Code of Conduct. As Deputy City Attorney for the City of Fort Collins, I agreed to assist in the investigation of the Complaint, pursuant to the provisions of an intergovernmental agreement between the Cities of Fort Collins and Boulder dated September 17, 1997. THE COMPLAINT The Code provides the following: "Complaints initiated by a Resident or City Employee: A resident of the City or any city employee may initiate an investigation of any city council member, employee or appointee to a city board, commission, task force or similar body by filing a sworn statement with the city clerk setting forth facts which, if true, would constitute a violation of a provision of this chapter." BRC section 2-7-10(b)(2). On March 3, 2025, a resident of the City of Boulder emailed a letter containing a sworn statement to the city clerk alleging a violation of the Code (the "Complaint"). This Complaint alleges that on an unspecified date or dates, Councilmember Adams blocked "citizens from attending a book group publicly sponsored in her capacity as a councilwoman. The complaint is based upon the misuse of her Instagram account to promote a program (book group) advertised as open to all, and then barring specific Boulder citizens from attending the advertised program". The Complaint generally alleges that flyers advertising the book group stated "this hybrid offering is open to anyone who lives, works, plays, studies, and/or visits the City of Boulder." The Complaint further claims that, because the flyers included an "Adams for Boulder" logo, they implied that the book group "is being offered in her role as councilwoman." In addition, the Complaint asserts that "Adams also posts about the event on her 'Adams for Boulder' Instagram (and on her personal IG),” thereby resulting in the use of "her @adamsforboulder IG to recruit people to register in her bio, and then also lists her personal email address". The Complaint contends, “This blurring between her personal accounts and her councilwoman accounts implies that they are essentially one and the same, and it is [a] fair conclusion that any of her postings relate to her role as councilwoman." Specifically, the Complaint claims that "I registered for the (virtual) book group on or about February 1, 2025, and never received any confirmation of registration, or any email follow-up by Adams. I registered again a couple of days before the event, and again received no reply. At all relevant times I was and continue to be a resident of Boulder."         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 6 Packet Page 63 of 1100 Boulder Report H 2 The Complaint explains that "I likely would not have filed this complaint as I would have no idea why I never received a link for the meeting except for the fact that Rachel Amaru and Elise Mordos were apparently barred as well. As can be well-documented, both Ms. Amaru and Ms. Mordos have been very active and public in support of Isreal, opposition to a cease-fire resolution and on other issues that have been before council. I think it is fair to say that their views are often contrary to Ms. Admas'[sic]…" The Complaint further explains that "it is also perhaps relevant that the book that was to be discussed was The Message, by Ta-Nehisi Coates. This is a triggering book for many Jews due to its (arguably) one-sided view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict…" The Complaint cites BRC section 2-7-8(a),(b),(e)(1-3,6) and concludes that "I assert that by Ms. Adams' barring of me and other outspoken Jews from this event as set forth above is in violation of one or more of these provisions." DESCRIPTION OF INVESTIGATION On March 20, 2025, I was notified that Council had authorized this investigation and had further authorized the City Attorney of Boulder to obtain assistance of outside counsel to conduct the investigation. I subsequently received the following documents from the City: a copy of the Complaint; attachments to the Complaint. These documents are attached to this report and referenced herein, and can be generally described as follows: x March 3, 2025, Complaint. x Attachments to the Complaint: o A copy of an Instagram post from Councilmember Adams’ (@adamsforboulder) account, dated February 3, 2025, containing a picture of a flyer titled "Adams for Boulder Book Club – Spring 2025" and a description stating, "Adams for Boulder Spring Book club dates finalized!", 1 page; o A copy of an Instagram post from an unknown account, dated January 8, 2025, the first full paragraph beginning "Below are the selected books for your reference…" and containing dates and titles of books and information regarding how to register and recommendations, 2 pages; o A copy of an Instagram post from Councilmember Adams’ personal account (@taishyasky) , undated, containing a flyer titled “Adams for Boulder Book Club – Spring 2025” and a description stating “Adams for Boulder Spring Book club dates finalized!”, 1 page; and o A copy of an Instagram post from Councilmember Adams’ personal account (@taishyasky), undated, containing a flyer titled “Adams for Boulder Book Club – Spring 2025” and a description stating "Join me for a series that will inspire, inform, challenge, align, and simulate collective action!...", 1 page.         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 7 Packet Page 64 of 1100 Boulder Report H 3 RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS The Council for the City of Boulder passed Ordinance 7957 on December 16, 2014, amending the Code of Conduct in its entirety. The agenda item for the Ordinance 7957 states, "The intent of the proposed ordinance is to revise the City's ethics code to be more accessible through clarity. The proposed ordinance would strengthen the sanctions for dishonest behavior, while at the same time clarifying what is acceptable and appropriate behavior for city elected officials, employees and appointed volunteers." As a part of this clarification, the Boulder City Council added BRC § 2-7-8 "Expectations", which serves as a list of actions a Boulder official or employee "shall" or "shall not" do. The following are the relevant Code of Conduct provisions that set forth the Council's intent and the sections that are at issue in the Complaint. 2-7-1 Purpose, Legislative Intent and Findings. (a) The purpose of this chapter is to protect the integrity of city government by: … (2) Establishing high standards of conduct for elected officials, appointed board and commission members and city employees by setting forth certain expectations of behavior that all such individuals shall maintain while elected, appointed or employed by the City of Boulder. … (b) Legislative Intent: it is the intent of the city council to: (1) Establish rules of conduct that meet or exceed the rules established by the Colorado State Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes. (2) Establish expectations to encourage public officials and public employees to maintain the highest standard of conduct to justify the public trust that they enjoy. … 2-7-8 Expectations …         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 8 Packet Page 65 of 1100 Boulder Report H 4 (a) These expectations are intended to establish ethical standards to guide public officials and public employees in the execution of their offices in a manner that will reflect well on the city and promote the public’s trust in local government. (b) Compliance with this section will not constitute a defense for violation of another subsection or section of this chapter. Violation of this section may be considered as the basis for censure of a public official, or in the most serious cases, removal of a board of commission member. Violation of this section may be the basis of disciplinary action, or in the most serious cases, termination of a public employee. … (e) A public official or public employee shall: (1) Strive at all times to serve the best interests of the city regardless of his or her personal interest. (2) Perform duties with honesty, care, diligence, professionalism, impartiality and integrity. (3) Strive for the highest ethical standards to sustain the trust and confidence of the public they serve, not just the minimum required to meet legal or procedural requirements. (6) Treat colleagues and members of the public professionally and with courtesy. … ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Councilmember Adams administers two separate Instagram accounts: "@adamsforboulder" and "@taishyasky". On January 8, 2025, Adams posted about registering for the book club event on her @adamsforboulder Instagram account. Her personal email address was referenced in this post.         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 9 Packet Page 66 of 1100 Boulder Report H 5 On February 3, 2025 and on an additional unspecified date or dates, Adams posted flyers on her @adamsforboulder and her @taishyasky Instagram accounts advertising the book group stating "This hybrid offering is open to anyone who lives, works, plays, studies, and/or visits the City of Boulder." The flyers included an "Adams for Boulder" logo. Her personal email address was referenced in these posts. On or about February 1, 2025, Complainant registered for the (virtual) book group and never received any confirmation of registration, or any email follow-up by Adams. On an unspecified date or dates a couple of days before the event, where the book that was to be discussed was The Message, by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Complainant re-registered for the book group again and received no reply. On an unspecified date or dates, Rachel Amaru and Elise Mordos were allegedly excluded from this book group. Both Ms. Amaru and Ms. Mordos have been very active and public in support of Isreal, opposition to a cease-fire resolution and on other issues that have been before the Boulder City Council. These views are contrary to those of Councilmember Adams. On March 3, 2025, Jeff Skovron filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Code of Conduct by Councilmember Adams. APPLICATION OF CODE PROVISIONS Complainant alleges that Councilmember Adams misused two of her social media accounts to promote a book group advertised as open to everyone and either directly blocked or indirectly prevented some Boulder residents from attending the book group. Notably, Colorado law provides that, "private social media administered by a local elected official or designee is a private account and does not create a public forum." C.R.S. § 29-34- 101(1)(a). Further, " a local elected official may permanently or temporarily restrict or bar an individual from using the private social media that is administered by the local elected official or their designee for any reason, including bullying, harassment, or intimidation, in the local elected official's sole discretion. C.R.S. § 29-34-101(3). The focus of this report is whether, if true, Councilmember Adams' actions not acknowledging Complainant’s registration for the book group she created violated BRC 2-7-8(E). 1. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF BRC 2-7-8(E) REGARDING EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF TWO INSTAGRAM ACCOUNTS TO PROMOTE A BOOK GROUP.         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 10 Packet Page 67 of 1100 Boulder Report H 6 As specifically cited by the Complaint, the Code provides in relevant part that, "These expectations are intended to establish ethical standards to guide public officials and public employees in the execution of their offices in a manner that will reflect well on the city and promote the public’s trust in local government." BRC section 2-7-8(a). The Code further provides that, "Compliance with this section will not constitute a defense for violation of another subsection or section of this chapter. Violation of this section may be considered as the basis for censure of a public official, or in the most serious cases, removal of a board of commission member. Violation of this section may be the basis of disciplinary action, or in the most serious cases, termination of a public employee." BRC section 2-7-8(b). In addition, the Code affirmatively provides that "A public official or public employee shall… 1. Strive at all times to serve the best interests of the city regardless of his or her personal interest. 2. Perform duties with honesty, care, diligence, professionalism, impartiality and integrity. 3. Strive for the highest ethical standards to sustain the trust and confidence of the public they serve, not just the minimum required to meet legal or procedural requirements. 6. Treat colleagues and members of the public professionally and with courtesy. In the context of the Complaint, the question is that, while promoting her book group, whether Councilmember Adams used one or both of her Instagram accounts in any manner that violated the best interests of the city, resulted in the performance of her duties in a manner that was not impartial, did not maintain the highest ethical standards, or failed to treat members of the public with professionalism and courtesy. A. COUNCILMEMBER ADAMS' USE OF HER INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT "@ADAMSFORBOULDER". The Complaint alleges that on an unspecified date or dates, Councilmember Adams blocked "citizens from attending a book group publicly sponsored in her capacity as a councilwoman. The complaint is based upon the misuse of her Instagram account to promote a program (book group) advertised as open to all, and then barring specific Boulder citizens from attending the advertised program".         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 11 Packet Page 68 of 1100 Boulder Report H 7 The Complaint generally alleges that flyers advertising the book group stated "this hybrid offering is open to anyone who lives, works, plays, studies, and/or visits the City of Boulder." The Complaint further claims that the flyers included an "Adams for Boulder" logo which implied that the book group "is being offered in her role as councilwoman". In their Complaint, the Complainant specifically alleges that, "I registered for the (virtual) book group on or about February 1, 2025, and never received any confirmation of registration, or any email follow-up by Adams. I registered again a couple of days before the event, and again received no reply. At all relevant times I was and continue to be a resident of Boulder." The Complaint further explains that "it is also perhaps relevant that the book that was to be discussed was The Message, by Ta-Nehisi Coates. This is a triggering book for many Jews due to its (arguably) one-sided view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict…" The Complaint specifically cites BRC section 2-7-8(a),(b),(e)(1-3,6) and concludes that "I assert that by Ms. Adams' barring of me and other outspoken Jews from this event as set forth above is in violation of one or more of these provisions." None of the documents identified by the Complainants indicate that this Instagram account is the official government account of Councilmember Adams administered by the City of Boulder. Rather, Councilmember Adams appears to administer the "@adamsforboulder" Instagram account herself both for campaign purposes and to repost content originally posted by the City of Boulder on its social media account. C.R.S. § 29-34-101(1)(a). Because the "@adamsforboulder" Instagram account is not Councilmember Adams' official government account or for the conduct of City business, she is free to restrict public access to it. C.R.S. § 29-34-101(3). Thus, in applying the standards of BRC § 2-7-8(e) to the facts of this case, it is my opinion that if true, the fact that Councilmember Adams failed to include resident Jeff Skovron from her book group that was advertised on her Instagram account "@adamsforboulder" does not constitute a violation of the BRC § 2-7-8(e). Further, by applying the standards of BRC § 2-7-8(e) to the facts of this case, it is also my opinion that Councilmember Adams´ use of her Instagram account "@adamsforboulder" to promote the book group does not fall within the scope of BRC § 2-7- 8(e) because it was not carried out as part of her role as a councilmember. B. COUNCILMEMBER ADAMS' USE OF HER INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT "@TAISHYASKY". The Complaint further alleges that on an unspecified date or dates, "Adams also posts about the event on her 'Adams for Boulder' Instagram (and on her personal IG) thereby resulting in the use of "her @adamsforboulder IG to recruit people to register in her bio, and then also lists her personal email address". The Complaint contends that “[t]his blurring between her personal         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 12 Packet Page 69 of 1100 Boulder Report H 8 accounts and her councilwoman accounts implies that they are essentially one and the same, and it is [a] fair conclusion that any of her postings related to her role as councilwoman." The personal Instagram account referenced in the Complaint appears to be @taishyasky. As outlined above, if true, none of the documents identified by the Complaints indicate that this Instagram account is the official government account of Councilmember Adams. Rather, Councilmember Adams appears to use her "@taishyasky" Instagram account as her private account to repost content originally posted by the City of Boulder. Because the "@taishyasky" Instagram account is not used by Councilmember Adams as her official government account, she is free to restrict public access to it. C.R.S. § 29-34-101(1)(c), (3). Further, if true, none of the statements contained in the documents identified by the Complainants establish bias. Thus, in applying the standards of BRC § 2-7-8(e) to the facts of this case, it is my opinion that if true, the fact that Councilmember Adams used her Instagram account "@taishyasky" to advertise the book group does not fall within the scope of BRC § 2-7-8(e) because these activities were not carried out as part of her role as a councilmember. C. COUNCILMEMBER ADAMS' CREATION OF A BOOK GROUP AND SUBSEQUENT EXCLUSION OF COMPLAINT AND OTHER BOULDER RESIDENTS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE BOOK GROUP. The Complaint explains that, "I likely would not have filed this complaint as I would have no idea why I never received a link for the meeting except for the fact that Rachel Amaru and Elise Mordos were apparently barred as well. As can be well-documented, both Ms. Amaru and Ms. Mordos have been very active and public in support of Isreal, opposition to a cease-fire resolution and on other issues that have been before council. I think it is fair to say that their views are often contrary to Ms. Admas'[sp]…" If true, none of the documents provided by the Complainant as summarized above establish that the book group was created by Councilmember Adams in her capacity as a member of the Council. As such, the book group is a private group. Notably, the Complaint does not allege whether confirming was necessary to attend the event, or whether there were other registrants who did receive confirmation; therefore, it is not actually clear from the complaint that the Complainant (and friends) was specifically barred. Regardless, membership to a private book group can be exclusive. In applying the standards of BRC § 2-7-8(e) to the facts of this case, it is my opinion that Councilmember Adams did not use one or both of her Instagram accounts in any manner that violated the best interests of the city, resulted in the performance of her duties in a manner that was not impartial, did not maintain the highest ethical standards, or failed to treat members of the public with professionalism and courtesy.         Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 13 Packet Page 70 of 1100 Boulder Report H 9 SUMMARY OF ISSUES, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Whether Councilmember Adams use of her Instagram Account @adamsforboulder violated the Rules of Conduct. Response: No. Councilmember Adams did not violate the Rules of Conduct through the use of her "@adamsforboulder" Instagram account. 2. Whether Councilmember Adams violated the Rules of Conduct by promoting her activities as a Boulder City Councilmember on her "@taishyasky" Instagram account. Response: No. The Code of Conduct allows a Councilmember to advocate, as a Councilmember, on any topic, including political candidates and ballot measures. 3. Whether Councilmember Adams violated the Rules of Conduct by excluding Boulder residents from participation in the book group. Response: No. The Code of Conduct does not prohibit a Councilmember from either creating or promoting a book group. Because the book group was not established in her official capacity as a Councilmember, members of the public can be excluded from participation in this private group. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Stefanie Boster, Fort Collins City Deputy Attorney Date          Attachment A – Final Report Code of Conduct Complaint #2025-002 Item 2D - Motion to Accept Report Code of Conduct Complaint #25-002 Page 14 Packet Page 71 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 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 Board of Directors for T he Boulder Municipal Property Authority; C onsideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 163 amending Resolution 161, adopted by the Boulder Municipal Property Authority on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters set forth therein as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s pavilion building; and setting forth related details; and C onsideration of a motion to adjourn as the Board of Directors for T he Boulder Municipal Property Authority and reconvene as the Boulder C ity Council P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C harlotte Huskey, Budget Officer RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder C ity Council and convene as the Board of Directors for T he Boulder Municipal Property Authority; C onsideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 163 amending Resolution 161, adopted by the Boulder Municipal Property Authority on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters set forth therein as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s pavilion building; and setting forth related details; and C onsideration of a motion to adjourn as the Board of Directors for T he Boulder Municipal Property Authority and reconvene as the Boulder C ity Council. B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Resolution XXX amending Resolution 161 authorizing the issuance of the Boulder Municipal Property Authority C ertificates of Participation; authorizing the method of sale with respect to said Certificates; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more conveyance documents, a lease, and an indenture; authorizing the use of a Notice of Sale and Packet Page 72 of 1100 Preliminary and Final Official Statements; authorizing the execution and delivery of miscellaneous documents in connection therewith; delegating certain details to certain authorized officers of the corporation and others; and providing the effective date of this resolution; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2E F I N AL PAC K E T Packet Page 73 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Board of Directors for The Boulder Municipal Property Authority; Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 163 amending Resolution 161, adopted by the Boulder Municipal Property Authority on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters set forth therein as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s pavilion building; and setting forth related details; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Board of Directors for The Boulder Municipal Property Authority and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Krista Morrison, Chief Financial Officer Joel Wagner, Deputy Finance Director Charlotte Huskey, Budget Officer Ron Gilbert, Assistant Controller EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resolution 163 (Attachment A) represents an amendment to Resolution 161 passed at the March 20, 2025 Council Meeting for authorizing issuance of the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Certificates of Participation. The purpose of an amendment to the original resolution is to widen the allowable parameters as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion of the city’s Western City Campus Pavilion Building. This amendment aligns with the Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 Item 2E - Resolution 163 1 Packet Page 74 of 1100 (Agenda Item I) that broadens the parameters for issuance of the certificates of participation for the project. Prior to the March 20 City Council Meeting, City Council previously authorized staff to advance this work on August 27, 2019 at a Special Council Meeting, provided call-up consideration of the project on October 17, 2024, and approved the annual lease payment in the 2025 Approved Budget and the remaining project appropriation of $100 million supported by proceeds of the sale of certificates of participation at the March 20 Council Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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 Board of Directors for The Boulder Municipal Property Authority; Motion to adopt Resolution 163 amending Resolution 161, adopted by the Boulder Municipal Property Authority on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters set forth therein as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s pavilion building; and setting forth related details; and Motion to adjourn as the Board of Directors for The Boulder Municipal Property Authority and reconvene as the Boulder City Council OVERVIEW The Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) was formed as a Colorado nonprofit corporation in February of 1988. BMPA was formed for the purpose of acquiring real and personal property and leasing, selling or otherwise conveying the same to the city. BMPA is governed by a nine-member board of directors, which consists of the members of the City Council. BMPA’s officers include a President and Vice President, which, pursuant to its Bylaws, shall be the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, respectively, of the city and a Secretary-Treasurer, which shall be the Chief Financial Officer of the city. BMPA has no assets, other than assets acquired from the issuance of debt securities, which are pledged to the repayment of such securities. Staff recommends amending Resolution 161 approved by City Council in March 2025 for the Western City Campus Pavilion Building. The resolution amendment will widen the parameters to ensure flexibility at time of issuance of the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Certificates of Participation. City Council is asked to consider approval of the following amendment to Resolution 161: 1) Amend Section 1 of the resolution to widen the interest rate parameters for sale, as summarized below:  The issuance of the Certificates in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $100,000,000, bearing interest at per annum rate or rates not to exceed 5.25%5.50% per annum, and maturing no later than December 31, 2054. Item 2E - Resolution 163 2 Packet Page 75 of 1100 The city’s financial advisor, Hilltop Securities, has advised staff to widen the ordinance parameters to ensure transaction completion of the sale of certificates of participation. Market volatility has reduced the predictability of interest rates, and therefore, under the original ordinance parameters, has heightened the city’s risk of not being able to complete the sale if rates increase by approximately 0.40%. The widening of these parameters increases flexibility to complete the sale transaction. This amendment to broaden the parameters is precautionary only to ensure a successful transaction in support of the project. The development of the city’s Western City Campus will result in the consolidation of city services currently housed across several buildings throughout the city, enabling more efficient and effective delivery of services to the community. NEXT STEPS July 15, 2025: Competitive Sale of the 2025 Certificates – Competitive bids from underwriters will be submitted electronically to the City by means of the i-Deal Parity electronic bidding system (“PARITY”). The 2025 Certificates will be awarded to the bidder offering to purchase the 2025 Certificates at the lowest true interest cost (“TIC”). The final terms of the 2025 Certificates will be set forth in a Sale Certificate approved by the Chief Financial Officer or City Manager pursuant to the authority delegated to them in the Ordinance. July 20, 2025: Closing on the 2025 Certificates – Mayor and Chief Financial Officer will execute loan documents and the funds from the sale of the 2025 Certificates will be received. ATTACHMENT A – Resolution 163 B – Resolution 161 Item 2E - Resolution 163 3 Packet Page 76 of 1100 4903-5352-4814.1 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 RESOLUTION 163 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 161, ADOPTED BY THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY ON MARCH 20, 2025, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE PARAMETERS SET FORTH THEREIN AS IT RELATES TO THE FINANCING OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSION, AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, AT THE CITY’S PAVILION BUILDING; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. WHEREAS, the City of Boulder (the “City”), in the County of Boulder and the State of Colorado (the “State”), is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing as a home rule city under Article XX of the Constitution of the State (the “Constitution”) and the home rule charter of the City (the “Charter”); and WHEREAS, the City has previously authorized and directed the creation of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority (the “Corporation”), a nonprofit corporation under the provisions of the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, Articles 20 through 29, Title 7, Colorado Revised Statutes, pursuant to an ordinance duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City (the “Council”); and WHEREAS, the Corporation previously adopted Resolution 161 (the “Authorizing Resolution”) on March 20, 2025 authorizing the financing of the renovation and expansion of, and associated site work at the City’s Pavilion Building, including any legally permitted costs and expenditures in connection therewith as part of the development of the Western City Campus (collectively, the “Project”) through the issuance of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority Certificates of Participation, Series 2025 (the “Series 2025 Certificates”); and WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Resolution 163 (this “Resolution”) shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Authorizing Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Authorizing Resolution included the Corporation’s election to apply all provisions of Part 2 of Article 57, Title 11, C.R.S. (the “Supplemental Act”) to the Series 2025 Certificates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Supplemental Act, the Authorizing Resolution established certain parameters (the “Parameters”) in relation to the execution and delivery by the Corporation of the Series 2025 Certificates, and WHEREAS, due to changes in market conditions, the City’s Municipal Advisor recommends amending certain of the Parameters in order to facilitate the sale of the Series 2025 Certificates and obtain sufficient proceeds to complete the financing of the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority that: Item 2E - Resolution 163 4 Attachment A - Resolution 163 Packet Page 77 of 1100 4903-5352-4814.1 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 Section 1. Amendment of Section 1. The first sentence of Section 1 of the Authorizing Resolution is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following (italics are included for emphasis only): The issuance of the Certificates in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $100,000,000, bearing interest at per annum rate or rates not to exceed 5.50% per annum and maturing no later than December 31, 2054 is hereby in all respects authorized and approved, and the Board hereby delegates the approval of all details of the Certificates within the parameters set forth above to the President, the Vice President or the Secretary-Treasurer (the “Authorized Officers”). Section 2. All remaining provisions of the Authorizing Resolution not otherwise amended by this Resolution remain unchanged and in full force and effect and are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed, and together both the Authorizing Resolution and this Resolution are the controlling resolutions in this matter. Section 3. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution or the Authorizing Resolution. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its introduction and passage. INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2025. [SEAL] By President The Boulder Municipal Property Authority ATTEST: By Secretary-Treasurer The Boulder Municipal Property Authority Item 2E - Resolution 163 5 Attachment A - Resolution 163 Packet Page 78 of 1100 4898-8027-3428.3 RESOLUTION 161 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION; AUTHORIZING THE METHOD OF SALE WITH RESPECT TO SAID CERTIFICATES; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS, A LEASE, AND AN INDENTURE; AUTHORIZING THE USE OF A NOTICE OF SALE AND PRELIMINARY AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; DELEGATING CERTAIN DETAILS TO CERTAIN AUTHORIZED OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION AND OTHERS; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, the City of Boulder (the “City”), in the County of Boulder and the State of Colorado (the “State”), is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing as a home rule city under Article XX of the Constitution of the State (the “Constitution”) and the home rule charter of the City (the “Charter”); and WHEREAS, The Boulder Municipal Property Authority (the “Corporation”), a nonprofit corporation that was formed in 1988 for the purpose of purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring real estate, property and improvements, as well as leasing, conveying, selling or transferring such real estate, property and improvements, all for the use and benefit of the residents of the City, is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Colorado (the “State”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to sell to the Corporation the City’s Pavilion Building and the land thereon owned by the City (together, the “Property”), and to lease the same back from the Corporation; and WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to purchase the Property from the City by issuing its Certificates of Participation (the “Certificates”) and using a portion of the proceeds therefrom for such acquisition; and WHEREAS, in order to effect the same, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) is desirous of (a) issuing the Certificates; (b) providing for the sale of the Certificates by means of a competitive sale through the i-Deal Parity electronic bidding system pursuant to the terms set forth in a Notice of Sale (the “Notice of Sale”); (c) receiving a conveyance of the Property through a special warranty deed from the City (the “Conveyance Document”); (d)entering into a Lease Purchase Agreement with respect to the Property (the “Lease”), between the Corporation, as lessor and the City, as lessee; and (e) causing the issuance, execution and delivery of the Certificates pursuant to a Mortgage and Indenture of Trust (the “Indenture”) by and between the Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust Company National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), which Certificates shall evidence assignments of proportionate interest in rights to receive certain payments under the Lease; and Item 2E - Resolution 163 6 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 79 of 1100 2 4898-8027-3428.3 WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds of the Certificates may also be used to fund reserves and pay costs of issuance of the Certificates (including the cost of insurance for the Certificates, if any), and pay other costs and expenses and capital costs related to the renovation and expansion of, and associated site work at the City’s Pavilion Building, including any legally permitted costs and expenditures in connection therewith as part of the development of the Western City Campus; and WHEREAS, the obligation of the City to pay Base Rentals and Additional Rentals under the Lease shall be from year to year only and no provision of the Certificates or the Lease shall be construed or interpreted (a) to directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment in any fiscal year in excess of amounts appropriated for such fiscal year or for any fiscal year for which the City has not renewed the this Lease; (b) as creating a debt or multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever of the City within the meaning of Article XI, Section 6 or Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution or any other Charter, constitutional or statutory limitation or provision; or (c) as a loan or pledge of the credit or faith of the City or as creating any responsibility by the City for any debt or liability of any person, company or corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, neither the Lease nor the Indenture, nor the execution and delivery of the Certificates, shall directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payments beyond those appropriated for any fiscal year during which the Lease shall be in effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority that: Section 1. The issuance of the Certificates in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $100,000,000, bearing interest at per annum rate or rates not to exceed 5.25% per annum and maturing no later than December 31, 2054 is hereby in all respects authorized and approved, and the Board hereby delegates the approval of all details of the Certificates within the parameters set forth above to the President, the Vice President or the Secretary-Treasurer (the “Authorized Officers”). Any one of the Authorized Officers of the Corporation is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Certificates, and the Secretary-Treasurer of the Corporation is authorized to attest and affix the seal of the Corporation to the same, in one or more series in form and substance as such Authorized Officers shall deem to be necessary, desirable or appropriate, the execution and delivery thereof by one of the Authorized Officers to constitute conclusive approval thereof. The Certificates are being issued pursuant to the Corporation’s organizational documents and the Supplemental Public Securities Act, Title 11, Article 57, Part 2 C.R.S. (the “Supplemental Act”). This Resolution constitutes an act of issuance under the Supplemental Act and the Corporation elects to apply the provisions of the Supplemental Act to this Resolution. Section 2. The Certificates shall be sold by a competitive sale through the i-Deal Parity electronic bidding system to the responsible bidder bidding the lowest actuarial yield on the Certificates, as an Authorized Officer shall deem in the best interests of the Corporation. Any Authorized Officer of the Corporation is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver a winning bidder certificate and a sale certificate (the “Sale Certificate”) in connection with the sale of the Certificates, in form and substance as such person executing the Item 2E - Resolution 163 7 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 80 of 1100 3 4898-8027-3428.3 same shall deem to be necessary, desirable or appropriate, the execution and delivery thereof by one of the Authorized Officers to constitute conclusive evidence of the approval thereof. Section 3. The execution and delivery of the Conveyance Document, the Lease, and the Indenture are hereby in all respects authorized and approved and any one of the Authorized Officers of the Corporation is authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Conveyance Document, the Lease, and the Indenture prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the Certificates, for and on behalf of the Corporation, in form and content as such Authorized Officer shall deem to be necessary, desirable or appropriate, execution thereof by an Authorized Officer to constitute conclusive evidence of the approval thereof. Section 4. The Board hereby approves the distribution and use in connection with the offering of the Certificates, a Notice of Sale attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Preliminary Official Statement and final Official Statement in form and substance as the Mayor, the City Manager or the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the City shall approve; and an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to execute the Notice of Sale and the final Official Statement, the execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of the approval thereof. Section 5. Any Authorized Officer is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to executive and deliver any and all additional agreements, certificates, documents, opinions or other papers and perform all other acts, including, without limitation, the filing of any financing statements or any other documents to create and maintain a lien or security interest in the properties and revenues pledged under the Indenture as may be required by the documents contemplated above or as they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to implement and carry out the intent and purposes of this resolution. Section 6. The delegations contained herein to the Authorized Officers of the Corporation shall remain in effect to the date of the issuance of the Certificates and the execution and delivery of the Lease and the Indenture. Section 7. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. Section 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its introduction and passage. Item 2E - Resolution 163 8 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 81 of 1100 4 4898-8027-3428.3 INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 2025. [SEAL] By President The Boulder Municipal Property Authority ATTEST: By Secretary-Treasurer The Boulder Municipal Property Authority Item 2E - Resolution 163 9 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 82 of 1100 4898-8027-3428.3 EXHIBIT A FORM OF NOTICE OF SALE $[_____________]* THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, SERIES 2025 Evidencing Proportionate Interests in the Base Rentals and other Revenues under an Annually Renewable Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of May 1, 2025, between THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY, as lessor, and THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, as lessee PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that electronic bids will be received for the purchase of the $[_________]* aggregate principal amount of the above-captioned certificates of participation (the “Series 2025 Certificates”), more particularly described below. As more fully described in the Preliminary Official Statement, dated on or about [April 18, 2025] (the “Preliminary Official Statement”), the City of Boulder, Colorado (the “City”), is causing the Series 2025 Certificates to be offered and issued by The Boulder Municipal Property Authority (the “Corporation”) pursuant to the Bond Ordinance of the City adopted on March 20, 2025 (the “Ordinance”) and a resolution of the Corporation adopted on March 20, 2025 (the “Resolution”). Bids for the purchase of the Series 2025 Certificates must be submitted by means of the i- Deal Parity electronic bidding system (“PARITY”). No other method of submitting bids will be accepted. The use of PARITY shall be at the bidder’s risk and expense, and none of the Corporation, the City, its Municipal Advisor or Bond Counsel shall have any liability with respect thereto. Electronic bids via PARITY must be submitted in accordance with PARITY’s Rules of Participation, as well as the provisions of this Notice of Sale. To the extent that provisions of this Notice of Sale conflict with PARITY’s Rules of Participation or any instruction or directions set forth by PARITY, the provisions of this Notice of Sale shall control. The date and time for submitting bids will be as follows: Bid Date: [April 29, 2025] Bid Time: Between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time (Between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time) Submit Bid to: PARITY electronic bidding system as set forth in “TERMS OF SALE—Submission of Bids” Delivery Date: [May 15, 2025] Information relating to the City and the Series 2025 Certificates may be obtained from the City’s Municipal Advisor, Hilltop Securities, Attention: Jason Simmons, 8055 E. Tufts Avenue, Suite 350, Denver, Colorado 80237, (telephone: (303) 771-0217; e-mail: Jason.Simmons@hilltopsecurities.com). *Preliminary; subject to adjustment as set forth herein. Item 2E - Resolution 163 10 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 83 of 1100 Exhibit A-2 4898-8027-3428.3 Neither the City, the Corporation, the Paying Agent, the Municipal Advisor, nor Bond Counsel shall be responsible for, and each bidder expressly assumes the risk of, any incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely bid submitted by Internet transmission by such bidder, including, without limitation, by reason of garbled transmissions, mechanical failure, engaged telephone or telecommunications lines, or any other cause arising from delivery by Internet transmission. Additionally, the PARITY time stamp will govern the receipt of all electronic bids. The official bid clock does not automatically refresh. Bidders must refresh the auction page periodically to monitor the progression of the bid clock and to ensure that their bid will be submitted prior to the termination of the bond sale. All bids will be deemed to incorporate the provisions of this Notice of Sale. This Notice of Sale and the information set forth herein are not to be treated as a complete disclosure of all relevant information with respect to the Series 2025 Certificates. The information set forth herein is subject, in all respects, to a more complete description of the Series 2025 Certificates and the security therefor set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement. SERIES 2025 CERTIFICATE DETAILS Terms. The Series 2025 Certificates will be issued in the aggregate principal amount set forth in the caption of this Notice of Sale, and will be dated the date of delivery. The proceeds of the Series 2025 Certificates are being used to (a) finance the renovation and expansion of, and associated site work at the City’s Pavilion Building, including any legally permitted costs and expenditures in connection therewith as part of the development of the Western City Campus (collectively, the “Project”); and (b) pay costs of issuance of the Series 2025 Certificates. Interest on the Series 2025 Certificates will be payable on each May 1 and November 1, commencing on [November 1, 2025]. The Series 2025 Certificates will mature on November 1 in each of the designated amounts and years as follows: [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Item 2E - Resolution 163 11 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 84 of 1100 Exhibit A-3 4898-8027-3428.3 Maturity Schedule* Maturity Date (November 1) Principal Amount Maturity Date (November 1) Principal Amount 2025 2041 2026 2042 2027 2043 2028 2044 2029 2045 2030 2046 2031 2047 2032 2048 2033 2049 2034 2050 2035 2051 2036 2052 2037 2053 2038 2054 2039 ____________________ * Preliminary; subject to adjustment as set forth in “TERMS OF SALE—Adjustment of Principal Amount and of Maturities After Determination of Best Bid” herein. The Series 2025 Certificates will be issued in registered form, in denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof. The Series 2025 Certificates will be issued in book-entry form utilizing the services of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”) as securities depository. U.S. Bank Trust Company National Association (the “Trustee”) as trustee under a Mortgage and Indenture dated as of November 1, 2025 (the “Indenture”), between the Corporation and the Trustee, shall serve as Registrar, Paying Agent and Transfer Agent for the Series 2025 Certificates. CUSIP numbers will be affixed to the Series 2025 Certificates, but errors in such CUSIP numbers or the failure to affix the CUSIP numbers to the Series 2025 Certificates shall not constitute cause for the purchaser to refuse delivery of the Series 2025 Certificates. Adjustment of Aggregate Principal Amount and of Maturities After Determination of Best Bid. The aggregate principal amount and the principal amount of each maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates described above are subject to adjustment by the City, after the determination of the best bid. Changes to be made will be communicated to the successful bidder by the time of award of the Series 2025 Certificates to the successful bidder, and will not reduce or increase the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2025 Certificates by more than [15%] in total principal amount. The successful bidder may not withdraw its bid as a result of any changes made within these limits. By submitting its bid, each bidder agrees to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates in such adjusted principal amounts and to modify the purchase price for the Series 2025 Certificates to reflect such adjusted principal amounts. The bidder further agrees that the interest rates for the Item 2E - Resolution 163 12 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 85 of 1100 Exhibit A-4 4898-8027-3428.3 various maturities as designated by the bidder in its bid will apply to any adjusted principal amounts designated by the City for such maturities. Amendment of Notice. The date and time of the sale may be changed at the discretion of the City, and the City also reserves the right to make other changes to the provisions of this Notice of Sale prior to the date and time of the sale; any such changes may be posted through PARITY. Prospective bidders are advised to check for such PARITY postings prior to the stated sale time. Interest Rates and Limitations. Interest from the date of delivery of the Series 2025 Certificates will be payable on [November 1, 2025], and semiannually thereafter on May 1 and November 1 in each year, as calculated based on a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Only one interest rate shall be specified for any one maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates. Each interest rate specified must be stated in a multiple of 1/8 or 1/20 of 1 percent per annum. The maximum differential between the lowest and highest interest rates permitted for the issue is one percent (1.0%) (i.e., the maximum rate of interest accruing on any Series 2025 Certificate prior to its maturity may not exceed the lowest rate of interest accruing on any other Series 2025 Certificate prior to its maturity by more than one percent (1.0%)). A zero rate is not permitted. No supplemental or “B” interest shall be allowed. Purchase Price. The purchase price bid shall not be less than 100% of the par amount of the Series 2025 Certificates, nor will any net discount or commission be allowed or paid on the sale of the Series 2025 Certificates. Security. The Series 2025 Certificates evidence assignments of proportionate undivided interests in certain payments pursuant to the Lease and are secured by the Indenture, pursuant to which the Corporation will assign to the Trustee, for the benefit of the registered owners of the Series 2025 Certificates, its interest in the Lease, as well as a mortgage and security interest in the Leased Property. The Series 2025 Certificates are payable solely from amounts which may be appropriated annually by the City, from certain net proceeds of insurance policies or condemnation awards, from interest earnings on moneys in certain funds and accounts or from net proceeds from the leasing of or a liquidation of the Trustee’s interest in the Leased Property. Neither the Series 2025 Certificates nor the Lease constitutes a mandatory payment obligation in any fiscal year of the City beyond a fiscal year for which the City has appropriated amounts to make payments under the Lease. The City may terminate its obligations under the Lease on an annual basis. The exercise by the City of its option to terminate its obligations under the Lease (an “Event of Nonappropriation and Non-Renewal”) is determined by the failure of the City Council to specifically appropriate moneys sufficient to pay all Base Rentals and reasonably estimated Additional Rentals for the next renewal term of the Lease. Item 2E - Resolution 163 13 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 86 of 1100 Exhibit A-5 4898-8027-3428.3 Redemption of Series 2025 Certificates in Whole Upon an Event of Nonappropriation and Nonrenewal or Event of Default. The Series 2025 Certificates are to be called for redemption in whole, on any date, in the event of the occurrence of an Event of Nonappropriation and Nonrenewal or the occurrence and continuation of an Event of Default under the Lease. The redemption price will be the lesser of (a) the principal amount of the Series 2025 Certificates, plus accrued interest to the redemption date (without any premium); or (b) the sum of (i) the amount, if any, received by the Trustee or the Corporation from the exercise of remedies under the Lease with respect to the Event of Nonappropriation and Nonrenewal or the occurrence and continuation of the Event of Default that gave rise to such redemption; and (ii) the other amounts available in the Trust Estate for payment of the redemption price of the Series 2025 Certificates, which amounts will be allocated among the Series 2025 Certificates in proportion to the principal amount of each Series 2025 Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Indenture, the payment of the redemption price of any Series 2025 Certificate pursuant to this redemption provision will be deemed to be the payment in full of such Series 2025 Certificate and no Owner of any Series 2025 Certificate redeemed pursuant to this redemption provision will have any right to any payment from the Corporation, the Trustee or the City in excess of such redemption price. In addition to any other notice required to be given under the Indenture, the Trustee is to, immediately after the Trustee has been notified of or has knowledge of the occurrence of an Event of Nonappropriation and Nonrenewal or an Event of Default under the Lease, notify the Owners (i) that such event has occurred and (ii) whether or not the funds then available to it for such purpose are sufficient to pay the redemption price set forth in clause (i). If the funds then available to the Trustee are sufficient to pay the redemption price set forth in clause (i), such redemption price shall be paid as soon as possible. If the funds then available to the Trustee are not sufficient to pay the redemption price set forth in clause (i) the Corporation and the Trustee shall (A) immediately pay the portion of the redemption price that can be paid from the funds available, net of any funds which, in the judgment of the Trustee, should be set aside to pursue remedies under the Lease and (B) subject to the provisions of Article VII of the Indenture, immediately begin to exercise and shall diligently pursue all remedies available to them under the Lease in connection of such Event of Nonappropriation and Nonrenewal or Event of Default. The remainder of the redemption price, if any, shall be paid to the Owners if and when funds become available to the Trustee from the exercise of such remedies. Optional Redemption of Series 2025 Certificates in Whole Upon Payment of Purchase Option Price. The Series 2025 Certificates maturing on or after November 1, [_____] shall be called for redemption, in whole, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Series 2025 Certificates, plus accrued interest, on any date on and after November 1, 2025, in the event of, and to the extent that moneys are actually received by the Trustee from, the exercise by the City of its option to purchase in full the Leased Property as provided in the Lease, upon payment of the then applicable Purchase Option Price. Optional Redemption. The Series 2025 Certificates maturing prior to November 1, [_____] shall not be subject to optional redemption prior to their respective maturity dates. The Certificates maturing on and after November 1, [_____] shall be subject to redemption prior to their respective maturity dates at the option and direction of the City, in whole or in part, in integral multiples of $5,000, and if in part in such order of maturities as the City shall determine Item 2E - Resolution 163 14 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 87 of 1100 Exhibit A-6 4898-8027-3428.3 and by lot within a maturity, on November 1, [_____], and on any date thereafter, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Certificates so redeemed plus accrued interest to the redemption date and without a premium. Term Bonds; Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. A bidder may request that any Series 2025 Certificates be aggregated to form one or more term bonds. Any such term bond will be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in the same amounts and on the same dates as the Series 2025 Certificates would have matured if they were not included in a term bond. Series 2025 Certificates redeemed pursuant to mandatory sinking fund redemption will be redeemed at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the redemption date, in the manner as otherwise provided in the Ordinance. Any election to designate Series 2025 Certificates as being included in a term bond must be made at the time the prospective bidder submits a bid for the Series 2025 Certificates via PARITY. See “TERMS OF SALE—Submission of Bids.” Rating. Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. has assigned the Series 2025 Certificates a municipal bond rating of “[____].” See “RATING” in the Preliminary Official Statement. Authorization. The Series 2025 Certificates are authorized to be issued by the Constitution of the State of Colorado, the Charter of the City, the laws of the State of Colorado, the Ordinance and the Supplemental Public Securities Act. TERMS OF SALE Submission of Bids. A prospective bidder must electronically submit a bid for the Series 2025 Certificates via PARITY. Bids may be submitted electronically via PARITY in accordance with this Notice of Sale, until 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time, but no bid will be received after the time for receiving bids specified above. To the extent any instructions or directions set forth in PARITY conflict with this Notice of Sale, the terms of this Notice of Sale shall control. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact the City’s Municipal Advisor, Hilltop Securities, Attention: Jason Simmons, 8055 E. Tufts Avenue, Suite 350, Denver, Colorado 80237 (telephone: (303) 771-0217; e-mail: Jason.Simmons@hilltopsecurities.com, or PARITY at 1359 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10018, Telephone (212) 404 8153; Fax (212) 849 5021. Bidding Parameters. Bidders are required to submit unconditional bids specifying the rate of interest and premium, if any, at which the bidder will purchase all and not less than all of the Series 2025 Certificates. Information Regarding Bids. Bidders may change and submit bids as many times as they wish during the bidding. During the bidding, no bidder will see any other bidder’s bid, nor the status of their bid relative to other bids (i.e, whether their bid is the leading bid). Bids Constitute an Irrevocable Offer. Each bid submitted through PARITY shall be deemed an irrevocable offer to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates on the terms provided in this Notice of Sale and shall be binding upon the bidder. Item 2E - Resolution 163 15 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 88 of 1100 Exhibit A-7 4898-8027-3428.3 Basis of Award. The Series 2025 Certificates will be sold to the bidder offering to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates at the lowest true interest cost (“TIC”). The actuarial yield on the Series 2025 Certificates using the TIC method will be computed at that yield which, if used to compute the present value of all payments of principal and interest on the Series 2025 Certificates as of the delivery date of the Series 2025 Certificates [(i.e., May 15, 2025)], produces an amount equal to the aggregate bid price. Such calculation will be made based upon a 360-day year composed of twelve 30-day months and a semi-annual interval for compounding. The winning bid will be indicated on PARITY and the auction results, as posted on such website, will be subject to verification by the City and the Municipal Advisor. The City and the Municipal Advisor will verify the auction results immediately following the close of the bidding period and notice of confirmation by the City and the Municipal Advisor of the winning bidder will be made by a posting on PARITY under the “Results” link. If two or more bids have the same TIC, the first bid submitted, as determined by reference to the time stamp displayed on PARITY, shall be deemed to be the leading bid. Sale Reservations. The City reserves the right (a) to reject any and all bids for any Series 2025 Certificates, (b) to reoffer any Series 2025 Certificates for public or negotiated sale and (c) to waive any irregularity or informality in any bid. Good Faith Deposit. A good faith deposit will not be required in connection with the submission of a bid for the Series 2025 Certificates. The winning bidder will be required to wire $[__________] of the par amount of the Series 2025 Certificates to the City as bid security by 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time on [April 29, 2025]. The City will provide wire instructions to the winning bidder. The bid security will be retained by the City and: (a) will be applied, without allowance for interest, against the purchase price when the Series 2025 Certificates are delivered to and paid for by such winning bidder; (b) will be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bidder defaults with respect to the bid; or (c) will be returned to the bidder if the Series 2025 Certificates are not issued by the City for any reason which does not constitute a default by the bidder. Manner and Time of Delivery. The Series 2025 Certificates will be delivered to DTC for the account of the winning bidder at the expense of the City on [May 15, 2025] or such later date as the City and the winning bidder may agree. The winning bidder will not be required to accept delivery of the Series 2025 Certificates if they are not tendered for delivery by the City on [May 15, 2025], or such later date as the City and the winning bidder may agree; provided that delivery of any Series 2025 Certificates is conditioned upon the receipt by the City of a certificate as to their issue price. See “—Establishment of Issue Price” below. Payment of the purchase price due at delivery must be made in Federal Reserve funds for immediate and unconditional credit to the City. Establishment of Issue Price (a) The winning bidder shall assist the City in establishing the issue price of the Series 2025 Certificates and shall execute and deliver to the City at closing an “issue price” or similar certificate setting forth the reasonably expected Initial Offering Price (as defined herein) Item 2E - Resolution 163 16 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 89 of 1100 Exhibit A-8 4898-8027-3428.3 to the Public (as defined herein) or the sales price or prices of the Series 2025 Certificates, together with the supporting pricing wires or equivalent communications, substantially in the form attached hereto as APPENDIX A, with such modifications as may be appropriate or necessary, in the reasonable judgment of the winning bidder, the City and Bond Counsel. All actions to be taken by the City under this Notice of Sale to establish the issue price of the Series 2025 Certificates may be taken on behalf of the City by the Municipal Advisor. At the written request of the City, Bond Counsel or the Municipal Advisor (including via e-mail), any notice or report to be provided to the City under this Notice of Sale shall be provided to, as applicable pursuant to such written request, the City, Bond Counsel, or the Municipal Advisor. (b) The City intends that the provisions of Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1(f)(3)(i) (defining “competitive sale” for purposes of establishing the issue price of the Series 2025 Certificates) will apply to the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates (the “Competitive Sale Requirements”) because: (1) the City shall disseminate this Notice of Sale to potential Underwriters (as defined herein) in a manner that is reasonably designed to reach potential Underwriters; (2) all bidders shall have an equal opportunity to bid; (3) the City anticipates receiving bids from at least three bidders with established industry reputations for underwriting new issuances of municipal bonds; and (4) the City anticipates awarding the sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the bidder who submits a firm offer to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates at the lowest interest cost, as set forth in this Notice of Sale. The City shall take all reasonable steps that are appropriate so that the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public will satisfy the Competitive Sale Requirements. Any bid submitted pursuant to this Notice of Sale shall be considered a firm offer for the purchase of the Series 2025 Certificates, as specified in the bid. (c) In the event that the Competitive Sale Requirements are not satisfied, the City shall so advise the winning bidder. The City may determine to treat (i) the first price at which 10% of a maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates (the “10% Test”) is sold to the Public as the issue price of that maturity and/or (ii) the Initial Offering Price to the Public as of the Sale Date (as defined herein) of any maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates as the issue price of that maturity (the “Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule”), in each case applied on a maturity-by-maturity basis. The City intends to apply the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule if the Competitive Sale Requirements are not satisfied but may, in its discretion, apply the 10% Test if necessary. The winning bidder shall advise the City if any maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates satisfies the 10% Test as of the date and time of the award of the Series 2025 Certificates. The City (or the Municipal Advisor) shall promptly advise the prospective winning bidder, at or before the time of award of the Series 2025 Certificates, which maturities of the Series 2025 Certificates shall be subject to the 10% Test or shall be subject to the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule. Bids will not be Item 2E - Resolution 163 17 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 90 of 1100 Exhibit A-9 4898-8027-3428.3 subject to cancellation in the event that the Competitive Sale Requirements are not satisfied. Bidders should prepare their bids on the assumption that all of the maturities of the Series 2025 Certificates will be subject to the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule in order to establish the issue price of the Series 2025 Certificates. (d) By submitting a bid, the winning bidder shall (i) confirm that the Underwriter(s) have offered or will offer the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public on or before the date of award at the offering price or prices (the “Initial Offering Price”), or at the corresponding yield or yields, set forth in the bid submitted by the bidder and (ii) agree, on behalf of the Underwriter(s) participating in the purchase of the Series 2025 Certificates, that the Underwriter(s) will neither offer nor sell unsold Series 2025 Certificates of any maturity to which the Hold-the-Offering- Price Rule shall apply to any person at a price that is higher than the Initial Offering Price to the Public during the period starting on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of the following: (1) the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the Sale Date; or (2) the date on which the Underwriter(s) have sold at least 10% of that maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public at a price that is no higher than the Initial Offering Price to the Public. The winning bidder shall promptly advise the City or the Municipal Advisor when the Underwriter(s) have sold 10% of that maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public at a price that is no higher than the Initial Offering Price to the Public, if that occurs prior to the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the Sale Date. (e) If the Competitive Sale Requirements are not satisfied, then until the 10% Test has been satisfied as to each maturity of the Series 2025 Certificates, the winning bidder agrees to promptly report to the City the prices at which the unsold Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity have been sold to the Public. That reporting obligation shall continue, whether or not the closing date has occurred, until the 10% Test has been satisfied as to the Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity or until all Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity have been sold. (f) The City acknowledges that, in making the representation set forth above, the winning bidder will rely on (i) the agreement of each Underwriter to comply with the Hold-the- Offering-Price Rule, as set forth in any agreement among underwriters and the related pricing wires, (ii) in the event a selling group has been created in connection with the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public, the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, as set forth in a selling group agreement and the related pricing wires, and (iii) in the event that an Underwriter is a party to a retail distribution agreement that was employed in connection with the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public, the agreement of each broker-dealer that is a party to such agreement to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, as set forth in the retail distribution agreement and the related pricing wires. The City further acknowledges that each Underwriter shall be solely liable for its failure to comply with its agreement regarding the Hold-the- Offering-Price Rule and that no Underwriter shall be liable for the failure of any other Underwriter, or of any dealer who is a member of a selling group, or of any broker-dealer that is Item 2E - Resolution 163 18 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 91 of 1100 Exhibit A-10 4898-8027-3428.3 a party to a retail distribution agreement to comply with its corresponding agreement regarding the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule as applicable to the Series 2025 Certificates. (g) By submitting a bid, each bidder confirms that: (i) any agreement among underwriters, any selling group agreement and each retail distribution agreement (to which the bidder is a party) relating to the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each Underwriter, each dealer who is a member of the selling group, and each broker-dealer that is a party to such retail distribution agreement, as applicable, to (A) report the prices at which it sells to the Public the unsold Series 2025 Certificates of each maturity allotted to it until it is notified by the winning bidder that either the 10% Test has been satisfied as to the Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity or all Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity have been sold to the Public and (B) comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable, in each case if and for so long as directed by the winning bidder and as set forth in the related pricing wires; and (ii) any agreement among underwriters relating to the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each Underwriter that is a party to a retail distribution agreement to be employed in connection with the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public to require each broker-dealer that is a party to such retail distribution agreement to (A) report the prices at which it sells to the Public the unsold Series 2025 Certificates of each maturity allotted to it until it is notified by the winning bidder or such Underwriter that either the 10% Test has been satisfied as to the Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity or all Series 2025 Certificates of that maturity have been sold to the Public and (B) comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable, in each case if and for so long as directed by the winning bidder or such Underwriter and as set forth in the related pricing wires. (h) Sales of any Series 2025 Certificates to any person that is a Related Party (as defined herein) to an Underwriter shall not constitute sales to the Public for purposes of this Notice of Sale. Further, for purposes of this Notice of Sale: (i) “Public” means any person other than an Underwriter or a Related Party, (ii) “Underwriter” means (A) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the City (or with the lead Underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public and (B) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (A) to participate in the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public), (iii) a purchaser of any of the Series 2025 Certificates is a “Related Party” to an Underwriter if the Underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to (i) at least 50% common ownership of the voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct ownership by one corporation of another), (ii) more than 50% common ownership of their capital interests or profits interests, if both Item 2E - Resolution 163 19 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 92 of 1100 Exhibit A-11 4898-8027-3428.3 entities are partnerships (including direct ownership by one partnership of another), or (iii) more than 50% common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other), and (iv) “Sale Date” means the date that the Series 2025 Certificates are awarded by the City to the winning bidder. Failure to provide the reoffering prices and yields, and to certify the same in a form satisfactory to Bond Counsel, may result in cancellation of the sale and/or forfeiture of the winning bidder’s good faith deposit. Official Statement. The Preliminary Official Statement, dated on or about [April 18, 2025], and the information contained therein has been deemed final by the City as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Rule 15c2- 12”) with permitted omissions, but is subject to change without notice and to completion or amendment in the Final Official Statement in final form (the “Final Official Statement” or the “Official Statement”). The Notice of Sale and the Preliminary Official Statement may be viewed and downloaded at www.meritos.com and at www.i-dealprospectus.com or a physical copy may be obtained by contacting the City’s Municipal Advisor. See “—Information” below. The City, at its expense, will make available to the winning bidder, within seven (7) business days after the award of the sale of the Series 2025 Certificates, up to 10 physical copies of the Final Official Statement, and additional copies of the Final Official Statement may be provided at the winning bidder’s expense. The winning bidder must cooperate in providing the information required to complete the Final Official Statement. The City will also provide the Final Official Statement to the winning bidder in electronic form. The winning bidder shall comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 and the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. Pursuant to Rule 15c2-12, the City has covenanted to provide, in a timely manner, to the municipal securities information repository at http://emma.msrb.org notice of the occurrence of specified events and to provide certain financial information on an annual basis as more fully set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement. Reference is made to the Preliminary Official Statement for a more complete description of the City’s continuing disclosure obligations. State Securities Laws. The City has taken no action to qualify the offer or sale of the Series 2025 Certificates under the securities laws of any state. Should any such qualification be necessary, the City agrees to cooperate with the winning bidder in such matters, provided that the City reserves the right not to consent to service of process outside its boundaries and expenses related to any such qualification shall be the responsibility of the winning bidder. CUSIP Numbers. CUSIP numbers ordered by the Municipal Advisor will be issued and printed on the Series 2025 Certificates. Any error or omission in printing such numbers on the Item 2E - Resolution 163 20 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 93 of 1100 Exhibit A-12 4898-8027-3428.3 Series 2025 Certificates will not constitute cause for the winning bidder to refuse delivery of any Series 2025 Certificate. All expenses in relation to obtaining the CUSIP numbers and printing of the CUSIP numbers on the Series 2025 Certificates shall be paid for by the winning bidder. Legal Opinion, Series 2025 Certificates and Transcript. The validity and enforceability of the Series 2025 Certificates will be approved by the City’s Bond Counsel: Kutak Rock LLP 2001 16th Street Suite 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 297-2400 FAX: (303) 292-7799 www.kutakrock.com The purchaser of the Series 2025 Certificates will receive a certified transcript of legal proceedings which will include, among other items: (a) a certificate of the City to the effect that, as of its date, the Preliminary Official Statement was deemed final within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12, except for the omissions permitted under Rule 15c2-12; (b) a certificate executed by officials of the City to the effect that there is no litigation pending or, to their knowledge, threatened affecting the validity of the Series 2025 Certificates as of the date of their delivery; (c) a certificate of the City to the effect that, as of the date of the Official Statement and at all times to and including the date of delivery of the Series 2025 Certificates, the Official Statement did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit any statement of a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (d) the letter dated the date of the delivery of the Series 2025 Certificates, of Butler Snow LLP, Special Counsel to the City, addressed to the City but not to the purchaser of the Series 2025 Certificates, to the effect that although they have made no independent investigation or verification of the correctness and completeness of the information included in the Official Statement, nothing that came to their attention in rendering legal services in connection with the preparation of the Official Statement causes them to believe that the Official Statement (excepting financial, demographic, economic and statistical information, any forecasts, estimates and assumptions, and any expressions of opinion, as to which they will express no belief), as of its date, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. (e) the opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel, in substantially the form set forth as Appendix E to the Preliminary Official Statement. Item 2E - Resolution 163 21 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 94 of 1100 Exhibit A-13 4898-8027-3428.3 Right To Modify or Amend Notice of Sale. The City reserves the right to modify or amend this Notice of Sale and the Bid Form, prior to the bid date. If any modifications occur, supplemental information with respect to the Series 2025 Certificates will be communicated by posting on the PARITY website not later than 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time on the day preceding the day on which proposals may be submitted, and bidders shall bid upon the Series 2025 Certificates based upon the terms thereof set forth in this Notice of Sale, as so modified by such supplemental information. Postponement of Sale. The City reserves the right to postpone the date and time established for the receipt of bids. Any such postponement will be announced by posting on PARITY prior to commencement of the bidding. If any date and time fixed for the receipt of bids and the sale of the Series 2025 Certificates is postponed, an alternative sale date and time will be announced at least one business day prior to such alternative sale date. On any such alternative sale date and time, any bidder may submit bids electronically as described above for the purchase of the Series 2025 Certificates in conformity in all respects with the provision of this Notice of Sale, except for the date and time of sale and except for any changes announced by posting on PARITY at the time the sale date and time are announced. By order of the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado and the Board of Directors of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority, this Notice of Sale is dated the [18th day of April, 2025]. By /s/ Aaron Brockett Mayor, City of Boulder, Colorado By /s/ Joel Wagner Interim Chief Financial Officer City of Boulder, Colorado By /s/ Aaron Brockett President The Boulder Municipal Property Authority By /s/ Joel Wagner Secretary-Treasurer The Boulder Municipal Property Authority Item 2E - Resolution 163 22 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 95 of 1100 4937-2321-2055.3 APPENDIX A FORM OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE $[___________]* THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, SERIES 2025 Evidencing Proportionate Interests in the Base Rentals and other Revenues under an Annually Renewable Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of May 1, 2025, between THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY, as lessor, and THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, as lessee The undersigned, on behalf of [NAME OF UNDERWRITER] (“[SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER]”), hereby certifies as set forth below with respect to the sale of the above- captioned obligations (the “Series 2025 Certificates”). [Sections 1 and 2 and schedules to be adjusted in execution version as necessary if all of the requirements of a “competitive sale” are not satisfied.] 1. Reasonably Expected Initial Offering Price. (a) As of [THE SALE DATE], the reasonably expected initial offering prices of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] are the prices listed in Schedule A (the “Expected Offering Prices”). The Expected Offering Prices are the prices for the Maturities of the Series 2025 Certificates used by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] in formulating its bid to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates. Attached as Schedule B is a true and correct copy of the bid provided by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates. (b) [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] was not given the opportunity to review other bids prior to submitting its bid. (c) The bid submitted by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] constituted a firm offer to purchase the Series 2025 Certificates. 2. Defined Terms. (a) “Maturity” means Series 2025 Certificates with the same credit and payment terms. Series 2025 Certificates with different maturity dates, or Series 2025 Certificates with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as separate Maturities. (b) “Public” means any person (including an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a related party to an Underwriter. The term “related party” for purposes of this certificate *Preliminary; subject to adjustment as set forth herein. Item 2E - Resolution 163 23 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 96 of 1100 Appendix A-2 4937-2321-2055.3 generally means any two or more persons who have greater than 50 percent common ownership, directly or indirectly. (c) “Underwriter” means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the City of Boulder, Colorado (the “City”) or the Boulder Municipal Property Authority (the “Corporation”) (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Series 2025 Certificates to the Public). The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only. Nothing in this certificate represents [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER]’s interpretation of any laws, including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations thereunder. The undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by the City and the Corporation with respect to certain of the representations set forth in the Tax Compliance Certificate and with respect to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Series 2025 Certificates, and by Kutak Rock LLP in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Series 2025 Certificates is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of the Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the City or the Corporation from time to time relating to the Series 2025 Certificates. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, on behalf of [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER], has set his or her hand as of the date first written above. [UNDERWRITER] By: ___________________________________ Name: ________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Item 2E - Resolution 163 24 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 97 of 1100 Appendix A-3 4937-2321-2055.3 SCHEDULE A EXPECTED OFFERING PRICES [ATTACH] Item 2E - Resolution 163 25 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 98 of 1100 Appendix A-4 4937-2321-2055.3 SCHEDULE B UNDERWRITER’S BID [ATTACH] Item 2E - Resolution 163 26 Attachment B - Resolution 161 Packet Page 99 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 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 8702, amending Section 2-2-11, “Traffic Engineering,” B.R.C. 1981, updating the definition of Traffic Engineer to implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan Livable and Accessible and C onnected Strategies; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Valerie Watson, Interim Transportation and Mobility Director RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8702, amending Section 2-2- 11, “Traffic Engineering,” B.R.C . 1981, updating the definition of Traffic Engineer to implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan Livable and Accessible and Connected Strategies; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Packet Page 100 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8702, amending Section 2-2-11, “Traffic Engineering,” B.R.C. 1981, updating the definition of Traffic Engineer to implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan’s Livable and Accessible and Connected Strategies; and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This amendment to Section 2-2-11, “Traffic Engineering,” of the Boulder Revised Code updates the definition of the authority of Traffic Engineer following direction from Boulder City Council – a nod of five – during the 2024 council retreat. Updating the definition of Traffic Engineer in this section of the B.R.C. is intended to better align and modernize the language therein with council policy direction around access to opportunity and the interrelationship between transportation and land use. This update will also implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan’s Livable and Accessible and Connected Strategies. Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 1 Packet Page 101 of 1100 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Updating the definition and authority of Traffic Engineer in B.R.C. Section 2-2-11 reinforces the city’s value of access to opportunity, such as jobs and education, thereby supporting economic vitality for the community. •Environmental - Updating the definition and authority of Traffic Engineer in B.R.C. Section 2-2-11 strengthens the interrelationship between transportation and land use, positioning the city to support future development that offers convenient and reliable access to non-single-occupancy-vehicle (non-SOV) transportation options such as bus and rail transit, walking, and bicycling. •Social - Updating the definition and authority of Traffic Engineer in B.R.C. Section 2-2- 11 will position the city to support future development that provides access to cultural, healthcare, and other opportunities to improve quality of life for all. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – None. •Staff time – No additional impacts to staff time or work plan are anticipated. 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 introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8702, amending Section 2-2-11, “Traffic Engineering,” B.R.C. 1981, updating the definition of Traffic Engineer to implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan’s Livable and Accessible and Connected Strategies; and setting forth related details. Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 2 Packet Page 102 of 1100 PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND This amendment to Section 2-2-11, “Traffic Engineering,” of the Boulder Revised Code updates the definition of the authority of Traffic Engineer following direction from Boulder City Council – a nod of five – during the 2024 council retreat. Updating the definition of Traffic Engineer in this section of the B.R.C. is intended to better align and modernize the language therein with council policy direction around access to opportunity and the interrelationship between transportation and land use. This update will also implement components of the Citywide Strategic Plan’s, Livable and Accessible, and Connected Strategies. This proposed amendment to the authority of Traffic Engineer found in Section 2-2-11 is but one component of the overall accessible and connected strategy for the City of Boulder. The concept of connecting people to where they need to go (retail, work, entertainment, services) is already a part of larger policy questions that have been and are being addressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the city’s Transportation Master Plan, and the Citywide Strategic Plan. Specifically, in the Citywide Strategic Plan, Livable Strategy #6 (Define and establish Boulder’s 15-minute neighborhood model) and Accessible and Connected Strategy #7 (Invest in and maintain a transportation system with an array of multi-modal choices to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions) articulate these policy emphases. The access component is achieved through multi-departmental coordination and policies that are currently implemented and will continue to be implemented throughout the Boulder Revised Code. ANALYSIS Council may consider taking no action as an alternative to the adoption of these amendments to B.R.C. Section 2-2-11. NEXT STEPS Should this motion be passed by council on first reading, staff will bring forth a second reading of the amendments to B.R.C. Section 2-2-11 for council adoption in summer 2025. ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Ordinance 8702 Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 3 Packet Page 103 of 1100 K:\TRPE\o-8702 1st rdg 2-2-11-.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 8702 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-2-11, “TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,” B.R.C. 1981, UPDATING THE DEFINITION OF TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO IMPLEMENT COMPONENTS OF THE CITYWIDE STRATEGIC PLAN LIVABLE AND ACCESSIBLE AND CONNECTED STRATEGIES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 2-2-11,” Traffic Engineering,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 2-2-11. Traffic Engineering. (a) The city manager is appointed as traffic engineer for the cCity to perform the responsibilities provided in this section and other applicable ordinances of the cCity. It is the general duty of the traffic engineer to plan the installation, timing, and maintenance of traffic control devices; to maintain a transportation system to provide efficient and equitable access to destinations; to plan and direct the operation and parking of traffic transporting people and goods on the streets of the cCity; to support multi-modal connections in intersection and corridor treatments; to conduct investigations of traffic transportation conditions; to represent the cCity in dealing with officials of other governments on traffic transportation and street improvements; to make agreements dividing responsibility for maintenance of streets and traffic control devices over which authority is exercised jointly with other governments; to recommend land uses to maximize transportation efficiency and effectiveness; and to take such steps as are reasonably necessary and proper to carry out these plans subject to the availability of funds. (b) In addition to other duties prescribed by this code or other ordinances of the cCity, the city manager may, without limitation: (1) Plan for and regulate the movement of traffic people and goods on the streets of the cCity, including parking areas; (2)Investigate traffic transportation conditions, conduct safety studies and study police and citizen accident reports; Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8702 Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 4 Packet Page 104 of 1100 K:\TRPE\o-8702 1st rdg 2-2-11-.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 (3) Determine when and where to install traffic control devices, including, without limitation, traffic signals, signs and markings; (4) Determine the timing of traffic control signals; (5) Determine where certain types of traffic transportation on certain streets or lanes of roadways should be restricted or prohibited; (6) Establish speed limits; (7) Determine where angle parking should be established; (8) Determine where loading zones should be established; (9) Determine when stopping or parking should be prohibited or limited to certain times or certain classes of vehicles; (10) Determine the need for and location of tow-away zones; (11) Determine where parking on streets or city parking lots should be metered and the amount to be charged; (12) Establish safety zones of such kind and character and at such places where the manager finds that there is particular danger to pedestrians and whose existence is reasonably likely to reduce that danger; (13) Close or prescribe methods for handling traffic transportation impacts on streets during civil emergencies, construction projects or other activities impacting the public rights of way or easements; (14) Establish barricaded play streets if the manager finds that the public safety and convenience would be served thereby; (15) Close streets or portions of streets temporarily for community or neighborhood events, if the manager finds that the public safety and convenience would not be thereby adversely affected and subject to such conditions as the manager deems reasonable to protect public health, safety and welfare; and (16) Approve use of all or a portion of streets for bicycle or pedestrian racing events, and temporarily close all or a portion of such areas as reasonably necessary for the safety of racers, spectators and those who would otherwise use the facility, if the manager also determines that: (A) The event will not unreasonably interfere with other traffic mobility or with access to affected properties; Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8702 Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 5 Packet Page 105 of 1100 K:\TRPE\o-8702 1st rdg 2-2-11-.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 (B) If required by the manager, the organizers have secured the approval of the persons in possession of affected properties; (C) Approval of the Colorado Department of Highways Transportation has been secured by the race organizers if any portion of the event is on a state highway; (D) The organizers have agreed to pay the reasonable costs, as determined by the manager, of the extra expenses, including, without limitation, salaries and overtime of city employees, reasonably occasioned by city participation in preparation, monitoring, directing traffic, securing areas and returning the areas to their normal use, and have paid such amounts in advance or have secured such payment obligation by a method acceptable to the manager; (E) The race organizers have presented a practical and detailed plan of the event which, if followed, will promote reasonable safety and minimize traffic disruption; and (F) The organizers have demonstrated an ability to comply with the plan. (c) The city manager may erect, install and maintain such traffic control devices as are reasonably necessary to effectuate the manager's determinations and to cover emergencies, tests, experiments and other special circumstances. (d) In exercising the discretion delegated by this section, the city manager shall consider the following factors that apply under the circumstances: (1) The standards of the transportation planning and traffic engineering professions and of the state and federal governments; (2) Support of multi-modal connections as set forth in the transportation master plan, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the citywide strategic plan; (32) Public safety; (43) The most efficient use of the streets and city parking areas; and (54) The costs involved. (e) The city manager shall make and maintain records of the location, installation, functioning and maintenance of all traffic control devices. The manager shall maintain a record of all approvals made by the Colorado Highway Department of Transportation of traffic control devices on state highways. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8702 Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 6 Packet Page 106 of 1100 K:\TRPE\o-8702 1st rdg 2-2-11-.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 (f) The city manager is authorized to produce or acquire and sell to the public handicapped parking permits which will serve in lieu of purchasing time in a parking space regulated by a parking payment apparatus or technology, on city streets and city parking lots by vehicles eligible to park in spaces designated for parking by the handicapped. If the Central Area General Improvement District or the University Hill General Improvement District determines to extend use of these permits to any parking payment apparatus or technology on lots owned or leased by the district, or to attended parking on such lots, the general manager of the district shall enter into a written agreement with the city manager specifying how to divide the permit revenues equitably between the general fund and the district in proportion to the division which would occur were no permits sold. If the manager determines to institute such a program, the manager shall, by regulation, specify the form of the permit, the method of its use and display, the method of application and purchase, the cost of the permit and any restrictions on its use. (g) Parking exemptions. (1) The city manager is authorized to specify the circumstances under which authorized emergency vehicles of the city police and city fire departments, of the Boulder County Sheriff's Department, the University of Colorado Police Department and the Colorado State Patrol may park in metered parking spaces regulated by parking payment apparatus or technology on city streets, alleys or parking lots for investigative and administrative purposes not rising to the level of an emergency governed by the parking exemption of Section 7-2-12, "Exemptions for Authorized Emergency Vehicles," B.R.C. 1981, without paying the fees specified and in excess of the time limit. With respect to city vehicles covered by this policy, the manager shall estimate the annual parking revenue loss occasioned thereby, and cause such an amount to be transferred from the amount appropriated for each such department into the paid parking revenue account. (2) The city manager is authorized to issue parking permits to public utility companies for display on marked service vehicles of such utility companies in lieu of paying the rates for parking regulated by a parking payment apparatus or technology on city streets, alleys or parking lots in return for prepayment of the paid parking revenue loss occasioned thereby, as estimated by the manager. Such permits may only be displayed or, for digital permits, valid and in effect when the service vehicle is parked in a space regulated by a parking payment apparatus or technology in response to a bona fide utility service necessity. Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8702 Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 7 Packet Page 107 of 1100 K:\TRPE\o-8702 1st rdg 2-2-11-.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 Section 3. 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 26th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of July 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8702 Item 2F - Ordinance Updating Traffic Engineering Definitions 1st rdg Page 8 Packet Page 108 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 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 8706 amending C hapters 6-14, "Medical Marijuana," and 6-17, "Recreational Marijuana" B.R.C. 1981, to allow co-location for both medical and recreational marijuana businesses; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J oel Wagner, Deputy Finance Director 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 8706 amending C hapters 6-14, "Medical Marijuana," and 6-17, "Recreational Marijuana" B.R.C. 1981, to allow co-location for both medical and recreational marijuana businesses; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2G - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 109 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8706 amending Chapters 6-14, “Medical Marijuana,” and 6-16, “Recreational Marijuana,” B.R.C. 1981 to allow co-location for both Medical and Recreational Marijuana Businesses; and setting forth related details PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Roberto Ramirez, Deputy City Attorney Krista Morrison, Chief Financial Officer Joel Wagner, Deputy Finance Director Alisa Darrow, Licensing Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board (“CLAB” or the “Board”) was formed, in part, to study and make recommendations to council and the city manager regarding marijuana and hemp related issues. CLAB recently considered an application to co-locate a medical marijuana business with an existing recreational marijuana business. The Board voted to approve the application under the “Pending Ordinance Doctrine,” which permits license applications to proceed while related amendments to the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (B.R.C. 1981) are under consideration. Currently, the B.R.C. 1981 allows a recreational marijuana business to co-locate Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 1 Packet Page 110 of 1100 with an existing medical marijuana business, but not the reverse. To allow for reciprocal co- location, revisions to Chapters 6-14, “Medical Marijuana,” and 6-16, “Recreational Marijuana,” B.R.C. 1981, are requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Amending the existing chapters of both the medical and recreational marijuana codes to allow the co-location for both license types would allow for a more flexible business model and licensing structure for the existing cannabis businesses in our city. This could positively impact retention of existing businesses in the city. Additionally, there may be an increase in tax revenue for medical marijuana sales, however, the amount cannot be projected at this time. •Environmental – No environmental impacts are expected. •Social – No social impacts are expected. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – No significant budgetary impacts are expected; staff can absorb the additional work into the current work plan. The overall revenue impact would be minimal, with a short-term increase in conversion fees for marijuana businesses and a modest increase in annual renewal fees moving forward. •Staff time – Additional staff time would be required to process applications for conversions to co-located marijuana businesses, as well as to support CLAB, due to the need for applicants to surrender their existing licenses and apply for new marijuana business license types. The number of anticipated applications is expected to be minimal and can be absorbed into the current workplan. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. 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 8706 amending Chapters 6-14, “Medical Marijuana,” and 6-16, “Recreational Marijuana,” B.R.C. 1981 to allow co- location for both Medical and Recreational Marijuana Businesses; and setting forth related details Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 2 Packet Page 111 of 1100 BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK CLAB held a special meeting on May 5, 2025, for the purpose of a quasi-judicial hearing for an application to co-locate a medical marijuana business with an existing recreational marijuana business. There was no public comment received, and no conflict of interest matters from the board members for this application. The hearing resulted in the following: Motion to approve The Dandelion’s application for a new co-located medical and recreational marijuana center in the current or expanded footprint of its recreational marijuana business upon reliance of Colorado’s pending ordinance doctrine. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND State of Colorado Code of Regulations (1 CCR 212-3), Rule 2-236(A), provides that “a Medical Marijuana Store and a Retail Marijuana Store may be co-located at the same premises if permitted by the relevant local jurisdiction and approved by the State Licensing Authority.” When the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) was drafted following the passage of Amendment 64, it allowed for co-location in one direction: the addition of a Retail Marijuana Business to an existing Medical Marijuana Business. It is unclear whether this limitation was intentional or simply a result of Recreational Marijuana Businesses not yet existing at the time. Recently, CLAB received an application to co-locate a new medical marijuana business with an existing recreational marijuana business. A special meeting was held on May 5, 2025, during which the Board voted to recommend an amendment to Chapters 6-14 (“Medical Marijuana”) and 6-16 (“Recreational Marijuana”) of the B.R.C. 1981 to allow reciprocal co-location for both license types. The Board also voted to allow the application to proceed under the “Pending Ordinance Doctrine,” which permits license applications to move forward while related amendments to the B.R.C. 1981 are under formal consideration. ANALYSIS Staff recommends City Council adopt Proposed Ordinance 8706 to allow for reciprocal co- location of marijuana businesses in the city of Boulder. This will allow the current business applying for this co-location to proceed without delay and open options for other marijuana businesses in the city of Boulder. Making this update to the code will make marijuana business licensing more equitable for all businesses. Currently only businesses with an existing medical wellness center license can add a co-located recreational dispensary, but after the change, existing recreational dispensaries will be able to add a co-located medical wellness center. Public Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 3 Packet Page 112 of 1100 health concerns would be nominal as co-located marijuana businesses can only sell to patients over the age of 21 when the space is virtually separated, physically separated co-locations can sell to patients under the age of 21 with a medical marijuana card, and medical marijuana wellness centers can serve patients under the age of 21 with a medical marijuana card. NEXT STEPS If council passes Proposed Ordinance 8706 on first reading, it will be presented for adoption at second reading on consent at the July 24, 2025, City Council meeting. ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Ordinance 8706 Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 4 Packet Page 113 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8706 1st Rdg-2162.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 8706 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 6-14, “MEDICAL MARIJUANA,” AND 6-16, “RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ALLOW CO-LOCATION FOR BOTH MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter 6-14, “Medical Marijuana,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 6-14-2. - Definitions. . . . Co-located marijuana business means a marijuana business that is permitted by the owner of the building, and all applicable laws, to divide the licensed marijuana business to allow for both a medical marijuana business or cultivation facility and a recreational marijuana business with reissued licenses from the city within the same footprint and owned by the same person. The licensee with an ownership or financial interest of either part of a co-located marijuana business may not be changed to be different licensee from the other. . . . 6-14-3. - License Required. . . . (f)Conversion of Licenses to a Co-located Marijuana Business. A license for either a medical or recreational marijuana business may be converted to a co-located marijuana business by complying with the requirements of Chapter 6-14 or 6-16, B.R.C. 1981, as applicable for a renewal of a marijuana license and paying the application fee specified in Sections 4-20-67, “Recreational Marijuana Businesses,” or 4-20-64, “Medical Marijuana Business,” B.R.C. 1981, as applicable. (g)Conversion to a Co-located Marijuana Business Within the Footprint of a Medical Marijuana Business. A licensee of a medical marijuana business may apply for a co- Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 5 Attachment A - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 114 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8706 1st Rdg-2162.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 located medical and recreational marijuana business license by submitting an application for a co-located medical and recreational marijuana business on forms approved by the city manager. At a minimum, the application form shall include a modification of the existing marijuana business to conform to the new footprint of the co-located marijuana business and all components of the application described in Section 6-16-5, “Application,” B.R.C. 1981, determined applicable by the city manager, and paying the modification of premises fee and operating fee specified in Section 4-20-64, “Medical Marijuana Businesses,” B.R.C. 1981. The license for the recreational marijuana business must be surrendered to the city before the co-located marijuana business license is issued. The term of the co-located marijuana business license shall be the same as the existing medical marijuana business license. For purposes of separation from other marijuana businesses in Paragraph 6-14-7(f)(3) and Paragraph 6-16-7(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981, the co- located medical and recreational marijuana business shall be considered one marijuana business. No co-located medical and recreational marijuana business may be sold separately from the other and must maintain identical ownership at all times (h)Conversion to a Co-located Marijuana Business in an Expansion of the Existing Footprint of a Medical Marijuana Business. A licensee of a medical marijuana business may apply for a co-located medical and recreational marijuana business license within a footprint that is an expansion of its existing medical marijuana business by submitting an application for modification of the existing marijuana business, and an application for co- location of a medical and recreational business within the modified premises on forms approved by the city manager. At a minimum, the application shall include (i) the same owners and financiers of the existing medical and recreational marijuana businesses, (ii) the proposed modification of the existing and expanded area of the existing marijuana business to depict the two new businesses separated as required by this code, (iii) all components of the application described in Section 6-16-5, “Application,” B.R.C. 1981, determined applicable by the city manager for the recreational marijuana portion of the co-located marijuana business, and (iv) all fees specified in Sections 6-14-5, “Application,” and 6-16-5, “Application,” B.R.C. 1981, as applicable. The license for the recreational marijuana business must be surrendered to the city before the co-located marijuana business license is issued. The term of the co-located marijuana business license shall be the same as the existing medical marijuana business license. For purposes of separation from other marijuana businesses in Paragraph 6-14-7(f)(3) and Paragraph 6- 16-7(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981, the co-located medical and recreational marijuana business shall be considered one marijuana business. No co-located medical and recreational marijuana business may be sold separately from the other and must maintain identical ownership at all times. (i)Virtual Separation of Co-located Marijuana Business. A co-located marijuana business may be virtually, rather than physically, separated if the businesses provide evidence that they have maintained their respective books and records in compliance with Section 6- 14-9 of this Chapter for the 12 months preceding the application for virtual co-location. For businesses that have been open for less than 12 months and those who have not Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 6 Attachment A - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 115 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8706 1st Rdg-2162.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 complied with Section 6-14-9 in the past, the business shall provide evidence satisfactory to the city manager of the manner in which it will comply with Section 6-14-9. 6-14-4. - General Provisions. . . . (e)Reserved.Requirements for Applications for Conversion to Co-Located Marijuana Business. As a condition of the city accepting an application for conversion to a co- located marijuana business, the applicant and all licensees shall be the same as those identified in the marijuana business license wishing to relocate and affirm that there will be no changes in licensees for the co-located marijuana business. . . . 6-14-8. - Requirements Related to Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses. . . . (x)Virtually-separated centers or cultivation facilities. A virtually-separated marijuana business shall maintain separate marijuana business licenses, with separate books, records, and inventories of all transactions. For purposes of sales, use, and excise tax, all transactions shall be considered recreational marijuana unless the business can prove that the transaction was for medical marijuana. A virtually-separated marijuana business may not allow entrance to anyone under 21 years of age on the premises of the business. The floor plan for a virtually separated center shall depict the separate sales counters, display, and storage areas for recreational and medical marijuana. A violation of any of the requirements of this code for a virtually separated business is a public safety violation. . . . Section 2 . Chapter 6-16, “Recreational Marijuana,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 6-16-2. - Definitions. . . . Co-located marijuana business means a medical marijuana businesswellness center or cultivation facility that held a license from the city on October 22, 2013, that is permitted by the owner of the building, and all applicable laws, to divide the licensed marijuana business to allow for both a medical marijuana wellness centerbusiness or cultivation facility and a recreational marijuana business as separate business premises with reissued licenses from the city within the same footprint and owned by the same person as the medical marijuana wellness center or cultivation facility. The licensees with an ownership or financial interest of either part of a co- located marijuana business may not be changed to be different from the other. Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 7 Attachment A - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 116 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8706 1st Rdg-2162.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 . . . 6-16-3. - License Required. (f)Conversion of Licenses to a Co-locatedDifferent Marijuana Business. A license for either a medical or recreational marijuana businessestablishment may not be converted to a co- located license for a medical marijuana business by complying with the requirements of Chapter 6-14 or 6-16, B.R.C. 1981, as applicable for a renewal of a marijuana license and paying the application fee specified in Sections 4-20-67, “Recreational Marijuana Businesses,” or 4-20-64, “Medical Marijuana Business,” B.R.C. 1981, as applicable. A license for a medical marijuana business that was licensed, open, and operating on October 22, 2013, or that had submitted a complete application for a medical marijuana business on October 22, 2013, may be converted to the same type of marijuana establishment by complying with the requirements of this chapter for a renewal of a marijuana license and paying the application fee specified in Section 4-20-67, "Recreational Marijuana Businesses," B.R.C. 1981. The license for the medical marijuana business must be surrendered to the city before the recreational marijuana business license will be issued. The term of the license shall be the same as the existing medical marijuana business license. (g)Conversion to a Co-located Marijuana Business Within the Footprint of the Medicala Recreational Marijuana Business. A licensee of a recreational marijuana businessmedical marijuana wellness center or cultivation facility may apply for a co-located medical and recreational marijuana business license by submitting an application for a co-located marijuana business on forms approved by the city. At a minimum, the application form shall include a modification of the existing medical marijuana business to conform to the new footprint of the medical marijuana portion of the co-located marijuana business and all components of the application described in Section 6-146-5, “Application,” B.R.C. 1981, determined applicable by the city manager for the recreationalmedical marijuana portion of the co-located marijuana business, and paying the modification of premises fee and operating fee specified in Section 4-20-67, “Recreational Marijuana Businesses,” B.R.C. 1981. The license for the medical marijuana business must be surrendered to the city before the co-located marijuana business license iswill be issued. The term of the co- located marijuana business license shall be the same as the existing medical recreational marijuana business license. For purposes of separation from other marijuana businesses in Paragraph 6-14-7(f)(3) and Paragraph 6-16-7(e)(3) B.R.C. 1981of this chapter, the co- located medical and recreational marijuana business shall be considered one marijuana business. No co-located medical and recreational marijuana business may be sold separately from the other and must maintain identical ownership at all times. (h)Conversion to a Co-located Marijuana Business in an Expansion of the Existing Footprint of thea Medical Recreational Marijuana Business. A licensee of a medical marijuana wellness center or cultivation facilityrecreational marijuana business may apply for a co- located medical and recreational marijuana business license within a footprint that is an expansion of its existing medical recreational marijuana business by submitting an application for modification of the existing medical recreational marijuana business, and an application for co-location of a medical and recreational business within the modified Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 8 Attachment A - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 117 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8706 1st Rdg-2162.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 premises on forms approved by the city manager by March 1, 2014. At a minimum, the application shall include (i) the same owners and financiers of the existing medical and recreational marijuana businesses, (ii) the proposed modification of the existing and expanded area of the existing medical recreational marijuana business to depict the two new businesses separated as required by this code, (iii) all components of the application described in Section 6-146-5, “Application,” B.R.C. 1981, determined applicable by the city manager for the recreational medical marijuana portion of the co-located marijuana business, and (iv) the modification of premises fee, conversion fee, and operatingall fees as specified in Sections 6-14-5, “Application,” and 6-16-5, “Application,” B.R.C. 1981, as applicable. The license for the medical marijuana business must be surrendered to the city before the co-located marijuana business license iswill be issued. The term of the co- located marijuana business license shall be the same as the existing medical recreational marijuana business license. For purposes of separation from other marijuana businesses in Paragraph 6-14-7 (e)(3) and Paragraph 6-16-7(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981 of this chapter, the co-located medical and recreational marijuana business shall be considered one marijuana business. No co-located medical and recreational marijuana business may be sold separately from the other and must maintain identical ownership at all times. . . . 6-16-4 - General Provisions. (h)Requirements for Applications for Conversion to a Recreational Marijuana Business or Co-Locatedion of Marijuana Businesses. (1)As a condition of the city accepting an application for conversion of a medical marijuana business to a recreational marijuana business, the applicant and all licensees shall be the same as those identified for the medical marijuana license and affirm that there will be no changes in licensees for the recreational marijuana business. (2)As a condition of the city accepting an application for conversion to a co-located marijuana business, the applicant and all licensees shall be the same as those identified forin the medical marijuana business license wishing to relocate and affirm that there will be no changes in licensees for the recreational co-located marijuana business. . . . Section 3. 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 4. 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. Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 9 Attachment A - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 118 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8706 1st Rdg-2162.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 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of July 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk Item 2G - 1st Rdg O8706 10 Attachment A - Ordinance 8706 Packet Page 119 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8707 adopting Supplement 163 which codifies previously adopted O rdinances and Appendix C ouncil P rocedures as amendments to the B oulder Revised C ode, 1981; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney, 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 introduce, publish by title only, and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8707 adopting Supplement 163 which codifies previously adopted O rdinances and Appendix C ouncil P rocedures as amendments to the B oulder Revised C ode, 1981; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2H - 1st rdg emergency Ord. 8707 Supplement 163 Packet Page 120 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to order published by title only, and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8707 adopting Supplement 163 which codifies previously adopted Ordinances and Appendix Council Procedures as amendments to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981; and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boulder Revised Code (“B.R.C. 1981”) is the official book of laws of the City of Boulder. Four times a year (quarterly), council is asked to adopt supplements to the B.R.C. 1981. An ordinance format is used to bring ordinances and council procedure amendments that council adopted in the previous quarter, or that became effective before the current supplement, into the B.R.C. 1981; and to ensure that there is no question regarding what constitutes the official laws of the City of Boulder. Code amendments may also be included with the intent to correct non-substantive errors discovered in previously adopted ordinances. These quarterly supplement ordinances are approved as a matter of routine administration by council. In order to generate the printed supplements to the B.R.C. as soon as possible, council is asked to adopt the proposed ordinance at first reading as an emergency measure. The text of Supplement 163 has been previously adopted by the following: Ord. 8651 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, “GENERAL ADMINISTRATION,” TITLE 4, “LICENSES AND PERMITS,” TITLE 5, “GENERAL OFFENSES,” TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” AND TITLE 10, “STRUCTURES,” B.R.C. 1981, TO Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 1 Packet Page 121 of 1100 AMEND RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY STANDARDS TO COMPLY WITH COLORADO HOUSE BILL 24-1007, CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY LIMITS, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8656 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-8-3, “TAX IMPOSED ON NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,” SECTION 3-20-2, “IMPOSITION AND RATE OF TAX,” AND CHAPTER 4-20, “FEES,” B.R.C. 1981, CHANGING CERTAIN FEES AND TAXES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8668 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ADOPT TRIP REDUCTION STANDARDS AND A REVISED REGULATING PLAN FOR THE ALPINE-BALSAM AREA AND TO ELIMINATE SUMP PRINCIPLES FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS WITH PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE UNITS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8669 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981, BY ADOPTING FORM-BASED CODE STANDARDS FOR PARTS OF EAST BOULDER, MOVING THE FORM-BASED CODE FROM APPENDIX M TO A NEW CHAPTER 9-14, “FORM-BASED CODE” B.R.C. 1981, REVISING REZONING AND TRIP REDUCTION STANDARDS FOR EAST BOULDER; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8672 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE INTRODUCTION AND CHAPTERS 8, 9, AND 11 OF THE CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (D.C.S.), ORIGINALLY ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 5986, ADDING STANDARDS FOR NARROW TRENCHING RELATED TO INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8673 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4-20, “FEES,” AND CHAPTER 4-25, “FIRE CONTRACTOR LICENSE,” B.R.C. 1981, CONCERNING UPDATES TO LICENSES ISSUED FOR WORK COVERED BY THE CITY FIRE CODE; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8674 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-20-23, “WATER PERMIT FEES,” CHAPTER 11-1, “WATER UTILITY,” AND CHAPTER 11-2, “WASTEWATER UTILITY,” B.R.C. 1981, UPDATING WATER PERMIT FEES AND CLARIFYING ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS UNDER THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION AND CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM TO PROTECT THE DRINKING WATER SYSTEM AND PUBLIC HEALTH; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 8683 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BOULDER LODGING BUSINESS ASSESSMENT AREA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8- Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 2 Packet Page 122 of 1100 11, "LODGING BUSINESS ASSESSMENT AREAS," B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS Ord. 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 Council Procedure Amendments approved by council June 5, 2025 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8707 adopting Supplement 163 which codifies previously adopted ordinances and appendix council procedure as amendments to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981; and setting forth related details. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS  Budgetary - None  Staff Time - Regular code maintenance is included in the city attorney’s yearly work plan.  Economic - None OTHER IMPACTS None. FORMAT NOTES Code amendments (if any) are reflected in strike out and double underline format along with a “Reason for Change” as part of this memo. Such amendments are intended to correct non-substantive errors discovered through ordinance review or staff detection, included in previously adopted ordinances already codified in the B.R.C. 1981. If major and/or substantive corrections or revisions are identified, they are brought forward as separate ordinances to council during the normal course of council business, not as part of these routine supplements. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 3 Packet Page 123 of 1100 BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND Ongoing code maintenance is an essential and largely administrative obligation of the city. Four times a year (quarterly), council is asked to adopt supplements to the B.R.C. 1981 as part of this maintenance. These supplement ordinances are approved as a matter of routine by council. ANALYSIS This supplement includes ordinances and appendix council procedures that were adopted by council in the last supplement quarter or are effective prior to the current supplement. They are all added to the official version of the B.R.C. 1981 by way of the attached proposed supplement ordinance. Council is asked to adopt a quarterly supplement ordinance to ensure that a clearly identifiable version of the Boulder Revised Code is legislatively adopted. The printed supplements to the B.R.C. may not be distributed to subscribers until the proposed adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible; therefore, council is asked to adopt the proposed ordinance at first reading as an emergency measure. NEXT STEPS None. ATTACHMENT Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 4 Packet Page 124 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163-2347.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 8707 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPLEMENT 163, WHICH CODIFIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCES AND APPENDIX COUNCIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDMENTS TO THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Legislative Findings. A. Supplement 163 amending the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (“B.R.C. 1981”) has been printed. B. The city council intends that this supplement be codified and published as a part of the B.R.C. 1981. C. Supplement 163 to the B.R.C. 1981 is adopted by reference as part of this ordinance. It contains all of the amendments to the B.R.C. 1981 enacted by the city council in Ordinances 8651, 8565, 8668, 8669, 8672, 8673, 8674, 8683, 8694, and Appendix Council Procedure. The city council intends to adopt this supplement as an amendment to the B.R.C. 1981. D. The ordinances contained in Supplement 163 are available in printed copy to each member of the city council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, and the published text of the supplement, along with the text of those changes, is available for public inspection and acquisition in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, in the Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado. Section 2. The city council adopts Supplement 163 by reference. Section 3. The city council orders that a copy of Supplement 163 as proposed for adoption by reference herein be on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, Colorado, Penfield Tate II Building, 1777 Broadway, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado, and may be inspected by any person during regular business hours pending the adoption of this ordinance. Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 5 Packet Page 125 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163-2347.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 Section 4. The annotations, source notes, codifier’s notes, and other editorial matter included in the printed B.R.C. 1981 are not part of the legislative text. These editorial provisions are provided to give the public additional information for added convenience. No implication or presumption of a legislative construction is to be drawn from these materials. Section 5. The B.R.C. 1981, or any chapter or section of it, may be proved by a copy certified by the city clerk of the City of Boulder, under seal of the city; or, when printed in book or pamphlet form and purporting to be printed by authority of the city. It shall be received in evidence in all courts without further proof of the existence and regularity of the enactment of any particular ordinance of the B.R.C. 1981. Section 6. These provisions of the B.R.C. 1981 shall be given effect and interpreted as though a continuation of prior laws and not as new enactments. Section 7. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any violation of the provisions of the B.R.C. 1981, as supplemented herein, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or incarceration for not more than ninety days in jail, or by both such fine and incarceration, as provided in Section 5-2-4, “General Penalties,” B.R.C. 1981. 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 finds this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, safety and property. Passage of this ordinance immediately is necessary because the printed supplements cannot be distributed until the adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible. On that basis, this ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure and shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 6 Packet Page 126 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163-2347.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 FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of June 2025. ______________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 7 Packet Page 127 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163-2347.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 8707 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPLEMENT 163, WHICH CODIFIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCES AND APPENDIX COUNCIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDMENTS TO THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Legislative Findings. A. Supplement 163 amending the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (“B.R.C. 1981”) has been printed. B. The city council intends that this supplement be codified and published as a part of the B.R.C. 1981. C. Supplement 163 to the B.R.C. 1981 is adopted by reference as part of this ordinance. It contains all of the amendments to the B.R.C. 1981 enacted by the city council in Ordinances 8651, 8565, 8668, 8669, 8672, 8673, 8674, 8683, 8694, and Appendix Council Procedure. The city council intends to adopt this supplement as an amendment to the B.R.C. 1981. D. The ordinances contained in Supplement 163 are available in printed copy to each member of the city council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, and the published text of the supplement, along with the text of those changes, is available for public inspection and acquisition in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, in the Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado. Section 2. The city council adopts Supplement 163 by reference. Section 3. The city council orders that a copy of Supplement 163 as proposed for adoption by reference herein be on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, Colorado, Penfield Tate II Building, 1777 Broadway, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado, and may be inspected by any person during regular business hours pending the adoption of this ordinance. Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 8 Packet Page 128 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163-2347.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 Section 4. The annotations, source notes, codifier’s notes, and other editorial matter included in the printed B.R.C. 1981 are not part of the legislative text. These editorial provisions are provided to give the public additional information for added convenience. No implication or presumption of a legislative construction is to be drawn from these materials. Section 5. The B.R.C. 1981, or any chapter or section of it, may be proved by a copy certified by the city clerk of the City of Boulder, under seal of the city; or, when printed in book or pamphlet form and purporting to be printed by authority of the city. It shall be received in evidence in all courts without further proof of the existence and regularity of the enactment of any particular ordinance of the B.R.C. 1981. Section 6. These provisions of the B.R.C. 1981 shall be given effect and interpreted as though a continuation of prior laws and not as new enactments. Section 7. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any violation of the provisions of the B.R.C. 1981, as supplemented herein, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or incarceration for not more than ninety days in jail, or by both such fine and incarceration, as provided in Section 5-2-4, “General Penalties,” B.R.C. 1981. 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 finds this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, safety and property. Passage of this ordinance immediately is necessary because the printed supplements cannot be distributed until the adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible. On that basis, this ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure and shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 9 Packet Page 129 of 1100 K:\CCCO\o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163-2347.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 FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of June 2025. ______________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8707 Item 2H - o-8707 1st rdg emergency Supp 163 Page 10 Packet Page 130 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to order published by title only, and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8708 amending Ordinance 8691, adopted by emergency measure on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters and reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 3, “Supplemental Act; Parameters” and Section 6, “Reimbursement,” as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s Pavilion Building; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C harlotte Huskey, Budget Officer RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8708 amending Ordinance 8691, adopted by emergency measure on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters and reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 3, “Supplemental Act; Parameters” and Section 6, “Reimbursement,” as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s Pavilion Building; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2I - Ordinance 8708 and 8691 Packet Page 131 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to order published by title only, and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8708 amending Ordinance 8691, adopted by emergency measure on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters and reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 3, “Supplemental Act; Parameters” and Section 6, “Reimbursement,” as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s Pavilion Building; and setting forth related details PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Krista Morrison, Chief Financial Officer Joel Wagner, Deputy Finance Director Charlotte Huskey, Budget Officer Ron Gilbert, Assistant Controller EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 (Attachment A) represents an amendment to Ordinance 8691 passed at the March 20, 2025 Council Meeting for the Western City Campus Pavilion Building site. The purpose of this amendment is two-fold: 1) to widen parameters of the ordinance to provide increased flexibility at time of sale for the certificates of participation, and, 2) to increase the total reimbursement amount from $20.0M to $40.0M to support reimbursement of design and construction costs incurred through July 2025. Prior to the March 20 City Council Meeting, City Council previously authorized staff to advance this work on August 27, 2019 at a Special Council Meeting, provided call-up consideration of the project on October 17, 2024, and approved the annual lease payment in the 2025 Approved Budget and the Item 2I - O8708 1 Packet Page 132 of 1100 remaining project appropriation of $100 million supported by proceeds of the sale of certificates of participation at the March 20 Council Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8708 amending Ordinance 8691, adopted by emergency measure on March 20, 2025, to expand the allowable parameters and reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 3, “Supplemental Act; Parameters” and Section 6, “Reimbursement,” as it relates to the financing of expenditures for the renovations and expansion, and associated site work, at the city’s Pavilion Building; and setting forth related details OVERVIEW Staff recommends amending Ordinance 8691 approved by City Council in March 2025 for the Western City Campus Pavilion Building. Amendments to the original ordinance will broaden parameters to ensure flexibility at time of sale and to support reimbursement of design and construction costs incurred through July 2025. City Council is asked to consider approval of the following amendments to Ordinance 8691: 1) Amend Section 3 of the emergency ordinance to widen the parameters for sale within Proposed Emergency Ordinance, including: The purchase price to be received by the city from the Corporation (BMPA), in exchange for the leased property, shall not be less than $96,000,000$94,000,000; The maximum annual repayment amount of base rental payable by the city pursuant to the Lease Purchase Agreement shall not exceed $6,200,000$6,500,000, and; The interest rate of the 2025 Certificates shall not exceed 5.25%5.50% per annum. 2)Amend Section 6 of the emergency ordinance to increase the total project reimbursement costs from $20.0M to $40.0M for design and construction costs incurred to-date on the project. The city’s financial advisor, Hilltop Securities, has advised staff to widen the ordinance parameters to ensure transaction completion of the sale of certificates of participation. Market volatility has reduced the predictability of interest rates, and therefore, under the original ordinance parameters, has heightened the city’s risk of not being able to complete the sale if rates increase by approximately 0.40%. The widening of these parameters increases flexibility to complete the sale transaction. This amendment to broaden the parameters is precautionary only to ensure a successful transaction in support of the project. In addition, staff recommends amending Ordinance 8691 to increase the total reimbursement amount from $20.0M to $40.0M. The increased total reimbursement limit will support the pace of spending for project construction as well as reimbursement of construction costs incurred between April and July 2025, which represents the time between the original date of issuance and revised date for planned sale of certificates of participation in July 2025. The delay in original issuance timing was Item 2I - O8708 2 Packet Page 133 of 1100 primarily a result of environmental and permitting process completion and the completion of the city’s annual audited financial statements. The development of the city’s Western City Campus will result in the consolidation of city services currently housed across several buildings throughout the city, enabling more efficient and effective delivery of services to the community. NEXT STEPS July 15, 2025: Competitive Sale of the 2025 Certificates – Competitive bids from underwriters will be submitted electronically to the City by means of the i-Deal Parity electronic bidding system (“PARITY”). The 2025 Certificates will be awarded to the bidder offering to purchase the 2025 Certificates at the lowest true interest cost (“TIC”). The final terms of the 2025 Certificates will be set forth in a Sale Certificate approved by the Chief Financial Officer or City Manager pursuant to the authority delegated to them in the Ordinance. July 20, 2025: Closing on the 2025 Certificates – Mayor and Chief Financial Officer will execute loan documents and the funds from the sale of the 2025 Certificates will be received. ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 Item 2I - O8708 3 Packet Page 134 of 1100 4914-9953-5693.4 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 8708 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 8691, ADOPTED BY EMERGENCY MEASURE ON MARCH 20, 2025, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE PARAMETERS AND REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3, “SUPPLEMENTAL ACT; PARAMETERS” AND SECTION 6, “REIMBURSEMENT,” AS IT RELATES TO THE FINANCING OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSION, AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, AT THE CITY’S PAVILION BUILDING; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. WHEREAS, the City of Boulder (the “City”), in the County of Boulder and the State of Colorado (the “State”), is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing as a home rule city under Article XX of the Constitution of the State (the “Constitution”) and the home rule charter of the City (the “Charter”); and WHEREAS, the City has previously authorized and directed the creation of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority (the “Corporation”), a nonprofit corporation under the provisions of the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, Articles 20 through 29, Title 7, Colorado Revised Statutes, pursuant to an ordinance duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City (the “Council”); and WHEREAS, the Council previously adopted Ordinance 8691 (the “Authorizing Ordinance”) on March 20, 2025 authorizing the financing of the renovation and expansion of, and associated site work at the City’s Pavilion Building, including any legally permitted costs and expenditures in connection therewith as part of the development of the Western City Campus (collectively, the “Project”) through the issuance of The Boulder Municipal Property Authority Certificates of Participation, Series 2025 (the “Series 2025 Certificates”); and WHEREA, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Ordinance 8708 (this “Ordinance”) shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Authorizing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Authorizing Ordinance included the City’s election to apply all provisions of Part 2 of Article 57, Title 11, C.R.S. (the “Supplemental Act”) to the Series 2025 Certificates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Supplemental Act, the Authorizing Ordinance established certain parameters (the “Parameters”) in relation to the execution and delivery by the City of the Lease, the execution and delivery by the Corporation of the Indenture, the issuance of the Series 2025 Certificates, and the reimbursement of the City for capital expenditures on the Project, and WHEREAS, due to changes in market conditions, the City’s Municipal Advisor recommends amending certain of the Parameters in order to facilitate the sale of the Series 2025 Certificates and obtain sufficient proceeds to complete the financing of the Project; and Item 2I - O8708 4 Attachment B - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 Packet Page 135 of 1100 4914-9953-5693.4 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Amendment of Section 3. Subparagraphs a, b and e of Section 3 of the Authorizing Ordinance are hereby replaced in their entirety with the following (italics are included for emphasis only): a) the purchase price to be received by the City from the Corporation in exchange for the Leased Property shall not be less than $94,000,000, which the Council hereby determines to be reasonable fair market value for such conveyance; b) the maximum annual repayment amount of Base Rentals payable by the City pursuant to the Lease shall not exceed $6,500,000; e) the Series 2025 Certificates shall bear interest at per annum rate or rates not to exceed 5.50% per annum; and Section 2. Amendment of Section 6. Section 6 of the Authorizing Ordinance declaring the City’s intent to reimburse itself for prior expenditures in connection with the Project is hereby amended by replacing $20,000,000 with $40,000,000 in the last sentence thereof (italics are included for emphasis only). Section 3. Applicability of Authorizing Ordinance. All remaining provisions of the Authorizing Ordinance not otherwise amended by this Ordinance remain unchanged and in full force and effect and are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed, and together both the Authorizing Ordinance and this Ordinance are the controlling ordinances in this matter. Section 4. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance or the Authorizing Ordinance. Section 5. Recordation and Publication. This Ordinance, immediately on its final passage, shall be recorded in the City’s Ordinance Record kept for that purpose, authenticated by the Mayor and the Clerk, and shall be published by title only in The Daily Camera, a daily newspaper printed, published and of general circulation in the City, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City. Section 6. Emergency and Effective Date. Due to fluctuations in municipal bond prices and interest rates, rising construction costs, and the need to establish with certainty the City’s ability to finance the Project, it is hereby declared that, in the opinion of the Council, an emergency exists, this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and property of the City and its inhabitants and shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. Item 2I - O8708 5 Attachment B - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 Packet Page 136 of 1100 4914-9953-5693.4 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 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING AND ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE THIS 26th DAY OF JUNE 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Item 2I - O8708 6 Attachment B - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 Packet Page 137 of 1100 Item 2I - O8708 7 Attachment B - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8708 Packet Page 138 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M 1. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8704 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for a 20-foot wide alley right-of- way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, generally located north of 1729 Athens Street and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street (LUR2024-00060); A N D 2. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8705 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for 18th Street right-of-way extending south approximately 313.88 feet from Athens Street, generally located east of 1950 C olorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive (LUR2024-00060) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ulie Defoe, Revocable Lease Administrator RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Ordinance 8704 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for a 20-foot wide alley right-of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, generally located north of 1729 Athens Street and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street (LUR2024-00060). A N D Motion to adopt Ordinance 8705 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for 18th Street right-of-way extending south approximately 313.88 feet from Athens Street, generally located east of 1950 C olorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive (LUR2024-00060). AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to v acate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AN D O RD. 8705 to v acate 18th Street south of Athens St Packet Page 139 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 5, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8704 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for a 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, generally located north of 1729 Athens Street and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street (LUR2024-00060). AND Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8705 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for 18th Street right-of-way extending south approximately 313.88 feet from Athens Street, generally located east of 1950 Colorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive (LUR2024-00060). Applicant: The Regents of the University of Colorado Owner: The Regents of the University of Colorado PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director Mark Garcia, Civil Engineering Senior Manager Julie DeFoe, City Planner/Revocable Lease Administrator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider the vacation of two rights-of- way: a 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way east of 17th Street and 18th Street right-of-way Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 1 Packet Page 140 of 1100 south of Athens Street. The 20-foot-wide alley east of 17th Street is between Athens Street to the south and Marine Street to the north. The vacation of the alley is necessary for the development of a new parking garage to serve the CU Boulder North of Boulder Creek (NBC) district. The 18th Street right-of-way south of Athens Street is between two properties currently owned by CU and currently functions as an access drive and parking for the Faculty Staff Apartments and unpaved access to Boulder Creek. Vacation of the 18th Street right-of-way will allow for the construction of a 350-bed student housing facility after the demolition of the Faculty Staff Apartments. Two easement interests will be reserved: a utility easement over the entire area of the proposed 18th Street right-of- way vacation and a flood control easement over the southerly portion of the proposed 18th Street right-of-way vacation. Currently both rights-of-way provide access to and parking for CU-owned facilities. The public purpose for which the rights-of-way were originally dedicated are no longer valid or necessary for public use. The proposed vacations would provide a greater public benefit than retaining the current site conditions. The vacations would facilitate the development of additional student housing and parking. Rights-of-way can only be vacated by ordinance, with City Council approval. Refer to Attachment C and D for the draft ordinances and Attachment E and F for the draft deeds of vacation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the criteria of Section 8-6-9, “Vacation of Public Rights-of-Way and Public Access Easements,” B.R.C. 1981 can be met and recommends that the City Council take the following action: Suggested Motion Language: Motion to introduce on first reading and order published by title only Ordinance 8704 vacating and authorizing the City Manager for a 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, generally located north of 1729 Athens Street and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street. AND Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8705 vacating and authorizing the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for 18th Street right-of-way extending south approximately 313.88 feet from Athens Street, generally located east of 1950 Colorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economics: None identified. Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 2 Packet Page 141 of 1100 •Environmental: By creating student housing near the main campus and improved access to the Boulder Creek Trail allows for easy pedestrian and multi-modal access to the main campus. •Social: None identified. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal: No impact. •Staff time: The vacation application has been processed through the provisions of a standard public right-of-way or public easement vacation process and is within normal staff work plans. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Notification will be sent to the Planning Board on June 3, 2025, in conformance with Section 79 of the Boulder City Charter. PUBLIC FEEDBACK All notice requirements of Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Public notice of this proposed vacation was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the project on October 28, 2024. Staff has received no written or verbal comments opposed to the vacation. BACKGROUND The two rights-of-way to be vacated are both located east of 17th Street, south of Marine Street and north of Boulder Creek. Refer to Figure 1 below. Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 3 Packet Page 142 of 1100 Figure 1: Vicinity Map The 20-foot-wide alley east of 17th Street in Figure 2 formerly provided access to the - College Inn which opened in 1965 as a privately-owned dormitory. CU Boulder bought the building in 1976 and used it for housing needs until it was demolished in 2013. The alley currently provides access to a CU Boulder housing unit located at 1328 17th Street. The vacation of this 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way and the demolition of the housing unit will allow for the proposed development of a future parking garage to serve the CU Boulder North of Boulder Creek (NBC) district. The 18th Street right-of-way in Figure 3 is located between two CU properties that are known as the Faculty Staff Apartments and currently house graduate students. The apartments were constructed in 1954, and prior to construction, 18th Street likely functioned as a typical city street that dead-ended at Boulder Creek. Since the construction of the apartments, this portion of 18th Street has solely functioned as an access dive and parking lot for the apartments and unpaved access to Boulder Creek. The demolition of the Faculty Staff Apartments and vacation of the 18th Street right-of-way will facilitate the proposed development of a new 350-bed student housing facility. Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 4 Packet Page 143 of 1100 Figure 2: Subject Right of Way Vacation 17th St Alley to be vacated Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 5 Packet Page 144 of 1100 Figure 3: Subject Right-of-Way Vacation ANALYSIS Although the City was unable to locate specific deeds of dedication, the subject rights-of- way have been historically open to the public carrying vehicular and pedestrian traffic. As such, each of the subject rights-of-way must be vacated by an ordinance approved by City Council. In order for the subject rights-of-way to be vacated, the council must conclude that the criteria under Subsection 8-6-9(c), B.R.C. 1981 are met. Staff has reviewed this vacation request and has concluded that the criteria have been met as follows: (1)The applicant must demonstrate that the public purpose for which an easement or right-of-way was originally acquired or dedicated is no longer valid or necessary for public use; The 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way east of 17th Street formerly provided access to the College Inn that was purchased by CU in 1976 to provide additional housing 18th St Right-of-way to be vacated Alley terminus Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 6 Packet Page 145 of 1100 needs, but the building was demolished in 2013. Currently the alley provides access to a CU housing property at 1328 17th Street, which is scheduled for demolition in 2025. This alley right-of-way is no longer necessary for use by the general public. The portion of 18th Street right-of-way likely functioned as a city street that dead- ended at Boulder Creek until the construction of the Faculty Staff Apartments in 1954. Since construction, the 18th Street right-of-way has solely functioned as an access drive and parking lot for the apartments and unpaved access to Boulder Creek. The access drive will no longer be necessary for public use as the new development of the housing building site will incorporate new vehicular access points. Parking for the residents of the building will be provided in existing CU permitted parking lots and in the future parking garage. Pedestrian access to the Boulder Creek Trail will be maintained and improved. Two easements will be reserved: a utility easement over the entire area of the proposed 18th Street right-of-way vacation and a flood control easement over the southerly portion of the proposed 18th Street right-of-way vacation. Therefore, the original public purpose for the 18th Street right-of-way is no longer valid or necessary for public use. (2)All agencies and departments having a conceivable interest in the easement or right-of-way must indicate that no need exists, either at present or conceivable in the future, to retain the property as an easement or right-of-way, either for its original purpose or for some other public purpose unless the vacation ordinance retains the needed utility or right-of-way easement; The proposed 20-foot-alley right-of-way vacation east of 17th Street has been evaluated by the Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments and it has been collectively concluded that the public entities would have no conceivable future interest in the alley right-of-way. CenturyLink, Comcast, and Xcel have also approved the request. The proposed 18th Street right-of-way vacation has been evaluated by the Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments. The vacation ordinance will reserve two easements, one utility easement and one flood control easement as described in Attachment D. CenturyLink/Lumen, Comcast, and Xcel have approved the request. (3)The applicant must demonstrate, consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the City's land use regulations, either: (A)That failure to vacate an existing right-of-way or easement on the property would cause a substantial hardship to the use of the property consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the City's land use regulations; or Not applicable. Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 7 Packet Page 146 of 1100 (B)That vacation of the easement or right-of-way would actually provide a greater public benefit than retaining the property in its present status. The proposed 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way east of 17th Street currently only benefits the residents of the 1328 17th Street housing unit. The proposed vacation would allow for the construction of a parking garage that will create more neighborhood parking for CU residents. The added parking will benefit CU Boulder residents, off-campus residents, city of Boulder residents and the Boulder High School community. The proposed 18th Street right-of-way vacation would provide the ability for the development of much needed additional student housing in close proximity to the main campus and improved access to Boulder Creek Trail. The site design would create more usable open space and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal access to the main campus and surrounding amenities and services. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vacation Exhibit (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Attachment B: Vacation Exhibit (18th St ROW) Attachment C: Proposed Ordinance 8704 Attachment D: Proposed Ordinance 8705 Attachment E: Proposed Deed of Vacation (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Attachment F: Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 8 Packet Page 147 of 1100 EXHIBIT "A" LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF BOULDER, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 2 A PA RCEL OF LAND BEING THE 20 FOOT ALLEY LY ING NORTHERLY OF PA RCEL A (ASSESSOR'S PA RCELS NO. 14633100039) AND SOUTHERLY OF PA RCEL K (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 146331100041) AND PA RCEL L (ASSESSOR'S PA RCEL NO. 146331100040 AS DEPICTED ON THE ALTA /NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED BY FLATIRONS INC., JOB NO. 21-78,447 DATED AUGUST 08, 2022 AND RECORDED IN THE COUNTY OF BOULDER LAND SURVEY OFFICE AT PLAT NO. 23-0432 LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF BOULDER, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31, THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, S00°19'13"E A DISTANCE OF 530.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE EXTENDED OF SAID ALLEY, N89°35'58"E A DISTANCE OF 30.27 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 20 FOOT ALLEY AND A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 17TH STREET SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY, EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY LINES OF SAID 20 FOOT ALLEY THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) CONSECUTIVE COURSES: 1)N89°35'58"E A DISTANCE OF 98.37 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20.00 FOOT ALLEY ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ALLEY VACATION BY ORDINANCE 2827; 2)THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, S00°18'59"E A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20.00 FOOT ALLEY; 3)THENCE S89°35'58"W A DISTANCE OF 98.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 20.00 FOOT ALLEY; 4)THENCE N00°21'14"W A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 0.045 ACRES OR 1,967 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. ALL LINEAL DIMENSIONS ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. BASIS OF BEARINGS BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°32'56"W AND BEING MONUMENTED BY A FOUND #5 REBAR WITH 1-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP IN RANGE BOX "CITY OF BOULDER SURVEY POINT PLS 20134" AT THE INTERSECTION OF 20TH STREET AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND A FOUND #6 REBAR WITH 2-1/2" ALLOY CAP, "BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS INC. TlN I R70W I 1/4 I S30 I S31 I 2014 S 20134" AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER. PREPARED BY SCOTT A. AREHART, PLS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MARTIN/MARTIN, INC. 12499 WEST COLFAX AVENUE LAKEWOOD, CO. 80215 OCTOBER 23, 2024 303-431-6100 PROJECT NO. 23.0352 Attachment A - Vacation Exhibit (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 9 Packet Page 148 of 1100 Attachment A - Vacation Exhibit (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 10 Packet Page 149 of 1100 Attachment B - Vacation Exhibit (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 11 Packet Page 150 of 1100 Attachment B - Vacation Exhibit (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 12 Packet Page 151 of 1100 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 8704 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEED OF VACATION FOR A 20-FOOT-WIDE ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY EXTENDING EAST APPROXIMATELY 98.37 FEET FROM 17TH STREET, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 1729 ATHENS STREET, AND SOUTHERLY OF 1328 17th STREET AND 1712 MARINE STREET, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER FINDS AND RECITES THAT: A.The Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, on behalf of the University of Colorado at Boulder (“CU Boulder”), the owner of Boulder County Assessor’s Parcel No. 14633100039 (“1729 Athens Street”), Boulder County Assessor’s Parcel No. 146331100041 (“1328 17th Street”), and Boulder County Assessor’s Parcel No. 146331100040 (“1712 Marine Street”) has requested that the city vacate a 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet east from 17th Street, and generally located north of 1729 Athens Street, and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street; and B. The City Council is of the opinion that the requested vacation is in the public interest and that said right-of-way is not necessary for the public use. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. The City Council vacates and authorizes the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for a 20-foot wide alley right-of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, and generally located north of 1729 Athens Street, and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Attachment C - Proposed Ordinance 8704 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 13 Packet Page 152 of 1100 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 3. 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 5th day of June, 2025. Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: Elesha Johnson, City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2025. Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment C - Proposed Ordinance 8704 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 14 Packet Page 153 of 1100 Attachment C - Proposed Ordinance 8704 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 15 Packet Page 154 of 1100 Attachment C - Proposed Ordinance 8704 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 16 Packet Page 155 of 1100 ORDINANCE 8705 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEED OF VACATION FOR 18th STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EXTENDING SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 313.88 FEET FROM ATHENS STREET, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF 1950 COLORADO AVENUE AND 1234 18TH STREET AND WEST OF 950 REGENT DRIVE, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER FINDS AND RECITES THAT: A.The Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, on behalf of the University of Colorado at Boulder (“CU Boulder”), the owner of Boulder County Assessor’s Parcel No. 146331100065 (“1950 Colorado Avenue”), Boulder County Assessor’s Parcel No. 146331100044 (“1234 18th Street”), and Boulder County Assessor’s Parcel No. 146332300008 (“950 Regent Drive”) has requested that the city vacate the 18th Street right-of-way extending south approximately 313.88 feet from Athens Street, and generally located east of 1950 Colorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street, and west of 950 Regent Drive; and B. The City Council is of the opinion that the requested vacation is in the public interest and that said right-of-way is not necessary for the public use. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. The City Council vacates and authorizes the city manager to execute a deed of vacation for 18th Street right-of-way extending south approximately 313. 88 feet from Athens Street, and generally located east of 1950 Colorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street, and west of 950 Regent Drive, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, reserving the following easement interests: Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 17 Packet Page 156 of 1100 a) an easement for access to and the installation, construction, repair, maintenance and reconstruction of utilities and appurtenances to such utilities, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of such easement in and to, over, under and across the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto. b) a flood control easement for the purpose of drainage conveyance and control of flood waters and installation and maintenance of improvements necessary to ensure conveyance as determined by the City of Boulder, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of such easement in and to, over, under and across the real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto. No permanent structure or improvement shall be placed or authorized to be placed on said easements by the present owner of the subservient land or its successors and assigns, and the use of such easements shall not otherwise be obstructed or interfered with. Section 2. 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 3. 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 5th day of June, 2025. Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 18 Packet Page 157 of 1100 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2025. Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 19 Packet Page 158 of 1100 Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 20 Packet Page 159 of 1100 Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 21 Packet Page 160 of 1100 Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 22 Packet Page 161 of 1100 Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance 8705 Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 23 Packet Page 162 of 1100 For Administrative Purposes Only Vacation Area: 20’ Alley ROW east of 17th St, north of 1729 Athens St, south of 1328 17th St and south of 1712 Marine St Case No. LUR2024-00060 DEED OF VACATION The City of Boulder, Colorado, does hereby vacate and release to the present owner of the subservient land, in the manner prescribed by Section 43-2-302, C.R.S., a 20-foot-wide alley right- of-way extending east approximately 98.37 feet from 17th Street, and generally located north of 1729 Athens Street, and southerly of 1328 17th Street and south of 1712 Marine Street and more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The above alley right-of-way vacation and release of said right-of-way extending east of 17th Street and generally located north of 1729 Athens Street, and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street shall extend only to the portion of right-of-way specifically vacated. The within vacation is not to be construed as vacating any rights-of-way, easements or cross-easements lying within the description of the vacated portion of right-of-way. Executed this _______ day of _______________, 2025, by the City Manager after having received authorization from the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, pursuant to Ordinance 8704, adopted by the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado. CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO By:_____________________________________ Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde , City Manager Attest: _______________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________________ City Attorney’s Office _________________ Date Attachment E - Proposed Deed of Vacation (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 24 Packet Page 163 of 1100 Attachment E - Proposed Deed of Vacation (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 25 Packet Page 164 of 1100 Attachment E - Proposed Deed of Vacation (20-foot-wide alley ROW east of 17th St) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 26 Packet Page 165 of 1100 For Administrative Purposes Only Vacation Area: 18th Street ROW Address: south of Athens Street, east of 1950 Colorado Ave and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive Case No. LUR2024-00060 DEED OF VACATION The City of Boulder, Colorado, does hereby vacate and release to the present owner of the subservient land, in the manner prescribed by Section 43-2-302, C.R.S., an 18th Street right-of- way located south of Athens Street, east of 1950 Colorado Ave and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City reserves the following: 1)an easement for access to and the installation, construction, repair, maintenance and reconstruction of utilities and appurtenances to such utilities, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and property use of such easement in and to, over, under and across the real property described in Exhibit A. 2) a flood control easement for the purpose of drainage conveyance and control of flood waters and installation and maintenance of improvements necessary to ensure conveyance as determined by the City of Boulder, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and property use of such easement in and to, over, under and across the real property described in Exhibit B. No permanent structure or improvement shall be placed or authorized to be placed on said easements by the owner of the subservient land or its successors and assigns, and the use of such easements shall not otherwise be obstructed or interfered with. The above right-of-way vacation and release of said right-of-way located south of Athens Street, east of 1950 Colorado Ave and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive shall extend only to the portion of right-of-way specifically vacated. The within vacation is not to be construed as vacating any rights-of-way, easements or cross-easements lying within the description of the vacated portion of right-of-way nor as vacating the within reserved easements referenced above. Executed this _______ day of _______________, 2025, by the City Manager after having received authorization from the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, pursuant to Ordinance 8705, adopted by the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado. Attachment F - Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 27 Packet Page 166 of 1100 2 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO By:_____________________________________ Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde , City Manager Attest: _______________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________________ City Attorney’s Office _________________ Date Attachment F - Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 28 Packet Page 167 of 1100 Attachment F - Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 29 Packet Page 168 of 1100 Attachment F - Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 30 Packet Page 169 of 1100 Attachment F - Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 31 Packet Page 170 of 1100 Attachment F - Proposed Deed of Vacation (18th St ROW) Item 2J - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8704 to vacate 20-foot wide alley east of 17th St. AND ORD 8705 to vacate 18th Street south of Athens St Page 32 Packet Page 171 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M T hird reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8697, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Title 10, “Structures,” B.R.C . 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Geoff Solomonson, City Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Ordinance 8697, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Title 10, “Structures,” B.R.C . 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Packet Page 172 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Third reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8697, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Title 10, “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations; 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, Development Code Amendment Manager Geoff Solomonson, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a list of proposed changes to clarify the Land Use Code, fix errors, simplify language, update graphics, clarify intent, remove certain restrictions, and codify existing practices. The city periodically corrects technical errors to avoid confusion and to ensure that the Land Use Code is administered and enforced in a manner consistent with the intent and department practices. The last ordinance addressing similar “clean- up” issues was adopted in 2024. On May 15, 2025, City Council introduced, read on first reading, and ordered published by title only Ordinance 8697. There were no questions at the council meeting. On June 5, 2025, City Council voted to continue this item to the June 12, 2025 meeting. Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 1 Packet Page 173 of 1100 On June 12, 2025, City Council held a public hearing, amended and passed Ordinance 8697. The amendments included removing the proposed change to Section 4-4-2, “Definition of Contractor” to revisit the provision at later date; removing the proposed change to Section 10-2-2, “Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications” to keep the exception for attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to comply with energy efficiency requirements (SmartRegs); and remove the proposed (A) in Section 9-8-3, “Density in the RH-1, RH-2, and RH-7 Districts” which relates to the setbacks required for duplexes and two detached dwelling units. Council voted 7-1 in favor of the Ordinance with the proposed amendments. Two other amendments were proposed for this ordinance. The first was an amendment to remove the proposed change in Section 9-2-14(h)(4)(B)(i)(b)(4) to remove the words “grade-level” and bring forward at a future change. The amendment failed with a 3-5 vote. Another amendment was proposed to Section 9-2-14(h)(1)(B) to amend the word “generally” to language proposed by the Planning Board at the May 27, 2025 meeting. The amendment failed with a 2-6 vote. City Council voted 7-1 to amend the ordinance with the following motion: Motion to amend and pass Ordinance 8697, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Title 10, “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations; and setting forth related details, with amendments to keep the ADU exemption in Appendix C (Section 10-2-2), remove Section 9-8-3(a)(2)(A) relative to setbacks, and remove the proposed change relative to contractors in Section 4-4-2(b)(3). (Motion by L. Folkerts seconded by A. Brockett, 7-1 passed) These amendments are reflected in the attached ordinance in Attachment A for council adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 2 Packet Page 174 of 1100 Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Ordinance 8697, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Title 10, “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations; and setting forth related details. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 3 Packet Page 175 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 8697 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, “LICENSES AND PERMITS,” TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” AND TITLE 10, “STRUCTURES,” B.R.C. 1981, TO CORRECT ERRORS, UPDATE GRAPHICS AND SUBSECTION FORMATS CREATING CONSISTENCY, IMPROVE THE CLARITY OF THE CODE AND UPDATE TO REFLECT CURRENT REVIEW PROCEDURES ALREADY IN USE, CLARIFY SECTION INTENT, COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATIONS AND TO REMOVE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY IN PROJECT DESIGN AND IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 4-4-2, “Definition of Contractor,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 4-4-2. Definition of Contractor. (a) For purposes of this chapter, a contractor has the same meaning as contractor in Subsection 1-2-1(b), "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, and includes without limitation any person who undertakes with or for another person to inspect pursuant to Chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, any building or structure, or any portion thereof. (b) The following persons are not contractors within the meaning of this chapter: (1) Subcontractors working for and under the supervision of a general contractor licensed under this chapter; (2) Plumbers, electricians, mechanical, and fire or other specialized tradespeople for whom another license is required by the city; and (3) A homeowner who builds, constructs, alters, repairs, adds to, moves, or wrecks any building or structure regulated by the Residential Code of the City of Boulder, or any portion thereof, that constitutes the owner's residence or a building or Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 4 Packet Page 176 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 structure accessory thereto, that is intended for the owner's personal use. This exception is available only as to one such building or structure during a calendar year. Section 2. Footnote 15 to Section 4-8-1, “Legislative Intent,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: [15]§ 12-115-10112-23-101, et seq., C.R.S.; Century Electric Service and Repair, Inc. v. Stone, 193 Colo. 181, 564 P.2d 953 (1977). Section 3. Section 4-8-2, “Registration Required,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 4-8-2. Registration Required. (a) No person required by § 12-115-10912-23-105, C.R.S., to be licensed shall perform any services covered by such license in the city or any building outside the city that is served by city sewer or water utility service or subject to city building inspection without registering with the city manager on forms provided thereby and filing the evidence of insurance required by Section 4-1-8, "Insurance Required," B.R.C. 1981. ... Section 4. Section 4-15-3, “License Required,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 4-15-3. License Required. (a) No person shall conduct the business of a plumbing contractor in the city without first obtaining a license under this chapter from the city manager. (b) No person required by § 12-155-10812-58-105, C.R.S., to be licensed shall perform any work as a master, journeyman or residential plumber in the city unless such person holds a valid state license to perform such work. Section 5. Section 4-15-9, “Revocation or Suspension of License,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 4-15-9. Revocation or Suspension of License. ... Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 5 Packet Page 177 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (b) No person engaged in the plumbing contractor business shall employ or continue to employ for work in the city covered by the city plumbing code an apprentice who is not licensed under this chapter or a person required to be licensed under § 12-155-10812-58- 105, C.R.S., who is not so licensed. Section 6. Section 9-2-1, “Types of Reviews,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-1. Types of Reviews. (a) Purpose: This section identifies the numerous types of administrative and development review processes and procedures. The review process for each of the major review types is summarized in Table 2-1 of this section. (b) Summary Chart: TABLE 2-1: REVIEW PROCESSES SUMMARY CHART I. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS II. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BOARD ACTION Affordable housing design review pursuant to Section 9-13-4, B.R.C. 1981 Building permits Change of address Change of street name Conditional uses, as noted in Table 6-1: Use Table Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with no historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Easement vacation Extension of development approval/staff level Landmark alteration certificates (staff review per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Annexation/initial zoning BOZA variances Concept plans Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with potential historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11- 23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On- Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Form-based code review Geophysical exploration permit Landmark alteration certificates other than those that may be approved by staff per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981 Lot line adjustments Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 6 Packet Page 178 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981) Landscape standards variance Minor modification to approved site plan Minor modification to approved form-based code review Noise barriers along major streets per Paragraph 9-9-15(c)(7), B.R.C. 1981 Nonconforming use extension Parking deferral per Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reduction of up to twenty-five percent per Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reductions and modifications for bicycle parking per Paragraph 9-9-6(g)(6), B.R.C. 1981 Parking stall variances Public utility Rescission of development approval Revocable permit Right-of-way lease Setback variance Site access variance exception Substitution of a nonconforming use Solar exception Zoning verification Lot line elimination Minor Subdivisions Out of city utility permit Rezoning Site review Subdivisions Use review Vacations of street, alley, or access easement Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 7 Packet Page 179 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 7. Section 9-2-6, “Development Review Application,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-6. Development Review Application. (a) Application Requirements for Use Review, Site Review, and Form-Based Code Review: A person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a development review may file an application for approval on a form provided by the city manager that shall include the following: (1) The written consent of the owners of all property to be included in the development; (2) An improvement survey of the land. The city manager may waive this application requirement for a minor modification, minor amendment, use review, or minor use review; (3) Development plans including site, landscaping, building plans, and building elevations as applicable; (4) A written statement addressing the criteria for approval; (5) All information required in Sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," 9-2-15, "Use Review," and 9-2-16, "Form-Based Code Review," B.R.C. 1981, for the type of review requested; (6) Any other information that the applicant wishes to submit; and (7) The fee prescribed by Section 4-20-43, "Development Application Fees," B.R.C. 1981, for the type of review requested. … (e) Inactive Applications: (1) If, at any point in a development review process, the city manager has notified the applicant that additional or corrected materials are required, and the applicant has not submitted those materials within sixty days after the date of such notification, the application will be considered withdrawn. The city manager may extend the sixty-day period if requested by the applicant prior to its expiration and upon the applicant's demonstrating good cause for the additional delay. (2) Any re-submittalresubmittal of the application after the sixty daysixty-day deadline will be treated as a new application for purposes of review, scheduling, public notice, and payment of application fees. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 8 Packet Page 180 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 8. Section 9-2-14, “Site Review, “B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-14. Site Review. (a) Purpose: The purpose of site review is to allow flexibility in design, to encourage innovation in land use development, 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 height of buildings with existing, approved, and known to be planned or projected buildings in the immediate area, to ensure human scale development, to promote the safety and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and other modes within and around developments and to implement the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans of the community. Review criteria are established to achieve the following: … (b) Scope: The following development review thresholds apply to any development that is eligible or that otherwise may be required to complete the site review process: (1) Development Review Thresholds: … (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: … (ix) The building is in the public zoning district and is exclusively used for hospital or medical office uses or is a parking structure serving those uses. … (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 9 Packet Page 181 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) criteria: … (B) Subcommunity and Area Plans or Design Guidelines: If the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is generally consistent with the applicable plan and guidelines. … (F) Housing Diversity and Bedroom Unit Types: 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 Subparagraphsections (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, or units with different numbers of bedrooms such as one-bedroom units, and two-bedroom units, or three- bedroom units. … (4) Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification or Exceeding the Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 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: 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. (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: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 10 Packet Page 182 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 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. (B) Building and Site Design Requirements for Height Modifications: (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) and (ix), the building's height, mass, and scale is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. 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: … 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: 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 managedcity-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; 4. Additional Requirements for a Height Bonus - Open Space: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 11 Packet Page 183 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 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. In determining whether this requirement is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors as The following are considered elements of successful design elements for such a space, as practicable considering site conditions and location; ii. The width horizontal dimensions of the space is are no less than the height of building walls enclosing the space; iii. Seating and other design elements are integrated with the circulation pattern of the project; iiiv. The space has southern exposure and sunlight; vi. 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 is not elevated above the building’s first story; 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. … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 12 Packet Page 184 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (6) Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications: 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: (i) In the DT, BMS, BR-2, and MU-3 Zoning Districts: The open space requirements in Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced in all DT districts and the BR-2, BMS, and MU-3 districts subject to the following standards: a. In the DT, BMS, or MU-3 zoning districts, the reduction in open space is necessary to avoid siting of open space that is inconsistent with the urban context of neighborhood buildings or the character established in adopted design guidelines or plans for the area, such as along a property line next to zero-setback buildings or along alleys: maximum one hundred fifty percent reduction. … Section 9. Section 9-2-16, “Form-Based Code Review, “B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-16. Form-Based Code Review. (a) Purpose: The purpose of form-based code review, is to improve the character and quality of new development to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public and the users of the development. The form-based code review regulations are established to create a sense of place in the area being developed or redeveloped and ensure a site and building design that: … (d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a form-based code review, may be filed by any person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a form-based code review on a form provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation: … (4) Site Plan: A site plan with a north arrow showing the major details of the proposed development, prepared on a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet, providing sufficient detail to evaluate the features of the Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 13 Packet Page 185 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 development required by this section. The site plan shall contain, insofar as applicable, the information set forth as follows: (A) Topography. The existing topographic character of the land, showing contours at two-foot intervals; (B) Flood Areas. If applicable, the areas subject to the one hundred-year one- hundred-year flood as defined in Chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, and any area of the site that is within a designated space conveyance zone or high hazard high-hazard zone; … (14) Architectural Plans. Detailed architectural plans that include the following: (A) Building Schematic Floor plans. Building floor plans shall be included for each floor, illustrating the location of uses, common spaces, doors, and windows; (B) Building Details. Plans, sections, and elevations illustrating compliance with Sections M-1-13 through M-1-28 of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," to this title; (C) Building Elevations. Building elevations, at a scale of one sixteenthone- sixteenth inch equals one foot or larger, illustrating the following: … (i) Exceptions: Exceptions to the requirements of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," may be approved under the form-based code review process pursuant to the following standards: … (2) Exceptions: (A) An exception may be granted by the approving authority if the following criteria are met: (i) The proposed exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the adopted subcommunity or area plan applied to the area, and … Section 10. Section 9-2-21, “Required Improvements and Financial Guarantees,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 14 Packet Page 186 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 9-2-21. Required Improvements and Financial Guarantees. … (g) Letter of Credit: If any letter of credit is due to expire before the end of the guarantee period and is not replaced no less than sixty days before its expiration with another letter of credit which is valid until the end of the guarantee period or for an additional year, whichever is less, the city manager shall call the letter of credit and shall hold the funds thereby received in a separate account, and shall return such funds as are not expended or to be expended for guarantee work to the applicant at the end of the guarantee period. (hg) Additional Requirements In Addition: The requirements of this section are in addition to any requirements for financial guarantees under any other provision of this code. Section 11. Section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-5-2. Zoning Districts. (a) Classification: Zoning districts are classified according to the following classifications based on the predominant character of development and current or intended use in an area of the community: (1) R: Residential; (2) M: Mixed Use, a mix of residential and business; (3) B: Business; (4) DT: Downtown business zones; (5) I: Industrial; (6) P: Public; (7) A: Agricultural. … (c) Zoning District Purposes: … (3) Business Districts: (E) Business - Regional 1 and Business - Regional 2: Business centers of the Boulder Valley, containing a wide range of retail and commercial operations, including the largest regional-scale businesses, which serve outlying residential development; and where the goals of the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan are implemented. … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 15 Packet Page 187 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 12. Section 9-6-2, “Specific Use Standards-General,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-2. Specific Use Standards - General. (a) Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to set forth additional requirements for specified uses of land. The requirements are intended to ensure that the use is compatible with the surrounding area. … (c) Specific Use Standards that Apply to Several Use Types: The specific use standards in this chapter are generally organized by use classification, use category, and use type. Some specific use standards apply to several use types that are part of different use classifications and use categories. Such standards that apply to use types within different classifications are set forth within this subsection (c). (1) Specific Use Standards for Uses in the BC Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BC-1 and BC-2 zoning districts, the following standards apply to the uses listed in Table 6-2: … (i) Allowed Use: The uses listed in Table 6-2 are allowed by right unless the use is located within an area designated in Appendix N "Business Community (BC) Areas Subject to Special Use Restrictions." (ii) Conditional Use: If located in one of the mapped areas in Appendix N, the use may be approved as a conditional use if it meets all of the following standards: a. The use shall not be located on the ground floor, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. b. The combined floor area of any nonresidential uses in Table 6-2 shall be limited to ten percent of the total floor area on the lot or parcel except that if the use is located within an approved site review or planned unit development, the combined floor area of any nonresidential uses subject to this section shall be limited to ten percent of the total floor area within the boundaries of the site review or planned unit development approval in the BC zoning district. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 16 Packet Page 188 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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. A principal use of any automobile parking lot or garage shall be a park and ride facility. … Section 13. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards-Residential Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-3. Specific Use Standards - Residential Uses. … HOUSEHOLD LIVING … (d) Dwelling Unit, Attached: (1) In the RH-6 Zoning District: (A) In the RH-6 zoning district, attached dwelling units shall be located in a development that includes townhouse dwelling units. Attached dwelling units may only be located on a corner that has street frontage on two sides. (2) In the BT-1, and BT-2, IS-1, and IS-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BT-1, and BT-2, IS-1, and IS-2 zoning districts, attached dwelling units are allowed by right if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. … (f) Efficiency Living Unit: (3) In the IS-1 and IS-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the IS-1 and IS-2 zoning districts, efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units and the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 17 Packet Page 189 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (34) In the IMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the IMS zoning district, efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units and at least fifty percent of the floor area of the building is for nonresidential use. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. … GROUP LIVING … (j) Congregate Care Facility, Custodial Care Facility, and Residential Care Facility: (1) Applicability: This subsection (j) sets forth standards for congregate care facilities, custodial care facilities, and residential care facilities that are subject to specific use standards pursuant to Table 6-1, Use Table. (2) Standards: The following standards apply to any such facility that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: (B) In order to prevent the potential creation of an institutional setting by concentration of custodial, residential or congregate care facilities in a neighborhood, no custodial, residential, or congregate care facility may locate within seven hundred fifty feet of another custodial, residential, or congregate care facility, but the approving agency may permit two such facilities to be located closer than seven hundred fifty feet apart if they are separated by a physical barrier, including, without limitation, an arterial collector, a commercial district or a topographic feature that avoids the need for dispersal. The planning department will maintain a map showing the locations of all custodial, residential, or congregate care facilities in the city. … Section 14. Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-1. Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards. The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for lot dimensions and building form, bulk, location and height for all types of development. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the dimensional standards set forth in Table 7-1 of this section with the exception of Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 18 Packet Page 190 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 structures located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." No person shall use any land within the City authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following form and bulk requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or as approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-16, "Form-based code review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS Zoning District A R R- 1 R R- 2 R E R H- 2 R H- 5 P RL- 1 RM -2 RM X-1 B T- 2 B T- 1 B C B R IS -1 IS -2 IG I M R L- 2 R M- 1 R H- 4 M U- 1 R M- 3 R H- 1 R H- 6 RM X-2 R H- 3 R H- 7 B CS M U- 3 B M S M U- 4 D T- 1 D T- 2 D T- 3 D T- 5 D T- 4 M U- 2 IM S M H Form module a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS(n) Maxi mum % of 3rd story floor area that can be in any story above the 3rd story n/a n/a n/a 70 % (j) n/ a n/ a n/a n/ a n/ a Footnotes to Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 19 Packet Page 191 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (a) On corner lots, side yard must meet principal building front yard setback where adjacent lot fronts upon the street, unless the subject yard was platted as a side yard at a time when the adjacent lot did not front upon the street. (b) For zero lot line development, including side yard setbacks from interior lot lines for townhouses, see Subsection 9-7-2(b), B.R.C. 1981. (c) The permitted height limit may be modified only in certain areas and only under the standards and procedures provided in Sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," and 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981. (d) For buildings over 25 feet in height, see Subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (e) For other setback standards regarding garages, open parking areas, and flagpoles, see Paragraph 9-7-2(d), B.R.C. 1981. (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see Paragraph 9-7-2(c), B.R.C. 1981. (g) This maximum height limit applies to poles that are light poles at government-owned recreation facilities but not to other poles. Other poles have a maximum height of 55 feet in all zones. For additional criteria regarding poles, see Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (h) For front yard setback reductions, see Subsection 9-7-2(a), B.R.C. 1981. (i) For side yard setback requirements based on building height, see Section 9-7- 2 (b)(8), "Setback Relative to Building Height," B.R.C. 1981. (j) The maximum percentage of the third story floor area that can be in any story above the third story standard may not be modified as part of a site review. (k) For properties located in the DT-5 and P zoning districts and shown in Appendix I, the minimum setback shall be as required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards or sixty-five feet measured from the centerline of Canyon Boulevard right-of-way. (l) For buildings on nonstandard lots within the RMX-1, RL-1, RE, RR-1, and RR-2 zoning districts, refer to Table 10-1, Maximum Height Formulas, within Section 9-10-3, "Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures and Lots and Nonconforming Uses." (m) For setback requirements on corner lots in the DT-5 zoning district, refer to Subsection 9-7-6(c), B.R.C 1981. (n) For principal and accessory buildings or structures located on a lot or parcel designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," refer to Appendix M, "Form- Based Code," for design standards applicable to such lot or parcel. With the exception of Charter Section 84, "Height limit," and Sections 9-7-3, "Setback Encroachments," and 9-7-5, "Building Heights," 9-7-7, "Building Height, Appurtenances," B.R.C. 1981, the form and bulk standards of this chapter are superseded by the requirements of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 20 Packet Page 192 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Building heights in areas designated in Appendix L are not subject to the height limits of Table 9-7, Form and Bulk Standards. Footnotes to Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: (a) On corner lots, use principal building front yard setback where adjacent lot fronts upon the street. (b) For zero lot line development, including side yard setbacks from interior lot lines for townhouses, see Subsection 9-7-2(b), B.R.C. 1981. (c) The permitted height limit may be modified only in certain areas and only under the standards and procedures provided in Sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," and 9- 7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981. (d) For buildings over 25 feet in height, see Subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (e) For other setback standards regarding garages, open parking areas, and flagpoles, see Paragraph 9-7-2(d), B.R.C. 1981. (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see Paragraph 9-7-2(c), B.R.C. 1981. (g) This maximum height limit applies to poles that are light poles at government- owned recreation facilities but not to other poles. Other poles have a maximum height of 55 feet in all zones. For additional criteria regarding poles, see Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (h) For front yard setback reductions, see Subsection 9-7-2(a), B.R.C. 1981. (i) For side yard setback requirements based on building height, see Appendix B, "Setback Relative to Building Height," of this title. (j) The maximum percentage of the third floor area that can be in a fourth story standard may not be modified as part of a site review. (k) For properties located in the DT-5 and P zoning districts and shown in Appendix I, the minimum setback shall be as required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards or sixty- five feet measured from the centerline of Canyon Boulevard right-of-way. (l) For buildings on nonstandard lots within the RMX-1, RL-1, RE, RR-1, and RR-2 zoning districts, refer to Table 10-1, Maximum Height Formulas, within Section 9-10-3, "Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures and Lots and Nonconforming Uses." (m) For setback requirements on corner lots in the DT-5 zoning district, refer to Subsection 9-7-6(c), B.R.C 1981. (n) For principal and accessory buildings or structures located on a lot or parcel designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," refer to Appendix M, "Form- Based Code," for design standards applicable to such lot or parcel. With the Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 21 Packet Page 193 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 exception of Charter Section 84, "Height limit," and Sections 9-7-3, "Setback Encroachments," and 9-7-5, "Building Heights," 9-7-7, "Building Height, Appurtenances," B.R.C. 1981, the form and bulk standards of this chapter are superseded by the requirements of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." Building heights in areas designated in Appendix L are not subject to the height limits of Table 9-7, Form and Bulk Standards. Section 15. Section 9-7-2, “Setback Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-2. Setback Standards. (a) Front, Rear, and Side Yards: Front, rear, and side yards shall be identified consistent with the yard definition in Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. (ba) Front Yard Setback Reductions: The front yard setback required in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced for a principal structure on any lot if more than fifty percent of the principal buildings on the same block face or street face do not meet the required front yard setback. The setback for the adjacent buildings and other buildings on the block face shall be measured from the property line to the bulk of the building, excluding, without limitation, any unenclosed porches, decks, patios or steps. The bulk of the building setback shall not be less than the average bulk of the building setback for the principal buildings on the two adjacent lots. Where there is only one adjacent lot, the front yard setback reduction shall be based on the average of the principal building setbacks on the two closest lots on the same block face. (See Figure 7-1 of this section.) Figure 7-1: Setback Averaging Example In this example, lots "B" through "F" are the face block. Lot "A" is not included in the face block, as the front of this lot is on a different street. Setback averaging is measured to the bulk of the buildings and does not include porches. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 22 Packet Page 194 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Assuming this block is zoned RL-1, the minimum required front yard setback would be twenty- five feet. The block face shown would qualify for setback averaging, as more than fifty percent of the principal buildings do not meet the required front yard setback. An addition to the front of lot "E" would require the averaging of the setbacks of lots "D" and "F", the two closest buildings on the same block face. In this example the resulting setback would be 20 feet - the average of lot "D" (fifteen feet) and lot "F" (twenty-five feet). An addition to the front of lot "F" would be based on the average of the two closest buildings on the same block face; in this case, lots "D" and "E." (cb) Side Yard Setback Standards: … (8) Setback Relative to Building Height: For buildings subject to the side yard setback requirements based on building height, the setback shall be determined consistent with Figure 7-3 Figure 7-3: Setback Relative to Building Height (dc) Rear Yard Setbacks: Where a rear yard backs on a street, the rear yard shall have a minimum landscaped setback equal to the minimum front yard landscaped setback from a street for all buildings and uses required for that zone. (ed) Open Parking Areas, Flagpoles, and Detached Garages and Carports: Open parking areas, flagpoles, and detached garages and carports may be located in compliance with either the required principal building setbacks or accessory building setbacks. (fe) Swimming Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall be located according to the applicable accessory structure setbacks on a lot except that pools, spas, or hot tubs may be located in compliance with the required front yard principal building setback. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 23 Packet Page 195 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (gf) Oil and Gas Operations and Other Uses: Oil and gas operations shall be set back from any residential use, residential zone, school, daycare center, hospital, senior living facility, assisted living facility, outdoor venue, playground, permanent sports field, amphitheater, public park and recreation use, or other similar public outdoor facility, but not including trails or City of Boulder open space, in accordance with the standards of Section 9-6-7(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. No residential use, school, daycare center, hospital, senior living facility, assisted living facility, outdoor venue, playground, permanent sports field, amphitheater, public park and recreation use, or other similar public outdoor facility, but not including trails or City of Boulder open space, shall be located closer than two thousand feet from any single-well well pad of an oil and gas operation in pre- production, closer than two thousand five hundred feet from any multi-well well pad of an oil and gas operation in pre-production, closer than five hundred feet from any well pad of an oil and gas operation in production, and closer than two hundred fifty feet from an oil and gas operation that has been capped and abandoned pursuant to the requirements of Section 9-6-7(b)(16), B.R.C. 1981. Section 16. Section 9-7-5, “Building Height,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-5. Building Height. … (b) Measurement of Height: Height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenty-five horizontal feet of the tallest side of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof or structure. The lowest point shall be calculated using the natural grade. The tallest side shall be that side whose lowest exposed exterior point is lower in elevation than the lowest exposed exterior point of any other side of the building (see Figure 7-43 Measurement of Height). … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 24 Packet Page 196 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Figure 7-43: Measurement of Height (2) Slopes Greater Than Twenty Degrees: On a slope measured within the building envelope created by the required setbacks from property lines that is greater than twenty degrees (36.4 percent slope), the building height may not exceed twenty- five feet measured perpendicular from the natural grade below. (See Figure 7-54 of this section.) However, under no circumstances shall a structure exceed fifty- five feet as measured under charter section 84 except as provided for poles in Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. The slope percentage shall be calculated by measuring the difference between the high point and the low point within the building envelope and dividing it by the distance between the high and low points. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 25 Packet Page 197 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Figure 7-54: Building Height on a Slope Greater than Twenty Degrees … (e) Height Calculations for Attached Buildings: (1) The following shall be considered separate buildings for the purposes of calculating building height: (A) Buildings that are connected only below grade (see Figure 7-65 of this section). (B) Separate abutting buildings that may have an internal connection (see Figure 7-76 of this section). (C) Buildings built to the common property line that may have an internal connection (see Figure 7-76 of this section). (D) Buildings attached by an at-grade open or enclosed connection not more than fifteen feet high and twelve feet deep (see Figure 7-87 of this section). … Figure 7-65: Below Grade Connection Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 26 Packet Page 198 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Figure 7-76: Internal Connection Figure 7-87: At-Grade Open or Enclosed Connection Section 17. Section 9-7-8, “Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 27 Packet Page 199 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 9-7-8. Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones. … (c) Breezeway Connections Between Accessory and Principal Buildings: In a residential zoning district, a single-family detached dwelling unit may be connected to an accessory building which is located partially or entirely within principal building rear yard setback by a breezeway if the breezeway meets the following standards: (1) No portion of the roof shall exceed a height of twelve feet, measured to the finished grade directly below it, or the height of the accessory building to which it is attached, whichever is less. (See Figure 7-98 of this section.) … Figure 7-98: Breezeway Section 18. Section 9-7-9, “Side Yard Bulk Plane,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-9. Side Yard Bulk Plane. … (c) Measurement standards: The bulk plane is a plane that begins twelve feet above the side lot lines of a lot or parcel, then rises over a slope at a forty-five-degree angle until it reaches the permitted height in the zoning district or intersects with the plane that is created by the lot line on the opposite side of the lot or parcel. See Figure 7-109. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 28 Packet Page 200 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Figure 7-109: Side Yard Bulk Plane The bulk plane begins at a point twelve feet above the side yard property line and then angles forty-five degrees until the bulk plane reaches the maximum building height or intersects with the plane that is created by the lot line on the opposite side of the lot or parcel. The bulk plane shall be measured from the points described in Paragraph (1) or (2) below using one of the following methods: (1) Grade level point method: The bulk plane shall be measured from the grade level elevation points, which are found along the side property lines, that coincide with location of the midpoint of the lot or parcel, described as points that are equal distance between the front and rear yards. The grade level points shall be as close as possible to the natural grade, and in case a retaining wall is located on the side property line, the ground level point shall be taken from the base of the wall. See Figure 7-110. An applicant may request that the city manager determine the location of the grade level points and corresponding bulk plane for irregularly shaped lots or parcels, including flag lots; or Figure 7-110: Side Yard Bulk Plane Measurement Using the Grade Level Point Method Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 29 Packet Page 201 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Using the grade level point method, the bulk plane is measured from the midpoint between the front and rear yard setbacks. (2) Parallel points method: The bulk plane shall be measured from a series of measurement points that are separated horizontally by ten feet along the side yard property line. The measurement points shall be as close as possible to the natural grade, and in case a retaining wall is located on the side property line, the measurement point shall be taken from the base of the wall. See Figure 7-121. Figure 7-121: Side Yard Bulk Plane Measurement Using the Parallel Point Method Using the parallel point method, the bulk plane is measured from a series of measurement points that are separated by ten feet along the side yard property line. (d) Encroachments: No building or portion thereof shall be constructed or maintained beyond the required bulk plane except as provided for below: … (4) The gable end of a sloping roof form (see Figure 7-132), provided that: … Figure 7-132: Gable Roof End Encroachment into the Side Yard Bulk Plane Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 30 Packet Page 202 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 The gable end of a sloping roof form may project through the side yard bulk plane by up to eight feet. Gable ends that project through the side yard bulk plane may be no more than forty feet wide. (5) Dormers (see Figure 7-143), provided that: (A) The highest point of any dormer is at or below the height of the primary roof ridge. (B) The portion of any dormer that extends beyond the bulk plane limit does not exceed a maximum width of eight feet, including any roof overhang, and does not extend beyond the bulk plane more than six feet, measured as shown in Figure 7-143. … Figure 7-143: Dormer Encroachment beyond the Side Yard Bulk Plane Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 31 Packet Page 203 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 … Section 19. Section 9-7-10, “Side Yard Wall Articulation,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-10. Side Yard Wall Articulation. … (c) Side Yard Wall Standards: Along each side yard property line, the cumulative length of any walls that exceed a height of fourteen feet shall not exceed forty feet in length, unless they are set back at least fourteen feet from the side property line (see Figure 7-154). For the purposes of this section, wall height shall be measured from finished grade as follows: … Figure 7-154: Side Yard Wall Length Articulation Examples Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 32 Packet Page 204 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 20. Section 9-7-13, “Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-13. Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards. No person shall establish or maintain a mobile home park or mobile home on a lot within a mobile home park except in accordance with the following standards: … Figure 7-165: Mobile Home Park Setback & Separation Standards The minimum setback from the exterior perimeter property lines of the mobile home park depends on the zoning district. All other setback requirements apply in all mobile home parks. The required setback from a private drive or internal public street is measured from the edge of pavement. The required tongue setback is measured to the edge of the sidewalk or pedestrian walkway. See Table 7-2 for corresponding setbacks and separation standards. … Section 21. Section 9-8-3, “Density in the RR-1, RR-2, RL-1, RMX-1, and RH-7 Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-8-3. Density in the RR-1, RR-2, RL-1, RMX-1 AND RH-7 Districts (a) Duplexes or Two Detached Dwelling Units in the RR-1, RR-2, and RL-1 zoning districts: A duplex or two detached dwelling units may be developed in the RR-1, RR-2, and RL-1 zoning districts if the lot or parcel meets the following standards: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 33 Packet Page 205 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 … (2) Minimum Lot Area: The lot or parcel meets the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district established in Table 8-1, “Intensity Standards,” for the zoning district or the lot or parcel is a nonstandard lot that is smaller than meets the minimum lot area established in Table 8-1 for the zoning district and size established for development of such lot in Subsection 9-10-3(b), “Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses,” B.R.C. 1981. the following requirements are met: (A) In the RR-1 and RR-2 zoning districts, the lot or parcel is at least 7,500 square feet, or (B) In the RL-1 zoning district, the lot or parcel is at least 3,500 square feet. … Section 22. Section 9-9-2, “General Provisions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-2. General Provisions. No person shall use or develop any land within the city except according to the following standards, unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review, Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a variance granted under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C., 1981. … (d) Zoning Standards for Lots in Two or More Zoning Districts: (1) Uses: Existing buildings located in more than one zoning district shall be regulated according to the meet the applicable use standards for the zoning district in which the majority of the existing building is located. Any building additions or site improvements shall be regulated according to the zoning district in which such additions or improvements are located. In the event that If an existing building is split in half between two zoning districts, the city manager shall determine which zoning district’s use standards shall apply based upon the historic use of the building and the character of the surrounding area. (2) Form, Bulk, and Intensity: On lots or parcels located in two or more zoning districts, any building additions or site improvements shall meet the form, bulk, and intensity standards of the zoning district where additions or improvements are located. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 34 Packet Page 206 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (e) Entire Use Located on One Lot: All lot area, open space, off-street parking area, or yard requirements must be met on the lot or parcel creating the requirement for each building and use No person shall include as part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area, or yard required by this title for any building or use any part of a lot area, open space, off- street parking area, or yard required by this title for any other building or use, unless modified approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. Section 23. Section 9-9-5, “Site Access Control,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-5. Site Access Control. … (c) Standards and Criteria for Site Accesses and Curb Cuts: Any access or curb cut to public rights of way shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and the following standards and criteria: … Figure 9-1: Driveway Width (9) Modification: The standards of this section may be modified under the process of Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981. (10) Exceptions: The city manager may grant an exception to the requirements of this section may be modified under the provisions of Section 9-2-142, "Site Administrative Review," B.R.C. 1981, to provide for safe and reasonable access. Exceptions to this section may be made if the city manager determines that following criteria are met: … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 35 Packet Page 207 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 24. Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-6. Parking Standards. (a) Rationale: The intent of this section is to provide adequate off-street parking for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city streets, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving. … TABLE 9-4: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Large daycare (less than 50 children) Determined through review; parking needs of the use must be adequately served through on-street or off-street parking Nonresidential uses in General Improvement Parking Districts No parking required Restaurant, brewpub, or tavern - outside of retail centers greater than 50,000 square feet Indoor Seats: 1 space per 3 seats. Outdoor Seats: 1. If outdoor seats do not exceed 20% of the indoor seats, no additional parking is required. 2. For the portion of the outdoor seats exceeding 20% of indoor seats: 1 space per 3 seats. 3. Notwithstanding the requirements of (1) and (2) above, the following applies to uses that are nonconforming as to parking for indoor seats and the sole principal use of the site: No additional parking is required if the number of outdoor seats does not exceed 60% of the existing number of parking spaces on the site. Retail centers over 50,000 square feet of floor area that: i) Are under common ownership, or Less than 30 percent of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. ii) management, or 30 percent or more and less than 60 percent of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 36 Packet Page 208 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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) Are approved through a common site review approval, and brewpubs: 1 space per 175 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. iv) Contain a mix of some or all of the following uses: retail, commercial, office, restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns, which v) together comprise more than 50 percent of the total floor area, and 60 percent or more of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. vi) Where written consent of all property owners within the retail center are included with the application. This use-specific parking standard shall not apply to other uses for which a use-specific parking standard is created in this Table 9-4 or to uses other than retail, commercial, and office uses, restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. For those uses, parking shall be provided as required for each such use under this Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981, and in addition to the requirement above. Restaurants in a regional park Determined through review; parking needs of the use must be adequately served through on-street or off-street parking. Motels, hotels, and bed and breakfasts 1 space per guest room or unit, plus required spaces for nonresidential uses at 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area Theater Greater of 1 parking space per 3 seats, or the parking ratio for the zone district Fuel service station General ratio for the use zone plus storage of 2 vehicles per service bay Religious assembly: (See Paragraph (f)(38)(C) of this section for permitted parking reductions) a. Religious assemblies created prior to 9/2/1993 1:300 b. Religious assemblies created after 9/2/1993 1 space per 4 seats, or 1 per 50 square feet of assembly area if there are no fixed seats - assembly area includes the largest room plus any adjacent rooms that could be used as part of the assembly area c. Uses accessory to a religious assembly and created after 9/2/1993 Uses accessory to the religious assembly shall meet the standards applicable to the use as if the use is a principal use d. Total parking of a religious assembly and accessory uses created after 9/2/1993 Parking for the religious assembly use and any accessory use shall be for the use which has the greatest parking requirement Small recycling collection facility 1 space for attendant if needed Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 37 Packet Page 209 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Large recycling collection facility General parking ratio for the zone plus 1 space for each commercial vehicle operated by the facility Recycling processing facility Sufficient parking spaces for a minimum of 10 customers, or the peak load, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for each commercial vehicle operated by the facility Warehouse or distribution facility or uses in industrial zones with accessory warehouse spaces 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area used for warehousing or storage of goods, merchandise, or equipment. Parking for floor area used for associated office space or production areas and not for warehousing or storage as outlined above shall be provided consistent with Table 9-3. Self-service storage facility 3 spaces for visitor parking, plus parking for any floor area used as office space or otherwise not used for self- service storage shall be provided consistent with Table 9-3. Airport and aircraft hangers 1 space per outside airplane or glider tie down space; 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area of private airplane hangar space (with or without external or internal walls); 1 space per 2,000 square feet of floor area of commercial or executive airplane hangar space; and Parking for floor area used as office space or otherwise not used for airport hanger shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Table 9-3.   … (d) Motor Vehicle Parking Design Standards: … (3) Drive Aisles: (A) There is a definite and logical system of drive aisles to serve the entire parking area. Drive aisles shall have a minimum eighteen-foot width clearance for two-way traffic and a minimum ten foot ten-foot width clearance for one-way traffic unless the city manager finds that the parking stalls to be served require a greater or lesser width. A physical separation or barrier, such as vertical curbs, may be required in order to separate parking areas from the travel lanes. (See Figure 9-4 of this section.) … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 38 Packet Page 210 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 25. Section 9-9-11, “Useable Open Space,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-11. Useable Open Space. (a) Purpose of Open Space: The purpose of useable open space is to provide indoor and outdoor areas for passive and active uses to meet the needs of the anticipated residents, tenants, employees, customers and visitors of a property, and to enhance the environment of a development or building. Open space can be used to: … (b) Open Space Requirements: Open space shall be provided in the quantities specified in Cchapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. … (e) Types of Useable Open Space: Useable open space includes: … (5) Exterior paved surfaces, except public sidewalks less than five feet in width and those paved areas specifically prohibited in subsection (i) of this section, may be used as open space subject to meeting the following additional standards: … (B) The paved areas shall be accessible and open for use by the tenants, occupants or visitors of the building. To enhance the use of such areas, the paved areas shall include passive recreation amenities which include, without limitation, benches, tables, outdoor short-term bicycle parking areas, ornamental lighting, sculpture, landscape planters or movable planting containers, trees, tree grates, water features, or active recreation amenities which include, without limitation, areas for basketball, volleyball or racquet sports. (f) Special Open Space Requirements Applicable to Residential Uses: Useable open space for residential uses also includes: … (6) In the BMS, MU, IMS, and BR-2, and DT zoning districts, individual balconies, decks, porches and patio areas that will not be enclosed count one hundred percent toward the private open space requirement, provided that such balcony, deck, porch or patio is not less than seventy-two inches in any dimension nor less Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 39 Packet Page 211 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 than sixty square feet in total area. In the BR-2 zoning district, the dimensions and locations of private open space may be varied if the private open space adequately meets the needs of the occupants of the dwelling units and is approved as part of a site review pursuant to section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. … Section 26. Section 9-10-3, “Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-10-3. Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses. Changes to nonstandard buildings, structures, or nonstandard lots and nonconforming uses shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Nonstandard Buildings and Structures: … (2) Maintaining a Nonstandard Setback: If a foundation and the exterior walls above it that encroach into a required setback are removed and replaced, such foundation and wall shall be reconstructed in compliance with Chapter 9-7, "Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. As part of any activity requiring a building permit, in order to maintain a nonstandard setback, at a minimum, the applicant shall: (A) Retain the exterior wall and the existing foundation that it rests upon. The exterior wall shall, at a minimum, retain studs and retain either the inner or exterior sheathing of the exterior wall. Interior sheathing includes, without limitation, plaster, dry walldrywall, or paneling; or … (b) Nonstandard Lots or Parcels: (1) Development Requirements: Vacant lots and parcels in all residential districts except RR-1 and RR-2 which that are smaller than the minimum lot sizes area indicated in Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, but larger than one-half of the required zoning district minimum lot size, may be developed with a detached dwelling unit or, if in the RR and RL-1 zoning districts, pursuant to the standards in Subsection 9-8-3(ab), “Density in the RR-1, RR-2, RL-1, RMX-1, and RH-7 Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, with a duplex or two detached dwelling units, if the following criteria are met: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 40 Packet Page 212 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 a. The building or buildings meet the setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981.; and b. In RR-1 and RR-2 districts, the lots or parcels is at least 7,500 square feet, or which are smaller than the minimum lot size but larger than one-fourth of the minimum lot size may be developed with a detached dwelling unit or, pursuant to the standards in subsection 9-8-3(b), with a duplex or two detached dwelling units, if the building or buildings meet the setback requirements. c. In all other zoning districts, the vacant lots which are is below at least one-half of the required minimum lot size area.for the zoning district shall not be eligible for construction of principal buildings. … Section 27. Section 9-12-5, “Minor Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-12-5. Minor Subdivision. (a) Scope: A minor subdivision is a division of residentially zoned land that is already served by city services, will not require the extension of streets or any public improvements and will not result in more than one additional lot. (b) Standards for Minor Subdivisions: The approving authority will approve a minor subdivision after finding that the following standards have been met:Limitations: The provisions of this section shall not apply to a replat that: (1) The land is in a residential zoning district described in Section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts,” B.R.C. 1981; (2) The resulting lots will contain either no more than two detached dwelling units or one duplex per lot as allowed under this title; (3) The division of land will create no more than one additional lot; (41) The subdivision does not rRequires any modifications waivers pursuant to Subsection 9-12-12(b), "Standards for Lots and Public Improvements Waiver of Lot Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (52) The subdivision does not rRequires the dedication of public or private access easements or public right-of-way for new streets, alleys or shared access driveways; Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 41 Packet Page 213 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (63) The subdivision does not rRequires the extension of a construction of any public improvement such as a street, alley, sidewalk, water main or sewer main,; or requires any engineering plans, including but not limited to drainage reports for any public or private improvement; (7) The subdivision does not require a drainage report for any public or private improvement; (84) The subdivision is not Is located on lands containing slopes of fifteen percent or greater; (95) The subdivision does not rRequires the removal of an existing principal building; or (10) If the minor subdivision is a replat of a previously approved subdivision, the document is named with the same name as that part of the original subdivision and indicates that it is a replat of the original subdivision. Newly adjusted or created lots are designed to adequately indicate that original lot lines have been adjusted with a similar lot name; (11) The lots and existing structures will comply with the lot standards of Section 9- 12-12, “Standards for Lots and Public Improvements,” B.R.C. 1981, and the solar access requirements of Section 9-9-17, ‘Solar Access,” B.R.C. 1981; and (12) No portion of the property is located in the high-hazard zone or the conveyance zone. (6) Is located in a nonresidential zone district described in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981. (c) Application Requirements: The subdivider shall submit to the City the following items: (1) An application for a minor subdivision on a form provided by the city manager and the fee prescribed by Ssection 4-20-43, "Development Application Fees," B.R.C. 1981; (2) A preliminary plat meeting all of the requirements of Ssection 9-12-6, "Application Requirements for a Preliminary Plat," B.R.C. 1981; (3) A final plat meeting all of the requirements of Ssection 9-12-8, "Final Plat," B.R.C. 1981; (4) A title commitment or attorney memorandum based upon an abstract of title, current as of the date of submitting the minor subdivision; Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 42 Packet Page 214 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (5) A lot line and boundary verification required by Ssection 9-12-9, "Lot Line and Boundary Verification," B.R.C. 1981, if the requirements of Ssection 9-12-9, "Lot Line and Boundary Verification," B.R.C. 1981, have not been met on the original plat; and (6) A shadow analysis for any existing buildings that is drawn in compliance with Ssection 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981, and any other standards as may be required by the city manager. (d) Notice Requirements: The subdivider shall satisfy the notice requirements in section 9- 12-7, "Staff Review and Approval of Preliminary Plat," B.R.C. 1981. (e) Standards for Minor Subdivisions: The city manager will approve the minor subdivision after finding that the following standards have been met: (1) The land is in a residential zoning district described in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981; (2) The division of land will create no more than one additional lot; (3) The division of land will not require the extension of any public improvements, including, without limitation, the extension of roads or utilities to serve the property; (4) If the minor subdivision is a replat of a previously approved subdivision, the document shall be named with the same name as that of the original subdivision and shall indicate thereon that it is a replat of the original subdivision. Newly adjusted or created lots shall be designated to adequately indicate that original lot lines have been adjusted with a similar lot name; and (5) The lots and existing structures will comply with the lot standards of section 9-12- 12, "Standards for Lots and Public Improvements," B.R.C. 1981, and the solar access requirements of section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. (f) Existing Streets or Alleys, Dedication and Vacation of Easements: Right-of-way necessary to bring an existing street or alley up to a current City standard, or public easements for utilities or sidewalks may be dedicated on a minor subdivision plat. The City may approve the vacation of City utility easements on the replat. (eg) Minor Subdivision Review Procedure: If the final plat and the required plans, specifications, agreements, and guarantees meet the requirements of this code, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and other ordinances of the cCity or requirements determined by the city manager to be necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, the manager shall approve the final plat in accordance with the procedure set forth in Ssection 9-12-10, "Final Plat Procedure," B.R.C. 1981. If there are no public improvements associated with the minor subdivision, the city manager can waive the requirements for a subdivision agreement. A subdivision agreement is not required for a minor subdivision. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 43 Packet Page 215 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 28. Section 9-14-8, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-8. DEFINITIONS The definitions in Chapter 1-2, "Definitions," and Chapter 9-16, "Definitions, B.R.C. 1981, apply to this chapter unless a term is defined different in this chapter or the context clearly indicates otherwise. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: … (c) Coverage, Impervious. Impervious coverage means the percentage of a lot or parcel developed with principal or accessory structures or other impervious surfaces. (d) Coverage, Semi-pervious. Semi-pervious coverage means the percentage of a lot or parcel developed with semi-pervious surfaces. (ec) Expression Line. Expression line means an architectural feature consisting of a decorative, three-dimensional, linear element, horizontal or vertical, protruding or recessed at least two inches from the exterior facade of a building. Vertical elements may include a column, pilaster, or other vertical ornamentation. Horizontal elements may include a cornice, belt course, molding, string courses, canopy, balcony, or other horizontal ornamentation and projections. Expression lines are typically utilized to delineate the top or bottom of floors or stories of a building or divide a facade into smaller sections. Expression lines are also subject to the following: Figure 14-10. Minimum and Maximum Frontage Setback Lines Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 44 Packet Page 216 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Figure 14-11. Facade Definition (fd) Facade. Facade means the exterior walls of a building exposed to public view and includes walls as shown in Figure 14-11. Facade Definition. (ge) Frontage Setback. Frontage setback means a minimum and maximum setback and is the area in which the facade of a building shall be placed; it may or may not be located directly adjacent to a lot line. The frontage setback dictates the minimum and maximum distance a structure may be placed from a lot or parcel line, easement, or outdoor space in accordance with the measurement requirements of Subsection 9-14-2(b), Frontage Setback,” B.R.C. 1981. Refer to Figure 14-10. Minimum and Maximum Frontage Setback Lines, and Figure 14-11. Facade Definition. (f) Impervious Site Coverage. Impervious site coverage means the percentage of a lot or parcel developed with principal or accessory structures and other surfaces that prevent the absorption of stormwater into the ground, including without limitation, driveways, sidewalks, and patios. (hg) Major Material. Major material means a façade material meeting the standards for major materials established in Section 9-14-28 "Façade Materials," B.R.C. 1981. (ih) Minor Material. Minor material means a façade material meeting the standards for minor materials established in Section 9-14-28, "Façade Materials," B.R.C. 1981. (ji) Mobility Hub. Mobility hub means a designated, easily accessible outdoor space where people can access and transfer between multiple transportation modes, such as public transit, bike share, ride-share, taxis, and micromobility devices. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 45 Packet Page 217 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (kj) Occupied Building Space. Occupied building space means interior building spaces regularly occupied by the building users. It does not include storage areas, utility space, vehicle service areas, parking, or other uninhabitable spaces. (lk) Parking Yard. Parking yard means an area extending from the rear building facade to the rear property line between the side yards or, on a corner property, between the street adjacent side and side yards. Parking yards are fully screened from Type A frontages by the building and do not extend to any side lot line or street lot line. (ml) Paseo. Paseo means a path designed for use by pedestrians and by vehicles that may generally be operated on a sidewalk in the city. The paseo is located mid-block, allowing pedestrian movement through the block from one street to another without traveling along the block's perimeter. (m) Permeable Surface. Permeable surface means a surface that allows water and air to permeate through it, for example, soil or a semi-pervious material. (n) Porch. Porch means a roofed, raised structure at the entrance to the building, providing a transition between the interior of the building and the exterior yard or adjacent sidewalk. Refer to Figure 14-12. Example of a Porch. (o) Public Way. Public way means streets, paseos, and multi-use paths, but not alleys. (p) Semi-Pervious Surface or Material. Semi-pervious surface or material means a material such as pervious pavers, permeable asphalt and concrete, or a green roof that allows for absorption of water into the ground or roof. Figure 14-12. Example of a Porch Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 46 Packet Page 218 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Figure 14-13. Example of a Stoop (pq) Stoop. Stoop means an elevated or at grade platform entranceway at the door to a building, providing a transition between the interior of the building and the sidewalk outside the building. A stoop may be covered by a canopy or awning. Refer to Figure 14- 13. Example of a Stoop. (qr) Story, Ground. Ground story means the first floor of a building that is level to or elevated above the finished grade on the front and corner facades. The ground story excludes basements or cellars. Refer to Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, for a definition for basement. (rs) Story, Half. Half story means either a story in the base of the building, partially below grade and partially above grade, or a story fully within the roof structure with windows or doors facing the street. (st) Story, Upper. Upper story means a story located one story or more above the ground story of a building. (tu) Streetwall. Streetwall means the portion of the building façade that is located generally parallel to and facing the street right-of-way line. Refer to definition of facade. (uv) Street Yard. Street yard means any yard located between the principal building and a street right-of-way. (v) Surface, Permeable. Permeable surface means a non-paved, landscape surface that allows water and air to freely permeate to the ground including, without limitation, soil, mulch, turf, and planting areas. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 47 Packet Page 219 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (w) Surface, Semi-Pervious. Semi-pervious surface means a porous surface or material that allows for water to pass through the soil including, without limitation, permeable pavers, permeable concrete, and a green roof. (x) Surface, Impervious. Impervious surface means solid surface or material that prevents the absorption of water into the soil including, without limitation, asphalt, concrete, and building elements designed to shed water. (yw) Transparency. Transparency means the measurement of the percentage of a facade that has highly transparent, low reflectance windows with (1) on a storefront base, a minimum sixty percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25, and (2) on any façade other than a storefront base, a minimum fifty percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. (zx) Type A Frontage. Type A frontage means a frontage along a Type A street or other feature as defined in this chapter that receives priority over other frontages in terms of locating principal entrances, prioritizing facade design elements, and incorporating design requirements associated with pedestrian orientation. (aay) Type A Street. Type A street means a street designated on the regulating plan that receives priority over other streets in terms of setting front lot lines and locating building entrances. (abz) Type B Frontage. Type B frontage means a frontage along a Type B street or other feature as defined in this chapter that allows for a lower level of facade treatment as well as permits limited locations for garage and parking lot driveway entrances. (aca) Type B Street. Type B street means a street designated on the regulating plan that receives lower priority than Type A street in terms of building frontage and facade requirements; it allows for a lower level of facade treatment as well as permits locations for garage and parking lot driveways entrances. (adb) Type C Frontage. Type C frontage means a frontage along a Type C street or other feature as defined in this chapter that allows for a lower level of façade treatment as well as typically permits limited locations for multiple garage and parking lot driveway entrances. (aec) Type C Street. Type C street means a street designated on the regulating plan that receives lower priority than Type A and Type B street in terms of building frontage and facade requirements. (afd) Visible Basement. Visible basement means a half story partially below grade and partially exposed above. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 48 Packet Page 220 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (age) Yard Definition. Yard is defined in Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981. For the purposes of this chapter, the following standards shall supplement and, where inconsistent, supersede the definition of Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981: … Section 29. Section 9-14-10, “Streetscape and Paseo Design Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-10. STREETSCAPE AND PASEO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (a) General Requirements. In addition to the requirements of the Boulder Revised Code and the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, the streetscape of all new and existing streets, and the design of all paseos and enhanced paseos shall meet the standards of this section. … (3) Additional Design Requirements. The streetscape and paseo design shall meet the following standards: … (D) Permeable Surface Area for Trees. For each tree planted, permeable surface area shall be provided meeting the minimum size requirements established in Table 14-1. Permeable surface means the ground surface above the tree’s critical root area that allows water and air to penetrate down to the roots. (i) Per Tree. Permeable surface area for one tree shall not count towards that of another tree. (ii) Suspended Pavement System. When the required permeable surface area of a tree extends below any non-permeable impervious hardscape, a modular suspended pavement system, such as (Silva Cells, Root Space, or an approved equivalent system,) shall be used below that hardscape to ensure root growth and access to air and water. … Section 30. Section 9-14-11, “Site Design Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 49 Packet Page 221 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 9-14-11. SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (a) Site Access. Site access locations shall be consistent with Section 9-9-5, "Site Access Control," B.R.C. 1981, except as modified below: … (b) Street Yard Design. Street yards, including courtyards and streetscape plazas designed to meet the requirements of Subsection 9-14-14(h), “Required Streetwall Variation,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be designed consistent with the following: … (3) Trees. At least one tree is planted for every 1,000 square feet of any street yard, courtyard, or streetscape plaza area, located in planting areas or tree wells. Street yard trees meet the minimum permeable surface area requirements in Paragraph 9-14-10(a)(3)(D), B.R.C. 1981. … (c) Yards and Setbacks. Setbacks and yards, with the exception of street yards, courtyards, street yard plazas, parking areas, driveways, loading zones, mechanical equipment, and refuse and recycling areas, shall meet the following standards: (1) Trees. To the extent practical and achievable, trees shall be planted at a minimum of one per 1,500 square feet, located in planting areas or tree wells. (2) Landscape Areas. Yards and setbacks shall be designed for a mix of paved and landscaped areas, consistent with the maximum impervious and semi-pervious coverage areas allowed per the building type. … Section 31. Section 9-14-12, “Outdoor Space Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-12. OUTDOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS (a) Intent. The intent of the outdoor space requirements is the provision of common outdoor spaces for gathering and socializing between neighbors as well as to provide breaks in the urban fabric of the area buildings. Outdoor spaces are intended to be directly accessible from the street and other public ways. … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 50 Packet Page 222 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (k) Improvements. When determining the specific improvement standards applicable to each outdoor space type, the following shall apply: … (6) Maximum Impervious and Semi-Pervious Surface. Limitations on impervious and semi-pervious surfaces are provided separately for each open outdoor space type to allow an additional amount of semi-pervious surface area, such as permeable paving, above the maximum permitted impervious surfaces area permitted, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, paths, and structures as permitted. … Table 14-3. PLAZA REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size 0.10 acres Maximum Size 1 acre Minimum Dimension 80 feet Minimum Percentage of Street or Public Way Frontage Required 25% Improvements Designated Sports Fields Not permitted Playgrounds Not permitted Mobility Hub Permitted Fully Enclosed Structures Permitted; may cover maximum 5% of plaza area Maximum Percentage of Outdoor Space That Is Impervious Surface + Maximum Additional Percentage of Semi-Pervious Surface 60%+ 20% Maximum Percentage of Open Water 30% … (n) Green. The intent of the green is to provide an informal outdoor space of medium scale for active or passive recreation located within walking distance for building occupants and visitors. The green is intended to be fronted mainly by streets. Greens shall be Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 51 Packet Page 223 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 designed to meet the standards of Table 14-4. See Figure 14-20. Example of Green. Table 14-4. GREEN REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size 0.25 acres Maximum Size 2 acres Minimum Dimension 45 feet Minimum Percentage of Street or Public Way Frontage Required 100% for greens less than 1.25 acres; 50% for greens 1.25 or more acres in size Improvements Designated Sports Fields Not permitted Playgrounds Permitted Mobility Hub Permitted Fully Enclosed Structures Not permitted Maximum Percentage of Outdoor Space That Is Impervious Surface + Maximum Additional Percentage of Semi-Pervious Impervious Surface + Semi-Pervious Surface 20% + 15% Maximum Percentage of Open Water 30% … (o) Commons. The intent of the commons is to provide an informal, small to medium scale outdoor space for active or passive recreation. Commons are typically internal to a block and tend to serve adjacent building occupants. Commons shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-5. See Figure 14-21. Example of Commons. Table 14-5. COMMONS REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size 0.25 acres Maximum Size 1.5 acres Minimum Dimension 45 feet Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 52 Packet Page 224 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Minimum Percentage of Street or Public Way Frontage Required 0%; requires a minimum of two access points (minimum 20 feet wide) Improvements Designated Sports Fields Not permitted Playgrounds Permitted Mobility Hub Not permitted Fully Enclosed Structures Not permitted Maximum Percentage of Outdoor Space that is Impervious Surface + Maximum Additional Percentage of Semi-Pervious Surface Impervious Surface + Semi- Pervious Surface 30% + 10% Maximum Percentage of Open Water 30% … (p) Pocket Park. The intent of the pocket park is to provide a small scale, primarily landscaped active or passive recreation and gathering space for neighborhood residents within walking distance. Pocket parks shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-6. See Figure 14-22. Example of Plaza. Table 14-6. POCKET PARK REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size 0.10 acres Maximum Size 1 Minimum Dimension None Minimum Percentage of Street Frontage Required 30% Improvements Designated Sports Fields Not permitted Playgrounds Required Mobility Hub Permitted Fully Enclosed Structures Not permitted Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 53 Packet Page 225 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Maximum Percentage of Outdoor Space That Is Impervious Surface + Maximum Additional Percentage of Semi-Pervious Surface Impervious Surface + Semi- Pervious Surface 30% + 10% Maximum Percentage of Open Water 30% … (q) Park/Greenway. The intent of the park/greenway is to provide informal active and passive large-scale recreational amenities to local residents and the greater region. Parks have primarily natural plantings and are frequently created around an existing natural feature such as a water body or stands of trees. Parks/greenways shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-7. See Figure 14-23. Example of Parks/Greenways. Table 14-7. PARK/GREENWAY REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size 2 acres Maximum Size None Minimum Dimension 30 feet; minimum average width of 80 feet Minimum Percentage of Street Frontage Required 30% for parks less than 5 acres; 20% for parks 5 or more acres in size Improvements Designated Sports Fields Permitted Playgrounds Permitted Mobility Hub Permitted Fully Enclosed Structures Permitted in parks 5 acres or larger in size Maximum Percentage of Outdoor Space That Is Impervious Surface + Maximum Additional Percentage of Semi-Pervious Surface Impervious Surface + Semi- Pervious Surface 20% + 10% Maximum Percentage of Open Water 50% Section 32. Section 9-14-14, “Requirements Applicable to all Building Types,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: BUILDING TYPES 9-14-14. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL BUILDING TYPES (a) Purpose. The purpose of the building type requirements is to establish standards for building design, building form, siting of buildings, and specific uses based on the building type that may be utilized on a property pursuant to the applicable regulating plan or as otherwise authorized. … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 54 Packet Page 226 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (m) Modifications. The approving authority may approve the following modifications to building type requirements if it finds the proposed design substantially meets the intent of the requirement being modified: (1) Building Location. The location of the building within up to one foot from any minimum setback or frontage setback width or location requirement. (2) Impervious Coverage. Up to a ten percent increase in total impervious coverage, not to exceed the total amount of allowed impervious plus semi-pervious coverage. (3) Type A Frontage Streetwall. For the commercial storefront building only, up to ten percent decrease in Type A frontage streetwall requirements. (4) Story Height. An additional height of any floor-to-floor story height up to two feet, provided the overall building height does not exceed the maximum permitted height. (5) Transparency. Up to two percent reduction of the required transparency on a non-Type A frontage facade; and up to four square feet increase of the blank wall area limitation of paragraph 9-14-26(g)(2) on a non-Type A frontage facade. Section 33. Section 9-14-16, “Main Street Storefront Building Type,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-16. MAIN STREET STOREFRONT BUILDING TYPE Refer to Section 9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” B.R.C. 1981, for the locations of buildings in the form-based code areas. BOULDER JUNCTION PHASE I REFERENCES/ ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SITING Refer to Figure 14-25. Type A Frontage Streetwall, minimum 90% Refer to Subsection 9-14-14(g), B.R.C. 1981, for courtyard allowance. Type A Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 0 ft. to 5 ft. Refer to Subsection 9-14-26(b), B.R.C. 1981, for measuring minimum and maximum setbacks. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 55 Packet Page 227 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Type B Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 0 ft. to 5 ft. Side Yard Setback, minimum 5 ft.; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path For paseos and multi-use paths, refer to the regulating plans and the Transit Village Connections Plan for locations and details.  Rear Yard Setback, minimum 10 ft.; minimum 25 ft. if no alley; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path  Building Length along any Type A & B Frontage, maximum 150 ft. Refer to Section 9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements.  Site Impervious Coverage, maximum Additional Semi- Pervious Coverage, maximum 70% 25% Refer to Section 9-14-8, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, for semi- pervious coverage.  Surface or Accessory Parking Location Parking yard only Refer to Sections 9-9-12 and 9-9-14, B.R.C. 1981, for landscaping and screening requirements. Refer to Subsection 9-14-11(a), B.R.C. 1981, for driveway access. Refer to Subsections 9-14-14 (j), (k), and (l), B.R.C. 1981, for trash & recycling, garage entrances, and loading. HEIGHT Refer to Figure 14-26.  Overall: Minimum Height Maximum Height 2 stories minimum 3 stories maximum and up to 40' in height north of Goose Creek and west of Junction Place; 5 stories maximum elsewhere up to 55' Refer to subsection 9-14-26(e) for height measuring requirements and section 9-14-31 for building massing requirements. Subsection 9-14-25(g), “Towers," B.R.C. 1981, allows additional height in a limited footprint. Heights shown may be  otherwise regulated by Section  9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” and/or Section 9-14- 7, “View Corridors,” B.R.C. 1981 Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 56 Packet Page 228 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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  Story: Minimum Height Maximum Height 9' 12' Stories are measured floor to floor. Refer to subsection 9-14-26(f) for explanation of measurement. Refer to allowed base types for story height requirements in the ground story. … Section 34. Section 9-14-17, “Commercial Storefront Building Type,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-17. COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT BUILDING TYPE Refer to Section 9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” B.R.C. 1981, for the locations of buildings in the form-based code areas. BOULDER JUNCTION PHASE I REFERENCES/ ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SITING Refer to Figure 14-28. Type A Frontage Streetwall, minimum 60% required Type A Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 12 ft. to 20 ft. along Valmont and 30th Street; 0 ft. to 10 ft. along new streets Type B Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 0 ft. to 10 ft. Side Yard Setback, minimum 5 ft.; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path For paseos and multi-use paths, refer to the regulating plans and the Transit Village Connections Plan for locations and details. Rear Yard Setback, minimum 15 ft.; 25 ft. required if no alley; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path Building Length any Type A & B Frontage, maximum 90 ft. Refer to Section 9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 57 Packet Page 229 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Site Impervious Coverage, maximum Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage, maximum 70% 25% Refer to Section 9-14-8, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, for semi-pervious coverage. Surface or Accessory Parking Parking yard & interior side yard Refer to Sections 9-9-12 and 9- 9-14, B.R.C. 1981, for landscaping and screening requirements. Refer to Subsection 9-14-11(a), B.R.C. 1981, for driveway access. Refer to Subsections 9-14-14 (j), (k), and (l), B.R.C. 1981, for trash & recycling, garage entrances, and loading. HEIGHT Refer to Figure 14-29.  Overall: Minimum Height Maximum Height 1 story 3 stories, 35 ft. Refer to Subsection 9-14-26(e), B.R.C. 1981, for h e i g h t measuring requirements and Section, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Subsection 9-14-25(g), “Towers,” B.R.C. 1981, allows additional height in a limited footprint.9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Subsection 9-14- 25(g), “Towers,” B.R.C. 1981, allows additional height in a limited footprint.  Ground Story: Minimum Height Maximum Height 12 ft. 18 ft. Stories are measured floor to floor. Refer to Subsection 9-14- 26(f), B.R.C. 1981, for explanation of measurement.  Story Height: Minimum Height Maximum Height 9 ft. 14 ft. Stories are measured floor to floor. Refer to Subsection 9-14- 26(f), B.R.C. 1981, for explanation of measurement. … Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 58 Packet Page 230 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 35. Section 9-14-18, “General Building Type,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-18. GENERAL BUILDING TYPE Refer to Section 9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” B.R.C. 1981, for the locations of buildings in the form-based code areas.  BOULDER JUNCTION PHASE I ALPINE- BALSAM EAST BOULDER REFERENCES/ ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SITING Refer to FIGURE 14-31.  Type A Frontage Streetwall, minimum 90% 80% 80% Refer to 9-14-14(g) for allowed courtyards in the streetwall and 9- 14-14(h) for definition of required streetwall variation.  Streetwall Variation for Type A and Type B Frontages -- -- Required for buildings over 180 ft. in width  Type A Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 5 ft. to 10 ft. 5 ft. to 20 ft. 10 ft. to 25 ft. Refer to Section 9- 14-26, B.R.C. 1981, for measuring minimum and maximum setbacks.  Type B Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 5 ft. to 10 ft. 5 ft. to 20 ft. 5 ft. to 20 ft.  Type C Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum -- -- 0 to 15 ft.  Side Yard Setback, minimum 5'; 0' required at paseo or multi-use path For paseos and multi- use path locations, refer to the regulating plans and the connections plans for the form-based code area.  Rear Yard Setback, minimum 10 ft.; 25 ft. required if no alley; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path 15 ft.; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path  Building Length along Type A & B Frontage, maximum 150 ft. 65 ft. in Gener al Mix 2 area; none in General --- Refer to Section 9-14- 31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 59 Packet Page 231 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Mix 1 area; refer to map, Figure 14-2. Site Impervious Coverage, maximum Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage, maximum 70% 25% 65% 25% 65% 25% Refer to Section 9-14- 8, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, for semi-pervious coverage. Surface or Accessory Parking Location Parking yard only No surface parking allowed Parking yard only except limited side yard parking allowed in Valmont Park West, Valmont Park East, and Flatiron Business Park Refer to Sections 9-9- 12 and 9-9-14, B.R.C. 1981, for landscaping and screening requirements. Refer to Subsection 9-14-11(a), B.R.C. 1981, for driveway access. Refer to Subsections 9-14-14 (j), (k), and (l), B.R.C. 1981, for trash & recycling, garage entrances, and loading. Refer to Subsection 9- 14-26(c) for limited side yard parking. HEIGHT Refer to FIGURE 14-32.  Overall: Minimum Height 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories Refer to Subsection 9-14-26(e), B.R.C. 1981, for height measuring requirements and Section 9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Subsection 9-14- 25(g), “Towers,” B.R.C. 1981, allows additional height in a limited footprint. Maximum Height 3 stories, 40 ft. north of Goose Creek and west of Junction Place; 5 stories, 55 ft. elsewhere 3 stories and 35’ without pitched roof; 3 stories and 55’with pitched roof; or 4 stories and 55’; see regulati 5 stories, 55 ft. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 60 Packet Page 232 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 ng plan for maximu m height location s Location-Specific Maximum Height Heights shown may be otherwise regulated by Section 9-14-6, B.R.C., “Regulating Plans,” and/or Section 9- 14-7, “View Corridors,” B.R.C. 1981. All Stories: Minimum Height Maximum Height 9 ft. 18 ft. 9 ft. -- 9 ft. 18 ft. Stories are measured floor to floor. Refer to Subsection 9-14-26(f), B.R.C. 1981, for explanation of Base Types: See allowances for additional height within specific base types allowed, line of this table measurement. … Section 36. Section 9-14-19, “Row Building Type,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-19. ROW BUILDING TYPE Refer to Section 9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” B.R.C. 1981, for the locations of buildings in the form-based code areas.  BOULDE R JUNCTIO N PHASE I ALPINE- BALSAM EAST BOULDER REFERENCES/ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SITING Refer to FIGURE 14-34. For the purposes of the Row Building, a building consists of multiple vertical units.  Type A Frontage Streetwall, minimum 80% 80% 65% Each unit shall have a facade located within the frontage setback, except 1 of every 2 units may front a courtyard or outdoor space type. Courtyards, minimum 30 feet wide and 30 Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 61 Packet Page 233 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 feet deep, may count towards Type A streetwall. Type A Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 5 ft. to 15 ft. 5 ft. to 15 ft. 5 ft. to 25 ft. Frontage setbacks are measured from the outside edge of any public access easement for sidewalk or the right-of-way, if no public access easement for sidewalk and streetscape is required or exists, or from the outside edge of any flood or drainage easement, where the frontage is along a flood or drainage area. Refer to subsections 9-14-26(b) for additional information. Type B Frontage Setback, minimum to maximum 5 ft. to 15 ft. 5 ft. to 15 ft. 5 ft. to 25 ft. Side Yard Setback, minimum 7.5 ft.; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi- use path Rear Yard Setback, minimum 20 ft.; 30 ft. if no alley; 5 ft. for detached garage Building Length, minimum to maximum 3 to 6 units or 120 ft., whichever is less Space between Buildings, minimum 10 ft. Site Impervious Coverage, maximum Additional Semi- Pervious Coverage, maximum 60% 20% 60% 20% 60% 20% Refer to Section 9-14-8, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, for semi-pervious coverage. Yard Area, minimum 225 square feet rear yard required for each unit not fronting a courtyard or outdoor space type. Surface or Accessory Parking Location Parking yard only Parking yard only Parking yard only Refer to Sections 9-9-12 and 9- 9-14, B.R.C. 1981, for landscaping and screening requirements. Refer to Subsection 9-14-11(a), B.R.C. 1981, for driveway access. Refer to Subsections 9-14-14 Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 62 Packet Page 234 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 (j), (k), and (l), B.R.C. 1981, for trash & recycling, garage entrances, and loading. … Section 37. Section 9-14-20, “Workshop Building Type,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-20 WORKSHOP BUILDING TYPE Refer to Section 9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” B.R.C. 1981, for the locations of buildings in the form-based code areas.  EAST BOULDER REFERENCES/ADDITIONA L REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SITING Refer to FIGURE 14-37.  Type A Frontage Streetwall, minimum 65% Refer to 9-14-14(g) for allowed courtyards in the streetwall and 9-14-14(h) definition of required streetwall variation.  Streetwall Variation for Type A Frontages Required  Type A Frontage Setback, Minimum to maximum 5 ft. to 25 ft. Refer to Section 9-14-26, B.R.C. 1981, for measuring minimum and maximum setbacks.  Type B Frontage Setback, minimum 5 ft.  Type C Frontage Setback, minimum 5 ft.  Side Yard Setback, minimum 5 ft.; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path For paseos and multi-use paths, refer to the regulating plans and section 9-14-6 for locations and details.  Rear Yard Setback, minimum 10 ft.; 25 ft. required if no alley; 0 ft. required at paseo or multi-use path  Site Impervious Coverage, maximum Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage, maximum 70% 25% Refer to Section 9-14-8, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, for semi-pervious coverage.  Surface or Accessory Parking Location Limited side yard & parking yard only Refer to Sections 9-9-12 and 9- 9-14, B.R.C. 1981, for landscaping and screening Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 63 Packet Page 235 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 requirements. Refer to Subsection 9-14-11(a), B.R.C. 1981, for driveway access. Refer to Subsections 9-14-14 (j), (k), and (l), B.R.C. 1981, for trash & recycling, garage entrances, and loading. Refer to Subsection 9-14-26(c) for limited side yard parking. HEIGHT Refer to FIGURE 14-38.  Overall: Minimum Height 1 story Refer to Subsection 9-14- 26(e), B.R.C. 1981, for height measuring requirements and Section 9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Subsection 9-14-25(g), “Towers,” B.R.C. 1981, allows additional height in a limited footprint. Maximum Height 3 stories, 55 ft.  All Stories: Minimum Height Maximum Height 9 ft. 18 ft. Stories are measured floor to floor. Refer to Subsection 9-14- 26(f), B.R.C. 1981, for explanation of measurement. Base Types: See allowances for additional height within specific base types allowed, line of this table   … Section 38. Section 9-14-21, “Civic Building Type,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-21. CIVIC BUILDING TYPE The Civic building type is not mapped on the regulating plans. It is permitted in any location in any of the form-based code areas except it is prohibited in East Boulder. The uses permitted in this building type are very limited. Refer to Section 9-14-6, “Regulating Plans,” B.R.C. 1981.    BOULDER JUNCTION PHASE I ALPINE- BALSAM REFERENCES/ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SITING Refer to FIGURE 14-40. Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 64 Packet Page 236 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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  Minimum Type A Streetwall, minimum None required None required  Type A Frontage Setback, minimum 20' 20'  Type B Frontage Setback, minimum 15' 15'  Side Yard Setback, minimum 15'; 0' required at paseo or multi-use path For paseos and multi-use paths, refer to the regulating plans and the Transit Village Connections Plan for locations and details.  Rear Yard Setback, minimum 15'; 0' required at paseo or multi-use path  Building Length, maximum None required None required Refer to Section 9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements.  Site Impervious Coverage, minimum Additional Semi- Pervious Coverage, maximum 50% 20% 50% 20% Refer to Section 9-14-8, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, for semi- pervious coverage.  Surface or Accessory Parking Location Parking yard only No surface parking allowed Refer to Sections 9-9-12 and 9- 9-14, B.R.C. 1981, for landscaping and screening requirements. Refer to Subsection 9-14-11(a), B.R.C. 1981, for driveway access. Refer to Subsections 9-14-14 (j), (k), and (l), B.R.C. 1981, for trash & recycling, garage entrances, and loading. HEIGHT Refer to FIGURE 14-41.       Overall: Minimum Height Maximum Height 1 story 5 stories up to 55' 1 story 5 stories up to55' Refer to Subsection 9-14-26(2), B.R.C. 1981, for height measuring requirements and Section 9-14-31, B.R.C. 1981, for building massing requirements. Subsection 9-14- 25(g), “Towers,” B.R.C. 1981, Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 65 Packet Page 237 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 allows additional height in a limited footprint.  All Stories: Minimum Height Maximum Height 9' 18'; 24' on single story building 9' 18'; 24' on single story building Stories are measured floor to floor. Refer to Subsection 9- 14-26(f), B.R.C. 1981, for explanation of measurement. …   Section 39. Section 9-14-26, “Measurement of Building Type Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-26. MEASUREMENT OF BUILDING TYPE REQUIREMENTS The standards outlined in the tables in Sections 9-14-16 through 9-14-21, B.R.C. 1981, applicable to each building type, shall be measured and calculated consistent with the following standards: … (d) Maximum Site Impervious and Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage. Site iImpervious and additional semi-pervious coverage shall be calculated and measured as follows. Refer to Figure 14-53. Site Impervious and Semi-Pervious Coverage. (1) Maximum Site Impervious Coverage. The maximum site impervious coverage is the maximum percentage of a lot permitted to be covered by structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces. (2) Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage. In addition to the allowable impervious coverage on a site, a maximum amount of additional semi-pervious coverage is permitted. Figure 14-53. Site Impervious and Semi-Pervious Coverage Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 66 Packet Page 238 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 … Section 40. Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-16-1. General Definitions. (a) The definitions contained in Chapter 1-2, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title unless a term is defined differently in this chapter. (b) Terms identified with the references shown below after the definition are limited to those specific sections or chapters of this title: (1) Airport influence zone (AIZ). (2) Floodplain regulations (Floodplain). (3) Historic preservation (Historic). (4) Inclusionary housing (Inclusionary Housing). (5) Solar access (Solar). (6) Wetlands Protection (Wetlands). (7) Signs (Signs). (c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … A—E … Boarding house means an establishment subject to the City of Boulder Building Code where, for direct or indirect compensation, lodging, with or without meals, is offered for one month or more. A boarding house does not include a fraternity, or sorority, or detached dwelling unit. … F—J … Hostel means a facility for residence that offers temporary lodging of under one month that provides simple dormitory or sleeping rooms and common rooms for cooking, meeting, recreational, and educational use; that is chartered or approved by the International Hostel Federation or its national or regional affiliates, or similar organizations; and that is supervised by Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 67 Packet Page 239 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 resident house-parents or managers who direct the guests' participation in the domestic duties and activities of the hostel. … U—Z … Yard, front, rear, and side means the open space between the buildings and the property lines at the front, rear, and sides of the property, respectively and consistent with Figures 16-4 and 16-5 of this section. On a corner lot, the open space adjacent to the shorter street right-of- way shall be considered the front yard. The rear yard is opposite the front yard, and the side yard is between the rear yard and the front yard. (See Figures 16-4 and 16-5 of this section.) Figure 16-4: Yards for Irregularly Shaped Lots Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 68 Packet Page 240 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 To the extent possible, setbacks of irregular lots will match the setbacks of adjacent lots. Figure 16-5: Front, Rear, and Side Yards Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 69 Packet Page 241 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 F: FRONT YARD R: REAR YARD S: INTERIOR SIDE YARD SAS: SIDE ADJACENT STREET S=F: SIDE EQUALS FRONT Section 41. Appendix B in Chapter 16, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is repealed and reserved as follows: APPENDIX B. SETBACK RELATIVE TO BUILDING HEIGHT RESERVED Section 42. Appendix I in Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Appendix I – FORM AND BULK STANDARDS Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 70 Packet Page 242 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 71 Packet Page 243 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 Section 43. Section 10-2-2, “Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code With Modifications,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-2-2. Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code With Modifications. (a) The 2024 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) of the International Code Council is hereby adopted by reference as the City of Boulder Property Maintenance Code and has the same force and effect as though fully set forth in this chapter, except as specifically amended for local application by this chapter. …     APPENDIX C ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STRUCTURES ENERGY CONSERVATION C101 SCOPE C101.1 Scope. Appendix C sets standards for residential rental dwelling unit energy efficiency. Effective January 2, 2019, tThe energy efficiency requirements of this section shall apply to all residential rental dwelling units licensed according to Chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, except: 1. Buildings that can be verified as meeting or exceeding the energy efficiency requirements of the Energy Conservation Code, Chapter 10-7, B.R.C. 1981; and 2. Any manufactured home; and 3. Attached accessory dwelling units as detailed in Section 9-6-3, "Specific Use Standards Residential Uses," B.R.C. 1981. … Section 44. 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 45. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 72 Packet Page 244 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 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 15th day of May 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING AND CONTINUED this 5th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 73 Packet Page 245 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8697 3rd rdg 2025 P&DS Code Clean-Up Ord-.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 CONTINUED SECOND READING, AMENDED AND PASSED this 12th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk READ ON THIRD READING AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8697 Item 2K - 3rd Rdg ORD 8697 2025 Code Cleanup Page 74 Packet Page 246 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (C EA P) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Melanie Sloan, Transportation Principal Project 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 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project C ommunity Environmental Assessment Process (C EA P) AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3A - North 30th Street P reliminary Design P roject - Community E nv ironmental Assessment P rocess (C E AP ) I tem 3A - 25_06_26_N_30th_C E AP _Council_Memo_RE VI SE D 062625 Packet Page 247 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Call Up Consideration Item: Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager Gerrit Slatter, Principal Transportation Projects Engineer Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer Melanie Sloan, Transportation Principal Project Manager Daniel Sheeter, Transportation Principal Planner John McFarlane, Transportation Senior Planner Anna Kramer, Transportation Planning Intern EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project is to make north 30th Street, from Arapahoe Avenue to Diagonal Highway, safer, more comfortable and connected. The project will address the actions of the Vision Zero Action Plan by implementing proven safety countermeasures on this Core Arterial Network (CAN) corridor that is also on the High Risk Network (HRN). Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 1 Packet Page 248 of 1100 The North 30th Street design project has followed an accelerated timeline over 10 months between August 2024 and July 2025 (similar projects usually are completed in 15 to 18 months). The expedited timeline was pursued to help the project stay on schedule with federal funding requirements and in response to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate the project development process for corridors on the CAN, a council priority initiative. Staff completed a Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) that included robust engagement with the community, businesses and emergency response partners, analysis of existing conditions data, a week-long community informed design workshop, policy and plan review, and evaluation of conceptual alternatives using a CEAP checklist and project specific evaluation criteria. The North 30th Street design project’s CEAP appears on this June 26, 2025 council meeting agenda as a Call-Up/Check-In item for council consideration. If council is supportive of the recommended conceptual design alternative, pending the Transportation Advisory Board’s final deliberation on June 23, 2025, then council can formalize a support decision for the project’s recommend design by not calling this item up. However, if council chooses to call this item up, then the project CEAP and its recommended design will then be agendized for the July 24, 2025 council meeting as a public hearing item for council decision. Following City Council approval of the CEAP, staff will complete final design and implementation of 30th Street from Pearl Street to Diagonal Highway and the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection. This work will continue through 2029 using awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant funding. The city will seek additional funding for the unfunded section of north 30th Street from Arapahoe Avenue to Pearl Street. STAFF RECOMENDATION The CEAP recommended design combines elements of three alternatives developed through a week-long design workshop because no individual alternative adequately balanced project goals and community priorities for safety and travel time, and for implementation feasibility. Implementation feasibility is important because of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant funds timeline requirements as well as previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. The CEAP recommended design combines elements from each of the three alternatives. The recommended alternative includes: • Strategic vehicle lane repurposing (Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street) o A new center turn lane between Corona Trail and Eagle Way addresses a common crash pattern, provides a safe place for drivers to wait to turn off of north 30th Street, and allows traffic to flow around the turning vehicle. o Painted medians and a striped lane from Bluff Street to Pearl Street provide dedicated space for emergency response, including Boulder Fire - Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 2 Packet Page 249 of 1100 Rescue from Fire Station #3 at Bluff Street and Boulder Police Department from 33rd Street and Canyon Boulevard. • Protected intersection elements and traffic signal changes o Provide the space for everyone, from drivers to people walking, biking and rolling, to travel safely and more comfortably through signalized intersections, where most crashes occur on north 30th Street. o Crossing distances are shortened and traffic signals provide enough time for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street separate from turning vehicles. • On-street protected bike lanes o On-street protected bike lanes with concrete separation between the bike and vehicle lanes provide greater protection and reduce the potential for crashes.  In constrained locations, near the Boulder Slough and south of Canyon Boulevard, the on-street protected bike lane transitions to sidewalk-level to ensure continuous concrete separation between people biking and driving without the need to require right-of- way. • Improved pedestrian connections o Existing sidewalks are kept separate from the protected bike lanes and vehicle lanes to provide dedicated space for people walking and rolling. o New midblock crossings reduce existing gaps in street crossings of 30th Street north of Valmont Road. • Transit upgrades o Floating bus stop designs support transit speed and reliability by not requiring buses to move in and out of traffic at stops. o Existing stops are better aligned with intersecting bus routes and popular destinations. o Shelters and benches are provided to improve the transit rider experience. • Urban design o Strategic lane repurposing and providing on-street protected bike lanes creates fewer impacts behind the existing curbs resulting in 100% of the existing public street trees being retained or replanted. o Repurposing lanes, including removal of right-turn slip lanes, creates opportunities for new plantings and other amenities like landscaping and seating. o Retaining trees and adding new landscaping can reduce urban heat and improve air quality. • Implementable safety improvements o The recommendation can be mostly implemented within the existing curb-to-curb width and so is buildable within existing funding and timeline constraints of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant and previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. • Maintainable designs o All design elements can be maintained using existing maintenance crews and the city’s existing fleet of snow/ice equipment. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 3 Packet Page 250 of 1100  Snow removal from sidewalks will continue to be the responsibility of adjacent property owners, per city code. o Buffers between protected bike lanes, sidewalks and vehicle lanes provide space for snow storage. • Minimal travel time change o Traffic modeling found an average* travel time increase of about 1.5 minutes for end-to-end trips.  *Average of morning and evening peak travel time changes.  Only a small percentage of travelers will experience this travel time increase because less than 10% of all vehicle trips travel the corridor end-to-end.  To the majority of drivers who travel on north 30th Street, the travel time change will be less than the 1.5 minute average, and so likely imperceptible over time. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic - The North 30th Street project helps the city achieve its economic goals by the provision of and investment in infrastructure that attracts, sustains and retains businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers, and by ensuring safe and comfortable connections to destinations along the corridor and on the broader city transportation network. • Environmental - The North 30th Street project helps the city achieve its environmental goals by providing safe and comfortable multimodal transportation options which can reduce vehicle use and vehicle miles travelled and thus reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources and greenhouse gas emissions. These changes can also protect water and air quality through utilization of existing infrastructure, by preserving existing public street trees, and through the reduction of mobile source emissions. • Social - The North 30th Street project helps the city achieve its social health goals by providing an all ages and abilities corridor with safer and more comfortable transportation options no matter how someone chooses to travel. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 4 Packet Page 251 of 1100 OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – Planning through conceptual design will cost $1.0 million and is funded with an $800,000 federal Transportation Improvement program (TIP) grant awarded by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and $200,000 of city funds. Final design and implementation of the recommended design from the Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street and at the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection is estimated to cost about $9 million, within the awarded federal Safe Streets and Roads for All grant. The city will seek additional funds for final design and implementation of the segment of north 30th Street from Pearl Street to Arapahoe Avenue. • Staff time – This project is part of staff’s normal work plan. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK On June 23, 2025, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) held a public hearing on this project to consider a recommendation to City Council on the CEAP evaluation and recommended design. Because the submittal for this council memo was due prior to the TAB meeting, there are no results to share at the time of this reading. The outcome of the June 23, 2025 TAB meeting will be communicated to council members in advance of this June 26, 2025 council meeting. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The community engagement strategy for conceptual design of the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project consisted of three phases: 1. Spring 2024 —Winter 2024/2025: Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience; 2. Winter—Spring 2025: Community Input on Conceptual Design Alternatives and the Draft CEAP Evaluation; and 3. Spring 2025: Community Input on Final CEAP Evaluation and Recommended Design. Spring 2024-Winter 2024/2025: Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience A priority of the project team was to focus on engaging the diverse residents along north 30th Street and prioritizing the voices of historically excluded and currently underrepresented communities. The project team met people where they were, at places like bus stops, grocery stores, schools, community events, and at their residential communities. The project team held focus group discussions with residents of Orchard Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 5 Packet Page 252 of 1100 Grove Manufactured Home Community, San Juan del Centro apartments, Boulder Housing Partners apartments, Bluebird apartments, Boulder Junction, and the business community to get more detailed feedback from participants and understand the unique needs of these community members. At all events where Spanish-speaking community members may have been in attendance, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available. An online questionnaire was also offered in English and Spanish. Outreach methods reached nearly 6,000 community members and twenty-one engagement activities saw close to 1,000 participants. Comments provided feedback on challenges and opportunities to inform development of improvements. The community shared these common themes: • Safety for Pedestrians & Bicyclists: Many people want physical separation between people who walk, bike, and roll and want wider bike lanes, too. • Desire to Walk, Bike or Take Transit More: Many people expressed a desire to walk, bike, or use transit more when traveling on north 30th Street. • Crossings Should Be Safe & Accessible: Many highlighted the need for longer crossing times, especially for disabled and older residents. • Transit Riders Want Better Bus Stops: Bus stops often lack comfortable waiting areas and some could be relocated to better serve community destinations. • Vehicle Speeds Are A Major Concern: All participants want vehicle speeds to be lower on north 30th Street. • Enhancing Traffic Flow & Calming Are Both Important: Community members recognize a dual need to increase traffic calming and reduce congestion. • Bicycle Connectivity Is Key: Community members want a connected low-stress bike facility between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Avenue. • Overwhelming Support for Improved Intersections: Safety improvements at intersections would benefit everyone regardless of how they travel. • Support for Business Access: People want businesses to be accessible by multiple travel modes for both customers and employees. • Desire for Placemaking, Trees and Green Space: Community members want the project to preserve street trees and generally make north 30th Street more attractive. The project team also met with staff from the City of Boulder Police Department (BPD), Boulder Fire-Rescue (BFR), and the Boulder Office of Disaster Management (ODM) to understand how north 30th Street functioned for them today. Winter-Spring 2025: Community Input on Conceptual Design Alternatives and the Draft CEAP Evaluation To meet the accelerated timeline to align with awarded federal funding requirements, the project conducted a week-long design workshop in January 2025. Open design studios during the week invited community members and emergency response partners to provide feedback on potential improvements which helped the project team develop three conceptual design alternatives. Hand sketches of the three conceptual design alternatives Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 6 Packet Page 253 of 1100 were shared with the community the final night of the design workshop at an in-person Open House at the city’s Park Central Building (Figure 1). Figure 1: Participants at the design workshop In March and April 2025, staff completed the draft CEAP evaluation of the three alternatives and shared the results with the public at in-person and virtual open houses and office hours at Boulder Housing Partners 30Pearl Apartments, San Juan Del Centro, and Fire Station #3. Similar to the first phase of engagement, at events where Spanish-speaking community members may have been in attendance, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available. (Figure 2). The project team again met with emergency response (staff from the BPD, BFR, and ODM) to gain their feedback on the designs and draft CEAP evaluation. Input received from this phase of engagement helped the project team identify what priorities the community cares most about when it comes to improving north 30th Street. The project team considered these priorities when identifying the recommendation. Figure 2: Office hours at San Juan del Centro Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 7 Packet Page 254 of 1100 Participants prioritized: o Vehicle speed moderation o Bike safety o Transit priority o Urban design and placemaking • People wanted: o Wider bike lanes. o Protected signal phases, especially at intersections with east-west streets, to reduce conflicts between left-turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. o Existing public street trees and green space to be preserved. Spring 2025: Community Input on Final CEAP Evaluation and Recommended Design In May and June 2025, the final CEAP evaluation and recommended design were shared with the community at in-person events and online. People were asked to share what they are excited about the recommendation, what concerns them, and how project staff could mitigate their concerns as the design is advanced. Community members reported being excited about: • Safer walking and biking from protected and widened bike lanes and separation of people walking, rolling and biking from vehicle traffic. • Intersection improvements like protected intersections, right-turn slip lane removal at intersections, and bike signals at intersections. • Improved crossings, especially the two new pedestrian crossings north of Valmont Road and the upgraded crossings south of Spruce Street and south of Walnut Street. • Traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds and the lowered the speed limit through the separate but related Citywide Speed Limit Setting project. • Overall project approach demonstrated a balanced design approach to provide safety improvement with minimal increase in travel time that also preserves existing street trees. The community shared concerns for: • Insufficient safety improvements for walking and biking • Vehicle speeds remaining too high • Vehicle travel time increases • Shared floating bus stop designs creating conflicts between people biking and transit riders • Construction impacts Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 8 Packet Page 255 of 1100 Project information, including the online open house materials, can be found at the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project webpage. BACKGROUND North 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue (CO-7) and Diagonal Highway (CO-119) (Figure 3) is a primary north-south arterial street in Boulder and provides local and regional connections to Boulder Junction, the University of Colorado-Boulder (CU) East Campus, the 29th Street Mall, market rate and affordable housing for families and students, and small and large businesses. It is one of the most diverse streets in Boulder in terms of land uses and demographics, and it is also an important multi-modal travel corridor with 14,000 to 19,800 vehicles, 600 transit riders, and 2,200 walk and bike trips on a typical day. This project is part of the City’s Core Arterial Network (CAN) initiative. The CAN is a connected system of safe multimodal streets with protected bicycle lanes, intersection enhancements, pedestrian facilities, and transit facility upgrades. This connected system will help reduce the potential for severe crashes and make it more comfortable and convenient for people to get where they need to go along Boulder’s main corridors. The CAN initiative is key to implementing the city's Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP), a City Council commitment to end fatal and serious-injury crashes. However, north 30th Street does not provide the safest, most comfortable connections regardless of how you travel. In the city’s 2019 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the city’s 2019 Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan, north 30th Street is called out as needing greater separation and protection between the vehicle and on-street bicycle lanes due to the posted speed limit of Figure 3: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 9 Packet Page 256 of 1100 35mph, existing vehicle volumes being greater than 6,000 per day, and the role 30th St plays as a central and direct route in the city’s bike network for north-south and east-west trips. The Low-Stress Plan also identified Pedestrian Improvement Areas on 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Walnut Street, and Glenwood Drive to Diagonal Highway where new sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades were needed. The TMP also designated north 30th Street as a high- frequency transit service corridor with bus frequences of 15 minutes or better. The 2022 Safe Streets Report (SSR) found that between 2018 and 2020, 14,500 people were involved in a crash in Boulder, resulting in 150 serious injuries. Sixty-seven percent of severe traffic crashes, those that result in serious injury or fatality, occur on arterial streets, like 30th Street. The report found these severe injury crashes occurred at several intersections on north 30th Street: Arapahoe Avenue, Pearl Street and Valmont Road. Data analysis for the project revealed these three intersections see 52% of all crashes on north 30th Street. Alarmingly, two out of three serious injury or fatal crashes on north 30th Street involved someone walking, biking or rolling (Figure 4). Figure 4: Serious Injury and Fatal Crash Data for North 30th Street In 2023, the 2023-2027 Vision Zero Action Plan (VAP) identified specific actions and strategies to address the findings of the SSR. Two core strategies of the VZAP are to work on the CAN and the High Risk Network (HRN), streets in the city where severe crashes have or are more likely to occur. North 30th Street is on the CAN and the HRN. The North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project completed a CEAP to identify a recommended design that incorporates proven safety countermeasures with a focus on increasing mobility choices, improving safety for everyone, making walking, biking, Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 10 Packet Page 257 of 1100 rolling, scooting, and taking transit more attractive and convenient, and improving connections to local, citywide and regional destinations. North 30th Street has three segments with distinct differences in transportation design, land use, and other features (Error! Reference source not found.): • North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road o Primarily multi-family residential o Narrowest right-of-way segment o Lowest vehicle volumes o Highest transit stop use o Connects to the Wonderland Creek Multi-Use Path o Mature tree canopy, especially Glenwood to Valmont • Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue o A mix of small commercial and automotive commercial uses o Wider right-of-way than North, narrower than South o Fire Station #3 located at Bluff Street o More vehicles than North but less than South o Least transit stop use o Connects to the Goose Creek Multi-Use Path o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements • South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue o Redeveloping mixed use and multi-family residential o Established small, medium and big box businesses o Large amount of off-street parking o Widest right-of-way o Highest vehicle volumes o More transit stop use than Central but less than North o Police Department headquarters is east at Canyon o Pedestrian and bicycle connections south of Arapahoe o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements An update on the progress of the North 30th Street project with detail on the conceptual design alternatives, project considerations, and community priorities was provided to City Council at a study session on April 10, 2025. Figure 5:North 30th Street Segments Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 11 Packet Page 258 of 1100 ANALYSIS The design workshop week improvements identified with the community were screened using eight screening criteria that reflect project goals and community priorities: Pedestrian Space: The potential to provide low-stress pedestrian facilities that are comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, including seniors and school-aged children. Bicycle Space: The potential to implement Low-Stress Walk and Bike Plan recommendation of protected bike lanes with adequate width. Transit Priority: The potential to support transit speed and reliability and provide space for bus stops and amenities. Vehicle Operations Feasibility: The potential to maintain the flow of traffic and private vehicle access to residential and commercial destinations. Day-to-Day Emergency Response: The potential to provide adequate space for emergency response vehicles. Disaster Emergency Response: The potential to provide space for private vehicles to evacuate during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic. Estimated Construction Impact: The potential to avoid curb realignment and removing trees, which increase the time and cost needed to design and implement the project. Vehicle Speed Moderation: The potential to reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic. Three conceptual design alternatives were created from the improvements that passed screening. The three alternatives were evaluated using the traffic modeling software, Synchro, to ensure their impacts to transportation operations were feasible to advance for further design: all three conceptual design alternatives were deemed feasible. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 12 Packet Page 259 of 1100 Conceptual Design Alternatives Alternative A Alternative A narrows the current roadway width to maintain the existing number of vehicle lanes and provide sidewalk-level protected bike lanes and adds modest improvements for people walking, biking, rolling, scooting or using transit (Error! Reference source not found.). Figure 6: Alternative A Segments and Key Features Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 13 Packet Page 260 of 1100 Alternative B Alternative B maintains the current curb-to-curb roadway width, repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median from the south segment to accommodate wide, on-street protected bike lanes, to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections (Figure 7). Figure 7: Alternative B Segments and Key Features Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 14 Packet Page 261 of 1100 Alternative C Alternative C narrows the current roadway width and repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median from the south segment to provide wide, sidewalk-level protected bike lanes, to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, to provide wide landscaping buffers between Walnut Street and Arapahoe Avenue, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections (Figure 8). Figure 8: Alternative C Segments and Key Features Community and Environmental Assessment Process Conceptual Design Alternatives The three alternatives were evaluated using the city’s formal review process: the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). The CEAP uses project specific evaluation criteria, the CEAP checklist and community input to identify a recommended alternative. Each alternative was scored for the entire corridor and for its end-to-end impact. Project specific evaluation criteria had a scoring range from -4 to +4. All project specific evaluation criteria, except Implementation Feasibility, were scored compared to existing conditions; Implementation Feasibility scoring compared alternatives to each other. The CEAP checklist items were scored for positive, negative or neutral impacts when compared to existing conditions (Figure 9). Attachment A provides more detailed information for each alternative and their draft CEAP evaluations. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 15 Packet Page 262 of 1100 Figure 9: Draft CEAP Evaluation for Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 16 Packet Page 263 of 1100 Evaluation Rationale Safety Reducing speeds is critical to reducing the potential for and severity of crashes because vehicle speed increases the risk of serious injury and death (Figure 10). Figure 10: Correlation of vehicle speed and crash severity Repurposing vehicle lanes helps to reduce vehicle speeds and provides space for proven safety countermeasures, like protected intersection elements, center turn lanes, access management, and enhanced mid-block crossings. Traffic modeling supported lane repurposing for north 30th Street. Protected intersections slow turning vehicles, provide dedicated space for people walking and biking, help everyone to see and be seen, and support more predictable movements to and through intersections, where most crashes occur on north 30th Street. Center turn lanes and slip lane removal at intersections reduces the number of conflict points, makes it easier to move along and on and off the corridor, and shortens the crossing distances for people walking, biking and rolling. Enhanced mid-block crossings provide safe and comfortable crossings and close gaps in crossing opportunities north of Valmont Road for people walking, biking and rolling. Repurposing lanes also supports urban design and implementation feasibility by providing space for multimodal safety improvements within the existing roadway. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 17 Packet Page 264 of 1100 Urban Design: By remaining within the existing curbs, public street tree and landscaping removals are less likely and opportunities for additional trees and planting is possible, like when slip lanes are removed at intersections. Implementation Feasibility: Implementing within the existing roadway also minimizes construction time and cost. North 30th Street was awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant funding to make changes to 30th Street at the 30th Street & Arapahoe Avenue intersection and to 30th Street from Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street by 2029, the due date of the grant. Operations Travel time is important to the community and businesses. Providing dedicated signal phases at intersections and the time needed for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street adds time for everyone’s travel, whether or not lane repurposing or any other safety improvements are made to north 30th Street. Repurposing lanes at and between intersections can increase travel time and reduce transit speed and reliability. North 30th Street is an important transit corridor, with local and regional routes including the Bolt, the Bound, and the FLEX. The three alternatives were evaluated for changes to end-to-end travel time using the traffic modeling software, Trans Modeler. The modeling found significant differences in average travel time between each alternative (Figure 11): • Alternative A increases travel time by 1.5 minutes • Alternative B increases travel time by 4 minutes 35 seconds • Alternative C increases travel time by 4 minutes 30 seconds Figure 11: Travel time change for Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C This draft CEAP evaluation determined that more work was needed to adequately balance the project’s goals and community priorities for safety and travel time, and for implementation feasibility because of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant funds. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 18 Packet Page 265 of 1100 Recommended Alternative The project team developed a recommended conceptual design alternative (Figure 12) after revisiting each conceptual design alternative and consulting with BFR, BPD and ODM staff to review design elements that better support emergency response. The central segment is shown here for simplicity; the remaining segments can be seen in Attachment A. Figure 12: Recommendation in the Central Segment The recommendation incorporates transportation operations elements from Alternative A to minimize increases to travel time and transit delay; urban design and implementation feasibility elements of Alternative B to improve comfort and connectivity; and safety improvement elements from Alternatives B and C to address crashes and provide a safer walking and biking environment. The recommendation has distinct design elements in the central segment to better support emergency response. A visual display of the following design details can be found in the project’s third virtual open house. • Safety & Comfort o All intersections receive partial or fully protected intersections  Protected intersections use corner refuge islands and dedicated signal phases to separate modes of travel and reduce potential conflicts. • For people walking, biking, and rolling, this means increased visibility and dedicated paths through the intersection. • For people driving, it means more predictable movements. o Slip lanes are removed at Pearl Street, Walnut Street, Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue to shorten crossings, slow turning vehicle speeds, and keep vulnerable road users separated from traffic. o In all but constrained locations and near Arapahoe Avenue, protected bike lanes are on-street with concrete curbs between the bike lane and vehicles.  In constrained locations, protected bike lanes are at sidewalk level. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 19 Packet Page 266 of 1100 o A dedicated bike waiting area is provided at Glenwood Drive for bicyclists turning left. o New pedestrian crossings are added at Corona Trail and Eagle Way to close existing crossing gaps between Iris Avenue and Valmont Road. o Existing pedestrian flashing beacons near Spruce Street and south of Walnut Street will be converted to red signals. o Medians on Valmont Road and 30th Street are added to reduce conflicts between people driving and those turning onto these streets from driveways. o Access management at 30th Street and Mapleton Avenue addresses crash patterns from conflicting left turns. o Redesigned driveways at the King Soopers near 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue reduce vehicle speeds and increase visibility between drivers and people walking, biking and rolling. • Transportation Operations o Strategic vehicle lane repurposing between Iris Avenue and Pearl Street reduces vehicle speeds. o Center turn lanes between Corona Trail and Eagle Way provide dedicated space to turn on and off the corridor and can be used for emergency response. o Dedicated left turn lanes throughout the corridor provide space for waiting vehicles, including buses which make a left turn onto Glenwood Drive. o Traffics signals at all signalized intersections provide dedicated time for people walking and biking to move through the intersection separate from vehicles. • Transit o Transit riders have dedicated places to wait for the bus, with amenities like shelters and benches at busier stops. o Some stops are relocated to better connect to crossings, paths and popular destination, like King Soopers. o Floating bus stops designs keep buses in the travel lane, reducing transit service delays. o Floating bus stops reduce conflict between buses and bikes because the bus stop is separated from the bike lane. • Urban Design o 100% of existing public street trees are retained or replanted. o Areas where lanes are repurposed provides space for additional plantings and new landscaping, which may reduce urban heat. o Changes are made mostly within the existing roadway and so adds little new concrete, minimizing increases to urban heat. • Implementation Feasibility o The recommendation can mostly be built within the existing roadway and so reduces the cost and time to implement, between Diagonal Highway and Pearl Street and at the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection, and supports implementation within the time and funding available from Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 20 Packet Page 267 of 1100 the awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant as well as previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. o The recommended design accommodates city maintenance vehicles and so does not require new equipment to maintain. o Landscaped areas between the roadway and sidewalk provide space for snow storage. Emergency response design elements incorporated into the recommendation were based on conversations with BFR, BPD, and ODM staff and analysis of Fire Station #3 call distribution data: • Traffic signals allow emergency response vehicles to pass through Valmont Road, Bluff Street and Pearl Street intersections when the emergency response signal at Fire Station #3 is activated. • Strategic lane repurposing maintains vehicle lanes where vehicle and emergency response call volumes are high, like between Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue, and repurposes them where vehicle and response call volumes are lower, like between Iris Avenue and Valmont Road. • Where lanes are repurposed, medians and dedicated space are marked with paint to support emergency response vehicle use. • Busy intersections, like Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue, have the same number of lanes, including turn lanes, as today to support emergency response. • Commercial driveways and pedestrian and bike facilities are modified in high call areas, like near Brookdale Senior Housing and the Mapleton Ball Fields, to reduce conflicts and improve access for emergency response. The recommendation was also evaluated for changes to average travel time using the traffic modeling software, Trans Modeler. The modeling showed, similar to Alternative A which retained the current number of vehicle lanes, the recommended design increases end-to-end trips by an average of 1 minute and 30 seconds in the combined average of AM and PM peak hours, (Figure 13). Figure 13: Recommendation travel time increase Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 21 Packet Page 268 of 1100 However, less than 10% of all vehicle trips on north 30th Street travel the corridor end- to-end, meaning only a small percentage of drivers will experience this full travel time increase. Travel time impacts could feel different based on direction of travel, time of day and location. Most driver’s travel time change will be less than 1 minute 30 seconds and so could be imperceptible over time. The recommended design was evaluated using the CEAP project specific evaluation criteria and checklist. The recommendation was scored for the entire corridor and for its end-to-end impact. Project specific evaluation criteria had a scoring range from -4 to +4. All project specific evaluation criteria, except Implementation Feasibility, were scored compared to existing conditions; Implementation Feasibility scored alternatives to each other. The CEAP checklist items were scored for positive, negative or neutral impacts when compared to existing conditions. Based on the CEAP evaluation results, the Hybrid Alternative balances the project’s and community’s priorities for improvements on north 30th Street and is the recommended design.(Figure 14 & Figure 15). Figure 14: Recommendation CEAP checklist scores Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 22 Packet Page 269 of 1100 Figure 15: Recommendation CEAP project specific criteria scores The complete CEAP evaluation of the recommendation can be found in Attachment A. NEXT STEPS If council is supportive of the recommended conceptual design alternative, pending the Transportation Advisory Board’s final deliberation on June 23, 2025, then council can formalize a support decision for the project’s recommend design by not calling this item up. However, if council chooses to call this item up, then the project CEAP and its recommended design will then be agendized for the July 24, 2025 council meeting as a public hearing item for council decision. Upon council’s approval, staff will complete preliminary design through summer 2025. Final design for the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection will begin in the fall as part of the East Arapahoe Final Design project for Segment A: 28th Street to Foothills Parkway. Final design for 30th Street from Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street will advance once Safe Streets and Roads for All funding is received. Implementation of this segment of 30th Street, and the 30th & Arapahoe Avenue intersection, will begin after final design for each is completed. Final design and implementation of the unfunded segment of 30th Street, from Pearl Street to Arapahoe Avenue, will advance once funding is secured. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 23 Packet Page 270 of 1100 ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 24 Packet Page 271 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process June 2025 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 25 Packet Page 272 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 2 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Background Purpose & Need ........................................................................................................................ 6 Planning Guidance .................................................................................................................................... 6 30th and Colorado Corridors Study ........................................................................................................ 7 Transit Village Area Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7 Transportation Master Plan and Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan .......................................... 8 Transportation Master Plan – Transit ................................................................................................... 8 Vision Zero Action Plan and Regional High Injury Network / Critical Corridor ................................... 10 Related Local and Regional Projects ....................................................................................................... 10 Upcoming Near-Term Local Projects: ................................................................................................. 11 Upcoming Near-Term Regional Projects: ............................................................................................ 11 Corridor Characteristics and Community Demographics ....................................................................... 11 Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience: Spring 2024 – Winter 2024/2025 ............................. 15 Existing Conditions Data and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 20 Existing Street Design .............................................................................................................................. 21 North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road ......................................................................... 21 Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue ...................................................................... 22 South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue ................................................................... 23 Emergency Response .............................................................................................................................. 23 Vehicle Volume, Speed, and Travel Time ................................................................................................ 24 Multimodal Volume and Travel .............................................................................................................. 26 Crash History ........................................................................................................................................... 27 CEAP Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 28 CEAP Process ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Step 1: Screening and Identification of Conceptual Alternatives ....................................................... 29 Steps 2: Compare Conceptual Design Alternatives and Receive Community Input ........................... 46 Step 3: Present Final Evaluation and Recommended Alternative to the Community ........................ 81 Attachment A: Project Screening ................................................................................................................ 84 Project Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 84 Attachment B: Project Specific Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................... 87 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 26 Packet Page 273 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 3 Attachment C: Goals Assessment ............................................................................................................... 96 Attachment D: CEAP Checklist Evaluation for the Conceptual Design Alternatives ................................. 100 Attachment E: CEAP Checklist Questions ................................................................................................. 102 Attachment F: Floodplain Impact Assessment Memo .............................................................................. 114 Attachment G: Existing Street Tree Inventory and Recommendation Impacts ........................................ 123 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 27 Packet Page 274 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 4 Executive Summary The purpose of the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project is to make north 30th Street, from Arapahoe Avenue to Diagonal Highway, safer, more comfortable and connected. The project will address the actions of the Vision Zero Action Plan by implementing proven safety countermeasures on this Core Arterial Network (CAN) corridor that is also on the High Risk Network (HRN). The North 30th Street design project has followed an accelerated timeline over 10 months between August 2024 and July 2025 (similar projects usually are completed in 15 to 18 months). The expedited timeline was pursued to help the project stay on schedule with federal funding requirements and in response to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate the project development process for corridors on the CAN, a council priority initiative. Staff completed a Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) that included robust engagement with the community, businesses and emergency response partners, analysis of existing conditions data, a week-long community informed design workshop, policy and plan review, and evaluation of conceptual alternatives using a CEAP checklist and project specific evaluation criteria. The CEAP recommended design is a hybrid of three alternatives developed through a week-long design workshop because no individual alternative adequately balanced project goals and community priorities for safety and travel time, and for implementation feasibility. Implementation feasibility is important because of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant funds timeline requirements as well as previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. The CEAP recommended design combines elements from each of the three alternatives to achieve important safety benefits with minimal impacts to vehicle operations, including for emergency response, transit riders, and drivers. The recommendation repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median in some segments, and removes right turn slip lanes to reduce vehicle speeds and provide space for everyone to move more safely and comfortably with center turn lanes, on-street protected bike lanes, protected intersections, floating bus stops and new and improved crossings. Today, it takes approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-miles of north 30th Street between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Avenue. The recommendation increases travel time for these trips by an average of 1 minute and 30 seconds. However, less than 10% of all vehicle trips travel the corridor end-to-end. This means most drivers’ travel time will increase by less than 1 minute 30 seconds. The recommendation can be implemented mostly within the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and so preserves existing public street trees or replaces any street trees that need to be removed. Due to this, the recommendation can be implemented with the awarded $9M Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal funding to advance final design and construction to implement improvements on 30th Street between Pearl Street and Diagonal Highway and the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection. Additional quick-build improvements will be explored for the remaining segment between Arapahoe Avenue and Pearl Street as the city identifies funding. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 28 Packet Page 275 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 5 Project Description North 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue (CO-7) and Diagonal Highway (CO-119) (shown in Figure 1) is a primary north-south arterial street in Boulder and provides local and regional connections to Boulder Junction, the University of Colorado-Boulder (CU) East Campus, the 29th Street Mall, market rate and affordable housing for families and students, and small and large businesses. It is one of the most diverse streets in Boulder in terms of land uses and demographics, and it is also an important multi-modal travel corridor with 14,000 to 19,800 vehicles, 600 transit, and 2,200 walk and bike trips on a typical day. Figure 1: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project and the Core Arterial Network This project is part of the City’s Core Arterial Network (CAN) initiative. The CAN is a connected system of safe multimodal streets with protected bicycle lanes, intersection enhancements, pedestrian facilities, and transit facility upgrades. This connected system will help reduce the potential for severe crashes and make it more comfortable and convenient for people to get where they need to go along Boulder’s main Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 29 Packet Page 276 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 6 corridors. The CAN initiative is key to implementing the city's Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP), a City Council commitment to end fatal and serious-injury crashes. The North 30th Street Preliminary Design project conducted community engagement to inform transportation improvements for 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway and will result in a 15% conceptual design that makes the street safer, more comfortable and more connected for everyone. The preliminary design project has followed an accelerated timeline over 10 months between August 2024 and July 2025 (similar projects usually are completed in 15-18 months). The expedited timeline was pursued to help advance the project to next phase such that it can stay on schedule with federal funding requirements as well as respond to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate project development. After the completion of this 15% design, the city has been awarded $9M in Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal funding to advance final design and construction to implement improvements on 30th Street between Pearl Street and Diagonal Highway (federal funds must be spent by the end of 2029). Background Purpose & Need Planning Guidance Several existing city transportation plans and policy initiatives recognize the need for transportation improvements on 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway. These are shown in Figure 2 and include the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study (2017-2019), Transit Village Area Plan (2007, amended 2023) Transportation Master Plan (2019), Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan (2019), and Vizion Zero Action Plan (2023). Figure 2 – Planning Documents Guiding the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 30 Packet Page 277 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 7 30th and Colorado Corridors Study From 2016 to 2018, the City collaborated with the University of Colorado Boulder on the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study. This study included extensive community engagement on transportation improvements for 30th Street between Baseline Road and Pearl Street and identified preferred cross sections for two segments of the corridor: Baseline Road to Colorado Avenue and Colorado Avenue to Pearl Street. Figure 3 shows the recommended design for 30th Street between Colorado Avenue to Pearl Street, which overlaps with the southern segment of the North 30th Preliminary Design project. This North 30th Preliminary Design project built on this initial concept design from the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study and identifies additional improvements for the 30th Street corridor. Figure 3: 30th and Colorado Corridors Study Recommended Cross Section (30th Street, Colorado Avenue to Pearl Street) Figure 4: TVAP Recommended Cross Section Transit Village Area Plan In 2007, the city completed the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) to guide development of the Boulder Junction neighborhood around 30th Street between Pearl Street and Valmont Road. At plan adoption, 30th Street’s land use was comprised of predominantly auto-oriented retail or storage uses with mixed- use, urban storefronts. TVAP established a vision for the area to evolve into a lively, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented place where people live, work, shop and access regional transportation. As part of this, TAVP envisioned 30th Street transforming into a business main street. Figure 4 shows the recommended roadway cross-section with wide landscaping and protected bike lanes for 30th Street from the TVAP amendment in 2023. Since TVAP adoption, private development projects have constructed this recommended cross section on 30th Street. Similar to the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study design, this Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 31 Packet Page 278 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 8 North 30th Preliminary Design project considered this concept design from TVAP and identifies additional improvements for the 30th Street corridor to maintain the business main street recommendation from that plan. Further, the recommendation for north 30th Street preserves all sidewalks and landscaping that private development has already constructed. Transportation Master Plan and Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan 30th Street is also designated as a high priority bicycle route in the city’s 2019 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the city’s 2019 Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan. Both plans call for greater separation and protection between the vehicle and on-street bicycle lanes on 30th Street due to the posted speed limit of 35mph, existing vehicle volumes, and the role 30th St plays as a central and direct route in the city’s bike network for north- south crosstown trips. The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan also identified Pedestrian Improvement Areas on and near 30th Street within the study corridor between Arapahoe Ave and Walnut St, and Glenwood Dr to Diagonal Hwy, shown in 4(F), 5(B), and 10(C) in Figure 5. These areas in the city were identified for improvements such as new sidewalks, ADA upgrades, new pedestrian crossings, or enhancements to existing crossings based on the density of destinations near residential land uses and to encourage more people to walk to their destinations. Figure 5: Pedestrian Improvement Areas in Boulder Transportation Master Plan – Transit 30th Street is also designated as a high-frequency transit service corridor (headways every 15 minutes) in the TMP. Transit service is an important aspect of the future design of the corridor as multiple local and regional routes serve north 30th Street. The BOUND and 208 routes, operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD), and the HOP route, operated by the City in partnership with Via Mobility Services, run along all or part of the corridor with some segments serving as many as nine buses an hour (Walnut Street to Pearl Street) or seven buses per hour (Pearl Street to Diagonal Highway), as shown in Figure 6. These local routes also connect to regional transit routes, such as the BOLT (to and from Longmont), FLEX Boulder Express (to and from Fort Collins, and JUMP (to and from Lafayette) cross the project corridor, shown in Figure 7. The intersection of 30th Street and Pearl Street is also designated as a Transit Priority Intersection and recommended for transit signal priority in CDOT’s 10-Year Plan to improve travel time and reliability for regional and local transit. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 32 Packet Page 279 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 9 Figure 6: Transit Routes and Frequencies on Figure 7: Local and Regional Transit Routes on North 30th Street North 30th Street RTD’s Bouder Junction at Depot Square Station is also located near the corridor in Boulder Junction. While bus service is currently discontinued at the station, which closed in 2020 during the COVID-19 Pandemic, RTD is planning to reopen and restart bus service at the station in September 2025. Boulder Junction is also the planned future stop of the CO 119 BRT Diagonal Flyer 2 and Northwest Rail commuter rail station, which will be about ¼ mile north of the bus depot Figure 8: Concept Plan for Boulder Junction Northwest Rail Station Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 33 Packet Page 280 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 10 along the BNSF rail tracks. A concept plan for the commuter rail station is shown in Figure 8. These current and planned services showcase the regional significance of the 30th Street and Peal Street corridors for providing high-quality transit. Vision Zero Action Plan and Regional High Injury Network / Critical Corridor Further, the city has identified safety concerns on the north 30th Street corridor. In 2023, engagement for the city’s Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) found that 55% of people felt unsafe biking, while 27% felt unsafe walking on 30th Street. VZAP also identified a High-Risk Network (HRN) where severe crashes occur or are more likely to occur in the future (Figure 9). The HRN represents only 7% of the city’s street network but nearly half of all severe crashes in the city occur on HRN streets. 30th Street is on the HRN between Valmont Road and Arapahoe Avenue in the project study area. Proactively managing risk and mitigating crashes on this small percentage of streets can have an outsized impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes citywide and achieve the greatest impact in the shortest amount of time. Figure 9: Boulder’s High-Risk Network (HRN) Figure 10: DRCOG High Injury Network & Critical Corridors Similarly, 30th Street is also recognized regionally as having one of the highest densities of fatal and serious injury crashes in the region by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). In the project study area, 30th Street between Diagonal Highway and Valmont Road is on DRCOG’s High-Injury Network (HIN) and is a DRCOG Critical Corridor between Valmont Road and Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 10). Related Local and Regional Projects In addition to the existing planning and policy documents guiding improvements on North 30th Street, there are several near-term local and regional projects near the north 30th Street corridor that future improvements on the street will connect into. These include: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 34 Packet Page 281 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 11 Upcoming Near-Term Local Projects: o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th between Colorado Avenue and Arapahoe Avenue (2024-2025) as part of the 30th Street Multimodal Improvements Project. o East Arapahoe Avenue Bus and Turn Lanes project will repurpose one general purpose lane to bus and turn lane in each direction from 28th Street to 63rd St in the Summer and Fall of 2025. o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th Street between Colorado Avenue and Aurora Ave (2026). o Filling in missing links in the multi-use path system and enhancing bus stops along Arapahoe Avenue between 38th/Marine streets and Cherryvale Road (2025). o Final design and implementation of the Arapahoe Avenue corridor from Culver Court to 33rd Avenue as part of Safe Streets for All projects (2026/2027), which includes protected bike lanes and the repurposing of the outer vehicle lanes to business access and transit (BAT) lanes. Upcoming Near-Term Regional Projects: • CO 119, Boulder to Longmont: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), RTD, and Boulder County are advancing a commuter bikeway MUP along CO-119 as part of the CO 119 Safety, Mobility, and Bikeway Project (2024-2027). The bikeway will connect into the existing bike lanes on Diagonal Highway at the northern end of the 30th St corridor and provide a direct regional bike connection to 30th Street. o As part of the CO 119 Safety, Mobility, and Bikeway Project, current BOLT service will be upgraded to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with full opening of the service anticipated by RTD in 2027. Service will be via two routes on 28th Street in the city of Boulder. Corridor Characteristics and Community Demographics Finally, the corridor’s changing land uses and the area’s demographics also necessitate transportation improvements on north 30th Street to respond to the needs of the community. Over the last 10 to 15 years, north 30th Street’s land use has evolved and is one of the most rapidly densifying residential and employment areas in Boulder. In 2007, the city completed the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) to guide development of the Boulder Junction neighborhood around 30th Street between Pearl Street and Valmont Road. The plan anticipated the development of new transit facilities and established a vision for the area to evolve into a lively, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented place where people live, work, shop and access regional transportation. The plan identified two phases of development: Phase 1 for the area west of the existing railroad tracks and Phase 2 for the area east of the tracks (Figure 11). Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 35 Packet Page 282 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 12 Figure 11: Boulder Junction Development Phases Since the adoption of TVAP, the city and private property owners have worked together to implement the vision for Phase 1. Former parking lots, strips malls, and auto-oriented businesses have been replaced with 4-story mixed use developments that include affordable housing fronting north 30th Street. Figure 12 shows the change in density at the 30th Street and Pearl Street intersection between 2007 and 2024. Figure 12: Land Use Changes on North 30th Street, 2007- 2024 Today, the corridor is lined by retail, commercial, and multifamily land uses as shown in the land use map in Figure 13. These land use changes and increased density along the corridor have led to changes in transportation patterns along the street. Whereas north 30th Street used to function as a traditional suburban shopping destination for people throughout the region to 29th Street Mall and other auto oriented businesses, today more people live on the corridor for an urban experience within walking and biking distance to destinations and access to local and regional transit. Despite these land use changes, the transportation system of north 30th Street has remained largely unchanged and inhospitable to people traveling in non-driving modes. In addition to these land use changes, North 30th Street also provides a range of housing options for community members, contributing to a diversity of people of differing socio-economic backgrounds, races, and ages living along the corridor. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 36 Packet Page 283 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 13 Figure 13: North 30th Street Land Use Map There are several deed-restricted affordable and low-income housing developments on the corridor, including: • Depot Square Apartments (100% affordable) • Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) property, 30Pearl, near 30th and Pearl, with 120 affordable units • S’PARK Apartments (mixed-income community) • San Juan Del Centro (3100 34th St) • Sage Court Apartments (2965 Valmont Rd) • Valmont Square Town Homes (3080 29th St) • The Nest on 30th (2995 Eagle Way) • Diagonal Court (3265 30th St) Other notable housing options include: • Orchard Grove Manufactured Home Community: a 27-acre manufactured home community, providing a relatively affordable market- rate option for families in the area. • Brookdale Assisted Living: an assisted/independent senior living facility on the corridor. • Bluebird Apartments: permanent support housing for community members experiencing chronic homelessness. Finally, BHP has two future affordable housing development projects on or near the corridor: • 44 single-family style affordable rental homes are proposed on a 4.5-acre vacant lot to the east of Orchard Grove, and • the western end of the Diagonal Plaza site is currently being redeveloped into a mixed-use development with retail stores along 28th Street, a community space, and 282 residential units, some of which will be deed-restricted affordable housing. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 37 Packet Page 284 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 14 Due to this diversity of housing, a significant proportion of residents along the corridor identify as people of color, live with a disability, or are youth aged under 18 or older adults 65+. These demographics influence transportation choices, as 5-10% of households throughout the corridor do not own a private vehicle, with this percentage rising to 20-30% of households in some sections of the corridor. (Figure 14). Figure 14: North 30th Street Demographics This project is necessary to address proactive and reactive safety issues on the 30th Street corridor, while upgrading the transportation system of north 30th Street to reflect and meet the needs of the street’s changing land uses and diverse community members. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 38 Packet Page 285 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 15 Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience: Spring 2024 – Winter 2024/2025 Figure 15: Community Members’ One Idea for an Improved North 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 39 Packet Page 286 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 16 During the first phase of the project from spring 2024 through winter 2024/2025, staff talked with community members to understand lived experience of what is working on north 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway and what needs improvements. The project team held focus group discussions with residents of Orchard Grove Manufactured Home Community, San Juan Del Centro apartments, Boulder Housing Partners apartments, Bluebird apartments, Boulder Junction, and the business community to get more detailed feedback from participants and understand the unique needs of these community members. At all events where Spanish-speaking community members may have been in attendance, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available. An online questionnaire was also offered in English and Spanish. Figure 16: Project Staff Engaging with Community Members at Various Events A priority of the project team was to focus on engaging the diverse residents along north 30th Street and prioritizing the voices of historically excluded and currently underrepresented communities. The project team met people where they were, at places like bus stops, grocery stores, schools, community events, and at their residential communities. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 40 Packet Page 287 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 17 To meet the accelerated timeline for the project and align with federal funding requirements, the first phase and public engagement culminated in a week-long design workshop. The design workshop provided community members with an opportunity to attend an open house to learn about what the project team heard from community members and learned from data analysis during the first phase of the project. Open design studios were also offered during the design workshop week so community members could provide feedback on potential improvements and help the project team develop conceptual design alternatives for the corridor. All events from the first phase of engagement are summarized in Figure 17. Figure 17: Summary of 2024/2025 Phase 1 community engagement activities `Engagement Event Date(s) Participants People Reached Growing Up Boulder Youth Walk Audit 4/24/2024 34 Growing Up Boulder Walk Audit Follow-Up 5/8/2024 14 Phase I Online Questionnaire 9/6/2024 515 What's Up Boulder 9/7/2024 10 On the Rise Concert Series at Boulder Junction Pop-Up 9/28/2024 33 Columbine Elementary Walk and Roll to School Day Walk Bus 10/9/2024 20 Hispanic Hertiage Month 5k at Fleet Feet Pop-Up 10/12/2024 17 Project Post Card 10/14/2024 4,767 Press Release 10/15/2024 Corridor flyering 10/16/2024 300 Community Cycles Bike Ride 10/19/2024 12 Goose Creek Path Pop-Up 10/19/2024 5 30th and Valmont RTD Bus Stop Pop-Up 10/21/2024 16 Project Email Newsletter Update 10/24/2024 173 Columbine Elementary Fall Festival 10/25/2024 23 Full Cycle Group Bike Ride Pop-Up 10/26/2024 17 Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro/Business flyering 10/30/2024 300 Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro Focus Group 11/6/2024 14 Boulder Housing Partners Focus Group 11/7/2024 13 Bluebird Apartments Focus Group 11/8/2024 9 Brookdale Senior Living Pop-Up 11/8/2024 17 Las 10 Americas Carniceria Pop-Up 11/10/2024 22 Boulder Junction Focus Group 11/12/2024 20 Firefly Holiday Handmade Market Pop-Up 11/23/2024 53 Project Email Newsletter Update 1/6/2025 309 Business Focus Group 1/7/2025 24 Design Workshop Week Kick-off Open House 1/13/2025 20 Design Workshop Week Open Design Studio 1 1/14/2025 5 Design Workshop Week Open Design Studio 2 1/15/2025 9 Total 922 5,849 Spring Fall Spring 2024 - Winter 2025 Winter Outreach methods reached nearly 6,000 community members and twenty-one engagement activities saw close to 1,000 participants. Comments provided feedback on challenges and opportunities to inform development of alternatives. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 41 Packet Page 288 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 18 Themes heard from this engagement are shown in Figure 18. Figure 18: What we heard during Phase 1 engagement 2024/2025 Phase 1 community engagement activities The themes above are detailed further in the list below: • North-south travel on north 30th Street is important for all modes to reach destinations, such as businesses, homes, and schools, and regional connections such as the Diagonal Highway. • Community members recognize North 30th Street is key to emergency response operations with Fire Station 3 on the corridor and Boulder Police Department Headquarters near the corridor on 33rd Street, improvements should not negatively impact emergency response. • North 30th Street is not safe for everyone, and people who walk, roll, bike, take transit, and drive all cited safety concerns on the corridor. • There is a high volume of vehicles that travel on the corridor today and some vehicles travel at high speeds, creating unsafe conditions for all road users and increased noise levels for nearby residents. • Opinions varied on how to balance north 30th Street's role as a major transportation corridor with its increasing residential developments. Some respondents wanted minimal changes, while others supported more drastic improvements. • Drivers may feel unsafe on north 30th Street at intersections due to visibility concerns of people walking, rolling, and biking, and other vehicles not obeying traffic signals. o Valmont Road, Mapleton Avenue, Glenwood Drive, Pearl Street, and Canyon Boulevard were noted as challenging for making left turns due to traffic volumes and signal timing/phasing. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 42 Packet Page 289 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 19 • Stressful intersection crossings and inadequate bike facilities are top barriers for people traveling on north 30th Street today, especially those walking, rolling, and biking. o Common suggestions to improve experiences for people walking and biking included protected bike lanes, better pedestrian crossings (especially at mid-block locations), and improved intersection safety (especially at Valmont and Pearl). o Many respondents who indicated they generally feel safe using north 30th Street also pointed out specific improvements they would like to see, suggesting that while they feel comfortable, there are still clear areas for enhancement (better bike facilities and safer crossings are examples of improvements). • People walking feel unsafe at intersection crossings due to not having enough time to cross the street and conflicts with right and left turning vehicles. o Signal timing at Pearl Street and Iris Avenue were specifically mentioned for increased pedestrian crossing times. • There are gaps in mid-block pedestrian crossings, especially north of Valmont Road. • People face accessibility challenges when using mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, on north 30th Street. There’s a need for better maintenance, particularly regarding snow removal and sidewalk conditions, for these users. • North 30th Street is seen as a barrier to reaching local businesses by walking due to traffic volumes and crossing safety. • People biking and scootering feel unsafe in the on-street bike lanes today, and the majority of those who bike or scooter on north 30th Street ride on the sidewalk or multi-use path. o This can lead to conflicts with pedestrians or slower-moving micromobility devices. o A common suggestion was to better define spaces for people walking, biking, and scootering on the existing multi-use paths. • People biking on the multi-use paths experience conflicts with vehicles, especially at commercial driveways and intersections with right-turn bypass lanes or ‘slip lanes.’ • Community members in Boulder Junction feel the area is a transit desert without RTD service at Depot Square Station. o Community members moved to Boulder Junction for an urban experience to be able to live a car-light lifestyle and walk/roll, bike, or take transit to destinations. • Transit stops could be relocated or consolidated to better serve community destinations or existing pedestrian crossings and enhanced with amenities such as a shelter and bench. • Business access for customers and employees by multiple modes is important. • Preserving landscaping and street trees to maintain shade for people walking and biking and reduce urban heat island effects in the corridor is desired. • Incorporating placemaking elements to make north 30th Street more attractive is desired. • While most people travel on north 30th Street by driving today, people would like to walk, bike, roll, and take transit on north 30th Street more in the future. Additionally, at the events throughout the first phase of engagement, participants were invited to complete a mapping activity, which asked people to draw out the routes they take using north 30th Street. This information helped inform the development of user profiles (Figure 19) to capture common travel patterns and to understand who travels along and across the Street today – and how. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 43 Packet Page 290 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 20 Figure 19: North 30th Street User Profiles Informed by Community Engagement Public input from the first phase of community engagement activities is further summarized in the sections of this memorandum corresponding to the associated component of the conceptual design process. Existing Conditions Data and Analysis During the first phase of the project, the project team also collected data and analyzed existing conditions on the street. Today, north 30th Street can be thought of in three segments that represent distinctions in the corridor’s existing transportation design, land use, and features (Figure 20). Figure 20: North 30th Street Segment Map The following existing conditions data and analyses and subsequent concept design alternatives reference these segments of the corridor shown below, with a short description of each: • North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road o Heavily residential than other areas along the corridor Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 44 Packet Page 291 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 21 o Narrow right-of-way compared to central and south segments o Lowest vehicle volumes of the three segments of the corridor o Connection to Wonderland Creek Multi-Use Path o Mature tree canopy, especially between Glenwood Drive and Valmont Road • Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue o Transitional land uses, with a mix of strip mall and automotive commercial uses and Fire Station 3 located at Bluff Street o Wider right-of-way than north segment, but narrower than south segment o Connections to Goose Creek Multi-Use Path and East Mapleton Ballfields o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements • South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue o Mapleton Avenue to Walnut Street is defined by recent mixed-use developments, while Walnut Steet to Arapahoe Avenue is a mix of strip mall and big box retail with a large amount of off-street parking. o Widest right-of-way of the three segments o Connections to improvements on 30th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements Existing Street Design North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road Between Diagonal Highway and Valmont Road, north 30th Street has two 10-foot vehicle travel lanes in each direction and striped 3.5-foot bicycle lanes. There are typically 8-foot landscape buffers between the curb and the detached sidewalks, which are typically 6 feet wide (Figure 21). There are 62 existing street trees in the north segment of the corridor. Throughout the corridor, north 30th Street has four to five vehicle lanes, on-street bike lanes, landscaping, and sidewalks or multi-use paths, but the right-of-way width and the width of these existing facilities differ between segments. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 45 Packet Page 292 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 22 Figure 21: North 30th Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (North Segment) Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue Between Valmont Road and Mapleton Avenue, north 30th Street has two 10-foot vehicle travel lanes in each direction, a 10-foot center turn lane, and striped 3.5-5-foot bicycle lanes (in some constrained sections areas of this section, the on-street bike lane is narrower than the city minimum of 5-feet including the 1.5-foot gutter pan). There are typically 8-foot landscape buffers between the curb and the detached sidewalks, which are typically 8- to 10-feet wide (Figure 22). There are 20 existing street trees in the central segment of the corridor. Figure 22: North 30th Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Central Segment) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 46 Packet Page 293 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 23 South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue Between Mapleton Avenue and Arapahoe Avenue, north 30th Street has two 10- to 11-foot vehicle travel lanes in each direction and striped 5-foot bicycle lanes. There is a concrete median throughout most of this segment. The east and west sides of the corridor typically have 8-foot landscaped buffers between the curb and the detached 10-12-foot multi-use paths (Figure 23). The southern segment has the highest density of street trees with 115 existing today. Figure 23: North 30th Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (South Segment) Emergency Response North 30th Street is an important north-south corridor for emergency response – both day-to-day with Boulder Fire and Police Departments on, or near, the corridor, and in case of disaster emergency responses for Boulder County Office of Disaster Management (ODM) teams and evacuation of residents. Figure 24: Fire Station 3 at 30th and Bluff Streets Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 47 Packet Page 294 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 24 In November 2024, the city relocated Fire Station 3 to 30th Street and Bluff Street in the central segment of the project corridor (Figure 24). In 2024, BFRD responded to 3,909 incidents from a combination of the old Fire Station 3 location just south of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue and the new location within the north 30th Street corridor. About two- thirds (2,588) of these incidents were south of Valmont Road, while one-third (1,321) were north of Valmont Road (Figure 25). With the new Fire Station 3 construction, a new traffic signal was added at Bluff Street along with an emergency signal adjacent from the fire station entrance to help facilitate access and egress for BFRD emergency response vehicles. Boulder Police Department headquarters is also located just east of the north 30th Street corridor at 1805 33rd Street between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Street. The north 30th Street corridor would also be a supportive north-south response and evacuation route during a disaster emergency response. Vehicle Volume, Speed, and Travel Time In September 2024, traffic volume and speed data was collected at various points along the corridor. 13-Hour turning movement counts were collected at the ten study intersections on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 72-hour tube counts including vehicle classification and speed data were collected from September 10th to 12th, 2024. Today, vehicle volumes and speeds vary on North 30th Street by the three distinct segments shown in detail in Figure 26. Volumes in the southern and central segments average between 17,800 BFRD, BPD, and the joint city and county ODM were consulted throughout alternative development and selection. The recommended alternative and final 15% design will consider width available for emergency vehicle operations, traffic signal optimizations to facilitate emergency response, and the intuitiveness of design for private and emergency response vehicles to navigate. The project team will continue to work with Boulder’s safety partners to incorporate their needs as the project advances to more detailed design phases. Figure 25: Incident Locations, 2024 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 48 Packet Page 295 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 25 and 20,000 vehicles per day, while vehicle volumes north of Valmont Road decrease to about 14,000 vehicles per day. The existing posted speed limit on the corridor is 35 mph, however a separate city project, the Speed Limit Setting Study , recommends reducing the posted speed limit to 30 mph along the entire 30th Street corridor. Vehicle speeds were measured using the 85th percentile to capture the speed that 85% of vehicles are driving up to. The 85th percentile speed data are near the posted 35 mph speed limit; however, higher speeds of around 40 mph were observed in the north segment and high southbound speeds around 39 mph were collected on the south segment. Most drivers who exceed the speed limit do so up to 5mph over the current speed limit and 10mph over the recommended speed limit for the corridor. Under existing conditions, it takes approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-mile corridor for vehicles. However, data show most people do not drive the length of the corridor end-to-end. Decreasing traffic volume in the north segment of the corridor and turning movement count data at intersections suggest people drive north 30th Street as part of a longer trip to connect to east-west roads like Valmont Road and Pearl Street/Parkway. During engagement, community members also shared they travel the corridor to reach specific commercial destinations. StreetLight data, which utilizes anonymized cell phone data, estimates that less than ten percent of vehicle trips travel the entire length of the corridor as shown in Figure 27. Figure 27: Vehicle Trips Traveling Entire Length of North 30th Street (2023 and 2024 averages) Figure 26: Vehicle Volume and Speed Data This data confirms existing city plans and guidance and themes heard from the public that people driving exceed the posted speed limit on North 30th Street which can lead to unsafe conditions for all road users. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), someone walking has a 47% chance of death if involved in a crash with a vehicle at 40mph. Further, traffic safety concerns, including speeding, were cited as a top barrier for people traveling on 30th Street today. When thinking about their Northbound Southbound Highest Traffic Volume Segment 12,104 vehicles 12,022 vehicles Average Daily Vehicle Trips Traveling Entire Length of Corridor (% of total volume) 6% 3% Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 49 Packet Page 296 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 26 experiences on north 30th Street today, community members described north 30th Street as unsafe, car- centric, and having too much traffic and speeding vehicles. Multimodal Volume and Travel While North 30th Street is an important corridor for just under 20,000 vehicles per day, it is also an important corridor for walking, biking, and transit trips. 2,200 walk and bike trips are made on a typical day. North 30th Street is an increasingly popular destination for users of shared e-bikes and e-scooters. From January to August 2024, around 2,000 to 6,000 trips on Boulder BCycle, the local bikeshare system, ended on the north 30th Street corridor, with popular stations in Boulder Junction and the 29th Street Mall. Similarly, about 120,000 Lime e-scooter trips started on the north 30th Street corridor in 2024, with most end trips occurring in the central and south segments of the corridor where there is a higher concentration of commercial and shopping destinations. Figure 28: Bike and Bus Sharing Space near 30th and Pearl intersection During engagement and feedback, stressful intersection crossings and inadequate bike facilities were top barriers for traveling on north 30th Street today, especially for people walking and biking. Today, discontinuous multi-use paths along the entire corridor and narrow on-street bike lanes next to high- speed and high-volume traffic lead those who do ride bikes, e-bikes, or e-scooters on the corridor to ride on the sidewalk creating safety concerns for people walking or using a mobility device, a common theme heard throughout the first phase of engagement. Further, narrow on-street bike facilities and shared spaces with transit vehicles at intersections can lead to conflicts between modes, as shown in Figure 28. 600 transit trips are taken in the corridor on a typical day. The stops on the corridor with the highest average daily ridership serve the BOUND and offer a direct transfer or proximate transfer to another route. 30th Street and Glenwood Drive and the pair of stops just north of Arapahoe Avenue are the highest ridership stops on the corridor today (Figure 29). Analysis of bus stop spacing and placement confirmed comments from community members that stops could be better spaced throughout the corridor to serve existing crossings and facilitate access to community destinations (Figure 30). Almost all the stops on the corridor (94%) have a landing pad to provide a level space for people to wait and board buses. 72% of stops on the corridor have benches, while only 33% of stops along the corridor have a shelter. In Phase 1 engagement, community members expressed that the addition of amenities, especially shelters, would enhance the transit rider experience. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 50 Packet Page 297 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 27 Figure 29: Bus Stop Ridership Figure 30: Bus Stop Spacing and Placement Crash History The high volumes of people driving, walking and rolling, and taking the bus along the corridor, coupled with a street design that is not as comfortable as it could be for vulnerable road users, leads to conflicts between all modes and serious safety hazards for everyone. Between 2019 to 2023, 422 crashes occurred along the project corridor, primarily at intersections where 93% (392) of these crashes occurred. As presented in the heat map of crashes in Figure 31, the majority (56%) of crashes occurred at three high-risk intersections— Arapahoe Avenue, Pearl Street, and Valmont Road. 13% of all crashes involved people walking, rolling, biking or scooting, but they were in 67% of severe crashes resulting in serious injury or fatality, highlighting risks for these vulnerable road users. Locations of severe crashes and those involving people on bikes, scooters, and walking are shown in Figure 32. The Valmont Road intersection had the highest number of severe crashes, with other severe crashes locations at mid-block locations, such as the driveway north of Canyon Boulevard. The history of crashes on the corridor is consistent with feedback heard during engagement that all road users experience traffic safety concerns. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 51 Packet Page 298 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 28 Figure 31: North 30th Street Crash Heat Map (2019-2023) Figure 32: Nonmotorized Crashes Map (2019-2023) CEAP Evaluation Including the consideration of community input and the existing conditions of the street, the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) provides formal evaluation of potential improvements and conceptual design alternatives. CEAP Process The CEAP helps identify a recommended alternative through the following steps (and shown in Figure 33): 1. Screen potential improvements to identify conceptual alternatives, 2. Compare and contrast conceptual design alternatives through project specific evaluation criteria and the CEAP checklist and share the results with the community to receive input on their priorities, 3. Present the CEAP evaluation and recommended alternative to the community for feedback 4. Finalize the CEAP evaluation and recommended alternative, considering public input, to present to Transportation Advisory Board and City Council for their recommendation and action. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 52 Packet Page 299 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 29 Figure 33: CEAP Process As mentioned previously, this project’s timeline was accelerated to ensure federal funding timelines are met for the next phase of design and construction and to respond to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate project development. To expedite the design process, project staff hosted a week-long design workshop between January 13th and 16th (Figures 34 and 35). During the workshop, project staff consulted best practices, design standards, and guidelines to identify all potential solutions to the issues identified by the data and community engagement. Community members were also invited at key points during the week to learn about project work and provide feedback. The result of the workshop was three hand-drawn end-to-end alternatives that were presented to the public on the final day of the workshop for feedback. Key steps in the design workshop are discussed below as they relate to the CEAP process. Figure 34: Staff discussing traffic analysis at Design Workshop Figure 35: Staff drawing the three end-to-end alternatives Step 1: Screening and Identification of Conceptual Alternatives To begin ideation on potential improvements for north 30th Street during the design workshop week, the project team defined what design elements and alternatives would not be considered for north 30th street to ensure city transportation planning priorities, funding constraints, and transportation operational needs were met. Design changes that have not advanced were: • Removal of transit service or an existing bike facility Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 53 Packet Page 300 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 30 • Elimination of emergency response access • Addition of on-street parking • Increase in the number of travel lanes or significant expansion of the right-of-way • Potential to significantly increase travel times or divert traffic • Reconstruction of bridge structures along the corridor The list of improvements that would be advanced was then screened using eight screening criteria based on community priorities heard through the first phase of engagement. Screening Criteria Pedestrian Space: The potential to provide low-stress pedestrian facilities that are highly comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, including seniors and school-aged children. Bicycle Space: The potential to implement Low-Stress Walk and Bike Plan recommendation of protected bike lanes with adequate width. Transit Priority: The potential to support transit speed and reliability and dedicated bus space for bus stops. Vehicle Operations Feasibility: The potential to maintain the flow of traffic and private vehicle access to residential and commercial destinations. Day-to-Day Emergency Response: The potential to provide adequate space for emergency response vehicles. Disaster Emergency Response: The potential to provide space for private vehicles to evacuate during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic. Estimated Construction Impact: The potential to avoid curb realignment and removing trees could impact the cost needed to design and implement the project. Vehicle Speed Moderation: The potential to reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 54 Packet Page 301 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 31 The criteria were applied corridor wide, from Arapahoe Avenue to Diagonal Highway, and to the three distinct segments of the corridor: 1. Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road 2. Valmont Road to Pearl Street 3. Pearl Street to Arapahoe Avenue The eight screening criteria were applied using available data or professional judgment when data was not available. No criteria were weighted. More detail on the screening criteria, including the sources to define the criteria, is included in Attachment A. Screening Summary A summary of the initial conceptual configurations considered by each segment of the corridor and whether it was advanced for further analysis and included in one of the end-to-end alternatives is shown in Figure 36. Design elements considered across all configurations included: two to five vehicle lanes, bus lanes, different sidewalk widths, directional and bi- directional protected bike lanes either on-street or at sidewalk level, and different curb-to-curb widths. As a result of screening, five configurations were advanced in each of the north, central, and south segments. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 55 Packet Page 302 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 32 Figure 36: Screening Summary North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 56 Packet Page 303 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 33 Traffic Operations and Pinch Point Analysis Under the existing conditions of the street, north 30th Street effectively manages current motor vehicle volumes. The corridor performs with lower average delays than expected overall given that the corridor is developing into a dense, mixed-use area with high pedestrian and bicyclist activity. Most intersections perform at Level of Service (LOS) D or better, in accordance with the city’s Design and Construction Standards for Vehicle LOS. Only a few intersections experience significant delays (LOS E or F) on minor, or side street, approaches because traffic signals on 30th Street are prioritized for mainline traffic, making it challenging for non-signalized side-street movements to achieve higher level of service. As conceptual design alternatives were developed, an initial transportation operations feasibility analysis was conducted in the traffic modeling software, Synchro, during the design workshop week. The results of the analysis were compared to the existing conditions described above. AutoTURN was also used to assess the feasibility to improve safety for all road users by reducing curb radii and removing slip lanes at intersections. The Synchro model assumed that vehicle volumes on north 30th Street would remain the same as today, which is consistent with traffic modeling on other CAN corridor projects, such as the Iris Avenue Transportation Improvement Project, and supported by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan transportation and land use assumptions, 2023 Travel Diary Study findings of reduced single occupancy vehicle use and increased bicycling over the past nine years, and ten years of historic data that show vehicle volumes have remained reasonably constant. The outputs of the Synchro analysis helped inform how each initial configuration performed in vehicular LOS and vehicle volume to capacity ratio which provided the project team with a sense of how the alternatives would impact vehicle travel time or lead to traffic diversion to other parallel streets, such as 28th Street and Foothills Parkway. Significantly increasing the travel times and/or diverting traffic were considered non-starters for the project, so configurations that resulted in significant traffic impacts were not advanced or considered for further analysis. Pinch points and constrained locations along the corridor were also identified. These areas represent locations where the project team acknowledged a need for more detailed consideration with design, whether due to constrained space or sensitive traffic operations. These identified locations were the intersections of: Diagonal Highway, Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, Valmont Road, Bluff Street, Mapleton Avenue, Pearl Street, Walnut Street, Canyon Boulevard, and Arapahoe Avenue. Additional constrained locations were identified at: the Boulder Creek culvert north of Valmont Road, Fire Station #3 due to emergency response needs, and the Boulder Slough culvert south of Pearl Street. The configurations that passed the initial Synchro and AutoTURN analysis were then evaluated at each of the pinch points to determine which were feasible at these locations or required changes to integrate with the pinch point designs. Further Synchro analyses were run, and these informed which configurations would be eliminated, and which would comprise the end-to-end alternatives to be carried forward into a more detail traffic operations analysis utilizing the microsimulation-based TransModeler software during Step 2. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 57 Packet Page 304 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 34 Conceptual Design Alternatives The screening resulted in three end-to-end conceptual alternatives being advanced for public feedback and further CEAP evaluation. More details on the alternatives are below. Alternative A Alternative A maintains the existing number of vehicle lanes and adds modest improvements for people walking, biking, scooting or using transit. Figure 37 shows Alternative A and its key features. Figure 37: Alternative A Segments and Key Features Descriptions of each segment are included below. Alternative A North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 38) • The existing 10-foot vehicle lanes (4) are preserved. • The existing six-foot sidewalks remain. • 6-foot sidewalk-level directional protected bike lane. To accommodate the sidewalk-level bike lanes the existing landscaping on the east side would be removed. In this section, a higher density of public street trees is located on the west side. o The protected bike lanes cannot continue through the Valmont Road intersection due to space constraints. People biking will transition to a shared space with pedestrians at the corners of the intersection. • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Figure 38: Alternative A, North Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 58 Packet Page 305 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 35 Alternative A Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 39) • The existing 10-foot vehicle lanes (four travel lanes plus one center-turn lane) are preserved. • The existing sidewalks and multi-use paths are preserved. • 6.5- or 7-foot sidewalk-level directional protected bike lanes are added with a 3-foot buffer. In a constrained section near Bluff Street, the northbound sidewalk-level bike lane transitions to a multi-use path and returns to a dedicated bike lane just south of Valmont Road. • 8-foot landscaping between bike lane and sidewalk on both sides of the street, where space allows. • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Figure 39: Alternative A, Central Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 59 Packet Page 306 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 36 Alternative A South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 40) • The existing vehicle lane configuration is preserved (four travel lanes plus one center-turn lane/median: outside travel lanes are 11-feet wide, the inside lanes are 10-feet wide, and the center turn lane plus median is 12-feet wide). o Existing medians would remain between Spruce Street and Walnut Street but would be modified as necessary. South of Pearl Street, the median is narrowed from 16-feet today to 12-feet. • The existing sidewalks and multi-use paths are preserved. • 6-foot directional sidewalk level protected bike lanes are added with a 1-foot buffer between sidewalks. • The existing 8-foot landscape area is preserved and buffers the bike lanes and multi-use paths on both sides of the street, where feasible. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue. o The right-turn bypass lane at the northwest corner of the Arapahoe Avenue intersection would remain with a reconstructed raised crossing. Figure 40: Alternative A, South Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 60 Packet Page 307 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 37 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 61 Packet Page 308 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 38 Alternative B Alternative B maintains the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median from the south segment to accommodate wide, on-street protected bike lanes (the type of protection would be determined during final design), to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections. Figure 41 shows Alternative B and its key features. Figure 41: Alternative B Segments and Key Features Descriptions of each segment are included below. Alternative B North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 42) • Two 10.5-foot vehicle lanes with a 10-foot center turn lane. • The existing 6-foot sidewalks remain. • The existing 8-foot landscape areas remain. • Roadway space is reallocated to accommodate the 5-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, and Valmont Road. • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 62 Packet Page 309 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 39 Figure 42: Alternative B, North Segment Alternative B Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 43) • Two 11-foot vehicle lanes with an 11.5-foot center turn lane. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscaping remains on the west side of the street, where it is present today. • 9-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 63 Packet Page 310 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 40 Figure 43: Alternative B, Central Segment Alternative B South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 44) • Two, 11-foot vehicle lanes with the existing 16-foot center-turn lane and median preserved. o Existing medians would remain between Spruce Street and Walnut Street but would be modified as necessary. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • 10-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space in each direction. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • 8-foot landscaped buffer between multi-use path and the street on both sides of the street are preserved. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 64 Packet Page 311 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 41 Figure 44: Alternative B, South Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 65 Packet Page 312 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 42 Alternative C Alternative C reconstructs the roadway, repurposes vehicle lanes, and removes the median from the south segment to accommodate wide, sidewalk-level protected bike lanes, to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, to provide wide landscaped areas, especially in the south segment between Walnut Street and Arapahoe Avenue, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections. Figure 45 shows Alternative C and its key features. Figure 45: Alternative C Segments and Key Features Descriptions of each segment are included below. Alternative C North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 46) • Two 11-foot vehicle lanes with a 10-foot center turn lane. • The existing 6-foot sidewalks are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscaping is preserved. • 6.5-foot sidewalk level protected directional bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space between the vehicle lanes. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, and Valmont Road. • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 66 Packet Page 313 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 43 Figure 46: Alternative C, North Segment Alternative C Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 47) • Two 11-foot vehicle lanes with an 11.5-foot center turn lane. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscaping remains on the west side of the street, where it is present today. • 9-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Figure 47: Alternative C, Central Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 67 Packet Page 314 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 44 Alternative C South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 48) • Two, 11-foot vehicle lanes with the existing 16-foot center-turn lane and median preserved. o Existing medians would remain between Spruce Street and Walnut Street but would be modified as necessary. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • 10-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space in each direction. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • 8-foot landscaped buffer between multi-use path and the street on both sides of the street are preserved. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue. Figure 48: Alternative C, South Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 68 Packet Page 315 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 45 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 69 Packet Page 316 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 46 Steps 2: Compare Conceptual Design Alternatives and Receive Community Input To recognize the project’s unique context and needs, at the end of the design workshop week, the project team crafted project-specific evaluation criteria under six priority categories that aligned with the screening criteria. The project specific evaluation criteria provide more detailed evaluation than the screening criteria from which they were developed. The alternatives were further compared under the CEAP checklist. Understanding that the overall configuration of the design alternatives may alter in constrained areas, the criteria evaluated the full alternative as applied on the roadway. City departments, such as Forestry, Boulder Police Department, and Boulder-Fire Rescue Department, were consulted on the alternatives and their input was incorporated into the CEAP evaluation. CEAP Evaluation and Checklist Project Specific Evaluation Criteria The six priority categories with descriptions are below: Traffic Safety • Potential to moderate vehicle speeds • Potential to reduce the number and severity of crashes Transportation Operations • Time it takes to travel the corridor in a vehicle • Private vehicle access to residential and commercial destinations • Travel time reliability • Provision of adequate space for emergency response vehicles for day-to-day and disaster emergency response Transit Service • Share of bus stops with adequate amenities • Potential to support transit speed and reliability • Dedicated space for bus stops Safe and Comfortable Connections • Comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling • Reduction in conflict between people walking, biking, and rolling • Reduction in conflict between non-motorized users and drivers at intersections • Crossing safety and comfort Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 70 Packet Page 317 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 47 Implementation Feasibility • Time and cost needed to design and implement • Ease of maintenance • Need to acquire extra space • Need for utility relocation and updates to storm water drainage Urban Design and Placemaking • Preservation of existing street trees • Opportunities for new landscaping and urban design features like public art, street furniture, lighting, and signage For detailed definitions of evaluation criteria under each category, methodology for each criterion, and sources for the data used in the methodology, see Attachment B. Each criterion was rated on a scale of -4 to +4, with 0 representing existing conditions and the minimum (-4) and maximum (+4) scores representing the worst and best possible scenarios within the context of the 30th Street corridor. Where appropriate, city staff used extensive knowledge of the corridor alongside understanding the goals of the evaluation to manually adjust the numeric scores to better reflect each alternative’s relative impact. Below is a summary of each evaluation category results and an explanation of the scores for each criterion. Traffic Safety Evaluation Results Figure 49 shows how each alternative scored on the Traffic Safety criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 49: Traffic Safety Project Specific Evaluation Results Vehicle speed moderation Alternative A is anticipated to reduce vehicle speeds by up to 2 mph by narrowing the roadway to accommodate sidewalk-level protected bike lanes but does not reduce the number or width of vehicle lanes. Alternatives B and C provide a greater potential for speed reduction up to 7 mph by repurposing Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 71 Packet Page 318 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 48 vehicle lanes, narrowing the lanes in some segments, as well as by providing vertical and visual friction through protected bike lane elements. Reduction in conflict between vehicles Alternative A provides some reduction in potential conflict between vehicles by slightly reducing vehicle speeds but does not provide a center turn lane for drivers to wait to turn off the street. By maintaining the same number of lanes, Alternative A also has a higher number of potential conflict points at intersections. Alternatives B and C provide a greater potential reduction in conflict between vehicles by reducing vehicle speeds, fewer conflict points, and a center turn lane for drivers to wait to turn off the street. Reduction in conflict between non-motorized users Alternative A may increase the potential for conflict between non-motorized users because there is little to no separation between people walking and biking in some segments and 100% of transit stops share space with the bike lane. Alternatives B and C provide a reduction in the potential for conflict between non-motorized users by providing separate facilities for people walking and biking and wider bike lane facilities and multi-use paths to allow for side-by-side use and passing. Under Alternatives B and C, only 50% of transit stops would be shared with the bike facility, which has the potential to decrease conflicts between people biking and bus riders compared to Alternative A. Alternative C scored slightly higher than Alternative B because Alternative C’s nonmotorized facilities are wider. Reduction in conflict between vehicles and non-motorized Alternative A provides some reduction in potential conflict between vehicles and non-motorized users by providing some space for protected intersection elements and a protected bike facility. Alternatives B and C provide greater reduction in potential conflict between vehicles and non-motorized users by providing more space for protected intersection elements and protected bike facilities. Transportation Operations Evaluation Results Figure 50 shows how each alternative scored under the Transportation Operations criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 72 Packet Page 319 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 49 Figure 50: Transportation Operations Project Specific Evaluation Results Corridor vehicle travel time Providing dedicated signal phases at intersections and the time needed for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street adds time for everyone’s travel, whether or not any other safety improvements are made on the street. Today, it takes approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-mile corridor for vehicles. To determine travel time impacts for each alternative, microsimulation analysis was conducted in the TransModeler software. Alternative A results in the smallest increase of end-to-end vehicle travel time because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes as today. Alternatives B and C result in larger increases of end-to-end vehicle travel time because they repurpose vehicle lanes. Depending on the direction, time of day, and location, the analysis shows a range of travel time increases for most trips (95% of all trips): • Alternative A from 6 seconds to 2 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 1m 30s (37.5% travel time increase from today). • Alternative B from 2 minutes and 24 seconds to 8 minutes and 18 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 35s (114% travel time increase from today). • Alternative C from 2 minutes and 42 seconds to 8 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 30s (112% travel time increase from today). A travel time increase of up to 15% is evaluated as neutral, in line with the 2019 Transportation Master Plan targets to maintain 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets. Any travel time exceeding a 15% increase is evaluated for acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. Non-signalized vehicle access Access to properties via dedicated turn lanes rather than through travel lanes improves user comfort and safety. This is balanced with the frequency and length of gaps in traffic to facilitate turns out of side streets and driveways safely and without excess delay. The project team evaluated the ability of each alternative to improve ease, comfort, and safety of access. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 73 Packet Page 320 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 50 Alternative A does not change non-signalized vehicle access because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes. Alternatives B and C have a greater negative impact on non-signalized vehicle access because they repurpose vehicle lanes; Alternative B has a slightly greater impact because 95th percentile queues in the outer lanes at certain intersections block, a driveway or side street. Vehicular level of service Alternative A has no impact on vehicular level of service because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes. Alternatives B and C result in decreased vehicular level of service because they repurpose vehicle lanes; Alternative B results in a slightly greater decrease in level of service given the differences in lane configurations and associated signal phasing and timings. Specifically, Alternative C removes an all pedestrian and bike signal phase at Glenwood Drive, adds dedicated right-turn lanes for the southbound direction at the Valmont Road and Pearl Street intersections, and adds a northbound right- turn lane on the approach at Walnut St, thereby having a smaller impact on vehicle level of service compared to Alternative B. Day-to-day emergency response Alternative A has no impact on day-to-day emergency response because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes, thus maintaining the space and width available for emergency vehicles. Alternatives B and C do impact day-to-day emergency response because they repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor, thus reducing the space available for emergency vehicles. Alternative C results in less impact because it removes medians south of Mapleton Avenue, making the center turn lane available for use by emergency vehicles in the south segment of the corridor. Disaster emergency response Alternative A has no impact on disaster emergency response because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes available for evacuation. Alternatives B and C have some impact on disaster emergency response because they repurpose vehicle lanes, reducing the space available for emergency vehicles to respond to disasters and evacuating vehicles leaving the city. Based on input from emergency response, wide bike lanes could be used by both emergency and private vehicles in a disaster situation (but not day-to-day), which is why B and C score the same in this criterion. Coordination with the City of Boulder and Boulder County emergency response partners helped the team understand the many factors that go into a disaster emergency response. Staff continue to coordinate with these partners on elements, like traffic signal and intersection operations, that have the largest impact on disaster response and evacuation. Transit Service Evaluation Results Figure 51 shows how each alternative scored under the Transit Service criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 74 Packet Page 321 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 51 Figure 51: Transit Service Project Specific Evaluation Results Bus stop type and amenities Under Alternative A, 100% of bus stops are shared stops with the bike facility and therefore would have a constrained boarding area for amenities. Under Alternatives B and C, 50% are floating bus stops with dedicated boarding areas with space for amenities. Under all alternatives, stops would provide enough space for at least a shelter. Corridor bus travel time Alternative A has some impacts to bus travel time because of changes to traffic signals, while Alternatives B and C have greater impacts to bus travel time because of changes to traffic signals and repurposing vehicle lanes. The scores for transit travel time match the overall travel time scores because the overall travel time increases impact buses as well as all other vehicles. Safe and Comfortable Connections Evaluation Results Figure 52 shows how each alternative scored under the Safe and Comfortable Connections criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 52: Safe and Comfortable Connections Project Specific Evaluation Results Walking comfort Alternative A does not provide an increase in comfort for people walking because it does not widen most sidewalks or multi-use paths. Alternatives B and C provide increases in walking comfort by providing more separation between people walking, rolling, biking, and driving, while also providing fewer lanes of traffic for people walking and rolling to cross and decreasing vehicle speed through lane repurposing. Biking comfort Alternative A provides an increase in comfort for people riding bikes by installing a protected sidewalk- level bike lane, providing more separation and protection from cars. Alternatives B and C provide greater increases in biking comfort by providing wider bike facilities that allow passing, while also providing fewer vehicle lanes for people biking to cross and vehicle speed moderation through lane repurposing. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 75 Packet Page 322 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 52 Crossing safety and comfort Alternative A provides a small increase in crossing safety and comfort by providing some space for protected intersection elements, but no space for refuge islands between intersections and people will have to cross the same number of vehicle lanes as today to cross the street. Vehicle speeds are also not expected to decrease. Alternatives B and C provide greater increases in crossing safety and comfort by providing more space for protected intersections and refuge islands between intersections and reduces the number of vehicle lanes to cross the street. Alternative C provides the greatest increase in crossing safety and comfort because Alternative C provides the greatest total number of marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and bulb-outs. Implementation Feasibility Evaluation Results Figure 53 shows how each alternative scored under the Implementation and Feasibility criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 53: Implementation Feasibility Project Specific Evaluation Results Time to design and implement Alternatives A and C require more time to design and implement because they reconstruct the roadway, impact utilities and trees, and elevate the bike lane to sidewalk-level. Alternative C also significantly increases landscaped areas. Alternative B requires the least amount of time to design and implement because it maintains the existing curb line, provides on-street protected bike lanes, and therefore requires minimal roadway reconstruction and so impacts fewer utilities and trees. Maintenance Alternative C will be the most difficult to maintain due to the need for added landscape maintenance. Alternative A requires less landscaping maintenance due to the reduction in landscaping, but it lacks significant space for snow storage due to vehicle lanes being preserved throughout the corridor. Alternative B is the easiest to maintain because it provides adequate space for snow storage and will not require additional landscape maintenance compared to existing conditions. Right-of-way acquisition None of the alternatives are known to require right-of-way acquisition at this stage and therefore all alternatives scored a neutral “0.” Implementation cost Alternative A costs more to implement because it relocates curbs, impacts utilities and trees, and elevates the bike lane to sidewalk-level. Alternative C is also more costly because it relocates curbs, impacts utilities and trees, and significantly increases landscaped areas. Alternative B is the lowest cost alternative because it maintains the existing curb line. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 76 Packet Page 323 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 53 Urban Design and Placemaking Evaluation Results Figure 54 shows how each alternative scored under the Urban Design and Placemaking criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 54: Urban Design and Placemaking Project Specific Evaluation Results Preserves existing public street trees Alternative A removes the most existing public street trees out of the three alternatives in order to preserve vehicle lanes while accommodating protected bike lanes. Alternative B preserves all existing street trees because it maintains the existing curbs and does not require roadway reconstruction. Although Alternative C could increase the number of trees over the long term, it still results in the removal of existing, mature trees due to the relocation of curbs and reconstruction of the roadway to accommodate increased space for landscaping and sidewalk-level bike lanes. Landscaping and amenities Alternative A removes existing landscaped areas and provides the least space for landscaping or other amenities to preserve vehicle lanes while providing space for a protected bike facility at sidewalk level. Alternative B does not change existing landscaping or amenity zones because it maintains the existing curbs and does not require roadway reconstruction. Alternative C provides the greatest opportunity for additional landscaping and other amenities throughout the corridor, especially in the southern segment. CEAP Checklist In addition to the project specific evaluation criteria, the CEAP checklist was used to further compare and evaluate the alternatives. The CEAP checklist evaluates potential social and environmental impacts to guide analysis and comparison of the conceptual alternatives. The CEAP checklist provides an opportunity to balance multiple community goals in the design of a capital project by assessing consistency with policies outlined in citywide and departmental plans, like the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), Transportation Master Plan, and Vision Zero Action Plan. This evaluation includes an assessment of how the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project will help achieve established city departmental master plan goals and goals of the BVCP. This goals assessment can be found in Attachment C. The CEAP checklist rates each alternative (+) Positive effect, (-) Negative effect, and (0) No effect. The full results of the CEAP checklist evaluation can be found in Attachment D. Only CEAP checklist criteria that identified a positive or negative effect for an alternative are shown below. Figure 55 provides a summary of the results of the CEAP Checklist analysis. The CEAP checklist evaluation resulted in Alternative A having a net negative effect, Alternative B having a net positive effect, and Alternative C having a net neutral effect. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 77 Packet Page 324 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 54 Figure 55: CEAP Checklist Result CEAP Checklist Questions CEAP checklist questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. More information is provided below for the checklist lines that indicated a positive or negative effect. Attachment E provides the detailed responses to the checklist evaluation questions. Impact to Natural Areas or Features Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to natural areas or features, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed and existing landscaped areas would be disturbed. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, nearly 10% of the existing street trees, mostly in the south segment, would be removed. However, Alternative C would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. Mature trees may provide habitat, but this has not been evaluated for the project. It is assumed that by removing trees the potential for providing habitat is also removed. Impact to Geology and Soils Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to geology and soils, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 78 Packet Page 325 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 55 Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, there would be none to minimal disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Impact to Water Quality Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to water quality, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a positive score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, this requires extensive ground clearing and excavation and increases in hardscape, storm drainage needs, and public street removals, all of which would impact water quality compared to existing conditions. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, there would be no changes to stormwater drainage infrastructure, extensive ground clearing or excavation, or existing street trees, and there would be no impact to water quality compared to existing conditions. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. During construction there would be a need for ground clearing and excavation and changes to stormwater infrastructure, however the net increase in landscaped areas and street trees after construction would have a positive impact on water quality compared to existing conditions. There are not any leaky tanks in the corridor that any of the alternatives would impact, as verified by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. Impact to Air Quality Alternatives A, B, and C all receive positive scores for impact to air quality because: All alternatives provide safer and more comfortable multimodal facilities which transportation research finds results in a reduction in fine particulate emissions from vehicles.1 All alternatives incorporate proven safety countermeasures that support people having more transportation choices and a corresponding reduction in vehicle trips, reduction in vehicle emissions, and improved air quality. However, Alternatives B and C may see an increased level of air quality due to the repurposing of vehicle lanes, more safety improvements for people walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit, and increased landscaped areas along the corridor compared to Alternative A. 1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920914001254 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 79 Packet Page 326 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 56 Exposure to Excessive Noise Alternative A receives a negative score for exposure to excessive noise, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a positive score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed. Street trees and landscaped areas help mitigate noise pollution to adjacent properties. Further, preserving vehicle lanes throughout the corridor would not result in a reduction of road noise for nearby residents. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed that all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved, which would preserve the same level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties as today. Further, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would also reduce road noise for nearby residents. Alternative C would increase the number of street trees and landscaped areas along the corridor. As a result, Alternative C would provide the greatest level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties among the alternatives. Further, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would also reduce road noise for nearby residents. All alternatives would have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction. Need for Additional Police and Fire Services Alternative A receives a neutral score for need for additional police and fire services, Alternative B a negative score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A preserves the same number of vehicle lanes and space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today. As a result, there is no impact to police and fire services operations or need for additional services. Alternative B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. As a result, there is less space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today in both Alternatives B and C. All three alternatives improve safety on the corridor which may decrease the demand for police and fire services responding to traffic crashes or other traffic related incidents. Effects on Special Populations Alternatives A, B, and C all receive positive scores for effects on special populations because: All alternatives provide improved sidewalks, transit stops, protected bike lanes, safety improvements for drivers, improvements at intersections, new mid-block crossings, and Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramp compliance work. This will positively impact the travel experience of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth and sensitive populations who are more likely to walk, bike, roll or use transit to travel. Alternatives B and C would have a greater positive effect on special populations as there are more safety improvements in those two alternatives compared to Alternative A. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 80 Packet Page 327 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 57 Economic Vitality: Utilization of Existing Infrastructure Alternative A receives a negative score for utilization of existing infrastructure, Alternative B a positive score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, all or most of the existing utility and roadway infrastructure would be maintained and repurposed for on-street protected bike lanes and improved transit facilities. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. All alternatives accommodate city maintenance vehicles and so they do not require new equipment to maintain. Evaluation Summary Figure 56 shows a comparison of Alternatives and how they scored under the project specific evaluation criteria, and Figure 57 show the CEAP checklist results. A weighted average of the project specific evaluation criteria in each category is shown and summed at the bottom for a scoring total. The CEAP checklist was summed where a positive impact was assigned a positive one (+1), a negative impact was assigned a negative one (-1), and a neutral impact received a score of zero (0). Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 81 Packet Page 328 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 58 Figure 56: Project Specific Evaluation Results Figure 57: CEAP Checklist Evaluation Results Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 82 Packet Page 329 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 59 Community Input on Alternatives and CEAP Evaluation: Winter – Spring 2025 At the end of the design workshop week on January 13, the three alternatives were presented to the public for feedback at an in-person open house (Figure 58). Figure 58: January 13 Open House Figure 59: Feedback Board at January 13 Open House At the open house, project staff asked participants to consider how the alternatives address community priorities (Figure 59) and for open ended feedback on the alternatives. After the design workshop week, follow up focus group conversations to receive feedback on the alternatives were held with the same communities in Phase 1: Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro (Figure 60), BHP/Boulder Junction (Figure 61), and Bluebird Apartments (Figure 62). Figure 60: San Juan Del Centro Focus Group Figure 61: BHP/Boulder Junction Focus Group Figure 62: Bluebird Focus Group A virtual open house presenting the alternatives with a questionnaire asking how the alternatives address community priorities was also available online between February 10 and February 24. Key themes on community priorities and the alternatives from the January 13 open house, follow up events, and online questionnaire are summarized below: • Community members felt Alternative A: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 83 Packet Page 330 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 60 o Addressed the following community priorities: travel time reliability and business access. o Did not address the following community priorities: vehicle speed mitigation, trees and green space, placemaking, transit priority, or intersection safety improvements o Provided an increase in safety for bikes and pedestrians but not as much as Alternatives B and C. o Should remove slip lanes to help reduce speeds and improve safety at intersections, similar to Alternatives B and C. o Did not provide enough space for snow storage for bike lanes and transit stops during storms. o Alternative A was the preferred alternative for those whose prioritized travel time the reliability the most. • Community members felt Alternative B: o Addressed the following community priorities: bike safety (more than Alternative A), pedestrian safety, vehicle speed mitigation, intersection safety improvements, and trees and green space o Did not address the community priorities of transit priority and travel time reliability  Received mixed feedback on whether the alternative supported business access. Some thought lane repurposing hurt business access for those driving to businesses, while others thought improvements to walking and biking supported business access by alternative modes. o Strikes a middle ground between alternatives, offering bicyclist and pedestrian safety and implementation within the project’s timeline and budget, but there were concerns about traffic congestion with lane repurposing and overall space available for snow storage during storms. o Alternative B was the preferred alternative for those who prioritized safety improvements for all modes and the city’s ability to implement the project within existing funding and timeline constraints. • Community members felt Alternative C: o Addressed the following community priorities: bike safety (more than Alternative A and similar to Alternative B), pedestrian safety, vehicle speed mitigation, intersection safety improvements, and trees and green space o Did not address the community priorities of transit priority and travel time reliability  Received mixed feedback on whether the alternative supported business access. Some thought lane repurposing hurt business access for those driving to businesses, while others thought improvements to walking and biking supported business access by alternative modes. o Provides the most improvements for people walking and biking and enhances placemaking with the increased landscape areas in the south segment of the corridor but community members recognized this alternative may cost more and need more time to implement than the other alternatives. o Alternative C was the preferred alternative for those who prioritized safety improvements for all modes and increasing trees and green space on the corridor, but Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 84 Packet Page 331 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 61 did not see the city’s ability to implement the project within existing funding and timeline constraints as a priority. • Overall: o Vehicle speed mitigation, bike safety, transit priority, and urban design/placemaking were the top priorities that participants shared and wanted to see in a recommended alternative, overall. o All alternatives performed well for bike safety, but community members felt Alternative B and C prioritized this the most. o All alternatives performed poorly for prioritizing transit. o Across all alternatives, pinch points where bike lanes narrow should be avoided, and signal timing phases east-west should be considered to alleviate challenges and conflicts pedestrians and bicyclists face with left-turning vehicles. o There is a desire for increasing or maintaining existing levels of trees and green space on the corridor Due to the condensed project timeline, the project team began the CEAP evaluation process for the three concept alternatives while receiving feedback in February. Feedback on the conceptual design alternatives was collected and reviewed for consideration into the CEAP evaluation results on a rolling basis. In March, project staff shared the CEAP evaluation results with the public at an in-person open house on March 12, 2025 (Figure 63). Throughout March and April, project staff held “office hours”, events along the corridor where members of the public could review the material presented at the open house and engage with project staff. Locations included Boulder Housing Partners 30Pearl Apartments, San Juan Del Centro (Figure 64), and Fire Station #3. Figure 63: March 12 Open House Figure 64: San Juan Del Centro “Office Hours” In addition, a virtual open house and questionnaire was also offered between March 14 and April 4. At the in-person events and virtual open house, participants were asked to rank the evaluation criteria on a scale of 1-6, where 1 = most important and 6 = least important, and which alternative, A, B, or C best meets each criteria category. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 85 Packet Page 332 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 62 Below are the average rankings from all responses collected between March and April: • Safe and Comfortable Connections was consistently rated as more or most important with an average ranking of 2.2. • Traffic Safety was consistently rated as more or most important with an average ranking of 2.5. • Transit Priority and Urban Design and Placemaking were rated as moderately important with average rankings of 3.6 (Transit Priority) and 3.96 (Urban Design and Placemaking) • Transportation Operations and Implementation Feasibility were rated as least important with average rankings of 4.1 (Transportation Operations) and 4.33 (Implementation Feasibility). In terms of which alternatives best met each category, respondents generally considered: • Alternative A best to address Transportation Operations and Transit Priority best • Alternative B to address Implementation Feasibility best. • Alternative C to address Traffic Safety, Safe and Comfortable Connections, and Urban Design and Placemaking best. Similar to the first phase of engagement, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available at events and Spanish language material was available online. All events conducted in Winter through Spring 2025 are summarized in Figure 65. Figure 65: Summary of Winter/Spring 2025 Phase 2 community engagement activities The number of participants at events and engaging with material in phase 2 was generally lower than first phase of the project. Through the first half of 2025, departments across the city are seeing lower participation than usual for engagement processes. This is likely due to forces outside the control of the city, but engagement for this project is consistent with citywide trends. `Engagement Event Dat e(s) Participants People Reached Design Workshop Open House 1/16/2025 39 San Juan Del Centro Follow Up Focus Group 1/27/2025 3 Boulder Housing Partners and Boulder Junction Follow Up Focus Group 1/28/2025 40 Bluebird Apartments Follow Up Foucs Group 1/31/2025 8 Project Email Newsletter Update 2/14/2025 338 Virtual Open House and Questionnaire 2/10 - 2/24/2025 3 Business Flyering and Conversations 2/25/2025 20 Business Flyering and Conversations 3/4/2025 20 Project Email Newsletter Update 3/5/2025 347 Open House #2 3/12/2025 37 Boulder Transportation Connections Quarterly Lunch 3/13/2025 20 Boulder Housing Partners/Boulder Junction Office Hours 3/18/2025 7 San Juan Del Centro Office Hours 3/19/2025 1 Fire Station #3 Office Hours 3/22/2025 10 Business Flyering and Conversations 4/1/2025 10 City Council Study Session 4/10/2025 Transportation Advisory Board Update 4/14/2025 Total 168 735 Winter - Spring 2025 January March April February Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 86 Packet Page 333 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 63 Despite lower engagement, project staff still reached over 700 community members through outreach methods, and over 150 community members participated in in-person or virtual opportunities. Balancing Community Input and Project Priorities of Each Alternative The CEAP evaluation results highlighted important tradeoffs in four key project evaluation criteria: traffic safety, safe and comfortable connections, transportation operations, and implementation feasibility. An evaluation summary for the three alternatives is shown in Figure 66. Figure 66: Summary of CEAP Evaluation for Alternatives A, B, and C By repurposing travel lanes, Alternatives B and C provide the greatest safety benefits of the three alternatives. However, repurposing vehicle lanes results in impacts to transportation operations, namely travel time for vehicles on the corridor, and impacts to emergency response. Lastly, the project has been awarded $9 million in Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal grant funds for improvements north of Pearl Street; these funds must be fully spent by the end of 2029. Alternatives A and C require full reconstruction of the roadway, which takes more time and money to build than Alternative B. The second phase of engagement highlighted the need to balance these project priorities: traffic safety and safe and comfortable connections were consistently rated as the most or second most important priority of the project for the public. Community members also shared concerns about reducing vehicle lanes and the impact this would have on travel time for drivers and transit riders. At the same time, internal engagement with Boulder Fire-Rescue, Boulder Police Department, and the joint city and county Office of Disaster Management all noted the importance of north 30th Street for emergency response and emphasized the roadway space available to emergency vehicles and evacuation in case of a disaster scenario. Finally, being able to implement improvements quickly will have an outsized impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and making the corridor safer for everyone. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 87 Packet Page 334 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 64 Project staff developed a fourth alternative that balanced these priorities by combining elements of these three alternatives for evaluation. Development of Hybrid Alternative The fourth alternative combines the vehicle lane configurations of the north segment of Alternative B and the south segment of Alternative A. This configuration repurposes vehicle lanes north of Valmont Road but maintains vehicle lanes south of Pearl Street. Further analysis was completed to ensure operational needs in the central segment, from Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue, were met, especially for Boulder Fire-Rescue operations at Fire Station #3 at Bluff Street. TransModeler analysis found traffic volumes are greatest during the evening peak period in the northbound direction. Due to these volumes, an asymmetrical configuration was further analyzed to mitigate impacts to corridor vehicle travel time. The fourth alternative redesigns major intersections and the space between them to give everyone the time and space they need to travel safely, reduce common crash patterns, while minimizing changes to travel time. Figure 67 shows the hybrid alternative and its key features. Figure 67: Hybrid Alternative and Key Features Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 88 Packet Page 335 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 65 Descriptions of each segment of the Hybrid Alternative are included below. Hybrid Alternative North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 68) • Two 10.5-foot vehicle lanes with a 10-foot center turn lane. • The existing 6-foot sidewalks remain. • The existing 8-foot landscape areas remain. • Roadway space is reallocated to accommodate the 5-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space. (The type of protection is to be determined during final design). • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, and Valmont Road. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 89 Packet Page 336 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 66 • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Figure 68: Hybrid Alternative, North Segment Hybrid Alternative Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 69) • Two 10-foot northbound vehicle lanes, one 11-foot southbound vehicle lane, and an 11.5-foot center turn lane. • 10’ multi-use paths and 8-foot landscaped areas are proposed and will be implemented by private development where redevelopment has not occurred. • Roadway space is reallocated to accommodate 6.5-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space. (The type of protection is to be determined during final design). • Concrete medians are proposed south of the Valmont intersection for access management and to reduce vehicle conflicts • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 90 Packet Page 337 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 67 Figure 69: Hybrid Alternative, Central Segment Hybrid Alternative South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 70) • The existing vehicle lane configuration is preserved (four 10-foot travel lanes plus one 11-foot center-turn lane/median) o Existing medians are modified as necessary o North of Spruce Street, a painted median functions as a 10-foot dedicated lane for emergency response vehicles (Figure 71). • The existing sidewalks and multi-use paths are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscape area is preserved. • 5-foot on-street protected bike lanes are added with 3-foot buffer space. (The type of protection is to be determined during final design). o The on-street bike lane transitions to sidewalk level between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street, Walnut Street, Canyon Boulevard, and Arapahoe Avenue. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 91 Packet Page 338 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 68 Figure 70: Hybrid Alternative, South Segment Figure 71: Hybrid Alternative, North of Spruce Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 92 Packet Page 339 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 69 Project Specific Evaluation of Hybrid Alternative The Hybrid Alternative was evaluated using the six project specific evaluation categories to compare to Alternatives A, B, and C. Results from each category and descriptions of scores are detailed below. Traffic Safety Evaluation Results Figure 72 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Traffic Safety criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 72: Hybrid Alternative Traffic Safety Project Specific Evaluation Results Vehicle speed moderation The Hybrid Alternative reduces vehicle speeds by narrowing lane widths, reducing the number of vehicle lanes in the north and central segments, and by providing vertical and visual friction through protected bike lane elements. The Hybrid Alternative is anticipated to reduce speeds greater than Alternative A, but not as much as Alternatives B and C, which repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. Reduction in conflict between vehicles The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflicts between vehicles by reducing vehicle speeds and providing a center turn lane for drivers to wait to turn off the street in the north segment and adding medians for access management at key locations. The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflict points between vehicles in the north and central segments through lane repurposing (similar to Alternatives B and C), but the same number of conflict points remain in the southern segment (similar to Alternative A). Reduction in conflict between non-motorized users The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflicts between non-motorized users by providing separate facilities for people walking and biking at intersections and between them through on-street protected bike lanes and protected intersections. In some constrained segments of the corridor, the on-street bike lane transitions to sidewalk level with a minimum width buffer between the sidewalk and bike lane, which may lead to conflicts between users. Similar to Alternative B and C, 50% of the transit stops in the Hybrid Alternative are shared stops with the bike facility and 50% are full floating bus stops with a dedicated boarding area. The Hybrid Alternative scores are similar to Alternative B but less than Alternative C due to Alternative C’s nonmotorized facility widths being the widest of all alternatives. Reduction in conflict between vehicles and non-motorized users The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflicts between vehicles and non-motorized users by providing protected intersection elements at all signalized intersections, removing all right-turn bypass lanes at Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 93 Packet Page 340 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 70 intersections, and providing space for a protected bike facility. The Hybrid Alternative scores similar to Alternatives B and C. Transportation Operations Evaluation Results Figure 73 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Transportation Operations criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 73: Hybrid Alternative Transportation Operations Project Specific Evaluation Results Corridor Vehicle travel time The Hybrid Alternative incorporates dedicated signal phases at intersections and the time needed for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street, increasing travel time for everyone, similar to Alternatives A, B, and C. However, strategic lane repurposing minimizes travel time impacts under the Hybrid Alternative, resulting in evaluation scores similar to Alternative A which does not repurpose vehicle lanes. Today, it takes on average approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-mile corridor. To determine travel time impacts for each alternative, microsimulation analysis was conducted in the TransModeler software. Depending on the direction, time of day, and location, the analysis shows a range of travel time increases for most trips (95% of all trips). These impacts are shown below for the Hybrid Alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C for reference: • Hybrid Alternative from 6 seconds to 3 minutes and 6 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 1m 30s (37.5% travel time increase from today). • Alternative A from 6 seconds to 2 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 1m 30s (37.5% travel time increase from today). • Alternative B from 2 minutes and 24 seconds to 8 minutes and 18 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 35s (114% travel time increase from today). • Alternative C from 2 minutes and 42 seconds to 8 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 30s 112% travel time increase from today). A 15% travel time increase is generally rated as acceptable, in line with the 2019 Transportation Master Plan targets to maintain 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets. Any travel time exceeding Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 94 Packet Page 341 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 71 a 15% increase is evaluated for acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. Non-signalized vehicle access Access to properties via dedicated turn lanes rather than through travel lanes improves user comfort and safety. This is balanced with the frequency and length of gaps in traffic to facilitate turns out of side streets and driveways safely and without excess delay. The project team evaluated the ability of each alternative to improve ease, comfort, and safety of access. The Hybrid Alternative has less impact on non-signalized vehicle access than Alternatives B and C because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes in the south segment and repurposes one lane in the central segment and two lanes in the northern segment. Vehicular level of service The Hybrid Alternative has no impact on vehicular level of service because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes in the south segment and preserves a dedicated eastbound right turn lane at Pearl Street and extends the southbound left turn lane at Valmont Road to limit queues impacting through traffic. Day-to-day emergency response The Hybrid Alternative impacts day-to-day emergency response because it repurposes vehicle lanes in the north and central segment, reducing the space available for emergency vehicles. However, these impacts are mitigated and are minimal because its design adds a painted median for emergency vehicle use and provides signal timing preemption to facilitate egress from Fire Station #3 for calls north and south of the station on 30th Street. Based on input from emergency response, this design is preferrable to Alternative B’s protected bike lane design. Disaster emergency response The Hybrid Alternative impacts disaster emergency response because it repurposes vehicle lanes in the north and central segment, reducing the space available for emergency vehicles to respond to disasters and evacuating vehicles leaving the city. However, these impacts are mitigated and are minimal because lanes are maintained at major intersections. Transit Service Evaluation Results Figure 74 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Transit Service criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 74: Hybrid Alternative Transit Service Project Specific Evaluation Results Bus stop type and amenities The Hybrid Alternative scores the same as Alternative B and C. Under the hybrid alternative, 50% of transit stops are shared stops with the bike facility and 50% are full floating bus stops with dedicated Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 95 Packet Page 342 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 72 boarding areas. Floating stops with dedicated boarding areas provide more space for amenities. All stops provide space for a shelter. Corridor bus travel time The Hybrid Alternative scores the same as Alternative A for bus travel time because the travel time impacts are similar to Alternative A. Scores for transit travel time match the overall travel time scores because the overall travel time increases impact buses as well as all other vehicles. Safe and Comfortable Connections Evaluation Results Figure 75 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Safe and Comfortable Connections criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 75: Hybrid Alternative Safe and Comfortable Connections Project Specific Evaluation Results Walking comfort The Hybrid Alternative provides increases in walking comfort compared to existing conditions and Alternative A by providing more separation between people walking, rolling, biking, and driving, providing fewer lanes of traffic in the north and central segments for people walking and rolling to cross, and decreasing vehicle speeds through lane repurposing. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the entire corridor resulting in the Hybrid Alternative scoring slightly lower than these alternatives. Biking comfort The Hybrid Alternative provides increases in biking comfort compared to existing conditions and Alternative A by providing protected bike facilities throughout the corridor, providing fewer lanes of traffic for people biking to cross, and decreasing vehicle speed through lane repurposing in the north and central segments. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the entire corridor and provide a wider bike facility, resulting in the Hybrid Alternative scoring slightly lower than these alternatives. Crossing safety and comfort The Hybrid Alternative provides increases in crossing safety and comfort compared to existing conditions and Alternative A by providing space for protected intersections at all signalized intersections, refuge islands between intersections at new and existing mid-block crossings, and reduces the number of vehicle lanes to cross the street in the north and central segments. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the entire corridor and Alternative C provides the greatest number of total number of marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and bulb-outs resulting in the Hybrid Alternative scoring slightly lower than these alternatives. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 96 Packet Page 343 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 73 Implementation Feasibility Evaluation Results Figure 76 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Implementation Feasibility criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 76: Hybrid Alternative Implementation Feasibility Project Specific Evaluation Results Time to design and implement The Hybrid Alternative is similar to Alternative B in terms of time to design and implement. Under the Hybrid Alternative, only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction, and the majority of improvements can be implemented within the existing roadway. As a result, it will take less time to design and implement compared to Alternatives A and C. It is assumed Alternative B would be implemented completely within the existing roadway resulting in a slightly lower score for the Hybrid Alternative. Maintenance The hybrid alternative is similar to Alternatives A and B in terms of maintenance. The hybrid alternative preserves or replaces 100% of the existing street trees on the corridor and will not require additional landscape maintenance compared to existing conditions, similar to Alternative B. The Hybrid Alternative also provides adequate space for snow storage in the north and central segments, similar to Alternative B, but maintaining vehicle lanes in the south segment may result in snow accumulating in the vertical element of the bike lane under the Hybrid Alternative, similar to Alternative A. Right-of-way acquisition None of the alternatives are known to require right-of-way acquisition at this stage and therefore all alternatives scored a neutral “0.” Implementation cost The Hybrid Alternative is slightly more expensive than Alternative B to implement because 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. Urban Design and Placemaking Evaluation Results Figure 77 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Urban Design and Placemaking criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 97 Packet Page 344 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 74 Figure 77: Hybrid Alternative Urban Design and Placemaking Project Specific Evaluation Results Preserves existing public street trees The Hybrid Alternative will need to remove 23 of the 197 existing street trees on the corridor, which is similar to Alternative C. However, 100% of these will be replaced. Impacts to existing trees are less than Alternative A, and additional trees will be added where space and funding allow under the Hybrid Alternative. Landscaping and amenities The Hybrid Alternative will preserve most of the existing landscaping and additional areas for landscaping and placemaking amenities will be added where space, for example where right-turn slip lanes are removed, and funding allow. CEAP Checklist – Hybrid Alternative Evaluation The Hybrid Alternative was also evaluated through the CEAP checklist. Figure 78 shows the results of the evaluation with the results of Alternatives A, B, and C for reference. Figure 78: Hybrid Alternative CEAP Checklist Evaluation Results CEAP Checklist Questions CEAP Checklist questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. More information is provided below for the checklist lines that indicated a positive or negative effect. Attachment E provides the detailed responses to the checklist evaluation questions. Impact to Natural Areas or Features The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to natural areas as compared to existing conditions because: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 98 Packet Page 345 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 75 The Hybrid Alternative is mostly implementable within the existing curb to curb: only 18% of the 1.5- mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, the recommended design has few impacts to existing landscaped areas and preserves or replaces 100% of the 197 existing street trees on the corridor. Preserving street trees and landscaped areas does not change today’s stormwater runoff. Preservation of existing street tress and landscaped areas continues the corridor’s current ability to address urban heat, and the recommended design’s strategic repurposing of vehicle lanes and removal of right-turn slip lanes may provide space for additional trees and landscaping to further minimize urban heat. Impact to Geology and Soils The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to geology and soils as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative is mostly implementable within the existing curb to curb and so there will be minimal impact and disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Impact to Water Quality The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to water quality as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative design is mostly implementable within the existing curb to curb. As a result, the hybrid alternative won’t significantly change the existing storm drain infrastructure or require extensive clearing or excavation during construction. There are not any leaky tanks in the corridor that the recommendation would impact, as verified by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. The Hybrid Alternative design uses strategic vehicle lane repurposing which may provide space for additional street trees and landscaping which would have a positive impact on water quality from the net decrease in hardscape on the corridor. Impact to Air Quality The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to air quality as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative provides safer and more comfortable multimodal facilities which transportation research finds results in a reduction in fine particulate emissions from vehicles.2 The recommended design’s use of proven safety countermeasures supports people having more transportation choices and a corresponding reduction in vehicle trips, reduction in vehicle emissions, and improved air quality. The Hybrid Alternative preserves or replaces 100% of the existing street trees and landscaping which improves air quality. Exposure to Excessive Noise The Hybrid Alternative receives a positive score for noise impacts as compared to existing conditions because: 2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920914001254 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 99 Packet Page 346 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 76 The Hybrid Alternative preserves or replaces 100% of the existing street trees and landscaping which mitigates noise pollution. The Hybrid Alternative also generally moves vehicle travel lanes away from property lines, and vehicle speed reductions associated with the safety improvements of the project will also reduce road noise for nearby residents. Overall, the Hybrid Alternative will have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction, but over the long term, exposure to noise will be reduced. Need for Additional Police and Fire Services The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral impact on police and fire services as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative strategically repurposes vehicle lanes to improve safety on the corridor while providing space for emergency response, including design modifications at common service locations on the corridor. Traffic signal pre-emption supports emergency response vehicle movement from Fire Station #3 to and through the Valmont Road, Bluff Street, Spruce Street, and Pearl Street intersections. The safety improvements could reduce the demand for police and fire services related to traffic crashes. Effects on Special Populations The Hybrid Alternative receives a positive score for effects on special populations as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative design provides improved sidewalks, transit stops, protected bike lanes, safety improvements for drivers, improvements at intersections, new mid-block crossings, and Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramp compliance work. This will positively impact the travel experience of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth and sensitive populations who are more likely to walk, bike, roll or use transit to travel. Economic Vitality: Utilization of Existing Infrastructure The Hybrid Alternative receives a positive score for economic vitality as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative utilizes existing infrastructure for 80% of the 1.5-mile corridor and therefore maintains most of the existing utility and roadway infrastructure for other purposes, such as on-street protected bike lanes and improved transit facilities. The Hybrid Alternative provides space for snow storage on most of the corridor and accommodates city maintenance vehicles and so does not require new equipment to maintain. Evaluation Summary and Recommendation Figure 79 shows a comparison of Alternatives and how they scored under the project specific evaluation criteria and the CEAP checklist. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 100 Packet Page 347 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 77 Figure 79: Summary of CEAP Evaluation for All Alternatives Based on the CEAP evaluation results, the Hybrid Alternative balances the project’s and community’s priorities for improvements on north 30th Street and is the recommended design. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 101 Packet Page 348 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 78 The Hybrid Alternative scores positively in three project specific criteria: Traffic Safety, Safe and Comfortable Connections, and Transit Service. It scores negatively in the remaining three project specific criteria: Transportation Operations, Implementation Feasibility, and Urban Design and Placemaking. In terms of overall score when considering the project specific criteria, the Hybrid Alternative achieves the highest as compared to Alternatives A, B, and C. The Hybrid Alternative also scores more positively overall amongst the CEAP Checklist criteria than Alternatives A, B, and C. All alternatives score negatively under Transportation Operations because safety improvements at intersections across all alternatives add time for everyone’s travel, whether or not any other safety improvements are made on the street. By strategically repurposing vehicle lanes, the Hybrid Alternative minimizes operational impacts similar to Alternative A, while providing safety benefits, similar to Alternatives B and C. Similarly, all alternatives score negatively under Implementation Feasibility because advancing any project on the corridor takes time and cost to design, implement, and maintain new improvements compared to existing conditions (no project). By building improvements mostly within the existing roadway, the Hybrid Alternative takes less time to design and implement compared to Alternatives A and C, and roadway reconstruction will take place at constrained locations in order to construct a protected bike lane facility while maintaining sufficient vehicle lanes for operations. Finally, the Hybrid Alternative scores slightly negative under Urban Design and Placemaking because it requires removal of a small percentage of existing street trees and landscaped areas. However, all trees that will need to be removed will be replanted on the corridor and additional areas for landscaping and placemaking amenities will be added where space and funding allow. The Hybrid Alternative mitigates these negative impacts the best of all the alternatives while scoring positively in the following criteria: Traffic Safety, Safe and Comfortable Connections, and Transit Service. By repurposing vehicle lanes to reduce vehicle speeds and improving safety at intersections by adding protected elements and removing slip lanes, the Hybrid Alternative addresses a history of crashes along the corridor and will help the city achieve its Vision Zero goal of eliminating serious injury and fatal crashes on our streets. These improvements are shown at the Pearl Street intersection (Figure 80). Figure 80: Rendering of the 30th and Pearl Street Intersection Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 102 Packet Page 349 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 79 Improving safety for vehicles also improves safety for vulnerable road users walking, biking, and rolling. The Hybrid Alternative will add on-street protected bike lanes, shorten crossing distances for pedestrians, add new pedestrian crossings, and upgrade existing crossings. These improvements are shown at the upgraded pedestrian crossing south of Walnut Street (Figure 81). Figure 81: Rendering of Walking and Biking Improvements Finally, the Hybrid Alternative will also improve the experience for transit riders on the corridor through new floating bus stops. Floating bus stops provide riders with dedicated places to wait for the bus, with amenities like shelters and benches. They also improve transit speed and reliability by keeping buses in the travel lane, which reduces transit service delays, and reduces conflicts between bikes and transit vehicles. These improvements are shown at the new bus stop at Glenwood Drive (Figure 82). The Hybrid Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 103 Packet Page 350 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 80 Alternative is also compatible with potential transit signal priority, as recommended at 30th Street and Pearl Street in CDOT’s 10-Year Plan to improve travel time and reliability for regional and local transit. Figure 82: Rendering of Transit Stop Improvements at Glenwood Drive As a result of this balancing of improvements for everyone traveling on the corridor, the Hybrid Alternative total score is the highest of all alternatives when all criteria – project specific and CEAP checklist – are considered. The Hybrid Alternative will make north 30th Street a true multimodal street with safe, comfortable, and convenient connections to key local and regional destinations along one of Boulder’s main corridors. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 104 Packet Page 351 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 81 Step 3: Present Final Evaluation and Recommended Alternative to the Community Project staff presented the recommendation to the community at an in-person open house on May 21, 2025 (Figure 83). The recommendation was presented on a large map to show design detail for the entire corridor. Presentation boards with project background information and laptops with access to detailed evaluation information were also available. Participants could leave feedback on the map (Figure 84) and on a comment card sharing what they are excited about the recommendation, what concerns them, and how project staff could mitigate their concerns as the design is advanced (Figure 85). Figure 83: May 21 Open House Figure 84: Comments on the roll plot Figure 85: Comment Cards The material presented at the open house was also available online from May 21 through June 13, at “office hours,” and at community pop-ups. Office hours focused on continuing discussion with community members who had participated throughout the project (Figure 86) and pop-ups focused on meeting people where they are, like at farmers markets and the Bike 360 bike ride. Figure 86: June 12 Office Hours at San Juan Del Centro Community Input on Alternatives and CEAP Evaluation: Spring 2025 Community members reported being excited about: • Safer walking and biking: Protected and widened bike lanes and separation of people walking, rolling and biking from vehicle traffic. • Intersection improvements: Protected intersections, right-turn slip lane removal at intersections, and bike signals at intersections. • Improved crossings: Two new pedestrian crossings north of Valmont Road and upgraded crossings south of Spruce Street and south of Walnut Street. • Improved transit facilities: The floating bus stop design reduces conflicts between buses and people riding bikes, and several stop relocations increase safety and improve transfers between bus routes. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 105 Packet Page 352 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 82 • Traffic calming: Reducing vehicle speeds through design changes and lowering the speed limit through the separate but related Citywide Speed Limit Setting project. o Community members also supported many of the proposed access management changes at driveways and certain side streets. • Overall project approach: Community members felt the recommendation took a balanced design approach to preserve vehicle access while improving safety for all road users, addressed environmental concerns by preserving existing street trees, and improving walking, biking, and transit facilities. Community members reported what they were concerned about the recommendation, and shared their own ideas for mitigating those concerns: • Vehicle speeds: o There is concern from the community that the recommendation won’t slow vehicle speeds enough on the corridor.  Potential mitigation: Additional traffic calming measures and automated enforcement. • Pedestrian crossing safety: o Some community members are still concerned crossing four or more vehicle lanes at signalized intersections.  Potential mitigation: Additional pedestrian crossing time. o Some community members requested an additional pedestrian crossing at O’Neal Parkway. • Shared Floating Bus Stops: o Concerns for potential conflicts between people biking and people boarding and alighting transit vehicles at shared bus stops.  Potential mitigations: Signage and pavement markings to communicate bikes should yield, and public education on the shared stop design. • Vehicle travel time: o There are still some concerns about traffic congestion and travel time increases due to vehicle lane repurposing.  Potential mitigations: Maintaining two vehicle lanes in each direction throughout the corridor or not moving forward with the project. • Vehicles are prioritized: o Even with the multimodal safety benefits of the recommendation, some community members felt the recommendation prioritizes vehicles by maintaining lanes in the south segment of the corridor  Potential mitigations: This could be mitigated by repurposing vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. • Safety for people walking and biking: o Some thought the recommendation does not improve comfort for people walking and biking enough. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 106 Packet Page 353 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 83  This could be mitigated by repurposing vehicle lanes throughout the corridor to provide more space for wider bike facilities and sidewalks and expanding landscaped areas between these and the vehicle lanes.  Another suggested mitigation is to raise crossings at side-streets and more driveways. • Connectivity to bike network: o Some community members wanted to see further improvements to connections to the bike network beyond 30th Street.  This could be mitigated by constructing the multi-use path connection between 30th Street and Howard Heuston Park that is proposed in the Transportation Master Plan. • Construction impacts: o There were some concerns about impacts of construction on traffic and nearby residences, especially since there have been multiple transportation projects on 30th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue in the past few years.  This can be mitigated by the city keeping construction on time and communicating construction timelines to the community. All May and June 2025 engagement events are summarized in Table 1. Similar to the previous phases of engagement, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available at events where Spanish language speakers may have been present. In this last round of engagement, project staff reached over 1,000 community members through outreach methods, and over 100 community members participated in in-person or virtual engagement events. Staff will continue to inform the community of the recommendation at community events and project communications. Table 1: May and June 2025 engagement events `Engagement Event Dat e(s) Participants People Reached Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro/Business flyering 5/8 - 5/13/2025 300 Project Email Newsletter Update 5/9/2025 356 Open House #3 5/21/2025 28 Virtual Open House and Questionnaire 5/21 - 6/13/2025 62 Boulder Bike 360 Pop-Up 6/1/2025 20 Project Email Newsletter Update 6/9/2025 359 San Juan Del Centro office hour flyering 6/9/2025 150 Boulder Housing Partners/Boulder Junction Office Hours 6/11/2025 8 San Juan Del Centro Office Hours 6/12/2025 4 Downtown Boulder Farmer's Market Pop-Up 6/14/2025 40 150 162 1315 June May - June 2025 May Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 107 Packet Page 354 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 84 Attachment A: Project Screening Project Screening Criteria Criteria marked with an asterisk (*) were identified by the community during engagement in 2024. Pedestrian Space* Purpose: Between 2019 and 2023, 10% of crashes (422 total) involved someone walking, biking, or rolling, and 66% of serious injury or fatal crashes involved these vulnerable road users. The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan, recommends pedestrian improvement areas along 30th Street, and during community engagement, the public shared concerns of conflicts with moto vehicles and sharing space with bicycles and electric micromobility devices on existing sidewalks and multi-use paths along the corridor. Definition: Potential to provide low-stress pedestrian facilities that are highly comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, including seniors and school-aged children, that are consistent with score of 1 or 2 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scale as defined by the City of Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan. The LTS considers the pedestrian facility type (sidewalk or multi-use path), existence of buffer space between pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic, and the width of the buffer space. Source: City of Boulder Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan Comparison: To existing conditions Bicycle Space* Purpose: Between 2019 and 2023, 10% of crashes (422 total) involved someone walking, biking, or rolling, and 66% of serious injury or fatal crashes involved someone walking, biking, or rolling. The Transportation Master Plan identifies 30th Street as a priority bicycle corridor, the Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan recommends protected bike lanes for 30th Street, and 30th Street is a planned Crosstown Route. During community engagement, the public shared concerns of conflicts with motor vehicles when biking in the on-street bike lane and conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles at commercial driveways when biking in the multi-use paths along the corridor. Definition: Potential to provide bike facilities with adequate operating space and protection from other modes. Source: AASHTO Bike Guide (2024); City of Boulder Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan Comparison: To existing conditions Transit Priority* Purpose: The Transportation Master Plan identifies 30th Street as a high-frequency transit corridor, and there are three bus routes operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the City of Boulder: the BOUND, Route 208, and the HOP. Some segments of the corridor are served by as many as nine buses an hour (Walnut Street to Pearl Street) or seven buses per hour (Pearl Street to Diagonal Highway). Transit route prioritization determines the comfort, safety, and accessibility of the transit experience and are key factors in determining transit ridership and perception of transit. Definition: Potential to provide transit improvements in the roadway (in the form of a bus lane, an emergency lane that permits transit use, extended transit boarding platforms, platforms adjacent to travel way allowing free movement for the busses, etc.) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 108 Packet Page 355 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 85 Source: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide Comparison: To existing conditions Day-to-day Emergency Response* Purpose: 30th Street is an important north-south route for day-to-day emergency response, with Fire Station 3 located at 30th Street and Bluff Street and Boulder Police Department Headquarters just east of the corridor on 33rd Street. City emergency responders must be able to use the roadway to access emergency sites at all times and have enough space to operate within vehicle traffic. Definition: Potential to provide space for emergency response vehicles to move through traffic, including right-of-way available for private vehicles to move aside and right-of-way available for emergency response vehicles to operate on typical roadway segments. Source: Boulder Fire and Rescue Department Comparison: To Boulder Fire and Rescue Department standards. Disaster Emergency Response Purpose: 30th Street is an important north-south route for private vehicle evacuation during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic during a disaster event. Definition: Potential to provide space for private vehicle evacuation and disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic, including right-of-way available for these vehicles to operate. Source: Boulder County Office of Disaster Management and City of Boulder Fire and Rescue Department Comparison: To Boulder County Office of Disaster Management standards. Vehicle Speed Moderation* Purpose: At the time of this project, the posted speed limit on north 30th Street is 35-mph. Data shows that vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit do so up by up to 4-5 miles per hour as the 85th percentile speed in some segments of the corridor is 39-40 miles per hour. Additionally, rear-end crashes are the most common crash type (36% of all crashes on the corridor) which are often times tied to vehicle speed differential. Improvements implemented with this project will help lower speeds and help reduce risk factors for crashes. Further, during engagement, all road users shared safety concerns about vehicle speeds, including those who typically drive on the corridor. Definition: Potential to reduce prevailing vehicle speed and/or speeding. Many factors influence how fast people drive. The project team considered the way the road is designed today, and screened the alternatives based on how each alternative alters the current design with respect to vehicle speed moderation through the number of vehicle lanes. Source: Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide Comparison: To existing conditions. Vehicle Operations Feasibility* Purpose: The Transportation Master Plan objective seven seeks to maintain 1994 levels of travel time on Boulder arterial streets and improve travel time reliability and predictability as measured by person travel time and throughput on arterials (autos and transit) and intersection Level of Service (LOS) and delay. As the current main mode of travel on north 30th Street, the ability to access residential and commercial destinations via private vehicle is important for 30th Street, and was identified as a priority by the community. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 109 Packet Page 356 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 86 Definition: Provide a corridor that is feasible to navigate for vehicular modes as measured by volume to capacity ratio and level of service (LOS) of the corridor’s signalized intersections based on professional judgment of traffic analysis of existing and proposed conditions. Source: Design and Construction Standards for Vehicle LOS Comparison: To existing conditions. Estimated Construction Impact Purpose: To advance alternatives for the corridor that are feasible to implement in terms of cost and project timeline. Definition: Potential to avoid curb realignment, removing trees, and right-of-way acquisition that could impact the cost and time needed to design and implement the project. Source: City of Boulder Parcels data for right-of-way boundaries, City of Boulder Street Trees inventory Comparison: Alternatives compared to each other. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 110 Packet Page 357 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 87 Attachment B: Project Specific Evaluation Criteria Project specific evaluation criteria have five parts: 1. Definition provides the critical inputs to the score. 2. Methodology provides the method – qualitative, quantitative, or both – of scoring. 3. Methodology Rationale provides additional information on why the methodology was used. 4. Comparison Metric states whether the score is based on a comparison to other alternatives or to the existing condition. 5. Source/References indicate data used in the methodology. Below is each category with each of its criterion. Evaluation Category: Traffic Safety Evaluation Criterion: Vehicle speed moderation 1. Definition: Reduction in prevailing speed and/or speeding, achieved through: a. Reducing lane widths b. Reducing the number of lanes c. Providing horizontal deflection/friction (including turns at intersections) d. Providing vertical/visual friction (trees, bike lane separation, protective elements, etc.) 2. Methodology: A quantitative and qualitative assessment of an alternative’s potential effect on speeds resulting from the inclusion of one, or a combination, of the definition elements. 3. Methodology Rationale: Many factors influence how fast people drive. The project team considered the way the road is designed today, and scored the alternatives based on how each alternative alters the current design with respect to vehicle speed moderation. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide b. Los Angeles Department of Transportation Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines c. Speed Reduction Mechanisms | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) d. Corner Radii | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) e. An Evaluation of “Road Diet” Projects on Five Lane and Larger Roadways | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) f. Design Speed | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) g. Federal Highway Administration Safe System Approach for Speed Management h. New York City Department of Transportation Columbus Avenue Protected Bike Lane Assessment on Crashes and Speeds i. Federal Highway Administration Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide j. The Traffic Calming Effect of Delineated Bicycle Lanes – Journal of Urban Mobility Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 111 Packet Page 358 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 88 Evaluation Criterion: Crash and Conflict reduction between vehicles 1. Definition: Reduction in the number of conflict points between vehicles and the severity of potential crashes between vehicles, achieved through: a. Reduced number of conflict points b. Addition of turn lanes c. Reduced speeds (based on vehicle speed moderation criterion) 2. Methodology: A quantitative and qualitative assessment of an alternative’s potential effect on the number and severity of crashes resulting from the inclusion of one, or a combination, of the definition elements, and the difficulty or intuitive nature for users of a bike facility. 3. Methodology Rationale: Proven safety countermeasures and crash reduction factors were evaluated where possible. In addition, the project team evaluated potential for crash reduction based on a Safe Systems Approach and the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan, where speeds, conflict points, two-way bike facilities, and other factors that don’t have available established predictive safety outcomes, can be considered. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Design Speed b. Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide c. Minnesota Department of Transportation Safety and Operational Characteristics of Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes d. Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) / Road Diet i. Applicable CMFs are listed below: ii. CMF ID: 5553 - CONVERTING FOUR-LANE ROADWAYS TO THREE-LANE ROADWAYS WITH CENTER TURN LANE (ROAD DIET). Shows a 25% decrease in total crashes iii. CMF ID: 2841 - CONVERTING FOUR-LANE ROADWAYS TO THREE-LANE ROADWAYS WITH CENTER TURN LANE (ROAD DIET). Different study. Shows a 47% decrease in total crashes iv. CMF ID: 11128 - ROAD DIET (CONVERT 4-LANE UNDIVIDED ROAD TO 2-LANES PLUS TURNING LANE). Shows a 38% decrease in total crashes v. CMF ID: 11301 - CONVERT TRADITIONAL BIKE LANE TO SBL WITH A BLEND OF FLEXI-POST AND OTHER VERTICAL ELEMENTS. Shows a 36% decrease in vehicle-to-bicycle crashes e. Proven Safety Countermeasures | FHWA (dot.gov) f. What Is a Safe System Approach? | US Department of Transportation g. Vision Zero Action Plan | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Evaluation Criterion: Reduction in conflict between vehicles and nonmotorized users at intersections 1. Definition: Reduction in conflict potential between vehicles and nonmotorized users, particularly at intersections, achieved through: a. Protected intersection elements. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 112 Packet Page 359 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 89 b. Traffic signal operation changes to separate vulnerable road users physically and eliminate time-based conflicts. c. Improving the motorist-bicyclist interaction and expectation 2. Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the amount of space available for protected intersection elements and the potential to reduce time-based conflicts through traffic signal operation changes. 3. Methodology Rationale: Protected intersections slow vehicle speeds, increase visibility and reduce crossing distances for people walking, biking, and rolling, and provide dedicated paths for bikes through the intersection. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Don’t Give Up at the Intersection, NACTO b. SFMTA Protected Intersection Evaluation Report Evaluation Criterion: Reduction in conflict between nonmotorized users 1. Definition: Reduction in the potential for collisions or close calls between people walking, rolling, and biking. 2. Methodology: Quantitative and qualitative assessment of conflict potential based on the width of a shared facility for safe passing and side-by-side movement for users moving at various speeds, as well as horizontal and physical separation of facilities for people walking/rolling and biking/scooting. 3. Methodology Rationale Community feedback indicated relatively common close calls or collisions between people walking and biking or using e-scooters on roadside multi-use paths and sidewalk-level bike lanes. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts, FHWA b. AASHTO Bike Guide Evaluation Category: Transportation Operations Evaluation Criterion: Corridor vehicle travel time 1. Definition: The change in the 95th percentile vehicle end-to-end travel time between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Road, for northbound and southbound drivers in the AM and PM peak periods, based on microsimulation traffic modeling with TransModeler. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of travel time measured as an output of microsimulation traffic modeling with TransModeler. 3. Methodology Rationale: The 2019 TMP targets maintaining 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets, as well as improving travel time reliability and predictability. The TMP found that, for the drive time study corridors, average travel times have increased by 1 minute, or 15%, since baseline year. A travel time increase of up to 15% is therefore rated as acceptable for north 30th Street with any additional 15-point increments resulting in successively lower ratings. Any travel time exceeding a 15% increase is evaluated for Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 113 Packet Page 360 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 90 acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. City of Boulder Transportation Report on Progress Snapshot b. Los Angeles Department of Transportation Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines c. TransModeler microsimulation results for the project Evaluation Criterion: Vehicular level of service 1. Definition: Provide a corridor that is feasible to navigate for vehicular modes (including private, emergency response, and transit vehicles) as measured by change in volume to capacity ratio and level of service (LOS) of the corridor’s signalized intersections. 2. Methodology: Quantitative analysis of the relative vehicle level of service for each movement at each signalized intersection based on TransModeler modeling in the AM and PM peak hours. 3. Methodology Rationale: Maintain existing LOS and delay is neutral; positive or negative scores depending on changes to level of service or delay. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards b. Transportation for America Level of Service Guide c. Los Angeles Department of Transportation Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines d. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide e. TransModeler microsimulation results for the project f. Data collection from existing conditions in Fall 2024. Evaluation Criterion: Non-signalized vehicle access 1. Definition: Improve safety and efficiency of access to and from adjacent properties and non- signalized side streets based on assessing the likelihood of blocked driveways and egresses due to queue lengths. 2. Methodology: Quantitative analysis based on TransModeler modeling of the alternatives that evaluates the change in blocked driveways and egresses from the 95th percentile queues compared to existing conditions. 3. Methodology Rationale: Access to properties via dedicated turn lanes rather than through travel lanes improves user comfort and safety. This is balanced with the frequency and length of gaps in traffic streams to facilitate turns out of side streets and driveways safely and without excess delay. The project team evaluated the ability of each alternative to improve ease, comfort, and safety of access. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Access Management (Driveways) | FHWA (dot.gov) b. Access Management: Benefits of Access Management Brochure - FHWA Operations (dot.gov) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 114 Packet Page 361 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 91 c. TransModeler microsimulation results for the project d. Data collection from existing conditions in Fall 2024. Evaluation Criterion: Day-to-day emergency response 1. Definition: Provide space for emergency response vehicles to move through traffic to respond to day-to-day emergencies. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of the widths available for private vehicles to move aside and for emergency response vehicles to operate on typical roadway segments (not evaluated at infrequent physically constrained locations, such as bridge decks). 3. Methodology Rationale: Assessment informed by review with City of Boulder Fire and Police departments to determine if alternatives have the potential to change current day-to- day emergency response. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Methodology is based on discussions with City of Boulder-Fire Rescue and Police Department, and Boulder County Office of Disaster Management b. FHWA – Road Diet Emergency Response Times c. NACTO – Best Practices Emergency Access in Healthy Streets Evaluation Criterion: Disaster emergency response 1. Definition: Provide space for private vehicles to evacuate during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of widths available for emergency response vehicles and number of travel lanes available, and professional judgment. 3. Methodology Rationale: The team evaluated the protected bike lane design widths, the presence, or not, of center two-way left-turn lanes, and the number of through lanes available for disaster emergency response. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: i. How Cycle Paths Can Be Used by Emergency Services ii. Methodology based on discussions with City of Boulder Fire Department. iii. University of Wisconsin – Reducing Lanes for Cars Doesn’t Slow 911 Response iv. NACTO – Best Practices Emergency Access in Healthy Streets Evaluation Category: Transit Service Evaluation Criterion: Bus stop type and amenities 1. Definition: Provide space for floating bus stops and amenities such as shelters within the stop area. 2. Methodology: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the space available for floating stops and the space available at stops to accommodate a transit shelter. 3. Methodology Rationale: The experience at the bus stops where riders get on and off the bus significantly affects one’s transit experience. The infrastructure and amenities present at stops determine the comfort, safety, and accessibility of the transit experience and are key factors in determining transit ridership and perception of transit. RTD’s Bus Infrastructure Design Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 115 Packet Page 362 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 92 Guidelines and Criteria adopted in 2016 provides guidance that stops with more than 40 boardings per day should be considered for a shelter. Shared bus stops have the potential for conflicts between boarding and alighting transit users with people riding bikes, whereas floating bus stops create separate spaces for boarding and alighting from the bike facility, and decrease conflicts between buses and people riding bikes. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines and Criteria, RTD b. Transit Street Design Guide, NACTO Evaluation Criterion: Corridor bus travel time 1. Definition: The change in the 95th percentile vehicle end-to-end travel time between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Avenue based on microsimulation traffic modeling (TransModeler) in the AM and PM peak periods for northbound and southbound travel. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of travel time measured as an output of microsimulation traffic modeling (TransModeler). Due to the lack of transit-oriented right-of- way and signaling, transit travel times were assumed to scale with vehicle travel times per each alternative and were assigned the same score. 3. Methodology Rationale: The 2019 TMP targets maintaining 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets, as well as improving travel time reliability and predictability. The TMP found that, for the drive time study corridors, average travel times have increased by 1 minute, or 15%, since baseline year. A travel time increase of up to 15% is therefore rated as acceptable for north 30th Street with any additional 15-point increments resulting in successively lower ratings. Any travel time exceeding a 15% increase is evaluated for acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions. 5. Source/References: a. TransModeler microsimulation results for the project Evaluation Category: Safe and Comfortable Connections Evaluation Criterion: Biking comfort 1. Definition: Provide a bike route that implements the City of Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan recommendation for vertically separated bike lanes for north 30th Street and scores a 1 or 2 on the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scale. 2. Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation according to the city’s Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan and to the Oregon DOT LTS metric, assigning scores based on buffer space and facility width. 3. Methodology Rationale: The Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies 30th Street as part of the low stress network. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Oregon DOT Level of Traffic Stress Methodologies, Exhibit 14-4 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 116 Packet Page 363 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 93 b. The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Evaluation Criterion: Walking comfort 1. Definition: Provide a pedestrian route that can reduce the City of Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan pedestrian stress factors and scores to a 1 or 2 on the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scale. 2. Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation according to the city’s Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan and to the Oregon DOT LTS metric, assigning scores based on sidewalk condition and width, buffer type and width, bike lane width, number of lanes and posted speed, and land use 3. Methodology Rationale: The Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies 30th Street for walking improvements. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Oregon DOT Level of Traffic Stress Methodologies, Exhibit 14-4 b. The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Evaluation Criterion: Crossing safety & comfort 1. Definition: Evaluate the spatial availability for safe roadway crossing elements, such as pedestrian refuge islands, raised crossings, and bulb outs for reduced crossings distances. 2. Methodology: A quantitative evaluation of the amount of space available for safe roadway crossing elements. 3. Methodology Rationale: The Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies north 30th Street as part of the low stress network, which includes crossing 30th Street to access destinations and other low-stress routes. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas, FHWA b. Crosswalks and Crossings, NACTO c. Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines, Boulder Evaluation Category: Implementation feasibility Evaluation Criterion: Time to design and implement 1. Definition: The time and effort needed to implement the alternative as well as other factors that could complicate implementation, like necessary permits. 2. Methodology: A qualitative assessment of implementation complexity and risks to the project including Right-of-Way needs, floodplain permitting, traffic control and phasing. 3. Methodology Rationale: Preliminary estimates for permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and phasing based on professional experience implementing similar alternatives. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: Recently completed comparable capital improvements projects. Evaluation Criterion: Cost to implement 1. Definition: Order of magnitude planning level opinion of probable cost for construction. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 117 Packet Page 364 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 94 2. Methodology: Quantitative, measured using a scale of orders of magnitude for comparison purposes only. 3. Methodology Rationale: Cost to implement estimates are developed for each alternative and include right-of-way, utility and stormwater relocation costs, costs of tree removal, and high-level construction cost estimates. Costs do not consider additional engineering or construction management and oversight as these costs would be similar for all alternatives. Full cost estimates will not be developed until later in the design process when more detailed design is completed. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: Professional judgment and recent City of Boulder and Denver Metro Area project cost data. Evaluation Criterion: Right-of-Way property acquisition 1. Definition: Analysis of the number and size of permanent easements needed. 2. Methodology: Quantitative measure of the number and size of required permanent easements. 3. Methodology Rationale: Completing the project in a reasonable time frame while minimizing impacts on adjacent projects are goals of the North 30th Street project. The project team seeks to minimize impacts by adjusting designs and looking for ways to accommodate an alternative within the existing right-of-way. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: a. Right-of-way survey b. Field walk data Evaluation Criterion: Maintenance 1. Definition: A measure of added maintenance needs for transportation infrastructure, snow and ice response and street sweeping. 2. Methodology: Qualitative analysis of additional labor and equipment required for snow and ice response and street sweeping, and long-term maintenance and material replacement for added infrastructure. 3. Methodology Rationale: Additional maintenance needs increase costs and require an ongoing commitment from the city. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: Discussions with City of Boulder Transportation & Mobility Maintenance department. Evaluation Category: Urban design and placemaking Evaluation Criterion: Preserves existing public street trees 1. Definition: A measure of required public tree removals due to design changes. 2. Methodology: Quantitative analysis of net public tree removals or relocations using the City of Boulder tree inventory. 3. Methodology Rationale: The City of Boulder Forestry Department Urban Forestry Strategic Plan and supporting Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies (BVCP 2.38 Importance of Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 118 Packet Page 365 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 95 Urban Canopy, Street Trees and Streetscapes, and BVCP 3.12 Urban Forests), identify the urban forest, public street trees and tree canopy as important. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other. 5. Source/References: a. City of Boulder Urban Forestry Strategic Plan b. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) i. BVCP 2.38 Recognizes the Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees and Streetscapes ii. BVCP 3.12 Urban Forests b. Tree Inventory Open Data Evaluation Criterion: Opportunities for new landscaping and urban design features 1. Definition: The overall corridor experience based on landscaping and public amenities, based on available space for such elements and the inclusion of landscaping. 2. Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative assessment of locations to add landscaping, public art seating areas, lighting, and other amenities. 3. Methodology Rationale: To encourage a low-stress walking environment, assess potential improvements and new landscape opportunities. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/ Reference: a. City of Boulder: Streetscape Design and Tree Protection b. NACTO Urban Streets Stormwater Guide c. Green Infrastructure Design Strategies Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 119 Packet Page 366 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 96 Attachment C: Goals Assessment An input to the CEAP evaluation is the CEAP goals assessment. Below is how the North 30th Street Preliminary Design project aligns with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). 1. Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and benefits that the project will help to achieve: a. Community Sustainability Goals: How does the project improve the quality of economic, environmental and social health with future generations in mind? The North 30th Preliminary Design Project helps the city achieve its: • Social health goals by providing an all ages and abilities corridor with safer and more comfortable transportation options no matter how someone chooses to travel. • Economic goals by the provision of and investment in infrastructure that attracts, sustains and retains businesses, entrepreneurs, workers, and customers, and by ensuring safe and comfortable connections to destinations along the corridor and on the broader city transportation network. • Environmental goals by providing safe and comfortable multimodal transportation options which can reduce vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled and thus reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources and greenhouse gas emissions. These changes can also protect water and air quality through utilization of existing infrastructure, by preserving existing public street trees, and through the reduction of mobile source emissions. b. BVCP Goals related to: • Community Design: • Policies: 2.03 Compact Development Pattern, 2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees & Streetscapes: The project supports these policies by enabling safe travel by biking and walking which supports a more compact development pattern, and by implementing improvements within the current roadway to avoid a significant number of tree removals. The recommendation is anticipated to preserve or replace 100% of existing street trees. • Facilities and Services: • Policy: 8.13 Support for Community Facilities: The project supports this policy by safely connecting City and County community facilities throughout the corridor and prioritizing emergency response from Fire Station #3 (30th and Bluff streets) and Boulder Police Headquarters (east of 30th Street & Canyon Boulevard). • Policies: 2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees & Streetscapes, 3.22 Floodplain Management: The project supports these policies by implementing improvements within the current roadway to avoid a significant number of tree removals. The recommendation is anticipated to reconstruct only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor resulting in 100% of existing street trees being preserved or replaced. • Economy: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 120 Packet Page 367 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 97 • Policy: 5.03 Diverse Mix of Uses and Business Types: The project supports this policy by improving connections to and from the diverse uses and businesses in the central and south segments and the residential areas in the north segment. • Transportation: • Policies: 2.25 Improve Mobility Grid & Connections, 2.26 Trail Corridors/Linkages, and all the Transportation section policies 6.01-6.24.: The project supports these policies by improving safety and connectivity between the roadway, existing bike facilities, and trail networks, including the Wonderland Creek and Goose Creek Paths. It will also connect with planned regional improvements, including the Diagonal Bikeway and Diagonal Flyer BRT service between Boulder and Longmont . This project provides the largest benefits to the BVCP goals related to transportation. • Housing: The North 30th project does not directly support any of the housing goals. Enhanced multimodal safety and connectivity supports modal choice, and thereby, access to the diversity of housing types located along the north 30th Street corridor and envisioned in the BVCP. • Social Concerns and Human Services: • Policy: 8.07 Safety: The project supports this policy by improving safety for all roadway users which reduces the need for day-to-day emergency response, while also maintaining roadway space during a disaster emergency response. c. Describe any regional goals (potential benefits or impacts to regional systems or plans?) In 2021, the BVCP affirmed the city’s long-standing approach to creating an all-mode transportation system that provides safe connections for everyone, no matter how they travel. 2. Is this project referenced in a master plan, subcommunity or area plan? If so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not? From 2016 to 2018, the City collaborated with the University of Colorado Boulder on the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study. This study identified transportation improvements for 30th Street between Baseline Road and Pearl Street and recommended a design to make 30th street between Colorado Avenue and Pearl Street safer for everyone. The North 30th project built on this initial concept design and identifies additional improvements for the 30th Street corridor. 30th Street is designated as a high priority bicycle route in the city’s 2019 TMP. In 2019, the Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan recommended enhancing separation and protection between vehicle and bicycle lanes on 30th Street, alongside improving pedestrian facilities in critical areas because 30th Street has more than three vehicle lanes, a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, and an average daily traffic volume exceeding 6,000 vehicles. In 2022, the Safe Streets Report (SSR) highlighted significant traffic safety concerns in Boulder. Between 2018 and 2020, there were 14,500 crashes involving 150 serious injuries. Arterial streets like north 30th Street accounted for 67% of these severe crashes, with specific hotspots identified at intersections such as Arapahoe, Pearl, Valmont, and Diagonal. The SSR also identified crash types that disproportionately affected vulnerable groups like young people and Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 121 Packet Page 368 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 98 seniors. Community feedback consistently expressed concerns about safety while walking or biking on north 30th, despite the significant number of daily users. The 2023 – 2027 Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) identified the High Risk Network (HRN), 7% of the city’s street network have nearly half of all severe crashes. 30th Street between Valmont Road and Arapahoe Avenue is on the HRN. The VZAP identified reactive and proactive actions to manage risk and mitigate crashes, including prioritizing work on the HRN and Core Arterial Network (CAN). 30th Street is a CAN corridor. 3. Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any departmental master plan and what are the trade-offs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? (e.g. higher financial investment to gain better long-term services or fewer environmental impacts) No. 4. List other city projects in the project area that are listed in a departmental master plan or the CIP. o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th between Colorado Avenue and Arapahoe Avenue (2024-2025) as part of the 30th Street Multimodal Improvements Project. o East Arapahoe Avenue Bus and Turn Lanes project will repurpose one general purpose lane to bus and turn lane in each direction from 28th Street to 63rd St in the Summer and Fall of 2025. o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th Street between Colorado Avenue and Aurora Ave (2026-2027). o Filling in missing links in the multi-use path system and enhancing bus stops along Arapahoe Avenue between 38th/Marine streets and Cherryvale Road (2025). o Final design and implementation of the Arapahoe Avenue corridor from Culver Court to 33rd Avenue as part of Safe Streets for All projects (2026/2027), which includes protected bike lanes and the repurposing of the outer vehicle lanes to business access and transit (BAT) lanes. 5. What are the major city, state, and federal standards that will apply to the proposed project? How will the project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations (e.g. environmental, health, safety, or transportation standards)? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance states that lane repurposing is typically implemented on roadways with an average daily traffic of 25,000 vehicles or less and does not recommend removing a bicycle facility where one exists. FHWA recognizes lane repurposing, or road diets, as a street width reduction that can calm traffic speeds. All new transportation infrastructure constructed as part of the project will meet or exceed the updated City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 6. Are there cumulative impacts to any resources from this and other projects that need to be recognized and mitigated? Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 122 Packet Page 369 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 99 No, this project will be implemented mostly within the current roadway requiring minimal reconstruction resulting in minimal hardscape changes and maintenance of the existing public street tree canopy. This project mitigates changes to capacity for services such as police and fire. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 123 Packet Page 370 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 100 Attachment D: CEAP Checklist Evaluation for the Conceptual Design Alternatives The CEAP checklist rates each alternative (+) Positive effect, (-) Negative effect, and (0) No effect. Only criteria that had alternative impacts are shown. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Recommendation A. Natural Areas or Features 1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, or ecosystems due to: a. Construction activities - 0 - 0 f. Habitat removal - 0 - 0 h. Changes to groundwater or surface runoff - 0 - 0 2. Loss of mature trees or significant plants? - 0 - 0 D. Geology and Soils d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site? - 0 - 0 E. Water Quality 1. Impacts to water quality from any of the following? a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities - 0 + 0 b. Change in hardscape - 0 + 0 c. Change in site ground features - 0 + 0 d. Change in storm drainage - 0 + 0 e. Change in vegetation - 0 + 0 F. Air Quality 1. Short or long term impacts to air quality (CO2 emissions, pollutants)? Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 124 Packet Page 371 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 101 a. From mobile sources? + + + + K. Physiological Well-being 1. Exposure to Excessive Noise - 0 + + L. Services 1. Additional Need for: d. Police Services 0 - - 0 e. Fire Protection Services 0 - - 0 h. Transportation improvements/ traffic mitigation 0 - - 0 M. Special Populations 1. Effects on: a. Person with disabilities? + + + + b. Senior population? + + + + c. Children or youth? + + + + d. Restricted income persons? + + + + e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants)? + + + + f. Neighborhoods + + + + g. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g. schools, hospitals, nursing homes)? + + + + N. Economy 1. Utilization of existing infrastructure? - + - + Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 125 Packet Page 372 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 102 Attachment E: CEAP Checklist Questions City of Boulder Community and Environmental Assessment Process Checklist Questions Note: The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. Only those questions indicated on the checklist are to be answered in full. Natural Areas and Features 1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant communities, wildlife habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below. (Significant species include any species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county lists.) a. Construction activities Mature trees may provide habitat, but this has not been evaluated for the project. It is assumed that by removing trees the potential for providing habitat is also removed. All alternatives will disturb wildlife habitats due to construction activity. Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to natural areas or features, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed and existing landscaped areas would be disturbed. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and build a liner park in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, nearly 10% of the existing street trees, mostly in the south segment, would be removed. However, Alternative C would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. The recommendation receives a neutral score for impact to natural areas as compared to existing conditions because: • Only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction • 100% of existing street trees and landscaping are preserved or replaced Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 126 Packet Page 373 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 103 • Strategic vehicle lane repurposing and removal of right turn slip lanes at intersections may provide space for additional street trees and landscaping • As a result, storm water runoff and urban heat are unchanged from today b. Native vegetation removal c. Human or domestic animal encroachment d. Chemicals to be stored or used on the site (including petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activities) Alternatives B and C will have a positive effect because each proposes three vehicle lanes, which will reduce road noise and therefore reduce the potential for behavior displacement of wildlife species. Alternative A maintains four vehicle lanes and so will have no effect on road noise and so will continue any current behavioral displacement of wildlife species due to road noise. The recommendation strategically repurposes vehicle lanes which may reduce road noise, though not as much as end-to-end lane repurposing in Alternatives B and C, and will therefore somewhat reduce the potential for behavior displacement of wildlife species. f. Habitat removal It is assumed that removing trees removes the potential for providing habitat. Alternative A will have the greatest negative impact on habitat removal because it requires removal of 25% of existing street trees. Alternative C will have a negative impact on habitat removal because it requires removal of nearly 10% of existing street trees, though it would result in a net increase in landscaped areas and trees after project completion. Alternative B will have no effect on habitat removal because all existing street trees would be preserved. The recommendation will have no to minimal effect on habitat removal because 100% of existing street trees would be preserved or replaced. g. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping h. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surface runoff (storm drainage, natural stream) on the site The recommendation will have no change to stormwater runoff because only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction, and strategic vehicle lane repurposing may provide space for additional street trees and landscaping. Alternative B has no effect to groundwater because it is implemented within the existing roadway width. Alternatives A and C require extensive reconstruction of the roadway and would impact surface runoff with increased hardscape along the corridor. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 127 Packet Page 374 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 104 i. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term (construction- related) or long term j. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site 2. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants Alternative A will remove nearly 25% of existing street trees. Alternative C will remove nearly 10% of existing street trees, though it would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. Alternative B will not remove any existing street trees. The recommendation will preserve or replace all existing street trees. Of the 197 existing trees, 164 will be preserved and 33 will be removed and replaced (29 will be replaced in the same area, 4 will be replaced elsewhere on the corridor). Of the 33 needing removed, design changes may be made to avoid removal of six trees. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Impacts to existing street trees vary between the alternatives. Only trees located within the public right-of-way are impacted. All trees on private property will remain, with potential trimming if low-hanging branches and/or limbs are impeding existing or new sidewalks and bike lanes. Alternative A will have the greatest negative impact because it requires removal of nearly 25% of existing street trees. Alternative C will have a negative impact because it requires removal of nearly 10% of existing street trees, though it would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. Alternative B has no effect because it will not remove any existing street trees. The recommendation will preserve or replace all existing street trees, and strategic vehicle lane repurposing may provide space for additional street trees. • A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1. A list of plant and animal species and plant communities of special concern found on the site; 2. A wildlife habitat evaluation of the site. • Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat. Riparian Areas and Floodplains See Attachment F for Floodplain Impact Assessment memo from consultant, Drexel, Barrell & Co. 1. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones. 2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor: (This includes impacts to the existing channel of flow, streambanks, Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 128 Packet Page 375 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 105 adjacent riparian zone extending 50 ft. out from each bank, and any existing drainage from the site to a creek or stream.) • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts to habitat, vegetation, aquatic life, or water quality. • A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other water bodies on or near the project site. • A map showing the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and high hazard flood zones relative to the project site. Wetlands See Attachment F for Floodplain Impact Assessment memo from consultant, Drexel, Barrell & Co. 1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that may result from the project. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • A map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those wetlands and buffer areas which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criteria (definitional). Geology and Soils 1. Describe any: a. Impacts to unique geologic or physical features; b. Geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or landslide, erosion, or subsidence; c. Substantial changes in topography; or d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site that may result from the project. Alternative B requires no to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, there would be no to minimal disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to provide sidewalk- level protected bike lanes and add landscape and amenity areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. The recommendation will require reconstruction of only 18% of the roadway and will result in minimal disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 129 Packet Page 376 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 106 • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or geologic conditions on the site. Water Quality 1. Describe any impacts to water quality that may result from any of the following: a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities that will be involved with the project; Alternative B will have no effect on excavation, grading, or other construction activities because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. Alternative A and C will have a negative effect because they both require excavation and grading or other construction activities. Alternative A has a greater negative effect because it requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. This requires extensive ground clearing and excavation. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and provide additional landscape areas in the south segment of the corridor. During construction there would be a need for ground clearing and excavation. The recommendation will have minimal effect on excavation, grading, or other construction activities because only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. b. Changes in the amount of hardscape (paving, cement, brick, or buildings) in the project area; Alternative A will result in an increase in hardscape in order to preserve the existing number of vehicle lands and add protected bike lanes. Alternative B will have no effect to hardscape because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. Alternative C will have a net increase in landscaped areas, especially in the south segment of the corridor. The recommendation will have no effect to hardscape because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. Any new hardscaped areas will be offset with new opportunities for additional landscaping where space allows. c. Permanent changes in site ground features such as paved areas or changes in topography; Alternative A and C will have a negative effect on site ground features because they both require clearing, excavation, and grading during construction. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 130 Packet Page 377 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 107 Alternative B will have no effect on site ground features because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. The recommendation will have minimal effect on site ground features because only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. d. Changes in the storm drainage from the site after project completion; Alternative A will have a negative effect because it results in an increase in hardscape and results in greater runoff. Alternative B will have no effect on storm drainage because it can be implemented within the current roadway width and so does not increase runoff. Though Alternative C requires changes to stormwater infrastructure due to curb realignment and reconstruction, the net increase in landscaped areas would have a positive effect on runoff. The recommendation will have no effect on storm drainage because curb realignment and reconstruction are minimal and no changes to existing stormwater infrastructure are needed. e. Change in vegetation; Alternative A will have a negative effect on vegetation because it requires curb realignment and reconstruction, resulting in increases in hardscape and public street tree removals. Alternative B will have no effect on vegetation because it can be built within the current roadway width. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction, but the net increase in landscaped areas would have a positive impact on vegetation. The recommendation will have no effect on vegetation because curb realignment and reconstruction are minimal, and it provides opportunities to add landscaping and street trees where strategic lane repurposing and right-turn slip lane removal is implemented. f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic; g. Potential pollution sources during and after construction (may include temporary or permanent use or storage of petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides). 2. Describe any pumping of groundwater that may be anticipated either during construction or as a result of the project. If excavation or pumping is planned, what is known about groundwater contamination in the surrounding area (1/4 mile in all directions from the project) and the direction of groundwater flow? All alternatives and the recommendation have no effect on groundwater pumping. During construction of the recommendation, surface water runoff will be treated by installing Best Management Practices (BMPs) according to the Colorado Storm Water Discharge Permit. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 131 Packet Page 378 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 108 • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • Information from city water quality files and other sources (state oil inspector or the CDPHE) on sites with soil and groundwater impacts within 1/4 mile radius of project or site. • If impacts to site are possible, either from past activities at site or from adjacent sites, perform a Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment prior to further design of the project. • Groundwater levels from borings or temporary piezometers prior to proposed dewatering or installation of drainage structures. Air Quality 1. Describe potential short or long term impacts to air quality resulting from this project. Distinguish between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS). All alternatives and the recommendation have positive effects on air quality because they provide safer walking and bicycling options along the corridor, which can reduce mobile source emissions. All alternatives and the recommendation provide safer and more comfortable multimodal facilities which transportation research finds results in a reduction in fine particulate emissions from vehicles. All alternatives incorporate proven safety countermeasures that support people having more transportation choices and a corresponding reduction in vehicle trips, reduction in vehicle emissions, and improved air quality. However, Alternatives B and C and the recommendation may see an increased level of air quality due to the reduction of vehicle lanes, more safety improvements for people walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit, and increased landscaped areas along the corridor compared to Alternative A. Emissions from construction equipment would have a short term effect on air quality during construction. The effects of the emissions would be negligible because of the small number of short term emission sources. The manufacture and use of construction materials can produce short-term impacts to air quality at the manufacture or construction site. The general types of construction and construction materials are similar for all alternatives. Resource Conservation 1. Describe potential changes in water use that may result from the project. a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility. b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation system). 2. Describe potential increases or decreases in energy use that may result from the project. a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the building design. b. Describe plans for using renewable energy sources on the project or how renewable energy sources will be incorporated into the building design? c. Describe how the project will be built to LEED standards. 3. Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 132 Packet Page 379 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 109 a. If potential impacts to waste generation have been identified, please describe plans for recycling and waste minimization (deconstruction, reuse, recycling, green points). Cultural/Historic Resources 1. Describe any impacts to: a. a prehistoric or historic archaeological site; b. a building or structure over fifty years of age; c. a historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch; or d. significant agricultural lands that may result from the project. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Visual Quality 1. Describe any effects on: a. scenic vistas or views open to the public; b. the aesthetics of a site open to public view; or c. view corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features that may result from the project. Safety 1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from the project. 2. Describe measures for the disposal of hazardous materials. 3. Describe any additional hazards that may result from the project. (Including risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts during or after site construction through management of hazardous materials or application of safety precautions. Physiological Well-being 1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise, light or glare caused by any phase of the project (construction or operations). All alternatives would have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 133 Packet Page 380 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 110 After construction and project implementation, Alternative A has a negative effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because it requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add sidewalk-level protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed. Street trees and landscaped areas help mitigate noise pollution to adjacent properties. Further, preserving vehicle lanes throughout the corridor would not result in a reduction of road noise for nearby residents. After construction and project implementation, Alternative B would have a positive effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because it requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed that all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved, which would preserve the same level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties as today. However, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would reduce road noise for nearby residents resulting in less exposure to noise pollution for nearby residents. Alternative C would have a positive effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because it would increase the number of street trees and landscaped areas along the corridor. As a result, Alternative C would provide the greatest level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties among the alternatives. Further, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would also reduce road noise for nearby residents. The recommendation has a positive effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because strategic lane repurposing would reduce road noise through vehicle speed reduction and often move vehicle travel lanes away from the property line. The recommendation also preserves or replaces 100% of existing street trees, providing noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties All alternatives and the recommendation would have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction. 2. Describe any increase in vibrations or odor that may result from the project. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Services 1. Describe any increased need for the following services as a result of the project: a. Water or sanitary sewer services b. Storm sewer / Flood control features c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes d. Police services Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 134 Packet Page 381 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 111 All alternatives improve safety on the corridor which may decrease the demand for police and fire services responding to traffic crashes or other traffic related incidents. Alternative A maintains the current number of vehicle lanes and provides less speed moderation and safety improvements, such as protected intersection elements, compared to the other alternatives. Therefore, it is anticipated to be less effective at decreasing the frequency and severity of crashes involving vulnerable road users. However, Alternative A preserves the same space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today. Alternatives B and C and the recommendation moderate speeds and crash potential by repurposing vehicle lanes throughout all or part of the corridor and provide space at intersections for protected intersection elements. It is anticipated these alternatives would be more effective at decreasing the frequency and severity of crashes involving vulnerable road users compared to Alternative A. However, Alternatives B and C provide less space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today. The recommendation provides a center turn lane in the central and north segments and key additional space in critical locations to support emergency vehicle operations to mitigate impacts from vehicle lane repurposing. e. Fire protection Alternative A has no effect on fire operations because it maintains the current vehicle lanes and room for emergency response vehicles. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor and thus provide less space for emergency vehicles to operate. The recommendation has a neutral impact on fire operations because it provides a center turn lane in the central and north segments and key additional space in critical locations to support emergency vehicle operations. Traffic signals at Bluff Street, Valmont Road, Spruce Street, and Pearl Street provide pre-emption for emergency response to and through intersections. f. Recreation or parks facilities g. Libraries h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation Please refer to the Project Specific Evaluation Results section for more detail. i. Parking j. Affordable housing k. Open space/urban open land l. Power or energy use m. Telecommunications n. Health care/social services Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 135 Packet Page 382 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 112 o. Trash removal or recycling services 2. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master plans as a result of this project. (e.g. budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views) Special Populations 1. Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations: a. Persons with disabilities b. Senior population c. Children or Youth d. Restricted income persons e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants) f. Sensitive Populations located near the project (e.g. adjacent neighborhoods or property owners, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) All alternatives and the recommendation have a positive impact on special populations because they all provide improved sidewalks, transit stops, protected bike lanes, safety improvements for drivers, improvements at intersections, new mid-block crossings, and Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramp compliance work. This will positively impact the travel experience of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth and sensitive populations who are more likely to walk, bike, roll or use transit to travel. Alternatives B and C and the recommendation would have a greater positive effect as there are more safety improvements, such as protected intersections, compared to Alternative A. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • A description of how the proposed project would benefit special populations. Economic Vitality 1. Describe how the project will enhance economic activity in the city or region or generate economic opportunities? 2. Describe any potential impacts to: a. businesses in the vicinity of the project (ROW, access or parking) All alternatives and the recommendation provide safer walking and biking connections to businesses along the corridor. All alternatives and the recommendations propose some access changes to reduce conflicts, common crash types, and make connections safer for everyone. The recommendation proposes driveway closures and the addition/extension of medians to manage access at driveways and reduce conflicts between vehicles at the following locations: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 136 Packet Page 383 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 113 • Conoco Gas Station, 2990 Diagonal Highway: Closing second driveway south of the 30th and Diagonal intersection. The property still has 2 access points, one off 30th Street and one off Diagonal Highway • Diagonal Plaza, 3307 30th Street: Driveway north of Corona Trail changes to right-in, right-out (RIRO) with constructed median • Brookdale North Boulder, 3350 30th Street: Southernmost driveway changes to RIRO with constructed median • Sage Court Apartments, 2965 Valmont Road: Driveway north of Valmont changes to RIRO with constructed median • Orchard Grove, 3003 Valmont Road: Driveway east of 30th/Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median. Driveway further east remains full access. • Big O Tires, 3000 Valmont Road: Driveways south and east of 30th/Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median • 3044 Valmont Road Plaza: Driveway east of 3000 Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median • Circle K Gas Station, 2995 30th Street: Driveway immediately west and south of 30th/Valmont is closed; driveway south of 30th/Valmont is modified and changes to RIRO with construction of new median • Las 10 Americas Carniceria, 2887 30th Street: Driveway south of 30th/Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median • 2410 30th Street Plaza: Driveway changes to RIRO with painted median in response to a history of crash patterns. • Google, 2930 Pearl Street: Driveway south of building on 30th Street changes to RIRO with construction of new median • Midas Auto Repair / Market Square Shopping Center, 3000 Walnut Street: Driveway east of 30th/Walnut changes to RIRO b. employment, c. retail sales or city revenue and how they might be mitigated. Alternatives A and C have a negative impact on utilizing existing infrastructure because they require curb realignment and reconstruction. Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct sidewalk-level protected bike lanes and add areas for landscaping and urban amenities in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. Alternative B and the recommendation require none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, all or most of the existing utility and roadway infrastructure would be maintained and repurposed for on-street protected bike lanes and improved transit facilities. The recommendation accommodates snow storage and city maintenance vehicles. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 137 Packet Page 384 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 114 Attachment F: Floodplain Impact Assessment Memo May 16, 2025 City of Boulder Transportation & Mobility 1101 Arapahoe Avenue, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80302 Attention: Gerrit Slatter, P.E. Subject: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project, Floodplain Impact Assessment Mr. Slatter, The purpose of this memo is to describe potential impacts to the floodplains associated with the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project. The City and their consultant Toole provided a preliminary design in May 2025 (00DEN.00247_X_GT.dwg). DBC also coordinated with City Transportation staff and independent reviewers to complete this assessment. Existing Conditions: The North 30th Street project corridor crosses four (4) regulatory floodplains as described below from north to south. Screen shots of the existing floodplain mapping are attached to this memo in Figures 1-4. 1. Wonderland Creek – Wonderland Creek flows from northwest to southeast under the Diagonal at the north end of the project. The floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are contained in a pedestrian undercrossing. 2. Goose Creek – Goose Creek flows east under the intersection of 30th Street and Mapleton Avenue. The floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are contained in a pedestrian undercrossing. 3. Boulder Slough – The Boulder Slough is a tributary to Boulder Creek, and flows east under 30th Street, approximately 350 feet south of Pearl Street. The Slough is conveyed by a double box culvert and pedestrian and flood underpass. The floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are mapped across the roadway as shown in LOMR 18-08-1141P dated 3/5/2019. 4. Boulder Creek, Arapahoe Avenue Split – The Arapahoe Avenue Split flow path of Boulder Creek flows east along Arapahoe Avenue. The entirety of the intersection of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue is in the floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone. Project Considerations: The North 30th Street project will not impact any pedestrian underpass and flood structures or culverts in floodplains. Therefore, there are no floodplain impacts or mapping changes due to the project. Further considerations are listed below. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 138 Packet Page 385 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 115 1. The components of the Project at the intersection of Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street will be covered under a future Arapahoe Avenue Multimodal Improvement Project. 2. The effective hydraulic model for the Boulder Slough shows that the floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are contained in an underpass and flood structure (bridge) that will not be modified by the Project. 3. The Project improvements do not include any work in waterways that would cause impacts to wetlands (Figure 5). Stormwater Master Planning: The City of Boulder 2016 Stormwater Master Plan identified City-wide recommended improvements to the stormwater systems. There are three Collector System Projects along the North 30th Corridor that were developed in 2016 that are described below and identified in the attached Plan excerpts. The Transportation department should coordinate with Utilities to incorporate any stormwater improvements into the Project. 1. MBC_18 – Middle Boulder Creek 2. GC_06 – Pearl and 30th Pipe Replacement 3. GC_07 – 30th and Corona Pipe Replacement Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Michelle Iblings, P.E. Associate, Project Manager miblings@drexelbarrell.com Attachments: Figures 1-4. FEMA and City of Boulder Floodplain, Floodway, and High Hazard Zones Figure ES-4 and Table 8.2-1 from the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 139 Packet Page 386 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 116 Figure 1. Wonderland Creek at the Diagonal Highway and 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 140 Packet Page 387 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 117 Figure 2. Goose Creek at Mapleton Ave and 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 141 Packet Page 388 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 118 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 142 Packet Page 389 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 119 Figure 3. Boulder Slough at 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 143 Packet Page 390 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 120 Figure 4. Boulder Creek at Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 144 Packet Page 391 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 121 Figure 5. North 30th Street Corridor Wetlands Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 145 Packet Page 392 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 122 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 146 Packet Page 393 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 123 Attachment G: Existing Street Tree Inventory and Recommendation Impacts June 16, 2025 City of Boulder Forestry 5200 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80301 Attention: Ken Fisher, Forestry Division Subject: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project, Street Tree Removals Forestry Division, The purpose of this memo is to describe and document the tree removals associated with the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project on 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway. The CEAP recommended design, presented to City Council for approval in June 2025, is a hybrid of three alternatives developed through a week-long design workshop in January 2025. The Forestry Division provided feedback on the three alternatives to Transportation and Mobility staff during the design workshop week, and staff held a follow-up meeting on the corridor in April 2025 to review the recommended design and associated tree removals. The recommendation can be implemented mostly within the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and so preserves existing public street trees or replaces any street trees that need to be removed. It is anticipated that 21 public street trees will be removed and replaced in the same area, and two street trees will be removed and replaced elsewhere on the corridor, for a total of 23 street tree removals and replacements. Reimbursements from Transportation and Mobility to Forestry are not proposed since this project is able to replace all 23 trees removed. In the next stage of the design, the project will: • Develop detailed planting and irrigation plans in consultation with Transportation and Mobility Maintenance. • Identify specific locations for new trees and planting sites in existing landscaping areas or new landscaped areas created by the project in consultation with Transportation and Mobility Maintenance and the Forestry Division. • Work to adjust the recommended design to avoid approximately six private tree removals (some of which are well established) north of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue on the east side at the King Soopers Plaza. • Study the removal and replacement of four immature trees on private property at Bluebird Apartments north of Mapleton Avenue due to sidewalk realignment. Figure 1 describes and documents the tree removals and provides additional notes. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 147 Packet Page 394 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 124 Figure 1: Tree Removals by North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Sincerely, John McFarlane Senior Transportation Planner McfarlaneJ@bouldercolorado.gov Cc: Gerrit Slatter, Civil Engineering Senior Manager – Capital Projects, SlatterG@bouldercolorado.gov Melanie Sloan, Principal Project Manager, SloanM@bouldercolorado.gov Daniel Sheeter, Principal Transportation Planner, SheeterD@bouldercolorado.gov No. Block Location Tree ID Tree Diameter Remove & Replace in Same Area (Y/N) Remove & Replace Elsewhere on Corridor (Y/N)Notes 1 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75952 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 2 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75953 9 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 3 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75954 8 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 4 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75955 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 5 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75956 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 6 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75957 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 7 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75958 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 8 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75959 7 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 9 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75962 4 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 10 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75963 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 11 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75964 7 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 12 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75965 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 13 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75966 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 14 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75968 5 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 15 Walnut to Pearl Median TREE76043 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 16 Walnut to Pearl Median TREE76044 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 17 Walnut to Pearl Median TREE76045 7 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 18 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366645 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 19 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366646 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 20 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366647 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 21 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366648 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 22 Falcon Way to Glenwood West Side TREE77369 13 N Y Removed to accommodate bus stop improvements 23 Falcon Way to Glenwood West Side TREE77368 22 N Y Removed to accommodate bus stop improvements Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 148 Packet Page 395 of 1100 BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK (Original) On June 23, 2025, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) held a public hearing on this project to consider a recommendation to City Council on the CEAP evaluation and recommended design. Because the submittal for this council memo was due prior to the TAB meeting, there are no results to share at the time of this reading. The outcome of the June 23, 2025 TAB meeting will be communicated to council members in advance of this June 26, 2025 council meeting. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK (Revised) On June 23, 2025, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) held a public hearing on this project to consider a recommendation to City Council on the CEAP evaluation and recommended design. The four attending TAB members unanimously recommended the CEAP and recommended design for approval by City Council at the June 26, 2025 council meeting. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 1 Packet Page 396 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Call Up Consideration Item: Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project REVISED PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager Gerrit Slatter, Principal Transportation Projects Engineer Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer Melanie Sloan, Transportation Principal Project Manager Daniel Sheeter, Transportation Principal Planner John McFarlane, Transportation Senior Planner Anna Kramer, Transportation Planning Intern EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project is to make north 30th Street, from Arapahoe Avenue to Diagonal Highway, safer, more comfortable and connected. The project will address the actions of the Vision Zero Action Plan by Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 2 Packet Page 397 of 1100 implementing proven safety countermeasures on this Core Arterial Network (CAN) corridor that is also on the High Risk Network (HRN). The North 30th Street design project has followed an accelerated timeline over 10 months between August 2024 and July 2025 (similar projects usually are completed in 15 to 18 months). The expedited timeline was pursued to help the project stay on schedule with federal funding requirements and in response to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate the project development process for corridors on the CAN, a council priority initiative. Staff completed a Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) that included robust engagement with the community, businesses and emergency response partners, analysis of existing conditions data, a week-long community informed design workshop, policy and plan review, and evaluation of conceptual alternatives using a CEAP checklist and project specific evaluation criteria. The North 30th Street design project’s CEAP appears on this June 26, 2025 council meeting agenda as a Call-Up/Check-In item for council consideration. If council is supportive of the recommended conceptual design alternative, pending the Transportation Advisory Board’s final deliberation on June 23, 2025, then council can formalize a support decision for the project’s recommend design by not calling this item up. However, if council chooses to call this item up, then the project CEAP and its recommended design will then be agendized for the July 24, 2025 council meeting as a public hearing item for council decision. Following City Council approval of the CEAP, staff will complete final design and implementation of 30th Street from Pearl Street to Diagonal Highway and the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection. This work will continue through 2029 using awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant funding. The city will seek additional funding for the unfunded section of north 30th Street from Arapahoe Avenue to Pearl Street. STAFF RECOMENDATION The CEAP recommended design combines elements of three alternatives developed through a week-long design workshop because no individual alternative adequately balanced project goals and community priorities for safety and travel time, and for implementation feasibility. Implementation feasibility is important because of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant funds timeline requirements as well as previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. The CEAP recommended design combines elements from each of the three alternatives. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 3 Packet Page 398 of 1100 The recommended alternative includes: •Strategic vehicle lane repurposing (Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street) o A new center turn lane between Corona Trail and Eagle Way addresses a common crash pattern, provides a safe place for drivers to wait to turn off of north 30th Street, and allows traffic to flow around the turning vehicle. o Painted medians and a striped lane from Bluff Street to Pearl Street provide dedicated space for emergency response, including Boulder Fire - Rescue from Fire Station #3 at Bluff Street and Boulder Police Department from 33rd Street and Canyon Boulevard. •Protected intersection elements and traffic signal changes o Provide the space for everyone, from drivers to people walking, biking and rolling, to travel safely and more comfortably through signalized intersections, where most crashes occur on north 30th Street. o Crossing distances are shortened and traffic signals provide enough time for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street separate from turning vehicles. •On-street protected bike lanes o On-street protected bike lanes with concrete separation between the bike and vehicle lanes provide greater protection and reduce the potential for crashes. In constrained locations, near the Boulder Slough and south of Canyon Boulevard, the on-street protected bike lane transitions to sidewalk-level to ensure continuous concrete separation between people biking and driving without the need to require right-of- way. •Improved pedestrian connections o Existing sidewalks are kept separate from the protected bike lanes and vehicle lanes to provide dedicated space for people walking and rolling. o New midblock crossings reduce existing gaps in street crossings of 30th Street north of Valmont Road. •Transit upgrades o Floating bus stop designs support transit speed and reliability by not requiring buses to move in and out of traffic at stops. o Existing stops are better aligned with intersecting bus routes and popular destinations. o Shelters and benches are provided to improve the transit rider experience. •Urban design o Strategic lane repurposing and providing on-street protected bike lanes creates fewer impacts behind the existing curbs resulting in 100% of the existing public street trees being retained or replanted. o Repurposing lanes, including removal of right-turn slip lanes, creates opportunities for new plantings and other amenities like landscaping and seating. o Retaining trees and adding new landscaping can reduce urban heat and improve air quality. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 4 Packet Page 399 of 1100 •Implementable safety improvements o The recommendation can be mostly implemented within the existing curb-to-curb width and so is buildable within existing funding and timeline constraints of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant and previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. •Maintainable designs o All design elements can be maintained using existing maintenance crews and the city’s existing fleet of snow/ice equipment. Snow removal from sidewalks will continue to be the responsibility of adjacent property owners, per city code. o Buffers between protected bike lanes, sidewalks and vehicle lanes provide space for snow storage. •Minimal travel time change o Traffic modeling found an average* travel time increase of about 1.5 minutes for end-to-end trips. *Average of morning and evening peak travel time changes. Only a small percentage of travelers will experience this travel time increase because less than 10% of all vehicle trips travel the corridor end-to-end. To the majority of drivers who travel on north 30th Street, the travel time change will be less than the 1.5 minute average, and so likely imperceptible over time. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic - The North 30th Street project helps the city achieve its economic goals by the provision of and investment in infrastructure that attracts, sustains and retains businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers, and by ensuring safe and comfortable connections to destinations along the corridor and on the broader city transportation network. •Environmental - The North 30th Street project helps the city achieve its environmental goals by providing safe and comfortable multimodal transportation options which can reduce vehicle use and vehicle miles travelled and thus reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources and greenhouse gas emissions. These changes can also protect water and air quality through utilization of existing Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 5 Packet Page 400 of 1100 infrastructure, by preserving existing public street trees, and through the reduction of mobile source emissions. •Social - The North 30th Street project helps the city achieve its social health goals by providing an all ages and abilities corridor with safer and more comfortable transportation options no matter how someone chooses to travel. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – Planning through conceptual design will cost $1.0 million and is funded with an $800,000 federal Transportation Improvement program (TIP) grant awarded by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and $200,000 of city funds. Final design and implementation of the recommended design from the Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street and at the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection is estimated to cost about $9 million, within the awarded federal Safe Streets and Roads for All grant. The city will seek additional funds for final design and implementation of the segment of north 30th Street from Pearl Street to Arapahoe Avenue. •Staff time – This project is part of staff’s normal work plan. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK On June 23, 2025, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) held a public hearing on this project to consider a recommendation to City Council on the CEAP evaluation and recommended design. The four attending TAB members unanimously recommended the CEAP and recommended design for approval by City Council at the June 26, 2025 council meeting. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The community engagement strategy for conceptual design of the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project consisted of three phases: 1. Spring 2024 —Winter 2024/2025: Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience; 2.Winter—Spring 2025: Community Input on Conceptual Design Alternatives and the Draft CEAP Evaluation; and 3. Spring 2025: Community Input on Final CEAP Evaluation and Recommended Design. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 6 Packet Page 401 of 1100 Spring 2024-Winter 2024/2025: Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience A priority of the project team was to focus on engaging the diverse residents along north 30th Street and prioritizing the voices of historically excluded and currently underrepresented communities. The project team met people where they were, at places like bus stops, grocery stores, schools, community events, and at their residential communities. The project team held focus group discussions with residents of Orchard Grove Manufactured Home Community, San Juan del Centro apartments, Boulder Housing Partners apartments, Bluebird apartments, Boulder Junction, and the business community to get more detailed feedback from participants and understand the unique needs of these community members. At all events where Spanish-speaking community members may have been in attendance, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available. An online questionnaire was also offered in English and Spanish. Outreach methods reached nearly 6,000 community members and twenty-one engagement activities saw close to 1,000 participants. Comments provided feedback on challenges and opportunities to inform development of improvements. The community shared these common themes: •Safety for Pedestrians & Bicyclists: Many people want physical separation between people who walk, bike, and roll and want wider bike lanes, too. •Desire to Walk, Bike or Take Transit More: Many people expressed a desire to walk, bike, or use transit more when traveling on north 30th Street. •Crossings Should Be Safe & Accessible: Many highlighted the need for longer crossing times, especially for disabled and older residents. •Transit Riders Want Better Bus Stops: Bus stops often lack comfortable waiting areas and some could be relocated to better serve community destinations. •Vehicle Speeds Are A Major Concern: All participants want vehicle speeds to be lower on north 30th Street. •Enhancing Traffic Flow & Calming Are Both Important: Community members recognize a dual need to increase traffic calming and reduce congestion. •Bicycle Connectivity Is Key: Community members want a connected low-stress bike facility between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Avenue. •Overwhelming Support for Improved Intersections: Safety improvements at intersections would benefit everyone regardless of how they travel. •Support for Business Access: People want businesses to be accessible by multiple travel modes for both customers and employees. •Desire for Placemaking, Trees and Green Space: Community members want the project to preserve street trees and generally make north 30th Street more attractive. The project team also met with staff from the City of Boulder Police Department (BPD), Boulder Fire-Rescue (BFR), and the Boulder Office of Disaster Management (ODM) to understand how north 30th Street functioned for them today. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 7 Packet Page 402 of 1100 Winter-Spring 2025: Community Input on Conceptual Design Alternatives and the Draft CEAP Evaluation To meet the accelerated timeline to align with awarded federal funding requirements, the project conducted a week-long design workshop in January 2025. Open design studios during the week invited community members and emergency response partners to provide feedback on potential improvements which helped the project team develop three conceptual design alternatives. Hand sketches of the three conceptual design alternatives were shared with the community the final night of the design workshop at an in-person Open House at the city’s Park Central Building (Figure 1). Figure 1: Participants at the design workshop Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 8 Packet Page 403 of 1100 In March and April 2025, staff completed the draft CEAP evaluation of the three alternatives and shared the results with the public at in-person and virtual open houses and office hours at Boulder Housing Partners 30Pearl Apartments, San Juan Del Centro, and Fire Station #3. Similar to the first phase of engagement, at events where Spanish-speaking community members may have been in attendance, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available. (Figure 2). The project team again met with emergency response (staff from the BPD, BFR, and ODM) to gain their feedback on the designs and draft CEAP evaluation. Input received from this phase of engagement helped the project team identify what priorities the community cares most about when it comes to improving north 30th Street. The project team considered these priorities when identifying the recommendation. Participants prioritized: o Vehicle speed moderation o Bike safety o Transit priority o Urban design and placemaking •People wanted: o Wider bike lanes. o Protected signal phases, especially at intersections with east-west streets, to reduce conflicts between left-turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. o Existing public street trees and green space to be preserved. Spring 2025: Community Input on Final CEAP Evaluation and Recommended Design In May and June 2025, the final CEAP evaluation and recommended design were shared with the community at in-person events and online. People were asked to share what they are excited about the recommendation, what concerns them, and how project staff could mitigate their concerns as the design is advanced. Community members reported being excited about: •Safer walking and biking from protected and widened bike lanes and separation of people walking, rolling and biking from vehicle traffic. Figure 2: Office hours at San Juan del Centro Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 9 Packet Page 404 of 1100 •Intersection improvements like protected intersections, right-turn slip lane removal at intersections, and bike signals at intersections. •Improved crossings, especially the two new pedestrian crossings north of Valmont Road and the upgraded crossings south of Spruce Street and south of Walnut Street. •Traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds and the lowered the speed limit through the separate but related Citywide Speed Limit Setting project. •Overall project approach demonstrated a balanced design approach to provide safety improvement with minimal increase in travel time that also preserves existing street trees. The community shared concerns for: •Insufficient safety improvements for walking and biking •Vehicle speeds remaining too high •Vehicle travel time increases •Shared floating bus stop designs creating conflicts between people biking and transit riders •Construction impacts Project information, including the online open house materials, can be found at the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project webpage. BACKGROUND North 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue (CO-7) and Diagonal Highway (CO-119) (Figure 3) is a primary north-south arterial street in Boulder and provides local and regional connections to Boulder Junction, the University of Colorado-Boulder (CU) East Campus, the 29th Street Mall, market rate and affordable housing for families and students, and small and large businesses. It is one of the most diverse streets in Boulder in terms of land uses and demographics, and it is also Figure 3: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 10 Packet Page 405 of 1100 an important multi-modal travel corridor with 14,000 to 19,800 vehicles, 600 transit riders, and 2,200 walk and bike trips on a typical day. This project is part of the City’s Core Arterial Network (CAN) initiative. The CAN is a connected system of safe multimodal streets with protected bicycle lanes, intersection enhancements, pedestrian facilities, and transit facility upgrades. This connected system will help reduce the potential for severe crashes and make it more comfortable and convenient for people to get where they need to go along Boulder’s main corridors. The CAN initiative is key to implementing the city's Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP), a City Council commitment to end fatal and serious-injury crashes. However, north 30th Street does not provide the safest, most comfortable connections regardless of how you travel. In the city’s 2019 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the city’s 2019 Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan, north 30th Street is called out as needing greater separation and protection between the vehicle and on-street bicycle lanes due to the posted speed limit of 35mph, existing vehicle volumes being greater than 6,000 per day, and the role 30th St plays as a central and direct route in the city’s bike network for north-south and east-west trips. The Low-Stress Plan also identified Pedestrian Improvement Areas on 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Walnut Street, and Glenwood Drive to Diagonal Highway where new sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades were needed. The TMP also designated north 30th Street as a high-frequency transit service corridor with bus frequences of 15 minutes or better. The 2022 Safe Streets Report (SSR) found that between 2018 and 2020, 14,500 people were involved in a crash in Boulder, resulting in 150 serious injuries. Sixty-seven percent of severe traffic crashes, those that result in serious injury or fatality, occur on arterial streets, like 30th Street. The report found these severe injury crashes occurred at several intersections on north 30th Street: Arapahoe Avenue, Pearl Street and Valmont Road. Data analysis for the project revealed these three intersections see 52% of all crashes on north 30th Street. Alarmingly, two out of three serious injury or fatal crashes on north 30th Street involved someone walking, biking or rolling (Figure 4). Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 11 Packet Page 406 of 1100 Figure 4: Serious Injury and Fatal Crash Data for North 30th Street In 2023, the 2023-2027 Vision Zero Action Plan (VAP) identified specific actions and strategies to address the findings of the SSR. Two core strategies of the VZAP are to work on the CAN and the High Risk Network (HRN), streets in the city where severe crashes have or are more likely to occur. North 30th Street is on the CAN and the HRN. The North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project completed a CEAP to identify a recommended design that incorporates proven safety countermeasures with a focus on increasing mobility choices, improving safety for everyone, making walking, biking, rolling, scooting, and taking transit more attractive and convenient, and improving connections to local, citywide and regional destinations. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 12 Packet Page 407 of 1100 North 30th Street has three segments with distinct differences in transportation design, land use, and other features (Error! Reference source not found.): •North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road o Primarily multi-family residential o Narrowest right-of-way segment o Lowest vehicle volumes o Highest transit stop use o Connects to the Wonderland Creek Multi-Use Path o Mature tree canopy, especially Glenwood to Valmont •Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue o A mix of small commercial and automotive commercial uses o Wider right-of-way than North, narrower than South o Fire Station #3 located at Bluff Street o More vehicles than North but less than South o Least transit stop use o Connects to the Goose Creek Multi-Use Path o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements •South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue o Redeveloping mixed use and multi-family residential o Established small, medium and big box businesses o Large amount of off-street parking o Widest right-of-way o Highest vehicle volumes o More transit stop use than Central but less than North o Police Department headquarters is east at Canyon o Pedestrian and bicycle connections south of Arapahoe o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements An update on the progress of the North 30th Street project with detail on the conceptual design alternatives, project considerations, and community priorities was provided to City Council at a study session on April 10, 2025. Figure 5:North 30th Street Segments Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 13 Packet Page 408 of 1100 ANALYSIS The design workshop week improvements identified with the community were screened using eight screening criteria that reflect project goals and community priorities: Pedestrian Space: The potential to provide low-stress pedestrian facilities that are comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, including seniors and school-aged children. Bicycle Space: The potential to implement Low-Stress Walk and Bike Plan recommendation of protected bike lanes with adequate width. Transit Priority: The potential to support transit speed and reliability and provide space for bus stops and amenities. Vehicle Operations Feasibility: The potential to maintain the flow of traffic and private vehicle access to residential and commercial destinations. Day-to-Day Emergency Response: The potential to provide adequate space for emergency response vehicles. Disaster Emergency Response: The potential to provide space for private vehicles to evacuate during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic. Estimated Construction Impact: The potential to avoid curb realignment and removing trees, which increase the time and cost needed to design and implement the project. Vehicle Speed Moderation: The potential to reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic. Three conceptual design alternatives were created from the improvements that passed screening. The three alternatives were evaluated using the traffic modeling software, Synchro, to ensure their impacts to transportation operations were feasible to advance for further design: all three conceptual design alternatives were deemed feasible. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 14 Packet Page 409 of 1100 Conceptual Design Alternatives Alternative A Alternative A narrows the current roadway width to maintain the existing number of vehicle lanes and provide sidewalk-level protected bike lanes and adds modest improvements for people walking, biking, rolling, scooting or using transit (Error! Reference source not found.). Figure 6: Alternative A Segments and Key Features Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 15 Packet Page 410 of 1100 Alternative B Alternative B maintains the current curb-to-curb roadway width, repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median from the south segment to accommodate wide, on-street protected bike lanes, to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections (Figure 7). Figure 7: Alternative B Segments and Key Features Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 16 Packet Page 411 of 1100 Alternative C Alternative C narrows the current roadway width and repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median from the south segment to provide wide, sidewalk-level protected bike lanes, to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, to provide wide landscaping buffers between Walnut Street and Arapahoe Avenue, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections (Figure 8). Figure 8: Alternative C Segments and Key Features Community and Environmental Assessment Process Conceptual Design Alternatives The three alternatives were evaluated using the city’s formal review process: the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). The CEAP uses project specific evaluation criteria, the CEAP checklist and community input to identify a recommended alternative. Each alternative was scored for the entire corridor and for its end-to-end impact. Project specific evaluation criteria had a scoring range from -4 to +4. All project specific evaluation criteria, except Implementation Feasibility, were scored compared to existing conditions; Implementation Feasibility scoring compared alternatives to each other. The CEAP checklist items were scored for positive, negative or neutral impacts when compared to existing conditions (Figure 9). Attachment A provides more detailed information for each alternative and their draft CEAP evaluations. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 17 Packet Page 412 of 1100 Figure 9: Draft CEAP Evaluation for Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 18 Packet Page 413 of 1100 Evaluation Rationale Safety Reducing speeds is critical to reducing the potential for and severity of crashes because vehicle speed increases the risk of serious injury and death (Figure 10). Figure 10: Correlation of vehicle speed and crash severity Repurposing vehicle lanes helps to reduce vehicle speeds and provides space for proven safety countermeasures, like protected intersection elements, center turn lanes, access management, and enhanced mid-block crossings. Traffic modeling supported lane repurposing for north 30th Street. Protected intersections slow turning vehicles, provide dedicated space for people walking and biking, help everyone to see and be seen, and support more predictable movements to and through intersections, where most crashes occur on north 30th Street. Center turn lanes and slip lane removal at intersections reduces the number of conflict points, makes it easier to move along and on and off the corridor, and shortens the crossing distances for people walking, biking and rolling. Enhanced mid-block crossings provide safe and comfortable crossings and close gaps in crossing opportunities north of Valmont Road for people walking, biking and rolling. Repurposing lanes also supports urban design and implementation feasibility by providing space for multimodal safety improvements within the existing roadway. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 19 Packet Page 414 of 1100 Urban Design: By remaining within the existing curbs, public street tree and landscaping removals are less likely and opportunities for additional trees and planting is possible, like when slip lanes are removed at intersections. Implementation Feasibility: Implementing within the existing roadway also minimizes construction time and cost. North 30th Street was awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant funding to make changes to 30th Street at the 30th Street & Arapahoe Avenue intersection and to 30th Street from Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street by 2029, the due date of the grant. Operations Travel time is important to the community and businesses. Providing dedicated signal phases at intersections and the time needed for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street adds time for everyone’s travel, whether or not lane repurposing or any other safety improvements are made to north 30th Street. Repurposing lanes at and between intersections can increase travel time and reduce transit speed and reliability. North 30th Street is an important transit corridor, with local and regional routes including the Bolt, the Bound, and the FLEX. The three alternatives were evaluated for changes to end-to-end travel time using the traffic modeling software, Trans Modeler. The modeling found significant differences in average travel time between each alternative (Figure 11): •Alternative A increases travel time by 1.5 minutes •Alternative B increases travel time by 4 minutes 35 seconds •Alternative C increases travel time by 4 minutes 30 seconds Figure 11: Travel time change for Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C This draft CEAP evaluation determined that more work was needed to adequately balance the project’s goals and community priorities for safety and travel time, and for implementation feasibility because of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant funds. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 20 Packet Page 415 of 1100 Recommended Alternative The project team developed a recommended conceptual design alternative (Figure 12) after revisiting each conceptual design alternative and consulting with BFR, BPD and ODM staff to review design elements that better support emergency response. The central segment is shown here for simplicity; the remaining segments can be seen in Attachment A. Figure 12: Recommendation in the Central Segment The recommendation incorporates transportation operations elements from Alternative A to minimize increases to travel time and transit delay; urban design and implementation feasibility elements of Alternative B to improve comfort and connectivity; and safety improvement elements from Alternatives B and C to address crashes and provide a safer walking and biking environment. The recommendation has distinct design elements in the central segment to better support emergency response. A visual display of the following design details can be found in the project’s third virtual open house. •Safety & Comfort o All intersections receive partial or fully protected intersections Protected intersections use corner refuge islands and dedicated signal phases to separate modes of travel and reduce potential conflicts. •For people walking, biking, and rolling, this means increased visibility and dedicated paths through the intersection. •For people driving, it means more predictable movements. o Slip lanes are removed at Pearl Street, Walnut Street, Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue to shorten crossings, slow turning vehicle speeds, and keep vulnerable road users separated from traffic. o In all but constrained locations and near Arapahoe Avenue, protected bike lanes are on-street with concrete curbs between the bike lane and vehicles. In constrained locations, protected bike lanes are at sidewalk level. Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 21 Packet Page 416 of 1100 o A dedicated bike waiting area is provided at Glenwood Drive for bicyclists turning left. o New pedestrian crossings are added at Corona Trail and Eagle Way to close existing crossing gaps between Iris Avenue and Valmont Road. o Existing pedestrian flashing beacons near Spruce Street and south of Walnut Street will be converted to red signals. o Medians on Valmont Road and 30th Street are added to reduce conflicts between people driving and those turning onto these streets from driveways. o Access management at 30th Street and Mapleton Avenue addresses crash patterns from conflicting left turns. o Redesigned driveways at the King Soopers near 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue reduce vehicle speeds and increase visibility between drivers and people walking, biking and rolling. •Transportation Operations o Strategic vehicle lane repurposing between Iris Avenue and Pearl Street reduces vehicle speeds. o Center turn lanes between Corona Trail and Eagle Way provide dedicated space to turn on and off the corridor and can be used for emergency response. o Dedicated left turn lanes throughout the corridor provide space for waiting vehicles, including buses which make a left turn onto Glenwood Drive. o Traffics signals at all signalized intersections provide dedicated time for people walking and biking to move through the intersection separate from vehicles. •Transit o Transit riders have dedicated places to wait for the bus, with amenities like shelters and benches at busier stops. o Some stops are relocated to better connect to crossings, paths and popular destination, like King Soopers. o Floating bus stops designs keep buses in the travel lane, reducing transit service delays. o Floating bus stops reduce conflict between buses and bikes because the bus stop is separated from the bike lane. •Urban Design o 100% of existing public street trees are retained or replanted. o Areas where lanes are repurposed provides space for additional plantings and new landscaping, which may reduce urban heat. o Changes are made mostly within the existing roadway and so adds little new concrete, minimizing increases to urban heat. •Implementation Feasibility o The recommendation can mostly be built within the existing roadway and so reduces the cost and time to implement, between Diagonal Highway and Pearl Street and at the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection, and supports implementation within the time and funding available from Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 22 Packet Page 417 of 1100 the awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant as well as previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. o The recommended design accommodates city maintenance vehicles and so does not require new equipment to maintain. o Landscaped areas between the roadway and sidewalk provide space for snow storage. Emergency response design elements incorporated into the recommendation were based on conversations with BFR, BPD, and ODM staff and analysis of Fire Station #3 call distribution data: •Traffic signals allow emergency response vehicles to pass through Valmont Road, Bluff Street and Pearl Street intersections when the emergency response signal at Fire Station #3 is activated. •Strategic lane repurposing maintains vehicle lanes where vehicle and emergency response call volumes are high, like between Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue, and repurposes them where vehicle and response call volumes are lower, like between Iris Avenue and Valmont Road. •Where lanes are repurposed, medians and dedicated space are marked with paint to support emergency response vehicle use. •Busy intersections, like Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue, have the same number of lanes, including turn lanes, as today to support emergency response. •Commercial driveways and pedestrian and bike facilities are modified in high call areas, like near Brookdale Senior Housing and the Mapleton Ball Fields, to reduce conflicts and improve access for emergency response. The recommendation was also evaluated for changes to average travel time using the traffic modeling software, Trans Modeler. The modeling showed, similar to Alternative A which retained the current number of vehicle lanes, the recommended design increases end-to-end trips by an average of 1 minute and 30 seconds in the combined average of AM and PM peak hours, (Figure 13). Figure 13: Recommendation travel time increase However, less than 10% of all vehicle trips on north 30th Street travel the corridor end- to-end, meaning only a small percentage of drivers will experience this full travel time Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 23 Packet Page 418 of 1100 increase. Travel time impacts could feel different based on direction of travel, time of day and location. Most driver’s travel time change will be less than 1 minute 30 seconds and so could be imperceptible over time. The recommended design was evaluated using the CEAP project specific evaluation criteria and checklist. The recommendation was scored for the entire corridor and for its end-to-end impact. Project specific evaluation criteria had a scoring range from -4 to +4. All project specific evaluation criteria, except Implementation Feasibility, were scored compared to existing conditions; Implementation Feasibility scored alternatives to each other. The CEAP checklist items were scored for positive, negative or neutral impacts when compared to existing conditions. Based on the CEAP evaluation results, the Hybrid Alternative balances the project’s and community’s priorities for improvements on north 30th Street and is the recommended design.(Figure 14 & Figure 15). Figure 14: Recommendation CEAP checklist scores Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 24 Packet Page 419 of 1100 Figure 15: Recommendation CEAP project specific criteria scores The complete CEAP evaluation of the recommendation can be found in Attachment A. NEXT STEPS If council is supportive of the recommended conceptual design alternative, pending the Transportation Advisory Board’s final deliberation on June 23, 2025, then council can formalize a support decision for the project’s recommend design by not calling this item up. However, if council chooses to call this item up, then the project CEAP and its recommended design will then be agendized for the July 24, 2025 council meeting as a public hearing item for council decision. Upon council’s approval, staff will complete preliminary design through summer 2025. Final design for the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection will begin in the fall as part of the East Arapahoe Final Design project for Segment A: 28th Street to Foothills Parkway. Final design for 30th Street from Diagonal Highway to Pearl Street will advance once Safe Streets and Roads for All funding is received. Implementation of this segment of 30th Street, and the 30th & Arapahoe Avenue intersection, will begin after final design for each is completed. Final design and implementation of the unfunded segment of 30th Street, from Pearl Street to Arapahoe Avenue, will advance once funding is secured. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 25 Packet Page 420 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process June 2025 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 26 Packet Page 421 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 2 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Background Purpose & Need ........................................................................................................................ 6 Planning Guidance .................................................................................................................................... 6 30th and Colorado Corridors Study ........................................................................................................ 7 Transit Village Area Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7 Transportation Master Plan and Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan .......................................... 8 Transportation Master Plan – Transit ................................................................................................... 8 Vision Zero Action Plan and Regional High Injury Network / Critical Corridor ................................... 10 Related Local and Regional Projects ....................................................................................................... 10 Upcoming Near-Term Local Projects: ................................................................................................. 11 Upcoming Near-Term Regional Projects: ............................................................................................ 11 Corridor Characteristics and Community Demographics ....................................................................... 11 Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience: Spring 2024 – Winter 2024/2025 ............................. 15 Existing Conditions Data and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 20 Existing Street Design .............................................................................................................................. 21 North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road ......................................................................... 21 Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue ...................................................................... 22 South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue ................................................................... 23 Emergency Response .............................................................................................................................. 23 Vehicle Volume, Speed, and Travel Time ................................................................................................ 24 Multimodal Volume and Travel .............................................................................................................. 26 Crash History ........................................................................................................................................... 27 CEAP Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 28 CEAP Process ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Step 1: Screening and Identification of Conceptual Alternatives ....................................................... 29 Steps 2: Compare Conceptual Design Alternatives and Receive Community Input ........................... 46 Step 3: Present Final Evaluation and Recommended Alternative to the Community ........................ 81 Attachment A: Project Screening ................................................................................................................ 84 Project Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 84 Attachment B: Project Specific Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................... 87 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 27 Packet Page 422 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 3 Attachment C: Goals Assessment ............................................................................................................... 96 Attachment D: CEAP Checklist Evaluation for the Conceptual Design Alternatives ................................. 100 Attachment E: CEAP Checklist Questions ................................................................................................. 102 Attachment F: Floodplain Impact Assessment Memo .............................................................................. 114 Attachment G: Existing Street Tree Inventory and Recommendation Impacts ........................................ 123 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 28 Packet Page 423 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 4 Executive Summary The purpose of the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project is to make north 30th Street, from Arapahoe Avenue to Diagonal Highway, safer, more comfortable and connected. The project will address the actions of the Vision Zero Action Plan by implementing proven safety countermeasures on this Core Arterial Network (CAN) corridor that is also on the High Risk Network (HRN). The North 30th Street design project has followed an accelerated timeline over 10 months between August 2024 and July 2025 (similar projects usually are completed in 15 to 18 months). The expedited timeline was pursued to help the project stay on schedule with federal funding requirements and in response to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate the project development process for corridors on the CAN, a council priority initiative. Staff completed a Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) that included robust engagement with the community, businesses and emergency response partners, analysis of existing conditions data, a week-long community informed design workshop, policy and plan review, and evaluation of conceptual alternatives using a CEAP checklist and project specific evaluation criteria. The CEAP recommended design is a hybrid of three alternatives developed through a week-long design workshop because no individual alternative adequately balanced project goals and community priorities for safety and travel time, and for implementation feasibility. Implementation feasibility is important because of the awarded Safe Streets for All federal grant funds timeline requirements as well as previous council direction to accelerate project development and delivery. The CEAP recommended design combines elements from each of the three alternatives to achieve important safety benefits with minimal impacts to vehicle operations, including for emergency response, transit riders, and drivers. The recommendation repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median in some segments, and removes right turn slip lanes to reduce vehicle speeds and provide space for everyone to move more safely and comfortably with center turn lanes, on-street protected bike lanes, protected intersections, floating bus stops and new and improved crossings. Today, it takes approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-miles of north 30th Street between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Avenue. The recommendation increases travel time for these trips by an average of 1 minute and 30 seconds. However, less than 10% of all vehicle trips travel the corridor end-to-end. This means most drivers’ travel time will increase by less than 1 minute 30 seconds. The recommendation can be implemented mostly within the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and so preserves existing public street trees or replaces any street trees that need to be removed. Due to this, the recommendation can be implemented with the awarded $9M Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal funding to advance final design and construction to implement improvements on 30th Street between Pearl Street and Diagonal Highway and the 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection. Additional quick-build improvements will be explored for the remaining segment between Arapahoe Avenue and Pearl Street as the city identifies funding. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 29 Packet Page 424 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 5 Project Description North 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue (CO-7) and Diagonal Highway (CO-119) (shown in Figure 1) is a primary north-south arterial street in Boulder and provides local and regional connections to Boulder Junction, the University of Colorado-Boulder (CU) East Campus, the 29th Street Mall, market rate and affordable housing for families and students, and small and large businesses. It is one of the most diverse streets in Boulder in terms of land uses and demographics, and it is also an important multi-modal travel corridor with 14,000 to 19,800 vehicles, 600 transit, and 2,200 walk and bike trips on a typical day. Figure 1: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project and the Core Arterial Network This project is part of the City’s Core Arterial Network (CAN) initiative. The CAN is a connected system of safe multimodal streets with protected bicycle lanes, intersection enhancements, pedestrian facilities, and transit facility upgrades. This connected system will help reduce the potential for severe crashes and make it more comfortable and convenient for people to get where they need to go along Boulder’s main Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 30 Packet Page 425 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 6 corridors. The CAN initiative is key to implementing the city's Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP), a City Council commitment to end fatal and serious-injury crashes. The North 30th Street Preliminary Design project conducted community engagement to inform transportation improvements for 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway and will result in a 15% conceptual design that makes the street safer, more comfortable and more connected for everyone. The preliminary design project has followed an accelerated timeline over 10 months between August 2024 and July 2025 (similar projects usually are completed in 15-18 months). The expedited timeline was pursued to help advance the project to next phase such that it can stay on schedule with federal funding requirements as well as respond to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate project development. After the completion of this 15% design, the city has been awarded $9M in Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal funding to advance final design and construction to implement improvements on 30th Street between Pearl Street and Diagonal Highway (federal funds must be spent by the end of 2029). Background Purpose & Need Planning Guidance Several existing city transportation plans and policy initiatives recognize the need for transportation improvements on 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway. These are shown in Figure 2 and include the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study (2017-2019), Transit Village Area Plan (2007, amended 2023) Transportation Master Plan (2019), Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan (2019), and Vizion Zero Action Plan (2023). Figure 2 – Planning Documents Guiding the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 31 Packet Page 426 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 7 30th and Colorado Corridors Study From 2016 to 2018, the City collaborated with the University of Colorado Boulder on the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study. This study included extensive community engagement on transportation improvements for 30th Street between Baseline Road and Pearl Street and identified preferred cross sections for two segments of the corridor: Baseline Road to Colorado Avenue and Colorado Avenue to Pearl Street. Figure 3 shows the recommended design for 30th Street between Colorado Avenue to Pearl Street, which overlaps with the southern segment of the North 30th Preliminary Design project. This North 30th Preliminary Design project built on this initial concept design from the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study and identifies additional improvements for the 30th Street corridor. Figure 3: 30th and Colorado Corridors Study Recommended Cross Section (30th Street, Colorado Avenue to Pearl Street) Figure 4: TVAP Recommended Cross Section Transit Village Area Plan In 2007, the city completed the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) to guide development of the Boulder Junction neighborhood around 30th Street between Pearl Street and Valmont Road. At plan adoption, 30th Street’s land use was comprised of predominantly auto-oriented retail or storage uses with mixed- use, urban storefronts. TVAP established a vision for the area to evolve into a lively, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented place where people live, work, shop and access regional transportation. As part of this, TAVP envisioned 30th Street transforming into a business main street. Figure 4 shows the recommended roadway cross-section with wide landscaping and protected bike lanes for 30th Street from the TVAP amendment in 2023. Since TVAP adoption, private development projects have constructed this recommended cross section on 30th Street. Similar to the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study design, this Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 32 Packet Page 427 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 8 North 30th Preliminary Design project considered this concept design from TVAP and identifies additional improvements for the 30th Street corridor to maintain the business main street recommendation from that plan. Further, the recommendation for north 30th Street preserves all sidewalks and landscaping that private development has already constructed. Transportation Master Plan and Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan 30th Street is also designated as a high priority bicycle route in the city’s 2019 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the city’s 2019 Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan. Both plans call for greater separation and protection between the vehicle and on-street bicycle lanes on 30th Street due to the posted speed limit of 35mph, existing vehicle volumes, and the role 30th St plays as a central and direct route in the city’s bike network for north- south crosstown trips. The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan also identified Pedestrian Improvement Areas on and near 30th Street within the study corridor between Arapahoe Ave and Walnut St, and Glenwood Dr to Diagonal Hwy, shown in 4(F), 5(B), and 10(C) in Figure 5. These areas in the city were identified for improvements such as new sidewalks, ADA upgrades, new pedestrian crossings, or enhancements to existing crossings based on the density of destinations near residential land uses and to encourage more people to walk to their destinations. Figure 5: Pedestrian Improvement Areas in Boulder Transportation Master Plan – Transit 30th Street is also designated as a high-frequency transit service corridor (headways every 15 minutes) in the TMP. Transit service is an important aspect of the future design of the corridor as multiple local and regional routes serve north 30th Street. The BOUND and 208 routes, operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD), and the HOP route, operated by the City in partnership with Via Mobility Services, run along all or part of the corridor with some segments serving as many as nine buses an hour (Walnut Street to Pearl Street) or seven buses per hour (Pearl Street to Diagonal Highway), as shown in Figure 6. These local routes also connect to regional transit routes, such as the BOLT (to and from Longmont), FLEX Boulder Express (to and from Fort Collins, and JUMP (to and from Lafayette) cross the project corridor, shown in Figure 7. The intersection of 30th Street and Pearl Street is also designated as a Transit Priority Intersection and recommended for transit signal priority in CDOT’s 10-Year Plan to improve travel time and reliability for regional and local transit. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 33 Packet Page 428 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 9 Figure 6: Transit Routes and Frequencies on Figure 7: Local and Regional Transit Routes on North 30th Street North 30th Street RTD’s Bouder Junction at Depot Square Station is also located near the corridor in Boulder Junction. While bus service is currently discontinued at the station, which closed in 2020 during the COVID-19 Pandemic, RTD is planning to reopen and restart bus service at the station in September 2025. Boulder Junction is also the planned future stop of the CO 119 BRT Diagonal Flyer 2 and Northwest Rail commuter rail station, which will be about ¼ mile north of the bus depot Figure 8: Concept Plan for Boulder Junction Northwest Rail Station Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 34 Packet Page 429 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 10 along the BNSF rail tracks. A concept plan for the commuter rail station is shown in Figure 8. These current and planned services showcase the regional significance of the 30th Street and Peal Street corridors for providing high-quality transit. Vision Zero Action Plan and Regional High Injury Network / Critical Corridor Further, the city has identified safety concerns on the north 30th Street corridor. In 2023, engagement for the city’s Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) found that 55% of people felt unsafe biking, while 27% felt unsafe walking on 30th Street. VZAP also identified a High-Risk Network (HRN) where severe crashes occur or are more likely to occur in the future (Figure 9). The HRN represents only 7% of the city’s street network but nearly half of all severe crashes in the city occur on HRN streets. 30th Street is on the HRN between Valmont Road and Arapahoe Avenue in the project study area. Proactively managing risk and mitigating crashes on this small percentage of streets can have an outsized impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes citywide and achieve the greatest impact in the shortest amount of time. Figure 9: Boulder’s High-Risk Network (HRN) Figure 10: DRCOG High Injury Network & Critical Corridors Similarly, 30th Street is also recognized regionally as having one of the highest densities of fatal and serious injury crashes in the region by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). In the project study area, 30th Street between Diagonal Highway and Valmont Road is on DRCOG’s High-Injury Network (HIN) and is a DRCOG Critical Corridor between Valmont Road and Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 10). Related Local and Regional Projects In addition to the existing planning and policy documents guiding improvements on North 30th Street, there are several near-term local and regional projects near the north 30th Street corridor that future improvements on the street will connect into. These include: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 35 Packet Page 430 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 11 Upcoming Near-Term Local Projects: o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th between Colorado Avenue and Arapahoe Avenue (2024-2025) as part of the 30th Street Multimodal Improvements Project. o East Arapahoe Avenue Bus and Turn Lanes project will repurpose one general purpose lane to bus and turn lane in each direction from 28th Street to 63rd St in the Summer and Fall of 2025. o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th Street between Colorado Avenue and Aurora Ave (2026). o Filling in missing links in the multi-use path system and enhancing bus stops along Arapahoe Avenue between 38th/Marine streets and Cherryvale Road (2025). o Final design and implementation of the Arapahoe Avenue corridor from Culver Court to 33rd Avenue as part of Safe Streets for All projects (2026/2027), which includes protected bike lanes and the repurposing of the outer vehicle lanes to business access and transit (BAT) lanes. Upcoming Near-Term Regional Projects: • CO 119, Boulder to Longmont: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), RTD, and Boulder County are advancing a commuter bikeway MUP along CO-119 as part of the CO 119 Safety, Mobility, and Bikeway Project (2024-2027). The bikeway will connect into the existing bike lanes on Diagonal Highway at the northern end of the 30th St corridor and provide a direct regional bike connection to 30th Street. o As part of the CO 119 Safety, Mobility, and Bikeway Project, current BOLT service will be upgraded to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with full opening of the service anticipated by RTD in 2027. Service will be via two routes on 28th Street in the city of Boulder. Corridor Characteristics and Community Demographics Finally, the corridor’s changing land uses and the area’s demographics also necessitate transportation improvements on north 30th Street to respond to the needs of the community. Over the last 10 to 15 years, north 30th Street’s land use has evolved and is one of the most rapidly densifying residential and employment areas in Boulder. In 2007, the city completed the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) to guide development of the Boulder Junction neighborhood around 30th Street between Pearl Street and Valmont Road. The plan anticipated the development of new transit facilities and established a vision for the area to evolve into a lively, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented place where people live, work, shop and access regional transportation. The plan identified two phases of development: Phase 1 for the area west of the existing railroad tracks and Phase 2 for the area east of the tracks (Figure 11). Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 36 Packet Page 431 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 12 Figure 11: Boulder Junction Development Phases Since the adoption of TVAP, the city and private property owners have worked together to implement the vision for Phase 1. Former parking lots, strips malls, and auto-oriented businesses have been replaced with 4-story mixed use developments that include affordable housing fronting north 30th Street. Figure 12 shows the change in density at the 30th Street and Pearl Street intersection between 2007 and 2024. Figure 12: Land Use Changes on North 30th Street, 2007- 2024 Today, the corridor is lined by retail, commercial, and multifamily land uses as shown in the land use map in Figure 13. These land use changes and increased density along the corridor have led to changes in transportation patterns along the street. Whereas north 30th Street used to function as a traditional suburban shopping destination for people throughout the region to 29th Street Mall and other auto oriented businesses, today more people live on the corridor for an urban experience within walking and biking distance to destinations and access to local and regional transit. Despite these land use changes, the transportation system of north 30th Street has remained largely unchanged and inhospitable to people traveling in non-driving modes. In addition to these land use changes, North 30th Street also provides a range of housing options for community members, contributing to a diversity of people of differing socio-economic backgrounds, races, and ages living along the corridor. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 37 Packet Page 432 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 13 Figure 13: North 30th Street Land Use Map There are several deed-restricted affordable and low-income housing developments on the corridor, including: • Depot Square Apartments (100% affordable) • Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) property, 30Pearl, near 30th and Pearl, with 120 affordable units • S’PARK Apartments (mixed-income community) • San Juan Del Centro (3100 34th St) • Sage Court Apartments (2965 Valmont Rd) • Valmont Square Town Homes (3080 29th St) • The Nest on 30th (2995 Eagle Way) • Diagonal Court (3265 30th St) Other notable housing options include: • Orchard Grove Manufactured Home Community: a 27-acre manufactured home community, providing a relatively affordable market- rate option for families in the area. • Brookdale Assisted Living: an assisted/independent senior living facility on the corridor. • Bluebird Apartments: permanent support housing for community members experiencing chronic homelessness. Finally, BHP has two future affordable housing development projects on or near the corridor: • 44 single-family style affordable rental homes are proposed on a 4.5-acre vacant lot to the east of Orchard Grove, and • the western end of the Diagonal Plaza site is currently being redeveloped into a mixed-use development with retail stores along 28th Street, a community space, and 282 residential units, some of which will be deed-restricted affordable housing. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 38 Packet Page 433 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 14 Due to this diversity of housing, a significant proportion of residents along the corridor identify as people of color, live with a disability, or are youth aged under 18 or older adults 65+. These demographics influence transportation choices, as 5-10% of households throughout the corridor do not own a private vehicle, with this percentage rising to 20-30% of households in some sections of the corridor. (Figure 14). Figure 14: North 30th Street Demographics This project is necessary to address proactive and reactive safety issues on the 30th Street corridor, while upgrading the transportation system of north 30th Street to reflect and meet the needs of the street’s changing land uses and diverse community members. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 39 Packet Page 434 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 15 Community Input on Travel and Lived Experience: Spring 2024 – Winter 2024/2025 Figure 15: Community Members’ One Idea for an Improved North 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 40 Packet Page 435 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 16 During the first phase of the project from spring 2024 through winter 2024/2025, staff talked with community members to understand lived experience of what is working on north 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway and what needs improvements. The project team held focus group discussions with residents of Orchard Grove Manufactured Home Community, San Juan Del Centro apartments, Boulder Housing Partners apartments, Bluebird apartments, Boulder Junction, and the business community to get more detailed feedback from participants and understand the unique needs of these community members. At all events where Spanish-speaking community members may have been in attendance, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available. An online questionnaire was also offered in English and Spanish. Figure 16: Project Staff Engaging with Community Members at Various Events A priority of the project team was to focus on engaging the diverse residents along north 30th Street and prioritizing the voices of historically excluded and currently underrepresented communities. The project team met people where they were, at places like bus stops, grocery stores, schools, community events, and at their residential communities. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 41 Packet Page 436 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 17 To meet the accelerated timeline for the project and align with federal funding requirements, the first phase and public engagement culminated in a week-long design workshop. The design workshop provided community members with an opportunity to attend an open house to learn about what the project team heard from community members and learned from data analysis during the first phase of the project. Open design studios were also offered during the design workshop week so community members could provide feedback on potential improvements and help the project team develop conceptual design alternatives for the corridor. All events from the first phase of engagement are summarized in Figure 17. Figure 17: Summary of 2024/2025 Phase 1 community engagement activities `Engagement Event Date(s) Participants People Reached Growing Up Boulder Youth Walk Audit 4/24/2024 34 Growing Up Boulder Walk Audit Follow-Up 5/8/2024 14 Phase I Online Questionnaire 9/6/2024 515 What's Up Boulder 9/7/2024 10 On the Rise Concert Series at Boulder Junction Pop-Up 9/28/2024 33 Columbine Elementary Walk and Roll to School Day Walk Bus 10/9/2024 20 Hispanic Hertiage Month 5k at Fleet Feet Pop-Up 10/12/2024 17 Project Post Card 10/14/2024 4,767 Press Release 10/15/2024 Corridor flyering 10/16/2024 300 Community Cycles Bike Ride 10/19/2024 12 Goose Creek Path Pop-Up 10/19/2024 5 30th and Valmont RTD Bus Stop Pop-Up 10/21/2024 16 Project Email Newsletter Update 10/24/2024 173 Columbine Elementary Fall Festival 10/25/2024 23 Full Cycle Group Bike Ride Pop-Up 10/26/2024 17 Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro/Business flyering 10/30/2024 300 Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro Focus Group 11/6/2024 14 Boulder Housing Partners Focus Group 11/7/2024 13 Bluebird Apartments Focus Group 11/8/2024 9 Brookdale Senior Living Pop-Up 11/8/2024 17 Las 10 Americas Carniceria Pop-Up 11/10/2024 22 Boulder Junction Focus Group 11/12/2024 20 Firefly Holiday Handmade Market Pop-Up 11/23/2024 53 Project Email Newsletter Update 1/6/2025 309 Business Focus Group 1/7/2025 24 Design Workshop Week Kick-off Open House 1/13/2025 20 Design Workshop Week Open Design Studio 1 1/14/2025 5 Design Workshop Week Open Design Studio 2 1/15/2025 9 Total 922 5,849 Spring Fall Spring 2024 - Winter 2025 Winter Outreach methods reached nearly 6,000 community members and twenty-one engagement activities saw close to 1,000 participants. Comments provided feedback on challenges and opportunities to inform development of alternatives. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 42 Packet Page 437 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 18 Themes heard from this engagement are shown in Figure 18. Figure 18: What we heard during Phase 1 engagement 2024/2025 Phase 1 community engagement activities The themes above are detailed further in the list below: • North-south travel on north 30th Street is important for all modes to reach destinations, such as businesses, homes, and schools, and regional connections such as the Diagonal Highway. • Community members recognize North 30th Street is key to emergency response operations with Fire Station 3 on the corridor and Boulder Police Department Headquarters near the corridor on 33rd Street, improvements should not negatively impact emergency response. • North 30th Street is not safe for everyone, and people who walk, roll, bike, take transit, and drive all cited safety concerns on the corridor. • There is a high volume of vehicles that travel on the corridor today and some vehicles travel at high speeds, creating unsafe conditions for all road users and increased noise levels for nearby residents. • Opinions varied on how to balance north 30th Street's role as a major transportation corridor with its increasing residential developments. Some respondents wanted minimal changes, while others supported more drastic improvements. • Drivers may feel unsafe on north 30th Street at intersections due to visibility concerns of people walking, rolling, and biking, and other vehicles not obeying traffic signals. o Valmont Road, Mapleton Avenue, Glenwood Drive, Pearl Street, and Canyon Boulevard were noted as challenging for making left turns due to traffic volumes and signal timing/phasing. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 43 Packet Page 438 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 19 • Stressful intersection crossings and inadequate bike facilities are top barriers for people traveling on north 30th Street today, especially those walking, rolling, and biking. o Common suggestions to improve experiences for people walking and biking included protected bike lanes, better pedestrian crossings (especially at mid-block locations), and improved intersection safety (especially at Valmont and Pearl). o Many respondents who indicated they generally feel safe using north 30th Street also pointed out specific improvements they would like to see, suggesting that while they feel comfortable, there are still clear areas for enhancement (better bike facilities and safer crossings are examples of improvements). • People walking feel unsafe at intersection crossings due to not having enough time to cross the street and conflicts with right and left turning vehicles. o Signal timing at Pearl Street and Iris Avenue were specifically mentioned for increased pedestrian crossing times. • There are gaps in mid-block pedestrian crossings, especially north of Valmont Road. • People face accessibility challenges when using mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, on north 30th Street. There’s a need for better maintenance, particularly regarding snow removal and sidewalk conditions, for these users. • North 30th Street is seen as a barrier to reaching local businesses by walking due to traffic volumes and crossing safety. • People biking and scootering feel unsafe in the on-street bike lanes today, and the majority of those who bike or scooter on north 30th Street ride on the sidewalk or multi-use path. o This can lead to conflicts with pedestrians or slower-moving micromobility devices. o A common suggestion was to better define spaces for people walking, biking, and scootering on the existing multi-use paths. • People biking on the multi-use paths experience conflicts with vehicles, especially at commercial driveways and intersections with right-turn bypass lanes or ‘slip lanes.’ • Community members in Boulder Junction feel the area is a transit desert without RTD service at Depot Square Station. o Community members moved to Boulder Junction for an urban experience to be able to live a car-light lifestyle and walk/roll, bike, or take transit to destinations. • Transit stops could be relocated or consolidated to better serve community destinations or existing pedestrian crossings and enhanced with amenities such as a shelter and bench. • Business access for customers and employees by multiple modes is important. • Preserving landscaping and street trees to maintain shade for people walking and biking and reduce urban heat island effects in the corridor is desired. • Incorporating placemaking elements to make north 30th Street more attractive is desired. • While most people travel on north 30th Street by driving today, people would like to walk, bike, roll, and take transit on north 30th Street more in the future. Additionally, at the events throughout the first phase of engagement, participants were invited to complete a mapping activity, which asked people to draw out the routes they take using north 30th Street. This information helped inform the development of user profiles (Figure 19) to capture common travel patterns and to understand who travels along and across the Street today – and how. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 44 Packet Page 439 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 20 Figure 19: North 30th Street User Profiles Informed by Community Engagement Public input from the first phase of community engagement activities is further summarized in the sections of this memorandum corresponding to the associated component of the conceptual design process. Existing Conditions Data and Analysis During the first phase of the project, the project team also collected data and analyzed existing conditions on the street. Today, north 30th Street can be thought of in three segments that represent distinctions in the corridor’s existing transportation design, land use, and features (Figure 20). Figure 20: North 30th Street Segment Map The following existing conditions data and analyses and subsequent concept design alternatives reference these segments of the corridor shown below, with a short description of each: • North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road o Heavily residential than other areas along the corridor Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 45 Packet Page 440 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 21 o Narrow right-of-way compared to central and south segments o Lowest vehicle volumes of the three segments of the corridor o Connection to Wonderland Creek Multi-Use Path o Mature tree canopy, especially between Glenwood Drive and Valmont Road • Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue o Transitional land uses, with a mix of strip mall and automotive commercial uses and Fire Station 3 located at Bluff Street o Wider right-of-way than north segment, but narrower than south segment o Connections to Goose Creek Multi-Use Path and East Mapleton Ballfields o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements • South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue o Mapleton Avenue to Walnut Street is defined by recent mixed-use developments, while Walnut Steet to Arapahoe Avenue is a mix of strip mall and big box retail with a large amount of off-street parking. o Widest right-of-way of the three segments o Connections to improvements on 30th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue o Lack of mature tree canopy and shade elements Existing Street Design North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road Between Diagonal Highway and Valmont Road, north 30th Street has two 10-foot vehicle travel lanes in each direction and striped 3.5-foot bicycle lanes. There are typically 8-foot landscape buffers between the curb and the detached sidewalks, which are typically 6 feet wide (Figure 21). There are 62 existing street trees in the north segment of the corridor. Throughout the corridor, north 30th Street has four to five vehicle lanes, on-street bike lanes, landscaping, and sidewalks or multi-use paths, but the right-of-way width and the width of these existing facilities differ between segments. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 46 Packet Page 441 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 22 Figure 21: North 30th Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (North Segment) Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue Between Valmont Road and Mapleton Avenue, north 30th Street has two 10-foot vehicle travel lanes in each direction, a 10-foot center turn lane, and striped 3.5-5-foot bicycle lanes (in some constrained sections areas of this section, the on-street bike lane is narrower than the city minimum of 5-feet including the 1.5-foot gutter pan). There are typically 8-foot landscape buffers between the curb and the detached sidewalks, which are typically 8- to 10-feet wide (Figure 22). There are 20 existing street trees in the central segment of the corridor. Figure 22: North 30th Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Central Segment) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 47 Packet Page 442 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 23 South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue Between Mapleton Avenue and Arapahoe Avenue, north 30th Street has two 10- to 11-foot vehicle travel lanes in each direction and striped 5-foot bicycle lanes. There is a concrete median throughout most of this segment. The east and west sides of the corridor typically have 8-foot landscaped buffers between the curb and the detached 10-12-foot multi-use paths (Figure 23). The southern segment has the highest density of street trees with 115 existing today. Figure 23: North 30th Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (South Segment) Emergency Response North 30th Street is an important north-south corridor for emergency response – both day-to-day with Boulder Fire and Police Departments on, or near, the corridor, and in case of disaster emergency responses for Boulder County Office of Disaster Management (ODM) teams and evacuation of residents. Figure 24: Fire Station 3 at 30th and Bluff Streets Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 48 Packet Page 443 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 24 In November 2024, the city relocated Fire Station 3 to 30th Street and Bluff Street in the central segment of the project corridor (Figure 24). In 2024, BFRD responded to 3,909 incidents from a combination of the old Fire Station 3 location just south of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue and the new location within the north 30th Street corridor. About two- thirds (2,588) of these incidents were south of Valmont Road, while one-third (1,321) were north of Valmont Road (Figure 25). With the new Fire Station 3 construction, a new traffic signal was added at Bluff Street along with an emergency signal adjacent from the fire station entrance to help facilitate access and egress for BFRD emergency response vehicles. Boulder Police Department headquarters is also located just east of the north 30th Street corridor at 1805 33rd Street between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Street. The north 30th Street corridor would also be a supportive north-south response and evacuation route during a disaster emergency response. Vehicle Volume, Speed, and Travel Time In September 2024, traffic volume and speed data was collected at various points along the corridor. 13-Hour turning movement counts were collected at the ten study intersections on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 72-hour tube counts including vehicle classification and speed data were collected from September 10th to 12th, 2024. Today, vehicle volumes and speeds vary on North 30th Street by the three distinct segments shown in detail in Figure 26. Volumes in the southern and central segments average between 17,800 BFRD, BPD, and the joint city and county ODM were consulted throughout alternative development and selection. The recommended alternative and final 15% design will consider width available for emergency vehicle operations, traffic signal optimizations to facilitate emergency response, and the intuitiveness of design for private and emergency response vehicles to navigate. The project team will continue to work with Boulder’s safety partners to incorporate their needs as the project advances to more detailed design phases. Figure 25: Incident Locations, 2024 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 49 Packet Page 444 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 25 and 20,000 vehicles per day, while vehicle volumes north of Valmont Road decrease to about 14,000 vehicles per day. The existing posted speed limit on the corridor is 35 mph, however a separate city project, the Speed Limit Setting Study , recommends reducing the posted speed limit to 30 mph along the entire 30th Street corridor. Vehicle speeds were measured using the 85th percentile to capture the speed that 85% of vehicles are driving up to. The 85th percentile speed data are near the posted 35 mph speed limit; however, higher speeds of around 40 mph were observed in the north segment and high southbound speeds around 39 mph were collected on the south segment. Most drivers who exceed the speed limit do so up to 5mph over the current speed limit and 10mph over the recommended speed limit for the corridor. Under existing conditions, it takes approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-mile corridor for vehicles. However, data show most people do not drive the length of the corridor end-to-end. Decreasing traffic volume in the north segment of the corridor and turning movement count data at intersections suggest people drive north 30th Street as part of a longer trip to connect to east-west roads like Valmont Road and Pearl Street/Parkway. During engagement, community members also shared they travel the corridor to reach specific commercial destinations. StreetLight data, which utilizes anonymized cell phone data, estimates that less than ten percent of vehicle trips travel the entire length of the corridor as shown in Figure 27. Figure 27: Vehicle Trips Traveling Entire Length of North 30th Street (2023 and 2024 averages) Figure 26: Vehicle Volume and Speed Data This data confirms existing city plans and guidance and themes heard from the public that people driving exceed the posted speed limit on North 30th Street which can lead to unsafe conditions for all road users. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), someone walking has a 47% chance of death if involved in a crash with a vehicle at 40mph. Further, traffic safety concerns, including speeding, were cited as a top barrier for people traveling on 30th Street today. When thinking about their Northbound Southbound Highest Traffic Volume Segment 12,104 vehicles 12,022 vehicles Average Daily Vehicle Trips Traveling Entire Length of Corridor (% of total volume) 6% 3% Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 50 Packet Page 445 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 26 experiences on north 30th Street today, community members described north 30th Street as unsafe, car- centric, and having too much traffic and speeding vehicles. Multimodal Volume and Travel While North 30th Street is an important corridor for just under 20,000 vehicles per day, it is also an important corridor for walking, biking, and transit trips. 2,200 walk and bike trips are made on a typical day. North 30th Street is an increasingly popular destination for users of shared e-bikes and e-scooters. From January to August 2024, around 2,000 to 6,000 trips on Boulder BCycle, the local bikeshare system, ended on the north 30th Street corridor, with popular stations in Boulder Junction and the 29th Street Mall. Similarly, about 120,000 Lime e-scooter trips started on the north 30th Street corridor in 2024, with most end trips occurring in the central and south segments of the corridor where there is a higher concentration of commercial and shopping destinations. Figure 28: Bike and Bus Sharing Space near 30th and Pearl intersection During engagement and feedback, stressful intersection crossings and inadequate bike facilities were top barriers for traveling on north 30th Street today, especially for people walking and biking. Today, discontinuous multi-use paths along the entire corridor and narrow on-street bike lanes next to high- speed and high-volume traffic lead those who do ride bikes, e-bikes, or e-scooters on the corridor to ride on the sidewalk creating safety concerns for people walking or using a mobility device, a common theme heard throughout the first phase of engagement. Further, narrow on-street bike facilities and shared spaces with transit vehicles at intersections can lead to conflicts between modes, as shown in Figure 28. 600 transit trips are taken in the corridor on a typical day. The stops on the corridor with the highest average daily ridership serve the BOUND and offer a direct transfer or proximate transfer to another route. 30th Street and Glenwood Drive and the pair of stops just north of Arapahoe Avenue are the highest ridership stops on the corridor today (Figure 29). Analysis of bus stop spacing and placement confirmed comments from community members that stops could be better spaced throughout the corridor to serve existing crossings and facilitate access to community destinations (Figure 30). Almost all the stops on the corridor (94%) have a landing pad to provide a level space for people to wait and board buses. 72% of stops on the corridor have benches, while only 33% of stops along the corridor have a shelter. In Phase 1 engagement, community members expressed that the addition of amenities, especially shelters, would enhance the transit rider experience. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 51 Packet Page 446 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 27 Figure 29: Bus Stop Ridership Figure 30: Bus Stop Spacing and Placement Crash History The high volumes of people driving, walking and rolling, and taking the bus along the corridor, coupled with a street design that is not as comfortable as it could be for vulnerable road users, leads to conflicts between all modes and serious safety hazards for everyone. Between 2019 to 2023, 422 crashes occurred along the project corridor, primarily at intersections where 93% (392) of these crashes occurred. As presented in the heat map of crashes in Figure 31, the majority (56%) of crashes occurred at three high-risk intersections— Arapahoe Avenue, Pearl Street, and Valmont Road. 13% of all crashes involved people walking, rolling, biking or scooting, but they were in 67% of severe crashes resulting in serious injury or fatality, highlighting risks for these vulnerable road users. Locations of severe crashes and those involving people on bikes, scooters, and walking are shown in Figure 32. The Valmont Road intersection had the highest number of severe crashes, with other severe crashes locations at mid-block locations, such as the driveway north of Canyon Boulevard. The history of crashes on the corridor is consistent with feedback heard during engagement that all road users experience traffic safety concerns. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 52 Packet Page 447 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 28 Figure 31: North 30th Street Crash Heat Map (2019-2023) Figure 32: Nonmotorized Crashes Map (2019-2023) CEAP Evaluation Including the consideration of community input and the existing conditions of the street, the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) provides formal evaluation of potential improvements and conceptual design alternatives. CEAP Process The CEAP helps identify a recommended alternative through the following steps (and shown in Figure 33): 1. Screen potential improvements to identify conceptual alternatives, 2. Compare and contrast conceptual design alternatives through project specific evaluation criteria and the CEAP checklist and share the results with the community to receive input on their priorities, 3. Present the CEAP evaluation and recommended alternative to the community for feedback 4. Finalize the CEAP evaluation and recommended alternative, considering public input, to present to Transportation Advisory Board and City Council for their recommendation and action. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 53 Packet Page 448 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 29 Figure 33: CEAP Process As mentioned previously, this project’s timeline was accelerated to ensure federal funding timelines are met for the next phase of design and construction and to respond to direction from Boulder City Council to accelerate project development. To expedite the design process, project staff hosted a week-long design workshop between January 13th and 16th (Figures 34 and 35). During the workshop, project staff consulted best practices, design standards, and guidelines to identify all potential solutions to the issues identified by the data and community engagement. Community members were also invited at key points during the week to learn about project work and provide feedback. The result of the workshop was three hand-drawn end-to-end alternatives that were presented to the public on the final day of the workshop for feedback. Key steps in the design workshop are discussed below as they relate to the CEAP process. Figure 34: Staff discussing traffic analysis at Design Workshop Figure 35: Staff drawing the three end-to-end alternatives Step 1: Screening and Identification of Conceptual Alternatives To begin ideation on potential improvements for north 30th Street during the design workshop week, the project team defined what design elements and alternatives would not be considered for north 30th street to ensure city transportation planning priorities, funding constraints, and transportation operational needs were met. Design changes that have not advanced were: • Removal of transit service or an existing bike facility Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 54 Packet Page 449 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 30 • Elimination of emergency response access • Addition of on-street parking • Increase in the number of travel lanes or significant expansion of the right-of-way • Potential to significantly increase travel times or divert traffic • Reconstruction of bridge structures along the corridor The list of improvements that would be advanced was then screened using eight screening criteria based on community priorities heard through the first phase of engagement. Screening Criteria Pedestrian Space: The potential to provide low-stress pedestrian facilities that are highly comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, including seniors and school-aged children. Bicycle Space: The potential to implement Low-Stress Walk and Bike Plan recommendation of protected bike lanes with adequate width. Transit Priority: The potential to support transit speed and reliability and dedicated bus space for bus stops. Vehicle Operations Feasibility: The potential to maintain the flow of traffic and private vehicle access to residential and commercial destinations. Day-to-Day Emergency Response: The potential to provide adequate space for emergency response vehicles. Disaster Emergency Response: The potential to provide space for private vehicles to evacuate during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic. Estimated Construction Impact: The potential to avoid curb realignment and removing trees could impact the cost needed to design and implement the project. Vehicle Speed Moderation: The potential to reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 55 Packet Page 450 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 31 The criteria were applied corridor wide, from Arapahoe Avenue to Diagonal Highway, and to the three distinct segments of the corridor: 1. Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road 2. Valmont Road to Pearl Street 3. Pearl Street to Arapahoe Avenue The eight screening criteria were applied using available data or professional judgment when data was not available. No criteria were weighted. More detail on the screening criteria, including the sources to define the criteria, is included in Attachment A. Screening Summary A summary of the initial conceptual configurations considered by each segment of the corridor and whether it was advanced for further analysis and included in one of the end-to-end alternatives is shown in Figure 36. Design elements considered across all configurations included: two to five vehicle lanes, bus lanes, different sidewalk widths, directional and bi- directional protected bike lanes either on-street or at sidewalk level, and different curb-to-curb widths. As a result of screening, five configurations were advanced in each of the north, central, and south segments. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 56 Packet Page 451 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 32 Figure 36: Screening Summary North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 57 Packet Page 452 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 33 Traffic Operations and Pinch Point Analysis Under the existing conditions of the street, north 30th Street effectively manages current motor vehicle volumes. The corridor performs with lower average delays than expected overall given that the corridor is developing into a dense, mixed-use area with high pedestrian and bicyclist activity. Most intersections perform at Level of Service (LOS) D or better, in accordance with the city’s Design and Construction Standards for Vehicle LOS. Only a few intersections experience significant delays (LOS E or F) on minor, or side street, approaches because traffic signals on 30th Street are prioritized for mainline traffic, making it challenging for non-signalized side-street movements to achieve higher level of service. As conceptual design alternatives were developed, an initial transportation operations feasibility analysis was conducted in the traffic modeling software, Synchro, during the design workshop week. The results of the analysis were compared to the existing conditions described above. AutoTURN was also used to assess the feasibility to improve safety for all road users by reducing curb radii and removing slip lanes at intersections. The Synchro model assumed that vehicle volumes on north 30th Street would remain the same as today, which is consistent with traffic modeling on other CAN corridor projects, such as the Iris Avenue Transportation Improvement Project, and supported by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan transportation and land use assumptions, 2023 Travel Diary Study findings of reduced single occupancy vehicle use and increased bicycling over the past nine years, and ten years of historic data that show vehicle volumes have remained reasonably constant. The outputs of the Synchro analysis helped inform how each initial configuration performed in vehicular LOS and vehicle volume to capacity ratio which provided the project team with a sense of how the alternatives would impact vehicle travel time or lead to traffic diversion to other parallel streets, such as 28th Street and Foothills Parkway. Significantly increasing the travel times and/or diverting traffic were considered non-starters for the project, so configurations that resulted in significant traffic impacts were not advanced or considered for further analysis. Pinch points and constrained locations along the corridor were also identified. These areas represent locations where the project team acknowledged a need for more detailed consideration with design, whether due to constrained space or sensitive traffic operations. These identified locations were the intersections of: Diagonal Highway, Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, Valmont Road, Bluff Street, Mapleton Avenue, Pearl Street, Walnut Street, Canyon Boulevard, and Arapahoe Avenue. Additional constrained locations were identified at: the Boulder Creek culvert north of Valmont Road, Fire Station #3 due to emergency response needs, and the Boulder Slough culvert south of Pearl Street. The configurations that passed the initial Synchro and AutoTURN analysis were then evaluated at each of the pinch points to determine which were feasible at these locations or required changes to integrate with the pinch point designs. Further Synchro analyses were run, and these informed which configurations would be eliminated, and which would comprise the end-to-end alternatives to be carried forward into a more detail traffic operations analysis utilizing the microsimulation-based TransModeler software during Step 2. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 58 Packet Page 453 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 34 Conceptual Design Alternatives The screening resulted in three end-to-end conceptual alternatives being advanced for public feedback and further CEAP evaluation. More details on the alternatives are below. Alternative A Alternative A maintains the existing number of vehicle lanes and adds modest improvements for people walking, biking, scooting or using transit. Figure 37 shows Alternative A and its key features. Figure 37: Alternative A Segments and Key Features Descriptions of each segment are included below. Alternative A North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 38) • The existing 10-foot vehicle lanes (4) are preserved. • The existing six-foot sidewalks remain. • 6-foot sidewalk-level directional protected bike lane. To accommodate the sidewalk-level bike lanes the existing landscaping on the east side would be removed. In this section, a higher density of public street trees is located on the west side. o The protected bike lanes cannot continue through the Valmont Road intersection due to space constraints. People biking will transition to a shared space with pedestrians at the corners of the intersection. • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Figure 38: Alternative A, North Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 59 Packet Page 454 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 35 Alternative A Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 39) • The existing 10-foot vehicle lanes (four travel lanes plus one center-turn lane) are preserved. • The existing sidewalks and multi-use paths are preserved. • 6.5- or 7-foot sidewalk-level directional protected bike lanes are added with a 3-foot buffer. In a constrained section near Bluff Street, the northbound sidewalk-level bike lane transitions to a multi-use path and returns to a dedicated bike lane just south of Valmont Road. • 8-foot landscaping between bike lane and sidewalk on both sides of the street, where space allows. • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Figure 39: Alternative A, Central Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 60 Packet Page 455 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 36 Alternative A South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 40) • The existing vehicle lane configuration is preserved (four travel lanes plus one center-turn lane/median: outside travel lanes are 11-feet wide, the inside lanes are 10-feet wide, and the center turn lane plus median is 12-feet wide). o Existing medians would remain between Spruce Street and Walnut Street but would be modified as necessary. South of Pearl Street, the median is narrowed from 16-feet today to 12-feet. • The existing sidewalks and multi-use paths are preserved. • 6-foot directional sidewalk level protected bike lanes are added with a 1-foot buffer between sidewalks. • The existing 8-foot landscape area is preserved and buffers the bike lanes and multi-use paths on both sides of the street, where feasible. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue. o The right-turn bypass lane at the northwest corner of the Arapahoe Avenue intersection would remain with a reconstructed raised crossing. Figure 40: Alternative A, South Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 61 Packet Page 456 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 37 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 62 Packet Page 457 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 38 Alternative B Alternative B maintains the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and repurposes vehicle lanes and removes the median from the south segment to accommodate wide, on-street protected bike lanes (the type of protection would be determined during final design), to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections. Figure 41 shows Alternative B and its key features. Figure 41: Alternative B Segments and Key Features Descriptions of each segment are included below. Alternative B North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 42) • Two 10.5-foot vehicle lanes with a 10-foot center turn lane. • The existing 6-foot sidewalks remain. • The existing 8-foot landscape areas remain. • Roadway space is reallocated to accommodate the 5-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, and Valmont Road. • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 63 Packet Page 458 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 39 Figure 42: Alternative B, North Segment Alternative B Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 43) • Two 11-foot vehicle lanes with an 11.5-foot center turn lane. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscaping remains on the west side of the street, where it is present today. • 9-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 64 Packet Page 459 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 40 Figure 43: Alternative B, Central Segment Alternative B South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 44) • Two, 11-foot vehicle lanes with the existing 16-foot center-turn lane and median preserved. o Existing medians would remain between Spruce Street and Walnut Street but would be modified as necessary. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • 10-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space in each direction. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • 8-foot landscaped buffer between multi-use path and the street on both sides of the street are preserved. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 65 Packet Page 460 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 41 Figure 44: Alternative B, South Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 66 Packet Page 461 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 42 Alternative C Alternative C reconstructs the roadway, repurposes vehicle lanes, and removes the median from the south segment to accommodate wide, sidewalk-level protected bike lanes, to create more space for people walking to be separated from vehicle traffic, to provide wide landscaped areas, especially in the south segment between Walnut Street and Arapahoe Avenue, and to provide more protection for vulnerable road users at intersections. Figure 45 shows Alternative C and its key features. Figure 45: Alternative C Segments and Key Features Descriptions of each segment are included below. Alternative C North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 46) • Two 11-foot vehicle lanes with a 10-foot center turn lane. • The existing 6-foot sidewalks are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscaping is preserved. • 6.5-foot sidewalk level protected directional bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space between the vehicle lanes. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, and Valmont Road. • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 67 Packet Page 462 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 43 Figure 46: Alternative C, North Segment Alternative C Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 47) • Two 11-foot vehicle lanes with an 11.5-foot center turn lane. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscaping remains on the west side of the street, where it is present today. • 9-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Figure 47: Alternative C, Central Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 68 Packet Page 463 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 44 Alternative C South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 48) • Two, 11-foot vehicle lanes with the existing 16-foot center-turn lane and median preserved. o Existing medians would remain between Spruce Street and Walnut Street but would be modified as necessary. • The existing sidewalk and multi-use paths are preserved. • 10-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 5-foot buffer space in each direction. The wide bike lane and buffer allows for passing, side-by-side riding, and is wide enough to support emergency response vehicles. • 8-foot landscaped buffer between multi-use path and the street on both sides of the street are preserved. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street and Arapahoe Avenue. Figure 48: Alternative C, South Segment Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 69 Packet Page 464 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 45 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 70 Packet Page 465 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 46 Steps 2: Compare Conceptual Design Alternatives and Receive Community Input To recognize the project’s unique context and needs, at the end of the design workshop week, the project team crafted project-specific evaluation criteria under six priority categories that aligned with the screening criteria. The project specific evaluation criteria provide more detailed evaluation than the screening criteria from which they were developed. The alternatives were further compared under the CEAP checklist. Understanding that the overall configuration of the design alternatives may alter in constrained areas, the criteria evaluated the full alternative as applied on the roadway. City departments, such as Forestry, Boulder Police Department, and Boulder-Fire Rescue Department, were consulted on the alternatives and their input was incorporated into the CEAP evaluation. CEAP Evaluation and Checklist Project Specific Evaluation Criteria The six priority categories with descriptions are below: Traffic Safety • Potential to moderate vehicle speeds • Potential to reduce the number and severity of crashes Transportation Operations • Time it takes to travel the corridor in a vehicle • Private vehicle access to residential and commercial destinations • Travel time reliability • Provision of adequate space for emergency response vehicles for day-to-day and disaster emergency response Transit Service • Share of bus stops with adequate amenities • Potential to support transit speed and reliability • Dedicated space for bus stops Safe and Comfortable Connections • Comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling • Reduction in conflict between people walking, biking, and rolling • Reduction in conflict between non-motorized users and drivers at intersections • Crossing safety and comfort Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 71 Packet Page 466 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 47 Implementation Feasibility • Time and cost needed to design and implement • Ease of maintenance • Need to acquire extra space • Need for utility relocation and updates to storm water drainage Urban Design and Placemaking • Preservation of existing street trees • Opportunities for new landscaping and urban design features like public art, street furniture, lighting, and signage For detailed definitions of evaluation criteria under each category, methodology for each criterion, and sources for the data used in the methodology, see Attachment B. Each criterion was rated on a scale of -4 to +4, with 0 representing existing conditions and the minimum (-4) and maximum (+4) scores representing the worst and best possible scenarios within the context of the 30th Street corridor. Where appropriate, city staff used extensive knowledge of the corridor alongside understanding the goals of the evaluation to manually adjust the numeric scores to better reflect each alternative’s relative impact. Below is a summary of each evaluation category results and an explanation of the scores for each criterion. Traffic Safety Evaluation Results Figure 49 shows how each alternative scored on the Traffic Safety criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 49: Traffic Safety Project Specific Evaluation Results Vehicle speed moderation Alternative A is anticipated to reduce vehicle speeds by up to 2 mph by narrowing the roadway to accommodate sidewalk-level protected bike lanes but does not reduce the number or width of vehicle lanes. Alternatives B and C provide a greater potential for speed reduction up to 7 mph by repurposing Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 72 Packet Page 467 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 48 vehicle lanes, narrowing the lanes in some segments, as well as by providing vertical and visual friction through protected bike lane elements. Reduction in conflict between vehicles Alternative A provides some reduction in potential conflict between vehicles by slightly reducing vehicle speeds but does not provide a center turn lane for drivers to wait to turn off the street. By maintaining the same number of lanes, Alternative A also has a higher number of potential conflict points at intersections. Alternatives B and C provide a greater potential reduction in conflict between vehicles by reducing vehicle speeds, fewer conflict points, and a center turn lane for drivers to wait to turn off the street. Reduction in conflict between non-motorized users Alternative A may increase the potential for conflict between non-motorized users because there is little to no separation between people walking and biking in some segments and 100% of transit stops share space with the bike lane. Alternatives B and C provide a reduction in the potential for conflict between non-motorized users by providing separate facilities for people walking and biking and wider bike lane facilities and multi-use paths to allow for side-by-side use and passing. Under Alternatives B and C, only 50% of transit stops would be shared with the bike facility, which has the potential to decrease conflicts between people biking and bus riders compared to Alternative A. Alternative C scored slightly higher than Alternative B because Alternative C’s nonmotorized facilities are wider. Reduction in conflict between vehicles and non-motorized Alternative A provides some reduction in potential conflict between vehicles and non-motorized users by providing some space for protected intersection elements and a protected bike facility. Alternatives B and C provide greater reduction in potential conflict between vehicles and non-motorized users by providing more space for protected intersection elements and protected bike facilities. Transportation Operations Evaluation Results Figure 50 shows how each alternative scored under the Transportation Operations criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 73 Packet Page 468 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 49 Figure 50: Transportation Operations Project Specific Evaluation Results Corridor vehicle travel time Providing dedicated signal phases at intersections and the time needed for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street adds time for everyone’s travel, whether or not any other safety improvements are made on the street. Today, it takes approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-mile corridor for vehicles. To determine travel time impacts for each alternative, microsimulation analysis was conducted in the TransModeler software. Alternative A results in the smallest increase of end-to-end vehicle travel time because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes as today. Alternatives B and C result in larger increases of end-to-end vehicle travel time because they repurpose vehicle lanes. Depending on the direction, time of day, and location, the analysis shows a range of travel time increases for most trips (95% of all trips): • Alternative A from 6 seconds to 2 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 1m 30s (37.5% travel time increase from today). • Alternative B from 2 minutes and 24 seconds to 8 minutes and 18 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 35s (114% travel time increase from today). • Alternative C from 2 minutes and 42 seconds to 8 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 30s (112% travel time increase from today). A travel time increase of up to 15% is evaluated as neutral, in line with the 2019 Transportation Master Plan targets to maintain 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets. Any travel time exceeding a 15% increase is evaluated for acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. Non-signalized vehicle access Access to properties via dedicated turn lanes rather than through travel lanes improves user comfort and safety. This is balanced with the frequency and length of gaps in traffic to facilitate turns out of side streets and driveways safely and without excess delay. The project team evaluated the ability of each alternative to improve ease, comfort, and safety of access. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 74 Packet Page 469 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 50 Alternative A does not change non-signalized vehicle access because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes. Alternatives B and C have a greater negative impact on non-signalized vehicle access because they repurpose vehicle lanes; Alternative B has a slightly greater impact because 95th percentile queues in the outer lanes at certain intersections block, a driveway or side street. Vehicular level of service Alternative A has no impact on vehicular level of service because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes. Alternatives B and C result in decreased vehicular level of service because they repurpose vehicle lanes; Alternative B results in a slightly greater decrease in level of service given the differences in lane configurations and associated signal phasing and timings. Specifically, Alternative C removes an all pedestrian and bike signal phase at Glenwood Drive, adds dedicated right-turn lanes for the southbound direction at the Valmont Road and Pearl Street intersections, and adds a northbound right- turn lane on the approach at Walnut St, thereby having a smaller impact on vehicle level of service compared to Alternative B. Day-to-day emergency response Alternative A has no impact on day-to-day emergency response because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes, thus maintaining the space and width available for emergency vehicles. Alternatives B and C do impact day-to-day emergency response because they repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor, thus reducing the space available for emergency vehicles. Alternative C results in less impact because it removes medians south of Mapleton Avenue, making the center turn lane available for use by emergency vehicles in the south segment of the corridor. Disaster emergency response Alternative A has no impact on disaster emergency response because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes available for evacuation. Alternatives B and C have some impact on disaster emergency response because they repurpose vehicle lanes, reducing the space available for emergency vehicles to respond to disasters and evacuating vehicles leaving the city. Based on input from emergency response, wide bike lanes could be used by both emergency and private vehicles in a disaster situation (but not day-to-day), which is why B and C score the same in this criterion. Coordination with the City of Boulder and Boulder County emergency response partners helped the team understand the many factors that go into a disaster emergency response. Staff continue to coordinate with these partners on elements, like traffic signal and intersection operations, that have the largest impact on disaster response and evacuation. Transit Service Evaluation Results Figure 51 shows how each alternative scored under the Transit Service criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 75 Packet Page 470 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 51 Figure 51: Transit Service Project Specific Evaluation Results Bus stop type and amenities Under Alternative A, 100% of bus stops are shared stops with the bike facility and therefore would have a constrained boarding area for amenities. Under Alternatives B and C, 50% are floating bus stops with dedicated boarding areas with space for amenities. Under all alternatives, stops would provide enough space for at least a shelter. Corridor bus travel time Alternative A has some impacts to bus travel time because of changes to traffic signals, while Alternatives B and C have greater impacts to bus travel time because of changes to traffic signals and repurposing vehicle lanes. The scores for transit travel time match the overall travel time scores because the overall travel time increases impact buses as well as all other vehicles. Safe and Comfortable Connections Evaluation Results Figure 52 shows how each alternative scored under the Safe and Comfortable Connections criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 52: Safe and Comfortable Connections Project Specific Evaluation Results Walking comfort Alternative A does not provide an increase in comfort for people walking because it does not widen most sidewalks or multi-use paths. Alternatives B and C provide increases in walking comfort by providing more separation between people walking, rolling, biking, and driving, while also providing fewer lanes of traffic for people walking and rolling to cross and decreasing vehicle speed through lane repurposing. Biking comfort Alternative A provides an increase in comfort for people riding bikes by installing a protected sidewalk- level bike lane, providing more separation and protection from cars. Alternatives B and C provide greater increases in biking comfort by providing wider bike facilities that allow passing, while also providing fewer vehicle lanes for people biking to cross and vehicle speed moderation through lane repurposing. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 76 Packet Page 471 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 52 Crossing safety and comfort Alternative A provides a small increase in crossing safety and comfort by providing some space for protected intersection elements, but no space for refuge islands between intersections and people will have to cross the same number of vehicle lanes as today to cross the street. Vehicle speeds are also not expected to decrease. Alternatives B and C provide greater increases in crossing safety and comfort by providing more space for protected intersections and refuge islands between intersections and reduces the number of vehicle lanes to cross the street. Alternative C provides the greatest increase in crossing safety and comfort because Alternative C provides the greatest total number of marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and bulb-outs. Implementation Feasibility Evaluation Results Figure 53 shows how each alternative scored under the Implementation and Feasibility criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 53: Implementation Feasibility Project Specific Evaluation Results Time to design and implement Alternatives A and C require more time to design and implement because they reconstruct the roadway, impact utilities and trees, and elevate the bike lane to sidewalk-level. Alternative C also significantly increases landscaped areas. Alternative B requires the least amount of time to design and implement because it maintains the existing curb line, provides on-street protected bike lanes, and therefore requires minimal roadway reconstruction and so impacts fewer utilities and trees. Maintenance Alternative C will be the most difficult to maintain due to the need for added landscape maintenance. Alternative A requires less landscaping maintenance due to the reduction in landscaping, but it lacks significant space for snow storage due to vehicle lanes being preserved throughout the corridor. Alternative B is the easiest to maintain because it provides adequate space for snow storage and will not require additional landscape maintenance compared to existing conditions. Right-of-way acquisition None of the alternatives are known to require right-of-way acquisition at this stage and therefore all alternatives scored a neutral “0.” Implementation cost Alternative A costs more to implement because it relocates curbs, impacts utilities and trees, and elevates the bike lane to sidewalk-level. Alternative C is also more costly because it relocates curbs, impacts utilities and trees, and significantly increases landscaped areas. Alternative B is the lowest cost alternative because it maintains the existing curb line. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 77 Packet Page 472 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 53 Urban Design and Placemaking Evaluation Results Figure 54 shows how each alternative scored under the Urban Design and Placemaking criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Figure 54: Urban Design and Placemaking Project Specific Evaluation Results Preserves existing public street trees Alternative A removes the most existing public street trees out of the three alternatives in order to preserve vehicle lanes while accommodating protected bike lanes. Alternative B preserves all existing street trees because it maintains the existing curbs and does not require roadway reconstruction. Although Alternative C could increase the number of trees over the long term, it still results in the removal of existing, mature trees due to the relocation of curbs and reconstruction of the roadway to accommodate increased space for landscaping and sidewalk-level bike lanes. Landscaping and amenities Alternative A removes existing landscaped areas and provides the least space for landscaping or other amenities to preserve vehicle lanes while providing space for a protected bike facility at sidewalk level. Alternative B does not change existing landscaping or amenity zones because it maintains the existing curbs and does not require roadway reconstruction. Alternative C provides the greatest opportunity for additional landscaping and other amenities throughout the corridor, especially in the southern segment. CEAP Checklist In addition to the project specific evaluation criteria, the CEAP checklist was used to further compare and evaluate the alternatives. The CEAP checklist evaluates potential social and environmental impacts to guide analysis and comparison of the conceptual alternatives. The CEAP checklist provides an opportunity to balance multiple community goals in the design of a capital project by assessing consistency with policies outlined in citywide and departmental plans, like the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), Transportation Master Plan, and Vision Zero Action Plan. This evaluation includes an assessment of how the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project will help achieve established city departmental master plan goals and goals of the BVCP. This goals assessment can be found in Attachment C. The CEAP checklist rates each alternative (+) Positive effect, (-) Negative effect, and (0) No effect. The full results of the CEAP checklist evaluation can be found in Attachment D. Only CEAP checklist criteria that identified a positive or negative effect for an alternative are shown below. Figure 55 provides a summary of the results of the CEAP Checklist analysis. The CEAP checklist evaluation resulted in Alternative A having a net negative effect, Alternative B having a net positive effect, and Alternative C having a net neutral effect. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 78 Packet Page 473 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 54 Figure 55: CEAP Checklist Result CEAP Checklist Questions CEAP checklist questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. More information is provided below for the checklist lines that indicated a positive or negative effect. Attachment E provides the detailed responses to the checklist evaluation questions. Impact to Natural Areas or Features Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to natural areas or features, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed and existing landscaped areas would be disturbed. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, nearly 10% of the existing street trees, mostly in the south segment, would be removed. However, Alternative C would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. Mature trees may provide habitat, but this has not been evaluated for the project. It is assumed that by removing trees the potential for providing habitat is also removed. Impact to Geology and Soils Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to geology and soils, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 79 Packet Page 474 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 55 Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, there would be none to minimal disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Impact to Water Quality Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to water quality, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a positive score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, this requires extensive ground clearing and excavation and increases in hardscape, storm drainage needs, and public street removals, all of which would impact water quality compared to existing conditions. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, there would be no changes to stormwater drainage infrastructure, extensive ground clearing or excavation, or existing street trees, and there would be no impact to water quality compared to existing conditions. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. During construction there would be a need for ground clearing and excavation and changes to stormwater infrastructure, however the net increase in landscaped areas and street trees after construction would have a positive impact on water quality compared to existing conditions. There are not any leaky tanks in the corridor that any of the alternatives would impact, as verified by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. Impact to Air Quality Alternatives A, B, and C all receive positive scores for impact to air quality because: All alternatives provide safer and more comfortable multimodal facilities which transportation research finds results in a reduction in fine particulate emissions from vehicles.1 All alternatives incorporate proven safety countermeasures that support people having more transportation choices and a corresponding reduction in vehicle trips, reduction in vehicle emissions, and improved air quality. However, Alternatives B and C may see an increased level of air quality due to the repurposing of vehicle lanes, more safety improvements for people walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit, and increased landscaped areas along the corridor compared to Alternative A. 1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920914001254 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 80 Packet Page 475 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 56 Exposure to Excessive Noise Alternative A receives a negative score for exposure to excessive noise, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a positive score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed. Street trees and landscaped areas help mitigate noise pollution to adjacent properties. Further, preserving vehicle lanes throughout the corridor would not result in a reduction of road noise for nearby residents. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed that all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved, which would preserve the same level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties as today. Further, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would also reduce road noise for nearby residents. Alternative C would increase the number of street trees and landscaped areas along the corridor. As a result, Alternative C would provide the greatest level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties among the alternatives. Further, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would also reduce road noise for nearby residents. All alternatives would have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction. Need for Additional Police and Fire Services Alternative A receives a neutral score for need for additional police and fire services, Alternative B a negative score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A preserves the same number of vehicle lanes and space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today. As a result, there is no impact to police and fire services operations or need for additional services. Alternative B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. As a result, there is less space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today in both Alternatives B and C. All three alternatives improve safety on the corridor which may decrease the demand for police and fire services responding to traffic crashes or other traffic related incidents. Effects on Special Populations Alternatives A, B, and C all receive positive scores for effects on special populations because: All alternatives provide improved sidewalks, transit stops, protected bike lanes, safety improvements for drivers, improvements at intersections, new mid-block crossings, and Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramp compliance work. This will positively impact the travel experience of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth and sensitive populations who are more likely to walk, bike, roll or use transit to travel. Alternatives B and C would have a greater positive effect on special populations as there are more safety improvements in those two alternatives compared to Alternative A. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 81 Packet Page 476 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 57 Economic Vitality: Utilization of Existing Infrastructure Alternative A receives a negative score for utilization of existing infrastructure, Alternative B a positive score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, all or most of the existing utility and roadway infrastructure would be maintained and repurposed for on-street protected bike lanes and improved transit facilities. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and increase landscaped areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. All alternatives accommodate city maintenance vehicles and so they do not require new equipment to maintain. Evaluation Summary Figure 56 shows a comparison of Alternatives and how they scored under the project specific evaluation criteria, and Figure 57 show the CEAP checklist results. A weighted average of the project specific evaluation criteria in each category is shown and summed at the bottom for a scoring total. The CEAP checklist was summed where a positive impact was assigned a positive one (+1), a negative impact was assigned a negative one (-1), and a neutral impact received a score of zero (0). Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 82 Packet Page 477 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 58 Figure 56: Project Specific Evaluation Results Figure 57: CEAP Checklist Evaluation Results Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 83 Packet Page 478 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 59 Community Input on Alternatives and CEAP Evaluation: Winter – Spring 2025 At the end of the design workshop week on January 13, the three alternatives were presented to the public for feedback at an in-person open house (Figure 58). Figure 58: January 13 Open House Figure 59: Feedback Board at January 13 Open House At the open house, project staff asked participants to consider how the alternatives address community priorities (Figure 59) and for open ended feedback on the alternatives. After the design workshop week, follow up focus group conversations to receive feedback on the alternatives were held with the same communities in Phase 1: Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro (Figure 60), BHP/Boulder Junction (Figure 61), and Bluebird Apartments (Figure 62). Figure 60: San Juan Del Centro Focus Group Figure 61: BHP/Boulder Junction Focus Group Figure 62: Bluebird Focus Group A virtual open house presenting the alternatives with a questionnaire asking how the alternatives address community priorities was also available online between February 10 and February 24. Key themes on community priorities and the alternatives from the January 13 open house, follow up events, and online questionnaire are summarized below: •Community members felt Alternative A: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 84 Packet Page 479 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 60 o Addressed the following community priorities: travel time reliability and business access. o Did not address the following community priorities: vehicle speed mitigation, trees and green space, placemaking, transit priority, or intersection safety improvements o Provided an increase in safety for bikes and pedestrians but not as much as Alternatives B and C. o Should remove slip lanes to help reduce speeds and improve safety at intersections, similar to Alternatives B and C. o Did not provide enough space for snow storage for bike lanes and transit stops during storms. o Alternative A was the preferred alternative for those whose prioritized travel time the reliability the most. • Community members felt Alternative B: o Addressed the following community priorities: bike safety (more than Alternative A), pedestrian safety, vehicle speed mitigation, intersection safety improvements, and trees and green space o Did not address the community priorities of transit priority and travel time reliability  Received mixed feedback on whether the alternative supported business access. Some thought lane repurposing hurt business access for those driving to businesses, while others thought improvements to walking and biking supported business access by alternative modes. o Strikes a middle ground between alternatives, offering bicyclist and pedestrian safety and implementation within the project’s timeline and budget, but there were concerns about traffic congestion with lane repurposing and overall space available for snow storage during storms. o Alternative B was the preferred alternative for those who prioritized safety improvements for all modes and the city’s ability to implement the project within existing funding and timeline constraints. • Community members felt Alternative C: o Addressed the following community priorities: bike safety (more than Alternative A and similar to Alternative B), pedestrian safety, vehicle speed mitigation, intersection safety improvements, and trees and green space o Did not address the community priorities of transit priority and travel time reliability  Received mixed feedback on whether the alternative supported business access. Some thought lane repurposing hurt business access for those driving to businesses, while others thought improvements to walking and biking supported business access by alternative modes. o Provides the most improvements for people walking and biking and enhances placemaking with the increased landscape areas in the south segment of the corridor but community members recognized this alternative may cost more and need more time to implement than the other alternatives. o Alternative C was the preferred alternative for those who prioritized safety improvements for all modes and increasing trees and green space on the corridor, but Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 85 Packet Page 480 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 61 did not see the city’s ability to implement the project within existing funding and timeline constraints as a priority. • Overall: o Vehicle speed mitigation, bike safety, transit priority, and urban design/placemaking were the top priorities that participants shared and wanted to see in a recommended alternative, overall. o All alternatives performed well for bike safety, but community members felt Alternative B and C prioritized this the most. o All alternatives performed poorly for prioritizing transit. o Across all alternatives, pinch points where bike lanes narrow should be avoided, and signal timing phases east-west should be considered to alleviate challenges and conflicts pedestrians and bicyclists face with left-turning vehicles. o There is a desire for increasing or maintaining existing levels of trees and green space on the corridor Due to the condensed project timeline, the project team began the CEAP evaluation process for the three concept alternatives while receiving feedback in February. Feedback on the conceptual design alternatives was collected and reviewed for consideration into the CEAP evaluation results on a rolling basis. In March, project staff shared the CEAP evaluation results with the public at an in-person open house on March 12, 2025 (Figure 63). Throughout March and April, project staff held “office hours”, events along the corridor where members of the public could review the material presented at the open house and engage with project staff. Locations included Boulder Housing Partners 30Pearl Apartments, San Juan Del Centro (Figure 64), and Fire Station #3. Figure 63: March 12 Open House Figure 64: San Juan Del Centro “Office Hours” In addition, a virtual open house and questionnaire was also offered between March 14 and April 4. At the in-person events and virtual open house, participants were asked to rank the evaluation criteria on a scale of 1-6, where 1 = most important and 6 = least important, and which alternative, A, B, or C best meets each criteria category. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 86 Packet Page 481 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 62 Below are the average rankings from all responses collected between March and April: • Safe and Comfortable Connections was consistently rated as more or most important with an average ranking of 2.2. • Traffic Safety was consistently rated as more or most important with an average ranking of 2.5. • Transit Priority and Urban Design and Placemaking were rated as moderately important with average rankings of 3.6 (Transit Priority) and 3.96 (Urban Design and Placemaking) • Transportation Operations and Implementation Feasibility were rated as least important with average rankings of 4.1 (Transportation Operations) and 4.33 (Implementation Feasibility). In terms of which alternatives best met each category, respondents generally considered: • Alternative A best to address Transportation Operations and Transit Priority best • Alternative B to address Implementation Feasibility best. • Alternative C to address Traffic Safety, Safe and Comfortable Connections, and Urban Design and Placemaking best. Similar to the first phase of engagement, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available at events and Spanish language material was available online. All events conducted in Winter through Spring 2025 are summarized in Figure 65. Figure 65: Summary of Winter/Spring 2025 Phase 2 community engagement activities The number of participants at events and engaging with material in phase 2 was generally lower than first phase of the project. Through the first half of 2025, departments across the city are seeing lower participation than usual for engagement processes. This is likely due to forces outside the control of the city, but engagement for this project is consistent with citywide trends. `Engagement Event Dat e(s) Participants People Reached Design Workshop Open House 1/16/2025 39 San Juan Del Centro Follow Up Focus Group 1/27/2025 3 Boulder Housing Partners and Boulder Junction Follow Up Focus Group 1/28/2025 40 Bluebird Apartments Follow Up Foucs Group 1/31/2025 8 Project Email Newsletter Update 2/14/2025 338 Virtual Open House and Questionnaire 2/10 - 2/24/2025 3 Business Flyering and Conversations 2/25/2025 20 Business Flyering and Conversations 3/4/2025 20 Project Email Newsletter Update 3/5/2025 347 Open House #2 3/12/2025 37 Boulder Transportation Connections Quarterly Lunch 3/13/2025 20 Boulder Housing Partners/Boulder Junction Office Hours 3/18/2025 7 San Juan Del Centro Office Hours 3/19/2025 1 Fire Station #3 Office Hours 3/22/2025 10 Business Flyering and Conversations 4/1/2025 10 City Council Study Session 4/10/2025 Transportation Advisory Board Update 4/14/2025 Total 168 735 Winter - Spring 2025 January March April February Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 87 Packet Page 482 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 63 Despite lower engagement, project staff still reached over 700 community members through outreach methods, and over 150 community members participated in in-person or virtual opportunities. Balancing Community Input and Project Priorities of Each Alternative The CEAP evaluation results highlighted important tradeoffs in four key project evaluation criteria: traffic safety, safe and comfortable connections, transportation operations, and implementation feasibility. An evaluation summary for the three alternatives is shown in Figure 66. Figure 66: Summary of CEAP Evaluation for Alternatives A, B, and C By repurposing travel lanes, Alternatives B and C provide the greatest safety benefits of the three alternatives. However, repurposing vehicle lanes results in impacts to transportation operations, namely travel time for vehicles on the corridor, and impacts to emergency response. Lastly, the project has been awarded $9 million in Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal grant funds for improvements north of Pearl Street; these funds must be fully spent by the end of 2029. Alternatives A and C require full reconstruction of the roadway, which takes more time and money to build than Alternative B. The second phase of engagement highlighted the need to balance these project priorities: traffic safety and safe and comfortable connections were consistently rated as the most or second most important priority of the project for the public. Community members also shared concerns about reducing vehicle lanes and the impact this would have on travel time for drivers and transit riders. At the same time, internal engagement with Boulder Fire-Rescue, Boulder Police Department, and the joint city and county Office of Disaster Management all noted the importance of north 30th Street for emergency response and emphasized the roadway space available to emergency vehicles and evacuation in case of a disaster scenario. Finally, being able to implement improvements quickly will have an outsized impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and making the corridor safer for everyone. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 88 Packet Page 483 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 64 Project staff developed a fourth alternative that balanced these priorities by combining elements of these three alternatives for evaluation. Development of Hybrid Alternative The fourth alternative combines the vehicle lane configurations of the north segment of Alternative B and the south segment of Alternative A. This configuration repurposes vehicle lanes north of Valmont Road but maintains vehicle lanes south of Pearl Street. Further analysis was completed to ensure operational needs in the central segment, from Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue, were met, especially for Boulder Fire-Rescue operations at Fire Station #3 at Bluff Street. TransModeler analysis found traffic volumes are greatest during the evening peak period in the northbound direction. Due to these volumes, an asymmetrical configuration was further analyzed to mitigate impacts to corridor vehicle travel time. The fourth alternative redesigns major intersections and the space between them to give everyone the time and space they need to travel safely, reduce common crash patterns, while minimizing changes to travel time. Figure 67 shows the hybrid alternative and its key features. Figure 67: Hybrid Alternative and Key Features Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 89 Packet Page 484 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 65 Descriptions of each segment of the Hybrid Alternative are included below. Hybrid Alternative North Segment: Diagonal Highway to Valmont Road (Figure 68) • Two 10.5-foot vehicle lanes with a 10-foot center turn lane. • The existing 6-foot sidewalks remain. • The existing 8-foot landscape areas remain. • Roadway space is reallocated to accommodate the 5-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space. (The type of protection is to be determined during final design). • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Iris Avenue, Glenwood Drive, and Valmont Road. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 90 Packet Page 485 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 66 • Two mid-block crossings are proposed south of Corona Trail and near Eagle Way. Figure 68: Hybrid Alternative, North Segment Hybrid Alternative Central Segment: Valmont Road to Mapleton Avenue (Figure 69) • Two 10-foot northbound vehicle lanes, one 11-foot southbound vehicle lane, and an 11.5-foot center turn lane. • 10’ multi-use paths and 8-foot landscaped areas are proposed and will be implemented by private development where redevelopment has not occurred. • Roadway space is reallocated to accommodate 6.5-foot on-street directional protected bike lanes with 3-foot buffer space. (The type of protection is to be determined during final design). • Concrete medians are proposed south of the Valmont intersection for access management and to reduce vehicle conflicts • At Mapleton Avenue, eastbound left-turns would be restricted, and eastbound traffic will only be able to turn right. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 91 Packet Page 486 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 67 Figure 69: Hybrid Alternative, Central Segment Hybrid Alternative South Segment: Mapleton Avenue to Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 70) • The existing vehicle lane configuration is preserved (four 10-foot travel lanes plus one 11-foot center-turn lane/median) o Existing medians are modified as necessary o North of Spruce Street, a painted median functions as a 10-foot dedicated lane for emergency response vehicles (Figure 71). • The existing sidewalks and multi-use paths are preserved. • The existing 8-foot landscape area is preserved. • 5-foot on-street protected bike lanes are added with 3-foot buffer space. (The type of protection is to be determined during final design). o The on-street bike lane transitions to sidewalk level between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard. • Protected intersection elements are proposed at Pearl Street, Walnut Street, Canyon Boulevard, and Arapahoe Avenue. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 92 Packet Page 487 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 68 Figure 70: Hybrid Alternative, South Segment Figure 71: Hybrid Alternative, North of Spruce Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 93 Packet Page 488 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 69 Project Specific Evaluation of Hybrid Alternative The Hybrid Alternative was evaluated using the six project specific evaluation categories to compare to Alternatives A, B, and C. Results from each category and descriptions of scores are detailed below. Traffic Safety Evaluation Results Figure 72 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Traffic Safety criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 72: Hybrid Alternative Traffic Safety Project Specific Evaluation Results Vehicle speed moderation The Hybrid Alternative reduces vehicle speeds by narrowing lane widths, reducing the number of vehicle lanes in the north and central segments, and by providing vertical and visual friction through protected bike lane elements. The Hybrid Alternative is anticipated to reduce speeds greater than Alternative A, but not as much as Alternatives B and C, which repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. Reduction in conflict between vehicles The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflicts between vehicles by reducing vehicle speeds and providing a center turn lane for drivers to wait to turn off the street in the north segment and adding medians for access management at key locations. The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflict points between vehicles in the north and central segments through lane repurposing (similar to Alternatives B and C), but the same number of conflict points remain in the southern segment (similar to Alternative A). Reduction in conflict between non-motorized users The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflicts between non-motorized users by providing separate facilities for people walking and biking at intersections and between them through on-street protected bike lanes and protected intersections. In some constrained segments of the corridor, the on-street bike lane transitions to sidewalk level with a minimum width buffer between the sidewalk and bike lane, which may lead to conflicts between users. Similar to Alternative B and C, 50% of the transit stops in the Hybrid Alternative are shared stops with the bike facility and 50% are full floating bus stops with a dedicated boarding area. The Hybrid Alternative scores are similar to Alternative B but less than Alternative C due to Alternative C’s nonmotorized facility widths being the widest of all alternatives. Reduction in conflict between vehicles and non-motorized users The Hybrid Alternative reduces conflicts between vehicles and non-motorized users by providing protected intersection elements at all signalized intersections, removing all right-turn bypass lanes at Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 94 Packet Page 489 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 70 intersections, and providing space for a protected bike facility. The Hybrid Alternative scores similar to Alternatives B and C. Transportation Operations Evaluation Results Figure 73 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Transportation Operations criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 73: Hybrid Alternative Transportation Operations Project Specific Evaluation Results Corridor Vehicle travel time The Hybrid Alternative incorporates dedicated signal phases at intersections and the time needed for people walking, biking, and rolling to cross the street, increasing travel time for everyone, similar to Alternatives A, B, and C. However, strategic lane repurposing minimizes travel time impacts under the Hybrid Alternative, resulting in evaluation scores similar to Alternative A which does not repurpose vehicle lanes. Today, it takes on average approximately four minutes to drive the 1.5-mile corridor. To determine travel time impacts for each alternative, microsimulation analysis was conducted in the TransModeler software. Depending on the direction, time of day, and location, the analysis shows a range of travel time increases for most trips (95% of all trips). These impacts are shown below for the Hybrid Alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C for reference: • Hybrid Alternative from 6 seconds to 3 minutes and 6 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 1m 30s (37.5% travel time increase from today). • Alternative A from 6 seconds to 2 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 1m 30s (37.5% travel time increase from today). • Alternative B from 2 minutes and 24 seconds to 8 minutes and 18 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 35s (114% travel time increase from today). • Alternative C from 2 minutes and 42 seconds to 8 minutes and 30 seconds o Averaged AM and PM peak 95th-percentile travel time increase: 4m 30s 112% travel time increase from today). A 15% travel time increase is generally rated as acceptable, in line with the 2019 Transportation Master Plan targets to maintain 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets. Any travel time exceeding Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 95 Packet Page 490 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 71 a 15% increase is evaluated for acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. Non-signalized vehicle access Access to properties via dedicated turn lanes rather than through travel lanes improves user comfort and safety. This is balanced with the frequency and length of gaps in traffic to facilitate turns out of side streets and driveways safely and without excess delay. The project team evaluated the ability of each alternative to improve ease, comfort, and safety of access. The Hybrid Alternative has less impact on non-signalized vehicle access than Alternatives B and C because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes in the south segment and repurposes one lane in the central segment and two lanes in the northern segment. Vehicular level of service The Hybrid Alternative has no impact on vehicular level of service because it maintains the same number of vehicle lanes in the south segment and preserves a dedicated eastbound right turn lane at Pearl Street and extends the southbound left turn lane at Valmont Road to limit queues impacting through traffic. Day-to-day emergency response The Hybrid Alternative impacts day-to-day emergency response because it repurposes vehicle lanes in the north and central segment, reducing the space available for emergency vehicles. However, these impacts are mitigated and are minimal because its design adds a painted median for emergency vehicle use and provides signal timing preemption to facilitate egress from Fire Station #3 for calls north and south of the station on 30th Street. Based on input from emergency response, this design is preferrable to Alternative B’s protected bike lane design. Disaster emergency response The Hybrid Alternative impacts disaster emergency response because it repurposes vehicle lanes in the north and central segment, reducing the space available for emergency vehicles to respond to disasters and evacuating vehicles leaving the city. However, these impacts are mitigated and are minimal because lanes are maintained at major intersections. Transit Service Evaluation Results Figure 74 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Transit Service criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 74: Hybrid Alternative Transit Service Project Specific Evaluation Results Bus stop type and amenities The Hybrid Alternative scores the same as Alternative B and C. Under the hybrid alternative, 50% of transit stops are shared stops with the bike facility and 50% are full floating bus stops with dedicated Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 96 Packet Page 491 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 72 boarding areas. Floating stops with dedicated boarding areas provide more space for amenities. All stops provide space for a shelter. Corridor bus travel time The Hybrid Alternative scores the same as Alternative A for bus travel time because the travel time impacts are similar to Alternative A. Scores for transit travel time match the overall travel time scores because the overall travel time increases impact buses as well as all other vehicles. Safe and Comfortable Connections Evaluation Results Figure 75 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Safe and Comfortable Connections criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 75: Hybrid Alternative Safe and Comfortable Connections Project Specific Evaluation Results Walking comfort The Hybrid Alternative provides increases in walking comfort compared to existing conditions and Alternative A by providing more separation between people walking, rolling, biking, and driving, providing fewer lanes of traffic in the north and central segments for people walking and rolling to cross, and decreasing vehicle speeds through lane repurposing. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the entire corridor resulting in the Hybrid Alternative scoring slightly lower than these alternatives. Biking comfort The Hybrid Alternative provides increases in biking comfort compared to existing conditions and Alternative A by providing protected bike facilities throughout the corridor, providing fewer lanes of traffic for people biking to cross, and decreasing vehicle speed through lane repurposing in the north and central segments. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the entire corridor and provide a wider bike facility, resulting in the Hybrid Alternative scoring slightly lower than these alternatives. Crossing safety and comfort The Hybrid Alternative provides increases in crossing safety and comfort compared to existing conditions and Alternative A by providing space for protected intersections at all signalized intersections, refuge islands between intersections at new and existing mid-block crossings, and reduces the number of vehicle lanes to cross the street in the north and central segments. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the entire corridor and Alternative C provides the greatest number of total number of marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and bulb-outs resulting in the Hybrid Alternative scoring slightly lower than these alternatives. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 97 Packet Page 492 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 73 Implementation Feasibility Evaluation Results Figure 76 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Implementation Feasibility criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Figure 76: Hybrid Alternative Implementation Feasibility Project Specific Evaluation Results Time to design and implement The Hybrid Alternative is similar to Alternative B in terms of time to design and implement. Under the Hybrid Alternative, only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction, and the majority of improvements can be implemented within the existing roadway. As a result, it will take less time to design and implement compared to Alternatives A and C. It is assumed Alternative B would be implemented completely within the existing roadway resulting in a slightly lower score for the Hybrid Alternative. Maintenance The hybrid alternative is similar to Alternatives A and B in terms of maintenance. The hybrid alternative preserves or replaces 100% of the existing street trees on the corridor and will not require additional landscape maintenance compared to existing conditions, similar to Alternative B. The Hybrid Alternative also provides adequate space for snow storage in the north and central segments, similar to Alternative B, but maintaining vehicle lanes in the south segment may result in snow accumulating in the vertical element of the bike lane under the Hybrid Alternative, similar to Alternative A. Right-of-way acquisition None of the alternatives are known to require right-of-way acquisition at this stage and therefore all alternatives scored a neutral “0.” Implementation cost The Hybrid Alternative is slightly more expensive than Alternative B to implement because 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. Urban Design and Placemaking Evaluation Results Figure 77 shows how the Hybrid Alternative scored on the Urban Design and Placemaking criteria, and descriptions of each score are below. Scores for Alternatives A, B, and C are also shown for reference. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 98 Packet Page 493 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 74 Figure 77: Hybrid Alternative Urban Design and Placemaking Project Specific Evaluation Results Preserves existing public street trees The Hybrid Alternative will need to remove 23 of the 197 existing street trees on the corridor, which is similar to Alternative C. However, 100% of these will be replaced. Impacts to existing trees are less than Alternative A, and additional trees will be added where space and funding allow under the Hybrid Alternative. Landscaping and amenities The Hybrid Alternative will preserve most of the existing landscaping and additional areas for landscaping and placemaking amenities will be added where space, for example where right-turn slip lanes are removed, and funding allow. CEAP Checklist – Hybrid Alternative Evaluation The Hybrid Alternative was also evaluated through the CEAP checklist. Figure 78 shows the results of the evaluation with the results of Alternatives A, B, and C for reference. Figure 78: Hybrid Alternative CEAP Checklist Evaluation Results CEAP Checklist Questions CEAP Checklist questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. More information is provided below for the checklist lines that indicated a positive or negative effect. Attachment E provides the detailed responses to the checklist evaluation questions. Impact to Natural Areas or Features The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to natural areas as compared to existing conditions because: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 99 Packet Page 494 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 75 The Hybrid Alternative is mostly implementable within the existing curb to curb: only 18% of the 1.5- mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, the recommended design has few impacts to existing landscaped areas and preserves or replaces 100% of the 197 existing street trees on the corridor. Preserving street trees and landscaped areas does not change today’s stormwater runoff. Preservation of existing street tress and landscaped areas continues the corridor’s current ability to address urban heat, and the recommended design’s strategic repurposing of vehicle lanes and removal of right-turn slip lanes may provide space for additional trees and landscaping to further minimize urban heat. Impact to Geology and Soils The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to geology and soils as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative is mostly implementable within the existing curb to curb and so there will be minimal impact and disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Impact to Water Quality The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to water quality as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative design is mostly implementable within the existing curb to curb. As a result, the hybrid alternative won’t significantly change the existing storm drain infrastructure or require extensive clearing or excavation during construction. There are not any leaky tanks in the corridor that the recommendation would impact, as verified by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. The Hybrid Alternative design uses strategic vehicle lane repurposing which may provide space for additional street trees and landscaping which would have a positive impact on water quality from the net decrease in hardscape on the corridor. Impact to Air Quality The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral score for impact to air quality as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative provides safer and more comfortable multimodal facilities which transportation research finds results in a reduction in fine particulate emissions from vehicles.2 The recommended design’s use of proven safety countermeasures supports people having more transportation choices and a corresponding reduction in vehicle trips, reduction in vehicle emissions, and improved air quality. The Hybrid Alternative preserves or replaces 100% of the existing street trees and landscaping which improves air quality. Exposure to Excessive Noise The Hybrid Alternative receives a positive score for noise impacts as compared to existing conditions because: 2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920914001254 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 100 Packet Page 495 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 76 The Hybrid Alternative preserves or replaces 100% of the existing street trees and landscaping which mitigates noise pollution. The Hybrid Alternative also generally moves vehicle travel lanes away from property lines, and vehicle speed reductions associated with the safety improvements of the project will also reduce road noise for nearby residents. Overall, the Hybrid Alternative will have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction, but over the long term, exposure to noise will be reduced. Need for Additional Police and Fire Services The Hybrid Alternative receives a neutral impact on police and fire services as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative strategically repurposes vehicle lanes to improve safety on the corridor while providing space for emergency response, including design modifications at common service locations on the corridor. Traffic signal pre-emption supports emergency response vehicle movement from Fire Station #3 to and through the Valmont Road, Bluff Street, Spruce Street, and Pearl Street intersections. The safety improvements could reduce the demand for police and fire services related to traffic crashes. Effects on Special Populations The Hybrid Alternative receives a positive score for effects on special populations as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative design provides improved sidewalks, transit stops, protected bike lanes, safety improvements for drivers, improvements at intersections, new mid-block crossings, and Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramp compliance work. This will positively impact the travel experience of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth and sensitive populations who are more likely to walk, bike, roll or use transit to travel. Economic Vitality: Utilization of Existing Infrastructure The Hybrid Alternative receives a positive score for economic vitality as compared to existing conditions because: The Hybrid Alternative utilizes existing infrastructure for 80% of the 1.5-mile corridor and therefore maintains most of the existing utility and roadway infrastructure for other purposes, such as on-street protected bike lanes and improved transit facilities. The Hybrid Alternative provides space for snow storage on most of the corridor and accommodates city maintenance vehicles and so does not require new equipment to maintain. Evaluation Summary and Recommendation Figure 79 shows a comparison of Alternatives and how they scored under the project specific evaluation criteria and the CEAP checklist. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 101 Packet Page 496 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 77 Figure 79: Summary of CEAP Evaluation for All Alternatives Based on the CEAP evaluation results, the Hybrid Alternative balances the project’s and community’s priorities for improvements on north 30th Street and is the recommended design. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 102 Packet Page 497 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 78 The Hybrid Alternative scores positively in three project specific criteria: Traffic Safety, Safe and Comfortable Connections, and Transit Service. It scores negatively in the remaining three project specific criteria: Transportation Operations, Implementation Feasibility, and Urban Design and Placemaking. In terms of overall score when considering the project specific criteria, the Hybrid Alternative achieves the highest as compared to Alternatives A, B, and C. The Hybrid Alternative also scores more positively overall amongst the CEAP Checklist criteria than Alternatives A, B, and C. All alternatives score negatively under Transportation Operations because safety improvements at intersections across all alternatives add time for everyone’s travel, whether or not any other safety improvements are made on the street. By strategically repurposing vehicle lanes, the Hybrid Alternative minimizes operational impacts similar to Alternative A, while providing safety benefits, similar to Alternatives B and C. Similarly, all alternatives score negatively under Implementation Feasibility because advancing any project on the corridor takes time and cost to design, implement, and maintain new improvements compared to existing conditions (no project). By building improvements mostly within the existing roadway, the Hybrid Alternative takes less time to design and implement compared to Alternatives A and C, and roadway reconstruction will take place at constrained locations in order to construct a protected bike lane facility while maintaining sufficient vehicle lanes for operations. Finally, the Hybrid Alternative scores slightly negative under Urban Design and Placemaking because it requires removal of a small percentage of existing street trees and landscaped areas. However, all trees that will need to be removed will be replanted on the corridor and additional areas for landscaping and placemaking amenities will be added where space and funding allow. The Hybrid Alternative mitigates these negative impacts the best of all the alternatives while scoring positively in the following criteria: Traffic Safety, Safe and Comfortable Connections, and Transit Service. By repurposing vehicle lanes to reduce vehicle speeds and improving safety at intersections by adding protected elements and removing slip lanes, the Hybrid Alternative addresses a history of crashes along the corridor and will help the city achieve its Vision Zero goal of eliminating serious injury and fatal crashes on our streets. These improvements are shown at the Pearl Street intersection (Figure 80). Figure 80: Rendering of the 30th and Pearl Street Intersection Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 103 Packet Page 498 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 79 Improving safety for vehicles also improves safety for vulnerable road users walking, biking, and rolling. The Hybrid Alternative will add on-street protected bike lanes, shorten crossing distances for pedestrians, add new pedestrian crossings, and upgrade existing crossings. These improvements are shown at the upgraded pedestrian crossing south of Walnut Street (Figure 81). Figure 81: Rendering of Walking and Biking Improvements Finally, the Hybrid Alternative will also improve the experience for transit riders on the corridor through new floating bus stops. Floating bus stops provide riders with dedicated places to wait for the bus, with amenities like shelters and benches. They also improve transit speed and reliability by keeping buses in the travel lane, which reduces transit service delays, and reduces conflicts between bikes and transit vehicles. These improvements are shown at the new bus stop at Glenwood Drive (Figure 82). The Hybrid Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 104 Packet Page 499 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 80 Alternative is also compatible with potential transit signal priority, as recommended at 30th Street and Pearl Street in CDOT’s 10-Year Plan to improve travel time and reliability for regional and local transit. Figure 82: Rendering of Transit Stop Improvements at Glenwood Drive As a result of this balancing of improvements for everyone traveling on the corridor, the Hybrid Alternative total score is the highest of all alternatives when all criteria – project specific and CEAP checklist – are considered. The Hybrid Alternative will make north 30th Street a true multimodal street with safe, comfortable, and convenient connections to key local and regional destinations along one of Boulder’s main corridors. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 105 Packet Page 500 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 81 Step 3: Present Final Evaluation and Recommended Alternative to the Community Project staff presented the recommendation to the community at an in-person open house on May 21, 2025 (Figure 83). The recommendation was presented on a large map to show design detail for the entire corridor. Presentation boards with project background information and laptops with access to detailed evaluation information were also available. Participants could leave feedback on the map (Figure 84) and on a comment card sharing what they are excited about the recommendation, what concerns them, and how project staff could mitigate their concerns as the design is advanced (Figure 85). Figure 83: May 21 Open House Figure 84: Comments on the roll plot Figure 85: Comment Cards The material presented at the open house was also available online from May 21 through June 13, at “office hours,” and at community pop-ups. Office hours focused on continuing discussion with community members who had participated throughout the project (Figure 86) and pop-ups focused on meeting people where they are, like at farmers markets and the Bike 360 bike ride. Figure 86: June 12 Office Hours at San Juan Del Centro Community Input on Alternatives and CEAP Evaluation: Spring 2025 Community members reported being excited about: •Safer walking and biking: Protected and widened bike lanes and separation of people walking, rolling and biking from vehicle traffic. •Intersection improvements: Protected intersections, right-turn slip lane removal at intersections, and bike signals at intersections. •Improved crossings: Two new pedestrian crossings north of Valmont Road and upgraded crossings south of Spruce Street and south of Walnut Street. •Improved transit facilities: The floating bus stop design reduces conflicts between buses and people riding bikes, and several stop relocations increase safety and improve transfers between bus routes. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 106 Packet Page 501 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 82 • Traffic calming: Reducing vehicle speeds through design changes and lowering the speed limit through the separate but related Citywide Speed Limit Setting project. o Community members also supported many of the proposed access management changes at driveways and certain side streets. • Overall project approach: Community members felt the recommendation took a balanced design approach to preserve vehicle access while improving safety for all road users, addressed environmental concerns by preserving existing street trees, and improving walking, biking, and transit facilities. Community members reported what they were concerned about the recommendation, and shared their own ideas for mitigating those concerns: • Vehicle speeds: o There is concern from the community that the recommendation won’t slow vehicle speeds enough on the corridor.  Potential mitigation: Additional traffic calming measures and automated enforcement. • Pedestrian crossing safety: o Some community members are still concerned crossing four or more vehicle lanes at signalized intersections.  Potential mitigation: Additional pedestrian crossing time. o Some community members requested an additional pedestrian crossing at O’Neal Parkway. • Shared Floating Bus Stops: o Concerns for potential conflicts between people biking and people boarding and alighting transit vehicles at shared bus stops.  Potential mitigations: Signage and pavement markings to communicate bikes should yield, and public education on the shared stop design. • Vehicle travel time: o There are still some concerns about traffic congestion and travel time increases due to vehicle lane repurposing.  Potential mitigations: Maintaining two vehicle lanes in each direction throughout the corridor or not moving forward with the project. • Vehicles are prioritized: o Even with the multimodal safety benefits of the recommendation, some community members felt the recommendation prioritizes vehicles by maintaining lanes in the south segment of the corridor  Potential mitigations: This could be mitigated by repurposing vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. • Safety for people walking and biking: o Some thought the recommendation does not improve comfort for people walking and biking enough. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 107 Packet Page 502 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 83  This could be mitigated by repurposing vehicle lanes throughout the corridor to provide more space for wider bike facilities and sidewalks and expanding landscaped areas between these and the vehicle lanes.  Another suggested mitigation is to raise crossings at side-streets and more driveways. • Connectivity to bike network: o Some community members wanted to see further improvements to connections to the bike network beyond 30th Street.  This could be mitigated by constructing the multi-use path connection between 30th Street and Howard Heuston Park that is proposed in the Transportation Master Plan. • Construction impacts: o There were some concerns about impacts of construction on traffic and nearby residences, especially since there have been multiple transportation projects on 30th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue in the past few years.  This can be mitigated by the city keeping construction on time and communicating construction timelines to the community. All May and June 2025 engagement events are summarized in Table 1. Similar to the previous phases of engagement, Spanish language interpreters or bi-lingual staff were available at events where Spanish language speakers may have been present. In this last round of engagement, project staff reached over 1,000 community members through outreach methods, and over 100 community members participated in in-person or virtual engagement events. Staff will continue to inform the community of the recommendation at community events and project communications. Table 1: May and June 2025 engagement events `Engagement Event Dat e(s) Participants People Reached Orchard Grove/San Juan Del Centro/Business flyering 5/8 - 5/13/2025 300 Project Email Newsletter Update 5/9/2025 356 Open House #3 5/21/2025 28 Virtual Open House and Questionnaire 5/21 - 6/13/2025 62 Boulder Bike 360 Pop-Up 6/1/2025 20 Project Email Newsletter Update 6/9/2025 359 San Juan Del Centro office hour flyering 6/9/2025 150 Boulder Housing Partners/Boulder Junction Office Hours 6/11/2025 8 San Juan Del Centro Office Hours 6/12/2025 4 Downtown Boulder Farmer's Market Pop-Up 6/14/2025 40 150 162 1315 June May - June 2025 May Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 108 Packet Page 503 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 84 Attachment A: Project Screening Project Screening Criteria Criteria marked with an asterisk (*) were identified by the community during engagement in 2024. Pedestrian Space* Purpose: Between 2019 and 2023, 10% of crashes (422 total) involved someone walking, biking, or rolling, and 66% of serious injury or fatal crashes involved these vulnerable road users. The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan, recommends pedestrian improvement areas along 30th Street, and during community engagement, the public shared concerns of conflicts with moto vehicles and sharing space with bicycles and electric micromobility devices on existing sidewalks and multi-use paths along the corridor. Definition: Potential to provide low-stress pedestrian facilities that are highly comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, including seniors and school-aged children, that are consistent with score of 1 or 2 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scale as defined by the City of Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan. The LTS considers the pedestrian facility type (sidewalk or multi-use path), existence of buffer space between pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic, and the width of the buffer space. Source: City of Boulder Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan Comparison: To existing conditions Bicycle Space* Purpose: Between 2019 and 2023, 10% of crashes (422 total) involved someone walking, biking, or rolling, and 66% of serious injury or fatal crashes involved someone walking, biking, or rolling. The Transportation Master Plan identifies 30th Street as a priority bicycle corridor, the Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan recommends protected bike lanes for 30th Street, and 30th Street is a planned Crosstown Route. During community engagement, the public shared concerns of conflicts with motor vehicles when biking in the on-street bike lane and conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles at commercial driveways when biking in the multi-use paths along the corridor. Definition: Potential to provide bike facilities with adequate operating space and protection from other modes. Source: AASHTO Bike Guide (2024); City of Boulder Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan Comparison: To existing conditions Transit Priority* Purpose: The Transportation Master Plan identifies 30th Street as a high-frequency transit corridor, and there are three bus routes operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the City of Boulder: the BOUND, Route 208, and the HOP. Some segments of the corridor are served by as many as nine buses an hour (Walnut Street to Pearl Street) or seven buses per hour (Pearl Street to Diagonal Highway). Transit route prioritization determines the comfort, safety, and accessibility of the transit experience and are key factors in determining transit ridership and perception of transit. Definition: Potential to provide transit improvements in the roadway (in the form of a bus lane, an emergency lane that permits transit use, extended transit boarding platforms, platforms adjacent to travel way allowing free movement for the busses, etc.) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 109 Packet Page 504 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 85 Source: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide Comparison: To existing conditions Day-to-day Emergency Response* Purpose: 30th Street is an important north-south route for day-to-day emergency response, with Fire Station 3 located at 30th Street and Bluff Street and Boulder Police Department Headquarters just east of the corridor on 33rd Street. City emergency responders must be able to use the roadway to access emergency sites at all times and have enough space to operate within vehicle traffic. Definition: Potential to provide space for emergency response vehicles to move through traffic, including right-of-way available for private vehicles to move aside and right-of-way available for emergency response vehicles to operate on typical roadway segments. Source: Boulder Fire and Rescue Department Comparison: To Boulder Fire and Rescue Department standards. Disaster Emergency Response Purpose: 30th Street is an important north-south route for private vehicle evacuation during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic during a disaster event. Definition: Potential to provide space for private vehicle evacuation and disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic, including right-of-way available for these vehicles to operate. Source: Boulder County Office of Disaster Management and City of Boulder Fire and Rescue Department Comparison: To Boulder County Office of Disaster Management standards. Vehicle Speed Moderation* Purpose: At the time of this project, the posted speed limit on north 30th Street is 35-mph. Data shows that vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit do so up by up to 4-5 miles per hour as the 85th percentile speed in some segments of the corridor is 39-40 miles per hour. Additionally, rear-end crashes are the most common crash type (36% of all crashes on the corridor) which are often times tied to vehicle speed differential. Improvements implemented with this project will help lower speeds and help reduce risk factors for crashes. Further, during engagement, all road users shared safety concerns about vehicle speeds, including those who typically drive on the corridor. Definition: Potential to reduce prevailing vehicle speed and/or speeding. Many factors influence how fast people drive. The project team considered the way the road is designed today, and screened the alternatives based on how each alternative alters the current design with respect to vehicle speed moderation through the number of vehicle lanes. Source: Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide Comparison: To existing conditions. Vehicle Operations Feasibility* Purpose: The Transportation Master Plan objective seven seeks to maintain 1994 levels of travel time on Boulder arterial streets and improve travel time reliability and predictability as measured by person travel time and throughput on arterials (autos and transit) and intersection Level of Service (LOS) and delay. As the current main mode of travel on north 30th Street, the ability to access residential and commercial destinations via private vehicle is important for 30th Street, and was identified as a priority by the community. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 110 Packet Page 505 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 86 Definition: Provide a corridor that is feasible to navigate for vehicular modes as measured by volume to capacity ratio and level of service (LOS) of the corridor’s signalized intersections based on professional judgment of traffic analysis of existing and proposed conditions. Source: Design and Construction Standards for Vehicle LOS Comparison: To existing conditions. Estimated Construction Impact Purpose: To advance alternatives for the corridor that are feasible to implement in terms of cost and project timeline. Definition: Potential to avoid curb realignment, removing trees, and right-of-way acquisition that could impact the cost and time needed to design and implement the project. Source: City of Boulder Parcels data for right-of-way boundaries, City of Boulder Street Trees inventory Comparison: Alternatives compared to each other. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 111 Packet Page 506 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 87 Attachment B: Project Specific Evaluation Criteria Project specific evaluation criteria have five parts: 1. Definition provides the critical inputs to the score. 2. Methodology provides the method – qualitative, quantitative, or both – of scoring. 3. Methodology Rationale provides additional information on why the methodology was used. 4. Comparison Metric states whether the score is based on a comparison to other alternatives or to the existing condition. 5. Source/References indicate data used in the methodology. Below is each category with each of its criterion. Evaluation Category: Traffic Safety Evaluation Criterion: Vehicle speed moderation 1. Definition: Reduction in prevailing speed and/or speeding, achieved through: a. Reducing lane widths b. Reducing the number of lanes c. Providing horizontal deflection/friction (including turns at intersections) d. Providing vertical/visual friction (trees, bike lane separation, protective elements, etc.) 2. Methodology: A quantitative and qualitative assessment of an alternative’s potential effect on speeds resulting from the inclusion of one, or a combination, of the definition elements. 3. Methodology Rationale: Many factors influence how fast people drive. The project team considered the way the road is designed today, and scored the alternatives based on how each alternative alters the current design with respect to vehicle speed moderation. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide b. Los Angeles Department of Transportation Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines c. Speed Reduction Mechanisms | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) d. Corner Radii | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) e. An Evaluation of “Road Diet” Projects on Five Lane and Larger Roadways | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) f. Design Speed | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) g. Federal Highway Administration Safe System Approach for Speed Management h. New York City Department of Transportation Columbus Avenue Protected Bike Lane Assessment on Crashes and Speeds i. Federal Highway Administration Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide j. The Traffic Calming Effect of Delineated Bicycle Lanes – Journal of Urban Mobility Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 112 Packet Page 507 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 88 Evaluation Criterion: Crash and Conflict reduction between vehicles 1. Definition: Reduction in the number of conflict points between vehicles and the severity of potential crashes between vehicles, achieved through: a. Reduced number of conflict points b. Addition of turn lanes c. Reduced speeds (based on vehicle speed moderation criterion) 2. Methodology: A quantitative and qualitative assessment of an alternative’s potential effect on the number and severity of crashes resulting from the inclusion of one, or a combination, of the definition elements, and the difficulty or intuitive nature for users of a bike facility. 3. Methodology Rationale: Proven safety countermeasures and crash reduction factors were evaluated where possible. In addition, the project team evaluated potential for crash reduction based on a Safe Systems Approach and the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan, where speeds, conflict points, two-way bike facilities, and other factors that don’t have available established predictive safety outcomes, can be considered. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Design Speed b. Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide c. Minnesota Department of Transportation Safety and Operational Characteristics of Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes d. Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) / Road Diet i. Applicable CMFs are listed below: ii. CMF ID: 5553 - CONVERTING FOUR-LANE ROADWAYS TO THREE-LANE ROADWAYS WITH CENTER TURN LANE (ROAD DIET). Shows a 25% decrease in total crashes iii. CMF ID: 2841 - CONVERTING FOUR-LANE ROADWAYS TO THREE-LANE ROADWAYS WITH CENTER TURN LANE (ROAD DIET). Different study. Shows a 47% decrease in total crashes iv. CMF ID: 11128 - ROAD DIET (CONVERT 4-LANE UNDIVIDED ROAD TO 2-LANES PLUS TURNING LANE). Shows a 38% decrease in total crashes v. CMF ID: 11301 - CONVERT TRADITIONAL BIKE LANE TO SBL WITH A BLEND OF FLEXI-POST AND OTHER VERTICAL ELEMENTS. Shows a 36% decrease in vehicle-to-bicycle crashes e. Proven Safety Countermeasures | FHWA (dot.gov) f. What Is a Safe System Approach? | US Department of Transportation g. Vision Zero Action Plan | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Evaluation Criterion: Reduction in conflict between vehicles and nonmotorized users at intersections 1. Definition: Reduction in conflict potential between vehicles and nonmotorized users, particularly at intersections, achieved through: a. Protected intersection elements. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 113 Packet Page 508 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 89 b. Traffic signal operation changes to separate vulnerable road users physically and eliminate time-based conflicts. c. Improving the motorist-bicyclist interaction and expectation 2. Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the amount of space available for protected intersection elements and the potential to reduce time-based conflicts through traffic signal operation changes. 3. Methodology Rationale: Protected intersections slow vehicle speeds, increase visibility and reduce crossing distances for people walking, biking, and rolling, and provide dedicated paths for bikes through the intersection. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Don’t Give Up at the Intersection, NACTO b. SFMTA Protected Intersection Evaluation Report Evaluation Criterion: Reduction in conflict between nonmotorized users 1. Definition: Reduction in the potential for collisions or close calls between people walking, rolling, and biking. 2. Methodology: Quantitative and qualitative assessment of conflict potential based on the width of a shared facility for safe passing and side-by-side movement for users moving at various speeds, as well as horizontal and physical separation of facilities for people walking/rolling and biking/scooting. 3. Methodology Rationale Community feedback indicated relatively common close calls or collisions between people walking and biking or using e-scooters on roadside multi-use paths and sidewalk-level bike lanes. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts, FHWA b. AASHTO Bike Guide Evaluation Category: Transportation Operations Evaluation Criterion: Corridor vehicle travel time 1. Definition: The change in the 95th percentile vehicle end-to-end travel time between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Road, for northbound and southbound drivers in the AM and PM peak periods, based on microsimulation traffic modeling with TransModeler. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of travel time measured as an output of microsimulation traffic modeling with TransModeler. 3. Methodology Rationale: The 2019 TMP targets maintaining 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets, as well as improving travel time reliability and predictability. The TMP found that, for the drive time study corridors, average travel times have increased by 1 minute, or 15%, since baseline year. A travel time increase of up to 15% is therefore rated as acceptable for north 30th Street with any additional 15-point increments resulting in successively lower ratings. Any travel time exceeding a 15% increase is evaluated for Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 114 Packet Page 509 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 90 acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.City of Boulder Transportation Report on Progress Snapshot b.Los Angeles Department of Transportation Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines c.TransModeler microsimulation results for the project Evaluation Criterion: Vehicular level of service 1.Definition: Provide a corridor that is feasible to navigate for vehicular modes (including private, emergency response, and transit vehicles) as measured by change in volume to capacity ratio and level of service (LOS) of the corridor’s signalized intersections. 2.Methodology: Quantitative analysis of the relative vehicle level of service for each movement at each signalized intersection based on TransModeler modeling in the AM and PM peak hours. 3.Methodology Rationale: Maintain existing LOS and delay is neutral; positive or negative scores depending on changes to level of service or delay. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards b.Transportation for America Level of Service Guide c.Los Angeles Department of Transportation Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines d.NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide e.TransModeler microsimulation results for the project f.Data collection from existing conditions in Fall 2024. Evaluation Criterion: Non-signalized vehicle access 1.Definition: Improve safety and efficiency of access to and from adjacent properties and non- signalized side streets based on assessing the likelihood of blocked driveways and egresses due to queue lengths. 2.Methodology: Quantitative analysis based on TransModeler modeling of the alternatives that evaluates the change in blocked driveways and egresses from the 95th percentile queues compared to existing conditions. 3.Methodology Rationale: Access to properties via dedicated turn lanes rather than through travel lanes improves user comfort and safety. This is balanced with the frequency and length of gaps in traffic streams to facilitate turns out of side streets and driveways safely and without excess delay. The project team evaluated the ability of each alternative to improve ease, comfort, and safety of access. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.Access Management (Driveways) | FHWA (dot.gov) b.Access Management: Benefits of Access Management Brochure - FHWA Operations (dot.gov) Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 115 Packet Page 510 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 91 c. TransModeler microsimulation results for the project d. Data collection from existing conditions in Fall 2024. Evaluation Criterion: Day-to-day emergency response 1. Definition: Provide space for emergency response vehicles to move through traffic to respond to day-to-day emergencies. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of the widths available for private vehicles to move aside and for emergency response vehicles to operate on typical roadway segments (not evaluated at infrequent physically constrained locations, such as bridge decks). 3. Methodology Rationale: Assessment informed by review with City of Boulder Fire and Police departments to determine if alternatives have the potential to change current day-to- day emergency response. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: a. Methodology is based on discussions with City of Boulder-Fire Rescue and Police Department, and Boulder County Office of Disaster Management b. FHWA – Road Diet Emergency Response Times c. NACTO – Best Practices Emergency Access in Healthy Streets Evaluation Criterion: Disaster emergency response 1. Definition: Provide space for private vehicles to evacuate during a disaster and for disaster emergency response vehicles to move through traffic. 2. Methodology: Quantitative assessment of widths available for emergency response vehicles and number of travel lanes available, and professional judgment. 3. Methodology Rationale: The team evaluated the protected bike lane design widths, the presence, or not, of center two-way left-turn lanes, and the number of through lanes available for disaster emergency response. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/References: i. How Cycle Paths Can Be Used by Emergency Services ii. Methodology based on discussions with City of Boulder Fire Department. iii. University of Wisconsin – Reducing Lanes for Cars Doesn’t Slow 911 Response iv. NACTO – Best Practices Emergency Access in Healthy Streets Evaluation Category: Transit Service Evaluation Criterion: Bus stop type and amenities 1. Definition: Provide space for floating bus stops and amenities such as shelters within the stop area. 2. Methodology: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the space available for floating stops and the space available at stops to accommodate a transit shelter. 3. Methodology Rationale: The experience at the bus stops where riders get on and off the bus significantly affects one’s transit experience. The infrastructure and amenities present at stops determine the comfort, safety, and accessibility of the transit experience and are key factors in determining transit ridership and perception of transit. RTD’s Bus Infrastructure Design Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 116 Packet Page 511 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 92 Guidelines and Criteria adopted in 2016 provides guidance that stops with more than 40 boardings per day should be considered for a shelter. Shared bus stops have the potential for conflicts between boarding and alighting transit users with people riding bikes, whereas floating bus stops create separate spaces for boarding and alighting from the bike facility, and decrease conflicts between buses and people riding bikes. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines and Criteria, RTD b.Transit Street Design Guide, NACTO Evaluation Criterion: Corridor bus travel time 1.Definition: The change in the 95th percentile vehicle end-to-end travel time between Diagonal Highway and Arapahoe Avenue based on microsimulation traffic modeling (TransModeler) in the AM and PM peak periods for northbound and southbound travel. 2.Methodology: Quantitative assessment of travel time measured as an output of microsimulation traffic modeling (TransModeler). Due to the lack of transit-oriented right-of- way and signaling, transit travel times were assumed to scale with vehicle travel times per each alternative and were assigned the same score. 3.Methodology Rationale: The 2019 TMP targets maintaining 1994 levels of travel times on Boulder arterial streets, as well as improving travel time reliability and predictability. The TMP found that, for the drive time study corridors, average travel times have increased by 1 minute, or 15%, since baseline year. A travel time increase of up to 15% is therefore rated as acceptable for north 30th Street with any additional 15-point increments resulting in successively lower ratings. Any travel time exceeding a 15% increase is evaluated for acceptability and considers the multimodal safety improvements created along with vehicle travel time increases. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions. 5.Source/References: a.TransModeler microsimulation results for the project Evaluation Category: Safe and Comfortable Connections Evaluation Criterion: Biking comfort 1.Definition: Provide a bike route that implements the City of Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan recommendation for vertically separated bike lanes for north 30th Street and scores a 1 or 2 on the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scale. 2.Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation according to the city’s Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan and to the Oregon DOT LTS metric, assigning scores based on buffer space and facility width. 3.Methodology Rationale: The Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies 30th Street as part of the low stress network. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.Oregon DOT Level of Traffic Stress Methodologies, Exhibit 14-4 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 117 Packet Page 512 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 93 b.The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Evaluation Criterion: Walking comfort 1.Definition: Provide a pedestrian route that can reduce the City of Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan pedestrian stress factors and scores to a 1 or 2 on the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scale. 2.Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation according to the city’s Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan and to the Oregon DOT LTS metric, assigning scores based on sidewalk condition and width, buffer type and width, bike lane width, number of lanes and posted speed, and land use 3.Methodology Rationale: The Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies 30th Street for walking improvements. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.Oregon DOT Level of Traffic Stress Methodologies, Exhibit 14-4 b.The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Evaluation Criterion: Crossing safety & comfort 1.Definition: Evaluate the spatial availability for safe roadway crossing elements, such as pedestrian refuge islands, raised crossings, and bulb outs for reduced crossings distances. 2.Methodology: A quantitative evaluation of the amount of space available for safe roadway crossing elements. 3.Methodology Rationale: The Boulder Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies north 30th Street as part of the low stress network, which includes crossing 30th Street to access destinations and other low-stress routes. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5.Source/References: a.Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas, FHWA b.Crosswalks and Crossings, NACTO c.Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines, Boulder Evaluation Category: Implementation feasibility Evaluation Criterion: Time to design and implement 1.Definition: The time and effort needed to implement the alternative as well as other factors that could complicate implementation, like necessary permits. 2.Methodology: A qualitative assessment of implementation complexity and risks to the project including Right-of-Way needs, floodplain permitting, traffic control and phasing. 3.Methodology Rationale: Preliminary estimates for permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and phasing based on professional experience implementing similar alternatives. 4.Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5.Source/References: Recently completed comparable capital improvements projects. Evaluation Criterion: Cost to implement 1.Definition: Order of magnitude planning level opinion of probable cost for construction. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 118 Packet Page 513 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 94 2. Methodology: Quantitative, measured using a scale of orders of magnitude for comparison purposes only. 3. Methodology Rationale: Cost to implement estimates are developed for each alternative and include right-of-way, utility and stormwater relocation costs, costs of tree removal, and high-level construction cost estimates. Costs do not consider additional engineering or construction management and oversight as these costs would be similar for all alternatives. Full cost estimates will not be developed until later in the design process when more detailed design is completed. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: Professional judgment and recent City of Boulder and Denver Metro Area project cost data. Evaluation Criterion: Right-of-Way property acquisition 1. Definition: Analysis of the number and size of permanent easements needed. 2. Methodology: Quantitative measure of the number and size of required permanent easements. 3. Methodology Rationale: Completing the project in a reasonable time frame while minimizing impacts on adjacent projects are goals of the North 30th Street project. The project team seeks to minimize impacts by adjusting designs and looking for ways to accommodate an alternative within the existing right-of-way. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: a. Right-of-way survey b. Field walk data Evaluation Criterion: Maintenance 1. Definition: A measure of added maintenance needs for transportation infrastructure, snow and ice response and street sweeping. 2. Methodology: Qualitative analysis of additional labor and equipment required for snow and ice response and street sweeping, and long-term maintenance and material replacement for added infrastructure. 3. Methodology Rationale: Additional maintenance needs increase costs and require an ongoing commitment from the city. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other 5. Source/References: Discussions with City of Boulder Transportation & Mobility Maintenance department. Evaluation Category: Urban design and placemaking Evaluation Criterion: Preserves existing public street trees 1. Definition: A measure of required public tree removals due to design changes. 2. Methodology: Quantitative analysis of net public tree removals or relocations using the City of Boulder tree inventory. 3. Methodology Rationale: The City of Boulder Forestry Department Urban Forestry Strategic Plan and supporting Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies (BVCP 2.38 Importance of Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 119 Packet Page 514 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 95 Urban Canopy, Street Trees and Streetscapes, and BVCP 3.12 Urban Forests), identify the urban forest, public street trees and tree canopy as important. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to each other. 5. Source/References: a. City of Boulder Urban Forestry Strategic Plan b. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) i. BVCP 2.38 Recognizes the Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees and Streetscapes ii. BVCP 3.12 Urban Forests b. Tree Inventory Open Data Evaluation Criterion: Opportunities for new landscaping and urban design features 1. Definition: The overall corridor experience based on landscaping and public amenities, based on available space for such elements and the inclusion of landscaping. 2. Methodology: A qualitative and quantitative assessment of locations to add landscaping, public art seating areas, lighting, and other amenities. 3. Methodology Rationale: To encourage a low-stress walking environment, assess potential improvements and new landscape opportunities. 4. Comparison Metric: Alternatives compared to existing conditions 5. Source/ Reference: a. City of Boulder: Streetscape Design and Tree Protection b. NACTO Urban Streets Stormwater Guide c. Green Infrastructure Design Strategies Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 120 Packet Page 515 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 96 Attachment C: Goals Assessment An input to the CEAP evaluation is the CEAP goals assessment. Below is how the North 30th Street Preliminary Design project aligns with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). 1. Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and benefits that the project will help to achieve: a. Community Sustainability Goals: How does the project improve the quality of economic, environmental and social health with future generations in mind? The North 30th Preliminary Design Project helps the city achieve its: • Social health goals by providing an all ages and abilities corridor with safer and more comfortable transportation options no matter how someone chooses to travel. • Economic goals by the provision of and investment in infrastructure that attracts, sustains and retains businesses, entrepreneurs, workers, and customers, and by ensuring safe and comfortable connections to destinations along the corridor and on the broader city transportation network. • Environmental goals by providing safe and comfortable multimodal transportation options which can reduce vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled and thus reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources and greenhouse gas emissions. These changes can also protect water and air quality through utilization of existing infrastructure, by preserving existing public street trees, and through the reduction of mobile source emissions. b. BVCP Goals related to: • Community Design: • Policies: 2.03 Compact Development Pattern, 2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees & Streetscapes: The project supports these policies by enabling safe travel by biking and walking which supports a more compact development pattern, and by implementing improvements within the current roadway to avoid a significant number of tree removals. The recommendation is anticipated to preserve or replace 100% of existing street trees. • Facilities and Services: • Policy: 8.13 Support for Community Facilities: The project supports this policy by safely connecting City and County community facilities throughout the corridor and prioritizing emergency response from Fire Station #3 (30th and Bluff streets) and Boulder Police Headquarters (east of 30th Street & Canyon Boulevard). • Policies: 2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees & Streetscapes, 3.22 Floodplain Management: The project supports these policies by implementing improvements within the current roadway to avoid a significant number of tree removals. The recommendation is anticipated to reconstruct only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor resulting in 100% of existing street trees being preserved or replaced. • Economy: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 121 Packet Page 516 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 97 • Policy: 5.03 Diverse Mix of Uses and Business Types: The project supports this policy by improving connections to and from the diverse uses and businesses in the central and south segments and the residential areas in the north segment. • Transportation: • Policies: 2.25 Improve Mobility Grid & Connections, 2.26 Trail Corridors/Linkages, and all the Transportation section policies 6.01-6.24.: The project supports these policies by improving safety and connectivity between the roadway, existing bike facilities, and trail networks, including the Wonderland Creek and Goose Creek Paths. It will also connect with planned regional improvements, including the Diagonal Bikeway and Diagonal Flyer BRT service between Boulder and Longmont . This project provides the largest benefits to the BVCP goals related to transportation. • Housing: The North 30th project does not directly support any of the housing goals. Enhanced multimodal safety and connectivity supports modal choice, and thereby, access to the diversity of housing types located along the north 30th Street corridor and envisioned in the BVCP. • Social Concerns and Human Services: • Policy: 8.07 Safety: The project supports this policy by improving safety for all roadway users which reduces the need for day-to-day emergency response, while also maintaining roadway space during a disaster emergency response. c. Describe any regional goals (potential benefits or impacts to regional systems or plans?) In 2021, the BVCP affirmed the city’s long-standing approach to creating an all-mode transportation system that provides safe connections for everyone, no matter how they travel. 2. Is this project referenced in a master plan, subcommunity or area plan? If so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not? From 2016 to 2018, the City collaborated with the University of Colorado Boulder on the 30th and Colorado Corridors Study. This study identified transportation improvements for 30th Street between Baseline Road and Pearl Street and recommended a design to make 30th street between Colorado Avenue and Pearl Street safer for everyone. The North 30th project built on this initial concept design and identifies additional improvements for the 30th Street corridor. 30th Street is designated as a high priority bicycle route in the city’s 2019 TMP. In 2019, the Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan recommended enhancing separation and protection between vehicle and bicycle lanes on 30th Street, alongside improving pedestrian facilities in critical areas because 30th Street has more than three vehicle lanes, a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, and an average daily traffic volume exceeding 6,000 vehicles. In 2022, the Safe Streets Report (SSR) highlighted significant traffic safety concerns in Boulder. Between 2018 and 2020, there were 14,500 crashes involving 150 serious injuries. Arterial streets like north 30th Street accounted for 67% of these severe crashes, with specific hotspots identified at intersections such as Arapahoe, Pearl, Valmont, and Diagonal. The SSR also identified crash types that disproportionately affected vulnerable groups like young people and Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 122 Packet Page 517 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 98 seniors. Community feedback consistently expressed concerns about safety while walking or biking on north 30th, despite the significant number of daily users. The 2023 – 2027 Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) identified the High Risk Network (HRN), 7% of the city’s street network have nearly half of all severe crashes. 30th Street between Valmont Road and Arapahoe Avenue is on the HRN. The VZAP identified reactive and proactive actions to manage risk and mitigate crashes, including prioritizing work on the HRN and Core Arterial Network (CAN). 30th Street is a CAN corridor. 3. Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any departmental master plan and what are the trade-offs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? (e.g. higher financial investment to gain better long-term services or fewer environmental impacts) No. 4. List other city projects in the project area that are listed in a departmental master plan or the CIP. o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th between Colorado Avenue and Arapahoe Avenue (2024-2025) as part of the 30th Street Multimodal Improvements Project. o East Arapahoe Avenue Bus and Turn Lanes project will repurpose one general purpose lane to bus and turn lane in each direction from 28th Street to 63rd St in the Summer and Fall of 2025. o Sidewalk-level protected bike lanes on 30th Street between Colorado Avenue and Aurora Ave (2026-2027). o Filling in missing links in the multi-use path system and enhancing bus stops along Arapahoe Avenue between 38th/Marine streets and Cherryvale Road (2025). o Final design and implementation of the Arapahoe Avenue corridor from Culver Court to 33rd Avenue as part of Safe Streets for All projects (2026/2027), which includes protected bike lanes and the repurposing of the outer vehicle lanes to business access and transit (BAT) lanes. 5. What are the major city, state, and federal standards that will apply to the proposed project? How will the project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations (e.g. environmental, health, safety, or transportation standards)? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance states that lane repurposing is typically implemented on roadways with an average daily traffic of 25,000 vehicles or less and does not recommend removing a bicycle facility where one exists. FHWA recognizes lane repurposing, or road diets, as a street width reduction that can calm traffic speeds. All new transportation infrastructure constructed as part of the project will meet or exceed the updated City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 6. Are there cumulative impacts to any resources from this and other projects that need to be recognized and mitigated? Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 123 Packet Page 518 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 99 No, this project will be implemented mostly within the current roadway requiring minimal reconstruction resulting in minimal hardscape changes and maintenance of the existing public street tree canopy. This project mitigates changes to capacity for services such as police and fire. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 124 Packet Page 519 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 100 Attachment D: CEAP Checklist Evaluation for the Conceptual Design Alternatives The CEAP checklist rates each alternative (+) Positive effect, (-) Negative effect, and (0) No effect. Only criteria that had alternative impacts are shown. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Recommendation A. Natural Areas or Features 1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, or ecosystems due to: a. Construction activities - 0 - 0 f. Habitat removal - 0 - 0 h. Changes to groundwater or surface runoff - 0 - 0 2. Loss of mature trees or significant plants? - 0 - 0 D. Geology and Soils d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site? - 0 - 0 E. Water Quality 1. Impacts to water quality from any of the following? a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities - 0 + 0 b. Change in hardscape - 0 + 0 c. Change in site ground features - 0 + 0 d. Change in storm drainage - 0 + 0 e. Change in vegetation - 0 + 0 F. Air Quality 1. Short or long term impacts to air quality (CO2 emissions, pollutants)? Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 125 Packet Page 520 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 101 a. From mobile sources? + + + + K. Physiological Well-being 1. Exposure to Excessive Noise - 0 + + L. Services 1. Additional Need for: d. Police Services 0 - - 0 e. Fire Protection Services 0 - - 0 h. Transportation improvements/ traffic mitigation 0 - - 0 M. Special Populations 1. Effects on: a. Person with disabilities? + + + + b. Senior population? + + + + c. Children or youth? + + + + d. Restricted income persons? + + + + e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants)? + + + + f. Neighborhoods + + + + g. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g. schools, hospitals, nursing homes)? + + + + N. Economy 1. Utilization of existing infrastructure? - + - + Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 126 Packet Page 521 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 102 Attachment E: CEAP Checklist Questions City of Boulder Community and Environmental Assessment Process Checklist Questions Note: The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. Only those questions indicated on the checklist are to be answered in full. Natural Areas and Features 1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant communities, wildlife habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below. (Significant species include any species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county lists.) a. Construction activities Mature trees may provide habitat, but this has not been evaluated for the project. It is assumed that by removing trees the potential for providing habitat is also removed. All alternatives will disturb wildlife habitats due to construction activity. Alternative A receives a negative score for impact to natural areas or features, Alternative B a neutral score, and Alternative C a negative score as compared to existing conditions because: Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed and existing landscaped areas would be disturbed. Alternative B requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and build a liner park in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, nearly 10% of the existing street trees, mostly in the south segment, would be removed. However, Alternative C would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. The recommendation receives a neutral score for impact to natural areas as compared to existing conditions because: • Only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction • 100% of existing street trees and landscaping are preserved or replaced Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 127 Packet Page 522 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 103 • Strategic vehicle lane repurposing and removal of right turn slip lanes at intersections may provide space for additional street trees and landscaping • As a result, storm water runoff and urban heat are unchanged from today b. Native vegetation removal c. Human or domestic animal encroachment d. Chemicals to be stored or used on the site (including petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activities) Alternatives B and C will have a positive effect because each proposes three vehicle lanes, which will reduce road noise and therefore reduce the potential for behavior displacement of wildlife species. Alternative A maintains four vehicle lanes and so will have no effect on road noise and so will continue any current behavioral displacement of wildlife species due to road noise. The recommendation strategically repurposes vehicle lanes which may reduce road noise, though not as much as end-to-end lane repurposing in Alternatives B and C, and will therefore somewhat reduce the potential for behavior displacement of wildlife species. f. Habitat removal It is assumed that removing trees removes the potential for providing habitat. Alternative A will have the greatest negative impact on habitat removal because it requires removal of 25% of existing street trees. Alternative C will have a negative impact on habitat removal because it requires removal of nearly 10% of existing street trees, though it would result in a net increase in landscaped areas and trees after project completion. Alternative B will have no effect on habitat removal because all existing street trees would be preserved. The recommendation will have no to minimal effect on habitat removal because 100% of existing street trees would be preserved or replaced. g. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping h. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surface runoff (storm drainage, natural stream) on the site The recommendation will have no change to stormwater runoff because only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction, and strategic vehicle lane repurposing may provide space for additional street trees and landscaping. Alternative B has no effect to groundwater because it is implemented within the existing roadway width. Alternatives A and C require extensive reconstruction of the roadway and would impact surface runoff with increased hardscape along the corridor. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 128 Packet Page 523 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 104 i. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term (construction- related) or long term j. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site 2. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants Alternative A will remove nearly 25% of existing street trees. Alternative C will remove nearly 10% of existing street trees, though it would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. Alternative B will not remove any existing street trees. The recommendation will preserve or replace all existing street trees. Of the 197 existing trees, 164 will be preserved and 33 will be removed and replaced (29 will be replaced in the same area, 4 will be replaced elsewhere on the corridor). Of the 33 needing removed, design changes may be made to avoid removal of six trees. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Impacts to existing street trees vary between the alternatives. Only trees located within the public right-of-way are impacted. All trees on private property will remain, with potential trimming if low-hanging branches and/or limbs are impeding existing or new sidewalks and bike lanes. Alternative A will have the greatest negative impact because it requires removal of nearly 25% of existing street trees. Alternative C will have a negative impact because it requires removal of nearly 10% of existing street trees, though it would result in a net increase in landscaped area and trees after project completion. Alternative B has no effect because it will not remove any existing street trees. The recommendation will preserve or replace all existing street trees, and strategic vehicle lane repurposing may provide space for additional street trees. • A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1. A list of plant and animal species and plant communities of special concern found on the site; 2. A wildlife habitat evaluation of the site. • Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat. Riparian Areas and Floodplains See Attachment F for Floodplain Impact Assessment memo from consultant, Drexel, Barrell & Co. 1. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones. 2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor: (This includes impacts to the existing channel of flow, streambanks, Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 129 Packet Page 524 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 105 adjacent riparian zone extending 50 ft. out from each bank, and any existing drainage from the site to a creek or stream.) • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts to habitat, vegetation, aquatic life, or water quality. • A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other water bodies on or near the project site. • A map showing the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and high hazard flood zones relative to the project site. Wetlands See Attachment F for Floodplain Impact Assessment memo from consultant, Drexel, Barrell & Co. 1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that may result from the project. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • A map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those wetlands and buffer areas which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criteria (definitional). Geology and Soils 1. Describe any: a. Impacts to unique geologic or physical features; b. Geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or landslide, erosion, or subsidence; c. Substantial changes in topography; or d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site that may result from the project. Alternative B requires no to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, there would be no to minimal disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to provide sidewalk- level protected bike lanes and add landscape and amenity areas in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, there would be significant disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. The recommendation will require reconstruction of only 18% of the roadway and will result in minimal disturbance to geology and soils outside of the existing roadway. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 130 Packet Page 525 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 106 • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or geologic conditions on the site. Water Quality 1. Describe any impacts to water quality that may result from any of the following: a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities that will be involved with the project; Alternative B will have no effect on excavation, grading, or other construction activities because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. Alternative A and C will have a negative effect because they both require excavation and grading or other construction activities. Alternative A has a greater negative effect because it requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. This requires extensive ground clearing and excavation. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct protected bike lanes and provide additional landscape areas in the south segment of the corridor. During construction there would be a need for ground clearing and excavation. The recommendation will have minimal effect on excavation, grading, or other construction activities because only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. b. Changes in the amount of hardscape (paving, cement, brick, or buildings) in the project area; Alternative A will result in an increase in hardscape in order to preserve the existing number of vehicle lands and add protected bike lanes. Alternative B will have no effect to hardscape because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. Alternative C will have a net increase in landscaped areas, especially in the south segment of the corridor. The recommendation will have no effect to hardscape because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. Any new hardscaped areas will be offset with new opportunities for additional landscaping where space allows. c. Permanent changes in site ground features such as paved areas or changes in topography; Alternative A and C will have a negative effect on site ground features because they both require clearing, excavation, and grading during construction. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 131 Packet Page 526 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 107 Alternative B will have no effect on site ground features because it can be implemented within the current roadway width. The recommendation will have minimal effect on site ground features because only 18% of the 1.5-mile corridor requires curb realignment and reconstruction. d. Changes in the storm drainage from the site after project completion; Alternative A will have a negative effect because it results in an increase in hardscape and results in greater runoff. Alternative B will have no effect on storm drainage because it can be implemented within the current roadway width and so does not increase runoff. Though Alternative C requires changes to stormwater infrastructure due to curb realignment and reconstruction, the net increase in landscaped areas would have a positive effect on runoff. The recommendation will have no effect on storm drainage because curb realignment and reconstruction are minimal and no changes to existing stormwater infrastructure are needed. e. Change in vegetation; Alternative A will have a negative effect on vegetation because it requires curb realignment and reconstruction, resulting in increases in hardscape and public street tree removals. Alternative B will have no effect on vegetation because it can be built within the current roadway width. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction, but the net increase in landscaped areas would have a positive impact on vegetation. The recommendation will have no effect on vegetation because curb realignment and reconstruction are minimal, and it provides opportunities to add landscaping and street trees where strategic lane repurposing and right-turn slip lane removal is implemented. f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic; g. Potential pollution sources during and after construction (may include temporary or permanent use or storage of petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides). 2. Describe any pumping of groundwater that may be anticipated either during construction or as a result of the project. If excavation or pumping is planned, what is known about groundwater contamination in the surrounding area (1/4 mile in all directions from the project) and the direction of groundwater flow? All alternatives and the recommendation have no effect on groundwater pumping. During construction of the recommendation, surface water runoff will be treated by installing Best Management Practices (BMPs) according to the Colorado Storm Water Discharge Permit. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 132 Packet Page 527 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 108 • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • Information from city water quality files and other sources (state oil inspector or the CDPHE) on sites with soil and groundwater impacts within 1/4 mile radius of project or site. • If impacts to site are possible, either from past activities at site or from adjacent sites, perform a Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment prior to further design of the project. • Groundwater levels from borings or temporary piezometers prior to proposed dewatering or installation of drainage structures. Air Quality 1. Describe potential short or long term impacts to air quality resulting from this project. Distinguish between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS). All alternatives and the recommendation have positive effects on air quality because they provide safer walking and bicycling options along the corridor, which can reduce mobile source emissions. All alternatives and the recommendation provide safer and more comfortable multimodal facilities which transportation research finds results in a reduction in fine particulate emissions from vehicles. All alternatives incorporate proven safety countermeasures that support people having more transportation choices and a corresponding reduction in vehicle trips, reduction in vehicle emissions, and improved air quality. However, Alternatives B and C and the recommendation may see an increased level of air quality due to the reduction of vehicle lanes, more safety improvements for people walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit, and increased landscaped areas along the corridor compared to Alternative A. Emissions from construction equipment would have a short term effect on air quality during construction. The effects of the emissions would be negligible because of the small number of short term emission sources. The manufacture and use of construction materials can produce short-term impacts to air quality at the manufacture or construction site. The general types of construction and construction materials are similar for all alternatives. Resource Conservation 1. Describe potential changes in water use that may result from the project. a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility. b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation system). 2. Describe potential increases or decreases in energy use that may result from the project. a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the building design. b. Describe plans for using renewable energy sources on the project or how renewable energy sources will be incorporated into the building design? c. Describe how the project will be built to LEED standards. 3. Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 133 Packet Page 528 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 109 a. If potential impacts to waste generation have been identified, please describe plans for recycling and waste minimization (deconstruction, reuse, recycling, green points). Cultural/Historic Resources 1. Describe any impacts to: a. a prehistoric or historic archaeological site; b. a building or structure over fifty years of age; c. a historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch; or d. significant agricultural lands that may result from the project. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Visual Quality 1. Describe any effects on: a. scenic vistas or views open to the public; b. the aesthetics of a site open to public view; or c. view corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features that may result from the project. Safety 1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from the project. 2. Describe measures for the disposal of hazardous materials. 3. Describe any additional hazards that may result from the project. (Including risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts during or after site construction through management of hazardous materials or application of safety precautions. Physiological Well-being 1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise, light or glare caused by any phase of the project (construction or operations). All alternatives would have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 134 Packet Page 529 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 110 After construction and project implementation, Alternative A has a negative effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because it requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add sidewalk-level protected bike lanes. As a result, nearly 25% of existing street trees would be removed. Street trees and landscaped areas help mitigate noise pollution to adjacent properties. Further, preserving vehicle lanes throughout the corridor would not result in a reduction of road noise for nearby residents. After construction and project implementation, Alternative B would have a positive effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because it requires none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, it is assumed that all existing street trees and landscaped areas would be preserved, which would preserve the same level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties as today. However, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would reduce road noise for nearby residents resulting in less exposure to noise pollution for nearby residents. Alternative C would have a positive effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because it would increase the number of street trees and landscaped areas along the corridor. As a result, Alternative C would provide the greatest level of noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties among the alternatives. Further, vehicle speed reduction as a result of lane repurposing would also reduce road noise for nearby residents. The recommendation has a positive effect on exposure to excessive noise, light or glare because strategic lane repurposing would reduce road noise through vehicle speed reduction and often move vehicle travel lanes away from the property line. The recommendation also preserves or replaces 100% of existing street trees, providing noise pollution mitigation to adjacent properties All alternatives and the recommendation would have a temporary negative impact on noise levels during construction. 2. Describe any increase in vibrations or odor that may result from the project. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Services 1. Describe any increased need for the following services as a result of the project: a. Water or sanitary sewer services b. Storm sewer / Flood control features c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes d. Police services Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 135 Packet Page 530 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 111 All alternatives improve safety on the corridor which may decrease the demand for police and fire services responding to traffic crashes or other traffic related incidents. Alternative A maintains the current number of vehicle lanes and provides less speed moderation and safety improvements, such as protected intersection elements, compared to the other alternatives. Therefore, it is anticipated to be less effective at decreasing the frequency and severity of crashes involving vulnerable road users. However, Alternative A preserves the same space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today. Alternatives B and C and the recommendation moderate speeds and crash potential by repurposing vehicle lanes throughout all or part of the corridor and provide space at intersections for protected intersection elements. It is anticipated these alternatives would be more effective at decreasing the frequency and severity of crashes involving vulnerable road users compared to Alternative A. However, Alternatives B and C provide less space for emergency vehicles to operate through the corridor compared to today. The recommendation provides a center turn lane in the central and north segments and key additional space in critical locations to support emergency vehicle operations to mitigate impacts from vehicle lane repurposing. e. Fire protection Alternative A has no effect on fire operations because it maintains the current vehicle lanes and room for emergency response vehicles. Alternatives B and C repurpose vehicle lanes throughout the corridor and thus provide less space for emergency vehicles to operate. The recommendation has a neutral impact on fire operations because it provides a center turn lane in the central and north segments and key additional space in critical locations to support emergency vehicle operations. Traffic signals at Bluff Street, Valmont Road, Spruce Street, and Pearl Street provide pre-emption for emergency response to and through intersections. f. Recreation or parks facilities g. Libraries h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation Please refer to the Project Specific Evaluation Results section for more detail. i. Parking j. Affordable housing k. Open space/urban open land l. Power or energy use m. Telecommunications n. Health care/social services Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 136 Packet Page 531 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 112 o. Trash removal or recycling services 2. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master plans as a result of this project. (e.g. budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views) Special Populations 1. Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations: a. Persons with disabilities b. Senior population c. Children or Youth d. Restricted income persons e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants) f. Sensitive Populations located near the project (e.g. adjacent neighborhoods or property owners, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) All alternatives and the recommendation have a positive impact on special populations because they all provide improved sidewalks, transit stops, protected bike lanes, safety improvements for drivers, improvements at intersections, new mid-block crossings, and Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramp compliance work. This will positively impact the travel experience of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth and sensitive populations who are more likely to walk, bike, roll or use transit to travel. Alternatives B and C and the recommendation would have a greater positive effect as there are more safety improvements, such as protected intersections, compared to Alternative A. • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. • A description of how the proposed project would benefit special populations. Economic Vitality 1. Describe how the project will enhance economic activity in the city or region or generate economic opportunities? 2. Describe any potential impacts to: a. businesses in the vicinity of the project (ROW, access or parking) All alternatives and the recommendation provide safer walking and biking connections to businesses along the corridor. All alternatives and the recommendations propose some access changes to reduce conflicts, common crash types, and make connections safer for everyone. The recommendation proposes driveway closures and the addition/extension of medians to manage access at driveways and reduce conflicts between vehicles at the following locations: Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 137 Packet Page 532 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 113 • Conoco Gas Station, 2990 Diagonal Highway: Closing second driveway south of the 30th and Diagonal intersection. The property still has 2 access points, one off 30th Street and one off Diagonal Highway • Diagonal Plaza, 3307 30th Street: Driveway north of Corona Trail changes to right-in, right-out (RIRO) with constructed median • Brookdale North Boulder, 3350 30th Street: Southernmost driveway changes to RIRO with constructed median • Sage Court Apartments, 2965 Valmont Road: Driveway north of Valmont changes to RIRO with constructed median • Orchard Grove, 3003 Valmont Road: Driveway east of 30th/Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median. Driveway further east remains full access. • Big O Tires, 3000 Valmont Road: Driveways south and east of 30th/Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median • 3044 Valmont Road Plaza: Driveway east of 3000 Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median • Circle K Gas Station, 2995 30th Street: Driveway immediately west and south of 30th/Valmont is closed; driveway south of 30th/Valmont is modified and changes to RIRO with construction of new median • Las 10 Americas Carniceria, 2887 30th Street: Driveway south of 30th/Valmont changes to RIRO with construction of new median • 2410 30th Street Plaza: Driveway changes to RIRO with painted median in response to a history of crash patterns. • Google, 2930 Pearl Street: Driveway south of building on 30th Street changes to RIRO with construction of new median • Midas Auto Repair / Market Square Shopping Center, 3000 Walnut Street: Driveway east of 30th/Walnut changes to RIRO b. employment, c. retail sales or city revenue and how they might be mitigated. Alternatives A and C have a negative impact on utilizing existing infrastructure because they require curb realignment and reconstruction. Alternative A requires curb realignment and reconstruction to preserve the existing number of vehicle lanes and add protected bike lanes. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. Alternative C also requires curb realignment and reconstruction to construct sidewalk-level protected bike lanes and add areas for landscaping and urban amenities in the south segment of the corridor. As a result, new utility and roadway infrastructure would be needed. Alternative B and the recommendation require none to minimal curb realignment and reconstruction. As a result, all or most of the existing utility and roadway infrastructure would be maintained and repurposed for on-street protected bike lanes and improved transit facilities. The recommendation accommodates snow storage and city maintenance vehicles. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 138 Packet Page 533 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 114 Attachment F: Floodplain Impact Assessment Memo May 16, 2025 City of Boulder Transportation & Mobility 1101 Arapahoe Avenue, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80302 Attention: Gerrit Slatter, P.E. Subject: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project, Floodplain Impact Assessment Mr. Slatter, The purpose of this memo is to describe potential impacts to the floodplains associated with the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project. The City and their consultant Toole provided a preliminary design in May 2025 (00DEN.00247_X_GT.dwg). DBC also coordinated with City Transportation staff and independent reviewers to complete this assessment. Existing Conditions: The North 30th Street project corridor crosses four (4) regulatory floodplains as described below from north to south. Screen shots of the existing floodplain mapping are attached to this memo in Figures 1-4. 1. Wonderland Creek – Wonderland Creek flows from northwest to southeast under the Diagonal at the north end of the project. The floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are contained in a pedestrian undercrossing. 2. Goose Creek – Goose Creek flows east under the intersection of 30th Street and Mapleton Avenue. The floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are contained in a pedestrian undercrossing. 3. Boulder Slough – The Boulder Slough is a tributary to Boulder Creek, and flows east under 30th Street, approximately 350 feet south of Pearl Street. The Slough is conveyed by a double box culvert and pedestrian and flood underpass. The floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are mapped across the roadway as shown in LOMR 18-08-1141P dated 3/5/2019. 4. Boulder Creek, Arapahoe Avenue Split – The Arapahoe Avenue Split flow path of Boulder Creek flows east along Arapahoe Avenue. The entirety of the intersection of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue is in the floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone. Project Considerations: The North 30th Street project will not impact any pedestrian underpass and flood structures or culverts in floodplains. Therefore, there are no floodplain impacts or mapping changes due to the project. Further considerations are listed below. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 139 Packet Page 534 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 115 1. The components of the Project at the intersection of Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street will be covered under a future Arapahoe Avenue Multimodal Improvement Project. 2. The effective hydraulic model for the Boulder Slough shows that the floodplain, floodway, and high hazard zone are contained in an underpass and flood structure (bridge) that will not be modified by the Project. 3. The Project improvements do not include any work in waterways that would cause impacts to wetlands (Figure 5). Stormwater Master Planning: The City of Boulder 2016 Stormwater Master Plan identified City-wide recommended improvements to the stormwater systems. There are three Collector System Projects along the North 30th Corridor that were developed in 2016 that are described below and identified in the attached Plan excerpts. The Transportation department should coordinate with Utilities to incorporate any stormwater improvements into the Project. 1. MBC_18 – Middle Boulder Creek 2. GC_06 – Pearl and 30th Pipe Replacement 3. GC_07 – 30th and Corona Pipe Replacement Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Michelle Iblings, P.E. Associate, Project Manager miblings@drexelbarrell.com Attachments: Figures 1-4. FEMA and City of Boulder Floodplain, Floodway, and High Hazard Zones Figure ES-4 and Table 8.2-1 from the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 140 Packet Page 535 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 116 Figure 1. Wonderland Creek at the Diagonal Highway and 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 141 Packet Page 536 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 117 Figure 2. Goose Creek at Mapleton Ave and 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 142 Packet Page 537 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 118 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 143 Packet Page 538 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 119 Figure 3. Boulder Slough at 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 144 Packet Page 539 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 120 Figure 4. Boulder Creek at Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 145 Packet Page 540 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 121 Figure 5. North 30th Street Corridor Wetlands Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 146 Packet Page 541 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 122 Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 147 Packet Page 542 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 123 Attachment G: Existing Street Tree Inventory and Recommendation Impacts June 16, 2025 City of Boulder Forestry 5200 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80301 Attention: Ken Fisher, Forestry Division Subject: North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project, Street Tree Removals Forestry Division, The purpose of this memo is to describe and document the tree removals associated with the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project on 30th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Diagonal Highway. The CEAP recommended design, presented to City Council for approval in June 2025, is a hybrid of three alternatives developed through a week-long design workshop in January 2025. The Forestry Division provided feedback on the three alternatives to Transportation and Mobility staff during the design workshop week, and staff held a follow-up meeting on the corridor in April 2025 to review the recommended design and associated tree removals. The recommendation can be implemented mostly within the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and so preserves existing public street trees or replaces any street trees that need to be removed. It is anticipated that 21 public street trees will be removed and replaced in the same area, and two street trees will be removed and replaced elsewhere on the corridor, for a total of 23 street tree removals and replacements. Reimbursements from Transportation and Mobility to Forestry are not proposed since this project is able to replace all 23 trees removed. In the next stage of the design, the project will: • Develop detailed planting and irrigation plans in consultation with Transportation and Mobility Maintenance. • Identify specific locations for new trees and planting sites in existing landscaping areas or new landscaped areas created by the project in consultation with Transportation and Mobility Maintenance and the Forestry Division. • Work to adjust the recommended design to avoid approximately six private tree removals (some of which are well established) north of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue on the east side at the King Soopers Plaza. • Study the removal and replacement of four immature trees on private property at Bluebird Apartments north of Mapleton Avenue due to sidewalk realignment. Figure 1 describes and documents the tree removals and provides additional notes. Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 148 Packet Page 543 of 1100 North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project: CEAP 124 Figure 1: Tree Removals by North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Sincerely, John McFarlane Senior Transportation Planner McfarlaneJ@bouldercolorado.gov Cc: Gerrit Slatter, Civil Engineering Senior Manager – Capital Projects, SlatterG@bouldercolorado.gov Melanie Sloan, Principal Project Manager, SloanM@bouldercolorado.gov Daniel Sheeter, Principal Transportation Planner, SheeterD@bouldercolorado.gov No. Block Location Tree ID Tree Diameter Remove & Replace in Same Area (Y/N) Remove & Replace Elsewhere on Corridor (Y/N)Notes 1 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75952 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 2 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75953 9 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 3 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75954 8 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 4 Arapahoe to Canyon Median TREE75955 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 5 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75956 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 6 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75957 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 7 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75958 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 8 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75959 7 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 9 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75962 4 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 10 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75963 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 11 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75964 7 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 12 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75965 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 13 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75966 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 14 Canyon to Walnut Median TREE75968 5 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 15 Walnut to Pearl Median TREE76043 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 16 Walnut to Pearl Median TREE76044 6 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 17 Walnut to Pearl Median TREE76045 7 Y N Median is narrowed and reconstructed 18 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366645 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 19 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366646 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 20 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366647 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 21 Mapleton to Steelyard Place West Side TREE366648 2 Y N Sidewalk and landscape is realigned to widen curb-to-curb 22 Falcon Way to Glenwood West Side TREE77369 13 N Y Removed to accommodate bus stop improvements 23 Falcon Way to Glenwood West Side TREE77368 22 N Y Removed to accommodate bus stop improvements Attachment A – North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process Item 3A - North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project - Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) Page 149 Packet Page 544 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the C ity of Boulder and T he University of C olorado at Boulder for T he North Boulder C reek C ampus P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ulie Defoe, Revocable Lease Administrator AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3B - Water and Wastewater Serv ice Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The Univ ersity of Colorado at Boulder for T he North B oulder Creek Campus Packet Page 545 of 1100 AGENDA TITLE Call-up Consideration: Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus. PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director Mark Garcia, Civil Engineering Senior Manager Julie DeFoe, City Planner/Revocable Lease Administrator CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boulder Revised Code (Sections 11-1-52(j) and 4-20-26) requires water customers that have a water demand that creates a system demand greater than would be anticipated for a site (based upon the land use plan and utility master plans) or requiring a water meter larger than two inches to enter into a Water Service Agreement with the city. The University of Colorado at Boulder (UCB) North of Boulder Creek Campus (NBC) has historically been developed with individual meters for buildings, however CU would prefer to be able to manage water use throughout the NBC using a master meter system, which requires a Water Service Agreement. Similar agreements already exist for CU’s Main Campus and Research Park Campus which are also served through master meter systems. In accordance with Section 11-1-52(j) of the B.R.C. 1981, this agreement is being presented to the City Council prior to execution to provide an opportunity for Council to call it up for further review. Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 1 Packet Page 546 of 1100 Section 11-2-33(j) of the B.R.C. 1981 also requires customers that create a wastewater discharge demand greater than would be anticipated for the site to have a Wastewater Service Agreement with the city. Wastewater agreements are not subject to a City Council call-up; however, both agreements have been combined into one Water and Wastewater Service Agreement with CU. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – This agreement supports CU’s redevelopment of the North of Boulder Creek Campus which contributes to the city’s economic vitality and incentivizes water conservation measures within the campus with additional development. •Environmental - The agreement will give the city and the University the ability to optimize the delivery of water while also managing the demands it creates on the city’s utility system. •Social - None. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – None identified •Staff time – This water and wastewater agreement was processed as a part of normal staff work plans and no further staff impact has been identified. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND Sections 11-1-52(j) and 11-2-33 (j) of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981 allow the city to enter into special agreements pertaining to water use demands and/or wastewater discharges. When a commercial or industrial water customer within the City of Boulder service delivery area has a specific use or manufacturing process with a water demand and/or wastewater discharge that creates a system demand greater than would be anticipated for a site (based upon the land use plan and utility master plans), or requires a meter larger than two inches, the customer is required to enter into a Water and/or Wastewater Service Agreement with the city. The requirement for water customers to enter into an agreement was originally added to the B.R.C in 1992 and since then, the city has executed similar agreements with other commercial, industrial and governmental customers, including Amgen Boulder, Inc., Avery Brewing and the University of Colorado Boulder for its Main Campus and Research Park Campus. The portions of these agreements related to the water utility are subject to City Council call-up, while the portions that pertain to the wastewater system are an administrative function approved by the City Manager. These agreements provide the city and the customer the ability to create a framework for the determination of quantity, quality, terms of use, and special conditions for the provision and use of city utility services. Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 2 Packet Page 547 of 1100 ANALYSIS This agreement will allow CU to manage water use across the North of Boulder Creek Campus independent of the City of Boulder by the installation of three master meters. Plant Investment Fee (PIF) credits for existing services in the North of Boulder Creek Campus will be applied to this agreement and as additional water demand is added with future development of the Campus, CU must notify the city in advance and the city may require additional PIFs to be paid by CU to the city. This agreement also removes city responsibility to manage and maintain the water distribution pipelines within the campus and assigns the responsibility to CU. The agreement has been prepared in conformance with sections 11-1-52(j) and 11-2-33 (j)B.R.C. 1981. This agreement is being presented to the City Council prior to execution to provide an opportunity for Council to call it up for review. This water service agreement supports the University of Colorado Boulder Campus Master Plan 2021 for the redevelopment of the North of Boulder Creek Campus. If Council calls up this item, the item would be scheduled for review by Council at a later time. ATTACHMENT Attachment A – Water and Wastewater Agreement Between the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado at Boulder for the North of Boulder Creek Campus Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 3 Packet Page 548 of 1100 WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOULDER AND THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER FOR THE NORTH BOULDER CREEK CAMPUS This Water and Wastewater Service Agreement for the North Boulder Creek Campus (“Agreement”) is entered into between the City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city (“City”) and the Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, on behalf of the University of Colorado at Boulder (“CU Boulder”) and shall be effective as of ___________________, 2025. The City and CU Boulder may hereafter be referred to collectively as “Parties” and individually as “Party.” A.CU Boulder is a public university which owns and operates a typical public university campus in the City of Boulder, Colorado. B.The specific area of the CU Boulder campus to which this Agreement applies is approximately 49.27 acres in size and generally bound by Arapahoe Avenue on the north, Boulder Creek on the south, Folsom Street on the east, and 17th Street on the west, and is more specifically described in the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B (“North Boulder Creek Campus”) and as follows: NORTH BOULDER CREEK CAMPUS: PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF BOULDER, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: •TR 134 & 134-A & 135 & 136 & 141 & 1396 & VAC ALLEY & ST ADJ 31-1N-70 •TRACT 133-A BO 31-1N-70 PER DEED 1074631 11/19/90 BCR •TRACT 133 LESS A BO 31-1N-70 PER DEED 1074631 11/19/90 BCR •TRACT 160B BO 31-1N-70 BOOK 810 PAGE 14 BCR AS PER REC 781856TRACT 160 LESS A-B-C-D BO BOOK 724 PAGE 483 BCR 31-1N-70 AS PER REC 781856 8/15/86 BCR •TRACT 160-D 31-1N-70 PER DEED 956907 12/08/88 BCR •LOT 13, BLOCK 1, TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF 31-1N-70 •TRACT 144 BO 31-1N-70 C.CU Boulder receives all of its potable water from the City’s treated water system for distribution on the North Boulder Creek Campus and discharges wastewater from the North Boulder Creek Campus into the City’s sanitary sewer system. D.CU Boulder desires to continue to receive water from the City’s treated water system for the North Boulder Creek Campus and to discharge wastewater into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 4 Packet Page 549 of 1100 2 E. CU Boulder further desires to quantify and conserve the amount of treated City water used within the North Boulder Creek Campus, to control and manage water taps within the North Boulder Creek Campus, and to utilize, where approved by the City, surplus capacity due to conservation efforts within the North Boulder Creek Campus water system without owing additional plant investment fees. F. The Parties have executed similar agreements for other areas of the CU Boulder campus, including Water and Wastewater Service Agreements between the City and CU Boulder for the Main Campus, executed by the city manager on February 21, 1997 (“Main Campus Water and Wastewater Service Agreement”) and for the Research Park Campus, executed by the city manager on December 15, 2021 (“Water and Wastewater Service Agreement between the City of Boulder and University of Colorado at Boulder for the Research Park Campus”). G. The Boulder Revised Code 1981 (“B.R.C. 1981”) allows the City to enter into special agreements pertaining to water use demand and wastewater use. Now, therefore, in consideration of the promises and obligations set forth below, the City and CU Boulder agree as follows: I. WATER SERVICE A. SALE AND PURCHASE OF WATER SERVICE The City agrees to supply to CU Boulder, and CU Boulder agrees to purchase from the City, all the potable water service required for the North Boulder Creek Campus subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WATER (1) The City shall sell and deliver to CU Boulder, and CU Boulder shall buy from the City, water for use at the North Boulder Creek Campus. The maximum gallons per day amount used by CU Boulder at the North Boulder Creek Campus shall be determined by either: (a) Daily readings of the master meters, or (b) Dividing the monthly water usage, as determined by the utility billing process, by the total days in the month or billing cycle. (2) The current annual domestic and irrigation water budgets for the North Boulder Creek Campus are 37,656 kgal (115.56 acre-feet) and 16,104 kgal (49.42 acre- feet), respectively. CU Boulder may purchase additional domestic and/or irrigation water budget through payment of additional plant investment fees as is necessary to serve future development of the North Boulder Creek Campus. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 5 Packet Page 550 of 1100 3 (3) Quality of water: CU Boulder stipulates that the current treatment techniques utilized by the City produce water of sufficient quality for CU Boulder’s purposes and that the City shall not be responsible for fluctuations in water chemistry including related damages. Except for transient failures, all water provided now and in the future by the City shall be treated water typical for various municipal purposes and shall meet all applicable Federal and State regulations. The City shall have no responsibility or liability for the quality of water beyond the points of delivery to CU Boulder at the master meters. CU Boulder reserves all rights and remedies available to it under such Federal and State regulations in the event of a violation of Federal and State regulations by the City in the provision of treated water to CU Boulder. C. METER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (1) CU Boulder, at its own expense, will construct and install three master meters on the North Boulder Creek Campus to isolate the potable water distribution system for the North Boulder Creek Campus from the City of Boulder water system. A map depicting the approved locations of the three master meters is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. The design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the water distribution system from the point immediately after the master meter vaults into the North Boulder Creek Campus (the “CU Water Distribution System”) shall be the sole responsibility of CU Boulder, including but not limited to maintenance and replacement of all potable water mains, service lines, hydrants, and related infrastructure downstream of the master meter locations. CU, and not the City, owns the CU Water Distribution System. Existing meters at the buildings on the North Boulder Creek Campus may remain so long as they are utilized and maintained by CU Boulder for their internal billing purposes; however, any unused meters shall be returned to the City. (2) The Parties agree that the location, design, construction, and installation of the master meters and related transponders are subject to review and acceptance by the City. The design, construction, and installation shall meet the standards of the B.R.C. 1981. (3) CU agrees that the City will own the master meters and master meter vaults and hereby grants to the City the right to access the master meters and their vaults for maintenance and inspection in accordance with the requirements of the B.R.C. 1981. (4) The master meters shall be located within a public utility easement or public right of way. Prior to installation of the master meters, CU Boulder, at its own expense, shall dedicate utility easements to the City for the master meters on the North Boulder Creek Campus to the extent required by the B.R.C. 1981. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 6 Packet Page 551 of 1100 4 (5) Notification: Prior to making any additional building connections to the CU Water Distribution System on the North Boulder Creek Campus, CU Boulder shall notify the City and obtain City review and approval for the additional building connections. CU Boulder shall provide a projected water analysis for these new connections that the City shall consider to determine if additional water budget is needed to increase the North Boulder Creek Campus budget shown in Paragraph I.B.(2). The City shall notify CU Boulder within 30 days whether such additional connections are approved, and/or whether additional plant investment fees or other utility charges are required for such additional connections. Upon approval and completion of any additional connections, CU Boulder shall provide the City with updated mapping and related information regarding the CU Water Distribution System on the North Boulder Creek Campus. (6) Testing and Calibration: The City shall operate, maintain, test, and calibrate the master meters consistent with City-wide practices for meters of their size. The City shall provide CU Boulder, upon request, with the results of all tests performed on the master meters. The City shall notify CU Boulder of over- reading by the master meters based on such testing and calibration when such over-readings exceed the industry standard range established in American Water Works Manual M6 “Water Meters – Selection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance,” 6th Edition, as the same may be amended. D. CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION CU Boulder shall not allow any unprotected cross connection or engage in any mode of operation that will introduce water from any source other than the City’s water system or any deleterious substance into the City’s system. CU Boulder shall comply with all federal, state, and local requirements related to backflow prevention assemblies or methods. Current state requirements are set forth in Regulation 11, 5 C.C.R. 1002-11. The City’s current requirements are in Chapter 11-1, “Water Utility,” B.R.C. 1981, and in Chapter 5.11, Cross-Connection Regulations of the City’s Design and Construction Standards. The City’s Backflow Prevention Program requirements include appropriate backflow assemblies on all cross-connections to the water utility and routine operational tests as directed by the City for such backflow assemblies. CU Boulder agrees that it shall comply with the City’s adopted cross-connections and backflow prevention requirements, as amended from time to time, as a condition to continued water service to the North Boulder Creek Campus. These requirements apply to all of the North Boulder Creek Campus. The Parties agree to work together to develop further written guidance on how CU Boulder will comply with the City’s Backflow Prevention Program requirements. CU Boulder’s obligations under this paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. E. POINT OF DELIVERY Water supplied pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered to CU Boulder by the City at the North Boulder Creek Campus through the three master meter sites described in Paragraph I.C of this Agreement. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 7 Packet Page 552 of 1100 5 F. MONITORING AND RECORDING REQUIREMENTS The City shall meter and record the delivery of water in accordance with standard City procedures. CU Boulder shall allow the City, upon notification of arrival, to enter the North Boulder Creek Campus premises for purposes of monitoring drinking water quality and inspection of the water system. Any such monitoring and inspection is solely for the City’s benefit, and does not create any obligation, warranty, benefit or right in or liability to CU Boulder or any other party. Nor does the City thereby make any representation about the water quality or suitability of CU Boulder’s water system downstream of the master meters. G. LIMITATIONS ON WATER USE (1) The water provided by the City through the master meters shall be used by CU Boulder only for CU Boulder property within the perimeter of the North Boulder Creek Campus. CU Boulder shall not install any water recirculation systems or otherwise make successive uses or reuse of water without the City’s express written approval. CU Boulder’s use of water is subject to all applicable requirements regarding such water and sewer service in B.R.C. 1981. The City shall bear no responsibility for water delivery interruptions as a result of main breaks, water shortages, equipment malfunctions, human error or for any other reason. In addition, the City reserves the right to reassess the impact of water usage which exceeds the amounts in Paragraph I.B.2 and to collect plant investment fees (for both water and wastewater) and other utility charges according to standard City procedures and charge schedules in effect at the time of use as set forth in B.R.C. 1981, as amended. (2) By virtue of this Agreement or the use of water hereunder or otherwise, CU Boulder does not acquire any vested or adverse right, in law or equity, in the water rights or water system owned by the City. CU Boulder shall not assert or claim any vested right to the continued use of water owned by the City. CU Boulder’s use of City-owned water and the City’s obligations hereunder are expressly subject to Sec. 121 of Boulder’s Charter and Section 11-1-32, B.R.C. 1981. H. CHARGES Monthly user charges shall be assessed according to standard City procedures and charge schedules in effect at the time of use, as set forth in B.R.C. 1981, as amended. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 8 Packet Page 553 of 1100 6 II. WASTEWATER SERVICE A. ACCEPTANCE OF WASTEWATER The City agrees to accept wastewater, of a volume equivalent to the amount of water supplied to the North Boulder Creek Campus facilities, from the North Boulder Creek Campus facilities for treatment into the City’s sanitary sewer system in accordance with the provisions of the current industrial discharge permit issued by the City to CU Boulder. B. CHARGES Monthly user charges shall be assessed according to standard City procedures and charge schedules in effect at the time of use, as set forth in B.R.C. 1981, as amended, and in accordance with the industrial discharge permit. C. MAINTENANCE OF WASTEWATER SYSTEM The design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the wastewater collection system from the point immediately upstream of the connection with the existing City sewer mains flowing through the North Boulder Creek Campus, as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, (the “CU Wastewater Collection System”) shall be the sole responsibility of CU Boulder, including but not limited to maintenance and replacement of all wastewater mains, service lines, manholes, and related infrastructure upstream of the City’s sewer mains. CU, and not the City, owns the CU Wastewater Collection System. D. NOTIFICATION Prior to making any additional building connections to the CU Wastewater Collection System, CU Boulder shall notify the City and obtain City review and approval for the additional building connections. The City shall notify CU Boulder within 30 days whether such additional connections are approved, and/or whether additional plant investment fees are required to increase the North Boulder Creek Campus’s water budget shown in Paragraph I. B.(2) or other utility charges are required for such additional connections. Upon approval and completion of any additional connections, CU Boulder shall provide the City with updated mapping and related information regarding the wastewater collection system on the North Boulder Creek Campus. E. EASEMENTS Prior to making any additional building connections to the CU Water Distribution System or CU Wastewater Collection System on the North Boulder Campus, CU Boulder, at its own expense, shall dedicate utility easements to the City for City owned and maintained sewer mains flowing on the North Boulder Creek Campus consistent with the B.R.C. 1981, and City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, both as amended, and in a form acceptable to the City. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 9 Packet Page 554 of 1100 7 F. NON-SEWERED WATER The City shall bill CU Boulder for wastewater service based on the total effluent to the sanitary sewer each month. Total effluent is defined as the total water used at the North Boulder Creek Campus as outlined in Paragraph I.B., less the net evaporative water reading from the cooling towers. CU Boulder may request, and the City may consider in its discretion, to have other metered, non-sewered water (i.e. potable water for irrigation, etc.) for inclusion in reducing the net sewered water bill each month. The monthly service charge shall be equal to that of the master meter service charges. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. PENALTIES If CU Boulder discharges such pollutants that cause the City to violate any conditions of its NPDES or CDPS wastewater permits and to be fined by the EPA or State of Colorado for such violation, CU Boulder is solely responsible for the full amount of the fine assessed against the City, including, without limitation, all reasonable sampling, analytical testing, and other costs, and shall pay directly or reimburse the City for all such costs. B. RESPONSIBILITIES (1) The City retains ownership and responsibility for the City’s water system up to the point of delivery at the three master meters for to the North Boulder Creek Campus and for the City’s wastewater system downstream from CU’s Wastewater Collection System for the North Boulder Creek Campus. The Parties agree that CU Boulder shall own and be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the CU Water Distribution System and the CU Wastewater Collection System on the North Boulder Creek Campus. CU Boulder is responsible for all uses of water following delivery of water by the City from the point of the master meters into the CU Water Distribution System. (2) Both Parties agree that each will be liable for its respective negligent acts and omissions, subject to and limited by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-72-101, et seq., in performing responsibilities under this Agreement. (3) In the event of any dispute arising in relation to this Agreement, the Parties shall act in good faith to make reasonable efforts to resolve it amicably with mutual consultation. C. TERMINATION (1) At any time upon receipt by the City of written notification, CU Boulder may terminate this Agreement. Upon termination, all rights owned by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall immediately revert to the City. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 10 Packet Page 555 of 1100 8 (2) Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon a material breach by the other of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement if such breach continues for an unreasonable period of time. However, this Agreement shall not be terminated if the defaulting Party remedies such breach within a period of 120 days after receipt from the other of written notice of the existence of such breach. Termination shall not, however, be the sole remedy of either Party and the exercise of the right to terminate provided in this paragraph shall not preclude pursuit of any other remedy available, at equity or at law. D. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement, and/or any of CU Boulder’s rights hereunder, may not be assigned by CU Boulder in whole or in part without prior written consent of the City. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. E. EXISTING AGREEMENTS This Agreement does not supersede, modify, revise or replace any other agreement, contract, or permit between the City and CU Boulder. F. NOTICES Whenever notice is required or permitted under this Agreement, the same shall be in writing and shall be given effect by hand delivery or by mailing to the Party for whom it is intended. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 11 Packet Page 556 of 1100 9 Notices to the City and CU Boulder shall be addressed as follows: For the City: Attn: City Manager City Manager’s Office Post Office Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 441-3090 mcmahona@bouldercolorado.gov Copy to: City Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 441-3020 pault-atiasej@bouldercolorado.gov For CU Boulder: Vice Chancellor for Infrastructure and Resilience Campus Box 24 Boulder, Colorado 80309-0024 vcir@colorado.edu G. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no term or condition of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, either express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits or protection provided to CU Boulder and the City, its officers, agents and employees under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101, et seq.). H. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW Both Parties agree to perform all activities and obligations under this Agreement in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. I. FUND APPROPRIATION Financial obligations of either Party that are payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available. Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 12 Packet Page 557 of 1100 10 J. RECITALS The Recitals to this Agreement are adopted as material terms and incorporated by reference in this Agreement. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 13 Packet Page 558 of 1100 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have signed this Agreement effective as of the day and year first written. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, a Body Corporate By: _______________________________ Vice Chancellor for Infrastructure and Resilience, University of Colorado Boulder Date: ______________________________ Approved as to legal sufficiency by: Office of University Counsel CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, a Colorado Municipal Corporation and Home Rule City By: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________ City Attorney’s Office Date Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 14 Packet Page 559 of 1100 EXHIBIT A Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 15 Packet Page 560 of 1100 Sheet Number:Design By: SEPDrawn By: SEPPrincipal in Charge: WPWDate: April 16, 2025ACU Boulder - North CampusProposed Master Meter Locations,CU North Water System coverage12499 WEST COLFAX AVE. LAKEWOOD, CO 80215P.O. BOX 151500 303.431.6100This map is schematic in nature. Survey is recommended for specific locations.18THUNIVERSITY GRANDVIEW17TH FOLSOM18THBOU L D E R C R E E K HILL S I D E MARINE HILLSIDE ARAPAHOE TAFTARAPAHOE23RD22ND21ST 20TH19THWALKWAYBOU L D E R C R E E K MACKYATHENS MARINE UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS STADIUM Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS CU Water Distribution System City Water System CU North Boulder Campus Water Easements City of Boulder system connection City of Boulder system connection City of Boulder system connection 0 100 200 300 40050 US Feet 8" Master Meter 8" Master Meter 8" Master Meter Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 16 Packet Page 561 of 1100 EXHIBIT B Attachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek Campus Page 17 Packet Page 562 of 1100 ARAPAHOE AVEBOULDER CREEK PATH20TH STSTADIUM DR19TH STFOLSOM ST17TH ST18TH STGRANDVIEW AVEMARINE STATHENS ST21ST ST22ND ST23RD STWALKWAYM A C K Y D R18TH STSource: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community12499 WEST COLFAX AVE. LAKEWOOD, CO 80215P.O. BOX 151500 303.431.6100BProposed Sanitary Mains OwnershipCU Boulder - North CampusPrincipal in Charge: WPWDrawn By: SEPDesign By: SEPSheet Number:This map is schematic in nature. Survey is recommended for specific locations.Date: April 16, 2025CU Boulder WastewaterCollection SystemCity Sewer MainNorth Boulder CreekCampusSanitary Easement0 100 200 300 40050Feet³8"8"8"15"15"15"15"21"21"21"15"15"15"21"15"21"8"8"8"21"21"15"8"8"6"15"12"12"8"21"8"8"8"8"From Main CampusExistingProposedExistingExistingExistingExistingExistingAttachment A - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Item 3B - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement Between the City of Boulder and The University of Colorado at Boulder for The North Boulder Creek CampusPage 18Packet Page 563 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a Concept Plan Review and C omment Request for a proposed redevelopment at 2955, 2969, and 2995 Baseline Road and 735-775 30th Street as two (2) 4- 5 story multifamily student housing buildings with a total of 100 units. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00012 P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3C - 2995 B aseline Concept P lan Packet Page 564 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE: Call-up consideration of a Concept Plan Review and Comment Request for a proposed redevelopment at 2955, 2969, and 2995 Baseline Road and 735-775 30th Street as two (2) 4-5 story multifamily student housing buildings with a total of 100 units. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00012. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Brad Mueller, Director Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. On June 3, 2025, the Planning Board held a public hearing and reviewed and commented on the proposal. The 30-day call up period concludes on July 3, 2025. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its June 26, 2025 meeting. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available in the city archives for Planning Board. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here. The applicant’s submittal package is provided in Attachment A. The draft meeting minutes from the Planning Board meeting are provided in Attachment B. REVIEW PROCESS In a concept plan review, no formal action is required on behalf of City Council. Public, staff, Planning Board, and Council comments will be documented for the applicant’s use in a future Site Review application. A Concept Plan Review and subsequent Site Review Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 1 Packet Page 565 of 1100 are required because the proposal is over 2 acres or 30,000 square feet of floor area in the subject zoning districts (Table 2-2 of Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981). The purpose of the Concept Plan review is to determine the general development plan for a particular site and to help identify key issues in advance of a site review submittal. This step in the development process is intended to give the applicant an opportunity to solicit comments from the Planning Board, City Council (if called up) as well as the public early in the development process as to whether a development concept is consistent with the requirements of the city as set forth in its adopted plans, ordinances, and policies (Section 9-2-13, B.R.C. 1981). In addition to a public hearing at City Council, City Council has authority to refer Concept Plan Review proposals to the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and/or Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for their respective opinions. The purpose of such a review by DAB is to encourage thoughtful, well-designed development projects that are sensitive to the existing character of an area, or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area. TAB’s opinion can be requested by council on transportation matters implicated in a Concept Plan Review proposal. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – None noted. • Environmental – None noted. • Social – None noted. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal - The review of this application and a potential Site Review application fall within staff’s normal scope of work, and as such do not present any unusual fiscal impacts. • Staff time - The application was completed under standard staff review time. If the proposal moves forward, staff anticipates that the review will also be completed under standard staff review time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At the public hearing on June 3, 2025, the Planning Board heard presentations by staff and the applicant, and asked questions following each presentation. One member of the public spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing in opposition to additional student housing. The Planning Board discussed the following key issues at the public hearing: 1. Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the Board have feedback on the proposed rezoning of a portion of the property from RM-2 to RH-5? Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 2 Packet Page 566 of 1100 3. Does the Board have feedback on the proposed Use Review for ground level dwelling units along a street in the BT-1 zoning district? 4. Does the Board have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design? Regarding Key Issue One, board members agreed that the proposal is an appropriate location for high density student housing, but that it should provide a mix of uses rather than only residential along Baseline Road on the ground level, which is within the area of the property designated Transitional Business. Regarding Key Issue Two, board members agreed that the proposed rezoning of a portion of the site from RM-2 to RH-5 was reasonable and had no concerns with this element of the proposal. Regarding Key Issue Three, board members recommended that the applicant provide some commercial space along Baseline Road in the BT-1 zoning district as part of the proposal rather than exclusively residential uses along the ground level, review the Use Review criteria, consider how the ground floor will provide a compatible transition, and address the impact of residential uses on infrastructure. Board members recommended thinking creatively about the ground level uses and noted that commercial uses along Baseline Road would be more important than providing commercial uses on all street frontages. Regarding Key Issue Four, the Planning Board discussed the site and building design and provided helpful feedback, including: • Board members were generally supportive of the proposed height modification. Board members recommended some additional attention to the surrounding context to inform the proposed setbacks and height, to ensure that the building design provides a transition and is sensitive to nearby properties, and to ensure the proposal provides permeability in terms of views, sightlines, and access. Board members noted that revisions would be needed to meet the height bonus requirements related to building length and a ground level courtyard. • Board members were supportive of the proposed parking reduction and noted that a further reduction to surface parking or use of more tuck-under parking could allow for a more effective provision of quality open space. • Board members noted that useable open space is an important aspect of the design and should go beyond stormwater detention or linear open space areas along the right-of-way. Consider creative approaches to provide open space such as passageways into the site that can also address permeability, access to views, and the addition of commercial spaces, in addition to the provision of the required courtyard. Reformatting parts of the building should also be considered to ensure adequate space for mature trees and landscaping along the right-of-way. Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 3 Packet Page 567 of 1100 • Board members noted that alternative modes of transportation will be important and recommended considering provision of elements such as a car share, pick-up and drop-off space, e-bikes, or scooters, and transit stop enhancements. Board members recommended providing additional bike parking at the time of a site review submittal and improving access to the long-term bike parking. Provide clear pedestrian access throughout and show how residents will move from one portion of the site to another and how they will get to the amenity spaces. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property. A sign was posted on the property a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. One written comment was received and included in the Planning Board packet. ANALYSIS The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes staff analysis, neighbor comments along with the meeting audio, and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for Planning Board. MATRIX OF OPTIONS The City Council may call up a Concept Plan application 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 June 26, 2025 meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Applicant’s Written Statement and Proposed Plans Attachment B – Draft June 3, 2025 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 4 Packet Page 568 of 1100 MEMORANDUM To: Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager - CITY OF BOULDER From: Adrian Sopher - SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS LLC Project: HUB Boulder Baseline Date: 3 March 2025 Re: WRITTEN STATEMENT – Concept Plan Review Submittal This document is a written statement describing the proposed rental student housing project, located at 2955 Baseline Road; 2969 Baseline Road; 2995 Baseline Road; 735-775 30th Street, Boulder, CO. This document outlines how the application meets all applicable review criteria and is being submitted in preparation for the City of Boulder’s Site Review application requirements. In this narrative, the two lots shall be referred to as the “Baseline Lot” and “30th Street Lot” for clarity. PLANNING & ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS PROJECT CHARACTER - GENERAL The proposed basic project components consist of two separate buildings, containing a total of 100 residential units in varying configurations ranging from 1 to 6 bedrooms all intended for student rental. Located just east of the University of Colorado Campus, and across Baseline Road from Williams Village, this project will enhance the existing student housing neighborhood. Baseline Lot The Building Located at the corner of Baseline & 30th will contain the lobby and amenity space for both lots and is loca ted on the southwest corner of the site. Multi-level townhome style residential units make up the remainder of the ground level, with flats above for a total of 4 stories. Surface level parking is in the center of the site and accessed off Canyon Creek Drive. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 5 Packet Page 569 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 2 of 10 30th Street Lot The south end of the building fronting 30th street is 4 stories and contains multistory townhome style units with flats above, and an entry lobby off Canyon Creek drive with ample enclosed bike parking. As the site steps down to the north, the building transitions into 3-story townhome units. Surface level parking for the site is located along the west side of the building. PROPOSED USES, ZONING, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The Project site is in three different existing zones; BT-1, RM-2, and RH-5. Baseline Lot This site is completely in the BT-1 zone, bordered on the south by Baseline Road, to the east by 30th street with low ris e residential in the RM-2 zone across the street, and to the north by existing RH-5 composed mostly of existing student housing. The BT-1 zone requires 30% minimum open space on lots with residential uses, and has a maximum FAR of 1.0, which can be increased to 1.4 through Site Review. In the BT-1 zone attached residential uses are allowed by-right, if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street. Ground level residential uses are, however, allowed by Use Review. Ground floor residential with direct access to the street is being proposed. The applicant will be requesting relief from this requirement with a concurrent Site and Use Review Application. 30th Street Lot This Site is currently split between two zones: RM-2, and RH-5. The small portion of the site that is still zoned RM- 2, is surrounded on three sides by RH-5 zones. The applicant will be requesting rezoning during the site review process to RH-5 for the whole site To bring it into conformity with the proposed Future Land Use Map. The RH-5 Zone has a maximum FAR of 1.5 and 15% minimum open space. Figure 1 PROPOSED REZONING Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 6 Packet Page 570 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 3 of 10 Figure 2- FUTURE LAND USE Baseline & 30th Street Lots For both the BT-1 zone and the RH-5 zone, the maximum by-right allowable building height is 35’. Additional Building height over the maximum may be requested through Site Review process. The applicant will be requesting a height modification with the following justifications: • The proposed site has an large existing grade difference of 9 feet from the South boundary at Baseline road to the low point Canyon Creek Road, and then another 9 feet from Canyon Creek Road to the low point at the North boundary of the site. Accordingly, the project as shown, is proposed to be 4 stories with a maximum height of ±54’-7.25” above existing grade. • As the project site loses elevation from South to north, the height of the buildings will also be proportionally decreased. • The increased height will allow the Amenity Deck on the 3rd level of the Baseline Lot building to take advantage of the views towards the mountains to the west. In Addition, more of the individual residential units will also be able to take advantage of the views to the west. • increased height along Baseline Road is appropriate to the surrounding context of the commercial uses across the street, and the Williams Village housing complex. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 7 Packet Page 571 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 4 of 10 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project sits at the northwest corner of the intersection of Baseline Road and 30th Street. It is bordered by Canyon Creek Road to the west and extends along 30th Street for roughly 700’. The high point of the site is along Baseline Avenue, and slopes down by roughly 20’ at the northern limits of the north site. The existing is comprised of 7 different parcels. The Baseline lot contains (3) 1-3 story commercial buildings and on grade parking lots with minimal open space. The 3oth Street lot contains (4) 2-story multi-family residential units with open space between the units, and no parking. PARKING, ACCESS, SERVICE, & SAFETY PARKING/VEHICULAR ACCESS The principal vehicular entrance to the Baseline Lot is from the Canyon Creek Road on the north side of the site. Vehicular access to the 30th Lot is off 30th Street on the north side of the site at the existing curb cut. On-site parking for the project is proposed to be in the following quantities on-grade, and distributed between the two sites as follows: Baseline Lot o 46 Standard spaces – including 2 accessible spaces (1 van) o 34 Compact spaces 80 Total spaces provided onsite 30th Street Lot o 14 Standard Spaces – including 2 accessible space (1 van) o 12 Compact spaces 26 Total spaces provided onsite 106 Total spaces provided for the entire project Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 8 Packet Page 572 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 5 of 10 As drawn, the project will require the following parking spaces: Baseline Lot o 1 parking space for each of the 2 1-bedroom units (2 spaces) o 1.5 parking spaces for each of the 6 2-bedroom units (9 spaces) o 2 parking spaces for the 1 3-bedroom unit (2 spaces) o 3 parking spaces for each of the 56 4-6 bedroom units (168 spaces) 181 Total parking spaces required per the Development Standards for Baseline Lot 30th Street Lot o 1 parking space for each of the 3 1-bedroom units (3 spaces) o 1.5 parking spaces for each of the 2 2-bedroom units (3 spaces) o 3 parking spaces for each of the 30 4-6 bedroom units (90 spaces) 96 Total parking spaces required per the Development Standards for the 30th Street Lot 277 Total parking spaces required for the entire project Since the project is intended to be a student housing facility located less than 1 mile to the CU campus and directly accessible to bike paths linking it to the campus and the nearby commercial center, the applicant will be requesting a parking reduction and providing associated Transportation Demand Measures in support of that request. As drawn, the project would require a 62% parking reduction. BICYCLE PARKING Bicycle parking requirements per Table 9-8 are 2 spaces per residential unit, with 75% required to be long term, and 25% short term. The project has a total of 100 units, so 200 bicycle parking spaces are required, with 50 short term, and 150 long term spaces. Bicycle parking is distributed between the sites as follows Baseline Lot o 32 Short term spaces o 122 long term spaces 154 spaces onsite 30th Street Lot o 20 short term spaces o 52 long term spaces 72 spaces onsite 226 Total bicycle parking spaces provided TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS Transportation demand for the project will be managed significantly by virtue of the target population being students. The location is highly accessible to the University and within a 10-minute walk to groceries and other commercial services. Additionally, the project is designed to support active and easily accessible bicycle use as inherent in its design and organization. Alternative travel modes are supported by the existing multi use path to the south, which connects the site to the CU Boulder campus via the underpass at 28th Street, and the commercial/retail center to the south. As a student housing project where all units are fully furnished, the need for a loading dock to support large vehicles are not necessary. Since furnishings are provided, it is anticipated that all moving of students’ personal belongings can be done from passenger-sized vehicles. Loading and unloading of resident belongings is scheduled to occur on specific moving days in coordination with the university calendar. Baseline Lot A dedicated loading area will be provided on the north side of the Baseline lot, in the parking lot that is directly adjacent to an elevator serving the lobby space. Trash service will be from a dedicated driveway from Canyon Creek on the west side of the building, with enough height and depth for a truck to back completely off of the public road and sidewalk to collect trash. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 9 Packet Page 573 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 6 of 10 30th Street Lot The lobby space and elevator for the 30th street building is located off Canyon Creek Road. A dedicated move-in and loading space will be provided at the on-street parallel parking in front of the lobby entrance. Both loading areas will also serve as a convenient pick-up location for ride share services. Trash Service for the 30th Street building is located in the back of the building in the parking lot and is accessed from 30th Street. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS Fire trucks and emergency vehicles can access the whole perimeter of both lots from Baseline Road, 30th Street, Canyon Creek Road, and the drive from 30th Street. Emergency vehicles responding to non-fire calls, can pull into the parking lot for the Baseline Lot and have access directly to the lobby space, which will serve as a clear location for emergency service. For the 30th Street lot, there is direct access to the main lobby on Canyon Creek Road. SITE USAGE Baseline Lot The organization of the building on the site is primarily driven by its interaction with the main streets that border it, as well as the desired connection to both the views and the University to the west. The building is positioned along the western, southern, and eastern edges of the site to engage with Baseline and 30th Streets, while keeping the parking area tucked behind, out of sight from the main streets. Ground-level units on all three sides offer direct street access, encouraging activity along the building facades facing Baseline and 30th Streets. Key amenity spaces, such as the lobby, fitness center, and leasing office, are strategically placed at the southwest corner to ensure prominent visibility for those approaching from the University campus. The elevated amenity deck is also located here, providing optimal views to the west and maximizing sun exposure. On the northwest side, the building is set back to create a more private green space, offering a retreat away from the bustle of the streets. Meanwhile, the open space along the Baseline façade and the building's lobby entrance helps foster a vibrant outdoor atmosphere. 30th Street Lot Similar to the Baseline Building, this structure is positioned to engage with the 30th Street frontage. The parking is discreetly placed behind the building, out of view from the public realm, while the usable open space is oriented to the west, offering both optimal exposure to the sun and protection from the noise along 30th Street. The site has also been designed to accommodate the proposed 30th Street Multimodal Improvements to provide room for the separated bike lane and buffer zone, as was shown in the City of Boulder 30th and Colorado Corridor study as shown below: Figure 3 - PROPOSED 30TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS The 30th Street building will share amenities with the Baseline building, and as such, the main lobby has been strategically located at the southeast corner to facilitate easy movement between the two structures. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 10 Packet Page 574 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 7 of 10 BUILDING ORGANIZATION & MASSING Overall Design Strategies The building's overall form is simple, featuring large, glazed areas and projecting balconies that extend from the main mass. Residential entries at street level are recessed to ensure privacy. The material palette is limited but varied, with a focus on texture. Taller masses are visually scaled down using horizontal banding, while entries and lower sections are defined by more vertical continuity. Baseline Lot The building's mass consists of four stories of residential spaces above grade. This four-story mass is concentrated along Baseline Street and steps down with the grade toward the north. The main entry corner is recessed to distinguish it from the rest of the building mass, offering an opportunity for the amenity deck to be partially visible from the street, with views to the west. 30th Street Lot The southern end of the building steps down with the grade, reducing to three stories to better transition into the surrounding residential neighborhoods to the north and east. At this point, a shift in material organization also occurs. While the four-story massing is characterized by horizontal patterning, the three-story townhome units at the north end use a more vertical application of materials. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 11 Packet Page 575 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 8 of 10 LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS OVERALL CONCEPT The 30th and Baseline student housing project offers a modern and vibrant living experience, designed with students' needs in mind. The plan features local and regional connections to bike trails as well as convenient bike storage for students’ active lifestyle. At each community entry the buildings have been enhanced with planters, seating, bike racks and other amenities. The building also boasts a spacious rooftop deck with views of the mountains. Residents can enjoy both indoor and outdoor community spaces, perfect for socializing, studying, and relaxation. Each unit provides the added convenience of individual entries, ensuring privacy and autonomy. This thoughtfully designed housing complex provides the ideal balance of comfort, community, and convenience for students in Boulder. STREET FRONTAGES AND CONNECTIONS The two buildings in this project vary with their street frontage. The Baseline Lot sits at the northwest corner of 30th Street and Baseline Road. This building is fronted on all four sides with streets. The main entrance will be alo ng the west end of the Baseline street frontage. The Baseline frontage also offers connection to the regional bike lane allowing residents to easily connect with the extensive bike trail system throughout Boulder. The Canyon Creek Road frontage and the 30th Street frontage will have a sidewalk within the right of way with individual unit entrances planted with trees and shrubs. Canyon Creek will also have a detached pedestrian walkway as well as a vehicular entrance for maintenance and trash. Along the north side of the building will be the entrance to the residents’ parking lot. This parking lot will be buffered from Canyon Creek Road with the tree lawn, detached sidewalk, as well as a parking lot buffer. The 30th Street lot sits north of the Baseline Lot, just across Canyon Creek Road. This building has two street frontages: Canyon Creek Road to the south and 30th Street to the east. Canyon Creek Road will have a detached sid ewalk and a tree lawn with trees and shrubs. There are no residential entrances off the Canyon Creek frontage. The 30th Street frontage will have an attached walk with the main entrance on the southeast corner and individual entrances along 30th Street planted with trees and shrubs. Vehicular entrance to the residents parking lot will be on the far northern portion of the site with the parking lot nestled behind the building adjacent to the neighboring parking lot. 30th Street offers an on-street bike lane to connect residents to the extensive Boulder bike network. Parking for residents bicycles will be on the northwest corner of the Baseline Lot building and the southwest corner of the 30th Street Lot building. Residents will park in parking lots provided in the northern portion of each site. OUTDOOR SPACE Each building provides a variety of outdoor space. The Baseline Lot also offers shared outdoor and indoor community space for both buildings. Each building will have landscape buffering the residents from the street through a combination of trees, shrubs, and grasses. Outdoor plazas are incorporated into both building landscapes. These outdoor plazas will be coupled with the water quality areas to allow for multi-use activities within the landscape when the area is not inundated. The Baseline Lot will have an entry plaza along Baseline Road that features plantings, seating, and bike parking. This building will also have a 3rd floor outdoor deck that features a spa, firepit, grills, and community seating. The 3rd floor will also have an indoor community room and a fitness area. Both the outdoor and indoor community spaces will be available to residents of both buildings. This building will also have an outdoor plaza on the northwest portion of the site near the indoor bike area where the majority of residents will routinely access making it a prime location for social interaction. This plaza will incorporate enhanced planting, seating and additional bike parking. The 30th Street Lot will have an entry area on the southeast corner of the building. The outdoor plaza will be lo ca ted on the west side of the building just north of the bike storage entrance. This plaza will incorporate enhanced planting, seating and social interaction opportunities. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 12 Packet Page 576 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 9 of 10 WATER QUALITY Water quality for both buildings is strategically located in the northern portion of the site, serving as both a functional and aesthetic feature. These areas will enhance the surrounding landscape by incorporating native grasses, which help filter and manage stormwater. The water quality area also acts as a buffer, providing a natural transition between the building and the surrounding environment. The Baseline Lot locates the area for water quality in the northwest area of the site where Canyon Creek Road bends. The 30th Street Lot places water quality between the existing adjacent parking lot and the building. CIVIL CONSIDERATIONS The proposed 30th and Baseline Boulder Housing development will be located on two separate lots with a total acreage of 2.94 acres at the intersection of 30th Street and Baseline Avenue in the City of Boulder, CO. In this narrative, the two lots shall be referred to as the “Baseline Lot” and “30th Lot” for clarity. Baseline Lot The existing Baseline Lot is approximately 1.98 acres and is primarily covered by various buildings, parking facilities, concrete walkways and landscaping. The proposed improvements include construction of a new apartment building, townhomes, and parking lot. Site Grading and Drainage Existing drainage patterns will generally be maintained with runoff flowing from south to north across the site. Stormwater runoff generated on the property will be collected via inlets and storm piping before receiving water quality treatment in a proposed rain garden. This rain garden will be located at the northwest corner of the Baseline Lot and discharge into an existing curb inlet and 12” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Runoff from the site will join the existing storm infrastructure system routed to the northwest that ultimately discharges to Skunk Creek. Existing imperviousness of the Baseline Lot is approximately 84%. Proposed improvements will reduce the total site’s imperviousness to 70%. Per City of Boulder’s DCS Stormwater Design criteria, stormwater detention will not be required for the site due to this reduced imperviousness and resulting runoff generated on the site. Water quality (WQ) treatment will be provided for the property via a rain garden and sized to treat and capture the 80th percentile, 0.6-inch storm event (approximately 2,134 CF volume). Utilities The proposed water entry room will be located at the southeast corner of the building. For domestic and fire water services to the building, connections could be made to an existing 12” water main within Baseline Road or an 8” water main along 30th Street. Sizes for the domestic and fire service lines will be determined by the Plumbing Engineer during subsequent design phases. There are three (3) existing fire hydrants located near the Baseline Lot: at the northwest corner of Canyon Creek Road, the intersection of Canyon Creek and Baseline Road, and the intersection of Canyon Creek and 30th Street. The proposed maintenance room for the building will be located in the west wing and is assumed to be where the sanitary sewer discharges from the building. The sanitary sewer service could connect into the existing 8” sewer main within the center of Baseline Road. Size of the service connection will be determined by the Plumbing Engineer during subsequent design phases. There are existing water and sanitary sewer services to the existing buildings that could potentially be re-used with the proposed project depending on size, condition and location. 30th Street Lot The existing 30th Street Lot is approximately 0.96 acres and is primarily covered by various buildings, concrete walkways and landscaping. The proposed improvements include construction of a new apartment building, townhomes, and parking lot. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 13 Packet Page 577 of 1100 3/4/2025 WrtnStmnt_2995 Baseline_03-05-2025 Page 10 of 10 Site Grading and Drainage Improvements to the 30th Street Lot will result in an increased imperviousness of 70%. Per City of Boulder’s DCS Sto rmwater Design Criteria, any increase of runoff due to development of a site will require stormwater detention be provided. To meet this requirement and provide water quality treatment for the site, a rain garden with detention is proposed for the site. This Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) will be sized to treat the 80th percentile, 0.6-inch water quality event and drain that event at a release-rate of 12 hours. Preliminary calculations indicate that the proposed rain garden would need to treat approximately 1,000 CF of stormwater. Detention will be provided for the 100-year runoff volume, and preliminary full-spectrum pond sizing calculations indicate a total volume of approximately 4,700 CF of stormwater storage is needed. Existing drainage patterns will generally be maintained with runoff flowing from south to north across the site. Stormwater runoff generated on the property will be collected via inlets and storm piping before discharging into a proposed rain garden with detention. The rain garden will be located in a landscaped area at the northeast corner of the 30th Street Lot and sized to provide detention for the water quality and 100-year storm events. Alternatively, the stormwater needs can be achieved through the use of two smaller ponds, with a second pond located on the west side of the proposed building. The outlets from both ponds would need to be combined before discharging off the site. Due to elevation constraints, controlled discharge into the 30th Street curb and gutter would not be feasible without use of a pump. However, two options are being explored to provide an outfall for the rain garden. The first outfall option involves discharging runoff directly into Skunk Creek by routing an outfall pipe to the northwest of the site through adjacent properties, with an easement likely required. Benefits of this option include a shorter storm pipe route than Option 2 and minimizes any disruptions to the Right-of-Way. However, an outfall directly into the Creek may result in going through floodplain and/or environmental permitting processes. Along with this approach, there is an existing access easement that would need to be crossed along with some other properties. Coordination with neighboring property owners and the City will need to occur. The second outfall option intends to tie into an existing storm inlet located north of the site that discharges into Skunk Creek. This option would involve the construction of approximately 200 LF of storm pipe within the 30th Str eet Right-of-Way (ROW). Some benefits of this option include the potential avoidance of additional floodplain related permitting as discharge will be into a storm structure rather than directly into Skunk Creek and provide a storm main within 30th Street that could be utilized by future developments. However, this option may face conflicts with various utilities within the ROW as well as coordination and permits to allow for work in the ROW, in addition to increased construction complexity to incorporate enhanced traffic control. Utilities The proposed utility room will be located at the south side of the building. Domestic and fire services would tie into an existing 8” water main within 30th Street. Water service sizes will be determined by the Plumbing Engineer during subsequent design phases. There are two (2) existing hydrants located along the east side of the 30th Street Lot within the ROW. The sanitary sewer service will be able to connect to an existing 15” sewer main also within 30th Street. There are existing water and sanitary sewer services to the existing buildings that could potentially be re-used with the proposed project depending on size, condition and location. Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 14 Packet Page 578 of 1100 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 A 0.00COVER SHEET HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW HUB BASELINE BOULDER - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH STREET, BOULDER, CO 80303 RENDERING VIEW FROM CORNER OF BASELINE RD. & CANYON CREEK RD. No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 15 Packet Page 579 of 1100 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 A 0.01PROJECT INFORMATION & SHEET INDEX HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW VICINTY MAP 01-GENERAL A 0.00 COVER SHEET A 0.01 PROJECT INFORMATION & SHEET INDEX A 0.02 AERIAL MAP & CONTEXT USES A 0.03 CONTEXT MAP & EXISTING STREET VIEWS A 0.04 LAND USE, ZONING, & WETLAND INFO. 03-LANDSCAPE L 1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN L 1.1 SITE AREAS 05-ARCHITECTURAL 0-A 0.1 SITE PLAN - OVERALL 1-A 1.0 2995 BASELINE- LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1-A 1.1 2995 BASELINE- GROUND LEVEL PLAN 1-A 1.2 2995 BASELINE - SECOND LEVEL PLAN 1-A 1.3 2995 BASELINE - THIRD LEVEL PLAN 1-A 1.4 2995 BASELINE - FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 1-A 2.1 2995 BASELINE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1-A 2.2 2995 BASELINE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1-A 3.1 2995 BASELINE - BUILDING SECTIONS 1-A 3.2 2995 BASELINE - BUILDING SECTIONS 2-A 1.1 30TH STREET - GROUND LEVEL PLAN 2-A 1.2 30TH STREET - SECOND LEVEL PLAN 2-A 1.3 30TH STREET - THIRD LEVEL PLAN 2-A 1.4 30TH STREET - FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 2-A 2.1 30TH STREET - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2-A 3.1 30TH STREET - BUILDING SECTIONS 2-A 3.2 30TH STREET - BUILDING SECTIONS 2-A 9.1 2995 BASELINE - 3D VIEWS 2-A 9.2 30TH STREET - 3D VIEWS SURVEY 1 OF 6 COVER SHEET 2 OF 6 NOTES 3 OF 6 BOUNDARY CONTROL DIAGRAM 4 OF 6 OVERALL SITE DIAGRAM 5 OF 6 2995 BASELINE SURVEY 6 OF 6 735-775 30TH STREET SURVEY PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT INTENT SHEET INDEX THE PROPOSED BASIC PROJECT COMPONENTS CONSIST OF TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS, CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 100 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN VARYING CONFIGURATIONS RANGING FROM 1 TO 6 BEDROOMS ALL INTENDED FOR STUDENT RENTAL. LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO CAMPUS, AND ACROSS BASELINE ROAD FROM WILLIAMS VILLAGE, THIS PROJECT WILL ENHANCE THE EXISTING STUDENT HOUSING OFFERING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BASELINE & 30 TH WILL CONTAIN THE PRIMARY LOBBY AND AMENITY SPACES FOR BOTH BUILDINGS AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. RETAIL IS PROPOSED FOR THE GROUND LEVEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, AND MULTI-LEVEL TOWNHOUSE STYLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS MAKE UP THE REMAINDER OF THE GROUND LEVEL, WITH FLATS ABOVE FOR A TOTAL OF 5 STORIES. SURFACE LEVEL PARKING IS IN THE CENTER OF THE SITE AND ACCESSED OFF CANYON CREEK DRIVE. THE SOUTHERN-END OF THE BUILDING LOCATED ALONG 30TH STREET IS 4 STORIES AND CONTAINS MULTISTORY TOWNHOUSE STYLE UNITS WITH FLATS ABOVE, AND AN ENTRY LOBBY OFF CANYON CREEK DRIVE WITH SECURED LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING. AS THE SITE STEPS DOWN TO THE NORTH, THE BUILDING TRANSITIONS INTO 3-STORY TOWNHOUSE UNITS. SURFACE LEVEL PARKING FOR THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THE 30TH AND BASELINE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT OFFERS A MODERN AND VIBRANT LIVING EXPERIENCE, DESIGNED WITH STUDENTS' NEEDS IN MIND. THE PLAN FEATURES LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONNECTIONS TO BIKE TRAILS AND EASY ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND RETAIL. THE BASELINE LOT IS COMPLETELY IN THE BT-1 ZONE, BORDERED ON THE SOUTH BY BASELINE ROAD, TO THE EAST BY 30TH STREET WITH LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL IN THE RM-2 ZONE ACROSS THE STREET, AND TO THE NORTH BY EXISTING RH-5 COMPOSED MOSTLY OF EXISTING STUDENT HOUSING. THE BT-1 ZONE REQUIRES 30% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE ON LOTS WITH RESIDENTIAL USES, AND HAS A MAXIMUM FAR OF 1.0, WHICH CAN BE INCREASED TO 1.4 THROUGH SITE REVIEW. IN THE BT-1 ZONE ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALLOWED BY-RIGHT, IF THE USE IS NOT LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR FACING A STREET. GROUND LEVEL RESIDENTIAL USES ARE, HOWEVER, ALLOWED BY USE REVIEW. GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE STREET IS BEING PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THIS REQUIREMENT WITH A CONCURRENT SITE AND USE REVIEW APPLICATION. THE 30TH STREET LOT IS CURRENTLY SPLIT BETWEEN TWO ZONES: RM-2, AND RH-5. THE SMALL PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS STILL ZONED RM-2, IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY RH-5 ZONES. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUESTING REZONING DURING THE SITE REVIEW PROCESS TO RH-5 FOR THE WHOLE SITE. TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE RH-5 ZONE HAS A MAXIMUM FAR OF 1.5 AND 15% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE INTERACTION WITH THE MAIN STREETS THAT BORDER THEM, AS WELL AS THE DESIRED CONNECTION TO BOTH THE VIEWS AND THE UNIVERSITY TO THE WEST. THE BUILDING'S OVERALL FORM IS SIMPLE, FEATURING LARGE, GLAZED AREAS AND PROJECTING BALCONIES THAT EXTEND FROM THE MAIN MASS. RESIDENTIAL ENTRIES AT STREET LEVEL ARE RECESSED TO ENSURE PRIVACY. THE MATERIAL PALETTE IS LIMITED BUT VARIED, WITH A FOCUS ON TEXTURE. TALLER MASSES ARE VISUALLY SCALED DOWN USING HORIZONTAL BANDING, WHILE ENTRIES AND LOWER SECTIONS ARE DEFINED BY MORE VERTICAL CONTINUITY. No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 16 Packet Page 580 of 1100 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 A 0.02AERIAL MAP & CONTEXT USES HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW PROJECT SITES BASELINE RD.30TH ST.CANYON CREEK RD.CANYON CREEK RD.UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO WILLIAMS VILLAGE CAMPUS EXISTING RETAIL CENTER PROPOSED SITE OF WILLIAMS VILLAGE IIUS - 3 6 No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 17 Packet Page 581 of 1100 30TH ST.CANYON CREEK RD.CANYON CREEK RD.BASELINE RD. #1 #2 #3#4 #6 #5 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 A 0.03CONTEXT MAP & EXISTING STREET VIEWS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1" = 80'-0"1OVERALL SITE PLAN - CONTEXT MAP 1. LOOKING SOUTH ON 30TH ST 2. LOOKING NORTH AT 30TH ST. AND CANYON CREEK RD. 3. LOOKING WEST AT 30TH ST. AND BASELINE RD. 4. LOOKING EAST AT BASELINE RD. AND CANYON CREEK RD. 5. LOOKING NORTH ON CANYON CREEK RD. 6. LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON CANYON CREEK RD. No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 18 Packet Page 582 of 1100 FLOOD ZONES HIGH HAZARD ZONE CONVEYANCE ZONE 100-YEAR EXTENT 500-YEAR EXTENT ZONING BT-1BUSINESS TRANSITIONAL 1 BC-2 BUSINESS-COMMUNITY 2 P PUBLIC RH-5 RESIDENTIAL - HIGH 5 RL-1 RESIDENTIAL - LOW 1 RM-2 RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM 2 FUTURE LAND USE TB - TRANSITIONAL BUSINESS HR - HIGH DENSITY MR - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LR - LOW DENSITY RESIDETIAL CB - COMMUNITY BUSINESS MUB - MIXED USE BUSINESS PUB - PUBLIC PK-U/O - PARK, URBAN AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION MULTI USE PATH PROPOSED MULTI USE PATH DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTE EXISTING SIDEWALKS PROPOSED SIDEWALS 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 A 0.04LAND USE, ZONING, & WETLAND INFO. HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW ZONING MAP FLOOD MAPTRANSPORTATION MAP PROPOSED RE-ZONING FUTURE LAND USE PARCELS 765 & 775 30TH STREET PROPOSED TO BE RE-ZONED TO RH-5 No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 19 Packet Page 583 of 1100 PLOT DATE: 1/8/2025 2:38:53 PM 1731 15th Street | Suite 250 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLENOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS2865 BASELINE RD. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW No. Date 01.08.2025 L 1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 03.03.202530th & BASELINE RD. 3RD FLOOR | COMMUNITY DECK ROW LANDSCAPE PLANTING STREET LEVEL PLAZA SPA DECK RAINGARDEN 30th AvenueBaseline RoadCanyon Creek Road Canyon Creek RoadENTRY PLAZA ENTRY PLAZA ENTRY TRASH COVERED BIKE PARKINGLONG TERM COVERED BIKE PARKINGLONG TERM DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY COMMUNITY PATIO COMMUNITY PATIO COMMUNITY PATIO HOT TUB CONSULTANTSHUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 03.04.2025 Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 20 Packet Page 584 of 1100 PLOT DATE: 1/8/2025 2:40:05 PM 1731 15th Street | Suite 250 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLENOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS2865 BASELINE RD. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW No. Date 01.08.2025 L 1.1SITE AREAS2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 30th & BASELINE RD.03.03.2025 30th AvenueBaseline RoadRequired Open Space | 30th and Baseline BT-1 Zone: Residential 30%Required Open Space 86,135 Site Area in SF 25,840 SF Open Space Required 29,562 SF Open Space Provided Building Height 46'8" 20%Useable Open Space 86,135 Site Area in SF 17,227 SF Usable Open Space Required 24,876 SF Usable Open Space Provided Required Open Space | 735-775 30th BT-1 Zone: Residential 30%Required Open Space 41,931 Site Area in SF 12,579 SF Open Space Required 19,231 SF Open Space Provided Building Height 46'8" 20%Useable Open Space 41,931 Site Area in SF 8,386 SF Usable Open Space Required 8,647 SF Usable Open Space Provided GROUND FLOOR | SCALE: 1” - 30’ 3RD FLOOR COMMUNITY DECK Canyon Creek Road Landscape ROW Landscape Patios andCommon Areas Hardscape andConnectionsCanyon Creek RoadCONSULTANTSHUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 03.04.2025 Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 21 Packet Page 585 of 1100 53225323532453265327532853 2 9 53 3 15332 53335334533453375338533653395341534253435 3 4 1 53395 3 3 8 5 3 3 7 53365341 53395 3 3 9533353345337533953415 3 3 9 5 3 3 8 5 3 3 7533653345 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 3 3 1 5329533153325331533253335334 5 3 3 6 5 3 3 8 53415331533153295331532953285 3 2 8 5327532753285329532 75327 5326532453235324532 3 532153195321532253235 3 2 4 53 2 6 53255 3 3 0 53355340534053405340534053 4 0533553 3 0 533053 3 5 53405340 533053305330532553255320532053 2 0 5 3 2 5 5330UP 30TH ST.CANYON CREEK RD.30TH ST. CANYON CREEK RD.BASELINE RD.2995 BASELINE735-775 30TH STREET 2995 BASELINE R 25' - 0" R 25' - 0" BUILDING LOW POINT 5322.65' BUILDING LOW POINT 5331.40' 735-775 30TH ST. EXISTING CONTOURS VEHICULAR ENTRY MAIN LOBBY ENTRY VEHICULAR ENTRY MAIN ENTRY BIKE PARKING ENTRY EXISTING SHARED ACCESS DRIVE WITH BUFFALO CANYON APTARTMENTS MAIN LOBBY & AMENITY SPACE ENTRY LOBBY BIKE PARKING ENTRY TRASH & LOADING TRASH APPROXIMATE AREA OF PROPOSED 30TH STREET MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS BY CITY 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 0-A 0.1SITE PLAN - OVERALL HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1" = 30'-0"1OVERALL SITE PLAN 0'15' 30' 60'120' SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 22 Packet Page 586 of 1100 UP 2995 BASELINE F.A.R. & PARKING SITE AREA = 86,135 SF | ZONING = BT - 1 | BASE FAR OF 1.4 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA @ 1.4 FAR = 120,589 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 120,518 SF PARKING: 80 SURFACE SPOTS PROVIDED | 27% OF BEDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 130 TOTAL; 98 LONG-TERM + 32 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 154 TOTAL; 122 LONG-TERM + 32 SHORT-TERM 1-A 2.1 1 1-A 2.13 1-A 2.2 1 1-A 2.12 2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 1-A 2.223 1-A 2.12 1 1-A 2.12 2 524 SF MAINTENANCE273 SF ELECTRICAL 1,174 SF BIKE PARKING & STORAGE STAIR221 SF 1,393 SF TRASH 179 SF WATER ENTRY + BACK OF HOUSE 6BR/6BA TH1,215 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,215 SF 3BR/3BA TH 870 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,042 SF 6BR/5BA TH 690 SF 6BR/5BA TH 690 SF 6BR/5BA TH 690 SF 6BR/5BA TH 690 SF 6BR/5BA TH 690 SF 6BR/5BA TH 690 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,215 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,215 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,215 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,215 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,044 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,311 SF 1:12 (12) (16) (94 LONG-TERM) (4 LONG-TERM) @ EACH 6BR/6BA TH UNIT 28 LONG-TERM (14C) (10 C) (16) (10C) (2)(18 SHORT-TERM)EXTERIOR TRASH STAGING AREA FOR TOWNHOUSE UNITS (2) 4-YARD DUMPSTERS (1) 2-YARD DUMPSTER STAIRS & RAMP TO MAIN LOBBY VEHICULAR ENTRY 30TH ST.CANYON CREEK RD.CANYON CREEK RD.UTILITY EASEMENTBIKE PARKING ENTRYBIKE PARKING ENTRY 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 1.02995 BASELINE- LOWER LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2995 BASELINE - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA S. 00 LOWER LEVEL COMMON 399 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,819 SF 16,218 SF S. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 4,681 SF COMMON 3,514 SF 8,195 SF S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 RESIDENTIAL 19,997 SF 19,997 SF S. 02 SECOND LEVEL COMMON 5,547 SF RESIDENTIAL 24,445 SF 29,992 SF S. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 1,449 SF COMMON 4,881 SF RESIDENTIAL 18,618 SF 24,948 SF S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL COMMON 3,625 SF RESIDENTIAL 17,542 SF 21,167 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 120,518 SF 2995 BASELINE - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 3BR/3BA TH 1 3 5BR/4BA TH 1 5 6BR/5BA TH 6 36 6BR/6BA TH 8 48 16 92 S. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 2 2 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 6 24 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 6BR/5BA FLAT 2 12 20 81 S. 03 THIRD LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 15 63 S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/4BA FLAT 7 35 14 59 UNIT & BED TOTALS 65 295 1/16" = 1'-0"1 00 - LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 2995 BASELINE 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date TRASH & LOADING Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 23 Packet Page 587 of 1100 UP UP UP 2995 BASELINE F.A.R. & PARKING SITE AREA = 86,135 SF | ZONING = BT - 1 | BASE FAR OF 1.4 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA @ 1.4 FAR = 120,589 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 120,518 SF PARKING: 80 SURFACE SPOTS PROVIDED | 27% OF BEDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 130 TOTAL; 98 LONG-TERM + 32 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 154 TOTAL; 122 LONG-TERM + 32 SHORT-TERM 1-A 2.1 1 1-A 2.13 1-A 2.2 1 1-A 2.12 2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 1-A 2.223 1-A 2.12 1 1-A 2.12 2 (10C)30TH ST.CANYON CREEK RD.BASELINE RD. CANYON CREEK RD. (16) (16)42' - 5 1/2"167' - 6 1/4"20' - 0 1/4"(2) PACKAGE 208 SF 273 SF ELECTRICAL 524 SF MAINTENANCE STAIR221 SF 2' - 1 1/4"227' - 10 3/4"22' - 3 3/4"350' - 2 1/4"11 1/2" 15' - 4" ELEV. 105 SF ELEV.105 SF VESTIBULE124 SF 1,642 SF FITNESS 1,174 SF BIKE PARKING & STORAGE 125 SF DESK 1,393 SF TRASH7' - 11 1/2"19' - 0"24' - 0"15' - 0"8' - 0"19' - 0"24' - 0"19' - 0"5' - 6"11' - 4"8' - 6"55' - 11 1/2"232' - 11 3/4"62' - 10 1/4"15' - 5 1/2" 7' - 8" 5' - 6"15' - 0"24' - 0"12' - 6"108' - 10"8' - 0"24' - 0"15' - 0"5' - 6" (94 LONG-TERM) TRASH 196 SF (14C) (12) ANNEX2,590 SFMAIL144 SF 6BR/5BA TH1,460 SF6BR/5BA TH1,460 SF6BR/5BA TH1,460 SF6BR/5BA TH1,460 SF6BR/5BA TH1,460 SF6BR/5BA TH1,460 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,449 SF 3BR/3BA TH710 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,145 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,145 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,145 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,145 SF 5BR/4BA TH968 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,240 SF 323 SF BOH 1:12 1:12 ELEV. LOBBY 326 SF TYP. 7' - 9" TYP. 9' - 0"UTILITY EASEMENT(10 C) (14 SHORT-TERM)(18 SHORT-TERM)UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY & R.O.W. EASEMENTSIDEWALK EASEMENTSTAIR221 SF 6BR/6BA TH1,145 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,145 SF 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 1.12995 BASELINE- GROUND LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 01 - GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 2995 BASELINE 2995 BASELINE - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA S. 00 LOWER LEVEL COMMON 399 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,819 SF 16,218 SF S. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 4,681 SF COMMON 3,514 SF 8,195 SF S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 RESIDENTIAL 19,997 SF 19,997 SF S. 02 SECOND LEVEL COMMON 5,547 SF RESIDENTIAL 24,445 SF 29,992 SF S. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 1,449 SF COMMON 4,881 SF RESIDENTIAL 18,618 SF 24,948 SF S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL COMMON 3,625 SF RESIDENTIAL 17,542 SF 21,167 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 120,518 SF 2995 BASELINE - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 3BR/3BA TH 1 3 5BR/4BA TH 1 5 6BR/5BA TH 6 36 6BR/6BA TH 8 48 16 92 S. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 2 2 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 6 24 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 6BR/5BA FLAT 2 12 20 81 S. 03 THIRD LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 15 63 S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/4BA FLAT 7 35 14 59 UNIT & BED TOTALS 65 295 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 24 Packet Page 588 of 1100 1-A 2.1 1 1-A 2.13 1-A 2.2 1 1-A 2.12 OPEN TO BELOW 2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 STAIR221 SF 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT STAIR 221 SF BACK OF HOUSE594 SFELEV.105 SF ELEV.105 SF167 SFPOOL EQUIP.1,682 SF 6BR/5BA FLAT 1,675 SF 6BR/5BA FLAT 725 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 740 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 2BR/2BA FLAT 799 SF TRASH 196 SF CORR. 3,295 SF 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,266 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 479 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 1-A 2.223 1,237 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,237 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,327 SF 5BR/3BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,144 SF 4BR/2BA FLAT 1-A 2.12 1 1-A 2.12 2 LEASING644 SF 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 1.22995 BASELINE - SECOND LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 02 - SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 2995 BASELINE 2995 BASELINE - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA S. 00 LOWER LEVEL COMMON 399 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,819 SF 16,218 SF S. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 4,681 SF COMMON 3,514 SF 8,195 SF S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 RESIDENTIAL 19,997 SF 19,997 SF S. 02 SECOND LEVEL COMMON 5,547 SF RESIDENTIAL 24,445 SF 29,992 SF S. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 1,449 SF COMMON 4,881 SF RESIDENTIAL 18,618 SF 24,948 SF S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL COMMON 3,625 SF RESIDENTIAL 17,542 SF 21,167 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 120,518 SF 2995 BASELINE - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 3BR/3BA TH 1 3 5BR/4BA TH 1 5 6BR/5BA TH 6 36 6BR/6BA TH 8 48 16 92 S. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 2 2 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 6 24 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 6BR/5BA FLAT 2 12 20 81 S. 03 THIRD LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 15 63 S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/4BA FLAT 7 35 14 59 UNIT & BED TOTALS 65 295 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 25 Packet Page 589 of 1100 1-A 2.1 1 1-A 2.13 1-A 2.2 1 1-A 2.12 2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 STAIR221 SF ELEV. 105 SF ELEV.105 SF 799 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 5BR/4BA FLAT1,453 SF1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 740 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT ROOF DECK 2,178 SF HOT TUB 140 SF BACK OF HOUSE594 SF STAIR 221 SF 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT SPA627 SF TRASH196 SF 2,846 SF CORR. 4BR/3BA FLAT1,237 SF 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1-A 2.223 1,237 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,327 SF 5BR/3BA FLAT 1,144 SF 4BR/2BA FLAT 1-A 2.12 1 1-A 2.12 2 TROPHY ROOM822 SF 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 1.32995 BASELINE - THIRD LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 03 - THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 2995 BASELINE 2995 BASELINE - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA S. 00 LOWER LEVEL COMMON 399 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,819 SF 16,218 SF S. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 4,681 SF COMMON 3,514 SF 8,195 SF S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 RESIDENTIAL 19,997 SF 19,997 SF S. 02 SECOND LEVEL COMMON 5,547 SF RESIDENTIAL 24,445 SF 29,992 SF S. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 1,449 SF COMMON 4,881 SF RESIDENTIAL 18,618 SF 24,948 SF S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL COMMON 3,625 SF RESIDENTIAL 17,542 SF 21,167 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 120,518 SF 2995 BASELINE - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 3BR/3BA TH 1 3 5BR/4BA TH 1 5 6BR/5BA TH 6 36 6BR/6BA TH 8 48 16 92 S. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 2 2 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 6 24 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 6BR/5BA FLAT 2 12 20 81 S. 03 THIRD LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 15 63 S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/4BA FLAT 7 35 14 59 UNIT & BED TOTALS 65 295 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 26 Packet Page 590 of 1100 1-A 2.1 1 1-A 2.13 1-A 2.2 1 1-A 2.12 2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 799 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 740 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT BACK OF HOUSE 594 SF STAIR TRASH 196 SF STAIR 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1-A 2.223 1,237 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,237 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 2,835 SF CORR. 1-A 2.12 1 1-A 2.12 2 ELEV. ELEV. 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 1.42995 BASELINE - FOURTH LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 04 - FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 2995 BASELINE 2995 BASELINE - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA S. 00 LOWER LEVEL COMMON 399 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,819 SF 16,218 SF S. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 4,681 SF COMMON 3,514 SF 8,195 SF S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 RESIDENTIAL 19,997 SF 19,997 SF S. 02 SECOND LEVEL COMMON 5,547 SF RESIDENTIAL 24,445 SF 29,992 SF S. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 1,449 SF COMMON 4,881 SF RESIDENTIAL 18,618 SF 24,948 SF S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL COMMON 3,625 SF RESIDENTIAL 17,542 SF 21,167 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 120,518 SF 2995 BASELINE - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS S. 01 LEVEL 1.5 3BR/3BA TH 1 3 5BR/4BA TH 1 5 6BR/5BA TH 6 36 6BR/6BA TH 8 48 16 92 S. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 2 2 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 6 24 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 6BR/5BA FLAT 2 12 20 81 S. 03 THIRD LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/2BA FLAT 1 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/3BA FLAT 1 5 5BR/4BA FLAT 6 30 15 63 S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 2BR/2BA FLAT 2 4 4BR/3BA FLAT 5 20 5BR/4BA FLAT 7 35 14 59 UNIT & BED TOTALS 65 295 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 27 Packet Page 591 of 1100 S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT 5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" FC-01 FC-02 BR-01 MP-02 WD-01 WD-01 FC-01 BR-01 MP-03 ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"10' - 6"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETS. 01 GROUND LEVEL 100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" FC-01FC-01 BR-01 WD-01 FC-01 BR-01 WD-01 MP-02 MP-03 MP-02 MP-02 MP-02 FC-02 ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"13' - 6"7' - 6"S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4"PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"13' - 6"7' - 6"2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"FC-01 FC-02 WD-01 BR-01 MP-02 BR-01 MP-02 FC-01MP-02 1' - 6" PARAPETMP-03 ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND PRIMARY MATERIALSACCENT MATERIALSBRICK | BR-01 RUNNING BOND - BUFF ACCENT METAL | MP-02 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING | FC-02 DARK GRAY METAL SCREEN | MP-03 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT PANELS | FC-01 DARK GRAY WOOD LOOK PANELS | WD-01 HORIZ. TOUNGE & GROVE MATERIAL PALETTE 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 2.12995 BASELINE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION - 2995 BASELINE 1/16" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION - 2995 BASELINE 1/16" = 1'-0"3WEST ELEVATION - 2295 BASELINE 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 28 Packet Page 592 of 1100 S. 01 GROUND LEVEL 100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" 2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"13' - 6"7' - 6"PARAPET1' - 6"PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"FC-01 MP-02 FC-02 FC-01 BR-01 MP-02 MP-03 FC-01 FC-02 WD-01 MP-02 BR-01 FC-01 FC-02 S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" FC-01 FC-02 BR-01 MP-02 WD-01 FC-01 WD-01 MP-03 PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" FC-01 FC-02 BR-01 WD-01 MP-02 MP-03 ELEVATOR OVERRUN PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"10' - 6"10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETPRIMARY MATERIALSACCENT MATERIALSBRICK | BR-01 RUNNING BOND - BUFF ACCENT METAL | MP-02 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING | FC-02 DARK GRAY METAL SCREEN | MP-03 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT PANELS | FC-01 DARK GRAY WOOD LOOK PANELS | WD-01 HORIZ. TOUNGE & GROVE MATERIAL PALETTE 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 2.22995 BASELINE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION 1 - 2995 BASELINE 1/16" = 1'-0"2EAST WING - WEST ELEVATION - 2995 BASELINE 1/16" = 1'-0"3WEST WING - EAST ELEVATION - 2995 BASELINE 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date ELEVATOR OVERRUN BR-01 Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 29 Packet Page 593 of 1100 S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL 145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" ROOF DECK 2,590 SF ANNEX 725 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 1,675 SF 6BR/5BA FLAT 1,174 SF BIKE PARKING & STORAGEPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTEASMENTPROPERTY LINE1,393 SF TRASH 273 SF ELECTRICAL 2,360 SF 6BR/6BA TH 2,360 SF 6BR/6BA TH 124 SF VESTIBULE 10' - 6"10' - 6"13' - 6"10' - 6"S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 2%10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPET1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 10' - 6"10' - 6"1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT CORR.PROPERTY LINEEASEMENTEASMENTPROPERTY LINE2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND 13' - 6"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETS. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL 145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4" S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.2 1 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 2 1-A 3.2 10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLATPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTEASMENTPROPERTY LINE1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,178 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 2,360 SF 6BR/6BA TH 2,360 SF 6BR/6BA TH 2,360 SF 6BR/6BA TH 2,360 SF 6BR/6BA TH 2,012 SF 5BR/4BA TH 2,551 SF 6BR/6BA TH 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,327 SF 5BR/3BA FLAT 1,327 SF 5BR/3BA FLAT 1' - 6" PARAPET2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 3.12995 BASELINE - BUILDING SECTIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"12995 BASELINE - SECTION 1 1/16" = 1'-0"22995 BASELINE - SECTION 2 1/16" = 1'-0"32995 BASELINE - SECTION 3 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 30 Packet Page 594 of 1100 S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT5331' - 4 3/4"2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0"2,590 SF ANNEX 208 SF PACKAGE 799 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 799 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 799 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,453 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,642 SF FITNESS 594 SF BACK OF HOUSE 594 SF BACK OF HOUSE 594 SF BACK OF HOUSEELEV.CORR. 594 SF BACK OF HOUSEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTTRASHSTAIR 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 1,580 SF 3BR/3BA TH 323 SF BOH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 326 SF ELEV. LOBBY CORR. CORR. CORR. ROOF DECK ELEVATOR OVERRUN 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT CORR.CORR.CORR.1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"13' - 6"S. 01 GROUND LEVEL100' - 0" S. 02 SECOND LEVEL113' - 6" S. 03 THIRD LEVEL124' - 0" S. 04 FOURTH LEVEL134' - 6" S. 05 ROOF LEVEL145' - 0" S.BLDG. LOW POINT 5331' - 4 3/4"2 1-A 3.1 2 1-A 3.1 S. 00 LOWER LEVEL92' - 6" 1 1-A 3.1 1 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 2,590 SF ANNEX S. 01 LEVEL 1.5103' - 0" ROOF DECK 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 740 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 740 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 1,642 SF FITNESS 740 SF 2BR/2BA FLATPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEASEMENT627 SF SPA 1,266 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,395 SF 5BR/4BA FLAT 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,233 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 2,150 SF 6BR/5BA TH 2,490 SF 6BR/6BA TH 822 SF TROPHY ROOM 644 SF LEASING 1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT54' - 7 1/4"1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"13' - 6"ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 1-A 3.22995 BASELINE - BUILDING SECTIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"12995 BASELINE - SECTION 4 1/16" = 1'-0"22995 BASELINE - SECTION 5 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 31 Packet Page 595 of 1100 2-A 2.1 4 2-A 2.1 1 2-A 2.12 30TH ST.CANYON CREEK RD.PARKING 7,833 SF TRASH224 SF 67' - 0 3/4"320' - 4 1/2"11' - 1" 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 5BR/4BA TH 792 SF5BR/4BA TH 792 SF 5BR/4BA TH 792 SF 5BR/4BA TH 792 SF 5BR/5BA TH1,067 SF5BR/5BA TH1,067 SF5BR/5BA TH1,067 SF5BR/5BA TH1,067 SF BUILDING ABOVE STAIRS 200 SF 26 SPACES 4BR/4BA TH476 SF 4BR/4BA TH476 SF 5BR/5BA TH998 SF (2C)(2C)(2C)(2C)(2C)(2C) 452 SF LOBBY 124 SF BOH TURN AROUNDUTILITY EASMENT (6S)(6S)RECYCLINGCOMPACTORCOMPOSTTRASH (1A)(1A) STAIRS126 SF ELEV.100 SF (52) LONG TERM DETENTION PACKAGE74 SF5BR/4BA TH 792 SF 4BR/4BA TH476 SF4BR/4BA TH476 SF BOH102 SF 4BR/4BA TH476 SF4BR/4BA TH476 SF 4' - 10 3/4"50' - 3 1/4"44' - 6 1/2"66' - 11 3/4"319' - 0 3/4"12' - 6 1/4" STAIRS200 SF 2,006 SF BIKE PARKING & STORAGE 5BR/5BA TH 1,005 SF (6 SHORT-TERM) (6 SHORT-TERM) (6 SHORT-TERM) VEHICULAR ENTRY MAIN ENTRY ENTRY FROM PARKING EXISTING SHARED ACCESS DRIVE WITH BUFFALO CANYON APARTMENTSACCESS EASMENTAPPROXIMATE AREA OF PROPOSED 30TH STREET MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS BY CITY 735 30TH STREET F.A.R. & PARKING SITE AREA = 41,931 SF | ZONING = RH-5 | BASE FAR OF 1.5 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA @ 1.5 FAR = 62,897 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 62,702 SF PARKING: 26 SURFACE SPOTS PROVIDED | 17% OF BEDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 70 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 18 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 72 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 20 SHORT-TERM 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 1.130TH STREET - GROUND LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 01 - GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 30TH STREET 30TH STREET - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS N. 01 GROUND LEVEL 4BR/4BA TH 6 24 5BR/4BA TH 5 25 5BR/5BA TH 6 30 17 79 N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 2 5 N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 UNIT & BED TOTALS 35 148 30TH STREET - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA N. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 452 SF COMMON 951 SF RESIDENTIAL 13,087 SF 14,490 SF N. 02 SECOND LEVEL AMENITY 263 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,260 SF 17,372 SF N. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,491 SF 17,809 SF N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,449 SF RESIDENTIAL 11,112 SF 13,030 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 62,702 SF 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date BIKE PARKING ENTRY & Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 32 Packet Page 596 of 1100 2-A 2.1 4 2-A 2.13 2-A 2.1 1 2-A 2.12 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 4BR/4BA TH731 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF STAIRS200 SF1,237 SF CORR. TRASH112 SF LOBBY 263 SF ELEV. 100 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 4BR/4BA TH731 SF4BR/4BA TH731 SF STAIRS 200 SF OPEN TO BELOW 67' - 0 3/4"320' - 4 1/2"11' - 1" 5BR/5BA TH 798 SF5BR/5BA TH863 SF 5BR/5BA TH 808 SF5BR/5BA TH863 SF 5BR/5BA TH 808 SF5BR/5BA TH862 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,376 SF 5BR/4BA TH792 SF5BR/4BA TH792 SF5BR/4BA TH792 SF5BR/4BA TH792 SF5BR/4BA TH792 SF 17' - 7 1/4"97' - 10 1/2"7' - 7 3/4"32' - 7"62' - 3"4' - 10 3/4"735 30TH STREET F.A.R. & PARKING SITE AREA = 41,931 SF | ZONING = RH-5 | BASE FAR OF 1.5 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA @ 1.5 FAR = 62,897 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 62,702 SF PARKING: 26 SURFACE SPOTS PROVIDED | 17% OF BEDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 70 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 18 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 72 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 20 SHORT-TERM 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 1.230TH STREET - SECOND LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 02 - SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 30TH STREET 30TH STREET - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA N. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 452 SF COMMON 951 SF RESIDENTIAL 13,087 SF 14,490 SF N. 02 SECOND LEVEL AMENITY 263 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,260 SF 17,372 SF N. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,491 SF 17,809 SF N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,449 SF RESIDENTIAL 11,112 SF 13,030 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 62,702 SF 30TH STREET - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS N. 01 GROUND LEVEL 4BR/4BA TH 6 24 5BR/4BA TH 5 25 5BR/5BA TH 6 30 17 79 N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 2 5 N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 UNIT & BED TOTALS 35 148 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 33 Packet Page 597 of 1100 2-A 2.1 4 2-A 2.13 2-A 2.1 1 2-A 2.12 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 STAIRS 200 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF TRASH 112 SF ELEV.100 SF CORR.1,237 SF 4BR/4BA TH731 SF4BR/4BA TH731 SF4BR/4BA TH731 SF STAIRS 200 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT1,376 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT538 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT800 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT1,714 SF5BR/5BA FLAT1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT1,654 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,656 SF LOBBY469 SF 17' - 7 1/4"97' - 7 1/2"7' - 10 3/4"67' - 0 3/4"320' - 2"11' - 3 3/4"32' - 9 3/4"61' - 9 1/8"5' - 1 3/4"735 30TH STREET F.A.R. & PARKING SITE AREA = 41,931 SF | ZONING = RH-5 | BASE FAR OF 1.5 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA @ 1.5 FAR = 62,897 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 62,702 SF PARKING: 26 SURFACE SPOTS PROVIDED | 17% OF BEDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 70 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 18 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 72 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 20 SHORT-TERM 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 1.330TH STREET - THIRD LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"103 - THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 30TH STREET 30TH STREET - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA N. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 452 SF COMMON 951 SF RESIDENTIAL 13,087 SF 14,490 SF N. 02 SECOND LEVEL AMENITY 263 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,260 SF 17,372 SF N. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,491 SF 17,809 SF N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,449 SF RESIDENTIAL 11,112 SF 13,030 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 62,702 SF 30TH STREET - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS N. 01 GROUND LEVEL 4BR/4BA TH 6 24 5BR/4BA TH 5 25 5BR/5BA TH 6 30 17 79 N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 2 5 N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 UNIT & BED TOTALS 35 148 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 34 Packet Page 598 of 1100 2-A 2.1 4 2-A 2.13 2-A 2.1 1 2-A 2.12 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 TRASH 112 SF 1,237 SF CORR. ELEV.100 SF 4BR/3BA FLAT 1,376 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 800 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT1,714 SF5BR/5BA FLAT1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT1,657 SF5BR/5BA FLAT1,657 SF5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT538 SF LOBBY469 SF STAIRS STAIRS8' - 9 1/4"67' - 0 3/4"320' - 2"11' - 3 3/4"5' - 1 3/4"735 30TH STREET F.A.R. & PARKING SITE AREA = 41,931 SF | ZONING = RH-5 | BASE FAR OF 1.5 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA @ 1.5 FAR = 62,897 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 62,702 SF PARKING: 26 SURFACE SPOTS PROVIDED | 17% OF BEDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 70 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 18 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 72 TOTAL; 52 LONG-TERM + 20 SHORT-TERM 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 1.430TH STREET - FOURTH LEVEL PLAN HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 04 - FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 30TH STREET 30TH STREET - FLOOR AREA TYPE AREA N. 01 GROUND LEVEL AMENITY 452 SF COMMON 951 SF RESIDENTIAL 13,087 SF 14,490 SF N. 02 SECOND LEVEL AMENITY 263 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,260 SF 17,372 SF N. 03 THIRD LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,849 SF RESIDENTIAL 15,491 SF 17,809 SF N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL AMENITY 469 SF COMMON 1,449 SF RESIDENTIAL 11,112 SF 13,030 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA 62,702 SF 30TH STREET - UNIT & BED COUNT UNIT TYPE # TOTAL BEDS N. 01 GROUND LEVEL 4BR/4BA TH 6 24 5BR/4BA TH 5 25 5BR/5BA TH 6 30 17 79 N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 2 5 N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 1BR/1BA FLAT 1 1 2BR/2BA FLAT 1 2 4BR/3BA FLAT 1 4 5BR/5BA FLAT 5 25 8 32 UNIT & BED TOTALS 35 148 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 35 Packet Page 599 of 1100 N. 01 GROUND LEVEL 89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6"PROPOSED BLDG. HT.49' - 10 1/4"3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 7' - 10 3/16"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYONDBR-01 MP-02 WD-01FC-01FC-02MP-03 FC-02 BR-01 MP-02 FC-01 N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 FC-02 FC-01 MP-03 BR-01 BR-01 MP-02 ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND PROPOSED BLDG. HT.49' - 10 1/4"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"7' - 10 1/4"PRIMARY MATERIALSACCENT MATERIALSBRICK | BR-01 RUNNING BOND - BUFF ACCENT METAL | MP-02 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING | FC-02 DARK GRAY METAL SCREEN | MP-03 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT PANELS | FC-01 DARK GRAY WOOD LOOK PANELS | WD-01 HORIZ. TOUNGE & GROVE MATERIAL PALETTE N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND FC-01 FC-02 BR-01 MP-03 FC-01 FC-02 MP-02 FC-01 PROPOSED BLDG. HT.49' - 10 1/4"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"7' - 10 1/4"N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 3 1-A 3.1 3 1-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 PROPOSED BLDG. HT.49' - 10 1/4"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"7' - 10 1/4"FC-02 BR-01 FC-01 FC-01 ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 2.130TH STREET - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION - 30TH STREET 1/16" = 1'-0"4EAST ELEVATION - 30TH STREET 1/16" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION - 30TH STREET 1/16" = 1'-0"3NORTH ELEVATION - 30TH STREET No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 36 Packet Page 600 of 1100 N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 STAIRS 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH CORR.TRASH 800 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 800 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT BIKE PARKING & STORAGE 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA THCORR.CORR.PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT49' - 10 1/4"7' - 10 1/4"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETN. 01 GROUND LEVEL 89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL 100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 1,931 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,875 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,931 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,875 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH400 SF ELEV. 452 SF LOBBY 1,796 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,654 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH263 SF LOBBY 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH1,867 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,656 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 469 SF LOBBY 469 SF LOBBY 7' - 10 1/4"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT49' - 10 1/4"ELEVATOR OVERRUN 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 3.130TH STREET - BUILDING SECTIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"130TH STREET - SECTION 1 1/16" = 1'-0"230TH STREET - SECTION 2 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL 131' - 6" 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 STAIRS 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH CORR.TRASH 800 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 800 SF 2BR/2BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT 538 SF 1BR/1BA FLAT BIKE PARKING & STORAGE 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA THCORR.CORR.PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT49' - 10 1/4"7' - 10 1/4"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETN. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 3 2-A 3.2 3 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 1 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 2 2-A 3.2 1,931 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,875 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,931 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,875 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH400 SF ELEV. 452 SF LOBBY 1,796 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,654 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH263 SF LOBBY 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH1,867 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,656 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 469 SF LOBBY 469 SF LOBBY 7' - 10 1/4"10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6"1' - 6" PARAPETPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT49' - 10 1/4"ELEVATOR OVERRUN 1/16" = 1'-0"130TH STREET - SECTION 1 1/16" = 1'-0"230TH STREET - SECTION 2 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 37 Packet Page 601 of 1100 N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL 131' - 6" 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 CORR.1,796 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,654 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT CORR.CORR.1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"7' - 10 1/4"PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT49' - 10 1/4"N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL 131' - 6" 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1,585 SF 5BR/4BA TH CORR.1,931 SF 5BR/5BA TH 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,657 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT CORR.CORR.1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1,714 SF 5BR/5BA FLAT 1' - 6" PARAPET10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 6"7' - 10 1/4"PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT49' - 10 1/4"N. 01 GROUND LEVEL89' - 6" NORTH BLDG. LOW POINT5322' - 7 3/4" N. 02 SECOND LEVEL100' - 0" N. 03 THIRD LEVEL 110' - 6" N. 04 FOURTH LEVEL 121' - 0" N. ROOF LEVEL131' - 6" 2 2-A 3.1 2 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1 2-A 3.1 1,937 SF 4BR/4BA TH 1' - 6" PARAPET12' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"4' - 2 1/4"PROPOSED BLDG. HT.37' - 2 1/4"2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 3.230TH STREET - BUILDING SECTIONS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"230TH STREET - SECTION 4 1/16" = 1'-0"130TH STREET - SECTION 3 1/16" = 1'-0"330TH STREET - SECTION 5 0'8' 16' 32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 38 Packet Page 602 of 1100 PRIMARY MATERIALSACCENT MATERIALSBRICK | BR-01 RUNNING BOND - BUFF ACCENT METAL | MP-02 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING | FC-02 DARK GRAY METAL SCREEN | MP-03 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT PANELS | FC-01 DARK GRAY WOOD LOOK PANELS | WD-01 HORIZ. TOUNGE & GROVE MATERIAL PALETTE DESIGN INSPIRATION & PRECEDENT IMAGERY TWO-TONE MATERIAL PALETTE - TEATR NA PODOLI - DROZDOV & PARTNERS DESIGN INSPIRATION & PRECEDENTS 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 9.12995 BASELINE - 3D VIEWS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - 2995 BASELINE - MAIN ENTRY FROM BASELINE & CANYON CREEK RD. CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - 2995 BASELINE - CORNER OF BASELINE & 30TH STREET No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 39 Packet Page 603 of 1100 PRIMARY MATERIALSACCENT MATERIALSBRICK | BR-01 RUNNING BOND - BUFF ACCENT METAL | MP-02 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING | FC-02 DARK GRAY METAL SCREEN | MP-03 DARK GRAY FIBER CEMENT PANELS | FC-01 DARK GRAY WOOD LOOK PANELS | WD-01 HORIZ. TOUNGE & GROVE MATERIAL PALETTE CONTEXTDESIGN INSPIRATIONWILLIAMS VILLAGE STEARNS HALL DORMITORIES CONTEXT & DESIGN INSPIRATION WILLIAMS VILLAGE DINING & COMMUNITY COMMONS MODERN BRICK DETAILING & MASSING - CRYSTAL ORTHOPEDIC CENTER - IKM ARCHITECTURE 2505 Walnut Street | Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SSARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SSARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE.CONSULTANTS03.04.2025 2-A 9.230TH STREET - 3D VIEWS HUB BASELINE BOULDER 2995 BASELINE & 735-775 30TH ST. BOULDER, CO, 80303 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - 30TH STREET - MAIN ENTRY FROM CORNER OF 30TH STREET & CANYON CREEK RD CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - 30TH STREET - LOOKING SOUTH WEST No. Date Attachment A - Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept PlanPage 40 Packet Page 604 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES June 3, 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: Mark McIntyre, Chair Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair (virtual) Claudia Hason Thiem Mason Roberts ml Robles (virtual) Jorge Boone (virtual) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Nordback STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Moeller Deshawna Zazueta Charles Ferro (virtual) Brad Mueller Vivian Castro-Wooldridge Thomas Remke 1.CALL TO ORDER M. McIntyre called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and the following business was conducted. 2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Nobody spoke. 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment Request for a proposed redevelopment of 7 lots totaling 2.94 acres at 2955, 2969, and 2995 Baseline Road and 735-775 30th Street. All existing buildings are proposed to be demolished and two (2) 4- 5 story multifamily student housing buildings with a total of 100 units are proposed. The Attachment B - 06.03.25 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 41 Packet Page 605 of 1100 proposal would include rezoning the properties at 765 and 775 30th Street from RM-2 to RH-5. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00012. Staff Presentation: Shannon Moeller presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Shannon Moeller answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Alyssa Glena and Adrian Sopher presented the item to the board. Applicant Questions: Alyssa Glena and Adrian Sopher answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: Virtual: Lynn Segal Board Discussion (2:00:30): Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? Key Issue #2: Does Planning Board have feedback on the proposed rezoning of a portion of the property from RM-2 to RH-5? Key Issue #3: Does the Board have feedback on the proposed Use Review from ground level dwelling units along a street in the BT-1 zoning district? Key Issue #4: Does the Board have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design? Key Issue #5: Other key issues identified by the Board? The Planning Board discussed the Key Issues and provided feedback to the applicant on the conceptual site plan and architecture. (2:03:40) L. Kaplan noted that this is a project that will increase density and add student housing in an appropriate location, but that it is also important that quality of life offerings of the built environment also increase. She commended the applicant on some design features including the cutaway balconies, material detailing, and recessed verticality of townhouse units on 30th street. She is overall supportive of staff’s analysis and comments in the memo. She thinks the rezoning on the west side of 30th to Residential High is very appropriate. She is generally supportive of the height modification, noting that they will be looking for a sensitive transition to the surrounding single story buildings. She encouraged considering a further reduction in parking. She encouraged further investigation of pedestrian and bike circulation on the site. She is supportive of ground level residential uses along Canyon reek, but thinks Attachment B - 06.03.25 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 42 Packet Page 606 of 1100 that retaining commercial space along Baseline is appropriate. She noted that the ground level courtyard design will be important during the site review. (2:11:50) J. Boone generally agreed with the comments made by L. Kaplan. He believes the buildings need to be broken up to increase permeability and that they are too massive currently. He agreed with staff’s comments around the potential for some design tweaks for additional tuck-under parking and eliminating more of the surface parking for additional open space. (2:14:35) C Hanson Thiem supported her colleagues’ statements and believes this is an appropriate area for high density student housing. She also has concerns about the single use nature of this area, and that it is important to preserve some space for neighborhood serving businesses. She also believes the intensity of traffic in the area may be a problematic location for ground floor residences. She is supportive of the proposed rezoning. She agreed with comments around the potential for some design tweaks to eliminate more of the surface parking for additional open space. She believes the project will require more bike parking. She believes transportations needs could be met better with additions like infrastructure for micromobility, ride sharing pick-up and drop-off, and transit access. She also agreed with comments made about permeability, and suggested adding ground level passageways into the site interior. (2:20:30) M. Roberts generally agreed with all his colleagues’ comments. (2:24:15) ML Robles generally agreed with all of her colleagues’ comments. She discussed relative setbacks in the surrounding area. She suggested providing information on how the 4 to 5 story building steps down to accommodate grade, including side section views as well as pedestrian and car level perspectives. (2:31:40) M. McIntyre noted that he has not heard any comments from his colleagues that he disagreed with. He believes the concept plan is generally compatible with the goals and objectives of the BVCP. He has no issue with the proposed rezoning. He stressed reevaluating the site plan to make the open space to be more inviting and usable. He encouraged further investigation of pedestrian and bike circulation on the site 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Information Item: Land Use Review: Vacation of a 20-foot-wide alley right-of-way, Ordinance 8704, generally located north of 1729 Athens Street and southerly of 1328 17th Street and 1712 Marine Street (LUR2024-00060). AND Vacation of 18th Street right-of-way, Ordinance 8705, generally located east of 1950 Colorado Avenue and 1234 18th Street and west of 950 Regent Drive (LUR2024-00060) Planning Board received an informational packet from staff. No action required. Attachment B - 06.03.25 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 43 Packet Page 607 of 1100 6. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE Attachment B - 06.03.25 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 3C - 2995 Baseline Concept Plan Page 44 Packet Page 608 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8703 designating the property at 3375 16th St., C ity of Boulder, C olorado, to be known as the Orchard House, as an individual landmark under C hapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C lare Brandt, City Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Ordinance 8703 designating the property at 3375 16th St., City of Boulder, C olorado, to be known as the Orchard House, as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. I ndiv idual Landmark Designation Packet Page 609 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8703 designating the property at 3375 16th St., City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Orchard House, as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related details. Owner / Applicant: Mikhail and Sidra Burshteyn PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager Chris Reynolds, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is for City Council to consider second reading of an ordinance designating the property at 3375 16th St. as an individual landmark under the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The council must determine whether the proposed individual landmark designation of the property meets the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981). This includes that the landmark designation: 1.Will promote the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 1 Packet Page 610 of 1100 2. Will develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. 3. Will draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them. The property owner is in support of the designation. If approved, this ordinance (see Attachment A), would result in the designation of the property as an individual landmark. The findings are included in the ordinance. A second reading for this designation is a quasi-judicial public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION LANDMARKS BOARD ACTIONS & FEEDBACK On May 7, 2025, the Landmarks Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the City Council designate the property at 3375 16th St. as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Orchard House, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Two members of the public spoke in support of the designation. ANALYSIS Code Criteria for Review Section 9-11-6(b), Council Ordinance Designating Landmark or Historic District, of the historic preservation ordinance specifies that in its review of an application for local landmark designation, the council must consider “whether the designation meets the purposes and standards in Subsections 9-11-1(a) and Section 9-11-2, City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts, B.R.C. 1981, in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.” The City Council shall approve by ordinance, modify and approve by ordinance, or disapprove the proposed designation. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Ordinance 8703 designating the property at 3375 16th St., City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Orchard House, as an individual landmark under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Ordinance ; and setting forth related details. Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 2 Packet Page 611 of 1100 9-11-1, Legislative Intent, B.R.C. 1981 states: (a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. (b) The City Council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heri tage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them. (c) The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new construction on landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks Board shall follow relevant city policies, including, without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled, and creative approaches to renovation. 9-11-2, City Council may Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts , B.R.C. 1981 states: (a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the City Council may by ordinance: (1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and designate a landmark site for each landmark; (2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the city; (3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features which are contained in two or more geographically separate areas, having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics; and (4) Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or district. Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city. Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 3 Packet Page 612 of 1100 Figure 1. East elevation (façade) of the house from 16th Street showing the side gable roof with central shed roof dormer and full width front porch with square porch supports. Provided by applicant. Summary of Significance To assist in the interpretation of the historic preservation ordinance, the Landmarks Board adopted an administrative regulation in 1975 establishing Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks (link). For additional information on the history of the property, see the May 7, 2025 Landmarks Board Memorandum (link). ANALYSIS: A. Would the designation protect, enhance, and perpetuate a property reminiscent of a past era(s), event(s), and person(s) important in local, state, or national history in Boulder or provide a significant example of architecture of the past? Staff considers, and the Landmarks Board found, that the proposed designation of the property at 3375 16th St. will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a property reminiscent of a past era of history and preserve an important example of Boulder’s historic architecture. B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City’s living heritage? Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 4 Packet Page 613 of 1100 Staff considers, and the Landmarks Board found, that the proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the building and site, and enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The building located at 3375 16th St. meets the following historic significance criteria: 1. Date of Construction: c. 1917 Elaboration: Boulder County records list the year of construction of 1925. However, a Dickensheets family photograph dated April 1917 clearly shows the windows at the façade. Additionally, George and Mary Minks changed their address in the Boulder City Directory when they purchased the property in 1918, so they moved into the house. 2. Association with Persons or Events: Association with Persons or Events: George and Mary Minks (1918 - 1929), Warren family (1929 - 2003) Elaboration: The house at 3375 16th Ave. has had only five owners since the house was constructed around 1917. Roland Dickensheets likely commissioned the house but never lived there. The Minks were long-time residents of Superior where they were fruit farmers from the 1870s. They retired to the property in Boulder where they “truck farmed” the land. James Warren was a successful miner in Boulder County. His wife, Pearl Warren, raised their three children on the property. Members of the Warren family lived in the house from 1929 until 2003 (74 years), although they sold most of the surrounded land after the death of James in 1965. 3. Distinction in the Development of the Community: Remnant of Parsons Park, a fruit farming and truck garden area in north Boulder. Elaboration: Parsons Park was platted in 1907 by Charles Parsons. Parsons owned most of the area and grew fruit trees throughout Parsons Park. George and Mary Minks purchased the property as a “truck garden” in 1918. The house was one of the first to be built within Parsons Park. The property remained undeveloped and a significant part of Parsons Park until it was subdivided and developed in the 1970s. 4. Recognition by Authorities: 1995 Survey1 considered the house significant as a “ … well preserved example of the Bungalow style, as reflected in the gabled roof with exposed rafters and braces; the shed roofed front dormer; the prominent porch; and the tapered door and window surrounds.” 1 Front Range Research Associates. “3375 16th Street historic building inventory record.” 1995. Call No. 780 16th 3375. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A43795 Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 5 Packet Page 614 of 1100 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The building at 3375 16th St. meets the following architectural significance criteria. 1. Recognized Period or Style: Bungalow with vernacular expressions of the Craftsman style Elaboration: The Bungalow form was popular was popular in Colorado from about 1900 to the 1930s due to its simplicity and utility. Characteristic elements of this form include the gently pitched side gable roof, overhanging eaves, broad front porch supported by thick columns, the central shed roof dormer, and exposed rafter ends.2 2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Currently unknown Elaboration: Although neither the architect nor builder are currently known, Roland Dickensheets likely commissioned the house. The cost of the house (per the deed) was more than $1,500. 3. Artistic Merit: Vernacular expressions of the Craftsman style Elaboration: The artistic features include the Craftsman-inspired tapered window and door trim and simplified knee braces and use of combined wood shingle in the gable ends and on the dormer with the narrow horizontal wood siding on the main part of the house. 4. Example of the Uncommon: One of the earliest houses built within Parsons Park. Additionally, one of the few houses constructed in Boulder during the First World War (1914-1918). 5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The building located at 3375 16th St. meets the following environmental significance criteria. 1. Site Characteristics: The house was constructed as the farmhouse for a larger area of truck garden and included accessory buildings c. 1941-1958. The site includes mature trees and gravel driveway that reflects the historic rural characteristics of the site. 2. Compatibility with Site: Although the larger area was subdivided in the 1970s, the corner lot retains some of the landscaping and rural feel from before the 1970s. The massing and scale of the house and the property’s mature vegetation is compatible with its residential setting. 3. Geographic Importance: The property is located on the southwest corner of 16th Street and Iris Avenue. Although a fence separates the property from Iris Avenue, the building is a familiar visual landmark within the neighborhood. 4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed. 5. Area Integrity: The property is not located in an identified potential historic district, and the surrounding residential area has an eclectic mix of architectural styles and building 2 “Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering Guide.” 2008. History Colorado. https://www.historycolorado.org/bungalow Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 6 Packet Page 615 of 1100 ages. The area’s open and agricultural character was somewhat lost with the subdivision of the property. Landmark Name Staff recommends the property be known as the Orchard House to recognize the unique and character-defining design of the original front porch and the fine detailing of the house. This is consistent with the Landmark Board’s Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites (1988) and the National Register of Historic Places Guidelines for Designation. See Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites (link). Boundary Analysis Staff recommend that the boundary be established to follow the property lines of the lot, consistent with current and past practices and the National Register Guidelines for establishing landmark boundaries. This boundary is supported by the property owner. ALTERNATIVES Modify the Application: The City Council may modify the landmark boundary and landmark name. Deny the Application: If the City Council finds the application does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it would vote to deny the application. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Ordinance 8703 Attachment B – Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks (1975) (link) Attachment C – May 7, 2025 Landmarks Board Memorandum (link) Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 7 Packet Page 616 of 1100 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 8703 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 3375 16TH ST., CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ORCHARD HOUSE, A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11, “HISTORIC PRESERVATION,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on Dec. 20, 2024, the property owner submitted a landmark designation application for the property; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed designation on May 7, 2025, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed designation. Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed designation on June 26th, 2025, and upon the basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the property at 3375 16th St. possesses special historic and architectural value warranting its designation as a landmark. Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its historic significance for its date of construction around 1917 by the Dickensheets family and its association with George and Mary Minks (1918 - 1929) and the Warren family (1929 - 2003). George and Mary Minks were long-time residents of Superior where they were fruit farmers from the 1870s until they retired to Boulder where they “truck farmed” the land. James Warren was a successful miner in Boulder County. His wife, Pearl Warren, raised their three children on the property. Members of the Warren family lived in the house from 1929 until 2003 (74 years), although Attachment A - Ordinance 8703 Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 8 Packet Page 617 of 1100 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 they sold most of the surrounded land after the death of James in 1965. Also as a remnant of Parsons Park, platted in 1907 by Charles Parsons. Parsons owned most of the area and grew fruit trees throughout Parsons Park. The house was one of the first to be built within Parsons Park. The property remained undeveloped and a significant part of Parsons Park until it was subdivided and developed in the 1970s. 2) For its architectural significance as an example of a Bungalow with vernacular expressions of the Craftsman style, popular in Colorado from about 1900 to the 1930s due to its simplicity and utility. Characteristic elements of this form include the gently pitched side gable roof, overhanging eaves, broad front porch supported by thick columns, the central shed roof dorm er, and exposed rafter ends. The character-defining features include the one-and-one-half story side gabled form with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails and the inset front porch with substantial square porch posts and wood decking. Other character-defining features include the non-symmetrical window and door openings, the low shed roof dormer clad in painted wood shingle at the façade, the combination of wood shingle in the gable ends and on the dormer with the narrow horizontal siding on the main part of the house, and the Craftsman-style tapered trim and knee braces. The surroundings, including multiple mature trees on the property, the gravel drive, and the rural feel of the property also contribute to the character; and 3) For its environmental significance with site characteristics that include includes mature trees and gravel driveway that reflects the historic rural characteristics. Section 6. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city. Section 7. There is hereby created as a landmark the property located at 3375 16th St., also known as the Orchard House, whose legal landmark boundary encompasses the legal lots upon which it sits: LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 17-18 BLK 4 PARSONS PARK Attachment A - Ordinance 8703 Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 9 Packet Page 618 of 1100 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 as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 8. The City Council directs that the Planning and Development Services Department give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981. 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 5th day of June, 2025. _____________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of June 2025. _____________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8703 Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 10 Packet Page 619 of 1100 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 Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 3375 16TH ST. 3375 16TH ST., Boulder, Colorado LOTS 17-18 BLK 4 PARSONS PARK Attachment A - Ordinance 8703 Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 11 Packet Page 620 of 1100 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 Figure 1. 3375 16th St., proposed Landmark boundary (dotted yellow line). Attachment A - Ordinance 8703 Item 4A - 2nd Rdg Ord 8703 3375 16th St. Individual Landmark Designation Page 12 Packet Page 621 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt the following ordinances: 1. Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update standards for on-street parking management; and 2. Ordinance 8696, amending and T itle 9, “Land U se Code,” B .R .C . 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements, and amending Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and C onstruction S tandards (D .C .S .), originally adopted pursuant to O rdinance 5986, to modify standards for motor vehicle and bicycle parking P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Lisa Houde, C ode Amendment Planner Principal RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt the following ordinances: 1. Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update standards for on-street parking management; and 2. Ordinance 8696, amending and Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C . 1981, to modify off- street parking requirements, and amending Chapter 2 of the C ity of Boulder Design and C onstruction Standards (D.C .S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to modify standards for motor vehicle and bicycle parking AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMP S Code Update Packet Page 622 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE 1. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update standards for on-street parking management, and setting forth related details; and 2. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8696, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements and amending Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to modify standards for motor vehicle and bicycle parking, and setting forth related details. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager Community Vitality Cris Jones, Director of Community Vitality Kristine Edwards, Senior Manager of Operations & Maintenance Samantha Bromberg, Senior Project Manager Planning & Development Services Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor Lisa Houde, Principal City Planner Transportation & Mobility Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation & Mobility Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager Chris Hagelin, Principal Project Manager Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 1 Packet Page 623 of 1100 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is part of the Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) project, which includes proposed changes to the city’s off-street parking standards, transportation demand management (TDM) requirements, and on-street parking management strategies. Staff first provided an introduction to the final initiative to implement the Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) project through code and policy updates to City Council on August 8, 2024. Staff brought more detailed analysis of best practices and options to Council on January 23, 2025 for direction prior to community engagement and code drafting. These three topics have been studied together due to their interrelated nature to allow for a more holistic look at parking throughout the city. For example, in reviewing changes to off-street parking standards, it is important to understand other strategies and opportunities that the city has available to manage travel demands. TDM requirements support all modes of travel, and on-street parking management strategies ensure that public right-of-way can be appropriately utilized. At this time, Ordinance 8696 regarding on-street parking standards and Ordinance 8700 regarding on-street parking management strategies are brought forward to Council for adoption; an accompanying ordinance with the TDM requirements is still in development and will be brought to Council in a few months. The AMPS project reimagines the approach to parking regulation and TDM in Boulder. It implements several built environment, economic, housing and transportation policies from the adopted Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and is intended to meet the measurable objectives laid out in the Transportation Master Plan. In 2024, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB24-1304, which states that a municipality shall not enforce local laws that establish minimum parking requirements for certain uses. The city actively supported HB24-1304. Staff recommends implementing HB24-1304 with this project. HB24-1304 has a compliance date of June 30, 2025 for minimum parking requirements for certain uses. An attached annotated Ordinance 8696 in Attachment A includes detailed footnotes describing each proposed change. The official ordinance without footnotes is in Attachment M. The draft Ordinance 8700 is in Attachment B. If passed, changes typically go into effect 30 days after adoption by City Council. If adopted on second reading at council’s June 26 meeting, the ordinance would be in effect on July 26, 2025. For any applications approved between July 1 and July 25 for the specific land uses located within the transit service area identified in the state law, the city can process an administrative variance to ensure compliance with the state law if final approval would occur prior to the effective date of the ordinance. On June 5, City Council introduced, read on first reading, and ordered published by title Ordinances 8700 and 8696. There were no questions at the council meeting. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 2 Packet Page 624 of 1100 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motions: 1. Motion to adopt Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update standards for on-street parking management, and setting forth related details; and 2. Motion to adopt Ordinance 8696, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements, and amending Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to update standards for bicycle parking, and setting forth related details. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board Planning Board reviewed the ordinances on May 20, 2025 and passed the following motions. The motions have been organized into recommendations related specifically to the ordinances and recommendations for future work: Ordinance 8696 C. Hanson Thiem made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback the Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8696, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements, and amend Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to update standards for bicycle parking. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by L. Kaplan to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to add language for schools serving any of grades K-12, long-term bicycle parking must include racks located within 100 feet of a main entrance. Planning Board voted 5-1 (M. McIntyre Dissent) (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by M. McIntyre to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to add language that bicycle charging spaces shall accommodate larger bicycles with minimum dimensions of 8 feet long by 3 feet wide. Planning Board voted 6- 0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to: for schools serving any grades K-8 schools, all bicycle parking intended to serve students must be horizontal. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 3 Packet Page 625 of 1100 M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to state that all long-term bike parking shall accommodate charging at all bike spaces with a standard electrical outlet within a 6’ distance of each bike parking space. Planning Board voted 5-1 (L. Kaplan dissent). (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to remove bicycle parking from Floor Area Ratio calculations and requirements. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Ml Robles made a motion, seconded by M. McIntyre to recommend a change to Ordinance 8696 to exempt single-unit detached residences without a private garage from the long-term bike storage requirements. Planning Board voted 5-1. (K. Nordback dissent) (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend limiting vertical and stacked/tiered racks to 25% of bike parking spaces. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L.Kaplan made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts to recommend that spaces reserved for cargo bikes need to be clearly marked with signage, so non-cargo do not park in these spaces. Planning Board voted 4-2. (C. Hanson Thiem, M. McIntyre dissent) (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend that staff examine whether and how to specify adequate elevator size minimums where parking relies solely on elevators. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts to recommend that at least 20% of required spaces be designed for larger bikes (e.g. cargo bikes) where more than 5 spaces are required. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Ordinance 8700 M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update regulations for on-street parking management. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts that Planning Board recommends a change to ordinance 8700 so that anytime the city approves a project through the site review process, where parking is required to be unbundled and paid, the city shall consider creating an appropriately sized NPP that surrounds the project. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 4 Packet Page 626 of 1100 Future Work K. Nordback made a motion, seconded by M. McIntyre to request City Council and staff to consider simplifying or eliminating the parking dimensional standards, including the required 24’ backup distance, from the code, in order to avoid unduly requiring design around large vehicles. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend a next step to monitor over the next three years whether Ordinance 8696 results in more or less parking in new development compared to current parking minimums and average parking reductions. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts that Planning Board recommend a future utilization study to establish empirical requirements for bike parking quantities. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend development of a phased retroactive application of bike parking code to existing development. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Board of Zoning Adjustment Staff provided an overview of the project at BOZA’s May 13, 2025 meeting and asked for general feedback. BOZA members expressed support for the general direction of the project and direction on front yard landscaped setback administrative variances. Some board members expressed interest in future reconsideration of front yard setback parking prohibitions. Transportation Advisory Board TAB reviewed the ordinances at their May 12, 2025 meeting and passed the following motion: Transportation Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinances: 1. Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update regulations for on-street parking management and 2.Ordinance 8696, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off- street parking requirements, and amending Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to update standards for bicycle parking. Transportation Advisory Board recommends that staff consider incorporation of comments from Community Cycles and Transportation Advisory Board Member Michael Le Desma, and supports a future work plan item to further study bicycle parking. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 5 Packet Page 627 of 1100 A summary of the TAB discussion and the comments referenced, as well as the draft Planning Board meeting minutes are provided in Attachments L and M. Updates to Ordinances In response to board recommendations, the following changes were incorporated in the proposed ordinances: Recommendations incorporated in Ordinance 8695: - Added exception for elementary, middle, and high schools that long-term biking must be on site or within 100 feet of a main entrance. - Added prohibition on vertical or tiered racks for elementary or middle schools. - Exempted detached dwelling units without a private garage from meeting the long-term bike parking standards. -Reduced maximum limit on vertical/tiered racks from initial staff recommendation of 50% to 25%. - Added requirement for signage to identify larger bike parking spaces - Added language about elevators being adequately sized to accommodate a bicycle. (Note: proposed language is relatively general, based on similar language incorporated in Seattle’s bicycle parking guide, as there were several varying sizes used in other cities and there was not sufficient time to analyze a more specific standard. If needed, more specific sizing can be added in future land use code updates.) Recommendations incorporated in Ordinance 8695 with modifications: - Added minimum dimensions for bicycle charging stations of 3 feet by 10 feet, rather than the 3 feet by 8 feet recommended by Planning Board, to align with National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidelines. - Modified the initial staff recommendation that required 5% of spaces be sized for larger bikes when 20 spaces or more are required; the updated ordinance requires 5% of spaces to be sized for larger bikes when 10 spaces or more are required. Planning Board recommended 20% of spaces sized for larger bikes when 5 spaces or more are required. After completing calculations for typical grocery, retail, and other uses, 10 spaces appeared to be an appropriate threshold to ensure most large retail or restaurant spaces would need to incorporate at least one larger space, as well as maintaining the 5% requirement. For example: o A small grocery store (12,000 square feet) would require a total of 16 bicycle parking spaces, of which, 1 space would need to be sized for larger bikes. o A typical large grocery store (40,000 square feet) would require a total of 53 bicycle parking spaces, of which, 3 spaces would need to be sized for larger bikes. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 6 Packet Page 628 of 1100 o A large format hardware store (100,000 square feet) would require a total of 133 bicycle parking spaces, of which, 7 spaces would need to accommodate larger bikes. o A 100-unit multi-unit residential building would require 200 bicycle parking spaces, of which, 10 would need to be sized for larger bikes. o An office (100,000 square feet) would require a total of 67 bicycle parking spaces, of which, 4 spaces would need to be sized for larger bikes. Staff believes this requirement is reasonable to implement prior to completing a bicycle parking utilization study that could further inform quantitative requirements. Recommendations not incorporated in Ordinance 8695: -Staff has maintained the initial recommendation to require 5 percent of bicycle parking spaces to be capable of charging for electric bikes, when more than 100 spaces are required. TAB members acknowledged that 5 percent may be too low as ridership of electric bikes increases, but noted that a utilization study was needed first to inform the requirement. Planning Board recommended requiring that all long-term bicycle parking be within 6 feet of an outlet to charge. Engineering, planning, transportation, and building code staff considered the board’s recommendation but identified many potential issues: o This recommendation was not proposed to the public during the engagement process as it was not raised by either board or by council during the six meetings where the project was discussed and the boards and council provided direction to staff. This would be a significant requirement that did not receive any public or stakeholder engagement and represents a substantial potential cost for business and property owners. o Requirements of this magnitude are best informed by a bicycle parking utilization study. o Additional best practices research would be needed to review e-bike charging mechanisms as there is no current universal standard (like there now is for electric vehicles) and many users may prefer to take a battery inside the building to charge. o There are several safety and practical challenges of accommodating outlets for outdoor long-term bicycle parking. o This requirement may create potential tripping hazards or challenges with ADA requirements if charging areas are not consolidated. o This requirement would be challenging to implement where there are also floodplain requirements, such as requirements to elevate electrical. o The requirement would be challenging to implement with development review timing – electrical plans are not available at time of Site Review, for example, and requiring applicants to confirm compliance would Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 7 Packet Page 629 of 1100 represent a significant up-front and potentially costly element for them to complete, providing detailed electrical plans before any approvals are certain. o Incorporating outlets every six feet would be challenging when adaptively reusing existing buildings. o Commercial buildings codes do not require outlets spaced this closely, so this would be a significant increased cost to reuse a structure or build new. This requirement could potentially lead to needs for different sizes of electrical meters. - Planning Board recommended and TAB recommended consideration of exempting bicycle parking from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. Ordinance 8599, adopted by City Council in October 2023, already exempted bicycle parking from FAR in the same districts where vehicle parking is exempted: MU- 1, MU-2, MU-3, BMS, IS-1, IS-2, IG, IM, IMS, BR-1, RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, BT-1, RH-5, BC-1, and BC-2. Additionally, staff has a planned work plan item to update the Floor Area Ratio definitions and requirements cohesively and would recommend that any further changes to FAR exemptions be incorporated in that project instead. This would also allow a bicycle parking utilization study to inform the requirements and exemptions. Recommendations not incorporated in Ordinance 8700: Staff understands the intent of the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding creating an NPP surrounding a new development; however, we do not believe a code change is necessary. Under the proposed updates, most impactful developments will already trigger a traffic study and parking utilization review, and staff from Planning or Transportation can easily coordinate with Community Vitality on any additional cases as needed. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK A consult level of engagement was used for this project. Since the Colorado State Legislature adopted HB24-1304 which limits the ability of municipalities to enact or enforce minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential development in most areas of the city, these specific elements of the AMPS code updates were limited to an inform level of engagement. Notification of the upcoming changes has been included in many editions of the Planning and Development Services monthly newsletter, which reaches over 5,000 people. An online engagement page was developed on Be Heard Boulder to summarize the proposed changes, provide important documents and updates on engagement opportunities, and provide an ideas wall for community members to leave comments. Any comments received so far can be viewed on the Be Heard Boulder page. In addition, five engagement meetings were held in March with various community stakeholders. There were a variety of in-person and virtual engagement opportunities. A presentation of the proposed updates was shared at the meetings and staff from Planning & Development Services, Community Vitality, and Transportation and Mobility Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 8 Packet Page 630 of 1100 departments were available to answer questions. A summary of comments from the meetings is provided in Attachment J. For one of the engagement meetings, staff developed an adapted Monopoly-style game for community members to play that had them weigh the cost and climate benefits of certain TDM programs and other actions. This was accompanied by discussion in small groups about transportation challenges and larger themes about the AMPS project. Feedback received in most of the community meetings was generally positive regarding the removal of minimum off-street parking requirements citywide for all land uses and the proposed changes to on-street parking management and TDM. Some attendees were concerned about the removal of off-street parking requirements and the subsequent impact on on-street parking, specifically in residential areas. There were also some concerns raised about how the TDM requirements would impact small businesses and the cost of business in Boulder. Common concerns were raised about issues with the current transportation system, specifically RTD service. Other topics frequently brought up included the security of bike parking and ensuring EV charging availability. Community Vitality staff also conducted a questionnaire for Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) residents, receiving 328 responses. The feedback provided valuable insights into how permits are currently used, residents' access to off-street parking, and the number of vehicles and licensed drivers per household. While NPP residents were generally not supportive of paying more for permits that include additional multimodal benefits for themselves or their neighbors, opinions were divided on whether non-permit holders should be required to pay for parking in NPP zones. Many NPP respondents also expressed frustration with the transition to digital permits—particularly challenges with managing visitor or guest permits and the lack of visible indicators showing whether parked vehicles have valid permits. Additionally, NPP residents expressed a strong desire for increased enforcement to ensure compliance with NPP rules. Additionally, public comments received via email by Planning & Development Services as of the publication of this memo have been included in Attachment K. Council and Board Input City Council City Council reviewed staff’s recommended scope at its August 8, 2024 meeting and expressed general support for the recommendations. Council members encouraged staff to continue exploring the elimination of minimum parking requirements, implementing state bill HB24-1304 and applying changes citywide. One council member asked that the scope of TDM policy extend beyond new development, and that staff clarify and quantify the desired outcomes of the project with strategies chosen to meet those targets. At its January 23, 2025 study session, council members expressed support of staff’s recommendations related to: •Off-Street Parking Standards: Council members were not interested in establishing maximum parking requirements, but supported updating bicycle parking design parking, encouraging shared parking, and maintaining recently adopted electric vehicle charging requirements in the Energy Conservation Code. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 9 Packet Page 631 of 1100 •TDM Requirements: Council members supported staff’s proposed approach including the use of financial guarantees as the mechanism for funding tenant TDM programs, and utilization of a three-tiered approach with specified exemptions. •On-Street Parking Management Strategies: Council members supported the proposed on-street changes, particularly using a pilot program approach to try out new strategies. Planning Board On August 20, 2024, staff met with the Planning Board to introduce the AMPS update. Planning Board members, in general, supported staff recommendations and the proposed scope of the project for the three components: •Off-Street Parking Standards: Planning Board members supported the elimination of parking minimums across all land uses and suggested that staff also look at bicycle parking requirements related to e-bike charging and site design to accommodate larger cargo-style bikes and bikes with trailers. •TDM Requirements: Planning Board members stated a desire to use the policy and requirements to go beyond mitigating impacts and providing multimodal access and to use the TDM ordinance to stimulate travel behavior change and contribute to meeting citywide goals. Members did not have objections to using a tiered approach for the ordinance. •On-Street Parking Management Strategies: Members cautioned staff about the restricting access to public right-of-way to those that “came first” and pricing this valuable resource at too low of a cost. On the public engagement strategy, board members urged staff to think of the significant portion of our population that does not drive and the impacts of this project and that free parking is essentially a subsidy. At the February 25, 2025 Planning Board meeting, board members generally supported staff’s continued analysis and recommendations •Off-Street Parking Standards: Planning Board members continued to support the elimination of parking minimums across all land uses and suggested that staff also look at bicycle parking requirements related to e-bike charging and site design to accommodate larger cargo-style bikes and bikes with trailers. •TDM Requirements: Board members were supportive of staff’s proposed approach and discussed applicability and administration of the requirements. One board member suggested that if the requirements are well-established, there is no need for Planning Board to review TDM plans, like a building code. •On-Street Parking Management Strategies: Board members also expressed general support for using the NPP to price on-street parking throughout the city, which may include some areas where there is free parking. Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) At the October 14, 2024 TAB meeting, the advisory board generally supported the staff recommendations on the proposed scope of the project. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 10 Packet Page 632 of 1100 •Off-Street Parking Standards: TAB members also supported the elimination of parking minimums for all land uses across the whole city. TAB also noted a need to revisit bicycle parking standards to support larger, heavier, and longer bicycles and e-bike charging. •TDM Requirements: TAB members wanted to use the TDM ordinance to stimulate travel behavior change and contribute to meeting citywide goals. Members supported using a tiered approach for the ordinance with increasing requirements for larger projects in relation to the on-site parking supply. •On-Street Parking Management Strategies: TAB members shared their view that the Neighborhood Parking Permit program reserves public right-of-way for the private use of residents at too low of a cost and questioned the use of the program without reform or modifications. TAB supported the concept of evaluating right of way uses under the curbside management plan for redevelopment projects that change use and curbside demands. At the January 22, 2025 TAB meeting, TAB members supported the staff recommendations. •Off-Street Parking Standards: TAB members also discussed parking for cargo bikes, improving location standards for bike parking, ways to enforce poor conditions of existing bicycle parking, ways to incentivize business owners to improve existing bike parking, and •TDM Requirements: TAB members discussed the importance of ensuring more accountability for TDM requirements. •On-Street Parking Management Strategies: TAB members also asked questions about the price of NPP permits, a potential to price based on vehicle weight, suggested examining the NPP program to ensure it is functioning as intended, and strongly supported the concept of a park-and-walk program near schools. BACKGROUND Project Objective This project reimagines the approach to parking regulation and TDM in Boulder. The project implements several built environment, economic, housing and transportation policies from the adopted Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and is intended to meet the measurable objectives laid out in the Transportation Master Plan. This project is also intended to implement the final recommendations of the AMPS report adopted by City Council in 2017 as well as state legislation related to minimum parking requirements passed in 2024. While studied together as a whole, informed by one another, and intricately linked, each of the three elements of the AMPS project has a separate respective ordinance that incorporates the relevant changes to that topic. Ordinances 8700 and 8696 are being brought to TAB at this meeting in order to align with state requirements related to minimum parking, while a TDM ordinance will come in a few months upon further drafting and internal review. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 11 Packet Page 633 of 1100 AMPS Project Adopted by City Council in late 2017, AMPS was developed as a guide through which city staff, leadership, boards, commissions, and the community at large could work toward improving Boulder’s approach to multimodal access and parking management across the city. One of the recommendations to come out of the AMPS work was a comprehensive update of parking requirements and TDM requirements for new developments. Parking code updates and TDM changes were underway in 2020 when the project was indefinitely paused due to staffing impacts during the pandemic. The project was reinitiated in 2024. At the 2024-2025 Council Retreat, City Council affirmed this project as part of the staff work plan. The scope of this interdepartmental project involves three main focus areas, each with a corresponding lead department: •Off-street parking standards (Planning & Development Services) •On-street parking management strategies (Community Vitality) •TDM requirements (Transportation & Mobility) Building on the foundation of Boulder’s successful multimodal, district-based access and parking system, the AMPS project was initiated in 2014 and identified guiding principles, over-arching policies, tailored programs, priorities and tools to address citywide access management in a manner consistent with the community’s social, economic and environmental sustainability principles. Adopted by council in 2017, the city’s AMPS approach emphasizes collaboration among city departments and reflects the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Climate Commitment, the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and the Economic Sustainability Strategy. The implementation projects identified in the AMPS Summary Report were the culmination of the multi-year strategic planning process and represent each of the interdisciplinary AMPS focus areas. Except for the last two in bold, all work to implement AMPS has now been completed. This project addresses the final two projects. •Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP) •Civic Area Parking Management and TDM Programs •Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Review -- Now under Residential Access Management Program (RAMP) •Parking Pricing •Off-Street Parking Standard Changes •TDM Plan Ordinance for New Developments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 12 Packet Page 634 of 1100 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 8696 AND CITY MANAGER RULES The following sections provide background and summarize major topics related to the draft ordinances for on-street parking standards and off-street parking management strategies. Off-Street Parking Standards -Eliminates all minimum off-street parking standards for all land uses citywide, while retaining design and dimensional requirements for any parking provided - Removes references to required parking or processes like parking reductions that are no longer necessary throughout the land use code - Updates bicycle parking design and location standards to improve security and usability On-Street Parking Management - Refines code language to broaden the intent of the NPP program from solely serving residents to supporting access for a wider range of users. -Limits residential NPP permits from two to one per eligible resident. -Gives the City Manager authority to limit the total number of permits issued in a zone if the number of dwellings will lead to a strain on the available on-street capacity. - Replaces ‘Guest Permits’ with 25 ‘Day Passes’ that can be used individually or concurrently. -Replaces Visitor Permits with ‘Flex Permits’ that add additional flexibility to how the permits can be used. These permits can be used by residents who have more than one vehicle, or by their visitors if the resident has visitor needs greater than 25 days a year- such as a nanny or caretaker. -City Manager Rule: Introduces a proactive parking study for the neighborhood surrounding a new or redevelopment based on the requirement of a Traffic Assessment dictated by the Boulder Design and Construction Standards. SUMMARY OF FORTHCOMING TDM ORDINANCE (ANTICIPATED FALL 2025) - Requires developers or property owners to provide ongoing annual financial guarantees that are used by tenants to implement staff-approved TDM Plans. - Employs a tiered approach to focus staff time and resources on the largest, most impactful projects. - Uses daily vehicle trip generation as measurable objective for highest-tier TDM Plans. -Gives the City Manager rule-making authority to set financial guarantee rates, adjust tier thresholds, select required TDM plan elements, and adjust vehicle trip generation targets. - Defines monitoring and enforcement process to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 13 Packet Page 635 of 1100 Off-Street Parking Standards Background Boulder’s work to reduce off-street parking standards has been in process for many years and has been composed of several phases: Phase I: In 2014, an interdepartmental team of city staff began the AMPS project and City Council adopted simplified vehicular parking standards, reduced vehicle parking requirements for a few uses, and required bicycle parking based on land use type. Phase II: In 2016, the project team conducted additional parking supply and occupancy observations at 20 sites, to supplement the more than 30 sites previously studied in 2014. A range of draft parking rate recommendations were developed for consideration. No changes were adopted at this time as City Council did not choose to prioritize the project in its work plan and requested additional data collection before considering reducing parking requirements. Phase III: In 2019, as part of that year’s Council work plan, a final phase of the parking code changes was initiated. Another round of data collection was completed at this time. The planned updates to the parking standards were intended to balance an appropriate amount of parking based on parking supply and utilization data collected over a multi- year period while also reflecting the multimodal goals of the Transportation Master Plan and aligning parking supply rates with the city’s TDM goals. The project was paused indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. This phase was reinitiated in 2024, as staffing returned to full capacity and City Council, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), and the Planning Board indicated interest in restarting the project, including potentially considering eliminating minimum parking requirements entirely. A new element to the project was also added due to the Colorado State Legislature’s passage of HB24-1304. The bill states that, starting June 30, 2025, local governments may not enact or enforce local laws imposing minimum parking requirements within transit service areas if the local government is part of a metropolitan planning organization, like the Denver Regional Council of Governments. The bill exempts certain projects that meet specific criteria. Staff recommends implementing HB24-1304 with this project. Comparable Cities City staff looked at 33 peer cities to understand how Boulder’s off-street parking requirements compared. The research is summarized in the parking matrix in Attachment C. In nearly every land use category, Boulder’s parking requirements were higher than in comparable cities. For a typical 2,500 square-foot restaurant, Boulder currently requires 21 spaces, which takes up three times the land area of the actual restaurant. It was also found that of the 33 peer cities, six cities had completely removed parking minimums from their land use code, without any reported adverse effects. A few peer cities were analyzed further to understand the potential impacts of removing parking minimums. Portland removed parking minimums in response to a state bill and removing all parking minimums simplified the review process, rather than requiring Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 14 Packet Page 636 of 1100 minimums in only certain areas of the city. The nearest peer city, Longmont, was also studied to gain a local understanding of the impact of removing parking minimums. Since the implementation, the city has not seen any instances where a development has provided zero parking spaces. However, they have seen positive new development or redevelopment in areas that previously had an excess of parking. Buffalo, New York was the first major US city to remove minimum parking requirements citywide. In the two years that followed the change, 47% of new projects provided fewer off-street parking spaces, and 53% of new projects provided the same amount or more off-street spaces than was previously required by the code. The Parking Reform Network maintains a comprehensive map of cities that have undertaken changes to their parking standards. Their research is summarized on this map and shows that 78 cities have eliminated parking requirements citywide, and almost 900 have reduced parking requirements. Analysis Over the last ten years, staff has worked with Fox Tuttle, a transportation planning consulting firm, to conduct parking supply and utilization data counts at nearly 50 sites around the city to inform this project. These studies have consistently indicated that more parking is provided than is used across all land uses in the city (See Attachment D). Staff also has been studying parking reductions granted in Boulder for the last several years to help inform this work. Nearly half of all major projects in the last 11 years have requested a parking reduction. When reviewing parking utilization of those sites, even sites that were granted large parking reductions do not have their parking supply fully utilized. Parking reductions also contribute to much longer approval processes as some small projects can require Planning Board approval simply because of a parking reduction request. Further, another city study completed as part of this project has estimated that nearly 10 percent of the city’s real property is devoted to off-street parking lots (which even excludes parking garages and on-street parking) after 70 years of implementing off-street minimum parking requirements. (See Attachment E). The first phase of AMPS in 2014 introduced detailed bicycle parking requirements to the city’s land use code. While these current requirements are generally in line with (and in terms of quantity often far exceed, as shown in Attachment C) regulations in peer communities, there are areas of opportunity to improve the bicycle parking design standards to ensure the user-friendliness and security of bicycle parking that have been incorporated in the proposed ordinance. These changes have been incorporated in Ordinance 8696 in both the land use code and the Design and Construction Standards. Planning Board Input At the board’s meetings, board members have repeatedly expressed strong support for eliminating minimum off-street parking requirements. Interest in updating bicycle parking standards, especially related to cargo and electric bikes has been stated several times. Board members would still like to support and encourage electric vehicle charging spaces. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 15 Packet Page 637 of 1100 Transportation Advisory Board Input TAB has continually expressed strong support for eliminating minimum off-street parking requirements. TAB members want to ensure that bicycle parking standards are reviewed and improved, particularly for electric bikes and cargo bikes. TAB members would like to see future work done to support programs that incentivize the improvement of existing bicycle parking facilities and enforcing poor existing conditions. Community Input Feedback received in most of the community meetings was generally positive regarding the removal of minimum off-street parking requirements citywide for all land uses and the proposed changes to on-street parking management and TDM. Some attendees were concerned about the removal of off-street parking requirements and the subsequent impact on on-street parking, specifically in residential areas. Other topics frequently addressed included improving security of bike parking and ensuring EV charging availability. Proposed Code Changes – Off-Street Parking Standards: -Eliminates all minimum off-street parking standards for all land uses citywide, while retaining design and dimensional requirements for any parking provided - Removes references to required parking or processes like parking reductions that are no longer necessary throughout the land use code - Updates bicycle parking design and location standards to improve security and usability On-Street Parking Management Background To better manage on-street parking amid ongoing development and evolving transportation needs, Boulder is proposing updates to its Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) program and related curbside strategies. The proposed changes aim to allow the NPP to apply in all neighborhoods—regardless of density—while introducing new tools through the Residential Access Management Program (RAMP) to address parking impacts from new and redevelopment. Together, these updates aim to align permit issuance with available curbside capacity, especially in high-density and mixed-use areas, and complement the proposed TDM changes. Together, these parking management efforts are designed to promote equitable access, reduce congestion, and support Boulder’s TMP and BVCP goals by encouraging walking, biking, and transit use. They ensure the city’s curbside strategy evolves in tandem with broader land use and transportation reforms. Comparable Cities City staff looked at eight comparable cities that have successfully reduced or eliminated parking minimums. Several cities are refining residential parking permit programs to balance demand and fairness. Portland, Oregon and Costa Mesa, California limit permits to one per licensed driver, curbing overuse while accommodating car-dependent Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 16 Packet Page 638 of 1100 residents. Columbus, Ohio combines paid parking with residential permits in high- demand areas, ensuring access for residents near schools and commercial zones. Seattle takes a strict approach to visitor permits, allowing just one per household to prevent abuse and protect resident access. Eugene, Oregon and Denver apply stricter residency rules. In Eugene, long-term residents (4+ years) receive discounted rates, while short-term residents face higher quarterly fees—discouraging off-campus students from owning vehicles. Denver requires matching addresses on both vehicle registration and driver’s license to qualify. While these strategies aim to prioritize long-term residents, staff does not recommend pursuing similar measures in Boulder, as they may create inequities for renters, newcomers, and those without stable housing documentation. Neighborhood-based restrictions are also used to manage parking supply. For example, Berkeley, California limits permit programs to blocks that are majority residential, and Denver excludes large multi-unit buildings in areas with limited on-street parking. Both Denver and Estes Park consider off-street parking availability when issuing permits. However, staff do not support these approaches for Boulder, as they risk disproportionately impacting residents in denser housing and limiting access for those without private parking. Analysis Staff evaluated several strategies previously presented to City Council to improve on- street parking management and align with Boulder’s evolving transportation policies, including the elimination of parking minimums and adoption of a TDM ordinance. See Attachment F for the proposed City Manager Rule. Redefining Permit Allocations Staff examined reducing the residential permit allocation from two to one per licensed driver. Community engagement has indicated that most NPP households own as many vehicles as they have licensed drivers. Permit sales data suggest this change could reduce residential permit issuance by approximately 15%. This approach encourages greater use of off-street parking and reduces excess vehicle storage in the public right-of-way. Households with no off-street parking and additional vehicle needs may use proposed Flex permits explained below. To better manage demand in higher-density areas, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to cap the total residential permits per NPP zone, subject to the public zone creation process Simplifying Guest and Visitor Permits Community feedback highlighted confusion and underuse of the current guest and visitor permit system. Residents often find it difficult to understand the differences between guest and visitor permits, including the specific rules and regulations that apply to each. Questionnaire data show 89% of respondents use guest permits only a few times per month or less, and 54% never use them. Similarly, 81% use visitor permits infrequently, and 24% never use them at all. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 17 Packet Page 639 of 1100 Staff proposes replacing these with two streamlined options: • Day Passes: 25 annually per household, each valid for 24 hours and usable consecutively or individually across vehicles and days. Based on resident feedback, the 25 annual day passes should meet most household needs. • Flex Permits: Valid for a full year, intended for longer-stay guests, additional vehicles, or frequent service providers. These will cost the same as a residential permit to reflect higher demand. This system maintains access while aligning costs with usage and discouraging misuse. Parking Study with New and Redevelopment To proactively manage parking impacts from significant new or redevelopment projects, staff proposes requiring a City-led parking study when traffic assessments are required based on Boulder Design and Construction Standards. These studies would evaluate occupancy, trip generation, and multimodal access, helping determine whether to establish, modify, or remove an NPP zone. Formalize BVSD “Park and Walk” To support school access and reduce congestion, staff recommends granting the City Manager the authorization to designate certain blocks near schools as “Park and Walk” zones. These blocks would allow two one-hour parking sessions daily—accommodating both drop-off/pick-up and events—rather than the standard one longer session. Piloting Paid Parking and TDM Benefits in an NPP zone Based on Council input, staff proposes a pilot in the Goss Grove NPP to test the transition from time-limited to mobile-pay-only paid parking for non-permit holders, paired with free EcoPasses for residents. Goss Grove was selected based on an analysis (Attachment G) that evaluated the existing NPP zones based on elements such as parking demand, proximity to transit, and housing density. The pilot will help determine two key outcomes: 1. Whether revenue from paid parking is sufficient to cover the cost of providing EcoPasses to residents, and 2. How the shift to paid parking affects curbside demand and behavior. Paid parking will be implemented via ParkMobile, and monitored alongside transit usage to evaluate the overall impact. This approach aims to reduce vehicle reliance, improve curbside management, and assess whether paid parking can sustainably support TDM benefits. Financial Analysis Staff completed a financial analysis (Attachment H) to ensure the proposed strategies maintain RAMP’s cost recovery. The analysis considered: Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 18 Packet Page 640 of 1100 Removing underperforming NPP zones (recommended in the 2024 annual RAMP report) Restricting permit issuance Replacing guest/visitor permits with day passes and flex permits Introducing paid parking Offering EcoPasses to NPP residents The program is expected to remain financially sustainable under these changes. However, if EcoPasses are extended across all NPPs without paid parking revenue offsets, permit fees may need to double to preserve cost recovery. Planning Board Input Planning Board was generally supportive of the strategies recommended by staff, but cautioned that not charging for parking is subsidizing parking. There was consensus of the need to have equitable permitting solutions and not prioritize long-term residents over short-term residents or multifamily residents. Transportation Advisory Board Input The Transportation Advisory Board was supportive of staff recommendations, especially the formalization of the Park and Walk program. Board members reiterated the importance of being able to remove underperforming NPP zones when no longer needed. Community Input In our community engagement staff heard that many respondents tend to prioritize parking availability and affordability over environmental sustainability. The importance of accommodating those who rely on their vehicles for work was brought up frequently. The desire to have access to an EcoPass was also brought up, particularly one free of charge. Staff developed a questionnaire for NPP residents which received 328 responses. A summary of the results is presented through several graphs in Attachment I. The questionnaire revealed the following key themes: • The online registration system for visitors/guests is seen as tedious and exclusionary • There is a strong desire amongst many respondents to return to physical hangtags instead of digital permits. • There is significant demand for increased enforcement • There is varying support for more TDM benefits • Many senior residents feel that multi-modal transport goals unrealistically expect them to bike or use Lime scooters. Consequently, the increasing permit costs feels exclusionary to many. • Most respondents do not support higher residential permit fees to provide multimodal benefits for their neighborhood. • There is varying support for paid parking in NPPs for non-permit holders Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 19 Packet Page 641 of 1100 Proposed Code Changes – On-Street Parking Management Strategies: - Refines code language to broaden the intent of the NPP program from solely serving residents to supporting access for a wider range of users. - Limits residential NPP permits from two to one per eligible resident. - Gives the City Manager authority to limit the total number of permits issued in a zone if the number of dwellings will lead to a strain on the available on-street capacity. - Replaces ‘Guest Permits’ with 25 ‘Day Passes’ that can be used individually or concurrently. - Replaces ‘Visitor Permits’ with ‘Flex Permits’ that add additional flexibility to how the permits can be used. These permits can be used by residents who have more than one vehicle, or by their visitors if the resident has visitor needs greater than 25 days a year- such as a nanny or caretaker. - Introduces a proactive parking study for the neighborhood surrounding new or redevelopment based on the requirement of a Traffic Assessment dictated by the Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Proposed City Manager Rule Changes– On-Street Parking Management Strategies: - Allows specific blocks near schools to be designated as “Park and Walk” zones, allowing two separate short-term parking periods per day to better support school pick-up and drop-off needs. - Replaces current Guest and Visitor permits with more flexible Day Passes and Flex Permits, reflecting updates in the ordinance. - Expands commuter permit renewal options to include monthly, bi-annual, or annual schedules, beyond the current quarterly option. - Removes references to specific low-density zones in the criteria for assessing a new NPP - Introduces new City Manager Rule detailing the mobile-pay-only paid parking and EcoPass program pilot in the Goss Grove NPP. Transportation Demand Management Requirements for New Development Background The purpose of this part of the AMPS project is to design and implement a TDM ordinance for new developments. While the other ordinances are being brought forward for adoption in June 2025, the ordinance for the TDM component is forthcoming, likely in the fall of 2025. The reason for this separation in adoption timelines is based on staff resources and work plan capacity, the complexity of designing a new ordinance and process, and needed calibration of the design elements based on internal analysis and external feedback during the public engagement process. Based on input from Boards and Council, the ordinance for new development would: Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 20 Packet Page 642 of 1100 1. Mitigate the impacts of new developments on the transportation network, adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods, 2. Enhance multimodal infrastructure and amenities and access to TDM programs and services, and 3. Contribute to meeting city transportation and climate goals by influencing travel behavior. The new ordinance would also provide increased clarity of expectations for staff, property owners and developers regarding TDM requirements compared to the existing process. The ordinance would establish a process for monitoring compliance and a feedback process to continuously improve the effectiveness of TDM plans and compliance process. This delay to accommodate ordinance drafting does not diminish the strategic need for a TDM ordinance for new development to accompany the implementation of the on-street parking standards and off-street parking management strategies; if off-street parking minimums are eliminated, the importance of mitigating the potential impacts of large development projects with both TDM requirements and on-street parking standards increases. However, in the interim, the city will still continue to require TDM plans for Site Review projects as is currently in the land use code. The city typically approves around 12 Site Review projects per year, so staff expects only a few projects would continue to be subject to the current TDM requirements before the new TDM ordinance is adopted and goes into effect. Comparable Cities Many municipalities across the country have implemented TDM ordinances for new developments. With consultant support, the staff team evaluated the variety of approaches used to require TDM programs and services used by tenants of residential and commercial developments, which is summarized in the Best Practices Report. The report highlighted each municipality’s overall approach and the design of their ordinance, and the specific language used in their ordinances and rules. Virtually all ordinances for new development share a set of components, which generally include: • The purpose of the ordinance in mitigating impacts of new developments and advancing overarching city transportation goals • Thresholds and triggers that determine which developments need to comply with the ordinance • Metrics used to measure compliance and how they are measured • The methodology to set metric(s) target levels that TDM plans need to achieve to be in compliance • The programs, services, or benefits that are required or optional in the TDM plans • The procedures to monitor and evaluate compliance and the timing of evaluations • The remedial procedures that are triggered when a property is out of compliance and what happens to a property that meets targets after the evaluation period • Based on program design, the staffing time and resources needed to manage the TDM ordinance program. Based on the best practices, internal staff analysis, input from Boards and Council and feedback from the engagement process, the project team developed an overall framework Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 21 Packet Page 643 of 1100 for the ordinance and determined the approach to each of the shared components listed above. The internal staff analysis included input from planners, engineers, and city attorney’s office representatives from Transportation & Mobility, Community Vitality, and Planning and Development Services. The result of this process is an ordinance that is based on the use of on-going annual financial guarantees and a tiered approach to determine which developments are required to comply with the ordinance. Analysis As stated, the overall approach to the ordinance is based on the use of annual financial guarantees and use for tiers to determine which developments are subject to the ordinance. Based on input from the Boards and Council, and the public engagement process, staff recommend that this ordinance apply to all development projects including form-based code and by-right projects. Staff also recommend that TDM plans be approved through an Administrative Review staff level review process rather than specifically through Site Review or Form-Based Code Review if size thresholds are met. TDM plans will be approved if they meet requirements and prescriptive standards rather than the discretionary criteria currently applied through Site Review. Originally, staff proposed that the ordinance would only apply to projects going through Site Review process. It was expanded to ensure that all large projects would be subject to the ordinance. This shift to include all types of projects will increase the need for additional staff resources to manage the ordinance program for the Finance Department, which handles financial guarantees and for the Transportation & Mobility Department to assist in the design and monitoring of TDM plans. Financial Guarantees TDM programs and services used by employees and residents generally have annual, on- going costs. Based on input from the engagement process, it was determined that the best way to ensure that TDM programs and services were provided to residential and commercial tenants to mitigate impacts, increase access and contribute to city goals, would be to require annual financial guarantees (AFGs). The AFGs would be paid by the developer or property owner, held by the city in escrow accounts and dispersed to the tenant employers and residential property managers to implement and maintain on-going TDM programs and benefits. The city already uses financial guarantees, but for a limited duration, so this approach is an expanded and more formalized version of how TDM plans are currently managed. This new ordinance aims to increase clarity of requirements for all parties involved in the development process. Staff analyzed three primary scenarios for AFGs, ranging from only subsidizing TDM program costs implemented by tenants, fully covering the hard costs of TDM services and programs, and covering fully loaded costs of TDM services and program management. Staff recommends an AFG that covers the hard costs of required programs and services of TDM Plans. An example of a hard cost would be the cost of providing annual EcoPasses or BCycle memberships as a required element of a TDM Plan. AFGs will be calculated based on land use and size and expressed as a cost by square footage of Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 22 Packet Page 644 of 1100 commercial (based on assumptions of square footage per employee) and the number of units of residential developments. For the largest developments, a second Remedial Financial Guarantee (RFG) would be required. This funding would be used if a Tier 2 property was not meeting its Vehicle Trip Generation (VTG) target. In that case, a portion of the RFG would be used to augment the AFG to increase overall funding and pay for additional TDM programs, services or benefits to help meet the target. The portion of the RFG used would depend on how close or far away the property is from their VTG target. Tiered Approach A tiered approach is recommended to focus on larger, more impactful developments, and to manage staff time and resources to operate an ordinance program. Staff analyzed a variety of scenarios for the thresholds and recommends the thresholds in Table 1. The table provides staff’s recommended approach on threshold levels by land use, the current number of development project plans in the pipeline, the percent of project that would meet thresholds and the overall percentage of square feet and number of units covered under the proposed tiers. Table 1: Tier Thresholds Office Threshold (sf) # of Plans (2019-24) Avg # of Plans/Year % of plans % of SF Tier 2 50,000 5 1 71% 95% Tier 1 30,000 1 0.2 14% 2% Tier 0 - Exempt Below 30,000 1 0.2 14% 2% General Commercial Threshold (sf) # of Plans (2019-24) Avg # of Plans/Year % of plans % of SF Tier 2 80,000 1 0.2 17% 43% Tier 1 40,000 2 0.4 33% 87% Tier 0 - Exempt Below 40,000 3 0.6 50% 13% Industrial Threshold (sf) # of Plans (2019-24) Avg # of Plans/Year % of plans % of SF Tier 2 125,000 0 0 0% 0% Tier 1 75,000 2 0.4 67% 74% Tier 0 - Exempt Below 75,000 1 0.2 33% 26% Residential Threshold (units) # of Plans (2019-24) Avg # of Plans/Year % of plans % of SF/Units Tier 2 120 7 1.4 33% 74% Tier 1 40 8 1.6 38% 23% Tier 0 - Exempt Below 40 6 1.2 29% 3% Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 23 Packet Page 645 of 1100 TDM Plan Requirements Under the proposed ordinance, developers/property owners would design and submit a TDM plan for staff approval. They would be provided with a TDM Toolkit that explains requirements and options and receive support from city staff and Boulder Chamber Transportation Connections to design final TDM Plans once tenants are occupying the property. Based on the type and size of the development, specific TDM programs and services would be required. Staff recommends using a package approach to TDM requirements to allow from some flexibility and customization. One package will focus on use of the RTD EcoPass plus other TDM programs and services, while the second package will be centered around a Transportation Wallet concept (specifically parking cash-out programs for employer tenants) for when the EcoPass is not suitable because of the location of the property. Parking management policies and strategies will also be required in specific contexts including the implementation of Boulder’s SUMP principles (shared, unbundled, managed and paid) when appropriate. Staff specifically recommend requiring unbundled parking for both Tier 1 and 2 residential developments when possible. Staff is working with Boulder Chamber Transportation Connections (BCTC), our local transportation management organization recognized by DRCOG, to develop a membership program requirement for Tier 2 projects in which BCTC will provide on- going technical assistance for TDM Plan design, implementation and adjustments. Measurement of Success Staff recommend that the effectiveness of TDM Plans should be measured in daily vehicle trips (Table 2). The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) provides standard vehicle trip generation rates by land use and size that can be used to determine trip generation targets based on desired reductions caused by TDM programs and services. Surveys of tenants to calculate SOV/MOV mode share will be used as a backup methodology if vehicle trip counts are impractical. The goal is to have TDM Plans result in a 30 percent reduction from estimated ITE vehicle trip generation. This approach is consistent with the existing TDM requirements for MU-4, RH-6 and RH-7 land uses and reduction targets for the Alpine-Balsam and East Boulder areas. Table 2: Vehicle Trip Reduction Targets Land Use Base Daily Trip Rate Existing Trip Reduction Expectation Attainable Trip Reduction from TDM Plans Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) 5.64 20% 10% Office Uses (per 1,000 square feet) 10.84 20% 10% Commercial Uses (per 1,000 square feet) 76.19 20% 10% Industrial (per 1,000 square feet) 3.32 20% 10% Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 24 Packet Page 646 of 1100 Monitoring and Enforcement To ensure that the annual financial guarantees and other requirements are met, a program of monitoring and enforcement is needed. Based on best practices and input, staff recommend the following: For Tier 1 projects, property owners will be required to submit Annual Reports that document the use of AFGs. Staff will use annual reports to evaluate the effectiveness of AFGs amounts to implement TDM programs and make any necessary changes to rates. For Tier 2 projects, property owners would be required to conduct, through a third party, an annual vehicle trip generation (VTG) study to measure compliance with VTG targets. They would also be required to submit an Annual Report summarizing the use of AFGs, the TDM programs and services implemented. • If a Tier 2 property does not meet its VTG target, then a portion of the RFG is used to increase the AFG amount and implement additional TDM programs and services. The combined amount of the initial AFG plus the portion of the RFG will become the new, higher AFG moving forward. • If a Tier 2 property is in compliance with the ordinance for three consecutive years, annual monitoring ends, and the property will be required to conduct VTG studies and submit a report every 5 years. Tier 1 or Tier 2 properties that do not comply with reporting requirements will likely be subject to code enforcement regulations, but staff is conducting more analysis on this component of the ordinance. As part of a continuous improvement process, staff will use annual reports to periodically evaluate tables for financial guarantee rates, tier thresholds and trip generation targets and make adjustments to ensure that the TDM Plan requirements result in mitigation of impacts, increase in access to multimodal infrastructure and contribute towards meeting city transportation and climate goals. Planning Board Input Planning Board provided input on the proposal at their May 15 and May 27, 2025 meetings. Based on previous presentations and discussions with the Planning Board, there was strong support for a TDM ordinance that mitigates impacts, enhances infrastructure and access, and contributes to meeting city goals. They supported the shift to have the ordinance apply to all projects, not just site review. Planning Board members supported the use of a tiered approach to determine which development projects would be subject to the ordinance. Planning Board recommended that staff re-evaluate the General Commercial thresholds so that fewer projects are categorized as Tier 0. It was also recommended that staff evaluate the use of square footage or number of bedrooms instead of number of units to create thresholds for residential projects. They also supported the use of financial guarantees paid by developers/property owners to cover the cost of annual TDM programs but expressed varying opinions on whether or not the financial guarantee requirement should be in perpetuity. Some members said that there should be a time limit, and others expressed that staff should include periodic reviews to evaluate TDM plan and annual financial requirements. The board supported Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 25 Packet Page 647 of 1100 that AFG rates be set based on hard costs of required TDM programs and services and not to use fully loaded costs. Planning Board members recommended that staff conduct additional research on the possibility of having Tier 0 projects contribute to a pooled fund, similar to a cash in lieu program, that is used to provide TDM program city-wide or be required to provide a minimal AFG to provide some TDM benefits to residents or tenants. Planning Board members also suggested that the review and approval of TDM Plans should be conducted at the staff level since the ordinance will provide TDM plan design guidance and increased clarity of plan requirements. However, Planning Board members recommended that initial rates, thresholds and targets that will be in City Manager Rules associated with the ordinance first be approved by the board. Regarding TDM plan requirements, a Planning Board member suggested that the city require paid and/or unbundled parking at all sites and others suggested that multimodal infrastructure and amenities be required to encourage mode shift and improve access and safety. It was also recommended by the board that staff identify the best way to provide the TDM benefits while at the same time minimizing the financial impacts of TDM requirements for affordable housing projects, likely through the use of city subsidies. Transportation Advisory Board Input Like Planning Board, TAB also supported the goals and purpose of the ordinance, the tiered approach and the use of financial guarantees. TAB supported making the financial guarantees annual and on-going, a tiered approach that focuses on larger, more impactful developments and manages the need for additional staff resources. For more detail on TAB comments from May 12, 2025, see Attachment L. Community Input Community input ranged on the TDM ordinance purpose and design. In general, engagement participants understood that TDM programs have annual, on-going costs and to achieve the goals of the ordinance, those costs would need to be paid for. Participants supported the position that these annual costs should be paid for by the developer or the property owner, and the annual funding would be used by the commercial tenants or residential property managers to implement TDM programs. Some participants noted that given the high cost of building parking, a portion of the savings from building less parking can cover annual TDM costs for a long period of time. Engagement participants also expressed concerns about the design of the TDM ordinance. A common theme was that the desire to have a TDM ordinance is based on good intentions, but there are significant unintended consequences and economic impacts. For example, participants expressed that Boulder already has high development costs and that the cost of annual financial guarantees will just be passed down to tenants further increasing the cost of operating a business or living in Boulder. Developers and consultants who participated in staff workshops questioned the recommended levels of annual financial guarantees and their on-going requirement as that the additional costs could make some commercial and residential developments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 26 Packet Page 648 of 1100 financially inviable. Concerns were raised about the impact of long-term economic vitality if the on-going annual costs related to TDM ordinance negatively impacted economic growth and redevelopment. Given the increased cost to develop properties in Boulder, some participants feared that an ordinance that requires annual, ongoing TDM programs would impact the city’s goal of providing affordable housing and further the increased cost of living in Boulder for low-income populations. While it was acknowledged that low-income populations may benefit the most from access to TDM programs that reduce overall commuting costs, that benefit may be outweighed by increased housing costs as the cost of programs are passed down to tenants. While engagement participants, in general, acknowledged the effectiveness of the RTD EcoPass program and its proven value, there was concern that RTD’s recent history of service reductions and closure of the Boulder Junction Transit Center have lessened the value of the EcoPass in meeting transportation goals and as a requirement of this ordinance for specific projects. While RTD transit service levels have declined in Boulder, staff maintains confidence in future local and regional transit service improvements and the on-going effectiveness of the EcoPass program in changing travel behavior, especially when combined with parking management strategies. Staff are also focused on improving local services such as the HOP that the city directly operates. Policy Considerations The proposed TDM ordinance will be designed by staff based on best practices and input from the Boards and Council and the public engagement process. Each component of the ordinance will be calibrated responsive to the feedback obtained throughout the project process and to ensure ease of future ordinance implementation and administration. The approach to each component and how it will be calibrated are summarized below. Developments Subject to the Ordinance - Staff recommends that the ordinance apply to all developments, including by- right, site review and form-based code projects, with one possible exemption being 100% affordable developments. Annual Financial Guarantee Levels - Staff will develop the AFG and RFG rates based on input from Boards and Council and set them to cover the hard costs of required TDM plan elements. - Based on input from the Boards and Council about ensuring the long-term effectiveness of the ordinance, staff recommends that the AFG be required in perpetuity. Size Thresholds - Staff will design the tier thresholds based on the need to balance the need for additional staff resources with the desire to have the ordinance focus on the most impactful development projects. The tier thresholds can be changed to have more or less projects subject to the ordinance. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 27 Packet Page 649 of 1100 Plan Requirements -Staff will limit the number of required TDM plan elements so that a level of customization and flexibility are maintained. - In terms of plan requirements, staff will apply a more prescriptive approach requiring additional elements or take an agnostic approach in which more flexibility and customization is allowed, and the focus is meeting VTG targets regardless of the TDM benefits and programs implemented depending on the nature of the individual requirement. Vehicle Trip Generation Rates - VTG targets will be based on an overall 30 percent reduction from ITE rates and will be set to be both achievable and impactful. - VTG could be shifted up or down, but staff recommend that any changes to targets be the result of internal evaluations after the ordinance has been in effect for three years. Next Steps Staff will continue designing the TDM ordinance based on Board and Council feedback and return in the fall of 2025 with an ordinance for City Council consideration. This will support, and is a critical component of, the changes to on-street parking standard updates and off-street parking management strategies discussed earlier in this memo that are being advanced first. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issues for City Council’s consideration: 1. Does City Council recommend any modifications to draft Ordinance 8700 or 8696? 2. Does City Council want to provide any additional guidance regarding the TDM ordinance currently under development that will complement draft Ordinance 8700 and 8696? The following analysis is provided to demonstrate how the project objective is met through proposed Ordinances 8700 and 8696 and describes the intent of the TDM ordinance that will follow. What is the reason for the ordinances and what public purpose will be served? Ordinance 8696 builds upon the recently adopted state legislation addressing requirements for multifamily residential development in transit service areas to apply the changes citywide to all land uses. As detailed in HB24-1304, studies have shown that requiring minimum off-street parking contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and increases housing costs. This ordinance will help the city move closer to established objectives in the Transportation Master Plan and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. In coordination with the proposed elimination of parking minimums and the upcoming introduction of new TDM requirements for developers, staff were directed to review and Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 28 Packet Page 650 of 1100 update the Residential Access Management Program (RAMP) to ensure the City has the necessary tools to manage potential impacts and support the effectiveness of both policy changes. The forthcoming TDM ordinance will also include TDM plan requirements that are clear, predictable, and enforceable with the purpose of mitigating the impacts of new development, increasing multimodal access and contributing to meeting city goals and objectives, especially within a land use environment without parking minimums. How are the ordinances consistent with the purpose of the zoning districts or code chapters being amended? These ordinances are intended to reimagine the approach to parking regulation in Boulder by eliminating minimum off-street parking requirements and updating on-street parking management strategies, as well as the TDM requirements in the forthcoming ordinance. Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” has the stated intent “to provide adequate off-street parking for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city streets, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving.” The reimagined approach would remove the city requirements for off-street parking, but based on the experiences of other cities that have made similar changes, it is expected that development would provide adequate off-street parking. In addition, the city is employing new tools to mitigate potential impacts to on- street parking and to support TDM. The future TDM ordinance will be consistent with the purpose of the zoning districts or code chapters and will provide increased clarity of TDM requirements to mitigate the potential impact of new developments. Are there consequences in not approving these ordinances? If the ordinances are not adopted, the city’s regulations would not align with HB24-1304, which states that municipalities shall neither enact nor enforce minimum parking requirements for certain land uses. The city would continue to enforce minimum parking requirements that in most cases exceed the actual parking utilization needs. If the proposed on-street parking management changes are not adopted, the city may lack the tools needed to manage potential increased on-street parking demand resulting from development, leading to increased congestion, inequitable access to curb space, and missed opportunities to support multimodal transportation. Without a new ordinance for TDM Plans, requirements on new developments will continue to be limited in duration, effectiveness, clarity, and enforcement. What adverse effects may result with the adoption of these ordinances? Staff does not anticipate that adverse effects will result with the adoption of these ordinances. Over 70 cities in the United States, including nearby Longmont, have already eliminated off-street parking requirements without reported adverse effects. While the number of parking spaces may be more accurately tailored to the needs of the project than using the city’s current ratios, it is not anticipated that development projects would Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 29 Packet Page 651 of 1100 not provide adequate parking based on the experiences of other communities that have already made these changes. Adopting these changes may create confusion during the transition period, especially for current NPP participants adjusting to new permit types or paid parking. Additionally, some households may face increased costs or reduced parking access, particularly those with multiple vehicles or limited off-street options. TDM programs and services have annual, on-going costs. An ordinance with the features described in this memo that requires property owners or their tenants to pay for the cost of these programs and services may increase development and operating costs. Compared to surrounding communities, Boulder already has higher building costs and rents, and the anticipated ordinance, as described in this memo, may increase these costs. What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinances? Why? The compliance date for municipalities to stop enacting or enforcing minimum parking requirements for certain uses established in the state bill is June 30, 2025. The off-street parking ordinance is scheduled for second reading at City Council on June 26, 2025. Regulations typically go into effect 30 days after council adoption, but if adopted Implementing these changes alongside the elimination of parking minimums and new TDM regulations ensures the City can proactively manage increased curbside demand and maintain equitable access to on-street parking. Coordinating these efforts strengthens the effectiveness of each policy and supports broader transportation and housing goals. While the TDM ordinance is still forthcoming, it is an integral part of the AMPS project as all three work together. If fewer on-site parking spaces are provided with the elimination of parking minimums, then TDM requirements and on-street parking standards can help to mitigate potential impacts on the adjacent transportation system and surrounding neighborhoods. How do the ordinances compare to practices in other cities? Analysis of each focus area of change and practices in comparable cities has been provided in the above summary of changes section of this memorandum. How will the ordinances implement the comprehensive plan? One of the primary objectives of the project is to implement the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan and support the measurable objectives of the Transportation Master Plan. The ordinance is anticipated to help reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, based on studies that have shown that minimum off-street parking requirements contribute to greater rates of both factors. Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is updated about every five years. The 2019 TMP identifies several measurable objectives: •Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): 20% reduction overall, specific VMT/capita •Mode Share: 80% walking, biking, and transit for all trips of residents, 40% work trips of non-residents Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 30 Packet Page 652 of 1100 •Climate: Reduce transportation-sector greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and continuously reduce mobile source emissions of other air pollutants •Safety: Eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes and continuously improve safety for all modes of travel •Vulnerable Populations: Expand fiscally-viable transportation options for all Boulder residents and employees, including children, older adults and people with disabilities •Transportation Options: Increase transportation options commensurate with the rate of employee growth •Travel Time: Maintain 1994 levels of travel time on arterial streets, and improve travel time reliability and predictability •Walkable Neighborhoods: Increase the share of residents living in walkable (15- minute) neighborhoods to 80 percent Several relevant policies are adopted within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, with many policies directly implemented through this ordinance. Aside from contributing to housing costs, off-street parking requirements can often serve as a regulatory barrier for small businesses to locate in communities or the redevelopment of sites. The changes will also support better usability and security of bicycle parking, to support the bikeability of the city. Since World War Two, meeting parking requirements has been a defining feature of nearly all development and has defined the urban design and form of communities across the United States. By not setting minimum parking requirements, parking can play a subordinate role to site and building design and not jeopardize open space or other opportunities on the property. Built Environment Policy 2.16: Mixed Use & Higher-Density Development The city will encourage well-designed mixed use and higher-density development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable housing in appropriate locations, including in some commercial centers and industrial areas and in proximity to multimodal corridors and transit centers. The city will provide incentives and remove regulatory barriers to encourage mixed use development where and when appropriate. This could include public-private partnerships for planning, design or development, new zoning districts, and the review and revision of floor area ratio, open space and parking requirements. Built Environment Policy 2.19: Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood centers often contain the economic, social and cultural opportunities that allow neighborhoods to thrive and for people to come together. The city will encourage neighborhood centers to provide pedestrian-friendly and welcoming environments with a mix of land uses. The city acknowledges and respects the diversity of character and needs of its neighborhood centers and will pursue area planning efforts to support evolution of these centers to become mixed-use places and strive to accomplish the guiding principles noted below. Neighborhood Centers Guiding Principles 4. Encourage parking management strategies. Encourage parking management strategies, such as shared parking, in neighborhood centers. Built Environment Policy 2.25: Improve Mobility Grid & Connections The walkability, bikeability and transit access should be improved in parts of the city that need better connectivity and mobility, for example, in East Boulder. This should be achieved by coordinating and Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 31 Packet Page 653 of 1100 integrating land use and transportation planning and will occur through both public investment and private development. Built Environment Policy 2.41: Enhanced Design for All Projects Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in all development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the following elements: f. Parking. The primary focus of any site should be quality site design. Parking should play a subordinate role to site and building design and not jeopardize open space or other opportunities on the property. Parking should be integrated between or within buildings and be compact and dense. The placement of parking should be behind and to the sides of buildings or in structures rather than in large street-facing lots. Surface parking will be discouraged, and versatile parking structures that are designed with the flexibility to allow for different uses in the future will be encouraged. Economy Policy 5.01: Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas The city supports strategies unique to specific places for the redevelopment of commercial and industrial areas. Revitalization should support and enhance these areas, conserve their strengths, minimize displacement of users and reflect their unique characteristics and amenities and those of nearby neighborhoods. Examples of commercial and industrial areas for revitalization identified in previous planning efforts are Diagonal Plaza, University Hill commercial district, Gunbarrel and the East Boulder industrial area. The city will use a variety of tools and strategies in area planning and in the creation of public/ private partnerships that lead to successful redevelopment and minimize displacement and loss of service and retail uses. These tools may include, but are not limited to, area planning with community input, infrastructure improvements, shared parking strategies, transit options and hubs and changes to zoning or development standards and incentives (e.g., financial incentives, development potential or urban renewal authority). Economy Policy 5.05: Support for Local Business & Business Retention The city and county value the diverse mix of existing businesses, including primary and secondary employers of different sizes, in the local economy. Nurturing, supporting and maintaining a positive climate for the retention of existing businesses and jobs is a priority. The city recognizes the vital role of small, local and independent businesses and non-profits that serve the community and will balance needs of redevelopment in certain areas with strategies that minimize displacement of existing businesses and create opportunities for startups and growing businesses. The city will continue to proactively analyze trends in market forces to shape its activities, plans and policies regarding local business and business retention. The city and county will consider the projected needs of businesses and their respective employees, such as commercial and office space, when planning for transportation infrastructure, programs and housing. Economy Policy 5.06: Affordable Business Space & Diverse Employment Base The city and county will further explore and identify methods to better support businesses and non- profits that provide direct services to residents and local businesses by addressing rising costs of doing business in the city, including the cost of commercial space. The city will consider strategies, regulations, policies or new programs to maintain a range of options to support a diverse workforce and employment base and take into account innovations and the changing nature of the workplace. Economy Policy 5.08: Funding City Services & Urban Infrastructure The city will encourage a strong sustainable economy to generate revenue to fund quality city services and recognizes that urban infrastructure, facilities, services and amenities are important to the quality of life of residents, employees and visitors to the community. A strong and complete local and regional multimodal transportation system and transportation demand management programs are essential to a thriving economy, as they offer options for commuters, help attract and retain key businesses, employers and visitors and provide regional access to global markets. The city will continue to plan for and invest in urban amenities and infrastructure (e.g., bike paths, parks, shared and managed parking, public spaces, quality gathering places, cultural destinations and public art) as well as community services (e.g., open space and mountain parks, high speed internet, fire-rescue, public safety and senior services). Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 32 Packet Page 654 of 1100 Economy Policy 5.14: Responsive to Changes in the Marketplace The city recognizes that development regulations and processes have an impact on the ability of businesses to respond to changes in the marketplace. The city will work with the local business community and residents to make sure the city’s regulations and development review processes provide a level of flexibility to allow for creative solutions while meeting broader community goals. This could involve modifying regulations to address specific issues and make them more responsive to emerging technologies and evolving industry sectors. Transportation Policy 6.02: Equitable Transportation The city and county will equitably distribute transportation investments and benefits in service of all community members, particularly vulnerable populations, ensuring that all people benefit from expanded mobility options. Providing more transportation options – like walking, biking, transit and shared options –in areas where people are more reliant on various modes will have a greater benefit to overall mobility. New transportation technologies and advanced mobility options provide Boulder with an opportunity to expand affordable transportation choices to those who need them the most, including those who cannot use existing fixed route transit such as service and shift workers. Transportation Policy 6.06: Transportation System Optimization The transportation system serves people using all modes, and maintaining its efficient and safe operation benefits all users. The city and county will monitor the performance of all modes as a basis for informed and systematic trade-offs supporting mobility, safety, GHG reduction and other related goals. Transportation Policy 6.07: Integrated Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs The city and county will cooperate in developing comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for residents and employees, which include incentives, such as developing a fare-free local and regional transit system; promoting shared-use mobility, ridesharing, bikesharing, carsharing, vanpools and teleworking; and supporting programs for walking and biking, such as secured long-term bike parking. The city will employ strategies such as shared, unbundled, managed and paid parking (i.e., “Shared Unbundled, Managed, and Paid” – “SUMP” principles) to reflect the real cost of Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel. The city will require TDM plans for applicable residential and commercial developments. Transportation Policy 6.08: Accessibility and Mobility for All The city and county will continue development of a complete all-mode transportation system accommodating all users, including people with mobility impairments, youth, older adults, non English speakers and low-income persons. This will include increased support for mobility services for older adults and people with disabilities, reflecting the expected increases in these populations. Efforts should focus on giving people options to live well without a car and may include prioritizing affordable public transportation and transit passes, new technologies such as electric bikes, mobility services and prioritizing connections between multimodal transportation and affordable housing to facilitate affordable living. Transportation Policy 6.13: Access Management & Parking The city considers vehicular and bicycle parking as a component of a total access system for all modes of transportation (bicycle, pedestrian, transit and vehicular). Such parking will be consistent with the desire to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel, balance the use of public spaces, consider the needs of residential and commercial areas and address neighborhood parking impacts. The city will accommodate parking demands in the most efficient way possible with the minimal necessary number of new spaces and promote parking reductions through a variety of tools, including parking maximums, shared parking, unbundled parking, parking districts and transportation demand management programs. The city will expand and manage parking districts based on SUMP principles (shared, unbundled, managed and paid) to support transportation and GHG reduction goals as well as broader sustainability goals, including economic vitality and neighborhood livability. Transportation Policy 6.14: Transportation Impacts Mitigated Transportation or traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable transportation or environmental impacts, or parking impacts, to surrounding areas will be mitigated. All development will be designed and built to be multimodal and pedestrian-oriented and include TDM strategies to reduce the vehicle miles traveled generated by the development. Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 33 Packet Page 655 of 1100 Supporting these efforts, new development will provide continuous multimodal networks through the development and connect these systems to those surrounding the development. The city and county will provide tools and resources to help businesses manage employee access and mobility and support public- private partnerships, such as transportation management organizations, to facilitate these efforts. Transportation Policy 6.16: Integrated Planning for Regional Centers & Corridors Land use in and surrounding the three intermodal regional centers (i.e., Downtown Boulder, the University of Colorado and the Boulder Valley Regional Center, including at Boulder Junction) will support their function as anchors to regional transit connections and Mobility Hubs for connecting a variety of local travel options to local and regional transit services. The land along multimodal corridors, the major transportation facilities that provide intra-city access and connect to the regional transportation system, will be designated as multimodal transportation zones where transit service is provided on that corridor. In and along these corridors and centers, the city will plan for a highly connected and continuous transportation system for all modes, identify locations for mixed use and higher-density development integrated with transportation functions, emphasize high quality urban design and pedestrian experience, develop parking maximums and encourage parking reductions. Transportation Policy 6.18 Transportation Facilities in Neighborhoods The city will strive to protect and improve the quality of life within city neighborhoods while developing a balanced multimodal transportation system. The city will prioritize improvements to access by all modes and safety within neighborhoods by controlling vehicle speeds and providing multimodal connections over vehicle mobility. The city and county will design and construct new transportation facilities to minimize noise levels to the extent practicable. Neighborhood needs and goals will be balanced against the community necessity or benefit of a transportation improvement. Additionally, the city will continue its neighborhood parking permit (NPP) programs to seek to balance access and parking demands of neighborhoods and adjacent traffic generators. Transportation Policy 6.22: Improving Air Quality & Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Both the city and county are committed to reductions in GHG emissions, with the city committing to an 80 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050 and the county committing to a 45% reduction by 2030 and a 90% reduction by 2050. The city and county will design the transportation system to minimize air pollution and reduce GHG emissions by promoting the use of active transportation (e.g., walking and bicycling) and low-emission transportation modes and infrastructure to support them, reducing auto traffic, encouraging the use of fuel-efficient and clean-fueled vehicles that demonstrate air pollution reductions and maintaining acceptable traffic flow. Housing Policy 7.01: Local Solutions to Affordable Housing The city and county will employ local regulations, policies and programs to meet the housing needs of low, moderate and middle-income households. Appropriate federal, state and local programs and resources will be used locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The city and county recognize that affordable housing provides a significant community benefit and will continually monitor and evaluate policies, processes, programs and regulations to further the region’s affordable housing goals. The city and county will work to integrate effective community engagement with funding and development requirements and other processes to achieve effective local solutions. Housing Policy 7.07: Mixture of Housing Types The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densities to meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of the Boulder Valley population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types, as appropriate. This may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage courts and building multiple small units rather than one large house on a lot. Housing Policy 7.08: Preserve Existing Housing Stock The city and county, recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will encourage its preservation and rehabilitation through land use policies and regulations. Special efforts will be made to preserve and Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 34 Packet Page 656 of 1100 rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households. Special efforts will also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households and to promote a net gain in affordable and middle-income housing. Housing Policy 7.10: Housing for a Full Range of Households The city and county will encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to current and future households, persons at all stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of household incomes and configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children and other dependents, extended families, non-traditional households and seniors. Housing Policy 7.17: Market Affordability The city will encourage and support efforts to provide market rate housing priced to be more affordable to middle-income households by identifying opportunities to incentivize moderately sized and priced homes. Local Governance and Community Engagement Policy 10.01: High-Performing Government The city and county strive for continuous improvement in stewardship and sustainability of financial, human, information and physical assets. In all business, the city and county seek to enhance and facilitate transparency, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer service. The city and county support strategic decision-making with timely, reliable and accurate data and analysis. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Annotated Ordinance 8696 (Official ordinance is Attachment N) Attachment B: Ordinance 8700 Attachment C: Comparable Cities Parking Requirement Matrix Attachment D: Fox Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Attachment E: Empty Spaces Infographic Attachment F: City Manager Rule Attachment G: Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Attachment H: RAMP Financial Analysis Attachment I: Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Attachment J: Summary of Community Meeting Comments Attachment K: Public Comments Received Attachment L: Summary of TAB Comments Attachment M: Draft Planning Board Minutes Attachment N: Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 35 Packet Page 657 of 1100 An notated Ordinance: City Council Review Draft NOTE: This version of the ordinance includes footnotes that help to describe all of the proposed changes as well as the redlined tracked changes to existing code language. . . . 7-6-23.  Parking for Certain Purposes Prohibited. ... (b) No vehicle shall be parked upon any private property within any required yard abutting a street. Required yard means the minimum front yard setback for principal buildings, the minimum side yard setback from a street for all buildings and the minimum front and side yard setbacks from major roads set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (1) As an exception to this prohibition, within districts zoned RR-1, RR-2, RE, or RL-1, RL-2, A or P, up to two vehicles may be parked on a paved or improved driveway which serves as access to required off-street parking provided on the lot in accordance with Sections 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," and 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981.1 (2) This subsection does not apply to recreational vehicles parked or stored in accordance with subsection 9-9-6(hf), B.R.C. 1981. 9-1-3. Application of Regulations. (b) General Compliance Requirements: (1) No building, structure or land may hereafter be used or occupied, and no building or structure or part thereof may hereafter be erected, constructed, moved or altered except in conformity with all of the regulations of this title. (2)All lot area, open space, or yard requirements must be met on the lot or parcel creating the requirement for each building and use, unless modified under the provisions of Section 9-2- 14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981.2No part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area or yard required about or in connection with any building for the purposes of complying with this title, may be included as part of a lot area, an open space, off-street parking area or yard similarly required for any other building or use, except as otherwise specifically permitted by the provisions of this title. … 9-2-1. Types of Reviews. (b) Summary Chart: 1 Updates to align language with Section 9-9-6 and remove reference to required parking. 2 Clarified language and removed reference to off-street parking that is no longer necessary without minimum required off-street parking. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 36 Packet Page 658 of 1100 TABLE 2-1: REVIEW PROCESSES SUMMARY CHART I. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS II. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BOARD ACTION Affordable housing design review pursuant to Section 9-13-4, B.R.C. 1981 Bicycle parking reductions and modifications3 Building permits Change of address Change of street name Conditional uses, as noted in Table 6-1: Use Table Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with no historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Easement vacation Extension of development approval/staff level Landmark alteration certificates (staff review per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981) Landscape standards variance Minor modification to approved site plan Minor modification to approved form-based code review Noise barriers along major streets per Paragraph 9- 9-15(c)(7), B.R.C. 1981 Nonconforming use extension Parking deferral per Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 19814 Parking reduction of up to twenty-five percent per Annexation/initial zoning BOZA variances Concept plans Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with potential historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Form-based code review Geophysical exploration permit Landmark alteration certificates other than those that may be approved by staff per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981 Lot line adjustments Lot line elimination Minor Subdivisions Out of city utility permit Rezoning Site review Subdivisions Use review Vacations of street, alley, or access easement 3 Moved up in list alphabetically. 4 Removing parking deferrals and reductions no longer necessary without minimum off-street parking requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 37 Packet Page 659 of 1100 Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reductions and modifications for bicycle parking per Paragraph 9-9-6(g)(6), B.R.C. 1981 Parking stall size reduction variances5 Public utility Rescission of development approval Revocable permit Right-of-way lease Setback variance Site access exceptionvariance Substitution of a nonconforming use Solar exception Zoning verification 9-2-2. Administrative Review Procedures. (c) Application Requirements: … (4) Additional Information: If, in the city manager's judgment, the application does not contain sufficient information to permit an appropriate review, the manager may request additional information from the applicant. This additional information may include, without limitation, a written statement describing the operating characteristics of proposed and existing uses and a site plan showing dimensions, distances, topography, adjacent uses, location of existing and proposed improvements, including but not limited to landscaping, parking,6and buildings. … 9-2-3. Variances and Interpretations. … (c) Administrative Variances: The city manager may grant a variance from: 5 Aligning with correct process description. 6 No longer necessary without minimum requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 38 Packet Page 660 of 1100 … (6) The parking requirements of Subsection 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981, with regards to parking in landscaped front yard setbacks, if the city manager finds that the application satisfies all of the requirements in subsection (h) or (j), as applicable, of this section and if the applicant obtains the written approvals of impacted property owners.7 (67) If written approvals of impacted property owners cannot be obtained, the applicant may apply for consideration of the variance before the BOZA. (78) Applicants shall apply for the variance on a form provided by the city manager and shall pay the application fee required by title 4, "Licenses and Permits," B.R.C. 1981, at time of submittal of the application. (89) The city manager may also grant variances or refer variance requests to the BOZA to allow development not in conformance with the provisions of this title which otherwise would result in a violation of federal or state legislation or regulation, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. … (j) Variances for Parking Spaces in Front Yard Setbacks: The BOZA approving authority8may grant a variance to the requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, to allow a required parking space to be located within the front yard setback if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following requirements: … 9-2-14. Site Review. … (g) Review and Recommendation: The city manager will review and decide an application for a site review in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2-6, "Development Review Application," B.R.C. 1981, except for an application involving the following, which the city manager will refer with a recommendation to the planning board for its action: (1) A reduction in off-street parking of more than fifty percent subject to compliance with the standards of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.9 (12) A reduction of the open space or lot area requirements allowed by Subparagraph (h)(6) of this section. 7 This allows variances for parking in the front yard setback to be reviewed administratively, if impacted neighbors provide written approval, rather than automatically going to BOZA, which provides additional flexibility for parking in the front yard setback under certain circumstances. 8 Updated as there is an option for an administrative variance now. 9 Parking reductions no longer needed in the code without minimum off-street parking requirements Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 39 Packet Page 661 of 1100 (23) An application for any principal or accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: … (1) 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 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: … (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.10 … (7) Parking Reductions: 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. 1981.11 … (k) Minor Modifications to Approved Site Plans: The city manager reviews applications for minor modifications pursuant to the procedures in Section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. (1) Standards: Minor modifications may be approved if the proposed modification complies with the following standards: 10 These references to circulation and parking needs have been removed to align with no minimum requirements. These are factors for consideration within a Site Review applications, and as such are discretionary standards. Efficient use of land and minimized pavement would remain a factor to consider in whether a 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.” 11 Parking reductions no longer needed in the code without minimum off-street parking requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 40 Packet Page 662 of 1100 … (E) Parking: Any parking reduction is reviewed and approved through the process and criteria in Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981;12 (EF) Solar Panels: Any solar panels do not substantially add to the mass or perceived height of the building and comply with all applicable building height, solar access, building coverage, and open space requirements; (FG) Other Requirements: The modification complies with all other applicable requirements of this title; and (GH) Modified Standards: The numeric standards in the site plan are not modified by more than allowed through Table 2-3. … 9-2-16. Form-Based Code Review. (a) Purpose: The purpose of form-based code review, is to improve the character and quality of new development to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public and the users of the development. The form-based code review regulations are established to create a sense of place in the area being developed or redeveloped and ensure a site and building design that: … (h) Bicycle Parking Reductions. As part of the form-based code review process, the approving authority may grant a parking reduction pursuant to the criteria in Subsection 9-9-6(f), "Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions," B.R.C. 1981, for commercial developments, residential developments, industrial developments, and mixed use developments if the approving authority finds that the criteria of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981, are met. As part of the form-based code review process, the approving authority may grant reductions and modifications to the bicycle parking standards of Subsection 9-9-6(eg), B.R.C. 1981, if the reviewing authority finds that the standards of Paragraph 9- 9-6(eg)(6), B.R.C. 1981, are met.13 … 9-4-2. Development Review Procedures. (a) Development Review Authority: Table 4-1 of this section summarizes the review and decision- making responsibilities for the administration of the administrative and development review procedures described in this chapter. The table is a summary tool and does not describe all types of decisions made under this code. Refer to sections referenced for specific requirements. Additional procedures that are required by this code but located in other chapters are: (1) "Historic Preservation," chapter 9-11; and 12 Parking reductions no longer needed in the code without minimum off-street parking requirements. 13 Parking reductions are no longer necessary with the elimination of minimum off-street parking requirements. Bicycle parking reductions remain an option. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 41 Packet Page 663 of 1100 (2) "Inclusionary Housing," chapter 9-13. TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF DECISION AUTHORITY BY PROCESS TYPE Standard or Application Type Staff/City Manager BOZA Planning Board City Council Section 9-9-6: Parking Standards14 Bicycle Parking Reduction Section 9-9-6(e)15 D — — — Parking Access Dimensions Section 9-9-5 D — — — Parking Deferral Subsection 9-9-6(e) D — — — Parking Reduction ≤25% Subsection 9-9-6(f) D — — — Parking Reduction >25% but ≤50% Section 9-9-6(f) D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Parking Reduction >50% Subsection 9-9-6(f) — — D(30) CA 9-6-3. Specific Use Standards - Residential Uses. (a) Residential Uses: … HOUSEHOLD LIVING (b) Household Living Uses: … (3) Household Living Uses in the MU-3 Zoning District: (A) Applicability: The following standards apply in the MU-3 zoning district to uses in the household living use category that front onto Pearl Street and may be approved as a conditional use: (i) The first floor above the finished grade at the street level fronting onto Pearl Street shall be constructed to permit a portion of the first floor as specified in Subparagraph (b)(3)(A)(ii) to be used for a restaurant, brewpub, or tavern 14 Several rows removed as parking reductions and deferrals no longer necessary. 15 Not new, but should have been included in this table previously. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 42 Packet Page 664 of 1100 use, personal service use, or retail sales use that is permitted in the MU-3 zoning district. (ii) The nonresidential spaces shall have a minimum depth of twenty feet measured from the front of the building along the Pearl Street frontage to the inside wall opposite of the street frontage. Building entries for uses above the first floor may be permitted to the extent necessary to provide access. (iii) Additional parking will not be required to be provided for the floor area that is necessary to meet the required minimum depth of the first-floor nonresidential use. All floor area beyond the required minimum depth shall meet the parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981.16 (iiiiv) The nonresidential space required by this section shall be used as a nonresidential principal use as permitted by Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, and not be used for any residential principal or accessory uses. (iv) No existing nonresidential space fronting onto Pearl Street shall be converted to residential space inconsistent with this paragraph. (vi) The first floor frontage requirements for nonresidential uses of this section and the requirements for window location, door location, and minimum lot frontage in "Table 7-1: Form and Bulk Standards" may be modified for an individual landmark or a building within a historic district that has received a landmark alteration certificate as required by Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981. … (m) Transitional Housing: (1) The following standards apply to any transitional housing facility that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: (A) General Standards: Any transitional housing approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: (i) Density: The maximum number of dwelling units within a transitional housing facility shall be the same as is permitted within the underlying zoning district, except that for any zoning district that is classified as an industrial zoning district pursuant to Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, the number of dwelling units permitted shall not exceed one dwelling unit for each one thousand six hundred square feet of lot area on the site.17 16 This exception is no longer relevant without minimum parking requirements. 17 Recent ordinances have removed minimum lot area requirements so this specific lot area requirement has been removed to align with those changes. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 43 Packet Page 665 of 1100 (ii) Parking: The facility shall provide one off-street parking space for each dwelling unit on the site. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to the higher of fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met.18 … (o) Home Occupation: (1) A home occupation is allowed by right if the accessory use meets the following standards: (A) Standards: (viii) No traffic is generated by such home occupation in a volume that would create a need for parking greater than that which can be accommodated on the site or which is inconsistent with the normal parking usage of the district.19 … 9-6-4. Specific Use Standards - Public and Institutional Uses. (d) Daycare Center: (1) The following standards apply to any daycare center, except home daycares, that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: … (C) Adequate off-street parking is provided for employees, volunteers, and visitors.20 (CD) Child daycare facilities are properly licensed by the State Department of Social Services. (DE) For nursery care (any child under the age of eighteen months), the facility provides fifty square feet of useable indoor floor area per child or a total of six hundred square feet of useable floor area, whichever is greater. (EF) For child care other than nursery care, the facility provides thirty square feet of useable indoor floor area per child or a total of six hundred square feet of useable floor area, whichever is greater. (FG) All child day care facilities shall provide a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable outdoor play area per child or a total of two thousand four hundred square feet of useable outdoor play area, whichever is greater. 18 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. 19 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land use. 20 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 44 Packet Page 666 of 1100 (GH) In the MH and RH-6 zoning districts, the use shall not provide care to more than fifty persons, not including employees. (e) Day Shelters, Emergency Shelters, and Overnight Shelters: … (2) General Requirements for All Shelters: The following criteria apply to any day, emergency, or overnight shelters: … (B) Additional Requirements for Day Shelters: The following additional criteria apply to any day shelter: … (iv) Parking: The facility shall provide off-street parking at the rates set forth in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, for a nonresidential use. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of the higher of up to fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the underlying zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met.21 (C) Additional Requirements for Emergency Shelters: The following additional requirements apply to any emergency shelter: (i) Waiver of Good Neighbor Meeting and Management Plan Requirement: The city manager may waive the requirement that the applicant organize, host, and participate in a good neighbor meeting upon finding that the applicant will not require a use review, and that the needs of the facility's clients for anonymity and a safe and secure environment will be compromised by such a meeting. (ii) Parking: The facility shall provide off-street parking at the rates set forth below in Subparagraphs a., b., and c. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to the higher of fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the underlying zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met.22 a. One space for each employee or volunteer that may be on the site at any given time computed on the basis of the estimated maximum number of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time; b. One parking space for each twenty occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of sleeping rooms and the dormitory type sleeping areas; and 21 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. 22 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 45 Packet Page 667 of 1100 c. One parking space for each attached type dwelling unit. (iii) Maximum Occupancy: No person shall permit the maximum occupancy of a facility to exceed the following unless approved pursuant to an occupancy increase: … (iiiiv) Review Standards: Uses designated as conditional uses in Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, shall be processed under the provisions of this paragraph unless the applicant makes a request to increase the maximum occupancy per dwelling unit equivalent from six persons per dwelling unit equivalent up to ten occupants for sleeping room or dormitory type sleeping areas. (D) Additional Standards for Overnight Shelters: The following additional criteria apply to any overnight shelter: … (iii) Parking: The facility shall provide off-street parking at the rates set forth below in Subparagraphs a. and b. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to the higher of fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the underlying zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met.23 a. One space for each employee or volunteer that may be on the site at any given time computed on the basis of the estimated maximum number of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time; and b. One parking space for each twenty occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility. (iiiiv) Maximum Occupancy: No person shall permit the maximum occupancy of a facility to exceed the following unless approved pursuant to an occupancy increase: … (iv) Review Standards: Uses designated as conditional uses in Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, shall be processed under the provisions of this paragraph unless the applicant proposes to exceed the following standards. In such cases, the applicant will also be required to complete the use review process pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. … 23 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 46 Packet Page 668 of 1100 9-6-5. Specific Use Standards - Commercial Uses. (a) Bed and Breakfast: (1) The following standards apply to bed and breakfast uses that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: (A) The structure is compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of height, setbacks, and bulk. Any modifications to the structure are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. (B) One parking space is provided for each guest bedroom, and one space is provided for the operator or owner's unit in the building.24 (BC) No structure contains more than twelve guest rooms. The number of guest rooms shall not exceed the occupancy limitations set forth in Section 9-8-6, "Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences," B.R.C. 1981. (CD) No cooking facilities including, without limitation, stoves, hot plates, or microwave ovens are permitted in the guest rooms. No person shall permit such use. (DE) One attached exterior sign is permitted to identify the bed and breakfast, subject to the requirements of Section 9-9-21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981. (EF) No long-term rental of rooms is permitted. No person shall permit a guest to remain in a bed and breakfast for a period in excess of thirty days. (FG) No restaurant use is permitted. No person shall serve meals to members of the public other than persons renting rooms for nightly occupancy and their guests. (GH) No person shall check in or check out of a bed and breakfast or allow another to do so except between the times of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. … (h) Temporary Event: (1) Temporary events may be approved as a conditional use if the following standards are met: … (E) Such uses may not adversely affect the required parking or 25result in unsafe conditions or unacceptable levels of congestion; … (u) Neighborhood Business Center: 24 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. 25 Removed reference to required parking. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 47 Packet Page 669 of 1100 (1) The following standards apply to any neighborhood business center that may be approved pursuant to a use review: … (F) Restaurant Restrictions: Restaurants are permitted as a use within a neighborhood business center provided the following criteria are met, notwithstanding any restriction within Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981: (i) No Parking Reduction: No parking reduction may be granted for the neighborhood business center or any contemporaneously developed adjacent residential development unless the applicant can provide adequate assurances that there will be no parking spillover onto the surrounding residential streets;26 (ii) Size: The gross floor area of the restaurant does not exceed one thousand five hundred square feet in size, and up to three hundred additional square feet of floor area may be utilized for storage purposes only; (iii) Proportion of Development: The restaurant use is included in a development containing other uses approved as part of the neighborhood business center and does not exceed twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the project; (iiiiv) Drive-Thru Uses Prohibited: The restaurant does not contain a drive-thru facility; (iv) Trash Storage: A screened trash storage area is provided adjacent to the restaurant use, in accordance with the requirements of Section 9-9-18, "Trash Storage and Recycling Areas," B.R.C. 1981; (vi) Loading Area: A loading area meeting the requirements of Section 9-9-9, "Off-Street Loading Standards," B.R.C. 1981, provided adjacent to the restaurant use; (vii) Signage: Signage complies with a sign program approved as part of the review by the city manager consistent with the requirements of Section 9-9- 21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981; and (viii) Environmental Impacts: Any environmental impact including, without limitation, noise, air emissions and glare is confined to the lot upon which the restaurant use is located and is controlled in accordance with applicable city, state, and federal regulations. … (x) Fuel Service Station: (1) The following standards apply to any fuel service station that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: 26 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses and no parking reductions. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 48 Packet Page 670 of 1100 (A) General Standards: Any fuel service station that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: … (v) In addition to the parking requirements of Sections 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," and 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and the stacking requirements of Subparagraph (y)(1)(A)(ii) of this subsection, adequate space is provided for the storage of two vehicles per service bay off-street.27 … 9-6-6. Specific Use Standards - Industrial Uses. (a) Outdoor Display of Merchandise: (1) The following standards apply to the outdoor display of merchandise: (A) Merchandise shall not be located within any required yard adjacent a street; (B) Merchandise shall not be located within or obstruct required parking and vehicular circulation areas or sidewalks;28 (C) Merchandise shall be screened to the extent possible from the view of adjacent streets; and (D) Outdoor display is for the temporary display of merchandise and not for the permanent storage of stock. … (d) Recycling Collection Facilities - Large: (1) Large recycling collection facilities that may be approved pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: … (F) One parking space shall be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the recycling facility. Parking requirements are as required in the zone, except that parking requirements for employees may be reduced if it can be shown that such parking spaces are not necessary, such as when employees are transported in a company vehicle to the work facility.29 27 Removed reference to parking standards. 28 Remove reference to required parking 29 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 49 Packet Page 671 of 1100 (FG) If the facility is located within five hundred feet of property zoned, planned under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use, it shall not operate between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (GH) Any container provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials shall be at least fifty feet from any property zoned, planned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use, shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction, shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected, and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials. (HI) The containers shall be clearly marked to identify the type of materials that may be deposited. The facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling containers. (IJ) The facility shall be clearly marked with the name and phone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation. (e) Recycling Collection Facilities - Small: (1) Small recycling collection facilities that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: … (O) No additional parking spaces are required for customers of a small collection facility located at the established parking lot of a host use, but one additional space shall be provided for the attendant, if needed. (OP) Mobile recycling units shall have an area clearly marked to prohibit other vehicular parking during hours when the mobile unit is scheduled to be present. (Q) Occupation of parking spaces by the facility and by the attendant shall not reduce available parking spaces below the minimum number required for the primary host use unless a parking study shows the existing parking capacity is not already fully utilized during the time the recycling facility will be on the site.30 (f) Recycling Processing Facility: (1) Recycling processing facilities that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: (G) One parking space shall be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the processing center. Parking requirements shall otherwise be as required for the zone in which the facility is located.31 (GH) If the facility is located within five hundred feet of property zoned, planned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use, it shall not be in operation between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The facility shall be administered by on-site personnel during the hours the facility is open. 30 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. 31 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 50 Packet Page 672 of 1100 (HI) Any containers provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials shall be at least fifty feet from any property zoned, planned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use; shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction; shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected; and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials. (IJ) Containers shall be clearly marked to identify the type of material that may be deposited. The facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling containers. (JK) No dust, fumes, smoke, vibration, or odor from the facility shall be detectable on neighboring properties. 9-7-12. Two Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot. (a) Standards: In an RM-2, RM-3, RH-1, RH-2 or RH-5 district, two detached dwelling units may be placed and maintained as principal buildings on a lot which fronts on two public streets other than alleys, if the following conditions are met: … (3) In the RM zoning district, one parking space is required for each principal building. In the RH- 5 zoning district, for the second principal building, one bedroom requires one off-street parking space, two bedrooms require one and one-half spaces, three bedrooms require two spaces, and four or more bedrooms require three spaces. Required parking is provided on the lot convenient to each principal building. Any two parking spaces fronting on an alley which are adjacent to each other shall be separated from any other parking spaces by a landscaped area at least five feet wide and as deep as the parking spaces;32 (34) Privacy fencing or visual buffering of parking areas is provided; (45) Each principal building has separate utility services in approved locations; (56) All utilities are underground for each principal building unless this requirement is waived by the city manager for good cause; (67) New principal buildings are compatible in character with structures in the immediate vicinity, considering mass, bulk, architecture, materials and color. In addition, the second principal building placed on a lot shall meet the following requirements: … 9-7-13. Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards. No person shall establish or maintain a mobile home park or mobile home on a lot within a mobile home park except in accordance with the following standards: 32 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 51 Packet Page 673 of 1100 (a) Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Summary Table: Development within a mobile home park in the MH zoning district shall comply with the standards shown in Table 7-2 and illustrated in Figure 7-15 of this section. TABLE 7-2: MOBILE HOME PARK DESIGN STANDARDS (MH DISTRICT) Size and Intensity Lot Area and Open Space Minimum lot area if subdivided 3,500 square feet Minimum average lot area per mobile home 4,350 square feet Minimum outdoor living and service area (with no dimension less than 15 feet) 300 square feet Minimum usable open space per mobile home 600 square feet Parking Requirements Minimum number of off-street parking spaces per mobile home 133 Setbacks and Separation (A) Minimum setback from exterior perimeter property lines of the mobile home park - MH, RL-2, RM-1, RM-3, RH- 1 and RH-4 zones: 20 feet RM-2 and RH-5 zones: 25 feet (B) Minimum side to side separation 15 feet (C) Minimum end to end separation 10 feet (D) Minimum distance from tongue to any adjacent sidewalk or pedestrian walkway 2 feet (E) Minimum setback from private drive or internal public street (from edge of pavement) 10 feet … (d) Parking: Mobile homes in all zoning districts other than the MH district shall provide 1.5 off-street parking spaces per mobile home. Off-street spaces shall be located on or within three hundred feet of the mobile home space for which the parking is required.34 (de) Modification of Setbacks From the Exterior Perimeter Property Lines of the Mobile Home Park: Mobile home setback distances along mobile home park exterior perimeter property lines adjacent to other lots may be modified as part of a site review or use review approval if the mobile home park owner demonstrates that there is a need for such modifications and that no detrimental effect will result to uses on adjoining properties or to residents of the mobile home park. (ef) Obstructions Prohibited: No mobile home or portion thereof shall overhang or obstruct any driveway, access road or walkway. (fg) Screening: All mobile home parks adjacent to other residential uses, commercial uses or industrial uses shall be provided with screening, such as opaque fencing or landscaping, along the property lines separating the mobile home park from such adjacent land uses. 33 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. 34 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 52 Packet Page 674 of 1100 9-8-6. Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences. The permitted density/occupancy for the following uses shall be computed as indicated below. The density/occupancy equivalencies shall not be used to convert existing uses referenced in this section to dwelling units. The number of allowed dwelling units shall be determined by using Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981: … (f) Bed and Breakfast: Three guest rooms in a bed and breakfast constitute one dwelling unit. In any bed and breakfast, up to twelve guest rooms are permitted, provided the required parking can be accommodated on site and the provisions of Subsection 9-6-5(a), B.R.C. 1981, are met.35 … 9-9-2. General Provisions. … (e) Entire Use Located on One Lot: All lot area, open space, or yard requirements must be met on the lot or parcel creating the requirement for each building and use, unless modified under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981.36 No person shall include as part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area, or yard required by this title for any building or use any part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area, or yard required by this title for any other building or use, unless approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. 9-9-5. Site Access Control. (a) Access Control: Vehicular access to property from the public right-of-way shall be controlled in such a manner as to protect the traffic-carrying capacity and safety of the street upon which the property abuts and access is taken, ensuring that the public use and purpose of public rights -of -way is unimpaired as well as to protect the value of the public infrastructure and adjacent property. The requirements of this section apply to all land uses, including detached dwelling units, if motor vehicle access is provided to the property from the public right-of-way, as follows: … (2) For detached dwelling units, the standards of this section shall be met prior to a final inspection for any building permit for new development; the demolition of a principal structure; or the conversion of an attached garage or carport to a use other than use as a parking space. … (c) Standards and Criteria for Site Accesses and Curb Cuts: Any access or curb cut to public rights of way shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and the following standards and criteria: 35 Removed consistent with no minimum requirements for other land uses. 36 Clarified language and removed reference to off-street parking that is no longer necessary without minimum required off-street parking. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 53 Packet Page 675 of 1100 … (6) Multiple Access Points for Detached Dwelling Units: The city manager will permit multiple access points on the same street for a single lot containing a detached dwelling unit upon finding that there is at least one hundred linear feet of lot frontage adjacent to the front yard on such street, the area has a limited amount of pedestrian activity because of the low density character, and multiple access points are not inconsistent with the city’s plans for curbside use on the street there is enough on-street parking within three hundred feet of the property to meet the off-street parking needs of such area.37 The total cumulative width of multiple curb cuts shall not exceed the maximum permitted width of a single curb cut. The minimum spacing between multiple curb cuts on the same property shall not be less than sixty-five feet. (7) Shared Driveways for Residential Structures: A lot with a detached dwelling unit that does not have frontage on the street from which access is taken may be served by a shared driveway that meets all of the standards and criteria for shared driveways set forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. (8) Residential Driveways: Any driveway or access for a property with a residential use must lead to an off-street parking space meeting the requirements of this title and the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. (98) Driveway Width: Driveways shall meet the following standards (see Figure 9-1 of this section): (A) Minimum driveway width: The width of a driveway leading to an off-street parking space shall not be less than nine feet. A driveway, or portion of a driveway, may be located on an adjacent property if an easement is obtained from the impacted property owner. (B) Maximum Driveway Width: For any property with three or fewer dwelling units, the driveway width within a landscaped setback, including any associated circulation or turnarounds, shall not exceed 20 feet. … (109) Exceptions: The requirements of this section may be modified under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, to provide for safe and reasonable access. Exceptions to this section may be made if the city manager determines that: … 9-9-6. Parking Standards. (a) Rationale Purpose: The intent of this section is to provide adequate off-street parking for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city streets, and establish safe and functional motor vehicle and bicycle parking design and location standards, ensure that motor vehicle parking plays a subordinate role to site and building design, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving.38 37 Removed reference to required off-street parking. 38 These updates to the purpose statement include language pulled from the BVCP and the purpose of House Bill 24-1304 related to minimum parking requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 54 Packet Page 676 of 1100 (b) Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements: The following maximum off-street motor vehicle parking requirements apply to residential and nonresidential uses.39 (1) Residential Uses: In the MU-4 and RH-7 zoning districts, the maximum number of off-street parking spaces for an attached dwelling unit or each unit of a duplex shall be one space per dwelling unit. (2) Nonresidential Uses: In the RH-3, RH-6, RH-7, and MU-4 zoning districts, the maximum number of off-street parking spaces for nonresidential uses and their accessory uses shall be one space per 400 square feet of floor area per lot or parcel if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area. If residential uses comprise more than 50 percent of the floor area, the maximum is one space per 500 square feet of floor area per lot or parcel. This maximum does not apply in a parking district. (b) Off-Street Parking Requirements: The number of required off-street motor vehicle parking spaces is provided in Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, and 9-4 of this section; the number of required off-street bicycle parking spaces is provided in Table 9-8 of this section:40 (1) Residential Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements: Unless the use is specifically identified in Table 9-2 below, residential motor vehicle parking shall be provided according to Table 9-1: TABLE 9-1: RESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT AND UNIT TYPE Zone District Standard RR, RE, MU-1, MU-3, BMS, DT, A, RH-6 RMX-2, MU-2, MH, IMS RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR, IS, IG, IM, P RH-3 MU-4, RH-7 Minimum number of off-street parking spaces for a detached dwelling unit (DU) 1 1 1 1 0 Maximum number of off-street parking spaces for an attached DU or each unit of a duplex N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 space per DU Minimum number of off-street parking spaces for 1 1 for 1- or 2- bedroom DU 1.5 for 3-bedroom 1 for 1-bedroom DU 1.5 for 2-bedroom 1 for 1-bedroom DU 1.5 for 2-bedroom 0 39 These existing maximum off-street parking requirements have been pulled out of Tables 9-1 and 9-2 and instead listed here. 40 Entire section has been removed to eliminate all minimum off-street parking uses citywide for all land uses. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 55 Packet Page 677 of 1100 an attached DU or each unit of a duplex DU 2 for a 4 or more bedroom DU DU 2 for 3-bedroom DU 3 for a 4 or more bedroom DU DU 2 for 3-bedroom DU 3 for a 4 or more bedroom DU Accessible space requirement Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. (2) Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Residential Uses: TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Rooming house, boarding house, fraternity, sorority, group living and hostels 2 spaces per 3 occupants Efficiency units, transitional housing 1 space per DU Bed and breakfast 1 space per guest room + 1 space for operator or owner's DU within building Accessory dwelling unit 0 Group homes: residential, custodial or congregate care Off-street parking appropriate to use and needs of the facility and the number of vehicles used by its occupants, as determined through review Overnight shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time Day shelter Use the same ratio as general nonresidential uses in the zone Emergency shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time, plus 1 space for each attached type dwelling unit Duplexes or attached dwelling units in the RR, RE and RL zoning districts 1 per unit Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 56 Packet Page 678 of 1100 (3) Nonresidential Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements: Unless the use is specifically identified in Table 9-4 below, nonresidential motor vehicle parking shall be provided according to Table 9-3: TABLE 9-3: NONRESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT 41 Zone District Standard RH-3, RH- 6, RH-7, MU-4 (within a parking district) RH-3, RH- 6, RH-7, MU-4 (not in a parking district) DT, MU-3, BMS (within a parking district) BCS, BR- 1, IS, IG, IM, A RMX-2, MU-2, IMS, BMS (not in a parking district) MU-1, MU-3 (not in a parking district) RR, RE, RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH- 2, RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR-2, P (not in a parking district) Minimum number of off- street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses and their accessory uses 0 1:400 1:400 if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:500 1:300 if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:400 1:300 Maximum number of off- street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses and their accessory uses N/A 1:400 if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:500 N/A Accessible parking requirement Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. (4) Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Nonresidential Uses: 41See also Table 9-4 of this section. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 57 Packet Page 679 of 1100 TABLE 9-4: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Large daycare (less than 50 children) Determined through review; parking needs of the use must be adequately served through on-street or off- street parking Nonresidential uses in General Improvement Parking Districts No parking required Restaurant, brewpub, or tavern - outside of retail centers greater than 50,000 square feet Indoor Seats: 1 space per 3 seats. Outdoor Seats: 1. If outdoor seats do not exceed 20% of the indoor seats, no additional parking is required. 2. For the portion of the outdoor seats exceeding 20% of indoor seats: 1 space per 3 seats. 3. Notwithstanding the requirements of (1) and (2) above, the following applies to uses that are nonconforming as to parking for indoor seats and the sole principal use of the site: No additional parking is required if the number of outdoor seats does not exceed 60% of the existing number of parking spaces on the site. Retail centers over 50,000 square feet of floor area that: i) Are under common ownership, or Less than 30 percent of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. ii) management, or 30 percent or more and less than 60 percent of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 175 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. iii) Are approved through a common site review approval, and iv) Contain a mix of some or all of the following uses: retail, commercial, office, restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns, which v) together comprise more than 50 percent of the total floor area, and 60 percent or more of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 58 Packet Page 680 of 1100 vi) Where written consent of all property owners within the retail center are included with the application. This use-specific parking standard shall not apply to other uses for which a use-specific parking standard is created in this Table 9-4 or to uses other than retail, commercial, and office uses, restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. For those uses, parking shall be provided as required for each such use under this Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981, and in addition to the requirement above. Restaurants in a regional park Determined through review; parking needs of the use must be adequately served through on-street or off- street parking. Motels, hotels, and bed and breakfasts 1 space per guest room or unit, plus required spaces for nonresidential uses at 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area Theater Greater of 1 parking space per 3 seats, or the parking ratio for the zone district Fuel service station General ratio for the use zone plus storage of 2 vehicles per service bay Religious assembly: (See Paragraph (f)(8) of this section for permitted parking reductions) a. Religious assemblies created prior to 9/2/1993 1:300 b. Religious assemblies created after 9/2/1993 1 space per 4 seats, or 1 per 50 square feet of assembly area if there are no fixed seats - assembly area includes the largest room plus any adjacent rooms that could be used as part of the assembly area c. Uses accessory to a religious assembly and created after 9/2/1993 Uses accessory to the religious assembly shall meet the standards applicable to the use as if the use is a principal use d. Total parking of a religious assembly and accessory uses created after 9/2/1993 Parking for the religious assembly use and any accessory use shall be for the use which has the greatest parking requirement Small recycling collection facility 1 space for attendant if needed Large recycling collection facility General parking ratio for the zone plus 1 space for each commercial vehicle operated by the facility Recycling processing facility Sufficient parking spaces for a minimum of 10 customers, or the peak load, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for each commercial vehicle operated by the facility Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 59 Packet Page 681 of 1100 Warehouse or distribution facility or uses in industrial zones with accessory warehouse spaces 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area used for warehousing or storage of goods, merchandise, or equipment. Parking for floor area used for associated office space or production areas and not for warehousing or storage as outlined above shall be provided consistent with Table 9-3. Self-service storage facility 3 spaces for visitor parking, plus parking for any floor area used as office space or otherwise not used for self-service storage shall be provided consistent with Table 9-3. Airport and aircraft hangers 1 space per outside airplane or glider tie down space; 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area of private airplane hangar space (with or without external or internal walls); 1 space per 2,000 square feet of floor area of commercial or executive airplane hangar space; and Parking for floor area used as office space or otherwise not used for airport hanger shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Table 9- 3. (c) General Parking Requirements Standards: (1) ADA Requirements: Where off-street parking spaces are provided, accessible parking spaces shall be provided, meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended.42 (2) Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements: Where off-street parking spaces are provided, electric vehicle charging spaces shall be provided, meeting the requirements of the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code.43 (31) Rounding Rule: For all motor vehicle and bicycle parking space requirements resulting in a fraction, the fraction shall be: (A) Rounded to the next higher whole number when the required number of spaces is five or less; or (B) Rounded to the next lower whole number when the required number of spaces is more than five. 42 This existing standard has been relocated from the tables above. 43 This standard has been added to link the EV charging requirements in the Energy Conservation Code to the number of parking spaces that are provided on a site. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 60 Packet Page 682 of 1100 (42) Parking Requirements for Lots in Two or More Zoning Districts: For lots that have more than one zoning designation, the required motor vehicle and bicycle parking for the use(s) on the lot may be provided on any portion of the lot, subject to the provisions of this title.44 (5) Approvals: Any minimum off-street motor vehicle parking requirement, for spaces other than accessible spaces, in any planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development, site review, use review, or other approval has no force and effect and shall not be enforced.45 (3) Off-Street Parking Requirement for Unlisted Nonresidential Uses: If the city manager determines that the use type is not specifically listed in Table 6-1, Use Table, or Table 9-4, Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Nonresidential Uses in All Zones, the city manager may apply one of the following standards that adequately meets the parking needs of the use:46 (A) The applicable off-street parking requirement under Table 9-3, Nonresidential Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements by Zoning District; (B) The off-street parking requirement under Table 9-4 for the listed use type most similar to the proposed use based on public parking demand, nature of the use type, number of employees, or any other factors deemed appropriate by the city manager; (C) An off-street parking requirement established based on local or national best practices or by reference to standards or resources such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or American Planning Association; or (D) An off-street parking requirement demonstrated by a parking demand study prepared by the applicant according to Paragraph 9-9-6(d)(6). (d) Motor Vehicle Parking Design Standards: (1) Location of Open or Enclosed Parking: Open or enclosed parking areas are subject to the following requirements: (A) No parking areas shall be located in any required landscaped setback abutting a street. However, in RR, RE, RL, A, or P zoning districts, if all off-street parking requirements of this chapter have been met, if a driveway leads to at least one parking space that meets the design requirements of this title and that is located outside of the landscaped setback, persons may park up to two additional vehicles may be parked in the driveway within the landscaped setback. The requirements of this subsection may be varied to allow the required off-street parking to be located 44 Remove reference to motor vehicle parking. 45 This language has been added to address parking requirements that may be individually applied to specific past approvals. They would no longer be enforceable. 46 Removed as not relevant with no minimum parking requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 61 Packet Page 683 of 1100 within the front yard setback pursuant to the standards and procedures in a variance being approved by the BOZA per Subsection 9-2-3(j), B.R.C. 1981.47 (B) Required parking areas shall be located on the lot or parcel containing the use for which they are required.48 (BC) No parking areas shall be located closer than ten feet from a side yard adjacent to a public street in the BMS and MU-2 zoning districts. (2) Parking Stall Design Standards: Parking stalls shall meet the following standards, based on stall type. The minimum maneuvering area to the rear of any parking stall shall be no less than twenty-four feet except as specified in Table 9-15 below for parking at an angle other than the 90-degree category. If the proposed use anticipates long-term parking as the major parking demand, the city manager may reduce those minimum parking stall sizes. TABLE 9-15: STANDARD PARKING DIMENSION STANDARDS Parking Angle (degrees) Curb Length C Stall D Aisle Width Bay Width One Way A1 Two Way A2 One Way B1 Two Way B2 90 9' 19' 24' 24' 62' 62' 60 10.4' 21' 18' 22' 60' 64' 45 12.7' 19.8' 13' 20' 52.6' 59.6' 30 18' 17.3' 12' 20' 45.6' 54.6' 0 23' 8' 12' 20' 20' 36' TABLE 9-26: SMALL CAR PARKING DIMENSION STANDARDS Parking Angle (degrees) Curb Length C Stall D Aisle Width Bay Width One Way A1 Two Way A2 One Way B1 Two Way B2 90 7.75' 15' 24' 24' 54' 54' 60 9.2' 17' 18' 22' 52' 56' 45 11.2' 16.1' 13' 20' 45.2' 52.2' 47 Maintains current exception, as long as the driveway leads to a parking space that meets design requirements and is outside of landscaped setback. Variance of landscaped setback requirements is a possibility if necessary. 48 Removed reference to required parking Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 62 Packet Page 684 of 1100 30 15.5' 14.3' 12' 20' 40.6' 48.6' 0 20' 8' 12' 20' 28' 36' Figure 9-2: Parking Dimensions Diagram49 (A) Standard Stalls: All off-street standard parking spaces shall meet the minimum size requirements established as indicated in Table 9-15 and Figure 9-2 of this section. (B) Small Car Stalls: 49 Updated graphic to align with more recent design style of code graphics. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 63 Packet Page 685 of 1100 (i) Small Car Stalls Allowed: A proportion of the total spaces provided in each parking area may be designed and shall be signed for small car use according to Table 9-37 of this section. TABLE 9-37: SMALL CAR STALLS Total Spaces Required Allowable Small Car Stalls 5 - 49 40 percent 50 - 100 50 percent 101 or greater 60 percent (ii) Dimensional Standards: All small car stalls shall meet the minimum size requirements as indicated in Table 9-26 and Figure 9-2 of this section. (C) Accessible Parking Stalls: (i) Dimensional Standards: Accessible parking spaces shall be eight feet wide and nineteen feet in length, with the standard width drive lane. Individual spaces shall have an additional five foot-wide, diagonally striped aisle abutting the passenger side of the space. If such spaces are provided in adjacent pairs, then one five footfive-foot aisle may be shared between the two spaces. Accessible parking spaces shall conform to the construction and design standards in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and be located to maximize convenience of access to the facility and minimize the need to cross the flow of vehicular traffic. (See Figure 9-3 of this section.) Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 64 Packet Page 686 of 1100 Figure 9-3: Accessible Parking Space Design50 Accessible spaces must measure eight feet by nineteen feet and be flanked by a five footfive-foot diagonally- striped aisle. Two adjacent spaces may share a single five footfive-foot aisle. The aisle must be at the same grade as the accessible space and any adjacent sidewalk must slope to meet the grade of the aisle. The slope may not exceed 1:12. … (3) Drive Aisles: (A) (A) There is a definite and logical system of drive aisles to serve the entire parking area. Drive aisles shall have a minimum eighteen-foot width foot width clearance for two-way traffic and a minimum ten foot ten-foot width clearance for one-way traffic unless the city manager finds that the parking stalls to be served require a greater or lesser width. A physical separation or barrier, such as vertical curbs, may be required in order to separate parking areas from the travel lanes. (See Figure 9-4 of this section.) 50 Updated graphic to align with more recent design style of code graphics. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 65 Packet Page 687 of 1100 Figure 9-4: Drive Aisles51 Drive aisles provide access to parking areas but not to individual spaces. Drive aisles serving two-way traffic must be a minimum of eighteen feet wide. Drive aisles serving one-way traffic must be a minimum of ten feet wide. Raised planters, curbs, or other physical barriers may be necessary to separate parking areas from travel lanes. See Tables 9-15 and 9-26 of this section for parking aisle dimensions. (B) Turnarounds are provided for dead-end parking bays of eight stalls or more. Turnarounds must be identified with a sign or surface graphic and marked "no parking." The use of accessible parking spaces as the required turnaround is not permitted. (See Figure 9-5 of this section.) 51 Updated graphic to align with more recent design style of code graphics. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 66 Packet Page 688 of 1100 Figure 9-5: Parking Turnaround Spaces52 In dead-end parking bays with eight or more stalls, a turnaround space must be provided and properly marked. … (5) Parking Design Details: … (D) All open off-street parking areas with five or more spaces shall be screened from the street and property edges, andedges and shall provide interior lot landscaping in accordance with Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981. … 52 Updated graphic to align with more recent design style of code graphics. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 67 Packet Page 689 of 1100 Figure 9-6: Permitted Vehicular Overhang53 (G) Within the DT zoning districts, at-grade parking is not permitted within thirty feet of a street right-of-way unless approved as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. For the purpose of this subparagraph, the term "street" does not include "alley." (6) Parking Study: At the discretion of the city manager, a parking study may be required to demonstrate that adequate parking is provided either for parking provided per zoning requirements or in conjunction with a parking reduction request. The scope of a parking study may consist of analysis of any or all of the following factors: joint use of parking areas, peak parking demand for each land use, unusual parking demand based on type of land use, availability of nearby on-street parking, vicinity of high frequency transit, and Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation estimates.54 (e) Motor Vehicle Parking Deferrals:55 (1) Criteria for Parking Deferral: The city manager may defer the construction and provision of up to ninety percent of the off-street parking spaces required by this section, in an industrial district, thirty-five percent in a commercial district, and twenty percent in any other district if an applicant demonstrates that: (A) The character of the use lowers the anticipated need for off-street parking, and data from similar uses establishes that there is not a present need for the parking; (B) The use is immediately proximate to public transportation that serves a significant proportion of residents, employees, or customers; (C) There is an effective private or company car pool, van pool, bus, or similar group transportation program; or 53 Updated graphic to align with more recent design style of code graphics. 54 No longer necessary without minimum requirements. Note traffic studies may still be required per the Design and Construction Standards. 55 Deferrals are no longer necessary without minimum requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 68 Packet Page 690 of 1100 (D) The deferred percentage of residents, employees, and customers regularly walk or use bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicular forms of transportation. (2) Parking Deferral With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a parking deferral pursuant to this subsection, the parking deferral shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking deferral shall be the same as the use review. (3) Site Plan: Applicants for a parking deferral shall submit a site plan demonstrating that the total required parking can be accommodated on-site and designating the land to be reserved for future parking. (4) Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided as required under Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and shall be indicated on the site plan. (5) Notice of Change of Condition: No person having an interest in property subject to a parking deferral shall fail to notify the city manager of any change in the conditions set forth in Paragraph (e)(1) of this section that the manager considered in granting the deferral. (6) Construction of Deferred Parking Areas: The city manager may require the construction of the deferred parking at any time upon thirty days' written notice by mail to commence construction of such parking. No person having an interest in the property shall fail to comply with such a notice. (f) Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions:56 (1) Parking Reduction Process: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the requirements of this subsection are met. The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed twenty-five percent of the required parking. Parking reductions greater than twenty-five percent may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. Only the planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. Parking reductions are approved based on the operating characteristics of a specific use. No person shall change a use of land that is subject to a parking reduction except in compliance with the provisions of this subsection. For any parking reductions exceeding ten percent or if the parking reduction is being reviewed in conjunction with a site review, the applicant shall provide a parking study and transportation demand management (TDM) plan. Alternative administrative parking reductions (to the process set forth in this subparagraph (f)(1) and the criteria of subparagraph (f)(2)) by land use are found in Paragraph (f)(3). (2) Parking Reduction Criteria: The approving authority may reduce the parking requirements of this section (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it finds that the parking needs of all uses in the project will be adequately accommodated. In making this determination, the approving authority shall consider without limitation: (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; 56 Reductions are no longer required without minimum requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 69 Packet Page 691 of 1100 (B) The availability of off-street and nearby on-street parking; (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; (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; (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 (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. (3) Alternative administrative parking reductions by land use: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reduction standards in Subparagraphs (f)(2) of this section. (A) Housing for Older Adults: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking by up to seventy percent for governmentally sponsored housing projects for adults 65 and over. (B) Mixed Use Developments: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking in a mixed-use development by up to ten percent in the BMS, IMS, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and RMX-2 zoning districts, or in all other nonresidential zoning districts in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, by up to twenty-five- percent if the following requirements are met: (i) The project is a mixed use development that includes, as part of an integrated development plan, both residential and nonresidential uses. Residential uses shall comprise at least thirty-three percent of the floor area of the development; and (ii) The property is within a quarter of a mile walking distance to a high frequency transit route that provides service intervals of fifteen minutes or less during peak periods. This measurement shall be made along standard pedestrian routes from the property. (C) Religious Assemblies: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking to permit additional floor area within the assembly area of a religious assembly which is located within three hundred feet of the Central Area General Improvement District if the applicant has made arrangements to use public parking within close Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 70 Packet Page 692 of 1100 proximity of the use and that the building modifications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening activities when there is less demand for use of public parking areas. (4) Limiting Factors for Parking Reductions: The city manager will consider the following additional factors to determine whether a parking reduction under this section may be appropriate for a given use: (A) A parking deferral pursuant to subsection (e) of this section is not practical or feasible for the property. (B) The operating characteristics of the proposed use are such that granting the parking reduction will not cause unreasonable negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. (C) The parking reduction will not limit the use of the property for other uses that would otherwise be permitted on the property. (5) Parking Reduction With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking reduction shall be the same as for the use review. (eg) Bicycle Parking: (1) Required Bicycle Spaces: Bicycle parking spaces must be provided as required by Table 9- 48 of this section. Where more than 10 spaces are required, at least five percent of the required bicycle parking spaces shall be designed to accommodate and signed for larger bikes with dimensions of at least 10 feet of length and 3 feet of width.57 TABLE 9-48: OFF-STREET BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Type - based on Table 6-1 of Section 9-6-1 Minimum Number of Off-Street Bicycle Spaces Long-Term Short-Term Residential Uses Dwelling units(a) with a private garage, and detached dwelling units58 (b) no requirement n/a n/a Dwelling units without a private garage(b) 2 per unit 75% 25% Accessory dwelling units no requirement n/a n/a Group living - fraternities, sororities, and dormitories, boarding houses, transitional housing 1 per 3 beds 75% 25% Group living - all others 1 per 5 beds 75% 25% Public and Institutional Uses 57 New standard added due to increase in larger sized bikes. Dimensions based on National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide recommendations. Based on Planning Board recommendation and TAB discussion, the initial staff recommendation requiring 5% where more than 20 spaces are required has been modified to whenever more than 10 spaces are required. Also added requirement for signage per Planning Board recommendation. 58 This exemption for detached dwelling units without a private garage was added per Planning Board recommendation. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 71 Packet Page 693 of 1100 Daycare centers, home daycares Determined through review: parking needs of use must be adequately served through on- or off-street parking, minimum of 4 50% 50% Public and private elementary, middle, and high schools 5 per classroom 50% 50% Public and private colleges and universities 5 per classroom 50% 50% Hospitals 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 75% 25% Open space, park, and recreation uses 1 per 750 square feet of floor area; requirements for outdoor uses are determined through review: parking needs of use must be adequately served through on- or off-street parking, minimum of 4 25% 75% Religious assemblies The greater of 1 per 15 seats or 1 per 150 square feet of assembly area 25% 75% All other public and institutional uses 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 50% 50% Commercial Uses Restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 25% 75% Bed and breakfasts, hostels, and hotels or motels 1 per 3 guest rooms, minimum of 4 50% 50% All other food, beverage, and lodging uses 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area 25% 75% Mobile food vehicle and temporary events no requirement n/a n/a Office uses 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 75% 25% Campgrounds, outdoor recreation or entertainment, indoor athletic facilities 1 per 750 square feet of floor area; requirements for outdoor uses are determined through review: parking needs of use must be adequately served through on- or off-street parking, minimum of 4 25% 75% Financial institutions 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 75% 25% Service uses and retail sales uses 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 25% 75% Vehicle-related uses and all other commercial uses 1 per 1,125 square feet of associated office space or production areas 25% 75% Industrial Uses Industrial uses 1 per 1,125 square feet of associated office space or production areas 25% 75% Agriculture & Natural Resource Uses Agriculture & Natural Resource Uses no requirement n/a n/a Other Uses Not Listed in Table 9-48 Other uses not listed in Table 9-48 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 50% 50% Footnotes to Table 9-4, Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements: 59 (a) For purposes of this Table 9-4, the "dwelling units" subcategories include all types of residential uses listed in Table 6-1, Use Table, except those separately listed in Table 9-4. (b) Private garage, for purposes of this table, means a building or indoor space that is associated with an individual dwelling unit for purposes of parking or keeping a motor vehicle, is fully enclosed, and has a secure door. 59 These have been added into the table to address Municode formatting issues. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 72 Packet Page 694 of 1100 Footnotes to Table 9-8, Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements: (a) For purposes of this Table 9-48, the "dwelling units" subcategories include all types of residential uses listed in Table 6-1, Use Table, of Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses," B.R.C. 1981, except those separately listed in Table 9-8. (b) Private garage, for purposes of this table, means a building or indoor space that is associated with an individual dwelling unit for purposes of parking or keeping a motor vehicle, is fully enclosed, and has a secure door. (2) Bicycle Facilities: Both bicycle lockers and racks shall: (A) Provide for storage and locking of bicycles, either in lockers, or medium-security racks, or an equivalent installation in which both the bicycle frame and the wheels may be locked by the user. (B) Be designed so as not to cause damage to the bicycle. (C) Facilitate easy locking without interference from or to adjacent bicycles. (D) Consist of racks or lockers Be anchored with tamper-resistant anchors so that they cannot be easily removed. (E) Be and of solid construction, resistant to rust, corrosion, hammers, grinders, and saws, and other tools.60 (FE) Be consistent with their environment in color and design and be incorporated whenever possible into building or street furniture design. (GF) Be located in convenient, highly visible, active, well-lighted areas. (H) Be located so that they do not but not interfere with pedestrian movements. (I) Be identified by wayfinding signs if the bicycle parking area is not visible from the site or building entrance. (3) Short-Term Bicycle Parking: Short-term bicycle parking is intended to offer a convenient and accessible area to park bicycles for customers and other visitors. Short-term bicycle parking shall be located: (A) On the public access level; (B) Within fifty feet of the main building entrances; and (C) Outside the building.; and (D) In an area that allows for passive surveillance, such as in front of business windows and in high-traffic areas.61 60 Added grinders as this is an often-used tool utilized in bike thefts. 61 Added standard to better ensure natural surveillance of short-term bicycle parking. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 73 Packet Page 695 of 1100 (4) Long-Term Bicycle Parking: Long-term bicycle parking offers a secure and weather protected weather-protected place to park bicycles for employees, residents, commuters, and other visitors who generally stay at a site for several hours. Long-term bicycle parking shall meet the following standards: (A) Long-term bicycle parking is required to be covered, access restricted, and designed to include at least and shall include use of one of the following security strategies:62 (i) A locked room room locked by a heavy-duty locking mechanism; (ii) An area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate that is resistant to forced entry and climbing, has some transparency to allow for surveillance, and incorporates a gate with a heavy-duty gate lock that is resistant to manipulation; (iii) An area within view of an attendant or security guard or monitored by a security cameras pointed at the entrances to the bicycle parking area and the bicycle racks; or (iv) An area visible from employee work areas. (B) The bicycle parking area shall must be located on site or in an area within three hundred feet of the building it serves, except for elementary, middle, or high schools, where the bicycle parking area must be located within 100 feet of a main entrance. Access to the area shall not require the use of stairs but may require a ramp if needed for grade changes. If an elevator is required to reach the long-term bicycle parking, elevator cab dimensions must fit a bicycle.63 (C) Adequate lighting, designed to illuminate and allow for surveillance, shall be provided for the bicycle parking area, the route to the bicycle parking area, and the route to the building entrance if bicycle parking is provided within the building. Adequate lighting shall be provided for the bicycle parking area, designed to promote surveillance and illumination, the route to reach the bicycle parking area, and the route to the building entrance if bicycle parking is in the building.64 (D) The bicycle parking area shall include adequate clearance around racks or lockers to give cyclists room to maneuver, and to prevent conflicts with pedestrians or parked cars. 62 Added some more specific standards to ensure restricted access of long-term bicycle parking storage in line with examples from peer cities. 63 Added to ensure practicality of design in ease of parking a bicycle. Ramps are reviewed for compliance with ADA standards (1:12 slope) already by engineering staff and building code reviewers confirm compliance with ICC slope requirements as well. Added elevator cab dimension language based on Planning Board and TAB discussion, pulled from Seattle. 64 Ensures adequate lighting at the route to get to the bicycle parking area; rewritten for clarity. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 74 Packet Page 696 of 1100 (E) If the bicycle parking is provided in an auto motor vehicle parking garage, the bicycle parking spaces shall be clearly marked as such and shall be separated from auto motor vehicle parking by physical barriers.;65 (F) No more than 25 percent of required long-term bicycle parking spaces may be hanging vertical racks or elevated spaces of tiered racks, except that vertical and tiered racks are prohibited at elementary and middle schools. Any tiered or vertical hanging rack must include a mechanically-assisted lifting mechanism to mount the bicycle on any upper tier.66 (G) Where more than 100 bicycle parking spaces are required by Table 9-4, “Minimum Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements,” at least five percent of bicycle parking spaces, must have electrical outlets suitable for charging of electric. The required bicycle charging spaces must be horizontal and shall be sized 3 feet by 10 feet per space.67 … (6) Parking Reductions and Modifications for Bicycle Parking. Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criterion, the approving agency authority may approve reductions to the minimum number of off-street bicycle parking or, modifications to the ratio of long-term and short-term bike parking requirements of Table 9-48, reductions to the minimum number of larger spaces, and modifications to the maximum number of vertical or tiered racks, if it finds that the long- term and short-term bicycle parking needs of the use will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking.68 (7) Parking Study: At the discretion of the city manager, a bicycle parking study may be required to demonstrate that adequate parking is provided either for parking provided per Boulder Revised Code requirements or in conjunction with a bicycle parking reduction request. The scope of a bicycle parking study may consist of analysis of any or all of the following factors: joint use of bicycle parking areas, peak bicycle parking demand for each land use, unusual bicycle parking demand based on type of land use, and availability of nearby on-street 65 Slight language change to ensure bicycle parking is safely protected from vehicle parking areas, in line with practice in peer cities. 66 This new standard has been added to limit the number of hanging vertical bike racks, which are challenging to use for larger and heavier bikes, people with mobility challenges, or bikes with baskets or other cargo space. Language aligns with similar peer city requirements. Reduced requirement from initial staff recommendation of 50% to 25% and added prohibition for elementary and middle schools per Planning Board recommendations. 67 Adds requirement for charging opportunities for electric bikes. Note that, the 2024 Fire Code adopted by Boulder includes requirements for charging more than five micromobility devices indoors or within ten feet of a building: micromobility devices, their batteries, and their charging equipment must be listed by a qualified testing laboratory; users must follow manufacturer instructions; extension cords or power strips cannot be used to charge devices; and charging cannot take place within ten feet of combustible materials or in any area blocking an exit. The minimum size requirement was added in response to 5/20 Planning Board recommendation. 68 Removed for language clarity. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 75 Packet Page 697 of 1100 bicycle parking., vicinity of high frequency transit, and Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation estimates.69 … 9-9-7. Sight Triangles. … (e) Streets: The area formed at a corner intersection of two public rights-of-way lines defined by a width of dimension X and a length of dimension Y as shown in Table 9-59 and Figure 9-8 of this section. The Y dimension will vary depending on the speed limit and configuration of the intersecting street and is outlined in the table below. The X distance shall be thirteen feet measured perpendicular from the curb line of the intersecting street. This triangular area is significant for the determination of sight distance requirements for right angle right-angle intersections only. The shaded area is required to be kept free of all structures, fences, landscaping and other materials. The size of the sight triangle is based on the size of the road and speed limit, as shown in the table below. TABLE 9-59: SIGHT TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS … 9-9-9. Off-Street Loading Standards. (a) Off-Street Loading Requirements: Any use with having or requiring off-street parking shall provide an off-street delivery/loading space. The spaces shall be sufficient in size to accommodate vehicles which will to serve the use. The location of the delivery/loading space shall not block or obstruct any public street, parking area, parking area circulation, sidewalk or pedestrian circulation area. Loading areas shall be screened pursuant to paragraph 9-9-12(d)(5), B.R.C. 1981.70 (b) Modifications: The off-street loading requirements may be modified by the city manager under the provisions of Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review,” B.R.C. 1981, if the property owner demonstrates that the use of the building does not require an off-street loading space and that the safety of pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists is not impaired. Process requirements for such administrative modifications are contained in section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981.71 9-9-12. Landscaping and Screening Standards. (a) Purpose: The purpose of the landscaping and screening requirements set forth in this chapter is to: … 69 This language had been identical to the parking study required for vehicle parking – updated to better align with bicycle parking. 70 Removed reference to required parking. 71 Corrected inaccurate reference to application process. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 76 Packet Page 698 of 1100 (b) Scope: This section and Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, apply to all nonresidential and residential developments unless expressly stated otherwise. (1) The standards in this section and Sections 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards," and 9-9- 14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, shall be met prior to a final inspection for any building permit for: … (2) When additional parking spaces are provided, or for a change of use where new off-street parking spaces are provided, the provisions of Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, shall be applied as follows:72 … (d) General Landscaping and Screening Requirements: … (8) Minimum Overall Site Landscaping: In all zones except A, P, RR, RE, RL and RM, one tree and five shrubs are planted for each 1,500 square feet of lot area not covered by a building or required parking.73 … 9-9-13. Streetscape Design Standards. … (d) Streetscape Requirements: Street trees must be selected from the approved street tree list set forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, unless an equivalent tree selection is approved by the city manager. Table 9-610 of this section sets the minimum planting interval for street and alley trees. The specific spacing for each development is dependant dependent upon tree type (for a list of tree species in each type, see Approved Street Tree List, in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards) and existing conditions as identified in this section or an equivalent approved by the city manager. TABLE 9-610: STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS … 9-9-14. Parking Lot Landscaping Standards. (a) Scope Required: This section shall apply to all surface parking lots with more than five parking spaces., regardless of whether the parking is required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981.74 All parking lots shall be screened from the street and adjacent properties 72 Removed for clarity as without minimum parking requirements, change of use would not require additional parking. 73 Removes reference to required parking. 74 Remove reference to required parking (incorrect reference anyway). Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 77 Packet Page 699 of 1100 and contain interior lot landscaping in accordance with this section. Landscaping and screening standards set forth in this section are separate and in addition to the requirements of all other sections in this chapter unless expressly stated otherwise. … (5) Expansive Parking Lots Containing One Hundred Twenty Percent or More of The Minimum Required Parking Spaces: In order to mitigate the impacts of excessive pavement to water quality and to reduce the visual impacts of large expanses of pavement, open, at-grade parking spaces in excess of one hundred twenty percent of the minimum required in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981 that encompasses more than 50 percent of the total lot area, a development shall provide include additional parking lot landscaping over the amount required in other sections of this chapter as follows:75 (A) For parking lots containing more than one hundred twenty percent and less than one hundred fifty percent of minimum required parking encompassing more than 50 percent of the total lot area, interior parking lot landscaping shall be installed as required above, plus an additional five percent of the parking lot area as interior or perimeter parking lot landscaping. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall not be located within a required front yard setback or a side yard adjacent to a street setback. (B) For parking lots containing one hundred fifty percent or more than the minimum required parkingencompassing more than 60 percent of the total lot area , interior parking lot landscaping shall be installed as required above, plus an additional ten percent of the parking lot area as interior or perimeter parking lot landscaping. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall not be located within a required front yard setback or a side yard adjacent to a street setback. (6) Trees: At least one tree must be planted for every two hundred square feet of interior parking lot landscaped area. At least seventy-five percent of the required trees must be deciduous trees classified as either large or medium trees in the approved street tree list as defined set forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. … 9-9-16. Lighting, Outdoor. … (e) Maximum Light Standards: No person shall operate any device which makes light in excess of the levels specified in this section. Light from any fixture shall not exceed any of the limits for the applicable zoning district or use classification in Tables 9-711 and 9-812 of this section. In the event an applicant utilizes light levels at the highest level permitted for a specific use area, such lighting shall be substantially confined to that particular use area. TABLE 9-711: ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS 75 Updated to use percentage of total lot area used for parking lots rather than percentage in excess of required parking to ensure intent carries forward without tying to required parking numbers. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 78 Packet Page 700 of 1100 … TABLE 9-812: SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS … 9-9-21. Signs. … (c) Signs Exempt From Permits: … (M) Cottage Foods and Fresh Produce Signs. On any premises meeting the requirements of Chapter 6-17, a sign meeting the size restrictions applicable to residential detached dwellings in Table 9-913 of this section. This provision does not restrict the content of the sign. … (e) Limitations on Area, Number, and Height of Signs by Use Module: … (2) Maximum Sign Area Permitted: The maximum sign area permitted per property, maximum area per sign face, maximum number of signs, and maximum height of freestanding signs in the use modules in the city are as in Table 9-913 of this section, except as modified by other provisions of this section. TABLE 9-913: LIMITATIONS ON AREA, NUMBER, AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS BY USE MODULE … (r) Amortization Provisions: Except for signs described in paragraph (q)(1) or (q)(3) of this section, or a temporary sign, a legal nonconforming sign shall be brought into conformity or removed under the following schedule: (4) A sign having an original cost exceeding $100.00 that is nonconforming as to permitted sign area or any other provision of this section that would require the complete removal or total replacement of the sign may be maintained for the longer of the following periods: (A) Three years from the date upon which the sign became nonconforming under the provisions of this section by annexation or code amendment; or (B) A period of three to seven years from the installation date or most recent renovation date that preceded the date on which the sign became nonconforming. But if the date of renovation is chosen as the starting date of the amortization period, such period of amortization shall be calculated according to the cost of the renovation and not according to the original cost of the sign. The amortization periods in Table 9-104 of this section apply according to the original cost of the sign, including installation costs, or of the renovation: Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 79 Packet Page 701 of 1100 TABLE 9-104: AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE … 9-10-2. Continuation or Restoration of Nonconforming Uses and Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots. Nonconforming uses and nonstandard buildings and lots in existence on the effective date of the ordinance which first made them nonconforming may continue to exist subject to the following: (a) One-Year Expiration for Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming use, except for a use that is nonconforming only because it fails to meet the required off street parking standards of Section 9-9- 6, "Parking Standards," or residential density requirements of Section 9-8-1," Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, that has been discontinued for at least one year shall not be resumed or replaced by another nonconforming use as allowed under Subsection 9-2-15(f), B.R.C. 1981, unless an extension of time is requested in writing prior to the expiration of the one-year period. The approving authority will grant such a request for an extension upon finding that an undue hardship would result if such extension were not granted.76 … 9-10-3. Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses. Changes to nonstandard buildings, structures, or nonstandard lots and nonconforming uses shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Nonstandard Buildings and Structures: … (c) Nonconforming Uses: (1) Nonconforming Changes to Conforming Use Prohibited: No conforming use may be changed to a nonconforming use, notwithstanding the fact that some of the features of the lot or building are nonstandard or the parking is nonconforming.77 … (3) Nonconforming Only as to Parking: The city manager will grant a request to change a use that is nonconforming only because of an inadequate amount of parking to any conforming use allowed in the underlying zoning district upon a finding that the new or modified use will have an equivalent or less parking requirement than the use being replaced.78 (34) Nonconforming Permanently Affordable Units. Dwelling units on a building site that exceeds the maximum number of dwelling units per acre standard or does not meet the minimum 76 Removed reference to required parking. Uses nonconforming to required parking would no longer be nonconforming with elimination of minimum parking requirements. 77 Removed, not relevant without parking requirements. 78 Removed, not relevant without parking requirements. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 80 Packet Page 702 of 1100 amount of open space per dwelling unit or the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards may be reconstructed or restored consistent with the following standards: … (F) Parking: On-site parking that does not meet the requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be maintained or brought closer to compliance with the standards. Any further reduction in parking spaces may be pursued through Subsection 9-9-6(f), "Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions," B.R.C. 1981 or Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981;79 (FG) Application of Code: Applications subject to this paragraph shall meet all requirements of the Boulder Revised Code unless modified or waived by this paragraph or pursuant to another city process, including without limitation a site review, use review, or variance process. Any reconstructed or restored building meeting the maximum number of dwelling units per acre, the minimum amount of open space per dwelling unit, and the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards shall be subject to the applicable zoning district standards; and (GH) Application Requirements: A person having a demonstrable property interest in the land may apply for the reconstruction or restoration of a building or property under the requirements of this paragraph. Such application shall be filed on a form provided by the manager and shall meet the requirements of Subsection 9-2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981, and the following: … 9-14-12. Outdoor Space Requirements … (c) Outdoor Space Types. All required outdoor space shall comply with one of the outdoor space types defined in subsections 9-14-12(lm) through (pq) of this section and the specifications applicable to the type used. (1) Specified Type. If a type of outdoor space is specified in Figure 14-17 for Boulder Junction or Figure 14-18 for Alpine-Balsam for the project site, such type shall be utilized. (2) No Specified Type. If no type is specified in Figure 14-17 or Figure 14-18 or the type is designated as flexible, any one of the outdoor space types defined in subsections 9-14- 12(lm) through (pq) of this section may be utilized provided that the type utilized will result in a mix of outdoor spaces in the vicinity of the development. … (h) Parking Requirements. Parking shall not be required for any outdoor space type, unless a use other than open space is determined by the city manager.80 79 Removed, not relevant without parking requirements. 80 Removes reference to parking requirements and renumbers accordingly. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 81 Packet Page 703 of 1100 (hi) Continuity. New outdoor space shall connect to abutting or proximate existing or planned public way or open space. (ij) Measuring Size. When determining whether dimensions requirements of this section are met, the following standards apply: … (jk) Improvements. When determining the specific improvement standards applicable to each outdoor space type, the following shall apply: … (kl) Stormwater in Outdoor Space Types. Stormwater management practices, such as storage and retention facilities, may be integrated into any of the outdoor space types and utilized to meet stormwater requirements for surrounding parcels subject to the following standards: (lm) Plaza. The intent of the plaza is to provide a formal outdoor space of medium scale that may serve as a gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. The plaza may contain a greater amount of impervious coverage than any other type of outdoor space regulated in this section. Special features, such as fountains and public art installations, are encouraged. Plazas shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-3. Plaza Requirements. See Figure 14-19. Example of a Plaza. … (mn) Green. The intent of the green is to provide an informal outdoor space of medium scale for active or passive recreation located within walking distance for building occupants and visitors. The green is intended to be fronted mainly by streets. Greens shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-4. See Figure 14-20. Example of Green. … (no) Commons. The intent of the commons is to provide an informal, small to medium scale outdoor space for active or passive recreation. Commons are typically internal to a block and tend to serve adjacent building occupants. Commons shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-5. See Figure 14-21. Example of Commons. … (op) Pocket Park. The intent of the pocket park is to provide a small scale, primarily landscaped active or passive recreation and gathering space for neighborhood residents within walking distance. Pocket parks shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-6. See Figure 14-22. Example of Plaza Pocket Park.81 … (pq) Park/Greenway. The intent of the park/greenway is to provide informal active and passive large- scale recreational amenities to local residents and the greater region. Parks have primarily natural plantings and are frequently created around an existing natural feature such as a water body or stands of trees. Parks/greenways shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-7. See Figure 14-23. Example of Parks/Greenways. 81 Corrects typo. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 82 Packet Page 704 of 1100 … 9-16-1. General Definitions. (a) The definitions contained in Chapter 1-2, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title unless a term is defined differently in this chapter. … Expansion of a nonconforming use means any change or modification to a nonconforming use that constitutes: (1) An increase in the occupancy, floor area, required parking,82 traffic generation, outdoor storage, or visual, noise, or air pollution; (2) Any change in the operational characteristics which may increase the impacts or create adverse impacts to the surrounding area including, without limitation, the hours of operation, noise, or the number of employees; (3) The addition of bedrooms to a dwelling unit, except a single-family detached dwelling unit; or (4) The addition of one or more dwelling units. … Lot, building means a parcel of land, including, without limitation, a portion of a platted subdivision, that is occupied or intended to be occupied by a building or use and its accessory buildings and uses, together with the yards required under the provisions of this code; that has not less than the minimum area, useable open space, and building coverage, and off-street parking spaces required by this code for a lot in the district in which such land is situated; that is an integral unit of land held under unified ownership in fee or co-tenancy or under legal control tantamount to such ownership; and that is precisely identified by a legal description.83 … Nonconforming use means any legally established use of a building or use of a lot that is prohibited by Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981. A nonconforming use also includes an otherwise conforming use, except a single dwelling unit on a lot, that, as a result of adoption of or amendments to zoning standards, does not meet the minimum lot area per dwelling unit or useable open space per dwelling unit requirements of Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981 ., or the required off-street parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981.84 … Principal parking facility means an area that provides short-term or long-term off-street parking for motor vehicles and is does not provide parking that is accessory to another use on the lot not accessory to the use on the lot where the parking is located or to a use located in the same approved planned unit development or site review. A principal parking facility may be a parking lot, garage, or carpool lot. A parking area that is an accessory use may also provide parking for a principal use on a different lot or parcel or a principal use that is not within the same planned unit development or site review without being considered a principal parking facility.85 82 Removed reference to required parking. 83 Remove reference to parking. 84 Remove reference to required parking in alignment with changes in Chapter 9-10. 85 Change to more clearly accommodate shared parking by differentiating it from principal parking facilities. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 83 Packet Page 705 of 1100 … 10-7-2. Energy Conservation Code. (a) Council adopts by reference the 2024 City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code published by the International Code Council which shall have the same force and effect as though fully set forth in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, except as specifically amended by the provisions of this chapter. This code shall also be known as the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. This chapter and the 2024 City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code shall be administered, applied, and interpreted in accordance with and as part of Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. (b) Section C405.13, “Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction,” is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C405.13 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. The building shall be provided with electric vehicle (EV) charging in accordance with this section and the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70). Where parking spaces are added or modified without an increase in building size, only the new parking spaces are subject to this requirement. The number of required EVSE installed spaces, EV ready spaces, EV capable spaces, and EV capable light spaces shall be determined based on the total number of provided motor vehicle parking spaces. (cb) Section C406.2.2, "More efficient HVAC performance," is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C406.2.2 More efficient HVAC performance. To achieve credits for more efficient HVAC performance, all heating and cooling systems shall meet the minimum requirements of Section C403 and efficiency improvements shall be referenced to minimum efficiencies listed in tables referenced by Section C403.3.3. Where multiple efficiency requirements are listed, equipment shall meet the seasonal or part-load efficiencies, including SEER/SEER2, EER/integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), integrated part load value (IPLV), or AFUE. Equipment that is larger than the maximum capacity range indicated in tables referenced by Section C403.3.3 shall meet the efficiencies listed for the largest capacity for the associated equipment type shown in the table. Where multiple individual heating or cooling systems serve a project, the HVAC performance improvement of the project shall be the weighted average improvement based on individual system capacity. Projects will achieve HVAC efficiency credits for one or several of the following measures: 1. C406.2.2.4 H04 2. C406.2.2.5 H05 (dc) Section C406.2.2.2, "H02 More efficient HVAC equipment heating performance," is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C406.2.2.2 H02. Reserved. (ed) Section C406.2.2.3, "H03 More efficient HVAC equipment cooling and fan performance," is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C406.2.2.3 H03. Reserved. (fe) Lines H02 and H03 in Table C406.2, "Base Credit for Additional Conservation Measures," are repealed to read as follows: H02 Reserved H03 Reserved Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 84 Packet Page 706 of 1100 Design and Construction Standards See Attachment N Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 85 Packet Page 707 of 1100 o-8700 2nd rdg NPP Standards Update 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 8700 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-2-15, “NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING ZONES,” AND CHAPTER 4-23, “NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING ZONE PERMITS,” B.R.C. 1981, TO UPDATE STANDARDS FOR ON- STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 2-2-15. Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones. (a) Establishing a neighborhood permit parking zone Restricting parking on streets in certain areas zoned for residential uses primarily to persons residing within such areas will reduce hazardous traffic conditions, promote traffic safety, and preserve the safety of children and other pedestrians in those areas; protect those areas from polluted air, excessive noise, trash, and refuse; protect residents of those areas from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their residences while still providing access to multiple users; preserve the character of those areas as residential; promote efficiency in the maintenance of those streets in a clean and safe condition; preserve the value of the property in those areas; and protect the peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. The city council also finds that, in some cases, residential streets serve an important parking function for nonresidents in the public and commercial life of the city. Some accommodation for parking by others may be appropriate in these cases. … (d) New and Redevelopment. If a traffic assessment is required to adequately assess the impacts of any development proposal on the existing and planned transportation system per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, as may be amended, the city will conduct a study of the zone or neighborhood based on key metrics, including but not limited to parking occupancy, trip generation, and access to other modes of transportation, to determine if a neighborhood permit parking zone should be established, altered, or removed in a neighborhood and what its boundaries should be. Attachment B - Ordinance 8700 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 86 Packet Page 708 of 1100 o-8700 2nd rdg NPP Standards Update 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 (de) Upon establishment of a zone, the manager shall, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the purpose, install the necessary traffic control devices within the zone and issue neighborhood parking zone permits pursuant to Chapter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits," B.R.C. 1981. (ef) The manager may by regulation prescribe additional standards, not inconsistent with those set out in this section, which must be met before the manager designates a neighborhood permit parking zone, or adds or deletes territory from an established zone. The manager may issue regulations governing the issuance and use of neighborhood parking permits not inconsistent with Chapter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits," B.R.C. 1981. (fg) The city manager shall monitor the program on a regular basis and annually provide the city council with a report on the neighborhood permit parking program generally, including its relationship to parking supply and demand in adjacent areas of the city and the status of zone block faces under Subsection 4-23-2(j), B.R.C. 1981. The details of the monitoring effort shall be contained in administrative regulations promulgated by the city manager pursuant to Chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981. (gh) This Section shall not apply to the area as defined by Section 2-2-21, "Chautauqua Parking Management Plan," B.R.C. 1981. Section 2. Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Chapter 23 - Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits 4-23-1. Legislative Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to set the standards for issuance and administration of neighborhood parking zone permits. 4-23-2. Permit Issuance. … (c) Resident Permits. No more than two one resident permits shall be in effect at any time for any person. No person shall be deemed a resident of more than one zone, and no more than one permit may be issued for any one vehicle even if persons residing in different zones share ownership or use. Provided, however, that no more than a total of three resident permits may be issued for any dwelling unit housing a group of persons or organization licensed pursuant to Section 10-11-3, "Cooperative Housing Licenses," B.R.C. 1981. (d) The city manager may limit the total number of permits available in a zone based on the number of dwelling units and the capacity of on-street parking within the zone. Attachment B - Ordinance 8700 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 87 Packet Page 709 of 1100 o-8700 2nd rdg NPP Standards Update 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 (de) Resident permits issued under this section shall be specific for a single vehicle, shall not be transferred except as provided by city manager rule or regulation, and shall be displayed thereon or, for digital permits, valid and in effect only as the manager by regulation may prescribe. The permittee shall remove the permit from the vehicle or otherwise cancel the permit if the vehicle is sold, leased or no longer in the custody of the permittee. (ef) Business Permits. Business, for the purpose of this chapter, includes nonresidential institutions, but does not include home occupations. Three business employee permits may be in effect at any time for any business without regard to number of employees or off-street parking. In the alternative, upon application by the manager of the business, the city manager may issue employee permits to a business according to the following formula: half of the number of full-time equivalent employees minus the number of off- street parking spaces under the control of the business at that location equals the maximum number of employee permits for the business. Full-time equivalent employees of the business are calculated based upon one such employee for every full forty hours worked at that location by employees of the business within the periods of time in a week during which the neighborhood permit parking restrictions are in effect. On its application, the employer shall designate the employee vehicles, not to exceed the number allowed, for which each permit is valid. A business permit is valid only for the vehicles listed thereon, and shall be displayed on the vehicle for which the permit is being used only as the manager by regulation may prescribe. (fg) The manager shall by regulation set forth how long permits issued under this section are valid and when they must be renewed. (gh) In considering applications for resident permits, the manager may require proof that the applicant has a legal right to possession of the premises claimed as a residence. If the manager has probable cause to believe that the occupancy limitations of Subsection 9-8- 5(a), B.R.C. 1981, are being violated, no further permits shall be issued under this section for the residence in question until the occupancy thereof is brought into compliance. (hi) If a physical permit or the portion of the vehicle to which a resident permit has been affixed is damaged such that it must be replaced, the permittee, upon application therefor, shall be issued a replacement at a prorated cost. The manager may require display of the damaged permit before a new permit is issued. (ij) No person shall use or display any permit issued under this section in violation of any provision of this code. (jk) Commuter Permits. The maximum number of nonresident permits issued on any given block face within a zone shall be four. In addition, if the manager determines that the average daily percentage of unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces, on block faces where commuter permits have been allocated, drops below twenty-five percent for four consecutive hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of any given weekday, then the manager shall reduce the number of commuter permits by a number estimated to maintain an average daily percentage of unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces of Attachment B - Ordinance 8700 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 88 Packet Page 710 of 1100 o-8700 2nd rdg NPP Standards Update 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 twenty-five percent. But for any part of Goss Street or Circle, Grove Street or Circle or the portions of 16th Street through 23rd Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard, included within any neighborhood parking permit zone, the average daily percentage of unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces which must be maintained without reduction in commuter permits shall be fifteen percent. The manager may also, for this Goss-Grove zone, allocate commuter permits initially to educational institutions and organizations representing postal workers in rough proportion to the needs of these groups. Such groups may renew such permits. Distribution of such permits by such groups to their clientele shall be at a price not to exceed the cost of the permit. 4-23-3. Guest Permits Day Passes. Residents Households of a zone may obtain two two-week permits twenty-five (25) digital day passes per year at no cost. for use by houseguests of the resident. The permit shall be indelibly marked in the space provided thereon with, or for digital permits shall indicate, the date of its first use. The permit shall thereafter be valid only for the succeeding thirteen consecutive days Each day pass is valid for up to twenty-four (24) hours. Day passes may be used consecutively. Each day pass may be assigned to the same vehicle or different vehicles. Use of a day pass is limited to those whose stay will last longer than the time limit posted within the permit zone for parking by the general public but shall not exceed twenty-four (24) consecutive hours. The manager may by regulation define the circumstances under which additional guest permits day passes may be issued purchased in cases of reasonable need consistent with residential use of the dwelling. Provided, however, that no more than a total of six two-week guest permits per year may be issued for any dwelling unit licensed pursuant to Section 10-11-3, "Cooperative Housing Licenses," B.R.C. 1981. 4-23-6. Visitor Flex Permits. (a) Two (2) annual visitor's passes flex permits may be issued to a resident purchased per household of a neighborhood permit parking zone. Flex permits may be used for any vehicle associated with the household, including but not limited to additional resident vehicles and vehicles of longer-term or recurring visitors, such as domestic workers. These permits are intended solely for residential use and may not be transferred, resold, or used for commercial purposes. to be used on a temporary and transferable basis to accommodate visitors, including without limitation, health care workers, repairmen, and babysitters, who need access to the residence of the resident. Use of this pass is limited to those visitors whose stay will last longer than the time limit posted within the permit zone for parking by the general public but shall not exceed twenty-four consecutive hours. (b) Use of the pass is valid only while the visitor is on the residential premises. Visitor passes shall not exceed twenty-four consecutive hours and are to be used within a one-block radius of the residence address. Visitor passes may not be used by residents. If visitor passes have already been issued, new ones cannot be issued until the following year. No more than two (2) such permits will be issued per resident household per year. However, only one such permit will be issued per resident per year for the West Pearl zone containing more than four units. Attachment B - Ordinance 8700 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 89 Packet Page 711 of 1100 o-8700 2nd rdg NPP Standards Update 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) It is the responsibility of the resident to ensure that this pass never leaves the zone, and that it is returned to the resident at the end of each day of use. Use of this pass permit also falls under the same restrictions as those prescribed by Section 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981, and in these regulations. (d) The number of flex permits per household is subject to change based on individual neighborhood permit parking zone guidelines set forth by city manager rule. Section 3. This Ordinance is effective January 1, 2026. Section 4. 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 5. 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 5th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment B - Ordinance 8700 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 90 Packet Page 712 of 1100 o-8700 2nd rdg NPP Standards Update 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 26th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment B - Ordinance 8700 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 91 Packet Page 713 of 1100 Comparable City Research: Parking Requirements City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes BOULDER Minimum: 1 space Minimum: Varies by bedroom# 1 space for 1 BR 1.5 spaces for 2 BR 2 spaces for 3 BR 3 for 4+ BR (varies by zoning district) Minimum: Varies by bedroom# - per unit 1 space for 1 BR 1.5 spaces for 2 BR 2 spaces for 3 BR 3 for 4+ BR (varies by zoning district) Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: indoor seats: 1 space per 3 seats Outdoor seats: if outdoor seats don’t exceed 20% of indoor seats, no additional parking is required. For portion of outdoor seats exceeding 20%: 1 space per 3 seats Minimum: Depends on total floor area occupied by restaurants, taverns, and brewpubs: >30%: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. <30% >60%: 1 space per 175 sq. ft. <60%: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Minimum: Depends on total floor area occupied by restaurants, taverns, and brewpubs: >30%: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. <30% >60%: 1 space per 175 sq. ft. <60%: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room or unit + 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area for accessory uses -parking reduction for housing the elderly -Joint use parking -Proximity to transit reduction Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none ANN ARBOR, MI Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: Up to 600,000 sq. ft.: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. More than 600,000 sq. ft.: 1 space per 235 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Maximum: none ARVADA, CO Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Varies by bedroom#: 1 BR: 1.6 spaces per DU 2 BR: 2.1 spaces per DU 3+ BR: 2.5 spaces per DU Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1.4 spaces per unit Minimum: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per guest room -Shared Parking Reduction table -On street parking credits -Off street reduction zones (TOD and Urban centers) -Allows tandem spaces -Townhomes min. 2.2/unit -Senior housing – 1/DU -Required number of accessible parking spaces Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: for commercial centers more than 50,000 sq. ft. maximum parking shall be 115% of minimum requirements Maximum: none Maximum: none Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix August 2024 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 92 Packet Page 714 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes BERKELEY, CA Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: Differs based on zoning district, 1 per 300 sq. ft. or 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: Differs based on zoning district, 2 per 1,000 sq. ft in commercial districts. Minimum: Differs based on zoning district, 1 space per 400 sq. ft. in residential districts, 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. in commercial Minimum: Differs based on zoning district, typically 1 space per 3 guest rooms + 1 space per 3 employees -AUP to allow shared parking to meet requirements -Some commercial districts/projects are exempt from parking requirements -Hillside overlay has minimum reqts. Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum for R- BMU: 1.5 spaces for 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum for R- BMU: 1.5 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum for R- BMU: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: none BLOOMINGTON, IN Minimum: none Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space per DU 2 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 0.5 spaces per DU Minimum: 0.5 spaces per DU Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -Shared parking reductions -Proximity to transit reductions -Affordable and senior housing reductions -On-street parking reductions - No parking reqd. for duplex, triplex, fourplex in MD district Maximum: none Maximum: 125% of the required minimum or 1.25 spaces per BR (whichever is less) Maximum: 2 spaces per DU Maximum: 125% of the required minimum or 1.25 spaces per BR (whichever is less) Maximum: Indoor seating: 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Outdoor seating: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. For large retail: 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per guest room BOISE, ID Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Multi-family: 1 BR: 1 space per DU 2 BR: 1.25 spaces per DU 3+ BR: 1.5 spaces per DU Guest: 1 space per 10 units Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 0.75 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per 3 seats Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room -Transit proximity reductions -On-street parking reductions -Joint parking reductions -Minimum for ADUs: 1 space per DU - Structured parking exempt from maximum -Maximum is 1.5x min. when >20 spaces reqd. Maximum: none Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces Maximum: 1.75 times the required spaces BOZEMAN, MT Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space 2+ BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space 2+ BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space 2+ BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of indoor dining area + 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Minimum: 1.1 spaces per guest room + 1 space per employee + Spaces for accessory uses -10% parking reduction if development is within 800 ft. of a transit stop. -Shared parking to meet requirements -Parking adjustments for affordable housing Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none BROOMFIELD, CO Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1.5 spaces per unit 2 BR: 2 spaces per unit 3 BR: 2.5 spaces per unit Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1.5 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per 150 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 per guest room + 1 space per 3 employees -Joint parking Minimum for ADUs: 1 space per DU Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 93 Packet Page 715 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes 4 BR: 3 spaces per unit 4+ BR: 3 spaces + ½ space per additional BR Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none CAMBRIDGE, MA Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 400/800/1,200 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 500/700/900 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 800 or 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 2 guest rooms -Small business exemptions -Shared parking -Proximity to transit -Age or occupancy restriction reduction -Many non-res reqts differ by zoning district Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 1 space per 200/400/600 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 250/500/600 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 400 or 500 sq. ft. Maximum: none CHAMPAIGN, IL Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Depends on zoning district, none, 0.25 or 0.5 spaces per BR Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Depends on zoning district, none, 0.25 or 0.5 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 250 or 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room + spaces for accessory units -Historic property reductions -Shared parking Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none COLORADO SPRINGS, CO Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space per DU 2 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 3+ BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: Indoor seats: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Outdoor seating: if outdoor seating is less than 20% the size of indoor seating, no additional parking is required. If it is more than 20% then additional parking of 1 space per 350 sq. ft. if required Minimum: 1 space per 350/400/500 sq. ft. (depends on size of retail as defined “small” “medium” or “large” in zoning code) Minimum: 1 space per 500 sq. ft. Minimum: 0.5 spaces per room + 1 per 300 sq. ft. of restaurant or bar + 1 space per 10 seats of meeting space -Reduced parking requirements for affordable housing -On street parking where more than ½ of the space is located between the side or rear property line can be counted towards min. parking requirements -Shared parking reductions -Transit proximity reductions -Bike parking reductions Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none COLUMBIA, MO Minimum: 2 spaces per DU 1 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2BR: 2 spaces per DU 3+ BR: 2.5 spaces per DU Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 150 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 or 400 sq. ft. (depends on size of retail as defined “small” or “large” in zoning code) Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 2 spaces per 3 guestrooms + 1 space per 200 sq. ft. for accessory uses -Shared parking reductions -Transit proximity reductions -Credit for public parking nearby -Credit for on-street parking No parking reqd for ADUs with up to two BR, 1 space reqd for ADUs with 3 BR For the M-DT District: No minimums Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 94 Packet Page 716 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes 1 space per 5 DU required for visitor parking Maximum: 150% of required minimum in other mixed-use districts Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Mixed-Use Districts: for buildings more than 50,000 sq.ft. 150% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement Mixed-Use Districts: for buildings more than 50,000 sq.ft. 150% of minimum requirement Maximum: 200% of minimum requirement DENVER, CO Pg. 415 Minimum: none Minimum: 1 space per unit Minimum: 1 space per unit Minimum: 1 space per unit Minimum: 3.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1.875 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1.875 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room -Shared parking reductions -Affordable housing reductions -Senior housing reductions -Proximity to multi-modal transportation reduction -Car share reductions -Small dwelling reduction -Bike share reduction -Alternative min. parking ratios allowed for certain uses like affordable housing, congregate living -Each district has separate minimum requirement, these numbers are based on “general urban neighborhood” standards -The suburban district varies by about 0.25 spaces in each category Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement Maximum:110% of minimum requirement Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement Maximum: 110% of minimum requirement DURANGO, CO Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Studio: 1 space per DU 1 BR: 1 space per DU 2 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Studio: 1 space per DU 1 BR: 1 space per DU 2 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 75 sq. ft of “customer access area” 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of “customer access area” for restaurant w/ drive through Minimum: 1 space per 200/250/300 sq. ft. (depends on volume of retail as defined “High, Medium, or Low”) Minimum: 1 space per 350 sq. ft. Minimum: 1.1 spaces per room + 50% of required parking for restaurant and alcoholic beverage sales -On street parking credits -Bike parking reductions -Restricting occupancy numbers -Transit proximity reductions -Shared parking reductions -TDM programs -EV and Accessible parking required -“Customer access area” is defined as “the area where customers congregate including seating and standing areas, waiting areas and ordering areas, excluding restrooms and hallways.” Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none EUGENE, OR Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space 2 BR: 1 space 3 BR: 1.5 spaces 0.5 spaces required for each additional BR Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space Minimum: 1 space per 66 sq. ft. of seating floor area + 1 seat per 440 sq. ft. of non-seating floor area Minimum: 1 space per 330 sq. ft. (or 660 sq. ft. - depends on size of use) Minimum: 1 space per 330 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room -No required parking for an ADU -Parking exempt areas -Reductions for low-income housing and senior housing - On-street parking credits -2 spaces per DU on flag lots -No parking reqt for ADUs Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 95 Packet Page 717 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement -Proximity to transit reductions -Shared parking reductions FAYETTEVILLE, AR Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per BR Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -Transit proximity reductions - Bike rack reductions - Shared parking - On-street parking credit -Can increase maximums with better landscaping Maximum: Additional 15% of minimum required spaces Maximum: Additional 15% of minimum required spaces Maximum: Additional 15% of minimum required spaces Maximum: Additional 15% of minimum required spaces Maximum: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per guest room + 75% of spaces required for accessory uses FLAGSTAFF, AZ Minimum: 2 spaces plus 1 space for each BR over 4 Minimum: 1 BR: 1.5 spaces 2-3 BR: 2 spaces 4 BR: 2.5 spaces 5+ BR: 3 spaces plus 0.5 spaces for each BR over 5 Guest spaces: 0.25 per each 2+ BR units Minimum: 1 BR: 1.5 spaces 2-3 BR: 2 spaces 4 BR: 2.5 spaces 5+ BR: 3 spaces plus 0.5 spaces for each BR over 5 Guest spaces: 0.25 per each 2+ BR units Minimum: 1.25 spaces Minimum: 1 space per employee + 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 3 employees on largest shift + 1 space per guest room + 1 space per 3 persons at the max. capacity of each public meeting or banquet room -Reduced parking requirements for affordable housing -Reduced parking requirements for High Occupancy housing -Transit proximity reductions -Shared parking and on- street parking -Bike parking reductions -ADU: 1 space Maximum: none Maximum: Developments over 10,000 sq. ft. or more than 25 DUs: Additional 5 % of minimum required spaces unless in parking structure Maximum: Developments over 10,000 sq. ft. or more than 25 DUs: Additional 5 % of minimum required spaces unless in parking structure Maximum: none Maximum: Developments over 10,000 sq. ft.: Additional 5 % of minimum required spaces unless in parking structure Maximum: Developments over 10,000 sq. ft.: Additional 5 % of minimum required spaces unless in parking structure Maximum: Developments over 10,000 sq. ft.: Additional 5 % of minimum required spaces unless in parking structure Maximum: Developments over 10,000 sq. ft.: Additional 5 % of minimum required spaces unless in parking structure FORT COLLINS, CO Minimum: 1BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2 BR: 1.75 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2 space per DU 4+ BR: 3 spaces per DU Minimum: 1BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2 BR: 1.75 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2 space per DU 4+ BR: 3 spaces per DU Minimum: 1BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2 BR: 1.75 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2 space per DU 4+ BR: 3 spaces per DU Minimum: 1.5 spaces Minimum: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 0.5 spaces per unit -Affordable housing reduction -TOD overlay zone has lower requirement for multi-family and mixed use -Transit pass reduction -Car share reduction -Transit proximity reduction -Bike share reduction -TOD overlay has 115% maximum -In newly adopted land use code: -Affordable housing has lower minimums -Single-family dwellings 1 space per DU on >40 ft lot, 2 <40 ft lot. Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. or 0.75 spaces per employee on largest shift Maximum: 1 space per unit GAINESVILLE, FL Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Maximum: 2 spaces per DU Maximum: Multi-Family: 1 space per BR Maximum: 2 spaces per DU Maximum: 1 space per DU Maximum: 3 spaces +1 space for each 2 seats of seating capacity Maximum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. (or 500 sq. ft. for large scale) Maximum: 1 space for 300 sq. ft. or 1 space per employee (whichever is greater) Maximum: 5 spaces + 1 space per guest room + 75% of required Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 96 Packet Page 718 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes spaces for accessory uses GOLDEN, CO Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1-2 BR: 1.5 spaces 3+ BR: 2 spaces Downtown/ mixed use districts: 1 space per DU if less than 800 sq. ft. Minimum: 1-2 BR: 1.5 spaces 3+ BR: 2 spaces Downtown/ mixed use districts: 1 space per DU for less than 800 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 3 seats Downtown/ mixed use districts: 1 space per 5 seats Outdoor seating: 1 space per 10 seats Minimum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Downtown/ mixed use districts: 1 space per 350 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Downtown/ mixed use districts: 1 space per 350 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per each guest room + 1 space per two employees -Shared parking Unless not stated, Downtown and mixed-use districts have different parking requirements Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none HONOLULU, HI Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 500 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 500 sq. ft Minimum: 1 space per 500 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 1000 sq. ft. -Joint-use parking reductions -Bike parking reductions -Bike share reductions -Unbundled parking -Car sharing reductions -1 additional space required for ADU Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none LAWRENCE, KS Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: Multi-Dwelling: 1 space per BR + 1 space per 10 units Minimum: 1 space per BR Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. + 1 per employee based on largest shift Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. (up to 45,000 sq. ft.) + 1 space per employee on largest shift Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room + 1 space per 1.5 employees -Shared parking Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none LEXINGTON, KY Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none - All significant developments (more than 5,000 sq. ft.) shall be required to provide a parking demand mitigation study when seeking zone map amendment Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none LONGMONT, CO Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1.75 spaces 2 BR: 2 spaces 3 BR: 2.25 spaces 4+ BR: 3 spaces Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1.75 spaces per DU Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -For an affordable housing unit only 1 space is required -For the MU-C and MU-D zoning districts, the residential minimums are maximums Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 12 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per unit Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 97 Packet Page 719 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes MADISON, WI Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 15% of capacity of persons Minimum: 1 space per 400 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 400 sq. ft. Minimum: 0.75 spaces per bedroom -Shared parking -Bike parking reduction -Off-site parking reductions -Car share reduction -Moped parking substitution -TOD overlay district has reduced requirement -ADUs have no parking minimum -EV parking requirement -With some exceptions, the following districts have no parking minimums: Central area, NMX, TSS, MXC, CC, RMX, TE, EC, SEC, IL, CC-T, SE, IG, TOD Maximum: 4 spaces Maximum: 2.5 spaces per DU Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Maximum: 2.5 spaces per DU Maximum: 40% of capacity of persons Maximum: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Maximum: 1.5 spaces per bedroom MINNEAPOLIS, MN Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -EV parking incentives -Transit zoning areas have lower parking maximums Maximum: none Maximum: for 4 units or more: 2 spaces per DU Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 1 space per 75 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per guest room + Parking = 30% of the capacity of persons for accessory uses PASADENA, CA Minimum: 1 BR or less: 1 space per DU 2 or more BR: 1.5 spaces per DU Guest: 1 space per 10 DU Minimum: 1 BR or less: 1 space per DU 2 or more BR: 1.5 spaces per DU Guest: 1 space per 10 DU Minimum: 1 BR or less: 1 space per unit 2 or more BR: 1.5 spaces per unit Guest: 1 space per 10 DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in EC-MU-C Minimum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in EC-MU-C Minimum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in EC-MU-C) Minimum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in EC-MU-C) -Shared parking -Reduced parking for senior citizen housing developments - No parking required for first 5,000 sq. ft. of a project for retail, office, and restaurant -No parking required for first 500 sq. ft. of outdoor dining Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none PORTLAND, OR Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none -They have parking requirement for standard “A” and “B” which vary based on zoning district- residential is Standard A all other uses are Standard B in this table Maximum: 1 space per 2 DUs Maximum: 1 space per 2 DUs Maximum: 1 space per 2 DUs Maximum: 0.5 spaces per DU Maximum: 1 space per 75 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Maximum: 1.5 spaces per rentable room + Required spaces for accessory uses RALEIGH, NC Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Minimum: none Maximum: none Maximum: 1BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2BR: 2.25 spaces per DU 3BR: 3 spaces per DU 4 BR: 4 spaces per DU Maximum: none Maximum: 1.5 spaces per DU Maximum: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Maximum: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. + 1 space per 600 sq. ft. outdoor display area Maximum: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. Maximum: 1.5 spaces per guest room Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 98 Packet Page 720 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes 5+ BR: 5 spaces per DU SALT LAKE CITY, UT Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 BR: 1 space per DU 2+ BR: 1.25 spaces per DU Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: Indoor: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Outdoor: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room -Shared parking -Affordable and senior housing reduction -Community parking credits -Car share -Max parking does not apply to parking within structure -Commercial uses: Lower or no requirements in urban center and transit contexts Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Multi-family: 1 BR: 2 spaces per DU 2+ BR: 3 spaces per DU Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Maximum: 2 spaces per DU Maximum: Indoor: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Outdoor: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Maximum: 1.5 spaces per guest room SAVANNAH, GA Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. (including outdoor seating) Minimum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per guest room -Downtown parking reduction area -Streetcar area parking reductions -Shared parking reductions -ADUs have no minimum parking requirement Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none SEATTLE, WA Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 0.5 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 500 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 4 rooms -No additional required parking for an ADU -Shared parking reduction -Transit proximity reduction -Car share reduction -Lower restrictions for affordable and elderly housing -Moderate or low- income units do not have min. reqt. -Other maximums for some overlay districts -Min. reqt. for parking impact overlay near university: 1BR: 1 space/DU 2BR: 1.5 space/DU 3BR: 0.25 spaces per bedroom Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones, Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones, 10 spaces per commercial use in multifamily zones Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones, 10 spaces per commercial use in multifamily zones Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones, 10 spaces per commercial use in multifamily zones Maximum: 145 spaces surface parking in most commercial zones, 10 spaces per commercial use in multifamily zones Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 99 Packet Page 721 of 1100 City Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Duplex Efficiency Unit Restaurants Retail Office Hotel Parking Incentives? Notes TEMPE, AZ Minimum: 2 spaces per DU (up to 5 BR) 3 spaces per DU (6 or more BR) Minimum: 1 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2 BR: 2 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2.5 spaces per DU 4 BR: 3 spaces per DU Guest: 0.2 spaces per DU Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: Indoor: 1 space per 75 sq. ft. Outdoor: (no parking for first 300 sq. ft.) 1 space per 150 sq. ft. Minimum: Indoor: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Outdoor: (no parking required for first 300 sq. ft.) 1 space per 500 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per unit + Parking for accessory uses -Shared parking reductions -Downtown district has waived/ reduced parking minimums Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement Maximum: 125% of minimum requirement TUCSON, AZ Minimum: 2 spaces per DU + 0.25 spaces per unit for guest parking Minimum if under 70 units/acre: 1 BR: 1.5 spaces per DU 2 BR: 2 spaces per DU 3 BR: 2.25 spaces per DU 4+ BR: 2.5 spaces per DU Minimum if over 70 units/acre: 1.25/ DU Minimum: 1 space per DU Minimum: 1 space per DU (under 400 sq. ft), 1.5 spaces per DU (over 400 sq. ft) Minimum if over 70 units/acre: 1.25/ DU Minimum: 1 space per 100 sq. ft. (including outdoor seating areas) Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Minimum: 1 space per rental unit+ 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of accessory uses -Reduction for public open space -On-street parking reductions -EV parking reductions -Bike parking reductions -Landscaping and screening reductions -Lower residential requirements for elderly housing -In R-1 zone, single-family with 5BR has min. of 3 plus 1 space per additional BR. Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Maximum: none Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 100 Packet Page 722 of 1100 Comparable City Research: Bike Parking Requirements City Residential Restaurant Office Retail Hotel BOULDER 2 spaces per DU 1 space per 750 sq. ft., Min of 4 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft., Min of 4 1 space per 750 sq. ft., Min of 4 1 space per 3 guest rooms, Min of 4 ANN ARBOR, MI 1 space per 5 DU 1 space per 750 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. N/A ARVADA, CO 1 space per 4 DU 1 space per 20 required motor vehicle spaces; 10% long-term 1 space per 20 required motor vehicle spaces; 10% long-term 1 space per 20 required motor vehicle spaces; 10% long-term 1 space per 20 required motor vehicle spaces; 10% long-term BERKELEY, CA 1 space per DU or 1 space per 3 BR 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. BLOOMINGTON, IN 10% of motor vehicle spaces or 1 space per 5 BR (whichever is more) 5% of motor vehicle spaces 2% of motor vehicle space 5% of motor vehicle spaces 5% of motor vehicle spaces BOISE, ID 1 space per 10 required motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 required motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 required motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 required motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 required motor vehicle spaces BOZEMAN, MT 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces 10% of motor vehicle spaces BROOMFIELD, CO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CAMBRIDGE, MA Short-Term: 0.1 spaces per DU Long-Term: 1 space per DU for first 20 units; 1.05 spaces per DU for more than 20 units N/A Short-Term: N/A Long-Term: 0.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 0.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 0.1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A CHAMPAIGN, IL 1 space per 1-2 DU or 2-4 BR 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 20 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 20 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 20 motor vehicle spaces COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. COLUMBIA, MO 10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking spaces 51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking spaces 100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking spaces 200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking spaces 300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces (whichever is less) 10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking spaces 51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking spaces 100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking spaces 200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking spaces 300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces (whichever is less) 10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking spaces 51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking spaces 100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking spaces 200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking spaces 300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces (whichever is less) 10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking spaces 51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking spaces 100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking spaces 200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking spaces 300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces (whichever is less) 10-50 Vehicle spaces: 4 bike parking spaces 51-99 vehicle spaces: 8 bike parking spaces 100-199 vehicle spaces: 12 bike parking spaces 200-299 vehicle spaces: 15 bike parking spaces 300 or more vehicle spaces: 5% number of vehicle spaces or 50 spaces (whichever is less) DENVER, CO Pg. 415 1 space per 4 DU 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq.ft. DURANGO, CO N/A 1 bike parking space per 10 off-street parking spaces. No less than 3 and no more than 30 should be required 1 bike parking space per 10 off-street parking spaces. No less than 3 and no more than 30 should be required 1 bike parking space per 10 off-street parking spaces. No less than 3 and no more than 30 should be required 1 bike parking space per 10 off- street parking spaces. No less than 3 and no more than 30 should be required EUGENE, OR 1 space per DU (in lot w/5 or more DU) 1 space per 600 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10 guest rooms FAYETTEVILLE, AR 1 bike rack per 30 parking spaces (each bike rack holds 2 bikes) 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces 1 bike rack per 20 parking spaces FLAGSTAFF, AZ 2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required vehicle parking spaces 2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required vehicle parking spaces 2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required vehicle parking spaces 2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required vehicle parking spaces 2 bike parking spaces or 5% of required vehicle parking spaces FORT COLLINS, CO 1 space per BR 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4 units GAINESVILLE, FL 10% of vehicle parking spaces Single/two family dwellings: none 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 4 spaces GOLDEN, CO 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces 10% of vehicle parking spaces HONOLULU, HI Short-Term: 1 space per 10 DU Long-Term: 1 space per 2 DU Short-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft or 1 space per 10 vehicle spaces Long-Term: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. or 1 space per 30 vehicle spaces N/A Short-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft or 1 space per 10 vehicle spaces Long-Term: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. or 1 space per 30 vehicle spaces Short-Term: 1 space per 20 rooms Long-Term: 1 space per 10 rooms LAWRENCE, KS Short-Term: 1 space per 20 BR Long-Term: 1 space per 6 BR Short-Term: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 space per 20 rooms Long-Term: 1 space per 200 rooms Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 101 Packet Page 723 of 1100 City Residential Restaurant Office Retail Hotel LEXINGTON, KY 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces 1 space per 10 motor vehicle spaces LONGMONT, CO 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces MADISON, WI 1 space per DU 5% of capacity of persons 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10 rooms MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1 space per DU N/A 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. PASADENA, CA 1 space per 6 dwelling units >15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces <15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle spaces >15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces <15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle spaces >15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces <15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle spaces >15,000 sq. ft.: 4 spaces <15,000 sq. ft.: 5% of motor vehicle spaces PORTLAND, OR For 5 or more units: Short-Term: 1 space per 20 units Long-Term: 1.5 spaces per unit Short-Term: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 2,300 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 per 1,800 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 space per 2,700 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 3,800 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 per 40 rooms Long-Term: 1 per 20 rooms RALEIGH, NC Short-Term: 1 space per 20 units (min of 4) Long-Term: 1 space per 7 BR Short-Term: 1 space per 50,000 sq. ft. (min of 4) Long-Term: 1 space per 25,000 sq. ft. (min of 4) Short-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. (min of 4) Long-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. (min of 4) Short-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. (min of 4) Long-Term: N/A Short-Term: N/A Long-Term: 1 space per 20 rooms SALT LAKE CITY, UT 1 space per 2 DU 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. SAVANNAH, GA 1 space per 10 DU 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces 5% of required motor vehicle spaces SEATTLE, WA Short-Term: 1 space per 20 DU Long-Term: 1 space per DU Short-Term: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. N/A TEMPE, AZ 0.5 spaces per unit (0.75 spaces for 3+ BR) 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. N/A TUCSON, AZ Short-Term: 0.10 per BR Long-Term: 0.5 spaces per BR (min of 2) N/A Short-Term: 1 space per 20,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 6,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 2 spaces per 12,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. Short-Term: 2 space per 6,000 sq. ft. Long-Term: 1 per 20 guest rooms Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 102 Packet Page 724 of 1100 Characteristics of Comparable Cities Population Persons/ HH Land Area Population/ Sq. Mile University Size Median Rent Median Value of Housing Units Boulder 104,175 2.26 26.33 4,112 University of Colorado: 30k $1588 736k Ann Arbor, MI 121,536 2.25 28.2 4,094 University of Michigan: 45k $1299 347k Arvada, CO 123,436 2.55 38.91 3,028 N/A $1444 424k Berkeley, CA 117,145 2.4 10.43 10,752 UC-Berkeley 45k $1767 1.06 million Bloomington, IN 79,968 2.18 23.23 3,472 Indiana University: 32k $946 219k Boise, ID 237,446 2.38 84.03 2,591 Boise State University: 22k $1009 283k Bozeman, MT 54,539 2.17 20.6 1950 Montana State University: 17k $1145 413k Broomfield, CO 75,325 2.54 32.97 1,692 N/A $1711 451k Cambridge, MA 117,090 2.13 6.39 16,469 Harvard:6k, MIT: 12k $2293 843k Champaign, IL 89,114 2.3 22.93 3,613 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: 33k $922 167k Colorado Springs, CO 483,956 2.51 195.4 2,140 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs: 13k, Colorado College: 2k $1196 295k Columbia, MO 126,853 2.31 66.54 1,720.1 University of Missouri: 30k $890 208k Denver, CO 711,463 2.44 153.08 3,922.6 University of Denver: 12k; University Colorado Denver: 19k; Metro State: 20k $1397 428k Durango, CO 19,223 2.3 14.71 1,701 Fort Lewis College: 4k $1297 473k Eugene, OR 175,096 2.29 44.18 3,572.2 University of Oregon: 23k $1075 305k Fayetteville, AR 95,230 2.23 54.14 1,366 University of Arkansas: 27k $837 232k Flagstaff, AZ 76,989 2.45 66.03 1,031.3 Northern Arizona University: 25k $1286 363k Fort Collins, CO 168,538 2.56 57.21 2,653 Colorado State University: 23k $1373 399k Gainesville, FL 140,398 2.33 63.15 2,028 University of Florida: 34k $965 180k Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 103 Packet Page 725 of 1100 Golden, CO 19,871 2.4 9.63 1,901 Colorado School of Mines: 7k $1495 541k Honolulu, HI 1 million 2.98 600.63 1,586 University of Hawaii: 13k $1779 702k Lawrence, KS 95,256 2.28 34.15 2,611.2 University of Kansas: 28k $953 205k Lexington, KY 321,793 2.36 283.64 1042 University of Kentucky: 30k $920 201k Longmont, CO 100,758 2.59 28.78 3,294 N/A $1437 396k Madison, WI 269,196 2.2 79.57 3,037 University of Wisconsin: 44k $1147 262k Minneapolis, MN 425,336 2.28 54 7,088 University of Minnesota: 51k $1078 268k Pasadena, CA 135,732 2.44 22.96 5,969 Cal Tech: 3k $1787 822k Portland, OR 641,162 2.29 133.45 4,375 Portland State University: 17k $1325 439k Raleigh, NC 469,124 2.4 147.12 2,826 North Carolina State University: 25k $1175 267k Salt Lake City, UT 200,478 2.37 110.34 1,678 University of Utah: 33k $1050 346k Savannah, GA 147,088 2.55 106.85 1,321.2 Savannah College of Art & Design: 12k $1049 162k Seattle, WA 733,919 2.08 83.83 7,251 University of Washington: 46k $1702 714k Tempe, AZ 184,118 2.37 39.94 4,050 Arizona State University: 75k $1230 288k Tucson, AZ 543,242 2.4 241 2,294 University of Arizona: 45k $861 167k Attachment C - Comparable City Parking Research Matrix Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 104 Packet Page 726 of 1100 1580 Logan Street | 6th Floor | Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.652.3571 | www.FoxTuttle.com MEMORANDUM To: Lisa Houde, AICP – City of Boulder Principal City Planner From: Scott Kilgore, PE – Transportation Engineer Date: December 31, 2024 Project: Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards Subject: Project Summary and Recommendations As a culmination of the years-long process to reevaluate off-street parking requirements in the City of Boulder, Fox Tuttle Transportation Group (Fox Tuttle) is pleased to present the following summary of work completed and recommended next steps. This phase of the project built upon previous efforts to quantify parking utilization for a variety of land uses within the City of Boulder and evaluate adjustments to the City code for parking standards. Parking data were collected at a variety of sites both new and previously surveyed. Current and historical data were analyzed for an understanding of parking utilization by land use type. Current and Historic Parking Utilization Data Parking data were collected at multiple sites across the City of Boulder starting in 2014 with periodic updates through 2019. The same group of sites was surveyed over time as much as possible and some new land uses were added in 2024 to represent current development. Some sites could not be surveyed consistently such as residential uses with secured parking that did not permit access at all phases of the project. Each type of land use was surveyed at peak occupancy times; for example, residential uses were observed overnight while offices were observed daytime on weekdays. The project was put on pause during the COVID-19 pandemic due to fluctuating travel patterns caused by pandemic-related conditions. As travel patterns began to normalize in 2024, a new round of data collection was completed. A compiled master spreadsheet has been developed to include all data collected over the past 10 years in support of this project. Attachment D - Fox Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 105 Packet Page 727 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 2 Historic (2014-2019) and current (2024) data indicate that off-street parking is underutilized during peak times for nearly all land uses surveyed. A summary of observed excess parking for each land use surveyed is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Excess Parking Provided by Land Use Land Use Observed Amount of Excess Parking Provided at Peak Times Retail 22% to 69% Office 27% to 66% Medical Office 14% Industrial 40% to 50% Lodging/Hotel 51% to 85% Residential 5% to 53% Mixed Use Residential 26% to 62% Mixed Use Commercial 9% to 61% Each individual use in Table 1 was reviewed over time to understand the trends of parking usage across the 10 years of data collected. A brief overview of parking usage trends by use type is provided below: Retail Parking demand has generally fallen for retail uses since data collection began in 2014. Since the first round of data collection between 2014 and 2016, the average parking demand for retail has dropped over time. The parking occupancy data over time for retail is shown in Figure 1 below. Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 106 Packet Page 728 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 3 Figure 1: Retail Parking Occupancy Data Mixed Use Commercial For commercial uses within mixed use districts, the average parking occupancy in 2024 is very similar to 2014/16. Despite a decrease in occupancy of these sites in 2018/19, the trend across the past 10 years is relatively unchanged average and maximum occupancy, with more variation in 2024 as compared to 2014/16. Mixed Use parking data is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Mixed Use Commercial Parking Occupancy Data 49% 40% 31% 68% 61% 52% 87%90% 78% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum 65% 34%39% 79% 59% 74% 94% 73% 91% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 107 Packet Page 729 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 4 Office Parking occupancy has changed significantly for office uses with the increase in remote work after the covid pandemic. Average parking occupancy dropped 26% in 2024 as compared to 2018/19. The spread of parking occupancy has also increased post-covid. Even at the highest levels of occupancy observed in 2018/19, an excess of at least 20% of parking was being provided at office uses. Office parking data is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Office Parking Occupancy Data Industrial Only two industrial sites were surveyed as part of this project. Parking occupancy for these sites has been relatively unchanged over time. Both sites have significantly more parking provided than is utilized at peak times. Industrial parking data is shown in Figure 4. 55% 65% 34% 69%74% 48% 78%80% 73% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 108 Packet Page 730 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 5 Figure 4: Industrial Parking Occupancy Data Lodging/Hotel The parking data for lodging/hotel sites shows that these uses provide an excess of parking. The parking data shown in Figure 5 shows that the range of parking utilization at hotels has not changed much between 2018/19 and 2024. Hotels have at least 50% more parking than is occupied. Figure 5: Lodging/Hotel Parking Occupancy Data 53% 39% 50% 56%48%55% 59%57%60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum 20%15% 60% 35%38% 51%49% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 109 Packet Page 731 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 6 Residential Parking occupancy at multifamily residential properties fluctuated slightly between 2014/16 and 2024. Parking occupancy increased from 2014/16 to 2018/19, and then decreased from 2018/19 to 2024. Overall there was a very slight increase in average parking occupancy between 2014/16 and 2024, with an increased overall spread between maximum and minimum observed parking occupancy. Residential parking occupancy data is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6: Residential Parking Occupancy Data Mixed Use Residential For multifamily residential uses that are part of a mixed use district, parking occupancy is generally lower than standalone multifamily residential. A similar trend of parking occupancy over time was observed, with an increase in occupancy in 2018/19 as compared to 2014/16 and a decrease in 2024 compared to 2018/19. The trend of parking occupancy over time for residential in mixed use districts is shown in Figure 7. 52%57% 47% 68% 83% 70% 90%100%95% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 110 Packet Page 732 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 7 Figure 7: Mixed Use Residential Parking Occupancy Data Impact of Covid Pandemic Trends in parking utilization between 2018/19 and 2024 captured the influence of the covid pandemic, before the onset of any pandemic impacts and after patterns had settled. For most uses surveyed, the trend of parking utilization pre-covid and post-covid showed a continuation of established patterns. The industrial and lodging/hotel uses surveyed continued to have a consistent parking utilization, while multifamily residential uses showed an increase in utilization in 2018/19 that dropped close to 2014/16 levels in 2024. Retail uses continued a pattern of decline in parking occupancy over time. Mixed use commercial saw an overall decrease in parking occupancy in 2018/19 compared to 2014/16. Average parking occupancy for mixed use commercial sites increased near 2014/16 levels again in 2024, though the spread between minimum and maximum parking occupancy observed increased. The office use was most impacted by covid. Vacancy rates for offices across the country have dropped as many office jobs have transitioned to increased remote work. Data at the offices surveyed showed a significant decrease in average and minimum observed parking occupancy post-covid. The spread between minimum and maximum parking utilization increased dramatically in 2024 compared to previous years, indicating that there is increased variability in parking demand for office space post-pandemic. The one medical office surveyed was an exception from other office uses and showed a fairly consistent parking utilization across the years surveyed. 41% 41% 38% 49% 70% 50% 57% 100% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014/16 2018/19 2024Percent OccupiedMinimum Average Maximum Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 111 Packet Page 733 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 8 Recommended Changes to Existing Parking Standards The recommended changes to existing parking standards are detailed in two commented versions of Section 9-9-6 of the Boulder Municipal Code. Section 9-9-6 describes parking requirements for new development. The quantity and design criteria of vehicle parking are defined, as well as the process for requesting reductions and deferrals. Required bicycle parking by use and zone district are also described in Section 9-9-6. This project completed a full review of Section 9-9-6 and has developed two “track changes” versions of the code with proposed specific language adjustments called out. Data driven motor vehicle parking minimums were developed based on the previously mentioned parking utilization data. Potential data driven changes to parking minimums based on the parking utilization data are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 below for residential and nonresidential land uses, respectively. The data driven minimums shown in Table 2 and Table 3 reflect the zone districts and land uses with changes to minimum or maximum requirements as supported by the data collected. It should be noted that while the data collected in support of this project included a wide variety of properties in various parts of Boulder, not every zone district or use was surveyed. For zone districts and uses that were not surveyed, no changes to parking minimums were suggested. With the passage of Colorado House Bill (HB) 24-1304, local parking minimum requirements for multifamily housing near high-frequency (defined as every 15 minutes during peak hours) transit lines cannot be enforced beginning on June 30, 2025. A map of the applicable transit service areas where HB 24-1304 can be enforced was released by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs in September 2024. Applicable transit service areas cover most of the City of Boulder. For regulatory simplicity, it is recommended that multifamily parking minimum requirements be eliminated throughout the City of Boulder for residential uses in all zone districts. This would bring the City into compliance with HB 24-1304 while minimizing regulatory burden. For consideration, the revised version of Section 9-9-6 includes data-supported reductions in residential parking minimums as shown in Table 2. Similarly, Colorado House Bill (HB) 24-1152 prevents certain municipalities, including Boulder, from requiring additional off-street parking for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). While ADUs were not specifically surveyed in the parking utilization data collection, the proposed revisions to Section 9-9-6 include the removal of parking minimums for ADUs. Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 112 Packet Page 734 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 9 Table 2: Boulder Context Residential Parking Requirements Land Use Zone District(s) Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Off- Street Parking Current Code Boulder Context Change Proposed Change Current Code Proposed Change Residential - Attached DU or Duplex RR, RE, MU-1, MU-3, BMS, DT, A, RH-6 1 per DU 1 per DU 0 N/A N/A RMX-2, MU-2, MH, IMS 1 for 1- or 2-bedroom DU 1.5 for 3-bedroom DU 2 for a 4 or more bedroom DU 1 per DU 0 N/A N/A RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH- 2, RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR, IS, IG, IM, P 1 for 1-bedroom DU 1.5 for 2-bedroom DU 2 for 3-bedroom DU 3 for 4 or more bedroom DU 1 per DU 0 N/A N/A RH-3 1 for 1-bedroom DU 1.5 for 2-bedroom DU 2 for 3-bedroom DU 3 for 4 or more bedroom DU 1 per DU 0 N/A N/A Efficiency Units, Transitional Housing Any Applicable 1 per DU 0.8 per DU 0 N/A N/A Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Any Applicable The off-street parking requirement for the principal DU must be met, plus any parking space required for the accessory unit, see Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981 0 0 N/A N/A Data driven reductions in parking minimums were based on the average observed occupancy for each surveyed use. The data collected could support lower minimums for some uses. For example, the average observed multifamily parking demand of 0.8 per unit is recommended in Table 2 for efficiency units, but the minimum utilization observed was as low as 0.15 per unit. While these Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 113 Packet Page 735 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 10 data-driven residential minimums are presented for consideration, the elimination of multifamily residential parking minimums citywide is recommended for compliance with HB 24-1304 and simplifying the development code. Table 3: Proposed Boulder Context Nonresidential Parking Requirements Land Use Zone District(s) Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Off-Street Parking Current Code Proposed Change Current Code Proposed Change Nonresidential General RH-3, RH-6, RH-7, MU-4 (not in a parking district) 0 0 1:400sf if residential uses comprise less than 50% of the floor area; otherwise 1:500sf 1:500sf BCS, BR-1, IS, IG, IM, A 1:400sf 1:500sf N/A N/A RMX-2, MU-2, IMS, BMS (not in a parking district) 1:400sf if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:500sf 1:500sf N/A N/A MU-1, MU-3 (not in a parking district) 1:300sf if residential uses comprise less than 50% of the floor area; otherwise 1:400sf 1:400sf N/A N/A RR, RE, RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH- 2, RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR-2, P (not in a parking district) 1:300sf 1:400sf N/A N/A Motels, Hotels, and Bed and Breakfasts Any Applicable 1 per guest room or unit, plus required spaces for nonresidential uses at 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area 0.5 per guest room or unit N/A N/A Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 114 Packet Page 736 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 11 Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking requirements in Section 9-9-6 were also reviewed in comparison to the peer communities. In general, Boulder’s bicycle parking requirements are on par or higher than the requirements of peer communities. For example, Portland Oregon requires similar amounts of bicycle parking to Boulder but allows for counting storage of bicycles in residential units toward the requirement, whereas Boulder does not allow counting of bicycle storage in residential units. The only bicycle parking requirement which exceeded Boulder is the residential parking requirement in Fort Collins, CO which requires one bicycle parking space per bedroom as opposed to 2 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit in Boulder. For residential units with three bedrooms or more, Fort Collins requires more bicycle parking spaces than Boulder, but Boulder requires more bicycle parking for studio and one bedroom units. The actual discrepancy for a given property would depend on the unit mix, which generally tends to favor more studio and one bedroom units than three (or more) bedroom units for most multifamily properties. A typical multifamily residential project unit mix with more one bedroom units than three bedroom units would result in Boulder requiring more bicycle parking than Fort Collins. The peer review comparison did not account for type of bicycle parking required (e.g. short term vs. long term). Changes to the bicycle parking requirements in Section 9-9-6 are not recommended based on the findings from peer communities and the City’s mode split and climate change goals. Peer Review of Parking Standards Previously, the City of Boulder completed a peer review of the off-street parking requirements of 33 peer communities across the US. This peer review was summarized in a table describing minimum and maximum off-street parking requirements by land use for each of the communities surveyed. In support of the recommended changes to the City’s parking requirements, certain peer communities were surveyed in greater detail. The peer review for this phase was limited to a select handful of communities included in the larger 33 communities summarized previously. Peer communities for further interview were selected based on the findings of the initial peer summary table and the recommended changes to the Boulder parking standards developed in this stage. The goal was to follow up with peer communities that have eliminated parking minimums or have parking standards similar to the recommended changes and gain some insight into how those standards are working in those communities. The identified communities included several that have eliminated parking minimums completely to gain more insight on how that option has been playing out in a variety of contexts. Peer communities selected to be surveyed included Longmont Colorado, Portland Oregon, Berkeley California, Raleigh North Carolina, and Minneapolis Minnesota. Contacts at Raleigh and Minneapolis could not be established in time for inclusion in this report. Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 115 Packet Page 737 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 12 Berkeley, CA Justin Horner, Principal Planner at the City of Berkeley provided valuable insight into how parking standards in Berkeley have been working. Berkeley has no residential parking minimums in most of the city, with select exceptions for lots on narrow streets in the Hillside neighborhood that is more car dependent than the rest of the city. Due to a California state law Berkeley also has no commercial parking minimums near transit. The areas where the state law does not apply has commercial minimum parking requirements that are very similar to the Boulder-context data- supported minimums shown in Table 3. Transitioning to the removal of parking minimums was aided by a previously-enacted city policy that required unbundling housing and parking costs. Many residents were already accustomed to paying for parking separately from housing and therefore were encouraged to own fewer vehicles overall. Before minimums were removed, it was a regular occurrence that developers were requesting variances to provide less parking than required. These variances were almost always granted because of the strong evidence supporting provision of less parking in the community. The experience of prior policy unbundling housing and parking from a cost perspective was pivotal in helping decision-makers become more comfortable with removing parking minimums completely. Overall, the transition to remove parking minimums in Berkeley has been successful and there have not been any negative unforeseen consequences to the change. The policy of unbundling housing and parking costs has made it difficult to identify the impact of removal of parking minimums on housing prices. Portland, OR The City of Portland has no minimum off-street parking requirements for any uses. The removal of all minimums was implemented in response to new state-level rules requiring the removal of parking requirements within ½ mile of frequent transit or ¾ mile of a rail station. Through a code compliance update process (similar to that being performed by the City of Boulder), it was determined that the state rules would require removing parking minimums for most of the city, so removing parking requirements for all of the city became a preferred option because of the comparative simplicity to the option of maintaining minimums in a select few areas. The code was updated to remove minimum parking requirements citywide and eliminate the variance processes to minimum parking requirements since they would no longer apply. The code changes removing parking minimums citywide went into effect on June 30, 2023. There have been many new projects that have chosen to provide no off street parking, particularly in the form of infill residential projects. A specific comparison of development before and after the removal of parking minimums is challenging because of other updates to the development code around the same time that expanded access to tax credits and financing opportunities that Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 116 Packet Page 738 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 13 have resulted in an increase in new housing, much of which has no off-street parking. Many new multifamily residential developments without off-street have been proposed or completed since the removal of parking minimums. So far, the removal of minimums has helped spur new affordable housing development which is a benefit of implementing the policy. Longmont, CO As the nearest peer community that has eliminated parking minimums citywide, Longmont has experience that can inform the removal of parking minimums in a Colorado context. Ben Ortiz, a Transportation Planner with the City of Longmont, provided valuable insight into the removal of parking minimums in Longmont, and the experience of the city before and after implementation. The city removed commercial parking minimums in 2013. There have been no new developments that have come in requesting zero off-street parking since that change was implemented. Removal of minimums has helped spur new development in some areas. For commercial centers with excess parking, creating a new lot on a portion of the parking lot and building new projects there has allowed for more efficient use of land in the city. As an example, Ben pointed to the Popeye’s fast-food restaurant at 2120 Main Street. A portion of the shopping center parking lot was repurposed for the project, and the development only chose to provide 9 parking spaces. In comparison, the McDonalds fast food restaurant at 245 S Main Street was built to the previous parking code and provided 56 parking spaces. Generally, when parking minimums were in place, developers were building the minimum required number of parking spaces. Since minimums were removed, developers have been building less parking than the previous minimums. In 2018, the city also eliminated parking minimums for residential uses in mixed use corridors. At 3 rd and Atwood, an affordable housing development had planned to provide 1 parking space per unit (the minimum under the previous code), and then revised the project to provide more housing units and less parking after the minimum requirement was removed. Overall, removal of parking minimums in Longmont has been successful at enabling new infill development and encouraging more housing construction than would have been achieved before. There have been no negative consequences to removing minimums, with no spillover issues being raised. In the Colorado context, the experience of Longmont suggests that developers will continue to provide adequate parking for their sites even without any minimum required. The previous parking maximums were left in place when minimums were removed and have been functioning well – only 2 projects have ever requested exceeding maximums. Longmont was ultimately successful in building consensus to remove parking minimums by drawing the connection between climate, housing, economic, and mode share goals to the impact of land use and provision of parking. Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 117 Packet Page 739 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 14 Peer Review Summary In all, the peer communities surveyed have found success in removing parking minimums. The removal of minimums has resulted in the construction of less parking than before and has resulted in relatively limited unexpected consequences. The experience of Berkeley suggests that parking minimums similar to the observed Boulder-context usage data can function well. Additionally, the unbundling of housing costs and parking cost in Berkeley, similar to Boulder code for RH-7 and MU-4 zone districts, helped reduce car ownership and prove that parking requirements were resulting in excess parking than market forces would require. In Longmont, removing minimums has not resulted in displacing all parking onto the street as some fear. Overall, top reasons to remove parking minimums included less regulatory burden, aligning climate and transportation policy with stated goals, reducing housing costs, and more efficient land use. Comparison to Option of Eliminating Parking Standards As previously noted, Colorado House Bill (HB) 24-104, effectively eliminates local parking minimum requirements for multifamily housing near high-frequency (defined as every 15 minutes during peak hours) transit lines beginning on June 30, 2025. Therefore, some elimination of parking minimums within the City of Boulder will be required. However, for the remaining land uses, decisions must be made about either modifying or eliminating parking minimums. The potential benefits and drawbacks of removing minimum parking requirements in the City of Boulder for other land uses are explored below. Potential Benefits of Eliminating Parking Minimums Eliminating parking minimums entirely allows developers to determine how much off-street parking is appropriate for each development. Greater flexibility can spur new development projects that would not have been economically viable when subjected to parking minimums. For many projects, ensuring that the product is marketable will typically ensure some level of off- street parking is provided based on the type of development and location. To secure financing, developers will need to do their due diligence on the project and justify the amount of parking provided to the entities providing financing. These market forces provide a check on development that naturally supports a provision of adequate parking without regulatory oversight. The experience of Longmont supports the notion that developers will continue to provide some amount of parking on-site in the Colorado context with minimum parking requirements eliminated. Elimination of parking minimums altogether can also streamline the development review process for the city and regulatory burdens of processing requests for parking reductions or deferrals. Removing the review of parking requirements simplifies the city’s process and requires fewer Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 118 Packet Page 740 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 15 resources. The option of removing parking minimums is much less complex compared to the current system of review and approval for parking reductions and deferrals, which would remain even with the lowered requirements proposed. Flexibility in the development code from removing parking minimums benefits both new construction and adaptive re-use projects. Adaptive re-use is the repurposing of an existing structure for a new purpose other than what it was originally built for. New projects can employ designs and building types that are not currently feasible due to parking constraints. Adaptive re- use may become much more feasible when converting existing buildings to new uses without needing to meet parking requirements for the new use. Allowing new development to maximize buildable space for active uses instead of vehicle storage also has the benefit of improving walkability and elevating multimodal travel, which can help the city achieve its mode split, road safety, and climate action goals. Requiring parking minimums creates more space between uses and barriers for multimodal travel, while encouraging and elevating driving. Removing vehicle parking minimums would align the building code with the city’s other goals for a more cohesive and holistic approach to shift travel away from single occupant vehicles to active, environmentally friendly, and safer modes. From a climate perspective, fewer surface parking lots may reduce driving and associated emissions while also potentially reducing impervious area and stormwater runoff from paved surfaces. Additionally, eliminating parking minimums may further the city’s goal of improving affordability by removing the cost of building parking from new development. Depending on the type of construction and land cost, parking construction can increase development cost by tens of thousands of dollars per parking space. Removing minimums legalizes more affordable housing types and provides more flexibility for new construction to address the housing shortage. Untying vehicle parking from housing allows for greater equity for those who cannot afford a vehicle or are unable to drive. It is also possible that the city may see increased revenue from allowing more businesses and residents within a space that otherwise would have been largely reserved for storing automobiles. The potential for infill development increases dramatically by removing parking minimums. Currently underutilized parking lots can be repurposed for new development. Potential Drawbacks of Eliminating Parking Minimums Eliminating parking minimums may result in unintended consequences, particularly regarding on- street parking in established areas. Allowing projects to provide no off-street parking has the potential to increase demand for on-street parking. While peer community interviews indicate that many projects will still choose to provide adequate off-street parking without minimum requirements, it is possible that new development will occur with zero or very limited parking that Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 119 Packet Page 741 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 16 pushes demand onto the surrounding streets. Higher on-street parking demand may result in resident complaints and potentially greater instances of illegal parking. Some displacement of parking demand from off-street to on-street parking can also be expected when off-street parking is provided at a cost. It is expected that some degree of parking demand displacement is already occurring from developments that charge for parking in areas where street parking is free. Projects that choose to build less off-street parking than currently required may be able to eliminate fees for off-street parking because of the reduced upfront cost of building less parking, but eliminating parking minimums overall may increase demand for on-street parking. Current residents who are used to existing levels of on-street parking demand may become frustrated by increased demand for on-street parking. The City of Boulder has a robust Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) program to ensure on-street parking availability for residents within specific areas, which is being reevaluated as part of the AMPS project. An increase in on- street parking demand from development providing less (or no) off-street parking may increase demand for NPP expansion outside of the existing zones. While eliminating parking standards may free up staff resources from development review, there may be additional demands for city staff to implement new on-street parking management strategies in the future. Equitable access to services and opportunities may also be influenced by elimination of off-street parking requirements. The high cost of living within the City of Boulder means that many lower- income workers commute into the city. Access to opportunities in Boulder may become more challenging if the removal of parking minimums results in inadequate off-street supply and high competition for on-street parking. Fortunately, most of the City is reasonably well-served by public transportation to mitigate most access concerns. Eliminating parking minimums overall may also influence the decision-making of developers when providing transportation demand management (TDM) measures. Under the current framework, TDM plans are key to securing reductions in required off-street parking. This system creates a synergy where developers are incentivized to create robust TDM plans in exchange for the increased flexibility and cost savings of reduced off-street parking requirements. The reduction in driving and associated parking demand is then supported by TDM. With the removal of parking minimums entirely, the City of Boulder may need to consider alternative policy levers to incentivize the creation of TDM plans and investments in TDM measures with new development. Requirements for TDM are also being evaluated as part of the AMPS project. Conclusion and Recommendations Real-world parking data were collected and analyzed to understand the current utilization of off- street parking at a variety of uses in the City of Boulder. The observed level of parking utilization was compared to the amount of required off-street parking in the City’s code. Proposed revisions to the code are offered to reduce the amount of minimum parking required to better match the Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 120 Packet Page 742 of 1100 Update to the City of Boulder Off-Street Parking Standards December 31, 2024 Page 17 observed Boulder-specific parking demand. An alternative code revision with parking minimums removed entirely is also offered along with a discussion of pros and cons to removing minimums citywide. It is recommended that residential off-street parking minimums be eliminated citywide to bring the City of Boulder into compliance with new state-level land use regulations. Data driven reductions to parking minimums for nonresidential uses are recommended to be implemented if the City decides to retain parking minimums for those uses. These reduced minimums will help ensure that an appropriate amount of parking is built. No changes to the bicycle parking requirements are recommended at this time. /SK Attachment D - Foxt Tuttle Parking Utilization Report Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 121 Packet Page 743 of 1100 Empty Spaces: Rethinking Parking Requirements in Boulder Over the last decade, many major cities around the country have taken minimum parking requirements out of their codes.Colorado legislators recently passed a bill that limits minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential development in transit rich areas. The City of Boulder is considering removing minimum parking requirements citywide. Space Wasted? Space to Support Climate Goals Space for New Strategies Local government land use decisions that require a minimum amount of parking spaces beyond what is necessary to meet market demand increase vehicle miles travelled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Providing more free parking in residential developments causes: Space to Adapt Removing minimum parking requirements would... Removing minimum parking requirements would not... Allow developers or business owners to assess their own parking needs. AND provide the amount of parking they determine will best support the development. Would NOT remove existing parking spaces. Would NOT eliminate ALL parking spaces. EcoPass Program: Incentivize public transit use Space Reimagined The removal of parking minimums would allow developers to reimagine land use in a creative way and meet the goals laid out in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. How can we reimagine these spaces? Pocket Parks Walkable Neighborhoods On-street parking management involves the planning, measuring, managing, allocating, and enforcement of the uses and users of the curb by the city like: Transportation demand management (TDM) is a set of strategies to make transportation more efficient and convenient, like: •Efficient, proactive, flexible •Timed parking •Paid parking •Permit programs •Loading zones Space to Learn 47% 53% Buffalo, NY was the first major U.S. city to remove minimum parking requirements citywide. In the two years that followed... Of new projects provided fewer off-street parking spaces (mostly mixed-use projects). Of new projects provided the same amount, or more, off-street spaces previously required by the code (mostly single-use projects). Citations: 1. Hess, D. B., & Rehler, J. (2021). Minus Minimums: Development Response to the Removal of Minimum Parking Requirements in Buffalo (NY). Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(3), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864225 2. House Bill 24-1304 Millard-Ball, A., West, J., Rezaei, N., & Desai, G. (2022). What do residential lotteries show us about transportation choices? Urban Studies, 59(2), 434-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098021995139 3. Colorado Department of Transportation. (2023). Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (DVMT) for All Vehicles by County. 4. Motor Vehicle Statistics. Boulder County. (2024, July 11). https://bouldercounty.gov/records/motor-vehicle/additional- motor-vehicle-resources/statistics/ 5. Modal Shift in Boulder Valley. 2023 Travel Diary 9.82% of land is d e d i c a t e d t o parking A typical 2,500 sf. restaurant requires:3 Spaces exist for each household vehicle If every commuter and household vehicle parked in Boulder at the same time, there would still be extra parking spaces left over.21 spaces - 3 X the land area of the restaurant 2 Higher Rates of Vehicle Ownership Boulder County 264,881 Registered vehicles in 2023.4 Bike share programs & improved bike parking Rent incentives: unbundled parking Shared parking Affordable Housing Units P 5 Less Frequent Transit Use City of Boulder 4% Of trips were by transit in 2023. Space For Cars In Boulder 3Boulder County Higher Rates of Vehicle Miles Travelled 3.35 million Average daily vehicle miles in 2023. 1 That’s the size of ~1,150 football fields! This is 1,517 acres of parking •How much land is already used for parking? •What tradeoffs does the city make when we require parking? Attachment E - Empty Spaces Infographic Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 122 Packet Page 744 of 1100 Page 1 of 1 STANDARD (NON-EMERGENCY) REGULATION/RULE Rule X B.R.C. Section that is the subject of this Rule: 2-2-21(A) 1.This regulation shall provide details as to the implementation and administration of a paid parking and residential EcoPass for the Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) area Goss- Grove for a one year pilot, starting on January 1, 2026 and ending on December 31, 2026. 2.Key Components: a)Public paid parking will be available Monday through Friday 08:00 AM to 06:00 PM. The rate will be $1.00 per hour, payable using mobile payment application. Parking sessions paid for using the mobile payment application will not be subject to a time limit. Users with a valid Goss-Grove permit will not be subject to paying the hourly rate. At least two signs will be placed per blockface in the pilot area. The City will administer and enforce public parking in this area, and issue tickets to parked vehicles that do not have an NPP permit or fail to pay. b)Residents of Goss-Grove NPP will be eligible for an EcoPass at no cost. Any net revenues received from the paid parking program in this neighborhood will be used to off-set the cost of the EcoPass. Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 123 Packet Page 745 of 1100 ATTACHMENT A NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING ZONES REGULATIONS These regulations implement the Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones provisions of Section 2-2-15, Section 2-2-21, and Chapter 4-23, B.R.C. 1981. I. General Guidelines (a) The Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Program restrictions are primarily intended to address issues of resident access and use of street parking in residential areas. Parking restrictions are not considered an effective or primary means of addressing other types of neighborhood issues. (b) Permit parking restrictions should not be applied if cheaper, simpler solutions are found. (c) Permit parking restrictions will only be implemented if the residents affected support the proposed zone. (d) The baseline restrictions on parking without a permit in an NPP zone will be no more than two hours without moving the vehicle from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted. Departures from this baseline may include: (1) Nighttime restrictions which limit all parking to permit holders only during evening hours. (2) Saturday restrictions which extend the basic parking restrictions for the zone to Saturdays. (3) Sunday restrictions which extend the basic parking restrictions for the zone to Sundays. (4) Extending nighttime restrictions beyond 5:00 p.m. (5) Holiday restrictions when indicated in the particular NPP zone. (6) “Color Code” restrictions. This restriction prohibits a vehicle without a permit from being parked within such a zone at more than one place and for more than one allowed period of time. For instance, if a zone allowed two hours of parking, a vehicle which had been parked for two hours or any fraction of two hours could not be parked again anywhere within that zone during the times that restrictions are in effect on that day. This option might be used if people were using the zone for long term parking by moving the vehicle every two hours. Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 124 Packet Page 746 of 1100 ( )(A) Certain blocks near Boulder schools may be designated as “Park and Walk”. These streets, as identified by “Park and Walk” signage allow for two separate parking periods of one-hour or less in a 24 -hour period to accommodate school pick up and drop off, or other school events. (7) The beginning and ending time for this restriction may be varied. (8) Paid parking may be implemented in an NPP, which would require payment for parking during the enforced hours for all except NPP permit holders of the particular NPP zone. (9) Paid parking may be implemented in addition to “color code” restrictions in the case of severe residential access issues. This restriction would require payment for parking up to the allowed period of time and would prohibit a vehicle without a permit from being parked within such a zone at more than one place and for more than the allowed period of time. (10) Seasonal restrictions when indicated in the particular NPP zone. (11) The length of time a vehicle without a permit may be parked within a zone may be decreased or increased from two hours. II. Criteria for Assessing Proposed Zone (a) Priority Based Neighborhood Access Management Strategy, also known as Residential Access Management Program (RAMP): The city manager, through the Director of Community Vitality and the Director of Transportation & Mobility will conduct an annual study of the entire city by zone or neighborhood based on Key Metrics such as parking occupancy, trip generation, and access to other modes of transportation to determine if a neighborhood permit parking zone should be established, altered, or deleted in a neighborhood and what it’s boundaries should be. Key Metrics will be evaluated, to assess the need for a zone, the type of restrictions that should be applied, the number of commuter permits to be sold, if any, the zone boundaries, and other details of zone design including, but not limited, to altering or deleting a zone, and a customized management approach will be implemented based on the individual characteristics of the neighborhood and spillover generator. The city manager may accept eligible applications year -round and evaluate them on an annual basis subsequent to completion of the study. Threshold eligibility for applications is determined by whether the location falls within an approved location based on the Priority Based Neighborhood Access Management analysis and signed by 25 adult residents of a neighborhood proposing a neighborhood permit parking zone. The study will be conducted annually throughout the calendar year, and petitions will be accepted during the fourth Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 125 Packet Page 747 of 1100 quarter of the calendar year for consideration of implementation the following year. (b) The following general factors may be considered by the city manager in the analysis of whether to pursue creation, alteration, and removal of a zone. (1) The city manager may consider the cost and availability of alternative parking (within the immediate vicinity of the proposed zone,) and the availability, proximity, and convenience of transit service. (2) The city manager may consider the extent to which a zone may impact adjacent neighborhoods and areas and may recommend implementation of additional measures to mitigate these spillover parking or displaced parker impacts. (3) A petition signed by no less than 25 adult residents from no less than five households has been received and the addresses of those adult residents verified. To verify the addresses of the residents, the city manager will accept a lease, a vehicle registration, or a voter registration naming the applicant as proof of residence within the zone. Subject to the city manager’s discretion, other documents of equivalent reliability may be accepted to verify addresses. (c) In addition to the factors specified above and in subsection 2-2-15(b), B.R.C. 1981, the following are considerations to be used in determining whether to designate an area as a neighborhood permit parking zone and what its boundaries shall be, or alter an existing neighborhood permit parking zone: (1) At least one block face with some residential street frontage should meet these criteria: (A) For the purposes of the City of Boulder Neighborhood Permit Parking program, a block-face shall be defined in one of the following three manners, governed by the location of addresses relevant to the boundaries of each parking zone: (i) 100 block includes all lots on a full or partial block in which all addresses orient to the same street and share a numeric sequence. (ii) corner to corner includes those lots oriented to the same street and sharing a numeric sequence when either or both of the corner lots orient to a crossing street. For example, if 15th street is an NPP block, and there is a corner lot which faces both 15th street and Baseline Road, and Baseline Road is not an NPP block, that corner property would be eligible to be part of the NPP program even if their address Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 126 Packet Page 748 of 1100 was listed on Baseline Road. (iii) One side of a street between two adjacent perpendicular roadways, or a dead-end street or cul-de-sac broken up based on the city addressing system and numerical progression of the lots as if they were on traditional blocks. (B) The number of legal on-street parking spaces occupied by parked vehicles on each block face exceeds a 85% occupancy during at least eight sampled times between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of a weekday selected by the traffic engineer. Departures from the baseline include: (i) Weekend days when occupancy regularly exceeds 85% based on the determined data sampling schedule. (ii) Nighttime beyond 7:00 p.m. when occupancy regularly exceeds 85% based on the determined data sampling schedule. (iii) Seasonal trends where in select seasons occupancy regularly exceeds 85% based on the determined sampling schedule. (C) At least 25% of on-street parked vehicles during a period selected by the traffic engineer for study are determined to belong to registered owners who reside outside of the study area. (2) If determining which other block faces may be included in the zone, staff may consider if the following criteria are met: (A) They are directly contiguous to the area at (1) above or are indirectly contiguous through each other, and (B) The number of legal on-street parking spaces occupied by parked vehicles on each block face exceeds a 60% occupancy during at least three hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a weekday selected by the traffic engineer, and (C) The requirements of (1)(C) above are met, or (D) If, in the opinion of the traffic engineer, posted legal restrictions on parking, including without limitation prohibitions on parking, on any block face render these survey methods invalid as indicators of the extent of the parking problems faced by residents or businesses located on such a block face, the traffic engineer may deem such block face to have met these criteria if the block face Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 127 Packet Page 749 of 1100 immediately across the street meets the criteria. (3) The zone as a whole is: (A) Primarily zoned RH, RM, RL, or MU or a combination thereof, and block faces or areas to be included which are not so zoned are predominantly residential in nature. (B) Not located across a geographic barrier of a type which would serve to limit pedestrian movement, including, but not limited to, four lane arterial streets, major arterial streets which server as a pedestrian barrier, major drainage ways, and major ridges. (d) Criteria for adding block faces to an existing zone: (1) Each block face should be contiguous to the existing zone directly or through other added block faces. (2) Each added block face should meet the criteria of (c)(2) above. (3) Addition of the block face will not violate the criteria of (c)(3). (4) The procedure for adding block faces to an existing zone shall be the same as the procedure for creating a zone but the request need contain at a minimum 25 signatures from no less than five individual households per block face or 100% resident consent, whichever is the lesser amount. To verify the addresses of the residents, the city manager will accept a lease, a vehicle registration, or a voter registration naming the applicant as proof of residence within the zone if the document so indicates. Subject to the city manager’s discretion, other documents of equivalent reliability may be accepted to verify addresses. (e) If it appears from public testimony at the Transportation Advisory Board meeting or council meeting where the zone is under consideration, that there is no consensus on neighborhood support for a proposed zone, the city manager may require further evaluation aimed at determining whether resident support for the proposed zone exists. (f) Removal of zone. The city manager shall monitor the program on a regular basis and annually provide City Council with a report on the Residential Access Management Program. If any established Neighborhood Permit Parking Zone in the program does not meet the approved Key Metrics for three consecutive years, it may be identified by staff for termination. If a block face has been removed, it may not be reintegrated in a zone for two years. The city manager is not required to remove any part of a zone if it is not in the public interest to do so. The city manager may remove any part of a zone by following the zone creation process without the requirement of a petition. Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 128 Packet Page 750 of 1100 III. Criteria for Applying Parking Restrictions within Zones (a) NPP restrictions will be applied area by area and tailored to the particular needs and attributes of each zone. (b) A color-code restriction may be applied in residential areas if the city manager believes that a traditional time limit will not effectively limit long term parking in that area. (c) The following guidelines apply to use of nighttime, holiday, Saturday, and Sunday parking restrictions: (1) The city manager may exempt certain short term or once a year civic events from nighttime/Saturday or Sunday restrictions, including but not limited to events such as the December Lights Parade, Fall Festival, and the Boulder Creek Festival. (2) Weekend or seasonal restrictions may be enacted in residential areas abutting or adjacent to certain public and community uses, including but not limited to public parks, and other large site parks and Open Space lands (including trail access points) with considerations for public access accounted for in a corresponding Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) plan. These restrictions may be seasonal in nature, based on access needs. Nighttime restrictions may be imposed in residential areas as determined based on access needs. Pursuant to Section 2-2-21, B.R.C. 1981, a Chautauqua Parking Management Plan shall control the Chautauqua leasehold area and adjacent areas. (3) TDM Plan - Staff should undertake a full assessment of potential impacts on affected nonresident users, including but not limited to an assessment of the availability of alternative parking and the availability of transit and other multimodal service (proximity, hours and frequency of operation) before the decision to implement nighttime or weekend restrictions. The restrictions should be reconsidered in circumstances where such impacts cannot be remedied by any reasonable means or at a reasonable cost. (4) Nighttime and weekend restrictions proposed for block faces where daytime commuter permits are also available will specifically exempt commuter permits from the posted restriction. (5) Residential areas abutting or adjacent to public and community uses will be studied by a cross-departmental team with representatives from Transportation & Mobility, Community Vitality, and the corresponding Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 129 Packet Page 751 of 1100 city department (for example, Open Space & Mountain Parks department) to recommend appropriate TDM strategies in concert with any parking restrictions. Recommended strategies will be presented to the Transportation Advisory Board for feedback, along with the corresponding board or commission associated with the relevant department (for example, Open Space Board of Trustees). IV. Permits (a) Applications for neighborhood parking permits shall be made through the City of Boulder parking services website. (b) Residential Permit. (1) Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the city manager will accept a lease, a vehicle registration, or a voter registration naming the applicant as proof of residence within the zone if the document so indicates. Subject to the city manager’s discretion, other documents of equivalent reliability may be accepted. If the vehicle registration is not under the applicant’s name, a notarized statement from the registered owner of the vehicle stating that the applicant is using the vehicle with the permission of the registered owner, together with a copy of proof of ownership in the person claiming to be the registered owner, as proof that the vehicle is lawfully in the custody and control of the applicant. The city manager may accept other documents of equivalent reliability. If voter registration is provided, then the vehicle registration address must match the address from the voter registration. (2) Permits are valid for one calendar year from the purchase date. Residential permits may be renewed once without providing the required documentation for a new permit so long as payment has been received, the applicant has not moved, and the vehicle continues to be registered in good standing with the Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles. (3) A residential permit can be transferred only in the case of a new vehicle purchase, temporary use of a rental car, or when the same vehicle has a new license plate. These transfers must be updated by the permittee and approved by the City. (4) The permittee shall relinquish the permit by providing written notification to the city manager, or returning the physical permit if applicable, if the vehicle is sold, leased, or no longer in the custody of the permittee. (5) Qualified low-income residents can apply for a discounted rate of 50% off the residential parking permit cost. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the city manager will accept as proof of low-income eligibility, Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 130 Packet Page 752 of 1100 a County of Boulder explanation of benefits letter detailing enrollment within the most recent calendar year in one the following income- based programs: the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), Health First Colorado, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); or proof of enrollment within the most recent calendar year in a City of Boulder income-based program such as the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) program, Family Resource Schools (FRS), or the Food Tax Rebate program. (c) Nonresidential Permits. (1) Commuter Permits. Commuter permits, if available within an NPP zone, are issued on a first come first served basis. Renewals of commuter permits occur monthly. If a permit is not renewed one week after its expiration, it will be released for purchase by another applicant. This process will be followed unless some other fair and equitable method of allocation is specified for a specific zone as part of the zone creation process. No individual shall have more than one commuter permit anywhere in the city at any one time. No one who resides within a zone may receive a commuter permit within that zone. (2) Business Employee Neighborhood Parking Permit. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the city manager will accept a current lease or Boulder County Ownership tax report as proof of address within the zone. Additionally, the city manager requires a current City of Boulder Sales Tax License, the most recent Colorado Unemployment Report, and the vehicle registration of those vehicles to be included on the business permit. Permits are valid for one calendar year from the purchase date. (3) Mobile Vendor Permit. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the city manager will accept a current lease or Boulder County Ownership Tax report. The city manager requires the City of Boulder Sales Tax license, the most recent Colorado Unemployment Report, and the vehicle registration. Permits are valid for one calendar year from the purchase date. (4) Contractor Permits. Upon the purchase of a temporary permit by a contractor, such permit(s) shall be valid for one month. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the manager will accept a copy of the Building Permit, Right of Way Permit (ROW), or Contract on business letterhead signed by all parties if there is no requirement for a Building or ROW Permit. In determining whether to issue additional contractor permits the city manager shall consider the purposes of the permit system in determining whether or not granting the permit will be detrimental to the goals of the permit system. (d) Applicants with vehicles that have parking ticket(s) older than 14 days from the Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 131 Packet Page 753 of 1100 violation date set forth on the ticket must pay the violation fees prior to being issued any parking permit. V. Display of Permit (a) Any permit issued by the city manager must be displayed or, for digital permits, valid and in effect per guidelines addressed in the permit application. (b) Enforcement staff may utilize license plate recognition technology to verify vehicles permitted or payment status. VI. Additional Residential PermitsAdditional Guest Permits (a) Day Passes. Upon special application, the city manager may issue two two-week guest permits to residents of a zone. The applicant shall affirm that the house guest is temporarily residing in the applicant’s home as a guest and is not paying rentTwenty-five (25) single-day digital day passes can be used obtained per household of a NPP zone. Each day pass is valid for up to twenty four hours each. Day passes can be used consecutively. Day passes can be assigned to the same or different vehicles for each pass. Use of this pass is limited to those whose stay will last longer than the time limit posted within the permit zone for parking by the general public but shall not exceed 24 consecutive hours. No more than 25 day passes will be issued per resident per year except that the City Manager may approve the purchase of additional guest passes to a resident only in extenuating circumstances. Use of the pass also falls under the same restrictions as those prescribed in Section 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981, and in these regulations. (b) Flex Permits. Additional guest permits, beyond the two included permits, may be purchased for use by guests at social gatherings at the applicant’s home. Such gatherings must be entirely unrelated to a home occupation and must be of the sort normally associated with residential use. Permits will not be issued for more than 12 such gatherings in any permit year. Additional guest permits will have an associated cost and be subject to additional restrictions. In determining whether to issue an additional house guest permit the city manager shall consider the purposes of the permit system in determining whether or not granting the permit will be detrimental to the goals of the permit system. (c)(b) Two Two annual Flex Permits may be purchased per household of a neighborhood permit parking zone. No more than two such permits will be issued per household per year. Use of this permit also falls under the same restrictions as those prescribed by Section 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981, and in these regulationsthis Rule. annual visitor’s permits can be purchased by a resident of a zone to be used on a temporary and transferable basis to accommodate visitors, including without limit, health care workers, repair persons, and babysitters, Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 132 Packet Page 754 of 1100 who need access to the residence of the resident. Use of the permit is valid only while the visitor is on the residential premises. No more than two such permits will be issued per residence per year. Use of the permit also falls under the same restrictions as those prescribed by Section 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981, and in these regulations. VII. Basis for Allocating Commuter Permits Commuter permits, if available within an NPP zone, are issued on a first - come, first- served basis. Renewals of commuter permits occur on a monthly, quarterly, bi-annually, or annually basis. If a permit is not renewed one week after the expiration it will be released for purchase. This process will be followed unless some other fair and equitable method of allocation is specified for a specific zone as part of the zone creation process. No individual shall have more than one commuter permit anywhere in the city at any one time. No one who resides within a zone may receive a commuter permit within that zone. VIII. Program Monitoring Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 2-2-15(f), B.R.C., 1981, the city manager will annually provide City Council with information in the following areas: (a) The status of the Residential Access Management Program in general, including: (1) A report or online dashboard which indicates the status of the current Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones and whether they meet key performance indicators. (2) A report on newly identified areas of study and whether any neighborhoods met the key performance indicators for implementation of an NPP or inclusion in a TDM study, and if any community requests were received. (3) A report on program revenue and expenditures, including how many and where commuter permits have been sold in each zone. (4) An examination of the relationship between the NPP program and parking supply and demand in adjacent areas of the city, including the cost and availability of adjacent alternative parking. (5) The status of other replacement strategies (parking and alternative modes), including: (A) Estimated increases in alternative modes use. (B) The advent (provision) of any new transit service (public or private) or alt modes facilities. Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 133 Packet Page 755 of 1100 (C) Use of remote lot parking. (D) The status of new parking structures. (6) A report on the enforcement of NPP zones. (b) The status of specific NPP zones, including: (1) A report on any significant spill-over parking into peripheral or other areas. (2) A report on zone restrictions and how well they work to address the identified parking concerns, including any recommended adjustments. (3) A report on how many, if any, zone block faces experience parking occupancy patterns that trigger the requirement to lower the number of commuter permits sold on that block face as specified in subsection 4- 23-2(j), B.R.C., 1981. (c) The city manager may utilize license plate recognition technology to collect data used to monitor the program. If the city manager hires a consultant, a data retention agreement will be required. Data will be analyzed and returned to the city in aggregated report form, and no identifying information (the license plates) will be maintained by the consultant. Once the city receives the report and provides final approval, the consultant will be required to purge the raw reads. (d) Data retention. The city manager shall not release or permit the inspection or copying of images that are evidence required to prove a violation taken by license plate recognition technology, camera radar or red-light camera for other than law enforcement purposes, unless directed to do so by subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction, or as part of litigation or threatened litigation involving the city. But such images shall be available to the owner of any vehicle and to the driver of any vehicle depicted in any such image. Images taken by license plate recognition technology that are determined to not be evidence required to prove a parking violation shall not be released or be permitted to be inspected or copied and shall be purged on a regular schedule adopted by the city manager. Attachment F - City Manager Rule Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 134 Packet Page 756 of 1100 1 Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration The City of Boulder is seeking to launch a pilot in one NPP zone to include paid parking and an EcoPass offering. The following data has been evaluated for consideration in determining the zone where the pilot will be tested. The City participated in several in- person community events and published a questionnaire for residents in NPP zones to gather parking information. Areas Which Should Not Be Under Consideration 1.Under Consideration for Removal. The following three zones are under consideration for removal and should not be considered for the pilot: Columbine, Fairview, and High – Sunset. 2.Zone Seasonality. Due to the seasonality of the Chautauqua, it should be eliminated as a consideration for the pilot. 3.Number of Households. A minimum of 40 households are required to establish an EcoPass program in an NPP. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Number of Households University Hill 540 Mapleton Hill 479 Whittier 330 Goss - Grove 266 Park East Square 220 West Pearl 172 East Aurora 62 East Ridge - Pennsylvania 58 Eliminated NPP Zones Number of Households Chautauqua 110 Fairview 42 High - Sunset 65 University Heights 29 Eliminated NPP Zones Number of Households Chautauqua 110 Fairview 42 High - Sunset 65 University Heights 29 Contributing Factors for Remaining Zones 4.Density. Denser NPP zones may benefit more from the pilot by having additional parking options through paid parking, and they may benefit further from the offering of an EcoPass. Attachment G - Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 135 Packet Page 757 of 1100 2 NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Number of Blockfaces Number of Households Average Number of Households per Blockface Ranking (1 best, 8 worst) Park East Square 6 220 36.67 1 West Pearl 17 172 10.12 2 University Hill 81 540 6.67 3 Goss Grove 45 266 5.91 4 Mapleton Hill 82 479 5.84 5 East Ridge - Pennsylvania 10 58 5.80 6 East Aurora 14 62 4.43 7 Whittier 78 330 4.23 8 5. Occupancy. Zones with higher occupancy may benefit more from the pilot. Occupancy refers to the number of vehicles divided by the total supply of spaces. The higher the average occupancy is, the more vehicles are parked in the NPP zone. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Average Occupancy 1 Ranking (1 best, 8 worst) Goss Grove 69.7% 1 Park East Square 67.1% 2 Whittier 50.0% 3 Mapleton Hill 48.2% 4 University Hill 44.4% 5 East Aurora 33.2% 6 East Ridge - Pennsylvania 32.6% 7 West Pearl 31.7% 8 6. Access to Transit. Neighborhoods closer to more transit may benefit more from an EcoPass. The transit score was compiled from Zillow. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Transit Score Ranking (1 best, 8 lowest) Goss Grove 61 T-1 University Hill 61 T-1 East Ridge - Pennsylvania 58 3 Mapleton Hill 54 4 East Aurora 53 5 West Pearl 50 T-6 Whittier 50 T-6 Park East Square 47 8 1 Average occupancy was calculated during business hours when CU is in session and across all blocks of the zone. Attachment G - Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 136 Packet Page 758 of 1100 3 7. EcoPass Availability. Colorado University students already receive EcoPasses. Because of this, NPP zones near the CU campus may have a higher number of student residents and would benefit less from this pilot. Zones closer to a CU campus, which may include more EcoPass holders, are ranked 2, while areas further outside of CU are ranked 1. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Ranking (within a close proximity 2, further proximity 1) University Hill 2 East Ridge - Pennsylvania 2 East Aurora 2 Park East Square 2 Whittier (already has an NEcoPass program established) 2 Goss Grove 1 Mapleton Hill 1 West Pearl 1 8. Willingness to Pay a Higher Permit Rate for an EcoPass (based on questionnaire results). Based on the results of the questionnaire, zones where more residents were supportive or neutral to a higher permit fee for EcoPasses should be considered. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Percent of Questionnaire Responses Supportive or Neutral Ranking (1 more, 8 less) West Pearl 54% 1 Goss Grove 50% 2 University Hill 45% 3 Whittier 40% 4 Mapleton Hill 37% 5 Park East Square 33% 6 East Aurora 17% 7 East Ridge - Pennsylvania No Responses 8 Attachment G - Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 137 Packet Page 759 of 1100 4 9. Results in Favor of Paid Parking (based on questionnaire results). Based on the results of the questionnaire, zones where more respondents were supportive or neutral to paid parking should be considered for the pilot. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Percent of Questionnaire Responses Supportive or Neutral Ranking (1 more, 8 less) Park East Square 100% 1 Goss Grove 69% 2 University Hill 66% 3 East Aurora 67% 4 West Pearl 62% 5 Whittier 52% 6 Mapleton Hill 48% 7 East Ridge - Pennsylvania No Responses 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 I would support slightly higher residential permit fees if it provided multimodal transportation benefits for me and my neighbors. Strongly Agree/Agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Disagree/Disagree Attachment G - Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 138 Packet Page 760 of 1100 5 10. Cost Recovery. Based on RAMP Financial Analysis, if paid parking is implemented, some NPP zones are more likely to recover the costs of the EcoPass program better than others. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot NECOPASS Cost ($) Estimated On-Street Parking Revenue ($) Net Income / Loss ($) Ranking (1 best cost recovery, 8 lowest) University Hill $67,500.00 $114,106.67 $46,606.67 1 Whittier $41,250.00 $58,616.00 $17,366.00 2 Goss - Grove $33,250.00 $46,875.56 $13,625.56 3 Mapleton Hill $59,875.00 $65,644.44 $5,769.44 4 East Ridge - Pennsylvania $7,250.00 $12,172.44 $4,922.44 5 East Aurora $7,750.00 $1,468.44 ($6,281.56) 6 West Pearl $21,500.00 $5,427.56 ($16,072.44) 7 Park East Square $27,500.00 $8,135.11 ($19,364.89) 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 People that are not permit holders or neighborhood guests should have to pay hourly to park in my neighborhood (consolidated). Strongly Agree/Agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Disagree/Disagree Attachment G - Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 139 Packet Page 761 of 1100 6 Final Results Based on the considerations above, the following three zones, as indicated in bold, should be considered for the pilot. NPP Zones to be Considered for Pilot Density Ranking Occupancy Ranking Access to Transit Ranking EcoPass Availability Ranking Willingness to Pay a Higher Permit Rate for EcoPass Ranking Support or Neutral to Paid Parking Ranking Cost Recovery Average Ranking Average (lower is better) Final Results Goss Grove 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 2.0 1 University Hill 3 5 1 2 3 3 1 2.6 2 Park East Square 1 2 8 2 6 1 8 4.0 3 West Pearl 2 8 6 1 1 5 7 4.3 4 Mapleton Hill 5 4 4 1 5 7 4 4.3 5 Whittier 8 3 6 2 4 6 2 4.4 6 East Aurora 7 6 5 2 7 4 6 5.3 7 East Ridge - Pennsylvania 6 7 3 2 8 8 5 5.6 8 Attachment G - Neighborhoods for Pilot Consideration Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 140 Packet Page 762 of 1100 RAMP Financial Analysis A financial analysis was conducted to assess how the Residential Access Management Program (RAMP) could continue to achieve cost recovery under proposed changes to permit regulations—such as transitioning Guest and Visitor permits to Day Passes and Flex Permits and limiting residential permits to one per person. The analysis also explores potential future scenarios, including offering free EcoPasses to all NPP zone residents and introducing paid parking in areas that currently use time-limited restrictions. Scenario 1: Cost Recovery with Proposed Changes RAMP FINANCIAL ANALYIS 2023-2028 (WITHOUT ON-STREET PARKING ESTIMATES) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 REVENUES ($) Residential Permit 85,240 109,747 116,430 91,722 97,838 104,341 Flex/Visitor Permit 9,465 9,749 10,041 24,625 26,632 28,803 Guest Permit 1,415 1,457 1,501 - - - Business Permit 900 927 980 1,010 1,040 1,071 Commuter Permit 129,250 143,415 196,956 202,865 208,951 215,219 Citation Revenue 269,610 275,002 280,502 286,112 291,835 297,671 Total Revenue 495,880 540,297 606,411 606,334 626,295 647,106 EXPENSES ($) Personnel 458,638 462,771 476,654 419,767 432,361 445,331 Non-Personnel 10,300 10,609 2,609 2,687 2,768 2,851 Total Expenses 468,938 473,380 479,263 422,455 435,128 448,182 Net Income/Loss 26,942 66,917 127,148 183,879 191,167 198,924 Ending Balance (448,645) (381,729) (254,580) (70,701) 120,466 319,390 Attachment H - RAMP Financial Analysis Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 141 Packet Page 763 of 1100 Scenario 2: Cost recovery with proposed changes plus free EcoPasses for all NPP residents and paid parking replacing current time limited parking for all zones Scenario 3: Cost recovery with proposed changes plus free EcoPasses for all NPP residents, doubling the price of permits RAMP FINANCIAL ANALYIS 2023-2028 (WITHOUT ON-STREET PARKING ESTIMATES) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 REVENUES ($) Residential Permit 85,240 109,747 116,430 178,102 189,976 202,604 RAMP FINANCIAL ANALYIS 2023-2028 (WITH ON-STREET PARKING ESTIMATES) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 REVENUES ($) Residential Permit 85,240 109,747 116,430 91,722 97,838 104,341 Flex/Visitor Permit 9,465 9,749 10,041 24,625 26,632 28,803 Guest Permit 1,415 1,457 1,501 - - - Business Permit 900 927 980 1,010 1,040 1,071 Commuter Permit 129,250 143,415 196,956 202,865 208,951 215,219 Citation Revenue 269,610 275,002 280,502 286,112 291,835 297,671 On-Street Parking Revenue - - - 326,792 336,596 346,694 Total Revenue 495,880 540,297 606,411 933,126 962,891 993,799 EXPENSES ($) Personnel 458,638 462,771 476,654 419,767 432,361 445,331 Non-Personnel 10,300 10,609 2,609 2,687 2,768 2,851 NECOPASS - - - 320,750 327,165 333,708 Total Expenses 468,938 473,380 479,263 743,205 762,293 781,891 Net Income/Loss 26,942 66,917 127,148 189,922 200,598 211,909 Ending Balance (448,645) (381,729) (254,580) (64,659) 135,939 347,848 Attachment H - RAMP Financial Analysis Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 142 Packet Page 764 of 1100 Flex/Visitor Permit 9,465 9,749 10,041 47,816 51,713 55,928 Guest Permit 1,415 1,457 1,501 - - - Business Permit 900 927 983 1,043 1,107 1,174 Commuter Permit 129,250 143,415 196,956 208,951 221,676 235,176 Citation Revenue 269,610 275,002 280,502 286,112 291,835 297,671 Total Revenue 495,880 540,297 606,414 722,024 756,307 792,554 EXPENSES ($) Personnel 458,638 462,771 476,654 419,767 432,361 445,331 Non-Personnel 10,300 10,609 2,609 2,687 2,768 2,851 NECOPASS - - - 320,750 327,165 333,708 Total Expenses 468,938 473,380 479,263 743,205 762,293 781,891 Net Income/Loss 26,942 66,917 127,151 (21,180) (5,987) 10,663 Ending Balance (448,645) (381,729) (254,577) (275,758) (281,745) (271,081) Notes: Estimates are based on the following assumptions: (1) Starting in 2026, the Visitor Permit becomes a Flex Permit and is priced the same as a Residential Permit and we estimate a 75% decrease in the number of these permits sold; (2) From 2025-2028, prices of permits and estimated expenses increase by 3% each year; (3) Starting in 2026, Residential Permits are restricted to one permit per account; and (4) The closure of the Columbine, Fairview, and High-Sunset NPP zones in 2026. On-Street Parking revenue estimates are based on City of Boulder analysis of visitation data from Placer.AI. RAMP Permit Pricing for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 RAMP Permit Prices 2023-2028 (Scenario 1 & 2) 2023 2024 2025 2026* 2027* 2028* Residential Permit $40.00 $50.00 $51.50 $53.05 $54.64 $56.28 Flex/Visitor Permit $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $53.05 $54.64 $56.28 Guest Permit/Day Passes $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 Business Permit $75.00 $75.00 $77.25 $79.57 $81.95 $84.41 Commuter Permit $110.00 $118.50 $39.50 $40.69 $41.91 $43.16 *Estimate Attachment H - RAMP Financial Analysis Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 143 Packet Page 765 of 1100 RAMP Permit Prices 2023-2028 (Scenario 3) 2023 2024 2025 2026* 2027* 2028* Residential Permit $40.00 $50.00 $51.50 $103.00 $106.09 $109.27 Flex/Visitor Permit $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $103.00 $106.09 $109.27 Guest Permit /Day Passes $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 Business Permit $75.00 $75.00 $77.25 $79.57 $81.95 $84.41 Commuter Permit $110.00 $118.50 $39.50 $40.69 $41.91 $43.16 *Estimate Attachment H - RAMP Financial Analysis Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 144 Packet Page 766 of 1100 Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Figure 1- What NPP Zone do you live in? Figure 2- If residents of NPP's were offered multimodal transportation benefit(s), which benefit would be most valuable to you? Attachment I - Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 145 Packet Page 767 of 1100 Figure 3- People that are not permit holders or neighborhood guests should have to pay to park hourly in my neighborhood. Figure 4- I would support slightly higher residential permit fees if it provided multimodal transportation benefits for me and my neighbors. Attachment I - Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 146 Packet Page 768 of 1100 Figure 5- How many off-street (such as garage or driveway) parking spaces does your household have access to? Figure 6- How many vehicles does your household have? Attachment I - Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 147 Packet Page 769 of 1100 Figure 7- How many licensed drivers are in your household? Figure 8- How often do you use visitor permits? Attachment I - Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 148 Packet Page 770 of 1100 Figure 9- How often do you use guest permits? Attachment I - Neighborhood Permit Parking Resident Feedback Graphs Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 149 Packet Page 771 of 1100 AMPS Technical Experts Consultation Date: 03/10/2025 Location: Hybrid Meeting- In person & Microsoft Teams Participants: Architects, developers, engineers, frequent development review applicants Summary of feedback and questions Bike parking •My bike parking reduction request was not supported by the Planning Board even though there are a lot of empty bike parking spaces. Staff should consider cargo and e-bike standards that count as two or more to meet bike parking requirements. •Does the city have any data on how bike parking is currently being used? I think we need to have a certain amount of flexibility in bike parking. •Availability of bike chargers is important but leaving ebikes plugged in can be dangerous. Our garage caught fire from an ebike battery, and I know another family whose house burnt down. I am sure there are solutions but I am just speaking from personal experience. •I had a project called up about EV bike parking standards… can we codify that? A lot of people have EV bikes now and it would be nice if they have charging. I would support standards for EV and cargo bikes. On-street/NPPS •Are new neighborhoods being added to NPPs? And there is no requirement from developers? Off-Street/ General Process Comments •Very excited about these requirements and loosening up on parking. This will be a positive game changer. For areas where there is excess parking, could we remove spots to add something like a playground? Is there a way to act retroactively? •Do smaller projects require TDM as a part of a Use Review or permit? Can we consider parking impacts in Use Reviews if we have no parking requirements? •Agree that we should check utilization data on parking- this could be a good next phase. •I am concerned about parking reductions. Used to have to work with neighbors on shared parking through site review and it has typically killed proposals. •Glad to hear that parking will not be a trigger in Site Review. I like the focus on numeric rather than any discretionary criteria in the site review criteria – it is less nebulous. •I have some concern about parking space size requirements. I would encourage a consideration of spatial dimensioning standards with some flexibility. Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 150 Packet Page 772 of 1100 • Is it possible to discuss with staff the parking minimums for commercial? • A shared parking analysis should be done in the traffic studies, and it should be codified. • Are there any state-level parking requirements on EV parking? TDM Discussion • This is a hard nut to crack. What are the unforeseen consequences? • Will this apply to form-based code review as well? • How will we determine if a project is overparked if minimums are going away? • Testing goes away if there is compliance for 3 years or more. Multi-unit estimates are very close per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). • Minor comments: o Look at thresholds: nobody can build structured parking at the numbers in the presentation o Sustainability codes- they start mild and get more strict. Could affect financing. o Assumes a large project will have good transit- explain that this will drive the perceived values and the rents- sustainability perspective- no TDM requirements o If by-right, I’m not buying that. By-right projects would benefit from TDM. Have and have- nots. Surprised and disappointed that it doesn’t apply to by-right projects. • Troubled with the thresholds. Certain facilities will need parking. You don’t want to add more cost to a type of use (e.g., medical office) – Needs to be some recognition that some facilities need to provide parking. • Is it calculated by number of employees per use? Or trips per use? The thresholds are not jiving. It needs to be equitable. • Agreed that certain uses will always need parking- need flexibility in TDM to address this. How does this relate to Site Review criteria? What happens to projects that haven’t been completed by the time this is in implementation? • Limiting TDM so that it only applies to Site Review Projects; other projects could benefit from TDM- I see both sides to this- maybe it should be spread out a bit more, like a citywide fund that everyone pays into. This would be more equitable. Understand that there are no perfect solutions. Next Steps Lisa introduced the next steps and opportunities to offer more feedback before the ordinance is written. Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 151 Packet Page 773 of 1100 AMPS Community Consultation 03/12/2025 Location: In-Person Meeting at Penfield Tate Participants: Primarily residents of affordable housing Summary of Feedback AMPS Discussion • General interest in the idea of mobility hubs • EV chargers: o Problem with people taking EV charging spots with non-EV cars o If there wasn’t an EV charger at their housing development or nearby, they feel they probably wouldn’t be able to afford or conveniently charge their electric vehicle • Large praise for EV bikes- some participants hadn’t had the chance to win the EV lottery yet and are really hoping to • Bus scheduling for the 208 is inconvenient, it doesn’t line up with schools being released and since it doesn’t come often, their kid often waits 30 mins to an hour after school after missing it by just 5 mins. Can this be moved at all? • Bcycles and Lime scooters are great, but the age restrictions aren’t convenient for families- is there a way an adult could unlock two bikes or scooters? • Concerns about accessibility standards for people with disabilities and older people. • Shared parking with BHP and Rec Center is no longer working well • Rampant bike theft • 28th and Glenwood is a danger concern for peds/cyclists • Bus transfers are not lining up well which can make bus transportation especially challenging • Theft of bike trailers is an issue, as there is often nowhere appropriate to store a bike trailer securely • Free U-lock programs have been incredibly beneficial • Desire for mobility hubs, especially near places that offer key services such as hospitals • Can we tap into existing electrical infrastructure such as streetlights to offer more EV charging in residential neighborhoods? Comments on the Game • It would be helpful to insert occasional reflection questions in the middle of the game, instead of keeping the discussion to the end. • Next time, laminate the board so that it is easier and nicer to play on • It was difficult to get out of the mindset of classic monopoly • Climate trackers needed to go longer; some people had to double up on trackers • Cards had too much info to read on the spot Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 152 Packet Page 774 of 1100 AMPS Community Connectors-in- Residence 03/14/2025 Virtual Meeting- Zoom Participants: Community Connectors-In-Residence Input on Impacts Parking and Development • Need requirements off-street parking requirements for apartments • These costs (TDM) would also be passed on to the residents • If parking spaces are too small, it’s a major problem • Inconvenience of no parking- need places where you can drive up and park (like the DMV) Public Transportation • This would be effective if we had a better bus system • You cannot get to all areas of the city by bus, and many workers need to transport heavy equipment for work (construction, house cleaning, etc.), bus is not always an option. • Until RTD moves off the hub and spoke model from the 50’s to a grid system, ridership will not increase • ECO pass- great if free- expensive for people on low incomes, if you need to pay for it. • People will use cars less if they know about options and it’s easy to use alternatives • Mobility for all provides bus passes, $50 credits for Uber or Lyft as a way to promote other transportation alternatives. I am a volunteer with them. • Most people will not get on a bus because there is no oversight- especially coming on the JUMP or coming from a medical facility- people don’t want to ride with the unhoused. Social and Equity • My kids have experienced racist comments, people yelling at them (go back to…, You have to speak English, etc.) and bus drivers don’t do anything. My kids don’t feel comfortable riding the bus. I have seen people being racist even with the bus drivers, and they don’t have protocol to deal with these kinds of situations. Can the city do some sort of training or take other measures to avoid this? • Parents ALWAYS tells me they have to drive “because of my kids” • General skepticism that this wouldn’t help low-income communities- more density, cost of housing continuing to rise, less parking = disaster • Are we considering ADA spaces for people with disabilities? Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 153 Packet Page 775 of 1100 • Before we continue to grow, we need to ensure that we have well managed spaces- ensure that our most vulnerable people are cared for and have good transit- before spreading resources scarcely. Other Priorities • A large workforce in the city can’t afford to live in Boulder and need to commute, that is another thing to consider. • Is there no stopping of developers? They bring in these parking issues, unwanted community changes, more need for water, landfill use, etc. Parking impacts are more thank parking. I avoid my beautiful town because of these considerations. Are all of the newer apartments filled? What is creating the need? Why do we need more building? • Inconvenience of no parking- need places where you can drive up and park (like the DMV) • Very few people live and work in Boulder- our set up isn’t made for alternative use to a car since most people commute in. • I am concerned about substandard service like what has happened with the wind damage repair program • What about EV charging? Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 154 Packet Page 776 of 1100 AMPS Chamber of Commerce Community Conversation Breakfast 03/18/2025 In-Person Meeting at the Boulder Chamber of Commerce Participants: Various event attendees – registered with the Chamber Introduction Lisa and Sam presented about On- and Off-Street parking topic to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce: Reactions to on-street and off-street parking changes General Comments • Great that there is no minimums, but each project should be looked at. There are projects where parking is really tight. Have each individual project looked at separately. • How long will the results from this study affect policy? Will this come up for review years later? • How will the district perspective be addressed? At what point will they be considered? • How does this project intersect with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan? On-street Parking Management • How many zones have permit parking right now? • What is the petition threshold for a neighborhood to get an NPP? • What other options do you have in residential areas to manage parking? • What is the typical parking permit allocation per household? • Do you have employers mixing with residents in a conversation if they are both using on-street parking in residential areas? • Is there a mutual benefit of an out commuter and in commuter sharing a space? • How will we proactively review change in on-street in different areas? Are there specific areas being looked at now? Deliveries/Loading Zones • Aspen’s loading zone demonstration is not good for Boulder. • Smart Locker Space- Portland- pick up and drop off in one spot, larger delivery trucks are not permitted in a specified area. • Anything that changes the cost of deliveries or make it more complicated could hurt downtown businesses. Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 155 Packet Page 777 of 1100 Bike Parking • Buffalo came to talk to the chamber. They followed SF and Cambridge. They probably have more data now. Concern about bikes stored inside with dangers of batteries. Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Denver experimenting with cargo bikes. • Are you looking into bike safety? TDM Discussion • Is the charging forever mechanism an annual bill? • Are there considerations if you put in bike paths, would that decrease the cost? • Are there any considerations for larger projects that implement strategies to lower cost? • Will this deter larger projects due to cost? Will this start a “gaming” of the system for developers to try to avoid meeting the requirements of the tiers? • Will there be exemptions for developments that won’t have the same trip generation in the targets (ie. Hotels or Retirement homes)? • Do you have an idea of the impact of return-to-work policies? • Google has had success with the Loom software, have others adopted it? • Is there a flexible area of the parking cashout program for people who drive maybe half the time? • Can we look into trip generation tables for small cars. Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 156 Packet Page 778 of 1100 AMPS Community Consultation Neighborhoods 03/19/2025 Hybrid Meeting- In Person & Microsoft Teams Introduction Participants: Neighborhood representatives, interested community members Lisa began the presentation, gave background information on AMPS and talked about Off-Street Parking. Off-Street Parking Presentation Comments • Are SUMP (Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans) principles a part of the AMPS project? • In low-income areas (such as Depot Square) SUMP didn’t work for them as many people had to have multiple cars for work and rely on being able to park- we should ensure that we survey these people. • Unused parking spaces is one thing, why is that a problem? Is there an assumption that is has to be converted to something (ie. More development, trees), what about commercial developments? • It would be valuable if you had specifically listed the objectives of this project. • [CHAT] Not buying that we are underutilizing parking, it is already so hard to find parking in off- street lots. • Does the parking utilization data have to do with commercial vacancies? There are very high vacancy rates in Boulder- be careful with how you use this survey data. • With the parking utilization averages (by-use) ensure that you emphasize that the data has assumptions about occupancy. • [CHAT] If the premise of the project (abundance of underutilized parking) is “incorrect” then so is the solution. On-Street Parking Presentation Comments Sam presented on on-street parking and the NPP program • What is the objective of On-street parking management? What minimums are we talking about with the NPPs? New Development? • How will the existing lots that change the amount of parking impact on-street parking strategies? • Will this impact new developments at the planning and permitting stage before the buildings are constructed? It would be very good to do this during the planning stage, as this may change how much parking developers think they need to provide. Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 157 Packet Page 779 of 1100 • Does this change the requirements for existing developments? • We need to address the University Hill on street parking management, especially with the new occupancy changes. • Is there an objective for vacant retail? The program should address existing developments that have no taxes and income due to vacancy. • All NPPs are not created equal. My neighborhood asked for 3-hour parking to better support businesses and commuter parking, which is great, but when they are close to downtown then visitors can’t use them. Visitors move around more and create more availability- commuter parking may not be best for every neighborhood and people who visit might spend money downtown whereas commuters are less likely to. • With increases in density, we will need to increase NPPs. Why do we have to pay and no one else does? • [CHAT] I don’t think you can solve all of the issues- you need to focus on the lots that are getting used and how hard it is to find parking in them. • This could become an equity issue- when people bought into the neighborhood, they had an assumption that they could park their car on the street. This is now brought into question, especially with density increases and the changes to occupancy. Do these people have a right to this? Should we ask ourselves the question: do we want to have more people in Boulder? • Is there a clearly defined objective list? Can this be published for us to see? • Do you have a list that gets into the specifics? I didn’t realize you were thinking about charging for visitor/guest parking near downtown. • University Hill residents can’t get ECO passes since student residents already have passes through CU- can we please change this? TDM Presentation Comments Chris presented the TDM program. • [CHAT] using other modes of transportation doesn’t work here like in does in a place like New York. People Uber and taxi all the time which is no better. RTD is awful here, very inconsistent and inconvenient. • [CHAT] have you considered how land use got to be the way it is here and in almost all of the USA and Canada? It's because of land use restrictions (zoning) that only allows single family housing in vast areas of town. This means we can't have density, and we can't have corner stores to walk to and run our errands.  • [CHAT] If I want to walk to a grocery store, or Twenty Ninth Street, I have to walk across a sea of surface parking lots, which is unfriendly and dangerous. Thankfully, this is now starting to change with state mandates to end parking minimums. Much more needs to be done. We cannot continue on our current path of car dependency if we are to avoid the worst path for climate change. • [CHAT] If you don't want people to use cars, you have to make transportation easy to get to, easy to use, and affordable. Boulder doesn't have a great system (and Denver is only a little better). I have Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 158 Packet Page 780 of 1100 wanted a decent trans system to get to Denver for decades, but RTD gave all our money to other projects (and I know that from being on a panel). I do walk to my shopping area in Gunbarrel, when I have a quick errand, but, like most people, I stop there on my way out or back from somewhere else.  • Can you change “bike parking” to “secure bike parking”? • Do you have a structure for van pool incentives and paid parking/parking subsidies? • Boulder’s largest emissions are from commuters- TDM is a great way to offset this without many consequences. • This is all market based- if you eliminate parking from a development, you lower your market price- lose out of square footage of your development. Must, as a developer, accommodate some parking and bike security. • This could be a set of figures that the developers get to decide about- not assuming that developers would provide zero parking spots. • Do you coordinate with the climate initiatives division? Removing surface parking if fine with me if you create some green spaces. • What was the last time we updated the TDM plan? • The markets just recently got flooded with a bunch of EV’s- I am a little concerned that you aren’t planning to change these requirements. • The best thing that happens is a neighborhood is a Co-Op that can make these changes and get ECO passes. • We are missing a bike and bus program like London. • [CHAT] We can’t expect Everyone/Coloradans to give up their cars, they moved here so they can drive up to the mountains and have access to the outdoors. • [CHAT] Aren’t saying we should give up cars, just suggesting we build less parking and look at ways to reduce demand. • Could we get a copy of the annual NPP report? Could we notify neighborhoods of this? • There is a cost associated with these strategies and passes. Homeowners have a sense of right to the street instead of thinking about supply and demand. Could we create a bidding system? • Buying a house in an historic district makes on-street parking imperative since the houses aren’t adapted for garages. This could cause discrimination to workers (landscaping, construction, etc.) and elderly people who have visitors and caretakers coming to the house. We can’t just cut off historic rights. • [CHAT] the focus should be on reducing emissions for commuters through incentivizing EV’s and increasing charging stations. • Don’t remove our historic rights in neighborhoods (on-street parking) • That is an entitlement Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 159 Packet Page 781 of 1100 Wrap-Up Discussion • [CHAT]This is exciting work, happy about removing minimums for new developments. With getting rid of minimums, are there ways to encourage SUMP principles in developments that aren’t required to implement TDM? Is there plans to require TDM plans retroactively? • The city parking minimums are not retroactive right? Concern about hill with occupancy and developers removing existing parking for more units. Big parking issues on the hill and now with ADUs this could have an impact- putting more cars on the hill. • 15-minute neighborhoods- are you going to control what goes into this? • if someone has a parking lot, under the new rules, could they eliminate the lot and put a new building? • let’s get real about why parking minimums exist, and developers will build as much as they can if they don’t have to build parking (or can take parking away). • That isn’t addressing changes to transportation and the other strategies to offset these changes and have environmental impacts • [CHAT] my main concern is that we should focus on reducing emissions, and consider the cards largely commuting from out of town the best thing boulder could do is incentive more EVs. I drive an EV and live in an apartment with no charging, and using the public charging system is deplorable. There are the same number of level 2 and I believe it's 10 fast charger from when I moved here three years ago. Also, you have to be at a charger much longer, 8-12 hours for level 2.  Our current public charging system is akin to only having two gas pumps for all the cars of boulder.  Due to the difficulty I've had here, Boulder you have made me decide to sell my EV and go back to a regular car. you have failed miserably. if you all really care about env/emissions, get more EV fast chargers • [CHAT] It sounds like this isn't just for new lots, but reducing existing lots, that are already overfull.  • Confused about eliminating parking minimums. Trying to understand how this intersects with occupancy on the Hill. Investors are buying up properties and drive out families. Big parking issues on the Hill. More and more cars on the Hill. 15 minute neighborhoods – can the Fox Theatre be allowed in a Residential neighborhood with no parking!? • [CHAT] if you use Fox theater as an example- or other businesses that were grandfathered in- was built before parking requirements. Imagine what our downtown would be like if this wasn’t the case for this and other downtown buildings, grateful this is changing . • Impressed with team and how NPP will be addressed. Exciting. • Grateful that this is changing. • USPS workers – They’re the first people in the neighborhood – Wonderful amenity, but once you start charging for parking, it raises questions about where workers will park. • Community vitality and parking on the street, CV never talks about the space as if it were a valued community asset. Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 160 Packet Page 782 of 1100 • In our NPPs, we need to make a distinction between a student, (short term) someone who parks for long periods (long term) – It should be valued more. Cites the High Cost of Free Parking. Paved Paradise. • TDM – We’ve been talking about EcoPass as a venerable program for 25 years, not sure it deserves that praise. Would like to see the phone data on how it shapes our TDM plans. They can figure out how people are moving (what modes). • Landscaping services are not a luxury and parking is needed by elderly care people. Mapleton Hill specifically – Don’t discriminate against seniors. We will protest if you remove placards. • [CHAT] Lots to wrap our heads around.  Thank you for this conversation. It is my hope all these changes will address the impacts to my Uni-Hill Neighborhood.    Attachment J - Summary of Community Meeting Comments Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 161 Packet Page 783 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Mueller, Brad Sent:Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:45 PM To:Guiler, Karl; Houde, Lisa Subject:FW: Parking Reform in Boulder & New Resources from SWEEP For the AMP public comment file From: Matt Frommer <mfrommer@swenergy.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 5:09 PM Cc: Caroline Leland <cleland@swenergy.org> Subject: Parking Reform in Boulder & New Resources from SWEEP External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Boulder local elected officials and staff, We wanted to thank you for taking steps to eliminate parking mandates citywide. As you know, these reforms have potential to reduce housing costs, minimize the oversupply of parking, cut pollution, and lower administrative burdens on city staff. You are in good company, as several other Colorado localities have also taken steps in that direction, including Longmont (June 2024) and Denver. Nationwide, you are joining over 50 others – from Richmond, Virginia to Bend, Oregon to Durham, North Carolina – that have eliminated parking mandates citywide. We recently published a suite of resources on parking reform to support your public-facing communications: Parking Reform Primer Parking Reform 2-pager Parking Reform FAQ Parking Reform Presentation SWEEP is here to support you in making these beneficial changes in your community. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Frommer (he/him) | Transportation & Land Use Policy Managermfrommer@swenergy.org | 908-432-1556 Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 162 Packet Page 784 of 1100 2 Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP)swenergy.org Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 163 Packet Page 785 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Ferro, Charles Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2025 5:06 PM To:Guiler, Karl; Houde, Lisa Subject:FW: No more parking minimums! From: Mark Bloomfield <mark@averde.ai> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 5:03 PM To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: No more parking minimums! External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Please eliminate parking minimums across the board. There are many good reasons - increase density, reduce traffic, reduce carbon footprint, increase affordable/missing middle housing. Thanks for all your hard work! -- Mark Bloomfield mark@averde.ai 720.589.2895 Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 164 Packet Page 786 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Alexey Davies <membership@communitycycles.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:48 AM To:Houde, Lisa Cc:Hagelin, Chris; sue; alexey@communitycycles.org; drmikemills@gmail.com; Charles Brock; Watson, Valerie Subject:Re: Scope of AMPs & request Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Lisa We look forward to working with you during the spring engagement! Here is some of our preliminary input. 1- Input on Land Use code 9-9-6 - TABLE 9-8: OFF-STREET BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Boulder’s requirements for new development compared to the C-parking research matrix table aren’t bad, However, to meet Boulder to meet 80% mode share goal for residents we need to do better.  Dwelling wo garage, 2 per unit currently. CC: 2 per unit, plus 1 space per each bedroom over 2.  ADU, 0 currently. CC: 1 per basic unit, 2 if larger size ADU is allowed  Group living varies, per bed currently. CC: 1 per bedroom.  Retail, 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 currently. CC: Shift to 1 per 250 square feet, minimum of 4, with 25/75 LT/ST split.  Restaurants, 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 currently. CC: As with autos; 1 space per 3 seats, minimum of four. Assume that 25% of customers arrive by bike.  Other, CC: Default to retail standard of 1 per 250 sq. ft., minimum of 4. 2- Input on Bike parking in the DCS (section 2-44,45,46):  Size for the parking spot needs to be somewhat larger for e-bikes. Some spots (20%) should be provided for cargo bikes that can exceed 8 feet and up to 3 feet in width.  We've seen a bunch of development being proposed with vertical hanging bike racks (for example, 2555 30th St., LUR2023-00046) Using vertical parking is very difficult for most e-bike owners, as well as for standard bikes handled by less physically capable people, or with bikes with racks, panniers, and baskets. Is the Director really approving all of these installations (and is this Mark Garcia)? If space is an issue, we would like to work with the Director on better options, ideally following guidelines from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Planners. Vertical hanging bike racks may be an option for some especially constrained cases, but the total long-term parking should not be more than 25% hanging. High quality, mechanically assisted, stacked racks may also be a better option than vertical racks where space is limited, but come with maintenance requirements.  Specifications should be developed for bike lockers (e.g., size, security method, spacing).  Long-term bike storage should be accessible without using stairs or elevators (with possible exceptions for extremely unusual cases by the Director). Access to the outdoors from a long-term storage room should be through a single door. If a grade change is required, an ADA-compliant ramp should be provided. The entrance should be well marked.  Long-term bicycle storage should be linked to building entrances or internal access, so that bike users can park their bikes and immediately enter the main building or have access to the building interior directly from the storage room.  There should be one 15A, GFI electrical outlet provided for every three long term bike parking spaces to permit charging of e-bikes. This would effectively permit charging on ⅔ of the spaces. Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 165 Packet Page 787 of 1100 2 Short term bike parking should be lighted at night and located near front or common building entrances to enhance security. 3- Re: What do you mean by applying parking code to existing buildings? New zoning regulations typically apply only when a building is expanded or the site is significantly modified. Is this sufficient, or are you thinking every building needs to update their bike parking outside of any changes or permits? I’d love to hear a bit more about this. We are thinking of the latter, namely requiring updates to bike parking regardless of significant changes/permits underway. The rationale for this is clear; given the rise of more expensive e-bikes and increased bike theft rate in recent years, a primary goal for this suggestion is to reduce bike theft, which we feel deters bicycle use and thus impacts VMT. Additionally, bikes parked outside are exposed to the elements and degrade quickly in the weather. Carrying an e-bike or standard bike up stairs in apa rtment complexes is not a viable option for most tenants (and in fact may be prohibited in lease agreements). This is not without precedent; Boulder implemented SmartRegs for existing residential rental properties, so we envision something similar. This would need to be phased in and of course would need to be very carefully evaluated with respect to the impact of costs on tenants. Ideally the city could get a grant and use the funds to purchase racks and provide installation guidance. Improved, sheltered, secure bike parking could in fact become part of the SmartRegs calculations, providing a carrot for the owners of complexes. There is an equity component to this as well. Lower income tenants are more likely to rely on bicycles for transportation, yet live in older complexes where secure bike parking is not provided. We feel that this rationale would help make such changes palatable for City Council members. Tara Winer, in particular, is very interested in pursuing efforts to reduce bike theft and make cycling more tenable for residents. Beyond residential units, there are many older commercial plazas and buildings that also need an improvement in bike parking for safety and convenience. We suggest that improved bike parking be triggered whenever a permit of any type is pulled in a location where bike parking does not meet current standards. Again, considering the cost impacts on small and/or marginal businesses, we would need to have a program in place to provide bike racks and installation assistance, and would need to be willing to give up a parking space or two for the installation of bike racks. Community Cycles Advocacy Committee Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 166 Packet Page 788 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Ferro, Charles Sent:Monday, August 19, 2024 3:20 PM To:Houde, Lisa; Guiler, Karl Subject:FW: Community Cycles input on Parking Minimums fyi From: Alexey Davies <membership@communitycycles.org> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 3:17 PM To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: Alexey Davies <alexey@communitycycles.org>; sue <sue@communitycycles.org> Subject: Community Cycles input on Parking Minimums External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear Planning Board Community Cycles supports eliminating Parking Minimums in Boulder. Below is our statement we presented to Council prior to the Council priority setting retreat: Off-Street Parking Minimum off-street parking requirements convert land that could be used for additional housing or vegetation to asphalt, a medium inconsistent with any use other than cars. This substantially increases the cost of housing (an additional $225 per month in rent, on average) and pushes things apart, meaning greater distances to shopping, restaurants and services working against the BVCP policy of 15-Minute neighborhoods. Parking requirements are also deeply unfair to the 30% or so of people who don’t drive, a population that is disproportionately lower-income, elderly, disabled, or people of color. Below is how this initiative supports the City of Boulder's Strategic Plan: Livable - Strategy #6: Define and establish Boulder’s 15-minute neighborhood model. Economic Vitality - Strategy #15: Streamline processes for housing, parking, infrastructure, land use, and events that tie directly to priority community outcomes. Thank you for your work Community Cycles Advocacy Committee -- ride on! alexey davies alexey@communitycycles.org Advocacy & Membership Director Community Cycles www.communitycycles.org 303-641-3593 2601 Spruce St, Unit B (in the back) Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 167 Packet Page 789 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Alexey Davies <membership@communitycycles.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:14 PM To:TAB Cc:Houde, Lisa; Hagelin, Chris; sue; Trish Subject:AMPS and TDM update External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear TAB Members Community Cycles is excited to see potential updates to Boulder's bike parking code. Secure and sufficient bike parking is fundamental to meeting our TMP goals and reducing Boulder's serious bike theft problem. We have met with Transportation and P&DS with regards to bike parking requirements both for new builds and existing buildings. In addition to improvements to facilitate electric and cargo bikes as well as capacity changes, we need to address our thousands of existing buildings. Boulder has demonstrated that code changes can be applied retroactively, such as for SmartRegs for new or renewed rental licenses as well as for houses in the Wildfire Urban interface where we understand that mitigation improvements must be made for remodels. We suggest pursuing code changes triggered by a permit, license, or other mechanism. To incentivise these upgrades, we suggest potentially a waiver of permit fees and easier ways to meet the code requirements such as sending a photo or self-certification. We look forward to working with staff further on bike parking requirements and encourage your support. Thank you For your reference, attached are our recommendations to city staff for code changes (if you like details): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sTrP8bfPXRYp4uVF2lrgIGrfjO5vUIvrwB- zEF4u76k/edit?usp=drive_link Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 168 Packet Page 790 of 1100 2 -- ride on! alexey davies Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 169 Packet Page 791 of 1100 3 alexey@communitycycles.org Advocacy & Membership Director Community Cycles www.communitycycles.org 303-641-3593 2601 Spruce St, Unit B (in the back) Join the Movement, Become a Member! Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 170 Packet Page 792 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Alexey Davies <membership@communitycycles.org> Sent:Friday, May 9, 2025 3:01 PM To:TAB Cc:Houde, Lisa; sue; Alexey Davies; Watson, Valerie; Hagelin, Chris; Mueller, Brad; Trish Subject:Community Cycles input on Bike Parking Code External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear members of TAB: Community Cycles is looking forward to code changes that will improve bike parking security for cyclists. We much appreciate the City’s intent to create stronger rules. Today we see new building proposals with grossly inadequate bicycle parking. It may be that some developers are simply unaware of the need or the methods to address the need. Good bike parking --parking that is safe, convenient, and easy to use for people of all ages and abilities-- can strongly promote the amount of bicycling, which in turn can reduce the emissions from automobile travel. The recent City of Boulder news release shows Boulder's commitment to secure bike infrastructure and Boulder's building code is foundational in achieving secure bike parking. We offer these comments and suggestions for improving the proposed changes. 1- Vertical and stacked/tiered racks The Community Cycles Advocacy Committee recently discussed the proposed design rule and we do not support vertical and stacked/tiered bicycle storage in residential buildings. This aligns with the Cambridge Bike Parking Guide where bike racks must keep both wheels on the ground. We want to limit these types of racks to no more than five percent of the bike parking spaces. If we truly want to encourage bicycling as a primary transportation mode in Boulder, we need good bike racks and safe bike storage in far more places. Multi-family residential buildings need to have ample, easy, accessible, and secure bicycle parking. Vertical and stacked bike racks fail on the “easy” and “accessible” criteria. Vertical and stacked racks can be difficult or impossible for people with mobility or strength challenges. These racks often are not suitable for e-bikes or cargo bikes due to the length and/or weight of e-bikes. Some of these racks may not accommodate the wide tires of many bikes. There are lift-assist devices that can help with some of these issues. But such mechanisms require maintenance. We are concerned that some landlords will not sufficiently maintain the racks or will not fix broken systems. Just as parking lots require regular maintenance and striping, lift-assist bike parking also requires servicing. According to city staff, the space required for bike parking impacts the FAR (floor-area-ratio), implying bike parking means less housing. We suggest two mechanisms to address impacts to FAR:    More bicycle parking can come from car parking spaces, especially once parking minimums  are eliminated.   Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 171 Packet Page 793 of 1100 2   Simply exempt bike parking areas from FAR.  2- Rack clearances The rack clearances (below) in DCS Section 2.11(H)(1)(a) are not sufficient for stacked/tiered racks. Tiered racks typically have a ramp that extends out from the rack and would not allow a bike to be removed with only a 6’ clearance. 3- Cargo bike parking Spaces reserved for cargo bikes need to be clearly marked with signage so non-cargo or large e- bikes do not park in these spaces. 4-Bike locker dimensions The DCS2-44(C)iii - The requirement for bike locker width is too narrow. Many bike handlebars are in excess of 24”, including many city bikes & mountain bikes. 5-Elevators The use of elevators to bring bikes to parking areas can be quite problematic. A regular bike may not fit in smaller elevators. Bikes reduce elevator capacity for regular passengers. Cargo and e-bikes are even more constrained. So if a proposed development will rely on elevators to access bicycle parking, there needs to be a requirement for a minimum dimension, sufficient in size to fit a cargo bike parallel to an elevator wall; i.e., cyclists won’t have to place the bike diagonally within the elevator. The prior draft did not allow for the use of elevators: "The bicycle parking area shall be located on site or in an area within three hundred feet of the building it serves and shall not require the use of stairs or an elevators to access the area, but may use a ramp if needed for grade changes." The current draft allows elevators by omitting “or elevator”: . Future Work needs to be staffed 1. 2. 3. Utilization study 4. We are glad P&DS is considering a utilization study to determine the quantity of bike racks needed at developments. We previously noted that one bike parking space per unit can be quite insufficient for group living where some units are five bedrooms. Let's work together on how to get this funded so it can be on an upcoming staff work plan. 2. 3. Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 172 Packet Page 794 of 1100 3 4. Retroactive application of code 5. There needs to be a phased-in retroactive application of the bike parking code. Most commercial and multi-unit residential property bike parking spaces in Boulder do not even meet the old code, assuming the site even has racks. Given the rise of more expensive e-bikes and increased bike theft rate in recent years, a primary goal for this suggestion is to reduce bike theft, which we feel deters bicycle use and thus impacts VMT. Additionally, bikes parked outside are exposed to the elements and degrade quickly in the weather. Carrying an e-bike or standard bike up stairs in apartment complexes is not a viable option for most tenants (and in fact may be prohibited in lease agreements). There is an equity component to this as well. Lower income tenants are more likely to rely on bicycles for transportation, yet live in older complexes where secure bike parking is not provided. Beyond residential units, there are many older commercial plazas and buildings that also need an improvement in bike parking for safety and convenience. Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 173 Packet Page 795 of 1100 4 At the October TAB meeting board member Mike Mills asked about retroactively applying code and the response was that it was in scope. Now we understand that the city attorney says it is problematic and can’t be done. We disagree. Retroactive code changes are not without precedent. Boulder implemented SmartRegs for existing residential rental properties. Now existing attached ADUs must now also meet SmartRegs by the end of the year. Beyond SmartRegs, both outdoor lighting requirements and wood shingle roofs were required to be replaced over a 25 year period. So there is precedent for policies that force retroactive changes for reasons varying from climate mitigation to fire safety to wildlife protection. Community Cycles recognizes that retroactive application of bike parking rules presents some challenges. But this city needs much better, much more bicycle parking. The existing bike parking deficiencies will greatly outweigh the improved parking of new de velopments for a very long time. The City needs to work on this problem in phases (potentially short term parking could be addressed first) and of course potential solutions need to be carefully evaluated with respect to the impact of costs on tenants. Change could happen with a combination of carrot and stick. On the carrot side, there could be incentives like waived fees. There also could be a program to help finance new bike racks via grants or state TDM money for small and/or marginal businesses and low- and middle-income housing. The City could also provide diagrams and explanations for converting car parking spaces into covered and secure bike parking areas, similar to the “bus then bike” shelters provided at some RTD locations. On the stick side, the new rules could come into effect whenever a permit of any type is pulled in a location where bike parking does not meet current standards. Perhaps the rules could have some flexibility to address the differing challenges in existing buildings. This is a complex topic that needs further discussion and analysis. Nonetheless, the challenge of parking in and around existing buildings is an urgent need. We hope to work with the City to address this problem in a timely manner. Thank You Community Cycles Advocacy Committee -- ride on! alexey davies alexey@communitycycles.org Advocacy & Membership Director Community Cycles www.communitycycles.org 303-641-3593 2601 Spruce St, Unit B (in the back) Join the Movement, Become a Member! Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 174 Packet Page 796 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Macon Cowles <macon.cowles@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2025 12:48 PM To:Bromberg, Samantha; Houde, Lisa; Jones, Cris; Hagelin, Chris Subject:Writeup on the AMPS project at Council tonight External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Samantha, Lisa, Chris and Cris, I thought you might be interested in the article in Boulder Housing Network about the AMPS project you will be discussing tonight. Also, I invite staff working on AMPS to look into the important and new principles about parking backed by research in Prof. Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking and Henry Grabar’s very recent book, Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World. Don Shoup wrote his book The High Cost of Free Parking in 2005. I read it when I was on Planning Board, and I gave my copy of it to a Planning Board member, no longer serving, four years ago. His idea is that on street parking management should support the vitality of the businesses adjacent to the parking. And that this is accomplished by dynamic pricing. You want to management curbside parking so that there are 1/4 or so of the spaces in a block are generally free so that people can find parking at low cost quickly to make a purchase from adjacent businesses. Where people intend to store their cars for longer periods of time, the price per minute rises substantially to discourage longer parking in spots that can provide convenient access to adjacent stores. Shoup Key Themes and Concepts: 1. Parking Minimums: • Shoup criticizes mandatory parking minimums in zoning regulations, which require developers to provide a specific number of parking spaces for buildings. He argues these requirements inflate construction costs, increase urban sprawl, and prioritize cars over other forms of transportation. 2. Hidden Costs of Free Parking: • While parking may seem “free” to drivers, the costs are passed on indirectly through higher housing prices, increased goods and service costs, and reduced urban land availability for other uses. 3. Environmental Impacts: • Free parking encourages car dependency, which leads to increased vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution. It also contributes to heat islands and water runoff issues. 4. Economic Distortions: • Free parking acts as a subsidy for driving, distorting transportation choices by making it artificially cheaper than alternatives like public transit, biking, or walking. 5. Shoup’s Solutions: • Eliminate Parking Minimums: Replace rigid parking requirements with more flexible policies that let the market determine the amount of parking needed. • Dynamic Pricing for Parking: Use variable parking fees to manage demand, ensuring that spaces are always available without overbuilding. • Parking Revenue for Public Benefits: Invest parking revenue in local infrastructure, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and public transit, to create more sustainable and equitable urban environments.Henry Grabar puts the cost of on street parking at several thousands of dollars a year per space. He factors in to that lost tax revenue from dedicating some of the most valuable land in the city to parking and car storage. There are some good reviews of Grabar’s book which assert that the book is so entertaining, it makes great summer reading! NYT review, America, Land of Free Parking. I read this book and it is really fun.Below are some salient points from Grabar:Key Contributions of Paved Paradise: 1. Parking Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 175 Packet Page 797 of 1100 2 as a Source of Inequity: • Grabar highlights how parking policies exacerbate social and economic inequality. For example: • Excessive parking requirements raise housing costs, making urban areas less affordable. • Communities often prioritize car owners at the expense of non-drivers, creating inequitable access to urban resources. 2. Environmental Impacts: • Grabar expands on the environmental costs of parking, including urban heat islands, increased stormwater runoff, and the destruction of green spaces. • He ties these impacts to broader concerns about climate change and sustainability. 3. Parking Lot Surplus and Waste: • Grabar reveals how much space is wasted on parking lots, particularly in suburban and exurban areas. He discusses how parking minimums have led to oversized lots that are often underutilized. For example, he notes that many large retail chains, such as Walmart, maintain massive parking lots that are rarely full, a result of outdated zoning laws. 4. Parking’s Role in Housing Crises: • One of Grabar’s major contributions is linking parking policies directly to the housing crisis. He demonstrates how parking minimums have inflated the cost of housing by requiring developers to allocate expensive space to parking rather than living units. • He argues that eliminating parking mandates is a critical step toward addressing housing shortages, particularly in high-demand cities. 8. Parking as a Political Issue: • Grabar emphasizes how parking has become a flashpoint in local politics, with debates over parking policy reflecting broader conflicts about urban development, gentrification, and climate action. Thank you. Macon Cowles Boulder City Council Member Emeritus (2007-2015) macon.cowles@gmail.com (303) 447-3062 Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 176 Packet Page 798 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Ferro, Charles Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2024 11:11 AM To:Guiler, Karl; Houde, Lisa Subject:FW: Parking Minimums - Better Boulder Position Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Elisabeth Patterson <elisabeth.patterson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:28 PM To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: Better Boulder Board of Directors <better-boulder-board@googlegroups.com> Subject: Parking Minimums - Better Boulder Position External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Members of Planning Board, In advance of your August 20 meeting, Better Boulder would like to resubmit our position on parking minimums. Parking Minimums and Transportation Better Boulder supports eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide, including in residential zones, commercial zones, mixed use areas, affordable housing developments and for ADUs, in both new and existing developments. We expect the City to continue to provide parking for people with disabilities as required by ADA. We encourage the City to identify incentives other than parking reductions to encourage more affordable units, purchase of EcoPasses, and other community benefits. The City should also continue to institute incentives for alternatives to parking such as having flex cars available for resident use, safe, secure, and sheltered bike parking, Eco-passes, and Boulder BCycle bike stations in close proximity. Elisabeth Patterson Executive Director Better Boulder 303 931 8331 Attachment K - Public Comments Received Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 177 Packet Page 799 of 1100 TAB Discussion – May 12, 2025 Clarifying Questions -Enforcement of on-street parking -Bike parking on Google maps -What is the NPP -How were the thresholds determined for TDM Discussion -Consider not counting bike parking as FAR -Some interest in exploring retroactivity of ordinance -Might not need to specify bike rack types, just how they function -Lighting is very important for feeling safe when storing bikes -Potentially require unbundled fees for bike parking -Higher requirement for cargo bike parking, could it be based on use type -Reorganization of security standards in ordinance -Could there be engineering judgment to require a higher bike parking requirement than the code establishes -Potential to review bike parking requirements every few years -5% e-bike charging requirement may be too low as their use increases, but maybe that should be addressed after a bike parking utilization study is completed -Are there e-bike requirements in the Energy Conservation Code? -What is driving the June deadline? Maybe there should be more time for the bike parking part of the ordinance. Could Council split it off separately? -Might need minimum dimensions for elevators if used to access bike parking -How does TAB feedback get shared with Council? TAB Motion Transportation Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinances: 1.Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4- 23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update regulations for on-street parking management and 2.Ordinance 8696, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements, and amending Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to update standards for bicycle parking. Transportation Advisory Board recommends that staff consider incorporation of comments from Community Cycles and Transportation Advisory Board Member Michael Le Desma, and supports a future work plan item to further study bicycle parking. Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 178 Packet Page 800 of 1100 1 Houde, Lisa From:Alexey Davies <membership@communitycycles.org> Sent:Friday, May 9, 2025 3:01 PM To:TAB Cc:Houde, Lisa; sue; Alexey Davies; Watson, Valerie; Hagelin, Chris; Mueller, Brad; Trish Subject:Community Cycles input on Bike Parking Code External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear members of TAB: Community Cycles is looking forward to code changes that will improve bike parking security for cyclists. We much appreciate the City’s intent to create stronger rules. Today we see new building proposals with grossly inadequate bicycle parking. It may be that some developers are simply unaware of the need or the methods to address the need. Good bike parking --parking that is safe, convenient, and easy to use for people of all ages and abilities-- can strongly promote the amount of bicycling, which in turn can reduce the emissions from automobile travel. The recent City of Boulder news release shows Boulder's commitment to secure bike infrastructure and Boulder's building code is foundational in achieving secure bike parking. We offer these comments and suggestions for improving the proposed changes. 1- Vertical and stacked/tiered racks The Community Cycles Advocacy Committee recently discussed the proposed design rule and we do not support vertical and stacked/tiered bicycle storage in residential buildings. This aligns with the Cambridge Bike Parking Guide where bike racks must keep both wheels on the ground. We want to limit these types of racks to no more than five percent of the bike parking spaces. If we truly want to encourage bicycling as a primary transportation mode in Boulder, we need good bike racks and safe bike storage in far more places. Multi-family residential buildings need to have ample, easy, accessible, and secure bicycle parking. Vertical and stacked bike racks fail on the “easy” and “accessible” criteria. Vertical and stacked racks can be difficult or impossible for people with mobility or strength challenges. These racks often are not suitable for e-bikes or cargo bikes due to the length and/or weight of e-bikes. Some of these racks may not accommodate the wide tires of many bikes. There are lift-assist devices that can help with some of these issues. But such mechanisms require maintenance. We are concerned that some landlords will not sufficiently maintain the racks or will not fix broken systems. Just as parking lots require regular maintenance and striping, lift-assist bike parking also requires servicing. According to city staff, the space required for bike parking impacts the FAR (floor-area-ratio), implying bike parking means less housing. We suggest two mechanisms to address impacts to FAR:    More bicycle parking can come from car parking spaces, especially once parking minimums  are eliminated.   Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 179 Packet Page 801 of 1100 2   Simply exempt bike parking areas from FAR.  2- Rack clearances The rack clearances (below) in DCS Section 2.11(H)(1)(a) are not sufficient for stacked/tiered racks. Tiered racks typically have a ramp that extends out from the rack and would not allow a bike to be removed with only a 6’ clearance. 3- Cargo bike parking Spaces reserved for cargo bikes need to be clearly marked with signage so non-cargo or large e- bikes do not park in these spaces. 4-Bike locker dimensions The DCS2-44(C)iii - The requirement for bike locker width is too narrow. Many bike handlebars are in excess of 24”, including many city bikes & mountain bikes. 5-Elevators The use of elevators to bring bikes to parking areas can be quite problematic. A regular bike may not fit in smaller elevators. Bikes reduce elevator capacity for regular passengers. Cargo and e-bikes are even more constrained. So if a proposed development will rely on elevators to access bicycle parking, there needs to be a requirement for a minimum dimension, sufficient in size to fit a cargo bike parallel to an elevator wall; i.e., cyclists won’t have to place the bike diagonally within the elevator. The prior draft did not allow for the use of elevators: "The bicycle parking area shall be located on site or in an area within three hundred feet of the building it serves and shall not require the use of stairs or an elevators to access the area, but may use a ramp if needed for grade changes." The current draft allows elevators by omitting “or elevator”: . Future Work needs to be staffed 1. 2. 3. Utilization study 4. We are glad P&DS is considering a utilization study to determine the quantity of bike racks needed at developments. We previously noted that one bike parking space per unit can be quite insufficient for group living where some units are five bedrooms. Let's work together on how to get this funded so it can be on an upcoming staff work plan. 2. 3. Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 180 Packet Page 802 of 1100 3 4. Retroactive application of code 5. There needs to be a phased-in retroactive application of the bike parking code. Most commercial and multi-unit residential property bike parking spaces in Boulder do not even meet the old code, assuming the site even has racks. Given the rise of more expensive e-bikes and increased bike theft rate in recent years, a primary goal for this suggestion is to reduce bike theft, which we feel deters bicycle use and thus impacts VMT. Additionally, bikes parked outside are exposed to the elements and degrade quickly in the weather. Carrying an e-bike or standard bike up stairs in apartment complexes is not a viable option for most tenants (and in fact may be prohibited in lease agreements). There is an equity component to this as well. Lower income tenants are more likely to rely on bicycles for transportation, yet live in older complexes where secure bike parking is not provided. Beyond residential units, there are many older commercial plazas and buildings that also need an improvement in bike parking for safety and convenience. Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 181 Packet Page 803 of 1100 4 At the October TAB meeting board member Mike Mills asked about retroactively applying code and the response was that it was in scope. Now we understand that the city attorney says it is problematic and can’t be done. We disagree. Retroactive code changes are not without precedent. Boulder implemented SmartRegs for existing residential rental properties. Now existing attached ADUs must now also meet SmartRegs by the end of the year. Beyond SmartRegs, both outdoor lighting requirements and wood shingle roofs were required to be replaced over a 25 year period. So there is precedent for policies that force retroactive changes for reasons varying from climate mitigation to fire safety to wildlife protection. Community Cycles recognizes that retroactive application of bike parking rules presents some challenges. But this city needs much better, much more bicycle parking. The existing bike parking deficiencies will greatly outweigh the improved parking of new de velopments for a very long time. The City needs to work on this problem in phases (potentially short term parking could be addressed first) and of course potential solutions need to be carefully evaluated with respect to the impact of costs on tenants. Change could happen with a combination of carrot and stick. On the carrot side, there could be incentives like waived fees. There also could be a program to help finance new bike racks via grants or state TDM money for small and/or marginal businesses and low- and middle-income housing. The City could also provide diagrams and explanations for converting car parking spaces into covered and secure bike parking areas, similar to the “bus then bike” shelters provided at some RTD locations. On the stick side, the new rules could come into effect whenever a permit of any type is pulled in a location where bike parking does not meet current standards. Perhaps the rules could have some flexibility to address the differing challenges in existing buildings. This is a complex topic that needs further discussion and analysis. Nonetheless, the challenge of parking in and around existing buildings is an urgent need. We hope to work with the City to address this problem in a timely manner. Thank You Community Cycles Advocacy Committee -- ride on! alexey davies alexey@communitycycles.org Advocacy & Membership Director Community Cycles www.communitycycles.org 303-641-3593 2601 Spruce St, Unit B (in the back) Join the Movement, Become a Member! Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 182 Packet Page 804 of 1100 Proposed Changes & Rationale to Long-term Bicycle Parking Provisions. The ordinance should: ● Define what long-term bicycle parking is in terms of minimum hours of expected stay. Three hours may be an appropriate threshold. ● Organize the criteria for acceptability in terms of (1) Quantity and compositions, (2) Security, (3) Safety and comfort, and (4) Accessibility. This should make the ordinance easier to follow and to help ensure that like issues are addressed together. Quantity & Composition ● In terms of the quantity of bike parking, the ordinance should have a failsafe provision to ensure that more bike parking is provided than specified in Table 9 when experience or judgment indicates that more will be needed. That is, it should not be acceptable to provide only the minimum bike parking specified in Table 9 when there is reason to believe that more will actually be needed. For example, if a building provides bike parking that is already overwhelmed despite meeting the minima specified in Table 9, redevelopment of that building or its parking area to provide the same insufficient parking should not be permissible. ● The ordinance should require that at least some (maybe 15%) of the bike parking is large enough to accommodate cargo bikes, which are often longer (and wider) than regular bikes. Cargo bikes can be as long as 102 inches. ● The ordinance should require that there be some parking spaces that can accommodate e-trikes. Particularly at facilities expected to house the elderly (for whom the balance required by a two-wheeled bike may be a challenge), it may be a good idea to require at least 10% of the bike parking be of this variety. Perhaps as little as 2% could be acceptable elsewhere. ● The ordinance should expressly require that parking spots accommodate bikes of varying tire widths and wheelbase. Otherwise, child bikes, cargo bikes, and fat tire bikes might be unable to use the parking. ● Given the rapid growth of e-bike sales, it’s important for some significant portion of the parking to have code-compliant electrical outlets to support charging of e-bikes. ● The ordinance should get away from defining permissible rack style (vertical, horizontal, lift, ramp) and, instead, define acceptable racks by what they require of the user. For example, the regulation could require that racks be usable by persons with a lifting capacity of no more than 20 pounds (typical of the elderly) and stature of no less than 4 feet. This would ensure that racks remain usable by the widest range of likely users even as new space-saving designs emerge. ● The ordinance should expressly require that racks be designed and located to allow bikes to be locked by the frame to the rack and that baskets and racks need not be removed to use the rack. COMMENTS FROM TAB MEMBER MICHAEL LE DESMA - 5/10/25 Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 183 Packet Page 805 of 1100 Security ● The ordinance presently seems to structure bike security around storage typologies but it may be useful to, instead, structure this section as a matrix of surveillance and securement strategies because the strength of one diminishes the need for the other. Surveillance could, for example, begin at the low end with less-than-continuous supervision by facility staff of the storage location and end on the high end with continuous, recorded video surveillance. Securement could begin on the low end with an indoor rack and end on the high end with a robustly locked, walled-in space where access by specific individuals is monitored and recorded electronically by token or badge. Between these extremes there will be various combinations of surveillance and securement that should do the trick. Using a matrix would give developers a framework in which to make tradeoffs. Safety & Comfort ● The ordinance presently requires “cover”, but should probably more expressly require that bikes be protected from precipitation. In Boulder, high winds often blow precipitation sideways, so mere cover might not actually protect bikes from the elements. ● The ordinance should be specific about minimum space required to move bikes into and out of parking spots. That is, it should define these spaces in terms of inches of required clearance based on the size of the bikes that would need to access that space. ● The ordinance should specify minimum levels of lighting in the storage area. Often, developers will stick bike parking in some dark corner of a parking garage that many users (like women and children) will feel is unsafe to visit. A minimum lux of 600 should address that problem. ● The ordinance should require that the path to available bike parking is clearly marked. ● The ordinance presently requires that out-building parking be located no more than 300 feet from the main building. This is probably too far, particularly for those who may be transporting groceries or children from the bike parking to the building. I recommend that this distance be at least halved. I also recommend that the ordinance expressly require that the route to such an out-building be illuminated with at least the lux of typical streetlights (around 20 lux). ● It is probably a good idea to expressly require that bike storage be equipped with automatic fire suppression and alarms sufficient to control a battery fire. Accessibility ● The ordinance should probably expressly require that bike parking remain accessible in all weather. In some places, snow, ice, water, or plants will need to be removed in order for the parking to remain accessible throughout the year. ● If the ordinance will allow cargo bike parking on floors accessible only by elevator, the ordinance should specify that the elevator must be sized to accommodate cargo bikes Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 184 Packet Page 806 of 1100 and e-bikes, which can range from 80 to 102 inches. Hopefully, this would motivate the developer to provide cargo bike storage on the ground level. ● If parking will be accessible beyond stairs, the ordinance should specify that a ramp be provided and that the ramp have a grade of no more than 5%. This is important because many e-bikes are heavy enough that a steep ramp (say 8% grade) would be difficult for many users to use. It may also be useful to specify a minimum width of the ramp sufficient for cargo bikes and e-tikes to navigate any turns that the ramp may have. Other Issues ● The ordinance does not presently address whether or not a fee may be assessed for use of bike parking. This should be addressed. I propose the same approach that is commonly used at gyms to govern use of lockers: for a fee, users can reserve a locker, and for all others it’s first-come-first-served. I also strongly suggest that no fee be permitted unless the storage area meets the security, safety, and comfort criteria in the ordinance. This may motivate landlords of existing structures to upgrade substandard bike parking such that a fee can be assessed for reserved parking. Also permissible fees should be capped so that bike parking fees are no usurious, perhaps capping them as a percentage of amounts charged for car parking with the assumption that 8 to 10 bikes can fit into a single car space. ● The ordinance is presently not retroactive. I think it would be helpful to understand how some City ordinances have been made retroactive (such as to address the fire hazard of wood-shingled roofs) to ascertain whether and to what degree elements of this ordinance may also be made retroactive. It may be, for example, that there is a public safety justification for requiring the retroactive provisionment of code-compliant electrical service for charging e-bikes when users may otherwise create a fire risk by running narrow gauge, ungrounded extension cords to daisy-chained power strips. Similarly, some storage racks may endanger users by requiring more strength to use safely than many users can muster, creating a risk of injury from strain or from the bike falling should it be unsuccessfully mounted in/to the rack. ● The ordinance may usefully specify that racks that are not accessible to the bikes that may need to use them are functionally absent and, thus, do not meet minimum bike storage requirements, regardless of when the rack was installed. The aim of such a provision is to ensure that landlords cannot use the new standards as a shield against code enforcement for racks that were so substandard as to have always been functionally absent. Attachment L - TAB notes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 185 Packet Page 807 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES May 20, 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: Mark McIntyre, Chair Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair Kurt Nordback ml Robles Claudia Hason Thiem Mason Roberts PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jorge Boone STAFF PRESENT: Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Lisa Houde, Code Amendment Principal Planner Karl Guiler, Development Code Amendment Manager Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager Adam Olinger, City Planner Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager Chris Hagelin, Transportation Principal Project Manager Samantha Bromberg, Community Vitality Senior Project Manager Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations Manager 1.CALL TO ORDER M. McIntyre declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no public participation 3.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A.The February 4, 2025 Meeting Minutes are scheduled for approval. B.The February 18, 2025 Meeting Minutes are scheduled for approval. C.The March 18, 2025 Meeting Minutes are scheduled for approval. Attachment M - 05.20.25 Draft Meeting Minutes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 186 Packet Page 808 of 1100 L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by ml Robles to delay approval of all sets of minutes until staff is able to bring them back with edits. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS A. CALL-UP ITEM: Site Review Amendment and Use Review to allow the existing structure at 1836 19th Street to be used as a single-family detached dwelling unit in the RH-2 zoning district and to amend the existing PUD (P-83-64) to maintain the existing rear deck. These applications are subject to potential call-up on or before May 22, 2025. S. Moeller answered questions from the board. L. Kaplan and ml Robles called the item up. B. CALL-UP ITEM: Minor Subdivision review to subdivide one existing lot into two new lots on the 14,392 square foot property at 855 Union Ave. This approval is subject to call-up on or before May 21, 2025. This item was not called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING and recommendation to City Council regarding the following proposed ordinances: 1. Ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update standards for on-street parking management; and 2. Ordinance 8696, amending and Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify offstreet parking requirements, and amending Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to update standards for bicycle parking L. Houde, S. Bromberg and C. Hagelin presented the item to the board. L. Houde, S. Bromberg and C. Hagelin answered questions from the board. Public Participation: Lisa Spalding Alexey Davies Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to draft Ordinance 8700 or 8696? Key Issue #2 Does the Planning Board want to provide any additional guidance regarding the TDM ordinance currently under development that will complement draft Ordinance 8700 and 8696? Attachment M - 05.20.25 Draft Meeting Minutes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 187 Packet Page 809 of 1100 03:00:34 The board chose to break the item up into 3 parts for deliberation: Ordinance 8696, followed by Ordinance 8700, and lastly TDM. In reference to Ord 8696 the board made the following comments: C Hanson Thiem was largely supportive of the proposed ordinances as part of a long overdue shift away from “free parking” which has encouraged and subsidized car dependent development to the detriment of many other health, safety, and environmental goals of the city. She applauded the pilot program in Goss Grove and funds going to eco passes. That approach can affirm a transportation and mobility eco system. With regard to off-street parking, she was concerned about the loss of ADA spaces. 03:05:14 L. Kaplan said that on page 119 of the packet there is a section of the ordinance related to home occupations. She said some things were struck that have nothing to do with on-site parking. “No traffic is generated by such home occupation in volume that is inconsistent with the normal parking usage of the district” Staff should take a look at that. On page 148 in the ordinance talks about easy locking. Sometimes it is not adjacent bicycles it is about adjacent structures. On page 128, referring to site access and control and controlling vehicle access to the public right of way. It says, “The requirements of this section and subsections B through E below, apply to all land uses, including detached dwelling units, as follows, only if access to the property is provided for the purposes of off street parking, loading, space, or operational access or other provided vehicle circulation” She didn’t understand why that clause was included and suggested staff take another look. She agreed with community cycles about utilization study as a potential future work element. 03:11:17 Ml Robles said removing the parking requirements is a significant land use shift. She thinks there should be strategies to incentivize that land could be used to achieve walkable neighborhoods. Let’s put the big parking lots to use to meet our goals. She would like to see a motion to exempt single family residential uses from the long term bike storage requirements. K. Nordback does not feel that 9-9-5 c 8 related to curb cuts needed leading to parking spaces is not necessary. He agreed with L. Kaplan about bike parking requirements. He said that landscape thresholds are too high; perhaps they should be lowered. He would support eliminating parking mandates for numbers. He feels dimensional and geometric should be simplified and potentially eliminate some. M. Roberts said he agreed with his colleagues and will save comments for motions to be made. M. McIntyre also said he would save comments for motions. Attachment M - 05.20.25 Draft Meeting Minutes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 188 Packet Page 810 of 1100 The following motions were made in reference to Ordinance 8696: 03:23:05 C. Hanson Thiem made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback the Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8696, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to modify off- street parking requirements, and amend Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (D.C.S.), originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986, to update standards for bicycle parking. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by L. Kaplan to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to add language for schools serving any of grades K-12, long-term bicycle parking must include racks located within 100 feet of a main entrance. Planning Board voted 5-1 (M. McIntyre Dissent) (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by M. McIntyre to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to add language that bicycle charging spaces shall accommodate larger bicycles with minimum dimensions of 8 feet long by 3 feet wide. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to: for schools serving any grades K-8 schools, all bicycle parking intended to serve students must be horizontal. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to state that all long-term bike parking shall accommodate charging at all bike spaces with a standard electrical outlet within a 6’ distance of each bike parking space. Planning Board voted 5-1 (L. Kaplan dissent). (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to remove bicycle parking from Floor Area Ratio calculations and requirements. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. 04:12:35 M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend a change to ordinance 8696 to require changes to Table 9-4 be modified with the following requirements in the table: Multi-unit Dwelling units without a private garage(b) 1 per bed Group living - fraternities, sororities, and dormitories, boarding houses, transitional housing 1 per bed Group living - all others 1 per 1.5 beds Attachment M - 05.20.25 Draft Meeting Minutes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 189 Packet Page 811 of 1100 Public and private elementary, middle, and high schools The greater of 10 per classroom or 1 per 2 students based on mean attendance. Public and private colleges and universities The greater of 10 per classroom or 1 per 2 students based on mean attendance. Office uses 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 Planning Board voted 1-5 (all dissenting except M. McIntyre) (J. Boone absent) Motion Failed. K. Nordback made a motion, seconded by M. McIntyre to request City Council and staff to consider simplifying or eliminating the parking dimensional standards, including the required 24’ backup distance, from the code, in order to avoid unduly requiring design around large vehicles. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Ml Robles made a motion, seconded by M. McIntyre to recommend a change to Ordinance 8696 to exempt single-unit detached residences without a private garage from the long-term bike storage requirements. Planning Board voted 5-1. (K. Nordback dissent) (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. 04:38:08 L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend a next step to monitor over the next three years whether Ordinance 8696 results in more or less parking in new development compared to current parking minimums and average parking reductions. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend limiting vertical and stacked/tiered racks to 25% of bike parking spaces. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts to Recommend that spaces reserved for cargo bikes need to be clearly marked with signage, so non-cargo do not park in these spaces. Planning Board voted 4-2. (C. Hanson Thiem, M. McIntyre dissent) (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to Recommend that staff examine whether and how to specify adequate elevator size minimums where parking relies solely on elevators. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts to recommend that at least 20% of required spaces be designed for larger bikes (e.g. cargo bikes) where more than 5 spaces are required. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts that Planning Board recommend a future utilization study to establish empirical requirements for bike parking quantities. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. Attachment M - 05.20.25 Draft Meeting Minutes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 190 Packet Page 812 of 1100 L. Kaplan made a motion, seconded by K. Nordback to recommend development of a phased retroactive application of bike parking code to existing development. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. 05:03:58 The board closed motions related to ordinance 8696 and moved onto ordinance 8700. M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to recommend that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinance 8700, amending Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” and Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” to update regulations for on-street parking management. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. M. McIntyre made a motion, seconded by M. Roberts that Planning Board recommends a change to ordinance 8700 so that anytime the city approves a project through the site review process, where parking is required to be unbundled and paid, the city shall consider creating an appropriately sized NPP that surrounds the project. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. 05:17:16 M. Mcintyre made a motion, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to continue the TDM portion of item 5 of tonight’s agenda to the May 27th Planning Board meeting. Planning Board voted 6-0. (J. Boone absent) Motion passed. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY The planning board elected to take a brief summer recess. There will be no meetings held June 24th and July 1st. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:21 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE Attachment M - 05.20.25 Draft Meeting Minutes Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 191 Packet Page 813 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 8696 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981, TO MODIFY OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (D.C.S), ORIGINALLY ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 5986, TO MODIFY STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 7-6-23, “Parking for Certain Purposes Prohibited,” B.R.C 1981 is amended to read as follows: 7-6-23. Parking for Certain Purposes Prohibited. ... (b) No vehicle shall be parked upon any private property within any required yard abutting a street. Required yard means the minimum front yard setback for principal buildings, the minimum side yard setback from a street for all buildings and the minimum front and side yard setbacks from major roads set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (1) As an exception to this prohibition, within districts zoned RR-1, RR-2, RE, or RL-1, RL-2, A or P, up to two vehicles may be parked on a paved or improved driveway which serves as access to required off-street parking provided on the lot in accordance with Sections 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," and 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (2) This subsection does not apply to recreational vehicles parked or stored in accordance with subsection 9-9-6(fh), B.R.C. 1981. Section 2. Section 9-1-3, Application of Regulations”, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 192 Packet Page 814 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 9-1-3. Application of Regulations. (a) General Applicability: The regulations, requirements, limitations and provisions of this title shall extend and apply only to land and the use of land within the corporate limits of the City of Boulder, Colorado, except as may otherwise be specified in this title. (b) General Compliance Requirements: (1) No building, structure or land may hereafter be used or occupied, and no building or structure or part thereof may hereafter be erected, constructed, moved or altered except in conformity with all of the regulations of this title. (2) All lot area, open space, or yard requirements must be met on the lot or parcel creating the requirement for each building and use, unless modified under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981.No part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area or yard required about or in connection with any building for the purposes of complying with this title, may be included as part of a lot area, an open space, off-street parking area or yard similarly required for any other building or use, except as otherwise specifically permitted by the provisions of this title. … Section 3. Section 9-2-1, “Types of Reviews,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: 9-2-1. Types of Reviews. (a) Purpose: This section identifies the numerous types of administrative and development review processes and procedures. The review process for each of the major review types is summarized in Table 2-1 of this section. (b) Summary Chart: TABLE 2-1: REVIEW PROCESSES SUMMARY CHART I. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS II.DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BOARD ACTION Affordable housing design review pursuant to Section 9-13-4, B.R.C. 1981 Bicycle parking reductions and modifications Building permits Change of address Annexation/initial zoning BOZA variances Concept plans Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with potential historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 193 Packet Page 815 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Change of street name Conditional uses, as noted in Table 6-1: Use Table Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with no historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11- 23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Easement vacation Extension of development approval/staff level Landmark alteration certificates (staff review per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981) Landscape standards variance Minor modification to approved site plan Minor modification to approved form-based code review Noise barriers along major streets per Paragraph 9-9- 15(c)(7), B.R.C. 1981 Nonconforming use extension Parking deferral per Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reduction of up to twenty-five percent per Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reductions and modifications for bicycle parking per Paragraph 9-9-6(g)(6), B.R.C. 1981 Parking stall size reduction variances Public utility Rescission of development approval Revocable permit Right-of-way lease Setback variance Site access exceptionvariance Substitution of a nonconforming use Solar exception On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Form-based code review Geophysical exploration permit Landmark alteration certificates other than those that may be approved by staff per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981 Lot line adjustments Lot line elimination Minor Subdivisions Out of city utility permit Rezoning Site review Subdivisions Use review Vacations of street, alley, or access easement Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 194 Packet Page 816 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Zoning verification Section 4. Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review Procedures”, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: 9-2-2. Administrative Review Procedures. (a) Purpose: Administrative review of projects will occur at various times in project development to ensure compliance with the development standards of the city. … (c) Application Requirements: … (4) Additional Information: If, in the city manager's judgment, the application does not contain sufficient information to permit an appropriate review, the manager may request additional information from the applicant. This additional information may include, without limitation, a written statement describing the operating characteristics of proposed and existing uses and a site plan showing dimensions, distances, topography, adjacent uses, location of existing and proposed improvements, including but not limited to landscaping, parking,and buildings. … Section 5. Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations”, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: 9-2-3. Variances and Interpretations. (a) Purpose: This section identifies those standards that can be varied by either the city manager or the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA). Some standards can be varied by the city manager through an administrative Review process, others by BOZA by another level of administrative Review. The city manager may defer any administrative decision pursuant to this section to BOZA. This section also identifies which city manager interpretations of this title may be appealed to BOZA and establishes a process for such appeals. … (c) Administrative Variances: The city manager may grant a variance from: Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 195 Packet Page 817 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 … (6) The parking requirements of Subsection 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981, with regards to parking in landscaped front yard setbacks, if the city manager finds that the application satisfies all of the requirements in subsection (h) or (j), as applicable, of this section and if the applicant obtains the written approvals of impacted property owners. (67) If written approvals of impacted property owners cannot be obtained, the applicant may apply for consideration of the variance before the BOZA. (78) Applicants shall apply for the variance on a form provided by the city manager and shall pay the application fee required by title 4, "Licenses and Permits," B.R.C. 1981, at time of submittal of the application. (89) The city manager may also grant variances or refer variance requests to the BOZA to allow development not in conformance with the provisions of this title which otherwise would result in a violation of federal or state legislation or regulation, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. … (j) Variances for Parking Spaces in Front Yard Setbacks: The BOZA approving authority may grant a variance to the requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, to allow a required parking space to be located within the front yard setback if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following requirements: … Section 6. Section 9-2-14, “Site Review”, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: 9-2-14. Site Review. (a) Purpose: The purpose of site review is to allow flexibility in design, to encourage innovation in land use development, 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 height of buildings with existing, approved, and known to be planned or projected buildings in the immediate area, to ensure human scale development, to promote the safety and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and other modes within and around developments and to implement the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans of the community. Review criteria are established to achieve the following: … Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 196 Packet Page 818 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (g) Review and Recommendation: The city manager will review and decide an application for a site review in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2-6, "Development Review Application," B.R.C. 1981, except for an application involving the following, which the city manager will refer with a recommendation to the planning board for its action: (1) A reduction in off-street parking of more than fifty percent subject to compliance with the standards of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981. (12) A reduction of the open space or lot area requirements allowed by Subparagraph (h)(6) of this section. (23) An application for any principal or accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: … (1) 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 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: … (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. … (7) Parking Reductions: 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. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 197 Packet Page 819 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 … (k) Minor Modifications to Approved Site Plans: The city manager reviews applications for minor modifications pursuant to the procedures in Section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. (1) Standards: Minor modifications may be approved if the proposed modification complies with the following standards: … (E) Parking: Any parking reduction is reviewed and approved through the process and criteria in Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981; (EF) Solar Panels: Any solar panels do not substantially add to the mass or perceived height of the building and comply with all applicable building height, solar access, building coverage, and open space requirements; (FG) Other Requirements: The modification complies with all other applicable requirements of this title; and (GH) Modified Standards: The numeric standards in the site plan are not modified by more than allowed through Table 2-3. … Section 7. Section 9-2-16, “Form-Based Code Review”, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows: 9-2-16. Form-Based Code Review. (a) Purpose: The purpose of form-based code review, is to improve the character and quality of new development to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public and the users of the development. The form-based code review regulations are established to create a sense of place in the area being developed or redeveloped and ensure a site and building design that: … (h) Bicycle Parking Reductions. As part of the form-based code review process, the approving authority may grant a parking reduction pursuant to the criteria in Subsection 9-9-6(f), "Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions," B.R.C. 1981, for commercial developments, residential developments, industrial developments, and mixed use developments if the approving authority finds that the criteria of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981, are met. As part of the form-based code review process, the approving authority may grant reductions and modifications to the bicycle parking standards of Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 198 Packet Page 820 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Subsection 9-9-6(eg), B.R.C. 1981, if the reviewing authority finds that the standards of Paragraph 9-9-6(eg)(6), B.R.C. 1981, are met. … Section 8. Section 9-4-2, “Development Review Procedures”, B.R.C. 1981 Table 4-1, “Summary of Decision Authority by Process Type,” is amended to read as follows: 9-4-2. Development Review Procedures. (a) Development Review Authority: Table 4-1 of this section summarizes the review and decision-making responsibilities for the administration of the administrative and development review procedures described in this chapter. The table is a summary tool and does not describe all types of decisions made under this code. Refer to sections referenced for specific requirements. Additional procedures that are required by this code but located in other chapters are: (1) "Historic Preservation," chapter 9-11; and (2) "Inclusionary Housing," chapter 9-13. TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF DECISION AUTHORITY BY PROCESS TYPE Standard or Application Type Staff/City Manager BOZA Planning Board City Council Chapter 9-7: Form and Bulk Standards Accessory Building Coverage Subsection 9-7-8(a) — D — — Building Height Section 9-7-5 — — D(30) CA Conditional Building Height Section 9-7-6 D — — — Section 9-9-6: Parking Standards Bicycle Parking Reduction Section 9-9-6(e) D — — — Parking Access Dimensions Section 9-9-5 D — — — Parking Deferral Subsection 9-9-6(e) D — — — Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 199 Packet Page 821 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Parking Reduction ≤25% Subsection 9-9-6(f) D — — — Parking Reduction >25% but ≤50% Section 9-9-6(f) D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Parking Reduction >50% Subsection 9-9-6(f) — — D(30) CA Section 9-9-17: Solar Access Solar Access Permit Subsection 9-9-17(h) D D — — Solar Exception Subsection 9-9-17(f) D D — — Section 9-10-3: Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses Expansion of a Nonconforming Use Section 9-10-3 D(14) — CA(30) CA Substitution of a Nonconforming Use Section 9-10-3 D — — — Chapter 9-12: Subdivision Final Plat Section 9-12-8 D(14) — CA — Lot Line Adjustment or Lot Line Elimination Sections 9-12-3 and 9-12-4 D — — — Minor Subdivision Section 9-12-5 D(14) — CA(30) — Preliminary Plat Section 9-12-7 D — — — KEY: D = Decision Authority CA = Call-Up and Appeal Authority (for City Council, call-up only) R = Recommendation only (A) = Appeal Authority only (n) = Maximum number of days for call-up or appeal Section 9. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards-Residential Uses”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 200 Packet Page 822 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 9-6-3. Specific Use Standards - Residential Uses. (a) Residential Uses: … HOUSEHOLD LIVING (b) Household Living Uses: … (3) Household Living Uses in the MU-3 Zoning District: (A) Applicability: The following standards apply in the MU-3 zoning district to uses in the household living use category that front onto Pearl Street and may be approved as a conditional use: (i) The first floor above the finished grade at the street level fronting onto Pearl Street shall be constructed to permit a portion of the first floor as specified in Subparagraph (b)(3)(A)(ii) to be used for a restaurant, brewpub, or tavern use, personal service use, or retail sales use that is permitted in the MU-3 zoning district. (ii) The nonresidential spaces shall have a minimum depth of twenty feet measured from the front of the building along the Pearl Street frontage to the inside wall opposite of the street frontage. Building entries for uses above the first floor may be permitted to the extent necessary to provide access. (iii) Additional parking will not be required to be provided for the floor area that is necessary to meet the required minimum depth of the first-floor nonresidential use. All floor area beyond the required minimum depth shall meet the parking requirements of Section 9- 9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (iiiiv) The nonresidential space required by this section shall be used as a nonresidential principal use as permitted by Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, and not be used for any residential principal or accessory uses. (iv) No existing nonresidential space fronting onto Pearl Street shall be converted to residential space inconsistent with this paragraph. (vi) The first floor frontage requirements for nonresidential uses of this section and the requirements for window location, door location, Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 201 Packet Page 823 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 and minimum lot frontage in "Table 7-1: Form and Bulk Standards" may be modified for an individual landmark or a building within a historic district that has received a landmark alteration certificate as required by Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981. … (g) Live-Work Unit: (1) General Standards: The following standards apply to live-work units: (A) The commercial or industrial activity may be any nonresidential use allowed in the same zoning district, subject to any applicable specific use standards or review process for that use. (B) The residential use is located above or behind a ground floor space for nonresidential use. (C) A resident of the live-work unit must be responsible for the work performed in the nonresidential use. (D) Only one kitchen is permitted. (2) In the Industrial Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the industrial zoning districts, live-work units may be approved as a conditional use if at least fifty percent of the floor area of the building is for nonresidential use. Floor area within the live-work unit is considered residential floor area. … GROUP LIVING …   (m) Transitional Housing: (1) The following standards apply to any transitional housing facility that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: (A) General Standards: Any transitional housing approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: (i) Density: The maximum number of dwelling units within a transitional housing facility shall be the same as is permitted within Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 202 Packet Page 824 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 the underlying zoning district, except that for any zoning district that is classified as an industrial zoning district pursuant to Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, the number of dwelling units permitted shall not exceed one dwelling unit for each one thousand six hundred square feet of lot area on the site. (ii) Parking: The facility shall provide one off-street parking space for each dwelling unit on the site. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to the higher of fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met. (B) In the BC-1 and BC-2 Zoning Districts: (i) Review Process: In the BC-1 and BC-2 zoning districts, the following review process applies to transitional housing: a. Conditional Use: Transitional housing may be approved as a conditional use if the use is not located on the ground floor, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. b. Use Review: Transitional housing that may not be approved as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, the applicant shall demonstrate that the use on the ground floor will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. In determining whether this criterion is met, the reviewing authority shall consider the location and design of the proposed use and the existing and approved uses on the property and in the area. RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY … (o) Home Occupation: (1) A home occupation is allowed by right if the accessory use meets the following standards: (A) Standards: Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 203 Packet Page 825 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (viii) No traffic is generated by such home occupation in a volume that would create a need for parking greater than that which can be accommodated on the site or which is inconsistent with the normal parking usage of the district. … Section 10. Section 9-6-4, “Specific Use Standards-Public and Institutional Uses”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-4. Specific Use Standards - Public and Institutional Uses. COMMUNITY, CULTURAL, AND EDUCATIONAL … CARE AND SHELTER (d) Daycare Center: (1) The following standards apply to any daycare center, except home daycares, that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: … (C) Adequate off-street parking is provided for employees, volunteers, and visitors. (CD) Child daycare facilities are properly licensed by the State Department of Social Services. (DE) For nursery care (any child under the age of eighteen months), the facility provides fifty square feet of useable indoor floor area per child or a total of six hundred square feet of useable floor area, whichever is greater. (EF) For child care other than nursery care, the facility provides thirty square feet of useable indoor floor area per child or a total of six hundred square feet of useable floor area, whichever is greater. (FG) All child day care facilities shall provide a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable outdoor play area per child or a total of two thousand four hundred square feet of useable outdoor play area, whichever is greater. (GH) In the MH and RH-6 zoning districts, the use shall not provide care to more than fifty persons, not including employees. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 204 Packet Page 826 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (e) Day Shelters, Emergency Shelters, and Overnight Shelters: … (2) General Requirements for All Shelters: The following criteria apply to any day, emergency, or overnight shelters: … (B) Additional Requirements for Day Shelters: The following additional criteria apply to any day shelter: … (iv) Parking: The facility shall provide off-street parking at the rates set forth in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, for a nonresidential use. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of the higher of up to fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the underlying zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met. (C) Additional Requirements for Emergency Shelters: The following additional requirements apply to any emergency shelter: (i) Waiver of Good Neighbor Meeting and Management Plan Requirement: The city manager may waive the requirement that the applicant organize, host, and participate in a good neighbor meeting upon finding that the applicant will not require a use review, and that the needs of the facility's clients for anonymity and a safe and secure environment will be compromised by such a meeting. (ii) Parking: The facility shall provide off-street parking at the rates set forth below in Subparagraphs a., b., and c. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to the higher of fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the underlying zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met. a. One space for each employee or volunteer that may be on the site at any given time computed on the basis of the estimated maximum number of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time; Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 205 Packet Page 827 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 b. One parking space for each twenty occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of sleeping rooms and the dormitory type sleeping areas; and c. One parking space for each attached type dwelling unit. (iii) Maximum Occupancy: No person shall permit the maximum occupancy of a facility to exceed the following unless approved pursuant to an occupancy increase: … (iiiiv) Review Standards: Uses designated as conditional uses in Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, shall be processed under the provisions of this paragraph unless the applicant makes a request to increase the maximum occupancy per dwelling unit equivalent from six persons per dwelling unit equivalent up to ten occupants for sleeping room or dormitory type sleeping areas. (D) Additional Standards for Overnight Shelters: The following additional criteria apply to any overnight shelter: … (iii) Parking: The facility shall provide off-street parking at the rates set forth below in Subparagraphs a. and b. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to the higher of fifty percent of the required parking or what otherwise may be deferred in the underlying zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, have been met. a. One space for each employee or volunteer that may be on the site at any given time computed on the basis of the estimated maximum number of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time; and b. One parking space for each twenty occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility. (iiiiv) Maximum Occupancy: No person shall permit the maximum occupancy of a facility to exceed the following unless approved pursuant to an occupancy increase: … Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 206 Packet Page 828 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (iv) Review Standards: Uses designated as conditional uses in Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, shall be processed under the provisions of this paragraph unless the applicant proposes to exceed the following standards. In such cases, the applicant will also be required to complete the use review process pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. … INFRASTRUCTURE … Section 11. Section 9-6-5, “Specific Use Standards-Commercial Uses”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-5. Specific Use Standards - Commercial Uses. FOOD, BEVERAGE, AND LODGING (a) Bed and Breakfast: (1) The following standards apply to bed and breakfast uses that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: (A) The structure is compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of height, setbacks, and bulk. Any modifications to the structure are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. (B) One parking space is provided for each guest bedroom, and one space is provided for the operator or owner's unit in the building. (BC) No structure contains more than twelve guest rooms. The number of guest rooms shall not exceed the occupancy limitations set forth in Section 9-8- 6, "Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences," B.R.C. 1981. (CD) No cooking facilities including, without limitation, stoves, hot plates, or microwave ovens are permitted in the guest rooms. No person shall permit such use. (DE) One attached exterior sign is permitted to identify the bed and breakfast, subject to the requirements of Section 9-9-21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 207 Packet Page 829 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (EF) No long-term rental of rooms is permitted. No person shall permit a guest to remain in a bed and breakfast for a period in excess of thirty days. (FG) No restaurant use is permitted. No person shall serve meals to members of the public other than persons renting rooms for nightly occupancy and their guests. (GH) No person shall check in or check out of a bed and breakfast or allow another to do so except between the times of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. … RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT … (h) Temporary Event: (1) Temporary events may be approved as a conditional use if the following standards are met: … (E) Such uses may not adversely affect the required parking or result in unsafe conditions or unacceptable levels of congestion; … OFFICE USES … RETAIL SALES USES … SERVICE USES … (s) Media Production: (1) In the MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 zoning districts, a media production use is allowed by right if the floor area of the use does not Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 208 Packet Page 830 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 exceed 5,000 square feet. A media production use that is not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (2) In the BMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the BMS zoning district, a media production use is allowed by right if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. A media production use that is not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (t) Non-Vehicular Repair and Rental Service: (1) In the MU-1, MU-2, MU-3, MU-4, BT-1, BT-2, and BMS Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the MU-1, MU-2, MU-3, MU-4, BT-1, BT-2, and BMS zoning districts, a non-vehicular repair and rental service is allowed by right if the floor area of the use does not exceed 5,000 square feet. A non-vehicular repair and rental service that is not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (u) Neighborhood Business Center: (1) The following standards apply to any neighborhood business center that may be approved pursuant to a use review: …   (F) Restaurant Restrictions: Restaurants are permitted as a use within a neighborhood business center provided the following criteria are met, notwithstanding any restriction within Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981: (i) No Parking Reduction: No parking reduction may be granted for the neighborhood business center or any contemporaneously developed adjacent residential development unless the applicant can provide adequate assurances that there will be no parking spillover onto the surrounding residential streets; (ii) Size: The gross floor area of the restaurant does not exceed one thousand five hundred square feet in size, and up to three hundred additional square feet of floor area may be utilized for storage purposes only; (iii) Proportion of Development: The restaurant use is included in a development containing other uses approved as part of the neighborhood business center and does not exceed twenty-five Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 209 Packet Page 831 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 percent of the gross floor area of the project; (iiiiv) Drive-Thru Uses Prohibited: The restaurant does not contain a drive-thru facility; (iv) Trash Storage: A screened trash storage area is provided adjacent to the restaurant use, in accordance with the requirements of Section 9-9-18, "Trash Storage and Recycling Areas," B.R.C. 1981; (vi) Loading Area: A loading area meeting the requirements of Section 9-9-9, "Off-Street Loading Standards," B.R.C. 1981, provided adjacent to the restaurant use; (vii) Signage: Signage complies with a sign program approved as part of the review by the city manager consistent with the requirements of Section 9-9-21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981; and (viii) Environmental Impacts: Any environmental impact including, without limitation, noise, air emissions and glare is confined to the lot upon which the restaurant use is located and is controlled in accordance with applicable city, state, and federal regulations. … VEHICLE-RELATED USES … (x) Fuel Service Station: (1) The following standards apply to any fuel service station that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review: (A) General Standards: Any fuel service station that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: … (v) In addition to the parking requirements of Sections 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," and 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and the stacking requirements of Subparagraph (y)(1)(A)(ii) of this subsection, adequate space is provided for the storage of two vehicles per service bay off-street. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 210 Packet Page 832 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 … Section 12. Section 9-6-6, “Specific Use Standards-Industrial Uses”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-6. Specific Use Standards - Industrial Uses. STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, AND WHOLESALING (a) Outdoor Display of Merchandise: (1) The following standards apply to the outdoor display of merchandise: (A) Merchandise shall not be located within any required yard adjacent a street; (B) Merchandise shall not be located within or obstruct required parking and vehicular circulation areas or sidewalks; (C) Merchandise shall be screened to the extent possible from the view of adjacent streets; and (D) Outdoor display is for the temporary display of merchandise and not for the permanent storage of stock. PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING … (d) Recycling Collection Facilities - Large: (1) Large recycling collection facilities that may be approved pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: … (F) One parking space shall be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the recycling facility. Parking requirements are as required in the zone, except that parking requirements for employees may be reduced if it can be shown that such parking spaces are not necessary, such as when employees are transported in a company vehicle to the work facility. (FG) If the facility is located within five hundred feet of property zoned, planned under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use, it shall not operate between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 211 Packet Page 833 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (GH) Any container provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials shall be at least fifty feet from any property zoned, planned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use, shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction, shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected, and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials. (HI) The containers shall be clearly marked to identify the type of materials that may be deposited. The facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling containers. (IJ) The facility shall be clearly marked with the name and phone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation. (e) Recycling Collection Facilities - Small: (1) Small recycling collection facilities that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: … (O) No additional parking spaces are required for customers of a small collection facility located at the established parking lot of a host use, but one additional space shall be provided for the attendant, if needed. (OP) Mobile recycling units shall have an area clearly marked to prohibit other vehicular parking during hours when the mobile unit is scheduled to be present. (Q) Occupation of parking spaces by the facility and by the attendant shall not reduce available parking spaces below the minimum number required for the primary host use unless a parking study shows the existing parking capacity is not already fully utilized during the time the recycling facility will be on the site. (f) Recycling Processing Facility: (1) Recycling processing facilities that may be approved as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review shall meet the following standards: (G) One parking space shall be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the processing center. Parking requirements shall otherwise be as required for the zone in which the facility is located. (GH) If the facility is located within five hundred feet of property zoned, planned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 212 Packet Page 834 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 residential use, it shall not be in operation between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The facility shall be administered by on-site personnel during the hours the facility is open. (HI) Any containers provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials shall be at least fifty feet from any property zoned, planned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or occupied for residential use; shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction; shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected; and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials. (IJ) Containers shall be clearly marked to identify the type of material that may be deposited. The facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling containers. (JK) No dust, fumes, smoke, vibration, or odor from the facility shall be detectable on neighboring properties. Section 13. Section 9-7-12, “Two Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-12. Two Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot. (a) Standards: In an RM-2, RM-3, RH-1, RH-2 or RH-5 district, two detached dwelling units may be placed and maintained as principal buildings on a lot which fronts on two public streets other than alleys, if the following conditions are met: … (3) In the RM zoning district, one parking space is required for each principal building. In the RH-5 zoning district, for the second principal building, one bedroom requires one off-street parking space, two bedrooms require one and one-half spaces, three bedrooms require two spaces, and four or more bedrooms require three spaces. Required parking is provided on the lot convenient to each principal building. Any two parking spaces fronting on an alley which are adjacent to each other shall be separated from any other parking spaces by a landscaped area at least five feet wide and as deep as the parking spaces; (34) Privacy fencing or visual buffering of parking areas is provided; (45) Each principal building has separate utility services in approved locations; (56) All utilities are underground for each principal building unless this requirement is waived by the city manager for good cause; Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 213 Packet Page 835 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (67) New principal buildings are compatible in character with structures in the immediate vicinity, considering mass, bulk, architecture, materials and color. In addition, the second principal building placed on a lot shall meet the following requirements: … Section 14. Section 9-7-13, “Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-13. Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards. No person shall establish or maintain a mobile home park or mobile home on a lot within a mobile home park except in accordance with the following standards: (a) Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Summary Table: Development within a mobile home park in the MH zoning district shall comply with the standards shown in Table 7-2 and illustrated in Figure 7-15 of this section. TABLE 7-2: MOBILE HOME PARK DESIGN STANDARDS (MH DISTRICT) Size and Intensity Lot Area and Open Space Minimum lot area if subdivided 3,500 square feet Minimum average lot area per mobile home 4,350 square feet Minimum outdoor living and service area (with no dimension less than 15 feet) 300 square feet Minimum usable open space per mobile home 600 square feet Parking Requirements Minimum number of off-street parking spaces per mobile home 1 Setbacks and Separation (A) Minimum setback from exterior perimeter property lines of the mobile home park - MH, RL-2, RM-1, RM-3, RH-1 and RH-4 zones: 20 feet RM-2 and RH-5 zones: 25 feet (B) Minimum side to side separation 15 feet Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 214 Packet Page 836 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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) Minimum end to end separation 10 feet (D) Minimum distance from tongue to any adjacent sidewalk or pedestrian walkway 2 feet (E) Minimum setback from private drive or internal public street (from edge of pavement) 10 feet Figure 7-15: Mobile Home Park Setback & Separation Standards The minimum setback from the exterior perimeter property lines of the mobile home park depends on the zoning district. All other setback requirements apply in all mobile home parks. The required setback from a private drive or internal public street is measured from the edge of pavement. The required tongue setback is measured to the edge of the sidewalk or pedestrian walkway. See Table 7-2 for corresponding setbacks and separation standards. … (d) Parking: Mobile homes in all zoning districts other than the MH district shall provide 1.5 off-street parking spaces per mobile home. Off-street spaces shall be located on or within three hundred feet of the mobile home space for which the parking is required. (de) Modification of Setbacks From the Exterior Perimeter Property Lines of the Mobile Home Park: Mobile home setback distances along mobile home park exterior perimeter property lines adjacent to other lots may be modified as part of a site review or use review approval if the mobile home park owner demonstrates that there is a need for such modifications and that no detrimental effect will result to uses on adjoining properties or to residents of the mobile home park. (ef) Obstructions Prohibited: No mobile home or portion thereof shall overhang or obstruct any driveway, access road or walkway. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 215 Packet Page 837 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (fg) Screening: All mobile home parks adjacent to other residential uses, commercial uses or industrial uses shall be provided with screening, such as opaque fencing or landscaping, along the property lines separating the mobile home park from such adjacent land uses. Section 15. Section 9-8-6, “Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences”, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-8-6. Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences. The permitted density/occupancy for the following uses shall be computed as indicated below. The density/occupancy equivalencies shall not be used to convert existing uses referenced in this section to dwelling units. The number of allowed dwelling units shall be determined by using Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981: … (f) Bed and Breakfast: Three guest rooms in a bed and breakfast constitute one dwelling unit. In any bed and breakfast, up to twelve guest rooms are permitted, provided the required parking can be accommodated on site and the provisions of Subsection 9-6-5(a), B.R.C. 1981, are met. … Section 16. Section 9-9-2, “General Provisions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-2. General Provisions. No person shall use or develop any land within the city except according to the following standards, unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review, Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a variance granted under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C., 1981. … (e) Entire Use Located on One Lot: All lot area, open space, or yard requirements must be met on the lot or parcel creating the requirement for each building and use, unless modified under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981. No person shall include as part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area, or yard required by this title for any building or use any part of a lot area, open space, off-street parking area, or yard required by this title for any other building or use, unless approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 216 Packet Page 838 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Section 17. Section 9-9-5, “Site Access Control,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-5. Site Access Control. (a) Access Control: Vehicular access to property from the public right-of-way shall be controlled in such a manner as to protect the traffic-carrying capacity and safety of the street upon which the property abuts and access is taken, ensuring that the public use and purpose of public rights -of -way is unimpaired as well as to protect the value of the public infrastructure and adjacent property. The requirements of this section apply to all land uses, including detached dwelling units, if motor vehicle access is provided to the property from the public right-of-way, as follows: … (2) For detached dwelling units, the standards of this section shall be met prior to a final inspection for any building permit for new development; the demolition of a principal structure; or the conversion of an attached garage or carport to a use other than use as a parking space. … (c) Standards and Criteria for Site Accesses and Curb Cuts: Any access or curb cut to public rights of way shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and the following standards and criteria: … (6) Multiple Access Points for Detached Dwelling Units: The city manager will permit multiple access points on the same street for a single lot containing a detached dwelling unit upon finding that there is at least one hundred linear feet of lot frontage adjacent to the front yard on such street, the area has a limited amount of pedestrian activity because of the low density character, and multiple access points are not inconsistent with the city’s plans for curbside use on the street there is enough on-street parking within three hundred feet of the property to meet the off-street parking needs of such area. The total cumulative width of multiple curb cuts shall not exceed the maximum permitted width of a single curb cut. The minimum spacing between multiple curb cuts on the same property shall not be less than sixty-five feet. (7) Shared Driveways for Residential Structures: A lot with a detached dwelling unit that does not have frontage on the street from which access is taken may be served by a shared driveway that meets all of the standards and criteria for shared driveways set forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 217 Packet Page 839 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (8) Residential Driveways: Any driveway or access for a property with a residential use must lead to an off-street parking space meeting the requirements of this title and the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. (98) Driveway Width: Driveways shall meet the following standards (see Figure 9-1 of this section): (A) Minimum driveway width: The width of a driveway leading to an off- street parking space shall not be less than nine feet. A driveway, or portion of a driveway, may be located on an adjacent property if an easement is obtained from the impacted property owner. (B) Maximum Driveway Width: For any property with three or fewer dwelling units, the driveway width within a landscaped setback, including any associated circulation or turnarounds, shall not exceed 20 feet. … (109) Exceptions: The requirements of this section may be modified under the provisions of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, to provide for safe and reasonable access. Exceptions to this section may be made if the city manager determines that: … Section 18. Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-6. Parking Standards. (a) Rationale Purpose: The intent of this section is to provide adequate off-street parking for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city streets, and establish safe and functional motor vehicle and bicycle parking design and location standards, ensure that motor vehicle parking plays a subordinate role to site and building design, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving. (b) Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements: The following maximum off-street motor vehicle parking requirements apply to residential and nonresidential uses. (1) Residential Uses: In the MU-4 and RH-7 zoning districts, the maximum number of off-street parking spaces for an attached dwelling unit or each unit of a duplex shall be one space per dwelling unit. (2) Nonresidential Uses: In the RH-3, RH-6, RH-7, and MU-4 zoning districts, the maximum number of off-street parking spaces for nonresidential uses and their accessory uses shall be one space per 400 square feet of floor area per lot or parcel if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area. If Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 218 Packet Page 840 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 residential uses comprise more than 50 percent of the floor area, the maximum is one space per 500 square feet of floor area per lot or parcel. This maximum does not apply in a parking district. (b) Off-Street Parking Requirements: The number of required off-street motor vehicle parking spaces is provided in Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, and 9-4 of this section; the number of required off-street bicycle parking spaces is provided in Table 9-8 of this section: (1) Residential Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements: Unless the use is specifically identified in Table 9-2 below, residential motor vehicle parking shall be provided according to Table 9-1: TABLE 9-1: RESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT AND UNIT TYPE Zone District Standard RR, RE, MU-1, MU-3, BMS, DT, A, RH-6 RMX-2, MU-2, MH, IMS RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR, IS, IG, IM, P RH-3 MU-4, RH-7 Minimum number of off-street parking spaces for a detached dwelling unit (DU) 1 1 1 1 0 Maximum number of off-street parking spaces for an attached DU or each unit of a duplex N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 space per DU Minimum number of off-street parking spaces for an attached DU or each unit of a duplex 1 1 for 1- or 2- bedroom DU 1.5 for 3-bedroom DU 2 for a 4 or more bedroom DU 1 for 1-bedroom DU 1.5 for 2-bedroom DU 2 for 3-bedroom DU 3 for a 4 or more bedroom DU 1 for 1-bedroom DU 1.5 for 2-bedroom DU 2 for 3-bedroom DU 3 for a 4 or more bedroom DU 0 Accessible space requirement Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. (2) Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Residential Uses: TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 219 Packet Page 841 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Rooming house, boarding house, fraternity, sorority, group living and hostels 2 spaces per 3 occupants Efficiency units, transitional housing 1 space per DU Bed and breakfast 1 space per guest room + 1 space for operator or owner's DU within building Accessory dwelling unit 0 Group homes: residential, custodial or congregate care Off-street parking appropriate to use and needs of the facility and the number of vehicles used by its occupants, as determined through review Overnight shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time Day shelter Use the same ratio as general nonresidential uses in the zone Emergency shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time, plus 1 space for each attached type dwelling unit Duplexes or attached dwelling units in the RR, RE and RL zoning districts 1 per unit (3) Nonresidential Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements: Unless the use is specifically identified in Table 9-4 below, nonresidential motor vehicle parking shall be provided according to Table 9-3: TABLE 9-3: NONRESIDENTIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT Zone District Standard RH-3, RH- 6, RH-7, MU-4 (within a parking district) RH-3, RH- 6, RH-7, MU-4 (not in a parking district) DT, MU-3, BMS (within a parking district) BCS, BR- 1, IS, IG, IM, A RMX-2, MU-2, IMS, BMS (not in a parking district) MU-1, MU-3 (not in a parking district) RR, RE, RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-1, RH- 2, RH-4, RH-5, BT, BC, BR-2, P (not in a parking district) Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 220 Packet Page 842 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Minimum number of off-street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses and their accessory uses 0 1:400 1:400 if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:500 1:300 if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:400 1:300 Maximum number of off-street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses and their accessory uses N/A 1:400 if residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the floor area; otherwise 1:500 N/A Accessible parking requirement Must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. (4) Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Nonresidential Uses: TABLE 9-4: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Large daycare (less than 50 children) Determined through review; parking needs of the use must be adequately served through on-street or off-street parking Nonresidential uses in General Improvement Parking Districts No parking required Restaurant, brewpub, or tavern - outside of retail centers greater than 50,000 square feet Indoor Seats: 1 space per 3 seats. Outdoor Seats: 1. If outdoor seats do not exceed 20% of the indoor seats, no additional parking is required. 2. For the portion of the outdoor seats exceeding 20% of indoor seats: 1 space per 3 seats. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 221 Packet Page 843 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 3. Notwithstanding the requirements of (1) and (2) above, the following applies to uses that are nonconforming as to parking for indoor seats and the sole principal use of the site: No additional parking is required if the number of outdoor seats does not exceed 60% of the existing number of parking spaces on the site. Retail centers over 50,000 square feet of floor area that: i) Are under common ownership, or Less than 30 percent of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. ii) management, or 30 percent or more and less than 60 percent of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 175 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. iii) Are approved through a common site review approval, and iv) Contain a mix of some or all of the following uses: retail, commercial, office, restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns, which v) together comprise more than 50 percent of the total floor area, and 60 percent or more of the total floor area is occupied by restaurants, taverns, or brewpubs: 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area for retail, commercial, and office uses and restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. vi) Where written consent of all property owners within the retail center are included with the application. This use-specific parking standard shall not apply to other uses for which a use-specific parking standard is created in this Table 9-4 or to uses other than retail, commercial, and office uses, restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns. For those uses, parking shall be provided as required for each such use under this Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981, and in addition to the requirement above. Restaurants in a regional park Determined through review; parking needs of the use must be adequately served through on-street or off-street parking. Motels, hotels, and bed and breakfasts 1 space per guest room or unit, plus required spaces for nonresidential uses at 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area Theater Greater of 1 parking space per 3 seats, or the parking ratio for the zone district Fuel service station General ratio for the use zone plus storage of 2 vehicles per service bay Religious assembly: (See Paragraph (f)(8) of this section for permitted parking reductions) a. Religious assemblies created prior to 9/2/1993 1:300 Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 222 Packet Page 844 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 b. Religious assemblies created after 9/2/1993 1 space per 4 seats, or 1 per 50 square feet of assembly area if there are no fixed seats - assembly area includes the largest room plus any adjacent rooms that could be used as part of the assembly area c. Uses accessory to a religious assembly and created after 9/2/1993 Uses accessory to the religious assembly shall meet the standards applicable to the use as if the use is a principal use d. Total parking of a religious assembly and accessory uses created after 9/2/1993 Parking for the religious assembly use and any accessory use shall be for the use which has the greatest parking requirement Small recycling collection facility 1 space for attendant if needed Large recycling collection facility General parking ratio for the zone plus 1 space for each commercial vehicle operated by the facility Recycling processing facility Sufficient parking spaces for a minimum of 10 customers, or the peak load, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for each commercial vehicle operated by the facility Warehouse or distribution facility or uses in industrial zones with accessory warehouse spaces 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area used for warehousing or storage of goods, merchandise, or equipment. Parking for floor area used for associated office space or production areas and not for warehousing or storage as outlined above shall be provided consistent with Table 9-3. Self-service storage facility 3 spaces for visitor parking, plus parking for any floor area used as office space or otherwise not used for self- service storage shall be provided consistent with Table 9-3. Airport and aircraft hangers 1 space per outside airplane or glider tie down space; 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area of private  airplane hangar space (with or without external or  internal walls);  1 space per 2,000 square feet of floor area of  commercial or executive airplane hangar space; and  Parking for floor area used as office space or otherwise  not used for airport hanger shall be provided consistent  with the requirements of Table 9‐3.  (c) General Parking Requirements Standards: Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 223 Packet Page 845 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (1) ADA Requirements: Where off-street parking spaces are provided, accessible parking spaces shall be provided, meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. (2) Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements: Where off-street parking spaces are provided, electric vehicle charging spaces shall be provided, meeting the requirements of the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. (31) Rounding Rule: For all motor vehicle and bicycle parking space requirements resulting in a fraction, the fraction shall be: (A) Rounded to the next higher whole number when the required number of spaces is five or less; or (B) Rounded to the next lower whole number when the required number of spaces is more than five. (42) Parking Requirements for Lots in Two or More Zoning Districts: For lots that have more than one zoning designation, the required motor vehicle and bicycle parking for the use(s) on the lot may be provided on any portion of the lot, subject to the provisions of this title. (5) Approvals: Any minimum off-street motor vehicle parking requirement, for spaces other than accessible spaces, in any planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development, site review, use review, or other approval has no force and effect and shall not be enforced. (3) Off-Street Parking Requirement for Unlisted Nonresidential Uses: If the city manager determines that the use type is not specifically listed in Table 6-1, Use Table, or Table 9-4, Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Nonresidential Uses in All Zones, the city manager may apply one of the following standards that adequately meets the parking needs of the use: (A) The applicable off-street parking requirement under Table 9-3, Nonresidential Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements by Zoning District; (B) The off-street parking requirement under Table 9-4 for the listed use type most similar to the proposed use based on public parking demand, nature of the use type, number of employees, or any other factors deemed appropriate by the city manager; (C) An off-street parking requirement established based on local or national best practices or by reference to standards or resources such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or American Planning Association; or Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 224 Packet Page 846 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (D) An off-street parking requirement demonstrated by a parking demand study prepared by the applicant according to Paragraph 9-9-6(d)(6). (d) Motor Vehicle Parking Design Standards: (1) Location of Open or Enclosed Parking: Open or enclosed parking areas are subject to the following requirements: (A) No parking areas shall be located in any required landscaped setback abutting a street. However, in RR, RE, RL, A, or P zoning districts, if all off-street parking requirements of this chapter have been met, if a driveway serves as access to at least one parking space that meets the design requirements of this title and that is located outside of the landscaped setback, persons may park up to two additional vehicles may be parked in the driveway within the landscaped setback. The requirements of this subsection may be varied to allow the required off- street parking to be located within the front yard setback pursuant to the standards and procedures in a variance being approved by the BOZA per Subsection 9-2-3(j), B.R.C. 1981. (B) Required parking areas shall be located on the lot or parcel containing the use for which they are required. (BC) No parking areas shall be located closer than ten feet from a side yard adjacent to a public street in the BMS and MU-2 zoning districts. (2) Parking Stall Design Standards: Parking stalls shall meet the following standards, based on stall type. The minimum maneuvering area to the rear of any parking stall shall be no less than twenty-four feet except as specified in Table 9-15 below for parking at an angle other than the 90-degree category. If the proposed use anticipates long-term parking as the major parking demand, the city manager may reduce those minimum parking stall sizes. TABLE 9-15: STANDARD PARKING DIMENSION STANDARDS Parking  Angle  (degrees) Curb Length  C Stall  D Aisle Width Bay Width One Way   A1  Two Way   A2  One Way   B1  Two Way   B2  90  9'  19'  24'  24'  62'  62'  60  10.4'  21'  18'  22'  60'  64'  45  12.7'  19.8'  13'  20'  52.6'  59.6'  30  18'  17.3'  12'  20'  45.6'  54.6'  Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 225 Packet Page 847 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 0  23'  8'  12'  20'  20'  36'  TABLE 9-26: SMALL CAR PARKING DIMENSION STANDARDS Parking  Angle  (degrees) Curb Length  C Stall  D Aisle Width Bay Width One Way   A1  Two Way   A2  One Way   B1  Two Way   B2  90  7.75'  15'  24'  24'  54'  54'  60  9.2'  17'  18'  22'  52'  56'  45  11.2'  16.1'  13'  20'  45.2'  52.2'  30  15.5'  14.3'  12'  20'  40.6'  48.6'  0  20'  8'  12'  20'  28'  36'  Figure 9-2: Parking Dimensions Diagram Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 226 Packet Page 848 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (A) Standard Stalls: All off-street standard parking spaces shall meet the minimum size requirements established as indicated in Table 9-15 and Figure 9-2 of this section. (B) Small Car Stalls: (i) Small Car Stalls Allowed: A proportion of the total spaces provided in each parking area may be designed and shall be signed for small car use according to Table 9-37 of this section. TABLE 9-37: SMALL CAR STALLS Total Spaces  Required Allowable Small Car Stalls 5 ‐ 49  40 percent  50 ‐ 100  50 percent  101 or greater  60 percent  (ii) Dimensional Standards: All small car stalls shall meet the minimum size requirements as indicated in Table 9-26 and Figure 9-2 of this section. (C) Accessible Parking Stalls: (i) Dimensional Standards: Accessible parking spaces shall be eight feet wide and nineteen feet in length, with the standard width drive lane. Individual spaces shall have an additional five foot-wide, diagonally striped aisle abutting the passenger side of the space. If such spaces are provided in adjacent pairs, then one five footfive- foot aisle may be shared between the two spaces. Accessible parking spaces shall conform to the construction and design standards in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and be located to maximize convenience of access to the facility and minimize the need to cross the flow of vehicular traffic. (See Figure 9-3 of this section.) Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 227 Packet Page 849 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Figure 9-3: Accessible Parking Space Design Accessible spaces must measure eight feet by nineteen feet and be flanked by a five footfive-foot diagonally-striped aisle. Two adjacent spaces may share a single five footfive-foot aisle. The aisle must be at the same grade as the accessible space and any adjacent sidewalk must slope to meet the grade of the aisle. The slope may not exceed 1:12. … (3) Drive Aisles: (A) There is a definite and logical system of drive aisles to serve the entire parking area. Drive aisles shall have a minimum eighteen-foot width foot width clearance for two-way traffic and a minimum ten foot ten-foot width clearance for one-way traffic unless the city manager finds that the parking stalls to be served require a greater or lesser width. A physical separation or barrier, such as vertical curbs, may be required in order to separate parking areas from the travel lanes. (See Figure 9-4 of this section.) Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 228 Packet Page 850 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Figure 9-4: Drive Aisles Drive aisles provide access to parking areas but not to individual spaces. Drive aisles serving two-way traffic must be a minimum of eighteen feet wide. Drive aisles serving one-way traffic must be a minimum of ten feet wide. Raised planters, curbs, or other physical barriers may be necessary to separate parking areas from travel lanes. See Tables 9-15 and 9-26 of this section for parking aisle dimensions. (B) Turnarounds are provided for dead-end parking bays of eight stalls or more. Turnarounds must be identified with a sign or surface graphic and marked "no parking." The use of accessible parking spaces as the required turnaround is not permitted. (See Figure 9-5 of this section.) Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 229 Packet Page 851 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Figure 9-5: Parking Turnaround Spaces In dead-end parking bays with eight or more stalls, a turnaround space must be provided and properly marked. … (5) Parking Design Details: … (D) All open off-street parking areas with five or more spaces shall be screened from the street and property edges, andedges and shall provide interior lot landscaping in accordance with Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981. … Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 230 Packet Page 852 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Figure 9-6: Permitted Vehicular Overhang (G) Within the DT zoning districts, at-grade parking is not permitted within thirty feet of a street right-of-way unless approved as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. For the purpose of this subparagraph, the term "street" does not include "alley." (6) Parking Study: At the discretion of the city manager, a parking study may be required to demonstrate that adequate parking is provided either for parking provided per zoning requirements or in conjunction with a parking reduction request. The scope of a parking study may consist of analysis of any or all of the following factors: joint use of parking areas, peak parking demand for each land use, unusual parking demand based on type of land use, availability of nearby on- street parking, vicinity of high frequency transit, and Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation estimates. (e) Motor Vehicle Parking Deferrals: (1) Criteria for Parking Deferral: The city manager may defer the construction and provision of up to ninety percent of the off-street parking spaces required by this section, in an industrial district, thirty-five percent in a commercial district, and twenty percent in any other district if an applicant demonstrates that: (A) The character of the use lowers the anticipated need for off-street parking, and data from similar uses establishes that there is not a present need for the parking; (B) The use is immediately proximate to public transportation that serves a significant proportion of residents, employees, or customers; (C) There is an effective private or company car pool, van pool, bus, or similar group transportation program; or Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 231 Packet Page 853 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (D) The deferred percentage of residents, employees, and customers regularly walk or use bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicular forms of transportation. (2) Parking Deferral With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a parking deferral pursuant to this subsection, the parking deferral shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking deferral shall be the same as the use review. (3) Site Plan: Applicants for a parking deferral shall submit a site plan demonstrating that the total required parking can be accommodated on-site and designating the land to be reserved for future parking. (4) Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided as required under Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and shall be indicated on the site plan. (5) Notice of Change of Condition: No person having an interest in property subject to a parking deferral shall fail to notify the city manager of any change in the conditions set forth in Paragraph (e)(1) of this section that the manager considered in granting the deferral. (6) Construction of Deferred Parking Areas: The city manager may require the construction of the deferred parking at any time upon thirty days' written notice by mail to commence construction of such parking. No person having an interest in the property shall fail to comply with such a notice. (f) Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions: (1) Parking Reduction Process: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the requirements of this subsection are met. The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed twenty- five percent of the required parking. Parking reductions greater than twenty-five percent may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. Only the planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. Parking reductions are approved based on the operating characteristics of a specific use. No person shall change a use of land that is subject to a parking reduction except in compliance with the provisions of this subsection. For any parking reductions exceeding ten percent or if the parking reduction is being reviewed in conjunction with a site review, the applicant shall provide a parking study and transportation demand management (TDM) plan. Alternative administrative parking reductions (to the process set forth in this subparagraph (f)(1) and the criteria of subparagraph (f)(2)) by land use are found in Paragraph (f)(3). Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 232 Packet Page 854 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (2) Parking Reduction Criteria: The approving authority may reduce the parking requirements of this section (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it finds that the parking needs of all uses in the project will be adequately accommodated. In making this determination, the approving authority shall consider without limitation: (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; (B) The availability of off-street and nearby on-street parking; (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; (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; (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 (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. (3) Alternative administrative parking reductions by land use: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reduction standards in Subparagraphs (f)(2) of this section. (A) Housing for Older Adults: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking by up to seventy percent for governmentally sponsored housing projects for adults 65 and over. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 233 Packet Page 855 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (B) Mixed Use Developments: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking in a mixed-use development by up to ten percent in the BMS, IMS, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and RMX-2 zoning districts, or in all other nonresidential zoning districts in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, by up to twenty-five-percent if the following requirements are met: (i) The project is a mixed use development that includes, as part of an integrated development plan, both residential and nonresidential uses. Residential uses shall comprise at least thirty-three percent of the floor area of the development; and (ii) The property is within a quarter of a mile walking distance to a high frequency transit route that provides service intervals of fifteen minutes or less during peak periods. This measurement shall be made along standard pedestrian routes from the property. (C) Religious Assemblies: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking to permit additional floor area within the assembly area of a religious assembly which is located within three hundred feet of the Central Area General Improvement District if the applicant has made arrangements to use public parking within close proximity of the use and that the building modifications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening activities when there is less demand for use of public parking areas. (4) Limiting Factors for Parking Reductions: The city manager will consider the following additional factors to determine whether a parking reduction under this section may be appropriate for a given use: (A) A parking deferral pursuant to subsection (e) of this section is not practical or feasible for the property. (B) The operating characteristics of the proposed use are such that granting the parking reduction will not cause unreasonable negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. (C) The parking reduction will not limit the use of the property for other uses that would otherwise be permitted on the property. (5) Parking Reduction With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking reduction shall be the same as for the use review. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 234 Packet Page 856 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (eg) Bicycle Parking: (1) Required Bicycle Spaces: Bicycle parking spaces must be provided as required by Table 9-48 of this section. Where more than 10 spaces are required, at least five percent of the required bicycle parking spaces shall be designed to accommodate and signed for larger bikes with dimensions of at least 10 feet of length and 3 feet of width. TABLE 9-48: OFF-STREET BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Type - based on Table 6-1 of Section 9-6-1 Minimum Number of Off-Street Bicycle Spaces Long-Term Short-Term Residential Uses Dwelling units(a) with a private garage, and detached dwelling units (b) no requirement n/a n/a Dwelling units without a private garage(b) 2 per unit 75% 25% Accessory dwelling units no requirement n/a n/a Group living - fraternities, sororities, and dormitories, boarding houses, transitional housing 1 per 3 beds 75% 25% Group living - all others 1 per 5 beds 75% 25% Public and Institutional Uses Daycare centers, home daycares Determined through review: parking needs of use must be adequately served through on- or off-street parking, minimum of 4 50% 50% Public and private elementary, middle, and high schools 5 per classroom 50% 50% Public and private colleges and universities 5 per classroom 50% 50% Hospitals 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 75% 25% Open space, park, and recreation uses 1 per 750 square feet of floor area; requirements for outdoor uses are determined through review: parking needs of use must be adequately 25% 75% Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 235 Packet Page 857 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 served through on- or off-street parking, minimum of 4 Religious assemblies The greater of 1 per 15 seats or 1 per 150 square feet of assembly area 25% 75% All other public and institutional uses 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 50% 50% Commercial Uses Restaurants, brewpubs, and taverns 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 25% 75% Bed and breakfasts, hostels, and hotels or motels 1 per 3 guest rooms, minimum of 4 50% 50% All other food, beverage, and lodging uses 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area 25% 75% Mobile food vehicle and temporary events no requirement n/a n/a Office uses 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 75% 25% Campgrounds, outdoor recreation or entertainment, indoor athletic facilities 1 per 750 square feet of floor area; requirements for outdoor uses are determined through review: parking needs of use must be adequately served through on- or off-street parking, minimum of 4 25% 75% Financial institutions 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 75% 25% Service uses and retail sales uses 1 per 750 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 25% 75% Vehicle-related uses and all other commercial uses 1 per 1,125 square feet of associated office space or production areas 25% 75% Industrial Uses Industrial uses 1 per 1,125 square feet of associated office space or production areas 25% 75% Agriculture & Natural Resource Uses Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 236 Packet Page 858 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Agriculture & Natural Resource Uses no requirement n/a n/a Other Uses Not Listed in Table 9-48 Other uses not listed in Table 9-48 1 per 1,500 square feet of floor area, minimum of 4 50% 50% Footnotes to Table 9-4, Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements: (a) For purposes of this Table 9-4, the "dwelling units" subcategories include all types of residential uses listed in Table 6-1, Use Table, except those separately listed in Table 9-4. (b) Private garage, for purposes of this table, means a building or indoor space that is associated with an individual dwelling unit for purposes of parking or keeping a motor vehicle, is fully enclosed, and has a secure door. Footnotes to Table 9-8, Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements: (a) For purposes of this Table 9-48, the "dwelling units" subcategories include all types of residential uses listed in Table 6-1, Use Table, of Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses," B.R.C. 1981, except those separately listed in Table 9-8. (b) Private garage, for purposes of this table, means a building or indoor space that is associated with an individual dwelling unit for purposes of parking or keeping a motor vehicle, is fully enclosed, and has a secure door. (2) Bicycle Facilities: Both bicycle lockers and racks shall: (A) Provide for storage and locking of bicycles, either in lockers, or medium- security racks, or an equivalent installation in which both the bicycle frame and the wheels may be locked by the user. (B) Be designed so as not to cause damage to the bicycle. (C) Facilitate easy locking without interference from or to adjacent bicycles. (D) Consist of racks or lockers Be anchored with tamper-resistant anchors so that they cannot be easily removed. (E) Be and of solid construction, resistant to rust, corrosion, hammers, grinders, and saws, and other tools. (FE) Be consistent with their environment in color and design and be incorporated whenever possible into building or street furniture design. (GF) Be located in convenient, highly visible, active, well-lighted areas. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 237 Packet Page 859 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (H) Be located so that they do not but not interfere with pedestrian movements. (I) Be identified by wayfinding signs if the bicycle parking area is not visible from the site or building entrance. (3) Short-Term Bicycle Parking: Short-term bicycle parking is intended to offer a convenient and accessible area to park bicycles for customers and other visitors. Short-term bicycle parking shall be located: (A) On the public access level; (B) Within fifty feet of the main building entrances; and (C) Outside the building.; and (D) In an area that allows for passive surveillance, such as in front of business windows and in high-traffic areas. (4) Long-Term Bicycle Parking: Long-term bicycle parking offers a secure and weather protected weather-protected place to park bicycles for employees, residents, commuters, and other visitors who generally stay at a site for several hours. Long-term bicycle parking shall meet the following standards: (A) Long-term bicycle parking is required to be covered, access restricted, and designed to include at least and shall include use of one of the following security strategies: (i) A locked room room locked by a heavy-duty locking mechanism; (ii) An area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate that is resistant to forced entry and climbing, has some transparency to allow for surveillance, and incorporates a gate with a heavy-duty gate lock that is resistant to manipulation; (iii) An area within view of an attendant or security guard or monitored by a security cameras pointed at the entrances to the bicycle parking area and the bicycle racks; or (iv) An area visible from employee work areas. (B) The bicycle parking area shall must be located on site or in an area within three hundred feet of the building it serves, except for elementary, middle, or high schools, where the bicycle parking area must be located within 100 feet of a main entrance. Access to the area shall not require the use of stairs but may require a ramp if needed for grade changes. If an elevator is Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 238 Packet Page 860 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 required to reach the long-term bicycle parking, elevator cab dimensions must fit a bicycle. (C) Adequate lighting, designed to illuminate and allow for surveillance, shall be provided for the bicycle parking area, the route to the bicycle parking area, and the route to the building entrance if bicycle parking is provided within the building. Adequate lighting shall be provided for the bicycle parking area, designed to promote surveillance and illumination, the route to reach the bicycle parking area, and the route to the building entrance if bicycle parking is in the building. (D) The bicycle parking area shall include adequate clearance around racks or lockers to give cyclists room to maneuver, and to prevent conflicts with pedestrians or parked cars. (E) If the bicycle parking is provided in an auto motor vehicle parking garage, the bicycle parking spaces shall be clearly marked as such and shall be separated from auto motor vehicle parking by physical barriers.; (F) No more than 25 percent of required long-term bicycle parking spaces may be hanging vertical racks or elevated spaces of tiered racks, except that vertical and tiered racks are prohibited at elementary and middle schools. Any tiered or vertical hanging rack must include a mechanically- assisted lifting mechanism to mount the bicycle on any upper tier. (G) Where more than 100 bicycle parking spaces are required by Table 9-4, “Minimum Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements,” at least five percent of bicycle parking spaces, must have electrical outlets suitable for charging of electric. The required bicycle charging spaces must be horizontal and shall be sized 3 feet by 10 feet per space. … (6) Parking Reductions and Modifications for Bicycle Parking. Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criterion, the approving agency authority may approve reductions to the minimum number of off-street bicycle parking or, modifications to the ratio of long-term and short- term bike parking requirements of Table 9-48, reductions to the minimum number of larger spaces, and modifications to the maximum number of vertical or tiered racks, if it finds that the long-term and short-term bicycle parking needs of the use will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking. (7) Parking Study: At the discretion of the city manager, a bicycle parking study may be required to demonstrate that adequate parking is provided either for parking provided per Boulder Revised Code requirements or in conjunction with a bicycle parking reduction request. The scope of a bicycle parking study may consist of Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 239 Packet Page 861 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 analysis of any or all of the following factors: joint use of bicycle parking areas, peak bicycle parking demand for each land use, unusual bicycle parking demand based on type of land use, and availability of nearby on-street bicycle parking., vicinity of high frequency transit, and Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation estimates. (fh) Parking and Storage of Recreational Vehicles: No person shall park, store, or use a travel trailer, tent trailer, pickup camper or coach, motorized dwelling, boat and boat trailer, snow vehicle, cycle trailer, utility trailer and van, horse trailer or van, or similar vehicular equipment in a residential district unless the following requirements are met: (1) Such vehicular equipment is stored or parked on private property no closer than eighteen inches to any proposed or existing public sidewalk and so as not to project into the public right-of-way; (2) On corner lots, any such vehicular equipment that exceeds thirty-six inches in height is not parked in the triangular area formed by the three points established by the intersection of property lines at the corner and the points thirty feet back from this intersection along each property line; (3) No travel trailer, tent trailer, pickup camper or coach, motorized dwelling or van is used for the conduct of business or for living or housekeeping purposes except when located in an approved mobile home park or in a campground providing adequate sanitary facilities; (4) Any travel trailer, tent trailer, detached pickup camper or coach, boat and boat trailer, cycle trailer, utility trailer and van, horse trailer and van parked or stored out-of-doors is adequately blocked or tied down or otherwise secured so that such vehicle does not roll off the lot and is not moved about by high winds; and (5) No vehicular equipment regulated by this section is stored out-of-doors on a residential lot unless it is in condition for safe and effective performance of the functions for which it is intended. (gi) Parking Costs Separated From Housing Costs in New Residential Buildings in the RH-7 and MU-4 Zoning Districts: In the RH-7 and MU-4 zoning districts, all off-street parking spaces accessory to residential uses in new structures of ten dwelling units or more, or in new conversions of nonresidential buildings to residential use of ten dwelling units or more, shall be leased or sold separately from the rental or purchase fees for dwelling units for the life of the dwelling units, such that potential renters or buyers have the option of renting or buying a residential unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single price for both the residential unit and the parking space. Parking spaces that are unused or unsold with a residential unit may be leased or otherwise permitted to be used by persons who are not residents, tenants, or visitors to the property. The city manager will waive the requirements of this subsection for a building if the applicant demonstrates Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 240 Packet Page 862 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 that the building is financed with low-income housing tax credit financing pursuant to 26 U.S.C.S. § 42. Section 19. Section 9-9-7, “Sight Triangles,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-7. Sight Triangles. (a) Sight Triangle Required: Where a driveway intersects a public right-of-way or where property abuts the intersection of two public rights-of-way, the owner or occupant of the driveway or property shall provide unobstructed sight distance as described in subsections (c) through (e) of this section within the sight triangle area on the property adjacent to the intersection in order to ensure that safe and adequate sight distance is provided for the public use of the right-of-way. … (e) Streets: The area formed at a corner intersection of two public rights-of-way lines defined by a width of dimension X and a length of dimension Y as shown in Table 9-59 and Figure 9-8 of this section. The Y dimension will vary depending on the speed limit and configuration of the intersecting street and is outlined in the table below. The X distance shall be thirteen feet measured perpendicular from the curb line of the intersecting street. This triangular area is significant for the determination of sight distance requirements for right angle right-angle intersections only. The shaded area is required to be kept free of all structures, fences, landscaping and other materials. The size of the sight triangle is based on the size of the road and speed limit, as shown in the table below. TABLE 9-59: SIGHT TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS Lane Usage Additional Facilities Speed Limit Y Distance (Left) Y Distance (Right) 2 lanes None 25 mph 155 feet 105 feet 30/35 mph 210 feet 145 feet Bike lane or on-street parking 25 mph 110 feet 85 feet 30/35 mph 150 feet 115 feet Bike lane and on-street parking 25 mph 90 feet 75 feet 30/35 mph 125 feet 100 feet None 25 mph 155 feet 80 feet Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 241 Packet Page 863 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 3 or 4 lanes 30/35 mph 210 feet 110 feet 40/45 mph 265 feet 135 feet Bike lane or on-street parking 25 mph 110 feet 65 feet 30/35 mph 150 feet 90 feet 40/45 mph 195 feet 115 feet Bike lane and on-street parking 25 mph 90 feet 60 feet 30/35 mph 125 feet 80 feet 40/45 mph 160 feet 100 feet 5 or more lanes None 25 mph 155 feet 60 feet 30/35 mph 210 feet 85 feet 40/45 mph 265 feet 110 feet Bike lane or on-street parking 25 mph 110 feet 55 feet 30/35 mph 150 feet 75 feet 40/45 mph 195 feet 95 feet Bike lane and on-street parking 25 mph 90 feet 50 feet 30/35 mph 125 feet 65 feet 40/45 mph 160 feet 85 feet   …    Section 20. Section 9-9-9, “Off-Street Loading Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-9. Off-Street Loading Standards. (a) Off-Street Loading Requirements: Any use with having or requiring off-street parking shall provide an off-street delivery/loading space. The spaces shall be sufficient in size to accommodate vehicles which will to serve the use. The location of the delivery/loading space shall not block or obstruct any public street, parking area, parking area circulation, sidewalk or pedestrian circulation area. Loading areas shall be screened pursuant to paragraph 9-9-12(d)(5), B.R.C. 1981. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 242 Packet Page 864 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (b) Modifications: The off-street loading requirements may be modified by the city manager under the provisions of Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review,” B.R.C. 1981, if the property owner demonstrates that the use of the building does not require an off-street loading space and that the safety of pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists is not impaired. Process requirements for such administrative modifications are contained in section 9-2- 3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. Section 21. Section 9-9-12, “Landscaping and Screening Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-12. Landscaping and Screening Standards. (a) Purpose: The purpose of the landscaping and screening requirements set forth in this chapter is to: … (b) Scope: This section and Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, apply to all nonresidential and residential developments unless expressly stated otherwise. (1) The standards in this section and Sections 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards," and 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, shall be met prior to a final inspection for any building permit for: … (2) When additional parking spaces are provided, or for a change of use where new off-street parking spaces are provided, the provisions of Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, shall be applied as follows: … (d) General Landscaping and Screening Requirements: … (8) Minimum Overall Site Landscaping: In all zones except A, P, RR, RE, RL and RM, one tree and five shrubs are planted for each 1,500 square feet of lot area not covered by a building or required parking. … Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 243 Packet Page 865 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Section 22. Section 9-9-13, “Streetscape Design Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-13. Streetscape Design Standards. Streetscape improvements shall be designed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Scope: The standards set forth in this section apply to all land uses, including single- family residential land uses. … (d) Streetscape Requirements: Street trees must be selected from the approved street tree list set forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, unless an equivalent tree selection is approved by the city manager. Table 9-610 of this section sets the minimum planting interval for street and alley trees. The specific spacing for each development is dependant dependent upon tree type (for a list of tree species in each type, see Approved Street Tree List, in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards) and existing conditions as identified in this section or an equivalent approved by the city manager. TABLE 9-610: STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS Existing or Approved Condition Required Planting Sidewalk Condition Planting Strip Width Utility Location Tree Type Minimum Tree Planting Interval Detached Up to and including 8 feet or more Buried Large 30 feet—40 feet Overhead  Small  15 feet—20  feet  More than 6 feet to 8 feet  Buried  Medium  25 feet—30  feet  Overhead  Small  15 feet—20  feet  4 feet—6 feet: This planting strip width is  less than desirable  Buried  Small  15 feet—20  feet  Overhead  Small  15 feet—20  feet  Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 244 Packet Page 866 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Attached Trees must be planted 4 feet—5 feet from the sidewalk. Trees may be planted on private property if there is not adequate right-of-way. Buried Large 30 feet—40 feet Overhead  Small  15 feet—20  feet  Urban sidewalk of 12 feet or wider (BMS, BR- 1, BR-2, and MU-3 zoning districts) Trees must be planted in irrigated tree grates or tree pits unless approved by the city manager. For tree grate dimensions and tree pit volume, see Design and Construction Standards, Table 3.05-5. Buried Large 20 feet—25 feet Overhead  Medium  15 feet—20  feet  … Section 23. Section 9-9-14, “Parking Lot Landscaping Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-14. Parking Lot Landscaping Standards. (a) Scope Required: This section shall apply to all surface parking lots with more than five parking spaces., regardless of whether the parking is required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. All parking lots shall be screened from the street and adjacent properties and contain interior lot landscaping in accordance with this section. Landscaping and screening standards set forth in this section are separate and in addition to the requirements of all other sections in this chapter unless expressly stated otherwise. … Figure 9-9: Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 245 Packet Page 867 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Only the shaded areas qualify as interior landscaping. Each landscaping area must be a minimum of one hundred fifty square feet in size and have no dimensions less than eight feet. (5) Expansive Parking Lots Containing One Hundred Twenty Percent or More of The Minimum Required Parking Spaces: In order to mitigate the impacts of excessive pavement to water quality and to reduce the visual impacts of large expanses of pavement, open, at-grade parking spaces in excess of one hundred twenty percent of the minimum required in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981 that encompasses more than 50 percent of the total lot area, a development shall provide include additional parking lot landscaping over the amount required in other sections of this chapter as follows: (A) For parking lots containing more than one hundred twenty percent and less than one hundred fifty percent of minimum required parking encompassing more than 50 percent of the total lot area, interior parking lot landscaping shall be installed as required above, plus an additional five percent of the parking lot area as interior or perimeter parking lot landscaping. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall not be located within a required front yard setback or a side yard adjacent to a street setback. (B) For parking lots containing one hundred fifty percent or more than the minimum required parkingencompassing more than 60 percent of the total lot area, interior parking lot landscaping shall be installed as required above, plus an additional ten percent of the parking lot area as interior or perimeter parking lot landscaping. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall not be located within a required front yard setback or a side yard adjacent to a street setback. (6) Trees: At least one tree must be planted for every two hundred square feet of interior parking lot landscaped area. At least seventy-five percent of the required trees must be deciduous trees classified as either large or medium trees in the approved street tree list as defined set forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. … Section 24. Section 9-9-16, “Lighting, Outdoor,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-16. Lighting, Outdoor. (a) Purpose: The purposes of the outdoor lighting standards are to: (1) Provide adequate light for safety and security; Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 246 Packet Page 868 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (2) Promote efficient and cost effective lighting and to conserve energy; (3) Reduce light pollution, light trespass, glare and offensive light sources; (4) Provide an environmentally sensitive nighttime environment that includes the ability to view the stars against a dark sky so that people can see the Milky Way Galaxy from residential and other appropriate viewing areas; (5) Prevent inappropriate, poorly designed or installed outdoor lighting; and (6) Encourage quality lighting design; light fixture shielding, establish maximum uniformity ratios and establish maximum light levels within and on property lines. … (e) Maximum Light Standards: No person shall operate any device which makes light in excess of the levels specified in this section. Light from any fixture shall not exceed any of the limits for the applicable zoning district or use classification in Tables 9-711 and 9- 812 of this section. In the event an applicant utilizes light levels at the highest level permitted for a specific use area, such lighting shall be substantially confined to that particular use area. TABLE 9-711: ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS Residential Zoning Districts (Not Including Public Uses) Commercial, Mixed Use, Downtown, Business, and Industrial Zoning Districts Public Zoning District and Public Uses in Residential Zones Maximum allowable light levels (measured in footcandles) 5.0 at building entries 5.0 at building entries 5.0 at building entries 3.0 in parking areas  5.0 in parking areas  5.0 in parking lots  3.0 along pedestrian  walkways  3.0 along pedestrian  walkways  3.0 along pedestrian  walkways  2.0 in common open  space areas  2.0 in outdoor storage  areas (maximum  uniformity ratio  requirements are not  applicable)  Maximum uniformity ratio (maximum to minimum) n/a 10:1 (except as noted above) 15:1 Maximum lumen rating for a full cutoff luminaire shielded from view of 8,500 - parking areas of 6 or more spaces 8,500 - pedestrian areas 14,000 - parking and loading areas 14,000 - parking and loading areas Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 247 Packet Page 869 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 adjacent streets and properties 4,000 ‐ walkway lights  and common areas  23,500 on 35 foot pole  when permitted (parking  and loading areas)  1,800 stairways and  entryways  16,000 for high pressure  sodium when permitted  Maximum lumen rating for a partially shielded (IES TM-15-11 G1 rating) fixture 900 1,250 1,250 Maximum lumen rating for an unshielded light fixture 900: except no lamp or bulb, other than for seasonal displays and landscape ornamental lighting, shall be visible beyond the property line 900 900 Controls Motion sensors required for all unshielded fixtures in excess of 900 lumens Recommended after close of business Recommended after close of business Maximum allowable pole height (includes base, pole and luminaire) 20 feet in parking lots 25 feet in parking lots 20 feet in parking lots within or adjacent to residential zones, otherwise 25 foot maximum 15 feet in all other areas  35 feet for contiguous  parking lots of 5 or more  acres in size  20 feet in all other areas  TABLE 9-812: SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS Open Parking Structures and Parking Below a Building Private Recreation Use Public Recreation Use Service Stations, Automobile Dealerships, Drive-Thru Windows Maximum allowable light levels (measured in footcandles) 5.0 within open parking structure and parking below a building 5.0 for uncovered upper levels 5.0 for covered exterior pedestrian circulation areas The lesser of 30 footcandles or the IESNA recommended standards for the specific sports venue 5.0 in parking lots The IESNA recommended standards for the specific sports venue 5.0 in parking lots 5.0 in building entries and drive-up windows 20.0 under service station canopies 15.0 within vehicular display Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 248 Packet Page 870 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 that are a part of a parking structure or parking below a building 4.0 in pedestrian areas 4.0 in pedestrian areas areas 5.0 in parking lots 3.0 along pedestrian walkways Maximum uniformity ratio (maximum to minimum) 5:1 within parking structure 10:1 remainder of site 3:1 on sports field or court 10:1 remainder of site 3:1 on sports field or court 10:1 remainder of site 10:1 Maximum lumen rating for a full cutoff light fixture shielded from view of adjacent streets and properties 14,000 23,500 for field or court area 8,500 for parking and pedestrian areas 107,000 for sports field 23,500 for courts 14,000 for parking areas 8,500 for pedestrian areas 14,000 Maximum lumen rating for a partially shielded (IES TM- 15-11 G1 rating) fixture 1,800 1,250 4,000 1,800 Maximum lumen rating for an unshielded light fixture 900 900 900 900 Sports shielding n/a Internal and external Internal and external n/a Light fixture aiming angle n/a n/a Not greater than 60 degrees from nadir n/a Controls Automatic daylight adaptation controls required Field or court lights shall be turned off within 30 minutes of the last event or 12:00 midnight, whichever is earlier Field or court lights shall be turned off within 30 minutes after the last event Service station canopies and vehicular display lights shall not exceed 5.0 footcandles within Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 249 Packet Page 871 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 1 hour of the close of business Maximum allowable pole height (includes base, pole, and light fixture) 12 feet for uncovered upper level parking 20 feet in residential zones 25 feet in all other zones 20 feet in parking lots within or adjacent to residential zones, otherwise 25 feet 35 feet for sports lighting or as approved by the city manager per Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981 20 feet when adjacent to residential zones, otherwise 25 feet in parking lots 20 feet in all other areas … Section 25. Section 9-9-21, “Signs,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-21. Signs. (a) Application and Legislative Intent: (1) Application of Section: This section applies only to signs erected on private property by the owner or lessee in possession of that property, or by persons acting with the permission or at the request of the owner or lessee. It applies only to signs which are visible beyond the boundaries of the property upon which they are located. There are two exceptions to this rule which are most conveniently included in this section: signs erected on private property as part of a sign program which was a condition of approval of development under this title; and signs on private vehicles located on public property. This section does not apply to a sign carried by a person, whether on public or private property. This section does not apply to signs, other than those on vehicles, on public property. [12] … (c) Signs Exempt From Permits: … (M) Cottage Foods and Fresh Produce Signs. On any premises meeting the requirements of Chapter 6-17, a sign meeting the size restrictions applicable to residential detached dwellings in Table 9-913 of this section. This provision does not restrict the content of the sign. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 250 Packet Page 872 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 …   (e) Limitations on Area, Number, and Height of Signs by Use Module: … (2) Maximum Sign Area Permitted: The maximum sign area permitted per property, maximum area per sign face, maximum number of signs, and maximum height of freestanding signs in the use modules in the city are as in Table 9-913 of this section, except as modified by other provisions of this section. TABLE 9-913: LIMITATIONS ON AREA, NUMBER, AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS BY USE MODULE Maximum Sign Area Permitted Per Property Maximum Area Per Sign Face Maximum Number Signs Permitted Maximum Height of  Freestanding Signs  Residential and Agricultural Districts (RR, RE, RL, RM, RMX, RH, and A) For detached dwelling uses: 4 square feet 2 square feet 1 per use 7 feet  For attached dwelling uses: 32 square feet 16 square feet 1 per street frontage 7 feet  For other uses permitted by zoning chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981: 32 square feet 16 square feet 1 per street frontage 7 feet  For other uses permitted by special review and for lawful nonconforming uses: the lesser of 50 square feet or the maximum sign area for the use in the zoning district in which the use is permitted by chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981 16 square feet The lesser of 1 per street frontage or 2 per use 7 feet  Public District (P) The greater of: 15 square feet or ½ square foot of sign area for each foot of street frontage 50 square feet for freestanding signs. See subsection (d) of this section for limits on other signs 1 per street frontage for freestanding signs. 1 per ground level tenant for projecting signs. No limit on other signs 7 feet  Downtown, Mixed Use, and Business - Transitional Districts (BMS, BT, MU, DT) Any use that is permitted in a residential zone shall be regulated as in the residential zoning districts Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 251 Packet Page 873 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 any use not permitted in residential zones, other than MU-3, in addition to freestanding signs, as permitted in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, 1.25 square feet of sign area for each linear foot of total building frontage for the first 200 feet of frontage, plus 0.5 square feet of sign area for each foot of frontage thereafter See subsection (d) of this section for area restrictions 1 per street frontage for freestanding signs. 1 per ground level tenant for projecting signs. No limit on other signs See paragraph (d)(6)  of this section for  height restrictions  Business - Community, Business - Commercial Services, Business - Regional, and Industrial Districts not in the B.V.R.C. (BC, BCS, BR, IS, IG, IM, and IMS) For any use permitted in residential zones, as regulated in residential zoning districts See subsection (d) of this section for area restrictions Varies with setback;  see paragraph (d)(6)  of this section  In addition to freestanding signs, as permitted in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, 2 square feet sign area for each linear foot of total building frontage for the first 200 feet of frontage, plus 0.5 square foot sign area for each linear foot of frontage, except as provided in subparagraph (d)(6)(D) of this section See subsection (d) of this section for area restrictions See paragraph (d)(6)  of this section for  height restrictions  Boulder Valley Regional Center and Regional Business Districts Properties zoned BR-1 and properties located within the Boulder Valley Regional Center unless zoned BT- 1 or BT-2 For any use not permitted in residential zones, in addition to freestanding signs, as permitted in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, 1.5 square feet of sign area for each linear foot of total building frontage for the first 200 feet of each frontage, plus ½ square foot sign area for each additional linear foot of each frontage See subsection (d) of this section for area restrictions 1 per street frontage for freestanding signs. 1 per ground level tenant for projecting signs. No limit on other signs See paragraph (d)(6)  of this section for  height restrictions  … (q) Discontinuance of Prohibited Legal Nonconforming Signs: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (q)(2) or (q)(3) of this section, a legal nonconforming sign prohibited by subsection (b) of this section shall be removed or brought into conformity with the provisions of this section within sixty days Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 252 Packet Page 874 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 from the date on which the sign became nonconforming. (2) A legal nonconforming sign described in subparagraph (b)(3)(C), (b)(3)(D), (b)(3)(H), or (b)(3)(K) of this section is subject to the amortization provisions of subsection (r) of this section, unless excepted by paragraph (q)(3) of this section. (3) Existing legal signs in the city which became nonconforming solely because of a change in this sign code enacted by Ordinance No. 5186 (1989) or Ordinance No. 6017 (1998) are subject to all the requirements of subsection (p) of this section, but are not subject to the sixty-day discontinuance provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this section or the amortization provisions of subsection (r) of this section. Such amortization provisions are also inapplicable to lawfully permitted nonconforming advertising devices, as those terms are defined and applied in the Outdoor Advertising Act, 43-1-401 et seq., C.R.S. The city manager is authorized, subject to appropriation, to remove such devices by eminent domain proceedings. (r) Amortization Provisions: Except for signs described in paragraph (q)(1) or (q)(3) of this section, or a temporary sign, a legal nonconforming sign shall be brought into conformity or removed under the following schedule: (4) A sign having an original cost exceeding $100.00 that is nonconforming as to permitted sign area or any other provision of this section that would require the complete removal or total replacement of the sign may be maintained for the longer of the following periods: (A) Three years from the date upon which the sign became nonconforming under the provisions of this section by annexation or code amendment; or (B) A period of three to seven years from the installation date or most recent renovation date that preceded the date on which the sign became nonconforming. But if the date of renovation is chosen as the starting date of the amortization period, such period of amortization shall be calculated according to the cost of the renovation and not according to the original cost of the sign. The amortization periods in Table 9-104 of this section apply according to the original cost of the sign, including installation costs, or of the renovation: TABLE 9-104: AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE Sign Code or Renovation Cost Permitted Years From  Installation or Renovation Date $ 101 through $1,000  3 years  $1,001 through $3,000  4 years  $3,001 through $10,000  5 years  Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 253 Packet Page 875 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Over $10,000  7 years  … Section 26. Section 9-10-2, “Continuation or Restoration of Nonconforming Uses and Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-10-2. Continuation or Restoration of Nonconforming Uses and Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots. Nonconforming uses and nonstandard buildings and lots in existence on the effective date of the ordinance which first made them nonconforming may continue to exist subject to the following: (a) One-Year Expiration for Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming use, except for a use that is nonconforming only because it fails to meet the required off street parking standards of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," or residential density requirements of Section 9-8-1," Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, that has been discontinued for at least one year shall not be resumed or replaced by another nonconforming use as allowed under Subsection 9-2-15(f), B.R.C. 1981, unless an extension of time is requested in writing prior to the expiration of the one-year period. The approving authority will grant such a request for an extension upon finding that an undue hardship would result if such extension were not granted. … Section 27. Section 9-10-3, “Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-10-3. Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots and Nonconforming Uses. Changes to nonstandard buildings, structures, or nonstandard lots and nonconforming uses shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Nonstandard Buildings and Structures: … (c) Nonconforming Uses: (1) Nonconforming Changes to Conforming Use Prohibited: No conforming use may be changed to a nonconforming use, notwithstanding the fact that some of the features of the lot or building are nonstandard or the parking is nonconforming. … Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 254 Packet Page 876 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (3) Nonconforming Only as to Parking: The city manager will grant a request to change a use that is nonconforming only because of an inadequate amount of parking to any conforming use allowed in the underlying zoning district upon a finding that the new or modified use will have an equivalent or less parking requirement than the use being replaced. (34) Nonconforming Permanently Affordable Units. Dwelling units on a building site that exceeds the maximum number of dwelling units per acre standard or does not meet the minimum amount of open space per dwelling unit or the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards may be reconstructed or restored consistent with the following standards: … (F) Parking: On-site parking that does not meet the requirements of Section 9- 9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be maintained or brought closer to compliance with the standards. Any further reduction in parking spaces may be pursued through Subsection 9-9-6(f), "Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions," B.R.C. 1981 or Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981; (FG) Application of Code: Applications subject to this paragraph shall meet all requirements of the Boulder Revised Code unless modified or waived by this paragraph or pursuant to another city process, including without limitation a site review, use review, or variance process. Any reconstructed or restored building meeting the maximum number of dwelling units per acre, the minimum amount of open space per dwelling unit, and the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards shall be subject to the applicable zoning district standards; and (GH) Application Requirements: A person having a demonstrable property interest in the land may apply for the reconstruction or restoration of a building or property under the requirements of this paragraph. Such application shall be filed on a form provided by the manager and shall meet the requirements of Subsection 9-2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981, and the following: … Section 28. Section 9-14-12, “Outdoor Space Requirements” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-12. Outdoor Space Requirements … Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 255 Packet Page 877 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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) Outdoor Space Types. All required outdoor space shall comply with one of the outdoor space types defined in subsections 9-14-12(lm) through (pq) of this section and the specifications applicable to the type used. (1) Specified Type. If a type of outdoor space is specified in Figure 14-17 for Boulder Junction or Figure 14-18 for Alpine-Balsam for the project site, such type shall be utilized. (2) No Specified Type. If no type is specified in Figure 14-17 or Figure 14-18 or the type is designated as flexible, any one of the outdoor space types defined in subsections 9-14-12(lm) through (pq) of this section may be utilized provided that the type utilized will result in a mix of outdoor spaces in the vicinity of the development. … Figure 14-16. Outdoor Space: Measuring Minimum Dimensions Figure 14-17. Boulder Junction: Required Locations for Outdoor Space Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 256 Packet Page 878 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Figure 14-18. Alpine-Balsam: Required Locations for Outdoor Space … (h) Parking Requirements. Parking shall not be required for any outdoor space type, unless a use other than open space is determined by the city manager. (hi) Continuity. New outdoor space shall connect to abutting or proximate existing or planned public way or open space. (ij) Measuring Size. When determining whether dimensions requirements of this section are met, the following standards apply: … (jk) Improvements. When determining the specific improvement standards applicable to each outdoor space type, the following shall apply: … (kl) Stormwater in Outdoor Space Types. Stormwater management practices, such as storage and retention facilities, may be integrated into any of the outdoor space types and utilized to meet stormwater requirements for surrounding parcels subject to the following standards: (lm) Plaza. The intent of the plaza is to provide a formal outdoor space of medium scale that may serve as a gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. The plaza may contain a greater amount of impervious coverage than any other type of outdoor space regulated in this section. Special features, such as fountains and public art installations, Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 257 Packet Page 879 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 are encouraged. Plazas shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-3. Plaza Requirements. See Figure 14-19. Example of a Plaza. Table 14-3. PLAZA REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size  0.10 acres  Maximum Size  1 acre  Minimum Dimension  80 feet  Minimum Percentage of Street or Public Way Frontage  Required  25%  Improvements Designated Sports Fields  Not permitted  Playgrounds  Not permitted  Mobility Hub  Permitted  Fully Enclosed Structures  Permitted; may cover maximum 5% of plaza area  Maximum Impervious Surface + Semi‐Pervious Surface  60%+ 20%  Maximum Percentage of Open Water  30%  Figure 14-20. Example of a Green (mn) Green. The intent of the green is to provide an informal outdoor space of medium scale for active or passive recreation located within walking distance for building occupants and visitors. The green is intended to be fronted mainly by streets. Greens shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-4. See Figure 14-20. Example of Green. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 258 Packet Page 880 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Table 14-4. GREEN REQUIREMENTS Dimensions  Minimum Size  0.25 acres   Maximum Size  2 acres   Minimum Dimension  45 feet   Minimum Percentage of Street or Public Way  Frontage Required  100% for greens less than 1.25 acres; 50% for greens  1.25 or more acres in size  Improvements  Designated Sports Fields  Not permitted   Playgrounds  Permitted   Mobility Hub  Permitted   Fully Enclosed Structures  Not permitted   Maximum Impervious Surface + Semi‐Pervious  Surface  20% + 15%   Maximum Percentage of Open Water  30%  Figure 14-21. Example of a Commons (no) Commons. The intent of the commons is to provide an informal, small to medium scale outdoor space for active or passive recreation. Commons are typically internal to a block and tend to serve adjacent building occupants. Commons shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-5. See Figure 14-21. Example of Commons. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 259 Packet Page 881 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Table 14-5. COMMONS REQUIREMENTS Dimensions  Minimum Size  0.25 acres   Maximum Size  1.5 acres   Minimum Dimension  45 feet   Minimum Percentage of Street or Public Way  Frontage Required  0%; requires a minimum of two access points  (minimum 20 feet wide)  Improvements  Designated Sports Fields  Not permitted   Playgrounds  Permitted   Mobility Hub  Not permitted   Fully Enclosed Structures  Not permitted   Maximum Impervious Surface + Semi‐Pervious  Surface  30% + 10%   Maximum Percentage of Open Water  30%  Figure 14-22. Example of a Pocket Park (op) Pocket Park. The intent of the pocket park is to provide a small scale, primarily landscaped active or passive recreation and gathering space for neighborhood residents within walking distance. Pocket parks shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-6. See Figure 14-22. Example of Plaza Pocket Park. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 260 Packet Page 882 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Table 14-6. POCKET PARK REQUIREMENTS Dimensions Minimum Size  0.10 acres  Maximum Size  1  Minimum Dimension  None  Minimum Percentage of Street Frontage Required  30%  Improvements Designated Sports Fields  Not permitted  Playgrounds  Required  Mobility Hub  Permitted  Fully Enclosed Structures  Not permitted  Maximum Impervious Surface + Semi‐Pervious Surface  30% + 10%  Maximum Percentage of Open Water  30%  Figure 14-23. Example of a Park/Greenway (pq) Park/Greenway. The intent of the park/greenway is to provide informal active and passive large-scale recreational amenities to local residents and the greater region. Parks have primarily natural plantings and are frequently created around an existing natural feature such as a water body or stands of trees. Parks/greenways shall be designed to meet the standards of Table 14-7. See Figure 14-23. Example of Parks/Greenways. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 261 Packet Page 883 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Table 14-7. PARK/GREENWAY REQUIREMENTS Dimensions  Minimum Size  2 acres   Maximum Size  None   Minimum Dimension  30 feet; minimum average width of 80 feet   Minimum Percentage of Street Frontage Required  30% for parks less than 5 acres; 20% for parks 5 or  more acres in size  Improvements  Designated Sports Fields  Permitted   Playgrounds  Permitted   Mobility Hub  Permitted   Fully Enclosed Structures  Permitted in parks 5 acres or larger in size   Maximum Impervious Surface + Semi‐Pervious  Surface  20% + 10%   Maximum Percentage of Open Water  50%  Section 29. Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-16-1. General Definitions. (a) The definitions contained in Chapter 1-2, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title unless a term is defined differently in this chapter. (b) Terms identified with the references shown below after the definition are limited to those specific sections or chapters of this title: (1) Airport influence zone (AIZ). (2) Floodplain regulations (Floodplain). (3) Historic preservation (Historic). (4) Inclusionary housing (Inclusionary Housing). (5) Solar access (Solar). (6) Wetlands Protection (Wetlands). (7) Signs (Signs). (c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: A—E … Expansion of a nonconforming use means any change or modification to a nonconforming use that constitutes: Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 262 Packet Page 884 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 (1) An increase in the occupancy, floor area, required parking, traffic generation, outdoor storage, or visual, noise, or air pollution; (2) Any change in the operational characteristics which may increase the impacts or create adverse impacts to the surrounding area including, without limitation, the hours of operation, noise, or the number of employees; (3) The addition of bedrooms to a dwelling unit, except a single-family detached dwelling unit; or (4) The addition of one or more dwelling units. … K—O … Lot, building means a parcel of land, including, without limitation, a portion of a platted subdivision, that is occupied or intended to be occupied by a building or use and its accessory buildings and uses, together with the yards required under the provisions of this code; that has not less than the minimum area, useable open space, and building coverage, and off-street parking spaces required by this code for a lot in the district in which such land is situated; that is an integral unit of land held under unified ownership in fee or co-tenancy or under legal control tantamount to such ownership; and that is precisely identified by a legal description. … Nonconforming use means any legally established use of a building or use of a lot that is prohibited by Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981. A nonconforming use also includes an otherwise conforming use, except a single dwelling unit on a lot, that, as a result of adoption of or amendments to zoning standards, does not meet the minimum lot area per dwelling unit or useable open space per dwelling unit requirements of Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981., or the required off-street parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981. … P—T … Principal parking facility means an area that provides short-term or long-term off-street parking for motor vehicles and is does not provide parking that is accessory to another use on the lot not accessory to the use on the lot where the parking is located or to a use located in the same approved planned unit development or site review. A principal parking facility may be a parking lot, garage, or carpool lot. A parking area that is an accessory use may also provide parking for a principal use on a different lot or parcel or a principal use that is not within the same planned unit development or site review without being considered a principal parking facility. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 263 Packet Page 885 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 … Section 30. Section 10-7-2, “Energy Conservation Code,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-7-2. Energy Conservation Code. (a) Council adopts by reference the 2024 City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code published by the International Code Council which shall have the same force and effect as though fully set forth in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, except as specifically amended by the provisions of this chapter. This code shall also be known as the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. This chapter and the 2024 City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code shall be administered, applied, and interpreted in accordance with and as part of Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. (b) Section C405.13, “Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction,” is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C405.13 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. The building shall be provided with electric vehicle (EV) charging in accordance with this section and the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70). Where parking spaces are added or modified without an increase in building size, only the new parking spaces are subject to this requirement. The number of required EVSE installed spaces, EV ready spaces, EV capable spaces, and EV capable light spaces shall be determined based on the total number of provided motor vehicle parking spaces. (cb) Section C406.2.2, "More efficient HVAC performance," is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C406.2.2 More efficient HVAC performance. To achieve credits for more efficient HVAC performance, all heating and cooling systems shall meet the minimum requirements of Section C403 and efficiency improvements shall be referenced to minimum efficiencies listed in tables referenced by Section C403.3.3. Where multiple efficiency requirements are listed, equipment shall meet the seasonal or part-load efficiencies, including SEER/SEER2, EER/integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), integrated part load value (IPLV), or AFUE. Equipment that is larger than the maximum capacity range indicated in tables referenced by Section C403.3.3 shall meet the efficiencies listed for the largest capacity for the associated equipment type shown in the table. Where multiple individual heating or cooling systems serve a project, the HVAC performance improvement of the project shall be the weighted average improvement based on individual system capacity. Projects will achieve HVAC efficiency credits for one or several of the following measures: 1. C406.2.2.4 H04 Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 264 Packet Page 886 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 2. C406.2.2.5 H05 (dc) Section C406.2.2.2, "H02 More efficient HVAC equipment heating performance," is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C406.2.2.2 H02. Reserved. (ed) Section C406.2.2.3, "H03 More efficient HVAC equipment cooling and fan performance," is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: C406.2.2.3 H03. Reserved. (fe) Lines H02 and H03 in Table C406.2, "Base Credit for Additional Conservation Measures," are repealed to read as follows: H02 Reserved H03 Reserved Section 31. The city council adopts the amendments to the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance 5986 (amended by Ordinance 7088, 7400, 7688, 8006, 8324, 8370, 8561, 8608, 8631, and 8672) that are shown in Exhibit A of this ordinance. Section 32. The city council orders and directs the city manager to make any additional citation, reference, update, and formatting changes to the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards not included in this ordinance that are necessary to properly implement these amendments to the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and to correct clerical errors. Section 33. This ordinance is prospective in nature and shall apply to all applications and permits applied for or those for which application is requested for after the effective date of its adoption. Permits and applications applied for prior to the effective date of this ordinance may proceed under the regulations in effect at the time of application. Section 34. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern. Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 265 Packet Page 887 of 1100 K:\PLCU\o-8696 2nd rdg AMPS-.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 Section 35. 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 5th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2025. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 266 Packet Page 888 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-i CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS CHAPTER 2 TRANSPORTATION DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 2.01 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 1  (A) INTENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 1  (B) TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................................... 1  (C) REFERENCE STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................. 1  (D) FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 1  2.02 TRAFFIC STUDY ......................................................................................................................................... 1  (A) TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 1  (B)  TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 1  (C) RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES ......................................................................................................... 1  (D) PREPARATION .................................................................................................................................................. 1  (E) COORDINATION WITH CITY .............................................................................................................................. 2   (F) SUBMITTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 2  2.03 TRAFFIC STUDY FORMAT ...................................................................................................................... 2  (A) STUDY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 2  (B) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 2  (C) SITE LOCATION AND ZONING ........................................................................................................................... 2  (D) STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES .............................................................................................................................. 2   (E) EXISTING AREA STREET SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2  (F) EXISTING AND PROJECTED ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................... 2  (G) EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE USES ............................................................................................................... 3  (H) EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES IN VICINITY OF THE SITE ...................................................................... 3  (I) TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ................................................................................ 3  (J) TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................................................... 3  (K) TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT AND MODAL SPLIT ..................................................................................... 4  (L) EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................ 5  (M) TRANSPORTATION SERVICE STANDARDS ......................................................................................................... 6  (N) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 7  (O) TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ANALYSES WORKSHEETS ............................................................................................. 7  (P) TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SIGNALS .................................................................................................................... 8  (Q) HAZARD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 8  (R) NOISE ATTENUATION ..................................................................................................................................... 10  (S) RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 10  (T) CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 11  (U) REVISIONS TO TRAFFIC STUDY ...................................................................................................................... 11  2.04 SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 12  (A) ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 12  (B) ACCESS PERMIT REQUIRED ............................................................................................................................ 12  Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 267 Packet Page 889 of 1100 2-ii DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (C) LOCATION OF ACCESS .................................................................................................................................... 12  (D) SIGHT DISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 13  (E) RESTRICTION OF TURNING MOVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 13  (F) TRAFFIC CONTROL ......................................................................................................................................... 13  (G) ONE-WAY ACCESS LANES ............................................................................................................................. 14  (H) SPEED CHANGE LANES .................................................................................................................................. 14  (I) ACCESS AND CURB CUT TYPE ........................................................................................................................ 14  (J) ACCESS AND CURB CUT WIDTH ..................................................................................................................... 15  (K) ACCESS AND CURB CUT RADII ....................................................................................................................... 15  (L) ACCESS AND CURB CUT GRADES ................................................................................................................... 15  (M) DRIVEWAYS ................................................................................................................................................... 15  2.05 RIGHTOFWAY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 16  2.06 BASE STREET AND ALLEY STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 17  (A) BASE STREET STANDARD ............................................................................................................................... 17  (B) BASE ALLEY STANDARD ................................................................................................................................ 17  2.07 STREET GEOMETRIC DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 17  (A) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 17  (B) RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................................................................................................................................. 18  (C) LANE WIDTH .................................................................................................................................................. 18  (D) HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ............................................................................................................................. 19  (E) VERTICAL ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................................................. 25  (F) SIGHT DISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 26  (G) MEDIANS ....................................................................................................................................................... 26  (H) VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF STRUCTURES ........................................................................................................ 27  2.08 SIDEWALKS ............................................................................................................................................... 27  (A) REQUIRED ...................................................................................................................................................... 27  (B) CONFORMANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ........................................................................ 27  (C) COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) .................................................................. 27  (D) MINIMUM WIDTHS ......................................................................................................................................... 27  (E) VERTICAL GRADES ........................................................................................................................................ 28  (F) VERTICAL CLEARANCE .................................................................................................................................. 28  2.09 RESIDENTIAL STREETS ........................................................................................................................ 28  (A) PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 28  (B) SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................ 28  (C) DIRECTOR REVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 29  (D) RESIDENTIAL STREET SECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 30  2.10 EMERGENCY ACCESS LANES .............................................................................................................. 36  (A) EMERGENCY ACCESS REQUIRED .................................................................................................................... 36  (B) WHEN EMERGENCY ACCESS LANE IS REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 36  (C) SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS ................................................................................................................ 36  (D) LOCAL EMERGENCY ACCESS LANE STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 36  (E) UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS ............................................................................................................................... 37  (F) ACCESS IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 37  2.11 BICYCLE FACILITIES AND MULTI-USE PATH DESIGN ............................................................... 37  (A) CONFORMANCE WITH LOW-STRESS WALK AND BIKE NETWORK PLAN ......................................................... 37  (B) ON-STREET BIKE LANES - STREETS WITHOUT ON-STREET PARKING ............................................................ 37  Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 268 Packet Page 890 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-iii (C) ON-STREET BIKE LANES - STREETS WITH ON-STREET PARKING ................................................................... 37  (D) BUFFERED BIKE LANES .................................................................................................................................. 37  (E) SEPARATED BIKE LANES (ONE-WAY AND TWO-WAY) .................................................................................. 38  (G) OFF-STREET MULTI-USE PATHS .................................................................................................................... 42  (H)  BICYCLE PARKING ......................................................................................................................................... 42  2.12 STREET LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................. 45  (A) SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................ 45  (B) PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 45  (C) CITY PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................................. 45  (D) STREET TYPES ................................................................................................................................................ 45  (E) DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 45  (F) INSTALLATION ............................................................................................................................................... 46  (G) EASEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 46  (H)  FEES ............................................................................................................................................................... 46  2.13 TRANSIT STOP FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................ 46  2.14 TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 46  (A) SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................ 46  (B) TRAFFIC CIRCLES ........................................................................................................................................... 47  (C) RAISED CROSSINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 48  2.01 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 1  (A) INTENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 1  (B) TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................................... 1  (C) REFERENCE STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................. 1  (D) FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 1  2.02 TRAFFIC STUDY ......................................................................................................................................... 1  (A) TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 1  (B)  TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 1  (C) RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES ......................................................................................................... 1  (D) PREPARATION .................................................................................................................................................. 2  (E) COORDINATION WITH CITY .............................................................................................................................. 2   (F) SUBMITTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 2  2.03 TRAFFIC STUDY FORMAT ...................................................................................................................... 2  (A) STUDY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 2  (B) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 2  (C) SITE LOCATION AND ZONING ........................................................................................................................... 2  (D) STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES .............................................................................................................................. 2   (E) EXISTING AREA STREET SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2  (F) EXISTING AND PROJECTED ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................... 3  (G) EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE USES ............................................................................................................... 3  (H) EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES IN VICINITY OF THE SITE ...................................................................... 3  (I) TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ................................................................................ 3  (J) TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................................................... 3  (K) TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT AND MODAL SPLIT ..................................................................................... 5  (L) EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................ 5  (M) TRANSPORTATION SERVICE STANDARDS ......................................................................................................... 6  (N) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 7  (O) TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ANALYSES WORKSHEETS ............................................................................................. 7  Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 269 Packet Page 891 of 1100 2-iv DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (P) TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SIGNALS .................................................................................................................... 8  (Q) HAZARD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 9  (R) NOISE ATTENUATION ..................................................................................................................................... 11  (S) RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 11  (T) CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 12  (U) REVISIONS TO TRAFFIC STUDY ...................................................................................................................... 12  2.04 SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 12  (A) ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 12  (B) ACCESS PERMIT REQUIRED ............................................................................................................................ 12  (C) LOCATION OF ACCESS .................................................................................................................................... 13  (D) SIGHT DISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 13  (E) RESTRICTION OF TURNING MOVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 13  (F) TRAFFIC CONTROL ......................................................................................................................................... 14  (G) ONE-WAY ACCESS LANES ............................................................................................................................. 14  (H) SPEED CHANGE LANES .................................................................................................................................. 14  (I) ACCESS AND CURB CUT TYPE ........................................................................................................................ 14  (J) ACCESS AND CURB CUT WIDTH ..................................................................................................................... 15  (K) ACCESS AND CURB CUT RADII ....................................................................................................................... 16  (L) ACCESS AND CURB CUT GRADES ................................................................................................................... 16  (M) DRIVEWAYS ................................................................................................................................................... 16  2.05 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................... 17  2.06 BASE STREET AND ALLEY STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 17  (A) BASE STREET STANDARD ............................................................................................................................... 17  (B) BASE ALLEY STANDARD ................................................................................................................................ 17  2.07 STREET GEOMETRIC DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 18  (A) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 18  (B) RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................................................................................................................................. 18  (C) LANE WIDTH .................................................................................................................................................. 19  (D) HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ............................................................................................................................. 20  (E) VERTICAL ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................................................. 26  (F) SIGHT DISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 27  (G) MEDIANS ....................................................................................................................................................... 27  (H) VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF STRUCTURES ........................................................................................................ 28  2.08 SIDEWALKS ............................................................................................................................................... 28  (A) REQUIRED ...................................................................................................................................................... 28  (B) CONFORMANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ........................................................................ 28  (C) COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) .................................................................. 28  (D) MINIMUM WIDTHS ......................................................................................................................................... 28  (E) VERTICAL GRADES ........................................................................................................................................ 29  (F) VERTICAL CLEARANCE .................................................................................................................................. 29  2.09 RESIDENTIAL STREETS ........................................................................................................................ 29  (A) PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 29  (B) SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................ 29  (C) DIRECTOR REVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 30  (D) RESIDENTIAL STREET SECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 32  2.10 EMERGENCY ACCESS LANES .............................................................................................................. 37  Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 270 Packet Page 892 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-v (A) EMERGENCY ACCESS REQUIRED .................................................................................................................... 37  (B) WHEN EMERGENCY ACCESS LANE IS REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 37  (C) SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS ................................................................................................................ 37  (D) LOCAL EMERGENCY ACCESS LANE STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 37  (E) UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS ............................................................................................................................... 38  (F) ACCESS IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 38  2.11 BICYCLE FACILITIES AND MULTI-USE PATH DESIGN ............................................................... 38  (A) CONFORMANCE WITH LOW-STRESS WALK AND BIKE NETWORK PLAN ......................................................... 38  (B) ON-STREET BIKE LANES - STREETS WITHOUT ON-STREET PARKING ............................................................ 38  (C) ON-STREET BIKE LANES - STREETS WITH ON-STREET PARKING ................................................................... 38  (D) BUFFERED BIKE LANES .................................................................................................................................. 39  (E) SEPARATED BIKE LANES (ONE-WAY AND TWO-WAY) .................................................................................. 39  (G) OFF-STREET MULTI-USE PATHS .................................................................................................................... 44  (H)  BICYCLE PARKING ......................................................................................................................................... 44  2.12 STREET LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................. 46  (A) SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................ 46  (B) PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 46  (C) CITY PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................................. 46  (D) STREET TYPES ................................................................................................................................................ 46  (E) DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 47  (F) INSTALLATION ............................................................................................................................................... 47  (G) EASEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 47  (H)  FEES ............................................................................................................................................................... 47  2.13 TRANSIT STOP FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................ 48  2.14 TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 48  (A) SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................ 48  (B) TRAFFIC CIRCLES ........................................................................................................................................... 48  (C) RAISED CROSSINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 50  LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Number Page TABLE 2-1: SAMPLE OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 910  TABLE 2-2: ACCESS SPACING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 1213  TABLE 2-3: ACCESS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1415  TABLE 2-4: BASE STREET STANDARD COMPONENTS ............................................................................................... 1718  TABLE 2-5: BASE ALLEY STANDARD COMPONENTS ................................................................................................ 1718  TABLE 2-6: PREFERRED STREET LANE WIDTHS ....................................................................................................... 1819  TABLE 2-7: MINIMUM HORIZONTAL STREET CURVE SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 1920  TABLE 2-7A: SEPARATED BIKE LANE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CURVE SPECIFICATIONS .......................................... 1920  TABLE 2-8: MINIMUM STREET SPACING ................................................................................................................... 2021  FIGURE 2-1: ACTUAL AND EFFECTIVE RADIUS AT A CONVENTIONAL INTERSECTION CORNER ............................... 2122  FIGURE 2-2: ACTUAL AND EFFECTIVE RADIUS AT AN INTERSECTION CORNER WITH A CURB EXTENSION ............. 2122  TABLE 2-9: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECTIVE AND ACTUAL RADIUS FOR THE DEFAULT DESIGN VEHICLE (SU-30) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22  FIGURE 2-3: EXAMPLE OF A MOUNTABLE TRUCK APRON AT AN INTERSECTION .................................................... 2324  TABLE 2-10: MAXIMUM STREET GRADES ................................................................................................................ 2526  Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 271 Packet Page 893 of 1100 2-vi DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD TABLE 2-11: VERTICAL CURVE DESIGN CONTROL ................................................................................................... 2526  TABLE 2-12: MEDIAN WIDTH DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................................. 2728  TABLE 2-13: MINIMUM SIDEWALK WIDTHS ............................................................................................................. 2728  TABLE 2-14: RESIDENTIAL STREET DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 3233  FIGURE 2-4: TYPICAL LAYOUT AND STANDARD DIMENSIONS OF TRAFFIC CIRCLE .................................................. 4749  TABLE 2-15: OFFSET AND OPENING WIDTH DIMENSIONS ........................................................................................ 4849  TABLE 2-16: CENTER ISLAND DIAMETER DIMENSION FOR DIFFERENT STREET WIDTHS AND CURB RETURN RADII 4849  FIGURE 2-5: TYPICAL LAYOUT OF RAISED CROSSING AT MID-BLOCK LOCATION ................................................... 4951  FIGURE 2-6: TYPICAL LAYOUT OF RAISED CROSSING AT INTERSECTION LEG LOCATION ........................................ 5051  FIGURE 2-7: TYPICAL LAYOUT OF RAISED CROSSING AT CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LOCATION .......................... 5152  FIGURE 2-8: RAISED CROSSING TYPICAL SECTION ................................................................................................... 5152  TABLE 2-17: DIMENSIONS OF APPROACH RAMP LENGTH FOR VARIOUS ROADWAY LONGITUDINAL SLOPES AND TARGET GRADE BREAKS ................................................................................................................................ 5253  TABLE 2-18: TARGET GRADE BREAKS FOR DIFFERENT ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS............................................. 5253  Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 272 Packet Page 894 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-1 2.01 General (A) Intent The Transportation Design Standards are intended to provide for an integrated transportation system for all transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle. (B) Transportation Master Plan All improvements proposed to the city’s transportation system shall conform with the goals and policies in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). (C) Reference Standards Where not specified in these Standards or the B.R.C. 1981, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the Director of Public Works will specify the standards to be applied to the design and construction of transportation improvements and may refer to one or more of the references listed in the References Section of these Standards. (D) Functional Street Classification Public streets shall be designed and improved to conform to the applicable functional street classification as defined on the “Street Function Class and Proposed Street Facilities” map of the TMP. 2.02 Traffic Study (A) Traffic Assessment The Director will require an applicant to submit a Traffic Assessment in order to adequately assess the impacts of any development proposal on the existing and planned transportation system. The Assessment shall include a peak hour trip generation study projection (Refer to 2.03(J)) and may require additional information as determined by the Director. (B) Traffic Study Requirements For any development proposal where trip generation from the development during the peak hour of the adjacent street is expected to exceed 100 vehicles for nonresidential applications, or 20 vehicles for residential applications the Director will require an applicant to submit a Traffic Study to evaluate the traffic impacts of the development proposal. The Traffic Study may include the information required in Subsections (A) through (K), of Section 2.03, “Traffic Study Format,” of these Standards at the discretion of the Director. (C) Responsibilities for Traffic Studies An applicant for construction approval shall be responsible for assessing all traffic impacts associated with a proposed development, with the city serving in a review and approval capacity. (D) Preparation A Traffic Study shall be prepared by an Engineer with adequate experience and expertise in transportation engineering. The Engineer shall be identified in the Traffic Study. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 273 Packet Page 895 of 1100 2-2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (E) Coordination with City Transportation consultants and Engineers preparing Traffic Studies shall discuss proposed development projects with the Director prior to initiating the study. Issues to be discussed include, without limitation, the TMP, definition of the study area, relevant subarea, area, and subcommunity plans, methods for projecting build-out volumes, background traffic conditions, trip generation, directional distribution of traffic, trip assignment, and assessment of potential transportation hazards. These aspects of the Traffic Study shall be approved by the Director prior to study preparation. (F) Submittal A Traffic Study shall be prepared in conformance with, and including, the information required in Section 2.03, “Traffic Study Format,” of these Standards. 2.03 Traffic Study Format (A) Study Requirements The information provided in the Traffic Study shall include the following sections as outlined below. The study shall be typed and bound, andbound and clearly identify the data and information in the appropriate sections. In addition, the study shall contain a table of contents, lists of figures, and tables, and shall identify any map pockets and included drawings. (B) Introduction The Traffic Study shall provide an introduction with an overview and discussion of the project or development proposal. (C) Site Location and Zoning Include a vicinity map detailing the property location, a conceptual site plan reflecting the boundaries of the project or development, and information detailing the designated zoning district, general terrain and physical features of the site and the surrounding area. (D) Study Area Boundaries Include the Study Area Boundaries as determined based on discussions with the Director and include all roadways and transportation routes providing access to the site and the surrounding transportation system. (E) Existing Area Street System Description Describe and include roadway orientations, functional classifications and geometries, intersection geometries, and traffic controls, including without limitation signage and striping, speed limits, parking restrictions, sight distance, transit routes, the presence of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and any other related traffic operations information and improvements approved or planned by government agencies. For identified improvements scheduled by government agencies, include the nature of the improvements, extent, implementation schedule, and the agency or funding source responsible. (F) Existing and Projected Roadway and Intersection Traffic Volumes Include diagrams that map existing traffic volumes, and each variation of projected traffic volumes, for all roadways and intersections within the study area. Also provide diagrams that map the intersection and roadway geometries and traffic control within the study area. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 274 Packet Page 896 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-3 (G) Existing and Proposed Site Uses Include an identification of the existing land use and proposed land use or the highest potential land use based on zoning and maximum trip generation where a specific use has not been determined. If rezoning is proposed, the study shall provide a comparison between the highest trip generation uses for the existing zoning and the highest trip generation uses for the proposed zoning. (H) Existing and Proposed Land Uses in Vicinity of the Site Document any vacant land or potential redevelopment that may result in a change in traffic volume conditions within the study area during each time period studied. Perform and provide trip generation on these parcels and include the trips generated from these parcels in the trip volume diagrams and level of service analyses for each appropriate time period studied. (I) Transportation Demand Management Strategies Include an outline of transportation demand management strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel, including but not limited to the following: (1) Site Design: Incorporate design features that facilitate walking, biking, and use of transit services to access a proposed development, including features such as transit shelters and benches, site amenities, site design layouts, orientations and connections to increase convenience for alternate modes and reduce multiple trips to and from the site, and direct connections to existing offsite pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems. (2) Programs and Education: Incorporate alternate modes programs, such as providing transit passes to employees and residents, van pooling to the site by a major employer, ride-sharing, parking pricing, and planned delivery services, and educational measures such, as promoting telecommuting, distributing transit schedules and trails maps, signing alternate travel routes, and providing an onsite transportation coordinator or plan to educate and assist residents, employees, and customers in using alternate modes. (J) Trip Generation Traffic estimates for the proposed project and potential developed or redeveloped properties in the study area shall be obtained by performing trip generation using the procedures outlined in the most current edition of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). If adequate Trip Generation Manual data is not available for a specific land use, the procedures used to estimate trip generation data shall be approved by the Director. Include the following specific trip generation information: (1) Summary Table: List each land use that requires trip generation analysis, including the project plus developed or redeveloped land uses within the study area. For each trip generation summary, include land use type, amount, intensity, average trip generation rates for total daily traffic and peak hour traffic (a.m., noon and/or p.m. peak hour traffic generation may be required), and the resultant total trips generated for each time period and each land use. (2) Calculations: Calculation of projected trip generation for any land use, used to determine study area impacts, shall be based on the following: Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 275 Packet Page 897 of 1100 2-4 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (a) Trip generation formulas (or rates, if formulas are not available) published in the most recent version of the Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation reports from other industry publications may be considered but are subject to the approval of the Director. (b) A local trip generation study, following procedures outlined in the most recent version of the Trip Generation Manual, if no published rates are available and similar land uses can be studied. (c) Additional data or studies from other similar jurisdictions. Trip generation obtained in this fashion is subject to the review and approval of the Director. (3) Trip Generation Reductions: Credit for any trip reductions is subject to review and approval in advance by the Director. Anticipated trip reduction assumptions should be discussed and approved by the Director prior to the preparation of the Traffic Study. Trip reductions typically fall into one of two categories: those that reassign some portion of the trip generation from the surrounding roadway network (passerby and diverted trip reductions), and those that remove trips generated from the land use trip generation (internal and modal split reductions). (a) Use of passerby and diverted trip reductions may be evaluated and considered in reducing the additional estimated total trip generation of a new land use. However, passerby and diverted trip reduction factors are not to be applied directly to reduce trip generation and turning movement volumes at driveways serving the studied land use. These factors are subject to the approval of the Director. (b) Internal trip reductions and modal split assumptions may reduce the total trip generation of a land use. These factors considered in the Traffic Study shall supply analytical support and detailed documentation to demonstrate how the estimates were derived and incorporated and are subject to the approval of the Director. (K) Trip Distribution/Assignment and Modal Split Trip distribution/assignment of any generated traffic estimates shall be clearly summarized and illustrated for each access route entering and exiting the generating land use, using the study area transportation system as a basis. Include the following specific trip distribution/assignment information: (1) Trip Distribution: The trip distribution for each site shall be identified and illustrated with a graphical figure detailing the percentages making each movement, at each intersection in the study area. The trip distribution shall be logically based upon factors such as the site’s location within the city’s existing traffic volume data in the study area, market analyses, applied census data, and/or professional engineering judgment. Trip distribution assumptions are subject to the approval of the Director. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 276 Packet Page 898 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-5 (2) Trip Assignment: Trip assignment shall be done by applying the trip generation totals for each time period studied, to the trip distribution percentages developed. The trip assignment shall develop anticipated traffic volumes for each of the movements identified by the trip distribution and each of the time periods identified in the analyses. The resulting traffic volumes shall be illustrated with graphical figures detailing the anticipated volumes making each movement, at each intersection in the study area, during each time period studied. (L) Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes (1) Traffic Volume Scenarios: Five traffic volume scenarios and three separate times of the day may be required to be included in a Traffic Study analysis. The applicant shall meet with the Director to determine the scenarios and time periods to be studied, prior to the development of the Traffic Study. The number of scenarios and time periods to be studied are subject to the approval of the Director. The potential scenarios and time periods include the following: (a) Scenario 1 - Existing Conditions: An analysis of existing traffic conditions will be required in the Traffic Study. Existing Conditions analysis should attempt to model traffic conditions at the time the Traffic Study is being prepared. Traffic counts that are older than the year the study is being prepared shall be factored up or adjusted to existing year volumes. (b) Scenario 2 - Anticipated Project Completion Year Without Project Volumes: Include an analysis of the anticipated traffic conditions during the year the project is intended to be finished and traffic is generated. The analysis shall anticipate the increase in background traffic volumes and the generation of other related projects that are not present in the existing condition, but would likely be completed and generating trips in this time period. The trip generation for the proposed project shall not be included in this scenario. If the project is intended to be completed the same year that the Traffic Study is being prepared, then this scenario is the same as Scenario 1 - Existing Conditions. (c) Scenario 3 - Anticipated Project Completion Year With Project Volumes: This scenario is the same as Scenario 2, except that the project volumes are assigned to the roadway network and included in the analyses. (d) Scenario 4 Future Buildout Conditions Without Project Volumes: An analysis of the anticipated traffic conditions during buildout, using the projected buildout year defined in the city’s TMP. The analysis shall anticipate the increase in background traffic volumes and the generation of other related projects that are not present in the existing condition, but would likely be completed and generating trips in this time period. The trip generation for the proposed project should not be included in this scenario. (e) Scenario 5 Future Buildout Conditions With Project Volumes: This scenario is the same as Scenario 4, except that the project volumes are assigned to the roadway network and included in the analyses. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 277 Packet Page 899 of 1100 2-6 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (2) Traffic Volume Projections: The traffic volume projections shall identify existing and projected daily traffic counts and peak hour turning movement counts for each access point, intersection and street identified in the Traffic Study area for each of the aforementioned scenarios required in the study. (3) Time Periods: Each scenario may be required to look at three different time periods (the a.m., noon and p.m. peak hour conditions). The Director will determine which time periods and scenarios are required for each Traffic Study depending upon the project’s size, location, types of land uses and other pertinent factors. (4) Raw Traffic Count Data: Include all raw traffic-count data for average daily and peak hour conditions and traffic analysis worksheets in the appendices of the Traffic Study for reference. Computer techniques and associated printouts may be used for this part of the report. NOTE: All total daily traffic counts must be actual machine counts, not based on factored peak hour sampling. Latest available machine counts from the city, and other agencies, may be acceptable if not more than 2 years older than the year the Traffic Study is being prepared. Data older than the year the Traffic Study is being prepared shall be factored up to current year numbers, using growth rates approved by the Director. (M) Transportation Service Standards Include a discussion and analysis assessing the impacts of the project or development proposal on the existing and planned transportation system in the study area with respect to the following traffic impact and mitigation objectives: (1) Transportation Master Plan Objectives: TMP service standards’ objectives include the following: (a) No long-term growth in auto traffic over current levels described as a 0 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. (b) Reduction in single occupant vehicle travel to 25 percent of total trips. (c) Continuous reduction in mobile source emission of air pollutants, and no more than 20 percent of roadways congested at LOS F. (2) Level of Service Design Guide: LOS standards objectives include: (a) Minimum LOS D design guide for peak hour conditions for all movements. Project impacts that maintain LOS D or better for all intersections and street segments may not be required to provide LOS-related traffic mitigation improvements. (b) LOS E and lower peak hour conditions require the implementation of one or more transportation management strategies consistent with the goals and objectives of the TMP. A transportation management strategy plan required to address and mitigate these conditions may include travel demand management, Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 278 Packet Page 900 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-7 land use intensity reduction, site design, layout and access modifications, parking reduction measures, or transportation infrastructure improvements. (N) Level of Service Analysis (1) The Traffic Study shall provide LOS analyses for all study area intersections (signalized and unsignalized) and mid-block roadway segments using methodologies outlined in the current Highway Capacity Manual. The analyses should be performed for Scenarios 1 through 5, described in Section 2.0 3(L), “Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes,” and for each time period (a.m., noon and/or p.m. peaks) that is required in the Traffic Study, unless otherwise required by the Director. (2) Level of service analyses shall consider the appropriate infrastructure, lane usage, traffic control and any other pertinent factors for each scenario to be studied. Intersections with planned improvements, discussed in city planning documents, may have those improvements shown in the level of service analyses. (3) Signalized intersection level of service analyses shall use the existing timing and phasing of the intersections for all scenarios. If the analyses are to deviate from existing timings or phasing, then a detailed signal progression analyses for the affected corridor shall also be provided. (4) The results of the level of service analyses for each scenario and each time period shall be summarized into one or more tables that illustrate the differences in level of service for each scenario. At a minimum, these tables shall list the level of service results for each intersection to include the level of service for each approach and the total intersection level of service, as well as the appropriate delay values for each approach and the total intersection. These tables shall highlight any locations where the addition of project traffic has caused any approach of any intersection to fall below the LOS D standard for the city. (O) Traffic Counts and Analyses Worksheets Provide capacity analysis calculations based on the planning or operational analysis techniques contained in the current Highway Capacity Manual or subsequent highway capacity techniques established by the Federal Highway Administration, including the following: (1) Raw Traffic Count Data: Include all raw traffic count data for average daily, hourly Average daily trip (ADT), and peak hour conditions and traffic analysis worksheets in the appendices of the Traffic Study for reference. Computer techniques and associated printouts may be used for this part of the report. (2) Level of Service Analyses: Include all level of service analyses performed for intersections and roadway links. If signal timing or phasing changes are proposed for traffic mitigation and the signal is currently part of a coordinated system, a progression analysis will be required to ensure that adequate progression is maintained or provided. All progress analysis and assumptions to be used shall be reviewed and approved by the Director. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 279 Packet Page 901 of 1100 2-8 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (P) Traffic Control and Signals The Traffic Study shall discuss and analyze any traffic control measures that may be necessary to serve a proposed project or development. Any traffic control measures are to be evaluated based on the requirements established in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and by the city, and will be applied as necessary to ensure safe and efficient operation of the city’s transportation system. The analysis shall demonstrate the need for traffic control measures considering the objectives and policies of the TMP and alternative site designs in order to minimize or mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed project or development. The following traffic control measures are to be addressed: (1) Regulatory Signage, Markings and Islands: These traffic control measures shall be applied as necessary in conformance with the MUTCD and city standards and policies. (2) Traffic Signals: The installation of new traffic signals is not encouraged by the city and all possible alternatives to signalization shall be evaluated before the installation of a new traffic signal will be considered. The need for new traffic signals will be based on warrants contained in the MUTCD and on city policies. In determining the location of a new signal, safety and community traffic circulation and progression will be the primary considerations. If a traffic signal is suggested as part of a mitigation package, and the intersection lies within a series of coordinated traffic signals, then a progression analysis may be required to ensure that adequate progression may still be provided. Generally, a spacing of one-half mile between all signalized intersections is to be maintained, to achieve optimum capacity and signal progression. Pedestrian and bicycle movements shall be considered in all cases and adequate pedestrian clearance is to be provided in the signalization design. (3) Intersection and Access Locations: To provide flexibility and safety for the existing roadway system and to ensure optimum two-way signal progression, an approved traffic engineering analysis shall be made to properly locate all proposed intersections that may require signalization, and any accesses to the proposed development. (Q) Hazard Assessment The Traffic Study shall include a Hazard Assessment if the development has immediate frontage on a High Risk Network street (as detailed in the most recent version of the Vision Zero Action Plan). The applicant must evaluate if future conditions being proposed by the development create a new potentially hazardous condition or worsen an existing potentially hazardous condition or identified crash pattern. If a potentially hazardous condition has been identified, proven safety countermeasures to mitigate the hazard are to be included. The Hazard Assessment shall include, but is not limited to, the following sub-sections: (1) Existing Conditions and Proposed Project (a) Summarize existing conditions (including the past five years of fatal and serious injury crashes in the project vicinity) and the proposed project as defined by the Traffic Study requirements and relevant to identifying existing and new potential hazards (e.g., study area, existing and planned transportation system, multi-modal trip generation, distribution/assignment, modal split, traffic volumes, traffic control, and Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 280 Packet Page 902 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-9 signals). (2) Analysis (a) Applicant must analyze if future conditions being proposed by the development exacerbate existing or create new potentially hazardous conditions for public transit operations and for people walking, bicycling, driving, or using a mobility device or scooter. The methodology for analysis should account for the amount, movement type, sightlines, and speed of projected vehicle trips and projected changes to the public right-of-way in relation to the presence of public transit vehicles or people walking, bicycling, driving, or using a mobility device or scooter. (b) Analysis must: (i) Address the project’s direct and indirect physical changes to the existing baseline conditions (ii) Describe the intensity (e.g., number of vehicle trips), location (e.g., driveway, particular streets), and other project features that may be relevant to address the significance criterion. Be specific (e.g., the project would generate 120 vehicle trips into the driveway during the p.m. peak hour), do not generalize (e.g., the project would generate a modest number of vehicle trips). (iii) The impact analysis shall assume the project will comply with laws and regulations. The analysis shall describe how compliance would occur, what it would entail, and how it may reduce impacts (iv) Table 2-1 provides a sample of the circumstances, which may result in potentially hazardous conditions for people walking, bicycling, driving, or using a mobility device or scooter. This is not an exhaustive list of circumstances, under which, potentially hazardous conditions would occur. Additional hazardous conditions may be identified at the Director’s discretion. Table 2-1: Sample of Potentially Hazardous Conditions Potentially Hazardous Condition Adds a new site access or modifies an existing site access by adding new movements that were not previously permitted Increases automobile volumes crossing sidewalks, paths, or trails Increases corner radius and thereby increases the speed of turns or pedestrian/bicycle crossing distance Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 281 Packet Page 903 of 1100 2-10 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Increases the number of automobile lanes Increases crossing distances Adds unprotected left turn movement Increases the volume of pedestrians across an uncontrolled mid-block crosswalk Adds obstructions or slopes that diminish the sightline between road users (3) Mitigation (a) If a potentially hazardous condition is identified, the site development plan must identify and implement feasible mitigation measures using proven safety countermeasures to avoid or reduce the impact. The Engineer shall describe the location, nature, and extent of proposed mitigations to ensure compatibility with the City's transportation system and the goals of the TMP. Mitigations may include site design, layout and access modifications, parking reduction measures, or transportation infrastructure improvements. (b) Proven safety countermeasures can be found in resources including the Boulder Vision Zero Action Plan, and national guidelines such as the FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, and NACTO Publications such as the Urban Street Design Guide, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and Transit Street Design Guide. (c) Hazard Assessment and proposed mitigation measures are subject to the approval of the Director. (R) Noise Attenuation If residential development is planned adjacent to a roadway designated collector or greater, the city may require noise attenuation measures. A discussion and analysis of noise attenuation measured using the methods in the Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise Textbook is to be included in all traffic studies for residential developments adjacent to roadways designated collector or greater. (S) Recommendations (1) The Traffic Study shall include a section in the report that provides any recommendations of the Engineer. These recommendations shall include the Engineer’s recommended location, nature and extent of proposed transportation improvements associated with the project or development to ensure safe and efficient roadway operations and capacity, and compatibility with the city's transportation system and the goals of the TMP. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 282 Packet Page 904 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-11 (2) These recommendations are to be supported with appropriate documentation and discussion of the technical analyses, assumptions and evaluations used to make the determinations and findings applied in the Traffic Study. In the event that any Traffic Study analyses or recommendations indicate unsatisfactory levels of service on any study area roadways, a further description of proposed improvements or mitigation measures to remedy deficiencies shall be included. (3) These proposed improvements or mitigation measures may include projects by the city or the Colorado Department of Transportation for which funds have been appropriated and obligated. These proposals may also include improvements to be funded and constructed by the applicant as part of project or development construction. Assumptions regarding future roads, widths and lane usages in any analyses are subject to the approval of the Director. (4) In general, the recommendation section shall include: (a) Proposed and Recommended Improvements: Provide a detailed description and sketch of all proposed and recommended improvements. Include basic design details showing the length, width and other pertinent geometric features of any proposed improvements. Discuss and analyze whether speed change lanes are necessary to serve a project of development adjacent to a collector or arterial street. Discuss whether these improvements are necessary because of development traffic or whether they would be necessary due to background traffic. Specify the approximate timing necessary for each improvement. (b) Level of Service Analysis at Critical Points: Provide another iteration of the LOS analyses that demonstrate the anticipated results of making recommended improvements, such as movement LOS, operational and safety conditions, and conformance with the city's transportation system goals and TMP. In association with LOS analyses for recommended improvements, include a comparison of these results with the background LOS analyses without the proposed project or development. Where appropriate, this step is to be provided for both near term (year of project completion) and buildout scenarios. (T) Conclusion Include a conclusion in the report that provides a clear and concise description of the study findings and recommendations and serves as an executive summary. (U) Revisions to Traffic Study (1) Following city review, the Director may require revisions to a Traffic Study based on the following considerations: (a) Completeness of the study, (b) Thoroughness of the level of service and impact analyses and evaluations, (c) Compatibility of the study with the proposed access design, project or development plan and local transportation system, Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 283 Packet Page 905 of 1100 2-12 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (d) Compliance with local and state regulations and design standards, and (e) An analysis of study deficiencies, errors, or conflicts. (2) Revisions may also be required as a result of public process with surrounding neighborhoods and land uses or review by City Council or the Planning Board. Additional details requiring Traffic Study revisions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) An enlarged study area, (b) Alternative trip generation scenarios, (c) Additional level of service analyses, and (d) Site planning and design issues. 2.04 Site Access (A) Access Requirements All accesses and curb cuts shall be designed and constructed in compliance with these Standards and the requirements set forth in Section 9-9-5, “Site Access Control,” B.R.C. 1981. (B) Access Permit Required All accesses and curb cuts proposed and constructed on city streets and alleys require a permit, as set forth in Section 9-9-5, “Site Access Control,” B.R.C. 1981. (C) Location of Access (1) Spacing: Table 21, “Access Spacing Requirements,” shows the required spacing of access points and curb cuts. Minimum spacing from corners shall be measured from point of intersection of the street flowlines. Minimum spacing between accesses shall be measured at the property line. Table 2-2: Access Spacing Requirements Minimum Spacing (measured from edge of access) Single Family Residential Other Residential Commercial Industrial Local Streets - from property line 7.5' 10' 10' 10' - from corner 20' 50' 50' 50' - between accesses 15' 20' 20' 20' Collector Streets Permitted only when no other access is available. - from property line 10' 10' 10' - from corner 50' 50' 50' - between accesses 20' 20' 20' Arterial Streets Permitted only when no other access is available. - from property line 75' 75' 75' - from corner 150' 150' 150' - between accesses 250' 250' 250' Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 284 Packet Page 906 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-13 (2) Alignment: Accesses shall intersect city streets at a 90-degree angle. Accesses to properties on opposite sides of a collector or arterial, where turning movements are not controlled by a center median or access island, shall either be aligned, or offset by at least 150 feet on collectors, or at least 300 feet on arterials. Greater offsets may be required if left-turn storage lanes are required. (2) Relocation of Existing Access Points and Curb Cuts: Relocation, alteration, or reconstruction of any existing access points and curb cuts shall meet the requirements of these Standards. (D) Sight Distance All access points and curb cuts shall provide adequate sight distance as set forth under Section 9-9-7, “Sight Triangles,” B.R.C. 1981. (E) Restriction of Turning Movements Along streets designated arterial or greater, or where necessary for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, the city will require access points and curb cuts to provide for only limited turning movements, as follows: (1) Access With Barrier Island - Left-Turn Restrictions (“Pork Chop”): Where restricted turning movements are required by the city, and where the abutting street does not have a median, a barrier island will be required: (a) Islands shall have a minimum area of 150 square feet, be bounded by vertical curb, and have an appropriate concrete center surface treatment, approved by the Director. (b) Barrier island lanes shall be at least 12 feet wide, have a radius of at least 20 feet, and be designed to accommodate the largest vehicle using the access on a daily basis. The island shall provide congruent curb ramps or cut through for sidewalks. The pedestrian crossing over the barrier island shall be raised. The dimensions of a raised crossing shall be designed considering standards for accessible design and site conditions, including topography, stormwater flow, and location of utilities. The minimum width of the island along the abutting roadway frontage shall be 30 feet for right-in, right-out only islands, and 15 feet for islands allowing right-in, right-out and left-turning movements. (2) Access With Median Divider Barriers – Left-Turn Restrictions: Median barriers may be permitted where a median design can improve traffic circulation and safety, or overall site access. Where permitted, medians shall be at least 4 feet wide, and shall extend at least 25 feet beyond the right-of-way. (F) Traffic Control All accesses shall be designed and constructed with appropriate traffic control and signage conforming to the MUTCD, B.R.C. 1981, and these Standards. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 285 Packet Page 907 of 1100 2-14 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (G) One-Way Access Lanes One-way access lanes may be permitted where restricted access is limited to one turning movement, or where the one-way access improves traffic circulation and safety. One-way access lanes shall be at least 12 feet wide, have at least radius of 20 feet, and be designed to accommodate the largest vehicle using the access on a daily basis. (H) Speed Change Lanes Speed change lanes shall be required on Colorado state highways as designated in the Colorado State Highway Access Code in accordance with the standards of Section 4.8 of the Colorado State Highway Access Code. For all collectors or arterials that are not Colorado state highways, the Traffic Study shall make recommendations on the need for speed change lanes, based on the criteria contained in the Colorado State Highway Access Code. When required by the Director based on the criteria in the Colorado State Highway Access Code, design of speed change lanes shall conform with Subsection 2.07(D), "Horizontal Alignment," of these Standards. (I) Access and Curb Cut Type (1) Driveway Ramp and Curb Cut: All new accesses and curb cuts shall be designed as driveway ramps and curb cuts, using the standard ramp driveway details provided in Chapter 11, except as allowed in Subsection (2), along streets where no curb and gutter exists, or for single family lots where roll-over curbs have been provided. (3) Radii Curb Returns: Radii curb return accesses may be required or permitted by the Director under the following conditions: (a) The access is located along an arterial or collector. (b) Access volumes indicate a need for a radii curb return where the ADT exceeds 500 or where speed change lanes would be required. (c) The access is designed to restrict turning movements, requiring the installation of an access island or center median. (d) The roadway has no curb and gutter. (e) The access serves an industrial property, or provides for commercial deliveries, where large truck movements are required. (f) The Director determines that a radii access is necessary to ensure adequate traffic safety and operation. (g) The access is for a new public street Table 2-3: Access Design Specifications Single Family Other Commercial Industrial Residential Residential Width (in feet ) - Minimum 10 10 15 20 - Maximum 20 35 35 35 - One-Way Lane N/A 12-18 12-20 14-24 Radii (in feet) - Minimum N/A 15 15 20 - Maximum N/A 30 30 40 Access Grades Initial Grade (to a point 10 Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 286 Packet Page 908 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-15 ft beyond ROW) - Minimum (+) 3% (+) 1% (+) 1% (+) 1% - Maximum (+) 8% (+) 6% (+) 6% (+) 6% Final Grade (G2) - Minimum (+/-) 3% (+/-) 1% (+/-) 1% (+/-) 1% - Maximum (+/-) 14% (+/-) 8% (+/-) 8% (+/-) 8% Max Grade Break (+/-) 10% (+/-) 6% (+/-) 6% (+/-) 6% (J) Access and Curb Cut Width Access and curb cut widths shall be consistent with Table 2-2, "Access Design Specifications," of these Standards. Access design for Colorado state highways shall conform to the Colorado State Highway Access Code. All other access widths shall be determined using turning templates, as designated by the Director, for a 10 MPH design speed for the largest vehicle expected to use the access on a daily or routine basis. The width of each access shall be the minimum width that is necessary to serve the property and use. No more than 50 percent of the street frontage shall be occupied by the access driveway, except for access to a cul-de-sac or flag lot. All access widths are measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement (or curb to curb) at the throat of the driveway (or edge of the right-of-way) and are not inclusive of drive cut transitions or curb return radii. (K) Access and Curb Cut Radii Access and curb cut radii shall meet the specifications shown in Table 2-2, “Access Design Specifications,” of these Standards. All radii are measured from the flowline (front face of the curb) or from the edge of the pavement where no flowline exists. (L) Access and Curb Cut Grades Access and curb cut grades shall be consistent with Table 2-2. The initial grade (G1) shall be a positive grade, beginning at the back of the sidewalk, the back of the driveway ramp or pan section, or the edge of the pavement (where no curb and gutter exists), and shall continue at least 10 feet beyond the right-of-way. The final grade (G2) may be positive or negative, depending on the access conditions. The maximum grade break (or change in slope) shall apply at all grade changes. Additional grade changes may occur at intervals of at least 20 feet. (M) Driveways (1) Vehicle Storage: Adequate driveway storage capacity for both inbound and outbound vehicles to facilitate safe, unobstructed, and efficient traffic circulation and movements from the adjacent roadway and within the development shall be provided, except for single-family or duplex residential driveways on local streets. Adequate driveway length will be subject to approval by the Director and shall extend at least 24 feet beyond the right-of-way before accessing the first off-street parking space or parking lot aisle. (2) Internal Circulation: Developments requiring with off-street parking facilities shall provide onsite vehicular circulation allowing access to all portions of the site without using the adjacent street system unless a joint access or parking easement with one or more of the adjacent property owners has been dedicated. (3) Backing Into the Right-of-Way Prohibited: Driveways shall be designed to contain all vehicle backing movements onsite, except for single-family or duplex residential uses on local streets. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 287 Packet Page 909 of 1100 2-16 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (4) Minimum Back-Up Distance for Detached Single-Family Residential Driveways Accessing Public Alleys: Driveways shall provide for a minimum distance of 24-feet from the rear of the parking stall or face of garage to the far edge of the adjacent alley right-of-way or turn around area as required by Chapter 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981. (5) Shared Driveways (Detached Single-Family Residential Only): Shared driveways to access detached single-family residential lots may be permitted pursuant to an approved site review or subdivision as set forth in Chapter 9-9-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981 or Chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981, if they meet the following criteria: (a) A common parking court is provided at a ratio of 0.5 additional spaces per unit if less than two onsite parking spaces, meeting city requirements, are provided on each single-family lot served by the shared driveway. (ab) The shared driveway is no more than 100 feet long, except in districts zoned RL- 1 (Residential-Low 1), RE (Residential-Estate), and RR1 (Residential-Rural 1) and RR 2 (Residential-Rural 2), where the shared driveway may extend up to 300 feet long if each lot accessing the shared driveway exceeds 10,000 square feet. (bc) The number of units served shall be no more than three lots or houses that have less than 30 feet of usable frontage on the accessing street. (cd) Adequate turnaround for vehicles is provided either on an individual lot or lots. d(e) The driveway is properly engineered and constructed to mitigate any adverse drainage conditions and is appropriately surfaced for the type of development, usage, and zoning district. e(f) The driveway is at least 12 feet wide. (fg) For units not fronting on the accessing street, addressing shall be located near the entrance to the shared driveway insuring visibility of the numbering from the street. (gh) A public access easement, a minimum fifteen feet in width, for the benefit and use of all properties and property owners accessing the shared driveway has been dedicated and recorded to ensure legal access rights in perpetuity for each property served. (hi) Driveway spacing conforms with the requirements in Table 21, “Access Spacing Requirements,” of these Standards. 2.05 RightofWay Requirements Dedication or reservation of public right-of-way required as part of any project or development proposal shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 9-9-8, “Reservations, Dedication, and Improvement of Rights-of-Way,” B.R.C. 1981. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 288 Packet Page 910 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-17 2.06 Base Street and Alley Standards (A) Base Street Standard Except for residential streets approved pursuant to Chapter 9-12, “Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.09, “Residential Streets,” all new streets shall provide at a minimum the base street standard components listed in Table 2-3, “Base Street Standard Components.” (B) Base Alley Standard Except for residential streets approved pursuant to Chapter 9-12, “Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.09, “Residential Streets,” all new alleys shall provide at a minimum the base alley standard components listed in Table 2-4, “Base Alley Standard Components.” Table 2-4: Base Street Standard Components Street Component Base Standard Right-of-Way 60' Minimum Width Paved Street Section 36' Minimum Width, Curb Face to Curb Face Travel Lanes Two Travel Lanes, Two-Way Traffic Curb and Gutter Required Both Sides Parking Parking Allowed Both Sides Sidewalks 6’ Preferred Width (5' Minimum), Detached, Required Both Sides Streetscape Planting Strips* 8’ Width Required Both Sides *NOTE: In commercial streetside retail zones where 12foot wide attached sidewalks may be provided, streetscape planting strips may be created using street trees in planting pits with tree grates (15-foot width between back of curb and back of walk). Table 2-5: Base Alley Standard Components Alley Component Base Standard Right-of-Way 20' Minimum Width Paved Street Section 18' Minimum Width, Pavement Edge to Pavement Edge Travel Lanes Two-Way Traffic Allowed Parking Parking on Alley Not Permitted 2.07 Street Geometric Design (A) Minimum Requirements Except for State Highways and the geometric design variations allowed for residential streets approved pursuant to Chapter 9-12, “Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.09, “Residential Streets,” all city streets shall be designed in conformance with this section. The design standards outlined in this section are minimum design standards, and all street design shall meet or exceed these standards. On streets designated collector or arterial in the TMP, the Director may specify standards to be applied to street design that may exceed the minimum standards in this section based on functional need to ensure safe and efficient operation of the street. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 289 Packet Page 911 of 1100 2-18 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (B) Right-of-Way The right-of-way width required for new streets shall comply with the requirements of Section 9- 9-8, “Reservations, Dedication, and Improvement of Rights-of-Way,” B.R.C. 1981, and shall include without limitation the following elements: (1) The paved roadway section including without limitation travel lanes, turning and speed change lanes, transit lanes, bicycle lanes, and parking lanes; (2) Curbs and gutters or drainage swales; (3) Roadside and median landscaping areas; (4) Sidewalks and multi-use paths; and (5) Any necessary utility corridors. (C) Lane Width Street lanes shall meet the width specifications shown in Table 2-5, “Preferred Street Lane Widths,” of these Standards. Table 2-6: Preferred Street Lane Widths Street Characteristics Design Criteria With Parking Lane No Parking Lane With Fixed-Route Bus Transit Service and No Parking Lane Preferred Preferred Preferred General Purpose Travel Lanes* 10’ 10’ 11’ (Outside lane) Auxiliary Lanes* 10’ 9’ 10’ Conventional Bike Lanes 7’ 6.5’ 7’ Contra-Flow Bike Lanes (On One- Way Streets) 7’ 6.5’ N/A Buffered Bike Lanes Bike Lane 7’ 6.5’ 6’ Buffer 3’ 3’ 2’ Separated Bike Lanes Bike Lane 7’ (for parking protected bike lanes, a painted 3’ buffer is between curbside of parking lane and bike lane) 7’ 7’ Buffer 3’ (with vertical element) 3’ (with vertical element) 3’ (with vertical element) Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes Bike Lane 12’ Two-way bike lane (for parking protected bike lanes, a painted 3’ buffer is between curbside of parking lane and bike lane) 12’ Two-way bike lane (buffer is between curbside of parking lane and bike lane) N/A Buffer 3’ 3’ N/A Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 290 Packet Page 912 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-19 (with vertical element) (with vertical element) Parking Lanes 8’ (measured from curb face, including gutter pan) N/A 8’ (measured from curb face, including gutter pan) ______________________________________________________________________________________________ *NOTES: Travel, auxiliary lane and bike lane dimensions do not include gutter pan width. Auxiliary lanes include, without limitation, turning and speed change lanes. (D) Horizontal Alignment (1) Conformance to Street Plan: Horizontal alignment shall conform to the pattern of streets in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, TMP, and adopted right-of-way plans and shall provide continuous alignment with existing, planned, or platted streets with which they will connect. (2) Extension to Property Line: All streets shall be extended to the property lines across the property to be developed, unless the street to be constructed has been approved by the city as a cul-de-sac or other no-outlet street. (4) Minimum Horizontal Curve: Street curvatures shall meet the minimum specifications shown in Table 2-6, “Minimum Horizontal Street Curve Specifications,” of these Standards. Table 2-7: Minimum Horizontal Street Curve Specifications Design Criteria Local Street Collector Street Arterial Street Minimum Design Speed 20 mph 35 mph 40 mph Minimum Centerline Radius 100 feet 300 feet 500 feet Minimum Reverse Curve Tangent 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet Minimum Intersection Approach Tangent 100 feet 200 feet 300 feet Table 2-7a: Separated Bike Lane Minimum Horizontal Curve Specifications Design Criteria Flat, level terrain Congested, urban area Intersection approach Minimum Design Speed 15 mph 12 mph 8 mph Minimum Centerline Radius* 42 feet 27 feet 12 feet *Radius assumes a 20-deg lean angle of the bicyclist. (4) Design Horizontal Curve: The design horizontal street curvature shall meet or exceed the minimum horizontal curvature and be calculated using the following equation: R = V2 / 15 * (e-f) Side Friction Factors Where: E = rate of superelevation per foot Design Speed Side Friction F = side friction factor (mph) Factor (f) 20 0.26 Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 291 Packet Page 913 of 1100 2-20 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD 25 0.23 V = vehicle speed in MPH 30 0.22 R = radius of curve in feet 35 0.20 40 0.18 45 0.16 (5) Intersections and Street Spacing (a) Angles: All streets shall intersect at right angles (90°). (b) Minimum Street Spacing: Spacing between streets, as measured from centerline to centerline, shall equal or exceed the minimum distances shown in Table 2-7, “Minimum Street Spacing,” of these Standards. (c) Table 2-8: Minimum Street Spacing Street Type Minimum Street Spacing Local 150 feet Collector 300 feet Arterial 500 feet (c) Street Spacing for Signalized Intersections: Signalized intersections, where feasible, shall be spaced at half-mile intervals. Closer signal spacing may be approved by the Director based on context-sensitive design. Signalized intersections shall comply with the TMP and Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan to ensure signalized intersections along arterial and collector streets provide controlled crossing where existing and proposed walking and bicycling network streets cross those arterial and collector streets. (d) Receiving Width: The minimum receiving width is 20 feet. This may include both an opposing and receiving vehicle through lane and a paved shoulder and/or bicycle lane. (e) Corner Radii: The smallest feasible actual curb radii shall be selected for corner designs. Corner design shall account for the effective turning radius, the actual curve of a turning vehicle. This shall include the additional turning area provided by on-street parking, bicycle lanes, medians, and other roadway features. Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 demonstrate the relationship between the effective radius and actual curb radius. Table 2-8 shall be used to determine actual versus effective turning radii for SU-30 design vehicles. The effective radius shall be analyzed for the design vehicle; the default design vehicle is the SU-30 for all intersections. The Director may require a different design vehicle based on functional need to ensure safe and efficient operation of the street (for example, a bus or transit route, or a semi-tractor and trailer on streets with industrial land uses). Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 292 Packet Page 914 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-21 The Director may require a larger effective curb radii to provide no encroachments at locations served by transit and where the transit agency operators have policies that prohibit drivers from encroaching into adjacent lanes. The Director may require a mountable truck apron for locations where large trucks turn infrequently, but there is limited space for encroachment. The truck apron design shall provide a smaller effective radius for the design vehicle and a larger effective radius to accommodate larger vehicle turn movements. Figure 2- 3 is an example of a truck apron. Figure 2-1: Actual and Effective Radius At A Conventional Intersection Corner Figure 2-2: Actual and Effective Radius At An Intersection Corner With A Curb Extension Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 293 Packet Page 915 of 1100 2-22 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Table 2-9: Relationship between Effective and Actual Radius for the Default Design Vehicle (SU- 30) Street B Parking No No Yes Yes Bike Lane No Yes No Yes Street A Parking Bike Lane No No RA = 30’ (RE = 30’) RA = 25’ (RE = 30’) RA = 25’ (RE = 30’) RA < 10’ (RE = 30’) No Yes RA = 25’ (RE = 30’) RA = 15’ (RE = 30’) RA < 10’ (RE = 30’) RA < 5’ (RE = 30’) Yes No RA = 25’ (RE = 30’) RA < 10’ (RE = 30’) RA < 5’ (RE = 30’) RA < 5’’ (RE = 35’) Yes Yes RA < 10’ (RE = 30’) RA < 5’ (RE = 30’) RA < 5’ (RE = 35’) RA < 5’ (RE = 45’) *When the difference between the effective and actual corner radii becomes larger, or when the effective radius cannot be reduced to what is necessary for the control vehicle, the director may require a curb extension. (f) Allowable turning encroachments for curb radii design: The following shall be used to reduce effective and actual curb radii. The SU-30 design vehicle turns may encroach into other lanes as follows: i. For turns onto local streets from arterial, collector, or local streets, the design vehicle is allowed to utilize the entire width of the departing and receiving lanes, including oncoming travel lanes, to negotiate the turn. ii. At intersections where the minor leg is stop controlled and the major leg is uncontrolled, turns are allowed to use the entire width of both the minor leg departing or minor leg receiving lanes, including oncoming travel lanes, to negotiate the turn. iii. At signalized intersections that have a “No Right on Red” restriction, turning vehicles are allowed to utilize multiple lanes on the receiving street to complete their turn. (g) Additional Corner Radii Design Considerations: The following turning scenarios shall be used to reduce the effective and actual curb radii: Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 294 Packet Page 916 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-23 i. Emergency vehicles are allowed to utilize the entire street pavement width for departing and or receiving lanes to negotiate turns, including all adjacent and oncoming travel lanes. ii. WB-40 and larger design vehicles are allowed to utilize adjacent lanes on the departing and receiving streets at all intersections; large trucks may use the entire street pavement width on local streets. Figure 2-3: Example of A Mountable Truck Apron At An Intersection (6) Road Width Transition Tapers: Where two street sections or different widths are to be connected, a transition taper is required between the outside traveled edge of the two sections. The length of the transition taper shall be calculated using the following equation: L = WS Where: S = Speed in MPH L = Length in feet W = Width of offset in feet This transition is not to be used in the design of left turn storage lanes or speed change lanes. Design of tapers for on-street bike lanes shall use a minimum length as calculated using the formula below: 𝐿ൌ𝑊𝑆ଶ 60 Where: L = Longitudinal lane shift (ft), minimum 20 ft W = Lateral width of offset (ft) Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 295 Packet Page 917 of 1100 2-24 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD S = Target bicyclists operating speed (mph) If the bikeway is delineated by paint-only and the off-tracking of a bicycle pulling a trailer would not put the trailer into a motor vehicle lane, a maximum taper ratio of 2:1 (longitudinal:lateral) may be required by the Director. (7) Left Turn Lanes (a) Storage Length: Left turn lane storage length for unsignalized intersections shall be determined based on traffic volumes using the Leisch nomographs provided in the ITE “Guidelines for Major Urban Street Design.” The left turn storage length for an unsignalized intersection shall not be less than 25 feet. Unsignalized intersections shall only use single lane turn lanes. For signalized intersections, left turn lane storage length shall be determined utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual. The minimum left turn lane storage length is 80 feet. Single lane left turn storage shall be maximized to the extent feasible and shall be exhausted before consideration of dual turn lanes. If storage length requirements cannot be met in a single lane the Director may, after considering the impacts to the pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance and expected left turn queuing impacts to safety and intersection operations, approve a dual or triple left turn lane configuration. In a location where dual left turn lanes are approved, the lane storage length shall be based on at least 60 percent of the single lane storage length.. (b) Lane Change Taper: Left turn lane change tapers shall be calculated using the equation for bay tapers in Subsection (8). (8) Speed Change Lanes: Speed change lanes required for transitional access to turning lanes shall be designed according to the design standards provided in the ITE “Guidelines for Major Urban Street Design,” as follows: (a) Bay Tapers: Bay tapers are required for the lane transition from the travel lane into a turn lane. The bay taper length shall be calculated using the following equation: L = WS / 3 Where: S = Speed in MPH L = Length in feet W = Width of offset in feet (b) Approach Tapers: Approach tapers are required to transition the position of travel lanes to accommodate turn lanes. The approach taper length shall be calculated using the following equation: L = WS2 / 60 Where: S = Speed in MPH Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 296 Packet Page 918 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-25 L = Length in feet W = Width of offset in feet (9) Cul-de-sacs: Where allowed, cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum pavement diameter of 90 feet, curb face to curb face, and a minimum right-of-way diameter of 115 feet, except for residential streets approved pursuant to Chapter 9-12, “Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.09, “Residential Streets.” Cul-de-sacs are prohibited on arterial and collector streets, and are strongly discouraged on local and residential streets. The Director may permit cul-de-sacs where there is no other possible street or driveway access to a property from a public right-of-way, or if a cul-de-sac would avoid direct property access to a collector or arterial. (E) Vertical Alignment (1) Minimum Street Grade: All street grades shall equal or exceed the minimum street grade of 0.5 percent. (2) Maximum Street Grade: Street grades shall not exceed the maximum street grades shown in Table 2-9, “Maximum Street Grades,” of these Standards. Table 2-10: Maximum Street Grades Street Type Maximum Street Grade Local 8% Collector 6% Arterial 5% Intersection Approach (Minimum 50’) 4% Signalized Intersection Approach (Min. 50’) 2% (3) Design Controls for Vertical Curves: Design control for sag and crest vertical curves (based on a design speed of 30 mph) shall meet the specifications shown in Table 2-10, “Vertical Curve Design Control,” of these Standards. For design speeds in excess of 30 mph, design control shall be in accordance with the current edition of “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” prepared by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Table 2-11: Vertical Curve Design Control Algebraic Difference in Grades Sag Curve Minimum Vertical Curve Length Crest Curve Minimum Vertical Curve Length 0.5 - 1.0 % 50 feet 100 feet 1.0 - 3.0 % 100 feet 100 feet 3.0 - 5.0 % 200 feet 150 feet 5.0 - 7.0 % 300 feet 200 feet 7.0 - 8.0 % 300 feet 300 feet Min. Vert. Sight Distance N/A 250 feet Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 297 Packet Page 919 of 1100 2-26 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (4) Vertical Sight Distance: Vertical curve sight distance shall equal or exceed 250 feet. Greater vertical sight distance may be required by the Director to ensure safe travel and street crossings for all transportation modes. (F) Sight Distance All streets and alleys shall provide adequate sight distance as set forth under Section 9-9-7, “Sight Triangles,” B.R.C. 1981. (1) Design Sight Distance for Separated Bike Lanes: Departure sight triangles shall be used to provide adequate sight distance for a stopped driver on a minor roadway to depart from the intersection. (a) Parking Restrictions: Separated bike lanes and access driveways shall be designed so that parking is prohibited within 20 feet of a driveway in locations where a parking lane is designated between bike lane motor vehicle lane. (b) Two Stage Crossing: Where side streets intersect the separated bike lane, intersections shall be designed as two-stage crossings for motor vehicles. (c) Departure Sight Triangle: Use the following equation to compute the departure sight triangle between a passenger vehicle and user of the bike lane. 𝐼𝑆𝐷௕௜௞௘ ൌ 1.47 𝑉௕௜௞௘ 𝑡௚ Where: ISDbike = intersection sight distance (length of the leg of sight triangle along the bikeway) (ft) Vbike = design speed of bikeway (mph) tg = time gap for passenger vehicle to cross bikeway (s), use 5.5 seconds Table 26a, “Separated Bike Lane Minimum Horizontal Curve Specifications,” shall be used to establish the Vbike value. AASHTO Green Book Case B sight distance shall be used to calculate the departure sight triangle between the motorist and the intersecting motorist travel lanes. (G) Medians Raised medians are required on new arterial streets. Raised medians, where feasible, shall extend past the pedestrian crosswalk to allow for a pedestrian refuge zone. (1) Median Widths: Medians shall be at least 4 feet wide, curb face to curb face. If left turn lanes are installed in the median, the median width adjacent to the left turn storage lanes shall be 4 feet and the median width at the start of the left turn lane bay taper shall be at least 14 feet wide, curb face to curb face. Median design widths shall conform to Table 2-11, “Median Width Design Standards,” of these Standards. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 298 Packet Page 920 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-27 Table 2-12: Median Width Design Standards Function Minimum Width Recommended Width Separation of Opposing Traffic 4 feet* 10 feet* Pedestrian Refuge or Traffic Control Device Location 6 feet* 14 feet Medians Separating Left Turn Lanes 14 feet 20 feet * NOTE: Cannot accommodate left-turn lanes (2) Landscaping in Medians: Landscaping in medians shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 3, “Streetscaping,” of these Standards. (H) Vertical Clearance of Structures At least 17.5 feet of vertical clearance shall be provided for all overhead structures. Vertical clearance is measured from the crown of the street to the lowest portion of the structure on all streets and alleys. 2.08 Sidewalks (A) Required Sidewalks are required on both sides of all new streets, except for residential streets that were approved without required sidewalks pursuant to Chapter 9-12, “Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.09, “Residential Streets.” (B) Conformance with the Transportation Master Plan Off-street sidewalks may be required as part of any project or development proposal in conformance with the TMP. (C) Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) All public sidewalks shall comply with the requirements of the ADA’s “Standards for Accessible Design,” which includes without limitation sidewalk widths, grades, locations, markings, surface treatments, and access ramps. (D) Minimum Widths Sidewalk widths shall conform to the dimensions shown in Table 2-12, “Minimum Sidewalk Widths,” of these Standards. Table 2-13: Minimum Sidewalk Widths Minimum Sidewalk Width Adjacent Land Use Street Type Commercial/Retail Commercial/Industrial Residential Local 12 5 4 Collector 12 5 5 Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 299 Packet Page 921 of 1100 2-28 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Arterial 12 8 8 Note: All off-street multi-use/bike paths designated in the Transportation Master Plan shall be 12 feet wide. (E) Vertical Grades The vertical grade of a sidewalk shall not exceed 8.33 percent, a ratio of 12 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (12:1). At sidewalk locations adjacent to transit stops or transfer points, the Director may require wider sidewalk sections to provide for adequate passenger storage areas. (F) Vertical Clearance A minimum 8-foot vertical clearance shall be provided between all sidewalk and multi-use path surfaces and any overhead encroachments. 2.09 Residential Streets (A) Purpose (1) The residential street standards were developed to allow a variety of choices in the creation of new transportation corridors within the urban environment under conditions that will not compromise the safety and function of the city street system. Traditionally streets have provided the following: (a) Corridors for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle movement; (b) Parking for vehicles; (c) Fire, police, and emergency access; (d) Locations for public utilities networks including water supply, sewage, electricity, telecommunications and gas services, and refuge disposal; and (e) Postal and other delivery services. (2) These Standards recognize that streets, if appropriately designed, may provide additional community amenities including landscape buffers, attractive public gathering spaces, opportunities for neighborhood interaction, public art, view corridors, and potential avenues for new technologies. (B) Scope (1) Location of Streets (a) These standards are intended to be used for new streets in undeveloped areas of the city. (b) Where infill development in the existing developed portions of the city requires the creation of new streets, these alternative standards may be used if the Director finds, after completing the review process described in Section (C) below, that the new streets will not impair the functions of the surrounding transportation system nor negatively impact the character of the surrounding existing development. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 300 Packet Page 922 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-29 (c) Further, the Director may determine that these standards are appropriate for redesigning and reconfiguring existing streets. Because the public cost of retrofitting, reconfiguring, or redesigning existing streets is often expensive, decisions about reconstruction of individual streets in accordance with these standards shall be made pursuant to the city’s Capital Improvements Program process. (2) Methods of Review (a) Permitted: The following street types may be developed without review: (i) Residential collector street (ii) Residential street (iii) Residential alley (b) By Director Review: Residential streets listed in paragraph (B)(2)(a) and the street types listed below may be developed upon approval by the Director under the criteria outlined in Section (C) below. (i) Rural residential street (ii) Access street (iii) Access lane (c) By Site Review: Those underlined criteria and specifications in the following residential street standards may be appropriate for modification under certain limited circumstances. Developments requesting such modifications shall meet all of the requirements of Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981, in addition to the criteria outlined in Subsection (C), “Director Review,” below. (3) Cumulative Standards: These street standards are intended to be used in combination with Section 2.07, “Street Geometric Design,” of these Standards. Where the standards in this section are silent, the criteria or specifications contained in Section 2.07 shall control. (C) Director Review (1) Application: As part of a subdivision application, the applicant for residential street construction approval shall include plans that depict the building envelopes of all proposed structures, and the location of proposed trees, street furniture, fire hydrants, meter pits, utility cabinets, or pedestrians in the right-of-way. (2) Criteria: The Director will consider the following factors in determining whether an alternative street design is appropriate in a particular location: (a) Urban Design: The street should contribute to the creation of an attractive community and to a clearly defined sense of place. Streets shall be designed with due attention to building spacing and setbacks, green spaces, attractive materials, plantings, and landscaping. Pavement and right-of-way widths that are less than Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 301 Packet Page 923 of 1100 2-30 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD the Residential Street standard should provide a benefit to the community that includes improved safety, improved site design, the creation of street canopies through landscaping, and secondary lot access through the use of alleys. Rural Residential streets shall be consistent with the existing character of the area, or with an approved subcommunity or area plan. (b) Street Function: The street should be designed according to its function. This may require a diversity of street types, each serving a role in a hierarchical system. The street pattern and any reduced pavement or right-of-way widths should provide acceptable levels of accessibility, safety and convenience for all street users, including emergency service providers. The pattern shall discourage residential streets from operating as pass through traffic routes for externally generated traffic, while minimizing the length of time local drivers need to spend in a low-speed environment. (c) Connectivity: The neighborhood street pattern should be simple, and logical, with the following characteristics: (i) “No outlet” streets will be highly discouraged and allowed only when street connectivity is unachievable: (ii) The street pattern provides for safe and convenient movements for pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles, including transit. (d) Design Speed: The design of the streets will control vehicular speeds under normal driving conditions to that specified in the residential street standards, while maintaining reasonable access for emergency vehicles. (e) Minimize Maintenance Costs: The street will not create additional city obligations for maintenance and repair that exceed a standard street section. (f) Adequate Parking: The site design provides for adequate onstreet and offstreet parking to serve the area. (g) Infill Streets: In the case of infill development, the residential street design will not impair the functioning of, and will have a compatible transition to, the surrounding street system and will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding existing development. No additional density may result from approval of the reduced rights-of-way provided for in the case of Access Streets, Access Lanes, or Residential Alleys. (D) Residential Street Sections Five residential street sections and a residential alley may be applied to the design of residential neighborhoods as part of subdivisions approved pursuant to Chapter 9-12, “Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981. Residential streets shall be designed in compliance with the standards outlined in Table 2-13, “Residential Street Design Standards,” “Technical Drawings 2.63 - 2.68,” Chapter 11, of these Standards, and the requirements of this Section. (1) Residential Collector Street: The residential collector street collects and distributes neighborhood traffic from residential streets to community collector and arterial Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 302 Packet Page 924 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-31 transportation systems and provides access to individual properties. The residential collector street is designed for residential streets where anticipated traffic volumes range from 1,000 to 2,500 vehicle trips per day. In addition to the requirements outlined in Table 213, “Residential Street Design Standards,” and “Technical Drawing 2.63,” Chapter 11, the residential collector street shall be designed to meet the following minimum standards: (a) Parking: On-street parking is allowed on both sides. (b) Bicycle Facilities: Additional street and right-of-way width shall be provided where on-street bicycle lanes are required by a city-adopted subcommunity or area plan, the TMP, or the BVCP. (c) Provision of Alleys: Where alleys are provided or required to be provided under a City-adopted subcommunity or area plan, onsite parking spaces shall be accessed from the alley and not the street. (d) Emergency Response: Residential collectors exceeding 500 feet in length from any intersection shall provide a secondary emergency access at 500-foot intervals. (3) Residential Street: The residential street is designed to provide access to individual properties as well as access to the higher classification street network. The residential street provides for neighborhood circulation and may carry neighborhood traffic and through movements. The residential street shall be designed to meet the minimum standards shown in Table 2-13, “Residential Street Design Standards,” and “Technical Drawing 2.64,” Chapter 11, of these Standards. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 303 Packet Page 925 of 1100 2-32 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Table 2-14: Residential Street Design Standards Design Standards Residential Collector Residential Street Rural-Type Residential Street Access Street Access Lane Residential Alley Design Speed 25 mph 25 mph 20 mph 15 mph 10 mph 10 mph Design Traffic Volumes (Vehicle Trips Per Day) 1,000 -2,500 500 - 1,000 500 - 1,000 400 250 N/A Minimum Right-of-Way 60' 60' 60' 40' 30' 16' Minimum Pavement Section 32' 30' 22' plus 2' gravel shoulders 26' 20' 12' Sidewalk 5' 4' 4' where required 4' N/A N/A Streetscape Planting Strip 8' 8' N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum Centerline Radius 300' 150' 150' 100' 100' 100' Minimum Curb Radius 20' 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Maximum Length Between Connecting Streets 500' 500' 500' 350' 350' N/A Maximum Street Length - No Outlet 500' 500' 500' 150' 150' 500' Maximum Street Length - Loop or Circle Street 500' 500' 500' 500' 500' 500' Minimum Turn-Around Area 35' Radius 35' Radius 30' Radius or “Y” or “T” Turn 30' Radius or “Y” or “T” Turn 25' Radius or “Y” or “T” Turn 25' Radius or “Y” or “T” Turn Emergency Response Set Up Area Intervals N/A N/A N/A 150' 150' N/A Sidewalk Placement Detached Required Detached Required Adjacent to Property Line Where Required Attached N/A N/A Curb and Gutter Required Required N/A Required N/A N/A On-Street Parking Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Allowed Minimum Lot Frontages N/A N/A 60’ no alley 40’ w/ alley 60' no alley 40' w/alley 60' N/A Maximum Number of Units to be Accessed N/A N/A N/A 25 single family 15 single family N/A NOTE: Residential street standards that are underlined may be varied through Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 304 Packet Page 926 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-33 (a) Parking: Parking is allowed both sides or, on residential streets where parking is restricted or prohibited, offstreet parking courts providing parking spaces at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided. (b) Bicycle Facilities: Additional street and right-of-way width shall be provided where on-street bicycle lanes are required by a City-adopted subcommunity or area plan, the TMP, or the BVCP. (c) Provision of Alleys: Where alleys are provided or required to be provided under a City-adopted subcommunity or area plan, onsite parking spaces shall be accessed from the alley and not the street. (d) Emergency Response: Residential streets exceeding 500 feet from any intersection shall provide a secondary emergency access at 500-foot intervals. (3) Rural Residential Street: The rural residential street is designed to provide access to individual properties as well as access to the higher classification street network. The rural residential street provides for neighborhood traffic and through movements and is designed to carry traffic volumes in the range of 500 to 1,000 vehicles per day. The rural residential street shall be provided where prescribed by a city-adopted subcommunity or area plan to maintain the rural character of an area or neighborhood. The rural residential street is a curbless paved street section, with gravel shoulders for parking and open roadside ditches for drainage. In addition to the requirements outlined in Table 213, “Residential Street Design Standards,” and “Technical Drawing 2.65,” Chapter 11, the rural residential street shall be designed to meet the following standards: (a) Parking: Allowed on both sides of the street. (b) Turnaround Standard (No Outlet Streets): If a “Y” or “T” turnaround is proposed in place of a standard cul-de-sac bulb turnaround, the “Y” or “T” turnaround shall be designed 60 feet long and 20 feet wide. The turnaround area (including sidewalks if required) shall be contained within the dedicated right-of-way. (c) Provision for Future Sidewalks: If sidewalks are not required at the time of initial street construction, adequate space in the right-of-way shall be reserved for a future sidewalk and commitments from adjacent property owners to participate in assessment districts shall be obtained, so that sidewalks can be added and funded in the future when they are appropriate. (d) Sidewalk Placement (Where Required): Sidewalks shall be required where vehicular traffic volumes are anticipated to exceed 1,000 trips per day, on routes to school, and as prescribed by a city-adopted subcommunity or area plan. Sidewalks shall be placed outside of the paved roadway and drainage ditch, and inside the right-of-way line. (e) Roadside Drainage Ditches: Side slopes along roadside drainage ditches shall be 4:1, and driveway culverts, at least 12 inches in diameter with flared end sections or headwalls, shall be installed by owners at driveways. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 305 Packet Page 927 of 1100 2-34 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (f) Land Use Requirements: Lot frontages shall be at least 60 feet wide, unless alley access is provided. Lot frontages with alley access shall be at least 40 feet wide. Two onsite parking spaces, meeting all city requirements, shall be provided on each singlefamily lot. (g) Provision of Alleys: Where alleys are provided or required to be provided under a city-adopted subcommunity or area plan, onsite parking spaces shall be accessed from the alley and not the street. (h) Emergency Response: Rural residential streets exceeding 500 feet from any intersection shall provide a secondary emergency access at 500-foot intervals. (4) Access Street: The access street provides public access to no more than 25 single-family dwelling units, where anticipated vehicular volumes would not exceed 400 trips per day. The access street is narrow, to ensure slower speeds for vehicular travel, and provides sidewalks along both sides of the street. In addition to the requirements outlined in Table 2-13, “Residential Street Design Standards,” and “Technical Drawing 2.66,” Chapter 11 of these Standards, the access street shall comply with the following minimum standards: (a) Parking: Parking is allowed on both sides of the street or, if parking is not provided on-street, a parking court at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit is required. (b) “L” Intersections: “L” intersections may be permitted as part of subdivision and are subject to approval by the Director. Where permitted, “L” intersections shall have at least a 150-foot-long tangent street section from the intersection to the closest curvature and a minimum corner radius of 50 feet. (c) Circle or Loop Street: If a circle or loop street is proposed as part of subdivision, the street shall connect to a higher classification street, or connect to two separate perpendicular or offset higher classification streets. (d) Turnaround Standard (No outlet streets): If a “Y” or “T” turnaround is proposed in place of a standard cul-de-sac bulb turnaround, the “Y” or “T” turnaround shall be designed with a 60-foot length, 20-foot width. The turnaround area (including sidewalks if required) shall be contained within dedicated right-of-way. (e) Land Use Requirements: A residential access street shall connect to a higher classification street. Lot frontages shall be at least 60 feet wide, unless alley access is provided. Lot frontages with alley access shall be at least 40 feet wide. Two onsite parking spaces, meeting all city requirements, shall be provided on each single-family lot. (f) Provision of Alleys: Where alleys are provided or required to be provided under a city-adopted subcommunity or area plan, onsite parking spaces shall be accessed from the alley and not the street. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 306 Packet Page 928 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-35 (g) Emergency Response: Access streets exceeding 175 feet from any intersection shall provide a fire apparatus setup area at 150-foot intervals. The setup area shall provide at least 30 foot long, 25-foot-wide clear zone, and is subject to approval by the Fire Department. (5) Access Lane: The access lane provides public access to no more than 15 single family dwelling units, where anticipated vehicular traffic volumes would not exceed 250 trips per day. The access lane is a narrow “shared street” for all modes of travel (vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian), without curb and gutter or sidewalks, and must connect with a higher classification street. In addition to the requirements outlined in Table 213, “Residential Street Design Standards,” and “Technical Drawing 2.67,” Chapter 11, the access lane shall comply with the following minimum standards: (a) Parking: Parking is allowed. (b) “L” Intersections: “L” intersections shall have a minimum 150-foot long tangent street section from the intersection to the closest curvature and a minimum corner radius of 50 feet. (c) Circle or Loop Street: A circle or loop street shall connect to a higher classification street or connect to two separate perpendicular or offset higher classification streets. (d) Turnaround Standard (No outlet streets): A “Y” or “T” turnaround shall be designed with a 60-foot length, 20-foot width. The turnaround area (including sidewalks if required) shall be contained within dedicated right-of-way. (e) Land Use Requirements: An access lane shall connect to a higher classification street. Lot frontages shall be at least 60 feet wide. Two onsite parking spaces, meeting all city requirements, shall be provided on each single-family lot. If the minimum lot frontage requirement is not met, additional parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit as a part of the subdivision. These required spaces shall be located on private property. (f) Right-of-Way Landscaping: Landscaping other than ground cover or low shrubbery shall be placed outside of the right-of-way. (g) Emergency Response: Access streets exceeding 175 feet from any intersection shall provide a fire apparatus setup area at 150-foot intervals. The setup area shall provide a minimum 30-foot long, 25-foot-wide clear zone, and is subject to approval by the Fire Department. (6) Residential Alley: The residential alley is to provide secondary vehicular access to the rear of lots in detached single-family dwelling subdivisions with narrow street frontages, in order to limit curb cuts from the street and increase on-street parking. Alleys are most beneficial when lot widths are narrower than 50 feet. In addition to the requirements outlined in Table 2-13, “Residential Street Design Standards,” and “Technical Drawing 2.68,” Chapter 11 of these Standards, the residential alley shall be designed to meet the following minimum land use requirements: Backup distance for parking and garage Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 307 Packet Page 929 of 1100 2-36 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD access from the alley shall be 24 feet, including the 16-foot alley right-of-way width, and the remaining backup distance shall be provided on the lot being served. 2.10 Emergency Access Lanes (A) Emergency Access Required All industrial, commercial, and residential developments shall provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Adequate emergency access is a minimum 20-foot-wide unobstructed fire apparatus access road with an unobstructed vertical clearance of 15 feet, and meets all applicable standards as set forth in Chapter 10-8, “Fire Prevention Code,” B.R.C. 1981. (B) When Emergency Access Lane is Required When adequate emergency access is not available from a public street, an applicant for construction approval shall construct an emergency access lane. Emergency access lanes must accommodate all emergency vehicles, including fire equipment. (C) Secondary Emergency Access Secondary emergency access lanes shall be provided to structures whenever the distance to the nearest public street equals or exceeds 500 feet. Secondary access lanes shall conform to all design requirements specified for emergency access lanes. (D) Local Emergency Access Lane Standards In addition to the emergency access standards set forth in Chapter 10-8, “Fire Prevention Code,” B.R.C. 1981, an emergency access lane shall equal or exceed the following standards: (1) Direct Route: Emergency access lanes shall provide the shortest practical direct access to points of concern, and be entirely contained within a minimum, continuous 20-foot- wide emergency access easement or public right-of-way. (2) Distance From Structure: Emergency access lanes shall be provided whenever a structure is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. (3) Surface: An emergency access lane shall consist of either of the following: (a) Two concrete strips at least 4 feet wide, with a 4-foot separation between them. Vegetation other than grass shall not be permitted in the separation area. (b) A minimum continuous paved surface width of 12 feet. (4) Radius: An emergency access lane shall provide a minimum turning radius of 25 feet, or the radius needed to accommodate an SU-30 vehicle. (5) Turnarounds: If the length of the emergency access lane exceeds 150 feet (without an outlet accessible to emergency vehicles), then a turnaround with a minimum radius of 45 feet shall be provided. (6) Grade: The grade for an emergency access lane shall not exceed five percent. Exceptions may be allowed with specific approval from the City of Boulder Fire Chief where this standard cannot be met due to topographical conditions. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 308 Packet Page 930 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-37 (7) Vertical Clearance: Vertical clearance from the surface of the emergency access lane shall be at least 15 feet. (E) Unobstructed Access Emergency access lanes shall be kept free and clear of all obstructions. If the Director or Fire Chief determines that barriers are needed to prevent automobile traffic from using an emergency access lane, then the applicant for construction approval shall install traffic bollards. Traffic bollard designs shall provide for immediate access of emergency vehicles, without requiring these vehicles to stop and maneuver around, or unlock, any structures. The Director and Fire Chief shall have final approval of all bollard designs. (F) Access Identification Signs and pavement markings will be required if necessary, by the Director and Fire Chief to delineate and identify emergency access lanes. All signage for emergency access lanes shall conform with the specifications in the MUTCD. 2.11 Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Path Design (A) Conformance with Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan The arrangement, type, and location of all bike lane and multi-use path facilities and routes shall conform with the "Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan" section in the TMP. The Director shall specify the standards for design and construction of new bike lane and multi-use path facilities consistent with these Standards and considering public health, safety, and welfare and generally accepted engineering principles. The Director may refer to the Transportation References in these Standards. These Standards shall also apply to marked and signed contraflow bike lanes to meet bicycle connectivity goals identified in the Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan where the right-of-way is constrained. (B) On-Street Bike Lanes - Streets Without On-Street Parking An on-street bike lane is separated from the motor vehicle travel lane by a single white line. On- street bike lanes on new streets without on-street parking shall be at least 5 feet wide, exclusive of the curb pan, or 6.5 feet from the face of any curb. On existing streets where on-street bike lanes are being added and available right-of-way or improvements space is restricted, the Director may approve a reduced width of the bike lane; the reduced width shall be at least 5 feet wide, inclusive of the curb pan. (C) On-Street Bike Lanes - Streets With On-Street Parking An on-street bike lane on a street with on-street parking is separated from the motor vehicle travel lane or parking lane by a single white line. On-street bike lanes on new streets with on-street parking shall be at least 6 feet wide, exclusive of the parking lane. On existing streets where on- street bike lanes are being added and available right-of-way or improvements space is restricted, the Director may approve a reduced width of the bike lane; the reduced width shall be at least 5 feet wide, exclusive of the parking lane. (D) Buffered Bike Lanes A buffered bike lane is separated from the motor vehicle travel lane by a painted buffer space creating a greater separation between the bike lane and adjacent travel lane. The buffer shall be Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 309 Packet Page 931 of 1100 2-38 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD marked with 2 solid white lines, and the markings shall otherwise conform with MUTCD standards. The buffered space shall be at least 2 feet wide. On streets without on-street parking the bike lane shall be at least 5 feet wide, or 6.5 feet from the face of the curb. Bike lanes on new streets with on-street parking shall be at least 5 feet wide, exclusive of the parking lane. On existing streets where buffered bike lanes are to be added and right-of-way or improvement space is limited, the Director may modify this standard considering safety concerns or approve an on- street bike lane. (E) Separated Bike Lanes (One-Way and Two-Way) A separated bike lane is physically separated from the motor vehicle travel lane through vertical or horizontal elements and is distinct from the sidewalk. Separated bike lanes have different forms but all share common elements. Where on-street parking is allowed, the separated bike lane shall be located to the curb side of the parking (in contrast to on-street and buffered bike lanes). Separated bike lanes may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If located at sidewalk level, a curb or median shall separate the separated bike lane from the motor vehicle travel lane, and different pavement color or type shall separate the separated bike lane from the sidewalk. If located at sidewalk level, the separation may include a landscaped area. If located at street level, the separated bike lane shall be separated from the motor vehicle travel lane by raised medians, on-street parking, or flexible delineators. Flexible delineators shall conform with MUTCD standards. Raised medians shall conform to "Technical Drawing 2.42C," Chapter 11 of these Standards. The Director may require additional markings, signage, and other improvements to ensure safe and efficient operation of the city's transportation system. On streets without on-street parking, a vertical separation shall create a buffer between the bike lane and the travel lane that is at least 3 feet wide, and the bike lane shall be at least 5 feet wide, or 6.5 feet from the face of the curb. On streets with on-street parking, the separation shall be a 3- foot-wide horizontal buffer between the bike lane and the parking lane, and the bike lane shall be at least 5 feet wide. On existing streets where separated bike lanes are to be added and right-of-way or improvement space is limited, the Director may modify this standard considering safety concerns and the efficient operation of the city's transportation system. (F) Typical Bicycle Facility Layouts The following are examples of typical bicycle facility layouts and shall be used as guidance for separated bike lane facilities. The existing street context and site constraints of each location shall be taken into account when designing these facilities and engineering judgement may be used to implement the intent of these example bicycle facility layouts. (1) One-Way Street Level Separated Bike Lanes at Driveways Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 310 Packet Page 932 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-39 (2) Sidewalk Level One-Way Separated Bike Lanes at Driveways (a) Typical approach clear space (ACS) for driveways and alleys shall be 20 feet as shown; in constrained locations the approach clear space may be measured from edge of driveway. (b) In constrained locations the far-side buffer tangent may be reduced to 5 feet. (c) See Section 2.07, Table 2.5 of these Standards for standard lane widths. (d) Bike lane tapers preferred at 7:1 shift, minimum 3:1 shift in constrained locations where speed is ≤ 13 mph. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 311 Packet Page 933 of 1100 2-40 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (e) For bike lanes at sidewalk elevation without buffer treatment, 1-foot minimum directional indicator strip required within the sidewalk; typically located 1 foot from the edge of the bike lane. (f) Accessible ramp slope (RMP) = 7.8% (8.3% max). (g) Accessible cross slope (CXS) = 0.5-1.5% (2% max). (h) Accessible running slope (RNG) = 5% max. (i) Driveway slope (DWY) = 12% max. (3) Street Level Separated Bike Lanes at Intersection in Retrofit Conditions Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 312 Packet Page 934 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-41 (4) Street Level Separated Bike Lanes at Intersections in New or Retrofitted Conditions (a) Design plans shall be consulted for variations. (b) Size and shape of corner treatments are dependent on intersection characteristics. (c) See Section 2.07, Table 2.5 of these Standards for standard lane widths. (d) Bike lane tapers preferred at 7:1 shift, minimum 3:1 shift in constrained locations here speed is ≤ 13 mph. (5) One-Way Separated Bike Lane and Right Turn Lane Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 313 Packet Page 935 of 1100 2-42 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (6) One-Way Separated Bike Lane and Right Turn Lane (a) Design plans shall be consulted for variations (b) Vertical elements may be excluded or modified as needed to accommodate truck and/or transit vehicles, with a 13-foot minimum where high bus volume is anticipated. (c) Bike lane tapers preferred at 7:1 shift, minimum 3:1 shift in constrained locations where speed is ≤ 13 mph. (d) See Section 2.07, Table 2.5 of these Standards for standard lane widths. (e) A ramp up to sidewalk may be provided for people on bicycles prior to vehicular mixing zone to provide a low stress alternative. (G) Off-Street Multi-Use Paths Design for off-street multi-use paths shall conform to Chapter 5 of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th edition. The paths shall be at least 10 feet wide with an inside edge radius of at least 15 feet and shall conform to "Technical Drawing 2.02D," Chapter 11, of these Standards. (H) Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking shall be located in a visible and prominent location that is lit at night and physically separated from automobile parking to prevent vehicles from intruding into the bike parking area. All bicycle parking constructed in the City of Boulder shall conform to the provisions in the Section 9-9-6(g), “Bicycle Parking,” B.R.C. 1981 or as adopted in any subcommunity or area improvement plan. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 314 Packet Page 936 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-43 (1) Bicycle Parking in Sidewalk Area of Public Right-of-Way: Bicycle parking racks located in the sidewalk area of the public right-of-way shall be designed using either the inverted “U” rack standard or the inverted “U” racks on rails standard. A minimum aisle of 5 feet shall be provided for bikes to maneuver in when accessing the rack. All racks shall be attached to a concrete base using a high security tamper proof anchor such as a mushroom head carbon steel expansion anchor “spike” #5550 as manufactured by Rawl or an equivalent theft-proof device. (a) Inverted “U” Rack: The inverted U rack is designed to park two bicycles, facing opposite directions, parallel to the rack. For the rack to meet its design specification of parking two bikes, it must be installed according to the specifications below, otherwise it will be considered to provide parking for one bike. The inverted “U” standard may be installed with the following conditions: (i) Where the “U” rack is installed oriented parallel to a wall or curb, at least 3.0 feet shall be provided between the parallel wall or curb and the center of the rack. Where a bike rack is located near a curb with “head-in” automobile parking, a minimum distance of 5 feet from the curb to the center of the rack is required to avoid damage to bicycles or racks by automobiles extending across the curb over the sidewalk. (ii) Where the “U” rack is installed oriented perpendicular to a wall or curb, a minimum distance of 4 feet from the wall or curb to the center of the rack will be provided to allow two bikes to access and use the rack. (iii) Where placed side-by-side, “U” racks shall be placed at least 3.5 feet apart to accommodate ease of access to the racks. (iv) Where placed in a series of 2 or more and parallel to a wall, inverted “U” racks will be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet between the centers of the racks to allow access to both sides of the rack. (v) The location of a bike rack shall maintain a minimum unobstructed sidewalk width of 6 feet from any bicycle parked properly in the rack. (vi) The location of a “U” rack shall maintain a minimum unobstructed distance of 3 feet from any pedestrian curb ramp to any bicycle parked properly in the rack. (b) Inverted “U” Racks on Rails: The inverted “U” racks on rails are designed to park four to ten bicycles, with two bikes facing opposite directions parked on either side and parallel to each inverted “U” rack. These racks allow locking of frame and wheel with a U-lock and support bikes with two points of contact. For the rack to meet its design specifications of parking bikes from both sides, it must be installed according to the conditions of the inverted “U” rack listed above; otherwise it will be considered to provide no more than half of its designed parking capacity. (2) Onsite Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking should generally be provided within 50 feet of the main building entrance. Racks must be installed according to the guidelines in (1) above to reach their designed parking capacity. Otherwise, they shall be credited with no more than half their design capacity. Bicycle parking racks or lockers located on development or project sites or in parking lots outside of public right-of-way shall generally be selected from the following standards: Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 315 Packet Page 937 of 1100 2-44 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD (a) Inverted “U” Rack: The inverted “U” rack is recommended for most bike rack installations and is one of the standards for bicycle parking in public rights-of- way as required in Subsection G.(1) above. Each rack provides space for two bicycles and allows flexibility in parking by providing two supports for attaching locks. The “U” rack may be used individually where space is limited, or, in circumstances requiring a larger amount of bike parking, inverted “U” racks on rails may be used to park four to ten bikes. Inverted “U” racks and inverted “U” racks on rails shall meet the specifications for the dimensions and installation shown in Chapter 11, “Technical Drawings,” of these Standards (b) Other Bike Rack Styles: Another rack style may be approved by the Director if it meets the following criteria: (i) Provides at least two contact points between the rack and the bike to securely support the bike; (ii) Provides at least a 2 foot by 6-foot parking space for each bike without the need to lift the handlebars of one bike over those of another to park; (iii) Allows the frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a standard high security, U-shaped shackle lock; and (iv) The rack is uncomplicated and intuitively simple for the bicyclist to use. (c) Lockers: Bicycle lockers provide secure weatherproof storage for bike parking. Lockers are recommended for employee and longer-term parking and require adequate space, since they require more area than bicycle racks. Lockers must meet the following standards: (i) The locker must be securely anchored to the ground using tamper- resistant anchors. (ii) There must be an aisle at least 5 feet wide behind all bicycle lockers to allow room for bicycle maneuvering. (iii) All bicycle lockers must meet one of the following dimensions: (1) The locker space has a minimum depth of 6 feet and an access door that is a minimum of 3 feet wide.85 (2) A locker provided in a triangle locker layout for two bicycle parking spaces must have a minimum depth of 6 feet and an access door that is a minimum of 3 feet wide on each end. (3) On-Street Bike Parking (Bike Parking Corrals): The Director may approve on- street bike corrals in commercial areas where sidewalk space is limited and in locations with high pedestrian volumes. In approving the design and construction of bike corrals, the Director shall consider public safety and the efficient operation of the city's transportation system. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 316 Packet Page 938 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-45 2.12 Street Lighting (A) Scope The provisions of this section shall apply to streetlighting in public streets and alleys. (B) Private Development Installation, relocation, or removal of streetlighting may be proposed by an applicant or may be required by the Director as part of a development approval under Title 9, "Land Use Code," B.R.C.1981. (C) City Projects The Director decides whether and where streetlighting may be provided, relocated, or removed considering the standards in this Section 2.12. (D) Street Types In determining whether streetlighting shall be installed or relocated in or removed from the public right-of-way, the Director shall consider the ANSI/IES RP-8-22, Illuminating Engineering Society Recommended Practice: Lighting Roadway and Parking Facilities (IES), as modified by the following standards: (1) Arterial Streets: Corridor lighting may be required or provided based on IES standard practices. (2) Collector Streets: Streetlighting may be required or provided only at intersections and identified pedestrian crossings. (3) Other Streets (Local): Streetlighting may be required or provided only at identified pedestrian crossings. (4) Alleys: Streetlighting may be required or provided in alleys in commercial areas with significant night-time pedestrian activity. Streetlighting is not provided in other alleys. (E) Design Standards (1) Design: Streetlighting shall have an LED light bulb within a full cut-off fixture that is installed in a horizontal position as designed. Streetlight poles shall be steel poles or wood poles. The pole material shall be determined by the Director and shall be generally consistent with the poles in the surrounding area. Relocation of a pole requires installation of a current pole design of the Citycity. (2) Location: Poles shall be located so that the center of the pole is three feet behind the face of the curb. The Director may approve a different pole location that is between three feet and six feet behind the face of the curb where necessary to accommodate the needs of other public right-of-way uses in the sidewalk area. Streets with a detached multi-use path or sidewalk may have streetlighting between the curb and multi-use path or sidewalk provided there are two feet of horizontal clearance between the nearest face of the pole and the edge of the multi-use path or sidewalk. Where a multi-use path or sidewalk are Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 317 Packet Page 939 of 1100 2-46 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD attached to the street’s curb and gutter, streetlighting shall be placed with two feet of horizontal clearance between the nearest face of the pole and the edge of the multi-use path or sidewalk. (F) Installation The Citycity will acquire, own, and install all streetlighting that is to be installed in public streets or alleys as part of a private development or a Citycity project. The cCity also performs relocation and removal of streetlighting. An applicant shall coordinate any construction of improvements in the public street or alley with the City’s installation, relocation, or removal of the streetlighting. (G) Easements Adequate rights-of-way, public access easements, or utility easements shall be dedicated to the City to allow the City to install, access, maintain, repair, and reinstall streetlighting and their associated facilities, such as cables, conduit, and pull boxes. The Director will determine the type and size of dedication based on the location of the streetlighting. (H) Fees An applicant for a private development including new installation, relocation, or removal of streetlighting in a public street or alley shall pay the applicable streetlighting fee prescribed by Section 4-20-77, “Streetlighting Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, at the time of submittal of construction plans for approval under Section 1.03, “Submittal Requirements for Construction Approval” or, if no such submittal is required, prior to issuance of a building permit. 2.13 Transit Stop Facilities New transit stops and enhancements to existing transit stops shall be designed in accordance with RTD's "Bus Infrastructure Standard Drawings" and with consideration of NACTO's "Transit Street Design Guide." 2.14 Traffic Calming Design (A) Scope This section includes guidelines for the implementation of traffic calming elements on public streets. All elements shall be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2 of this document and in conformance with the MUTCD. The Vision Zero Action Plan shall be consulted when determining if and what traffic calming measures are implemented. Traffic calming measures are intended to slow motorized vehicles and increase safety for bicycle and pedestrian users. Measures may also prioritize the movement of bicycles and pedestrians at crossing or conflict points. Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 318 Packet Page 940 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-47 (B) Traffic Circles The Director may require the installation of a traffic circle where the Director finds that the operations or safety of the intersection or the adjoining streets would benefit from such device. Figure 2-4 illustrates the typical layout and standard dimensions of a traffic circle and Table 2-14 Offset and Opening Width Dimensions and Table 2-15 Center Island Diameter Dimensions shall guide the design of the traffic circle. Final dimensions shall be approved by the Director based up site specific considerations for the safety of all users, the ability for all modes to traverse the intersection, and the efficient operation of the transportation system. In locations where crossing streets are not the same width, curb extensions may be used on the wider street to create consistent approach widths. In locations where the circulating width is less than 20 feet, the Director may require a mountable truck apron if the director finds that the expected truck traffic at the intersection will negatively impacts safety or intersection operations. Any objects, including plantings and trees, in the traffic circle shall provide a clear zone of visibility between 36 inches high and 80 inches high from the top of the travel path surface. Figure 2-4: Typical Layout and Standard Dimensions of Traffic Circle Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 319 Packet Page 941 of 1100 2-48 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Table 2-15: Offset and Opening Width Dimensions Offset Opening Width 5.5’ (Max) 16’ (Min) 5.0’ 17’ 4.5’ 18’ 4.0’ 19’ 3.5’ or less 20’ (Max) Table 2-16: Center Island Diameter Dimension for Different Street Widths and Curb Return Radii A Street Width B Curb Return Radius C Center Island Diameter 28’ 15’ 20’ 25’ 18’ 20’ 22’ 30’ 15’ 20’ 25’ 20’ 22’ 24’ 36’ 15’ 20’ 25’ 27’ 29’ 33’ 40’ 15’ 20’ 25’ 32’ 34’ 38’ (C) Raised Crossings The Director may require the installation of a raised crossing where the Director finds that the crossing meets the criteria from the city’s Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines for additional crossing treatments. Figure 2-5 through 2-7 illustrate typical layouts for raised crossings, Figure 2-8 illustrates typical section of a raised crossing, and Table 2-XXX Dimensions of Approach Ramp Length For Various Roadway Longitudinal Slopes and Target Grade Breaks and Table 2-16 Target Grade Breaks For Different Roadway Classifications shall guide the design of the raised crossing. Final dimensions and geometry shall be approved by the Director based up site specific considerations for the safety of all users, the ability for all modes to traverse the intersection, and the efficient operation of the transportation system. The width of the top of raised crosswalks should match the width of the connecting sidewalk, shared use path, or desired crosswalk, and in no case be less than 10-feet in width. Installation of a raised crossing shall include modifications to existing street paving, cold plane and overlay asphalt, or reconstruction of paving to provide a smooth transition and street crown and shall match adjacent paving materials and thickness. In locations where positive drainage cannot be achieved the design shall include drain inlet(s) as Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 320 Packet Page 942 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-49 necessary to convey stormwater drainage and meet street drainage requirements of Chapter 7. All crosswalks shall have a minimum of 2 feet spacing from poles, hydrants, and other vertical obstructions. Crosswalk cross slopes should be no greater than 2%, however, at mid-block locations the cross slope may match the existing street grade. Crosswalk cross slope may be 0% if longitudinal slope is sufficient to self-drain Crosswalk longitudinal slopes should not exceed 5% Grade breaks should be determined based on existing roadway speeds and desired speed reduction and should conform with Table 2-17. Generally, higher grade breaks correspond to higher speed reduction. Figure 2-5: Typical Layout of Raised Crossing at Mid-Block Location Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 321 Packet Page 943 of 1100 2-50 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Figure 2-6: Typical Layout of Raised Crossing at Intersection Leg Location Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 322 Packet Page 944 of 1100 Effective: TBDJune 3, 2024 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 2-51 Figure 2-7: Typical Layout of Raised Crossing at Channelized Right Turn Location Figure 2-8: Raised Crossing Typical Section Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 323 Packet Page 945 of 1100 2-52 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: June 3, 2024TBD Table 2-17: Dimensions of Approach Ramp Length For Various Roadway Longitudinal Slopes and Target Grade Breaks Approach Ramp Length Roadway Longitudinal Slope 5-6% Grade Break 8-10% Grade Break Uphill Downhill Uphill Downhill 0% 5.0-5.5’ (3.0’-4.0’) 5.0-5.5’ (3.0’-4.0’) 3.0-3.5’ (2.0’-2.5’) 3.0-3.5’ (2.0’-2.5’) 2% 5.0-5.5’ (3.0’-4.0’) 5.0-5.5’ (3.0’-4.0’) 3.0-3.5’ (2.0’-2.5’) 3.0-3.5’ (2.0’-2.5’) 4% 5.0-5.5’ (3.0’-4.0’) 8.0-10.0’ (6.5’-7.5’) 3.0-3.5’ (2.0’-2.5’) 5.0’-6.0’ (4.0’-5.0’) 6% 5.0-5.5’ (3.0’-4.0’) 11.0-13.5’ (9.5’-11.5’) 3.0-3.5’ (2.0’-2.5’) 6.5’-8.5’ (5.5’-7.0’) Note: Primary ramp lengths assume a 6-inch tall raised crossing. Ramp lengths in parenthesis assume a 4-inch tall raised crossing. Table 2-18: Target Grade Breaks For Different Roadway Classifications Roadway Classification Grade Break Range Min Max Local 8% 10% Collector 5% 6% Arterial 5% 6% Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8696Attachment N - Ordinance 8696 Item 4B - 2nd Rdg. ORD 8696 and ORD 8700 AMPS Code Update Page 324 Packet Page 946 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C harlotte Huskey, Budget Officer AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 5A - P olling Surv ey Results on 2025 P otential Tax B allot Measures – Long- Term F inancial Strategy Packet Page 947 of 1100 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 26, 2025 AGENDA TITLE Polling Survey Results on Proposed 2025 Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Krista Morrison, Chief Financial Officer Joel Wagner, Deputy Finance Director Charlotte Huskey, Budget Officer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to present to City Council the results of the 2025 statistically valid polling survey on two potential tax ballot measure items for 2025. The tax ballot measures for council consideration are part of the city’s Long-Term Financial Strategy (LTFS), a two-year initiative that focuses on the development of a comprehensive financial strategy to help guide fiscal decision- making and long-range financial health of the city. Named a City Council priority in April 2024, the LTFS builds upon prior policy guidance from the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) 2008 and 2010 reports and the Budgeting for Community Resilience Report of 2019, as well as recent lessons learned from the pandemic period. The two tax ballot items for council consideration are part of the LTFS Multi-Year Ballot Measure Strategy intended to support the city’s unmet needs and additional investments aligning with community priorities, including two infrastructure taxes for council consideration: 1) An extension of the existing 0.30% Community, Culture, Resilience & Safety (CCRS) sales & use tax from 2036 to 2050 or permanently to continue to support city infrastructure and maintenance projects, as well as nonprofit capacity building and capital investments. 2)The creation of a Public Realm (Parks & Public Improvement) Property Tax, which Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 1 Packet Page 948 of 1100 would increase the existing Permanent Parks property tax from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills and expand the use of the tax, allow debt issuance, to infrastructure and capital maintenance projects more broadly in the public realm, such as parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths. As included in Attachment A, a summary of the initial vote of the tax measures is below: 1. CCRS Sales & Use Tax Extension with 2050 sunset: 61% vote yes 2.CCRS Sales & Use Tax Extension without sunset: 64% vote yes 3.Public Realm (Parks & Public Improvements) Property Tax: 37.5% vote yes Further detail is included in Attachment A – Draft Presentation of 2025 Polling Survey Results. Staff and the polling firm, Probolsky Research, will present at the June 26 Council Meeting and answer further council questions at that time. City Council will further consider and decide potential 2025 tax ballot measures at the July 7 and August 7 council meetings. Prior to this item, staff provided an update to City Council at the February 27 Mid-Year Check-in and the April 3 Council Meeting on the Long-Term Financial Strategy, and further at the May 8 Council Meeting on 2025 Ballot Measures. At the May 8 meeting, City Council provided direction to staff to narrow the tax measure options to the 0.30% CCRS Sales & Use Tax extension and Public Realm Property Tax. The 2025 polling survey focused on these two tax measures. KEY COUNCIL QUESTIONS 1. Do council members have questions on the 2025 statistically valid polling survey and results of the two potential tax ballot measures for consideration on the 2025 ballot? 2. Do council members have clarifying questions on the ballot language included within the polling survey of the potential tax ballot measures? BACKGROUND Last year, City Council first confirmed support for a Multi-Year Ballot Measure Strategy within the LTFS at the May 9, 2024 City Council Meeting on ballot items. The Multi-Year Ballot Measure Strategy is a two-year approach to consider potential tax ballot measures for 2025 and 2026. This strategy focuses on identifying potential tax ballot measures for council consideration that uplift the LTFS guiding principles of Fiscal Sustainability and Sufficiency, Equity, and Resiliency. Within the Multi-Year Ballot Measure Framework, key focus areas by year include: •In 2025, the framework establishes a narrowed, incremental approach to potential tax ballot measures to focus on taking care of what we have, including investing in existing assets, addressing the backlog of capital infrastructure renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects and funding opportunities for core services such as: transportation infrastructure development, replacement of parks assets, and renovations of city facilities. •In 2026, the framework identifies an expanded, more comprehensive and creative approach to potential tax ballot measure options, seeking both to focus on the city’s unmet needs in addition to community priorities of city programs and services. This effort will be further informed by Fund Our Future community conversations in the fall of 2025. Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 2 Packet Page 949 of 1100 The process to develop the two 2025 potential tax ballot measures included staff analysis of potential revenue generation, a comparison analysis of tax ballot issues across Colorado municipalities, consideration of alignment with the LTFS guiding principles, and discussions and policy guidance received during monthly meetings with Financial Strategy Committee members. The 0.30% CCRS Tax extension would generate approximately $13.0-15.0M in annual sales and use tax revenues supporting capital infrastructure and total cost of ownership, meeting the LTFS guiding principles of revenue sufficiency and funding flexibility. This tax extension would build upon the city’s current tax structure by expanding the term of the existing tax, and provide increased funding stability for capital infrastructure, renovation, and replacement projects for the city (90% of revenues, $13.5M annually) and non-profit organizations (10% of revenues, $1.5M annually). The Public Realm Tax would increase the existing Permanent Parks tax by 1.352 mills, taking the property tax to the City Charter Sec. 94 limit of 13.000 mills, and expand the use to capital infrastructure and capital maintenance in the public realm. This would generate approximately $7.0M in annual property tax revenues and meet the LTFS guiding principles of revenue sufficiency and stability, funding flexibility, and revenue diversification. ANALYSIS Staff contracted with Probolsky Research, a national polling firm, to conduct the 2025 statistically valid polling survey for the two potential tax ballot measures for the 2025 ballot. Probolsky Research performed the randomized and statistically significant polling survey between June 5 – June 11, 2025 to better understand community opinions about the two potential 2025 tax ballot measures. The survey methodology included phone and online communication, offering the survey in English, Spanish, and Nepali, and focused on City of Boulder likely voters. The survey included 400 participants, and the margin of error of survey results is +/-5%. A copy of the results is included in Attachment A and summarized below. The polling survey focused on questions relating to the priorities of types of services, programs, and infrastructure, flexibility of funding, and specific questions testing three tax ballot measure questions on the CCRS Sales & Use Tax extension and the Public Realm (Parks & Public Improvements) Property Tax. A summary of the initial vote (included on pages 49, 54, and 106 of Attachment A, respectively): 1. CCRS Sales & Use Tax Extension with 2050 sunset: 61% vote yes 2.CCRS Sales & Use Tax Extension without sunset: 64% vote yes 3.Public Realm (Parks & Public Improvements) Property Tax: 37.5% vote yes Additional highlights of survey results include: 86% agree that delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term 52% agree that taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions 76% agree that taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs allows the voters to direct resources to issues they care about most 72% agree that the City should have the flexibility to spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 3 Packet Page 950 of 1100 80% agree that since City has limited resources, the community needs to prioritize what matters most City staff and the polling firm, Probolsky Research, will present at the June 26 Council Meeting and answer further council questions at that time. City Council will discuss and perform final decision- making on potential tax ballot measures for the 2025 ballot at the July 7 and August 7 council meetings. NEXT STEPS July 24 – First reading, council discussion, and public hearing on 2025 ballot items. August 7 – Second reading, council discussion, and public hearing on 2025 ballot items. If a third reading is not required, this is the final date for City Council to consider and approve 2025 tax ballot items within the LTFS Multi-Year Ballot Measure Strategy. If needed, a third reading would occur on August 21. ATTACHMENT A – Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 4 Packet Page 951 of 1100 City of Boulder 2025 Voter Survey Results Presentation June 2025 Opinion Research on Elections and Public Policy PROBOLSKY RESEARCH 110 16th St Ste 1400-235 Denver, CO 80202 800-492-9556Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 5 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 952 of 1100 1 City of Boulder – 2025 Voter Survey Survey Methodology* Survey Details Mode Phone (landline and mobile) Online (email and text to web) Language English and Spanish Length 21 minutes Target Respondents City of Boulder likely voters Survey Fielding June 5 – June 11, 2025 Margin of Error +/-5% Survey Participants 400 Sample Our sample was developed from the voter files originally compiled by the Boulder County Elections Division. We matched the demographics of City of Boulder likely voters. Data Collection Explained Interviews were conducted with live U.S.-based interviewers by phone (36%) and online survey methods (64%). Phone participants were interviewed through landline (24%) and mobile (76%) calls. Online participants were invited by email (54%) and text message (46%) to access the survey by computer, tablet, or smart phone. Respondents in all modes chose their preferred language, English (98%) and Spanish (2%). Security measures precluded individuals from completing the survey more than once. Probolsky Research is a Latina- and woman-owned market and opinion research firm with corporate, election, government, and non-profit clients.*Due to rounding, totals shown on charts may not add up to 100%Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 6 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 953 of 1100 2 Housing affordability is the top-of-mind concern for Boulder voters Question 1: In your own words, what do you feel is the most important issue facing Boulder today? [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE] 24.3% 19.8% 10.5% 9.5% 7.0% 5.5% 5.3% 4.0% 3.0% 2.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 5.3% 0.8% Housing affordability Homelessness Public safety/Drugs/Crime Overpopulation/Controlling growth/Development Government Inflation/High cost of living Transportation/Traffic/Roads Environmental issues Moral issues Jobs/Economy Poverty Immigration/Illegal immigration Taxes Other Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 7 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 954 of 1100 3 Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram are the social media apps used most regularly by voters Question 2: Please indicate which if any of these social apps and websites you use regularly? Select all that apply. 43.0% 40.5% 38.5% 32.3% 27.0% 22.3% 11.0% 5.5% 2.5% 9.8% 13.0% 0.5% Facebook YouTube Instagram Nextdoor Linkedin Reddit X TikTok Snapchat Other Nothing Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 8 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 955 of 1100 4 A majority of voters get their news and information about local issues from online news outlets Question 3: Where do you generally get your news and information about local issues? Select all that apply. 54.3% 49.8% 34.0% 27.3% 25.3% 25.3% 15.0% 7.5% 6.0% 1.5% Online news outlet Newspaper Social media platforms Local radio Local television City of Boulder newsletter or newscast Blog, forum, or other website Magazines Other Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 9 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 956 of 1100 5 53% approve of the job the City is doing providing services to residents Question 4: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing providing services to residents? 52.8% 40.8% 6.5% Approve Disapprove Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 10 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 957 of 1100 6 Among those who said disapprove, 36% strongly disapprove Question 4: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing providing services to residents? 52.8%40.8% 6.5% Total Strongly 14.2% Somewhat 85.8% Among those who said approve Strongly 36.2% Somewhat 63.8% Among those who said disapprove Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 11 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 958 of 1100 7 Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Question 4: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing providing services to residents? 52.1% 53.3% 59.8% 35.0% 43.3% 59.4% 58.7% 59.6% 43.9% 53.6% 45.8% 54.9% 50.0% 57.9% 14.3% 30.8% 50.6% 56.2% 6.9% 6.1% 5.9% 10.0% 7.1% 18.8% 10.9% 7.0% 5.3% 3.3% 8.3% 5.2% 12.5% 10.5% 14.3% 23.1% 6.9% 5.9% 41.0% 40.6% 34.3% 55.0% 49.6% 21.9% 30.4% 33.3% 50.9% 43.0% 45.8% 39.9% 37.5% 31.6% 71.4% 46.2% 42.5% 37.9% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Approve Unsure Disapprove Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 12 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 959 of 1100 8 Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote Question 4: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing providing services to residents? 37.5% 70.0% 55.6% 48.0% 51.9% 63.3% 53.5% 51.4% 38.3% 42.0% 62.5% 55.6% 64.1% 31.3% 39.3% 25.0% 10.0% 13.0% 5.3% 4.3% 1.7% 7.0% 6.8% 10.0% 8.0% 12.5% 22.2% 5.6% 5.2% 12.5% 37.5% 20.0% 31.5% 46.7% 43.8% 35.0% 39.4% 41.9% 51.7% 50.0% 25.0% 22.2% 30.2% 63.5% 48.2% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20+ years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Approve Unsure Disapprove Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 13 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 960 of 1100 9 Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode Question 4: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing providing services to residents? 73.3% 31.0% 56.5% 47.7% 54.0% 55.8% 60.0% 49.0% 52.7% 55.6% 54.9% 55.9% 54.5% 51.6% 53.2% 49.6% 4.0% 4.4% 14.1% 5.4% 9.2% 7.8% 1.8% 8.2% 6.6% 6.3% 2.9% 7.3% 6.6% 7.2% 6.0% 22.7% 64.6% 29.3% 46.9% 36.8% 36.4% 38.2% 42.9% 40.7% 44.4% 38.9% 41.2% 38.2% 41.8% 39.6% 44.4% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Approve Unsure Disapprove Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 14 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 961 of 1100 10 43% of voters would like to increase funding for homelessness services and programs Question 5: Thinking about the services you would like the City to increase funding for. Please select up to three. 43.0% 38.3% 30.8% 28.3% 26.5% 20.8% 20.3% 19.5% 13.5% 18.0% 1.5% Homelessness services and programs Affordable housing support Behavioral health and substance use services Emergency response and crime prevention operations Recreation services and parks operations Fire response and prevention operations Small business and economic support programs Open space lands programming and operations Arts and cultural programs Other Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 15 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 962 of 1100 11 20% of voters would like to reduce funding for arts and cultural programs but 32% remain unsure Question 6: Thinking about the services you would like the City to reduce funding for. Please select up to three. [ELIMINATE OPTIONS SELECTED IN Q5] 19.5% 18.3% 15.5% 15.3% 14.5% 10.3% 5.5% 5.5% 2.0% 15.8% 32.0% Arts and cultural programs Affordable housing support Homelessness services and programs Open space lands programming and operations Small business and economic support programs Behavioral health and substance use services Emergency response and crime prevention operations Recreation services and parks operations Fire response and prevention operations Other Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 16 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 963 of 1100 12 64% of voters would like the City to increase funding for roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements Question 7: Thinking about the infrastructure you would like the City to increase funding for. Please select up to three. 64.3% 41.3% 35.8% 26.5% 26.3% 24.3% 11.8% 12.5% 3.3% Roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements Recreation centers renovations and replacements Snow and ice maintenance response Parks, playgrounds, and tree canopy refurbishment Open space trail and trailhead maintenance and improvements Public restrooms improvements and maintenance Fire and police stations renovation and replacement Other Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 17 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 964 of 1100 13 21% of voters would like the City to reduce funding for fire and police station renovations and replacements but 41% remain unsure Question 8: Thinking about the infrastructure you would like the city to reduce funding for. Please select up to three. [ELIMINATE OPTIONS SELECTED IN Q7] 21.3% 13.3% 10.3% 8.8% 8.3% 6.0% 4.8% 15.3% 40.5% Fire and police stations renovation and replacement Public restrooms improvements and maintenance Open space trail and trailhead maintenance and improvements Parks, playgrounds, and tree canopy refurbishment Snow and ice maintenance response Recreation centers renovations and replacements Roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements Other Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 18 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 965 of 1100 14 Voters are mixed on whether the City is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely Question 9: Agree or disagree: The City is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely. 43.3%44.0% 12.8% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 19 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 966 of 1100 15 Among those who said disagree, 50% strongly disagree Question 9: Agree or disagree: The City is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely. 43.3% 44.0% 12.8% Total Strongly 20.2% Somewhat 79.8% Among those who said agree Strongly 50.0% Somewhat 50.0% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 20 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 967 of 1100 16 Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Question 9: Agree or disagree: The City is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely. 43.6% 42.9% 52.7% 25.0% 29.8% 37.5% 43.5% 54.4% 36.0% 45.7% 37.5% 44.8% 37.5% 47.4% 28.6% 23.1% 43.7% 42.5% 10.1% 15.1% 11.7% 16.3% 18.8% 26.1% 8.8% 14.9% 7.3% 12.5% 12.8% 12.5% 10.5% 14.3% 15.4% 10.9% 15.7% 46.3% 42.0% 35.6% 75.0% 53.9% 43.8% 30.4% 36.8% 49.1% 47.0% 50.0% 42.4% 50.0% 42.1% 57.1% 61.5% 45.3% 41.8% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 21 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 968 of 1100 17 Question 9: Agree or disagree: The City is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely. 37.5% 43.3% 44.4% 41.3% 43.8% 57.5% 46.5% 40.5% 26.7% 34.0% 31.3% 33.3% 56.0% 18.8% 28.6% 12.5% 36.7% 22.2% 8.0% 9.0% 9.2% 8.5% 13.5% 25.0% 14.0% 22.2% 13.3% 4.2% 25.0% 50.0% 20.0% 33.3% 50.7% 47.2% 33.3% 45.1% 45.9% 48.3% 52.0% 68.8% 44.4% 30.6% 77.1% 46.4% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 22 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 969 of 1100 18 Question 9: Agree or disagree: The City is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely. 60.7% 24.7% 46.7% 40.0% 50.6% 40.3% 49.1% 38.8% 43.5% 33.3% 45.8% 52.9% 43.6% 41.8% 42.4% 41.0% 13.3% 7.0% 21.7% 16.9% 10.3% 11.7% 7.3% 12.2% 12.8% 11.1% 12.5% 11.8% 12.7% 12.9% 12.9% 12.8% 26.0% 68.4% 31.5% 43.1% 39.1% 48.1% 43.6% 49.0% 43.7% 55.6% 41.7% 35.3% 43.6% 45.3% 44.6% 46.2% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 23 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 970 of 1100 19 86% agree that delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term Question 10: Agree or disagree: Delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term because costs keep rising and deferred maintenance can result in costly emergency repairs. 86.3% 8.3%5.5% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 24 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 971 of 1100 20 Among those who said agree, 53% strongly agree Question 10: Agree or disagree: Delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term because costs keep rising and deferred maintenance can result in costly emergency repairs. 86.3% 8.3%5.5% TotalStrongly 52.5% Somewhat 47.5% Among those who said agree Strongly 15.2% Somewhat 84.8% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 25 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 972 of 1100 21 Question 10: Agree or disagree: Delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term because costs keep rising and deferred maintenance can result in costly emergency repairs. 86.7% 85.8% 89.5% 80.0% 81.6% 84.4% 89.1% 87.7% 86.8% 84.8% 79.2% 88.4% 75.0% 100.0% 71.4% 38.5% 85.8% 86.9% 5.3% 5.7% 4.2% 15.0% 6.4% 15.6% 4.3% 5.3% 3.5% 5.3% 8.3% 4.3% 12.5% 14.3% 30.8% 6.1% 4.6% 8.0% 8.5% 6.3% 5.0% 12.1% 6.5% 7.0% 9.6% 9.9% 12.5% 7.3% 12.5% 14.3% 30.8% 8.1% 8.5% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 26 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 973 of 1100 22 Question 10: Agree or disagree: Delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term because costs keep rising and deferred maintenance can result in costly emergency repairs. Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 87.5% 96.7% 87.0% 84.0% 85.4% 91.7% 87.3% 87.8% 80.0% 80.0% 68.8% 100.0% 94.0% 71.9% 76.8% 12.5% 3.7% 9.3% 5.2% 3.3% 7.0% 2.7% 6.7% 4.0% 31.3% 2.4% 9.4% 12.5% 3.3% 9.3% 6.7% 9.4% 5.0% 5.6% 9.5% 13.3% 16.0% 3.6% 18.8% 10.7% 0-2years 3-5years 6-10years 11-19years 20+years 8 outof 8 7 outof 8 6 outof 8 5 outof 8 4 outof 8 3 outof 8 2 outof 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 27 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 974 of 1100 23 Question 10: Agree or disagree: Delaying necessary facility and infrastructure maintenance only increases the cost to taxpayers in the long-term because costs keep rising and deferred maintenance can result in costly emergency repairs. Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 95.3% 77.2% 87.0% 86.2% 90.8% 77.9% 89.1% 87.8% 86.7% 66.7% 86.1% 82.4% 87.3% 86.3% 84.9% 88.0% 1.3% 6.3% 10.9% 3.8% 2.3% 11.7% 5.5% 6.1% 5.4% 11.1% 4.9% 8.8% 3.6% 5.9% 5.8% 6.0% 3.3% 16.5% 2.2% 10.0% 6.9% 10.4% 5.5% 6.1% 7.9% 22.2% 9.0% 8.8% 9.1% 7.8% 9.4% 6.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 28 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 975 of 1100 24 56% agree that the City has the necessary financial resources to meet community expectations Question 11: Agree or disagree: The City has the necessary financial resources to meet community expectations for programs, services, and infrastructure. 56.3% 26.8% 17.0% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 29 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 976 of 1100 25 Among those who said agree, 42% said agree Question 11: Agree or disagree: The City has the necessary financial resources to meet community expectations for programs, services, and infrastructure. 56.3%26.8% 17.0% Total Strongly 42.2% Somewhat 57.8% Among those who said agree Strongly 31.8% Somewhat 68.2% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 30 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 977 of 1100 26 Question 11: Agree or disagree: The City has the necessary financial resources to meet community expectations for programs, services, and infrastructure. Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 61.7% 51.4% 50.6% 75.0% 63.1% 65.6% 60.9% 50.9% 53.5% 57.0% 66.7% 54.6% 37.5% 73.7% 42.9% 69.2% 56.7% 55.6% 13.8% 19.8% 18.0% 17.7% 12.5% 19.6% 17.5% 14.9% 18.5% 16.7% 16.2% 12.5% 21.1% 42.9% 23.1% 15.8% 19.0% 24.5% 28.8% 31.4% 25.0% 19.1% 21.9% 19.6% 31.6% 31.6% 24.5% 16.7% 29.3% 50.0% 5.3% 14.3% 7.7% 27.5% 25.5% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 31 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 978 of 1100 27 Question 11: Agree or disagree: The City has the necessary financial resources to meet community expectations for programs, services, and infrastructure. Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 62.5% 56.7% 63.0% 53.3% 55.4% 48.3% 49.3% 55.4% 70.0% 64.0% 75.0% 55.6% 48.8% 81.3% 46.4% 25.0% 26.7% 16.7% 13.3% 16.7% 15.8% 19.7% 18.9% 16.7% 18.0% 6.3% 11.1% 16.5% 5.2% 39.3% 12.5% 16.7% 20.4% 33.3% 27.9% 35.8% 31.0% 25.7% 13.3% 18.0% 18.8% 33.3% 34.7% 13.5% 14.3% 0-2years 3-5years 6-10years 11-19years 20+years 8 outof 8 7 outof 8 6 outof 8 5 outof 8 4 outof 8 3 outof 8 2 outof 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 32 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 979 of 1100 28 Question 11: Agree or disagree: The City has the necessary financial resources to meet community expectations for programs, services, and infrastructure. Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 44.7% 67.7% 55.4% 56.2% 47.1% 55.8% 65.5% 65.3% 55.8% 77.8% 59.0% 52.9% 60.9% 54.7% 62.6% 45.3% 14.7% 12.7% 28.3% 17.7% 18.4% 15.6% 14.5% 18.4% 16.9% 22.2% 15.3% 14.7% 15.5% 18.0% 15.1% 21.4% 40.7% 19.6% 16.3% 26.2% 34.5% 28.6% 20.0% 16.3% 27.4% 25.7% 32.4% 23.6% 27.3% 22.3% 33.3% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 33 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 980 of 1100 29 52% agree that taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions Question 12: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions across all needs and community priorities. 52.0% 37.5% 10.5% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 34 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 981 of 1100 30 Among those who agree, 30% strongly agree Question 12: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions across all needs and community priorities. 52.0%37.5% 10.5% Total Strongly 29.8% Somewhat 70.2% Among those who said agree Strongly 38.0% Somewhat 62.0% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 35 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 982 of 1100 31 Question 12: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions across all needs and community priorities. Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 54.3% 50.0% 52.7% 65.0% 48.9% 46.9% 58.7% 57.9% 46.5% 53.0% 50.0% 52.1% 62.5% 52.6% 42.9% 53.8% 52.6% 51.0% 12.8% 8.5% 10.5% 12.1% 21.9% 8.7% 8.8% 8.8% 10.6% 10.4% 12.5% 10.5% 28.6% 23.1% 10.1% 11.1% 33.0% 41.5% 36.8% 35.0% 39.0% 31.3% 32.6% 33.3% 44.7% 36.4% 50.0% 37.5% 25.0% 36.8% 28.6% 23.1% 37.2% 37.9% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 36 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 983 of 1100 32 Question 12: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions across all needs and community priorities. Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 37.5% 53.3% 48.1% 54.7% 52.4% 59.2% 62.0% 43.2% 36.7% 52.0% 56.3% 44.4% 56.5% 54.2% 28.6% 12.5% 16.7% 13.0% 10.7% 9.0% 10.0% 8.5% 8.1% 15.0% 10.0% 12.5% 22.2% 8.9% 4.2% 28.6% 50.0% 30.0% 38.9% 34.7% 38.6% 30.8% 29.6% 48.6% 48.3% 38.0% 31.3% 33.3% 34.7% 41.7% 42.9% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 37 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 984 of 1100 33 Question 12: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations limit the ability of the City to make funding decisions across all needs and community priorities. Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 59.3% 50.0% 43.5% 52.3% 49.4% 50.6% 54.5% 53.1% 51.9% 55.6% 50.7% 35.3% 55.5% 52.7% 56.1% 48.7% 9.3% 6.3% 19.6% 11.5% 13.8% 6.5% 9.1% 10.2% 10.7% 12.5% 17.6% 10.9% 9.4% 8.6% 10.3% 31.3% 43.7% 37.0% 36.2% 36.8% 42.9% 36.4% 36.7% 37.3% 44.4% 36.8% 47.1% 33.6% 37.9% 35.3% 41.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 38 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 985 of 1100 34 76% agree that taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs allows the voters to direct resources to issues they care about most Question 13: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations allows the voters to direct resources to specific issues they care most about. 75.8% 15.5% 8.8% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 39 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 986 of 1100 35 Among those who agree, 40% strongly agree Question 13: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations allows the voters to direct resources to specific issues they care most about. 75.8% 15.5% 8.8% Total Strongly 39.9% Somewhat 60.1% Among those who said agree Strongly 35.5% Somewhat 64.5% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 40 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 987 of 1100 36 Question 13: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations allows the voters to direct resources to specific issues they care most about. Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 73.4% 77.8% 77.8% 65.0% 73.8% 62.5% 76.1% 75.4% 71.9% 81.5% 91.7% 76.5% 50.0% 63.2% 85.7% 53.8% 76.5% 74.5% 9.0% 8.5% 8.4% 5.0% 9.9% 25.0% 8.7% 7.0% 5.3% 8.6% 4.2% 7.9% 12.5% 21.1% 14.3% 15.4% 7.7% 10.5% 17.6% 13.7% 13.8% 30.0% 16.3% 12.5% 15.2% 17.5% 22.8% 9.9% 4.2% 15.5% 37.5% 15.8% 30.8% 15.8% 15.0% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 41 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 988 of 1100 37 Question 13: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations allows the voters to direct resources to specific issues they care most about. Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 75.0% 76.7% 72.2% 72.0% 77.7% 80.0% 78.9% 79.7% 70.0% 72.0% 50.0% 66.7% 79.0% 75.0% 62.5% 12.5% 6.7% 13.0% 10.7% 7.3% 7.5% 5.6% 6.8% 15.0% 4.0% 25.0% 22.2% 7.3% 4.2% 23.2% 12.5% 16.7% 14.8% 17.3% 15.0% 12.5% 15.5% 13.5% 15.0% 24.0% 25.0% 11.1% 13.7% 20.8% 14.3% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 42 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 989 of 1100 38 Question 13: Agree or disagree: Taxes passed by voters that require revenue to be spent on specific programs and operations allows the voters to direct resources to specific issues they care most about. Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 75.3% 77.8% 72.8% 79.2% 78.2% 72.7% 74.5% 67.3% 75.7% 77.8% 69.4% 67.6% 70.0% 79.3% 77.7% 81.2% 8.0% 4.4% 17.4% 6.9% 9.2% 9.1% 10.9% 10.2% 8.7% 11.1% 12.5% 17.6% 10.9% 6.6% 6.5% 6.8% 16.7% 17.7% 9.8% 13.8% 12.6% 18.2% 14.5% 22.4% 15.6% 11.1% 18.1% 14.7% 19.1% 14.1% 15.8% 12.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 43 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 990 of 1100 39 72% agree that the City should have the flexibility to spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs Question 14: Agree or disagree: The City should have the flexibility spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs of the community. 72.0% 21.8% 6.3% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 44 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 991 of 1100 40 Among those who agree, 34% strongly agree Question 14: Agree or disagree: The City should have the flexibility spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs of the community. 72.0% 21.8% 6.3% Total Strongly 34.0% Somewhat 66.0% Among those who said agree Strongly 34.5% Somewhat 65.5% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 45 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 992 of 1100 41 Question 14: Agree or disagree: The City should have the flexibility spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs of the community. 74.5% 69.8% 74.5% 50.0% 70.9% 81.3% 87.0% 66.7% 67.5% 70.9% 66.7% 73.5% 62.5% 84.2% 42.9% 46.2% 70.9% 73.9% 4.8% 7.5% 7.5% 10.0% 3.5% 6.3% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3% 4.2% 5.8% 5.3% 28.6% 15.4% 7.7% 3.9% 20.7% 22.6% 18.0% 40.0% 25.5% 12.5% 13.0% 28.1% 24.6% 21.9% 29.2% 20.7% 37.5% 10.5% 28.6% 38.5% 21.5% 22.2% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 46 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 993 of 1100 42 Question 14: Agree or disagree: The City should have the flexibility spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs of the community. Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 87.5% 73.3% 85.2% 69.3% 69.1% 75.0% 73.2% 67.6% 70.0% 66.0% 75.0% 100.0% 80.2% 57.3% 60.7% 12.5% 6.7% 5.6% 8.0% 5.6% 6.7% 5.6% 4.1% 8.3% 6.0% 12.5% 4.0% 5.2% 17.9% 20.0% 9.3% 22.7% 25.3% 18.3% 21.1% 28.4% 21.7% 28.0% 12.5% 15.7% 37.5% 21.4% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 47 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 994 of 1100 43 Question 14: Agree or disagree: The City should have the flexibility spend tax dollars on the most pressing needs of the community. Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 81.3% 58.9% 79.3% 69.2% 71.3% 70.1% 74.5% 79.6% 71.9% 77.8% 70.1% 58.8% 73.6% 73.0% 71.2% 75.2% 3.3% 8.2% 7.6% 4.6% 10.3% 6.5% 3.6% 6.1% 6.4% 5.6% 2.9% 6.4% 6.6% 8.6% 4.3% 15.3% 32.9% 13.0% 26.2% 18.4% 23.4% 21.8% 14.3% 21.7% 22.2% 24.3% 38.2% 20.0% 20.3% 20.1% 20.5% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 48 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 995 of 1100 44 80% agree that since City has limited resources, the community needs to prioritize what matters most Question 15: Agree or disagree: Boulder residents expect a high level of city services. Since the City has limited resources and ways of funding services, the community needs to prioritize what matters the most. 80.3% 14.0% 5.8% Agree Disagree Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 49 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 996 of 1100 45 Among those who said agree, 48% strongly agree Question 15: Agree or disagree: Boulder residents expect a high level of city services. Since the City has limited resources and ways of funding services, the community needs to prioritize what matters the most. 80.3% 14.0% 5.8% TotalStrongly 47.7%Somewhat 52.3% Among those who said agree Strongly 28.6% Somewhat 71.4% Among those who said disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 50 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 997 of 1100 46 Question 15: Agree or disagree: Boulder residents expect a high level of city services. Since the City has limited resources and ways of funding services, the community needs to prioritize what matters the most. 81.4% 79.2% 82.8% 85.0% 75.2% 75.0% 76.1% 77.2% 80.7% 83.4% 87.5% 81.4% 75.0% 94.7% 42.9% 38.5% 79.8% 81.0% 3.2% 8.0% 5.9% 6.4% 6.3% 4.3% 5.3% 2.6% 8.6% 5.2% 12.5% 5.3% 28.6% 15.4% 6.1% 5.2% 15.4% 12.7% 11.3% 15.0% 18.4% 18.8% 19.6% 17.5% 16.7% 7.9% 12.5% 13.4% 12.5% 28.6% 46.2% 14.2% 13.7% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Agree Unsure Disagree Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 51 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 998 of 1100 47 Question 15: Agree or disagree: Boulder residents expect a high level of city services. Since the City has limited resources and ways of funding services, the community needs to prioritize what matters the most. Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 62.5% 93.3% 68.5% 72.0% 84.5% 84.2% 78.9% 81.1% 75.0% 84.0% 68.8% 66.7% 83.5% 78.1% 69.6% 25.0% 6.7% 3.7% 8.0% 4.7% 5.0% 5.6% 5.4% 10.0% 6.0% 5.2% 17.9% 12.5% 27.8% 20.0% 10.7% 10.8% 15.5% 13.5% 15.0% 10.0% 31.3% 33.3% 11.3% 21.9% 12.5% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 52 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 999 of 1100 48 Question 15: Agree or disagree: Boulder residents expect a high level of city services. Since the City has limited resources and ways of funding services, the community needs to prioritize what matters the most. Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 84.0% 78.5% 77.2% 79.2% 82.8% 77.9% 83.6% 77.6% 80.6% 66.7% 79.2% 67.6% 82.7% 80.9% 83.5% 77.8% 4.7% 3.8% 10.9% 5.4% 5.7% 9.1% 8.2% 5.9% 5.6% 11.8% 3.6% 5.9% 5.8% 6.0% 11.3% 17.7% 12.0% 15.4% 11.5% 13.0% 16.4% 14.3% 13.6% 33.3% 15.3% 20.6% 13.6% 13.3% 10.8% 16.2% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Agree Unsure Disagree Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 53 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1000 of 1100 49 61% vote yes to extend the CCRS sales tax measure with a sunset Question 16: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. Please indicate if you would vote yes, or vote no. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] 60.5% 24.5% 15.0% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Without raising the current tax rate, shall the existing Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax of 0.3 percent, scheduled to expire December 31, 2036, be extended through December 31, 2050, with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to build and maintain city capital improvement projects such as: Roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements , Parks, playgrounds, and tree canopy refurbishment, Fire and Police stations renovation and replacement, Open space trail and trailhead maintenance and improvements, Snow and ice maintenance response, Recreation centers renovations and replacements and use up to 10% of tax revenue to fund a grant pool for non-profit organization projects that serve the people of Boulder and related costs including grant program administration costs in compliance with terms, conditions, and timing adopted by the City Council; and in connection therewith, shall the tax revenues and any earnings from the revenues constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution? Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 54 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1001 of 1100 50 Among those who vote yes, 47% definitely vote yes Question 16: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. 60.5%24.5% 15.0% TotalDefinitely 47.1%Probably 52.9% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 42.9% Probably 57.1% Among those who said vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 55 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1002 of 1100 51 Question 16: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] 63.4% 57.6% 65.0% 42.9% 54.3% 61.1% 66.7% 82.8% 46.4% 60.3% 40.0% 63.3% 33.3% 70.0% 100.0% 33.3% 64.3% 53.5% 8.9% 21.2% 13.8% 18.6% 22.2% 20.8% 6.9% 16.1% 13.7% 20.0% 14.5% 33.3% 22.2% 13.2% 18.3% 27.7% 21.2% 21.1% 57.1% 27.1% 16.7% 12.5% 10.3% 37.5% 26.0% 40.0% 22.3% 33.3% 30.0% 44.4% 22.5% 28.2% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 56 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1003 of 1100 52 Question 16: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 33.3% 57.1% 77.3% 54.0% 61.3% 69.0% 61.8% 52.8% 64.7% 50.0% 54.5% 33.3% 100.0% 66.7% 21.4% 9.1% 14.0% 14.4% 10.3% 17.6% 22.2% 14.7% 8.3% 18.2% 33.3% 100.0% 21.4% 13.6% 32.0% 24.3% 20.7% 20.6% 25.0% 20.6% 41.7% 27.3% 33.3% 100.0% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20+ years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 57 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1004 of 1100 53 Question 16: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] 87.7% 38.0% 50.0% 56.5% 72.3% 53.5% 73.9% 50.0% 61.4% 54.2% 55.0% 53.8% 64.1% 64.1% 64.1% 8.6% 11.4% 35.0% 14.5% 10.6% 20.9% 13.0% 16.7% 14.7% 33.3% 16.7% 15.0% 17.3% 14.1% 14.1% 14.1% 3.7% 50.6% 15.0% 29.0% 17.0% 25.6% 13.0% 33.3% 23.9% 66.7% 29.2% 30.0% 28.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 58 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1005 of 1100 54 64% vote yes to extend the CCRS sales tax without a sunset Question 17: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. Please indicate if you would vote yes, or vote no. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] 63.5% 23.5% 13.0% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Without raising the current tax rate, shall the existing Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax of 0.3 percent, scheduled to expire December 31, 2036, be extended through December 31, 2050, with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to build and maintain city capital improvement projects such as: Roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements , Parks, playgrounds, and tree canopy refurbishment, Fire and Police stations renovation and replacement, Open space trail and trailhead maintenance and improvements, Snow and ice maintenance response, Recreation centers renovations and replacements and use up to 10% of tax revenue to fund a grant pool for non-profit organization projects that serve the people of Boulder and related costs including grant program administration costs in compliance with terms, conditions, and timing adopted by the City Council; and in connection therewith, shall the tax revenues and any earnings from the revenues constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution? Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 59 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1006 of 1100 55 Among those who said vote yes, 42% definitely vote yes Question 17: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] 63.5% 23.5% 13.0% Total Definitely 41.7% Probably 58.3% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 55.3% Probably 44.7% Among those who said vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 60 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1007 of 1100 56 Question 17: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 64.4% 62.8% 67.2% 53.8% 59.2% 78.6% 77.3% 67.9% 63.8% 55.1% 42.9% 64.8% 100.0% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 64.4% 62.2% 8.0% 16.8% 15.5% 15.4% 8.5% 4.5% 14.3% 13.8% 16.7% 14.3% 13.0% 11.1% 33.3% 12.7% 13.4% 27.6% 20.4% 17.2% 30.8% 32.4% 21.4% 18.2% 17.9% 22.4% 28.2% 42.9% 22.2% 22.2% 16.7% 50.0% 22.9% 24.4% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 61 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1008 of 1100 57 Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 100.0% 62.5% 84.4% 68.0% 55.7% 56.5% 75.7% 71.1% 69.2% 46.2% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 12.5% 3.1% 16.0% 15.6% 19.4% 8.1% 10.5% 11.5% 11.5% 20.0% 100.0% 25.0% 12.5% 16.0% 28.7% 24.2% 16.2% 18.4% 19.2% 42.3% 60.0% 100.0% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20+ years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Question 17: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 62 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1009 of 1100 58 Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 85.5% 45.6% 61.5% 60.3% 65.0% 64.7% 62.5% 68.0% 63.9% 50.0% 65.3% 64.3% 65.5% 62.5% 56.0% 71.7% 7.2% 10.1% 25.0% 10.3% 25.0% 8.8% 9.4% 12.0% 12.9% 16.7% 13.9% 28.6% 10.3% 12.5% 14.7% 9.4% 7.2% 44.3% 13.5% 29.4% 10.0% 26.5% 28.1% 20.0% 23.2% 33.3% 20.8% 7.1% 24.1% 25.0% 29.3% 18.9% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Unsure Vote no Question 17: Now let’s look at a possible future sales and use tax measure. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 63 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1010 of 1100 59 Top reasons for voting for the CCRS sales tax are maintenance costs and infrastructure improvements Question 18: Why would you vote yes to extend the sales and use tax? [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE] [IF ANSWERED VOTE YES TO Q16/17] 25.8% 18.1% 17.7% 16.5% 13.7% 6.5% 1.6% City budget funding needs/Maintenance costs Infrastructure improvements/Road maintenance General supportive vote/Significant need Essential tax regulations/No additional tax increase Boulder development/Support for community services Other Unsure 62.0% 24.0% 14.0% Q16/17 Total Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 64 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1011 of 1100 60 Top reasons for voting against the CCRS sales tax extension are ‘too many taxes’ and ‘more important issues’ Question 19: Why would you vote no to extend the sales and use tax? [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE] [IF ANSWERED VOTE NO TO Q16/17] 16.7% 14.6% 13.5% 8.3% 7.3% 7.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 4.2% 4.2% 3.1% 3.1% 1.0% 1.0% Taxes are too high/Too many taxes More important issues/Unnecessary Mismanaged funds/Bad budgeting Too far into the future/Too long/Expiration in 2036 Use existing funds instead/Have plenty of money General negative/No/Just let it expire Too expensive/Cost of living concerns Too soon/Reassess in 2036/Too early to extend the tax The 10% clause/Diverted 10% of funds Regressive tax/Disproportionately targets the poor Too many priorities/Too wide of a project list Corruption/Concern of fraud with private companies No voter input/Not for the community Other Unsure 62.0% 24.0% 14.0% Q16/17 Total Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 65 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1012 of 1100 61 54% are more likely to vote for local tax measures after learning that the City has received over $50 million in federal grant funding the past several years Question 20: The City of Boulder has received over $50 million in federal grant funding in the past several years. Consid ering the threat of federal funding freezes, which could impact funding for transportation, affordable housing, and public safety, would you be more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 53.5% 18.3% 16.5% 11.8% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 9.4% 35.4% 45.8% 9.4%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 42.9% 14.3% 17.9% 25.0% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 66 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1013 of 1100 62 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 50% are definitely more likely Question 20: The City of Boulder has received over $50 million in federal grant funding in the past several years. Consid ering the threat of federal funding freezes, which could impact funding for transportation, affordable housing, and public safety, would you be more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 53.5% 18.3% 16.5% 11.8% TotalDefinitely 50.0% Somewhat 50.0% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 56.1% Somewhat 43.9% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 67 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1014 of 1100 63 Question 20: The City of Boulder has received over $50 million in federal grant funding in the past several years. Consid ering the threat of federal funding freezes, which could impact funding for transportation, affordable housing, and public safety, would you be more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 47.9% 58.5% 60.7% 45.0% 42.6% 56.3% 63.0% 57.9% 46.5% 53.6% 37.5% 57.0% 62.5% 52.6% 14.3% 15.4% 54.3% 52.3% 20.2% 16.5% 16.3% 30.0% 19.9% 21.9% 21.7% 19.3% 21.1% 13.9% 12.5% 18.3% 12.5% 21.1% 38.5% 17.4% 19.6% 10.1% 13.2% 11.7% 13.5% 9.4% 6.5% 8.8% 13.2% 13.9% 29.2% 8.8% 12.5% 15.8% 42.9% 30.8% 13.4% 9.2% 21.8% 11.8% 11.3% 25.0% 24.1% 12.5% 8.7% 14.0% 19.3% 18.5% 20.8% 15.9% 12.5% 10.5% 42.9% 15.4% 15.0% 19.0% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 68 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1015 of 1100 64 Question 20: The City of Boulder has received over $50 million in federal grant funding in the past several years. Consid ering the threat of federal funding freezes, which could impact funding for transportation, affordable housing, and public safety, would you be more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 87.5% 60.0% 55.6% 54.7% 50.6% 65.0% 52.1% 55.4% 41.7% 36.0% 50.0% 77.8% 73.0% 9.4% 42.9% 23.3% 18.5% 16.0% 18.9% 15.8% 18.3% 14.9% 23.3% 20.0% 37.5% 12.5% 35.4% 14.3% 12.5% 6.7% 13.0% 6.7% 13.7% 8.3% 14.1% 12.2% 20.0% 10.0% 11.1% 9.7% 9.4% 25.0% 10.0% 13.0% 22.7% 16.7% 10.8% 15.5% 17.6% 15.0% 34.0% 12.5% 11.1% 4.8% 45.8% 17.9% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 69 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1016 of 1100 65 Question 20: The City of Boulder has received over $50 million in federal grant funding in the past several years. Consid ering the threat of federal funding freezes, which could impact funding for transportation, affordable housing, and public safety, would you be more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 75.3% 30.4% 57.6% 50.8% 62.1% 50.6% 50.9% 53.1% 53.7% 44.4% 50.7% 47.1% 51.8% 55.1% 54.7% 55.6% 16.0% 23.4% 13.0% 18.5% 18.4% 13.0% 32.7% 10.2% 18.7% 22.9% 23.5% 22.7% 15.6% 16.5% 14.5% 6.0% 12.0% 20.7% 9.2% 13.8% 18.2% 5.5% 10.2% 11.5% 22.2% 9.7% 20.6% 6.4% 12.9% 12.2% 13.7% 2.7% 34.2% 8.7% 21.5% 5.7% 18.2% 10.9% 26.5% 16.1% 33.3% 16.7% 8.8% 19.1% 16.4% 16.5% 16.2% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 70 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1017 of 1100 66 36% say it makes no difference to them after hearing that increased economic uncertainty may reduce sales tax revenue Question 21: Increased economic uncertainty is causing fewer people to spend money. This may impact sales and use taxes, reducing revenue the City can use to fund services. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 26.5% 36.3% 20.5% 16.8% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 5.2% 39.6% 51.0% 4.2%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 21.4% 14.3% 14.3% 50.0% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 71 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1018 of 1100 67 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 46% are definitely more likely Question 21: Increased economic uncertainty is causing fewer people to spend money. This may impact sales and use taxes, reducing revenue the City can use to fund services. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 26.5% 36.3% 20.5% 16.8% TotalDefinitely 46.2%Somewhat 53.8% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 43.9%Somewhat 56.1% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 72 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1019 of 1100 68 Question 21: Increased economic uncertainty is causing fewer people to spend money. This may impact sales and use taxes, reducing revenue the City can use to fund services. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 22.3% 30.2% 30.5% 25.0% 19.9% 15.6% 17.4% 21.1% 25.4% 34.4% 16.7% 28.0% 37.5% 26.3% 28.6% 29.1% 22.2% 38.3% 34.4% 37.2% 35.0% 34.8% 56.3% 54.3% 49.1% 38.6% 19.9% 41.7% 36.0% 25.0% 36.8% 28.6% 46.2% 36.4% 35.9% 13.3% 19.8% 15.9% 10.0% 19.1% 12.5% 10.9% 10.5% 19.3% 19.9% 20.8% 15.2% 25.0% 15.8% 42.9% 30.8% 15.8% 18.3% 26.1% 15.6% 16.3% 30.0% 26.2% 15.6% 17.4% 19.3% 16.7% 25.8% 20.8% 20.7% 12.5% 21.1% 23.1% 18.6% 23.5% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 73 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1020 of 1100 69 Question 21: Increased economic uncertainty is causing fewer people to spend money. This may impact sales and use taxes, reducing revenue the City can use to fund services. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 62.5% 30.0% 18.5% 24.0% 27.5% 31.7% 29.6% 32.4% 16.7% 22.0% 6.3% 11.1% 35.9% 5.2% 21.4% 46.7% 46.3% 40.0% 32.6% 37.5% 32.4% 32.4% 43.3% 28.0% 43.8% 66.7% 39.9% 39.6% 14.3% 37.5% 10.0% 11.1% 10.7% 20.2% 15.0% 18.3% 17.6% 18.3% 20.0% 12.5% 14.1% 4.2% 50.0% 13.3% 24.1% 25.3% 19.7% 15.8% 19.7% 17.6% 21.7% 30.0% 37.5% 22.2% 10.1% 51.0% 14.3% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 74 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1021 of 1100 70 Question 21: Increased economic uncertainty is causing fewer people to spend money. This may impact sales and use taxes, reducing revenue the City can use to fund services. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 42.7% 14.6% 20.7% 26.2% 33.3% 31.2% 21.8% 14.3% 26.3% 33.3% 28.5% 23.5% 30.0% 25.4% 23.7% 27.4% 42.7% 34.8% 28.3% 35.4% 37.9% 27.3% 50.9% 30.6% 36.8% 11.1% 41.0% 44.1% 40.0% 33.6% 34.5% 32.5% 8.7% 13.3% 35.9% 14.6% 19.5% 18.2% 12.7% 20.4% 16.6% 22.2% 13.2% 23.5% 10.0% 18.8% 19.4% 17.9% 6.0% 37.3% 15.2% 23.8% 9.2% 23.4% 14.5% 34.7% 20.2% 33.3% 17.4% 8.8% 20.0% 22.3% 22.3% 22.2% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 75 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1022 of 1100 71 25% of voters are more likely to vote yes after hearing that the City has one of the highest dedication of taxes which limits flexibility of funding Question 22: The City of Boulder has one of the highest dedication/earmarking of taxes across the Front Range in Colorado, which limits the flexibility of funding for community priorities not included in these taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 25.0% 29.8% 23.8% 21.5% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 8.3% 33.3% 47.9% 10.4%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 21.4% 14.3% 17.9% 46.4% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 76 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1023 of 1100 72 Among those who said vote yes, 34% are definitely more likely Question 22: The City of Boulder has one of the highest dedication/earmarking of taxes across the Front Range in Colorado, which limits the flexibility of funding for community priorities not included in these taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 25.0% 29.8%23.8% 21.5% Total Definitely 34.0% Somewhat 66.0% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 31.6% Somewhat 68.4% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 77 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1024 of 1100 73 Question 22: The City of Boulder has one of the highest dedication/earmarking of taxes across the Front Range in Colorado, which limits the flexibility of funding for community priorities not included in these taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 25.5% 24.5% 27.6% 30.0% 19.9% 25.0% 28.3% 21.1% 19.3% 29.8% 16.7% 26.2% 25.0% 21.1% 28.6% 15.4% 23.9% 26.8% 30.9% 28.8% 27.6% 35.0% 32.6% 25.0% 37.0% 42.1% 28.1% 25.2% 33.3% 29.3% 37.5% 31.6% 28.6% 30.8% 31.2% 27.5% 16.0% 26.4% 24.3% 5.0% 19.1% 34.4% 13.0% 17.5% 26.3% 19.2% 20.8% 21.3% 26.3% 42.9% 15.4% 21.5% 21.6% 27.7% 20.3% 20.5% 30.0% 28.4% 15.6% 21.7% 19.3% 26.3% 25.8% 29.2% 23.2% 37.5% 21.1% 38.5% 23.5% 24.2% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 78 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1025 of 1100 74 Question 22: The City of Boulder has one of the highest dedication/earmarking of taxes across the Front Range in Colorado, which limits the flexibility of funding for community priorities not included in these taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 62.5% 23.3% 25.9% 22.7% 24.5% 28.3% 26.8% 25.7% 20.0% 22.0% 12.5% 33.3% 32.3% 8.3% 21.4% 12.5% 43.3% 27.8% 28.0% 29.6% 31.7% 28.2% 29.7% 28.3% 30.0% 25.0% 33.3% 31.9% 33.3% 14.3% 25.0% 20.0% 20.4% 20.0% 22.3% 17.5% 26.8% 16.2% 30.0% 18.0% 31.3% 22.2% 20.2% 10.4% 46.4% 13.3% 25.9% 29.3% 23.6% 22.5% 18.3% 28.4% 21.7% 30.0% 31.3% 11.1% 15.7% 47.9% 17.9% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 79 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1026 of 1100 75 Question 22: The City of Boulder has one of the highest dedication/earmarking of taxes across the Front Range in Colorado, which limits the flexibility of funding for community priorities not included in these taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 39.3% 14.6% 19.6% 24.6% 26.4% 28.6% 23.6% 20.4% 24.8% 33.3% 25.7% 26.5% 25.5% 24.6% 25.2% 23.9% 33.3% 27.8% 27.2% 28.5% 34.5% 20.8% 34.5% 32.7% 30.2% 11.1% 34.7% 29.4% 36.4% 27.0% 25.9% 28.2% 17.3% 15.8% 38.0% 19.2% 19.5% 29.9% 18.2% 22.4% 21.5% 22.2% 18.1% 26.5% 15.5% 23.4% 22.3% 24.8% 10.0% 41.8% 15.2% 27.7% 19.5% 20.8% 23.6% 24.5% 23.5% 33.3% 21.5% 17.6% 22.7% 25.0% 26.6% 23.1% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 80 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1027 of 1100 76 63% are more likely to vote yes after hearing that without extending the CCRS sales tax, the City will struggle to maintain essential infrastructure Question 23: Without extending the Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax, the City will struggle to maintain essential city infrastructure, such as maintaining and repairing bridges, streets, roads and parks and recreation amenities. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 62.5%14.3% 11.5% 11.8% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 14.6% 37.5% 39.6% 8.3%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 50.0% 5.4% 8.9% 35.7% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 81 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1028 of 1100 77 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 50% are definitely more likely Question 23: Without extending the Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax, the City will struggle to maintain essential city infrastructure, such as maintaining and repairing bridges, streets, roads and parks and recreation amenities. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 62.5%14.3% 11.5% 11.8% TotalDefinitely 50.4% Somewhat 49.6% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 52.2% Somewhat 47.8% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 82 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1029 of 1100 78 Question 23: Without extending the Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax, the City will struggle to maintain essential city infrastructure, such as maintaining and repairing bridges, streets, roads and parks and recreation amenities. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 57.4% 67.0% 69.5% 45.0% 53.2% 56.3% 78.3% 66.7% 60.5% 58.9% 54.2% 66.2% 75.0% 52.6% 28.6% 15.4% 63.6% 60.8% 17.6% 11.3% 10.9% 35.0% 17.0% 12.5% 15.2% 14.0% 13.2% 15.2% 8.3% 14.0% 21.1% 14.3% 30.8% 14.6% 13.7% 10.1% 13.2% 11.3% 15.0% 12.1% 15.6% 2.2% 7.0% 13.2% 14.6% 16.7% 9.8% 10.5% 42.9% 38.5% 12.1% 11.1% 14.9% 8.5% 8.4% 5.0% 17.7% 15.6% 4.3% 12.3% 13.2% 11.3% 20.8% 10.1% 25.0% 15.8% 14.3% 15.4% 9.7% 14.4% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 83 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1030 of 1100 79 Question 23: Without extending the Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax, the City will struggle to maintain essential city infrastructure, such as maintaining and repairing bridges, streets, roads and parks and recreation amenities. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 87.5% 66.7% 74.1% 62.7% 58.4% 70.8% 64.8% 66.2% 60.0% 44.0% 37.5% 66.7% 83.9% 14.6% 50.0% 23.3% 9.3% 12.0% 15.5% 15.0% 14.1% 10.8% 13.3% 20.0% 18.8% 7.3% 37.5% 5.4% 12.5% 6.7% 3.7% 9.3% 15.0% 9.2% 11.3% 8.1% 15.0% 18.0% 18.8% 11.1% 7.7% 8.3% 35.7% 3.3% 13.0% 16.0% 11.2% 5.0% 9.9% 14.9% 11.7% 18.0% 25.0% 22.2% 1.2% 39.6% 8.9% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 84 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1031 of 1100 80 Question 23: Without extending the Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax, the City will struggle to maintain essential city infrastructure, such as maintaining and repairing bridges, streets, roads and parks and recreation amenities. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 85.3% 41.1% 62.0% 61.5% 72.4% 54.5% 67.3% 55.1% 62.4% 66.7% 63.2% 52.9% 66.4% 62.1% 59.0% 65.8% 8.0% 23.4% 8.7% 14.6% 12.6% 14.3% 18.2% 12.2% 14.6% 16.0% 8.8% 18.2% 13.3% 15.1% 11.1% 3.3% 13.3% 22.8% 10.0% 13.8% 16.9% 5.5% 10.2% 12.0% 11.1% 29.4% 5.5% 12.1% 10.8% 13.7% 3.3% 22.2% 6.5% 13.8% 1.1% 14.3% 9.1% 22.4% 11.0% 33.3% 9.7% 8.8% 10.0% 12.5% 15.1% 9.4% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 85 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1032 of 1100 81 34% are more likely to vote no after hearing that with increased economic uncertainty, this can be a challenging time to renew taxes Question 24: With increased economic uncertainty, this can be a challenging time to renew or increase taxes on individuals. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 20.3% 34.5% 33.8% 11.5% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 2.1% 22.9% 69.8% 5.2%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 16.1% 23.2% 37.5% 23.2%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 86 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1033 of 1100 82 Among those who said more likely to vote no, 43% are definitely more likely to vote no Question 24: With increased economic uncertainty, this can be a challenging time to renew or increase taxes on individuals. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 20.3% 34.5% 33.8% 11.5% TotalDefinitely 42.0% Somewhat 58.0% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 43.0% Somewhat 57.0% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 87 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1034 of 1100 83 Question 24: With increased economic uncertainty, this can be a challenging time to renew or increase taxes on individuals. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 17.0% 23.1% 20.9% 10.0% 20.6% 15.6% 19.6% 17.5% 21.1% 21.9% 12.5% 20.7% 12.5% 36.8% 14.3% 7.7% 21.5% 18.3% 39.9% 29.7% 34.7% 45.0% 32.6% 31.3% 52.2% 52.6% 32.5% 24.5% 16.7% 36.0% 37.5% 42.1% 28.6% 23.1% 38.5% 28.1% 8.5% 14.2% 13.0% 10.0% 9.2% 18.8% 8.7% 3.5% 14.0% 11.9% 12.5% 10.1% 12.5% 10.5% 28.6% 38.5% 10.9% 12.4% 34.6% 33.0% 31.4% 35.0% 37.6% 34.4% 19.6% 26.3% 32.5% 41.7% 58.3% 33.2% 37.5% 10.5% 28.6% 30.8% 29.1% 41.2% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 88 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1035 of 1100 84 Question 24: With increased economic uncertainty, this can be a challenging time to renew or increase taxes on individuals. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, initial sales tax vote, and likely voter by year 75.0% 23.3% 29.6% 16.0% 17.2% 22.5% 18.3% 24.3% 15.0% 20.0% 6.3% 33.3% 28.2% 2.1% 16.1% 50.0% 37.0% 40.0% 31.3% 34.2% 42.3% 33.8% 31.7% 28.0% 31.3% 44.4% 41.5% 22.9% 23.2% 12.5% 6.7% 9.3% 6.7% 14.2% 8.3% 8.5% 14.9% 16.7% 16.0% 6.3% 11.3% 5.2% 23.2% 12.5% 20.0% 24.1% 37.3% 37.3% 35.0% 31.0% 27.0% 36.7% 36.0% 56.3% 22.2% 19.0% 69.8% 37.5% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 89 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1036 of 1100 85 Question 24: With increased economic uncertainty, this can be a challenging time to renew or increase taxes on individuals. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 33.3% 8.2% 19.6% 20.0% 17.2% 27.3% 20.0% 16.3% 20.5% 11.1% 21.5% 23.5% 20.9% 19.5% 18.0% 21.4% 46.7% 27.8% 26.1% 30.8% 42.5% 27.3% 43.6% 30.6% 34.8% 22.2% 36.1% 26.5% 39.1% 33.6% 30.9% 36.8% 8.7% 7.6% 22.8% 11.5% 11.5% 15.6% 5.5% 12.2% 11.5% 11.1% 11.1% 23.5% 7.3% 11.7% 9.4% 14.5% 11.3% 56.3% 31.5% 37.7% 28.7% 29.9% 30.9% 40.8% 33.2% 55.6% 31.3% 26.5% 32.7% 35.2% 41.7% 27.4% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 90 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1037 of 1100 86 52% are more likely to vote yes after hearing that the upcoming sales tax will simply extend the current sales tax without raising taxes Question 25: The 0.3% Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales tax was approved by Boulder voters in 2021 and is set to expire in 2036. This upcoming sales tax measure will simply extend the current sales tax without raising any taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote ye s or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 52.3% 22.3% 14.3% 11.3% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 10.4% 39.6% 46.9% 3.1%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 42.9% 10.7%8.9% 37.5% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 91 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1038 of 1100 87 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 48% are definitely more likely Question 25: The 0.3% Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales tax was approved by Boulder voters in 2021 and is set to expire in 2036. This upcoming sales tax measure will simply extend the current sales tax without raising any taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote ye s or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 52.3% 22.3% 14.3% 11.3% TotalDefinitely 47.8%Somewhat 52.2% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 59.6% Somewhat 40.4% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 92 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1039 of 1100 88 Question 25: The 0.3% Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales tax was approved by Boulder voters in 2021 and is set to expire in 2036. This upcoming sales tax measure will simply extend the current sales tax without raising any taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote ye s or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 47.3% 56.6% 58.6% 35.0% 44.0% 50.0% 65.2% 49.1% 51.8% 50.3% 33.3% 55.5% 50.0% 47.4% 42.9% 23.1% 53.4% 50.3% 25.0% 19.8% 18.0% 40.0% 27.0% 28.1% 23.9% 35.1% 17.5% 19.2% 20.8% 21.6% 37.5% 31.6% 14.3% 23.1% 23.9% 19.6% 9.0% 13.2% 10.9% 10.0% 12.1% 9.4% 4.3% 5.3% 17.5% 11.3% 16.7% 9.1% 15.8% 42.9% 30.8% 11.7% 10.5% 18.6% 10.4% 12.6% 15.0% 17.0% 12.5% 6.5% 10.5% 13.2% 19.2% 29.2% 13.7% 12.5% 5.3% 23.1% 10.9% 19.6% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 93 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1040 of 1100 89 Question 25: The 0.3% Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales tax was approved by Boulder voters in 2021 and is set to expire in 2036. This upcoming sales tax measure will simply extend the current sales tax without raising any taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote ye s or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 87.5% 56.7% 61.1% 48.0% 49.8% 62.5% 53.5% 52.7% 51.7% 30.0% 43.8% 44.4% 70.6% 10.4% 42.9% 30.0% 25.9% 26.7% 19.7% 21.7% 21.1% 17.6% 21.7% 26.0% 31.3% 44.4% 18.1% 39.6% 10.7% 12.5% 3.3% 5.6% 8.0% 14.6% 5.8% 14.1% 12.2% 13.3% 20.0% 6.3% 8.5% 3.1% 37.5% 10.0% 7.4% 17.3% 15.9% 10.0% 11.3% 17.6% 13.3% 24.0% 18.8% 11.1% 2.8% 46.9% 8.9% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 94 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1041 of 1100 90 Question 25: The 0.3% Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales tax was approved by Boulder voters in 2021 and is set to expire in 2036. This upcoming sales tax measure will simply extend the current sales tax without raising any taxes. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote ye s or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, language, and mode 72.7% 34.8% 48.9% 49.2% 50.6% 49.4% 69.1% 49.0% 52.7% 33.3% 56.3% 58.8% 55.5% 50.0% 48.9% 51.3% 18.7% 29.1% 16.3% 22.3% 28.7% 23.4% 18.2% 14.3% 22.5% 11.1% 24.3% 14.7% 27.3% 21.1% 23.0% 18.8% 5.3% 8.2% 26.1% 10.8% 17.2% 9.1% 5.5% 12.2% 11.0% 22.2% 6.9% 17.6% 3.6% 13.7% 10.1% 17.9% 3.3% 27.8% 8.7% 17.7% 3.4% 18.2% 7.3% 24.5% 13.8% 33.3% 12.5% 8.8% 13.6% 15.2% 18.0% 12.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 95 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1042 of 1100 91 65% are more likely to vote yes after hearing the measure will help chip away at a critical backlog of maintenance and repair needs Question 26: This measure will, among other things, help chip away at a critical $380 million backlog of maintenance and repair needs — including roads, parks, civic buildings and recreation centers. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 65.3% 13.0% 12.3% 9.5% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 24.0% 29.2% 39.6% 7.3%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 48.2% 5.4%10.7% 35.7% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” Among those who initially voted “unsure” Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 96 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1043 of 1100 92 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 51% are definitely more likely Question 26: This measure will, among other things, help chip away at a critical $380 million backlog of maintenance and repair needs — including roads, parks, civic buildings and recreation centers. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? 65.3%13.0% 12.3% 9.5% TotalDefinitely 51.0% Somewhat 49.0% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 51.0% Somewhat 49.0% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 97 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1044 of 1100 93 Question 26: This measure will, among other things, help chip away at a critical $380 million backlog of maintenance and repair needs — including roads, parks, civic buildings and recreation centers. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 62.2% 67.9% 72.4% 50.0% 55.3% 65.6% 78.3% 66.7% 63.2% 62.3% 62.5% 68.6% 62.5% 57.9% 28.6% 23.1% 66.8% 62.7% 14.4% 11.8% 10.5% 20.0% 16.3% 9.4% 15.2% 10.5% 11.4% 15.2% 8.3% 12.5% 25.0% 15.8% 14.3% 23.1% 13.0% 13.1% 8.0% 10.8% 8.8% 10.0% 10.6% 12.5% 7.0% 12.3% 10.6% 12.5% 7.6% 15.8% 42.9% 23.1% 8.5% 11.1% 15.4% 9.4% 8.4% 20.0% 17.7% 12.5% 6.5% 15.8% 13.2% 11.9% 16.7% 11.3% 12.5% 10.5% 14.3% 30.8% 11.7% 13.1% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 98 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1045 of 1100 94 Question 26: This measure will, among other things, help chip away at a critical $380 million backlog of maintenance and repair needs — including roads, parks, civic buildings and recreation centers. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 75.0% 73.3% 79.6% 57.3% 63.1% 71.7% 60.6% 71.6% 65.0% 54.0% 37.5% 77.8% 85.1% 24.0% 48.2% 16.7% 7.4% 9.3% 15.5% 15.8% 16.9% 8.1% 8.3% 14.0% 18.8% 8.5% 29.2% 5.4% 25.0% 6.7% 1.9% 10.7% 10.7% 6.7% 9.9% 8.1% 8.3% 18.0% 18.8% 4.4% 7.3% 35.7% 3.3% 11.1% 22.7% 10.7% 5.8% 12.7% 12.2% 18.3% 14.0% 25.0% 22.2% 2.0% 39.6% 10.7% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 99 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1046 of 1100 95 Question 26: This measure will, among other things, help chip away at a critical $380 million backlog of maintenance and repair needs — including roads, parks, civic buildings and recreation centers. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the local tax measures? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 86.7% 45.6% 64.1% 61.5% 78.2% 64.9% 67.3% 51.0% 65.2% 66.7% 72.2% 67.6% 73.6% 61.3% 56.1% 67.5% 8.7% 19.6% 8.7% 12.3% 12.6% 11.7% 16.4% 14.3% 13.3% 13.2% 14.7% 12.7% 12.9% 16.5% 8.5% 2.0% 8.9% 22.8% 10.8% 6.9% 10.4% 7.3% 10.2% 9.7% 4.2% 11.8% 1.8% 12.5% 12.9% 12.0% 2.7% 25.9% 4.3% 15.4% 2.3% 13.0% 9.1% 24.5% 11.8% 33.3% 10.4% 5.9% 11.8% 13.3% 14.4% 12.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 100 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1047 of 1100 96 Informed Vote: 59% vote yes on extending the CCRS sales tax with a sunset Question 27: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] 60.5% 24.5% 15.0% 59.0% 26.0% 15.0% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Initial Informed Initial Initial Informed Informed Without raising the current tax rate, shall the existing Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax of 0.3 percent, scheduled to expire December 31, 2036, be extended through December 31, 2050, with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to build and maintain city capital improvement projects such as: Roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements, Parks, playgrounds, and tree canopy refurbishment, Fire and Police stations renovation and replacement, Open space trail and trailhead maintenance and improvements, Snow and ice maintenance response, Recreation centers renovations and replacements and use up to 10% of tax revenue to fund a grant pool for non-profit organization projects that serve the people of Boulder and related costs including grant program administration costs in compliance with terms, conditions, and timing adopted by the City Council; and in connection therewith, shall the tax revenues and any earnings from the revenues constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution? Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 101 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1048 of 1100 97 Among those who said vote yes, 55% are definitely vote yes 59.0%26.0% 15.0% TotalDefinitely 55.1% Probably 44.9% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 50.0% Probably 50.0% Among those who said vote no Question 27: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 102 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1049 of 1100 98 57.4% 60.6% 64.2% 28.6% 52.9% 44.4% 70.8% 75.9% 48.2% 60.3% 30.0% 63.9% 33.3% 50.0% 100.0% 22.2% 64.3% 49.3% 11.9% 18.2% 17.9% 14.3% 10.0% 27.8% 8.3% 17.2% 17.9% 11.0% 30.0% 13.9% 10.0% 22.2% 10.9% 22.5% 30.7% 21.2% 17.9% 57.1% 37.1% 27.8% 20.8% 6.9% 33.9% 28.8% 40.0% 22.3% 66.7% 40.0% 55.6% 24.8% 28.2% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Question 27: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 103 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1050 of 1100 99 66.7% 57.1% 63.6% 52.0% 61.3% 69.0% 61.8% 55.6% 58.8% 50.0% 45.5% 86.0% 12.2% 26.7% 33.3% 28.6% 4.5% 18.0% 13.5% 10.3% 14.7% 16.7% 14.7% 16.7% 27.3% 33.3% 6.6% 6.1% 63.3% 14.3% 31.8% 30.0% 25.2% 20.7% 23.5% 27.8% 26.5% 33.3% 27.3% 66.7% 7.4% 81.6% 10.0% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote Question 27: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 104 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1051 of 1100 100 85.2% 38.0% 47.5% 56.5% 72.3% 44.2% 82.6% 45.8% 59.9% 56.9% 55.0% 57.7% 60.2% 53.1% 67.2% 8.6% 11.4% 35.0% 12.9% 14.9% 23.3% 8.7% 12.5% 14.7% 33.3% 16.7% 15.0% 17.3% 14.1% 18.8% 9.4% 6.2% 50.6% 17.5% 30.6% 12.8% 32.6% 8.7% 41.7% 25.4% 66.7% 26.4% 30.0% 25.0% 25.8% 28.1% 23.4% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode Question 27: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT A – SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 105 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1052 of 1100 101 Informed vote: 61% vote yes for extending the CCRS sales tax without a sunset Question 28: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] 63.5% 23.5% 13.0% 60.5% 26.0% 13.5% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Initial Informed Initial Initial Informed Informed Without raising the current tax rate, shall the existing Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax of 0.3 percent, scheduled to expire December 31, 2036, be extended through December 31, 2050, with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to build and maintain city capital improvement projects such as: Roads, paths, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance and enhancements , Parks, playgrounds, and tree canopy refurbishment, Fire and Police stations renovation and replacement, Open space trail and trailhead maintenance and improvements, Snow and ice maintenance response, Recreation centers renovations and replacements and use up to 10% of tax revenue to fund a grant pool for non-profit organization projects that serve the people of Boulder and related costs including grant program administration costs in compliance with terms, conditions, and timing adopted by the City Council; and in connection therewith, shall the tax revenues and any earnings from the revenues constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution? Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 106 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1053 of 1100 102 Among those who said vote yes, 51% are definitely vote yes 60.5%26.0% 13.5% TotalDefinitely 51.2% Probably 48.8% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 55.8% Probably 44.2% Among those who said vote no Question 28: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 107 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1054 of 1100 103 58.6% 61.9% 69.0% 53.8% 47.9% 78.6% 72.7% 60.7% 56.9% 56.4% 50.0% 61.7% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 25.0% 61.0% 59.8% 8.0% 17.7% 12.1% 15.4% 15.5% 7.1% 4.5% 14.3% 22.4% 10.3% 14.3% 13.6% 11.1% 33.3% 13.6% 13.4% 33.3% 20.4% 19.0% 30.8% 36.6% 14.3% 22.7% 25.0% 20.7% 33.3% 35.7% 24.7% 22.2% 33.3% 75.0% 25.4% 26.8% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/Latinx/Hispanic White/Cauca-sian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two/Moreof these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education Question 28: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 108 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1055 of 1100 104 80.0% 62.5% 84.4% 68.0% 51.6% 59.7% 75.7% 68.4% 57.7% 34.6% 20.0% 83.3% 86.6% 2.1% 38.5% 20.0% 12.5% 16.0% 16.4% 14.5% 5.4% 10.5% 19.2% 23.1% 20.0% 8.7% 6.4% 50.0% 25.0% 15.6% 16.0% 32.0% 25.8% 18.9% 21.1% 23.1% 42.3% 60.0% 16.7% 4.7% 91.5% 11.5% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote Question 28: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 109 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1056 of 1100 105 91.0% 42.5% 87.9% 68.9% 85.3% 62.1% 65.5% 63.2% 69.6% 80.0% 71.2% 72.7% 70.9% 69.2% 66.7% 72.7% 9.0% 57.5% 12.1% 31.1% 14.7% 37.9% 34.5% 36.8% 30.4% 20.0% 28.8% 27.3% 29.1% 30.8% 33.3% 27.3% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Column2 Vote no Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode Question 28: Now let’s return to the proposed sales and use tax measure. Knowing what you know now. [SPLIT B – NO SUNSET] Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 110 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1057 of 1100 106 Initial vote: 40% vote no on the mill levy Question 29: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the existing permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be collected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorad o Constitution? 37.5%39.5% 23.0% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 111 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1058 of 1100 107 Among those who said vote no, 51% are definitely vote no Question 29: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the existing permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be collected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorad o Constitution? 37.5% 39.5% 23.0% Total Definitely 34.7% Probably 65.3% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 50.6% Probably 49.4% Among those who said vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 112 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1059 of 1100 108 Question 29: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the existing permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be collected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorad o Constitution? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 39.4% 35.8% 41.0% 25.0% 33.3% 46.9% 50.0% 47.4% 36.8% 28.5% 20.8% 39.6% 50.0% 36.8% 14.3% 23.1% 40.9% 32.0% 16.5% 28.8% 23.4% 15.0% 23.4% 25.0% 32.6% 26.3% 19.3% 21.2% 20.8% 23.8% 25.0% 21.1% 28.6% 7.7% 19.0% 29.4% 44.1% 35.4% 35.6% 60.0% 43.3% 28.1% 17.4% 26.3% 43.9% 50.3% 58.3% 36.6% 25.0% 42.1% 57.1% 69.2% 40.1% 38.6% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 113 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1060 of 1100 109 Question 29: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the existing permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be collected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorad o Constitution? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 37.5% 53.3% 44.4% 34.7% 34.8% 43.3% 36.6% 35.1% 40.0% 26.0% 25.0% 55.6% 52.4% 8.3% 21.4% 50.0% 26.7% 27.8% 28.0% 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 28.4% 23.3% 28.0% 37.5% 22.2% 21.0% 13.5% 48.2% 12.5% 20.0% 27.8% 37.3% 46.4% 38.3% 45.1% 36.5% 36.7% 46.0% 37.5% 22.2% 26.6% 78.1% 30.4% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 114 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1061 of 1100 110 Question 29: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually b y expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for ca pital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the e xisting permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be coll ected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 100.0% 36.9% 43.7% 35.1% 34.5% 36.7% 37.9% 22.2% 43.8% 44.1% 43.6% 34.0% 36.0% 31.6% 100.0% 23.8% 14.9% 27.3% 25.5% 24.5% 23.0% 22.2% 18.1% 26.5% 15.5% 25.8% 28.8% 22.2% 100.0% 39.2% 41.4% 37.7% 40.0% 38.8% 39.1% 55.6% 38.2% 29.4% 40.9% 40.2% 35.3% 46.2% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 115 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1062 of 1100 111 Top reason for voting for the mill levy is infrastructure upgrades and maintenance Question 30: Why would you vote yes on the mill levy? [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE] [IF ANSWERED VOTE YES TO Q29] 17.3% 12.0% 11.3% 10.0% 10.0% 8.7% 6.7% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 8.7% 3.3% Infrastructure upgrades/Maintenance Pro-tax General positive/Support Support our community/City Support parks/Recreation It's needed/Necessary Increases revenue Tax the rich Good use of funds Likelihood/Maybe Other Unsure 37.5% 39.5% 23.0% Total Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 116 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1063 of 1100 112 Top reason for voting against the mill levy is the tax burden Question 31: Why would you vote no on the mill levy? [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE] [IF ANSWERED VOTE NO TO Q29] 28.5% 20.9% 13.9% 13.3% 4.4% 4.4% 3.8% 3.2% 5.1% 2.5% Tax burden/Taxes are high enough High property taxes Wasteful spending/Budget mismanagement Large increase/Unaffordable/Too much Bike lanes/Poor roads/Transit infrastructure Not needed/Other priorities need attention General negative/Do not support Too vague/Need more information Other Unsure 37.5% 39.5% 23.0% Total Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 117 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1064 of 1100 113 56% support the increase in property tax after hearing that a home valued at $1 million will pay an additional $80 a year Question 32: The Parks and Public Improvements Fund would increase the property tax by 1.352 mills. This would result in a home valued at $1.0 million to pay $80.00 in additional property tax a year. Knowing this, would you support an increase in property tax to fund capital infrastructure needs? 56.3% 35.0% 8.8% Support Oppose Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 118 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1065 of 1100 114 Among those who said support, 57% strongly support Question 32: The Parks and Public Improvements Fund would increase the property tax by 1.352 mills. This would result in a home valued at $1.0 million to pay $80.00 in additional property tax a year. Knowing this, would you support an increase in property tax to fund capital infrastructure needs? 56.3%35.0% 8.8% TotalStrongly 57.3% Somewhat 42.7% Among those who said support Strongly 54.3% Somewhat 45.7% Among those who said oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 119 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1066 of 1100 115 Question 32: The Parks and Public Improvements Fund would increase the property tax by 1.352 mills. This would result in a home valued at $1.0 million to pay $80.00 in additional property tax a year. Knowing this, would you support an increase in property tax to fund capital infrastructure needs? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity and education 59.0% 53.8% 60.3% 25.0% 53.9% 65.6% 78.3% 66.7% 50.0% 48.3% 41.7% 57.3% 75.0% 63.2% 42.9% 46.2% 57.9% 53.6% 6.9% 10.4% 9.2% 10.0% 7.8% 12.5% 2.2% 7.0% 12.3% 7.9% 4.2% 8.8% 5.3% 14.3% 15.4% 8.5% 9.2% 34.0% 35.8% 30.5% 65.0% 38.3% 21.9% 19.6% 26.3% 37.7% 43.7% 54.2% 33.8% 25.0% 31.6% 42.9% 38.5% 33.6% 37.3% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Support Unsure Oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 120 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1067 of 1100 116 Question 32: The Parks and Public Improvements Fund would increase the property tax by 1.352 mills. This would result in a home valued at $1.0 million to pay $80.00 in additional property tax a year. Knowing this, would you support an increase in property tax to fund capital infrastructure needs? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 50.0% 66.7% 68.5% 60.0% 51.1% 59.2% 56.3% 54.1% 60.0% 46.0% 50.0% 77.8% 71.4% 21.9% 48.2% 25.0% 6.7% 8.0% 10.7% 6.7% 5.6% 9.5% 10.0% 14.0% 18.8% 6.0% 9.4% 19.6% 25.0% 26.7% 31.5% 32.0% 38.2% 34.2% 38.0% 36.5% 30.0% 40.0% 31.3% 22.2% 22.6% 68.8% 32.1% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Support Unsure Oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 121 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1068 of 1100 117 Question 32: The Parks and Public Improvements Fund would increase the property tax by 1.352 mills. This would result in a home valued at $1.0 million to pay $80.00 in additional property tax a year. Knowing this, would you support an increase in property tax to fund capital infrastructure needs? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 94.0% 20.9% 55.4% 59.2% 62.1% 51.9% 50.9% 51.0% 56.3% 55.6% 60.4% 55.9% 61.8% 53.9% 58.3% 48.7% 0.7% 6.3% 26.1% 6.9% 6.9% 13.0% 12.7% 6.1% 9.0% 4.9% 14.7% 1.8% 10.9% 7.9% 14.5% 5.3% 72.8% 18.5% 33.8% 31.0% 35.1% 36.4% 42.9% 34.8% 44.4% 34.7% 29.4% 36.4% 35.2% 33.8% 36.8% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Support Unsure Oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 122 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1069 of 1100 118 62% support expanding the use of the PPR fund to the PPI fund to fund infrastructure and capital maintenance projects Question 33: The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund is a dedicated source of funding for parks and recreation, supported by property taxes. This fund is earmarked for land acquisition and permanent improvements to park and recreation facilities. Would you support expanding the use of the tax to the Parks and Public Improvements Fund to fund infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? 61.8% 24.5% 13.8% Support Oppose Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 123 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1070 of 1100 119 Among those who said support, 49% strongly support Question 33: The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund is a dedicated source of funding for parks and recreation, supported by property taxes. This fund is earmarked for land acquisition and permanent improvements to park and recreation facilities. Would you support expanding the use of the tax to the Parks and Public Improvements Fund to fund infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? 64.1% 25.0% 10.9% SalesStrongly 48.6%Somewhat 51.4% Among those who said support Strongly 53.1% Somewhat 46.9% Among those who said oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 124 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1071 of 1100 120 Question 33: The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund is a dedicated source of funding for parks and recreation, supported by property taxes. This fund is earmarked for land acquisition and permanent improvements to park and recreation facilities. Would you support expanding the use of the tax to the Parks and Public Improvements Fund to fund infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 61.7% 61.8% 66.5% 35.0% 57.4% 62.5% 78.3% 73.7% 57.9% 55.0% 41.7% 64.6% 87.5% 63.2% 42.9% 23.1% 64.8% 56.9% 11.7% 15.6% 13.0% 25.0% 13.5% 18.8% 8.7% 7.0% 14.9% 15.9% 16.7% 13.1% 10.5% 14.3% 30.8% 13.0% 15.0% 26.6% 22.6% 20.5% 40.0% 29.1% 18.8% 13.0% 19.3% 27.2% 29.1% 41.7% 22.3% 12.5% 26.3% 42.9% 46.2% 22.3% 28.1% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Support Unsure Oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 125 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1072 of 1100 121 Question 33: The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund is a dedicated source of funding for parks and recreation, supported by property taxes. This fund is earmarked for land acquisition and permanent improvements to park and recreation facilities. Would you support expanding the use of the tax to the Parks and Public Improvements Fund to fund infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote 62.5% 60.0% 83.3% 60.0% 57.5% 67.5% 66.2% 63.5% 51.7% 52.0% 56.3% 66.7% 76.6% 33.3% 44.6% 37.5% 13.3% 3.7% 20.0% 13.3% 10.0% 15.5% 10.8% 21.7% 12.0% 31.3% 10.1% 9.4% 37.5% 26.7% 13.0% 20.0% 29.2% 22.5% 18.3% 25.7% 26.7% 36.0% 12.5% 33.3% 13.3% 57.3% 17.9% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Support Unsure Oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 126 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1073 of 1100 122 Question 33: The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund is a dedicated source of funding for parks and recreation, supported by property taxes. This fund is earmarked for land acquisition and permanent improvements to park and recreation facilities. Would you support expanding the use of the tax to the Parks and Public Improvements Fund to fund infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 90.0% 34.8% 62.0% 59.2% 66.7% 61.0% 69.1% 53.1% 62.1% 44.4% 66.7% 67.6% 66.4% 59.0% 59.7% 58.1% 4.0% 13.3% 30.4% 13.8% 11.5% 15.6% 9.1% 20.4% 13.6% 22.2% 10.4% 14.7% 9.1% 15.6% 15.1% 16.2% 6.0% 51.9% 7.6% 26.9% 21.8% 23.4% 21.8% 26.5% 24.3% 33.3% 22.9% 17.6% 24.5% 25.4% 25.2% 25.6% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Support Unsure Oppose Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 127 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1074 of 1100 123 38% are more likely to vote yes on the mill levy after hearing that the City is over reliant on sales tax Question 34: The City of Boulder is over reliant on sales taxes and seeks to diversify revenues to be more financially resilient. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the Parks and Public Improvements Fund property tax measure? 38.0% 24.0% 22.8% 15.3% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 12.0% 29.7% 46.8% 11.4%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 37.0% 15.2%10.9% 37.0% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” on the levy Among those who initially voted “unsure” on the levy Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 128 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1075 of 1100 124 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 45% are definitely more likely Question 34: The City of Boulder is over reliant on sales taxes and seeks to diversify revenues to be more financially resilient. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the Parks and Public Improvements Fund property tax measure? 38.0% 24.0% 22.8% 15.3% TotalDefinitely 44.7%Somewhat 55.3% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 47.3%Somewhat 52.7% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 129 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1076 of 1100 125 Question 34: The City of Boulder is over reliant on sales taxes and seeks to diversify revenues to be more financially resilient. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the Parks and Public Improvements Fund property tax measure? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 35.1% 40.6% 43.1% 15.0% 32.6% 53.1% 56.5% 40.4% 35.1% 30.5% 33.3% 38.7% 62.5% 42.1% 28.6% 15.4% 39.3% 35.9% 28.2% 20.3% 21.3% 40.0% 26.2% 21.9% 32.6% 28.1% 23.7% 20.5% 16.7% 25.0% 12.5% 31.6% 23.1% 27.1% 19.0% 10.6% 19.3% 15.9% 20.0% 13.5% 12.5% 6.5% 10.5% 20.2% 16.6% 12.5% 14.9% 10.5% 28.6% 38.5% 13.0% 19.0% 26.1% 19.8% 19.7% 25.0% 27.7% 12.5% 4.3% 21.1% 21.1% 32.5% 37.5% 21.3% 25.0% 15.8% 42.9% 23.1% 20.6% 26.1% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 130 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1077 of 1100 126 Question 34: The City of Boulder is over reliant on sales taxes and seeks to diversify revenues to be more financially resilient. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the Parks and Public Improvements Fund property tax measure? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, initial sales tax vote, and likely voter by year 50.0% 50.0% 42.6% 40.0% 34.3% 44.2% 32.4% 35.1% 31.7% 42.0% 37.5% 44.4% 47.6% 15.6% 33.9% 12.5% 26.7% 31.5% 21.3% 23.2% 19.2% 32.4% 25.7% 31.7% 14.0% 12.5% 33.3% 24.6% 29.2% 12.5% 25.0% 13.3% 9.3% 14.7% 16.7% 15.0% 14.1% 14.9% 15.0% 16.0% 31.3% 13.3% 10.4% 32.1% 12.5% 10.0% 16.7% 24.0% 25.8% 21.7% 21.1% 24.3% 21.7% 28.0% 18.8% 22.2% 14.5% 44.8% 21.4% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 131 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1078 of 1100 127 Question 34: The City of Boulder is over reliant on sales taxes and seeks to diversify revenues to be more financially resilient. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote no on the Parks and Public Improvements Fund property tax measure? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 66.0% 12.0% 37.0% 37.7% 40.2% 45.5% 30.9% 30.6% 38.1% 33.3% 44.4% 44.1% 44.5% 34.4% 35.3% 33.3% 23.3% 29.7% 15.2% 23.8% 27.6% 15.6% 38.2% 16.3% 24.3% 11.1% 25.7% 14.7% 29.1% 23.0% 22.3% 23.9% 6.0% 11.4% 37.0% 14.6% 14.9% 18.2% 12.7% 16.3% 15.1% 22.2% 13.2% 26.5% 9.1% 16.4% 14.4% 18.8% 4.7% 46.8% 10.9% 23.8% 17.2% 20.8% 18.2% 36.7% 22.5% 33.3% 16.7% 14.7% 17.3% 26.2% 28.1% 23.9% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 132 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1079 of 1100 128 37% are more likely to vote for an increase in the mill after hearing that residents pay one of the highest sales tax rate along the Front Range Question 35: Boulder residents pay one of the highest rate in sales taxes along the Front Range. Sales taxes are regressive because they disproportionately hurt low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes the most. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote on proposals that increase property taxes to reduce reliance on regressive sales taxes? 37.3% 18.0% 33.5% 11.3% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 15.8% 22.8% 55.1% 6.3%More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure 40.2% 7.6%20.7% 31.5% More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me More likely to vote no Unsure Among those who initially voted “no” on the levy Among those who initially voted “unsure” on the levy Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 133 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1080 of 1100 129 Among those who said more likely to vote yes, 44% are definitely more likely to Question 35: Boulder residents pay one of the highest rate in sales taxes along the Front Range. Sales taxes are regressive because they disproportionately hurt low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes the most. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote on proposals that increase property taxes to reduce reliance on regressive sales taxes? 37.3% 18.0% 33.5% 11.3% TotalDefinitely 44.3%Somewhat 55.7% Among those who said more likely to vote yes Definitely 44.8%Somewhat 55.2% Among those who said more likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 134 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1081 of 1100 130 Question 35: Boulder residents pay one of the highest rate in sales taxes along the Front Range. Sales taxes are regressive because they disproportionately hurt low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes the most. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote on proposals that increase property taxes to reduce reliance on regressive sales taxes? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 33.5% 40.6% 41.4% 15.0% 33.3% 59.4% 63.0% 40.4% 28.9% 29.8% 25.0% 38.4% 50.0% 52.6% 28.6% 7.7% 34.4% 41.8% 21.8% 14.6% 18.4% 35.0% 14.9% 18.8% 13.0% 21.1% 28.9% 9.9% 16.7% 18.0% 21.1% 38.5% 21.5% 12.4% 9.6% 12.7% 11.7% 10.0% 10.6% 6.3% 4.3% 7.0% 14.0% 13.9% 12.5% 10.7% 12.5% 5.3% 14.3% 30.8% 11.3% 11.1% 35.1% 32.1% 28.5% 40.0% 41.1% 15.6% 19.6% 31.6% 28.1% 46.4% 45.8% 32.9% 37.5% 21.1% 57.1% 23.1% 32.8% 34.6% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 135 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1082 of 1100 131 Question 35: Boulder residents pay one of the highest rate in sales taxes along the Front Range. Sales taxes are regressive because they disproportionately hurt low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes the most. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote on proposals that increase property taxes to reduce reliance on regressive sales taxes? Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote, 50.0% 43.3% 46.3% 45.3% 31.3% 40.0% 33.8% 39.2% 40.0% 28.0% 43.8% 33.3% 46.0% 16.7% 33.9% 25.0% 13.3% 13.0% 24.0% 17.6% 15.8% 23.9% 14.9% 15.0% 22.0% 12.5% 33.3% 17.7% 22.9% 10.7% 25.0% 6.7% 5.6% 12.0% 12.4% 13.3% 7.0% 9.5% 10.0% 16.0% 18.8% 10.9% 5.2% 23.2% 36.7% 35.2% 18.7% 38.6% 30.8% 35.2% 36.5% 35.0% 34.0% 25.0% 33.3% 25.4% 55.2% 32.1% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 136 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1083 of 1100 132 Question 35: Boulder residents pay one of the highest rate in sales taxes along the Front Range. Sales taxes are regressive because they disproportionately hurt low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes the most. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote yes or more likely to vote on proposals that increase property taxes to reduce reliance on regressive sales taxes? Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 58.0% 15.8% 40.2% 37.7% 36.8% 40.3% 30.9% 38.8% 37.6% 22.2% 38.2% 32.4% 40.0% 36.7% 40.3% 32.5% 19.3% 22.8% 7.6% 16.9% 25.3% 11.7% 27.3% 8.2% 18.2% 11.1% 24.3% 17.6% 26.4% 14.5% 9.4% 20.5% 4.0% 6.3% 31.5% 10.0% 6.9% 20.8% 10.9% 8.2% 11.0% 22.2% 9.0% 17.6% 6.4% 12.5% 12.2% 12.8% 18.7% 55.1% 20.7% 35.4% 31.0% 27.3% 30.9% 44.9% 33.2% 44.4% 28.5% 32.4% 27.3% 36.3% 38.1% 34.2% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email More likely to vote yes Makes no difference to me Unsure More likely to vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 137 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1084 of 1100 133 Informed Vote: 44% vote yes on increasing the mill levy Question 36: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the existing permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be collected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorad o Constitution? 37.5%39.5% 23.0% 44.3% 39.8% 16.0% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Initial Informed Initial Initial Informed Informed Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 138 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1085 of 1100 134 Among those who said vote no, 50% are definitely vote no Question 36: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) from 0.900 mills to 2.252 mills to support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use path and increase revenue sufficiency for existing assets and future capital projects, including the needs already served by the existing permanent parks and recreation fund, and, in connection therewith, shall Sec. 161 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to substitute the permanent park and recreation fund with the parks and public improvements fund as more specifically provided in Ordinance 1234, and shall the revenues from such taxes and any related earnings be collected, retained, and spent as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorad o Constitution? 44.3% 39.8% 16.0% Total Definitely 42.9% Probably 57.1% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 49.7% Probably 50.3% Among those who said vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 139 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1086 of 1100 135 Question 36: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (cont.), Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 44.1% 44.3% 47.7% 25.0% 41.1% 56.3% 67.4% 59.6% 39.5% 32.5% 25.0% 47.3% 62.5% 42.1% 14.3% 15.4% 44.5% 43.8% 9.6% 21.7% 17.2% 10.0% 14.9% 12.5% 10.9% 10.5% 20.2% 17.2% 16.7% 15.5% 12.5% 21.1% 14.3% 23.1% 14.2% 19.0% 46.3% 34.0% 35.1% 65.0% 44.0% 31.3% 21.7% 29.8% 40.4% 50.3% 58.3% 37.2% 25.0% 36.8% 71.4% 61.5% 41.3% 37.3% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 140 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1087 of 1100 136 Question 36: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (cont.), Results by years of residency, vote propensity,and initial sales tax vote 50.0% 53.3% 61.1% 45.3% 38.6% 48.3% 46.5% 39.2% 41.7% 38.0% 37.5% 77.8% 59.3% 12.5% 32.1% 37.5% 23.3% 9.3% 14.7% 16.3% 12.5% 15.5% 21.6% 15.0% 18.0% 25.0% 15.7% 5.2% 35.7% 12.5% 23.3% 29.6% 40.0% 45.1% 39.2% 38.0% 39.2% 43.3% 44.0% 37.5% 22.2% 25.0% 82.3% 32.1% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 141 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1088 of 1100 137 Question 36: Shall the City of Boulder taxes be increased $7,000,000 (first, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually by expanding the previously authorized levy for the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (cont.), Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode 86.7% 7.0% 39.1% 42.3% 47.1% 44.2% 45.5% 42.9% 44.5% 33.3% 53.5% 47.1% 55.5% 39.1% 41.0% 36.8% 5.3% 8.2% 46.7% 18.5% 12.6% 16.9% 12.7% 18.4% 15.6% 33.3% 9.0% 23.5% 4.5% 19.9% 18.0% 22.2% 8.0% 84.8% 14.1% 39.2% 40.2% 39.0% 41.8% 38.8% 39.9% 33.3% 37.5% 29.4% 40.0% 41.0% 41.0% 41.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 142 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1089 of 1100 138 36% would vote yes to increase City debt issued only if voters approve the expansion of the PPR fund Question 37: Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $88 million (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost n ot to exceed $140 million such debt to be issued only if the voters approve the expansion of the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund tax in Ballot Issue 2A and to be payable from the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) and from other legally available revenues as determined by council; with the proceeds of such debt and earnings thereon being used for the same purposes as the 2A ballot issue, to support infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? 35.5%34.8% 29.8% Vote yes Vote no Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 143 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1090 of 1100 139 Among those who said vote no, 48% are definitely vote no Question 37: Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $88 million (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost n ot to exceed $140 million such debt to be issued only if the voters approve the expansion of the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund tax in Ballot Issue 2A and to be payable from the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) and from other legally available revenues as determined by council; with the proceeds of such debt and earnings thereon being used for the same purposes as the 2A ballot issue, to support infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? 35.5% 34.8% 29.8% TotalDefinitely 37.3% Probably 62.7% Among those who said vote yes Definitely 48.2%Probably 51.8% Among those who said vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 144 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1091 of 1100 140 Question 37: Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $88 million (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost n ot to exceed $140 million such debt to be issued only if the voters approve the expansion of the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund tax in Ballot Issue 2A and to be payable from the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) and from other legally available revenues (cont.) ? Results by gender, party, age group, ethnicity, and education 39.9% 31.6% 41.4% 15.0% 28.4% 43.8% 41.3% 54.4% 30.7% 28.5% 33.3% 36.9% 25.0% 42.1% 15.4% 37.2% 32.7% 19.7% 38.7% 31.8% 15.0% 28.4% 34.4% 34.8% 22.8% 29.8% 29.8% 25.0% 29.6% 50.0% 26.3% 42.9% 30.8% 30.8% 28.1% 40.4% 29.7% 26.8% 70.0% 43.3% 21.9% 23.9% 22.8% 39.5% 41.7% 41.7% 33.5% 25.0% 31.6% 57.1% 53.8% 32.0% 39.2% Male Female Democratic Republican No Party Preference 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Latine/LatinX/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or more of these Other College Non-college Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 145 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1092 of 1100 141 Results by years of residency, vote propensity, and initial sales tax vote Question 37: Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $88 million (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost n ot to exceed $140 million such debt to be issued only if the voters approve the expansion of the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund tax in Ballot Issue 2A and to be payable from the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) and from other legally available revenues as determined by council; with the proceeds of such debt and earnings thereon being used for the same purposes as the 2A ballot issue, to support infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? 50.0% 46.7% 44.4% 34.7% 31.8% 39.2% 39.4% 28.4% 31.7% 36.0% 25.0% 55.6% 48.4% 11.5% 19.6% 37.5% 36.7% 29.6% 32.0% 27.9% 30.0% 23.9% 36.5% 30.0% 24.0% 43.8% 22.2% 27.4% 14.6% 66.1% 12.5% 16.7% 25.9% 33.3% 40.3% 30.8% 36.6% 35.1% 38.3% 40.0% 31.3% 22.2% 24.2% 74.0% 14.3% 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 +years 8 out of 8 7 out of 8 6 out of 8 5 out of 8 4 out of 8 3 out of 8 2 out of 8 Initial Sales Tax Vote - Yes Initial Sales Tax Vote - No Initial Sales Tax Vote - Unsure Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 146 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1093 of 1100 142 Results by initial property tax vote, ZIP, survey language, and survey mode Question 37: Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $88 million (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost n ot to exceed $140 million such debt to be issued only if the voters approve the expansion of the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund tax in Ballot Issue 2A and to be payable from the Permanent Park and Recreation Fund (or any authorized successor to such Fund) and from other legally available revenues as determined by council; with the proceeds of such debt and earnings thereon being used for the same purposes as the 2A ballot issue, to support infrastructure and capital maintenance projects such as but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings and areas, and the public right-of-way such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths? 67.3% 11.4% 25.0% 33.8% 37.9% 35.1% 40.0% 32.7% 35.3% 44.4% 41.7% 35.3% 43.6% 32.0% 33.8% 29.9% 20.0% 19.6% 63.0% 28.5% 29.9% 35.1% 25.5% 28.6% 29.9% 22.2% 25.7% 38.2% 21.8% 32.0% 29.5% 35.0% 12.7% 69.0% 12.0% 37.7% 32.2% 29.9% 34.5% 38.8% 34.8% 33.3% 32.6% 26.5% 34.5% 35.9% 36.7% 35.0% Initial Property Tax Vote - Yes Initial Property Tax Vote - No Initial Property Tax Vote - Unsure 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 English Spanish Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Text Email Vote yes Unsure Vote no Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 147 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1094 of 1100 143 40% are unsure which of the potential initiatives they would for sure vote for Question 38: Out of the following potential initiatives on the November ballot, which one would you for sure vote for? 9.5% 9.0% 0.8% 23.8% 16.8% 40.3% Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety sales and use tax Parks and Public Improvements Fund 2A Parks and Public Improvements Fund 2B All of them None of them Unsure Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 148 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1095 of 1100 144 Demographics Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 149 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1096 of 1100 145 Gender Age Group Ethnicity Party Preference Education Vote Propensity Zip Code Respondent demographics by gender, age group, ethnicity, party preference, education, vote propensity, and zip code 62.0% 38.0% College Non- college 46.8% 52.8% Male Female 8.0% 12.0% 14.0% 29.0% 38.0% 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ 33.0% 22.0% 19.0% 14.0% 12.0% 0.3% 0.3% 80304 80305 80303 80302 80301 80310 80306 30.0% 18.0% 19.0% 15.0% 13.0% 4.0% 2.0% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 60.0% 5.0% 35.0% Democratic Republican Non-Affiliated 6.0% 82.0% 2.0% 5.0% 0.3% 1.8% 3.3% Latine/Latinx/Hispanic White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more Other Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 150 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1097 of 1100 146 Survey Language Respondent demographics by survey language and survey mode 36.0% 24.0% 76.0% 34.0% 54.0% 46.0% Phone [NET] Landline Mobile Online [NET] Email Text 99.3% 0.7% English Spanish Survey Language Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 151 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1098 of 1100 Questions? Adam Probolsky, President O: 949-855-6400 | M: 949-697-6726 E: adam@probolskyresearch.com Joshua Emeneger, Principal Researcher E: josh@probolskyresearch.com Opinion Research on Elections and Public Policy PROBOLSKY RESEARCH 110 16th St Ste 1400-235 Denver, CO 80202 800-492-9556Item 5A - Polling Survey Results on 2025 Potential Tax Ballot Measures – Long-Term Financial Strategy 152 Attachment A - Draft Presentation of 2025 Statistically Valid Polling Survey Results for Potential Tax Ballot Measures Packet Page 1099 of 1100 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E June 26, 2025 AG E N D A I T E M Discussion on methods to improve Open Comment P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Elesha J ohnson, City C lerk AT TAC H ME N T S: Description No Attachments Available Packet Page 1100 of 1100