 November 17th people here so we on a zoom meeting that we will take up items they are on and the agenda may discuss that and when we call up items on the agenda we ask the staff member in this case Mary will recognize the people who are here to speak or participate on that agenda item and they will be brought into the fold so to speak of the zoom meeting and at that point we will swear them in or whatever and we also ask that people who are going to participate as applicants or as the public that when they participate in a hearing that they give the staff their address for a follow-up party status so they can continue to get communications into the agenda I believe two items are deferred on this is that true Mary? There is a request from 75 Cherry Street for what constitutes another extension so a request for deferral and Ryan will be representing North Winooski Avenue and their request for deferral or a functional deferral they have not completed DAB review. Okay communications we had some items that were added to the supporting documents on for the joint institutional management parking plan am I right that's what was added? Correct okay well I'm just there meet minutes there are no minutes posted at this point I've been throwing an alley about other minutes am I going to get some other to catch up alley? Hi yeah I'm working on it and I'll email you with those okay the ones from last meeting are posted oh okay posted from last time okay yeah okay then the consent agenda is actually 219 North Winooski but we're actually not going to be treating that as consent is that true Mary? Well I have the project manager present if we can. Accurate Brad you're right just gonna be deferred they had to go back and tweak some things in their plan so maybe then we'll see you again in the future I presume. Do we need to take action on this to defer this or? I don't believe so because we haven't opened up a public hearing for it okay so this is going back before the design advisory board and then it'll come back before us after they go through that yep so we will take no action on 219 North Winooski I will ask if there's anybody here in the public to speak on 219 North Winooski. If anyone from the public is interested in speaking I ask you to raise your hand and I see none. Okay the next item is 75 Cherry Street and we have a request from them this is. Brad I'm recused. Okay Jeff and AJ are recused at 75 Cherry Street and this is a request for a extension which get to this thing so this is an appeal of administrative zoning decision regarding an illiquishing zoning permit and they are asking for a three month extension which am I correct that this is the last three-month extension they could get on this? I think you may be looking I think you may be looking at a different request this one is for the phasing schedule you're right the phasing schedule I went to the wrong it's hard at this point to know what the request is but this is their phasing schedule and they have requested a time extension I think it's termed a deferral which seems the terminology seems to be used interchangeably. Even though the whole idea of a phasing schedule on this seems rather move. Unless they're obligated because of their current permit to submit a phasing schedule is that correct? They're not obligated to the the phasing schedule could just time out I mean the their time extension times out this month. They have an opportunity for another time extension before them and that's what they're trying to exercise. Okay and so we we can approve that time extension now for another three months right? You have that opportunity. Okay on here how does the board feel about granting this three-month extension? Do we have somebody here from representing? Yes we do I've seen Jesse's Jesse Becks would you like would you like him to participate I can? I think so. I just Jesse I've given you permission here to speak authority to speak. Authority to speak. Hello everybody. Hello Jesse. This is this is a public hearing Jesse so I need to swear you in. Okay so do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? I do and I'm holding my hand up. So this is basically asking for the one more three-month time extension on this phasing schedule correct? Correct. And I guess there's not much more to say on this unless you have anything you want to add on that. No it's a formality to extend it so it's still in ongoing. Yeah we have submitted to Planning and Zoning the new project for review which is under consideration and has not been deemed complete yet. Okay and so we we know nothing about that at this point. Correct. Okay so is the board okay granting this three-month time extension? Comments or thoughts on this? Can somebody would somebody like to make a motion to grant this time extension for three months? On item number 20-05 22CU 75 Cherry Street I move that we extend the deferral for three months. Second. Somebody's going to second this. Caitlin? Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. Okay that was it Jesse. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you Jesse. Bye-bye. Okay now we have the review of the Joint Institutional Parking Management Plan and I think Lori for most people on the board this is the first time they're seeing this. Is that true? This is a often repeated event. Usually we get a big fat plan booklet but now that everything is digital it's on the so somebody here somebody must be here from to represent this. I see Lonnie Raven is here I see Sandy Tebow is here I'm unmuting them right now and I suspect there's members of the public who are also here on this is that true? There are Sandy and Lonnie is there anyone else you'd like to join? Yes can you hear me? This is Sandy. Yes we can Sandy. Kim Furtado and John Dowds at the TRC. I see I see Kim and oh yes Jonathan. Yeah they've both just joined us. Welcome. And I assume there's members of the public here also? There are members of the public here. We could bring them on now and swear over again once or all right I'd be happy to so I've just brought let me see Barbara Hedrick is here. Pike Porter is here. If there's anyone else that would like to participate I'm asking you to raise your hand please. I have added everyone who had their hand raised. Oops here's one more. A phone and caller I don't know the identity of this person. Can the phone and caller identify themselves? Sharon Buscher. Okay thank you Sharon. Oh Sharon. Okay so I'm gonna ask everybody the members of the public and for representing the applicant to swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury say I do. I do. Okay I'm assuming everybody's gonna get this one in. So Lonnie are you making the presentation or is somebody else? Sandy is. Okay and if you could identify yourself and sort of say who you're representing and then take it from there. This is Sandy am I beginning the presentation or was there public input? Okay. Would you like to share your screen? Yes. If you give Kim Furtado access she'll be sharing the presentation. Okay. Pam I've promoted you to panelist you'll be able to share your screen. There we go. Okay. Awesome. Great so good evening and thank you for your time tonight. My name is Sandy Tebow. I'm Executive Director at Katma and joining me in our presentation tonight is Kim Furtado Katmas Transportation Analyst and John Jonathan Dowds at the UVM Transportation Research Center. So tonight we're here to present the 2020-2025 Joint Institution Park and Management Plan. We also call it the JIP for short. This document is required per Article 8 of the Burlington CDO. This is also a tool for the institutions to demonstrate parking demand and when lower than requirements outlined in the CDO receive what amounts to a parking waiver from those standards when applying for zoning permits for projects listed in the report. It's also a tool for us to identify and commit to strategies to reduce parking demand. This five-year report typically is approved by the DRB and we provide annual updates to the planning commission to measure our compliance with the five-year plan. I hope you've had a chance to review the report and the supplement and memo in your packets. There's a lot of data a lot of information but thank you Brad for acknowledging the consolidated report that we're providing here tonight. In the past it's been about 115 pages and we've consolidated it to 50 pages and hopes to make it a more succinct report. So I do want to point out that there were a few updates to the JIP per my November 12th memo in your packet and we made these updates and I noticed that the final report was updated this afternoon. So Kim if you can just go back to the Katmah page sorry. I have presented the five-year JIP in the past and I see some new faces so I thought I would just take maybe a couple of minutes to just give an overview of who Katmah is. We are the Chittenden Area Transportation Management Association also known as Katmah. We were established in 1992 by the Three Hill Institutions Champlain College UVM and the UVM Medical Center. With a mission to jointly plan transportation and parking for more efficient and coordinated land use planning reducing environmental impacts and offering employees and students a comprehensive suite of sustainable transportation options such as biking and walking transit carpooling, vanpooling. Telework is a program in this suite of options which is obviously heavily utilized now in the midst of our global pandemic which does actually reduce vehicle miles traveled in greenhouse gases. It will be interesting though to see how telework trends over the next few years in particular along with telehealth and learning remotely evolve. Katmah is one of two TMAs in Vermont. There are 175 TMAs in the country. We are a 501c3 non-profit member-based organization. Typically TMAs focus their services in a particular district or corridor and that's exactly what Katmah is focused originally established to focus on the Hill District. In 2015 we expanded to a regional TMA serving Chittenden County with a mission similar to our original but an expanded service area in the county. We administer and manage TDM programs for our members including bike walk rewards, transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool support, guaranteed ride home and trip planning assistance. So the purpose of the GIP is described in length in the introduction of the report that you have on page one. As I mentioned earlier this five-year report intends to recognize the need to manage parking demand and resources holistically and creatively with TDM strategies and coordination of transportation and parking. This report demonstrates the collaboration of the institutions in sharing transportation and parking resources. It's an effort we continue to work on improving. A little history on the GIP. So the first five-year GIP was produced in 2009 to 2014 followed by the next five-year plan 2014 to 2019 and here we are today with a 2020 to 2025 plan. We did have a gap year in 2019-20 due to an effort to really overhaul this five-year report with improved data collection, analysis, research and best practices relative to parking demand estimates and a significant consolidation of content. City staff and the planning commission have been really engaged in this effort and they provided us with valuable input input into this much improved report. Katma also partnered with the UVM Transportation Research Center on this project. We wanted to gain their expertise with relative to surveys, data and parking demand estimates to improve the report. I also want to come in Katma's analysts here with us tonight, Kim Furtado. She did a fantastic job in producing this succinct document and analysis. So the key pieces in this report is focused on the current and future parking demand estimates, planned projects at the institutions over the next five years and documenting our collective transportation demand management, acronym is TDM, among the institutions. And just a quick overview on the process. So the planning commission memo in your packet had a good description of the process that we have undertaken over the past year on this report. But in short Katma presented the five-year JIP to the planning commission on October 13th and November 10th. At these meetings we had some good engaging discussion and clarifications on report content which we updated. And then the planning commission provides the DRB with a recommendation memo also in your packet. And here we are tonight presenting the JIP to the DRB for approval. As you can see on this slide there's two pieces to this JIP. The report with the blue cover is the report itself. It's about 50 pages and the supplemental piece has a yellow cover and this includes a lot of detailed data that's referenced in the report. And it's also a tool for the institutions when updating their annual data. So certainly I welcome any feedback on that but we felt this was a way to eliminate some of you know condense the report itself. As I mentioned earlier we did a complete overhaul to this report. We updated our survey instrument and methodology and partnership with the UVM TRC. We conducted employee and student surveys in the fall 2019. We developed and implemented a quarterly lot count process at the institutions which has provided consistency and will give us some data on trends. And the UVM TRC assisted in developing a new parking demand estimate formula based on their research and expertise which John will talk a little bit about in a minute. So I just want to point out this report we were nearing completion of it in March 2020 when we entered the pandemic which clearly has impacted parking demands, travel behavior now and in years to come. And we do anticipate that there will be an increase in telehealth, telework, remote learning, online learning which will have all these updated numbers in our spring annual update to the gym and subsequent updates. So here's the data. This is an executive summary. This is a snapshot of the three institutions of their current and future parking demands. So you'll see columns for each of the institutions and the rows of the data points. So the first row is the user group, employees, students, contractors in the case of Champlain College. The second row is the current demand and that is based on survey, CAPMA survey data for employees and students. The third row is parking utilization. This is the lot counts that I just mentioned. This is an average of the lot counts so we can see the utilization of the lots. And the fourth row is the parking requirement by CDO. And the fifth row is the parking supply at each of those institutions. And then the same obviously applies for the future conditions below. I want to point out a couple of things that were in my memo which is in your packet. So for UVM in this summary that you see it does not include affiliated housing parking. It does include the students and I'm referring to redstone lofts and redstone apartments on the UVM campus. So if you want to see the inclusion of these students and the parking supply in the current and future estimates you can find that in the updated report that was posted today in your packet in tables 4-4 and 4-8. I also want to point out in this executive summary that for the UVM Medical Center these numbers do not include those who utilize off-site parking supply nor the off-site parking supply. We did add that table which is 5-3 in the report so that it includes those who utilize off-site lots and that off-site supply so you have both versions. So before we move on to each institution which I'm planning to sort of really just display their future demands. I did want to ask Kim to talk a little bit about on-street parking which has come up in our planning commission meetings. Kim? Hi everybody so another interesting at a point that the JIPP tries to get at is the demand from the institutions that end up parking on city streets. So this table in front of you is the individuals from each institution who habitually park on street at peak time which is the same the peak time is that same requirement used in the demand formula so it's consistent there. It's important to note that the demand number that you saw on the previous sides and you see in each chapter for each institution does incorporate these individuals meaning that in the case of Champlain College these 16 people who park on the street at peak time could hypothetically be parking on Champlain campus and still have more parking spaces available on Champlain's campus. This was the first time we had asked survey respondents which is where we get all of our data to say where they park. There's definitely room for improvement on this question it seemed that a good portion of the respondents answered where they live because many of the streets have residential parking requirements so that data is not included in the report as you'll see during the planning commission meeting we spoke with planning commission and city staff in hopes that in the future for future iterations of the gym we will be able to work more closely with the city and the institutions to find other methodologies to capture who is parking on the streets and where they're parking so that's what I have for that. Great thank you and I also just want to point out in the planning commission memo towards the end of the memo there was mention of potential collaboration with the city on addressing on-street parking up and around the campuses. So next I just wanted to point out and go over the list of collective TDM strategies that the institutions have in place right now. This is this is a list of collective strategies and the institutions themselves also have individual TDM strategies. The Katmabike Walk reward program rewards employees who bike and walk to work with $15 gift cards to city markets, ski rack, and the movie theater. We have transit discounts and subsidies. Katma has a contract with Green Mountain Transit to offer these programs to our institutions and our membership. We have obviously campus and employee shuttles. We have a real-time shuttle app that UVM and Champlain College are collaborating on. Off-site parking and shuttles. Katma holds a contract for spaces down at the 115 Lakeside Law across from the Old General Dynamics building. So we have currently the Medical Center and Champlain College are part of our lease for those parking spaces with their own respective shuttles. Bicycle infrastructure and parking including the New Green Mountain Bike Walkway through the University and Medical Center, Bike Share Membership Discounts, Car Share Vermont Campus Program, which UVM and Champlain participate in, and Collective Education Outreach and Awareness. I thought I would just really quickly talk about the drive-alone trend, not necessarily get into the sustainable modes of transportation, which is also in your report. But I just want to point out here, this is Champlain College's drive-alone trend. So you can see the yellow line is for employees. The green is for students outside a half mile of campus, and blue is the students within a half mile of campus. And Champlain demonstrates pretty good trends. Sticking to Champlain College here, this is their future condition. So on the bottom you'll see a list of planned projects for Champlain over the next five years. It is possible this project list could change with COVID impacts. However, the future demand estimate above results in 94 surplus spaces over the next five years. And new in this report is we added a line for estimated TDM effects. In the case of Champlain College, the minus 25 reflects electric assist bikes that will be coming over the next year to Burlington and some permit policies that they have in place. And I do want to, as Kim mentioned, the on-street parking around Champlain College is not included in their parking supply. And then I'll just go over same fashion with UVM and the Medical Center. So here is the university's drive-alone trend for employees and students. We see an uptick with employees and students outside a half mile. My personal thought on that is there's more affordable housing and rural areas where transit may be limited or there is no transit. I think that could be an impact on that. And then also the price of gas. But certainly we have some work to do to tackle to get these numbers down. The University of Vermont on the right you'll see a list of their proposed projects over the next five years. They have a and the similar chart on the left with the TDM effects. That also is for electric assist bikes permit policies and motorcycle spaces that they are going to be implementing on non-parking spaces. And so our again just reiterating that our November 12th memo in your packet included adding students in the affiliate housing. So here on this chart you can see where we categorize the redstone laughs and apartment students as their own user group and also categorized in the parking supply UVM operated parking and redstone parking. And these have been updated in the report that you have. I should note that UVM did acquire 200 offsite spaces at a pine street lot this summer. They had intentions to utilize it for residential student warehouse parking. However with current conditions and COVID UVM actually has adequate parking on campus. And just recent lot counts indicated a 61% utilization on campus right now versus a previous 83%. UVM is subleasing 100 spaces or so at the pine street lot just for the remainder of this academic year. And I know they've had separate communications with Scott on this matter. And the UVM medical center as you can see again an upward tick on drive alone for employees at the medical center. Whether that's reflective of housing, price of gas, some more work we need to do. On the medical center's future conditions they have no construction planned over the next five years. And again what we provided in our November 12th memo and also updated in your report was we added offsite parking supply to the medical center's parking demand estimates. So you'll see those tables updated in the report. So again you have the two versions with campus supply and offsite parking supply. I did just want to ask John Dabbs from the UVM Transportation Research Center. John are you still there? Yeah I'm here. Okay great. If you could just share a bit about the data points and the parking demand estimate formula please. Sure. So my name is Jonathan Dabbs. I work at the Transportation Research Center at the University of Vermont. For those of you that are not familiar with us we're a collaborative of faculty staff and students who research issues related to sustainable transportation. Our work is largely funded by grants from FHWA, the federal highway administration as well as a variety of state DOTs. But we also work with local partners like CATMA and CCRPC. And most of our work is really around travel behavior, travel survey data collection and analysis. And so we assisted CATMA on the process of designing their survey this go-around and providing some methodological input onto the demand estimation. So in the end the demand estimation is actually relatively straightforward based on the survey results. Kim calculated how many people who used an automobile as their primary mode of transportation were on campus at every hour of the day for each day of the week. Faculty staff and off-campus students in this methodology then found the hour where there were most the most people on campus who were automobile users either who drove alone or who carpooled. And that becomes our peak period. And then for those staff, faculty and off-campus student groups we just look at what percent of our sample falls within people who drive to campus during this time period versus our total. That gets us the rate at which these groups utilize parking. Multiply that by the number, total number of people in each group and that gets you the total demand for each group. For on-campus students and redstone lots and apartment students we said that everybody who has a vehicle needs to have a parking space so the demand right there is simply based on vehicle ownership. And then the other thing that I just want to emphasize here is that the CATMA has gone and the member institutions have now taken two approaches to estimating demand. One is based on the survey methodology that I just outlined briefly and the other is the lot counts. And these from a review of what other institutions are doing to estimate parking demand provides a really complimentary set of estimates. Methodologically we would expect lot counts to represent the low end of demand. If a parking space parking lot is full and there's overflow parking on the streets or they're parking on the streets because people don't have a permit that's obviously not going to be in the lot count. A lot counts not going to capture latent demand. People who might want to park there if the parking situation were different. But it is data that you can accrue over and over again very concrete. On the flip side the survey data especially as you've collected here represents the high end of what we see as the demand estimate. It captures all of that off-campus parking, everything that's happening on the streets. It has a way to get at latent demand. But we're assuming in this methodology that all faculty staff and students who say that they're on campus on a given day do in fact come every single day. So if our peak hour is Wednesday at noon we're calculating this peak demand with the assumption that all faculty staff and students who come on Wednesdays are there every Wednesday. We know people take vacation time, we know people take sick time and so that sort of day-to-day variability is not is not captured in the survey data. So just to sum that up there they're really complementary measures and I would encourage people looking at this at this data source at this report to balance both of those when thinking about what the demand conditions are on the ground. And Sandy if there are other points you want me to cover folks and questions. Can I just ask one question and it's just hard to flip to the different tables. I see the table that has the current demand calculation which I think is what you're talking about now. How are the two ways of calculating the parking compare? Kim can you go back to the that executive summary slide that has so Kim make sure I'm make sure I'm representing this in the in the right place but the so row two the current demand is the demand estimate from the survey methodology and then the current maximum parking utilization is based on the lot count data. So looking at Champlain they're actually remarkably similar to one another. The survey gave us an estimate of 612 parking spaces required at its maximum utilization it was at 599 at UVM there's a bit of a bigger gap close to 5,000 was the survey estimate closer to 4,000 was the the current maximum parking utilization. It's a much larger user base at UVM so that explains some portion of that discrepancy and then over time as UVM and the other institutions continue to to build that out you might see that gap close a bit. For the hospital interestingly and I hadn't noticed this before but but it's actually flipped we're throwing off a higher current maximum parking utilization and that probably goes to just a higher visitor number or something like that which we're only able to survey employees and then visitors etc are estimates from the hospital. And I just want to point out too there's a great detail in appendix A and B in your report outlining and further detail what John just described. Thank you John. Yep. So just moving forward so Katma we created an internal guide for producing this chip so there's consistency in the next five-year update and annual updates. We'll be conducting our spring surveys depending on COVID and people on campus this spring. We just conducted a lot counts in October we'll conduct them again in February so we'll have a full year of counts although with COVID the numbers you know are going to look a little bit different than in normal times. And then in the spring likely late spring we'll present an annual update to the planning commission and I just want to you know remind folks that you know the Hill institutions and I think businesses in general for see changes and future policies and trends with COVID may reduce users and parking demand. Champlain and UVM enrollment numbers may change over the past four months the Hill has expanded teleworking, online learning, and telehealth options. It's also likely for at least the next year any large events typically hosted on campus by the institutions will not be possible due to physical distance and COVID guidelines and that will reduce the demand for visiting parking. So we'll address all of these impacts in our spring update and that is all I have unless any questions. Thank you. Jeff, do you have some questions? Yes thank you thank you Sandy and others for that presentation is very helpful. I've got a couple questions just primarily around COVID obviously the planning commission expressed a desire to get more information through those annual monitoring reports and it sounds like you all are thinking that generally COVID will have the effect of reducing demand. Have you given any further thought to sort of the countervailing influences of COVID on public transportation and whether that increases sort of single user drive alone events and and how those two balance out against each other? So on the COVID the COVID impacts I mean like I mentioned we will conduct our survey in the spring and we'll work with the Transportation Research Center to incorporate appropriate and useful questions to collect data on how employees or students work commuting, how they are commuting now, how they plan to commute whether it's over the next year or two or three depending on you know depending on where we're at with transit and carpooling etc. And then can you just clarify what your second question was? Well I guess I'm just I'm wondering whether the impact you know obviously it may reduce demand with fewer people coming to campus or to the facilities but it may also potentially decrease folks' willingness to take public transportation for some period of time. Dany, can I chime in here? This is Jonathan Dowds again. I think that's a great point and it is an uncertain question. I think it is likely that there will be some at least moderately sustained hit to transit use and there is also a shift towards telework that people aren't aren't going on to campus. It is a little bit uncertain how those will be balanced out. I'll just point out that the base of people who drive alone is much larger than the base of people who use transit. So if we see a change to the to the drive-alone group where you know 10 percent of them are working from home much more often that that 10 percent change to drive alone would be much larger in absolute numbers than a 10 percent change to transit. But it is something we'll need to continue to develop develop data on to understand exactly how those balance out. That makes sense and I guess my my sort of bottom line question is just one of timing. I appreciate that everyone's dealing with this new issue as it arises and it's hard to anticipate what the impacts are going to be. I do know that the zoning ordinance provides that we can approve a plan not to exceed five years. Which I read is saying we could actually approve a shorter plan. And I guess I'm interested this being the first one of these I've looked at at what the impact is of these annual reports. Does it result in real fundamental changes in the plan itself such that there's not really a functional difference between us approving it for five years with you know annual reports versus approving it say for one year. With the requirement to come back with a revised plan that really incorporates your additional data after we know more about the impacts of COVID. So I'm not sure who's best to speak to that but I'm interested in those two different approaches. Yeah I will just say you know typically it's you know been the five year report with a list of projects planned for the next five years with annual updates. And the annual updates typically just you know are including you know monitoring our mode sustainable travel modes and drive alone and our parking demands and any project that's taken place you know will include that in the annual report. I will say our annual report just as this five year has undergone an overhaul our annual report will also undergo an overhaul and I'll plan to be working with the the city staff they've been really great on on providing input and feedback on improving it. It's a decade old document it was just time to overhaul it. So I can just speak to that I don't know from the city's perspective with your policy I think if you approve it for you know five years with annual updates and that's measuring our compliance to what is reported in the five year and then I think Megan had in the planning commission memo had touched upon that the planning commission would monitor that as well to ensure we're in compliance. Megan is present if you'd like her to join. If she's got a perspective on that it might be helpful and Mary or Brad I don't know others who've been through this more times but I'm interested in just trying to understand if we approve it for five years and there's really a fundamental change in the next year and the data are we stuck with just getting reports for the next four years without the ability to really change the plan or can we functionally you know change the plan at any point once we have additional data on I think what I think are going to be pretty you know fundamental impacts on assumptions about parking needs. Megan would you be able to provide more information? Sure I can speak to part of your question Jeff. This is Megan Tuttle I work for the office of city planning and staff the planning commission. I have actually also not been through a prior approval of the GIP at the DRB level the last one happened right before I started here so this is a bit of a learning process for me too in terms of how we make decisions about approving for the full five years that are authorized in the ordinance versus a smaller number of years. I can say that when we were reviewing a previous iteration of this plan back in the fall and spring the planning commission and the staff were considering a recommendation to the DRB that it only be approved for one year but that was more related to some questions and some data gaps around the survey and methodology that was being used to project the long-range demand and supply estimates for the entire plan. I would be hesitant to I think if the if the DRB wanted to consider only approving it for one year at a time that is certainly your purview but I would be hesitant to assume that any data that the institution share with you at the first update are going to be indicative of the trends over the five-year period because I like John said I do think that so many things are so dramatically different about parking demand on the institution's campuses right now that I don't want us to assume that that is going to be the long-term trend. So if you want to approve it for a shorter period of time and consider those annual updates as a renewal opportunity for this plan you certainly could but I think that this coming spring might not be really indicative of the trend overall. That's a good point. Thank you. I guess I'll just put this out there. I've seen a few of these come before us and the changes the methodology seems to get more responsive to conditions on the ground I would say that I've seen that change and the controlling the was it TDM the demand management seems moderately successful over time it hasn't been huge changes and the institution seemed to have been able to incorporate the new construction and the changes on campus within the overall shipment that they plan year to year so it's hard to imagine that there would be drastic changes year to year I mean unless you you can look at COVID but that's it's hard to say that that's the long-term plan that one should make so the five-year plan seems an appropriate window to me. It's a lot of information I'm not sure how much we can digest tonight so but the five-year seems a reasonable kind of thing with the one year and if we saw something drastic I would think we have an ability to to delve into at that time. Yeah I think the ordinance does say that we can amend the plan so. Other questions from the board? Kenan you're muted right now. Yeah thank you. So I have just I have a few questions just from what I read in the report and from some of the public comments so on I guess two questions let's start with the e-bike issue. I think it's on page 22 of the report it talks about this e-bike program going live but then in I believe it was car share of Vermont's public comment they talked about how that company was no longer in existence. Is there do you have any response to that or like what is the status of the e-bikes and then as a follow-up to that if the e-bikes are coming in I'm wondering what the difference how helpful they'll be in the summer versus the winter months. I see and they hear I can answer that so the e-bikes that currently as you know we have the green ride bike share seven speed pedal bike pedal bikes on the ground and we have been working with that vendor Gotcha for the past couple years including with the city of Burlington South Burlington and Munozki to transition those bikes to electric assist bikes and increase the number of bikes and hubs due to a number of situations Gotcha is unable to transition the current bikes to e-bikes right now. They due to you know partly because of COVID some organizational acquirements and production and China holding up the the bikes e-bikes being delivered. So this is very fresh we actually just released an RFP this morning for an electric bike share system so a transition from we're look where we have an RFP out for a vendor to transition out of the green ride bike share and to e-bikes this spring so this is really fresh new news that I'm releasing and we expect to make a selection by the end of December so and then as far as the name of Gotcha they were acquired by Last Mile Solutions I think as Karsher had mentioned in their memo in regards to seasonal factors we our proposal does include a year-round e-bike share system it is very possible that we would decrease the number of bikes from the system in the winter but we've had the green ride bike share out for the past two winters you know ridership does go down a little bit but with e-bikes it may be different so we're planning to keep that an annual system thank you I just had one more follow-up question so this is not related to the e-bikes this is on page 32 of the report you talk about how there's no expected rise in the use by the medical center through 2025 in I think it was parking and I'm just curious as to what how you projected that was it based on population growth for Burlington and Jinden County and how do we reach that conclusion yeah the medical center has no plans to build out any further on the campus or any substantial change in employees and patients and visitors and certainly with telehealth that can also that's also likely going to impact their user groups so they have they have remained you know the current and future supply remains similar they have no planned growth here and on the main campus in Burlington I have a question with Keenan I just have one more that I'm on I'm all set in a cup in I think the planning commission's report deck to us as well as car share Vermont's memo they talk about the ban on sophomores as a way to sort of alleviate or ban on sophomores having cars as a way to alleviate some of the parking pressures had you any thoughts or responses to that as mentioned in the report uvm had hired a consultant and completed a transportation and parking study last in the past year and the consultant was Nelson Nygaard and so that plan is complete and was is moving up through leadership which is now has been put on hold with COVID impacts in March but one of the recommendations you know from the consultant is to assess their permit structure and strategy and fees so that could be a possibility may I add something about uvm sure the question of whether sophomores should be banned from having cars on campus that's a patient issue but it's also beyond that in terms of attractiveness to students and you know many other kinds of ramifications so that's a kind of that's a decision that would not be taken lightly and have to look at the non-transportation impacts of that so I don't think that's a decision that would be taken very lightly that's all I can say it would be a very complicated decision to come to thank you okay um I still have questions from the board at the moment two members of the public with raised hands um we have the raised hand here it's right now yes who is that Sharon busher and pike porter okay I have a couple other questions too I don't know if you wanted to do a public first oh no Caitlin go ahead um I had a question about the the survey for on-street parking because the number seemed really low just how many students were surveyed and what the response rate was to uh the full student list at both institutions and kim do you know what the response rate was for the students um I don't have it in front of me I can pull it up in a second but it's somewhere around 20 percent of the student body so with that response rate did you calculate any you know additional expected demands with such a low response rate um so we waited the survey results to make them um to remove any bias from the people who did respond say if they were more likely to drive or they were less likely to drive um wait the results so that they were more indicative of the the population as a whole we also have the margin of error under each chart which gives that like range of um plus or minus the demand we give to try to account for any of that yeah I have a question related to that uh when Champlain College has come before the board they've been very um clear about their uh commitment to checking cars parked on the street around the around Champlain College and determining which students have parked there is that figured into the report that analysis that Champlain does yes they absolutely do monitor the streets and enforce that and how does that compare to the parking that's in the report numbers that you guys came up with um um I'm trying to get back to that screen Kim what was the numbers on Champlain College for that I'll just throw in one discussion piece um the on everything is calculated for this peak demand hour so the time when there are the most people that are parked on campus it is possible that the peak period for on-street parking is at a different time in the day like it might be you know later in the evening um so it's possible that at some other time during the day there would be a slightly a higher number of vehicles parked on the street even though the total number of vehicles associated with each of the university is lower at that time and how did you determine those peak hours was it actually like did you count at multiple times during the day and set that or in this survey we asked people what time they were on campus and then literally for each hour just added up all of the people who said they were on campus at that time and then the peak period was the hour where the most people who drive said they were on campus I can add to that also UVM does lot counts all the time and so we've done lot counts of various times during the day and chose the time where there were the most people the lots were the most full and I just have one one more set of questions which is you know you did talk about um rising drive alone rates especially it looks like that's an issue for UVM medical employees but it didn't look like there was a major change to the TDM strategies to combat that um and that seems like an important part of a five-year plan to have the TDM strategies that address a trend that you've already identified yeah certainly there's always room for improvement and we you know have a pretty robust uh suite of programs and policies at all of the institutions and again I think my personal thought is you know people are moving out into more rural areas um where transit is limited or maybe not available that could be impacting them to be having to drive alone um and then also the price of fuel is pretty affordable unfortunately um so I I think that's a great question and I think we have you know definitely continue to improve TDM outreach and programs um but that would be my you know that's my I guess personal thought on the impact of the increase in drive alone. Yes that might be an interesting follow-up for the one-year report is to have some more information as to TDM and who why is that happening and that may you may be exactly right but it'd be nice to know data on that. In some broader context that trend is actually true for the state of Vermont as a whole the Census Bureau conducts the American Community Survey every year and one of the questions they ask is about commute mode and across the past 10 years the drive alone rate has has slowly been ticking up for the state as a whole so just as some additional context for the group. Thanks John. And at this point I'm going to have to hop off the call but if anyone has any other methodological questions that I can help with I'm happy to follow up with by email or a follow-up call. Thank you. Thanks John. Is it possible that that trend you're seeing in drive alone is maybe an indication that parking is too available? I mean if we had less parking it would encourage more alternative transportation or carpooling. Have you guys looked at that and the analysis? I mean that has has come up certainly something we could look into more. The parking utilization maps that are in the report is a new feature which I hope you appreciate and we have talked about looking at who's parking and what lots so that's an additional data point that we hope to include in our spring update to understand who is parking where and and why and why they're using those modes. Okay thanks. So if there's no other questions right now from the board I think we have Pike Porter and Sharon Buescher are two members of the public. I have the hands raised at the moment. Pike do you want to have comments or questions for the board? Thank you for accepting my comments. I think Brad you're the only one still on the board from 2012 when UVM built redstone lofts and I mentioned that because UVM is a long slow institution says things one year and says other things a decade later when most of you all have have moved on the parking plan has I believe some errors in it more specifically the affiliated parking numbers I believe do not jive with the numbers that are associated with their actual zoning permits. I don't have those in front of me but what I do have down in my basement is a sworn deposition from Lonnie Raven saying that there would never be a Stage 3 of virtue field taken about 10 years ago and lo and behold in this parking plan there's reference to a Stage 3 or Phase 3 virtue field. So I would just ask you as a board to be a little skeptical of the numbers that at least UVM is giving you. Maybe ask some probing questions. Caitlyn thank you for asking those probing questions about off-street parking. A full eight of those parking spots must be in front of my house at 544 South Prospect Street because that's where eight of them park every school day from nine to four or so. And I would ask you just to be maybe ask UVM at least I don't know much about the other institutions but ask UVM to maybe support some of these numbers that they're coming up with. Again I think if you would use zoning documents for redstone lofts and redstone apartments the numbers there won't square with the numbers that they've assigned in the summary of the report. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Sharon? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay thank you. Thank you very much. So this is only the third five-year plan as I understand it to come before the city. So when people reference typical I think it's not actually accurate because this is only the third plan. And when I looked at the communication from the city saying that really the focus of this is the impact on surrounding neighborhood streets and to have a five-year plan that allows waivers for proposed development for the institutions. I mean I think that I think that the plan doesn't fully provide what its goal or intent is. And let me just state that I've heard some of you mention that you're allowed to approve up to five years but you could do less than that. And I don't think it's either one year or five years I think it could be something in between. And I spoke at the planning commission but you you sparked this conversation sparked me to rethink some of what I said. Because I think COVID is an unknown and I do believe that no one knows how many people will continue to work remotely. How many people and I'm not sure that the single occupancy is only a result of people moving far out. I think it's also reflective of the demands on people's time and the fact that maybe they can't carpool like they used to because they're home trying to you know get their kids online so that they can do learn from home and then they get to work. So I think that it's complicated and I don't think any of us know the answer. So for me I would like the DRB in its deliberation to really consider maybe a two-year plan and to let everyone understand what the impact from COVID is and how the adjustments to this plan should be made. I really think five years is too long and I also think that a plan that then allows parking waivers or allows a limited review of parking demands on projects that come forward from the institutions. I'm not so sure that's wise. I think things change rather dramatically. For example the city of Burlington pretty rapidly has eliminated a lot of on-street parking. That happened in a very short period of time and if some other trend happened it would really change the dynamics around parking and where people would park and who would be impacted and so I'm not sure that five years is the right time and I'm not sure that projects should be reviewed based on a plan that's in the city by the institutions that reflects what they anticipated their needs would be. I really think I've thought a lot about this and I'm not sure it really benefits anybody because certainly the institutions want parking that meets their needs and the city wants parking that is adequate that they can that sustains the institutional growth and doesn't impact the neighborhood surrounding the institutions. So I think we're in this together and someone one of the messages from planning was in the communication was to support continued collaboration with the city for the on-street parking problem. I think when we talk about Katma the missing partner and I really value Katma and all they've done they're great but I think that there's got to be a better interface with the city besides just this every five years coming together and then the annual review. I think it really is more of a partnership of how what are the parking needs what what is changing within the dynamics of what the city is going to provide for parking on street and off street and how how is this all coming together. We are in one city and we need to solve the parking problem collaboratively. I do also want to say that during the planning conversation the project really does not and has never incorporated the impact of parking for events. Now this is really futuristic because of covid but um but it does impact the surrounding neighborhoods when there are big events especially events that are held simultaneously and I cited the Lane series which is a small event which happens at the music center but then something that goes on at Patrick Jim there's no parking people are parking illegally and it's frankly dangerous and I don't see that addressed at all. Also I don't see in this conversation by Katma the looking at the constituency of the visitor that comes to UVM and whether or not the visitor spaces where they are located are they adequate and and I think that's a missing point and that's a missing point for our city so if we think that well it's the institution's problem no it's the city's problem because if people come to see the hospital or to see the UVM or Champlain you want to make sure that they have a place to park and they can understand and really fully take in our city and understand what it has to offer so I think visitor parking is something that really wasn't adequately addressed. I heard someone mention loss and I'm going to let that stand. I did want to tell you that I live on East Avenue and this past year and we have residential parking only and this past year a number of people have parked on my section of the street which is between University Road and Colchester Avenue and I always kind of if I'm out let them know that it's residential parking only because it's not signed all that well I don't want people to get a ticket and a number of those people actually are part of the hospital patient population and because they have to pay for parking and they're no longer the little waivers that they get when you go for a doctor visit people are actually parking on the street waiting for their loved one to get done with their visit and then going back up to pick them up that's happened a lot and I don't know if anyone else I know other people are talking about the demands on neighborhood streets but I think the University of Vermont should really medical centers should look at that and I had one other thing sorry um the other thing had to do with a conversation that I didn't really hear all that well so forgive me if I missed the point but Lonnie was referencing something and someone had said something about students having bringing cars to campus I thought it was focused on sophomores but the point of just students bringing cars to campus um you know I ran for re-election and got soundly defeated but I got out there in the community and also in the student community and it's it really surprises me that the students if you we if we didn't talk about the problem as an environmental one and what it's doing to the earth and the environment that we couldn't get better buy-in and reduction in cars coming to campus because not all of those students work off-campus not all of those students need their cars and I really think that it's somewhat surprising to hear that the University of Vermont hasn't isn't going to kind of take on that conversation and try to figure out how we can ultimately reduce the cars that come to the city and that will help us solve the parking problems thank you very much thanks Sharon I'm here there's one other member of the public that has a hand up maybe bring her on and then have the presenters respond I think Barbara Hedrick yes yes up here can you hear me okay yeah can you um identify yourself in some way you supplied a lot of information um which sort of raised the question to how is it that you have written a detailed report okay so um first my name is Barbara Hedrick I live on South Prospect Street pretty close to Redstone campus so the parking at UDM is of interest to me because generally a lot of students and commuters park on South Prospect Street except for the areas where we got the city to say you have to have a permit so every day that street is filled bumper to bumper and I I'm very interested in seeing a reduction in number of cars parked on the street because that creates space by the curb for people to bicycle and I think that's the thing we need to do is reduce the number of SOV miles single occupancy vehicle miles and the number of cars SOV and getting people to ride their bikes will be better if there's fewer cars parked on the street and it seems to me because five years ago there was a effort by the city to increase public access to parking that we're sort of under threat of UDM gaining on-street parking access and if UDM does that would be very counter productive for goals that are in the city ordinance article eight because city ordinance article eight says you know the effort is to try and keep UDM's parking not UDM's but the institution's parking demand from overflowing and unfairly burdening the adjacent neighborhoods and plan BTV has this goal of remote outside of Burlington parking lots so that people are coming in from Hinesburg and Essex and all these other towns you know they park their cars in their hometown and and catch a shuttle in so again we don't have all these SOV cars traveling all those miles to come to Burlington so I'm really trying I'm interested because I'm trying to advance the goals of article eight and protect my neighborhood and advance the goals of the ordinance and so I've been following UDM's activities like pike quarter not as long as pike but since the virtue field thing because there wasn't there were some things that happened then that I didn't think were completely honest and now I know to really watch things very very carefully. Is that answer your question Brad? Thank you. Okay so I've read the city ordinance article eight hundreds of poems but I reread it again this morning and something really popped out to me with respect to this joint institutional parking plan and that is the language in the ordinance says the purpose is to make sure that the institutions are adequate parking so adequate parking is really concept related to effective capacity you know it's not oh I have a hundred extra spaces therefore I get my parking per my parking waiver because maybe a hundred extra spaces is more than your effective capacity and in fact that's the case for UVM you know if you have a coffee cup and you fill it with hot coffee to the rim you've used all your capacity but you can't use that coffee cup now because you're going to pick it up spill it on your computer so UVM's parking according to this report is they have 185 spaces plus or minus 210 that's the margin of error so the margin of error 210 is bigger than 185 if you deduct the margin of error you have negative parking spaces you can't have negative parking spaces on campus we have zero that means UVM has a deficit they do not have adequate parking so they use a range because when you survey people it's like voter polls there's some uncertainty you don't know exactly if the number is 185 or if it's 185 minus 210 or 185 plus 210 so UVM's not certain about exactly what the number is they know it's somewhere in that range but it could be a negative number so I want to make this point so that you can appreciate where I'm coming from is that UVM doesn't know if it has adequate parking and it's not certain and therefore a five-year waiver shouldn't be granted one or two years I can maybe see as long as UVM doesn't build something really big that we're aware of I mean if they were going to build something big and get a parking waiver for it in the next few years that would be a bad decision so I really think this concept of adequate parking and having certainty about the adequate parking is important before UVM gets any parking waivers so Jonathan mentioned two methodologies for looking at effective capacity one was the survey based method and the other was the lot counts and based on lot counts UVM's effective capacity today is they're at 84 percent but based on survey data it's at 95 percent and if you look at appendix B of the report page 42 second paragraph there's a really good section there that talks about effective capacity for UVM's lots and the threshold is 85 percent so if campus Y all the spots are filled up to 85 percent and you go above that you're above effective capacity so if you take you know it's some pretty straightforward math if you take the 185 which is the number of spaces open supposedly and you deduct that from UVM's total supply you'll have the number of spaces that are full at peak demand and you take the number that are full at peak demand hour and you put it over the total supply and you'll have effective utilization and I can send you if you want Mary has my email if you want I can send you the spreadsheet with us I'm sorry I didn't include it here but I've included the data the results is that right now UVM's utilization is 95 percent based on them having 185 parking spaces left over at peak demand and in the future into year 2025 their utilization their utilization rate is 91 to 95 percent depending on where you are in that range right what this boils down to is that UVM's utilization rates are above their effective capacity as the second example second point of trying to make is they don't have adequate supply we don't have confidence that they have enough parking spaces and there's a chance that that overflow and demand to go to on-street parking and we don't want UVM to lobby the city to get public access to on-street parking because then that'll result in more cars driving sov and more mileage and more pollution so let me just gather my thoughts here catch a breath there is some evidence in the report I gave you about extra demand that's not in the UVM figures for example there's an ad on front porch forum your students are trying to rent parking spaces I had students knocking on my door asking to rent parking spaces in my driveway and so the demand figures that UVM has don't necessarily capture all the hidden demand now I want to move on to another topic which is another example of how UVM doesn't have adequate supply and that has to do with the current expansion and renovation of the athletic building called PFG Patrick Fort Bush gymnasium it's where the hockey rink is and the basketball courts and in the package I gave you exhibit four is a screen print of the act 250 commission finding the act 250 commission found that UVM will have a parking deficit of 150 to 400 parking spots when UVM posts events that are that are 5,000 people now you might think oh how often are they going to post 5,000 person events it's a new world when this event space comes online they're going to have one of those events on average every month based on their forecasts and I listed in my document to you what those include so these 5,000 person events are going to happen pretty you know typically part of their business but they're also going to have even larger events because gutterson seating capacity is increasing by 2,000 seats so gutterson will have seating capacity of 6,300 people and UVM also has in its plans to host up to 7,300 event attendees at one time on campus so you can see how given where I am on south prospect and the proximity of the athletic campus how all this demand is going to end up on our street if UVM doesn't have enough parking but I don't want UVM to build more parking spots or park on my street because that encourages more driving so really what I want to do is I want to use this opportunity and leverage their request for parking waiver to get them to do the right thing which has to finally grow a remote park and ride program and to support that because they've been talking about it but they're not really doing it the pine street facility is warehousing the students can only access their cars eight to five the colchester one doesn't come on till 2025 and the details haven't been worked out yet okay I'm almost done give well maybe cut just a couple minutes and I'll be done um so I went around so I participated in the act 250 commission hearing and in preparation for that I went and counted cars in the parking lots in the evenings when there is no event and I found there were 551 spaces open which was about half of what UVM told the act 250 commission but at the same time when UVM was in front of the drb in 2018 to request a permit for the project on the athletic campus UVM used five-year-old data from the 2014 2019 joint institutional parking management plan to say to the drb we have a 748 parking space surplus we don't need parking for the pfg project and by the way there's going to be no increase in number of seats and there will be no concurrent events which we learned subsequent layer is not true so we've already given them a parking waiver for something that's going to increase parking demand because it was based on five-year-old data I think this is a really good example of why we shouldn't give five-year parking waivers we should have each project analyzed because things change and then the day after UVM received their act 250 permit they issued a joint institutional parking management plan report that showed that they had a 400 parking space deficit now that report's been waived and they are substituting it with this one but even this one if you can take the time to read the analysis I've provided you you'll see that there's reasonable cause to believe that UVM does not have adequate parking and won't have adequate parking I would really like to see in this report a couple sections added to it so it becomes a tool for a win win a win for UVM and a win for us rather than just checking boxes I'd really like to see a strategy section where UVM shares with us what's their short-term and long-term parking strategy I'd like to see more focus on improving their efforts to reduce car usage rather than more of a static we have these programs I'd like to see progress charts how much progress is being made and having people use shuttles to come into town or rather than driving on their own and I'd like to see a separate section of parking and supply demand analysis just for those nights when UVM has large events for multiple events on the campus because they don't have adequate parking even for basketball games which have 3,000 people they don't have adequate parking for hockey games and therefore we really need to address that and I say we because as Sharon says a collaborative approach but the we can be we can put our thoughts together because no one you know has you know monopoly on thoughts and we can come up with the idea that helps UVM save money doesn't they don't have to spend money on garages the neighborhoods aren't affected by their parking demand and traffic etc so I ask please that you do that and there's just one last question I want you to consider in the cover letter UVM says it expects to have a parking surplus but then they qualify that by saying they haven't completed their housing strategy or transportation strategy so I'm wondering why does UVM feel it needs to qualify the first statement by saying these reports are still pending what does it have planned in those reports so thank you very much I welcome your questions you can contact me if you wish I'll be happy to talk about it thank you I think I'll ask um standy um there are a couple of things in there that um follow up on in terms of I guess one of them might be for Lonnie in terms of the uh count relative to zoning permits and and what's actually happening and the other is really the uh overall report in terms of the excess the uh shortfall on that that's in the report Sandy do you want to take that um yeah I mean that was you know I just want to thank everyone for your time and engagement in this project I'm it's really valuable and informative and will help us improve the document um there was a lot of questions and some good points and feedback um and public input tonight and posted online that I would like to absorb as well um and I think we can review this internally and we can evaluate how we can include some of this information and our future updates um if Lonnie is on the phone I would need a UVM representative to speak to that um permit question although I do want to point out that events have not been included or a part of this joint institution parking plan because events typically are off-peak and so you know there's always been parking for events in the evening and on the weekends so events have not been included in this and um I think it's you know I think a you know legitimate question um but just wanted to point that out Lonnie are you on the phone yeah can I ask a question AJ yes um first of all I want to apologize I've been having some difficulties with my microphone and my camera so it's been going off and on so I've been listening but it's been hard for me to communicate back and forth um so with that I'm interested by a comment Sandy made about you know she wanted some time to reflect on some of the comments we heard today um I certainly would as well and I'm wondering if because of what Sandy just said that it doesn't make some sense or if it wouldn't make some sense to continue this discussion to another meeting to give UVM a chance to incorporate or address some of the comments we heard tonight from the public into this and I just want to clarify I was thinking of reviewing the information and assessing it and how we can incorporate it into an annual and future annual updates yeah but they also are five-year plans and so I'm wondering if I appreciate that but I might be curious if you couldn't incorporate some of those comments into this plan let's put maybe I'll put a point on that one so I guess I'm interested to see if the board would consider continuing this until to give UVM a chance to consider how to incorporate those comments Keenan yeah no I think that makes a lot of sense and in particular you know one of the things that I have found helpful in my separate in my family practice when we're when we're constructing parent travel contact schedules which go into these same kind of like five-year or ten-year gaps is to have I would be interested in a plan that incorporates you know what it's like currently with COVID and then having another post COVID plan or maybe we only approve this for a shorter time period because I really I'm interested in the response to the data to the public comments and the data that was presented and I'm interested in how this data may be affected by the COVID-19 virus well I mean it does we're getting sort of into deliberative mode here a little bit it seems that COVID is going to drive down the the parking I mean I would think that's going to be true because a lot of people are going to be working from home so it's not going to be increasing the parking and so it seems to create a plan for COVID to me at this point doesn't make a lot of sense to have them rewrite this plan for COVID and then produce it again I think COVID is going to be a downturn in the parking demand and then they'll get back to what the real demand is and the question is is there a long term impact from that that's going to push down the parking because there's more people telecommuting to AJ's point I think that you know for any adjustments to this plan that we might like to see I think that you kind of have to think of are you going to be happy with our decision based on the information that we have today or do you want to take the opportunity to give us more information so yeah and I wanted Caitlin I wanted to follow up on your good point earlier about you know the transportation demand management proposals I mean looking at that and thinking about your question the plan shows that we currently have an increase in single driver activities at least two of the institutions and I don't see a lot of new proposals to address the existing that existing issue in the current plan and I think I want to take that a little further and connect it to something that Sharon and Barbara both mentioned all three of these institutions have pretty specific climate change commitments that they've pledged and made and all of them have data on their websites about the efforts they're undertaking to meet those pledges I don't see any mention of those pledges in the parking plan or how and why the the transportation management efforts facilitate achieving those pledges and goals and I personally would like to see and hear a little more about that because you know given the representations each of the entities is making on their website about their climate initiatives just seems like there's a disconnect between that pledge and sort of the rubber hitting the road and this sort of thing and I understand UBM is looking at a transportation plan and we're waiting for some of that but I'm a little hesitant with the data we've got showing you know increasing commuting and no new new initiatives as Galen I think pointed out I'm with Jeff on that too I mean when I read through this usually when I with these transportation demand models that I my understanding is that it's it is based on data based on existing conditions but it's also aspirational as well and I was curious about mitigation over time if this is going to be a partially aspirational document along with those climate change goals that these institutions have pledged towards so I think more on not just existing resources that would mitigate impacts but also what are aspects that these institutions are looking towards to further mitigate impacts to to manage multimodal traffic to these institutions I'm just wondering if we should try to give a more I mean I thought that was very good Ravi and what Jeff mentioned I think what Kina mentioned whether whether that's enough of a guide for Sandy and crew to either give us an addendum or give us a response to what's been looked for Sandy is that helpful to you you need more specific information um yeah I mean I really I'm going to have to you know gather all the thoughts and comments and questions here and I think an addendum is could be an opportunity to provide you to answer some of these questions the best that we can with the time I also just want to mention that you know we have this plan you know we've been working hard at it for a year and a half and there's a lot of data and we partnered with the UVM Transportation Research Center to have that expert experience and methodology and best practices for this document I mean there are no deficits in parking per our robust data analysis in this report so I would you know I like the idea of considering maybe a three or a three a three year approval of this plan with annual updates you know we're in just such an uncertain time and I think you bring up all really good points in regards to the climate climate matter I know that was brought up by a commissioner as well that has not been included in this report as it was as it is stated in the CDO so I think these are all great ideas we're just moving this plan you know providing this plan as the CDO request with the information the CDO request so I don't know if that's kind of a roundabout answer or or clear that you know I would like you to consider you know moving the plan forward with a maybe a shorter term approval with annual updates in consideration of the thoughts comments input that we have received this evening may I also add something go ahead Lonnie thank you so I have a number of points one of them is you asked about the zoning permits so the virtue field and the tarant center and all those sorry I'm just gonna interrupt for a second yeah I kind of had a discussion I was asking the board have they felt about continuing you know sort of going on the merits and I'm not sure you're really hearing what we're suggesting well I think it's a question for the board age I think it's a question for the board AJ is do we want to ask them to come back with a specific thing or do we want to maybe adjourn this hearing and have an initial deliberative so that we can come up with a clear statement I like that idea bread I actually want to address that okay I'd like to hear what Lenny has to say okay I just wanted to make sure that we didn't go down another we didn't go off topic I sorry go ahead Lonnie okay so I would also ask you to approve the plan for some amount of time we've already been going for a certain amount of time without an approved of JIP and we've done a lot of work to create something that you know that does reflect reality as we knew it pre-covid the result of not having an approved JIP is that whenever UVM wants to do a project we have to address the localized parking impacts and that basically makes us create more parking than we would need to if we had an approved JIP so I'm not sure that that's the result you want right now the the JIP instead of the approximately 11,000 spaces that we need according to zoning we are actually providing something like 5,500 or something or 5,000 something in that order so in terms of climate impacts that's a huge change and that has huge climate impacts JIP started we didn't have that language you know 15 years ago we talked about improving air quality so now it's climate change the whole idea of the JIP is addressing climate change if we do not have a JIP that means whenever we do a small project we have to provide relatively to the JIP we have to provide much more parking yeah Lonnie we're not talking about not approving a JIP we just have it in front of us today so and if we take another week or two to deliberate on it I don't think that's an issue I think you know what we understand we're not going to not approve something and everything else but this is what we have today this is our chance to review it the second point is regarding okay that's that's enough then thank you okay so I'm hearing maybe the board does want to interested in deliberating on this and then seeing whether we come back with either an approval with conditions or come back in request for more information does that sound sort of in line with what the board might be thinking seems like a reasonable way to proceed so I think the process would be to close the public hearing and I don't know about everybody else but well I would say we want may want to deliberate either before after our next meeting that's what I'm again I don't know whether people thinking they'd deliberate tonight what's what are the thoughts in your forward doing it tonight doing it tonight all the folks yeah okay so that way it's easy what you can take on the schedule pardon gets it on the schedule we can give uvm the information they need that we want quickly okay so we're going to close the public hearing and this is the only other item on our agenda so with that we will close the public hearing close the develop developer review board meeting so then