Planning board hears AMPS update; staff recommends eliminating parking minimums and a tiered TDM ordinance with annual financial guarantees

Boulder Planning Board members on a regular meeting were presented with a staff update on the Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS), a three‑department code and policy package covering off‑street parking, on‑street parking, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM).

Lisa Hood, principal planner with Planning and Development Services, said staff is "continuing to recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide for all land uses," and outlined related recommendations on bicycle parking, shared parking approaches and coordination with the recently updated Energy Conservation Code for electric‑vehicle (EV) requirements.

The board heard that eliminating minimum off‑street requirements would apply to new development and redevelopment and create legal nonconformities for some existing sites rather than forcing retroactive changes. Hood said staff does not recommend a citywide maximum parking requirement, though it remains an option for particular places such as Boulder Junction.

Chris Hagelin, principal project manager for Transportation Mobility, described a recommended three‑tier TDM ordinance for new development. Under the proposal: small projects (Tier 0) would be exempt; mid‑sized (Tier 1) projects would require an approved TDM plan and annual financial guarantees but no vehicle trip targets; and the largest projects (Tier 2) would have trip generation targets, annual and remedial financial guarantees and annual third‑party monitoring until they meet targets for three consecutive years. Hagelin characterized the central funding mechanism this way: "The real hallmark of of this ordinance approach is the use of financial guarantees." He and staff said those ongoing funds would be intended to pay for the kinds of annual programs that change travel behavior — for example, eco passes, parking cash‑outs, micromobility memberships or a transportation wallet.

On on‑street parking and neighborhood permit parking (NPP), staff proposed retooling NPP rules so the program better serves mixed‑use and commercially impacted blocks. Recommendations include evaluating paid curbside time limits for non‑permit holders in high‑demand zones, collaborating with Boulder Valley School District on "park and walk" zones around elementary schools, and analyzing guest/visitor permit use (currently residents may purchase two visitor permits with no annual usage limit plus other short‑term guest permits) to reduce misuse and simplify the system.

Staff emphasized that EV charging requirements are handled in the Energy Conservation Code rather than land use code and said current local rules require, for developments with 10 or more spaces, that 5% of spaces be installed EV chargers and 15% be EV‑ready; staff also noted existing minimum charging‑rate standards in the code (transcript reference: a minimum "6.2" charging rate). The board discussed whether on‑street public EV charging should be funded or facilitated by new developments; staff said other city departments are considering on‑street strategies but it is not part of the AMPS draft ordinance.

Public comment included a three‑minute statement from resident Lynn Siegel, who criticized growth and height changes in town: "Stop already. Boulder is built out. Stop ... Stop the subsidies. Stop the height amendments." The comment was made during the meeting's public comment period and did not propose technical changes to the staff recommendations.

Nut graf: Staff told the Planning Board the AMPS package is intended to implement remaining items from earlier AMPS work: eliminating or significantly changing off‑street minimums, updating on‑street management, and creating a TDM plan requirement for new development. The board and staff agreed the three elements are interrelated and that thresholds, monitoring and the financial guarantee structure will be critical in shaping outcomes and development economics.

Discussion highlights and board questions

- Applicability and nonconformity: Board members asked whether eliminating minimums would allow existing parking to be removed; staff said the change is not retroactive in a way that forces immediate alteration of existing businesses but would create legal nonconformities and allow property owners flexibility going forward.

- EV charging and bike charging: Board members asked whether EV chargers could be provided on‑street by developers or funded through development; staff said other city programs are exploring on‑street charging. Staff also said bike‑parking design standards need updating to reflect cargo bikes and e‑bikes, and indicated more qualitative changes will be considered beyond the earlier Phase 1 quantitative work.

- Shared parking and administration: Staff said the city can explore template agreements and administrative processes to encourage shared parking but that the city’s role and legal tools require further study.

- TDM structure and enforcement: Board members asked how TDM plans would integrate with site review and form‑based code. Staff said TDM plan approval would be tied to site review for projects subject to site review, with some elements set at approval and adjustments possible once tenants occupy properties. For Tier 2 projects, annual third‑party trip studies would determine compliance; remedial funds would be used to augment annual funding if targets were missed.

- Financial guarantees: Staff described an approach used in other U.S. jurisdictions — initial and annual financial guarantees set at permit/approval, with remedial guarantees for Tier 2 projects — and said staff would present options (high/medium/low) for how guarantees and tier thresholds translate to dollar amounts. Staff noted parking cost savings from building less parking can offset ongoing TDM funding.

Timeline and next steps

Staff said public engagement will run on BeHeardBoulder in mid‑March through April, the draft ordinance is tentatively scheduled for Planning Board public hearing on May 6, TAB the following week, and City Council in June. Staff also noted state law changes the city is tracking, including a state bill related to parking minimums and the Transit Oriented Communities state bill (effective later) that affects review thresholds for large residential projects. Staff asked board members to prioritize key policy choices as staff drafts ordinance language.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of January 7, 2025 meeting minutes — motion made and seconded at the meeting; roll call recorded multiple "yes" votes and two absences. (See actions[] for structured vote record.)

- Approval of January 28, 2025 meeting minutes — motion made and seconded at the meeting; roll call recorded multiple "yes" votes and noted absences. (See actions[] for structured vote record.)

Ending: Staff asked board members to prioritize policy choices before the March public outreach. The board signaled several consistent priorities in the discussion: preserve administrative tools for site review to evaluate over‑parking, seek ways to capture value from reduced parking supply to fund city goals, update bike‑parking quality standards, and focus TDM requirements and staff resources on the largest developments where monitoring and guarantees will be most effective.