Loading...
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 i​ncome 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) Zone​s 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%20​within%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. S​he 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