Boulder staff recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements, propose tiered TDM ordinance and on‑street pilots

City staff presented an update Jan. 14 on a multi‑department project to revise Boulder’s parking rules and create a transportation demand management ordinance intended to work in an environment without minimum parking requirements.

The plan, presented by Lisa Hood, principal city planner for Planning and Development Services, Chris Hagelin, principal project manager in Transportation and Mobility, and Samantha Bromberg of Community Vitality, would eliminate citywide minimum off‑street parking requirements and add a tiered TDM ordinance for larger projects while adjusting on‑street parking policy and neighborhood permit rules.

The memo and presentation position the AMPS (Access Management and Parking Strategy) work as the final step in a program begun in 2014 to implement recommendations from a 2017 AMPS report. “Staff is continuing to recommend that we eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide for all land uses,” Lisa Hood said during the presentation. Hood and other staff noted the recommendation responds in part to Colorado House Bill 24‑1304, which limits cities’ ability to require minimum parking near transit and takes effect June 30, 2025.

Nut graf: Staff said eliminating minimum parking can free land and building cost savings that could be redirected to ongoing TDM programs and alternative uses of surface parking, while a new TDM ordinance and on‑street strategies would seek to manage curbside access and reduce single‑occupancy vehicle trips. Councilmembers expressed support for the general direction, asked for more fiscal detail and suggested pilots and outreach before staff returns with ordinance text.

Key details and supporting facts

- Staff said roughly 10% of private land in Boulder is dedicated to off‑street parking — about 1,500 acres — and that current utilization counts show more parking available at peak times than needed across land uses.

- Staff noted Boulder has about three parking spaces available per household vehicle, and that minimum parking rules in place about 75 years create large area devoted to parking.

- As a tradeoff, staff described a model where property owners provide annual financial guarantees that fund ongoing TDM measures (for example eco passes, vanpool subsidies, parking cash‑out programs) to be implemented by property managers or future tenants. Chris Hagelin summarized the proposal: a three‑tier system that focuses monitoring and targets on the largest projects, with Tier 0 exempted, Tier 1 required to post TDM plans and annual guarantees without ongoing monitoring, and Tier 2 subject to vehicle trip generation targets, ongoing compliance monitoring and remedial guarantees.

- Hagelin cited an estimate of about $28,000 to build a single structured parking space (a figure presented in the staff slides) and staff argued that eliminating some parking can yield construction cost savings that can be redirected to annual TDM funding.

- On bike parking, staff said Boulder’s existing bicycle parking quantity requirements are among the highest compared with more than 30 peer communities surveyed; staff recommended updating design standards (for cargo‑bike and e‑bike accommodation) rather than increasing quantities.

- On EV charging, staff noted current EV requirements are in the city’s energy conservation code, which was recently adopted; staff recommended not duplicating those requirements into the land‑use code now and instead considering EV strategies in future work.

Council reaction and next steps

Councilmembers generally voiced support for the project’s direction during the study session. They emphasized three recurring requests to staff: (1) return with a clear fiscal note that quantifies staffing and ongoing costs of monitoring and enforcement; (2) refine tier thresholds and ordinance language to “future‑proof” the approach (for example by using specific square‑foot or unit triggers rather than only “site review” triggers); and (3) explore pilots or geographically limited on‑street pricing/permit changes before a full citywide rollout.

Councilmembers also urged staff to consider options for reimagining existing older parking lots and to examine ways to extend bike‑parking and EV infrastructure benefits beyond new developments (for example through incentives or future programs tied to the city’s comprehensive plan). Several members asked staff to seek input from business owners and commuters as part of the community engagement plan.

Staff said they will continue stakeholder engagement (including Transportation Advisory Board, Planning Board and other groups), refine thresholds and triggers, calculate financial guarantee rates and prepare a fiscal note and ordinance language for a future council hearing.

Ending

Staff will return with refined ordinance language, a fiscal note and a community engagement plan; no formal action was taken at the Jan. 14 study session. Council’s comments will shape thresholds, monitoring methods and whether staff pursues one or more pilots for on‑street management before broader implementation.