Agenda_2018_8_28_Meeting
M ayor
Suzanne Jones
Council M e mbe rs
Aaron Brockett
Cindy Carlisle
Jill Grano
Lisa Morzel
Mirabai Nagle
Sam Weaver
Bob Yates
Mary Young
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
August 28, 2018
6:00 PM
City M anage r
Jane Brautigam
City Attorne y
Thomas A. Carr
City Cle rk
Lynnette Beck
ST UDY S E S S ION
BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL
6-7 P M Fire-Rescue Master Plan
7-9:30 P M Community B enefit, Site Review Criteria, L and Use Code Change P riorities
City Council documents, including meeting agendas, study session agendas, meeting action
summaries and information packets can be accessed at www.bouldercolorado.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-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m.
Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council 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 service operates in the same manner as similar
services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with
the television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on
Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the captioning service for the live stream, the "C C" button
(which is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the
channel is providing captioning services.
The council 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.
Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions
may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please
request special 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 necesita interpretacion o
City Council Study Session Page 1 of 384
cualquier otra ayuda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-
1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta.
Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later
than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting.
City Council Study Session Page 2 of 384
C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
August 28, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
6-7 PM Fire-Rescue Master Plan
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Holger Durre, Deputy Fire Chief
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
N/A
I S T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T O N T HE C O U N C I L WORK P L AN?
N/A
H AS T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T B E E N B U D GE T E D?
N/A
WHAT P RI MARY SU STAI N AB I L I T Y F RAME W O RK OU T C OME I S B E I N G
SU P P O RT E D?
Safe C ommunity, Livable C ommunity
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Attachment
City Council Study Session Page 3 of 384
1
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Mike Calderazzo, Fire Chief
Holger Durre, Deputy Fire Chief
Jeff Long, Deputy Fire Chief
Dr. Shannon Sovndal, Medical Director
Shannon Aulabaugh, Public Safety PIO
Sarah Huntley, Engagement Manager
DATE: August 28, 2018
SUBJECT: Fire-Rescue Master Plan Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study session is to update council on the progress of the Fire-Rescue
master plan and to discuss the current issues identified. In addition, staff is seeking
feedback to ensure that the work conducted to date is meeting the intent of council and
that the next steps are aligned with these expectations.
The department is on track to meet its goal of presenting the final plan to council during
the first quarter of 2019 for acceptance. Some of the themes identified so far are the role
that Boulder Fire-Rescue should play in the delivery of Emergency Medical Services
(EMS), and how the department is positioned to respond and mitigate the community’s
diverse risks with appropriate resources.
The master plan will address the current and emerging risks faced by the community. The
following strategies have been identified for further analysis and inclusion in the plan.
•Utilizing community risk reduction approaches including education, prevention,
and community partnerships.
•Optimizing the fire department’s deployment practices.
•Exploration of the benefits and challenges associated with fire-based EMS.
Because the overall deployment practices and the potential of incorporating fire-based
EMS into the department are related to one another, staff is seeking feedback from
City Council Study Session Page 4 of 384
2
council to determine the level of support for the recommendations made by the EMS
white paper. How the fire department utilizes fire-based EMS will directly influence the
balance of the department’s response approaches.
The completed work to date includes development of a master plan scope and charter, the
assembly of the Community Risk assessment and Standards of Cover (CRA/SOC), and
finalization of the EMS white paper. The CRA/SOC is an assessment and performance
measurement document that attempts to match the fire department’s prevention and
response resources with a community’s known hazards and priorities. It also considers
the department’s approach and compares it with industry best practices. These documents
are important inputs to community dialog around the community’s response to its risks
and ultimately, the fire department’s master plan development.
In addition to the project charter, white paper and CRA/SOC, staff has made progress on
the public engagement plan presented to council in June and has utilized the “Be Heard
Boulder” engagement website to inform and survey the community. Moreover, the
department and key city stakeholders participated in a site visit by a team of consultants
exploring options for emergency medical services (EMS) provision. This work is
currently in progress and will be incorporated during the next phase of master plan
development.
Informed by feedback from council, staff intends to continue with its current public
engagement efforts, engage internal stakeholders, and begin to develop options for
further evaluation.
Questions for Council
1. Does council continue to support the city’s pursuit of fire-based EMS, and if so,
2. What direction can council provide on the timing of this pursuit given that this
will impact funding?
3. Does council have feedback on the current public engagement plans and the
preliminary themes that have emerged based on community participation so far?
BACKGROUND
The last Fire-Rescue master plan was adopted in 2012, which focused on responding to
community factors such as an aging population, an increase in population, and year-round
wildfire risks. In addition, the plan also identified an increase in emergency medical
service (EMS) calls that the city is still experiencing today. These factors remain relevant
today and are informing the current master plan as well. Major initiatives completed
based on the 2012 plan are the evaluation of station needs in redeveloping areas such as
Station 3, conducting a space needs analysis for the department, the construction of Fire
Station 8 to house the wildland program, expanding public education delivery, and
utilizing data and performance measures in management activities in the department.
City Council Study Session Page 5 of 384
3
Since the publication of the last master plan, the fire service in the United States has also
evolved. One of the relevant trends associated with this evolution is the increasing
regionalization of emergency response programs, particularly for low-frequency, high-
risk incidents. The department has been responsive to this trend by participating in the
Boulder County Hazardous Materials Authority.
While this master plan cycle focuses on all areas of fire and rescue services, one of the
primary issues being explored is the role that Boulder Fire-Rescue (BFR) should play in
the delivery of EMS in the community. Other fire service organizations along the Front
Range and across the country are increasingly providing a full-range of EMS delivery to
include advanced life support (ALS) and pre-hospital transport services (ambulance
service). This has allowed these departments to have greater influence on patient care
outcomes and helps reduce operational costs by diversifying the revenue stream available
to such agencies.
To respond to this trend, council directed Boulder Fire Rescue (BFR) in 2016 to explore
the enhancement of EMS under a fire-based model. By charter, BFR has primary
responsibility for “the provision of rescue and emergency medical services” within city
limits and responds at a basic life support (BLS) level. A third-party ambulance
contractor provides advanced life support (ALS) and patient transport on behalf of BFR.
The present contractor does business as American Medical Response (AMR).
At the direction of city council, the contract with AMR was re-bid in 2016 with a
requirement that the ALS provider pay a living wage of $15.67/hour for its Boulder
employees. This was substantially higher than AMR starting wages at the time of
inception of the living wage standard. The higher costs for the living wage provision are
now being borne by the city because the ambulance provider could not make their
business model work with the higher labor expenses. Boulder now pays a $535,000/yr.
subsidy for AMR to continue operating in Boulder. This subsidy did not materially
change the EMS response system, but the new contract does include financial audit
provisions to verify AMR’s pay rates.
Staff presented council with an EMS White Paper (Attachment C) in April of 2017 that
outlined the pros and cons of various options available in providing both BLS and ALS
services. The white paper recommended internalizing the service with city responders
and city resources. This would result in the fire department upgrading all city fire
department units to ALS and adding 3 new ALS ambulances while decreasing ALS
response times. The city is currently working with a consulting firm to build on the work
in the white paper and to validate and expand on the financial analysis that was
conducted. This work is being conducted to ensure robust projections are available for
further policy level decision-making.
An additional trend that influences this master plan is the expansion of fire department
service delivery with an associated increase in complexity. Fire departments are now
considered “all-hazards” responders that have multi-disciplinary responsibilities. These
range from response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) events to technical rescue
City Council Study Session Page 6 of 384
4
responses as opposed to focusing solely on fire problems. This impacts the fire
department by having to integrate these response programs into its traditional service
delivery.
The department’s completion of the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of
Cover (CRA/SOC) is a key planning tool to ensure the community’s diverse demands are
balanced with one another. The document, which is available as Attachment A, assesses
how the risks faced by the city are balanced with effective response and mitigation
countermeasures. This document is also a key component of the department’s Roadmap
to Continuous Improvement that was developed during the scope and charter
development of this master plan, which is provided as Attachment B.
Due to the nature of the services delivered by BFR, robust community engagement and
input are an integral component of the process. The project team is utilizing a public
engagement plan based on the recently updated community engagement framework
adopted by City Council. This framework specifically uses the decision-making wheel;
levels of engagement; inclusive participation; and more feedback about feedback. Staff is
utilizing the “Be Heard Boulder” platform to administer the engagement community
survey as well as several documents to inform the community on the key aspects of the
current services available to the community. The complete plan, including more detailed
information on strategies and tactics to meet these objectives, is presented in Attachment
D. This has already yielded valuable community conversations based on the objectives
outlined the June 26, 2018 public engagement update provided by BFR staff to council.
ANALYSIS
Staff has identified two major themes as part of the master planning efforts to date. These
themes are centered around the risk faced by the community and the role that BFR plays
in EMS delivery. In addition, the department is currently engaging the public based on
the framework outlined earlier and has conducted a preliminary analysis related to that
effort.
The CRA/SOC has led to insights regarding supplementing emergency response
programs with community risk reduction approaches such as community paramedicine
and increased education and mitigation. This is particularly true in EMS which involves
higher call volumes with less emergent incidents such as assisting nursing homes and
indigent populations for routine health concerns. In addition, the document identified the
opportunity to reduce the number of resources dispatched to certain incident types thus
improving unit availability and reducing the department’s carbon footprint. The
CRA/SOC identified or confirmed several key factors that will influence development of
the master plan. These are:
• Aging population: Boulder’s population is aging, and the number of residents 60
and over is expected to nearly double by 2020. If this happens, older adults will
represent 21 percent of our population.
• Increase in population: The City of Boulder’s current population is 108,090, and
projections suggest this could increase to 123,000 by 2040. This figure could be
City Council Study Session Page 7 of 384
5
even higher, depending on the student base at the University of Colorado Boulder.
CU currently supports 30,000 students and is considering plans to add more than
5,000 students by 2030.
• Increase in emergency medical service requests: Boulder experienced an 11
percent increase in medical calls between 2015 and 2017. Last year, these types of
calls represented 81 percent of all calls.
• Year-round wildfire and ongoing flood risks: The city is surrounded by open
space and is nestled against the mountains, which means wildfire risk is high.
Amid changes in climate, this risk has expanded from primarily one season to all
year. This has already resulted in adjustments to the city's wildland fire strategy
and resources. Our community must also be prepared for floods, like we saw in
2013.
• Urbanization and Access: As redevelopment continues within our growth
boundary, some parts of the city are becoming more urban. In the last 10 years,
3,270 dwelling units have been constructed, and more than five million square
feet of commercial and industrial space have been built in a city footprint that has
remained about the same. This can have a compounding effect on call volume.
For instance, Boulder Fire-Rescue has experienced a 30% increase in calls since
2007, during which the population only increased by 13%. Affordability is a key
issue facing the community. Future growth projections based on zoning estimate
that more than 80% of new housing units will be in attached/multi-unit buildings.
Depending on how this development occurs, however, these factors could pose
challenges for fire and emergency medical service delivery such as access to
buildings and units and street size/grid changes.
The second major theme identified is related to the role that BFR should play in EMS
delivery. BFR responded to approximately 11,000 incidents in 2017, of which 80% were
EMS related. With the expected increase in population and aging demographic, the EMS
related call volume is likely to continue to increase. Providing quality care and improved
patient outcomes is a priority for BFR. Moreover, since EMS represents the majority of
fire department response activity, transitioning to a fire-based EMS model would allow
BFR to have more direct influence on the EMS delivery system, including the ability to
implement innovative response models and ensuring local control of patient care
delivery.
Modeling suggests that a proposed fire-based EMS system operating with three
ambulances and embedding paramedics on existing engine and truck companies could
improve response times for all hazards in the city, particularly in ALS situations. Such a
system would increase the number of ALS units from 2 units to 11 units by embedding
paramedics on engine and truck companies. This is projected to extend 4-minute travel
time ALS coverage to 98 percent of the city. See Attachment C – EMS White Paper for
additional Information.
Additional benefits of such a system could include the ability to recover expenses for
operating the system by assuming patient transport. Under the current model, this is not
possible, and the city is unable to recover the $535,000 EMS subsidy it pays to AMR.
City Council Study Session Page 8 of 384
6
The department is currently working with a consulting firm to finalize and vet these
findings for inclusion in the master plan.
Finally, the department has been actively involved in public engagement to gather
feedback from various stakeholder groups in the city. Preliminary analysis of these
engagement opportunities have reinforced the strategies identified earlier. These outreach
efforts have identified:
• That the top three risks that are concerns to residents and their family are: 1)
emergency medical services, 2) wildfire response and mitigation, and 3) structure
fire suppression. 92% of these respondents are either very likely or likely to
support BFR playing a role in ALS delivery and 88% are either very likely or
likely to support additional funding to support the delivery of these services.
• When asked what the top three factors were in their decision to support BFR
playing a role in ALS care were: 1) lower average response times, 2) a greater
availability of ALS units in the City, and 3) continuity of care from the scene to
the hospital. In addition, feedback was received that supported alternative
response models for high-volume, low-acuity incidents.
• That the community values an emphasis on community risk reduction, in
particular increased public awareness and education. In addition, utilizing
proactive mitigation related to wildfire has been communicated to staff. These
issues were identified during a focus group involving alumni of BFR’s citizens
academy.
NEXT STEPS
BFR will continue to be actively engaged in seeking public comment through several
avenues and to refine the themes identified during the first half of 2018. BFR will present
another check-in of the master planning efforts as an information packet to council in
October 2018 which will focus on a final presentation of the community feedback
received and preliminary strategies for inclusion in the master plan.
The general timeline for the remaining steps are as follows:
Community Engagement – Summer/Fall 2018
• BFR will continue to participate in a series of public outreach, digital
engagement and the administration of a statistically-valid community survey
to refine and prioritize strategies. Once broad focus areas are confirmed, the
associated strategies to achieve them must be developed and prioritized based
on available funding and other criteria.
• Internal stakeholder engagement will begin in Fall of 2018, including
engaging other city departments to help evaluate these strategies and further
identify areas of improvement.
City Council Study Session Page 9 of 384
7
Draft Plan – Winter 2018/Spring 2019
• Community members will have opportunities to review and comment on the
draft plan as it gets reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council.
Final Plan – Fall 2019
• The final version of the Master Plan will integrate feedback gathered
throughout the entire process. The Master Plan will also have measurable
outcomes for tracking progress over time.
Plan Implementation – Beginning winter 2019
• Boulder Fire-Rescue will use the Master Plan to guide development of annual
work plans and collaborate with the community and agency partners during
implementation.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
Attachment B – BFR Roadmap to Continuous Improvement
Attachment C – EMS White Paper
Attachment D – Communications Strategy (in support of Engagement Plan shared in
June 2018)
Attachment E – Master Plan Workplan
City Council Study Session Page 10 of 384
Community Risk Assessment / Standard of
Cover
Boulder Fire Rescue
2018
June 7, 2018
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 11 of 384
1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 12 of 384
2
Mayor Suzanne Jones
Deputy Mayor Aaron Brockett
Council Members Cindy Carlisle
Jill Adler Grano
Lisa Morzel
Mirabai Kuk Nagle
Sam Weaver
Bob Yates
Mary Young
City Manager Jane S. Brautigam
Fire Chief Michael Calderazzo
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 13 of 384
3
Document Information
Title: Boulder Fire Rescue: Community Risk Assessment / Standard of Cover
Authors: Carol Brown, Jeff Long, Lindsay Walters, Wendy Korotkin
Version: 3
Document Validation and Update Log
Description Author Version Date
Section 1 & 2 Brown/Long/Walters 1 2016
1st Edits Korotkin 2 April 1, 2018
1st Draft Korotkin 3 April 25,2018
Edits Tregay 3 June 5, 2018
Final Korotkin 4 June 7, 2018
The Community Risk Assessment / Standard of Cover (CRA/SOC) for BFR shall be updated on an annual basis to
ensure it remains a living document. The CRA/SOC serves as one of the planning documents for the department.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 14 of 384
4
Introduction
This document serves as the Boulder Fire-Rescue (BFR) Community Risk Assessment / Standard of Cover
(CRA/SOC) Document.
The CRA/SOC serves as the primary deployment planning and resource allocation tool for BFR. The purpose of
the document is to balance the assessed risks faced by the community and mitigate those through Community
Risk Reduction approaches that include planning, response, education, and prevention. Contained within the
CRA/SOC is information pertaining to station and apparatus locations, response trends, the specific risks faced
by the citizens of the City of Boulder, and outlines BFR’s level of service for response-based programs. The
CRS/SOC describes the roles and responsibilities of each program area, and highlights deployment strategies and
operational elements required to maintain the stated level of service. In addition, the document contains data
elements and recommendations to enhance the Department’s performance. The primary goals of the
Department are to improve service delivery and increase safety for the citizens of The City of Boulder.
The CRA/SOC and it’s recommendations are then connected to the Fire-Rescue Master Plan, a process which
most departments in the City of Boulder use to guide the provision of services and construction of supporting
facilities. Master plans establish; detailed policies; priorities; service standards; and facility and system needs.
The master plan is intended to guide BFR for the next 10 years to meet the community’s service standards and
sustainability goals.
The Master Plan and the CRA/SOC are also in support of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) which is
a joint planning effort between the City and Boulder County. Among the objectives included in the BVCP is the
aim of informing decisions about how services such as police, fire, water utilities and others are provided. The
BVCP is used to guide long-range planning, the review of development proposals and other activities that shape
the built and natural environments in the Boulder Valley. The plan helps the community create and preserve a
sustainable future for the Boulder Valley and a high quality of life. The plan provides a general statement of the
community’s desires for future development and preservation of the Boulder Valley, and the city and county use
it to guide long-range planning, the review of development proposals and other activities that shape the built
and natural environments in the Boulder Valley.
One of the challenges within the fire service is keeping pace with an increasing demand for its services. The
CRA/SOC provides department management with a process to constantly measure and evaluate the level and
quality of service delivered to the community. It also provides quantitative data to justify financial requests
made to the City Council. The CRA/SOC ultimately assists the Department in ensuring a safe and effective
response force for structural and wildland fire suppression, emergency medical incidents, hazardous materials,
and specialty response situations.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 15 of 384
5
Contents
Document Information .......................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
Section I: Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................. 8
Location ............................................................................................................................. 10
Geology ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
Physiography ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Climate ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
Government ....................................................................................................................... 14
Department Funding ........................................................................................................... 14
Priority Based Budgeting ..................................................................................................... 16
Section II: Documentation of Area Characteristics ................................................................ 18
Topography ........................................................................................................................ 18
Development Within the Service Area ........................................................................................................... 19
Demographics ................................................................................................................................................. 20
Population ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
City Planning Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 32
Transportation ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Rail .................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Airport ............................................................................................................................................................. 36
Water Supply .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Service Area ....................................................................................................................... 43
Planning Areas ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Boulder County Jurisdictions .......................................................................................................................... 46
Automatic and Mutual Aid .............................................................................................................................. 47
Boulder County Cooperators .......................................................................................................................... 47
Section III: Description of Agency Programs and Services ..................................................... 49
History of Boulder Fire Rescue ....................................................................................................................... 49
Organization .................................................................................................................................................... 51
Operations ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Support Services ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Communications ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Facilities and Apparatus ...................................................................................................... 59
Station 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 61
Station 2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 62
Station 3 .......................................................................................................................................................... 63
Station 4 .......................................................................................................................................................... 63
Station ............................................................................................................................................................. 65
Station 6 .......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Station 7 .......................................................................................................................................................... 67
Station 8 .......................................................................................................................................................... 68
Boulder Regional Fire Training Center ............................................................................................................ 69
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 16 of 384
6
Insurance Services Office (ISO) ........................................................................................... 70
Community Expectations ..................................................................................................... 71
Section IV: All-Hazard Risk Assessment and Response Strategies .......................................... 75
Natural and Community-Wide Hazards ................................................................................. 75
Drought ........................................................................................................................................................... 77
Earthquake ...................................................................................................................................................... 78
Tornado ........................................................................................................................................................... 78
Major Flooding ................................................................................................................................................ 78
Natural disasters ............................................................................................................................................. 81
Critical Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................................ 82
Probability and Consequence ............................................................................................... 82
Fire Risk ........................................................................................................................................................... 85
Smoke Detectors ............................................................................................................................................. 86
Wildland Fire Risk ............................................................................................................... 97
Wildfire Risk Categories .................................................................................................................................. 99
Recent Wildfires ............................................................................................................................................ 100
Emergency Medical Services Risk ....................................................................................... 101
Maximum Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 101
High Risk ........................................................................................................................................................ 102
Top 25 Medical/Assist Locations 2017 ......................................................................................................... 102
Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................... 103
Section V: Current Deployment and Performance ............................................................... 104
Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................................. 106
Overall Incident Information .............................................................................................. 107
Incident volume by 911 call type .................................................................................................................. 107
Emergency Unit Responses ........................................................................................................................... 108
Unit Changes Year over Year: 2015-2017 ..................................................................................................... 108
Call Distribution by hour of day, weekday, month: ...................................................................................... 109
Property and Content Loss ........................................................................................................................... 110
Incidents Day vs. Night .................................................................................................................................. 110
911 Calls ........................................................................................................................................................ 110
Call Processing by Time of Day ..................................................................................................................... 111
Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 112
Community Baselines.................................................................................................................................... 113
Defining System Performance ............................................................................................ 113
Distribution ................................................................................................................................................... 113
Location of Incidents ..................................................................................................................................... 116
Specialty Unit responses ............................................................................................................................... 119
Reliability ...................................................................................................................................................... 119
Unit Hour Utilization .......................................................................................................... 121
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 124
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 124
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 125
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 125
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 126
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 17 of 384
7
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 126
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 127
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 127
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 128
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 128
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 129
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 129
Incident Outcome Types ............................................................................................................................... 130
Incidents by Time of Day ............................................................................................................................... 130
Concentration ............................................................................................................................................... 131
Time Components ......................................................................................................................................... 131
Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................................... 131
Baseline Performance ................................................................................................................................... 131
HazMat .......................................................................................................................................................... 132
EMS ............................................................................................................................................................... 132
Fire ................................................................................................................................................................ 132
Low ................................................................................................................................................................ 132
CAD: HAZMINF-Minor hazmat response ...................................................................................................... 132
CAD: HAZMAJF-HAZMAT major response .................................................................................................... 132
CAD: HAZMFULLF-Countywide Hazmat ........................................................................................................ 132
Critical Tasking .............................................................................................................................................. 132
System Performance ......................................................................................................... 133
FIRE ................................................................................................................................ 133
Low Risk Fire ................................................................................................................................................. 133
Moderate Risk Fire ........................................................................................................................................ 135
Wildland Fire Risk ......................................................................................................................................... 137
EMS ................................................................................................................................. 139
High Acuity EMS ............................................................................................................................................ 140
Low Volume Incidents ....................................................................................................... 142
Hazmat ............................................................................................................................ 142
Low Risk Hazmat ........................................................................................................................................... 143
Moderate Risk Hazmat ................................................................................................................................. 145
High Risk Hazmat .......................................................................................................................................... 146
Section VI: Evaluation of Current Deployment and Performance .......................................... 148
EMS Delivery .................................................................................................................... 149
Section VII: Plan for Maintaining and Improving Response Capabilities ................................ 150
Factors Driving the Need for Change.................................................................................. 150
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 18 of 384
8
Section I: Jurisdiction Profile
During the 19th century, explorers Zebulon Pike, Stephan Long, and John Fremont, were commissioned to
explore the Boulder area. What was once unfit for settlement soon became a location of interest when William
Gilpin, who later became the first governor of the Colorado Territory, reported findings of gold (About Boulder,
2015). The first settlement in Boulder County was established at Red Rocks, now known as Settler’s Park, by
gold-seekers on October 17, 1858. One of the settlers, A.A. Brookfield, organized the Boulder City Town
Company on February 10, 1859. From there, Boulder became a city. Sixty shareholders divided the 1,280 acres
along Boulder Creek into 18 lots for each party. The remaining lots were put up for sale for $1000 each. Due to
the high price of the lots, Boulder’s growth rate remained low at only 324 by 1860. At that time, Boulder City
was part of the Nebraska Territory; Boulder did not become the county seat until February of 1861. Then, in
1867, a Federal Bill established the Territory of Colorado.
While mining played an important role in bringing people to Boulder, the development of a strong agricultural
industry encouraged people to stay. The town of Boulder was officially incorporated on November 3, 1871.
Residential areas appeared in the Downtown, Mapleton Hill and Whittier Districts. Then, when commercial
activities expanded in the downtown core, houses began to disappear from the Downtown District.
Accompanying mining and agriculture, education has remained prominent for Boulder’s identity. Boulder is the
home of the first schoolhouse in Colorado, located on the corner of Walnut and 15th Street. Citizens successfully
lobbied the state legislature in the 1860s to have the state university located in Boulder, however the actual site
was not made available until 1872 when six Boulder citizens donated 44.9 acres for the project. In 1874, the first
building was constructed when the state appropriated $15,000 and the funds were matched by community
donation; “Old Main” was built on the southern end of town, in an area known as “The Hill”, and still stands
today. In 1877, the University of Colorado opened to a total of forty-four students, one professor, and a
President.
The first private school in Boulder, Mount St. Gertrude Academy, was opened in 1892. The City of Boulder, by
then accessible to visitors by railroad, was known as a community with a prosperous economy, a comprehensive
educational system, and well-maintained residential neighborhoods. It was no wonder that the railroad
recommended Boulder as a site for a Chautauqua in 1897. Residents passed a bond issue to buy the land, and
the now familiar Chautauqua Auditorium was built. Additionally, growth of the University of Colorado at the
turn of the century led to the development of parts of University Hill. For residents, one mark of elegance was
the installation of flagstone sidewalks in the 1880s.
Visitation to Boulder has always been vastly connected to Chautauqua Park. In 1898, a group of Texans
searching for a retreat decided on Boulder and ultimately built one of the nation’s most beautiful vacation spots.
Completed July 4th, 1898, Chautauqua was particularly important for the area as its creation marked the
beginning of Boulder's parks and open space land purchasing for preservation. This type of effort became one of
Boulder's top priorities, and still is today. The day after Chautauqua's grand opening, the City of Boulder
purchased the eastern slope of Flagstaff Mountain from the United States Government.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 19 of 384
9
By 1905, Boulder City Council members wanted to provide visitors “the comfort of a first-class hotel”; The Hotel
Boulderado contained the first mechanized elevator west of the Mississippi River. The Hotel Boulderado, along
with its original elevator, are still in operation today.
In 1908, Boulder hired landscape architect Fredrick Law Olmstead Jr. to consult with them on how to best plan
the city. The son of the creator of New York City’s Central Park had recommendations which included putting
wires underground and keeping streetlights beneath tree level. Most importantly, Olmstead Jr. also cautioned
them about suburban developers, “dirty industries,” and pandering to tourists. Olmstead Jr. stated that above
all, Boulder must be a beautiful, prosperous town where people would spend their lives. Boulder would not be a
place to make money before getting out.
In 1949, Boulder citizens, sensing an opportunity, bought up 217 acres of land and beat out 11 other cities to
make that site the home of the National Bureau of Standard’s new Radio Propagation Laboratory, when
President Harry Truman issued an order to stop the clustering of major buildings in Washington, D.C. .The fear of
a Soviet nuclear attack sparked the expansion of the nation's basic research labs. Three years later, the
government made greater Boulder the site of Rocky Flats, a 27-building nuclear weapons manufacturing facility
south of Boulder. Eventually, the government made Boulder the site of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, and IBM moved its tape drive manufacturing division to the city. This later led to the founding of
storage start-ups StorageTek, Exabyte, and McData.
With exceptional growth, sprawl seemed inevitable. After the city council scheduled an election for bonds to
expand a water treatment plant, citizens asked the Council to create a Blue Line at 5750 ft. elevation beyond
which water lines would not be extended. Citizens petitioned requiring the council to put the item on the ballot.
On July 21, 1959, the voters approved the Blue Line and defeated the water plant expansion. Above this line, the
city would not provide water or sewer services to protect the view.
Additionally, during this decade, new subdivisions were planned, including the Highland Park-Martin Acres
neighborhood located on the historic Martin Farm, and the North Boulder developments from Balsam north,
originally part of the Tyler Farm. New neighborhoods brought the city's first two shopping centers, North
Broadway and Basemar, in the northern and southern parts of the city. Science and tech industries had doubled
Boulder's population from 1950 to 1960 and then jumped to 67,000 during the 1970s. In 20 years, from 1950 to
1970, the population grew by roughly 50,000 people 1.
The City of Boulder began a period of infill and re-use of its past architectural development after the purchase of
thousands of acres of open space beginning in 1967, adopting the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in 1970,
and the passage of the building height restriction ordinance in 1972. Residents instituted a special 0.4 percent
sales tax to purchase preserved land or "green space" around the city. With citizen advocacy, City Manager Ted
Tedesco and council put a one-cent sales tax on the ballot with 40% going to open space and 60% to
transportation. The open space was a green belt to limit overdevelopment and protect the environment. It was
approved by 61% of the voters and became the nation’s first voter-approved sales tax for open space 2.
1 Boulder Economic Council, 2011
2 Livable Boulder
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 20 of 384
10
This type of urban growth boundary hindered developers to preserve nature. Encircling the city with green
space had several implications for emergency response. Due in part to the limited space causing real estate
prices in Boulder to be as much as 1.5 times higher than the rest of the Denver-Metro area and the city’s limited
new housing (2 % per year) (Boulder Economic Council, 2011), few emergency responders live within the city
limits. This creates a significant staffing delay during emergency situations.
Many Boulder workers commute to the city creating heavy traffic patterns each morning and evening. This
ultimately impedes emergency response times. Moreover, the urban growth boundary in the form of green
space surrounding Boulder, geographically isolates the city; Most surrounding fire agencies are too far away to
provide immediate response support and as a result, most needs for assistance are covered by mutual aid
requests rather than automatic aid agreements.
Despite exceptional growth and some of the issues associated with maintaining it, the Boulder community was
able to maintain eccentricity and geographic beauty. Boulder is known today for its emphasis on environmental
preservation, education, and outdoor quality of life. While great change has ultimately altered the city since the
cities beginnings, breathtaking views, higher education, federal research, and entrepreneurial spirit were
fostered throughout its transformation. Boulder’s charm is unrivaled among American cities and it continues to
maintain and promote these characteristics today.
Location
The City of Boulder is located at the base of the foothills of the Rocky Mountains at an elevation of 5,430 feet
(1,655 m) above sea level.[9] The city is 25 miles (40 km) northwest of Denver.
The city of Boulder is the county seat of
Boulder County which is home to more than
300,000 residents and includes some of the
most diverse, natural landscapes and
sustainable development along the
Northern Front Range of Colorado. The city
of Boulder is the 11th most populous
municipality in the state of Colorado.
Image 1. State of Colorado
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 21 of 384
11
Boulder Quick Facts Square Miles: 25.8 Elevation: 5430’ Population Density: Urban Waterways: 1 sq. mile
Map 1. Map of Boulder
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 22 of 384
12
Geology
Two geologic provinces come together in the Boulder area. The eastern province is the Great Plains, ranging
from flatlands to rolling hills, and the western province is the Rocky Mountains. The north-south front where the
two meet is called the Front Range. There were several active glaciers in the mountains west of Boulder. Glacial
deposits and erosional features can be seen in the mountains west of the city 3.
There are no active fault lines near Boulder, there are however, a few recorded earthquakes in the region.
Several small quakes, and one 5.3 magnitude earthquake occurred in the late 1960’s just north east of Denver.
These quakes were attributed to deep injection of liquid waste at Rocky Mountain arsenal, just south east of
Boulder 4.
Physiography
The varying fuels change within the elevation zones throughout the area and do so depending on the diverse
aspects of the slopes. The difference in exposure produces marked variations in short horizontal distances,
creating micro climates. A south facing slope
will support dryland plant forms such as
juniper, mountain mahogany, bunchgrass,
yucca, and cactus. Whereas, a nearby north-
facing slope might harbor boreal forms such
as Douglas-fir, spruce, aspen, wild rose, and
even mosses. The extreme terrain variations
work to create many saddles, chimneys, and
canyons. These features contribute to funnel
wildfire events through the varied fuels;
combined with urban development, there is
an extremely complicated wildland/urban
interface situation compounded by weather
extremes and wind events. The inverse of the
wildfire scenario is severe flooding,
particularly in burn scar areas. The City of
Boulder has been identified as having one of the largest potentials for flash flooding within Colorado. The
historic flooding of 2013 provided an extreme example of that potential. The vulnerability to flash flooding is
due to the city’s geographical location at the base of the Rocky Mountains. It is perhaps the municipality's most
probable community risk. Within the City of Boulder’s 100-year floodplain there are thousands of people and
approximately 3,600 structures which have an assessed valuation of almost $1 billion.
3 US EPA EMPACT Program, 2016
4 Colorado Earthquake Hazards Mitigation Council, 2013
Map 2. Boulder Business Districts
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 23 of 384
13
Climate
Due to altitude and distance from any significant body of water, Boulder County is very dry. However, the
climate is as varied as the topography. Summer temperatures frequently reach the upper 90 degrees with low
humidity. Boulder receives an annual average of 18.17 inches of moisture, which means that sunshine is enjoyed
most days. An average year will bring 245 days of sunshine to the region.
Spring is typically windy with highly variable weather - an occasional blizzard, large temperature changes and an
occasional gentle rain are all possibilities. Winters are usually dry with some periods of heavy or windblown
snow, some very cold temperatures, and some surprisingly warm days. With wind and abundant sunshine, even
a heavy snow will melt within days, if not hours. Either a warm sunny day following a storm will produce rapid
melting, or the wind in the area will simply sublimate the snow all together 5.
The proximity to the continental divide allows Boulder to experience some of the strongest winds in the
continental United States with gusts of 140 miles per hour or more. The wind associated with weather systems
pushing up and over the western side of the divide encounter relatively little terrain to disrupt their flow before
reaching Boulder. Boulder’s windiest months are January and December, but large wind events have occurred in
every month of the year. Historically large wildland fires reveal that most are wind-driven, fall or wintertime
events 6
Both Chinook and Bora winds have an impact on the climate in Boulder. Chinook winds form around Boulder
when a high-pressure system is sitting west of the continental divide and a low to the east. The greater the
difference in pressure between the low on the lee side and the high on the windward side, the more forceful
and rapid the high pressure will flow to the low pressure. In Boulder, Chinook winds occur down the eastern
5 Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2014
6 OEM
Table 1. Boulder’s monthly average temperatures, rainfall, and snowfall
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 24 of 384
14
slope of the Front Range. Chinook winds have been known to reach up to 140 miles per hour and regularly reach
70 miles per hour. Chinook winds are warm drying winds typically driving relative humidity to single digits 7.
Bora winds are cold, dry winds originating in the northwest. They are usually associated with a passing cold front
and are abundant in the fall and spring. Bora winds will affect a larger area than a Chinook wind but are not
quite as strong. Typical gusts range from 50-60 mph 8.
Because of dry climate and winds associated with fall weather, wildfire activity in autumn is a concern. Still,
Boulder treats its fire season as a year-round threat. This is especially important for Boulder Fire-Rescue
Department as wildland efforts are not limited to a season.
Government
The City of Boulder has a council-manager form of government where the 9-seat, at-large elected City Council
sets policies and the council-appointed city manager administers them. The City Manager’s Office consists of the
city manager, two deputy city managers, a policy advisor and support staff. The office ensures the proper
management of city operations and public representation and participation. Boulder Fire-Rescue (BFR) is one of
the city’s 19 departments that fall under the operational purview of the City Manager’s Office. The fire chief
reports directly to the City Manager.
The mission of the City Manager's Office is to:
• Champion an engaged, collaborative, and innovative organizational culture;
• Provide professional leadership in the administration and execution of city policy as established by
council;
• Establish relationships and partnerships to implement community priorities
Department Funding
As of 2018, Boulder Fire-Rescue Department (BFR) receives 99.5 percent of its $20.65 million in funding from the
General Fund. The General Fund supports 35 percent of the city’s $389.2 million budgeted expenditures.
Additionally, BFR receives .5 percent of its funding from the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department’s’
Open Space Fund to support wildfire response management (see Table 1, 2018 Fire Budget Summary). In 2018,
the General Fund is set to receive 42 percent of its $143.5 million in revenue from Sales and Use Tax, 25 percent
from property tax, and the remaining 33 percent from a combination of fees, cost allocation transfers, and other
miscellaneous taxes. As a General Fund department, BFR is largely dependent upon the city’s sales and use tax
and property tax proceeds to fund its operations.
When considering BFR expenditures by category, personnel expenses account for 84 percent of the total budget
and operating expenses account for 11 percent. The remaining 5 percent of funds are reserved for
interdepartmental charges. With most of its annual appropriation allocated to personnel and interdepartmental
charges, there is little opportunity to enhance existing programs through re-allocation. Specific new
appropriation from either the general fund or other city revenue sources are required for new programs or
capital needs.
7 Tweit,1990
8 Waddell, 2016
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 25 of 384
15
BFR works through the city’s annual budget development process to secure expanded funding for new programs
or initiatives as well as maintain funding for existing services. This process is a 9-month collaborative effort that
begins with Council established work plan items that are set against the backdrop of economic conditions and
the accepted prioritization of city programs and services (see Priority Based Budgeting section). Council and
community budget priorities filter down to the organization through the City’s budget making committee called
the Executive Budget Team (EBT). The EBT is a city manager selected subset of department directors that helps
the city manager establish budget policies and provide the strategic budget vision for all city departments. BFR
develops its annual budget independently at first and then engages with the EBT in a formalized manner
throughout the budget process. This results in an EBT-approved departmental budget that is aligned with
citywide strategy. It ultimately gets included in the annual budget that the City Manager submits to City Council
for adoption.
Table 2. 2018 Fire Summary Budget
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 26 of 384
16
In 2018, BFR changed its internal budgeting method to program-based budgeting that provides programs with
funding that’s tied to performance measures. These measures are intended to support performance measures
supported with specific funding streams. Departmental master planning is focused on aligning the design of
departmental operations, programs, and annual spending plans with stated community priorities under the
Sustainability Framework.
The Sustainability Framework serves as the first checkpoint in planning departmental investments. By designing
new initiatives to serve the categories within the framework, BFR can ensure that planned activities are
supporting community priorities and are funded in accordance with those priorities. The second checkpoint in
planning departmental investments is the annual Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) score analysis.
Priority Based Budgeting
PBB is the iterative process of prioritizing city
programs in terms of their influence on
achieving defined “results” which are the
high level, overarching objectives that
represent the priorities of city council and the
community.
PBB results were originally defined as a part
of the 2011 budget process and continue to
receive annual updates as needed. One of
PBB’s primary objectives is to ensure that,
through sound fiscal planning, the city
achieves an ongoing financial balance
between the amount of funding available and the cost of providing services and programs. PBB contributes to
the city’s long-term financial sustainability and allows the City of Boulder to serve its residents in the most
effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible manner possible. All programs are scored on multiple criteria that
determine how valuable they are in meeting community priorities. For the purposes of analysis, all program
Image 2. Priority Based Budgeting score analysis
Image 3. City of Boulder Sustainability Framework
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 27 of 384
17
scores are divided into quartiles that represent four levels of value. The first quartile (Q1) includes programs that
scored in the top 25 percent. The second quartile (Q2) includes the next 25 percent of program scores, and so
on.
According to a community survey conducted by the city in 2016, emergency response is generally a high priority
for citizens. The bulk of BFR spending scores in the top 25 percent of all community programs (Q1) administered
by the city (Chart 1). Quartile 1 includes fire response and emergency medical response along with hazardous
material releases response and training. Quartile 2 then focuses on inspections and code enforcement, fire
investigation, fire code permits, and the office of emergency management. Quartile 3 maintains spending for
departmental vehicle and equipment maintenance and replacement, public fire and safety education, juvenile
fire setter intervention, and wildland operations, planning, mitigation, and coordination.
These high scores are largely a result of very strong alignment with the SAFE COMMUNITY result within the
sustainability framework. Additionally, priorities in Quartile 4 include contracts with Rocky Mountain Rescue
Group, ambulance contracts, SWAT support for the police department, and water search and rescue, recovery,
and training.
Checking future initiatives against current budget priorities is important because it ensures that the city
allocates funding to areas that have been broadly embraced as community priorities. More specifically, it
ensures that the largest amounts of funding will be matched to the highest priorities.
Table 3. 2011-2017 PBB Spending
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 28 of 384
18
Section II: Documentation of Area Characteristics
The City of Boulder is home to
the University of Colorado, the
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), the
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), as well as many other
science and technology-based
companies. It is also the home
training base for hundreds of
world-class athletes.
The city is located along
Boulder Creek at the base of
the foothills of the Rocky
Mountains, roughly 18.5 miles east of the continental divide and 35 miles northwest of Denver. Canyons create
steep, rugged terrain along the western edge of the city along the transition from the foothills to the plains. The
canyons also serve as a funnel for strong winds into the city which have caused damage to homes and
infrastructure due to their role in fueling the wildfire potential.
Topography
The City of Boulder covers an area of 25.8 square miles. Positioned in Boulder Valley where the Rocky
Mountains meet the Great Plains, the city is surrounded by over 45,000 acres of land that has been preserved
and protected. Wildlife habitat, unique geologic features, greenways and 145 miles of hiking trails are all
managed by the city’s Open Space and Mountain Parks. West of the city are slabs of sedimentary stone tilted up
on the foothills, known as the Flatirons. The Flatirons are a widely recognized symbol of Boulder.
A variety of fuel types are present in and around Boulder caused by elevation differences. Typically, the lower
elevations are dominated by grasslands, tall grass prairie remnants and riparian vegetation (including cattails,
cottonwoods and other riparian hardwoods and shrubs) growing along water courses and in drainages. This fuel
type exhibits the most aggressive burning, even at night. Above 7500’, Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) become more prevalent primarily on north facing slopes. There are also
dense riparian shrub corridors and open canopy woodlands broken by large grassy meadows in this area. Fire
occurrence here is lower and fire behavior is reduced 9.
9 Colorado Natural Heritage Program,2009
Image 4. City of Boulder aerial view
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 29 of 384
19
At 8500’, Lodgepole Pine becomes common. Fire occurrence here is rare and does not usually present control
problems unless drought and wind are involved. Elevations above 9500’ are predominantly short-needle
conifers or a spruce-fir fuel type. At approximately 11,500’ is the tree line and the tundra begins. Fire occurrence
here is very rare (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2009) . The primary water flow through the city is Boulder
Creek. The creek was named well ahead of the
city's founding for the large granite boulders
that have cascaded into the creek over time. It
is from Boulder Creek that the city is believed
to have taken its name. Boulder Creek has
significant water flow, derived primarily from
snow melt and minor springs west of the city.
The creek is a tributary of the South Platte
River.
Development Within the Service
Area
Boulder has a diverse economy. Industries
with a significant presence in the area include
aerospace, bioscience, data storage, light
manufacturing, natural and organic products,
outdoor recreation, photonics, professional
and scientific services, renewable energy and
energy research, software, and tourism.
While most of the city’s employers are small
businesses, several major corporations, Map 8. Boulder’s elevation in feet
Image 5. Boulder Flatirons
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 30 of 384
20
including Amgen, Ball, Cisco, Emerson, Google, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, and Northrop Grumman, have
a presence in Boulder.
Research institutions include the University of Colorado Boulder and more than a dozen federally funded
research laboratories including the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This diversity
buffers the effects of economic downturns and contributes to the area’s economic vitality.
Responding to the loss of several important historic buildings in the 1960s and early 1970s, Historic Boulder, Inc.
drafted a historic preservation ordinance, which City Council unanimously adopted in 1974. The ordinance
established an official municipal process to preserve and protect the historic, architectural, and environmental
assets that contribute to Boulder’s unique sense of place.
With the adoption of the ordinance in 1974, Boulder became one of the first cities in Colorado with the
authority to designate and prevent the demolition or destruction of historic, architectural, and cultural
resources considered valuable to the community. Today, more than 30 communities in Colorado have similar
historic preservation ordinances, many of which are based on Boulder's model.
Protecting significant buildings and neighborhoods helps maintain a connection between Boulder’s past, present
and future generations. Community interest in preservation has resulted in more than 1,300 designated historic
properties in Boulder, including 162 individual landmarks and 10 historic districts.
Figure 1. 2017 Boulder Community Profile
Demographics
BFR serves citizens within and around the city limits of Boulder. The city is classified as a highly developed urban
based population community surrounded by undeveloped wilderness and open space areas. The city had an
estimated total population of 107,349 as of 2015, according to the US Census. This figure includes University of
Colorado (CU) students who live in Boulder. CU Boulder students represent approximately 22% of Boulder’s
population. The University’s presence has a significant effect on the demographic characteristics of Boulder
residents, evidenced by a higher than average percentage of residents in the 18 to 24 age group, high rate of
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 31 of 384
21
renter-occupied housing, relatively high percentage of residents with annual household incomes under $25,000,
and significantly higher levels of educational attainment.
Census data on the next page illustrates the city, county, state, and national population in 2010. After a period
of dramatic increase in population from 1950 to 1970 (averaging nearly 12% a year), Boulder took steps to slow
growth and the city’s population grew an average annual rate of 1.6% from 1970 to 2000. Since 2000, Boulder’s
population has remained relatively stable. By 2035, Boulder’s population is projected to increase to
approximately 119,370, or .8% per year, through that period, according to the 2010 US Census.
The median age of Boulder’s population is 28.8 compared to the national median age of 37.2 years. One third of
the city’s adult population is between 18 and 24, reflecting the influence of the university on the area’s
demographic profile. By comparison, 13% of U.S. adults are 18 to 24.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 32 of 384
22
Table 4. 2010 Demographic Snapshot
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 33 of 384
23
Boulder’s population is highly educated, the Boulder Metropolitan Statistical Area has the nation’s highest
percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher). Ninety-four percent of city residents 25 or older
have a high school diploma and 67% have earned a bachelor’s or advanced degree, more than twice the U.S.
average of 28%. Many factors influence the high number of area residents with college degrees, including the
presence of the university, research labs, and a heavy concentration of business in advanced technology.
Most working residents of Boulder are employed in white collar occupations. Over 60% of the city’s civilian
workforce is employed in managerial, professional, or related occupations compared to 36% of the nation’s
workers.
Chart 2. Educational Attainment of Adults (25+) US Census, 2010 American Community Survey
Chart 1. Age Distribution of Adults 18+ US Census, 2010 American Community Survey
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 34 of 384
24
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Survey illustrates the Boulder area’s high
concentration of employment in computer, mathematical, science, and engineering occupations. Boulder has a
high concentration of computer software engineers (5 times the national average), physicists, hydrologists,
chemists and environmental scientists (3 to 6 times the national average), computer hardware engineers (8
times the national average), and aerospace, electronics and materials engineers (4 to 5 times the national
average). According to the Census data in the table below, the Boulder area also has a higher than average
percentage of residents employed in the educational services, health care, and social assistance, professional,
scientific, management, and administrative industries (2A.7).
The impact of University of Colorado students can be seen when comparing the median household income and
median family income for city residents. While the median household income in City of Boulder is less than the
state, the median family income is significantly higher.
High education levels in the city contribute to a higher than average percentage of residents with household and
family incomes over $100,000 (27%). In contrast, the city’s student population influences a higher than average
percentage of households with incomes under $25,000 (30%).
Annual Income City of Boulder Boulder County Colorado US
Median Household $52,618 $61,859 $54,046 $50,046
Table 5. Employment Industries US Census, 2010 American
Chart 3. Occupation Distribution US Census, 2010 American Community
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 35 of 384
25
Median Family
Per Capita Income
$92,540
$33,981
$86,145
$35,988
$67,800
$28,723
$60,609
$26,059
Table 7. Annual Incomes US Census, 2010 American Community Survey
Boulder’s comparatively high real estate values and percentage of renter-occupied housing are influenced by
the presence of the University of Colorado and the city’s desirable location and amenities. Census data indicates
94% of the city’s housing units were occupied when the survey was conducted in 2010. Owner-occupied housing
represented 47% of occupied housing in the city and the median value of a home was $529,300. Renter-
occupied housing represented 53% of occupied housing units. The median rent in the city was $1,082 per
month. Almost two-thirds of the city’s residents moved into their current homes in 2005 or later, demonstrating
major change in the last decade.
Chart 4. Household Incomes US Census, 2010 American Community Survey
Table 6. Boulder Housing US Census, 2010 American Community Survey
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 36 of 384
26
According to the American Community Survey (2010), 90% of people are Caucasian. This compares to the
national percentage of 76%. Regarding diversity, the state of Colorado lacks some of the diversity from both
Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino populations as compared to national percentages.
Additionally, the City of Boulder has similar representation in percent of foreign born citizens as compared to
national statistics.
Population
Boulder County has an estimated 292,487 residents. Between 1970 and 2000, the county’s population increased
from 131,889 to 291,288 or an average of 4% annually. From 2000 to 2010, the county’s population grew by
0.7%.
Chart 5. Family Incomes US Census, 2010 American Community Survey
Chart 6. Boulder County Population by Municipality
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 37 of 384
27
The American Community Survey estimates that in 2015, the City of Boulder population increased to 107,349
people. In 2016, the University of Colorado (CU) 2016 student enrollment was 32,270. The presence of the
university has a significant effect on the demographic characteristics of the city’s residents, evidenced by a
higher than average percentage of residents in the 18 to 24 age group, high rate of renter-occupied housing, and
a relatively high percentage of residents with annual household incomes under $25,000. Additionally, the
university has an influence on high educational levels of Boulder residents. Boulder is the largest city in Boulder
County and approximately one-third of the county’s residents live in within city limits. Population estimates for
cities within the Boulder County are listed in Chart 9, according to the 2010 Census. Map 10 shows the City of
Boulder’s vulnerable populations. Results from the 2010 Census show that 4.1% of people are under 5 years of
age. Regarding individuals 65 and older, 8.9% of residents fall into this category of vulnerable population.
Map 9. City of Boulder vulnerable populations
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 38 of 384
28
Map 9. Population Density.
Map 10. City of Boulder population density
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 39 of 384
29
City Planning Areas
While the City of Boulder has many zoning areas including residential, commercial, and mixed-use zoning, the
city also plans using a variety of other strategies. For example, the City of Boulder also looks to neighborhoods,
business districts, historical zones, and critical infrastructure before major planning efforts are initiated.
Officially, Boulder has 99 neighborhoods, 8 historic districts, and 4 business districts.
Community Land Use and Zoning
As mentioned previously in the Community Planning Areas/Zones section of this document, the City of Boulder
has several areas considered for planning efforts. Land use and zoning can be broken down into the following
categories: agricultural, business, downtown, industrial, mixed use, public, residential, mobile home, and
“other” types of zoning. Most of green space surrounds the city (see Boulder Parks, Open Space, and Blue Line
map) and therefore is not located within city limits.As demonstrated in the City of Boulder Zoning map below,
the various types of zoning are not particularly concentrated in any one area. Boulder’s significant amount of
Open Space has stayed open because of the Blue Line — an unofficial north-south boundary on the city's west
Map 11. City of Boulder Zoning Map
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 40 of 384
30
side, which in 1959 determined the elevation above which Boulder could not provide water service and
launched the city's modern environment movement in the process.
Map 12. Boulder Historic Districts
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 41 of 384
31
Parks and Open Space
Map 13. Map of Boulder Parks, Open Space, and Blue Line
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 42 of 384
32
Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure are systems or assists needed to maintain minimum services for operation of a
community. Critical infrastructure includes transportation, communications, water, power, and healthcare.
Transportation
Since Boulder has operated under residential growth control ordinances since 1976, the growth of employment
in the city has far outstripped population growth. Considerable road traffic enters the city each morning and
leaves each evening, since many employees live in surrounding communities. Boulder is served by US 36 and a
variety of state highways. Parking regulations in the city have been explicitly designed to discourage parking by
commuters and to encourage the use of mass transit.
The City of Boulder Transportation Division identifies roads, improvements, closures, and access points.
According to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update in 2016, Boulder’s street system is classified by road
type with local streets comprising 71 percent, collector streets comprising 12 percent and arterial streets
comprising 17 percent of the city’s street system. Currently roughly half of the city’s streets have an OCI rating in
Very Good and Excellent ranges. Nearly 80 percent of the street system is rated “Good” or better.
New jobs in Boulder and residential growth throughout the region increase demand on the regional
transportation system. Boulder continues to work with regional partners to improve travel options and the
person-carrying capacity of all the major corridors connecting Boulder to surrounding communities. These
partnerships seek solutions that improve regional travel for everyone, including people who use autos and
transit.
“The City of Boulder’s annual traffic study found that approximately 49,000 vehicles enter Boulder during the
morning rush, which is from 6 to 10 a.m. That is an increase of 2 percent compared to 48,000 vehicles in 2014,
but it remains below the peak year of 2004, when about 51,000 vehicles entered the city during the morning
rush. The 2015 traffic study also found that about 20,000 vehicles leave the city each day during the morning
rush hour 10.”
Over the years, Boulder has made significant investments in the multi-modal network. The city is now well
known for its grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian paths, which are integrated into a network of bicycle
lanes, cycle-tracks, and on-street bicycle routes. Boulder also provides an innovative community transit network
that connects downtown, the University of Colorado campuses, and local shopping amenities. While the city has
no rail transit, local and regional shuttle busses are funded by a variety of sources and emphasize minimal
headways, enhanced route identity, easy fare payment, and community input in design. Due in part to these
investments in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure, Boulder has been recognized both nationally and
internationally for its transportation system.
Boulder has an extensive bus system operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD). The HOP, SKIP,
JUMP, Bound, DASH and Stampede routes run throughout the city and connect to nearby communities. Regional
routes, traveling between nearby cities such as Longmont, Golden, Fort Collins, and Denver, as well as Denver
10 City of Boulder Annual Boulder Valley Count Program
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 43 of 384
33
International Airport, are also
available. There are over 100
scheduled daily bus trips on
seven routes that run
between Boulder and Denver
on weekdays.
Long-term transit plans call for
a 41-mile RTD commuter rail
route called the Northwest
Rail Line proposed to run from
Denver through Boulder to
Longmont, with stops in major
communities along the way.
These future transit plans, as
well as the current Flatiron
Flyer Bus Rapid Transit route,
are part of FasTracks, an RTD
transit improvement plan funded by a 0.4% increase in the sales tax
throughout the Denver metro area.
Boulder, well known for its bicycle culture, boasts
three hundred miles of bicycle-pedestrian paths,
lanes, and routes that interconnect to create a
renowned network of bikeways usable year-
round. Boulder has 74 bike and pedestrian
underpasses that facilitate safer and
uninterrupted travel throughout much of the city.
The city offers a route-finding website that allows
users to map personalized bike routes around the
city. Furthermore, in May 2011, B-cycle bike-
sharing opened in Boulder with 100 red bikes and
12 stations.
Image 7. Public Transportation in Boulder
Image 6. Lakewood Reservoir
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 44 of 384
34
Vision Zero
Boulder has joined leading-edge cities from around the U.S. in setting a goal of zero traffic-related fatalities and
serious injuries. The Transportation Division has formed the Vision Zero Community Partnership Committee to
foster on-going implementation of the city’s safety strategies in collaboration with the broader Boulder
community. This committee brings together community stakeholders to foster partnerships and broad-based
leadership on mitigation strategies to achieve Boulder’s Vision Zero safety goals. The committee includes
representation from the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) as well as local, regional, and state-wide agency
partners and is charged with providing input and offering feedback regarding the Safe Streets Boulder action
plan and co-developing and disseminating VZ safety education and awareness messaging for the greater Boulder
Valley community.
Progress Snapshot
Since 2009, an average of 3,275 collisions per year were reported within the City of Boulder. The percentage of
collisions that resulted in a serious injury or fatality has been relatively flat at 2 percent of all collisions over this
six-year span. The City of Boulder has fewer fatal collisions per capita than similar Colorado cities. While only 8
percent of all traffic collisions in the city involve a bicyclist or pedestrian, they account for approximately 60
percent of serious injuries and fatalities sustained in traffic collisions.
Image 7. Vision Zero Philosophy
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 45 of 384
35
Boulder Top Collision Locations Map & Vision Zero Strategies
An interactive map of Boulder is available on-line. The map highlights top collisions that involve motor vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians from 2012-2014. The website features Vision Zero strategies of engineering,
education, and enforcement to reducing serious injuries and fatalities. A new map of close calls is also featured
in this interactive map to pinpoint any trends and identify possible mitigation measures.
Map 14. Map of Boulder Parks, Open Space, and Blue Line 11
Rail
One railroad travels through the City of Boulder. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the
Union Pacific Railroad (UP). The city of Boulder has declared “quiet zones” at-grade railroad crossing. These
11 http://boulder.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=907a7532db3f41fc9ca94bc22b6ae804
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 46 of 384
36
crossing include physical infrastructure and warning systems so that train engineers are not required to sound
the train horn at the crossing. While this infrastructure is in place to reduce the noise of passing trains, these
safety measures also ensure citizens are aware of the crossings reducing risk.
Airport
In addition to multi-modal ground transportation, Boulder Municipal Airport is located 3 miles (4.8 km) from
central Boulder. It is owned by the City of Boulder and is used exclusively for general aviation, with most traffic
consisting of single-engine airplanes and glider aircraft 12. Boulder Municipal Airport is a general aviation airport,
providing business, private, recreational and emergency aviation services to the City of Boulder and surrounding
communities. Boulder Municipal Airport does not offer commercial airline service.13
Water Supply
The Water Department is charged with the upkeep and maintenance of the water system to include hydrants,
and water mains, as well as to identify system issues which includes outages and improvements. Boulder’s water
supply system includes storage, conveyance, hydroelectric and treatment facilities. The city owns approximately
7,200 acre-feet of reservoir storage space in the North Boulder Creek watershed, 11,700 acre-feet of storage in
Barker Reservoir on Middle Boulder Creek and has up to 8,500 acre-feet of storage space in Boulder Reservoir.
12 Henao,2015
13 Airport Master Plan – https://bouldercolorado.gov/airport/airport-master-plan
Image 8. Aerial view of Boulder Municipal Airport
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 47 of 384
37
Boulder’s two water treatment facilities are the Betasso Water Treatment Facility (WTF), with approximately 45
million gallons per day (MGD) of treatment capacity and the Boulder Reservoir WTF at about 16 MGD. The city
operates eight hydroelectric plants located within the municipal water supply system and sells the electricity to
Xcel Energy. Four of these hydro plants are located on raw water pipelines and four are on treated water
transmission pipeline. Operation of the city’s water system involves intricate relationships between water rights,
water quality, laws and legal agreements, streamflow’s, reservoir storage operations, transmission pipeline
operations, treatment capacity, hydropower production, and water demand.
The availability of sufficient water supplies to meet the city’s needs is only assured by balancing and managing
these factors. The city’s Middle Boulder Creek and North Boulder Creek water rights are fed by watersheds on
the eastern slope just below the continental divide. Boulder also owns rights to the delivery of water from the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) and the Windy Gap Project. Both projects divert water from the western
slope and deliver it through the CBT facilities, which are operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (NCWCD). Like most western communities, Boulder depends on stored water most of the year. High
streamflow from melting snowpack occur for only a few spring and summer months. Natural streamflow in late
summer and the winter are not sufficient to meet customer demands and must be supplemented with
previously stored water supplies. The amount of water available also changes from year to year depending on
how much snow falls in the mountains. Therefore, Boulder must store water in reservoirs during wetter years to
carry over for use in drier years. The city owns seven reservoirs and several natural lakes in the headwaters of
the North Boulder Creek basin within the Silver Lake Watershed. In addition, the city owns Boulder Reservoir
northeast of Boulder and the Barker Reservoir facilities on Middle Boulder Creek.
Image 9. City of Boulder Water Source Facilities, Water Source Master Plan, 2009.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 48 of 384
38
Water Distribution
Boulder receives drinking water from three sources: Arapahoe Glacier and Silver Lake Reservoir (40%), Barker
Reservoir (40%) and the Colorado River (20%) via the Colorado-Big Thompson Transbasin Diversion Project.
Water from Arapahoe Glacier and Barker Reservoir is piped to the Betasso Water Plant. Water from the
Colorado River is piped to Boulder Reservoir through the Boulder Feeder Canal. It is treated at the 63rd Street
Water Treatment Plant. The water goes through a series of treatment steps including: coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration. It is then piped to homes through an extensive distribution system 14.
Water Treatment
Boulder’s wastewater collection system, also known as the sanitary sewer system, consists of underground
pipes that utilize gravity to transport untreated wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial
properties to the city’s Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF), located on 75th Street near Boulder Creek.
Wastewater collected from smaller pipes throughout the city flows downhill into larger pipes known as
“interceptors.” Several large-diameter pipes convey the city’s wastewater to a primary interceptor that delivers
the flow to the WWTF. Once the collected wastewater is delivered to the WWTF, it is sent through a 12 to 24
hour, multi-stage treatment process to disinfect potentially harmful bacteria, viruses and protozoa. Boulder’s
WWTF utilizes physical/mechanical, microbiological and ultraviolet light to treat waste water.
14 Boulder Area Sustainability Information Network
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 49 of 384
39
Image 10. Wastewater Treatment Process (liquid pathway)
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 50 of 384
40
Image 11. Biosolids/Dewatering Process-Solids Process
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 51 of 384
41
Stormwater
According to the City of Boulder Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan, the Boulder Creek
Watershed encompasses roughly 440 square miles and extends from the Continental Divide to the high plains
east of Boulder. There are 15 major drainageways (or creeks) in Boulder. Seventeen sub-basins have been
delineated and the tributary drainageways all eventually lead to the Boulder Creek.
Regarding drainage, the collection system consists of a variety of storm sewers and open drainage ditches that
collect water and divert the water to major drainageways. Irrigation ditches collect stormwater in many places
in the City. Depending on the amount of rainfall, stormwater flows may exceed the capacity of the ditch and spill
from the ditch in an uncontrolled manner. Rather than purely focusing on a structural solution, Boulder adheres
to a series of guiding principles to balance both structural and non-structural solutions. These principles include
maintaining and preserving natural draining, managing runoff, and eliminating drainage problems.
The Stormwater Quality Program manages local activities to preserve, protect, and enhance water quality
affecting Boulder’s streams and drainages. Elements such as water quality regulation, sub-basin management,
and stream enhancement contribute to a comprehensive framework for recognizing trends, philosophies, and
standards while ensuring maximum effectiveness, cost efficiency.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 52 of 384
42
Map 15. City of Boulder stormwater Map
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 53 of 384
43
Service Area
BFR is the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) within the City of Boulder, Colorado’s geographical boundaries.
BFR protects over $21 billion worth of property (2A.5) which encompasses 25.8 square miles of land, and 312
road miles. The city is located within Boulder County and is the county seat. Boulder is the most populous
municipality of Boulder County, and the 11th most populous municipality in the state of Colorado 15. BFR shares
several geographical boundaries with neighboring emergency service agencies. This includes Boulder Rural Fire
Department, Rocky Mountain Fire Department, and Four Mile Fire Department.
15 Boulder Fire Rescue Department,2012
Map 16. BFR service area
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 54 of 384
44
Planning Areas
The City of Boulder is approximately 26 square miles bounded on all sides with established “city limits” border.
The city is classified as a highly developed urban based population community. Much of the land that boarders
the city would be considered as undeveloped wilderness and open space areas. To conduct this risk assessment,
The Department divided the city into five (5) planning zones. These 5 zones where determined by city limits and
major atrial roads within the city (Table XX). Each of the 5 zones was further divided into subzones to gather a
manageable set of data beneficial to determine risk in each zone. (Map of the 5-zones and a 2nd map of the sub-
zones).
Area General Description Area Description Sub-Area
A Gunbarrel Area • Boundary is city limits 01-05
B North Boulder • North of Iris/Linden
• West of Foothills Hwy (28th St.)
01-04
C Central Boulder – West • South of Iris/Linden
• North of Baseline
• West of 30th
01-08
D Central Boulder – East • East of 30th
• North of Baseline
• City limit boundary to the north and east
01-07
E South Boulder • South of Baseline
• City limit Boundary to the west, south and east
01-07
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 55 of 384
45
Fire-Rescue Sub-Zones
Map 17. Station 1st due territories
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 56 of 384
46
Map 18. Automatic Aid Response Areas
Map 16. BFR Sub-Zones
The Boulder Rural Fire Department (BRFD) is responsible for providing service to approximately 25 square miles
in the northern, eastern, and western portions of unincorporated Boulder County surrounding the City of
Boulder. BRFD has 17 full-time career firefighters and is supported by 25 trained volunteer firefighters. BRFD
responds to approximately 1000
calls per year.
Rocky Mountain Fire Department
(RMFD) protects the properties
located in the areas south,
southeast, and west of the City of
Boulder. RMFD has approximately
40 members and staffs two
stations with seven firefighters and
one duty chief.
Four Mile Fire Department (FMFD)
is a combination fire department
located to the west of the city.
FMFD responds to approximately
95 calls per year and has 30
members who regularly respond to
emergencies.
Boulder County
Jurisdictions
Boulder Mountain Fire Protection
District (BMFD) is located to the
northwest of Boulder, Colorado.
This combination fire department
responds to structure fires,
wildland fires, medical
emergencies, motor vehicle
accidents and other community
disasters. BMFD has 1 full time
chief, 3 full time wildland specialists with approximately 50 volunteers operating out of 3 stations 16.
16 http://www.bouldermountainfire.org
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 57 of 384
47
Lefthand Fire Protection District (LFPD) is 52 square miles of rugged ridges, canyons and plains protected by 30
volunteer firefighters. This unique urban interface environment includes five subdivisions and several mountain
neighborhoods.
Mountain View Fire Protection District (MVFPD) is in Weld and Boulder counties consisting of 184 square miles
and a population of approximately 50,000 people. MVFPD is a full-service fire department providing both fire
and emergency medical services. MVFPD serves the communities of Dacono, Erie, Mead, Niwot, and
unincorporated areas of Boulder and Weld counties. MVFD operates out of eight stations, six are staffed with
approximately 100 firefighters, 10-12 part-time firefighters, and two unstaffed stations 17.
Automatic and Mutual Aid
Aside from the State Level Mutual Aid Agreement, BFR has developed reciprocal mutual aid and cooperative
agreements with fire departments in surrounding communities. BFR has automatic aid agreements with both
Boulder Rural Fire Department and Rocky Mountain Fire Department. BFR has cooperative agreements
throughout the State of Colorado and with the federal government in the event of more widespread
emergencies such as a major wildland 18 fires. BFR is also part of the Intergovernmental Agreement for
Emergency Management and the Intergovernmental Agreement for Participation in the Boulder County
Hazardous Material Response Plan. There are specific mutual aid and automatic aid agreements in the form of
letters of understanding (LOU) and contracts with the following districts for various emergency services:
• Contract between city of Boulder and the Hazardous Materials Response Authority
• Contract between city of Boulder and Boulder Emergency Squad
• Contract between city of Boulder and Rocky Mountain Rescue Group, Inc.
• Letter of Understanding between BFR, Boulder Rural, and Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District.
• Letter of Understanding between BFR and Boulder Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD) (2007)
• Mutual Aid Agreement with Denver Metro
The letters of understanding between BFR, Boulder Rural, and Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District impact
operations daily, BFR responds to most of BRFPD’s as an automatic aid resource 19.
Boulder County Cooperators
Rocky Mountain Rescue Group
The Boulder Fire Rescue Department is responsible for assisting in the protection 70.8 square miles of city Open
Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) adjacent to the City of Boulder. Each year, over 5 million people visit and
utilize the 150 miles of trails stretching throughout the 45,000 acres of open space. In order to provide medical
and rescue assistance that is needed within Boulder OSMP, the City of Boulder contracts with Rocky Mountain
Rescue Group (RMR).
17 http://www.mvfpd.org/general/page/about-mvfr
18 Boulder Fire Rescue,2012
19 https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Fire_ops_mgmt_assess_June2011-1-
201305151223.pdf?_ga=1.184622703.759232242.1487041361
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 58 of 384
48
Rocky Mountain Rescue Group is an all-volunteer organization trained and equipped for all weather search and
rescue on mountainous terrain. Founded in 1947, RMR is one of the oldest mountain rescue teams in the
country. RMR is contracted by the City of Boulder as well as the Boulder County Sheriff's Office as the county's
primary mountain rescue agency. Rescue calls are diverse and can involve hikers with sprained ankles, fallen
climbers, searches for missing parties, and evacuation of injured persons. Personnel from BFR will assist RMR in
these rescues and will provide equipment, personnel, and command structure.
In 2015, RMR responded to 94 calls for service in the Boulder Open Space Mountain Park area. From 2010 to
2015, the average call volume was 68 calls per year.
Boulder Emergency Squad
Boulder Emergency Squad (BES) is a volunteer technical search
and rescue team serving Boulder County. BES is the primary dive
rescue agency for Boulder County. Staffed by 42 members in
2015, BES is 100% volunteer supported. The primary source of
funding for BES is the Boulder County Commissioners. BES
works closely with the BFR to provide mutual-aid support for
emergency situations by providing air cascade, lighting support
and traffic control as well as a variety of technical rescue
incident support 20.
Office of Emergency Management
The mission of the Boulder Office of Emergency Management (Boulder OEM) is to
develop, coordinate, and lead a comprehensive emergency management program.
Boulder OEM seeks to enable effective preparation for, efficient response to, and
effective recovery from emergencies and disasters, to save lives, reduce human
suffering, protect resources and develop a more resilient community.
In the event of large-scale natural or technological disasters, the Boulder Fire-
Rescue Department works with other agencies and organizations such as the City of
Boulder/Boulder County Office of Emergency Management (Boulder OEM). The Boulder OEM coordinates with
local, state, and federal partners to facilitate planning and response to emergency situations. Given the
importance of emergency response and recovery planning, the city continuously reviews the coordination with
Boulder OEM to identify any areas of improvement.
The Boulder Office of Emergency Management has emergency management responsibilities for both the City of
Boulder and Boulder County. In addition, Boulder OEM coordinates with state and federal partners, many city
and county departments, public safety agencies, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and private
businesses throughout Boulder County to facilitate coordinated planning and response to emergency situations.
20 http://www.boulderrescue.org
Image12. Dive Team
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 59 of 384
49
Section III: Description of Agency Programs and Services
BFR is a full-time, paid, fire and emergency services department with no volunteer resources. The Department
provides Fire (structural and wildland), and Basic Life Support (BLS) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the
City of Boulder. Aside from fire suppression, BFR supports a multi-jurisdiction HazMat team and a stand-alone
water rescue team.
BFR coordinates with city efforts in the joint city/county Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and acts as
the designated emergency response authority (DERA) for hazardous materials response in the city. In addition to
emergency response, BFR provides fire-safety education to the public, preschool through seniors. Public
education programs include including car seat inspections, an annual Citizen’s Fire Academy, working with local
businesses and organizations by inspecting buildings and reviewing construction plans for fire prevention code
compliance.
BFR protects more than $21 billion dollars’ worth of property within the city which encompasses 25.8 square
miles of land and is surrounded by 70.8 square miles of city Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP). BFR
responded to nearly 12,000 calls in 2017.
“The Boulder Fire-Rescue Department strives to make Boulder a safe place to live, work and play. BFR
reduces the human suffering caused by fires, accidents, sudden illnesses, hazardous material releases,
and other disasters.”
BFR’s current level of service is adequate to deliver the services expected by the community for the majority of
incidents. For those rare incidents that tax the capacity of the department, external agency agreements have
been established to provide additional resources if necessary. This level of service satisfies the expectations of
Boulder citizens and elected officials.
History of Boulder Fire Rescue
Boulder Fire Rescue is legally established and recognized under Title 2 Government Organization, Chapter Five
of the City of Boulder Charter and Revised Code. Section 2-5-2 delegates the authority of the fire department
and directs the responsibilities of the fire department to include without limitation: the suppression or
extinguishment of fires, the provision of rescue and emergency medical services, the provision of fire inspection
and fire prevention services, the management of hazardous substance incidents as defined by state law, and the
planning or response to public disasters and emergencies, including, without limitation, windstorms and
flooding.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 60 of 384
50
Service Delivery Milestones
Chart 7. Timeline of BFR Milestones
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 61 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
51
Addition of Capabilities:
• 2008 - Contracted with AMR to provide dedicated ALS services in Boulder
• 2013 - Began a pilot program for a Light Response Vehicle (LRV) at station one following City Council
goals of a reduction in the department’s carbon footprint. The program was not continued in its original
form due to a lack of effectiveness.
• 2013 - Implemented ProQA, a prioritized emergency medical dispatch system with the hopes of limiting
the number of vehicle responses to low acuity medical calls.
• 2013 - Installation of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) devices on all fire apparatus.
• 2015 - The City of Boulder Emergency Communications Center implemented a new computer aided
dispatch software.
• 2017 – Began the use of First-In station alerting.
Expansion of Service:
• 2012 - Hired an Administrative Battalion Chief (BC) to help support Operations Services
• 2013 - Hired an Administrative Assistant for the Fire Safety and Training divisions
• 2014 - Implemented Smoke and CO detector install service to low income customers
• 2014 - Implemented Citizens Fire Academy
• 2014 - Implemented Car Seat Install Technician problem
• 2016 – Hired a Management Analyst and converted the position in 2018 to a Project Manager – Data &
Analytics to aid in strategic planning and continuous improvement initiatives.
• 2017 – Hired a second public educator to handle the expanded focus on a community risk reduction-
based approach.
• 2018 – Hired a Sr. Budget Analyst to manage the day-to-day functions of fire department finance.
Specialization:
• 2008 - Implemented Blue Card Hazard Zone management into training and operations
• 2008 – Upgrade of Hazmat Unit to be a self-sufficient cross-staffed resource. The prior unit was a trailer
that was limited in capability.
• 2010 - Purchased and outfitted 2 new wildland response vehicles for local and regional response
• 2015 - Completed the building of station 8 which formalized the support of the wildland program with
dedicated space and room for expansion
Organization
The department is led by a fire chief that reports directly to the City Manager. The fire department is staffed by
120 sworn personnel and 9 civilian employees that are assigned to two major administrative branches,
operations and support. Each branch is led by a Deputy Chief, who in addition to the Fire Chief comprise the
executive leadership of the department. These branches are divided by function of providing external customer
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 62 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
52
support (operations) and internal customer support (support). Each branch is staffed commensurately to
support the mission of the agency.
The department’s overall administration is provided by the Office of the Fire Chief and supported by the two
Deputy Chiefs that oversee the branches already described. Administrative support is provided by three
administrative professionals that are assigned to administration, community risk reduction, and training. The
Chief, in this capacity, provides for the overall strategic direction of the department and maintains external
agency relationships.
Operations
Image 13. Operations Org Chart
The Operations Division is directed by the Deputy Chief of Operations, who oversees the Community Risk
Reduction Division, the Wildland Division, and three response Battalion Chiefs. The department staffs seven fire
engines and one ladder truck operating out of seven fire stations working a 48/96-hour, 3-shift schedule. The
minimum staffing on each front-line apparatus is three personnel, with the Battalion Chief having a minimum
Boulder Fire-Rescue DepartmentFire Chief
Administrative Assistant
Support Services DivisionDeputy Fire Chief
Administrative DivisionBattalion Chief
Training DivisionBattalion Chief
Operations DivisionDeputy Fire Chief
Wildland Division Battalion Chief
Community Risk Reduction DivisionChief Fire Marshal
Emergency ServicesBattalion Chief (3)
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 63 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
53
staffing of one. Each shift has one roving Lieutenant, Engineer and six roving Firefighters that are assigned to
vacancies or to increase staffing above minimums.
FTE Employees Min. Staffing Stations Engines Ladders
101 25 FF 1 BC 7 1 1
Table 6. 2018 Operations Minimum Staffing Table
BFR does not rely upon external resources to make up its effective response force for fire suppression, however
the department does rely on American Medical Response (AMR) for the ERF for emergency medical incidents.
The department’s response and deployment standards are based upon the urban population densities, and the
fire demand of the community. The targeted service level objectives in the standards of cover benchmark
statements are based on industry standards and best practices. Each apparatus is equipped with both GPS
technology and a Mobile Data Terminal. The terminals, GPS and the software help to centralize the department
under one system by linking all the apparatus directly to the county’s computer-aided dispatch system. This
ensures that the closest apparatus is dispatched to the incident thus reducing response times.
Wildland Division
The Wildland Division provides planning, mitigation, training, and suppression of wildland within the City of
Boulder and its managed lands. The Division is staffed with nine employees that specialize in wildland fire and
large incident management.
The Wildland Division is directed by the Wildland Division Chief who oversees a Wildland Fire Administrator and
a Wildland Fire Operations Manager who supervises two Wildland Operations Specialists II and four Wildland
Operations Specialists I. The Wildland Division provides planning, mitigation, training, and suppression of
wildland within the city of Boulder and its managed lands. All personnel within the Division have national
experience and are certified through the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG).
The Division provides incident response plans, pre plans, fuels reduction prescriptions, prescribed fire planning,
Wildland mitigation plans and other associated documents to fire department management, as well as, other
City departments that have owned and managed lands throughout the county (OSMP, Utilities, parks and rec).
Along with preplanning, the Division provides the implementation of various fuels reduction projects throughout
the city system. This is done with thinning and prescribed fire.
The Wildland Division also provides wildland fire and incident management training to the fire departments’
front-line responders and support staff. This includes; basic wildland fire fighting through advanced fire tactics,
annual refresher training (including administration of annual work capacity testing), incident management and
various other training modules.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 64 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
54
The training delivered goes beyond the city boundaries and includes external cooperative partners that have city
managed land within their response areas. The Division is responsible for tracking all wildland specific training
and qualifications for all city employees through the state sponsored IQS database system.
The Division also manages the repair, maintenance and readiness of the wildland fire apparatus. BFR operates 3
Type 6 engines and 2 Type 3 urban interface pumpers. Front line response is with either a Type 6 from station 5
or a Type 3 from station 2. The balance of the wildland specific apparatus is housed at fire station 8. This
equipment is maintained in a state of readiness for surge capacity, severity staffing or sent on regional or
national deployments.
Response is managed by multiple agencies. The Division’s operations staff is housed at fire station 8. Initial
attack on city managed lands outside of the municipal boundary is done by various career and volunteer fire
departments. These agencies maintain agreements for services with the City of Boulder. The wildland Division
provides secondary response to any wild fire on or threatening city property. Division staff provides incident
management and coordination of resources. Division staff typically serves in the roles of incident commander,
Division supervisor, or various other command and general staff positions. Most Division staff is used as
members of the county wide Type 3 IMT as well as various positions on regional Type 1 and 2 Incident
Management Teams (IMT).
Emergency Medical Services
The city uses a combined and integrated service network that initiates care from an enhanced 911 emergency
call center operated by the city’s Police Communication Center. First responder services are rapidly initiated
from each of the city’s seven fire stations operated by BFR.
Advanced life support services and patient transport is provided by AMR. The ambulance service is under
contract to Boulder County and the City. Almost all patients requiring follow-up medical care are transported to
Boulder Community Health (BCH), a 265-bed Level II Trauma Center, the highest level available locally. The
hospital is in east-central Boulder. If a level 1 Trauma Center is needed, BCH will transfer patients to Denver
Health 21.
BCH offers 24-hour access to an interventional cardiac catheterization lab, surgery department, imaging and an
18-bed intensive care unit. In addition, BCH is the only facility in Boulder County that performs open heart
surgery. BCH is also nationally certified as a Primary Stroke Center for providing high quality, specialized care
and better outcomes for stroke patients.
There are three aero-medical EMS units (Flight for Life Colorado, Airlife Denver and North Colorado Med Evac)
that provide aero medical transportation for severely injured or ill patients. There are some on-scene referrals,
but most patients are initially transported from Boulder Community Hospital after initial treatment. EMS first
response is provided on the campus of the University of Colorado by BFR with assistance from campus police.
All emergency response personnel from the fire department are trained as Colorado EMTs. All new hires since
the mid-1990’s must obtain and maintain Colorado EMT certification as a condition of employment. The
21 Bch.org
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 65 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
55
department does not utilize or recognize paramedics within it ranks, though there are several individuals who
have achieved this level of certification. The fire department operates eight first-line emergency response units,
including one battalion chief command vehicle. All vehicles carry basic life support supplies and provide initial
response and typically assist AMR personnel in patient care. Fire station personnel and AMR units operate on a
common radio channel and are dispatched to incidents through the city’s 911 Communication Center.
Special Teams
Hazardous Materials Response
Hazardous materials response is a locally provided service mandated by federal law. The law requires Colorado
to develop a hazardous materials response system. The responsibility for the development of this system was
delegated to local jurisdictions by statute. The statute requires local governing bodies to appoint a Designated
Emergency Response Authority (DERA) to responding to hazardous materials emergencies.
For minor hazardous materials incidents, BFR provides a response of 7 personnel operating from two engines
and one Battalion Chief unit. If incidents escalate or are reported as major spills or emergencies, the response is
provided by the Boulder County Hazardous Materials Response Authority (BCHMRA). This entity is comprised of
the fire departments of the cities of Boulder, Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, and the Boulder Rural, Rocky
Mountain, and Mountain View Fire Protection Districts. The BCHMRA is staffed by resources from each of the
partner entities and provides DERA services throughout Boulder County.
According to the BCHMRA IGA, a minimum of 13 Colorado Certified Hazardous Materials Technicians will be
available to respond 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In addition, the following guidelines must be met:
• The BCHMRA will arrive within 90 minutes of initial dispatch of the BCHMRA to each of the following
response areas
o East of Broadway/Hwy 93/U.S. 36
o North of Hwy 128
o South of Hwy 66
o West of East County Line Road
o All other areas within the BCHMRA Response will be covered within 120 minutes of the initial
dispatch of the BCHMRA.
• Initial dispatch of the BCHMRA will occur after initial Fire/Police size-up, reconnaissance, and life safety
assessments, and a BCHMRA Response or Consult call is requested by the on-scene IC.
• Initial entry and recon of the event by the BCHMRA shall take place after all Team positions are in place
and it has been determined to be safe to begin rescue or mitigation efforts.
• The jurisdictions that are signatories to the Authority Agreement will ensure collective staffing levels to
support a 24/7/365 response of the 13 qualified Technician level positions.
• Medical Support will be provided by the hosting jurisdictions’ EMS or County EMS system.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 66 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
56
BFR supports the BCHMRA through its staff of 24 personnel that are certified as hazmat technicians. To
accomplish the response time goals of the IGA, BFR has a minimum staffing of 3 technicians on shift per day.
Water Rescue
The Boulder area is a very popular attraction for visitors and this increase in population drives service demand.
The Boulder community has two distinct areas of high use recreational water areas. The Boulder Creek flows
directly through the center of town and is virtually assessable the entire length of the creek as it flows through
the city limits. This area sees a high use during spring runoff and is responsible for several incidents each year
involving innertubes and kayaks. The Boulder Reservoir is the area’s largest open body of water available for
recreational use.
The BFR Water Rescue program is responsible for initial emergency response to water emergencies. The
purpose of the program is to provide training, equipment and water/ice rescue services to the City of Boulder.
The Water Rescue Team has year-round capabilities for all water related incidents including: localized and area
wide flooding, open water dive rescue/recovery, surface ice rescue, ice diving and swift water rescue and
recovery.
Community Risk Reduction Division
The Community Risk Reduction (CRR) Division is overseen by the Chief Fire Marshal and is staffed by four sworn
personnel and four civilian employees. The CRR Division strives to identify and prioritize risk within the City of
Boulder. The Division addresses risk with the intent to improve public safety and prevent the loss of property
and life for the people who live and work within the community.
The 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) +is the governing document for fire related inspections within the city.
Each of the approximately 5,000 businesses are inspected for fire code compliance, most occupancies are
inspected by engine crews. The inspection checklist was developed from the IFC.
Specialty Inspections are conducted by Fire Inspectors. These include:
• Marijuana
• Group H occupancies – Hazardous Material Users
• Food Trucks
• Educational occupancies
• Day cares
The public education programs target identified known community risk such as fire, flooding, and wildland
fires. CRR provides fire-safety education for children and youth (preschool through college age) to senior
citizens. Public education also focuses on people or groups that may have or present a greater risk to themselves
or the community. Boulder Fire-Rescue Department provides annual education and hands-on training to both
on-campus resident assistants and Greek organizations within the CU Boulder structure. The Division also works
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 67 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
57
with local businesses and organizations by inspecting buildings and reviewing construction plans for fire
prevention.
Enforcement of the adopted fire code is another program that CRR uses to improve and reduce risk within the
City of Boulder. Through the fire code, CRR reviews and approves plans for new and remodeled buildings.
Permits are issued and follow-up inspections are performed to ensure the terms and conditions of the permit
are met. Inspections of existing business are conducted to not only mitigate hazards, but to also educate the
business owner on reducing risk to customers, employees, and emergency responders.
Lastly, fire investigation falls under the purview of CRR. Fire investigators investigate the causes of fire to
identify risk and developing trends that need to be addressed through education or enforcement.
Support Services
The Support Services Division is staffed by five sworn personnel and four civilian employees that provide support
for all line services within the department and is directed by the Deputy Chief of Support Services. The Division is
responsible for overseeing the department’s budget process, maintaining fleet and facilities, acquiring and
renovating fire stations and facilities, overseeing the IT needs of the department, providing for departmental
training, and providing for support for department initiatives such as accreditation and special research projects.
The Support Services Division is staffed by an Administrative Battalion Chief, a Training Division Chief, a Health
and Safety Captain, a Training Captain, an Administrative Specialist, a Technical Systems Administrator, a Project
Manager, and a Sr. Budget Analyst. The Support Services Division also provides for provision of human resources
activities by partnering with the City’s HR department and legal support through the City Attorney’s Office.
Administrative Battalion Chief
The Administrative Battalion Chief’s duties center around the maintenance of all facilities, equipment, and
apparatus. The Administration Battalion Chief oversees the maintenance of the department’s apparatus, staff
vehicles, and the department’s eight stations and support facilities.
Technical Systems Administrator
The Technical Systems Administrator is responsible for management and coordination of all departmental
technology initiatives including software, hardware, telecommunications, and technology infrastructure
projects and maintenance. The primary duties of the position include implementing and maintaining BFR
software systems, ordering hardware and maintaining associated inventories, coordinating department
telecommunications, and implementing technology infrastructure projects and maintenance. Serves as the
primary database administrator of all fire department records systems. Additional duties include participation in
special departmental projects related to technology and data.
Project Manager Data and Analytics
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 68 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
58
The Project Manager Data and Analytics is responsible for data analysis and strategic planning. These duties
include Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and statistics related to projects within the department pertaining
to call volume and response times. Essentially, efforts requiring examination of Boulder Fire-Rescue Data are the
priority.
Senior Budget Analyst
The Senior Budget Analyst is responsible for the coordination of all departmental financial activities. Primary
duties include development and ongoing monitoring of the annual budget, establishing and maintaining sound
internal financial policies and processes related to purchasing and revenue collection and ensuring adherence to
citywide financial and accounting policies. Additionally, the Senior Budget Analyst serves as a strategic adviser to
Boulder Fire-Rescue’s Executive Leadership Team for matters including, but not limited to, budget development,
master planning, collective bargaining agreement negotiations, and financial reporting and analysis.
Training Division
The Training Division is staffed with a Training Chief, Training Captain, Safety Captain, and an Administrative
Assistant. The Training Division is responsible for developing and providing comprehensive fire suppression and
emergency medical service instruction to all members of the Department. The Division conducts regular
exercises, live fire drills and specialized training to ensure that consistent and effective emergency services
continue to be provided to the citizens and visitors of Boulder. The Training Division is also responsible for
training all new members entering the Department by ensuring proper on boarding and department
familiarization.
All initial hires must first pass through the Firefighter Recruit Training Academy. The academy runs 16-weeks and
meets all State Fire Marshal and NFPA Standards for Firefighter I certifications 22. Upon completion of the
academy, recruits will be certified to the level of Firefighter I or II, Hazard Materials Operations and Car Seat
Technician. Recruits receive training in water rescue, vehicle extrication, fire fighter safety and survival, low
angle rope rescue, confined space rescue, 130/190 wildland training, forcible entry, hose management, search
and rescue and various other fire ground operations.
In-Service training is also managed by the training division. Specific training is required to be completed to
maintain knowledge, acquire technical proficiency as well as maintain required certifications. These in-service
trainings include conducting live fire training, aerial ladder operations, elevator rescue training, rail car rescue,
gas and electrical utility control.
Communications
The City is a member of the Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA), which is
authorized to set fees for 911 service. BRETSA was formed in 1987 through a countywide Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA). Utilizing the money collected through the 9-1-1 surcharge, BRETSA provides significant
22 IFSAC
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 69 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
59
assistance in bringing Enhanced 911 (E-911) telephone and dispatching services to Boulder County and the
cities, towns and fire protection districts located in Boulder County. BRETSA is governed by Colorado Statutes,
the IGA, and is managed through a Board. The board consists of four permanent members and one rotating
member having a one-year term. While BRETSA contracts out for needed services and support, as an emergency
telephone service authority it has no employees.
There are four public-safety answering points (PSAP) in Boulder County, Colorado University, BFR/BPD,
Longmont FD/PD, and Boulder County. Twenty-four of the 26 fire agencies in the County are dispatched by
Boulder County.
The Boulder Police Department is responsible for all public safety 911 access and communications services,
including police, fire, and EMS dispatching. The oversight of the Communications Center is provided by the Staff
and Support Services Division of the Police Department, and day-to-day operational oversight is provided by a
non-uniformed communications manager. There are 26 authorized dispatchers and 4 Dispatcher Supervisors, all
qualified to operate in police, fire, and EMS dispatching. The center is also staffed with a System Administrator,
an Administrative Assistant and the Communications Manager. The minimum staffing is four personnel, one for
the police radio channel, one for fire and EMS, one on the data channel and one dedicated 911 call-taker. If
necessary, the supervisor can fill in at any position.
For medical emergencies, the dispatch center used Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) through ProQA
software. During an emergency medical call, ProQA guides the dispatcher through the EMD process collecting
the vital information from the caller, obtaining the patient's status, choosing an appropriate dispatch level, and
instructing the caller with medically approved protocols until the dispatched units arrive at the scene. The
EMD’d calls are prioritized using the Dispatch Determinant Theory.
Once the EMD determines the level of concern using the answers to key
questions and the additional information, the proper dispatch
determinant can be selected. There are six dispatch determinant
categories 23:
A = Alpha B = Bravo C = Charlie D = Delta E = Echo Ω = Omega.
Facilities and Apparatus
The department operates out 10 facilities of which seven are primary
response stations. The average age of the primary fire stations is
approximately 46 years of age. The remaining facilities provide a variety
of services to the department including apparatus maintenance, training,
and facilities maintenance. The training center is a regional training
facility shared with other County departments. Most of the Department’s management and administrative
functions are located at Fire Headquarters, a shared building with Human Resources and Innovation and
Technology.
23 The Principles of Emergency Medical Dispatch Third Edition (v11.1)
Image 14. Non-Linear Response Level Theory
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 70 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
60
All stations have one engine/pumper. The minimum staffing on a pumper is three personnel: one officer, one
fire engineer, and one firefighter. The role of the engine company during fire suppression operations is to pump
water onto the fire through a variety of fire hoses and associated appliances to lower the temperature of the
fuel below its ignition temperature thereby extinguishing the fire. The engine crew also operates hose lines,
conducts search and rescue, and performs any other duties conducive to quick and effective fire containment
that contributes to saving lives and protecting property. This unit and crew provides BLS EMS as well. There is
one truck and one Battalion chief in the system, both respond from station 1.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 71 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
61
Station 1
Station 1 provides services to
central Boulder including the
Pearl Street Mall and
responds to approximately
4,500 emergency calls per
year.
STATION 1 APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Staffing
ENGINE 2501 2016 Pierce Enforcer (Pumper) 3
TRUCK 2516 2012 Pierce Platform (100’) 3
BC CAR 2011 Ford F150 1
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 72 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
62
Station 2
Station 2 provides services to
the University of Colorado
and University Hill area.
Station 2 responds to
approximately 2,800
emergency calls a year.
STATION 2 APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Staffing
ENGINE 2502 2010 Pierce Arrow XT (75’) 3
ENGINE 2538 2010 Pierce Contender Type III Cross Staffed
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 73 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
63
Station 3
Station 3 covers the central
portion of the city and responds
to approximately 2,400
emergency calls per year.
The Water Rescue Team is
based out of Station 3.
STATION 3 APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Staffing
ENGINE 2503 2011 Pierce Arrow XT (75’) 3
DIVE VAN 2521 2005 Freightliner Cargo Van Cross Staffed
BOAT 16’ Flat Bottom
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 74 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
64
Station 4
Fire station 4 is staffed with a two-person “mini-pumper” to provide services to south Boulder. Station 4
increased to a three-person Type I Engine Company in 1991 and responds to approximately 800 emergency calls
a year.
STATION 4APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Staffing
ENGINE 2504 2016 Pierce Enforcer 3
Input Carol’s naming system.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 75 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
65
Station 5
Station 5 was originally
opened to provide service
to north Boulder and was
originally staffed with a
two-person “mini-
pumper”.
In 1992, the station was
relocated to its current
location and responds to
approximately 1,100
emergency calls a year.
STATION 5 APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Staffing
ENGINE 2505 2007 Pierce Dash 3
UNIT 2532 2000 Ford F550 Type VI Cross Staffed
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 76 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
66
Station 6
Fire Station 6
was built to
cover the
Gunbarrel area
and IBM
headquarters.
Fire Station 6
responds to
approximately
300 emergency
calls a year.
STATION 6 APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Staffing
ENGINE 2506 2016 Pierce Dash 55’ Skyboom 3
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 77 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
67
Station 7
Station 7 was built to provide
services to eastern Boulder
and responds to
approximately 700 emergency
calls a year. Station 7 houses a
three-person Type I engine
crew, Hazardous Materials
truck, a hazardous materials
trailer and a confined space
trailer. The Hazardous
Materials Team is stationed
here as their home base.
STATION 7 APPARATUS
TYPE Year Make Model Pump/Tank Staffing
ENGINE 2507 2004 Pierce Arrow 75’ Quint 3
2523 2008 Pierce Contender Rescue HazMat Cross Staffed
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 78 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
68
Station 8
Station 8 is a dedicated Wildland Fire Station. Station 8 was completed in early 2015. The station is located on
Boulder County Regional Fire Training grounds. The station houses the Wildland Division and BFR’s fire cache,
including 3 additional staff response vehicles not listed in the chart below.
This station consolidated multiple Wildland facilities that were used by BFR. Co-located at the Boulder Regional
Fire Training Center (BRFTC) it will provide additional facilities when the training center is being used as an
incident command post during major Boulder County emergencies.
24 Will be decommissioned by May 2018
Apparatus
VEHICLE Type Year Make Model Staffing
2531 24 Type 6 2000 Ford Chassis Custom
2532 Type 6 2000 Ford Chassis Custom
2539 Type 3 2015 Pierce Wildland Engine
Truck 2014 Ford F-350 Cross Staffed
Truck 2014 Ford F-350 Cross Staffed
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 79 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
69
Boulder Regional Fire Training Center
The fire department utilizes the BRFTC,
located on approximately 10 acres east
of the Boulder Reservoir, for much of
its training activities. Opened in 2010,
under a cooperative agreement
between the City and Boulder County,
the center is operated today under an
intergovernmental agreement between
the two.
The mission of the Boulder County
Regional Fire Training Center (BCRFTC)
is to promote safety through training.
The BCRFTC provides the facilities to
foster education, practice and promotion of skills for our fire service personnel.
The main features of the facility consist of a classroom building, a training tower, and a burn building. The main
facility holds three classrooms, two conference rooms, offices for the training staff, kitchen facilities, restrooms
and locker room facilities, weight training area, and a large apparatus bay that can be used for inside training
space or for parking fire trucks inside during inclement weather while crew attend training sessions. The training
center can seat 230 people. Each classroom has seating for 100, with both classrooms connected there is seating
for 200. Additional seating is available in both conference rooms; the first floor can accommodate 10 seats, and
the second-floor conference room can accommodate 20 seats. If needed, the training center could
accommodate an additional 250-300 in the apparatus bay. Training support functions like laundry and breathing
air refill are also in this building.
The training tower is a five-story building providing numerous props and training opportunities. Ladder training,
high-rise operations, rappelling, roof smoke ventilation, and confined space rescue are some of the skills that
can be practiced in this building. The burn building is used to simulate fire attack, search and rescue, smoke
ventilation, and a variety of other firefighting skills. Clean wooden pallets are burned to create just enough fire
and smoke for training.
Other features of the training center include:
• A pump test area for annual pump training
• Vehicle extrication areas for crews to become prurient in automobile extrication
• A propane car fire simulator for crews to practice proper vehicle extinguishment techniques.
• Large driving area for cone course for apparatus operation
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 80 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
70
Insurance Services Office (ISO)
The Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) is a manual containing the criteria ISO uses in reviewing the fire
prevention and fire suppression capabilities of individual communities or fire protection areas. The schedule
measures the major elements of a community’s fire protection system and develops a numerical grading using
credits, called a Public Protection Classification (PPC™). The FSRS utilizes nationally accepted standards to
compile the PPC.
During the last evaluation in 2015, BFR was rated an ISO 03/3X. Class 1 through Class 8 represent fire
suppression systems that includes an FSRS credible dispatch center, fire department and water supply. In a split
classification, the first class applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a hydrant or alternate water supply. The
second class applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant but within 5 road miles of a recognized fire
station.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 81 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
71
Community Expectations
The 2014 Boulder Community Survey indicated that 82% of respondents reported they felt at least somewhat
safe from structural or house fires, a rating that was similar to the national benchmark and the same as reported
in 2007. Nearly six in 10 of those completing the questionnaire felt safe from wildland fires, a decrease from
previous years, perhaps due to the experience of the Four Mile Canyon fire in 2010. Ratings for fire response
and EMS were up slightly from 2007 and were comparable to ratings in other communities 25.
25 City of Boulder, 2014
Table 7. FSRS Table
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 82 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
72
According to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Urban Service Criteria and Standards are used to set the
benchmark for providing a full range of urban services in the Boulder Valley. A basic premise of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan is that “adequate urban facilities and services” are a prerequisite for urban
development. Within the Boulder Valley, the City of Boulder is the provider of choice for urban services since it
can meet all the service provision requirements embodied in the Urban Service Criteria and Standards.
In 1970, the City of Boulder and Boulder County jointly adopted a comprehensive plan that guides land use
decisions in the Boulder Valley. The comprehensive plan provides a general statement of the community’s
desires for future development and preservation of the Boulder Valley. The principles of sustainability and
resilience are part of the framework of the comprehensive plan.26
Five criteria are to be used in the determination of the adequacy of proposed or existing urban facilities and
services. The Urban Service Standards are written within the framework of these criteria. They include
responsiveness to public objectives, sufficiency of financing, operational effectiveness, proficiency of personnel,
and location/adequacy of equipment and facilities.
26 BVCP pg.4
Chart 8. Boulder Community Survey Results
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 83 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
73
The goals for Urban Fire Protection and Emergency care outlined within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
are as follows:
1. Responsiveness to Public Objectives:
a) Consistently evaluate current service delivery for fire protection, all-hazard response and EMS.
b) Evaluate current service delivery against national standards, national guidelines and customer
expectations.
c) Develop benchmarks for improvement across all areas of service delivery.
2. Sufficiency of Financing:
a) Ensure current financing supports existing level of service delivery.
b) Plan for future financing to support benchmark service delivery.
c) Be organized to receive and utilize grants and state and federal funds when available.
3. Operational Effectiveness:
a) Fire and EMS response:
i. Provide fire and EMS response 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
ii. Arrive at fires and medical emergencies, staffed and equipped to provide fire suppression and/or
medical care, within six minutes of the original 911 call ninety percent of the time.
iii. Have an ERF dictated by the nature of the emergency, on scene within eleven minutes of the
original 911 call ninety percent of the time.
iv. Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to supplement response when additional resources are
needed.
b) All-Hazard response:
i. Equip and train personnel to respond to technical rescues, hazardous materials incidents, water
rescues and natural disasters.
ii. Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to supplement response when additional resources are
needed.
c) Wildland Fire response and mitigation:
i. Equip and train personnel to respond to wildland fires in urban and rural settings.
ii. Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to supplement response when additional resources are
needed.
iii. Integrate wildfire hazard mitigation planning with urban design and development.
d) Community Risk Reduction:
i. Provide fire safety education for all ages and demographic groups.
ii. Adopt fire and life safety codes.
iii. Review and approve plans for fire safety systems for new and remodeled buildings for
compliance with fire and life safety codes.
d) Community Risk Reduction (cont.)
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 84 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
74
iv. Regularly inspect businesses and high hazard occupancies for code compliance. v. Provide
voluntary home safety inspections.
vi. Work with the Local Emergency Planning Commission to maintain an inventory of hazardous
materials storage. vii. Review the design of land development in relation to emergency response,
access and available water supply.
viii. Identify and mitigate risks associated with the negative impacts of climate change.
4. Proficiency of Personnel:
a) Firefighters shall be trained to perform the duties of their assigned position as well as those they may be
expected to perform outside their assigned position.
b) Firefighters shall maintain appropriate certifications as dictated by the department, state and federal
regulations.
c) EMS providers will be trained to the level of EMT-Basic or EMT-Paramedic based on whether they provide
basic or advanced life support and will maintain that level of certification based on state and federal
requirements.
d) Hazardous materials responders will achieve and maintain training and certification at the Operational or
Technician level.
e) Wildland firefighters will achieve and maintain training and certification based on their expected level of
response.
f) Administrative personnel will achieve and maintain training and certification based on their assigned job
duties.
5. Adequacy of Equipment and Facilities:
a) Fire stations will be located in such a manner as to achieve response time goals. See Operational
Effectiveness 3.a.
b) Fire stations will be constructed in such a manner as to provide adequate, appropriate and secure living
space for current and anticipated staffing needs. Considerations will include privacy, nondiscrimination
and occupational safety.
c) Fire stations will be constructed in a manner to help the city meet its climate action goals.
d) Fire apparatus and equipment will be designed and purchased to meet the current and expected needs of
the department.
e) See also “Public Water” for information on fire hydrant requirements 27
27 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 85 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
75
Section IV: All-Hazard Risk Assessment and Response
Strategies
Risk, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a combination of hazard,
vulnerability, and exposure. It is the impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and
structures in a community and refers to the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that
causes injury or damage.
The risk assessment process plays a crucial role in guiding the department when making decisions regarding
resource allocation and deployment. The intent of a risk assessment is to guide the process of reducing or
eliminating the loss of life and property resulting from local threats. Threats include hazards, such as fire,
emergency medical events, floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes, as well as technological hazards such as
terrorism, dam failures, and hazardous material spills.
During a risk assessment, the department should define the difference between the capability to mitigate an
emergency in a detached single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, industrial building, and high-rise by
placing each in a separate category for assessment in the community risk model.
Increased Risk = Increased Concentration
Image 14. Community Risk Model
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 86 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
76
Natural and Community-Wide Hazards
The city of Boulder is located at the base of the Rocky Mountains. Its location is prone to severe weather events
that include thunderstorms (including hail), lightning, and winter storms. These precipitation-oriented events
can also lead to wide scale flooding. In addition, the region experiences high wind events, particularly during the
Spring.
The community is home to several governmental facilities including the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) laboratories, offices of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Table 8. City of Boulder Hazard Identification Table
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 87 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
77
as well as the University of Colorado. In addition, Boulder is home to several defense-oriented technology
companies such as Ball Aerospace, McDonnel Douglas, and Lockheed Martin. These facilities are subject to the
risk of terrorist attack and represent a large economic driver in the community.
Drought
Unlike other weather events, drought does not occur quickly, drought is a gradual process. Although droughts
can be characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as
floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts
occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and
ends (City of Boulder, 2012). The U.S Drought Monitor depicts the overall drought status of the United States.
The map indicates that most of the state of Colorado is in moderate to severe drought conditions.
Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most significant
impacts associated with drought in Colorado are those related to water intensive activities such as agriculture,
wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation.
The City of Boulder's Drought Plan provides guidance for recognizing droughts that will affect water supply
availability and for responding appropriately to these droughts. The city uses rules and regulations to provide
Image 15. U.S Drought Monitor
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 88 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
78
specific details that the city manager, in consultation with City Council, may use to declare or lift a drought alert
stage as well as guide an appropriate response to a drought event.
Earthquake
Boulder-area historical earthquake activity is slightly below Colorado state average and 40% greater than the
overall U.S. average. The earthquakes below are depicted in order of strength of earthquake.
• 8/18/1959 at 06:37:13, a magnitude 7.7 (7.7 UK, Class: Major, Intensity: VIII - XII) earthquake occurred
418.3 miles away from the city center, causing $26,000,000 total damage
• 10/18/1984 at 15:30:23, a magnitude 5.5 (5.4 MB, 5.1 MS, 5.5 ML, Class: Moderate, Intensity: VI - VII)
earthquake occurred 165.1 miles away from Boulder center
• 10/28/1983 at 14:06:06, a magnitude 7.3 (6.2 MB, 7.3 MS, 7.0 MW) earthquake occurred 520.4 miles
away from the city center, causing 2 deaths (2 shaking deaths) and 3 injuries, causing $15,000,000 total
damage
• 3/28/1975 at 02:31:05, a magnitude 6.2 (6.1 MB, 6.0 MS, 6.2 ML, Class: Strong, Intensity: VII - IX)
earthquake occurred 400.8 miles away from the city center
• 2/3/1995 at 15:26:10, a magnitude 5.3 (5.3 MB, 4.6 MS, Depth: 0.6 mi) earthquake occurred 252.0 miles
away from Boulder center
• 2/3/1994 at 09:05:04, a magnitude 5.8 (5.4 MB, 5.5 MS, 5.8 MW, 5.8 ML, Depth: 4.9 mi) earthquake
occurred 352.0 miles away from the city center.
Magnitude types: body-wave magnitude (MB), local magnitude (ML), surface-wave magnitude (MS),
moment magnitude (MW)28.
Tornado
Boulder County historical tornado activity is above Colorado state average. It is 7% greater than the overall U.S.
average 29.
• On 6/15/1988, a category F3 (max. wind speeds 158-206 mph) tornado 26.6 miles away from the
Boulder city center injured 7 people and caused between $5,000,000 and $50,000,000 in damages.
• On 5/22/2008, a category F3 tornado 30.6 miles away from the city center killed one person and injured
78 people and caused $147 million in damages.
Major Flooding
In the State of Colorado, Boulder is recognized as a
community with the highest flash flood risk. damage.
The City is at risk for flash flooding because it sits
against the mouth of Boulder Canyon. Boulder Creek
flows down Boulder Canyon and through downtown
Boulder. Boulder Creek is a 31.4-mile-long (50.5 km)
creek draining the Rocky Mountains to the west of
28 City Data,2016
29 City Data, 2016
Image 16. Canyon St in Boulder during the 1894 flood
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 89 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
79
Boulder, Colorado, as well as the city itself and surrounding plains. The creek is formed by two main tributaries
rising along the Continental Divide: North and Middle Boulder Creek; and later joined by South Boulder Creek. In
addition to Boulder Creek, there are 11 other drainages that flow into the City.
Serious floods have affected downtown Boulder in 1894, 1896, 1906, 1909, 1916, 1921, 1938, and 1969 with the
worst being those of May 31-June 2, 1894 and May 7, 1969. The flood of 1969 was the result of four days of
almost continuous rainfall (11.27” measured in Morrison and 9.34” at the Boulder Hydroelectric Plant three
miles up Boulder Canyon from town). There was one death reported and thousands of dollars worth of damage
including two bridge wash outs. The flood of 1894 (See Figure 7) was considerably worse with more casualties
although no specific number of fatalities has ever been determined.
In 2013, an all-time 24-hour record rainfall of 9.08” deluged the city of Boulder resulting in widespread flash
flooding and the deaths of three people. 12.27" had accumulated from Monday (September 9th) through
Thursday (September 12th). These are numbers that surpass most tropical storm events. Other locations in the
Boulder and Rocky Mountain Front Range had picked up over 11” of precipitation in just a 24-hour period 30.
Flash floods occur quickly and without warning, there is an immediate danger from strength of current, debris
injury/drowning. Flash floods typically occur from heavy rainfall – overflow stream banks.
30 http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=194
Image 17. Boulder Flood in 2013
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 90 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
80
Map M1-8. City of Boulder, 100 and 500 Year Floodplains
Map 17. City of Boulder, 100 & 500 Year Floodplains
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 91 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
81
Natural disasters
The number of natural disasters in Boulder County (13) is near at US average (13).
• Major Disasters (Presidential) Declared: 5
• Emergencies Declared: 4 31
Causes of natural disasters: Fires: 5, Floods: 5, Storms: 4, Landslides: 3, Mudslides: 3, Snows: 2, Heavy Rain: 1,
Hurricane: 1, Snowstorm: 1, Tornado: 1 (Note: Some incidents may be assigned to more than one category).
Critical Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure provides essential products and services to the public that are necessary to preserve the
welfare and quality of life in the City and County of Boulder. In addition, these facilities support important public
safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. It is of great importance that the City prioritizes
mitigation actions which reduce the risk of damage to these facilities which are so essential to the City’s
wellbeing (2A.9).
Table 9. City of Boulder Critical Facility Summary
31 http://www.city-data.com/city/Boulder-Colorado.html#ixzz5AUdHNwfn
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 92 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
82
Terrorism
Terrorism is defined 32 as the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws
of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. The most frequently used terrorist
methods in the U.S are Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Enhanced Explosive threats (CBRNE) are
used during terrorist attacks.
Traditional weapons, such as guns are also used by terrorists worldwide, but demand less resources when these
incidents occur. Although not listed in the acronym, Cyberterrorism is also a threat to our infrastructure. A
cyber-attack could potentially disrupt communications, banking systems, power systems, and emergency
networks.
Since terrorist activities cannot be predicted, all areas of a city are at risk, and susceptible to the hazard. High
risk areas include main thoroughfares and interstates, railroads, airports and chemical companies throughout
the City.
Probability and Consequence
To assist in the classification of risk, the probability and consequence matrix was adapted from the CFAI
Standard of Cover Manual. The matrix represents the considerations of risk in a community. Although there is
always the possibility of an event occurring, the likelihood of the event is dependent on outside factors. During
and after an event, there are potential consequences; the consequences range from insignificant to significant.
The matrix displays the various combinations of the likelihood of an incident (probability) and the result
(consequence) for each of four risk categories (low, moderate, high, and maximum).
Four relationships between structures/conditions and
the distribution and concentration of resources.
Low probability, Low consequence
Low probability, High consequence
High probability, Low consequence
High probability, High consequence
LOW RISK = LOW PROBABILITY, LOW CONSEQUENCE:
A low risk area is typically isolated from any centers of
population and contain few buildings. These
structures present the same strategic and logistical
issues with low life loss potential and minimal
financial impact to the local community if any at all.
32 FEMA
Image 18. Probability and consequence matrix
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 93 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
83
Examples of a low risk area is:
• undeveloped land
• recreational areas (federal, state, and local parks)
• parking lots
• unoccupied structures (barns and small out buildings, detached residential garages)
• rural land with no occupied structures
• single family homes with more than 2 acres of surrounding property
Typical call types for a low risk area include automobile fires, carbon monoxide leaks, grass fires, single-patient
EMS calls, automobile accidents, industrial accidents, and tractor-trailer fires.
MODERATE RISK = HIGH PROBABILITY, LOW CONSEQUENCE:
A moderate risk property will be in developed areas of average size. Structures will have significant risk of fire,
but the consequence of a fire would be minimal to the community. For instance, the risk of life loss or property
damage from fire in single-occupancy dwellings is usually limited to the residents. Examples of medium risk
areas might include:
• detached, single-family housing including areas of suburban, terraced, semi-detached, multi-occupancy
residential properties
• mixed low-risk industrial and residential areas
• industrial or commercial areas of less than 5,000 sq. feet without high-hazard or high fire-load contents
• railroad facilities
• mobile homes
HIGH/SPECIAL RISK = LOW PROBABILITY, HIGH CONSEQUENCE:
High and Special Risk areas are generally structures that will have built-in fire suppression capabilities. The
likelihood of fire is low, but the consequence of a fire would be significant and include high life loss. However,
due to the built-in fire protection and suppression, the potential for a significant fire is greatly reduced.
Occupancies in this category include large commercial structures, shopping and business complexes, multi-story
hotels, apartment buildings, theatres, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure facilities. Examples of such areas
might include:
• Mercantile facilities, strip shopping centers, and business areas consisting of either single- or multi-story
properties with a concentration of structures
• Buildings with built-in fire suppression systems, but whose occupants are non-ambulatory or restrained
(hospitals, medical facilities, personal care homes, and prisons)
• Apartment buildings more than two stories in height
• Buildings with low occupant load, but these store high fire load materials or high-hazard materials
• Infrastructure facilities, such as city halls, fire and police stations, schools, and city, state, or federal
buildings
• Industrial areas containing some high-risk occupancies
• Aircraft off airport property (hangars, operations facilities)
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 94 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
84
MAXIMUM RISK = HIGH PROBABILITY, HIGH CONSEQUENCE:
Maximum Risk areas are typically commercial structures without built-in fire suppression systems. Occupancies
include large shopping areas, multi-story hotels and office complexes, and commercial facilities with extremely
high fire load or hazardous materials. These locations have the highest potential for life loss and community
impact; additionally, they have the greatest risk of fire due to the lack of fire protection and suppression
systems. Risks such as these frequently increase a fire department’s need to have multiple alarm capability and
an accurate assessment of its ability to concentrate resources. Failure to identify these risks often results in a
department’s inability to control the loss once a fire has occurred. These risks also create a fundamental need to
assess mutual and automatic aid requirements to support the department’s operations through assistance from
other fire departments. Examples of maximum risk might include:
• large shopping and business centers, large department stores, shopping malls, multi-story hotels, and
office properties
• concentrations of theaters, cinemas, clubs, dance halls, and other entertainment centers
• concentrations of high-risk industrial or commercial property
• high-rise buildings, especially those without built-in fire suppression systems
• commercial buildings of more than 15,000 square feet with occupants who may require assistance
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 95 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
85
Fire Risk
To understand the fire risk posed to the community, BFR had to conduct a fire risk assessment for each
occupancy within city limits.
In 2016, BFR drafted a new methodology (2B.1) for identifying, assessing, categorizing, and classifying risk
throughout the community. A building risk assessment form was used to categorize each building in one of four
categories: maximum, high/special, moderate, and low risk. Fire protection systems are included in the risk
assessment (2C.3), however they are not considered for deployment of resources since suppression systems are
not a fail-safe.
The map below shows the number of fire related emergency incidents by quartile mile hexbin. By focusing on
fire incidents alone, we remove all EMS incidents to show where timely fire response is most needed.
Map 18. Fire related incidents
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 96 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
86
Smoke Detectors
The map below is a risk assessment that predicts the Census block groups least likely to have smoke alarms, and
most likely to experience a fire fatality. It utilizes a mix of local fire incident data (where fire incidents have
historically occurred) alongside US Census data to predict where fire risk is most likely. Areas in dark red are high
risk meaning they are least likely to have smoke alarms and most likely to experience a fire fatality. Lighter areas
are low risk meaning they are most likely to have smoke alarms and least likely to experience a fire fatality. This
model is based on the enigma smoke signals project.
Map 19. Location of Smoke Detectors
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 97 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
87
Age of Housing Units
The U.S. Fire Administration report socioeconomic factors and the incidence of Fire found evidence that
suggests the age of housing units is related to an increased fire risk. The bar chart below shows the percent of
housing units in different age categories. Almost a quarter of all homes in Boulder were built in the 1970s. A
regression analysis shows a correlation between older housing units and increased risk of fire.
In the City of Boulder, there is a weak negative correlation between incidents of structure fires and the age of
structures.
Chart 9. Age of Buildings in the City of Boulder
Chart 10. Structure Fires vs. Age of Structure
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 98 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
88
Housing Density
Structures that contain 50 or more housing units present an increased fire risk due to more people per building
and more square footage per structure. Identifying (and keeping tabs on) buildings that contain a high number
of housing units can be key to maintaining efficient community safety measures.
Chart 11. Number of units per building
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 99 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
89
Older Homes
The map below shows the density of homes built before 1939 by Census Block Group. Most older homes in
Boulder, CO are located primarily in and around its downtown.
Map 20. Map of older homes in the City of Boulder
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 100 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
90
Map 21. Planning Zones
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 101 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
91
Planning Zone Fire Risk Map
Map 21. Risk by planning zone
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 102 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
92
Planning Zone Risk 33
The charts below outline the type of risk in each sub-zone.
Zone A
Station 6
Zone Address Special Maximum High Moderate
A1 6055 Reservoir RD - BCRFTC X X
A2 5605 63rd - Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant X
A3 6555 Monarch Rd - IBM X
A4 5145 N 63rd - BFRD Sta. 6 X X
A5 6405 Odell Pl – Storage Units X
The remainder of the planning zone contains: Open Space - A1 and A2 & Residential/Light Commercial - A5
Zone B
Station 5
Zone Address Special Maximum High Moderate
B1 Lee Hill – access issues X X
4900 N Broadway – light commercial X
Open Space WUI X
Residential & Light Commercial X
B2 Open Space X
B3 4365 19th – BFRD Sta. 5 X X
1897 Sumac – Crestview Elementary X
Quince & Broadway X
2100 Norwood – Centennial Middle School X
3955 28th – Sunrise assistant living X
3845 Northbrook – high density housing X
2700 Winding Trail - residential
high density & access
X
Robin Hood Area - residential
high density & access
X
Willow Springs Shopping Center X
19th & Joslyn- residential
density & access
X
3690 Broadway – residential Melody Hts / access X
Rest of Planning Zone - residential X
B4 2800 Palo Parkway – Manor Care Senior Care X
2800 Kalmia – The Boulders – residential high density & access X
Four Mile Creek - residential
access, narrow streets and blockage
X
Pleasant View Fields - access X
33 Additional planning zone maps in appendix
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 103 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
93
Zone C
Station 1 and a portion of Station 3
Zone Address Special Maximum High Moderate
C1 1100 Alpine/1100 Balsam – Old Boulder Community Hospital
Open Space WUI X
Balsam/Maxwell/Broadway/9th
Residential access & density
X
C2 2121 Mesa – Mesa Vista
long-term care facility
X
2441 13th – BFRD Sta. 1 X X
3130 Repplier – Columbine Elementary X
19th & Alpine – residential access X
1225 Alpine - commercial X
2600 Broadway - commercial X
2401 13th – Casey Middle School X
Rest of Planning Zone
C3 Commercial X
High Density Housing X
C4 Pearl Street Retail area X
Open Space WUI X
C5 1777 6th – Boulder County Justice Center X
1777 Broadway – City Government X
Arap. 9th -6th – residential - access X
1150 7th – Flatirons Elementary School X
1050 Arapahoe – Presbyterian Manor - Senior High Rise X
Broadway corridor - Commercial High-Density Housing X
970 Aurora – Academy Senior Living X
Open Space WUI
2225 Baseline – BFRD Sta. 2 X
C6 1604 Arapahoe – Boulder High School X
Residential - Light Commercial X
C7 University of Colorado - High Density Residential Classrooms X
C8 1585 30th – BFRD Sta. 3 X
29th Street Retail area X
1055 Adams Cir. – Golden West Senior Residence/ High Rise X
Commercial / Mixed Residential X
The remainder of the planning zone contains:
Residential - C1, C2, C4, C5
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 104 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
94
Zone D
Station 7 and a portion of Station 3
Zone Address Special Maximum High Moderate
D1 County Communications & Jail X
Noble Park - High Density Residential access issues X
Open Space WUI X
D2 3350 30th - Brookdale - Senior Living X
3375 34th - Brookdale - Senior Care X
3065 Center Green Dr – Fire HQ X
1805 33rd St – Police HQ/dispatch X
3300 Fisher Dr – RTD Maintenance X
D3 4747 Arapahoe – Boulder Foothills Hospital X
Open Space WUI X
Ball Aerospace X
Pfizer Pharmaceutical X
2075 55th – CordenPharma Chemical X
D4 5815 Arapahoe - Mixed Use scary commercial industrial
County Sherffifs HQ
1901 63rd – Boulder County Recycling Center X
D5 30th/Foothills/Arap/Colorado – CU east campus
Student housing Light Industrial BioPharma Labs
X
3995 Aurora - High Peaks Elementary School X
4685 Baseline – Boulder Manor Senior X
D6 Arapahoe Corridor - Commercial X
1220 Eisenhower – Eisenhower Elementary School X
D7 1380 55th – BFRD Sta. 7 X
Rest of Planning Zone X
The remainder of the planning zone contains:
Residential/industrial - D1
Commercial High Density Residential D2
Medium Industrial Commercial D3
Light industrial D4
Single Family Multi-Family Housing - D5,D6,D7
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 105 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
95
Zone E
Station 2 and Station 4
The remainder of the planning zone contains:
Single family residential – E1, E2,E3, E5, E6, E7
Zone Address Special Maximum High Moderate
E1 Chautauqua X X X
E2 505 27th Way
Unprotected Multi Family
X
2700 Moorhead
Residential with access issues
X
3100 Bucknell – Halcyon School (Special Education) X
3740 Martin Dr – Creekside Elementary School X
E3 3300 Baseline - Williams Village high Rise Student housing X
3275 Apache – Bear Creek Apartments
High Density student housing
X
4475 Laguna Apartments - access X
4800 Baseline – Meadows Shopping Center X
350 Ponca/4950 Thunderbird Frasier Meadows Senior
Living
X
4545 Sioux – Horizons K-8 School X
Manhattan to Tenino
High Density Residential poor access
X
290 Manhattan – Manhattan School of Arts X
South Boulder Circle
High Density Residential poor access
X
E4 NCAR X
NOAA X
Open Space WUI X
E5 Open Space WUI X
E6 801 Gillaspie – Brookdale Meridian – Senior Living X
2500 Table Mesa – Bear Creek Elementary School X
1575 Lehigh – Mesa Elementary School X
1500 Knox – Southern Hills Middle School X
1515 Greenbriar – Fairview High School X
805 Gillespie Montessori School X
Open Space WUI – with limited access/narrow streets X
E7 1200 Broadway X
4655 Hanover – Summit Middle School X
Tantra Park – Multi-family housing with limit access X
Walden Cir – Multi-family with limited access
Table Mesa Commercial area X
Open Space WUI X
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 106 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
96
Fire Flow and Available Water Supply 34
Like most Colorado communities, Boulder depends on stored water during most of the year. High streamflow
and runoff from melting snowpack only occurs during a few spring and summer months. The runoff from
snowmelt is captured in a series of reservoirs. The amount of water that is available for community use varies
from year-to-year, depending on the snowpack in the surrounding mountains (City of Boulder, 2016). The
majority of the city’s annual water supply comes from:
• Silver Lake and Lakewood reservoirs on North Boulder Creek;
• Barker Reservoir on Middle Boulder Creek; and
• Boulder Reservoir
The city maintains more than 450 miles of water pipe that serve more than 29,000 customers. The water
department also maintains and services approximately 4,700 (294 private) fire hydrants. All fire hydrant
maintenance, including inspections, repairs and painting is managed by Public Works. The
water department also periodically operates valves and flushes fire hydrants to ensure reliable, high-quality,
potable water service.
The water system is extremely reliable, so volume and pressure in the system are excellent during normal fire
ground operations. There are typically no problems acquiring and maintaining adequate fire flows.
According to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, in single-family residential areas, fire hydrant spacing shall
be no greater than 500 feet. No dwelling unit shall be over 250 feet of fire department access distance from the
nearest hydrant measured along public or private roadways or fire lanes that are accessible and would be
traveled by motorized firefighting equipment; in multiple-family, industrial, business or commercial areas, fire
hydrant spacing shall not be greater than 350 feet. In all other areas, no exterior portion of any building shall
34 https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/ch05-1-201306271134.pdf
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 107 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
97
over 175 feet of fire department access distance from the nearest hydrant measured along public or private
roadways or fire lanes that are accessible and would be traveled by motorized firefighting equipment; on
divided highways, hydrants shall be on each side of highway.
Wildland Fire Risk
The major fire risk within the City of Boulder is the wildland interface primarily along the western edge of the
city. Boulder County has experienced several major destructive wildfires in recent times. Notable fires are
the 1989 Black Tiger, the 1990 Olde Stage, the 2003 Overland, and the 2010 Four-mile Canyon. These fires have
collectively destroyed over 250 homes (and other structures), burned over 16,000 acres, and threatened the
lives and properties of thousands of mountain residents. Wildfires have always been a natural occurrence in
Boulder County, but various land management practices, including fire suppression, over the last 100 years has
resulted in a forest with vegetation densities 10 to 100 times their natural state. Combine this with factors such
as steep terrain, drought, high summertime temperatures, seasonal high winds, and an increased human
presence in the form of development and recreational use, and the result is an environment prone to extreme
wildfire behavior 35. Wildland Fire can have an immediate and primary impact on life safety for many residents
living in and around the interface. The potential for large neighborhood conflagrations is real in the City of
Boulder due to its layout and location in the foothills. This was evidenced by the Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado
Springs in 2012 in similar topography and proximity. Secondary impacts include damage to ecosystems and
watershed which can have decades long impacts to the environment and ability to support community and
economic vitality. The specific impacts include mudslides and drinking water contamination with sediment.
Summer is fire season with most fires occurring in July. However, wildfires occur throughout the year. In 2011,
Colorado experienced major fires in January and February and a total of 64 fires in March. Dates of fires in the
area demonstrate that wildfires occur year-round. Statistics from the Colorado State Forest Service from 1960-
2009 show increases in the number and size of wildfires for the last several decades. These numbers do not
include the elevated number of wildfires in 2010 and the beginning of 2011.
Although lightning is a concern, Boulder Counties’ most catastrophic fires have been caused by humans. These
fires have been attributed to arson (1980 Pine Brook Hills), discarded smoking material (Black Tiger), poorly
extinguished campfire (2000 Walker Ranch), fireplace ashes that had dumped outside of a mobile home (2006
Elk Mountain), and a residential fire pit (2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire).
Wildfires can compromise water quality both during active burning, and for months or years after the fire has
been contained. During active burning, ash can settle on lakes and reservoirs used for drinking water supplies.
Storms following wildfires are known to impair drinking water supplies in the western U.S., as burn areas are
prone to greater rates of erosion, increasing the downstream accumulation of sediment in streams, rivers, and
reservoirs. Thus, the potential impacts from past, current, and future wildfires on the quantity and quality of
runoff are considerable, and may greatly impact water used for domestic, agricultural, and ecological water
supplies.
35 http://www.bouldercounty.org/property/forest/pages/bcwildfires.aspx
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 108 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
98
Fire also impacts recreation, as areas disturbed by fire can leave unstable soils, and rocks, as well as fire
weakened stress that could pose a significant safety hazard to those visiting fire impacted areas. These areas
would possibly need to be closed for several months due to safety concerns for the visiting public.
Fire suppression and other management practices over the last 100 years have resulted in forests that are more
dense than their natural state. With more fuel, we are experiencing more frequent high severity wildfire. In
addition to destroying homes, these fires have a negative ecological impact on the ecosystem. These fires also
increase the risk of flooding and the cost of restoration.
The high percentage of human caused fires suggests wildfire prevention efforts may be able to reduce the
number of ignitions and subsequent catastrophic fires.
According to the Boulder Community Wildfire Protection Plan, most local plans define their communities and
assign them a community hazard rating from “low” to “extreme.” The following table was produced using
information from the local plans.
Wildland dispatch configurations should also be dependent on the location of the incident. The location changes
the risk level in some instances. The chart below indicates the risk levels for wildland fire.
Risk Type Urban East Western Foothills
Low/Moderate 1E 1E 1E
High 1E 1E/2BT/2570/2590 1E/2BT/2570/2590
Very High/Extreme 1E 1E/2BT/2570/2590 +
3E/1T (balance of 1st)
1E/2BT/2570/2590 +
3E/1T
(balance of 1st)
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 109 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
99
Wildfire Risk Categories
The table below outlines the categories of wildfire risk in the City of Boulder.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 110 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
100
Recent Wildfires
The shaded areas below is a pictorial representation of the most recent wildfires in Boulder County.
Map 22. History of recent wildfires
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 111 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
101
Emergency Medical Services Risk
Almost 81% of the incidents handled by BFR annually involve the potential for treatment and transportation of
individuals experiencing illness or traumatic injury. Emergency medical events are the most frequent non-fire
risk. The nature of these injuries or illnesses can range from minor to life-threatening.
Most EMS incidents involve a single patient with repercussions to the patient’s family, employer, and
community. Motor vehicle accidents, workplace accidents, epidemic infectious disease, and other mass casualty
incidents can affect multiple patients. The goal is to assess, treat, and stabilize the patient until an ambulance
arrives. American Medical Response (AMR), a private ambulance service, is responsible for transporting patients.
According to the National Safety Council (NSC) Injury Facts 2016 36, motor vehicle collisions (MVC) are the second
leading cause of unintentional death. Impaired driving, distracted driving, speeding and inexperience can cause
a life to be cut short. Requests for EMS are increasing steadily. BFR experienced an increase of 17 percent in
EMS calls between 2006 and 2011, and a 11% increase between 2015 and 2017. With Boulder’s population and
employment projections, EMS incidents are expected to increase, particularly in areas being redeveloped.
BFR is currently assessing these trends and conducting a master plan study of the EMS model to vet options to
shift BFR to a fire-based EMS model. This would position the department to better achieve its charter mandate
for EMS response in Boulder. BFR currently staffs its engines with basic Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT).
The motivation to explore switching to a fire-based EMS model is to improve patient outcomes by gaining more
direct control over medical protocols and quality assurance and enhancing emergency medical response
workforce stability. In addition, this shift could also enhance BFR’s all-hazard response capability by staffing
paramedic firefighters throughout the city to quickly respond to multiple simultaneous EMS calls or large multi-
hazard events thereby increasing the resiliency of the response system. Finally, this model could open
opportunities to capitalize on alternative delivery models to handle lower acuity incidents that impact overall
system reliability.
Maximum Risk
A maximum risk EMS event is one that affects multiple patients. As with most agencies, the highest EMS risk is
that of a Mass Casualty Incident (MCI). An MCI is any incident in which emergency medical services resources,
such as personnel and equipment, are overwhelmed by the number and severity of casualties. These events can
result from a wide variety of causes, however for this category the focus is on medical/traumatic injury risk.
Within the category of MCI most commonly would be a multi-patient motor vehicle accident, second would be
an active shooter event and third would be an outbreak of an infectious disease.
36 http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/safety-at-home.aspx
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 112 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
102
High Risk
A high-risk EMS event is one that typically affects one patient. These events are medically severe in nature and
include cardiac and respiratory arrest. In 2017, BFR responded to 83 Cardiac/Respiratory arrests.
Top 25 Medical/Assist Locations 2017 37
# of Incidents Number Street Suffix Station Territory Location Name
176 1055 ADAMS CIR ST3 Golden West
171 4685 BASELINE RD ST2 Boulder Manor
120 1400 WALNUT ST ST1 RTD Bus Station
120 4869 BROADWAY ST5 Boulder Shelter
105 3180 AIRPORT RD ST7
96 2525 TAFT DR ST3
91 4685 BASELINE RD ST7
91 801 GILLASPIE DR ST4
88 575 TANTRA DR ST4
74 4500 19TH ST ST5
67 2121 MESA DR ST1
65 1940 WALNUT ST ST1
65 2750 BROADWAY ST1
63 3955 28TH ST ST5
60 3375 34TH ST ST3
55 3350 30TH ST ST3
54 350 PONCA PL ST2
54 3200 AIRPORT RD ST7
50 1100 BALSAM AVE ST1
46 970 AURORA AVE ST2
44 600 30TH ST ST2
44 4950 THUNDERBIRD DR ST2
44 2005 BAKER DR ST2
41 1855 PLEASANT ST ST1
41 2115 BAKER DR ST2
37 Addresses without a number were excluded from the query – possible misrepresentation of number of incidents due to
common place.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 113 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
103
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are chemical substances that, if released or misused, can pose a threat to the environment
or the health of the population. These chemicals are used in industry, agriculture, medicine, research, and
consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances,
poisons, and radioactive materials. These substances are most often released because of transportation
accidents or because of chemical accidents in plants.
Historically speaking, in the City of Boulder the greatest number of hazardous materials incidents are low risk.
They usually involve the initial engine or truck company. These calls would include leaking fuels from automobile
accidents, minor spills at fixed facility research and manufacturing laboratories, fuel spills on construction sites,
cut natural gas lines from excavations and carbon monoxide calls in residential buildings and single-family
residences. They also involve small quantities of chemicals normally used in the home.
The largest risk of a moderate or high risk hazardous materials incident in the City of Boulder and Boulder
County lies with transportation. Rail incidents, although rare, pose the greatest risk due to the sheer volume of
product involved. An incident involving a railcar or multiple cars could pose a serious threat to life and
environment in the city and rural areas alike. A release could impact drinking water supplies and cause an
economic impact to businesses and agriculture in the affected area.
Roadway incidents are more common than rail incidents. These incidents are the second area of concern
because of the high frequency of occurrence. Although the quantities are less than in a rail incident, the vehicles
carrying these products have a greater access to a larger portion of the city and county. Roadway transportation
also involves more product handling than rail. As the railcars move through the city and county they load and
unload less frequently and in fewer, designated locations. Roadway vehicles load and unload on a very frequent
basis all over the city and county, from gas stations to chemical facilities to hospitals and manufacturing
locations. The routes taken are broader. Even with the hazardous cargo (HC) route running along the east side of
the city, these transport vehicles may be on any street at any time if the originating location or destination lies
away from the HC route.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 114 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
104
Section V: Current Deployment and Performance
The City of Boulder Fire Rescue department is a medium-sized, all-career fire department that provides all-risk
emergency services, including a dedicated wildland fire division. The goals of the mission statement is to make
Boulder a safe place to live and work, and to reduce the human suffering caused by fires, accidents, sudden
illnesses, hazardous material releases, or other disasters.
BFR has eight stations that are located strategically around the city to provide a timely response to all incidents.
All addresses in the City of Boulder limits are within two miles of a fire station. The department operates 1
ladder truck and 7 engines with designated staffing of 3 firefighters per company Emergency responders are
housed at 7 fire stations located throughout the incorporated areas of the city. The on-shift Battalion Chief is
housed at Station 1 on 13th St.
BFR provides wildland mitigation, suppression, and education (public and in-house) out of Station 8. The station
is located at the Boulder County Regional Fire Training Center and is solely utilized for the Wildland Division. The
wildland division does not play a role in first-due (distribution) responses.
The department provides cross-staffing of 1 water rescue vehicle with boat, 2 Type 6 brush engines, and 2 Type
3 brush engines. The Hazardous Materials unit is located at Station 7 and cross-staffed by the personnel at that
station.
BFR has established a dispatch configuration for each incident type. The incident type is based on the type of
risk. Through evaluation of incident types and critical task analysis, it has been determined that the dispatch
codes, and deployment array needs to be further evaluated to better match the needs of the community. A
description of each dispatch configuration can be found in the Appendix.
The department attempts to provide consistent service levels based on the number of resources available within
the county and the distance between these resources.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 115 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
105
Map 23. First Due Response Areas
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 116 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
106
Data Collection and Analysis
BFR uses a variety of analysis tools to evaluate historical incidents. Each 911 call generates two data sets, what
the caller perceives is happening (CAD data) and what Fire personnel report (FIREHOUSE RMS data). Both data
sets share an incident number and all times; therefore, they can be cross-referenced. Below is a list of some of
the analysis tools used:
• West Net – First In
• SQL Server Management Studio
• Excel Business Services (analysis)
• Firehouse RMS – storage of records
• Tritech CAD – storage of records
• ESRI ArcGIS - ArcGIS is a collection of GIS software products that provides a standards-based platform
for spatial analysis, data management, and mapping.
In 2003, the Department began using FIREHOUSE Records Management Software (“Firehouse” or FHRMS).
FIREHOUSE is a National Fire Incident Reporting System 5.0 (NFIRS 5.0) incident reporting software package.
FIREHOUSE provides BFR with the ability to record, store, archive, and recall incident, hydrant, occupancy,
training, and personnel information, and retrieve reports regarding the same.
The incident module within FHRMS is used to record all fires, and includes information pertaining to fire loss,
injury and life loss, property loss, and other associated losses. The incident module complies with the National
Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) requirements. Company officers are responsible for the completion of all
FHRMS reports. They are later quality checked by the on-shift Battalion Chief on duty i. The city also has an
administrative policy on Information and Technology.
In early 2018, BFR began using First In, a product created by West Net. First In is a fire station alerting system
that utilizes a series of remote units placed strategically throughout the fire station to notify fire personnel of an
emergency call. The system is alerted by the CAD system and features pre-alert tones and Automated Voice
Dispatch, selective alerting by company assignment, dorm remotes for individual dorm room alerting, heart-
friendly ramping tones, video messengers for displaying call information on station monitors, back-up alerting as
well as red safety lighting to ensure safety throughout the firehouse 38.
38 http://www.firstinalerting.com
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 117 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
107
Overall Incident Information
Incident volume by 911 call type 39
Incident Type Percent of Call Volume
EMS 80.72%
FIALAF-Fire Alarm 9.57%
Odor of Gas 3.39%
FINONF - Non Struct Fire 2.53%
FISTRF-Struct Fire/Smoke insi 2.06%
Auto Aid 0.77%
Hazmat 0.48%
MUAIDF- BFD mutual aid 0.22%
FIWILF-Wildland/Grass fire 0.18%
RESCUEF-Special Rescue 0.05%
AMNONF-Blood draw/noncode amb 0.02%
AIACCF-Motorized Air Accident 0.01%
BOMBF-Bomb Threat 0.01%
39 Incident types were combined by like items
Percent Change
By Year
2014 2015 2016 2017
-13% 7% 10% 1%
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Incident CountYear
Incident Count per Year
2013-2017
Total
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 118 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
108
Emergency Unit Responses 40
Unit Changes Year over Year: 2015-2017 41
Unit 2015 2016 2017 % Increase
2501 2335 2987 2795 16.46%
2502 2465 2576 2709 9.01%
2503 2460 2663 2738 10.15%
2504 1111 1247 1319 15.77%
2505 1338 1481 1425 6.11%
2506 326 392 391 16.62%
2507 1248 1318 1387 10.02%
40 Includes emergent and non-emergent responses.
41 FHRMS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2570 2516Incident CountUnit Number
Incident Count per Unit
2013-2017
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 119 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
109
Call Distribution by hour of day, weekday, month:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Friday Monday Saturday Sunday Thursday Tuesday Wednesday
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 120 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
110
Property and Content Loss
Year Total Content Loss Total Property Loss
2015 $ 408,449.00 $ 872,774.00
2016 $ 273,770.00 $ 1,525,668.00
2017 $ 217,711.00 $ 934,299.00
2018 $ 36,015.00 $ 307,100.00
Total $ 1,970,885.00 $ 7,195,373.00
Incidents Day vs. Night
In the City of Boulder 60% of the incidents occur between the hours of 7am and 7pm.
911 Calls
The volume of 911 calls processed by the City of Boulder has increased by 17% since 2012. 911 calls tend to be
highest in the summer months of July and August while lowest in the winter months of January and February.
60%
40%
Day vs. Night Incident Volume
07:00 - 19:00
19:01 - 06:59
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 121 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
111
Call Processing by Time of Day
Between 2011-2016, Boulder Fire-Rescue processed the highest number of 911 calls in the evening and early
morning hours. However, 2016 saw a spike in daytime responses and a drop in both morning and evening
responses relative to previous years.
42
42 FHRMS
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 122 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
112
Staffing
BFR has a traditional organizational structure for a department its size. The department has two major divisions,
and within those two divisions, are four primary sub-divisions, which comprise the operational structure of the
department. The department has a staff of 124 43 full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel. A portion of those FTE
positions include 8 full time personnel in the Wildland Division. The four divisions within the department under
Support Services and Operations respectively are the community risk reduction and training divisions, and the
fire operations and wildland divisions.
Fire personnel are represented by the International Association of Firefighters Local # 900. The current two-year
collective bargaining agreement went into effect on January 1, 2017 and expires December 31, 2018.
Wildland Division personnel are not currently represented by Local 900, however the department and the Local
are currently engaged in collaborative efforts to incorporate them into the bargaining unit. Chief officers are
selected based on city-supported promotional processes. The Fire Chief is selected by the City Manager.
The table below represents the daily minimum staffing on fire apparatus.
Station Apparatus Personnel Type
Station 1
2516 3 Type I
2501 3 Type I
2570 1 Pick-Up
Station 2 2502 3 Type I
2538 0 Type III
Station 3 2503 3 Type I
2521 0 Dive Van
Station 4 2504 3 Type I
Station 5 2505 3 Type I
2532 0 Type VI
Station 6 2506 3 Type I
Station 7
2507 3 Type I
2523 0 Hazmat Van
Station 8 (Wild Land)
2531 0 Type VI
2535 0 Type VI
2539 0 Type III
2551 0 Pick-Up
2552 0 Pick-Up
Total Apparatus Minimum Staffing 25
43 Will be 129 after may.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 123 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
113
Community Baselines
Response time is the most common performance measure used for fire services because it is understood by
residents, easy to compute, and useful in the evaluation of end results. The 2015 BVCP calls for BFR to: “have
response times to location of emergency that is normally six minutes or less.” This goal is supported by the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, which establishes a six-minute response 90 percent of
the time.
Defining System Performance
The measurement of system performance falls into four categories: distribution, concentration, reliability, and
comparability.
An adequate distribution of resources is necessary to respond to incidents throughout the jurisdiction,
regardless of significance. Distribution of fire companies assures a specific response time performance for a
percentage of the calls for service. Ideally, 100% of the community would have a fire company on the scene
within the allotted response time. Distribution of fire companies is considered adequate if fire companies can
respond to at least 90% of the incidents within the stated travel response-time goal.
Concentration is the spacing of multiple resources arranged close enough so an initial effective response force
(ERF) can be assembled on the scene within the Department’s established response time goals. An initial ERF will
most likely stop the escalation of the emergency for a specific risk type.
Fire stations and apparatus must be equally distributed in the community to provide a timely initial attack for all
calls. Additionally, the fire station locations and staffing patterns must concentrate resources to respond to a
major event within the desired response time goals. BFR apparatus have historically been placed based on
distribution, while much of the equipment carried had been based on concentration (e.g.: high-rise pack in high-
rise district). The City of Boulder is considered an urban population density.
Distribution
These measures are comparative measurements relative to the distribution of BFR resources. An example is
locating first-due resources throughout the jurisdiction to provide all citizens with a quick response for initial
intervention. The City of Boulder spans 25.8 square miles. BFR Vehicles are dispatched using Automatic Vehicle
Location (AVL), therefore the closest unit is dispatched to most incidents.
BFR fire stations are located to ensure rapid deployment of first-due resources (primarily pumpers) for
minimizing and terminating routine emergencies. The methodology for station location predates most of the
modern planning tools in use now. Four out of the seven stations were built prior to 1970 and therefore, ISO
standards were either not in place or in prior versions. Due to this, the department is currently evaluating the
present locations for relocation or provision of alternative response models. The Department strives for an
equitable level of outcome, meaning that everyone has a fire station approximately within the same distance in
the community. Units are dispatched using AVL, therefore the closest unit will respond to most emergencies.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 124 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
114
Map 24. 4 minute drive time of fire apparatus
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 125 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
115
Square Mileage in each of the Stations Default Territory
Station Sq. Miles Station Sq. Miles
1 3.44 5 4.39
2 3.11 6 4.01
3 3.0 7 4.18
4 5.14
Area not covered by the four-minute drive time at 80% speed
Station Area Full area Area Not Covered Amount of Area Covered % Covered
1 95,945,893.77 8,893,101.76 87,052,792.01 90.73%
2 86,833,934.67 14,074,604.54 72,759,330.12 83.79%
3 83,670,468.25 19,992,914.17 63,677,554.08 76.11%
4 143,385,020.70 66,675,831.39 76,709,189.31 53.50%
5 122,621,451.67 59,694,305.55 62,927,146.13 51.32%
6 111,988,125.99 72,863,134.54 39,124,991.45 34.94%
7 116,620,965.20 34,558,193.07 82,062,772.13 70.37%
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 126 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
116
Location of Incidents
The map below shows the number of emergency incidents by fire district. Hover over each district to get a total
count. Most incidents in 2017 year-to-date occurred within Station 1, which has had nearly as many incidents as
Stations 4, 5, 6, and 7 combined.
Map 25. Location of Incidents
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 127 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
117
INCIDENTS: UNIT & STATION/YEAR
Station 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1 3114 2703 2905 3245 3120
2 2215 2103 2178 2254 2375
3 2532 2281 2545 2759 2713
4 904 753 878 1029 1131
5 1200 1044 1127 1265 1227
6 262 260 269 303 316
7 936 742 757 912 1049
Two vehicles respond out of Station 1. Engine 1 and Truck 1.
2017
Station Unit Responses/Year Responses/Day Percent of Workload
1 3120 8.5 26%
2 2375 6.5 20%
3 2713 7.4 23%
4 1131 3.1 9%
5 1227 3.4 10%
6 316 0.9 3%
7 1049 2.9 9%
Total 11931 32.7 100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Series1 3120 2375 2713 1131 1227 316 1049
Series2 26%20%23%9%10%3%9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Axis TitleUnit Responses by Station
2017
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 128 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
118
Incident Evaluation by Time of day
Below is a stacked bar chart depicting the time of day the BFRD responds to emergencies. These emergencies
are most frequent during the hours 12:00PM to 6:00PM. In stations 1, 2, and 3, the second most frequent
timeframe is 6:00PM to 12:00AM. However, in stations 4, 5, 6, and 7, the second most frequent timeframe is
6:00AM to 12:00PM.
Incident Types by Unit
As seen in the chart below, EMS/Rescue incidents are the bulk of the call volume for engines. The on-shift BC,
2570, is not automatically dispatched to these incidents which is reflected on the chart.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2570 2516Axis TitleUnit
Incident Type by Unit
CITIZEN COMPLAINT
EMS/RESCUE
FALSE ALARM
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
SEVERE WEATHER
EXPLOSION
FIRE
Image 19. Incidents by time of day
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 129 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
119
Specialty Unit responses
Below is the number of incidents committed to by specialty units.
Row Labels 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grand Total
Wildland 14 13 5 2 7 41
Wildland Brush Truck 23 25 7 21 18 94
Wildland Division Chief 3 6 9
Wildland Truck 1 5 1 6 5 18
Wildland Type 3 1 8 9 11 29
Wildland Type 3 Engine 5 33 38 41 117
Dive Van 31 36 31 20 26 144
Rescue Squad 2523 17 25 35 24 21 122
Reliability
Response reliability addresses the ability of a resource to respond within each area. It is the probability that the
unit assigned to a territory will be available to respond in that territory. It is also to determine the ability of the
appropriate resource to meet the determined performance measure baseline.
As the number of calls increases, and the demand on crews increase (training, out of service time), the reliability
decreases. Response reliability is typically reflected as a percentage. In 2017, 76% of calls were responded to by
the first-due company. Data reflecting where units went during the time out of territory is located below
Incident volume by unit per station territory
The table below depicts each of the first line units and which station area they respond to most. The highest
numbers are in the stations first in territory, and the colors range from green (lowest) to red (highest).
Station 1 – 2501 & 2516
Station 2 – 2502
Station 3 – 2503
Station 4 – 2504
Station 5 – 2505
Station 6 – 2506
Station 7 – 2507
Response Area ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7
2501 2272 165 191 24 110 7 20
2502 276 1947 258 137 19 3 64
2503 121 220 2163 42 65 14 112
2504 35 158 55 1017 13 3 32
2505 72 16 170 5 1113 34 9
2506 15 16 22 1 28 294 13
2507 44 169 171 35 19 12 934
2516 1398 135 187 30 87 18 24
Total 4233 2826 3217 1291 1454 385 1208
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 130 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
120
Turnout Compliance
The chart below displays front line apparatus and compliance with turnout times under 1 minute.
Travel Compliance
The chart below displays front line apparatus and compliance with travel times under 4 minutes.
55.16%55.70%59.12%48.82%53.27%48.67%34.96%55.04%44.84%44.30%40.88%51.18%46.73%51.33%65.04%44.96%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2516
Travel Compliance
2015-2017
Over 4 min
Under 4 Min26.11%24.81%27.85%17.93%25.59%21.67%27.60%63.45%73.89%75.19%72.15%82.07%74.41%78.33%72.40%36.55%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2516
Turnout Compliance
2015-2017
Over 1 minute
under 1 minute
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 131 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
121
Total Response Time Compliance
The chart below displays front line apparatus and compliance with total response times under 6 minutes.
Unit Hour Utilization
Unit hour utilization is the percent of time during each 24-hour period that a unit is committed to an incident.
Below is a table that reflects first line apparatus and the BC’s Unit Hour Utilization (UHU).
Unit Hour Utilization
Unit Total Commit Time Number of Incidents UHU
2501 3720:57:42 5127 42%
2502 4557:01:49 6857 52%
2503 4518:15:26 6912 52%
2505 3128:48:28 3914 36%
2504 2641:46:57 3447 30%
2506 733:54:29 916 8%
2507 2534:47:39 3363 29%
2516 2988:19:53 4474 34%
2570 1032:45:40 1079 12% 42.91%47.36%49.79%34.29%36.36%38.64%28.69%42.12%57.09%52.64%50.21%65.71%63.64%61.36%71.31%57.88%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2516
Total Response Time Compliance
2015-2017
Over 6 Min
Under 6 Min
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 132 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
122
Map 26. Response times over 6 minutes and 30 seconds
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 133 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
123
Number of Incidents BFR responds to at the same time
The bar graphs on this page show the total number of concurrent 911 calls by response unit broken down by
concurrency. Concurrent calls are those that occur simultaneously. The overwhelming majority of 911 calls occur
by themselves. However, between 2012-2016, anywhere from 5% to 15% of calls for a response unit occurred
simultaneously.
Image 20. Concurrent Incidents by type
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 134 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
124
Station Distribution and Reliability Analysis: 2017
Station 1
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2501/2516)
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
4,233 3,670 998
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 1: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
0
500
1000
1500
2000
ST1
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
EXPLOSION
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
SEVERE WEATHER
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 135 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
125
Station 2
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2502)
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
2826 1947 757
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
ST2
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
CITIZEN COMPLAINT
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 2: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 136 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
126
Station 3
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2503)
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
3217 2163 574
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
ST3
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
EXPLOSION
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
CITIZEN COMPLAINT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 3: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 137 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
127
Station 4
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2504)
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
1291 1017 296
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ST4
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
EXPLOSION
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
CITIZEN COMPLAINT
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 4: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
ST4
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 138 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
128
Station 5
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2505)
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
1454 1113 306
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ST5
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
EXPLOSION
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
CITIZEN COMPLAINT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 5: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 139 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
129
Station 6 44
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2506)
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
385 294 95
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
44 Low volume Engine – without it, we can’t get to Gunbarrel
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
ST6
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 6: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 140 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
130
Station 7
In/Out of Territory Responses (Unit: 2507)
Total Number of Incidents in Territory Handled by First Due Handled by Another Unit
1208 934 450
Incident Outcome Types
Incidents by Time of Day
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Station 7: Incidents by Time of Day
2015-2017
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
ST7
NFIRS INCIDENT TYPE
EMS/RESCUE
EXPLOSION
FALSE ALARM
FIRE
GOOD INTENT
HAZMAT
SERVICE
CITIZEN COMPLAINT
SEVERE WEATHER
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 141 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
131
Concentration
Concentration is the arrangement of resources within the jurisdiction. Resources should be spaced near one
another to assemble an Effective Response Force (ERF) for the type and magnitude of incident within adopted
public policy periods. Historically, stations and equipment have been placed based on the assumption that all
areas have the same risk and probability of an event occurring.
Time Components
In the City of Boulder, all calls are dispatched by the Boulder Police Department, who serves as the public safety
answering point (PSAP) for BFR.
BFR measures alarm handing (processing), turnout, travel, and total response time (2C.5).
• Alarm handling/processing - begins after the dispatcher has received the call and begins dispatching
units.
• Turnout - begins when a unit receives notification of the emergency and ends when the unit is en-route
to the emergency incident (the unit’s wheels begin to roll). The maximum time for turnout should not
exceed one minute.
• Travel - begins when a unit is en-route to the emergency incident (the unit’s wheels begin to roll and
911 is notified that the unit is responding) and ends when the unit arrives on the scene.
• Total response - is the sum of each of the time components (Alarm handling +Turnout + Travel). Time
begins when 911 receives notification of the emergency and ends when the unit(s) arrive(s) on the
scene.
The target service-level objectives in the benchmark statements are based on industry standards and best
practices, and the needs of the department. The objectives are included in the BVCP which has been adopted by
City Council.
Benchmarking
Establishing a benchmark offers the agency a figurative “target” to aim for. Below are the benchmark response-
time objectives for each level of service. BFR considers the area served as an urban community. All response
time benchmarks are for an urban population density.
Baseline Performance
Before measuring baseline emergency responses, all non-emergency responses, mutual aid assistance,
exposures, and NULL arrival time values were removed. NULL time values are removed because these times
represent an incomplete time segment. E.g.: if a unit were cancelled, the arrival time would be equal to NULL
because it never happened. Upgrades and downgrades are also not considered because they would have been
driving with the flow of traffic for a portion of their response. Measuring mutual-aid units does not assess BFR
capabilities in the City of Boulder, therefore these responses are not included. For fire incidents, AMR was
excluded because they are not used to create a fire ERF. Statistical outliers were removed when possible. The
definition of a statistical outlier is 1.5 times the Interquartile Range *IQR).
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 142 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
132
The categories and criteria for measuring baseline performance at the 90th percentile is detailed below.
HazMat EMS Fire
Low
CAD: HAZMINF-Minor hazmat
response
First arriving Engine Company (all
hazmat ops cert.) (3)
CAD:
FINONF - Non Struct Fire 3
personnel.
Moderate
CAD: HAZMAJF-HAZMAT major
response
CAD:
FISTRF-Struct Fire/Smoke insi - 13
personnel.
NFIRS Property use 419/429
High
CAD: HAZMFULLF-Countywide
Hazmat
CAD:
Engine or an ambulance on-scene
4 or more personnel with a
minimum of 2 EMT's and 2
Paramedics.
CAD:
FISTRF-Struct Fire/Smoke insi - 16
personnel (apartment fires and
commercial fires).
NFIRS Property use not 419/429
Critical Tasking
Evaluating the critical tasks required for on-scene operations is another element of a standard of cover analysis.
Understanding the critical tasks that need to be completed to mitigate this incident will assist in determining
appropriate staffing levels, number of units needed, deployment strategies, and duties to be performed at an
incident. A department must be able to determine what tasks should be completed to have a positive influence
on the outcome of the situation and define the number of personnel and apparatus required to complete those
tasks in an effective manner. Because each emergency varies, and the order of activities undertaken to achieve
objectives may vary depending on the immediate needs. The variables of the scene should be assessed upon
arrival to determine where the resources available can be most effectively used to meet our primary objectives,
Life Safety (occupants, emergency workers, bystanders, etc.), Incident Stabilization, and Property Conservation
(LIP).
A minimum number of personnel must be identified to initiate all tasks required, and an incident commander
must be on-scene to assign the specific tasks. BFR critical tasks are not pre-assigned based on unit designation
(e.g.: ladder trucks are not always assigned the task of ventilation); however, the incident commander takes into
consideration the type of unit and equipment available before assigning a specific task to a crew.
All personnel have the training required to perform the specific tasks assigned. Assigning tasks to crews rather
than to individuals maintains crew integrity and thereby increases firefighter safety, efficiency, and
accountability. BFR defines critical tasks for low risk fire incidents, residential/commercial structure Fires, EMS,
TRT, and HazMat responses.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 143 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
133
BFR is unable to record timestamps for critical tasking as there is no field to record them in. At this time, one
would have to query the CAD comments to derive certain time stamps if the crews report them. This is an area
for improvement within BFR. Currently, BFR dispatches the same compliment to a residential structure fire and a
commercial structure fire. Through the Standard of Cover process, BFR identified the need to alter the dispatch
array to fire incidents based on the critical task analysis.
System Performance
FIRE
Low Risk Fire
Benchmark: Low Risk Fire
The Department’s benchmark service-level objectives are as follows:
For 90 % of all Low Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit,
staffed with three personnel, shall be 6 minutes
For 90 % of all Low Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the effective response
force (ERF) of three personnel shall be 6 minutes.
Critical Tasks: Low Risk Fire
For a low-risk fire (ex: dumpster fire), the total personnel needed for an effective response force is 3. A
dumpster fire compliment is: 1 engine (3).
Low Risk – Fire Suppression
Critical Task Minimum Personnel
Incident command 1
Pump operator 1
Fire Attack 1
Total 3
Baseline: Low Risk Fire
For 90 % of all Low Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit staffed
with three fire personnel is 10 minutes and 31 seconds.
For 90 % of all Low Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the ERF staffed with
three fire personnel is 10 minutes and 31 seconds.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 144 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
134
Low Risk Fire Response Times*
(Fire) (Low)
90th Percentile Times
Baseline Performance
2015-
2017
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Target
(Agency
Benchmark)
Alarm
Handling
Pick-up to
Dispatch
Urban 1:16 0:43 0:42 2:17
N =259 N=276 N=230
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time
1st Unit
Urban 2:21 2:11 2:32 2:20
Travel
Time
Travel Time
1st Unit
Distribution
Urban
8:13 8:27 8:41 7:15
Travel Time
ERF
Concentration
Urban
Total
Response
Time
Total
Response
Time 1st Unit
on Scene
Distribution
Urban
10:31 10:23 10:49 10:32
Total
Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
*outliers were not removed from this dataset. This data set was calculated in Tableau with no outliers removed.
This was done due to data integrity issues.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 145 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
135
Moderate Risk Fire
Benchmark: Moderate Risk Fire
For 90 % of all Moderate Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit,
staffed with three to five firefighters, shall be 6 minutes.
For 90 % of all Moderate Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the ERF, staffed
with eighteen personnel shall be 8 minutes.
Critical Tasks: Moderate Risk Fire
A residential structure fire compliment is: 3 engines (E) (9 personnel), 1 ladder (L) (3 personnel), safety officer
(SO) (1 person), and battalion chief (BC) (1 person).
For a moderate-risk incident (ex: residential structure fire), the current deployment is 4E,1L,1BC. However, after
a critical task analysis it was determined that dispatch procedures should change. The total personnel needed
for an effective response force is 14.
Moderate Risk – Fire Suppression
(Single Family Residence < 3,0000 sq. ft.)
Critical Task Minimum Personnel
Incident command 1
Pump operator 1
360- IC1 / Initial attack line (min. 1 ¾ line) 2
Water Supply (5” supply lines from permanent water supply) 1
Search and Rescue 2
Ventilation 2
Utilities 1
Safety officer (certified incident safety officer) 1
On-Deck (Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) ) 3
14
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 146 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
136
Baseline: Moderate Risk 45
For 90 % of all Moderate Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit,
staffed with three firefighters, is 46 6 minutes and 29 seconds.
For 90 % of all Moderate Risk structure fires, the total response time for the arrival of the ERF, staffed
with fourteen personnel is 47 14 minutes and 10 seconds.
(Residential Structure Fire)
(Moderate)
90th Percentile Times
Baseline Performance
2015-
2017
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Target
(Agency
Benchmark)
Alarm
Handling
Pick-up to
Dispatch
Urban 00:42 00:32 1:21 1:00
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time
1st Unit
Urban 02:28 02:22 02:26 1:00
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Urban
04:30 05:07 04:45 4:00
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Urban 11:48 12:21 09:30 6:00
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit
on Scene
Distribution
Urban
06:29 07:53 07:40 6:00
N= 31 N=34 N=46
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
14:10 22:55 48 12:54 8:00
N=31 N=34 N=46
Exclusions – AMR, Inspections Vehicles, Automatic Aid (1)
Inclusions - Prop use = 419 & 429
45 No outliers in this set
46 This time standard is not an aggregate, this displays 2017 incident data
47 This time standard is not an aggregate, this displays 2017 incident data
48 Need to investigate this further
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 147 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
137
Wildland Fire Risk
Benchmark: Wildland Fire Benchmarks
For 90 % of all Wildland fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with
three firefighters, shall be 6 minutes.
At this time there is only a response benchmark for the first arriving unit. A slower response standard for the
ERF is necessary to account for travel time to distant portions of the city as well as non-emergency responses to
some incidents.
Critical Task: Wildland Fire
Critical tasks for wildland incidents are nearly impossible to define because the nature of assets that are needed
are not determined until the arrival of the first-arriving wildland unit. Depending on the incident, other assets
may be sent non-emergency, requested from other mutual aid partners, or not requested at all. The goal of the
Wildland team is to recognize and identify the need for additional personnel and resources.
In the wildland fire environment, four basic safety hazards confront the firefighter -lightning, fire-weakened
timber, rolling rocks, entrapment by running fires. Each firefighter must know the interconnection of Lookouts,
Communications, Escape Routes, and Safety Zones (LCES). LCES should be established before fighting the fire:
select lookouts, set up a communication, choose escape routes, and select safety zones. In the instance of a
high/extreme fire, BFR would automatically need to request mutual aid for additional personnel.
Outlined, on the next two pages, are the three types of critical tasking based on risk in the wildland
environment.
Low Risk
Command
1 Size-Up
IAP/LCES
Fire Attack/Structure Protection 2
Total 3
Moderate Risk
Command
1 Size-Up
IAP/LCES
Fire Attack/Structure Protection 2
Anchor/Flank 3
Water Supply 3
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 148 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
138
8
High/Extreme Risk
Command IC
Size-Up IC
IAP/LCES IC
Fire Attack/Structure Protection 2
Anchor/Flank 3
Water Supply 3 8
2015-2017 Wildland Incident Response
Incident Type Count of Incidents
AutoAid: Wildland Fire 22
AutoAid: Wildland Task Force 14
FIWILF-Wildland/Grass fire 69
Total 105
Due to the low volume and varied wildland response, the incident responses are calculated with an aggregate
for total response time.
The average response time for wildland events is 1 hour 45 minutes, while the 90th percentile is 1 hour and 14
minutes. There is a wide variety of reported data, with a minimum response time of 12 seconds and a maximum
response time of 30 hours. This leads to the conclusion that there are validity issues with this data.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 149 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
139
EMS
BFR responds to a wide variety of EMS calls including falls, motor vehicle accidents, childbirth, difficulty
breathing, and cardiac arrests. BFR sends an engine to all BLS incidents. Engine companies respond to all basic
life support (BLS) calls; an engine and a private ambulance company respond to advanced life support (ALS) calls,
the private ambulance transports patient to the hospital.
Seven Engines and one ladder are basic life support (BLS) first responders. Each piece of apparatus is staffed
with three personnel. The department relies upon a third-party provider to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS)
and transport to patients. The department utilizes the ambulance service to complete the ERF component of its
EMS program.
There are between 2- 10 ALS ambulances in the system at any given time. The ALS ambulances are staffed with a
minimum of two personnel, one of whom must be a paramedic. The ambulance providers are required to meet
response time criteria of 7 minutes 90% of the time and 11 minutes 98% of the time.
The initial arriving fire department company shall have the capabilities of providing first responder medical aid
including automatic external defibrillation, until the third-party provider arrives on scene. If the third-party
provider unit arrives on scene first, its personnel shall initiate care and the staff from the initial fire department
company shall provide support as needed.
High ALS L1 911 typically dispatches 1 fire unit and 1 ambulance to these incidents. Low acuity
incidents are “L1” problem codes in CAD, all “EMSF” problem codes are also included
in this category due to the unknown nature of the complaint at the University. Calls
generated from campus are not EMD’d.
Image 21. CPR Chain of Survival
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 150 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
140
High Acuity EMS
Benchmark: High Acuity
The Department’s benchmarks are as follows:
For 90% of all High Acuity EMS response incidents, the total response time for the arrival of the 1st Unit
is 6 minutes.
For 90% of all High Acuity EMS response incidents, the total response time for the arrival of the arrival of
the ERF of 4 personnel (1 paramedic) is 7 minutes.
Critical Tasks: High Acuity EMS
The first due BLS unit shall be capable of: providing incident command and producing related documentation;
completing patient assessment; providing appropriate treatment; performing automatic external defibrillator
(AED); initiating cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). For moderate acuity incidents, a third-party ambulance is
used to accomplish the ERF. During these events there is a high likelihood that the patient will need ALS
intervention. The ALS unit shall be capable of: providing appropriate treatment; providing IV access medication
administration.
Moderate Risk – EMS
Critical Task Minimum Personnel
Incident command 1
Airway Management/Patient Assessment/Treatment
Possible AED/Chest Compressions/Medication 1
Patient Packaging/ Transport 2
Total 4
Baseline: High Acuity
For 90 % of all High Acuity EMS incidents, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit,
staffed with three personnel is, 9 minutes and 11 seconds.
For 90 % of all High Acuity EMS incidents, the total response time for the arrival of the ERF, staffed with
five personnel (1 Paramedic) is, 10 minutes and 42 seconds
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 151 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
141
High Acuity EMS Response Times*
(EMS) (High Acuity)
90th Percentile Times
Baseline Performance
2015-
2017
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Target
(Agency
Benchmark)
N=18072 N=6384 N=6262 N=5426
Alarm
Handling
Pick-up to
Dispatch
Urban 3:13 2:56 2:59 4:08 1:00
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time
1st Unit
Urban 1:31 1:02 1:04 1:54 1:00
Travel
Time
Travel Time
1st Unit
Distribution
Urban
6:03 5:59 6:09 5:57 4:00
Travel Time
ERF (AMR)
Concentration
Urban
8:24 8:04 8:27 8:41 5:00
Total
Response
Time
Total
Response
Time 1st Unit
on Scene
Distribution
Urban
9:11 08:26 08:44 11:12 6:00
N=18072 N=6384 N=6262 N=5426
Total
Response
Time ERF
(AMR)
Concentration
Urban
10:52 10:03 10:24 12:41 7:00
N=18072 N=6384 N=6262 N=5426
*Outliers were not removed from this data set. Included in this data set is severity = C,D,E and all un-coded
medical calls
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 152 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
142
Low Volume Incidents
BFR responds to a multitude of incidents other than fires or EMS. These include Hazmat, technical rescue, severe
weather, natural disaster, and service calls. While individually these calls do not happen in large numbers, as a
total they do represent a substantial amount of calls.
Hazmat
As mentioned earlier, Hazardous materials response is a locally provided service mandated by federal statute.
Federal law requires Colorado to develop a hazardous materials response system. The responsibility for the
development of this system was delegated to local jurisdictions by statute. The statute requires local governing
bodies to appoint a Designated Emergency Response Authority (DERA) for the purpose of responding to
hazardous materials emergencies. In order to provide the citizens with the best possible and most cost-effective
response, Boulder County has one county Hazardous Materials Team. The team is comprised of City of Boulder,
City of Longmont, Boulder Rural Fire Protection District and City of Lafayette.
Response is the portion of incident management in which personnel are involved in controlling a hazardous
materials incident defensively or offensively. The activities in the response portion of hazardous materials
incident include:
(a) Analyzing the incident
(b) Planning the response
(c) Implementing the planned response
(d) Evaluating the process
A slower response standard is necessary to account for travel time to distant portions of the city as well as non-
emergency responses to some incidents. The slower standard also accounts for other municipalities responding
to fill the ERF.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 153 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
143
Low Risk Hazmat
Benchmark: Low Risk Hazmat
The Department’s benchmark service-level objectives are as follows:
For 90 % of responses for Low Risk HazMat incidents, the total response time for the first due unit staffed
with a minimum of 3 personnel shall be: 6 minutes.
For 90 % of responses for Low Risk HazMat incidents, the total response time for the ERF unit staffed with a
minimum of 3 personnel shall be: 6 minutes.
Critical Tasks: Low Risk Hazmat
One operational level trained response vehicle (either an engine, truck, or rescue). First apparatus (engines,
trucks, and rescues) that are equipped with hand-tools and trained to arrive on-scene and take appropriate
initial actions to mitigate small isolated incidents or until the HMRT arrives. Initial alarm equipment can be on
the scene in a timely manner and begin incident stabilization.
Low Risk – HazMat
Critical Task Minimum Personnel
Incident command 1
Fire Attack 2
Total 3
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 154 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
144
Baseline: Low Risk HazMat (Hazmat Minor)
(Hazmat) (Low Acuity)
90th Percentile Times
Baseline Performance
2015-
2017
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Target
(Agency
Benchmark)
Alarm
Handling
Pick-up to
Dispatch
Urban 00:27 00:39 02:29
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time
1st Unit
Urban 01:21 00:36 02:19
Travel
Time
Travel Time
1st Unit
Distribution
Urban
05:42 03:16 05:02
Travel Time
ERF
Concentration
Urban
05:42 03:16 07:10
Total
Response
Time
Total
Response
Time 1st Unit
on Scene
Distribution
Urban
07:30 12:20 09:44
N=9 N=9 N=7
Total
Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
07:30 12:20 09:44
N=9 N=9 N=7
The incidents from 2015-2016 are not statistically significant due to the low incident volume. The 2016 data
cannot be verified.
In 2017, there was a total of 44 emergent and non-emergent responses to Hazmat Minor.
HAZMINF-Minor hazmat response
1E,1BC 44
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 155 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
145
Moderate Risk Hazmat
Benchmark: Moderate Hazmat
The Department’s benchmark service-level objectives are as follows:
For 90 % of responses for Moderate Risk HazMat incidents, the total response time for the first due unit
staffed with a minimum of 3 personnel shall be 6 minutes.
The Hazmat Authority benchmark service-level objectives are as follows:
For 90 % of responses to High Risk HazMat incidents, within the vicinity of
o East of Broadway/Hwy 93/U.S. 36
o North of Hwy 128
o South of Hwy 66
o West of East County Line Road
the total response time for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) minimum of 13 people personnel
shall be 90 minutes.
For 90 % of responses to High Risk HazMat incidents, outside of the area defined above, the total response
time for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) minimum of 13 people personnel shall be 120
minutes.
Critical Tasks: Moderate Hazmat
One Hazmat unit is capable of assessing safe entry routes to the incident, identifying a defensive perimeter and
an operational area and staging area, directing defensive operations, and initiating a site-specific written action
plan. They shall be capable of preparing for and initiating offensive Hazmat operations, decontamination
operations, and property conservation operations.
High Risk – HazMat (3E,1BC,1HM, 1AM)
Critical Task Minimum Personnel
HazMat Group Supervisor 1
Safety Officer 1
Entry Team Lead 1
Entry Team 2
Backup Entry Team 2
Research Lead 1
Research 1
Decontamination Leader 1
Decontamination Team 2
Site Access 1
Total 13
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 156 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
146
Baseline: Moderate Risk Hazmat (Hazmat Major)
• 2017: 2 Incidents in this category
• 2016: 2 Incidents in this category
• 2015: 4 incidents in this category, only 3 of which had all units dispatched at the same time
In 2017, there were a total of 3 hazmat responses, 2 emergent, 1 non-emergent
HAZMAJF-HAZMAT major response
3E,1BC,1HM, 1AM 3
High Risk Hazmat
Benchmark: High Risk Hazmat
Boulder County level response
The Department’s benchmark service-level objectives are as follows:
For 90 % of responses for High Risk HazMat incidents, the total response time for the first due unit staffed
with a minimum of 3 personnel shall be 6 minutes
The Hazmat Authority benchmark service-level objectives are as follows:
For 90 % of responses to High Risk HazMat incidents, within the vicinity of
o East of Broadway/Hwy 93/U.S. 36
o North of Hwy 128
o South of Hwy 66
o West of East County Line Road
the total response time for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) minimum of 13 people personnel
shall be 90 minutes.
For 90 % of responses to High Risk HazMat incidents, outside of the area defined above, the total response
time for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) minimum of 13 people personnel shall be 120
minutes.
Critical Tasks: High Risk Hazmat
One Hazmat unit is capable of assessing safety entry routes to the incident, identifying a defensive perimeter
and an operational area and staging area, directing defensive operations, and initiating a site-specific written
action plan. They shall be capable of preparing for and initiating offensive HazMat operations, decontamination
operations, and property conservation operations.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 157 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
147
High Risk – HazMat (3E,1BC,1HM, 1AM)
Critical Task Minimum Personnel
HazMat Group Supervisor 1
Safety Officer 1
Entry Team Lead 1
Entry Team 2
Backup Entry Team 2
Research Lead 1
Research 1
Decontamination Leader 1
Decontamination Team 2
Site Access 1
Total 13
Baseline: High Risk Hazmat (Hazmat Full)
2015-2017 There were 0 emergent incidents in the City of Boulder CAD with the problem code: HAZMFULLF.
In 2017, there were two incidents with non-emergent response
HAZMFULLF-Countywide Hazmat
1BC 1
3E,1BC,1HM, 1AM 1
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 158 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
148
Section VI: Evaluation of Current Deployment and
Performance
Overall, BFR is not meeting the performance standards based on data from 2017.The data in these areas are
being further evaluated to identify areas for improvement. One of the initiatives discussed in the
recommendations section of the master plan and identified in the Assessment is a review of turnout times.
Another area where the performance measures are not being met includes hazardous material response and
wildland fire response. Based on an initial analysis, the delay for hazardous material response may be attributed
to the special apparatus and assembling a specialized crew. Since the collection of this data, the deployment of
personnel assigned to specialty teams into dedicated those dedicated stations with their equipment have been
made and data is currently being collected on how that may have improved the response times.
For wildland response, the additional time is often because the incident is located near the city boundaries or
outside the city limits on open space. The new wildland fire facility initiative will help to reduce the time to
assemble the equipment and crew. An increase in wildland personnel will also contribute to improved
performance. Going forward, the department will continue to investigate the reasons for these performance
issues and implement changes as appropriate. In addition, the performance measures will continue to be
evaluated as part of the annual citywide budget process.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 159 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
149
EMS Delivery
Emergency Medical Services make up most of the incidents responded to by BFR. In late 2016, BFR was asked to
explore the enhancement of emergency medical services under a fire-based model. By charter, BFR has primary
responsibility for “the provision of rescue and emergency medical services” within city limits. It does so through
a combination of fire department response for BLS and third-party ambulance contractor response, which
provides ALS care and patient transport.
The analysis examined two basic options; public/private delivery and purely public delivery of EMS. For practical
purposes, the second model, fire-based EMS (FBEMS), was split between two implementation versions:
• Status Quo with Private ALS Services
• Fire-based EMS (FBEMS)
o Immediate Implementation Model
o Gradual Implementation Model
The major differences in each system include:
Status Quo with Private ALS Services The FBEMS system
• BFR is not required to initiate or maintain
paramedicine training for staff
• AMR manages staff and scheduling
• No significant short-term capital costs
• No costs associated with purchasing or
maintaining ambulances and equipment
• BFR does not manage patient billing
• BFR does not manage controlled substances
• Below market employee pay; high employee
turnover
• Paramedics lack of familiarity with territory
and patients
• A continuing need to renegotiate a contract
every few years
• High reliance on taxpayer resources to cover
response time objectives
• Poor coordination with fire department
quality control systems
• Inability to use resources in an all-hazards
approach
• Strengthened workforce
• No concerns regarding private contract
• Improved control over the quality of service
provided, administrate efforts, continuity of
care, and all-hazard response
• Revenue generation offsets some fire
department costs
• FBEMS is a response model, not a profit-
driven model
• Running an EMS division is costly
• Legal concerns of controlled substance
management
Further analysis of each option are summarized in the white paper published by BFR. In 2018, BFR hired a team
of consultants to verify the findings the report will be published before the end of 2018.
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 160 of 384
BOULDER FIRE RESCUE 2018 CRA/SOC
150
Section VII: Plan for Maintaining and Improving Response
Capabilities
Factors Driving the Need for Change
BFR considered the current and emerging trends that have implications for the future of emergency response.
These include the following:
Aging population (more seniors) – Boulder’s population is aging, and the county population of age 60 and over
is expected to nearly double by 2020. In 2008, 12 percent of Boulder County’s residents were over the age of 60.
In 2020, that age group is expected to reach 21 percent.
Increase in population – The City of Boulder’s 2016 population is 108,090, with projections indicating an
increase to 114,000 by 2035. This figure could be even higher as the University of Colorado - with a current
enrollment of approximately 30,000 - projects an additional 11,000 students by 2030.
Increase in EMS calls – With Boulder’s population and employment projections, EMS incidents are expected to
increase, particularly in areas being redeveloped. BFR experienced an increase of 11 percent in EMS calls
between 2015 and 2017.
Year-round wildfire risk – As highlighted in the 2012 Fire-Rescue Master Plan, the city is surrounded by open
space, which increases the risk of wildfires. Due to changes in climate, the wildfire risk has expanded from one
season to all year. The city has recent experience with wildland/urban interface fires outside the historic fire
season. Several of these fires have been significant events requiring intensive application of both internal and
external resources.
Movement towards a more urban form – Areas of the city are becoming less suburban and more urban. In the
last 10 years, 3,270 dwelling units have been constructed, and more than 5 million square feet of commercial
and industrial space have been built, while not significantly expanding the city limits.
Housing Unit Density - Current trends and projections indicate that most new housing units will be in higher
density multi-unit developments, and Boulder will continue to serve as a regional employment center. In some
sections of the city, this creates new challenges for Fire and EMS service delivery because of impacts like
increased population density, changes to street size and grid, and public areas designed for pedestrians, not
large vehicles 49.
49 City of Boulder, 2014
Attachment A - Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
City Council Study Session Page 161 of 384
Boulder Fire-Rescue’s Roadmap to Continuous Improvement
Purpose:
To develop the strategic framework that supports a sustainable, community-centric, data-driven
organization that values its workforce.
Objectives:
• Community Engagement
• Professional Development
• Alignment with risk and values
• Instill continuous Improvement into the culture of the organization
• Compliance with industry best practices
Timeline for Implementation (Benchmarks):
• 2017
o Q4 - 2017 Draft Program Based Budget (PBB) Developed
o Q3&4 - Master Planning Foundation and Initial Stakeholder Engagement
o Q4 - Risk-Assessment Completion
• 2018
o Q1&2 – Educate Program Managers on PBB and Self-Assessment (SAM)
o Q3&4 – Development of SAM (First Draft Complete)
Metric and Benckmark Developmnent
o Q2 – Standards of Cover Complete (Service Level Adoption)
• 2019
o Q1 – Master Plan Acceptance
o January - Program Based Budgeting “Live”
February – First Quarterly Metric Reporting Begins
• Community Dashboard Updates
April – EBT Requests formulated from SAM and PBB
o Q2 - Annual Standards of Cover update
o Q3&4 – Develop new annual reporting format
• 2020
o January – First Formal Program Evaluations Due
Updated Annual Report
Attachment B - BFR Roadmap to Continuous Improvement
City Council Study Session Page 162 of 384
0
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT | 3065 CENTER GREEN DR. BOULDER, CO 80301
Fire-Based EMS
CITY OF BOULDER ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 163 of 384
1
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
EMS System Design........................................................................................................................................................ 6
How EMS Response Works in the City of Boulder Today .............................................................................................. 8
911 and Dispatching .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Boulder Fire-Rescue Department & AMR .................................................................................................................. 8
Benefits of the Current EMS System ......................................................................................................................... 9
Limitations of the Current System ........................................................................................................................... 10
Benefits of a Fire-based EMS System ...................................................................................................................... 11
Limitations of a Fire-based EMS System .................................................................................................................. 12
Peer EMS System Comparison ................................................................................................................................. 13
Qualities of a Strong EMS System ................................................................................................................................ 15
Administration ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Continuity of Care and Information Flow ................................................................................................................ 15
Response Times and Patient Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 15
Strong Employee Base ............................................................................................................................................. 16
EMS Delivery Options Considered ............................................................................................................................... 17
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Model and Assumptions .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Data ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Results and Analysis..................................................................................................................................................... 21
Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Coverage .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 164 of 384
2
Executive Summary
Overview
In late 2016, Boulder Fire Rescue (BFR) was asked to explore the enhancement of emergency medical
services under a fire-based model. By charter, BFR has primary responsibility for “the provision of
rescue and emergency medical services1” within city limits. It does so through a combination of fire
department response for basic life support (BLS) and third-party ambulance contractor response, which
provides for advanced life support (ALS) and patient transport. The present contractor does business as
American Medical Response (AMR).
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to inform the risk/return policy tradeoff of maintaining the current
contracted emergency function (advanced life support) vs. internalizing the service with city responders
and city resources, where the fire department would upgrade all city units to ALS and add 3 new ALS
ambulances. These changes would be incorporated in the 2018 Fire-Rescue Master Plan.
Options
This alternatives analysis examined two basic options; public/private delivery and purely public delivery
of EMS. For practical purposes, the second model, fire-based EMS (FBEMS), has been split between two
implementation versions:
1. Status Quo with Private ALS Services
2. Fire-based EMS
a. Immediate Implementation Model
b. Gradual Implementation Model
Benefits and limitations of both options are summarized in the tables below:
The current system:
Benefits Limitations
• BFR is not required to initiate or maintain
paramedicine training for staff
• AMR manages staff and scheduling
• No significant short-term capital costs
• No costs associated with purchasing or
maintaining ambulances and equipment
• BFR does not manage patient billing
• BFR does not manage controlled
substances
• Below market employee pay; high employee
turnover
• Paramedics lack of familiarity with territory and
patients
• A continuing need to renegotiate a contract every
few years
• High reliance on taxpayer resources to cover
response time objectives
• Poor coordination with fire department quality
control systems
• Inability to use resources in an all-hazards approach
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 165 of 384
3
The FBEMS system:
Benefits Limitations
• Strengthened workforce
• No concerns regarding private contract
• Improved control over the quality of service
provided, administrate efforts, continuity of
care, and all-hazard response
• Revenue generation offsets some fire
department costs
• FBEMS is a response model, not a profit-driven
model
• Running an EMS division is costly
• Legal concerns of controlled substance
management
Results
Modeling suggests that after full implementation of the FBEMS model, there is an annual potential
$177,669 difference between it and the cost of maintaining status quo with the private ambulance
provider. However, with the proposed three ambulance ALS system, BFR expects to improve ALS travel
times and response times for all hazards in the city. Moreover, proposed 4-minute travel time ALS
coverage (11 units) will increase to 98 percent of the city over the 2-unit private ALS model used today.
Year 4 differences between Status Quo and Gradual Implementation
Status Quo Gradual
Implementation
Difference
Cost Total $1,976,949 $4,866,108 $2,889,159
Gross Revenue $0 $2,711,490 $2,711,490
Cost with Revenue - $1,976,949 -$2,154,618 $177,669
Recommendation
This analysis was approved for presentation at the City Council Study Session, scheduled for April 25,
2017 as a part of 2018 Master Planning efforts. Boulder Fire-Rescue recommends the city shift its
current ALS response policy involving a private contractor to a gradual implementation of fire-based
EMS by incorporating departmental changes in the 2018 Fire-Rescue Master Plan. The scheduled update
and provides the city with an opportunity to implement the FBEMS as an investment priority. Due to the
costs involved, the labor contract implications, equipment acquisition, training, administrative and FTE
needs, a phased approach provided in the 2018 Master Plan is the least disruptive to both the
department and the general fund.
The following workflow timeline is proposed:
Master Plan Update: 2018
Phase 1 (12 to 14 months)
• Hire and/or promote the administrative support and overhead staff and acquire medical
direction
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 166 of 384
4
• Train incumbent firefighters to EMT-Paramedic
• Negotiate with Local 900, ALS benefit and working conditions for a revised labor
contract
• Negotiate a revised contract with ambulance provider for BLS services
• Setup the continuing education calendar for ALS
• Negotiate with equipment supply vendors for ALS equipment/medications
• Start modifications to Station 1
• Prepare specifications and solicit for new electronic patient care records system (unless
provided under patient billing contractor)
• Prepare QA/QI standards and set up committee
Phase 2 (14 to 24 months)
• Train incumbent firefighters to EMT-Paramedic (new and ongoing)
• Acquire three ambulances and support responder vehicles
• Set up the EMS supply cache for expendables and controlled substances
• Contract with a patient billing services vendor
• Modify dispatch protocols
• Hire lateral entry firefighter/paramedics
• Complete Station 1 modifications
• Train and implement new patient care records system
• Implement QA/QI committee process
• Place two ambulances in service
• Place field care in service
Phase 3 (24 to 36 months)
• Place third ambulance in service
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 167 of 384
5
Introduction
The purpose of an Emergency Medical System (EMS) is to provide acute field care to critical needs
patients. EMS brings the emergency department directly to an emergency scene and offers
transportation to more definitive treatment from emergency room physicians. The most recognized
EMS systems involve response from ambulance units, who often provide advanced care, communicate
with local hospitals, and transport patients to emergency rooms. Ambulance personnel often work for
or alongside their public safety counterparts in law and fire-rescue2, who are often dispatched as well.
At BFR, response to medical emergencies is a large portion of BFR’s workload (~65 percent); the fire
department plays an active role in tending to patients in emergency medical settings and is an important
first piece of the system’s response model. All BFR firefighters are required to have Emergency Medical
Technicians (EMT) certifications along with their fire-rescue certifications. The multiple response roles
BFR firefighters play (fire, EMS, hazardous materials, water rescue, technical rescue, etc.) are the most
efficient way to respond to local emergencies and make Boulder a safer place to live, work, and play.
This research compares the current EMS system in Boulder that includes fire department response with
a private ambulance provider and a fire-based model that essentially internalizes all emergency medical
response within BFR. The goal of this research was to make system recommendations that improve
advanced care response times and improve response times for all types of emergencies at a reasonable
cost. The proposal considers the tradeoff between the current and proposed systems in terms of startup
and ongoing system costs, patient care revenue, demand growth, and the overall impact on response
times for all hazards in the city. It attempts to inform the risk/return decision making necessary for any
new or enhanced public service proposal.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 168 of 384
6
EMS System Design
As stated previously, EMS is an extension of the emergency department in the prehospital setting. “An
EMS system is an organized and integrated program that allows for, and provides to an individual in
need of acute medical assistance, the means to access and enter the health care delivery system in a
timely manner”3. It uniquely intersects public health, health care and public safety, and plays a key role
in the community’s well-being and resilience.
Emergency medical systems can take many forms, but ultimately all have a few key components in
common: public access through coordinated communications, prehospital safety and EMS response, and
patient transport4. As with all unforeseen events, the ability to flexand adapt are fundamental elements
to providing the best care to the community. Figure 1 demonstrates the flow of the EMS system from
incident recognition to public education.
EMS systems can be operated by a public or private entity or a combination of the two. Though EMS can
be categorized this way, not all systems are created equal and no two systems are exactly alike. Each
community must evaluate and decide the best system for their needs and many continue to evolve
based on patient care standards. A chart of a typical EMS system structure is found in Appendix A and
Table 1 below shows the major EMS system designs that communities typically use.
Figure 1. Emergency Medical Services System
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 169 of 384
7
Table 1. EMS System Designs
Type Description
Fire-Based EMS The fire department is responsible for basic life support
(BLS), advanced life support (ALS), and patient transport.
Third Service EMS
BLS, ALS, and patient transport by a public department
outside of the local fire department. For example, a city or
county may have a police department, a fire department,
and an EMS department.
Combined Model
Typically, a combined or hybrid model splits ambulance
responsibilities between public and private providers. For
example, the fire department may provide BLS, but an
ambulance company is responsible for ALS and transport
as is the case in Boulder.
Private Provider A private ambulance provider is responsible for BLS, ALS,
and patient transport.
When designing an EMS system, decision making should consider: labor and equipment costs, projected
revenue, national standards, legal requirements, system reliability, community risk, patient care and
governance. Questions appropriate for consideration include the following1:
1. What are the upfront costs? What are the long-term or fixed costs? What is the projected
revenue? Do the benefits outweigh the cost of the EMS system?
2. Will this model comply with efforts to meet national standards for deployment of emergency
medical operations in the community? Has the community considered their response time goals?
3. What are the legal implications of this model? Have topics such as medical ethics, types of laws,
scope of practice, standards of care, crime, mandatory reporting, and patient autonomy been
considered?
4. Is the system design reliable? What back-up or support can be offered in times of crisis or call
volume overload?
5. Will the model ultimately reduce community risk? Does the model support an all-hazard
approach? Does the model improve ALS response?
6. What standards of care are offered with this model? Does the model address the scope of
practice?
7. Does the model consider local policies? Is the model conducive to licensing, certification,
credentialing, state protocols, and recognized training?
1 Some of the questions require further legal and operational answers and were beyond the scope of this research;
Potential associated costs have been estimated and included, where appropriate.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 170 of 384
8
How EMS Response Works in the City of Boulder Today
The following section addresses how EMS response currently works in the City of Boulder. The process
from dialing 911 to emergency responders’ arrival on scene is highlighted along with BFR and AMR’s
roles in response. In addition, the benefits and limitations of this system are considered as well as how
Boulder’s peer cities handle EMS.
911 and Dispatching
When a 911 call is made, the call taker attempts to triage the call as quickly as possible using a set of
predetermined questions. These questions are part of a system known in the industry as Emergency
Medical Dispatch (EMD). The EMD system is designed to prompt the call taker with follow up questions
depending on the answers given. When a certain point is reached in the question tree, a
recommendation for response is then generated and a unit or units is/are dispatched. The dispatcher
then offers instructional guidance over the phone for patient treatment until an EMS unit can arrive. The
EMD system is intended to enable a process known as priority dispatching, which is a set of dispatch
protocols designed to send the right number of emergency medical units to the right type of calls.
EMS response can be categorized as either Advanced Life Support (ALS) or Basic Life Support (BLS)
depending on the acuity of the patient’s reported symptoms. ALS response involves higher trained
personnel (EMT-Paramedics), who can administer controlled substances, use more advanced diagnostic
tools and perform higher level lifesaving techniques not available to BLS responders (EMT-Basics).
Higher acuity patients typically require an ALS response, whereas less serious patients may receive BLS
response only. The general intent with ALS response is to bring many features of an emergency room
directly to the patient and prepare the receiving hospital for their arrival.
Boulder Fire-Rescue Department & AMR
Chapter 5 of the Boulder Municipal Code vests “the provision of rescue and emergency medical
services” with the fire department. To discharge that assignment, Boulder Fire-Rescue (BFR) uses a two-
tier system of BLS and ALS response/patient transport. BFR’s eight fire apparatuses are staffed with
firefighters cross-trained as EMT-Basics; they are capable of providing BLS services only. However, this
system design enables quicker emergency medical response throughout the city and acts as a force
multiplier for the more advanced but fewer ALS responders.
The second tier of EMS response in Boulder involves ambulances staffed with EMT-Paramedics. As
previously indicated, this function is not currently performed by BFR. Instead, it is subcontracted to a
third-party provider, who provides from 2 to 4 ambulances in the city for ALS response and patient
transport. Higher acuity calls require both a BFR unit and a private ambulance response to keep
response times lower. The combined response force of BFR units and ambulances includes a total of 10-
12 units for 26 square miles of the city and 71 square miles of open space. Because there are more fire
department companies in the system, the ambulance provider is able to use city resources to initially
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 171 of 384
9
respond. However, quick response, in critical situations is often necessary for good patient outcomes.
BFR has contracted with the ALS provider to arrive on any scene in Boulder within 7 minutes to initiate
ALS care.
The current ALS provider for the City of Boulder is American Medical Response (AMR). Every one to five
years, the contract is re-bid and then negotiated by the city with the lowest responsive bidder. As one
can expect from any competitively bid contract, the ALS provider can change based on the results of the
solicitation. Until 2017, the city did not pay the ALS provider for its service; all revenue generated
through patient billing went to the provider to pay for its operations. In 2016, AMR reported total
revenue of $7.275 million. As part of the contract, AMR provides expendable medical equipment and
training for BFR personnel and pays a small fee for dispatch services.
In 2016, at the direction of city council, the contract was re-bid with a requirement the ALS provider pay
a living wage of $15.67/hour for its Boulder employees. This was substantially higher than AMR starting
wages at the time. The higher costs for the living wage provision are now being borne by the city
because the ambulance provider could not make their response model work with the higher labor
expenses. Boulder now pays a $535,000/yr. subsidy for AMR to continue operating in Boulder. This
subsidy did not materially change the EMS response system, but the new contract does include financial
audit provisions to verify AMR’s pay rates.
Benefits of the Current EMS System
The current EMS model has been in operation in Boulder for decades and any analysis of alternatives
would be remiss if not accounting for the advantages of staying with the status quo.
Benefits to the current combined EMS response model include the following (a more comprehensive list
of pros and cons for the current system can be found in the appendix):
Ambulance provider manages its own staff and scheduling, including training
BFR is not required to initiate or maintain paramedicine training for staff; this is handled exclusively by
the ambulance provider. AMR manages crew stations and scheduling (though AMR no longer uses
physical facilities) and BFR is not responsible for housing or directing staff. AMR determines ambulance
posting locations, planning for peak-hour call volumes, planning for special events, and the human
resource needs for staff. In addition to this, AMR provides for all EMS training requirements. This
includes certification upkeep and maintaining paramedicine skills.
No costs associated with purchasing or maintaining ambulances and advanced care medical
equipment
Maintaining ambulances requires repair and replacement funding, along with the cost of maintaining
and replacing the medical equipment used in the ambulance. This is presently handled by AMR, not the
City of Boulder for the system’s ambulances.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 172 of 384
10
The city does not have to manage patient billing or contract for patient billing services
The city does not have to manage a patient billing program because AMR provides the service in-house.
AMR handles all related activities from working with Medicaid to collections. The significant amount of
administrative work that goes into billing and collections is avoided, which involves claims
administration, investigation, compliance, monitoring, and follow-up after medical treatment and
transport.
No significant short-term capital improvement costs to the city other than that already planned for
existing facilities
An additional benefit of the current system is that there is no need for short-term modifications to
current fire stations for EMS, nor does BFR need to make significant capital expenditures, such as the
purchase of ambulances. BFR does not incur the cost to equip all apparatus with ALS supplies which
includes not only disposable items, such as IVs and medications, but also more expensive tools, such as
cardiac monitors. The current system also avoids updating certain equipment, ambulance replacement,
and ambulance fleet maintenance costs.
City’s avoided management of controlled substances and compliance with associated laws
AMR also manages the controlled medications accessible by EMT-paramedics for ALS response. This
means that all associated activities such as security, inventory, record keeping, and disposal of
controlled substances are AMR’s responsibility. This is particularly beneficial when considering the
potential legal ramifications of the improper management of these substances.
Limitations of the Current System
The current model is not without its challenges and limitations, however. Contracting ALS and patient
transport services does present the following issues:
Below market employee pay, high employee turnover, and a lack of familiarity with the territory
To maintain profitability, private providers typically pay less than the public sector and consequently
turnover is high. Higher turnover can create numerous issues. New crews may be unfamiliar with the
local territory and the local patient population. This can adversely affect response time and the quality
of patient encounters. Additionally, continuity of care is streamlined when care providers consistently
work and train together. This familiarity is hindered when crews rapidly turnover. It is worth noting that
AMR has experienced almost 100 percent turnover since the start of its Boulder contract in 2013.
A continuing need to renegotiate a contract every few years
With a private ALS provider, there is a continuing need to renegotiate the ambulance contract
every few years. Profitability could be a challenge for private services if the living wage mandate
escalates and no additional subsidy is provided. Moreover, the hidden administrative costs
associated with soliciting, managing, and auditing the contract burdens the city’s administrative
system. In Boulder, BFR must continue to ensure compliance with response time goals, patient
care objectives, living wage provisions and equipment maintenance. Yet many of the response
changes to meet these goals are under the management of the third-party vendor.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 173 of 384
11
High reliance on taxpayer resources to cover response time objectives
An extremely important part of a private ALS provider system is the reliance on public response
resources to augment their response model. The private ALS provider maintains a small number
of ambulances to respond to both ALS and BLS calls. The private provider relies on the fire
department to provide a response time safety net. Each fire unit, strategically stationed around
the city, represents an additional response point from which to dispatch the closest resource.
Overall, this works to improve response times to medical calls of all types. However, in the
current system, often the first resource on scene is BLS (provided through an engine response),
which is basically a hidden subsidy to the private provider. The ambulance provider, in turn, bills
and retains all collected revenue from the patient.
Poor coordination with fire department quality control systems
Coordinating patient care and outcomes can also be a challenge in a mixed response system.
Key to patient outcomes is a robust Quality Assurance(QA)/Quality Improvement(QI) program.
This entails ongoing call review and feedback. In the mixed private/public EMS system, patient
care records are often not integrated between agencies. This can make follow up, education
and subsequent quality changes difficult for the fire department. Moreover, interagency
conflicts may present some unique risk management issues for the city. Poor patient
encounters need to be addressed and corrected through collaboration, chain of command and
concerted education.
Inability to use resources in an all-hazards approach
Fires and other rescue responses often require larger numbers of firefighters to control
outcomes. These are high hazard but lower frequency events. Ideally, when a major event
unfolds, there will be a surge capacity of firefighters to deal with the threat. A common model
to address the need for this surge capability involves ALS units with firefighter/paramedics.
Consequently, response time and crisis capability for all types of incidents are improved because
more “fire” companies are available in the local community. In the current hybrid public/private
model, EMT-Paramedics are available only for medical incidents. They are not firefighters and
cannot be used for other hazard responses.
Benefits of a Fire-based EMS System
Strengthened workforce
Firefighters have lower rates of turnover than private ambulance paramedics due in part to wages and
the nature of the job. Additionally, with firefighter paramedics, personnel can respond to all hazards
rather than just EMS, which is a far more efficient use of response personnel.
No concerns regarding private contract
Continuity of service provision is not a concern. A private vendor’s inability to provide services for any
reason is not a problem with FBEMS. Likewise, there is no need to renegotiate and/or re-solicit an ALS
contract every few years, which saves administrative overhead and avoids living wage concerns.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 174 of 384
12
Improved control over the quality of service provided, administrate efforts, continuity of care, and all-
hazard response
FBEMS systems have an opportunity to improve all aspects of an EMS service from quality of care to all-
hazards response. Oversight of response services and logistics enables the department more of an
opportunity to integrate every aspect of patient care from 911 call to emergency room delivery.
Revenue generation offsets some fire department costs
In FBEMS, efficiency and quality of patient care are paramount. While not profit driven as private
providers are, the department can offset expenses through revenue generated from transports.
Moreover, this revenue stream may offset expenses associated with normal demand growth. It would
not be available otherwise and taxpayers would be responsible for the full cost of implementing new fire
department units to respond to increased 911 calls.
Limitations of a Fire-based EMS System
FBEMS is a response model, not a profit-driven model
Since profit is not the driving force behind FBEMS, there is a real danger that a public model sacrifices
efficiency. As a service-based “business”, ALS and patient transport are labor intensive and most of a
provider’s expenses will be tied up in personnel costs. In most cases, lower wages are how private
providers gain profit out of an ALS contract. In comparison, fire departments focus on quality services. In
short, decisions are not driven by the profit motive; instead departments typically use response goals
and outcomes-based measures to inform decision making.
Running an EMS division is costly
There are many costs associated with running an EMS service. Fire departments typically have a need
for a patient billing contract and are responsible for Medicare/Medicaid accountability. This includes
patient reimbursement costs. Training and certifications for personnel must be kept up to date and
require continuous operational funding from the department. There are also associated ALS equipment
and capital improvement costs.
Legal concerns of controlled substance management
Controlled substances become the responsibility of the fire department with FBEMS. Record keeping,
replacement and disposal of controlled substances, inventory control, and security make fire
departments liable to the DEA and state regulatory agencies for these types of items. Overall, there are
simply more legal concerns and organizational risks when operating an ALS and patient transport
service.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 175 of 384
13
Peer EMS System Comparison
Whether by local mandate or by default, EMS is frequently handled by public or government
organizations. This is true for many EMS systems among Boulder’s peers and in Colorado. Table 2
highlights how many Colorado communities choose to respond to medical emergencies and Table 3 on
the following page compares cities nationwide. Results are categorized by one of the three main EMS
system types.
Table 2. Denver Metro Area EMS Systems
City/Region Calls for
Service Fire-Based Public Combined Description
Boulder 11,000 ✓ BLS first-due response provided by Boulder Fire-Rescue,
ALS/patient transport by private provider
Adams County 7,300 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Adams County
Fire Department
Arvada Fire
Protection District 14,000 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Arvada Fire
Protection District
Aurora 42,381 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Aurora Fire
Rescue
Boulder Rural Fire
Rescue 1,000 ✓ BLS first-due response provided by Boulder Rural Fire
Protection District, ALS/patient transport by private provider
Castle Rock 5,199 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Castle Rock Fire
Cunningham Fire
Protection District 5,133 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Cunningham
Fire Protection District
Denver 107,076 ✓
BLS first-due response provided by Denver Fire Department.
The Denver Health Paramedic Division is the sole provider of
ALS and patient transport.
Lafayette 2,445 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Lafayette Fire
Department
Littleton 14,934 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Littleton Fire
Rescue
Longmont 9,983 ✓ BLS and some ALS provided by Longmont Fire Department,
ALS/patient transport by private provider
Louisville 2,587 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Louisville Fire
Rescue
Mountain View 3,561 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Mountain View
Fire Rescue
North Metro 117,000 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by North Metro Fire
Rescue District
Rocky Mountain
Fire Department 9,916 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Rocky Mountain
Fire Department,
South Metro Fire
& Rescue 17,782 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by South Metro Fire
Rescue
West Metro Fire &
Rescue 35,000 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by West Metro Fire
Rescue
Westminster Fire
Department 10,226 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Westminster
Fire Department
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 176 of 384
14
Table 3. Peer city EMS systems
City/Region Calls for
Service Fire-Based Public Combined Description
Berkeley, CA 15,028 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Berkeley Fire
Department
Davis, CA 4,764 ✓ BLS first-due response provided by Davis Fire Department,
ALS/patient transport by private provider
Eugene, OR 31, 200 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Eugene Fire
Department; non-emergency transport by private provider
Madison, WI 30,464 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Madison Fire
Department
Norman, OK 14,000 ✓ BLS first-due response provided by Norman Fire Department,
ALS/patient transport by hospital
Palo Alto, CA 8,000 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Palo Alto Fire
Department
Provo, UT 6,052 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Provo Fire &
Rescue
Santa Barbara, CA 10,000 ✓ BLS first-due response provided by Santa Barbara Fire
Department, ALS/patient transport by private provider
Santa Cruz, CA 8,000 ✓ BLS and ALS provided by Santa Cruz Fire Department,
patient transport provided by private provider
Tempe, AZ 23,929 ✓ BLS, ALS, and patient transport provided by Tempe Fire
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 177 of 384
15
Qualities of a Strong EMS System
The following section describes the qualities that make up a robust EMS program. Topics covered
include the administration, continuity of care and information flow, response time and patient outcome
goals, and employee base. When considering the quality of care provided to 911 patients, these are the
most important system design considerations:
Administration
As varied as there are deployment models, administration of EMS systems is likewise varied. In
public/private systems, multiple parties typically share administrative oversight even if overall
responsibility rests with the public entity. This is the case in Boulder. Each EMS agency is responsible for
its own operations, however, there is more than one medical director responsible for the quality of
patient care. With effective communications and collaborative protocols, the challenge of mixed
oversight can still succeed, but ideally management of a local EMS system is most effective when
oversight is clearly placed in one agency and a single medical director. In this case, a clear and cohesive
line of authority with a single set of values and organizational goals will improve patient care. Quality
improvement, coordinated training, planning and a common set of procedures all help streamline and
bolster the entire system.
Continuity of Care and Information Flow
Continuity of care is a common quality topic, not only in EMS, but in all medical services. Potential loss
of information and interruption of a patient’s treatment due to different organizational protocols and
operations can disrupt response, triage, and treatment. In mixed public/private response systems,
information must be relayed from the first responders to the ALS responders and ultimately, to the
Emergency Department staff. Obviously, fewer intermediaries simplify this transfer of critical
information. Moreover, since quality control systems rely on feedback loops to improve, the return flow
of outcome information will lead to system improvements in the form of better training, equipment,
and protocols or any of the foregoing.
Response Times and Patient Outcomes
Nationally, there is debate over what system performance measures best track quality care. These may
include response times, protocol compliance, fee schedules, resource availability, end user surveys,
public opinion and patient outcomes. However, most hospitals and governing bodies are moving
towards outcome-based measures. This is, in part, due to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act and
current reimbursement models. A key surrogate to outcome can be extrapolated to response time
targets. This is because in many critical conditions, outcomes are related to response time. For example,
survival rates for cardiac patients decrease from 7 to 10 percent every minute that passes without CPR
and defibrillation5.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 178 of 384
16
BFR follows national standards for determining response time goals. The National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations,
Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments6, states
that travel time to an emergency, by the initial arriving company, should be 4 minutes or less for 90
percent of all calls. This is in addition to the 60 seconds needed for 911 call handling and 60 seconds for
fire personnel to leave the station during EMS response (total is 6 minutes for total response time from
the time a 911 call is placed).
Strong Employee Base
A strong employee base is an essential quality of a robust EMS system. Low turnover rates suggest
better employee satisfaction and in turn, response times, system familiarity, and quality of care are
improved. When US Department of Transportation released their national assessment of the EMS
workforce, several workforce indicators were examined to determine the causes of an industry staffing
shortage. These indicators included: vacancies, use of overtime and temporary personnel, delays in
service, and inability to provide services. Poor management, low wages and benefits, and lack of career
ladders were noted as the primary challenges of retaining EMS workers7.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 179 of 384
17
EMS Delivery Options Considered
This analysis of EMS delivery has been distilled into two fundamental approaches. Option 1 represents
the status quo, which involves the public/private partnership currently in use by the fire department and
its third-party ALS provider. Option 2 provides for more active fire department involvement and is
labeled hereafter as Fire-based EMS.
FBEMS has been further subdivided into two branches including the Immediate Implementation Model
and the Gradual Implementation Model. The Immediate Implementation Model, though appropriate for
comparative purposes, is realistically too difficult to achieve within a single fiscal year. The Gradual
Implementation Model is intended to phase in FBEMS over a multi-year period and considers the
financial, legal, educational, and organizational issues that must be resolved with a FBEMS approach. If
BFR moves forward with FBEMS, the likely financial significance will fall somewhere between these two
models based on timing and other constraints with implementation.
The Status Quo and the Gradual Implementation Model analyses include cost differences associated
with a living wage.
The EMS models evaluated are defined as follows:
1. Status Quo with Private ALS Services
Response continues as it does now at a cost of $535,000. Based on demand growth, the
department anticipates the need for an additional fire unit in the next three to five years. If the
city continues to partner with AMR, this unit will likely be an engine. The additional unit requires
a minimum of ten new FTE positions; four firefighters, three engineers, and three lieutenants.
Additionally, a new fire engine must be purchased when approved. These costs have been
assumed by the model. (If the decision is made to pursue FBEMS, then the additional
ambulance units and FTEs discussed below will provide the additional response).
2. Fire-based EMS
a. Immediate Implementation Model
This model is intended to show the difference between fire-based and privatized EMS
alone. For calculation and comparison purposes, it assumes that a FBEMS is operational
by mid-year 2018. As mentioned previously, it does not consider some of the timing
barriers to immediate roll-out. It provides for a single paramedic per shift on current
engines and on three ambulances, with a total of 45 paramedic-firefighters (21 new
positions). Fire-based EMS also requires administrative overhead not currently in place
such as a Medical Director, EMS Operations Chief, Training Captain, Financial Analyst,
and Administrative Assistant to operate. This overhead is also included in the Gradual
Implementation Model
b. Gradual Implementation Model
Operations in this model will reflect the functional results of the Immediate
Implementation Model but are phased in. Over the course of three to five years, the
same additions in personnel, training, and equipment will occur, but BFR will still be
required to subsidize some of AMR’s (or another private vendor) workforce. This
payment will decrease as BFR obtains the ambulances and staff needed to support Fire-
Based EMS and the system begins to generate revenue for the city.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 180 of 384
18
This model also provides paramedics on current engines and on three ambulances, with
a total of 45 paramedic-firefighters (21 new positions) and personnel such as a Medical
Director, Battalion Chief, Captain, Budget Analyst, and Administrative Assistant to
operate.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 181 of 384
19
Methods
This section highlights the models and assumptions utilized in this alternatives analysis. The costs
considered for model comparison include personnel, training, equipment, etc. Additional details relating
to these items are located in Appendix C.
Model and Assumptions
For financial estimates, new and upgraded operations positions were assumed for each ambulance and
each fire unit. Administrative staff to oversee, implement, and assess a full-service ALS system are
likewise included. Each fire unit was upgraded to ALS and three new ALS ambulances have been added
to the response pool. Additionally, capital infrastructure, rolling stock, training, advanced medical
equipment and consideration for contractual leave and premium pay were calculated. Revenues have
been estimated based on historical call volume and industry standards. Refer to Appendices D, E and F
for the final cost information.
Personnel
Total new operations FTEs needed equates to 21. Each ambulance requires one EMT-Basic and one
EMT-Paramedic. For three ambulances, this amounts to six new FTEs per shift (there are three shifts) or
18 total FTEs for ambulance operations. To account for vacation and sick leave use (based on the most
recent labor contract), an additional 3 FTEs have been added to the cost estimate.
A remaining 24 EMT-Paramedics are needed to provide ALS on all fire units; these individuals will be
acquired through attrition and/or by advancing current employees. Historically, attrition occurs at 3
persons per year.
Total new administrative FTEs needed amounts to 5. These positions include: an EMS Medical Director,
an EMS Battalion Chief, a financial manager, an EMS Captain, and an Administrative Specialist. A
description of these roles is found in Appendix B.
Training
Training for existing staff is estimated at $50,000 per FTE for tuition and the cost of backfilling;
Continuing education and recertification costs are estimated at $4,000 per person for approximately 9
FTEs per year.
Vehicles and Equipment
For both implementation models, vehicle and equipment costs include the following: 4 ambulances
(one intended as a reserve ambulance) and their fixed required equipment, 2 field cars, an Electronic
Patient Care system for reporting, a Records Management System for documentation, medical supplies,
equipment replacement fund, fuel, maintenance, and miscellaneous expenses. Additionally, a reserve
fund was calculated for future ambulance and larger equipment purchases. Items such as vehicular
insurance would be covered by the city and therefore were not included in the analysis.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 182 of 384
20
Services
Licensing and auditing costs were included for the FBEMS analysis. However, liability insurance was left
out due to the coverage offered by the City of Boulder.
Stations
The analysis accounts for the cost of renovating Station 1 for $350,000 in the first year for FBEMS to
accommodate new personnel and ambulances. Additional spatial modifications were assumed to be
already included in existing station rehab/relocation projects and were excluded from this analysis.
Additional Costs: Billing and AMR
Contracting costs are included for the Status Quo Model. Additionally, a portion of the time for the
Gradual Implementation Model also accounts for subsidizing an ambulance company; however, the fees
associated with the AMR contract are reduced as the BFR’s FBEMS program evolves. Other costs directly
impacted by the number of transporting units are associated with billing. Billing is calculated at 6.5
percent of total revenue, in which collection per transport amounts to an average cash transfer of
roughly $435.
Revenue
Revenue generation is dependent on the number of transports. From 2014 through 2016, ambulances
responded, on average, 9,200 times per year. Sixty percent of these responses resulted in transport of a
patient. With approximately 5,500 transports, the average patient charge is approximately $1,140. With
a collection rate of 38 percent, an ambulance provider in Boulder can reasonably expect to generate
about $435 per transport in net revenue.
Data
Several options for ambulance fleet size were reviewed for FBEMS. Designs for two, three, and four
ambulances were considered for costing and coverage. Modeling analysis narrowed the decision to use
three ambulance units in the City of Boulder.
Many of the cost assumptions for the alternatives analysis were derived from AMR’s Request for
Proposal as well as from Arvada Fire Protection District due to their similarity to BFR and their recent
transition to fire-based EMS. The costs are based on projections with an inflation rate of 3 percent.
Although a demand increase (call volume) is anticipated, the numbers represent a 0 percent increase to
show the most conservative projections in revenue generation.
Based on data from 2014 to 2016, Boulder Fire-Rescue responds to an average of roughly 11,000
incidents annually. AMR responds to roughly 9,200 incidents annually and more than 60 percent
(approximately 5,600) result in patient transport. A table of this data is found in Appendix D.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 183 of 384
21
Results and Analysis
This section highlights the results and an analysis of the department’s findings. The results show cost
projections for the status quo with private ALS services and the two FBEMS models which provide the
City of Boulder with three transport units. A detailed table of these calculations is found in Appendices
E, F, and G. This section also offers an explanation of the data in addition to FBEMS coverage maps.
Results
BFR determined that three transport units would be reasonable for FBEMS projections considering
system experience and the ALS coverage three ambulances could provide. Two could not cover enough
of the road network and four ambulances, though slightly better for response times, were not efficient
enough for the call volume.
Cost Projections
Deficit projections are presented in Figure 2 and assume a starting year of 2018. The analysis projects
that in year 4 (2021), the cost of the Gradual Implementation model and Immediate Implementation
model will converge while the Status Quo remains slightly less costly throughout the analysis period.
Figure 2 assumes a labor inflation rate of 3 percent even for the living wage, which begins in the model
at $15.67/hr.
Figure 2. Graph of EMS model cost projections
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Dollars
Year
Annual Cost Projections
Less Revenue Offsets
Gradual Implementation Immediate Implementation Status Quo
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 184 of 384
22
A summary of results for cost and revenue projections is shown in Table 4. Maintaining the Status Quo
with Private ALS is the least costly option and includes an increase in personnel and fire apparatus in
year 3 to cover normal demand growth (2020). As the table indicates, in year 4 when the FBEMS system
is fully operational, the difference in annual net operating expense between the current system and a
FBEMS model is approximately $178,000.
Table 4. Estimated 5-year cost with revenue
Status Quo
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Cost Total $545,900 $562,277 $2,519,368 * $1,976,949 $2,036,258 -$7,640,753
Gross Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cost with Revenue - $545,900 - $562,277 - $2,519,368 - $1,976,949 - $2,036,258 -$7,640,753
Immediate Implementation
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Cost Total $3,231,554 $5,219,512 $4,724,376 $4,866,108 $5,012,091 $23,053,641
Gross Revenue $1,240,699 $2,555,839 $2,632,514 $2,711,490 $2,792,834 $11,933,376
Cost with Revenue -$1,990,855 -$2,663,673 -$2,091,862 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$11,120,265
Gradual Implementation
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Total Cost $1,407,457 $3,669,366 $5,669,417 $4,866,108 $5,012,091 $20,624,439
Gross Revenue $0 $851,946 $1,755,010 $2,711,490 $2,792,834 $8,111,280
Cost with Revenue -$1,407,457 -$2,817,420 -$3,914,407 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$12,513,158
*Addition of a fire unit in year 3
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 185 of 384
23
Coverage
The heat map in Figure 3 depicts demand concentrations in the City of Boulder. Units are placed in
locations that cover the most volume. Hot spots, indicated by darker shaded areas, represent the
locations where BFR resources respond to most frequently.
Figure 3. Map of City of Boulder call volume density
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 186 of 384
24
Figure 4 assumes the full implementation of FBEMS with ALS units at all current fire stations and
ambulances positioned at key areas in the city. Using the call demand identified in Figure 3, Figure 4
identifies ten locations; seven fixed stations and three ambulance posting locations indicating 98
percent of all calls can be reached by an ALS units within an NFPA-recommended 4 minute travel time.
Figure 4. Map of City of Boulder ALS coverage
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 187 of 384
25
In a FBEMS system, only the ambulances can be used to transport patients to the hospital. Using the call
demand identified in Figure 3, Figure 5 isolates three locations in the city where 84 percent of all calls
can be responded to by an ambulance within a 4-minute drive time. Modeling placed the ambulances in
the best locations based on call volume without the influence of the fire station locations as
demonstrated in the previous figure.
Figure 5. Map of City of Boulder patient transport coverage
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 188 of 384
26
Response Time Improvements
As stated previously, BFR rates its performance by working toward NFPA 1710 travel time goals at least
90 percent of the time. NFPA 1710 states, “The requirement that first responder/AED units arrive within
four minutes (240 seconds) to 90 percent of emergency medical incidents, and the requirement that an
ALS company arrive within eight minutes (480 seconds) to 90 percent of the incidents to which they are
dispatched.”
Data from the previous three years indicate travel time for 90 percent of emergent calls in the city was 6
minutes, 55 second for BLS response.
Under the FBEMS model, which places 11 ALS units within the city rather than only 2, travel times for
ALS will fall to 6 minutes, 55 seconds at worst. Likely, this number will improve with an additional unit.
This would place the Boulder ALS response system well below the NFPA target of 8 minutes, 90 percent
of the time.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 189 of 384
27
Summary
Clearly, maintaining status quo is a simpler option for the Boulder community. As indicated in this
report, there are less short- and long-term expenses and there is less of an administrative burden in
contracting with a private ambulance company. However, with this option Boulder will continue to
experience longer ALS response times, it will continue to play a subordinate role in EMS quality
assurance and it will continue to pay a subsidy to guarantee a living wage to the contractor’s employees.
The city may consider exempting living wage provision and require more ambulances or pay an even
higher subsidy per year for both stipulations. Ambulance contractors cannot make the response model
work with current reimbursement rates, higher wages, and more ambulances without a financial
commitment from Boulder. As an aside if status quo is the policy going forward, there is a very real risk
that no private ambulance provider could make a profit in Boulder and there would be no agency with
resources that could fill the void – that would include BFR.
The FBEMS model would cost the city more in the short-term to start an ambulance service, but over
time with patient care revenue offsetting expenses, the model would track closely with a private
ambulance provider paying the living wage and normal EMS demand growth. The city would already be
provising a living wage since the ambulance crews would be city firefighters and it would no longer have
to renegotiate an ambulance contract every few years. Moreover, the gains to the city in terms of ALS
travel times represent an improvement over the current system. Boulder would also directly control the
quality of prehospital patient care, which along with better ALS response times will be critical in the
coming years as the local population ages. Finally, adding ambulance units with firefighters increases the
number of responders available for 911 calls of all types, not just EMS; this will reduce total response
times for all hazards in the city.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 190 of 384
28
Recommendations
As part of 2018 planning efforts, Boulder Fire-Rescue recommends the city shift its current ALS response
policy involving a private contractor to a gradual implementation of fire-based EMS by incorporating
departmental changes in the 2018 Fire-Rescue Master Plan. The scheduled update and provides the city
with an opportunity to implement the FBEMS as an investment priority. Due to the costs involved, the
labor contract implications, equipment acquisition, training, administrative and FTE needs, a phased
approach provided in the 2018 Master Plan is the least disruptive to both the department and the
general fund.
The following workflow timeline is proposed:
Master Plan Update: 2018
Phase 1 (12 to 14 months)
• Hire and/or promote the administrative support and overhead staff and acquire medical
direction
• Train incumbent firefighters to EMT-Paramedic
• Negotiate with Local 900, ALS benefit and working conditions for a revised labor
contract
• Negotiate a revised contract with ambulance provider for BLS services
• Setup the continuing education calendar for ALS
• Negotiate with equipment supply vendors for ALS equipment/medications
• Start modifications to Station 1
• Prepare specifications and solicit for new electronic patient care records system (unless
provided under patient billing contractor)
• Prepare QA/QI standards and set up committee
Phase 2 (14 to 24 months)
• Train incumbent firefighters to EMT-Paramedic (new and ongoing)
• Acquire three ambulances and support responder vehicles
• Set up the EMS supply cache for expendables and controlled substances
• Contract with a patient billing services vendor
• Modify dispatch protocols
• Hire lateral entry firefighter/paramedics
• Complete Station 1 modifications
• Train and implement new patient care records system
• Implement QA/QI committee process
• Place two ambulances in service
• Place field care in service
Phase 3 (24 to 36 months)
• Place third ambulance in service
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 191 of 384
29
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 192 of 384
30
Appendix
Appendix A: EMS System Functions
The figure below represents a typical community FBEMS system. Beginning with an Agency Director for
oversight, administration typically supports duties regarding finance and patient collections. The
Operations Division can be overseen by a Battalion Chief who maintains response units. An EMS
Battalion Chief would be responsible for ALS units and personnel. These individuals are directly
responsible for patients until they are released. The Director typically oversees support services as well,
communicating with fleet, maintenance, and supply facilities. In many cases, a Medical Director
supervises medical related operations. In this analysis, EMS is overseen by an Agency Director who splits
duties as the Medical Director. Support with training is often provided by a training captain, not shown
below.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 193 of 384
31
Appendix B: Glossary of EMS Terms
Medical Director – Board certified emergency medicine physcian who has the responsibility and
authority for total management of the EMS system. The medical director provides guidance, leadership,
oversight and quality assurance for the practice of local paramedics and EMTs within the EMS system.
Operations Supervisor – Cerified Paramedic who coordinates and supervises day-to-day operations of
the EMS Division
EMS Finance and Collections – EMS charges a user’s fee for its services. The EMS finance and collections
can bill a patient’s insurance provider, Medicare, Medicaid, Medical Assistance Program, or worker’s
compensation directly. EMS finance and collections can be performed as a department within the
organization or the services can be contracted through a third party.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) Serivices – an advanced level of pre-hospital emergency care that includes
basic life support (BLS) care, cardiac monitoring, cardiac defibrilation, electrocardiography (EKG),
intravenous therapy, administration of medications, use of adjunctive medical devices, trauma care, and
other authorized advanced techniques and procedures.
Basic Life Support (BLS) Services – a basic level of pre-hospital emergency care that includes airway
management, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), control of shock and bleeding, and splinting of
fracures.
EMT/Basic - Individuals who are trained and certified to provide basic life emergency care and life
support services before and during transport to a hospital or other care facility.
EMT/Paramedic - Highest level of EMTs. Paramedics are trained to and certified to provide advanced life
support and care in emergency situations, and qualified to administer certain pharmaceutical drugs.
Hospital Emergency Department - The department of the hospital responsible for the provision of
medical and surgical care to patients arriving at the hospital in need of immediate care.
EMS Medical Control - Direction of life support procedures by a physcian and carried out by emergency
medical technicians (EMT) and paramedics in pre-hospital care.
EMS Medical Protocols – Written procedures for assessment, treatment, and patient transportation.
These procedures are part of the official policy of the EMS system and are approved by representatives
of the medical advisory committee. The EMS treatment protocols may either be implemented as
standing orders or require prior approval of a medical control physcian.
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Improvement (QI) Program - The QA/QI program is an organized
method of auditing and evaluating care provided within an EMS system and then using this information
to develop methods for continued quality improvement of the system.
EMS Quartermaster – Ensures that EMS responders have the equipment and supplies necessary to
effectively and efficiently support the needs of the EMS system.
Dispatch and Communications – Boulder Police and Fire communications is tasked with gathering
information related to emergencies, providing assistance and instruction to the caller prior to the arrival
of EMS, and the dispatching and support of EMS resources reponding to an emergency call.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 194 of 384
32
Appendix C:
Additional Pros and Cons
A summary of additional Status Quo with Private ALS Services pros and cons is discussed in the tables
below. Categories such as legal, financial, administrative, customer service, workforce, and sustainability
framework were included.
Table 5. Status quo pros and cons
Status Quo
Pros Cons
Legal
• Less individual liability risk associated with lower
level of care provided by city personnel
• Private ambulance provider’s contract with
Boulder is dependent on profitability; the
vendor may terminate the contract with no
viable alternative for service
Financial
• No additional personnel necessary (until need for
more fire units arises apart from EMS)
• No need for a patient billing contract
• No additional training or certification costs
• No patient reimbursements necessary
• No additional equipment or capital improvement
costs apart from what is already included in the
CIP
• No Medicare/Medicaid accountability concerns
• Subsidy required to supplement private
vendor
• Projected increase in expenditures in 2020
for personnel and apparatus due to
anticipated growth
Administrative
• Simpler fire department organizational structure
• No need for a separate patient care record
system
• BFR not responsible for controlled substances
management
• Must renegotiate and/or re-solicit the ALS
contract every few years
• Staff must monitor both the financial and
performance obligations of the contractor
• Less control overall of logistics
Customer Service
• Low wages and long hours may be evident in
customer service
• Diminished control over the quality of service
provided, administrate efforts, continuity of
care, and all-hazard response
• BLS fire trucks will continue to augment ALS
ambulance response to keep response times
low
• Inability for BFR to track patient outcomes
Workforce
• No additional training
• No worry about paramedic burnout
• No contractual changes necessary to the labor
agreement
• No monetary benefits of paramedicine
certifications
• More limited EMS capabilities
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 195 of 384
33
A summary of Fire-Based EMS pros and cons is discussed in the table below. Categories such as legal,
financial, administrative, customer service, workforce, and sustainability framework were included.
Table 6. FBEMS pros and cons
Fire Based EMS
Pros Cons
Legal
• No contractual concerns regarding contract or
contract termination
• Greater individual liability risk associated with lower
level of care provided by city personnel
Financial
• Subsidy for a private ambulance company is
avoided
• A percentage of revenue generated from
transports will offset some of BFR’s expenses
• FBEMS is ultimately a response model, not a profit
production model
• Large upfront costs to implement
• Additional personnel necessary
• Need for a patient billing contract
• Additional training or certification costs
• Patient reimbursements necessary
• Additional equipment/capital improvement costs
• Medicare/Medicaid accountability
Administrative
• No need to renegotiate and/or re-solicit ALS
contract
• No monitoring financial and performance
obligations of the contractor
• Greater control over logistics
• Immediate implementation is limited by the
inherent time constraints of system development
• More complex fire department organizational
structure
• Need for a separate patient care record system
• Responsibility of controlled substances
management
Customer Service
• Improved control over the quality of service
provided, administrate efforts, continuity of
care, and all-hazard response
• Improved ALS response coverage with ALS
engines
• Ability to track patient outcomes
• ALS customer services provided under the umbrella
of BFR’s repute
Workforce
• Monetary benefits of paramedicine
certifications
• Greater EMS capabilities
• Concern for employee burnout due to nature of
paramedicine job duties and large EMS call volume
• Contractual changes necessary to the labor
agreement
• Additional training and prerequisites required
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 196 of 384
34
Appendix D: Assumptions for Alternatives Projections
Table 7. Assumptions for alternatives calculations
Assumptions Numbers
Call Volume 9,215
Responding Ambulances 3
Field Cars 2
Percent transport 60%
Average Patient Charge $1,141
Revenue per transport (average cash transfer) $435
Gross Collection Rate 38%
Cost of capital 5%
Inflation 3%
Call Volume Increase 0%
EMS Medical Director Pay & Benefits $230,225
Battalion Chief Pay & Benefits $192,906
Captain Pay & Benefits $142,496
Budget Analyst $125,020
Engineer Pay & Benefits $123,704
Firefighter Pay & Benefits $114,100
Admin Specialist Pay & Benefits $62,949
Monthly On-Bus Stipend $300
Table 8. Annual call volume support data
Year Combined FIRE Department Paramedicine
AMR and BFR BFR AMR Response AMR Transport
2016 12,980 11,818 10,063 6,286
2015 12,019 10,669 9,226 5,574
2014 11,178 9,910 8,356 4,977
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 197 of 384
34
Appendix E: Status Quo Calculations Spreadsheet
Status Quo
Year 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11
Date 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Personnel Costs
Firefighter
-
-
$498,721
$513,682
$529,093
$544,965
$561,314
$578,154
$595,498
$613,363
Engineer
-
-
$405,524
$417,690
$430,221
$443,127
$456,421
$470,114
$484,217
$498,743
Lieutenant
-
-
$435,978
$449,058
$462,529
$476,405
$490,698
$505,418
$520,581
$536,198
Total
-
-
$1,340,223
$1,380,430
$1,421,843
$1,464,498
$1,508,433
$1,553,686
$1,600,296
$1,648,305
Vehicles and Equipment
Rig and Equipment
-
-
$600,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
-
-
$600,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
Gross Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Billing Cost
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AMR Cost
$545,900
$562,277
$579,145
$596,520
$614,415
$632,848
$651,833
$671,388
$691,530
$712,276
Cost Total
$545,900
$562,277
$2,519,368
$1,976,949
$2,036,258
$2,097,346
$2,160,266
$2,225,074
$2,291,826
$2,360,581
Net -$545,900 -$562,277 -$2,519,368 -$1,976,949 -$2,036,258 -$2,097,346 -$2,160,266 -$2,225,074 -$2,291,826 -$2,360,581
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 198 of 384
35
Appendix F: Immediate Implementation Calculations Spreadsheet
Immediate Implementation
Year 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
Date 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Personnel Costs
Training/ Certs/
Backfilling
$618,000
$636,540
$3,915
$4,032
$4,153
$4,278
$4,406
$4,538
$4,674
Paramedics (new)
$1,528,981
$2,755,989
$2,838,669
$2,923,829
$3,011,544
$3,101,890
$3,194,947
$3,290,795
$3,389,519
Paramedic (trained)
$118,705
$244,533
$251,869
$259,425
$267,208
$275,224
$283,481
$291,985
$300,745
On-Bus Stipend
$66,744
$68,746
$70,809
$72,933
$75,121
$77,375
$79,696
$82,087
$84,549
EMS Medical
Director
$237,132
$244,246
$251,573
$259,120
$266,894
$274,901
$283,148
$291,642
$300,391
EMS Battalion Chief
$198,693
$204,654
$210,794
$217,117
$223,631
$230,340
$237,250
$244,368
$251,699
EMS Captain/
Training Specialist
$146,771
$151,174
155,709
$160,381
$165,192
$170,148
$175,252
$180,510
$185,925
Budget Manager
$128,771
$132,634
$136,613
$140,711
$144,932
$149,280
$153,759
$158,372
$163,123
Administrative
Specialist
$64,837
$66,783
$68,786
$70,850
$72,975
$75,164
$77,419
$79,742
$82,134
Total $3,108,634 $4,505,299 $3,988,737 $4,108,398 $4,231,650 $4,358,600 $4,489,358 $4,624,039 $4,762,759
Vehicles and Equipment
Ambulance
$741,600
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$234,859
Ambulance
Equipment
$288,400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$91,334
Field Car
$82,400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 199 of 384
36
Ambulance and
Equipment Reserve
Fund
$208,812
$215,076
$221,529
$228,174
$235,020
$242,070
$249,332
$256,812
$264,517
Total Reserve Funds
After Purchases
$688,512
$466,983
$238,809
$3,789
$238,281
$487,613
$744,426
$682,749
Electronic Patient
Care
$41,200
$21,218
$21,855
$22,510
$23,185
$23,881
$24,597
$25,335
$26,095
Records
Management
System
$40,170
$27,583
$28,411
$29,263
$30,141
$31,045
$31,977
$32,936
$33,924
Vehicle Insurance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Medical
Supplies/Oxygen
$126,236
$130,023
$133,924
$137,942
$142,080
$146,342
$150,733
$155,255
$159,912
Equipment
Replacement
$18,983
$19,552
$20,139
$20,743
$21,365
$22,006
$22,667
$23,347
$24,047
Fuel
$56,949
$58,657
$60,417
$62,229
$64,096
$66,019
$68,000
$70,040
$72,141
Maintenance
$63,593
$65,500
$67,466
$69,489
$71,574
$73,721
$75,933
$78,211
$80,557
Misc. Expenses
$2,563
$2,640
$2,719
$2,800
$2,884
$2,971
$3,060
$3,152
$3,246
Total
$1,670,905
$540,251
$556,458
$573,152
$590,346
$608,057
$626,299
$645,088
$664,440
Services
Liability Insurance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Licensing
$2,575
$2,652
$2,732
$2,814
$2,898
$2,985
$3,075
$3,167
$3,262
Audit QA/QI
$5,030
$5,181
$5,337
$5,497
$5,662
$5,832
$6,007
$6,187
$6,372
Total
$7,605
$7,834
$8,069
$8,311
$8,560
$8,817
$9,081
$9,354
$9,634
Stations
Station 1
Renovation
$350,000
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 200 of 384
37
Total
$350,000
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
Gross Revenue
$1,240,699
$2,555,839
$2,632,514
$2,711,490
$2,792,834
$2,876,619
$2,962,918
$3,051,806
$3,143,360
Billing Cost
$80,645
$166,130
$171,113
$176,247
$181,534
$186,980
$192,590
$198,367
$204,318
AMR Cost
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cost Total
$3,231,554
$5,219,512
$4,724,376
$4,866,108
$5,012,091
$5,162,454
$5,317,327
$5,476,847
$5,641,152
Net -$1,990,855 -$2,663,673 -$2,091,862 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$2,285,834 -$2,354,409 -$2,425,041 -$2,497,793
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 201 of 384
38
Appendix G: Gradual Implementation Calculations Spreadsheet
Gradual Implementation
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Date 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Personnel Costs
Training/
Certs/
Backfilling
$412,000
$424,360
$437,091
$4,032
$4,153
$4,278
$4,406
$4,538
$4,674
$4,815
Paramedics
(new) -
$918,663
$2,838,669
$2,923,829
$3,011,544
$3,101,890
$3,194,947
$3,290,795
$3,389,519
$3,491,204
Paramedic
(trained) -
$163,022
$251,869
$259,425
$267,208
$275,224
$283,481
$291,985
$300,745
$309,767
On-Bus
Stipend -
$68,746
$70,809
$72,933
$75,121
$77,375
$79,696
$82,087
$84,549
$87,086
EMS Medical
Director
$100,000
$244,246
$251,573
$259,120
$266,894
$274,901
$283,148
$291,642
$300,391
$309,403
EMS
Battalion
Chief
-
$204,654
$210,794
$217,117
$223,631
$230,340
$237,250
$244,368
$251,699
$259,250
EMS
Captain/
Training
Specialist -
151,174
$155,709
$160,381
$165,192
$170,148
$175,252
$180,510
$185,925
$191,503
Budget
Manager
$128,771
132,634
$136,613
$140,711
$144,932
$149,280
$153,759
$158,372
$163,123
$168,016
Administrati
ve Specialist
$64,837
66,783
$68,786
$70,850
$72,975
$75,164
$77,419
$79,742
$82,134
$84,598
Total $705,608 $2,374,282 $4,421,913 $4,108,398 $4,231,650 $4,358,600 $4,489,358 $4,624,039 $4,762,759 $4,905,642
Vehicles and Equipment
Ambulance -
$381,924
$393,382 - - - - - - -
Ambulance
Equipment -
$148,526
$152,982 - - - - - - -
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 202 of 384
39
Field Car $82,400 - - - - - - - -
Ambulance
and
Equipment
Reserve
Fund
$71,692
$147,686
$228,174
$235,020
$242,070
$249,332
$256,812
$264,517
$272,452
Total
Reserve
Funds After
Purchases -$541,158 -$939,836 -$711,661 -$476,642 -$234,571 $14,761 $271,573 $536,090 $808,542
Electronic
Patient Care -
$42,436
$21,855
$22,510
$23,185
$23,881
$24,597
25,335
$26,095
$26,878
Records
Managemen
t System -
$41,375
$28,411
$29,263
$30,141
$31,045
$31,977
$32,936
$33,924
$34,942
Vehicle
Insurance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Medical
Supplies/Ox
ygen
-
$43,341
$89,283
$137,942
$142,080
$146,342
$150,733
$155,255
$159,912
$164,710
Equipment
Replacemen
t
-
$6,517
$13,426
$20,743
$21,365
$22,006
$22,667
$23,347
$24,047
$24,768
Fuel
-
$19,552
$40,278
$62,229
$64,096
$66,019
$68,000
$70,040
$72,141
$74,305
Maintenanc
e
-
$21,833
$44,977
$69,489
$71,574
$73,721
$75,933
$78,211
$80,557
$82,974
Misc.
Expenses
-
880
1,813
2,800
2,884
2,971
3,060
3,152
$3,246
$3,344
Total
-
$860,478
$934,091
$573,152
$590,346
$608,057
$626,299
$645,088
$664,440
$684,373
Services
Liability
Insurance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Licensing
-
2,652
2,732
2,814
2,898
2,985
3,075
3,167
3,262
3,360
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 203 of 384
40
Audit QA/QI
-
1,727
3,558
5,497
5,662
5,832
6,007
6,187
6,372
6,564
Total
-
4,379
6,290
8,311
8,560
8,817
9,081
9,354
9,634
9,923
Stations
Station 1
Renovation
$350,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
$350,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
Gross
Revenue
$851,946
$1,755,010
$2,711,490
$2,792,834
$2,876,619
$2,962,918
$3,051,806
$3,143,360
$3,237,661
Billing Cost
-
$55,377
$114,076
$176,247
$181,534
$186,980
$192,590
$198,367
$204,318
$210,448
AMR Cost
$545,900
$374,851
$193,048
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cost Total
$1,407,457
$3,669,366
$5,669,417
$4,866,108
$5,012,091
$5,162,454
$5,317,327
$5,476,847
$5,641,152
$5,810,387
Net -$1,407,457 -$2,817,420 -$3,914,407 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$2,285,834 -$2,354,409 -$2,425,041 -$2,497,793 -$2,572,726
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 204 of 384
41
Appendix H: Living Wage Discussion
Living Wage
In 2017, City Council increased the budget to expand living wage for city employees, janitorial and landscape contractors, and EMS ambulance providers.
Another increase in living wage from $15.67 to $17.97 would drastically increase the subsidy paid to AMR or another private ambulance company. The results
were compared and shown in the tables below.
Table 1b. Cost changes with increase in living wage
Living Wage Cost Difference
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Status Quo
Living Wage
at $15.67
$545,900 $562,277 $2,519,368 $1,976,949 $2,036,258 -$7,640,753
Living Wage
at $17.97
-$1,006,139 -$1,036,323 -$3,007,636 -$2,479,865 -$2,554,261 -$10,084,222
Immediate Implementation*
Living Wage
at $15.67
-$1,990,855 -$2,663,673 -$2,091,862 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$11,120,265
Gradual Increase
Living Wage
at $15.67
-$1,407,451 -$2,735,020 -$3,914,407 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$12,513,158
Living Wage
at $17.97
-$1,867,696 -$3,133,450 -$4,077,163 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$13,934,779
*Net value unaffected by change in living wage
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 205 of 384
42
Ongoing Costs
By offering an entirely new division and services to the fire department, the average expenditures after the first three years (in a 10-year projection, assuming no
additional apparatus or personnel are added) are relatively small in comparison to the overall Fire Budget. The department was offered $19,092,293 for 2017 for
the following divisions: Emergency Response, Wildland Coordination, Fire Prevention, Training, and Administration.
Figure 1b. Ten-year cost projections of alternatives
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Dollars
Year
Annual Cost Projections
Less Revenue Offsets
Gradual Implementation
Gradual Implementation ($17.97)
Immediate Implementation
Status Quo
Status Quo ($17.97)
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 206 of 384
43
Status Quo with Increase in Living Wage
Year 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
Date 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Personnel Costs
Firefighter
-
-
$498,721
$513,682
$529,093
$544,965
$561,314
$578,154
$595,498
Engineer
-
-
$405,524
$417,690
$430,221
$443,127
$456,421
$470,114
$484,217
Lieutenant
-
-
$435,978
$449,058
$462,529
$476,405
$490,698
$505,418
$520,581
Total
-
-
$1,340,223
$1,380,430
$1,421,843
$1,464,498
$1,508,433
$1,553,686
$1,600,296
Vehicles and Equipment
Rig and Equipment
-
-
$600,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
-
-
$600,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
Gross Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Billing Cost
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AMR Cost
$1,006,139
$1,036,323
$1,067,412
$1,099,435
$1,132,418
$1,166,390
$1,201,382
$1,237,424
$1,274,546
Cost Total
$1,006,139
$1,036,323
$3,007,636
$2,479,865
$2,554,261
$2,630,888
$2,709,815
$2,791,109
$2,874,843
Net -$1,006,139 -$1,036,323 -$3,007,636 -$2,479,865 -$2,554,261 -$2,630,888 -$2,709,815 -$2,791,109 -$2,874,843
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 207 of 384
44
Gradual Implementation with Increase in Living Wage
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Date 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Personnel Costs
Training/ Certs/
Backfilling
$412,000
$424,360
$437,091
$4,032
$4,153
$4,278
$4,406
$4,538
$4,674
$4,815
Paramedics
(new)
-
$918,663
$2,838,669
$2,923,829
$3,011,544
$3,101,890
$3,194,947
$3,290,795
$3,389,519
$3,491,204
Paramedic
(trained)
-
$163,022
$251,869
$259,425
$267,208
$275,224
$283,481
$291,985
$300,745
$309,767
On-Bus Stipend
-
$68,746
$70,809
$72,933
$75,121
$77,375
$79,696
$82,087
$84,549
$87,086
EMS Medical
Director
$100000
$244,246
$251,573
$259,120
$266,894
$274,901
$283,148
$291,642
$300,391
$309,403
EMS Battalion
Chief
-
$204,654
$210,794
$217,117
$223,631
$230,340
$237,250
$244,368
$251,699
$259,250
EMS Captain/
Training
Specialist
-
151,174
$155,709
$160,381
$165,192
$170,148
$175,252
$180,510
$185,925
$191,503
Budget Manager
$128,771
132,634
$136,613
$140,711
$144,932
$149,280
$153,759
$158,372
$163,123
$168,016
Administrative
Specialist
$64,837
66,783
$68,786
$70,850
$72,975
$75,164
$77,419
$79,742
$82,134
$84,598
Total $705,608 $2,374,282 $4,421,913 $4,108,398 $4,231,650 $4,358,600 $4,489,358 $4,624,039 $4,762,759 $4,905,642
Vehicles and Equipment
Ambulance
-
$381,924
$393,382
- - - - - - -
Ambulance
Equipment
-
$148,526
$152,982
- - - - - - -
Field Car $82,400 - - - - - - - -
Ambulance and
Equipment
Reserve Fund
$71,692
$147,686
$228,174
$235,020
$242,070
$249,332
$256,812
$264,517
$272,452
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 208 of 384
45
Total Reserve
Funds After
Purchases -$541,158 -$939,836 -$711,661 -$476,642 -$234,571 $14,761 $271,573 $536,090 $808,542
Electronic
Patient Care -
$42,436
$21,855
$22,510
$23,185
$23,881
$24,597
25,335
$26,095
$26,878
Records
Management
System -
$41,375
$28,411
$29,263
$30,141
$31,045
$31,977
$32,936
$33,924
$34,942
Vehicle
Insurance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Medical
Supplies/Oxygen
-
$43,341
$89,283
$137,942
$142,080
$146,342
$150,733
$155,255
$159,912
$164,710
Equipment
Replacement
-
$6,517
$13,426
$20,743
$21,365
$22,006
$22,667
$23,347
$24,047
$24,768
Fuel
-
$19,552
$40,278
$62,229
$64,096
$66,019
$68,000
$70,040
$72,141
$74,305
Maintenance
-
$21,833
$44,977
$69,489
$71,574
$73,721
$75,933
$78,211
$80,557
$82,974
Misc. Expenses
-
880
1,813
2,800
2,884
2,971
3,060
3,152
$3,246
$3,344
Total
$860,400
$934,091
$573,152
$590,346
$608,057
$626,299
$645,088
$664,440
$684,373
Services
Liability
Insurance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Licensing
-
2,652
2,732
2,814
2,898
2,985
3,075
3,167
3,262
3,360
Audit QA/QI
-
1,727
3,558
5,497
5,662
5,832
6,007
6,187
6,372
6,564
Total
-
4,379
6,290
8,311
8,560
8,817
9,081
9,354
9,634
9,923
Stations
Station 1
Renovation
$350,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
$350,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 209 of 384
46
Totals
Gross Revenue
$851,946
$1,755,010
$2,711,490
$2,792,834
$2,876,619
$2,962,918
$3,051,806
$3,143,360
$3,237,661
Billing Cost
-
$55,377
$114,076
$176,247
$181,534
$186,980
$192,590
$198,367
$204,318
$210,448
AMR Cost
1,006,139
690,882
355,804
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cost Total $1,867,696 $3,902,997 $5,832,172 $4,866,108 $5,012,091 $5,162,454 $5,317,327 $5,476,847 $5,641,152 $5,810,387
Net -$1,867,696 -$3,133,450 -$4,077,163 -$2,154,618 -$2,219,256 -$2,285,834 -$2,354,409 -$2,425,041 -$2,497,793 -$2,572,726
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 210 of 384
47
Notes
1 Boulder, Colorado, Municipal Code §2-5-2.
2 Department of Health. (2017). “What is EMS?”. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from https://doh.dc.gov/service/what-ems
3 Brennan, J., & Krohmer, J. (2006). Principles of EMS systems. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
4 International Association of Firefighters. (n.d.) Emergency Medical Services: A Guidebook for Fire-Based Systems.
5American Heart Association. (n.d). “Every Second Counts”. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-
public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_301646.pdf
6 National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 1710, standard for the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations,
and special operations to the public by career fire departments. National Fire Protection Association, 2010.
7 Chapman, S. A., Lindler, V., Kaiser, J. A., & Nielsen, C. S. (2008). EMS Workforce for the 21st Century: A National Assessment 1.
Attachment C - EMS White Paper
City Council Study Session Page 211 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 1
Boulder Fire-Rescue
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF BOULDER
PLAN REVISED
08/13/2018
Master Plan | Communications Strategy
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 212 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 2
CONTENT
03
04
04
04
05
06
08
09
11
11
Introduction
Goal
Communications Objectives
Target Audiences
Master Plan Process
Communication Strategies
Communications Tactics List
Engagement Windows: Suggested Tactics
Measurables
Measurables and Lessons Learned: Communications Tactics
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 213 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 3
INTRODUCTION
In March 2018, Boulder Fire-Rescue began updating its Master Plan. The last plan of this kind was
completed in 2012 and identified strategies the department has been working to implement since
then. As it develops the document that will guide staffing, funding and other key decisions over the
next 10 years, the department is taking a closer look at deployment approaches and practices that
have remained largely unchanged over the last several decades.
Although specifics will not be decided through this planning process, it is anticipated that updated
deployment strategies could result in the relocation or addition of at least one fire station. The
department also desires to incorporate recent changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, as
well as a renewed interest in the levels of service that Boulder residents and others are receiving,
especially in relation to emergency medical services (EMS).
In keeping with the recent adoption of the city’s strategic engagement framework, the department is
committed to seeking the community’s input in this process, with a focus on six key questions
(outlined below). The department will be transparent about all data, including those that show
historical success and challenges, and in discussions about potential changes. It will seek to include
as many voices as possible, including vulnerable populations, recognizing that these individuals and
families have a higher likelihood of utilizing fire-rescue services.
It is important to understand that the Master Plan does not represent one single decision. Through
the process of creating this strategic document, the department (and the city) will need to make a
series of decisions that address the following questions:
1. How should the community’s most serious risks be prioritized?
2. What types of services/programs should the department start, stop and/or regionalize?
3. How should emergency medical services be provided to Boulder residents?
4. What locations and deployment options provide the best response coverage for all hazards?
5. What community core values such as reduced energy consumption can be implemented in
the department’s policies, physical resources, and culture?
6. How robust should the department’s approach to prevention and risk management be in
terms of resource allocation?
This communication plan identifies how Boulder Fire-Rescue will:
• Inform internal and external stakeholders about this important planning effort.
• Collect community members’ input through a range of engaging and informative
communications deliverables.
• Show how community members’ input was used to create the Master Plan.
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 214 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 4
This plan will integrate Public Relations Society of America, Project Management Institute (PMI),
International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) and City of Boulder engagement best
practices to:
• Research, plan, implement and evaluate communications efforts (PRSA).
• Identify key stakeholders (PMI)
• Evaluate risks (PMI)
• Help the community to learn together, let people know what to expect, cultivate respectful
relationships, be transparent, use the right engagement tools, and evaluate and evolve.
(IAP2, City of Boulder)
• Incorporate “lessons learned” into strategic planning (PRSA, PMI, IAP2, City of Boulder)
GOAL
Engage the Boulder community to create an inclusive master plan that will serve as guiding
document for the next five years and will include measurable goals and objectives.
COMMUNICATIONS OBJECTIVES
1. Satisfy elected leader and stakeholder expectations by distributing engaging and timely
communications deliverables. Limit critical emails the City Council about Master Plan
communications to less than three emails over the entire 18-month planning process.
2. Distribute engaging deliverables to help ensure that each engagement window – if needed –
receives a desirable amount of feedback. That will help yield a high level of confidence in
community feedback.
3. Work with the Daily Camera to have one article appear during each community engagement
window.
4. Establish a framework to measure, evaluate and improve what communications platforms
are the most effective in driving community engagement.
5. Measure the effectiveness of Master Plan communications deliverables to refine and
improve community engagement deliverables.
6. Measure communications distributed to underrepresented audiences to create baseline
metrics for inclusivity communications.
TARGET AUDIENCES
The fire department has identified both internal and external stakeholders in this process:
Internal stakeholders: City Council, City Manager’s Office, Local 900, mgmt./non-union Fire-
Rescue employees, as well as other departments and work groups that interact in this space: Police
Department, City of Boulder Emergency Communications Center, Human Services, Facilities and
Asset Management, Information Technology, Planning and Development Services, Open Space and
Mountain Parks and the Office of Emergency Management.
Partner agencies/contractors/organizations: Boulder Community Hospital, City of Boulder
medical director, American Medical Response (AMR) (current ambulance service provider)
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 215 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 5
External stakeholders: Response partners, to include Boulder Rural Fire Protection District,
Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District, Boulder Emergency Squad, Boulder Mountain Fire
Authority, Four Mile Fire Protection District, Hygiene Fire Protection District, Indian Peaks Fire
Protection District, Lafayette Fire Department, Lefthand Fire Protection District, Louisville Fire
Protection District, Rocky Mountain Rescue Group, Sugarloaf Fire Protection District, Sunshine
Fire Protection District, and the Mountain View Fire Protection District,; University of Colorado
Boulder; businesses and residents
Based on both statistical and anecdotal data, the department recognizes that underrepresented
communities, including those with mental and physical disabilities, health problems and less access
to private resources, utilize the department’s services more often.
MASTER PLAN PROCESS
SYSTEM OVERVIEW & COMMUNITY VALUES, IDEAS
• INFORMING THE PUBLIC (In-Progress): Share foundational information with the public
about the state of Boulder Fire-Rescue and gather feedback about what the department
should focus on over the next five to 10 years.
• INVOLVING THE PUBLIC (In-Progress): Utilize a community survey to determine what
services are important to the community.
FOCUS AREAS
• INFORMING THE PUBLIC (To Be Completed): Feedback from the master plan survey and
the consultant’s report will be used to draft focus areas for the Master Plan. Focus areas are
systemwide themes that answer the question: “What is it time to focus on now?”
• CONSULTING THE PUBLIC (To Be Completed): During the second window of
engagement, Boulder Fire-Rescue will ask community members to check the department’s
analysis and interpretation of public comments it received to answer the question: “How
well did we hear you?”
STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES
• INVOLVING THE PUBLIC: Once broad focus areas are confirmed, associated strategies to
achieve them must be developed and prioritized based on available findings and other
criteria. Public meetings, digital engagement and a scientific community survey will help
refine and prioritize strategies.
DRAFT PLAN
• CONSULTING THE PUBLIC: The public will have opportunities to review the draft plan
as it gets reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council.
FINAL PLAN
The final version of the Master Plan will integrate feedback gathered throughout the entire process.
The Master Plan will also have measurable outcomes for tracking progress over time.
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 216 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 6
MESSAGING STRATEGIES
Recommendations from the Public Participation Working Group (PPWG) demonstrate a need for
messaging that is clear and simple, acknowledges differences in the community and communicates
how residents’ feedback will be incorporated into the plan.
City of Boulder’s Public Participation Working Group, the Boulder Energy Future Communications
and Engagement Working Group, a Boulder climate focus group, OSMP community engagement
projects, OSMP’s 2016 Resident Survey and recommendations from the City of Boulder’s
Engagement Framework indicate that OSMP messaging should:
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIES
INFORM
• Develop consistent, value-based messaging to be used throughout the plan. Work with
staff to condense messaging into top-line messaging that will fit into a slot-card. If we can’t
communicate what we want to achieve in less than 225 words, then we may need to re-focus
our strategic messaging. This messaging will frame consistent communications deliverables
over the course of the project:
o The website
o Press releases
o Emails
o Videos
o Social media
o Signs and marketing materials
• SHOW, NOT TELL how community members was used to develop the Master Plan.
We want to hear from community members to tell us how they feel that that their input was
used to shape the Master Plan. We can share their stories through:
o Videos
o Social media posts
o Web content.
• Make bouldercolorado.gov/fire-rescue the hub for all external communications. Use
https://bouldercolorado.gov/fire-rescue website as the central hub for all information related
to the Master Plan. Whenever we distribute social media posts, videos, press releases or
other marketing materials, we will always link back to the website or BeHeardBuilder.org.
On the websites, we can:
o Share public feedback and how it was used to develop the plan.
o Communicate important project alerts
o Show the project timeline
o Embed questionnaires, surveys and other engagement opportunities
o Provide storytelling multimedia.
o Share plan documents
o Provide City Council memos
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 217 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 7
• Focus communication work around earned-media outreach to Boulder and Denver-
area newspaper and television outlets. Throughout the plan, there will be important steps
that will necessitate media outreach. Use messages from the press release to craft media
pitches, emails, social media posts, website alerts, video content and community event
listings in the Daily Camera and Boulder Weekly.
• Leverage department, City of Boulder and community partners’ digital channels to
extend Boulder Fire-Rescue’s voice and to encourage community engagement.
Communicate interesting and people-oriented stories to help generate engagement through
the following opportunities:
o City of Boulder NextDoor
o City of Boulder Facebook
o Boulder Fire-Rescue, Boulder Police and City of Boulder Twitter
o City of Boulder Instagram
o Other city social media accounts
o City newsroom webpage
o City e-newsletters
o Inside Boulder News (Boulder TV 8)
o Inside Boulder (Boulder TV 8)
o Community partner social media and email accounts.
• Conduct online advertising. Use Facebook advertising to encourage people to provide
feedback through online engagement opportunities. Consult city staff or hire contractors to
implement Google advertising campaigns, which may significantly increase community
engagement.
• Connect with audiences who are not online.
o Write articles for the City of Boulder’s newsletter, which is distributed to more than
50,000 residents.
o Set up in-person opportunities for vulnerable populations that are high utilizers of
fire services.
• Work with fire staff that have regular in-person community contact. The fire
department has many staff members who reach residents and visitors where they are. We
need to ensure that our messaging is simple enough that outreach and community
engagement staff can clearly communicate key messages to residents.
CONSULT
• Leverage the new BeHeard Boulder community engagement platform to listen to
community members. This new platform, created by Bang the Table, can help reach
community members who don’t actively participate in open space planning processes.
• Consider using Facebook live and in-person information sessions to receive additional
input.
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 218 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 8
COMMUNICATIONS TACTICS
Website / Digital Embeds:
• Alerts and advisories
• Questionnaires, engagement links
• Timeline
• Videos
• Plan documents
• Articles / Fact Sheets
• Photo Galleries
• Maps
Online Engagement:
• BeHeard Boulder
Print / Mailers:
• Community newsletter
• Posters/postcards
Social Media:
• NextDoor
• Boulder Fire-Rescue Twitter
• City of Boulder Facebook
• City of Boulder Twitter
• Boulder Police Twitter
Earned Media:
• Media outreach
• Press releases
• Event listings
Boulder TV Channel 8 / Videos:
• Inside Boulder News
• Inside Boulder
• A Boulder View
• Expert panels, community
conversations
• Contractor-produced videos
Public Events
• Community events / meetings
• Boulder Fire-Rescue hosted public
meetings, workshops
• City Council meetings
Advertising:
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google ads
• Daily Camera advertising
• Boulder Senior Services magazine
(spring, summer, fall and winter)
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 219 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 9
ENGAGEMENT WINDOWS: SUGGESTED TACTICS
IN-PROGRESS: Initiation (Summer 2018): Develop strategies to meet two critical PPWG
recommendations: 1) “Clearly identify the problem;” and 2) help ensure that “public engagement is
thoughtfully planned.”
Deliverables during this period included:
• Communications plan
• Community newsletter article
• Media Relations
• Website creation
IN-PROGRESS: Boulder Fire-Rescue Master Plan Kickoff (Summer 2018 – Fall 2018):
Announce that the Master Plan is now underway. The top objective of this phase is to alert the
community and the media about master plan process and coordinate community engagement
opportunities. Provide a foundation of shared knowledge by promoting information included in the
Standards of Cover Report and collect community input on what community members feel should
be the priorities of the department moving forward.
Deliverables during this period will include:
• Media Relations
• Coordination of Internal and
External Stakeholder meetings
• Website updates
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook,
Nextdoor)
• Channel 8 video
• Partner communication
coordination
• Website updates
• Sign messaging coordination
TO BE COMPLETED: Focus Areas (XX to XX): Use community feedback to develop proposed
focus areas as well as a set of related topics that support and define each focus area. During this
second window of engagement, Boulder Fire-Rescue will ask community members to check staff’s
analysis and interpretation of their feedback and help answer the question: “How well did we hear
you in developing the proposed focus areas?” The objective of this engagement window is to drive
people to an online questionnaire.
Deliverables during this period included:
• Sub-messaging for process phase
• Press release
• Focus Area engagement video
• Media Relations
• Website updates
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook,
Nextdoor, Instagram)
• Social media ads?
• Inside Boulder video
• Partner communication
coordination
• Sign messaging coordination
• Updated communications plan
Preliminary Strategies (XX to XX): Once broad focus areas are confirmed, Boulder Fire-Rescue
will engage the community during ?? community workshops to hear ideas and consider best
practices in developing and prioritizing strategies for the four focus areas. The primary
communications objective of this engagement window is to drive people to ?? community
workshops (dates) and to help show how their input will be used to shape the plan.
Deliverables during this period will include:
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 220 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 10
• Sub-messaging for process phase
• Press release to highlight all three
meetings
• Event listings in the Daily Camera,
Boulder Weekly
• Community newsletter to highlight
all three meetings
• Media Relations
• Website updates
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook,
Nextdoor) to highlight each
meeting
• Sign messaging coordination
• Analytic, objectives measurement
• Photographs of community
engagement
Draft Plan: OSMP will deliver a draft Master Plan to the community for feedback and comment.
The primary communications objective of this engagement window will likely focus on driving
people to an online questionnaire to provide feedback on the draft Master Plan.
Deliverables during this period will include:
• Sub-messaging for process phase
• Video storytelling
• Press release
• Media Relations
• Community newsletter
• Emails
• Website updates
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook,
Nextdoor, Instagram)
• Social media ads
• Inside Boulder News video
• Partner communication
coordination
• Sign messaging coordination
• Analytic, objectives measurement
• Photographs of community
engagement
Final Plan: The final version of the Master Plan will integrate feedback and comments gained
throughout the entire process.
Deliverables during this period can include:
• Sub-messaging for process phase
• Media Relations
• Community newsletter
• Emails
• Website updates
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook,
Nextdoor)
• Inside Boulder News video
“Thank you”: Boulder Fire-Rescue will deliver a series of communications to thank the
community for participating in the Master Plan process.
Deliverables during this period can include:
• Video
• Emails
• Social media
• Website updates
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook,
Nextdoor)
• Inside Boulder News video
• Partner communication
coordination
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 221 of 384
BOULDER FIRE-RESCUE
Master Plan | Communications Strategy 11
MEASUREABLES
Quantitative Measures
• Comments received through
communication channels
• BeHeardBoulder Survey responses
• Social media impressions, reach, likes,
shares and clicks
• Web hits
• Number of earned media articles
• Workshop / open house / webinar
participants
• Video views
• Positive / negative comments on city
social media channels
Qualitative Measures
• Community values found through
comments, questionnaires
• Feedback on deliverables
• Comments on social media channels
• Daily Camera / media stories
• Daily Camera letters to the editor
• City Council emails from residents
MEASURABLES AND LESSONS LEARNED: COMMUNICATION TACTICS
To be created as we move through the process
Attachment D - Communications Strategy
City Council Study Session Page 222 of 384
Project Charter: Boulder Fire Rescue Master Plan Update 12.19.2017
Background
The last fire department master plan update was completed in 2012 and identified strategies the department took in conjunction with the city’s strategic initiatives and
core values. Most of those strategies have been addressed and many are complete or near completion. Completion of the department’s community risk assessment
and standards of cover document will likely require a comprehensive review of the department’s last 50 years of deployment strategies. Moreover, recent changes to
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan and a renewed interest in the levels of service provided to Boulder citizens such as EMS require a renewed look at the
department’s long‐term planning efforts and resource needs.
Key questions that need to be addressed, among others:
1. How should the community’s most serious risks be prioritized?
2. What types of services/programs should the department start, stop and/or regionalize?
3. How should emergency medical services be provided to Boulder residents?
4. What locations and deployment options provide the best response coverage for all hazards?
5. What community core values such as reduced energy consumption can be implemented in the department’s policies, physical resources, and culture?
6. How robust should the department’s approach to prevention and risk management be in terms of resource allocation?
Goals
Conduct a master plan process that incorporates multiple opportunities for public participation and engagement.
Develop a master plan that incorporates the following critical elements:
o industry best practices for performance measurement;
o key strategies for addressing community values and priorities and the regional risks and hazards;
o a foundation for the development of the capital improvement program and program‐based business plans such as emergency medical
services;
o long‐term recommendations for physical resources, geographic deployment, and associated cost‐estimates; and
o a purposeful consideration for the needs of the workforce and a plan for incorporating the city’s diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Publish and receive approval for a master planning document that satisfies one of the 3 main documents for accreditation by the Commission on
Fire Accreditation International.
Scope
The master planning project will culminate with the development and acceptance of the department’s medium‐ to long‐term master plan.
Phase 0‐1 ‐ Analysis
Development of the community risk assessment and standards of cover document, which will provide the fundamental inputs (i.e., risk identification, gap
analyses, response baseline and benchmark validation) needed to incorporate public participation and prioritization
Development of the project charter and approval by the city manager
Development of draft EMS business plan
Craft public engagement plan
Phase 2 (Engagement Steps 1‐5) – Options and Engagement
Determine internal/external stakeholders for participation
Conduct internal and external focus group and engagement sessions
Identify options
Phase 3 (Engagement Step 6) – Refinement and Recommendations
Conduct internal strategic planning session with key participants
Draft recommendations
Phase 4 (Engagement Step 7) – Draft Plan
Engage public stakeholders with recommendations
Finalize working draft and recommendations
Phase 5 (Engagement Step 8) – Plan Adoption
Present draft to master plan committee and revise as appropriate
Present draft to planning board and revise as appropriate
Present draft to council for acceptance
Phase 6 (Engagement Step 9) – Reflect and Evaluate
Convene planning team for project evaluation
Attachment E - Master Plan Workplan
City Council Study Session Page 223 of 384
Project Charter: Boulder Fire Rescue Master Plan Update 12.19.2017
The master plan will NOT include:
Specific location recommendations for fire stations;
Business and operational plans for department programs; these are developed separately and will be designed to carry out applicable master plan goals and
objectives
Key Stakeholders
Project manager/Asst.
PM
Fire Chief/Deputy Fire Chief – Administrative Services
Project executive team CMO, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief
Project core team Fire Chief, Project Manager/Data Analyst, Deputy Fire Chiefs, Medical Director
Internal stakeholders Local 900, mgmt./non‐union employees, other city departments (PD, HS, FAM, IT, PHS,
OSMP, OEM, HS, Finance, CMO, PW), AMR
External stakeholders Response partners, community businesses, community residents, CU, neighborhood
assns., faith‐based groups,
Staff/integration team Master Planning Committee, Exec FD staff, FD program managers
Project Milestones
See Chart
Project Budget
For community engagement ‐ $5,000
Constraints, Assumptions, Risks and Dependencies
Constraints Public engagement sessions/stakeholder availability
Planning board timeline
City council agenda
Assumptions No public safety emergency or disaster interruptions
Risks and Dependencies Completion of the Standards of Cover
Attachment E - Master Plan Workplan
City Council Study Session Page 224 of 384
Project Charter: Boulder Fire Rescue Master Plan Update 12.19.2017 Attachment E - Master Plan WorkplanCity Council Study Session Page 225 of 384
C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
August 28, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
7-9:30 PM C ommunity Benefit, Site Review C riteria, Land Use C ode C hange Priorities
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
C ommunity Benefit, Site Review C riteria, Land Use C ode C hange Priorities
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachments
City Council Study Session Page 226 of 384
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Jim Robertson, Director for Planning + Sustainability (P+S)
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager/Interim Comprehensive Planning
Manager (P+S)
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner/Code Amendment Specialist (P+S)
Phil Kleisler, Planner II (P+S)
DATE: August 28, 2018
SUBJECT: Community Benefit Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to share information with the City Council at a study session
and receive feedback about the Community Benefit project, which is intended to address under
what circumstances developers or property owners may request increased building height, density
and intensity beyond what is permitted by underlying zoning and, in such cases, what community
benefits would be required as part of a development proposal.
Community benefit programs typically include a suite of regulations and incentives that tie specific
community benefits to requests for additional development rights (like building height, floor area
and residential density). These programs identify the specific amount and type of community
benefit required with specific development requests. Community benefits differ among
communities to reflect local values – and range from affordable housing to affordable commercial
space to day cares to art or concert venues.
As an example, some properties in Boulder are eligible to request a “Height Modification”
(requests to build above the by-right zoning limit) to allow an additional one or two stories (up to
55 feet) when the zoning only allows three stories. Current requirements do not require specific
community benefits per se, but rather must be considered a higher quality, more innovative project
than a by-right project. Boulder’s community benefits program, if adopted, would provide a menu
of options – like affordable housing, affordable commercial space, community gathering space and
public art – to be provided as part of the project. The specific amount of required benefits would
be proportional to the value of the bonus amount requested.
1City Council Study Session Page 227 of 384
Fig. 1: Height modification graphic.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
1. Does City Council agree with the proposed project features eligible for the community
benefits program (e.g. height, FAR, density, rezonings)?
2. Should city staff analyze and engage the community about adding sites to Appendix J
(areas eligible for height modifications)?
3. Does City Council agree with the preliminary list of community benefits?
4. Does City Council agree with staff’s approach to community engagement?
BACKGROUND
Following a discussion with City Council in August 2017 on implementation items of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), staff began implementing a Public Participation
Plan that focused on considering height modifications in exchange for permanently affordable
housing, but at the request of the council at the January 2018 retreat, the project was broadened
to include other requests for increased land use intensity, a larger array of community benefits to
be considered and improvements to the Site Review criteria that was originally set as a separate
action plan item. Additionally, City Council requested that staff develop ordinances to remove or
extend the expiration date of the existing Height Modification ordinance. City Council adopted
an ordinance in June of this year that extends the validity of the current height restrictions to
May 31, 2020 to enable further progress on the community benefit project. The current height
restrictions limit where and under what circumstances height modifications may be considered.
Draft “Why” Statement
The city’s Engagement Strategic Framework suggests clearly defining a project’s “why”
statement early in the project, which is intended to explain the purpose of the project’s
engagement mission.
A community benefits program has been discussed as one tool to ensure that new growth and
development contribute positively to the community’s quality of life. While higher quality of
2City Council Study Session Page 228 of 384
development is often attained through the Site Review process, in recent years community
sentiment has expressed that more specific community benefits in exchange for additional
height, intensity or density should be required.
Current Site Review process
Under the current Land Use Code, projects over a certain size in terms of floor area and density
(number of units) or upon lots of a certain size are required to be reviewed through the Site
Review process. Proposals to build over the zoning district height limit (e.g., 35 feet in most
zones, but 38 or 40 feet in others), termed height modifications, also require Site Review. Site
Review projects are subject to a public review process (some of the larger projects automatically
require Planning Board review, like height modifications for principal structures or requests for
additional floor area, density or reduction in open space in a limited number of zones). All Site
Review applications are subject to potential call up by Planning Board or citizen appeal. Any
Planning Board decisions is subject to City Council call up within a 30-day period.
In order for a Site Review project to be approved the project must be found by the review body
(e.g., staff, Planning Board or City Council) to be consistent with the Site Review criteria of
Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, which are lengthy criteria that require compliance with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies (on balance) and higher quality
development than by-right projects in terms of site design, open space, landscaping, building
design and more efficient site layouts and parking configurations etc. The current stated purpose
of Site Review is below:
Section 9-2-14(a), B.R.C. 1981- Purpose: The purpose of site review is to allow flexibility
and encourage innovation in land use development. Review criteria are established to
promote the most appropriate use of land, 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 assure consistency with the
purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other adopted
plans of the community, to ensure compatibility with existing structures and established
districts, to assure that the height of new buildings is in general proportion to the height
of existing, approved, and known to be planned or projected buildings in the immediate
area, to assure that the project incorporates, through site design, elements which provide
for the safety and convenience of the pedestrian, to assure that the project is designed in
an environmentally sensitive manner, and to assure that the building is of a bulk
appropriate to the area and the amenities provided and of a scale appropriate to
pedestrians.
To encourage innovative design, the Site Review process permits modification to some code
standards (see list in Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C. 1981), which can be granted if the Site Review
criteria are met. While Site Review projects enable the city a greater ability to achieve some
benefits to the community (e.g., affordable housing, residential infill in appropriate locations),
there has been a growing sentiment in the community that such projects are not providing
benefits commensurate with the additional land use intensity granted through the review process.
Attachment A includes a list of community benefits generally provided through Site Review)
3City Council Study Session Page 229 of 384
This sentiment among some in the community was heightened by the number of larger, 55-foot
tall buildings being constructed throughout the community and the concerns related to how
height modifications could be requested in most parts of the city through the Site Review
process. Further, some have expressed concern with the nature of the Site Review criteria that
may result in decision makers coming to different conclusions and how the results of each
review may not be predictable causing frustration among developers and neighbors alike.
Therefore, staff has begun a process to explore how community benefits could be better
incorporated into the Site Review process (and other parts of the Land Use Code) and how to
improve the Site Review criteria to more clearly and prescriptively meet city goals (e.g., energy
conservation, resiliency, more compatible building design etc.), and be more predictable with
transparent decision-making.
Project Purpose Statement
Consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies (see below), staff will
update the Land Use Code to create regulations and incentives for obtaining certain community
benefits when considering height modification requests and/or additional floor area, density
requests and rezoning applications.
1.11 Enhanced Community Benefit: For land use or zoning district changes that result in increases
in the density or intensity of development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zoning or for
added height that increases intensity, the city will develop regulations and incentives so that the new
development provides benefits to the community beyond those otherwise required by the underlying
zoning. Any incentives are intended to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan. Community objectives include without limitation affordable
housing, affordable commercial space, spaces for the arts, community gathering space, public art,
land for parks, open space, environmental protection or restoration, outdoor spaces and other
identified social needs and services. Community objectives also may be identified through other
planning or policymaking efforts of the city.
2.35 Building Height. The city will review and update site review regulations to provide clear
guidance on height and intensity of land uses and to address relationship of building height to
aesthetics and view protection. The city will consider additional height (up to the City Charter 55-foot
height limit) as an incentive in exchange for community benefits that further other community
objectives such as the provision of permanently affordable housing (as described in Policy 1.11).
7.11 Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity. The city will develop regulations and
policies to ensure that when additional intensity is provided through changes to zoning, a larger
proportion of the additional development potential for the residential use will be permanently
affordable housing for low, moderate and middle-income households.
The specific goals and objective for this project are as follows:
• Determine the type and amount of community benefits that would be provided to achieve
increased intensity, building height or zone district changes.
• Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan.
• Clearly specify the required triggers for community benefit and identify how (or if) the
benefits would be maintained in perpetuity.
4City Council Study Session Page 230 of 384
• Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
• Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more
predictability in projects.
Upcoming Community Engagement Techniques
Staff is requesting feedback on the public outreach approach to community engagement, which is
outlined in the draft community engagement plan (Attachment C.). In general, the following
engagement techniques will continue or be undertaken within the third and fourth quarters of this
year (project timeline follows):
• Technical Groups: City staff from numerous departments have begun working with
interested residents and business owners to further define and explore what community
benefits could be implemented in projects. These conversations are detailed within the
‘Analysis’ section of this memorandum.
• Focus Groups: Staff and consultants from RRC Associates facilitated focus group sessions
as part of the building height discussions in late 2017. The focus group sessions proved to
be very productive and staff received positive feedback from participants. Staff plans to
invite the focus group participants together again for a larger meeting to discuss elements
of the community benefits program.
• Drop-in Events: Drop-in “chats” will be informal and flexible meetings at a convenient
neighborhood location (local coffee shop, recreation center, etc.) to consult community
members about key aspects of the project.
• Open Houses/Larger Events: An open house event is being planned around October to
involve community members in staff’s analysis and process for forming a recommendation.
This input would be analyzed and ultimately inform a recommendation to Planning Board
and City Council. The draft recommendation would then be presented in another
community event in late 2018 or early 2019.
• City Boards and Commissions: Staff engaged numerous boards and commissions as part
of the building height project and plans to continue involving them moving forward.
Summary of Engagement To Date
Attachment F contains community and board meeting summaries, including recent Technical
Group discussions and input from the Housing Advisory Board (HAB) on July 25, 2018. Some
highlights of input received during the previous outreach process (which focused on building
height and affordable housing) are provided below:
Focus Groups (8 sessions)
Staff began the current phase of engagement in November 2017 with a series of focus group
sessions focusing the discussions on height modifications and permanently affordable housing.
In an effort to hear a broad range of opinions on the topic, city staff reached out to active
5City Council Study Session Page 231 of 384
members in the community, design professionals, developers, business owners, and
neighborhood representatives. To complement these discussions, RRC Associates (the firm that
conducted the 2015 and 2016 comprehensive plan surveys) conducted three focus group
sessions. RRC Associates was used during the BVCP update process to reach a larger number of
citizenry to get a more diverse range of opinion and to make more people aware of the process. It
was thought working with RRC on this project would be useful to attain feedback on building
intensity and community benefit. Summaries of the focus group sessions are attached to this
report.
City Boards/Commissions
• University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission:
Regulations must be tailored to specific areas of the city. On the Hill, affordable
commercial and office space is a higher priority than affordable housing.
• Downtown Management Commission (DMC)/Downtown Boulder:
Partnership(DBI)/Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District (BID):
Economic analysis is critical; consider how to ensure community benefits remain
in perpetuity; different areas may need different community benefits; 1-2
additional stories will not lead to substantial community benefits; parking in
downtown is important; reduce the negative social outcomes of current
regulations; more height can provide opportunities for mixed uses, walkable
neighborhoods, etc.
• Boulder Junction Access and Parking District (BJAD):
The economic analysis is an important component, which will need to consider
the updated Commercial Linkage Fee; more important benefits for the Boulder
Junction area includes greater density for less parking and TDM programs.
• Housing Advisory Board (HAB): The board will appoint a HAB liaison for the
project; affordable housing is a top priority, with a strong interest in seeing site
units instead of in-lieu payments. Context, or how the overall development project
fits within the neighborhood, is an important consideration. Subcommunity and
area plans should identify appropriate community benefits.
Targeted Outreach
• PLAN Boulder:
Plan Boulder invited staff to their monthly meeting to discuss opinions around this topic.
This agenda item lasted roughly one hour and covered the same question prompts used in
the focus group sessions. Similar to other groups, the issue of building design surfaced as
an important issue. Generally, the group prefers buildings to be stepped back, avoid
certain view corridors, and be less “boxy” than recent projects. View corridor protection
and access to the sun was brought up several times. Some locations, like along 28th
Street and the Diagonal Plaza, were seen as possibly being appropriate for height
modifications, while other areas like Gunbarrel and residential zones need greater input.
6City Council Study Session Page 232 of 384
The group seemed to agree that affordable housing is a critical need, though there were
mixed opinions about whether units should be required on site or if there should be a cash
in-lieu option. Regarding community benefits, the group seemed to agree that affordable
commercial space and open space areas accessible to the public should be explored.
• Boulder Chamber of Commerce Community Affairs Council:
Staff facilitated a roughly hour-long discussion around the project. Some key
takeaways included: the need to set specific, achievable project goals; don’t just
focus on height – meet with developers for their perspective; the economic
analysis is critical; tailor community benefits to different, unique areas of the city;
talk with neighborhoods about what they’d like to see on a site; in the end don’t
try to quantify each community benefit – allow for some innovation through
flexibility; greater height may lead to be creative building designs.
• Chamber of Commerce East Arapahoe Focus Group:
The East Arapahoe Focus Group included attendees from Boulder Community Health,
Flatirons Business Park, Ball Aerospace, Crescent Properties and the Chamber of
Commerce. With respect to needed community benefits for the east Arapahoe corridor
and including industrial areas in east Boulder, some suggestions were: 1) allowance for
more retail and restaurants to serve industrial areas; 2) allowance for more educational
facilities; and 3) potentially senior housing. More broadly, the group recommended
transportation enhancements that further city goals in the Transportation Master Plan,
specific benefits for the health care industry and funding for the arts. Some in the group
thought that any list of community benefit should be broad as to not be too limiting.
Others thought that the list should not be specific and that there should be some level of
negotiating early in the review process (e.g., Concept Plan) about what benefits should
be.
DRAFT PROJECT TIMELINE
Note: These project tasks will be refined to reflect Planning Board and City Council input. For example,
should Planning Board and council opt to explore adding additional sites eligible for height
modifications (City Council Question #2 below, pg. 18), staff would add tasks for technical analysis and
community engagement to the scope.
Phase 1: Identify Issues, Options and Case Studies
April – May 2018: Internal work to identify issues, options and case studies.
• Draft Engagement Strategy and Project Plan
• Work with other city staff members to identify members for a technical advisory group.
• Finalize a scope of work for an initial economic analysis.
7City Council Study Session Page 233 of 384
June – July 2018: Seek input around key issues and options for a community benefits program.
• Assemble Technical Advisory Groups to begin developing initial options for community benefits
for council consideration.
• Research case studies from other, established community benefit programs.
• Initial economic analysis testing.
Sept. 2018: Present project materials to Planning Board and City Council
• Present Scope, Key Issues and Case Studies to Planning Board and City Council.
• Refine project materials based on feedback from City Council and Planning Board.
Phase 2: Evaluate and refine elements of a new community benefits program
October – December 2018:
• Continue technical group discussions
• Involve the community at-large through a larger community event, drop-in events and interviews.
• Convene previous focus group participants to brainstorm and/or refine various aspects of the
community benefits program.
January 2019 – March 2019:
• City Council Information Item (Project Update, next steps)
• Perform an economic analysis for preferred options.
• Draft ordinance.
• Present ordinance at community meeting.
• City Council study session to review program parameters (tentative)
Phase 3: Review and Adaption
2nd – 3rd Quarter of 2019:
• Planning Board and City Council Study Session on Staff recommendation.
• Depending on council feedback, begin public hearings.
ANALYSIS
General Steps and Issues to Consider when Creating a Community Benefits Program
The creation of an effective, relatively predictable and workable regulatory framework requires
the consideration of several factors, including:
• Identification of Community Benefit Topics
BVCP Policy 1.11 identifies several general topic areas that the community benefits
program should consider, including: affordable housing, affordable commercial space,
spaces for the arts, community gathering space, public art, land for parks, open space,
environmental protection or restoration, outdoor spaces and other identified social needs
and services.
8City Council Study Session Page 234 of 384
• Determine “Triggers” for Community Benefit Requirements (i.e. which projects are
eligible) and Review Process
A community benefits program would be applicable to specific requests such as height
modifications, additional density, additional floor area and rezoning to certain districts.
In researching other city community benefits programs there are generally two methods
used for determining the required type and amount of community benefits once an
application is submitted:
Method 1: Quantified “Menu of Options”. This option involves a specific amount
of community benefit requirement that is proportional to the request (e.g. x square
feet of additional floor area requires x square feet of community benefit). This
would increase the level of predictability in projects for property owners, city
officials, developers and neighbors alike. This option would be consistent with prior
comments by City Council and the Planning Board to have the code be as specific
as possible on the community benefit options and expectations and to increase
predictability in the process. Method 2 discussed below, staff does not find to be a
viable option as it would conflict with Colorado state law, which requires that any
condition of approval in a discretionary review be based on a duly adopted standard
that is sufficiently specific to be applied consistently and fairly.
Method 2: Negotiated Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). Some communities
prefer to negotiate terms of a community benefits package with each individual
development project on a case-by-case basis. This option is possible in places where
state (or provisional) legislation enables a process of negotiation as done in places
like California or Ontario, Canada (see ‘Case Studies’ on page 13). Because one of
the overall project goals is to increase predictability in the development process and
considering that this option would conflict with Colorado state law, staff does not
find that this method be considered for further analysis and community discussion.
Staff is describing this method here solely to show the results of staff research.
Additionally, through a review of case studies it appears that other CBAs are often
similar to the Boulder’s current Site Review process, where many benefits to the
community like street improvements, trail connections, diversity of housing types,
workforce housing, historic preservation and open space preservation are already
attained (See Attachment A for a review of what is already achieved through Site
Review). CBAs would not increase the level of predictability and oftentimes
require significant legal review to ensure that the resulting agreements are grounded
in “rational nexus” law whereby community benefits attained by the city are
commensurate with the bonus a project may receive through additional height,
density or intensity.
9City Council Study Session Page 235 of 384
• Refine Community Benefits into Specific, Measurable Requirements
Most community benefit topics identified in BVCP Policy 1.11 need to be further refined.
The goal of refining these topics is to have specific, measurable requirements enforceable
through the Land Use Code.
• Quantify Community Benefits Through an Economic Analysis
Once the above topics are resolved, the city would conduct an economic feasibility analysis
to determine the specific quantity of community benefits likely supported in the current
economic climate. This analysis would result in development pro formas that suggest the
quantity of community benefits the city could require without making the project
unfeasible. An initial economic analysis was conducted for affordable housing and
affordable commercial space, which is summarized below and included as Attachment B.
• Explore refinements to the Site Review criteria to better meet city goals and increase the
level of predictability in projects
Enacting new community benefit requirements will likely require updates to the Site
Review criteria. In addition to such requirements, staff is exploring potential updates to the
criteria to better meet city goals on energy efficiency, resiliency and enhanced design (e.g.,
BVCP Policies 2.41, Enhanced Design for All Projects, 3.10, Climate Change Mitigation
& Adaptation, 4.08, Energy-Efficient Building Design, 4.06, Energy System Resilience,
etc.) and increase the level of predictably in development projects. This is challenging as
the Site Review criteria were originally crafted to avoid specific “black and white”
requirements to enable more flexibility in projects to achieve more innovative, well-
designed projects above by-right projects and not have standards that may conflict with
one another or be too rigid. That said, staff understands the desire to increase the level of
predictability in the Site Review process.
Increasing predictability would involve making the criteria more specific (e.g., requiring
certain building materials and amounts of fenestration, minimum amount of seating areas,
hardscape to greenscape ratios etc.) and tied to metrics (e.g., minimum percentages or
square footages of landscaping, building materials etc.) rather than the keeping the
language broad and aspirational as it is currently written in the examples below:
o Open space- Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional and
incorporates quality landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade and places to gather;
o Landscaping- The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in
excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-9-12, "Landscaping and
Screening Standards," and 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981;
o Circulation- High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets
and the project is provided;
o Parking - The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the
minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
10City Council Study Session Page 236 of 384
o Building Design- The building height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture and
configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character
established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area;
-The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings
and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans or
design guidelines for the immediate area;
-If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs and lighting;
-Exteriors of buildings present a sense of permanence through the use of authentic
materials such as stone, brick, wood, metal or similar products and building material
detailing;
Staff intends to draw from things learned through the Form-Based Code process with the
goal of making the Site Review criteria more predictable like performance standards.
Further, staff will be working with our Sustainability and Resilience staff on an effort to
clarify criteria related to meeting city goals on energy conservation and new resiliency
criteria. This is challenging given that the city already has one of the most rigorous energy
codes in the country and also new territory since the criteria do not currently address
construction in areas with high wildfire risk, flooding risk and in areas that have high
groundwater. Staff looks forward to feedback on this endeavor as we move forward with
the process.
Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
In preparation of the council study session, the city contracted with Keyser Marston Associates
(KMA) to conduct an initial economic feasibility study narrowly focused on two community
benefits: affordable housing and affordable commercial space (Attachment B). The goal of this
analysis was to begin understanding the quantity of community benefits likely to be achieved in
the current economic climate.
The analysis uses a “residual land value” approach, which represents the amount a project can
afford to pay for a development site. Residual Land Value is calculated as the difference between
the supported unit values and the development costs other than land. For a community benefits
program to be attractive to a developer, the residual value must be positive. In this analysis KMA
targeted supported land values in the bonus scenarios that are approximately 15 percent more
than with the base zoning scenario.
For this initial analysis, three variations of a residential density and building height bonus were
examined. Table 1 below summarizes key aspects of this initial economic study. For consistency,
all scenarios were assumed to be a two-acre site with BR-1 (Business – Regional 1 in the vicinity
of Twenty Ninth Street, 28th Street corridor) zoning, and all bonus projects were assumed to
include rental units based on feasibility work completed in 2017. Two bonus projects were
examined with a height up to 55 feet (4 – 5 stories) and density around 70 to 80 units per acre.
11City Council Study Session Page 237 of 384
Bonus Scenario 3 uses the in-lieu payment for the base affordable housing requirements and
provides an additional 6 percent of affordable units. Scenario 4 also satisfies the base affordable
housing requirements through the in-lieu payment and includes 10,000 square feet of affordable
commercial space (defined as 75 percent of market rent). With Federal LIHTC financing, Bonus
Scenario 5 provides a total of 33 percent affordable units. A broader economic analysis will be
completed to quantify the final list of community benefits (in 2019).
The results of the initial economic analysis suggest several things to consider as we work to
establish a community benefits program:
• Additional analysis should be explored for each of the community benefits; this will
include analysis around numerous zoning districts and development assumptions.
• The economics of allowing additional height and density indicate support for a
community benefits program. However, the initial bonus scenarios are just below the
targeted residual value margin of 15 percent (i.e. what would make the project feasible to
a developer). This slim margin is seen when only requiring one community benefit, when
ideally, we would like to see more than one benefit provided with each project. More
discussions will be needed to determine the level of development bonuses the city is
comfortable providing to achieve the desired amount of community benefits;
• The density bonus required to achieve the community benefits is fairly substantial,
increasing from the base 27 units per acre to 70 – 80 units per acre; and
• Additional analysis is needed if the city implements design standards that alter the form
and bulk requirements of upper stories (e.g. set back 4th story), as that would limit the
number of potential units and thus the amount of community benefits achieved.
12City Council Study Session Page 238 of 384
Table 1: Summary results for initial Economic Analysis.
Base Scenario 1 Bonus Scenario 2 Bonus Scenario 3 Bonus Scenario 4 Bonus Scenario 5
Scenario
Description
Existing BR-1
Zoning
BR-1 Zoning, with
height and density
bonus.
No additional
affordable housing
or community
benefits
BR-1 Zoning, with
height and density
bonus.
Added affordable
units (beyond base
requirements)
BR-1 Zoning, with
height and density
bonus.
Includes affordable
commercial space.
BR-1 Zoning, with
height and density
bonus.
Added affordable
housing units
CB Trigger n/a Building Height: base is 35 feet; bonus is 55 feet
Density: Base is units per acre; bonus is units per acre.
Community Benefit n/a n/a Affordable Housing Affordable
Commercial Space
Affordable Housing
Building Height 35 feet 55 feet 55 feet 55 feet 55 feet
Building Stories 3 stories 4 – 5 stories 4 – 5 stories 4 – 5 stories 4 – 5 stories
Housing
Number of Units 54 152 153 141 163
Units per acre 27 du/ac. 76 du/ac. 77 du/ac. 71 du/ac. 82 du/ac.
Res. Unit Mix
Market Rate 54 (100%) 152 (100%) 143 (94%) 141 (100%) 109 (67%)
Middle Income
(80% AMI)
0 0 5 (3%) 0 10 (6%)
Low/Mod. (60%
AMI)
0 0 5 (3%) 0 44 (27%)
In-lieu Payment 100% of base rqrmt 100% of base rqrmt 100% of base rqrmt 100% of base rqrmt n/a
Affordable
Commercial Space
n/a n/a n/a 10,000 Sq. Ft. n/a
Residual land value
over base zoning
n/a 42% 14.7% 13.6% 13.8%
Case studies
Other communities throughout North America have faced similar development pressures and
sentiments that certain benefits should be provided with development projects in exchange for
allowance to build additional height, density or intensity (e.g., floor area ratio, FAR). Staff has
analyzed 15 case studies of cities that have incorporated community benefit regulations into their
zoning codes. There is a wide variety of approaches, but similar themes that communities have
faced from having a more negotiated type process to specifically prescribed requirements in
13City Council Study Session Page 239 of 384
exchange for developments over certain thresholds. Below are some highlights from this analysis
(Attachment D contains a comprehensive overview of the showcased 15 communities:
Most of the communities that implement community benefit programs are located in
California.
Many community benefits obtained in other communities are equivalent to benefits
Boulder often obtains through the Site Review process (i.e., enhanced design,
transportation connections, historic preservation etc.).
Building height, floor area and density are the most common triggers for community
benefit.
Affordable housing, sustainable design/green building (e.g., LEED certification), publicly
accessible open spaces, and arts and cultural uses are common identified community
benefits.
Many communities have community benefit programs focused on incentivizing
development in their downtowns. Some examples are Austin, TX, Berkeley, CA, Santa
Barbara, CA, San Diego, CA, and Nashville, TN.
Some communities rely on case-by-case reviews and negotiations often resulting in
unpredictable outcomes and community push-back (e.g., Palo Alto, CA, Ottawa, ON,
Santa Barbara, CA, Vancouver, BC). Colorado law does not allow negotiation of
community benefits, rather conditions of discretionary approvals must be based on duly
adopted standards that are sufficiently specific to be applied consistently and fairly.
Bonuses offered in the larger cities are often significantly more than what Boulder would
offer with one or two additional floors in Boulder (> 2.0 FAR) versus FAR of 25:1 in
Austin, TX or a height bonus of over 100 feet in Seattle, WA or up to 30 stories extra in
Nashville, TN.
In terms of identified community benefits and more predictable processes than other
communities, Austin, TX, Emeryville, CA and Santa Monica, CA offer the most likeness
to conditions and values in l Boulder in terms of the identified community benefits and
the process approaches that may work in Boulder. As further discussed in the case studies
attachment, the City of Austin established specific metrics for each community benefit to
ensure that the requirements are proportional to the requested development bonus. Santa
Monica established three approval tiers or procedural tracks to regulate development that
are tied to the type, location, and level of development.
14City Council Study Session Page 240 of 384
Fig. 2: Map of cities included in case studies summary.
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1. Does City Council agree with the proposed project features eligible for the
community benefits program (e.g. height, FAR, density, rezonings)?
Background
The research of case studies shows that many communities utilize the following
thresholds as triggers for community benefit requirements:
o Buildings over a specified size limit or floor area ratio (FAR) limit
o Buildings over a specified height limit
o Projects that include dwelling units over a specified maximum density (dwelling units
per acre)
o Request to rezone to a zone that permits a greater density or intensity or a zone that
requires negotiation for community benefit (e.g., Planned Community zones in Palo
Alto)
This approach incentivizes the inclusion of community benefits in exchange for
additional development potential. Boulder’s current process for Site Review is triggered
by either number of units (within the zone limits), size of site or requests for
modifications to the form and bulk standards or parking standards (e.g., setbacks, height,
parking) etc., but is not currently set up to obtain community benefits beyond what is
listed in Attachment A. Staff is currently exploring an incentive based zoning approach,
consistent with state law, that results in community benefit incentives for additional
development potential requested by developers or property owners.
15City Council Study Session Page 241 of 384
Community Feedback Themes
The previous outreach effort focused on the topic of building height and the community
benefit of affordable housing, which are highlighted below. Staff has received less input
around the other potential project features (e.g. FAR, density, etc.).
• There is not general agreement around which properties should be eligible to
request height modifications or additional intensity. Many believe that taller
buildings, up to 55 feet, might be acceptable in some parts of Boulder (like
commercial and mixed-use centers), particularly if they are consistent with an
area plan and the quality, design and public spaces are exemplary. Others feel our
existing temporary ordinance is too restrictive and unnecessary given the Site
Review criteria and review process.
• Locations for taller, larger buildings should be able to be self-mitigating for
impacts (e.g. transit-rich, have buy-in from nearby residents).
• Many participants commented that subcommunity and area plans may help
resolve challenging issues by identifying local solutions.
• The design and massing of buildings, as well as how the site is laid out, has been
a central issue for a majority of participants. To many, the topic of building
massing and site design overrode the issue of how tall a building should be.
• Any process to consider building height modifications must be transparent and
predictable.
• Adjacent property owners must receive special consideration when considering
requests for taller buildings.
Options and Analysis
A) Require additional community benefit for project over the zoning
district height limit (in most cases, projects over 35, 38 or 40 feet
depending on the zone). This is the most straightforward option for
incentivizing community benefit. The conversation about community
benefit is most often raised as a result of projects that request additional
height. To an extent, this is already in the code today with the
implementation of the current height provisions that allow height
modification request is specified areas (e.g., shown in Appendix J of the
code, discussed below) or for projects that provide at least 40 percent of
their floor area for permanently affordable housing. Implementation of this
option would be an expansion of the current provisions.
Furthermore, staff also agrees with comments received from the focus
groups that additional design requirements should also apply for any
projects requesting an intensity increase (e.g., height, floor area) as part of
any community benefit program to enhance compatibility and to preserve
prominent views of the mountains from certain areas of the public realm.
16City Council Study Session Page 242 of 384
However, there are concerns that additional design requirements that
lower the amount of floor area further may render some project infeasible
based on the preliminary results of the Initial Economic Feasibility
Analysis (Attachment B).
B) Require additional community benefit for projects over a specified
floor area or floor area ratio (FAR). Because of the different options
relative to FAR (discussed below) versus the definitive height limit, staff
requests more feedback from the council on this topic to understand how
best to proceed. Staff finds that floor area or FAR may be a valid option if
community benefit is to be applied to large scale projects that may not
include a height modification, but may nonetheless be a large scale project
that should similarly include community benefits to offset its impacts to
the community. The question then becomes, should it be an option to build
more than the FAR maximum of a zone (like the Armory was considering
originally when there were efforts to accommodate the arts community as
part of the project) or to a FAR lower than the zone maximum that is
viewed as a “large scale” project? This is difficult to determine as FAR
appears differently on different sized sites and varies based on building
design. In general, the highest FARs in Boulder are projects around a 2.0
FAR. Thresholds for “additional floor area requiring community benefit”
could be set at 1.25, 1.5 or 1.75 FAR if this option is desired.
The Land Use Code already has a system for granting additional FAR for
residential units or subterranean parking in the Downtown (DT) and
affordable units in the Mixed Use -1 (MU-1) zone in North Boulder. This
approach was created to incentive residential construction downtown,
subterranean parking and affordable housing. Also, additional floor area
above the 2.0 FAR maximum (termed a “land use intensity modification”
is possible in the Business Regional -1 (BR-1) zone for special site design
features). While up to a 4.0 FAR could be achieved, this approach has
rarely been done either because not all the criteria can be achieved, but
also that other zoning requirements related to density limits, open space,
setbacks, and parking make the higher FARs unachievable.
If the council agreed that either options 1 or 2 above should be
implemented, staff finds that amending the current Site Review “land use
intensity” criteria would be the logical place where community benefit
requirements could be added. The Site Review criteria that relate to this
are in Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(I), B.R.C. 1981.
C) Require additional community benefit for projects that request more
density than permitted by the underlying zoning or within a specified
higher percentage of the maximum density limit. Requests for
additional density (number of units per acre) are rare in Boulder, but are
17City Council Study Session Page 243 of 384
possible in the following zones through Site Review: MU-1 (as discussed
above), Residential Mixed Density – 2 (RMX-2), where “density bonus”
requests can be made if additional affordable housing is provided or in the
Residential High – 2 (RH-2) where additional units can be requested with
Planning Board approval. Staff would need to get feedback from the
council on this option as it is an important consideration for incentivizing
residential construction in certain areas to offset the jobs:housing
imbalance. Further, the initial economic analysis (Attachment B)
discussed on page 11 found that projects incorporating community benefit
may only be feasible if the density limits of the BR-1 zone were exceeded
(i.e., BR-1 currently has a 27 dwelling unit per acre maximum).
D) Require additional community benefit for projects requesting
rezoning to a zone that allows higher density or intensity. Section 9-2-
19, “Rezoning”, B.R.C. 1981 specifies the required criteria for rezonings
to be approved and are listed below:
1. The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the
proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map;
2. The existing zoning of the land was the result of a clerical error;
3. The existing zoning of the land was based on a mistake of fact;
4. The existing zoning of the land failed to take into account the
constraints on development created by the natural characteristics of
the land, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, floodplain,
unstable soils and inadequate drainage;
5. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to
such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a
redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of
the area; or
6. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a
community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
18City Council Study Session Page 244 of 384
There are also additional criteria that relate to rezonings in the Boulder
Junction area relating to utility services, transportation management plan
(TDM) requirements and incentives to rezone to specific zoning districts
(i.e., RH-7). At present, there are no criteria related to community benefit,
but staff recommends that the city explore adding criteria to standards for
rezonings that result in an increase in development potential above the
prior zone, such as requiring permanently affordable housing to be
constructed on a property that may be developed with increased density as
the result of the rezoning.
2. Should city staff analyze and engage the community about adding sites to Appendix
J (areas eligible for height modifications)?
Background
In 2015, in response to community concern that height modifications could be considered
on any property in the city through the Site Review process, City Council adopted
Ordinance 8028 on April 19, 2017, which allowed height modifications to be considered
only in areas designated by Appendix J of the code or in any of the following
circumstances:
• If at least forty percent of the floor area of the building is used for units that
qualify as permanently affordable under the city’s Inclusionary Housing
regulations;
• Industrial General, Industrial Service, and Industrial Manufacturing districts if the
building has two or fewer stories or if the height is necessary for a manufacturing,
testing or other industrial process or equipment;
• In all zoning districts, if the height modification is to allow the greater of two
stories or the maximum number of stories permitted in Section 9-7-1 in a building
and the height modification is necessary because of the topography of the site; or
• For emergency operations antenna.
Approval of any height modification following the adoption of Ordinance 8028 still
requires public review and input, action by the Planning Board, and is subject to council
call-up. New development and Site Review applications can still be considered in other
areas of the city, and Site Review is still required for many projects per the code.
Following adoption of Ordinance 8028, height modification requests outside of the areas,
identified in Appendix J to Title 9, are not allowed unless the project can satisfy specific
criteria in the Land Use Code described above. The City Council has also passed
ordinances specific to Boulder Community Health properties and Frasier Meadows to
enable height modification requests on those sites.
In early 2017, City Council extended the provisions of Ordinance 8028 for fifteen months
to allow the 2015 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) process to be completed,
19City Council Study Session Page 245 of 384
which included a new policy related to building height and community benefits 1.
Following adoption of the BVCP, staff (per council direction during a Aug. 22, 2017
study session), began a public process to assess attaining community benefit in the form
of permanently affordable housing for requests to build additional height above the zone
district height limits.
At their Jan. 2018 retreat, City Council directed staff to (i) prepare ordinances to remove
or extend the expiration date for the Land Use Code building height regulations to
redirect staff resources toward the work on potential community benefit code changes
and (ii) rescope the project to develop regulations for an array of community benefits. On
June 5, 2018, City Council moved to extend the building height regulations, set to expire
on July 19, 2018, until May 31, 2020. Council passed Ordinance 8252 on June 19, 2018.
Community Feedback Themes
• The preservation of mountain views is a reoccurring theme.
• Area planning can be a tool for finding agreeable options.
• A number of participants suggested that areas along or east of 28th Street may be
acceptable for taller buildings.
• Most, if not all, representatives from the development community commented that
a 35-foot height limit prohibits the provision of community benefits.
• Minor height modifications (less than a full story) would be helpful in achieving
better building design.
• Gunbarrel – Some Gunbarrel residents are concerned about the possibility that
height modifications can be requested in Gunbarrel and have requested that
Appendix J be amended to remove Gunbarrel.
• Many agreed that building height modifications, as with specific community
benefits, must be tailored to specific areas of the city (no “one size fits all”
approach).
Options and Analysis
A) Consider adding and removing sites from Appendix J. City staff would
recommend examining the following areas for possible inclusion: portions of the
Boulder Valley Regional Center, Table Mesa Shopping Center, Basemar Shopping
Center and Diagonal Plaza. Some technical analysis would be needed such (e.g.
compatibility with the surrounding area; viewshed analysis) and neighborhood
meetings would be held at each location.
B) Do not consider adding sites to Appendix J. No further action would be taken as
part of this project. Future area plans will identify community benefits most
appropriate for specific areas, and through that planning process may identify sites
1 The BVCP includes policies around building height and community benefits: Policy 1.11, “Enhanced Community Benefit,”
Policy 2.35 “Building Height,” and Policy 7.11, “Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity.”
20City Council Study Session Page 246 of 384
that are suitable for height modifications. In those cases, council could consider
adding future area plan sites to Appendix J.
C) Add an exemption for enhanced design. Better building design has emerged as a
central community input theme. Most people weary of taller buildings have asserted
that regardless of height, the design of buildings need to be addressed. Design
professionals agree and cite the 35- or 38-foot height limit, coupled with other
regulations, limit their ability to pursue innovative designs. To address this, staff
could draft a citywide exception that would allow for small height modifications to
permit enhanced design features like gable or pitched roofs that exceed the height
limit by a specified amount to incentive such features.
3. Does City Council agree with the preliminary list of community benefits?
Staff is requesting feedback on the following list of identified community benefits and
potential options, as identified in BVCP Policy 1.11, Enhanced Community Benefit and
through various focus group and board discussions. The overall goal is to move towards a
system that is based on specific standards and metrics and increases the level of
predictability in projects. Depending on whether the incentives are drafted as objective
by-right standards or discretionary standards, different legal requirements apply. If
incentives are available on a discretionary basis, staff cannot move forward on any
options that would be considered a taking of property.
The benefits identified are discussed broadly and additional analysis will be required.
Another goal is to narrow the list down to a smaller number of benefits by homing in on
the options that will present the most benefit to the community in the most
straightforward way rather having a wide array of options that may “water down” the
benefits. This has been an issue for other communities where a collection of cheaper,
easier to provide benefits are incorporated into projects that are not necessarily equivalent
to the community benefits most needed, like permanently affordable housing. The
comprehensive list requested for feedback, narrowing and prioritization is provided
below:
Community Benefit: Affordable Housing (low and middle income)
Background
The most frequently discussed community benefit in Boulder is permanently affordable
housing. Current regulations require that projects over five dwelling units provide at least
20 percent of the units on site for permanently affordable units, off-site at another
location, or pay an in lieu fee based on the number of units not provided on site. Since
July 1, 2018, an additional 5 percent is required either on-site or with in lieu fees for
middle income housing. Further, the current height provisions require that at least 40
21City Council Study Session Page 247 of 384
percent of the floor area of a building be allotted to permanently affordable housing as an
option to request a height modification.
As the city has a well-developed system of requiring permanently affordable housing,
affordable housing as a community benefit is more straightforward than other identified
community benefits, which have not yet been explicitly defined or codified. Despite this,
the city will need to explore what the requirements related to permanently affordable
housing should be if a project requests additional height, density or intensity (floor area).
Should it be a greater percentage of the units? (e.g., 30 percent?, 40 percent? 50 percent)
or should the requirement be based on floor area like the height provision (e.g., greater
than 40 percent?). Further, what should be the breakdown between low and middle
income units? These are issues that the city will need to explore further.
Community Feedback Themes
• Most respondents of the focus groups agreed that affordable housing is the right
priority to focus on now.
• Building height allowances can contribute to more housing for low- and
moderate-income residents. A diverse housing mix is important to the vitality and
vibrancy of our local economy.
• Some respondents, particularly those in the development field, believe that
making affordable housing requirements too onerous will actually work against
obtaining more affordable housing. To address this, they encouraged the city to
create incentives that the market will respond to and examine the current
regulations with an eye towards identifying regulatory barriers that are preventing
projects. Many of those individuals also provided insight into the market
feasibility of the city’s current temporary ordinance.
• Subsequent impacts of additional housing, like city infrastructure and traffic,
should be considered.
• Some in the community, felt that affordable housing, despite being a needed use
in the community, did not on its own merit the allowance for additional height,
but rather, the issue was whether the building was contextually appropriate,
aesthetically pleasing and provided palpable benefits to the average citizen (e.g.,
accessible open space, uses that serve nearby neighborhoods etc.).
Options and Analysis
A) Require more than 20 percent permanently affordable units to lower income
and 5 percent permanently affordable units to middle income on-site (i.e.
exceed the city’s base affordable housing requirement). One option would be
to require a higher percentage of on-site permanently affordable to low and
middle-income earners. This would be similar to the typical density bonuses done
in other communities (particularly California communities where there is a state
law regarding density bonuses and permanent affordability) or as done in
Boulder’s RMX-2 (Residential Mixed -2) zone where incremental bonuses are
22City Council Study Session Page 248 of 384
given for each increment of additional affordable housing provided (see Section
9-8-4, Housing Types and Density Bonuses Within an RMX-2 Zoning District,
B.R.C. 1981). This option only works with project where there are a substantially
number of residential units included with the project. Staff will need to explore
further what specific amount above the current 25 percent that would be
commensurate with the extra floor area or density as well as a minimum number
of units that may be necessary to qualify.
B) Allow in lieu fees equivalent to all or a portion of option (1) above. Like the
current inclusionary housing standards, equivalent in lieu fees above the 25
percent requirement could be required. The in-lieu fee option would be used to
fund other off-site affordable housing projects. This is an option that has less
community support as it is thought that more on-site units should be the baseline.
The Housing Advisory Board showed a preference to emphasizing on-site units
over in-lieu fees.
C) Increase the percentage of floor area devoted to permanently affordable
units above 40 percent. Some in the development community have expressed
that the current requirement of 40 percent is not feasible as it is difficult to receive
housing funding that covers mixed-use projects. Typically, permanently
affordable projects are only awarded funding when they are on their own lots and
not mixed with other uses. Projects like 1440 Pine and Fruehauf’s have proceeded
under this option but only with projects that are 100 percent permanently
affordable. Staff can explore if there is a higher percentage that may make a mix
of uses more feasible, if the percentage of floor area is the preferred option.
D) Decrease the percentage of floor area devoted to permanently affordable
units. Others have suggested a reduction of the current requirement to less than
40 percent of the floor area to make mixed use projects more viable. This may not
eliminate the need for the qualifying housing to be a separate lot, but through
larger projects, it may be possible to require a lower amount of floor area (e.g., 30
percent) and result in a mixed-use project on multiple lots.
Community Benefit: Affordable Commercial/Retail Space
Background
As property values have increased in the city of Boulder, it has made it increasingly
difficult for local or small businesses to be able to pay their increasing rents often driving
such businesses to cheaper locations or out of business entirely. Further, some mixed-use
redevelopment projects typically do not retain or include small local businesses due to the
construction costs resulting in either national chains or banks occupying the spaces.
These factors have impacted the viability of local and small businesses. Therefore, the
23City Council Study Session Page 249 of 384
need for a mechanism to allow more affordable commercial and retail space options is an
identified community benefit.
Community Feedback Themes
• Affordable business space is critical for local businesses.
• There are concerns that leases for tenant spaces are increasing and coupled with
consumers reliance on on-line shopping, retail and commercial spaces are
becoming less economically viable in Boulder.
• This trend is incentivizing redevelopment of properties in Boulder and displacing
existing local business which are often unable to return to the space due to hikes
in lease rates in new buildings.
Options and Analysis
A) Require a maximum rent rate for commercial and retail spaces and specify a
square footage for such space. This would be new territory for the city, but could be
based on the current agreement program used to obtain and ensure the provision of
affordable housing. If implemented, a voluntary agreement to limit the lease rates for
ground floor tenant spaces could be required as a way to meet the community benefit
threshold. While there have been comments to create regulations to retain local
business as a community benefit, zoning that discriminates by preferring local
business would be in conflict with interstate commerce and would likely be in
conflict with the United States Constitution.
Community Benefit: Arts and Cultural Uses
Background
Arts and Cultural Uses have been identified as a needed community benefit in Boulder
with the stated need for venue spaces and places to show and sell art as identified in the
city’s Community Cultural Plan. The following art specific community benefits have
been identified:
• Spaces for the arts (e.g., art venues, cultural non-profit space); studio and arts rental
• Art in Public Spaces
• In lieu fee to pay for public art installations or programs
Presently, without subsidies to pay for what can be expensive tenant spaces or art
programs, it is difficult to obtain these benefits. Art installations are also rarely
incorporated into development projects. As enumerated in the case studies document
(Attachment D), several cities including Austin, TX, Berkeley, CA, Ottawa, ON, Santa
Monica, CA and Palo Alto, CA, include arts and cultural uses in their community benefit
programs. Seattle is also currently considering art and cultural uses as a community
benefit (see The CAP Report, May 2017). Furthermore, staff has reached out to members
24City Council Study Session Page 250 of 384
of the Boulder arts community and some have assisted staff on exploring other cities that
have robust arts programs. This is summarized in their research found in Attachment E).
Community Feedback Themes
• There is an important need for more community art spaces and venues, live/work
type arrangements, art studios and unique art districts in the City of Boulder
• The city and developers should engage the community on the neighborhood level to
create buy in for community arts as a community benefit
• Art is an important community value and can actually bring a lot of revenue into the
community
• There is variety of ways that art can enrich the community and therefore, a degree of
flexibility should be inherent in any regulations that are created relative to
community benefit
Options and Analysis
A) Include a community benefit option that requires a minimum square footage
to be allotted to arts space like an art studio, affordable art retail
establishments, art museum, or live/work type residences for the art
community. Like the option for affordable commercial/retail space discussed
above, this would be new territory. The city would need to determine a minimum
square footage and specify what types of art related uses would qualify. At
present, there are stated needs for the uses listed above. Each would need to be
explicitly defined in the code and minimum performance standards for each
would be necessary. Some sort of agreement would be required to ensure that the
uses either continue in perpetuity or for a specified amount of time (e.g., 10 years,
20 years).
B) Specify a process to evaluate and incorporate public art installations or
features of a specified agreed upon value as a part of a development project.
Incorporating more public art into projects is a community benefit. However,
determining the community value of a piece or collection of art is more
challenging. It would also be necessary to determine how the value of an art
installation equates to the extra amount of “bonus” requested in a project. This
will require further exploration as well as legal research into any first amendment
implications of this option.
C) Create an in-lieu fee that would go into a community art fund to help finance
arts and cultural uses identified in (1) and (2) above. Some communities (e.g.,
Berkeley, Santa Monica, Redwood City, CA) have a system to accept monies that
go into a collective fund to pay for art spaces or installations throughout the city.
Like other options discussed in this memorandum, community support for in-lieu
fees is low in comparison to the actual establishment of spaces or installations. If
25City Council Study Session Page 251 of 384
this option were chosen, there would have to be analysis about what the relevant
fee would be.
Community Benefit: Social Services or critical social needs
Background
Other communities researched have included community benefit requirements for social
services like day cares, after school care, health clinics, spaces for counseling and
therapy, and other facilities that provide a clear benefit to the city. Boulder, too, is in need
of additional space for such services. Staff will be working with the city’s Human
Services, the county’s Human Services Alliance and Boulder Emotional Wellness to
explore these needs further.
Community Feedback Themes
• As the community grows, additional mental health, child care services and other
human services are needed in Boulder. Like existing local business and arts and
cultural uses, it is difficult for some human services to afford the rent to function in
buildings in Boulder driving some to adjacent communities.
Options and Analysis
A) Require a maximum rent rate for specified social services. Similar to the
affordable commercial space and art space options, a limit of the lease rates for
floor space could be required as a way of attaining more human service spaces
within projects.
B) Include a community benefit option that requires a minimum square footage
to be allotted to spaces for social services. Like other options above, this option
could be undertaken through agreements with baseline requirements on square
footage and qualifying human services. Some sort of agreement would be
required to ensure that the uses either continue in perpetuity or for a specified
amount of time (e.g., 10 years, 20 years).
Community Benefit: Environmentally Enhanced Design
Background
One idea for community benefit that has been raised by review boards and the
development community is requiring environmentally enhanced design in development
projects above and beyond current requirements. While the City of Boulder has one of
the most rigorous energy codes in the country, a list of potential environmentally
enhanced design community benefits (that go beyond current code requirements) is listed
below:
26City Council Study Session Page 252 of 384
• Net zero buildings or some sort of sustainability certification (e.g., a certain level of
LEED or Living Buildings Challenge Certification)
• Requiring a project to participate in an outcome-based energy code pilot
• Mitigation of the emerald ash borer
• In lieu fees through the city’s Energy Impact Offset Fund (EIOF)
• Environmental Protection & Restoration (e.g., enhanced wetlands buffer,
groundwater mitigation etc.)
Community Feedback Themes
• There are a number of options for environmental quality community benefits ranging
from environmental restoration to piloting new types of energy codes that are highly
sustainable.
• Some difficulties arise from the fact that city regulations are already moving in the
direction of some of the proposed community benefits. A building built now with
additional community benefit may only be uniquely beyond code for several years
before by-right buildings would be required to meet the same standards.
• Additional research into the options will be necessary to determine the feasibility,
cost, and implementation details of each.
• There was less support for in-lieu fees for environmental quality community benefit.
Options and Analysis
A) Require buildings to be net zero or to achieve a level of LEED or Living
Buildings Challenge Certification. LEED certified, Living Buildings Challenge
certified, and net zero buildings are clear examples of sustainable buildings that
are consistent with the city’s Climate Action Plan and are thus, an identified
community benefit. The city of Chicago does something similar to this with the
Living Building Challenge.
It’s important to note that the city’s long-term energy code strategy is to require
net zero new buildings (and major renovations) for all building types by 2031.
Current energy codes already require the largest residential homes (> 5,000 sf) to
be net zero, and smaller homes and low energy density community buildings will
be require to achieve this next. Some commercial buildings have chosen to
achieve net zero status voluntary, such as the Boulder Commons project in
Boulder Junction. The Certification option does present the challenge of
confirming compliance, since it often not definitively known until after the
building is built as to whether it meets the requirements of LEED or Living
Building Challenge. Further, ongoing building performance is reliant on tenant
behavior and building management and continuing monitoring is often required.
While future codes will eventually require net zero energy performance, it would
still be beneficial to have early adopters and more case studies of this in the
27City Council Study Session Page 253 of 384
commercial sector as the city moves towards making this a requirement for all
new buildings.
B) Require a project to participate in an outcome-based energy code pilot.
Outcome-based energy requires actual building performance data (generally,
utility bills over several years) in order to achieve full code compliance, and a
permanent certificate of occupancy. The city’s long-term strategy for energy code
sets out a plan to move all commercial energy codes to outcome-based codes,
starting with a pilot in 2020. Requiring buildings to participate in this pilot would
be a benefit as the city will need building owners and developers to pilot this
process and provide feedback before this becomes a requirement.
C) Mitigation of emerald ash borer impact to affected trees or in-lieu fee to
replace trees. The emerald ash borer is an insect that has been identified in
Boulder and is expected to eradicate local ash trees, which have been plentifully
planted in the public realm of the city. This will have a significant impact to
public trees along streetscape in the city, and worsen the heat island effect (the
warming of the city due to lack of shade canopy). A possible community benefit
is to either fund the planting of new resistant trees in and around a development
project, or pay an in-lieu fee that would be finance tree replacement citywide
Community Benefit: Mobility and Parking
Background
The City of Boulder adopted the latest Transportation Master Plan (TMP) on August
2014, which identifies a number of transportation related improvements and goals that
are needed in the city to offset the need for vehicle travel and have a balanced
transportation system that serves residents and those that work in the community. Further,
some feedback received during the focus group meetings of the community benefit
project have related to concerns of increased traffic in the city and the need for
transportation improvements beyond what is ordinarily required as part of development
project to offset the impacts.
At present, the following potential community benefits related to mobility and parking
that go beyond current requirements are as follows:
• Physical transportation improvements
o Shared, satellite parking where in-commuters can park in the periphery of
the city and take the bus within the city
o Infrastructural connections that contribute to the creation of 15-minute
neighborhoods
o Construction of on-site pick up and drop off locations for Uber type
services
28City Council Study Session Page 254 of 384
o On-site construction of site’s eligible to become mobility hubs
o More B-cycle stations
o Safe route to school improvements
o More robust shared parking
o Construction of transportation improvements beyond just right-of-way
dedications
• Transportation subsidies for projects not currently financed, including but not
limited to funding for:
o Creation of 15-minute neighborhoods
o The nearest mobility hub
o Regional transit or bus rapid transit
o Hop service extensions
o Eco-passes (e.g., require for longer duration than 3 years)
o Micro-transit subsidies (micro-transit is an on-demand taxi-like service
that uses smaller vehicles for transit or van-pooling)
o Contributions to building a quiet zone (e.g., Livable TOD)
o Opportunity zones
o Contribution to Community Vision Zero safety goals to reduce or
eliminate crashes or increase awareness
o Participation in the formation of new parking and access districts is certain
areas (e.g., Diagonal Plaza, Flatirons Business Park)
• Enhanced transportation commitments that improvement measures to keep
vehicle miles travel to no more than prior less intense uses.
Community Feedback Themes
• Transportation improvements through development project above what is currently
has been identified an important benefit by city staff, property owners and business
in the community to mitigate for traffic and to encourage alternate modes of travel.
• As seen by the list above, there are a variety of transportation needs in the
community that could be achieved through either physical design (e.g., construction
of satellite parking areas, shared parking, pick up and drop off areas for micro-
transit or Uber like services) or monetary contributions to localized or city-wide
unfunded transportation projects
• Vehicle miles traveled in Boulder is on the increase and the need for transportation
related improvement to encourage alternative mobility options is more important
than ever
Options and Analysis
A) Require physical transportation improvements. This option would require an
analysis of needed physical transportation improvements to street, highways,
multi-use paths in specific areas of the city that would not ordinarily be required,
29City Council Study Session Page 255 of 384
but would assist in meeting the city TMP goals and mitigate for any transportation
impacts from a development project. A map could be generated that lists such
needed improvements by geographic area and if a project were in particular area,
the developer could initiate a portion of a project or contribute to a fund to
ultimately construct a needed improvement.
B) Create a monetary fund that would contribute to unfunded transportation
projects. The background section under Transportation and Mobility above lists
transportation projects or programs that need funding. Projects either could
contribute to a fund that pays for a transportation project in the vicinity to the
development project or a contribution could be made to larger fund that would
help pay for citywide projects. This would require intensive analysis of what the
funding per project would be and what projects would be linked to community
benefit proposals. An analysis of how the fee links to the value of the community
benefit would also be necessary. Like other options above, there may be more
community support for actual construction of improvements over an in-lieu fee.
The Site Review process already achieves many transportation related goals.
Implementation of either of the options above would require an in-depth analysis of
whether the requirement to build transportation improvements or contribute to a
monetary fee would be grounded would be consistent with Colorado state law and the
United States Constitution.
Community Benefit: Publicly Accessible Open/Common Spaces
Background
As stated below, a common sentiment of the public through the outreach process was that
publicly accessible open spaces such as ground level plazas or rooftop decks could serve
as a community benefit that citizens and visitors of Boulder could experience. Open
space is commonly incorporated into projects but may not always be high quality and is
usually for users of the subject building and not open to the greater public.
Community Feedback Themes
• Through the course of obtaining public feedback as part of the focus groups and
outreach to other stakeholders, one theme that arose was the sentiment that community
benefit should be experienced by the greater public. For instance, there was wide
support for permanently affordable housing as a community benefit, some felt that
result was still a big, tall building with nothing that citizens could find benefit or
enjoy.
30City Council Study Session Page 256 of 384
• Based on the sentiment above, many expressed the desire for public accessible open
spaces either at grade in the form of a plaza or a rooftop deck that was open to the
public with views of the mountains.
Options and Analysis
A) Specify minimum design standards for at grade open space and rooftop
decks that must be open to the public. This option would be a preferred option
for many who wish to enjoy new public spaces within Boulder as part of new
development projects. New minimum standards with respect to required size,
location, orientation, surface treatments, greenscape versus hardscape
requirements, seating specifications, planting quantities and level of quality etc.
would need to be determined and required as new minimum requirements. Staff
would have to further analyze how such a benefit could be created consistent with
restrictions under state and constitutional laws, in particular in relation to the
takings clause.
B) Require a building to include space that can serve as a disaster and recovery
community space consistent with city resiliency goals. During the September
flood of 2013, the city scrambled to find spaces where assistance could be
provided to citizens impacted by the flood. Therefore, an identified community
need is an space within a building that could be designated for disaster recovery
services if the need should arise. It could function on a day to day basis as a
regular office or other commercial building function, but could be quickly and
efficiently converted to a disaster recovery center in such event. The building
would have to have a resilient energy system that would provide critical power
during grid outages. Like the other options, specifications would need to be
determined for the space (e.g., size, location, duration, configuration etc.).
Lastly, staff has identified community meeting spaces and generally, public or
governmental facilities as community benefits. These have not been explored in as much
depth as those discussed above, but could be included in the list for further exploration
should the City Council find these to be of worth. This is relevant considering the
anticipated redevelopment of the Alpine-Balsam site and other areas where the city looks
to relocate or expand services.
Conclusion
As stated above, given the complexities and intricacies of each community benefit in
terms of how they each are quantified to equate to the level of “bonus” of a request and
the legal issues that arise with each to be consistent with state law on basing specific
requirements on standards that do not resort to a taking of property, staff recommends
that the city focus on the most important of the community benefits for further
31City Council Study Session Page 257 of 384
exploration (i.e., which benefits will be the most straightforward to obtain and which will
give the city the greatest benefit). Based on the analysis to date, staff recommends that
emphasis be given to the following community benefits for the first two years of the
program:
Permanently affordable housing
Affordable commercial/retail space
Arts and Cultural Uses
The initial implementation of a community benefits program could be implemented based
on the three community benefits above, or as determined by Planning Board and City
Council, and then assessed for efficacy. In the future, based on the successes of the
program, additional community benefit could also be considered.
4. Does City Council agree with staff’s approach to community engagement?
Staff’s approach to community engagement is outlined in the draft community
engagement plan (Attachment C.) Page 5 of this staff report lists the community
engagement techniques that staff intends to implement. The specific engagement
questions, techniques and logistics will be refined following Planning Board and City
Council feedback.
ATTACHMENTS
A- Benefits currently achieved though Site Review
B- Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
C- Draft Community Engagement Plan
D- Case Studies
E- Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
F- Community and Board Discussion Summaries (link)
32City Council Study Session Page 258 of 384
Community Benefits Currently Achieved Through Site Review
August 3, 2018
Below is the purpose statement of Site Review. Site Review does not explicitly require
community benefit; however, certain benefits to the community have been obtained through
the Site Review process if the applicant has agreed to provide such benefits and the benefits
are found to be consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies, which is a
requirement of Site Review. Specifically, Section 9-2-14(h)(1), B.R.C. 1981, states, “The
proposed site plan is consistent with the land use map and the service area map and, on
balance, the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.” In the past, attaining higher
quality projects through the Site Review process was considered somewhat of a benefit to the
community in and of itself. However, in recent years, community sentiment has shifted to the
desire to obtain more community benefits in exchange for additional height, intensity or
density.
Section 9-2-14(a), B.R.C. 1981- Purpose: The purpose of site review is to allow
flexibility and encourage innovation in land use development. Review criteria are
established to promote the most appropriate use of land, 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 assure consistency with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans of the community, to ensure
compatibility with existing structures and established districts, to assure that the
height of new buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing, approved,
and known to be planned or projected buildings in the immediate area, to assure
that the project incorporates, through site design, elements which provide for the
safety and convenience of the pedestrian, to assure that the project is designed in
an environmentally sensitive manner, and to assure that the building is of a bulk
appropriate to the area and the amenities provided and of a scale appropriate to
pedestrians.
Attachment A - Benefits currently achieved through Site Review
33City Council Study Session Page 259 of 384
Here are some examples of community benefits achieved through Site Review:
Community benefits commonly
achieved through Site Review
Applicable criteria? Possible community benefits
that would go beyond what is
obtained through Site Review?
Social
Additional workforce housing
(not deed restricted)
• 9-6 Specific definition and
minimum standards for
workforce housing (e.g., micro-
units etc.)
Additional residential units to
offset jobs:housing imbalance
• 9-6
• 9-8-3
• 9-8-4
• 9-8-7
• 9-2-14(h)(1)(A)
Specific minimum density
requirements and incentives to
build residential in key areas
Additional residential housing
downtown per the DT zone FAR
additions
• 9-8-2 Specific standards for minimum
density and maximum unit size
that would attain more
affordable housing downtown
Permanently affordable housing
at least 20% of the proposed #
on site or off site or in lieu fees
• 9-2-14(h)(1)(A) A higher percentage of
permanently affordable
housing and/or requiring that
units be built on-site Permanently affordable housing
of at least 35% with 1.0 FAR
bonus in MU-1
• 9-8-2
Permanently affordable housing
of 30%, 35% or 40% allowing
density bonus in RMX-2
• 9-8-4
Preservation of existing
affordable housing
• 9-2-14(h)(1)(A) Special designated areas for
preserved, deed restricted units
Diversity of housing types • 9-2-14(h)(1)(A)
• 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(vii)
Specific metrics in the code for
needed housing types and
amenities (e.g., micro-units,
cottages, townhomes,
minimum/maximum unit sizes
etc.)
Historic preservation of
structures or areas
• 9-2-14(h)(1)(A) Increased involvement of
Landmarks in sites that contain
older structures and more say
in the final context of
landmarked buildings within
development projects
Attachment A - Benefits currently achieved through Site Review
34City Council Study Session Page 260 of 384
Community benefits commonly
achieved through Site Review
Applicable criteria? Possible community benefits
that would go beyond what is
obtained through Site Review?
Transportation connections
(e.g., streets, multi-use paths)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(D)(iii)More robust connection plans
and funding for transportation
improvements or services Reduced vehicle trips through
TDM plans
•9-2-14(h)(2)(D)(v)
Environmental
Open space preservation •9-2-14(h)(1)(A)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(A)(iii)
More land dedication to open
space that what could normally
be achieved through Site
Review and/or better methods
to gauge and address
groundwater impacts
Easements over environmentally
sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands,
floodplain, creek/ditch
corridors)
•9-2-14(h)(1)(A)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(A)(iii)
Increased wetland or riparian
area buffers
Open space areas as an amenity
to residents
•9-2-14(h)(1)(A)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(A)
Open space that is openly
accessible to the public
EV charging stations, solar panel
installation etc. through energy
consideration criteria
•9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(xi)More specific energy
conservation standards (e.g.,
equivalent to LEED, net zero
etc.)
Enhanced design (e.g., higher
quality materials, pedestrian
friendly, permeable) and
compact development
•9-2-14(h)(1)(A)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(A)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(C)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(D)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(E)
•9-2-14(h)(2)(F)
Building design that has specific
metrics to ensure neighborhood
compatibility, mitigation of
impacts and protection of
community character or
viewsheds
Community gardens •9-2-14(h)(2)(A)More sustainable urban
agricultural practices and more
incentives for more locally
grown food
Attachment A - Benefits currently achieved through Site Review
35City Council Study Session Page 261 of 384
2040 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 302 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704 PHONE: 415 398 3050 FAX: 415 397 5065
001-001; jf
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 10783.006
ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAN FRANCISCO
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
DEBBIE M. KERN
DAVID DOEZEMA
LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMES A. RABE
GREGORY D. SOO‐HOO
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY
SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA
MEMORANDUM
To: Philip Kleisler
City of Boulder
From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Date: August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to Community
Benefits Program
The following memorandum summarizes initial financial feasibility testing performed by
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) in support of an update to the City of Boulder’s
(City) community benefits program. The program would permit additional height and
density for development projects that provide community benefits. This initial exploration
is focused on the extent to which the development economics of additional height and
density would support the cost of providing additional affordable housing or affordable
commercial space.
Base and Bonus Projects Tested
The BR-1 (Business Regional - 1) zoning district was selected as the focus of initial
testing because it is seen as having relatively strong potential to support a community
benefits program and therefore serves as a good indicator as to the feasibility of a
program overall. Three prototype development projects within the BR-1 zone were
analyzed, one “base” zoning project and two “bonus” projects. Projects reflect
parameters outlined by City staff for purposes of this initial testing.
One Base Project – The base project has a density of 27 units per acre and
height of up to 35 feet consistent with the City’s existing BR-1 zoning
requirements. Parking is surface and tuck-under.
Two Bonus Projects – The two “bonus” projects have height up to 55 feet and
density of around 70 to 80 units per acre. One has affordable commercial space.
Parking is in an underground garage. Floor area is consistent across the bonus
scenarios, but unit counts vary due to differences in unit size for affordable
versus market rate units and inclusion of affordable commercial space. Note that
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
36City Council Study Session Page 262 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 2
001-001; jf
10783.006
densities over 27 units per acre in the BR-1 zone would require a revision to the
City’s Land Use Code.
Table 1 – Base and Bonus Projects Analyzed
Base Project
BR-1 Zoning
Residential
Bonus Project
Residential Bonus
with Affordable
Commercial
Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2, 3 & 5 Scenario 4
Site Size 2 acres 2 acres 2 acres
Residential Units 54 units 152 to 163 units 141 units
Affordable Commercial Space No No Yes
Maximum Height (feet) 35 ft. 55 ft. 55 ft.
Density (units per acre) 27 du/ac. 76 to 82 du/ac. 71 du/ac.
Parking Type Surface / tuck-under Underground Underground
Note: See Table 3 for additional information.
All three projects are assumed to be rental based on feasibility work completed in 2017
which indicated stronger economics for higher density rentals compared to stacked
condominiums.
Three variations of the Residential Bonus project are tested regarding provision of
affordable housing: no added affordable housing (Scenario 2), added on-site affordable
housing (Scenario 3), all on-site affordable housing using Low Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) financing (Scenario 5). This resulted in a total of five scenarios including
the base (Scenario 1) and affordable commercial (Scenario 4).
The base IH requirement is satisfied through payment of cash in-lieu (CIL) in all but
Scenario 5. This assumption is used because incentives to provide affordable units on-
site under the IH program are not applicable for rental projects and payment of CIL was
determined to be the lowest cost option1. This assumption was selected to reflect the
most likely choice by market rate developers in satisfying the base IH requirement. If
desired, additional alternatives regarding provision of units on-site could be explored as
part of a subsequent phase effort.
To simplify the analysis and findings, market rate commercial space as part of a mixed-
use development is not specifically modeled. The assumption is that any included
market rate commercial space “pays for itself” by generating returns sufficient to support
a proportionate share of development cost.
1 A sensitivity test found that satisfying the base inclusionary requirement on-site reduced the
supported land value under Scenario 1 by approximately 23% as compared to payment of CIL.
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
37City Council Study Session Page 263 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 3
001-001; jf
10783.006
The analysis uses a “residual land value” approach which quantifies the supported land
value resulting from the economics of each development scenario. See the Methodology
section for additional discussion.
Summary of Findings
Following is a summary of the findings of the initial feasibility testing.
1. The economics of additional allowable height and density indicate support for a
community benefits program.
2. Approximately six percent in added on-site affordable housing is supported by
the Residential Bonus. This estimate reflects a 50 / 50 mix of additional Low to
Moderate (rents at 60% of Area Median Income or AMI) and Middle Income
(rents at 80% AMI).
3. With LIHTC financing, a total of 33% affordable units is supported in the bonus
scenario with provision of all (base and bonus) affordable units on-site. This
estimate reflects 27% Low to Moderate units and 6% Middle Income units. It
should be noted that the pool of developers that would take on a high density
mixed income LIHTC project will be more limited.
4. Approximately 10,000 square feet of affordable commercial space is supported
by the bonus. This equates to around 7% of floor area. This finding is without the
added affordable housing reflected in other scenarios. The economics of the
bonus do not support both the affordable housing identified above and the
affordable commercial space simultaneously.
Findings are reflective of the specific development scenarios tested. Economics of
additional height and density will vary as a function of development program
assumptions, allowable base and bonus projects, and are quite sensitive to variations in
market factors such as rents and construction costs.
KMA also tested a scenario with no community benefits (Scenario 2). This bonus / no
benefit scenario is for purposes of illustration only to enable the value of the density
bonus to be understood independently of assumptions regarding provision of community
benefits. The analysis shows that the density bonus without community benefits
increases supported land value for a 2-acre site by an estimated $2.8 million. This is the
value created by the bonus that could contribute toward offsetting the cost of providing
community benefits of one kind or another. This additional value is not available to
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
38City Council Study Session Page 264 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 4
001-001; jf
10783.006
projects built to existing zoning; it is created by the significant increased height and
density over existing zoning limits reflected in the analysis. While the bonus scenario
analyzed has about three times as many residential units, it does not result in three
times the supported land value. This is because development costs for the higher
density project are around $60,000 per unit higher, primarily due to the cost of the
subterranean parking garage.
If the City elects to pursue a potential program further, additional scenario testing and
refinement of the analysis could occur as a subsequent phase effort. Including an
architect or urban designer as part of a subsequent effort would also be helpful to assist
in visualizing and identifying programmatic details of base and bonus projects and in
evaluation of design-related considerations, upper floor setbacks and the potential effect
on achievable floor area being one example.
Methodology
To assess the financial feasibility of the five development scenarios, KMA prepared a
development pro forma analysis which models the development costs and revenues of
the base and bonus projects. The pro forma uses a “residual land value” approach. The
residual land value represents the amount a project can afford to pay for a development
site. With this approach, the model starts with an estimate of rental income, which is
used to calculate the net operating income and the developer investment that can be
supported. The estimated cost of developing the units is subtracted to determine the
amount projects can afford to pay for land.
Rental Income – Market rate rents are estimated at an average of $2,400 per month for
an 850 square foot average-sized unit based on the market rents for two newer rental
projects in or near the BR-1 zone presented in the chart below. For purposes of the
affordable commercial space, office rents at a triple net rent of $1.75 per square foot are
assumed based on roughly 75% of market rates for existing (not necessarily new) space
in the vicinity.
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
39City Council Study Session Page 265 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 5
001-001; jf
10783.006
Chart 1 – Asking Rents for Newer Apartments In / Near BR-1 Zone
See Table 5 for the underlying rent data used in the chart.
Unit values – To calculate the value of the rental units, KMA first estimated the Net
Operating Income (NOI), which is equal to rental income minus operating expenses.
Monthly gross rent is adjusted for vacancy rates during turnover and an allowance for
other income such as parking charges. Net monthly rents are then translated to annual
net rent by multiplying by 12. Operating expenses, which cover management, property
taxes, maintenance and other expenses, are then netted out from rents. Operating
expenses are estimated at $8,000 per unit including property taxes. Net Operating
Income is calculated by subtracting operating expenses from the net rent generated by
the unit. The NOI is then divided by a return on cost (ROC)2 to estimate the developer
investment supported. For market rate units, a 5.2% developer return on cost
requirement is utilized. For on-site affordable units, developer return on cost is estimated
at 5.7%, or 0.5% above the market rate units. The higher return is in recognition of the
limited rent growth potential for affordable units. A 7% return on cost is applied to the
affordable commercial NOI. Return on cost estimates reflect a spread of approximately
0.7% over the estimated cap rate3 of 4.5% for market rate multifamily projects in Boulder
drawn from a combination of sources including review of recent sales of built apartment
properties, publications such as Situs RERC, and the Colorado Group brokerage firm’s
2 Return on Cost (ROC) is a development return metric that relates the estimated NOI of the
property once built to the total development cost (ROC = NOI / development cost).
3 Capitalization rate or “cap rate” is a percentage relating the market value of a property to the
annual NOI it generates (cap rate = NOI / value).
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300
$2,400
$2,500
$2,600
$2,700
$2,800
$2,900
$3,000
$3,100
$3,200
$3,300
$3,400
$3,500
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Monthly Rent Per Unit Unit Size (sq.ft.)
Griffis
Two Nine North
Linear (Griffis )
Linear (Two Nine North )
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
40City Council Study Session Page 266 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 6
001-001; jf
10783.006
multifamily update for the Boulder market. The ‘blended return’ shown in Tables 4A and
4B and represents a weighted average based on the three project components (market
rate, affordable, and commercial).
Scenario 5 is a mixed-income project with LIHTC financing, for the LIHTC component,
funding sources are modeled after those identified in the development agreement for the
Pollard site, which is a mixed income LIHTC project at a similar density. It should be noted
that the Pollard site achieves higher affordability than indicated here because it is a public
private partnership in which the value of the City-owned site is effectively contributed
toward enhancing affordability.
Development Costs Excluding Land – Development costs excluding land represent all
costs to design, finance, and construct the project other than the cost of acquiring a site.
Development cost estimates are drawn from prior KMA feasibility work completed in
2017 in support of the IH update. At that time, in addition to drawing on secondary
sources, KMA conducted a series of informal developer interviews to help inform the
analysis. Costs have been adjusted for subsequent increases based on the Mortenson
Construction Cost Index for the Denver area. In addition to hard construction costs,
development cost estimates include all indirect or soft costs of development such as
architecture and engineering, governmental fees and permits costs, taxes, insurance,
financing, and developer overhead and administration. Construction costs vary from
project to project depending upon the quality of finishes and architecture, the level of
amenities provided, and site-specific construction challenges such as demolition or
environmental remediation requirements, unusual site grading or foundation costs, or
tight / irregularly shaped parcels that result in cost inefficiencies. The construction cost
estimates assume quality construction, architecture, and finishes but do not assume any
extraordinary costs that would be atypical for the market.
Supported Land Value - The residual land value represents the amount a project can
afford to pay for a development site. Residual land value is calculated as the difference
between the supported unit values and the development costs other than land. Findings
are summarized in Chart 2 and Table 2. For the community benefits program to
represent an attractive option for developers, residual values with the density bonus
must exceed that of the base zoning after considering the cost of providing required
community benefits. The larger the increase in value over the base zoning, the stronger
the incentive to utilize the program (and vice versa). For purposes of this initial testing,
KMA targeted supported land values in the bonus scenarios that are approximately 15%
more than with the base zoning (e.g. Scenario 3 has a supported land value that is
$990,000 higher than Scenario 1, an increase of 15%), an assumption regarding the
need to provide an incentive to encourage developers to consider the more complex
project with community benefits over building to the base zoning.
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
41City Council Study Session Page 267 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 7
001-001; jf
10783.006
For the program to work, the development must also be financially feasible. The base
scenario is feasible based on a comparison of the residual land value to residential land
sales in or near the BR-1 zone in the approximate range of $3 million per acre of land.
Since the economics support the cost of acquiring a site, the project is feasible. The
bonus scenarios have somewhat stronger feasibility based on the higher values
supported.
Economics of specific individual projects can be expected to vary from the prototype
projects analyzed based on unique site conditions and other factors.
Table 2 provides a high-level summary of the pro forma for the five scenarios. Tables 3
through 5 provide additional information regarding the development program, more
detailed pro forma and supporting rent data.
$6.75
$9.57
$7.74 $7.67 $7.68
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
1. Base
Project
2. Bonus -
no benefits
3. Bonus
+6% on-site
affordable
4. Bonus
+aff
commercial
5. Bonus
33% aff on-
site [LIHTC]$millionsChart 2 - Residual Land Values - 2 acre site
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
42City Council Study Session Page 268 of 384
To: Philip Kleisler August 1, 2018
Subject: Initial Financial Feasibility Testing in Support of Update to
Community Benefits Program Page 8
001-001; jf
10783.006
Table 2 – Pro Forma Analysis Summary
Base Bonus Bonus Bonus Bonus
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5
Number of Units 54 152 153 141 163
Affordable Commercial Sq.Ft. n/a n/a n/a 10,000 n/a
Affordability [w/LIHTC]
On-site units n/a n/a 10 on-site n/a 54 on-site
Cash-in-lieu (for base IH) $1.7M CIL $4.7M CIL $4.5M CIL $4.4M CIL all on-site
Percent with / without CIL units 25% / 0% 25% / 0% 31% / 6% 25% / 0% 33% / 33%
Pro Forma Summary ($Millions)
Supported Investment $21.88 $61.59 $59.36 $59.98
$58.66
Development Cost Excl Land ($15.13)($52.02)($51.62) ($52.32) ($50.98)
Supported Land Value $6.75 $9.57 $7.74
$7.67 $7.68
Land Value Increase Over Base n/a $2.82 $0.99 $0.92 $0.93
% Value Increase Over Base 42% 15% 14% 14%
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
43City Council Study Session Page 269 of 384
Table 3 Project Descriptions - Base and Bonus Projects Analyzed Community Benefits Analysis - Initial TestingCity of Boulder, COScenario Description Site Size 87,120 square feet87,120 square feet87,120 square feet2 acres2 acres2 acresNumber of Units / DensityMarket Rate Project 54 units 27 du/ac.152 units 76 du/ac.141 units 71 du/ac.Added Affordable scenario153 units 77 du/ac.LIHTC Scenario 163 units 82 du/ac.Maximum Height35 feet55 feet55 feetNumber of stories above grade 3 stories4 to 5 stories4 to 5 storiesFloor Area Ratio (FAR)0.6 FAR1.75 FAR1.75 FARGross Building Area (excl. parking)51,000 square feet152,460 square feet152,460 square feetEfficiency90% efficiency85% efficiency85% efficiencyResidential Net Leasable 45,900 square feet129,591 square feet119,591 square feetCommercial Net Leasable0 square feet0 square feet10,000 square feetAverage Unit Size - mkt 850 square feet850 square feet850 square feetAverage Unit Size - aff680 square feetConstruction TypeType VType VType VParking Type Parking Ratio 1.09/unit1.09/unit1.18/unit - reduction from pkg requirement10%10%Parking Spaces 59 spaces 165 spaces 166 spaces - added affordable scenario166 spaces - LIHTC scenario177 spacesUnit MixStudios5%5%5%One Bedrooms60%60%60%Two Bedrooms30%30%30%Three Bedrooms5%5%5%(incl. 12 com. spaces)surface and tuck undersubterranean garageResidential Bonus with Affordable Commercial SpaceBase Zoning ScenarioResidential BonusPotential BR-1 height and density bonus Height and density bonus, include affordable commercial spacesubterranean garageExisting BR-1 zoning10% res & 18 spc reduc/shared for com._________________________________________________________Prepared by: Keyser Marston AssociatesFilename: \\SF-FS2\wp\10\10783\006\Com benefits initial testing 7-31-2018; project descrptionPage 9Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis 44City Council Study Session Page 270 of 384
Table 4-APro Forma Analysis Community Benefits Analysis - Initial TestingCity of Boulder, COResidential Unit Mix% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SF% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SF% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SF% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SFMarket Rate100% 54 850100% 152 85094% 143 850100% 141 850Middle Income (80% AMI)0% 0 6800% 0 6803% 5 6800% 0 680Low/Mod (60% AMI)0%06800%06803%56800%0680100% 54 850100% 152 850100% 153 840100% 141 850[pay cash in-lieu for base reqrmt][pay cash in-lieu for base reqrmt]Rents$/Unit$/NSF$/Unit$/NSF$/Unit$/NSF$/Unit$/NSFMarket Rate$2,400 $2.82$2,400 $2.82$2,400 $2.82$2,400 $2.82Middle Income (80% AMI) $1,698 $2.50$1,698 $2.50$1,698 $2.50$1,698 $2.50Low/Mod (60% AMI) $1,260$1.85$1,260$1.85$1,260$1.85$1,260$1.85Weighted Average $2,400 $2.82$2,400 $2.82$2,340 $2.79$2,400 $2.82Affordable Commercial Space10,000 sq.ft. Rent $1.75/SF NNNOperating IncomeTotal$/Unit$/NSFTotal$/Unit$/NSFTotal$/Unit$/NSFTotal$/Unit$/NSFGross Rent$28,800$34$28,800$34$28,080$33$28,800$34Other Income$1,800 $2$1,800 $2$1,700 $2$1,800 $2(Less) Vacancy/Bad Debt($1,530)($2)($1,530)($2)($1,490)($2)($1,530)($2)Effective Gross Income$29,070$34$29,070$34$28,290$34$29,070$34(Less) OPEX($8,000)($9)($8,000)($9)($8,000)($10)($8,000)($9)Residential NOI$1,137,780$21,070$25 $3,202,640$21,070$25 $3,104,370$20,290$24 $2,970,870$21,070$25Commercial NOI n/a n/a n/a $199,500Total NOI$1,137,780$3,202,640$3,104,370$3,170,370Return on Cost (blended)5.20%5.20%5.23%5.29%Supported Investment$21,880,260$405,190$477 $61,588,880$405,190$477 $59,356,350$387,950$462 $59,982,115$425,405$500Development Costs excl. LandDirects, excl parking garage$9,690,000$179,400$211 $28,880,000$190,000$224 $28,807,000$188,281 $224 $29,025,000$205,851 $242Subterranean Parking$0 $0 $0 $6,600,000$43,421 $51 $6,640,000$43,399$52 $6,640,000$47,092 $55Commercial TIs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000$3,546 $4A&E$486,000$9,000 $11 $1,778,400$11,700$14 $1,774,800$11,600$14 $1,804,800$12,800$15Fees & Permits $1,242,000$23,000$27 $3,496,000$23,000$27 $3,473,100$22,700$27 $3,496,800$24,800$29CIL for base affordability reqrmt$1,686,825$31,238$37 $4,748,100$31,238$37 $4,498,200$29,400$35 $4,404,488$31,238$37Taxes/Ins./Legal/Marketing$145,800$2,700 $3 $532,000$3,500 $4 $535,500$3,500 $4 $535,800$3,800 $4Overhead/Admin/Other$291,600$5,400 $6 $1,064,000$7,000 $8 $1,071,000$7,000 $8 $1,071,600$7,600 $9Contingency$593,000$12,540$15 $2,118,000$15,490$18 $2,115,000$15,290$18 $2,154,000$16,840$20Financing$912,600$16,900$20$2,568,800$16,900$20$2,478,600$16,200$19$2,463,270$17,470$21Total Costs$15,131,985$280,222$330 $52,021,780$342,249$403 $51,617,570$337,370$402 $52,316,198$371,037$437Residual Land Value$6,748,275$124,968$147 $9,567,100$62,941 $74 $7,738,780$50,580$60 $7,665,918$54,368$64 per acre$3,374,138$4,783,550$3,869,390$3,832,959Residual Land Value Increment n/a$2,818,825$990,505$917,643 over base zoning42%14.7%13.6%Mixed Use Bonusw/ Affordable Com SpaceResidential BonusAdded Affordable UnitsScenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4[pay cash in-lieu for base rqrmt] [pay cash in-lieu for base rqrmt]Base Zoning ScenarioResidential Bonusw/out Com Benfits_________________________________________________________Prepared by: Keyser Marston AssociatesFilename: \\SF-FS2\wp\10\10783\006\Com benefits initial testing 7-31-2018; pro formaPage 10Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis 45City Council Study Session Page 271 of 384
Table 4-BPro Forma Analysis - LIHTC Bonus ScenarioCommunity Benefits Analysis - Initial TestingCity of Boulder, COResidential Unit Mix% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SF% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SF% of UnitsNo. UnitsUnit SFMarket Rate92% 109 8500% 0 85067% 109 850Middle Income (80% AMI)8% 10 6800% 0 6806% 10 680Low/Mod (60% AMI)0%0680100%4468027%44680100% 119 836 100% 44 680100% 163 794Rents$/Unit$/NSF$/Unit$/NSFMarket Rate$2,400 $2.82$2,400 $2.82Middle Income (80% AMI) $1,698 $2.50$1,698 $2.50Low/Mod (60% AMI) $1,260$1.85$1,260$1.85Weighted Average $2,341 $2.80$1,260 $1.85Operating IncomeTotal$/Unit$/NSFTotal$/Unit$/NSFGross Rent$28,092 $34$15,120 $22Other Income$1,600 $2$0 $0(Less) Vacancy/Bad Debt($1,480)($2)($760)($1)Effective Gross Income$28,212 $34$14,360 $21(Less) OPEX($8,000)($10)($5,500)($8)Residential NOI$2,405,221 $20,212 $24 $389,840 $8,860 $13 $2,795,061Supported Investment / Funding Sources Supported First Mortgage$5,860,000 $133,182 Tax Credit Equity (4% Federal LIHTC)$4,840,000 $110,000 Deferred Developer Fee$220,000 $5,000 Subsidy from Market Rate $1,859,000 $42,250 Investment Supported (mkt rate)$45,884,020$385,580$461n/a n/a n/a Total Sources$45,884,020 $385,580 $461 $12,779,000 $290,432 $427 $58,663,020Development Costs, excl. landDirects, excl parking garage$22,323,000 $187,588 $224 $7,022,400 $159,600 $235Subterranean Parking $5,160,000 $43,361 $52 $1,920,000 $43,636 $64A&E$1,368,500 $11,500 $14 $448,800 $10,200 $15Fees & Permits$2,689,400 $22,600 $27 $809,600 $18,400 $27Subsidy to LIHTC component$1,859,000 $15,622 $19n/a n/a n/a Taxes/Ins./Legal/Marketing$416,500 $3,500 $4 $132,000 $3,000 $4Overhead/Admin/Developer Fee$821,100 $6,900 $8 $1,368,400 $31,100 $46Contingency$1,639,000 $13,773 $16 $585,000 $13,295 $20Financing $1,927,800$16,200$19$492,800$11,200$16Total Costs$38,204,300 $321,045 $384 $12,779,000 $290,432 $427 $50,983,300Residual Land Value$7,679,720 $64,535 $77$0 $0 $0 $7,679,720 per acre$3,839,860$3,839,860Residual Land Value Increment $931,445 over base zoning13.8%Scenario 5Total ProjectResidential Bonus with LIHTC Affordable ComponentMarket / MI Component Low/Mod LIHTC Component_________________________________________________________Prepared by: Keyser Marston AssociatesFilename: \\SF-FS2\wp\10\10783\006\Com benefits initial testing 7-31-2018; pro forma LIHTCPage 11Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis 46City Council Study Session Page 272 of 384
Table 5
Current Asking Rents in Newer Rentals Proximate to BR-1 Zone
Community Benefits Analysis - Initial Testing
City of Boulder, CO
June 2018
Bed-
rooms Baths
Square
Feet (SF) Low Rent High Rent Low Rent/SF
High
Rent/SF
Griffis
Four stories 1 1 573 $1,707 $2.98
Built 2014 1 1 573 $1,652 $2.88
3100 Pearl St.1 1 573 $1,747 $3.05
1 1 573 $1,648 $2.88
1 1 573 $1,652 $2.88
1 1 690 $2,445 $3.54
1 1 690 $2,245 $3.25
1 1 702 $2,072 $2.95
1 1 702 $2,072 $2.95
1 1 702 $2,072 $2.95
1 1 702 $1,864 $2.66
1 1 702 $1,947 $2.77
1 1 702 $1,857 $2.65
1 1 702 $2,127 $3.03
1 1 800 $2,530 $3.16
1 1 800 $2,586 $3.23
1 1 800 $2,455 $3.07
1 1 800 $2,260 $2.83
1 1 800 $2,305 $2.88
1 1 800 $2,525 $3.16
1 1 932 $2,520 $2.70
2 1 969 $2,731 $2.82
2 1 969 $2,535 $2.62
2 2 1,072 $2,452 $2.29
2 2 1,072 $2,432 $2.27
2 2 1,072 $2,422 $2.26
2 2 1,072 $2,422 $2.26
2 2 1,072 $2,494 $2.33
2 2 1,072 $2,313 $2.16
2 2 1,072 $2,491 $2.32
2 2 1,072 $2,592 $2.42
2 2 1,072 $2,592 $2.42
2 2 1,072 $2,560 $2.39
2 2 1,126 $2,632 $2.34
2 2 1,126 $2,680 $2.38
2 2 1,126 $2,737 $2.43
2 2 1,126 $2,782 $2.47
2 2 1,126 $2,625 $2.33
2 2 1,126 $2,856 $2.54
2 2 1,153 $2,810 $2.44
2 2 1,184 $2,903 $2.45
Average: 1.4 1.4 894 $2,350 $2.63
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File: \\SF-FS2\wp\10\10783\006\Com benefits initial testing 7-31-2018;asking rents;8/1/2018;dd Page 12
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
47City Council Study Session Page 273 of 384
Table 5
Current Asking Rents in Newer Rentals Proximate to BR-1 Zone
Community Benefits Analysis - Initial Testing
City of Boulder, CO
June 2018
Bed-
rooms Baths
Square
Feet (SF) Low Rent High Rent Low Rent/SF
High
Rent/SF
Two Nine North 1 1 792 $2,564 $3,079 $3.24 $3.89
Built 2010 1 1 792 $2,309 $2,824 $2.92 $3.57
1955 30th Street 1 1 792 $2,354 $2,889 $2.97 $3.65
1 1 792 $2,494 $3,044 $3.15 $3.84
1 1 1,030 $2,575 $3,195 $2.50 $3.10
1 1 1,030 $2,705 $3,355 $2.63 $3.26
1 1 1,036 $2,559 $3,179 $2.47 $3.07
1 1 1,088 $2,620 $3,240 $2.41 $2.98
1 1 1,079 $2,620 $3,240 $2.43 $3.00
1 1 1,079 $2,615 $3,235 $2.42 $3.00
1 1 1,079 $2,755 $3,405 $2.55 $3.16
2 2 1,180 $2,915 $3,645 $2.47 $3.09
2 2 1,180 $2,915 $3,645 $2.47 $3.09
2 2 1,180 $2,855 $3,585 $2.42 $3.04
2 2 1,180 $2,870 $3,600 $2.43 $3.05
2 2 1,180 $2,920 $3,650 $2.47 $3.09
2 2 1,180 $3,210 $4,030 $2.72 $3.42
2 2 1,180 $3,280 $4,100 $2.78 $3.47
2 2 1,180 $3,290 $4,110 $2.79 $3.48
2 2 1,247 $3,325 $4,145 $2.67 $3.32
2 2 1,288 $3,040 $3,770 $2.36 $2.93
Average: 1.5 1.5 1,074 $2,800 $3,475 $2.61 $3.23
Sources: apartments.com, apartment complex websites.
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File: \\SF-FS2\wp\10\10783\006\Com benefits initial testing 7-31-2018;asking rents;8/1/2018;dd Page 13
Attachment B - Initial Economic Feasibility Analysis
48City Council Study Session Page 274 of 384
1
Community Benefits
Land Use Code Amendments
Public Engagement Plan – Working Draft
Planning Board Feedback
•This plan will be updated to reflect Planning Board and City Council input both during
discussions in August and throughout the life of the project.
Background
Following a discussion with City Council in August 2017 on implementation items of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), staff began implementing a Public Participation Plan which was presented
to Planning Board on Oct. 19, 2017. The project at that time commenced with a focus on height
modifications in exchange for permanently affordable housing, but at the request of the council at the
January 2018 retreat, the project was broadened to include other requests for increased land use
intensity, a larger array of community benefits to be considered and improvements to the Site Review
criteria, which was originally set as a separate action plan item. Additionally, City Council requested that
staff develop ordinances to remove or extend the expiration date of the existing Height Modification
ordinance. City Council adopted an ordinance in June of this year that extends the validity of the current
height restrictions to May 31, 2020 to enable further progress on the community benefit project. The
current height restrictions limit where and under what circumstances height modifications may be
considered.
Decisions to be Made
Draft Why Statement
A community benefits program has been discussed as one tool to ensure that new growth and
development contribute positively to the community’s quality of life. While higher quality of
development is often attained through the Site Review process, in recent years community
sentiment has expressed that more specific community benefits in exchange for additional
height, intensity or density should be required.
Draft Purpose Statement
Consistent with newly adopted Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies (see below),
staff will update the Land Use Code to create regulations and incentives for obtaining certain
community benefits when considering height modification requests and/or additional floor area,
density requests and rezoning applications.
1.11 Enhanced Community Benefit
For land use or zoning district changes that result in increases in the density or intensity of
development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zoning or for added height that
increases intensity, the city will develop regulations and incentives so that the new development
Attachment C - Draft Community Engagement Plan
49City Council Study Session Page 275 of 384
2
provides benefits to the community beyond those otherwise required by the underlying zoning.
Any incentives are intended to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan. Community objectives include without limitation
affordable housing, affordable commercial space, spaces for the arts, community gathering
space, public art, land for parks, open space, environmental protection or restoration, outdoor
spaces and other identified social needs and services. Community objectives also may be
identified through other planning or policymaking efforts of the city.
2.35 Building Height
The city will review and update site review regulations to provide clear guidance on height and
intensity of land uses and to address relationship of building height to aesthetics and view
protection. The city will consider additional height (up to the City Charter 55 -foot height limit) as
an incentive in exchange for community benefits that further other community objectives such
as the provision of permanently affordable housing (as described in Policy 1.11).
7.11 Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity
The city will develop regulations and policies to ensure that when additional intensity is provided
through changes to zoning, a larger proportion of the additional development potential for the
residential use will be permanently affordable housing for low, moderate and middle-income
households.
The specific goals and objectives for this project are as follows:
• Determine the type and amount of community benefits that would be provided to
achieve increased intensity, building height or zone district changes.
• Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan.
• Clearly specify the required triggers for community benefit and identify how (or if) the
benefits would be maintained in perpetuity.
• Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
• Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more
predictability in projects.
Decision-makers
• City Council: Decision-making body.
• Planning Board: Will provide input throughout the process, and make a
recommendation to council that will be informed by other boards and commissions.
• City Boards and Commissions: Will provide input throughout process and ultimately, a
recommendation to council around their area of focus.
Attachment C - Draft Community Engagement Plan
50City Council Study Session Page 276 of 384
3
Who will be impacted by decision/anticipated interest area
• Boulder City Council, Planning Board and Staff who seek to design and implement a
community benefits project that meets the city’s policy goals (such as housing
affordability) and results in a more predictable process for applicants and community
members.
• City Boards and Commissions who will analyze advice City Council of appropriate
implementation techniques for the community benefits project.
• Development Community, who is comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders
interested in a more predictable process grounded in local real estate economics.
• Residents who are interested in one or more topics being explore through this project.
• Technical Experts that have extensive knowledge and/or experience in one or more
topics being explore throughout this project.
• Under-represented Groups that have an interest in future community benefit
development projects but may be unaware of the methods by which they can offer
input.
Overall Engagement Objective
• Model the engagement framework by using the city’s decision-making wheel, levels of
engagement and inclusive participation.
• Tap into technical expertise that exists in our community and give highly interested community
members a way to contribute to the project in a meaningful way.
• Show why ideas were or were not included in the staff recommendation.
Attachment C - Draft Community Engagement Plan
51City Council Study Session Page 277 of 384
4
Project Scope
The final deliverable of this project will be an amendment to the Land Use Code that addresses how
future requests for additional intensity, building height or zone district changes may further the
community benefits. Analysis and engagement will focus on the following topics:
• Determine the type and amount of community benefits that would be provided to achieve
increased intensity, building height or zone district changes.
• Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental objectives of
the comprehensive plan.
• Clearly specify the required triggers for community benefit and identify how (or if) the benefits
would be maintained in perpetuity.
• Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
• Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more
predictability in projects.
Project Timeline
Phase 1: Determine Engagement Strategy; Identify Issues, Options and Case Studies
April – May: Internal work to identify issues, options and case studies.
• Draft Engagement Strategy and Project Plan
• Work with other city staff members to identify members for a technical advisory group.
• Finalize a scope of work for an initial economic analysis.
Deliverables:
• Draft Engagement and Project Plan
• Proposed structure of technical advisory group(s)
June – July: Seek input around key issues and options for a community benefits program.
• Assemble Technical Advisory Groups to begin developing initial options for community benefits
for an online questionnaire.
• Initial economic analysis testing.
• Research case studies from other, established community benefit programs.
• Finalize City Council report and memo for study session.
Deliverables:
• Meeting Summaries.
• Key Issues, Options and Case Studies report.
September: Present project materials to Planning Board and City Council
• Present Scope, Key Issues and Case Studies to Planning Board and City Council.
• Refine project materials based on feedback from City Council and Planning Board.
Attachment C - Draft Community Engagement Plan
52City Council Study Session Page 278 of 384
5
Deliverables:
•Final Engagement Strategy, staff report and case studies report.
Phase 2: Evaluate and refine elements of a new community benefits program
October – December
•Involve the community at-large through an open house, drop-in events and interviews.
•Convene previous focus group participants to brainstorm and/or refine various aspects of the
community benefits program.
•Continue technical group discussions.
Deliverables:
•Meeting summaries
•Preferred Options for community benefit topics
January 2018 – March 2019
•City Council Information Item (Project Update, next steps)
•City Council input (e.g. study session, matters item, etc.) to review draft program parameters.
•Conduct an economic analysis for community benefits.
•Draft ordinance for internal review.
•Present ordinance at an open house.
Phase 3: Review and Adaption
2nd – 3rd Quarter of 2019
•Public hearings and recommendations from relevant city boards and commissions. This will be
dependent on the final community benefits being adopted.
•Planning Board and City Council public hearings.
Attachment C - Draft Community Engagement Plan
53City Council Study Session Page 279 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
1
Review of Case Studies
This attachment describes how several cities have approached community benefits programs. This
review is based on existing city ordinance of other information available online and when possible,
interview with city staff. The table below summarizes key aspects of each program, while the body of
the document provides detailed information on each program.
Summary of community benefits by city.
Jurisdiction Applicability Community Benefits Program Type
City of Austin,
TX
Downtown
Density Bonus
Program
Floor Area
Building
Height
•On-site affordable housing;
•Family Friendly Bedroom;
•Affordable Housing Fee;
•Historic Preservation;
•Day Care Services;
•Cultural Uses;
•Live Music;
•Green Building;
•Publicly Accessible On-site Plaza;
•Off-site Open Space Fee; and
•Green Roofs.
Quantified
benefits/bonuses
City of
Berkeley, CA
Significant
Community
Benefits in the
Downtown
Building
Height
•Affordable housing;
•in-lieu affordable housing fee;
•Labor Requirements (i.e. local
workers);
•Arts and Culture;
•Street and Open Space Requirements;
•Sustainable Development and
Transportation;
•Restoration of Historic Civic Center
Buildings;
•Supportive Social Services and Shelter;
and
•Option for Alternative Community
Benefit Proposals.
Negotiated
benefits/bonuses; but
dependent upon
quantifiable pro-
formas and economic
analysis
City of Denver
38th & Blake
Height & Design
Overlay
Building
height
Floor Area
Setbacks
Parking
•On-site affordable housing;
•off-site affordable housing (but within
the immediate area);
•in-lieu fee;
•Community Amenities;
•Cultural Facilities; and
•Publicly-Assessible Open Space
Quasi-quantified
benefits/bonuses.
Specific community
benefits may be
negotiated
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 280 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
2
Jurisdiction Applicability Community Benefits Program Type
City and
Borough of
Juneau, AK
Residential
Density Bonus
(point system)
Residential
Density
Building
Height
• Protections and/or access to sensitive
areas (streams, lake shores, wetlands,
etc.);
• Non-vehicular transportation
improvements;
• Bus pullouts and shelters;
• Traffic mitigation measures;
• Public services and facilities (fire safety,
utilities, street lights);
• Electric conservation;
• Mixed-use development;
• Project design; and
• Vegetation.
Quasi-quantified
benefits/bonuses. The
value and amount of
points awarded is
discretionary
City of
Portland, OR
Density Bonus
Program to
Encourage
Family-Oriented
Housing
(33.120.265)
Density • Outdoor recreation fields;
• Children’s play areas;
• Three-bedroom units;
• Storage areas;
• Sound insulation;
• Crime prevention;
• Solar water heating;
• Larger required outdoor areas; and
• Tree preservation.
Quantified
benefits/bonuses
Ottawa, Canada
Section 37-
Community
Benefits
Building Size
Density
• Public cultural facilities
• Building design and public art
• Conservation of heritage resources
• Conservation/replacement of rental
housing
• Provision of new affordable housing
units; land for affordable housing or
cash in-lieu (applicant discretion)
• Child care facilities
• Improvement to rapid transit stations
• Local improvements as identified in
community design plans, community
improvement plans, capital budgets
etc.
• Artist live-work studios
• Energy conservation and
environmental performance measures
• Conservation of existing greenspace or
creation of new greenspace
Negotiated
benefits/bonuses
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 281 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
3
Jurisdiction Applicability Community Benefits Program Type
Palo Alto, CA
Public Benefits
through
Planned
Community
Zoning
Projects
within the
Planned
Community
(PC) zoning
where relief
to a variety of
zoning
standards are
obtained in
exchange for
public
benefits. The
City Council
has instituted
a de facto
moratorium
on PC zoning.
Not currently
an option for
development
in Palo Alto.
•Below market rate housing units
•Senior housing
•Pedestrian Oriented landscaping
•Various kinds of public parking
•Public Art
•Annexations
•Donations including for housing,
parking, childcare trust fund, an
endowment, finance benefits to
residents of the project
•Historic Preservation
•Land uses including public storage,
grocery store (4), emergency veterinary
services
•Public access including sidewalks
Negotiated
benefits/bonuses
Redwood City,
CA
Community
Benefit
Improvement
District and
other special
districts
Building
Height
Floor Area
Density
•Sidewalk Operations and Beautification
•District Identity and Signage
•Parking Management
•General Operation costs for District
•Contingency fund (e.g., special
projects, delinquencies)
•Permanently affordable or senior
housing
•Permanently moderately affordable
housing
•Specified design and development
features in certain zoning districts
•Electronic equipment facilities
(competitive in Silicon Valley)
•Mixed Use development with ground
floor retail or restaurants, open space,
new streets
•Conversion of apartments to condos in
Gateway areas
Quasi-quantified
benefits/bonuses.
Specific community
benefits may be
negotiated
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 282 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
4
Jurisdiction Applicability Community Benefits Program Type
Santa Monica,
CA
Land Use and
Conservation
Element
Building
Height
Floor Area
•Trip Reduction & Traffic Management
•Affordable & Workforce Housing
•Community Physical Improvements
•Social and Cultural Facilities
•Historic Preservation
Quasi-quantified
benefits/bonuses.
Specific community
benefits may be
negotiated for largest
projects
Santa Barbara,
CA
Community
Benefit Projects
(Section 28.40)
Building
Height
•Community Benefit Housing
•Museums
•Child Care Facilities
•Health Clinics
Negotiated
benefits/bonuses
Seattle, WA
Program for
Green Building
and Affordable
Housing
Building
Height
Floor Area
•LEED Certification (Silver)
•Affordable housing
•Childcare facilities
Quantified
benefits/bonuses
Emeryville, CA
Density Bonuses
Floor Area
Building
Height
Density
•Affordable Housing
•Public Open Space
•Net Zero Energy
•Public Improvements
•Utility Undergrounding
•Additional family-friendly units
•Small Businesses
•Flexible Community Benefit (i.e. other
proposed not included on above “list”)
Quantified
benefits/bonuses,
with a
Flexible Benefit
category that can be
negotiated
Vancouver,
Canada
Residential
Density Bonus
Density •Walkway connections
•Pedestrian convenient kiosks
•On-site bus shelters
•Bike lockers
•Development subject to Trip Reduction
Ordinance
•Paid Public Parking
•Carpool/Vanpool parking facilities
•TDM information
Quasi-quantified
benefits/bonuses.
Specific community
benefits may be
negotiated
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 283 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
5
Jurisdiction Applicability Community Benefits Program Type
San Diego, CA
Downtown FAR
Bonus Program
& The Civic San
Diego
Community
Benefits
Consensus
Project
Floor Area •Affordable Housing
•Urban Open Space (10-20% of site)
•Three-Bedroom Units
•Eco-Roofs
•Employment Uses
•Public Parking
•Green Building
•In-lieu fee to purchase parks and open
space (TDR)
Quantified
benefits/bonuses
Nashville, TN
Nashville
Downtown Code
Building
Height (in
downtown) -
Bonus Height
Program
Height
Modification
in Downtown
above the
Bonus Height
Program
•LEED Building certification
•LEED Neighborhood certification
•Pervious surfaces
•Historic building preservation
•Inclusionary Housing (no longer
applicable due to state law)
•Civil support uses (child care, etc.)
•Underground parking
•Upper level parking garage liners
•Public Parking
Exceptional Design - requires unique
architecture, exceptionally strong streetscapes,
and improvement of the project’s relationship
to surrounding properties
Quantified
benefit/bonuses
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 284 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
6
Case Study 1
City of Austin, TX: Downtown Density Bonus Program
Program Summary
The Downtown Density Bonus Program (DDBP) was established in 2014 to promote a vibrant, dense,
and pedestrian friendly downtown area while also encouraging the development of affordable housing
and other community benefits. A downtown density bonus can be requested as part of a site plan
review process.
The Downtown Density Bonus Program allows developments in the downtown area to achieve greater
height and density in exchange for providing a high quality building and streetscape as well as
community benefits.
In order to obtain the bonus area, the applicant must provide community benefits. At least 50% of the
bonus must be achieved by providing on-site affordable housing or by paying a development bonus fee
into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. For any portion of the desired bonus area not achieved by
providing affordable housing, the applicant must provide one or more of the other community benefits.
Projects must first meet certain “Gatekeeper Requirements” to participate in the bonus program,
including streetscape standards, a green building rating and compliance with the city’s Urban Design
Guidelines.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Austin)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
The gross floor area that exceeds
the maximum allowable floor-to-
area ratio.
Typically 8:1 FAR
Building height varies per district.
Varies with downtown districts.
Bonus FAR up to 25:1 can be
achieved.
Building height varies and is not
capped in some districts.
The gross floor area contained
within the portion of the structure
that exceeds the maximum
allowed height.
Typically 8:1 FAR, not to exceed
the base height limit – building
height varies per district.
Varies with downtown districts.
Bonus FAR up to 25:1 can be
achieved.
Building height varies and is not
capped in some districts.
Approval Process (City of Austin)
• Administrative (director) approval: if 100% of the bonused area is provided by community
benefits.
• Planning Commission (recommendation) and City Council (decision) if the project proposes a
benefit not identified in the ordinance. In that case the city quantifies the amount of the “other”
benefit required for the project.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 285 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
7
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Austin)
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
Yes, it’s resulting in more community benefits with various downtown projects. It’s a standardized
process for developers that replaces the Central Urban Redevelopment (CURE) process. The
development community knows what to expect from the review process versus the previous system of
negotiation on a case-by-case basis with the City Council.
The program has not been successful in achieving onsite affordable housing, as the current fee-in-lieu
option is a cheaper alternative available to the applicant. As part of Austin Zoning Code revision
currently being undertaken, the fee-in-lieu for affordable housing will be better calibrated (raised) to
further incentivize on-site affordable housing with projects using the Downtown Density Bonus Program.
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Approximately 15-20 projects have used the program. The process has been simple and straightforward,
although applicants new to the process have questions and take additional time to understand the
steps. All projects in the program are required to go to Design Commission for an initial informal review
meeting, where the Design Commission provides feedback and recommendations on the project
regarding Urban Design Guidelines. The applicant then returns with revised plans for a second Design
Commission meeting, where a formal non-binding recommendation is made to city staff regarding
whether the project is meeting the Urban Design Guidelines. City staff reviews the project, Design
Commission recommendations, and the Density Bonus utilization as part of the site plan review process.
Applicants tend to be frustrated by the Design Commission step as it often makes recommendations for
revisions to a project’s design. However, this has resulted in better designed projects for the city.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Applicants are receptive to the incentives as they provide a clear and predictable path to increasing
density. A typical FAR of 8:1 downtown can be increased upwards of 25:1 with Downtown Density Bonus
Program.
What is the ease of administering the program?
Administration consist of a single staff member coordinating the program, typically dedicating five to
eight hours of time to the program per week. It has been a relatively simple and straight-forward
process. Although other departments are having to learn that the Density Bonus Program is part of the
site plan review (and not an additional review that goes to a board or council).
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
When it was established, should have created metrics for measuring how successful the overall program
is, specifically in terms of impacting and implementing broader downtown polices and goals, such as the
urban tree canopy.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 286 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
8
Community Benefits (City of Austin)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
On-site Affordable Housing
Owned and rental units with
specific income eligibility
requirements.
Project must achieve at least 50
percent of the desired bonus area
by providing affordable housing
community benefits. If less than
50 percent, other benefits must
be provided to fill the gap.
Family-friendly Bedroom
Any bedroom over one
bedroom within a dwelling
unit that provides on-site
affordable housing.
150 square feet of bonus area for
each family friendly bedroom
provided.
Development Bonus Fee for
Affordable Housing (i.e. an in-
lieu fee)
Historic Preservation
On-site option to rehabilitate,
preserve or relocate a
historically significant
building.
Fee option to the city’s
Historic Preservation Fund.
25,000 square feet of bonus area
for each historically significant
building that is restored or
preserved.
Five square feet of bonus area for
each square foot of historic
building preserved.
One square foot of bonus area for
each district-specific bonus fee.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 287 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
9
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Day Care Services.
The provision of one or more
of the three day care services
defined in Section 25-2-6
(Civic Uses Described) of the
City code.
Two square feet of bonus area
shall be granted for each one
square foot of space for day care
services.
Requires a 10-year restrictive
covenant that ensures
continuation of operations and
maintenance of the facility.
The facility must be open
during normal business hours
at least five days per week and
fifty weeks each calendar year.
Any lapse in operation for
more than 180 consecutive
days triggers a pro-rated fee
into the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (what would have
been required with their bonus
area).
Cultural Uses
Uses that are eligible to
participate in the City of
Austin Core Cultural Funding
Program.
Two square feet of bonus area
shall be granted for each one
square foot of space for cultural
uses.
Requires a 10-year restrictive
covenant that ensures
continuation of operations and
maintenance of the facility.
Meet the definition of a
cultural use and the space
must be leased to a 501(c)
organization. Any lapse in
operation for more than 180
consecutive days triggers a
pro-rated fee into the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
(what would have been
required with their bonus
area).
Live Music
Performance of live music at
least four days a week in an
indoor public or private
facility of at least 2,500
square feet that it opens to
the general public and readily
equipped with sound, staging,
lighting and safety
accoutrements to
accommodate professional
and semi-professional live
music needs on a daily basis.
Two square feet of bonus area for
each square foot of live music
uses.
Requires ten years of
continuous operations and
maintenance. Any lapse in
operation for more than 180
consecutive days triggers a
pro-rated fee into the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
(what would have been
required with their bonus
area).
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 288 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
10
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Green Building
A project that includes green
building standards that
exceed the Gatekeeper
Requirements.
Bonus area equal to 25% of the
site’s primary entitlement shall be
granted for 3-star Austin Energy
Green Building (ARGB) rating or
LEED for New Construction Silver
rating.
The applicant shall execute a
restrictive covenant
committing to achieve a
specified rating under the
Austin Energy Green Building
(AEGB) program using the
ratings in effect at the time the
ratings application is submitted
for the project or Leadership in
Energy & Environmental Design
(LEED) program using the most
recently launched version of
the LEED for New Construction
rating at the time of the
project's registration. If the
specified ARGB rating or LEED
certification is not achieved
within nine months from the
time of occupancy, an owner
must pay into the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund the
applicable development bonus
fee for the bonus area initially
granted for this community
benefit.
Publicly Accessible On-Site
Plaza
A publicly-accessible area
provided by an applicant as a
community benefit that
complies with the Downtown
Public Plaza Standards
adopted by administrative
rule.
Five square feet of bonus area
shall be granted for each one
square foot of eligible plaza space.
Any lapse in operation for
more than 180 consecutive
days triggers payment to the
Downtown Open Space Fund
for the amount that would
have been initially granted for
the bonus area.
Off-site Open Space
Development Bonus Fee
Payment of a fee for off-site
open space (Downtown Open
Space Fund).
One square foot of bonus area
shall be granted for each district-
specific development bonus fee
for off-site open space.
The project may achieve bonus
area by paying a development
bonus fee for off-site open
space. The development bonus
fee option is only available for
open space beyond what is
already required by the City
Code.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 289 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
11
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Green Roofs
Must be built to the city’s
green roof standards.
30-49% of Vegetated Roof Cover =
2 bonus square feet.
50% or greater = 3 bonus feet.
2 additional square feet if publicly
accessible.
2 additional square feet if meets
Downtown Public Plaza Standards
Any lapse in operation for
more than 180 consecutive
days triggers payment to the
Downtown Open Space Fund
for the amount that would
have been initially granted for
the bonus area. Green roof
bonus area can’t be combined
with the Publicly Accessible
On-Site Plaza Community
Benefit.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 290 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
12
Case Study 2
City of Berkeley Downtown Community Benefits
Program Summary (City of Berkeley)
In 2010, the voters of Berkeley approved Measure R, guiding development of the Downtown. Among
the provisions approved was permitting, but not requiring, five buildings to be built in the Downtown
exceeding height limits in exchange for significant community benefits from project applicants.
The value of the community benefit is proposed with the development application and includes a pro
forma that includes among other things, the projected rate of return the applicant expects the project to
generate. The pro forma considers two scenarios: (i) a base case building of 75 feet or less; and (ii) a
high-rise building over 75 feet, considering factors like increased rental rates for higher floors as well as
costs associated with building over 75 feet. The financial information is reviewed by an independent
third party, selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, to confirm the highest reasonable amount
of community benefits a project can support.
Project developers are also required to address the financial impact of displacement created by the
project on community resources (including but not limited to non-profits and arts and cultural
amenities/organizations) which serve the Berkeley community; such payments are made upon the
issuance of a project’s building permit.
To incentivize the immediate production of community benefits, developers may provide 90% of that
predetermined total value (minus the labor credit) if they complete the community benefits prior
to/concurrent with a certificate of occupancy.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Berkeley)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Building Height (downtown
only) over 75 feet
75 feet 120 – 180 feet
Approval Process (City of Berkley)
• The Zoning Adjustments Board reviews the community benefits package during a public hearing
(including independent economic analysis) and either accepts, rejects or proposes
modifications. The board should find that the community benefits proposed by the applicant:
o Are beyond what would otherwise be required by the City;
o Do not principally benefit the project or occupants of the project, but rather the broader
Berkeley community;
o Consider the highest amount the City determines the project can reasonably afford;
o Comply with the required benefits categories;
o That the value of the community benefits bear a relationship to the value generated by
the project.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 291 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
13
• If approved, the applicant enters into a Community Benefits Agreement (recorded agreement)
prior to building permit, and all benefit are included as Conditions of Approval. Approved
permits, including Conditions of Approval requiring provision of Significant Community Benefits,
may be subject to the Compliance and Revocation standards as set forth in Berkeley Municipal
Code (BMC) Chapter 23B.60.
Applicants for building over 75 feet tall have two community benefit options:
1. Option A: Affordable Housing, Labor and Other Benefits. (a) exceed the city’s affordable
housing requirements; (b) enter into a Project Labor Agreement; and (c) at least one other
community benefit category.
2. Option B: Square Footage Flat Fee. (a) a PLA; and (b) a per square foot fee determined by an
independent financial consultant that would capture the highest reasonable value while
maintaining financial feasibility of the project. Such fees would be paid into a City fund that is
restricted to providing the community benefits.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Berkeley)
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
The substantial public benefits program is still being tested, as the downtown developments have not
fully taken shape. Here is a recent summary of the history, issues and recent amendments to make the
process and expectations more clear:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Mayor/Level_2_-
_Department_Master_and_Collections/Revised%20Community%20Benefits%20Resolution%202-13-
18.pdf
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Several projects have come forward over the past several years, some of which have been
approved. One early project was approved on an ad hoc basis because it was ahead of the more formal
process being in place. Others went through a process with the Zoning Adjustments Board and City
Council.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
A number of applicants have pursued projects under the old system. The new system adopted this year
theoretically provides more certainty, but still leaves much to be negotiated. The incentive for tall
buildings only works for certain projects, and those projects remain subject to full design review, zoning
review, historic preservation review, and potential litigation.
What is the ease of administering the program?
The program requires the staff to conduct additional analysis with the assistance of outside consultants,
and is usually handled in separate hearings from the usual zoning issues, so it does add work. This is
intended to separate the analysis from the other urban design issues, and generally works well. It is
often helpful to have commissioners that bring certain expertise to the discussion.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 292 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
14
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
The City conducted extensive analysis almost ten years ago to formulate the program. Since then, we
have seen market fluctuations that have affected project feasibility in many ways that lead to
uncertainty over whether the community benefit packages are still appropriate.
Community Benefits (City of Berkeley)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Affordable Housing
More units than what is required
through existing requirements.
Labor Requirements
In addition to agreeing to enter into a
Project Labor Agreement, applicants
would be required to sign an
agreement stating that no less than
20% of the project’s construction
workers be Berkeley or Green
Corridor/Alameda County residents,
with priority in that order.
n/a
Arts and Culture.
On-site or off-site benefits for arts
and culture, including publicly
accessible art or performance space
or an in-lieu fee to the Public Art
Fund.
Dependent on pro forma, and the
total value of the public benefits that
the City determines the project can
reasonably bear.
Street and Open Space
Requirements (SOSIP).
Additional funding for SOSIP beyond
what is currently required by law, or
construction of SOSIP or
similar/updated projects approved
by the City, which can include, but
are not limited to:
• Enhanced parks and
streetscapes, such as funding
for the Center Street Plaza
• Improving bicycle networks
• Permeable street paving
• Pedestrian amenities
• Transportation mitigations
Dependent on pro forma, and the
total value of the public benefits that
the City determines the project can
reasonably bear.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 293 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
15
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Sustainable Development and
Transportation.
Environmentally friendly community
benefits beyond what is currently
required, such as, but not limited to:
•State-of-the-art sustainable
building practices (e.g. Zero
Net Energy, LEED Platinum)
•On-site gray water
infrastructure
•Rainwater re-use
•Funding or building green
infrastructure projects in the
Downtown area
•Secure bicycle parking for
public use
Dependent on pro forma, and the
total value of the public benefits that
the City determines the project can
reasonably bear.
Restoration of Historic Civic Center
Buildings.
Contributions to the restoration of
Old City Hall and/or the Veterans
Memorial Hall. Such contributions
could be used for other listed
community benefits in the event the
City determines that restoration of
one or both of these buildings is not
likely within the foreseeable future.
Dependent on pro forma, and the
total value of the public benefits that
the City determines the project can
reasonably bear.
Supportive Social Services and
Shelter.
Contributions to supportive social
services which may include, but are
not limited to:
•Funding for the Pathways
Project
•Funding for Flexible Housing
Subsidies Pool
•Funding for the HUB
(Coordinated Entry System)
or the Downtown Drop-In
Center
•Public restrooms
•Funding for non-profit
organizations serving
Berkeley’s youth
Dependent on pro forma, and the
total value of the public benefits that
the City determines the project can
reasonably bear.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 294 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
16
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Alternate Community Benefits
Proposals.
In the event an applicant believes
that compliance with the foregoing
community benefits standards would
violate any state or federal law or
constitutional provision, an applicant
may make an alternative proposal.
Dependent on pro forma, and the
total value of the public benefits that
the City determines the project can
reasonably bear.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 295 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
17
Case Study 3
City & County of Denver: 38th & Blake Incentive Height and
Design Overlay
Program Summary (City & County of Denver)
In 2018 the City of Denver City Council voted to adopt the incentive height and design overlays for the
38th and Blake Station Area and the River North Arts District at its meeting February 12, 2018. These
ordinances implemented amendments made to the 38th and Blake Station Area Plan that supported
taller building heights in the RTD station area (up to 16 stories) that were adopted in 2016. This program
aims to leverage the public investment around the 38th and Blake RTD station area and the resulting
increase in property values by providing incentives to developers to build taller buildings in return for
community benefits. To obtain certain building heights, developers must meet certain requirements for
affordable units, fees or subsidized commercial space.
Commercial Projects
Commercial projects, such as office buildings, have three options for obtaining the incentive height
bonus:
1. Payment of the citywide affordable housing fee, plus fees for development above the base
height;
2. Construction of affordable residential units (on- or off-site, but within the incentive height
overlay district area boundary); or
3. Payment of the citywide Affordable Housing Fee and provision of a subsidized space for
community-serving or non-profit uses.
Examples of community serving uses for option three include arts-related activities like maker spaces
and studios; retail of goods needed in the community (e.g. pharmacy, grocery stores); needed services
like childcare and medical clinics; and nonprofit organizations.
Community Benefit Triggers (City & County of Denver)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Increased building height that
exceeds the base height limit.
Varies within district: 2 to 8
stories.
Varies within district: 3 to 16
stories.
Approval Process (City & County of Denver)
Projects seeking to take advantage of the height incentives must submit site development plans to
Development Services and a proposal on how they intend to meet overlay requirements to the Office of
Economic Development. Both must be approved for a building permit to be issued. The design overlay
establishes new high-quality design standards.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 296 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
18
The incentive overlay requires projects that use the height incentives to provide affordable housing
units in the station area, or significantly greater contributions to Denver’s Affordable Housing Fund than
are required elsewhere in the city.
To meet incentive requirements:
• Affordable housing units must be new units that would otherwise not have been built.
• Affordable units must be comparable to the market-rate housing units that generated the
requirement.
• Affordable units must be inside the overlay boundary, not elsewhere in the city.
• The zoning is rooted in a form-based zoning code; floor-area ratios (FAR) do not apply.
• The number of affordable units required for development is based on square footage above the
base height.
• Residential buildings must provide affordable housing units.
• Commercial buildings can:
o provide affordable housing units according to square footage above the base height, or
o pay the city’s affordable housing fee for the square footage below the base height and
pay five times the city’s existing affordable housing fee for square footage above the
base height, or
o pay the city’s affordable housing fee for the full square footage and offset fee for square
footage above the base height by providing subsidized space for uses that serve the
community, such as day-cares, groceries or artists’ spaces.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City & County of Denver)
The Incentive Height and Design Overlays were adopted on February 12, 2018. As of July 1, 2018 no
project has submitted a proposal to use the height incentive to the Office of Economic Development.
Is the program working the way you envisioned? When was it implemented?
The overlay was formerly adopted in February 2018. Overall, the incentive overlay had good community
support for increasing density, so long as development also resulted in the creation of a more complete
and equitable neighborhood. Ideally this means a community with spaces for artists and other “makers”,
whom created the unique character of the community in the first place.
Have any projects used the program? How’s does the process work, and is it working well?
There are no executed agreements or projects as of yet. However, there are a few potential projects
considering their development options. One example is community grocery store that would like to
move into the area, that is working with the Office of Economic Development in trying to find a partner
to develop a larger project that would then support them and utilize the derived incentive.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Overall the development community has been receptive, many of the large development projects are
residential, so they are already planning on providing affordable housing. The additional bonus height is
significantly greater than the by-right base height entitlement, and combined with high land-costs
makes economically necessary to use the incentive height in order to have a viable project. While the
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 297 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
19
development community wanted more straightforward incentives options, the city needs more
certainty on the impacts and permanence of the community benefits.
What is the ease of administering the program?
It will be an administrative review and process handled by staff. The negotiated elements of the
program for affordable housing and development agreements are administered by the Office of
Economic Development. The incentive fee option is straightforward, simply goes through the permitting
process and you pay the applicable incentive bonus fees. Planning will also be involved in the
Community Serving Use option, helping to determine whether the proposed community benefit is truly
a value-add to the community. Binding and recorded agreements are required.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
Ideally a more predictable format could have been implemented that provided more certainty (and thus
fairness) on what could be built, and what the specific community benefit parameters received would
be. A more streamlined system was desired by outside stakeholders (primarily the development
community), but the City was concerned that the more streamlined approach could not address certain
issues (i.e., what happens if you can’t find the right kind of tenant). Therefore, the adopted approach
was primarily a result of community and City staff desire to ensure positive outcomes over time. The
current negotiated system is at least partially a result of going through the political process. Thus, the
outcome of the incentive program is less certain than a more streamlined approach would have been.
Regarding the Community Serving Use option, the concern from city is what happens if things don’t
work-out with the tenant, or the development can’t attract the right tenants? The physical space for
them may be created and reserved, but no guarantee they’ll be attracted to it and fill the spaces unless
some additional controls are in place. May need additional controls to ensure the incentivized
community-serving uses remain in place and are a value-add to the community.
Planning will conduct an assessment at a later point in time to evaluate how the incentive program is
working and the success of the community benefits received. The goal is to see what businesses come
in, then evaluate how the program is working and determine whether to change it or not. There may be
opportunities to improve upon the incentive program, and eventually institute changes to other areas
Denver as well. When too many incentive menu options are available, it waters down the value of the
community benefits being provided. Developers will utilize the easiest incentives only, unless prioritized
to truly target specific community benefits that are needed and align with planning policies and goals.
Thus the 38th and Blake Overlay community benefits option is mostly focused on urban-maker spaces
and unmet needs of the community (such as grocers). Other cities’ community benefit programs that
stood out to them during their research were Portland Oregon, which was in the process of being
finalized and adopted, and Montgomery County Maryland. Montgomery Maryland’s program was a
more straightforward points system and included local-retail space community benefit parameters.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 298 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
20
Community Benefits (City & County of Denver)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Affordable Housing
Option
Housing must be on site
or within the overlay zone
Required for projects containing 50 percent
or more residential uses.
Residential Projects:
• Standard affordable housing
requirement for base area.
• x4 the standard unit requirement
for the bonus portion.
Non-Residential Projects:
• Standard affordable unit
requirements for the base portion.
• x4 the standard unit requirement
for the bonus portion.
Payment of total
structure linkage fee.
Affordable housing units
must be new units that
would otherwise not
have been built and be
comparable to the
market rate housing
within the development.
Incentive (Affordable
Housing in-lieu) Fee
Option
Only available to projects with 50 percent
or more non-residential uses.
Non-residential Projects
• Standard in lieu fee requirement for
the base portion.
• x4 the standard in lieu requirement
for the bonus portion.
Payment of total
structure linkage fee
Community Serving Use
Option: Provision of
subsidized space for
community-serving or
nonprofit uses.
Non-residential Projects
• Standard in lieu fee for the base
portion.
• Negotiated Community Benefits
Agreement for community-serving
uses equal to the waived in lieu fee
for the bonus area.
Payment of total
structure linkage fee.
Other Misc. Information (City & County of Denver)
• Examples of community-serving uses that could be considered for option 3 include arts-related
activities like maker spaces and studios; retail of goods needed in the community (e.g.
pharmacies, grocery stores); needed services, such as child care and medical clinics; and
nonprofit organizations. Applicants will be required to enter into an agreement with the Denver
Office of Economic Development, which will consider the proposed use in light of area needs.
The value of the space provided must be equal to the waived incentive fees.
• Community benefits agreement means an agreement entered into between an applicant and
the city, and administered by the Office of Economic Development, that allows an applicant to
provide community serving uses for a portion of a proposed structure in place of payment of
any applicable incentive height fees. A community benefits agreement shall not substitute for
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 299 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
21
payment of the total structure linkage fee. The Office of Economic Development, in consultation
with community planning and development and considering demonstrated community needs
and priorities in the surrounding neighborhood(s), and the value of commensurate incentive
height fee savings and benefits, shall determine applicable community serving uses for each
community benefits agreement. The community benefits agreement shall be executed by the
city and the applicant using the city's standard contract process, and prior to approval of a site
development plan or issuance of building permits. The community benefits agreement shall
include, but is not limited to the following: benefitting tenant use; rent-reduction rate; time
period; collateral; and default remedies such as re-leasing or recapture of any obtained
incentive height fee savings.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 300 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
22
Case Study 4
City and Borough of Juneau, AK: Residential Density Bonus
Program Summary
The City and Borough of Juneau may permit additional residential density and building height for “major
development” through a discretionary points system.
Community Benefit Triggers (City and Borough of Juneau)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Residential Density
Allowable density may be
increased by 10% beyond the
use-by-right for every seven
bonus points awarded.
Depends on zoning district.
Districts generally range from
10 or less units per acre up to
80 units per acre. One mixed
use district has no maximum
density requirement.
Cannot exceed the lesser of:
1. 50% of the use-by-right
density;
2. The minimum density
of the next higher
zoning district;
3. The minimum lot size
required for any on-site
water well or septic
system.
Building Height
The building height within the
Mixed Use – 2 district may be
increased to a maximum of 45
feet for no less than five bonus
points.
35 Feet. 45 Feet.
Approval Process (City and Borough of Juneau)
• The Planning Director determines the points accrued by considering (i) the extent to which the
proposal furthers the intent of the stated polices, and (ii) the magnitude of the benefit or
amenity with respect to the size of the development.
• The commission shall approve the bonus point total.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City and Borough of Juneau)
What’s the point system values? Is it consistently applied to various projects?
This is an issue as the bonus category values can be applied subjectively, as there is no criteria for how
many points per category. Generally, just an overall maximum of 5 points per category is allowed, but no
criteria exists of how points per degree of benefit.
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
No, the program became effective in 1988 and only a handful of projects have ever used it, and only one
project in the last two years (provided additional greens space for a small increase in overall number of
units). As the program is older, many of the envisioned bonuses are simply required anyway by the
current Code. For example traffic impact studies and mitigation requirements.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 301 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
23
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Only a handful of projects since 1988. Projects go to the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use with
a public hearing. Required once a project exceeds a threshold of number of units per acre (8/du or
12/du per acre), depending on the zoning district.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Don’t often use the program, as applicants don’t want be bothered by it. Current entitlements or other
entitlements processes for greater intensity are utilized instead, such as re-zonings or PUD’s.
What is the ease of administering the program?
The Code needs to be overhauled to be successfully administered and implemented. Currently refers to
an administrative code Title 4, not the Zoning Code. A long range goal of the department and city is to
integrate a new program into the Zoning Code.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
Not aligned to current Code, needs a rewrite. The department likes the concept of density bonuses, but
the implementation needs to be better. Ways to further the program would be updating the code and
recalibrating existing entitlements, educating the development community on the program, and
creating a nexus on current trends and needs (such as electric vehicles usage) to bonus options. There is
a housing crisis in Juneau- yet the process for increased density is arduous with the Conditional Use
review that goes to Planning Commission for a hearing – this is another deterrent to the development
community using the bonus. Should be amended to be more streamlined and an administrative staff
review to improve the utilization.
Community Benefits (City and Borough of Juneau)
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Sensitive Areas
A development within stream
corridors and lake shores,
eagle nesting areas, wetlands
and intertidal areas are
eligible.
Protect additional sensitive land (beyond that which is
already required by code), provide public access to
sensitive land or deed such land to the city.
Generally up to 4 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Non-vehicular transportation
improvements
Pedestrian paths, sidewalks, bike paths and other
pedestrian improvements beyond the base
requirement.
Generally up to 5 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Alternative transportation
Bus pullouts and shelters.
Generally up to 5 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 302 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
24
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Traffic mitigation measures
Traffic impact mitigation on public roads. Generally up
to 5 points may be allowed, with the potential for
additional points.
Public services and facilities
Points awarded for:
• Fire Service: efforts to reduce risk of injury or
property damage or improve effectiveness of
firefighting measures;
• Utilities: connection to a public water, sewer
or storm drainage system if it is more than
500 feet away from the site, constructed at
the developers’ expense; or
• Street Lights: development constructed at six
or less units per acre that provide any number
of street lights.
Generally up to 5 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Electric conservation
Minimize the consumption of energy, reduce peak
energy demand, or both.
Generally up to 5 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Mixed-use development
Development of office, retail or other commercial
projects in the downtown area that includes
residential units.
Generally up to 5 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Project design
1. Scenic Vistas: Site design and arrangement
that protects scenic vistas viewable from
public places; or
2. Awnings, Marquees and Canopies: In the
commercial, waterfront and mixed-use
districts, a development that provides
storefront awnings, marquees and canopies
over public ways.
Generally up to 5 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Vegetation Multifamily, industrial and commercial development
maintaining more than the minimum required
percentage of a site in vegetation.
Generally up to 4 points may be allowed, with the
potential for additional points.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 303 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
25
Case Study 5
City of Portland Amenity Density Bonus Program to Encourage
Family-oriented Housing
Program Summary
This program is intended to improve the livability of multi-dwelling developments for their residents and
to promote family oriented multi-dwelling developments. The bonuses are designed to allow additional
dwelling units to larger projects (though smaller projects may still participate) in a manner still
consistent with multi-family zoning. The options provide incentives, while leaving the specific choices to
the developer.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Portland)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Residential Density
All housing types in three
residential zoning districts (R1,
R2 and R3).
Max. Density:
• R1: 1 units per 3,000
sq. ft. of site area
• R2: 1 units per 2,000
sq. ft. of site area
• R3: 1 units per 1,000
sq. ft. of site area
Max. Density with Inclusionary
Housing Bonus:
• R1: 1 units per 2,400
sq. ft. of site area
• R2: 1 units per 1,600
sq. ft. of site area
• R3: 1 units per 800 sq.
ft. of site area
Up to 50% increase from
maximum density.
Approval Process (City of Portland)
• The amount of bonus for each option is a result of balancing several factors:
o The likelihood that the amenity will be provided without the use of incentives;
o The potential cost to the developer; and
o The importance of the amenity.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Portland)
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
Our code went through a significant change on 5/24/18. The bonuses changed. In the old code we had
many projects use the easy bonuses (energy efficiency, sound insulation, crime prevention), but fewer
of the other options were used very much.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 304 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
26
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Yes, as documented through building permits through code provisions in the section (33.120.265).
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Usually people want bonuses to increase density, which conflicted with some of the bonuses (e.g. larger
outdoor play areas, tree preservation, etc.) so there was sometimes an inherent conflict, meaning they
were used most frequently on larger greenfield sites, not urban infill or smaller sites.
What is the ease of administering the program?
Pretty easy when used – just adding information or additional documentation to the permit drawings –
checked by the planner during permitting.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
Our bonuses have been re-tooled, but are similar. City Council has prioritized affordable housing over
other options lately. You might contact the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (the folks who write
our zoning codes – Bureau of Development Services implements their rules) for additional or more
detailed feedback.
Community Benefits (City of Portland)
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Outdoor Recreation Facilities
May include a tennis or basketball
court, ball field, swimming pool,
horseshoe pit, gazebo, permanent
picnic tables, and similar items.
The density bonus is 2 percent for each 1/2
of 1 percent of the overall project
development cost spent on outdoor
recreation facilities. There is a maximum of
10 percent density increase allowed for this
bonus.
Children’s Play Areas
Requirements include size, layout,
play equipment and fencing
standards: Min. of 1000 square
feet, of which 400 square feet in
grass. A play area of at least 100
square feet is required. The play
area must be fenced according to
the regulations.
5% for a qualifying children’s play area.
Three Bedroom Units A bonus of 5 percent is allowed if 10 percent
of the development's units have at least 3
bedrooms. A bonus of 10 percent is allowed
if 20 percent or more of the development's
units have at least 3 bedrooms. If between
10 percent and 20 percent of the units have
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 305 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
27
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
at least 3 bedrooms, then the bonus is
prorated.
Storage Areas
Requirements include dimensional
requirements for interior storage
(kitchens, bedrooms, linen closets,
entries) and enclosed storage for
larger items.
5% if all units area provided with interior
storage and additional storage for large
items.
Sound Insulation
Interior noise must be reduced
from adjacent dwellings, outdoors
and especially from busy streets.
Regulations list three ways to
achieve this.
10% density bonus.
Crime Prevention
The bonus is allowed if all units
have security features which
comply with items 1 through 6 of
the Residential Security
Recommendations of the Portland
Police Bureau. In addition, exterior
lights which comply with the
lighting standards of the Crime
Prevention Division of the Portland
Police Bureau must be provided.
10% density bonus. Development
plans must be
certified by the
Crime
Prevention
Division of the
Portland Police
Bureau as
complying with
these
provisions
Solar water heating.
The bonus is allowed if solar-heated
water is provided to all units.
Systems may be active or passive.
Systems must qualify for the
Oregon State solar energy tax credit
or be rated by the Solar Rating and
Certification Corporation (SRRC).
5% density bonus Applicants
must provide
documentation
that the
provisions are
met.
Larger required outdoor areas.
To qualify for this amenity, at least
96 square feet of outdoor area is
required for each dwelling unit. All
other outdoor area standards must
be met (33.120.240).
5% density bonus
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 306 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
28
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Tree preservation.
The density bonus that may be
received for each tree that is
preserved in addition to those
required to be preserved on the site
is shown in Table 120-6
Development proposals that preserve more
than the required number or percentage of
the trees on the site may receive up to a
maximum of 10 percent density bonus. The
exact amount of bonus is based on tree
diameter:
• 12-20 inches: 2% density bonus
• 20-36 inches: 3% density bonus
• 36+ inches: 5% density bonus
Other Requirements
• The applicant must sign a covenant that ensure the amenities provided to receive any bonus
density will continue for the life of the project.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 307 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
29
Case Study 6
City of Ottawa, Canada: Section 37- Community Benefits
Program Summary
The Province of Ontario, Canada passed enabling legislation in 2003 entitled Section 37 that enables
cities to adopt guidelines, plans and processes to require community benefit in exchange for additional
density and height. The city of Ottawa has passed such a section that requires community benefit for
projects over 75,000 square feet or if the density is more than 25% of the by-right density. Guidelines
for the process and a list of community benefits have been developed and each project is handled on a
case by case basis. Some localized plans specify needed community benefits for individual
neighborhoods. Ultimately, the city must determine the “uplift value” which is the increase in value
offered by the increased density or size and then determine an appropriate, equivalent community
benefit. The benefit must be found to have a rational nexus to the impacts of the development.
Otherwise, it can be determined to be an illegal tax. The review and preparation of a negotiated
agreement involves reviewing each proposal against a number of precedent Canadian law cases related
to community benefit, many of which are from the city of Toronto that pioneered the community
benefit laws.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Ottawa)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Floor Area Project is greater than 75,000
square feet in size (7,000
square meters)
Not specified
Density More than by-right density
permitted
25% of base density
Approval Process (City of Ottawa)
Development proposals that are larger than the thresholds above are required to be reviewed under
Section 37 and are subject to the city’s adopted Community Benefit guidelines. It is a negotiated process
where the city determines the uplift value and then works with the developer on a community benefit
that is commensurate with the value of the uplift. Typically, developers and staff work with Ward
members on benefits that are needed in a particular ward of the city. The final product is an enforceable
agreement between the city and developer.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Ottawa)
Is the program working the way you envisioned, when was it implemented?
Yes. There are significant community benefits that have been realized in conjunction with permitted
increases in height and density (that prior to this program, were being approved anyways, as they
represented good planning).
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
This is referenced in the guidelines, but in a nutshell, here are the steps:
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 308 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
30
• Planners and applicants determine if the project is big enough to trigger a Section 37
contribution
• planners work directly with applicants to agree on what the uplift value is (the difference
between permitted and proposed floor area times the uplift value rate/square metre)
• there is then negotiation to determine “draw down” factors of the proposal, or things that
are Section 37 like in nature that warrant a reduction in the actual Section 37 contribution
• a value is agreed upon for the Section 37
• the Ward Councillor determines which project they would like the Section 37 funds
allocated towards
• these details form part of the zoning by-law that is recommended to Council for approval
Here is what has been constructed to date through Section 37/Section 41 contributions:
- The Hickory Street Pedestrian Bridge
- Jack Purcell Park improvements
Here is what we have received funds towards:
- Ward 14 affordable housing
- Ward 14 streetscaping improvements
- Traffic calming measures in the Civic Hospital Neighbourhood
- Nanny Goat Hill Community Garden
Here is what we are still anticipating funds for:
- Rear lane improvements
- Public art
- Ward 14 streetscaping Improvements
- A community fund for the Tom Brown Arena
- Sir Wilfred Laurier Park improvements
- Jules Morin Park improvements
- MacDonald Gardens Park improvements
- Ward 12 streetscaping improvements
- Beacon Hill Community Centre improvements
- Ken Steele Park improvements
- Eugine Forsey Park improvements
- Dalhousie South Park improvements
- Ward 15 affordable housing
- Lions Park Puddle Rink Infrastructure
- Ward 15 Cycling improvements
This does not include Section 37 draw down elements that were accomplished on site (such as on-site
new public parks), which would be captured through Site Plan Agreement conditions, but the above are
financial contributions towards off-site improvements. We have taken in a total of $3,780,102 towards
off-site benefits, and there is a total of $9,587,524 committed through zoning approvals and in various
stages.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 309 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
31
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
They were, of course, not receptive to having to contribute a portion of their development
proceeds. However, we have learned that the biggest concern from the development industry is
fairness, so once the guidelines were established, they have generally become accepted as part of the
development process.
What is the ease of administering the program?
I am the Section 37 co-ordinator, in addition to being a Senior planner in the Central Area. Section 37
administering takes up probably only 5% of my time, but we have staff in legal, and finance who are also
involved in tracking projects, writing agreements, etc.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything else that
we should be thinking about with our study?
There are many municipalities that are administering similar programs. Toronto was the city that we
initially modelled our program after. Be aware that members of the public may view this as a form of
bribery, cash in exchange for bigger projects. However, we feel that good planning with increased
height and density was being approved previously and the Section 37 program allows the community to
receive directly related beneficial projects where the city doesn’t have the money to proceed with them
without the program.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 310 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
32
Community Benefits (City of Ottawa)
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Public cultural facilities Negotiated
Building design and public art Negotiated
Conservation of heritage resources Negotiated
Conservation/replacement of rental
housing
Negotiated
Provision of new affordable housing
units; land for affordable housing or
cash in-lieu (applicant discretion)
Negotiated
Child care facilities Negotiated
Improvement to rapid transit stations Negotiated
Local improvements as identified in
community design plans, community
improvement plans, capital budgets
etc.
Negotiated
Artist live-work studios Negotiated
Energy conservation and
environmental performance
measures
Negotiated
Conservation of existing greenspace
or creation of new greenspace
Negotiated
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 311 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
33
Case Study 7
City of Palo Alto, CA: Public Benefits through Planned
Community Zoning
Program Summary
A property owner or developer can request their property be re-designated to the Planned Community
(PC) zoning district. This is typically done as a way to seek approval of desired uses and site-specific
development standards, but in exchange, the property owner or developer must provide a “public
benefit” that serves the greater community. While the PC zoning remains in Palo Alto’s zoning code, the
local Council has in fact put a de-facto moratorium on the PC zone district and it’s s no longer an option
for applicants at this time.
Reform Efforts
Many view the PC process as too opaque and lacking of standards. Others criticize it as too
transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that accrue to those outside
the immediate vicinity. Concerns have been raised about overuse of the PC process and proliferation of
buildings that do not comply with underlying zoning. Concerns have also been raised about the
inadequacy of the public benefits. Finally, the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation has
contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future. As
a result, the Council has eliminated the PC zoning district as a development option they are willing to
consider, creating a de facto moratorium for the PC zone districts.
Since the early 1950’s the City of Palo Alto has been using PC Zoning to enable the use of particular
properties in a manner not specifically addressed in the City’s zoning districts. The use of PC Zoning has
allowed the community to be responsive to the opportunities presented by quickly changing needs and
values. Examples of this flexibility include mixed residential and commercial development, pre-zoning of
properties annexed to the city, and the desire to retain certain specific neighborhood strengthening land
uses such as grocery stores.
Regarding housing, a study of the city regulations and market climate has concluded that “oftentimes
the density of an affordable housing project needs to be more than the base zoning in order to be
financially feasible. This is especially true in communities such as Palo Alto that have robust design
guidelines.”
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 312 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
34
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Palo Alto)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Density over base
maximum
Dependent on zoning
district
The city shall grant a 20 percent (20%)
density bonus when an applicant for a
development of five (5) or more dwelling
units seeks and agrees to construct at least
any one of the following in accordance with
the requirements of this Section and
Government Code Section 65915:
(i) At least 10 percent (10%) of the
total dwelling units of the development as
restricted affordable units affordable to
lower income households. For each one
percent (1%) increase in the percentage of
restricted lower income units, a
development will receive an additional one
and one-half percent (1.5%) density bonus
up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the
maximum residential density; or
(ii) At least five percent (5%) of the
total dwelling units of the development as
restricted affordable units affordable to
very low income households. For each one
percent (1%) increase in the percentage of
restricted very low income units, a
development will receive an additional two
and one-half percent (2.5%) density bonus
up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the
maximum residential density; or
(iii) A senior citizen housing
development; or
(iv) A qualifying mobile home park; or
Request to rezone to
Planned Community zoning
See findings in “Approval Process” below.
Approval Process (City of Palo Alto)
An application for rezoning to a PC district can be submitted for any type of project for any given zone or
area in the City as long as it follows the city’s application process. In practice, the City has recently
added a number of additional procedural steps, including an early check-in with the City Council prior to
initiation of a PC project by the PTC, and more recently, the City Manager directed that PC’s have an
independent third party assessment of value and benefit. The zoning code includes a requirement that,
“development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public
benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts.” As stated, the process has received criticism for its unpredictability and a system that may not
adequately economically weigh public benefits against the zoning.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 313 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
35
The following findings must be made to establish a PC zoning district:
(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that
the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed development.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in
public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or
combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission
and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from
use of the planned community district.
(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district
shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing
and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
Requests for density bonuses for affordable housing or childcare facilities are reviewed separate from
the PC rezoning process.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Palo Alto)
Is the program working the way you envisioned? Based on our brief phone call - No. The city council
has in fact created a de facto moratorium of the PC zoning, as the system was too opaque and
inconsistent in its application and in the benefits produced. The community has not been in support of
PC zoning either.
Correct. While I was not working for the City of Palo Alto at the time, I think blogs such as this reflect
some of the feelings being expressed by more outspoken residents regarding the PC process (note that
this is one-sided view so the described benefits in this article may or may not be the complete facts).
This article provides some basic background about the PC process within the City and the decision by
Council to implement a moratorium because it was not working entirely as envisioned.
What were/are the issues with PC zoning, when was the decision made to no longer consider the PC
zoning, and any plans going forward to revise/replace the PC zoning?
The issue was that people felt that the benefit to developers exceeded the benefit obtained by the
public. The decision was made in October 2014 to place a moratorium on the PC process but NOT to
scrap the code section. While they discussed fixing it, that is not currently a priority for Council.
However, I will note that it seemed like one key concern in getting rid of/putting a moratorium on PC
Zoning was the fact that it allowed for increased density for residential projects, particularly affordable
projects. As I’m sure you are well aware that housing is one of our key issues both in California and more
particularly in the Bay Area, we did include in the Housing Element text that stated the following:
“If the PC code is removed, the City will replace the PC zone with another mechanism that would
provide the same affordable housing opportunities. A possible substitute or mechanism could be
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 314 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
36
an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). The AHO could be designated in areas identified as
appropriate for affordable housing projects. If a developer chooses to develop within the AHO,
the developer could receive incentives or additional benefits such as greater density and other
modifications to encourage affordable housing development.” (Housing Element p. 109)
This year we passed code amendments adding two new Combining Districts (the affordable housing
combining district and the workforce housing combining district) in an effort to create incentives for
housing projects in transit-oriented areas. The way we have designed these for our purposes is that the
applicant still needs to request a rezoning of their property to add the combining district as an overlay to
their site, which in turn allows them to use the development standards of that overlay. This gives less
flexibility than a PC obviously but allows for increased GFA, higher density, or whatever other benefits
you may be looking to offer while still giving the Planning Commission and/or Council the authority to
determine whether that site would be an appropriate location for those incentives.
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
There were approximately 100 developments that used the PC process. The final PC that was approved
by Council was actually added to a referendum and, through an election process, was overturned. This,
in conjunction with several other large PC’s that were in process at the time caused enough of a stir for
our Planning Commission and Council to reconsider the PC process. So with the caveat that there were
several good projects (affordable housing in particular) that were approved through this process, the
general feeling at the time was that the process needed improvements.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives? The public?
My understanding is that there were a number of large projects seeking to rezone to PC, so generally I
think they were very receptive. The public, it seems, felt that they were not getting sufficient benefits
that were equivalent to the benefits that the developer received.
What is/was the ease of administering the program?
N/A
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
See additional info above. It seems that at some point there will be direction from Council to come
forward with amendments to improve the process. It seems as though the biggest issue would be to
resolve what determines the adequacy of the public benefit being offered/approved and how we better
enforce the full retention of those benefits to the public once constructed.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 315 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
37
Community Benefits (City of Palo Alto)
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Below market rate
housing units
The city shall grant a 20 percent (20%) density bonus
when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more
dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least any
one of the following in accordance with the requirements
of this Section and Government Code Section 65915:
(i) At least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units
of the development as restricted affordable units
affordable to lower income households. For each one
percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted
lower income units, a development will receive an
additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) density bonus
up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential
density; or
(ii) At least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling
units of the development as restricted affordable units
affordable to very low income households. For each one
percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted very
low income units, a development will receive an additional
two and one-half percent (2.5%) density bonus up to
thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential
density; or
(iii) A senior citizen housing development; or
(iv) A qualifying mobile home park.
Senior Housing Same as above
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 316 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
38
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Childcare Facilities All grant either:
(i) An additional density bonus that is an amount of
square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater
than the square footage of the child care facility; or
(ii) An additional concession or incentive that
contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the
construction of the child care facility.
(b) The city shall require, as a condition of approving the
development, that the following occur:
(i) The child care facility shall remain in operation for
a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period
of time during which the restricted affordable units are
required to remain affordable pursuant to Section
18.15.040. In the event the childcare operations cease to
exist, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment may approve an alternative community
service use for the child care facility.
(ii) Of the children who attend the child care facility,
the children of very low, lower and moderate income
households shall equal a percentage that is equal to or
greater than the percentage of restricted affordable units
in the development that are required for very low, lower
and moderate income households pursuant to Section
18.15.030.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) above, the
city shall not be required to provide a density bonus or a
concession or incentive for a child care facility if it finds,
based upon substantial evidence, that the community has
adequate child care facilities.
Pedestrian Oriented
landscaping
Negotiated
Various kinds of public
parking
Negotiated
Public Art Negotiated
Annexations Negotiated
Donations including for
housing, parking,
childcare trust fund, an
endowment, finance
benefits to residents of
the project
Negotiated
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 317 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
39
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Historic Preservation Same
Land uses including
public storage, grocery
store (4), emergency
veterinary services
Same
Public access including
sidewalks
Same
Other Requirements
Less frequently accepted public benefits were:
• Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations
• Senior Health Care
• Dwelling units
• Commercial Display Pads
• Traffic Impact Fee
• Right-of-way dedications/public street
• Street lights
• Child care facility
• Park land dedication
• Sales tax from additional hotel rooms
• Eliminating land use conflicts
• Improve traffic flow and TDM
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 318 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
40
Case Study 8
City of Redwood City, CA: Partnership Redwood City
Program Summary
The City has recently initiated a community program called “Partnership Redwood City.” This program is
intended to find new and creative ways to form working relationships within the community to achieve
City goals such as improved transportation systems, parks, schools, and affordable housing for the
community. The City’s partners include Redwood City businesses, community groups and residents, and
developers and property owners. In early 2014, Council directed staff to begin a community benefits
study related to new development, which would be one aspect of the “Partnership Redwood City”
program. The study purpose included identifying potential incentives and benefits for developers and
property owners to achieve their goals of developing their property, while also achieving broader
community goals identified by residents and other community members.
The “Community Benefits” Program framework involves three major prongs:
1. Updated Development Fees and Development Requirements (City-Wide)
2. Onsite Community Improvements Incentives (Plan/Zoning Based)
3. Community Fund Incentives (Plan Based)
1. Updated Development Fees and Requirements (City-wide)
In order for a city to adopt any development fee, a “nexus” for the fee must be established. In other
words, the fee can only imposed to offset a direct impact of a development. The nexus for fees are
typically established as a result of an economic study. Currently the Partnership Redwood City collects
the following impact fees to support the respective community benefit: Affordable Housing, Public Art ,
Park Impact Fee, Transportation and Parking , and Parks Impact Fee.
2. Precise Plans with incentives “Onsite Community Improvements”: Much of the City’s existing and
future development is expected in concentrated areas near Downtown, El Camino Real or East of
the 101. These areas have area-specific plans or zoning requirements that govern development,
including any additional community benefits that are needed in those areas.
A. Inner Harbor Precise Plan This plan will have an integrated program of Community Benefits.
Adoption is expected in Summer 2015.
B. El Camino Real Corridor Plan This proposed plan could have a variety of community benefit
requirements. Start of work is expected in Spring 2015, with project continuing through Spring
2016.
C. Downtown Precise Plan Phase 2 Phase 2 of this plan would have an integrated development
“tier” system that would require higher levels of community benefits based on development
intensities. Timeline not yet determined.
3. Community Fund
During the process of creating the Partnership Redwood City program, various programs and needs
were identified that needed support but did not fall within an impact fee or “onsite community
improvement” framework. The Council saw the opportunity to fund these programs via Partnership
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 319 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
41
Redwood City. To date, six developments have contributed to the Community Fund, paid in-lieu fees or
provided other monetary contributions directly to local non-profit organizations totaling more than
$27,350,000 through the Partnership Redwood City Program. The Community Fund has received $4
million dollars to date. Later this year, the City Council will establish policies and guidelines for the
distribution of the funds in the Community Fund. Examples of programs the community would like to
see funded include: Afterschool Programs, Bike Share Program, Community Facilities, Community
Projects, Community and Arts Events, Job Training and Apprentice Programs, Education Foundation,
Façade Improvements, Recreation Programs and Community Wide Shuttle services. These community
priorities could be funded through the establishment of a Community Funds.
Similar to onsite community improvements, a developer is only able to maximize the zoning potential
when they make contributions to the community funds. Funds are typically received through
development agreements and other mechanisms.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Redwood City)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
New building square footage in
the Community Benefit
Improvement District
New Affordable or senior
housing
Height above 4 stories 4 stories/50 feet 6 stories/85 feet
Conversion of apartments to
condominiums in Gateway
areas
125 foot height bonus
Approval Process (City of Redwood City)
Redwood City uses the term Maximum Allowable Development (MAD), which is determined by the
underlying zoning or in the case of Downtown, a Precise Plan, which is a hybrid of zoning and area plan
for the downtown. City Council is required to be notified when any development is 80% of the MAD.
Different requirements are implemented through the development review process dependent on where
the project is located.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Redwood City)
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
Generally, yes. But important to remember we don’t want to cost burden the developer with so many
additional requirements, that the incurred cost prevents the development from happening at all.
Benefits should be realistic and attainable. Some of the educational benefits take an inordinate amount
of staff time implementing and tracking them. Reasonable bonus menu options would be ideal to
provide certainty and clarity to the development community. Should also acknowledge that the positive
economic impact of a given project is a community benefit in-and-of itself.
We are currently without a permanent manager of the Partnership, and are not able to provide more
detailed information on the program at this time.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 320 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
42
Community Benefits (City of Redwood City)
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Permanently affordable or senior
housing
A minimum of 5 units and agree to a
“specified percentage” of affordable or senior
housing can permit at least 25% density bonus
Permanently moderately
affordable housing
At least 20% of units in a condominium
project are reserved for moderate-income
households can permit a 10% density bonus
Specified design and development
features in certain zoning districts
Bonus floor area ratio to encourage
development along specific corridors
Electronic equipment facilities 30% floor area ratio bonus Upper floor
setbacks
from
adjacent
streets and
Redwood
Creek
Mixed-Use development with
ground floor retail or restaurants,
open space, new streets
Height bonus Stringent
step down
requirements
by residential
Conversion of apartments to
condos in Gateway areas
Allows up to a 125 feet height bonus
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 321 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
43
Case Study 9
City of Santa Monica, CA: Community Benefit Program & Land
Use and Conservation Element
Program Summary
Santa Monica has done extensive research on community benefit. A white paper entitled Community
Benefits and Incentives raises many issues that are relevant to the city of Boulder. Their zoning code
includes a specific section on community benefit.
To attain community benefit, Santa Monica has implemented a Land Use and Conservation Element
(LUCE), which establishes three approval tiers or procedural tracks to regulate development that are
tied to the type, location, and level of development. The tiers provide for administrative (staff level) or
by-right approval of projects that meet all applicable requirements and do not exceed the base
standards and two discretionary tiers, both of which require applicants to provide community benefits
in order to receive approval to increase the project’s height and/or floor area.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Santa Monica)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Floor Area Ratio,
or building
height, or
density increase
per zone) – e.g.,
1.25, 1.5 FAR, 2
stories, or 2,000
parcel area
square feet per
unit
Tier 1 Base Standard:
Multi Unit Residential Districts:
Varies by district: generally 2 – 3
stories and 30 feet height; Min.
parcel size per unit : 1,250-2,000
square feet
Commercial and Mixed Use
Corridor Districts: Varies by
district: generally 1 - 1.25 FAR,
2 stories and up-to 32 feet
height; Max. Building footprint:
10,000 - 25,000 square feet
Employment Districts: Varies by
district: generally 1 - 1.5 FAR, 2 -
3 stories and 32 - 45 feet height
Oceanfront District: generally .5
- 1.5 FAR, 2 stories and 23 - 32
feet height
Tier 2 with provision of Community Benefits
Multi Unit Residential Districts: Varies by
district: 1 additional story and up-to 45 total
feet in height; Min. parcel size per unit: down-
to 900 square feet
Commercial and Mixed Use Corridor Districts:
Varies by district: generally 1.5 – 2.25 FAR
(FAR up-to 2.75 available if providing 100%
affordable housing), no limit to stories and
up-to 50 feet height; Max. building footprint:
15,000 - 35,000 square feet
Employment Districts: Varies by district:
generally 1.75 – 2.5 FAR (additional FAR
available if providing 100% affordable
housing), 3 - 5 stories and 45 - 70 feet height
(additional stories only available if providing
100% affordable housing)
Oceanfront District: 2.0 FAR (FAR up-to 2.25
available if providing 100% affordable
housing), 3 stories and up-to 47 feet height
(additional stories only available if providing
100% affordable housing)
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 322 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
44
Approval Process (City of Santa Monica)
A core principle underlying Santa Monica’s 2010 LUCE is the importance of ensuring that medium- and
larger-sized development will provide benefits to the community through a "Tier" structure of project
review.
Tier 1 - allows smaller buildings through ministerial (staff-level) review,
Tier 2 - requires community benefits and allows medium-sized buildings with Planning
Commission review, and
Tier 3 - requires additional community benefits and allows the largest size of development
through a City Council-reviewed Development Agreement.
Projects eligible for Tier 2 will typically be subject to a Conditional Use Permit while Tier 3 projects
require the developer to enter into a development agreement with the City. In most commercial areas
of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions of Lincoln and Santa
Monica Boulevards, Tier 1 allows buildings up to 32 feet (two stories) through a ministerial process (i.e.
by right). The maximum FAR varies from 1.25 to 1.5 depending on the area. (See LUCE pp. 2.133 to 2.1-
39) Projects that include affordable housing on-site in compliance with the City’s existing Affordable
Housing Production Program or within close proximity to transit corridors are eligible for a four- to
seven-foot height bonus, allowing for an additional floor of housing.
Under Tier 2 procedures, projects may request building heights up to 60 feet and up to 3.0 FAR
(depending on the area and the amount of housing provided) if they provide community benefits
subject to discretionary review. Applicants that propose heights or floor area ratios that exceed the Tier
2 standards must also provide additional benefits that are established in a development agreement that
is negotiated through a process the City establishes subject to State and local law. Several land use
designations have a lower base height (Tier 1), a lower maximum height for Tier 2, and no Tier 3 with
some specific exceptions.
The city of Santa Monica also uses in-lieu fees and case-by-case negotiation through development
agreements to achieve community benefits for the city.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Santa Monica)
Is the program working the way you envisioned, when was it implemented?
The new regulatory tiered system was adopted in 2015. Yes, it’s resulting as envisioned thus far,
providing more predictability and certainty for the public and the development community.
Is there a 3rd Tier in effect?
Yes, the 3rd Tier exists as an option for limited areas of the city, such as Bergamot Station. It is a
negotiated community benefit. 3rd Tier projects must be consistent with the applicable land use policies
and plans and implement their goals. This includes areas where nexus studies have been completed that
support the corresponding community benefit requirements (for Tier 2 as well).
Have any projects used the program? If so, how does the process work and is it working well?
Approximately 15-20 projects have used the regulatory (tiered) system community benefit system. The
majority of development projects in Santa Monica are residential developments, thus affordable
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 323 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
45
housing has been the primary community benefit provided by these projects. The community benefit
review is integrated into the project review process. All community benefit projects require Planning
Commission approval, although the Tier 2 community benefit review is simply perfunctory.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
So far they are open to them - affordable housing bonus requirements are reasonable and the
development community readily utilizes them. Given the Santa Monica market, the city can require 20%
additional on-site affordable units without issue within the regulatory Tier 2 system. Affordable housing
is the top incentive being utilized along with the augmented fees.
What is the ease of administering the program?
Integrated into the development review process, relatively straightforward. The city, department and
other officials recognize that the regulatory tiered system is a tradeoff, accepting that it’s not perfect
(but no system is), but allows regulatory, community benefit, and economic simplicity that is readily
implemented. The regulatory program was based on porotypes of what was feasible, versus a perfect
(but impractical) solution based on a pro-forma for every site and development application.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
Coming from a system where decision-makers are used to negotiating for every benefit on a case-by-
case basis, there was a little initial discomfort with knowing if the city got enough with development
projects. Planning thus encourages decision makers that it should be looked at through the lens of
implementing the policies, plans and goals of the city, rather than extracting as much as the city can for
development on a case by case basis. The regulatory approach provides more predictability for the city,
the public and the development community. Community benefit programs should be prioritized based
on the primary goals of the city’s policies and plans, and should be upfront on the policies and
overarching goals the program is implementing.
Community Benefits (City of Santa Monica)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Affordable & Workforce
Housing
-At least 50% more affordable housing than
state density bonus amount
-On-site affordable to 30%, 50% or 80% AMI
households
-May be off-site
-On-site requires a
specific unit mix
Applicants proposing
non-residential and
mixed-use projects
shall pay a housing
mitigation fee 14
percent above the base
Affordable Housing fee
Trip Reduction & Traffic
Management
-Non-residential projects must pay for 75% the
cost of a regional transit pass and provide free
bike valet
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 324 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
46
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Residential projects must 75% the cost of a
regional transit pass and provide free on-site
bike share
Transportation Impact
Fee
-Tier 2 projects must pay 14% above the base
Transportation Impact fee
Open Space -Tier 2 projects must pay 14% above the base
Open Space Fee (OSF), or provide publicly
accessible open space that complies with
requirements of the ordinance
7,500 square foot
minimum, and other
size, function, design
and operation
requirements.
Community Physical
Improvements; childcare
Tier 3
Social and Cultural
Facilities
Same as above Tier 3; negotiated
Historic Preservation Same as above Tier 3; negotiated
Other Requirements
In lieu fees - The City of Santa Monica also accepts in-lieu fees for community benefits. The city places an
emphasis on supporting affordable housing, childcare, park space, and the arts and existing regulatory
fees reflect this emphasis. These fees are intended to mitigate the impacts of certain development
projects, to require private development to provide specific community benefits, and to provide
incentives for specific types of development in addition to the incentives for building affordable housing
available under State law. The childcare linkage fee (SMC Section 9.72.040) was enacted under the MFA
but the general and medical office fee predates the State law. The office fee program, applicable to
projects that include more that 15,000 square feet of new general or medical office development or
more than 10,000 square feet of additions to existing development, require developers to pay impact
fees or provide low and moderate-income housing or new park space (SMMC Part 9.04.10.12). The City
also imposes a transportation management fee (SMC Sections 9.16.050), which will be incorporated in
an expanded multimodal transportation impact fee on new development under the LUCE.
Development Agreements and Community Benefits - To a greater extent than many other California
cities, Santa Monica uses development agreements for larger projects and proposes to continue to do so
under the LUCE to negotiate optimal community benefits. The major advantage of the development
agreement process is that is flexible. It allows for a broad range of potential benefits that are relevant
for the site and district, and permits both the applicant and the City to ask for specific benefits or
bonuses that meets both parties’ objectives and are not subject to the same constraints applicable to
quasi-judicial actions. On the other hand, the process is time-consuming and subject to case-by-case
negotiation.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 325 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
47
Case Study 10
City of Santa Barbara, CA: Community Benefit Projects and
Average Unit-Size Density Program
Program Summary
The City of Santa Barbara’s Nonresidential Growth Management Program ordinance was adopted in
2013, out of the 2011 General Plan update and the city’s original 1989 requirement that strictly limited
new development square footage over time. The new ordinance limits non-residential construction
projects to 1.35 million square feet through 2033, allocating 600,000 for Community Benefit Projects
eligible in the Downtown and Airport Development Areas of the city. Applicants may request approval of
a “Community Benefit Project” (defined below) in order to use the square footage allocation available
for redevelopment (as opposed to small building additions up to 2,000 SF, or vacant property). The
allowable 1.5 million SF floor area is allocated from the following categories:
• Community Benefit 600,000 SF
• Small Addition Floor Area 400,000 SF
• Vacant Property 350,000 SF
A project which has been designated by the City Council as satisfying one or more of the following
categories is a Community Benefit Project:
1. Community Priority Project. A project which has been designated by the City Council as
satisfying one or more of the following categories is a Community Benefit Project: 1.
Community Priority Project. A Community Priority Project is a project that has a broad public
benefit, is not principally operated for private profit, and is necessary to meet a present or
projected need directly related to public health, safety or general welfare (e.g., museums,
childcare facilities, health clinics).
2. Economic Development Project. An Economic Development Project is a project that is
consistent with the City Charter, General Plan and this Title, will enhance the standard of
living for City and South Coast residents, and will strengthen the local or regional economy
by either creating new permanent employment opportunities or enhancing the City's
revenue base. An Economic Development Project should also accomplish one or more of the
following:
a. Support diversity and balance in the local or regional economy by establishing or
expanding businesses or industries in sectors which currently do not exist on the South
Coast or are present only in a limited manner; or
b. Provide new recreational, educational, or cultural opportunities for City residents and
visitors; or
c. Provide products or services which are currently not available or are in limited supply
either locally or regionally; or
d. Support a small and local business in the Santa Barbara community which is being
started, maintained, relocated, redeveloped or expanded.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 326 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
48
For purposes of this Section, "standard of living" is defined as wages, employment,
environment, resources, public safety, housing, schools, parks and recreation, social and
human services, and cultural arts.
3. Planned Development – New Automobile Sales Project. A Planned Development – New
Automobile Sales Project is a project within a Planned Development zone that proposes a
project involving new automobile sales, rental and leasing as allowed in Chapter 28.39 of
this Code. (Automobile Sale projects are included as a community benefit as they are
responsible for a large amount of the city’s sales tax revenue)
The City of Santa Barbara also has a unique housing bonus for projects by allowing increased density in
exchange for smaller sized multi-family units. An Average Unit-Size Density Ordinance (AUD) was
adopted in 2013 and carries out a key implementation action of the 2011 General Plan. The AUD
incentive program allows for increased density in exchange for providing smaller rental housing units,
that in theory, are then priced at workforce housing rates. The program is set for an eight year trial
period or until 250 units have been constructed. Projects with very-low or low income housing are not
included as part of the AUD program.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Santa Barbara)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Non-Residential Community
Benefit Program: Any
redevelopment adding more
than 2,000 square feet, or
wholesale redevelopment of an
existing building, or transfer of
development rights
Static development/existing
footprint
Development and allocation of
square footage to allow
redevelopment up to the base
zoning maximums.
Average Unit-Size Density (AUD)
Incentive Program projects:
Density over the base zoning -
dwelling units per acre
12 DU/acre Medium - High Density Tier:
15-27 du/acre
High Density Tier:
28-36 du/acre
Priority Housing Overlay:
37-63 du/acre
Approval Process (City of Santa Barbara)
Projects are subject to Planning Commission review of a Development Plan and approval by the
Architectural Review Board, and must meet the following criteria:
1. Demonstrated Need. The applicant has adequately demonstrated a need for the project to
exceed 45 feet in height that is related to the project’s benefit to the community, or due to site
constraints, or in order to achieve desired architectural qualities;
2. Architecture and Design. The project will be exemplary in its design;
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 327 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
49
3. Livability. If the project includes residential units, the project will provide amenities to its
residents which ensure the livability of the project with particular attention to good interior
design features such as the amount of light and air, or ceiling plate heights; and
4. Sensitivity to Context. The project design will complement the setting and the character of the
neighboring properties with sensitivity to any adjacent federal, state, and City Landmarks or any
nearby designated Historic Resources, including City-designated Structures of Merit.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Santa Barbara)
Is the program working the way you envisioned, when was it implemented?
Yes, the AUD program is successful in terms of providing housing affordable to the income levels it was
intended to serve (“workforce housing” is defined in the General Plan as Middle to Upper Middle
income households (120-200% of the AMI). The majority of the projects being proposed and constructed
today are residential projects at higher densities allowed by the AUD program. The non-residential
community benefits program works for regulating growth and has been successful by providing some
economic development and maintaining the City’s sale tax revenue source from automobile sales.
In 1989 the City originally had an ordinance in place that limited the amount of new non-residential
square footage that would be allocated over a 20 year horizon for new development. The original
program allowed additional square footage allocations as an incentive for community-based uses, such
as non-profits and local neighborhood uses. The program was extended and expanded in 2013,
implementing key actions in the 2011 General Plan. The new program added an economic development
allocation that included a new automobile sales category to the non-residential growth management
program.
Importantly it also created a new program for the creation of residential workforce housing - Average
Unit-Size Density Incentive Program (AUD). The AUD program created 3 tiers of density: medium-high,
high, and a priority housing overlay. A residential project using the priority housing overlay program
provides reduced sized workforce rental housing in perpetuity (or Employer Housing and CO-OP housing
also qualifies) – and then has the ability to build at the highest density allowed (63 du/ac) in certain
multi-family and commercial zones. An additional bonus for all AUD developments is an allowed
reduction in parking. Parking is reduced to only one space per unit. There has been some push back on
the parking reduction recently from people concerned about street parking capacity, so Council directed
staff to amend the code to require units with three or more bedrooms be required to have two spaces
on-site if located in areas outside the downtown core. Another amendment being worked on is to make
sure the AUD units cannot be converted to short-term vacation rentals in the future.
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Within the AUD program 89 units have been constructed in the High Density/Priority Overlay and 22
units within the Medium-High Density tier. An additional 270 or so units have been approved but not
built at this time. The AUD program and housing are major priorities for the city. The process has
worked well, though a housing task force was established to study amendments to the ordinance to
focus on getting inclusionary housing units in larger projects that use the incentive program.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 328 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
50
Projects that demonstrate they are a “Community Benefit Housing” in the C-G, Commercial General and
M-C, Manufacturing Commercial zones can propose to exceed 45’ to get to 60’ max. building height, but
have to meet specific conditions (30.140.100.B) and receive Planning Commission approval. Height
continues to be a very big issue with residents of the City, and make public hearing interesting.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Applicants have been very receptive to the incentive programs, more than the City could have
anticipated. The City is taking a step back now to consider how to leverage the AUD program to gain
affordable units, rather than simply work-force housing that is still priced at upper-middle incomes.
What is the ease of administering the program?
With the new incentive programs in 2013, there was concern from the Design Review Board that
projects were introducing land use issues and needed additional review. Thus, a policy decision was
implemented for the AUD program that any project on a lot over 15,000 SF in the high -density tier or
priority overlay requires Planning Commission review for consistency with broad planning goals and
compatibility. But the Planning Commission does not have the authority to approve or disapprove a
project, they only provide comments. Ultimately, the Design Review Board makes the final decision. The
review process can be lengthy and cumbersome for projects. Pre-submittals meetings are encouraged
and require an initial review by the Design Board. A project then goes to the Planning Commission for
additional comments and feedback, before going back to the Design Review Board for consideration and
a decision. The approval process is discretionary, as they can still deny a project it it’s not compatible
with the planning goals or the neighborhood. While the program has been successful, administering it
consumes a majority of staff’s times and resources.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
We’ve been surprised at how successful the program has been, and the development community’s use
of it, since we had not seen market-rate rental housing projects in the community in over 40 years. The
most difficult challenge is the back and forth review steps between the Design Review Board and the
Planning Commission. Ideally, the review process could be streamlined to either give the Planning
Commission the approval authority, or simply run the process through the Design Review Board as they
currently exercise the decision-making authority for the program. Per recent discussion at City Council,
the City is also looking to consider allowing increased residential density in the downtown core, and
especially along State Street, with a potential reduction in parking requirements. This is an area that
was primarily retail. The City has had many vacancies in the last couple of years and some in the
community and on the Council want this area to be incentivized to more of a mixed-use corridor
through AUD amendments
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 329 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
51
Community Benefits (City of Santa Barbara)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Workforce rental housing
Average Unit-Size Density
incentive program (AUD)
Reduced Residential Unit Size
Medium - High Density Tier:
905 to 1,450 SF - depending on
number of units per acre being
developed
High Density Tier:
970 to 1,245 SF - depending on
number of units per acre being
developed
Priority Housing Overlay:
811 to 970 SF - depending on
number of units per acre being
developed
Must meet criteria related to 1)
Demonstrated Need for Project; 2)
Exemplary Design; 3) Livability, and
4) Sensitivity to Context
Final Approval is still discretionary
based on additional criteria
Community Priority
Project (e.g. museums,
child care facilities, health
clinics)
Non-Residential Growth
Management Program
Negotiated
Must meet criteria related to 1)
Demonstrated Need for Project; 2)
Exemplary Design; 3) Livability, and
4) Sensitivity to Context
Economic Development
Project
Non-Residential Growth
Management Program
Negotiated
Must meet criteria related to 1)
Demonstrated Need for Project; 2)
Exemplary Design; 3) Livability, and
4) Sensitivity to Context ; and
Must meet at least one of the
following:
a. Support diversity and balance in
the local or regional economy; or
b. Provide new recreational,
educational, or cultural
opportunities for City residents and
visitors; or
c. Provide products or services
which are currently not available or
are in limited supply either locally
or regionally; or
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 330 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
52
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
d. Support a small and local
business in the Santa Barbara
community which is being started,
maintained, relocated,
redeveloped or expanded.
Planned Development -
New Automobile Sales
Project
Non-Residential Growth
Management Program
Negotiated
Must meet criteria related to 1)
Demonstrated Need for Project; 2)
Exemplary Design; 3) Livability, and
4) Sensitivity to Context ; and
Must be located within a Planned
Development Zone that proposes a
project involving new automobile
sales, rental and leasing.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 331 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
53
Case Study 11
City of Seattle, WA: Program for Green Building and Affordable
Housing
Program Summary
The City of Seattle allows bonus building intensity and height for both commercial and residential
buildings in exchange for LEED certification (or equivalent), affordable housing, child care, and other
amenities. To receive the first bonus increment of FAR above the base, developers must achieve LEED
Silver certification (although this is will soon be a base requirement). To receive the second bonus
increment of FAR for commercial developments, applicants must participate in a combination
bonus/TDR option: 75 percent of the additional floor area must be earned through affordable
housing/child care options, and the remaining 25 percent through other menu options. For residential
buildings, the next increment of building height may be obtained through the provision of affordable
housing or in lieu fees (although the latter is only an option for residential buildings over 85 feet).
Seattle is also currently exploring allowing FAR bonuses and height additions in exchange for art and
cultural spaces and rooftop cultural spaces and streamlined permitting for cultural space projects. This
can be reviewed in a report entitled the CAP Report: 30 Ideas for the Creation, Activation & Preservation
of Cultural Space.
Seattle’s Office of Planning & Community Development (OPCD) is currently proposing to update the
existing Incentive Zoning program. Incentive zoning is a tool that allows new development in certain
areas to voluntarily achieve extra floor area in exchange for providing certain public benefits. Incentive
Zoning is one way that the City ensures that new development contributes to infrastructure investments
in growing neighborhoods.
OPCD released an initial draft proposal for updating the program in May 2018. They are receiving
feedback on the proposal through fall of 2018 and anticipate finalizing the legislation and sending it to
their City Council for their consideration in mid-2019.
OPCD Incentive Zoning Project Goals
Incentive zoning has been implemented piecemeal in different zones and geographic areas over the last
20 years with significant expansions in the last 5 years. Consequently, specific standards and processes
vary substantially by zone and location. As a result, incentive zoning is confusing for potential users and
difficult to administer. It also means that some provisions may not be achieving their stated goals.
The goal of the update is to:
• create a clear and consistent program;
• achieve better outcomes in the public benefits provided; and
• improve the City's permitting, tracking, and enforcement processes.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 332 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
54
The City is not proposing to implement incentive zoning in any additional geographic areas or change
the amount of extra floor area that can be achieved in any zone as part of this update. OPCD anticipates
submitting legislation to City Council for consideration in mid-2019. This legislation would change the
standards that would apply to new development proposing to achieve extra floor area through incentive
zoning.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Seattle)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Residential floor area above the
base height and/or base floor
area ratio (FAR) may be
achieved as an incentive to
provide for affordable housing.
Above base FAR & 85 feet 290 feet
Commercial floor area above
the base floor area ratio (FAR)
may be achieved as an incentive
to provide for affordable
housing and childcare facilities.
Above base FAR & 85 feet 290 feet
Above 290 feet downtown
requires LEED Certification
Above 290 feet 400 feet
Approval Process (City of Seattle)
The bonus program is implemented through a development review process, which authorizes
the Director of the Office of Housing to accept and execute a covenant as a condition of
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. In practice, applicants have only achieved
bonuses through the payment of in-lieu fees. The City is considering ways to prioritize the
production of affordable housing over in-lieu payments. In addition, the applicability of
different requirements and priorities to various locations and districts in the City has proven to
be onerous for staff and complicated for applicants. The City is looking to consolidate the
program into one set of provisions.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Seattle)
How’s the update process going with the program, and what are the reasons for it?
The update to the incentive zoning program is a minor update, no changes to the base or maximum
heights. Only consolidating the various programs into a more clear and cohesive program that can
produce a consistently high public benefits across Seattle. It will also serve to simplify the TDR market.
Regarding the Incentive Zoning program, the City has prioritized Affordable Housing first and foremost.
Development 85 feet or less in height must use only the affordable housing incentive. A new update
called Mandatory Housing Affordability Implementation, going on concurrently with the incentive
zoning update, will make mandatory that all qualifying development provide affordable housing or pay
an in-lieu fee.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 333 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
55
Is the program working the way you envisioned, when was it implemented?
Implemented first in the 1980’s, updated and expanded in early 2000’s, and within the last 4 years
incentive zoning has been expanded to new areas of the city. Yes, the program is working as envisioned.
Developers have been using the program for greater density, and the city has been getting a variety of
public benefits out of those projects; including a significant amount of affordable housing, green
buildings, childcare facilities and green street improvements.
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Approx. 250 projects including mostly smaller townhome type projects that only utilized the green
building incentives. 50 projects or so have provided affordable housing incentive zoning. And lesser
number of high-rise developments in downtown that have utilized the broader menu of incentives
zoning. Simply part of the development review process. Specifics vary by district, zone and project type.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Overall very receptive to the incentive zoning. Developers and community agree it is a good tool to
achieve the goals of the community and still allowing dense development. Developer complaints that it
is too complicated, thus we are working to streamline the regulations with the update. Key being that
the zoning balances growth with a greater supply of affordable housing, and commercial development
as well.
What is the ease of administering the program?
Simply incorporated into the development review process. An administrative review process, starting at
the Master Use Permit (conceptual plan) phase of a project. Must demonstrate the project’s intention
on utilizing the incentives. By building permits must have all covenants and deed restrictions recorded
and all fees paid. Before Certificate of Occupancy everything must be constructed as required by the
approved incentive development plans. Simply an administrative review process. Design boards do look
at designs of open space, but simply administrative. The process ensures the community benefit is
consistent with the vision of the regulations in a clear and consistent manner, and avoids undue
interference from the public (not a discretionary review process).
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
Predictability is the key thing to our approach. More consistency and certainty for the development
community so they know what that can be built. Creating a clear program upfront also allows the
broader public to have a conversation about what public benefits they want to have; rather than having
these conversations on a project-by-projects basis where only a small group of people will weigh in.
Having voluntary incentive zoning allows us to have conversation up-front with developers about the
community’s priorities for the neighborhood. An economic study helps to ensure the incentives will be
used and the city will receive the appropriate amount of benefits. TDR won’t really work unless you have
a big active market. TDR works well in Downtown, but not in smaller districts - need more sites and large
market to allow sellers and buyers to find each other. Having a menu of options has been good. It
allows developers to figure out what’s must important to their site, whether onsite open space, green
street improvements, public bathrooms, etc.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 334 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
56
Community Benefits (City of Seattle)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
LEED Certification (Silver) -Above base FAR in Downtown, LEED
Certification is required
-Above 290 feet downtown
Open Space Amenities
(neighborhood open space,
green street setbacks and
improvement, mid-block
corridors and hillside
terraces)
Floor Area, varies by district. A specified
amount of extra floor area is gained per
square foot of open space amenity.
May be provided as
performance, either on or
off-site, and in limited
cases in-lieu
Transferable Development
Potential and Rights (TDP
and TDR) from sites such
as designated landmarks,
low-income housing
developments, major
performing arts facilities,
Public open space,
vulnerable masonry
structures
Floor Area, varies by site and district. An
amount equal to the extra floor area being
gained through TDP or TDR as a 1:1 ratio.
Regional Development
Credits (RDC) - transfers
development capacity from
farms and working forests
to projects within certain
areas of downtown and
others-SLU zones)
Credits, calculated as the square feet of
extra floor area divided by the RDC square
footage value (as defined per code).
Affordable Housing -Extra/bonus residential floor area as
rental housing affordable to households
with incomes up to 80% of the area
median income (AMI) or in-lieu fees.
-Between 85 feet and 290 feet
- 14% of the gross bonus residential floor
area or 8% of the gross bonus residential
floor area if housing is deed restricted to
households with incomes no higher than
50 percent of median income, or
-300 net residential square feet; or
-any minimum floor area specified in the
provisions of the zone.
75% of the additional of
the additional floor area
must be earned through
affordable housing/child
care options and
remaining 25% as transfer
of development rights for
open space, landmarking
and public amenity
features.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 335 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
57
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Childcare Facilities For each square foot of nonresidential
bonus floor area allowed applicant shall
provide fully improved child care facility
space sufficient for 0.000127 of a child
care slot. The minimum interior space in
the child care facility for each child care
slot shall comply with all applicable state
and local regulations governing the
operation of licensed childcare providers.
-Must be approved by the
state
-At least 20 percent of the
number of child care slots
for which space is
provided as a condition of
bonus nonresidential floor
area shall be reserved for,
and affordable to, families
with annual incomes at or
below the U.S.
Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Low Income Standard for
Section 8 Housing based
on family size or, as
determined by the
Director of Human
Services based on specific
criteria
-The Human Services
Director shall review the
design and proposed
management plan for any
child care facility
-Must be in place for at
least a 20 year period
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 336 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
58
Case Study 12
City of Emeryville, CA: Quantitative Bonus System
Program Summary
The City of Emeryville, CA adopted their initial density bonus program in 2013 based upon a quantitative
set of parameters and development bonus options. It was updated in 2015 with a major overhaul that
reduced the number of available bonuses from 18 to six, lowered the base FAR/density limits to ensure
more development would require a development bonus, and revised their affordable housing
requirements based on the community’s desires. The resultant system is a clear and straightforward
program where additional floor area, building height and/or residential density may be provided in
exchange for a specific set of amenities (or payment into designated community benefit funds) that the
community has prioritized, including: affordable housing, public open space, zero net energy, public
improvements, utility undergrounding, family-friendly units, small businesses and other flexible benefits.
The amount of bonus and community benefit is allowed through a point system and subject to a
Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission.
At least half of the bonus points must be earned by affordable housing and no more than half of the
points must be earned by other community benefits. The number of points required, up to a maximum
of 100 points, is calculated as follows:
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Emeryville)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Floor Area Depends on area. Base/bonus floor area includes:
0.5 base: up to 1.0
1.0 base: up to 1.6
1.5 base: up to 3.0
2.0 base: up to 4.0
3.0 base: up to 6.0
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 337 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
59
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Building Height Depends on area. Base/bonus height includes:
30 Feet: No Bonus
30 Feet: Up to 55 feet
40 Feet: Up to 75 feet
50 Feet: Up to 100 feet
75 Feet: Up to 100+ feet
Projects Over 100 feet must:
• Earn at least 100 points.
• Minimize impacts on public views, wind, and shadows at
the street level.
• Be separated by an adequate distance from any other
building with a height greater than one hundred feet (100')
as specified in Section 9-4.202(f); that code section
requires buildings taller than 100 feet to be separated by
other buildings over 100 feet no less than the height of the
taller building.
Residential Density Depends on area. Base and bonus dwelling units per acre (du/a)
includes:
20 du/a: up to 35
35 du/a: up to 60
50 du/a: up to 100
70 du/a: up to 135
85 du/a: up to 170
Approval Process (City of Emeryville)
• Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission
• Projects seeking a flexible community benefit (i.e. one not on the “list”) must receive City
Council approval.
• The city verifies that the community benefits proposal has been achieved prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. In the event that the project has a shortfall in the amount of required
community benefit, the applicant must then contribute 0.1% of the construction valuation per
point of shortfall to the Citywide Parks Fund.
To grant a conditional use permit for bonus floor area ratio, height, or residential density, the following
findings must be made in addition to base findings required by their Code:
(1) In the RM Medium Density Residential zone:
a. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with
regard to building scale, form, and materials, and street orientation.
b. That the proposed project has been designed to minimize the appearance from the
street of driveways, parking spaces, maneuvering aisles, and garage doors as much
as possible given the size and shape of the lot, and that at least 70% of the street
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 338 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
60
frontage is devoted to active non-parking related uses, except that a driveway of up
to ten feet in width shall be allowed.
(2) In all other zones:
a. That the proposed project will provide community benefits sufficient to earn the
number of points required for the bonus amount requested, pursuant to the code.
b. That the proposed community benefits for the project are significant and clearly
beyond what would otherwise be required for the project under applicable code
provisions, conditions of approval, and/or environmental review mitigation
measures.
c. That the proposed community benefits for the project are acceptable and
appropriate in this case, and will provide tangible benefits to the community.
(3) Bonus height over 100 feet:
a. That the proposed project will provide community benefits sufficient to earn at least
100 points pursuant to the code.
b. That the proposed project will minimize impacts on public views, wind, and shadows
at the street level.
c. That the proposed project will be separated by an adequate distance from any other
building with a height greater than 100 feet as specified in the code.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Emeryville)
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
So far, the greatest success story has been the Sherwin Williams project, approved in November 2016,
which resulted in 85 affordable units (out of 500) plus $7 million worth of community benefits. Of
course, there have been some glitches. The “Nady Site” project got off easy because they used the State
Density Bonus System (always an option in California). The Doyle Street Mews project was an anomaly
because it was less than 10 units, so it didn’t require affordable units, which meant that all 100 bonus
points had to come from other bonus categories. So there are a few tweaks that can still be made, but,
overall, we’re pretty happy with the way it has evolved.
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
10 projects using various versions of the system since 2009. (Actually only nine used our system, since
the “Nady Site” project used the State Density Bonus System instead).
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
We don’t really think of them as “incentives”. They’re what a developer has to do to get a development
bonus. Typically an applicant will ask how big a project they can build with all bonuses, we will tell them,
and then we will tell them what they have to do to get the bonuses. They are usually fine with it. As I’m
sure you know, the thing that developers value most is predictability. A common theme among
developers is “just tell me what the rules are”. As long as they can play by the rules and you don’t
change the rules on them, they’re happy. It’s unpredictability that drives them nuts.
What is the ease of administering the program?
It’s a simple mathematical calculation to figure out how many bonus points a project needs. For a rental
housing project that needs a full bonus of 100 points, a developer typically must provide 17% affordable
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 339 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
61
units at various income levels (3.9% very low income, 5.9% low income, 7.2% moderate income) plus
community benefits worth 5% of construction valuation. Any project that needs a bonus requires
approval from the Planning Commission or City Council (depending on the situation). So we will explain
the calculation in our staff report. The number of affordable units required is a no-brainer; it’s just
however the math works out. Generally the discussion focuses on the other community benefits that
the applicant proposes to provide. Our projects typically have two or three study sessions at the
Planning Commission, and discussion questions usually include “what community benefits would the
Commission like to see from this project?” By the time the project comes for public hearing, the issue of
development bonuses and community benefits has usually already been decided.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
That’s a big question. As you can see, our program has been through several iterations, so we had a
number of chances for a “do over”. Off the top of my head, I can think of three things the probably need
tweaking: (1) for projects that use the State Density Bonus Law, charging an Affordable Housing Impact
Fee equal to the difference between the number of units that we would have gotten using our system
versus the number that result from the State system (this probably is not an issue in Colorado); (2)
figuring out how to address affordable housing requirements for projects of less than 10 units that need
a development bonus; and (3) adding an inclusionary requirement for rental projects that do not need a
development bonus back into the code, since the State passed a “Palmer fix” law last year.
Concerning your study, I think you probably should do some market analysis to see what your
circumstances can support, including interviews and discussions with developers. Emeryville is in the
fortunate position of being in a highly desirable location with a pretty efficient development process, so
developers want to be here and are willing to give the community lots of “goodies” to be able to build
here. We realize it’s not like that everywhere. Also, I recommend that you have lots of study sessions
with your Commission and Council, and community workshops with developers and residents, to
develop your system. Ours was developed based on lots of community discussion.
The responses to your questions are complicated. Our bonus system has evolved over time, with
different rules and procedures at various times. The way it has evolved, we are pretty happy with it.
Here is a brief background:
• 1988-2009: Development Bonuses with No Community Benefits. Under our previous Zoning
Regulations, adopted in 1988, every height district allowed the height to be increased with a
conditional use permit . The 40’ district could go up to 55’, the 55’ district could go up to 80’, and
the 95’ district could go up to 175’. The finding required for this use permit was “that the increased
height is compatible with the surrounding area and does not impose any significant additional
burden upon public services and facilities, including but not limited to the road system.” Not a very
high bar! Also, since we had inclusionary zoning, any residential project of 30 units or more had to
include affordable units, and, if a project provided affordable units, they automatically got a 25%
density bonus. Since all residential projects required use permits anyway, developers would just
assume that they were going to get the higher height and, of course, the density bonus (which they
always did). In those days, FAR did not apply to residential projects (as it does now), so FAR was not
an issue. Many projects were approved with development bonuses under these regulations. When
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 340 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
62
we embarked on our General Plan Update in 2004, staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council
began to ask, “what is the community getting in return for allowing developers to get bigger
buildings”? So the idea was born that we should have some kind of a point-based system for
development bonuses, with larger bonuses resulting in more “goodies” for the community.
• 2009-2013: Qualitative Bonus System. Our new General Plan was adopted in October 2009, and it
called for a point-based density bonus system to be included in the Planning Regulations. However,
it took another four years for us to completely overhaul our Planning Regulations, including the
point-based bonus system. In the meantime, we adopted “Interim Zoning Regulations”, based on
the Land Use Map in the General Plan, as a stop-gap measure. The Interim Zoning Regulations
included a qualitative development bonus system that was not based on a point system. It listed 13
categories of public benefits plus an undefined “Alternative Public Benefit” that could be considered
on a case-by-case basis by the City Council on advice of the Planning Commission. Under this system,
each category of public benefit was worth one-third of the development bonus. (i.e. in the 75’/100’
height district, each category would be worth 8.33’ of additional height above 75’, which is one-third
of the bonus height increment of 25’.) To earn the full bonus, three categories of public benefits
were required. Two development projects were approved under this development bonus system:
the Emery Station West/Transit Center and City Storage projects.
• 2013-2015: Quantitative Bonus System. Our new Planning Regulations, which were a complete
overhaul of our previous Zoning Ordinance, were adopted in March 2013. Five categories of public
benefits were added, for a total of 18 categories plus the “Flexible Public Benefit”, which allowed
the Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, to determine the point value of a
previously undefined public benefit proposed by the applicant. Categories were worth between a
maximum of 20 and 50 points. The regulations spelled out how these points were calculated and the
requirements that must be met to be eligible for points. Three projects were approved under this
development bonus system: The Intersection Mixed Use Project at 3800 San Pablo Avenue, the
Emeryville Center of Community Life, and the Estrella Vista affordable housing project at 3706 San
Pablo Avenue.
• 2015-Present: Quantitative Bonus System with Affordable Housing Requirement. As you may have
heard, there was a landmark court decision in California in 2009, called the “Palmer” decision, that
basically outlawed inclusionary rental housing. (Inclusionary ownership housing was still OK, but,
since no one is building ownership housing these days, it was basically a ban on inclusionary
housing.) For several years, the City Council had been wrestling with how to address this, and we
finally adopted an Affordable Housing Impact Fee in July 2014 (which took effect in September of
that year). But we would have rather had developers actually build affordable units than give us
money. In 2015, several things came to a head: a desire for more “family friendly” housing, a general
feeling among the City Council that our current development bonus system was too liberal and
awarded points for things that developers should be doing anyway, and a desire to make developers
provide affordable units again. One key point was that it was still legal to require inclusionary
affordable units in a project if it was in exchange for the developer receiving a development bonus.
This all culminated in an ordinance that mandated unit-mix and family-friendly design requirements
for all residential projects of 10 units or more, and did a major overhaul on our development bonus
system. The ordinance was adopted on November 3, 2015, and took effect on December 3, 2015.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 341 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
63
It’s the regulations that are in effect today. One of the major aspects of it was to reduce our “base”
levels in all districts for residential density, FAR, and building height, while keeping the bonus levels
the same. This ensured that more projects would require a development bonus, while not reducing
the overall development potential. The new regulations stipulated that half of the required bonus
points had to come from the provision of affordable units in the project, while the other half had to
come from providing community benefits. The number of eligible community benefits was reduce
from 18 to six, and now includes (1) Public Open Space, (2) Zero Net Energy, (3) Public
Improvements, (4) Utility Undergrounding, (5) Additional Family Friendly Units, and (6) Small
Business Fund Contribution. There is also a “Flexible Community Benefit” for anything that the
developer might propose, but that requires City Council approval of the entire project. To date, five
projects have been approved under this revised system: the “Nady Site”, Sherwin Williams Mixed
Use Project, Artistry Addition, Doyle Street Mews, and Adeline Springs.
Community Benefits (City of Emeryville)
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Affordable Housing Medium Density Zone: Projects over 10 units must
provide affordable units and community benefits.
Residential Projects:
At least 50% of the bonus points must by earned
through affordable housing. Points are scaled for
three types of rental units (very low, low and
moderate income) and ownership projects
(moderate income only).
Non-residential Projects:
Must pay an additional affordable housing impact
fee. Bonus points are scaled to the amount of
additional impact fees paid (e.g. 10% additional fee
generates five bonus points; 100% additional fee
generates 50 bonus points).
Public Open Space
Must meet Article 3, comply
with design provisions.
Open space must by accessible
to the general public at all
times. Provision must be made
for ongoing operation and
maintenance in perpetuity.
• 15% of site area or 2,000 square feet,
whichever is greater: 50 points
• 10% of site area or 1,500 square feet,
whichever is greater: 35 points
• 5% of site area or 1,000 square feet,
whichever is greater: 20 points
• Contribution to Citywide Parks Fund: 10
points for every 1% of project construction
valuation up to 50 points
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 342 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
64
Community Benefits Metric Additional
Criteria
Net Zero Energy
Percent of total building energy
load measured as kilowatt per
square foot provided by solar
panels, wind turbines, or other
renewable sources.
100% of energy load (zero net energy): 50 points
Public Improvements
Does not include improvements
along project frontage that are
normally required. Examples
include curb, gutter, and
sidewalk; pedestrian and bicycle
paths; sanitary and storm
sewers; and street trees,
beyond what would normally be
required.
10 points for every 1% of project construction
valuation up to 50 points
Utility Undergrounding
Does not include utility
undergrounding that is normally
required.
Contribution to Citywide Underground Utility Fund:
10 points for every 1% of project construction
valuation up to 50 points
Additional Family-friendly Units
3-and 3-bedroom units that
meet design guidelines
5 points for each additional 5 percent of total units
that have 2 or more bedrooms, of which at least 1
percent of total units must have 3 or more
bedrooms
Small Businesses Contribution to Citywide Fund to Support Small
Local-Serving Businesses: 10 points for every 1% of
project construction valuation up to 50 points
Flexible Community Benefit
Currently undefined community
benefit proposed by the
applicant that is significant and
substantially beyond normal
requirements. An example
would be universal design
features beyond those required
by applicable building codes.
The City Council shall determine the number of
points to grant for the proposed community benefit
based on 10 points for every 1% of project
construction valuation
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 343 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
65
Case Study 13
City of Vancouver, Canada: Community Benefits from
Development
Program Summary
The City of Vancouver, Canada has a robust community benefits program whereby public amenities may
be incorporated directly into a given development project, or payments are made to help fund growth-
related community amenities. Examples of amenities include childcare facilities, parks, and affordable
housing. The program is structured with three different development contribution approaches, that
correspond with updates made to the program over time. In the early 1990s, new legislation allowed
Vancouver to introduce Development Cost Levies (DCLs) on all new development to help fund new
parks, childcare, replacement of affordable housing and expanded roads or water and sewer
infrastructure.
In 2003, Vancouver approved a city-wide financing growth policy that established a comprehensive
system of DCL areas across the city (DCLs are enabled through the Vancouver Charter) as well as
established a new city-wide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) system (CACs are enabled through
City Council). CACs were established to be incremental to DCLs and to be allocated to a wider range of
community benefits. This policy provided a way to help address the cost of growth as well as a
comprehensive guide for the collection and spending of DCLs and CACs.
To simplify and provide clarity to the various community benefits regulations, Vancouver has moved to
establish fixed rate target CACs to more areas of the city, reducing the need for negotiation at the time
of each rezoning. In addition, the City has recently moved to reduce the large number of small DCL areas
in the city by integrating them into a single, city-wide DCL district.
Density bonus zoning has recently been introduced by the City as a new tool. This tool involves a form of
zoning which allows the city to define a base and an upper density limit within a zoning by-law, thus
allowing new development with the option to achieve the upper density in exchange for providing
needed community amenities such as childcare, cultural facilities, and affordable housing. This approach
reduces the need for individual site rezoning which reduces the cost and time involved in new
development.
Development Cost Levies (DCL) – applies to all development in all zones. Funds Parks, childcare facilities,
replacement housing, and infrastructure. Generally spent on projects within each DCL district. Projects
built through city’s capital program. A flat rate per square foot of floor space built. ($3 - $20 per square
foot)
Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) – applies only to development being rezoned. Can be provided
in-kind or payment in-lieu that funds parks, community centers, childcare facilities, parks, and more.
Various fee structures including fixed-rate targets and site-specific negotiations.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 344 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
66
Density Bonus Zoning (DBZ) – applies to any development seeking additional density within prescribed
zones. Can be provided in-kind or payment in-lieu that funds affordable housing and public amenities as
described within the respective precinct plans’ benefits strategies. A flat rate per square foot of bonus
density to be built.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Vancouver)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
DCL - any development at time
of building permit
CAC – any development at time
of rezone
DBZ - increase in density within
certain zones, at time of
building permit
N/A
Existing zoning entitlements
(varies)
Varies by zones and district
.7 - 3.0 FAR
N/A
Proposed Rezoning
entitlements (varies by
development)
Varies by zones and district
Up to 2.0 - 6.0 FAR
Approval Process (City of Vancouver)
Payments are made at time of building permits for Development Cost Levies (DCL and Density Bonus
Zoning (DBZ) projects. Projects that provide a community benefit in-kind include binding agreements
(for commitments such as affordable housing) at such time. Payments for Community Amenity
Contributions (CAC) occur before a development is officially rezoned. In-kind development may also be
incorporated in to a given development with Council approval. CAC payments and benefits may be
negotiated with a development agreement on a case-by-case basis with Council approval. The City
administers and allocates funding for building community benefits based upon the Public Benefits
Strategy in the City’s various Precinct Plans.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Vancouver)
Is the program working the way you envisioned, how is it structured (development agreements
and/or menu of bonus options), and when was it implemented?
The framework for our development contribution system, which currently includes Development Cost
Levies (DCLs), Community Amenity Contributions (CACs), and Density Bonus Zoning, originates from the
Financing Growth report, approved by Council in 2004. Within that report, you’ll find that our history
with DCLs and CACs goes back a little further.
• DCLs are payable on most development in Vancouver and are collected at Building Permit issuance.
Rates are payable on the type of uses proposed. Refer to our DCL bulletin for more details.
• CACs are a voluntary contribution that is offered by developers for rezonings. The value of the CAC is
determined through a negotiated process or calculated through a fixed rate CAC target depending
on where the project is located. The CAC itself can come in the form of either cash or “in-kind”
contributions. Cash CACs are typically paid prior to Council enactment of rezonings, while in-kind
contributions are usually delivered upon completion of the project. These are secured through our
Conditions of By-law Enactment, which may be found in Appendix B in this sample rezoning report.
Refer to our CAC bulletin for more details.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 345 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
67
• Density Bonus Zoning applies to existing zoning and is available under certain zones in our Zoning &
Development Bylaw. These zones are essentially set up with a base max density and a further FSR
ceiling that cannot be exceeded. Developers seeking the density bonus pay fixed rate cash
affordable housing and/or amenity shares. Density Bonus Zoning is usually introduced as an
implementation piece from a larger Community Plan process (e.g. RM-9 as part of the Joyce-
Collingwood Station Precinct Plan), but it can be done outside of that process as well (e.g. Mount
Pleasant Industrial Area). Refer to our Density Bonus Zoning page for more details.
The development contribution system generates hundreds of millions in cash and in-kind contributions
that go toward a range of new and upgraded facilities to serve growth. We produce annual reports
available to the public for each of these mechanisms to provide transparency into how much we are
collecting/securing. These may be found on our CAC page, DCL page, and Density Bonus Zoning page.
Are there height limits in addition to the density bonuses and how to the two constraints work
together (i.e. are projects required to stay within the base zoning height regulation, or can they
exceed it)?
• See above for how our Density Bonus Zoning works.
• Additional density through rezonings (and by extension, CACs) are evaluated according to our
rezoning policies. Rezoning policies vary across the city, but there are usually specific FSR, height,
frontage, and/or form limitations. For an example of some of our rezoning policies, please take a
look at Chapter 6 in the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan.
How many projects used the program? If so, how is the process working?
• In recent years, rezoning and density bonus zoning projects combined account for 40-50 projects
each year. Most of these projects would have been rezonings because Density Bonus Zoning is a
relatively new tool in some areas of the city. Several of the Density Bonus Zones currently available
were introduced in 2016 or later.
• See answers to first question for how each process works.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
The development industry is generally supportive of predictable, transparent changes to our
development contribution system. This includes the expansion of our fixed rate CAC target areas and
Density Bonus Zoning as well as annual inflationary adjustments to our development contribution rates.
What is the ease of administering the program, and how does the review process work?
DCLs and Density Bonusing are the easier of the three contribution types to administer. Both are fixed
rate contributions that are handled through our usual permitting processes.
CACs take time to administer and review. As mentioned previously, the value of the CAC may either be
negotiated or calculated through a fixed rate CAC target depending on where the project is located. Our
CAC policy also contains exemptions for rental and social housing, which requires a review from our
Housing colleagues.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 346 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
68
All fixed rate contributions (DCLs, CACs, Density Bonus Zoning) are adjusted annually for inflation using a
custom blend of local inflation in the non-residential construction price index and local assessed
property values to ensure that the City maintains its purchasing power from year-to-year.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
It was hinted at earlier, but the cash we receive from these development contributions does not simply
go into general revenue:
• For DCLs, the cash goes toward the growth component of replacement housing, childcare, parks,
transportation infrastructure, and utilities.
• For CACs and Density Bonusing, the cash helps to fund Public Benefit Strategies (PBS) found in our
Community Plans (see Chapter 16 of the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan for an example)
and/or goes toward citywide reserves to be spent on affordable housing, childcare, or heritage.
Community Benefits (City of Vancouver)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Development Cost Levies (DCL) –
Amenities including but not limited
to: community centers, libraries,
parks, childcare centers, affordable
housing.
Varies, ($3 - $20 per square
foot)
Generally spent on projects
within each DCL district.
Projects built through city’s
capital program.
Community Amenity Contributions
(CAC) – Amenities including but not
limited to: community centers,
libraries, parks, childcare centers,
affordable housing.
Various fee structures
including fixed-rate targets
and site-specific negotiations.
Allocation of funds towards
various community benefits
is determined through each
respective Precinct Plan’s
Public Benefits Strategy.
Density Bonus Zoning –
Amenities including but not limited
to: community centers, libraries,
parks, childcare centers, affordable
housing.
Varies by precinct and zone.
$3 – $67 per square foot of
bonus floor space built
Allocation of funds towards
various community benefits
is determined through each
respective Precinct Plan’s
Public Benefits Strategy.
Density Bonuses may only
be available to targeted
uses to incentivize those
uses within specific
precincts and zones – for
example mixed-uses that
include affordable housing,
or manufacturing uses, or
local retail uses.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 347 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
69
Case Study 14
City of San Diego, CA: Civic San Diego’s Floor Area Ratio Bonus
Program & The Civic San Diego Community Benefits Consensus
Project
Program Summary
The City of San Diego has implemented a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus program to incentivize
development in the downtown area, specifically in the Centre City Planned District. The goal of this
Planned District is to implement to the goals of the Downtown Community Plan including instituting the
FAR Bonus Program to ensure that new development creates new community amenities. The FAR Bonus
Program allows bonus floor area in specified amounts depending on what community benefit is included
in the project. Community benefits are required in perpetuity. Civic San Diego, a non-profit public
benefit corporation created by the city, is tasked with administering all land use permitting including the
FAR Bonus Program within downtown.
In 2015, San Diego also launched a project called the Civic San Diego Community Benefits Consensus
Project to explore how community benefits could be applied to other areas of the city beyond
downtown. As part of the outreach process, the following broad community benefits were identified:
1. Accountability
2. Community Engagement and Empowerment
3. Cooperation /Collaboration
4. Economic investment and development
5. Employment (temporary, long term and permanent)
6. Environment, energy and water conversation, bio-diversity
7. Housing
8. Local participation and workforce development.
9. Parklands, open spaces, recreation
10. Planning and design
11. Physical Infrastructure (roadways, sidewalks, brick and mortar upgrades)
12. Public services and facilities (libraries, schools, police and fire stations, hospitals)
13. Quality of Life (health and wellness, social connectivity, entertainment, restaurants, arts,
culture walk-ability)
14. Social services
15. Transit, traffic and transportation
After further discussion the following themes were also developed:
1. Retain local residents, business and services in the community
• Diverse housing
• Local hiring
• Local contracting
• Non-profit and community-based organizations
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 348 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
70
2. Create capacity to promote economic prosperity in local communities
• Business attraction
• Economic prosperity
• Local business expansion, retention and relocation
• Youth workforce development
3. Create vibrant, livable and balanced neighborhoods
• Complete communities and mobility
• Fresh, healthy and affordable foods
• Sustainability
• Arts and Culture
The term “community benefits” is used to describe the variety of quality of life improvements,
amenities, and/or mitigations that may be provided to neighborhoods impacted by development
projects occurring there. Prior to the Consensus Project, the universe of local ideas and priorities
regarding community benefits was largely unexplored; nor was there a shared understanding of what
stakeholders might best represent the values and priorities of impacted neighborhoods.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of San Diego)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Building above the FAR Dependent on zone, ranges
from 3.0 to 10.0 FAR
0.5 to 2.0 FAR bonus per
category dependent on type of
community benefit (see below).
Affordable Housing max. bonus
of 35%.
Max. FAR with all
incentives/bonuses and TDR’s:
ranges from 4.0 to 20.0 FAR
Approval Process (City of San Diego)
Civic San Diego, a non-profit public benefit corporation created by the city, administers all land use
permitting including the FAR Bonus Program within downtown. The FAR Bonus Program requires
compliance through the typical development and permitting processes of a given project. Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required before building permit approval to ensure dedication
and acceptance of the required community benefits.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 349 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
71
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of San Diego)
Is the program working the way you envisioned, how is it structured (development agreements
and/or menu of bonus options), and when was it first implemented?
Yes, the program has been very successful at getting the density downtown, and getting privately
funded affordable housing. The program works well when the economy is well. After the recession
financing wasn’t available for large buildings over six or seven stories, so no one used the program
during that time. In addition, the cost of construction materials and land impacts the programs success.
When the economic and market conditions are good here, it works great.
The first iteration of Civic San Diego was a redevelopment district covering downtown - a nonprofit
public benefit organization created in 1975. In 1992 it’s authority was expanded by the City to include
planning and permitting in downtown San Diego. The FAR Bonus Program was implemented in 2006
and was developed as part of the Downtown Community Planning update and process. Then in 2012
state redevelopment districts were eliminated in California, and the San redevelopment district
morphed into today’s Civic San Diego. With the 2006 update to the community plan, the city and Civic
San Diego prioritized doubling the number of residents living downtown from 46,000 to over 90,000 by
2040. The FAR Bonus Program allows the city to leverage increased density to ensure defined public
benefits are realized, not just up-zoning development. The bonus program also expanded upon the
affordable housing state mandated bonus.
A key point is we don’t want to make the bonus menu too big, else the city won’t get much of anything.
As a result, the city settled on the present bonus menu of options, except we eliminated a previously
existing Enhanced Street Improvements bonus. That bonus didn’t function well, wasn’t used much, and
the FAR payment bonus is better able to accomplish the same end-result through funding.
We’ve also have had to tweak the eco-roofs bonus, it was far too generous at first. It’s been tweaked to
a sliding scale calculation, and to create usable spaces by residents/tenants rather than simply
landscaped roofs that could be viewed but not occupied.
Approximately how many projects used the program? If so, how does the process work and is it
working well?
As of June 2017, FAR Bonus Program Report - 51 projects built using FAR Bonus - 34 additional projects
approved using FAR bonus. The FAR payment program is the most used. The affordable housing and
LEED certification bonuses are also popular. State mandates for affordable housing and green
construction makes these two bonuses relatively easier and/or cheaper for developers to achieve.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives?
Before the FAR Bonus Program there were many up-zonings of some downtown properties. The city had
to pull back on the up-zonings, and so developed a bonus program that was tied more directly to the
community planning goals and to the benefits received from development projects. The development
community understood the politics and optics, and were generally on-board with the FAR Bonus
Program. When the program was first implemented the only issue that arose was a false issue – the
Builder’s Association viewed the FAR payment bonus as an additional fee on top of the existing
development impact fees. But the FAR payment bonus is actually voluntary not mandatory, and it was
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 350 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
72
ultimately understood as such and implemented. Since then developers have been receptive to the
program and incentives, although they typically choose the easiest option, and the FAR Payment bonus
has been the most popular.
In 2012 the program was amended to allow FAR Payment bonuses to account for up to half of a
project’s bonuses. The FAR Payment bonus was also increased up to a 20.0 FAR max limit. This greater
FAR Payment bonus was largely instituted to make up for funding losses due to a California court
decision that terminated Redevelopment Districts and tax-increment financing (TIF).
What is the ease of administering the program, and how does the review process work?
It’s a straightforward review process, it doesn’t add more time or burden to the review process or staff.
It’s a prescriptive bonus system, if you provide the benefit then you receive the FAR bonus. The review is
tied into the normal entitlement and design review process. The bonus FAR is documented through the
design review and permitting. It’s an administrative function, it does not require any additional board
approval.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
It’s a useful tool, a little disappointed some of the bonus categories haven’t been used as much.
Developers will go to the least expensive option. Some projects have used a variety, and every bonus
has been used at least once.
Public Parking was only used when it was basically mandated for a project, otherwise it hasn’t been used
and would be the first bonus to go or be revised. Parking is so expensive to build that the return isn’t
there for the developer. And private development also prefers not to have a public facility in the middle
of their project.
The Three-Bedroom Units bonus is proposed to be revised for a greater FAR bonus and to increase the
current 1,300 SF size limitation. This is designed to encourage it’s use by developers as there is a
shortage of families and family-units in downtown. Currently most projects being constructed consist of
studio and one-bedrooms - less viability as family units. When the Three-Bedroom bonus is used in
conjunction with affordable housing projects, those units have indeed been occupied by families. But
the market-rate projects have been occupied mostly by singles with roommates, as the market pricing is
still too expensive to attract family buyers. In fact, there seems to be more dogs than children in
downtown - so much so that dog parks are the top open space goal of downtown residents.
In California, the State has a separate mandatory inclusionary housing fee required for all projects.
However, the fee generally isn’t enough for the city to actually build affordable housing units. Thus the
city’s FAR bonus for additional affordable housing (up to 50%-60%) atop the State’s mandate, helps
make up the difference by offering greater density for a greater affordable housing payment or for
including affordable units in your development. The Civic Sand Diego design review board also applies
pressure to developments to provide affordable units within the development, though it’s not required
or forced on them.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 351 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
73
Community Benefits (City of San Diego)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Affordable Housing Percentage of restricted
units in the base (pre-
bonus) FAR
Resulting Bonus FAR ranges
from 10% to 35%.
Must meet all requirements of
San Diego affordable Housing
regulations
Urban Open Space
(public park or plaza)
10% reservation of site as
urban open space earn .5
FAR bonus
20% reservation of site as
urban open space earn 1.0
FAR bonus
Must be open to the general
public (6am-10pm).
Must be designed to meet the
Downtown Design Guidelines.
Three-Bedroom Units
(at least 10% of units must be 3-
bedroom units)
0.5 or 1.0 FAR bonus
Development providing at
least 50% of the gross floor
areas as residential earn a
FAR Bonus of .5
Development with at least
80% of the gross floor area
as residential earn a bonus
of 1.0
There must be at least five 3-
bedroom units in the
development. Each 3-
bedroom unit used to attain
bonus FAR cannot be greater
than 1,300 square feet, and
each bedroom must be at
least 70 square feet with
additional area for a closet.
Eco-Roofs
FAR bonus based on the size of the
roof area devoted to lands caped
eco-roofs
Square footage of the eco-
roof - the greater the
landscaped area the greater
the ratio of derived bonus
square feet: ranges from
1:1 up to 1:3 square foot
calculation.
May achieve up to 1.0 FAR
bonus
Employment Uses Up to maximum bonus FAR
for providing 100%
employment uses --Up to
50% maximum bonus FAR
for providing 50%
employment uses
Public Parking 1 sf bonus for every one
square foot of public
parking area
Public easement required.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 352 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
74
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Green Building Performance Level or
Prescriptive points based -
number of points must
exceed either 45 CCG points
(CalGreen or LEED) Up to
2.0 FAR bonus
Incentives for buildings that
exceed CALGreen standards
FAR Bonus Payment Varies, up to a 5.0 FAR
bonus
Exclusive of bonuses for
affordable housing.
In-lieu fee to purchase parks and
open space (TDR)
Up to 2.0 FAR bonus
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 353 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
75
Case Study 15
City of Nashville, TN: The Nashville Downtown Code - Bonus
Height Program
Program Summary
The Downtown Code (DTC) Bonus Height Program was established in 2010 to allow additional building
height in Downtown in exchange for contribution to specified programs that provide benefits to the
public. The Bonus Height shall be permitted if the proposed development contributes to specific public
benefits in the amount allowed by the DTC.
Bonus Height shall be permitted in exchange for the following public benefit contributions: Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification of individual buildings, LEED for Neighborhood
Development, pervious surface, Historic Building Preservation, publicly-accessible Open Space,
Inclusionary Housing (no longer a viable option due to state law), Civil Support Space, upper level garage
liners, and underground parking.
Bonus Height Standards:
• Upon providing a binding commitment for the specified public benefit, the proposed
development project is allowed to build within the restrictions of the Subdistrict, up to the
Bonus Height Maximum.
• Multiple height bonuses may be compounded insofar as the total additional height does not
exceed the Bonus Height Maximum for the Subdistrict.
• Additional development rights achieved through the BHP may be transferred to another site
within the DTC one time to one receiving site, provided the transferred height does not exceed
the Bonus Height Maximum of the receiving site. By-right height may not be transferred; only
bonus height received through the BHP may be transferred. Bonus height transfers shall be
based on the square footage of the sending site, not the receiving site.
• No building permit can be issued for bonus height until the Planning Commission has certified
compliance with the provisions of this section, upon referral and assurance of compliance from
applicable departments.
Community Benefit Triggers (City of Nashville)
Trigger Base Maximum Bonus Maximum
Additional stories above the by-
right building height per DTC
subdistrict.
Varies by DTC subdistrict, 3
stories to 30 stories.
Varies by DTC subdistrict, 1
additional story to unlimited
stories.
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 354 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
76
Approval Process (City of Nashville)
Use of the Bonus Height Program requires the projects declare their intention to use the Bous Height
during the Final Site Plan step of the project, generally this should be throughout the pre-application
process as well. Documentation includes an application Letter and exhibits detailing the bonus uses and
in compliance with the DTC BHP provisions.
Prior to obtaining Building Permits the Bonus Height utilization must be certified the Planning
Commission for compliance with standards. This requires an application, letter and exhibits detailing the
bonus uses and compliance with the DTC BHP provisions and calculations. Documentation such as LEED
precertification is required at this step. The compliance submittal then goes to the Planning Commission
as an administrative memo for their approval. Binding commitments such as deed restrictions and
easements for public elements must be approved and recorded with the Register of Deeds before final
building permit issuance.
Lessons Learned (Interview) (City of Nashville)
Is the program working the way you envisioned?
Yes for the most part projects are able to achieve greater building height and intensity in the downtown
urban core, in exchange for the bonuses as prescribed in the code. However, the bonuses are not
equally achievable, thus most projects go for the easier to achieve bonuses. In addition, many projects
and applicants think the buns height program caps are still too limiting and have actively sought even
greater height allowances through other means, such as height modifications and even rezonings in
some cases.
Have any projects used the program? If so, how did the process work?
Yes, approximately 15 projects have used the program. The program works well as a perfunctory review
as part of the site plan/permitting process. If you meet the standards, then you get the bonus height.
This has provided clarity and more certainty for developers and public.
How receptive were applicants to the incentives? Applicants have been very receptive to the
incentives. However they usually go for the low hanging fruit such as parking bonuses, rather than
bonuses that might benefit the city to a greater extent, such as historic preservation or open space.
What is the ease of administering the program?
One person can administer the program, or simply the planner assigned to the development review
case. It’s relatively straightforward, however, obtaining the necessary easement and deeded restrictions
can be a lengthier process. Tracking of the cases and bonuses is something that needs to eb stronger as
well.
What else should we know about your program, what would you have done differently, and anything
else that we should be thinking about with our study?
The Bonus Program currently has too many easily achieved bonuses, such as public parking, that are
often the first and only bonus choice for developers. Other Bonuses that would be more beneficial TO
the city more are often not chosen. ideally the program would be restructured to better incentivize
more meaningful bonuses., and possibly include mandatory requirements to be eligible to utilize the
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 355 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
77
bonus height. For instance, all projects using bonus height must be a LEED certified project, or have all
parking located underground. Too many bonus options mean that city’s top priorities might not be
implemented through the program. Keeping the bonus categories to a smaller group would have a
greater positive impact on the priority community needs.
Community Benefits (City of Nashville)
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Leadership in Energy and
Environment Design (LEED), and
LEED Neighborhood Development
(LEED ND)
LEED Silver or higher certification.
LEED ND certification.
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, generally 1
to 12 stories
Pervious Surface
Includes green roofs, bio-swales, and
pervious pavements.
Pervious Surface square feet x 2.
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, no more
than 2 bonus stories
Green roofs used to
meet LEED certification
do not count.
Historic Building Preservation Number of by-right stories
entitlement less the actual number
of stories of the historic building,
times the square feet of the
historic building footprint.
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, generally 1
to 8 stories
Requires a
recommendation from
the Historical
Commission on the
worthiness of
preserving a given
building outside of a
Historic Overlay
District. And a
recommendation on
the actual on the
historic building
footprint square
footage. Must provide
a binding commitment
on the preservation of
the building.
Open Space
Open Space square feet x 7, if in an
open space deficiency area.
Open Space square feet x 4, if
outside an open space deficiency
area.
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, generally 1
to 8 stories
Must be publicly
accessible.
Must be design to the
DTC Open Space
standards.
Plazas are not eligible
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 356 of 384
Community Benefit Case Studies
78
Community Benefits Metric Additional Criteria
Inclusionary Housing (no longer
viable due to newly passed state law
that forbids Inclusionary Housing)
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, generally 1
to unlimited bonus stories
Per Title 17.40.780
Inclusionary housing
section of the Zoning
Code. Percentage of
units dependent on
AMI levels, unit mix,
in-lieu fee options.
Civil Support Space
Community oriented uses and spaces
such as daycares, cultural centers, as
well as other Institutional and
Education spaces, Transportation and
Waste Management facilities, and
Recreational, Entertainment and
other community uses and spaces.
Civil Support square feet x 2. Used
up to the Bonus Max. stories: vary
by DTC subdistrict, generally 1 to 8
stories
Loosely defined, thus
potentially negotiable.
Should generally be
located on the ground
floor.
Minimum of 15 years
of use/operation.
Restrictive covenant or
other binding
agreements may be
required.
Upper Level Garage Liner &
Underground Parking
Either, or both options may be used.
Upper Level Garage Liner square
feet x 2.
Underground Parking square feet x
2.
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, generally 1
to 8 stories
Upper Level Garage
Liners must be at least
20’ in depth, and mask
a structure from view
along public streets
and open space.
Public Parking
Parking can be paid, or simply free
Public Parking square feet x 2.
Incudes all stalls, and their
associated drive lanes and aisles.
Used up to the Bonus Max. stories:
vary by DTC subdistrict, generally 1
to 2 stories
Shall be clearly marked
as public, and be
accessible to the public
at all hours the garage
is open for the lifetime
of the building.
Requires an approved
restrictive covenant.
Other Requirements
Additional height above the Bonus Height Maximums could be achieved through a discretionary review
for “Exceptional Design”. This requires that the project make all reasonable efforts to use the Bonus
Height Program first, conduct a community meeting, and receive discretionary approval from the
Planning Commission. Exceptional Design is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, unique
architecture, exceptionally strong streetscapes, and improvement of the project’s relationship to
surround properties (e.g. context sensitive deign and/or adding value to a given neighborhood).
Attachment D - Case Studies
City Council Study Session Page 357 of 384
0
North Boulder
Creative Community
Art and Culture as Community
Benefit
A Multi-City Inquiry
August 2018
Boulder Art Matrix and North Boulder Creative Community
1620 Lee Hill Rd. #7
Boulder, CO, 80304
Acknowledgments:
Thank you to the members of the North Boulder Creative Community for guidance and
support throughout the research and writing process.
Reference: Eckert, Sally, Halpern, Madeline, Portman-Marsh, Natalie (2018) Art and Culture
as Community Benefit, A Multi-City Inquiry. Boulder Art Matrix.
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
131City Council Study Session Page 358 of 384
1
Contents
Overview____________________________________________________________________ 2
List of Cities__________________________________________________________________ 2
City Case Studies (incentives and lessons learned)
Austin________________________________________________________________ 3
Baltimore______________________________________________________________ 5
Denver________________________________________________________________ 7
Nashville______________________________________________________________ 9
Seattle_________________________________________________________________11
Wynwood____________________________________________________________ 13
Conversation with Juanita Hardy_________________________________________________ 14
Key Findings_________________________________________________________________ 15
Conclusion/Results____________________________________________________________16
Table of Incentives_____________________________________________________________17
Glossary of Terms_____________________________________________________________ 21
Appendix of references_________________________________________________________ 23
Experts Interviewed___________________________________________________________ 25
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
132City Council Study Session Page 359 of 384
2
Overview
Boulder, Colorado has the opportunity to help lead the country in accelerating the way our city develops
incentives for developers to include art and culture in community development. Like Boulder, cities across
America have identified inclusive housing as their number one issue. Desirable areas to live and work have
become unaffordable to many people, so new solutions are being created and implemented across the country.
Boulder Art Matrix (BAM) set out to understand which cities have created a win-win solution that both
include affordable housing and elements of art and culture. The cities studied have been driven by a grassroots
voice, of concerned residents and similar to Boulder, want new developments and affordable housing to be built
in alignment with resident interests and concerns.
In 2017, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was amended to include Art and Culture as Community
Benefit. Art and cultural elements are often reflected in local sub community plans as well as in the Boulder
Cultural Plan - both clearly indicating the importance of Art and Culture to the area.
Boulder Art Matrix research was conducted with the sole purpose to understand existing arrangements through
case studies, zoning changes and other mechanisms that have been used successfully in other cities to incentivize
developers to include art and culture into their design.
The cities chosen were recommended by leaders in this work across the country and found through recent
published and otherwise nationally available reports about art and culture as community and economic
benefits.
Boulder is among Austin, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Miami, Nashville, San Francisco, and Seattle working to
create an environment with intentional trade-offs to incentivize developers to design multi-use and adaptive
inclusive environments. This has created long term financial success and revitalization in many cities.
Interviewed City Case Studies:
Austin, TX
Baltimore, MD
Denver, CO
Nashville, TN
Seattle, WA
Wynwood Miami, FL
Additional City Case Studies:
Chicago, IL
Lowell, MA
San Francisco, CA
Somerville, MA
Providence, RI
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
133City Council Study Session Page 360 of 384
3
City Case Studies
1. Austin, TX
Contact: Jenny Lavery -Community Outreach at the Austin Creative Alliance
The Austin Arts District is a subdivision in the city’s downtown area (zip code 78701), conveniently located near the
University of Texas. The Arts District is just one of 100+ neighborhoods that divides up the greater Austin area. The
1
median household income within the art district is slightly lower than Austin proper. The district cites these key factors in
helping promote success:
●Affordability
●Economic benefits to the existing community
●Zoning/land use changes
Austin has addressed the issue of affordability through unique programming:
●Austin’s Independent Business Investment (IBI) Zones help brand and elevate the role of creatives, artists, and
businesses as part of neighborhood redevelopment.
○IBI zones include new zoning designation for the area as well as coordination with tourism marketing
and branding around ‘austin-made cultural products.’
○IBI allows for more density and height variation for developers.
●A Land Trust program works to reclaim old or foreclosed on structures as subsidized housing for artists who can
no longer afford to rent in the city.
○Art is promoted as ‘integral to community building.’
○Art and cultural events act as economic drivers to the district itself.
●Austin Creative Alliance advocates for arts and creative communities in Austin and maintains an artist in
residency program which an artist in an apartment complex contingent on their admittance into a 12 month
community service engagement equal to the value of the apt unit
The Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/ImagineAustin/webiacpreduced.pdf aims to promote
change and growth in a more connected, sustainable and affordable
manor while highlighting the character of Austin.. Some policy
highlights of CodeNEXT include:
●Zones: Neighborhood commercial rezoned as mixed-use
zone and main street zones.
2
●s.m.a.r.t Housing (Safe, Mixed-Income, Accessible,
Reasonably-priced, Transit-Oriented Housing):
Mixed-income development that includes at least 10%
“reasonably-priced” housing units with smart standards:
●Fee waivers: (including Permit, Capital
Recovery, Construction Inspection
●Public resources to leverage private investment 3
●Required affordability impact statements
●A citywide affordable housing bonus program
1http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Arts-District-Austin-TX.html
2https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/CodeNEXT/CodeNEXT_Policy_Table.pdf
3https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Housing/Application_Center/SMART_Housing/smart_guide_0708.pdf
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
134City Council Study Session Page 361 of 384
4
●Downtown density bonus program
●Green Building and Open Space [see Imagine Austin Comp Plan pages 149-170
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/ImagineAustin/webiacpreduced.pdf]
The 2016, the Austin City Council Bond Election Advisory Task Force (BEATF) was devoted to funding infrastructure.
The task force relied on various working groups community surveys, a bond website, eight interactive town hall meetings
and four listening sessions with the community for its success and policy recommendations that led to the $161 million
allocated for affordable housing to date.
4
Lessons Learned:
ACA advocates that art is ‘integral to community building’ and art and cultural events act as economic drivers to districts
all over the city.
“It is valuable for the city of Austin to invest time in the local artist community." For Austin, it has been pertinent to work
within the existing code and add amendments while forging and keeping relationships viable between the community and
public/private sectors”
Jenny Lavery- Community Outreach at the Austin Creative Alliance
For additional information about Austin, please review the documents and resources listed in the reference section.
https://images.timberland.com/is/image/TimberlandBrand/Rhapsody_Mural?$article-hero-desktop$
4http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Finance/CFO/2018-Bond/Bond_Election_Advisory_Task_Force_FINAL_Repo
rt.pdf
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
135City Council Study Session Page 362 of 384
5
2. Baltimore, MD
Contact: Ben Stone -Director of Arts and Culture Smart Growth America- Former Art District Director
of Station North
Baltimore, MD has recognized that creating new urbanism around art and culture would help their city revitize to a new
level. This is a highly diverse city. The local community and the city created partnerships to develop incentives for
developers and a vibrant industry was generated.
Placemaking: Station North Arts and Entertainment District -A national model. Started with the funding by ArtPlace
America and the National Endowment for the Arts, developers were given incentives to generate interest for growth in the
area [see list below]. Incentives to promote smart growth by focusing community design on economic development in a
specific area focused around creative industry http://www.stationnorth.org/resources/
Business Improvement District: Develop e new tax base:
The creation and operation of a BID in and around Station North Art District promoted:
●A need to define roles across multiple BIDS that overlapped in neighborhoods
●Clarifications between sustainability and art communities (see lessons learned)
●Expanded partnerships with the decades old entity ‘Downtown Partnership’
●Opportunity to benefit from incentives (only in art district of 100 acres each)
Tax Credits
●Property tax credits to promote live-work space available for renovation projects
●Income tax subtraction, such as:
Modification for income derived from artistic work sold by “qualifying artists”
●An exemption from the Admissions and Amusement tax levied by an “arts and entertainment
enterprise” or “qualifying residing artist” in a district.
http://www.stationnorth.org/photos/openwalls/
Community Benefits gained through the work in Baltimore include:
●One Percent Art Program
●Regular coalition building meetings with partners including Johns Hopkins and
Maryland Institute of Art (attracting students).
Lessons Learned
Suggestions offered include
●Clarify the process with the developer regarding the decision for selecting art up front.
●Bridge multiple art parties, such as traditional public art and social integrated/oriented art
●Start small with developers with a temporary approach. Record incremental change. Live work space needs
to be designed properly otherwise people will end up going elsewhere for studio space
●Identify gap financing: Projects financed with reliance on tax credits often require gap financing or credit
enhancement during construction. In such cases, the city may be the only source or issuer of financing
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
136City Council Study Session Page 363 of 384
6
●Explore an ease to underwriting permanent debt and enhancement of post construction project feasibility.
●Bring decision makers to the community and build the will / explore revenue generation
●Work to bring arts nonprofits and transportation companies together to enhance sustainability
●Watch to be inclusive of all voices since parceling up the affordable housing will alienate people. Housing
needs to be set up to give back to the neighborhood
●The visual scenery of an open space plot heavily influences the type of activity that occurs there and the level
of comfort and safety the community associates with that specific space
Solutions
●Art selection (placement, design and piece) can involve multiple perspectives including the developer, art
commission and local community stakeholders.
●Communications can include local community members to help communicate the concepts of the
neighborhoods to reflect the needs of the area.
ULI Financing Recommendations
The Urban Land Institute Baltimore Report explores the following financing recommendations:
●Area designations to promote area benefits
●Business improvement districts: empowerment zones and enterprise zones
●Special assessment districts and tax increment financing project areas
● Land swaps; and land contributions (for example, outright $1 conveyances, and non-market-rate ground
leases).
●Direct and indirect public subsidies for development, including historic, Low income, and New markets tax
credits;
“Art is often about change: and it is the connective tissue to engage people with things that they wouldn’t otherwise
care about or notice”:
… Ben Stone - Director of Arts and Culture Smart Growth America
For additional information about Baltimore, please review the documents and resources listed in the reference section.
●Jamie Bennet: https://www.artplaceamerica.org/
●NASAA: policy briefs on arts policy Why Government Should Suppot the Arts-
https://nasaa-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/WhyGovSupport-1-1.pdf
●Juanita Hardy: Creative Placemaking | ULI Ameri ULI baltimore report - The Westside Baltimore,
Maryland - Urban Land Insti
● Nashville Government - Arts, Culture & Creativity - Nashville.gov
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
137City Council Study Session Page 364 of 384
7
3. Denver, CO
Contact: Jamie Giellis -Centro Consulting RiNo Art District (501c6) President
The city of Denver has positioned itself to become one of the largest artistic and cultural hubs in the west. To date, it has
seven art and creative districts and has successfully created conditions to promote culture through incentives for
developers.
In 2016, the Business Improvement District (BID) raised approximately $550,000 to support RiNo. These funds are
dedicated towards projects and programming in four key areas:
1. Advocacy
2. Placemaking
3. Marketing
4. Branding and Support for RiNo’s Artists and Creatives
In 2016, a General Improvement District (GID), a district financing tool used to help stakeholders collectively plan, fund,
and implement public infrastructure improvements, secured a loan of $3 million to provide infrastructure enhancements.
River North (RiNo) is a 501c6 neighborhood organization [also a registered neighborhood organization] and meets
monthly with neighbors (RiNo Talks) and other stakeholders to share concepts for the area.
Design OverLay Zone - Incentives for developers align with community interests and city housing needs and include:
please see detailed report :
design overlay zone - City and County of Denver,
38th and Blake Plan Implementation - City and County of Denver
Denver City Council Approves Zoning Amendments Permitting ...
Incentives for Developers
●Affordable housing for more density
●Neighborhood Values
●50% ground floor active and accessibility to the public
●Developers have a enforceable contractual commitment for up to a twenty (20) year period to protect the
longevity of the agreement with the creative renters, enforced by risk of a lean on the property
●Height and Floor Area allowance rezoning - Heights allowed up to 16 stories with more affordable housing and
linkage fee bonus
●Density bonus: previous zoning a max of 8 stories - now up to 16 stories.
●Map the Streetscape for building and height setbacks (“wedding cake building” concept), walkable space and plan
for light and open spaces
Community Benefits
Safe Occupancy Program - Working with the city to keep the
artist in safe live work conditions:
●Grants have been made available to fund improvements
and bring live-work spaces up to code
●Timeframes are extended for these improvements to be
made
●Part of the active effort to prevent the eviction of artists
RiNo Park Art Center
●Collaboration with Denver Parks and Rec and the
Denver Public Library [image reference: courtesy of
Boxyard Park RiNo Arts District website]
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
138City Council Study Session Page 365 of 384
8
●Will include a temporary maker and studio spaces as well as public outdoor space for performances and festivals
ArtSpace Project in Art District
●Funding from BID ($40,000)
●Will create 100-130 affordable live/work spaces for artists and musicians
RiNo Made store/ pop ups
●Newly established in 2018
●artists receive 60% of the proceeds of the sale of work and 40% will be put into operating costs and other artist
initiatives district-wide
●District awarded a grant from Colorado Creative Industries for $10,000 that will help fund the store’s artist
education and training
CRUSH Street Mural Event- annual
●AD contributes staff time, marketing support and artist stipends
●BID contributes $50,000+ each year
38th Street Underpass project
●Will create an artistic lighting and mural intervention
●Budget is over $100,000
Lessons Learned
●Provide needed live /work space for creatives ArtSpace Affordable Live/Work Space | RiNo Art District
●Working with the city, developers and artists is what shaped the Design OverLay
●Listening to the community needs to define incentives: RiNo Talks have proven successful
●Explore a mobility district- the operations of public parking by the District. Everything is paid for and put back
into the District
○To create more control over where the funds go and revenue for the district
“...RiNo has been important to the artists, businesses and developers….consent communications has helped our efforts
work…”
- Jamie Giellis (Licko), Centro Consulting RINO Art District
For additional information about Denver, please review the documents and resources
listed in the reference section.
design overlay zone - City and County of Denver,
38th and Blake Plan Implementation - City and County of Denver
Denver City Council Approves Zoning Amendments Permitting ...
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
139City Council Study Session Page 366 of 384
9
4. Nashville, TN
Contact: Caroline Vincent -of the Metro Nashville Arts Commission
Nashville, TN represents a city whose leaders support and invest time and capital into maintaining the artistry and
legendary music scene of the local community. Rising property values for homes, studios and manufacturing spaces in
artist areas like east Nashville and Wedgewood-Houston led to an immediate need for city-led efforts on affordable
housing. The result of these re-focused efforts can be seen in the success of Ryan Lofts on Rolling Mill Hill and Housing
Fund’s studio loan assistance program.
The interview highlighted the city of Nashville efforts to tackle affordable housing and fund the creation of public arts and
venue space with a strategy that combines:
●Changes to the existing zoning with rigorous community engagement
●Educational elements to increase the visibility
A Public Art Community Investment Plan, funded in part from the NEA and the One Percent for Art Ordinance, assess
how the city funds neighborhood artists and the local ecosystem based on a diverse local representation. The plan includes
●A training program of 25 local artists
●Marketing visibility for growth
●Increased community investment
An abundance of underutilized industrial land in the County provided the opportunity for Nashville to enact Artisan
Manufacturing Zoning (AMZ) http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2011_2015/bl2015_1121.pdf which
includes:
●Zone change to allow artisans, crafts persons to live, work and create in a manner that supports Nashville's
economy and cultural identity.
●Planning committee inclusive of community members and advocacy groups worked with the planning
department to ensure that city led conversations were held in preparation for this code amendment.
Nashville’s Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has recently deepened its commitments to engage and
integrate artists in community outreach and local planning. As a result, they held a Creative Placemaking Symposium in
March of 2017. The symposium educated attendees about the difference between creative placemaking and simply placing
a sculpture at a bus top and served as a forum for planners to think through how and why CPM might benefit projects in
their own towns/cities. http://t4america.org/2017/04/11/bolstering-creative-community-engagement-nashville-region/
One result includes:
●Tactile URBanism Organization’s (TURBO)
Installation of a temporary plaza,
crosswalk and mural as a part of the
Nashville Civic Design Centers
‘reclaiming public space initiative.’
This event was highly public,
visible and included a community
paint day to engage the locals.
http://www.turbonashville.org
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
140City Council Study Session Page 367 of 384
10
Lessons Learned:
The main concerns of community members in Nashville were centered around
1. A distrust of the polarizing language surrounding ‘artist housing’ in the more heavily gentrified neighborhoods
2. A lack of community knowledge on the impact of zoning changes
Solutions:
One solution used in Nashville was found through NEA grant funds to support more widely available artist space and
educational forums to answer questions and provide needed community dialogue. Based on this information, we see that
if Boulder intends to follow in the footsteps of Nashville’s progressive policies, it is pertinent that we look to partner with
local neighborhood artists so that we are able to rely on the city council to accurately advocate for their constituents
For additional information about Nashville, please review the documents and resources listed in the reference section.
Photograph by
Stacey Irvin
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
141City Council Study Session Page 368 of 384
11
5. Seattle, Washington
Contacts: Matthew Richter -Seattle OA Cultural Space Liaison and key contributor to the CAP
Brennon Staley -of Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development
Seattle, WA has proved that city leadership investment with local community creates economic benefit. Seattle’s
perspective is, ‘arts attract audiences and audiences create economic spillover for local businesses.’ Seattle can now identify
arts and culture as generating nearly 450 million dollars annually and nearly $700 billion nationwide. The value of
5
affordable cultural spaces in Seattle was put into practice through a recent increase in capital funding for an arts and
affordability fund from $250,000 to 1 million.
The interview highlighted:
Seattle’s Office of Arts and Culture’s CAP Report has designated a three prong approach to achieve success:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Arts/Downloads/Space/CULTURAL%20SPACE%20REPORT.pdf
●Create cultural spaces with new development
● Activate existing building by adapting them for new uses
●Preserve the existing cultural value of dynamic neighborhoods
A Cultural Overlay District Advisory Committee, a diverse group of local stakeholders advising the creation of the
Arts and Cultural District produced:
○A zoning resolution to allow residential-commercial-combined high density in designated districts that preserve
and enhance the arts.
○Streamline Temporary Occupancy Permits with the Department of Construction and Inspection
○A Certification: Build ArtSpacE (B.A.S.E.) pilot program for commercial and mixed-use developments
analogous to L.E.E.D. but designated for cultural space.
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Resolutions/Resn_31555.pdf
Like Boulder, Seattle has found that incentives are a lucrative tool to overcome the barriers of finance and lack of
community/developer investment into the creation of arts and cultural space.
Incentives
●Exempted Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. In some cases the developer is granted additional floor area
development bonuses. The cultural spaces are not included in the floor area calculations.
●Reclassifying art galleries through the international building code to create allowance of height additions, rooftop
utilization, pedestrian zones and temporary occupancy permit
●A partnership with the Office of Housing, Seattle to promote ground floor commercial space for cultural uses
with the agreement of the developer.
■Early results: Developers in Seattle have found that the nonprofit sector makes a reliable
occupant.
■The city has created an aggregate of source of funds to be granted to nonprofits including
Federal, state block grants and levied property taxes that are enforceable contracting and/or
monitoring system.
5https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Arts/Downloads/Space/CULTURAL%20SPACE%20REPORT.pd
f
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
142City Council Study Session Page 369 of 384
12
Cultural Space Liaison Position created [Matthew Richter]
Job Description:
●Assist developers interested in creating cultural spaces
●Support a cultural space management PDA group of of diverse stakeholders to advise current projects
and match interested developers and space seeking nonprofits.
●Streamline permitting to including ARTs in pre-app meetings, subsidizing permit fees and creating
online connections between city departments.
Lessons Learned:
○Understand the trade off value per square feet of cultural space benefit. This helped Seattle to better
assign the incentives for the developer of each distinct project.
○It was suggested Boulder create a menu of options to provide to a developer to assure tradeoffs and
future benefits upfront. Tailor the list of incentives per the appropriate amount. NOTE: This report
provides specific case studies as well as a matrix chart of incentives to inform the work in Boulder.
○Engage with developers early in the permitting process to encourage investment into arts space
“...it has been far easier to work with newly changed code than try to incorporate arts space through a special review process
later on….”
Matthew Richter, the Cultural Space Liaison for Seattle’s OA and
Brennon Staley of Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development
For additional information about Seattle, please review the documents and resources listed in the reference section
http://beacondevgroup.com/locations/plaza-roberto-maestas/ http://www.seattle.gov/light/dennysub/substationdesign.asp
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
143City Council Study Session Page 370 of 384
13
6. Wynwood Miami, FL
Contact: Joseph Furst- BID Board Chairman Member, Marketing Committee Member,
Planning & Transportation Committee
Since 2013, the Wynwood Business Improvement District (BID), a municipal board of the City of Miami has represented
more than 400 hundred property owners and a globally recognized center for art innovation. Artists from around the
world have sought inspiration in the area’s windowless facades and used them as canvases to showcase their work, leading
to the vivid murals that adorn the district. The fifty (50) city block Arts District has diverse public art.
The interview highlighted the following incentives::
●City Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB) approval to amend zoning regulations designed to encourage
small-scale development to help transition the neighborhood from industrial to a mixed-use neighborhood.
●Adaptive reuses of existing buildings and small-scale development projects made more feasible as a result of
additional on-site parking requirement reductions in exchange for payment-in-lieu into the Wynwood Parking
Trust Fund
●A Neighborhood Revitalization District Plan (NRD) and new zoning regulations for mixed-use residential and
office developments, creates dedicated funding for neighborhood improvements, promotes pedestrian-focused
streets and preserves the area’s unique artistic and industrial character. The plan has received national accolades
from the American Planners Association, because of its forward-thinking nature; involvement of property owners
who took the initiative to plan for the future of the neighborhood responsibly.
Lessons Learned
●(BID) expansion - numerous property owners
outside of the Wynwood BID boundaries were
initially left out when the BID was first created.
The expansion allows for the inclusion of
commercial properties not currently within the
boundaries of the Wynwood BID.
●Discuss the process and ultimate authority for
selecting the art
●Be mindful of gentrification of the district
impacting the locals ability to sell public art
For additional information about Miami, please review the documents and resources listed in the reference section.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/arts/miami-ordinance-could-discourage-developers-from-buying-public-art-9
559898
[Image reference: Ernesto Maranje Wynwood BID https://wynwoodmiami.com/explore/street-art-grid-view/ ]
Contacts: https://wynwoodmiami.com/learn/officials-and-staff/
Zoning Board Endorses small-scale development plan:
https://wynwoodmiami.com
https://wynwoodmiami.com/miami-zoning-board-endorses-wynwood-small-scale-development-plan/
http://www.miami21.org/
●“ Inclusionary Affordable Housing with an Artistic Environment”
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
144City Council Study Session Page 371 of 384
14
Conversation with Juanita Hardy:
Juanita Hardy: ULI Senior Visiting Fellow of Creative Placemaking and former IBM technology and
management consultant.
The following is a list of our recommendations for Boulder. These suggestions are based on our conversation
with Juanita along with our additional research on the topic of creative placemaking.
Move from conceptual to zone changes to allow for more density with Affordable Housing
●Currently developed on the east side of Broadway up to 3 story commercial on lower level and residency above
●Opportunity on west side of Broadway: misc. Lots, storage areas, storage units, mechanics, studio spaces and the
Bus Stop gallery opportunity
Create a Vision for what the district will look like in 10-15 years
●Offer Informational Meetings: artists in the community need to be present for this conversation in order for them
to invest in these district changes
●Present visuals of what the area can look like: Maps, perspective drawings of streetscapes: outlining city blocks,
city owned land, land owned by developers, areas owned by property owners
o Result: establishes community understanding and ‘buy-in’
●Utilize city owned land: it is already established and can be leveraged as a creative placemaking site
●Clearly identify the parameters of what we want the area to be: “mix of inclusive housing for everyone” within a
sustainable community and relay them to the community for feedback
Build the Business Case for Creative Placemaking
●Present case studies of how this has turned communities around [ex: BAM report, ULI TAP report
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jg33bj080pdyft7/North%20Boulder%20TAP%20Report%2C%20FINAL_12-18-17.pdf?dl=0
●Identify how investments in A&C has benefited ArtPlace America, ADA
●Streamline approval cycle and Higher retention rate translate into financial gains down the line- annual economic
benefits presented
●Increase safety with well-lit open spaces = reduced crime and create more attractive neighborhood
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
145City Council Study Session Page 372 of 384
15
Key Findings: Art and Culture as Community Benefit, A Multi-City Inquiry
Themes captured across a multi city review include:
1. Promote Community Discussions
●Solidify a vision of the Arts District: Developers and property owners create a shared vision
●Offer monthly (recurring) community based meetings or gatherings
●Maintain open lines of communication across groups and stakeholders
●Stronger community buy in helps a faster approval cycle
●Provide maps and visual presentations
●Creating a comprehensive parking/mobility plan that meets the needs of the district
●Survey all demographics and then quantify community information and results
2. Create a menu of incentives that are pre-approved by city council and meet the existing needs voiced by the
community
●Work within the city council’s guidelines to allow for zoning incentives in special designated urban
areas through creating a Design Overlay, BID, GID tax base
●Define a process for incentives to be maintained and monitored by specific city designee and policy
●Develop transparent process in the early stages of design conversations between developers, city and
community groups regarding the inclusion of arts space into the project
3. Develop relationships across public and private sectors
●Match developers with existing community groups in the early stages of concept
●Offer informational meetings to community members that increases the likelihood of participation,
including considerations for daycare,
●Align community interest with city planning as it relates to:
○Current/future zoning ordinances
○North Boulder Sub Community Plan
○Cultural Plan
4. Explore Placemaking to infuse art and culture into Affordable Housing
Ground Floor Activation: makerspace, plaza space, art/venue space, public art pop-ups, community daycare
●Foster ownership and pride for the new space within the neighborhood
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
146City Council Study Session Page 373 of 384
16
Conclusion
Like Boulder, cities across the country are looking at solutions to the affordable housing crisis. The overt
commitment to art and culture and to affordable housing has formed and defined creative incentives for
developers in cities across the country.
Boulder could benefit from actively defining a list of community benefits that outlines specific incentives for
developers as discussed in this report. Other cities have shown this can be enforced through a contractual
agreement over an extended period of time. These decisions create a win- win for the neighborhood and the city
through revitalization and place making.
By entering into and activating the local community vision, our case studies have proved the immediate tangible
benefits that result from a clear dialogue. Once a city/developer/community relationship is forged through
transparent communication, a clear vision can be defined and implemented through codified change.
Art and culture generate economically viable districts. The cities interviewed are bringing affordable housing
into creative placemaking solutions. These areas revitalize neighborhoods and set up progressive programs and
civic spaces through zoning changes, density incentive as well as other modifications within specific districts.
Financial and environmental sustainability help to define great cities. As the cost of living increases, issues of
inclusion, gentrification, and neighborhood buy-in challenge city leaders and planners to establish policies to
maintain affordable home ownership, rentals, venue space and local vitality.
Boulder is not alone facing these challenges and has the benefit to learn from other cities efforts. This multi-city
inquiry regarding Community Benefits and incentives for developers to include elements of art and culture
gives Boulder realistic case study examples from around the country at this pivotal point.
Boulder is able to sustain the beauty of our city, as well as house it’s people, through creative solutions and
establish the ability to be innovative and responsive to neighbors through the implementation of community
benefit. A community centered arts and culture movement that involves both private and public partnerships
can assist in securing cultural assets, building greater social cohesion, and feeding into the economic vibrancy of
Boulder.
Results: Table of Incentives
After studying specific case studies of the aforementioned cities we have compiled a matrix to better quantify
the value of art and culture on community and economic benefit. The following charts outline incentives and
financial benefits and their correlating code or regulation changes. Our findings show that arts and cultural
organizations are an essential part of the local economy, directly creating jobs, millions of dollars in labor
income, business sales and tax revenues to local governments.
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
147City Council Study Session Page 374 of 384
17
Primary mechanism per city to incentivize Arts and Culture
for Community Benefit:
City Area of Incentive Specific code or other
regulation change
Link to report/codes
Austin, TX Affordability Zoning A1-A11 in Code NEXT Policy
Table
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/
default/files/files/Planning/CodeNE
XT/CodeNEXT_Policy_Table.pdf
$161 million BEATF recommendation for
Affordable Housing
2018 Bond Development Initiative
through Resolution No.
20160811-031
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/d
efault/files/files/Finance/CFO/2018-
Bond/Bond_Election_Advisory_Task
_Force_FINAL_Report.pdf
Affordable Housing S.m.a.r.t Housing Policy https://www.austintexas.gov/sites
/default/files/files/Housing/Appli
cation_Center/SMART_Housing
/smart_guide_0708.pdf
Baltimore, MD Creative Placemaking
Station Norths Arts and Entertainment District
designation
Benefits offered to designated
districts include:
●Property tax credits
●An income tax
subtraction
modification
●Exemption from
the Admissions and
Amusement tax
http://t4america.org/2017/04/11
/bolstering-creative-community-e
ngagement-nashville-region/
http://www.stationnorth.org/reso
urces/
Denver, CO Placemaking, Affordable Housing, Incentives Design Overlay design overlay zone - City and
County of Denver,
Density Incentives 38th and Blake Stationary Plan 38th and Blake Plan
Implementation - City and County
of Denver
Height Allowances Zoning Amendments permitting
up to 16 stories
Denver City Council Approves
Zoning Amendments Permitting ...
Nashville, TN Affordable Housing
Support funding and zoning practices that retain
affordable housing and space for creating art
throughout the county.
Housing Fund’s ‘Make Your
Mark’ studio loan assistance
program
ACC Policy 2.4[Nashville Next]
http://www.nashville.gov/Governme
nt/NashvilleNext/The-NashvilleNext-
Plan.aspx
Artisan Manufacturing Zoning
●Removed some barriers and special
permit requirements for artisan and
small micro-businesses
●New definition for “Manufacturing,
Ordinance No. BL2017-1037,
approved January 29, 2018. (Supp.
No. 27 (2/18))
http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordin
ances/term_2011_2015/bl2015_112
1.pdf
https://library.municode.com/tn/m
etro_government_of_nashville_and_
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
148City Council Study Session Page 375 of 384
18
Artisan” and permit with conditions in
most mixed use commercial zones
●Clarified existing definitions for
Rehearsal Hall, Theatre, Commercial
Amusement, and Cultural Center and
designated as allowable with conditions
within Manufacturing, Artisan
●New allowances for live/work on industrial
parcels
davidson_county/codes/code_of_or
dinances
Public Art
●1% of capital projects of a certain level goes
toward the Arts
●Better integrate art activation and public art
into core city infrastructure planning for
Parks, MDHA, MTA, and Public Health.
●Increase the visibility of local art and
artisans through citywide marketing and
branding.
●Create or streamline land use, zoning, and
permitting tools to encourage the creation
and enhancement of creative
neighborhoods and cultural districts.
One Percent for Art Ordinance
ACC Policy 1.4
ACC Policy 2.3
ACC Policy 4.2
http://www.nashville.gov/Governme
nt/NashvilleNext/The-NashvilleNext-
Plan.aspx
Wynwood
Miami, FL
Business Improvement District (BID) proposed
small-scale development regulations:
Transition the neighborhood from an industrial
district to an active, mixed-use neighborhood,
complete with commercial, residential and office
elements
Encourage adaptive reuses of existing buildings and
make small-scale development projects more feasible
Amendments to Wynwood’s
Neighborhood Revitalization
District (NRD-1) zoning
regulations designed to encourage
small-scale development in
Wynwood
On-site parking requirement
reductions in exchange for
payment-in-lieu into the
Wynwood Parking Trust Fund
https://wynwoodmiami.com/mia
mi-zoning-board-endorses-wynwo
od-small-scale-development-plan/
Lowell, MA Live/Work Space
An AOD provides density bonuses to developments
in the downtown district as a developer incentive for
the provision of artist live/work space
Provision in Article IX, Section
9.2 of the Zoning Ordinance that
defines the Artistic Overlay
District (AOD) in downtown
https://www.lowellma.gov/Archi
veCenter/ViewFile/Item/296
Seattle, WA Designation of Arts & Cultural District City Council Resolution 3155
residential-commercial-combined
high density zoning allowed in
areas that enhance and preserve the
arts
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Res
olutions/Resn_31555.pdf
Incentive Zoning
Extra floor area: you must contribute one or more of
the following public amenities: affordable housing,
childcare, open space amenities, transferable
development potential and rights (TDP/TDR), and
regional development credits.
Incentive Zoning Developer
program- Developer
Contributions: generally required
by incentive zoning, the
Mandatory Housing Affordability
(MHA) requirements, or both
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publica
tions/CAM/Tip258.pdf
http://www.seattle.gov/hala/abou
t/mandatory-housing-affordability
-(mha)
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
149City Council Study Session Page 376 of 384
19
Affordable Housing
MHU: citywide implementation of 5% of single
family housing changed to implement middle
income housing
Mandatory Housing Upzone http://www.seattle.gov/hala/abou
t/mandatory-housing-affordability
-(mha)
Allows art galleries to be placed in older buildings M- (mercantile) Occupancy
international building code change
https://www.seattle.gov/Docume
nts/Departments/Arts/Download
s/Space/CULTURAL%20SPACE
%20REPORT.pdf
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
150City Council Study Session Page 377 of 384
20
Specific Financial Incentive Case Studies by City:
City Financial or other benefits seen to date Details
San Francisco, CA
http://www.policylink.org/sites/default
/files/report_arts_culture_equitable-dev
elopment.pdf
Public utility leaders are leveraging $1.2 billion to rebuild
the main waste water treatment plant to renovate a
cultural center, support the arts, and strengthen the
economy of the surrounding African American
community struggling with both poverty and the threat of
gentrification
Nashville, TN
http://www.policylink.org/sites/default
/files/report_arts_culture_equitable-dev
elopment.pdf
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/Si
teContent/Planning/docs/NashvilleNe
xt/PlanVolumes/next-volume2-Element
s_ACC.pdf
$13 billion in economic activity each year (12% of
Nashville’s overall economy)
$6 billion annually and 4,500 jobs
Resulting from development, design and
production of for-profit music and nonprofit
cultural activities
Generated by cultural tourism
Seattle, WA
https://www.americansforthearts.org/b
y-program/reports-and-data/research-st
udies-publications/arts-economic-prosp
erity-iv/local-regional-findings
$447.6 million in annual economic activity
10,807 full-time equivalent jobs
$248.2 million in household income
$38.2 million in local and state government revenues
Arts & Economic Prosperity IV study of the
impact of nonprofit arts and culture industry
Central Puget Sound, WA
https://www.artsfund.org/programs/20
14-economic-impact-study
$2.4 billion in business activity generated in 2014
The business activity supported:
35,376 jobs, $996 million in labor income, and resulted in
$105 millions in sales, business and occupation and hotel
room taxes.
$513 million, while they invested $496 million providing
these services.
due to spending by CPS region arts, cultural
and scientific organizations and their patrons.
Income of arts, cultural, and scientific
organizations
Somerville, MA Density bonus for artist housing in article pertaining to
community benefits for inclusionary housing (ie.
affordable housing in residential developments)
Facilitate a diverse mix of uses including fabrication,
production, performing arts, and other non-arts
commercial and residential uses
Zoning code overhaul; draft zoning provisions
pertaining to arts and cultural uses
Revisions to the zoning in Brickbottom District
Providence, RI Artists living in the ten designated arts districts have the
sales tax waived on purchases on their original artwork and
pay no state income tax on income form their art
Tax incentives for arts districts
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
151City Council Study Session Page 378 of 384
21
Key Ideas/Terms
BID Vs. GID = commercial only vs. including resident
General Improvement District: GIDs are allowed to construct, install or acquire any public improvement except solid
waste disposal improvements and services. They may assess ad valorem taxes and charge rates, tolls and charges for services
or facilities. The may issue general obligation and revenue bonds. Debt in excess of $5,000 must be approved by the electors
within the district. They may operate district improvements.They are initiated by a petition filed with the City Clerk,
signed by the lesser of 30% or 200 electors owning taxable real or personal property within the district. Subareas within the
district may be formed. The City Council is the board of directors of the district. By ordinance, an advisory board may be
created to oversee the GID.
6
Business Improvement District: Business Improvement Districts are authorized by Sections 31-25-1201 through
31-25-1228 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. BID’s are initiated by petition of owners of at least 50% of the assessed
valuation and at least 50% of the district’s land. BID’s have been used to construct and maintain public improvements in
established commercial areas and to provide other business services. A municipality’s governing body sits as ex-officio
board of directors for the district, but may appoint a Board of Directors.
Construction: Must advertise and bid. No compunction to select lowest bid.
Cost apportionment: Equal mill levy on all real property or special assessments.
Cost recovery: Through levy of ad valorem tax or special assessments. Additional levy does not have to be paid off on sale of
property.
Board of Directors: Board of Directors approved by City Council. Must meet at least once a year as board to adopt budget,
audit etc. New governmental authority and overlapping debt created
Debt issuance: Vote required for issuance of general obligation ad valorem debt. No requirement for public sale of debt.
No specific structuring requirements. Debt refundable.
Dissolution: District has perpetual life. Can only be extinguished by ordinance and then only when debt retired.
7
Affordability Overlay: The art district is working with the City of Denver and City Council to create an affordability
overlay around the 38th and Blake Street commuter rail station. Typically these types of overlays are for residential only.
This new overlay is unique and will also include a commercial component as well as residential. The overlay will focus on
uses that will serve our community, with efforts to provide more affordable artist and creative space.
Neighborhood Revitalization District Plan (NRD): The Wynwood BID led an effort, in partnership with the City of
Miami Planning Department and PlusUrbia, to create the City of Miami’s first Neighborhood Revitalization District plan.
The NRD Plan sets forth new zoning regulations for Wynwood that encourages new, mixed-use residential and office
developments, creates dedicated funding for neighborhood improvements, promotes pedestrian-focused streets and
preserves the area’s unique artistic and industrial character. The plan has received national accolades from the American
Planners Association, because of its forward-thinking nature; involvement of property owners who took the initiative to
plan for the future of the neighborhood responsibly; and many smart development components.
8
Developer contribution incentives: a payment or other benefit provided as part of a proposed project. Required in certain
instances to achieve extra floor area and/or mitigate the impacts of new development. May address local needs for
affordable housing, childcare, open space, historic preservation, and preservation of regional farms and forests.
9
Cultural Neighborhoods and Districts: when cultural programs and amenities are centrally located in neighborhoods, they
fuel social capital identity, quality of life, and economic vibrancy.
Form-based codes, unlike traditional zoning, address details such as the relationship between building facades and the
public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks.
6 https://www.denvergov.org/opendata/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-general-improvement-districts
7https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/705/documents/District%20Characteristics%20within%20the%20City%
20and%20County%20of%20Denver.pdf
8 https://wynwoodmiami.com/learn/programs-services/
9 http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/Tip258.pdf
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
152City Council Study Session Page 379 of 384
22
Form-based zoning districts are used to achieve a community vision which preserves existing character or creates new
character: Planning Department staff is experienced in every phase of form-based code production, from leading the initial
public participation and review through creating the code to administration and development review.
10
Urban Design Overlay: Defines a specific area and sets design standards for its development.
University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO): district is to promote high density redevelopment in the area generally west of
the University of Texas Campus, provide a mechanism for the creation of a densely populated but livable and pedestrian
friendly environment, and protect the character of the predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods adjacent to
the district. The UNO district offers an alternative set of site development standards that developers can choose to utilize,
including height bonuses. These standards allow greater densities and also establish requirements for affordable housing,
green building, accessibility, and design. All UNO developments are eligible for S.M.A.R.T. Housing TM
incentives.11
10 http://www.nashville.gov/Planning-Department/Community-Planning-Design/Form-Based-Codes.aspx
11 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Housing/Application_Center/SMART_Housing/smart_guide_0708.pdf
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
153City Council Study Session Page 380 of 384
23
Appendix/ References
1. Austin, TX
Jenny Lavery ACA:
https://www.austincreativealliance.org/staff/
Austin Creative
Alliance:https://www.austincreativealliance.org
Code NEXT Policy
Chart:https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Pl
anning/CodeNEXT/CodeNEXT_Policy_Table.pdf
S.m.a.r.t Housing Program:
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Housing
/Application_Center/SMART_Housing/smart_guide_0708.
pdf
About CodeNEXT:
https://www.austintexas.gov/department/about-codenext
Imagine Austin Comprehensive
Plan:https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Pla
nning/ImagineAustin/webiacpreduced.pdf
Imagine Austin Progress Report:
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/ImagineAustin/FINAL_Progre
ss_Report_1709.pdf
Core Funding Guidelines:
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY_19_C
ore_Guidelines_Final.pdf
2018 Bond Program:
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Finance/
CFO/2018-Bond/Bond_Election_Advisory_Task_Force_FI
NAL_Report.pdf
Arts District Neighborhood:
http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Arts-District-Austi
n-TX.html
Zoning :http://www.austintexas.gov/page/zoning-districts
Austin Motel Photo:https://austinmotel.com/hotel/property/
2. Baltimore, MD
T4A:
http://t4america.org/2017/04/11/bolstering-creative-commu
nity-engagement-nashville-region/
Station North: http://www.stationnorth.org/resources/
3. Denver, CO
Denver approved zoning changes:
https://www.bhfs.com/Templates/media/files/Denver%20Ci
ty%20Council%20Approves%20Zoning%20Amendments%20
Permitting%20Construction%20Up%20to%2016%20Stories%
20in%20RiNo.pdf
Design overlay zone:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals
/646/documents/planning/Plans/38th-Blake-Height-Amend
ments/RiNo_Overlay_Criteria_Review_071316.pdf
Creation of BID and GID:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals
/705/documents/District%20Characteristics%20(within%20t
he%20City%20and%20County%20of%20Denver.pdf
4. Nashville, TN
Artisan Manufacturing Zoning Ordinance:
http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2011_2015/
bl2015_1121.pdf
Artisan Manufacturing ToolKit:
http://artsandplanning.mapc.org/?p=507
Metro Nashville Public Art Community Investment Plan:
http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/ArtsComm
ission/Public%20Art/MetroNashville_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Arts and Economic Prosperity Report:
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/ArtsCom
mission/docs/AEP5/AEP5_Nashville_Full%20Report.pdf
Transportation for America:
http://t4america.org/2017/04/11/bolstering-creative-commu
nity-engagement-nashville-region/
T4A Creative Placemaking Fieldscan:
http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Arts-Cul
ture-Field-Scan.pdf
TURBO:
http://www.turbonashville.org/turbo-triangel-triage
Nashville Next Plan:
http://www.nashville.gov/Government/NashvilleNext/The-
NashvilleNext-Plan.aspx
Nashville Next ACC Policy:
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/
docs/NashvilleNext/PlanVolumes/next-volume2-Elements_A
CC.pdf
Inclusionary Housing and Zoning Feasibility Study:
http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/d
ocs/InclusionaryHousing/Final%20Report-April%205%20201
7.pdf
Inclusionary Housing Code:
https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nas
hville_and_davidson_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod
eId=CD_TIT17ZO_CH17.40ADPR_ARTXVIIINHO
Existing Urban design overlay:
http://www.nashville.gov/Planning-Department/Rezoning-S
ubdivision/Urban-Design-Overlay/Existing-Urban-Design-Ov
erlays.aspx
Form Based Codes:
http://www.nashville.gov/Planning-Department/Community
-Planning-Design/Form-Based-Codes.aspx
Specific Plan Districts:
http://www.nashville.gov/Planning-Department/Rezoning-S
ubdivision/SP-Districts.aspx
5. San Francisco, CA
Policylink:
http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/report_arts_cult
ure_equitable-development.pdf
6. Seattle, WA
CAP Report:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Arts/Do
wnloads/Space/CULTURAL%20SPACE%20REPORT.pdf
Resolution No. 31555:
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Resolutions/Resn_31555.p
df
Arts & Economic Prosperity IV:
https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-an
d-data/research-studies-publications/arts-economic-prosperity
-iv/local-regional-findings
ArtsFund Region Economic Impact Study:
https://www.artsfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EIS
_Region_111015.pdf
Denny Substation:
http://www.seattle.gov/light/dennysub/substationdesign.asp
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
154City Council Study Session Page 381 of 384
24
Plaza Roberto Maestas:
http://beacondevgroup.com/locations/plaza-roberto-maestas/
Developer Contributions on Incentive Zoning TIP258:
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/Tip258.pd
f
MHA:
http://www.seattle.gov/hala/about/mandatory-housing-affor
dability-(mha)
Incentive Update Zoning Overview OCPD:
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/O
ngoingInitiatives/IncentiveZoningUpdate/OPCDIncentiveZo
ningUpdate-Overview.pdf
7. Wynwood Miami, FL
2017 Wynwood BID Annual Report:
https://wynwoodmiami.com/wp-content/uploads/WYNWO
OD_AnnualReport_FINAL-2.pdf
NRD-1 Regulations:
https://wynwoodmiami.com/wp-content/uploads/NRD-1-R
egulations.pdf
NRD-1 Former Zoning:
http://www.miamigov.com/planning/docs/nrd/wynwood/N
RD_1_Former_Zoning.pdf
NRD-1 Current Zoning:
http://www.miamigov.com/planning/docs/nrd/wynwood/N
RD_1_Current_Zoning.pdf
NRD-1 Current Future Land Use Map:
http://www.miamigov.com/planning/docs/nrd/wynwood/N
RD_1_Current_FLUM.pdf
About BID and NRD Plan:
https://wynwoodmiami.com/learn/programs-services/
Zoning Board Endorsement of Plan:
https://wynwoodmiami.com/miami-zoning-board-endorses-w
ynwood-small-scale-development-plan/
Arts and Business Council of Miami:
https://www.artsbizmiami.org
8. Chicago, IL
CMAP toolkit:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/460065/FY
14-0006+ARTS+AND+CULTURE+TOOLKIT+lowres.pd
f/806f3498-f35a-4b40-894b-a57a2efd441c
CMAP(2014) recommends that certain
jurisdictions have artists submit impact
management plans prior to the release of
permits for events and activities as one measure
for ensuring that said events do not negatively
impact the built environment as well as local
businesses and residents.
Options such as: by-right zoning, overlay
zoning, and a series of permits and relevant
documentation that includes the list of
approvals needed for temporary and
permanent arts and cultural activities and
public art to take place.
9. Lowell, MA
https://www.lowellma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/29
6
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
155City Council Study Session Page 382 of 384
25
Experts Interviewed: Interviews conducted by Sally Eckert and Madeline Halpern
Joseph Furst- Developer and Planner of Wynwood BID
Juanita Hardy: ULI Senior Visiting Fellow of Creative Placemaking
Juanita Hardy’s work as the Senior Visiting Fellow of Creative Placemaking at ULI broadens and deepens ULI’s
focus on placemaking. She formerly served as the executive director of CulturalDC, a Washington, D.C.–based
nonprofit group that provides affordable space for artists and art organizations. She also developed partnerships
with real estate developers, property owners, and government leaders to create spaces on real estate development
projects aimed at fostering economically and culturally vibrant neighborhoods. Her efforts include working
closely with local developers to guide the implementation of the Monroe Street Market Arts Walk, which offers
27 affordable artist studios that are a part of a $250 million mixed-use residential/retail project in the Brookland
neighborhood of the District of Columbia. Her stated goal is to develop tools, identify best practices, and share
case studies that can be broadly shared with members through ULI’s district and product council networks.
https://americas.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/125/ULI-Documents/ULI-Creative-Placemaking-Brochure-3.pdf
https://urbanland.uli.org/industry-sectors/growing-value-creative-placemaking/
Jenny Lavery- Austin, Community Outreach at the Austin Creative Alliance
Jamie Licko- Centro, RiNo Arts District
Matthew Richter- Seattle Office of Arts and Culture’s Cultural Space Liaison
Brennon Staley- Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development
Ben Stone: Smart Growth America
Ben Stone initially gained experience from directing the Station North Arts District in Baltimore, MD where he
employed an arts-based revitalization and placemaking strategy to guide development in the district. His work in
Baltimore elevated the district to a national model for creative placemaking and equitable development through
innovative collaboration. He is now working as the Director of Arts and Culture at Smart Growth America and
its program Transportation For America. Here, he strives to help communities better integrate arts, culture and
creative placemaking into neighborhood revitalization, equitable development and transportation mobility
efforts on a National level.
_More on Ben Stone in Case Studies of Nashville, TN and Baltimore, MD_
http://t4america.org
https://smartgrowthamerica.org
http://www.stationnorth.org
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/the-importance-of-beauty-in-affordable-housing
Caroline Vincent- Metro Nashville Arts commission’s Interim Executive Director of Public Art and
Placemaking
Highly Recommended Reports:
A&C Research Compilation-Oakland: Nashville, Seattle,
Somerville
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documen
ts/agenda/oak069163.pdfv
CMAP toolkit:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/460065/FY
14-0006+ARTS+AND+CULTURE+TOOLKIT+lowres.pd
f/806f3498-f35a-4b40-894b-a57a2efd441c
Equitable Development Policy Link Report:
http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/report_arts_cult
ure_equitable-development.pdf
Making Space for Culture World Cities Forum Report:
http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/assets/others/1710
20_MSFC_Report_DIGITAL.pdf
North Boulder ULI Tap
Report:https://www.dropbox.com/s/jg33bj080pdyft7/North
%20Boulder%20TAP%20Report%2C%20FINAL_12-18-17.p
df?dl=0
ULI:https://americas.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/125/
ULI-Documents/ULI-Creative-Placemaking-Brochure-3.pdf
https://urbanland.uli.org/industry-sectors/growing-value-crea
tive-placemaking/
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
156City Council Study Session Page 383 of 384
26
Disclaimer:
The information provided by Boulder Art Matrix 501c3 in the report An Inquiry into Community Benefit is for
general purposes only. All information in the report and any web site or link provided is in good faith. We make
no representation or warranty of any kind in regards to the accuracy, validity, or completeness of any of the
information in the report.
This information does not provide professional advice. The general information is provided for educational
purpose and is not a substitute for professional advice.
Attachment E - Analysis from Boulder Arts Community
157City Council Study Session Page 384 of 384